Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 I-580/680 Flyover Proj (2) CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: AUgUSt 24, 1992 SUBJECT: I-580/I-680 Flyover Project (Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit 1: Letter from Business Task Force Subcommittee Exhibit 2: Business Task Force Agenda Statement Exhibit 3: Draft Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Receive report on current implications of the project,  provide input, adopt resolution, and direct Staff to notify the appropriate agencies of the action taken. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The approximate total project with mitigation ramps is project~d to cost $101 million by 1995. This includes $87~million for the flyover and $!4 million for the mitigation ramps. DESCRIPTION: The City Council has previously appointed a Business Task Force to review issues related to the Business Community. The Circulation and Land Use Subcommittee of the Task Force recently reviewed plans for improvements to the interstate freeways, which could have a detrimental impact on the city of Dublin. In a letter dated August 17, 1992, the Task Force Subcommittee is urging the City Council to encourage the proper development of these improvements.(Exhibit 1) The Alameda County Transportation Authority and CalTrans are currently planning for the construction of a direct connection ("flyover") for southbound 1-680 traffic to eastbound 1-580. At a recent public meeting, the project sponsors announced that it was their intent to process the project with a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. If an Environmental Impact Report was proposed, the City would have a formal opportunity to comment on the scope of the study. The Business Task Force representatives have identified the importance of identifying appropriate mitigation measures to be incorporated in the original project, in the event that a Negative Declaration is pursued. The project sponsors are currently projecting the release of draft environmental documents in early 1993. As described in the Task Force Agenda Statement (Exhibit 2), this improvement will eliminate direct access to the Dougherty Road exit for 1- 680 traffic. There is a legitimate concern raised by the Task Force that this will result in economic and traffic impacts. The economic impacts would result from the loss of a direct connection to the City's retail business area. Traffic could be significantly impacted at the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road, as well as other intersections along Dublin Boulevard. This would result from nearly all 1-680 traffic transitioning to the 1-580/San Ramon Road exit to enter the city of Dublin. With the current flyover plan in place, the only other alternative would be to proceed to the Hacienda Interchange and then back track. One possible mitigation measure would be hook-ramp connections allowing traffic from 1-680 to exit directly into Dublin. (Graphics will be available at the meeting.) The project designers have reviewed this concept; however, it is not currently considered to be part of the project. ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Business Task Force Ernie Satow, CalTrans A1 Gallardo, ACTA The hook ramps which have been conceptually discussed would provide access for both north and southbound 1-680 traffic. The southbound hook ramp would provide both on and off ramps for 1-680 traffic, just south of the Dublin Cinema. This would align with the future right-of-way for the parallel road between Regional Street and Amador Plaza. The estimated cost of this element is $10 million. This ramp configuration is included in the flyover traffic study. The second portion of the mitigation ramps would be a northbound 1-680 on-ramp only. It would be located south of Two Pesos Restaurant. The estimated cost of this element is projected at $4 million. The project sponsors have not committed to conducting the necessary studies for the northbound connection. The project sponsors have also acknowledged that this may need to be reviewed as part of the environmental mitigation measures; however, the improvement is currently being considered as a future phase or separate project. The Task Force representatives expressed a position that the hook ramps must be considered as an integral component of the "flyover" project. The second area of concern to the Business Task Force is the current position by the Alameda County Transportation Authority that all matching funds for the flyover project ($10 million) must come from local sources. Since the adoption of Measure B, new State, Federal, and Regional Transportation Programs have been or are being developed. The Business Task Force recognizes the need for the Transportation Authority policymakers to adopt a flexible financing plan, which addresses the regional nature of this improvement. Staff has prepared a Draft Resolution, which establishes the City's position relative to the inclusion of hook ramps as a mitigation measure and the need for flexible financing. After receiving the Staff presentation, it is recommended that the City Council review and provide input and adopt the resolution and direct Staff to notify the appropriate agencies of the action taken. a: 824 f lyov. agenda#10 August 17, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Proposed 1-580/I-680 Flyover Impact Analysis/Mitigation Measures and Reliable Financing Source Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: The Dublin Business Task Force was appointed to review issues originally addressed by the Downtown Specific Plan. The Traffic/Circulation/and Land Use Subcommittee is focusing on related issues. On behalf of this Subcommittee, we believe that it is extremely important for the City Council to address the current proposals for the 1-580/I-680 flyover. Our Committee's review of this project has found two areas of concern if this project proceeds as it is currently envisioned by the project sponsors. The following summarizes the issues which must be addressed: · The potential impact of eliminating Dougherty Road as an exit for 1-680 traffic which transitions to 1-580 must be evaluated. The review must address economic, as well as traffic impacts and suitable mitigation measures must be incorporated into the initial project design. · The means of funding this project must be evaluated to allow flexibility and address the lack of a local funding source for a regional improvement to the interstate highway system. Enclosed are a list of the specific actions which this committee believes are appropriate. It is important that the Dublin City Council become involved in a leadership role to assure that the various agencies involved in this project accept the responsibility for successfully implementing the improvements. In order to do this, we recognize the importance of cooperation and flexibility among all participants. We look forward to assisting you as deemed appropriate in addressing these issues. Sincerely, Pat Costello Crown Chevrolet Enea Properties a: 580-680. taskforce#3 Barbara Matthews Lucky Stores, Inc. Craig Caldwell S~amrock Ford EXHIBIT BUSINESS TASK FORCE 1-580/I-680 FLYOVER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL q o o o o The City Council needs to strongly urge the project sponsors fully evaluate the potential Traffic Impacts at San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard and Economic Impacts of reducing access to the City of Dublin at Dougherty Road. The project sponsors must be fully informed well in advance of the release of their Draft Environmental documents that these issues must be fully explored and Mitigation Plans developed to address items which have a significant impact in order to proceed with a Negative Declaration. The project sponsors must acknowledge that inclusion of the hook-ramps in the initial flyover project appears necessary to mitigate the loss of the Dougherty Road exit. This includes southbound 1-680 on and off ramps, as well as a northbound 1-680 on ramp. The original concept of a new 1-580/I-680 connection recognized that this is not solely a local improvement. It is impacted by travel patterns from surrounding counties, as well as substantial amounts of weekend traffic headed towards recreation destinations. Agencies responsible for regional improvements need to acknowledge the need to improve this intersection of two major interstate highways. The Alameda County Transportation Authority in conjunction with CalTrans must recognize the need to evaluate alternative sources for matching funds. This may include new State, Federal, or Regional Transportation Programs. This approach would not jeopardize the original intent of "leveraging" local sales tax dollars. The Transportation Authority must be strongly encouraged to address these issues even if it requires an amendment to their original plan. This must be considered if the Transportation Authority intends to be successful in implementing the projects it is charged to carry out. The City Council needs to utilize the support from the business community to raise the sensitivity to economic and traffic impacts, by the agencies planning the project. a: exhi 580. tas kforce#3 CITY OF DUBLIN BUSINESS TASK FORCE CIRCULATION AND LAND USE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATE: August 18, 1992 SUBJECT: Proposed 1-580/I-680 Flyover Project EXHIBITS ATTACHED: a) RECOMMENDAT I ON: · · Exhibits Depicting Project (Will be available at the meeting) Draft Letter to City Council Receive Presentation Consider whether Letter should be directed to City Council and provide input on issues to be addressed. DESCRIPTION: 1-580/I-680 Pro~ect The Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA) recently conducted a public open house which presented conceptual plans for this project. The meeting was a joint effort by ACTA, BART, CalTrans, and the design firm of Bissel & Karn. The project involves the construction of a new structure (flyover) which will take southbound 1-680 traffic (traveling towards San Jose) and allow for a transition to eastbound 1-580 (traveling towards Stockton), without going through a merge at the 1-580/I-680 cloverleaf. The concept is similar to the new flyover from westbound 238 to southbound 1-880 in San Lorenzo. The project will result in the following related activities: (a) Installation of retaining wall and soundwalls on the west side of 1-680: North of Amador Valley Boulevard. (b) Accommodation and placement of the structural columns in a way which will not conflict with %he BART Extension in the median of 1-580. (c) Reconstruction of the southbound Hopyard/Dougherty Road Bridge (Note this is also required to accommodate BART and the costs are being shared.) (d) Eliminate access %o Douqherty Road from either north or southbound 1-680. All 1-680 traffic would either need to travel east on 1-580 to Hacienda Drive and back track, or travel west on 1-580 to San ITEM NO. I,' COPIES TO: Lee Thompson, Public Works Director Ramon Road and back track down Dublin B°ulevard. be more fully discussed below.) (This issue will Project Desiqn Schedule At the recent meeting, project officials announced that they are currently intending to process the project with a Negative Declaration of Environment Impacts. They anticipate having the draft environmental documents complete near the end of 1992 with a tentative public hearing in February of 1993. They hope to have final environmental approvals by May of 1993. If the project sponsors had intended to process the project with a full Environmental Impact Report, instead of a Negative Declaration, the City would have a formal opportunity to provide input on the scope of the environmental review. The project sponsors may adopt a "Mitigated Negative Declaration," which would contain mitigation measures to reduce any adverse environmental impacts. Project Financinq In the original Measure B Plan, it was anticipated in 1986 dollars that the project would cost $54 million. The original plan identified that $44 million would come from the special sales tax and $10 million would come from local sources. To date, the Authority has received or credited $4.4 million towards the $10 million local match requirement. At this time, Staff has not identified any local source capable of generating the level of revenue necessary for a "regional transportation improvement" of this magnitude. The current project identified by the Transportation Authority excludes alternative hook ramps which would mitigate the loss. of access from Dougherty Road. Potential ImDact of Limited Access to Douqherty Road Staff believes %hat the Business Task Force needs to review and provide input on the proposed reduction in access to the City of Dublin. Preliminary Staff analysis indicate that this action may generate significant impacts in two areas. Economic Impact - Access to the City of Dublin from the adjacent Interstate Highways is already substantially limited. The further reduction could have a detrimental impact on the economic climate within the community. Detailed analysis needs to be taken including the development of potential mitigation measures, which would. address any significant economic impacts. Traffic Impacts - Given the reduction in access, it is possible that traffic will be increased at the intersection of San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard. This would be caused by 1-680 traffic traveling to the San Ramon exit in order to enter Dublin. This is already a heavily used intersection and may result in gridlock if it is not properly addressed. Potential Mitiqation - Hook Ramps In the project presentation, the designers showed a "hook-ramp" which would exit southbound 1-680 south of the Dublin Cinema parking lot. The alignment is intended to match the proposed roadway parallel to Dublin Boulevard, which would run between Amador Plaza and Regional Street. The documents shown at the meeting indicated that a hook-ramp was not included in the current project and would need to be funded by some other source. During the presentation, it was suggested that this was considered to service the future BART Station. The presentation also totally ignored the potential need for a similar off-ramp for northbound 1-680 traffic. City Public Works Staff indicate that conceptual review of a northbound ramp has looked at a connection just south of the Two Peso's Restaurant on Village Parkway. This would probably require the removal of the office building at this location. It is the City's understanding that the Transportation Authority intends to include the southbound hook-ramp (Enea Property) in its conceptual plans and define the right-of-way required. The preliminary cost estimate for hook-ramps is $14 million. This would provide on and off ramps for southbound 1-680 traffic across the Enea property. In addition, it would provide for a northbound 1-680 "on-ramp" south of Two Pesos. Current ACTA and CalTrans funding does not include this portion of the project. Staff has been informed that it will be considered as a possible mitigation measure, or potentially as Phase II for future construction. If environmental studies identify that it must be provided to mitigate the impacts of the flyover, it is Staff's position that it must be included as part of the initial project. 1986 Ballot Measure The history of the project funding is also important, since %his may impact the ability of the ACTA to actually implement the flyover. In November of 1986, Alameda County voters approved Measure B, which imposed a 1/2 cent sales tax. The measure also created the Alameda County Transportation Authority and specified that the monies collected would be used for traffic and transportation projects set forth in the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan. Included among the projects were the BART Extension and the 1-580/I-680 Interchange. Ballot Lanquaqe -3- The following describes pertinent sections of the Ordinance which was contained in the ballot pamphlet. Section 15. Use of Proceeds The proceeds of the taxes used by this ordinance shall be used solely for the projects and purposes set forth in the County Transportation Expenditure Plan and the administration thereof. Section 3(e) Purpose To improve, construct, maintain, and operate certain transportation projects and facilities as contained in the Transportation Expenditure Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County, which plan is incorporated hereby this reference as through fully set forth herein, and as that Plan may be amended from time to time pursuant to applicable law. The ballot also included the Alameda County Transportation Plan which described individual projects. In addition ho a table listing individual projects, a chart was included entitled "Individual Project Funding Shortfalls." This chart included a column noted as "Local." It contains a footnote stating that "Local Match Money will come from local sources, not State or Federal money, except in the case of BART." Financinq - Options As previously noted, the total project is already short $5.6 million in the local match and as of this date, the project planners have refused to address the financing of the hook-ramps as a mitigation measure. This issue is further impacted by strict interpretations by the Alameda County Transportation Authority that Federal and State Funds cannot be used. The status of transportation funding programs have been widely changed since Measure B was approved by the voters. New programs and funding sources are potentially available from State and Federal sources. However, without some flexibility and leadership to modify the current plan, it is possible that none of the 1-580/I-680 flyover improvements will be constructed. The concept of obtaining improvements as part of the BART Extension is highly questionable. In March of 1990, BART completed its environmental documents for the Dublin Extension. The mitigated EIR provided for BART - mitigation funding of approximately 24% of the parallel road and 24% of the Dublin Boulevard Improvements totalling approximately $1 million. The time has lapsed for the Transportation Authority or CalTrans to pursue this option as a mitigation measure for challenging BART's environmental impact statement. The only opportunity which might occur -4- would be if significant changes occur which would require BART to prepare additional environmental documents. What is needed is flexibility in addressing a regional transportation improvement and a willingness to utilize any type of funding which can be leveraged with the sales tax monies. Proposed Action In order to present to the City Council the importance of this project, Staff would recommend that the Business Task Force Subcommittee direct a letter to the City Council urging the following: o The City Council needs to strongly urge the project sponsors to fully evaluate the potential Traffic Impacts and Economic Environmental Impacts of the project. The project sponsors must be fully informed well in advance of the release of their Draft Environmental documents that these issues must be fully explored and Mitigation Plans may be required in order to proceed with a Negative Declaration. The project sponsors must acknowledge that it may become necessary to include the hook-ramps as part of the flyover project in order to mitigate the loss of the Dougherty Road exit. The original concept of a new 1-580/I-680 connection recognized that this is not solely a local improvement. It is impacted by travel patterns from surrounding counties, as well as substantial amounts of traffic headed towards recreation destinations on the weekends. o The Alameda County Transportation Authority in conjunction with CalTrans must recognize the need to evaluate alternative sources for matching funds. This may include new State or Federal Transportation Programs. This approach would not jeopardize the original intent of "lev,raging" the local sales tax dollars. The Transportation Authority must be encouraged to address these issues even if it requires an amendment to their original plan. This mush be considered if the Transportation Authority intends ho be successful in implementing the projects it is charged %o carry out. 7. The City Council needs to utilize the support from the business community to raise the sensitivity to economic and traffic impacts, by the agencies planning the project. Staff has prepared a draft letter which expresses these points. It is requested that the Subcommittee identify any other pertinent issues and provide direction. a: 87traf{. task force#3 -5- P~ESOLUTION NO. - 92 A P~ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN *************************** P~EGAI{DING 1-580/I-680 FLYOlrER URGF~NT NEED TO ADDP~ESS POTENTIAL I~ACTS ~ PROJECT FIN~CING WHEREAS, in 1986, the Alameda County Transportation Authority was formed with the approval of Measure B by voters of Alameda County ; and WHEREAS, the Transportation Authority was charged with oversight of a special 1/2 cent sales tax to implement the Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan; and WHEREAS, the Plan identified improvements required to the 1-580/I-680 interchange as a specific project to be undertaken; and WHEREAS, the interchange project was described as including the following improvements: "...provide a portion of a full directional interchange to replace the existing cloverleaf loops with one freeway-to-freeway direct connection in the southbound to eastbound direction (portions). The westbound to northbound ramp will also be improved."; and WHEREAS, the westbound to northbound improvements have been completed with a contribution from local agencies towards improving the Interstate Highway; and WHEREAS, the project sponsors have released conceptual plans for the "flyover" project; and WHEREAS, due to the design of the "flyover," the project will eliminate access to the City of Dublin from Dougherty Road for all traffic transitioning from 1-680 to 1-580; and WHEREAS this impact was not known until preliminary design studies were complete; and WHEREAS the project sponsors have developed a conceptual review of a southbound 1-680 connection to Amador Plaza; and WHEREAS conceptual review has also been considered for a northbound 1-680 on ramp from Village Parkway; and WHEREAS %he Alameda County Transportation Authority and CalTrsn$ do not recognize these hook ramps as being an integral component of the "flyover" project; and WHEREAS a subcommittee of the Dublin Business Task Force has identified legitimate concerns which must be addressed; and WHEREAS the Business Task Force Subcommittee has established a position that the hook ramps are integral as a mitigation measure to address traffic and economic impacts of the loss of the Dougherty Road access; and WHEREAS, the Business Task Force Subcommittee has also identified a critical need for flexibility in the identification of required matching funds to construct this project; and WHEREAS, the project sponsors must incorporate these concepts early in the environmental review and design process in order to fulfill obligations to improve an important regional transportation link in the Interstate Highway System. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby establish the following positions related to the 1-580/ 1-680 Flyover Project: Prior to release of the proposed environmental documents CalTrans shall study fully the economic impacts and traffic impacts of eliminating access by 1-680 traffic to Dougherty Road. The potential for significant economic impact is great given the already limited access from the Interstate Highways to commercial areas in Dublin. The traffic impact of the Flyover has the potential of creating gridlock at San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard as all 1-680 traffic is forced to utilize this single access point to the City of Dublin. The project sponsors must include adequate mitigation measures to address these concerns. The Alameda County Transportation Authority and CalTrans must consider replacement access to the City of Dublin along northbound and southbound 1- 680 as a mitigation measure which is an integral component of the Flyover project. The 1-580/I-680 Interchange is an Interstate Highway improvement which serves traffic from throughout the region. The flow of traffic is impacted by commute patterns from surrounding counties, as well as weekend traffic bound for recreation destinations. o The original County Transportation Expenditure Plan anticipated that the sales tax funding would be leveraged with other sources excluding State and Federal funds. Subsequent to the adoption of the Plan, new sources of State and Federal transportation funds have become available. The Alameda County Transportation Authority must consider a flexible funding scheme which continues to leverage sales tax dollars, including the use of State and Federal funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appropriate representatives of the City of Dublin are directed to communicate these concerns with the appropriate agencies. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of August, 1992. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk a: resoi 580, agenda#10