Allocation of 18% Local Street Maintenance & Improvement Funds for Fiscal Years and

Transcription

1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CHECKLIST Allocation of 18% Local Street Maintenance & Improvement Funds for Fiscal Years and Introduction Note: This document may be downloaded from the Web at To receive its share of funds from the Measure J 18 percent Local Street Maintenance and Improvement (LSM) program and to be eligible for funds from the Transportation for Livable Communities (CC-TLC) program, Measure J requires each jurisdiction in Contra Costa to comply with all of the components of its Growth Management Program (GMP). The Authority assesses compliance with the GMP through the review and approval of a jurisdiction s GMP Compliance Checklist. Each jurisdiction must complete the checklist (attached), prepare the detailed information requested in the attachments section, approve the completed Checklist and attachments, and transmit a fully-executed and signed original to the Authority. The Authority generally distributes the checklist in even-numbered years. Jurisdictions then have 18 months to submit their Checklist for review. For the Calendar Year 2014 & 2015 reporting period, the Checklist is due no later than June 30, Provided they have demonstrated compliance with the GMP, jurisdictions are eligible to receive 18 percent funds in August following the close of each fiscal year. If the jurisdiction cannot certify that it meets all of the program requirements by June 30, 2017, it should prepare a Statement of Progress outlining how it is working to meet those requirements.

2 Measure J GMP Checklist Introduction Growth Management Compliance Checklist For Fiscal Years and COMPLETING AND SUBMITTING THE CHECKLIST The Checklist is available as a Word document. Local jurisdictions should complete the Checklist and attachments in Word, print it out, and attach hard copy of reports and backup information as appropriate. A jurisdiction must respond to each question. A Yes or No answer will suffice for most questions, depending upon whether the jurisdiction has fulfilled the requirement although, for certain questions, the Not Applicable response may be more appropriate. Once completed, the Checklist, including attachments, must be reviewed and approved by the jurisdiction s Council or Board, and a fully executed and signed original submitted to the Authority. AUTHORITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CHECKLISTS The completed checklist will be reviewed first by Authority staff for completeness and then by two of the authority s standing committees; the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Planning Committee (PC). After these committees review it, the Authority will review and, if it finds the jurisdiction in compliance with the GMP, approve the Checklist. Once it approves a jurisdiction s checklist, the Authority will allocate funds by the adopted formula of 50 percent population and 50 percent road miles. For Fiscal Year , approximately $14.8 million will be available through the LSM program for allocation to local jurisdictions. An additional 2.09 percent of total Measure J annual revenues is available to local jurisdictions in West, Central, and Southwest. The allocations in Central and Southwest County are made without regard to compliance with the GMP, while the allocations to the local jurisdictions of West County are subject to compliance. GMP COMPONENTS REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE Under the Measure J GMP, local jurisdictions must comply with several requirements, described in greater detail below. The initial GMP was established in Measure C which Contra Costa voters approved in November It was superseded on April 1, 2009 by Measure J which carried forward some of the requirements of the Measure C GMP, while modifying or discontinuing others. The Measure J GMP currently requires compliance with the following: Page 2

3 Measure J GMP Checklist Introduction Growth Management Compliance Checklist For Fiscal Years and Implementation of Action Plans. Part of the responsibilities of local jurisdictions is to implement the actions outlined in the adopted Action Plan for their respective RTPC. During the CY 2014 & 2015 reporting period, although much progress was made on updating the Action Plans for the 2014 CTP, the Action Plans adopted as of June 17, 2009 the date the Authority s adopted the 2009 Countywide Transportation Plan remain in effect. Jurisdictions must also comply with the policies and procedures included in the Action Plans, the Implementation Guide and the Technical Procedures. These documents address circulation of environmental documents, analysis of the impacts of proposed General Plan amendments and recommendation of changes to Action Plans, conditioning the approval of projects consistent with Action Plan policies, and Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) review of General Plan Amendments. New or Continued Development Mitigation Programs. Local jurisdictions must continue and update their existing development mitigation programs: both their local program to mitigate development impacts on local streets, and a regional program developed by the RTPC within their subarea. The regional program establishes fees, exactions, assessments, or other measures to fund regional and subregional transportation projects to mitigate the impacts of new growth on the transportation system. Housing Options. Each jurisdiction must demonstrate reasonable progress in achieving the objectives in its Housing Element. The GMP gives jurisdictions three options for demonstrating this progress, as described in the instructions. Additionally, jurisdictions must demonstrate that they have incorporated policies and standards that support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access into their review of new development. Traffic Impact Studies. Jurisdictions must conduct traffic impact studies as part of development review for any project estimated to generate more than 100 net new peak-hour vehicle trips. The RTPC may establish a lower threshold. These studies must comply with the Authority s Technical Procedures. Multi-Jurisdictional Planning. Each jurisdiction must continue its current efforts to participate in an ongoing, multi-jurisdictional cooperative planning process through the RTPCs. This includes participation in meetings of the appropriate RTPC, working with the RTPC to develop and implement the Action Plans, and applying the Authority s travel demand Page 3

4 Measure J GMP Checklist Introduction Growth Management Compliance Checklist For Fiscal Years and model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of General Plan Amendments (GPAs) and development projects exceeding specified thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Jurisdictions must continue to prepare five-year capital improvement programs, including approved transportation projects and an analysis of the costs of proposed projects. The program must outline a financial plan for providing proposed improvements. TSM Ordinance, Resolution, or Alternative Form of Mitigation. Local jurisdictions should have in place an adopted Transportation Systems Management (TSM) or Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance, resolution, or alternative form of mitigation that substantially conforms to the Authority s Model TSM Resolution. Growth Management Element. Local jurisdictions must update their Growth Management Elements (GME) consistent with the new Model Growth Management Element adopted by the Authority in June The GME is the jurisdiction s main platform for outlining goals and policies for managing growth and requirements for achieving those goals. Jurisdictions are encouraged to supplement their GMEs with any elements outside of the Model GME that may be helpful in achieving both the objectives of the GMP and the goals and policies of the local General Plan. Since all local jurisdictions have already adopted a final Measure J GME, at present no updates are required. Urban Limit Line. To comply with the GMP, jurisdictions must adopt and continuously comply with the provisions of a voter-approved Urban Limit Line (ULL). A jurisdiction may adopt its own local voter-approved Urban Limit Line, or adopt the County s ULL (Measure L, 2006) to fulfill this requirement. At present, all local jurisdictions in Contra Costa have a voter approved ULL. SUGGESTED REFERENCES Some important reference documents that the Authority has adopted and that local staff should have on hand when completing the Checklist are: 1. Growth Management Implementation Guide, July 2010; Page 4

5 Measure J GMP Checklist Introduction Growth Management Compliance Checklist For Fiscal Years and The 2009 Update to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, including the Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, adopted June 17, 2009; 3. Measure J Model Growth Management Element, June 8, 2007; 4. Technical Procedures, updated January 2013; and 5. Model Transportation System Management Ordinance, adopted in All of these may be downloaded from our website at Links to these documents are also provided in the Checklist instructions. Page 5

6 Measure J Growth Management Program INSTRUCTIONS 1. Action Plans a. Is the jurisdiction implementing the actions called for in the applicable Action Plan for all designated Routes of Regional Significance within the jurisdiction? The Measure J Growth Management Program requires each jurisdiction to implement the actions outlined for it in the most recent Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. The Action Plans, as their name implies, outline actions, policies and procedures for addressing impacts on the designated Routes of Regional Significance in the subareas of Contra Costa. ATTACH... Detailed information on implementation steps taken during the reporting period. The most recent Action Plans can be downloaded from the Authority s website at: b. Has the jurisdiction implemented the following procedures as outlined in the Implementation Guide and the applicable Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance? i. Circulation of environmental documents Measure J requires that jurisdictions circulate environmental documents for certain developments to nearby and affected agencies. The Authority s Implementation Guide outlines which environmental documents for which developments are affected and the basic requirements for circulation of these documents. The Implementation Guide may be downloaded here: 1

7 ii. Analysis of the impacts of proposed General Plan amendments (GPAs) and recommendation of changes to Action Plans. Jurisdictions must determine whether proposed GPAs would: Conflict with Action Plan policies, or Prevent attainment of the Multi Modal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) included in the Action Plan. If the answer is yes to one of the above issues, the jurisdiction has the option of proposing changes to the applicable Action Plan to avoid impacts to the regional transportation network caused by the proposed GPA. These proposed changes will be considered by the respective Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC). ATTACH... Any GPAs approved during the reporting period. If an RTPC review was requested, include a description of the process undertaken. The most recent Action Plans can be downloaded from the Authority s website at: iii. Conditioning the approval of projects consistent with Action Plan policies? The jurisdiction should review its applicable Action Plan to determine if any conditions exist for the approval of projects. ATTACH.... A summary of projects approved during the reporting period and the conditions required for consistency with the Action Plan. The most recent Action Plans can be downloaded from the Authority s website at: c. Has the jurisdiction followed the procedures for Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) review of General Plan Amendments as called for in the Implementation Guide? RTPC review of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is required if it exceeds the threshold size established in the applicable Action Plan or creates more than 500 net new peak hour vehicle trips. Section 4.2 of the Implementation Guide explains the RTPC review procedures. If no development projects or GPAs were considered during the reporting period, a N/A response is appropriate. 2

8 ATTACH... Any GPAs approved during the reporting period should be listed in the attachments, noting those requiring RTPC review. The Implementation Guide may be downloaded here: 2. Development Mitigation Program a. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented a local development mitigation program to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the impact mitigation costs associated with that development? Measure J requires jurisdictions to adopt a local development mitigation program to ensure that Measure C funds will not, in essence, be used to subsidize new development. The mitigation program must (1) require new development to pay its fair share of costs, and (2) stipulate that no funds from Measure C will be used address impacts caused by new development. Furthermore, mitigation projects that are identified in traffic impact studies of proposed development should be incorporated into the jurisdiction s mitigation program, and identified in the jurisdiction s five year Capital Improvement Program, specifying the funding arrangements for the mitigations. b. Has the jurisdiction adopted and implemented the regional transportation mitigation program, developed and adopted by the applicable Regional Transportation Planning Committee, including any regional traffic mitigation fees, assessments, or other mitigation as appropriate? The regional transportation mitigation program (RTMP) is intended to address regional traffic impacts and fund regional and subregional transportation projects. Each regional mitigation program addresses the process for setting fees and other mitigations for new development. The jurisdiction s adopting policy should require traffic impact reports for new development to (1) be consistent with the RTMP, (2) clearly indicate recommended mitigation measures, and (3) calculate through a transparent, repeatable method the project s contribution to regional mitigation costs. The most recent Summary Status Report on the RTMP can be downloaded from the Authority s website at: 3

9 3. Housing Options and Job Opportunities a. Has the jurisdiction prepared and submitted a report to the Authority demonstrating reasonable progress in providing housing opportunities for all income levels under its Housing Element? The report can demonstrate progress by: (1) comparing the number of housing units approved, constructed or occupied within the jurisdiction over the preceding five years with the number of units needed on average each year to meet the housing objectives established in its Housing Element; or (2) illustrating how the jurisdiction has adequately planned to meet the existing and projected housing needs through the adoption of land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development; or (3) illustrating how its General Plan and zoning regulations facilitate improvement or development of sufficient housing to meet the Element s objectives. Measure J requires each jurisdiction to outline the progress it is making in achieving the objectives for providing housing for all income levels in its jurisdiction, as outlined in its General Plan Housing Element. The Measure J GMP gives jurisdictions three options for demonstrating progress in meeting those objectives. The progress report should clearly show how the jurisdiction is faring in meeting projected needs, and how its General Plan and/or zoning facilitate these ends. This report may demonstrate progress by using one of three options: 1) actual units constructed, 2) adoption of land use plans and adequate regulatory systems, or 3) General Plan zoning regulations. This report is consistent with State requirements that each local government shall review its housing element to evaluate the progress of the city, county, or city and county in implementation of the housing element. (California Government Code 65588(a)) ATTACH... The jurisdiction s Housing Element implementation progress report, which includes (1), (2), or (3) listed above. 4

10 b. Does the jurisdiction s General Plan or other adopted policy document or report consider the impacts that its land use and development policies have on the local, regional and countywide transportation system, including the level of transportation capacity that can reasonably be provided? Each jurisdiction must address how housing development will affect the transportation system. A recently updated Circulation Element of the jurisdiction s General Plan will most likely contain this information. c. Has the jurisdiction incorporated policies and standards into its development approval process that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new developments? Measure J requires each jurisdiction to incorporate policies and standards into its General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or other parts of its process for reviewing and approving proposed developments that support transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access in new developments. ATTACH... Locally adopted policies and standards that ensure consideration of and support for walking, bicycling and transit access during the review of proposed development. Compliance with and enforcement of the State s Complete Streets Act (AB 1358) may be used to demonstrate adoption of such policies and standards. 4. Traffic Impact Studies a. Using the Authority s Technical Procedures, have traffic impact studies been conducted as part of development review for all projects estimated to generate more than 100 net new peak-hour vehicle trips? (Note: Lower traffic generation thresholds established through the RTPC s Action Plan may apply.) The traffic studies must be prepared in accordance with the Authority s Technical Procedures, and, if applicable, the Authority s Countywide Model. ATTACH... A summary list of all projects during the reporting period that exceeded the applicable threshold, noting whether a traffic study was prepared consistent with the Authority s Technical Procedures. The Technical Procedures can be downloaded from the Authority s website at: 5

11 Information on the Authority s latest travel demand model is located here: Some of the responses to Question 4.a. may warrant a N/A response; for example, if no development projects generating more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips have been approved, check N/A. Similarly, check N/A if your jurisdiction does not have any signalized reporting intersections or regional routes. If the answer to 4.a. above is yes, did the local jurisdiction notify affected parties and circulate the traffic impact study during the environmental review process? ATTACH... Note whether notification and circulation was undertaken for each project on the attached list for 4.a. 5. Participation in Cooperative, Multi-Jurisdictional Planning a. During the reporting period, has the jurisdiction s Council/Board representative regularly participated in meetings of the appropriate RTPC, and have the jurisdiction s local representatives to the RTPC regularly reported on the activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or board? (Note: Each RTPC should have a policy that defines what constitutes regular attendance of Council/Board members at RTPC meetings.) Each Council/Board should have a designated member who represents their jurisdiction at the RTPC meetings. Regular attendance at RTPC meetings by elected officials is one of the GMP compliance requirements. Each RTPC is responsible for defining what constitutes regular attendance. Should an absenteeism issue persist, it is the RTPC s responsibility to address it, and to notify the Authority if lack of participation has infringed on that RTPC s regular attendance policy. Check yes to Question 6.a. if your designated Council/Board member has regularly attended and reported on RTPC meetings. b. Has the local jurisdiction worked with the RTPC to develop and implement the Action Plans, including identification of Routes of Regional Significance, establishing Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) for those routes, and defining actions for achieving the MTSOs? The jurisdiction is expected to have participated in updates to the applicable Action Plan to identify Routes of Regional Significance, establish MTSOs for those routes, and actions for achieving those MTSOs. 6

12 c. Has the local jurisdiction applied the Authority s travel demand model and Technical Procedures to the analysis of General Plan Amendments (GPAs) and developments exceeding specified thresholds for their effect on the regional transportation system, including on Action Plan MTSOs? The jurisdiction is required to disclose the transportation impacts of proposed projects and General Plan Amendments through use of the Authority s Countywide Model and application of a uniform set of traffic analysis procedures. This answer should be consistent with and consider the responses to Questions 1.b.ii and 1.c, which also cover this topic. The Technical Procedures can be downloaded from the Authority s website at: d. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the countywide transportation computer model, data on proposed improvements to the jurisdiction s transportation system, including roadways, pedestrian circulation, bikeways and trails; planned and improved development within the jurisdiction; and traffic patterns? Local staff are expected to provide, on an as needed basis, land use and traffic data as input into the Authority s model. A yes response indicates that local staff has responded to these requests. 6. Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Does the jurisdiction have an adopted five-year capital improvement program (CIP) that includes approved projects and an analysis of project costs as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements? (The transportation component of the plan must be forwarded to the Authority for incorporation into the Authority s database of transportation projects) The Authority s Implementation Documents require that the CIP be amended annually, taking into account changes in project cost, funding sources, project development, and timing. If jurisdictions wish to avoid annual updates to the CIP, they may elect to develop longer range CIPs. For example, a jurisdiction could adopt a seven year CIP. This would allow the jurisdiction to perform updates every two years, instead of annually. Consequently, the jurisdiction must have not only adopted a CIP to receive a Yes answer, but must also have updated the CIP within the proper timeframe. 7

13 The CIP must include approved projects, their estimated costs, and a financial plan for providing the improvements. If funds allocated to any project for the previous year were not spent during the year, and the funds will be needed in the future, that should be reflected in the most recent version of the CIP. ATTACH... The transportation component of the most recent version of the 5 year CIP. 7. Transportation Systems Management Program Has the jurisdiction adopted a transportation systems management ordinance or resolution that incorporates required policies consistent with the updated model ordinance prepared by the Authority for use by local agencies or qualified for adoption of alternative mitigation measures because it has a small employment base? The transportation systems management (TSM) program must be (a) adopted as an ordinance or resolution and (b) substantially based on the Authority s model TSM ordinance. The TSM program should promote carpools, vanpools, and park and ride lots. To address recent climate change legislation (AB 32 and SB 375) the Authority expects to update its Model TSM Resolution. Jurisdictions should use the updated TSM ordinance for a new TSM program, or update their existing TSM ordinance based on the updated model resolution. Until the model resolution is updated, jurisdictions should include actions within their adopted TSM resolution that provide vehicle trip and greenhouse gas emissions reduction elements and mitigation measures. ATTACH... A copy of the TSM ordinance or resolution. 8. Adoption of a Voter-Approved Urban Limit Line a. Has the local jurisdiction adopted and continually complied with an applicable voterapproved Urban Limit Line as outlined in the Authority s annual ULL Policy Advisory Letter? As set forth in Ordinance 06 04, local jurisdictions must continuously comply with a localvoter approved ULL, or the County s ULL (Measure L, 2006). At present, the County, San Ramon, Pittsburg and Antioch have each adopted a Local Voter Approved ULL. For these jurisdictions, review their compliance with their locally approved ULL. For all other jurisdictions, which have opted to adopt the County s ULL, answer N/A. The latest ULL Policy Advisory Letter is attached. 8

14 If the jurisdiction has modified its voter-approved ULL or approved a major subdivision or General Plan Amendment outside the ULL, has the jurisdiction made a finding of consistency with the Measure J provisions on ULLs and criteria in the ULL Policy Advisory Letter after holding a noticed public hearing and making the proposed finding publically available? ATTACH... The resolution making the finding of consistency and a copy of the public hearing notice. 9. Adoption of the Measure J Growth Management Element Has the local jurisdiction adopted a final GME for its General Plan that substantially complies with the intent of the Authority s adopted Measure J Model GME? Each local jurisdiction is required to update the Growth Management Element (GME) to its General Plan based upon the new Measure J Model Growth Management Element, adopted by the Authority in June The updated GME must substantially comply with the intent of this Model Element, but need not reflect its exact language or organization. ATTACH... The jurisdiction s updated GME from the CY 2010 & 2011 reporting period is on file with the Authority. Please attach any updates for the current reporting period. 10. Posting of Signs Has the jurisdiction posted signs meeting Authority specifications for all projects exceeding $250,000 that are funded, in whole or in part, with Measure C or Measure J funds? ATTACH... A list of all projects exceeding $250,000 within the jurisdiction, noting which ones are or were signed according to Authority specifications. The sign specifications are available from CCTA upon request. 11. Maintenance of Effort (MoE) Has the jurisdiction met the MoE requirements of Measure J as stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (as 9

15 amended)? (See the Checklist Instructions for a listing of MoE requirements by local jurisdiction.) The Measure J Expenditure Plan requires each jurisdiction to maintain a minimum level of local street and road expenditures by using funds other than Measure C or J Local Street Implications Maintenance and Improvement (LSM) Funds. This minimum level of non LSM funding is called Maintenance of Effort (MoE). Each jurisdiction s MoE is based upon the amount spent for transportation during a base period, unless it has been permanently adjusted as a result of an appeal to the Authority. The current MoE requirements for each jurisdiction are as follows and are based on amendments made in 1997: Jurisdiction MoE Level Jurisdiction MoE Level Antioch $1,159,076 Moraga $326,140 Brentwood $146,872 Oakley n/a Clayton $172,329 Orinda $472,306 Concord $2,183,881 Pinole $338,288 County $3,920,003 Pittsburg $860,639 Danville $661,930 Pleasant Hill $624,952 El Cerrito $464,912 Richmond $1,649,140 Hercules $338,152 San Pablo $377,316 Lafayette $527,872 San Ramon $747,292 Martinez $614,915 Walnut Creek $1,201,784 While this checklist addresses Growth Management Compliance for the reporting period of Calendar Years 2014 and 2015, the reporting period for the MoE section of the checklist applies to the previous two fiscal years (FY and FY ). ATTACH... The MoE requirement as listed above, and report the non LSM expenditures on local streets and roads for each fiscal year in the reporting period. The Measure J Expenditure Plan is located at: 10

16 12. Submittal of Local Street Maintenance and Improvement (LSM) Reporting Form Has the local jurisdiction submitted a LSM Reporting Form for Measure J expenditures during FY and FY ? Submittal of the LSM Reporting Form is a new checklist requirement. Each jurisdiction should provide an accounting of LSM expenditures along with a description of projects in excess of $10,000. The form serves as an audit report that helps CCTA report on Measure J LSM expenditures for each fiscal year. ATTACH... The LSM Reporting Form for fiscal years and Other Considerations If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure J have been satisfied in a way not indicated on this checklist, has an explanation been attached below? 11

17 COMMISSIONERS Julie Pierce, Chair Dave Hudson, Vice Chair Janet Abelson Newell Arnerich Tom Butt David Durant Federal Glover Karen Mitchoff Kevin Romick Don Tatzin Robert Taylor Randell H. Iwasaki, Executive Director July 17, 2015 Mayor (Addressee) (Organization) (Address Line 1) (Address Line 2) Subject: Measure J Implementation Annual Urban Limit Line Policy Advisory Letter Dear Mayor (Last Name): I am writing to explain our Urban Limit Line (ULL) policy, as established in Measure J. As you know, Measure J, the half-cent transportation improvement sales tax passed by the voters of Contra Costa in November 2004, includes an innovative Growth Management Program (GMP) that, among other things, requires that every jurisdiction in Contra Costa establish and adopt a voterapproved ULL. Local jurisdictions that comply with the ULL and meet the other requirements of the GMP are then eligible to receive the 18 percent return-tosource funds ( Local Street Maintenance and Improvement (LSM) Funds ) and the 5 percent Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) funds, which are awarded on a discretionary basis. Local jurisdictions must acknowledge having read and understood this letter in the biennial GMP Compliance Checklist submitted to us and also indicate whether the jurisdiction has adopted and continuously complied with an applicable voter-approved ULL as a part of its General Plan Oak Road Suite 100 Walnut Creek CA PHONE: FAX: In Measure J, the ULL is defined as an urban limit line, urban growth boundary, or other equivalent physical boundary that clearly identifies the physical limits of future urban development within a local jurisdiction s planning area. It must be either a Countywide mutually agreed upon voter-approved ULL (the so-called MAC-ULL), a local voter-approved ULL, or the County s ULL, as approved by the voters of Contra Costa through Measure L (November 2006), and be incorporated into the General Plan through the Growth Management Element. We recognize that local land use planning is an evolving process and that jurisdictions may seek to annex land from time to time for urban development. However, you should know that submittal of an annexation request by a local jurisdiction to LAFCO outside of an applicable voter-approved ULL will constitute S:\14-Planning\GMP\Measure J\GMP Local Compliance Review\Checklists\CY 2014 & 2015\Administrative\ULL 2015.rev2.docx 12

18 Mayor July 17, 2015 Page 2 non-compliance with the Measure J GMP. The Authority has established a process to address such situations, as described in the attachment. If you have any questions about these requirements, please contact Martin Engelmann at (925) /mre@ccta.net. More information is available in Chapter 5 of the Implementation Guide, which you can find on the Authority s website at We appreciate your continued participation in the Authority s programs. Sincerely, Julie K. Pierce, Chair cc: City Council City Manager Planning Director Checklist Preparer Attachment: Process for Evaluation of ULL Related Local Action file: S:\14-Planning\GMP\Measure J\GMP Local Compliance Review\Checklists\CY 2014 & 2015\Administrative\ULL 2015.rev2.docx 13

19 Process for Evaluation of ULL-Related Local Action The following process outlines the steps that a local jurisdiction may take to request the Authority s help in evaluating a prospective ULL action, and the subsequent steps the Authority would take in assessing the local jurisdiction s compliance with the ULLcomponent of the Growth Management Program. ULL Policy Evaluation Letter Request. At any time, a local jurisdiction may ask the Authority to evaluate a proposed local action to determine whether that action may conflict with the ULL provisions of the GMP. Similarly, a third party may request that the Authority evaluate a local jurisdiction s proposed action to determine whether that action may conflict with the ULL provisions of the GMP. In response, the Authority will ask that local jurisdiction if the jurisdiction would like the Authority to analyze the proposed action to determine whether any ULL compliance issues are evident. In either scenario, if the local jurisdiction requests the referenced ULL-related evaluation, the Authority will provide the requested evaluation. The Authority will base its evaluation on the consistency of the proposed action with specified criteria which are listed below. The Authority will document the analysis of the proposed action and convey its findings to the local jurisdiction in an Evaluation Letter. The Evaluation Letter may include recommendations that could ensure the jurisdiction s compliance with the ULL requirements of Measure J. Subsequent Notice if a Local Action Related to a ULL is Non-Conforming. If, after receiving an Evaluation Letter, the jurisdiction subsequently approves the proposal without conforming it to the voter-approved ULL, then the Authority will send a Final Notice of Concern, advising the jurisdiction that, subject to a detailed review of the proposed development project based on the Measure J ULL and the Authority s criteria, the jurisdiction is likely to be found out of compliance with the GMP, until it has a voter approved ULL that includes the proposal or project area. Authority s Criteria for Assessing Compliance. The following summarizes the criteria established by the Authority for determining whether or not a proposal conforms to the ULL requirement of Measure J: The proposed development lies within the physical boundary of the voterapproved ULL; or The proposed development involves a non-sequential, non-contiguous adjustment to the ULL that does not exceed 30 acres in size as explicitly permitted under the voter-approved ULL; or The proposed development is necessary to avoid an unconstitutional taking of private property as provided in the voter-approved ULL; or 14

20 Process for Evaluation of ULL-Related Local Action The proposed development is necessary to comply with state or federal law; The proposed development is explicitly listed as an exception to the physical ULL boundary in the jurisdiction s voter-approved ULL, or the proposal is found and determined to be consistent with the definition of non-urban uses in the voterapproved ULL ; or The proposed development: (a) does not involve an extension or expansion of urban services (such as water or sewer) across the physical ULL boundary, unless such extension or expansion is to serve solely allowed non-urban uses; or (b) is in connection with a development proposal meeting the criteria above. Proposed developments that do not conform to any of these criteria will be further evaluated by the Authority for possible GMP compliance issues. Explanation of Modifications to ULL, or Development for Areas Outside of the ULL. For modifications to the voter-approved ULL or for a major subdivision or General Plan Amendments in areas outside the ULL, a findings of consistency with the provisions of that ULL must be made by the local jurisdiction s elected governing body after holding a properly noticed public hearing, and the findings shall be publicly provided by the jurisdiction to explain its degree of consistency with the GMP (including its consistency with the jurisdiction s ULL and General Plan) and noted in the applicable Measure J Compliance Checklist, so that the Authority may determine compliance with the GMP. Acceptable Discretionary Actions. For areas beyond the physical boundary of the applicable ULL, the following do not constitute a violation of the ULL provisions, as these actions are discretionary and do not commit a local jurisdiction to development beyond a local voter-approved ULL: Planning studies that result in neither administratively approved zoning changes nor general plan amendments nor specific approvals; or Requests for changes to a city or town s sphere of influence for purposes of considering future voter-approved changes to the applicable ULL and subsequent annexation requests. Timing of a Finding of Non-Compliance. The Authority may find a jurisdiction out of compliance with the ULL requirements of Measure J based on its review of the jurisdiction s GMP Compliance Checklist submittal and the above criteria. 15

21 Checklist of Attachments The following list summarizes all the attachments that must accompany the checklist: 1.a. 1.b.ii. Detailed information on implementation steps taken during the reporting period. Any GPAs approved during the reporting period. If an RTPC review was requested, include a description of the process undertaken. 1.b.iii. A summary of projects approved during the reporting period and the conditions required for consistency with the Action Plan. 1.c. Any GPAs approved during the reporting period should be listed in the attachments, noting those requiring RTPC review. 3.a. The jurisdiction s Housing Element implementation progress report, which includes (1), (2), or (3) listed above. 3.c. 4.a. Locally adopted policies and standards that ensure consideration of and support for walking, bicycling and transit access during the review of proposed development. A summary list of all projects during the reporting period that exceeded the applicable threshold, noting whether a traffic study was prepared consistent with the Authority s Technical Procedures. Note whether notification and circulation was undertaken for each project on the attached list for 4.a. 6. The transportation component of the most recent CIP version, if the Authority does not already have it. 7. A copy of the TSM ordinance or resolution. 8. The MoE requirement as listed above, and report the non-lsm expenditures on local streets and roads for each fiscal year in the reporting period. 9. A list of all projects exceeding $250,000 within the jurisdictions, noting which ones are or were signed according to Authority specifications. 10. The jurisdiction s updated GME. This can be a draft if the update has not yet been adopted note if this is the case along with the expected timeline for review and adoption. 11. The resolution making the finding of consistency and a copy of the public hearing notice. 12. LSM Reporting Form 16