Legislation Details

File #: HIST-13495    Version: 1 Subject:
Type: Historical Status: Action Item
In control: City Council Meeting Agenda
On agenda: 3/1/2010 Final action: 3/1/2010
Title: Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Culver City, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles Related to Addressing Regional Traffic Issues.
Attachments: 1. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding Between - A-2__10-03-01__PW-Admin__CITY COUNCIL__Regional Traffic MOU - FINAL.docx, 2. Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding Between - 10-03-01__PW-Admin__CITY COUNCIL__Regional Traffic MOU__Attachment with cover.pdf
City of Culver City, California Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: _03/01/10_ Item Number: A-2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Culver City, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles Related to Addressing Regional Traffic Issues. Contact Person/Dept.: Helen Kerstein/PW Phone Number: (310) 253-5618 Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X] Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X] Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________ Public Notification: Agenda and Meetings – City Council (02/24/10); (Email) Jim Kennedy, City of LA (02/24/10); (Email) Michael May and Eddie Guerrero, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (02/24/10); (Email) Shari Afshari and Bill Winter, LA County Department of Public Works (02/24/10); (Email) Robert Calix, Metro (02/24/10) Department Approval: Charles D. Herbertson (02/10/10) City Attorney Approval: Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (02/22/10) Chief Financial Officer Approval: Mark Scott (by M. Noller) (02/23/10) City Manager Approval: Mark Scott (02/24/10) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Culver City, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles related to addressing regional traffic issues. BACKGROUND: Since 1993, Metro has implemented a Congestion Management Program (CMP) based on a system of debits and credits. Jurisdictions have been given debits for additional trips generated by new development within their boundaries and credits for mitigation measures that have been implemented. In 2008, Metro proposed a change in course by introducing a proposal to replace this debit and credit system with a fee program. This program, called the Congestion Mitigation Fee (CMF) Program, will assess fees based on the estimated number of additional trips generated by new developments. Recognizing that the new fees generated by the proposed CMF program will be more effective at addressing regional traffic problems if pooled together and spent in a coordinated fashion, the City of Culver City, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles formed an informal group called the Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation (RDTM) Working Group in 2008. Since its formation, the RDTM Working Group has been meeting regularly, along with representatives from Metro and Caltrans, to prepare for the new CMF program and to address issues of regional traffic collaboratively. City of Culver City, California Agenda Item Report Among its achievements, the RDTM Working Group has developed a list of projects of regional importance and come up with a preliminary prioritization of those projects (see Attachment 1, Exhibit “B” for the list of projects). The RDTM Working Group has also collaborated on reallocating the mitigation funds from the Costco project to help improve the intersections along Admiralty Way between Fiji Way and Via Marina. This reallocation of funds, which will help reduce traffic on Lincoln Boulevard, was approved by the City Council in July 2009. DISCUSSION: While the RDTM Working Group has been successful in bringing together the City of Culver City, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles to address the pressing issue of traffic in the region, its long-term effectiveness is limited by its lack of a formal organization and funding stream. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed MOU. Staff believes that this MOU will form the foundation for long-term regional collaboration on traffic. The MOU provides the RDTM Working Group with a greater level of structure and promotes accountability by setting milestones and reporting requirements back to elected officials. Furthermore, the MOU also sets forth the guidelines for funding regional traffic mitigation projects. Specifically, the MOU requires that the signatories hold in reserve funds from regional impact fees such as the CMF program that are collected in the area identified in the MOU for use on the projects identified by the group (see Attachment 1, Exhibit “A” for a map of the area and “B” for the list of projects). Staff believes this is important because it ensures that there will be a source of funds available to use towards regionally significant projects, but does not commit the City to funding any specific project at this time. It is anticipated in the MOU that the agencies will enter into separate project specific agreements that will address the funding commitment for each agency on a project by project basis. These agreements will also require the approval of the City Council. Finally, the MOU requires that signatories support each other in seeking grant funding for the projects identified in the MOU, which should also help make these regionally important projects more competitive for other sources of funding in addition to the CMF. FISCAL ANALYSIS: The MOU requires that the City hold in reserve regional impact fees such as the CMF for use on the projects identified in Exhibit “B.” However, the MOU does not require the City to spend funds on any given project. As indicated above, this will be City of Culver City, California Agenda Item Report addressed by separate project specific agreements (which agreements are subject to the City Council’s approval). Additionally, even without this MOU, these fees would have to be spent on projects that address regional traffic and are connected to new development impacts, as will be required by the forthcoming CMF program. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memorandum of Understanding and Exhibits “A,” “B,” and “C” MOTION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Culver City, the City of Los Angeles and the County of Los Angeles; and, 2. Authorize the City Attorney to review/prepare the necessary documents; and, 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute such documents on behalf of the City. MEETING DATE: 03/01/10 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Culver City, the City of Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles Related to Addressing Regional Traffic Issues. ATTACHMENTS Pages|109| Memorandum of Understanding and Exhibits "A," 1-12 "B," and "C"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION WORKING GROUP CITY OF CULVER CITY CITY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION WORKING GROUP MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITIES OF CULVER CITY, LOS ANGELES AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Culver City (hereinafter referred to as "Culver City"), the City of Los Angeles (hereinafter referred to as "Los Angeles"), and the County of Los Angeles (hereinafter referred to as "County"). RECITALS A. Culver City, Los Angeles, and County (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Agencies" and individually as "Agency") desire to improve transportation mobility and traffic flow in the portion of the Westside of Los Angeles County identified in Exhibit "A" (hereinafter referred to as "Study Area"). B. The Agencies have determined that the goal of improving traffic mobility and flow in the Study Area is in the general interest of Culver City, Los Angeles, County, and the region as a whole; but there is currently no mutually agreed upon set of transportation improvements for the Study Area and no formal way of pooling project support or financial resources to fund such improvements. C. The Agencies have agreed to form the Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation Working Group to guide the process of establishing a transportation improvement plan and collaboratively pursue outside funding sources to implement this plan. D. The Agencies have developed a list of potential transportation improvement projects to enhance traffic mobility in the Study Area. The list of improvements is illustrated and described in Exhibit "B." E. The Agencies acknowledge that, while these proposed improvements are expected to improve traffic mobility in the Study Area, not all of the proposed improvements have been vetted through the community nor cleared environmentally. Therefore, additional outreach and environmental review and studies may be required for some or all of the proposed projects. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will be invited to participate with the Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation Working Group to provide input in the evaluations and discussions of potential transportation improvement projects. AGREEMENT Now, therefore, the Agencies hereby agree as follows: Page 21 EACH AGENCY AGREES: A. To perform all services and comply with all duties, obligations and conditions set forth in this Agreement. B. To assign an authorized representative and a designee or designees to participate as an active member of the Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation Working Group. C. To direct the authorized representative and designee(s) to confer with relevant elected officials, as needed, on matters before the Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation Working Group. D. In addition to the list of transportation projects set forth in Exhibit "B," to discuss, evaluate, and rank other potential transportation improvement projects and revise Exhibit "B" accordingly. Exhibit "B" may be modified upon written consent of Agencies acting by and through their authorized representatives. E. To work cooperatively to continue to prioritize the list of projects identified in Exhibit "B," as revised. F. To work cooperatively to seek outside funding sources to fund the cost of the agreed upon set of transportation improvements. G. To support a fellow Agency in their pursuit of federal, state, county, or Metro Call for Projects funding sources to fund an improvement project listed in Exbibit "B." If an application for grant monies is pursued to fund such a project, each agency will provide a project letter of support, unless the Agencies agree to collectively pursue the funds as one entity. H. To hold in reserve any regional impact fees (such as the proposed Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Congestion Management fee) collected from development projects within the Study Area to help implement the improvements listed in Exhibit "B." To consider supplementing regional impact fees with the allocation of revenues identified in 1.G., such as Los Angeles County Measure R funds, as matching funds toward approved projects listed on Exhibit "B." J. To seek to form Joint Powers Agreements or Project Agreements on a project-by- project basis as necessary to further the list of projects identified on Exhibit "B." Said agreements shall stipulate the contribution of funds from each Agency toward the project. K. To work to meet the milestones identified in Exhibit "C." Page 3L. To add future milestones, as needed, by amendment to Exhibit "C." Exhibit "C" may be modified upon written consent of the Agencies acting by and through their authorized representatives. M. To work together to create bi-annual reports in April and October of every year addressed to the relevant elected officials overseeing the Agencies. These reports shall include a description of the Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation Working Group's progress toward achieving the milestones identified Exhibit "C." 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT: A. The term of this Agreement shall commence when duly executed by all parties and terminate when the Agencies agree in writing that the Agreement is no longer necessary. B. Any party may withdraw from this Agreement, at any time, by sending a 30-day notice of such withdrawal to each of the other Agencies. The notice shall state with reasonable specificity the reasons for withdrawing from the Agreement. Withdrawal shall be effective thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of said letter. C. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of all Agencies. 3. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIABILITY: No party, nor any other officer or employee of such an Agency shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of any acts or omission on the part of any other party under or in connection with this Agreement. Each of the separate parties agrees to indemnify and hold each other harmless in connection with liabilities arising from any negligence or willful misconduct by such indemnifying party. Each of the separate parties agrees to assume liability for any damages occasioned by the negligence or willful misconduct of its own officials, officers, employees or agents arising under the implementation of this agreement. 4. NOTICES: Notices and correspondence between Agencies shall be sent to the following address: If to Culver City: Charles D. Herbertson, P.E., P.L.S. Public Works Director/City Engineer 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA 90232-0507 Phone: (310) 253-5630 Page 4Fax: (310) 253-5626 If to Los Angeles: Sean Haeri, P.E., P.T.O.E. Senior Transportation Engineer Bureau of Transportation Planning 7166 W. Manchester Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (213) 972-8485 Downtown (310) 642-1623 Westchester Fax: (213) 485-1285 If to County: William J. Winter, RE. Department of Public Works 900 S. Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803 Phone: (626) 300-4700 Fax: (626) 300-4736 5. AMENDMENTS: This Agreement may be amended if approved unanimously, in writing, by the Agencies. Page 5IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in separate counterparts by their duly authorized representatives. The final Agreement shall be assembled from all of these separately executed counterparts and a complete signed original will then be provided to each party. CITY OF CULVER CITY, a municipal corporation By: Date: Mark Scott City Manager Approved as to Form and Legality: By: Date: Carol A. Schwab City Attorney Page 6IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in separate counterparts by their duly authorized representatives. The final Agreement shall be assembled from all of these separately executed counterparts and a complete signed original will then be provided to each party. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation By: Rita L. Robinson General Manager Department of Transportation Date: Approved as to Form and Legality: Carmen Trutanich City Attorney By: Date: Keith Pritsker Deputy City Attorney Page 7IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed in separate counterparts by their duly authorized representatives. The final Agreement shall be assembled from all of these separately executed counterparts and a complete signed original will then be provided to each party. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES GAIL FARBER Director of Public Works By: Date: PATRICK V. DeCHELLIS Deputy APPROVED AS TO FORM: ANDREA SHERIDAN ORDIN County Counsel By: Date: Deputy Page 80 0.20.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 Miles NA-rtoNAL BL 13, county of Los Angeles, Exhibit A: Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation Study Area ..:119WARD HU uJ Note: Numbers correspond to projects listed on Exhibit B. Numbers 4 and 8 are not represented on the map because they have no specific physical location. January 12, 2010 mi. Study Area BoundaryExhibit B: Potential Transportation Projects in the Study Area The following is a list of transportation projects proposed to mitigate the impacts of developments in the County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles and Culver City as well as the impacts of ambient growth on the regional transportation system: To be funded through the Costco Regional Traffic Mitigation Fund: 1. Admiralty Way — Fiji Way to Via Marina - Improve intersections along Admiralty Wy. from Fiji Wy. to Via Marina to reduce traffic congestion along Lincoln BI. and at its intersections from Mindanao Wy. to Washington BI. Projects that can be implemented within 3 to 5 years: 2. Sepulveda Boulevard Efficiency/Capacity Improvement Project — Identify and implement ways of improving traffic flow, carrying capacity, and efficiency in the utilization of the Sepulveda Corridor from Wilshire to LAX. 3. Lincoln Boulevard Efficiency/Capacity Improvement Project — Identify and implement ways of improving traffic flow, carrying capacity, and efficiency in the utilization of the Lincoln Corridor from Venice BI. to Westchester Parkway. 4. Improve Transit in the Area. a. Articulated Bus Project - Purchase of 6 articulated buses to expand the carrying capacity of Rapid 6. Rapid 6 is an important north-south sub-regional bus rapid transit service that connects from UCLA to LAX and the Green Line Aviation Station. This project also includes bus pad lengthening at stops to accommodate the articulated buses. b. Enhance Transit Service Feeding into the Future Exposition Light Rail Station - Fund Culver CityBus feeder service to the Exposition Light Rail Station to enhance sub-regional connectivity to/from the Expo Station. c. Improve Bus Stops in the Area - The improvements include some or all of the following: 1) Replace/add/lengthen the bus pads, 2) Improve sidewalk conditions or extending the sidewalk (for ADA compliance and to enhance safety), 3) Next bus arrival information system, 4) Enhanced lighting, and 5) Addition/replacement of bus stop furniture. 5. Improve Traffic Flow Along Culver Boulevard - Improve traffic flow along the Culver Bl. corridor between Centinela Ave. and the 1-405 by providing turn lanes at intersections (e.g. at Inglewood Ave.). 6. Improve Traffic Flow Along Centinela Ave. -Improve the Centinela Ave. corridor from Sepulveda BI. to La Cienega BI. (e.g. add a travel lane in the peak direction of Centinela Ave.) to relieve traffic congestion along Slauson Ave.|109| Improve Lincoln BI. - Widening Lincoln BI., between Jefferson BI. and Fiji Way. 8. Upgrade Traffic Signal Synchronization in Culver City - Upgrade traffic signal synchronization in Culver City equivalent to the City of Los Angeles ATCS. 9. SR90 Connector Road From Lincoln BI. to Admiralty Way - Construct SR90 extension to Admiralty Wy. to reduce traffic congestion along Lincoln RI. and at its intersections from Mindanao Wy. to Washington BI.Potential Transportation Projects Page 2 of 2 10. La Cienega BliCentinela Ave. Grade Separation — Construct a grade separation of La Cienega BI. intersection with Centinela Ave. and La Tijera Bl. 11. SR90 to 1-405 Connection - Construct WB SR90 connection to SB 1-405. 12. Westside Transit Center Project — Plan, design and construct a multi-modal transit center to replace the existing Fox Hills Mall Transit Center, which is located on private property. This transit center will serve as a major transit hub on the Westside for riders transferring between bus lines in the region. 13. Duquesne Ave. — Widen Duquesne Ave. between Jefferson BI. and Culver BI. in order to accommodate a left turn lane and bike lanes. This will improve traffic flow and connectivity on a road that is one of the few Ballona Creek crossings and also serves to connect two primary arteries.Exhibit C: Milestones 1. July 1, 2010: Identify funding for Project Study Reports (PSRs) for two or three projects that are selected by the Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation Working Group for intense focus. Develop an RFP for the necessary consultant services or a plan to conduct the PSRs using staff from one or more of the Agencies. 2 August 15, 2010: Select a consultant or consultants to perform PSRs, if relevant. 3. December 15, 2010: Complete PSRs for the selected projects and identify a subcommittee of the Regional Development and Traffic Mitigation Working Group to work on 2011 Metro Call for Projects applications. 4. January 15, 2011: Complete applications for funding for the two selected projects through the 2011 Metro Call for Projects or a similar source.