HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09211993 - IO.1 ^µ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa
.04
$-
DATE: September 13, 1993 cGTrq------ * County.
SUBJECT: REPORT ON STANDARDIZED COMMENTS FOR SUBMISSION BY THE COUNTY'
ON SPECIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
SPECIFIC REGUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)d BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. REQUEST the Director, GMEDA, to incorporate those of the
changes suggested by the cities which, in his judgment, are
° appropriate to incorporate into the draft 21st Century
Conditions of Approval for.presentation to other jurisdictions
when the other jurisdiction is considering comments on
development applications and present the final package to the
Board of Supervisors on the Determination Calendar on .
September 28, 1993 for the Board' s further consideration.
2 . REQUEST the -Director,_ GMEDA, to include in his report the
recommended;--threshold at which the proposed Conditions of
Approval would '' be - forwarded to the city/town for its
consideration and at what point a more in depth analysis
should be completed.
3 . REQUEST the Director, GMEDA, to revise the County' s standard
Conditions of Approval to incorporate the 21st Century
Conditions of Approval as they are_ approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
4 . REMOVE this item as a referral to our Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF.COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—APPROVEOTH
SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK JEFF SMITH
SIGNATURE 5:
ACTION OF BOARD ON Sept emher 21, 1 9 9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
The Board also requested the Director of Growth Management and Economic Development
to finalize the comments and present them to the Board on September 28, 1993.at 11:00 A.M.
f
I
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED September 21, 1993
Director, GMEDA PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Community Development Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
M382 (10/88) BY. DEPUTY
BACKGROUND:
On May 4, 1993, the Board of Supervisors approved a number of
recommendations from our Committee related, to the preparation of
standardized comments for submission by the County on specified
development applications in other jurisdictions . These
recommendations included seeking comments from the development
community and the cities. The Director, GMEDA was asked to report
back to our Committee with the results of the comments submitted by
various elements of the development community and the cities/towns .
Our Committee met with Val Alexeeff, Dennis Barry and Debbie
Drennan on September 13, 1993, and reviewed the attached report on
the comments which have been received. We are in general agreement
with the comments of staff. It is our suggestion that the final
standardized Conditions of Approval be forwarded to each city/town
on any development application which would generate 100 or more
peak commute hour trips and that a more in depth series of comments
be submitted to the other jurisdiction on any development
application which would generate 500 or more peak commute hour
trips . Of course, these 21st Century Conditions of Approval must
also be incorporated into the County' s own Conditions of Approval
in the form in which they are approved by the Board of Supervisors .
Mr. Alexeeff has indicated that he can be prepared to return the
final Conditions of Approval to the Board of Supervisors on
September 28, 1993 . It is our hope that the Board of Supervisors
will approve them at that time for implementation effective October
1, 1993 .
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TO: Board of Supervisors, DATE: August 3, 1993
InternalOperations o, mi ee
I
FROM: Val Alexeeff, Direc r
By: Debbie Aime
SUBJECT: Responses to 21 st Century Conditions of Approval
The attached document includes responses from the various parties ranging from neighboring
cities and developers to the County's "21st Century Conditions of Approval". Staff has
divided the document into four parts:
I. Responder's Concept of the "21st Century Conditions of Approval";
II. Specific Issues Raised by the Responders;
Ili. Recommendation from the Responders; and
IV. Staff Recommendations.
1
I. Responder's Concept of the Draft "Conditions for a 21st Century Community".
Richmond
► The city feels the intent of the document is to "supplant locally prepared and
adopted General Plans, and erode the local decision making authority.
Kaufman & Broad
► Conditions appear to be a "wish list" by the County.
Delta-Diablo Sanitation District
► No comments on the document.
City of Concord
► All future development should be limited to urbanized incorporated areas only.
► The conditions would "add regional cost to the development, and make
communities in Contra Costa County less competitive than outside counties and
states.
► The conditions are useful as a model in developing community plans.
Richland Development Corporation
► The corporation was uncertain as to intent of document. "Is the County
suggesting that all cities and towns in the County adopt these policies and
conditions of approval?"
II. Specific Issues Raised by Responders.
City of Richmond
► The city feels the document intends to "reverse the [Transportation] Authority's
efforts and seize control of development-related decisions through the County."
Staff Response
The County does not intend to supplant authority. Conditions of Approval
throughout the County vary as do perceptions of appropriate development.
There is a need to examine conditions of approval to determine if they
adequately address emerging issues of traffic, energy and water conservation.
► Implementation of this document would give the County a "more effective rate
in guiding development by prohibiting urban levels of development outside
2
cities' limits.
Kaufman & Broad
► Implementation of the conditions would increase the cost of developing in the
County, which will increase home prices.
► Electrical outlet in garages for electric cars is premature.
Staff Response
The house of 1950 differs from the house of 1970 which differs from the house of
1990. The units must evolve. Developers are encouraged to provide input and
information.
Citation Homes
► Integrated Transportation Systems - How does developer "cooperate with TDM
programs?"
Staff Response
The developers cooperation with the TDM is essentially compliance with the
program which is approved for each individual subdivision„ the TDM ordinance
and Measure C.
► What size project will require Park & Ride lots?
Staff Response
Park and ride lots may be required on subdivisions with as few as 100 units.
The determination for a park and ride lot depends on the impacts generated by
the proposed development.
► Water - What will be the source of non-potable water?
Staff Response
Currently, a source of non-potable water for South County is proposed by
Dublin-San Ramon Service District. Potential sources and providers could be
Contra Costa Central Sanitary District, Contra Costa Water District and East
Bay Municipal Utility District. Further opportunities should be investigated
including cooling tower water from industrial projects and other similar uses.
Sources and uses of reclaimed water will need coordination.
► Police - Why should development in a city fund the Sheriff's Department and
Justice Services?
3
Staff Response
The County Justice Service includes jails, protective services, courts and
personnel that are used by cities for trials and other activities.
► Fire - Should every Fire District impose a fire fee?
Staff Response "
The circumstances for imposing a fee or other mitigation will vary from district
to district and from project to project.
► Schools - General'Plan and Zoning designation cannot be based on availability
of adequate school facilities. New schools have to be planned.
Staff Response
Without adequate schools to support development, homebuyers become
outraged at local government. The BIA has taken a leadership role in planning,
timing and funding schools in a cooperative process.
► Community Facilities - The requirement to fund libraries and senior centers will
add to the cost of housing.
Staff Response
We support a general policy for funding public facilities.
► Affordable Housing - Developers cannot afford to do inclusionary housing.
Staff Response
Without affordable housing, transportation cost become prohibitive.
City of Concord
► The city is currently revising its General Plan, implementation of these
conditions would require modification to the work completed to date on the
General Plan.
Staff Response
These are issues related to implementation of growth management
considerations. Concord must decided where these issues are worthwhile and
should be pursued.
Richland Development Corporation
4
► Bicycle routes are over-emphasized.
► Developments should not carry the extra costs to develop dual water systems,
since it would not be a financial burden to the water purveyor.
► Development of schools, community facilities, and construction of turn-key
parks, are all additional costs which would increase the cost of housing to the
home buyer.
Staff Response
The question of.what should the new homebuyer be entitled to needs to be
debated.
III. Recommendation from Responders
City of Richmond
► Refer document to the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee
► Extend comment period to September 15, 1993.
► Refer document to County developer associates for comment.
Kaufman & Broad
► Conditions should be severely streamlined, these are not conditions for 100 unit
projects.
Staff Response
Scale of development is a relevant consideration.
Crockett Improvement Association
► Elaborate on policies 1 and 4 under Design Characteristics.
► Add a condition that requires creation of jobs in direct proportion to the number
of dwelling units built.
► The document is highly generic and should be more substantive if it is to serve
a real purpose.
Staff Response
There is a balance between too specific and too generic we are seeking.
City of Clayton
5
► Policy #3 within the open space and trails section should,,be modified to state:
Identify and preserve major ridgelines.
► Policy #8 within the design characteristics section should be modified to define
prominent ridges which should be preserved as those visible from roadways,
parks, and developed areas.
Staff Response
The term "major" needs improved definition.
► Policy #9 would be improved if a specific maximum slope percentage was
stated (i.e. 26% or 40%).
► Conditions of Approval #1 within the design characteristics section could be
improved by stating that manufactured slopes should not exceed a grade of
2:1 .
Staff Response
Slope considerations vary with setting.
► Condition of Approval #8 could also be improved by specifying a minimum
height difference of 25' between the top of any structure and the top of a
ridgeline or knoll to insure the necessary visual space to preserve this feature.
Staff Response
If these conditions are directed to the Moita structure, it should be clear that
individual homes on individual lots are ministerial without design review.
► Condition of Approval #10 might be improved by specifying that roads may be
reduced to a width of 20' when they provide access to limited areas (up to 8
homes).
City of Concord
Police:
1 . The policy ought to distinguish between priority 1 and priority 2 calls. It
currently sets a response time goal of five minutes for "priority 1 or 2 calls."
While they are not defined here, priority 1 call are normally emergencies which
involve a threat to life and priority 2 call are urgent and involve in-progress
crimes. Most jurisdictions have different response time goals for those different
priorities. Five minutes is however, an appropriate response time goal for
emergency calls.
2. The response time goal, however, is "exclusive of dispatch time." In my
6
, 1
opinion, this is not an appropriate exclusion since one of the major functions of
dispatch time is the availability of units to which the call can be assigned. If
the purpose of the policy is to provide appropriate resources to deal with police
needs, it doesn't make sense to exclude dispatch time as a part of the policy
for response time goal.
3. The conditions of approval require the project proponent to mitigate impacts of
the development and cites an example of "funding for additional personnel."
In most cases, you can't force developers to fund ongoing operating expenses
in a developmental fee. The tax base acquired from a new developer is
supposed to do that. Usually, all developers can be required to provide funding
to support infrastructural improvements.
Fire:
1 . Again, policy is nebulous about what the response time goal is since it says, "4
to 5 minutes." The most appropriate goal for Fire/EMS response time is 4
minutes.
2. Under c.onditions of approval, there is a requirement to locate fire stations
within one and one-half miles of developments. This is an ancient standard in
the fire service that became obsolete with technological advancements such as
Opticom which improves fire engine response time by controlling signal lights.
Response time is a function of traffic and street layouts, not just radius from
the fire station.
3. The plan also makes no mention of the use of other fire suppression technology
such as sprinkler systems which can assist in fire suppression and make up for
other response time inadequacies.
Richland Development Corporation
► Housing densities should be set which will permit transportation systems to be
economically feasible. Business centers should be centralized and easily
accessible.
► Design Characteristics
1) Item No. 6 - change to: The project proponents shall ensure that
buildings, roads or structures (including water tanks) which might
interrupt the ridgelines be placed such that the ridgelines remain as the
major visual element.
2) Item No. 8 should be changed in a similar manner.
3) Item No. 11 . . . the 100 feet must be a typo. That is an excessive
setback.
7
► These policies and conditions should apply to 1 ,000 acres or more of
developable property.
IV. Staff Recommendations.
The comments provided range from vague to detailed. A common recommendation for
the document was for it to be more substantive and not so generic, however, no
further comments were provided as to what section or sections should be modified.
The detailed recommendations provide by the City of Clayton would require more
analysis on a project by project basis for their applicability. A number of the City's
recommendations in regards to preservation of ridgelines are included in the County
General Plan.
The recommendations from the City of Concord on police and fire service should be
incorporated in the "21st Century Conditions of Approval".
DJA/cw
...\shkgrowth.mem
8
xsr,
- � 2� -
.,
J U L 8 199
Porended 1Q5Ittcorporatec71964 Cr2 c
� ,wG. 0
Telephones P.O. BOX 280 CLAYTON,CALIFORNIA 94517
CITY HALL (510) 672-3622 TELEPHONE (510)672-3622 City Council
COMMUNITY WILLIAM R.WALCUTT,Mayor
DEVELOPMENT (510) 672-6690 PETER A.LAURENCE,Vice Mayor
ENGINEERING (510) 672-9700
ROBERT C.KENDALL
GREGORY J.MANNING
JULIE K. PIERCE
July 7, 1993
Val Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
SUBJECT: COMMENTS REGARDING 21ST CENTURY CONDITIONS
Dear Val,
Thank you for sending me a draft copy of the county's "Conditions for a 21st
century Community". I have reviewed the draft and offer the following
comments regarding the open space and trails, and design characteristics
sections:
o Policy #3 within the open space and trails section should be modified
to state: Identify and preserve major ridgelines.
0 Policy #8 within the design characteristics section should be
modified to define prominent ridges which should be preserved as those
visible from roadways, parks, and developed areas.
0 Policy #9 would be improved if a specific maximum slope percentage
was stated (i.e. 26% or 40%) .
0 Conditions of Approval #1 within the design characteristics section
could be improved by stating that manufactured slopes should not exceed
a grade of 2:1.
o condition of Approval #8 could also be improved by specifying a
minimum height difference of 25, between the top of any structure and
the top of a ridgeline or knoll to insure the necessary visual space to
preserve this feature.
0 Condition of Approval #10 might be improved by specifying that roads
may be reduced to a width of 20, when they provide access to limited
areas (up to 8 homes) .
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with you concerning these
items. If you have any questions or need further information, please call me
at (510) 672-6690.
Sin erely,
Randall Hatch Community Development Director
RH/lc
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
June 16, 1993
TO: Steve Jepson, Assistant City Manager, '
FROM: Michael R. Maehler, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: COUNTY PLANS FOR 21ST CENTURY CITY ti
At your request, I have reviewed the attached document entitled
"Conditions for a 21st Century Community. " For information only,
I would provide the following comments.
Police:
1. The policy ought to distinguish between priority 1 and prior-
ity 2 calls. It currently sets a response time goal of five
minutes for "priority 1 or 2 calls. " While they are not
defined here, priority 1 calls are normally emergencies which
involve a threat to life and priority 2 calls are urgent and
involve in-progress crimes. Most jurisdictions have different
response time goals for those different priorities. Five
minutes is, however, an appropriate response time goal for
emergency calls.
2. The response time goal, however, is "exclusive of dispatch
time. " In my opinion, this is not an appropriate exclusion
since one of the major functions of dispatch time is the
availability of units to which the call can be assigned. If
the purpose of the policy is to provide appropriate resources
to deal with police needs, it doesn't make sense to exclude
dispatch time as a part of the policy for response time goal.
3. The conditions of approval require the project proponent to
mitigate impacts of the development and cites an example of
"funding for additional personnel. " in most cases, you can't
force developers to fund ongoing operating expenses in a
developmental fee. The tax base acquired from a new developer
is supposed to do that. Usually, all developers can be
required to provide funding to support infrastructural
improvements.
Since I happen to know something about fire management, I also took
a look at the fire section and provide the following comments on
that section.
Memorandum to Steve Jepson Page Two
June 16, 1993
Fire:
1. Again, policy' is nebulous about what the response time goal is
since it says, 114 to 5 minutes. " The most appropriate goal
for Fire/EMS response time is 4 minutes. There is plenty of
documentation to back up that goal but it is too lengthy to go
into here.
2. Under conditions of approval, there is a requirement to locate
fire stations within one and one-half miles of developments.
This is an ancient standard in the fire service that became
obsolete with technological advancements such as Opticom which
improves fire engine response time by controlling signal
lights. Response time is a function of traffic and street
layouts, not just radius from the fire station.
3 . The plan also makes no mention of the use of other fire
suppression technology such as sprinkler systems which can
assist in fire suppression and make up for other response time
inadequacies. This should be explored as part of the plan.
This is a summary of just a few things that I see. on first reading.
If you need more information, please contact me.
MM:ms
attachment
CITY OF CONCORD CITY COF��.
1950 Parkside Drive,MS/01
Concord,California 94519-2575 Nancy C:r¢t' �A{=✓ '
F,v: {510) 798-0636 rl� e .Ulmer,Vice N(h r J
ByI on Campbell rL
Col n In"C'e
{iOFFrce of Tne CITY MnN,+cERraLlc
Telephone: (510) 671-3150 ConcordFarlp(Ort,City Nbriager
June 24, 1993
Mr. Val Alexeef, Growth Management and
Economic Development Director
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, N. Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Val:
In response to your memo of June 1, 1993 regarding the Draft "Cdfiditzons:for a 21st Century
Community," we have circulated this document for staff review and offer several comments of
a general nature listed below. In addition, some relevant comments from our Police Chief are
attached directed towards safety services and response standards.
General Comments
We are a little bewildered as to why the County is examining 21st Century Community
Development. It is highly recommended that all future development be limited to urbanized
incorporated areas only. Pragmatically, we understand that the competition for tax dollars
between jurisdictions will continue to set the near term development patterns.
The City of Concord is presently revisiting its General Plan. All elements of that Plan are
consistent with Measure C Growth Control practices. However, we would have to modify work
conducted to date to conform with the proposed County policies.
Many of the proposed conditions of approval in the proposed document are useful as a model.
However, cities will tailor conditions of approval to meet their individual needs. Many of the
conditions listed for development would add regional cost and make communities in Contra
Costa less competitive than outside counties and states.
Val Alexeef
June 24, 1993
Page 2
In summary, the document you have prepared is a good model for assistance purposes in
developing community plans. However,local jurisdictions will want to customize this proposal
to match local conditions. I hope these comments are of some value to you.
_
Be s re ards
Steven R. Jepsen
Assistant City Manager
SRJ:jiu
Attachments
cc: Dave Golick, Chief of Planning
Chief Michael Maehler
;L�� to .
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
OFFICE AND TREATMENT PLANT: 2500 PITTSBURG-ANTIOCH HIGHWAY,ANTIOCH,CA 94509
TELEPHONE: (510) 778-4040 ADMIN. FAX: (510) 778-8513 ENG. FAX: (510) 706-7156 MAINT. FAX: (510) 778-8565
RECEIVED
C r.'':% CQSTA COUNTY
J U L 13 1993
^.^Eili NNID
0f
v�� E:1T AGEPCY
July 12, 1993
Mr. Val Alexeef, Director
Contra Costa County Growth Management
and Economic Development Agency
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF 21ST CENTURY CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Alexeef:
In response to your request dated June 1, 1993, we have reviewed the proposed conditions for
the 21st Century Community. The District has no comments on the proposed conditions.
Vetru yrs, ,11 j
eD
Technical Services Manager
MDA:ds
cc: Paul H. Causey, General Manager/District Engineer
A political subdivision of the State of California.Provides Wastewater Treatment services to the citizens of Antioch,Pittsburg,and West Pittsburg.
Kaufman and Broad of Northern California, Inc. Kaufman Broad
6379.Clark Avenue - P.O. Box 2755 ONITRA COSTA
Dublin, California 94568
Tel: (510)829-4500 Fax: (510)829-0947 90' JUL 19 PH 3: 34
July 15, 1993 W-11"M61 Y
DEVELOPMENT DEPT -
J
J U L 2 3
Mr. Val Alexeeff
Director of Planning .......
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
2nd Floor - North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: 21st Century Conditions
Dear Val:
I have received a copy of the draft conditions for a 21st Century Community from the BIA. My
understanding is that the purpose of this document is to prepare standardized policies and conditions
of approval which the County could share with other jurisdictions in an effort to encourage other
jurisdictions to condition - developments in such a way to be consistent with the provisions of
Measure "C".
After reading these proposed conditions, I have mixed reactions. Many of the conditions are
common sense and should be at the least discussed at the plan review stage. These conditions would
pertain to such items as stream bank setbacks, grading and site plan designs to maximize visual
integrity, and adequate services.
On the other hand, many of the conditions appear to be a"wish list" from every imaginal local, state
and regional agency. Granted, if all were implemented or possible we would have near perfect
development in Contra Costa County. However, items such as transit, telecommunications wiring
of all homes,solar heating, senior centers,new fire equipment,books for libraries,widening of roads,
expressways, duel lines for wastewater reuse, etc. all equate to additional fees and/or costs. As you
are aware, Kaufman A Broad prides itself on building quality-affordable housing. Our reputation
in meeting this goal is well documented. Continued fee increases and building costs are making this
difficult to us and the entire building industry.
Many of the items proposed are the responsibility of all homeowners and not just the new home
buyer, and others are luxuries that may not or should not be imposed on new buyers at this point
of troubled economic times. It is not a secret that our industry is going through one of the most
difficult times in its history.
For example,presently fees in Oakley from final map recording to building permit are approximately
$26;000.--H-the-Delta Expressway fee being considered is instituted, the fee will be near $30,000.
Add to this many of the items discussed in your conditions and you will have extraordinarily high
fees. In addition, many of the conditions equate to building costs which further increases home
prices. I'm afraid that these conditions will halt building.
Mr. Val Alexeeff
Director of Planning
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
July 15, 1993
Page Two
The bottom line is that fees and additional costs need to be controlled and stopped, or building will
cease. The eighties are behind us and the days of skyrocketing housing values are gone for a long
time. We are finding all our buyers to be extremely price sensitive, where a differential of only a
few thousand dollars stops sales. The building industry has always been concerned with fee
increases. Unfortunately, the robust unusual housing market of the eighties made our cries sound
contrived. The days of passing on fee increases to buyers,however,may be over for a long time and
our cries will come to fruition.
Recently, Dave Corliss of Kaufman o Broad sent you, and the Supervisors,a letter voicing concern
on skyrocketing fees. Interfaced with the proposed 21st century conditions our concern has increased
tenfold. This may be the appropriate time to sponsor a round table discussion with builders,
Supervisors and County staff to brainstorm this serious problem.
In short, I recommend these conditions not be adopted or severely streamlined. They are designed
for new town development or urban renewal, not for 100 unit projects. In many cases, private
entrepreneurial incentive will provide items such as telecommunications wiring (i.e. fiber optics)
when the market is there,it doesn't need governmental intervention. This argument can be used on
many of the wishful programs being mandated to new buyers. Also, isn't adding an electrical outlet
in garages for electric car recharging just a little premature?
As always, we at Kaufman d Broad are willing to discuss, any and all, items with you and assist in
any way we can. Unless fees remain stable, I'm afraid that housing construction will be severely
hampered if not stopped priced out of the market. We hope to continue building in Contra Costa
County for many years. Help us continue.
Sincerely,
KAUFMAN A BROAD OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.
Darrell E. Bolognesi
Forward Planner
DEBImjp
Log#: F1725
Path: F:\F0Rl\WPD0CS\DARRELL\L205
cc* Reading File
Phil Batchelor
Board of Supervisors
��oveme��
w O
GJ (�
T , X!13 Crockett CA 94525
V
July 15, 1993
s''nce 1911
Mr. Val Al exeef P`'C,"'°10
Director, GMEDA �9
651 Pine Street JUL '� IS 0J,
Martinez , CA 94553
c
RE: 21st Century Conditions E, . J ULL•LrS
Dear Mr. Alexeef :
On behalf of the Crockett Improvement Association, the following
comments are forwarded in response to your invitation to review
the draft Conditions for a 21st Century Community.
In 1992, the C. I .A. published the Crockett Area Plan after two
years of effort and public review. This document already con-
tributes considerably to the body of public comment which should
be reviewed for applicability to your project . The Plan was
provided to the Community Development Dept. to assist communica-
tion between Crockett and the County on planning matters .
Whether a city is new or old, there is real value in promoting a
strong image which the community can take pride in. This creates
a sense of identity which in turn fosters economic and social
prosperity. Your Policies 1 and 4 under Design Characteristics
speak to this important goal . Elaboration of these points would
be beneficial .
Preservation of long views should' be an important policy, as it
is in the County General Plan (3-157) .
The creation of jobs in direct proportion to the number of
dwellings built is a condition of approval which has been
overlooked in the draft . County policies continue to lag behind
the need for real jobs/housing balance. If we are to progress,
the 21st Century City should certainly be more self-contained
than what has been designed and built in the 20th century.
The draft document is highly generic and should be more substan-
tive if it is to serve a real purpose. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment at this time.
Sincerer,
Ken 'Pe erson
Secretary, C. I .A.
1
•
W
A ONE
!I1. AW
FIMvw
.i JL
i/
i
t` i r ••. � rr . f
f � r
l �„ �.
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
OFFICE AND TREATMENT PLANT: 2500 PITTSBURG-ANTIOCH HIGHWAY,ANTIOCH, CA 94509
TELEPHONE: (510) 778-4040 ADMIN. FAX: (510) 778-8513 ENG. FAX: (510) 706-7156 MAINT. FAX: (510) 778-8565
RECEIVED
',O'TA COUNTY
J U L 13 1993
July 12, 1993 �L0P,J11LNT AGEb?CY
Mr. Val Alexeef, Director
Contra Costa County Growth Management
and Economic Development Agency
651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF 21ST CENTURY CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Alexeef:
In response to your request dated June 1, 1993, we have reviewed the proposed conditions for
the 21st Century Community. The District has no comments on the proposed conditions.
Verytru y rs,
e D.
Technical Services Manager
MDA:ds
cc: Paul H. Causey, General Manager/District Engineer
Apolitical subdivision of the State of California.Provides Wastewater Treatment services to the citizens of Antioch,Pittsburg,and West Pittsburg.
RECEIVED
RICHLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONM4TRA cO;TA COUNTY
2033 NORTH MAIN STREET J U L 2 8 1993
SUITE 530
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 QiD,YTH h1At1AGEMFNT AND
(510) 935-6710 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
July 22, 1993 FAX (510)935-6178
Mr. Guy Bjerke
Executive Director
Local Government Affairs
Building Industry Association
Re: Contra Costa County's 1121st Century
Conditions10
Dear Guy,
Thank you for an opportunity to comment on Contra Costa
County's proposed conditions for a 21st Century Community.
Obviously as new communities grow and develop infrastructure must
be in place and services available in order to maintain the quality
of life we all enjoy in Contra Costa County.
I was surprised of the suggestion that these draft policies
and conditions of approval of developments be shared with each city
and town in Contra Costa County. Historically I have seen little
evidence of cooperative efforts in establishing planning policies
to be shared by adjoining jurisdictions. I'm uncertain as to the
intent. Is the County suggesting that all cities and towns in
Contra Costa County adopt these policies and conditions of approval
or that the County review projects proposed in the cities or simply
that the County is requesting comments from the cities on these
draft policies and conditions?
My comments will correlate to the categories drafted:
PRINCIPLES FOR A 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY
I'm not certain that I understand the statement of providing
a balance of housing and economic development within a community.
Communities should include lands designated for business
development whether it be office, commercial, industrial or
manufacturing in addition to residential development where
appropriate for a jobs/housing balance.
A principle I believe important is to make transportation
systems as efficient as possible. Housing densities should be set
which will permit transportation systems to be economically.
feasible. Business centers should be centralized and easily
accessible.
• 9
Mr., Guy Bjerke, BIA
Page 2
Policies adopted should allow for timely project approval. We
should not have to wait till the 22nd Century to develop
communities needed in the 21st Century.
INTEGRATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Many of the policies noted deal with planning for the future
transit and transportation systems. If transit corridors have not
been adopted within a planning area for current development,
projects should not be held-up until regional transit routes are
adopted.
Bicycle routes are over-emphasized. Are we expecting
residents to ride bicycles to work, to the grocery store and to the
department store? Will land-use policies be adopted to encourage .
this?
An electric powered vehicle is a good idea for commuter
transportation or for a vehicle to transport one to the grocery
store; however to date, all I could find on the market is an
electric powered golf cart. I would not know what amount of
electrical power to supply for recharging electrical-powered
vehicles.
INTERNAL ROAD SYSTEM `.
No comment.
WATER
The majority of the Board of Directors of EBMUD are using the
limited storage capacity of water as a method to stop growth.
Consequently, they are not in favor of an aggressive program to
develop a recycled water distribution system. This authority
should be removed from EBMUD's jurisdiction. A master plan should
be developed for distribution of recycled water to new
developments.
Installing a dual water system would not be a financial burden
if the water was available. The recycled water should be
distributed to each private residential lot in major subdivisions
for use in both the front and rear yards. This may require a
change in the State's regulations and the time has come to do so.
A properly designed, installed and managed distribution and
irrigation system would not be a health hazard.
Developments should not carry the burden of extra costs for a
dual water supply system if the purveyor of water will not
cooperate.
Mr., Guy Bjerke, BIA
; Page 3
SANITARY SEWER
No comment
RECLAIMED WATER
See comments under WATER.
FLOOD CONTROL
My only comment is that the developer should have the option
of providing detention basins off-site if the situation warrants
such. The obligation would still be upon the developer.
POLICE
Property owners in newly developed communities will be paying
taxes based upon property values set at the time individual
properties are completed and occupied. This tax base will be
considerably higher than many property owners who are protected by
Proposition 13 . The basic County services should be paid for by
these increased taxes. New development should not subsidize
existing communities.
FIRE PROTECTION/EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICE RESPONSE
The costs for constructing fire stations and purchasing
equipment is a major undertaking, as well as the costs for
maintaining personnel. Methods of financing such is necessary to
avoid overburdening homeowners and businesses.
SCHOOLS
These "Conditions of approval" appear to be drafted for
situations where major acreage is under consideration for
development. Under the "Policies" , Item No.2 deals with land
costs.
For projects of lessor scale the school developer fees would
apply.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
These "Policy" statements are very broad and difficult to
quantify. A developer needs to know what costs are associated with
the total project.
Mr., Guy Bjerke, BIA
Page 4
PARKS
The issue is two-fold. Land and improvements. Obviously land
is required for any public park program and as new communities are
developed lands should be set-aside for parks. I do not support
the concept of a developer having to both dedicate land and pay for
improvements.
OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
The policy of providing substantial uninterrupted open space
elements is impossible to quantify. Possibly acreage standards
could be developed similar to park requirements. If a project is
contributing substantial open space elements, the developable
portion of the site should be properly rewarded.
DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS
These "Conditions of Approval" are excessively restrictive.
They need to be softened somewhat as an example:
Item No.6 - change to: The project proponents shall ensure
that buildings, roads or structures (including water tanks)
which might interrupt the ridgelines be placed such that the
AJ ridgelines remain as the major visual element.
Item No.8 should be changed in a similar manner.
Item No.11. . .the 100 feet must be a typo. That is an
excessive setback.
AFFORDABLE HOUSES
I support the need for affordable housing in all categories
listed. Placement of affordable units is very important.
Affordable units inter-mixed with market units will create a
disaster as has occurred in the past when such attempts have been
made.
The draft "Policies and Conditions of Approval" have addressed
an Integrated Transportation System, Internal Road System, Water,
Sanitary Sewer, Reclaimed Water, Flood Control, Police, Fire
Protection/Emergency Medical Service Response, Schools, Community
Facilities, Parks, Open Space and Trails and Design Characteristics
all of which establish very high standards. Who is going to pay
for all of this?. . . . .the consumer, mostly through the purchase of
a home. We as leaders within Contra Costa County should be looking
at the average individual or family's income and determine what
this resident or family can afford as a home and set policies such
Mr-, Guy Bjerke, BIA
Page 5 ,
that our residents can find housing we can afford. I take no
pleasure in setting standards so high that only the elite can look
forward to finding housing.
I would suggest that for a project to trigger this review, the
project size would be in the 1,000 acre of developable property
range.
Thank you, again, for an opportunity to comment. If I can be
of further help, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Merle D. Gilliland
MDG/fe
c.c. Val Alexeeff, Director