Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03141995 - 1.41 t i ;Y Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Costa FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, - County Director of Community Development DATE: March 14, 1995 SUBJECT: Annual Compliance Checklist and Capital Improvement Program for Measure C - 1988 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the proposed 1995-1999 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (see Exhibit A) ; 2 . Adopt the 1995-1999 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 qualify the County to receive its 1995/96 allocation of Measure C-1988 "return to sou-1-11 revenues, estimated to be approximately $1.4 million. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMEN ATION BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) ACTION OF BOARD ON MR 14 19 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ✓ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A V--1-, 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 {. i�00 Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 6-2134 cc: Community Development Director PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF CCTA (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY9914 , DEPUTY a Annual Compliance Checklist and CIP for Measure C-1988 March 14, 1995 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The County annually submits 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 $7 million in "return-to-source" funds available countywide for Fiscal Year 1995/96, the County is eligible to receive $1.4 million. Two related actions must precede completion and submittal of the Checklist: 1) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed 1995-1999 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 1995-1999 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 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 the CIP could have a significant effect on the environment. The 1995-1999 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B) was prepared as part of the County'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 1995 and 1999 will satisfy the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. The Development Mitigation Program that demonstrates 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 . As of February 1995, all basic routes in the!+; unincorporated area operate at Level of Service A or B and satisfy the County 'traffic performance standards. Projects in the County Road Improvement Program will maintain compliance with traffic performance standards in the unincorporated area in the future based on near-term growth forecasts. The County Road Improvement Program is being revised to cover the 1995/96 to 2000/01 time period and will be submitted to the Board of its review and adoption in April or May. 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 1995 allocation of "return to source" funds. EXHIBIT A DETERMINATION THAT AN ACTIVITY IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FILE NO. CP 95-21 ACTIVITY NAME: Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program: Capital Improvements Program for Parks and Sheriff Facilities PREPARED BY: Steven L. Goetz DATE: March 2. 1995 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: March 2, 1995 Reviewed by: Community Development De-part Representative EXHIBIT B Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program 1995-1999 Capital Improvements Program for Provision of Parks and Sheriff Facilities Prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department February 1995 f I. INTRODUCTION This document is Contra Costa County's Capital Improvement 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 "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.' Section II of the CIP reviews the performance standards which were established by the County's Growth Management Element in the 1991 Countywide General Plan and describes the status of County's compliance with these standards a.3 of December 1994. Because the CIP is based on a five-year horizon, 1995-1999, growth estimates for that time period are presented in Section Ill. Based on the estimated population growth, the analysis describes the facilities needed to meet the performance standards set forth in the Growth Management Element. Sections IV and V describe the projects, their estimated costs, and the funding mechanism covered in the CIP. II 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 sheriff services facility standard is 155 square feet of station per 1,000 population. The standard for parks is set at three :;acres of Neighborhood Parks 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 here are elaborated upon in more detail in the County General Plan's Growth Management Element. The standards are established for the entire unincorporatedarea. Because there is no requirement for analyzing separate sub-areas within the County, the discussion and analysis are at a countywide basis. The unincorporated area grew by an estimated 13,197 people between January, 1991 and December, 1994; the time period that the growth management performance standards have been in effect. Sheriff Facilities: To meet the performance standard for sheriff facilities for 1994, the County would need to have constructed 2,046 square feet of facilities for patrol and investigative services. The West County Justice Center was completed in 1992. This facility provides approximately 6,680 square feet of floor space for patrol and investigative services. Construction of the West County Justice Center ensured that 1 the County complies with the adopted performance standard for sheriff facilities during the 1994 calendar year, and provides an additional 4,634 square feet of building area available to meet the standard during the five-year period covered by the CIP. Parks: To meet the performance standard for parks for 1994, the County would need to have constructed 40 acres of neighborhood parks. Since January 1991, the County has opened 25.7 acres of new park facilities that meet the neighborhood park classification. See the Appendix for a description of these park facilities. The County did not comply with the performance standard for neighborhood parks during the 1994 calendar year, falling 14.3 acres short of the adopted standard. III POPULATION ESTIMATES Table 1 is a summary of the growth projections between 1991 to 1999 for the unincorporated area. This table shows actual growth that occurred since adoption of the County's Growth Management Element as well as the projected increase in population during the five-year period of the CIP. The population forecast is based on ABAG's Projections 94, as adjusted by the Community Development Department to reflect the growth recorded in the unincorporated area between 1991 and 1994. This forecast is higher compared to the forecast used in last year's CIP, where a population increase of 26,690 was projected for the 1991-1999 time period. Last year's forecast was based on Projections 92 which used slightly lower assumptions for household growth and persons per household in the unincorporated areas. TABLE 1 ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH IN UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA SINCE ADOPTION OF THE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Area 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1991-1994 1995-1999 1991-1999 East County 1,326 1,462 1,451 1,451 2,560 2,560 2,560 2,560 2,560 5,691 12,802 18,493 Central County 1,323 3,397 756 1,262 1,554 1,554 1,554 1,554 1,554 6,739 7,770 14,509 West County 197 259 120 192 167 167 167 167 167 767 834 1.601 TOTAL 2,847 5,118 2,327 2,905 4,281 4,281 4,281 4,281 4,281 13,197 21,406 34,603 f IV FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR SHERIFF FACILITIES The adopted.performance standard of sheriff facilities would require the County to construct 3,340 square feet of additional station area to accommodate the estimated population increase for the unincorporated area. The station area capacity provided by'the West County Justice Center provides 4,634 square feet of additional station area to meet this need during the 1995 to 1999 time period. No additional construction of station area facilities are needed to satisfy the performance standard. Fees are currently in place for new development in the unincorporated area to provide ongoing support for sheriff operations. The fees do not cover additional capital facilities which may be needed in the future due to new development. The Sheriff has prepared a facility master plan for 86,000 square feet of new facilities as part of the County Administrative Center on Muir Road and Glacier Drive in Martinez. These facilities represent a replacement and expansion of existing facilities located elsewhere in the County. The portion of the master plan related to the performance standard, a 20,000 square foot Patrol and Investigation Building, was completed in 1989. The Board of Supervisors is working with the Sheriff to replace the East County sheriff substation in Oakley as part of the redevelopment project area. Replacement costs have not been fully identified and the role of any development fee to fund expansion of the substation has not been determined. V FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR PARKS The adopted performance standard for parks requires the County to construct 65 acres of neighborhood parks to accommodate the estimated population increase for the unincorporated area. This acreage is in addition to the 14.3 acre deficit needed for past population growth. Table 2 describes the improvement program for parks for the 1995-1999 time period. This program provides for the construction of over 83 acres of parks, meeting the 79.3 acre need identified in the CIP. Parks are financed largely by park dedication fees assessed against new development in the unincorporated area. These fees amount to $1,350 per dwelling unit in eastern Contra Costa and $2,000 per dwelling unit elsewhere. County regulations allow these fees to be satisfied through direct payments, dedication of land, or'•dedication of improved park to the County. Unless otherwise indicated, the parks shown in Table 2 occur on County-owned parcels or land dedicated by developers to the County. Costs are for park improvements only. 1 rn o00 rn 60 r- L r r rn o 00 0 O) N M I%- N f� O O O O O O N N r OOi 00 O � O 0 r r (V 10 r LO 00000000 O Lf) 11 M �D VO r C7 O r N G to U-) to LO a LO to co co o o 00 00 o O) 0) O O O) O) rn 0 O) 0) C) rn O) 0 0 O) O) O) O CD yrn W 00 O) 0000000) O) 00) 00) N O U J w v N 0 0 �t C) ►A O -4 uO to m O M to h- h M m C O N N r d 0) O r V (D V O C st P.: er Q2 o r r coClM !- Q E 0 O U � U Y It Qa C yN 'o00140) u) Oet0Log0g0 - I'. � Q � N N r 'qf 0) 0 V (D V 0 — It rl- IC t O 0 LL V "a fl "a O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O E -F= -F= -F= -E -F= -F= E £ E -F= f -E -E -E -E a �-' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O QLinLLLLLLLLL .0m mm V .0 L L L L L L L L L L t L L L = LZj J O a)US a) .O O a) .d a) P a) a) .Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z H Z Z Z Z W O a ti 0 m` cc _ � a 4) Cc Q caa o U) Q a� ~ — � r = N "0a U v Co v) ofc 0 _ Win. oQ c - rn v oa °0 N 0) 0 . a mY� `� ` o ' Y 0 eau Baa oaa o c0 `� -aU > 11 H E O o f a) 0 0 3 C 0N0 c as �c o- E v m o E cm o � 3 c 3 � L c4 3 � 0 0) cv �v � - > oowmcooa) ocn_ � o � o11a r 0- 0 ¢ Ua. :_10m -i -12 in > woIcnm3 1 lZill 0 APPENDIX A PARK CONSTRUCTION SINCE ADOPTION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Acres for Total Growth Mgmt Park Description Acres Compliance Completion Montalvin Park Neighborhood 7.0 7.0 1991 Montara Ball Fields Rehabilitation 4.0 0.0 1991 Heather Park Neighborhood 0.3 0.3 1992 Marie Porter Park Neighborhood 2.0 2.0 1993 Crockett Park Neighborhood 4.5 4.5 1994 Vintage Park Neighborhood 6.0 6.0 1994 EI Sobrante Regional 100.0 0.0 1994 Hap McGee Park (City/County) Neighborhood 12.0 6.0 1994 Rolph Park Rehabilitation 3.0 0.0 1994 TOTAL 138.75 25.75 EXHIBIT C CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Jurisdiction Growth Management Program Gmtra ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Costa Year This checklist is required to be submitted to the CCTA for the receipt of 18% Local Street Maintenance and Improvement funds beginning in FY 1992-93 and every year 1995 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? ❑ ❑ If the answer to 1-b is yes, did the amendment process include a review of consistency with Yes No policies and programs of the Growth Management Element and other General Plan 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? 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. ❑ 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 Significance. All questions in this section assume that procedures and-analysis implemented by the jurisdiction are in substantial conformity with procedures described in the Implementation Guide: Traffic Level of Service Standards and Programs for Routes of Regional Significance. 2-a. Over the past year, have traffic impact studies been conducted as part of the application Yes No review process for all development projects estimated to generate more than 100 peak-hour ❑ ❑ vehicle trips? * General Plan Amendments considered in 1994 are described in Attachment A. f. Page 2 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Check ist 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 0 made)? (Please note the number of Reporting Intersections at which each condition applies.) Ntimber 2.b.1 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 0 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. See the Action: Plans for WCCTAC, TRANSPAC and TRANSPLAN for descriptions of TSOs and Actions for Action Plans affecting Regional Routes in the unincorporated area that were adopted in 1994. Actions Implemented None in the past year. Action Plans were not adopted until December •1994. 2-e. Has the jurisdiction implemented all Regional Route Action Plans 1 Page 3 Jurisdietiou Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority199 5 Growth Management Program Annual Compliance CbeeWist lbt Yes Ib 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 Pian 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 Anached Applicable a way not indicated by this checklist, marls here and attach an ❑ 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❑ fr Park Standard 3-b. If the answer to 3-a:is no, what action does the jurisdiction intend to take to comply with the standards within the next five years? Implement five-year CIP x Other 3-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C Explanation Explanatio NDt relative to performance standards have been satisfied in a way not Attached n Attached Apo icable indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑ x 1 Page 4 ,jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority JContra Cost 1995 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 ❑ 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. The County is participating on the Regional Committees through which the County's participation in CCTA-sponsored regional mitigation programs can be assured. 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 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 No meetings of the Regional Transportation Planning Committee or ® ❑ other forums established by the CCTA? 5-b. Over the past year, have the local representatives to the Regional Yes No Transportation Planning Committee regularly reported on the a ❑ activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or board? 5-c. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the Yes No countywide transportation computer model, data on land use and ❑ ❑ traffic patterns? 5-d. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not to cooperative multi:jurisdictional planning have been satisfied in a Attached Applicable way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an ❑ Q explanation. 1 v Page 5 JurLsdictioo Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority 995 Contra Cost 19 Growth Management Program Annual 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)? Weriff ❑If yes, date of adoption or most recent update -f the CIP for Parks & I s facilities 1995-199 Resolution # larch 14, 1995, County Road Improvement Program 1992/93 — 1998/99 6-b.. Does the CIP include a financing plan that identifies general financing Yes No 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 . Q ❑ 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 n ❑ 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 8/92, Contra Costa County FY 1995 Action Plan (Housing Program), 2/95 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? ❑ ❑ 1 Page 6 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority Contra Cost 1995 Growth Management 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 (pl.,a-e 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 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 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) (1)] Reference: 7A-c.4 A Resolution by your jurisdiction finding the Housing Element Yes No is substantially in compliance with State Law? 0 Resolution g" f Page 7 Jurisdiction Year Contra costa Transportation Authority Contra Costal 1 1995 Growth Management Program Annual Compliance Checklist Ij 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. If the answers to questions 7A-c.1 through 7A-c.4 are all 'YES% then continue with question 7-e. 1 1 7-d. In order to promote;more efficient use of the transportation system, Yes No has the jurisdiction evaluated its land use plans in relation to ❑ ❑ transportation demand, and, in that context, discussed in its adopted General Plan effortsto address housing options and job opportunities in the jurisdiction, the subregion and the County? !f'YES', go to 7-e. # 'NO', go to 7A-d. Text pages: 5-9 to 5-13 Policy g 3-1 to 3-4 2-19 to 2-21 ff 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 1 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. See Attachment B. 7-f. 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. 1 Page 8 Jurisdiction Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority lContra Cost 1995 Growth Managemeut Program Annual Compliance Cbectdist S. 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 11 94-27 Date of Adoption 4-19-94 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 # 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. ❑ o 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 0 ❑ 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 f Page 9 Jurisdictiou Year Contra Costa Transportation Authority Lontra C os 1995 Growth Managemeut Program Annual Compliance Checklist 11. AVIEANDOVAL OF CHECKLIST FOR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING a for submittal by: Directorof Communit, ve opment (Title) (5103 646-2026 Printed Name (Phone) The ovuwjiftard 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 Si nture: �(` � Date:l 1� n'5` 8n "`"T Printed Name: Gayle Bishop Title: Chair, Board of Supervisors Attest Signature: ) ! Date':W 9S Deputy Clerk Printed Name: h r � In �n—f rlsGrowthManagement:chklist93.94 3.8.94 ATTACHMENT A Response to Question is There were ten developments amended into the General Plan for the 1994 calendar year. A description of these developments follow. Two developments ; (No. 9 and No. 10) had an impact on our ability to implement standards and policies of the Growth Management Element and were ',approved in a manner to ensure consistency with that element. 1. Hopkins, (1994-1A) Allowing up to 18 dwelling units in the Crockett area. 2. Popini, (1994-1B) Allowing up to 91 dwelling units in the Oakley area. 3 . Hofmann, (1994-1C) Allowing up to 81 dwelling units in the Oakley area. 4 . Homeless Shelter (1994-1D) No net increase in vehicle trip generation. 5. Senior Housing (1994-2A) Allowing up to 52 senior housing units in the North Richmond area. 6. Fifth & Market (1994-2B) Land use change from multi-family to single familydwelling units. No net increase in vehicle trip generation. 7. Laverock Lane (1994-2C) Allowing up to six dwelling units in the Alamo area. 8. Albers - Centex (1994-2D) Land use change from commercial to 94 dwelling units in the Discovery Bay area. No net increase in vehicle trip generation. 9. Discovery Bay West (1994-2E) Land use change from agriculture to residential, parks and recreation, delta recreation, open space, public/semi-public land uses. The residential ,component requested up to 2, 134 dwelling units. Final discretionary approval granted for up to 500 dwelling units. 10. Country Club at Gale Ranch (1994-3) Land use change to: 1,214 single and multi-family residential units, an 18-hole golf course with club house and driving range, neighborhood parks, a church site, and open space. 1 ATTACHMENT B RESPONSE TO QUESTION 7-e 1. Approved General Plan Amendment (1994-2A) allowing up to 52 affordable senior housing units in the North Richmond area. 2 . Incorporated minimum affordable housing requirements for the Hofmann General Plan Amendment - Oakley (1994-1C) and the Country Club at Gale Ranch General Plan Amendment - San Ramon (1994-3) . 3. Approved General Plan Amendment (1994-1D) adding policies for the provision of housing in Contra Costa for homeless individuals and families. 4. Completed the assemblage of Area 4, Pleasant Hill BART Station Area, a high density affordable housing site. 5. Issued nearly 350 Mortgage Credit Certificates for low and moderate income first time homebuyers. 6. Initiated the Redevelopment Agency's First Time Homebuyer Program in the Bay Point and Oakley redevelopment projects. 7. March 1, 1994 action of the Board of Supervisors (Agenda Item 2 . 6) allocating $3, 661,558 in Community Development Block Grant funds, including $1,767, 000 for the development and maintenance of affordable housing opportunities in Contra Costa. 8. April 19, 1994 action of the Board of Supervisors (Agenda Item 1. 137) allocating $111, 000 in Emergency Shelter Grant funds for homeless shelter operations and services. 9. July 12, 1994 action of the Board of Supervisors (Agenda Item 1.90) allocating $200,000 in Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS funds to acquire and rehabilitate eight units of affordable housing, including four units serving low-income individuals with HIV/AIDS. 10. September 18, 1994 action by the Board of Supervisors (Agenda Item 2.2) allocating $2, 186, 000 in FY 1994 HOME investment Partnership .Act funds for affordable housing projects in Contra Costa. 11. Affordable housing projects completed in 1994 include the following: Pinole !Grove - new construction of 70 units of multifamily rental housing for very-low and low-income seniors in Pinole. Shelter, Inc. : rehabilitation of three single-family rental properties for occupancy by very-low income formerly homeless families. Las Trampas: acquisition of two 6-bed group homes for developmentally disabled adults in Central County. Marsh Creek Vista: completion of 41 single-family homes affordable to and occupied by very-low income households. Youth Homes: acquisition of a 6-bed group home for abused youth. Brookside Emergency Homeless Shelter: rehabilitation of a 56-bed emergency shelter for homeless adults in West County. Neighborhood Preservation Program: completed rehabilitation of 41 single family houses owned and occupied by low-income households. Housing Authority Rental Rehabilitation Program: completed rehabilitation of 48 multifamily rental units affordable to and occupied by low-income households.