The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 08261986 - X.7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 26, 1986 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Crow Canyon Corridor Traffic Issues Supervisor Tom Powers brought to the attention of the Board the attached letter dated August 14, 1986 from James Ghielmetti and Mark L. Armstrong of Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy, P .O. Box 218, Danville 94526 , relative to the Crow Canyon Corridor General Plan Area traffic mitigation measures. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that said letter is REFERRED to the Director of Community Development and the Public Works Director. ec: Community Development Director Public Works Director County Administrator hereby certify that!his Is a true and correct copy of an action to len and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the dale shown. ATTESTED: of /9 8 fe Pula 31,TCHE60FI, Cler'r, of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By , Deputy M j. -. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN 0.THIESSEN [ESSEN, GAGEN & McCOY WILLIAM E.GAGEN.JR. GREGORY L.MCCOY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MICHAEL W.RUPPRE(;HT 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J.MCMAHON M.SUE GREICAR P.O.BOX 218 OF COUNSEL MARK L ARMSTRONG TVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94526.0219 WILLIAM W.9ASSETT LINN K.COOMBS . JOHN 9. CIAUSEN MICHAEL W.CARTER CLEPHONE 141 S)937.0585 VICTOR J.CONTI - J.KENNETH GORMAN TWX 910.385.4011 JEFFREY 0.HANSEN ATTN:OAN-LAW LINOA O.HURST BARBARA OUVAL JEWELL CHARLES A.ROSS 14 CYNTHIA C.LOVE August , 1986 MICHAEL J.MAPXOWITZ ALLAN C.MOORE / STEPHEN W.THOMAS WILLIAM C.VENCILL A.NATHAN ZELIFF Harvey Bragdon Michael Walford Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street P.O.' Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Crow Canyon Corridor General -Plan Area Traffic Mitigation Measures Dear Harvey and Mike: As you know, during the last two weeks, the developers in the Crow Canyon Corridor General Plan Area have been meeting to discuss and evaluate the traffic mitigation measures identified in the Crow Canyon Corridor Transportation Study of July, 1986, by TJKM and to determine an equitable spread of the costs of such traffic mitigation measures among the several developers wi.thin the Crow Canyon Corridor. Jim Ghielmetti (Signature Properties, Inc. ) and I (representing Dame' Construction Co. , Inc. ) have been asked to set forth the collective position of the applicants with respect to traffic fees.- `'A's you will recall, the Community Development Department, . in cooperation and consultation with the Planning Directors for Danville and San Ramon, requested that the developers fund a transportation study for the Crow Canyon Corridor. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the transportation system in the San Ramon Valley could accommodate the densities being proposed and as provided for under the various General Plan Amendments in the Crow Canyon Corridor, and if so, to identify the specific road improvements necessary to mitigate any traffic impacts. After reviewing several proposals, the County of Contra Costa, with the concurrence of San Ramon and Danville, hired TJKM to conduct the transportation study. The draft study was completed in June under the direction of and in consultation with representatives from the three governmental entities . . O Q Harvey Bragdon Michael Walford Page 2 August 14, 1986 The developers had the opportunity to comment on the draft. The comments provided to TJKM were minimal. Care was taken and we believe there can be no dispute that the Crow Canyon Corridor Transportation Study, like an environmental impact report, has . been prepared by and for the County (and San Ramon and Danville) . It is not a traffic study by our consultants. As it states on the cover, it is a Transportation Study for Contra Costa County. We understand that the Transportation Study and its recommendations have been reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and the Planning Directors for Danville and San Ramon. The Transportation Study determined that the densities allowed under the General Plan could be . accommodated with certain mitigation measures. Page 27 of the Transportation Study identifies eight (8) transportation improvements necessary to ; mitigate traffic impacts for the development of the Crow Canyon Corridor. They are as follows: 1. Additional turn lanes and through lane at Alcosta Boulevard and Crow Canyon Road. 2. Additional turn lanes at Blackhawk Road and Camino Tassajara. 3. An additional turn lane and traffic signals at El Capitan Drive and Crow Canyon Road. 4. Widening to four through lanes plus turning and auxiliary lanes on Crow Canyon Road between the Canyon Lakes development and Camino Tassajara near Blackhawk. 5. Fostoria Way . overcrossing (TJKM has concluded that ' between 10% and 201 of the future traffic on the overcrossing would be associated with the subject properties) . 6. Additional turn lanes at Camino Ramon and Crow Canyon Road. 7. Additional turn lanes at Crow Canyon Place and Crow Canyon Road. 8. Reconstruction of existing two lanes on Dougherty Road. Page 26 of the Transportation Study identifies traffic improve- ments that will be necessary as a result of , developed projects Harvey Bragdon Michael Walford Page 3 August 14, 1986 and future development allowed under the current General Plans for Danville and San Ramon and Contra Costa County in the immediate area, excluding the Crow Canyon Corridor. The mitigation measures identified on page 26 are apparently necessary now even if the Crow Canyon Corridor Area does not develop. Nonetheless and after consultation with TJKM, the Crow Canyon Corridor developers agree that it would be appropriate to include two of those mitigation measures, namely additional lanes at San Ramon Valley Boulevard and Sycamore Valley Road and a second westbound left-turn lane at Alcosta Boulevard on Crow Canyon Road (total cost of over $600,000 .00) as common obliga- tions for the Crow Canyon Corridor General Plan Area develop- ment. I TJKM has stated that the other three identified mitigation improvements on page 26 do not have any direct relevance to the Crow Canyon Corridor development. The Crow Canyon Corridor developers asked David Hop of Majors Engineering, Inc. (representing Diablo Ventures West) and David Carlson and Terry Lulay of James R. Stedman & Associates, Inc. (representing Dame' Construction Co. , Inc. ) to provide a cost estimate for the proposed traffic mitigation measures and a cost spread per detached unit, attached unit, and per square foot of service commercial, office and retail space based on trip generation rates. Attached is the Crow Canyon Corridor Transportation Mitigation Measures Cost Spread dated August 13, 1986, prepared by those engineers. The engineers are prepared to make available to the County, Danville and San Ramon, the backup material used -to develop the projected costs and to review their analysis with staff. The cost spread includes $1, 180,000 for landscaped median, turn lanes, traffic signals and interconnect conduit on Crow Canyon i Road east of Canyon Lakes. Along with the mitigation measures identified in the Transportation Study, the Crow Canyon Corridor developers agree in concept to reimburse Blackhawk for its construction costs in providing a two lane extension of Crow Canyon Road from the east end of Canyon Lakes to Camino Tassajara Road. Such reimbursement would be on a similar per unit or square footage basis. As I mentioned in my letter to Harvey dated February 3, 1986, regarding the Crow Canyon Road Extension Fee Benefit Area, prior to any formal agreement to pay for those construction costs, we would like the opportunity to review and audit the road construction cost documents . To date, no such documentation has been provided. As soon as it becomes available, we would like to review it so that we may be able to provide Blackhawk and the County with a timely response. Harvey Bragdon Michael Walford Page 4 August 14, 1986 The Crow Canyon Corridor developers are willing to pay for the projected costs of the mitigation measures identified above and as required by the Transportation Study on a per unit basis in the event of residential development and a square footage basis in the event of commercial, retail, or office development, prior to recordation of a final map or, as to nonresidential develop- went, at the time of final development plan approval. Previously, our position was that such fees should be paid at the building permit stage. However, to provide the County, Danville and San Ramon with an opportunity to construct the traffic improvements in anticipation of pending development, we would be agreeable to such earlier payment. We would expect that the monies will be paid 'to the jurisdiction approving the final subdivision_ map or development plan. Reimbursement for Blackhawk will be paid on a per unit or square footage basis at ` the same time through the County. The affected jurisdictions may determine which improvements identified above are to be constructed and at what particular time. Monies will be available well before impacts in fact occur. The Crow Canyon Corridor developers have no objection to -the affected jurisdictions spending the monies provided on improvements other than the mitigation measures identified in the Transportation Study, so long as there is some reasonable benefit to the developers and future homeowners and commercial property owners in the Crow Canyon Corridor. In good faith, the Crow Canyon Corridor developers agreed to fund a transportation study by the County and the two most r. affected municipal jurisdictions, Danville and San Ramon, in order to determine whether the densities allowed under the General Plan were appropriate and, if so, the extent of road improvements that may be required to mitigate traffic impacts. The objective Transportation Study by TJKM, ' directed and controlled by the County, Danville, and San Ramon, has identi- fied the mitigation measures required. The Crow Canyon Corridor developers have voluntarily agreed to pay for those mitigation measures and have proposed and agreed to an internal distribution of those costs within the Crow Canyon Corridor General Plan Area. As a condition of approval, each developer will construct and pay for its own frontage improvements, as traditionally defined, necessary to provide two lanes of roadway where required. As a further condition of approval, each developer will pay a per unit or square footage traffic fee for the off-site mitigation measures identified above. Harvey Bragdon Michael Walford Page 5 August 14, 1986 We understand that the County, Danville and/or San Ramon may have other road improvements that they would like to have constructed in their respective jurisdictions. However, the Transportation Study does not identify such other improvements as mitigation measures and, therefore, the Crow Canyon Corridor dev ers do not expect to be required to pay for any such o er oad improvements . e y truly yours, e y t ul yours, es Ghielmetti a L. Armstrong LA/lc ; File No. 11-16554 Enclosure..: cc: Contra, Costa County Board *of '.Supervisors Town of Danville Attn: Joe Calabrigo City of San Ramon Attn: Rich Bottarini Shapell Industries Attn: Dan Coleman Diablo Ventures West Attn: Peter Knoedler William A. Falik, Esq. Jonathan Cohen, Esq. Mary T. Ujdur Dame' Construction Co. , Inc. Attn: Michael Rupprecht Sid Corrie �-/i-I L 1 r MAJORS ENGINEERING, INC 8!13/86 -- DBH CROW CANYON CORRIDOR 1-01849-09 TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES COST SPREAD LAND USE RESIDENTIAL UNITS NON-RESIDENTIAL DETACHED ATTACHED SERVICE OFFICE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (K SQ FT) (K SQ FT) (K SO FT) AMOUNT 11602 1,382 30 100 160 FH TRIPS/UNIT 1.0 0.7 1.3 1.8 1.3 TOTAL PH TRIPS 1,602 967 39 ISO 208 GRAND TOTAL PH TRIPS 29996 PROJECT COST PH TRIPS COST/PH TRIP COST PER: DETACHED UNIT ATTACHED UNIT SERVICE OFFICE RETAIL 1.0 0.7 COMMERCIAL SCENARIO 3 (K SQ.FT) K SQ.FT) (K SQ.FT) 1. ALCOSTAICROW 305,000 1.3 1.8 1.3 3. EL CAP/CROW 46,000 4. WIDEN CROW 1,180,000 6. CAN RAMICROW 264,000 , 7. CROW PL/CROW 65,000 Sub-TOTAL 1,860,000 2,996 621 621 435 807 19117 807 2. BLKHK/CAM TASS 18,000 2,996 6 6 4 8 11 8 5. FOSTORIA 1151) 630,000 29996 210 210 147 2731 378 273 S. DOUGHERTY 890,000 21996 291 297 208 ; 3861 535 386 SCENARIO 2 i I 1. SRVB/SYC 600,000 2,996 200 200 140; 2601 360 260 2. ALCDSTA/CROW 12,000 2,996 4 4 3; S 7 5 TOTAL PER UNIT $1,338 $937; 11,740 $2,409 $1,740 TOTAL ALL PROJECTS 4,010,000 TOTAL PER USE $2,144,0001 $1,295,000; $52,006 1241,000 $278,000 4,010,000 min ; 4 1905