Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06211994 - TC.3 ' TIC. 3 TO: .,BOARD OF SUPERVISORS j = ,. Contra Costa FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE County DATE: JUNE 13, 1994 SUBJECT: REPORT ON DRAFT POLICIES FOR .THE TRI VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN h SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Consider action :Ito be taken regarding proposed Traffic Service Objectives, Traffic Improvements, Growth Limits, and development review procedures for the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan. 6 FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Transportation Committee provides this report to inform the Board of Supervisors of proposed policies included in the Administrative Draft of the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Action Plan) . This report describes the relationship of these proposed policies with the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement and the County General Plan. This report provides an opportunity for ithe Board to consider some of the major policy implications of the Action Plan before a draft is circulated for public review. Proposed Policies for the Action Plan The proposed policies for the Action Plan were prepared by the Tri Valley Transportation Council's (TVTC's) consultant and do not necessarily reflect the recommendations of County staff. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ,;/ Ga le Bishop Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON June 21 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _x OTHER x See Addendum A for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED June 21 , 1994 Contact Person: Steven Goetz, 646-2134 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: TVTC (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND COUN ADM N STRATOR Public Works CCTA (via CDD) BY_a.._ , DEPUTY SG: \ tp1:\bo\ActionP1.sg I R'portAon Draft Policies in the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan June 13, 1994 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) This section of the report describes these proposed policies and compares them with the preferred alternative for the Action Plan which the Board adopted on October 26, 1993 . Traffic Service Objectives: The Action Plan proposes to adopt Traffic Service Objectives (TSO's) for intersections along Regional Routes. The most significant TSO's are described as a maximum percentage of traffic volume to intersection capacity (a.k.a. "v/c ratio") for the following Regional Routes: Regional Route V1 C Ratio - Sycamore Valley Road .90 - Camino Tassajara .90 - Crow Canyon Road .91 - Bollinger Canyon Road . 91 The Board's preferred alternative put a medium priority on relaxing TSO's. The proposed TSO's relax the standards adopted by Danville and San Ramon for other roads in their jurisdiction (V/C ratios of .87 and .90, respectively) . Traffic. Improvements: The Action Plan proposes to adopt Traffic Improvements to help meet the TSO's and respect certain right-of-way and community character concerns of the affected jurisdictions. The most significant Traffic Service Improvements are as follows: - Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara: Minor intersection capacity increases within the existing curb-to-curb widths in Danville. Widening to four through lanes from Danville to the Alameda county line. - Crow Canyon Road: Widening to eight through lanes from I-680 to Alcosta Boulevard, to six through lanes from Alcosta Boulevard to Camino Tassajara, plus widening of intersections in San Ramon. - Bollinger Canyon Road: Widening to eight through lanes from I-680 to Alcosta Boulevard, to six through lanes from Alcosta Boulevard to and through the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area, plus intersection improvements along its length. - Dougherty Road: Widening to six through lanes plus intersection improvements along its length. The Board's preferred alternative put a medium priority on evaluating Traffic Improvements beyond those planned for 2010. Widening of Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta Boulevard is beyond that proposed by San Ramon in 2010, but this widening is consistent with their General Plan. Growth Limits: The Action Plan proposes to limit growth to ensure future traffic volumes do not exceed the TSO's or require Traffic Improvements beyond those currently recommended by the TVTC consultant. Growth limits are only proposed for unincorporated Contra Costa, and are recommended by the TVTC consultant as follows: - No more than 8, 500 dwelling units in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. - No additional dwelling units in the Tassajara Valley (except as provided by current County zoning for the area) . The Board's preferred alternative put a high priority on evaluating growth limits below the growth planned for 2010, but only if all Tri Valley jurisdictions participate. The growth limits proposed in the Action Plan are inconsistent with the Board's preferred alternative since they only apply to the County. The Action Plan does not provide any substantiation that the proposed growth limits and Traffic Improvements will result in compliance with the proposed TSO's by 2010. Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement On May 11, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a Settlement Agreement with San Ramon and Danville for the Dougherty Valley lawsuit. This agreement establishes TSO's, Traffic Improvements, and Growth Limits for development in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan area, and identifies additional transportation-related efforts by the County, San Ramon and Danville. The i I Re.portAon Draft Policies in the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan June 13, 1994 Page Three BACKGROUND/REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) Agreement's provisions for development in Dougherty Valley are consistent with the Board's actions adopting the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan in 1992 . This section of the report describes how this Agreement relates to the proposed policies of the Action Plan. Traffic Service Objectives: The Agreement identifies the same TSO's that are proposed in the Action Plan for the purpose of approving development in Dougherty Valley (Article II of the Agreement) . Traffic Improvements: The Agreement establishes the same major Traffic Improvements that are proposed in the Action Plan for the purpose of accommodating development of up to 11, 000 dwelling units in Dougherty Valley (Section 3 .7.2 of the Agreement) . Any change to the Traffic Improvements requires the consent of the jurisdiction where the improvement would be located (Exhibit C of the Agreement) . For the Action Plan, any change to its Traffic Improvements requires the consent of all jurisdictions in the Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT) Committee. Growth Limits: The Agreement allows the County to authorize construction of 8,500 dwelling units in Dougherty Valley, subject to compliance with the TSO's (Section 4 .2 .2 of the Agreement) . The Agreement allows the County to authorize construction of up to 11, 000 dwelling units, subject to additional traffic analysis and demonstration of compliance with the TSO's and other provisions of the Agreement (Section 4 .2 . 3 of the Agreement) . The Action Plan caps Dougherty Valley growth at 8,500 units by 2010. If any development were desired beyond the 8,500 units, it could only occur after 2010. Other Action Plan-Related Provisions: To mitigate the impacts of cumulative growth, the Agreement contains provisions that support including the following policies in the Action Plan, subject to the applicable requirements of law (Section 3 .7.4 of the Agreement) : - designation of Bollinger Canyon Road east of Alcosta as a Regional Route; - limitation of the configuration of Camino Tassajara in Danville to four through lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes and bike lanes; - designation of the I-680/Alcosta Boulevard interchange project as a regional project. - Recognition of the TSO's as standards that should be applied by all jurisdictions reviewing any development proposal (Section 3 .9 of the Agreement) . At this time, the Action Plan does not propose any of the above policies. Other Development-Related Provisions: The Agreement includes a statement that any proposal for development that is considered by the County, San Ramon or Danville on land that would generate more trips than allowed by the use designated in the General Plan, as of May 11, 1994, may be approved if and only if it can be demonstrated that such development will not result in (i) violation of the TSO's or (ii) any material deterioration in the level of service of any Traffic Improvement. The Agreement includes a statement that any expansion or modification to the Traffic Improvements described in the Agreement must be funded by the developers of such projects and shall be subject to the approval of the affected jurisdiction (Section 3 .7. 3 of the Agreement) . Section 3 .7. 3 of the Agreement is interpreted by some jurisdictions as suggesting that other developments such as the Tassajara Property Owners Association (TVPOA) General Plan Amendment proposal cannot occur. This provision is being used as the justification for the Action Plans and for incorporation into Measure C-1988 compliance requirements. The TVPOA may raise the issue that such a provision denies them due process since the provision was adopted as part of a lawsuit settlement process where the public did not have a chance to comment or receive clarification with regard its implementation. General Plan Considerations The General Plan requires that no development project be approved unless a finding of consistency can be made with Action Plans adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) pursuant to Measure C-1988. Mitigation measures specified in Action Plans shall be applied to all projects which would create significant impacts on Regional Routes as defined by the Authority and Reportpn Draft Policies in the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan June 13, 1994 Page Four BACKGROUNDIREASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) as permitted by law. These findings are made at the final stage of project approval (e.g. final development plan or tentative maps) . Absent an adopted Action Plan for the San Ramon Valley, the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement along with the associated conditions of approval and EIR mitigation measures serve as the Action Plan for the Board's Dougherty Valley land use approvals. Final discretionary approval of any development up to 8, 500 units is subject to compliance with Dougherty Valley's TSO's for Bollinger Canyon Road, Crow Canyon Road and Camino Tassajara. As long as the provisions of the Agreement are met, final discretionary approval for any subsequent development up to 11,000 units can be considered by the Board if an additional traffic study is provided that demonstrates compliance with the same TSO's. The TSO's as applied to the" Dougherty Valley Specific Plan cannot be changed. The permitted Traffic Improvements can be changed only with the consent of the affected jurisdiction. The proposed policies in the Action Plan limit the Board's ability to approve any additional development in the Tassajara Valley beyond that permitted by the existing General Plan, and, pursuant to Measure C-1988 procedures, require unanimous agreement by all jurisdictions in the SWAT Committee to change any Action Plan provision. If the Board wishes to adopt the Action Plan TSO's, the restrictions on future Traffic Improvements, and the Regional Route designations, it will constrain future development much more than the existing General Plan. Some jurisdictions claim that under the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement the County must support incorporation of the Agreement's policies into the Action Plan. The County General Plan and Measure C-1988 obligate the County to participate in a multi-jurisdictional planning effort to develop an Action Plan for Regional Routes. These Action Plans can consist of whatever the affected jurisdictions agree to as permitted by law. At the June 22 TVTC meeting, representatives of the affected jurisdictions will consider their consultant's proposed policies for the Action Plan. At that time, the Board will have its first opportunity to indicate to the TVTC if the proposed policies are acceptable for further consideration. Relevant policy considerations include: 1. Are the proposed TSO's appropriate for evaluating the impact of future development on Regional Routes? Should they be relaxed or more restrictive? Should the TSO's applied to development in the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan differ from the TSO's applied to other development in the area? 2. Should the road improvements available to satisfy the TSO's be limited to the Traffic Improvements proposed in the Action Plan? Should a jurisdiction have the flexibility to identify other transportation improvements that can satisfy the TSO's as long as the funding of such improvements was assured? 3. Should the Action Plan establish growth limits for each jurisdiction that are based on the. specified TSO's and Traffic Improvements? If growth limits are established, should they be region-wide growth limits, jurisdictional growth limits, or parcel-specific growth limits? 4. Should compliance with TSO's be assured at the General Plan level of approval, or should discretionary approvals be conditioned on progress in attaining TSO's with full-compliance mandated at the final level of discretionary approval? Adoption of a Board position on these policy issues is necessary before a consensus can be reached on the content of the Action Plan for the Tri Valley area. If the affected jurisdictions cannot reach a consensus on whether to adopt, modify, or delete the proposed Action Plan policies, these jurisdictions must participate in a conflict resolution process sponsored by the Authority. In no case will the conflict resolution process preempt local land use decisions, require a local jurisdiction to accept unwanted transportation projects, or require acceptance an Action Plan that creates a fundamental conflict with the community's socioeconomic or environmental character. The issue underlying these policy questions is the Board's interpretation and application of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement to the County's position on the TVTC Transportation Plan/Action Pian policies, and the consideration of pending and future development proposals in the San Ramon Valley region. A ADDENDUM A On this date the Board considered the staff report on the draft policies for the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan. Supervisor Bishop presented the report to the Board of Supervisors and she requested that the Board provide direction to the Tri-Valley Transportation Committee on the action plan before it is circulated for public review. Mark Armstrong, P.O. Box 218, Danville, representing the Tassajara Valley, Property Owners Association, presented two items for a proposed Board order on the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan "(Exhibit B) that he wished the Board to take action on, and he commented on a letter he had sent to Supervisor Torlakson dated June 17, 1994 relative to the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement' s Relationship to County participation in Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan Process and the County Tassajara Valley Planning Process (Exhibit C) . The Board considered Mr. Armstrong' s proposed language . Supervisor Bishop advised that the proposed Board order essentially expressed what the Board intended to do in the settlement agreement, and that the Board needed to give direction to the Tri-Valley Transportation Committee that the Board' s entering into the settlement agreement did not in anyway intend to limit or direct things that were happening beyond the Dougherty Valley. Supervisor Powers advised that he would be more comfortable if County Counsel were to review proposed language and the development agreement to insure that there was no inconsistency between the two. Victor Westman, County Counsel, responded that the draft before the Board represents what he understood the settlement agreement was to be. Supervisor Bishop moved the Board order as provided to the Board. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion and suggested that as an addition to the motion the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association be requested to meet and confer with the Town of Danville on Danville' s concerns . Supervisor Smith commented on a provision of the Dougherty Valley settlement agreement relative to adverse decisions in the Court cases and the ability to revisit the specifics of the settlement, and he requested that the motion be amended to add a report from County Counsel specifically addressing how this confusion could be cleared up using that provision of the settlement to make it absolutely clear what the Board intends to do. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation as amended is APPROVED; County Counsel is DIRECTED to review and report to the Board of Supervisors on the issue of the impact of legal decisions and the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement; and the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association is REQUESTED to meet with the Town of Danville to address Danville' s concerns . ' a t TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT RE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BOARD ORDER 1. The Board confirms its understanding that the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement only applies to the Dougherty Valley and was not intended to limit, direct or control the discretion of the County in adopting policies or making decisions with respect to the Tassajara Valley, either directly through the Tassajara Valley planning process or indirectly through the County's participation in the TVTC Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan process. The Community Development Department should apply the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement to the Dougherty Valley planning process only. 2. The Transportation Committee and the Community Development Department are requested to evaluate the draft Tri- Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan and return to the Board at the earliest opportunity with any recommended changes to the draft so that the Board can then consider the matter and provide to County representatives at TVTC what the Board is prepared to consent to have included in the Plan. The Transportation Committee and the Community Development Department is requested to present recommendations to the Board on all other action plans, for its consideration and determinations before the County's consent to any such action plans is given. EXHIBIT B i;. ctr� EXHIBIT C LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, McCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG WILLIAM E. GAGEN. JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L. MCCOY 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J. MCMAHON P. 0. Box 2113 MARK L. ARMSTRONG DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526-0218 LINN K. COOMBS TELEPHONE: (5IO) 837-0585 STEPHEN W. THOMAS FAX: (SIO) 838-59BS CHARLES A. KOSS MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA OFFICE MICHAEL W. CARTER 1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 315 RICHARD C. RAINES NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-3017 VICTOR J. CONTI TELEPHONE: (707) 224-8396 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL FAX: (707) 224-5817 ROBERT M. FANUCCI June 17, 1994 ALLAN C. MOORE PLEASE REPLY TO: PATRICIA E. CURTIN CAROLE A. LAW ALEXANDER L. SCHMID MICHAEL P. CANDELA CHARLES A. KLINGE Danvine RECEIVED Mr. Tom Torlakson JUN 2 0 1994 Supervisor, District Five 1 300 E. Leland Rd. CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Pittsburg, CA 94565 CONTRA COSTA CO. Re: Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement's Relationship to County Participation in Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan Process and the County Tassajara Valley Planning Process Dear Tom: Thank you for meeting with representatives of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA) last Wednesday. As you know, the Board of Supervisors has scheduled consideration of a report from the Transportation Committee, which met last Monday, regarding the draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan. That meeting was attended by Supervisor Bishop and you. A presentation was made by Val Alexeeff on Agenda Item No. 8 regarding the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan and the effect, if any, of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement in that regard. On behalf of TVPOA, I provided input to the Transportation Committee, too. Brian Welch from Danville had earlier met with Steve Goetz and claimed that the County was required to support certain policies in the draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan as a result of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement. I understand the purpose of the report by the Transportation Committee is to request the Board to provide direction to the Community Development Department and Board representatives at the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) as to policies in the draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan that the County will support and as to those policies in the current draft of the Action Plan that the County will not support. a Mr. Tom Torlakson June 17, 1994 Page 2 Representatives from the Town of Danville claim that by approving the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, the Board of Supervisors is obligated toysupport polices in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan that would directly limit development of the Tassajara Valley to its current level through the life of the Action Plan, or i indirectly do so by, among other things, including policies that would: 1) establish certain LOS standards, as mandatory Traffic Service Objectives on Camino Tassajara and Sycamore ValleyiRoad, which are Routes of Regional Significance, in particular at the Camino Tassajara/Blackhawk/Crow Canyon intersection, 2) selectively manipulate and limit future traffic modeling analysis, and 3) prohibit approval of any development in the County, if Danville does not agree to make road and intersection improvements in Danville funded by County developers and without which improvements LOS . 90 would be exceeded. If the Settlement Agreement is applied as Danville claims it should be, then Danville would essentially have a veto over Board decisions in the Tassajara Valley. P Danville's contention that the Board is legally obligated to approve public ';policies concerning the Tassajara Valley and the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan because of an agreement settling a lawsuit about the Dougherty Valley, entered into through secret discussions without the benefit of a public review process, j,.is patently absurd. The Tri-Valley I Transportation Plan and Action Plan is a very important transportation and planning document for the County. Under Measure C it must be the result of consensus by all of the participating jurisdictions. Once it is unanimously approved by TVTC members, forwarded to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) , and approved by the Authority, then the County, as set forth in its General Plan, must implement the adopted Action Plan policies. Any amendment to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan after its adoption and before its expiration would seem to require unanimous consent by TVTC and/or SWAT, too. Given the critical relationship of action plans to the County growth management process, the County should not consent to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan, or for that matter, any other action plan in the County, unless the Board of Supervisors fully understands and accepts the policies contained in it and their"l implications, both short-term and long-term, for the County. Failure to implement or follow an adopted action plan could result in a decision by the Transportation Authority to withhold the County's return to source funds from Measure C. On the other hand,, so long as the County participates in good faith in the public process for preparing an action plan, failure by the affected jurisdictions to reach a consensus on the action plan is • J Mr. Tom Torlakson June 17, 1994 Page 3 not grounds for the Authority to withhold the County's return to source funds. The Tassajara Valley represents the largest unincorporated area within the Urban Limit Line in south County, besides the Dougherty Valley. The Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment and Zoning Study has been authorized by the County and is well under way, with a draft EIR due out this summer, all at substantial expense to TVPOA. The nature and specifics of the policies the County will support for inclusion in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan are absolutely critical for TVPOA. If the policies promoted by Danville, which Town officials argue have essentially been adopted by the County through the secret Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement process, are in fact included in the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan with the consent of the County, then the Board of Supervisors will likely have no choice but to deny the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment and rezoning when it comes before it (unless perhaps Danville consents to its approval) . In light of the foregoing, you can understand why TVPOA is so very interested in the nature and specifics of those policies that the County will support, and why TVPOA vigorously opposes any effort by Danville to force the County to adopt. Danville's preferred policies because of some private agreement resulting from a secret process in which TVPOA did not participate. Danville's contention that the County must support policies in the Action Plan or take other actions with respect to the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment and zoning planning process, all of which are matters of public policy, because an agreement was reached in private to settle a lawsuit about the Dougherty Valley project, is without merit. It flies in the face of a basic premise of local government, that public policy be made in public meetings with notice and opportunity for the public to be heard. Danville's contention becomes even less credible due to the fact that the Town's participants in the settlement process never obtained real and informed acceptance by County officials of terms Danville participants understood would apply outside the Dougherty Valley. Members of the Board of Supervisors and the Community Development Department have confirmed in public hearings and private meetings with TVPOA representatives, both during the pendency of the settlement discussions and after the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement had been approved, that they intended it to apply to the Dougherty Valley only, not to the Tassajara Valley, and that it would not limit or restrict the Board in the exercise of its discretion to make decisions with respect to the Tassajara Valley, including the Board's decision making role as a participant in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. If the final Mr. Tom Torlakson June 17, 1994 Page 4 version of the Settlement Agreement was different, then it was without the informed consent of the Board and the Community Development Department. Danville's attorneys and other representatives who participated in the Dougherty Valley settlement process and drafted the settlement documents obviously did not inform County Community Development Department officials and Board members of the implications, from Danville's point of view, of the language and clauses in the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement in its final form, namely to limit the Board'�;s discretion on future decision making with respect to the Tassajara Valley. County Counsel was not actively involved in preparing the final form of the agreement. Danville officials never made a majority of the Board aware that from Danville's perspective the! Settlement Agreement would result in limitations on development iin the Tassajara Valley or control the County's discretion to consider public policies as part of TVTC. There was never informed County consent to Danville's position. Since this complex, long agreement was drafted essentially by attorneys for Danville, San Ramon and the Dougherty Valley developers, and its final form presented to the Board at the last minute, Danville should have made its intent clear to the Board and Community Development Department with respect to its understanding of the final documents. That the County 'Community Development Department and Board members did not believe. the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement would have such an effect is documented by my letters to Chair Powers dated April 29,, 1994 (which referred to my earlier letters to him of March 8th and March 15th) and May 24, 1994 . Copies of both letters were mailed to Danville Mayor Don Ritchey. Copies are attached. No :Danville representative ever contacted a TVPOA representative to say that our understanding that the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement would not result in direct or indirect restrictions on the development of the Tassajara Valley, by limiting road improvements or otherwise, was incorrect. I do not believe that Danville representatives ever informed County officials that our understanding as confirmed in the letters was incorrect. Danville had no actual support from County staff or County Counsel participants in the settlement process for the "policies" that Danville now claims are incorporated in language crafted by attorneys for Danville and the Dougherty Valley developers in their secret discussions and that affect the Tassajara Valley. There was no private or public support for such "policies" and provisions by the Board of Supervisors. This is a classic example of why public policy should be made in public by public officials, not in closed door meetings held by attorneys. Any complaint by Danville Mr. Tom Torlakson June 17, 1994 Page 5 now that the County is not following these "policies, " drafted in secret in a process dominated by the attorneys for Danville and the Dougherty Valley developers and without the actual understanding and support of ' the Board or Community Development Department, should appropriately fall on deaf ears. At the May 24th hearing on the Dougherty Valley Development Agreements, in response to my testimony and letter and a question from Chair Powers, Val Alexeeff confirmed that the Community Development Department did not intend the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement to affect or limit the discretion of the Board of Supervisors with respect to the Tassajara Valley. Supervisor Smith said he understood the Settlement Agreement related to the Shapell and Windemere projects only and did not limit the Board's discretion as to the Tassajara Valley. A copy of relevant portions of the transcript of that May 24th meeting is attached. You confirmed the same at the Transportation Committee meeting on Monday. To avoid any other misunderstanding, on behalf of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association I would ask the Board of Supervisors to formally confirm at this time what we have been informally assured, namely that the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement applies to the Dougherty Valley only, not to Tassajara Valley, either directly through the TVPOA planning process or indirectly through the TVTC Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan process, and does not limit the discretion of the County on those matters. As a member of the Transportation Committee and one of the Board members who approved the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, I ask you (or another Board member if appropriate) to make two motions that the following be included as a part of the Board Order on the Transportation Committee report on this subject: (1) That the Board confirms its understanding that the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement only applies to the Dougherty Valley and was not intended to limit, direct or control the discretion of the County in adopting policies or making decisions with respect to the Tassajara Valley, either directly through the Tassajara Valley planning process or indirectly through the County's participation in the TVTC Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan process. The Community Development Department is directed to apply the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement to the Dougherty Valley planning process only. Mr. Tom Torlakson June 17, 1994 Page 6 (2) The Transportation Committee and the Community Development Department are directed to evaluate the draft Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan and return to the Board at the earliest opportunity with any recommended changes to the draft so that the Board can then consider the matter and provide direction to County representatives at TVTC as to what the Board is prepared to consent to have included in the Plan. The Transportation Committee and the Community Development Department should present recommendations to the Board on all other action plans, for its consideration and direction before the County's consent to any such action plan is given: What are the consequences, if any, for the County if the Board formerly confirms for the record that the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement only applies to the Dougherty Valley and Danville then claims that the County has breached the Settlement Agreement? There is no breach. Provisions that are intended to make or commit the Board of Supervisors to certain public policies concerning development areas or public processes outside the Dougherty Valley and its planning process are unenforceable. Public policies must be made in public with notice and an opportunity to be heard. That basic requirement of local government would be violated if a secret agreement could compel subsequent actions on public policy outside the Dougherty Valley planning process that was the subject of the litigation. The provisions concerning TVTC and development other than the Dougherty Valley are void: Even if there was a breach, there are no money damages to Danville. On the other hand, if the County made public policy and other decisions concerning the Tassajara Valley that would adversely affect TVPOA because of the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, TVPOA would be deprived of meaningful public input, in violation of fundamental due process and otherwise inconsistent with the law. The monetary damages to TVPOA and its members would be enormous. A court cannot force the Board by specific performance to make legislative and public policy decisions because of an "agreement" drafted and completed in private. The Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement is not legislation, like a general plan amendment, zoning ordinance, or development agreement. It is not a land use or transportation policy that must be analyzed or considered in any environmental review for the Tassajara Valley since it was a private document to settle litigation. Finally, since it was i Mr. Tom Torlakson June 17, 1994 Page 7 completed outside the public process, it cannot be "enforced" by Contra Costa Transportation Authority through a denial of return to source funds; to the County. Such an action by CCTA could be unlawful. At most with respect to matters outside the Dougherty Valley approval process and litigation, the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement could represent a non-binding political consensus between the parties that may be subsequently implemented. However, in this case, if Danville believes that the Settlement Agreement applies outside the Dougherty Valley, such consensus was not reached between Danville and the County. Danville's only remedy is to oppose the Dougherty Valley project and take whatever action it deems appropriate through the public Tassajara Valley planning process and the public TVTC Transportation Plan and Action Plan process. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to working with County officials and others as the County determines through the public process the policies and provisions it agrees to � have included in the consensus Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Action Plan, which, if approved by the Transportation Authority, will ultimately be applied by the County in its consideration of the Tassajara Valley General Plan Amendment and zoning applications and any subsequent applications. I look forward to providing additional public comments when the Board considers the report from the Transportation Committee at its public meeting on June 21st. Xark truly yours, L. Armstrong MLA:kh Enclosures cc w/encs. : Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Tom Powers Vic Westman Val .Alexeeff Dan; Hancock Allan Chapman Town of Danville Attn: Mayor Don Ritchey Brian Welch Mr. Tom Torlakson June 17, 1994 Page 8 City of San. Ramon Attn: Mayor Hermann Welm City of Dublin Attn: Mayor Pete W. Snyder TVTC Technical Advisory Committee Attn: Gary Black Tassajara Valley Citizens Committee i Attn: Bob Drake A TVPOA, Inc. Attn: Jeff Leon 1:\vol2\client\19938\Torlaksn.ltr } LAW OFFICES OF 1 . GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON &- ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE WILLIAM E, GAGEN. JR. GREGORY L. MCCOY 279 FRONT STREET P- O. BOX 238PATRICK J. MC-AHON VILLE. CALIFORNIA 9�SZ6-0218 MARK L. ARMSTRONG April 29 , 1994 DANTELEPHONE: (SIC) 837-0585 LINN K. COOMBS STEPHEN W. THOMAS FAX: (SIO) 836-5985 CHARLES A. KOSS MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA OFFICE MICHAEL W. CARTER 1001 SECOND STREET. SUITE 315 RICHARD C. RAINES NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-3017 VICTOR J. CONTI TELEPHONE: (707) 224-6396 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL FAX: 1707) 224-5817 ROBERT W FANUCCI ALLAN C. MOORE PLEASE REPLY TO: PATRICIA E. CURTIN CAROLE A. LAW ALEXANDER L. SCHMID DanviM: MICHAEL P. CANDELA CHARLES A. KLINGE Chair Tom Powers Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez , CA 94553 Re: Dougherty Valley Development Agreements and Settlement Agreement Dear Chair Powers: As you will recall, on behalf of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA) , I have sent letters to you dated March 8, 1994 and March 15, 1994 . 1 also testified at the public hearing on March 22 , 1994, regarding the County's consideration of the development agreements between the County and Windemere Ranch Partners and Shapell Industries, Inc. for their respective projects in the Dougherty Valley. We understand that the hearings on the planned unit developments and development agreements for the projects have been continued until May 10, 1994 . In our letters and at the hearing on March 22nd, TVPOA pointed out the interrelationship between Tassajara Valley and Dougherty Valley. with respect to necessary infrastructure, focusing on common offsite road improvements for new development in both areas. See the enclosed ,map of common offsite road improvements prepared by Chris Kinzel at TJKM dated 3/94 and entitled "Draft Dougherty Valley Development Agreement Proposed Traffic Improvements, " previously distributed to the Board of Supervisors on March 22nd. TVPOA has expressed a desire to be assured that its planning process and development potential in the Tassajara valley, which are being considered in the general plan amendment and zoning study authorized by the Board of Supervisors for the Tassajara Valley, not be unfairly affected by the County's decisions in the Dougherty Valley planned unit developments, development agreements and lawsuit settlement processes. The three issues of principle concern to TVPOA, as outlined in my testimony, are as follows: Chair Tom Powers April 29, 1994 . Page 2 1. That the Dougherty Valley planned unit development and development agreement approvals provide that those projects pay their fair share of offsite road improvement costs that represent common mitigation for both Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley future development. other local project developers, such as TVPOA, should pay their fair .share, too. 2 . That there be no agreement or commitment to constrain the level of improvements in the local area's circulation (e.g. , limitations on road widening or intersection improvements) that will effectively preclude development in the Tassajara Valley. of particular concern to the TVPOA is any agreement now to limit the width of the intersection at Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road and the width and number of lanes on Camino Tassajara near the intersection, a chokepoint that Danville officials have demanded. 3 . That the development agreements or any settlement agreement not give Dougherty Valley projects a priority to develop over future projects in the Tassajara Valley. No such policy is set forth in the County General Plan or the Dougherty Valley Specific Plan. TVPOA does not want to wait until 8500 units or 11000 units in the Dougherty Valley are constructed to commence construction in the Tassajara Valley. Instead, as development projects in the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley move forward over the next two decades or more, the growth management standards in the County General Plan should be consistently and uniformly applied to both valleys. Since the hearing on March 22nd, TVPOA representatives have had an opportunity to fully discuss their concerns with County staff (Val Alexeeff, Steve Goetz and Debbie Chamberlain) , Dougherty Valley developers, and, individually, members of the Board. Based on those discussions, TVPOA is reasonably assured that its concerns are being addressed. The staff has confirmed that the Dougherty Valley development agreements are not intended to limit the discretion or authority of the Board of Supervisors in making land use decisions in the Tassajara Valley. The staff also confirms that the development agreements are not intended to give any priority to development in the Dougherty Valley over projects elsewhere, such as in the Tassajara Valley, through the twenty-five year life of those agreements. The staff has expressed a willingness to consider Chair Tom Powers April 29, 1994 Page 3 including a paragraph in those two development agreements to ' confirm this intent. Of course, any Tassajara Valley EIR will be required to consider development authorized under the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan and any other Dougherty Valley project approvals in its cumulative impact review and analysis. However, CEQA does not require the development of Dougherty Valley to be completed in whole or in part before Tassajara Valley is allowed to proceed with development. Such a phased approach for those two valleys is a policy decision, not a CEQA requirement, and one which we understand the County is not intending to make in the Dougherty Valley process. TVPOA has also been assured that the County and the Dougherty Valley developers will not support or promote restrictions on the level of improvements to offsite roads, such as Camino Tassajara and its intersection with Crow Canyon Road, as a requirement of any Dougherty Valley project approvals or any settlement agreement. Finally, TVPOA is reasonably assured by staff that it is the County's intention to require developers in the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley to pay their respective fair share of common offsite improvements required as a result of their respective impacts. TVPOA will have a timely opportunity to review the list of roadway improvements presently contemplated as part of the Dougherty Valley development agreements and project approvals to confirm that the list reflects a reasonable fair share allocation of common offsite obligations over the development lifetime of the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley. The members of the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association appreciate the willingness of County officials, Windemere and Shapell to consider and address our concerns. TVPOA is now confident that its pending general plan amendment and zoning applications, as previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors, will be considered on their own merits and without creating unnecessary legislative impediments to healthy market competition. The cumulative impact analysis in the Tassajara Valley EIR will include the Dougherty valley legislative approvals and, as such, provide a further opportunity to address and plan in a reasonable way for the many land use and infrastructure issues common to the Dougherty Valley and Tassajara Valley. We look forward to working w Chair Tom Powers April 29 , 1994 Page 4 with County officials and staff as the Tassajara Valley planning process .move forward. Ve rul ours, a k L. Armstrong MLA:kh Enclosure cc w/enc. : +Supervisor Gayle Bishop +Supervisor Jeff Smith �,Supervisor Tom Torlakson ",Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Vic Westman NVal Alexeeff NDan Hancock 'Allan Chapman Town of Danville .Attn: Mayor Don Ritchey City of San Ramon ,Attn: Mayor Hermann Welm City of Dublin ,&Attn: Mayor Peter W. Snyder Tassajara Valley Citizens Committee ",�Attn: Bob Drake TVPOA, Inc. . ' Attn: Jeff Leon i:\vol2\client\19938\Powers3.ltr LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON &- ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE WILLIAM E, GAGEN,JR. 279 FRONT STREET GREGORY L. MCCOY P O. SOX 218 PATRICK J. MCMAHON DANVILLE. CALIFORNIA 9�S26-0218 MARK L. ARMSTRONG TELEPHONE: (SIO) 837-OS85 LINN K. COOMBS FAX: (SIO) 838-598S STEPHEN W. THOMAS CHARLES A. KOSS MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA OFFICE MICHAEL W. CARTER 1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 31S RICHARD C. RAINES NAPA. CALIFORNIA 94559-3017 VICTOR J. CONTI TELEPHONE: (707) 224-82196 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL May 24, 1994 FAX: 1707) 224-6817 ROBERT M. FANUCCI ALLAN C. MOORE PLEASE REPLY TO: PATRICIA E. CURTIN CAROLE: A. LAW ALEXANDER L. SCHMID :,t MICHAEL P. CANDELA Danvine CHARLES A. KLINGE Chair Tom Powers Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors �- 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Dougherty Valley Development Agreement Dear Chair Powers: As set forth in my letter to you dated April 29, 1994 , the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA) , had been previously assured by staff that the Dougherty Valley development agreements are not intended to limit the discretion or authority of the Board of Supervisors in making land use decisions in the Tassajara Valley, or to establish a legislative or contractual priority or preference for development of the Dougherty Valley over any development in the Tassajara Valley. Staff also indicated it was the County's intention as part of the development agreements to require the developers in the Dougherty Valley to pay their respective fair share of offsite improvements common to the Dougherty Valley and the Tassajara Valley. The same would eventually be required of the Tassajara Valley before any development is approved there. Copies of the development agreement between the County and Shapell Industries, Inc. relating to the Gale Ranch and the development agreement between the County and Windemere Ranch Partners, included in the agenda packets to the Board, were first made available to me late on Friday. I reviewed them over the weekend. The "reservation of capacity" provisions in earlier drafts of the agreements have been removed. The requirement that Dougherty Valley development meet the County's growth management standards in the General Plan as it moves forward has been confirmed. The new agreements include the settlement agreement between the County, Danville, San Ramon and the Dougherty Valley developers as part of the applicable law for the Dougherty Valley projects only. It is not referenced in the development agreements as applicable law with respect to any land use decisions or development in the Tassajara Chair Tom Powers May 24, 1994 Page 2 Valley or any other action by the County (e.g. , as a member of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council) that will in turn control its decision making authority with respect to the Tassajara Valley. The copies of the .development agreements provided to me on late Friday seem consistent with the assurances earlier provided to TVPOA that these agreements would not restrict the decision making authority of the Countywithrespect to land use decisions and development in the Tassajara Valley. As described to me by one of the attorneys for Windemere, these are pretty typical development agreements. Obviously, any development in the Tassajara Valley will need to comply with the'' Growth Management Element of the . General Plan, as does any development in the Dougherty Valley. The Dougherty Valley development agreements I reviewed do not add to or modify the policies in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan that will be applied to the Tassajara Valley. Therefore, the paragraph addition to the agreements referencing the Tassajara Valley, that I suggested in my two letters to staff before seeing the latest drafts provided to me on Friday, is no longer necessary. TVPOA was able to obtain and review a copy of the settlement agreement between the County, San Ramon, Danville, Shapell and Windemere. By our reading and interpretation of the agreement, it includes no provision that restricts or limits the discretion or authority of the Board of Supervisors in making land use decisions in the Tassajara Valley, either directly or indirectly. In that regard, the settlement agreement does not require the County to take any particular action with respect to the Tri-Valley action plan currently in process and under consideration by the Tri- Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) , such that the County's ability and discretion to approve development in the Tassajara Valley is impeded or limited. With the TVTC action plan and Tassajara Valley EIR, general plan amendment and rezoning processes moving forward, early formal confirmation from the Board that our reading and the interpretation of the settlement agreement as it relates to the Tassajara Valley is correct would seem to be appropriate. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Obviously, TVPOA and its representatives have not been a part of the negotiations and processes for the Dougherty Valley settlement agreement and the development agreements that followed. Our only purpose here has been that TVPOA be provided assurances that these negotiations and processes, in which TVPOA was not provided the opportunity to be involved, do not result in legal obligations of the County that will inhibit or restrict any of its future decision making with respect to the Tassajara Valley. Obviously, planning for the Tassajara Valley must take authorized development of the Daugherty Chair Tom Powers May 24, 1994 Page 3 Valley into account. However, the opportunities to plan for the Tassajara Valley with that approved Dougherty Valley development taken into consideration should not be restricted by the settlement agreement on the Dougherty Valley or the development agreements for the Dougherty Valley. TVPOA requests that the Board formally confirm the previous assurances that were provided, now that the settlement agreement has been made available to the public, in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding as the planning processes that involve the Tassajara Valley move forward. Very truly yours, Mark L. Armstrong MLA:kh cc: Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Tom Torlakson Vic Westman Val Alexeeff Dan Hancock Allan Chapman Town of Danville Attn: Mayor Don Ritchey City of San Ramon Attn: Mayor Hermann Welm City of Dublin Attn: Mayor Pete W. Snyder Tassajara Valley Citizens Committee Attn: Bob Drake TVPOA, Inc. Attn: Jeff Leon i:\vol2\client\19938\Powers5.ltr 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 3 BOARD CHAMBERS 4 MARTINEZ , CALIFORNIA 1 � 1 5 --000-- ' 6 IN RE: ITEM H. 2 s OR . 10 12 13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS r a r e 14 i 15 MEETING OF MAY 24 , 1994 s itL, }'" f 16 .t 17 18 19 f ` 20 PRESENT: 21 TOM POWERS, Chairman 22 JEFF SMITH, Supervisor .: . 23 MARK DeSAULNIER, Supervisor 24 GAYLE BISHOP, Supervisor 25 TOM TORLAKSON , Supervisor Za C ertthed Shorthand Reporters pdongilg - 1 23''-i Stan\+ell Drice•(:onc•ord.CA c3-i5''_0--5808 } REPORTING SERVICE.CNC. t1.t). ii<,�a 10, •Concord.CA 945'_-5-3i0' rr • (510)685-6222•E;ix (510)685-3829 e.. • 1 anybody backing off and trying to get out of the t 2 commitment . We know exactly what it ' s going to cost and - 3 what the obligations are of the project , what kind of land r — J 4 we have to put forward, how we prepare the land. All that 5 stuff is specified in a very comprehensive document . 6 And there wasn ' t -- there ' s not an effort to hide 7 or get away (unintelligible ) the statement about 8 ( unintelligible ) quite the opposite . It is very -- it ' s a 9 very expensive undertaking to the project . And to make 10 you know , to ( unintellitible ) . 11 4� And so anyway , so just I want you to cut that stuff 12 out , because ,the affordable housing program is referenced . i - 13 It is a very comprehensive document , and it ' s there in 3 - 14 this agreement . CUmr�vc�� C)r, (6\qc .� 1 And again , to follow up on Mr . Armstrong ' s comment , 16 we totally agree that they should have the opportunity to ;; 17 go ahead and continue the process , and we would not ever Il 18 make it -- we would do anything to conflict with their 19 rights as property owners and process ( unintelligible ) . 0 Again , thank you . I , 21 CHAIRMAN POWERS : Thank you . is 22 SUPERVISOR BISHOP : I do have a question, or 23 actually a clarification of your comment about East Bay II — I 24 MUD . You will concede , will you not , Mr . Coleman , that it 25 was a different board that was -- r. --- — — Certified Shorthand Reporters ZandoneIIa 46 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord.CA 94520-4505 REPORTING SERVICE.INC. P.U. Box 410;•Concord.CA 94524-4 107 (510)685-6222• Fax(510) 685-3529 be an independent -- a separate process, and it will be 3 2 separate process that will take some time. 3 I ' ve been working as well with TVPOA to consider 5 4 that , the community college ' s incorr%e-%V=+- 1nn 5 alternatives . -6 Okay. On the of the TVPOA itself , again we have a 7 proposal from TVPOA and we have their interpretation 8 versus Danville ' s interpretation versus anybody else ' s 9 interpretations of what the settlement agreement and the 10 development agreement may mean to them in terms of future 11 arguments , future discussion . 12 From staff ' s standpoint , we feel that we have been 13 very judicious in trying to prevent any restriction on the 14 Board ' s future legislative discretion. So what we have 15 attempted to do is to avoid putting anything in the - 6 Dougherty Valley process that would in turn restrict the - 7 Board ' s action in the TDVOA process . 18 Now, TVPOA as any project has to run the gauntlet 19 of what the cumulative impacts are of other developments . 20 And so in the process of their review, clearly Dougherty 21 Valley will come up. That can ' t be prevented . 22 But we were careful not to preclude them from 23 development in anything that at least we understood or we 24 did in this process . 25 CHAIRMAN POWERS : Okay . Any comments or questions Cerfiflud ShortlhiTld Reporters Zandowlia 49 2321 Stan%%cll Drive-Concord.CA 94520-4508 P.O. Box 4107-Concord.CA 94524-4107 REPOMNG SERVICE.INC_ (510)685-6222- Fax(510)6S3-3829 1 substantive change , the only items that would come before 2 you , assuming that at some point you approved the 3 rezoning , the preliminary development plan and the 4 development agreement in the future, will be the approval 5 of final development plans and subdivision, tentative 6 subdivision approvals . And those are not subject to 7 referendum. 8 And I -- is that too much? 9 SUPERVISOR SMITH: That ' s good . Property 101 , I 10 knew I ' d forgot it . 11 SUPERVISOR BISHOP : You know, I ' d like to make a 12 comment here . ( Unintelligible ) but we didn ' t take the 13 class that Vic took that tells you how to -- how to speak i 14 legalese . I ' ve never heard anyone speak it as legally as 15 you do . 16 SUPERVISOR SMITH: He ' s a good lawyer . 17 (Unintelligible discussion . ) 18 SUPERVISOR SMITH: 'Well , no , that answered my 19 question . It reminded a lot of what I should have learned 20 more definitively by reading Mr . Curtin ' s detailed and 21 authoritative summary of the issues in California . 22 The other question I wanted to address was the 23 issue with regard to the TVPOA and its relationship to the 24 settlement documents . 25 I just want to go on record myself as being in my ti t n Sonegl$ Certifion Shorthand 520-4 0S([� j � 59 ?3''_I St;in�ticll f)ri%r•Cunc•urd.(::\Ja�30-ati05RTING SERVICE.INC. >'.o. 51 aio;•Concord. (5. sa5'_4-3829 (�10)(iS5-6?•22• Fax(5.10) 685-35'_9 'I, mind very clear that the two were separated . The 2 settlement document deals with the proposals from Shapell 3 and Windemere and does not in my mind limit discretion to 4 the Board of Supervisors or those acting in the shoes of 5 the Board of Supervisors in the future. L�IWith regard to the community college issue, I think q. 7 from reading the findings that there is clearly an r . 8 agreement that if there is a way to make this happen there 9 is that there is support to make it happen . 10 1 wonder if it might be useful to clarify the 11 language that Gayle pointed out when it refers to San 12 Ramon Valley area to make sure that it also includes the 13 Dougherty Valley as a potential . 14 And recognizing completely that in order for this 15 to happen , somebody is going to have to own the land , 641 A 16 somebody is going to have to go through the specific 17 planning process , somebody is going to have to go through 18 the entire development process . 19 And I see Mr . Hasseltine shaking his head , so 20 think the community college understands that process 0 21 clearly . 22 With regard to the affordable housing , I only bring ,To; 23 up one issue , which is that the affordable housing program 24 which was adopted by the Board in what was it , 25 March 22nd . Cvrk\(ictt Shorthand Reporters ZandonellShorthand2321 Starm(-I] Dri% •Concord,CA 94520-4805 ffff5MNG-SEMCE INC RO. [lox-1107, -Concord,CA 94524-4107 (5 10) 685-6222• Fax(510) 685-3829 June 24, 1994 RE{; IVEb L-M2 1994 CLERK BOARD OFS,'PEPVISORS VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL CONTRA COSTA CO. Mr. Tom Powers, Chairperson Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Tri Valley Transportation Plan Policies/ Board of Supervisors 6/21/94 Order Dear Mr. Powers: It has come to our attention that at its Regular Meeting on June 21, the Board of Supervisors approved the enclosed "Order" in which the Board confirmed its " . . . understanding that the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement only applies to the Dougherty Valley and was not intended to limit, direct or control the discretion of the County in adopting policies or making decisions with respect to the Tassajara Valley . . ". This statement directly conflicts with the Settlement Agreement, which clearly and explicitly states that it is to be applied by the County outside the boundaries of the Dougherty Valley. For example, Paragraph 3.6 on page 14 of the Agreement provides that the settling jurisdictions will observe consistent service level standards as to " . . . ani development (other than the Project) . . . on land within the San Ramon Valley . . . " (emphasis added). Similarly, Paragraph 3.7.4 on page 16, states: "To mitigate the impacts of cumulative growth in the Tri-Valley Subregion and surrounding areas on the local, subregional and regional roadway networks, certain coordinated efforts are required by the County, San Ramon and Danville as specified in Exhibit D . . . " (emphasis added; please refer to Paragraph 6 of Exhibit D to the Agreement). 510 La Gonda Way • Danville, California 94526-1740 (510)820-6337 Mr. Tom Powers June 24, 1994 Page Two Other similar provisions abound throughout the Settlement Agreement. The Board Order issued on June 21 appears irreconcilable and not in harmony with such provisions. Given the Board's action, Danville formally advises you of its concern. In order to protect our rights, Danville has no choice but to notify you that the Board's Order of June 21 constitutes an anticipatory breach of the Settlement Agreement. We therefore invoke the provisions of Paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 of the Settlement Agreement and call for I.— i-.na1 Conferral_ between. the County and the Town. of Danville. We have designated Councilpersons Millie Greenberg and Dick Waldo, Town Manager Joe Calabrigo, City Attorney Mark Doane and Development Services Manager Brian Welch as our representatives. They are prepared to meet with your designated representatives as soon as possible, preferably here in Danville. Please note the 21 day deadline on the conferral process contained in paragraph 5.2. We would appreciate your staff giving Mr. Calabrigo a call at their earliest convenience to establish a meeting. Sincerely, Don Ritchey Mayor DR:rf Enclosure cc: Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Tom Torlakson Victor J. Westman, County Counsel Val Alexeeff, Director, GMEDA Admsec\Doane\LPowers.DR