The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04182000 - SD2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �. . Centra FROk• DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP •' =-�'� . �� Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: APRIL 18, 2000 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO THE DISSCUSSION PAPER, OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVE the transmittal of the following recommendations to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(OCTA) in response their discussion paper, Options for the Growth Management Program (Exhibit A), published by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority: I. Develop a general agreement on the purpose and goals of the Growth Management Program (GMP) focusing on the following topic areas: • Providing commuters with reliable and convenient alternatives to driving alone; • Supporting a countywide policy for compact development and redevelopment that achieves long-term protection of open space, appropriate 'infill of developed areas, reductions in our reliance on automobiles, economic revitalization, and more affordable housing; and • Development of an implementation program that will require measurable results for traffic relief, increases in affordable housing, and compact development. 2. Develop a single system of GMP requirements that are applicable for all jurisdictions. 3. Develop procedures that encourage jurisdictions to comply with GMP standards, and develop sanctions for non-compliant jurisdictions without negatively affecting other jurisdictions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ✓ YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO MITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 18, 2000 OTHER IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the matter listed above is CONTINUED to May 9, 2000, VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT NONE ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Daniel J. Pulon, AICP (925/335-1241) ATTESTED April 18.2000 cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works Department (PWD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa Transportation Authority (OCTA) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY DJPI:tnk 9:�adv4mn0an-Uwmanlmagode1GMPCCTA.doc RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO THE DISSCUSSION PAPER,OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AprN 18,2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED) 4. Research the establishment of joint a urban limit line with all the cities and the County relative to the existing constraints of Measure C — 1990. 5. Research the establishment of GMP requirements that consider factors involved in the construction of affordable housing, such as Housing Elements, residential development market forces, and affordable housing construction opportunities. FISCAL IMPACT No impact to the general fund. Changing aspects of the Measure C Checklist could, however, affect the " return-to-source" revenue the County receives each fiscal year. The County has previously received $1.9 million and $1.7, respectively, for FY 1998/1999 and FY 1997/1998. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS During the 1999/2000 legislative session, State Senator Burton introduced Senate Constitutional Amendment 3 (SCA 3) to allow transportation sales tax measures for transportation projects and programs in each county with the one time passage of a majority vote, rather than the existing requirement of 2/3 votes. For Contra Costa County jurisdictions, the passage of SCA 3 could have provided the voters in the county an opportunity to extend our existing Measure C sales tax for countywide transportation projects and programs another twenty (20) years. SCA 3, however, is no longer viable since it lacked strong legislative and gubernatorial support. On February 15, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted principles (Exhibit B) for the renewal of Measure C which addressed revisions to the Growth Management Program and how sales tax revenue could be used to promote improved coordination between land use and transportation planning. These principles are centered on promoting transit, compact development, affordable housing, improved air quality, and open space preservation. These principles suggest that a jurisdict'ion's eligibility for receiving sales tax revenues generated by the renewal of Measure C be linked to compliance with the Growth Management Program. While SCA 3 was still viable, Authority staff examined the Growth Management Program component of our existing Measure C requirements to receive funds for local street improvements, known as "return-to-source "funds. Their examination yielded the attached discussion paper: Options for the Growth Management Program (Exhibit A). The Authority is circulating the discussion paper to Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and Board of Supervisors for comments by April 21, 2000 for CCTA Board consideration at its May 2000 meeting. Now with the demise of SCA 3, the Authority will discuss these comments to develop the basis for " mid-course corrections" of some aspects of the existing Growth Management Program and Measure C Checklist. County staff discussions yielded technical comments, annotated in Exhibit A, and the following five (5) recommendations for consideration as the Board's comments to forward to the Transportation Authority: 1. Develop a general agreement on the purpose and goals of the Growth Management Program (GMP) focusing on the following topic areas: • Providing commuters with reliable and convenient alternatives to driving alone; • Supporting a countywide policy for compact development and redevelopment that achieves long-term protection of open space, appropriate infill of developed areas, reductions In our reliance on automobiles, economic revitalization, and more affordable housing; and RECOMMENDATIONS To THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO THE DISSCUSSION PAPER,OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM April 18,2000 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED • development of an implementation program that will require measurable results for traffic relief increases in affordable housing, and compact development. There is general consensus among observers that the passage of Measure C(1988)was aided by the Growth Management Program (GMP) component. As defined by the CCTA in 1888, and implemented through the Checklist, the GMP was a success because it encouraged jurisdictions to plan cooperatively, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the development of performance standards. In the year 2000, the CCTA should re-consider the purpose and goals of the GMP for the future, before modifying the existing Checklist. The discussion paper raises our awareness about the need for a general agreement of the purpose and goals of the future Growth Management Program. Can February 18, 2000, the Board of Supervisors adopted seven (7) principles for developing the Expenditure Plan and GMP for the renewal of Measure C— 1988 (Exhibit B). The principles suggest certain outcomes for the GMP and the need to use the Checklist to measure those outcomes. Although the Board of Supervisors developed these principles for the Expenditure Plan in preparation of SCA 3, the principles have applicability to the discussion paper in developing the basis for" mid-course corrections" of some aspects of the existing GMP and Checklist. The principles could be the framework for developing the general agreement on the purpose and goals of the GMP. 2. Develop a single system of GMP requirements that are applicable for all jurisdictions. The CCTA proposed as an option to reward those jurisdictions that exceed minimum GMP requirements. However, having the minimum program requirements and requirements beyond the minimum would create a dual standard or tiered system. Conceivably, with twenty (20) local jurisdictions taking different approaches to the GMP requirements, this type of requirement system could be complicated and confusing to administer. 3. Develop procedures that encourage jurisdictions to comply with CMP requirements, and develop sanctions for non-compliant Jurisdictions without negatively affecting other jurisdictions. As an option, the CCTA suggested withholding a jurisdiction's share of"return-to-source" funds when a jurisdiction fails to comply with the GMP requirements and removing regional projects from the Strategic Plan and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) serving the non- compliant community's growth. However, removing a regional project from the Strategic Plan or STIP is impractical because such projects may benefit other jurisdictions having complied with the GMP requirements. The CCTA should ensure that any transportation funds withheld from a non-compliant jurisdiction does not adversely impact other jurisdictions. 4. Research the establishment of a joint urban limit line with all the cities and the County relative to the existing constraints of Measure C — 1998. As an option to consider, the CCTA suggested a GMP requirement to establish a joint urban limit line of RTPC member jurisdictions. This boundary should reflect the location of critical resource lands, including wetlands, habitat and agricultural reserves, and adequately accommodate forecast growth. The County is currently constrained by Measure C — 1990 and the interrelationship with 65/38 Land Preservation Standard in how it can modify the Urban Limit Line based on one (1) or more of seven (7) specific findings. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standards was a fundamental component of Measure C— 1990. Developing a joint Urban Limit Line and Compliance Program with all the cities and the County would involve the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard, the Authority should research this option further, relative to the existing constraints of Measure C - 1990. RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY PERTAINING TO THE DISSCUSSION PAPER,OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM April 1 8,2000 Page 4 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED 5. Research the establishment of GMP requirements that consider factors involved in the construction of affordable housing, such as Housing Elements, residential development market forces, and affordable housing construction opportunities. As a GMP requirement for addressing affordable housing needs, the OCTA suggested that jurisdictions must meet their housing objectives identified in their housing elements in order to receive their return-to-source funds. A Housing Element has housing targets for various income groups within a jurisdiction; however, achieving the Housing Element objectives is beyond the control of local jurisdictions. Using the Housing Element as guide, the actual construction of affordable housing units is contingent upon residential development market forces, (e.g. housing supply/demand) and affordable housing opportunities (e.g. housing grants, CABG, etc.) GMP requirements should be developed that consider all the factors involved in the construction of affordable housing, such as Housing Elements, residential development market forces, and affordable housing construction opportunities. Please be aware that some jurisdictions have informed the OCTA that they will be submitting comments after the April 21, 2000 due date. After reviewing the above recommendations and the attached documents (Exhibits A and B), the Board of Supervisors may desire to re-schedule this item to deliberate on this matter further or refer it to a Board of Supervisors Committee. EMMITA (ANNOTATED WITH COUNTY STAFF COMMENTS) Options for the Growth Management Program BaCkgroond WHAT IS GROWTH MANAGEMENT? In growth management,governments"anticipate and seep to accommodate community develop- ment in ways that balance competing land use goals and coordinate local with regional inter- ests."' Various techniques are used to balance development with conservation,new development with adequate infrastructure,needed new public services with the revenues to finance those serv- ices,and economic growth with equity.The following table lists the primary concerns of most growth management programs and the techniques often used to address them: Concerns Common Techniques Identifying preferred locations for accommodating a Urban growth boundaries new development • Development policy areas(e.g.urban,urbaniz- ing,reserve) a Promotion of infill and redevelopment ■ Extra-jurisdictional controls ■ Growth limits,including moratoria Ensuring that adequate facilities and services are ■ Functional plans available as development occurs ■ Adequate public facility ordinances&perform- ance standards Exactions,impact fees and special districts a Transportation demand management and con- gestion management programs ■ Project rating systems 'Douglas R Porter,Managing Growth in America's Communities,May 1997:Island Dress August 31, 1999 Page I OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ConcernsCommon Techniques .......... _.__._....,..,....r_._._.___.._._._..._.. .......--------- ....................... ...........____.__........................... Maintaining community character and quality of life a Design review • Flexible planning and design(PUDs and overlay districts) • Incentive or performance zoning • Historic and architectural preservation • Neighborhood conservation or revitalization • Landscape or tree preservation ordinances ........... Preserving resource lands and environmental quality a Land acquisition • Limit development in critical areas • Mitigation of environmental impacts • Agricultural zoning,districts and right-to-farm laws • Environmental thresholds("carrying capacity") -—------------- - __._..___..____._ ---------- ----–--- ...... ..........______._. Achieving economic development and social equity a Economic development incentives goals N Economic opportunity programs(training,etc.) a Inclusionary zoning or linkage programs for affordable housing Providing regional guidance and coordination a Regional plans or goals a Review of developments for regional impacts ................. ---------_................ Growth management programs frequently focus on some combination of these concerns and techniques,depending on the needs and situation of the community.The current Measure C Growth Management Program addresses several of these concerns, focusing especially on ensur- ing adequate facilities and providing regional guidance and coordination. THE MEASURE C GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The precursor to Measure C,which focused solely on making improvements to the regional transportation network,was defeated,at least in part because it did not provide for growth man- agement.Voters made the link between the growth in housing and jobs and the growth in con- gestion on the roads.Measure C,however,not only provided funds for specific transportation improvements;it also established a growth management program.The overall goal for that pro- gram is to"achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on,a countywide basis,while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the establishment of performance stan- dards." Measure C also set aside 18 percent of sales tax revenues generated locally for jurisdictions that complied with a set of growth management actions. To receive its share of these funds,each local August 31, 1999 Page 2 OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM jurisdiction must submit a checklist to the Authority annually that documents compliance with the following requirements: 1. Adopt a growth management element as part of its general plan. The element must include items 2 and 3,and comply with numbers 4 through 8,below. 2. Adopt traffic level-of-service standards for non-regional routes within their jurisdictions. These standards,which are specified in the measure,are tied to adjoining land uses and must be included in the growth management element. 3. Adopt performance standards for fire,police,parks,sanitary facilities,water and flood con- trol.The standards should reflect local conditions and be included in the growth management element. 4. Adopt a development mitigation program. This program should ensure that each new devel- opment is paying its share of the costs associated with that development. 5. Participate in cooperative,multi jurisdictional planning to reduce the cumulative regional traffic impacts of development.This participation is done through the Regional Transporta- tion Planning Committees,and jurisdictions are expected to implement agreed-upon actions from the Action Plans that the RTPCs develop. 6. Develop and update a five-year capital improvement program to meet and/or maintain traffic service and performance standards(defined in items 2 and 3, above). 7. Address housing options and job opportunities. This requirement is met by adopting a Housing Element that the jurisdiction confirms,either by a letter from the State Housing and Community Development Department or by self-certification,meets State law. 8. Adopt a transportation systems management(TSM)ordinance. This ordinance must meet Authority guidelines. ASSESSING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Measure C Growth Management Program has had a real impact in Contra Costa, and has been especially successful in encouraging cooperative planning among jurisdictions and in estab- lishing local and regional mitigation programs. Criticisms,however,have also been leveled about the program. Various commentors have suggested that performance standards are not strict enough and are too easily changed;that local jurisdictions are not doing enough to achieve a bet- ter balance between jobs and housing or to provide affordable housing to those who work in the communities; and that growth is still occurring and traffic is getting worse. August 31, 1999 Page 3 OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM °�/or-`0 Options for the Growth Management Program The following section outlines possible ways that the Growth Management Program could be ex- panded to address some of the concerns and criticisms voiced about it. The discussion of options looks at the overall structure of the growth management program,then at potential changes to the specific components that now make up the program,and finally at other supportive actions that the Authority could take. OVERALL OPTIONS FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Currently, each jurisdiction must prepare a checklist every year to demonstrate its compliance with the eight growth management requirements. If it demonstrates such compliance, it then re- ceives its share of the Measure C local street maintenance and improvement funds. Several op- tions for revising the structure of the Growth Management Program are possible. • Continue the Existing System.This option would continue the annual reporting by each juris- diction and allocation of 18 percent of Measure C funds to those that comply. • Biennial Reporting Of Compliance. This option would continue the existing requirements but re- quire compliance reporting only every other year. It would reduce demands on local and Authority staff to review compliance but delay local receipt of funds. COUNTY STAFF COMMENTS Many jurisdictions rely on annual payments for funding their road maintenance and rehabilitation program. Delaying receipt of local funds to every two years could affect road maintenance and rehabili- tation programs, as well as Maintenance of Effort (MoE) require- ments. An alternative approach is to allow biennial reporting of com- pliance and annual payments of" return-to-source " funds for only those jurisdictions that have consistently demonstrated compliance, and continue the annual checidist compliance requirement and " re- turn-to-source " payments for,jurisdictions with poor compliance his- tories. ■ Provide Rewards for Going Beyond Minimum Requirements. In this option,additional funds would be allocated to jurisdictions that meet additional standards beyond the minimal GMP re- quirements.These additional standards could include, for example: August 31, 1999 page 4 OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM • Achieving the affordable housing goals established in their Housing Elements(assuming that the jurisdiction has a Housing Element that complies with the requirements of State law) • Providing for a minimum density around transit stations in their general plans and zoning or- dinances • Accommodating all growth forecast by ABAG within their jurisdiction in their general plan COUNTY STAFF COMMENT It is important than any changes to the GMF be measurable and within the control of local jurisdiction. ABAG growth forecasts are targets, based on a growth forecast for the Bay Area that is allocated to local jurisdictions based on vacant capacity and projected infra- structure capacity. Many jurisdictions do not collect local data on ABAG projections (e.g. jobs). The ABAG forecasts may not be con- sistent with a local jurisdiction's general plan. The ability to achieve these allocations is affected by various factors, many of which are be- yond the control of local jurisdictions. • Increase Impacts of Non-Compliance. Currently, if a jurisdiction does not comply with the eight GMP requirements,it cannot receive its share of return-to-source funds. This requirement could be strengthened by both withholding these funds and removing regional projects from the Strategic Plan and STIP that would serve a non-compliant community's growth. ■ Eliminate Some of the Requirements. This option would eliminate some of the existing growth management components. ■ Eliminate the Growth(Management Program Altogether. The 18 percent of funds could be: COUNTY STAFF COMMENT This option would require an amendment to the Measure C - 1988 Ordi- nance. ■ Used for general Authority programs and projects; ■ Shifted to a discretionary local street improvement program of funding for which local jurisdictions would compete; ■ Allocated for local street maintenance based on a countywide assessment of maintenance needs; or August 31, 1999 page 5 OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM le, ■ Apportioned out to local jurisdictions as now(although without GMP requirements. OPTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL GMP COMPONENTS 1.Growth Management Element Currently,each jurisdiction must adopt a growth management element that includes traffic and performance measures and complies with the other GMP requirements.Options could include: ■ Eliminate or Modify Components. Changes to the other components--potential options are out- lined below—could be incorporated into the growth management element. ■ Include a Plan for Accommodating Forecast Growth.The GMP could require local jurisdictions to establish policies and implementation strategies in their Growth Management Elements that would accommodate forecast growth.This requirement could be used to determine compli- ance either for the 18 percent funds or for additional growth management funds.Local juris- dictions would be responsible for determining how to accommodate forecast growth. ■ Eliminate the Growth Management Element Altogether. 2.&3.Traffic Level-of-Service and Performance Standards Currently, local jurisdictions must adopt both traffic level-of-service standards for local streets (these standards are established in Measure C)and performance standards for six other public facilities.The GMP has been criticized for not establishing stringent enough standards and for allowing jurisdictions to change the standards—rather than the amount,type or timing of devel- opment—when it appears they will not be met. Potential options include: • Continue Existing Requirements.Local jurisdictions are required to adopt the Measure C traffic level-of-service standards but have flexibility in establishing other performance standards. ■ Concurrency of Facilities and New Development. Jurisdictions could be required to ensure that adequate facilities would be available concurrent with the development and occupancy of new development. The adequacy of facilities would be determined through the development standards adopted as part of each jurisdiction's growth management element. COUNTY STAFF COMMENT The concept should be compared with what the jurisdictions' are cur- rently doing. The existing GMF' requires local jurisdictions to adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that development is paying its share of the costs associated with that development. In addition, August 31, 1999 Page 5 OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM i1 local jurisdiction must adopt a five-year capital improvement pro- gram that identifies the funding and implementation schedule for the facilities needed to maintain compliance with adopted performance standards for urban services. Haw would concurrency of facilities and new development change existing requirements? ■ Countywide Performance Standards.The Authority could establish minimum performance stan- dards for the six public facilities listed in Measure C—fire,police,parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control--that all jurisdictions in Contra Costa would be required to maintain to comply with the GMP.Each jurisdiction would have the flexibility to increase them. This approach would be comparable to that used for traffic standards.As with the traffic level-of- service evel-ofservice standards,the performance standards applied could vary by area of the county. The RTPCs could be involved in establishing them initially. 4. Development Mitigation Program All jurisdictions have local programs in place that require new development to fund measures needed to mitigate the impacts on local facilities of that development. In addition,all four subar- eas of Contra Costa have established development mitigation programs(three of which include fees)to make regional transportation improvements. ■ Continue With Existing requirements. ■ Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances.To comply with the GMP,a local jurisdiction would need to adopt"adequate public facilities ordinances",which require evidence that the capacity of public facilities are,or will be,adequate before new development is occupied.(Many juris- dictions in California have already adopted such ordinances.) 5.Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional Planning The cooperative planning required by Measure C now focuses on the preparation and implemen- tation of the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. Each jurisdiction must work with its RTPC to prepare and maintain these plans. The RTPCs have also provided an important forum for expanding this cooperative planning to address other issues. ■ Continue with Existing Requirements. ■ Jointly Establish and Comply with Urban limit lines.As part of the cooperative,multi- jurisdictional planning requirement,the GMP could require RTPCs and their members to es- tablish joint urban limit lines and incorporate those boundaries within their general plans. These boundaries should reflect the location of critical resource lands, including wetlands, habitat and agricultural reserves,and adequately accommodate forecast growth. August 31, 1999 Page 7 OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM oma.. Jointly Establish Performance Standards.Require that RTPCs establish overall minimum per- formance standards for police,fire,parks,sanitary facilities,water and flood control for their area.Local jurisdictions would be required to adopt these standards as part of their general plans and ensure that each new development ensures that these standards are met prior to oc- cupancy of the development. COUNTY STAFF COMMENT To require the RTPCs to establish minimum performance standards for police, fire, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control for thein area would require amending Measure C (1988) Ordinance. Also, this would be extremely difficult since the County would have four sets of standards developed by the RTPCs to administer for indi- vidual development projects, unlike the other jurisdictions having only one set of standards to administer. The Authority should further research this option after deciding on the outcomes of OMP, and be made aware of the potential impacts on the County to administer such a requirement. 6.Five-year Capital Improvement Program Currently,each jurisdiction must adopt and update a capital improvement program that lists the projects proposed to meet or maintain the traffic level-of-service and performance standards.This is also required under the Congestion Management Program,. ■ Continue Existing Requirements. is Eliminate Requirement.The GMP would rely instead on the"housing and jobs"and"traffic level-of-service"components instead. 7.Address Housing Options and Jobs Opportunities Measure C requires each jurisdiction to"develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income groups.Each jurisdiction shall also address land use information as it relates to transportation demand as well as a discussion of each jurisdiction's efforts to address housing options and jobs opportunities on a city, subregional and countywide basis."Currently, a jurisdiction meets this requirement if it has adopted a Housing Element that the jurisdiction con- firms,either by a letter from the State Housing and Community Development Department(HCD) or by self-certification,meets State law. (This method for determining compliance has been fre- quently criticized by the CAC and its predecessor,TPAC.) August 31, 1999 Page 8 OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM "' '` /S ■ Continue Existing Requirements. ■ Achievement of Housing Element Objectives.This option would rewire each local jurisdiction to achieve the objectives established in its Housing Element for providing affordable housing in the community.(Alternatively,jurisdictions that meet these objectives could be rewarded with additional street maintenance and improvement funds.) ■ Jobs-Housing Balance Policies.For GMP compliance,each Growth Management Element could be required to include policies and strategies for improving the balance between jobs and housing, so that available housing more closely matches the income and needs of the workers that will fill those jobs. ■ Require Self-Cerkification Only.Eliminate the requirement for HCD approval of the Housing Element and rely solely on self-certification. ■ Eliminate the Requirement.This provision could be replaced by new policies in each growth management element for accommodating forecast development. 8.Transportation Systems Management(TSM)Ordinance Currently,each jurisdiction must adopt a TSM ordinance that complies with the Authority's model ordinance. Since the adoption of Measure C,however, State law has limited the ability of governments to implement such programs. ■ Continue Existing Requirements. ■ Eliminate the Requirement.Rely instead on subregional and countywide TDM programs and land use changes(outlined in other options). Additional Components Besides the eight existing GMP components, a revised program could expand to add other re- quirements.The additional components could be used to determine compliance with the GMP,or to reward jurisdictions that go beyond minimum requirements.These additional components could include: ■ Transit-, Bicycle-and Pedestrian-Friendly Development Standards. The GMP could require each jurisdiction to include transit-,bicycle-and pedestrian-friendly standards in its general plan and zoning and subdivision codes.(As with the growth management element,the Authority could prepare a set of model standards to help jurisdictions comply.) ■ Require higher densities,especially near transit,and infill.—The GMP could require every juris- diction to establish minimum residential or commercial zoning densities around certain transit August 31, 1999 Page 9 OPTIONS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. facilities or along major bus routes. The GMP could also require the adoption of general tran- sit-supportive regulations in these areas. To help in achieving compliance with this require- ment,the Authority could prepare model regulations for local jurisdiction use. OPTIONS FOR INCREASING LINKS TO THE EXPENDITURE PLAN AND OTHER AUTHORITY PRO- GRAMS In addition to the forgoing options,the Authority could reflect growth management concerns in the Expenditure Plan or other parts of the Authority's programs.The Authority could: ■ Support Infill and Redevelopment, The Authority could focus the projects in the Strategic Plan and the Expenditure Plan to support infill and redevelopment. • Subsidize Transportation Needs of Infill,Affordable Housing and Redevelopment.The Authority could,as part of the Expenditure Plan,also fund a program of transportation improvements needed to make projects that provide affordable housing,redevelopment or infill more feasi- ble,or that support jobs in"housing-rich"areas. • investigate Impacts of Land Use Changes,The Authority,through the Countywide Comprehen- sive Transportation Plan or other process,could investigate,using its travel demand models, potential land use changes in Contra Costa and the region that could reduce demands or im- prove efficiency on the transportation system,and identify transportation programs and proj- ects that would support those changes. • Improve Fiscal Environment for Increased Cooperative Planning.The Authority could support leg- islative changes that reduce the need for the"fiscalization"of land use,allow revenue sharing within counties or regions,and provide a stable source of funding for needed local govern- ment functions. ■ Focus Investments towards Growth Management.The Authority could also focus investments in major new facilities in areas,or for jurisdictions,where those jurisdictions are found to com- ply with the GMP,and avoid funding projects for areas and/or jurisdictions that don't. August 31, 1999 Page 10 EXHIBIT B Future Transportation Investments in Contra Costa County Recommendations from the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (Adapted by Board of Supervisors on February 15, 2040) L Adopt the following principles for establishing transportation priorities for the renewal of Measure C-88 and for MTC's Transportation Blueprint for the 21a Century; • Transportation investments for capacity expansion should focus on providing commuters with reliable and convenient alternatives to driving alone,and the safe and efficient movement of people and goods; • Transportation investments should support a countywide policy for compact development and redevelopment that achieves long-term protection of open space,appropriate infill of developed areas; • Transportation investments should promote good health by producing.%gssurable reductions in air pollution from motor vehicles; • Transportation investments should dedicate a percentage of revenue that will significantly address the unmet need to adequately maintain and operate our existing road system; • Transportation investments should dedicate a percentage of revenue sufficient for the development and maintenance of a comprehensive countywide public transit system that meets the mobility needs of low income,elderly,disabled and school-age residents; • Transportation investments for transit operators should be linked to achieving measurable results in coordinating and consolidating their operations;and • Transportation investments for cities and the county should be linked to a growth management program that requires measurable results for traffic relief,affordable housing and compact development. CAWPFILES\1-CCTA MTG\2000 MTG1StFutum Transportation Investrnents.doc