HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.2 Tri-Valley Transportation Study CITY OF DUBLIN In 0 rLlo
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 11, 1987
SUBJECT Tri-Valley Transportation Entity
EXHIBITS ATTACHED A. April 21 , 1987 letter from William Fraley `
requesting funds for Tri-Valley Transportation
Network
B. November 20, 1986 City Council minutes regarding
a new transportation entity
C. December 17 , 1986 letter to William Fraley indicat-
ing City Council comments on a new transportation
entity.
D. February 11 , 1987 letter from William Fraley
regarding Tri-Valley Transportation Entity
Alternatives
Background Attachments
1 . February 27 , 1986 record of Tri-Valley Planning
Commission meeting
2. March 20, 1986 letter from Mr. Fraley
3. June 9 , 1986 letter from Mr. Fraley
4. August 20 , 1986 draft Task Study Group' s Final
Report excerpts
5. September 24, 1986 Task Study Group' s Final Report
excerpts
RECOMMENDATION 1. Review and comment
2 . Direct Staff to transmit comments to Alameda County
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: A request for $1 ,500 in the 1987-88 budget plus an
undetermined amount of Staff time. '
.DESCRIPTION The City has received , a request from William Fraley,
Alameda County Planning Director, for $1 ,500 in the 1987-88 City budget "for
several computer runs for a tri-valley-wide transportation plan" ( see
Exhibit A) .
The plan would eventually form part of a -County-wide transit plan that the
Alameda County Public Works Agency is developing.
The letter from Mr. Fraley also indicates that a request is being made for
endorsement of a Tri-Valley Transportation Entity. The entity would consist
of seven ( 7 ) Planning Commissioners , one from each of the Tri-Valley
jurisdictions . The entity would oversee a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan
and conduct two public workshops to get public input .
The proposed Tri-Valley Transportation Entity and Plan is the latest
evolution of what started as a request for the Tri-Valley Planning
Commissions to help Alameda County in its current plan review process . The
following is a brief summary of the background:
- FebruarX 27 1986 record of Tri-Valley Planning Commissions meeting: "The
proposal or the tormation of a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to serve
Alameda County in its current plan review process was reviewed by Ms .
Croley. "
- March 20, 1986 letter from Mr. Fraley: "The effort is to review policies
and pans of the two-county jurisdictions , with emphasis on those issues
that are of significance to the entire Tri-Valley area."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Planning Department
Planning Commissioners
ITEM NO. 96-O
..d ...t• �.�:....., ..,fi.-.,...,_t-bwt-r. ,.1...?"i..r ,5,..<,-�......__ .. +,_.....,..n,a..9;,:n.��.,-,.,., :..,,..t��.:...ti'.-. ..n...:.i,..,r._ ...;::'4.:s:'. "ur,..,. . .;�K.. .,. ........ . ...
AGENDA STATEMENT: Tri-Valley Transportation Entity
Page 2
- June 9 , 1986 letter from Mr. Fraley: "The primary purpose is to obtain
the Task StucTy Group' s review of the background reports prepared by the
Alameda County Planning Department with cooperation of the participating
agency Staff, and to discuss and draft policy recommendations regarding
issues of significance to the Tri-Valley area."
- August 20, 1986 draft of Task Study Group' s Final Report ; Policy
Recommendation . .a. : "Local jurisdictions should consider adopting
performance standards for major developments , setting limits on the impacts
that these may have on local and regional traffic conditions ."
- September 24 1986 release of Task Study Group' s Final Report ; addition of
a new Policy Recommendation 8 . 3 .a. : "As a top priority for the Tri-Valley, a
new entity should be formed to develop a plan for Valley-wide transportation
facilities and services needed to serve planned development ."
At its November 10 , 1986 meeting, the City Council reviewed the Task Study
Group' s Final Report . The City Council stated its concerns regarding a new
transportation entity, including its objection to any shift of land use and
transportation planning responsibilities . ( See Exhibits B and C) .
On February 11 , 1987 , Mr. Fraley distributed material regarding Tri-Valley
Transportation Entity Alternatives and a meeting was arranged for discussion
( see Exhibit D) . Staff was unable to participate in the discussion.
Staff has several concerns regarding the proposed Tri-Valley Transportation
Entity:
1 . Should the City participate in such an entity?
2 . If the City does participate , should a City Council member (policy
maker) , rather than Planning Commissioner, be a member of the entity?
3 . What would be the explicit purpose of the entity; its authority; how
much would it cost ; how would it be financed; how would it coordinate
its activities with the City?
4. Should the City consider the $1 ,500 request as part of the budget
process?
Staff recommends that the City .Council review and comment on the request and
direct Staff to transmit the comments to Mr. Fraley, Alameda County Planning
Director.
ALAMEDA CC, JNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Y�9 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415)670-5400
April 21, 1987
Mr. Richard Ambrose, City Manager aP 1�$�
City of Dublin , ,
6500 Dublin B d. , Suite 100
Dublin, CA 4 68
Dear Mr.M b
SUBJEC : Request for Funds for Tri-Valley Transportation Network
The Tri-Valley Technical Advisory Committee, composed of planners from
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties and the cities of Danville, Dublin,
Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon, have been meeting for over a year in the
effort to prepare a Tri-Valley Plan. A task study group met during the spring
and summer of 1986 and prepared a report which has been transmitted to each
Planning Commission and City Council or Board of Supervisors. Most of these
entities have approved the task study group' s recommended policies.
One of the policies called for a "Tri-Valley Transportation Entity to
develop a plan as top priority." The Technical Advisory Committee has had a
number of meetings to discuss implementation of this policy.
The Technical Advisory Committee has agreed to request each City Manager
and County Administrator to put an item in their 1987-88 budget for the plan.
This would amount to $1500 for several computer runs for a tri-valley-wide
transportation plan. The plan would eventually form part of the county-wide
transit plan, the concept of which is being developed now by the Alameda
County Public Works Agency.
This letter is sent now to enable you_ to reserve funds in your budget for
these computer runs to. enable the Technical Advisory Committee to prepare a
Tri-Valley Transportation plan which would provide a network rather than a
detailed city street plan.
This request will be explained to the Tri-Valley Planning Commissioners at
their May 21 meeting at 7:00 p.m, in Pleasanton. They will also be requested
to endorse a "Tri-Valley Transportation Entity" of seven Planning
Commissioners, . one from each jurisdiction, to oversee a Tri-Valley
Transportation Plan, and to run two public workshops to get public input. The
plan is scheduled to be completed in 6 - 9 months.
We anticipate this program will have wide appeal to Planning Commissioners
and City Councils/Boards as a means of approaching resolutions to our
ever-increasing circulation problems. We hope that you will encourage your
elected officials to support this program.
If you have any questions, please call me or Betty Croly.
ry truly yours,
WHF/BC/jpb Wil * m`A. Braley
cc: Planning Director
2106P
2111P
"Z-
RESOLUTION NO. 86
FORMATION OF CITY OF DUBLIN
LAN AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1986-1
TRI-VALLEY PLANNING TASK STUDY GROUP FINAL REPORT
The Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group reviewed major Tri-Valley area
planning issues and prepared a Final Report. The Study Group has requested
that the City review the Final Report and make recommendations.
Comments were requested for: 1 ) Agency Roles and Responsibilities; 2 )
Population; 3 ) Housing Condition; -4) Housing Opportunity; 5) Employment
Opportunities; 6) Commercial/Industrial/office Development; 7) Public
Facilities and Services; 8) Transportation 9) Environmental Resources; 10)
Hazards/Public Health and Safety.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if there were any policy makers on the committee.
Planning Director Tong responded that the committee consisted of commissions
and staff members .
Cm. Vonheeder questioned if there would be a data base maintained on a
computer.
Mr. Tong explained that Alameda County would act as a central clearing house
with some type of method developed to reimburse the County for this function.
Cm. Jeffery questioned if this wouldn't be somewhat of a duplication of
efforts as ABAG provides this type of service. Also, what would be their
role in the future.
At the Tri-Valley City Council meetings, many of the transportation related
issues are 'already being discussed. Also, committees already exist that are
studying traffic issues . Consensus of the Council was that the Counties seem
to be the only ones who do not know what is being done. The Cities are
already dealing with the issues .
Cm. Jeffery felt Staff should forward Council comments made at this meeting
to the Alameda County Planning Staff, in addition to the comments that Staff
has prepared.
- PUB ING
HALL-FRASER CE FROM REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
APPEAL OF PLANNING 94JSISION ACTION DENYING PA 86-0
91 �IT
Mayor Snyder opened the public�he N
Planning Director Tong explained that�Kei`thF'rase
Ralph Hall, is applying for a variance to allow a sh
11791 Bloomington Way. The applicant is requesting approval of aV-a�- ce to
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
CM-5-233
Regular Meeting November 10, 1986
CITY OF DUBLIN C% . .. . .__
Development Services Planning,Zoning 829-4916 -
P.O. Box 2340 ' wilding & Safety 829-0822 -
Dublin, CA 94568. Engineering;Public Works 829-492
December 17, 1986
William H. Fraley, Planning Director
Alameda County
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward, CA 94544
Attention: Betty Croly
RE: Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group
Final Report
Dear Bill:
Sorry for the delay in sending written comment to you regarding the Tri-
Valley Planning Task Study Group - Final Report. As I discussed with Bill
Allen over the phone on November 24, 1986, the City-Council had the following
comments on the matter:
Group 1. Agency Roles and Responsibilities
Compatible goals and objectives, periodic joint studies, and a central
information clearinghouse may be desirable, but a lot of practical mechanics
would need to be worked out, such as:
- Who would determine whether the goals and objectives were
compatible?
- How would conflicts be resolved?
- How much would the studies and clearinghouse operation -cos t, and vho
would pay?
Group 2. Population
It would be appropriate for the County to request the Sete to maintain
employment data and .to periodically update 'the Count; General Plan.
Group 3. Housing Condition
It would be appropriate for the County to encourage housing maintenance
as needed.
Group 4. Housing Opportunity
Encouraging commercial/industrial projects to participate in housing
programs, encouraging State and Federal infrastructure programs, educating
local residents and businesses regarding infrastructure, and advanced planning
for multi-family and other uses may help expand housing opportunities.
L, uj, i�g IJ J
" 6i -
William H. Fraley, Planning Director .
December 17, 1986
Page 2
Many of the other policy recommendations are compatible with existing
Dublin General Plan policies.
Group 5. Employment Opportunities
Encouraging a variety of commercial/industrial/office uses, and encour-
aging employment opportunities for all .persons may be desirable.
Group 6. Commercial/Industrial/Office Development
Providing flexibility for a variety of commercial/industrial/office uses
may be desirable.
Group 7. Public Facilities and Services
Focusing on community-level parks, and suggesting that the regional park
district use existing parklands, may affect neighborhood parks and have other
implications.
The Dublin General Plan has a policy regarding additional sources of
water supply.
Group 8. Transportation
While the City Staff agrees that the developments planned for the Tri-
Valley will have a significant impact on area transportation facilities, the
creation of a new entity might not be the most appropriate mechanism for
addressing the problem. A new entity would raise many questions, such as:
- Who would participate?
- How much would it cost and who would pay?
- What authority or regulatory powers would the ne-w entity have?
- How would the new entity coordinate with the City, the County and
the Metropolitan.Transportation Commission (MTC)?
The City Council would object to a shift of land use and transportation
planning responsibilities.
Perhaps alternative mechanisms should be explored, such as City and
County-elected officials in the Tri-Valley area forming a group to cooper-
atively address the transportation problems.
r ' William H. Fraley, Planning Director
December 17, 1986
Page 3
Group 9. Environmental Resources
Maintaining vineyards, reviewing agricultural policies, and establishing
standards for quarry uses may be appropriate for the County General Plan.
Group 10. Hazards/Public Health and Safety
The policy recommendations are compatible with existing Dublin General
Plan policies regarding hazardous materials. .
If you have any questions regarding this item, please give me a call.
Sincerely yours,
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director
LLT/ao
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 6401
REcFr � EO
February 11, 1987 FEB 1 21987
TO: Planning Ali ctors, Tri-Valley Plan Area
FROM: William H. F e , Planning Director
SUBJECT: Meetiag to Discuss Tri-Valley Transportation Entity Alternatives
FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1987 at 2:30 p.m. , City of Pleasanton Planning
Department Offices
Chandler Lee has arranged to have a meeting of the Planning Directors
and/or their representatives to meet to discuss Tri-Valley Transportation
Planning Entity Alternatives. This is one of the recommendations made by
the Tri-Valley Citizens Task Force last summer.
Most of the Planning Commissions and City Councils have considered this
matter. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the concept on
February 5, 1987.
Enclosed is our staff material regarding alternatives for discussion at
the meeting. Also enclosed is the Contra Costa County TRANSPAC Report,
January, 1987. Some of you may be familiar with this document.
BC/jpb
Encl.
cc: Chandler Lee
Jim Cutler
2085P
Cohn-
-F,,LY—t(—rY 1` 7,-n54 WA -n -
���{� ,� _ RECEIVED
�r;;t•xi?="i ���ia¢rV X71 b(L (T 1�7 �-t�/v�/N�� /17��7 - �-
_, FEB 121987
-ry .. r�-oCo�%,4�-r s - ,-rY r-D v�.J Ly- ���i � 7 :"�.._ G��-y/co v
- Hl4/�rtfb e� N J t tr 1 Ova J7Y4 T?4 b1t5
-�imjo w 7it -z:,
y 4 trTtj 5�ticl� — 0 feAt�ydl Aft M
rr''6� /aJOt UIOclI?z_ �Y-rt+� � � 13 IZ,�.rn /iL
Env
r`,t c �-rs p tz-t�A�,c., co�trr�vst�ravS. USG 5t=
� r / WO/� r%a
. ' A D v I yr7n-�.� t�O k-t AV-E cc-,v4f�rr1s R-(s�vI�+.-J
[f �;.E/ck} s
D �L �T
CO �'(I"l 1 iI ( /1�L 'a.>.:k:•
:i4A(e r- %2cco"
: -ro
d'
L A�-P S J o
i M 0 - ►-f6�T rS-)0/yr Ov -'l
i f�Gt°—Jl1Gy >�4-AOPT p
t-!p 0 a Y k-J e t Or p
C �''N' A-l�•c�->��•c.! ltd!,-.mot/5 4�.5. ��• ���� ' J
,.`N T
op.�a otL
,'J
i4 T��
��r7/j
r -
y _ r
•-- .. . . .�_.- .. - "' rov,u�� . n?��r�s c�-�. �°v�Y F' rz � � �v�'y
. . Iru n, v, auk. � �� - --- • • -----. ..-- --�_. _...----•----
` Co P4 tit,7`�l
Ft K-4,v 1,c)C-r- Pv6L4 V,644,- s ��G � PG+4.vc1c 4-.
( r�/r O�-c G-S
YG• > D
IV 01 v, 0 v tiz• �}-r(-�-� -T + " Pt)(2
-7-7-z�_,VS
0, v ( O v1}�,bL j GO uNGLS/ �Ut�(c�c.� GO/Y/K
-� cam►-- =,�,,f-::scp or-,�r u�s
_
:
-..r
k .
tv=l
;,a
RECEIVED
FEB 121987
OWN
TRANSPAC
PHASE
. FINAL REPORT-
JANUARY
1987
b '
TRANSPAC PHASE I FINAL REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Central Contra Costa County Transportation and Land Use Partnership
(TRANSPAC) is comprised of representatives from the cities of Clayton,
Concord, Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County.
TRANSPAC's mission is to develop a coordinated approach for solving
transportation problems in Central Contra Costa County. The TRANSPAC
area is outlined in Exhibit 1, page 7. .
In July 1986, the six jurisdictions entered into a memorandum of
agreement which outlined general goals and objectives, and developed a
committee structure. The TRANSPAC policy committee is composed of two
representatives from each participating jurisdiction; one elected
official and one planning commissioner. The TRANSPAC techniial advisory
committee is composed of one planning and one transportation
professional from the staff of each participant.
THE TRANSPAC STUDY
The TRANSPAC study has been divided into two phases. The central task
of the first phase is to prioritize major transportation problems which
presently exist in the study area and to develop short-range action
plans for remedying these problems. These action plans are to include
only those improvements which can be implemented within the next two
years. This report summarizes the Phase I action plans and outlines the
process for proceeding into Phase II.
The primary task of Phase II is to develop a mid and long range land use
and transportation plan for the study area. Part of the work in Phase
II will be to look at the relationship between land use and
transportation and to plan for a balance between the capacity of the
transportation system and number of trips being generated by proposed
land uses.
PHASE I RECOMMENDATIONS
The overall goal of Phase I is to determine those improvements which
could be implemented within the next two years to ease traffic
congestion in the study area. This process has involved prioritizing
existing transportation problems, identifying those problems that could
be addressed through short-range improvements, and developing a set of
action plans to implement these improvements. The action plans represent
the collective effort of the technical advisory committee. These plans,
contained in the appendix to this report, are being forwarded to the
city councils and County Board of Supervisors for their consideration
and adoption. Exhibit 2, page 7, summarizes the Phase I recommended
actions and identifies the entities responsible for initiating each
action once it has been adopted by the member jurisdictions.
432 1211
• -1-
f
Following a lengthy analyis of transportation problems and possible
solutions which could be implemented within the two year .time frame,
three specific Phase I goals were set:
1. To increase the use of alternative modes to driving alone.
2. To examine the potential for improving traffic flow within
and between jurisdictions through operational improvements.
3. To improve communication and cooperation between jurisdictions.
INCREASING THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE MODES
This component of Phase I focuses on strategies and actions to increase
the number of people using commute alternatives such as carpools, public
transit, biking, and walking. The TRANSPAC committee identified
avenues for increasing the level of commute alternatives participation;
TSM ordinances, bus promotion, park and ride lots, and BART parking and
feeder .bus service. These topics have been analyzed and action plans
have been developed. Taken together, the -action plans comprise a
comprehensive strategic plan for increasing alternative mode use.
TSM Ordinances
Each jurisdiction should:
• Adopt TSM ordinance based.on County Model
• Dedicate permanent funding source for TSM administration
• Appoint a TSM coordinator
Bus Promotion
o Initiate a transportation task force made up of city and
county representatives (possibly TSM coordinators), service providers
(CCCTA, BART, RIDES), and private sector representatives
to promote alternative mode use. The types of activities this
task force would perform include:
- Jointly promoting bus routes, and other forms of
ridesharing
Providing feedback to CCCTA on needed changes in
routes and service
- Developing and promoting park and ride lots
o Use city/county newsletters and franchise cable stations to
promote transit.
o Provide CCCTA with all available data on trip patterns to
facilitate better transit planning.
-2-
1
o Subsidize increased bus service during peak commute hours.
This action might include subsidizing:
- Extra service to'reduce bus headways during peak hours
- Added express routes
- Peak hour fares -
Park and Ride Lots
o Maximize the use of existing lots through evaluation of layout
and access.
o Coordinate location of lots on express bus corridors.
o Identify corridors where facilities are needed to meet current
and future demand.
o Begin the process to establish new facilities including identifying
potential sites, pursuing joint use of BART facilities and other
existing lots (e.g., churches, shopping centers), and negotiate with
Caltrans to fund and assist with facilities outside a one mile radius of
State highways.
BART Parking and Feeder Bus Service
o Direct cities, when negotiating for additional parking at BART
stations, to encourage BART to allow a portion of the new parking
for all ridesharing purposes, including bus and carpools.
o Initiate discussion of casual carpools with Caltrans, BART, AC
Transit and CCCTA, including more carpool parking near BART stations.
o Direct BART and CCCTA to develop a joint travel pass allowing,
passengers to transfer systems with a single ticket.
o Explore the potential for non-traditional shuttle services,
expecially to link BART with employment centers.
IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW BETWEEN JURISDICIONS
A subcommittee of the technical advisory committee, comprised of
the traffic engineers from each jurisdiction, analyzed the potential for
operational improvements, including signal coordination, to improve
traffic flow. In general, the roadways in the study area are
operating fairly well and each jurisdiction is actively pursuing
many necessary operational improvements. However, traffic flow
can profit from the recommendations contained in this action plan.
-3-
o Each jurisdiction should review the operation of their major
intersections to see if all low cost capacity improvements have been
done. The traffic engineers of the six jurisdictions should review the
major intersections together in the field using a traffic operations
van. A report of the proposed improvements is to be submitted-to the
TRANSPAC policy committee by March 31, 1987. The staff of each agency
should meet quarterly to review and improve local traffic controls, and
develop common solutions to common transportation problems.
o Signals should be connected to the Concord or Walnut Creek Master
controllers or another compatible system. Master controllers are to be
compatible with one another for possible interconnection.
o Each jurisdiction should fund the interconnection of signals and
replace old controllers to be compatible with the master controllers.
o Local agencies should join together to convince Caltrans to allow
cities to control freeway ramp signals that are part of interconnected
major street systems.
o Walnut Creek and Lafayette should coordinate signals on Pleasant Hill
Road between Freeway 24 and Green Valley Drive.
IMPROVING COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS
This component of Phase I focuses on strategies and actions to
improve coordination and cooperation between TRANSPAC members.
Level of Service
The TRANSPAC policy board identified the need for a uniform
measure of intersection level of service as a high priority during
Phase I. A subcommittee of city traffic engineers was called upon
to investigate the various methods for computing level of service
and recommend a standard procedure. A common method for measuring
capacity will allow for meaningful comparisons between projects and
jurisdictions. TRANSPAC adopted the following procedure for computing
intersection level of service, specifying that the' procedure be used for
all analyses reviewed by a legislative body including local
environmental impact reports:
o The Circular 212 Operations Method should-be used to calculate
volume to capacity ratios for existing traffic conditions and for
future volumes up to a two year projection.
o The Circular 212 Planning Method should be used for estimating
traffic conditions beyond two years (i.e. Environmental Impact
Reports and transportation alternatives analysis).
o To perfect these methods, staff will collect data to develop
new capacity values reflecting local conditions.
-4-
t
Interjurisdictional Cooperation
To determine the extent to which jurisdictions are now working
cooperatively and investigate opportunities for improvement, the
technical advisory committee developed and administered a survey.
of TRANSPAC members and regional agencies. The survey focused on
identifying problem areas and seeking suggestions for improvement.
Based upon the survey results, TRANSPAC adopted the following
recommended actions:
o Create a permanent standing committee modelled on TRANSPAC.
The charges of the committee would be three-fold:
1. Ensure face to face coamunication to discuss comments on
development projects.
2. Promote establishment of unified mitigation fees, and other
strategies to reduce areawide effects.
3. Establish a . central clearinghouse for information on the
cumulative effects of projects across jurisdictional boundaries. This
could include establishment of a central clearing house for
environmental documents, a database of cummulative development
proposals, or other cooperative ventures aimed at improving information
gathering and dissemination.
o Agree to review general plan designations and development
policies where conflicts can be documented with the goal of
establishing consistent standards, particularly within spheres of
influence, for the review of development projects.
o Conclude the work of Phase I of TRANSPAC by entering into a
joint powers agreement in order to carry out a comprehensive
transportation planning program, including identification mechanisms for
financing improvements.
PHASE II PROGRAM
The memorandum of agreement creating TRANSPAC identifies the need to
establish an acceptable balance between new development and
transportation capacity as the issue of greatest concern to the citizens
of Central Contra Costa County . The Phase I effort, and especially the
review of interjurisdictional cooperation, has reinforced the importance
of a coordinated response to this problem.
To balance growth with transportation capacity, decisions affecting new
development and increases in the transportation infrastructure must be
made on a multi-jurisdictional basis. This effort involves determining
the land use and transportation changes that should be made, and
creating a process and or structure to make these changes on a
continuing basis.
The recommended actions, outlined on the following page, are designed to
achieve these goals through a comprehensive planning program, including
a study to investigate the issues, problems and potential solutions.
The solutions will include exploring improvements to the transportation
infrastructure, policy changes, and the possibility of a
multi-jurisdictional planning body.
-5-
o Initiate, develop, and implement a comprehensive land use and
transportation planning program for the TRANSPAC area, including a study
to:
1. Identify issues, problems, and alternatives solutions at-five
and twenty year horizons.
2. Provide information and analytical methods to support agreement
on the technical aspects of the land use and transportation situation.
3. Identify alternative implementation strategies, including
institutional processes and/or structures to function on a continuing
basis.
o Prepare a scope of work, management structure, and financial plan for
the study, to be submitted to the city councils and Board of Supervisors
for approval prior to initiating the study.
o Coordinate this program, to the extent possible, with the.ongoing
planning programs of the member jurisdictions and other agencies.
ACTION TO BE TAKEN
Adopt the TRANSPAC phase I final report, and forward the resolution and
action plans, as contained in the appendix, to the member city councils
and County Board of Supervisors for their consideration and adoption.
432 [21]
I
-6-
EXHIBIT I
art
0;KBOfO
P.11�ov�
Ccncord
rk
• c7 Coq b '�``�
i
P,e
K: A
Y'
r�
walnqt Crae c
TRANSPAC
AREA
-7-
EXHIBIT 2
TRANSPAC PHASE I RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITY
Interjurisdictional Cooperation
Create a regional committee for City Councils/County Board
project review
Establish consistant development City Councils/County Board
standards
Form a JPA to administer long range City Councils/County Board
transportation/land use study
Operational Improvements
Quarterly evaluation of City/County Traffic Engineers
major intersections
Connect all traffic signals to TRANSPAC TAC
Walnut Creek or Concord master
controllers,. or another compatible
system.
Provide funding to interconnect City Councils/County Board
signals and replace old controllers
Negotiate with Caltrans for local TRANSPAC Policy Committee
control of freeway ramp signals
Walnut Creek and Lafayette should Walnut Creek and Lafayette
coordinate signals on Pleasant Hill City Councils
Road between Freeway 24 and Green
Valley Drive.
TSM Ordinances
Adopt TSM ordinance based on County City Councils/County Board
model
Dedicate permanent funding City Councils/County Board
Appoint a TSM Coordinator City Councils/County Board
-8-
TRANSPAC PHASE I RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (Continued)
ACTIONS RESPONSIBLILTY
Bus Promotion
Initiate regional transportation TRANSPAC TAC, CCCTA
task force
Use City/County newsletters and cable City Councils/County,
stations for marketing CCCTA
Provide trip data to CCCTA TRANSPAC TAC
Subsidize increased bus service City Councils/County Board,
(e.g. , express bus routes, peak CCCTA
period headways)
Park and Ride Lots
Maximize existing lots TRANSPAC TAC, Caltrans
Identify future facility needs TRANSPAC TAC
Develop new facilities - coordinate TRANSPAC TAC, Caltrans, BART,
with express bus service CCCTA
BART Parking and Feeder Bus Service
Allow portion of new parking City Councils/County Board,
facilities for all ridesharing BART
purposes
Initiate discussion of casual TRANSPAC Policy Committee
carpools with Caltrans, BART,
CCCTA, AC Transit
Direct BART & CCCTA to develop TRANSPAC Policy Committee
a joint transit pass
Explore non-traditional shuttle TRANSPAC TAC, BART, CCCTA
service (dial-a-ride, vans, etc. )
-9-
PHASE I RECOMMENDED ACTIONS (Continued)
ACTIONS RESPONSIBILITIES
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Adopt the following procedures for City Councils/County Board
calculating intersection level of
service
o Circular 212 Operations Method for
existing conditions and projections up
to two years
o Circular 212 Planning Method for
projections beyond two years
Perfect adopted procedures to reflect TRANSPAC TAC, City/County
conditions in Central County Traffic Engineers
Land Use and Transportation Program
(Phase II
Initiate, develop, and implement a City Councils/County Board
land use and transportation planning
program for the TRANSPAC area
Prepare a scope of work, management TRANSPAC Policy Committee
structure, and financial plan for and TAC
the study, to be submitted to the
city councils and Board of Supervisors
prior to initiating the study
19[33]
—10-
APPENDIX
SAMPLE
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TRANSPAC PHASE I ACTION PLANS
WHEREAS on June 9, 1986 the Cities of Clayton, Concord, Martinez,
Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek, and the County of Contra Costa signed a
memorandum of agreement creating the Central Contra Costa County
Transportation and Land Use Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC).
WHEREAS this Memorandum of Agreement states that the issue of greatest
concern to the citizens of Central Contra Costa County is the need to
establish and maintain an acceptable balance between new development and
the capacity of public thoroughfares to accommodate the traffic
resulting from such new development.
WHEREAS on September 29, 1986 TRANSPAC adopted the goals of increasing
the use of alternative modes, improving traffic flow, and improving
interjurisdictional cooperation to improve traffic congestion in Central
Contra Costa County within the next two years.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby declares that it is a policy of
Wait Creek to join with the Cities of Clayton, Concord, Pleasant Hill,
and Martinez and Contra Costa County to:
1. Adopt the TRANSPAC Interjurisdictional Cooperation Action Plan
as contained in Exhibit 1.
2. -Adopt the TRANSPAC Operational Improvements Action Plan as.
contained in Exhibit 2.
3. Adopt the TRANSPAC TSM Ordinances Action Plan as contained in
Exhibit 3.
4. Adopt the TRANSPAC Bus Promotion Action Plan as contained in
Exhibit 4.
5. Adopt the TRANSPAC Park and Ride Lot-Action Plan as contained in
Exhibit 5.
6. Adopt the TRANSPAC Bart Parking and Feeder Bus Service Action
Plan as contained in Exhibit 6.
7. Adopt the TRANSPAC Level of Service Action Plan as contained in
Exhibit 7.
8. Adopt the TRANSPAC Land Use and Transportation Planning Program
Action Plan as. contained in Exhibit 8.
Section 2: This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
26 (331
A-1
EXHIBIT 1
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cuoperation
Clayton,Concord.Martinez.Pleasant Hill.Walnut Creek,and Contra Costa County
Phase I Final Report / Action Plan - City/County Cooperation
Recommendations:
1) That the TRANSPAC Policy Committee promote the creation of a
standing committee modelled on TRANSPAC with a set meeting
schedule. The committee would ensure face to face communication
of comments on development projects, promote establishment of
unified mitigation strategies to reduce areawide effects and
establish a central clearinghouse for information on the
cumulative effects of projects across jurisdictional boundaries.
This committee's charge could include establishment of a central
clearinghouse for environmental documents, a database quantifying
cumulative effects and other cooperative ventures aimed at
improving information gathering, dissemination and analysis at
the subcounty level .
2) Utilize the committee as a forum for identifying and resolving
conflicts between jurisdictions.
3) Proceed with Phase II of the TRANSPAC effort and institute a
comprehensive areawide land use and transportation planning
program, maximizing integration with ongoing planning programs.
Backgound and Justification
Staff devised, administered and analysed the results of a
"Personal interview" form of survey in order to guage the extent
of cooperation perceived by the planning and traffic engineering
staffs of agencies in Central Contra Costa County, a sense of
whether improvement was thought necessary, and if so, what form
it might take.
While the responses concerning the extent of the problem ranged
considerably, nearly all seemed to agree that improved
cooperation and coordination are crucial to overcoming the
challenges ahead. Many respondents mentioned staffing problems
stemming from proposition 13 inhibiting regular face to face
communication. Many also suggested that unifying mitigation
levels among jurisdictions was important in fostering
cooperation. Combined efforts are encouraged by the respondents,
particularly with regard to the area's relationship with state
and regional agencies.
A-2
• EXHIBIT 2
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation
Clayton,Concord,Martinez.Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek.and Contra Costa County
PHASE I FINAL REPORT/ACTION PLAN — OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Each jurisdiction should review the operation of their major
intersections to see if all of the lower cost capacity improvements have
been done. The .traffic engineers of the six jurisdicitons should
review the major intersections together in the field using a traffic
operations van. A report of the proposed improvements is to be
submitted to TRANSPAC by March 31, 1987. The staffs of each agency
should meet quarterly to review and improve local traffic controls, and
develop common solutions to cc mon transportation problems.
2. Signals should be connected to the Concord or Walnut Creek Master
controllers, or another compatible system. Master Controllers are to be
compatible with one another for possible interconnection.
3. Each jurisdiction should fund the interconnnection of signals and
replace old controllers 'to be compatible with the master controller.
4. Local agencies should join together to convince Caltrans to allow
cities to control freeway ramp signals that are part of the
interconnected major street systems.
5. Walnut Creek and Lafayette should coordinate signals on Pleasant
Hill Road between Freeway 24 and Green Valley Drive.
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
One of TRANSPAC's goals is to improve traffic flow between
jurisdictions. The technical advisory committee analyzed the potential
for operational improvements, including signal coordination, to meet
this goal. Each jurisdictipn is currently acting to maximize roadway
operations. The recommended actions will augment local efforts and
provide for interconnection of traffic signals between jurisdictions.
A commitment of staff time and funds to make changes in signals and lane
markings is needed to.make improvements to the existing street system.
19 [33)
A-3
E KMrr 3
TRANSPAC Transpc,. .ation Partnership and , .operation
Clayton,Concord,Martinez,Pleasant bill,Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County
PHASE I FINAL REPORT/ACTICN PLAN - TSM ORDINANCES
• i
RECOMMENDATION
TRANSPAC recommends that each participating jurisdiction:
1. Adopt a TSM ordinance based on the Contra Costa County Model TSM
Ordinance.
2. Appoint a TSM coordinator.
3. Dedicate a permanent funding source for administering the TSM
ordinance.
4. Participate in a regional transportation task force to promote the
use of commute alternatives as described in the "Bus Promotion" Action
Plan.
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
The TRANSPAC Phase I goals include reducing the number of peak hour
commuters driving alone. Private sector Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) programs aimed at marketing commute alternatives to
employees have proven to be successful in reducing the number of drive
alone commuters. However, unless such programs are implemented on a
wide scale basis, reductions in traffic congestion will be limited. To
provide for wide scale implementation, TRANSPAC recommends that each
jurisdiction adopt a TSM ordinance based as closely as possible on the
county model. To administer the ordinance and ensure adequate
'enforcement, each jurisdiction needs to designate a TSM coordinator and
secure a permanent funding source for paying all related costs.
331 [21]
A-4
E?aMrr 4
TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership and Cooperation
CAayton.Concord,Martinez.Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek.and Contra Costa County
PHASE I FINAL REPORT/ACTICN PLAN - BUS PROmCYrION
RECOMMENDATION
TRANSPAC recommends that each jurisdiction.
1. Participate in a transportation task force comprised of city and
county TSM transportation staff, service providers (CCCTA, BART, RIDES),
and private sector representatives to promote alternative mode use. The
types of activities this task force would perform include joint
promotion of bus routes and other forms of ridesharing, improving
transit routes and service, and developing and promoting park and ride
lots.
2. Use city/county newsletters and franchise cable stations to promote
transit.
3. Provide CCCTA with all available data on trip patterns to facilitate
better transit planning.
4. Subsidize increased bus service during peak commute hours. This
action might include subsidizing:
- Extra service to reduce bus headways during peak hours
- Added express routes
- Peak hour fares
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
The TRANSPAC Phase I goals include increasing the number of commuters
using alternative modes. CCCTA bus service is one available coaamite
alternative that is currently under utilized. To increase bus patronage,
the public needs to be made more aware of existing bus service. In
addition, service improvements are needed to attract more central county
commuters. The recommended actions focus on local government
participation in marketing, route planning, and improving local bus
service.
399 (21)
A-5
EXHIBrr S
TRANSPAC Transpo< cation Partnership and t- operation
Clayton.Concord,Martinez,Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek,and Contra Costa County
PHASE I FINAL REPORT/ACTION PLAN - PARK AND RIDE IR'I'S
RECOMMENDATION
1. Maximize the use of existing lots through evaluation of layout and
access.
2. Coordinate location of lots on express bus corridors.
3. Identify corridors where facilities are needed to meet current and
future demand.
4. Begin the process to establish new facilities including identifying
potential sites, pursuing joint use of BART facilities and other
existing lots (e.g., churches, shopping centers), and negotiate with
Caltrans to fund and assist with facilities outside a one mile radius of
,state highways.
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
To increase the use of commute alternatives in the TRANSPAC area, park
and ride lots are needed to provide staging areas for carpools and
transit. Presently there are a minimal number of park and ride
facilities in the TRANSPAC area. The recommended actions are designed
to maximize existing lots, and provide new facilities particularly in
heavily traveled corridors and along express bus routes.
21 133]
A-6
E=rr 6
TRANSPAC Transi rtation Partnership anc -ooperation
Gayton,Concord,Martinez,Pleasant Hill.Walnut Creek.and Contra Costa County
Phase I Final Report / Action Plan - BART Parking and Feeder Bus
Recommendations:
1) Encourage that the negotiations between BART, the cities and the county -for
additional parking at BART rail stations and park/ride lots result in
allowing a portion of the new parking for all ridesharing purposes,
including bus transit and carpools.
2) Initiate discussion of casual carpools with Caltrans, BART, AC Transit and
CCCTA, including more carpool parking near BART stations.
3) Encourage BART and CCCTA to develop a combined pass to increase use of
transit, and send copy of resolution with a cover letter to MTC to encourage
their assistance.
4) Explore potential for non-traditional shuttle services, especially to link
BART with employment centers.
Background and Justification:
The parking lots at BART stations are resources that need to be efficiently
managed in this era of traffic congestion and limited resources. BART
originally served trip destinations from suburban Contra Costa to Oakland and San
Francisco. Over the years employment and development patterns have changed, and
more trips are within the County. This change in.travel .patterns has given rise
.to a number of new travel options, such as express bus service, vanpools, and-so-
called casual carpools, where users can park their cars at a BART station and
then share the ride.
These new services should be encouraged since they offer a convenient alternative
to the single occupant auto. However, BART currently restricts its parking to
people making a round trip on BART. This policy discourages use of other
rideshare modes which are key components of the TSM efforts Transpac has
endorsed. For this reason, Transpac recommends changes in BART's parking
restriction policy for new parking lots.
When BART first opened there was little feeder bus service in the County. Today,
there is an extensive network of feeder bus routes, and the task is to increase
ridership on these routes. This is the goal of the Transpac recommendations
regarding BART feeder bus service.
A-7
EXHIBIT 7
TRANSPAC Transp ration Partnership and )operation
Clayton.Concord,Martinez,Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek,and Contra Costa County
PHASE I FINAL REPORT/ACTICN PLAN - LEVEL OF SERVICE
RECOMMENDATION
1. TRANSPAC recommends that each jurisdiction adopt the following
procedures for calculating intersection level -of service:
o The Circular 212 Operations Method for calculating volume tc
capacity ratios for existing traffic conditions and for future volumes
up to a two year projection.
o The Circular 212 Planning Method should be used for estimating
traffic conditions beyond two years.
2. The adopted procedures should be used for all transportation
analyses reviewed by a legislative body including local environmental
impact reports and traffic impact studies.
3. To perfect these procedures, staff will collect data to develop
new capacity values reflecting local conditions.
BACKGROUND AMID JUSTIFICATICN
Throughout the TRANSPAC area there are different methods being used to ,
compute intersection level of service. This makes it difficult to
compare and comment on the transportation impact of projects affecting
more than one jurisdiction. Recognizing this problem, TRANSPAC
directed city and county traffic engineers to agree on a standard
method for calculating level of service.
12 [33]
A-8
EkiiIBIT 8
TRANSPAC Trans, station Partnership an; _.00peration
Clayton.Concord,Martinez,Pleasant Hill,Walnut Creek,and Contra Costa County
Phase I Final Report / Action Plan - Land Use and Transportation Planning Program
(Phase II)
Recommendations:
1. Initiate, develop, and implement a comprehensive Land Use and Transportation
Planning Program for the Transpac area, including a study to:
a) identify issues, problems, and alternative solutions at 5 and 20 year
horizons;
b) provide information and analytical methods to support agreement on the
technical aspects of the land use and transportation situation;
c) identify alternative implementation strategies, including institutional
processes and/or structures to function on a continuing basis.
2. Prepare a scope of work, management structure, and financial plan for the
study, to be submitted to the city councils and the Board of Supervisors for
approval prior to initiating the study.
3. Coordinate this program, to the extent possible, with the ongoing planning
programs of the member jurisdictions and other agencies.
Background and Justification:
The memorandum of agreement creating Transpac identifies as the issue of greatest
concern to the citizens of Central Contra Costa County the need to establish an
acceptable balance between new development .and the capacity of the transportation
system to accommodate traffic resulting from new development. The Phase I
effort, and especially the review of inter-jurisdictional cooperation, has
reinforced the importance of a coordinated response to this problem.
To successfully address this issue, growth and the transportation system must be
-managed on a multi-jurisdictional basis to minimize congestion and enhance the
quality of life. This effort involves determining the land use and
transportation changes that should be made, and creating a process and/or
structure to make these changes on a continuing basis.
The approach recommended above is designed to achieve these goals through a
comprehensive planning program, including a study to thoroughly investigate the
issues, problems and potential solutions. Solutions to explore include physical
improvements, policy changes, and the possibility of a multi-jurisdictional
planning body. At the conclusion of the study, Transpac will be able to make an .
informed choice of implementation strategies to effectively achieve a land use
and transportation balance.
A-9
-
TRI-VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSIONS
DUBLlN PLANNING : Record of the Meeting
February 27, 1986 . .
INTRODUCTION
John Pappas, ',::Chair of the Alameda County' Planning Commission, , called the'
meetingof :the Tri-Valley Planning Commissions to order at 7:40 P.M.
He welcomed the 'group and indicated that the purpose ,of the meeting was to
:.provide an opportunity to review -and discuss general planning issues for the
Tri-Valle area..;
'-He asked 'the '•Commissioners ,and .agency staff to.identify themselves. Planning
'Commissioners .in.:attendance were: Jackie Gordon, Shirley Douglas, .Tuny Dunkley
and Don Burdusis. from Alameda County; Jim Perry, Elaine Brovont and .Mike
Fernindez from .Livermore; Kay Wellman, Brian Hoyt, Sharrell Micheloth and Joan
::Ines ';:•from `-Pleasanton; • Bill `Burnham, -Eddie .Jo .Mack, -.-Valerie Bacnes, Brian
Paley Wand Dave`P .tty.from Dublin; Rod Stevenson -and Gayle Bishop from the San
Ramon`. alley:Planning`-Commission; Mildred Greenberg from Danville; -and Herman
Welm :from San Ramon.' :-.Staff . present included: Bill Fraley,•:.Betty Croly and
Bill Allin,"Alameda .County 'Planning Department; Scott Swanson, Alameda County
Public ..Works 'Agency;-,Eric ,Parfrey, Contra Costa ,County Community:Development
.Department; .`Jim Causy, Contra Costa County ,Public Works._.Agency; Bob .. Brown,
.
City .of ,Livermore Planning Department; ,Brian .Swift and Chandler'Lee* City of
Pleasanton .Planning Joseph Calabrigo, City -.of Danville Planning ...
Department; Rick'.Bottariui, City of San Ramon `,Planning Department; and John
McCallum, Metropolitan Transportation Commission:' .
Betty Croly, Assistant Planning Director, Alameda County -Planning Department,
reviewed the agenda for the meeting. Staff of the planning departments of the
two Counties and five cities in the Tri-Valley area would first review their
current planning programs. Transportation studies would then be reviewed by
public works agency staff of the two counties, . and by MTC staff. The meeting
would then be open for discussion by the .Commissioners of major planning
issues. Finally, the Commissioners would review the structure of a advisory
committee to to serve Alameda County in its current Plan review.
LOCAL GENERAL PLAN PROGRAMS
Alameda County: Ms Croly described the County's general plan review program
for the Tri-Valley area. Bill Allin of the Department reviewed the major
issues identified in the Department's Issues Report, one of eleven background
reports recently completed in the first stage of the Plan review program.
Contra Costa County: Eric Parfrey of the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department reviewed Contra Costa County's current Plan reviei
program. He indicated that the land use inventory map had been completed.
Copies of the work program for the review project, and of the Growth Trend
report were distributed to the Commissioners. The Department is currently
preparing a report which will serve to identify agencies having responsibility
within Contra Costa County, and to review . impacts of federal and state
programs on the County. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is also
expected to appoint a citizens review committee, i
hITACIMT 1
c
c
Tri-Valley Planning Commissions
February 27, 1986
Page 4 -
Conflicts in Plan Designations: In a number of areas (Pleasanton Ridge,
Santa Rita, Castlewood) there are conflicts between city and county plan
land use designations. Can these be reconciled?
Tri Vallev Transit Study: A copy of the • diagram prepared by TJKM was
displayed and distributed. The need for a Tri-Valley transportation
authority was suggested.
Inter-agency Coordination: It was recommended that Planning Directors of
the cities and counties meet often to discuss and coordinate alternative
approaches to Valleywide problems.
Jobs/Housing Balance/ Housing Versus Agriculture: Jobs/housing is a spiraling
issue. The two may never be in balance (within each community, the
Tri-Valley, the two counties, the region). Should an attempt be made to
balance the two, and on what level? Should this be done at the loss of
agricultural land and/or other resources/values?
<
Affordable Housing: Will housing in the Tri-Valley area be affordable to
future employees? The Danville/San Ramon area, for example, may have the
wrong kind of housing to serve persons who will be employed in the Bishop
Ranch Industrial/Office Park. While many of these types of projects have
argued that they will tap the extensive and presently underutilized labor
market, the question is raised as to whether or not the jobs provided will in
fact match the skills/education of existing local residents.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The proposal for the formation of a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to serve
Alameda County in its current plan review process was reviewed by Ms Croly.
The size and representation on the committee was open for discussion. The
concensus of the Commissioners was that the committee should consist of 21
members, to include one Commissioner from each of the seven jurisctions (two
counties and five cities) to be selected by each Commission; one citizen from
each jurisdiction, also selected by the local Commission; and seven members
representing seven interest groups, to be appointed by the seven Commissioners
on the CAC. The announcement for the formation of the CAC will be referred, by
Alameda County Planning Department staff, to concerned agencies and
organizations -who will be invited to submit the names and qualifications ei
persons they wish to recommend for membership on the CAC. The submitted
applications rill be organized into seven interest groups, and one individu'al
selected from each.
Ms Croly said that the seven commissioners would meet to select the sev -
at-large members as soon as applications had all been received.
Mr. Pappas thanked the commissioners and staff members for attending and -
participating. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
1562P
ALAMEDA .COUNTY ` PLANNING ::DEPARTMENT -
399 Elmhurst Street; Hayward, California 94544 : (415) 881-6401
March 20, 1986
; E Y
JUN
GUBUN PLANNING
Mayor and City Council
Dear Mayor
The Alameda County Planning Commission has 'authorized .a study of 'the
,Livermore-Amador Valley to take in .-the : Tri-Valley . Planning Area.
Included cities are Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, Danville and San `Ramon
and . the , surrounding unincorporated areas. The effort is to review 4--
policies and plans of the two-county jurisdictions, . with emphasis.-.-''on
those issues that are of significance to the -entire Tri-Valley area.
These issues include eland use, . transportation .services, environmental
factors and resources.
Representatives of 'the seven jurisdictions held a meeting on February
27, 1986 at the Pleasanton Fairgrounds Cafeteria Building. Summary
minutes of that meeting are enclosed for your information. It was
determined by the Planning Commissioners present that a 21-member citizen
task force would be appointed, consisting of one Planning Commissioner
and one member from each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction has or will
appoint its Planning Commission representative and citizen member.
There will be an additional seven citizen members appointed by the
seven Planning Commissioners from among submittals by local
organizations. The mailing to the local organizations is enclosed. The
local organizations were divided into seven groups from which one member
each will be selected by the Planning Commissioners as at-large members
representing Environmental; Agricultural; Service, Health; Community,
Historical; Builder, Developer, Real Estate, Chamber of Commerce;
Utility, Transportation; Mining, Flood Control interests.
The Planning Commission-Citizens' Committee would meet a total of
three times to make policy and plan recommendations, from which a report
would be .prepared. The Committee would then be phased out.
ATTl
fr <
Mayor and City Council
March 20, 1986
Page 2
This is not an Alameda County project but a joint project of the
seven jurisdictions to provide for a Tri-Valley cooperative effort.
Interest at the February 27 meeting was evident and the Planning
Commissioners and staff members are looking forward to this endeavor.
Please call me if I may respond to any questions.
Very truly yours,
WHF/BC/jpb William H. Fraley
Encl. Planning Director
cc: Planning Directors
1597P
ALAMEDA -COUNTY - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
June 9, 1986
Laurence L. Tong
Planning Director JUN I 0 Ipp6 -f
City of Dublin
6500 ,Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Tri—Valley Planning Task Study Group
Dear Larry:
This is in response to your. letter of June 2, 19862 requesting our response to
questions . regarding the purpose and the time and resource commitment of the
Tri—Valley Planning Task Study Group.
Group Purpose: - The primary purpose is to obtain the Task Study .Group's review
of the background reports prepared by the Alameda County Planning Department
with' cooperation `of the participating agency staff, and to discuss and draft
policy .recommendations regarding -issues of significance to the Tri—Valley
area. The scope of this two county, five city effort was outlined in my
March 20, 1986 letter (copy attached) to elected officials in each Tri Valley
community, and reflects the comments and recommendations of the Tri—Valley .
Planning Commissions made at their -point meeting of February 27, 1986.
It is necessary that the agency staff and group members assure coordination
with their respective Planning Commission and elected members., This effort
will not succeed unless every agency's concerns are addressed and the
resulting policies are endorsed by the elected representatives.
We have requested that the recommendations of the Group focus on Vri—Valley
area issues and policies, rather than matters which are primarily the concern
and responsibility of the individual . communities. Alameda County will
consider these Group recommendations in its current General Plan revision
program. The Group's findings 'and recommendations will also be recommended to
the other participating jurisdictions for consideration for adoption into each
general plan. -
Time and Resource Commitment: As noted in the March 20th letter, the
recommendation of the joint meeting of the Tri—Valley Planning Commissions was
that the Task Study Group meet a total of three times. This preliminary
schedule was discussed by the Group at its organizational meeting. There was
general concern about the ability of the Group to complete its report in only
three meetings, and an extended term was therefore agreed upon. No limit was
set as to the number of meetings that will be required to complete its report,
although, based on the Group's progress to date, we anticipate that its work
can be completed by the end of the summer at the latest, when the Group will
M man own
i
Laurence Tong
June 9, 1986
Page 2
terminate. Staying within this time frame is necessary to permit us to
complete our planning effort on schedule. Support of the Group activities by
the jurisdiction's staff will assure completion of their work at the earliest
time possible.
I appreciate Dublin's interest in the Group, and hope that the above will help
the City's understanding of the joint effort. Please call me, Betty Croly or
Bill Allin if you have any further questions. We urge you to attend the Task
Study Group meetings as well as separate staff meetings to provide liaison to
members from your area and your Planning Commission and City Council.
Please note that the place of Greg Kent has been taken by his wife, Beverly
Kent, who has been .attending the -meetings. Enclosed is a revised roster of
Group members.
ery t my yours,
W iam H. Fraley
Planning Director
WHF/WDA
cc: Mayors, City Councils, Planning Commissions, City Managers, Planning
Directors:
City of Livermore
City of Pleasanton
City of Dublin
City of San Ramon
City of Danville
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors".
Alameda County Planning Commission
Enclosure
1751P
2
r
C
�X�e�PTS #� ECEIVED
' DRAFT AUG 2 0 1986
TRI-VALLEY PLANNING TASK STUDY GROUP
DUBLIN PLAMNING
FINAL REPORT
August 28, 1986
INTRODUCTION
On February 27, 1986, at the meeting of the Tri-Valley Planning Commissions,
commissioners from the cities of Livermore, Pleasanton, Dublin, San Ramon, and
Danville, and from Alameda and .Contra Costa Counties, agreed to the formation
of a task study group to review issues and prepare policy recommendations on
Tri-Valley area planning issues. Fourteen members of the group were named to
represent the participating counties and cities, each jurisdiction appointing
one planning commissioner and one community representative. These fourteen in
turn named seven members-at-large (except Dublin which appointed the at-large
member).
The Tri-Valley Task Study Group met for six meetings through the Spring and
Summer of 1986. It reviewed and then formulated findings and policies
pertaining to major planning issues of concern to the entire Tri-Valley area,
including the roles and responsibilities of area agencies, changes in
population, housing needs, employment opportunities, commercial/industrial/
office development, provision of public facilities and services, environmental
resources, and public health and safety. The Group's final set of findings
and recommendations, included in this report, were approved on August 28, 1986.
This report will be referred to the seven planning commissions for review and
comment. It is recommended that each consider inclusion of the findings and
policies in their local general plans, and so recommend to their respective
city councils and boards of supervisors.
MAJOR PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
(To be discussed)
� LP 1
'
T
TVPTSG: Final Report
August 28, 1986
Page 9
8. Transportation .
8.1 Issues
Development/Facilities and Services Coordination: Can or should local
jurisdictions coordinate residential and commercial/industrial/office
development with planning and development of transportation facilities?
Rights of Way: Should a number of alternative rights-of-way for possible
future roadway and transit facilities be purchased or otherwise protected?
8.2 Findings
8.2.a Planned development in the . Tri-Valley area is projected to have
significant impacts on the area's transportation facilities.' These
can be mitigated through facility improvements and through improved
management of the use of the transportation system.,
8.2.b Planned development in the Tri-Valley area will require a number of
new facility improvements, many within new or expanded
rights-of-way.
8.3 Policy Recommendations
8.3.a Local jurisdictions should consider adopting performance standards
for major developments, setting limits on the impacts that these may
have on local and regional traffic conditions.
8.3.b Local jurisdictions should adopt policies and requirements for
transportation system management for major developments and
employers, encouraging such measures as car and van-pooling, use of
public transit, flexible work hours, etc.
8.3.c Tri-Valley communities should develop coordinated traffic monitoring
to measure ongoing changes in traffic conditions.
8.3.d A plan for Valleywide transportation facilities required to serve
planned development should be developed and adopted. Rights-of-way
of planned facilities should be preserved and protected.
8.3.e Surplus railroad rights-of-way in urban areas should be protected.
Studies should be undertaken to consider the feasibility of utilizing
these for public transit, roadway, trailway, and other alternative
uses.
TVPTSG: Final Report
August 28, 1986
Page 10
9.' Environmental Resources
9.1 Issues
Agricultural Lands: Can or should local general plans and zoning be
changed to protect agricultural lands? How might local policies be
changed to minimize disruption to agricultural production as lands are
converted to urban uses?
Vineyards: To what extent should local policies and programs be changed to
protect and allow expansion of the vineyards?
Sand and Gravel Resources: What can or should be done to protect current
and future sand and gravel operations against encroachment by incompatible
land uses?
9.2 Findings
9.2.a Almost all "prime agricultural" land in the area has been developed
or is planned for development with urban uses or for sand and gravel
extraction.
9.2.b Many farmers and ranchers in the remaining agricultural areas are
experiencing economic difficulties. Many desire to divide their
properties into units smaller than currently required.
9.2.c The vineyards in the Livermore-Amador Valley provide cultural and
environmental benefits to the entire area.
9.3 Policy Recommendations
9.3.a The counties and the cities should coordinate their planning for
agricultural areas at the periphery of existing urban development.
9.3.b Communities in the Livermore-Amador Valley should pursue measures
which will help to maintain and improve the vineyards.
9.3.c Alameda County should review its Plan policies and zoning
requirements for agricultural areas.
9.3.c Alameda County and the cities should establish standards and
requirements to minimize conflicts between sand and gravel quarry
uses and urban uses, including performance standards and buffer
zones.
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California 94544 (415) 881-6401
September 24, 1986
Chair and Members
City of Dublin Planning Commission
6500 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94568
SUBJECT: Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group Final Report
Dear Commissioners:
i The Tri-Valley Planning Task Study Group was formed in February, 1986 .on the
recommendation of planning commissioners from the cities of .: Livermore,
Pleasanton, Dublin, Danville, San Ramon, and Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties. The Group met a number of times and has completed its Final Report
i on major Tri-Valley .area planning issues. A copy of the Report is included
with this letter.
The Group requests that each planning .commission review the Report and
consider recommendations to their city council or board of supervisors for
inclusion of the Report's goals, findings and policy recommendations in their
respective general plans. The Task Study Group Chair, Tuny Dunkley, Alameda
County Planning Commission, and Vice Chair, Tony Hurt, San Ramon Planning
Commission, and Alameda County Planning Department'staff will be available on
request to make presentations on the work of the Group and the Report to the
commissions, councils and boards. The Alameda County Planning Commission has
scheduled this matter for its October 20, 1986 meeting.
The group of diverse individuals, including seven planning commissioners, one
from each of the participating jurisdictions, seven citizen members, and seven
atAlarge _ members, had six meetings, including over fifteen hours of
discussion, through the Spring and Summer of this year, ultimately reaching
concensus on a number of important Valleywide issues, and on a set of policy
guidelines to deal with these. These support: improved coordination of
planning efforts and programs, and adoption of compatible plan goals and
guidelines; periodic joint studies to monitor ongoing change in the Valley;
central clearinghouses to maintain up-to-date data bases; expanded efforts to
provide provide an adequate and varied housing supply; flexibility in local
plans and policies to deal with potential changes in commercial/industrial/
office market conditions; maintenance and expansion of local, regional, state
and federal programs to provide adequate utilities, facilities, and services
to serve planned development; and improved agency coordination to minimize
hazards associated with the use, storage and transport of hazardous materials.
Among the Group's major concerns is the need for a coordinated effort to
address and attempt to resolve the valley's serious transportation problems. r
This top priority issue is addressed by the Pol c i
C
Planning Commissioners
September 24, 1986
Page 2
The Group urges immediate implementation of this policy through formation of a
new Tri-Valley entity to develop a Valleywide transportation plan. Approval
of this policy and implementation of this recommendation should be discussed
by each planning commission and be also be included on the agenda of the
Tri-Valley Planning Commissions November meeting.
We have both appreciated the opportunity to participate in this important
study, and wish to thank your commission and representatives from your
jurisdiction for their support for such a cooperative, Valleywide, endeavor.
Very truly yours,
j
Tun Iunkley, Chair���
l�
-rON)I .
Tony Hurt; Vice Chair
TD/TH/BC
Enclosure
cc: City Council members
City staff representatives
1957P
e. r
f�xC-f* TS
FINDINGS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE TRI-VALLEY PLANNING TASK STUDY GROUP
FINAL REPORT
August 28, 1986
c
7.3.c All communities should endeavor to educate local residents and
businesses to the need for local funding of infrastructure
required to serve planned development.
7.3.d Community efforts, in conjunction with those of regional, state
and federal agencies, should be focused towards the development
of community-level park facilities and programs.
7.3.e The Regional Park District should endeavor to make maximum
feasible use of existing parklands before purchasing additional
lands.
8. Transportation
8.1 Issues
Development/Facilities and Services Coordination: Can or should local
jurisdictions coordinate residential and commercial/industrial/office
development with the improvements to transportation facilities and
services?
Rights of Way: Should a number of alternative rights-of-way for
possible future roadway and transit facilities be purchased or
otherwise protected?
8.2 Findings
8.2.a Planned development in the Tri-Valley area is projected to have
significant impacts on the area's transportation facilities.
These impacts can be mitigated through facility improvements
and through improved management of the use of the
transportation system.
8.2.b Planned development in the Tri-Valley area will require a
number of new facility improvements, many within new or
-� expanded rights-of-way.
8.3 Policy Recommendations
8.3.a As a top priority for the Tri-Valley, a new entity should be
formed to develop a plan for Valleywide transportation
facilities and services needed to serve planned development.
8.3.b Local jurisdictions should consider adopting performance .
standards for major developments, setting limits on the impacts
that these may have on local and regional traffic conditions.
8.3.c Local jurisdictions should adopt policies and requirements for
transportation system management for major developments and
10
. z
employers, encouraging such measures as car and van-pooling,
use of public transit, flexible work hours, etc.
8.3.d Tri-Valley communities should develop coordinated traffic
monitoring to measure ongoing changes in traffic conditions.
8.3.e. Rights-of-way of planned transportation facilities should be
preserved and protected.
8.3.f Surplus railroad rights-of-way in urban areas should be
protected. Studies should be undertaken to consider the
feasibility of utilizing these for public transit, roadway,
trailway, and other alternative uses.
9. Environmental Resources
9.1 Issues
Agricultural Lands: Can or should local general plans and zoning be
changed to protect agricultural lands? How might local policies be
changed to minimize disruption to agricultural production as lands are
converted to urban uses?
Vineyards: To what extent should local policies and programs be changed
to protect and allow expansion of the vineyards?
Sand and Gravel Resources: What can or should be done to protect
current and future sand and gravel operations against encroachment by
incompatible land uses?
9.2 Findings
9.2.a Almost all "prime agricultural" land in the area has been
developed or is planned for development with urban uses or for
sand and gravel extraction.
9.2.b Many farmers and ranchers in the remaining 'agricultural areas
are experiencing economic difficulties. Many desire to divide
their properties into units smaller than currently required.
9.2.c The vineyards in the Livermore-Amedor Valley provide cultural
and environmental benefits to the entire area.
9.2.d Quarries have been designated as regionally significant and
should be protected.
9.3 Policy Recommendations
9.3.a The counties and the cities should coordinate their planning
11