HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10261993 - H.8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON - i Costa
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `�
.... County
DATE: October 26, 1993
SUBJECT: TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN WORKSHOP
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) ORRECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the preferred alternative as defined during the October 19,
1993 workshop for Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan as
follows:
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
• Road improvements beyond 2010 - medium priority, with
improvements- on Vasco 'Road corridor to four lanes, and
auxiliary lanes on I-580;
• . Transit improvements beyond 2010 - high priority, with high
levels of service transit service through new urban
developments (e.g. Dougherty Valley, North Livermore, East
Dublin) and to Concord and Dublin BART lines, and commuter
rail from the Central Valley to the Bay Area communities;
• Higher densities - medium priority, with new development
redistributed to allow increased densities near transit
stations and along high frequency transit lines;
• Reduced rate of development from 2010 levels - high priority,
with future land use development reduced to year 2000
projected levels;
• Reduced LOS standards - medium priority, with relaxation of
LOS standards on Vasco Road, and on freeways and State Route
84 in conjunction with the development of deficiency plans
(pursuant to Alameda and Contra Costa County CMP policies) ;
• Increased Transportation Demand Management Measures (TDM) -
high priority, with extensive TDM measures such as: HOV lanes
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 26 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x
APPROVED as recommended with the clarification that any reduced rate of
development below year 2010 level should follow the concepts approved by
the Board of Supervisors on December 8 , 1992 , requiring all jurisdictions to
adjust land use densities consistent with the Tri Valley Transportation
Plan .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X _ 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: Daniel J. Pulon(646-2378) ATTESTED October 26 . 1993
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DP\:Ad1/2WKSP.B0S
J
BY (3ANO , DEPUTY
TRI-VALLEY ACTION PLAN/TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORKSHOP
October 26, 1993
Page -2-
on freeways, ramp metering with HOV bypass lanes, mandatory trip reductions
for all employers to achieve Average Vehicle Ridership levels (AVR) of
greater than 1. 35 employees per vehicle, Peak Period Congestion Pricing
(e.g. Mileage Interval Electronic Charge/Collection Points, parking charges
for single occupancy vehicles, employer-provided subsidies for commute
alternatives, telecommuting (e.g. Telecommute Work Centers and Home-Based
Telecommuting) , ridesharing programs, alternative work schedules (e.g. 9/80
or 4/10 work weeks, and flextime for transit users) .
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The Board's recommendation is for planning purposes only. Any financial
impact of implementing the final Plan will be identified when it is presented
to the Board for adoption.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) , consisting of elected members of
jurisdictions in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, has been involved in
transportation planning efforts in developing a comprehensive 20-year
Transportation Plan/Measure C-1988 Action Plan (Plan) in the Tri-Valley area.
These planning efforts involved computer modelling of future land uses and
transportation improvements based on jurisdictional General Plans. Modelling
results have yielded the conclusion that, with year 2010 land use and
transportation improvement assumptions, most of the regional arterial road
facilities will function below the desired levels of service (LOS) standards.
The Plan will consist comprehensively of area strategies focusing specifically
on future transportation conditions. To assist in the development of those
strategies the TVTC has requested that its members and Planning Commissions
provide jurisdictional preference of transportation strategies for the TVTC to
pursue from the matrix of potential alternatives (Attachment "A") , or from their
own strategies not in the matrix.
All alternatives would be financially constrained to existing revenue mechanisms
or revenues from the proposed regional transportation impact fee (developer
fee) . Each alternative is described according to how it would vary from the
"Expected" land use and transportation network (see Attachment "B") scenario,
which is a reflection of the existing or draft plans and policies of the
participating jurisdictions.
The Board of Supervisors and the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
participated in workshops on October 19 and October 20, respectively, to discuss
these alternatives and to select an alternative preference of those identified
on Attachment "A, " or a blended alternative based on each body's priorities.
Both bodies opted to blend aspects of each alternative to formulate a "hybrid"
alternative. The following are the individual and net preferred priorities that
the Board and Commission established for consideration in developing the Plan:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BOS Net SRVPC
Bishop Smith Torlakson Preferred Preferred
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
1. Road Improvements
Beyond 2010 Expected NONE LOW HIGH MEDIUM HIGH
2. Transit Improvements
Beyond 2010 Expected MEDIUM HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
3 . Higher Densities LOW MEDIUM HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM
4 . Reduced Development
From 2010 Expected HIGH LOW HIGH HIGH MEDIUM
5. Reduced LOS Standards LOW LOW HIGH MEDIUM NONE
6. Increased TDM HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM
7 . Growth Management HIGH*
*(The San Ramon Valley Planning Commission Developed this additional aspect that requires
developers to finance the infrastructure to comply with established LOS standards)
TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN WORKSHOP
October 26, 1993
Page -3-
Board of Supervisors Workshop Summary
Board preference for road improvements beyond the 2010 assumptions varied from
none to high. A medium preference for road improvements would focus additional
road capacity where congestion levels would be most severe or where operational
improvements could significantly improve congested conditions. Substantial
increases in road capacity are needed on the Vasco Road corridor to accommodate
the significant increase in commuter traffic between Eastern Contra Costa and
the Tri Valley area. At a minimum, the effectiveness of providing four lanes
of capacity on Vasco Road should be evaluated in the Plan, in consultation with
the Transplan Committee' s Action Plan activities in Eastern Contra Costa. The
Plan should also test the effectiveness of constructing auxiliary lanes on I-580
between Livermore and I-680.
Board preference for transit improvements beyond the 2010 assumptions was
generally high. Opportunities exist to test high levels of transit service
coordinated with the major urban development proposed north of I-580 to
encourage transit use and reduce dependency on automobile travel. Providing a
high level of -transit service to these areas with BART technology could not be
accomplished with the financial constraints of the Plan. However, a new BART
station constructed in West Dublin along the planned Dublin extension could
effectively serve this area and should be tested. High frequency trunk-line bus
service connecting complementary development in Dougherty Valley, East Dublin,
North Livermore with the East Dublin BART station, Bishop Ranch, and BART
stations on the Concord line could be effective and should be tested. Commuter
rail from the Central Valley to San Jose should be pursued rather than
improvements on Route 84 beyond those assumed for 2010.
Board preference for higher densities varied from low to high. All Board
members wanted higher densities tied to complementary transit service. The
Board further specified these higher densities should only be obtained by
redistributing the growth in proposed new developments and not by increasing
densities in addition to this growth. A 1991 study by the Institute of Urban
and Regional Development (UC Berkeley) of four major residential projects within
one-third mile of East Bay BART stations found commute ridership on BART ranged
between 28 and 40 percent, compared with 8 percent transit use for all commuters
in the East Bay. Densities for these developments ranged from 33 to 43 dwelling
units per acre. The Institute observed that recent residential development
constructed in the vicinity of suburban East Bay BART stations ranges from 20
to 72 dwelling units per acre. Available research suggests that viable bus
service needs areawide residential densities averaging at least 8 dwelling units
per net acre and employment densities need to reach 20 jobs per acre. Higher
densities should also be evaluated by the Plan in conjunction with mixed land
uses to increase the portion of walk and bicycle trips.
Board preference for reduced development from 2010 growth varied but was
generally high. Data prepared by the TVTC shows that in order to meet proposed
LOS standards with the transportation improvements assumed for 2010, future
development would need to be reduced to year 2000 levels. However, development
reductions of this magnitude may eliminate the revenues needed to construct some
of the improvements required to achieve proposed LOS standards and other goals.
Board preference for relaxed LOS standards varied from low to high. Data
prepared by the TVTC shows that even with unlimited funds to construct
additional transportation improvements proposed by the member jurisdictions,
violations of proposed LOS standards would occur on portions of the freeways and
Vasco Road with the growth assumed by 2010. Due to right-of-way and
environmental constraints, complying with proposed LOS standards will not be
possible, which was something anticipated by and allowed for in the Measure C-
1988 Growth Management Program. A medium emphasis on relaxing LOS standards
would mean relaxing such standards on the state highways and on Vasco Road. For
the state highways, the Plan should include deficiency plans pursuant to the
Congestion Management Programs of the affected counties.
Board preference to increase TDM measures was high. The Plan should evaluate
HOV priority treatments to all major roadway improvements, including HOV lanes
on freeways and ramp metering with HOV bypass lanes. Consistent with a high
emphasis on transit improvements, the Plan should evaluate employer-based
strategies such as transit subsidies, parking charges for single occupancy
vehicles, and alternative work schedules to encourage the use of available
transit services.
TRI-VALLEY ACTION PLAN/TRANSPORTATION PLAN WORKSHOP
October 26, 1993
Page -4-
Planning Commission Workshop Summary
The Commission reached a consensus on all strategies. A major emphasis should
be placed on providing as much road capacity and transit service as possible to
meet proposed LOS standards. Higher densities should only be encouraged in the
areas north of I-580 planned for major urban development in coordination with
and complementary to high levels of transit service. Higher densities should
not be allowed in existing developed areas. Proposed LOS standards should not
be relaxed. The Commission added a growth management strategy , defined as
requiring new development pay for the infrastructure necessary to comply with
the Plan's LOS standards. High priority should be placed on using TDM measures
to increase Average Vehicle Ridership beyond 1. 35 employees per vehicle. County
staff points out that this strategy is similar to the Growth Management Element
of the County's General Plan.
Staff Comments
The preferred alternative represents an "averaging" of the responses from
individual Board members which results is some internal inconsistencies. The
desire for more road and transit improvements beyond the 2010 assumptions can
not be obtained if future development is reduced to the levels projected for
year 2000. Any evaluation of reduced development in the Tri Valley area should
be done in conjunction with the ability to finance desired transportation
improvements as well as meeting other non-transportation goals such as
affordable housing and economic development. The TVTC will likely "average" the
responses from all participants and reveal additional inconsistencies. These
inconsistencies will need to be resolved during the consensus building process
at the TVTC.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Without identifying a preferred alternative, the Board will not be able to
effectively describe their expectations for the Tri Valley Transportation Plan
/Action Plan.
O O O: `
fq 04 0
N Q C Q y O
y.�
W v � E �ob EM •p O .. p.c mmt 3 q c d
0 N
N `
s
E
x � az
J 'O O O O C ►- m
CO
U C �• T � C
EmTa m mr O. f S+ (A C
O m O O m ,.,:ql O O r. 0..
!A ?.. :m Q Q Z pEm
ltf pp
O dcc
�
•-- m m
d O ,� t0 "• a N. O O
� N fl y m 0 t3 V m d d
U > EX
m � p QN E O _00
cc
fn x C +- z x . ++ Q ►. O
m.
c o m
m;Yc
v
c: 4Wo
= p m . e0 N + iM m 3 m
o r` ; O tA.0
w
r _V c Z `•�" O T Q v m
Q N N O •i ca C
N E a..:.:.�_m a c .a m v ; a ..: o m
cc`o i o a r c H �.. oQ `o
2 0
r m w � m m m � ate,
Em o c .� ' m o 3 rn o � � 3
z x :^ a : a x Nom ;
WN
E
d cd
Cl) m0v " 0 y c
tD E N m 7• m J ; A m : �: a f..
LO ¢ O
= a0 X m AX, t0
CRf ` E > '� o � m c oto E .. m m
r ..
N m C V V
Q. v m Q O .O Z y tv
CA
C t0
++
to y y
C
�+ jj
CC
CL L m 0
VI tV rz ;Q l�'i!: N :.;�»; N %j?»B`:J ;:: N O ;;.G;:0;;>mCC
14
a t O t O t CCL CL r
t O
>. RS E ;<o:<;>:;;:::; E :;::«:>o«<:<::<: E <>:>:>o:>::>::>;:» Eco
d rr w E w w� w O to
i�
�- V N V M
o
,= a
d)
d
miof
4
C4 E N
�0 yr
s�
10 .� P St m
� IN
�Yl
t0 Q �t36F�
d to
the
zato �>Q
s w
G 4
to
6 1r
ko as Yam ��' a toa
40 to ,
t a t to
to to
� d
to
m ,� �0
g g
ko
d
to N ¢
46toSA
d1
Q p Od
d $�
vt
6 �
"�.a N
L a-,V ((6 G
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSContra
:.�� - -•
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Costa
_
DATE: November 30, 1992 r' County
SUBJECT: Report on proposed agreement addressing future land use entitlements
in the Tri valley area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) is 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
1-� ,ld �
kxsa
SIGNATURE(S) : Rob Schroder Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD O 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)
C-C i1�
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
I
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) .
r
• EXHIBIT B
RA
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 t
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.
ftl
helor
The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk oft a Board
r . ! and
County Administration BuildingCosta County Administrator
651 Pine St„ Room 106 1s,o�sae-za�i
Martinez, California 94553-1290 County
Tan Pawn tat amid
Macey G FOIft Mid District
filaeart L•ohrodar,3rd Oimia
lig»Wd9 M NO 41h amici
Two Talrbak 54h aorict
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.
• u.
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