Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06271995 - D7 D.7 TO: 'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra 'tra Costa FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEECoiry DATE: June 21 , 1995 SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to sign a letter to the Chair of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (see Exhibit A) summarizing the Board's comments on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Plan). FISCAL IMPACT The Plan, when adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, will 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 At the June 13 Board of Supervisors meeting, following presentations by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Contra Costa Council regarding the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Board requested the Committee consider the information that was presented and provide the Board with a recommendation for action at the June 27 Board meeting. The Committee met on June 22 and considered a draft of this letter and discussed possible revisions with Authority staff members who attended the meeting. For the purpose of this report, Exhibit A contains a draft version of the letter for the Board's consideration. The Committee directed staff to refine the letter further to incorporate more specific suggestions on for changes to the Plan. These additional revisions will be transmitted to the Board members later and may be considered by the Board pursuant to the provisions of the Better Government Ordinance. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE — RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _ APPROVE OTHER _ SIGNATURE(S): J f Smith Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT-Z- TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 646-2134 ATTESTED Orig: Community Development Department PHILiL TCHELO , CLERK OF CCTA (via CDD) THEARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa cities (via CDD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY nAw J AJa , DEPUTY EXHIBIT A June 27, 1995 Ms . Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Chair Pierce : Thank you for your presentation on June 13th. I am sending this letter on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to comment on the issues that should be addressed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) prior to adoption of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Plan) . These comments are based largely on the responses of Authority staff to questions submitted by the County on the Plan. See attachments for the text of the questions and responses . Determining "Good Faith" from the Compliance Checklist Compliance with Measure C is based on the Checklist submitted by each jurisdiction. It is important that a jurisdiction know when it considers decisions that will be reported on the Checklist, the criteria or standards that will be used to determine how such decisions comply with Measure C. The Board is concerned about the unpredictability in determining Measure C compliance based on the proposed definition of "good faith" and how this will be determined using a jurisdiction' s Checklist . Relying on a "spirit of participation and compromise" indirectly allows the Authority to determine compliance based on the appropriateness of a land use decision, rather than based on each jurisdiction' s participation in the settlement meetings and their consideration of alternative proposals . The proposed definition also conflicts with assurances in the Implementation Documents which state that compliance with the Growth Management Program "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" The Comments and Responses document of the Plan responds to these concerns by stating "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' which is essentially the same as the spirit of participation and compromise' . " If the Authority concurs with this response by staff, then it should use this Implementation Guide language rather than develop new language through Resolution 95-03-G. Your staff further responds by indicating that the Authority will be considering revisions to the Checklist so that compliance can be judged more objectively, wherever possible, by both the local jurisdictions and the Authority. The Authority should not impose the "good faith" compliance requirement and threaten to withhold return-to-source funds until a method to measure good faith compliance has been approved for the Checklist . Compliance is voluntary and to receive funds one must comply. But compliance should not be administered arbitrarily or politically. Equal Emphasis of Growth Management Requirements in the Checklist The Authority appears to be pursuing a general plan amendment review process with unprecedented vigor compared to its pursuit of compliance with the other seven elements of the Growth Management Program. The Authority is proposing to mandate an exclusive general plan review process, requiring county-wide review of general plan amendments as the basis for determining adequate inter-jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts . Yet the Authority has not proposed to mandate an exclusive regional traffic mitigation program or has it proposed to mandate inter-jurisdictional review of local decisions addressing housing options and job opportunities . In June, the Authority will discuss reaffirming its commitment to key elements of the Growth Management Program through Resolution 95-05-G. This resolution, if adopted, would guide the refinement of the Compliance Checklist . In order to ensure equal emphasis of Measure C requirements, the Board urges the Authority not to impose a general plan amendment review process and threaten to withhold return-to-source funds until the revisions to the Checklist are implemented. Job and Housing Balance The Board is concerned about how the Plan addresses the opportunity for job and housing balance especially in the job centers of the Interstate 580/680 cross roads area and the starter housing area of East Contra Costa. Authority staff suggests that cooperative planning is needed to better integrate jobs and housing development . The Plan, imposes no cooperative planning requirement for existing general plans which are not meeting the demand for housing in the job centers of Central County and the 580/680 cross roads area. The Plan provides no guidance that could be considered during the review of general plan amendments to address the relationship between housing options and job opportunities as called for in the Growth Management Program. The Plan, however, does impose a review process of unknown length and cost, using very coarse estimates of traffic impacts, on future general plan land use decisions which by their nature are very preliminary. Vasco Road Corridor The Board is concerned about resolving the differences between the East County Action Plan and the proposed Tri Valley Action Plan on the expansion of the Vasco Road corridor. Your staff indicates that the Authority has no power to resolve the conflict and is concerned about exposing the Authority to a lawsuit . The Authority has the power to facilitate resolution of the conflict between these Action Plans and should make such a commitment in the Plan. The Plan identifies a problem. The threat of a lawsuit should not prevent the Plan from proposing efforts to resolve that problem. Economic Vitality The Board is concerned about the impact of the general plan amendment review process on the other goals of the County and cities for sustained economic vitality. Certainly Measure C' s intent is that new transportation infrastructure and mitigations that address the traffic impacts of new development should enhance economic opportunities . However, resources available for transportation infrastructure and mitigations are limited by other competing needs . The Authority proposes to use a transportation plan and a general plan review process focused on traffic impacts to determine the appropriate allocation of resources between transportation and other needs . The Authority' s current proposal gives far too little consideration to other factors affecting quality of life to meet this ambitious mission. Next Steps Despite numerous meetings, the Forum and comment letters, at this time the provisions in . Resolution 95-03-G for the general plan amendment review process remain unchanged since its initial submittal, except for revising the definition of "good faith" in more ambiguous terms . I suggested at our June 13th meeting that roundtable discussions be initiated to resolve the conflict regarding this procedure. It is important that the Authority approach this conflict with a spirit of participation and compromise that will be an example to the cities and County of how to work toward consensus . Components of this process could be as follows : 1 . Define a general plan amendment review process that attempts to balance the different perspectives and that can be implemented on a test basis; 2 . During testing of the process, define the criteria that will be used by the Authority in their review of Checklists to determine "good faith" efforts; 3 . During the testing process, reconsider the Checklist to ensure that compliance requirements for the Growth Management Program meet the concerns of all jurisdictions . 4 . At the conclusion of steps 1 through 3 , implement revisions to the Checklist . Sincerely, Gayle Bishop, Chair r Contra Costa Board of Supervisors attachments cctp.t6 AhTTAcNMEEJ4T5 Compliance Checklist Issues The Measure C growth management program requires each local jurisdiction, in order to receive the local street maintenance and improvement funds, must act on all eight elements of the plan. Most of the elements are very explicit requiring the adoption or implementation of certain programs. Only one requires participation in regional transportation planning process. The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CCTP) represents the product of the cooperative, multi jurisdictional planning effort, it is only one of the eight elements of the Growth Management Program. A. Since the Compliance Checkist is intended to be a self certifying document, will the checklist, especially the cooperation in regional transportation planning and general plan amendment review processes,be modified so that each local jurisdiction can easily gage its compliance with the program and staff of the Authority can review and approve the checklist without having to interpret the feeling of the majority of the Authority Board of Commissioners? A case in point is how will the Authority .consider compliance when a proposed cross jurisdictional mitigation measure is not accepted by the host jurisdiction? Will one jurisdiction be able to hold another `s return to source funds hostage as a result of a dispute? B. Since the issue at hand is the CCTP, the discussion seems to be centered around regional routes and general plan amendments. Should the Authority reaffirm its position that compliance with the Growth Management Program requires complying equally with all eight elements of Measure C Ordinance and identify the standards that will be used to measure compliance? Counywide Comprehensive transportation Plan Issues The CCTP includes a set of Visions, Goals and Objectives and also ties the Plan to the Growth Management Program of Measure C. A. How would this plan promote or address the opportunity for job and housing balance especially in the job centers at the Interstate 580/680 cross roads and the starter housing area of East Contra Costa County? B. How would the plan address the difference between the Transplan Action Plan and the proposed TVTC action plan regarding the Vasco Road corridor? The Transplan Action Plan calls for widening of Vasco Road while the proposed TVTC action plan calls for no improvement except for transit services on this corridor. C. How does the Plan affect the economic vitality of Contra Costa County?Will it restrict new industries? Will it lengthen or retard the effort to streamline permit application process? Will it be responsive to other goals developed by the County and its cities for sustained economic viability? Contra Costa Transportation Authority Discussion with Contra Costa County: Countywide Transportation Plan & Growth Management Your staff has communicated a series of questions by Fax prior dated June 7, 1995. These responses are prefaced with the understanding that the following represents staff's perspective on the issues. Final policy on all of the issues raised will, of course, be set by the Authority.Board. Some of the questions-are speculative and hypothetical in nature, and we have responded with information and perspective which may or may not represent the Authority's ultimate decisions with regard to the same. With that understanding, here are our answers. Compliance Checklist Issues A. While the Checklist process historically was designed so that principle review would be within the jurisdiction certifying the Checklist for submission to the Authority, that does not mean that no review may be conducted subsequent to local completion. Our understanding is that the PGA sub-committee will work on proposed revisions to the Compliance Checklist with the intent to simplify, streamline and refine the questions so that compliance can be judged more objectively, wherever possible, by both the local jurisdiction and the Authority. With regard to the issue of the General Plan Amendment review process which you raise, in the event that a conflict is not resolved current Authority policy would require the Authority to ultimately make a decision about whether or not a jurisdiction has participated in good faith in the Conflict Resolution process. If the County wishes to suggest a test that would establish a clearer "bright line" regarding compliance, we encourage your participation while the Checklist revisions are under consideration. Perhaps the easiest "bright line" test would be whether or not a General Plan Amendment or revision could achieve the TSOs. That standard was not adopted in the Implementation Documents because Measure C language emphasizes "negotiation" of mitigations between jurisdictions — hence the "good faith" test. Other tests could alternatively be proposed for consideration. In response to your specific question about a proposal for mitigation that is not accepted by a "host" jurisdiction, the current process would assess compliance of both parties on the basis of "good faith" participation in Conflict Resolution. No precise answer can be given predicting the outcome; it would depend on the context of the dispute, relevant facts, and, if language in draft Resolution 95-03-G is adopted, on a demonstration by the jurisdictions of a "spirit of compromise" and attempt to resolve the issues. According to Measure C, funds could potentially be withheld if the Authority establishes conditions of compliance which it deems not to have been met when the Checklist is evaluated. The existence of a conflict would probably not be sufficient to Cdntra Costa Transportation Authority & Contra Costa County Discussion June 13, 1995, Page 2 withhold funds; at present, the Conflict Resolution process as written does not require funds to be withheld prior to entering into that process. B. The Authority will review at its June 21, 1995 meeting draft Resolution 95-05-G, reaffirming its commitment to key elements of Measure C requirements: the General Plan Amendment review process; affordable housing provisions; and mitigation fees to defray the cost of mitigating the impact of new developments on the regional transportation system. This resolution would, upon its adoption, guide the refinement of the Compliance Checklist. countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Issues A. The revised draft Plan emphasizes the desirability of locating more jobs near affordable housing, and more housing near jobs. The Plan also notes that the growth forecast for the two areas of the county which you have cited, the Tri-Valley and East County, is projected to overwhelm the anticipated transportation system in 2010. That, in fact, is the core problem identified in the Plan -- large forecast growth and insufficient identified facilities, or funds to pay for those facilities, which could be applied to prevent projected congestion from getting significantly worse. The approach adopted by Measure C would require new growth to bear its share of the cost of new transportation infrastructure to support it. However; that is not a complete answer, in light of the massive state and federal transportation funding shortfalls which are anticipated, making it more difficult to pay for the balance of costs. In some areas, the ability to construct new facilities is also limited by a variety of factors, adding a further challenge. The Plan does not have an answer to this dilemma. Clearly, more inter jurisdictional negotiations and joint, cooperative planning are needed to better integrate jobs and housing development, reduce long distance commuting, and find ways to limit further deterioration of the service provided on the regional transportation system. B.. The draft Plan does not attempt to resolve the conflict over the status of Vasco Road between the TVTC and East County Action Plans. Reasons for leaving the widening of Vasco Road out of the draft Plan on the basis of this conflict include the fact that any such widening would require the approval of Alameda County, the City of Livermore, and the Alameda CMA to provide the expanded capacity all the way to I-580. Those agencies currently oppose the proposal, and the Authority lacks the power to resolve this conflict. Further, inclusion also risks subjecting the Authority to another lawsuit on the East County Corridor. C. Economic vitality, along with preservation of the quality of life in Contra Costa, are goals of Measure C. The Authority has no ability to restrict new industries, since our Contra Costa Transportation Authority & Contra Costa County Discussion June 13, 1995, Page 3 only responsibility is to allocate the 18 percent return to source funds, not make land use decisions. In fact, Measure C's intent that new transportation infrastructure and/or mitigations to address the traffic impacts of new development should enhance economic opportunities. It is the intent of staff that, to the extent possible, the General Plan Amendment review process should proceed apace with review of a General Plan Amendment by a local jurisdiction, and consistent with CEQA timelines. In proposing such an Amendment, however, the local jurisdiction should be mindful of the requirements of review, under Measure C, so that the review process and addressing of any conflicts can be handled as early as possible. In the event that a conflict does arise, we believe the Authority would make every effort to see that the process was concluded in the desired time frame. However, absolute assurances cannot be provided, because it will depend on a number of factors beyond the Authority's control. Former Supervisor Sunne McPeak recently addressed a group of policy makers and staff on this issue. She expressed the view that there are three issues of fundamental importance to industry in moving into an area: (1) the quality of the schools; (2) availability of affordable housing; and (3) the overall quality of life, which includes access, mobility, public safety, degree of congestion, etc. ,Her comment was telling she felt that these factors had to be balanced, and development had to be careful not to damage the quality of life or the economic vitality of the area would ultimately suffer. As noted, the goals of economic vitality and preservation of quality of life are the underpinnings of Measure C. How the Authority promotes achievement of those dual goals through its Compliance Checklist and Comprehensive Transportation Plan process is a real challenge, since the interests represented in Contra Costa are diverse, and there are different perspectives as to what constitutes an appropriate balance between these goals. One of the most important element of Measure C is the intent of its drafters to change "business as usual," and to provide a framework and vehicle for truly cooperative planning, where jurisdictions, with the positive incentive of the 18 percent funds, work together to find mutually acceptable paths to maintain both economic vitality and the quality of life that is so precious to Contra Costa residents. That is the real challenge. plan\95plankounty-r.esp r .+• V �+ Z W m O1 Cl o �. J - 7 s1 The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk oPhil offthe Board and \ 'County Administration Building Costa County Administrator 651 Phe Street, Room 106 (570)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Jim Rogers,1st District cEAi Joff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop,3rd District ```•,I, June 27, 1995 Mark DeSaulnler,4th District �.. Tom Torlakson,5th District Ms . Julie Pierce, Chair °ria Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Chair Pierce : Thank you for your presentation on June 13th. I am sending this letter on behalf of the Board of Supervisors to comment on issues that should be addressed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) prior to adoption of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Plan) . These comments are based largely on the responses of Authority staff to questions submitted by the County on the Plan. See attachments for the text of the questions and responses . Determining "Good Faith" from the Compliance Checklist In anticipation of the -need to amend Action Plans, the Board has expressed its concern regarding the definition of "good faith" efforts toward cooperative planning. Defining good faith as a "spirit of participation and compromise" indirectly allows the Authority to determine compliance based on the appropriateness of a land use decision, rather than based on each jurisdiction' s participation in the settlement meetings and their consideration of alternative proposals . The proposed definition also conflicts with assurances in the Implementation Documents which state that compliance with the Growth Management Program "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" The Comments and Responses document of the Plan responds to these concerns by stating "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' which is essentially the same as the spirit of participation and compromise' . " If the Authority concurs with this response, then it should use this Implementation Guide language for resolved clause No. 9 of Resolution 95-03-G. Your staff also indicates that the Authority will be considering revisions to the Checklist so that compliance can be judged more �J Ms . Pierce June 27, 1995 Page Two objectively, wherever possible, by both the local jurisdictions and the Authority. The Authority should not impose the good faith compliance requirement and threaten to withhold return-to- source funds until a method to measure good faith compliance has been approved for the Checklist . Compliance is voluntary and to receive funds one must comply. But compliance should not be administered arbitrarily or politically. In revising the Checklist, the Authority should consider requiring local jurisdictions that are involved in conflict resolution to make certain findings if no agreement is reached on Action Plan changes that are needed to accommodate a general plan amendment . The findings would address the following actions to demonstrate good faith efforts toward cooperative planning: 1 . Do the traffic impacts fall within the degree of accuracy of the traffic forecasting model and represent substantial non- compliance with Action Plan policies or TSOs? 2 . Have revisions to development that would comply with Action Plan policies or TSOs been identified? 3 . Have transportation mitigation measures that would comply with Action Plan policies or ISOs been identified? 4 . Has the cost of transportation mitigation which is proportionately attributable to the development been determined? 5 . If no mitigation for traffic impacts directly attributable to the development is acceptable, has mitigation for other purposes been identified (e.g. can traffic congestion be mitigated at other locations in lieu of the location directly impacted by the project or can revenue from the development be contributed to non-traffic purposes?) ? 6 . Have features of the development that directly address housing options and job opportunities in regions that lack affordable housing or jobs been identified? 7 . Has the sponsoring jurisdiction substantiated that it has consulted with neighboring jurisdictions regarding potential mitigation and specified development revisions or mitigation identified in criteria 2 through 6 to include in the general plan amendment approval? 8 . Has the sponsoring jurisdiction conditioned final approval for any phase of the development on the consideration of the measures needed to comply with Action Plan policies or TSOs? f� Ms . Pierce June 27, 1995 Page Three Equal Emphasis of Growth Management Requirements in the Checklist The Authority appears to be pursuing the general plan amendment review process with unprecedented vigor when compared to its pursuit of compliance with the other seven elements of the Growth Management Program. The Authority is proposing to mandate an exclusive general plan review process, requiring county-wide review of general plan amendments as the basis for determining adequate inter-jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts . Yet the Authority has not proposed to mandate an exclusive regional traffic mitigation program or has it proposed to mandate inter-jurisdictional review of local decisions addressing housing options and job opportunities . In June, the Authority will discuss reaffirming its commitment to key elements of the Growth Management Program through Resolution 95-05-G. This resolution, if adopted, would guide the refinement of the Compliance Checklist . In order to ensure equal emphasis of Measure C requirements, the Board urges the Authority not to impose a general plan amendment review process and threaten to withhold return-to-source funds until all revisions to the Checklist are identified. Job and Housing Balance The Board is concerned about how the Plan addresses the opportunity for job and housing balance especially in the job centers of the Interstate 580/680 cross roads area and the starter housing area of East Contra Costa. Authority staff suggests that cooperative planning is needed to better integrate jobs and housing development . The Plan, imposes no cooperative planning requirement for existing general plans which are not meeting the demand for housing in the job centers of Central County and the 580/680 cross roads area, but are pushing housing demand to East County and the Central Valley. The Plan provides no guidance that could be considered during the review of general plan amendments to address the relationship between housing options and job opportunities as called for in the Growth Management Program. The Plan, however, does impose a review process of unknown length and cost, using very coarse estimates of traffic impacts, on future general plan land use decisions which by their nature are very preliminary. Vasco Road Corridor The Board is concerned about resolving the differences between the East County Action Plan and the proposed Tri Valley Action v Ms . Pierce June 27, 1995 Page Four Plan on the expansion of the Vasco Road corridor. Your staff indicates that the Authority has no power to resolve .the conflict and is concerned about exposing the Authority to a lawsuit . The Authority has the power to facilitate resolution of the conflict between these Action Plans and should make such a commitment in the Plan. The commitment should begin with formulating a vision for this corridor based on the shared interest of the 19 jurisdictions in Contra Costa rather than the concerns of Alameda County jurisdictions in the Tri Valley area. We hope this vision will be one that reflects the County General Plan, advocating the development of additional highway capacity for relieve future congestion and to attract jobs to East County. Economic Vitality The Board is concerned about the impact of the general plan amendment review process on the other goals of the County and cities for sustained economic vitality. Certainly Measure C' s intent is that new transportation infrastructure and mitigation that address the traffic impacts of new development should enhance economic opportunities . However, resources available for transportation infrastructure and mitigation are limited by other competing needs . The Authority proposes to use a transportation plan and a general plan review process focused on traffic impacts to determine the appropriate allocation of resources between transportation and other needs . The Authority' s current proposal gives far too little consideration to other factors affecting quality of life to meet this ambitious mission. Next Steps Despite numerous meetings, the Forum and comment letters, at this time the provisions in Resolution 95-03-G for the general plan amendment review process remain unchanged since its initial submittal, except for revising the definition of "good faith" in more ambiguous terms . We suggested at the June 13th meeting that a dialogue be initiated to resolve the conflict regarding this procedure . It is important that the Authority approach this conflict with a spirit of participation and compromise that will be an example to the cities and County of how to work toward consensus . Components of this process could be as follows : 1 . Define a general plan amendment review process that attempts to balance the different perspectives and that can be implemented on a test basis . Ms . Pierce June 27, 1995 Page Five 2 . During testing of the process, define the criteria that will be used by the Authority in their review of Checklists to determine "good faith" efforts . 3 . During the testing process, reconsider the Checklist to ensure that compliance requirements for the Growth Management Program meet the concerns of all jurisdictions . 4 . At the conclusion of steps 1 through 3 , implement revisions to the Checklist . Thank you for the opportunity to comment again on this important effort . Sincerely, Jeff S th, Vice Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisors attachment cctp. t6