HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08081995 - C127 C.127, C.128, C.129,
and C.130
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on August 8, 1995 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
C.127 LETTERS from Martin R. Englemann, P.E., Deputy Director, Planning,
Contra Costa Transportation Authority; 1340 Treat Blvd., Suite 150, Walnut
Creek, CA 94596, dated July 25, 1995, and former Supervisor Tom Powers,
dated November 8, 1994, transmitting responses to the Board's letters on the
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
****REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C.128 LETTER from Bill Baker, U.S. Representative, 10th District, 1724 Longworth
Building, Washington, DC. 20515, dated July 17, 1995, in response to Board's
letter on the BART extension to the San Francisco Airport, advising of his
commitment to worthy transportation projects such as BART.
****REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
C.129 LETTER from Denny Larson, Refinery Network Coordinator, Citizens for a
Better Environment - California, 500 Howard Street, #506, San Francisco, CA
94105, dated July 27, 1995, providing suggestions for inclusion in the Safety
Audit for the Unocal Refinery.
****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND HEALTH
SERVICES DIRECTOR
C.130 LETTER from R.H. Garside, AGM Operations, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
District, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94612, dated July 20, 1995,
advising of the District's decision to stop supporting its bus shelter program,
and inquiring if.the Board would be willing to assume the care and upkeep of
the bus shelters in the County that are currently in excellent condition.
****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as
noted (****) are APPROVED.
C.C. Corres ondents i heretr,certify that this is a true and correctcopy of
p an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Transportation Committee
Board of su sora onthe dg s hon5
ATTESTED:
County Administrator PHIL BATCH OR Clerk oto'the Boar
Health Services - Director °t supe��am
By .`""�oWa►
RECEIVED
JM 2 7 1995
CONTRA COSTA CLERK BOARD 0F SCO. SO
CONTRA COSTATA ri7.- FA p
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY C • /�27
COMMISSIONERS: July 25, 1995
Julie Pierce
Chair
Don TatziHonorable Gayle Bishop
Vice Chairr y P
Gayle Bishop Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
County Administration Bldg.
Taylor Davis 651 Pine Street, Room 106
Millie Greenberg Martinez, California 94553-1293
Cathie Kosel
W.D. 'Bili'Landis Reference: Your letter received April 7, 1995 regarding the DRAFT
John E.Marquez COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Allen Payton
Dear Ms. Bishop:
Tom Torlakson
Hermann Welm Thank you for your letter received April 7, 1995 regarding the Draft Countywide
Robert K.McCleary Comprehensive Transportation Plan. At its July 19, 1995 meeting, the Authority
Executive Director
approved transmitting responses to comment letters received, and adopted the Final
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Attached'are the responses to your letter. Each response has a number which is keyed
to the notations in the margin of your comment letter, which is also attached for
reference.
The final CCTP will be transmitted to you as soon as it is ready. Please allow us two
to three weeks to proof, print and transmit the Final CCTP.
Thank you again for the interest you have shown in the Countywide Plan. We look
forward to your continued participation as we implement the Authority's first
Countywide Plan under Measure C.
Sincerely,.
1340 Treat Blvd, MARTIN R. ENGELMANN, P. E.
Suite150 Deputy Director, Planning
Walnut Creek
CA 94596
cc: Steven Goetz, C. C. Co. Community Development
PHONE:
510/938-3970 Attachments
FAX.-
5101938-3993
AX:510/938-3993
.The Board of Supervisors Contra Comment Letter 1 ClerkoaheBoard
and
County Administration Building Costa County administrator
651 Pine Street, Room 106 ;., (510)646-2371
Martinez. California 94553-1293
County
Jim Rogers. 1st District
Jett Smith.2nd District �! �. Al
1, 7
Gayle Bishop,3rd District t` +
Mark DeSauinier,4th District --
Tom Torlakson,5th District - - �� - - .•r;
Julie Pierce, Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Committee
1340,fTreat Blvd., Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Re: Final Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Dear Julie Pierce,
The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's(Authority's)Resolution
95-03-G,Executive Summary and Vision Statementforthe Final Countywide Comprehensive Transportation
Plan Plan . A marked-up version of these documents is attached. A summary of these comments are
provided in this letter for your consideration.
Resolution 95-03-G
The Resolution imposes changes to Action Plans that create significant policy implications on the land use
authority of local jurisdictions that the Authority should acknowledge. The changes override the procedures 1-1
adopted by the TRANSPLAN Committee and override the position taken by the Board of Supervisors on
the Tri Valley Action Plan on March 14. The Action Plan changes imposed by the Resolution result from
selective use and interpretation of certain statements in the Authority's Implementation Guide and interprets
these statements as regulations. The Board requests that the Authority use the Implementation Guide as
a guide, in context with all issues Action Plans must address, in context with the bottoms-up planning
process, and in context with the Measure C Ordinance. The Ordinance's introductory paragraph for the
Growth Management Program pledges to the voters that:
"The overall goal of the Growth Management Program is to achieve a cooperative process for Growth
Management on a countywide basis, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions and the
establishment of performance standards.'
A second concern of the Board is that this Resolution imposes a new standard for local jurisdictions to meet
when demonstrating "good faith" while participating in the conflict resolution process. The Resolution 1-2
defines "good faith" as "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in
resolution of the contlict." This definition is beyond that recommended in the Authority's draft Conflict
Resolution Process. Furthermore,the Board believes the Resolution goes beyond the Authority's guidance
for conflict resolution as defined in its Implementation Documents which states that compliance with the
Growth Management Program"cannot preemptlocalland use decisions orrequire cities to accept unwanted
construction projects. Compliance will not require any city, town or the county to accept programs that
create a fundamental conflict with the community's socioeconomic or environmental character."
Please be aware that the Board is scheduled to consider revisions to the Tri Valley Action Plan next week.
The Board intends to comment on any inconsistencies with this Resolution and with the Final Countywide
Comprehensive Transportation Plan At that time.
Executive Summary
The Board is concerned about applying the Central County Action Plan tenets countywide without evaluating 1-3
the impact of these tenets on other regions. The need to accommodate through traffic on freeways may
PGF �•t� �
not be consistent with the desire to meter through traffic on 1-80 through West County. The Plan has not
evaluated the implications of requiring "that jurisdictions which approve development also provide the
storage capacity(reservoir)for that traffic."
Vision Statement
The Board recommends that changes from the Executive Summary be carried over to the Vision Statement. _4
Other editorial changes should be made in the East County Corridor and Altamont Pass Corridor
ackrmwledging the need to address the growth in freight and heavy truck traffic between the Central Valley
and the Bay Area.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment,
Sincerely,
Gayle Bishop, ehair
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
attachment
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation'Plan
RESPONSES TO COM ENT LETTER 1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Gayle Bishop, Chair
no date
1-1 The Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopted the Growth Management
Implementation Documents in December 1990 as a way of ensuring that the
Growth Management Program established in Measure C was carried out. As
noted in several places in Measure C, local jurisdictions must demonstrate that
their compliance with the eight components of the Growth Management
Program to receive local street maintenance and improvement funds. The
Implementation Guide "describes how these these provisions of Measure C are
to be implemented by cities and the County, the four Regional Transportation
Planning Committees, and the Authority" (page IG-1).
The Authority's adoption of the Implementation Documents was a major
policy milestone. They defined compliance with the Growth Management in
detail, included a model Growth Management Element for each jurisdiction to
adopt, and implemented a compliance checklist. By also defining the Action
Plans, the Implementation Documents established policies on how to
"determine and periodically review the application of traffic service standards
on Routes of Regional Significance". The Implementation Documents are
more than just a "guide". They set policy and, until the Authority amends
them, staff will continue to act to implement the policies contained therein.
One of the required components of compliance is participation in the
development of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. According
to the Implementation Guide, the Action Plans must include six components
including "traffic service objectives that use a quantifiable measure of
effectiveness and include a target date for attaining the objective" (page
IG-14) and a "procedure for review of impacts resulting from proposed local
General Plan amendments that have the potential to influence the effectiveness
of adopted Action Plans" (page IG-16).
The Authority has been extremely flexible in its interpretation of what the
Implementation Guide says about traffic service objectives, despite the
County's statement to the contrary. The Implementation Guide requires on
page IG-14 that "[fjor Regional Routes that connect two or more regions of
the County, adopted objectives are to be the same in the Action Plans
c:1wwNV1931c&Rs.D0c III-14 April 25, 1995
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses•
prepared by different Regional Committees". The Authority has not held the
RTPCs to this standard if the traffic service objectives used were essentially
the same in purpose or effect. The Authority, however, will require that the
Action Plans contain measurable objectives and that these objectives "be
consistent with goals adopted by the Authority" (page IG-14). Objectives are
not meant to be "consistent" with the "list of actions, measures and programs
that each jurisdiction will implement" as suggested. They should represent
ways of measuring how well the goals are being achieved. To put it another
way, the "actions, measures and programs that each jurisdiction will
implement" should "serve" the objectives, not the other way around.
The Authority has included all the objectives, actions, policies and other
measures proposed in the Action Plans where no objections have been raised
(as called for in the Implementation Guide on page IG-27) except where those
objectives, actions, policies or other measures do not meet the requirements
set out in Measure C or the Implementation Guide or where they conflict with
the objectives, actions, policies or other measures of other Action Plans. (Me
support for the East County Corridor in the East County Action Plan and the
opposition to it in the Tri-Valley Action Plan is a clear example. The conflict
between Danville and Contra Costa County in the Proposal for Adoption Tri-
Valley Action Plan is a clear example of a lack of consensus. The
Implementation Guide, also on page IG-27, gives the Authority the
responsibility for deleting objectives or actions where no consensus has been
reached.
"Each of the Regional Committees must develop a process for notification
and review of the impact of the proposed General Plan amendment . . ."
(page IG-16; emphasis added). The Implementation Guide goes on to note
that;
It will be the responsibility of the jurisdiction considering the
amendment to either a) demonstrate that the amendment will
not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Action
Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or b) propose modifications to
the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amendment
from adversely affecting the regional transportation network.
If neither of these can be done, approval of the General Plan
amendment may lead to a finding of non-compliance with the
Growth Management Program (page IG-52).
c:1wwYNe\193\C&JMn0c III-15 April 25, 1995
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
The Implementation Guide also notes that:
General Plan amendments that would reduce the effectiveness
of adopted Action Plans may lead to a determination of non-
compliance if the Action Plans cannot be revised with the
approval of the Regional Committee and the Authority (page
IG-54). `
1-2 While the Implementation Guide notes that "compliance will not require any
city, town or the County to accept programs that create a fundamental conflict
with the community's socioeconomic or environmental character", the
discussion of good faith efforts is in a separate paragraph. In that preceding
paragraph, the Implementation Guide notes that the "Authority will look for
evidence of good faith effort by localities, including evaluation of alternative
proposals, to address the problems at issue" (page IG-40) which is essentially
the same as the "spirit of participation and compromise" outlined in the
Resolution.
1-3 The Authority will hold a public forum in early May to discuss, among other
components of the Countywide Plan, the overall vision statement. Changes in
that vision statement will necessarily affect the Executive Summary.
14 The vision for the East Central Commute will note that the growth in
commuting in that corridor is the result of job growth outside of East County
as well as housing growth inside. The vision for the East-Tri-Valley
Commute will note that congestion on I-580 may be causing diversion of
truck traffic onto Byron Highway. The vision for the Altamont Pass corridor
will not include a call for the study of a new gateway from the Central Valley
since such a gateway is clearly contrary to the approach of the Tri-Valley
Action Plan.
c:\wAYNM193\C Ru.noc III-16 April 25, 1995
�'�7 REQ`-IVED
"
FEFJUL z 719
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
CONTRA COSTA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
COMMISSIONERS:
July 25, 1995
Julie Pierce
Chair
Don Tatzin
Vice chair Hon. Gayle Bishop
Gayle Bishop Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Taylor Davis County Administration Bldg.
651 Pine Street, Room 106
Millie Greenberg Martinez, California 94553-1293
Cathie Kosel
W.D. 'Bill'Landis Reference: Letter from Tom Powers dated November 17, 1994 regarding the
John E.Marquez DRAFT COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION
Allen Payton PLAN
Tom Torlakson
Hermann Welm Dear Ms. Bishop:
Robert K.McCleary At its July 19, 1995 meeting, the Authority approved transmitting responses toExecutive Director
comment letters received, and adopted the Final Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan.
Attached are the responses to a letter that was transmitted by former Supervisor
Powers. Each response has a number which is keyed to the notation in the margin of
the comment letter, which is also attached for reference.
The final CCTP will be transmitted to you as soon as it is ready. Please allow us two
to three weeks to proof, print and transmit the Final CCTP.
Thank you again for the interest you have shown in the Countywide Plan. We look
forward to your continued participation as we implement the Authority's first
Countywide Plan under Measure C.
Sincerely, '
1340 Treat Blvd. MARTIN R. E GELMANN, P.E.
Suite150 Deputy Director, Planning
Walnut Creek
CA 94596
cc: Steven Goetz, C.C. Co. Community Development
PHONE:
510/938 3970 Attachments
FAX:
510/938-3993
Fhe Board of SupervisorsC�n�ra Phil Batchelor
CteM of the Soarc
Costa and
• ;ountyAdministrauon Building Counry,aominlsvalor
51'Pine Street. Room 106 (510)6:6-2371
lartinez.California 94553-1293 County
om Powers.1 st District
eH Smith.2nd District
.ayle Bishop.3rd District - ' :V
tark DeSaufnier.4th District
.�
om Torlakson.51h District November 8, 1994
Mr. Joel Keller, Chair
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 ° � 2
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Chairm a -.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors offers the following
comments on the Action Pian process and the Authority's
Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan that should be
considered in conjunction with other comments received at the
November 18 workshop on the Countywide Plan.
Implications of the Action Plan Process on General Plans
The County has participated in the preparation of all five Action 1_1
Plans in Contra Costa and has found that most of the Action Plans
do not include information on the ability of existing general
plans to meet Traffic Service Objectives (TSO) . Consequently, a
locality proposing a general plan amendment may find that an
Action Plan's TSOs cannot be met even without adopting the
general plan amendment. According to the Authority's Growth
Management Implementation Documents, that locality•must either
deny the general plan amendment or get the unanimous approval of
the Regional Committee to change the Action Plan in order to
comply with Measure C-1988 .
This is a significant delegation 'of local land use authority that
cannot be fully understood unless each Action Plan demonstrates
that existing general plans are consistent with its TSO's. The
Authority should consider revising its Implementation Documents
to remove the mandate that all general pian amendments must
comply with Action Plan TSO's in cases where Action Plans cannot
demonstrate such compliance for existing. General Plans.
Projects to Include in the Plan
The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan includes several
controversial projects in the unincorporated area, the Diamond
Boulevard extension, the Southern Pacific arterial, and the East
County Corridor. The Board does not propose any specific date
for implementation of the Diamond Boulevard and Southern Pacific
arterial projects, but they are included in the County's General
Plan. Any action to delete these projects from the Countywide
Plan should be a result of action by the sponsoring agency and
the affected Regional Committee, consistent with the bottom' s-up
planning process. It would not be appropriate for the Authority
Mr. Keller
November 8 , 1994
Page Two
to take such an action prior to decisions at the local level to
remove such projects from long-range plans.
The Board of Supervisor's support including the East County
Corridor in the Plan. It is included in the County's General
Plan and TRANPLAN's draft Action Plan. As a participating member
of the Tri Valley Transportation Council, the Board has proposed
an acknowledgement of the need to plan for additional capacity
between East County and Alameda County in the Tri Valley Action
Plan. If a conflict exists between two regions, the Authority
should not take sides but should facilitate resolution of this
conflict as part of the Countywide Plan.
Deciding How Issues of Conflict are to be Resolved
The Authority has outlined three issues of conflict for
discussion at the November 18 workshop. The County is involved 1-3
directly or indirectly in all three conflicts. The Board of
Supervisors would support the Authority requesting that the
parties involved in such disputes form small negotiating teams
and attempt to come to a resolution within a specified time
frame. A final conflict resolution process could also be spelled
out. This option appears consistent with the "bottoms-un"
planning process and is something the Authority has done
concerning Measure C-1988 compliance issues.
Overall Unifying Vision for Contra Costa, 2010
The Board believes that adoption of an overall unifying vision 1-
for the Countywide Plan is crucial if our future transportation
investments are to support other long range goals of Contra Costa
jurisdictions. The Board proposes the following vision as one
that could be adopted now and be refined during the update of the
next Plan as discussion on Countywide priorities continues.
Seek additional funding for capital improvements, and additional
funding for transit operations, in order to provide more
extensive transit opportunities within Contra Costa, and work
with local jurisdictions and representatives of the business
community to identify transportation investment priorities that
will promote economic growth, improve access to affordable
housing and reduce traffic congestion.
Thank you for considering these comments in your deliberations on
the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
I
: Si y,
Tom Powers, Chair
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses
RESPONSES TO COMA1ENT LETTER 1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Tom Powers, Chair
November S, 1994
1-1 Traffic service objectives (TSOs) for the regional routes in each action plan
were developed based upon an evaluation of existing conditions, and forecasts
of near-term and long-range conditions derived principally from existing
General Plans and ABAG forecasts. Development of the TSOs was based on
this detailed evaluation, in contrast to your assertion.
The Authority funded development of focused subarea travel forecasting
models so that near-term (year 2000) and long-range (year 2010) forecasts
could be developed. The year 2000 analysis generally accounted for all
approved development that has not been constructed. The year 2010 forecast
reflected reasonable assumptions, reviewed by local.jurisdictions, regarding
anticipated development given General Plan policies and anticipated market
conditions. In most cases, the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) forecasts were used in the action plan modeling to gauge anticipated
future approvals.
The models were the primary tool for establishing the TSOs, and to relate
them to realistic future expectations. The models can be used to estimate
through traffic, future local traffic demand, travel times, average auto
occupancies, and transit ridership. However, some types of TSOs, as well as
actions, cannot be evaluated using the model. The model cannot estimate
duration of congestion, delay on a particular corridor, or the impact of a spot
traffic improvement at an intersection. Alternative analysis methods would be
more appropriate for this type of analysis. On the other hand, the model is
well suited for evaluating the impacts of constructing major new facilities.
(See Implementation Documents, page IG-47)
Development of the action plans therefore required use of the forecasting
models, as well as other evaluation techniques. Each regional committee
selected the TSOs based upon a careful analysis of near-term and long-range
conditions. Significant analysis was undertaken to determine whether or not
TSOs would be met through implementation of a variety of action packages.
Following adoption of the action plans, monitoring of the TSOs will provide a
definitive basis for assessing progress.
DRAFT III-5 April 25, 1995
Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Based on the enormous investment and involvement of all 19 jurisdictions in
this process, it is therefore imperative that any major proposed changes of
land use through General Plan amendments be carefully assessed for their
impact on the adopted TSOs and required actions. To do less would be to a
abrogate the effectiveness of the entire process.
The general plan amendment process set forth in the Implementation
Documents requires that each action plan establish a threshold for the size of
project that will trigger review of the general plan amendment by the Regional
Committee. When a jurisdiction is considering approval of a general plan
amendment that exceeds this threshold, it must:
a) demonstrate that the amendment will not violate action plan policies
or the ability to meet action plan TSOs, or
b) propose modifications to the action plan that will prevent the
general plan amendment from adversely affecting the regional
transportation network.
If neither of these can be done, approval of the general plan amendment may
lead to a finding of non-compliance with the growth management program
(GMP). (See Implementation Documents, p IG 52.)
The process does not constitute "delegation" of land use authority.
Compliance with the Measure C process is voluntary. The Contra Costa
Transportation Authority can only withhold Measure C funds from
jurisdictions based upon non-compliance with the GMP; it cannot dictate a
jurisdiction's land use decision. Furthermore, difficulty in attaining TSOs,
even in the short-range analysis points to the need for strong actions to meet
Measure C objectives, including those that affect demand generated by
development. Your request to eliminate the review of future General Plan
amendments would greatly weaken the effectiveness of the Growth
Management Program.
The ability to meet TSOs, which have been developed by consensus among all
affected jurisdictions, will be judged through monitoring. The action plans
include procedures for monitoring TSOs. These procedures generally call for
updating the action plans if TSOs are violated, through continued joint
planning.
DRAFT' II1-6 April 25, 1995
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses.
The establishment of TSOs, and of the process meant to achieve them, is
entirely within the spirit of Measure C, which seeks to balance,growth and
mobility through mutually-agreed objectives and actions.
1-2 The Diamond Boulevard Extension and Southern Pacific right-of-way HOV
projects are included in the Central County Action Plan project list, and in
this plan as candidates for Track 2 of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The projects would only be removed from the CCT? after the County and
other members of the Central County RTPC (TRANSPAC) agree to do so.
The East County Corridor is not included in this plan due to a lack of
consensus between. Alameda and Contra Costa jurisdictions.
The Authority concurs with the need to avoid "taking sides" over conflicts in
the Tri-Valley area, and is willing to facilitate discussion with all affected
jurisdictions, including the Alameda Congestion Management Agency (CMA)
and other Alameda County jurisdictions.
1-3 The Authority recognizes the need for establishing a conflict resolution
process and is presently preparing one. The conflict-resolution process is
being circulated for review concurrent with final adoption of this plan.
1-4 The Authority shares the belief in the need for a unifying vision to guide the
Measure C effort. A draft vision statement has been circulated for comment,
and a revised one will be adopted along with the final Countywide Plan.
Most of the concepts listed in the suggested vision are included in the goals of
the CCTP, as listed in the executive summary; goals specifically for
affordable housing are included in the annual compliance checklist. The
Authority is seeking additional funding for capital improvements with which
to fulfill these goals.
DRAFT Il1-7 April 25, 1995