The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12201994 - IO1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: �► Costa oi. xA�:...�... .o�= December 12, 1994 County �"�"'�' ;` DATE: �V CONTINUATION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AND SUBJECT: SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . CONTINUE the East County Regional Planning Commission and San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission until October 2, 1995 . 2 . REQUEST the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency (GMEDA) to report to the Board of Supervisors on the activity of the two regional planning commissions and on the implementation of the following recommendations well in advance of October 1, 1995 . 3 . DIRECT that, until October 2 , 1995, the general duties of the Commissions be as follows : A. County Planning Commission: 1 . Countywide general plan text or map amendments . 2 . General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan proposals for projects generating over 1500 peak hour trips . 3 . Subdivision applications over 1500 units within a regional planning commission geographic area when such subdivision is part of a larger project which project would be countywide in impact. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMIN TR TOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE O H R SIGNATURE(S): JE PAAeSCAJ�LNIER ACTION OF BOARD ON a ember 20, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 7 !!�- 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. //�� //�� ATTESTED D XD NV%- 2Jl a0 )!Rq L4 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 4 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,DEPUTY 4 . Non--residential or mixed use projects generating 1500 peak hour trips within a regional planning commission' s geographic area when such project is part of a larger project which project would be countywide in impact. 5 . Zoning ordinance text amendments . 6 . All other duties presently performed by the Commission. 7 . Other matters specifically referred by the Board of Supervisors . B. Regional Planning Commissions : 1 . General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan proposals for projects up to 1499 units when such amendments or proposals are not part of a larger project which large project would be countywide in impact. 2 . Subdivision applications between 101 units and 1500 units, when such applications are not part of a larger project which large project would be countywide in impact. 3 . Non-residential or mixed use projects generating between 101 and 1500 peak hour trips, when such projects are not part of a larger project which large project would be countywide in impact. 4 . As Board of Appeals to consider appeals of decisions of the Zoning Administrator. 5 . Holding meetings and taking testimony on local proposed public works projects in order to provide insights and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the originating Department (i .e. , Public Works, General Services, etc. ) . 6 . Other matters specifically referred by the Board of Supervisors . 4 . DETERMINE that under the County' s adopted CEQA guidelines, the division of the Planning Agency for hearings on Draft Environmental Impact Reports is determined by the Director of Community Development (the Board of Supervisors may express a preference when reviewing proposed schedules for major items) . 5 . REQUEST the County Planning Commission to continue to meet in various areas of the County when appropriate and to meet jointly with the Regional Planning Commission when a project of countywide impact is proposed within the regional commission' s geographic area. The implementation of this request should take into consideration the County Planning Commission' s other hearing obligations and hearing schedules . In this regard, note that in the past two months the County Planning Commission met: A. In North Richmond on October 4, 1994, to conduct a public hearing to rezone the area to P-1 . B. In Rodeo on October 4, 1994, to conduct a public hearing on the Unocal Clean Fuels Project. C. In the San Ramon Valley on October 19, 1994, October 26, 1994 , and November 9 , 1994 in joint public hearings with the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to consider the "Country Club at Gale Ranch" project. 2 1 .0.-1 6 . DIRECT the Zoning Administrator to conduct evening hearings in San Ramon Valley, East County, and West County on projects located in those geographic areas, consistent with the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. Such meetings should start in January or as activity warrants. 7 . DIRECT the Community Development Director to monitor the activities of the three Commissions and the Zoning Administrator and report back to the Board of Supervisors as part of the Department ' s budget presentation for the 1995-1996 County Budget. In addition, DIRECT the Community Development Director to include within the Department' s budget request for the 1995-96 fiscal year projections of anticipated planning, and general plan proposals with plan implementation and application work load for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years and the possible impact of these activities on Commission activities . 8 . REMOVE this subject as a referral to the 1994 Internal Operations Committee. BACKGROUND: On October 18, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a report from our Committee which included the following directions to staff: 1 . DIRECT the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, to return to our Committee on December 12, 1994 with additional information on the County Planning Commission and Regional Planning Commissions, to include at least the following: ✓ Additional clarification of criteria by which a decision is made (or could be made in the future) to refer a given application to the County Planning Commission rather than one of the regional planning commissions . ✓ What are the local concerns and what are the regional concerns that should influence the decision to refer an application to the County Planning Commission as opposed to one of the regional planning commissions? ✓ What procedure and process could be used to get the County Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator into the community more often in order to insure local input on issues? ✓ What process can the Board of Supervisors implement to most effectively insure that both local concerns and regional concerns are heard and fully considered without tilting the process either toward local concerns or regional concerns? 2 . DIRECT the Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, to invite the members of the County Planning Commission and regional planning commissions to provide their comments and recommendations on what steps the Board of Supervisors can take to improve the process of insuring that we have in place as objective a system as possible for receiving and considering all relevant local issues and concerns as well as all relevant regional issues and concerns . On December 12, 1994 our Committee met with Val Alexeeff, Harvey Bragdon, Dennis Barry, Vic Westman and representatives from the San Ramon area and the East County Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Bragdon reviewed the attached report, which we agreed to endorse as presented. 3 Representatives from the East County Regional Planning Commission indicated their opposition to the October, 1995 sunset date for further review of the Regional Planning Commissions and also voiced their opposition to the use of the 1500 unit figure for the County Planning Commission. They indicated they would prefer that the Regional Planning Commissions be left with authority up to 2500 units . It is the opinion of our Committee that it will be important to maintain flexibility and communications among the Commissions and between the Commissions and County staff . We are asking for presentations as a part of the Department ' s budget presentations this coming summer and are also asking that the Department report back with an update on the activity of the Commissions and on the implementation of the above recommendations well in advance of October 1, 1995 so that the Board of Supervisors has time to make a reasoned decision regarding the future of the Regional Planning commissions . cc: County Administrator Val Alexeeff, Director Growth Management & Economic Development Agency Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director Victor J. Westman, County Counsel 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: December 7, 1994 TO: Internal Operations Committee FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director W SUBJECT: Regional Planning Commissions RECOMMENDATION: I. The San Ramon Valley and the East County Regional Planning Commissions be continued to at least October 2, 1995. II. Until October 2, 1995, the Board of Supervisors directs that the general duties of the Commissions be as follows: A. County Planning Commission: 1. Countywide general plan text or map amendments. 2. General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan proposals for projects generating over 1500 peak hour trips. 3. Subdivision applications over 1500 units within a regional planning commission geographic area when such subdivision is part of a larger project which project would be countywide in impact. 4. Non-residential or mixed use projects generating 1500 peak hour trips within a regional planning commission's geographic area when such project is part of a larger project which project would be countywide in impact. 5. Zoning ordinance text amendments. 6. All other duties presently performed by the Commission. 7. Other matters specifically referred by the Board of Supervisors. B. Regional Planning Commissions: 1. General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan proposals for projects up to 1499 units when such amendments or proposals are not part of a larger project which large project would be countywide in impact. 2. Subdivision applications between 101 units and 1500 units,when such applications are not part of a larger project which large project would be countywide in impact. 3. Non-residential or mixed use projects generating between 101 and 1500 peak hour trips, when such projects are not part of a larger project which large project would be countywide in impact. 4. As Board of Appeals to consider appeals of decisions of the Zoning Administrator. 5. Hold meetings and taking testimony on local proposed public works projects in order to provide insights and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and the originating Department (i.e., Public Works, General Services, etc.). 6. Other matters specifically referred by the Board of Supervisors. III. CEQA Under the County's adopted CEQA guidelines, the division of the Planning Agency for hearings on Draft Environmental Impact Reports is determined by the Director of Community Development(the Board of Supervisors may express a preference when reviewing proposed schedules for major items). IV. Request the County Planning Commission continue to meet in various areas of the County when appropriate and to meet jointly with the Regional Planning Commission when a project of countywide impact is proposed within the regional commission's geographic area. The implementation of this request should take into consideration the County Commission's other hearing obligations and hearing schedules. In the last two months the County Planning Commission met: (1) In North Richmond on October 4 to conduct a public hearing to rezone the area to P-1. - 2 - i I 1 (2) In Rodeo on October 4 to conduct a public hearing on the Unocal Clean Fuels project. (3) In the San Ramon Valley on October 19, October 26 and November 9 in joint public hearings with the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to consider the "Country Club at Gale Ranch" project. V. Direct the Zoning Administrator to conduct evening hearings in San Ramon Valley, East County and West County on projects located in those geographic areas, consistent with the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. Such meetings should start in January or as activity warrants. VI. Direct the Department of Community Development to monitor the activities of the three Commissions and the Zoning Administrator and report back to the Board of Supervisors as part of the Department's budget proposal. In addition, the Department's budget proposal shall include projections of anticipated planning,general plan proposals with plan implementation and application work load for the next fiscal years 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and the possible impact on Commission activities. DISCUSSION: The recommendations would allow the Board to define the roles of the various units in the Planning Agency, put the policy in action, allow for nine or ten months of evaluation of the roles and activities, and then, within the context of the County's budget process, make a decision. VA:g9 cc: Supervisor Tom Powers Supervisor Jeff Smith Supervisor Gayle Bishop Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Tom Torlakson Harvey Bragdon, Community Dev. Director Victor J. Westman, County Counsel - 3 -