Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041994 - 2.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: October 4, 1994 SUBJECT: Diamond Boulevard Extension Project SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: REAFFIRM the prior authorization given by the Board of Supervisors on April 27, 1993 to submit the Diamond Boulevard Extension project for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funding; and APPROVE the attached Resolution providing matching funds for the Diamond Boulevard Extension project programmed in the 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) with Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. II. Financial Impact: If the ISTEA application is withdrawn, Contra Costa County will lose the opportunity to receive $4.1 million in federal funds. County must provide the local match to receive ISTEA funding. Developer fees will be the source of the local match. There will be no impact to the General Fund. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: This item was considered by the Board of Supervisors on September 27, 1994. However, with four supervisors present, there was a tie vote and no decision was reached. Supervisor Powers requested the item be placed on the October 4th agenda for reconsideration and decision. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: w � ^ _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October 4, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER IL_ The Board determined not to submit the Diamond Boulevard Extension Project for Internodal Surface Transporation Efficiency Act funding and to withdraw its prior approval. See Addendum for vote and comments. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AYES: 2, 3, 4 &5 NOES: 1 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: HB:mg c:B027.t9 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Orig. Div: Public Works (Transportation Eng.) Board of Supervi t e date shown. Contact: Heather Ballenger, Tel. 313-2258 ATTESTED*-- - -�/ 9 cc: V. Alexeeff, GMEDA Director PHIL BATCHELOR.Clerk of the Board Of Supervisors and county Administrator S. Goetz, Community Development R. Gilchrist, Accounting Deputy CCTA (via Public Works) MTC (via Public Works) (Continue on Page 2 and Page 3) Diamond Boulevard Extension Project October 4, 1994 Page 2 On August 16, 1994 the Board of Supervisors reviewed the Diamond Boulevard Extension project. The Board of Supervisors requested that questions raised by the public and members of the Board to be answered and brought back to a subsequent Board meeting for action. The following will provide background on the project and address the concerns that were raised at the August 16, 1994 meeting. On April 17, 1990 Supervisor Sunne McPeak recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the Diamond Boulevard Extension not be built using Measure C funds. However, on November 6, 1990 the Board of Supervisors affirmed that it was appropriate to apply for State-Local Partnership funds for the Diamond Boulevard Extension project. On April 27, 1993 the Board of Supervisors authorized the Public Works Department to apply for ISTEA funds. The Diamond Boulevard Extension project was submitted to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for ISTEA funds in April 1993. The application was then forwarded to Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to be ranked with other projects in the region. This project has continued to receive a ranking that is competitive. The project was submitted and has received points for the benefits it will provide to the 1-680 corridor and the Concord Avenue area. The project will extend Diamond Boulevard north of Concord Avenue continuing the frontage road to the east of 1-680. It will also improve the operation of the freeway, both the on and off ramps at Concord Avenue and 1-680 itself. Also included in the total score for the project are points for the project cost effectiveness. Public Works submitted 14 projects for ISTEA funds. The Diamond Boulevard Extension and the Southern Pacific Extension were the only two that scored high enough to possibly receive competitive ISTEA funds. The Southern Pacific Extension was withdrawn due to its state of readiness and the fear that we would not be able to meet the obligation deadline of September 1997. If the Diamond Boulevard Extension application is also withdrawn the $4.1 million requested will be programmed to projects with lower scores in other counties in the (MTC) region. The funds will not remain in Contra Costa County. There has been community concern that the project should not have been submitted for ISTEA funds due to the fact that it would benefit the vacant parcel at Buchanan Airport known as Parcel "B" and due to the prior commitment made by Supervisor McPeak. However, ISTEA considers the benefits the project will provide to the system regardless of the positive impact the project would have for future development. There are policies in the general plan that refer to the development of Parcel B, Section 3-108 and 5-48. Section 5-48 states that the development of Parcel "B" should provide for the Diamond Boulevard Extension Project. However, Section 3-108 allows for the Board of Supervisors to determine the extent of improvements required. The current general plan allows for 180,000 sq.ft. of retail commercial development on Parcel "B", which is a reduction from the 682,000 sq.ft. of office space in the prior general plan. During the August 16, 1994 Board of Supervisors meeting there was concern expressed regarding several environmental issues that will be analyzed further if the Board approves moving forward with the process. In the short term Public Works staff has tried to address some of the initial concerns. There was concern that the project would cause a significant increase in ambient noise to the residents of the mobile home park. A noise analysis will be performed as part of the environmental process., If it is determined that the project would cause a significant noise impact and could be mitigated with a soundwall, the construction of a soundwall would be required. Since this cost is not covered in the original application it might have to be covered from local funds. The estimate to construct a soundwall along Marsh Drive is approximately $300,000. The impact the project will have on wetlands is another concern that was voiced at the Board of Supervisors meeting. In general, man-made water features do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of Engineers. Two of the three areas of concern (the golf course pond and Diamond Boulevard Extension Project October 4, 1994 Page 3 ditch along 1-680) are man-made. The drainage ditch that flows along Marsh Drive is one area that is not man-made and would have to reviewed by Fish & Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. Public Works is familiar,with these permitting agencies and would work with them to determine appropriate mitigation. If the ditch has to be relocated it is estimated to cost $200,000. The limits of the project is another issue raised at the Board of Supervisors meeting. Some of the speakers voiced concern that the project should not terminate at Aria Drive but extend to the north of Vista Grande. If this were the preferred alternative it would increase the cost of the project by$500,000. Another option would be to end the improvements at Center Avenue. This would possibly reduce the impact to the mobile home park residents. The preliminary estimate indicates that this would reduce the project cost by $1,000,000. Both of these alternatives should be studied during the environmental process. In addition, the "no project" alternative would also be analyzed. Vibration was another concern raised. At this time, staff does not have much experience with this kind of complaint. We would recommend contracting a soils engineer and performing some testing to determine the severity of the issue and to make recommendation on its mitigation. The local share, including additional costs for required mitigation measures will be funded through airport development funds and the Developer Area Benefit program. The project cost estimates will continue to be examined, but the local share could be $1,400,000. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: Failure to adopt the Resolution providing the local match for the project, for approval by MTC will preclude the project from receiving ISTEA funds. cc: Pacheco Municipal Advisory Committee Pacheco Town Council, D. Mount A. Wise H. Yeager D THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 4. 1994 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. SUBJECT: A Resolution of Intent with regard to County Local Match and the State Transportation Program (STP) for the Diamond Boulevard Extension project in the Pacheco area. The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE: WHEREAS,the County has applied and been recommended for$4.1 million in STP funding for the Diamond Boulevard Extension project in the Pacheco area. The project will extend Diamond Boulevard from Concord Avenue to Marsh Drive/Center Avenue. Other circulation improvements include widening of Marsh Drive and Center Avenue, realignment of Sally Ride Drive, improving a portion of Concord Avenue, and interconnecting traffic signals at several locations. The combination of all improvements should enhance transit operations, relieve traffic congestion, and improve air quality. The project is scheduled for inclusion in the 1995 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to be adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and approved by the Federal Highway Administration. WHEREAS, a prerequisite for inclusion in the 1995 TIP is the adoption of a local resolution stating that the Diamond Boulevard Extension project will be constructed as described above, and on the County's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) application. WHEREAS, local matching funds will be provided by Developer Fees with the understanding that the guaranteed STP funding is fixed at$4.1 million, and therefore, any cost increases can not be expected to be funded with STP funds. No General Fund money will be expended. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, by adopting this resolution of intent, does hereby authorize the local match for the Diamond Boulevard Extension project, and direct the Public Works Director to construct the project as described herein. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an order entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors at the aforesaid date. Orlg. Div: Public Works (Transportation Engineering) Contact: Heather Ballenger, Tel. 313-2258 cc: V, Alexeeff, GMEDA Director R. Gilchrist, Accounting S. Goetz, Community Development C. Monsen, CCTA D. Murray, MTC SK:eh c:BR16.t8 RESOLUTION NO. ADDENDUM TO BOARD ORDER 2.3 FOR OCTOBER 4, 1994 Chairman Powers asked for a brief staff report. Maurice Shiu, Deputy Public Works Director, provided the staff report and advised that Public Works had prepared a point by point report on the various concerns raised by interested persons at the past meetings where this item was considered. See responses attached. Board members discussed the various responses with staff. The Chair invited those who had submitted cards to present their testimony and the following appeared: Hal Yeager, 89 Baylor Lane, Pleasant Hill, spoke in opposition. Joyce Jones, 45 Rutherford Lane, Pacheco Town Council, spoke in opposition. George Iaconis, 4349 Apple Place, Pittsburg, Secretary f-or the Buchanan Fields Mens Golf Club, spoke in opposition. Ray Johnson, 2264 Greenwich Road, San Pablo, spoke for Seniors in Contra Costa County in opposition. Franklin S . Burroughs, 160 La Serena Avenue, Alamo, spoke in opposition. Andrea M. Wise, 64 Baylor Lane, Pleasant Hill, spoke in opposition. Craig Anderson, P. 0. Box 9526, Concord, 94521, spoke "for Buchanan Fields Golf Club, in opposition. Frank Bird, 2157 Youngs Court, Walnut Creek, for all golf groups, women, seniors and Chevron, spoke in opposition. William H. Rassett, 2301 N. 6th Street, Concord,. for Buchanan Men' s Club, spoke in opposition. Wally Wiggs, 187 Freda Drive, Pacheco, for Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council, spoke in opposition. Joe Schneider, 137 Algiers Way, Pacheco for Sun Valley Village Mobile Homeowners ' Association, spoke in opposition. The Chair read a message from Lou Rosas, 1818 Elkwood Drive, Concord, in opposition. The time being 1 : 00 p.m. , the Chair advised that the Board was very late for a meeting with the Expanded Youth Services Board scheduled for 12 : 00 noon at the Training Institute, and that he would now close public testimony and the Board would take the matter up again later in the day. The Board returned and took up matters listed on the afternoon agenda, and then again took up the matter of the Diamond Boulevard Extension Project, Item 2 . 3 on today' s agenda. County Counsel suggested that by implication, and having already heard testimony earlier today, the Board in effect has the matter before it, so a vote for reconsideration is not required. Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to remove the Board' s support for ISTEA funding from MTC. Supervisor Bishop seconded the motion, clarifying that she understood the motion to be to withdraw the Board' s application to MTC. Supervisor DeSaulnier thanked the staff for attempting to do something to work with the Community, and reiterated his position that the road is not necessary and his concern that tax money not be spent on things that are not necessary. He urged Board members to vote for his motion to withdraw. Supervisor Torlakson expressed his appreciation to staff for the report that addressed the concerns raised in previous meetings . He commented that the Board, and the Mayors and the City .Councils have urged that the traffic problem be fixed and .had urged staff to go find the resources to fix the traffic problems . He commented that in weighing all things, that the positives that he could identify so far are not outweighed by the potential negatives . He commented that he understood the golf course would change significantly, and further that he is hearing from the Concord City Officials that there is change going on in their thinking. Where previously Concord had a general plan to do something cooperatively with the County in this regard, that thinking was changing, and under these changed circumstances, and listening to the Supervisor from the District, he would be voting for the motion to withdraw the application. Supervisor Smith commented that this was an interesting approach to planning, that the proposal is to spend only $20, 000 of County money to get the benefit of a $150, 000 EIR to give us all the information that we could possibly need. He noted that this project had been planned for a long time, it is part of the congestion management plan, and if it doesn' t go through, it jeopardizes the County' s ability to get return-to-source money from the Transportation Authority. He noted that from sitting down with some of the representatives in the community, it appears there are real concerns that this will expand the use of the airport and they are very concerned that the Board or somebody has the intention of putting commercial flights into the airport and using the West side for the terminal . He commented that this project could be a win/win situation, and that there is a possibility of getting the community together and coming up with a solution that would be satisfactory to everybody to solve traffic problems . He advised that if the Supervisor in the District believes that it is not worth spending that $20, 000 to potentially gain $4, 000, 000 in federal funds to relieve congestion in that area, he would not second guess, but go along with the majority. Supervisor Powers noted that he had many of the same concerns expressed by Supervisor Smith, and that the only thing that has changed in this situation is the people have changed and there are opinions that differ but unfortunately, the Board has to provide for long-term planning in this County; and there was an item in the general plan addressing the overall comprehensive program of traffic circulation. He suggested that modifications to the road project could be made to address concerns of the golf course. He noted that one of the issues the Board has to deal with is moving traffic and he disagrees with those who say that this project is not important for traffic, and he felt that this traffic reliever program is going to be needed. He advised that he would be voting against the motion, but as the County' s representative on MTC, he will carry out the Board' s directive. The Chair called for a vote on the motion. The vote was as follows : AYES : Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier and Torlakson NOES : Supervisor Powers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: October 3, 1994 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director � SUBJECT: Responses to questions regarding the Diamond Boulevard Extension Project There were many questions raised when the Board considered the Diamond Boulevard Extension Project on August 16, 1994 and on September 27, 1994. This is in response to the questions raised by the Board of Supervisors and by the Public. The questions can be summarized into five categories. A. Required Action 1. When does the Board of Supervisors have to act on this matter? The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is scheduled to adopt the 1994 Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)on October 5, 1994. Staff of MTC has requested that the Board adopt a resolution committing the local match prior to that date. B. Public Participation 1. How much public participation was provided by the Public Works Department in the planning and implementation of this project? The Diamond Boulevard Extension was part of the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan since 1983. During the Airport Master Plan Update process in 1989, numerous public meetings were held to solicit public input Many of these meetings were specifically held for the residents in the three mobile home parks on the west side of Marsh Drive. After the Master Plan was adopted in 1990 by the Board, Public Works has been in regular contact with the Pacheco Town Council, the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council and the residents of the three mobile home parks regarding the status of the project and to refine specific components of the project. 2. If the process is not terminated at this point, what opportunities are there for public participation? In light of the interest expressed by the public over this project, we recommend that the Board appoint an advisory committee to work with the County on the preparation of the environmental assessment. An independent outside facilitator could be hired to work with the committee to develop the public participation process and the work plan of the environmental assessment. We suggest that the advisory committee should consist of about nine members from the Pacheco Town Council, the Pacheco Municipal Advisory Council, Airport advisory Committee, the Airport Board of Supervisors October 3, 1994 Page 2 Land Use Commission, representative of the residents in the mobile home parks, the Concord Chamber of Commerce Aviation Subcommittee and other at-large members. C. Will the proposal lead to the construction of the Westside Aviation Terminal? The cost to construct an airport terminal is typically paid for by the commercial airlines that use the terminal. It is not paid for by the FAA and it is too costly for the Airport or the County. For a terminal to be established, a viable airline will first have to establish regular commercial service at Buchanan. Only when the service is proved to be successful will the construction of a new terminal be discussed. The airlines are not anxious to make such an investment until necessary. The Diamond Boulevard Extension by itself in any form, will not effect the construction of the westside terminal. It will be based on whether Buchanan provides a viable market for airline travel. At the September 27, 1994 Board meeting, Val Alexeeff mentioned that the Airport is willing to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution assuring residents that there are no plans to construct a terminal within the next 20 years. D. Questions regarding the environmental assessment process: 1. What are the alternatives to be studied by the environmental assessment? We will rely heavily on the public participation process to identify all feasible alternatives to be investigated and respond to some of the difficult questions raised. At a minimum, we will study the following alternatives: i. The project alternative as described in the grant application. This alternative will construct a 4 lane Diamond Boulevard Extension between Concord Avenue and Center Avenue. Center Avenue will be widened to four lanes between Pacheco Boulevard and Marsh Drive. Marsh Drive will be widened to four lanes from Center Avenue to Aria Drive. The intersections of Marsh Drive at Aria, Sahara, and Center will be signalized. ii. An expanded project to extend the proposed four lane widening on Marsh Drive to pass Vista Grande and around the Marsh Drive curve. iii. A reduced project that will extend a four lane Diamond Boulevard to Center Avenue and widen Center Avenue to four lanes. The Center Avenue/Marsh Drive intersection will be signalized. Signals at Sahara, Aria and Vista Grande will be investigated. If these intersections meet signal warrants, the signals will be installed. Access to the Airport from Center Avenue will remain the same. iv. The no project alternative. Do not construct the project at this time. This will present the impacts should no project be constructed. Board of Supervisors October 3, 1994 Page 3 These project alternatives range in cost from approximately 3.5 million dollars for the scaled down alternative to approximately 6 million dollars in which the Marsh Drive improvements are extended north. If a more expensive alternative is selected in the environmental process, the increased cost would be paid for either by developer fees or from the Airport Enterprise Fund. 2. What will be included in the scope of work of the environmental assessment? Based on the input from the Board and from the Public, we recommend that the environmental assessment, as a minimum, include the following investigations: i. Impacts on the circulation system of the area including an analysis of the time savings to the public and how safety would be improved with the project; ii. The economic impacts to the immediate area including impacts to the businesses along Contra Costa Boulevard, Diamond Boulevard and parcel B on the west side of the airport; iii. The impacts on the implementation of the airport master plan including an analysis on how this project will or will not affect the implementation of the terminal on the west side of the airport; iv. The effect on the air quality (CO) in the immediate vicinity of the project (The effect of hydro-carbons has been studied by MTC.); v. The effect of additional traffic created by the project would have on the mobile home parks including analysis of the visual, noise, vibration impacts and effects on the ingress and egress of the mobile home park residents; vi. If any wetland will be affected and the proposed mitigation plan. 3. Supervisor Tom Torlakson advised that he wished to have the CEQA issues, environmental issues and all legal issues raised today be reviewed by staff. In addition, he desired to know the source of the funds that would be needed for legal costs, if incurred in this project. The environmental issues raised will be incorporated into the environmental assessment work. In the event that the document is.challenged in court, the expense to defend the project may be an eligible cost. However, the federal participation is capped at$4.1 million and developer or Airport Enterprise Funds may be required for defense. 4. Is the county willing to pay the cost overruns that may occur due to the destruction of two to three acres of wetlands in the drainage channel along Marsh Drive and through the golf course? Board of Supervisors October 3, 1994 Page 4 After discussing the potential problem of wetlands with the Public Works Department Environmental Specialist experienced with such questions, it was concluded that the man-made water features of the golf course, such as the pond, would not fall under the Corps of Engineer's jurisdiction. The roadside ditch along Marsh Drive may fall under the Corp's jurisdiction. If the roadside ditch were found to be a wetland, the County would be required to mitigate the loss by replacing the wetland. The impacts of the project and possible mitigation would be addressed in the environmental document. Since the current federal and state process is not entirely predictable, specific responses are not possible. 5. Is the County willing to pay the cost of redoing the Airport EIR because Public Works changed the methodology for evaluating the Level of Service for the intersection of Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Boulevard which lowers the Level of Service for the intersection one and one half to two times from the previous calculations? The Airport Master Plan Update EIR was certified. It was prepared using the best available information and methodology of conducting a traffic study at that time. As part of the project environmental evaluation for the Diamond Boulevard Extension, a traffic study will be conducted based on the best available information today. This issue exists with every long term project in California. Procedural guidelines exist on how to handle it. An environmental document will enable clarification of the previous studies and methodologies. 6. Vibration and sound mitigation measures for the adjacent Mobile Home Parks have not been planned nor budgeted. The landfill acts as a "soundboard", transmitting the road vibrations generated by heavy trucks over a wide area around the road. Vibration mitigation is expensive. Is the County willing to pay for these additional costs? Because there have been limited studies conducted on vibrations due to roadways and construction activities, an expert would be hired during the environmental process to evaluate the impact vibrations due to the project would have on the surrounding area. Selection of the base rock and pavement can mitigate the problem to some extent. Until the studies are completed any conclusions will be speculative. E. Specific questions by the Board and by the Public 1. What is the investment return, what are we going to get back for the investment in dollars in traffic changes? Cost benefits of the project will be divided into general categories. Time savings is one criteria, safety is another and economic benefit is a third criteria. MTC's scoring criteria has been developed to evaluate a project's benefit based on local, state, and federal criteria. Based on the high score the project received from MTC for congestion relief and on the benefits listed below, the dollars spent on the project have been justified to independent evaluators. There should be no argument that this project has received more scrutiny than any other in this funding cycle. Board of Supervisors October 3, 1994 Page 5 One benefit of the project is the reduction of traffic congestion in the area of Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Boulevard. Based on a 1993 traffic volume count at the intersection of Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Boulevard, the two highest measured p.m. peak volumes were the right turn from westbound Concord Avenue to northbound Contra Costa Boulevard and the left tum from southbound Contra Costa Boulevard to eastbound Concord Avenue. The Diamond Boulevard Extension would help to alleviate both of these turn movements. The proposed project would also help reduce volumes in the congested Contra Costa Boulevard corridor from Concord Avenue to Center Avenue. Although the recent improvements to the Burnett on/off ramps have improved traffic circulation in the area, the improvements have not reduced traffic volumes using the intersection of Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Boulevard. The Diamond Boulevard Extension project would reduce the two highest traffic volumes at the intersection. Another benefit of the project is the reduction in travel times for vehicle operators. It is estimated that a vehicle traveling on the proposed Diamond Boulevard Extension as opposed to Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Boulevard can reduce their travel time by 30 seconds/vehicle. In addition to the time savings for users of the Diamond Boulevard Extension, there will be time savings for users of Interstate 680, Concord Avenue and Contra Costa Boulevard due to the reduction of traffic volumes now using the Diamond Boulevard Extension. And because vehicle operators would spend less time in their vehicles, their operating expenses would also decrease. On this basis, we estimate the time savings over a twenty year period to be over 2 million hours. And a third benefit of the project is a direct result of the second. With the estimated reduction in travel time, there is a reduction in time the vehicle is operating, and therefore less vehicle emissions. 2. If the project is truly for congestion relief, then why does the project include improvements around the undeveloped Parcel B when these improvements are over a half- mile away from the intersection of Contra Costa Boulevard and Concord Avenue? When the County initially submitted the application to MTC, it was felt the project, which is included in the Airport Master Plan Update, would receive additional points for benefiting intermodal transportation (i.e. giving better access to an alternate form of transportation, such as air transportation). The project did not receive any points in this category. No transportation improvement project is exclusively congestion relief. Every transportation project will enhance some private land value through improved access. Enhanced access to airport property is a benefit to this County asset. However, this is not the primary benefit of the project. 3. Why is the County spending so much money to relieve congestion in the cities of Pleasant Hill and Concord? Board of Supervisors October 3, 1994 Page 6 The area consists of three separate jurisdictions, City of Concord, City of Pleasant Hill, and unincorporated Contra Costa County. It would be counterproductive to only look at the unincorporated area and not look at the region as a whole. The Diamond Boulevard Extension is included in the City of Concord's General Plan along with the 180 Burnett on/off ramps. There was an understanding that the City of Concord would construct the improvements necessary to complete the Burnett on/off ramps and that the County would complete the Diamond Boulevard Extension. We feel that Federal dollars are suitable to fund the project since it will benefit the City of Concord and the City of Pleasant Hill as well. The County is bound to alleviate points of congestion in unincorporated areas through Measure C, Area of Benefits, intent, and cooperative agreements with the cities. 4. Why haven't the cities of Pleasant Hill and Concord come forward to support the project and contribute money for it? As mentioned above, the Diamond Boulevard Extension is included in City of Concord's General Plan. The General Plan of both the City and the County include several improvements for the area, which include the Burnett on/off ramps, the Diamond Boulevard Extension, and the 1-680 widening. The understanding that each agency would complete a portion of the improvements also came with the understanding that each agency would fund that portion of the improvements. Staff has not sought to organize and bring support to the hearings from the Concord Chamber, City or other interests. Staff had traditionally avoided this role. S. Why did the Board of Supervisors previously withdraw the Diamond Boulevard Extension Project from Measure C funding, which has similar funding criteria? Based on Supervisor McPeak's request not to use local taxpayer dollars to fund the project due to her personal commitments, the project was withdrawn from Measure C funding. It was felt unreasonable to require the developer of Parcel B to fund the entire project because the Airport Master Plan Update reduced the allowable square footage to be developed on Parcel B. In keeping with Supervisor McPeak's request and in light of the benefit the project would have in terms of congestion relief to the region, the County felt it was appropriate to apply for ISTEA funds. 6. Much of the project will be on landfill,which will require a more expensive construction approach than estimated. Unless properly constructed to address vibrations and settlement caused by the landfill,the road will have high maintenance costs. Is the County willing to pay for these additional costs? Board of Supervisors October 3, 1994 Page 7 The County has no evidence of excessive settlement of existing roadways and structures in the area. Caltrans does not appear to have problems with settlement on 1-680 nor does the County or City of Concord or Pleasant Hill have problems with settlements on local streets. The County is aware of the high water table in the area. Designing the roadway for these conditions is not unusual or impossible. The County does not expect a financial burden in terms of maintenance if the roadway is constructed properly (i.e. keeping in mind the high water table). During the environmental process, the soil would be characterized to determine any potential problems. The roadway section would be designed accordingly based on soil test samples. 7. Hal Yeager requested to be notified in writing of all pertinent dates regarding the recirculation of the revised EIR. The County will keep Mr. Yeager informed of all meetings and dates regarding the Diamond Boulevard Extension project through a project notification list. 8. Hal Yeager requested to be notified, in writing, of the start of the NEPA documentation process and of all pertinent dates thereof. The County will Keep Mr. Yeager informed of all meetings and dates regarding the Diamond Boulevard Extension project through a project notification list. 9. The accidents the County submitted for Concord Avenue are mainly from the recently removed intersection of Concord Avenue and the 1-680 northbound on-ramp and southbound off-ramp. The accidents the County submitted were compiled from County records only. The City of Concord's and City of Pleasant Hill's accident data was not included. When the accidents from both cities are included with the County's accident data, minus the accidents at the previous 1-680 ramp intersection, the accident data index is even higher than what was submitted in the revised application. The total number of accidents is only an indicator to the severity of conflicts in the traffic stream. 10. The project will lead to the eviction of Mobile Home owners adjacent to Marsh Drive. Protection for the Mobile Home park exists within the General Plan. To eliminate a mobile home park, a massive relocation effort would be required making the cost of such an idea prohibitive. JMW:MS:SKeh gtran9engWcoNM61mondAI0 cc: CAO V.Mexeeff,GMEDA Director CCTA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: September 29, 1994 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Diamond Boulevard Extension Should the Diamond Boulevard Project not be approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 4, 1994 there are some regional issues that might arise. The Measure 'C' Ordinance and the congestion management requirement of Proposition 111 mandate that certain level of service standards are met. This project will provide congestion relief on Contra Costa Boulevard and Concord Avenue which in turn will help meet the level of service requirements. If these standards are violated, the County's Measure C Return to Source Funds ($1,400,000/year) and Proposition 111 funds ($3,200,000/year) could be jeopardized. In addition, the process that led us to this point has been one that involved all the jurisdictions in this County, including the cities, Caltrans, transit operators, and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). Over 100 applications were submitted for this funding. All of the projects were ranked using the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) scoring to determine which projects should be forwarded onto MTC. The Diamond Boulevard project and the Southern Pacific Arterial were both submitted to MTC as two potential projects that were appropriate to compete for a share of the regional funds. The County can only forward a limited number of projects to MTC to compete for regional funds. These two projects occupied over one third of the dollar amount that the County can submit. The Southern Pacific Arterial has already been withdrawn from the ranking since both the Diamond Boulevard Extension and the Southern Pacific Arterial could not be funded. Had the Board of Supervisors not supported the Diamond Boulevard application for ISTEA funds, CCTA would not have forwarded it to MTC. This would have freed $4,100,000 of funding that could have been requested from MTC for projects by other jurisdictions within the county. If the project is denied, the $4,100,000 will go to projects outside of this County with a lower score than what Diamond Boulevard Extension received. Specifically, $2,000,000 will go to Solano County and $2,000,000 to San Mateo County. JMW:HB:eh:mg 9:Wanseng\hb\Diamond.t9 cc: V.Alexeeff, GMEDA Director M. Shiu, Deputy Public Works Director J. Bueren,Assistant Public Works Director,Transportation DIAMOND BOULEVARD EXTENSION LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND BUCHANAN FIELDS GOLF COURSE, INC Effective October 1, 1991, Contra Costa County, ("Airport"), "hereby grants a revocable license, ("License!'), to Buchanan Fields Golf Course, Inc., ("Licensee"), for the use of that property outlined ,in yellow in Exhibit "C-M!' and described in Exhibit 11C-1B", attached hereto, subject to the terms and conditions stated herein. These premises shall hereinafter be called the "Diamond Extension Parcel". Airport is the owner of the real property known and designated as Buchanan Field Airport located in Contra Costa County, California.-. The Diamond Extension Parcel being licensed and described herein lies within the Buchanan Field Airport property. Simultaneously with the signing of this License, Airport and Licensee have agreed to enter into a long term ground lease, hereinafter called "Lease Agreement' of that real property generally known as the Buchanan Fields Golf Course (hereinafter called "Golf Course"), which is adjacent to the Diamond Extension Parcel, as shown on Exhibit "C-IA", attached hereto. Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows: 1. PURPOSE: Licensee understands and acknowledges that it is Airport's intent to use the entire premises being licensed and described herein at a future time during the term of the Lease Agreement, for the extension of Diamond Boulevard. Licensee desires the use of the Diamond Extension Parcel in conjunction with operation of a Golf Course until such time as the Airport requires said premises for construction of the Diamond Boulevard extension. The purpose of this License in to provide for the Licensee's use until the termination of revocation of this License by Airport. 2. USE: The'Diamond Extension Parcel shall not be used for any other purpose than the conduct and operation of a public golf course without the prior written consent of Airport. 3. GRANT OF LICENSE:RIGHTS:Subject to the terms and conditions of this License and d of the Lease Agreement, Airport hereby grants to Licensee a revocable license 1 to enter onto, use and occupy the Diamond Extension Parcel for use in conjunction with the operation of a golf course. 4. TERM: The term of this License shall commence on October 1, 1991, and shall continue until such termination or revocation, as described herein. S. CONSIDERATION: Licensees maintenance of the Diamond Extension Parcel shall be consideration for this License. Licensee shall at all times keep the Diamond Extension Parcel in a clean and orderly condition. 6. TERMINATION: The parties acknowledge that the Airport may not revoke the Licensee's use, occupancy and right of entry at will, but rather, this License may be revoked or terminated only under the following conditions: A. Airport may terminate this License at any time after County opens bids for the Diamond Extension project identified in Section 1 of this License, upon ten days written notice to Licensee. This License shall terminate ten days following service of a Notice to Vacate on the Licensee. Airport will use its best efforts to provide Licensee with a courtesy notice of Airport's intention to solicit bids for the project, at such time as the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorizes such action, however, failure to provide such courtesy notice shall not constitute a waiver of the Airport's right to terminate this License upon ten days notice following the date bids are opened. B. If, at any time, the Diamond Extension Parcel is used by licensee for a use other than stated herein, Airport may serve the Licensee with a thirty day notice terminating this License. C. If, at any time or for any reason, the Lease Agreement terminates, this License shall automatically terminate simultaneously with the Lease Agreement. Upon the termination or revocation of this License, Licensee shall vacate, surrender and relinquish its use, possession and control of the Diamond Extension Parcel to Airport and Airport shall not be liable to reimburse Licensee for Licensee's improvements within or connected with said premises. In addition, Licensee has anticipated the effect of said Diamond Boulevard Extension on the golf course and hereby waives any claim, cost or damage arising out of or in any way connected to or resulting from said termination or revocation of this License or from the vacation of the Diamond Extension 2 Parcel No later than 5 days following the termination of this License, Licensee shall deliver to Airport a notarized deed quitclaiming Licensee's right, title or interest in the Diamond Extension Parcel. 7. PERMITS AND APPROVALS: Licensee shall be responsible for obtaining any permits or approvals from any agency having jurisdiction. This License does not constitute governmental approval for this use. 8. INSTRUMF-NT OF TRANSFER AND NON-DISCREMJNATION COVENANTS: Conditions: A. Instrument of Transfer: This License shall be subordinate and subject to the provisions and requirements of the Instrument of Transfer by and between the United States and County dated the 9th day of October, 1947, and recorded in Book 1137, at page 114 of Official Records of Contra Costa County, California. This License shall be subordinate to the provisions and require- ments of any future agreement between the County and the United States, relative to the development, operations, and/or maintenance of the Airport. B. Non-Discrimination: (1) Licensee assures that it will undertake an affirmative action program as required by 14 CFR Part 152, Subpart E, to insure that no person shall on the grounds of race, creed,,color, national origin, or sex be excluded from participating in any employment activities covered in 14 CFR Part 152, Subpart E. Licensee assures that no person shall be excluded on these grounds from participating in or receiving the services or benefits of any program or activity covered by this subpart. Licensee assures it will require that its covered suborganizations provide assurances to Licensee that they similarly will undertake an affirmative action program and that they will require assurances from their suborganizations, as required by 14 CFR Part 152, Subpart E, to the same effect. (2) In the event of breach of any of the above non-discrimination covenants, Airport shall have the tight to terminate this License as if said License had never been made or issued. 3 (3) Licensee agrees to furnish service on a fair, equal, and non-discriminatory basis to all users thereof, and to charge fair, reasonable, and non- discriminatory prices for each unit of sales or service, provided, that Licensee may be allowed to make reasonable and non-discriminatory discounts, rebates, or other similar types of price reductions to volume purchasers. Furthermore, Licensee shall neither discriminate nor permit discrimination against any person or group of persons on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex or age in any manner, including, 'but not limited to, discrimination prohibited by applicable Federal Aviation Regulations. (4) Non-compliance with paragraph (3) above shall constitute a material breach thereof and a default of this License by Licensee and, in the event of such non-compliance, Airport shall have the right to terminate this License and estate hereby created without liability therefore or at the election of the County or the United States either or both said Governments shall have the right to judicially enforce the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3) of this section. 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Airport,reserves the right to further develop or improve the Airport as it sees fit, regardless of the desire or view of Licensee and without interference or hindrance. B. Airport reserves the right to take any action it considers necessary to protect the aerial approaches of the Airport against obstruction, together with the right to prevent Licensee from erecting or permitting to be erected any building or other structure on the Airport which, in the sole opinion of the Airport, would affect the usefulness of the Airport or constitute a hazard to aircraft. Airport, in exercising the rights stated in this subparagraph B, shall not be held liable to Licensee for the expense or damage to Licensee occurring from Airport's removal of said aerial obstructions. C. Neither the failure of Airport to strictly enforce all of the terms of this License nor the acceptance of payment by Airport after any breach by Licensee nor any delay on the part of Airport to strictly enforce the provisions hereof, shall 4 operate or be deemed a waiver of any rights or remedies-accruing by law or by this License to Airport by reason of any subsequent breach. D. In the event that any provisions herein contained is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of any such provisions does not materially prejudice either Airport or Licensee in its respective rights and obligations contained in the valid provisions of this License. E. Time is of the essence for each provision in this License. 10. INSURANCE: Licensee agrees at no cost to Airport, to obtain and maintain during the entire duration of this License a comprehensive liability insurance policy with a minimum combined single-limit coverage of One Million and no/100 dollars ($1,000,000.00) for all claims and losses due to bodily injury, or death to any person, or damage to property, including loss of use thereof arising out of each accident or occurrence, and agrees to name Contra Costa County, its officers, agents, and employees as an additional insured thereunder. Said coverage shall provide for a thirty (30) day written notice to Airport of cancellation or lapse. Evidence of such coverage shall be furnished to Airport prior to the start of this License. 11. HOLD HARMLESS: Licensee shall defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless Airport, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims, costs, and liability for any damages, injury or death arising directly or indirectly from or connected with Licensee's use or occupancy of the premises, save and except claims and litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of Airport, and will make good to and will reimburse Airport for any expenditures, including reasonable attorneys fees, Airport may make by reason of such matters and, if requested by Airport, will defend any such suits at the sole cost and expense of Licensee. The obligations contained in this Section shall survive the termination of this Lease. 12. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING: Licensee shall not assign or sublet Licensee's right under this License. 13. NOTICES: Any and all notices, requests, consents, approvals or communication that either party desires or is required to give to the other party under this License or otherwise, shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid first- class mail as stated in the Master Lease. Said notice shall be effective from the date of the mailing of the same., 5 9 (Z61L) arZ•puourerQ:a ndaQ Ag I0sunOD '4unOD `NyW,I,SaM T UO.IOIA :WUO3 Os SV QaAOUcIc V ra�'ueIN as�aZ 8 s �o .vIoratu� .rojansrururpV 14unoD ,�ndgQ �Cg :'IVAOUcIcI ' 2IOg QaQNa: W03ax �� aoaS/•sa.rd-aarA `Casla�I xa�o2l aprsa ra`riRAgrn _ ry ora Q sxao IIgnd muaopm Jo 01talS 'ONI oql Io uorsrnrpgns Farirrod `SMI0o 3'IOJ S(IrMIJ NVNVHoflg u `` i soo vxs.Noo 3o A aNfloo aaSt�iaol'I , llaoci iv •olonq sound gloq dq pou2rs puu ftium ur apm ssarun ftpurq io PIJUA aq IIEgs asuaar l srg1 jo suo4vinn JO suor�UraIIB ON •pournssT uraaaq suoilu2rjgo aqp puL, paluva uraaaq sjq�u aqj of 2up�raz sapred ocp, uaannlaq juauraaj2u.aruua aqi supluoa waurruisur srgy :jLNia Iaa2Iov a2IIZNa Pt 4 rD� 10 o�v T4P 'moi. N 11;4 rD� 'Z xo 0 A y F � � � M, 1• � %' b . T o+ 0 d'4 Nay bt°i% / .Pyq�od" (p ..,r,'. d ,.?'•coo 4 Q�'1^ °%� r'i ^?rw •i Q°$'. X O o A \o O 0p11 r��• v (n po ro ,�� Rhe �A � p• .• m N � /ti oUQ:. v .qP f� .a r�c7�Lt177 '� � l•M1 C. O V N7 IY`v 'IV n r"'O ly . .�N�,y N �+ ��P � �1 � T v � •.°r'� Yy/�2 W WO IA AW �dam•r' ' ' n �� �'� Otic/ �Y� c�'r./ :k1 \ �..-• 03 y .. o O •'r P: n �F r a� �i \l" a r' � co'�p 1 / i � \ ,. � '1• I b ro' Iy4 Z n O46 aW /. M11 � . V(.•/fly Vl 0 d oNoa3s H-21709 '3n KUN ti V elm \o R 111 a A W n O a m A �N of Dk�-`� -oT.ZBN h .34V �4%en W Z baH A� �m 4 m D N QTc° a Zi Date: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (Two [2] Minute Limit) Complete this form and place if:in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: �S Phone: �Z���l 0 Address: K( � Ek City: I am speaking for: PPMyself OR ❑ Organization: NAME OF ORGANIZATION CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # " My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: s� X/I7 do not wish to speak but leave these,.�c Comments for the Boardbiprw,to consider: a- Q 1 _ c fi d�Sc� Pw2 SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request To Speak Form" (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' 'microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to two (2) minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)