Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10011996 - D8 D.8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 1, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop and Torlakson NOES: Supervisors De Saulnier and Smith ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Review Process Regarding the Dougherty Valley, Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows Projects in the San Ramon/Danville Area. Supervisor Bishop presented an oral report and letters from constituents to the Board of Supervisors regarding the review process of the Dougherty Valley, Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows Projects in the San Ramon/Danville area. Chairman Smith invited the public to comment on the matter and the following persons spoke: Sheila Savage, 4484 Fleetwood Road, Danville; and Curt Kinney, Mayor, City of San Ramon, 2222 Camino Ramon, San Ramon. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board had further discussion and took the following action: 1 . ACCEPTED the letters as submitted by Stephanie A. McFarland; Millie Greenberg, Mayor, Town of Danville; Members of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission; and Servando and Sheila De La Torre requesting the Board of Supervisors to reconsider its decision on the reinstatement of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in the hearing process for the Dougherty Valley, Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows Projects; 2. REFERRED the matters of the Dougherty Valley, Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows Projects to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for comment and to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission for recommendation, with jurisdiction having been granted to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on September 10, 1996. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: October 1, 1996 aneWampler, zljeplt e Board of Super ors ClerkF cc: Board of Supervisors County Counsel GMEDA Community Development Department Contra Costa County Planning Commission (via CDD) San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (via CDD) Sep. 20. 1996 10:50AM CITICORP BANKERS LSG No. 1156 P. 1 g' 9 The Clerk of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors County Administration.Building 651 Pine Street, First Floor Martinez, CA 94553 September 18, 1996 Dear Clerk of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors: I respectfully request that the supervisors place item D14 of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors' agenda for the meeting of September 10, 1996, back on the agenda for reconsideration. I would also like to request that public notification be given that clearly states the specific projects involved, and whether action is expected to be taken. I request this reconsideration based upon these understandings: 1) The Board of Supervisors' ruling September 10,1996 with regard to item D14 on the agenda is a deviation from past protocol and standard procedures to exclude local and regional planning commissions from input on development issues in their own communities. 2) item 1)1.4(pertaining to the amendment of the general plan to facilitate the development of Wendt Ranch and Tmsajara Meadows)of the Contra Costa. Board of Supeivisors' agenda, was deceptively vague as to its' topic and gave no indication that a decision would result from the discussion. Therefore, interested parties were not in attendance because proper notice was not given to allow for public input. Please reconsider the ruling to deny local representatives a voice in determining the fate of their community. Sincerely, 1. Steplianie A. McFarland 4111 Creekpoint CT. Danville, Ca. 94506 cc: All Board Supervisors Director of Community Development, Dennis Barry RECEIVED SEP 2 3 N6 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA r,051A CQ I September 20, 1996 Jeff Smith, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 t-Hair Smith and Members of the Board: In August 1996, Contra Costa County released the Draft Environmental Impact Reports for the Tassajara Meadows and Wendt Ranch projects. Though not within the Town of Danville's sphere of influence, these properties are contiguous to the Town limits. Recently, the Board took action to modify the review of these environmental documents and processing of development applications for these properties. Specifically,the Board determined that these applications should be considered by the County Planning Commission. The Town feels that the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission is better qualified to consider these developments and make recommendations to the Board, due to their greater familiarity with planning issues in the San Ramon Valley and opportunity for local residents to attend and participate in Planning Commission meetings locally rather than in Martinez. Since the two projects collectively propose the development of less than 600 units, they do not appear to meet the criteria for referral to the County Commission. At their regular meeting of September 17, 1996,the Danville Town Council acted to request that the Board reconsider this process and permit these applications to be heard before the San Ramon Valley Area Planning Commission. T harms you for your consideration. Sincerely, Town of Danville Millie Greenberg Mayor MG:rf cc: Town Council 510 La Gonda Way • Danville,California 94526-1722 (510)820-6337 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 September 23, 1996' RECEIVE® By FAX & U.S. Mail SEP 2 519 Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF suP_RvisORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CONTRA COSTA co. 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553-0095 RE: Reinstatement of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in the Hearing Process for the Dougherty Valley,Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows Projects Dear Supervisors: The undersigned members of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (SRVRPC) urgently request that the Board of Supervisors reinstate the SRVRPC to its role in the review of the referenced projects. Both the original Dougherty Valley and Country Club at Gale Ranch projects were reviewed by the SRVRPC in public hearing, as this and future Dougherty Valley applications should be. The Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows projects are being reviewed separately from any "umbrella" process for the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA)project and there is, to our knowledge, no adopted schedule for public review of the TVPOA project. Because these two smaller projects are each less than 1500 units and because of their disconnection from any larger project, the appropriate official hearing body for these two projects, under the Board's current Planning Agency policies, would in fact be the SRVRPC. We agree with the Board's view that a countywide perspective should be part of the review of significant projects such as the Dougherty Valley. The Board itself provides a countywide perspective by virtue of its election by district. It is equally important that a local perspective and the benefit of local knowledge be part of the process. While fiscal, resource and other effects of San Ramon Valley projects are indeed countywide issues, most project effects, such as jobs/housing balance, school, public service, environmental, aesthetic, traffic and other impacts are experienced primarily in the San Ramon Valley, its cities and its neighborhoods. We are also aware of certain statements in the press which, if accurately reported, question the integrity of some or all of the members of this Commission. One such article is attached for reference. Please be advised that neither the current nor, in our Board of Supervisors September 23, 1996 Page 2 experience, any prior members of the SRVRPC have ever engaged in "political payback", nor has any applicant, organization or individual been viewed or treated "punitively" or as an "enemy". Commissioners have been uniformly loyal to good planning and to the people of the San Ramon Valley and the County, not political interests of the Board or any of its members. The Commission has been evenhanded and respectful of the rights of applicants and others appearing before them on projects of all sizes. On occasions when project decisions have been delayed, it is typically due to either lack of needed information from the applicant or County staff or to new or changed information provided at the last minute which commissioners have had no opportunity to review. Any who doubt this should see for themselves by attending our meetings, rather than speculating as to what occurs. Removal of the SRVRPC from the review of the Dougherty Valley, Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows projects harms the citizens and communities of the San Ramon Valley. We urge the Board to reinstate the SRVRPC to its role in the public review of these projects. Yours very truly, Michael A. Gibson, Chair Sherry Neely r7 Y Edward S. Pancoast. Vice-ChairNanc;�J. Mhavuhill Neal Matsunaga Scott Couture Brian Harvey unavailable. cc: Councils, Danville & San Ramon (by Fax) Alamo Improvement Association Diablo Municipal Advisory Council Dennis Barry, Community Development (by Fax) Board of Supervisors September 23, 1996 Page 3 The projects up for review in- clude the secoud phase of the Planners 11.000-unit Dongherty Valle}, (4:074 holnes and a vtuage bypassed c4 nide),as cil as the -unit Tme Y Q Wendt fL,ilch and 930-unit Tas- eajara Mrndows projects along !n review C,aAlLhouno 'a 5 tilt!W. review Ailhouglt llrc Wendt and las- sa'Jara Mendous projects have of projects been seg -t:g<lted]tom the Tassa. jilra Valley Property CATiers A5- s6eiatiori s CUKJV-unit project. By Claris l.9vr6s Dtsholr says the project., are srAJ}wigs it Naturally linked to the larger Nanning officials in the San Tassajara development. Ranion Va.Hey will have. no oRl- Proposed developincrit of tip cial voice in ummtinizing tlirec to 17.000 hoines to the Doug- rlevelopilrcnt projects in the herty and Tassajara valleys is Dougherty and Tassalara vol- <txpected to have wide ranginji )vvscounty supervisurs have impacts oil the San Ramon and decided. Livermore vallevs. E'he. (onus Cnsia Crntnty During Tuesday's me0ing, Board of Supervisura voled 3-2 Supervisrn s Mark Uesatllriicr• Ttiesday to have the county `teff 3111111, and Tom Torlakson Planning Commission conduct lave no indication vchv Ute!; hearings and make recommen• voter] to bypass the rcgicinal (ltitiung commission. That mearts the seven- Dennis Sure. deputy di- member San Ratlnon Valley Ile- rector Of county Community De- gionai Planning C,onunission vGopment. recommended the will he left out of the pr(xCuss. move. to save time, so three 311- penYsors (Smith- Bisho and r oJs though its members li c Tbrlakson) can vote on the de- closer]o tied developments- velol)ments before.then leave of- "T ;im really outraged +nn face 11r January. would allcml3[ rel avoid a local ErivJanu icnial lm act. re- whoTe'de this y tip by people ports were reieased this runnlh TC- who are really up t)Cr the is- sues;' said SUPCr%J'8nr Gayle Piesse Bishop. Who voted "no" rvlth sse Pro1aM A-14 Jim Rogers. Projects: Most members Bishop appointees Continued from A-1 group,their recommendations hawn't had much When for the three projects. Hearings are timed so that lufWthe board- the projects would reach the board by November. hcii thheef first stage of approvals were consid- Harry said. eyed for the Dougherty Valley a couple of years DcSauhiier said Wednesday the timing wa:tn't ° the is-o planning rormi Lssious conducted the bit{issue for him. He is concerned that poilt• joint hearings.The Ssn Ramon Valley panel rec- ical payback may play into the regional commis- ommended .9overal conditions of approval that sJori s deliheTaliuna. Most of the members are were n.lccted by the board. appuintees of Bishop.who has opposed Clic Doug- The decision to skirt the local panel surpri.scil hem Valley. parftcularly the developers, Shapell a couple of members, Mike Gibson of Afalno and Industries, the newest member, Scall Couture of San "Maybe there are people clown there'who are Ramon,who had operdy criticized the studies for loyalists to Supervisor Bishop who basically want the Doughcriv Valley during past hearings. to, through the land-use }process. be punitive w "1'm a little concerned about the message it people who they perceive as their enemies." De- sends to the local people: The county wants to Saulnier said. snake decisions tri Martinez about things in our He said the commissioners are welcome to neck or the woods without getting the input of the provide input at the public hearings.He said as a people alTectcd,"Couture said. SRV Herald -- 9/12/96 September 17, 1996 RECEIVED Mr. And Mrs. Servando De La Torre se 19W6 4484 Fleetwood Road Danville, CA 94506 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Board of Supervisors c/o CLERK OF THE BOARD 651 Pine St. Martinez, CA RE: PLEA FOR RECONSIDERATION Dear Supervisors; We respectfully request that you reconsider the decision that you made at the September 10th Supervisors meeting concerning agenda item D14. Several reasons for your reconsideration of this decision: First, it appears that this item was on the agenda for discussion only. The public, specifically the San Ramon Valley and Tassajara Valley regions, were not notified that such a critical decision was being made and therefore we were afforded no opportunity for public comment. In fact, the wording on the agenda was so vague that even newspaper reporters did not realize what was being discussed and left prior to your 3-2 vote to bypass the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for three major projects that will have long term affects on ONLY the San Ramon Valley and Tassajara Valley regions. Second, it is HIGHLY SUSPECT that the this is already on the agenda for the Contra Costa County Commission to hear on September 23. That was sure quick -just barely made the 10 day public notice deadline. In addition, the Contra Costa County Commission meets on a weekday in the afternoon (which will conveniently make it difficult for the general public to attend, while the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission holds their meetings locally and in the evening (which,would enable people to attend). Third, it is also HIGHLY SUSPECT that two of the three votes to bypass the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for projects that fall clearly within their jurisdiction, came from Supervisors running for a higher office. M Furthermore, it is ludicrous at best for Supervisor DeSaulnier to imply that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission are Supervisor Bishop's puppets and would not be fair to the "developer's" . First, there is absolutely no evidence to support this self serving statement as I have experienced first hand the process the SRV Planning Commission uses to make decisions and it is without doubt a thorough and fair process which also includes an appeal process to the Board of Supervisors for anyone who doesn't agree with their decision. Secondly, and most important, there is also no evidence to support that Supervisor Bishop is NOT fair to developers. I have NEVER seen Supervisor Bishop against development, I have only witnessed her fighting against "irresponsible" development. I think Gayle Bishop is trying to avoid what I have been witnessing for the last year and that is the working man coming before the Board of Supervisors time and time again with their woes of unfair treatment by the developer who didn't do what they were supposed to do. There is absolutely no good reason to bypass a decision making body appointed by the Board of Supervisors and put the decisions in the hands of people that do not live here. Again, I respectfully request that the D14 item on the September 10th Board of Supervisors agenda be removed from the September 23rd Contra Costa County Commission agenda and be placed back on the Board of Supervisors agenda for reconsideration at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Servando and Sheila De La Torre 4. V r �y • o► r w r p cu H O a V bE) Ngo N r+ NO Zl J► by O �� �+ Q Z o � U N