Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10291985 - T.3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, -CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 29 , 1985 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Composition of Planning Commissions Supervisor Tom Torlakson submitted to the Board an Internal Operations Committee report (attached hereto) recommending abolishing the Orinda Area Planning Commission and presenting several alternative plans for Planning Commission composition. Susanna Schlendorf, Vice-Mayor of the City of Danville, appeared and urged the Board to retain the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission. Daniel Miller, P.O. Box 860, Bethel Island 94561 , advised that the residents of Bethel Island were requesting the County to assist in the development of a specific plan for Bethel Island, what- ever decision is made relative to an area planning commission for East County. Barbara Jagger, 875 El Cerro, Danville, representing the San Ramon Valley unit of the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley, expressed support for the retention of area planning commissions. Mary Lou Oliver, Mayor of the City of San Ramon, requested that the Board defer decision on the area planning commissions until it could be discussed by the Mayors' Conference. Constance Brady, P.O. Box 339 , Bethel Island, a member of the East Diablo Planning Advisory Committee (EDPAC) , advised that the Rural and Urban Design Assistance Team from the American Institute of Architects, which had worked with the Bethel Island community during the past summer, had recommended the conversion of EDPAC into an area planning commission as the most appropriate way to meet the planning needs of the area. Ronald Nunn, Rt. 1 , Box 200, Brentwood, Chairman of EDPAC, expressed support for the creation of an East County regional planning commission. Dean P . LaField„ 1280 Boulevard Way, #211 , Walnut Creek 94595 , representing the Building Industry Association of Northern California, expressed appreciation for past planning achievements in Contra Costa County, accomplished by a central Planning Commission, and stated his belief that there was no evidence that area planning commissions had contributed noticeably to the quality of life in the County today. He urged the Board to dissolve the area planning com- missions and retain a single County Planning Commission. Supervisor Robert Schroder noted that it is essential that the County and the cities work closely together on planning issues and stated that he would like to hear any recommendations that the Mayor' s Conference might make on such coordination. Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak agreed, and stated her belief that there is a need to continue with a regional planning commission concept in a reconfigured format . Supervisor Tom Powers moved to continue the matter to December 3, 1985 . 1 Supervisor Tom Torlakson seconded the motion, and expressed his support of the need for coordination and cooperation between the County and cities. There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that an ordinance abolishing the Orinda Area Planning Commission is INTRODUCED, reading is WAIVED and November 5 , 1985 is FIXED for adoption. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that consideration of options relating to Planning Commissions is CONTINUED to December 3, 1985 at 2 :30 P.M. cc: Community Development Director County Administrator 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: —).go /'qt'.S PHIL BATCHELOR, Cleric of the Board Of Supervisors and County Administrator BY Deputy 2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa DATE: October 14, 1985 County SUBJECT: County and Area Planning Commissions SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Introduce an ordinance abolishing the Orinda Area Planning Commission, waive reading, and fix November 5, 1985 for adoption. 2 . Adopt one or the other of the following sets of recommendations: A. Abolish the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission, leaving a single County Planning Commission. This alternative should only be adopted with the following understandings: ( 1) That consideration be given to more closely involve affected citizens and communities in the Planning Commission' s hearing process. This might include publishing a bi-weekly agenda of future applications, and other matters, which are scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission. ( 2) The Planning Commission should be encouraged to hold more frequent meetings on an as-needed basis in order to avoid late night meetings and maintain the flow of items on a timely basis. ( 3 ) Commissioners should be encouraged to conduct field visits to sites under discussion before the matter is heard before the Planning Commission, particularly when it is clear that the matter is controversial or unusually complex. The Commission now conducts field visits after hearings take place. ( 4 ) The Planning Commission should be encouraged to limit testimony when there are a large number of people to testify on a single matter, encourage people to focus their testimony on the issue before the Commission and not to repeat the testimony of others. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ND TION OF BO D COMMITTEE APPROVE Ilr'L SIGNATURE(S) Tom Torlakson To overs Page 2 B. Establish a policy of having more than one Planning Commission. There are a variety of options which can be considered if the Board wishes to have more than one Planning Commission. Among the more viable that we have explored are the following: ( 1) County Planning Commission, existing San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission. ( 2 ) County Planning Commission, existing San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission, add an East County Area Planning Commission. ( 3 ) Abolish both County Planning Commission and San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission and create two area planning commissions. Two commissions would mean combining West County with Central and South County into one commission, with East County as a separate commission. All of these alternatives require, in our view, that the following issues be addressed: o There will be no one single commission to hear overall matters, such as the County General Plan. The Board of Supervisors would have to designate one commission to hear these overall issues. In the case of either of the first two alternatives where there is still a County Planning Commission, that body could be designated to hear these countywide issues. In the other alternative, one commission would have to be designated, or hearings would have to be held by both commissions, with the Board itself having to then reconcile any differences coming from the various commissions. o We would recommend reducing the size of the commissions to five ( 5) members each if more than one commission is established. o With more than one commission, assuming more than 5 members, we would recommend that at least some of the nominations be made by the full Board of Supervisors, with the remaining nominations being made by the Supervisor in whose district the Commission operates. o If there are going to be multiple commissions, we would recommend that some mechanism be developed to insure close coordination among the commissions, such as quarterly joint meetings. BACKGROUND: On April 16, 1985, the Board of Supervisors, on the recommendation of Supervisor Torlakson, referred to our Committee a request that the Community Development Department provide our Committee with cost and workload data regarding all of the existing Planning Commissions and the costs of establishing or Page 3 eliminating any commissions, or modifying the current organization of the existing commissions. . Our Committee has considered this matter at meetings on May 21, 1985 , June 24, 1985, July 31, 1985, August 19, 1985, September 23 , 1985 and October 14, 1985. We have received multiple reports from the Director of Community Development dated July 30, 1985, August 16, 1985, September 23 , 1985, and October 14, 1985, copies of which are attached to and made a part of this report. We have received testimony from a member of the current County Planning Commission urging a single, strong, countywide Planning Commission. We have likewise received testimony from the Building Industry Association urging a single, strong, countywide Planning Commission. We have received testimony and several letters from the City of San Ramon urging continuation of the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission with some modifications to strengthen the role of the City of San Ramon and the Town of Danville in planning within the unincorporated area of the San Ramon Valley. We have received extensive testimony from residents and organizations in East County urging the creation of an East County Area Planning Commission. Early in our discussions we agreed to recommend abolishing the Orinda Area Planning Commission because of the incorporation of the City of Orinda. We have received no testimony in opposition to this recommendation and expect that this recommendation will generate no opposition before the Board of Supervisors. There are many factors which favor either a single, strong, countywide Planning Commission or multiple area planning commissions. Some see a single commission meeting in Martinez as too remote, too unacquainted with the issues and feelings of the residents involved in a particular application, and too unresponsive to the wishes of a particular community. On the other hand, a single commission is seen as more likely to take a broader view of planning issues which take into account the overall needs of the County. A single commission could hear such issues as the County General Plan and could better handle such issues as solid waste facility siting, transportation, and similar issues which have overall impact on the County. Multiple commissions have generally the opposite strengths and weaknesses. They are more likely to be responsive to the interests of individual communities, but may be unable to see the overall needs of the County. Multiple commissions are more expensive to staff. Multiple commissions make it more difficult to deal with overall issues, such as the County General Plan, solid waste facility siting, and transportation planning. Unfortunately, we have been unable to come to any clear-cut recommendation as to which way the Board should act in this matter. We have, however, gathered a great deal of factual data in the form of the reports from Mr. Dehaesus and have suggested conditions which should accompany a decision to either return to a single County Planning Commission with one or two area planning commissions, or to go to two areawide planning commissions.