HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09271994 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I 'O.-1
�.......... °F Contra
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE �y Costa
FROM: ^.
County
September 19, 1994
DATE: ' 2`O r+ C.
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . DIRECT the Director, GMEDA to outline for our Committee a
possible option by which the Board of Supervisors could
reconfigure the size and membership of the County Planning
Commission in order to achieve the following goals :
• Insure that the special needs of local issues which need
to be addressed locally are addressed locally and in a
setting which encourages and facilitates local input.
• Insure that issues of broader concern which impact
residents in areas of the County outside of the immediate
area involved in an application or decision include a
countywide perspective which takes into account these
broader perspectives .
2 . DIRECT the Director, GMEDA to provide his report to our
Committee on Monday, October 10, 1994 at 9 : 00 A.M.
BACKGROUND:
On August 2, 1994, the Board of Supervisors referred to the
Internal Operations Committee the future of the Regional Planning
Commissions . In summarizing the referral, the Clerk of the Board
listed the referral as follows :
REFERRED the matter to the Internal Operations Committee
for review and report on issues including possible
configuration of the commissions, possible advisory
committees, standby commissions, leaving the commissions
as they are and the criteria for project
consideration. . . "
CONTINUED ON ATTACHM NT: YES SI ATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMIJTROgRE NDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
JEFF SMITPRVDJ�eSAULNIER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 97 , 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ! OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
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.
ATTESTED SEP 2 7 1994
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Director, GMEDA
Community Development Director LJJ
County Counsel DEPUTY
On August 15, 1994, our Committee received a report from Val
Alexeeff, Director, GMEDA. Following our Committee' s review of
that report, our Committee requested additional background
information and data. Among the information requested was :
criteria for referrals to one of the regional planning commissions
rather than the County Planning Commission, how territory might be
reconfigured to expand the territory served by the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission, whether it is feasible to establish
stand-by regional planning commissions, and a description of the
appeal process which exists or might be established to insure
community input to planning decisions . In addition, staff was
asked to include a description of which counties use regional
planning commissions, how regional commissions function in these
other counties, what type of fee structure is used and how members
of regional planning commissions are selected in other counties .
Our Committee also requested maps of the territory covered by the
regional planning commissions . At that time, our Committee agreed
to hold a special meeting on September 19, 1994 to receive and
review this additional information and the analysis requested of
staff.
Our Committee met on September 19, 1994 with a number of
individuals from the San Ramon Valley and East County as well as
other concerned citizens . Attached is the report which was
presented to us on September 19, 1994 and which was reviewed with
us by Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director.
We received comments to the effect that it is important to provide
a forum in which individuals who could not otherwise get to
Martinez for evening meetings can have their views made known to
the Planning Commission. It was noted that for many issues a good
deal of fieldwork is needed in the affected area which can only be
only be done on scene.
It was also noted that if the principal concern is with saving
money, abolishing the regional planning commissions does not appear
to be an effective manner of saving money. Our Committee responded
that saving money is not the primarily concern. The primary
concern is with the manner in which policy decisions are made in
the planning arena. With three planning bodies interpreting the
County General Plan there are likely to be at least three
interpretations, whereas the General Plan is a unitary plan and
should be interpreted consistently throughout the County. It is
important that development decisions take into account the impact
on all residents and elements of the County and not just the more
narrow interests of the immediate neighbors .
Comments were made to the effect that with a well structured
countywide planning commission it should be possible to meet all of
the identified needs with a single commission.
Our Committee has asked Mr. Alexeeff to return to our Committee
with additional options for a restructured County Planning
Commission which would address the concerns which were expressed to
our Committee. This might include an expanded County Planning
Commission with additional representatives from the East County and
San Ramon Valley, the use of regional sub-committees to insure that
local needs and input are adequately addressed, specific tasks
which might be designated for sub-committees, and the possibility
of having the Zoning Administrator hear local issues in the local
area, as had been suggested by the Community Development Department
staff earlier.
We have agreed to meet again on this subject Monday, October 10,
1994 at 9 : 00 A.M. to further consider this issue.
2
County AdministratorContra Board of Supervisors
Tom Powers
County Administration Building Costa
1 st District
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor Jeff Smith
Martinez,California 94553-1229County
n}` , 2nd District
(510)646-4080 `Y
FAX: (510)646-4098 Gayle Bishop
3rd District
Phil Batchelor
Mark DeSaulnier
County Administrator yyf! 4th District
M:iJ'1
i5 Tom Toriakson
August 18, 1994 stnoistrict
r1 c rr
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH-
THE CONTINUATION OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS
The Community Development Department recently advised you of the
meeting of the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of
Supervisors (Supervisor Jeff Smith and Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier)
on August 15, 1994 regarding the future of the Regional Planning
Commissions. We apologize that the very short timeframe against
which we were working did not provide time for more adequate notice
of this meeting.
At the meeting, the Director of the Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency, Val Alexeeff, and the Community Development
Director, Harvey Bragdon, presented the enclosed report to the
Internal Operations Committee.
The Internal Operations Committee has asked for a much more
extensive staff background paper and analysis of the following
types of issues:
✓ Additional information on available options,
✓ Criteria for referrals to regional planning commissions,
✓ The feasibility of reconfiguring the territory for which the
regional planning commissions are responsible,
✓ The possible use of standby planning commissions,
✓ The appeals process which would be available if the County
were to consider any of these options,
✓ Information regarding the use of continuances by the regional
planning commissions,
✓ What other counties use regional planning commissions,
✓ What experience other counties have had with the use of
regional planning commissions,
✓ What type of fee schedule is charged in other counties which
use one or more regional planning commissions,
-2-
How members of regional planning commissions are selected in
other counties,
✓ How the regional planning commissions coordinate their work
with that of the County Planning Commission, and other issues
which may be related to these.
The Internal Operations Committee has scheduled a report from the
Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, and
the Community Development Director, as follows:
Monday, September 19, 1994-
9 :00 A.M. - 10:30 A.M.
The Training Institute, Bay Room
George Gordon Education Center -
500 Court Street, Martinez
The George Gordon Education Center is the six story concrete
building at the intersection of Court Street and Escobar in
downtown Martinez, one block West of the County Administration
Building. The Training Institute is the second floor of the
Education Center and can be accessed by the outside stairs at the
corner of Court and Escobar. The balance of the building serves as
the administrative offices for the Contra Costa Community College
District.
You are welcome to attend this meeting and participate in the
discussion on this subject. If we are able to obtain the staff
report in time, we will mail it to you in advance of the meeting.
We would anticipate that the Internal Operations Committee will
make a report to the Board of Supervisors on this subject on
September 27, 1994 .
Very truly yours,
Claude L. Van Marter
Assistant County Administrator
CLVM:amb
vane-40-94
cc: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Val Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency
Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
wso
-� Department of Planning and Building
San Luis Obispo County
Alex Hinds, Director
Bryce Tingle,Assistant Director Barney McCay, Chief Building Official
Ellen Carroll,Environmental Coordinator Norma Salisbury,Administrative Services Officer
August 17, 1994
Contra Costa Growth Management and
Economic Development Agency
Harvey E. Bragdon, Planning Director
651 Pine Street, N. Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, Ca. 94553
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION CHARACTERISTICS SURVEY
Recently, the County of San Luis Obispo requested that each county complete a survey of
Planning Commission characteristics. We would like to thank you for your timely responses.
56 of 57 counties completed the survey (the City/County of San Francisco did not respond).
For your information, attached are the results of the survey. If you have any questions about
the responses or require assistance in interpreting the attached report, please don't hesitate to
contact me directly at (805) 781-5193.
Thank you again for your assistance in this matter.
Sincer y,
Kami Griffi , S ne
General Plan ministration
County Government Center . San Luis Obispo • California 93408 • (805)781-5600 • Fax (805) 781-1242 or 5624
C" i x xC r m O O > C r ra' m m
z M -< v Z m m r z r r -4 ?i \ n
c, z O m ao z N O z - C a -4 pp
N 7o c- z z i i m m 7b m O -C \ Z
m c o m c7 a a z
O O N
-4 m
a
z x z x z z z z z -C z z z z z z x
O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O R
m
V
\
N
i
O O O O O O O O O {A O O O O O O i
O
T
C2
N
VI O V O V VI 10 %P *A V V1 Vf VI VI VI V 46
O
T
m
m
v
N
< L t -C -C -! < < t < -! < < < K w
m Q m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
N N N N N N N co N N N N N N N O
N
C
O
N
-4
N
L Z L L -C X L Z Z L L L L L L L a
O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O L7
m
rn
s
m
m
-4
y
O O O O + O O O O O O O O O O O 46
a
Gf V
r
s a
m z
x z
N
L
L Z i Z t Z L Z Z L L L Z L L Z O C7
O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O
m
�o
s
m
s N W
N
O O O > -+ O O O O O O O O O O O ik
N
. O p
x
m m m
70 t
V LV1 N + Z + L b N C m l"l
Z O T m i m C f- 0 L n 2ZQ5
m s z Amo s s -4 1 3b z z
= � a) m v N o m � tmi) m 8 > m
N Z v
Z n N m H f7 opt w 70 O
O 3c 7~O T A + m s-N Z
= H N nOV !'7 y�y 3
-4 a T
\ 70 ♦ N m S O 70 m
z 70 -4 O mGo
Lr" V O
M O m D O v N z IC
m L -4Z m Z O M N a am
n s v v -4 Cl) a
0o cl v
H _ � � 22
m m v cf r v
7o F \ 7Co C r m
-- m N a 70 Z
n t O 70 r m m m
os2 XJ
Imo a -C CY m m N
^- N N og Go O 70 C
rn
m N V V r 70 M a p
mCf p m n ?O
= m \ y = b
C2 A
-� m
= N n m
T
7o a v O x m ?C
r _ CC
m m g D m O m OC p yz A D m m y
N N A m 1 m O (7 O
O < Z 7 m Z -O O
m O
4-
m m
N
m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
h �p
m
v
C2
N
y
N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O
r
12
N
VA V1 to V V1 V V1 V1 V1 M
O
T
m
m
9
N
m < m
m o m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
N N N N N N N N h N N h N N h h qa-
C
V
_O
N
H
y
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z < Z Z Z Z Z Z >
O O O O O O O O O O N n
O O O O O O
3C
m
m
m
�o
v
0 0 0 o o O o o O O 0 0 o 0 0 o as
C7 e
r
Z D
m z
z z
N
= z = z zz z z z z < z z z Z z < O a0
O O O O O O O O O O m O O O O O N =
m
�o
s
m in
Z N
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O N t�y�
O C
1 70
m
A <
z O -hi " + m m
r- f- A n n n
m D
m a y
4 G7 CZ1 A 7<O 7<O S
t _ O r A
/tI � QQp7 -4 1 7O m
N •pho•� QTQ o< 0 O N � A m
S i 7i7 i' eAs N H N -4
p "a O C A r z
o m r s i
ao m C -� C n+ m -4 m
t v C m ., m v
NQ D A N m 2 A
m m Z m tm4
m O N ca
m
C CISN m z
r m A -4
O N = N 1
= v m `s
N -4 A r h
1 O m < r
A
D x v s
Q~ m a0o p
^ N
= m v
3b D z C O
z C-
-4 n
D N < D
N .-
.- •'•„C,�- _ N m D Z r r z Z Z z Z C7 . tQ
1 A O
! y C-
O m m c
Im < \ Z
> m O L) Z z ze r O
a N A W O + O A O O D
N > > Y O m
A
D z
O W
z z < z z z z z z z z z z z z S
O O H O O O O O O O O O O O O N A
m
v
n
N
v
O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N i
O
w
A
N
V 10 V1 V1 V1 VI V1 V1 V N W V V V 'd V1 ik
O
A
m
V
N
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H y"0
C
O
N
1
y
L L Z Z Z Z Z < Z Z Z Z Z Z Z !
O N O O O O O O N O O O O O O O a
S
m
s
w
• m
A
V
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O i!
C$
C$ v
X !
m r
z z
N
Z
< mL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z L Z Z Z Z O G7
m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O i
N N m
A
S
m y
z N
N
N W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ik y
O H
-1 A
S
m f11
70 �{
V N
! m C D YMn
mS
Cf m f7 i r!7 A Cf x m
C242O A ! H
N N 8O N / > 03 ( r .L+.
A 2C
m 1 C7
-na --4 1 N 1
t ♦ $ j A f tv t m
n r ! apt y D ! m co
O 70 _A m -4
ca
1 rm > r A Qi m
m m -4 A v 1 m N !
D m A O m m m = y
A S m O
_ m S �. ti m + m x T
n
to a m m O N + N I T
A r m > 1 N m
v A m b
C7 1" A W -4
~ x N y m O v
0
< m
Z y O N
m = N A O
N
b 3r.
m n
r W -4
a m
z z
z
at
n
a o c r m :i� zi
C O
m z ,� -144Oz
m z r .
re
m
r
O O O O O N O
m
v
N
w
O O O O O A Cl ik
O
T
\
n
N
V V �♦ V t/♦ i
O
T
A
m
V
N
,f
m m m .m m m< m A
m m m m m m m
N N N N N N N � -
(A
C
�D
4
N
-♦.
w
0 0 0 0 o O o es
s
m
s
m
m
A
w
O O O O O O O i!
D
' O �
r
m >
m z
s z
w me at at IC0
N
O O O O O O O -4 i7
mA
A
s
m in
s N
N
O O O O O O O 4k V�yf
O C
-4 SA
m
A �t
t C)
m Q
m m s ac
A_ A_ m -Si m
N
O O \ a N
oNo \
4 1 C
A
S
A A S
-r -� n m
r f 8 w
zm
N N -4 70
< N
4 A \
-♦ O V t
C \
A 1 N N
C!
39
m m w
s s m v
m s N A
rAi► m -4
A
N m
m
3
m
m
A
N
O
Cr
S
m
V
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director
SUBJECT: Regional Planning Commissions
At your meeting of August 15, 1994, you asked for additional information. This
report generally follows the outline in the memo of August 18, 1994 signed by Claude
Van Marter. In some cases we have combined items.
1. Options available (including appeal process):
1. Retain the present system of three planning commissions. (County, San
Ramon Regional, East County Regional). Commissions hear appeals of
the Zoning Administrator decisions. Appeals of Commissions' actions
are heard by the Board of Supervisors.
2. Eliminate one or both of the regional commissions. Appeals would be
heard as #1 above.
3. Change the area of the San Ramon Regional Planing Commission to
coincide (as much as possible) with the Southwest Area Transportation
Committee (SWAT) boundary. The East County Regional Planning
Commission and the TRANSPLAN boundaries are virtually the same.
Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
4. Increase efficiency of the Commissions by reducing continuances. Staff
reports will be prepared earlier and as completely as possible in order for
the Commissions to have time before the scheduled meeting to call staff
with questions, or to ask for additional information. Staff response could
then be mailed prior to the meeting or presented at the meeting. The
Board of Supervisors could amend the Ordinance Code to specify
specific time limits for actions by its planning agency components. Both
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and Marin
County have similar requirements. Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
5. Group items for meeting every other month. This option would be used
when the workload was down, and in effect, is what is now practiced
in the San Ramon Regional Planning Commission area. If business is
very slow, then the Commissions) could be put on a stand-by basis with
meetings only on call. Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
6. If option #5 above was in place and it presented a hardship, the
applicant could request a special meeting, and if granted, would pay the
costs. Appeals would be as #1 above.
7. Establish a surcharge on application fees for projects within the regional
planning commission boundaries. This was the approach when the area
commissions were formed in 1977. Around 1985-86, the surcharge
was removed and County policy became supporting the regional
commissions through the general fund.
8. Restructure the makeup of the County Planning Commission if the San
Ramon Regional Planning Commission is eliminated to:
five commissioners, one from each supervisorial dish ict
two commissioners, now appointed at large, to be from the San
Ramon Regional Planning Commission jurisdiction.
Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
9. Same as #8 above if the East County Regional Planning Commission is
eliminated with the two commissioners to be from the East County
jurisdiction. Appeals would be as #1 above.
10. Restructure the County Planning Commission if both regional
commissions are eliminated to have nine members:
five commissioners, one from each supervisorial district
four commissioners, two from each regional'jurisdictions.
Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
II. Referrals to the Regional Planning Commissions
1. At present, all three planning commissions,consider:
a) General Plan Amendments
b) Rezoning Applications
c) Tentative maps for subdivisions 101 units or more, unless the
tentative map is associated with a rezoning request, in which
case, it is considered by the commission along with the rezoning,
regardless of the number of lots.
d) Appeals of decisions of the Zoning Administrator.
2
2. The exceptions are as follow, where in each instance the hearing body
is the County Planning Commission:
a) County-wide general plan text or map amendments.
b) General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan proposals for
projects that are approximately 5000-6000 units or larger in size.
C) Zoning Text Amendments.
d) Any other planning matter specifically assigned by the Board of
Supervisors.
3. Under the County's adopted CEQA guidelines, the division of the
Planning Agency for hearings on Draft Environmental Impact Reports is
determined by the direction of Community Development (the Board of
Supervisors may express a preference when reviewing proposed
schedules for major items).
Ill. Redefine the Boundaries of the Regional Planning Commissions
On Monday, September 19, 1994, we will present maps showing:
1. The jurisdiction of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,
the Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon, the City of Walnut Creek
(outside the boundary of the regional commission but does form the
northern limit), the territory within the adopted urban limit line within the
commission's jurisdiction.
2. A similar map of the jurisdiction of the East County Regional Planning
Commission with its cities of Brentwood, Antioch and Pittsburg, the
urban limit line and the agricultural core.
3. A County map at a smaller scale showing the information in #1 and #2
above and the boundaries of SWAT and TRANSPLAN (see 1 3 above).
IV. Counties with Regional Planning Commissions
1. Fortunately, San Luis Obispo County recently conducted a survey of
California's counties and received responses from 56 counties (excluding
San Francisco and San Luis Obispo, which does not have a regional
planning commission). The results of the survey are attached. Five
counties including Contra Costa are shown as having regional planning
commissions. However, in our review, there are really only two other
counties with regional planning commissions similar to ours: Riverside,
(for which the regional planning commission concept was originally
enacted by the State) and Toulumne.
3
The other two, Sacramento and Sonoma, have two commissions that
divide functions, not geography. One of Sacramento's commissions
considers land use issues, the other, subdivisions. Sonoma has a
Planning Commission and a Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. Characteristics of the two Counties with regional planning commissions:
a) Riverside (population 7/1/93: 1,338,600)
County Planning Commission.
Eastern County Planning Commission - part of two
supervisorial districts, five commissioners, two appointed
by one supervisor, three appointed by the other supervisor
(based on population).
Meet monthly.
Application fees same regardless of location. Costs are
significantly higher because the County has an office in
eastern Riverside County.
Regional Commission hears
i land use permits
ii variances
iii land divisions
iv but does not hear any project that needs a
general plan amendment, specific plan; or a
rezoning. These are heard by the County
Planning Commission.
All major projects go to the County Planning Commission.
All appeals are heard by the Board of Supervisors.
There were three regional planning commissions but
because of incorporations, only one is left.
The Eastern Regional Planning Commission hears only one
or two items a month. There are now ten cities instead of
the original five within the regional commission's
jurisdiction - and business is slow.
Because of budget concerns and costs, the place for
4
regional commission in the planning agency is being
reviewed.
The satellite office is 75 miles from the County Seat.
b) Toulumne (population 7/11/93: 52,700)
- County Planning Commission 7 members
- Jamestown Planning Commission 7 members
- Columbia Planning Commission 7 members
- South County Planning Commission 5 members.
(Since the County has not yet responded to our inquiry, we will
report to the IOC on September 19, 1994 if we have received
information).
VA:gg
Attachment
5