Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07181995 - D5 �= Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS {" Costa FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 'oCounty `, DATE: JULY 11,1995 SUBJECT: EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION OF MEASURE - C 1988 RETURN TO SOURCE REVENUES FOR THE TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS I . Direct the Auditor-Controller to transfer Measure - C 1988 Return to Source Revenues, not to exceed $15, 000, to the Tri- Valley Transportation Council to fund a portion of the Tri Valley Transportation Council (TVTC) Combined Study (Exhibit A) , supported by all TVTC jurisdictions, with the following study elements: • Transportation Model Upgrade; • Transportation Service Objectives Management Study; and • Transportation Development Fees . 2 . The County' s participation in Tri-Valley Regional Traffic Impact Fee Study (Exhibit A, TASK III) should not be contingent upon San Joaquin County participation in. a regional traffic impact fee program in the Tri-Valley Area, but on the identification of San Joaquin County' s fair share contribution to the fee program should they choose to participate . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : 4ei- smith Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON July 18, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 .and 2 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: 1 and 2 ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig Dept: Community Development ATTESTED July 18, 1995 Contact: Daniel Pulon, 646-2378 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: CCTA (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TVTC (via CDD) COUNTY M IST TOR B UTY Tri-Valley Transportation Council Combined Study JULY 11, 1995 Page Two FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact to the General Fund. Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has committed funds that would pay for the Model Update Study element . The TVTC is requesting from each member jurisdiction to fund the remaining two study elements of the Combined Study. The County' s portion would be funded by Measure C-1988 return-to-source revenues, not to exceed $15, 000 . If the fee study is implemented, the Measure C-1988 revenues should be reimbursed through any fee revenues collected from new development . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The TVTC, June 28, 1995, approved the Combined Study Scope of Work (Exhibit A) for distribution to member jurisdictions to obtain approval and funding, not to exceed $15, 000 from each member jurisdiction, for the Combined Study. Once the TVTC selects a consultant (s) , via Request For Proposal (RFP) process, and initiates the Combined Study, the achieved end products would assume the following form: • TVTC TRANSPORTATION MODEL UPGRADE. An updated transportation model, acceptable by MTC, with ABAG Projections 194 demographics and recent MTC 1990 Trip Tables for years 2000 and 2010 . • TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVE (TSO) MANAGEMENT STUDY. An identification of Routes of Regional Significance with capacity problems in the Tri-Valley area, along with a menu of options at each location from which affected jurisdictions may choose feasible solutions to resolve TSO violations, where TSO capacity problems are projected to occur. • TRI-VALLEY REGIONAL IMPACT FEE STUDY. An equitable and economically feasible development impact fee structure, based on identified road network improvements, meeting the nexus test of reasonable relationship in the Tri-Valley Area. In April 1995, the Board of Supervisors, via Resolution, approved the County' s participation in funding both the TSO Management and Regional Impact Studies, not to exceed $15, 000 . TVTC' s current request for approval and funding is in alignment with the Board' s previous approval to participate in funding these studies . The Board, however, indicated in November 1994 that it was reluctant in implementing a development impact fee program without San Joaquin County also participating in the program as well . The Tri-Valley Regional Traffic Impact Fee Study element addresses the nexus relationship concerns as articulated in the November 1994 Board Order. Any regional impact fee paid by Contra Costa developments for road improvements in the Tri-Valley must be based on the impact of that development . Development impacts on the Tri-Valley road network from other jurisdictions, including San Joaquin County, will be identified to determine their fair share contribution to Tri-Valley road improvements should they choose to participate . EXHIBIT A 0 � JAt. TWC � U �s TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY TRANSPORTATION MODEL UPGRADE, TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVES MANAGEMENT STUDY TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES JULY 1995 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY TRI-VALLEY TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVES MANAGEMENT STUDY TRI-VALLEY REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT VEE JULY 1995 PURPOSE The Tri-Vallev Transportation Council has recently completed the Tri-valley Transportation/.=fiction Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (TVTP/AP) . Witrnin this Plan are recommendations to develop a Tri-vallay Traffic Impact Fee to defray the costs of needed regional infrastructure and a further study of critical intersections which fail to meet the desirable transportation service objectives of meeting Level of Service "D" or better on arterial streets . The Tri-Valley Council has additionally agreed to update the Tri-valley Traffic Model to ABAG ' 94 Land Use Projections. BACKGROIIND In 1991, a Joint Powers Agreement was signed by the seven jurisdictions comprising the Tri-valley area including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Dublin, Pleasanton, Livermore, Oaxzville, and San Ramon. The purpose of the JPA is the joint preparation of a Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan (TVTP/AP) and cost sharing of recommended improvements. The Tri - Valley Transportation P1an/-4cCion Plan was prepared and presented to all member jurisdictions in April 1995. The (TVTP/AP) establishes a transportation network, designates Routes of Regional Significance and reviews year 2010 traffic projections from "Expected Land Use" using the Tri-valley Traffic Model . The (TVTP/AP) contemplates an Expected Transportation network which includes both funded and likely to be funded transportation improvements _ The network is financially constrained. Major recommendations of the ("T-'VTPjAP) include : The implementation of a Transportation Impact Fee to be placed on new development to Facilitate construction of the "EZ-pected Transportation Network" ; and resolution of TSO violations at critical intersections of Routes of Regional Significance - -I- Y 1j REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-V'A.LLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 Related but separate studies include a Comprehensive Subregional Planning Pilot Program, the Tri-Valley ABAG ' 94 Land Use Projections, sponsored by ABAG and covering the same seven jurisdictions, and Alameda County CMA Transportation Impact Fee Study. The consultant will be responsible for monitoring these parallel efforts as part of the scope of this study. SCOPE OF WORK The following scope of Ivor defines the three major study elements, Model update, TSO violation, and Fee Study, for which the consultant should make a proposal . Specific elements have bean spelled out Tor each of the tasks . TASK I TRI-VALLEY TRAFFIC MODEL UPDATE The Current Tri-Valley Traffic Model Uses the year 2000 and 2010 "Expected Land Use,, provided by each Tri-Valley jurisdiction. In order to be accepted by MTC updates to the most recent ABAG projections and MTC 1990 trip tables are required. The Alameda County CMA has provided funding to help defray the costs of such an update. The work shall consist of updating the model Traffic Analysis Zones (TAI`S) with ABAG ' 94 Land Use Projections, validating the traffic model with ABAG ' 94 Land Use Projections, modifying the transportation network as agreed to by TL'TAC and, producing year 1990, 2000 and 2010 constrained peat_ hour and ADT plots for jurisdictional and CMA review and approval . 1 .1 CONVERT TRI-VALLEY Land Use DATA TO ABAG PROJECTIONS 194 The objective of this task is to review the CCCTA allocation of ABAG ' 94 Land Use Projections into Tri-Valley traffic zones to update the forecast years update the base year and -Forecast ,years (2000 and 2010) population and employment estimates . The consultant will be provided population and employment information at the TAZ level by each jurisdiction. if significant differences remain for the Tri-Valley totals, a meeting will be hosted by TVTAC to discuss these differences with appropriate ABAG representatives . Each jurisdic-1-ion shall provide a matrix for its jurisdiction showing at a TAZ level ;or aggregate TAZ level for ABAG -2 - 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLHY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 Projections) the "Expected Year 2000, and 2010, " the "AP-AG 2000 and 2010, " and their "Recommended 2000 and 2010" . The TVTAC will assure that the aggregate population and employment projections meet ASAG totals for the Tri-Valley prior to the consultant loadinq the traffic model. Any resolution of differences between local jurisdictions "Expected Land Use" and ADAG ' 94 Land Use Projections shall be the responsibility of Tri-Valley Council and the local jurisdictions . 1. . 2 VALIDATE THE TRI-VALLEY MODEL The object of this task is to update the validation process to MTC standards . This will entail : 1 . 2 . 1 Reevaluate roadway assignments. This task will address themodel system trip distribution seep, updating homebased work trips to reflect the 1990 census and travel survey data. The consultant should revise the trip distribution procedures, if applicable, for MTC model system consistency. The consultant will revalidate the trip distribution model by modifying friction factors and/or adding area-to-area factors (K-factors) until a good comparison with MTC trips is achieved. Other purposes are assumed to remain from the current model . The targets for consistency with MTC' s estimates will be 5 percent for intracounty and intraTri-Valley trips and 10 percent for other significant district-to-district and county-to- county movements . Description: • Obtain revised trip distribution model formulation (friction factors, etc.) from MTC and 1990 "observed" trips by trip purpose • Incorporate into Tri-Valley Model • Run Tri-valley Model trip distribution model and compare results to MTC • Meet once, collectively with MTC, Cbl? and CCT.A to discuss results • where there are significant differences in results, investigate network revisions, use of K-factors -3 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COIINCTL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 and other means to achieve improved consistency. Product : Revised Trip Tables incorporated into the Countywide Model 1 . 2 . 2 Revalidate Roadway Assignments The consultant will revalidate the roadway vehicle and transit patronage assignments . The consultant should use the following validation targets for gi,.-en facility types : •Screenlines : All screenlines within + 10F of the total count •Freaways 500 of links within + 10°s of the Count OMTS Arterials : 50; of links within _+ 150 of the count 0 {>10, 000 ADT} 75s of links within + 30; of the count The consultant should include a per model run estimate in the cost proposal . Additional runs may be requested by Tri-Valley to improve the validation results . Consultant Product : Revalidated Model 1 . 2 . 3 Adjust the peak hour factors accordingly, based on a minimum of the approximately 11 road facilities which have volume capacity problems, identified in the Plan; 1 . 2 .4 Adjust year 2000 and 2010 forecasts to account for incremental changes from ABAG' s ' 94 Land Use Projections 1.3 MODEL MODIFICATION'S "heobjectives of this task is to evaluate the network based on model output co determine the necessity for manual adjustments on various road facilities and around special generators as : SART, Livermore Lab, Colleges, Airport . -4- 7 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 1 .4 MODEL OUTPUT The objective of this task is to provide model output plots, consisting of ADT, .AM, PM peak hour volumes for road segments and intersections. V/C calculations, using the VCCC system, shall be provided for "Model intersections, " (same as used in TVTP/AP) not meeting LOS "D" conditions - Outputs will be subject to TVTAC and local jurisdiction review prior to final publication. TASK 11 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVE (TSO) MANAGEMENT STUDY One of the major recommendations of the T-�TTP/AP is the resolution of projected TSO violations at approximately fifteen '(15) intersections of Regional Significance as shown in the attached list taken from page 232 of the Plan, and the final "expected 201011 Tri-Valley model run of June 1995 . The rerun of the Model using ABAG ' 94 Land Use Projections may change this list. The intent of this task is to further refine the nature of the problem and to address those locations where violations are projected. The focus will be to develop a menu of options at each location from which affected jurisdictions may choose feasible solutions to resolving TSO violations at these locations. 2 .1 DEFINE TSO PROBLEMS The (TVTP/AP) contains a set of specific actions which could be taken, in whole or in part, to improve the projected TSO violation on each affected Route of Regional Significance to improve the intersection to an acceptable level . Implementation of any one action within the set of recommendations generally would not be sufficient to resolve the TSO violation. 'Therefore, additional study to refine the nature of problem and recommended actions are required. 2 . 1 . 1 Review existing and proposed roadway and geometry 2 . 1 . 2 Conduct select link analysis of each affected intersection using approved Tri-valley Model . - . 1 . 3 Determine AM, PM peak period origins and destinations for each of the seven jurisdictions at each of the critical locations. -5- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLfiY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 2 . 1 .4 Review the results of these analvsis with each jurisdiction. The selection of alternatives for evaluation and study is subject to review and approval of the affected jurisdiction. 2 .2 ISOLATE AND DESCRIBE OTHER CONSTRAINTS AFFECTING VOLUMES Review adjacent intersections, in particular signalized .intersections at freeway interchanges, to determine if traffic volume destined to, (projected at) , the critical intersections would =ace significant constraints in reaching the intersection i.e. would volume be metered at some adjacent location resulting in lower volumes than projected? 2 . 2 . 1 Quantify any improvement in V/C related to such metering effect 2 . 2 . 2 If problem appears to be relocated subjectively discuss any new problem. 2 . 3 IDE;NTIFY. AND EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES List, define and evaluate alternative actions which can mitigate projected LOS violations _ Evaluation should include order of magnitude cost estimates, funding strategy, degree of effectiveness and any ongoing operational and maintenance needs . The selection of alternatives for evaluation and study is subject to review and approval of the affected jurisdictions . 2 . 3 . 1 Consider and Evaluate Growth Management Strategies Consider and evaluate growth management strategies in the event that intersection capacities cannot be adequately improved. Strategies may include phasing of development and reductions in land use intensity. Consideration should be given to pro rata share of traffic contributed by each jurisdiction to each of the problem locations 2 . 3 . 2 Consider and Evaluated Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Strat?gies or other Measures to Meet TSO Recruirements REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 2 .4 PREPARE DRAFT MENU OF OPTIONS 2 . 4 . 1 Provide intersection list of options for each critical intersection indicating option, cost, funding, impact of mitigation. 2 .5 REVIEW OPTIONS WITH JURISDICTIONS AND RECOMMEND OPTIONS update menu to indicate results of jurisdiction review to include acceptability and feasibility. 2 . 6 PREPARE FINAL SPECIFIC REVISIONS TO ACTION PLAN FOR ADOPTION BY SEVEN JURISDICTIONS INCLUDING MONITORING PLAN TASK III. TRI-VALLEY REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE The purpose of the Tri-Vallev Regional Traffic Impact Fee is to assess new development a portion of the cost of implementing new transportation facilities necessitated by growth in the Tri-Valley area. The fees will be imposed by each of the seven Tri-valley jurisdictions and deposited into a fund set aside to partially defer construction costs of projects listed in the adopted Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. These projects are the I-580/680 Direct Connector project and the west Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station, Route 84 from I-580 to I- 650, I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Diablo Road to Bollinger Canyon, I- 580 HOV Lanes Tassajara to North Livermore, I-680 HOV Lanes Rout 84 to Sunol Grade, I-530 Foothill Road/San Ramon Boulevard Interchange, Alcosta Interchange, Crow Canyon Road Safety Improvements, Vasco Road Realignment, Express Bus Service . The recommendations for the "Development of Tri-Valley Traffic Impact Fee" must include an equitable fee structure which can meet the nexus test of reasonable relationships, (essential nexus, rough proportionality, and Government Code Section 66000FF (A$1600) and be economically feasible . 3 .0 DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Develop a detailed project description for each of the 'following proiects: -7- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL CONFINED STUDY July 1995 •I-580/680 Direct connector Project with Hook Ramps •west Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station *Route 84 from I-580 to I-680 0I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Diablo Load to Bollinger Canyon •1-580 HOV Lanes Tassajara to N. Livermore 01-680 HOV Lanes Rout 84 to Sunol Grade 41-580 Foothill Road/San Ramon Blvd Interchange •Alcosta Interchange *Crow Canyon Road Safety_ Improvements *Vasco Road Realignment *Express Bus Service 3 .1 UPDATE PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Update Cost Estimates with currently available cost information_ from Caltrans, Alameda County Transportation Authority and their consultant, from Bart and other sources . 3 .2 PROJECT COMPLETION TIMETABLE Determine Preliminary Project Time Line and Expect?d Construction Dates for those projects with currently available funding and schedules; 1-580/680 flyover, Bart west Dublin, Pleasanton, Isabel Parkway extension/Highway 84 . The information is to be used in determining needed cash flow. 3 . 3 NEXUS ANALYSIS Provide nexus analysis for new development in relation to each of the projects . The analysis will utilize the updated Tri- valley Model using ABAG ' 94 Land use Projections and include quantification of non Tri-valley Traffic percentages . The BART Environmental Document will also be used as input . The analysis must recognize and use for comparison those units to be built after the fee is implemented and take into account vested projects . The year 1996 shall be considered the year for fee purposes. 3 .4 ECONOMIC BURDEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT Provide a summary report of Economic Burden Analysis for new development in each jurisdiction and the application of this analysis toward setting the amount and proportion of traffic impact fees which could be paid by the residential and -8- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 business sector. The analysis shall include an assessment of those current assessments for regional traffic fees, local traffic fees and any other obligations and assessments. This would address the need for "credits" for properties currently contributing toward regional transportation improvements . 3 .4 . 1 Vested Development Evaluate alternative funding strategies to account for traffic impacts resulting from the construction of vested development in the Tri-Valley. 3 . 5 REVIEW GROWTH and REVENUE PROJECTIONS Review growth projections and recommend estimates to be used in estimating revenues from development fees . Compare growth projections with historic growth rates in the Tri-Valley. Revenue sources shall include those used in MTC "Track I" and "Track II" and Alameda County CTIA "Tier II . " 3 . 5 . 1 Summarize by jurisdiction land use categories and quantity of units 3 _S. 2 Evaluate alternative (to Development Fees) funding sources and relate applicability to each project . Matching funds ' will be required to assist in funding the list of projects. An assessment of known funding sources and availability of funding will be required. Sources of information are the MTC and County CMA agencies. The summary of new funding sources should summarize by funding source estimates of Tri-valley revenue share, competing projects and ability to meet funding needs of assisting in funding specific projects listed for development fees . Consideration shall be given to options of tolls for funding Highway 84, including cost of free alternatives and impacts of toll segment on overall transportation system. 3 .6 PROJECT PRIORITIES Provide a cost/utility index and matrix for each project to prioritized projects _ Ratings for the utility index will be -9- . Y REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY ,Tuly'1995 proposed by the consultant and approved by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council. Attached is a sample Matrix_ The Consultant should plan on a joint workshop with TVTC members and the TAC to establish categories and rating scales. The purpose of the matrix is to help prioritized the list of projects for funding purposes. 3 .7 ALTERNATIVE FUNDING STRATEGIES Develop aiterr_ative fee program structures using as variables; amount of external funding, number and priority of projects, jurisdictional pro .rata traffic impacts. Alternatives should be geared to "High range impact, " $2, 000 to $3, 000 per unit, Mid-Range Impacts" $1, 000 to $2, 000 per unit and "Low-Range Impacts, " less than $1, 000 per unit . Strategies must also take into account cash flow needs for high priority partially funded projects, (I-51-0/680 Direct Connector and West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station) . 3 .8 MODEL ORDINANCE Provide outline of the administrative actions needed to collect manage and disburse the funds. Covered in this task will be the need for any environmental documentation and cost estimates to implement the fee. 3 .9 FINAL REPORT The consultant should budget for at least six meetings with TVTAC and four meetings with TVTC_. BUDGET & SCHEDULE A budget of $125, 000 has been allocated for this study. No additional funds are or will be available to supplement this amount . The Study must be completed within six months of contract .award. PROPOSAL DEADLINE All proposals must be received no later than 1995 . -10- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL COMBINED STUDY July 1995 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Proposals should be brief and limited to addressing the issues discussed in this RFP, Proposals must also include . 1 . A brief statement of approach to the problem, a scope of work, total fee, and schedule 2 . A general summary of the consultant' s qualifications 3 . A list of similar or related projects undertaken by the consultant with references Resumes of key personnel who will be assigned to the project, their role in the study, and billing rates. S . small business, MEE, and other affirmative action qualifications SELECTION CRITERIA Selection will be based on the submitted materials and an oral interview. Questions and fourteen (14) copies of the proposal should be submitted to: Bill van Gelder Traffic Engineer P_ O. Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566 (510) 484-8257 feepro.wp.sm updated 7;11;45 -11-