Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1PlsntnReqRtnStonedridgeCITY CLERK AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Request from City of Pleasanton to Support the Retention of the Stoneridge Drive On-Ramps to Eastbound I-580 Report prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Letter to Caltrans 2) Letter from City of Pleasanton Councilmember Kay Ayala RECOMMENDATION: ~ Review letter to Caltrans, modify if necessary, and authorize Mayor to sign. FIN.4.N CIAL STATEMENT: None. DESCRIPTION: The City of Pleasanton has sent a letter requesting the City of Dublin's support in retaining the Stoneridge Drive on-ramp connections to eastbound 1-580 for future flyover improvements at the 1-580/1-680 interchange. These on-ramps are crucial for traffic exiting Stoneridge Mall to obtain access to 1-580. The Cil3' of Pleasanton previously entered into a freeway agreement w/th Caltrans that would allow Caltrans to close the Stoneridge Drive on-ramps to access 1-580 as part of the Caltrans 1-580/I-680 Flyover projects. The on- and off-ramps from south ofi-680 will not be affected. Caltrans maintains that re;'~:ining the Stoneridge Drive/1-580 on-ramps could cause a safety problem because of the short distance to the 1-580/I-680 imerchange. If these ramps are closed, traffic exiting the mall bound for 1-580 would most likely use the Foothill Road/I-580 interchange Or travel farther east on Stoneridge Drive to Hopyard Road, Hacienda or Santa Rim Road in order to access 1-580. The City. of Dublin could also expect an increase in traffic exiting the Mall and using Dublin Boulevard to travel easterly to the 1-580 on-ramps at Hopyard/Dougherty, Hacienda Drive, or Tassajara/Santa Rim should the freeway be backed up. Staffhas contacted and discussed this issue with both Caltrans and the Ci~, of Pleasanton, and is of the opinion that Dublin should support Pleasanton in requesting that these on-ramps remain open to 1-580. Staffhas prepared a letter to Caltrans (E ~xhibit 1) requesting that the retention of the Stoneridge Drive on-ramps be considered during the environmental study for the future 1-580/I-680 Flyover Project. g:~¢enmisc\mallramp COPIES TO: City of Pleasanton ITEM NO. Staff recommends that City Council review the attached letter, modify if necessary, and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter to Caltrans. July 29, 1997 Mr. Patrick Pang Caltrans, District 04 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland CA 94623-0660 SUBJECT: Stoneridge Drive Ramp Connections to 1-580 Dear Mr. Pang' The City of Dublin received a letter from the City of Pleasanton informing us of the possibility that Caltrans will close access from the Stoneridge Drive ramp connection to 1-580 as part of future 1-580/I-680 Flyover projects. It is our understanding that the existing Freeway Agreement between Pleasanton and Caltrans requires these closures. Considering the volume of traffic generated by Stoneridge Mall, the closure of the Stoneridge Drive ramps to 1-580 will create a hardship for drivers exiting the Mall. This, in turn will place undue stress on surrounding routes, including the 1-580 interchanges at Dougherty Road and at San Ramon Road, as well as on the City of Dublin's street system if the freeway is congested. For this reason, the City of Dublin would urge Caltrans to reconsider the future closure of these ramps. We are requesting that this issue be revisited in any environmental study for future flyover projects. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Mehran Sepehri, Sr. Civil Engineer, in the Public Works Department, at (510) 833-6630. Sincerely, Guy Houston Mayor GH/mb cc: Pteasanton City Council Pleasanton City Manager Pleasanton Public Works Director Bill van Gelder, Pleasanton PW g:~agenmisc\onrrnpltr / CITY OF PLEASANTON June 20, 1997 Honorable Guy Houston Office of the Mayor P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Guy: Subject: Dublin-Pleasanton Liaison Committee Meeting I very much enjoyed our recent Liaison Committee meeting in Dublin. Thank you for forwarding the additional information on the progress of the Measure B project. As I indicated to you, the Council again approved the i-580/I-680 flyover and the funding plan to advance our portion of the local match. We expect as Dublin expects to receive reimbursement from any adopted Td-Valley transportation fee. I have enclosed a copy of our staff report for your information. As a part of our approval, the Council continued to indicate our displeasure with Caltrans' refusal to amend our freeway agreement relating to Stoneridge Drive. This bdngs me to the favor I am requesting from Dublin. We would like you to show your support for Pleasanton by sending a letter to Caltrans asking that they reconsider our request to retain our full Stoneridge Drive interchange. I hope you can support our request. Sincerely, Kay Ayala Councilmember P.O. BOX 520 ® PLEASANTON, CA 94566-0802 -o FAX (510) 484-8236 or (510) 484-8291 CITY OF PLEASANTON STAFF REPORT 41 June 17, 1997 Public Works Deparunent SUBJECT: Freeway Agreement and Local Match for the 1-580/680 Direct Connector Flyover Project STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions at the meeting of June 17, 1997: Con_firm Pleasanton's share of the remaining local match, and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Local Match Agreement Direct staff to work with Caltrans and the Alameda County Tr~mportarion Authority to implement the 1-580/680 Flyover Project, but continue to seek oppommities with Caltrans to modify the Stoneridge Drive Freeway Agreement to retain access with 1-580 SU3'IMARY: The Alameda County Transportation Authority is see'kJng the City's approval of the Local Match Agreement for the 1-580/680 Flyover Project. The City Council had earlier approved commitment of Pleasanton's share of the remaining local match for the current flyover Project; however the City had also sought a modification of Freeway Agreements to seek retention of access with 1-580 and Stoneridge Drive with potential furore flyover projects. Bemuse Caltrans feels this issue was addressed when the Stoneridge Drive Interchange was approved, Caltrans is unwilling to modify Freeway Agreements but indicates that 1-580 access will be readdressed when future major improvements to the 1-580/680 Interchange are programmed. SR:97:184 Page 1 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: BACKGROUND At its meeting of September 24, 1996, the City Council approved the attached Freeway Agreement (Exhibit A) for the 1-580/680 Flyover Project, subject to modifications which address access impacts to the Stoneridge Drive Interchange from future flyovers. This modification was requested (Exhibit B) because the current Freeway Agreement for the Stoneridge Interchange dated May 17, 1988 between Calrrans and Pleasanton states, '6. It is understood between the parties interchange pattern is modified, all access Interchange and 1-580 will be removed." that when the 1-580/1-680 between Stoneridge Drive The modification being requested was the following: ~6. It is .understood between, the parties that when the 1-580/1-680 interchange pattern is modified, the maintenance of access to St0neridge Drive may prove difficult due to safety and operational constraints. Nonetheless, Caltrans will make every effort to maintain access between 1-580 and the Stoneridge Drive Interchange." Subsequently, Caltrans withdrew the proposed Freeway Agreement, indicating that it was not needed because the currently proposed 1-580/680 South to East Flyover Project does not add or delete freeway access, or modify any major local street access (i.e. converting a local through street to a cul-de-sac). After a series of written appeals, and a meeting with Caltrans staff, Caltrans offered the attached letter as their final response (Exhibit D). In this letter, they reaffirm their unwillingness to modify the Stoneridge Drive Interchange Freeway Agreement as requested, but indicate that 1-580 access will be re-addressed when future major improvements to the 1-580/680 Interchange are programmed. SR¢/97:184 Page 2 Local Match Agreement At its meeting of September 24, 1996, the City Council approved commitment of Pleasanton's share of the remaining local match required for the 1-580/680 Flyover Project, and authorized staff to develop a payment schedule w/th the Alameda Coun~ Transportation Authority that satisfies overall project needs and funding availability. 0Exlfibit E) The attached Local Match Agreement 0Extfibit F) reflects the local match amount previously approved by Council, including credits for work previously performed which benefited the Flyover Project. ACTA has agreed to postpone actual payment until the last two years of the current Measure B program in 2000 and 2001. DISCUSSION In 1988, when the Stoneridge Drive Interchange was proposed, Caltrans was concerned about the short distance between the Stoneridge Drive Interchange and the 1-580/680 Interchange. In order to get Caltrans approval for the Stoneridge Drive Interchange, Caltrans required that the City agree "that when the 1-580/1-680 interchange pattern is modified, all access between Stoneridge Drive Interchange and 1-580 will be removed." This reflected the belief that when the west to south, or east to south flyovers were ever constructed, the distance between the Stoneridge Drive Interchange and the 1-580/680 Interchange would preclude maintenance of access with 1-580. However, recent experience with the present south to east flyover and the preservation of Hopyard Road access indicates that it may be possible to retain access with 1-580 and Stoneridge Drive with future flyovers. Although it was not easy to accomplish, throuvqh sig~n~ficant effort by Caltrans, ACTA, and the Federal Highway Adrn~istrafion, Hopyard Road access was maintained with 1-680 under similar distance constraints. For this reason, the Council requested that Caltrans modify the Stoneridge Drive Interchange Freeway Agreement to allow retention of access with 1-580, and for Caltrnn.~ to "make every effort to maintain access between 1-580 and the Stoneridge Drive Interchange." While acknowledging the City's request for further review of this issue, Caltrans is unwilling to modify the formal Stoneridge freeway agreement. In their view, the current Freeway Agreement reflects the agreement made with the City at the time the Stoneridge Drive Interchange was approved, and they feel the requested modification SR:97:184 Page 3 5 creates an obligation that is unreasonable. Caltrans adds that further improvements to the 1-580/680 Interchange are not identified in any federal, sate, or local programming document, and is therefore many years away at best; and that when future flyovers may be programmed 1-580 access would be re-addressed as par~ of studies of local cLrculation and socio-economic impacts required under the environmental process. While staff regrets Caltrans position, given the uncertain timeframe of future modifications to the 1-580/680 Interchange (beyond the current south to east flyover), staff believes it appropriate to accept Calrrans determination for now, but to continue to seek opportunities with Caltrans to modify the Stoneridge Drive Freeway Agreement to retain access with 1-580. (For example, there m~y be some oppornmity for review and further discussion with Calrrans as part of the West Las Positas Interchange study.) Further, given the importance of the current 1-580/680 South to East Flyover Project to the region, staff recommends that the City continue to support efforts to implement the current Flyover Project and address project specific impacts to Pleasanton. Consequently, staff is recommending that the Local Match Agreement be approved. RECOM34~NDATION Staff recommends that the Council: Confixm Pleasanton's share of the remaining local match, and authorize the City Manager to execute the attached Local Match Agreement Direct staff to work with Calumas and the Alameda County Transportation Authority to implement the 1-5801680 Flyover Project, but continue to seek oppornmities with Calwans to modify the Stoneridge Drive Freeway Agreement to retain access with 1-580 FISCAL IMPACT The Local Match A~eement obligates Pleasanton to a remaining "fair share" amount of $1,133,584, to be paid in years 2000 and 2001. This amount has been programmed into the 5 year CI]:' using gas tax funds. SR:97:184 Page 4 The Tri-Valley Transportation Council is working to develop a Subregional Transportation Development Fee. One of the projects being considered is the local match amount for the 1-580/680 Flyover Project; thus if adopted, the Fee could provide reimbursement to the gas tax fund. Respectfully submitted, Randall A. Lure Directbr of Public Works Deborah Acosta City Manager SR:97' 184 Page 5 04-Ala-580-t~ 27.5fF~36.2 (PM 17.1/R22.5) 04-Ala-6$0-t~ F~31.B/R22.5 (PM R!9.7/tL20.2) tn the City of Pleasanton on l%ute 580, from the East City Limits near Stacey Court to the West City T,imits near Las palmas Drive and on Route 680 from 0.6 kilometer south of l~ute 580 to the North City ~ .imits FREEWAY AGREEMENT ~TW[S AG~, m~de and entered into on this day of , 19 , by and between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a~iug by and *.brough the Depar~ent of Tr~ n.~-portmtiom (here~n referred to as 'STATEn), ~nd the City of Pleas~nton (her~u referred to as 'CITY'), W!-IEREAS, the highways described above h~ve been declared to be freeways by resolution of the California Tra~-~pormfion Com,w~-~sion on October 30, 1947, December 15, 1949 May 17, 1950 ~d April 27, 1980; and WKEP. EAS, STA~E ~d CITY have entered into a Freeway A~-eament dated Augus~ 4, 1992, relating to State Highway Rnute 580 from the East City Limits near Stacey Cour~ to the West City l.imits near Las pa~m~ Drive and a Freeway Agreement dated May 17, 1985, relating to Stste Highway Route 680 from 0.5 mile south of Stoneridge Drive ~o Rnu~e 580; and WHEREAS, a nla~ map for such freeway has been prepared showing the proposed p]~u of the ~TATE as it affects streets of the CITY; and WI-IERF~S, it is the mutual desire of the parties hereto to enter into a new Freeway A~eement in accordance with the revised plan of said freeway; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED: 1. This Agreement supersedes said Freeway Agreement dated Au~-t 4, 1992 relating to Route 580 from the East City Limits near Stacey Court to the West City Limits near Las Palmas Drive and those portions of said Freeway Agreement dated May 17, 1988 relating to Route 680 from 0.6 kilometer south of Route 580 to the North City Limits. 2. CITY agrees and consents to the dosing of CIT~' streets, relocation of CITY streets, construction of frontage roads and other local roads, mud other construation affecting CITY sweets, all as shown on said plan map attached hereto marked Exh{bit A and made a part hereof by this reference. 3. STATE sha/l, in construction of the freeway and at STATE'S expense, make such changes affecuing CITY szreets in accordance ~'ith the plan map at:ached hereto marked Exhibit A. 4. STATE agrees to acquire all necessary, right of way as ma>- be required for construction, reconstruction, or alteration of CITY streets, frontage roads, and other local roads, and CITY hereby authorizes STATE to acquire in its behalf ail such necessary right of way. 5. It is understood between the parties that the right of way may be acquired in-sections or un/ts, and that both as to the acquisition of right of way and the construction of the freeway projects, the obligations of STATE hereunder shall be ca,~ied out at such time ~nd for such ,,nit or ,~n~ts of the projects as funds are budgeted ~nd made lawfully available for such expenditures. 6. CITY will accept control and m~ntenance over each of the relocated or reconstructed CITY streets, frontage roads and other STATE constructed local roads on receipt of written notice to CITY from STATE the work thereon has been completed, except for any portion which is adopted by STATE as a part of the freeway proper. CITY will accept title to the portions of such roads lying our~ide the freeway Hmfts upon relinquishment by STATE. 7. Th~ Agreement may be mod{6ed at ~ny time by the mut~-~] consent of the parties hereto, as m~y become necessary for the best accompli~bment~ through STATE ~nd OITY ~ooperation, of the whole freeway project for the benefit of the people of the STATE and OITY. IN WITNESS WItEREOF, the. parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transpor~tion THE CITY OF PL~TON JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS Director of Transportation D.H. BENJAMIN Project Planning and Design En~neer APPROVE AS TO FORM: APPROVE AS TO FORM: Attorney (State) Attorney (City) 2 EXHIBIT "A" TO FREEWAY AGREEHENT AVAILABLE IN TEE ENGINEERING OFFICE FOR KEVIEW EXHIBIT "B" /2- September 30, 1996 CITY OF PLEASANTON Patdck K. Pang District Office Chief Department of Transportation P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Dear Mr. Pang: Freeway Agreement for the 1-580/I-680 Interchange At its meeting of September 24, 1996, :the Pteasanton City Council reviewed the subject Freeway Agreement, and unanimously approved the Agreement subject to the following modification relative to the Stoneddge Ddve Interchange. The Freeway Agreement for the Stonefidge Drive Interchange dated May 17, 1988 between Caltrans and Pleasanton states, "6. It is understood between the parties that when the 1-580/I-680 interchange pattern is modified, ali access between Stoneddge Drive Interchange and !-580 will be removed." The Pleasanton City Council approved the Agreement with the following modification: "6. It is understood between the parties that when the 1-580/!-680 interchange pattern is modified, the maintenance of access to Stoneridge Drive may prove difficult due to safety and operational constraints. Nonetheless, Caltrans will make every effort to maintain access between 1-580 and the Stoneridge Drive Interchange." The Pleasanton City Council has requested this change because of concern that access between !-580 and the Stonefidge Ddve Interchange may be unnecessarily lost due to future flyovers at the 1-580/1-680 Interchange. Such loss would have serious economic and transportation consequences for our City. The Council is requesting that at the time these future flyovers are being considered, that Caltrans make every effort to maintain access between 1-580 and the Stoneridge Drive Interchange. Decisions could then be made based on the actual design of the future flyovers as to whether access can be maintained. 200 OLD BERNAL AVENUE - P.O. BOX 520 - PLEASANTON. CA 94566-0802 ' (510) 48.4-B000 · FAX (510) 484829.1 Patdck K. Pang Distdct Office Chief Department of Transportation September 30, 1996 Page 2 Your consideration of our request is appreciated, as has been all your efforts to address Pleasanton's concerns relative to freeway modifications. If you have any questions, please call me at 484-8040. Yours truly, - R~a ~aJl A. Lum Dire~or of Public Works Mayor and Counciimembers Deborah Acosta Bill van Geider Vince Hams, Alameda County Transportation Authority /¥ EXHIBIT "C" /5 STATE Of CALIFOR~IA----BU$11~S~. TRAI,~SPC~TAT}ON AND HC:XJS~f.,K3, AC~NCY DF:PARTMEN'[ OF TRANSPORTATION O~,KLA~tD. CA ~0) 28~ D (5~0) ~ WILSOed, C,a.me~or November 22, 1996 Ms. Deborah Acosta City Manager City of Pleasanton P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 4-Ala-580-17.9/R21.0 4-AIa-680-R19.7/R21.9 4257 233921 1-580/680 I/C Direct Connector Project Dear Ms. Acosta: Caltrans has re-evaluated the need for a Freeway Agreement with the City of Pleasanton on the proposed 1-580/680 Interchange Direct Connector Project. AFreeway Agreement will not be necessary. Caltrans is respectfully withdrawing the proposed Freeway Agreement previously transmitted to the City on August 12, 1996. Historically, the true purpose of a Freeway Agreement is to identify any additions or deletions of freeway access to and from local streets and any major local street access modifications (i.e. converting a local through street to a cul-de-sac). This project will not have any of these features. The most sigrdficam impact to the local street will be the realignment of johnson Drive. As you know, this Measure B funded project will provide si_mzificant benefits to the City of Pleasanton as well as to the City of Dublin and other nearby areas. The Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) has estimated the total project cost presently at $112 million. Caltrans invites the City To work with us on how to best achieve the City's authorization on the project scope details affecting City property. It is our intent to work closely with the City and ACTA to allow this vital link to move forward to construction. Ms. Deborah Acosta No:,,ember 22, 1996 Page 2 Please be assured that Caltrans will continue to work closely with the City's staff: If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this matter in further detail please call me at (510) 286-5906. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA Int~stfict Dir~~ District Division Chief Division of Design East ccJ~andall Lum - City of Pleasanton Vince Harris - ACTA Richard Ambrose- City of Dublin John Fenstermacher - Alameda County /7 EXHIBIT "D" STATI~ OF CALIFORNIA---BUSINF--.SS, 'T'I~ANSPORTATIO~ AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, DEPARTMENT OF BOX 236~:~O OAKLAND. CA 9,4623-C~>60 ~5101 I"DD J510) 286-,4.4.54 TRANSPORTATION May 29,1997 Mr. Randall A. Lure Director of Public Works City of Pleasanton P.O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802 4-Ala-580-17.9/R21.0 4-AIa-680-R19.7/R21.9 4257 233921 1-580/680I/C Direct Connector Project Dear Mr. Lure: Thank you for accommodating the rescheduled meeting to discuss the 1-580 access issue fi-om the Stoneridge Drive Interchange. Our District Director, Harry Yahata, regrets he could not meet with you and Mr. George Homolka. We understand that the City's proposal to add the West Las Positas Boulevard Interchange will not likely occur due to strong local opposition. Coupled with the anticipation for further growth in the area, the need to maintain'access to 1-580 from the Stoneridge Drive Interchange is certainly a valid At this time, further improvements to this interchange are not identified in any federal, state, or local programming document. The 1-580 access would be re-addressed when furore major improvements to the 1-580/680 Interchange are pro~m'ammed. Local circulation and socio- economical impacts will be thoroughly analyzed through the environmental process under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We hope that this meeting has provided further reassurance to you that we do understand the City's concern and will take the appropriate actions when necessary to help the City's cause. Sincerely, ~ Y. YAHATA /7 District Division Chief Division of Design East cc:George Homolka EXHIBIT CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA KESOLUTION NO. 96-I10 =so. o T-~80/680 DIREC~ CON1NI~t;~ t~ r ~.~,- ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR TR1-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS COUNCIL OF THE CITY NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section .2.: Section 3: Section 4: at its meeting of September 24, 1996, the City Council received the staff report (SR 96'.287) regarding the 1-580/680 Direct Connector Flyover Project and the priority of funding for Tri-Valley Tran~ortation Projects; the City CounCil COnsidered the comments of the public, including representatives from CalTrans and BAKT. OF PLEASANTON Approves the commitment of Pleasanton's share of the remaining local maich for the Flyover Project ($1,563,000 minus potential credits for previous NPID work). Directs staff to continue discussions with .th.e Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) regarding potennm local match credits, and amhorizes staff to develop a payment schedule with ACTA which satisfies overall project needs and funding availability.. Confn'ms the Flyover Project as a top priority for the Tri-Valley T~n~ortafion Development Fee and directs staff to continue work with the Tri-¥alley Transportation Council to implement the fee with a reimbursement to those jurisdictions that advance money to ACTA for the Fee Projects. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. Reso}urion No. 96-110 Page Two I HEREBY CERTIFY 'lnaT 'i'l~__ FOR_EGOING WAS DULY AND REG~y ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF PLEASANTON, AT A .MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 BY THE FO/J.0WING VOTE: AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Conncilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Molar, Pico, and Mayor Tarver Michael H. Kou~ City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: EXHIBIT "F" LOCAL MATCH AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into on , 1996 is between the CITY OF pT,~ASAbT~ON , referred to herein as "CITY" and ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, referred to herein as ,,AUTHORITY." RECITALS A. The voters of Alameda County, pursuant to the provisions of the Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act, Public utilities Code Section 131000, et seq., approved Measure B at the General Election held on November 4, 1986, thereby authorizing a sales tax increase to finance a major transportation improvement program within Alameda County and the AUTHORITY was thereby created to administer that Program. B. The Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan proposes funding for modification of the i_580/680.Interchange wiuh Measure B funds. The total estimated cost of this work is Sl!9.7 million, of which at least $!0 million is required by Measure B to come from local sources. C. The Town of D~nvi!!e, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon, Alameda County and Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) have previously contributed a portion of the $10 million local share of this Project in order to advance design and construction cf the west to north ramp from 1-580 to 1-680, secure Project right-of-way, construct the Hopyard Road overcrossing and widen 1-580 between Hacienda and Santa Rita Road. CITY has previously contributed $ 203,700 of this local share. D. The SPONSOR for the 1-580/680 Interchsnge is the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). SPONSOR completed its environmental review for the Project in 1996. E. AUTHORITY has entered into an agreement with an engineering design firm to perform design and right-of-way engineering services. It is anticipated that final design work will be completed in 1997. F. CITY and AUTHORITY desire to specify herein the terms and conditions under which the PROJECT is to be financed and local match allocated to the participating jurisdictions. CITY AGREES: SECTION I (1) CITY shall pay to AUTHORITY a sum not to exceed $~-~3_~_~ for the PROJECT for project right-of-way and construction costs for Project. Any increase in this amount will require prior CiTY approval in writing. CITY agrees that it 0~8001 \224751.1 2 DRAFT January 21, shall pay its share of local matching funds in the form of contributed property, cash or credit for project-related exoenditures which are consistent with AUTHORITY's Policy on Reimbursement or Credit attached to the Agreement as Exhibit B. .Any cash contributed by COUNTY as a part of its local matching funds shall conform to AUTHORITY's Policy Regarding Use of State and Federal Funds as Local Match attached to the Agreement as Exhibit C. (2) CITY shall dispense funds to AUTHORITY in a timely manner pursuant to the Payment Schedule attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A. (3) CITY agrees that it will cooperate with AUTHORITY in seeking additional sources of funding for the PROJECT. (4) The amount of local match credited for contributed property shall be based upon the appraised value of the real property which value shall not be adjusted for Hazardous Materials or any other factor affecting the value of the property. (5) CITY shall record an appropriate dedication document satisfactory to the AIITHORITY and Caltrans to comply with the respective party's contribution of property prior to the completion of the Project. 0258001 \224751 . 1 DRAFT January 21, 1997 AUTHORITY AGREES: SECTION II (1) AUTHORITY wil! enter into all contractual arrangements with SPONSOR and consultant to complete the Project work. AUTHORITY may arrange for performance of all work by SPONSOR or may elect to contract for professional and/or construction services. (2) AUTHORITY will provide CITY with quarterly reports on or before the fifteenth day of each calendar quarter (March 15, June 15, September 15 and December 15). These reports ("Progress Repo_~_~s") shall describe the current status of the PROJECT and Related Projects, actions and costs expended or incurred during the previous three months, actions expected to be taken and costs projected to be expended during the next three months, any unexpected legal, environmental, engineering or construction difficulties with PROJECT, any projected changes and any additional relevant information. (3) AUTHORITY will bill CITY on a timely basis for its share of the local match at least 30 days in advance of the date that payment is due under Exhibit A, Payment Schedule. (4) AUTHORITY agrees to provide Measure B Funds for the Project up to the amount of, and AUTHORITY's total maximum 0258,001\2247'51 . 1 4 DRAFT Jmrm~ry 21, 1997 ob!icasion under this Agreement is, $109,700,000 ("Total Obligation"). The Total Obligation may be increased to cover costs in excess of the initial estimated Project Costs, provided 'tha~ such increase in Total Obligation is approved by a vote of the AUTHORITY in its sole discretion. The certified results cf any such vote will be incorporated by reference into this Agreement without necessity of a written amendment. SECTION III IT iS MITUUALLY AGREED TO AS FOLLOWS: (1) A~i obligations of AUTHORITY under the terms of this Agreement are limited as provided in the /Llameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan dated August, 1986. In accordance with this Expenditure Plan, total cost to the AUTHORITY for the entire Project may not exceed $119.7 million, including local matching funds. Ail obligations of AUTHORITY- under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the availability of funds in the annual budget of the AUTHORITY pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 131265 and 131266. (2) Neither AUTHORITY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY in connection with the Project. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Gove?nment Code Section 895.4, CITY shall fully indemnify and 0258001 \224751.1 DRAFT January 21, 1~x~7 hold ~U/"~ORITY and its officers, board members and en~ployees harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined in Gove_~nment Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY in connection with the Project. (3) Neither CITY nor any officer, council, employee, or agent thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTMORITY in connection with the Project. It is also a~reed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, AUTHORITY shall fully indemnify and hold CITY and its officers, council, employees, or agents harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by AUTHORITY in connection with the Project. (4) Any notice which may be required under this A~reement shall be in writing, shall be effective when received, and shall be given by personal service, or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the addresses set forth below, or to such other addresses as are specified by notice given in such manner: 07.58001\7_2.4751.1 6 DRAFT January' 2.1, 1997 If to CITY: If to AUTHORITY: Executive Director Alameda County Transportation Authority 1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 (5) This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement executed by all of the parties hereto. No alteration or variation of the terms of this AGREEMENT shall be valid unless made in writing signed by both parties and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on either of the parties hereto. (6) Except for the indemnification and defense provisions of Section III, paragraphs (2) and (3) above, this Agreement shall terminate.upon completion and acceptance of PROJECT OZSBO01 \~24751.1 7 DRAFT January 21, 1~7 conss~c5ed by SPONSOR or on March 31, 2002, whichever is earlier in ~ime. CITY [COUNTY] AUTHORITY: ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By: Title: By: Keith Carson, Chair RECOMMENDED BY: VINCENT j. HARRIS Executive Director APPROVED AS TO FORM AND 7,~GALITY: R. ZACHARY WASSERMAN General Counsel Attest: City Clerk Joan Van Brasch Clerk of the ALrYHORITY 0,~58D01 \2247~ 1.1 DI~AFT January 21, 1997 i hereby certify under penalty of perju~-Y that the was duly authorized to execute this documenE on behalf of the __ -- by a majority vote of the on ' and that a copy has been delivered to the as provided by Government Code. Dated: By: O,~SBO01 \224751 . 1 DRAFT Jar~ry 21, 1997 ' I- $ 80 / 680 DIRECT CONNECTOR PROJECT LOCAL MATCH CONTRIBUTION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF PLEASANTON TOTAL COMMITMENT $1,766,700 PREVIOUSLY PAID $203,700 OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION $1,563,000 CITY agrees to make the following payments~ to AUTHORITY as its share of local matching funds as set forth in Section I, paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Agreement for the 1-580/680 Interchange projecT: DATE AMOUNT 7/1/2000 7/1/2001 $781,500 $781,500 Notwithstanding the payment dates set forth above, provided that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council adopts and resolves to collect regional mitigation fees, CITY shall enter into an amendment to this Agreement to revise the payment dates to begin reasonable payment on or before 7/!/1997. In no event shall CITY make any payment later than the dates set forth above. PAYMENT TO BE IN CASH OR LOCAL MATCH CREDIT~ LOCAL MATCH CREDIT WILL BE APPLIED FIRST AS APPROVED BY ACTA BOARD AT ITS MEETINGS ON 9/26/96 IN THE AMOUNTS OF $429,416 SII~JECT TO /LPPR3%iS/LL OF COAV1ARIB~ED PROPERTIES. 0258001 \224751 . 1 10 DRAFT Jarv..mr-y 21, 1~"/ POLICY. ON REIMBURSEKENT OR CREDIT 1) Ail Measure B capital projects shall be completed as quickly as practical given funding and resource considerations. Project sponsors are encouraged to advance projects as rapidly as -possible with the understanding that no project will jeopardize the funding of any other project. Expenditure Plan Project Sponsors, as defined in the Expenditure Plan, are recipient transportation agencies charged with maintenance of the completed work. 2) No expenditure of Measure B funds will be made to any capital project until all costs are detailed in Project Reports and the Authority has entered into a Project Agreement with the Project Sponsor. 3) Reimbursement does not allow the project to exceed the funding or the scope of the project as defined in the Expenditure Plan cr as modified in the Annual Strategic Plan. 4) Project Sponsors who wish to expend their own funds in advance of a project agreement may do so. The Authority will reimburse funds expended or credit expenditures towards required local match if the expenditures meet the following requirements: a) Project expenditures were made after passage of Measure B. This requirement does not apply to incorporation of locally owned right of way where the estimated cost and the need to incorporate the right of way are made currently. b) Detailed records of expenditures are maintained and made available. c) Ail work can be demonstrated to be directly related to the project as defined in the Measure B Expenditure Plan ~nd as agreed to in a signed local Agency/Authority agreement. d) The local agency's Governing Board formally requests reimbursement or credit. Approved: April 22. !993 0~58001 \Z24751 . 1 1! DP. AFT January 21, POLICY_ REGD~D!NG USE OF STATE D2~D FEDERAL FUNDS AS LOCAL M_ATCi~, Measure B restricts the use of state and federal funds as pa~ or all of a local jurisdictions, Local Matching Funds for Measure B projects. It is the Authority's policy that this restriction shall mean that local jurisdictions are prohibited from using as their Local Matching Fund contribution only those state or federal funds that are available to the Authority and appropriate for Measure B projects. This policy is consistent with the Authority's purpose to avoid competition with local jurisdictions for funding of the same Measure B project and the policy to leverage Measure B 'fUnds to the maximum extent possible. If a local jurisdiction wants to apply for funds for a Measure B project from a funding source that is not listed in the List of State and Federal Funds (attached as Exhibit C-I) as available to local jurisdictions for local match, it shall submit a written request to the Authority Executive Director who shall determine whether such state or federal fUnds'may be used as Local Matching Funds for that specific Measure B project. 07.58001\ZZ~.751.1 12 DRAFT January 21, lg<;r'/' List of State and Federal Funds The following is a list of funds which are available to the Authority for Measure B projects: · ISTEA Surface Transportation Program (federal) · ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Activities (federal) · Federal Congestion Relief (federal) · State Highway Account (state) · Traffic Systems Management (state) · Congestion Management and Air Quality (state) ® State and Local Transportation Partnership Program (state) · State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (state) · State Transportation Improvement Program (state) The following is a list of funds which are not available to the Authority and may be used by local jurisdictions as local matching funds for Measure B projects: · · · · · · !STEA-"Guarantee" Funds (federal) Airport Passenger Facility Charges (federal) Federal Airport Improvement Project (federal) Local Gas Tax subventions (state) TDA 3.0 Local Sales Tax Local Measure B subventions 025B001 \Z~4751.1 13 D~AFT Jar~Jary 21, 1997