Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04202004 - D5 TO: Board of Supervisors Contra FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee `7 '. C osta (Supervisor Millie Greenberg, Chair) oun A.�r DATE: April 12, 2004 SUBJECT: Committee Re cert on the Reauthorization of Measure C-18 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS CONSIDER report from the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee on the activities supporting the reauthorization of Measure C-88, a half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements and growth management; RECONSIDER whether an Urban Limit Line requirement should be included in the reauthorization of Measure C-88 or whether a countywide Urban Limit Line should proceed as a separate ballot measure independent of the reauthorization of Measure C-88; AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to forward any comments from the Board to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(Authority)and the regional Transportation Planning Committees; and DIRECT the Community Development Director to report to the Board on the actions taken by the Authority on April 21 concerning the reauthorization of Measure C-88. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUNDI EASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors asked the Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee (Committee)to monitor the activities in support of reauthorization of Measure C-88. The Committee has made periodic reports to the Board. The most recent report occurred on February 24, 2004, and included a presentation by staff from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(Authority)on the draft 2004 Countywide Transportation Plan Update and its associated Draft EIR. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR©COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER d - 5 d SIGNATURE (S): Su ervisor Millie Greenber ' Su ervis7dr Gayle B. Uilkema ACTION OF BOARD ON Am 2o, 2oo4 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED .x_ OTHERx SEE AMaW AMME VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �ti ) 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: Steven Goetz (925/335-1240) cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED AMUQ. A Public Works Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ` s DEPUTY GATransuortation\TWIC\Board Ordersi240Mmeasurec.4.doc TWI Comr ti#tee.report on Reauthorization of Measure C-88 April 12, 2004 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) The Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee supported Option 1 as the preferred method of compliance,with Option 2 as a fall back position. The Committee did believe Option 3 was appropriate for promoting housing opportunities in the county. The Draft GMP proposes to require all jurisdictions to participate in established a mutually agreeable ULL. The ULL shall include provisions to future amendment and for minor adjustments. Beyond these requirements, the Draft GMP proposes two options for the Authority's consideration. Option 1 would require each jurisdiction to ratify the ULL as it applies within the jurisdiction's Sphere of Influence through approval of the voters of that jurisdiction. A jurisdiction whose corporate limits and approved Sphere of Influence are located completely within the ULL may incorporate the line into its General Plan without the approval of the voters of that jurisdiction. Option 2 would require each jurisdiction to enter into a Memorandum of Understand (MOU)with other jurisdictions in the county to establish the ULL. The MOU would require a jurisdiction to incorporate the ULL into its General Plan and establish for its periodic review and amendment to ensure that it adequately fulfills the requirement of the ULL. The MOU shall also establish a process for adjustment where all jurisdictions can show insufficient opportunities to meet the jurisdictions housing objectives within the ULL. The Transportation Water and Infrastructure Committee could not agree on a recommendation to the Board on an ULL requirement for the reauthorization of Measure C-88. Committee discussion ranged from a modified version of Caption 1,to whether a countywide ULL should be separated from the reauthorization of Measure C-88 in favor of a separate ballot measure on the subject. The Committee believes the Board should have further discussion of the linkage between an ULL and the reauthorization of Measure C-88. A copy of the County's current ULL is included as Exhibit D. Next Steps At its April 21 meeting,the Authority can consider any comments from the Board on these Draft Expenditure Plan/GMP proposals. If the Board has no comments at this time, the Committee recommends that County staff report to the Board on the actions taken by the Authority on April 21. This report would allow the Board to discuss any matters related to Measure C-88 reauthorization prior to the May 1 Countywide Summit. On May 19,the Authority will consider the comments on the draft Expenditure Plan and Growth Management Program and its EIR, certified the EIR,and recommend an Expenditure Plan and Growth Management Program for approval by the cities and the Board of Supervisors. The cities and the Board are considered responsible agencies under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since they have discretionary approval power over the project. Pursuant to state law, an expenditure plan cannot be placed on the ballot unless it received approval by a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area, and the Board of Supervisors. Prior to approving the expenditure plan,the Board must: 1) make a decision on the adequacy of the EIR prepared by the Authority, 2) consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in the EIR, 3) adopt any mitigations measures necessary that address the direct or indirect environmental effects of those part of the project it decides to carryout, finance or approve, 4) make findings for each significant effect of the project and for any statement of overriding considerations. The County's CEQA guidelines do not require a public hearing for this action. After approving the expenditure plan, the County must file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. Once the expenditure plan has received the necessary approvals by the cities and the Board, the Authority may request the Board to schedule the item for a future ballot. August 3, 2404, is the last scheduled meeting for Board to call an election and forward the expenditure plan to County Elections Commission for the November ballot. List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Proposed Meeting Schedule —2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Exhibit B: Draft Expenditure Plan Exhibit C: Proposed Growth Management Program for the Measure C Extension—April 7,2004 Exhibit D: Sphere of Influence ad Urban Limit Line for Contra Costa County GATransoortatfon\TW1C\8oard Orders\2004\measurec.4.doc Proposed Meeting Schedule for 2004 CTP Update and Measure C Extension Group Date Activity CAC Feb 25 Continue Review of DCTPIDEIR,and Expenditure Plan Alternatives CTP TF Feb 26 EPAC Mar 3 Final recommendation on Expenditure Plan K Mar 3 Report on comments received at the 4 Public Workshops Public Hearing on Draft Plan,DEIR and Expenditure Plan Alternatives Begin discussion on preferred droft GMP Option Mar 8 End of comment Period on DEIR,Draft CTP,and Draft Expenditure Plan (5 PM) Alternatives and Growth Management Program Options EPAC Mar 8 Final EPAC meeting (230 PM) EPC Mar 8 Presentation of final EPAC proposal. Review comments on draft 2004 CTP Update Guidance to staff on draft expenditure plan,clarify project and program investment level in alternatives and in relationship to 2005 RTP(T-2030) PC Mar 17 Continue to frame conceptual approach for preferred GMP and TLC options. EPC March 22 Initial recommendation for draft Expenditure Plan,continued direction to staff Authority Mar 24 Review comments on draft 2004 CTP Update and Draft Expenditure Plan Alternatives Mar 24 [Comments due on Draft T-2030 Prcyect Ust] CTP TF J Mar 25 Review comments on DCTP and discuss;propose revisions EPC Aprils EPC recommendation on draft final Expenditure Plan for Authority review on April 21. Direction to initiate polling. [Review Draft Final T-2030 Project Ust] Consultant April 6-20 Conduct tracking polling PC April 7 Formulate Droft Final GMP Policies and TLC program Discuss issues re:FEIR Response to Comments Authority Staff April 9 Transmit responses to comments to DEIR commenters. Authority April 21 Issue Draft Expenditure Plan and GMP for public review. [Adopt Final T-2030 Project List and transmit to MTC] __.._ CTP Task Force April 22 & Review Proposed revisions to the draft 2004 CTP Update April 29 Elected Officials May I Countywide Summit of Elected Officials to discuss Draft Expenditure Plan (Sat 8 AM) (Sheraton Hotel in Concord) PC May 5 Review and recommend approval of proposed Final 2004 Update to the CTP,including proposed GMP Policies and TLC Program Rev 18- March 2, 2004 Page 2 EXHIBIT B DRAFT EXPEN[3I URE PLAN 3.31.2004 6:00 PM staff Proposal Distribution of Benefits $Millions % TRANsPACwe rAc swAT TRANSPLAN CAPrMINP&MME i Caldecott fourth bore _ »» » ... 125 6.3% 62.5 62.5 x DART-`E East Contra Costa'Rai l`Extegon......... .... . ....»................. .... . _ISD.._.........7.5°Ja ..».<..._» . :....... ......,.».».., ..... .... _,»......150.0» 3 Route» `»east V4il�r ...."..».».»,.»._.. ........... ......»..,_..." ...... ». ......,. »... ..i25"»».,...»ri.3°la .».»..»...,...._.,.. 4 4C"1i iiiorrtclor Ftiii#'station"Ilii"rovetrterits at`t 4ercuies 8ix!%Isirtinex"» 15 7.5 7.5 s..»East Ccrun Corridors:SR4 ."0,. .. ». Non t reeve...5i24 ..... »... ...................94. ..»..."4.796 .»....».».».»,».......,.»....».»._................»„,.....»...».».....................5 Intx rttian Im€irovt bents an T-6811&State Route 242_< _».». »....._...». ".-._. 1.8°%n » ""36.U' » » » �... .50 'oo#`Lane Exteilsicin end InterC�tali ilii emenks. ...»....»....».... "�� ._.... 3.5°l0 :........... ..._.»�. .......���! ..».»».. »... ........._... Ply!. »......... ...........". ». » s». 6E3tt C L m dap Closure Trertsrt Co tdor Impr»oi€ements»..." » „`100_» _ 5.0% ...»,.<..75.(} . ..,.. _25.0_» .._.".__... .. y9 hin Park>ri" _. "........»..»20 .... 1.0% »»..». _ ......... 20.0».»."_.... "�. »...»..»... 10 BART P inc�x Arc ss and t3t�ryyipprovem�nts "..»»......»,.»..»..."..,..._ ». 36..»...........118 0 »»»» »ICU .........».»10.0"............ 3.0 . ".....».....1.0 11 Local Streets Maintenance&Frr:proverr 350 18_0% 108.0_ » »» 82.6 " »79.2 » » » 917,_0 TCa.Aponation for Livable Communities Pro act Grants 4 " �» » _»�109 » S.C?0,6 ..........29:0»» »» 24.0�»»»_H416:0 »» _ » 29.0 13 Pedes oianJBi clef hall Facilities _».». ,.<»,. ..».»................ ..+...... »... ». »20 10% ".. ". .». »...,�_ µ »» »»_ _, " Ci4pitai Ttflptov 7 Bit" !s-S"'tot l _ < » "1"3 1 S" 60 8% 3300 174.3 187.7" =NDWIDE PPLOGRAMS 14 Bus Services.Existing Procgranls' .. _._..._ .. ............»...... »»,.... ..»»100».....»......5.0�'° ......»...24:0.... ....".»S2.n ... ."..15: _..._"....... ,.9:0 _..»..,�»..,.»..», _...,».»_.. ... ............ ........»...»."....................» ...... ., _..,..». ,» xs Transportation for Seniors&Pei with Disabilities 2 100 5.0% 25.0 35.0»» 17.0 23.0 . xgress Bus T........».. 88 4.4% 20.0 42.0 20_.0 6.0 i� C_a_minute_Ilternatives »..» .».».. » »...._»....._.... ...».._.»,», »..w»..».._, . ........ _...........».. Q. ...... ..1.Oo ....».. .. �$,.,....».._....»4. . .»..».."...3:6".... _. .. ..6:g.. 1s`Con»estlon Mana.dement Trans atiori Piann#» `,`Earl##ties&Services" ,.»» Btt ». .3.0% _» .� rrs =""sui iii».» .,�Maw U; "'ya " "..............is: ai .. i9 Additional Bus Transit Enhancements z ". ... 64.5.....,»». 3.2% » 24;0 »»...»» 40..5.»»... ».».».<. .. ».....»..._.»... 2i Addltionai Tr» » stat#on€or Seniors and Pau ie with«13isab#Uties »»» »»»» »»»23»»»» iNiio » »10.0_,_ _._ 1 :0._......»»»..........»....._.,,»...»........ Safe Transportation lotChildren= (larncttW&MW San Rami Vaky SdW Bus Pmgtarm,West County low inmm SWW*But Pass 21 Proyrarry sctsootftess pwra m ped item KA"krpravenw ts:e�}.....»»......»,...........»..». »88:9_....».... 4:'�% ....»»<»10.0 ......._.. 12;5 » .......66.4 22 Ferry service at Richmond 3 ».,....»...».._....»». .._._ »»,.. . �� .»_ , .2:?--- ».,. _ 50 Q ..».... »....,... ..»» .. i3 Add#tlsxna#Lrical Struts and Roads+tN;fntenance_ 41.8 »_. "2.1% "20.9 110 »» » 10.E za N1a...r Streets Traffic flow ate r i paCi !improvements:.».. .»»..».. ... . »_..» 80.4 ..._.... 4.0% .... .. 48.x.,.....,...»...... ».. . ..14:4....».....»....».f8:0 zs Add lonal T'ranspuriation or Livable Ciammunitles Protect Grants.........."... »_ » 6 ...._........*i9!o ....»».................. ... 8.�»»,.............»..............»»»..........,., as Additlanal PedestrlanjBice{Tra##Faeiilt#e5 ».,. _.... ...»»,.»._..... _..».. . .3.3 ._...., 0.2% ._.»._.. ._3.3 .,"..,...... z7 G plti3#CorrldQr Balt Station improvements of Martinez »» » »» » _ w .5 » 4;1°Yo " 2.5 " . ............_....... 28 SubTrans» rtation Needs ».»......» . ,. . . _......»....»......._. ...._.. »M38..1 »... 19% »18.7 ...., 6 ...,.,.» ...7.2_..,..»..». 6.2 2.. su �iaGZ' ui'" "�io: " za}i � 1:33. "s _ :s .z" 29 AAdmi II tartian Salaries&,I.Benefits.»»......_..................»...."..."»...».».....»....».........,»... »,....»»....»..21?..»......»..»1.9% Ti TAC...»....»..........................................»..... »» .»._,...»»».. ........ ..............._ ».»..»�1�0 »..100 0 » ......................»»..... »».». .».,.». .",»»_. ......» . . .. TRANSPAC WCCTAC SWAT TRANSPLAN specific capital (Tbtan s t900 smo 452.4 34 .1 Population Share(21729 Estirnate),of Total 29:00!0 24'0% 1$.0°le 29.11°0 catdd ed, ,t_,capital,lipgMMVrlts,anif'P. insu 28.3% 23:$°!doodde 0. "/o of"Fait Sheirt3 of Pro e` ' : ri ';Pia'#atfls: 197.4W% 99.2% 100.0%. 013,10% 1: Funding is for both capital improvements and conte incurred to accelerate dailvery into the early Yearn of the program(20091-10 through 2015-1e) 2: Transit opemb"are required to sat aside 3%of their annual allocation as a reserve to offset potential future revenue downturns 3- pedestrian and bicycle facnities improverionts are also eligible to be funded from the Transsportstion for livable Communities Project Grants, tocol Streets and Roads Maintenance R Improvehxmts,and Major Streela;Traffic fiowJSafety/Citpaclty Improvements categories 4: Actual funding levels will be determined by formulae For 16%funds,annuait,for TLC,avay live years. 5e "Total"excludes funds for pedeatHan(bicycia(trail facilities,Congestion Management,Transportation Planning,Facilities IN,Sarvlcss,and Administration "" t 3/31/04 East County CqrridoLs Lyascot&d.MR-4 ft-pass,Bjrn H- o- a-Frgma_ R494.E million): This project will provide funds to assist in the completion of capacity and safety enhancements to Vasco Road,the SR 4 Bypass(Phases I and 2),Byron Highway,and the existing Route 4 through Brentwood and Oakley. Subject to environmental review and concurrence from Contra Costa County,any capacity increases outside of the Urban Limit Line shall be carefully assessed relative to their potential for inducing additional development, and appropriate mitigations shall be considered. Capacity expansion affecting the facilities in Alameda County will be done in partnership with Alameda County jurisdictions.Potential improvements include: 1. Widening Vasco Road from an existing two-lane roadway to a four-lane roadway from SR 4 Bypass to the Alameda County line. The project may also provide improvements for safety and operations,and potentially consider realignment where warranted, subject to the conditions above. 2. Widening the non-freeway portion of SR 4 to a continuous four-lane facility from Main Street in Oakley to the eastern edge of Discovery Bay. This project also includes alignment and safety improvements to the two-lane levee road between Discovery Bay and the Contra Costa-San Joaquin Bridge. 3. Constructing westbound to northbound and southbound to eastbound direct connectors (flyover ramps)at SR 4 Bypass/SR 160 Interchange. 4. Completion of Phases I and 2 of the SR 4 Bypass, as well as widening to provide two lanes in each direction(4 lanes total)from Lone Tree Way to Vasco Road at Walnut Blvd,and construct freeway interchanges at the,following locations: Sand Creek Road;Balfour Road; Marsh Creek Road;Vasco Road at Walnut Blvd. Interchana Improvements on Interstate 680 and State jWute 242[$36 million): Construct improvements to reduce congestion and improve safety at(1)1-680/SR4 interchange, (2)SR 242/Clayton Rd Interchange northbound on-ramp and southbound off ramp,(3)1- 680/Marma Vista Interchange,and/or(4) SR 4/Willow Pass ramps. Interstate 80 Carpool LaneExtensionand Interchange Improvements 30 million). Projects eligible for funding in this category include: 1. If supplemental funding beyond the Regional Measure 2 commitment is needed,help construct an eastbound carpool lane extension along 1-80 from State Route 4 to the Carquinez Bridge approach. 2. Construct modifications to the 1-80/San Pablo Dam Road interchange to improve traffic operations and safety and accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclists. 3. Construct modification to the I-80/Central Avenue interchange to reduce traffic backups on Central Avenue. \Vu4tx\wpfll"\3-EPC-Exp Plan CommVOOMMEETINGMAPRIL 04XI c)Cap Project Descriptlons(revislon4).doc 3/31/04 criteria if they are in good standing with respect to the Growth Management Program at the time of funding approval. Eligible projects recommended to the Authority by the RTPCs would be included in the Authority's periodic updates to its Strategic Plan. Criteria are to include flexibility so that urban, suburban and rural communities can be eligible. PedestriamBicwcle/Trail Facilities(1046): $20 million This category will provide funds on a countywide basis for pedestrian and bicycle facilities including regional trails. Other potential funding categories for pedestrian/bicycle/trail facilities include. Major Streets. Traffic Flow/Safety/Capacity, Safe Transportation for Children,Local Streets and Load Maintenance, and the Transportation for Livable Communities Project grants. COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS The following programs will be available to fund countywide operational programs,based on a specific percentage of annual revenues received. With respect to the transit operating programs (bus, transportation for seniors and people with disabilities, and express bus)the Authority will allocate funds on an annual basis and will establish guidelines so that the additional revenues will fund additional service in Contra Costa. The guidelines may require provisions such as maintenance of effort, a specified minimum allowable farebox return, reserves for capital replacement,etc. For the transit programs the Authority will require that each recipient/operator retain 3 percent of its annual allocation in a reserve as a contingency against potential future declines in revenues, so that the reserves would be available to sustain operations in the event of economic downturns. Bus Services,Existing Programs(5040): $100 million The proposal would continue,with a slight augmentation,the percentage of program funding now flowing to the bus transit operators. The current distribution among the four parts of the county has been assumed to continue forward. Staff suggests that a percentage of annual revenues be identified for each operator,to provide continuity, and that the operators report each year on any changes to the services that are currently funded from Measure C revenues. Transportation for Seniors&People With Disabilities S%: -$100 million Transportation for Seniors&People With Disabilities or"Paratransit"services can be broadly divided into two categories: (1)services required to be provided by transit operators under the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)to people with disabilities;and(2)services not required by law but desired by community interests—either for those with disabilities beyond the requirements of the ADA(for example,extra hours of service or greater geographic coverage), or for non-ADA seniors. Authority contributions to either category are discretionary. Within the draft Expenditure Plan, funding for this program is proposed to be increased 67 percent above the existing level. This increase in the base is a direct result of an EPC request that staff consider phasing the funding to reflect the likely increase in demand for paratransit services over time,as the population of senior citizens increases in Contra Costa. Accordingly, 11AnitA\"rIles\3-EPC-Exp Pisa Comm\2004WEETINGMAPRiL 041(ic)Csp Project Descriptions(revision4).doc 1-32- -32- 3/31/04 Improvement Program(STIP), Surface Transportation Program(STP),Congestion Mitigation Air Quality(CMAQ)Program,and other funds that flow at the direction of the Authority now billed to projects,and the facilities and services needed to support the Authority and CMA functions. As such,this increment would eliminate billings to the cities and counties for the incremental CMA costs, which have ranged from approximately$64,000 to $275,000 per year depending on workload and special studies. SUBREGIONAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS /PROGRAMS The objective of the subregional Programs and projects category is to respect the diversity of the county by allowing each sub-region to propose projects/programs that are critical to addressing transportation needs in its locale. Each Regional Transportation Planning Committee(RTPC) has identified specific projects/programs which include: school bus programs,safe routes to school activities,pedestrian/bicycle trails,incremental transit services over the base program, incremental transportation services for seniors and people with disabilities over the base program,incremental local street and roads maintenance,major streets traffic flow/safety/capacity improvements, and ferry services. Central County (TRANSPAC) - Additional Bus Service Enhancements 0.2%)_$24 million Funds would be used to enhance local bus service in Central County,as determined by TRANSPAC. The Authority would establish criteria to ensure that funds are used to operate new service. Additional Transportation Services for Seniors and People with Disabilities(4.5°��): $10 million Funds would be used to supplement the services provided by the countywide transportation program for seniors and people with disabilities and may include provision of dedicated shuttles to specific programs and activities. Safe Transportation for Children N.5%): $10 million Eligible activities include pedestrian/bicycle trails, sidewalk construction, signage, SchoolPool and Transit Incentive Programs. TRANSPAC to identify specific projects. Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements(1�/o): $20 million These funds would be used to supplement the annual allocation of the 18%"return-to-source" funds for jurisdictions in Central County. Manor Streets: Traffic Flow, Safety and Capacitor Improvements(2.4%): $48 million Improvements to major thoroughfares including but not limited to installation of bike facilities, traffic signals,widening, safety improvements, shoulders,curb and gutter,bus transit facility enhancements such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities,etc. Capitol Corridor Rail Station Improvements at Martinez(4.1%):$2.5 million Additional funding to supplement the$7.5 million identified for the project under Capitol Corridor Rail Station Improvements. AAnita\wpt1ies\3-EPC-Earp Plan Comm\2004WEETINGs1APRIL 04XIc)Cep Project Descrlptions(revlslon4).doc /- 21 3/31/04 Additional Focal Streeai tenaace d Im rov ants 0.5% $10.8 million These funds would be used to supplement the annual allocation of the 18%"return-to-source" funds for jurisdictions in Southwest County. Major Streets: Tr ie Flow Safe- and Ca ac't m rove ents 0,7% : $14.4 million Improvements to major thoroughfares including but not limited to installation of bike lanes, traffic signals,widening, safety improvements, shoulders, curb and gutter,bus transit facility enhancements such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities,etc. Subregional Transpgrtation Needs(0.4°fol: $7.2 million SWAT may allocate these funds to any project or program identified in the Expenditure plan. East County t 'A`AIiiSPLAtV) Ma<or Streets: Tr rc Flow Safet airy a� rovements 0.9"fn): $18.0 million Improvements to major thoroughfares including but not limited to installation of bike lanes, traffic signals, widening, safety improvements,shoulders,curb and gutter,bus transit facility enhancements such as bus turnouts and passenger amenities, etc. ubre `o,�,o nal Transportation Needs(0.3°fol: $6.2 million TRANSPLAN may allocate these funds to any project or program identified in the Expenditure Plan. OTHER Administration Salaries &Benefits: $20 million(1%) This category is intended to farad the salary and benefits costs of administrating the Measure C extension,consistent with program requirements. Pro ram and Proiect-Management The draft plan envisions building on the Authority's practice of charging the costs of program and project management to the various plan categories,rather than identifying a separate category for such charges. Costs that would be covered include program management consulting,financial advisory services,bond counsel,project management staff, and similar costs associated with managing the overall program,periodically preparing and adopting the Strategic flan,reviewing and processing invoices, etc. \\Anitelwpfiles\3-EPC-Exp Pian Comm\2004NEE'I'INGSIAPILIL 04\(Ic}Cep Project Descriptions(mvision4).doc CCTA ---Planning Committee April 7, 2004 6. Develop a five-year capital improvement program 7. Adopt a Transportation Systems Management(TSM) ordinance or resolution These components reflect the consensus reached by the PC on refining, adding and eliminating compo- nents. Remaining to be resolved are two prospective components of the GMP: (a)the detailed require- ments for the"housing options and job opportunities"component, and(b)how the mutually agreed-upon ULL would be identified, legally established, maintained, and modified. Staff believes discussion should focus on these two components. To support the Authority's GMP, the,Expenditure Plan includes a regional transportation planning pro- gram. This program will address preparing and updating the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, coordinating and supporting the work of the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, provid- ing a forum for developing plans and programs to address regional and countywide issues,maintaining and improving the Authority's countywide travel-demand model and Land Use Information System, and establishing consistent technical procedures and approaches. 6-2 PROPOSED GRC I:i, ]WIX GEMENT PROGRAM 1 , Adapt a Growth Management Element Each jurisdiction must adopt a Growth Management Element as part of its General Plan that outlines the jurisdiction's goals and policies for managing growth and re- quirernents for achieving those goals. The Growth Management Element must show ]low the jurisdiction will comply with sections 2--7 below. The Authority shall refine its model Growth Management Element and administrative procedures in consultation with the Regional Transportation Planning Committees to reflect the revised Growth Management Program. Each jurisdiction is encouraged to incorporate other standards and procedures into its Growth Management Element to support the objectives and required components of this Growth Management Program. 2. Adapt a Development Mitigation Program Each jurisdiction must adopt, or maintain in place, a development mitigation prograrn to ensure that new growth is paying its share of the costs associated with that growth. This program shall consist of both a local program to mitigate impacts on local streets and other facilities and a regional program to fund regional and subregional transporta- tion projects, consistent with the Countywide Comprehensive Trail sportatioil Plan. The jurisdiction's local development mitigation program shall ensure that revenue pro- vided from this measure shall not be used to replace private developer funding that has or would have been committed to any project. The regional development mitigation program shall establish fees, exactions, assess- ments or other mitigation measures to fund regional or subregional transportation im- provements needed to mitigate the impacts of planned or forecast development. Re- gional mitigation programs may adjust such fees, exactions, assessments or other miti- gation measures when developments are within walking distance of frequent transit service or are part of a mixed-use development of sufficient density and with necessary facilities to support greater levels of walking and bicycling. Each Regional Transporta- tion Planning Committee shall develop the regional development mitigation program for its region, taking account of planned and forecast growth and the Multimnodal Transportation Service Objectives and actions to achieve them established in the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. Regional Transportation Planning Commit- tees may use existing regional mitigation programs, if consistent with this section, to comply with the Growth Management Program. I The existing GMP recommends that "such issues as jobs/housing balance, carpool and van- pool programs and proximity to transit service [should be considered] in the establishment 6-4 PROPOSED GRRW'TrH MPi I EMENT PROGRAM option Three --- Each jurisdiction shall consider the impacts that its land use and de- velopment policies have on the local, regional and countywide transportation system, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided, and shall incorporate policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments. Comment: Option 3 would eliminate any requirements tied to the development of hous- ing needed to meet the housing objectives established in the jurisdiction's Housing Ele- ! a rnent. The requirement to consider the transportation impacts of local land use policies and r to incorporate transit-, bicycle- and pedestrian-supportive standards would continue. l IOther Options —Other options are possible as well. For example, a jurisdiction could be asked to certify that its development review process for new housing was streamlined to minimize the time the review and approval process takes for development on appropriately I zoned land, for example by setting time limits for design, planning commission and other I reviews and for project approval, where the project conforms to established regulations. The Committee may wish to discuss other options as well. t.._.............. ....... A. Participate fn an Ongoing Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Process Each jurisdiction shall participate in an ongoing process with other jurisdictions and agencies, the Regional "Transportation Planning Committees and the Authority to create a balanced, safe and efficient transportation system and to manage the impacts of growth. Jurisdictions shall work with the Regional Transportation Planning Commit- tees to: A. Identify Routes of Regional Significance, and establish Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives for those routes and actions for achieving those objectives. B. Apply the Authority's travel demand model and technical procedures to the analysis of General flan Amendments (GPAs) and developments exceeding specified thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system, including on Ac- tion Plan objectives. C. Create the development mitigation programs outlined in section 2 above. D. Helping develop other plans, programs and studies to address other transportation and growth management issues. Jurisdictions shall also participate in the Authority's ongoing countywide comprehen- sive transportation planning process. As part of this process, jurisdictions shall help maintain the Authority's travel demand modeling system by providing information on 6-6 PROPOSED GR6WT41•M!ANA,GEMENT PROGRAM completely within the Urban Limit Line may incorporate the line into its General Plan without the approval of voters of the jurisdiction. Option Two -- Each jurisdiction shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with other jurisdictions within Contra Costa, or another comparable binding agree- ment, to establish the Urban Limit Line. The Memorandum of Understanding shall re- quire each jurisdiction to incorporate the Urban Limit Line into its General Plan and es- tablish for its periodic review and amendment to ensure that it adequately fulfills the purposes outlined above. The Memorandum shall also establish a process for adjust- ment where the jurisdiction can show that insufficient opportunities to rneet the juris- diction's housing objectives through infill and redevelopment remain within the juris- diction's area within the Urban Limit Line. E Comment: Option 1, while it could provide greater certainty and permanence, raises sev- I era# issues: What happens if the voters of a jurisdiction do not approve the ULL? Are.they i immediately out of compliance, and how long do they have to gain voter approval? More important, if the jurisdiction's elected officials believe that the ULL must be modified to l gain voter approval, must they first get approval from the other jurisdictions to ensure that the ULL remains "mutually acceptable"? What if voters approve a more restrictive line, and } that line limits the ability of the jurisdiction to meet its housing goals? l i To provide comparable assurances of permanence, the mechanisms relied on in Option 2 must require approval of other jurisdictions for all but very minor adjustments to the Urban Limit Line, and must establish clear standards for how adjustments will be allowed. i I This section doesn't address how or whether the Authority would be involved in develop- ing the ULL, but Authority member comments have suggested that the Authority should I not assume any land use planning responsibilities. If appropriate, however, the PC could add a paragraph noting that the Authority could assist in the development of a mutually acceptable ULL by assisting in the analysis of growth and transportation impacts, and po- tentially in the preparation of any necessary CEQA documents. I 6. Develop a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Each jurisdiction shall prepare and maintain a capital improvement program that out- lines the capital projects needed to implement the goals and policies of the jurisdiction's General flan for at least the following five-yea. period. The Capital Improvement Pro- gram shall include approved projects and an analysis of the costs of the proposed pro- jects as well as a financial plan for providing the improvernents. The jurisdiction shall forward the transportation component of its capital improvement program to the Au- thority for incorporation into the Authority's database of transportation projects. 6-8 PROPOSED GRONV.TffMN:N. AGEMENT PROGRAM This page left blank intentionally 6-10 f ��� � $ %�e✓ff` ff- f f • f. 'f./}1. �•fr - � • R, s • 1 a s t f f�,f}�r ,�• , i f fr ff ADDENDUM D.5 April 20,2004 On this date,the Board of Supervisors CONSIDERED report from the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee on activities in support of reauthorization of Measure C-88, a half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements and growth management. The Board invited comments from the public, and there were no speakers. After further discussions,the Board took the following action: + REQUESTED the Community Development Director to schedule a workshop for April 27, 2004, to report on actions taken by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on April 21, 20104; and to CONSIDER potential actions in support of reauthorization of Measure C-88.