HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12191989 - 2.3 - CostaC t�
;.
TO: BOARD . OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon County
Director of .Community Development
DATE: December 14, 1989
SUBJECT: Report on TRANSPAC Regional Planning Advisory Committee
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. . Accept this report summarizing the . December 14 meeting of the
TRANSPAC and defer action on the establishment of a Regional
Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) for the- Central County; and.
appointment of the County' s representatives until finalization
of TRANSPAC' s recommendations on January 18.
2. Designate Ernest Vovakis, Senior Transportation Planner,
Community Development Department, , as the Couhty.' s staff
liaison to the TRANSPAC and RPAC.
FISCAL IMPACT
.None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS-FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
At its. meeting of December 14, the TRANSPAC Committee discussed at
length' but took no action on the proposed establishment of a
Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) to review development
proposals in .the central county which generate 100 'or more peak
hour trips. A number of cities have not completed their review of
this proposal. In addition, .concerns remained on the composition
of the RPAC, _ its . relation to TRANSPAC, staffing, and review
criteria. The Committee agreed to refer the matter to staff for
further refinement of the criteria for review of projects and to
the City Councils, City Managers and Planning Directors for review.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE- /y �
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE'(S) c
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 19, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED
. TRANSPAC via Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
The Committee further directed that the matter be brought back
for final consideration at its January 18 meeting with the
objective of initiating project review by February 1, 1990. The
following is a synopsis of the major issues discussed by the
Committee:
1. Projects Outside the Area. Concern about the impact of
development in the East County on area transportation
facilities was expressed. In addition, the City of Concord
had concerns about the cumulative impacts of smaller
projects (those that do not generate 100 or more peak hour
trips) . It was agreed to work with the Transportation
Authority to encourage other regional committees in the
County to move in the direction of regional review of major
development proposal also.
2. Relationship to the TRANSPAC. The City of Pleasant Hill
representative expressed concerns about a duplication of
functions with TRANSPAC and questioned the need for forming
a new group. Others stated that TRANSPAC dealt with a range
of activities and the review of development proposals
required a concerted effort. A consensus emerged that the
technical review should be performed separately and that
recommendations should be brought to the TRANSPAC for
action.
3. Composition of the RPAC. While the discussion focused on
the assignment of this role to TRANSPAC, the Committee did
not finalize its recommendation on this matter.
4. Review Criteria. The consensus of the TRANSPAC was that a
checklist should be used to review projects based on the
staff reports prepared by local staff for their Planning
Commissions and Councils Board of Supervisors.
5. Staffing. In the near term, City and County staff will
continue to provide staffing for the TRANSPAC/RPAC. The
question of hiring its own staff is dependent upon the form
that is finally agreed upon for RPAC.
EV:vpl
cevl/trpac.bos