Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03262002 - D2 TO, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . Contra' FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP '`3 Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR -s County DATE: MARCH 26, 2002 SUBJECT: CONSIDER ::RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND REPORT FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REGARDING THE MEASURE C-1988 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED CAMINO TASSAJARA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. DECLARE the intent of the County to participate in a conflict'resolution process with the Town of Danville,and other involved'?parties, regarding the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment, in accordance with OCTA Resolutions 95-06-G and 95-07-G and under the auspices of the OCTA,and DECLARE the intent and expectation that this conflict;resolution process will be completed in a timely manner within the sixty(60)day timeframe as recommended by CCTA, 4 �"CONTINUED QN ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE . RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE($): ACTit?N OF BOARD ON mnrrh -2.6,9.on? APPROVED AS RECOMMENOM OTHER SEE ADDENDUM FOR: BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X_UNANIMOUS{ASSENT IU ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED'ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN, SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact;P.Roche,CDD-APD,(925)335-1242 ATTESTED MRrch 26 2Q02 cc: Robert McCleary,CCTA JOHN SWEETEN, CL RK OF THE BOARD OF Joseph Calabdgo,Town of Danville SUPERVI,ORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CeciiyTalbert,MbCutchen Doyle'Brown&Enerson Tom Koch,Shapell Industries 1 Pam Hardy Ponderosa Homes ��. � Jef Lawrence,Braddock&Logan,LLC BY "`�—,DEPUTY ADDENDUM TO D.2 March 26,2002 On this day the Board considered recommendation from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and report of the Community Development Director regarding the Measure C-1988 conflict resolution process pertaining to the proposed Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment. The following persons presented testimony: Cecily,Talbot(applicant) Millie Greenberg, 674 Sheri Lane,Danville Following discussion the Board took the following actions: I. DECLARED the intent of the County to participate in a conflict resolution process with the Town of Danville, and other involved parties, as mutually agreed upon with policies consistent with CCTA guidelines,regarding the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment,in accordance with CCTA Resolutions 95-06-G and 95-07-G under the auspices of the CCTA; 2. DECLARED the intent and expectation that this conflict resolution process will b completed in a timely manner within the sixty(60)''day timeframe as recommended by CCTA; 3 DIRECTED Community Development and County Counsel staff to immediately meet and confer with CCTA staff on the procedures and timeline,for conducting the conflict resolution process,and provide a status report for the April 9,2002 Board meeting (AYES: H, III,V and I NOES:none ABSENTJV ABSTAIN: none) MARCH 26,200 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORT ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CAtMINO TASSAJARA cCMBINED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PACS RECOMMENDATIONS (continued} 2. DIRECT Community Development and County Counsel staff to immediately meet and confer with CCTA staff on the procedures and timeline for conducting the conflict resolution process, and provide a status report for the April 9, 2002 Board meeting. FISCAL IMPACT" Staff costs and other direct costs associated with the County's participation in the conflict resolution process will be borne by the applicants for the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment: BACKGROUND/ REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program, as administered y the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (OCTA), includes a procedure for review of proposed General Plan Amendments that exceed a threshold of 500 peak hourtrips. The review procedure was formalized in July 1995, through the CCTA adoption of Resolution 95-06-G. This resolution anticipated that should a conflict arise during the review of the General Plan Amendment by the affected Regional Transportation Planning Committee, and/or during the CEQ!A review of the proposed General Plan Amendment, any party to the conflict may initiate conflict resolution.In an accompanying resolution, Resolution 95-07-G,the CCTA also defined a conflict resolution process to address conflicts in both the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program,and the Congestion ManagementProgram. At a March 20, 2002 meeting,the Contra Costa Transportation Authority(CCTA)accepted a report and findings from the Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT) Committee on the review of the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment. The SWAT Committee conducted two meetings at the request of the Town of Danville to determine whether the proposed General Flan Amendment could adversely affect the ability of SWAT jurisdictions to meet the Traffic Service Objectives established in the Tri-Valley Transportation Flan/Action Plan. The SWAT Committee determined that its is likely that the Traffic Service Objective (TSO)of Level of Service.90(LOS D)' for the Camino Tassajara/Craw Carryon/Blackhawk Rd. intersection,as established underthe Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan, could be violated if the County approved the General Plan Amendment as proposed. Attached for reference, listed as Exhibit"A", is a Manch S, 2002 letter from the SWAT Committee Chair to the CCTA on the findings reached by the SWAT Committee on the proposed General flan Amendment. Upon receipt of the SWAT Committee's findings the Community development Director requested-a determination from the CCTA as to whether the adoption of the proposed' General Plan Amendment would constitute a violation of the Measure 0-1988 Growth Management.:Program. Such a violation would jeopardize the nearly$2.1 million the County annually receives in Measure C-1988 Return-TQ-Source Funds. MARCH 26,2002 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORT ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR CAMINOTASSAJARA COMBINED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PACE 3 BACKGROUND/ REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS continued` The Town of Danville on March 19, 2002 adapted a resolution; requesting CCTA to initiate the Measure C conflict resolution process regarding the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment'. A copy of the Town of Danville's resolution is attached as Exhibit "B"to this report.. At its March 20,2002 meeting,the CCTA approved the letter that is attached as Exhibit"C"to this report. The CCTA letter concurs with the SWAT Committee's finding:and recommends that the main parties (County and Town of Danville) and other parties (Applicants) enter in to the conflict' resolution process as defined in OCTA Resolutions 95-06-G and 95-07-G. The CCTA letter acknowledges that the conflict resolution process should be completed in a timely manner,with an expectation that the process should be completed within a sixty(60)day timeframe and should not exceed ninety (90)days. The conflict resolution process will be facilitated by CCTA staff. Given the recommendations from CCTA and the SWAT Committee, and considering the Town of Danville's resolution, staff recommends the County participate in the Measure C-1988 conflict resolution process in accordance with CCTA Resolutions 5-06-G and 95-07-G. Attachments (3 EXHIBIT «A"' MARCH 6, 2002 LETTER FROM CHAIN, SWAT COMMITTEE, TO CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (CCTA) }r � S WA W ; Danville Lafayette + Moraga • Orinda San Raman&the County of Contra Costa March 6, 2002 Donald P.Freitas, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Dear Chair Freitas; This communication is a response to the December 20 2001 letter from Robert K. McCleary to Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair of the Southwest Area Transportation (SWAT) Committee. In this letter,Mr. McCleary was responding to a request for advice on how to respond to potential growth management compliance issues raised by staff of the Town of Danville in response to the County's Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Study. On Mr. McCleary"s advice,the SWAT Committee has reviewed the projected impact of the proposed General Plan Amendment on the ability of SWAT jurisdictions to achieve the traffic service objectives (TSOs) adopted by the'CCTA for routes of regional significance in the affected area and have unanimously established the following findings; • The SWAT members concurred that they do not wish any of the adopted TSOs in the Tri-Valley Action Plan to be exceeded, • Based upon S'WAT's review of the Camino Tassajara GPA, it appears that there is no room for error in the calculation of level of service, • Given the level of accuracy in the Tri-Valley model, the margin by which the TSO is met at the so-called critical intersection of Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road is too small; • Therefore, if the project is approved as proposed[the Full-Range of Affordable Housing/Senior Housing' (FRAHSH) alternative], SWAT determined that it is likely that the TSC} of LOS D at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road could be violated in 2010. In addition,the SWAT Committee moved to continue the discussion of good faith to their April meeting and request that the CCTAdirect the involved parties to begin the Conflict Resolution process under Measure C. Sincerely, • • Don Tatzin, Vice-Chair Gayle B. Uilkema, Chair Southwest Area Transportation Committee Southwest Area Transportation Committee 3. e), —i'3 cc: Members.SWAT A,lccts em tars niw finAl r0n EXHIBIT 6iB99 TOWN OF DANVILLE RESOLUTION NO. 35-2002 INITIATING CCTA CONFLICT PROCESS MAR-21-2002 10.00 TOWN IF DANVILLE 925 e36 0360 P.02/04 i RESOLUTION NO. 35-2002 INITIATING THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS REGARDING THE CAl4IINO TASSAJARA COMINED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 'I'UDY AND RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, Resolution 95-06-G adopted by the Contras Costa Transportation Authority (the "Authority") in July 1995 sets forth>>a General Plan Amendment (GPA) 'Review Process for the Measure C Growth Management Program;and W11E EAS, as one of the conditions for compliance with the Authority's Growth Management Program, local jurisdictions are required to participate in the Authority's GPA Review Process;and WHEREAS, the° Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT) :serves as the Authority's'designated Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RT.PC) where the jurisdictions of the southwest subarea, which include the Town of Danville and the Cities of Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda San. Ramon, and Contra Costa County, together jointly determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts on Routes of Regional'Significance;and WHEREAS, SWAT has adopted a Traffic Service Objective (TSO) for the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Craw Canyon Road of Level of Service(LOS)D as set'forth in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan;and WHEREAS, the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (Article 11, Section ;IT "Definitions,"page 10 and Section 3.7.3)establishes LOS D as the minimum standard for traffic service at the intersection of Camino"'Tassajara and Crow Canyon.Road;and WHEREAT, Contra Costa County has issued a Draft EIR for the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment Stuffy and Related Actions, which, if approved would result in the development of 1,397 new housing units to the west of Danville and would impact the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road;and WHEREAS, through numerous correspondence, and by sending its representative and staff to the monthly SWAT meetings,the Town of Danville has vigorously participated in the Authority's GPA Review Process for the Camino Tassajara Combined CPA Study; and WHEREAS, the:Town of :Danville has voiced concerns to Contra Costa County, to SWAT, and to the Authority regarding the potential impact of the proposed GPA on adopted Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) in the Tri-Valley Transportation/Action Plan* and _ 1 _ MAR-21-2002 10:00 Ta4N OF DANVILLE 925 838 0360 P.03/04 W°H.IRIEAS,the Town of Danville believes that the proposed GPA, if approved, would result' in an exceedance of LOS D at the Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon Road intersection and is therefore in conflict with adopted TSOs;and WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 4, 2002, the SWAT committee determined by unnicrus vote that if the Camino Tassajara GTPA is approved as proposed, it is likely that the TSO of LOS D at the'intersection of Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road could be violated in 2010, and requested that CCTA direct the involved parties to begin the Conflict Resolution process under Measure C and WHEREAS, the Authority's'GPA review procedure specifies that if a conflict should arise during review by the affected RTPC(s), that any party to the conflict may call for initiation of conflict resolution; and that the parties may utilize either the Authority's conflict resolution process, or an alternative process, as long as it is acceptable to the parties to the conflict,and WHEREAS, the SWAT Committee unanimously recommended that the Town of Danville and Contra Costa County enter into Conflict Resolution,and WHEREAS the'Town of Danville wishes to initiate the Authority's Conflict Resolution process to resolve a dispute°regarding the traffic impacts of Contra Costa County's proposed Combined Camino Tassajara GPA Study on the intersection of '.Camino Tassajara and Craw Canyon Road;and WHEREAS,the Authority's Conflict Resolution Process(Resolution 95-07-G) specifies that local jurisdictions are eligible to initiate the Conflict Resolution Process through a vote of the majority of the jurisdiction's Council or Board, and that a majority vote of the RTPC is also necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process;now,therefore,be it RESOLVED, that the Danville Town. Council hereby requests initiation of the Authority's Conflict Resolutions Process;and,be it further RESOLVED,that in accordance with Authority Resolution 95-07-0 which specifies the Conflict Resolution process, the Danville Town Council hereby authorizes the Mayor of Danville to send an"initiation letter"to the Authority with the fallowing information. a. A description of the dispute; b. Reference to applicable language in Measure C and the Authority's Implementation Documents indicating why the Town believes that Contra Costa County is not in compliance with the Authority's Growth Management Program, c. A list of issues needing resolution, d. blames of parties to the dispute that should be involved in resolution, e. Names of individual(s)representing the Town of Danville, f.' Preferences for approach to settlement sessions:,and use of outside professionals, and g Confirmation that the Danville Town Council by ``a majority vote approved initiation of the process. -2 - MPR-21-2002 10'01 TOWN OF DAW ILLS 925 MG 0360 P.04/04 i APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular meeting on March 19, 2002, by the following vote AYES: Waldo, Arni:rt.ch, Doyle, Greenberg, Shimansky NOES; None ABSTAINED: None ABSENT: None Y R ROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST; 12w,4; {/y /Y{Tji Y/■� yM�.�yKy CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLEER .3 _ TOTAL P.04 EXHIBIT «C" MARCH 20, 2002 LETTER FROM CHAIR, CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (OCTA) TO DENNIS M. BARRY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: NOTE LETTER NOT`A VAILA.BLE AS OF MAILING. THE SIGNED LETTER WILL BE SENT DIWECTL Y TO BOARD 1t��.L�.�VIBE R'S AND CLERK OF THE BOARD FROM CCTA VIA FACSIMILE: March 25 2002 Robert K. McCleary, Executive Director Contra Costa Transportation Authority 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 100 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 RE: Combined Camino Tassajara General Plan Amendment Study Conflict Resolution- Initiation Letter Dear Mr. McCleary: Please accept this Initiation Letter from the Town of Danville requesting to initiate the ContraCosta Transportation Authority's Conflict Resolution Process defined in Resolution 95-07-G to address conflicts between Contra Costa County and the Town of Danville relating to compliance'with the Growth Management Program, defined as a"Category 1"Dispute. a. Description of Disputes In 2400, Contra Costa County issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Camino Tassajara Combined General Plan Amendment (GPA)Study and Related Actions, which, if approved would result in the development of 1,397 new housing units'immediately adjacent to Danville's eastern boundary. The Town of Danville believes that the proposed GPA, if approved' as proposed, would result in an exceedance of Level of Service (LOS) D at the Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon (toad intersection. An exceedance of LOS D would violate the adopted Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) established in the adopted Tri-Valley Transportation/Action Plan as well as the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (Article H Section II'"Definitions," page 10 and Section 3.7.3), which has been incorporated into the Tri-Valley Transportation/Action Plan by reference. Throughout the environmental review process, the Town of Danville has consistently expressed concerns about the potentially significant traffic impacts of the proposed 'Note:Subheadings of this leiter(a,b,c, —)correspond with the Initiation Letter reyuiretnents as stated on Page 5 of the authority's adopted Conflict Resolution Process. 510 La Gonda Way•]Danville,California 94526-1740 (925)314-3300 project on the T'own's roadway network and its impact on the operation of the Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon intersection located approximately one and one-half miles to the west of the proposed development.: The Town of Danville has been represented at monthly SWAT meetings and at meetings of the Transportation Authority to actively participate in the Authority's GFA Review Process and to voice concerns ;regarding the potential` impact of the proposed GPA. b. Basis for Process Initiation The Townof Danville views this conflict as a "Category 1" dispute because it relates directly to Contra Costa County's compliance with, the Authority's Growth Management Program Authority Resolution 95-07-G states that in its"initiation letter,"the initiating party is responsible for referencing applicable language in Measure C and the Implementation .Documents to provide'a basis for Category l initiation. The following references are provided: 0 Measure C requires that local jurisdictions, through the forum provided by the Authority, jointly determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts. • The Authority's Implementation Documents specify the Action Plan process, the establishment of Traffic Service Objectives and Actions, the General Plan Amendment Review process, and the Conflict Resolution process to meet the requirements outlined in Measure+C.z • The Implementation Documents further state that the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) should evaluate proposed CPAs in relation to the Action Plan's success and consistency, and that it will be the responsibility of the local jurisdiction considering a General Plan Amendment to either: a) Demonstrate that the amendment will not violate .Action Plan;,policies or the ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or b) Propose modifications to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan Amendment from adversely affecting the regional'transportation network. 2 See Authority Resolution No.95-€36MG,adopted on July 19, 1995 for specific quotes and references to the 1988 Measure G gUgnditure Plan. 2 If neither of these can:be done,a local jurisdiction's approval of a CPA may: lead to a finding of non-compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Programa Regional Transportation Planning Committee.Review The Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT) serves as the Authority's designated Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTPC) where the jurisdictions of the southwest subarea, which 'include the Townof Danville and the Cities of Lafayette, Moraga Qrinda, San Ramon, and Contra Costa County, jointly determine the.appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts on Routes of Regional Significance After a lengthy review during two consecutive meetings, the SWAT committee determined by unanimous vote at its March'4, 2002 meeting`that if the Camino Tassajara GPA is approved as proposed, it is likely that the TSO of LOS D could be violated in 2010 at the Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon Road intersection. SWAT further requested that OCTA direct the involved' parties to begin the Conflict Resolution process under Measure C. Measure C—Conflict.Resolution Process Resolution 95-06-G adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation .authority (the "Authority") in 'July 1995 sets forth a GPA Review Process for the Measure C Growth Management Program. One of the conditions for compliance with the Authority's Growth Management Program is a requirement by local jurisdictions to participate in the Authority's'GPA Review Process. The Authority's GPA review procedure specifies that if a conflict should arise during review by the affected R.TPC(s),that any party to the conflict may call for initiation of conflict resolution, and that the parties may utilize the Authority's conflict resolution process, or an alternative process, as long as it is 'acceptable to the parties to I the conflict. The Authority's Conflict Resolution Process(.Resolution 9507-G) specifies that local jurisdictions are eligible to initiate the Conflict Resolution:,Process through a vote of the majority of the jurisdiction's Council or Board, and that a majority vote of the RTPC is also necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process At its March 1 , 2002 Town Council meeting, the Town of Danville formally requested initiation of the Authority's Conflict'Resolution process (Attachment A)to resolve a dispute between the Town and Contra Costa County regarding the traffic Centra Costa Transportation Authority,Growth Management Implementation Documents.Implementation wide',Ado- ec1 December 1920,p.IQ-52. 3 impacts of Combined Camino Tasajara GPA Study on the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Craw Canyon Road.` At its March 20 2002 meeting, the Authority concluded that that the GPA review process was intended to facilitate cooperative multi:jurisdictional planning and that the conflict resolution.process is the next logical step. Further, the ,Authority stated that;approval of the GPA by the County in years 2002 or 2003,;without an effort to resolve conflicting views, could potentially result in a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program by the Authority. C. List of Issues Needing Resolution The Town'has previously expressed, and would like to re-iterate, that we would like nothing more than to reach concurrence and'find resolution to the following core issues that have been raised since the release of the Draft EIR.in August 2000; 1. Baseline Count: Traffic counts are the foundation for the entire traffic analysis. The Town maintains that the baseline counts for the 'Camino Tassajara/Crow Canyon ("critical") intersection used in the traffic analysis should be accurate and reflect current conditions. 2. Underlying Assumptions: The underlying assumptions used to assign trips in the traffic analysis underestimate the number of project trips that would arrive at the critical intersection. As such,the issues raised by the Town of Danville relating to these underlying assumptions should be addressed. 3. Cumulative Forecast: The 2010;Cumulative forecasted growth projected by the traffic analysis is actually less than actual increases in traffic volume of the past two years. The 2010 forecast should be re-analyzed to take into consideration traffic patterns which have changed since January 2000, including' actual traffic from the Diablo Vista Middle School and the substantial increase in cut-through traffic from Highland Road. As stated in the Town's July 9, 2001 'letter to the County, "The Town has repeatedly indicated that it disagrees with the County's assertion that future traffic will be lower than existing traffic at this Town intersection, yet the County refuses to provide any reasoned explanation for rejecting the Town's technical approach. The result is inaccurate 'intersection forecasts that skew the technical results.'' 4. Feasible Mitigation: As guided by the Growth Management Implementation Guide, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan specifies three kinds ways of dealing with traffic: (1) by influencing demand, through land use decisions; (2)by improving'supply, with capital improvement projects; and(3) by increasing efficiency. 4 The predominant focus of the EIR's mitigation has been on modifying the supply of transportation infrastructure within the Town of Danville, without consulting the Town To the extent that such transportation modifications may not be either feasible or acceptable to the Town, the Town feels that there should be equal focus on managing the demand on transportation infrastructure by minimizing the actual size and magnitude of the development project. d. Parties to the Dispute The 'dispute arises .from information generated_ by the Combined Camino Tassajara GPA Study EIR Consequently, the parties to this disputeare Centra Costa County, the lead agency in the environmental process, and the Town of Danville. e. Individuals Representing the Town of Danville The Town would suggest that both parties agree upon the number and composition of representatives for this process to assure that bath parties are adequately represented. f. Preferred Settlement Approach The Town concurs with the Authority's direction that the conflict resolution process should be expeditious. Consequently, the Town also concurs with the Authority's direction that a facilitator or mediator, mutually agreed-upon by the Town and Contra Costa County, be engaged to begin conflict resolution as soon as possible, with the goal of completing the process within 60 days.' 'g• Confirmation of Majority Vote' The Town of Danville hereby confirms that the Town Council approved initiation of the Authority's Conflict Resolution Process by ;majority vote at its regularly scheduled meeting of Tuesday, March 19, 2002. Attachment A- Resolution 35-2002 formalizes this approval. 5 The Town is again appreciative of the .Authority's time and efforts in this difficult process. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (925) 314-3302, or Tai Williams at (925) 314-33131 if you should have any questions. Sincerely, TOWN OF DANVILLE J s A.Calabrigo o Manager Attachment'A: Town of Danville Resolution No. 35-2002 c: Town Council, City Attorney, Transportation Services Manager Contra Costa County ward of Supervisors (delivered by hand on 3/26/02) San Ramon City;Council,2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, CA 94583 Southwest Area Transportation Committee, c/o John Cunningham, 651 Pine Street,4th Floor'-North Wing,Martinez, CA.94553 FATransportationTroject Review\Regiond ProjectsWamo Creek-OTratficUraasp©rta#ion Authority'dnitiation Letter 032502,doc } 6 RESOLUTION NO. 35-2102 INITIATING THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY'S CONFLICT RESOLUT1W PROCESS REGARDING THE CARO TA SAJ'.ARA COMBINED GENERAL,PLAN AMENDMENT ENT STUDY'`AND RELATED ACTIONS' WHEREAS, Resolution 95-06-G adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (the "Authority) in July 1995 sets forth a General Flan Amendment (GPA) Review Process for the Measure C Growth Management Program; and 'ZEAS, as one of the conditions for compliance with the Authority's Growth Management Program, local jurisdictions are required to participate in the Authority's GPA Review Process*and WHEREAS, the Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT) serves as the Authority's designated Regional Transportation Planning Committee (RTP C) where the jurisdictions of the southwest subarea,which'include the Town of Danville and the Cities of Lafayette, 'Moraga, Qrinda, San. Ramon, and Contra"Costa County, together jointly determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts'on Routes of Regional Significance;and. WHER AS, ''SWAT has adopted a Traffic Service objective (TSO) for the intersection. of Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road of Level of Service(LOS) I7, as set ford in the:Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action.Plan,and WHEREAS,; the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement (Article II, Section H ""Definitions,","page 1.U an Section 3.7:3)establishes LCIS D as the minimum standard for traffic service at the intersection of Camino Tassajara and ;row Canyon Road;-and WHEREAS, iContra,Costa County has issued a Draft EIR for the Camino Tarsatara Combined Generat Plan,Amendment Study and Related Actions, which, if approved would result in the development of 1,397 neve housing.units to the west of Danville and would impact the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road; and WHEREAS, through numerous correspondence, and by sending its representative and staff to the monthly SWAT meetings,the Town of Danville.has vigorously participated in the Authority's GFA Review Process for the Camino Tassajara Combined'OPA Study; and WT E.REAS, the Town of Danville has voiced concerns to Contra.' Costa County, to SWAT, and to the Authority regarding the potential impact of the proposed GPA can adopted'Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) in the Tri-Valley Transportation/Action flan, and _ 1 _ wli REAS the Town of Danville believes that the proposed GPA, if approved, would result in an exceedance of LOS D at the Camino Tas ajarafCyrow Canyon Road intersecti*nI and is therefore in conflict with adopted T Os; and 'UREA I Sit at its meeting on March 4, 2002,.the SWAT committee determined by unanimous vote that if the Camino Tassaj ars GPA is approved as proposed, it is likely that the TSO of LOS D at the intersection of Cameo Tassajara and Crow Canyon. Read could be violated in 2010, and requested that OCTA direct the involved parties to begin the Conflict Resolution process under Measure C; and Ei AS, the .Authority's 0PA review procedure specifies that if a conflict should arise during review by the affected RTPC(s),that any party to the conflict may call for initiation of conflict resolution; and that the parties may utilize either the Authority's conflict resolution process, or an alternative process, as long as it is acceptable to the parties to the conflict, and WHEREAS, the SWAT Committee unanimously recommended that ;the Town of Danville and Contra Costa County enter into Conflict Resolution;and �VVil1i.EA the Town.of Danville wishes to initiate the Authority's Conflict Resolution process to resolve a dispute regarding the traffic impacts of Contra Costa County's proposed Combined Camino Tassajara GPA Study on the intersection of Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon.Road;and WHEREAS,the Authority's Conflict Resolution`Process (Resolution 95-07-G) specifies that local jurisdictions are eligible to initiate the Conflict Resolution Process through a vote of the majority of the jurisdiction's Council or Board,and that a majority vote of the RTPC is also necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process;now,Itherefore,be it RESOLVED, that the Danville 'Town Council hereby requests initiation of the Authority's Conflict Resolution Process; and,be it further RESOLVED,that in accordance with Authority Resolution 95-07-0 which specifies the Conflict Resolution process,the Danville Town Council hereby authorizes the Mayor of Danville to send.an"initiation letter"to the Authority with the following information•. a. A description of the dispute; b. Reference to applicable language in Measure C and the Authority's Implementation Documents indicating why the Town believes that Centra Costa County is not in compliance with the Authority's Growth management Program, c. A list of issues needing resolution; d.> Names of parties to the dispute that should be involved in resolution; e. Names of individual(s)representing;the Town of Danville; f, Preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside'professionals; and g. Confirmation that the Danville Town Council by a majority vote approved initiation of the process. -2 _ APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at_a regular meeting on March 19, 2002,by. the following vote. AYES Waldo, Arn6rtch, Doyle, Greenberg, Shimansky NOES None ABSTAINED, None ABSENT- None R / ROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST. CITY ATTORNEY Y CITY CLEC -3 -