The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07191994 - 1.59 1 .58 through 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 19,1994, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No, 1.58 LETTER dated June 27, 1994, from Col. Jay R. Vargas, Director, State Department of Veterans Affairs, P.O. Box 942895, Sacramento 94295, advising of an award of $58,973 to the County Veterans Service Office for fiscal year 1993-94 for the quantity and high quality of services provided by the County Office to its veteran community. ***ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT 1.5,9 LETTERS dated July 9, 1994, from D. Ritchey, Mayor of the Town of Danville, 510 LaGonda Way, Danville 94526, and R. Galbreath, 10 Ray Court,' Danville 94526, regarding the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission. ***ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT 1.60 LETTER dated July 11, 1994, from C. Glynn, Orinda Fire Protection District, 33 Orinda Way, Orinda 94563, supporting Acting Chief Allen Little for appointment as permanent Fire Chief of the Merit Districts in Contra Costa County. ***REFERRED TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1.61 LETTER dated July 5, 1994, from E. Bamert, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Amador County, 42-A Summit Street, Jackson 95642, urging this Board to support Senate Joint Resolution 44. ***REFERRED TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR I hereby certify that this is a true and correcteMof an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Su on t date AMMO. QR PHIL BAT EL CIer�C of the Board of Supmvisors an Gtounry Administrator 8y ,00" 'CC: Correspondents County Administrator ROBERT V. GALBREATH 10 RAV COURT • DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 July , 19ECE1�'E® N Supervisor Gayle Bishop District Three JUL 12 1994 Contra Costa County Board Of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . CONTRA COSTA CO. Re: San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Dear Ms. Bishop: This is to support your effort to convince the Board of Supery eons thlat it is in the hest interest of the County in general, and present and future residents of San Ramon Valley in particular, not only to retain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, but also to restore to it the jurisdiction assigned at `its inception. The services and experience of the Regional Commissions are valuable resources which the Board should fully utilize, not eliminate, in these times of limited funds and increased planning workload. I assume there has been no allegation that 'the SRVRPC has not properly carried out its duties, and that it has in fact demonstrated dedication and ability in serving the County and area 'residents Certainly; the County-will not save money by adding to the present burden of' the County Planning Commission the functions now so ably performed by the SRVRPC. Moreover, the matter of control of County planning by the Board of Supervisors cannot be an issue, as actions of the Regional Commissions are subject to Board review. In a time when involvement by citizens in the affairs of government should be encouraged and all possible measures should be taken to increase public confidence in elected officials, it is difficult to see any legitimate purpose that will be served by eliminating the Commissions. On the contrary, it seems clear that such a step would be counterproductive to the best interest of the County. T. trust the Board of Supervisors ultimately will conclude that the proposed action. would be ' ill. advised.. . Very truly yours, cc: � Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors --- DArivII,� July 7, 1994 RECEIVED JUL l I 1 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA CO57A CO. Mr. Tom Powers, Chairperson Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Dear Mr. Powers: The Town of Danville has learned that the Board of Supervisors may be considering the elimination of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as one means of balancing the County's Community Development Department budget for 1994-95. Danville requests that the Board make whatever efforts are necessary to maintain the Regional Planning Commission. While no one envies the task which lies ahead of your Board in working to balance your budget for 1994-95,elimination of the Regional Planning Commission would have an insignificant impact upon the County's overall budget. More significantly, elimination of the Commission would eliminate effective local representation for tin;nrorpnrated areas within the valley as well as the cities of Danville and San Ramon. Given the level of development activity which could still occur in the valley, a Regional Commission is a much preferred alternative to a central county commission. In the interest of providing ample opportunity for meaningful public input on local issues, we hope you share this view. 510 La Gonda Way Danville,California 94526-1722 (510)820-6337 �M Mr. Torn Powers July 7, 1994 Page Two Please consider retention of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as the most effective way of permitting representation on planning issues for your constituents in the San Ramon Valley. Sincerely, Town of.Danville Don Ritchey Mayor DR:rf cc: Town Council � . E)9_ ROBERT V. GALBREATH 10 RAV COURT DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526 July 17, 1994 :r The Editor RECEIVE® San Ramon Valley Times P. 0. Box 68 JUL 19 199M Danville, CA 94526 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Re: San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Elimination Dear Sir: The precipitous action by the Board of Supervisors to abolish the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission raises questions that the Board should answer publicly. Two massive development projects, and others ,that, are not insignificant, are imminent in Region. Many critical issues that will: impact the future of the Valley and. the County for 'a long time must be ` addressed'. Thoughtful planning . is. required,, with input from the entire community: `'' This seems' `to be 'precisely the wrong- time .to do away with the- SRVRPC. - unless there are`' some' reasons that the rest of us are .`not ,aware -of, in which. case, they should be explained. The best interests of the County in general, and present and future residents of the Valley in particular, would seem to require not only that the Commission be retained, but that the jurisdiction assigned to it at .its inception be reinstated. The experience and services of the regional commissions are valuable resources which the County Planning Commission and' the Board ,of_ Supervisors should fully utilize, not eliminate, at a time when the workload is increasing and County funds remain limited. No clear reason has been given as to why the Supervisors took this actiond There is no allegation that the San Ramon' Valley Planning Commission has not properly carried out its duties. On. the contrary, it appears . the Commission has demonstrated dedication and ability in serving the County and the .area residents. -If Supervisors .believe otherwise they should so state :and provide 'spec1fics The" statement by the Chair man" of . the County , Planning Commission, a developer, that the` Commission ,"dragged its feet and has cost his company money when reviewing. his projects, " as reported in the Times, is not a proper reason to transfer review of such projects to the County Planning Commission, which he chairs. It is the function of the Planning Commissions to promote the interests of the County and its residents - not to save developers time or money. The only reason given by Supervisors for eliminating the Regional Commissions is that some unnamed amount of money will be saved. This seems questionable. Will adding the functions performed by the SRVRPC (without compensation) to the burden of the County Planning Commission be offset by a saving of staff travel expenses? What about the cost (and inconve,nience). to valley residents that would result from requiring them to travel to Martinez to air their views? That would assure less participation by the public - is that what the Supervisors want? In any case, the expected savings should be itemized and quantified. The concern cannot be that the Board of Supervisors will lose or has lost control of County planning. All actions of the planning commissions, including the SRVRPC are subject to ' review by the Board of Supervisors in any case. Is it that Supervisors do not want the development review process to be burdened with views of planners and citizens that differ from theirs? In a time when involvement by citizens in the affairs of government should be encouraged and all possible measures should be taken to increase public confidence in elected officials, it is difficult to see any legitimate purpose that would be served by eliminating the Commissions, and many factors indicate that such a step would not be in the long term interest of the County. This is to respectfully request the Board of Supervisors - to answer the above and other questions that will clarify their reasons for the action. It is hoped that in so doing they will conclude that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission should not be abolished. Very truly yours, cc: " Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors