The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12051989 - 2.5 'v�.5 } TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Ccotfd Harvey E. Bragdon CJIJJ�a Director, Community Development Dept. DATE' co ry December 5, 1989 SUBJECT; Cooperative Land Use Planning Program for TRANSPAC area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Accept Report from Director of Community Development on the Cooperative Land Use Planning Program for the TRANSPAC area, and authorize its transmittal to TRANSPAC Chair. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS,/BACKGROUND: On November 14, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Director of Community Development and the County Administrator a November 2 letter from Colleen Coll, TRANSPAC Chair, requesting comments on the establishment of a Joint Planning Review Committee and a Central County Interagency Planning Commission. On October 26, TRANSPAC, the transportation and land use planning committee for Central Contra Costa, recommended establishment of a Joint Planning Review Committee by January 1, 1990, to be succeeded by a Central County Interagency Planning Commission. The Joint Planning Review Committee would make advisory comments and recommendations to the responsible jurisdiction on all projects that will generate 100 or more peak hour trips in the TRANSPAC area. The 12 member Committee would be composed of a planning commissioner and elected official from each of the six TRANSPAC jurisdictions. A joint staffing team composed of a planner from each jurisdiction would be established to support the Committee. The Joint Planning Review Committee would be an interim body that would be succeeded by the Central County Interagency Planning Commission to be established no later that July 1, 1991. The structure of the Planning Commission would be determined after the Joint Planning Review Committee has operated for at least one year. The Planning Commission Orig. Dept:CDD/TP CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; _. Y=_ SIGNATURE; ,,,t �- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMfE+YC`ATION B RD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)' ACTION OF BOARD ON December 5, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED � OTHER -� REQUESTED Community Development Director to emphasize to TRANSPAC the Board's position, favorina the CEQA project definition for 100 peak-hour trip threshold and only general plan amendments and rezoninas that meet that 100 peak-hour trip threshold, as well as the Board's desire to see the composition of the body to consist of one elected official and one planning commissioner from each of the six jurisdictions; and DIRECTED the Community Develoament Director to report on December 19, 1989 relative to staffing for the Joint Planning Committee and appointees therel VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X 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. CC: ATTESTED December 5, 1989 Community Development:TPD - -- -- -- TRANSPAC (via CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 0,AQ1) -7-PI _ BY // 11 .DEPUTY 4. i Cooperative Land Use Planning Program December 5, 1989 Page Two would be vested with the powers and authorities of the individual city/County planning commissions. If a decision were appealed or is advisory for final action by the City Council/Board of Supervisors, it would go to the jurisdiction in which the project is located. The Planning Commission would consider and act upon all projects that exceed a minimum threshold size, such as 100 peak hour trips. The Community Development Department has reviewed TRANSPAC' s Cooperative Land Use Planning Program and offers the following comments. The TRANSPAC proposal does not define the term "project. " Using the definition found in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , "project" could cover projects such as development proposals, general plan amendments, or rezoning. Use of the CEQA definition would cover all significant actions of the County Planning Commission. Using the CEQA definition for project and the 100 peak hour trip threshold that triggers review by the Joint Planning Review Committee, staff estimates that five projects in the unicorporated TRANSPAC area would have been reffered to the Joint Planning Committee for review during 1989. The TRANSPAC proposal does not specify the areas the Joint Planning Review Committee will evaluate during its review of a project. At the November TRANSPAC meeting, a check list was discussed that included consideration of CEQA compliance, traffic impacts, and compliance with various growth management requirements of Measure C. Assessment of compliance with Measure C if difficult since the Transportation Authority has not adopted any guidelines for local agencies to use to demonstrate their compliance the ordinance's growth management requirement. The Authority is proposing interim guidelines for meeting level of service (LOS) standards that will be effective as of January 1, 1990. Any determination of compliance with Measure C growth management requirements by the Committee should be limited to those areas which the Authority has adopted guidelines. The Committee's evaluation of compliance with growth management requirements would be expedited if uniform performance standards are adopted for the TRANSPAC area. Uniform standards would also minimize their influence on a developer's decision to locate a development among the six TRANSPAC jurisdictions. TRANSPAC as a forum to discuss the potential for adopting uniform performance standards. Initially, these performance standards should address the interim guidelines on LOS proposed by the Transportation Authority, which include intersection volume-to-capacity ratios, designation of "routes of regional significance" and locations subject to "findings of special circumstances. " Review of a project by the Joint Planning Review Committee should take the form of a recommendation to the Planning Commission during their consideration of the project. If the Commission's action is appealed to the Board of Supervisors or the nature of the project is significantly changed by the Commission's action, the Committee may wish to make it's own recommendation to the Board. The Committee will need strict scheduling procedures so that their input can meet legislative time limits required of the Commission and Board of Supervisors for project review. Composition of the Joint Planning Review Committee is similar to the composition of TRANSPAC. This offers the opportunity to incorporate the Committee's work with regular TRANSPAC meetings. However, the legislative time limits for project review and the number of projects to be considered by the Committee may require a schedule that is not compatible with the TRANSPAC meeting schedule. Depending on the estimated work load, the TRANSPAC could consider an alternative where each jurisdiction would appoint one or two planning commissioners, instead of one commissioner and one elected official. It is difficult to determine the level of effort required to staff the Committee without knowledge of the potential development activity in u l: Cooperative Land Use Planning Program December 5, 1989 Page Three the participating jurisdictions. The Department's fee schedule could be revised to hire additional staff if the warranted by the Committee's work load. TRANSPAC should consider requesting financial or staff support from the Transportation Authority. A case could be made for such support if the Committee focuses its review on compliance with the Measure C growth management requirements. Authority staff could be considered a neutral party and help ensure the Committee receives objective information. The Authority's expenditure plan includes $10 million for planning purposes that could be used as a funding source. Operation of the Joint Planning Committee should provide the experience needed before specifics on the Central County Interagency Planning Commission can be established. County Counsel will need to determine if the cities and the County are authorized to delegate the powers and authorities of their individual commissions to the Interagency Planning Commission as described in the TRANSPAC proposal. The Department is supportive of Cooperative Land Use Planning Program and recommends that the Board transmit these comments to TRANSPAC. Once TRANSPAC receives comments from all jurisdictions, it is expected that this proposal will be refined and returned to the Board with a request for adoption. HEB:slg:regionpc