The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.2 TriVlyTraspPln/ActionPln .. _I .,,,:\Il!:~,",! ~"r!~ ::; <".."~ .I~~~.<::":":C.; _:,,'.,' ,:..._..'..,..~,; ~ .~"; d._, '~_~'."~;~~:},,l.", ,..~ ~.Y '\:i-~'.' '.'1..,.' , >.;~,:,':}.~ .:._'" .'.'..' ". ~."l< . . . . CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: November 14, 1994 SUBJECT: Review of the Tri-Valley Transportation plan/Action Plan (Circulation Draft) Report by: Public Works Director Lee Thompson EXHIBITS ATTACHED: /1) /2) /3) /4) 1) 2) 3) Tri-Valley Transportation Plan document Letter from Paul Moffatt as Chairman of the Tri-valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Notice of Circulation of the draft Plan Draft letter to the TVTC RECOMMENDATION: Receive Staff report Take comments from the public Determine appropriate response to the TVTC regarding the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and authorize Mayor to sign the letter to the TVTC FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The preparation of the TVTC transportation model and this Plan have been and are being paid for by the seven member jurisdictions through past budget appropriations. One of the recommendations of the Plan is to establish a Regional Transportation Impact Fee to help pay for freeway and major transportation improvements identified as being needed through TVTC studies. This proposed Fee would apply to new developments in Dublin. The cost of the development of the Fee would be an additional cost to the seven TVTC member agencies. DESCRIPTION: The Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) has been working for several years to develop an area-wide Transportation Plan/Action Plan which would establish major regional transportation facilities (roads and transit) that are financially constrained to serve the planned growth in the Tri-Valley area. The Draft Plan has now been released for circulation and-the TVTC is seeking input from the various member jurisdictions. The following specific elements have been requested to be addressed (as a minimum): 1) Are there any other routes not listed which you believe should be included in the list of "Routes of Regional Significance"? (See Figure 1-2a,b) Routes of regional significance for this report are defined as State highways and major arterials connecting jurisdictions. The City of Dublin's routes of regional significance include Dougherty Road, Tassajara Road, Dublin Boulevard, and San Ramon Road (see Figure 1-2a & 2b). Staff concurs with this list for Dublin. 2) Are the "Goals And Transportation Service Objectives" acceptable? (See pages 38, 39 and 40) Transportation goals' and Transportation Service Objectives (TSO's) are being established for the Plan (see page 38). The TSO's are as follows: a) Freeways and ramps are to have Levels Of Service (LOS) of "E" or better in the peak hours. The 1-580 peak is considered as 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon, and the 1-680 peak as 4 hours in the morning and 4 hours in the afternoon. ::::-::~~-------------::::::-::~---------------------;;-;;-;;,---~~-~-~-~---- FILE ~ ;....i'.t.:',:/'l' ../(.....,...". <:~~ :,";"7,,"d::,'.' ,/,(:,., :' ""~"~~"""> ;....\;..1,<', ,':':"t~'{~.:,,\~. .'\~'.,"'..,>;\.\:';1.,.t:,"\;::';."":~~~~~>" " ....,-, ';"';pf:.';...::~."~. ..",...:;;y,;~!I,;'.;',...;:"~." . . b) For Arterial streets and Intersections, the LOS is to be no worse than "D". According to the report, three major intersections in Dublin are projected to not meet the Tri-Valley LOS objectives in the Year 2010 (see pages 88 and 225): 1) Dublin B1vd.fFallon Road (LOS "FtI), 2) Dublin Blvd./Tassajara Road (LOS "FtI), and 3) Dublin Blvd./Dougherty Road (LOS "En) . Staff feels that these TSO's are reasonable. The City's General Plan already includes the goal that the streets and intersections meet Level of Service tlD" and recommend that these TSO's remain as goals and not be absolute. 3) Should the facilities subsequent concept of a be further adoption? Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee for regional pursued and a finite proposal brought back for Regional facilities are needed to make the land use work. MTC projected Federal and state funds (Gas Tax, Sales Tax, etc.) have been assumed in this report to aid in the funding of regional facilities (see pages 141, 142 and 146). Additional funding (Developer Impact Fee) is needed to make up the shortfall. Staff concurs that some form of a regional transportation fee is needed to allow future growth to take place. 4) Is the proposed fee of $2,800 per dwelling unit and $6.00 per square foot for commercial property too high, too low? The TVTC developed a list of needed Regional improvements to make the local transportation systems work and improve safety (see pages 145-147). The shortfall funding of these Regional projects spread by trip generation yielded the above Traffic Impact Fees. The TVTC agreed that the $6 per square foot fee on commercial uses seemed excessive and recommended that further study be done (see pages 148 and 149). Staff believes that the proposed fee is excessive and would be a major hindrance to development inasmuch as new development in Eastern Dublin will also have to construct major local infrastructure improvements. 5) Is the list of regional projects to be funded by the fees the right list? If costs are to be reduced, which projects would you drop. Are there other projects which you would add? (See Table 8-3, page 147) If some of the high priority regional projects are not included in the final priority list, it could have major impacts on Dpblin's road system which could reduce the amount of development in Dublin as overcongestion on I-580 will force more traffic onto Dublin's arterials, which in turn would allow less local traffic to use these streets. The projects which are important for Dublin development to occur are: the 1-580/1-680 Interchange; Route 84; BART Extension (west Dublin station); 1-580 HOV Lanes from Tassajara to N. Livermore and to improve express bus service (see page 147). Staff would recommend removing from the list the following projects as being either safety projects or ones that do not improve the capacity on the regional facilities (freeways): a) I-S80/Foothill Interchange b) Alcosta Interchange c) Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements d) Vasco Road Realignment In addition, it is Staff's recommendation that the local share of the Route 84 project be reduced and that' some other source of funding be pursued. 6) Are there any specific concerns/omissions regarding the Transportation Network"? (See Figure 7-1a,b, pages 129 and 130) "Planned This network does match Dublin's General Plan for major arterials. Page 2 . ~,.... ~; .';' ,:::.} (;.~.';J\;.1~',<~~!::" . ,,.; ': ?t::.~.E':~' ..~? <<{.' \'.'~~~'.:)<{,~.~.~ ~;~ ;.:;;rJ~~),;~i~(~~'~:?~:\;.~.7,;.;:~~'..~:r~.~-r~'1~~;~~;i~~r..~;',~'\ '~..'l'P".., ,. . . Staff concurs with the "Planned Network". "1) Is your jurisdiction willing to commit to those actions spelled out in the "Act.ion Plan" in Chapter 91 If not, what revisions are needed? The consultant, with the concurrence of all Tri-Valley jurisdictions' elected officials, developed five different categories of Plan alternatives to improve circulation, which are: 1) Highway solutions; 2) Transit solutions; 3) TDM Solutions; 4) Land Use solutions; and 5) policy Solutions (see pages 115 and 116). The consultant then proposed potential action plans in each category for each intersection and roadway segment (see pages 164, 166, 189, 191, 194, 195 and 213). A Recommended Action Plan was chosen from one or a combination of these potential action plan solutions (see pages 163, 165, 188, 190, 192, 196, 212 and 223). Council should be made aware that one of the recommended actions on Tassajara Road, at the Tassajara Road/Dublin Blvd. intersection, in addition to securing developer funding for widening, is to put in place growth controls to insure achievement of TSO' s . There is no direction stating on which communities this growth control would be enforced. It snould be noted that Dublin has only 35% of the traffic on Tassajara Road at this location (see page 190). Staff would generally concur with the individual Action Plans, except that a lower TSO should be allowed on the intersections that have already been identified as not being able to meet the TSO in the Year 2010. Also see the recommendation in No. 8 below. 8) Are there any specific additional, mutually applicable "Growth Management Actions" which your jurisdiction would like included in the P+an? The TVTC recommended that jurisdictions monitor their intersections on routes of regional significance, and if any intersection goes below the LOS standard, that development be stopped until a solution can be found to mitigate and improve the TSO. In Alameda county, the jurisdictions have the option of modifying the growth rate, improving the facilities, or as a last resort seek a lower TSO standard through the amendment process (see pages 228, 229, 230 and 231). The TVTC must approve the amendment (see pages 230 and 231 for future role of TVTC). It should be mentioned that some of the jurisdictions have already approved projects (Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Park) that when developed could possibly use much of the existing transportation capacity. By the time jurisdictions which do not have approved projects want to develop, most of the capacities, if not all, may have been filled. This method of development is a first-come, first-served basis. It is hoped that local and regional traffic fees would be sufficient to build improvements to keep the transportation system within the allowable TSO's. An alternate method would be to reduce the groWth rate for the Year 2010 unilaterally through the Tri-Valley area by an appropriate percentage and, if by the Year 2010, the road systems still have capacity, additional growth could occur. This method would be more equitable and treat all developments in the Tri-Valley area the same. However, this method is not feasible because some jurisdictions, such as San Ramon and Pleasanton, have approved projects, namely Bishop Ranch and Hacienda Business Park, for which land uses cannot be reduced except under certain conditions. Due to this fact, the TVTC is recommending a first-come, first-serve method of allowing development to go forward. The actions proposed to be available in Alameda county for a TSO violation (road or intersection goes below LOS "D") are as follows: an agency can, "in consultation with the TVTC, elect to modify growth rates, improve the facility or, as a last resort, seek a lower TSO standard through the amendment process set forth in this Chapter." Staff would recommend that seeking a lower TSO standard be given equal standing to the other alternates and that the phrase "as a last resort" be eliminated in the context of the lowering of the TSO. This should especially be available to the intersections that are already projected to be below ~he TSO in this Plan (3 ia Dublin). It should be noted that there is no defined t~endmemL ~ess outlined in the Plan. Page 3 , '.~.~., . : ,~~::\~:<~/. .~.~.."!., . '. ,....... '\... .'.:'......... . . 9) Are there any specific concerns which ybu may have regarding Plan monitoring amendment and update? (See pages 226-231) One of the shared facilities agreements needed under Plan monitoring is between Contra Costa county and Dublin for the cross impacts of traffic on the improvement of future arterials. It is anticipated that the impacts of Contra Costa traffic on Dublin would be greater than Dublin's traffic on Contra Costa, and that Contra Costa developments would owe Dublin the net difference in cost. Meetings have been taking place on a staff level on this for some time. The Tri-Valley Plan recognizes and encourages the limited capacity of the interstate system through the designation of gateways on 1-580 at Altamont Pass and Dublin Grade, on 1-680 at Sunol Grade and Rudgear Road, and at Vasco and Crow canyon Roads (see page 77). These gateways act as bottlenecks and valve points for traffic to get into the Tri-Valley area. The result of the model run shows that by widening these gateways, the circulation network in the Tri-Valley area would worsen and in some locations would fail. As a result, the Tri-Valley Transportation plan/Action Plan would need to be changed to account for the additional traffic into the valley from outside. Based on this Plan, if jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley cannot meet the TSO standards, the jurisdictions must go through an amendment process. The amendment process is not defined in the Plan. Another issue is how to treat major developments that receive approval prior to the development of a regional fee. Staff recommends that should the "gateway" locations be improved, the resulting negative impacts on the regional transportation system should be part of the "gateway" improvement projects as mitigation to each project. Staff also recommends that an amendment process be developed and included as part of the Plan. It is further recommended that the TVTC develop a policy on how to treat development as it relates to regional fees prior to a regional fee being developed and adopted. Staff and the TVTC are requesting council input on this Draft Plan so that a final report can be prepared. It is expected that each jurisdiction would then adopt the appropriate elements of the Plan into their General Plans to help direct the development and appurtenant transportation needs for the Tri-Valley area. This has been a long, sometimes tough meeting of the minds for seven agencies, who must work together to make development compatible, while at the same time realizing these same jurisdictions will be competing with each other for new development. It is quite possible that not all jurisdictions will agree on all aspects of the Plan. staff recommends that Council hear the Staff report and take public testimony, then give Staff direction for comments back to the TVTC. I "" a:agenda94 \ 1114tvtc Page 4 . . TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIT.. Traffic Engineering P. O. Box 520 ~ 200 Old Bernal Avenue Pleasanton, CA 94566 (510) 484-8041 Paul Moffatt, September 14, 1994 (l\Ilnt'ilmember Dub.... CA. (W) 129.5111 (H)12J-0936 Ed Campbell, Supervisor Alaweda County (W) m-6691 (H) 656-7640 We specifically address your attention to the following critical elements of the Millie G be plan. It would be helpful to us to receive your comments on each of the following reeD rg, . Councihnember key Issues: I' DanvilJc. CA 137.3231 Gayle Bishop Supervisor' C<mln Co.Ia County (W) szo.3613 Tom Pico, Councilmember P\e&.Lanlall. CA (W) 462..Q919 (H) 462.94&4 Tom Reitter, 3. Councilmember Livennore. CA (W) 422.1461 (H) 443-3326 4. Hermann Webn, Councilmember SuI bnaIa. CA (W) 262-4846 5 . (H) 138-&261 Members of Tn-Valley Transportation Council TVTC has approved the Draft Transportation/Action Plan for circulation and review by member jurisdictions. Please provide your review and comments in writing, on what changes would be necessary prior to your jurisdiction adopting this plan. This will allow us to expeditiously complete the revision process and return the final Plan to you for adoption. 1. Are there any other routes which you believe should be included into the list of "Routes of Regional Significance"? (See fig. 1-2a,b) 2. Are the "Goals and Transportation Service Objectives" acceptable? (See Pgs. 38,39,40) Should the concept of a Tn-Valley Transportation Development Fee for regional facilities be further pursued and a finite proposal brought back for sub~equent adoption? Is the proposed fee, $2800 per dwelling unit, $6 per Square Foot for commercial property too high, too low? Is the list of regional projects to be funded by the fees the right list? If costs are to be reduced which project(s) would you drop? Are there other projects which you would add? (See Table 8-3) 6. Are there any specific concerns/omissions regarding the "Planned Transportation Network"? (See fig. 7-1a,b) 7. Is your jurisdiction willing to commit to those actions spelled out in the "Action Plan", Chapter 9? If not what revisions are needed? ~i'I:,1J!l~!.j~;~~ tC}~j'~ ~.~.~.:J ~ z. ......,..--~ . . TVTC -2- September 14, 1994 8. Are there any specific additional, mutually applicable "Growth Management Actions" which your jurisdiction would like included in the plan? <1 · Are there any specific concerns which you may have regarding Plan monitoring, amendment and update? We appreciate the ongoing cooperation and involvement of your jurisdiction and appointed TVTC representative. Given that the final Plan must include the endorsement and adoption of each member jurisdiction, I believe we have a unique and monumental accomplishment. We can all be proud of the final result of this considerable effort. Yours truly, TRI- V ALLEY TRANSPORT A TION COUNCIL --\ ' \ ( --; ! . \ \ (". I-_~_n. --. I ...., \ \... , ~ \. ..... ; ... ~ I " , , "-. Paul Moffatt Chairman Tri- Veey Transportation CouA (TVTC) Daoville, Dubli.a. UVmDOre, Pleasutoo. Sao Ramoll. Cooln Costa Couoty. Alameda Couol)' Notice of Circulation of the Tri- Valley Transportation Plan/ Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance TVTC is seeking review and comment on the Circulation Draft of the Tri-Vallev Transoortation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Reflional Sienificance by affected jurisdictions and members of the public. Please transmit any written comments you may have by October 12, 1994 to: W. G. van Gelder, TVfC City of Pleasanton P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 (510) 484-8257; FAX (510) 484-8291 TVTC is pleased to release the enclosed Circulation Draft of the Tri- Valley Transponation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, prepared by TVTC jurisdictions assisted by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. This multi-jurisdictional planning effort involved representatives from the 7 member jurisdictions; Danville, Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon, Contra Costa County and Alameda County plus participation by Alameda County CMA, Caltrans, BART, Wheels, County Connection and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). The Draft Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance has been developed to assist jurisdictions in complying with the Measure C, Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program approved by the voters in 1988 and input to congestion management plans and long range plans of both Alameda County and Contra Costa County. The programs require that localjurisdictions work cooperatively to address traffic congestion on the regional transportation network and to address the traffic impacts resulting from the approval of new development. The Draft Action Plan designates the Routes of Regional Significance, establishes Traffic Service Objectives (FSOs) for those Routes and proposes actions required to be undenaken raken by local jurisdictions to address traffic congestion within its area. Implementation of the actions identified in the Plan rests with the member jurisdictions of rvrc. These jurisdictions need to demonstrate implementation of the actions to befound in compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program. Compliance in Alameda County has been voluntarily agreed 10. ' During October, TVTC will consider the comments received during the review period and prepare a rvrc Action Plan for Routes ofRe,?ional Significance "Prooosal for AdoDtion" which will beforwarded to each member jurisdiction for final adoption and to the CCI'A for incorporation into the Countywide Comorehensive TranSDonarion Plan. Thank you for your assistance in this imponant effon. Sincerely, / -~ \ I'"~"" ) ) {/ ( (r I ( oi ) (~() ~ l ( Paul Moffatt Chairman cc: TVTC Representatives ~,",1fl ~?\~ ~~ ~1;,~~~~j i 3. Traffic\TRANSPAc. WVG . . ' . ,--~ . November 15, 1994 Paul Moffatt, TVTC Page 2. 4) Seeking a lower TSO standard be given equal standing to the other action alternatives and that the phrase, "as a last resort," be eliminated in the context of the lowering of the TSO. This should especially be available to those intersections that are already projected to be below the TSO in this Plan and be under the authority of the affected jurisdiction to choose the appropriate alternate action. 5) since the viability of the Plan is based on the assumption of the "gateway" transportation routes into the Valley not being expanded, that any capacity improvements to these "gateways" be coupled with improvements to the interior impacted transportation facilities as mitigation. 6) That the Plan develop and define the process for obtaining an amendment to the Plan. 7) That some method of handling major developments that are approved prior to the adoption of a regional transportation fee be developed as it relates paying their fair share of the needed regional transportation impacts. If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office. sincerely, Peter W. Snyder Mayor PWS/LST/mb a:nov\09mayor -...... . . . DRAFT --= November 15, 1994 Mr. Paul Moffatt, Chairman Tri-Valley Transportation Council P.O. Box 520 200 Old Bernal Avenue Pleasanton CA 94566 Dear Paul: The Dublin City Council met on November 14, 1994, to review and provide input to the TVTC's Draft Transportation and Action Plan. This letter will summarize the City's recommendations for incorporation into your final document, Overall, we applaud you and your Council for putting together a Plan that has general concurrence with seven very diverse governmental agencies. With regard to the major features of the proposed Plan, the Dublin City Council concurs with the findings and recommendations. The City Council does offer the following recommended detail changes: 1) That the preliminary proposed regional fee of $2,800 per dwelling unit and $6.00 per square foot for commercial uses is excessive and would be a major disincentive to development in light of the fact that new development will be carrying major costs to provide a local transportation and utility system. 2) To reduce the proposed regional fee, Dublin recommends that the following safety and non-freeway capacity projects be removed from the list: a) I-580/Foothill Interchange b) Alcosta Interchange c) Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements d) Vasco Road Realignment. In addition, it is Dublin's recommendation that the local share of the Route 84 project be reduced and that some other source of funding be pursued. 3) The City feels that the TSO's are reasonable goals, but should be goals and not absolutes. Furthermore, it should be up to the affected jurisdictions to choose the action plan alternate for a street segment or intersection that falls below the TSO goal. ~'l;W~~~,~,~'"!f + ~.;: 1;,{ ~X);;f(t:Ji "1'\ 1, l,.v\ -,I . ,_ ..... I ,.P] , m::~'i:.jJ it;:ll ;"-',:) Jl ~ .,. _ _ ...'. .:-_