Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout124-94RESOLUTION NO. 124- 94 AUTHORIZING THE TOWN OF DANVIH.WS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO FORWARD TOWN COMMENTS ON THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (CIRCULATION DRAFt) WHEREAS, the Measure C (1988) Growth Management Program requires each participating jurisdiction adopt and apply traffic service standards for streets, roads and Regional Routes; and WHE~, the Town designated Routes of Regional Significance within Danville in 1991; and WHERFa~, the Town has actively participated in the cooperative, multijurisdictional planning efforts undertaken by the Southwest Area Transportation Committee and the Tri-Valley Transportation Council; and WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Transportation council has prepared a Circulation Draft of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, and is requesting Town comments on the Draft; and WHEREAS, the Town directed that established Town policies be included in the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance by resolution in October of 1993; and WHEREAS, the entered into the Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report on May 11, 1994; and WHEREAS, the Settlement Agreement contains language that directly applies to the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Danville has determined and orders as follows: . Town of Danville comments on the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Circulation Draft) are attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution. . The Town's TVTC representative is directed to forward these comments for inclusion in future versions of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. . The Town shall continue in its commitment to the Measure C Growth Management Program and the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. The Town shall continue in its commitment to cooperative, multi-jurisdictional planning. . The Town shall continue to ensure that the growth management principles and philosophy embodied in the Town's GeneralPlan Growth Management Element are incorporated into the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. . The Town shall continue to abide by the language contained in the Agreement to Settle Litigation Relating to the Dougherty Valley General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report, and ensure that pertinent components of the Agreement are included in the Circulation Draft. APPROVED by the Town Council of the Town of Danville at a Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, October 4, 1994 by the following vote: AYES: Ritchey, NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Doyle Greenberg, Shimansky, Waldo MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTORNEY ATTEST: CITY CLERK PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 124-94 EXHIBIT B to RESOLUTION NO. 124-94 TOWN OF DANVILLF. COMMENTS TRI-V. ALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLAN/ACTION PLAN FOR ROUTES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE (CIRCULATION DRAFT) Page 64. The second paragraph should add this sentence at the end of the paragraph: The "expected" forecasts are not based on independent market research, historical Tri-Valley growth rates, or documented local and regional growth trends. There is no technical basis for the deviation of the "expected" Tri-Valley housing and employment land use totals for 2010from comparable ABAG Tri-Valley totals for the year 2010. Figure 5-6a. The gateway constraint forecast indicates that Danville Blvd./Hartz Ave. between Stone Valley Road and Sycamore Valley Road will not be congested in 2010. Yet 1-680, directly parallel to Danville Blvd./Hartz Ave., is shown as overcapacity from Stone Valley Road to Sycamore Valley Road. Figure 4-3a (without the gateway constraint) also shows that Danville Blvd./Hartz Ave. will be overcapacity from Stone Valley Rd. to Sycamore Valley Road. The text on page 82 should explain why the gateway constraint approach could result in acceptable traffic conditions on arterials that are parallel to overcapacity freeway segments. Alternatively, the final "Plan" model run should insure that an excessive number of trips are not removed from parallel arterials when the gateway constraint is applied. Page 114. The text states that "Reductions in growth rates through 2010 were considered to be a last resort for achieving TSOs in specific locations where no other option was available." This statement does not accurately reflect the TAC position. The sentence should be deleted and replaced as follows: The TAC was unable to achieve consensus on a proposed approach to growth management. Page 124. The sentence "Tri-Valley staff expects future ABAG projections to very closely match Tri-Valley expected land use figures" should be deleted or qualified. There is no evidence that ABAG is going to increase the overall allocation of development to the Tri- Valley. There is ample evidence, however, that the 2010 "expected" land use assumptions are out of line with historical Tri-Valley growth patterns. Page 125. At its August 31, 1994 meeting, the TVTC approved the following: "TVTC jurisdictions expect to implement a proactive growth and congestion management strategy that addresses these violations. The strategy could include tying land use approvals to a jurisdiction's ability to meet the transportation service objectives." Town of Danville Comments (Exhibit B) Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Circulation Draft) October 4, 1994 Page 2 of 7 This policy direction should be incorporated into the "Recommended Improvement Plan', and the text throughout this chapter changed accordingly. This policy should also become part of Chapter3, Goals and Transportation Service Objectives. Subregional Impact Fees (Pages 148-149). The preliminary fee of $6 per square foot of non-residential space is untenable. Such a fee would render many non-residential projects financially infeasible. The total amount of fees collected also assumes that Contra Costa County jurisdictions will contribute a disproportionate amount of the fees, when location of projects and/or facility usage is considered. The amount of fees collected is also based on completion of the "expected" land use scenarios by the year 2010, which seems unlikely given historical, current and future market realities. Finally, the fee calculation fails to incorporate any growth management strategy. The fee amount per non-residential square foot is excessive, and would be extremely detrimental to Danville and the Tri-Valley. Although Danville will receive a relatively small benefit from the proposed regional impact fee, the Town will support implementation of a fee based on the following: · The regional impact fee must meet the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests required by state and Federal laws. · The regional impact fee must provide credit to any development that has already contributed to any project on the list of high-priority regional transportation projects. · The regional impact fee must fully fund the region's highestpriorityprojects. · The regional impact fee must be tied to a Tri-Valley Growth Management Program, similar to the Measure C Growth Management Program. The Town will not support a regional impact fee that is not accompanied by a functional, proactive growth management program. Such a program must insure that the positive impacts of the regional impact fees are not overwhelmed by unmanaged growth. Action Plans The Circulation Draft includes two versions of the action plans for Sycamore Valley Road, Camino Tassajara and Crow Canyon Road. The Town agreed to inclusion of both versions in the interest of circulating a draft of the plan, and cooperatively keeping the planning process underway. However, the "Contra Costa County" versions includes language that is in direct conflict with the Town of Danville General Plan Growth Management Element, previous Town policy, and the SettlementAgreement. The Town cannot legally agree to some of the actions included in the "Contra Costa County" versions and cannot adopt a plan that contains some of these actions. Specific instances are outlined below. Town of Danville Comments (Exhibit B) Tri-VaHey Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Circulation Draft) October 4, 1994 Page 3 of 7 Pages 16%168: Sycamore Valley Road The Contra Costa County version excludes the following language and fails to incorporate the following principles from the Settlement Agreement: "'Traffic Service Objectives' shall mean volume/capacity ratio (V/C) ratios of 0.90 at the intersection of Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon Road and Blackhawk Road in the Town of Danville." (Page 10) "3.7.4 Other Transportation - Related Efforts. 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, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Accordingly, San Ramon, Danville and the County shall adhere to the policies described in Exhibit D and, subject to their compliance with applicable requirements of law, take all such actions specified therein." (Page 16) From Exhibit D: "7. Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara within the Town of Danville limits have an ultimate capacity consisting of the following: four through lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections, left turn pockets at all intersections, and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. Nothing shall be done to eliminate such acceleration/deceleration lanes or Class II bicycle lanes. The Parties shall support the inclusion of this policy as an action in the Action Plan for Camino Tassajara, Sycamore Valley Road, and Crow Canyon Road." (Page D-ii) "4.4.1 In General. During the development of the Project, the County, San Ramon and Danville shall, as set forth below, monitor traffic levels of service on the surrounding roadway network and ensure that the 'Traffic Service Objectives' are not exceeded." (Page 22) Danville, San Ramon and the County previously agreed to include this language and incorporate these principles in the Action Plan. The Contra Costa Version excludes this language and fails to incorporate these principles and is unacceptable to the Town. Town of Danville Comments (Exhibit B) Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Circulation Draft) October 4, 1994 Page 4 of 7 The Contra Costa Version also includes the following recommended action: "In order to meet the TSO requirements the level of development that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within their jurisdiction, and the minimum level of service may then be exceeded without violating the TSO." (BOS Resolution No. 94/387) This "action" is unacceptable to the Town of Danville. It is vague, referring to unspecified TSO requirements, levels of development, transportation improvements and funding. It allows unilateral exemption from TSOs, eroding the linkage between land use decisions and the impacts of those decisions on achieving TSOs on regional routes. Carried to its extreme, this action would render the plan inoperative. This action appears to be in conflict with the CCTA Growth Management Program, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Town of Danville General Plan Growth Management Element, and the Settlement Agreement. Pages 170-173: Camino Tassajara The Contra Costa County Version excludes the following language and fails to incorporate the following principles from the Settlement Agreement: "'Traffic Service Objectives' shall mean volume/capacity ratio (V/C) ratios of 0.90 at the intersection of Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon Road and Blackhawk Road in the Town of Danville." (Page 10) "7. Sycamore Valley Road and Camino Tassajara within the Town of Danville limits have an ultimate capacity consisting of the following: four through lanes, acceleration/deceleration lanes at all intersections, left turn pockets at all intersections, and Caltrans standard Class II bicycle lanes. Nothing shall be done to eliminate such acceleration/deceleration lanes or Class II bicycle lanes. The Parties shall support the inclusion of this policy as an action in the Action Plan for Camino Tassajara, Sycamore Valley Road, and Crow Canyon Road." (Page D-ii) "4.4.1 In General. During the development of the Project, the County, San Ramon and Danville shall, as set forth below, monitor traffic levels of service on the surrounding roadway network and ensure that the 'Traffic Service Objectives' are not exceeded." (Page 22) Town of Danville Comments (Exhibit B) Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Circulation Draft) October 4, 1994 Page 5 of 7 "3.7.3 Other Development Projects. Any proposal for development that is considered by the County, San Ramon or Danville on land that, as of the Effective Date, is not designated in such jurisdiction's general plan for urbanization or is designated for uses that would result in lower levels of trip generation than would those being proposed, may be approved if and only if it can be demonstrated that such development proposal will not result in (i) exceedence of the Traffic Service Objectives or (ii) any materiM deterioration in the level of service of any Project Traffic Improvement. Any expansion or modification of a Project Traffic Improvement that may be necessary or appropriate to accommodate such development project shall be identified and funded by the developers of such project, and shall be subject to the approval of the affected jurisdiction." (Page 16) Danville, San Ramon and the County previously agreed to include this language and incorporate these principles in the Action Plan. The Contra Costa Version excludes this language and fails to incorporate these principles and is unacceptable to the Town. The Contra Costa Version also includes the following recommended action: "In order to meet the TSO requirements the level of development that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within their jurisdiction, and the minimum level of service may then be exceeded without violating the TSO." (BOS Resolution No. 94/387) This "action" is unacceptable to the Town of Danville. It is vague, referring to unspecified TSO requirements, levels of development, transportation improvements and funding. It allows unilateral exemption from TSOs, eroding the linkage between land use decisions and the impacts of those decisions on achieving TSOs on regional routes. Carried to its extreme, this action would render the plan inoperative. This action appears to be in conflict with the CCTA Growth Management Program, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Town of Danville General Plan Growth Management Element, and the Settlement Agreement. Pages 170-173; Crow Canyon Road The Contra Costa County Version excludes the following language and fails to incorporate the following principles from the Settlement Agreement: Town of Danville Comments (Exhibit B) Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Circulation Draft) October 4, 1994 Page 6 of 7 "'Traffic Service Objectives' shall mean volume/capacity ratio (V/C) ratios of 0.90 at the intersection of Camino Tassajara, Crow Canyon Road and Blackhawk Road in the Town of Danville." (Page 10) "4.4.1 In General. During the development of the Project, the County, San Ramon and Danville shall, as set forth below, monitor traffic levels of service on the surrounding roadway network and ensure that the 'Traffic Service Objectives' are not exceeded." (Page 22) "3.7.3 Other Development Projects. Any proposal for development that is considered by the County, San Ramon or Danville on land that, as of the Effective Date, is not designated in such jurisdiction's general plan for urbanization or is designated for uses that would result in lower levels of trip generation than would those being proposed, may be approved if and only if it can be demonstrated that such development proposal will not result in (i) exceedence of the Traffic Service Objectives or (ii) any material deterioration in the level of service of any Project Traffic Improvement. Any expansion or modification of a Project Traffic Improvement that may be necessary or appropriate to accommodate such development project shall be identified and funded by the developers of such project, and shall be subject to the approval of the affected jurisdiction." (Page 16) Danville, San Ramon and the County previously agreed to include this language and incorporate these principles in the Action Plan. The Contra Costa Version excludes this language and fails to incorporate these principles and is unacceptable to the Town. The Contra Costa Version also includes the following recommended action: "In order to meet the TSO requirements the level of development that may be approved by a local jurisdiction shall be consistent with the identified transportation improvements and programs for which funding is reasonably assured. Other jurisdictions may elect not to implement such improvements and programs within their jurisdiction, and the minimum level of service may then be exceeded without violating the TSO." (BOS Resolution No. 94/387) This "action" is unacceptable to the Town of Danville. It is vague, referring to unspecified TSO requirements, levels of development, transportation improvements Town of Danville Comments (Exhibit B) Tri-VaHey Transportation Plan/Action Plan (Circulation Draft) October 4, 1994 Page 7 of 7 and funding. It allows unilateral exemption from TSOs, eroding the linkage between land use decisions and the impacts of those decisions on achieving TSOs on regional routes. Carried to its extreme, this action would render the plan inoperative. This action appears to be in conflict with the CCTA Growth Management Program, the California Environmental Quality Act, the Town of Danville General Plan Growth Management Element, and the Settlement Agreement. Page 226: Plan Adoption In its current form, the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (Circulation Draft) cannot be adopted by the Town of Danville. Previous pages document specific instances where the current version of the Plan contains language that is in direct conflict with existing Town policies, planning documents and legal agreements. Additionally, the transportation model has not been run with a set of land use assumptions that result in levels of service consistent with the adopted Traffic Service Objectives. It is the Town's position that the Action Plan can fulfill its primary purpose only when it is a plan that matches a financially-constrained future Tri-Valley roadway network with Tri~ Valley land use assumptions that do not violate the adopted Traffic Service Objectives within Danville. The Town believes that the purpose of the Action Plan is best summarized by a recent publication of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority: In voting "yes" on Measure C back in 1988, Contra Costa citizens were truly forward looking. Not only did they authorize an ambitious program of investment to reduce problems of traffic congestion, they established a way to help ensure that the benefits from that investment would not be swept away in a flood of still more traffic.