Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 Tri-Vly Transportation Work Program 1060--h CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: July 23, 1990 SUBJECT: Approval of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council' s 1990-92 Work Program (Report by Public Works Director Lee Thompson) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Resolution 2) Outline of Tri-Valley Transportation Council 1990-92 Work Program. An expanded, more detailed program document is proposed to be available at the City Council meeting. 3) Minutes of the February 12, 1990, February 26, 1990, and June 11, 1990, City Council meetings relating to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council Initial Report. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Consider adoption of Resolution approving the Tri-Valley Transportation Council 1990-92 Work Program, and recommending to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council be designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Committee for the purpose of regional route action planning under Contra Costa County' s Measure "C" program. 2) Consider approval, in concept, of the cost sharing by the method of splitting the planning costs in seven (7) equal shares, one to each jurisdiction. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Phase One of the work program is estimated at $80,000. Phase Two of the work program is estimated at $120,000. The Contra Costa Cities of Danville and San Ramon are applying for up to $150,000 in their Measure "C" planning monies to reduce the total cost of the work program. The unfunded remainder is proposed to be shared seven equal ways among the five Valley Cities and two Counties. Approval of actual monetary contributions would be brought back to the City Council for their approval. Since the project was not included in the 1990-91 approved budget, an additional appropriation would be required at the time that these costs are known. DESCRIPTION: The Tri-Valley Transportation Council was formed to coordinate common transportation issues and has proposed to prepare a comprehensive transportation plan for the Tri-Valley area. The Tri-Valley area includes Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, San Ramon, Danville, and the unincorporated areas adajacent to these cities. Councilmember Vonheeder .is Dublin' s elected representative, and Lee Thompson has recently been assigned as Dublin's Staff representative. Phase One of this work program would propose to hire a consultant to complete the following: 5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ITEM NO.7 COPIES TO: Eddie Peabody, Town of Danville lo�,0 -- 'go 1) Long Range Transportation Plan Outline 2) Short Term Implementation Program, including funding options 3) Provide a Staff member to support the Tri-Valley Council and Technical Advisory Committee Phase Two would provide a detailed transportation plan common to all the seven agencies, including highway, arterial, bikeway, and transit facilities. This portion of the work would integrate the transportation and land uses common to all agencies and provide a list of needed improvements and a funding plan for these improvements. The Town of Danville has recently adopted this work program in the outline form attached, and the other affected jurisdictions will be considering the expanded version within the next few weeks. Contra Costa County's Measure "C" (1/2(,, sales tax for transportation) includes $300,000 in planning funds for the southwestern portion of Contra Costa County. The area includes Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, Danville, and San Ramon. Danville and San Ramon are requesting that their area's portion of the planning funds, approximately $150,000, be assigned to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council as the "Regional Transportation Planning Committee" to perform regional route action planning, which is an overlap of the work of the Tri-Valley Council. This money would then reduce the funds needed for the Tri-Valley work program. In order to have their request considered by Contra Costa County, the cities of Danville and San Ramon have requested consideration of the proposed resolution prior to July 31, 1990. The Staff member from Danville who prepared the outline work program is also preparing a more detailed scope of work based on the outline. This expanded document will not be available until Monday, July 23, 1990. Staff will have copies of the document available at the meeting. Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of the resolution approving the Tri-Valley Transportation Council 1990-92 work program and recommend to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council be designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Committee for the purpose of regional route action planning under Contra Costa County's Measure "C" program. In addition, Staff recommends that the City Council consider approval, in concept, that sharing of planning costs to perform the work program be split in equal shares between the seven jurisdictions. -2- RESOLUTION NO. -90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN -------------------------------------------- APPROVING THE 1990-92 TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council was formed to prepare a comprehensive transportation plan for the Tri-Valley area, including portions of Alameda and Contra Costa County, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Ramon and the Town of Danville; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this organization is to study specific transportation routes in the sub-region and recommend action plans for their improvement in the future; and WHEREAS, the Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon and a portion of Contra Costa County are in a region of the Contra Costa County in which a regional route action plan is required under Contra Costa County's Measure "C" program; and WHEREAS, the action plan work product includes many of the same elements as the proposed Tri-Valley Transportation Work Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Dublin is an active participant in the Tri-Valley Transportation Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the 1990-92 Tri-Valley Transportation Council Work Program as submitted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council recommends to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority that the Tri-Valley Transportation Council be designated as the Regional Transportation Planning Committee for the purpose of regional route action planning under Contra Costa County's Measure "C" program. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of July, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 5- TRI-VALLKY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL 1990-92 WORK PROGRAM Purpose., To provide a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan that will create a network of highway, arterial and transit facilities for the seven jurisdiction Tri-Valley Area which can be adopted and implemented by all member agencies. Critical Milestones: Over a two year period, the Tri-Valley Transportation Council will complete the following programs for adoption of all agencies: • A long range Transportation Plan Outline. • Short Term Implementation Program. • Staff support for the Council. • Pilot Implementation Program. • Final Tri-Valley Transportation plan. In conjunction with these actions, the Work Program will coordinate with and integrate the following related programs into the Tri- Valley Transportation plan: • Contra Costa and Alameda County Transportation Plan and Congestion Management Plans (CMP's) . • Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Regional Route Action Plans for the South Contra Costa County Area. • Member agency General Plans and Transportation Plans. • MTC, ABAG, BART and other Regional Agency Plans. Specific Funding Plan: The Council will utilize funding from member agencies on an equal basis (one-seventh share for each agency) , grants received from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Measure C Regional Route Planning funds; Alameda County Transportation Plan Grants; staff assistance from member agencies and any other regional or local public agency sources. It is anticipated that the two year funding program will require up to $200,000 to complete the work program. WORK PROGRAM: A. Phase I of the Tri-Valley Transportation Program Task 1: Prepare Request for Proposal for Consultant Assistance to. complete four tasks (August 1990).. obtain member approval and secure funding from _ sources noted above to insure implementation (September 1990) . S' Teak 2 : Hire consultant to prepare Phase I Plan (September 1990) . Task 3: complete four elements of Phase 2 Program (October 1990-- June 1991) . • Long Range Transportation Plan Outline (October 1990 - December 1990) Short Term Implementation Program including options, Regional Route Action Plans for Contra Costa County area (December 1990 -- March 1991) . • Staff support to Tri-Valley Council. and Technical Advisory Committee (October 1990 June 1990) . • Pilot Implementation Program (March 1991 - June 1991) . H. phase 1I - Completion of Tri- Valley Final Transportation Plan Task l: prepare Request for proposal for Consultant Assistance to complete the Plan (July 1991) . Task 2: Hire consultant to prepare Phase 11 Plan (August 1991) . Task 3: Complete Transportation: Plan (September 1991 - July 1992) . Major elements: • Network of highway, arterial, , bikeway and transit facilities. • Common transportation model/data base compatible with local County/Regional planning efforts, • Transportation and Land Use Alternatives common to all ,agencies. • Specific recommendations including Regional Route Action Plans (Contra Costa) , Congestion Management Plans; and other agency requirements. • Transportation improvements list. • Implementation Program including funding requirements, revenue estimates, subregional fees and growth thresholds for key transportation improvements. 2 Task 4: Adoption Process (March 1992 - July 1992) • completion of seven agency review and adoption. Task S: Preparation of Implementation Measures (Post July 1992) • .Agency Capital Improvement changes. • Subregional Fees. Other Funding mechanisms. 3 0-91 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CDBG PROGRAM Plan Director Tong advised that the City of Dublin has been partic ting in the Alameda County/Urban County CDBG Program. For the 1990-91 ram year, the preliminary estimate for Dublin is approximate $41, 700. A minimum of approximately $7 , 700 needs to be used for hous rehabilitation projects. Staff recommended applying for $7 , 700 for or Home Repair Program, $14 , 200 for the Arroyo Vista Soundwall, $13 , 50 approximately) for the Dublin Senior Center Kitchen Renovation, and $6, (approximately) for the Dublin Senior Center Floor Replacement. Recreation Coordinator L and discussed the Senior Center renovation projects. They recently h an inspection by the Health Department with a recommendation that t floor be replaced in the kitchen. They cook on a grill rather than a ove. They desire to expand their food service program. The floor in t social hall is the original one in the building and they would like replace it with tile. Cm. Jeffery questioned if the seniors uld have to be displaced for a period of time. Ms. Leonard indicated that it would probab be necessary for a period of time, but she wasn't sure how long. Mr. Ambrose advised that this funding will not b me available until the next budget year so the work would be done som 'me after July 1st of this year. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by animous vote, the Council directed Staff to apply for approximatel 41, 700 in CDBG funding for housing rehabilitation projects and public rovement projects. REVIEW OF TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL INITIAL REPORT Planning Director Tong advised that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has prepared an Initial Report "A Perspective on Tri- Valley Transportation" for the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) . The intent of the report was to 1) identify Tri-Valley transportation issues and opportunities and 2) suggest an ongoing Tri- Valley transportation planning program. The report suggests the preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan and Implementation Program; and a potential sequence of tasks to develop it. Strategies to administer and fund the future planning efforts are left to the Tri- Valley Technical Advisory Committee to develop for TVTC consideration and action. The TVTC is discussing the hiring of an outside project manager and consultant to prepare the plan within an 18 to 24 month time frame. Financing discussions have concentrated on various forms of shared financing among the agencies as well as other public and private funding sources. The TVTC has also discussed the organizational options of a Joint Powers Agency and a Memorandum of Understanding. CM - VOL 9 - 37 Regular Meeting February 12, 1990 In reviewing the draft, Staff identified several areas needing revision which were discussed in the Staff Report. Mr. Tong advised that last Thursday evening at the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) meeting, the Council distributed a draft resolution that they request the various agencies consider which would adopt a work program as well as request the Technical Advisory Committee to the group to prepare a detailed report outlining ways to achieve that work program for future action. The TVTC also requested the Technical Advisory Committee to prepare a working draft Request for Proposal for the outside project manager and consultant. Mr. Tong advised that Staff is still reviewing this document and will bring it back to the Council for future consideration. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that the City of Dublin is working from a negative perspective. We did not have an opportunity to give a lot of input to MTC as the perspective was being drawn together, because we were so short-staffed. She expressed concern that the drafted comments may be perceived wrong. She explained that all MTC did was put together some General Plan information and tried to identify places where there was conflict, where roads will not meet, etc. She was concerned with the formality of the response, and pointed out that there is time to review this as Dublin is the first City to even agendize the topic. She felt the City should hold off responding until after .reviewing the resolution. Cm. Vonheeder stated that the reason we are responding is because we did not have an opportunity to provide input initially, because of Staffing constraints, and she did not want it to appear that Dublin is on the defensive. Cm. Snyder felt that Staff has identified some corrections that need to be made. It should be simple to ask them to input the comments into the process. This should not be detrimental to the process or offensive to anyone. Even though we are after the fact, we should still get our comments in. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that they wanted the resolution approved as part of the process, and the Council has not had sufficient time to review it. She did not feel it would be wise to segment the approval. The resolution talks about not only approving the report, but also the next steps in getting that report into a form that will eventually be a plan. Cm. Snyder felt it would be better to have all the information in the report before a resolution is passed approving it. Cm. Vonheeder advised that the report itself will not be rewritten, even with Dublin's comments. We. need to figure out how to get Dublin's comments into the RFP. She indicated that all that had been done was gathering information. It is not a report that is necessarily right or wrong. MTC volunteered to do the report pro bono. Cm. Snyder felt that because it is a printed document, it is sure to be used, and everyone has agreed that it contains information beneficial CM - VOL 9 - 38 Regular Meeting February 12, 2990 to all the jurisdictions . The report shows a publication date in November and also shows that it was revised in December. If it is not rewritten, he did not feel comfortable adopting a resolution that recommends it. Cm. Jeffery felt that as a compromise, we could ask them to put our comments and corrections in an addendum. Cm. Vonheeder stated we are just trying to get something that 7 jurisdictions can work with and then hire someone to put all the comments together to make a plan and then jointly go for state and/or federal funding, etc. Except for the technical corrections, this is an academic discussion. Mr. Ambrose felt it important to recognize that in the development of an RFP, this plan will be used as a basis for either the RFP or the development of the plan. As long as we get our comments attached to this plan, the better the information the consultant has to work with in submitting a proposal or actually undertaking the project after selected. Cm. Vonheeder felt that Staff needed firm direction due to the fact that the Technical Advisory Committee will be meeting prior to the whole Tri-Valley Transportation Council. The TAC will be putting together the preliminary RFP. Cm. Snyder stated his only concern was that somehow or other, this information needs to get into the report. He did not agree with the publication of an addendum because this report has already been distributed. It's too easy for the two to get separated and someone reviewing it would not have the full information. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Jeffery, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed- Staff to agendize this item for discussion at the February 26, 1990 City Council meeting. O INESS al Lea ue of Cities Committee Appointment Cm. Jeffery advised t e had received a letter from the National League of Cities indicating she has been appointed to the Steering Committee. The Council approve travel to Washington, D.C. , in March, and she advised the Council t ere will be 4 meetings during the year that she will need to attend. O the meetings will be in Houston, Texas, in December, but the dates an tions of the other 2 have yet to be determined. The League of Californi ' ies will contribute $1, 000 total toward her expenses. She state needed to advise the Council that there would be some costs associate th this f appointment. CM - VOL 9 - 39 Regular Meeting February 12, 1§90 REVIEW OF TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL INITIAL REPORT Planning Director Tong advised that Staff had prepared several draft comments related to the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Initial Report, entitled "A Perspective on Tri-Valley Transportation" . The TVTC met on Thursday, February 8, 1990, and requested each member jurisdiction to consider a draft resolution adopting a TVTC Work Program. The resolution would also request/direct the Technical Advisory Committee to prepare a detailed report outlining ways to achieve the Work Program for future action by the TVTC. The draft resolution does not provide any funding to accomplish the Work Program. Specific requests for funding would need City Council approval. 0 Mr. Tong advised that the Council may want to adopt a slightly amended work program than proposed to be more consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding. Suggested amendments were, "providing Council with suggestions, including those associated with funding and implementa- tion, on how current plans and policies might better address longer- range needs" and "review and suggestions regarding development and transportation policies in potential rail corridors, to ensure the highest degree of complementation. " The TAC met on February 16, 1990 and discussed the need to concentrate on consensus building and near term action as indicated as Priority #1 in the 1990 Work Program. The TAC is preparing a rough draft .Request for Proposal (RFP) to address only the Priority #1 items as the first phase of the Work Program. The RFP will be reviewed by the TVTC, then presented to the City Council for approval. Cm. Vonheeder indicated she agreed with the changes in the wording of the draft resolution. Dublin is still the first Council to deal with this. This is not an official report, but only a gathering of information. The Technical Advisory Committee will record the specifics of the plan and it will then come before the City Council at a future date. Cm. Snyder asked what would happen to the suggested comments. Cm. Vonheeder stated they will most likely become an attachment to the report and a part of the information that goes to the consultant. Cm. Jeffery felt that if there are parts that need to be modified, we should indicate this and then let MTC refuse if they choose to, but we should at least try. Mayor Moffatt asked for clarification on the MOU, and also asked if it addressed the concept of TVTC resolving disputes between member jurisdictions. City Manager 'Ambrose advised that the MOU was adopted last year by all of the City Councils, and is just a forum for discussion of conflicts between jurisdictions regarding transportation issues. CM - VOL 9 - 44 Regular Meeting February 26, 1990 W. Cm. Vonheeder advised that the TVTC had never acted in that capacity thus far. They have been trying very hard to come up with a plan. Cm. Hegarty expressed concern related to possible future funding issues. Even though signing this doesn't commit us to anything right now, if we sign it, down road we will be pretty well locked in. Mr. Ambrose advised that the next step will be the RFP's and there will be some kind of request for funding at that time. Mayor Moffatt questioned if the funding would come from the General Fund. Cm. Vonheeder stated that all we are discussing at this time is paying for the initial study. Funding will be divided up equally among the 7 agencies. On motion of Cm. Jeffery, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to send the comments to the TVTC and approved the draft resolution with amendments. Staff was also directed to send a letter indicating that we would like MTC to revise the report to include our comments. DUBLIN LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SCH FOR JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Staff advi that a date needed to be selected for a joint study session on t hree land use alternatives for the East Dublin Study Area. The alte ives will be presented by Consultants, Wallace, Roberts and Todd. formal decisions or action on the project will be made by either the nning Commission or Council at this meeting. The Planning Commission City Council will hold public hearings before making any formal de ' ions on land uses for East Dublin. The Council selected the date o ril 18, 1990 at 7 : 00 p.m. for the joint study session. Staff advise at the meeting would be held in the Council Chambers. * * * * DUBLIN FINE ARTS PROPOSED PROJECTS Assistant City Manager Rankin advised that Staff r ently met with the Dublin Fine Arts Executive Director to discuss their oposed future activities which consist of 2 projects. One is the co pt of developing a "Sculpture Park" , with the idea being to ob 'n large scale works of art on loan from artists. The Foundation has attempted to find ways of incorporating edu Tonal activities in their projects, and are exploring opportunities to rk with schools and the possible development of a community symposium CM - VOL 9 - 45 Regular Meeting February 26, 1990 O BUSINESS League of CA Cities Executive Forum City Manager rose requested that the Council advise Staff if they will be attendin a League Conference in Monterey in July so that proper reservations be made. * * * * Po f f ice Cm. Jeffery commented on the letter red d from Senator Wilson regarding Dublin's efforts to get Post Offi ecognition in Dublin. She suggested that if they will not give Dubli own branch, then we should request additional services such as Sun stmarks, bulk mail, etc. A letter should be sent with a carbon copy resident Bush. Tri-Valley Transportation Plan Cm. Vonheeder provided an update on the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. She stated that Dublin is viewed as supposedly being against regionalization. The Committee has put together a preliminary RFP for the Plan. Dublin needs to start thinking about what it will accept with regard to a price tag. Dublin is at a potential disadvantage in that all of the other agencies have traffic engineers looking and dealing with this and Dublin is not doing it ' that way. We should not get steamrolled into something, but rather we need to give the report some thought. * * * * tirement of Planning Commissioner Mack Cm. Vonheeder indi ed she had been struggling with what to do for retired Planning Com sioner Eddie Jo Mack, in addition to a plaque. In speaking with Nancy eley of the Chamber, she obtained different colors of quill pens wit shamrock on the top. Cm. Vonheeder showed samples of the pen in blac nd white and advised that they also came in gold. The cost is $15 ea The pens can also be engraved. She advised that she had purchase ne for Ms. Mack. She thought the City might want to consider giving t e pens for special recognition. * * * Sister City Tri to v, Ireland Mayor Moffatt advised that the Sister City oup will be going to Bray, Ireland this summer and asked if the C cil wished to send a gift. He explained an idea he was working on olving a piece of leather with both City seals etched on it which ld commemorate the meeting in 1990. He has spoken with 2 people rega 'ng the preparation and it appears that it could cost rough etween $100 $400. He questioned if the Council was interested an they felt this type of a gift would be appropriate. @*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@*@* CM - VOL 9 - 159 Regular Meeting June 11, 1990