Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10242000 - D6 L ' Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP DIREC'T`OR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 24, 2000 SUBJECT: Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(3) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECQMMEhMTjQNS A. Adopt the Protocol with the miner modifications as contained in Exhibit I for applicability to the District V Municipal Advisory Councils; B. Direct staff to return to the: Board in one year with a report on the use of the Protocol, whether it should be modified and whether its use should be expanded to all Municipal. Advisory Councils. FISCAL IMPACT The modifications proposed by staff substantially reduces the cost of implementing the Protocol . The remaining costs have been estimated at $5000 . 00 for a one year period. This equates to approximately one hour of staff time per month for each of the five Municipal Advisory Councils located in District V. Actual costs may be less, and the one year report to the Board will address whether there are any additional efficiencies that may be included. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XYES SIGNATURE � `_ tz . RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE -_ _ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON QCtober. 4, 20pp APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED � X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT tV TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Bob Drake [ (925) 335-1214] Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED October 24, 2000 cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works Dept. THE BOARD of SUPERVISORS CDD - Redevelopment Agency aCO ADMINISTRATOR County MACS -- via CDD � BYL-7' DEPUTY c: \wpdoc\prote .bo RD\ Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils BAQKQJ&Q=JREASQNS FOR REQQMMENATT ONS A. Su=Ary: on July 23 , 1996, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to review a proposed protocol initially drafted to serve only those Municipal Advisory Councils in the East County area. The protocol sets forth certain responsibilities of the advisory councils and of County staff in providing services that will aid them in the review of development projects that affect their communities. In short, the proposed protocol provides a set of procedures aimed at ensuring appropriate communication between county staff, the Municipal Advisory Councils, and the decision-making bodies. At the recommendation of Supervisor Torlakson, the Board determined that the provisions of the protocol should be broadened to cover all of the Municipal Advisory Councils (MACs) within the County. The Board also requested that modifications be made so as to blend the protocol into planning agency language. The Department' s initial conclusion regarding the protocol was that it would increase the cost of processing applications and, more significantly, would create significant delays in the planning process . In addition, much of the costs could not be covered by applicant fees, and thus, would result in new costs to the Department at a time when the fiscal constraints of the Department were increasing. At the urging of the East County Municipal Advisory Councils and the District V Supervisor, the Department has revisited the proposed protocol and has concluded that, with some minor modifications, the proposal can be implemented. The modifications are designed ensure that the input of the MACS is realized without creating delays in the planning process . The modifications also have reduced the additional costs such that it appears that there will be only modest additional costs associated with the Protocol' s implementation. Since the Protocol defines the responsibilities and, to a certain extent, the operations of the MACS, staff recommends that the Board adopt the revised Protocol for application to the District V Councils who initiated this process. The eleven (11) existing MACS have been allowed to develop operating procedures that fit their community and those that serve on their respective Councils . Prior to instituting -2- Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils changes that affect their operations or the manner in which they communicate with county departments, their input should be solicited. Staff recommends that the Protocol be implemented for a one year trial period in District V only. Prior to returning to the Board with a report, the Department will consult with the other MACS in the County to obtain their perspective on the Protocol and its application to their area. B. Provision for Public Notice The communication from District V MACS indicates that they would like to issue mailed notices to the owners of surrounding properties similar to the notice that is issued by various decision- making bodies of the Planning Agency (Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors) . However, staff has several concerns with this approach. 1 . MACS are required to comply with applicable agenda posting and distribution requirements of the Brown Act and Better Government Ordinance. However, mailed noticing of individual projects is not required by law; it will entail some additional time and expense (either to applicants or staff) ; further, some MACS may not wish to undertake this level of public notice . 2 . Mailed notice of projects for MAC reviews may prove confusing to the lay public relative to the legal notice and hearing procedures conducted by the Planning Agency. In view of these concerns, the recommended protocol discourages MACS from undertaking mailed notice of projects . At the same time, if MACs wish to undertake this activity, then the Protocol provides a process that would allow MACS to undertake noticing of projects for their reviews. C. Qther MQdjficatiQn.9 t.Q 2rQtorol The modified MAC proposal recognizes the important role of the MACS in providing input from the community that is most directly impacted by development activity. MACs also aid the County in the elimination of duplicative investigation of -3- Protocol for MUnicipal Advisory Councils project reviews; delays in the planning process; and minimizing costs to applicants . Other modifications are described as follows: 1 . pigtKibuy-ion of Board Lgenda by Clerk oft1le Boated The 1996 version would have the Community Development Department distribute copies of the Board of Supervisors agenda to each MAC. The Community Development Department does not generate the Board agenda, and does not even receive it until two working days prior to the Board meeting. It is the present practice of the Clerk of the Board to distribute Board agendas to each MAC. staff sees no practical reason to forward a second copy of the same agenda. Therefore, the protocol has been modified to reflect the current practice. (Item #2 on Recommended Protocol) 2 . added Reunonaibilitiea to MAA Q0 - Staff has added two additional items for which the MACS would be responsible. A. Indicate at the start of every hearing that their function is advisory. (Item #7 on Recommended Protocol) B. Diligently attempt to inform the project planner and applicant on the status of their reviews . (Item #14 on Recommended Protocol) 3 . Qive Upligants Lhe Excluaiye Reaponsibility f= Prove di Hearing plQtificaLign Materials to M&CU - The 1996 Protocol would assign part of the responsibility for generating notification materials for MACS to use in their hearings to the Community Development Department . However, that protocol may have incorrectly assumed that the County presently generates notification lists shortly after applications are filed with the Department, or can readily generate such lists. The Community Development Department presently has the capacity to generate notification lists for any area within the County. Indeed, the County generates these lists for most development applications, but this operation involves two personnel with specialized training [ (1) one person who is able to identify parcels within a 300-foot radius, and (2) another person who is able to operate a specialized software package to generate the address list] . Under optimal circumstances, the operation may take an hour. However, because of hardware and staffing limitations, the process more often takes 4-5 hours; consequently, it does not lend itself to an "over-the-counter" service. -4- Protocol for Munlclpa2 Advisory Councils The practical effect of having CDD generate a notification list for the MACS would disrupt the current workflow and significantly slow down the initial processing of an application. Rather, than give part of the responsibility to applicants and part to CDD for providing MACS with notification materials, applicants should be given the entire responsibility. (Item #6 on Recommended Protocol) . Attached is a form prepared by staff that would accommodate this approach. In the future, if the Department obtains better technological means of readily generating these lists "over-the-counter, " then at that time, the Department will assume the responsibility of providing lists to the MACS. -5- Exhibit I PILOT TESTING OF PROTOCOLFOR MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCILS Contra Costa County October 2000 Objective — The Board of Supervisors have established eleven (11) Municipal Advisory Councils(MACS)serving various unincorporated communities within the County. One of the functions of the MACS is to review and comment on the merit of development activity being processed by the County that may affect their respective communities. The comments provided by the MACS assists the County Planning Agency in the evaluation of these projects. To aid in this task, the MACS within Supervisor District V have suggested that guidelines be established to better define their role. The following protocol is intended to assign responsibilities to MACs and staff in facilitating review of development projects by MACS and communicating their positions to decision- makers within the Planning Agency. Initially, this Protocol is to be tested for a one-year period involving only the District V MACS. At the conclusion of the one-year period, staff will report to the Board of Supervisors on the use of this Protocol, whether it should be modified; and whether its use should be expanded to all Municipal Advisory Councils. Prior to returning to the Board with a report, staff will consult with the other MACS to get their perspective on the Protocol and its application to their area. General 1. MAC Res onsibili for Updating Countv A envies on Contact Information - Each Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) will be responsible for notifying the local Supervisor, the Clerk of the Board, and the appropriate County staff (including the Community Development Department,Current Planning Division and Public Works Department) of any change in the contact person for each respective Council, as well as any membership changes. Additionally, the Municipal Advisory Council will be responsible for providing the local Supervisor's office (on an annual basis) an updated list of their respective Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils Contra Costa County board/roster, Information provided should include names, addresses, and both home and work numbers for all Council members, if possible. Meeting schedules with dates, time and location should be provided as well. 2. distribution of Planning Agency Agendas A. Community Development Department Responsibilities-The Community Development Department shall distribute agendas of the County Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, and Regional Planning Commission meetings (for MACs within the defined jurisdiction of a Regional Commission) to the designated contact person, at the address specified, for each Municipal Advisory Council. B. Clerk of the Board Responsibilities-The Clerk of the Board shall distribute copies of agendas for all Board of Supervisors meetings to each Municipal Advisory Council. 3. Provision of Infrastructure Related Information to MACS - The Public Works Department staff will provide information regarding any projects or requests affecting roads, transportation, or flood control within the community to the designated contact person, at the address specified,for each Municipal Advisory Council and the local Supervisor. Review of Development Applications 4. Public Notice of MAC Reviews— Each Municipal Advisory Council shall comply with applicable requirements of the Brown Act(Gov. Code, §54940,et seq.)and the Better Government Ordinance (Gird. Code Division 25) relative to timely posting and distribution of its respective agenda, including listing of development application reviews. Some MACS may also seek to provide additional public notice of their project reviews by issuance of a notice to the owners of surrounding properties, as is regularly performed by the County Planning Agency (e.g., Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors) in its review of a project. However, to avoid potential confusion to the public with legal procedures conducted by the County Planning Agency, this Protocol discourages MACS from issuing a separate mailed notice to the owners of surrounding properties for its reviews. Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils Contra Costa County 5. Notification by MACs-,Wishing to-Provide for Public Notice of Proiect Reviews-- Notwithstanding Notwithstanding the potential risk of confusion to the public, any MAC wishing to establish a practice of notifying the owners of surrounding properties of development applications which it reviews shall notify the Community Development Department. 6. Provision of Documents to Aid in MAC Review of Development Applications -- During During application intake processing,the Community Development Department will provide the applicant with the name of the designated contact person for the Municipal Advisory Council in whose district the application is proposed. The referral of applications to MACS will encompass all development permit applications requiring a public hearing (e.g., subdivisions, land use permits, development plan approvals, rezonings), plus variance applications. The applicant will be directed by staff to contact this individual to arrange for their item to be placed on an agenda for the appropriate Municipal Advisory Council. Staff will also request the applicant to provide the MAC contact person at the earliest possible date with: A. A list of owners of property within a 300-foot radius of the site, and their respective mailing addresses, from the last equalized assessment roll where the MAC has previously indicated in writing to the Community Development Department that it wishes to provide mailed notice of its project reviews to the owners of surrounding properties; B. A set of stamped (not metered) envelopes with the addresses from the above list. C. A copy of the application form completed by County staff, identifying the file number and project description. During the application intake process,the assigned planner will send a complete copy of the application to the designated contact person of the appropriate Municipal Advisory Council. 7. Explanation of MAC Role at MAC Meetin - In conducting their project reviews, the respective Municipal Advisory Council shall indicate at the commencement of each meeting that: -3- Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils Contra Costa County A. Any action it takes on development applications is advisory to the County Planning Agency, and that the MAC recommendation on a project is normally included in the staff report to the hearing body (i.e., Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors); and B. Individuals who have questions on that aspect of the project review' should be directed to the planner in the Community Development Department who has been assigned to review the application. 8. Assignment of MAC Member to Investigate Development Applications - Each Municipal Advisory Council shall be responsible for placement of a project review on its agenda, or otherwise responding to a referral from the Community Development Department. The respective MAC should assign an individual member to research the application as deemed necessary. This individual would also be responsible for: A. Contacting the appropriate staff person for any additional information that is sought; B. Coordinating with the project planner on any extension of the review period sought by the MAC; and C. Notifying the applicant of the scheduled time, location, and date of the meeting for the MAC review. 9. Conveyance of MAC Recommendation - Upon completion of its review, the Municipal Advisory Council will forward their recommendation and/or comments relative to the application to the appropriate County Department. Copies should also be provided to: • the Chair of any Regional Planning Commission in whose jurisdiction the Municipal Advisory Council is located; Includinp public hearings,environmental review,or timing of project related actions. If the MAC comments pertain to a technical field, then a courtesy copy of the MAC's comments should be forwarded to the agency with direct responsibility and expertise in that area. For example, were a MAC to comment on road widening or drainage, then it's letter to the Community Development Department should also be copied and forwarded to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. -4- Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils Con"Costs County • the Chair of the County Planning Commission (optional for MACS that lie within the jurisdiction of a regional planning commission); • Other Commissioners who are appointed from the area of the affected MAC; • the office of the Supervisor in whose district the Municipal Advisory Council is located; and • the applicant. If it is determined for any reason that a MAC meeting on the application is not necessary, the respective Municipal Advisory Council will provide a letter to that effect to the parties identified above. 10. Inclusion of MAC Recommendation in All Staff Reports-The recommendations of the Municipal Advisory Council will be included in the staff report provided to the Zoning Administrator, affected Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors, and to the applicant. If, when compiling the staff report,the project planner finds that recommendations from the local Municipal Advisory Council have not been provided, that planner shall make a diligent attempt to contact the designated MAC member to ascertain the reason. 11. Monitoring of Application Reviews - It is the responsibility of the Municipal Advisory Council to follow the application throughout the entire hearing process to the point of final decision. It is advisable to have a MAC member present to verbally present the MAC's position and/or be available to respond to questions, comments, or new information that may be presented at any public hearing on the application. It is the project planner's responsibility to communicate with the MAC on any significant changes to a project. Any revised comments by the MAC resulting from the changes or new information will be distributed in the manner indicated in Item #8 above; if timely received, they will also be included in the staff report as indicated in Item #10. 12. Apprising MACS of Appeals and Project Decisions-Should an appeal be filed on any application, the appropriate County staff person shall notify the respective Municipal Advisory Council. Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils Contra Costa County A. Appeals and Proiect Decisions Heard by a Planning Commission - That staff member will keep the MAC apprised of all hearings and the ultimate decision of the Planning Commission. B. Appeals and Proiect Decisions Heard by the Board of Supervisors - The appropriate staff member shall request that the Clerk of the Board: (1) notice the respective MAC of hearings before the Board of Supervisors;this shall be accomplished by listing the current MAC contact person on notification distribution lists; and (2) inform the MAC of the decision by the Board; this shall be accomplished by listing the MAC as one of parties to be distributed a courtesy copy on the Board Order form. Based on these actions, the Clerk of the Board shall be responsible for notifying the respective MAC of hearings before, and the ultimate decision by, the Board of Supervisors. 13. MAC Responsibility to be a Diligent in its Review - Planners and MACS should work together to support their differing roles, while maintaining processing efficiency. Because of County responsibility under State law(Permit Streamlining Act) to act on development applications within specified timeframes, the MACS shall diligently attempt to complete their reviews within a reasonable period as identified by staff on application referral forms (typically 34 weeks). If a MAC is unable to respond within that timeframe, then it should provide a written explanation delivered to the Community Development Department and the applicant within the timeframe identified in the application referral form. cAwpdodproto.mac RD\ 10/19/00 -6- Request to Contact the local Municipal Advisory Council Your application is located within an area served by one of the Municipal Advisory Councils (MACS) established by the Board of Supervisors. Among other functions, these councils review development applications that are filed with the County, and advise the County Planning Agency actions that they feel are appropriate. In this capacity, the MACS conduct their own noticed hearing of development applications. The MAC hearing should not be confused with the legal notice and hearing process on your applications which will be performed by the County Planning Agency(Community Development Department). The contact for the Municipal Advisory Council serving the area of your project is: (Attach gummed label identifying, Name, Address and Phone Number of the MAC contact) du t to Provide Mat�riat� t„ _C - To facilitate this rocess, the County asks that at our earliest opportum ~ p ty, you contact the individual identified on this form and provide him with the following items: 1. A copy of the attached application form, which has been completed by the application in- take planner. 2. The following notification materials: A. A list of the owners of property within 300 feet of the project site, their respective mailing addresses and assessor's parcel �# numbers from the last equalized assessor's ' roll. � B. A set of stamped (not metered) standard size f ` (#10)envelopes, with no return address, ; addressed to each individualroPe�y owner s on the list above. p .Note to P � 01" .Note Tanner o Attach copy of completed application form. " � zIN CAwpdoc\mac.ref * � RM � � I � $ a r a r'�eViitt a TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS [ T Costa FROM: Supervisor Tom TOriakson /'` , County i; DATE. July 23, 1996 SUBJECT: ADOPT ATTACHED"PROTOCOL"WHICH OUTLINES PROCEDUI'(91.A C> GUIDELINES FOR STAFF WHEN INTERFACING WITH LOCAL MUI CgdP)T ADVISORY COUNCILS p SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)AND JUSTIFICATION BECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the attached"Protocol"which outlines procedures and guidelines for County Staff when interfacing with local Municipal Advisory Councils. The attached Protocol was developed in District V to respond to inquiries made by members of the various MACS in the district. if approved by the full Board, It is recommended that the:Community Development Department be directed to make the minor revisions necessary such that this procedure will apply to all MACs,countywide. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The number of Municipal Advisory Councils in East County has grown from the Oakley MAC,first established in 1957 as the first MAC in Contra Costa County,to the establishment of six local MACS now representing various unincorporated communities in District V. As these former community groups have gained formai recognition from the Board of Supervisors as MACS, it is now appropriate to clarify and standardize a process by which the MAC's can receive, and provide information to,the County. AM ! CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: Y€S SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE —�� APPROVE ---- OTHER SIGNATURES) ACTION OF BOARD ON July 23, 19gS APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED: � OTHER: X The Board ADOPTED tilt above recommendation and the Community Development Director is DIRECTED to make the minor revisions for Countywide application, inVjrt-ing•�a-0r0'pr4ate planning agency-language and adding the Supervisor for the district to the notification in Protocol No. 3. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: x UNANIMOUS(ASS ENT Rogers ) AYES: NOES: ASSENT ABSTAIN' HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Board Members ATTESTED _July 23. 1994 Community Development County Administrator PHIL HELOR,CLERK BOARD S SORSAN OU AD TOR Public Works Redevelopment Agency BY }r-1E-1956 14:57 5104278142 P,05 PROTOCOL FOR MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL$ 1. Each Municipal Advisory Council will be responsible for notifying the District V Supervisor, the Clerk of the Board, and the appropriate County staff of any change In the contact person for each respective Council, as well as any membership changes. (A list of all contact persons for each Municipal Advisory Council located within District V is attached, as well as a list of the MAC members.) Additionally, each Municipal Advisory Council will be responsible for providing the District V Supervisors' office (on an annual basis) an updated list of their respective board/roster. Information provided should Include names, addresses, and both home and work numbers for all Council members If possible. Meeting schedules with dates, time and location should be provided as well. 2. Community Development staff will assure that copies of agendas for all - Board of Supervisor, Bast County Regional Planning Commission, and Zoning Administrator meetings are mailed to the designated contact person, at the address specified, for each Municipal Advisory Council. 3. Public Works staff will provide information regarding any projects or requests affecting roads, transportation, or flood control within the community to the designated contact person, as the address specified, for each Municipal Advisory Council. 4. Upon receipt of an. application, Community Development staff(project planner) will provide the Applicant with the name of the designated contact person for the Municipal Advisory Council In whose are the application is planned. The Applicant will be directed by staff to contact this Individual to arrange for a public hearing/review before the appropriate Municipal Advisory Council. The Applicant will also be requested to provide the list of neighbors who are within the 300' of the proposed project for notification purposes at this time. Concurrently, the assigned planner will send a complete; copy of the application to the designated contact person of the appropriate Municipal Advisory Council, including the list of neighbors for notification purposes. 5. It Is the responsibility of the Municipal Advisory Council to schedule a . hearing on the application. The respective MAC should assign an f r /16-1996, 14.58 51642?8142 Por, individual member to research the application. This individual would be responsible for contacting the appropriate staff person for any additional information required, as well as notifying the Applicant of the scheduled time, location, and hearing date before the MAG. £. Upon completion of its hearing, the MAC will forward a copy of their decision and/or comments relative to the application to the appropriate County Department. Copies should also be provided to: f the Chair of the Past County Regional Planning Commission, f the Regional Planning Commission member who represents the area in which the application is planned, the office of the District V Supervisor, and 4 the Applicant If it is determined for any reason that a public hearing on the application is not necessary, the respective Municipal Advisory Council Will provide a letter to that effect to the parties reflected above, indicating why a hearing was not held. 7. The recommendations of the Municipal Advisory Council will be included in the staff report that is to be provided to the Board of Supervisors, to the Planning Commission, to the Zoning Administrator, and to the Applicant. If, when compiling the report, the Planner finds that recommendations from the local Municipal Advisory Council have not been provided, he will contact the designated MAC member to ascertain the reason. E. In the interim period between the Municipal Advisory Council level and final approval of the project, the responsible staff member will notify the MAG of any changes or new information regarding the application. Any revised comments by the MAC resulting from the changes or new information will be Included by staff in the staff report as Indicated in Item 7 above, and will be districted in the manner indicated in Item 5 above. 9. It is the responsibility of the Municipal Advisory Council to follow the application throughout the entire hearing process to the point of final decision. It is advisable to have a MAC member present to verbally present the MAC's position and/or be available to respond to questions, comments or new information that may be presented at any public hearing on the application. 10. Should an appeal be filed on any application, the appropriate County staff person will notify the respective Municipal Advisory Council. That staff member will keep the MAC apprised of all hearings, administrative approvals, changes, etc. ° v Coat �^ Cost; TOz BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .`our FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: October 24, 2000 SUBJECT: Protocol for Municipal Advisory Councils SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION �__FCOMMENDAITMS A. Adopt the Protocol with the minor modifications as contained in Exhibit I for applicability to the District V Municipal Advisory Councils; B. Direct staff to return to the Board in one year with a report on the use of the Protocol, whether it should be modified and whether its use should be expanded to all Municipal Advisory Councils. FISCAL IMPACT The modifications proposed by staff substantially reduces the cost of implementing the Protocol. The remaining costs have been estimated at $5000.00 for a one year period. This equates to approximately one hour of staff time per month for each of the five Municipal Advisory Councils located in District V. Actual costs may be less, and the one year report to the Board will address whether there are any additional efficiencies that may be included. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT i _.'x_.__ YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR — RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE __ OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN Y AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERER ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Bob Drake [(925) 335-12141 prig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works Dept. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CDD -- Redevelopment Agency AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County MACS - via CDD BY DEPUTY c:\wpdcc\protr ,bo RD\ Protocol fc Municipal Advisory Council BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMF 'z'i't)7 A. Summary: On July 23, 1996, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to review a proposed protocol initially drafted to serve only those Municipal Advisory Councils in the East County area. The protocol sets forth certain responsibilities of the advisory councils and of County staff in providing services that will aid them in the review of development projects that affect their communities. In short, the proposed protocol provides a set of procedures aimed at ensuring appropriate communication between county staff, the Municipal Advisory Councils, and the decision-making bodies. At the recommendation of Supervisor Torlakson, the Board determined that the provisions of the protocol should be broadened to cover all of the Municipal Advisory Councils (MACS) within the County. The Board also requested that modifications be made so as to blend the protocol into planning agency language. The Department's initial conclusion regarding the protocol was that it would increase the cost of processing applications and, more significantly, would create significant delays in the planning process. in addition, much of the costs could not be covered by applicant fees, and thus, would result in new costs to the Department at a time when the fiscal constraints of the Department were increasing. At the urging of the East County Municipal Advisory Councils and the District V Supervisor, the Department has revisited the proposed protocol and has concluded that, with some minor modifications, the proposal can be implemented. The modifications are designed ensure that the input of the MACS is realized without creating delays in the planning process. The modifications also have reduced the additional costs such that it appears that there will be only modest additional costs associated with the Protocol's implementation. Since the Protocol defines the responsibilities and, to a certain extent, the operations of the MACS, staff recommends that the Board adopt the revised Protocol for application to the District V Councils who initiated this process. The eleven (11) existing MACS have been allowed to develop operating procedures that fit their community and those that serve on their respective Councils. Prior to instituting -2- Protocol fc Municipal Advisory Council changes that affect their operations or the manner in which they communicate with county departments, their input should be solicited. Staff recommends that the Protocol be implemented for a one year trial period in District V only. Prior to returning to the Board with a report, the Department will consult with the other MACS in the County to obtain their perspective on the Protocol and its application to their area. B. 2raviaion for Plablic Notice The communication from District V MACS indicates that they would like to issue mailed notices to the owners of surrounding properties similar to the notice that is issued by various decision- making bodies of the Planning Agency (Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors) . However, staff has several concerns with this approach. 1. MACS are required to comply with applicable agenda posting and distribution requirements of the Brown Act and Better Government Ordinance. However, mailed noticing of individual projects is not required by law; it will entail some additional time and expense (either to applicants or staff) ; further, some MACS may not wish to undertake this level of public notice. 2. Mailed notice of projects for MAC reviews may prove confusing to the lay public relative to the legal notice and hearing procedures conducted by the Planning Agency. In view of these concerns, the recommended protocol discourages MACS from undertaking mailed notice of projects. At the same time, if MACS wish to undertake this activity, then the Protocol provides a process that would allow MACS to undertake noticing of projects for their reviews. C. Other MQ!Jificatioos I;Q protocQl The modified MAC proposal recognizes the important role of the MACS in providing input from the community that is most directly impacted by development activity. MACS also aid the County in the elimination of duplicative investigation of Protocol to Municipal Advisory Counc1l, project reviews; delays in the planning process; and minimizing costs to applicants. Other modifications are described as follows: 1. QistriblItion Cf Board Agelada by Clgrk of the Board The 1996 version would have the Community Development Department distribute copies of the Board of Supervisors agenda to each MAC. The Community Development Department does not generate the Board agenda, and does not even receive it until two working days prior to the Board meeting. It is the present practice of the Clerk of the Board to distribute Board agendas to each MAC. Staff sees no practical reason to forward a second copy of the same agenda. Therefore, the protocol has been modified to reflect the current practice. (Item #2 on Recommended Protocol) 2. Added ReSponsibilities-tD_-MAZZ - Staff has added two additional items for which the MACS would be responsible. A. Indicate at the start of every hearing that their function is advisory. (Item #7 on Recommended Protocol) B.. Diligently attempt to inform the project planner and applicant on the status of their reviews. (Item #14 on Recommended Protocol) 3. Give AppligantS the Exclusive aggngnsibility for Providing Hp,1rina NQtifigation Materials to MACg - The 1996 Protocol would assign part of the responsibility for generating notification materials for MACS to use in their hearings to the Community Development Department. However, that protocol may have incorrectly assumed that the County presently generates notification lists shortly after applications are filed with the Department, or can readily generate such lists. The Community Development Department presently has the capacity to generate notification lists for any area within the County. Indeed, the County generates these lists for most development applications, but this operation involves two personnel with specialized training [(I) one person who is able to identify parcels within a 300-foot radius, and (2) another person who is able to operate a specialized software package to generate the address list) . Tinder optimal circumstances, the operation may take an hour. However, because of hardware and staffing limitations, the process more often takes 4-5 hours; consequently, it does not lend itself to an "over-the-counter" service. -4- Protocol fo Municipal Advisory Council, The practical effect of having CDD generate a notification list for the MACS would disrupt the current workflow and significantly slow down the initial processing of an application. Rather, than give part of the responsibility to applicants and part to CDD for providing MACS with notification materials, applicants should be given the entire responsibility. (Item 46 on Recommended Protocol) . Attached is a form prepared by staff that would accommodate this approach. In the future, if the Department obtains better technological means of readily generating these lists "over-the-counter," then at that time, the Department will assume the responsibility of providing lists to the MACS.