HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10181994 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I 0.-1 5 ...L. Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE �►~ '. Costa
�A. ... 4oQ County
October 10, 1994 °
DATE: erg.cuiiK`�
SUBJECT: REPORT ON REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
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?
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF CO Y ADMI IS AT R R OMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE T
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
IT IS BY THE BOARD�W:ORDERED that recommendations 1 and 2 are
APPROVED; and the matters are again REFERRED to the Finance Committee
as well as the..Internal Operations Committee for consideration; and
staff is DIRECTED to hbtify�'Supervisor Bishop when the Internal
Operations Committee will again consider the matter.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I I ) 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 October 18 , 1994
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Administrator SUPERVISOR ND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Director, GMEDA
Community Development Director
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
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 .
BACKGROUND:
On August 2 , 1994, the Board of Supervisors referred to the
Internal Operations Committee the future of the Regional Planning
Commissions . In summarizing the referral, the Clerk of the Board
listed the referral as follows :
REFERRED the matter to the Internal Operations Committee
for review and report on issues, including possible
configuration of the commissions, possible advisory
committees, standby commissions, leaving the commissions
as they are and the criteria for project
consideration. . . "
On September 27, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a report
from our Committee, including the following recommendations :
1 . DIRECT the Director, GMEDA to outline for our
Committee a possible option by which the Board of
Supervisors could reconfigure the size and
membership of the County Planning Commission in
order to achieve the following goals :
• Insure that the special needs of local issues
which need to be addressed locally are
addressed locally and in a setting which
encourages and facilitates local input.
• Insure that issues of broader concern which
impact residents in areas of the County
outside of the immediate area involved in an
application or decision include a countywide
perspective which takes into account these
broader perspectives .
2 . DIRECT the Director, GMEDA to provide his report to
our Committee on Monday, October 10, 1994 at 9 :00
A.M.
On October 10, 1994 our Committee met with Val Alexeeff, Director,
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, Vic Westman,
County Counsel, and Dennis Barry, Deputy Director, Community
Development Department. Mr. Barry reviewed the attached report
with our Committee.
Also present were about a dozen representatives of the East County
Regional Planning Commission and San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission, as well as concerned citizens .
Sherri Anderson read a letter from Roberta Fuss of Discovery Bay
indicating her support for maintaining the East County Regional
Planning Commission. Seth Cockrell suggested that the communities
in East County feel neglected by the County. He suggested using
the Municipal Advisory Councils to provide additional input on
planning issues . Most of the other comments were in support of
retaining the regional planning commissions, in most instances
without any changes .
Supervisor Smith pointed out that the Board 's job is to balance a
number of competing interests and make a decision. He is
interested in seeing whether we can improve the situation and
insure that all interests are taken into account.
2
Supervisor DeSaulnier indicated that he believes the planning
process can be improved. He wants staff to work with the planning
commissions to improve the current process . He indicated that he
was opposed to eliminating the regional planning commissions and
suggested that he is primarily interested in improving the process .
Supervisor Smith noted that the present process tends to
artificially move the system either in favor of local interests or
in favor of regional issues . He is interested in designing a
system which will not favor either point of view but will insure
that all viewpoints have been heard and considered.
Based on our discussion, we have formulated the above
recommendations which we would like staff to work on and return to
our Committee in December. We hope to have further recommendations
for the Board following that meeting.
3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: October 4, 1994
TO: Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director
SUBJECT: Regional Planning Commissions
At your meeting of September 19, 1994, you requested additional information.
Again, this report follows the outline in the memo dated September 27, 1994 and
signed by Claude Van Marter.
In our memo of September 14, 1994 (copy attached) we offered as possible options
the restructuring of the County Planning Commission if one or both of the regional
Commissions were eliminated (options 8, 9, 10).
The IOC report of September 19, 1994 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors
stated:
1 . DIRECT the Director, GMEDA to outline for our Committee a possible
option by which the Board of Supervisors could reconfigure the size and
membership of the County Planning Commission in order to achieve the
following goals:
Insure that the special needs of local issues which need to be
addressed locally are addressed locally and in a setting which
encourages and facilitates local input."
Staff discussion: If the County Planning Commission were reconfigured in one
of the forms suggested in options 8, 9 or 10 of the September 14, 1994 staff
report, the Commission could regularly or when activity warranted, meet in the
local area when local issues need to be addressed locally. The County Planning
Commission has already done this. Recent examples are: the joint meeting
with the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission regarding the
Dougherty Valley General and Specific Plans and related entitlements; meeting
held on October 4, 1994 in North Richmond for a public hearing on a proposed
P-1 zoning for the North Richmond area; meeting held on October 4, 1994 in
Rodeo to consider the land use permit for the Unocal Clean Fuels Project; and
a scheduled meeting to be held later this month in another joint meeting with
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to consider the Country
Club at Gale Ranch.
Another option for local meetings on local issues if the County Planning
Commission is not reconfigured, would be for Zoning Administrator hearings to
be held monthly and as activity warranted, in the evenings in the local area.
In order to respond to concerns expressed at the IOC meeting of September 19,
1994, it would be possible to include in the Zoning Administrator's agenda
public discussion on minor public works projects proposed within the regional
planning commission's jurisdiction. This could save, for the citizens living in
the area, a trip to Martinez and could provide valuable input to the Board of
Supervisors and the Public Works Department.
Should your Committee and the Board of Supervisors select the second option,
we would be prepared to start the regional Zoning Administrator meetings in
December.
Insure that issues of broader concern which impact residents in
areas of the County outside of the immediate area involved in an
application or decision include a countywide perspective which
takes into account these broader perspectives."
Staff discussion: If option 10 of the September 14, 1994 report were selected,
then the one commission, the County Planning Commission, would have a
countywide perspective while considering all issues before it. If options 8 or
9 were selected or if both Regional Planning Commissions were retained, the
Ordinance describing the duties of each commission .could be made more
specific. For instance, there is an ambiguity in when a project is regional or
countywide in impact. Dougherty Valley at 11,000 units is obviously
countywide in impact, the Wiedemann Ranch with 350 units is not countywide.
The Tassajara Valley and the Cowell Ranch projects at 5,000 or 6,000 units
appear to be Countywide in impact and probably should be heard by the County
Planning Commission.
Should your Committee and the Board of Supervisors elect not to reconstitute
the County Planning Commission, Staff recommends that we be directed to
prepare and report back to your Committee in early December suggestions for
specifically outlining the duties of the three Commissions. Some duties might
be (for regional Commissions):
projects of between 101 units and 1,500 units, when such projects are
not part of a larger project which large project would be countywide in
impact.
2
non residential or mixed use projects generating between 101 and 1,500
peak hour trips, when such projects are not part of a larger project which
large project would be countywide in impact.
holding meetings and taking testimony on local proposed public works
projects in order to provide insights and recommendations to the Board
of Supervisors and originating Department (i.e., Public Works, General
Services, etc.).
other matters specifically referred by the Board of Supervisors.
HEB:gg
Attachment
cc: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Val Alexeeff, Director "
SUBJECT: Regional Planning Commissions
At your meeting of August 15, 1994, you asked for additional information. This
report generally follows the outline in the memo of August 18, 1994 signed by Claude
Van Marter. In some cases we have. combined items.
I. Options available (including appeal process):
1. Retain the present system of three planning commissions. (County, San
Ramon Regional, East County Regional). Commissions hear appeals of
the Zoning Administrator decisions. Appeals of Commissions' actions
are heard by the Board of Supervisors.
2. Eliminate one or both of the regional commissions. Appeals would be
heard as #1 above.
3. Change the area of the San Ramon Regional Planing Commission to
coincide (as much as possible) with the Southwest Area Transportation
Committee (SWAT) boundary. The East County Regional Planning
Commission and the TRANSPLAN boundaries are virtually the same.
Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
4. Increase efficiency of the Commissions by reducing continuances. Staff
reports will be prepared earlier and as completely as possible in order for
the Commissions to have time before the scheduled meeting to call staff
with questions, or to ask for additional information. Staff response could
then be mailed prior to the meeting or presented at the meeting. The
Board of Supervisors could amend the Ordinance Code to specify
specific time limits for actions by its planning agency components. Both
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and Marin
County have similar requirements. Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
5. Group items for meeting every other month. This option would be used
when the workload was down, and in effect, is what is now practiced
in the San Ramon Regional Planning Commission area. If business is
very slow, then the Commission(s) could be put on a stand-by basis with
meetings only on call. Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
6. If option #5 above was in place and it presented a hardship, the
applicant could request a special meeting, and if granted, would pay the
costs. Appeals would be as #1 above.
7. Establish a surcharge on application fees for projects within the regional
planning commission boundaries. This was the approach when the area
commissions were formed in 1977. Around 1985-86, the surcharge
was removed and County policy became supporting the regional
commissions through the general fund.
8. Restructure the makeup of the County Planning Commission if the San
Ramon Regional Planning Commission is eliminated to:
five commissioners, one from each supervisorial district
two commissioners, now appointed at large, to be from the San
Ramon Regional Planning Commission jurisdiction.
Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
9. Same as #8 above if the East County Regional Planning Commission is
eliminated with the two commissioners to be from the East County
jurisdiction. Appeals would be as #1 above.
10. Restructure the County Planning Commission if both regional
commissions are eliminated to have nine members:
five commissioners, one from each supervisorial district
four commissioners, two from each regional jurisdictions.
Appeals would be heard as #1 above.
II. Referrals to the Regional Planning Commissions
1 . At present, all three planning commissions consider:
a) General Plan Amendments
b) Rezoning Applications
c) Tentative maps for subdivisions 101 units or more, unless the
tentative map is associated with a rezoning request, in which
case, it is considered by the commission along with the rezoning,
regardless of the number of lots.
d) Appeals of decisions of the Zoning Administrator.
2
2. The exceptions are as follow, where in each instance the hearing body
is the County Planning Commission:
a) County-wide general plan text or map amendments.
b) General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan proposals for
projects that are approximately 5000-6000 units or larger in size.
c) Zoning Text Amendments.
d) Any other planning matter specifically assigned by the Board of
Supervisors. >
3. Under the County's adopted CEQA guidelines, the division of the
Planning Agency for hearings on Draft Environmental Impact Reports is
determined by the direction of Community Development (the Board of
Supervisors may express a preference when reviewing proposed
schedules for major items).
III. Redefine the Boundaries of the Regional Planning Commissions
On Monday, September 19, 1994, we will present maps showing:
1. The jurisdiction of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,
the Town of Danville, the City of San Ramon, the City of Walnut Creek
(outside the boundary of the regional commission but does form the
northern limit), the territory within the adopted urban limit line within the
commission's jurisdiction.
2. A similar map of the jurisdiction of the East County Regional Planning
Commission with its cities of Brentwood, Antioch and Pittsburg, the
urban limit line and the agricultural core.
3. A County map at a smaller scale showing the information in #1 and #2
above and the boundaries of SWAT and TRANSPLAN (see 1 3 above).
IV. Counties with Regional Planning Commissions
1. Fortunately, San Luis Obispo County recently conducted a survey. of
California's counties and received responses from 56 counties (excluding
San Francisco and San Luis Obispo, which does not have a regional
planning commission). The results of the survey are attached. Five
counties including Contra Costa are shown as having regional planning
commissions. However, in our review, there are really only two other
counties with regional planning commissions similar to ours Riverside,
(for which the regional planning commission concept was originally
enacted by the State) and Toulumne.
3
The other two, Sacramento and Sonoma, have two commissions that
divide functions, not geography. One of Sacramento's commissions
considers land use issues, the other, subdivisions. Sonoma has a
Planning Commission and a Board of Zoning Appeals.
2. Characteristics of the two Counties with regional planning commissions:
a) Riverside (population 7/1/93: 1,338,600)
County Planning Commission.
Eastern County Planning Commission - part of two
supervisorial districts, five commissioners, two appointed
by one supervisor, three appointed by the other supervisor
(based on population).
Meet monthly.
Application fees same regardless of location. Costs are
significantly higher because the County has an office in
eastern Riverside County.
Regional Commission hears
i land use permits
ii variances
iii land divisions
iv but does not hear any project that needs a
general plan amendment, specific plan; or a
rezoning. These are heard by the County
Planning Commission.
- All major projects go to the County Planning Commission.
All appeals are heard by the Board of Supervisors.
- There were three regional planning commissions but
because of incorporations, only one is left.
The Eastern Regional Planning Commission hears only one
or two items a month. There are now ten cities instead of
the original five within the regional commission's
jurisdiction - and business is slow.
Because of budget concerns and costs, the place for
4
regional commission in the planning agency is being
reviewed.
The satellite office is 75 miles from the County Seat.
b) Toulumne (population 7/1/93: 52,700)
- County Planning Commission 7 members
- Jamestown Planning Commission 7 members
- Columbia Planning Commission 7 members
- South County Planning Commission 5 members.
(Since the County has not yet responded to our inquiry, we will
report to the IOC on September 19, 1994 if we have received
information).
VA:gg
Attachment
5
County AdministratorContra Board of Supervisors
Tom Powers
County Administration Building Costa
O C ta 1st District
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor `7 C.l Jeff Smith
Martinez,California 94553-1229County 2nd District
(510)646-4080
Gayle Bishop
FAX: (510)646-4098 a L 3rd District
Phil Batchelor ;`• Mark DeSaulnier
County Administrator r/ 4th District
Tom Torlakson
e 5th District
August 18, 1994
INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH
THE CONTINUATION OF THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS
The Community Development Department recently advised you of the
meeting of the Internal Operations Committee of the Board of
Supervisors (Supervisor Jeff Smith and Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier)
on August 15, 1994 regarding the future of the Regional Planning
Commissions. We apologize that the very short timeframe against
which we were working did not provide time for more adequate notice
of this meeting.
At the meeting, the Director of the Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency, Val Alexeeff, and the Community Development
Director, Harvey Bragdon, presented the enclosed report to the
Internal Operations Committee.
The Internal Operations Committee has asked for a much more
extensive staff background paper and analysis of the following
types of issues:
✓ Additional information on available options,
✓ Criteria for referrals to regional planning commissions,
✓ The feasibility of reconfiguring the territory for which the
regional planning commissions are responsible,
✓ The possible use of standby planning commissions,
✓ The appeals process which would be available if the County
were to consider any of these options,
✓ Information regarding the use of continuances by the regional
planning commissions,
✓ What other counties use regional planning commissions,
✓ What experience other counties have had with the use of
regional planning commissions,
✓ What type of fee schedule is charged in other counties which
use one or more regional planning commissions,
Kso
Department of Planning and Building
San Luis Obispo County
Alex Hinds, Director
Bryce Tingle,Assistant Director Barney McCay, Chief Building Official
Ellen Carroll,Environmental Coordinator Norma Salisbury,Administrative Services Officer
August 17, 1994
Contra Costa Growth Management and
Economic Development Agency
Harvey E. Bragdon, Planning Director
651 Pine Street, N. Wing, 2nd Floor
Martinez, Ca. 94553
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION CHARACTERISTICS SURVEY
Recently, the County of San Luis Obispo requested that each county complete a survey of
Planning Commission characteristics. We would like to thank you for your timely responses.
56 of 57 counties completed the survey (the City/County of San Francisco did not respond).
For your information, attached are the results of the survey. If you have any questions about
the responses or require assistance in interpreting the attached report, please don't hesitate to
contact me directly at (805) 781-5193.
'Thank you again for your assistance in this matter.
S ncer
Kami Gnriffi S ne
ffl
General Plan ministration
County Government Center * San Luis Obispo • California 93408 • (805) 781-5600 • Fax (805)781-1242 or 5624
Cl) -n m a n n n C13 a
r- ;a r- m O 0ON
r" m t- G 40
0 03 -4 21. -4 AZ
23 1 V) 2 r
A m 0 a
)b
zym
-C 7C >rt Z z z x 3C
0 0 o m 0 0 o 0 o 0
(A
m
4z 2
(A
O C2, CD 40 O O O O O W O O CD CD O O qb
0
ro
ah
0
m
V
02
m m m m m m m m m m m m
co N N N N N ca ca N ta W N N 0 ul V
ro
-4
2t 2c x -C z z z z zw
O mO 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
m
X
G*
m
m
C3, 0 O O O C2 a C, O 0 O it
3w
C) "a
r-
m ac
ae x
3cIC -C L2c 3c w 3c O Cf
m O C O O O 0
m
m
X
m
C3, 0 40 4a) C3 40 C) Q 40 0 0 CD
m
m
ri 3c V M
m
x m
ca )w — ac
;a
m n= at -4 m
30 -4
Mme rn -4 -4
C, W m v in
a 1�
3cCIS7C
r" m -4
3c
co A
mX
m -4 30 w
C7 ;u 3070m
+ N m = 9 10
w m m
9 m z V
0 m m In ul w
aC -4 -4 m m vv 0
2 4 ul cj
C:
f-
-4 m w -4
-C
m w + m
z 0 m 0 C�m ac
30
m a ac C7 3D m
0 M cl :1.
03 a
30 m
m lip
(A z x
w 03 -017 clM ro-
m m m m
C -4
M a r- m
m w m m 2c m z
es m m
w
m w 3C = Wm
m cm
m 3C m
m
C2
;a m 44 m 0
m 73 r- a 30
m
m
M
;Q
m
m cl
70 m
rn
m
W rn
rij
-C oW 02c 2e ge
M 0
to 0
m
V
rs
N
C3 a 0 0 (2 a o a o 0 0 0 CD
0
V
CA
%A 0 Y Ln %A Un aJ VI tA IA y %R y ul %A %A 16M ik
O
m
.4 Z K -C -C K K K -C -4 K -9 K -4
m O m m m m m m m m m m m m m rn m
(A N N us
O
(A
4
am x 3c z z x m z K x ac z 3: z 3c
0 o O O O 0
m 0 0
(4
m
oc
co
m
0 O O O 10 0 0 0
30
C) V
r-
m at
3c at
ul
3c Z 3c 3c m Z z me z .4 x z z zge
O -4
0 0 0 0 m 0 0 m
(A 46
m to
O C2 40 10 CD C3 O a CD C,3, 0 c3 C2 C3 lu
A
30
0ac
=
C7 m m m m V"
o m 3. g
C7
m 30 m
M -4
C) 0 0 p C7
0
0 C4 44 W
-4 -4
ri cl 20 m
m + +
m 30
4 2 m
N 42
mei W
lm*
-4
P4
goPT (A 3c M
'o 2 )b m
m m m
m to
W m
o C) fA ac
m -0
m :!
ac
A
0
m
V 30
;a 0
A m
N
m
4
m
30
-4
2t
-U4' yp O 2 x > 5 t i; v.
N m W 2c Z ac to
r" -4 20-4 C- C7 am w 3co -4
Si 0 m m -C
-4
m cl
3p E 0 0 30. -4 -4
M co m 0
'I
ao
2c am 2e 2c z z L z Ne 2c z -<
44 0 0
rn
cn
CD O O C3 O o O ri 4h
O
%A %A V1 %ft %A -4 %A 4k
O
m
V
-9
m m m m m m m m m rm M m m m m m m
w (A to &I to C4 (A (A iA V) 0 CA -W w V
-4
3c -4
0 m 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Cf
m
-0 CD 40 0 0 o Q 0 C3 C) C2, O 0 *k
3c Z Z z Z Z z Z 2c z am Z Z 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
m to
r-j 4i O O 42 C. CD O 0 0 C2 C) (D C), O O qk yy
m tr
+ 0 m
m )w M m m C" m m C)
1-0m 21. 2 p. 0 3w > = =
n 0 n I n V2
ul = = = — = -4
(a ac -4
C, cl W
C4 (A
N -4 -4 -4
30 Z
A 2: cl
394 0 n C7
-4 -4 -4 n
+ r- + m + + V)
+ m
m M n
R = n m
M m a*
2 2
mGO
r- m V)
M -4 -4 m N >
-4 4 M -4m fA
3p m m m m 2
4 o M x m C7
m 39 m + w
Z
30 GL
W m
-4 -4 m m
(A (A 30 m
m m 3.
V m -4
.c 0 m
JO
it 30
+ V
m L
a
w -4
4
m ri m
0 M
cl 44 -C m
m
P! 1 4= <
7p V1 m V
0
mC-
x m m
m
2C
re
m
2C 3c w
m
V)
m
V
to
tl
0 0 0 C3 r M
O
C2
#A
0
T
A
rn
m m rn m m rn
(A
fA N us "a
(A
O
U41
-4
0 0 cl
3c 30
m
3c
03
m
A
.j
ab
)w
cl
z
m
x
V)
0
-4
m
M
m
x
wk
0
m ret
C)
m 3c
t's m m
-4
in w cn
4 -4 a
-4
Cl)
4 -4 rn 3C
cl
+ + w 3C
;c
A
in
30
4
30
)a
cl C -4
m
a m
m
03 m m
m (A
02x
m
0 Vm
m
A
(A
cl
GO
Lti
30