HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03261991 - S.1 5
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .F COt1tl"d
FROM: SUPERVISORS MCPEAK AND SCHRODER �` `✓VJI�
DATE: March 26, 19 91
SUBJECT: Support for Continuation of I-680/SR-24 Interchange
Construction and for Consideration of HOV Lane
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RIECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Adopt a resolution (Exhibit A) addressed to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and to the Federal District Court #7
requesting the uninterrupted construction of the I-680/SR-24
Project.
2 . Authorize the Community Development Director to prepare and
submit to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and to
the Federal District Court #7 documentation regarding
transportation and air quality mitigation programs enacted and
underway throughout Contra Costa County, including:'
i
a. the voters' adoption, in 1988, of the 1/2 cent sales tax
measurel' mandating that all jurisdictions throughout the
County ;enact growth management elements within their
General; Plans; and enact ordinances/programs which
mandateireduced vehicle use; and
i
b: the voters' adoption in 1990 of the County Land
'Preservation Plan which the Board of Supervisors
incorporated into the 1991 Contra Costa County General
Plan, requiring that- the County work in cooperation with
cities to maintain 65% of all land in the County as open
space.
3 . Direct the Community Development Director to coordinate with
the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and Caltrans
to evaluate! the feasibility of operating an HOV (High
Occupancy Vehicle) Lane on I-680 from Willow Pass Road to the
Benicia Bridge during construction of the I-680/SR-24 Project
based upon a review of the impact of TSM goals set by the
County and highway operational concerns; and,
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Y RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER 4. ._
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 26, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
' AYES: -!; NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED /22 .� 0901 , /99/
cc: Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Caltrans THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CCTA ,),M:D COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Administrator. 1-414
BY , DEPUTY
1misc1/cm/H0V-1ane.bos
f
4 . Direct the Public Works Director to investigate with Caltrans
the need and opportunity to provide right-of-way acquisition
assistance to Caltrans as a means of meeting the construction
schedule for the I-680/SR-24 Project and to report to the
Board his findings of this investigation.
5. Request the, CCTA to investigate with Caltrans the need and
opportunity;; to assist Caltrans in obtaining consulting
services as, a means of meeting the construction schedule for
the I-680/SR-24 Project.
FISCAL IMPACT
None to the County General Fund. Any right-of-way acquisition
assistance provided by Public Works would require approval of
agreement to reimburse the County for any costs incurred.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
At its meeting on March 18, 1991, the I-680/SR-24 Task Force
reviewed 1) the;, current construction schedule for the project
phases, 2) the request from its TSM Subcommittee for consideration
of an HOV Lane along I-680, and 3) the impact of the Federal
District Court's review on the I-680/SR-24 construction schedule.
During the next ;few weeks, MTC will be making a determination of
consistency between their 1990 Regional Transportation Improvement
Program and the !State Implementation Plan, based on air quality
evaluation procedures recently approved by the Federal District
Court Judge Thelton Henderson. A determination of consistency will
allow the I-680SR-24 Project and the I-680 widening south to
Alameda County to proceed. However, it is unclear if the courts
will take futureactions that could delay construction.
The Task Force discussed the importance of a number of actions
taken recently by both the electorate and the elected officials in
Contra Costa County to reduce traffic and improve air quality. To
assure that the, Court is made aware of the growth management
programs and traffic reduction measures launched in the County, the
Task Force recommended that both the Board of Supervisors and the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopt resolutions outlining
these efforts and present the information to both MTC and the
Federal Court.
An additional effort to reduce the number of single-occupant
vehicles in the' County during construction of the I-680/SR-24
Project was presented by the TSM Subcommittee. The subcommittee
asked that Caltrans evaluate temporarily designating the newly
constructed lane jbetween Willow Pass Road and the Benicia Bridge as
an HOV Lane while .construction of the I-680/SR-24 project is
underway. The Task Force discussed this matter and recommended
that Community Development Department and Transportation Authority
staff work with Caltrans and present their findings in April to the
Task Force.
The Tasks Force reviewed the I-680/SR-24 construction schedule and
the potential for delays. It was concluded that expediting right-
of-way acquisition and obtaining consulting services to supplement
Caltrans staff should be investigated as a means to adhere to the
construction schedule.
1misc2/cm/HOV-Lane.bos
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 26, 1991 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
RESOLUTION NO. 91/ 190
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporting the Timely )
Completion of the Reconstruction )
of the I-680/SR-24 Interchange )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVE:
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation is
reconstructing the Interstate 680/State Route 24 Interchange in
central Contra Costa County in order to eliminate a major
bottleneck by upgrading a presently substandard interchange and by
correcting a number of related operational problems with the
facility; and
WHEREAS, in September 1987, a Final Environmental Impact
Statement for thi's project was approved; and
WHEREAS, during 1988, the County and cities of Contra Costa
County approved il a sales tax increase to fund certain
transportation improvements, `which was centered on completion of
state-funded improvements to I-680, and which was approved by the
voters of Contra Costa County in November, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the 1988 sales tax measure mandated that the cities
and the County adopt growth management and trip reduction measures
in order to prevent further deterioration of traffic congestion in
the County; and
WHEREAS, in 1990, the voters approved a ballot measure to
reduce urban sprawl by guaranteeing that 65% of the County will
remain as open space; and
WHEREAS, the County Board of Supervisors incorporated both of
these voter-approved measures which mandated growth management and
trip reduction, and open space protection into the County General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, in a series of decisions beginning in September
1989, the Federal District Court (#7) effectively delayed state-
funded improvements to I-680 in Contra Costa County until MTC
could demonstrate that these projects would meet state air quality
objectives; and
RESOLUTION NO. 91/190
WHEREAS, in ' March 1991, MTC received court approval of a
procedure to evaluate the consistency of proposed highway
improvements withstate air quality objectives.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Board of Supervisors
of Contra Costa County requests MTC and the Federal District Court
to (1) be aware1!of the actions taken locally in Contra Costa
County to reduce congestion- and manage growth; and (2) recognize
that the timelyl' completion of the I-680/SR 24 interchange
reconstruction iW essential to complement these efforts.
I
I'
I68ORES
I Weby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
2n nation taken r-id entered on the minutes of the
Qa@rd of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: R4,/??/
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Of Su rvisors and County Administrator
Sy
RESOLUTION NO. 91/190