Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04191994 - 2.6 oC-1O Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development DATE: April 19, 1994 SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Checklist and Capital Improvement Program for Measure C - 1988 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the proposed 1994-1999 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 1994-1999 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B)'; 3 . Approve the completed Annual 'Compliance Checklist (see Exhibit C) 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 and approval 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 $1,390, 651. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON - APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT L TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT:— ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 6-2134 cc: County Administrator PHIL IATCHELOR, CLERK OF Community Development Director THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Director AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR GMEDA Sheriff BY DEPUTY Annual Compliance Checklist and CIP for Measure C-1988 April 19, 1994 Page Two 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, 888, 059 in "return-to-source" funds available county-wide for Fiscal Year 1994 , the County is eligible to receive $1, 390, 651. Two 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; and 2) adoption of this CIP. 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 1994-1999 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 1994 and 1999 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 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 C) 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 or approve the Checklist will prevent the County from qualifying for its Fiscal Year 1994 allocation of "return to source" funds. SLG:chcklist.bo Exhibit A DETERMINATION THAT AN ACTIVITY IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FILE NO. CP 94-23 ACTIVITY NAME: Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program• Capital Improvements Program for Parks and Sheriff Facilities PREPARED BY: Steven L. Goetz DATE: April 12, 1994 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 certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Adoption of a capital improvements 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. LOCATION: Countywide in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. Date: �(�►�.� /Zr 199 SL Reviewed by: ommunity D velopment Depart t Representative EXHIBIT B Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program 1994-1999 Capital Improvements Program for Provision of Parks & Sheriff Facilities Prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department April 1994 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 (OCTA) "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. To give the reader a sense of orientation, Section II of the CIP provides a brief overview on last year's requirements for the provision of parks and sheriffs facilities and how well the County performed in terms of meeting those standards. This same section also provides an estimate for parks and sheriff's facilties for the current five year period. Section III of the CIP reviews the performance standards which were established by the County's Growth Management Element in 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 this section. Based on the estimated population growth, the analysis describes in further detail the facilities which are needed to meet the performance standards set forth in the Growth Management Element. The remaining,sections of the CIP describe a list of projects, estimated costs and the various funding mechanisms which would be used to secure financing for the projects. H. THE COUNTY'S PERFORMANCE FROM LAST YEAR Last year's report indicated that the County met the sheriffs facility standard - 3,808 square feet required compared to 6,680 square feet provided. The 6,680 square feet in existence already meets the projected need for this most recent five year period 1994-1999. Last year, the projected five year need for parks totalled 73.8 acres. In 1993, 74.3 acres of parks had been acquired. The most recent five year need indicates that a total of about 83 acres is needed to meet the park standard. 1 III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The Contra Costa County Growth Management Element establishes standards for the provision of certain public services in.the unincorporated areas. The standards for parks is set at 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 briefly described hear are elaborated upon in more detail in the County General Plan's Growth Management Element which 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 at a countywide basis. The next sections of the report presents population estimates for the current five-year period and describes the status of compliance with the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. IV. POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR NEXT FIVE YEAR PERIOD 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. Pop hb:a HH's Increment --EM _EQ Increment Total 54,433 66,026 11,593 144,247 174,968 30,721 One Yr. Increment 1,159 3,072 These estimates are based on a straight line projection for the purpose of determining one year growth increments which were then used to develop household and population estimates for each year for the next five years (1994 - 1999). County planning staff has made some adjustments to the CCTA figures. Because the County is only obligated to provide services to urban areas shown on the County General Plan Land Use map, 2 growth envisioned in the'Antioch sphere of influence — a general plan amendment recently approved by that city —has been subtracted from the totals. The increment for the Antioch sphere area was estimated to be 1,935 households and 5,266 people. Using a straight-line method, each year would result.in a net incrment of 1,159 additional households and 3,072 additional people. Unincorporated Housing & Population Increments: 1994 - 1999 - Using the annual increment for housing and population, Table 2 shows the additional amount of housing and population for each year within the five year period between 1994 - 1999. The table also shows the amount of parks and sheriff facilities which are needed to conform with the Growth Management Standards for these facilities V. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR SHERIFF AND PARK FACILITIES Sheriff Facilities- Table 2 indicates that the total amount of new sheriff facilities which are needed to conform with the adopted standard of 155 square feet per 1,000 population is slightly 4,285 square feet of new facilities. The West County Justice Center is a new facility which was 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. Financing of future sheriff facilities may become an issue in the future since 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 and Planned Acquisitions - The Growth Management Standard for parks is three acres of neighborhood parks per 1000 population. Table 2 reveals that the five year population growth estimates will result in the need for 46 acres of parks over existing park needs. Since the adoption of the County Growth Management Element, the County has or will commit funds for the acquisitionand development of future park sites which totals almost 86 acres which meets the projected five year need of 82.93 acres. These sites are located throughout the unincorporated county and are described in Table 3. 3 V l 0 6 r CV CAN rte tN� co ID W Sk m nasi_ a 4e �ii �p �'4! ui LO < N r lc ��QQ3iiFF a a cc < T co a Sda v , ■�`1 ai 0 N -7, CD cm N � � 0 N 3 r C IN F. mu C v x c � eA r9 �k o N i d tad = l� O tN M O GD :3: d09 <: O O .:.; CD tit O N ................. ................. ! i;:...;:ia >'- ...:.:...: O O O ' G ;: tlY m CD r �... 69, tR ................. ................. : >< 00 O O 0 0 0 000 O O LU lq O In In O C N C'7 CD CV CD Gft N to 49 69 to Ef! tit N +.� �► :. ? �3#: :: ::`O O O g fA O O OLO Lg) LO LO r- O N co O :;1 ':i::::> \l CD CD st It LO 'q CD Cr) to WcD to df GD CA �0 "> O O) 0) CA O O O) O O) Cn O O CA O) a 0 O Of O O) O CA O O O) O CA CA O) O h GO C T T T T T T T T r T T T O 0 0 O) CA O CA :i:::!! . ''': 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 000 0 0 0 0 et ch tD O to to 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to O O D M lA CD O CD NW et r N G CC) N V O T V N V [� GD to CV co 00 ::;:; V � :.: .::# :: : ................. `.'..... O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O er O tOOtoOO `ttOOOOOtnto O O V CD CA CD V r CV O CV CV V O r Iq CV IT N d C!) aaa� a 'gm al 0 aaa mC o 'OltQ LL l6 !G N /G fG fG f6 f6 m fG lG cc m fG lG /G aaadaaa aaaa a a a a Oz a. vj � vvvvvv o 8888888o00 v88o 00v800v8: L E £ L LE = LL L =o0 mEL L F- C E O O O O! O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0cc > � L U.0 .0 .0'M .0 M .0 rM .0 J d M d <: C L L L L = C L O01m 5)LLL L . �m (D m GGm m m m m m m `N Z Z Z m Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z !G V Y Q' a tl at — ID 4D CL a N cc ty0 • d Y m a a aLns � Y m om !M) ......r;Y Y ` N a s U cG O T Y aMINE w cG co'd Gt E S c a, '�cts co $ d O { Y m m CD0 0 CD cr � � d m m Q cEn v a m The five year need, as identified in Table 2, for the period 1994-1999 is estimated to be about 46 acres over existing needs for a total of almost 83 acres. The park acquisitions identified in Table 3 show that the County presently conforms with this standard for the most recent five year period. In addition to those facilities which are secured through new development or are already in place, there are other sources of revenues which could be used 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 $1.72 million (per March 1994 County Assessor's estimates) and $17.8 million for parkland dedication fees. Based on the growth estimates provided Table 2, County staff devised an estimate of the 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 4 shows the estimated number of housing units which would be constructed over the five year period is 4,880 units. The total amount of parkland dedications fees which would be collected during this time period is about $17.8 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 sufficient funds will be generated to meet the future growth management standards specified in the County General Plan. ?J 6 O O O Q p t0 vi N r � qppp tM00f k t` 01 r Ifl N tta v m m N W ao $ y .r C6 ci C. n rA W; m S+J fV fp r O40) r N a � o a C N N r M h O t0 Q 40) � J aca oz � g sb g a ti w � a3 wa ¢ 7. Exhibit C CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Jurisdiction i Growth Management Program Contra ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Year. This checklist is required to be submitted to the CCTA for the receipt of 18% Local 1994 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 development review process. 1-a. During the past year, did the jurisdiction approve any General Plan amendments? Yes No a ❑ 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 Management Element? a ❑ 1-c. If the answer to I-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 a ❑ 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. ❑ 0 2. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Measure C requires each jurisdiction to adopt traffic Level of Service (LOS) 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 Si!ml ficance. 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 Auurority Contra Cost 1994 Cro%lh Manngetuent Program Animal 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 0 El made)? (Please note the number of Reporting Intersections at which each condition applies.) Nwnber 2.b.1 Adopted LOS standards are met based on measurement of actual conditions; 11 2.b.2 Intersection's are reasonably expected to meet standards, assuming implementation of the jurisdiction's adopted CIP and projected changes in demand over the 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 submitted at this time: 2.b.4 Total number of Reporting Intersections 11 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 conditions. Conditions Implemented : Not applicable. 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. '-e. Has the jurisdiction implemented all Regional Route Action Plans Yes No Page 3 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority Contra Costa 1 1994 Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist Not ❑ ❑ adopted in the region, with respect to the following procedures: Applicable X (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 Explanation Not relative to traffic Level of Service standards have been satisfied in Attached Applicable a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an ❑ 0 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? ❑ a 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 :for park facility standard. Other 3-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of.Measure C Explanation Explanatio Not relative to performance standards have been satisfied in a way not Attached n Attached Applicable indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑ x Page 4 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Trmuportation Authority lContra CO3ta 1994 Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist 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. 4-a. Have the development mitigation programs cited in the Yes No jurisdiction's previous submittal been implemented over the past 0 ❑ year? 4-b. Is the jurisdiction participating in the regional miNot tigation programs Yes No Applicable developed by the OCTA? ❑ ❑ X Please list: The CCTA has not, as yet, developed a regional mitigation program for use by local jurisdictions. Not 4-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Yes No Applicable relative to development mitigation programs have been satisfied in ❑ ❑ x a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. 5. PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE, MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLAIN'N NG The Growth Management Program specifies. that the CCTA shall establish a forum for jurisdictions to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts. This will 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 Into meetings of the Regional Transportation Planning Committee or FRI ❑ 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 theD ❑ 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 0 ❑ traffic patterns? i-d_ If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not to cooperative mulfi jurisdictional planning have been satisfied in a Attached Applicable way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an ❑ Q explanation. Page 5 Juricdictioa Year Contra Costa Trmsportaition Authority lContra Costa] 1994 Growth Mmiageutent Program Annul Compliance Checklist 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)? x If yes, date of adoption or most recent update of the CIP for Parks anTSheriff Vcilities 1994-1999 Resolution # April 19.- 1994 .County 1993 Road Imrpovement Program FY 92/93 to FY 98/99 Adopted: 8/4/92 6-b. Does the CIP include a financing plan that identifies general financing Yes No (Biennial Program. mechanisms for a1D transportation projects included in the CIP? ® ❑ 6-c. Does the CIP include a financing plan that identifies general financing Yes No 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 relative Explanation Not to the CIP have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, Attached Applicable mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ 0 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 Explanation Not program and pursuant to the State-mandated housing element of its Attached Applicable General Plan, developed an implementation program that creates 0 ❑ housing opportunities for all income levels? Specify which plan or policy of the jurisdiction includes the implementation program: County General Plan, Resolution No. 91-68, 1/29/91 County Road Improvement Program, 8/4/92 Contra Costa, County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 12/14/93 Resolution or Ordinance # Date 7-b. Does the jurisdiction have a Housing Element in its General Plan Yes No which meets the requirements of State law? a ❑ Page 6 Jurisdiction Year Coutra Costa Trwrskwriatiou Authority ontra Cost 1994 Growth Mmagetueut Prograw Animal Compliance Checklist 7-c. Has the jurisdiction's adopted Housing Element been judged by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to be in compliance with State law? YES If"YES", Date of HCD Determination April 30, 1993 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 all Yes No income levels, including very low, low and moderate income D ❑ 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 to Yes No implement the policies and achieve the goals of the housing EJ F] 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 available Yes No 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) (01 Reference: 7A-c.4 A Resolution by your jurisdiction finding the Housing Element Yes No is substantially in compliance with State Law? Resolution # Page 7 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Tr:u►sportation Authority lContra COSI 1994 Gro%lh Management Program Annul Compliance Checklist If the answer to any of questions 7A-c.I through 7A-c.4 are "NO", then continue with question 7-d and 7-e. Also please identi&any reasons your jurisdiction may have for believing that you have nonetheless met the requirements of Measure C in question 7-f. If the answers to questions 7A-c.l through 7A-c.4 are all "YES", then continue with question 7-e. t l 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 a ❑ 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? Jf-YES-, go to 7-e. Jf"NO', go to 7A-d. Text pages:5-9 to: 5-13 Policy p 3-1 to 3-4 2-19 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 any Explanation Not other report, statement or discussion regarding local effort to Attached Applicable 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 t 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. Contra Costa County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy FY 1993 Annual Performance Report: 12/29/93 7-f. If the jurisdiction b.elieves that the requirements of Measure C relative to housing options and job opportunities have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. Not Applicable Page 8 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority JContra Cost 199 Growth Manigement Program Annual Compliance Checklist 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 0 ❑ ordinance prepared by the CCTA for use by local agencies? TSM Ordinance 1192-31 Date of Adoption 4-21-92 Not 8-b. If the answer to 8-a.is no, has the jurisdiction adopted an alternative Yes No Applicable mitigation program to achieve a significant reduction in ❑ ❑ X single-occupant vehicle trips, an increase in the use of alternate commute modes, and an improvement in air quality? Ordinance Title Ordnance 11 Date of Adoption Not 8-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Yes No Applicable to transportation systems management have been satisfied in a way not ❑ ❑ X indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an 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 a ❑ Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance? 9-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not to maintenance of effort have been satisfied in a way not indicated by Attached Applicable this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑X 10. POSTING OF SIGNS 10-a. Has the jurisdiction,posted signs in accord with specifications by the Yes No CCTA for all projects funded fully or partially by Measure C ❑ ❑ revenues? 10-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not to posting of signs have been satisfied in a way not indicted by this Attached Applicable checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ Q Page 9 Jurisdiction Year Coutra Costa Traasportadou Authority Contra Costa 1994 Growth Managetueut Program Auuual Compliance Checldist 11. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CHECKLIST FOR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING This checklist was prepared for submittal by: Director of Community Development Signature (Title) Harvey E. Bragdon (510) 646-2026 Printed Name (Phone) The npptbi/board of Sue Ors has reviewed the completed checklist and found that the policies and programs of the jurisd'ction reported herein conform to the requirements for compliance with the Contra Costa Tran station I� oveme and Gro Management Program. Certified Signa Date: - 15-5--/1 Printed Name: Tom Powers Title: Chair. Board of Supervisors Attest Signature: ! g Date: 41-15;— S y >E 9C i y Jerk Printed Name: �J v S e rise rowthManage ment:chklist93.94 3.8.94 ATTACHMENT A Amendments to the General Plan for the 1993 calendar year included nine projects. Summary descriptions of each project are provided on the following pages. All development pursuant to the General Plan Amendments adopted by the Board in 1993 is contingent on demonstration of compliance with the Growth Management Element of the General Plan at the time final discretionary approvals are sought. Chronological List of General Plan Amendments Since January 29, 1991 Noise Elements of the County General Plan. Besides a new land use map which redistibutes the locations of residential,industrial,open space,commercial and public uses, The broad intent of this general plan amendment is to permit the new policies were also adopted into the County General Plan. development of a new community in the Dougherty Valley comprised up to 11,000 homes,together with supporting com- mercial,office,civic and open space uses. GPA No.: 1992-2B Resolution No.: 92/ Date Adopted: December 15, 1992 GPA No.: 199 Resolution No.: 93/258 Date Adopted: May 18,1993 Description: Alamo Springs General Plan Amendment-An amendmentto the Land Use Elementof theCounty General Plan Description: AlbersGeneralPlanAmendment-Anamend- for about 148acres in the Danville area. ment to the Land Use Element of the County General Plan for about_acres in the Byron area. The land use designations shall be Single Family Residential, Low Density and Open Space: Additional policy text was The land use map was changed from Agricultural Core to a adopted as part of this plan amendment. variety of urban land use designations to allow residential,office and open space uses. GPA No.: 1992-2C Resolution No.: 92/ Date Adopted: December 15, 1992 GPA No.: 3-1B Resolution No.: 93/257 Date Adopted: May 18, 1993 Description: School Facilities General PlanAmendment-An amendment to the Public Facilities/Services Element of the Description: Morrison Homes General PlanAmendment-An County General Plan,specifically affecting Section 7.13-Schools. amendment to the Land Use Element of the County General Plan for about nine acres in the Oakley area. This is a comprehensive update of this particular section of the Public Facilities/Services Element of the County General Plan to The land use designation is changed from Multiple Family ensure that new development adequately mitigates the impacts Residential,Medium Density to Multiple Family Residential, on existing school failities. A number of new policies and Low Density to allow a reduction in development density. implementation measures are included as part of this general plan amendment. GPA No.: 1223--LC Resolution No.: 93/259 Date Adopted: May 18, 1993 GPA No. : 1992-213 Resolution No.: 92/ Date Adopted: December 15, 1992 Description: Marsh Canyon Landfill General Plan Amend- ment-An amendment to the Land Use and Public Facilities& Description:Housing Element General PlanAmendment-An Services Elements of the County General Plan for about amendment to the Housing Element of the County General Plan 1,122acres in the Marsh Creek Road area. to maintain consistency with State Planning Law and require- ments as defined under the State's Department of Housing and The land use designation is changed from Landfill to Agricul- Community Development. tural Lands for the plan amendment area.In addition to this land use changes,existing policy text and an additional map in the This is a comprehensive update to the County General Plan Public Facilities&Services Element was revised as well. Housing Element to ensure conformity with State law related to the provision of affordable housing. GPA No. Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopted: July_, 1993 GPA No. : 1992-3A Resolution No.: 92/ Date Adopted: December 22, 1992 Description: North Richmond Shoreline GPA-A general plan amendment to reflect amore detailed specific plan land use Description: Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment- scheme for the area. Specific Plan should be referenced regard- An amendment to the County General Plan affecting the Land ing the details affecting new development in the specific plan Use,Growth Management,Transportation&Circulation,Hous- area. ing,Public Facilities&Services,Conservation,Open Space and Chronological List of General Plan Amendments Since January 29, 1991 GPA No. : 99�3-2B. Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopted- July 13, 1993 Description: North Richmond(IRRF Facility) GPA A general plan amendment to allow the siting of the County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility. New land use policies resulted in changes to the Land Use Element. Additonally,the Public Facilities&Services Element was changed to accommo- date new text on page 7-57, while the siting of the proposed facilities required achange to Figure 7-7Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities in the County General Plan. GPA No.: VC Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopted: July 13, 1993 Description: Oakley Senior Housing GPA-A general plan amendment in response to the Board of Supervisors direction support up to 50 senior housing units near essential services.Resulted in a Land Use Map change from Single Family High Density to Multiple Family Very High Density, with related new policies. GPA No. : 1993-d: SeResolution No.: 93/ Date Adopteptember 28,1993 Description: Byron 78 GPA - A general plan amendment which allows for a change from Agricultural Lands to allow a variety of non-residential uses including Commercial and Office uses. Resulted in aLand Use Map change along with new policies. GPA No.: �1993-4A Resolution No.: 93/ Date AdopLect: December 14,1993 Description: Allied Investments GPA - A Land Use Map change from Agricltural Lands to Single Family Low Density for seven acres and to accommodate up to 15 residential lots. GPA No.: 19934B Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopted: December 14,1993 Description:Heavy Industrial Text Change GPA-The amend- ment clarifies that light industrial uses can be developed within the Heavy Industrial designation and can be developed accord- ing to the Light Industrial standards established by the County General Plan. Modifications are text changes only. 1 ALrEAMM B Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program 1994-1999 Capital Improvements Program for Provision of Parks& Sheriff Facilities Prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department April 1994 ATTACEIEU C Excerpts from the General Plan Referenced in the Annual Compliance Checklist . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 1990 - 2005 January 1991 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 .(415) 646-2035 FAX (415) 646-1309 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. 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 1-680 corridor. The number of jobs in the predominantly "white collar" FIRE category (finance, insurance, real estate) increased 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 o:office jobs to the Bishop Ranch Business Park in San Ramon. 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, health services, and engineering/accounting services. Large numbers of new jobs (over 5,863) were 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. I I I I 2-19 i i 2. Planning Framework TABLE 2-3 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH BY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR (1980-1990) Chanp-e 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 ratio in eastern Contra Costa County should be improved, however, during the decades beyond 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 new residents creates the demand 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 housing and the creation of local jobs. This phenomenon occurred in the San Ramon Valley: the period of rapid suburbanization during the 1970s and the early 1980s has been followed by the location of numerous local and regional businesses in the valley during the 1980s. As noted previously, this jobs/housing analysis assumes that some of the job-generating land uses in the County and Cities' General Plans (the vacant land that is planned for commercial and industrial growth) will not be developed during the next 15 years, because there is too much of this 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, June 1997, page 7. 2-21 3. Land Use Element 3-L. To safeguard the County's obligations to provide its fair share of safe, decent and affordable housing. 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. POLICIES 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 the 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 5. Transportation and Circulation Element 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 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 demand 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 a 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 5-9 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-l0 5. Transportation and Circulation Element 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. 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 projections 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 percent, 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. Roadway and transit improvements do not necessarily lead to uncontrolled growth. The Land,Use 5-ll 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. The following fundamental concepts have been recognized in developing this Transportation and Circulation Element: o Traffic flow is limited by the capacity of the system. 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. 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 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 Improve the design of new development to provide alternative routes for circulation 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) Construct HOV lanes and on-ramp metering lights along commute corridors (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 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 the existing circulation infrastructure in the County. The goals, policies and implementation measures set forth in this section, together with those in the Growth Management Element, are intended to address the future circulation needs of Contra Costa County. ROADWAY AND TRANSIT NETWORK PLANS 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 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. The premise of the Roadway and Transit Network Plans is therefore best summarized as follows: o 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 5-13 Exhibit C CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Jurisdiction Growth Management Program Contra ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST -. Year This checklist is required to be submitted to the CCTA for the receipt of 18% Local 1994 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 development review process. 1-a. During the past year, did the jurisdiction approve any General Plan amendments? Yes No M ❑ 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 Management Element? a ❑ 1-c. If the answer to I-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 0 ❑ elements? 1-d. If the answer to 1-c is yes, were the amendments consistent with the General Plan Growth Yes No Management Element? x❑ ❑ 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. ❑ 2. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Measure C requires each jurisdiction to adopt traffic Level of Service (LOS) 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 Simificance. .A11 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 a ❑ vehicle trips? Page 2 Jurisdiction Year Cou(ra Costa Transixulation Au(horlty' Contra COSI 1994 Growth M.wageuient Prognuu Annual 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 a 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; 11 2.b.2 Intersections are reasonably expected to meet standards, assuming implementation of the jurisdiction's adopted CIP and projected changes in demand over the 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 submitted at this time: 2.b.4 Total number of Reporting Intersections 11 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 conditions. Conditions Implemented Not applicable. 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. z. Has the jurisdiction implemented all Regional Route Action Plans Yes No Page 3 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Tr.utsportation Authority Contra Costa 1 1994 Growth Kutagetuent Progr uu Annual Compliance Checklist Not ❑ ❑ Applicable adopted in the region, with respect to the following procedures: X (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 Explanation Not relative to traffic Level of Service standards have been satisfied in Attached Applicable a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an ❑ ❑X 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? X❑ ❑ 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 Not applicable Other Not applicable 3—c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of.Measure C Explanation Explanatio Not relative to performance standards have been satisfied in a way not Attached n Attached Applicable indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑. X Pa,,e 4 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Tn iLs1k) ation Authority Contra Costa —1994 Growth Management Prograu Annual Cotupli:utce Checklist 4. DEVELOPMENT AZITIGATION 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. 4-a. Have the development mitigation programs cited in the Yes No jurisdiction's previous submittal been implemented over the past a ❑ year? Not 4-b. Is the jurisdiction participating in the.regional mitigation programs Yes No Applicable developed by the CCTA? ❑ ❑ X Please list: The CCTA has not, as yet, developed a regional mitigation program for use by local jurisdictions. Not 4-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Yes No Applicable relative to development mitigation programs have been satisfied in ❑ ❑ x a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. S. PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE, MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING The Growth Managetnent Program specifies.that the CCTA shall establish a forum for jurisdictions to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts. This will 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 a ❑ traffic patterns? 5-d. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not to Cooperative multi' linsdietional planning have been satisfied in a Attached Applicable way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an ❑ explanation. Page 5 Jurisdictiou Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority lContra Costa 1994 GroK,,th Mana�etueut Program Annual ConylialLce Checklist 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)? x If yes, date of adoption or most recent update of the CIP for Parks an Sheriff Vacilities 1994-1999 Resolution # April '19, 1994 .County 1993 Road Imrpovement Program FY 92/93 to FY 98/99 Adopted: 8/4/92 6-b. Does the CIP include'a financing plan that identifies general financing Yes No (Biennial Program) mechanisms for all transportation projects included in the CIP? ® ❑ 6-c. Does the CIP include,a financing plan that identifies general financing Yes No . 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 relative Explanation Not to the CIP have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, Attached Applicable mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ x❑ 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 Explanation Not program and pursuant to the State-mandated housing element of its Attached Applicable General Plan, developed an implementation program that creates ❑x ❑ housing opportunities for all income levels? Specify which plan or policy of the jurisdiction includes the implementation program: County General Plan, Resolution No. 91-68, 1/29/91 County Road Improvement Program, 8/4/92 Contra Costa County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy, 12/14/93 Resolution or Ordinance # Date 7-b. Does the jurisdiction have a Housing Element in its General Plan Yes No which meets the requirements of State law? 0 ❑ Page 6 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transixiriation Authority rontra Cost 1994 Growth M:uiagemctit Program Annual Compliance Checklist 7-c. Has the jurisdiction's adopted Housing Element been judged by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to be in compliance with State law? YES If "YES", Date of HCD Determination April 30, 1993 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.1 A fair share housing allocation as established by ABAG for all Yes No income levels, including very low, low and moderate income El 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 to Yes No implement the policies and achieve the goals of the housing El 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 available Yes No 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) (()] Reference: 7A-c.4 A Resolution by your jurisdiction finding the Housing Element Yes No is substantially in compliance with State Law? F] Resolution It Page 7 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportatiou Authority lContra Cost 1994 Growth Management Program Atumad Compliance Checklist !f the answer to any of questions 7A-c.I through 7A-c.4 are "NO", then continue with question 7-d and 7-e. Also please idents any reasons your jurisdiction may have for believing that you have nonetheless met the requirements of Measure C in question 7-f. !f the answers to questions 7A-c.I through 7A-c.4 are all "YES", then cotuinue with question 7-e. l I 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 Q ❑ 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 2-19 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 any Explanation Not other report, statement or discussion regarding local effort to Attached Applicable 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 l 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. Contra Costa County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy FY 1993 Annual Performance Report: 12/29/93 74. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to housing options and job opportunities have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. Not Applicable Page 8 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transix)tation Authority Contra Cost 199 Gro"Ih Managenicut Program Annual Compliance Checklist 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 a ❑ ordinance prepared by.the CCTA for use by local agencies? TSM Ordinance #92-31 Date of Adoption 4-21-92 Not 8-b. If the answer to 8-a is no, has the jurisdiction adopted an alternative Yes No Applicable mitigation program to.achieve a significant reduction in ❑ ❑ X single-occupant vehicle trips, an increase in the use of alternate commute modes, and an improvement in air quality? Ordinance Title Ordinance N Date of Adoption Not 8-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Yes No Applicable to transportation systems management have been satisfied in a way not ❑ ❑ X indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an 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 0 ❑ Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance? 9-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not to maintenance of effort have been satisfied in a way not indicated by Attached Applicable this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ Q 10. POSTING OF SIGNS 10-a. Has the jurisdiction posted signs in accord with specifications by the Yes No CCTA for all projects funded fully or partially by Measure C FxJ ❑ revenues? 10-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not to posting of signs have been satisfied in a way not indicted by this Attached Applicable checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑x Page 9 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Trawsportation Authority ontra Costa 1994 Growth Managemeut Program Annual Compli:uxe Checklist It. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CHECKLIST FOR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING This checklist was prepared for submittal by: Director of Community Development Signature (Title) Harvey E. Bragdon (510) 646-2026 Printed Name (Phone) The§wuuW/board 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 Signature: Date: Printed Name: Tom Powers Title: Chair, Board of Supervisors Attest Signature: Date: C"Mom/County Clerk Printed Name: risG rowthManagement:chkl ist93.94 3.8.94 ATTACHMENT A Amendments to the General Plan for the 1993 calendar year included nine projects. Summary descriptions of each project are provided on the following pages. All development pursuant to the General Plan Amendments adopted by the Board in 1993 is contingent on demonstration of compliance with the Growth Management Element of the General Plan at the time final discretionary approvals are sought. I Chronological List of General Plan Amendments Since January 29, 1991 Noise Elements of the County General Plan. Besides a new land use map which redistibutes the locations of residential,industrial,open space,commercial and public uses, The broad intent of this general plan amendment is to permit the new policies were also adopted into the County General Plan. development of a new community in the Dougherty Valley comprised up to 11,000 homes,together with supporting com- mercial,office,civic and open space uses. GPA No.: 1992-2B Resolution No.: 92/ Date Adopted: December 15, 1992 GPA No.: � Resolution No.: 93/258 Date Adopted: May 18,1993 Description: Alamo Springs General Plan Amendment-An amendmentto the Land Use Elementof the County General Plan Description: Albers General Plan Amendment-An amend- for about 148acres in the Danville area. ment to the Land Use Element of the County General Plan for about_acres in the Byron area. The land use designations shall be Single Family Residential, Low Density and Open Space. Additional policy text was The land use map was changed from Agricultural Core to a adopted as part of this plan amendment. variety of urban land use designations to allow residential,office and open space uses. GPA No.: 1992-2C Resolution No.: 92/ Date Adopted: December 15, 1992 GPA No.: 3-1B Resolution No.: 93/257 Date Adoptay 18,1993 Description: School Facilities General Plan Amendment-An amendment to the Public Facilities/Services Element of the Description: Morrison Homes General Plan Amendment-An County General Plan,specifically affecting Section 7.13-Schools. amendment to the Land Use Element of the County General Plan for about nine acres in the Oakley area. This is a comprehensive update of this particular section of the Public Facilities/Services Element of the County General Plan to The land use designation is changed from Multiple Family ensure that new development adequately mitigates the impacts Residential,Medium Density to Multiple Family Residential, on existing school failities. A number of new policies and Low Density to allow a reduction in development density. implementation measures are included as part of this general plan amendment. GPA No.: 199�3+C� Resolution No.: 931259 Date Adopted: May 18,1993 GPA No.: 1992-21) Resolution No.: 92/ Date Adopted: December 15, 1992 Description: Marsh Canyon loll General Plan Amend- ment-An amendment to the Land Use and Public Facilities& Description:Housing Element General Plan Amendment-An Services Elements of the County General Plan for about amendment to the Housing Elemeni of the County General Plan 1,122acros in the Marsh Creek Road area. to maintain consistency with State:Planning Law and require- ments as defined under the State's Department of Housing and The land use designation is changed from Landfill to Agricul- Community Development. tural Lands for the plan amendment area.In addition to this land use changes,existing policy text and an additional map in the This is a comprehensive update to the County General Plan Public Facilities&Services Element was revised as well. Housing Element to ensure conformity with State law related to the provision of affordable housing. GPA No.: 199 - A Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopted: July_,1993 GPA No.: 1992-3A Resolution No.: 92/ Date Adopted: December 22, 1992 Description:North RichmondShoreline GPA-A general plan amendment to reflect amore detailed specific plan land use Description: Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment- scheme for the area. Specific Plan should be referenced regard- An amendment to the County General Plan affecting the Land ing the details affecting new development in the specific plan Use,Growth Management,Transportation&Circulation,Hous- area. ing,Public Facilities&Services,Conservation,Open Space and Chronological List of General Plan Amendments Since January 29, 7991 GPA No. : 1993-2B Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopted: July 13, 1993 Description: North Richmond(DZRF Facility) GPA A general plan amendment to allow the siting of the County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility. New land use policies resulted in changes to the Land Usf" Element. Additonally,the Public Facilities&Services Element was changed to accommo- date new text on page 7-57, while the siting of the proposed facilities required acliange to Figure 7-7Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities in the County General Plan. GPA No.: Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopted: July 13,1993 ' Description: Oakley Senior Housing GPA-A general plan amendment in response to the Board of Supervisors direction support up to 50 senior bouging units near essential services.Resulted in a Land Use Map change from Single FamLy High Density to Multiple Family Very High Density, with related new policies. GPA No.: 19933- A Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopt .- September 28,1993 Description: Byron 78 GPA - -z A general plan amendment which allows for a change from Agricultural Lands to allow a variety of non-residential uses including Commercial and Office uses. Resulted in al-And Use Map change along with new policies. GPA No.: 19934A Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adopt'ea.- Decembe,14,1993 Description: Allied InvestmeMs GPA - A Land Use Map change from Agricltural Lands to Single Family Low Density for seven acres and to accommodate up to 15 residential lots, GPA No.: 1993-413 Resolution No.: 93/ Date Adop1'eZMcembr 14,1*993 Description:Heavy Industrial Teas Change GPA-The amend- ment clarifies that light industrial uses can be developed within the Heavy Industrial designationand can be developed accord- ing to the Light Industrial standaids established by the County General Plan. Modifications are text changes only. ATEAMEN- 1 B Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program 1994-1999 Capital Improvements Program for Provision of Parks & Sheriff Facilities Prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department April 1994 ATTACH EU C Excerpts from the General Plan Referenced in the Annual Compliance Checklist CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 1990 - 2005 January 1991 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 (415) 646-2035 FAX (415) 646-1309 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. 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 number of jobs in the predominantly "white collar" FIRE category (finance, insurance, real estate) increased 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 Ramon. 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, health services, and engineering/accounting services. Large numbers of new jobs (over 5,863) were 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-]9 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 Frainework 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 ratio in eastern Contra Costa County should be improved, however, during the decades beyond 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 new residents creates the demand 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 housing and the creation of local jobs. This phenomenon occurred in the San Ramon Valley: the period of rapid suburbanization during the 1970s and the early 1980s has been followed by the location of numerous local and regional businesses in the valley during the 1980s. As noted previously, this jobs/housing analysis assumes that some of the job-generating land uses in the County and Cities' General Plans (the vacant land that is planned for commercial and industrial growth) will not be developed during the next 15 years, because there is too much of this 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, June 1997, page 7. 2-21 3. Land Use Element 37L. To safeguard the County's obligations to provide its fair share of safe, decent and affordable housing. 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. POLICIES 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 the 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. 3-4. 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 S. Transportation and Circulation Element 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 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 demand 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 a 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 5-9 S. 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 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. 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 projections 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 percent, 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. Roadway and transit improvements do not necessarily lead to uncontrolled growth. The Land Use 5-11 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. The following fundamental concepts have been recognized in developing this Transportation and Circulation Element: o Traffic flow is limited by the capacity of the system. 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. 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 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 Improve time design of new development to provide alternative routes for circulation 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) Construct HOV lanes and on-ramp metering lights along commute corridors (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 The need for roadway acid 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 the existing circulation infrastructure in the County. The goals, policies and implementation measures set forth in this section, together with those in the Growth Management Element, are intended to address the future circulation needs of Contra Costa County. ROADWAY AND TRANSIT NETWORK PLANS 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 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. The premise of the Roadway and Transit Network Plans is therefore best summarized as follows: o 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 Marimuin Improvements Plan would cost $5.3 billion and cannot be fully funded with 5-13 A ATTAC(-P'lII�TT D CHAS U-s.Department of Housing and Urban Development Cover Sheet office of Community Flaming and Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Instructions for Local Jurisdictigns Name of JW=fi slon: Type of Submission:(mark one) New Five-Year CHAS:(enter es=yrs.) Contra Costa County FY: lhfough FY: Name of Contact Person: Telephone No: Kathleen K. Hamm Annual Plan Senior Housing Planner 510-646-4208 for FY: Address: (mark one) Community Development Department Initial Submission 651 Pine St. , 4th Floor, N. Wing, Martinez CA 94553 RResubmission of Disapproved CHAS Contra Costa County - Annual Performance Report for the Urban County The Jurisdiction HUD Approval Name of Autrmnzed CMCW: Name of Autho=w Wow: Janes Kennedv Deputy Director - Redevelopment Slgnaaue d Date: Skin e 6 Date: "2 2 `� 9 3 HUD 40090-A(1M) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT —FY 1993 Table of Contents SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . . . . . . 2 RESOURCES MADE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3 INVESTMENT OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Activities to Maintain the Affordable Housing Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Actions to Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Actions to Improve Housing Affordability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Actions to Assist Homeless Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Actions to Assist Special Needs Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 HOUSEHOLDS AND PERSONS ASSISTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 OTHER ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Public Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Institutional Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Intergovernmental Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Public Housing Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Public Housing Resident Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Actions to Evaluate and Reduce Lead-Based Paint Hazards. . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 ASSESSMENT OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 TABLE 1 -HOUSEHOLDS AND PERSONS ASSISTED WITH HOUSING . . . . . . . . .24 APPENDIX A LEGAL NOTICE. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION In preparing the FY 1993 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Annual Performance Report, the Contra Costa County Community Development Department contacted representatives of 68 jurisdictions, public agencies, and affordable housing interest groups currently active in the Urban County. In November of 1993, a letter requesting input and assistance in preparing the performance report was sent to: all 14 cities in the Urban County; 47 non-profit and for-profit affordable housing developers, homeless housing and service providers, and related interest groups; th'e Contra Costa County Community Services Department; the County Building Inspection Department; the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, and the Housing Authorities for Pittsburg and San Pablo; the County Health Services Department; and the County Redevelopment Agency. Each jurisdiction and organization was asked to provide information on affordable housing resources received, activities undertaken, and households served during FY 1993. As required by federal regulations, the Contra Costa County HOME Consortium's Five-Year CHAS for FY 1994-98 and Annual CHAS Plan for FY 1994 were made available for public review and comment at the Community Development Department for a period of 30 days beginning November 15. Additionally, the Annual Performance Reports for the County and Consortium member cities of.Antioch, Concord, and Walnut Creek were made available for 30- day public review periods within their respective jurisdictions. Interested citizens were.invited to comment in writing on the HOME Consortium's draft Five- Year CHAS and each Consortium member's Annual CHAS Plan for FY 1994 and Annual Performance Report (APR) for FY 1993. Citizens were also given the opportunity to comment at a public hearing held on October 28, 1993, at the George Gordon Center in Martinez. A Legal Notice summarizing the purpose and contents of the Consortium's CHAS and notifying citizens of the opportunity to comment was published on November 15, 1993 in the Contra Costa Times, West County Times, Post Dispatch Daily Ledger, and San Ramon Valley Times. A second Legal Notice, published November23, 1993 in the same four newspapers summarized the purpose and content of the Annual Performance Report (APR) and indicated where the draft APRs for the County and the Cities of Concord and Walnut Creek could be reviewed.' The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors considered and approved the Consortium's Five-Year CHAS, the Urban County's Annual Plan,-and the Urban County's Annual Performance Report at their regular Board meeting on December; 14, 1993. The public comment period on the Five-Year CHAS and the Urban County's Annual Strategy Statement closed on December 15, 1993;the public comment period for the Urban County's APR closed on December 23, 1993 No public comments were received on any of these documents. 'The City of Antioch published a separate public notice for their Annual Performance Report. As a member of the urban Count- during FY 1993,the City of Pittsburg is included in the County's APR. 2 RESOURCES MADE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION K During FY 1993, Contra Costa County, participating cities, affordable housing developers, and providers of homeless housing and related services received just under$41 million for use in improving housing opportunities for Contra Costa residents and employees (see CHAS table 3A, page III-21). The County received a total of$39.6 million in federal housing funds, including $4.6 million under entitlement programs and $35 million in competitive grants and allocations. Major sources of federal funds received by the County during FY 1993 include an additional allocation under the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)Program ($35 million), the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program ($2,662,000), and the HOME Program ($1,054,000). Other jurisdictions and entities within the Urban County received a total of$18.3 million in federal housing resources in FY 1993, including $238,000 under entitlement programs and $18 million in competitive grants,and awards. Major sources of federal housing support to other entities include funds allocated to the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County under the Conventional Public Housing Subsidy and Management Program($4.2 million), the CIAP Program($3 million), and the Section 8 Moderate Rehab Program($1.5 million). Additional resources received by other entities in the Urban County include Low-Income Housing Tax Credits($4.3 million) and Section 202 funds ($4.1 million). The majority of federal housing funds received by Contra Costa County are allocated to the County as an Entitlement Jurisdiction by formula. The level of funding received through these programs did not differ significantly from resources anticipated in the FY 1993 Annual Plan. However, due to delays in project development the County did not apply for funding through the HOPE programs as previously anticipated. INVESTMENT OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES Activities to Maintain the Affordable Housin Sp, tock During FY 1993, Contra Costa County continued its efforts to maintain the affordable housing stock in the Urban County through continued support of four housing rehabilitation programs and the Home Weatherization Program, as well as through support of a new targeted code enforcement project. Major accomplishments and a summary of households assisted under each of these programs are provided in the following: ♦ Neighborhood Preservation Program - The County's owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program is operated by the Building Inspection Department. The objective of the Department's Neighborhood Preservation Program is to help very-low and low- income households maintain and rehabilitate their residences through the provision of 3 below-market and zero-interest loans. During FY 1993, the County allocated an additional $200,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and $14.0,000 in HOME funds to this program. In combination with program income, CHRP- O ($250,000) and Housing Preservation Grant funds received during a prior funding cycle, these resources were used for program administration and housing rehabilitation loan assistance. During FY 1993, $510,300 in zero and low-interest loans were provided to 23 households, including 21 very-low income and 2 moderate-income households. ♦ Housing Authority of Contra Costa County Rental Rehabilitation Program -The County's largest rental rehabilitation program is operated by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County(HACCC). The purpose of this program is to maintain and improve the availability of rental housing for very-low and low-income households by providing low and zero-interest loans to rehabilitate rental housing affordable to this group. During FY 1993, an additional $250,000 in CDBG funds was approved for this program. In combination with Federal Rental Rehabilitation Program Funds ($223,500), program income($15,000), CDBG program income($5,000) and $276,200 in private investor funds, the Housing Authority used these resources to administer the program and provide loans to 12 investor-owners for the rehabilitation of 28 affordable rental units Following rehabilitation of the assisted units, 23 were occupied by very-low income households and 5 were occupied by low-income households. ♦ Pittsburg Rehabilitation Program- The City of Pittsburg operates a rehabilitation program for owner-occupied and rental units using CDBG funds, Federal Rental Rehabilitation Program funds, and City and private resources. During FY 1993, the City provided below market rate and zero interest loans totaling $145,775 to rehabilitate 15 single family homes. All of the homes were occupied by households with low income(80% or less of A Q. FY 1993 funds for this program included County CDBG funds ($180,000), Federal Rental Rehabilitation Program funds ($100,000) and City of Pittsburg funds ($375,000). ♦ City of San Pablo Rehabilitation Program -Using a combination of CDBG and City resources, the City of San Pablo operates a rental and owner-occupied housing rehabilitation program. During FY 1993, the City provided 13 deferred loans totalling $349,318 to rehabilitate 13 single-family homes. (No rental units were assisted in FY 1993.) Twelve of the assisted units were occupied by households with very-low income (total household income equal to or less than 60% area median income(AMI)) and one unit was occupied by a household with low-income(less than or equal to 80% AMI). One very-low income household received an emergency grant. An additional 18 households received paint rebates. A total of 939 dump vouchers were disbursed. FY 1993 funding resources allocated to this program include$150,000 in CDBG funds, CDBG carry-over of$85,000, and City resources of$114,350. 4 ♦ Home Weatherization Prop-ram- In addition to the County-funded rehabilitation programs, the Department of Community Services operates a Home Weatherization Program for very-low and low income households. Utilizing a combination of resources from the Pacific Gas'and Electric Company Weatherization Program, the U.S. Department of Energy, the State Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, and the California Energy Conservation Rehabilitation Program, Community Services provides grant and loan assistance for housing weatherization and energy improvements to qualified households. During.FY 1993, the Department assisted 279 households through this program. ♦ Targeted Code Enforcement and Rehabilitation Project-Additionally, the County Redevelopment Agency(RDA) and the County Building Inspection Department worked together to design and implement a targeted residential rehabilitation program for the redevelopment project areas of Bay Point and North Richmond. These areas were selected for special assistance due to the heavy concentration of very-low and low-income households and substantial housing rehabilitation needs. During FY 1993, the County inventoried target areas, identified code violations, and took initial steps to establish loan priorities. It is anticipated that loans will be made under this target program during FY 1994. Funding for this project includes CDBG($111,600), RDA($35,000), and Keller Canyon Landfill fees ($60,000). The County has been active in efforts to maintain the affordable housing stock through projects to refinance existing multi-family developments. In exchange for lower interest rates available in the current investment climate, project sponsors are required to extend the term of affordability for units required to be affordable to and occupied by low/moderate income households. Specific refinancing projects undertaken by the County RDA during FY 1993 include the following: Lakeshore Project, Rivershore Apartments, Cedar Point Apartments, Park Regency Apartments, and Byron Park. ♦ Lakeshore Project -The County RDA initiated a project to refinance the 268-unit Lakeshore complex in Antioch with tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds. The Lakeshore project, which provides housing opportunities for 54 households with income at or below 80% AMI, had an original term of affordability due to expire in 1998. The affordability term linked to the refinancing has been extended to 2002. ♦ Rivershore Apartments -The County RDA also used tax-exempt bonds to refinance the 245-unit Rivershore project in Bay Point, which provides 50 units to households with income at or below 80% AMI. This refinancing extended the term of affordability from 1996 to November, 2002 ♦ Cedar Point Apartments - The County RDA used tax-exempt bonds to refinance the Cedar Point complex in San Ramon. Cedar Point provides 37 units to households with income at or below 80% of AMI, and an additional 13 units affordable to households with 5 1 income at or below 60% AMI. This refinancing extended the term of affordability from 1995 to May, 2003. ♦ Park RegencApartments -The County RDA used tax-exempt bonds to refinance a larger portion of the Park Regency multifamily project in the Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Project Area. In exchange for an increase in the amount of tax-exempt financing and lower interest rates, the Project Owner was required to raise the number of units affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% AMI from 85 to 124. The term of affordability remains at year 2024. ♦ Byron Park-The County RDA also initiated financial default refunding for a fifth project, Byron Park,im Walnut Creek. Byron Park provides 38 units affordable to senior citizens with household incomes at or below 60% AMI, with affordability restrictions in place to year 2031. Refinancing preserved the project by placing it on sounder financial footing. Actions to Increase the Supply of Affordable Housing During FY 1993, Contra Costa cities, the County, and area nonprofits continued efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing in the Urban County. Specific projects include: a single- family housing project at 5th& Giaramita in North Richmond, Alves Lane in Bay Point, Laurel Drive in Danville, and Rumrill Park and Willow Branch in San Pablo. These projects are described in the following section. Additional projects undertaken to increase the supply of affordable housing for the County's special needs populations include Stoneman Village Senior Housing, Del Norte Senior Housing, Silvercrest Senior Housing, Pittsburg Senior Housing, Riverhouse, Pinole Grove Senior Housing, Casa Linda Senior Housing, Oakley Senior Housing, the Reverse Equity Mortgage Program for Seniors, Crockett Senior Housing, Brentwood Senior Housing,North Richmond Senior Housing, Kirker Court, Las Trampas Group Homes for the Mentally Disabled, San Pablo Public Housing Modifications, HACCC Public Housing Access, Supportive Transitional Housing for Households with Substance Abuse Problems, Group Homes for Abused Youth, Affordable Housing for HIV/AIDS Populations, and the HIV/AIDS Housing Program. These projects are discussed under the section Actions to Assist Special Needs Populations. ♦ Fifth and Giaramita Single-Family Development -The County Redevelopment Agency (RDA), in conjunction with a private developer completed 7 units of affordable single- family housing in North Richmond. All 7 units are occupied by low-income households. FY93 funding for this project included County RDA resources ($200,000), and private financing ($283,000). This project also included prior year allocations from County CDBG resources and the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). ♦ North Richmond First-Time Homebuy - The County RDA also worked with the City of Richmond and a local nonprofit developer, Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond (CDHC) to provide housing for a low-income first-time 6 homebuyer in North Richmond. The County provided funds for construction ($12,000). Following completion the full amount of County assistance was rolled over into a silent second mortgage to assist a low-income homebuyer in purchasing the unit. Prior year funding for this project included City of Richmond funds ($16,500), and private financing ($74,000). ♦ Leland Village Townhomes-During FY 1993, Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI) continued to work with the County to implement the Leland Village Townhomes Project to develop 108 units of additional housing, including 38 units to be affordable to low and moderate income households(incomes not to exceed 80 percent AMI). Resources currently approved-for this project include County CDBG($250,000) and HOME ($250,000) funds. Total project cost is currently estimated at$13.6 million. As proposed, the County funds will be used to cover a portion of site acquisition costs. Following construction, the full amount of the CDBG and HOME funds will be rolled over to provide silent second mortgages to assist low and moderate income households to acquire a minimum of 38 units. This project has been delayed pending HUD response to the County's request for a waiver of federal regulations requiring all units in the project to be affordable to low/moderate income households. Such a requirement will render the project economically infeasible. Assuming approval of the County's waiver request, PCSI plans to complete the required financing package and initiate construction of these units by summer of 1994. ♦ Parkway Estates I - Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond (CDHC)has been working with the County to develop 59 single-family homes, 18 of which will be affordable to and occupied by low/moderate income households earning 60 to 80 percent of AMI. This project is similar to the Leland Village Project in that County CDBG funds ($2001000)will be used to cover a portion of site acquisition costs. Following completion of the units, the full amount of the CDBG funds will be rolled over into silent seconds to assist low/moderate income first-time homebuyers in acquiring a minimum of 18 of the units. Total development costs are estimated at $7.8 million. Additional funding sources include County RDA funds($100,000), LISC ($200,000), and private financing. As is the case with Leland Village, the County has requested a waiver of federal regulations requiring all units in the development to be affordable to low/moderate income households. Again, such a requirement will render this project economically infeasible. Assuming approval of the County's request, CHDC plans to acquire the site in December 1993 and initiate construction during 1994. ♦ Parkway Estates IT-In addition to Parkway Estates I, CHDC and the County RDA are working together to develop Parkway Estates II, a second first-time homebuyer project to be located on a site adjacent to Parkway I in North Richmond. As currently planned, this project will include 36 single family homes, including 18 which are to be affordable to lower income households. The County RDA has committed $100,000 to this project. Additional potential funding sources include County HOME funds, private lender 7 financing, and a contribution of developer fees by CHDC. ♦ Anchor Cove Condominiums - The County RDA worked with D & M Development Inc. to develop 10 condominiums in the redevelopment project area of Bay Point. In return for using redevelopment:tax increment for construction financing, D &M will provide 5 units affordable to households at or below 120% AMI, and the remaining 5 affordable to households with income at or below 80% AMI. Financing for the purchase of the homes will be made out of the Delta Counties Single Family Bond Issue(discussed in the section Actions to Improve Housing Affordability), further increasing affordability. FY 1993 funding includes County RDA funds($350,000). ♦ Marsh Creek Vista-The Marsh Creek Vista Self-Kelp Housing Project, sponsored by Rural California Housing Corporation(RCHC) consists of 102 units of affordable housing in Brentwood and completed in phases of 10 units each over a three year period beginning Winter 1993. Eligible homeowners must be first-time homebuyers with very-low or low- incomes, and must agree to contribute sweat equity by assisting in the construction of the housing units under the supervision of RCHC. The household's sweat equity contribution represents their down payment for acquisition. Homeowner financing is provided through a combination of FmHA low-interest first mortgages and silent seconds funded with either CDBG or State Farmworker Grant funds. All 102 units will be affordable to and occupied by low-income households, with a minimum of 40 units occupied by very-low income households. Project:funding includes County CDBG funds($240,000), Section 502 FmHA($3.2 mil.), State Farmworker Assistance Grant($300,000), and Bank of America Community Development Bank loan ($2.885 mil.). During FY 1993, one home was completed and occupied by a low-income household. An additional 29 are under. construction, and a further 11 approved for FmHA funding and January 1994 construction. ♦ Habitat for Humanity Sweat Equity First-time Homebuyer Project-During FY 1993, Mt. Diablo Habitat for Humanity identified a third site to be acquired using FY 1992 CDBG funds previously allocated for Habitat's first-time homebuyer program. Project financing was identified, and the federal environmental review for this Pittsburg site was completed. Habitat anticipates construction of a duplex on this site to be initiated by June of 1994. When complete, this project will provide affordable homeownership opportunities for two very-low income households. ♦ Alves Lane Multifamily Rental Housing-The County Redevelopment Agency and area nonprofit developer;Resources for Community Development (RCD)began planning and development for Alves Lane, a 14-unit townhouse complex in the County Redevelopment Project Area of Bay Point. All units will be affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% AMI, including a minimum of three units affordable to households at or below 50% AMI. During FY 1993, RCD received funding commitments for this project, developed a site plan and architectural schematics, and received final development plan 8 approval from the Board of Supervisors. Closing is scheduled for October 1993, and construction planned.for May 1994. Occupancy for Alves Lane is anticipated for spring 1995. Funding commitments for this project received during FY93 include County HOME funds($440,000), County Redevelopment Agency funds ($440,000), County CDBG funds ($70,000), Low-Income Housing Tax Credits ($794,000), and First Nationwide Affordable Housing Program resources ($91,000). Other funding sources include conventional financing. ♦ Willow Branch Apartments-The City of San Pablo also worked with a local developer- project owner to rehabilitate the Bevlar Housing Complex. The new owners renamed the project Willow Branch Apartments, and applied to the City for funding. Although Willow Branch does not he within a redevelopment project area for San Pablo, the City generated a finding of benefit and bought an affordable housing covenant, providing the new owners with a low-interest deferred loan. Willow Branch will provide 60 units of housing, 8 of which will be specifically affordable to households with low and moderate income. Current market rate rents for the area indicate that the remaining 52 units will also be available at affordable levels although they will not be specifically restricted. Rehabilitation was completed in July, and occupancy anticipated for late October, 1993. FY 1993 funding sources for this project include developer equity, and City of San Pablo funds($125,000). ♦ Rumrill Gardens Multifamily Housing Project-During FY 1993, Lao Family Community Development, Inc., initiated a project to develop 32 units of affordable rental housing for households in West County. 'As currently planned, the project will be located in San Pablo and will be affordable to households with incomes less than or equal to 60 percent AMI. The project sponsor has been involved in predevelopment planning and has been working with the County and City to develop the required financing. Potential funding sources include County CDBG and HOME funds, City of San Pablo RDA funds, LIHTC, FHLB Affordable Housing Program, and private lender financing. ♦ Gateway Wig-During FY 1993, the City Council of the City of Orinda approved the Gateway Valley Specific Plan, including the development of 46 multifamily units affordable to moderate-income households (households with incomes at or below 120% AMI), in compliance with the Orinda General Plan. A referendum vote on November 2nd overturned the Specific Plan approval, with the result that this project cannot currently proceed. However, the General Plan policies for subdivision development remain in place. As such, any future development planned for this site must comply with current policies to provide housing affordable to households with low and moderate income. ♦ Haskins Ranch and Laurel Drive-During FY 1993, the Town of Danville continued negotiations with developers of two new housing projects to include units affordable to low and moderate income households earning up to 120 percent of AMI. During FY 1992, the developer of the 72-unit Haskins Ranch Project agreed to include 14 units 9 affordable to moderate income households in exchange for a.density bonus and fee waivers. A fee waiver of$6,121 for each of the affordable units was provided-in FY 1993, bringing the total fee waiver for the project to $85,695. Construction of these units was completed. Additionally, payment of an lieu fee of$377,000 as part of a developer obligation for the neighboring Charlotte Wood redevelopment site in Danville, in combination with Town Redevelopment Agency and Civic Facilities funds will finance development of 13 multifamily units on Laurel Drive. Eight of these units will be required to be affordable to households with moderate incomes, and five will be affordable to households with very low incomes. This project is currently in the pre-development stages. ♦ Bayside Apartments-The City of Pinole Redevelopment Agency staff is currently considering a proposal to acquire and rehabilitate the 148-unit Bayside Apartment complex. As part of the requested RDA subsidy,the City would require that 15 percent of the units(22)be maintained as affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. The Redevelopment Agency Board will hear this proposal in Spring 1994. ♦ Heritage Homes - San Ramon City staff and City Planning Commission are continuing their review of Heritage Homes, a private developer proposal for an 88-unit single family and 88-unit multi-family development, of which 23 multi-family units would be affordable to low-income households in exchange for a density bonus. A decision on this project is anticipated for Spring 1994. ♦ El Cerrito Plaza BART Housing- The City of El Cerrito and the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority(BART) completed rezoning procedures for the El Cerrito Plaza BART Station as the initial step for a planned multifamily development at the site. The proposed project consists of 216 units, including 44 affordable to low and moderate income households. Funding sources for this project include City Redevelopment Agency funds. Actions to Improve Housing Affordability Major activities undertaken by the County to improve housing affordability during FY 1993 include direct rental assistance and projects to improve homeownership opportunities through the use of mortgage revenue bonds, mortgage credit certificates, and County Redevelopment Agency, CDBG and HOME funds. ♦ Mortgage Credit Certificate Program -In October of 1991, Contra Costa County implemented the Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC)Program to facilitate homeownership through the provision of tax credits equal to 20 percent of mortgage interest paid by qualified low and moderate income households. Resources for this program for FY 1992- 1993 included $11 million in existing authority plus an additional MCC allocation of$35 million received by the County in September of 1993. During FY 1993, the County issued 181 MCCs to assist low and moderate income households in acquiring a residence in the Urban County. Households receiving assistance under this program had incomes ranging 10 I from $19,678 to $63,300 and acquired single family homes ranging in price from $70,967 to $189,990. Sixty-one percent (61%) of all participating households had incomes less than or equal to 80% of AMI. The County's MCC Program provided an additional 66 allocations to homebuyers in the separate Entitlement Jurisdictions of Antioch, Concord, Richmond, and Walnut Creek. Households within the entitlement jurisdictions who received assistance under this program had incomes ranging from $16,488 to $53,820 and acquired single family homes ranging in price from $61,700 to $206,000. These accomplishments are also reported in the Annual Performance Report for each Entitlement Jurisdiction. ♦ Redevelopment Agengy First-time Homebuyer Pro ram- In September, 1993 the Board of Supervisors approved the County Redevelopment Agency's First-Time Homebuyers Program. The purpose of this program is to improve homeownership opportunities in the Oakley and Bay Point.Redevelopment areas for low and moderate income households who live or work in Contra Costa County. Directors Mortgage Loan Corporation has provided a $7 million forward commitment to finance favorable market-rate first mortgages. The Redevelopment Agency will provide silent second mortgages, payable at time of sale or ultimately forgiven if the homebuyer maintains the property as their principal residence for the life of the loan(30 years). Resale restrictions designed to maintain the affordability of the unit will apply. The County anticipates providing loans to eligible homebuyers under this program during FY 1994. ♦ Mortgage Revenue Bond Program-The 1991 Delta Bonds issue, entered into by the Counties of Contra Costa and Sacramento and the City of Vallejo, was implemented in order to provide $13'.7 million in 30-year fixed rate mortgages at 7.3 to 7.4 percent to households earning 100 percent or less of AMI. During FY 1993, no households within Contra Costa County requested or received mortgage assistance through this program. Continuing low-interest rates have discouraged participation in this program. ♦ Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers - The County works to improve housing affordability for renters through the provision of rental certificates and vouchers to qualified low- income households. Currently, Section 8 certificates and vouchers are provided by the County Housing Authority and the Housing Authority for the City of Pittsburg. During FY 1993, the County Housing Authority qualified for an additional $471,564 in Section 8 certificates and vouchers to provide rental assistance to an additional 80 very-low income households. Including previously awarded certificates and vouchers, the County was able to provide a total of$18.9 million in Section 8 rental assistance for 3,254 households. Existing resources under the Section 8 Moderate Rehab Program ($1.5 million) (235 vouchers) and the State After Care Program($600,996) (116 vouchers) were used to provide continued support for 351 households. Finally, 741 households were assisted with $4.3 million in Section 8 funds administered by the City of Pittsburg Housing Authority. Including 304 families who originally received Section 8 assistance through 11 another county and continue to receive assistance following their move to Contra Costa, more than 4650 households received rental assistance in Contra Costa during FY 1993. ♦ As previously indicated, the Leland Village and Parkway Estates I and II Projects will also improve housing affordability by providing first-time homebuyer assistance for a combined total of 74 low/moderate income households (incomes not exceeding 80 percent AMI). Progress in implementing these projects was described in the preceding section. Actions to Assist Homeless Populations During FY 1993, the County worked with other jurisdictions and area non-profit organizations to improve and expand the availability of emergency and transitional housing and related support services for homeless adults and families in Contra Costa. Specific projects and programs implemented in this fiscal year are described in the following. ♦ PATH Project -During FY 1993, the Family Pittsburg Alliance of Technology and Homeless Services Project (PATH), a collaborative project involving public and private agencies, including the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, the Housing Authority, HeadStart, Shelter Inc., Delta 2000, and the Pittsburg Preschool Coordinating Council, worked to develop a system to identify families at risk of becoming homeless in East County. This project involves creation of an electronic referral and follow-up network to help ensure that families receive the full range of services for which they qualify In addition, a Housing Outreach Coordinator works with local housing providers to develop additional affordable housing options for very low and low income households at risk of becoming homeless. During FY 1993, PATH assisted 80 households. Project funding sources include Supplemental Assistance for Facilities to Assist the Homeless (SAFAH)($250,000). ♦ CouM Sponsored Homeless Shelters - The County's emergency and transitional shelters for homeless individuals and families are operated by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County(HACCC). These shelters include the Brookside Emergency Shelter (56 beds) serving West County, the Central County Emergency Shelter(60 beds with an additional 40-bed winter relief capacity) serving East and Central County, and the Mountain View Shelter located in Central County to provide transitional housing for homeless women and.families with children. During FY 1993,the County provided emergency and transitional housing for over 1100 individuals through these shelters. Specific activities and events affecting operations at individual shelters during FY 1993 are described in the following. Originally opened on an emergency basis, the Central County Emergency Shelter was closed by Court Order pending satisfactory completion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and General Plan Amendment. The County has been working to comply with the Court Order and anticipates completion of the required documentation by March 12 1994. A new Court Order will permit a temporary reopening of the Shelter in November 1993. Rehabilitation needs at Brookside Shelter have been evaluated and prioritized. The Housing Authority is in the process of developing the required financing. Emergency Shelter Grant funds were awarded to the Housing Authority to install a commercial food kitchen at Mountain View House. This project is nearing completion. In addition to significantly improving operating efficiency, the kitchen will also provide job training opportunities for shelter residents. ♦ San Joaquin II -In January 1993, Rubicon Programs Inc. marked the opening of the Supportive Training and Living Program(STLP), also known as San Joaquin II. This project provides transitional housing for 8 homeless single persons and 2 homeless families in West County. ♦ Ohio Street &artments -Rubicon Programs worked to secure funding for the acquisition of a 6-unit building, Ohio Street Apartments, in Richmond to provide transitional housing for previously homeless individuals and families in West County. All residents will be enrolled in programs and provided with support services designed to assist households to achieve economic independence. Rubicon anticipates acquisition for January 1994, and occupancy for late spring 1994. FY 1993 funding for this project includes County CDBG ($80,000) and City of Richmond CDBG($80,000). ♦ Alhambra House- During FY 1993, Shelter, Inc. used private donations to acquire and rehabilitate a residence in Martinez. Shelter manages the lease on the property. Formerly homeless individuals pay modest rents,.providing a potential income stream. ♦ Project Hearth-Using private donations; Shelter Inc., a local nonprofit, continued its year-old Project Hearth program which provides transitional housing (leased apartments) and related case management and counseling services designed to assist homeless families in becoming economically self-sufficient. At the end of a year's participation in the program, the family's ability to maintain an independent living situation is assessed and, if feasible, they are given the option of assuming the lease on the apartment. During FY 1993, 7 households (31 people)were assisted through this program. ♦ Emergengy Housing Assistance and Counseling- An emergency housing assistance program operated by Shelter, Inc. assists individuals and families who are homeless or in danger of becoming homeless to achieve or maintain an independent living environment. FY 1993 funding for this project includes County CDBG funds ($80,000), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds($50,000), private loans, and donations. Shelter provides emergency housing assistance to families in need, as well as housing counseling and homeless referrals. In FY 1993, 32 families (82 people) in the Urban 13 County received emergency housing assistance through this program. ♦ Reach Plus Proms m Shelter, Inc. successfully applied for FY 1993 McKinney Act funds for the REACH Plus program (Recruitment, Enrollment, Assessment, Case Management, and Housing Plus). The REACH Plus Program is a coordinated, multidisciplinary collaboration comprised of the HACCC, the Contra Costa County Health Services Agency, and four housing providers including Shelter,Inc., Rubicon, Inc., Independent Living Resources, and Bi-Belt Corp. REACH Plus will empower the homeless by providing the tools that are needed to build a path out of dependency. The program will target services to individuals and families suffering from addiction and/or mental and/or physical disabilities. The five-year supportive grant(McKinney Act, $4.19 mil.)will be received in January 1994. ♦ Emergency and Transitional Housing for Battered Women-Battered Women's Alternatives has begun preliminary design and planning work to develop an emergency and transitional housing shelter for battered women and children in Central County. During FY 1993, a potential site was identified and community meetings held to solicit neighborhood support. Potential funding sources for this project include County CDBG and HOME funds, as;well as McKinney Act Programs. ♦ Shelter-Plus Care- A'coalition of local housing providers and the HACCC prepared a preliminary Shelter Plus Care application for FY 1994. If successful, the funding ($52 million) could provide 100 rental subsidies to serve 207 people. Actions to Assist Special Needs Populations Previously described programs, strategies and projects to maintain and increase the supply of affordable housing for all residents of the Urban County also improved housing conditions for the County's special needs populations. In addition to these actions, Contra Costa cities, the County and area nonprofits implemented the following specific projects to improve housing conditions for the Urban County's special needs populations. Projects to Assist the Elderly ♦ Stoneman Village Senior Housing-Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI), and Pittsburg Senior and Handicapped Residential Community, Inc. continued their work on the Stoneman Village expansion. This project involves developing an additional 60 units of housing affordable to lower-income seniors. During FY 1993, the City of Pittsburg installed utilities for the site and completed construction of the site's roadway. PCSI developed working drawings and prepared for loan closing. Project funding includes HUD Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program ($4.1), City of Pittsburg fee waivers and o$-street improvements ($750,000). Construction is scheduled for early 1994. 14 ♦ Del Norte Senior Housing Project - The City of El Cerrito and the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority (BART) continued planning for a 160-unit senior development at the El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station. The project would incorporate an affordability component. Funding sources for this project have not yet been identified, but include County CDBG and HOME, City RDA, and Section 202 resources. ♦ Silvercrest Senior Housine-During FY 1993,the County continued to compete construction of the Silvercrest Senior Housing Project in El Sobrante. When complete, Silvercrest Senior Housing will provide 50 units of rental housing affordable to senior citizens with incomes less than or equal to 50%AMI. Construction for this project was completed during FY 1993. The facility will be ready for occupancy in January 1994. Funding sources for this project include CDBG($65;000), and HUD Section 202 ($3.8 million). ♦ Pittsburg Senior Housing Project-The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County, Pittsburg Preschool Coordination Council, and Satellite Senior Homes continued their work on the predevelopment and planning of a senior housing project to be located in Pittsburg. As planned, this project will provide 50 units of housing affordable to senior citizens with incomeless than or equal to 80%AMI. Potential funds for this project include County CDBG and the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program. ♦ Riverhouse-In cooperation with the City of Martinez and the County, Housing for Independent People(HIP) completed rehabilitation of a single room occupancy hotel in Martinez to provide'iaffordable housing for 75 seniors and/or disabled individuals. Riverhouse was ready for occupancy in January 1993. Funding for this project included County CDBG funds ($250,000), a City loan ($365,000), low-income housing tax credits ($3 mil.), private financing ($149,000), and an interim construction loan ($2.1 mil.). ♦ Pinole Grove Senior Housing- The County and City of Pinole Redevelopment Agency continued to work with BRIDGE Housing, a Bay Area nonprofit, to develop 70 rental units affordable to low and very-low income senior households. In FY 1993, site acquisition and environmental assessments were completed, and construction initiated. Lease-up is expected in Spring 1995. Funding sources for this project include Pinole Redevelopment Agency funds ($900,000), bank loans($1.6 mil.), low income housing tax credits($3.5 mil.), developer equity($611,000), deferred interest ($33,000) and County CDBG($200,000) and HOME($200,000)funds. ♦ Casa Linda Senior Housing- The City of San Pablo worked with a private firm on the development of a project designed to provide 24 one-bedroom units affordable to senior citizens with low and moderate income. The sale of a City-owned site on Broadway Avenue was structured as a deferred loan. FY93 funding for this project included conventional financing, a deferred City of San Pablo Redevelopment Agency loan ($108,000), and developer equity. 15 I ♦ Oakley Senior Housing Project - The County RDA.and a Bay Area nonprofit developer, Ecumenical Association for Housing (EAH) worked on the preliminary phases of a senior housing project to be located in the redevelopment project area of Oakley. This project will provide 50 units of-housing affordable to senior citizens with very-low incomes. During FY 1993, EAH identified a site and successfully applied to the County for a General Plan Amendment, permitting very-high multi-family residential development on the proposed site. Preliminary environmental reviews were conducted. Total project cost is currently estimated at $3.8 million. During FY 1993, the County RDA approved $338,000 in funding for this project. Additional potential funding sources include County CDBG and HOME, Section 202, LIHTC, AHP, and private sector financing. ♦ Reverse Equity Prog am for Seniors-Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity(ECHO) provides in-home counseling for Urban County elderly residents on the availability of Reverse Annuity Mortgage programs, which allow seniors to receive monthly payments to supplement their incomes, based upon the equity in their homes. During FY 1993, 45 households were assisted through this program. FY 1993 funding for this project includes County CDBG($10,000). ♦ Crockett Senior Housing- Christian Church Homes of Northern California and the Crockett Senior Housing Citizen's Committee are working to develop a 25 to 40-unit apartment complex for very-low income seniors in Crockett. During FY 1993, a potential site was identified and negotiations for acquisition begun. Potential funding for this project includes County CDBG and/or HOME, Section 202, =C and private lender financing. ♦ Brentwood Senior Housing- The City of Brentwood and Rural California Housing Corporation (RCHC) are continuing their efforts to develop a 40-unit apartment complex for very low-income seniors. The City has provided RCHC with an option to buy a site in Brentwood for this purpose. During FY 1993, RCHC refined development plans and continued efforts to obtain the required financing. ♦ North Richmond Senior Housing- The County RDA and Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond (CHDC) are working cooperatively to develop a senior housing project in North Richmond. As proposed, this project would include 50 units of affordable senior housing, office space for social service agencies, and a police sub-station. Potential funding sources for this project include County CDBG and/or HOME, County RDA, Section 202, LIHTC and private sector resources. ♦ Villa San Ramon-The City of San Ramon continued to provide rental assistance to 24 very-low income senior citizens or disabled persons needing congregate care at Villa San Ramon Apartments. These units include transportation, housekeeping, social services, emergency care, and security. FY93 funding for this project included City of San Ramon 16, Redevelopment Agency($204,000), City of San Ramon ($30,393), and County CDBG funds ($30,000): Projects to Assist Disabled Populations ♦ Kirker Court- During FY 1993 the City of Clayton and Housing for Independent People continued their work on the Kirker Court development, designed to provide housing affordable at very low income levels (60% or less of AMI) for 20 mentally handicapped adults. Funding for this project included County CDBG($250,000). Groundbreaking was held in April 1993. Kirker Court will be ready for occupancy in December 1993. ♦ Las TmWas Group Homes for Mentally Disabled -During FY 1993, Las Trampas, Inc. received a County CDBG allocation($100,000) and began the acquisition process for two single family homes in Central County to provide shared housing for 12 developmentally disabled adults. Additional funding includes conventional loans ($300,000) and donations ($40,000). ♦ San Pablo Public Housing Modifications- The City of San Pablo is working to modify five public housing units to accommodate the physically handicapped and elderly, including the installation of wheelchair ramps, shower/tub/toilet grab bars, and lowered and/or modified kitchen and bath facilities. During FY 1993 the City identified and applied for project funding through the County CDBG Program. ♦ HousingLAuthori1y of Contra Costa County Housing Access- The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County(HACCC) continued to work to improve handicapped accessibility in public housing projects owned and operated by the Authority. Of 22 units needing such improvements, the HACCC completed 5 during FY 1993, including 3 in the Alhambra Terrace Facility in Martinez, and 2 in Los Nogales in Brentwood. An additional 2 units, at the Bridgemont facility in Antioch, began necessary renovations. Projects to Assist Other Special Needs Populations ♦ Supportive Transitional Housing for Households with Substance Abuse Problems -During FY 1993, the Contra Costa Council of St. Vincent de Paul Society continued the planning and environmental review process for the development of 39 units of long-term transitional housing 1 affordable to very-low and low-income families in East County. Target households are those with a family member who is recovering from drug or alcohol abuse, or who is re-centering society from a correctional facility. This project has been awarded predevelopment funds through the County's HOME Program. ♦ Group Homes for Abused Youth- Youth Homes Inc. received a FY 1993 County CDBG allocation of$80,000 for the acquisition of a 6-bed group home in Lafayette, to serve AFDC foster care youths aged 15 to 18 who have suffered from child and/or sexual abuse. 17 During FY 1993, Youth Homes began the acquisition process for the site, including completion of the federal environmental review. Additional funding resources for this project include Youth Homes($5,000) and Wells Fargo corporate loan for group homes ($210,000). ♦ Affordable Housing for HIV/AIDS Population-During FY 1993, the County met with representatives of the Cities of Antioch, Concord, Richmond and Walnut Creek, and the Contra Costa Ryan White Council to determine priorities for use of the County's HOPWA allocation. ♦ HIV Housing Proms- Catholic Charities has established a Coordinated Housing Program to serve an estimated 100 residents of Contra Costa County who are ILTV positive and who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. This program provides housing assistance funds; including temporary housing and rental assistance to enable qualified individuals and households o maintain a stable living environment. Project funding includes Ryan White Title I funds ($30,000) and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS ($50,000). Large Families Several previously described projects to increase the supply of affordable housing specifically address the needs of large families. Projects completed during FY 1993 include the seven single family homes at 5th and Giaramita Streets in North Richmond, and the additional single family home on Duboce Street in North Richmond. Projects which are in the planning and development stage include fourteen units of multifamily housing in Bay Point(Alves Lane), one single-family home produced by Habitat for Humanity in Pittsburg, two North Richmond projects to provide three and four bedroom single family homes affordable to lower-income households (Parkway Estates I and II), and the Rumrill Park multifamily affordable housing development in San Pablo. HOUSEHOLDS AND PERSONS ASSISTED During FY 1993, 888 households received permanent or transitional housing assistance through programs and projects funded all or in part through federal housing programs (see Table 1). In addition, over 1,100 homeless individuals were provided with emergency housing at County shelters. Of the 888 households receiving permanent/transitional housing assistance: ♦ Thirty-six percent were renters, 46 percent were homeowners, 10.percent were homeless, and 9 percent had special needs. ♦ Eighty-six percent were very-low income households (incomes not exceeding 50 percent 18 of the area median) and 14 percent were low-income(51 to 80 percent). ♦ Forty-three percent(427) of very-low income households assisted were homeowners. All but 15 of these households received subsidized housing rehabilitation loans. The remaining households were assisted in acquiring a home through the County's Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. ♦ Thirty-six percent of very-low income households assisted were renters. Types of assistance provided,to this population include rental assistance payments, subsidized loans for the rehabilitation of affordable rental housing, and the opening of a new affordable rental housing development in Martinez. ♦ Sixty-four percent of low-income households received homeowner assistance. Just under two-thirds of these'households were provided with first-time homebuyer assistance. The remaining owner-occupant households received subsidized loans for housing rehabilitation. ♦ Thirty-six percent of low-income households receiving assistance were renters. These households were assisted through the provision of subsidized loans for the rehabilitation of affordable rental units and an increase in the number of affordable.units in an existing apartment complex"which was refinanced with tax-exempt bonds. ♦ All assisted homeless households and non-homeless special needs households were very- low income. These households were provided with transitional and permanent housing through programs sponsored by the County and nonprofit organizations. Documentation of assistance provided to each households or person is maintained by the entities providing the assistance. As the reporting jurisdiction, the County maintains a summary of all project records. OTHER ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN Public Policies During FY 1992, the County initiated an evaluation of the County's fee structure to ensure that the costs of processing development applications are accurately reflected in the fees assessed. This study was completed-in FY 1993 and County fees adjusted in accordance with the results. Institutional Structure Activities undertaken by the County to improve the institutional structure for the maintenance and development of affordable housing in the Urban County during FY 1993 include the following. 19 . ♦ As previously reported, Contra Costa County is exploring the feasibility of establishing a Housing Trust Fund to provide resources to improve and maintain the supply of affordable housing for residents and employees of the County. A Task Force report containing recommendations for,revenue sources and an appropriate institutional structure was completed in FY 1992. During FY 1993, the County continued to explore interest in participation in a Trust Fund by other jurisdictions. In addition, an Interim Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board was created to: develop an implementation strategy for revenue sources selected to capitalize a County Housing Trust Fund; work with the County to establish the Trust Fund as a legal entity; and recommend policies, programs, and criteria to allocate Trust Fund revenues within the context of County priorities. ♦ The County worked with the jurisdictions of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek to develop the,!Contra Costa HOME Program Consortium for purposes of participation in the HOME Investment Partnership Act Program. The Consortium Agreements were approved by each jurisdiction in June of 1993 and submitted to HUD with all required documentation. The Consortium was approved by HUD in July of 1993. As specified in the Consortium Agreement, Contra Costa County will act as the lead jurisdiction for the Consortium and will be responsible for ensuring that the HOME program is carried out in compliance with the National Affordable Housing Act and federal regulations. Consortium members have agreed that HOME funds will be distributed through a competitive application process. As the Consortium Representative, the County will have final responsibility for the allocation of HOME funds among eligible activities. The County will be assisted in this process by a Technical Review Committee to be composed of representatives with expertise in affordable.housing development, including four members to be nominated by the County and three to be nominated by the Cities. The Consortium will be activated beginning with the FY 1994 HOME funding cycle. Intergovernmental Cooperation During FY 1993, the County continued efforts to improve intergovernmental cooperation in maintaining and developing laffordable housing opportunities in the Urban County and throughout Contra Costa. In addition to creation of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and Contra Costa HOME Consortium previously described, the County participated in the following activities which promote intergovernmental,cooperation. ♦ The County continued its participation in the Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Subcommittee composed of representatives of Alameda and Contra Costa County and the Cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, and Danville. The Committee has been successful as a mechanism for sharing information on regional housing needs, cost- effective housing programs and pending legislation on affordable housing development and financing mechanisms. In FY 1993, the Tri-Valley Subcommittee continued to explore legislative alternatives to facilitate multijurisdictional housing projects by allowing 20 cities and counties to receive credit toward their fair share housing targets for participation in affordable housing projects in nearby jurisdictions. ♦ The Community Development Department continued participation in the Farmworker and. Affordable Housing Task Force created to encourage affordable housing development in East County. During FY 1993, the Task Force actively supported projects to expand and maintain the supply of affordable housing through new construction and rehabilitation of existing housing for lower income households and farmworker families. ♦ The County continues to work with the Cities of Antioch, Concord, Richmond and Walnut Creek and the Contra Costa Ryan White Council to jointly determine priorities for the use of HOPWA funds allocated to Contra Costa Entitlement Jurisdictions through the Oakland EMA. On behalf of the combined jurisdictions, the County will initiate a competitive application process to allocate HOPWA resources to projects which will provide affordable housing opportunities for the HIV/AIDS population. Representatives of each jurisdiction will participate in the selection process. ♦ Additional examples of intergovernmental cooperation include City and County cooperation in providing joint funding for affordable housing projects. Projects jointly funded by the County and one or more cities during FY 1993 include the housing rehabilitation programs operated by the Cities of San Pablo and Pittsburg and the Pinole Grove Senior Housing Project. In addition, the County has been working with the City of San Pablo to jointly fund a 32-unit multifamily affordable rental housing project in the City. Public Housing Improvements The Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) currently owns and operates 14 public housing developments including 1 l40 units located throughout Contra Costa County. During FY 1993, the Housing Authority completed the rehabilitation and modernization of 44 public housing units occupied by low-income families in Brentwood. Improvements included bathroom and kitchen upgrades, increased handicapped accessibility, landscaping, fencing, and window and floor replacement. In addition, HACCC continued to work throughout the Authority's 14 developments, upgrading site non-dwelling buildings and dwellings as well as undertaking some Section 504 work. FY 1993 funding for this project includes federal CLAP ($3.7 million). Public Housinp,Resident Initiatives During FY 1993, HACCC continued to work with the Resident Management Committee for the Bayo Vista Public Housing Project in Rodeo to develop its capacity for homeownership opportunities under the HOPE I Program. 21 Actions to Evaluate and Reduce Lead-Based Paint Hazards While the County does not currently have a specific program to eliminate lead-based paint hazards, housing rehabilitation programs funded by the County through the CDBG program have been employed to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in older housing. In addition, over the past five years the HACCC has conducted a lead-based paint abatement program funded by HUD's Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program and Comprehensive Grant Program. Through these programs, most of the County's family housing developments have been abated for lead. Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing The County continues to support fair housing and housing counseling activities in order to ensure access to housing on an equal opportunity basis by all employees and residents of Contra Costa County. During FY 1993, the County allocated CDBG funds for the continued support of the following fair housing and housing counseling projects: ♦ Fair Housing Counseling- West/Central County- Shelter, Inc. received FY 1993 County CDBG funds($22,500)to continue their provision of fair housing services to residents of West and Central County. Services include: community and landlord education and outreach; counseling;tenant/landlord education and investigation of housing discrimination complaints. During FY 1993, Shelter, Inc. handled fair housing complaints involving 36 households; and provided housing counseling to 938 households, including 110 in the City of San Ramon. Additional funding includes City of San Ramon funds ($10,000). ♦ Fair Housing Counseling-East Countv - Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI) received FY 1993 County CDBG funds ($30,000)to continue their provision of fair housing and housing counseling services to residents of East County. Services include: verification of housing discrimination complaints and referral to appropriate enforcing agencies; and community outreach and education to ensure that County residents are aware of their right to equal housing opportunities. During FY 1993, PCSI assisted a total of 1487 households in the Urban County, at least half of which were low or very-low income; including 20.fair housing cases involving discrimination against households based on their ethnic status, disability, or the presence of children. Other funding sources for this project include the Cities of Walnut Creek ($5,000) and Pittsburg ($25,000) in Contra Costa County, and the City of Fairfield ($21,300), in Solano County, and HUD ($25,000). ♦ Fair Housing Legal Services Project - A program to provide legal services to clients experiencing discrimination in housing in the Urban County operated by Contra Costa Legal Services Corporation (CCLSC) received County FY CDBG funds ($22,500). This project includes: legal services required to litigate housing discrimination complaints on behalf of residents of the Urban County; back-up legal assistance for the County's fair housing programs; and training and education in housing discrimination issues for fair 22 ' • . • housing counselors. Both Shelter, Inc. and PCSI refer clients to CCLSC for legal mediation and/or litigation of housing discrimination cases. Additional funds for this project are provided by the State Bar of California through the Legal Services Trust Fund Program. During FY 1993, CCLSC provided legal services and referrals concerning fair housing issues to 3,000 households. ASSESSMENT OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE As demonstrated by the preceding discussion, Contra Costa County, participating cities, affordable housing developers, and homeless housing and service providers are malting progress in alleviating affordable housing needs in the Urban County. The County met its affordable housing goal for FY 1993: a total of 888 very-low and low-income households received housing assistance through the use of federal resources, including 765 very-low income households and 123 low-income households„(see Table 1). However, the distribution of assistance between owners and renters was somewhat different than anticipated. Specifically, the County exceeded its goal for assisting low-income owners by over 200 percent, while achieving only 60 percent of its goal for assisting renters. This was due in part to a lower than anticipated increase in the number of Section 8 certificates and vouchers allocated to the County and higher than expected activity in the owner-occupied housing rehabilitation and weatherization loans programs. 23 . . l T _ N C) Lrl% Q, ? CO c0 N O, • M M t� c c • M ; O, b O M Cp O• H CO GO CO .0 O, -T M M A } O N N M O .--1 •r1 tL N .--I UIN r1 .-1 m cc .0 CD IM 10 ca J w 10 ENZ— �n ^ O o e o m W O w 4-4 4-4 O a m O � � row o n E o_. CO i ro Co CO 0m cl)Q m LL 2 Q m y CD m � N ml ♦ �O p A � U o E cop oU 00 O O c; m $ CO ca w E cce o U 3 cc i o m�1. �+ c m. ro C u _ S9 o c M co m .0 o o C b ro 10 C E cn m"" n � r` O n� 010 a) 3 a O a) e g m E N o� m •r1 a) 4J m o a � m 'fl O = o c , ;• ro -�i-d H Z y W o O m m E O> m '> m a) ca a m'0, O>N O= O r\ to N = w .� Sa C�N.M UO o. ro LOi E lo, oe C m m = I\ 00 m e y CO a) O C � a) a O •d ro Tn `m Q e O 4j y U .� >, La a) U c O v = c m N w U 3 i' 3 f-+ _xIL = 0 m � m m r m—' E r O o co ra rn coC4U)i a o a°) °• • 0 � Q)) _r_ b\ U .- .� � o .Z o F 3 L 3 w $4 W I U W I 4jc C �,._ 10 Q) •� .-a a, >,o a r1 C"-H '� v aU m0 CD 3 Q\ M M cn O a) O w > cn i O U m m 0. 0 o U = o LL M .-� a) v� a) it cc a)M C r-I H Gm E wEv N M .. >�I C Na C c0in OU y aroi W.. a) C SdON 00UO] �O w m U C~ a) crn a) " g m, w a) cc .° O m w 1 o W o 3 m w ^ - ° Ir")4.) .o cc y, m c' I o x x .° 'O a� o ¢ E �1 14 4.4 N M m 04 r-) - -H w a ccoo •r-I Cro 4O p CD CO m r m o Cm .c QO 0 >,-H O m m 0 11:110 t o a �¢ j .0 w .c v v ro a) a) 4J O r1 ro C C] r` 01 O .O 9,' w -r1 rl Q.y ri x � '>:s .� •r1 � 'b T M N .O o O 3 W $4 � m a) c0 •r1 4J +—I 4 � a° N N t 0 a) W 0 m GD sa E a) W r-1 •r1 CO U �+ `c >,r-1 4J 4J U a) C a) O >`+ a U W f] .� m .0 m CD C 4j -I r-I r-I U H .^ .L� 'c� C O c0 w ,0. r O°m E v € U W Q) 0) �Q = ww m m � GO w O W I— ro U m m m ._ O O O O m .-I U) U) O O W O -.1 b a) C U O m N -� ¢ J¢ a .t; a) w y .- 4 >,•.I •rl w cc b r- CL mr� m e o Z $4 M v H CO U W C M M w E 4J O N U E m°m O O O O A y' 0 U '�,C d0•r1 C O1 a) O •r1 .0 w O c -r1 41 •r1 010 o r-4 $4 $4 3 a m¢ m a a) C •rib H w Ca .y w 'b b G ro CU"�Ccq off a U w F' 7; •b co a v = y m — 0 .0 co ro x n to C s-+ W .--I U)- "o �' m ro A-) O co Ir •r1 a) no _4 Z.) o cc$ 0 r E--=!;:-. $ E � r•i m Ga.O U E r� •r1 > C co •ri r O n ro 'H 'H U O m ca a) •r1 C a) a) m E f- � U �� o N N u, a) camCCU Q)cna �, 3 O m cora CD uw cm 0 CL m � > ca cc U) Cl o ro o o 11 ° CDjL 2] v 'b C6 .Sr m e ^ e: e eca 00 oLL IoM cm0M LL o^ m 2 Uap` IUM IU _— v c + m c Q S d 5 $ m 3 ° ca° 3 \ ;N E r I n I ; O 7 C/) d cE o 00 0 0 + UI 7 O J O J{!7 •J m J m Q U = � E ~� E O 0 ? N N Q 24 APPENDIX A LEGAL NOTICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY _ COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY FY 1993 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT Notice is Hereby Given That: (1)In accordance with the requirements of Title I of the National Affordable Housing Act(the Act),Contra Costs County and the Consortium Cities of Concord and Walnut Creek have prepared individual Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS)Annual Performance Reports(APR)for the Urban County,the City of Concord,and the City of Walnut Creek,respectively. The Urban County includes all of Contra Costs County with the exception of the Cities of Antioch,Concord,Richmond,and Walnut Crcck The APR contains a discussion of.public and private resources made available for affordable housing development in the Urban County during FY 1993;investments and affordable housing activities undertaken;and numbers of households and persons receiving housing assistance. As required by the Act,each jurisdiction must submit an APR to the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval. (2)Copies of the proposed APRs are.available for public review at the following locations: Senior Housing Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 5th Floor,North Wing Martinez CA 94553 Housing Program Analyst City of Concord Department of Housing and Community Services 1950 Parkside Drive,MS/27 Concord CA 94519 Housing Specialist City of Walnut Creek Community Development Department 1666 North Main Street 2nd Floor Walnut Creek CA 94596 (3)Citizens wishing to comment on.-the proposed APRs are invited to submit written comments to the appropriate referenced individuals at the addresses above. Comments must be received no later than December 23 for consideration in the current APR- James PRJames Kennedy,Deputy Director,Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency To be published November 23 , 1993. a:e1izldha+Ugm13.doc 25 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS As indicated in Section I of this report, the County did not receive any oral or written public comments on the draft CHAS Annual Performance Report—FY 1993. 26