WCCTAC
West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
MINUTES
May 27, 2005
The regular meeting of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order at 7:35 A.M. on Friday, May 27, 2005 by Chair Penn 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), Leonard McNeil, Alternate for Sharon Brown (San Pablo), Tom Butt, Alternate for Maria Viramontes (Richmond), Jerrold Parsons (WestCAT), Joe Wallace (AC Transit), Trevor Evans Young (Hercules) and Chair Mindell Penn (Richmond)
ABSENT: John Gioia (Contra Costa County)
STAFF: Lisa Hammon, WCCTAC Managing Director
Linda Young, WCCTAC Transportation Project Specialist
John Rudolph, WCCTAC Management Assistant
Nancy Cuneo, WCCTAC Administrative Analyst
Hisham Noeimi, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA)
PUBLIC COMMENT
Managing Director Lisa Hammon took this opportunity to congratulate John Rudolph, the WCCTAC Management Assistant for completing the Masters Program in City Planning from U.C. Berkeley.
On motion by Janet Abelson, seconded by Jerrold Parsons and carried unanimously, the WCCTAC adopted the Consent Calendar, as follows:
3. Approved Minutes, Sign-In Sheet and Meeting Summary from the April 22, 2005 Meeting.
4. Accepted Employee Staff Reports from the Managing Director, the Management Assistant, and the Transportation Project Specialist for May.
5. Provided an update on the WCCTAC FY 05-06 Budget, Dues, and Scope of Work.
6. Provided information on the Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) and Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Fund Update.
7. Received Richmond Parkway Transit Center Schedule.
MEETING DATE FOR JULY/AUGUST
Managing Director Hammon explained that the WCCTAC Board typically met only once in July and August and typically combined that meeting into one meeting. While she had suggested a date of Friday, August 19, 2005, Janet Abelson had advised that she would not be available on that date.
On the discussion of a potential July/August combination meeting date, it was noted that most city councils took vacations in August. As such and given that there were no pressing issues to be addressed in the interim, the July and August meetings were recommended to be canceled, with the next meeting after the June 24 meeting to be the September 30 meeting If there was something that would have to be addressed during that time, the WCCTAC could schedule a special meeting during the first week in August.
By consensus, the July and August meetings of the WCCTAC were cancelled. After the next meeting on June 24, 2005, the next regularly scheduled meeting would be on September 30, 2005.
Managing Director Hammon presented handouts entitled “Alternative Cost Distribution Scenario for Casino Traffic Impact Study” and “Summary of Casino Projects Currently Underway in West Contra Costa County.” She reported the information had been discussed at a casino meeting held on May 19.
Ms. Hammon noted the assumption that there would be participation by at least three jurisdictions in Alameda County adjacent to West County that might be impacted by West County casino projects. She identified those jurisdictions as Albany, Berkeley and Emeryville. Marin County had also been contacted to determine whether or not there was an interest in that area for the study. Suggestions had been offered to contact Larkspur, San Rafael, Marin County and the Transportation Authority of Marin which might also want to participate in a traffic study.
Ms. Hammon added that questions at the May 19 meeting had related to participation by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), the Wastewater District and/or the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD). She explained that those agencies had been taken out of the cost sharing analysis given that those agencies would have to conduct additional studies to identify casino impacts on their services. Those agencies would not be directly affected by traffic per se. Doctor’s Medical Center had been retained given that it would be affected by traffic. She added that the City of San Pablo had only been listed as a participating agency in the traffic counts in Phase 1.
Ms. Hammon advised that the cost of the traffic study had been allocated over two fiscal years given the likelihood that a full study would not be completed within a 12 month period. She suggested that would spread out the cost and make it easier to fund the study.
The study had been phased to perform traffic counts right away to obtain baseline data. Phase 2 would produce the remainder of the full study. Phase 1 would count 60 intersections in West Contra Costa County including San Pablo Dam Road to Orinda, 10 intersections in Alameda County and 10 intersections in Marin County, or some combination thereof. At a cost of $400 per intersection and a small contingency, the Phase 1 traffic counts would total $35,200, with a cost to each jurisdiction of $2,934. The cost of Phase 2 had been estimated at $400,000.
For Phase 2, the cost sharing for primary impact agencies versus secondary impact agencies had been allocated over two fiscal years. She clarified the distinction between a primary impact as opposed to a secondary impact agency in that primary impact agencies were the WCCTAC member agencies which would experience the most impacts from traffic associated with casino projects, where secondary impact agencies would experience lesser impacts.
Ms. Hammon reported that the cost distribution scenario had not yet been submitted to the larger casino group that Supervisors Ulkema and Gioia had called since that meeting had not been scheduled until July. The next County casino meeting had been scheduled for July 18, at which time confirmation or not would have been received from the Alameda and Marin County jurisdictions.
With respect to the “Summary of Casino Projects Currently Underway in West Contra Costa County,” Ms. Hammon identified those potential projects as the Lytton Band proposal at Casino San Pablo, the Scotts Valley Band proposal in North Richmond and the Guidiville Band at Point Molate. The three projects had been detailed in terms of size, amenities and status for comparison purposes.
Ms. Hammon questioned whether the WCCTAC wanted to take any action on the matter at this time.
Leonard McNeil suggested that the traffic study appeared to be premature in terms of commitment of resources and money considering the fact that the proposed casinos were not definite, there was no scope of the content of the casinos and no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to identify what would be done around transportation had been prepared. As such, he asked why the study was being pursued when the situation could change dramatically in the future.
Ms. Hammon stated that the impact of traffic and transportation had first been evaluated when the Casino San Pablo proposal had started moving forward more quickly as a result of the State Compact that could potentially be ratified by the Legislature, which was when the County Board of Supervisors had called a meeting since it was to be responsible for the impacts on mitigation, with the exception of San Pablo and Caltrans. At a subsequent meeting, the larger casino group had discussed what should or should not be done. There was an issue of securing baseline data before any proposal could be pursued to adequately identify the impacts. There was also a concern as to how quickly the process would move forward if one, two or three of the casinos were to develop and whether or not a full traffic study could be conducted within the time constraints of the environmental process. There was a desire to be proactive instead of being reactive.
John Greitzer, the staff person from the County who had been working with the larger group and with Supervisors Uilkema and Gioia, stated with respect to an EIR that it was their hope that could be done. He explained that a few agencies had obtained an in-house administrative draft environmental review for the Scotts Valley Band North Richmond casino. It had been found that the traffic analysis in that administrative draft was inadequate. As such, a technically sound study was required to provide the right information to assist in mitigation negotiations should they arise.
Irma Anderson stated that since the County would do the negotiating, it was appropriate for the County to consider impacts while the cities had to consider cost benefits. With respect to the cost sharing for a Casino Traffic Impact Study, given the current fiscal problems, she did not know whether or not the City of Richmond could agree to expend the funds. For Richmond, she suggested it would be premature to spend that kind of money right now.
Tom Butt asked why the County did not believe that the baseline data and the assumptions and trip generation used in that environmental consideration for the Scotts Valley proposal was appropriate.
In response to Mr. Butt, Mr. Greitzer stated that the information used was a concern given that the assumptions and the trip generation related to the quantity of traffic to be created by the casino did not appear to be adequate.
While some of the baseline data appeared to be good from some of the locations identified, Mr. Greitzer stated that information had been used from rural casinos that were located in rural areas as opposed to urban areas, and no particular impacts had been analyzed, as specifically requested. For those reasons, there was a lack of confidence with the baseline data.
Mr. Butt commented that it would make sense to get some objective data. With respect to the baseline, he noted that would cost $2,900 per city. He explained that the prevailing wisdom in Richmond had questioned the need for a study to second guess an EIR of a study that the City supported, although he suggested the more confidence the public had in the EIR the less likely there would be public criticism of the project, if approved. He commented that he would be willing to recommend that his City contribute $2,900 to obtain baseline data now while deferring the remainder of the study to a later time.
Joe Wallace commented that while he had initially supported the casino project, he did not currently support the project in that it would not help his community. For AC Transit to invest money in that type of project to see if something would happen if casinos would be built was problematic. He would present the information to his Board of Directors to determine whether or not there was interest in the proposal.
Janet Abelson suggested that gathering baseline data now would have little value if nothing occurred with the casinos in the near future. She questioned the value of the baseline data for something that might not occur for a number of years, if at all. In the interim, she suggested that a number of other projects might have been developed that would affect the baseline. She questioned when the earliest would be that anything could occur with the casinos.
Mr. Greitzer agreed and stated that the first step would be to capture the current situation and then determine what could occur in the future. He agreed that the “now” would be difficult and there was no effective way of dealing with that issue other than to do the work. He suggested that if waiting too long to conduct the analysis, there might have to be negotiations for casino mitigation right away and there would be no data to use in that process.
Ms. Hammon explained that at the interagency casino meetings, the current baseline information had been discussed. That information was two to five years old. A baseline 2005 would be more current than what currently existed. She noted that 500 bingo style slot machines would be added to Casino San Pablo in September 2005. One of the lines of thinking was that before that occurred; the baseline counts should be identified.
With respect to that September project, Mr. Greitzer stated it would be baseline in terms of growth and existing conditions although it would not have been captured in the traffic counts.
Trevor Evans-Young commented that Phase 2 would occur in the future and traffic conditions could change dramatically from the Phase 1 work. Agreeing with City of Richmond representatives, he supported the gathering of baseline data. He suggested that the traffic and environmental work associated with upcoming development projects in the areas involved could also be used to fund the cost of the traffic study for the casino projects.
Referencing some of the concerns related to the State Compact with the Lytton Band at Casino San Pablo and how that could effect or limit the control of local jurisdictions, Mr. Evans-Young agreed with the need for sufficient information to counter that situation. He also noted that the other casinos referenced were under the jurisdiction of the federal government. He suggested it was therefore important to obtain the Phase 1 baseline data.
Tom Butt suggested that the reason for gathering the data was to evaluate the accuracy of the EIRs and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) being prepared for two of the three casinos, which documents would be distributed to the public this summer, at which point the public comment phase would be opened. If there were criticisms from the public about the baseline assumptions, that would open up potential criticisms of the EIR. He supported anything that would build confidence in the EIR.
Irma Anderson commented that Phase 1 was okay. She suggested that the problem was redundancy in that the City of Richmond and the WCCTAC would be pursing the same studies, which was a concern to her. If there was no support from the WCCTAC for the traffic impact study, she questioned whether or not there were other resources to fund a traffic study if not funded by the WCCTAC.
Ms. Hammon noted the need to write a letter to each WCCTAC agency to explain each phase and to obtain feedback from the entire Board and agencies of the WCCTAC jurisdictions. She stated that it would be difficult to secure planning funds per se. She referenced the current budget discussions for the WCCTAC itself and stated that there would be an opportunity to amend the WCCTAC budget to include a line item to fund Phase 1, as an alternative. The WCCTAC could conduct the Phase 1 study by adding money to the WCCTAC budget and determine which other agencies in Alameda or Marin counties might want to participate in the full study.
Janet Abelson reiterated her concern as to how the study would be used, particularly since the WCCTAC had no land use authority. The cost of the study was a concern for her City. She questioned what the study would specifically provide to the WCCTAC.
Maria Alegria questioned whether or not it would be possible to coordinate the different studies. She suggested that the benefit of moving forward would be to consider the issue from a regional perspective.
Ms. Alegria noted that her City Council was considering the regional impacts to neighboring jurisdictions and she urged being sensitive to that issue. She suggested that the data would be beneficial in the process. She recommended moving the item to the City Councils for deliberation prior to a return to the WCCTAC for continued discussions.
With respect to the cost sharing aspect of the proposal, Trevor Evans Young noted that at the County meeting there had been a suggestion to pursue a foundation or other resource to assist in the cost of the study.
Ms. Hammon stated that she would follow up on whether or not there were any other potential funding sources that could be considered.
Chair Penn recommended the preparation of a letter to the cities and agencies to address the issue of participation where the WCCTAC representatives could make recommendation based on that letter to the various cities, which letter could then be returned as an official representation of the cities.
Irma Anderson suggested that was the WCCTAC membership’s responsibility. She suggested that the issue was whether or not there was a WCCTAC responsibility to fund the study, which was an issue that would have to be addressed. She saw no problem with Phase 1.
Trevor Evans-Young suggested that issue should be part of the WCCTAC budget to be able to officially charge each city and agency for its share of the cost. He supported some legal document to commit the cities/agencies to the cost of the study.
Jerrold Parsons agreed that the item should be included as part of the WCCTAC budget. He added that the $2,934 cost would be difficult for WestCAT to fund. If included in the WCCTAC budget, he suggested the item might be easier to approve.
Janet Abelson questioned the impacts to the WCCTAC budget given the large increase this year.
Ms. Hammon stated that she had checked with Martin Engelmann at the CCTA in terms of the cities’ use of return to source funds to pay for the study. She had been told that would be acceptable as long as there was a connection between the study and the Growth Management Program, which she suggested could easily be done. If writing a letter, she stated it was time critical that comments be returned prior to the June 24 meeting given the adoption of the WCCTAC budget at that time, particularly since there would be no meeting in July and August. She emphasized that feedback before or at the June meeting was critical to also provide comments to the County Board of Supervisors prior to the July meeting on the casino issue.
Ms. Hammon was directed by the WCCTAC to prepare a letter to the cities and agencies.
WEST COUNTY’S STRATEGIC PLAN PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURE PLAN AMENDMENT
Managing Director Hammon advised that the CCTA had considered the update of the Strategic Plan at its last meeting and had considered the recommendations from West County. In June, the CCTA would initiate the process to amend the Measure C Expenditure Plan prior to appropriating the funds for the Richmond Transit Village parking and the Hercules Transit Center parking given that the current language did not currently allow those two projects.
Maria Alegria wanted to make certain that the WCCTAC representatives or his/her alternates be available at the next meeting of the CCTA, which was an important meeting to attend.
Irma Anderson emphasized that the representatives, or his/her alternates, would have to be apprised of the need to attend that important meeting.
Ms. Hammon stated that if someone could not attend the meeting she should also be apprised so that she could contact the alternates.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR LEGAL SERVICES
Managing Director Hammon identified the additional line item in the budget for legal services given that the WCCTAC would no longer be able to use the City of Richmond attorney services. The Request for Proposal outlined the services currently being provided and asked for copies of RFPs to be submitted by June 24, 2005. She explained that Mr. Jenkins from Richmond had agreed to sit on the review committee, along with the Managing Director and a WCCTAC Boardmember to review the RFPs. A recommendation would be submitted to the WCCTAC at the September meeting. It was her understanding that Mr. Jenkins would continue to serve until a replacement had been designated.
Ms. Hammon distributed a handout to identify the outside attorney services utilized by WCCTAC agencies so that copies of the RFP could be submitted to appropriate law firms for the services being requested.
In response to Janet Abelson on her suggestion to consider firms that represented transportation agencies, Ms. Hammon stated that she had asked Mr. Jenkins about the CCTA attorney but had been advised that might represent a conflict of interest. She could otherwise consider some of the law firms utilized by some of the San Francisco transportation agencies.
Leonard McNeil questioned why WCCTAC could not pool the legal resources of all entities rather than hire a separate attorney.
Ms. Hammon explained that she had contacted the member cities and there was no support available beyond what was being offered by the City of Richmond.
Chair Penn directed staff to seek additional names for the RFP.
Maria Alegria recommended that “transportation and transit related issues” be added to the first line in the RFP.
“DESIGNING WITH TRANSIT”
Nathan Landau of AC Transit presented “Designing with Transit – Making Transit Integral to East Bay Communities,” which he characterized as an unusual document for AC Transit to produce. He expressed his hope that the document would be useful not only to AC Transit but to the cities as well. He explained that the document included three themes: a focus on the importance of planning communities to make transit easy to use, where to go, and how to site buildings in relation to transit; how to get riders to transit, especially by walking since over 85 percent of AC Transit’s passengers accessed the bus by walking; and how to create a street and sidewalk system or modify an existing street and sidewalk system that would work well with transit and bus transportation.
Mr. Landau detailed the various chapters of the lengthy document, offered samples of the recommendations contained therein, described how each chapter had been set up with policies to be instituted through Best Management Practices (BMPs), and identified the recommendations to create good ways to walk to transit. He commented that transit oriented development (TOD) could also be developed around buses.
Jerrold Parsons expressed his appreciation for the document. Using the area between Hercules and Rodeo as an example, he stated that there was a problem related to the continuity of public improvements to and through developments to ensure that bus transit, pedestrians and bicyclists were made a part of the process.
Chair Penn referred to the Richmond Transit Village and commented that the City of Richmond appreciated and understood the value of TOD and attempted to include it in all of its future development. She expressed her appreciation for the document.
Ms. Hammon advised that extra copies of the document were available for the public works or planning staff of the member jurisdictions.
Joe Wallace was pleased with the document. He emphasized the need for buses, whether in new or older developments. He emphasized the importance of public transportation in the development of new homes/subdivisions.
Maria Alegria suggested that the only thing missing was a potential draft resolution that could implement the proposal as a policy to then give direction to city departments to serve as guidelines. She suggested that the most effective way to implement the proposals would be for the City Council of the individual cities to direct its staff to implement the document.
TDM PROGRAM UPDATE
Transportation Project Specialist Linda Young provided an update on the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. She reported that the former Contra Costa Commute Alternative Network (CCCAN) was in the process of becoming 511 Contra Costa in partnership with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) 511 Program.
Ms. Young reported that the Eleventh Annual Bike to Work Day for California had been held on May 19, 2005. In West Contra Costa, the event had included the grand opening of the bicycle lockers at the El Cerrito Plaza BART station which would allow bicyclists to better use BART. She noted that several Boardmembers had attended that event.
Ms. Young also identified the TDM Projects for Fiscal Year 2005-06, including the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, the Employer Based Trip Reduction Program, Transit Programs, and other WCCTAC projects including the Montalvin Manor/Tara Hills Bike Lane and the Bay Trail Gap Closure Bike Lane striping and signage projects.
Members of the WCCTAC thanked Ms. Young for all her work in connection with several projects related to Earth Day and Bike to Work Day events. It was noted that Ms. Young would also be present at the Hercules Cultural Fair.
CORRESPONDENCE/OTHER INFORMATION
There was no correspondence or additional information other than that which had been included in the WCCTAC packets.
Maria Alegria referred to the San Francisco Bay Trail Project and the availability of grant funds to complete undeveloped segments of the 500-mile Bay Trail, with a June 30, 2005 deadline. She sought information as to whether or not there could be a regional effort in that regard.
Ms. Hammon stated that generally when there was grant information it was submitted to the WCCTAC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for consideration. She explained that two other grants had been included on the Consent Calendar, both of which had been discussed by the WCCTAC-TAC. She advised that she would look into the Bay Trail grant, as requested.
BOARDMEMBER COMMENTS/REPORTS
There were no other comments.
OTHER BUSINESS
Maria Alegria noted the opportunity to attend a conference in Philadelphia on Regional Equity sponsored by Policy Link and the Funder’s Network. She would share some of the information from the conference that could be invested in the region’s urban core and aging suburbs.
Chair Penn stated that the Philadelphia conference was excellent. She too suggested that those who had attended the conference could submit the information to the WCCTAC.
Joe Wallace noted that AC Transit was pursuing a Fare Restructuring Plan. He referred interested parties to www.actransit.org, to offer what he/she thought about the Fare Restructuring Plan. He noted that the majority of those attending the hearing had been Alameda County residents. He suggested that the public did not understand transit or transit funding, and recommended a public notification process to apprise the public of transit services. He sought comments from West County on the Fare Restructuring Plan.
Chair Penn suggested that Contra Costa County residents would attend hearings on the Fare Restructuring Plan if some hearings were held in Contra Costa County. She added that issue should have been discussed previously since the deadline appeared to be June 9, 2005.
Lola Ejiwunmi of the Community Housing Development Corporation of North Richmond (CHDC) described a program to allow access into recreational areas and the CHDC’s specific efforts to secure access to Wildcat Creek. She requested WCCTAC’s support for access to Wildcat Creek.
Ms. Hammon identified the Railvolution conference to be held from September 7 to 10 in Salt Lake City and asked WCCTAC members to check his/her calendar and designate a representative to that conference utilizing WCCTAC funds.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the WCCTAC, Chair Penn adjourned the meeting at 9:03A.M. to the next regular meeting set for June 24, 2005 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