WCCTAC
West Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory Committee
MEETING MINUTES
May
10, 2004
The regular meeting
of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order
at 7:34 A.M. on Monday, May 10, 2004 by Chair Kris Valstad in the City Council
Chambers of the City of San Pablo, One Alvarado Square, San Pablo,
California.
CALL TO ORDER/SELF INTRODUCTION
PRESENT: Janet Abelson (El Cerrito), Maria Alegria (Pinole)*, Irma
Anderson (Richmond), Sharon Brown (San Pablo), John Gioia (Contra Costa
County), Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT)*, Mindell Penn (Richmond), Joe Wallace (AC
Transit) and Chair Kris Valstad (Hercules)
ABSENT: Maria Viramontes (Richmond)
STAFF: Lisa
Hammon, WCCTAC Managing Director
Linda Young, WCCTAC
Transportation Project Specialist
Nancy Cuneo, WCCTAC
Administrative Analyst
Hisham Noeimi, Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
* Arrived After
Roll Call
PUBLIC COMMENT
On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by Sharon Brown and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC adopted the Consent Calendar, as follows:
3.
Approved Minutes, Sign-In Sheet and Meeting Summary from the April 16,
2004 Meeting.
4. Accepted
Employee Staff Reports from the Managing Director and Transportation Project
Manager for mid-April to mid-May.
5. Acknowledged
Women’s Transportation Seminar Conference/Managing Director’s
Presentation.
6. Supported Resolution 04-03 in Support of
the San Pablo Avenue Corridor Planning Process and Forwarded to Assemblywoman
Hancock.
7. Approved Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee (STMP) Funds for Richmond Intermodal Station
8. Announced East Bay SMART Corridors Project Ribbon Cutting for Tuesday, May 18, 2004 from 11:30 A.M. to 1:30 P.M. at Maple Hall, City of San Pablo.
Managing Director Hammon identified an emergency agenda item regarding the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC's) Big Tent Projects for the T2030 Plan. She advised that at the time the agenda had been prepared and mailed, she had been unaware that there would be time to discuss the item prior to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (CCTA's) meeting and need for comments from the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs).
On motion by Joe Wallace, seconded by Sharon Brown and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC unanimously approved the placement of a discussion of MTC's Big Tent Projects for the T2030 Plan on the meeting agenda as an emergency item that had come to the attention of the WCCTAC after the posting of the meeting agenda, to be placed as the last item on the agenda.
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR THE RICHMOND GREENWAY PROJECT
Managing Director
Hammon referred to the WCCTAC packets and the draft Financial Summary for the
Greenway Project, along with the handout from Vali Cooper & Associates,
Inc. presenting a cost estimate update to the Project Manager working for the
City of Richmond. For background, she explained
that the Richmond Greenway project had been in process for a couple of
years. The City of Richmond had
received a $1.9 million Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant for
the project and Vali Cooper & Associates had been working with City of
Richmond staff on the project.
Ms. Hammon
explained that Vali Cooper's contract was expiring. In another two months with the consultant’s help all of the
preliminary plans and environmental would be completed. The City of Richmond was not able to extend
the contract. The financial plan would put together a proposal using $38,000 in
various funding sources from WCCTAC and $10,000 in advancing some of WCCTAC's
Carpool/Vanpool/Park and Ride funds to piece together the $48,000 to allow Vali
Cooper to continue the work that had been started. The proposal had been submitted to the CCTA’s Planning Committee
last week to authorize the use of the funds.
At risk was the $1.9 million in TLC funds if the project was not ready
to proceed to construction by June 30, 2004.
Ms. Hammon stated
that CCTA Staff had presented the situation to the CCTA's Administration and
Projects Committee meeting where the use of some of the $432,000 in TEA funds
that the CCTA had remaining in reserve had been considered to fund some of the
remainder of the shortfall. The two
efforts were occurring simultaneously.
The request to the WCCTAC was to approve the $38,000 plus $10,000 in
funds to continue the consultant contract, and on a separate track to try to
assure the project funding as whole.
Ms. Hammon advised
that Hisham Noeimi had been attending the weekly Greenway meetings.
Hisham Noeimi
advised that the western segment of the project had now been estimated at $3.9
million. With the $1.9 million from the
TLC through the MTC and the $1.2 million committed by the City of Richmond for
the project, there remained an $800,000 shortfall. The Administration and Projects Committee would commit $432,000
for the project as long as it could receive assurance that the City of Richmond
could fund the remainder.
Irma Anderson
reported that assurance from the City of Richmond would be verified in writing.
John Gioia noted
that at the Planning Committee meeting there had been a comment to have CCTA
staff serve as oversight to the project to ensure that there would be no loss
of funds. He stated that the money
would be provided, the grant would not be lost and the oversight would address
that concern. The Planning Committee
had also expressed a desire to deal with a contact person in Richmond to create
a close working relationship to ensure the project.
Irma Anderson
introduced Rich Davidson to the WCCTAC and reported that he was now the
professional working on the project in conjunction with Bob McCleary and Hisham
Noeimi of the CCTA.
Hisham Noeimi
stated that it was anticipated that the project would meet the deadline.
Janet Abelson
emphasized the importance of the project.
She noted that the City of El Cerrito had been working to connect all
the bicycle projects. The Greenway project
would be helpful in making that connection when completed to its entirety. She supported the request for funding to
allow the project to proceed.
Irma Anderson added
that MTC had extended itself and she was concerned because of the City of
Richmond’s financial reverses. She
urged support for the proposal and emphasized that it would be appropriately
monitored.
Speaking from the
audience, Bruce Stewart stated that he frequently walked the Greenway. He thanked the WCCTAC staff and the City of
Richmond and stated that he had a lot of confidence in Rich Davidson.
Mr. Stewart
stressed the importance of the park and the connectivity to El Cerrito. He also expressed his support for the CCTA's
involvement as oversight.
On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by
Mindell Penn and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC approved the proposal using $38,000 in various funding sources from
WCCTAC and $10,000 in advancing some of WCCTAC's Carpool/Vanpool/Park and Ride
funds for a total of $48,000 to allow
Vali Cooper & Associates, Inc. to continue its work on the Richmond
Greenway Project.
a)
FOLLOW-UP
TO THE MEASURE C RENEWAL WORKSHOP FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
Managing Director
Hammon reported that the CCTA's Measure C Renewal Workshop had been well
attended.
Joe Wallace agreed
and commented that he had been surprised that the Urban Limit Line (ULL) and
the Growth Management Program (GMP) had been a concern. He had also been surprised to see the
entire County represented at one time.
Janet Abelson
underlined the concerns with the ULL and the GMP that would still have to be
resolved. She otherwise did not see
those issues as being a concern for West County.
Irma Anderson
stated that the ULL was a big problem and that the Board of Supervisors had
been working with CCTA Chair Amy Worth to achieve some resolution to avoid
derailing the Measure C Reauthorization.
She explained that the meetings were very important for East County to
get some comfort with the ULL to be able to reach some agreement. She concurred that the problem was not so
critical in West County.
John Gioia
explained that the May 1 meeting had highlighted the differences of opinion
with the ULL and the GMP in that some cities did not want any linkage to the
ULL and the GMP. He suggested that a
renewed Measure C would ultimately include both, although he emphasized that
the discussions were trying to resolve those few issue points. While progress was being made, he emphasized
that the ULL was a big issue for the City of Antioch.
With respect to
housing and the GMP, Mr. Gioia stated that while not an issue in West County,
some jurisdictions did not want that linkage to affordable housing. He reported that the Planning Committee had
strongly supported the inclusion of the language related to the GMP. He also noted that some wanted more transit
money in East Contra Costa County and the eastern region was having discussions
on that issue. There was some talk of
switching money with West County.
Mr. Gioia
emphasized that West County had done a good job providing for transit. He suggested that agreement would be reached
on the Expenditure Plan. While the ULL
was the greater issue, he emphasized that agreement would have to be achieved
by May 19, 2004 because the CCTA would take its action at that time, after
which the Expenditure Plan would be submitted to each city for ratification.
Mr. Gioia also
noted that no representative from Brentwood or from Richmond had attended the
workshop on May 1. As such, when
submitted to the councils for ratification there would be some councilmembers
who had not been involved in the process.
He emphasized that the issues had been under discussion for two years.
Sharon Brown
commented that it was good to have the discussion at this time of year since in
the first measure the discussions had occurred at times of councilmember
change, which required a recommencement of the process.
Irma Anderson
clarified that the City of Richmond as a whole, including City of Richmond
staff, had been very much involved in the process.
Jerrold Parsons
reported that Tri Delta Transit had invited elected officials to see the type
of bus used in the Express Bus System so that the public could get the look and
feel of what had been proposed and to show that express buses would represent a
viable alternative to automobile travel.
Given the extreme
opposition to the ULL from East County representatives, Mr. Parsons questioned
why the ULL had been included in the Measure C Reauthorization.
John Gioia noted
that there had been a lot of discussion that traffic congestion was due to two
things; a lack of infrastructure and insufficient planning to link land use
planning and transportation to encourage infill projects. He stated that infill would prevent sprawl
and would encourage the use of bus operations.
Sharon Brown added
that for many years the idea had been that development could occur, after which
transportation would surely be provided, which was how East County had
addressed that issue for years. She stated that could no longer be done.
Chair Valstad
concurred that the May 1 workshop had been very good and had resulted in a
spirited meeting. He stated it was
important that everyone had a say. He
emphasized the diversity in opinions on the subject, stated that the meeting
had highlighted the information needed to consider, and commented that the
bottom line, in his opinion, was that Measure C was a survival tool for the
entire County and it would have to be presented to the public to clearly
identify the benefits of the limited funds available to be able to pass.
b)
PUBLIC
OUTREACH MEETING SUMMARY
Managing Director
Hammon highlighted the Summary of the Public Outreach and noted that the Board
had requested that she put together the process used for outreach in West
County, identified in a handout to show that 19 meetings had been held during
the last year. Presentations had been
made to all West County cities and the items would be submitted to the cities
for review after the CCTA’s approval.
She expressed the willingness to gather information for each City to
identify how each would benefit from a renewed Measure C.
Ms. Hammon
clarified that the item was simply a follow up to the Board’s request last
month. The summary had been copied to Bob McCleary and could also be copied to
MTC, if so desired by the Board.
Chair Valstad liked
the clarity of what each community would be getting to identify where the funds
would be disbursed.
Janet Abelson
thanked Ms. Hammon for her efforts.
Based on the numbers, she suggested that there appeared to be more
outreach in West County than in any other region. She commented that the number of people who had attended the
meetings resulted from the efforts that Ms. Hammon and her staff had taken.
Irma Anderson
agreed.
Ms. Hammon advised
that she would print the Public Outreach Meeting Summary on WCCTAC letterhead
and distribute it.
c)
COMMENTS
ON THE PROJECT AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
Managing Director
Hammon referred to the CCTA's booklet [Version 15] entitled "Renewing
Measure C" and specifically referred to Page 12 of the document to
highlight project and program descriptions.
She clarified that West County had included additional funding for the
TLC program and additional local street and road improvements above 18
percent. In Central County, TRANSPAC
had also requested the same additional funds for local street and road
improvements. She stated that language had been added to tie those two pieces of
funding without compliance to the GMP, as requested by Central County. Since West County had not verified whether
or not it preferred the same, she sought input from the WCCTAC at this time.
John Gioia stated
that there had clearly been support to link return to source funds and TLC
funds to compliance with the GMP. The
question that had come up was that more money had been put into those
categories.
Mr. Gioia suggested
that could be one of the negotiating points to get the rest of the County on
board in the measure, knowing that the 18 percent return to source would be
linked to the GMP. With added funds, he suggested that would be the equivalent
of a local project. While a good thing
and a preference to link to the GMP, he suggested it should remain flexible to
use as a negotiating point. He
commented that only Central County and West County had added extra funds to
that element of the measure.
With that as the
case, Sharon Brown questioned the flexibility to be able to negotiate.
John Gioia
commented that everyone would get 18 percent return to source funds. He noted that three out of the four regions
put extra money on top of the 18 percent return to source. The Countywide TLC funds representing 5
percent would also be linked to the GMP.
West County was the only region to add to the TLC, although two other
regions had added to the return to source and the linkage might not
remain. He stated that the 18 percent
would remain all the time.
Ms. Hammon
explained that the additional local street and road funds could be tied to the
GMP for West County while the other regions would not have to do that.
John Gioia stated
that West County could do whatever it wanted for its region, but it wanted to
be aware of the positions to be taken by the other regions.
Maria Alegria
referred to the Countywide portion of TLC funds and the statement on Page 7 of
the document that "The program will invest in specific transportation
projects that facilitate, support and/or catalyze developments or activities
that encourage the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and
promote walking, bicycling, and/or transit usage." She questioned whether or not language
related to affordable housing could be included in that statement.
John Gioia noted
some discussion by some stakeholders that because the money could not be used
for housing itself, the question was whether any criteria might offer a better
evaluation if producing housing as part of the overall project, which might
allow a higher elevation on the scale.
He noted that some people wanted the fund to be used just for building
housing and there might then be some good TLC projects as a result. As such, something might be included in the
criteria.
Maria Alegria
questioned whether or not the WCCTAC would support that concept. She wanted to see if there was some
flexibility in that category.
Janet Abelson noted
that MTC's TLC program had three components.
For the housing component, an analysis had been produced after the first
cycle. Her understanding of that analysis
was that it had not worked, specifically the ability to determine whether it
had encouraged affordable housing or not. While the intent was to encourage the
production of more housing, that did not seem to be the case. She therefore had
some concerns as to whether or not that program was mechanically
effective.
Irma Anderson
suggested that it was a good idea. She
commented that the discussion related to a County project that needed the
commitment from everyone and she suggested that be discussed at the County
level. Emphasizing the need to get the
measure passed, she urged care to avoid jeopardizing the whole measure.
John Gioia
suggested that might come up later in the meeting and be discussed in the
concept of the Countywide program.
Joe Wallace also
stressed the need for compromise with respect to affordable housing to avoid
jeopardizing the measure.
Janet Abelson
sought some flexibility to work out the issues and to address the important
concerns of the County, which the WCCTAC already supported and continued to
support. She wanted to know that the
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operating on San Pablo Avenue and in West County would
continue to be funded by the measure.
She was assured that was the case.
Referring to Pages and 8, 9 and 12 of the document, she wanted to make
certain that the City programs were covered in the new measure and that
Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities, or paratransit
services, would be included. She was
assured by Ms. Hammon that was also the case.
Ms. Abelson
emphasized her concerns given that the document was new and that the language
had been changing. She wanted to verify
the common understanding that the current city programs (three in West County)
would be whole. She also supported the
inclusion of the language that "All recipients continue to receive their
share of the base.”
John Gioia referred
to the language at the bottom of Page 8 and recommended the inclusion of the
same language on Page 11 since it would not affect other areas.
By consensus, the
WCCTAC Committee members supported Janet Abelson's suggestions.
Ms. Hammon referred
to West County Local Streets and Roads and Livable Communities and recommended
tying that in West County to the GMP.
She also referred to new language that had been distributed to the
WCCTAC related to ferry service in West County.
John Gioia compared
the new language related to ferry service to the language included on Page 11
of the document. He pointed out the
differences where a "ferry oversight agency/provider" had been replaced
with the San Francisco Bay Area Water
Transit Authority (WTA) and the statement that "If the WTA is not able
to implement the use of the funds, WCCTAC and CCTA shall designate alternative
recipients for ferry funding. Funding
priority shall be given to routes that demonstrate long-term
sustainability."
Maria Alegria liked
the flexibility of the last sentence and suggested that could be used for some
of the capital projects. She suggested
that was an issue on a County level.
Sharon Brown had a
problem with the first sentence: "Funds for ferry service in West County
from Richmond, Hercules, and/or Rodeo to San Francisco (with potential stops
in-between).
Jerrold Parsons
stated that if the WTA did not replace the ferry oversight agency/provider, WestCAT
would have an interest in overseeing that operation if ferry service were
implemented from Hercules and/or Rodeo.
Veronica Sanchez
representing the WTA responded to Mr. Parsons' comment and noted that last year
she had worked on the legislation to create the WTA, which required the WTA to
first send out a notice to bus operators in the service district in which the
ferry would be operated to give the bus operators an opportunity to bid on the
service and the WTA an opportunity to bid on competitiveness.
With respect to the
recommended language for the Richmond Parkway, Irma Anderson noted the hope
that the $20 million identified for that project would help to complete the
Parkway. She stated that for the
Richmond ferry to go forward there needed to more money to leverage the money
from the WTA. She asked that the City
of Richmond have the opportunity to make a decision on how that money would be
utilized with the hope that would not have to be done in the future. She emphasized the need for flexibility and
stated that the ferry service would not be possible without it.
Ms. Anderson added
that the completion of the Richmond Parkway had been estimated at $70
million. The plan was to get a bill
from Sacramento to direct Caltrans to do the Parkway. She stated that there was no way that the City of Richmond could
update the parkway with $20 million. The item had been included as a
placeholder to leverage funds wherever possible. She emphasized that the Parkway benefited everyone.
Sharon Brown
suggested that the battle had been fought a few weeks ago with respect to the
amount of funds to go to the ferry. She
disagreed with the issue 100 percent.
Irma Anderson urged
the need for flexibility and cited the El Cerrito Parking Garage as an example
of why flexibility was needed, which flexibility she added had not been
included in the last Measure C. She
sought that privilege.
John Gioia
supported flexibility because the Parkway went through Richmond and
unincorporated County area and because the City of Richmond had been strapped
with the obligation of maintaining the Parkway. He stated that the funds could be used for capital or operations
but the funding was insufficient to meet the needs and the funds would probably
be used for operations. He stated that
would give Richmond the flexibility to pursue other sources of funding for the
Parkway. Mr. Gioia also emphasized the need for flexibility and stated that it
was a City of Richmond issue only. If
that was not allowed, the funds would never get spent and the funds might not
become available to accomplish the project.
Ms. Hammon
suggested language that either a plan be put together for how the Richmond
Parkway upgrade should occur prior to the expenditure of funds and that all
sources be considered for upgrading, that language be included to identify the
Richmond Parkway as a priority, or if the funds were not spent on the project
that the funds may be reprogrammed.
Irma Anderson
stated that the issue was not just the upgrade. The issue was operation of the roadway in the form of the
California Highway Patrol (CHP) services and the like.
Maria Alegria
agreed with the need for the region to have some flexibility. She was also concerned with the big capital
projects in the County and the County’s flexibility. She supported as much flexibility as possible. She noted that the Richmond Parkway had been
included in the capital projects piece and if that flexibility was retained, it
should be extended to the rest of the projects. She added that the WCCTAC was
setting the standard and that standard should be Countywide.
Mr. Wallace noted
that the flexibility might give transit the opportunity for the $20
million. While he supported flexibility
he did not want to lose control.
Janet Abelson
referred to the ferry and alternative recipients for ferry funding. She commented that the wording was not
clear.
John Gioia
commented that the region would decide whether or not it wanted to do
that. He recommended that the paragraph
be changed to read "Alternative recipients for West Contra Costa ferry
funding."
On motion by John Gioia, seconded by
Maria Alegria and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC approved the one paragraph
statement for Ferry Service in West County ($50 million) as follows:
Funds for ferry service in West County
from Richmond, Hercules, and/or Rodeo to San Francisco (with potential stops in
between). The funds may be used for
capital improvements (landslide improvements, parking, lighting, etc.), operating
the service, transit feeder service, way-finder signs and/or other components
of ferry service to be determined by WCCTAC and the San Francisco Bay Area
Water Transit Authority (WTA), the agency authorized by the State of California
to operate a comprehensive, regional water transit system. If the WTA is not able to implement the use
of these funds, WCCTAC and CCTA shall designate alternative recipients for West
Contra Costa ferry funding. Funding
priority shall be given to routes that demonstrate long-term sustainability.
With respect to the
Richmond Parkway, Janet Abelson commented that if the funds were not needed for
the Parkway, the WCCTAC would make the ultimate determination in that case.
Chair Valstad
emphasized that the funds would return to the WCCTAC to determine where they
would ultimately be programmed.
Jerrold Parsons
questioned whether or not the ferry was being funded elsewhere. He noted that it would take $70 to $90
million to fully fund the Richmond Ferry and only $50 million had been
allocated.
John Gioia stated
that there were no other alternatives for operation funding, and Irma Anderson
clarified that there was no other source of funding.
Mr. Parsons
questioned where Caltrans was on the issue.
He did not understand why Central Avenue, the Richmond Parkway or State
Route 4 at Hercules required so many Contra Costa County transportation dollars
to make those capital projects happen.
He questioned why the State was not funding some of those projects.
Irma Anderson
stated that the City of Richmond went out on a limb with Chevron to build the
Richmond Parkway with the plan that Caltrans would assume the responsibility
for that facility, although Caltrans had since stated that the facility should
have been built to a different level.
She noted that politically Richmond was not able to secure the money
now. She noted the changes in
government policy affecting the region and stated that the region had to work
together to accommodate the need to make the region livable.
Mindell Penn left
the meeting at this time.
On motion by John
Gioia, seconded by Maria Alegria the
WCCTAC approved the one paragraph statement for the Richmond Parkway ($20
million) as follows:
Upgrade the Richmond Parkway to
facilitate transfer of ownership to the California Department of Transportation,
including potential intersection and interchange upgrades and/or provide funds
to maintain the roadway. The
Richmond Parkway is the priority in this category. Funds not expended for this project may be
reprogrammed at the City of Richmond's request for Richmond Ferry Service.
Sharon Brown voted no on that motion.
Janet Abelson
suggested that there were still possibilities that the language would change
and the WCCTAC needed to be flexible and understanding in that category to
ensure the intent over time.
d)
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (GMP) PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Ms. Hammon stated
that the two issues related to the Measure C Reauthorization had already been
highlighted and still needed to be negotiated.
AMENDMENT TO THE MEASURE C EXPENDITURE PLAN
Managing Director Hammon stated that the amendment to the Measure C Expenditure Plan would essentially add language that planning for the implementation of the extension of the sales tax measure proposed an effective date of April 1, 2005 for the new Expenditure Plan should the measure pass in November. She advised that the growth management program and operating programs would not change until July 1, 2009, although in order to do some planning to prepare for that an effective date of April 1, 2005 had been recommended. The final Expenditure Plan would be inserted into the amendment to the Expenditure Plan after adoption at the CCTA's May 19 meeting. The RTPCs were being asked to comment on the amendments to the Expenditure Plan, a copy of which had been included in the WCCTAC packets.
In terms of the bonding issue, Maria Alegria clarified with Mr. Noeimi that there was some ability to bond for capital projects. She verified that the WCCTAC would make the determination of the eligible projects for West County.
Mr. Noeimi stated that the project description included language about bonding with the idea to assess that situation when moving forward to develop a Strategic Plan.
Ms. Hammon referred to the draft ordinance dated April 30, 2004 in the Committee packets and stated that Sections 25, 26 and 27 had been shown as intentionally omitted because those items had been covered in other areas of the ordinance and would be cross referenced in those sections where omitted. When asked, she noted that the CCTA would not consider that language at its May 19 meeting and members could leave the issue to the discretion of the representatives on the Administration and Projects Committee.
Maria Alegria reiterated her concern for the details. She wanted to make certain that her comments to the Administration and Projects Committee when it met on May 13, 2004 were submitted to CCTA.
Ms. Hammon stated that she could write a memo to CCTA staff to indicate that the WCCTAC had discussed the Amendment to the Measure C Expenditure Plan and would like the comments from the Administration and Projects Committee to be incorporated into the Amendment, and that the WCCTAC was supportive of the April 1, 2005 effective date.
John Greitzer, Senior Transportation Planner from the County Community Development Department referred to one of the sections that had been omitted and explained that it had referenced a formula used for the annual return to source funds. It was his understanding that Bob McCleary had indicated that the formula would have to be included elsewhere in the documentation.
Ms. Alegria noted that the main point was the bonding date.
John Gioia noted the bonding on capital projects, but also noted his understanding that the operations cost of the projects would also be bonded.
Janet Abelson inquired why there would need to be a bond for operations. She suggested that there would be less money for operations when bonding.
Mr.. Gioia understood that and noted that the issue was whether there would be any flexibility.
On motion by John Gioia, seconded by
Janet Abelson and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC supported the amendment to
the Measure C Expenditure Plan to give the CCTA the ability to start projects
ahead of time.
MTC'S BIG TENT PROJECTS FOR THE T2030 PLAN
On the emergency item that had been added to the meeting agenda, Managing Director Hammon stated that the issue was MTC's Big Tent projects for the T2030 Plan. She stated that the Big Tent list now included projects and programs included in the Measure C renewal that were not currently on the Track 1 or Committed lists and projects and programs for which planning studies had been completed and /or a clear need for the project or program could be demonstrated.
Ms. Hammon stated that the list had been evaluated and it had been realized that the WCCTAC would need to forward comments to the CCTA from the current WCCTAC meeting. She referred to the projects on the back of the list and pointed out that there were $3.6 billion in Contra Costa County projects listed where only an approximate $2 billion was possible for Contra Costa County. As such, the County was oversubscribed.
Ms. Hammon stated that one of the issues was that the BART Extension to Hilltop had been taken off the list because to her knowledge it had not been proposed for any funding. She stated that the list would be updated in the next three to four years and the BART Extension to Hilltop project could be added back to the list if there was a desire to do so. She added that it had been verified that all of the other projects in the Measure C renewal for West County had been included in the Big Tent if not already on Track 1 or the Committed list. She verified in response to comments that the only project taken off the list in West County was the BART Extension to Hilltop.
Janet Abelson clarified as part of the discussion that a project entitled the East Shore Boulevard project was actually the Del Norte BART Station. She noted that East Shore Boulevard was the street that went from Portrero to San Pablo Avenue.
As to how or why the project had been included on the list, Deidre Heitman from BART commented that she was not aware where that project had originated on the list.
On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by John Gioia and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC reviewed the list of Big Tent projects for West County, approved the list and forwarded it to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority.
CORRESPONDENCE/OTHER INFORMATION
There was no
correspondence or additional information other than that which had been
included in the WCCTAC packets.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other
business.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further
business to come before the WCCTAC, Chair Valstad adjourned the meeting at 9:10
A.M. to the next regular meeting set for June 25, 2004 at 7:30 A.M. at the San
Pablo City Council Chambers, One Alvarado Square, San Pablo, California.
Respectfully
submitted,
Anita L.
Tucci-Smith
Minutes Clerk