The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06091992 - 2.5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •• - ' Contra ' - Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County 7 DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �y;i - o DATE: June 4 , 1992 sr9'�o�K¢icA SUBJECT: Report on the Status of the Reliez Valley Task Force Review SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Consider appropriate action. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On June 2 , 1992 , in the context of the Board of ' Supervisors discussion of the Reliez Valley Highlands project, .:, the . Board directed that staff provide a report on the status of the.'Reliez Valley Task Force efforts to collect development fees to pay for improvements to Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Road. The Board directed that this report be scheduled for hearing on the Board's June 9, 1992 determination agenda, and that notices of the hearing be distributed to Task Force members. The Task Force is comprised of elected representatives of the County, and Cities of Lafayette, Martinez and Pleasant Hill. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was also established consisting of staff members of each jurisdiction to assist .in the formulation of a proposal to the Task Force. The Board packet contains earlier draft reports prepared by the TAC which proposed the establishment of a multi-jurisdictional traffic Area-of-Benefit to fund safety improvements to the road corridor. The proposed AOB encompasses the area between Alhambra..Valley on the north to Pleasant Hill Road in the south. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARDD COMMITT APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON June 9 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X RECEIVED report and REFERRED to County Counsel the issue of whether Davidon has clear title to the property purchased for its Reliez Valley Highlands Project. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS � 6 -'" `� r 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. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED June 9 , 1992 cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY Q U �'IZ ;�a� , DEPUTY n s 2 . 4 The Task Force last met on December 20, 1990 to consider action on the proposed AOB. However, at that time, several Task Force members expressed reservations about proceeding with the recommended road improvement funding mechanism. First, several Task Force members wanted to have the Task Force take a position recommending the scaling-back of the Reliez Valley Highlands project (at that time consisting of 129 units) . Second, the City of Lafayette felt that the proposed AOB did not adequately compensate the City for the additional impact it would be absorbing from new development. No subsequent meetings of the Reliez Valley Task Force have occurred. Now that the review of a reduced-scale Reliez Valley Highlands project has progressed, and a reduced-scale Alhambra Valley Specific Plan proposal has been prepared, it would be timely to reconvene the Task Force to reassess the proposed AOB based on the reduced development potential in the area. The Board packet also contains a summary of the status of Task Force activities to date and a listing of some of the actions that would be necessary to complete its mission. RD/aa BDV/Road.RD ATTACHMENT June 9, 1992, Item No. . 2. 5 Reliez Valley Task Force Report SPEAKERS' LIST Anne Grodin, City of Lafayette, 2 Mountain View Lane, Lafayette; John Denny, 870 Hidden Pont Court, Martinez; Bernie Norton, 1101 Silverhill Court, Lafayette; Gary Gates, 1993 Reliez Valley Road, Lafayette; and L. Wayne Policz, 1600 South Main Street, Walnut Creek. STATUS REPORT RELIEZ VALLEY TASK FORCE ACTIVITY I. INTRODUCTION The Reliez Valley Task Force at its last meeting on December 20, 1990, was unable to consider a finahaction on the proposed program because the members objected to the size of Reliez Valley Highlands project (at that time 129 units); and Lafayette objected to the proposed distribution of AOB revenues. The Task Force also wanted to expand the area to the northwest to include area within the Alhambra Valley Road traffic area. (See attached Development Program.) The Draft Alhambra Valley Specific Plan Proposal has recently been revised to conform with the County General Plan land use map. The revision significantly reduces the development potential in the Valley floor area. The revision also provides for wider right-of-way alignments to conform with the General Plan Circulation Element. The right-of-way width in the Specific Plan proposal is significantly wider than that provided in the corresponding section of Alhambra Valley Road recommendation presented to the Task Force (84 feet vs. 60 feet). The Specific Plan Committee generally supports the revised plan proposal. The scaling back of the Reliez Valley Highlands project from 129 to 81 units now proposed will reduce the traffic impact but will also reduce the number of housing units that would contribute to local road improvements. II. NEXT STEPS A. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) should meet to review the reduced development potential in Reliez Valley caused by the scaling back of Reliez Valley Highlands project and the proposed Alhambra Valley Specific Plan. The TAC should develop revised road improvement plan to reflect current proposed Alhambra Valley Specific Plan Right-of-Way Alignment proposal. B. The TAC should provide for a reasonable distribution of fees among jurisdictions. C. Take revised TAC recommendation and proposed Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to Reliez Valley Task Force for approval. D. Conduct CEQA documentation (presumably, the project will qualify for negative declaration). E. Schedule the recommended JEPA for adoption action by the Board of Supervisors and City Councils of the Cities of the Cities of Lafayette, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill. RD/aa RELZ/Force.RD 6/3/92 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REPORT FOR !t TRAFFIC MITIGTION FEES AND INTER-AGENCY DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION PROVIDING FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AREA ROAD IMPROVEMENTS RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY AREA Community Development Department Contra Costa County December, 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 II . GENESIS OF STUDY 1 III . ENVIRONS 1 IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE TARGETED ROAD SYSTEM AND STUDY AREA 2 A. Targeted Road System 3 B. Study Area 4 V. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES 4 A. Circulation/Scenic Route 4 B. Land Use 5 VI . EXISTING AND PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT 5 VII . TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONDITIONS 6 A. Existing Traffic and Road Conditions 6 B. Projected Traffic 7 C. Impact within the Study Area 7 VIII .PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 7 A. Road Design 8 B. Estimate of Improvement Costs 8 IX. FUNDING SOURCES FOR PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 8 A. Existing Fees 8 B. Proposed Area of Benefit Fee 9 C. Other Funding Sources 10 X. BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT 10 XI . RECOMMENDED FEE 10 XII . AOB REVENUE ALLOCATION AMONG JURISDICTIONS 10 XIII .OTHER INTERJURISDICTIONAL POLICIES 11 A. Regulation of construction - Related Impacts 11 B. Prior Notice of Land Use Policy Amendment Proposals 11 APPENDIX A. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD B. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY STUDY AREA C. POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS D. ESTIMATED COST BREAKDOWN FOR PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR BY JURISDICTION ROAD SEGMENT E. DEVELOPMENT FEE CALCULATION AND DISTRIBUTION AMONG TRAFFIC ZONES F. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARY OF PROPOSED JOINT JURISDICTION AREA OF BENEFIT G. PROPOSED RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD JOINT JURISDICTION AREA OF BENEFIT MAP /RELIEZ VALLEY ROAD TASK FORCE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings 1. Additional traffic from residential development along the western foothills of the Diablo Valley will cause unacceptable traffic safety impacts. 2. Safety improvements should be made to the 7.9 mile-long Reliez/Alhambra Valley Road Corridor consistent with maintaining the existing rural-residential scenic character. 3. A variety of possible funding sources should be pursued to fund the proposed Corridor improvements. The principal source of funds should be new residential development along the Corridor. Recommended Actions The County of Contra Costa and the Cities of Lafayette, Martinez and Pleasant Hill should take the following actions: 1. Adopt a two-lane parkway concept for the entire length of the Corridor. Provide safety and related improvements which preserve the rural-residential character of the corridor. Proposed improvements would include construction of drainage, road shoulder and separate trail improve- ments; turning lanes and safety lighting; repaving/reconstruction of the existing roadbed as necessary; and landscape improvements. The total cost of the proposed improvements for the entire Corridor are estimated at $9.2 million. Generally, the Corridor's right-of-way width shall be 60 feet in width. However, the right-of-way width for the two-mile segment of Reliez Valley Road between Alhambra Valley Road and Grayson Road shall be approximately 84 feet. Existing policies including the Countywide Area of Benefit and individual City OSIP fees should be reviewed and modified as necessary to conform to these guidelines. 2. Enter into a proposed joint-jurisdictional Area of Benefit (A0B) to require new development along the Corridor (subdivisions, building permits for new residences) to contribute traffic mitigation fees to fund a proportional share of the proposed Corridor road improvements. The fee for the proposed AOB is $6,254 per unit. The County should not grant credit to existing traffic mitigation obligations unless those funds are exclusively earmarked for traffic improvements in the proposed Area of Benefit ( i .e. , Alhambra Valley Infrastructure Fees) . Revenues from the proposed joint AOB are to be shared among jurisdictions based on traffic impact. 3. Adopt a policy - to regulate construction activity associated with development projects within the proposed Area of Benefit area as follows: a. Minimize use of the Corridor by load-bearing construction trucks. FIGURE III PROPOSED JOINTJURI,SDICTIONAL AREA OF BENEFIT RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR • •••• • •i•si w '�! •!••i ;:j<i« ?i> '•i<:i ...!►''... 0% MARTINEZ :... •:0 :::i�?iii::Y:�iii:Gi.r....:-:�?:::iii:ii}:{{-i.-i.,l..... f • iv:Y;-}yiiS:i?4:ii}};is ?;i t.�;;:}• 7 � ••••iil i•+ 40 qLvo : rS t�et�. •♦ �t Zi Y)•� r.>:+k:;: :::;: . GRAY Rd PL HILL SFAR s:•::::�' • 7 • rn hf � 'fT i•• •••rrr•••• ! • J +iili•fi•••r• ♦.w • • LAFAYETTE i • �O • • �Y 2r • • • LEGEND +•i•ii CITY BOUNDARIES 1••4000• www•`••• Cm S14PERES OF INFLUENCE N BRIONES HILLS PRESERVE BOUNDARY STUDY AREA k b. Require that damages to the Corridor roadbed caused by construction activity be mitigated. C. Regulate noise and dust impacts generated by construction activity. 4. Adopt a policy to require referral of proposed policy amendments to the other three jurisdictions for comment prior to any approval . The policy should apply to any proposed general plan or specific plan amendment affecting a portion of the proposed Area of Benefit that might adversely affect Corridor traffic conditions. RELIEZ(ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY sORA irs SLIISUM SAO Creetn►t - r+cR�rFYTp R tlrt Coala a4at ►irrtlW MARTIN[2 ♦ >.,. ►1T TS S .. t t'sonr.► t 'CONCORD . .• i • ?::.lLE'AJtNS CLAYTON rr. I :.r rr r 1 i WALNUT CREEK . :....... ..:: :.:...,:.,.... Yt Diablo Orilla i ♦s Alam• Canyon Yorna• 00"50 north 340 Re~`e 1r0=16.000' K.� MAP SYMBOLS l \ ♦ ANTIOCN �.utr�••rt• •u•• ` Alarm rr�rt•t.�uu• •.u. -^ �� - - r•n•�•ar •�• 4.1 Hr• ... rU�ur VICINITY MAP I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to review planned development and projected traffic conditions along the western foothills of Diablo Valley, and to identify appropriate traffic mitigation to mitigate impacts to local roads. The report has been prepared by the County of Contra Costa in association with officials of the Cities of Lafayette, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill . II. GENESIS OF STUDY In 1988, officials of the City of Lafayette expressed concern to County officials that one of the City' s collector streets was being burdened with additional traffic generated from development projects outside their borders. The impact was primarily being felt along Reliez Valley Road where safety conditions for vehicular and pedes- trian traffic were being affected. County officials responded by setting up a series of meetings to discuss the issues and suggest possible solutions. The meetings were attended by representatives of the Cities of Lafayette, Martinez and Pleasant Hill , as well as the County. Each jurisdiction was repre- sented by an elected official (collectively constituting the "Reliez Valley Road Task Force") as well as staff members. The public was invited to attend the Task Force meetings. A special effort was made to involve developers who might have a potential interest in the Task Force's deliberations. Initially, the group's discussion focussed on conditions along Reliez Valley Road. Subsequently, the Task Force expanded the Study Area northward to encompass the Alhambra Valley and Alhambra Valley Road. The Task Force has determined that traffic from planned development will create significant roadway deficiencies unless adequately miti- gated. With the input of the collective staff and the public, the Task Force is recommending concerted action by the various jurisdic- tions to address the problem. While the study considered a variety of traffic-related concerns, most of the discussion focussed on the development of an adequate funding mechanism for desirable road improvements. The Task Force agreed that new development in the Reliez Valley and Alhambra Valley Road areas should be assessed fees for this purpose, and that the collected revenues be distributed among the affected jurisdictions to implement the proposed improvements. III . ENVIRONS The Study Area is situated at the western extreme of the greater Diablo Valley area. Major freeways serving the area include Highway 4 to the north and Highway 24 to the east and south, providing access to other locations in the region. Another major thoroughfare serving the area extends between Martinez in the north to Lafayette in the south. This 8-mile corridor is a composite of several shorter roadways, Alhambra Avenue/Taylor Boule- vard/Pleasant Hill Road. Except for the northernmost segment, this roadway consists of four travel lanes with median separation. The 2-mile segment at the north end is limited to two lanes with no separation. West of the Study Area is the Briones Hills region. This area consists of hilly terrain much of which is under the ownership of the East Bay Regional Park District. To the west of the Study Area is the Briones Hills Agricultural Preserve Area. The preserve identifies an area in which all local jurisdictions in the northwest county area have agreed to refrain from approving urban/suburban uses. The County and Cities of Lafayette, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill are among the co-signatories to the agreement. IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE TARGETED ROAD SYSTEM AND STUDY AREA The Task Force has reviewed traffic conditions and development policies affecting the western foothill region of Diablo Valley. This review concluded that new development in the area would cause traffic conditions to deteriorate to unacceptable levels unless adequate mitigation to the collector road system is established. To address this concern, the Task Force has identified collector road systems in the foothill region which will require improvements in order to absorb the additional traffic load. Concomitantly, the Task Force has identified a geographic area which is particularly reliant on this collector road system due to the local topography and road pattern. Development within this defined area would have a greater impact on this road system; much greater than development of proper- ties outside the defined area. Accordingly, the Task Force' s princi- pal recommendation is to establish a special program to assess new development in the defined area to provide traffic mitigation to the impacted road system. The following discussion describes the collector road system that the Task Force feels should be improved and controlled. Also described is the traffic shed area that the Task Force is recommending be subjected to traffic mitigation fees to pay for most of the projected road impact. A. Targeted Road System The western foothills of Diablo Valley are served by two connec- ting collector roads: Reliez Valley Road and Alhambra Valley Road. Reliez Valley Road extends from Pleasant Hill Road in . • 4 3. Lafayette northward 5.3 miles to the Alhambra Valley Road inter section. Alhambra Valley Road is distinctive because of its dogleg alignment. One leg of Alhambra Valley Road extends westward into the Briones Hills area leading to Pinole. The other leg runs northward 0.8 mile connecting with Alhambra Avenue in Martinez. Both roads constitute spinal road systems fed by local roads. The road systems are relatively detached from other nearby developed areas because of the topography and road pattern. The Task Force is most concerned with the impacts to the collector road system serving this area. It has identified the following road segments for improvements and vehicle regulation: - the entire length of Reliez Valley Road; - the north leg of Alhambra Valley Road; and - the western leg of Alhambra Valley Road extending from the Reliez Valley Road intersection 1.7 miles westward to the Briones Agricultural Preserve Area. For purposes of this report, this "Y" shaped road alignment shall be identified as the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Road, or more simply, the "Corridor." Over its 7.9 mile total length, the Corridor passes through or alongside several jurisdictions. One segment lies within the City of Lafayette; another within the City of Martinez. Two separate segments lie within the unincorporated area. (A recent annexation of the City of Pleasant Hill has extended the City's boundaries such that it abuts but does not cross, a short section of Reliez Valley Road. ) The mileages associated with each jurisdiction are listed below: TOTAL CORRIDOR MILEAGE BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Total Mileage Lafayette 2.4 Miles Martinez 0.9 Mile County 4.6 Miles 7 .9 Miles 6. UNBUILT DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Jurisdiction Number of Lots Lafayette 69 Martinez 20 Pleasant Hill 0 County 573 TOTAL 662 VII. TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONDITIONS A. Existing Traffic and Road Conditions Reliez and Alhambra Valley Roads are two-lane roads with approxi- mately 20 feet of pavement width. The road is characterized with moderate gradients; tight curvatures; and lack of pedestrian facilities, shoulders, drainage improvements, and left-turn channelization. Roadside ditches and borders are marginal , and the pavement condition is deteriorating due to deferred signifi- cant maintenance. Heavy truck traffic through the Corridor is effectively prohibited through the collective restrictions of various juris- dictions. Truck travel in excess of three (3) tons is prohibited by each of the three Cities who control the main points of access to the Corridor. These restrictions do not prevent local deliveries with heavier weights. Unlike the Cities, the State law does not enable the County to enact long-term truck load restrictions. Traffic counts have recently been registered at various points along the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Road. Currently, the roadway carries 4700 vehicles per day (ADT) at its southern terminus at Pleasant Hill Road. The count is reduced to 3200 ADT at Withers Avenue and 3400 ADT at Grayson Road. At the intersection of Reliez and Alhambra Valley Road, the count is again at 4700 ADT. In its present state, the capacity of the roadway is approxi- mately 6000 to 10,000 ADT. At the upper limit of 10,000 ADT, traffic will be perceived as busy and congested during peak hours. 7. B. Projected Traffic Increased traffic volumes will occur along Reliez/Alhambra Valley Road with additional development within the Study Area. Additional traffic will be drawn to the road from new development outside the Study Area. With increasing volumes, safety becomes an increasing issue. PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR County Martinez Lafayette - Existing Traffic (ADT) 3400 3500 3900 Projected Growth (ADT) From Buildout Within Study Area 5662 2468 1932 From General Growth Outside Study Area 680 700 780 TOTAL POTENTIAL TRAFFIC 9,742 6,668 6,612 C. Impact within the Study Area The projected traffic volumes will exceed the perceived capacity limit of the present state of the roadway and, at its upper limit, will exceed ordinary improved two-lane capacity. Without some adjustments, this traffic would result in more complaints, increased hazard of accident and a general feeling of congestion during the peak periods as well as- mid-day. Local residential driveway and side streets would find increasing delays in entering or crossing the traffic stream from their side street location. Pedestrian/bicycle traffic along the narrow roadway would become increasingly hazardous. VIII . PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS To address the potential safety impacts of projected traffic condi- tions, the Task Force is recommending that the four affected juris- dictions jointly support proposed road improvements. The proposed improvements provide for such items as: - construction of drainage, road shoulder and trail improve- ments; - provision of turning lanes and safety lighting; and - repaving/reconstruction of the existing roadbed as necessary. 8. These improvements are deemed to be consistent with the simultaneous objective of retention of the corridor's rural parkway ambience. The proposed improvements are intended to mitigate potential road hazards while avoiding an expansion of road capacity (e.g. , additional travel lanes). The Task Force feels that additional travel lanes would detract from the desirable ambience within the Study Area. A. Road Design The Task Force is recommending that the four jurisdictions jointly support a unified road design for the corridor. The design provides for a uniform two-lane roadbed along the entire corridor length with bordering path. The proposed right-of-way width would be 60 feet except for the section of Reliez Valley Road between Alhambra Valley Road and Grayson Road where an 84 foot right-of-way is recommended consonant with the the County's existing precise alignment plan. B. Estimate of Improvement Costs Each of the affected jurisdictions has estimated the cost of proposed improvements for its respective section(s) of the corridor. The detailed estimates are contained in Appendix B and are summarized below. Estimated Cost Jurisdiction Total Mileage ($ Millions) Lafayette 2.4 Miles $3.0 Martinez 0.9 Mile $1.0 County 4.6 Miles $5.2 Pleasant Hill 0 Miles -- 7.9 Miles $9.2 IX. FUNDING SOURCES FOR PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS The Task Force is recommending that the proposed improvement be funded from a variety of revenue sources, but principally from assessments on new development. The following discussion summarizes existing and proposed fees and revenue sources available for traffic mitigation. A. Existing Fees Existing traffic fees presently being collected within the Study Area are summarized below by jurisdiction. 9. 1. City of Lafayette Lafayette presently does not have an assessment for traffic mitigation fees. 2. City of Martinez Martinez requires the contribution of $1,670 per new dwelling unit. The fees are allocated to traffic projects throughout the City limits. 3. City of Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill requires a traffic mitigation fee of $1855 per dwelling unit. The revenues are allocated to traffic projects throughout the City limits. 4. County of Contra Costa The County presently collects traffic mitigation revenues from two separate fees on new development within the Study Area. The Central County Area of Benefit covers a 60 square mile area including the Study Area. The AOB requires payment of a $2,300 traffic mitigation fee for each new dwelling unit. The assessment applies to all properties in the unincorporated portion of the Study Area. Revenues are used to fund traffic projects throughout the Central County area north of Lafayette and Walnut Creek, including the Study Area. The AOB program provides for a prioritized listing of traffic projects to be. funded, which included redesigning Alhambra Valley Road curves near Strenzel Lane. . The County is also collecting revenue from a specialized fee that has been attached to the approval of subdivisions within the north portion of the Study Area, the Alhambra Valley area. Since 1985, the County has made a practice of requiring subdivision developers to contribute $17,000 per dwelling unit for infrastructure improvements in the local area. The revenues are available to fund various road and non-road projects. A maximum of $7,015 is allocated to road improvement/traffic impact costs on Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road north of Tavon Estates. This fee payment is in addition to the $2,300/unit Central County AOB fee obligation. B. Proposed Area of Benefit Fee The major portion of revenues to fund the proposed improvements should be collected from new development within the Study Area. The proposed funding mechanism, a new joint-jurisdiction Area of Benefit, would be• assessed against subdivisions and building permits for new residences. Collected revenues are then to be distributed among the affected jurisd=ictions for funding of traffic mitigation improvements along the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Corridor. The program would be implemented by all four juris- dictions entering into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) . FIGURE III PROPOSED JOINT-JURISDICTIONAL AREA OF BENEFIT RELIEVALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR • 000 i. ..o -*-# MARTINEZ 9 �� 9 • MARTINEZ • is a-:::;, :ii •:_..•x • ti•afiiir r M000000000000*000000 r.--. ♦ • �:� :::is�::::::iso::::::;t>:•::t:•:t•::>:•> ::•:>:•: ::.*y:. •• • so 0*000606 BLVD 10 O a:•::::::::• DRAT Rd •� i?::':r? 0 PLI ASAlff HILL K • i - 0 z 00 ✓•::i..f. yrs ��•t::is • 2 00 BEAR Ir :•• 0000000000 000 0• so 00 •' •00.0• : • • ••0• - 000000000000000 00% ••••••i•••••• s N�►►r y LAFAYETTE 7t(F 0 • 90 0 so 7d ••s • • • ••• LEGEND 000000CRY BOUNDARIES 1"=4000' 0.0.00•' CRY SHPERES OF INFLUENCE N BRIONES HILLS PRESERVE BOUNDARY STUDY AREA 10. In some instances, credit would be permitted against previous traffic mitigation requirements. Those parcels which had been subject to the Alhambra Valley Infrastructure fee could receive partial credit against the new AOB obligation for as much as $7,015. At the same time, no credit would be permitted against existing AOB obligations (Central County, Martinez, Pleasant Hill ). Nor the shared portions of fees collected for this project. C. Other Funding Sources The proposed AOB funding would fund the majority of the recom- mended Corridor improvements. The remaining costs would be funded from other sources developed individually by each juris- diction. Other potential supplemental sources include but are not limited to the following: - general revenue fund - State Gas Tax Subventions funds - Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds Measure C/"Return to Source" funds Hazard Elimination (HES) funds X. BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT New development within the proposed AOB should be required to contribute a proportional share of the projected Corridor traffic growth. Local new development will constitute 45% of the projected Corridor traffic growth. Therefore, the total AOB obligation would be $4.14 million ($9.2 million x 45%) . The basis for this calculation is contained in the attached appendices. XI. RECOMMENDED FEE The fee which results from the above apportionment is as follows: $4.14 million/662 units = $6,254/unit XII . AOB REVENUE ALLOCATION AMONG JURISDICTIONS For purposes of allocating AOB revenues, the Corridor and Area of Benefit have been partitioned into four zones. The zones follow jurisdictional boundary lines. Lafayette and Martinez each have a zone. The County has two zones: one covering the Alhambra Valley area (north of the Martinez zone) , and one covering the Oakmont Cemetery area (the area between the Lafayette and Martinez zones. For each zone, trip distribution percentages into the other zones have been estimated and agreed to jointly by the staffs of each jurisdiction. The development potential and percentages for each zone are shown below. The trip distribution percentage serves as the basis for allocation of revenues among the affected jurisdictions. • 1]. Zone A (County - Alhambra Valley) Zone B (Martinez) Development Potential - 370 Units 20 Units Percentage Traffic From Zone B - 50% A - 30% C - 20% C - 20% D - 25% D - 25% Zone C (Count- Oakmont Area) Zone D (Lafayette) Development Potential - 203 Units 69 Units Percentage Traffic From Zone A - 25% A - 10% B - 50% B - 15% D - 30% C - 20% Pleasant Hill is not currently in a traffic zone because no portion of the Study Area lies within Pleasant Hill 's boundaries. Pleasant Hill could become a recipient upon the significant annexation of Study Area property by the City. XIII. OTHER INTERJURISDICTIONAL POLICIES A. Regulation of Construction-Related Impacts Residents within the Study Area have objected to use of the Corridor by -construction vehicles and other heavy vehicles. The affected jurisdictions should adopt appropriate policies to redirect this traffic to more appropriate routes in the vicinity as much as possible. Moreover, development projects within the Study Area should be required to repair damage to the Corridor roads caused by construction-related traffic. Each jurisdiction should also restrict the hours of noise-generating construction activity and restrict construction activities that might generate dust impacts on surrounding properties. B. Prior Notice of Land Use Policy Amendment Proposals The projected impacts and recommended mitigations are largely premised on existing land use and circulation policies within the Study Area. An amendment to those policies could alter the underlying assumptions on traffic generation potential with adverse ramifications on nearby jurisdictions. These impacts might .be avoided i.f input from nearby jurisdictions is solicited before decisions are made. Therefore, before any final decisions are made, proposed land use and circulation policy changes which might adversely impact Corridor traffic conditions should be referred to the other affected jurisdictions for comment. AVSPII:rvrd.rpt RHD d. Alhambra Valley Ranch (formerly Deadhorse Ranch) (SUB 6443) 17 SFR on 121 acres. The applicant is required to contribute at least $17,000/unit in fees to benefit the local infrastructure. Final Map pending. e. Nakatani Property (SUB 7238) HRC Development This project was approved for ten lots on 10 acres. The developer is required to contribute $17,000/unit in fees to benefit the local infrastructure. Final map pending. 2. Pending Projects a. Oakmont (2802-RZ, FDP 3024-88, SUB 7151) , Davidon Homes Applications have been submitted to rezone and to develop 70 acres on a portion of the Oakmont Cemetary property into 132 SFR units. The project would utilize access from Hidden Pond Road. An Environmental Impact Report on the project is scheduled for release in the near future. The proposed County General Plan Revision (if adopted prior to approval of this project) would significantly reduce the development potential of this site. b. Seclusion Valley (Files 2717-RZ; FDP 3035-87; SUB 6844)(DeBolt/Kimmel ) The County Planning Commission denied an earlier site plan proposal (29 SFR units) on this 26 acre site. A revised development plan for 22 units has been submitted. No hearing is scheduled as of this time. 3. Other Developable Properties A number of properties in the unincorporated area are either vacant or could be considered for subdivision under existing County policies. Most of these parcels are concentrated at the north end of the Study Area. Staff has estimated the total unbuilt development potential of these properties to be as many as 296 dwelling units. The unbuilt development potential within the unincorporated area may be altered (increased or decreased) by policy reviews currently underway. A proposed Countywide General Plan will come to hearing shortly. A Specific Plan covering the Alhambra Valley could also affect the development potential within the northern portion of the Study Area. APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL RELIEZ VALLEY ROAD/ALHAMBRA VALLEY STUDY AREA The following discussion reviews the unbuilt development potential within and near the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Study Area corridor for each of the affected jurisdictions. Unbuilt development potential is defined by the following categories: 1. Approved (but as yet unbuilt) projects. 2. Pending projects. 3. Vacant lots with no subdivision potential allowable under existing zoning. 4. Other properties for which existing policies would allow additional development to be considered. No development applications have been filed on these properties to date. A. City of Lafayette According to the City Planning Director, the City has no approved or pending projects. Moreover, the City's policies have only the potential to yield minor development (i .e. , lot splits) . Still , 69 vacant residential lots have been identified within the City's portion of the Study Area. B. City of Martinez Martinez has jurisdiction over a portion of the land that derives access onto Reliez Valley Road. In November, 1988 the City adopted the Alhambra Hills Specific Plan which encompasses the area between Alhambra Avenue, Reliez Valley Road and Blue Ridge Drive. A major portion of the Specific Plan area lies within the County jurisdiction and would have to be annexed to the City. While the plan provides for considerable residential development, most of that development will have to use Alhambra Avenue for access, not Reliez Valley Road. City staff estimates that of the additional development provided by the plan, 20 residential units, at most, would have direct access onto Reliez Valley Road. Other properties within the City's jurisdiction have already been built-out. Consequently, the traffic impact from development allowed by Martinez will be small . C. City of Pleasant Hill The City of Pleasant Hill has limited control over any property that would directly impact Reliez Valley Road traffic conditions. 10. In some instances, credit would be permitted against previous traffic mitigation requirements. Those parcels which had been subject to the Alhambra Valley Infrastructure fee could receive partial credit against the new AOB obligation for as much as $7,015. At the same time, no credit would be permitted against existing AOB obligations (Central County, Martinez, Pleasant Hill ) . Nor the shared portions of fees collected for this project. C. Other Funding Sources The proposed AOB funding would fund the majority of the recom- mended Corridor improvements. The remaining costs would be funded from other sources developed individually by each juris- diction. Other potential supplemental sources include but are not limited to the following: general revenue fund - State Gas Tax Subventions funds Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds Measure C/"Return to Source" funds - Hazard Elimination (HES) funds X. BASIS FOR FEE APPORTIONMENT New development within the proposed AOB should be required to contribute a proportional share of the projected Corridor traffic growth. Local new development will constitute 45% of the projected Corridor traffic growth. Therefore, the total AOB obligation would be $4.14 million ($9.2 million x 45%) . The basis for this calculation is contained in the attached appendices. XI. RECOMMENDED FEE The fee which results from the above apportionment is as follows: $4.14 million/662 units = $6,254/unit.. XII . AOB REVENUE ALLOCATION AMONG JURISDICTIONS For purposes of allocating AOB revenues, the Corridor and Area of Benefit have been partitioned into four zones. The zones follow jurisdictional boundary lines. Lafayette and Martinez each have a zone. The County has two zones: one covering the Alhambra Valley area (north of the Martinez zone) , and one covering the Oakmont Cemetery area (the area between the Lafayette and Martinez zones. For each zone, trip distribution percentages into the other zones have been estimated and agreed to jointly by the staffs of each jurisdiction. The development potential and percentages for each zone are shown below. The trip distribution percentage serves as the basis for allocation of revenues among the affected jurisdictions. 9. 1. City of Lafayette Lafayette presently does not have an assessment for traffic mitigation fees. 2. City of Martinez Martinez requires the contribution of $1,670 per new dwelling unit. The fees are allocated to traffic projects throughout the City limits. 3. City of Pleasant Hill Pleasant Hill requires a traffic mitigation fee of $1855 per dwelling unit. The revenues are allocated to traffic projects throughout the City limits. 4. County of Contra Costa The County presently collects traffic mitigation revenues from two separate fees on new development within the Study Area. The Central County Area of. Benefit covers a 60 square mile area including the Study Area. The AOB requires payment of a $2,300 traffic mitigation fee for each new dwelling unit. The assessment applies to all properties in the unincorporated portion of the Study Area. Revenues are used to fund traffic projects throughout the Central County area north of Lafayette and Walnut Creek, including the Study Area. The AOB program provides for a prioritized listing of traffic projects to be funded, which included redesigning Alhambra Valley Road curves near Strenzel Lane. The County is also collecting revenue from a specialized fee that has been attached to the approval of subdivisions within the north portion of the Study Area, the Alhambra Valley area. Since 1985, the County has made a practice of requiring subdivision developers to contribute $17,000 per dwelling unit for infrastructure improvements in the local area. The revenues are available to fund various road and non-road projects. A maximum of $7,015 is allocated to road improvement/traffic impact costs on Alhambra Valley Road and Reliez Valley Road north of Tavon Estates. This fee payment is in addition to the $2,300/unit Central County AOB fee obligation. B. Proposed Area of Benefit Fee The major portion of revenues to fund the proposed improvements should be collected from new development within the Study Area. The proposed funding mechanism, a new joint-jurisdiction Area of Benefit, would be• assessed against subdivisions and building permits for new residences. Collected revenues are then to be distributed among the affected jurisdictions for funding of traffic mitigation improvements along the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Corridor. The program would be implemented by all four juris- dictions entering into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) . 7. B. Projected Traffic Increased traffic volumes will occur along Reliez/Alhambra Valley Road with additional development within the Study Area. Additional traffic will be drawn to the road from new development outside the Study Area. With increasing volumes, safety becomes an increasing issue. PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR Counter Martinez Lafayette Existing Traffic (ADT) 3400 3500 3900 Projected Growth (ADT) From Buildout Within Study Area 5662 2468 1932 From General Growth Outside Study Area 680 700 780 TOTAL POTENTIAL TRAFFIC 9,742 6,668 6,612 C. Impact within the Study Area The projected traffic volumes will exceed the perceived capacity limit of the present state of the roadway and, at its upper limit, will exceed ordinary improved two-lane capacity. Without some adjustments, this .traffic would result in more complaints, increased hazard of accident and a general feeling of congestion during the peak periods as well as mid-day. Local residential driveway and side streets would find increasing delays in entering or crossing the traffic stream from their side street location. Pedestrian/bicycle traffic along the narrow roadway would become increasingly hazardous. VIII. PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS To address the potential safety impacts of projected traffic condi- tions, the Task Force is recommending that the four affected juris- dictions jointly support proposed road improvements. The proposed improvements provide for such items as: - construction of drainage, road shoulder and trail improve- ments; - provision of turning lanes and safety lighting; and repaving/reconstruction of the existing roadbed as necessary. APPENDIX A DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL RELIEZ VALLEY ROAD/ALHAMBRA VALLEY STUDY AREA The following discussion reviews the unbuilt development potential within and near the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Study Area corridor for each of the affected jurisdictions. Unbuilt development potential is defined by the following categories: 1. Approved (but as yet unbuilt) projects. 2. Pending projects. 3. Vacant lots with no subdivision potential allowable under existing zoning. 4. Other properties for which existing policies would allow additional development to be considered. No development applications have been filed on these properties to date. A. City of Lafayette According to the City Planning Director, the City has no approved or pending projects. Moreover, the City's policies have only the potential to yield minor development (i .e. , lot splits) . Still , 69 vacant residential lots have been identified within the City's portion of the Study Area. B. City of Martinez Martinez has jurisdiction over a portion of the land that derives access onto Reliez Valley Road. In November, 1988 the City adopted the Alhambra Hills Specific Plan which encompasses the area between Alhambra Avenue, Reliez Valley Road and Blue Ridge Drive. A major portion of the Specific Plan area lies within the County jurisdiction and would have to be annexed to the City. While the plan provides for considerable residential development, most of that development will have to use Alhambra Avenue for access, not Reliez Valley Road. City staff estimates that of the additional development provided by the plan, 20 residential units, at most, would have direct access onto Reliez Valley Road. Other properties within the City' s jurisdiction have already been built-out. Consequently,, the traffic- impact from development allowed by Martinez will be small . C. City of Pleasant Hill The City of Pleasant Hill has limited control over any property that would directly impact Reliez Valley Road traffic conditions. Recently, the City approved the redesign of the Pleasant Hill Golf and Country Club. The developer for the project is the Dividend Corpora- tion. The approval will add 104 residential units and convert an existing 18-hole golf course into a 9-hole course. Annexation was approved by the County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) . This project was required to contribute traffic mitigation fees to the City of Lafayette for road improvements to Reliez Valley Road. Because the project entrance is onto Grayson Road, a significant amount of traffic will be directed toward Taylor Boulevard to the east and not to Reliez Valley Road. It will construct Reliez Valley Road north of Grayson Road to adopted standards of this project. For these reasons, the project was excluded from the Study Area. The City's policies do not allow any development elsewhere along the corridor. D. County of Contra Costa Most of the unbuilt development potential within the Study Area lies within unincorporated areas. Much of this potential consists of approved and pending subdivision projects. Another significant element of this potential consists of properties eligible for development on which no application has been filedas of this time. The latter component is largely concentrated at the northern end of the Study Area, in the Alhambra Valley area.- The following discussion reviews the status of major development projects and other developable properties within the unincorporated portion of the Study Area. 1. Approved Projects a. Hidden Pond (Bridgman) SUB 6769 27 SFR Units Map Recorded Access will be from Reliez Valley Road via Hidden Pond Road b. Hidden Pond Hills (Bridgman; formerly Muchlinski ) (FDP 3041-86, SUB 7144) . This project abuts the Hidden Pond project. In October, 1989, a Tentative Subdivision Map and Final Development Plan were approved for a 22-unit single family residential project. Access would be from Hidden Pond Road onto Reliez Valley Road. Recordation of a Final Map is pending. C. Stonehurst (2786-RZ, FDP 3005-88, SUB 7091) (Security Owners Corp. ) 47 SFR units on 235 acres. The developer is required to contribute at least $17,000/unit in fees to benefit the local infrastructure. Final Map Pending. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONNUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Reliez Valley Task Force DATE: December 5, 1990 FROM: Robert H. Drake, Senior Planner 4/1) SUBJECT: Technical Advisory Committee Response to Task Force Questions I. SUMMARY At the last meeting, the Task Force requested the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to investigate several concerns and to report back to the Task Force. This report reviews the TAC's findings. II. RECOMMENDATION The Policy Task Force should: A. Recommend that the Cities of Lafayette, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill and the County of Contra Costa enter into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) to , collect traffic fees from new development and distribute the revenue among the affected jurisdictions based on the draft Development Program Report dated December, 1989. The proposed Area-of-Benefit should be extended westward to encompass all of the Alhambra Valley Road traffic shed up to Rancho La Bocha Road ("pig farm hill") . B. Direct the Technical Advisory Committee to formulate a JEPA and to finalize the Development Program Report (including modifications to reflect the most current information) , and to make the following additions relative to cost sharing and accountability: "Section IX.D - Project Development Each jurisdiction that will be party to the JEPA should determine solely those projects from the list that will be prioritized and constructed, and to administer those projects autonomously, subject to the involvement of the other parties as described in Section E - Cost Sharing, and Section F - Accountability, which are described below. The opportunity to modify any project on the list should be allowed subject to the approval of all the other parties. Section, IX.E. - Cost' Sharing A joint exercise of powers agreement will be necessary to accumulate and distribute funds received from developer's fees. In addition, the JEPA should be written to allow any two or more agencies to pool, or otherwise share their accumulated area funds, or any other suitable funds, for the purpose of the joint construction of mutually desirable projects, provided a separate project specific agreement is prepared. Section IX.F - Accountability To assure that funds are accumulated in separate accounts and are always available for projects on the list, routine reporting of collections, disbursements, receipts and expenditures should be made available to all parties. It is recommended that the submission of a quarterly report be combined with a general informa- tional meeting of interested individuals from each jurisdiction." C. Direct the County of Contra Costa to serve as lead agency for purposes of complying with the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Confirm the AOB Revenue Allocation as recommended by- the TAC in the December, 1989 draft Development Program Report (see Attachment II) . E. Endorse the City of Martinez application for TDA funding for Reliez Valley Road trail improvements as described in its December 4, 1990 memorandum (Attachment IX) . III. ADJUSTMENT TO DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Attachment I is a revision to Appendix B of the draft Development Program Report (DPR) . The revision provides for Subdivision 7410 (Ariey property) which the County Planning Commission approved for 17 lots in October. The added number of units result in changes to the traffic distribution and revenue allocation formulas identified in Attachment II. IV. CONCERNS AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESPONSES A. Lafayette Recruest for Increased Revenue Allocation 1) Issue Attachment IV is the January 30, 1990 letter from the City of Lafayette requesting an increase in the Area of Benefit (AOB) allocation to Lafayette. 2) TAC Response The TAC discussed Lafayette's request at two meetings including alternative distribution formulas proposed by the Lafayette Engineer. The TAC was unable to unanimously agree on a equitable formula. The equity and appropriateness of the December, 1989 revenue distribution was confirmed by a consensus of the TAC, except for Lafayette. Attachment V is a November 1, 1990 letter from the County Public Works Department responding to the Lafayette request. Attachment VI is a December 7, 1990 letter from the Lafayette Engineer identifying alternative revenue distribution formulas' that would be more acceptable to the City. Due to the lateness of the receipt of these written comments, the TAC did not have an opportunity to review these alternatives as a group. The TAC is at an impasse on this issue. The Policy Task Force should provide guidance on whether the original revenue distri- bution or alternative distribution formula should be applied. B. Administration of AOB-Related Funds 1) Issue The Task Force asked if better efficiencies and coordination for the proposed road improvements could be achieved by centralized administration of AOB projects. 2) TAC Response The TAC felt that optimal efficiencies could be achieved by allowing each jurisdiction to determine prioritization and construction of AOB projects. Still, opportunities for Cost sharing and accountability among jurisdictions should be provided. The TAC is recommending the changes to the December, 1989 Program Report as listed in the December 3, 1990 memorandum from the county Public Works Department (attached) . These modifications are continued in the above recommendation. C. Distribution of Traffic Along Reliez Valley Road 1) Issue The Task Force questioned how traffic generation within the study area was distributed among the traffic zones. 2) TAC Response The traffic distribution described in the December, 1989 program report is the result of a consensus among the engineers of the four involved jurisdictions. The distribution was based on: - existing traffic patterns; - planned traffic systems in the vicinity; and - the location of new development within the study area. It should be noted that the traffic distribution established by the TAC was independently replicated by the traffic engineer (Goodrich) for the Reliez Valley Highlands EIR. D. Designation of Reliez Valley Highlands Site on Proposed Countywide General Plan 1) Issue The Task Force requested staff to investigate the genesis of the changes to the land use designation for the Reliez Valley High- lands site. 2) TAC Response Attachment VII is a memorandum from the County General Plan staff dated November 26, 1990 regarding the background on the existing and proposed plan designation for this site. The existing (1963) General Plan designates most of the site for residential uses. During the formulation of the proposed plan, staff thought that a reduced development potential would be desirable which resulted in designation of most of the site for open space uses on the March, 1990 edition of the proposed plan. More recently, staff learned that the County had placed the site in an assessment district to pay for the road access (Hidden Pond Road) to the site and two adjoining properties. Nearly two- thirds of the Assessment District costs were placed on the subject property. The assignment of costs presumably was based on the development potential of the site. In recognition of the economic burden placed on this property, staff has amended the general plan proposal to conform with the existing general plan designation. E. Potential for Reduction of Development Potential Within Study Area 1) Issue What can be done to reduce the development potential within the Study Area? 2) TAC Response Attachment II indicates a summary of the unbuilt development potential within the Study Area. As is apparent, many of the properties already possess vested rights to develop by virtue of existing subdivision approvals, or simply consist of vacant lots. The Cities of Lafayette and Martinez have reviewed the develop- ment potential in their jurisdictions (respectively 69 and 20 lots) and have concluded that this potential cannot be reasonably reduced. Excluding the approved projects, the development potential in the County is divided into two categories. The "Vacant Lots and Other" sub-category of the County listing almost entirely pertains to the Alhambra Valley Area. After a multi-year effort, a 16-member citizen's committee recently completed a specific plan proposal. The land use policies of that proposal would not significantly alter the overall development potential of the specific plan of the study area as expressed by the existing zoning. Because this proposal has been a neighborhood-based solution aimed at implementing existing general plan policies, there is no potential to reduce the number of dwelling units. The County is presently considering two subdivision projects: Seclusion Valley and Reliez Valley Highlands. Seclusion Valley is on a steeply-sloped property that is zoned R-20. The proposal was recently revised down to 22 units, which is well below the maximum number that the applicant is able to apply for on this site. Any further reduction is likely to involve only a few units. Reliez Valley Highlands - The County is currently processing an EIR for this project. The written public comment period has been extended to December 28, 1990. The Planning Commission is expected to make a certification decision on January 22, 1991. This site is zoned General Agricultural (5-acre minimum parcel size) . However, the existing general plan designates most of the site Single Family Residential-Low Density (1 - 3 units/acre) . This site may constitute the only opportunity to reduce the development potential within the study area. The Draft EIR reviews several development alternatives for the site including a no-project alternative and two reduced develop- ment alter-natives (30-unit and 50-unit) . Attachment VIII is an excerpt from the Alternatives Section of the Draft EIR. The reduced development alternatives are primarily aimed at reducing visual and wildlife impacts associated with grading and landslide repair of the project. To the extent that any potential exists to reduce development potential within the study area, interested parties may wish to become involved in the review of the Reliez Valley Highlands project. If that project were approved for only 30 units, then this site and the study area would be relieved of the traffic burden for over 100 homes. Attachment III indicates how the 30-unit project would affect future local traffic. It should be noted that even if this project were limited to 30 units, the future traffic levels along the corridor would only be reduced by about 5%. F. Reliez Valley Road Right-of-way Restrictions 1) Issue How can the 84-foot wide section of Reliez Valley Road be controlled to assure that this segment of the road corridor remains in accord with the two-lane road concept? 2) TAC Response The TAC recommends that the proposed Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA) include the right-of-way cross-section shown in Attachment IX. That cross-section shows the shoulder areas for the 84-foot wide right-of-way segment to be limited to trails and landscape improvements. G. Expansion of the Area of Benefit 1) Issue The Area of Benefit should be expanded to include more of the traffic-shed for Alhambra Valley. 2) TAC Response The Task Force's request will be accommodated as described in the recommendation. H. Requested Endorsement of Reliez Valley Road Trail Funding 1) Issue Attachment X is a request dated December 4, 1990 from the City of Martinez requesting the endorsement of the Task Force for a funding application to provide trail improvements along Reliez Valley Road. 2) TAC Response The TAC is recommending that the Task Force endorse Martinez's funding application. Attachments I - 12/1/90 Revised Summary of Development Potential II - 12/5/90 Revised Potential Traffic Level Table by Traffic Zone III - 12/5/90 Potential Traffic Level Table/Restricted Development Scenario IV - 1/20/90 Letter from Mayor of Lafayette Requesting Increased Revenue Allocaiton to City V - 11/1/90 Letter from the County Public Works Depratment Responding to Lafayette's Request for Revenue Allocaiton Adjustment VI - 12/7/90 Letter from Lafayette City Engineer Proposing Alternative Allocation Formulas VII - 11/26/90 Memorandum from County Community Development Department Regarding Chronology of Oakmont (Reliez Valley Highlands) Property VIII - Excerpt from Reliez Valley Highlands Draft EIR - Alternative Project Section IX - Reliez Valley Road Cross-Section X - 12/4/90 Request for Endorsement of Trail Funding Proposal of City of Martinez RD/aa LTRIII/Task.RD APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL RELIEZ/ LHAMBRA VALLEY STUDY AREA Jurisdiction Number of Dwelling Units Lafayette Approved Projects 0 Pending Projects 0 Vacant Lots 69 Other Unbuilt Development Potential 0 Total 69 Martinez Approved Projects 0 Pending Projects 0 Vacant Lots 0 Other Unbuilt Development Potential 20 Total 20 Pleasant Hill 0 County of Contra Costa Approved Projects (Major Sub's only) Stonehurst (SUB 7091) 47 Alhambra Valley Ranch (SUB 6443) 17 Hidden Pond (SUB 6769) 27 1 i �sUg vo` Hidden Pond Hills (SUB 7144) 22� �Nakatani (SUB 7238) 10 Subtotal I�{o Pending Projects Seclusion Valley (SUB 6844) 22 Oakmont (SUB 7151) 132 Subtotal 154 Vacant Lots and Other Undeveloped Potential 296 Seo Total x-73 GRAND TOTAL 6' 1The boundaries of the City of Pleasant Hill do not extend into the Study Area. However, a portion of the Study Area lies within Pleasant Hill ' s Sphere of Influence. or4- APPENDIX. C. POTENTIAL TRAFFIC-LEVELS -. RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY-ROAD CORRIDOR I. TRAFFIC GENERATION The following listings review traffic generation from new development _ within the Reliez Valley Road Corridor. These projections do not include current traffic counts. The projections assume that each new dwelling unit generates 13 trips (Average Daily Trips, ADT) per day. Zone'"A: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 4940 ADT Traffic from Zone B (50%) 130 Traffic from Zone-C (20%) *@e, .Traffic from Zone D (10%) 90 New Development Traffic in Zone A = S 7Qt -SM ADT. Zone B: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 260 ADT Traffic from Zone A (30%) 1482 Traffic from Zone C (20%) S9( 'Sot Traffic from Zone D (25%) 224 New Development Traffic in Zone B -2468 ADT Zone C: Traffic from Development Within Zone: G 73c) 2599 ADT Traffic from Zone A (25%) 1235 Traffic from Zone B (50%) 130 Traffic from Zone P (30%) 269 New Development Traffic in Zone C 4143 ADT Zone D: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 897 ADT Traffic from Zone A (10%) 494 Traffic from Zone B (15%) 39 Traffic from Zone C (20%) ��: '3 New Development Traffic in Zone D = 8 7 t952 ADT II. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC The following table identifies the current and potential traffic levels based on development potential within and outside the study area. For the purposes of this study, development occurring outside the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Road Study Area is assumed to cause traffic, levels along the corridor to increase by 20%. Avs� .��.,c �,,�� v�� Ts �--� Zia.,, C i� � F � TABLE I EXISTING' AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS • =. BY TRAFFIC ZONE RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR Future? Traffic Potential Traffic Volumes Without Total :. Dwelling Generated New Development Future Current Units from Potential in the Corridor Traffic Zone ADT Within Zone Units Current ADT x 120%) ADT A (CO) 3400 380 .S;6tz 576 4,080 .4742- 778C'a 8 (MTZ) 3500 20 1r4,69 .05-12- 4,200 C (CO) .3700 -14ff 2/D _5,14-r �,s�� 4,440 w-,a3 88o4 D (LAF) 3900.!_ 69 4,680 G -6£d'" 1485' J�JS�O 17,400 31,605* �j G *Mathematical Figures: Not to be construed as projected traffic levels. /41, S� n � ---- Vitt 19'e c 64)1 T- 570 i4,SSS _ -7 IF7� JA G J APPENDIX BSvI�<s SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IrLE��c RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY STUDY AREA RV7LIEZ ""Y flev--�,l c �l�� v K-K- 4-c.WbS TROTaT" Jurisdiction Number of Dwelling Units Lafayette Approved Projects 0 Pending Projects 0 Vacant Lots 69 Other Unbuilt Development Potential 0 Total 69 Martinez Approved Projects 0 Pending Projects 0 Vacant Lots 0 Other Unbuilt Development Potential 20 Total 20 Pleasant Hilll 0 County of Contra Costa Approved Projects (Major Sub' s only) Stonehurst (SUB 709.1) 47 Alhambra Valley Ranch (SUB 6443) 17 Hidden Pond (SUB 6769) 27 �SUi3 7VO)� Hidden Pond Hills (SUB 7144) 22 1 A akatani (SUB 7238) lOL' Subtotal 323 IYO . Pending Projects Seclusion Valley (SUB 6844) 22 Oakmont (SUB 7151) 4-3230 Subtotal 1-5+ r2- Vacant Lots and Other Undeveloped Potential 296 Total 67� y88 GRAND TOTAL 662` 1The boundaries of the City of Pleasant Hill do not extend into the Study Area. However, a portion of the Study Area lies within Pleasant Hill ' s Sphere of Influence. + ' .gsSv�r�.•1� z�.�� C U�r fs ��v � o � �..�iJ�-� 70 APPENDIX C POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS ' RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY.ROAD' CORRIDOR I. TRAFFIC GENERATION The -following listings review traffic generation from new development within the Reliez Valley Road Corridor. These projections do not include current traffic counts. The projections assume that each new dwelling unit generates 13 trips (Average Daily Trips, ADT) per. day. Zone A: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 4940 ADT Traffic from Zone B (50%) 130 Traffic from Zone-C (20%) 582- Traffic from Zone D (10%) 90 New Development Traffic in Zone A .5662 ADT Zone B: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 260 ADT Traffic from Zone A (30%) 1482 Traffic from Zone C (20%) Z;E3 68t' Traffic from Zone D (25%) 224 New Development Traffic in Zone B = Z Z9 7,24t8 ADT Zone C: Traffic from Development Within Zone: /404 _2SW ADT . Traffic from Zone A (25%) 1235 Traffic from Zone B (50%) 130 Traffic from Zone C (30%) 269 New Development Traffic in Zone C = '3o -A443'ADT Zone D: Traffic from Development Within Zone: - 897 ADT Traffic from Zone A (10%) 494 Traffic from Zone B (15%) 39• Traffic from Zone C (20%) New Development Traffic in Zone D = /7'/ ADT II. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC The following table identifies the current and potential traffic levels based on development potential within and outside the study area. For the purposes of this study, development occurring outside the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Road Study Area is assumed to cause traffic levels along the corridor to increase by 20%. i TABLE I EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS • BY TRAFFIC ZONE . RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR ' Future Traffic Potential Traffic Volumes Without Total Dwelling Generated New Development Future Current Units from Potential in the Corridor Traffic Zone ADT Within Zone Units (Current ADT x 120%) (ADT A (CO) 3400 380 5.r&V 5941 4,080 A74f 9521 B (M) : 3500 20 2;4ti8 Z2�7 4,200 4W C.447 C (CO) 3700 193106 4;i43 3038 4,440 8;683 78 D (LAF) 3900 69 .7 }32 /7/ / 4,680 b1-6t2 C l X62' 14 205*/2 A3 7 17,400 3�,b86* j FS ; *Mathematical Figures: Not to ^be construed as projected traffic levels. 1? 4z 7" 4Z71 Pl,�, A/Ill ES7 J > 6 :: OF f c E �' PESy /937 . _ Y12)137 7/,y 7 7Z . - /� c1Tv courvclL Pff—T n 1 Richard F.Holmes.Mayor. Gayle B.Uilkema.Vice Mayor Scott Talan .r Donald L.Tatzin - Avon M.Wilson "FA"TTE unuew--tNoOILrd" am" i . January 30, 1990 f i Mrs. Nancy Fanden Chairperson, Reliez Valley Road Task Force 805 Las Juntas Martinez CA 94.553 f Dear Nancy: The Lafayette City Council has reviewed the Preliminary Draft Report of the Reliez Valley Road Task Force. Our comments may be summarized as follows: I 1. A considerable amount of first-class technical studies were 1 completed, and these will be extremely helpful to all agencies and citizens as we go forward. In this regard, we understand that Bob Drake of the County Community Development Department has been the chief "architect" as it were , of the technical studies and we request that you convey to his supervisors and him our appreciation for a job unusually well done. 2. We are pleased to support the Report' s conclusion as to :he plan for improvements on Reliez Valley Road, wnich, you will note, contradict the existing County General Plan, which would have sanctioned the creation of a four lane highway there. 3. We wish to support the concept that the housing developed adjacent to this road should be based on one home per half acre, which would be consistent with typical housing in that area and would, thusly, avoid degradation of the areas housing. 4. We are deeply disappointed at the proposed distribution of the proposed $6,254/unit development mitigation fee. The Report estimates that traffic on the Lafayette section of Reliez Valley Road will increase 60%. As you know, 30% of the road's length is within Lafayette. For a 60% increase onto 300 of the road length Lafayette would receive only 14% of the total mitigation fees collected. What kind of mitigation is that? A realistic, objective number would appear to be 30%. Another way to compare this situation is to note that, for a 60% increase in traffic, Lafayette would only receive $137,210 from outside Lafayette to mitigate the problems of increased traffic. Council Members individually made other economic comparisons of fund distribution, and these also confirm substantial inequity to Lafayette.. - We will supply these additional comparisons if desired. I \_ ------ -- - _ -_ - 251 LAF:I.YETTE CIRCLE. L.\F:\YETTE. CA 94546 TEI.EPI10NE• (-31.,) 284-1988 As a City Council we have cooperated in this Study because we believe that it represented a unique opportunity for these cities and the County to cooperate in mitigating a regional problem. We still support this concept, and we recognize that the Report is specifically labelled "Draft" and "Preliminary". We urge that all four jurisdictions proceed with further planning and work toward implementation, but we think it vitally important that we do so on a financial basis that is fairer to Lafayette. The 60% - 30% - 14% relationship is, quite simply, unacceptable because it is blatantly inequitable. Sincerely, Richard F. Holmes Mayor RFH:lt a:1-30rfh1 Contra Public Wo artment J.Michael Walford r ,% i Public Works Director Costa vD 25� Glacier Drive County Martinez,California 945 -4897 Milton F.Kubicek F�: 1 11 Deputy Director � i . embed„1;-1990 Maurice E Mitchell Deputy Director Mr. Robert Adams City of Lafayette 251 Lafayette Lafayette, CA 94549 RE:5:Specific Plan:Reliez Valley Road Dear Mr. Adams: This is in response to your letter, written on September 18, 1990, regarding the proposed subdivisions along Reliez Valley Road in the County. Your letter-states that the City of Lafayette could not support the proposed subdivisions, unless the. City is compensated for the increased traffic that will be using Reliez Valley Road through Lafayette. The Reliez Valley Road Task Force was established to determine what could be done to mitigate traffic from all new development along the entire corridor. The Cities that are participating in the Task Force are: Lafayette, Martinez, Pleasant Hill and the County. The Task Force feels that new development along the corridor can occur, only if Reliez Valley Road is improved to a good two lane standard roadway. This Task Force has proposed a fee be placed on all new development within this Reliez Valley Road corridor to improve the roadway. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Task Force, made up of engineers from all the participating Cities and the County, looked at many different methods of charging new development for road improvements. The Advisory Committee unanimously elected to charge new development only for their fair share of the proposed road improvements. In other words, new development will only pay for a percentage of the total needed road improvements equivalent to the percentage of increased traffic that is generated from this new development. New development will not provide funds to rectify the existing problems. As outlined in the draft Development Program Report, this fair share for new development is 45 percent of the total road improvements, which calculates out to be $6,254 per unit for new development. The TAC then tackled the problem of how to distribute this fee between the Cities and the County, since any new development will impact each jurisdiction. Again the committee unanimously agreed to divide the fee up by overall traffic impacts from all new development within the corridor. The distribution of the fee was calculated to be: 14 percent for Lafayette, 1.7 percent for Martinez, and 59 percent for the County. The traffic projections used for this estimate are cumulative impacts along the whole corridor. They estimate the amount of traffic from new development in the Alhambra Valley area, for example, that will travel all the way through to Lafayette on Reliez Valley Road and visa versa. In your letter, you agree that new development along the Reliez Valley Road corridor should pay the $6,254 traffic mitigation fee, but that the City of Lafayette should receive a larger share of the fee. If the City agrees with the $6,254 fee, then by default they must agree with their 14 percent share of the RELIEZ VALLEY ROAD Page Two fee. Remember the fee is new development's fair.share of the total road improvements. If Lafayette believes that the City has incurred a greater impact from new development, then the TAC will have to reconvene to review the issue. In one scenario that assumed different traffic patterns from new development, the fee climbed to $6,737 per unit. Lafayette's share of this fee, based on the calculations, would be 18 percent. This estimate assumes a much higher share of new development traffic traveling through Lafayette than was originally projected by the TAC. The County is under the opinion that traffic projections on Reliez Valley Road through Lafayette would actually be less now that the City has placed five stop signs on this route. If a smaller percentage of traffic is using Reliez Valley Road, the fee would be lowered and the percent share would be less. This would also have to be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee. Your letter also states that approximately 30 percent of traffic from the Reliez Valley Highlands project will be using Reliez Valley Road through Lafayette. Because of this,your letter implies, Lafayette should have a greater portion of the fee than the 14 percent that is outlined in the draft Development Program Report. The fee mitigates traffic along the entire roadway. It is true, that from this particular project, Lafayette will experience more than 14 percent of the new traffic, however, other developments that are occurring in the Alhambra Valley area would impact Lafayette minimally,yet Lafayette would still receive their 14 percent of the fee. The committee felt that a set percentage will be equitable for the life of the proposed fee. I have enclosed a memo written by Mark Landers that discusses these same issues. Mark's work with,the Technical Advisory Committee has been instrumental in producing the draft Development Program Report for Reliez Valley Road. If the City still feels that they are entitled to a larger share of the $6,254 traffic mitigation fee, then a meeting should be set up between the City and the County to review the fee. I understand the Task Force is scheduled to meet on Novemeber 15, 1990. If you would like to review this letter with me or set up a meeting, please call me at 313-2235. Very truly yours, R. Mitch Avalon Senior Civil Engineer Road Engineering Division RMA:MC:kd c:Adams.tl 1 enclosure cc: Supervisor N. Fanden Supervisor S. McPeak B. Drake, Community Development M. Landers, City Engineer City of Lafayette M. Carlson, Road Engineering Gayle 8. .Tglzi e,Mayor PEArT— Rich d 1.7etzin,'Vice Mayor Richard F.Holmes Scott Telan Avon M.Wilson LA FAYETTE December 7, 1990 Mr. Bob Drake County of Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subj: Distribution of Reliez Valley Road Traffic Mitigation Fees Dear Bob: On December 5, the Reliez Valley Road Task Force Technical Advisory Committee met to re-evaluate the methodology for distributing traffic mitigation fees collected from new development along the Reliez Valley Road Corridor. The City of Lafayette had previously expressed its dissatisfaction with its share of the. fee, which was 140, based on Lafayette's share of the total increased traffic load. The current distribution proposal is attached (Exhibit A). At the meeting, I suggested two alternate methods which distribute the fee based on a combination of increased traffic load and an agency's share of the cost of improving the road. The first approach determines the percentage of development traffic over total future traffic to each segment of the road, then multiplies this percentage by the cost of improving each segment of road to determine what money should be collected from new development. This figure is divided by the total number of new units along the corridor (679), to determine the fee that should be collected from each new unit for improvements on that section of the route. This figure becomes the appropriate agency's share of the funds collected from new development:, with the sum of the money collected for each route being the total traffic mitigation fee. The logic behind this approach is that if, for example, 50% of the future traffic along a jurisdiction's section of the route is due to new development the agency's distribution of fees should provide 50% of the cost of improving the route. The methodology and the distribution are shown on Exhibit B. The second approach assumes that increased traffic load and cost of improving a segment of the road have equal value in determining the fee distribution. The percentage of the traffic load and the percentage of the total cost of improving the road are determined for each segment of the road, then the average percentage is detertnitled for each segment. Tile average percentage determines the fee distribution. Q&J I-..\�.a1'ETTF- \ IRCI. I-A FAII'I'.TTF:. TEI-h:PF(t)`E: L'C-,. U i 'ju iu:4n IU t4oiSs9 L,.r-H I t I I FR'01-1 T- '-I::' F-. '` Exhibit D compares the fee per unit and total funds collected by each zone for all three scenarios. The technical group discussed these alternates, and by majority vote'decided to stand by the original proposal. However, the group believed that my proposals had sufficient merit to be forwarded to the entire task force for its consideration. Please consider this letter as a request that consideration of these proposals be placed ont he agenda for the next task force meeting. Please call me at 284-195I if you have any questions on the above. Sincerely, Lnder City Engineer ML:mrg 127bd cc: Richard Holmes, Mayor Robert Adams, City Manager EXHIBIT A REVISED DWELLING UNITS IN ZONE C TABLE I EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC :LEVELS BY TRAFFIC ZONE RELIEZ/ALHAMBR VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR Future Traffic Volumes Without New Develop- Potential Traffic anent in Total Dwelling Generated the Corridor Future Current Units from Potential (Current ADT Traffic Zone ADT Within Zone Units 120 (ADT) A• (CO) 3400 380 5,706 41080 9 ,786 B (MTZ) 3500 20 2, 512 4 , 200 6, 712. - C (CO) 3700 210 4 , 364 4 , 440 8,804 D (LAF) 3900 69 1, 976 4 , 680 6 , 656 679 14 ,558 17 , 400 31, 958 *Mathematical Figures: Not to be construed as projected traffic levels. 14 , 558 = 46% Of Road Improvements 31,958 ($9. 1 Million) ( .46) = $4, 186,000 (Paid By Developers) $4 . 186.000 = $6, 165 Per Dwelling Unit 679 (Per D.U. ) Zone of Fee Fee Received A 5706 = 39% $2404 14 , 558 B 2512 = 175 $1048 14, 558 C 4364 = 30% $1950 14 , 558 D 1976 = 14% $ 863 14 , 558 APPENDIX C POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS RELTEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR I. TRAFFIC GENERATION The following listings review traffic generation from new development within the Reliez Valley Road Corridor. These projections do not include current traffic counts. The projections assume that each new dwelling unit generates 13 trips (Average Daily Trips, ADT) per day. Zone A: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 4940 ADT Traffic from Zone B (50%) 130 Traffic from Zone C (20%) 546 Traffic from Zone D (10%) 90 New Development Traffic in Zone A = 5706 ADT Zone B: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 260 ADT Traffic from Zone A (30%) 1482 Traffic from Zone C (20%) 546 Traffic from Zone D (25%) 224 New Development Traffic in zone B 2512 ADT Zone C: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 2730 ADT Traffic from Zone A (25%) 1235 Traffic from Zone B (50%) 130 Traffic from zone D (30%) 269 New Development Traffic in Zone C = 4364 ADT Zone D: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 897 ADT Traffic from Zone A (10%) 494 Traffic from Zone B (15%) 39 Traffic from Zone C (20%) 546 New Development Traffic in Zone D s 1976 ADT II. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC The following table identifies the current and potential traffic levels based on development potential within and outside the study area. For the purposes of this study, development occurring outside the Reliez/Alhambra Valley Road Study Area is assumed to cause traffic levels along the corridor to increase by 20%. EXHIBIT B REVISED DWELLING UNITS IN ZONE C TABLE I EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS BY TRAFFIC ZONE RELIEZ/ALHAMBR VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR Future Traffic Volumes Without New Develop- Potential Traffic ment in Total Dwelling Generated the Corridor Future Current Units from Potential (Current ADT Traffic Zone ADT Within Zone Units x 120%)- (AUT) A (CO) 3400 380 51706 4, 080 9, 786 B (MTZ) 3500 20 2, 512 4 , 200 6,712 C (CO) 3700 210 4 , 364 4 , 440 8, 804 D (LAF) 3900 69 1,976 44680 6. 656 679 14, 558 17, 400 31,958 Cost of Road Improvements % of Traffic Cost of To Be Paid Cost Per From New Road For By New Unit of Total Development Improvements Development (679 Units) Fee . 583 3 . 14 Million 1.831 Million 2 , 696 44% .374 1.0 . 374 551 9% .496 2. 03 1. 006 1, 483 25% .297 3 .0 .891 1. 312 22% 6, 042 (Total Fee) EXHIBIT C REVISED DWELLING UNITS IN ZONE C TABLE I EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS BY TRAFFIC ZONE RELIEZ/ALHAMBR VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR Future Traffic Volumes Without New Develop- Potential Traffic ment in Total Dwelling Generated the Corridor Future Current Units from Potential (Current ADT Traffic Zone AIT Within Zone Units x 12011 AD A (CO) 3400 380 5,706 41080 9,786 B (MTZ) 3500 20 2, 512 4, 200 6,712. . C (CO) 3700 210 4, 364 4 , 440 8,804 D (LAF) 3900 _u 1. 976 4 , 680 6, 656 679 14,558 17, 400 31,958 Cost of of Total Total New Road Road Improvement Average Traf is ImprQvements Cost I Fee . 39 3 . 14 Million . 34 . 365 2 , 2 5 0 . 17 1. 0 . 11 . 14 863 .30 2. 03 . 22 . 26 1, 603 . 14 3 . 0 . 33 . 235 1, 449 9 . 17 6, 165 EXHIBIT D ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 .Total Total Total ZaBe ee Funds Fee Funds Fee Funds A 21404 1, 632, 316 2, 696 1,830, 584 2 , 250 11527,750 B 1, 048 711,592 551 484 , 329 863 585,977 C 1,950 1, 324 ,050 1,483 1,006,957 1, 603 11088, 437 D 863 586,971 1, 312 890, 848 1, 449 983 ,871 6, 165 4, 186, 000 6, 042 4 , 102 , 518 6, 165 4, 186, 000 -------------- ------------ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: November 26, 1990 TO: Supervisor Fanden Supervisor(4cPeak �j � �t FROM: Harvey SEE Bragdon Community Deelopme t Director SUBJECT: Chronology of Draft General Plan Designation: Oakmont Property ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is in reply to your requests for a chronology of events leading to the proposed Countywide General Plan designation for the Oakmont Cemetery property. 1963 Subject property is designated Single Family Residential - Low Density (1-3 units per net acre) . This remains the current designation for the property. 4/86 Board accepts the report of the Assessment District Screening Committee, with apportionment to the subject property of 690 of the benefits, and assessments, based upon the gross acreage involved. 6/86 Board adopts resolutions overruling protests, approving various agreements with service providing agencies and approved the engineer's reoort and ordered the improvements. A matter of record is filed with the Board requesting that the entire Oakmont property assessment be levied againt the portion of the property not used for cemetery purposes, in the event of a contemplated division of the property. 6/87 Staff draft Land Use Element is constructed, reducing development acreage; proposes redesignating approximately 4/5 of the property from Single Family Residential to Agricultural Lands. 12/87 Staff Draft Map presented to Planning Congress 1/89 Planning Commission denies Minor Subdivision 37-88 3/89 Planning Commission Hearing Draft General Plan Publishea 4/89 Board of Supervisors Approves MS 37-88 on Appeal (3-2, noes I , II ) 5/89 County Accepts Vesting Tentative Map 7151 as complete 7/90 Supervisor McPeak inquired of staff regarding change in land use designation proposed by Draft General Plan; advises of existence of assessment district. 9/90 Staff reevalutes recommnedation and changes land use designation proposal back to single family residential low density on portion of property proposed for housing. 10/90 Revised Draft General Plan published. It should be noted that the staff considered the spread of benefits in the assessment district, the long-standing designation for housing and the acceptance of the vesting map in reconsidering it's recommendation for this parcel . (Discussions with the public works engineering staff associated with the assessment district indicated that the spread of benefits would not have been the same under the March, 1989 Draft Plan designation. ) This recommendation does not bind the County to a set level of development for the property. The Board may decide to designate the property as suggested in the March, 1989 draft, or the October, 1990 draft without implying it's approval of the requested rezoning and vesting tentative map, based upon factual information in the record. The Board will ultimately make these decisions in it's consideration of both the Draft General Plan and the development applications following appropriate public hearings. If you have further questions, please contact me (646-2026) or Dennis Barry (646-2035). cc: Supervisor Powers Supervisor Schroder Supervisor Torlakson STATEMENT OF METHOD OF DETERMINING BENEFIT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1986-1, HIDDEN POND ROAD APN ACRES 365-160-11 (Huer) 52.92 31 365-170-17 (Oakmont) 118.49 69 Total 171.41 100 EXHIBIT D Eitlz 10.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Dc`, 1110 .�.� According to the California Environmental Quality Act,Section 15125,subd(d),a Draft Environmental Impact Report must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project,its location,or elements that could feasibly attain the project's basic objectives. It must also evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. Pursuant to CEQA, our discussions focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant adverse environmental effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if such alternatives would be more costly or may not meet all of the project's objectives. This EIR analyzes four on-site alternatives and three off-site alternatives to the project. These alternatives have not been evaluated for engineering or economic feasibility. The four on-site alternatives include: the No Project Alternative (see section 10.1), the Same Density/Clustered Alternative (see section 10.2), the Reduced Density/Clustered Alternative (see section 10.3), and the Consultant's Mitigated Alternative. The three on-site development alternatives were developed in accordance with similar criteria used for other projects approved in the project vicinity(specifically the Hidden Pond Hill Subdivision 7144). The S assumptions used in the development of the three on-site alternatives for this project (not' I the no-project alternative)involve conceptual design standards intended to substantially reduce the impacts identified in this EIR. These project alternatives share the following design criteria: 1)areas of steep slope would not be developed;2) to the greatest extent possible, natural vegetation would be preserved;3) grading and cut and fill would be kept to a minimum;4) landscaping would be established as a condition of approval to screen development from public view; 5) each unit would have a minimal fenced private yard area,with the majority of the site retained as unfenced,common open space;6) the ridgeline area would not be disturbed; 7) structures will be designed for hillside development, not cut into the hillside with pad foundations; 8) the fire road will be maintained to provide emergency access for fire protection 9) and houses will be sited to minimize their visual impacts. Each of these alternatives differ in the amount of project density, clustering, and overall number of units. The environmentally preferred alternative is the consultant's mitigative alternative. Any development of the Project site will necessarily involve some environmental costs in the form of loss of wildlife, habitat, vegetation, open space, and the aesthetic resource of an undeveloped hillside. Accordingly, if the options for use of this project site are evaluated according to purely environmental criteria,the"no project"alternative must be said to be the environmentally superior choice. By the same token,minimizing the extent of development on the site will minimize the resulting environmental costs, thus rendering the consultant's mitigated alternative discussed in Section 10.4 as the environmentally superior alternative to the"no project"alternative;only if environmental criteria are used. However,this evaluation does not consider housing and economic needs and goals; the Project must ultimately be judged according to its ability to balance the overall needs of the community with environmental quality. Recent legislation (City of Goleta Valley vs. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara,1989) now requires EIRs to identify off-site alternatives, but gives little guidance as to when an off-site alternatives analysis must be conducted or what constitutes a reasonable alternative. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department has identified three off-site alternatives to be considered in this EIR as potential sites for the proposed project. Each.of t4 alternatives (sce sections 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7)have been evaluated for environmental constraints and opportunities assuming each site would be developed to a similar density as the proposed project. A map illustrating the location of each site is included as Figure 15. Each of the off-site alternatives were chosen by County Planning Staff based on the an appropriate acreage of undeveloped land that could accommodate a development of 132 single family homes. It should be noted that there is very little property left in the vicinity to accommodate a development of this size and, indeed, based on environmental constraints, two of the off-site alternatives would not be able to accommodate a similar level of development. In summary, after review of each of the off-site alternatives, two of the off-site development alternatives (the Alhambra Valley Road, and Springhill Road Sites) would not be able to accommodate more than ten percent of the proposed project, based on development criteria for each of the project sites. One alternative, the Queen of Ileaven Cemetery 03900054.10 10 - 1 would require that the retreat sell a portion of the Cemetery lands to a developer for a subdivision. It is unlikely that the retreat would want to remain on the property, especially in light of comments received in the public hearing. The retreat has indicated that it was sited there for so it could provide solitude and nature study for its members. The Queen of Heaven site would have similar impacts as that associated with the proposed project. Additionally, construction of the proposed project on the Cemetery site would conflict with established recreational, educational, and religious use of the site. Development could, therefore, be considered a significant effect under CEQA guidelines (CEQA Appendix G). 10.1 No Project Alternative In the No Project Alternative, the proposed development would not occur and the site would remain in its present rural state. In this case, no grading would occur, the ridge would not be cat, the ravines would not be filled, and the geotechnical stability of the site would not be significantly altered. This would mean that on-site landslide activity would be expected to continue. Future landslide movement could also result in the movement of debris into adjacent properties located downslope of the site to the north and south. Impacts on vegetation and wildlife would not occur, as loss and degradation of valley oak woodland and wildlife habitat and loss of native oak trees would not occur. This alternative would allow the property to remain as one 70-acre parcel and allow a development potential of one single family residence,which is consistent with the present General Plan designation of the property as single-family residential, low density. It would also be consistent with the proposed General Plan's Draft Land Use Designation Map which recommends a designation for this site as Agricultural Land. With no project,the proposed 132 homes would not be built, and therefore,there would be no change to existing traffic volumes on existing roadways from increased development. No changes would occur to the Level of Service of any of the potentially impacted intersections, and the cumulative impact of traffic in the area would be reduced slightly. If the project is not built, the existing views of the open hillside from Reliez Valley Road, Briones Park and the Oakmont Cemetery would not be changed. Nor would the view of the natural ridgeline and vegetation from surrounding residences be adversely impacted. Further, the County's policies regarding the protection of views for a Scenic Highway would be met, complying with.the City of Pleasant Hill's recommended policy directive to preserve natural ridgelines. With the No Project Alternative, there.would be no increase on the local demand for services and utilities, and there would be no contribution to cumulative impact on the region's public services and facilities. The No Project Alternative would allow for the recreational facilities in the area to continue their present levels of service,without any additional users. This alternative would also provide an additional trail and fire access to Briones Regional Park. Access would be gained from Rclicz Valley Road along a proposed trail connection.in the northern portion of the project site. 10.2 Same Density/Clustered Alternative This conceptual alternative provides a development plan which utilizes the same density as the proposed project, but with a clustered land use pattern (Figure 12). This type of development would utilize attached condominium units rather than individual detached structures. In this scenario, development would be clustered in the least environmentally sensitive areas of the project site, retaining the more sensitive areas as open space. The primary benefit of this alternative would be to allow for larger common open space areas, and a reduction in the amount of on-site cut and fill. This in turn %%ill preserve a greater percentage of the site's natural vegetation. A conceptual schematic of this alternative is provided as Figure 12. 03900054.10 10 - 2 but this would not be significant. This alternative would similarly need to implement the trail easement connection from Reliez Valley Road to Briones Regional Park. The same density clustered alternative indicates that this plan would allow continued use of the existing fire road for fire access into the open space areas on the project site as well as off-site. The existing fire road is portrayed on Figures 5 and 14 of this DEIR. The existing fire road runs the length of the ridgeline and continues into East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) west of the site. It is expected that this presently unpaved road would remain unpaved to be used only for emergency access,therefore, the impacts on adjacent land would not be significant. The provision of an emergency access road to EBRPD and other project open space would be considered a beneficial impact. 103 Reduced Density/Clustered Alternative The Reduced Density/Clustered Alternative will utilize a cluster-style development with fewer residential units then proposed by the project applicant. This will include between 50 and 75 units developed as single family detached units clustered with a shared common open space. This approach could mitigate several of the significant impacts associated with the proposed development. A conceptual plan for this alternative (50 units) is included as Figure 13. (Note: to develop the site with 75 units may require that an access road be constructed and additional homes built on the south side of the ridgeline). This alternative supports the same assumptions and design standards that are stated in the Introduction. The primary difference of this plan from the same density alternative is that the recommendations require that no structure would have a roof that exceeds an elevation that is 100 feet below the site's natural ridgeline. The other major difference between this alternative and alternative 10.2 is that the proposed homes would be single family detached homes with shared open space rather than attached condominium units. This alternative will result in a reduction of the magnitude of overall grading. Geologic hazards and impacts would generally be similar to, or slightly less,than those of the proposed development. The 50- unit development plan could be contained in the northern portion of the site;however,if the 75-unit plan were to occur, development would need to spill over the hill to the southwest portion of the site. Extensive landslide repair would still be required throughout much of the site. Depending on the size of development and grading plan,landslide repair might feasibly be avoided in some undeveloped areas. Impacts of the 50-unit cluster would amount to a need for less grading; and landslide repair. Under the Reduced Density/Clustered Alternative, impacts on vegetation and wildlife would decrease compared to impacts of vegetation and wildlife under the proposed plan or same density clustered alternative. Loss and degradation of valley oak woodland and wildlife habitat and loss of native oak trees would decrease, as removal of oak trees,grading, lot area, and area occupied by houses and associated structures would decrease. In addition, incorporation of open space in the Clustered and Reduced Density Alternative would provide movement corridors for wildlife. Under this alternative,the land use pattern would be clustered utilizing detached single family residences. The clustering would not be compatible with the adjacent Farm Hill Estates project which is developed with single family detached homes on half-acre lots. It would,however,be consistent with the residential land uses surrounding the site on the north. This alternative would also help to mitigate the potential conflict with the County's proposed policies regarding the protection of views for a Scenic Highway and the City of Pleasant Hill's policy to preserve natural ridgelines. This alternative would reduce the impacts associated with heavy equipment and large construction vehicles which would create impacts to Reliez Valley Road. Potential safety impacts associated with the steep slope of Hidden Pond Hills would continue. This alternative would allow continued use of the existing fire road for fire access into the open space areas on the project site as well as off-site. 03900054.10 10 - 5 If this alternative is adopted, the project's visual impact on the region could be substantially mitigated. Most of the site would be preserved as undeveloped open space,with homes clustered located 100 feet below the ridgeline. By reducing the project's density and lowering its height on the hillside, the visual impact from the key observation points would be minimal. The reduction in on-site cut and fill would also preserve most of the site's mature tree cover.Further,by requiring additional conditions of approval, such as specific design guidelines regarding landscaping, fencing, and exterior design, the project could be effectively integrated into the natural topography of the site. This alternative would require less water and sewer capacities and would create less overall demand for all public services and utilities. Emergency service response times would still be considered excessive by the Fire District's standards. New students generated by the proposed project would be significantly less but will still add to the overcrowding at John Swett Elementary School. The alternative would also provide a higher level of on-site recreational opportunities with the a greater amount of community open space in the plan. This would decrease the amount of additional users of local recreational opportunities,and would not significantly impact the area's facilities. This alternative would need to implement the mitigation measure to insure the trail easement connection from Reliez Valley Road to Briones Regional Park. 10.4 Consultant's Mitigated Alternative This alternative has been developed to be the environmentally superior alternative by the Consultant. This plan proposes a conceptual development scheme which allows 30 single family detached units on the northeast side of the ridge. This alternative supports the same assumptions and design standards that are stated in the Introduction, including that no structure's roof exceed a height of 100 feet below the ridgeline.The plan utilizes a cluster-style development with fewer residential units then the 50 and 75 units proposed by alternative 10.4. This approach would mitigate more of the significant impacts associated with the proposed development than any of the construction alternatives. A conceptual plan for the 30-unit alternative is included as Figure 14. The primary difference between this plan and the other alternatives is a significant reduction in density. The impacts associated with this alternative are discussed below. This alternative will reduce the magnitude of overall grading of the hillside. Geologic hazards and impacts would generally be similar to, or slightly less than, those of the proposed development. The development would be clustered on the northern portion of the site. Extensive landslide repair would still be required throughout much of the site. Depending on the size of development and grading plan, landslide repair might feasibly be avoided in some areas, if these areas were left undeveloped. Impacts of the 30-unit cluster would amount to a need for less grading and landslide repair. Under the this alternative, loss and degradation of valley oak woodland, wildlife habitat, and native oak trees would decrease. In addition,increased open space would provide movement corridors for wildlife. Under this alternative,the land use pattern would be clustered utilizing detached single family residences. This would be more in keeping with the proposed General Plan's Draft Land Use Designation ivlap for the property. This alternative would substantially mitigate any conflict with the CJUnty's proposed policies regarding the protection of views for a Scenic Highway and the City of Pleasant Hill's policy to preserve natural ridgelines. This alternative would also substantially reduce the impacts associated «ith heavy equipment and large construction vehicles that could create impacts to Reliez Valley Road. Poicrinal safety impacts associated with the steep slope of Hidden Pond (-fills would continue;. 03900154.10 10 - 7 Z ' to • 11� � 7d leo V. . a 6 ,•�. d p r d a O ~ a, Q v� 2 z _r¢ o tL. •- a 1 CITY OF MARTINEZ MEMORANDUM TO: Reliez Valley Task Force FROM: Staff from Lafayette, Contra Costa County and Martinez SUBJECT: Request for recommendation for TDA funding for Reliez Valley Trail DATE: December 4, 1990 The three jurisdictions have been working together to develop a multi-use trail which would accommodate bicycles along Reliez Valley Road from Alhambra Avenue south to Pleasant Hill Road. Funding of the trail would come from a variety of sources including local funds, TDA monies and developer contributions. The cities of Lafayette and Martinez submitted requests for TDA funds last year and mutually supported each jurisdiction's applications but unfortunately were not selected. Lafayette was successful in the previous year. Lafayette is requesting $200,000 to extend their previously approved trail, (running from Pleasant Hill Road to Aspen Drive) , from Aspen to Echo Springs. The City anticipates future TDA requests which would provide the final link within Lafayette's city limits terminating at lvanhoe . cam. G(o•;��[�,,rY1.v✓ The County's application would include the segment from just north and south of Silverhill Drive linking two sections to be constructed by developers. Thus, a County trail could be constructed from Grayson Road north to the Martinez City limits. The County's request is $55,000. The Martinez application would continue the County trail north to Horizon Drive. The City's request is for $158,000; however the project has been designed in stages, so that a logical trail section could be completed which would connect with the County's trail to the south and end at Blue Ridge Drive. The cost estimate for just this stage is $90,000. A map with phasing is attached for your reference. The three jurisdictions are requesting endorsement from the Reliez Valley Task Force for the entire trail in concept and for each of the proposed segments. The endorsement, if given, will be included in our applications for funding. w * CITY COUNCIL r, Gayle B.Uiiketna.Mayor Donald L.Tatzin,Vi.ye Mayor Richard F.Holmes Scott Talan Avon M.Wilson LA FAYETTESerra"MMI—MVINFOOMM n". 1 December 7, 1990 Mr. Bob Drake County of Contra Costa Community Development Department 1 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Subj: Distribution of Reliez Valley Road Traffic Mitigation Fees Dear Bob: On December 5,the Reliez Valley Road Task Force Technical Advisory Committee met to re-evaluate the methodology for distributing traffic mitigation fees collected from new development along. the Reliez Valley Road Corridor. T'he City of Lafayette had previously expressed its dissatisfaction with its share of the fee, which was 14%, based on Lafayette's share of the total increased traffic load. The current distribution proposal is attached (Exhibit A). At the meeting, T suggested two alternate methods which distribute the fee based on a combination of increased traffic load and an agency's share of the cost of improving . the road. The first approach determines the percentage of development traffic over total future traffic to each segment of the road, then multiplies this percentage by the cost of improving each segment of road to determine what money should be collected from new development. This figure is divided by the total number of new units along the corridor (679), to determine the fee that should be collected from each new unit for improvements on that section of the route. This figure beconles the appropl mite agency's share of the funds collected from new development, with the sum of the money collected for each route being the total traffic mitigation fee. The logic behind this approach is that if, for example, 50% of the future traffic along a jurisdictions section of the route is due to new development the agency's distribution of fees should provide 50% of the cost of improving the route. The methodology and the distribution are shown on Exhibit B. The second approach assumes that increased traffic load and cost of improving a segment of the road have equal value in determining the fee distribution. The percentage of the traffic load and the percentage of the total cost of improving the road are determined for each segment of the road, then the average percentage is determined for each segment. The average percentage determines the fee distribution. i i i � j " I -------------. -- ....___-..------_--...---. 251 LA1':\YE'rTI', C'IRCI_I:. I.kFVi'ETTE. CA 94541 ------ TELF,11IIO\E: (=115) 284-1968 Exhibit D compares the fee per'unit and total funds collected by each zone for all three scenarios. The technical group discussed these alternates, and by majority vote decided to stand by the original proposal. However, the group believed that my proposals had sufficient merit to be forwarded to the entire task force for its consideration. Please consider this letter as a request that consideration of these proposals be placed ont he agenda for the next task force meeting. Please call me at 284-1951 if you have any questions on the above. Sincerely, lark Lander City Engineer ML:mrg 127bd cc: Gayle Uilkema, Mayor Robert Adams, City Manager T EXHIBIT A REVISED DWELLING UNITS IN ZONE C TABLE I EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS BY TRAFFIC ZONE RELIEZ/ALHAMBR VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR Future Traffic Volumes Without New Develop- Potential Traffic ment in Total Dwelling Generated the Corridor Future Current Units from Potential (Current ADT Traffic Zone ADT Within Zone Units x 120%) ADT A (CO) 3400 380 5,706 4, 080 9,786 B (MTZ) 3500 20 2, 512 4 , 200 6,712 C (CO) 3700 210 4, 364 4 ,440 8,804 D (LAF) 3900 69 1,976 4 , 680 6, 656 679 14, 558 17,400 31,958 *Mathematical Figures: Not to be construed as projected traffic levels. 14 ,558 = 46% Of Road-Improvements 31,958 ($9. 1 Million) ( .46) _ $4, 186, 000 (Paid By Developers) $4 , 186, 000 = $6, 165 Per Dwelling Unit 679 (Per D.U. ) Zone % of Fee Fee Received A 5706 = 39% $2404 14 , 558 B 2512 = 17% $1048 14, 558 C 4364 = 30% $1950 14, 558 D 1976 = 14% $ 863 14 , 558 APPENDIX C POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS RELIEZ/ALHAMBRA VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR I. TRAFFIC GENERATION The following listings review traffic generation from new development within the Reliez Valley Road Corridor. These projections do not include current traffic counts. The projections assume that each new dwelling unit generates 13 trips (Average Daily Trips, ADT) per day,. Zone A: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 4940 ADT Traffic from Zone B (50%) 130 Traffic from Zone C (20%) 546 Traffic from Zone D (10%) 90 New Development Traffic in Zone A = 5706 ADT Zone B: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 260 ADT Traffic from Zone A (30%) 1482 Traffic from Zone C (20%) 546 Traffic from Zone D (25%) 224 New Development Traffic in Zone! B = 2512 ADT Zone C: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 2730 ADT Traffic from Zone A (25%) 1235 Traffic from Zone B (50%) 130 Traffic from Zone D (30%) 269 New Development Traffic in Zone C = 4364 ADT Zone D: Traffic from Development Within Zone: 897. ADT Traffic from Zone A (10%) 494 Traffic from Zone B (15%) 39 Traffic from Zone C (20%) 546 New Development Traffic in Zone D = 1976 ADT II. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC The following table identifies the current and potential traffic levels based on development potential within and outside the study area. For the purposes of this study, development occurring outside the Reliez/A.lhambra Valley Road Study Area is assumed to cause traffic levels along the corridor to increase by 20%. EXHIBIT B REVISED DWELLING UNITS IN ZONE C TABLE I EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS BY TRAFFIC ZONE RELIEZ/ALHAMBR VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR Future Traffic Volumes Without New Develop- Potential Traffic ment in Total Dwelling Generated the Corridor Future Current Units from Potential (Current ADT Traffic Zone ADT Within Zone Units x 120%) ADT A (CO) 3400 380 5,706 4 , 080 9,786 B (MTZ) 3500 20 2,512 4, 200 6,712 C (CO) 3700 210 4,364 4 ,440 8,804 D (LAF) 3900 69 1,976 4 , 680 6, 656 679 14 ,558 17 ,400 31,958 Cost of Road Improvements % of Traffic Cost of To Be Paid Cost Per From New Road For By New Unit of Total Development Improvements Development (679 Units) Fee . 583 3 . 14 Million 1.831 Million 2 , 696 440 . 374 1. 0 . 374 551 9% . 496 2. 03 1. 006 1,483 25% .297 3 . 0 . 891 1, 312 22% 6, 042 (Total Fee) EXHIBIT C '• REVISED DWELLING UNITS IN ZONE C TABLE I EXISTING AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC LEVELS BY TRAFFIC ZONE RELIEZ/ALHAMBR VALLEY ROAD CORRIDOR Future Traffic Volumes Without New Develop- Potential Traffic ment in Total Dwelling Generated the Corridor Future Current Units from Potential (Current ADT Traffic Zone ADT Within Zone Units x 120%) (ADT A (CO) 3400 380 5,706 4, 080 9,786 B (MTZ) 3500 20 2,512 4,200 6,712 C (CO) 3700 210 4 , 364 4 ,440 8,804 D (LAF) 3900 69 1,976 4 , 680 6, 656 679 14 , 558 17,400 31,958 Cost of % of Total Total New Road Road Improvement .Average Traffic Improvements Cost _ Fee . 39 3 . 14 Million . 34 . 365 2 , 2 5 0 . 17 1. 0 ..11 . 14 863 . 30 2. 03 .22 . 26 11, 603 . 14 3 . 0 . 33 . 235 1, 449 9 . 17 6, 165 � »4 ► EXHIBIT D ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 Total Total Total Zone Fee Funds Fee Funds Fee Funds A 2,404 1, 632,316 2, 696 1, 830, 584 2 ,250 1,527,750 B 1, 048 711, 592 551 484 , 329 863 585,977 C 1,950 1, 324, 050 1,483 1,006, 957 1, 603 1, 088,437 D 863 586,9.71 1, 312 890, 848 1, 449 983 , 871 6, 165 4, 186, 000 6, 042 4 , 102, 518 6, 165 4, 186,000 1 r. AGENDA 40 RELIEZ VALLEY TASK FORCE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1990 - 9:30 A.M. Public Works Department Conference Room A 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA I. INTRODUCTIONS/REGISTRATION II. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO LAFAYETTE'S REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC REVENUE ALLOCATION ADJUSTMENT III. HIDDEN• POND ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT AND OAKMONT (RELIEZ VALLEY HIGHLANDS) PROPERTY IV. ACTION ON PROPOSED 4-JURISDICTION JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT (JEPA) AND AREA-OF-BENEFIT V. ADJOURNMENT U RD/aa LTRV/12-20-90.AGA