Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05161995 - TC1 TG Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .4 FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Costa DATE: May 16, 1995 - County SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CCTA'S PLANNING AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the Chair to sign a letter transmitting the comments of the Board of Supervisors on the Draft Proposal for Adoption, Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. FISCAL IMPACT The Draft Plan would establish additional requirements for the County to satisfy in order to receive it's share of the Measure C- 1988 return-to-source revenues, which amount to approximately $1.4 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors has been monitoring the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's preparation of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan for several years. Exhibit A contains the Board' s most recent comments on the Plan along with the responses prepared by Authority staff. 1 The Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee forwarded these comments . and responses to the Authority for their consideration, but did not recommend any changes to the Draft Plan or the implementing resolution. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XX YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER / -V SIGNATURE(S) : of mith Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON May 16, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER g ACCEPTED the Report on the recommendations of the CCTA's Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and AUTHORIZED the Vice Chair, Board of Supervisors, to- sign a letter transmitting the comments of the Board on the Draft Proposal for Adoption, Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. I " Supervisor Smith agreed to attend the May 17, .1995, Transportation Authority Forum as the alternate to Supervisor Bishop. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: 2,4,5 NOES: 3 ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department Contact: Steve Goetz, (510/646-2134) ATTESTED May 16, 1995 cc: Community Development Director CCTA (via CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF RTPC'S (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LINTY ADMINI TOR EP TY SG:drb tpx\bo\ccta Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan May 16, 1995 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) The Authority has prepared a draft "Proposal for Adoption" for the Plan which responds to the comments received by the Authority. Furthermore, the Authority has scheduled a special forum on the Plan Nd related issues on May 17 , beginning at 4 :30 PM at the Walnut Creek Elk' s Lodge No. 1812 , 1475 Creekside Drive. A copy of the forum announcement is attached as Exhibit B. The Committee will be recommending comments for the Board to consider and authorize transmittal to the Authority at their May 17 Forum. The Board of SupervisorsContra Phil Batchelor a Clerk of the Board Costa and • County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Jim Rogers,1st District ce-L May 16, 1995 Jett Smith,2nd District = Gayle Bishop,3rd District '' Mark DeSaulnier,4th District �i •< Tom Torlakson,5th District yr a court' Ms. Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Chair Pierce: The Board of Supervisors requests the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to consider our concerns with the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan at your May 17th forum. The Authority should not mandate a specific General Plan amendment review process. There is considerable concern with the Authority's apparent insistence to mandate a general plan amendment review process without addressing the concerns of the Regional Committees. The process proposed by the Authority was adopted in 1990, before work on the Action Plans began. Since that time, the TRANSPLAN Committee took particular care in developing their general plan amendment review process to reflect the concerns of the participating jurisdictions, all which have the potential for significant changes to their General Plans in the future. Yet, Resolution 95-03-G overrides the TRANSPLAN Committee by mandating a specific process to be applied countywide, without any variation that acknowledges the concerns of the Regional Committees. The Authority's proposed action does not seem consistent with the cooperative transportation planning process envisioned in Measure C. Rather than mandating a process, the Authority is advised to resolve their differences with the TRANSPLAN Committee and others through negotiation. These concerns include: - incurring additional bureaucratic costs and delays in the review of general plan amendments beyond that already required for local review and CEQA compliance; - evaluating land use proposals using 20-year forecasts rather than five-year forecasts as specified in the Measure C text; - evaluating land use proposals using 20-year forecasts developed by computer models that can, at best, only provide estimates of current traffic within 20 percent of actual counts for no more than half the intersections being measured; and - requiring Authority approval of any Action Plan amendment agreed to by a Regional Committee. Chair Pierce May 16, 1995 Page Two Demonstration of "Good Faith" should be based on participation in the process, not the outcome. The Board remains concerned that Resolution 95-03-G imposes a new standard for local jurisdictions to meet when demonstrating "good faith" in the conflict resolution process. The Resolution defines "good faith" as "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict." This definition goes beyond requiring full participation in settlement discussions or the consideration of alternative proposals as suggested in the Implementation Guide. The expectation of compromise conflicts with the Implementation Guide's assurance that compliance with the Growth Management Program "cannot preempt local land use decisions or require cities or 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." The Board believes that "good faith" should be determined by participation in the conflict resolution process, not by its outcome. A jurisdiction's full participation in the settlement meetings and its consideration of alternative proposals are indicators of good faith that can be readily determined. Relying on a "spirit of participation and compromise" indirectly allows the Authority to determine compliance based on the outcome of the process, such as the appropriateness of a land use decision, which is clearly not permitted by the Measure C text. Quality of Life should be determined by general purpose governments, not the Transportation Authority. The intent of the Authority, as stated in the Measure C text, is to create a growth management process that results in the maintenance of the quality of life in Contra Costa. It is the process that defines maintenance of the quality of life, not the Authority. Quality of life issues are best determined by general purpose local government such as city councils and the Board of Supervisors, who are directly elected and accountable to their constituents on these issues. Quality of life should not be determined by single issues, such as transportation, or by a single purpose agency such as the Authority. The Board hopes the Authority will ultimately respond to the concerns raised by the Board and by others at the May 17th Forum. X ice ChairBoard of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: May 16, 1995 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director by, Steven L. Goetz, Transportation Planning Divis ' SUBJECT: Transportation Committee Report TC 1 for May 16 Board Supervisors meeting. Attached for your information is additional material related to Agenda Item TC 1, Report on the recommendations of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority' s Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Proposal for Adoption. which is scheduled for today' s Board meeting. This material was not available for distribution with the agenda packet last Thursday. The Committee' s recommended comments were prepared and approved at their meeting held earlier this morning. Pursuant to the Better Government Ordinance (95-6) , the Board of Supervisors may waive the 96-hour time limit on the availability of agenda materials when, in its judgement, it is essential to do so, providing that the County Administrator, appropriate Department Head or staff members furnishes to the Board a written explanation as to why the material could not be provided to the Board and the general public within the 96 hour time limit. This memo serves as the written explanation. attachment The Board of SupervisorsContra Phil Batchelor Clerk of the Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Jim Rogers,1st District sE_ L 1 May 16, 1995 Jeff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop,3rd District Mark DeSaulnler,4th District - Tom Torlakson,5th District a COUN Ms. Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Chair Pierce: The Board of Supervisors requests the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to consider our concerns with the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan at your May 17th forum. The Authority should not mandate a specific General Plan amendment review process. There is considerable concern with the Authority's apparent insistence to mandate a general plan amendment review process without addressing the concerns of the Regional Committees. The process proposed by the Authority was adopted in 1990, before work on the Action Plans began. Since that time, the TRANSPLAN Committee took particular care in developing their general plan amendment review process to reflect the concerns of the participating jurisdictions, all which have the potential for significant changes to their General Plans in the future. Yet, Resolution 95-03-G overrides the TRANSPLAN Committee by mandating a specific process to be applied countywide, without any variation that acknowledges the concerns of the Regional Committees. The Authority's proposed action does not seem consistent with the cooperative transportation planning process envisioned in Measure C. Rather than mandating a process, the Authority is advised to resolve their differences with the TRANSPLAN Committee and others through negotiation. These concerns include: - incurring additional bureaucratic costs and delays in the review of general plan amendments beyond that already required for local review and CEQA compliance; - evaluating land use proposals using 20-year forecasts rather than five-year forecasts as specified in the Measure C text; - evaluating land use proposals using 20-year forecasts developed by computer models that can, at best, only provide estimates of current traffic within 20 percent of actual counts for no more than half the intersections being measured; and - requiring Authority approval of any Action Plan amendment agreed to by a Regional Committee. .f Chair Pierce May 16, 1995 Page Two Demonstration of "Good Faith" should be based on participation in the process, not the outcome. The Board remains concerned that Resolution 95-03-G imposes a new standard for local jurisdictions to meet when demonstrating "good faith" in the conflict resolution process. The Resolution defines "good faith" as "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict." This definition goes beyond requiring full participation in settlement discussions or the consideration of alternative proposals as suggested in the Implementation Guide. The expectation of compromise conflicts with the Implementation Guide's assurance that compliance with the Growth Management Program "cannot preempt local land use decisions or require cities or 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." The Board believes that "good faith" should be determined by participation in the conflict resolution process, not by its outcome. A jurisdiction's full participation in the settlement meetings and its consideration of alternative proposals are indicators of good faith that can be readily determined. Relying on a "spirit of participation and compromise" indirectly allows the Authority to determine compliance based on the outcome of the process, such as the appropriateness of a land use decision, which is clearly not permitted by the Measure C text. Quality of Life should be determined by general purpose governments, not the Transportation Authority. - The intent of the Authority, as stated in the Measure C text, is to create a growth management process that results in the maintenance of the quality of life in Contra Costa. It is the process that defines maintenance of the quality of life, not the Authority. Quality of life issues are best determined by general purpose local government such as city councils and the Board of Supervisors, who are directly elected and accountable to their constituents on these issues. Quality of life should not be determined by single issues, such as transportation, or by a single purpose agency such as the Authority. The Board hopes the Authority will ultimately respond to the concerns raised by the Board and by others at the May 17th Forum. Sincerely, Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisors "UMBIT A" Comment Letter 1 Phil Batchelor The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk of the BoarO and Courity AcIrTunistratof r-ounty Administration Building Costa (SiO)646-2371 651 Pine Street. Room 106 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Tom Powers.tat District Jeff Srrvith.VIC Districtyam. L We Bishop.3rd District -4. Mark DeSsulnier.4th District Tom Tortakson.Sth District November 8, 1994 U Mr. Joel Keller, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 2 2 Walnut Creeki CA 4596 e Dear Chairm, e The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors offers the following comments on the Action Plan 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 TSCls 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 plan 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 1-2 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 RegionalCommittee, 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 1-3 discussion at the November 18 workshop. The County is involved 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-up" 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 1-4 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. Tom Powers, Chair Board of Supervisors Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses �L RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Tom Powers, Chair November 8, 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 ISOs 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.FHowever, 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 ISOs 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 lan policies ' P 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 Frog_ram 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 III-6 April 25, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses The establishment of ISOs, 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 CCTP 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 III-7 April 25, 1995 t The Board of Supervisors Contra Comment Letter 1 ClerkwatheBoarrd and County Administration Building Cosla County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 l r:, (St01 b46-237t Martinez,California 94553 1293 County ,Jim Ropers.Isl District Jeff Smlth,2nd District i;• i ai Gayle Bishop.3rd District r Mark DeSsutnier.4th District Tom Torlakson.Sth District 2 $� _ ••: Lwr Fy't.�•f Jule Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Committee 134Vreat Blvd., Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re: Final Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Dear Jule Pierce, The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's(Authority's)Resolution 95-03-G,Executive Summary and Vision Statement forthe Final Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Tjan J. 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 overaif goal of the Growth Management Program is to adueve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a countywide basis, whHe mantak*V kcal outhordy 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 particbation and compromise that could ultimately result in resohWon of the conflict." This definition is beyond that recommended in the Authority's draft Conflict Resolution Process. Furthermore,the Board beleves the Resolution goes beyond the Authority's guidance for conflict resolution as defined in its Implementation Documents which states that complance with the Growth Management Program"cannot preempt kcal AuW use decisions orrequke cities to accept unwanted construction projects. Compliance wX 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 PG � 9rt�-' � • 3 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. 1-4 Other editorial changes should be made in the East County Corridor and Aftamont Pass Corridor J acknowledging 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, hair Contra Costa Board of Supervisors attachment t a r i Approved for Circulation by CCTA March 15, 1995 DRAFT RESOLUTION 95-03-G ADOPTION OF THE FINAL COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (1) WHEREAS, consistent with the powers granted to the Authority by Measure C. passed by the voters of Contra Costa in November, 1988, enabling Ordinance 88-01 and the related Expenc#E= Plan which went into effect with the passage of Measure C. the Authority has the responsibility to implement a Growth Management Program and develop and adopt a Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and update it every two years;' and (2) WHEREAS, the fundamental principles of the Growth Management Program include:' • promotion of a balanced transportation network of highways, local streets, public transit, growth management and regional planning to preserve the quality of life and a healthy viable economy for Contra Costa residents; • assuring that new growth pays for the facilities required to meet the demands resulting from that growth;; and • implementing cooperative planning process on a countywide basis, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions; and (3) WHEREAS, the Authority's Growth Management Implementation Documents (adopted in December 1990) envision: +1,&+ am c onstsic.A+wi+1 tkL • adoption by the Regional Transportation Planning Commi ofAction Plans for Routes of Regional Significance; including designation of a sys of Routes of Regional Significance, identification of Tmffc Service Objectives,and a list of actions, measures and programs that each jurisdiction will implement in order to be found in compliance with the Growth Management Program; and • that the adopted Action Plans will form the basis for the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan called for by Measure C;` and W WHEREAS, the Growth Management Implementation Documents require that the Action Plans include a policy for review. of general plan amendments such that any jurisdiction proposing a general plan amendment that exceeds a threshold size (to be specified in the Action Plan) must either; a) Demonstrate to the Regional Committee that the amendment will not violate the Action Plan Policies or the ability to meet Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives; or r • WtitDZEASi 4-he. Gmwk"tov-'5e-rrft"- Ir 1 ,y�rtipv► LbC-N�1e�MS reclvIrc- t-w in C�SeS wcw.� e. ccrose,nsys has beer, reached ae ai!) +vw- R -era( Gc,M,ni�fee. a•�h np ccm+r-Ame- has expressed ol::;11eX+i0y* io arly ai*c� Qo(icie5 {c,e, Q�-fi•►or�{- w;tl zz czept -tile ob,ec4-ives arxi ac4i on I 1 cites -as preposed .ro Draft Resolution 95-04-G Revised March 15, 1995 Page 2 b) propose modifications to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan amendment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network;` and (3) WHEREAS, since June 1994, the Regional Transportation Planning Committees have prepared and circulated Draft Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance, given full consideration to comments received, and incorporated those comments, where appropriate, into the Pr*sal for Adoption Action Plans which have been forwarded to the Authority for incorporation into the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and (6) WHEREAS, on July 20, 1994 the Authority circulated the Preliminary Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan to all interested parties and, following a 60-day public review period responded to comments received and incorporated comments as appropriate into the Draft Countywide Plan, which the Authority approved for circulation on October 19, 1994, with comments due by December 19, 1994; and (7) WHEREAS, the Authority has reviewed the comments received on the Draft Countywide t Plan and believes those comments to have been duly addressed and, where appropriate, �f incorporated into the Final Countywide Plan; and (8)WHEREAS, through adoption of Resolution 95-02-G,the Authority has addressed all of the necessary requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,and subsequent amendments ' thereto, through the circulation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and adoption of the Final Environmental Impact Report and related documents; (1) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the AUTHORITY adopts Findings, Farts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations included herein and made a part hereof by reference; and (2)BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the AUTHORITY adopts the Mitigation Monitoring op g nn ornrng and Reporting Program for the CGTP included herein and made a part hereof by reference; and (3) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the AUTHORITY adopts all mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (4) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Authority hereby adopts the Final Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan dated April 19, 1995, which is attached hereto and made a pan hereof by reference; and (3) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the local jurisdictions of Contra Costa shall, as a condition of compliance with the Growth Management Program, implement the policies, objectives, actions, programs, and measures as set forth in Exhibits A through ,E of the Final Countywide Plan; and Draft Resolution 95-03-G Revised March 15, 1995 Page 3 {� BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for Routes of Regional Significance designated by Authority Resolution 95-01-G, an Action Plan shall be prepared and incorporated into forthcoming updates to the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and • whe -14-60-3;v- C G—Few4h MapAgeiaew Pfegram fibeWd tha; adept a General Plan Q% Violate Asdes Pim pelie;es t region's,Actio w faith" - SOW (9) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any jurisdiction that eaters into the Authority's Conflict Resolution Process shall, m order to be found in compliance with the Measure C Growth Management Program, demonstrate "good faith" in the process spirit. . . . . The pr;mary bz-,s ;6r asse5si noS c1ovd -Faith PZ4i i�fi�oh will be, whcti7er- '}i+����i scii C- - nr5 rt gre5Cw% -a-I;U+e alit waded avid --ally Julie Pierre. Chair Par�itA Q-4 tri St'fU�{iari a55R•SSt»e�f- This RESOLUTION was entered into at a meeting of the Corina Costa Transportation Authority held April 19, 1995 in Walnut Creek, California Attest: Robert K. McCleary. Executive Director +eerae�6st aeso5 .—610)gc tT Fvmim ft-so.VEI); -+wf cowo-,xoa,- 44ic� GmM-k M.-.,4*1� Pro, will no4 t�v14'e a►^Y ci+Yr -}Vwnj or +r,- e0vn -� arc�-f- t s - 1'� �Y � rem. a �r•d�wtevrEa� coK-�l;�.-f- wt{4,. -4tnve �''��'�'�� 5oc i oecOrwMiG Or ew�i�f1�1�y►1Q,�-,�r G�',2 rAc�Ij; 8 r Draft Resolution 95-03-G Revised March 15, 1995 Page 4 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 1. The 1988 Measure C Legislation, Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program, p. 8. 2. _id, p. 4. 3. The Measure C Legislation focuses on mitigation of new growth occurring mer, enactment of the legislation (1988). 4. Growth Management Implementation Doomwnts, adopted by CCTA December 1990, i Implementation Guide Sections 2 and 3. 5. Ibid, pages IG-16, IG-51, and IG-52. 7. D raf# Ca of l i ci Re bo Process approved ed -der c i rcv(44'an 6 � � Y Cc;r,A t&rch I x, 199 5 P • 5'. 6. 161 d , p P. TG-27. S, l m pl ewtiee%4a44 o✓1 1)bc.v v,*n- s� f' 9 r T_ G -4-OZ Executive Summary (revised) Contr.1 Ct-wa Countywide Comprehensive Tr ni1xmauiun Piaui t The overall vision for Contra Costa is emttodied in the following three hasic tt:nOs 4a 41; eeRwa of the Gewoywide P'2-- The tenets enrplusize efficient use of freeways for interregional travel and travel between subareas. effective use of arterial streets for travel ' within subareas, and a commitment to the provision of transit services: J. • a) To the extent possible. inter-subarea traffic should use the freeway and transit network, rather than local streets and arterials. Freeways system improvements should include, but are not limited to, the development of HOV lanes, where possible,and other projects to support the operation of an HOV system connecting the subareas of the county. b) A commitment to establish traffic management and signal synchronization plans within Contra Costa to manage intra subarea traffic flow. -*his— prep , and C) Support for viable transit services to create an efficient/effective transit network to alleviate demand on the road network. Support for transit includes encouraging the use of transit and carpools t through the development of new park-and-ride lou countywide, and the expansion of bus service to BART stations. The vision looks to land use policies that would concentrate new development around transit corridors and encourage other transit-supportive development near BART stations. This vision is reflected in the eight goals of the Plan: • Enhance mobility, Improve safety; • Provide and encourage the use of alternatives to single-occupant auto use; Coordinate local land use planning and regional transportation planning; Integrate tratrspontation planning with concerns relating to air'quality, energy efficiency, community character and other environmental factors; Maintain the existing transportation system; • Sustain and support the economic vitality of the region through enhanced mobility; and • Manage congestion. These goals form the foundation of the traffic service objectives recommended in the Plan and the actions designed to meet those traffic service objectives. w�w�tact t3 6 March 15. 1995 1 r COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN • DRAFT VISION STATEMENTS Overall Unifying Vision for 2010 t Traffic forecasts in the Countywide Plan clearly indicate that there will be continued growth in population, traffic, and congestion over the next 20 years. The Plan articulates a fundamental problen,wit.the Contra Costa transportation system—that traffic generated by new development in the Bay Area Region is expected to further overtax the roadway system by the year 2010, and that trans=*u:age is riot expected to dramatically increase, despite ever increasing levels of roadway congestion. It is clear that, within the financial constraints of the Plan, it will not be possible to construct the facilities needed even to maintain, much less improve the level of mobility experienced today. In response to this inability to meet traffic demands created by use of the automobile, the overall vision for Contra Costa is strongly focused on providing alternatives to the Single Occupant Vehicle commute mode, and to encouragement of alternative commute modes such as carpools, vanpools, bus, and transit. This will be accomplished through a program of HOV lane construction,transit improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. TDM, and improved t jobsthousing balance. The overall vision for Contra Costa is embodied in the following three basic tenets Plan;"FAe*t A9 Shp, Coln ide The tenets emphasize efficient use of freeways for interregional travel and travel between subareas, effective use of arterial streets for travel within subareas, and a commitment to the provision of transit services: a) To the extent possible, inter-subarea traffic should use the freeway and transit network, rather than local streets and arterials. Freeways system improvements should include, but are not limited to, the development of HOV lanes, where possible, and other projects to support the operation of an HOV system connecting the subareas of the county. b) A commitment to establish traffic management and signal synchronization ` plans within Contra Costa to manage intra-subarea traffic flow. *his- devale ; and I .-WE WON.3 1 Meeh 16. 1995 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Draft 'Vision Statements- 9 ve ransPo 9 Draft Vision for the East-Central Commute The commute between East and Central Contra Costa will grow more than any other commute between regions of the county. The commute in the peak direction during the peak commute hours is projected to grow 74 percent between 1990 and 2010. Daily volumes on specific roads are also expected to grow substantially. Daily volumes on State Route 4 and on Kirker Pass Road could increase by 70 to 80 percent within the time frame of t Plan. The Plan focuses on improvements to the State Route 4/State Route 242 corridor as the primary means for accommodating existing congestion and the growth in travel through the corridor. While the Plan recommends the further widening of State Routes 4 and 242 for HOV and/or mixed-flow traffic, it emphasizes other measures as much or more. The proposed widening of State Route 4 includes HOV lanes and room for an extension of BART to Antioch as well as new mixed-flow capacity. The proposed widening of Route 242 may also include HOV lanes.. Some new mixed-flow capacity is necessary, however. The Plan includes the first phase of the State Route 4 Bypass and the Buchanan Bypass to serve the substantial growth of housing forecast in East County. The State Rothe 4 Bypass will serve as a needed extension of that road into southeast And ch and Brentwood. The Buchanan Bypass will serve traffic bound from Fast County to employment centers in Central County. a+d fob gtvur+16 00+!�Ide F-elt- The Plan also recommends projects to increase the efficiency of travel within the corridor. These measures include park-and-ride lou along Route 4 and pursuit of funding for new signal synchronization projects to the east. The Plan recommends studying a countywide approach to ramp metering to ensure that the full benefits of metering are achieved without introducing new congestion on local streets. The vision for this corridor also includes measures to affect travel demand, including expanded job opportunities in East County and increased telecommuting as an alternative to daily commuting. 10 Draft Vision for the East County Corridor East Contra Costa Cotuty is one of the fastest-growing parts of-the Bay Area —and one of the main areas in the region still with significant land available for entry-levet housing. Peak hour travel demand to the south is expected to grow dramatically, expanding to more than 2-% times by 2010. Because of the limited capacity of Vasco Road and Byron Highway,much of tha " 1 rely heavily on traveling west along State Rothe 4, then south on I-680, ere it will further add to the,significant growth to the East-Certtnl and I-680 commutes. Traek'�rt'� 1S 9tvw;i it 8yrv.,% w, as tt c M-Atne-4 P-"s becd.at3 R1er'e, voJr+g& The Plan recognizes the limited capacity of State Route 4 in the corridor— much of it is now a two-lane rural highway between Route 160 and San Joaquin County— and includes a new two-lane State Route 4 Bypass from south of Brentwood to the freeway a�T.'E�*11A�s 6 March 16. 1995 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Draft "Vision Statements" portions of Route 4 in Antioch. To help fund this and other new roadways. the jurisdictions within East County (Pittsburg, Antioch.Brentwood and Contra Costa County)have established a development fee on new housing and commercial development. The vision for the corridor does not rely solely on new roadways. The Plan also includes a program to enoourage new developments that support transit, walking and other alternative modes of travel. The vision for the corridor also includes economic development to provide jobs for local residents and telecommuting centers. Both of these litxions will help reduce the need for local residents to commute out of the cera. 11 Draft Vision for the I-580 - Altamont Pass Corridor Like the Carquinez and Benicia-2. sninez Bridges, Altamont Pass is a major gateway for commuters, in this case, eomanners from San Joaquin County into the Tri-Valley area and points beyond, sucb as Santa Clara County and Oakland. By 2010,vohmies across Altamont Pass are expected to increase by almost 50 percent. with daily trips reaching 144,000(this is a near tripling of the volumes experienced during the early 1980's). The effect will be a lengthened duration of congestion, not only at the Altamont gateway,but all along 1-580 to the interchange with I-680. The vision for the I-580•Altamom Pass Corridor does not call for widening 1-580 over Altamont Pass. The Plan recognizes that a constrained gateway will moderate flows into the Tri-Valley and that, in any case, limited funds are available for widening I-580 at Altamont Pass.-To reliwc tow" o" a It Mvt:qaoc-k-termer ' +he vTs�vn incl.sdas e Val oakr; -1.ti.L PO ew�r l f-'a r*w 9a+eU>6.. -to �F34 cd +tial 000rec 4s Carni Cosf* w i ft: f�E GeAV-.11 11 Instead of lookigg to expanded freeway capacity along 1580 and across Altamont Pass to respond to increased travel demand, the Plan focuses on other travel modes and other actions to address demand on I-580. Improvements to the I-5801680 interchange and to State Route 84 will improve overall traffic flow. Actions to encourage alternative ! travel modes include advocating HOV lanes on 1-580, extending BART to Livermore. requiring employer-based TDM efforts,and supporting other major investments in transit. To support these actions, the Plan also calls for a sub-regional fee— and posse-bly an increased gas tax—to fund these actions and other improvements and a cooperative growth management strategy. a NtErvvtoN3 7 March 16. 1995 Comments and Responses Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan RESPONSES TO COMN[ENT LETTER Z 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-lb). The Authority has been extremely flexible in its interpretation of whaf 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 "(f)or Regional Routes that connect two or more regions of the County, adopted objectives are to be the same in the Action Plans CAWAYMMWAMnoc 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.Wj1 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. (The 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. j "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). ---� QNWAY M193%R2.DW 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-Q) 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. 1-4 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. CAWAvxe IMCAR2MM 111-16 April 25, 1995 Comment Letter 6 Phil tchelor The Board of Supervisors Contra ClerkoaheBoard a and County Administration Building Costa County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646.2371 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Jim Rogers.1st District Jeff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop.3rd District Mark DeSaulnier.4th District Tom 7orlakson,5th District Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1349 Treat Blvd., Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re: Draft Conflict Resolution Process Dear Julie Pierce, The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (Authority) draft conflict resolution process and requests you consider the revisions described on the attachment. Most of these proposed revisions address the Board's concern that the process, as currently drafted, has the potential to be abused by a jurisdiction pursuing issues that are not germane to the Authority's mission under the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management statute. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. Category 2 is very broad and needs further criteria to ensure that only disputes relating to the 6.1 statutory powers of the CCTA may be subject to the conflict resolution procedure. 2. The conflict resolution process should only be initiated through an RTPC or by the Authority, 6-2 and should require a two-thirds vote of the initiating body. 3. The responsible party requesting initiation of the process should be required to identify the 6-3 appropriate regulatory or procedural requirement that justifies bringing the dispute to the Authority. 4. Any party to a dispute should be allowed to request a meeting with the Authority or other 6-4 parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process prior to the Authority acting on a request to initiate the process. 5. The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for their conflict 6.5 resolution process. 6. The process should be open to the public. 6-6 7. The process should emphasize that Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a finding of 6.7 non-compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. 8. The Settlement Process for Category 2 disputes should acknowledge that, in some cases, the 6.8 only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. Since the conflict resolution process may precede judicial remedies, the Board has requested the County Counsel to review this draft. To allow this further review to occur, the Board requests that 6-9 the Authority extend the comment period on the process for an additional 30 days. Y (� r �� �1eSA5 (the following paragraph will be included in the letter to the CCTA) Statements have been made at Authority meetings that the conflict resolution process may be applied to the conflict between the County and the Town of Danville regarding reaching a consensus on the Action 6_ O Plan for Regional Routes shared by these two jurisdictions. To determine if less formal resolution is possible, the Board has authorized its Transportation Committee to initiate discussions with the Town of Danville. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. Sincerely, Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisor attachment M F P INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page I 1. OVERVIEW CCTA's Growth Management Program envisions a high level of cooperation and • coordination among local jurisdictions and between localities and the Authority. Similarly, the State's Congestion Management Program requirements, especially the amendments added in 1994�:assume successful cooperation among local agencies. Both the CCTA and the State recognize the potential for conflicts to arise in implementation of these programs. These materials outline the CCTA's conflict resolution process. Their intent is be helpful, by creating a useable, flexible process without being overly rigid. The four-step process is summarized on the following page, and described in greater detail in the accompanying outline. 2. TYPES OF DISPUTES The conflict resolution process will be used in two types of disputes, as follows: Category 1: Compliance Disputes These disputes relate directly to compliance with the requirements of either the CCTA Growth Management Program or the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. The most significant characteristic of Category 1 disputes is that the CCTA will be the final arbiter, since the Authority has an obligation under the rules of both programs to determine compliance. Category 2: Other Program Disputes i ;RGIUdift disputes arising during preparation of Deficiency Plans, are Category 2 disputes. Use of the conflict resolution process for such may be inititated voluntarily by the parties involved, or in response to initiation by the CCTA. Settlements will be made by the parties directly involved. Though the CCTA has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations. or g er a loot COVAPI,.)Nce wig, +t%e, &rvt,+-t r Manauevhey,'f- Qt�r�,vvt Or C6, ge_s-Hae% Fr'ocyam e:;m„s Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 r Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Procesgnitiation . tderAty boss 4or procoss iw izfion • ldentify Parties 1 • Recognize Issues • Initiate Situation Assessment Situation •. Asses g;ment Cc-4irm Wsis I-a- i a4++e p'-ocess, Establish Facts on � nfit • Make Recomendations for Process • Prepare Situation Assessment Memo Settlement Sessions • Present Concerns • Agree on Facts • Propose Resolutions • Negotiate Solutions Tert4i%a4e Process • Draft SettlementAgreement.,or Make Compliance Determination Implementation and Monitoring • Use Settlement Agreement or Compliance Determination r 1995 Contra Costa Congestion Management Program INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 3 3. TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION SERVICES In some cases, conflict resolution professionals will be retained to assist in the conflict resolution process. Several different techniques may be used in the process. The three most common types of conflict resolution assistance are facilitation, mediation and arbitration. These ar,. defined below. Facilitation and mediation are likely to be the types of services used in the CCTA conflict resolution process. Facilitation Facilitation offers groups assistance in holding productive meetings. A conflict is not usually the focus of the meeting, and facilitation does not ordinarily focus on resolving disputes. However, facilitation can be particularly useful in helping a group stay focused and productive when difficult and controversial issues are being discussed. A facilitator is "an impartial process guide who is responsible for managing the discussion so that parties can focus their attention on substantive issues and achieving their goals." (Carpenter and Kennedy, Managing Public Disputes, p. 107). Mediation Mediation is negotiation in which the parties to a conflict are aided by an impartial third party brought in by mutual agreement. The mediator has no stake in the outcome of the mediation. He or she may work only with parties together, or may also meet with parties individually in caucuses. A mediator assists parties in reaching agreement without imposing a settlement — the settlement is derived from and agreed to by all parties. "A mediator performs functions and carries out tasks that move people into negotiation, in circumstances that make it difficult for them to do so for themselves. However, third parties introduce another element that is less tangible yet can be a major asset to people needing help in solving their problems. When a third party enters a dispute, people expect things to change. They expect the character of their negotiations to be different after a mediator arrives. Because change and a new direction are essential to interrupt the spiral of conflict, this expectation can be a powerful aid to moving ahead and seeking new options. (ibid, p. 193) b:imro3 Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 r r IN`T'RODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 4 Arbitration Arbitration is the submission of a dispute to a disinterested person for final and binding • resolution. The arbitrator makes the final decision for the parties involved. Arbitration is more formal than facilitation and mediation. While arbitration is well-established and proceLures well-developed, experience with arbitration has centered on the areas of labor- management relations and commercial disputes. Inter jurisdictional disputes have unique qualities and there is not an arbitration process established for dealing with them. 3 Accordingly, arbitration is not envisioned to be used by CCTA as a type of conflict resolution process. 4. PRINCIPLES OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS The Implementation Documents include the folk wing three principles which pertain to Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program: a. Resolution of conflicts, and decision-making on a consensus basis at the regional level is encouraged b. Where Regional Committees are unable to resolve disputes, the CCTA will make a determination based on statements by the parties involved, When determining compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, the CCTA will look for evidence of good faith effort by localities, including evaluation of alternative proposals, to address the problems at issue. C. The conflict resolutionprocess used at any point during ng implementation of the Growth Management Program. The CCTA will make determinations of compliance for the purpose of allocating Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds. It cannot preempt local land use decisions or require 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. O:intro3 Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS rage 1 IPROCESS INITIATION . A. ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN INITIATE THE PROCESS '�. 2. RTPC A majority vote of the RTPC is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process. 3. CCTV A`,two tt,irds A majonty vote of the Authority is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process. B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF INITIATING PARTY DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Send an "initiation letter" to the CCTA (or, if the CCTA is initiating the conflict resolution process, prepare a staff report) withrap0l-,� 1de�ti{� 6a" ;or process *ons{iafior% 6yc,rfi� a. description of the dispute CMA sta+ofr- ort a i� b. list of issues needingolution measure Cq ortunahce o� I ++p�eMeKtz Sc+� Doc�r►�r} c. names of parties to the dispute that shout 6e IV-34;N!v2d i11%n olution P �P d. names of individual(s) representing the initiating party as contact person and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) e. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals f. confirmation that the initiating party had a majority vote approving initiation of the process 2. Initiating party may request pre-initiation meeting with CCTA and/or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process C. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CCTA DURING PROCESS ENITIATION Distribute copies of initiation letter with relevant background information to all other parties 2. Assign task of situation assessment to CCTA staff or appropriate consultant 3. Follow-up with all parties to insure that responses to the initiation letter are being prepared I.C4. Schedule discussion of process initiation on PGA agenda Accept or reioci- reyva5'!-, ci'fi.�.�Pplic+�ble -MA 'St r. or lav�9�zvgGe i►� .}{„e Measorti G ordiw ncc, or LAfle,w e-nia-+;evi lD0C UWP .i-S Supper++ J a:anlinc3 Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA March 16, 1995 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 2 r ' D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER PARTIES DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Officially respond to initiation letter with a letter to CCTA indicating a. understanding of dispute • b. issues needing resolution (if any) c. individuals representing the organization as contact persons and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) d. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals e. confirmation that the response letter has been reviewed and approved by a majority vote of the policy council or board E. INITIATION BY PRIVATE PARTIES OR OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES Private parties or other public agencies cannot initiate the conflict resolution process directly, but they can uest that a local jurisdiction, RTPC or .he CCTA initiate the process -F. o p-��-4+es rr* r�vesi a p re-s;+yafi av, assess me.+�- pvtei; ct with CC;► o� o�,e r� par-+;e5 +V de+0-r-M t h#, if II. SITUATION ASSESSMENT a Iex 4:or-r-cbl resolv{ior% is pozsib)e., or +v c.l2r l ray ajocti icYn abov'f' {ire, ce"4(tct te6o(.rHon QrbCL , A. SITUATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS An individual appointed by the CCTA (may be a staff member or appropriate consultant) will review initiation letter and response(s), then meet separately with the parties involved. After any necessary follow-up to collect additional information, he or she will write a brief Situation Assessment Memo for distribution to all parties and the CCTA. GC-TA Nill approve +he. SikvakiQ,ri Assessment A q-mo 2,+ a nett;".d Po 6r,r. Me��q . B. TIMING �1 Situation Assessment should generally be completed within a month of CCTA receipt of parties' response(s) to the initiation letter C. CONTENTS OF SITUATION ASSESSMENT MEMO 1. List of issues to be resolved whet — is tG9i ble. 4ter-Oke. STA car+fti cf m t a 2. Recommendation regarding:( ether or not to use conflict resolution professionals P`OMas., in initial settlement meetings and, if outside professionals are recommended, indication of whether facilitation or mediation appears most appropriate, taking parties' preferences into account 3. Estimated time frame for completion of each stage of the conflict resolution process, reflecting the facts of the dispute Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE, OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 3 4. Recommendation regarding who will participate in the settlement sessions, based on parties' preferences III. SETTLEMENT SESSIONS AND AGREEMENTS • A. ,ALL PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT SESSIONS B. GENERAL AGENDA FOR SETTLEMENT SESSIONS �( 1. Present the parties' concerns and constraints !� 2. Gain agreement about the facts of a dispute 3. Draft Principles of Agreement as basis for proposals 4. Devise proposals for.resolving conflicts 5. Test potential proposals.for likelihood of success 6. Negotiate commitments to be made by each party in a settlement agreement 7. Pvblic. corn Ment. C. SESSIONS MAY BE CONDUCTED WITH OR WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A THIRD PARTY (FACILITATOR OR MEDIATOR) 1. If initial session(s) held without a facilitator or mediator are unsuccessful, the CCTA shall direct that a third party professional shall assist at subsequent sessions. D. PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. "Steps for Consensus Building" included in the Implementation Documents (pp. DM 2 to DM4) may be useful in structuring settlement sessions E. COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS 1_ Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program The language of Measure C and the Implementation Documents published by the CCTA will be the primary references for defining local obligations. The Implementation Documents defuse requirements for local participation in the Growth Management Program and they should be used in the conflict resolution process. 2. Category 1 disputes relating to the Congestion Management Progiatn Reference should be made to the Congestion Management Program document itself, the Guide to Local Compliance with the Growth Management Program, the forthcoming Deficiency Plan Guidelines, and the State Congestion Management Program requirements. 3, CZ4eowry 2 d'640+e5 stti 4 nvf--be. a baxiS { r z coon f(once. c1e�r i n�-Fio�t w i}t� icin-Q. G roht'E-1n 2 -F %off6m or Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 f OUTLIS`TE OF OCTA March 1 G. 1995 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 4 F. PARTICIPATION 1. All parties to the dispute will participate. Other parties representing private or public organizations may participate if all parties to the dispute agree to their participation. 2. The parties' participants in the settlement sessions shall be limited to consultants, attorneys, staff or officials of parties to the dispute. Participants will be responsible for continual communication with other representatives of their organization who are not directly participating, and for helping to ratify settlement agreements. 3. The CCTA will be a participant in all Category 1 settlement sessions. G. PRODUCT: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. The parties can determine the form of the settlement agreement, which may be a Memorandum of Understanding, resolution or formal agreement. Whatever tnc form, all settlement agreements must be signed by all directly involved parties. 2. For Category 1 disputes, the Settlement Agreement will indicate what actions are necessary in order for the locality to be determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management and/or Congestion Management Program. The CCTA's corresponding responsibility will be to make a finding of conformance if the Agreement is implemented. The Settlement Agreement will specify an implementation schedule if relevant. 3. For Category 2 disputes, if the CCTA is not a participant in the Settlement Meetings, the Settlement Agreement will establish responsibility for submittal of a copy of the Settlement Report to CCTA- a. CCTA will recognize receipt of the Settlement Agreement by agendizing it for 1discussion at a public meeting b. If CCTA has comments regarding the outcome of the conflict resolution process, CCTA may transmit a comment letter as follow up to its review of the Settlement Agreement H. DESIRED TIME FRAME 1. An estimated time frame for settlement sessions will be established during situation assessment. Settlement sessions will desirably occur over a period of not more than two months, though some disputes may require a longer time period. 2: Category 1 disputes CCTA will establish deadlines for compliance determinations for each Category 1 dispute. a:oucl;x3 Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 5 3. Category 2 disputes A draft Settlement Agreement would be submitted to jurisdictions/RTPCs for approval at the end of the period. lti sone eases, 4tv- Se4kmc#(+ A5ree"e>% . oNLI be,slr•.Pl a clecisi o+z -tv +ermjn.J-- +Ve- ?rbeeSS and tQ,a.ve. 441p,IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING cl asp„+*--6r recor+z ide'ra4i c4 a+ ,,- A. A. USE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS IF 1. Settlement Agreements will establish implementation requirements and monitoring procedures oil B. MONITORING BY PARTIES AND CCTA 1. Category I disputes Parties shall report.regularly as part of their GMP or CMP checklist submittals IF what actions have been taken to implement the Settlement Agreement 2. Category 2 disputes Parties may choose to establish a monitoring mechanism as part of the Settlement Agreement C. CCTA ASSESSMENT OF GOOD FAITH PARTICIPATION OF The primary basis for assessing good faith participation will be whether the party's representative attended and fully participated in situation assessment and settlement meetings. V. SELECTING AND PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A. SELECTING OUTSIDE PROFESSIONALS 1. CCTA responsibilities and participation a. CCTA will issue an RFQ for Conflict Resolution Services and use the . responses to create a list of facilitators and mediators qualified to provide assistance to parties in the dispute resolution process. b. CCTA will participate in determining the kind of assistance required and in selecting a third party professional from the list at the conclusion of Situation Assessment. Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTTLINE OF CCTA March 16, 1995 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 6 2. Parties' responsibilities and participation a. One representative from each party will participate on a panel which includes a CCTA representative in order to determine the kind of assistance required and to select a professional to assist in conflict resolution. If the panel cannot reach a decision, the Authority will decide, taking the panel's comments into account B. PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES 1. Where the CCTA is party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by the CCTA and each of the parties. 2. Where the CCTA is not party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by each of the involved parties. 3. Jurisdictions may use 18% funds to pay for conflict resolution services. VI. OTHER i YPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION A. Participation in the CCTA conflict resolution process does not preclude the } possibility of seeking judicial remedies or using other conflict resolution techniques Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Comments and Responses RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTER 6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Gayle Bishop, Chair no date 6-1 All of the comments in this discuss the proposed revisions to the conflict resolution process. Please refer to the forthcoming issue paper on those revisions for responses. 1 1 1 CAWAmE,1MMPI.noc III-41 April 25, 1995 r CCTA PGA COMMITTEE Alay 3, 199 SUBJECT: REVIEN' AND APPROVAL TO ISSUE DRAH'T CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The Authority approved circulation of a draft Conflict Resolution Process on March 15, 1995, for review by local jurisdictions and the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs). Comments were due by April 17, 1995. The Draft Process has been revised for review and approval to circulate concurrent with the Draft "Proposal for Adoption" Countywide Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That PGA review and discuss comments received from the Regional Committees and other interested parties, and approve circulation to local jurisdictions and RTPCs. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A OPTIONS: PGA may forward the process to CCTA for further review and discussion. ATTACHMENTS: • Summary of comments and responses • Draft Conflict Resolution Process BACKGROUND: The Implementation Documents provide a framework for development of a process that would be used to resolve conflicts in the case where a jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management Program is in question. With completion of the Authority's first Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan approaching, work has been underway to further define the conflict resolution process to foster reconciliation of the conflicts identified in the draft countywide plan. In addition, recent amendments to the Congestion Management Program legislation require that each Congestion Management Agency develop a conflict resolution process. Therefore, the process, once developed, will serve both the Growth Management and the Congestion Management Programs. At its March, 1995 meeting, the Authority approved circulation of a draft conflict resolution process to local jurisdictions and the regional committees. Comments were initially due on*April 5, 1995, however, the review period was extended to April 17 at the April PGA meeting. The attached paper summarizes the comments received and proposes revisions to the process (new text is underlined). The comment letters are included in a separate attachment of all comment letters received on the Draft Countywide Plan. There are 17 issues that will need to be discussed at the PGA meeting. Furthermore, the revised process should be reviewed by CCTA legal council prior to release. pga4:pga0503.95:item5.mre Page 1 � I Comments and Responses Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments on the Conflict Resolution process have been received from the following individuals and organizations: 1 Gayle Bishop, Chair, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors undated 2 TRANSPLAN Committee April 5, 1995 3 Kevin Roberts, Community Development Director, City of Walnut Creek April 5, 1995 4 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong April 5, 1995 Representing Tassajara Property Owners Association 5 Gwen Regalia, TRANSPAC Chair April 13, 1995 6 Barbara Guise, Chair TRANSPLAN Committee April 14, 1995 7 Marilyn Leuck, City Manager City of Hercules April 17, 1995 8 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong April 17, 1995 Representing Tassajara Property Owners Association Copies of these letters are included as a separate attachment, along with other comment letters received on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. CA013\13-CRCL.0 4/25/95 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 1. COMIMENT: The description of Category 2 disputes is too broad. There should be a strong basis for bringing such a dispute to the CCTA, and for insuring that it is appropriate for the CCTA conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: The description of Category 2 disputes is intentionally broad. This reflects the facts that use of the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes is voluntary, and that the CCTA will not make final determinations relating to compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Program in connection with Category 2 disputes. This type of dispute is included in the program in order to provide a constructive option for jurisdictions or RTPCs that wish to work together to successfully implement CCTA programs, but who have reached an impasse that imperils the success of their efforts. PROPOSED REVISION: The description of Category 2 disputes in the "Introduction to CCTA Conflict Resolution Process" has been modified to clarify that participation in conflict resolution for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the parts of both parties. 2. CONEWENT: The conflict resolution process should be initiated either only through an RTPC or the CCTA, or with their approval. A super-majority should be required for process initiation. DISCUSSION: Local jurisdictions will often be the parties most directly involved in a conflict, so approval by their councils or board will be an essential part of making a commitment to the conflict resolution process. Subsequent approval of either the RTPC or the CCTA would provide some oversight and minimize the likelihood of inappropriate or frivolous use of the process. Because this process will always take place in a situation where there is disagreement, the suggestion that a super-majority be required to approve initiation is not incorporated into the proposed revisions. A party at odds with its neighbors should be given a reasonable opportunity to use the process in order to resolve a conflict in a productive fashion. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline has been revised to indicate that a local jurisdiction must initiate the process through a majority vote of its Council or Board, and then seek the approval of the RTPC by obtaining a majority vote of the RTPC prior to the initiation letter. If an RTPC does not approve a local jurisdiction's proposal to initiate the process, the jurisdiction may appeal that decision directly to the Authority. A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 1 C' 2 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 3. COMMENT: The party requesting initiation of the process should be required to clearly justify bringing the dispute to the Authority, including, as appropriate, citation of Measure C, and the Growth/Congestion Management Program documents. DISCUSSION: This comment applies to Category 1 disputes which relate to compliance with the Congestion Management and Growth Management Programs. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline has been modified to reflect the requirement that the initiation letter should identify the relevant regulatory or procedural requirement that has resulted in proposed use of the conflict resolution process. 4. COMMENT: Any party to the dispute should be able to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the process. PROPOSED REVISION: The Proposed Outline has been revised to indicate that any party to a dispute may request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process. 5. COAVqENT: The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for its conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: A requirement for a formal determination is not proposed. However, the Situation Assessment process provides an opportunity to identify disputes that are not suitable for the process, and, as appropriate, to explore other options for resolution. The Authority may take a position that a dispute is not eligible, but it will not make a formal determination. -NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 6. COMMENT: The process should be open to the public and consistent with all Brown Act requirements. DISCUSSION: Authority legal counsel is reviewing the process Outline in order to clarify how Brown Act requirements would apply to the process. When Brown Act requirements are not applicable, the parties to each process may determine how best to inform the public about the process. PROPOSED REVISIONS: Revisions will be proposed following review of the issue by A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 2 �i�f' April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses CCTA legal counsel. 7. COMMENT: The outline should state clearly that Category 2 disputes will not result in determinations of compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program by the Authority. DISCUSSION: Settlement of Category 2 disputes will be made by the parties directly involved. Though the CCTA has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations of compliance in relation to them. PROPOSED REVISIONS: The following language is added to the "Introduction to the Conflict Resolution Process:" "Use of the Conflict Resolution process for Category 2 disputes will not affect determination of the local jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Program." 8. COMMENT: The description of the Category 2 settlement process should acknowledge that, in come cases, the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. DISCUSSION: The voluntary nature of the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes means that parties may withdraw from the process at any time. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 9. COMMENT: The Conflict Resolution process might be "abused by certain parties as a leverage or bargaining chip" on matters only peripherally related to CCTA business. DISCUSSION: In the case of Category 1 disputes, all disputes must be directly related to determinations of compliance with the Growth Management and/or the Congestion Management Program. The voluntary nature of the Category 2 process should prevent parties from "abusing" it. PROPOSED REVISION: The description of Category 2 disputes in the "Introduction to CCTA Conflict Resolution Process" has been modified to clarify that participation in conflict resolution for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the parts of both parties. A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 3 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 10. COMMENT: The proposed process should be reviewed by a subcommittee of City Attorneys prior to adoption by the CCTA. DISCUSSION: Review by City Attorneys or others is welcome. There will be time for such a review following the May PGA meeting at which proposed changes to the Introduction and Outline are discussed. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 11. COMMENT: Section III.C.1. of the Process Outline should be revised to read, "After a few initial sessions, the parties or the CCTA may request that a third party professional assist at subsequent meetings." PROPOSED REVISION: The suggested revision is incorporated into the Process Outline. 12. COMMENT: The language in section IV.C., CCTA Assessment of Good Faith Participation, should conform to the language in CCTA Resolution 95-03-G. PROPOSED REVISION: The change suggested has been made. The outline now indicates that "The primary basis for assessing good faith participation will be whether the parties have demonstrated "good faith" in the process by "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict." 13. COMMENT: If one party does not operate in good faith during conflict resolution, is that party at risk for a finding of non-compliance? If so, this should be made clear in the conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: Non-cooperation in the process may lead to a finding of non-compliance in the case of Category 1 disputes. The voluntary nature of participation in the process in the case of Category 2 disputes means that a finding of non-compliance will not be a result of the process in any circumstance. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 4 S-4 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 14. COMMENT: Measure C Return-to-Source funds should be "frozen" during the Conflict Resolution Process, with Contra Costa County funds withheld according to the proportionate share of the County's funds for the region in which the dispute is occurring. DISCUSSION: A freeze on return-to-source funds during the conflict resolution process would be inconsistent with the spirit of the process. Jurisdictions participating in the conflict resolution will be presumed to be doing so in good faith and should not be disadvantaged in any way for participating. Furthermore, creating a disincentive to participation in conflict resolution would be counter-productive. Regarding the County's proportionate share of funds, the Authority has the flexibility to allocate a portion of a jurisdiction's return-to-source funds based upon the incremental steps a jurisdiction has taken towards compliance. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 15. COMMENT: A preamble should be added to the conflict resolution process which incorporates the six statements of principles contained in Measure C. DISCUSSION: Settlement negotiations and agreements may address any issues that are included in the Growth Management or Congestion Management Program. In fact, settlement of conflicts is often made easier when the areas of possible negotiation are made more broad. With the intent of broadening opportunities for negotiation and compromise, the issues of fees, affordable housing, and land use decisions, along with all other aspects of the Growth Management Program and Congestion Management Program can be included in the Settlement Agreement process. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline (Section III.G.) has been modified to indicate that the Settlement Agreement may address any of the issues identified in either the Measure C Growth Management Program or the CMP. 16. COMMENT: CCTA should adopt the Conflict Resolution Process prior to approval of the Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan. DISCUSSION: The CCTP is scheduled to be adopted July 19, 1995. Hopefully, the Conflict Resolution process will be more fully defined and potentially adopted, at least in outline form, by then. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 5 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 17. COMMENT: It has been explained by Authority staff that a City may choose to relinquish its Return to Source money if its General Plan Amendment appears to be more important. Measure C never proffered this quid pro quo relationship. DISCUSSION: Measure C clearly states that the eight components of the Growth Management Program are required to be fulfilled by each jurisdiction "to receive its local street maintenance and improvement funds." (p. 10 of the Expenditure Plan). Implicit in that requirement has been the option for local jurisdictions to choose not to participate in one or more elements of the program, which would mean giving up the opportunity to receive local 18% street maintenance and improvement funds. However, the Authority's intent since passage of Measure C has been to implement the program cooperatively in a way that would encourage constructive participation by all of the County's jurisdictions. It is clearly not in the public interest to have some jurisdictions not participating or found to be not in compliance. The conflict resolution process is intended to resolve conflicts in a positive way, and is based on "good faith" participation, as noted earlier. We envision that if a jurisdiction is engaged in conflict resolution, and participates in "good faith," it will create a high likelihood of resolving the conflict. Such participation, including with regard to consideration of General Plan Amendments, would lead to determinations of compliance, and should not ieopardize_receipt of local funds., - _ ----- NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 6 INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 1 1. OVERVIEW CCTA's Growth Management Program envisions a high level of cooperation and coordination among local jurisdictions and between localities and the Authority. Similarly, the State's Congestion Management Program requirements, especially the amendments added in 1994, assume successful cooperation among local agencies. Both the CCTA and the State recognize the potential for conflicts to arise in implementation of these programs. These materials outline the CCTA's conflict resolution process. Their intent is be helpful, by creating a useable, flexible process without being overly rigid. The four-step process is summarized on the following page, and described in greater detail in the accompanying outline. 2. TYPES OF DISPUTES The conflict resolution process will be used in two types of disputes, as follows: Category 1: Compliance Disputes These disputes relate directly to compliance with the requirements of either the CCTA Growth Management Program or the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. The most significant characteristic of Category 1 disputes is that the CCTA will be the final arbiter, since the Authority has an obligation under the rules of both programs to determine compliance. Category 2: Other Program Disputes Disputes that are impediments to effective implementation of GMP or CMP programs, including disputes arising during preparation of Deficiency Plans, are Category 2 disputes. Use of the conflict resolution process for such may be initiated voluntarily by the parties involved, or in response to initiation by the CCTA. Participation in the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the part of all parties. Settlements will be made by the parties directly involved. Though the CCTA has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations. Use of the Conflict Resolution process for Category 2 disputes will not affect a local jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Mana e� ment Program. b J=0 Revised April 25, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Process Initiation • Identify Parties • Recognize Issues, Identify Basis for Using Process • Initiate Situation Assessment Situation Assessment • Establish Facts of Conflict • Make Recomendations for Process • Prepare Situation Assessment Memo Settlement Sessions • Present Concerns • Agree on Facts • Propose Resolutions • Negotiate Solutions • Draft Settlement Agreement or Make Compliance Determination Implementation and Monitoring • Use Settlement Agreement or Compliance Determination 1995 Contra Costa : Congestion Management Program ��,� INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 3 3. TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION SERVICES In some cases, conflict resolution professionals will be retained to assist in the conflict resolution process. Several different techniques may be used in the process. The three most common types of conflict resolution assistance are facilitation, mediation and arbitration. These are defined below. Facilitation and mediation are likely to be the types of services used in the CCTA conflict resolution process. Facilitation Facilitation offers groups assistance in holding productive meetings. A conflict is not usually the focus of the meeting, and facilitation does not ordinarily focus on resolving disputes. However, facilitation can be particularly useful in helping a group stay focused and productive when difficult and controversial issues are being discussed. A facilitator is "an impartial process guide who is responsible for managing the discussion so that parties can focus their attention on substantive issues and achieving their goals." (Carpenter and Kennedy, Managing Public Disputes, p. 107). Mediation Mediation is negotiation in which the parties to a conflict are aided by an impartial third party brought in by mutual agreement. The mediator has no stake in the outcome of the mediation. He or she may work only with parties together, or may also meet with parties individually in caucuses. A mediator assists parties in reaching agreement without imposing a settlement -- the settlement is derived from and agreed to by all parties. "A mediator performs functions and carries out tasks that move people into negotiation, in circumstances that make it difficult for them to do so for themselves. However, third parties introduce another element that is less tangible yet can be a major asset to people needing help in solving their problems. When a third party enters a dispute, people expect things to change. They expect the character of their negotiations to be different after a mediator arrives. Because change and a new direction are essential to interrupt the spiral of conflict, this expectation can be a powerful aid to moving ahead and seeking new options." (ibid., p. 193) b:intrO Revised April 25, 1995 INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 4 Arbitration Arbitration is the submission of a dispute to a disinterested person for final and binding resolution. The arbitrator makes the final decision for the parties involved. Arbitration is more formal than facilitation and mediation. While arbitration is well-established and procedures well- developed, experience with arbitration has centered on the areas of labor-management relations and commercial disputes. Inter jurisdictional disputes have unique qualities and there is not an arbitration process established for dealing with them. Accordingly, arbitration is not envisioned to be used by CCTA as a type of conflict resolution process. 4. PRINCIPLES OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS The Implementation Documents include the following three principles which pertain to Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program: a. Resolution of conflicts, and decision-making on a consensus basis at the regional level is encouraged b. Where Regional Committees are unable to resolve disputes, the CCTA will make a determination based on statements by the parties involved. When determining compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, the CCTA will look for evidence of good faith effort by localities, including evaluation of alternative proposals, to address the problems at issue. C( CTA Resolution 95-03-G states that "good faith" will be demonstrated by jurisdictions' "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict.") C. The conflict resolution process may be used at any point during implementation of the Growth Management Program. The CCTA will make determinations of compliance for the purpose of allocating Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds. It cannot preempt local land use decisions or require 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. U=0 Revised April 25, 1995 �-lam i OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 5 I. PROCESS INITIATION A. ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN INITIATE THE PROCESS 1. Local Jurisdictions This can be a City or Town Council or Board of Supervisors. Initiation of the Conflict Resolution Process requires a vote of the majority of the body. Following the vote of the Council or Board, the local jurisdiction must either (1) obtain approval of process initiation through a majority vote of its RTPC. or (2), if the RTPC does not approve of process initiation, obtain approval through a majority vote of the CCTA. 2. RTPC A majority vote of the RTPC is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process, or to approve local initiation of the process. 3. CTA A majority vote of the Authority is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process, or to approve local initiation of the process, in cases where a jurisdiction has appealed to CCTA to reverse an RTPC's decision not to initiate. B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF INITIATING PARTY DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Send an "initiation letter" to the CCTA (or, if the CCTA is initiating the conflict resolution process, prepare a staff report) with a. description of the dispute b. for Category 1 disputes (relating to compliance with the Growth Management or Congestion Management Program), reference to applicable lan triage in Measure C, the CCTA Implementation Documents, the CCTA Congestion Management Program or state Congestion Management Program Requirements, that provides a basis for process initiation. c. list of issues needing resolution d. names of parties to the dispute that should be involved in resolution e. names of individual(s) representing the initiating party as contact person and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) f. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals g. confirmation that the initiating party had a majority vote approving initiation of the process 2. Initiating party may request pre-initiation meeting with CCTA and/or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process a:out inc3 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 6 C. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CCTA DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Distribute copies of initiation letter with relevant background information to all other parties 2. Assign task of situation assessment to CCTA staff or appropriate consultant 3. Follow-up with all parties to insure that responses to the initiation letter are being prepared 4. Schedule discussion of process initiation on PGA agenda D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER PARTIES DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Officially respond to initiation letter with a letter to CCTA indicating a. understanding of dispute b. issues needing resolution (if any) c. individuals representing the organization as contact persons and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) d. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals e. confirmation that the response letter has been reviewed and approved by a majority vote of the policy council or board 2. Other parties may request a pre-initiation meeting with CCTA and/or the initiating party to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process. E P4T4"T ON PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE PARTIES OR OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES 1. Private parties or other public agencies cannot initiate the conflict resolution process directly, but they can request that a local jurisdiction, RTPC or the CCTA initiate the process. 2. (section on public participation in the process to be added following review of the issue by CCTA legal counsel.) II. SITUATION ASSESSMENT A. SITUATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS An individual appointed by the CCTA (may be a staff member or appropriate consultant) will review initiation letter and response(s), then meet separately with the parties involved. After any necessary follow-up to collect additional information, he or she will write a brief Situation Assessment Memo for distribution to all parties and the CCTA. The Situation Assessment Memo will be presented to the CCTA at a noticed Public Meeting. a:oudir*6 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA - CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 7 B. TIMING Situation Assessment should generally be completed within a month of CCTA receipt of parties' response(s) to the initiation tetter C. CONTENTS OF SITUATION ASSESSMENT MEMO 1. List of issues to be resolved 2. Recommendation regarding whether the dispute is appropriate for the CCTA conflict resolution process, whether or not to use conflict resolution professionals in initial settlement meetings and, if outside professionals are recommended, indication of whether facilitation or mediation appears most appropriate, taking parties' preferences into account 3. Estimated time frame for completion of each stage of the conflict resolution process, reflecting the facts of the dispute 4. Recommendation regarding who will participate in the settlement sessions, based on parties' preferences III. SETTLEMENT SESSIONS AND AGREEMENTS A. ALL PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT SESSIONS B. GENERAL AGENDA FOR SETTLEMENT SESSIONS 1. Present the parties' concerns and constraints 2. Gain agreement about the facts of a dispute 3. Draft Principles of Agreement as basis for proposals 4. Devise proposals for resolving conflicts 5. Test potential proposals for likelihood of success 6. Negotiate commitments to be made by each party in a settlement agreement 7. Public Comment C. SESSIONS MAY BE CONDUCTED WITH OR WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A THIRD PARTY (FACILITATOR OR MEDIATOR) 1. If initial session(s) held without a facilitator or mediator are unsuccessful, the CCTA shall direct that a third party professional shall assist at subsequent sessions. D. PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. "Steps for Consensus Building" included in the Implementation Documents (pp. DM 2 to DM4) may be useful in structuring settlement sessions a:«,ain6 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 8 E. COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS 1. Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program The language of Measure C and the Implementation Documents published by the CCTA will be the primary references for defining local obligations. The Implementation Documents define requirements for local participation in the Growth Management Program and they should be used in the conflict resolution process. 2. Category 1 disputes relating to the Congestion Management Program Reference should be made to the Congestion Management Program document itself, the Guide to Local Compliance with the Growth Management Program, the forthcoming Deficiency Plan Guidelines, and the State Congestion Management Program requirements. 3. Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a determination of compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. F. PARTICIPATION 1. All parties to the dispute will participate. Other parties representing private or public organizations may participate if all parties to the dispute agree to their participation. 2. The parties' participants in the settlement sessions shall be limited to consultants, attorneys, staff or officials of parties to the dispute. Participants will be responsible for continual communication with other representatives of their organization who are not directly participating, and for helping to ratify settlement agreements. 3. The CCTA will be a participant in all Category 1 settlement sessions. G. PRODUCT: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. The parties can determine the form of the settlement agreement, which may be a Memorandum of Understanding, resolution or formal agreement. Whatever the form, all settlement agreements must be signed by all directly involved parties. 2. For Category 1 disputes, the Settlement Agreement will indicate what actions are necessary in order for the locality to be determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management and/or Congestion Management Program. The CCTA's corresponding responsibility will be to make a finding of conformance if the Agreement is implemented. The Settlement Agreement will specify an implementation schedule if relevant. 3. For Category 2 disputes, if the CCTA is not a participant in the Settlement Meetings, the Settlement Agreement will establish responsibility for submittal of a copy of the Settlement Report to CCTA. a. CCTA will recognize receipt of the Settlement Agreement by agendizing it for discussion at a public meeting a:oudine3 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 9 b. If CCTA has comments regarding the outcome of the conflict resolution process, CCTA may transmit a comment letter as follow up to its review of the Settlement Agreement 4. Settlement Agreements may address any or all of the issues identified in Measure C as part of the Growth Management Program, or, if the dispute relates to the Congestion Management Program any or all of the issues addressed in the CMP. H. DESIRED TIME FRAME 1. An estimated time frame for settlement sessions will be established during situation assessment. Settlement sessions will desirably occur over a period of not more than two months, though some disputes may require a longer time period. 2. Category 1 disputes CCTA will establish deadlines for compliance determinations for each Category 1 dispute. 3. Category 2 disputes A draft Settlement Agreement would be submitted to jurisdictions/RTPCs for approval at the end of the period IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING A. USE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS 1. Settlement Agreements will establish implementation requirements and monitoring procedures B. MONITORING BY PARTIES AND CCTA 1. Category 1 disputes Parties shall report regularly as part of their GMP or CMP checklist submittals what actions have been taken to implement the Settlement Agreement 2. Category 2 disputes Parties may choose to establish a monitoring mechanism as part of the Settlement Agreement C. CCTA ASSESSMENT OF GOOD FAITH PARTICIPATION The primary basis for assessing good faith participation will be whether the jurisdiction has demonstrated "good faith" in the process by exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict. + reeresentative attended and-ftffly parfigipated in sit and effleffi ..* « ... a:outinc3 Revised April 25, 1995 �� ./-7 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 10 V. SELECTING AND PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A. SELECTING OUTSIDE PROFESSIONALS 1. CCTA responsibilities and participation a. CCTA will issue an RFQ for Conflict Resolution Services and use the responses to create a list of facilitators and mediators qualified to provide assistance to parties in the dispute resolution process. b. CCTA will participate in determining the kind of assistance required and in selecting a third party professional from the list at the conclusion of Situation Assessment. 2. Parties' responsibilities and participation a. One representative from each party will participate on a panel which includes a CCTA representative in order to determine the kind of assistance required and to select a professional to assist in conflict resolution. If the panel cannot reach a decision, the Authority will decide, taking the panel's comments into account B. PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES 1. Where the CCTA is party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by the CCTA and each of the parties. 2. Where the CCTA is not party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by each of the involved parties. 3. Jurisdictions may use 18% funds to pay for conflict resolution services. VI. OTHER TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION A. Participation in the CCTA conflict resolution process does not preclude the possibility of seeking judicial remedies or using other conflict resolution techniques a:o,tfirr-3 - Revised April 25, 1995 "EXHIBIT B" CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS: Julie Pierce FORUM Chair ON THE COITNTyWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Don Tatzin AND RELATED ISSUES Vice Chair Gayle Bishop May 179 1995 Taylor Davis 4:30 p.m. to approximately 8:30 p.m. Millie Greenberg .LDcatlon: W4 nut Creek Elk's Lodge #1812 Cathie Kosel 1475 Creekside Drive, Walnut Creek W.D.'Bill'Landis (off South Main near I-680) John E.Marquez Allen Payton You are invited to attend this special forum on the draft "Proposal for Adoption" Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and related issues. The Forum will Tom Torlskson be an opportunity to provide your perspective and comments to the Authority. Hermann Welm Robert X McCleary . We hope to hear from you on any transportation topics related to the draft Plan of Executive Director. interest or concern to you. Key topics already identified include: • Definition of Growth Management. • Growth Management and relationship to local control of land use. • The General Plan Amendment review process. • The Conflict Resolution process, including defining "good faith". • The "Vision" for Transportation in Contra Costa to be contained in the Countywide Plan. We anticipate the Forum will be an opportunity for elected officials, interest groups, and the general public to discuss the intent of Measure C's Growth Management Program, history and perspective leading to the draft Plan, and outstanding issues to be resolved so that appropriate changes to the draft Plan can be incorporated for scheduled adoption of the final Plan on.July 19, 1995. In addition to an Authority staff presentation -on the background for the draft Plan, we also hope to hear from many of the other interest groups who participated in the drafting and passage of the original Measure C, and from the citizens of Contra Costa. 1340 Treat Blvd. suitelso When adopted, the Plan and its future anticipated updates will provide direction for Walnut Creek transportation in Contra Costa through the first decade of the 21st Century. Please CA 94598 come. The Authority Wants to Hear From You! PHONE: 510/938-3970 FAX 510/938-3993