Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03171987 - S.7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 17, 1987 , by the following vote: AYES; Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES; None ABSENT; Supervisor Powers ABSTAIN; None ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT; Contra Costa Transportation Partnership Supervisor Tom Powers transmitted to the Board the attached draft Concept Paper for the Contra Costa Transportation Partnership. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the attached Concept Paper is REFERRED to the Transportation Committee (Supervisors Schroder and Torlakson) for review. cc: Supervisor Schroder Supervisor Torlakson Community Development Department Transportation Division County Administrator I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTES a ED: /'r. /E8-1 PIS€L IBATCHE!_OEl, Cleri,• of the Board of Superiesws and Counnty Administrator BY , Deputy C g IN L 1 a / 4+. t / .... Ali �.�.' Inut _ . .. .1. City Of � January 30, 1987 Dear Friends : Attached is the most recent draft of a concept paper for the Contra Costa Transportation Partnership. It reflects the comments made at our meeting last Wednesday and those I have received since . Sincer ly, Tho s G . Dunne CIT MANAGER Attachment Distribution : Mayor Joel Keller, City of Antioch Mr. Lee Walton , City Manager, City of Antioch Mayor Ron Mullin , City of Concord . Mr. Mike Uberuaga, City Manager, City of Concord Mayor Margaret DePriester, City of Moraga Mr. Don Russell , City Manager, City of San Pablo Mayor John Meakin , City of San Ramon Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak, District 4 Supervisor Tom Torlakson , District 5 P.S . : Concord Mayor Mullin requested copies of this information be sent to County Supervisors McPeak and Torlakson, who have been invited to attend our breakfast meeting next Wednesday. n -I nnv Ontn Ar/\n7'rr AA A rAr (`7'n rr"7` Ill A r A r r r-r ter) ri I- A r FY-/ fl Arr nirni ii rri nA� CO/ln �� 1�tSC�gS t o� fi'uy�v�o SE=S oN L-� CONCEPT PAPER CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP INi'RODi7CPION The purpose of this proposal is to offer for discussion an alternative organizational structure to CCTAC for the development of a county-wide transportation master plan and improvement program. As you know, the decision of the Mayors' Conference and the County Board of Supervisors to allow CCTAC to sunset at the end of January was not an indication that there is not a need for a countywide transportation forum but a clear statement that we must make a fresh start if the public is going to support funding for transportation improvements,a-=W;@--p@ii8. The basic objectives of any transportation plan should be: 1. To serve the public with efficient, safe, convenient, and economic transportation systems. 2. To develop a coordinated approach for solving transportation problems. The proposal I will present to you incorporates these basic objectives, and it is known as the 'Pyramid Concept". Pyramids symbolize strength and stability and have stood the test of time. The suggested name for this transportation organization is the CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP. THE PARTNERSHIP The PARTNERSHIP PYRAMID is comprised of three major sections: foundation, middle and top. FOUNDATION The foundation of the PARTNERSHIP PYRAMID consists of two layers: First Layer - Technical Advisory Committees. These committees include staff from each of the participating agencies as well as representatives from both public and private sectors. These committees provide technical expertise and allow a grassroots approach for gaining information. Second Layer - The second layer of the foundation is where the regional plans would be developed by both elected officials and planning commissioners. The regional planning committees would include two members from each city: an elected official and a planning commissioner; and one County Board of Supervisor, except in the Central County where two Supervisors would serve on the committee. Regional Committees would have the option of including representatives from other public bodies such as transit organizations and MTC and I from special interest groups such as: , homeowner associations, chamber of commences, and taxpayer associations. MIDDLE The middle layer of the pyramid also consists of two; layers: a Technical Advisory Coordinating Committee (TACC) and a key administrative staff level. The TACC is made up of city staff, one from each of the four regions, and one staff member from the County. This technical advisory committee would serve as a linkage between the regional committees and the key staff appointed by the Partnership Commission as well as serve as a technical resource. - The key administrative staff could be either an independent consultant, staff hired specifically for these positions, County staff under contract or staff loaned from the cities and the county. TOP At the top of the pyramid would sit the PARTNERSHIP COMMISSION. The membership breakdown would be as follows: 1. East County Cities: 2 95,250 - 13% 2. West County Cities: 2 148,600 - 21% 3. Central Co. Cities: 2 229,770 - 32% 4. Lamorinda/San Ramon: 2 110,600 - 15% (Southwest County) 5. Mayors' Conference 1 (At large member) 6. Contra Costa County: 2 139,780 - 19% TOTAL . . . . . . . 11 724,000 - 100% The Partnership Commission members would be selected (two-year term) from the elected officials serving on the regional committees. This would allow for continuity and consistency throughout the planning process plus there would be greater ownership in the planning documents. Similar to the regional committees, the Partnership Commission would have the option of including advisory representatives on the Commission. Possible representatives may include MTC, transit, League of Women Voters and private sectors. COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES The different levels of responsibilities of the Partnership again reflect the "pyramid concept". The regional committees which form the essence of the pyramid's foundation, are responsible for developing the detailed transportation plans and project proposals for their respective areas. The regional committees would also serve as advisory units to the Commission. Supporting the regional committees would be. the technical staff from each of the participating agencies. An example of staff assistance would be the blending of local plans into a regional plan for the committees' review and refinement prior to its submittal to the Partnership Commission. The middle section of the pyramid (key administrative staff and the technical coordinating committee) serves as the linkage between the regional committees and the Commission and is responsible for keeping the programs and designated tasks on schedule. The staff to the Commission would be responsible for administration, marketing projects and programs and public relations. The primary roles of the Technical Advisory Coordinating Committee would be to (1) Provide technical resources to the administrative staff; and (2) Assist in the coordination of regional plans into a master transportation plan and program for the Partnership. The major responsibilities of the CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP COMISSION ARE: 1. Policy development 2. Coordinate regional plans into a county-wide master plan/program. —HC�fe op--a�alzot-MeaeurE--t-e-fi-t' ane Or—*-ransper-t:;it:i Pn, fir-amen-t-e-eoun t-f-wider. c tom` 'tori. d o b e cue v e 4. Establish project priorities for Contra Costa County's submittal for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (R-TIP) . 5. Allocate funds to local agencies. (E.g. , Federal Aide Urban (FAU) , Transportation Development Act and any new funds made available to the TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP. 6. Develop a time schedule to guide Regional Planning Committees in the completion of common objectives in a timely fashion. To assist in accomplishing the above objectives, each regional planning committee would prepare a transportation plan for its region detailing transportation deficiencies, estimated cost for correction, and prioritizing projects. Committees would be free to initate other tasks which would improve transportation systems in their regions (i.e. , integration of traffic signal systems, improved transit systems, TSM, etc.). The transportation plans developed by the region would be submitted to the Transportation Partnership Commission whose primary responsibility would be to reconcile any differences between individual regional plans. In doing so, the Commission would not add or delete projects or alter priorities. They could however, in combining regional plans, establish county-wide priorities consistent with available funding. IIn order to fully integrate individual regional transportation plans I to the extent possible and beforesubmitting regional plans to the Commission for further consideration, regional planning committees will: 1. submit copies of their individual regional plans ko.ather regions in the county for consideration and comment 2. submit a copy of the proposed plan to each City Council within the region for consideration and When regional plans have been reviewed by the Commission, additional attention will be given to the importance of integrating the plans into a single county transportation plan which recognizes the importance of providing for inter-regional transportation planning needs. TIME SCHEDULE mine-ami-ng--t-e--get-a-ballet-imeasure-be€ere--the-veters is eni-t-i:ea-k. Assuming we got started right now (February, 1987) a nned to present a ballot measure before the voters e November, 1988 election, we have 20 months to est_ the Partnership structure, develop regional plans, bind- e regional plans into a county-wide master plan, adopt•tfte---c-ounty-wide plan, develop a proposal for a ballot asute-�, market the proposal, refine the ballot proposal based rte-p ie-€eedbaekT-and-get-the-ineaeure-en-the-balla . It is important that the county-wide transportation plan be completed in a timely manner. To do so, the Commission would prepare a recommended time schedule to guide regional planning committees into completion of their individual plans. In the event a ballot measure for plan implementation financing is necessary, the most likely dates would be in June or November 1988 to coincide with the general elections. This would allow a maximum of 20 months to complete preparation of a county-wide transportation plan. Based upon the above tasks, the following time schedule is offered for your preliminar4 consideration: February through April, 1987: Establish and organize the CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP. This step includes setting the membership for the regional committees, the Commission, and for the technical committees. .May through October, 1987: Develop regional plans. November, 1987 through 4emary, April, 1988 Blend regional plans into county-wide master plan and adopt plan. Develop list of transportation improvement projects and proposed project financing. /\ Febr-aEZ-tr�h-Angus , 19198 Market proposed ballot measure for transportat' mprovements. Refine proposal based upon public co S. Submit official language for ballot measure to y for November election. September to November c ion n nue to solicit support for ballot measure. Develop FINANCING This proposal emphasizes the broadest possible use of existing city/county staffs and contracting with a consultant, League of California Cities--Public Service Skills . Inc. , the county, MTC, or a city in the county willing to provide program administration services on a reimbursement basis. How expenses are shared by participating agencies at both the regional and county-wide level is best determined after the structure, program of work and time schedule have been determined. CONTRA COSTA TRAN6POF-TATIoN' f7ARTNERSHIP DFCaAN I ZATIONAL 0TX0CTU9e- caMM155toN M�nng�P-SH�P MEM9>c--:95, OF THEFWD ATION SES COMM Issl OH MIJ5T BAST CoUfJTy GITI E15 : 2 SE�L.EGrED FKDM ?}-It✓ • WEST COUt4>1 CITIES : 2 I✓L�GTI✓c Co. GIT(t:5 : 2 THAT AFI: oN TH E CONTRA • 5w wuw-ry GTI E5 : 2 R66I0NAL GDSTA (l-AMAIZ-1 ; PAta/SR•-I) COMMITTEES' Tl Am -95T>P 4 MAYOR'S Got,1F�{ZE r�1GE: 1 PARTNEKSHIP (AT L, KCia MEMF551Z) coM�nlxtoi~I . c,c. couMTy 2 o TEGNNIGAL ADVI��y ApMfM+STRATlVS STAFF (copTr&cT w,rH oTP�1� '_ 4 CITY co UtATY OK W r+SU I.-I'ANT) po55!�i LE AD'�l l�Ry I COUNTY iZr::P o 0 0 0 0 o a a -Sr Avvlsotzy MEMFfE�s (REIOtIA4 COORVINATINCi Gomm EE orTtorJ),,�C-oFFIGIo RFG I D NAL �,4 N (a TT • MTG coMMITT'c�5 2 12Ff S /CIT-/ Ra6IONAL- PLANNING CWMITTFES ( I ELFGrED A 01 WOMF-1 VO I QI AN'4. GoM'R) WET GENTizA 5. W. t%A5T w FIJI VArE SECTOR co�NTy co�t�1TY 6qLJNTy �UNTy . TFb44s1T PLUS, ( � 2 • FiNoLE • 0 To f4 • LAFAy61TE • FITTSJ�tJF6 co, Pd- of • NERGULES . Co►-1G0(�O • DANVILLE • fFNTiGLf'{ AN12 I FZ(6HWl r2 - MAKTINEZ • S� F pN • E 1rrM�� �TIiD f LMNrW-i • I nM Fa,Lo • fl.eAmr • MoRAczA • COUNTY OFFICIAls GO M� •El,C1; 1"0 •WA!-+JUTI NDA ARS VOT(N CS _. •coUNTy •counTy cc. McMPR!5. Tr-GHNIGAL ADVISORY OPMMITTES TEGHN ICAL CoMMirTE�s INGLuDt: LOCAL. PG�NGy STAFF , WUW>15TA>=F AND MAy INCwPE-:- Rr✓PRESENTATtVES FzQt ` TRAt,61 T ORGAtJ IZATIo�JS, MTC, SPr-DIAL- lNTEf�EST cROUFr, (PRIVATE AOC2 FUe7Wc, caNGER�IS) . DIAGRAM 1 RAND �TATIo i . • PoWCy pr-,Vat4 hAPOT. p�I,,p,NlF� tN' A COUr T'/\NI M COSTA Pi.-AP• - 117,6N 6 FV R-ATI OH p,�A(ZTHofzsHt P A e��aTF� _ coMMt�tr.�rt AVAe7�59 M. , ' 5 eotlo�P olywwa Mpt�c « e►�T FFtof4-nei Fo e.g. FAL%j -(iCA ADIv�1Nt5'�"RA1"i©M, Aptv'�tt�i5'i•i�A"i1� cw d►�►. MARKE-�11MU dd ru6wo KELATICO :nr, .4017 17,FGNNtCAL 7 �HNrc.AL. 5U �, Ai�V15C7izy Gl?4K• C¢Nl• T F-T .� - Cc�aRorrJ,a.Tit� SAF=�/lG�S • C�E.VE=L�J� i�:F�ctot`lb+L. "t�+N5�TA1�� REC+IONAL COh�JVl1�"E: AND LAND USS FLANS. v� A5 ADV15oizy vN 757 TO TF-w-- GUMPNi�r40t�1 AaENGy STAFF A>av 5MGLAL �t*11 �T if GONTF?vA CSS A T1zAN9F?oXTA noN P�T1J P �o�� t��T�oN sT�T1s-�,Gs 1987 CO NTRA COSTA COUNTY lZeGAIONAL AReAS CITIES & COMMUNITIES INDEX Pte: 14c), ESTIMATED POPULATION INCORPORATED CITIES 584,220 ��'r Caw/ 14a,600 ESTIMATED POPULATION UNINCORPORATED AREAS 139,780 ` ESTIMATED COUNTY POPULATION 724,000 c Cr--r�T�AL Co, : 9,770 32 � COMMUNITY NAME ABBR EST POP MAP ALAMO 94507 77 15W WVov 110/(000 l e *ANTIOCH A 94509 49,300 21 AVON 94553 11 BETHEL 94511 31 BLACKHAWKLAND 94526 101 *BRENTWOOD B 94513 5,400 62 BYRON 94514 93 [V U 1N I. IcogwATCV 1 q/j(�o /D CANYON 94516 73 *CLAYTON CLAY 94517 4,870 53 CLYDE 94520 12 *CONCORD C 94520 107,900 48 --CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CCCO 724,000 CROCKETT 94525 4 7Z4'� Go ic� *DANVILLE DNVL 94526 28,100 98 DIABLO 94528 81 DISCOVERY BAY 94514 92 *EL CERRITO EC 94530 23,400 38 EL SOBRANTE 94803 2 *HERCULES H 94547 10,150 2 KENSINGTON 94708 41 KNIGHTKNIGHTSEN 94548 60 *LAFAYETTETTE LAF 94549 22,700 72 *MARTINEZ M 94553 27,450 10 *MORAGA MOR 94556 15,400 73 NICHOLS 94565 12 PpP, 1/0.di NORTH RICHMOND 94807 35 f OAKLEY 94561 24 *ORINDA OR 94563 18,000 69 /- ORINDA VILLAGE 94563 69 416,57T 148,E2 n to% PACHECO 94553 13 *PINOLE PIN 94564 15,100 2 �+�� *PITTSBURG_ PIT 94565 40,550 16 w+"IKN, �9,?70 39yo *PLEASANT HILL PH 94523 29,350 49 PORT COSTA 94569 4 0 RHEEM VALLEY 74 G,-axo �i71 �IU�(o0d �9 a *RICHMOND R 94801 78,600 37 RODO 94572 3 *SAN EPABLO SP 94806 21,350 35 t5'�`;T 95 250 *SAN RAMON SR 94583 26,400 99 7 SHORE ACRES 94565 15 TASSAJARA 106 *WALNUT CREEK WC 94595 60,200 75 WEST PITTSBURG 1 194565 1 15 TOTAL, 1�584 2w 'INDICATES INCORPORATED CITIES I