Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08111992 - 2.16 t - TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT t DATE: AUGUST 11, 1992 �asT� -;; County SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR PRAXIS DEVELOPMENT . SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RRECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS The Board needs to determine if it wishes to authorize a General Plan review requested by the Praxis Development Group. Such authorization shall only be effective when all applications have ceased with the City of Martinez. In authorizing a review, staff would proceed first with an EIR and later with a project staff report which will then be scheduled for public hearing before the County Planning Commission. Authorization does not imply concurrence with the plan amendment proposal, but only that the matter is appropriate to study. FISCAL IMPACT A General Plan Amendment fee will be paid to cover the cost of processing the amendment request. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Praxis Development Group (115 Cole Street, San Francisco, Ca. , 94117) has requested a General Plan Amendment for approximately 165 acres located north of Waterfront Road and west of the Walnut Creek Channel. . Their request is to change the designation from Open Space to Industrial. This site is within the Urban Limits Line. (ULL) This issue-was previously considered by the Board during the Countywide General Plan review effort. The Board determined to place the site within the ULL but to designate the land as Open Space. This left the issue of development up to the City of Martinez which was processing applications on this property. The applicant is still working on processing applications through Martinez. Should the Board wish to authorize this request, it should be made contingent upon the applicant concluding his processing with Martinez. The applicant has indicated be wishes to withdraw his application with Martinez and apply to the County. Processing concurrently with two jurisdictions would not be good public policy. A new environmental document would need to be prepare for to hearing the merit's of this application. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATU RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF ARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON August 11 , 199Z APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: I , III , V ;NOES: II , IV ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED August 11 , 1992 cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Department D CO TY ADMINISTRATOR Praxis Development (via CDD) JWC:sew BY , DEPUTY 1-jwc\sw\Praxis. ltr r Z� q '►� 74 th o N m � ........:::: r m N N CA -C p p 1 OO °2 rn . G1 1 f, o , o � 1L t i 2. 17 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 11, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Fanden ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Proposed Ratification of Modified San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 14 The Board received from County Counsel the report dated August 10, 1992, recommending that the Board ratify the provisions of San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 14 as modified by adoption of the proposed resolution submitted for consideration. Frank Lew, Director of Building Inspection, presented the position of his Department on this matter. Fort Hartsfield, Fire Marshal, San Ramon Valley Fire Protect District, 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, urged the Board to ratify Ordinance No. 14 exclusive of the modifications recommended by County Counsel. Supervisor Schroder requested that action on this matter be deferred to after the Closed Session to allow him further time to review the documentation submitted. Board members concurred. Later in the day, Supervisor Schroder directed the Board' s attention to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 14 and recommended that the Board approve the resolution prepared by County Counsel. Board members being in agreement, they then proceeded to adopt Resolution No. 92/576. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 11 , 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Fanden ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Ratification of ) Modified `,San Ramon ) RESOLUTION NO. 92/576 Valley Fire Protection ) (H.&S .C. § 13869 . 7 ) District Ordinance ) No. 14 ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Resolves That: The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District has requested that the Board of Supervisors consider and -take action concerning the application of its Ordinance No . 14 within the unincorporated portions of Contra Costa County contained with that District. After consideration of said Ordinance No. 14 and County staff reports and comments provided thereon, this Board Hereby takes action, finds, modifies and ratifies Ordinance No. 14 as follows : 1 . §2 . 102 (Modified) . Any rules and/or regulations adopted pursuant to this section as modified shall have no application to Contra Costa County ( "County" ) and its officers and employees unless such are specifically agreed to and approved by the Board of Supervisors ( "Board" ) . The District has no legal authority to prescribe the governmental discretion available to ,the. County and its officers and employees . 2 . §2 . 202 (Modified) . This section as modified does not mandate the performance or non-performance of any act by the County and its planning agency, officers and employees but County staffs are hereby directed to cooperate to the greatest reasonable extent (subject to applicable County and State rules and regulations ) with the District concerning the subjects 'of this section. 3 . §2 . 202 (c) , (Deleted). This section is deleted because the District has no legal authority to prescribe the governmental discretion of the County and its officers and employees and if implemented could subject the County to excessive monetary liability. 4 . §3 . 106 (Modified). Same as § 2 . 202 above. 5 . §10 . 301 (c) , Modified) . Same as §2 . 202 above. 6 . §§10 . 401 , 10 . 402 & 10 . 403 Modified . Same as §2 . 202 above . 7 . §10 . 507 "Required installations of automatic fire extinguishing systems " LModifiedJ. A. The introductory sentence of Section 10 . 507 is modified, to clarify its scope, to read: "To the extent allowed by Health and Safety Code sections 13143 and 13869 . 7 , Section 10 . 507 is amended in its entirety to read as follows . B. Residential Fire Sprinkler systems . In the case of any conflict between the provisions of any County regulations (now in force or as hereafter adopted) concerning or involving the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems and District Ordinance No. 14 ' s section 10 . 507 , the County' s regulations shall prevail . This modification retains the County' s ability to .require uniform regulations on this subject in the RESOLUTION NO. 92/576 unincorporated area. C. Declaration of county occupation. By this modification, should the County in any'' subsequent enactments in areas involving building codes and/or fire extinguishing systems requirements declare that those County enacted requirements are to prevail over and to the exclusion of any similar District Ordinance No . 14 regulations , the County regulations shall occupy regulation of the',' involved area( s ) and any provisions of Ordinance No. 14 involving the same area( s ) will be of no further force and effect in the unincorporated area. 8 . §XII (Modified). This section is modified to clarify that nothing in it shall prevent the County from legislating in and/or occupying an area of regulation as, hereinabove provided or otherwise allowed by law. This modification is made to retain the County's ability to require uniform unincorporated area regulations . 9 . Modified Ordinance Ratification. Ordinance No . 14 only as hereinabove modified is hereby ratified. In taking this action, the Board has not reviewed and passed upon the District' s related "Findings of Need" and the scope of the District' s Health and Safety Code regulatory authority. 10 . Board Clerk Duties . The Clerk of this Board (pursuant to Health & Saf . Code, § 13869 . 7 ) shall within 15 days of the adoption of this resolution provide a copy of it to the San Ramon Fire Protection District. In addition, the Clerk shall file copies of any District provided adopted findings and Ordinance No . 14 expressly marked and identified to which each finding refers (together with a copy of this resolution) with the California State Department of Housing and Community Development. Orig. Dept: cc: County Administrator I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of County Counsel an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Building I n s p e;c t i o n Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Community Development ATTESTED: _ // , /7`T GEMDA PHIL BATCIALOR,Clerk of the Board **San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist . of Supervisors and Coun4y Administrator By F1-,[ .._ -' Deputy **via County Administrator s, COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: August 10 , 1992 To: BOARD OF SUPERV1SORS From: Victor J. Westman, County Counselv� Re: Proposed Ratification of Modified San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Ordinance No . 14 RECOMMENDATIONS. It is recommended that the Board ratify the provisions of San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District No . 14 as modified by adoption of the attached County Counsel prepared resolution together with any further modifications the Board may wish at this time concerning its application . BACKGROUND Since January 1 , 1991 , whenever a fire district ( such as San Ramon) adopts ordinance regulations they are not effective within the jurisdictional boundaries of the unincorporated area of the County unless and until the Board of Supervisors "ratifies" the involved ordinance pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 13869 . 7 . The Board at its discretion may ratify Ordinance No. 14 as presented, modify it (as recommended by County Counsel ) , or deny ratification of it. Until the Board ratifies some version of the Ordinance No. 14 it, will not be effective in the unincorporated portions of San Ramon Fire Protection District . Concerning the proposed ratification of Ordinance No. 14 , it is recommended that the Board ratify it as modified in the attached draft resolution and subject to the following comments . COMMENTS . 1 . County Discretion. Most of the modifications proposed in the attached resolution will simply retain to the County its governmental discretion concerning various matters (e.g. , issuance of building permi`te�; approval of developments , street name and addressing, establishing building standards etc. ) . The District' s Ordinance No. 14 in a number of its provisions expressly (or by implication) proports to prescribe the County's legal discretion in a number of areas . The attached resolution' s modifications simply retain that County , discretion but otherwise direct County staffs to cooperate to the greatest reasonable extent possible with San Ramon concerning its ordinance' s provisions . 2 . Building structure fire extinguishing systems . In the proposed ordinance (and in particular, §§10 . 506 and 10 . 507 ) & number of requirements are established for fire extinguishing systems (fire sprinklers , etc . ) to be installed within buildings of all types (commercial, residential, etc . ) . It is not entirely clear at this date under California law (Health & Saf . §§ 13143 & 13869 . 7 ) , what the extent of authority is for fire districts to adopt provisions modifying or supplementing those of the State' s adopted uniform building and fire code requirements building standards . For example, in the ordinance' s section 10 . 507 a number of requirements are stated for fire sprinklers to be installed with. n residential structures even though there is no apparent express state statutory authority for such District action. For this reason, in the attached resolution' s section 7, it is provided that the District's regulations on this requirements must be as allowed by or implied from state' law. Also it is provided that should the County maintain or establish any new regulations in these areas, the County' s adopted ordinance provisions would prevail over and, in appropriate circumstances, fully replaced any similar District regulations . You may wish to hear further from your building official on this subject since there has been some concern that the County Ordinance Code alone should be< inclusive of certain building structural fire improvement requirements for the unincorporated area . 3 . Retained County Legal Authority. Because of the current uncertainty as to the scope of fire districts ' authority to regulate in some areas involving state adopted uniform building and related codes, in the attached resolution we have made provision for the County to (as noted above) exercise its authority, if necessary, to achieve uniformity in these areas (see resolution sections 7C, 8 and 9 ) . VJW:df cc : County Administrator Building Inspection GEMDA . San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist .