Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04071992 - 1.15 (2) TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS = Contra FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director �;�, Costa Community Development Department . C °o.. �:• ounty rq-�•�N� DATE: April 7, 1992 SUBJECT: Initial Compliance Checklist and CIP for Measure C (1988) . RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the proposed 1992-1997. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (see Exhibit A) ; 2 . Adopt the 1992-1997 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities (see Exhibit B) ; 3 . Approve the completed Initial Compliance Checklist (see Exhibit C) and find that the County' s policies and programs conform to the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. FISCAL IMPACT Approval of the Checklist and adoption of the Capital Improvement Program qualifies the County to receive its Fiscal Year 1992 allocation of Measure C (1988) "return to source" revenues, estimated at $1, 481, 400. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On March 10, 1992 , the Board of Supervisors authorized the Director of Community Development to complete and submit the Initial Compliance Checklist for the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. Two related actions must precede completion and submittal of the Checklist: 1) CEQA review of the proposed 1992-1997 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities; and 2) adoption of this CIP. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUR . vey ragdon RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON �7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS � j' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT Lam- TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development ATTESTED g 9� cc: Public Works, Road Engineering PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Sheriff THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cheklist.bo BY �/ / // DEPUTY 1 r r Initial Compliance Checklist and CIP for Measure C (1988) April 7 , 1992 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (cont. ) For the purposes of compliance with the CEQA, the Community Development Department staff has found, pursuant to adopted County CEQA Guidelines, that 1992-1997 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities is not a project subject to CEQA. This follows from the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. No physical change in the environment will result from the adoption of this CIP: all capital facilities programmed are fully committed or constructed, and awaiting occupancy. Projects which may be funded in the future consistent with this CIP which are as yet undefined will be subject to separate review under the CEQA. Under the provision of Section 15061 (b) (3) , of the State and County CEQA Guidelines, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of this CIP could have a significant effect on the environment. The 1992-1997 CIP for Parks and Sheriff Facilities was prepared as part of the Department' s Development Mitigation Program. This CIP is authorized by Implementation Measure 4-n of the 1991 County General Plan. Any capital projects sponsored by the County and necessary to maintain levels of performance must be identified in a five-year CIP. Funding sources for the complete cost of the improvements, and phasing, if any, must also be identified in the CIP. This CIP demonstrates that development anticipated between 1992 and 1997 will satisfy the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. Compliance with traffic performance standards is described in the 1991/92 - 1997/98 County Road Improvement Program adopted by the Board on June 25, 1991. Compliance with performance standards for fire, water, and sanitary facilities must be demonstrated by the developer prior to approving such development. The County' s General Plan, adopted on January 29 , 1991, provides the policies and programs that enable the County to comply with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) Growth Management Program. The Checklist was completed based on these policies and programs. The CCTA requires that the Board review and approve the completed checklist, and find that the County's policies and programs conform to the CCTA' s Growth Management Program. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION Failure to approve the Checklist and adopt the CIP will prevent the County from qualifying for its Fiscal Year 1992 allocation of "return-to-source" funds. T E X H I BIT A DETERMINATION THAT AN ACTIVITY IS NOT A PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FILE NO. CP#92-28 ACTIVITY NAME: Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program: Capital Improvements Program for Parks & Sheriff Facilities PREPARED BY: Dennis M. Barry, AICP DATE: April 1, 1992 This activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act.(CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of Chapter 3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Adoption of a capital improvements program for the provision of Sheriff and parks facilities. in order to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Measure C-1988. No physical change in the environment will result from. the adition of this program: all capital facilities programmed are fully committed or constructed, and awaiting occupancy. Projects which may be funded in thefuture consistent with this program which are as yet undefined will be subject -to review under the California Environmental Quality Act. LOCATION: Countywide in the County of Contra Costa, State of California Date: Reviewed by: Community Development Department Repres ntative E X 11 I B I T B Contra Costa County Development Mitigation Program 1992-1997 Capital Improvements Program for Provision of Parks & Sheriff Facilities Prepared by Contra Costa County Community Development Department April 1992 I. INTRODUCTION This document is Contra Costa County's Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for providing park and sheriff facilities in the unincorporated parts of the County. A companion document, the County road Imporvement Program, descirbes project to mitigate the transportation impacts of new development as well as facilitating access to housing opportunities for all income levels. Both documents fulfill the County's obligations as described in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA) "Initial Compliance Checklist," which is used to measure how well individual jurisdictions are complying with the standards established under the growth management requirements of Measure C - 1988. This report first describes the performance standards which were established by the County's Growth Management Program and integrated into the 1991 Countywide General Plan. Because the CIP is based on a five-year horizon, growth estimates, developed by the CCTA, for that time period are presented in the following section. Based on the estimated population growth, the analysis describes in further detail the facilities which are needed to meet the performance standards set forth in the Growth Management Program. The remaining sections of the report describe a list of projects and estimated costs and the various funding mechanisms which would be used to secure financing for the projects. II. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS The Contra Costa County Growth Management Program establishes certain standards for the provision of public services in the unincorporated areas. The standards for parks is set a three acres of "Neighborhood Parks" per 1,000 population, while the sheriff services facility standard is 155 square feet of station per 1,000 population. The standards which are described in further detail in the County General Plan Growth Management Element are established for the entire unincorporated area. Because there is no requirement for analyzing separate sub-areas within the County, the discussion and analysis are on a countywide basis. The next section presents population estimates for the five-year period between 1992-1997 and describes the status of compliance with the performance standards for parks and sheriff facilities. ITT. POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1992-1997 The CCTA has developed a countywide land use database for transportation demand forecasing purposes. The land use data were compiled using information from the individual jurisdictions throughout the county. The CCTA land use database is a further refinement of the County's land use database which was used for updating the General Plan. The CCTA database established a 1990 base year which relied on the 1990 Census for developing housing and population estimates; these numbers are within one percent of ABAG estimates. The database is supplemented with information from each jurisdiction within the county. This information describes in further detail the many development applications which are being processed and also provides estimates on remaining buildout potential within that jurisdiction's boundaries. The estimates on buildout potential reflect existing land use policy which is in effect at that moment in time. Grotivth Projections for the Unincorporated County Table 1 is a summary of the CCTA growth projections between 1990 - 2000 for the unincorporated county area. This table shows an overall increase in households of about 11,593 and a population increase of 21,162. Table 1 CCTA Growth Projections for Unincorporated Contra Costa 1990 2000 10 yr. HH 1990 2000 10 yr. Pop HH's HH's increment Pon Pop Increment Total 54,433 66,026 11,593 143,210 164,372 21,162 One Yr. Increment 1,159 2,116 Staff used a straight line projection for purposes of determining one year growth increments and based on these increments developed household and population estimates for each year for the next five years (1992 up until 1997). County staff has made some adjustments to the CCTA figures which should be noted here. Because the County is only obligated to provide services to urban areas shown on the County Land Use map, growth envisioned in the Antioch sphere of influence, a pending general plan amendment presently being processed by that city, has been subtracted from the totals. The increment for the Antioch sphere area is 1,935 households and 5,266 people. The County General Plan designates this area as Agricultural Land which provides for five acre densities. However, staff assumed that property owners would not develop at five acre densities because of the greater economic return which would be captured if development occurred under the density envisioned by Antioch. Using a straight-line method, each year would result in about 1,159 additional households and 2,116 additional people. Unincorporated Housing & Population Increments: 1992 - 1997 Using the one year increments for housing and population, Table 2 shows the additional amount of housing and population for each year within the five year period between 1992 - 1997. The table also shows the amount of parks and sheriff facilities which are needed to conform with the Growth Management Standards for these facilities. I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2: Increments in Households & Papulation: 1992-1997 Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 . 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Households* 1159 2292 3425 4558 5691 population 2116 7156 12196 .17236 22276 neigh. parks 6 21 17 52 67 sheriff (sq.ft. ) 328 1109 1890 2672 3453 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Households assume 5% vacancy rate, --i ------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------- Table 3: Projected Revenues from Park Fees Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated HU' s* East Co HU' s 540 1080 1620 2160 2700 Remainder Hu' s 694 1347 2000 2653 3306 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 1234 2427 3624 4813 6006 Estimated Fees 1992-1997 East Co. $710,377 $1 ,420,477 $2,130,577 $2,840,677 $3,550,777 Remainder $1 ,387,36a $2,693,368 $3,999,368 $5,305,368 $6,611 ,200 Total Fees for County $2,097,745 $4, 113,845 $6, 129,945 $8, 146,045 $10, 162, 145 Sheriff Facilities Table 2 indicates that the total amount of new sheriff facilities which are needed to conform with the adopted standard of 155 square feet per 1000 population is almost 3,500 square feet of new facilities. The West County Justice Center which did not exist when the General Plan and Growth Management Standards were adopted in January 1991 is a new facility which is near completion. This facility provides approximately 237,000 square feet of gross building area. An estimated 1.5 percent of this square footage (or 3,555 sq. ft.) will utilized for patrol and investigative services. Financing for the facilities is already secured. Although this facility provides enough space to meet growth management standards, financing of future sheriff facilities may become an issue because at present, there is no financing mechanism which ensures that as new development occurs adequate facilities are provided. The creation of a separate fee which would be assessed to new development is being considered and provide assurances that sheriff facilities are provided as growth occurs in the future. Park Facilities The Growth Management Standard for parks is three acres of neighborhood parks per 1000 population. Table 2 reveals that the five year population growth estimated by the CCTA will result in the need for an additional 67 acres of parks. Proposed Parks The County has already committed funds for the acquisition and development of future park sites which totals approximately 26.5 acres. These sites are in the East County area and are identified as follows: 1) Crockett Park 5.0 acres 2) Laurel Park 14.0 acres 3) Maura Park 6.5 acres TOTAL 26.5 acres CIP for Parks The CIP provision to provide the remaining 40.5 acres of parkland, at this time, identifies the revenues available for park acquisition. The primary sources of revenues which could be used to buy and develop parks to meet Growth Management Standards is Measure AA funds; State bond money; and Parkland Dedication fees which are assessed to each new lot or housing unit that is developed in unincorporated county areas. To date, the most recent available figures for Measure AA and State bond monies is approximately $1.47 million and $84,000 respectively. Based on the growth estimates provided Table 2, County staff has devised an estimate of the approximate amount of housing units which would be developed for the five year period. Housing units are derived from the household estimates. Households assume a 5% vacancy rate. Table 3 shows the estimated number of housing units which would be constructed over the five year period is 5965 units. The total amount of parkland dedications fees which would be collected during this time period is about $10 million. If the parkland dedication fee is applied to all subdivisions, consistent with the provisions of the Quimby Act, the maximum decdication allowable under the Act is three acres per 1,000 population. Adherence to this stnadard by application of the Park Dedication ordinance ensures that sufficient funds will be generated to meet the growth management standards specified in the County General Plan. INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST EXHIBIT C CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Submission: This checklist. should be submitted to the CCTA one year after the CCTA's Model Growth Management Element is adopted, or as soon as the jurisdiction has adopted a Growth Management Element pursuant to the CCTA- adopted Model Growth Management Element. Prior to the CCTA's adoption of the Model Growth Management Element, jurisdictions should submit the Interim Compliance Checklist. 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Measure C requires that each jurisdiction adopt a Growth Management Element of its General Plan that includes traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards and performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary, water and flood control capital facilities.* The standards are to be applied in the development review process. 1-a. Has the jurisdiction adopted a General Plan Growth Management Element that substantially conforms to the objectives of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Model Growth Management Element? YES X NO Date Growth Management Element Adopted: _L_J29 91 By: Resolution # 9.1-68 1-b. Has the jurisdiction analyzed the relationship between LOS and performance standards in the Growth Management Element and the programs and policies of other General Plan elements? YES X NO 1-c. Are the programs and policies of other General Plan elements consistent with the policies of the Growth Management Element? YES X NO * The text of this paragraph has been revised to reflect action by the CCTA on 2/19/92. IC-1 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 1-d. If the answer to 1-c is no, is the jurisdiction's General Plan currently undergoing revision to achieve internal consistency among all elements? YES_ NO_ Not Applicable If yes, when are revisions expected to be completed? 1-e. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to the Growth Management Element have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. SEE ATTACHED NOT APPLICABLE X 2. TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Measure C requires each jurisdiction to adopt traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards keyed to types of land use. Each jurisdiction must comply with the adopted standards in order to be judged in compliance with the Growth Management Program. The Measure provides for the .CCTA, jointly with local jurisdictions, to establish mitigation measures or determine that intersections exceeding applicable standards be subject to a Finding of Special Circumstances. The Measure also states that intersections exceeding standards that will be brought into compliance in the most current five-year capital improvement program shall be considered to be in compliance, and that the CCTA, jointly with affected local jurisdictions, shall determine and periodically review the application of standards on routes of regional significance. All questions in this section assume that procedures and analysis implemented by the jurisdiction are in substantial conformity with procedures described in the Implementation Guide: Traffic Level of Service Standards and Programs for Routes of Regional Significance and in the Technical Procedures prepared by the CCTA. 2-a. Does your agency have an adopted General Plan including LOS standards based on a diagram of land use types? YES X NO— IC-2 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST. 2-b. Are levels of service at Reporting Intersections in the jurisdiction (excluding intersections for which Findings of Special Circumstances have been made) reasonably expected to meet adopted standards? YES X NO 2-c. Has the jurisdiction adopted a policy requiring traffic impact studies to be conducted as part of the application review process for development projects estimated to generate more than 100 peak-hour vehicle trips? YES X NO 2-d. Has the jurisdiction adopted a policy that requires findings of consistency with LOS standards to be made upon approval of development projects expected to generate more than 100 peak-hour vehicle trips? YES X NO 2-e. Has the jurisdiction participated in the development by the Regional Transportation Planning Committee of Action Plans for designated Routes of Regional Significance? YESX NO 2-£. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to traffic Level of Service standards have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. SEE ATTACHED X NOT APPLICABLE (Attachment A) IC-3 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt and maintain performance standards for the following urban services: a. Fire c. Parks e. Water b. Police d. Sanitary Facilities f. Flood Control These standards are to be maintained through capital projects and should take into account both fiscal constraints and the application of standards through the development review process. Jurisdictions may review their performance standards on an annual basis, in conjunction with Special Districts where appropriate, and.modify them to maintain continued applicability. 3-a. Please indicate when standards were adopted, the applicable Resolution or Ordinance covering implementation, and what agency is responsible for provision of services. (Use space below.) Implementing Date Standard Resolution or Implementing adopted Ordinance # Agency PARKS 1/29/91 91-68 County FIRE 1/29/91 91-68 (See Attachment B) POLICE 1/29/91 91-68 County Sheriff WATER 1/29/91 91-68 (See Attachment C) FLOOD CONTROL 1/29/9.1 91-68 CC Flood Control Dist. SANITARY FACILITIES 1/29/91 91-68 (See Attachment D) 3-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to performance standards have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. SEE ATTACHED NOT APPLICABLE X 9 IC-4 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 4. DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION PROGRAM Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt a development mitigation program to ensure that development pays its fair share of the costs associated with that development. In addition, the Measure requires that local jurisdictions ensure that no funds from the Measure will be used to replace private developer funding which has been or will be committed to any project. 4-a. Has the jurisdiction adopted policies and/or programs to ensure that funding from the local street maintenance and improvement allocation (i.e., Measure C funds) will not replace development's share of infrastructure costs ? YES X NO Specify which policies and/or programs: G. P. Policy 4-1, County Area of Benefit Program General Plan Policy, Resolution or Ordinance # 91-68 Date: .1/29/91 4-b. Use the space below to list components of the development mitigation program adopted by the jurisdiction to address the impacts of development on the local circulation system. 1. Development Impact Fee System Area of Benefit Program 2. Mello-Roos Community Facilities District 3. Other Project Conditions of Approval. Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Assessment District. IC-5 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 4-c. Use the space below to list components of the development mitigation program adopted by the jurisdiction to address the impacts of development on facilities for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. 1. Traffic Impact Fee System 2. Mello-Roos Community Facilities District 3. Other Development review procedures require project applicant to demonstrate that performance standards for urban services are met. 4-d. Use the space below to list components of the development mitigation program adopted by the jurisdiction to address the impacts of development on the regional transportation system. 1. Regional Traffic Impact Fee System 2. Joint Powers Financing Authority 3. Other The County is cooperating with other iurisdictions in developing a mitigation program for impact's to the regional transportation system. 4-e. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to development mitigation programs have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. SEE ATTACHED NOT APPLICABLE X 5. PARTICII'ATION IN COOPERATIVE, MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING The Growth Management Program specifies that the CCTA shall establish a forum for jurisdictions to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts. This will be accomplished through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and be supported by an ongoing countywide comprehensive transportation planning process in which all jurisdictions shall participate. 5-a. Over the past year, has the jurisdiction regularly participated in meetings of the Regional Transportation Planning Committee or other forums established by the CCTA? YES X NO— IC-6 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST ' l 5-b. Over the past year, have the local representatives to the Regional Transportation Planning Committee regularly reported on the activities of the Regional Committee to the jurisdiction's council or board? YES X NO_ 5-c. As needed, has the jurisdiction made available, as input into the countywide transportation computer model, data on land use and traffic patterns? YES X NO- 5-d. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to cooperative multi-jurisdictional planning have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. EXPLANATION ATTACHED NOT APPLICABLE X 6. FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Measure C requires that local jurisdictions develop a five-year capital improvement program to meet and maintain adopted traffic service and .performance standards. The capital improvement program will be based on development to be constructed within the five-year framework of the program. It will include an analysis of costs of the proposed projects as well as a financial plan for providing the improvements. 6-a. Does the jurisdiction have an adopted capital improvement program (CIP)? Road component adopted 6/2S/91. Remaining YES--X NO component scheduled for 4/7/92 Board of Supervisors meeting. If yes, date of adoption or most recent update of the CIP Resolution # Not aplil i cable. IC-7 AI INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 6-b. Does the CIP include a financing plan that identifies general financing mechanisms for all transportation projects included in the CIP? YES X NO- 6-c. Does the CIP include a financing plan that identifies general financing mechanisms for all projects sponsored by the jurisdiction and included in the CIP that relate to facilities for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control? YES X NO 6-d. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to the CIP have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. (see below) EXPLANATION AffXAXWEDLX NOT APPLICABLE County CIP documents only address transportation, sheriff., and park facility performance standards. Compliance with other urban 7. HOUSING OPTIONS AND JOB OPPORTUN=S services must be demon- strated by the developer. Measure C requires that, as part of its five-year capital improvement program and pursuant to the State-mandated housing element of its General Plan, each jurisdiction develop an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels. Each jurisdiction shall also address land use information as it relates to transportation demand, as well as a discussion of each jurisdiction's efforts to address housing options and job opportunities on a city, subregional and countywide basis. IC-8 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 7-a. Has the jurisdiction, as part of its five-year capital improvement program and pursuant to the State-mandated housing element of its General Plan, developed an implementation program that creates housing opportunities for all income levels? YES X NO Specify which plan or policy of the jurisdiction includes the implementation program: County General Plan, County Road Improvement Program (6/25/9.1) Resolution or Ordinance # (,91-65 Date 1 /91 7-b. In order to promote more efficient use of the transportation system, has the jurisdiction evaluated its land use plans in relation to transportation demand, and, in that context, discussed in its adopted General Plan efforts to address housing options and job opportunities in the jurisdiction, the subregion and the county? YES-L NO_ Text pages: 5-9 to 5-13 Policy #3-1 to 3-4 2-19 to 2-21 7-c. If the answer to 7-b is no, has the jurisdiction adopted any other report, statement or discussion regarding local effort to address housing options and job opportunities within the jurisdiction's limits, the limits of the subregion and the county in order to promote more efficient use of the transportation system? YES , NO_ Not Applicable Title Date 7-d. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to housing options and job opportunities have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. EXPLANATION ATTACHED NOT APPLICABLE X IC-9 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST 8. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Measure C requires that local jurisdictions adopt a transportation systems management ordinance or alternative mitigation program. 8-a. Has the jurisdiction adopted a transportation systems management ordinance that incorporates required policies consistent with the model ordinance prepared by the CCTA for use by local agencies? YES X NO TSM Ordinance # Date of Adoption Scheduled foi 4/7/92 Board of Supervisors meeting 8-b. If the answer to 8-a is no, has the jurisdiction adopted an alternative mitigation program to achieve a significant reduction in single-occupant vehicle trips, an increase in use of alternative commute modes and an improvement in air quality? YES_ NO_ Not Applicable Ordinance Title Ordinance # Date of Adoption 8-c. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to transportation systems management have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. (See below) EXPLANATION XNRZ'k1X NM X NOT APPLICABLE �.PPrvu<d Board of Supervi.sors1revision to County TDM ordinance in concept on 12/.17/91. Completed revisions are scheduled to be introduced at the 4/7/92 Board of Supervisors meeting. IC-10 SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992 approved by CCTA 2/19/92 S-1. MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT S-1-a. Has-the jurisdiction met the maintenance of effort requirements of Measure C as stated in Section 6 of the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance? YES.X NO S-1-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to maintenance of effort have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. EXPLANATION ATTACHED _ NOT APPLICABLE X S-2. POSTING OF SIGNS S-2-1. Has the jurisdiction posted signs in accord with specifications by the CCTA for all projects funded fully or partially by Measure C revenues? YES X NO S-1-b. If the jurisdiction believes that the requirements of Measure C relative to posting of signs have been satisfied in a way not indicated by this checklist, mark here and attach an explanation. EXPLANATION ATTACHED _ NOT APPLICABLE X AA93-ccs.E15 February 21, 1992 iirllina. �.v1v1CL1A1VLt, l.tiLl.11L1J1 e y 9. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CHECKLIST FOR ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING This checklist was prepared for submittal by- Harvey yHarvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development (Name) (Title) _(510) 646-2026 (Phone) Thexammil/board of Supervisors has reviewed the completed checklist and found that the policies and programs of the jurisdiction as reported herein conform to the requirements for compliance with the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program. Certified: Date: $-9 Chs ra GoWd Of SUP9NIMM Title: Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Attest Supervisors and County Administrator Gin/County 464" Alt IC-11 INITIAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Attachment A Traffic Level of Service Standards The affirmative response to question 2-b. is based on an analysis of the transportation forecasts prepared for the 1991 County General Plan. The forecasts were developed for road links, not intersection turning movements, and provide the justification for the preliminary list of Routes of Regional Significance and Intersections proposed for Findings of Special Circumstances which is contained in the Growth Management Element of the County General Plan. The anticipated levels of service at the Reporting Intersections will be re-examined when the OCTA makes available to local . agencies the transportation subarea models. \ ! . � | - � \ } a � | � z � \ ; - . ® | �IK § f ® \ - ƒ t le | | w' /) .Wl y _f LL . - co _o po ` ' | k § k � k ` �■ / _ | � � � § � ■ ■ . ■ § § \ | - ' ■ : f B k § ! .. at �• . ' ` - © _ � e , , ■ � EaEayE r ~1 E ZX •..••'==y=am m ^ ,, ••.�:' CD -- - - LL a41 U O —C.4, me bf a ' y ri 1 W S W F Y W 6 r y5.:• .. � W W oku f; H O — .. ...�� +�:.+...nrtq ilQid'.9�[' .,iC'!Ri'�•a`.r.+M_r� etlri►' c oCOCC .... C OOCi l 1 MM l M cQ.4CL4 4 Cfl4 ••33�� O�`A`aQ� °OO�C � 1 Oob < 1 • i O°O p �,C i0 y..... •.. - OQ p{}i a c°c . •'• nOCCo�el4 cc00 {{ �� ciO po00p° i C4° 400° S i - • 1 :�- t 111111\ — ';ti+i::� •'t• ,fir.: •.�•�. IC7 0 m I b 5 a - 1 1 0 0 LL O is `a ngg Oil yr e i � 7 a :1"�. g {fit $ ari 4 :� ; c3 d 7e t CS - •: *4 : wS IL • ".. ; n�{Ss^ye:�Y.•`.a!vY.N'.�,i,?!•+4..�,!...�^. •�� ��n• *�� �r'��"�li..p.,,.�. ��•-«trr11�"+1'�j7f,,!7•.