Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04041995 - TC.2 TC 2- Contra Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS " Costa FROM: Transportation Committee County DATE: March 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Report on CCTA Draft Conflict Resolution Process SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1: Authorize the Chair to sign a letter to the Regional Transportation Planning Committees and the Contra - Costa Transportation Authority (see Exhibit A) transmitting comments on the Draft Conflict Resolution Process and requesting that the Authority extend the comment period for the Conflict Resolution Process an additional 30 days to allow an opportunity for further review by local jurisdictions; 2 . Direct County Counsel to review the draft Conflict Resolution Process and report back toithe Transportation Committee; and 3 . Authorize the . Transportation Committee to initiate discussions with the Town of Danville to resolve outstanding transportation planning issues for Routes of Regional Significance in that area. FISCAL IMPACT None directly. If the County is a party to a dispute that is referred to this process, the County would be required to provide appropriate staff support or help fund any outside professional services. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On March 15, 1995, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (Authority) circulated a draft conflict resolution process for review by local agencies and CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE ! HER /ON SIGNATURE(S) : e zth Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON April 4, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER All persons desiring to speak were heard, the Board APPROVED the recommendations as set forth above. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: I,II,IV, V NOES: III ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT:_- ABSTAIN: - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED April 4, 1995 Contact Person, Steven Goetz, 646-2134 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF cc: CDD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PWD AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY CCTA's Draft Conflict Resolution Process March 28, 1995 Page Two BACKGROUNDJREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (continued) requested receipt of comments by the close of business on April 5, 1995. TheAuthority prepared this draft in response to the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requirements and the Congestion Management Program. The Growth Management Program's conflict resolution requirement is described in the Authority's Growth Management Implementation Documents, adopted in December* 1990. Development of the Growth Management Program relies on consensus decision-making. "In cases where consensus has not been reached, within a Regional " Committee, among committees, or among individual jurisdictions, the Authority will offer a conflict resolution process. It will be concerned exclusively with determining what local , actions are considered to be in conformance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program. " , The Congestion Management Program statute requires all Congestion Management Agencies (e.g. the Authority) , "to establish a conflict resolution process for addressing conflicts or disputes between local jurisdictions in meeting the multi-jurisdictional deficiency plan responsibilities. " The Committee reviewed the draft conflict resolution process. Revisions are proposed in Exhibit A and are summarized as follows: 1. The process can be used not only for disputes related to compliance with the Growth Management Program (GMP) and Congestion Management Program (CMP) , referred to as "Category 111, .but also for what are referred to as "Category 2" disputes. Category 2 disputes are defined as "Disputes that are impediments to effective implementation of GMP or CMP programs, including disputes arising during preparation of Deficiency Plans. " Category 2 needs further criteria to ensure that peripheral disputes are not brought to the Authority. The process should emphasize that Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. 2 . Any jurisdiction can initiate the conflict resolution process by a simple majority vote. This is a radical departure from consensus decision-making. At a minimum, the RTPC should agree that the dispute is ripe for the conflict-resolution process. As an indication of confidence, a two-thirds vote by the RTPC or the Authority should be required to initiate the conflict resolution process. 3 . The responsible party requesting initiation of the process should be required to identify the appropriate regulatory or procedural requirement that justifies bringing the dispute to the Authority. Furthermore, the Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for their conflict resolution process. 4 . The process should be open to the public. S. , The Settlement Process for Category 2 disputes should acknowledge that, in some cases, the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. 6. Any party to the dispute should, be allowed to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process prior to the Authority acting on a request to initiate the process. Since the process may precede possible judicial remedies, the Committee recommends that County Counsel review this draft and the Committee's comments. This review may not occur before the Authority considers the conflict resolution process at their April 19th meeting. Additional time should be allowed for jurisdictions to consult with their attorneys on the draft. Statements have been made at Authority meetings that this process may be applied to the conflict between the County and the Town of Danville over the Dougherty Valley Settlement Agreement, and possibly the Tri Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plan. The Board may consider if a less formal resolution is possible. The Transportation Committee requests authorization to initiate discussions with the Town of Danville to resolve outstanding transportation planning issues on Regional Routes in that area. EXHIBIT A Regional Transportation Planning Committees Contra Costa Transportation Authority Re: Draft Conflict Resolution Process Dear The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's (Authority) draft conflict resolution process and requests that you consider the revisions described on the attachment. Most of these proposed revisions address the Board's concern that the process, as currently drafted, has the potential to be abused by a jurisdiction pursuing issues that are not germane to the Authority's mission under the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management statute. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. Category 2 is very broad and needs further criteria to ensure that only disputed relating to the statutory powers of the CCTA may be subject to the conflict resolution procedure. 2. The responsible party requesting initiation of the process should be required to identify the appropriate regulatory or procedural requirement that justifies bringing the dispute to the Authority. 3. The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for their conflict resolution process. 4. The conflict resolution process should only be initiated through an RTPC or by the Authority, and should require a two-thirds vote of the initiating body. 5. Any party to a dispute should be allowed to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process prior to the Authority acting on a request to initiate the process. 6. The process should be open to the public. 7. The process should emphasize that Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a finding of non-compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. 8. The Settlement Process for Category 2 disputes should acknowledge that, in some cases, the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. Since the conflict resolution process may precede judicial remedies, the Board has requested the County Counsel to review this draft. To allow this further review to occur, the Board requests that the Authority extend the comment period on the process for an additional 30 days. (the following paragraph will be included in the letter to the CCTA) Statements have been made at Authority meetings that the conflict resolution process may be applied to the conflict between the County and the Town of Danville regarding reaching a consensus on the Action Plan for Regional Routes shared by these two jurisdictions. To determine if less formal resolution is possible, the Board has authorized its Transportation Committee to initiate discussions with the Town of Danville. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. Sincerely, Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisors attachment DRAFT CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS Approved for Circulation on March 15, 1995 Contra Costa Transportation Authority INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 1 1. OVERVIEW CCTA's Growth Management Program envisions a high level of cooperation and coordination among local jurisdictions and between localities and the Authority. Similarly, the State's Congestion Management Program requirements, especially the amendments added in 1994, assume successful cooperation among local agencies. Both the CCTA and the State recognize the potential for conflicts to arise in implementation of these programs. These materials outline the CCTA's conflict resolution process. Their intent is be helpful, by creating a useable, flexible process without being overly rigid. The four-step process is summarized on the following page, and described in greater detail in the accompanying outline. 2. TYPES OF DISPUTES The conflict resolution process will be used in two types of disputes, as follows: Category 1: Compliance Disputes These disputes relate directly to compliance with the requirements of either the CCTA Growth Management Program or the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. The most significant characteristic of Category 1 disputes is that the CCTA will be the final arbiter, since the Authority has an obligation under the rules of both programs to determine compliance. Category 2: Other Program Disputes -- - - �664-16-1-ing disputes arising during preparation of Deficiency Plans, are Category 2 disputes. Use of the conflict resolution process for such may be inititated voluntarily by the parties involved, or in response to initiation by the CCTA. Settlements will be made by the parties directly involved. Though the CCTA has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations. or af$ec.,+ a i cc.bt comp iaoce, w i-Fk +Kie, Gro .* M&V%U ,%eA'& Pr C5 re4nn Br Cavwte5'�-i�n �x� rn erg�-- pronm m b:intrO Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Processg Initiation . tdevrti�y 6Ds,s -fir process i�,i�p-i�-P-►�o» • Identify Parties • Recognize Issues • Initiate Situation Assessment Situation Assessment • Establish Facts of ConfliIt e- ppacess, • Make Recomendations for Process • Prepare Situation Assessment Memo Settlement Sessions • Present Concerns • Agree on Facts • Propose Resolutions • Negotiate Solutions process • Draft Settlement Agreement ,,o Make Compliance Determination Implementation and.Monitoring • Use Settlement Agreement or Compliance Determination 1995 Contra Costa Congestion Management Program INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 3 3. TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION SERVICES In some cases, conflict resolution professionals will be retained to assist in the conflict resolution process. Several different techniques may be used in the process. The three most common types of conflict resolution assistance are facilitation, mediation and arbitration. These are defined below. Facilitation and mediation are likely to be the types of services used in the CCTA conflict resolution process. Facilitation Facilitation offers groups assistance in holding productive meetings. A conflict is not usually the focus of the meeting, and facilitation does not ordinarily focus on resolving disputes. However, facilitation can be particularly useful in helping a group stay focused and productive when difficult and controversial issues are being discussed. A facilitator is "an impartial process guide who is responsible for managing the discussion so that parties can focus their attention on substantive issues and achieving their goals." (Carpenter and Kennedy, Managing Public Disputes, p. 107). Mediation Mediation is negotiation in which the parties to a conflict are aided by an impartial third party brought in by mutual agreement. The mediator has no stake in the outcome of the mediation. He or she may work only with parties together, or may also meet with parties individually in caucuses. A mediator assists parties in reaching agreement without imposing a settlement -- the settlement is derived from and agreed to by all parties. "A mediator performs functions and carries out tasks that move people into negotiation, in circumstances that make it difficult for them to do so for themselves. However, third parties introduce another element that is less tangible yet can be a major asset to people needing help in solving their problems. When a third party enters a dispute, people expect things to change. They expect the character of their negotiations to be different after a mediator arrives. Because change and a new direction are essential to interrupt the spiral of conflict, this expectation can be a powerful aid to moving ahead and seeking new options." (ibid., p. 193) b:i ntrO Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 1 I. PROCESS INITIATION A. ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN INITIATE THE PROCESS 2. RTPC A majority vote of the RTPC is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process. 3. CCTA two -t�,i rds A majority vote of the Authority is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process. B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF INITIATING PARTY DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Send an "initiation letter" to the CCTA (or, if the CCTA is initiating the conflict resolution process, prepare a staff report) with I Je +i-hl bass -GDr pr oss3. 'sni%Aon 6#-1 c 4inj a. description of the dispute appl'c&ble, CMA S+a+oie or tavqu L iH .J . b. list of issues needing resolution Measure C orcuy'ance or lmpiXa�,'m Dacimm4s g Jus�a•iN'JAA uie, o+ e.crA Process. c. names of parties to the dispute that shoul e involvdd in resolution d. names of individual(s) representing the initiating party as contact person and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) e. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals f. confirmation that the initiating party had a majority vote approving initiation of the process 2. Initiating party may request pre-initiation meeting with CCTA and/or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process CRESPONSIBILITIES OF CCTA DURING PROCESS INITIATION C2.4. Distribute copies of initiation letter with relevant background information to all other parties Assign task of situation assessment to CCTA staff or appropriate consultant Follow-up with all parties to insure that responses to the initiation letter are being prepared Schedule discussion of process initiation on PGA agenda Accept or reAec+- request+ ci+ivapptic,-Nlole CPt1At or lavt9uA9� 0 +6e We&50m G orcliviance or BMJPIewTeD�1I� ¢3 �v1 d7ocivvwwi-> suQpor+ihq +tne. �-TX 5 dem+rw►i n��-i ate. J a:outine3 Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 4 Arbitration Arbitration is the submission of a dispute to a disinterested person for final and binding resolution. The arbitrator makes the final decision for the parties involved. Arbitration is more formal than facilitation and mediation. While arbitration is well-established and procedures well-developed, experience with arbitration has centered on the areas of labor- management relations and commercial disputes. Inter jurisdictional disputes have unique qualities and there is not an arbitration process established for dealing with them. Accordingly, arbitration is not envisioned to be used by CCTA as a type of conflict resolution process. 4. PRINCIPLES OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS The Implementation Documents include the following three principles which pertain to Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program: a. Resolution of conflicts, and decision-making on a consensus basis at the regional level is encouraged b.. Where Regional Committees are unable to resolve disputes, the CCTA will make a determination based on statements by the parties involved. When determining compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, the CCTA will look for evidence of good faith effort by localities, including evaluation of alternative proposals, to address the problems at issue. C. 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. b:intro Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA March 16, 1995 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 2 D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER PARTIES DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Officially respond to initiation letter with a letter to CCTA indicating a. understanding of dispute b. issues needing resolution (if any) c. individuals representing the organization as contact persons and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) d. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals e. confirmation that the response letter has been reviewed and approved by a majority vote of the policy council or board E. INITIATION BY PRIVATE PARTIES OR OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES Private parties or other public agencies cannot initiate the conflict resolution process directly, but they can re uest that a local jurisdiction, RTPC or the CCTA initiate the process -F. o+1-er par-t;es rro request � pre-S;4-v&K un assessmen+ rrmaArq wig cc� oe o+her �par+e5 +0 dP_$ermltie. if II. SITUATION ASSESSMENT lessw+al `reioiu-I-to► Its possible., ar �-v cl2ri bAly olves+le,ns "abov+ Y'"014-rhos emc:s , A. SITUATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS An individual appointed by the CCTA (may be a staff member or appropriate consultant) will review initiation letter and response(s), then meet separately with the parties involved. After any necessary follow-up to collect additional information, he or she will write a brief Situation Assessment Memo for distribution to all parties and the CCTA. C-C-TA well aprovz. 44e— S4vaieyl A-ss-essmeA4 memo z,+a r%o"ce A Podeli c. Ve�q e B. TIMING `1 Situation Assessment should generally be completed within a month of CCTA receipt of parties' response(s) to the initiation letter C. CONTENTS OF SITUATION ASSESSMENT MEMO 1. List of issues to be resolved whei-kw �pu'te. ',s eV,-5i bile, ' or-4*- CCM co^fii e� rr�sd�4,'®n 2. Recommendation regardingchether or not to use conflict resolution professionals P^oMssi 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 a:out inO Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 3 4. Recommendation regarding who will participate in the settlement sessions, based on parties' preferences III. SETTLEMENT SESSIONS AND AGREEMENTS A. ALL PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT SESSIONS B. GENERAL AGENDA FOR SETTLEMENT SESSIONS 1. Present the parties' concerns and constraints 2. Gain agreement about the facts of a dispute 3. Draft Principles of Agreement as basis for proposals 4. Devise proposals for resolving conflicts 5. Test potential proposals for likelihood of success 6. Negotiate commitments to be made by each party in a settlement agreement ?. Pvblic. cvmmerr . 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. D. PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. "Steps for Consensus Building" included in the Implementation Documents (pp. DM 2 to DM4) may be useful in structuring settlement sessions E. COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS . 1. Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program The language of Measure C and the Implementation Documents published by the CCTA will be the primary references for defining local obligations. The Implementation Documents 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. d% - S?0 P-5 smell rnt+. be. a basis ¢vr- z c-amplicbncc de{ V-rn iv)4+#M w% 1n -Hn-e, G MK+tn M. nz rjA-I- Pmffa.►m or "es-4-iems, xout i=3 Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA March 16, 1995 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 4 F. PARTICIPATION 1. All parties to the dispute will participate. Other parties representing private or public organizations may participate if all parties to the dispute agree to their participation. 2. The parties' participants in the settlement sessions shall be limited to consultants, attorneys, staff or officials of parties to the dispute. Participants will be responsible for continual communication with other representatives of their organization who are not directly participating, and for helping to ratify settlement agreements. 3. The CCTA will be a participant in all Category 1 settlement sessions. G. PRODUCT: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. The parties can determine the form of the settlement agreement, which may be a Memorandum of Understanding, resolution or formal agreement. Whatever the form, all settlement agreements must be signed by all directly involved parties. 2. For Category 1 disputes, the Settlement Agreement will indicate what actions are necessary in order for the locality to be determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management and/or Congestion Management Program. The CCTA's corresponding responsibility will be to make a finding of conformance if the Agreement is implemented. The Settlement Agreement will specify an implementation schedule if relevant. 3. For Category 2 disputes, if the CCTA is not a participant in the Settlement Meetings, the Settlement Agreement will establish responsibility for submittal of a copy of the Settlement Report to CCTA. a. CCTA will recognize receipt of the Settlement Agreement by agendizing it for discussion at a public meeting b. If CCTA has comments regarding the outcome of the conflict resolution process, CCTA may transmit a comment letter as follow up to its review of the Settlement Agreement H. DESIRED TIME FRAME 1. An estimated time frame for settlement sessions will be established during situation assessment. Settlement sessions will desirably occur over a period of not more than two months, though some disputes may require a longer time period. 2. Category 1 disputes CCTA will establish deadlines for compliance determinations for each Category 1 dispute. a:ou4ine3 Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 5 3. Category 2 disputes A draft Settlement Agreement would be submitted to jurisdictions/RTPCs for approval at the end of the period. lrN sorne cases/ +k- , Se+1emeh+ A9fee.wiew+. rvn-j he•sl m pl ck eci s i cm 'b -��a�n i n��e, +lne. pro cess a,,4 l e,�,Ue. +tip, IV. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING d l s' v+-P— 'C-or recons',dey-a+j gv() 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 party's representative attended and fully participated in situation assessment and settlement meetings. V. SELECTING AND PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A. SELECTING OUTSIDE PROFESSIONALS 1. CCTA responsibilities and participation. a. CCTA will issue an RFQ for Conflict Resolution Services and use the responses to create a list of facilitators and mediators qualified to provide assistance to parties in the dispute resolution process. b. CCTA will participate in determining the kind of assistance required and in selecting a third party professional from the list at the conclusion of Situation Assessment. a:outinO Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA March 16, 1995 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 6 2. Parties' responsibilities and participation a. One representative from each party will participate on a panel which includes a CCTA representative in order to determine the kind of assistance required. and to select a professional to assist in conflict resolution. If the panel cannot reach a decision, the Authority will decide, taking the panel's comments into account B. PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES 1.' Where the CCTA is party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by the CCTA and each of the parties. 2. Where the CCTA is not party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by each of the involved parties. 3. Jurisdictions may use 18% funds to pay for conflict resolution services. VI. OTHER TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION A. Participation in the CCTA conflict resolution process does not preclude the possibility of seeking judicial remedies or using other conflict resolution techniques a:outGnB Approved for circulation by CCTA on March 15, 1995 Phil The Board of Supervisors Contra lerkBaheBolard and County Administration BuildingQ St County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Tom Powers,1 st District Jeff Smith,2nd District aE• S'";r•.,o„ Gayle Bishop,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Tom Torlakson,5th District ci, rS ' nOrTgl COVk� � Cathie Kosel, Chair West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) One Alavarado Square San Pablo, CA 94806 Re: Draft Conflict Resolution Process Dear Cathie Kosel, The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's(Authority)draft conflict resolution process and requests you consider the revisions described on the attachment. Most of these proposed revisions address the Board's concern that the process, as currently drafted, has the potential to be abused by a jurisdiction pursuing issues that are not germane to the Authority's mission under the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management statute. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. Category 2 is very broad and needs further criteria to ensure that only disputed relating to the statutory powers of the CCTA may be subject to the conflict resolution procedure. 2. The conflict resolution process should only be initiated through an RTPC or by the Authority, and should require a two-thirds vote of the initiating body. 3. The responsible party requesting initiation of the process should be required to identify the appropriate regulatory or procedural requirement that justifies bringing the dispute to the Authority. 4. Any party to a dispute should be allowed to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process prior to the Authority acting on a request to initiate the process. 5. The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for their conflict resolution process. 6. The process should be open to the public. 7. The process should emphasize that Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a finding of non- compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. 8. The Settlement Process for Category 2 disputes should acknowledge that, in some cases,the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. Since the conflict resolution process may precede judicial remedies, the Board has requested the County .Counsel to review this draft. To allow this further review to occur, the Board requests that the Authority extend the comment period on the process for an additional 30 days. Since the conflict resolution process may precede judicial remedies, the Board has requested the County Counsel to review this draft. To allow this further review to occur, the Board requests that the Authority extend the! comment period on the process for an additional 30 days. (the following paragraph will be included in the letter to the CCTA) Statements have been made at Authority meetings that the conflict resolution process may be applied to the conflict between the County and the Town of Danville regarding reaching a consensus on the Action Plan for Regional Routes shared by these two jurisdictions. To determine if less formal resolution is possible, the Board has authorized its Transportation Committee to initiate discussions with the Town of Danville. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. Si9cerely, C���"�" Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisor attachment Phil The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk ooffthe Board Costa and CountyAdministration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Tom Powers,1 st District 5 c Jeff Smith,2nd District .*E•_•; y,_--o�, Gayle Bishop,3rd District =_ Mark DeSeulnier,4th District Tom Torlakson,5th District ;= r9 EOUN� Barbara Guise, Chair TRANSPLAN Committee c/o Contra Costa County Community Development Department Administration Bldg. 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Draft Conflict Resolution Process Dear Barbara Guise, The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's(Authority)draft conflict resolution process and requests you consider the revisions described on the attachment. Most of these proposed revisions address the Board's concern that the process, as currently drafted, has the potential to be abused by a jurisdiction pursuing issues that are not germane to.the Authority's mission under the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management statute. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. Category 2 is very broad and needs further criteria to ensure that only disputed relating to the statutory powers of the CCTA may be subject to the conflict resolution procedure. 2. The conflict resolution process should only be initiated through an RTPC or by the Authority, and should require a two-thirds vote of the initiating body. 3. The responsible party requesting initiation of the process should be required to identify the appropriate regulatory or procedural requirement that justifies bringing the dispute to the Authority. 4. Any party to a dispute should be allowed to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process prior to the Authority acting on a request to initiate the process. 5. The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for their conflict resolution process. 6. The process should be open to the public. 7. The process should emphasize that Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a finding of non- compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. 8. The Settlement Process for Category 2 disputes should acknowledge that, in some cases,the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. (the following paragraph will be included in the letter to the CCTA) Statements have been made at Authority meetings that the conflict resolution process may be applied to the conflict between the County and the Town of Danville regarding reaching a consensus on the Action Plan for Regional Routes shared by these two jurisdictions. To determine if less formal resolution is possible, the Board has authorized its Transportation Committee to initiate discussions with the Town of Danville. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. Sincerely, 114 ` Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisor attachment Phil The Board of Supervisors Contra lerkooffthe Board and County Administration BuildingCosta County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez, California 94553-1293 County Tom Powers,1st District Jeff Smith,2nd District a�• 5" o Gayle Bishop,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Tom Torlakson,5th District P• ;:x", oa C�. ,•fit• rr`t COVN'� Gwen Regalia, Chair TRANSPAC 100 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Re: Draft Conflict Resolution Process Dear Gwen Regalia, The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's(Authority)draft conflict resolution process and requests you consider the revisions described on the attachment. Most of these proposed revisions address the Board's concern that the process, as currently drafted, has the potential to be abused by a jurisdiction pursuing issues that are not germane to the Authority's mission under the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management statute. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. Category 2 is very broad and needs further criteria to ensure that only disputed relating to the statutory powers of the CCTA may be subject to the conflict resolution procedure. 2. The conflict resolution process should only be initiated through an RTPC or by the Authority, and should require a two-thirds vote of the initiating body. 3. The responsible party requesting initiation of the process should be required to identify the appropriate regulatory or procedural requirement that justifies bringing the dispute to the Authority. 4. Any party to a dispute should be allowed to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process prior to the Authority acting on a request to initiate the process. 5. The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for their conflict resolution process. 6. The process should be open to the public. 7. The process should emphasize that Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a finding of non- compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. 8. The Settlement Process for Category 2 disputes should acknowledge that, in some cases,the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. Since the conflict resolution process may precede judicial remedies, the Board has requested the County Counsel to review this draft. To allow this further review to occur, the Board requests that the Authority extend the comment period on the process for an additional 30 days. (the following paragraph will be included in the letter to the CCTA) Statements have been made at Authority meetings that the conflict resolution process may be applied to the conflict between the County and the Town of Danville regarding reaching a consensus on the Action Plan for Regional Routes shared by these two jurisdictions. To determine if less formal resolution is possible, the Board has authorized its Transportation Committee to initiate discussions with the Town of Danville. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. Sincerely, O Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisor attachment Phil The Board of Supervisors Contra Clerk ooffthe Board and County Administration BuildingCosta County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (510)646-2371 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County Jim Rogers,1 st District Jeff Smith,2nd District Gayle Bishop,3rd District Mark DeSaulnler,4th District .' :,�' `1`'•,. Tom Torlakson,5th District Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Blvd., Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Re: Draft Conflict Resolution Process Dear Julie Pierce, The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's(Authority)draft conflict resolution process and requests you consider the revisions described on the attachment. Most of these proposed revisions address the Board's concern that the process, as currently drafted, has the potential to be abused by a jurisdiction pursuing issues that are not germane to the Authority's mission under the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management statute. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. Category 2 is very broad and needs further criteria to ensure that only disputed relating to the statutory powers of the CCTA may be subject to the conflict resolution procedure. 2. The conflict resolution process should only be initiated through an RTPC or by the Authority, and should require a two-thirds vote of the initiating body. 3. The responsible party requesting initiation of the process should be required to identify the appropriate regulatory or procedural requirement that justifies bringing the dispute to the Authority. 4. Any party to a dispute should be allowed to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process prior to the Authority acting on a request to initiate the process. 5. The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for their conflict resolution process. 6. The process should be open to the public. 7. The process should emphasize that Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a finding of non- compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. 8. The Settlement Process for Category 2 disputes should acknowledge that, in some cases,the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. Since the conflict resolution process may precede judicial remedies, the Board has requested the County Counsel to review this draft. To allow this further review to occur, the Board requests that the Authority extend the comment period on the process for an additional 30 days. (the following paragraph will be included in the letter to the CCTA) Statements have been made at Authority meetings that the conflict resolution process may be applied to the conflict between the County and the Town of Danville regarding reaching a consensus on the Action Plan for Regional Routes shared by these two jurisdictions. To determine if less formal resolution is possible, the Board has authorized its Transportation Committee to initiate discussions with the Town of Danville. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important document. Sincerely, Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisor attachment