HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01141992 - IO.1 �• I .O. -1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
1
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa
of ;4
4o County
DATE: -
January 6, 1992
SUBJECT: REPORT ON RECOMMENDED POLICY ON NAMING AND RENAMING OF
STREETS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Adopt the attached Resolution to supersede Resolution 78/612
effective January 14, 1992, which outlines a modified policy
under which the Board of Supervisors will retain the same
discretion it has now regarding approving street name
changes, but which will clarify some of the additional
criteria the Board may consider when asked to approve a
street name change.
2 . Remove this item as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On July 16, 1991, the Board of Supervisors referred to our
Committee the question of criteria which the Board of Supervisors
might wish to consider using when hearing a request for a change
in the name of a street.
As the attached report from the Public Works Director accurately
points out, the Board has not had criteria in place in the past
which could be used to determine the basis for approving or
denying a request for a street name change. The only criteria
which have been in place provide a hurdle which must be overcome
by any individual or group which wishes to have the Board of
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X_Y S SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATYI .
INISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE
SIGNATURE(S): SC ODER SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK
ACTION OF BOARD 0 arAiary 14 , 1992 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.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED JAN 14 1992
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Public Works Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY /�/ , DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
•• I .O. -1
-2-
Supervisors consider a name change for a street. These include
approval of the proposed name by the appropriate fire district
and postal authorities, written approval of the name change by at
least 90% of the residents and payment by the proponents of an
administrative fee and the cost of creating and erecting the
necessary signs .
These criteria are designed to screen out proposals which are
unacceptable for other than policy reasons . The criteria in
Resolution 78/612 must be met before the Public Works Director
will present a request for a name change to the Board of
Supervisors . They were never, however, intended to imply that if
they were met the Board of Supervisors would, in some ministerial
manner, automatically approve the requested name change or that,
having met the criteria in Resolution 78/612, proponents were
somehow vested with the right to the requested name change.
However, apparently some residents have interpreted these
criteria as the sole basis for approving a name change and that
if these criteria were met the Board of Supervisors was in some
way required to approve a name change, without any regard to
other policy questions which might be raised.
Our Committee has carefully considered this matter and has
determined that in fairness to the proponents (and opponents) of
future street name changes, the Board of Supervisors should
identify some of the other criteria which the Board views as
important and to which it will give careful consideration in
regard to any request for a street name change. However, these
criteria should be viewed as advisory only and not in any way to
be interpreted as restricting the right of this or any future
Board of Supervisors to use these and any number of other
criteria as the basis for approving or denying a request for a
name change. It is only that these are viewed as important
criteria which may sway the Board of Supervisors to deny a
proposed street name change, regardless of what percentage of the
residents may desire a name change.
The three criteria which we believe the Board of Supervisors
should identify as ones which they may take into consideration in
determining whether to approve a future request for a street name
' change are:
1 . If the street is named after an individual or family who
continue to live on the street or elsewhere in Contra Costa
County and the individual or family object to the name
change.
2 . If the current street name has historical significance in
the area or in Contra Costa County and changing the name
would undermine this historical significance.
3 . If the current street name has cultural significance in the
area or in Contra Costa County and changing the name would
undermined or compromise this cultural significance.
We urge the Board of Supervisors to approve _ the attached
Resolution which would add these three criteria as ones about
which the Board of Supervisors is concerned and which may be
given appropriate weight by Board members in determining whether
to support a proposed name change.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: December 30, 1991
TO: Claude Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator
FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Road Name Change Policy
Reference is made to your November 25, 1991 memorandum indicating that the Board
of Supervisors had referred the matter of their road name change policy to their Internal
Operations Committee to develop some modifications, and that it has been listed as the
first item of business on the Committee's January 6 agenda. I will not be able to attend
that 1.0. Committee meeting, but I will make sure the department is represented in case
the Board has any questions or further direction.
At the present time, the road name change policy does not provide any criteria
whatsoever which. must be considered by the Board of Supervisors in determining
whether a change in a road name is appropriate. They thus have total latitude and no
constraints on what criteria they feel is important or what criteria they choose to use. I
am concerned that including specific criteria in the policy, such as historical significance,
would unnecessarily constrain the Board, since it would raise the question of whether the
Board could consider criteria which are not specifically enumerated in the policy.
The current Board policy indicates three criteria, or hurdles, which proponents of a road
name change must pass before the Public Works Director submits a road name change
request to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. First is that there are no
duplications in the local fire or post office districts, or adjoining districts. Second, that
90% or more of the residents on the road favor the change, and have indicated their
agreement in writing. Third, that the cost of making the road name change has been, or
will be, covered by the proponents. These are not criteria, nor or they intended to be
criteria, which the Board considers in making their decision, but merely are a hurdle
which proponents must cross in order to keep frivolous requests away from the Board's
agenda.
I would imagine it is the 90% support criteria that is causing the problem for the Board
of Supervisors. On the one hand, requiring 90% supportensures that the Board of
Supervisors only has to deal with those requests that have overwhelming support from
the people directly affected. On the other hand, I am sure it is extremely difficult for the
Board to deny a request that has 90% or more community support, regardless of what
other criteria the Board considers important.
For Internal Operation Committee consideration, I have prepared two versions of a new
Road Name Change Policy. The first, which I prefer and recommend, merely changes
the wording to make it clear that the three criteria in the policy are to be used by the
Public Works Director in determining whether the question should be brought before the
Board, and not as the criteria for the Board's decision. Since this version is silent as to
what criteria the Board will consider, it allows the Board the widest possible latitude in
making their decision. The second version is identical to the first,,except I have added
the criteria for Board consideration which you enumerated in your November 25 memo.
I have tried to word this second version in such a way as to indicate that the Board may
consider other criteria as well.
By the way, in making these revisions, I also updated the fees for administration and
signing. They were set 22 and 1/2 years ago, and are badly out of date. They probably
should show up on our list of fees and charges; however, they don't, and therefore
appear to also have been missed during the MSI study and fee changes.
JMW:djh
c:jmw/roadnameAl2
attachments
cc: V. Alexeeff, GMEDA Director
M. Shiu, Asst. P.W. Director
L. Vukad, Traffic Section
R. Gilchrist, Accounting Section
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF: )
Road Name Change Policy) RESOLUTION NO. 92/31
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa RESOLVES:
THAT the following shall be the policy and procedure for handling
requests for road name changes and supersedes Resolution 78/612
and any and all other previous policies and Resolutions
concerning the same matter, effective January 14, 1992 :
Road Name Change Policy
The Board of Supervisors will consider recommendations from the
Public Works Director for changing the name of County roads on
the following two bases :
1 . Changes in a road name for public necessity or convenience,
initiated - by a responsible agency and recommended by the
Public Works Director, are to be made at County expense.
2 . Changes in road names requested by local officials or
individual citizens, but which were not recommended by any
responsible public agency due to lack of a showing of public
necessity or convenience, will be considered by the Board of
Supervisors provided the Public Works Director first
determines that:
a. The new name is not duplicated within the local fire
district or post office area, or within the adjoining
fire districts or post office areas.
b. Ninety percent (90%) or more of the residents on the
road favor the change and indicate their agreement in
writing.
C. A cash deposit to cover the cost of the name change in
the amount of $25.00 for administration, plus $50. 00
per intersection for signs and sign installation, has
been posted with the Public Works Director.
In addition to any other criteria the Board of Supervisors may
wish to consider before approving a road name change, the Board
of Supervisors may also consider:
1 . If the street is named after an individual or family who
continue to live on the street or elsewhere in Contra Costa
County and the individual or family object to the name
change. ,
2 . If the current street name has historical significance in
the area or in Contra Costa County and changing the name
would undermine this historical significance.
3. If the current street name has cultural significance in the
area or in Contra Costa County and changing the name would
undermined or compromise this cultural significance.
I 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 ehown.
ATTESTED: January 14, 1992
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and Cou ty Administrator
By Deputy
RESOLUTION NO. 92/31