HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09221987 - S.1 TOt BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,•y'•�
Contra
FROM: Supervisor Tom Powers
Costa
DATES September 15, 1987 County
S U BJECTt East Shore Cooperation Group: Proposed Memorandum of Agreement
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommendation:
That the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed
Memorandum of Agreement for - the establishment of the East Shore
Cooperation Group.
Background:
The East Shore Cooperation Group Memorandum of Agreement will establish
formal cooperation between the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa and
the cities of Albany, Berkeley, E1 Cerrito, Emeryville, Hercules,
Oakland, Pinole, Richmond, and San Pablo to focus on transportation
planning for the East Shore area.
The Group will consist of one councilmember/supervisor of each member
city or county to be appointed by the governing body of each member.
Staff support will be provided by a technical committee composed of
staff from members and ABAG.
The Memorandum of Agreement would commit the member parties to a
cooperative and coordinated approach to problems of intra-area
transportation in the East Shore area. The Group's goals are to
maintain acceptable levels of operation and capacity on the public
thoroughfares and to provide for planned and future development and
redevelopment of commercial and residential areas.
The Memorandum of Agreement would not bind members financially or
contractually.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTI X_ YES SIGNATURES
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 22, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
J
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOESt AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENTt ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Community Devel-opment ATTESTED 9 7
County Administrator Phi. Batchelor, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
M38217•63 BY DEPUTY
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
EAST SHORE COOPERATION GROUP
{
This Memorandum of Agreement is entered into on 1987 by
and between the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, political subdivisions
of the State of California; and the Cities of Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito,
Emeryville, Hercules, Oakland, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo, each of which
are Municipal Corporations.
Whereas, the operation and capacity of public thoroughfares in the East Shore
area is substantially impacted by regional through traffic, and
I
Whereas, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in June of 1986 was
mandated to conduct the I-80 Corridor study examining deficiencies in
transportation systems in Solano County and the East Shore area from the San
Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to Crockett, and
Whereas, the I-80 corridor study is primarily addressing regional
transportation needs _between residential and employment centers along the
corridor, and
Whereas, many of the proposals being studied, and much of the information
being developed pertains directly to the problems of intra-area transportation r
in the East Shore area, and '
i
F
i
Whereas, it is necessary and important to maintain acceptable levels of
operation and capacity on the public thoroughfares of the East Shore area to
provide for planned and future development and redevelopment of commercial and
residential areas there, and
4
Whereas, it is important to admit that traffic and congestion problems do not
recognize artificial political boundaries, and
Whereas, the counties and cities which are a party to this agreement could
improve their cooperation, and
Whereas, all parties now agree that a cooperative approach is the best way to
correct the existing serious traffic problems in the East Shore area; and
Whereas, all parties are members of the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) , and part of ABAG's mission is to foster cooperation among its members;
Now, Therefore, the parties enter into this Kemorandum of Agreement and agree `
as follows:
-- i
I
1
1. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE. The parties hereby create a committee to be
called the East Shore Cooperation Group. The Group shall consist of one
councilmember/supervisor of each member city or county. The appointment of
representatives to the Group shall be made by the governing body of each
member. The Group shall work on specific tasks, as agreed upon by the
members. Initially, the group will focus on transportation planning for the
East Shore area. 'For the purposes of this agreement, the East Shore Area is
that area included within the heavy line on Figure 1 attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
2. SPECIFIC TASKS. Specific tasks of the Group shall generally be those
set forth in the documents attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, entitled,
respectively, East Shore Program for Cooperation in Transportation and
Outline of Process.
3. WORK PRODUCTS. The Group shall complete the work products identified
in Exhibit A as per the schedule stated in Exhibit B. A copy of each work
product shall be transmitted to the governing body of each member upon
completion and acceptance of the Group.
4. STAFF SUPPORT. The East Shore Cooperation Group will receive support from
a technical committee composed of members' employees and ABAG staff. ABAG j
will facilitate the Group's efforts and guide technical advisory committee f
meetings.
The Group shall agree on the manner in which each party will contribute to
staff support. If possible, each member shall assign staff to work with the
Group and assist in its deliberations. Preferably, each member shall
designate both a professional planner and a traffic engineer. Those j
designated will attend monthly Technical Advisory Committee meetings and, as
requested, assist their jurisdiction's elected representative. i
In the event it is necessary to hire a consultant, or any staff, the members
shall agree in advance, in writing, on how the cost of any such paid staff or
consultant shall be shared.
5. AGENCY CONTINUED PARTICIPATION REASSESSMENT. At any stage, after careful
consideration of progress made toward stated Group objectives, each member
shall have the option to request a review of that progress and to reassess its
continued participation. j
6. AMENDMENT. This agreement may be amended, modified, or changed by the
members provided that said amendment, modification, or change is in writing
and approved by all members. i
i
I
i
2
Exhibit A
EAST SHORE PROGRAM
FOR
COOPERATION IN TRANSPORTATION
An issue of great concern to citizens of the East Shore Area is the need to
maintain acceptable levels of operation and capacity on the public
thoroughfares of the East Shore area to provide for planned and future
development and redevelopment in the East Shore area. In the past the
counties and cities have not appreciated that traffic respects no boundaries.
All now agree that a cooperative approach is the best way to correct the
existing serious traffic problems in the East Shore Area.
4
In order to pursue such a coordinated effort, Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, and the cities of Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville,
Hercules, Oakland, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo propose that a cooperative
effort be established among the two counties and the nine cities of the East
Shore Area. The cooperative effort would be undertaken by a new committee of ,
elected representatives from member jurisdictions.
Professional staff from the participating jurisdictions shall be assigned to
assist the Group. Depending on the work to be done, qualified and independent
consultants may be engaged and services would be funded by the participating
jurisdictions.
The Group will advocate for those recommendations upon which its members can
agree. Such advocacy shall include, but not be limited to, gaining
concurrence of the governing bodies of participating jurisdictions, seeking
local, state and/or federal funds for improvements, and gaining support of
related transit and transportation agencies and commissions.
The participating jurisdictions agree that the specific tasks listed below are .
t
assigned to the Group for resolution.
1. Identify transportation problems which exist in and among East Shore
counties and cities.
The decision-makers will identify problems which, with interjurisdictional
cooperation, can possibly be improved in the short term. Such problems may
include: unsynchronized traffic signals on streets extending between East
Shore cities, difficult transit access to certain areas, insufficient park and
ride facilities, need for expanded public transit routes, lack of both
coordinated carpooling and other transportation management strategies.
I
2. Formulate a short-rang action pan for remedying these Rroblems.
Members will prioritize existing problems and specify actions to implement
recommended improvements.
3
3. Examine the 1-80 Corridor Study Recommendations and determine those
recommendations which will be in the best interest of the East Shore Area.
The Group will determine compatibility of I-80 Study recommendations with the
Short Range Action Plan. Members will also discuss how a second phase of that
study should be structured.
4. Suggest a standardized transportation data base for current and future
transportation planning in the East Shore Area.
The Group will investigate the traffic data bases of participating
jurisdictions and 1) recommend uniform standards of data collection, and 2)
identify what additional data needs collection. The Group will also prepare
an inventory of planned transportation improvements, which shall be assembled
and updated periodically.
The Group will also recommend a traffic model to be used to assist future
planning efforts.
5. Recommend the Scope and Organizational Structure Needed for a Mid-range
Coordinated Tran sPor tation Program
Suggest a mid-range, or 10-year plan, to examine the relationship between land use
and transportation. Ultimately, such a plan would attempt to balance the
capacity of the transportation.system with the number of trips proposed land
uses would generate.
S
r
I
4
Exhibit B
East Shore Cooperation Group
Outline of Process
October, 1987
i
Review responses to Memorandum of Agreement j
Discuss AC Transit long-range plans
i
November, 1987
Identify and prioritize existing transportation problems
December, 1987
I
Review Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) preliminary proposals on increasing
alternative travel modes
Review and comment on I-80 Corridor Study
January. 1988
,
,
r
Review TAC preliminary proposals on increasing traffic flows within and
between jurisdictions.
February, 1988
Review TAC preliminary proposals on improving communication and cooperation
between jurisdictions.
March. 1988
Finalize recommendations - Short Range Action Plan
Finalize recommendations - I-80 Corridor Study
i
April, 1988
Formulate recommendations for member's transportation databases
Determine advocacy strategy
I
i
• I
5
I
M rrnm 2�1\'a`a nAu Glen CovB2.7
CaoK
` ..- a•' : a_ FL aS� 'Sokrhamr no .
k -- •" - Crockeft prey sa, a8
• Fiqure 1 East Shore Area
J
P'
f
39o kev<xaen
leum .8 comtRr„µa. Benicia ratormeY
3
y4 z
a 'Art.r. 'rG i.5 'yy9S?, Caraainf: aF ^''o-
Rodeo>/.,,\... •/•r%.- ; scf `te'vada Dock
r �C
fL.Ia tsN 6 u 2 /4F,y AA,',,.l.;.:i"... 2
5.5
rur s ^ 9 EL.re
Hercule/s. 1.9 .9 \\\\ .8 2
°"" �aH d fvtatfinez*
rprw'rlxalf w.xKiax /" CPN b </ ,MyR \`
4.2 A.. _ PP�i• y9y+*lM1 Citi 3.6 �r \3,•a/•ar s
t
AN
_.e , i 5 _ gPinole J 1.4 1.4 i4HE\ n-`.-.
wi
2I3Sobran AAA<x
r RD. [.• 9 ' . 3
' ! .3}16 0 • r' �cF A. 0 �`4�$�• y+
Muir L-s:( �3-
1.6 .9 so ✓ `Ao .�o s.
POOL R +6i f,'2> 13;�
AL
`'taro`J= •
Giantf s,`}6P S.5 i.3 o s El Nobrante Y*tL f}�3.2/
�'Qp%\ ALN+ 1.3`= O
°j +e u b CON'RA COSI :l 1'2 pQP 4� Rd �$RA r CM/ 1
A z
PLRR B(,-: PPS • GatlfGE 'B r,.i�l�� VF•i 2.5Rp
»t rr.Lw•ARLa RYfF rSIUC P°N tL4 aY - F,y, •. .•.
--.•+tn 6`'QA RO.] TP6 O RAND +LLf} L�?
2.5 c arrw,R aAs .
_ Av San r; i10
Pablo .5 m',cRI
a! 3.5 .4 AJ.
•r A.°tArf ;' �'.� 2 rcBRvO[ 2 Rf yCO
r.•.•,F_�. .. a e 2 .\M>y, A
1 2 •h"ILAILA. z S
n u:t•o I.S..• ArE Eti A y `I'R 4.5
BRIDGE t +rO,r„ 00»ALa\ 1.2><v'! �PPP9 .ZV 41�a`�.,ac' tiNAL,\
° -Richmond- - 2.�
�cK raal n.:. r f etw.
9,. 6 0. °Ta - �lcs.. - 1 An RK CI
t \PP" P � camwb 1�
S ,•t '�N NOEF POIR[RU AY \v8 Y Ari wry. C �[L.PIP, 91
a•c,+P S.r. 1 I
MAN 4 -
/rP..AAtKAxA+Wx» HP `_..i .:P ~ �..•....-. i:,, .- -_.G,6 \\ ,A\ r w0 t<:.•.,,,�..xrLa4• .`.'�:,i [ irC.R`il RJpNF,�S O., t C q ff K Rp RO NA2 L.EY. .'_�_r_FTT �'�.`�j a r
n6` EL 71 4 fi '4. Cerrto 425` 1\ DAM& -. "o. VAL
Richmond Kensington
'
�
„ w y o 3 C a AGE-'a 4\a
V ` EL.goo to- Y Ra.n a 2
nnrt Inner Harbor . A' ., tr_. Late °'}gY!Ow Ro. a \"> rn x EL.MI
Lafa effe La i
BROOKS ISLAND .`•-<< a`
Y r r�%. i8a Albany AVE. .3� 9rF o;2 s Y s �MrNQ i '.� 1.7
a i.4 'a*P' t' `�L n` .Pi•°`a...,r .-r Na .N:Fu�fr
aowEw o t-rLasS I ^� a 'P+ 16Ecn`rn Ri• °iE.:"\o .3 �Vw• `i a :a
FACt A 4 `x . * [AA p� C �u S 1.1 J ° a
FLENtNO Pi- EG.ISJ e 1 z [.S 3.7 4 R -•.::l
'LVff PT, .� tN + v ° orinda'$tt BAVIS IRM
Berke ~ -Mta aw UN1YERSITY CA Villa Oe OI_ 1 �p A 2.3• "!
!'3 1.2 o r .rr 1'. n:».
p5itn AV. yr+ ar CALIF l PD Y ON, »f C.-1A Ar
< 2.5 a
BERKELEY - `, 6 LIMINE � �[ r ---` \ grind 1.1 v,
1 MARINA ., m !.i 1.2 } rA, �y . o oc =) 2.3 3.8
EL AeS
s, °�AraN`'..saahn,% 1.3 o ia1.3 2.2 'C+" �A RheemValiey
.. _ PF'R[,P '�ng •'I 1.2 0 o A 1 +.8 Are'• ,Lx.F 1 fi�r`wtEt"tl.rn. ArO 1.3 y
^•'S Af-jr., "S ; Si �>h•! `I` 'AROUND TOP M.LHOtUN
AoaArrc,. Asµsi •9 1.3Sa AIRE rwe °`vr Aa .1` G NTLI.
WWW... 1 PAv Ar 1.8
�- :•m -7 ""°w,A cr.8+ 3.II 3.}
1.8 RCP. '3 '1. SA[Nt•. .*/r/�fA
, 1.3 '•_
1.5 1.2 +h1Me �h'fy noApa }
ELSJ ` 1.2 7,8A 'i .P9' I .3 ^_OLL_GF
ALGATRAE Emeryville; A-Q*M' .8 sc,>proPPOA_s •+ a``EP 1°8 -��. � Canyan S1 'R° Moraga -
ISLAND TREASURE - ruu y 7 :' �'1 f:.�P' -2` yA ui '9 'cL,rrm Gx,
E - '�.°' �.6`�' r +v USPPU\ EL.Jac 36 ?Afax p,. 4.1
ISLAND 1; i easoG _ ;.' .9 1 $r s. -�. Piedmont 1.9 -.
1 ii fi JOAOUIA,
0""",O 3.5Okltt OAKLANGRAN
D D ` �*$ � i 0, �9 MI LLER PARK B,.
." Harbor ARMY .9 = 1 :r q 10• - La
BASE FART •• •R Z.1
Ss e°J tVic° VERBA BUEtLN ti aA suV. lR \2 1 1.3Po•so Lao.t Aro-
NA a
,.24 a`\•`s2r.
9
1
r 9a I
<: t(�•S±,Rya:»a^�� rte .Ti., Y^9;Alr CEN=[K�aklantl�`;;k '�� Pr✓ �� .9� 1 PJE9 '�, a,'_ a r+}Lr PO i
s i rW yP 2.2\
IwranA AN WPI ,a \ J.� • � � �, \ r
AIR STAT- }l• 3M r�_ ��� .5 \ ,,erse osh
aK qA
-•,'[� Rv + � .Y L- AUMEDA-� !.4
/";A\,.r�. �r 1�J \ AkAKNc av n FnA vlcu �` ` SF r, L4 coufr.E �/"-�•� a6.5 raBo=1
S� \ti# "1 Sr � \ I> crKr•N Ar
/ I uwr»,L7
♦•" - lj`4 ,,.� �a q Et.ro +P 2 araC � 1.8 9 AmuEai sta'" 13 sA C`r.. `
. LR�NSA ^' .. `�\ A13titada Rw' nY F� �o.KIA +sP• 1.1 4,� °' p ._
1.5;
.a 2. AtAIIAACO 1.6
2.5 '. . ..,... _.. P`il.Pa ,,_.•, yPBn,-e 9
- aLxv. �-Si' r-� '� '^�\ �<:.'�{ \ 1.5 1.33
a: a iE• `PNP. "F'�Vr"y _saw tt
4 1.7 F
`�: �' .. `1\ BAr = :1 ` •v,Su ^ 'h'� \:! �• San s.e. q
FARM 'c F I `:a 7 .1 1.5M Leandro 1. Icw'.a Tc Ar
f
< ETROPOLFTAN :4�w i� tabx
9
Ar
Pi.
wPMM!n. ISU \ 3 \\}
OAKLAND `"SRry t °,� tUO,4�O tK•E!CT
_ yy�Ml�� 4
C `WUPIVATIONAt 44. a<tss AC(i'•
17 AIRPORT P,pYa OPV LS.u t B '�r uwaErr w
`.."� v r>+w+a 6 A Q MyO. �+ 'P J i••� d.7
� aASOrfinn'•+. _r'v r r,t 1 r rcf r: - ♦� .\ t.• ..,
.... .-. I \:1 � ..•+w.r .LM.:` .J♦ n r i �Tr.i` l� r.. ..i.,