HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06141994 - TC.1 C .
....
Contra
- Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DATE: June 13 , 1994
SUBJECT: Report on Status of County' s Measure C-1988 Compliance Checklist
for 1993-94
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Reaffirm the Board's approval of the Compliance Checklist
for 1993-94 (Checklist) and the finding that the County' s
policies and programs conform to the requirements for
compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement
and Growth Management Program;
2 . Request staff from GMEDA and County Counsel attend the June
15th meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(Authority) when the County's Checklist is considered for
approval; and
3 . Recommend that the Authority include the following policy in
Resolution #94-02-G which the Authority is considering for
adoption on June 15, 1994 : No Findings of Noncompliance
shall be issued for a formerly approved checklist based on
an interpretation of a jurisdictions ' policies that was
dictated after the checklist was submitted to the Authority.
FISCAL IMPACT
Failure to maintain compliance with the Measure C-1988
Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program will
prevent the County from receiving its Fiscal Year 1993-94
allocation of Measure C-1988 "return to source" revenues,
estimated at $1, 39.0, 651.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) : Gayle Bishop Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON JUN 4 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED JUN 14 1994
Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 6-2134
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Community Development Director THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works Director AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
GMEDA AA
CCTA (via CDD) BY�4124aAL� ��� , DEPUTY
Status Report on County' s Measure C-1988 Compliance Checklist
June 13, 1994
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Transportation Committee provides this report to inform the Board of the
status of the County' s Measure C-1988 Compliance Checklist for 1993-94
(Checklist) , which will be before the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(Authority) on June 15, 1994.
On April 19, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved the subject Checklist,
found the County' s policies and programs in conformance with the requirements
for compliance with Measure C-1988, and forwarded the Checklist to the
Authority for their approval and allocation of $1, 390, 651 in Return-to-Source
funds collected during Fiscal Year 1993-94 .
On June 1, 1994 , the Authority's Planning and Governmental Affairs (PGA)
Committee reviewed the County' s Checklist along with a report of the
Transportation Partnership Advisory Committee (TPAC) on the County' s
Checklist and the County staff response to the TPAC report. After
considerable discussion, the PGA Committee, forwarded the County' s Checklist
to the Authority without a recommendation. Following the meeting of the PGA
Committee, Authority staff prepared the enclosed report regarding the
County's Checklist (see Exhibit A) , which will be reviewed by the Authority
when it considers the Checklist for approval.
The PGA Committee Report summarizes the tentative judgement for the East Bay
Municipal Utility District' s Dougherty Valley lawsuit, setting aside the EIR,
the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan for the Dougherty Valley. The
report acknowledges that the lawsuit is not resolved in that the County has
requested reconsideration by the Court and could appeal this ruling.
The Report notes that the performance standards for parks is not being met,
but will be achieved through implementation of the County' s 5-year Capital
Improvement Program as permitted by Measure C-1988.
Authority staff recommends a discussion of the policy issues by the Authority
and a determination of with options to pursue. Three options are listed
below:
1. Approve the checklist by setting deadlines for the County to achieve
program requirements as a condition for allocating funds.
2 . Request additional information, such as an audit of a specific checklist
question, and postpone checklist approval to a future date.
3 . Issue a Finding of Non-Compliance.
The PGA Committee Report does not specify what Measure C-1988 program
requirement is not being achieved by the County's checklist, or what
Checklist question should be audited. It is unclear if the County' s
compliance hinges on the 1992-93 Checklist, the 1993-94 Checklist, or both.
Be aware that no additional information has been requested of the County by
Authority staff since the PGA Committee meeting.
If the Dougherty Valley lawsuit judgement stands, and it is applied by the
Authority to the 1992-93 Checklist or the 1993-94 Checklist, the County will
be held to an interpretation of County policy that did not exist at the time
the policy was applied to the General Plan Amendments covered by the
Checklists. No jurisdiction should be held accountable for a decision based
on a standard that did not exist at the time the decision was made. The
Board found the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment consistent with the
policies and programs of the County's Growth Management Element, based on its
interpretation of that Element in 1992 . The interpretation of the Element as
dictated in the lawsuit was not known until 1994.
The Transportation .Committee recommends the Authority establish a policy
protecting jurisdictions from a Finding of Non-Compliance based on standards
established after submittal of a checklist. This policy should be
incorporated into Resolution #94-02-G regarding allocation of Measure C-1988
Return-to-Source revenues, which will be considered by the Authority at the
June 15th meeting as well (See Exhibit B) .
E MIBIT A
CCTA PGA COMMITTEE June 1, 1994
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S 1993-'94 GROWTH
MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE
ALLOCATION OF $1,390,651 IN MEASURE C LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND
IMPROVEMENT FUNDS BASED UPON REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF ITS 1993-'94
CHECKLIST.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES: PGA forwarded Contra Costa County's 1993- 94 Checklist to the
Authority without a recommendation for approval. The Transportation Partnership Advisory
Committee (TPAC) has forwarded comments on the checklist for discussion. A recent court
decision raises questions concerning County Compliance with the Growth Management
Program.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Authority review the County's 1993294 Compliance
Checklist and consider potential allocation of $1,390,651 for Contra Costa.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: A total of $6.9 million is available for Fiscal Year (FY) 1993-
'94. Allocations to individual jurisdictions will be in accordance with the attached table.
OPTIONS:
• The Authority may approve a checklist using the flexibility established in
Measure C to set deadlines for jurisdictions to achieve program requirements
as a condition for allocating funds.
• The Authority may request additional information, such as an audit of a
specific checklist question, and postpone a decision to a future date.
• The Authority may issue a Findings of Non-Compliance to jurisdictions found
out of compliance with the Growth Management Program.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Background report.
• Allocation of funds for FY 1993-94.
• Contra Costa County:
Checklist Summary
Chronological list of General Plan Amendments since 1/29/91
TPAC comments (includes news clippings on Dougherty Valley)
Contra Costa County's Response to TPAC comments
BACKGROUND:
PGA forwarded Contra Costa County's 1993-'94 Annual Compliance Checklist to the
Authority for discussion of potential allocation of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement
funds without a recommendation for approval. Staff noted that the Authority's Checklist
does not cover issues which have resurfaced as a result of a recent court decision, and were
raised at the July 1993 PGA meeting regarding the County's compliance with the Growth
Management Program at that time. The Authority did decide, after extensive deliberations,
to approve the County's FY 1992-93 Checklist. During PGA's review of the County's 1992-
93 Checklist, TPAC raised issues concerning the County's approval of the Dougherty Valley
General Plan Amendment, noting that development of the plan would result in violations of
traffic level of service standards and performance standards for public services, especially
water, adopted in the Growth Management Element of the County's General Plan.
A recent Superior Court ruling renders the Dougherty Valley General Plan
Amendment and EIR invalid on the basis that water provisions for the full development were
not adequately addressed in the EIR. The County has asked for reconsideration and a
possible appeal may also follow.
Last year, the County responded to the concerns raised by stating that mechanisms
were in place to review incremental project approvals for consistency with traffic and
performance standards, including water. County staff indicated that County policy requires
project applicants to prove that both traffic and performance standards could be met before
any project approvals would be granted. The Authority's Annual Compliance Checklist is
oriented to the General Plan, and does not specifically address whether performance
standards have been met for individual project approvals.
Superior Court Ruling: EBMUD (plaintiff) vs. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
(Defendant)
The recent court ruling could change how jurisdictions need to address achievement of
performance standards for public services, especially water provisions, in their general plan
and amendments. While the County had previously argued that mechanisms were in place in
the Growth Management Element to the General Plan to assure that no new development
could occur unless standards were met, the court ruling implies that a more comprehensive
planning approach is in order.
The court ruled that:
• the County's actions, when they approved the General Plan Amendment and the
Specific Plan for the Dougherty Valley Project, amounted to approval of a project.'
'Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate No. C 93-00235, Filed May 26, 1994. Page 13.
r1s:ccta:june94:ctybrd.itr Page 2
• it may not be necessary to make . . . "a quantitative analysis of water supply, but at a
minimum the EIR should contain documentation sufficient to generate a reasonable
belief that there is a present means of obtaining adequate water for the project."'
Because the EIR lacks substantial evidence that an adequate supply of water for the
Dougherty Valley Project could be provided, the EIR was set aside.'
• there was little evidence in the record to show that a tiered EIR approach would solve
the water shortfall.' Consequently, the EIR was set aside.'
• without assurance of an adequate water supply, the County's General Plan was
internally inconsistent. Therefore, the County's approval of the General Plan
Amendment and the Specific Plan for Dougherty Valley were set aside.6
Response to Section 3 of the Checklist regarding achievement of performance standards
It is further noted that the County has indicated on its checklist that the performance
standards for parks is not currently being met, but that implementation of the 5-year CIP will
result in achievement of the performance standard for par':s. This is acceptable from the
standpoint of compliance with the Growth Management Program. Measure C includes
provisions for meeting the standards by incorporation of financed projects that are included
in the jurisdiction's CIP.
Staff recommends a thorough discussion of the policy issues by the Authority, and a
determination of which options to pursue at the meeting. Staff also seeks direction
concerning any additional information on refinements deemed appropriate by the Authority.
'ibid, page 16.
3ibid. Page 27
'ibid. Page 16
'ibid. Page 27.
6ibid. Page 27.
rls:=JuneA:aybrd.l[r Page 3
S/- 3
L
U
� S a
vL . aLp
U w
� z
U
U
O
a U
o z
U O ...
E.., M tT ON � N t` w co N 00 V7 co t- V'> V)
tT [r O M v M �p tT W) p oo M M p to V t— M M
K Q �p O o0 N V7 C � N N O N O� V7 M O O� O 00 t w t w
4 O� V Q N On, p ��pp tT tT N �p N O V9 .�. w
8 .N. tT M O O �D N a0 �O O �O �G W M O�
to — r- M N N N N M N %0 M
W �+ fr9 K i9 i9 69 fA K K K K 4, K ifi i9 K K
J
Q
Q F
� � UpOGQ
a vaA
v Q
a
e
a
QEF
as p4
a
oy G
v in
o 41 y
O y $ o = •w o w cif •e ,a o acc
ti
o
I ca
� C L O o .0
co 3
x
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST SUMMARY FY 1993-94
Overall Finding: Complies
According to the County's Checklist, the following findings have been made.
1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (GME): Complies. General Plan (GP) amendments were approved
that could have an impact on the jurisdiction's ability to implement Growth Management standards and policies;
however the amendment process included a review of consistency with policies and programs of the GME and other
GP elements.
2. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARDS: Complies. Traffic impact studies were conducted
on development projects generating more than 100 peak hour trips. Reporting intersections meet LOS standards: 11
.intersections were measured, and no intersections were subject to Findings of Special Circumstances.
3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: Complies, provided 5-year CEP is implemented. The jurisdiction
indicated Jt is not in compliance with its adopted performance standards. However, the jurisdiction indicated their
intent to take action to comply with the standards within the next five years by implementing a five-year CIP for park
facility standard.
4. DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PROGRAM: Complies. The jurisdiction has implemented previously
adopted policies to ensure that Measure C cunding will not replace development's share of infrastructure costs. The
jurisdiction is participating in the Authority's Regional Transportation Mitigation Program.
5. COOPERATIVE, MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING: Complies. The jurisdiction regularly
participated in RTPC meetings; the jurisdiction's representative to the RTPC regularly reported to the council on
RTPC activities; and the jurisdiction made land use and traffic data available for the countywide model.
6. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: Complies. A five-year CIP was adopted on 8/4/92
for County 1993 Road Improvement Program FY 92/93 - FY 98/99 and a five year CIP was adopted on 4/19/94 for
Parks and Sheriff Facilities 1994-1999. The CIP includes a financing mechanism for funding of transportation
projects and public facilities.
7. HOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES: Complies. The jurisdiction developed an
implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels through Resolution 91-68 on
1/29/91. Efforts to address housing options and job opportunities are addressed in the GP..The Housing Element
meets the requirements of State Law; and the jurisdiction's Housing Element has been judged by HCD to be in
compliance with State law.
8. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Complies.
TSM ordinance #92-31 adopted on 4-21-92
9. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT: Complies.
The jurisdiction meets the maintenance of effort requirements of Measure C.
10. POSTING OF SIGNS: Complies.
The jurisdiction posted signs in accord with specifications by the CCTA for projects funded in whole
or in part by Measure C exceeding $250,000.
CERTIFIED BY:
Date Received: April 13, 1994
PGA Approval:
CCTA Approval:
rls\planning\cklim\cklsmfan.93
s�- s-
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 11,1)00 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.: 12M.-JA Resolution No.: 93258
Date Adopted: May 18,1993
Description: Alamo Springs General Plan Amendment-An
amendment to the Land Use Element of the County General Plan Description: Albers General Plan Amendment-An amend-
for about 148acres in the Danville area meat 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 fro �residenti
a
adopted as part of this plan amendment variety of urban land use designations to ace
and open space uses.
GPA No.: 1992-2C Resolution No.: S?/
Date Adopted: December 15,1992 GPA No.: 3-1 Resolution No.: 93/2.57
Date Adopted: May 18,1993
Description:School Facilities General PlanAmendment-An
amendment to the Public Facilities/Services Element of the Description:MorrisomHomesGeneral P/anAmendmenr-An
CotmtyGeneral Plan,specifically affecting Section 7.13-Scbools. 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 CountyGeneral 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.: 1993-ir Resolution No.: 93259
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:HousingF-lemenrGeneralPlanAmendmenr-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 tnral 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 comprebensive 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.: 1 - Resolution No.: 93/
Date Adopted: July_,1993
GPA No.: 1992-3A Resolution No.: 92/
Date Adopted: December 22,1992 Description:NorthRichmondShoreline 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
MIBIT B
PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA)
RESOLUTION #9402-G
RE: Authority policy regarding allocation of Measure C Local Street Maintenance and
Improvement Funds (18 percent) and treatment of funds withheld from
jurisdictions found to be out of compliance with the Growth Management
Program
WHEREAS, the voters of Contra Costa approved the Measure C Transportation
Improvement and Growth Management Program in November 1988; and
WHEREAS, Measure C includes a Local Street Maintenance and Improvements Program
where funds are returned to local jurisdictions on a formula basis for local, subregional and
regional transportation projects as determined by cities and the county, including street and
road mabitenance and/or transit improvements; and
WHEREAS, Mea, ure C Local Street Maintenance and Improvements funds shall be
allocated annually to each jurisdiction, provided that the CCTA finds the jurisdiction to be in
compliance with the Growth Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the CCTA adopted the Growth Management Implementation Documents in
December 1990 which included an annual compliance checklist for the determination of local
jurisdiction compliance with the Growth Management Program; and
WHEREAS, Measure C states that "Because of the great variations among the jurisdictions,
it is expected that the Authority will need some flexibility in determining compliance with the
Growth Management Program. Generally this flexibility may take the form of the Authority
setting deadlines for achieving one or more requirements as a condition of receiving local
street maintenance and improvement funds;"
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the CCTA hereby adopts the following
policies for the allocation of Measure C Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and the
treatment of funds withheld from jurisdictions found to be out of compliance with the Growth
Management Program:
O
'ate Ai 11 nfi': : ''astnl tits fihe Alro v M
e l#' asca Jurisdictions are eligible to receive 18 percent funds on April 1 of
each f scab year and the CCTA retains the funds until a jurisdiction comes into
compliance with the Growth Management Program. To comply with the Growth
Management Program a jurisdiction must submit a compliance checklist and the
Authority must approve that checklist.
(2) Jurisdictions will be given until June 30th of the year following the year that the
checklist is issued to submit their completed checklist tetxeo ''' '" 5 to
P
the CCTA. If a jurisdiction has not submitted their checklist S e�MM::
mjw:wpfi1es\res9402
Resolution ##94-02-G
June 15, 1994
Page 2
a ' by that date, they will be found out of compliance. For jurisdictions that do
submit their checklist and are found out of compliance, the CCTA would issue a
Findings of Noncompliance stating the reason for noncompliance and the deadline for
curing the defects in the jurisdictions checklist. If a jurisdiction submits their
checklist in advance of the June 30th date and is found out of compliance, in no case
shall the deadline for compliance be before the June 30th date.
� res shallssl: :a< e >a ez :urisd�€ctc 'sCaun >3ad
:: :::::::::::::::::.::.::::...:.::::.::::::::.:::::.::::::::::::.::.:::::.PP:::::::.::::::::... :::::::::::I.: ::::::.::.::::::::.::::.:::.::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
1 �udut > a.. : assem Ic : + t #
1P :::::::.::...
ani :€� rQ ase�:s�hedule�ttitn�tt� of��� 1rowth Ma�a::'.'.'.:..:.;::::
�nc��cat�n >:� : :rtiva ;: ;; neect �rnr;rev. t >:
(3) After FY 1991-92 annual gaps in compliance would be permissible; however,
jurisdictions would not be eligible to receive 18 percent funds for years that they are
not found in compliance with the Growth Management Program.
(4) After expiration of a compliance deadline, a jurisdictions 18 percent funds will be
reallocated among all complying jurisdictions for that fiscal year, based upon the
Measure C road mileage and population allocation formula.
(5) No interest will be accrued to local jurisdictions on behalf of their unallocated funds.
6 ' `` h i
( ) response forte y 2�pp aved ec t
.pave d t .a;Findings on Noncompliance, an
t edition continues theC' 'Awll issuenrfrngs. onCctrnplutrrce for the
�......
current fiscal year, and current and future year allocations will be withheld until the
#� cis corrected. No retroactive action will be taken.
This RESOLUTION was entered into at a
meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Joel Keller, Chair
Authority hello > . 99 in Walnut Creek, California
Attest:
Robert K. McCleary, Executive Director
Resolution 94-02-G
mjw:wpfi1es\res9402