The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10021984 - X.10 } 'E3,6ARD OF SUPERVISORS z Contra FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Costa . DATE: October 2, 1984 County- _ t SUBJECT: Need for Comprehensive Revision to the County General Plan SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) 8: BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION BACKGROUND In January in my remarks as incoming Chair, I outlined .the need for an updated and integrated County General Plan (see attached). The future of the County is now being decided and we must assure reasonable and balanced growth which recognizes the need for preserving a suitable living environment for future generations. We have the opportunity to plan even more thoroughly and carefully the future, of this County during this time of rapid change. Much attention has recently been focused on the need for revising the General Plan, and no better opportunity exists than the present. The private sector and government should work together to.facilitate the. effort.- The issue of conducting a General Plan update:was further discussed by Planning Director, Anthony Dehaesus, during the year. He raised this issue as a policy determination item for consideration of funding during the budget hearings process. I believe we should move forward with this plan update program. The last comprehensive General Plan update was in 1963 -- the Land. Use and Circulation Plan. Since then, the 1963 plan has been almost completely revised by the yearly additions of community plans and local amendments, as well as by the adoption of several countywide plan elements mandated by the State government. In those two decades, the General Plan has been transformed from an advisory ,plan of the Board of Supervisors into a policy controlling land development regulations and the placement of public facilities. Its uses now extend to . qualifying the County for subvention revenues and for carrying out various programs. Unfortunately, the County General Plan has had to grow incrementally in response to legislation which emphasized one subject one year and another later, to new programs which necessitated new content material, to new land use needs such as office-industrial development,. and to new directions in growth. .'After two decades .of piece-by-piece evolution, the plan is now due for a comprehensive, updating to re-organize its assumptions, principles, projections, and policies and make it more understandable to all its users. Additionally, City General Plans have continued to evolve,; while new cities have incorporated and prepared their General Plans, and these should be accounted for in their current states along with the .plans of special governments and utilities. An integrated coordination of,these plans needs to be developed. Furthermore, some confusion exists over the responsibility for planning within Spheres of Influence of cities and would be facilitated by such a process. CONTINUED ON,ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER . - SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON 77 7,71 7 77 ep 7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER _. The Board also approved Supervisor Powers recommendation that the entire matter be dovetailed with the transportation capacity that the .County is currently developing. VOTE /OF SUPERVISORS • UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: .NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Dir. of Planning CC: Public Works Director ATTESTED October 2, 1984 County Administrator PHILBATCHELOR, CLERK OFTHEBOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LAFCO Supervisor Torlakson 00177 M382/7-e3 4d BY DEPUTY Board of Supervisors page two _ October - 1984 NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE REVISION TO THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN The existing plan does not fully facilitate orderly economic growth by the County in the future. The plan desperately needs a more complete Community Facilities Element to provide for public services infrastructure (water, sewerage, schools, etc.) and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) would also be assisted with an up-to-date General Plan to facilitate the establishment of reasonable service boundaries for public utilities. An updated comprehensive general plan will facilitate the planning for public works. For example, it may be better to protect a watershed than to construct large concrete channels downstream. Public agency liability will be reduced. The General Plan should be updated to accommodate new formation on public and private resources such as valuable habitats, gas and oil pipelines and wells, and solid waste facilities and sites. Similarly, the General Plan should be updated with current information to better protect the public from risks due to landslide and seismic hazards, flood plans, toxic waste sites and dangers from pipeline ruptures, etc. RECOMMENDED ACTION Refer to the County Administrator and Planning Director for further review and recommendation with regard to a) the identification of a work program to update the County General Plan, including estimates of staffing, timelines, and costs; b) the identification of a public review process, including citizen committees;* c) and the identification of funding sources. These items will be prepared for report back to the Board. *A General Plan Review Committee should include, among others: League of Women voters, Contra Costa Development Assocation, Contra Costa County Greenbelt Congress, and representatives from each city or from the Mayor's Conference. 0017`� (Excerpt from Supervisor Torlakson's Speech, 1/10/84, Pqa a SIX Installation as Chair of the Board of Supervisors) zations representing those industries to preserve the strength we have to protect existing jobs and to assist industrial expansion where possible. 1984 will be the year where other major components of the task force master plan must be and will be implemented. 1 . Developing financial tools for economic development such as redevelopment with particular attention to Oakley and West Pittsburg. 2 . Overall goal setting and planning. We have opened up with the mayors of this county and the 17 cities , a dialogue as to how to plan for the future in this county of opportunity The Task Force identified that while good planning is going on with a local focus in various parts of the unincorporated area and in the cities, there is lacking an overall integrated approach. In discussions with our Planning Director, Tony Dehaesus , over the past few months , I have discovered that not since 1963 has the county done an overall county general plan review. During the coming months , I will bring forth proposals to initiate such a review and to work with the cities and civic leaders of this county to provide an ongoing forum to dis- cuss our long range goals . 3. One bf the areas we need to work the hardest together on is providing for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the new growth that is on our horizon. 1984 will present a year of opportunity to solve many of the infrastructure problems and to come to grips with the others. with funding We have been extraordinarily successful/for the 680 corridor and the Hofmann Project in West Contra Costa County. This year the Transportation Committee has highlighted the need for improvements 001?Y9%