Authority Board Special TEP Meeting MINUTES

Transcription

1 MEETING DATE: MEMBERS PRESENT: Janet Abelson, Newell Arnerich, Sherry McCoy for Tom Butt (Absent), David Durant, Federal Glover (arrived at 6:28 p.m.), Dave Hudson, Karen Mitchoff, Julie Pierce, Kevin Romick, Don Tatzin, Robert Taylor Ex-Officio Representatives: Joel Keller for Gail Murray (Absent), H.E. Christian Chris Peeples, Bob Simmons, Amy Worth STAFF PRESENT: Randell Iwasaki, Randall Carlton, Ross Chittenden, Martin Engelmann, Peter Engel, Brad Beck, Stephanie Hu, Matt Kelly, Hisham Noeimi, Linsey Willis, Tarienne Grover, Mala Subramanian, Authority Counsel MINUTES PREPARED BY: Tarienne Grover A. CONVENE MEETING: Chair Tatzin convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m. (Commissioner Glover had not yet arrived.) B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C. PUBLIC COMMENT: None D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Authority Board Special TEP Meeting Minutes of March 29, 2016 (Attachment - Action). ACTION: Commissioner Pierce moved to approve the Authority Board Special TEP Meeting Minutes of March 29, 2016, seconded by Commissioner Romick. The motion passed unanimously by commissioners present, (Glover was absent). 1.0 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: Development of a Potential Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) 1.1 Discussion of Comments Received in the Review of the Draft TEP Released by the Authority on April 20, 2016, and Additional Recommendations and Comments for Consideration in a Final TEP. At its Authority Board Special Meeting on April 1

2 Page 2 of 7 6, 2016, the Authority approved release of a Draft TEP for review and comment by the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs), the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC), the Public Managers Association (PMA) and other interested stakeholders. The Authority also directed Gray-Bowen-Scott (GBS), the Authority's consultant team, to review the Draft TEP and provide recommendations to improve the likelihood of successful passage of the TEP on a November 2016 ballot measure. At its Authority Board Special Meeting on April 20, 2016, the Authority reviewed proposed miscellaneous changes to the Draft TEP related to various funding categories and received a memorandum from the GBS consultant team with fourteen (14) additional recommendations. The Authority directed staff and the GBS consultant team to incorporate the proposed changes and recommendations from the GBS consulting team into an updated Draft TEP for discussion at the Authority Board Special Meeting. Concurrently, the Authority has received numerous letters from the RTPCs, the Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC), the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and other stakeholders with comments and recommendations for consideration in a final TEP. The EPAC met on April 23, 2016 and also provided additional comments and input. Staff and the GBS consultant team have incorporated various changes into an April 29th update of the Draft TEP. The GBS consultant team has continued to review input received from all sources to date and has made additional recommendations for consideration in the final TEP and has provided additional recommendations in a new memorandum dated April 29, Staff recommends the Authority 1) review comments provide by the RTPCs and other stakeholders, including the April 20, 2016 GBS memorandum 2) review the proposed edits incorporated into the April 29th update to the Draft TEP, and 3) consider additional recommendations provided in an April 29, 2016 memorandum from the GBS consultant team. Staff Contact: Ross Chittenden (Attachment Information) Commissioner Glover arrived at 6:28 p.m. DISCUSSION: Ross Chittenden, Chief Deputy Executive Director, detailed the process over the past year and asked the Authority to review comments provided by the RTPCs and other stakeholders, including the April 20, 2016 Gray-Bowen-Scott (GBS) Memorandum, review the proposed edits incorporated into the April 29 th update to the Draft TEP and consider additional recommendations provided in the April 29, 2016 supplemental recommendations from GBS, and May 2, 2016 Addendum to the GBS Memorandum. He discussed the handout packet and numerous letters that have been received from various stakeholders disclosing support and concerns with the Draft TEP. He provided a summary of the most recent Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee meeting stating that most members expressed support of the thirty-year term, protection and mitigation of agricultural lands, and the language in the Community Development Transportation Program (CDTP), with concerns expressed about performance criteria, outreaching to low-income and communities of color, being a status quo TEP, and the need to clarify and strengthen the Growth Management Plan (GMP)

3 Page 3 of 7 and Urban Limit Line (ULL). He introduced Bill Gray and Eric Zell with the consultant team. Mr. Zell provided context about how the Draft TEP was composed, including maintaining local control and building the Draft TEP from the skeleton of Measure C and Measure J. Mr. Zell discussed prior public opinion polls showing 68 percent support which is within the margin of error for polls. All parties have come to the table seeking compromise to something that they may not completely like, but something that they can live with and support. Mr. Gray discussed the changes reflected in the GBS Memorandum dated April 20, 2016, the April 29, 2016 supplemental recommendations and the Addendum to the GBS Memorandum dated May 2, He stated that the Major Streets / Complete Streets / Traffic Signal Synchronization Grant Program language was revised to add a competitive project selection process within each subregion with the Authority approving the final program of projects. He stated that the ULL language was revised to require jurisdictions considering a non-voter approved amendment to their ULL to adopt an additional finding (over and above the at least one of the findings listed in the County s Measure L ) to clearly define the public benefit of the expansion and require adoption of an Agricultural Protection Ordinance. He stated that the ULL language was further revised to add a clear definition of a minor adjustment and remove the 5-year cap for minor ULL adjustments. Mr. Gray stated that the GMP Checklist language was revised to ensure protection of agricultural lands and add additional disclosure items. He further clarified that the proposed CDTP language was revised to reinforce the Authority s intent to maintain regional equity and administer the program in conjunction with the Authority s Transportation for Livable Community s (TLC) Program. He indicated that language was revised in the Local Contracting and Good Jobs and Preface/Introduction sections of the Draft TEP and specifically to define the Authority s intent in the East County Corridor category. He further stated that a new section was added to the Implementing Guidelines to provide background and clarification regarding the requirements and process that CCTA follows for the countywide transportation plan and require the Authority to consider performance criteria when evaluating future funding decisions regarding projects and programs. Following discussions by the Board, staff and the consultant team was directed to revise the Preface/Introduction to replace unsafe when referenced to roads with deteriorating. The Board directed staff and consultants under Category 1, Local Streets Maintenance & Improvements, to note in the minutes that the word roadway means right-of-way.

4 Page 4 of 7 The Board directed staff under Category 2, Major Streets / Complete Streets / Traffic Signal Synchronization Grant Program to add language to clarify the competitive project selection process. Under Category 3, BART Capacity, Access, and Parking Improvements, the staff and consultant team was directed to remove the word primarily from Funds in this category are primarily intended, clarify the language that states what will happen to the funding allocation if BART does not provide their share by the deadline, consider adding language to have an agreement by December 31, 2021 with an opportunity to extend the agreement subject to approval by the Authority, and add the intent that the improvements will be made specifically in Contra Costa County and completed solely based on a commitment from San Francisco and Alameda Counties and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). They were further directed to remove reference to advance train control systems or state that they would only be funded if they are necessary to facilitate the operation of additional cars, include language to clarify the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) to move fare box revenues to capital expenditures, and remove public from the last sentence to state, alternate transit services, with contingency upon CCTA for approval of the expenditure and consideration based on the MOE undertaking by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). BART Director Joel Keller stated that he agreed to remove reference to advance train control systems and would like to have further discussions with the BART Board of Directors on the 5-year deadline to have an agreement and the MOE language. Under categories four through ten, the staff and consultant team was directed to remove reference to the Advance Mitigation Program and instead add reference to the categories under the Advance Mitigation Program section of the Draft TEP. The Board directed staff and the consultant team to remove the word physically from Category 7, Improve Traffic Flow and Implement High Capacity Transit along the I-680 and SR 24 Corridors in Central and Southwest Contra Costa County. Joe Sbranti, City Manager for City of Pittsburg and current Chair of the Public Managers Association, stated that the four City Managers in East County were all in consensus with TRANSPLAN s recommendation to reallocate funds from Category 8, Improve Traffic Flow along SR 242/SR 4 to Category 1a, Additional Local Streets Maintenance and Improvements and Category 16, CDTP. Following discussions among commissioners, he agreed to further discuss the recommendation to reallocate funds at TRANSPLAN s next meeting on May 12, Commissioner Romick agreed to reconsideration, perhaps at a special TRANSPLAN meeting.

5 Page 5 of 7 Mr. Chittenden briefly stated that changes to Category 10, East County Corridor, consisted of revising the language to remove reference to capacity improvements, prioritizing the funding among various elements to restrict funding, and revising the language to read that the funding from this category shall not be used to construct new roadways on new alignments. He clarified that TriLink project would be removed from this category if the new language was accepted. Following discussion, the Board agreed that Commissioner Glover would convene meetings and asked TRANSPLAN to further discuss this category at their next meeting, hopefully, prior to the next Authority Board meeting on May 11 and report their recommendations to the Board. The Board directed staff and the consultant team to add language to Category 11, Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements, to provide a clear understanding that the funds for West County will only be spent on bus enhancements, continuing existing bus service, expanding bus service for operation and capital, and that use of these funds will be determined by the subregion. Another suggestion was to split Category 11, Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements into two different categories; one specifically for Bus Transit Enhancements in West Contra Costa County and one for all of the other subregions of the county for Bus Transit and Other Non-Rail Transit Enhancements. The Board further directed that this category be held to the same level of review standard as the other categories, the language be changed in the last paragraph to read, fund bus and non-rail service instead of fund service enhancements, make it clear that each subregion provides input for how the funding allocation will be spent, and eliminate the last sentence in the second paragraph. It was also suggested that staff and the consultant team consider condensing the language for this category into a few sentences after the proposed language has been reviewed. Under Category 12, Transportation for Seniors & People With Disabilities, the board directed staff and the consultant team to consider the language in Alameda s Measure BB to be more consistent with ADA and non-ada mandated transit requirements. The Board directed staff and the consultant team to remove the word, not from clearance may not be funded as part of a construction project in the first paragraph of Category 15, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities. Staff and the consultant team were also directed to change the funding allocation from one third to one fourth for the East Bay Regional Park District. Under Category 16, Community Development Transportation Program, the Board directed staff and the consultant team to add a definition to clarify what transit supportive community centers means and/or move economic development to the end of the sentence to clarify the intent. Staff and the consultant team were also directed to revise additional priority to state weighted priority and remove reference to specific programs.

6 Page 6 of 7 The Board directed staff and the consultant team to remove the new paragraph under Category 17, Innovative Transportation Technology/Connected Communities Program. Executive Director Randell H. Iwasaki recommended that the Board change the funding allocation for Category 18, Transportation Planning, Facilities, and Services to 1.5% and Category 20, Administration to 0.5%. The Board agreed to this recommendation. PUBLIC COMMENT Josh Huber, Policy Director with East Bay Leadership Council (EBLC), supported the current Draft TEP stating that the Growth Management Program (GMP) continues to be a concern, although, it can be supported if it mandates a process rather than an outcome. He stated that the EBLC has a policy to advocate for infill development within the Urban Limit Line (ULL) and protection of environmental assets outside the ULL, which remains their position. Mr. Huber advocated for maintaining local control and that there is a trade-off between protecting environmental assets and planning for future growth. Mike Nisen, member of Byron MAC, asked that the intent described in the prior Draft TEP for the three projects in the East County Corridor be left intact. Patty Bristow, member of the Citizens Advisory Committee and resident of Byron, provided a history report on how BART was founded and stated that the Board has a responsibility to have a vision. Lisa Vorderbrueggen, representing the Building Industry Association (BIA) of the Bay Area, stated that the BIA and their members may not be able to support the new non-transportation related recommendations, which have the potential to exacerbate the county s already serious housing shortage. Dave Campbell, Advocacy Director with Bike Easy Bay, thanked the Authority for presenting an improved plan. He stated that he is more optimistic with the current Draft TEP with one key provision that the Major Streets/Complete Streets category be competitive. He also asked the Board to consider topping off the measure versus extending the measure. Joel Devalcourt, Regional Representative, East Bay with Greenbelt Alliance, stated that some of the coalition members were still concerned, but that any remaining recommendations and concerns, such as infill incentives associated with return-to-source funds, removing inflammatory language and ensuring that transit agencies have operation funds, would be presented by Friday. He stated that he was making a good faith effort to move this process in the right direction.

7 Page 7 of 7 Joel Ramos, TRANSFORM, expressed concerns for the Draft TEP, specifically related to transit operations. Cecilia Valdez, Vice Mayor for City of San Pablo and a member of the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Board, expressed support for the prior Draft TEP versions and asked the Board to consider the recommendations from GBS to keep the I-80 Interchange Improvements at San Pablo Dam Road and Central Avenue category separate from the High Capacity Transit Improvements category. Steve Barr, Councilmember for City of Brentwood, expressed concerns for changes made to the East County Corridor category, specifically to ensure that the projects are not changed and don t inhibit future transit changes over the life of the measure. He also expressed support for retaining local land use control. Joe Calabrigo, Town Manager for Town of Danville, expressed concern that the measure is becoming more about land use than transportation. He expressed support for the letters from Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT) and WCCTAC. 1.2 Proposal for Final TEP Outline and Format. The Authority is on a schedule to consider adopting a final TEP on May 18, 2016 for possible placement on a November 2016 ballot measure. At its meeting on April 20, 2016, the Authority directed staff and the Gray-Bowen-Scott (GBS) consultant team to provide recommendations for a more contemporary format for the final TEP. Staff recommends that the Authority review the attachments related to Final TEP outline and format and provide direction to Authority staff and the GBS consultant team. Staff Contact: Ross Chittenden (Attachment Information) DISCUSSION: There was no discussion under this item. 2.0 CORRESPONDENCE - None 3.0 CALENDAR 3.1 May/June/July 2016 (Attachment Information) 4.0 ADJOURNMENT to Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m.

8 This Page Intentionally Blank