Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081992 - TC.6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :' •.". .= ;;, Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Costa .� DATE: November 30, 1992 °Ta� �K" County SUBJECT: Report on proposed agreement addressing future land use entitlements in the Tri Valley area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Endorse, in concept, the proposed agreement addressing future land use entitlements in the Tri Valley area and authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to transmit comments on the proposed agreement (see Exhibit A) to the Tri Valley Transportation Council; 2 . Authorize County staff to work with the Tri Valley Transportation Council in drafting an agreement for the Board' s consideration; and 3 . Refer the proposed agreement to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to determine if a requirement for participation in the Measure C-1988 Regional Transportation Mitigation Program should be imposed on any development approval granted prior to completion of the Measure C-1988 Action Plans. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The attached principles of agreement addressing future land use entitlements in the Tri Valley area (see Exhibit B) was prepared CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER 10K, /7XSal SIGNATURE (S) : RobSchroder Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD O 9.�APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 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. Contact: S.Goetz, CDD, 646-2131 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Council (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Danville (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Dublin (via CDD) Livermore (via CDD) BY , DEPUTY Pleasanton (via CDD) San Ramon (via CDD) Alameda County (via CDD) Agreement Addressing Future Land Use Entitlements in the Tri Valley Area November 30, 1992 Page Two pursuant to direction from the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Policy Roundtable. The Roundtable requested staff to work with the Tri Valley Transportation Council, (TVTC) to outline a contractual agreement that would condition future land use entitlements to comply with the recommendations of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan. This request was generated by a concern that approval of any major land use entitlement in the area prior to completion of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan would diminish the effectiveness of that Plan. As you may know, the TVTC is a joint powers agreement between Contra Costa County and the cities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon and Alameda County. The TVTC is preparing a Tri Valley Transportation Plan to address regional transportation problems in the Tri Valley area created by future growth. The Plan has been designated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to serve as the Action Plan for Regional Routes in the San Ramon Valley area pursuant the Measure C-1988. The TVTC has request each city/town council and Board of Supervisors review this outline and submit comments for consideration by the TVTC to consider at their December 16th meeting. Although the principles described in Exhibit B are largely consistent with the growth management requirements of Measure C-1988 , it goes further to require cities and counties to condition current development applications to comply with Measure C-1988 Action Plans before the content of these Action Plans are known. Currently, the County is only obligated to apply such conditions on development approvals made after completion of the Measure C-1988 Action Plans. The principles also appear less flexible than the growth management requirements contained in Measure C-1988 . Existing growth management requirements apply a "good faith effort" test to determine compliance. No city or the County will be required to accept an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance that creates a fundamental conflict with that jurisdiction's socioeconomic or environmental character. The principles described in Exhibit B require adoption of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan recommendations, regardless of a potential conflict with the County' s priorities. Community Development Department is concerned that the provision in the proposal to "require future adjustments to land use densities of new land use entitlements, if needed to meet the 'traffic service objectives ' of . . . the Tri Valley Transportation Plan" , may conflict with the County General Plan Growth Management Element, particularly if such an entitlement is guaranteed by a Development Agreement. A project, consistent with the land use densities of a Development Agreement, could be temporarily deferred until the traffic service objectives on regional routes are met or assured. But the project sponsor would have the capability to seek construction of the full entitlement, once compliance with the traffic service objectives is demonstrated. The net effect of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan's traffic service objectives could be to defer a project, but not permanently reduce a project's density. The significance of this issue would depend on how this provision is defined in the Tri Valley agreement. The uncertainty involved in participating in the proposed agreement could be acceptable if the transportation resources and costs in the Tri Valley area are apportioned in a fair and equitable manner. This could only be achieved if all jurisdictions participate in the proposed agreement. The Transportation Committee recommends proceeding with drafting a contractual agreement for consideration by all Tri Valley jurisdictions. The proposed agreement brings up issues regarding compliance with Measure C-1988 Action Plans that may be of interest to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. The Transportation Committee recommends this proposed agreement be referred to the Transportation Authority for discussion. The Transportation Committee also believes development in San Joaquin County can significantly impact the effectiveness of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan. We suggest the Tri Valley Transportation Committee undertake efforts to involve San Joaquin County in the preparation of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan. tvtccont.bo EiIBIT A Phil Batchelor The Board of Supervisors contra Clerk of the Board and County Administration Building County Administrator t Cos (510)646-2371 651 Pine St., Room 106 County Martinez, California 94553-1290 Tan Power tst District Nancy C.Fohd.e,2nd District Robert 1.Schroder,3rd District . ;i' �i� \ DRAFTSunne Wrlgtd McPNk 4th District Tom Torlakson,5th District Spq•('OU. December 8, 1992 Millie Greenberg, Chair Tri Valley Transportation Council c/o Town of Danville 510 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Dear Ms. Greenberg: At our December 8th meeting, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors endorsed the concept of the proposed agreement addressing future land use entitlements in the Tri Valley area and authorized me to transmit these comments on the proposal. At a minimum, it is important that all jurisdictions involved in the review of significant general plan revisions in the Tri Valley area participate in the agreement. Major land use applications currently being processed should be specifically mentioned in the agreement. Without participation of all such jurisdictions, transportation resources and costs could not be fairly apportioned in the Tri Valley. The proposed agreement should consider provisions that would discourage unilateral withdrawal by a participating jurisdiction. Withdrawal of one jurisdiction could also impair the ability to fairly allocate transportation resources and costs. The proposed provision to "require future adjustments to the land use densities of new land use entitlements, if needed to meet the 'traffic service objectives' of. . .the TVTP" may conflict with the County General Plan Growth Management Element, particularly if such entitlements are included by a Development Agreement. For instance, a project consistent with the land use densities specified in a Development Agreement, could be temporarily deferred until the traffic service objectives on regional routes are met or assured. But the project sponsor would have the capability to proceed with construction of the full entitlement once compliance with the traffic service objectives is demonstrated. The net effect of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP) could be to defer a project, but not permanently reduce a project's. County staff is continuing its research on this issue. Ms. Greenberg December 8, 1992 Page Two The agreement should specify factors that would be considered by the Tri Valley Transportation Council in identifying any adjustment to land use densities to comply with the traffic service objectives. A simplified approach using an overall percent reduction in densities among all affected projects may not be appropriate. Factors such as the impact of particular projects on the regional transportation system and the economic cost to Tri Valley residents need to be considered to ensure transportation resources and costs are fairly apportioned. The agreement should include definitions of the following terms: - adjustments to land use densities - land use entitlement - development projects - sponsors - TVTP transportation model - traffic service objectives - TVTP regional fee program The provisions to terminate the agreement should not specifically mention changes to a jurisdiction's General Plan. The TVTP's recommendations may be more appropriately addressed in mechanisms other than the General Plan. The agreement should simply require changes to appropriate policies, ordinances and procedures for a jurisdiction to comply with the TVTP recommendations. As important as this agreement proposal may be to the Tri Valley Transportation Plan, the Board of Supervisors also feels San Joaquin County can significantly impact the Plan. The Board of Supervisors encourages the Tri Valley Transportation Council to coordinate preparation of the TVTP with San Joaquin County. Coordination could begin with a request to San Joaquin County to present the Draft Mountain House General Plan Amendment to the Tri Valley Transportation Council. The Board of Supervisors hopes expeditious progress can be made in developing an agreement acceptable to all jurisdictions in the Tri Valley area. Sincerely, Sunne Wright McPeak Chair EXHIBIT B D op app DRAFT PRINCIPLES OF AGREEMENT ADDRESSING FUTURE LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS IN TRI VALLEY AREA Parties: - Alameda County - Contra Costa County - Dublin - Danville - Livermore - San Ramon - Pleasanton Purpose To ensure that any future land use entitlements granted before completion of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP) will be required to comply with the recommendations of that plan. Provisions 1. Require local jurisdictions to evaluate the transportation impacts of development projects using the TVTP transportation model. 2 . Require future adjustments to the land use densities of new land use entitlements, if needed to meet the "traffic service objectives" (performance standards) of the regional transportation system as defined in the TVTP. 3 . Require sponsors of development projects to participate in the proposed TVTP regional fee program to ensure they pay their fair share of the regional transportation improvements required to serve such projects. Term To sunset when each jurisdiction incorporates the recommendations of the TVTP in appropriate General Plan policies and local ordinances, which probably won't occur until the end of 1993 . il elor `fine Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk oaheBoard �\ and County Administration Building 1 .osta County Administrator V (510)646-2371 651 Pine St, Room 106 County Martinez, California 94553-1290 Tom Powars let District Haney C.Fandon,2nd District `•_';- e- "°o Pecan 1.Schroder,3rd District Suns WftM McPask 4th District a;< Tom Torlakson,5th District x �4 December 8, 1992 Millie Greenberg, Chair Tri Valley Transportation Council c/o Town of Danville 510 La Gonda Way Danville, CA 94526 Dear Ms. Greenberg: At our December 8th meeting, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors endorsed the concept of the proposed agreement addressing future land use entitlements in the Tri Valley area and authorized me to transmit these comments on the proposal. At a minimum, it is important that all jurisdictions involved in the review of significant general plan revisions in the Tri Valley area participate in the agreement. Major land use applications currently being processed should be specifically mentioned in the agreement. Without participation of all such jurisdictions, transportation resources and costs could not be fairly apportioned in the Tri Valley. The proposed agreement should consider provisions that would discourage unilateral withdrawal by a participating jurisdiction. Withdrawal of one jurisdiction could also impair the ability to fairly allocate transportation resources and costs. The proposed provision to "require future adjustments to the land use densities of new land use entitlements, if needed to meet the 'traffic service objectives' of. . .the TVTP" may conflict with the County General Plan Growth Management Element, particularly if such entitlements are included by a Development Agreement. For instance, a project consistent with the land use densities specified in a Development Agreement, could be temporarily deferred until the traffic service objectives on regional routes are met or assured. But the project sponsor would have the capability to proceed with construction of the full entitlement once compliance with the traffic service objectives is demonstrated. The net effect of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan (TVTP) could be to defer a project, but not permanently reduce a project's. County staff is continuing its research on this issue. t Ms. Greenberg December 8, 1992 Page Two The agreement should specify factors that would be considered by the Tri Valley Transportation Council in identifying any adjustment to land use densities to comply with the traffic service objectives. A simplified approach using an overall percent reduction in densities among all affected projects may not be appropriate. Factors such as the impact of particular projects on the regional transportation system and the economic cost to Tri Valley residents need to be considered to ensure transportation resources and costs are fairly apportioned. The agreement should include definitions of the following terms: - adjustments to land use densities - land use entitlement - development projects - sponsors - TVTP transportation model - traffic service objectives - TVTP regional fee program The provisions to terminate the agreement should not specifically mention changes to a jurisdiction's General Plan. The TVTP's recommendations may be more appropriately addressed in mechanisms other than the General Plan. The agreement should simply require changes to appropriate policies, ordinances and procedures for a jurisdiction to comply with the TVTP recommendations. As important as this agreement proposal may be to the Tri Valley Transportation Plan, the Board of Supervisors also feels San Joaquin County can significantly impact the Plan. The Board of Supervisors encourages the Tri Valley Transportation Council to coordinate preparation of the TVTP with San Joaquin County. Coordination could begin with a request to San Joaquin County to present the Draft Mountain House General Plan Amendment to the Tri Valley Transportation Council. The Board of Supervisors hopes expeditious progress can be made in developing an agreement acceptable to all jurisdictions in the Tri Valley area. Sincerely, unne Wright McPeak Chair COMPONENTS OF THE TRI VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1. "Routes of Regional Significance. " - I-580 - I-680 - Alcosta Boulevard (portion) - Bollinger Canyon (portion) - Camino Tassajara/Tassajara Road/Santa Rita Road - Crow Canyon Road - Danville Boulevard/San Ramon Valley Boulevard/San Ramon Road/Foothill Road - Dougherty Road (portion)/Hopyard Road - Dublin Boulevard (including extension) - Stoneridge Drive/Jack London Boulevard - Sycamore Valley Road 2 . "Traffic Service.. Objectives" for Routes of Regional Significance. 3 . Preferred Actions for the Tri Valley Transportation Plan. a. Land use types and densities; b. Roadway expansion; c. Carpool, bus, rail improvements; and d. Trip reduction or travel demand management strategies. 4 . Finance Plan for Preferred Actions. 5. Procedures to analyze the impacts of development projects on Routes of Regional Significance: a. Computerized transportation model and database to evaluate the transportation impacts of new development; b. Local requirement for a finding of consistency with Traffic Service Objectives, which must be adopted concurrently with approval of development projects; and c. Local capital improvement programs which include the projects necessary to meet or maintain the Traffic Service Objectives. 6. Annual monitoring and reporting by local jurisdictions on compliance with performance standards; 7 . Procedures to revise the TVTP to mitigate the impacts of land use decisions found to be inconsistent with the TVTP (e.g. preparation of CMP Deficiency Plans, or Measure C-1988 Action Plan amendments) .