HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03051996 - C44 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier -,
Contra
Supervisor Tom Torlakson • �/�
Finance Committee " ,til;nnu► Is
�n
DATE: March 5, 1996 �• ,,x~`40 county
OSr'4,COL1K�
SUBJECT: Compliance with the Sheriff Facility Standard Requirement of Measure C -
Transportati.on Funds
SPECIFIC REQUESTS) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
REAFFIRM the commitment of the Board of Supervisors to verify compliance with the sheriff facility
standard requirement of Measure C-1988 as part of our annual update of the County's Capital
Improvement Program and to document this compliance in the next year's checklist no later than
February 4, 1997.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
On February 26, 1996, the Finance Committee reviewed this matter with the Community Development
Department staff. Staff indicated that$1.5 million of Measure C return to source funds was in danger
of being delayed based on a draft recommendation of. the Authority's Transportation Partnership
Advisory Committee. Staff indicated.that they were working with the Sheriff to determine facility space
allocated for patrol and investigated services given the number of changes at sub-station facilities. Staff
urged that the Committee recommend that the County indicate its continued commitment to the standard
and intends to submit a detailed report in February 1997. Staff reported that.the Transportation
Authority approved a similar proposal offered by the City of Brentwood in the past.
The Committee suggested that the staff and Sheriff consider Sheriff facilities in Oakley, Discovery Bay,
Rodeo and Crockett in their review. Attached is a prior Board order with a detailed background of the
issue.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(Sj:
ACTION OF BOARD ON MA��(`H �; qq� APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT III t TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT, ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Tony Enea,6464094
ATTESTED MARCH 5, 1996
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CAO
Community Development
GMEDA BY EPUTY
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSContraFROM: Harvey E. Bragdon,
Costa
Director of Community Development - Coin/
DATE: February 6, 1996
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 1996-2000 Capital Improvement Program (C/P) for Parks and Sheriff
Facilities is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (see Exhibit A);
2. Adopt the 1996-2000 C/P 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 requirement for compliance with the Contra
Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program; and
4. Refer compliance with the sheriff services facility standard to th,e Finan.&'e Com O'itMt .
FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities and approval of the Annual Compliance Checklist
(Checklist) qualify the County to receive its 1996/97 allocation of Measure C-1988 "return to
source" revenues, estimated to be approximately $1 .5 million.
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 over $7 million in "return to source" funds available
countywide for Fiscal Year 1995/96, the County is eligible to receive $1 .5 illion.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATU
arve ragdon
ACTION OF BOARD 0111 _ APPROVED AS REC DED O HER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
IL/U/NANIMOUS (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.
Contact Person: Steven Goetz, 646-2134 ATTESTED
Orig: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOfl, CLEhk OF
cc: Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sheriff's Office AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CCTA (via CDD)
BY , DEPUTY
"Annual Compliance Checklist and CIP for Measure C-1988
February 6, 1996
Page Two
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued)
Two related actions must precede completion and submittal of the Checklist: 1) California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the proposed 1996-2000 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) for Parks and Sheriff Facilities; and 2) adoption of this CIP.
To comply with CEQA, Department staff has found pursuant to adopted County CEQA Guidelines, that
the 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 this 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 this CIP, which are as yet undefined will be subject to separate environmental review.
Under the provisions 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 for Parks and Sheriff Facilities could
have a significant effect on the environment.
The 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 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 1996 and 2000 will satisfy the performance standards for parks, but
not for sheriff facilities.
As of 1994, there was sufficient space in the West County Justice Center dedicated to patrol and
investigative services to comply with the County's performance standard to the year 2000. Last
month, however, the Sheriff's Office indicated that there have been a number of changes to the
inventory of sub-station facilities. The Department is working with the Sheriff's Office to provide a
comprehensive and verifiable accounting of these facilities. This data will be incorporated into the
1997 update of the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities.
The portion of the Development Mitigation Program that demonstrates compliance with traffic
performance standards is described in the 1993/94-2000/2001 County Road Improvement Program
adopted by the Board on June 27, 1995. Monitoring data during 1995 indicate that the reporting
intersections on "Basic Routes" in the unincorporated area operate at Level of Service A and satisfy the
County's traffic performance standard. 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. This Program also identifies improvements on Routes of Regional Significance
in a manner consistent with the County's obligations specified in the Authority's recently adopted
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
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 program 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. By so doing, the Board will also commit to cooperate with the Sheriff's
Office to conduct a comprehensive and verifiable accounting of sheriff facilities and to document
compliance with the County's performance standard in next year's update of the CIP for Parks and
Sheriff Facilities.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Failure to adopt the CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities or approve the Checklist willprevent the County
from qualifying for its Fiscal Year 1996 allocation of "return to source" funds. A delay in this decision
could cause a loss to the County in interest earnings on its 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 AR-10
ACTIVITY NAME: Contra Cnsta Cnunty DevelnDment Mitigatinn Program- Capital
Improvements Program fnr Parks and Sheriff Facilities
PREPARED BY: Steven l _ Goetz DATE: januarx 26, 1996
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: jantiaN 26,t aaf; Reviewed by:
munity Dev pment Depa ment R tentative
EXHIBIT B
Contra Costa County
Development Mitigation Program
1996-2000
Capital Improvements Program for
Provision of Parks and Sheriff Facilities
Prepared by
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
January 1996
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 transportation
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 Growth Management Element in the Contra
Costa County General Plan and describes the status of County' s
compliance with these standards as of December 1995 . Because the
CIP is based on a five-year horizon, 1996-2000, growth estimates
for that time period are presented in Section III . 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 Growth Management Element establishes standards for the
provision of certain public services in the unincorporated areas .
The standard for parks is set at three acres of neighborhood
parks per 1, 000 population. 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 .
These standards briefly described dere are elaborated upon in
more detail in the Growth Management Element. The standards 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 unincorporated area grew by an estimated 17,477 people
between January, 1991 and December, 1995, the time period that
growth management standards have been in effect .
Sheriff Facilities: To meet the growth management standard for
sheriff facilities for 1995, the County would need to have
constructed 2, 209 square feet of facilities for patrol and
investigative services. As of 1994 , there was sufficient space
1
in the West County Justice Center dedicated to patrol and
investigative services to comply with the County' s performance
standard to the year 2000 . However, the Sheriff' s Office now
indicates that there have been a number of changes to the
inventory of sub-station facilities. The Board of Supervisors is
working with the Sheriff's Office to provide a comprehensive and
verifiable accounting of these facilities. This data will be
incorporated into the 1997 update of the CIP.
Parks: To meet the growth management standard for park for 1995,
the County would need to have constructed 52 .4 acres of
neighborhood parks. Since January 1991, the County has opened
46 . 9 acres of new park facilities that meet the neighborhood park
classification. See the Appendix of the CIP for a description of
these park facilities. The County did not comply with the growth
management standard for neighborhood parks during the 1995
calendar year, falling 5.5 acres short of the adopted standard.
III. POPULATION ESTIMATES
Table l is a summary of past and projected growth between 1991 to
2000 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 the same as the forecast used in last year' s
CIP, with an annual increment of 4, 261 in population added for
the year 2000 .
TABLE 1
PAST AND PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS
11991-199511996-200011991-2000
Area 1991, 1992 19931 1994; 19951 TOTAL TOTAL, TOTAL
East County 1,326 1,462 1,451 1,4511 2,5601 8,250 12,800 21,050
Central County 1,323 3,397 756 1,2621 1,554 1 8,292 7,770 16,062
West County 197 259 120 1921 1671 935 835 1,770
TOTAL 1 2,846 1 6,118 2,327 1 2,9051 4,281 1 17,477 1 21,4061 38,882
2
IV. FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR SHERIFF FACILITIES
The adopted growth management standard of sheriff facilities
would require the County to construct 3 , 340 square feet of
additional station area to accommodate the estimated population
increase during the 1996-2000 time period.
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.
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 growth management 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 and to .construct a substation facility
in Alamo. Costs for these facilities have not been fully
identified and the role of any development fee to fund expansion
of these substations has not been determined. These financing
issues will be addressed in the 1997 update of the CIP when a
comprehensive and verifiable inventory of substation facilities
is available .
V. FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM FOR PARKS
The adopted growth management standard for parks requires the
County to construct 65 acres of neighborhood parks to accommodate
the estimated population increase during the 1996-2000 time
period. Table 2 describes the improvement program for parks for
the 1996-2000 time period. This program provides for the
construction of 70 .7 acres of .parks,, meeting the 70 .5 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.
3
oto
CU
1 N I QQ
•.. +w �p (Di CCD 00 CL ,
cn
N � QIP 8 '�;�� S N CRL
V v y► � i
� N �
vNi ZZ Z.Z.ZZZZ —IZ'ZZZ "'i
S StD 2 ;2.1%.tD ' � S��.i 2. 2• -a f7
t3D •tp tG �tG tG �tG•�t9tS.
'-• t0 ,tG Ito .tayy
N T�
10
NtT N A A V A A 0) -+ J+ A N A � ig
V O O �I V GT tJ► 4W Gn tJt O ANA � OW ( I7'1
al 4
; H
3 ±?;� O
OcrNAlaVAAt71 ' � AJA � ;�DI�y,
4 0 0 -1 V 0 0 4W O C A -4
A O
N N J J J J J J J J J J J O
OOItD,tDitO,tD•tO�tD t0�t0 tO.tD;tO d :« 7C
O I O tD t t0 t0!(D'co w
t0
..� O
W OW
g O O O O O � O
m $
0 0o m a
0 0 o V
N
p� O V O t00
�G
O 000 pD
N J J
8to
O O O V toy
N
t�
t� O
APPENDIX
PARK CONSTRUCTION SINCE ADOPTION OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Acres for
Total Growth Mgmt Completion
Park Type Acres Compliance Date
Montalvin Park Neighborhood 7.0 7.0 1991
Montara Ball Fields(Rehabilitation) Community 4.0 _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 Sorbrante Regional 100.0 - 1994
Hap McGee Park(City/County) Neighborhood 12.0 6.0 1994
Rolph Park(Rehabilitation) Neighborhood 3.0 - 1994
California Pacific Waterways Neighborhood 5.2 5.2 1995
Alamo School Park Neighborhood 2.5 2.5 1995
Clyde Park-Phase 11 Neighborhood 2.0 2.0 1995
Pleasant Hill BART Park Neighborhood 1.0 1.0 1995
Cornell Park Neighborhood 9:9 9.9 1995
Boeger Park(Caskey St) Neighborhood 0.5 0.5 1995
TOTAL I 159.9 46.9
file:parkcip.xls I I I I
5
EXHIBIT C
CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Jurisdiction
Growth Maaagemcnt Program rContra
ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
Year
'Ibis checklist is required to be submitted to the CCTA for the receipt of I S%Local
Streit Maintenance and Improvement fiords beginning in FY 1992-93 and every year 1996
sbcntter.
L GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Measure C requires tbat cub jurisdiction adopt a Growth Management Element of its General Plan that includes traffic
Level of Service(LOS) standards and performance standards for fire,polio,psrks, sanitary facilities,water and flood
control. The standards are to be applied in the development review process.
I-& Daring the past year,did the jurisdiction approve nay General Plaa amendments? Yes No
(See Attachment A) ® ❑
1-b. If the answer to I-a is yes, could=y of the amendments have an impact on the ability to Yes No
implement standards and policies of the local Growth Management Element? 0 ❑
I{. 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 elements? E) ❑
1-d. If the answer to I-c is yes,were the amendments consistent with the General Plan Growth Yes No
Management Element? ® ❑
(See Attachment A)
I-e. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to the Growth Upbundon Not
Management Element have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist.mark here Amt*A AWiable
and mach an explanation. ❑ 12
2. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Measure C requires each jurisdiction to adopt traffic Level of Service(IAS) 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 measure 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 cwrent
five-year capita) improvement program shill be considered to be in compliance, and that the CCTA,jointly with affected
local jurisdictions,shall determine and periodically review the application of standards an 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 Implementsdon Guide: TmMc Lewd_of Service Standards and Prograau
for Routes of Regional Sigaifian=
2-a. Over the past year.have traffic impact studies been conducted as part of the application Yes No
review process for al14eveloament vroiects estimated to generate more than 100 peak-bour ® ❑
vehicle trips? (see Attachment B)
2-b. Is one of the follo%ing conditions met for all Repotting Intersections within the jurisdiction Yes No
(excluding those intersections for which Findings of Special Circumstances have been ® ❑
made)?
C. .
Page 2
Jmis"on Year
Contra Cassa Thmportation Authority [Contra 7771 1 1996 71
Growth Managemrat Program An=al Compbaom COwIdist
(Please note the number of Reporting Intersections at which each condition applies.) Number
21.1 Adopted LOS standards are met based on measurement of actual conditions;
(See Attachment C)
2.b2 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
213 A request for Findings of Special Circumstances accompanies this submittal Q
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:
21.4 Total number of Reporting Intersections 15
2-c. If any intersection(s) in the jurisdiction are sutject 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 Attachment D.
AWons Implemented
See Attachment D.
C/1
Page 3
bion Year
CAWn Cana Tru"a tab0D Aab0ty Contra Costl 1 1996
Grewcb Mani®eat AoV A=nal C=ptiaaee Cbwbh t
2-e. Has the jurisdiction implemented all Regional Route Action Plans Yes No
adopted in the region,with respect to the following procedures: ❑ ❑
(a) Circulation of Environmental Doaimenu;
(b) Analysis of the impact of proposed General Plan
amendments and, as needed,proposed revision(s)to Action
Plats; and
(c) Placing conditions on project approvals consistent with
Action Plan policies.
2•f If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C &PIWA= No:
relative to traffic Level of Service standards have been satisfied in a Aaachod Applicable
way not indicated by this checklist, mark ben and attach an ❑ ❑
explanation.
3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS,
Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt and maintain performance standards for the following
urban services:
L Fire c. Parks e. Water
b. Police d. Sanitary Facilities f. Flood Control
?hese standards we 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 when
appropriate, and modify them to maintain continued applicability.
3-a Is the jurisdiction now in compliance with adopted performance Yes No
standards? ❑ ❑
3-b. If the answer to 3•a is no,what action does the jurisdiction intend to take to comply with the standards
within the next five years?
Implement five-year CIP
Other Whrking with riff's Office to verify compliance with police standard.
Compliance with this standard will be documented in next year s update of the CIF
3-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C z1obudm Not
relative to performance standards have been satisfied in a way not Aaa*ed Applieabk
indicated by this cbwkliu,mark ben and wtub an explanation. D
4. DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PROGRAM
Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt a development mitigation program to easnre that )
developn=t pays its fair share of the coats associated with that development. In addition, the Measure
requires that local jurisdictions cum that no Amds from the Measure will be used to replace private
developer funding which has been or will be committed to any project.
4-i Have the development mitigation programs cited in the Yes No
Page 4
Jurbdiesion Year
Comas COU TnWparsation Auiboriry lContra Cost 1 1996
Grewtb M.oai®em PrW=A=UW coambance Caddo
No
jurisdiction's previous submittal been implemented over the past Yes® ❑
yam?
4-b. Is the jurisdiction participating in the regional mitigation programs Yes No
developed by the CCTA? ® ❑
Please list:
CCTA has reauested each Regional Committee to report on prnarPsG toward
implementing a regional traffic impact fee program. The County has implemente
such a program in the Transplan area and is participating on the Regional
Comruttees elsewhere to respond to the CCTA request.
4-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C fxptawdon Not
relative to development mitigation programs have been satisfied in a Anacbed Applicable
way not indicated by this ebecklist, mark here tmd attach an ❑ El
` explanation.
S. PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE, HULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANING
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.
S-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?
S-b. Over the past year,have the local representatives to the Regional Yes No
Transportation Planning Committee regularly reported on the ❑ ❑
activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or
board?
St. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, w input into the Yes No
countywide transportation computer model, data on land use and ❑
traffic paatterns?
S-d. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Esplawbon Not
to cooperative multi jurisdictional planning have been satisfied in a AnLebal Applicable
way not indicated by this ebecklist,mark here and attach an ❑ ED
explanation.
6. FIVE-YE" CAPITAL V PROVEMENT 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 cosi of the proposed projects as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements.
Page S
iashoa Year
Comm Cato 7raarporuwon Aaftrlty lcontrp.
Groves.M=Mancat Prop=A=zW Campba t becitist 1
6-a. Does the jurisdiction have as adopted capital improvement program Yes No
(CIP)? 1® D
If yes, date of adoption or most resat update of the CIP fr„- Park, and Sheriff Facilities,1996-2000
Resol cnrll February 6. 1995. county Road Improvement Program, 1994/95 -
2000/2001, 6/27/95.
6-b. Does the CIP include a financing plan that identifies general financing Yes No
mecbanisms for all transportation projects included in the CIP? ® 1
6-c. Does the CEP include a financing plan that identifies general fiaaacing Yes No
mechmisms for all projects sponsored by the jurisdiction and included ED 11
in the CIP tbat relate to facilities for fire,police, parks, sanitary
facilities,water and flood control?
6-4 If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not
to the CIP have bees satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, wmchea Applicable
mark here and attach an explanation. [] El
7. ROUSING 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 oppommities 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-L Has the jurisdiction, as part of its five-year capital improvement Ya No .
program and pursuant to the State-mandated housing element of its D D
General Plan, developed an implementation program that cmates
housing opportunities for all income levels?
Salify which pian or policy of the*visdieooa!includes the kopkumada p w=:
County General Plan, Res. No. 91/68, 1/29/91
County Road Improvement Programs 6/27/95
Contra Costa County FY 1995 Action Plan (Housing Program), 2/95
)solution or Otdmaaee/ Date
7-b. Does the jurisdiction have a Hcw t;F3saotat is to Genera)Pfaa which man the Ya No
sequirsments of Sass law? ❑
i
Page 6
Jurisdiction Year
COoltT°Costa Trw"ortatioa Authority lCContra Cost 1996
i Growth Management Prov A=uW Comptiaace Cbwi&st
7-c. Has the jurisdiction's adopted Housing Element leen judged by the Yes No
State Department of Housing and Community Development to be in ® Q
compliance with State law?
If"YES".Date of HCD Determination 4/30/93
ff the answer is -YES than go to question 7-d.
If the answer to 7-c is "NO", than please respond to the following
questions 7A-c.-
IF
A-e: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 11 E
housing; specifically, as 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(x)and 65584 (a).]
Reference:
7A-c2 A program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions to Yes No
implement the policies and achieve the goals of the housing a E
element through the administration of land use and
development controls, including the utilization of appropriate
federal and state financing and subsidy programs, when
available? R'iU 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? [Sex. 65583(c)]
Reference:
7A-c3 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 meat
( the needs of households of all income levels? [Sex. 65583(c)
Reference:
Page 8
Jur"etion Year
Contra Costa Tmuportation AuthorityContra Cos
t Growth Manasement Prop am AnMW Compliance Cbee3dist
7-f. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not
to housing options and job opportunities have been satisfied in a way A adw4 Applicable
not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑
S. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Measure C rewires 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 UX ❑
ordinance prepared by the CCTA for use by local agencies?
TSM Ordinance* 94-27 Date of Adoption 4/19/94
8-b. if the answer to 8-a is no, has the jurisdiction adopted an alternative Yes No Not
mitigation program to achieve a significant reduction in
❑ ❑ Applicable
single-occupant vehicle trips, an increase in the use of alternate
commute modes, and an improvement in air quality?
Ordinance Title
Ordinance #t
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 ® ❑
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 AtaeW Applicable
this checklist,mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ In
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?
I0-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative Explanation Not
to posting of signs have been satisfied in away not indicted by this Attaches Applicable
checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. ❑ ❑
Page 7
Jmbdietion Year
Cootm Costa Trancportation Authority rContra Cost1 6
Crmwtb Manama Propatn Amd Compbance CbwkW
7A-cA A Resolution by your jurisdiction finding the Housing Element Yes No
is substantially in compliance with State Law? ❑ ❑
Resolution#
If the answer to any of questions 7A-'c.I through 7A-+:.4 ars 'NO', then continue with question 7-d and
7-e. Also please idennfy arty reasons your jurisdiction may have for believing that you have nonetheless
met the requirements of Measure C w question 7-f. ff the w%sxeers to questions 7A-c.] through 7A-c.4
are all 'YES', then continue with quarion 7-e.
t t
7-d In order to promote more efficient use of the transportation system, has Yes No
the ® ❑
jurisdiction evaluated its land use plans in relation to transportation demand,
and, in that context, discussed in its adopted General Plan efforts to address
housing options and job opportunities in the jurisdiction,the ,subregion and the
County?
If 'YES", go to 7-e. If'NO', go to 7A-d..
Text pages: 5-9 to 5-13 policy #3-1 to 3-4
2-19 to
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 wmcbed Applimble
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
mem?
Title Date
t t
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 boo 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 Same 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 Attaclhhent E.
1
a -� - 9& x . 95
Page 9
Jurisdiction Year
Coate Costa Tramportaeon Authority [Contra Costd 1 1996
Growth Management Pn*ram Arcual Comptiaace Checklist
II. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CHECIQ.IST FOR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING
This ecklIQ was pared for submittal by.:
Director of Corum_Lni ty Devel Anent
gnature (Title)
'Iarvey EY,. - andon (510) 355-1276
Printed Name (Phone)
The council/board of 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.
(Z&Certified Signature: Date: Z
Printed Name: JEFF SMITH
Title: CHAIR - BOARD OF SUPERVTSORS
Attest Signature:WDate: y?- )5F4/
ham& QWM DEPUTY CLERK
Printed Name: SHIRLEY CASILLAS
rivoompliance checklist:gmcklst.95
Revised April 25, 1995