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) .