Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10131998 - D4 x.692 3 OCT.12.igge ?--3apm PAC BEL raft CONSIDER WITH - . -- ' :. :.. ... Eta.. l i. a .. ly5 ....... .--.. .. fotj �y II DA a, TIME BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA�WORNIA Adopted this Order on October 13, 1998 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Canciamilla and Rogers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Various Considerations For General Plan Amendments, Urban Limit Line Review, Tassajara Ag Preserve, Open Space Acquisition and East County Strategic Plan. on this date, the Board of Supervisors had before it for consideration the September 22, 1998, proposed Tassajara Agricultural Preservation Agreement as recommended by Supervisors Gerber and Canciamilla (D.4A) ; a report from the Director of Community Development on a proposed General Plan and Urban Limit Line review, including the creation of an ad hoc committee and related procedural matters (D.4B) ; referring to the '-Finance Committee identification of alternative recommendations to finance acquisition of privately owned land for open; space and requesting the Committee to report back to the Hoard of Supervisors as recommended by Supervisor Uilkema (D.4C) ; and supporting joining with Pittsburg, Antioch and Brentwood in the development of an East County Strategic Plan as recommended by Supervisor Canciamilla (D.4D) . Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, presented the report on a proposed General Plan and Urban Limit Line review, including creation of an ad hoc committee and related procedural matters. The following persons presented testimony: Toni Van de Brooke, Withers Avenue, Lafayette, commented on issues including smart growth; Jim Jakel, 877 Ygnacio valley Road #202, Walnut Creek, representing the Contra Costa Council; John Pereira, 1505 Finley Road, presented a traffic study to the Board (no copy provided for the record) and spoke on traffic flow; Renee Parker, 5500 Highland Road, Pleasanton, commented on traffic problems, water and open space; Tom Mooers, 1372 N. Main Street, Suite 203, Walnut Creek, representing the Greenbelt Alliance, spoke on urban sprawl and urban limit lines; Jim Gwerder, P.A. Box 553 , Byron, representing CCC CLA, commented on the difficulty of the decisions; Sandee LaViolette, 2305 Norris Canyon Road, San 'Ramon, encouraged the whole Board to be on the ad hoc committee; Clarence Gribbon, 611 Pins Creek Road, Walnut Creek, spoke in opposition to the ag preserve and moving the urban limit line. The public comment period was closed. Supervisor Gerber moved approval of item D.4A and Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion, commenting that he 'would like his item D. 4D included as part of the referral to the ad hoc committee, and requested that Supervisor Gerber set 'a date for the return of the report to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Rogers commented on his preference for a committee of the whole rather than an ad hoc committee but indicated he would vote for the motion if that were the only way the Board were willing to consider. Supervisor Gerber indicated that the committee would be back to the Board at least in January and indicated she would b willing to include item D.4D in the motion as being adopted. Supervisor Uilkema requested that District 2 be' a part of the ad hoc committee. The Board discussed the motion. Supervisor DeSaulnier requested that the Board refer an update on what the Board has done so far to the City/County Relations Committee. Supervisor Canciamilla indicated concurrence with Supervisor DeSaulnier's comments. Supervisor Gerber summarized the motion to include item D.4A and D. 4D, an acknowledgement that the ad hoc committee would report to the full Board by January 1999, and appropriate staff to report to the City/County Relations Committee on the actions of the Board in this matter. Supervisor Uilkema again requested inclusion in the ad hoc committee membership. Supervisor Canciamilla indicated that was not included in the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the September 22, 1998, staff reports regarding a proposed Tassajara Agricultural Preservation Agreement is ACCEPTED; the Board's interest in considering agricultural preservation, a General Plan review and Urban Limit Line review as part of a single comprehensive planning and environmental review process is INDICATED; INTENT IS DECLARED to undertake a comprehensive review of land use and development in Contra Costa County including but not limited to: (Agricultural Preservation, (2) open space protection, (3) General Plan update, and (4) Urban Limit Line Review, all part of a single comprehensive review process; an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of the Supervisors from District 3 and District 5 is ESTABLISHED to conduct a detailed review of items as listed above and prepare a comprehensive report defining scope and ;process, available funding sources (including discussions with the cities) , and boundaries and timelines for an environmental review of the Urban Limit Line and General Plan amendments and all other relevant details as identified by the Board or committee, and include in this review a discussion of the presentation of Mr. Duchi; the Ad Hoc Committee is DIRECTED to report to the Board of Supervisors on these matters in January 1999; the Board's July 14, 1998, statement of intent to decline General Plan amendment studies within the Tassajara area pending a determination of the environmental process by the Ad Hoc Committee and subsequently by the Board is CONTINUED; joining with Pittsburg, Antioch, and Brentwood in the development of an East County Strategic Plan is SUPPORTED and this issue is REFERRED to the Ad Hoc Committee for discussion; and appropriate staff is DIRECTED to provide the City/County Relations Committee with a status report, of the Beard actions on this matter. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board f Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: PHIL BATCHELOR, Cler f the Board oI S rviso nd Co dministrator Byz deputy cc: Community Development Department County Administrator TO: BEARD OF SUPERVISORS D4 wContra "061 Supervisor Donna Gerber ` osta Supervisor Joe Canciamilla CouriLy'F:r DATE: October 13, 1998 F`}. SMICT: Tassajara Agricultural Preservation Agreement and Related Issues Proposed on September 22, 1998 SPECIFIC REOLtE$T(f)OR XtOOMM1ENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommendation: 1. That the Board accepts the 5122/98 staff reports regarding a proposed Tassajara Agricultural Preservation Agreement. 2. That the Board indicates its interest in considering agricultural preservation, a general plan review and urban limit line review as part of a single comprehensive planning and environmental review process. 3. That the Board declare its intent to undertake a comprehensive review of land use and development in Contra Costa County including but not limited to: (1) agricultural preservation, (2) open space protection, (3) General Plan update, and (4) Urban Limit tine review; all review as part of a single comprehensive review process. 4. That the Board establish an ad hoc committee comprised of the Supervisors from Districts 3 and 5 to conduct a detailed review of items 2 and 3 above and prepare a comprehensive report defining scope and process, available funding sources (including discussions with the cities), and boundaries and timelines for an environmental review of the urban limit line and general plan amendments and all other relevant'details as identified by the Board or committee. Include in this review a discussion of the presentation by Mr. Duchi. 5. Continue the Board's 7/14198statement of intent to decline general plan amendment studies within the Tassajara area pending a determination of the environmental process by the ad hoc mittee and subseque y by the Beard. CiYNTINUED ON AT MOIMENT: -)L ms KIG1iATtlRE , RECOMMENDATtON OF COUNTY ADMtWSTRATOR -RECOMMENDATION OF COMWME APPROVE OTHER ACT1ON Of BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER See Board Order on D.4 a,b,c,d for Board action and vote fm Of SUPIRMORS I HERESY CMR "THAT THIS M A TRUE ....�UNANIMOUS(A#M.W ; ANTS CORRECT COPi OF AN=C TAKEN AYES: !1l3ES: AND th"MKO ON THE MIWM Of rra BOARD A"11W. ABSTAIN, Of IUMMORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. :C ATTZSTED PHIL SATCHELGR,CLERK Of THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADRIiN MATOR 4392 (10M) iY ,DEPUTY •r __1111. _ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........._....1.111 1111 ........ ....... ..._..... .......... ....... ......_..._. ..........__. ........._.. ......... ......... ._....... Background: In May 1998, the District 3 Supervisor began discussions with the Beard on an agricultural preservation agreement as a policy mechanism to prevent continued urban sprawl resulting in worsening economic, ecological and social costs. A draft agreement was developed with representatives of the City of San Ramon and the Town of Danville. The Agreement has been adopted by Danville and is awaiting a vote of San Ramon and the Board of Supervisors. This agreement was discussed by the Board on 6123/98 and 7114/98 and continued to 9/22/98 in order to gather more information. Issues such as agricultural viability and voluntary land or development rights acquisition surfaced during the discussions due to significant objections by some landowners who do not perceive a personal benefit in rural land protection. In addition, threats of litigation against the County have been asserted and the Board has sought and received advice from County Counsel. The thrust of legal challenge has been that an agricultural preservation agreement cannot be done separately from moving the County Urban Limit tine and, therefore, an environmental review process for that purpose must be done. During this period, the District 5 Supervisor, attempting to facilitate a consensus on similar issues, began a dialogue with cities and leaders in District 5 and asked them to join with him in addressing the issues on a district basis due to current traffic congestion and projections of worsening conditions. District 3 and 5 have the largest amount of undeveloped rural land remaining in Contra Costa County which is coupled with intense, speculative development pressure and current and future traffic and infrastructure overload projections. It is not surprising that Supervisors in these districts have dedicated a major amount of time and interest to these issues. Both Supervisors have concluded that a synergy of issues, potential solutions, and necessary review and action exists. In an attempt to take proactive action to manage urban growth, recognize legitimate issues, and to decrease the number of unnecessary conflicts, the above plan of action is proposed. It is intended that the ad hoc committee would review the issues listed above and make a comprehensive recommendation to the full Board within a reasonable period of time. It is not advisable, in our opinion, to fragment the different components into different committees because each piece is a critical part of the whole and cannot be rationally separated. i Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa County FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1998 SUBJECT: REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND URBAN LIMIT LINE REVIEW, THE PROPOSED CREATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE AND ASSOCIATED PROCEDURAL MATTERS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION REQOIU#. 11 ENDATIONS 1. AFFIRM the Board's interest in considering agricultural preservation, and AUTHORIZE a General Plan Amendment/Urban Limit Line review as part of a comprehensive planning and environmental review process; 2. CONSIDER establishing an ad-hoc committee of the Board, or, as an alternative, establish a committee of the whole (i.e., the entire Board), to develop a work scope, review process, funding sources, and a time line for the comprehensive planning and environmental review process identified in Recommendation #1, and to further study options for fee or development rights acquisition as outlined in the September 22, 1998 report; CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE, RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER See Board Order D.4 a, b, c, d for Board action and vote VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERE CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND RRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Catherine Kutsuris, CDD(925-335- 21) ATTESTED cc: Community Dow—flnnmAnt r}AnArtmca 1/"`r`lr11 Dull rar1rr`u=l r,c. ^1rr,r.. ,...• Report on General Plan Amendment and Urban Limit Line Review October 13, 1998 Page 2 3. CONSIDER expanding the study of options for fee or development rights acquisition to include the evaluation of: • a financing mechanism similar to a LAFCO special district, and a one or two-time tax levy to raise funds for the purchase of fee title or development rights from willing property owners; the possibility of obtaining a state planning grant; and • other options for funding open space acquisition as may be suggested, including establishment of an agricultural overlay district or a cultivated agriculture and open space district, as discussed by the Board on October 6, 1998. FISCAL MPACT The Community Development Department has expended approximately $11,000 in staff costs to date. The cost of the planning and environmental review process could be developed for the Ad-hoc Committee or for the Board as part of developing the scope of the planning process. BACKGROUN'DIREAS ONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS At the September 22, 1998 meeting, the Board discussed establishing an Ad-hoc committee to define the process, the cost and the scope of a comprehensive planning program which would address agricultural preservation, a General Plan Amendment study (including a modification to the Urban Limit Line), and appropriate environmental review. The Committee recommendations would subsequently be considered by the full Beard. The Board also discussed considering these matters as a Committee of the whole. The discussion also included a request to evaluate the potentialof two additional options for financing the acquisition of fee title or development rights from willing property owners, and a request to investigate the possibility of obtaining a state planning grant. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Board requested a report from the Community Development Director on these items for review and consideration on October 13, 1998. On October 6, 1998, under Agenda Item D.8, the Board discussed including evaluation of two further alternatives for financing open space acquisition: 1) an agricultural overlay district; and 2) a cultivated agriculture and open space district. The Board also discussed the advisability of formatting all such options collected in a single, comprehensive document and the referral of the development of such a oq6 ;(}. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: SUPERVISOR GAYLE B. UIIKEMA Contra Costa ©ATE: September 14, 1998 Counter SUBJECT: Identification of alternative recommendations to finance acquisition of open space. SPECIFIC REQUEST($)OR REC.OMMENOATION(S)a BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS (REVISED): Refer to the CACI the matter of compiling alternatives which are available to the Board of Supervisors for financing the acquisition of privately-owned, open-space land throughout Contra Costa County. Request that the report be brought back to the Board of Supervisors by december 1, 1998 for discussion. BACKGROUND: Within the past year the Board of Supervisors has taken positive steps towards preserving open-space in Contra Costa County, including the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to explore the possibilities of working with the Packard Foundation to obtain private foundation funding. The Board also approved the formation of the Regional land Trust with initial funding from the Keller Canyon proceeds. In anticipation of what appears to be a growing public concern for quality of life issues, open space and alternatives to development it would be prudent to begin exploration of the financial methodology and/or concepts that would accommodate the expenditures necessary to realize future land planning needs. Some ideas that may be investigated and considered are: Bund measure Parcel tax Sales tax Establishment of tax deductible financial vehicles to attract private sector donors «� Formation of a county-wide Special district Conservation District Cane-time tax levy Trusts Other counties should be contacted regarding their methods of open-space acquisitions. DISCUSSION it is important for the Board of Supervisors to have a common frame of reference in dealing with open-space land acquisition issues. it is also critical for the Public to have access to the Board's interpretation of intent when proposals are discussed. The compilation of financing alternatives will provide a common reference point for future discussions as well as the financial implications of acquisition proposals. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YeS SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE _ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): / ACTION OF BOARD CYN APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER � ;Je ocard O:_"{t�:?: D.4 i, b, c, diii )oa d C' ,0I1 and". VJi #? VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I Y CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (AaSENT� ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: ANO ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ,DEPUTY Contact Person: CC: Ir;q4 Centra TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS iCosta FROM: Supervisor Jae Canciamilla County DAVE: October 14, 1988 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SUPERVISOR CANCIAMILLA PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EAST COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS}AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Support joining with Pittsburg,Antioch and Brentwood in the development of an East County Strategic Plan. Budget implications: County share approximately$25,000. BACKGROUND: I proposed a Subregional Strategic Plan for attempting to focus on long term development and transportation issues in District V. The cities of Pittsburg and Antioch have agreed to participate with a presentation scheduled October 19, 1998 before the Brentwood city council. Additional background is attached. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RgCdMMOWDATOF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER Fr r SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED: OTHER: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: See Board Order D.4 a,b, c, d for Board action an ote UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: I HEREBY C THAT THIS 13 A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN A TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. f ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND THE FUTURE OF OPEN SPACE IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A DISCUSSION BY: SUPERVISOR JOE CANCIAMILLA INTRODUCTION Centra Costa County has seen a tremendous number of changes since the early 1950°s. Our population has doubled and many of our communities have expanded beyond what were considered traditional borders. To deal with these changes,we have tried to be proactive in many respects. The Contra Costa County Transportation Authority is one effort. Designed by a coalition of public and private partnerships and supported by voter approval of a half-cent sales tax increase, the authority has overseen the development of transportation projects designed to help alleviate the building traffic congestion... unfortunately this effort which contained a"growth management"component was more focused on developing infrastructure in order to continue development than on real growth management or overall quality of life. Another example is the 1990 voter approved Measure C. This growth control measure attempted to resolve some land use issues by designating urban limit lines which restricted development to 35%of county area while leaving the remaining 55%open space,but failed to address overall quality of life issues. Despite these and other efforts we continue to face a struggle. On one side are those who desire growth and development as a means of improving the economic future of the county by creating jobs,municipal improvements and income for a growing population seeking the benefits of living in the Bay Area. Aligned against them are those who seek to preserve open space and agricultural lands, irreplaceable resources,which make this County a desirable home in the first place. However it is my belief, it is our inability to deal with the byproducts of growth and development, which create our problems. The purpose of my proposal is to develop an organized and reasoned discussion of the issues related to the impacts of growth with traffic congestion being the primary focus. If we as elected officials are unable to provide our residents with an effective system of getting to and from work and business by providing an infrastructure,which allows them to locate and grow within our County, then we will ultimatelyfail in our obligation to provide an acceptable quality of life. This proposal is presented in three parts;the first focuses on Eastern Contra Costa County, the second on Contra Costa County in general and part three on one possible long-term option. I do not present this as the answer to these problems or as the only possible option to examine nor do I try to answer everyone possible question. On the contrary, it is hoped that this will help to spur debate and discussion among our leadership and residents, which might lead to positive long-term changes in local and regional policy. PART ONE EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Eastern Contra Costa County is the focus of much of the growth and development debate occurring today because it contains the largest amounts of undeveloped land in the County. The greatest threat facing East County today is traffic and its resultant congestion, degradation of air quality and the general quality of life. Yet, in marry respects, the East has been the most proactive about dealing with this growing crisis. Our region was the first to develop a sub-regional traffic plan,the first to implement a local traffic mitigation fee to pay for local projects and the first to develop cooperative planning to promote economic development. Antioch and Pittsburg have been aggressive in the development of private and public sector partnerships to develop local economic opportunity efforts. Each city has employed experts to assist in the development of such projects,and has consistently supported regional efforts with staff and financial support to attract jobs and business into the region. Despite all of the plans and the best efforts of City and County planners the rapid residential growth experienced in the region combined with limited access in and out of East County are creating conditions which, if left unchecked,could choke off the entire sub-region. Traffic projections prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority predict traffic congestion on Highway 4 and our local arterials exceeding level F, the lowest level of efficiency within the next ten years. With over 17,300 residential units approved and yet to be builtiand',some 25,200 yet to be approved and built, it is clear that our ability to deal with the transportation overload will be sorely tested. While we have a number of reports on how to build new roads, we have no practical means of paying for all the facilities needed. Thus the crisis builds. In my view there are actions which should be taken without further delay. The county and east county cities should join together in creating a sub-regional task force. This group should then be empowered to develop a sub-regional strategic plan. Most leaders and residents are continually frustrated by what they see as"business as usual". A part of the reason for this can be attributed to the fact that we do not share a collective vision of where it is we want to go since so many important decisions seem to 1 CCC Community Development 2 CC Transportation Authority a be made on a piecemeal basis without looking at the larger picture. We work from one project or crisis to another without ever stopping to discuss and decide on our ultimate destination. What do we want East County to look like 10,20 or 50 years,from now? What kind of lifestyle and community do we want to leave for future generations? It is this belief in our responsibility to the future that should help drive this discussion. Are there easily identifiable solutions? Simply put,the answer is ... no. This should not stop US. A sub-regional strategic plan should consider the type of future that we envision for East County. We should examine not simply community population and design but overall quality of life.cultural options, economic development zones,recreational and educational opportunities. The City of Pittsburg,in designing its plan entitled Vision 2000,did this visioning process in a limited way. The plan stopped at the city limits. None of these issues by themselves can stop at any city or county border, thus the need to take a broader look at our region. What is a strategic plan? "At its best, strategic planning requires bmadscale information gathering,an exploration of alternatives, and an emphasis on the future implications of present decisions. It can facilitate communication and participation, accommodate divergent interests and values, and foster orderly decision making and successful implementation".3 This type of effort can incorporate practicallong range and master planning components while focussing primarily on pulling the communities together to establish a collective vision. All of the local governmental agencies should agree to place a hold on the approval of any additional residential development,which do not currently have vested.entitlements. This hold would need only to continue until a sub-regional strategic plan is developed. But, it is an important component to providing some limited breathing space while the region has an opportunity to examine these broader issues. This hold will give our collective planning and development staffs an opportunity to focus on assisting with the planning efforts while not being distracted by the need to review new projects. It will also allow the policy agencies to create a plan prior to committing to more residential projects. The development of this plan should start without delay therefore 1'plan to begin immediately presenting this proposal to each City Council and Municipal Advisory Council within my district. At each meeting I will be asking for an endorsement for this effort and for the commitment of a council subcommittee and staff support for a follow- up meeting. That meeting will be to design a budget, set the parameters and define the process for the sub-regional study. It is my intent that a complete agreement be reached by.December 1, 1998 with the planning process beginning shortly after the first of the year. The sub-regional plan could then be completed by July 1, 1999. 3 Strategic Planning for Public and nonprofit organizations,John M.Bryson ,v£ .......''I''..,..............................................................................................................................................- ....................................................................................................................... Some concern has been expressed that even this discussion of a limited building slowdown will scare away prospective developers or will create a no-growth image of the sub-region. I believe that these fears are unfounded. We have historically been a pro- growth sub-region and a simple expression of caution and care should not alter that. Our area has a long-standing cornmitment to economic development as noted above. The risks of losing some development based upon these limited restrictions should be balanced by the risks inherent in continuing to build homes without developing acceptable roadways and other transportation systems capable of handling all of the growth. This temporary hold on residential projects and approvals would not apply to commercial/industrial projects. We will not be able to build our way out.of our transportation problems. But with the advances in technology the jobs of the next century should be less dependent on large central office(business centers and more dependent on smaller sub-regional centers and home business/telecommuting. We have an opportunity to attract these jobs of the next century, an opportunity to reach consensus and develop a common strategy for success, an opportunity to be on the cutting edge if we plan for and grow into it. Many disparate groups, from the Contra Costa Economic Partnership to the Greenbelt Alliance have expressed the fear of continuing to grow without a common plan. In a recent report commissioned by the CC Economic Partnership it was noted that "Growth without a balanced (emphasis added) strategy for the use of land,for attracting and retaining jobs and advancing the capacity of the transportation network threatens the County's quality of life',.' Economic development, transportation,jobs and the availability of affordable and varied housing are each critical components of our sub-regions future. Yet at a political and policy level, we have yet to join together to look to the future. 'Susinesses expand only where a city's services can support them. Good transportation...produce(s) the foundation for growth".5 If we cannot provide for a good transportation system and an infrastructure to support our level of growth we must seriously reexamine our continued ability to support that growth. We are divided by the difficulties of local political structures and problems. Both internally and externally our communities are increasingly fragmented over the issues presented by our continuing growth. This is clearly a time,which presents us with.both challenges and opportunities. I hope that we will have the courage to face them. 4 Moving Toward a Sustainable Economy,Keyser Marson Associates,Inc. 5 The twenty-first Century City;Mayor Stephen Goldsmith PA TWO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY We enjoy one of the most diverse and unique Counties in all of California. We are both beneficiaries and victims of our geography. Diversity of weather, communities, cultures and economies creates an exciting and vibrant home. From across our County we exhibit examples of some of the best and worst of the new suburbia. Preserving the desires of each community while developing a common vision for the future may be an all but impossible challenge. Some cities seek no-growth and will challenge any effort to develop a pool of affordable housing,while others seek to fill the demand for realistically affordable homes. How do we balance those needs and desires with the reality that,because of our location, Contra Costa County is and will continue to be in the path of growth and development? How do we approach these issues in a realistic and comprehensive manner? Our County can and should commit to the updating of our general plan, but, not using the same approach,which developed it originally. The use of another"general plan congress"would once again result in a document so politically compromised it loses all real value. The plan should be reviewed and updated at a staff'level incorporating input from each city in the county. The development aspects of the plan should be updated to coordinate between the county plan with those of the cities by involving city staff early in the process. Then the document can and should be circulated for public comment and input. This will take some time,effort and commitment. It will also take the willingness of each City to open itself up to outside input and advice. The plan update should also include new components based upon and following the strategic planning efforts noted in the East County portion of this paper. This strategic vision should be the guiding force behind how the various agencies develop a collective strategy for their future growth and development. This method would also allow for a logical review and update of the County's urban limit lines as part of the overall general plan.review. Cities must then commit to their long-term visions. If they desire residential growth, how will they support it? How will they provide jobs,balance social needs, and create needed infrastructure? If a community does not want growth then are they prepared to offset their lack of growth by financially or politically supporting it elsewhere? Will they also be prepared to support job centers outside of their local jurisdictions? All of these questions and more need to be faced if we are truly going to develop realistic options for dealing with the desires of each area of our county. I anticipate that 12-18 months would be needed for a completed update of the general plan including a review of the urban limit lines. The process should begin early in 1999 and incorporate the sub-regional strategic planning efforts. The Board of Supervisors must commit funding up to a maximum of$500,000 towards this process of general plan update and urban limit line review. This would cover the costs of staff time, consultants and preparation costs. Our transportation systems,job centers, and desire for economic well being link us all. Concord's desire to provide for a more convenient and efficient local road system impacts its neighbors. The San Ramon valley's desire for open space and the Lamorinda area's desire for little or no growth forces development elsewhere. How we share the burdens and obligations for our desires should be open to regional discussion. While this type of discussion may be new to our county it is not a new concept. In his 1993 book "The Spirit of Community"author Amitai Etzioni writes"Each community-whether residential,work-related,monoethnic,or'integrated -needs to work out its own agenda, depending on local circumstances and needs". Yet for each local community to survive it needs to learn to deal with its neighbors. Our opportunity to develop such an approach is certainly here if we have the courage to embrace and accept it. Part of our local isolation is a clear result of a statewide failure of leadership. Since the passage of Proposition 13 our state has failed to accept the responsibility to "fix"the property tax distribution system upon which our local governments rely for survival. Instead, a patchwork of fees,charges and assessments has been provided which have made many of our cities overly reliant upon growth and development for an income streamm to pay for needed civic improvements and infrastructure. As a result, many City Councils and Boards of Supervisors have approved controversial projects in order to meet the growing demands for services. This has all occurred'while state legislators and leaders continue to place more requirements and demands on the local levels. While we cannot independently solve this ultimate dilemma,we can draw attention to it and organize our local efforts and projects so as to minimize the impacts. This will require some thinking"outside the box"of traditional governance, examining such previously verboten topics as revenue sharing and regional general planning which crosses traditional municipal borders. Only in an atmosphere of shared ownership of problems can we begin to develop effective solutions. It is ultimately a question of whether we are truly prepared to try to deal wih the real problems,or merely want to continue to treat the symptoms? t __ __ __ _ PART THREE A DECISION FOR THE COMMUNITY The final piece of this proposal is an implementation plan for the.finial product. No plan, however well designed or intentioned,is of value unless it can be put into practice and into action. Following the completion of an East County sub-regional plan and the update of the Countywide general plan, it is envisioned that not only residential and commercial/industrial planning areas will be identified,but open space, agricultural and urban limit line adjustments as well. If we, as a county community,are truly committed to the concept of preserving and protecting open space, we must be prepared to pay for its protection. Agriculture is a billion-dollar industry in Contra Costa County,and,as such,is deserving of whatever help we can offer. While the county has put into place a"Right to Farm"ordinance, buffer zones need to be created in order to protect not only the farms but local residents as well. Placing new suburban residents alongside ranching and farming operations creates a tremendous amount of conflict. Many of these new residents are not accustomed to the noises; smells and impacts of what have traditionally been rural operations. Yet, these are valuable and desirable parts of our County's economy and tradition. The development of such a proposal,The Contra Costa County Agricultural and Open Space Protection Act, would give county voters an opportunity to express their support for protective measures. Such measures could include the acquisition of development rights and easements, fee purchases and other measures. A local measure would not only provide funds for protective efforts, but would also demonstrate our resident's financial commitment for these efforts. The proposal would include a sales or parcel tax levy for a fixed period of years, which would allow us to generate local dollars to leverage for additional federal,state, and foundation funds which are, or may become available. This type of effort further protects the lives and property rights of owners who would have no other alternative but to sell their property for development, many of whom would rather see their lands protected and preserved for future generations to enjoy. 6 CCC Dept. of Agriculture SUMMARY These proposals are simply ideas that are meant to spark further discussion and debate. I do not present them as the answer or as the only opportunity for preserving and protecting our future. No one has"the answer"to this problem but, because there is no easy solution or quick fix does not mean we shouldn't explore, discuss and debate these critical issues. Up until now,we have tried to deal with many of these concerns in bits and pieces, never taking the time or energy to examine the entire picture.- It is my hope and desire that we take that time,now,before it's too late. As we continue to develop and grow,we will continue,to strain our ability to keep up with the demands for transportation improvements. Simply telling our constituents to trust us to take care of these things is unfair and unrealistic. There are no easy answers or quick fix solutions. If we choose to continue to develop and to grow beyond that which is already approved, then we should do so aware of the implications and the risks. We should recognize and acknowledge that traffic will get not just worse,but much worse. We should also recognize that it might, in the near future,jeopardize our ability to attract business and jobs, and will most certainly be a growing problem for our residents. Finally,we must examine all of these issues in the context of what type of County do we want to live in and be a part of? What kind of County do we desire to leave for future generations? What are our priorities for the future and ourselves? In my initial public statement on these proposals I declared that it was time to acknowledge that we had created an"emperor"of our transportation system. We've talked about its wondrous wardrobe of projects, but that it was now time to say that the emperor wears no clothes. It's time to accept that our desire for new transportation projects and systems has outpaced our ability to pay. But, it is not too late to begin to weave a new wardrobe out of new cloth; cloth made of co-operation,commitment and consensus. STATEMENT BY SUPERVISOR JOE CANCIAMILLA I have asked you here today to have an honest and frank talk about development in Contra Costa County and East County development and the traffic it has caused in particular. To announce that it's time we do something about it and to present part one of my three-part pian for action. Besides this statement I will shortly be releasing a position paper outlining in more detail how we can together develop workable solutions to the traffic and development concerns. East County traffic on Highway 4 is at a standstill during the morning and evening rush hours. Rush hours, which keep expanding to take up a larger part of every day. Chances are, you experienced delays just getting hese this morning. A simple ride from Southeast Antioch to downtown Martinez can take a resident over an hour, with traffic just edging along, if moving along at all. Surface and sub-regional streets, including Kirker Pass, Vasco and Marsh Creek Roads, are often used to bypass Highway 4, and are even slower during the rush hours. And as these roads congest we become targets for traffic restrictions by others hoping to relieve their local burdens. Traffic projections make the future picture even more dismal. All of the detailed analyses of future traffic rate Highway 4 as a "Level of Servide F" ... the worst traffic possible, representative of jammed and fully congested conditions. And there is no sign of this improving. But that's simply stating the obvious, we are fooling ourselves and our constituents if we believe that anything that we do at this point will keep traffic from getting worse. And yet, East County officials continue to approve development after development, pretending that there really is something or some action we can take to relieve the traffic. Pretending that the plans,meetings, workshops and funding requests will keep everyone placated and away from realizing the truth. Promising our residents "don't worry, it will get better soon", that more homes will lead to a new and prosperous future for the entire region. If that weren't enough and if the traffic isn't bad enough already ... there are over 11,330 new housing units ALREADY APPROVED BUT NOT YET BUILT IN EAST COUNTY. Now, I ask you, how are we going to accommodate the traffic that these new homes are going to generate? And with that typeof backlog what is the need to continue the rush to annex more land, build more homes and add to the daily morass that already exists. I'm here today to say something that a lot of us know but have been reluctant to say, and that is "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." We need to get our heads out of the sand and get a good grip on reality: THE TRAFFIC IS' NOT GOING TO GO AWAY...it's only going to get worse unless we have the courage to truly deal with the issue of the future of our region, and ultimately the entire county, in a collective and cooperative way. Many of us elected to represent East County ... go to the transportation meetings (and there are a lot of them), and talk about what we can do to fix Highway 4, and the other regional problems. But it's really just a lot of talk. We would need to widen Highway 4 to 10 lanes to make a dent in the traffic at rush hour. AND THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. We fool ourselves into believing that our efforts at patching the system will have any real effect when we continue to face the onslaught of more and more new residents commuting to and from work. So, I am here today to take a couple of bold steps to get us closer to dealing with the truth. The first step: I AM DECLARING A TRAFFIC STATE OF EMERGENCY IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, PARTICULARLY EAST COUNTY. Believe me, to every one of our residents who tries to get to and from work every day ... it is a state of emergency every single day, even when it's not raining. Now, on the county level, I will be introducing a resolution at the Board of Supervisors to make the recognition of this emergency official. Although carrying no independent legal authority I would hope that like someone with a serious addiction our acknowledgment of the problem by this declaration would help us off of our addiction to traffic clogging development. And to ultimately start on the road to real recovery. This will hopefully enable us to begin to take bold steps necessary to deal with our traffic situation, which will only worsen with the new residential development already planned for East county. We must look realistically at the plans for all types of development in our County and truthfully look at the infrastructure improvements planned to meet the growth of those developments. !1 _. 111.1 ......... ......... ......... ......... . ..................... ................... ....... ......... . ...... Secondly, it's time we stop pretending here ... and get down to the cold, hard facts. We have over 17,400 new homes already approved and being built. Where are we going to put the cars? I AM CALLING ON ALL EAST COUNTY PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND LEADERS IN CITY GOVERNMENT TO IMMEDIATELY PLACE ON HOLD ALL PENDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AND TO OPPOSE ALL FURTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE TIME BEING. I met with our East County Mayors and City managers earlier this morning to ask them to put a hold on further residential development. It's time that all of us recognize that there is no way we can responsibly approve more development without a realistic plan to accommodate more traffic. We must foes on increasing economic development and job opportunities and not on continuing to approve more and more homes on top of those already approved. It is my personal commitment to fight any development of residential units in Contra Costa County and in particular East County until we can come up with a real, not pretend, solution to fixing Highway 4 and our surface stream.' This includes my opposition to the proposed Cowell Ranch project as its currently configured. I will continue to support economic development projects, which will create jobs. The key to the success of our economic development efforts lies not with each City competing with each other and the county but in working together. I therefore am proposing the development of a regional general plan with participation from Brentwood, Antioch, Pittsburg and the Coup. If we're successful, this plan will detail out how we are going to accommodate or at least effectively mitigate traffic in our region, how to jointly regionalize land use and planning and how we can work together to attract new business opportunities. While we each do this independently we mast now.find ways we can stimulate and create local jobs in partnership with one another and not in competition. For too long we have supported the development of plans and reports that simply have restated the obvious; "develop a jobs/housing balance","improve highway 4", "develop regional solutions". Yet they have all failed to go the next step and suggest how this might be done. I am saying it is time to truly work together, put aside the petty differences and parochialism of the past and say that t� we will, together, work to develop an economic development zone that we can jointly support and market. The only way to do this effectively is by the creation and development of a true regional general plan for East County. Now, if we can't come up with a regional plan that achieves the above goals, then we will never be able to responsibly approve even one more housing unit in East County. There's just no place for the traffic to go. So, in recapping the important points. I am declaring that Contra Costa County is in a Traffic State of Emergency. I am calling on East County city leaders to halt all residential development. And I.am asking for the development of an East County Regional Plan to outline how we are going to deal with our traffic and to develop a true economic partnership. This is part one of a three-part set of proposals, which I will be bringing forward to the East County leadership, the other cities within Contra Costa County and to my Board of Supervisors. Part Two of this effort will address the County—wide implications of traffic, growth and development along with policies for dealing with these issues, including the expansion of the regional concepts presented here. Including countywide general plan and urban limit line reviews. Part Three will look to the future and how to not only preserve but also protects our future. 'These reports will be announced within shortly. It's time to take our heads out of the sand ... and do something to help our commuters who are frustrated by bumper to bumper traffic every morning and every evening along with those residents who simply need to around town. The first step here is to recognize the problem for what it is and start taking real action that will eventually make a difference. We have one last real opportunity to change the future for Contra Costa County, to take advantage of this chance we must be prepared to take direct, immediate and real action. I call upon my colleagues both on the Board of Supervisors and on the City Councils to have the courage and willingness to face the truth and to take decisive action in seizing this chance. 3�9 OCT 3 19-98 CONTRA. COST'S s RD OF SUP ,- C 0 U N C 1 L 877 Ygna6o Va;ley Road,Ste. 202 Wal-nut Geek,CA 94596 'hone: (510)944-8975 Fax: (510)944-8989 Freidenf October 13, 199$ Tom MsCranke- Genera!Manager Sunvatley Shopping Center ntmndiia:e past president Jim Rogers, Chairman `'rich past Pzrttler Contra Costa County fi�ast<el7ire Best Board of Supervisors Vii e$�resi,de„r 651 Pine Street Task rn Rr s Martinez, CA 54553 Vti::tiam R.i;s•ry President ✓jfliam P.Gray and Company Dear Supervisor Rogers: Vice P'emden, Task Forces �romi Ven de,Brooke It has come to the attention of the Contra Costa Council that the Board of Supervisors Tb na13N Lompa r,contra Cerra is considering the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee, of it its own membership, i!>e PB/v'Company related to a General Plan Amendment/Urban Limit Line Review. As we understand it, a=� iresidens` &Aa;nin+sire*?:*^ this committee, if established,will develop a scope of work, review process, detailed Finance ire t.MveY funding sources and a time-line for a comprehensive planning and environmental Vice Presidsn?,WT Group ,,:e RFecnaoicr Bar;, review process for the General Plan Amendment/Urban Limit Line, The Contra Costa viue President Council would like to suggest that the Ad Hoc Committee either consist of a Ma—bsrv.s,N committee of the whole, that is, the entire Board or, at least, be open to all Board a`;`W.auitir rig members who wish to serve on the committee. Clearly, issues related to the General Cram C:orsu inp Grout', V;cu P.asiden. Plan and the Urban Limit Line have impact in all five supervisorial districts and, thus, Events all supervisors could have substantial interests in the development of this committee Vac et'De youne Office Property Agent work. Grubb&EPrs %rice Preside-t In the past few months, some members of the Board have indicated their preliminary d rur:^Leyksns ng nun4cat3a°ts feelings with respect to these matters. Other members have yet to indicate as strong t,hatnrGifts Officer and specific feelings related to the General Plan Amendment/Urban Limit Line ai„t rwary's Cortege Review. As a result, it would seem to be prudent to be as open ended as possible in Fxeculive establishing the membership of the Ad Hoc Committee, in order to ensure the Ji'rnj- c: inclusion of as broad a range of viewpoints as possible. The Contra Costa Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on this item before the Board. We look forward to working with you on future public policy matters. erely, � f Jim Jakel Executive Director JJfpw This letterhead primed on cecyeie:r papa, _ OCT-12.1998 2:3ean PAC sctl �.692 CONSIDER WITH [OCT 12 49 Evia-ate . i 'OARD OF SUPE" 10/12/1998 15:17 925-B38-9234 5ANDEE LAVIDLETTE PAGE nu WITH r) TO: THE HONORABLE JIM ROGERS ROGER & CONTRAS C05rA COUNTY BHS OF SUPERVISORS Via Fox (925) 335.19 From: Sandee LaViolette Phone (925)838-1961 FAX (925)838-9234 2505 Norris Canyon Road, San Raman, CA. 94583 Date: Oeb ber 12, 1998 Stubs "No" on Ad Hoc Concept I wge all of you to serve on the comm-du# a which will fmni late ideas for the future of our C unty. It is asking an additional cornmitn=t of time and energy, I realize, but this issue is too important to be left for two people to prem data for such critical decisions. I feel betrayed by Supervisor Gerber's mishandling sof the families most affected by the 'posed Ag Preserve. I see a two-man Ad Hoc committee as another opportunity to skew information presented to the entire Board of Supervisors through admission, omission and/or Perception. Also, I want to be sure that all information discussed and materials used are available to the public. I appreciate your consideration. I will see you all again tornrxmw. } 9ft of a'} { .. } 4:9't. <4 .p+ t P { } - M'{ t.. .:4..�-9.Sr • - .s 'v,{.W. 9. ,t; :irx,3 #.{f t t,: 4::its2}.r{;.♦ r .„ ♦ , e.;. '#, is �ikt t v� I t _ •.{ i i4 } • f ,.�},e „b� - $ 14,task ins !.4 t . . _. � :.4) 4 $'. • f $-..+,t ._{x't, a �i ! + 4 r,i{t{ii t t'Pt,t r.R i t tt.t b,.. t t ., .{..is •1 ? - `. .. �. _ i. t i 1 4• 4t #.0 .- kt R } K',ta $ t # 4,- ,}.9`_.• $ '.9' e• t t 9. R'4 f T T IW V71.. d rY '.;,.c R RL 7A tt t # r a y a —^ a tta9 rr iiTir r 'S 2 R^4 ra'-te.a }'>'s t #- k:t 't •�a i? rra 4' ;i,.a,e,•). a'' Y ' s :{ tr s as clectgd to do by srsl Ibr tw chi==- Of dab Y You tMw hwe&==gon t in pbm on VM9 plan smW&VOWS WUNdow a,,*timm wto the j&s part OHM O06"crftbe Sv=W a to boomk4r, So Y would be hwd to be irs" t by the b.,,%.0how"bwA UWft a no to sW put of the pbnm*V*ce=fw 81*11 0~#4idrid. J H hi the offim of Sm Ramon sad Dub my mpmft the. obs put of twx equidoe r" Y_ Sat+the mWe is no kKww iA bel but YJ'ci*W bwviky towards jobt I wk you this how wit You phm Rw b"m• I forward to SMOng how You Wftud tcs prOOKd%t*6 show*, 9*.� a"Coelf, $W ung td LWWMOM Cs"S"