The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07181995 - D6 W TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSE_s "L- °' �---� Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE J'a7 � s Costa County c�sra � x�. DATE: JULY 11, 1995 SUBJECT: REPORT ON PENDING ACTION BY THE CONTRA COSTS TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY ON THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept report and consider further action to be taken as appropriate. FISCAL IMPACT No direct fiscal impact to the General Fund. 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 $1.5 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Transportation Committee reviewed the materials prepared by Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Planning and Governmental Affairs (PGA) Committee regarding adoption of the Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan (Plan) which will be considered by the Authority at their July 19 meeting. The County has monitored and commented on the Plan since work on it was initiated in 1992. Only a few significant issues remain. The Committee is forwarding County staff's evaluation of these materials to the Board for discussion and action as appropriate. County staff has annotated the reports prepared by the PGA Committee which are attached for your review and information (See Exhibit A). While many of the Board's CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF CO Y ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATIO F B COMM TEE _ APPROVE OTHER � l G� SIGNATURE(S): ff Smith Tom Torlakson ACTIONF BOARD ON July 18, 199 5 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 and 2 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: 1 and 2 ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 646-2134 ATTESTED July 18, 1995 Orig: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF CCTA (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 24 B DEPUTY SLG catpplan.bo Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan July 11, 1995 Page Two BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (continued) comments have been addressed or deferred to refinement of the Compliance Checklist, a few significant issues remain regarding the General Plan Amendment review process and the Conflict Resolution process proposed in the Plan. General Plan Amendment Review The PGA Committee report recommends adoption of Resolution 95-06-G and its attachments to implement a countywide general plan amendment review process. The remaining significant issues include: - Whether Findings are made to substantiate compliance with "good faith" requirement. One component proposed for the general plan review process was to require local jurisdictions involved in an unresolved conflict to make a finding substantiating their "good faith" participation in the growth management program. The PGA Committee was concerned that such a process would require too much time. County staff supports this requirement because it allows the local jurisdiction to include in its Measure C Compliance Checklist the information they feel important in the Authority's evaluation of their "good faith" participation in the growth management program. County staff does not believe this requirement would be time consuming since findings and public hearings are already part of the local development review process. Furthermore, this requirement would be consistent with the general policy on Measure C Compliance Checklists that local jurisdictions be given to opportunity to self-certify their compliance with the various elements of the Growth Management Program. - Clarifying the role of other RTPCs in reviewing_general plan amendments. The "Attachment B" flow chart suggests that a general plan amendment must be reviewed for its consistency with the Action Plan where it is located in order to be in compliance with the Growth Management Program. "Attachment A" states that a general plan amendment must be reviewed for its consistency with the Action Plans of other Regional Committees as well, and any required amendments to these Action Plans be completed before a general plan amendment can comply with the Growth Management Program. Attachment A would create the potential for significant time and cost delays that have been a major concern of many jurisdictions. Attachment A should be revised to be consistent with Attachment B. Conflict Resolution The PGA Committee report recommends adoption of Resolution 95-07-G to implement a countywide general plan amendment review process. The remaining significant issue includes: Whether or not to require public participation in Settlement Sessions. The Board has requested that confidential agreements be prohibited since such agreements can affect public policy. The Authority's attorney claims that Settlement Sessions are exempt from the Brown Act and that solicitation of public comments on a draft Settlement Agreement would be up to the participating jurisdictions. Although a Settlement Agreement is agendized for discussion at an Authority meeting, this occurs after the Settlement Agreement is signed, and the parties are under no obligation to respond to any comments the Authority may receive or make during the Authority's review. County staff maintains that the proposed process will allow Settlement Agreements to be negotiated and signed without public input which in inappropriate if it affects public policy issues. EXHIBIT A CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment (GPA) Review Process, Resolution 95-06-G SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Measure C requires review of the impact of local General Plan Amendments on the regional transportation system to "provide a quantitative basis for inter- jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts."' How this process will be accomplished, and its implications for allocation of the 18 percent "return to source" portion of the Measure C sales tax, are the central elements in the controversy which has delayed approval of the first Countywide Transportation Plan. The primary issues which have been raised are: 1. Are Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) for Routes of Regional Significance mandates which must be attained, or objectives? 2. What is the appropriate role of the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs) and affected jurisdictions with respect to review of a GPA? 3. Is "participation" in the review process sufficient, or will more stringent tests be applied? Specifically, will the standard of the Implementation Documents, which requires conflict resolution in the event of disagreements and "good faith" participation and negotiation to resolve conflicts, be upheld? 4. If "good faith" is the ultimate test of a jurisdiction receiving its allocation of return to source funds, how will "good faith" be determined? 5. Can the GPA review process be reasonably accomplished within the timeline for the CEQA review and certification process? 6. How will compliance be assessed in the event that the traffic impacts of a GPA cannot be overcome, but a jurisdiction believes there are other factors/benefits which warrant approval of the GPA anyway? 7. Does the GPA review process threaten "local control?" 8. Is "daylighting"/ exposure of the impacts of a GPA sufficient to address the intent of Measure C? .......................................................................................................................................... RECOMMENDATIONS: : 2e..:..:.... a .:..: .: Ie pt the neral Plan Amendment review process,r- ' fired t :; � ::;.:::.P: lie P i , andte Adoption should include the understanding that the process will be monitored, and future modifications will be considered to sustain the following objectives: (1) keep the process simple and straightforward; (2) require timely review of and comments on proposed GPAs, consistent with CEQA timelines wherever possible; and (3) maintain a "level playing field" in assessing "good faith" for both generators and recipients of traffic arising from a proposed GPA. 'The 1988 Measure C Expenditure Plan, Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program, p. 11, paragraph No. 5 (August, 1988). 0? CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Amendments Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Application of this process may affect the receipt of 18 percent "return to source" funds by local jurisdictions. Annual allocation amounts currently range from $120,000 to $1.5 million for individual jurisdictions. OPTIONS: Three alternative variations on the process for review of General Plan Amendments have been proposed. Each has several elements in common with the Authority's proposed process. Attached alternatives are from: (1) TRANSPLAN; (2) Contra Costa Council; and (3) Commissioner Herman Welm. ATTACHMENTS: :..::.................................................................::::..........:...............................:......... 1. Proposed Resolution 95-06-G; L. The pr-eeess appr-eved at PGA en June 1995; 2. Attachment A to Resolution 95-06-G, Overview of the Proposed General Plan Amendment Review Process as amended by PGA; -3. Attachment B to Resolution 95-06-G, Flow Chart of General Plan Review Process, as conceptually agreed at the June 21, 1995 Authority meeting, and amended at July 5, 1995 PGA meeting; ,4. Attachment C to Resolution 95-06-G, Sample Tests of "Good Faith;" 5. TRANSPLAN proposal; 6. Contra Costa Council proposal; 7. Commissioner Herman Welm proposal; and str i a<: a oral i�r valuatin fa�tht Contra Costa �Cound BACKGROUND: Current Requirements Measure C requires that: "The Authority, jointly, with affected local jurisdictions, shall determine and periodically review the application of Traffic Service Standards on routes of regional significance. The review will take into account traffic originating outside of the county or jurisdiction, and environmental and financial considerations. Local jurisdictions, through the forum provided by the Authority, shall jointly determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts." (See Section 5)2 The Measure also specifies under Section 5, "Participate in a Cooperative, Multi- Jurisdictional Planning Process to Reduce Cumulative Regional Traffic Impacts of Development," that: r 2Ibid., p. 10. CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Amendments Page 3 "The Authority shall establish a forum for jurisdictions to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts. This will be accomplished through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees . . ."3 and "Use of the countywide transportation computer model provides an opportunity to test General Plan(s) transportation and land use alternatives, and to assist cities and the county in determining the impact of major development projects proposed for General Plan Amendments. This would provide a quantitative basis for inter jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts."4 To fulfill these requirements, the Authority adopted the Growth Management Implementation Documents in December, 1990, which require preparation of Action Plans by each RTPC, and subsequent review of GPAs by the RTPCs. The review is intended to assess the potential impact of a GPA on the Traffic Service Objectives established in.each Action Plan for the regional transportation system, and implement the required cooperative planning and negotiations process. The'process did not envision RTPC approval of the GPA, but rather consensus decision-making in response to such proposals to manage the regional transportation system, with the goal of maintaining adequate service on that system. The conflict resolution process was intended to be initiated in the event conflicts could not be resolved on a consensual basis. Specifically, the Implementation Documents require any jurisdiction proposing a General Plan Amendment that exceeds a threshold size (to be specified in the Action Plan) to 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 b) Propose modifications to the Action Plan that will prevent the General Plan Amendment from adversely affecting the regional transportation network.' Thus, to meet the goal of the Measure to avoid a worsening of traffic congestion, the Action Plans and the TSOs within them were slated to be the basis for assessing the impact of future General Plan Amendments on the regional route system. 3Ibid, p. 11. 4Ibid. 'Growth Management Implementation Documents,Imnlementation Guide, pp. 8, IG-16, IG-51, and IG-52. Adopted by the Authority in December, 1990. a.a -3 CCTA PGA COMIVIITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Amendments Page 4 Despite these requirements, the Authority recognized in the Implementation Documents that some conflicts might not be resolvable. Therefore, in the event a conflict cannot be resolved, the jurisdictions in conflict are to enter into the conflict resolution process. Then, rather than assessing compliance based on the outcome of that process, the Documents :f envisioned determining compliance based on a jurisdiction's "good faith" participation and negotiation in that process. This provision was included to reflect other provisions in Measure C language that allowed the Authority to assess compliance with some "flexibility," to reflect the differences among jurisdictions.' Basis for Requirements The above requirements are derived directly from Measure C language. They are founded on the following underlying principles of the Growth Management Program: w • The 18 percent "return to source" funds are meant to be an incentive for meeting the requirements of Measure Coa # fe . id ..................:..............:::................... • The General Plan Amendment review process is required by Measure C to provide a quantitative basis for negotiation regarding mitigation of traffic impacts arising from General Plan changes. • The Measure required cooperative, multi jurisdictional planning. • The Authority has the responsibility and authority to define how Measure C will s. be carried out, consistent with the language in the Measure, and to deny 18 percent funds if a jurisdiction is found out of compliance with the provisions of the Growth Management Program. Discussion of the Primary Issues The issues surrounding the General Plan Amendment review process are complex, and the discussions have reflected that complexity, with rhetoric about various "what if' scenarios, and claims that included, for example, characterizing the process as a "violation of local control," and "establishing the capability for a single jurisdiction veto of a GPA." What constitutes "good faith" has also been debated, as has the larger intent of the Measure C Growth Management Program. However, based on direction received at the June 21, 1995 Authority meeting, and-recent discussions with the designated representative of the Contra Costa Council, a ...... ..�.l9.' ... s � �<;«. 6.:>tthe differences in perspective appear to be narrowing as to how the General Plan Amendment review.process might be carried out. aeae 'Ibid, p. 9. �,�— / CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Amendments Page 5 arta fir.'-*j P::Reviev� cess.::»<If so :>d u on could 1 :::::::::::::::.: ::.P::.:...:.......................... ::fi:::::::..:.:.: :::::::.::::::::::.:. ...:..... x .::: .::»a e ... .drab QhQ ::mcc�.: .:.:..te <1:.::: : ro .ased::h:<:>the:: o :C :: uun ::ta::ass�st:: :e ' ::...Via .g..:.P :..::::::::.::::::::::::: ::::::. Vie:;;A. n€r s . cfiata��s regard roc >aid..Agate The des ntcixle :.. i:<: haf .:a: oc ::;.utsdt >::r. ...ted::fl::::: d:::a::: :::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.:3:::::..:.:..:.:..:...................:.. ....:.......:..:...... :.:.:;.;:.:<.;:.;:.:;.>:<:.;::.;::...............................................................................::.:.:.::.::.::::::::.... .::.:.:.............................P..............................g.......................... l fvds € ae .... Qvg.a. efi�eas a S � . �::>r� :ahe<::,4-A ..... dzi:>; ocess:>:re: ue�nent: n �t >cCiifew :::. :.: ::<::. :.: ... ,.... ..:.:.::.: : : :::::::::.::::: ...... .: ... ,. . :_.. .:........,.., d Fa. aubc .. .....altar. to>be �'extra>�e'- en�tit<tro�d€�.....,.. .est oces� ......................................................................................................................................................... The Authority needs to carefully consider the issues, and adopt a GPA review process that it believes meets the requirements of Measure C while taking advantage of the flexibility also contained in the Measure. For perspective, primary issues which have been raised are discussed below. Staff suggests the Authority provide policy direction in the context of revisions to the process rt by ><` }9 tin ...................................................... .................:::...... »>:»»::>::>::»::»>::: g 1. Traffic Service Objectives (ISOs). The TSOs were intended to be serious objectives, per the Implementation Documents, and a frame of reference for evaluating proposed land use changes which could impact the regional transportation system. However, under current Authority policy TSOs are not mandates, because compliance would ultimately be assessed based on an evaluation of "good faith" demonstrated in negotiations. While "good faith" is clearly a subjective standard, it is certainly a more flexible test than if measurable TSOs were required to be achieved. 2. Role of the RTPCs in reviewing GPAs. Current policy requires that RTPC(s) review each GPA over a certain threshold to assess its potential impact on TSOs and actions. If the GPA would affect the TSOs, then the RTPC(s) affected would either agree, by consensus,' to (a) include necessary mitigations in the Action Plan(s), or (b) make necessary revisions to TSOs and actions in the Action Plan(s). If neither of these were agreed to, then conflict resolution would be required to address the outstanding issues. This process is not an approval of the GPA, but rather consideration of the impact of a GPA on the Action Plan consistent with the requirements for "inter jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts." +F:•i:•ii:.iiiiiiii' :•iiii':ti•i::?:•:•:v:':i•i:4:{:.•;iY,.?::•i:'i::'iiFii:{{:::?;i:;ii:Y:i:i:i......;:iii:=�ii:::>.i:>.i:•:i$:.i:G::^>.:ivii:...;..;•,..;.:....:•:i:":i'::•iiiiii:•:^:•i:•ii:•iyiii%j i.�i6:•Y.:•:i:i:ji:•:i:::•i:::•:%:'v'f,.:'::.:j:i:::j:::: ::..:.:......'1 �' fe��vr� ve � .» ! consensus deesian. :.>:>:•?:.::.>:.>:�ii:<:::iRY::::>;i:::::�::::ii:iii;:::::i":�:Y:�:'.':;::t-:.'<::>ii;iiii;:Yii::i i«i::iir>::::::Y:�.';::::::::::>:i::ii::i::: :::::;::;:::i::::i::::::<::;'c:::::>;:':::.>::`:�''::+:::::;;:::t2:i::::i%:�::>2:R:i::::2:ilii::::::i::ii::i::i::v::iii :t;":::�:�.:::;..... :;:t:.stf1 ..oauseus.r.c«:e:::: : ::< <:: ; :h:>>:< i:... .............}: is i;i x' tt;:ii::iii:::iR:ii:-:-''Cz:ii•'''•';;iiii;;i::ii;::i>;;;:;: ;i CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Amendments Page 6 TRANSPLAN's proposal would have review and comment by the RTPC regarding a GPA's impact, but provides only as an option the possibility of modifying the Action Plan. It is a disclosure and comment process, though that disclosure would extend beyond the GPA to projects exceeding the 100 trip/ peak hour threshold. The proposal leaves unanswered (1) exactly how negotiations for mitigation of GPA traffic impacts would be facilitated by its proposed review process, and (2) how "good faith" would be evaluated by the Authority if a local jurisdiction approved a GPA that would negatively impact TSOs or actions previously approved. Specifically, the footnote to Proposal Attachment One states that a jurisdiction may unilaterally approve a GPA if the TRANSPLAN review has not been completed in 45 days, or if the jurisdiction has responded in writing to issues raised by TRANSPLAN's evaluation. This does not say that impacts will be mitigated, or even negotiated. The proposal is moot on the issue of whether conflict resolution should be entered into if impacted jurisdiction(s) are not satisfied with the written responses or the time frame, and whether the jurisdiction would be taking a risk that the Authority might ultimately find the jurisdiction's actions in approving the GPA to have violated the Action Plan and/or Countywide.Plan actions and objectives. The Contra Costa Council's written proposal states that "the role of the Regional Committees should be to review, not approve, project proposals and general plan T,4 amendment requests." The Council has.proposed that, in the event consensus cannot be reached on amendments to the Action Plan(s), then "the sponsoring jurisdiction may still approve a project (and not loose their [sic] return-to-source funds), provided that they take the following steps. . ." The steps outlined.involve public disclosure through a Notice of a Finding of Special Circumstances to the public, all jurisdictions, regional committees, and the Authority. The text goes on to say that "The requirement should be to participate in good faith in negotiations - not to mandate specific results." In discussions with the Council representative, = it has been acknowledged that the finding would have to meet the "good faith" test for a jurisdiction to be found in compliance, which would be judged upon Checklist submission. With that understanding, the process is analogous to what the Authority has previously approved, without an explicit conflict resolution process, and with the addition of the local certification process. The Council's focus on the Compliance Checklist for determining compliance is consistent with Authority policy, and the Council's suggestion for updating the Checklist mirrors PGA's interest in the same topic. rased u n e Cour ' suu1 and r�eseattcxt; P :J .;:: , 195:;; '"Proposed Principles for Consideration, Measure C Growth Management Program," Contra Costa Council, p. 3. (Submitted May 17, 1995) oZ •aZ — � CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Amendments Page 7 cse nn the tssues ars to be a#< an<€ >:A : ata( ve 1� ce�ficatian a #...,.;,:;;`;:;::ry'.:: :::.:; is::: ......2;`:i,?r::::i: :::;;i2;i::;:i::::'':::''':i:i :::?`:::.:;:: iso;:;:;:%:� .:.::...::: :::;::;:; "'mss.:....::.:..:.:..:......:..:::. .:::..:::::....:::...: � ts tenial 1e tteAu � Q ......::::::.:.:::::.::.....:...:.....:::::...:::.:....:..:::. .::::::::::::::.::;:::::F :::: , hem1wiffiffild- "good faith" regarding 244er-jur-isdiefienal negetiatien" be evaluated, a Commissioner Welm has proposed using the CEQA process as a proxy for General Plan Amendment review, instead of creating a separate process. In this proposal, the determination of compliance would occur by reviewing a jurisdiction's actions viz a viz approval of a GPA at the subsequent review of its compliance checklist. Comments made during the CEQA process, responses or a lack thereof, and potentially effiOW dt claseti A r f litigation filed against a jurisdiction t ;s t eS�l case, would be the evidence for determining coin liance�f " ait "< ence.. t e .................. g P ;:.;;>;::;;;;;:::.:;:. :.:;:.:::.;::::.;:.:::.::.;;:.;;;:.;:;.:;;;: :::::.::::::::.; y;;.;;:;:;; Jsdfls1ed € o A rocess for "negotiation" relative to mitigating P the impacts'of a specific GPA appears to be explicitly excluded from the process. Conflict resolution is encouraged'in a general way, but the Authority is discouraged from being involved in conflict resolution with regard to the impact of specific projects. (See also Issue 5, below.) Relative to the GPA review process, the role of "external" RTPCs outside the RTPC of the sponsoring jurisdiction has elicited concern. Some agencies have expressed more comfort workingwithin their sub-region than external to <:........:.::......................;::.;:::;.;,g.:....:. .:.................................................... ...................... :.:..,.::..:::::.:..:.:.:::::::::::. hay<:�fiada <:#he> P .. ccs < hcTilftsntiil » r�thee tttttee <_ :..y.:..:::::::::.:::::::.:::::.::.:g:::::::::::.::..::.::.:..::::::.::.::::::::::.: ...:.............................................. ..... ..................................................................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.......................... However, since the regional route system, by definition, includes routes which cross sub-regional boundaries, it would appear that some mechanism for dialogue and negotiation is necessary if a GPA would affect an inter-sub-regional route. The Authority needs to clarify its expectation how this issue would be addressed in the process. The draft presumes that all affected RTPCs would comment, but that the primary focus would be on amending the Action Plan of the RTPC to which the jurisdiction belongs. Only in the event of unresolved conflict between the Action Plans of the affected RTPCs would the negotiations extend beyond RTPC boundaries. 3. Participation versus More Stringent Tests. Some comments have suggested that "participation and dialogue" should be a sufficient test for receipt of the 18 percent funds. However, in instances where there are significant differences of opinion, it seems likely that movement towards a consensus position, or even a negotiated one, is 2 •z-7 CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Review of General Plan Amendments Page 8 more likely if pressure is applied through firm requirements. Dialogue alone may not be sufficient to generate true "negotiation" regarding impacts. 4. Evaluating_"Good Faith". Evaluating "good faith" is ultimately a subjective effort. However, it might be possible to establish some tests which would, by definition, be examples of good faith effort in the conflict resolution process. Some potential concepts, drawn from the discussion at the June 21, 1995 Authority meeting, are attached for discussion purposes. 5. Accomplishing the GPA Review Within the CEOA Time frame. In its review of the proposed GPA review process, the TCC representatives felt that it was unlikely the proposed process could fit within the minimum time frame of CEQA review and certification. The reason given was that the project must be defined fully and its analysis given in the draft EIR; it would not be possible to fully respond to comments and apply conflict resolution, if necessary, in the minimum 55 day time frame allowed between the draft EIR and final certification. However, it was noted that many EIRs extend well beyond the minimum time period for certification. Further, if the GPA review process could begin earlier, and conflicts addressed prior to publication of the draft EIR, delays could potentially be minimized. The Authority legal counsel also cautioned against explicitly including the GPA review process as part of the EIR, suggesting instead that it be a separate but parallel process. 6. Other Jurisdictional Priorities. Some agencies have suggested that some socio-economic objectives may be more important to a jurisdiction that the traffic impacts caused by a new development. They have suggested that such factors should provide justification for overriding considerations to approve the development. :a key goal of Measure C was to avoid a worsening of traffic congestion. Measure C language Ooetakes account of other factors, and grants the Authority some flexibility in assessing compliance. Such other considerations could be-potentially be evaluated as part of the "good faith" test. However, to simply allow for overriding considerations without negotiation or assessment of "good faith" would appear to be in conflict with the Measure's specific requirements to mitigate the impact of new development on the regional transportation system. 7. Local Control. The 18 percent funds are a reward for meeting the requirements of the Growth Management Program. The Authority has no power over local land use - decisions; only the ability to determine compliance with the provisions of Measure C. As noted by Authority legal counsel in a letter to Mark Armstrong, the comment that the CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: Review'of General Plan Amendments Page 9 proposed GPA process affects local control of land use decisions "has no. basis in fact or law."' was< mfdre%ed >the<PGA>Camutte > 8. Daylig_hting/ Exposure of Impacts. It has been suggested that the primary purpose of GPA review should be "daylighting" or exposure of impacts. In response, Authority members have expressed concern that mere exposure would not be sufficient to cause a change in local jurisdiction behavior, especially if the principal impact of a development were upon adjacent jurisdictions. The extent to which "exposure" of impacts meets the requirements of Measure C relative to "negotiation" of mitigation needs to be discussed. Staff seeks speeffie dir-ee-tien en these issues, and whether- any ehanges &Fe desir-ed in the ihe pr-e ........ss ::::_: d the General Platt Ain then pr res�ans>>sl .. ..Atlacen# ..I::thin :# <fQonstttiit>b ...tl3e..A' : >It..�zd: a: ::: ::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::1 ::: ry..:::::::::::.:.: :::.:.:::: W d",# :: €c. :.:fW., Ih��these doc tints �e��c�d:�<: ea�a� .:. tte�t • es a GPA.revte�: rncxss which wau�d: meet<<t ;�e utr�ments ec��Fed �ni��asure ' regia .the r�ia.;:..: :.:>�f"bo€tv ,c::u.;::<: .i�n , attd zot� ttu��;>t✓i::;' :::�rative Ia::::y::: rkm\p1an\item95\gpa-rev.jul 'Letter to Mark Armstrong, Gagan, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong, from Stanley S. Taylor, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox & Elliott, May 18, 1995, pp. 3-4. Attachment 1 Resolution 95-06-G APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1) WHEREAS, Measure C requires the Authority "to establish a forum to cooperate in easing cumulative traffic impacts. This will be accomplished through the Regional Transportation Planning Committees . . .;"' and 2) WHEREAS, Measure C also stated that "Use of the countywide transportation computer model provides an opportunity to test General Plan(s) transportation and land use alternatives, and to assist cities and the county in determining the impact of major development projects proposed for General Plan Amendments. This would provide a quantitative basis for inter jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts;"' and 3) WHEREAS, Measure C further requires that "The Authority, jointly, with affected local jurisdictions, shall determine and periodically review the application of Traffic Service Standards on routes'of regional significance. The review will take into account traffic originating outside of thecounty or jurisdiction, and environmental and financial considerations. Local jurisdictions, through the forum provided by the Authority, shall jointly determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts. (See Section 5)";3 and 4) WHEREAS, in response to these mandates the Authority adopted in December, 1990 Implementation Documents, specifying that the Action Plan process, the establishment of Traffic Service Objectives and Actions, the General Plan Amendment Review process, and the Conflict Resolution process would be used to meet the requirements outlined above; and 5) WHEREAS,_the Authority will separately approve the details of the Conflict Resolution process to be used in the event of disputes between jurisdictions; and 6) WHEREAS, to recognize the differences between jurisdictions, and the flexibility provided to it within Measure C to judge compliance with the Growth Management Program, 'The 1988 Measure C Expenditure Plan, Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program, p. 11, Paragraph 5. (Adopted August 1988) 'bid. 3Ibid, p. 10. Resolution 95-06-G July 19, 1995 ► ..' ' ` Page 2 :....: the Authority has agreed to ultimately evaluate compliance with Measure C, as it relates to review and negotiation of proposed General Plan Amendments, on the basis of "good faith;" 1) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Authority hereby adopts the attached summ `:::and flow chart : tient' €ao serve as the General Plan Amendment Review process required by Measure C; and 2) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in so doing, the Authority will evaluate the compliance of individual jurisdictions at the time of its review of the Annual Compliance Checklist submittal by the jurisdiction; and 3) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event of unresolved conflicts, the Authority shall.le a ne ,fl ;:.:......:.:>:::.;..... for jurisdictions which have participated in conflict resolution ,..,,ere a """""'` has net bee eetst$ :;>::........ . i .:*Mm::. raneeof iia1 — .......:s:::.....:.:�..... ' after taking into accou. t:..(..a..). the flexibility granted to it by Measure C in assessing compliance; (b) the individual socio-economic characteristics of the jurisdictions .................................... involved in the conflict(s); and (c) the attaehed sample tests fer dete "`':esetof u rei :: ::urs m > cted<m:>�� ood faith=" a -n: Vis:>: :. :.c a ne t a ors n sd€c :.....::: :.. g , . .: :..:.:::..:.::::: g ::.:::::.:.:::::::::: tl£ ' i #< Q7iai .. clu.:. .: of got € }ted wheteri#< :>a fo�ozuggdes Was:the» o >..:wlrl�>;; rod <ur,,�d< va'utile 3 En -:::Vere acts €Rzxts: f: t..: .a 5igsfce �nhfted.dui .:.:....:.....::........:...........::::;:;;:::::::::::::.:::.:....:........... » 'Q �©n Wry all affeci� ageies popeilyitif�ed .:.: ..; t)<:#he: .1 ..:.:..::::: Mi. »::':` a``out :>;tus .:::::: ' : ::a .:::: C ve es :>10 o arnst c .... >: .::..c.: a °:..: <>.. ..:. a...:: :.::.::.:::::::::::::.:::::::::.::::......:........................................::.:.:..::::::::::; .:: .::::Fes.:::::::::::.:::::::.:::::,.. c:>ronce�r ;:and :nn r. Wrr ::: hc :.:..:.. :.:. ve;< <.: .e > a t ::.:...... .. .:.:. : :::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. :::::::::::::::P...:. ;.:> ;:.:.;:;;.;:;.;P::.::.: :;.::.:::P�:;::; :.::..................... . .... ............................................................... e... . vlc:: . . cx :� <:..:....... : .::: .... the 1umd..viduallr m cx� bnany :ta; e f ss to is�ssm�tya �sdan'seo � eneneems a�ad ampts ;:;::<:::>:.:<:::: � � �.;�»ani <: r:. :. €..: Resolution 95-06-G July 19, 1995 Page 3 :..... 4) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Authority shall consider the concerns of both e jurisdictions generating traffic as a result of a General Plan Amendment, and those of the recipient(s) of such traffic;: equally, in making its evaluation of "good faith." Julie Pierce, Chair This RESOLUTION was entered into at a meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority held July 19, 1995 in Walnut Creek, California Attest: Robert K. McCleary, Executive Director p1an\item95\gpa-res6.v2 Resolution 95 06 G .................................................. ................................................... .................................................. July 5199 1995 Page A-1 ATTACHMENT -I.A. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS 1. The process ' 1a11 bencurrsnti� e CEQA time line for .::............ ::::::.::::.:::::::::::::::...:: preparation of a Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. It is recognized that Conflict Resolution could extend the process beyond e d €e ofan expected CEQA certification-date�iid::comae.." n.: rov -*11e :.:. ............. e£fa std be de::Iy:<lio tie prod:spoAsor aid Y ent=eked lurtsdflnsp.......address potentt�l issues flf conflrct wtthut the frame provided udr Ear tdefi�atn of :and MW... affected ,:. junsdtc�t : regio.I......... . en ec . 2. The process requires that a jurisdiction study the impacts of a proposed GPA on the Action Plan when the size of the GPA exceeds the threshold size established by the RTPC in its Action Plan; or 500 peak hour trips if such threshold has not been established. .............. ...... ... .. . 3. The GPA sponsor may approve the GPA without consequence if: (1) tie:GP ::i oes not adversely affect the abtltty of local ttr di�ttons to the fi aff Servzce K1O?' Ob�ec tees {'I' Os) ar to implement t13e agr edaipon actions the Action Plans, or f 1 .. cerS/Sall the GPA and/or Action Plan have been amended to mitigate the impact on the RVI regional system to the satisfaction of the affected RTPC(s); or (4X3) the Conflict Resolution process has been successful. If eithff of these conditions have been met, then the sponsor and RTPC(s) should convey such information to the Authority. e o If neidief p e of these conditions have been met, approval of the GPA could result in a findings of noncompliance with the GMP, unless the Authority finds the jurisdiction has acted in good faith to negotiate resolution of conflicts. 4. The jurisdiction preparing the GPA should notify the RTPC(s}aidI>iipactec pncas as early as possible of potential impacts with respect to previously approved TSOs and actions. Concerned jurisdictions may voice concerns to the GPA sponsor, the RTPC, and the Authority regarding impact on TSOs by commenting: on the Notice of Preparation; on the draft Negative Declaration or EIR and/or prior to project approval. 5. If an unresolved conflict exists, to avoid potential questions concerning "good faith" at the time of checklist review, the GPA sponsor should initiate the Conflict Resolution Process prior to its certification of the GPA FEIR and its approval of the project. 6. If the sponsor does not respond to a conflict which has arisen, and chooses not to enter into the process for considering Action Plan amendments and, eventually, conflict resolution if necessary, such action would be grounds for not passing the ,good faith" test u h a drrespanding 'r "'d ©€non-eot�plI nce. Res... G July 519, 1995 Page A-2 ATTACHMENT 4A. 7. c'p a conflict resolution p at es " n t s essful, the Authority would make a determination of good faith at the time theeach:!& � jurisdiction's annual compliance checklist is submitted, based upon its review of the conflict resolution Situation Assessment and any other information made available by the involved parties. rlan\plan\itcm95\res9506g.ata I � 4J p [ C, _C .� t'2o 3 ........................... ..ti..;....... v a '> o N s z E y _ r�. 8 Z -£€�•c 'vo_E � Z Z C7 m V N• ¢'Z vet a ��o O a) E0- E }S o � t �SO).4 U 0` c c CM 2'O Q �.................... ............................ E 4` C .... .............. .� «+ a y :....... ....................... ................................ fi Q °= g:E O y o O-CI c c Q) U 0 0 Q a y CL 5. L L V ° O o v«.0 mos d anPOnJosOa'" a �� i HwGio c'cQ c° PiUuo:) ,c o m u._ oc '= w : N Z � o v— Z orate Z Q � c N 111 U L v d L j Q Q Y O) d -O O 9 c O o 00 _ $TQoo v E d EO 0 w fE a` >1 9 CL E w o E E E r a c o ° 0)c C3 c U sE O ZA .'rl ^ y 0 > O E �c, OL 6 ) p O n O ............................. . .......................................................... ..-------- f\ � v z _ C 0 O 00en ,y g €$ Z. -u 1) o o 2wo— v3 E U Q nc c o O O m Q c c o) — a c 0.9 p c c MB ` E o G E Q o, . ..............................................•..................................................... .....; �_ O Z �Q } 'Oo p d c L 0 j ° �bo. Z c �u.PQ �oo w E�" O 00 O M L C1 c c'= 0000 na r E o Resolution 95-06-G July 19, 1995 Page C-1 Attachment SAMPLE TESTS FOR ESTABLISHING "GOOD FAITH" PARTICIPATION IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS Formal written documentation verifying that some of the following have .been offered to resolve conflicts in the conflict resolution process: General Plan Amendments 1. For the jurisdiction proposing development as sponsor of the GPA: • Reduce development densities; • Phase in development based on measurement of TSO(s), with development stopping if TSO(s) are exceeded; • Revise the mix of land use to encourage more internal trips, or more balance between internal and external trips; • Identified project mitigations which can be demonstrated to meet TSO(s), and offered to defray.the cost of those improvements which are proportionately attributable to the development; • If no project improvements are acceptable to the adjacent jurisdiction(s), offer to transfer development revenue as mitigation for other purposes to the adjacent urisdiction Co c rrf<: ar hn :>dus> to n:>has:been:ex r ed<:b:.::: ie::Gflnha:Costa :::Oxus::>:_<:between:::fees:::and<:�rre nchx� <;> rovez�nts::tee:>he:>funded:b.:;::tbem.<>. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. • Offer to accept metering on roadways in adjacent communities, and build "reservoir" capacity within the development; • Revise the urban design to encourage local trips for shopping, recreation, and non-commute purposes, including consideration of facilitating pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit trips; • Offer to pay, for.peak hour transit services connecting to major transit hubs, for an extended period of time; • Include fiber-optics cables for communications, and work with telephone and cable providers to provide ISDN and other.high-capacity electronic capabilities to serve homes and businesses. 2. For a "downstream" jurisdiction receiving traffic from a new development: • Agree to accept capacity improvements to local arterials and highways which are not in fundamental conflict with the jurisdiction's socio-economic character; • Consider non-physical improvements or minor physical modifications to enhance carrying capacity of local streets and roads, and freeways, such as: signal Resolution 95-06-G July 19, 1995 Page C-2 Attachment 40 interconnections; auxiliary and turning lanes; signalized pedestrian crossings; pedestrian overcrossings; frontage roads to limit access to major facilities; revisions to parking to add lanes; etc. • Accept additional transit service provided by the new development; • Accept work associated with necessary utility upgrades to provide enhanced electronic communications; • Consider supporting project alternatives which would serve the new development that do not significantly impact the downstream jurisdiction, in pursuit of funding resources external to the affected jurisdictions. • Support park and ride lots and intermodal transit facilities that could consolidate trips and reduce through traffic which would otherwise utilize affected roads. 3. In each case of conflict, "good faith" would of course also be assessed within the context of pre-existing legal agreements and understandings between the jurisdictions, and any other relevant information. TSO Adoption 1. Jurisdiction within which the facility is located, if it is a traffic recipient: • Proposes TSO(s) that are no more stringent than evidenced by traffic in 1990; • Shows flexibility in considering alternative TSOs that would not dramatically worsen the character of the jurisdiction if implemented; • . Considers how facility improvements could accomplish desired TSO(s), without rejecting them "out of hand." 2. Jurisdiction which is a traffic generator: • Proposes TSO(s) that are meaningful, and not "whatever is needed to satisfy the development." • Proposes alternative TSO(§) if necessary to promote continued dialogue and discussion. • Recognizes the socio-economic character of the recipient jurisdiction in proposing any TSO(s) and capital projects to accomplish them deemed necessary to accommodate the development. p1an\95p1an\res95-06.atc � .� — 17 TRANSPLAN COMMITTEE Antioch - Brentwood - Pittsburg and Contra Costa County A MEMBER"OF"THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing, Martinez CA 94553-0095 June 8, 1995 Hon. Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek; CA 94513 Dear Ms. Pierce: Thank you for your May 23, 1995 letter. As we"understand from your letter, CCTA is offering to incorporate into the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan,without deletions,TRANSPLAN's East County Action Plan proposed review procedure for projects with 100 or more peak hour trips. The offer, however, is conditioned on our acceptance of the review process for General Plan amendments as defined in the CCTA's Implementation Guide in lieu of the procedure contained in our Action Plan. This conditional inclusion of our plan language into the Countywide Plan, in exchange for TRANSPLAN's adoption.of the General Plan review procedure taken verbatim from the Implementation Guide, is not an acceptable approach because it is in fundamental conflict with our view of how a Regional Transportation Planning Committee should function. As correctly noted in your letter, the East County Action Plan does not propose a development review procedure which involves"regional committee approval"of General Plan Amendments. In developing the East County Action Plan, member jurisdictions agreed to implement a meaningful review procedure for sizeable development proposals and General Plan Amendments, but they strongly objected to TRANSPLAN Committee assuming a new role which bore any resemblance to a regional land use decision-making body. Instead, there was unanimous consensus that in matters relating to land use decisions,the appropriate role for TRANSPLAN was to provide a forum to review and discuss how such decisions would impact the regional transportation system. The other important role for TRANSPLAN was to assure that dialogue at the forum is informed by accurate and complete information. Once we established the appropriate role for the TRANSPLAN Committee,we set about defining a development review process based on four organizing principles: (1)it should.respect local land use decision-making authority; (2)it should be simple,efficient, and concurrent with existing environmentaVdevelopment review procedures; (3)it should be easy to administer with existing staff and resources; and,, (4) it should avoid further legal or procedural entanglements in an already burdensome and complex development process. Using these principles, we came up with a process to review proposed developments and General Plan Amendments-which is encapsulated into five steps outlined in Attachment One to this letter. We envisioned a development review process,for both development proposals and General Plan Amendments,which would serve as a tool to encourage interjurisdictional coordination, promote better planning practices, and,provide informative data for the decision-makers. It was not envisioned that TRANSPLAN, acting as the Regional Transportation Planning Committee, should be involved in approving or judging the merits of°a development proposal or General Plan amendment. Responsibility for such a ;Z Page Two Ltr.To J. Pierce 6!8/95 land use decision should reside with a Planning Commission, and ultimately,the City Council,whose members are accountable to the voting residents of the affected community. Since the TRANSPLAN Committee is an appointed, regional planning body, its role should be limited in scope to a review and advisory function. Our position on the RTPC's role in reviewing developments and General Plan Amendments has been clear and consistent since.we issued the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption on December 8, 1994. We have intentionally stayed away from review procedures which would have the potential to create an additional and burdensome loop in the local planning process. Additionally,we are concerned that the review procedure as prescribed in the CCTA Implementation Documents could unintentionally expose our member jurisdictions to new legal problems. We will submit specific questions on this issue under a separate letter. In our.view the East County Action Plan's review process for proposed development and General Plan Amendments conforms to the spirit and intent of Measure C. In specific reference to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees, the ordinance ballot measure text, page 11, Section 5., states that these bodies should be created for ....... interjurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impact". We believe that while the East County Action Plan does not mirror the exact language contained in the Implementation Documents,it substantially conforms to the requirement of establishing a cooperative, multi jurisdictional planning process to reduce the cumulative regional travel impacts of development as required under the 1988 ordinance. Sincerely yours, Barbara Guise, Chair TRANSPLAN Committee attachment ` . Attachment One EAST COUNTY ACTION PLAN: REVIEW PROCESS FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Step l: A development application or General Plan Amendment is accepted by a jurisdiction and the environmental and development review process is initiated. Step 2: Jurisdiction makes a determination that proposed development or General Plan Amendment(GPA)will generate 100 or more peak hour trips. If the answer is yes, the jurisdiction notifies TRANSPLAN Committee that proposed development or GPA is under consideration, circulates appropriate environmental notices to all RTPCs, and then proceeds to Step 3. Step 3: As part of the development review process, and concurrent with environmental review, the jurisdiction will assure that project impacts on Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) for adjacent Routes Regional of Significance will be evaluated for development proposals and General 'Plan Amendments meeting the 100 peak hour trip threshold. ' If there are significant impacts on a Regional Route's TSO, the evaluation shall identify and recommend direct and indirect measures to mitigate the impact. This evaluation, referred to as the Regional Route Analysis, shall be submitted to the TRANSPLAN Committee. ' This impact analysis on TSOs,referred to as a Regional Route Analysis,will be conducted as part of the regular development review process and concurrent with environmental review. A standard report format for Regional Route Analysis will be developed by TRANSPLAN TAC. It is intended that TRANSPLAN`s review will only be advisory and will be concurrent with the jurisdiction's development review process. The jurisdiction may chose to approve development or GPA before TRANSPLAN has completed its review under the following circumstances: 1)TRANSPLAN has not completed its review within 45 days following receipt of the Regional Route Analysis; or, 2)if the jurisdiction has responded in writing to issues raised by TRANSPLAN's evaluation of the Regional Route Analysis. Step 4: The TRANSPLAN Committee reviews the Regional Route Analysis for each proposed development or General Plan Amendment which generates more.than 100 peak hour trips. TRANSPLAN Committee shall review and prepare a written evaluation of the Regional Route Analysis based on the following questions: ► Is the analysis adequate? Does it fully disclose the traffic impacts of the proposed development or General Plan Amendment? ► Are the impacts significant? If the impacts are significant, are reasonable and sufficient mitigation measures being proposed to address the impacts? ► Has the jurisdiction consulted with neighboring jurisdiction about the project impacts and proposed mitigation measures? TRANSPLAN shall submit its written evaluation to the jurisdiction within 15 days of completion of the committee's formal review of the Regional Route Analysis and the jurisdiction shall respond in an appropriate and timely manner to any concerns raised. Step 5: TRANSPLAN staff will maintain a master file on the Regional Route Analyses prepared by each jurisdiction and once a year will compile this information into an annual evaluation report to be submitted to the CCTA as an addendum to each member jurisdiction's Measure C Compliance Checklist. This annual evaluation report will provide information on project approvals by jurisdiction, net effect project approvals have on maintaining TSOs for Regional Routes, and monitoring of the mitigation measures chosen by the approving jurisdiction. Additionally, staff will maintain a data set of baseline conditions to monitor cumulative traffic impacts from project approvals for the purpose of identifying when a Regional Route's TSO may be violated: This information will be reported to TRANSPLAN on a quarterly basis. TRANSPLAN may determine that a focused revision to the East County Action Plan is necessary based on information generated from either the quarterly or annual report. TRANSPLAN may also consider a focused revision to the East County Action Plan at the specific request of a member jurisdiction. 06/28/95 16:26 '$510 866 8641 C C. COUNCIL 10002 rror (CONTRA COSTA 1C O U N C l L 694 Bishop Drive, Suite 121 an Ramon, CA 94583 hone:(510)866-6666 June 28,.1995 ax. (510)866-8647 President Pamela J.Reed . hranspvis4XI Foery Ms. Julie Pierce Chair ermat A.fOmson 6 FOC/sler _ � - ,,,,a"du to Ptst 14Contra Costa Transportation Authority . t"-comes Terrill PresA'en! 1340 Treat Blvd., Suite 150 - x"nous`&a»n Walnut Creek, CA' 94596 Vcse President Te4K ForcesUnda ova ' Panne Dear Julie, �Jsse++»0 Best vice President Te"Force On behalf of the Contra.Costa Council, the Building Industry Association, the VOPeasiden° Contra Costa Association of Realtors, the Coalition of Labor and Business the vKa Prds:denr o!Pie g + P--fttA°D6110ft*V 61POMM7 Contra Costa Taxpayer's Association. and the-Central Labor Council, I would Via President roUnce i Administral Ion like to express our appreciation to you for delaying action on the proposed °;>�MO Countywide Transportation Plan and Growth Management Program. We -'y`ourjySank appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposals and advise the P ;;tMem ?authority of our concerns with respect to the proposals as originally drafted. Gary W.CnR.ACCP P-1-Manage? co.vyRe,= Consistent with our letter of April 17, 1995, we continue to be concerned with vice President - EveMs what appears to be a fundamental_changein direction for the Authority with Ion Baird ViCrPresgenr respect to implementation of the Growth Management elements of the Measure °v"Co`- `corr,�ry C program. In this regard, we would ask the Authority to consider the Vice President attached "Principles.for Growth Management" as presented at the Authority's Tor" Tom MCCtacKeR forum on May 17, 1995. These principles address the issue of most concern to ' GenwblW.ragw srMvJay shoaP°v c e, our coalition and the voters of Contra Costa County - "a cooperative process for. tsecmiveDirector Growth,Management on a Countywide basis, while maintaining local control 8o°tate over land use decisions..." Again, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the forum hosted by the Authority on May 17th as well as the opportunity to work with you and other members of the Authority to identify areas of concern and discuss options to insure that the effective "public-private partnership" that led to the successful passage of Measure C in 1988 is maintained. At this point, the "issues".are becoming more clear: Approval/Amendmeats to the Action Plans_ Who is ultimately responsible for adoption and/or amendments to the Action Plans - the Regional Committees or the.-.Authority? T.:iz•.^,ew 5so Cf Mte:on rccvctqo Gaper - - 061,28/95 16:27 $510 866 8641 C.C. COUNCIL 10003 June 28, 1995 Page 2 The role of the Authority with respect to local General Plan amendments. Can the Authority tequire an agency to deny or impose "conditions" on local land use decisions as a condition to receive their "return to source" allocation? ► The Growth Management Compliance Checklist. What constitutes "good faith" participation in the Authority's,Growth Management program? Who judges good faith participation? We have been encouraged by your support of amore proactive vision statement as well as the discussion at the Authority's meeting of June 21, 1995. We are .pleased to hear discussion among the members of the Authority on issues and concerns that our coalition, the County and a number of the cities have been raising with the current proposal. It is beginning to appear that a majority of the Authority members want to avoid a process that would place the Authority in a position of "determining" specific actions and/or "conditions" that agencies must satisfy in order to "comply" with Growth Management. The apparent consensus that was achieved at the June 21st meeting appears to be consistent with a number of our proposed "principles". If implemented, the critically important "bottoms-up" planning process envisioned when the Measure was developed would be maintained and the General-Plan procedures could then focus on uniform evaluation, improved notification and interagency coordination_ The primary role of the Authority., during it's review of the Compliance Checklist, would be to monitor "good faith" participation as opposed to identifying specific "conditions" and/or "requirements" for compliance. Hopefully the PGA committee, at their meeting on July 5th, will modify the proposal to reflect what appears to be the consensus of a majority of the Authority. We look forward to participating in the discussion. Although not specifically discussed at your June 21, 1995 meeting, we would like to call your attention to a June 8, 1995 letter from TRANSPLAN. The letter articulates East County's proposal for the review of General PIan amendments, as well as specified project proposals. The*concepts appear to be clear, easy to a .21 -93 .06/28/95 16:27 V51O ash 8647 C.C. COUNCIL _ 16004 rror Jun 28, 1995 Pa e 3 understand, simple and straight-forward. Along with our suggestion of a "Notice of Intent" for projects impacting Routes of Regional Significance, the TRANSPLAN proposal appears to address most of our concerns. While we understand the Authority's desire to adopt the Countywide Plan on July 19th, we would encourage you to consider a delay in final adoption to give all concerned at Ieast 30 days to.review the proposal in it's final form. We would suggest that the Authority declare its' "intent" to adopt the Plan on July 19th and schedule it for final adoption in August. Please understand that this is not a suggestion that the Plan be recirculated -just hold it for 30 days to allow all concerned ample time to review the final draft. As we've indicated before, it is difficult to'keep up with the changes in what is.a very complex and' comprehensive;document. Consistent with our previous discussions, the Council, as well as the other groups that we are working with, would be interested in working with'you to develop an improved and on-going "partnership" to address issues in the future. The first task should be to work together to revise the Growth Management Compliance Checklist. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input and participate in the process. To avoid future confusion as we work toward resolving our differences with respect to the Countywide Transportation Plan and Growth Management Plan, Bill Gray, or his specified designee, will our spokesman. If you have any questions or would like any additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Bud Lake Executive Director = .2 -,2 06:28/95 16:28 `$510 866 8647 C.C. COUNCIL 16005 Jun 28, 1995 Pa g 4 BL:nc . enclosure cc: Pam Reed, President, Contra Costa Council William R. Gray., Chair, Transportation Task Force Dave Rowlands, Public Manager's Association/City of Antioch John Wolfe, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Steve Roberti, Central Labor Council Mary Lou Lucas, Coaliation of Labor and Business Guy-Bjerke, Building Industry Association Darlyne Houk,,Association of Realtors A\PIERCF.GO.LTR ' 57 H-�a Z�em May 17, 1995 PROPOSED PRINCIPLES for consideration .MEASURE C GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Contra Costa Council, in cooperation with the Building Industry Association(BIA), the Coalition of Labor and Business(COLAB), Central Labor Council, the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and the Association of Realtors is pleased to submit the following set of"principles" that we would encourage the Contra Costa.Transportation Authority to consider in the development of the Countywide Transportation Plan and Measure C Growth Management Program: 1. Return-to-source funds must be an incentive to implement the Measure C Growth Management Program. A unique provision of Measure C is that it seeks to encourage responsible growth management at the local level by providing an incentive to participate through the return-to-source program. This concept is working well in that all 19 jurisdictions have adopted,and are complying with,Growth Management Elements in their respective General Plans. The concept that the return-to-source funds are to be an incentive to comply must be maintained. 2. The Growth Management Program should not be implemented in such a manner that would allow an individual jurisdiction, a Regional Committee or the Authority to "veto" another jurisdiction's general plan amendment or project. Measure C provided funds to improve our transportation system and included an incentive to participate in a Growth Management Program designed to encourage cooperation in the review of projects impacting our regional transportation system while maintaining local control over local land use decisions. Jurisdictions who agree to participate in the program, manage growth through their General Plans and comply with clearly defined disclosure and review requirements should not be denied an allocation of return-to-source funds.. Local agencies must retain the ability to approve a project when, after consideration of all factors, including transportation impacts,and participation in a cooperative review of issues,they can show(make findings)that the benefits of the project outweigh impacts. The role of the Authority and the Regional Committees should be to insure full public disclosure of potential impacts,cooperate and assist in identifying and developing appropriate project mitigations(transportation related!)and provide a forum to discuss .and,hopefully,resolve issues. ._ 1 3. The Authority should accept the Action Pians as adopted (or amended) by the Regional Committees and, if necessary, utilize a cooperative process with the Regional Committees to eliminate inconsistencies bet%ceen the various plans. The Growth Management Implementation documents adopted by the Authority in 1990 appropriately focus responsibility for development of the Action Plans on the Regional Committees. The documents indicate that"in cases where consensus has been reached among members of the Regional Committee ...;the Authority will accept the objectives and action policies as proposed." When consensus exists,the Authority is to include the Action Plans into the Countywide Plan. Only when"other committee(s)oppose some portion of the Action Plan... does the Authority have a role with development of the Action Plans. The Authority's role should be to identify conflicts (if any) between Action Plans and work to eliminate the conflicts through a cooperative process with the affected Regional Committees. If no agreement can be reached, then the Authority should delete the conflicting provisions in such a manner that does not impose new requirements or alter current authority of any jurisdiction. In the case where jurisdictions cannot agree upon TSO's or action policies within their Action Plan, then the Countywide Plan would identify no TSO's or action policies for that regional route because there is no consensus. 4. The Authority should require use of the Countywide traffic model to evaluate major development projects and proposed general plan amendments. Measure C indicates that a"countywide transportation computer model provides an opportunity to test General Plan(s)transportation and land use alternatives, and to assist the cities and the county in determining the impact of major development proposals proposed for General Plan amendments." The intent of the Measure in this regard is clear,the Authority should require local he to use it's model to test major development projects and proposals and "advise"all concerned as to their findings. Consideration should be given to use of a standardized disclosure process,as suggested by TRANSPLAN. As indicated in the Measure,this procedure"...would provide a quantitative basis for inter jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts." It seems clear that the Authority is to act as a neutral source of information for all jurisdictions,as well as the public, to use in assessing the impact of new development on our regional transportation system.The Authority's role is to insure that potential project impacts are disclosed and appropriate mitigations identified and considered. 2 5. The role of the Regional Committees should be to review, not approve, project proposals and general plan amendment requests. Sponsoring jurisdictions are required to concurrently notify the Authority of development proposals and, for projects that impact our regional transportation system, submit the project and/or proposed general plan amendment(along with proposed mitigations)to their Regional Committee for review. The adopted Action Plan and the Countywide traffic model should be the basis for the Regional Committee's review. The sponsoring jurisdiction must participate in"good faith" and"cooperate" with the Regional Committee,and other concerned parties. Jurisdictions must cooperate in identifying appropriate mitigations and/or modifications to the adopted Action Plan. If a determination is made that a modification to the adopted Action Plan is required, the jurisdiction proposing the project should be required to either 1) modify the project to reduce it's impact or 2) propose a modification to the Action Plan. After all of the above, if consensus cannot be reached at the Regional Committee level with"respect to project mitigations and/or amendments to the adopted Action Plan, the sponsoring jurisdiction may still approve a project(and not loose their return-to-source funds),provided that they take the following steps: a. Provide;i Notice of Intent to the public, all jurisdictions, regional committees, and the Authority; b. The Notice shall include a statement of reasons for intending to approve the project without consensus at the regional committee; C. .The Notice shall allow for a 20-day written comment period ending at least 10 days before a noticed public hearing; d. Circulate all written comments to Council members or Board members; e. Hold a public hearing and accept testimony; f. If approval is still desired, adopt a finding of special circumstance,detailing the reasons for the approval which may include impacts of traffic generated outside the jurisdiction, unique local conditions,health,safety,public welfare, and other reasons;and g. Immediately provide a Notice of Finding of Special Circumstance to the public, all jurisdictions, regional committees, and the Authority. The requirement should be to participate in good faith in negotiations -not to mandate specific results. Approval of this Finding of Special Circumstances would be considered consistent with the Action Plan(which would be amended as necessary to reflect the change at the next update). 3 6. The Compliance Checklist should be used to determine a jurisdictions eligibility for return-to-source funds. The current Checklist should be updated to reflect the principles discussed herein, including notice requirements, use of the Countywide traffic model to evaluate project impacts, participation in the Regional Committee review process, and compliance with proper procedures before any consideration of Findings of Special Circumstance that might be considered as a result of a lack of consensus at the Regional Committee level. The Compliance Checklist process is currently used by the Authority to determine if a jurisdiction is participating in the Growth Management program. The procedure is a self- certification process and used gauge compliance with the intent of the Measure C Growth Management requirements. The completed Checklists should be widely distributed (published) and used to notify all jurisdictions, the Authority and the public as to all jurisdiction's actions with respect to complying with the Growth Management requirements of Measure C. Return-to-source funds should be withheld when a jurisdiction fails to participate in the development review process or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements of the Measure C Growth Management Program. The Checklist needs to be updated to reflect the concepts proposed herein. It must be clear and concise. The Authority should not require additional actions to receive return- to-source funds unless the Authority makes a finding, after a public hearing,that a jurisdiction has failed to participate in General Plan review process or otherwise failed to comply withHother requirements the Measure C Growth Management Program. 7. The Conflict Resolution Process should be used to resolve issues with respect to the Compliance Checklist and available for use,on a voluntary basis, to resolve issues identified through the project and General Plan review process. The process should be a mediation with no arbitrated decisions. With respect to issues identified during the processes discussed in item 6 above, jurisdictions should be able to utilize the Conflict Resolution Process on a voluntary basis to resolve issues. Failure to participate in the Conflict Resolution Process at this level would not be a basis for loss of return-to-source funds. The process would be in the style of a mediation and not an arbitrated decision and designed to encourage participation and ensure no preemption of local decision making authority. The primary use of the Conflict Resolution Process would be to resolve issues with respect to the Compliance Checklist. 4 d V p d. p-O Q d p A C G r tL LL N 0 � u N .p- Q CD Q� p Or Q p O Q � G a R y G ti" Q N ✓ N c✓i1 � O b. o t m N h R c as c p m ca d d � c a co m G R co c aN rn° �g cpi so Q. a r" d: -'o _ d N d T 'O d da ma d d 0 o- � m O 3 m v p y rts �T T 3 s: m d c y Ci d✓ d 0 1 m a v Z c ✓ x.-30 V p O j 6 'June 27, 1995 Contra Costa County Mayors CCTA Commissioners Dear Mayor/Commissioner, Since its release in March, 1995, the Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan has generated a healthy and spirited discussion of the Transportation Authority's appropriate role in reviewing and providing comment to proposed development projects in the county. While most, if not all, who have commented agree that the Authority is assigned responsibility to monitor and comment upon proposed General Plan Amendments(GPAs), the nature of that role, and the process to be followed in reviewing GPAs have not yet met with universal approval. Many observers feel that the current Authority GPA Review process, as outlined on Attachment A of this letter, goes too far in setting the Authority as a regional "superagency", with far-reaching land use powers not assigned to it by Measure C. Further, some have commented that the process outlined on Attachment A is impractical, and will result in delays to an already cumbersome project review framework. . As the Mayors' Conference representative to CCTA, and a participant in these discussions, I have been concerned that the Authority develop a fair process which addresses the Growth Management responsibilities clearly included in Measure C, while not overstepping those authorities, or creating unreasonable delays to existing land use review processes. It is my observation that the Authority should consider a simpler,more familiar GPA Review process which takes advantage of the existing CEQA framework to provide comment on proposed developments as they are evaluated in the Ell , rather than creating a parallel, duplicative effort. While far from perfect, the CEQA process has a number of positive attributes. First, it is the only universally applied project review process in the County(or the State). All jurisdictions are familiar with the notification, comment, response-to-comment structure which drives the typical CEQA EIR or Negative Declaration project review. (The "typical" CEQA review process is illustrated on Attachment B of this letter.) Timelines and processes for input to the process are well-defined, and have proven more or less workable. Secondly, the CEQA process is already required for review of any significant GPA Adapting the Authority's GPA review process to utilize the existing CEQA structure is far preferable to creating a new parallel process which will probably result in delays and cost increases to local jurisdictions as well as developers. a.� -3� How might this CEQA GPA Review process work in .practice? For a typical development proposal/GPA, the responsible jurisdiction first prepares an "initial study", usually including an "environmental assessment checklist" which identifies the potential for..impacts to categories of environmental concern such as air or water quality, plant or wildlife species, or traffic conditions. Based on this "initial study", the jurisdiction determines the appropriate environmental review documentation, and issues a"notice of preparation" which announces the jurisdiction's consideration of the projeWGPA,, and describes the scope of environmental review to be performed, as well as any specific areas of concern identified in the "initial study". At this point, any interested jurisdiction, agency or individual is given the opportunity to comment on the scope of the environmental review, and to request that specific items of concern be addressed in the EIR. Thus, a regional transportation planning committee (RTPC), like SWAT or WCCTAC, could request that certain transportation facilities, such as Routes of Regional Significance, be included in the analysis of project traffic impacts. Further, the RTPC or an individual jurisdiction could request that the analysis include a discussion of the project's impacts to Traffic Service Objectives included in Regional Route Action Plans. It is the responsibility of the approving jurisdiction to address these comments/requests within the context of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) prepared for the proposed development/GPA. Upon completion and release of the DEIR, the impacts of the proposed development/GPA are evaluated, and mitigation measures may be proposed for those impacts which are deemed significant. If, at this point the affected jurisdictions, agencies or individuals do not feel that the DEIR has adequately addressed project impacts, another formal opportunity for comment is provided. The concerned jurisdiction, RTPC, agency or individual can request that the scope of the EIR be expanded, or that specific questions be answered in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). If any issues are left without a satisfactory review at the completion of the FEIN and the approving jurisdiction approves the development/GPA, concerned parties have ten days to express their dissatisfaction with the EIR by initiating legal action to redress their grievances. While legal action is an undesirable and wasteful outcome to this process, it is perhaps naive to believe that any "conflict resolution" process will eliminate all lawsuits. In all likelihood,the Authority's proposed General Plan Review process would result in challenges to the CCTA's jurisdiction, and involve the Authority as a party to the litigation. Additionally, a concerned jurisdiction, RTPC, agency or individual could cite the approval of the development/GPA in the face of well-founded issues as a consideration in awarding return-to-source funds when the CCTA reviews the approving jurisdiction's Annual Compliance Checklist. At this point, the Authority is appropriately acting as arbiter of local jurisdictions' participation and compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management program, exactly as provided for in Measure C. In this process, the primary involvement of the CCTA occurs at the review of the Annual Growth Management Compliance Checklist. It is my opinion that this is the role defined for the Authority in the Measure C Growth Management program. This structure avoids the Authority casting itself in the role of land use"superagency",and becoming involved in inherently political disputes between local jurisdictions over individual project approvals. The power granted to the Authority by Measure C is primarily the discretion to grant or withhold return-to-source monies on the basis of the Authority's evaluation of jurisdictions'performance relative to Growth Management objectives and standards. To become involved in the detailed review and "conflict resolution" of disputes over individual projects is a policy which is dangerous for the credibility of the Authority, and is probably beyond the scope of the powers granted pursuant to Measure C. To serve as "facilitator" of discussions between jurisdictions in a conflict resolution setting is an appropriate role for the Authority,to function as "judge-and-jury" on a project-by-project basis does not appear to be the role intended by the language of Measure C. To conclude, I would suggest that CCTA seriously consider recognition of the CEQA process applied by local jurisdictions, as currently in use throughout the County, as its primary forum for input and comment to individual development proposals or GPAs. There is not within this suggestion which would preclude individual jurisdictions,RTPCs or agencies from initiating separate "meet-and- confer" conflict resolution processes to attempt to address potential disputes short of the Courthouse or the CCTA Annual Checklist review. It is my opinion that the CEQA framework offers the best venue for the review of General Plan Amendments on an individual basis, without adding unreasonable delays to an already cumbersome planning process. I will urge my fellow Transportation Authority members to consider and adopt this concept as an alternative to the parallel, duplicative process which has been under consideration by CCTA. Sincerely, Hermann Welm Mayors'Conference Representative to CCTA cc: Bob McCleary, Executive Director, CCTA Contra Costa County Mayors Contra Costa Transportation Authority Commissioners Contra Costa City Managers Bud Lake, Executive Director, Contra Costa Council cp �i.� ir > c O H G u p L_ U aS f ° s �42 C-Dill NO Q fi't`L t o W s � v o� = T -C7 V �3 _ c d • $ c o - - Y o.s -- f At oz o 3 opo _ a� ov E �.o c Z ' C .................... j ou u y DI-HP yZg ise3 —� .......................................................................................................... - REVIEW 1 G�� v ° H I Z V W (V. W Q 1 0�- W ODJi UM\ UJ I °° Ofes - 1 �b ° i �N Cie ! Ny V1DO CL 1! ! SS3JQdd lVJ3l 31` LUNI ! b137O11S3 o d 113d I m W d3w 3nss1 o H ^' W W > W Q 1 E W o dW i .� hods v Wv H C '3134 of -s1N3WWo:) — *' --------- I a U . 'd13a 3nss1 LU C i O a Oa. W I W 0 � I Cie CLNOI1VSVd3Sd �d'ON Ol S.LN3WWO:) --� -----_ I JO 30110N doN 3nss1 Cf � o Z z N W. O 4 IVSOdO-dd. } U 1— UU :3 UC. zo 1:)3PO'*dd cIJ o a ? "Good Faith" Participation in the General Plan Review Process "The overall goal of the Growth Management Program is to achieve a cooperative process for Growth Management on a Countywide basis, while maintaining local authority over land use decisions..."' The Contra Costa Council, the Building Industry Association, the Contra Costa Association of Realtors, the Coalition of Labor and Business, the Contra Costa Taxpayer's Association, and the Central Labor Council have put forth a proposal that would encourage interagency cooperation in the review of all land use proposals, not just General Plan amendments as with the Authority proposal. All parties seem to agree that one of the major outstanding issues facing the Authority is how to evaluate "good faith"participation in the Measure C Growth Management Program in general and the General Plan Review process in particular. Under the proposal put forth by the Coalition, the Authority, during it's review of the Growth Management Compliance checklists, would make a finding as to each agencies "good faith"participation in the program. On issues associated with the review of proposed general plan amendments,the coalition suggests the Authority focus on evaluating each agencies overall"good faith" participation in the program. The goal would be to encourage "cooperative planning" - not to judge actions with respect to specific projects.and/or the"adequacy"of proposed mitigations on individual projects. The coalition would suggest consideration of the following as"guidelines"when making findings of"good faith"participation in the Measure.0 Growth Management Program: 1. Analysis - Was the Countywide (or Regional) traffic model used to evaluate projects with the potential to impact.Routes of Regional Significance? 2. Evaluation - Were impacts to Routes of Regional Significance identified and appropriate mitigations.defined? 3. Notification - Were all affected agencies properly notified? 4. Meet and Confer-Did the Agency meet and confer with neighboring jurisdictions, RTPC's and others who expressed interest in and/or concerns about proposed projects? 5. Responsiveness to concerns/comments - Did the Agency agree to evaluate specific concerns and project impacts? Were they responsive and did they attempt to resolve and work out issues and concerns? 6. Notice of intent-For projects where impacts to a Route of Regional Significance could not be avoided, did the agency issue a"Notice of Intent", conduct a properly noticed public hearing and adopt a statement of overriding consideration? ' Measure C Expenditure Plan,page 9 a .a - 3� CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS, RESOLUTION 95-07-G. SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The Authority approved circulation of a draft Conflict Resolution Process on March 16, 1995, for review by local jurisdictions and the Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPCs). Comments were due by April 17, 1995. The Draft Process was revised and recirculated with the Second Draft Countywide Plan which was transmitted to all interested parties letter dated May 1995. fiThe Authority's adoti n of the process provides a framework for jurisdictions, regional committees; and the Authority to work together to seek consensus on growth management issues. RECOMMENDATION: That the Authority adopt Resolution 95-07-G, which constitutes adoption of the Conflict Resolution Process. FISCAL iMPI,ICATIONS:.N/A OPTIONS: Some comments have been received on the Conflict Resolution process which may be considered as potential revisions. See Commissioner Welm's letter, the letter from the City of Hercules, and the letter from Lafayette, for example. ATTACHMENTS; . • Summary of comments and responses prior to receipt of June 28, 1995 comments. • Resolution 95-07-G. • Draft Conflict Resolution Process. • See additional comment letters received as of June 28, 1995 (included elsewhere in the packet under the Countywide Plan item), some of which comment on the Conflict Resolution process -- note in particular letters from Hermann Welm, City of;Hercules, and City of Lafayette. BACKGRn TN e 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 a:ccta0719.95\item2-3.mre Page 1 a.3 � ( CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 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 with comments due on April 17. A revised process which responded to a number of these comments was circulated on May 25, along with the Second Draft of the Countywide Plan. Comments on the revised process were due on June 28, 1995. Based on a quick review of the letters received in June, it appears that the revised Conflict Resolution process has met most of the concerns raised earlier. Application of the process should be examined in light of Commissioner Welm's proposal for integrating the General Plan Amendment Review process with the CEQA process, if that alternative is chosen. Other suggestions included Hercules concern that conflicts should be resolved at the RTPC, rather than at the Authority, level,and that Conflict Resolution should occur within the time frame of the CEQA process. process.reconnnends discussion of the proposed process in light of the comments received, suggesi as appropiiatte, and adoption of the A< eezf a:ccta0719.95\item2-3.mre Page 2 CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 (The following text has been added since the PGA meeting) The Draft Conflict Resolution Process was circulated twice for review and comment. The fust version of the process was distributed on March 16, 1995, with comments due by April 17, 1995. Comments received as of April 17, 1995 were incorporated as appropriate, and the Authority reissued the Draft Conflict Resolution Process.to all interested parties by transmittal letter dated May 25, 1995. Those letters are as follows: 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 Comments on the revised Process were due by June 28, 1995. These comments were discussed at the July 5,, 1995,..PGA meeting, and staff was directed to forward the Process to the Authority for adoption with appropriate revisions. Below is a listing of individuals and organizations that commented on the revised Conflict Resolution process: 1. Gwen Regalia, TRANSPAC Chair June 5, 1995 2. Beth Bartke City of Hercules June 28, 1995 a:ccta0719.95\item2-3.mre; Page 3 • a.3 -3 CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 3. Jeff Smith, Supervisor Contra Costa County June 27, 1995 4. Gayle B. Uilkema City of Lafayette June 27, 1995 5. William Hill City of Brentwood June 26, 1995 6. Bud Lake Contra Costa Council June 28, 1995 7. James Farah City of Richmond June 28, 1995 8. Hermann Welm t Mayor's ConferenceA&§Mg June 27, 1995 Copies of these letters are included in separate attachments, along with other comment letters received on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The primary issues, discussion, and responses are summarized on the following pages. a:ccta0719.95Vtem2-3.mre Page 4 CCTA PGA CONDUTTEE July 19, 1995 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1. C'ONMIENT: Process Initiation: The County had suggested in a previous letter (undated, received April 5, 1995) that a two-thirds majority vote of an RTPC be required to initiate the conflict resolution process. The City of Lafayette stated in its most recent comment letter that it opposes this proposal, feels strongly that a single jurisdiction should be able to initiate the process,,and.that no revisions should be made to the process initiation section of the Conflict Resolution Process. At the-PGA meeting, Commissioner Payton also questioned whether the process permitted two jurisdictions to enter into the conflict resolution process by mutual consent, without RTPC or Authority involvement. DISCUSSION: The current proposal requires that a jurisdiction obtain a majority vote from.its RTPC to enter into the process. If the RTPC votes against initiating the conflict, the jurisdiction may appeal to the Authority, and seek a majority vote from that body. In response to Commissioner Payton's comment, nothing in the process precludes jurisdictions from seeking to resolve their differences independently from the Authority's Conflict Resolution Process, either through voluntary negotiations, a formal conflict resolution process, or by pursuing legal avenues. NO RF.VTSTONS ARF PROPOSED 2. COMMENT: .The County recommends that the Authority not impose the "good faith" requirement until it finds a "method to measure" good faith as partof the compliance checklist. Compliance should not be determined arbitrarily or politically. DISCUSSION: The County's letter includes a listing of potential findings that a jurisdiction would make if no agreement is reached on Action Plan changes that would accommodate a proposed general plan amendment. A similar approach has evolved at-the Authority into the development of "Sample Tests" for measuring "good faith" participation (see previous_Agenda Item 2.2 - Adoption of General Plan Amendment Review Process). The "sample tests" would be incorporated into the Authority's Growth Management Compliance Checklist, and.the Authorityy would look to the "sample tests" to evaluate a jurisdiction's good-faith participation in the Conflict Resolution Process. , NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED a:ccta0719.951item2-3.mre Page 5 CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19; 1995 3. COMMENT: Process tim lin The City of Brentwood, the City of Hercules, Commissioner Welm, and TRANSPAC have all submitted written comments that the Conflict Resolution Process should include clearly identified timelines limited to the timelines associated with the normal CEQA review process. DISCUSSION: Previous discussions at the PGA Committee meetings have led to the conclusion that once entered into, the Conflict Resolution Process would almost certainly take longer to conclude than the minimum CEQA timeline, which allows 55 days for comment on a DEIR and certification of the Final EIR. However, it was noted that: (1) early identification of potential conflicts and,corresponding early negotiations could avoid this problem; and (2) many EIRs extend well beyond the minimum time period for certification and subsequent project approval, providing additional opportunity for conflict resolution. The General Plan Amendment Review Process has been revised to reflect the possibility that a lead agency may maintain the CEQA schedule by certifying its General Plan FEIR, and approving the project where consensus has been reached. The Conflict Resolution Process does suggest the desired time frame for settlement sessions should take no longer than two months, though some disputes may require a longer time period (see Section 3.H of the Conflict Resolution Process). PROPOSED REVISION: See previous agenda Item 2.2 regarding General Plan Amendment Review Process, and revisions to flow chart. 4. COMMENT: Withholding Re ern- o-So ur funds:The City of Richmond was concerned that entering into the Conflict Resolution Process would result in the Authority withholding return-to-source funds from the involved jurisdictions. DISCUSSION: Entering into the Authority's Conflict Resolution Process does nat result in a withholding of return-to-source funds. This proposal was considered earlier and dropped from consideration. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED. 5. COMMENT: Public Participation: Precluding.public participation in the Conflict Resolution Process would be a violation of the Brown Act. The Process should be open to the public. a:ccta0719.95\item2-3.mre Page 6 CCTA PGA COMMITTEE, July 19, 1995 Comprehensive Transportation Plan dated April 26, 1995, comment 19-16). The draft response circulated by the Authority in May deferred addressing this issue pending further review by Authority legal counsel. Legal counsel has subsequently advised Mr. Armstrong by letter (dated May 18, 1995) that the conflict resolution deliberation need not be open to the public. Authority staff notes that the process does allow for public comment at the r following junctures (section references in parentheses refer to the attached revised Conflict Resolution Process dated July 10, 1995): a. When a jurisdiction initiates the Conflict Resolution Process, a majority vote from'the council or board would be taken at a public meeting of the council or board (see Section 1.A.1); b. The initiation process also requires a majority vote of the RTPC. This vote would be taken at a public meeting of the RTPC (see Section LA.2); c. Process initiation will be agendized and discussed at the Authority's Planning and Governmental Affairs (PGA) Committee meeting.(see Section I.C.4). d. The jurisdiction officially named in and responding to a Conflict Resolution Process initiation letter must prepare a response to the initiation letter. The response letter must be reviewed and approved by a majority .vote of the council or board at a public meeting (see Section LD.1.e). e. The Authority's situation assessment of the conflict will be agendized and presented to the Authority at a noticed Public Meeting (see Section II.A.). f: The general agenda for settlement sessions includes an opportunity for public comment (see Section III.B.7). g. Settlement Agreements will be agendized for discussion at an Authority meeting (see Section III:G.3.a). h. The involved parties may.solicit public comment on draft Settlement Agreements prior to.'adoption of such agreements (see Section I.E2.). a:ccta0719.95\item2-3.mre Page 7 a,3 -7 CCTA PGA COMMITTEE July 19, 1995 h. The involved parties may solicit public comment on draft Settlement Agreements prior to adoption of such agreements (see Section I.E.2.). PROPOSED REVISION: Insert the following language for Section I.E.2 of the Conflict Resolution Process: "Legal counsel has reviewed the issue of public participation and concluded that the Brown Act would not apply to Settlement Sessions involving local jurisdictions. Accordingly, public participation in those sessions would be optional. However, the involved parties may solicit public comment on a Draft Settlement Agreement prior to adopting the agreement." 6. COMMENT: Determining comnlianee through the Checklist, and mediation versus arbitration: The Contra Costa Council commented in its "Proposed Principles for Consideration [: The] Measure C Growth Management Program" that "The Conflict Resolution-Process should be used to resolve issues with respect to the Compliance Checklist and available for use, on a voluntary basis, to resolve issues identified through the project and General Plan review process. The process should be a mediation with no arbitrated decisions." DISCUSSION: Revisions to the General Plan Amendment Review Process reflect that a findings of compliance with the Growth Management Program would be made through the checklist process. The Authority would determine, through the Growth Management Compliance Checklist, whether a jurisdiction had entered into the Conflict Resolution Process, and whether that jurisdiction had shown good-faith participation based upon the proposed "sample tests.' This concept has been carried forward into the Conflict Resolution Process. With regard to mediation versus arbitration, the proposed Conflict Resolution Process is voluntary, and involves only facilitation or mediation, not arbitration (see definitions of these terms on Pages 2 and 3 of the proposed Conflict Resolution Process). PROPOSED REVISIONS: Section IV.C. of the Conflict Resolution Process has been revised to: 1) reference the "good faith" test that the Authority would apply as the standard for determining compliance with the Growth and Congestion Management Program; and 2) reflect that compliance would be determined through the Compliance Checklist. With these revisions, PGA recommends Authority adoption of the Conflict Resolution Process. a:ccta0719.95\item2-3.mre Page 8 RESOLUTION 95-07-G APPROVAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS IN (1) THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM & (2) THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1) WHEREAS, the Authority approved the concept of a Conflict Resolution Process in its Growth Management Implementation Documents, adopted in December, .1990, to address conflicts between jurisdictions; and 2) 'WHEREAS, CongestionManagement Program legislation requires the Authority, as Congestion Management Agency for Contra Costa, to have in place a conflict resolution process for disputes arising in implementation of that program; 1) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the,Authority hereby adopts the attached Conflict.Resolution process for addressing conflicts which may arise between jurisdictions in implementing the Growth Management Program and/or the Congestion Management Program. Julie Pierce, Chair This RESOLUTION was entered into at a meeting of the Contra•Costa Transportation Authority held July 19, 1995 in Walnut Creek, California Attest: Robert K. McCleary, Executive Director RESOLUTION 95-07-G APPROVAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS TO ADDRESS CONFLICTS IN (1) THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM & (2) THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1) WHEREAS, the Authority approved the concept of a Conflict Resolution Process in its Growth Management Implementation Documents, adopted in December, 1990, to address conflicts between jurisdictions; and 2) WHEREAS, Congestion Management Program legislation requires the Authority, as Congestion Management Agency for Contra Costa, to have in place a conflict resolution process for disputes arising in implementation of that program; 1) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Authority hereby adopts the attached Conflict Resolution process for addressing conflicts which may arise between jurisdictions in implementing the Growth Management Program and/or the Congestion Management Program. Julie Pierce, Chair This RESOLUTION was entered into at a meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority held July 19, 1995 in Walnut Creek, California Attest: Robert K. McCleary, Executive Director N TY � S�.RTATIU CAST A ��'RO�� corp' '' g oloo CC.�,1C't Ypg 06ylaos PR�.�SAL 199' � 3 . lI 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 19941 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 1 disputes may arise if one jurisdiction calls into question another jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management Program. Category 1 disputes may also arise if, after a jurisdiction has been found to be out of compliance, it wishes to have further discussions with the Authority, and possibly involve other jurisdictions or RTPCs. Category 2: Other Program Disputes: Disputes that are not directly related to compliance, but 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 Categor 2 disputes is voluntary on the part of allap rties. 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 determination of the local jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Programs. Occasional)—Category 2 disputes may eventually lead to a dispute which relates directly to compliance (Category 1). xcrinno4 Revised July 10, 1995 INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 2 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 differentafter 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) a:crh=o4 Revised July 10, 1995 o?.3 43 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Process Initiation . • Identify Parties • Recognize Issues • 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 -3_ c� 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."1 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. axrintro4 Revised July 10, 1995 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. CCTA 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 %nitiatiom 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 language 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 axroutM Revised July 10, 1995 a .3 -�� 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 g i P 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. 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. Legal counsel has reviewed the issue of public participation and concluded that the Brown Act would not apply to Settlement Sessions involving local jurisdictions. Accordingly, public participation in those sessions would be optional. However, the involved parties.may=solicit public comment on a Draft Settlement Agreement prior to adopting the agreement. 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 axr=14 Revised July,10, 1995 a,3-�7 OUTLINE OF OCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 7 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. B. TIMING 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 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 parry 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 parry professional shall assist at subsequent sessions. axroutK Revised July 10, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 8 D. PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. "Steps for Consensus Building" included in-the Implementation Documents (pp. DM-2 to DM-4) 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 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 .l 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. asrou& Revised July 10, 1995 , a.3-�� OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 9 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 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 a:croud4 Revised July 10, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 10 jurisdiction has demonstrated "good faith" in the process. Tae. lhflt :;:!: > i3:> >::>::::g£44 . Jl:::<::< SEsGhiXt��#Gtt� i�R l M i Qugh its: c�patl�n and s# fherern as the standard >detez W. : o .::........................... :ra.:.... % e:::..:.. :the: r .: z-: t�... ..: itaa ea€ e .;Pzt� iis< :::::::::::::::::.:::::::: ....: ::..:;•:..:::::: ' uthY: >: : se Qf ood fa�€th; :fence Gfl . € nce1th: 1e 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 axroud4 Revised July 10, 1995