HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05051987 - 2.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contn
1,� ,
JICIr
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development (J�V
DATE: April 15, 1987 County
SUBJECT: Progress Report on the Comprehensive General Plan Review Program
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the report on the progress of the General Plan Review
Program from the Director of Community Development.
2. Accept the Report "Recent Growth in Contra Costa County, the
San Francisco Bay Area, and California".
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND
This is a brief report to update Board members as to the progress
made by the 67 member Planning Congress, its three subcommittees,
staff and consultants in revising the Countywide General Plan.
As the General Plan Review program enters the most crucial phase
this Spring, our office will continue to make monthly progress
reports to your Board.
Report on Recent Growth Trends
As part of the technical work that is being prepared for the
updated General Plan, staff has put together a brief report
summarizing recent growth in the County and State. The report,
Recent Growth in Contra Costa County, the San Francisco Bay Area,
and California, documents the number of new housing units that
have been completed in each jurisdiction in the County during
1986, as well as construction trends since 1980. The report also
discusses recent population growth in the County and San
Francisco Bay region, and places Contra Costa growth in a
statewide context. We hope you will find the report to
interesting reading.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNA
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATftf OFMOrD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 5, 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 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.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED A kd
f 8
County Administrator PHIL TC ELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY-9 , DEPUTY
EP/mb
EP4/gp-prog.bos
> , Page 2
BACKGROUND
Planning Congress Work
As you know, the Planning Congress has been meeting on a monthly
basis since July, 1986. Most of the work to date, however, has
been accomplished in the three subcommittees organized by the
Congress: Jobs/Housing; Infrastructure; and Agriculture/Open
Space. In addition, the Water Policy Task Force, appointed by the
Board previously, is technically a subcommittee of the Congress.
As subcommittees debate and adopt specific goal and policy
language, these documents are referred as "Position Papers" to
the larger
Planning Congress for approval or modification. The first Posi-
tion Papers from the subcommittees were considered by the
Planning Congress at their March 19th meeting. Copies of these
papers, as adopted by the Congress, are included as Attachment A.
A second set of Position Papers has been prepared by the
Jobs/Housing, Agriculture/Open Space, and Water Task Force
subcommittees and will be heard by the Planning Congress at their
meeting next Thursday, April 23rd. These papers are also included
in Attachment A.
Specifically, the Jobs/Housing Subcommittee has been using a
map-oriented approach, as the group designates those areas of the
County which are not appropriate for development and begins the
process of designing alternative land use scenarios to be tested
for impact analysis. The subcommittee has also discussed the
concept of a jobs/housing balance extensively, and has adopted a
working definition for the plan ( see the subcommittee' s paper) .
The Infrastructure Subcommittee has been meeting on almost a
weekly basis immersing itself in technical background information
dealing with services ranging from transportation to child care
to flood control. The committee has adopted several specific
policies regarding transportation, which call for increased
cooperation between the County and cities when defining "level of
service" standards, especially in downtown areas. The group has
endorsed the concept of widening some roads (e.g. Route 4) , while
focussing primarily on methods to increase multiple-occupancy
vehicles, such as Transportation Systems Management (TSM) pro-
grams.
The Agriculture/Open Space Subcommittee has adopted numerous goal
and policy statements regarding the preservation of agricultural
operations in the County. These policies were drafted by one the
planning consultants and have been modified by the committee over
the course of several meetings. After concentrating almost
exclusively on agricultural issues, the group began this month to
discuss goals relating to Open Space and Conservation issues.
The planning consultant team hired by the County, headed up by
Duncan & Jones, has been actively working with Congress members
and staff. Most recently, the consultant has prepared a detailed
questionnaire asking for individual committee members ' opinions
regarding a whole gamut of growth and growth management issues
facing the County. The results of this survey will be discussed
by the consultant at the Congress meeting on April 23rd. The
consultant has also completed an initial Issues Identification
Paper which summarized the previous debates that occurred at the
Congress.
Technical Work on the Countywide Data Base
While the citizens committees have been meeting diligently, the
County staff and planning consultants have been working hard to
compile an ambitious data base for the entire County. This data
base includes detailed demographic, housing, economic, and
infrastructure information and will serve as one of the main
inputs to the General Plan transportation model. The information
a Page 3
is being aggregated at a very fine level: the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County have been divided
into 517 individual traffic zones. At this level of detail, the
County will be able to forecast future traffic volumes on each
link of every major arterial in the region.
The first phase of compiling the extensive data base has been
completed on a microcomputer in the Community Development
Department for the base years of 1980 and 1985. The data will be
further refined as we receive corrections and additions from the
cities during their review period (see below for a discussion of
the cities' role in the process thus far) . The next step, to
begin later this month, will be to calibrate the transportation
model prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates to the two earlier
years. By making sure the model is accurately predicting traffic
levels for 1980 and 1985, we increase our confidence in the
results of later forecasts.
Following calibration of the computer model, staff will build
upon the existing data base by inputing data regarding recent and
tentative approvals of projects in the cities and County. A first
report from the transportation consultants to the Board and
Congress will forecast future traffic levels in the County based
upon the impacts of already approved projects. Further runs of
the transportation model will be based upon the generalized land
use alternatives considered by the Planning Congress sub-
committees. Several possible land use alternatives have been
adopted by the Congress as outlined in the Jobs/Housing Position
Paper #1 ( see Attachment A) .
The data base that has been developed will also be used to
evaluate and forecast infrastructure service needs. Because
growth management will be a critical component of the updated
General Plan, it is anticipated that a detailed permit management
system tied to service constraints and opportunities will be
required, which will be based upon the data base prepared during
this plan revision. The computerized data base will also serve a
third important function: to allow staff and consultants to
analyze the fiscal impacts of new land uses. In conjunction with
the need to more efficiently plan urban development to minimize
new expenditures on infrastructure systems, the County and cities
must agree upon a method to assess the relative costs and bene-
fits to all jurisdictions of specific General Plan changes or
large development projects. By continually updating the data base
that has now been prepared, the County should have the means to
analyze the infrastructure and fiscal impacts of land use changes
on a local, subregional, and regional level.
Coordination With the Cities in the General Plan Review Program
The eighteen cities in the County have been actively involved in
the General Plan Review program through their representation on
the 67 member Planning Congress. In addition, city planning
staffs have been kept appraised of the technical work being
completed by County staff and consultants. To date, there have
been two formal meetings held with the city planning directors
and staff on February 12th and March 26th.
During the February meeting, information regarding the County' s
program and similar General plan revisions underway by individual
cities were discussed. On March 26th, the city representatives
each received the raw demographic and housing data, in the form
of computer printouts, which have been developed by County staff
for each jurisdiction and their Sphere of Influence area. As men-
tioned above, the city staffs are now in the process of reviewing
the County' s data base to correct any mistakes or deficiencies.
The County has also requested from' the cities information
regarding recently approved and pending development projects, to
assist us in the first transportation model run.
Page 4
At both meetings with city planning staffs, informal discussions
pinpointed specific steps that can be taken to better coordinate
planning efforts between the County and cities. Most of the
participants felt the sharing of information was extremely
valuable, and it was decided that future meetings will be
regularly scheduled to keep the city staffs involved in the
process. Also, copies of these progress reports to the Board will
be regularly sent to the cities. The next scheduled meeting with
city representatives will be held on April 23rd with the public
works directors and/or traffic engineers, to review the computerized
transportation network and links prepared by Barton-Aschman
Associates.
Coordination of land use and transportation planning between the
jurisdictions has been identified as a criticial issue by Planning
Congress members. At the Congress meeting scheduled for later
this week, April 23rd, the group will be discussing for the first
time the concept of "metering" development permits in conjunction
with infrastructure improvements. Other growth management tech-
niques will be formally debated at future Congress and subcommittee
meetings.
The six jurisdictions of North Central Contra Costa County
(Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Clayton, Walnut Creek, and the
County) have also been actively promoting closer coordination
through participation at the TRANSPAC (the Central Contra Costa
County Transportation and Land Use Partnership) organization.
Phase I of the TRANSPAC work program has been completed and the
specific recommendations in the Phase I report will be forwarded
to the Board for their adoption in the near future.
TRANSPAC members have recently debated whether to hire a consul-
tant to prepare a transportation model for the area or whether to
use the model being developed for the Countywide General Plan
Review. At this point, the group has made a preliminary decision
not to duplicate the County' s effort, but to piggyback their
transportation planning efforts on the Barton-Aschman model. The
city staff members involved in TRANSPAC will carefully monitor
the data and assumptions that are being input into the County
computer model and, hopefully, the policy makers of the six
jurisdictions will agree to use the one model to analyze and
resolve subregional planning issues. Individual cities will
continue to rely upon their own more detailed traffic models to
determine impacts upon specific locations and intersections.
Our department will continue to keep_ the Board informed of all
relavent policies and position papers that are adopted by the
Planning Congress, as well as all major work papers that are
prepared by staff and consultants.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
PLANNING CONGRESS
Agriculture/Open Space Subcommittee
Position Paper No. 1
The following goal and policy statements regarding the issue of
Agricultural Economy have been adopted by the Subcommittee. The
statements have been modified from the first installment of a
consultant's report. Further issues will deal with Agriculture/
Urban Conflicts, Agricultural Land Conservation, and Agricultural
Land Preservation. The Subcommittee has not yet adopted policies
regarding open space or conservation issues.
This paper was slightly revised and adopted in total by the
Planning Congress on March 19, 1987.
ISSUE 1 - Agricultural Economy
Agriculture is an important part of Contra Costa County's heritage,
economy, and lifestyle. However, agriculture has declined in im-
portance to the overall economy as the County has become more
urbanized. Agriculture in Contra Costa County, like many other
parts of the State and nation, is undergoing a difficult period,
characterized by low commodity prices, high operational costs,
competition with other producing areas, and other difficulties.
Although the County is not the cause of many of these problems,
it can evaluate its programs and regulations that do affect agri-
culture and modify these programs and regulations, as well as es-
tablish new programs which promote and assist agriculture in a
variety of ways.
Goal Statement 1
Contra Costa County shall maintain and promote a healthy and
competitive agricultural economy.
Objective 1.1 -- Promote and market agricultural products grown
in Contra Costa County.
Policy Options
1. Continue to support the "Harvest Time" Program.
► Page 2
2. Create and support a "Locally Grown in Contra Costa" market-
ing program.
3. Permit and support a wide variety of promotional and
marketing activities of County-grown and processed products.
Objective 1.2 -- Consider agricultural production, processing,
and services as an important industry within
the County and integrate agriculture into the
County's overall economic development pro-
grams.
Policy Options
1. The Private Industry Council (PIC) should develop programs
to assist agriculture provided that such assistance is
requested. Individual participation shall be voluntary.
2. The agricultural industry should be as eligible for economic
assistance and support as is provided to other industries.
3. To the extent possible, consider the promotion of agricul-
ture produced in Contra Costa County as a priority in the
disbursement of available County funds.
4. The Board of Supervisors should cooperate with the County's
agricultural interests and communicate supportive positions
to State and Federal legislative bodies when major legisla-
tion is proposed which may affect local agriculture.
5. Contra Costa County should adopt a "Buy American" policy
regarding the purchase of agricultural goods.
Goal Statement 2
Promote the physical and service infrastructure, public and pri-
vate, which supports a viable agriculture production industry.
Objective 2.1 -- Contra Costa County shall permit agricultural
processing and services businesses in
agriculturally designated areas.
' Page 3
Policy Options
1. Allow agriculturally-related commercial and industrial uses
to be conveniently and accessibly located in Commercial
Agriculture areas, subject to appropriate planning and/or
permit procedures.
2 Allow agricultural service businesses, and uses in
agriculturally designated areas as follows:
1) Small agricultural service businesses which can be
defined as a home occupation are permissible in all
agricultural designations.
2) Larger agricultural service businesses having more than
one employee but clearly subordinate to on-site produc-
tion activities, occupying less than 1/2 acre of land
and not adversely affecting agricultural production in
the area, are permissible in all agricultural
designations, subject to approval of a land use permit.
3) Agricultural service businesses that occupy more than
1/2 acre of land and are not subordinate to on-site
production activities will require rezoning with a
"Agricultural Service Combining District" .
Objective 2.2 -- Support efforts to assure an adequate,
quality, and fairly priced water supply to
irrigated agricultural areas.
Policy Options
1. Identify methods for providing irrigation water at a price
affordable by agriculture.
2. Explore and encourage concepts for water conservation and
use of reclaimed water in order to extend existing supplies.
Objective 2.3 -- Maintain and reconstruct Delta levees to
assure the continued availability of valuable
agricultural land protected by the existing
network of levees and related facilities.
T Page 4
Policy Options
1. Seek State and Federal grants- to assist in levee maintenance
and reconstruction projects.
2. Identify local financing mechanisms for funding levee
improvements.
3. Approve land use policies and other regulations which
conserve and protect existing levees.
4. Encourage levee maintenance and construction that is sensi-
tive to the preservation of riparian habitat, where
feasible.
EP:mb:Papernol.ep
Slightly revised by Plg. Congr.
3/19/87
c
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
PLANNING CONGRESS
Infrastructure Sub-Committee
Position Paper No. 1
This position paper was adopted with slight modifications by the
Planning Congress on March 19, 1987.
TRANSPORTATION
By consensus, the subcommittee has adopted the following initial
performance standards and policy statements for transportation:
1) As an initial effort, the following situations should
be explored with the transportation model :
a) Evaluate existing land use conditions and
transportation network.
b) Evaluate land use conditions and the
transportation network specified in the existing
county and cities general plans.
For both situations, the results should identify the
network segments that are worse than level of service
"D" , the network improvements required to achieve a
level of service "D" or better, and the cost of these
improvements.
Maps produced from this effort should show network
segments color-coded to indicate level of service as
defined by volume/capacity ratios. The colors should
be chosen to represent 5% intervals for levels of
service D, E and F.
2) Request that consultants and staff prepare suggestions
for defining transportation level of service for CBD
(central business district) , urban, suburban, and rural
areas.
3) The General Plan should include a strong policy
statement encouraging cooperation between the cities
and the county when defining level of service
standards, particularly for "downtown" areas.
I
4) Highway 4 should be improved as shown in Caltrans'
I
I
Route Concept Report.
5) Development of a secondary road system of expressways
should be considered as a possible solution to
congested freeways.
6) "Densification" is not an appropriate method to
encourage an increase in either the passenger per
vehicle rate, or the use of public transportation
systems.
7) Efforts to reduce peak period traffic congestion should
include some widening of roads, but should primarily
focus on encouraging use of multiple-occupancy
vehicles, with measures such as TSM (transportation
systems management) , developing park-and-ride lots,
expanding parking at BART stations, and developing
bikeways and pedestrianways.
8) Transit service should be supplied for those who need
it, and alternative ways to provide transit service
should explored, such as dial-a-ride.
GRG 3/5/87
Slightly revised 3/19/87
gpu\pptrans
i
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
PLANNING CONGRESS
Jobs/Housing Subcommittee
Position Paper No. 1
This position paper was adopted in total by the Planning Congress on March 19,
1987.
One of the primary responsibilities of this Subcommittee is the preparation of a
draft Land Use Element. The Subcommittee has taken numerous actions leading in
that direction. They are outlined below:
1. The Subcommittee concurred in the usage of the existing standardized
County land use categories as the basis of future discussion; they,
however, reserved the right to change from those categories in the
future if they felt they were not accurately reflecting future needs.
2. The Subcommittee decided to utilize the map based approach to deter-
mine the initial land use alternatives to be developed for testing.
(This approach is to utilize graphic representation of an alternative
- rather than starting with goals and policies and creating alterna-
tives based on those written goals. This decision was made reflecting
the diversity of the County and the differing approaches in estab-
lished city general plans. )
3. The Subcommittee spent extensive time discussing the concept of
jobs-housing balance. Upon completion of these discussions the Com-
mittee unanimously approved the following two motions:
o "The General Plan should support and stimulate housing infill
where the jobs-housing ratio shows an overabundance of jobs to
housing."
o "The General Plan should support and stimulate job infill where
the jobs-housing ratio shows an overabundance of housing to
jobs."
4. For purposes of interpreting the jobs housing goals listed in #3 above
the following definitions and the legal requirement were accepted by
vote.
o Definition of Jobs/Housing Balance
"A jobs/housing balance occurs if people live in housing that is
affordable at the wages they earn, and travel reasonably short
distance to their jobs and the services they use."
-- California Statewide Housing Plan, 1982
o Legal Requirement
"In exercising its authority to zone for land uses, a city, county,
or city and county shall designate and zone sufficient vacant
land for residential use with appropriate standards, in relation
to zoning for nonresidential use, and in relation to growth
Page 2
projections of the general plan to meet housing needs identified
in the general plan."
-- Government Code Sec. 65913.1
o Housing Unit
"A house, an apartment, mobile home-manufactured housing or other
group of rooms, or a single room is regarded as a housing unit
when it is occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living
quarters, that is, when the occupants do not live and eat with
any other persons in the structure and there is either (1) direct
access from the outside or through a common hall , or (2) a kitchen
or cooking equipment for the exclusive use of the occupants of
the unit. The occupants of a housing unit may be a family or
other group or persons, or a person living alone."
5. The Subcommittee started its discussion of alternatives which it
wished to be tested as part of technical program. A cautious approach
to this was taken where three base case situations and one alternative
were agreed to for initial analysis and running of the transportation
models. The are:
o Existing Situation
While not really an alternative, this is the existing situation
against which all alternatives will be tested. 1985 is the base
year for the study. County staff has prepared a 1985 land use
inventory of the urbanized portions of the County. This will be
the basis for the calibration of the traffic models. Land use
information will be calculated from the existing maps and allo-
cated to traffic analysis zones. Traffic zones are subsets of
1980 (and where modified, 1990) census tracts, consistent with
the MTC Regional Model . There are approximately 165 census
tracts and there will be approximately 500 traffic zones.
o Modified Existing Situation
This base case situation takes the existing situation (discussed
above) and adds to it all major projects which have been approved
by the city and County planning agencies. The purpose of this is
to test the adequacy of the transportation system when all previous
approvals which may buildout are also considered. The city plan-
ning departments have been requested to assist in the compilation
of this material .
o City/County Composite Plan (Build Out Scenarios)
The Congress is familiar with this map which is at 2,000 feet to
an inch; it is the multicolored map which shows the City General
Plans translated into County General Plan categories that was
Page 3
presented at a previous Congress meeting. The map will be updated
to reflect the recently adopted San Ramon General Plan within its
sphere of influence. The Danville and Orinda plan revisions are
far enough along where they should be included for testing -
neither plan revision varies substantially from the County plans
which they are replacing. This will form the basis of the calcu-
lating of land uses allowed under city and the County General
Plan. Where cities have calculated buildout under their General
Plans this will be translated into traffic zones for direct input
into the traffic models.
o Spread Development Alternative
One obvious alternative would open new areas to development to
balance the amount of job growth shown on adopted General Plans
within the County as well as to reflect the major job focus in
Pleasanton (Hacienda Business Park) . Obvious locations for con-
sideration of major new areas of growth are in the Tassajara Valley
and in East County. This would follow the traditional pattern of
opening new areas for development as the need for them becomes
apparent. This follows the evolutionary growth process the Bay
Area has followed to date. Due to municipal and ownership
interests in the development of certain lands, this alternative
was approved for testing purposes.
The Subcommittee recognizes the need to consider other alternatives for testing,
but has decided to withhold action on selecting them until the initial results
of the traffic model have been released and provide guidance to problems the
group on the nature of our transportation. This approach to consideration of
alternatives and selection of base case situations was unanimously approved by
the Subcommittee.
6. Considerations of Environmental or Practical Constraints
In addition to starting the alternative selection process, the Subcom-
mittee has been pursuing a constraints analyses of lands upon which it
would be necessary to limit development potential . The Subcommittee
has considered a range of factors and has made findings that the fol-
lowing areas will not generally be designated for urban development.
o All existing major and local parklands owned or operated by a
public agency.
o East Bay Municipal Utilities District owned watershed lands.
o The major mineral extraction areas in the Byron and Clayton areas.
(Implementation of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. )
Page 4
o Major low intensity use State and Federal land holding e.q. , the
Concord Naval Weapons Station. (The proposed State College site
on Ygnacio Valley Road is specifically not included in this
grouping. )
o Marshlands
o Existing major water areas, e.q. , San Pablo Bay or Clifton Court
Forebay.
o The Southeast Contra Costa County area (as recommended by the
Southeast Contra Costa County General Plan Review Subcommittee)
except for the proposed Byron Airport and Byron Hot Springs areas
which were held over for further discussion.
7. In addition to these substantive matters three procedural recommenda-
tions were made:
o A white paper should be developed, presenting decisions made by
the Subcommittee to be forwarded to the General Plan Congress.
This report is in response to that decision.
o Decisions on non-controversial items will be by consensus, how-
ever, votes will be taken on substantive issues, so that the is-
sues can be brought to closure.
o That a listing shall be maintained by the subcommittee of un-
resolved issues to insure that no issues get lost in the review
process.
JWC/mb
ed:jwc2/papernol.gpr
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
PLANNING CONGRESS
Agriculture/Open Space Subcommittee
Position Paper No. 2
The following goal and policy statements regarding the issues of
Agricultural Economy and Agricultural/Urban Conflicts have been
adopted by the Subcommittee. The statements have been modified
from the first and second installments of a consultant' s report.
Further issues will deal with Age}eta}tttefHbaa-Eenf}fete,
(Strikeovers ever indicate language that was deleted by the
committee and underlined language has been added. ) (Agri-
cultural -Land Conservation and Agricultural Land Preservation.
The Subcommittee has not yet adopted policies regarding open
space or ,conservation issues.
This paper will be considered by the Planning Congress on April
23, 1987 .
ISSUE 1 Agricultural Economy (continued)
Goal Statement 3
Permit farm worker and farm family housing in agricultural areas
which meets the needs of locally employed transient and perma-
nent farm workers and family farm workers.
Objective 3.1 Permit sufficient housing for transient,
permanent, and full-time family agricultural
employees, exclusive of housing permitted by
the applicable zoning restrictions, where
such housing is needed to maintain agricul-
tural production activities.
Policy Options
1. Agricultural employee housing shall be permitted in addi-
tion to the residential density permitted allowed by the
underlying zoning, in
accordance with the needs of the local production sector.
Sgeeifie Criteria to establish the specific conditions
which will apply to the agricultural employee housing shall
be included in the Zoning Ordinance and shall address per-
manent and transient employees.
2. Rgie�lt� al-eglepee-he�sing-shall-be-limited-to-snits
that-eye-net-en-permanent-fenndatiens-fe-g--mebile-heves}-
(deleted by the committee) .
3 . Farm family member housing shall be permitted, in addition
to the residential density permitted by the agricultural
land use designation, at the ratio of one-unit-ger-29
aeres; the underlying zoning (e.g. one extra house per each
5 acres in an A-2 zone) up to a maximum of four units per
parcel. Family- ember-he�sing-shall-net-be-s�bdi�ided-fe
the-p�ima�p-ag�ie�lt��al-ga�eel;-shall-be-leeated-in-elese
g�eximity-te-the-amain-he�sinQ-snit-and-shall-be-eee�pied
selely-by-a-�embe�-ef-the-family-whe-is-engaged-at-least
gait-time;-in-the-en-site-farming-egeatien- (Second
sentence deleted by the committee. )
4. The County shall assist the appropriate agencies and
non-profit organizations in developing programs for provid-
ing adequate housing for transient farm workers.
Goal Statement 4 Farm Unit Feasibility
Support the economic feasibility of individual farm units.
Objective 4.1 - - Maintain existing farms units and promote
the creation of expanded and new farms
units-
Policy Options
1. Establish comprehensive agricultural land use policies
which reduce uncertainty regarding the potential of agri-
cultural land fey-Oban-e - mal- esidentiel-de�eleg�ent-
2. S�gget-State-1eQislatien-whieh-gevides-finaneial-s�gget
te-ag�ienit��e;-s�eh-as-Senate-Bill-}�}�;-int�ed�eed-in-the
1986-legislative-sessien- (deferred by the committee) .
3 . Support the County Farm Advisor and the other County De-
partments and special districts which provide services to
agriculture, including educational programs that assist
farmers and ranchers with financial planning and effective-
ly utilizing available State and Federal programs.
4. Permit supplemental uses on agricultural lands, subject to
land use regulations and permit procedures.
5. Adept-}nne�rat}ire-egg}ems}ttse}-}and-p�ese �*at}en-teel�n}gt�es
st�el°i-as-�Fransfe�-ef-Be�ae}epment-Eyed}ts-and-pt��el�ase-ef
deve}epment-rights- (deferred by the Committee) .
6. p}aee-tl�e-bt��den-ef-agt}ett}ttza}ft� ban-eenf}}ets-t�pen-t� ban
er-rural-resident}a}-lanes-uses- (deferred by the
committee. )
7 . 8ens}elegy-eeat}en-ef-a-subs}el}peel;-}ear-}nteest- e�*e}�*}ng
lean-ft�nel-te-lie}p-fa�me�s-anel-�anehe�s-f}nanee-age}eta}tt��a}
}mprevements- (deleted by the committee)
objective 4.2 Assure that County fiscal policies and
practices provide the maximum lawful
protection to owners of agricultural lands.
Policy Options
1. Encourage the continued use of Agricultural Preserve con-
tracts to maintain land in agriculture and to lower proper-
ty taxes for participating farmers and ranchers
2. Investigate options for making Agricultural Preserve con-
tracts more attractive, such as changes in allowable uses
or increasing tax benefits.
3 . Support property tax assessments within agricultural areas
based upon its agricultural use, for properties that don' t
qualify for the Williamson Act.
n
ISSUE 3 Agricultural/Urban Conflicts
Agricultural and urban land uses conflict in a variety of ways.
Agricultural uses may produce noise, odors, flies, and exposure
to pesticide/herbicide sprays. On the other hand, urban uses
near farms create problems such as trespassing, theft, and van-
dalism. Although many of these conflicts are difficult to re-
solve, methods are available to limit the creation of future
conflicts, and reduce existing conflicts.
Goal Statement 6
Reduee-er-eliminate Reconcile conflicts between agricultural and
urban uses.
Objective 6.1 Require urban developments to establish
effective buffers between agricultural and
urban uses.
Policy Options
1. Require adequate setbacks for any non-agricultural struc-
tures located within or adjacent to cultivated agriculture.
2. Where a discretionary development permit is sought within
or adjacent to agricultural districts, potential conflicts
should be reduced by creation of a natural or constructed
buffer between the agricultural and urban land use. Such
buffers shauld must occur on the parcel for which the dis-
cretionary permit is sought. asel-sl�etzlel-fe�*e�-peteetlea-ef
the-�naxlr�tuYt-ennennt-ef-ag�let�ltt��el-land.-
3 . In grazing areas, buffers should include fencing effective
for containing grazing animals, keeping domestic dogs out
of grazing animals, keeping domestic dogs out of grazing
areas, and deterring trespassing.
4. Wl�ee-a-elseetlenay-ele�relegment-pelt-ls-sestzght-�alt�iln
e�-a.eljaeent-te-ag�let�ltr��al-ellst�lets;-tl�e-eenelitlen-speel-
fping-tl�e-llabllltp-ef-tl�e-t��ban-lapel-r�se�s---Beaels-sl�er�lel
be-establlsl�eel-te-eextgensete-�anel�e�s-anelf e�-fa�me�s-f�em
r
dextage-te-ereps;-egulgr�ent;-e�-ll�*estoek-resulting-f�en�-tl�e
urban-lane-uses.- (deleted by the committee) .
5. Where conflicts which cannot be mitigated exist between
agriculture and residential uses, priority should be given
to maintaining the agricultural use.
Objective 6.2 Inform and educate residents in or near
agricultural area regarding the nuisances
and hazards associated with nearby
agricultural practices.
Policy Options
1. Require an Agricultural Notification Statement on property
deeds to inform owners about adjacent agricultural practic-
es for all new residential lots created in or adjacent to
agricultural districts.
2. Sponsor educational programs in cooperation with the Coun-
ty' s school districts and the East Bay Regional Park Dis-
trict to inform students regarding need to respect agricul-
tural eperatlens uses.
3. Establlsk-standard-language-whieh-require-develepers-ef
subel�lslen-apg�eved-ad�aeent-te-ag��teultu�al-elst�lets-te
lnferm-buyers-regarding-the-petentlal-nulsanees-frexft-agrl-
eultural-eperatlens-ane-the-need-te-respeet-agrleultural
preperty-rights- (deleted by the committee) .
Objective 6.3 Protect agriculture from nuisance complaints
from non-agricultural land uses.
Policy Options
1. A "Right-to Farm" Ordinance should be prepared which clear-
ly protects ranchers and farmers within an agricultural
district from nuisance complains and unreasonable restric-
tions or regulations on farm structures or farming practic-
es.
2. The provisions of the existing State of California agricul-
tural nuisance law shall be vigorously enforced by the ap-
propriate County departments.
f.
3. i�lmit-the-leeetlens-where-t� ban-level-uses;-getletzlel�r
�esldentlal-level-uses;-ee�te-late-eenteet-with-ag�let�ltn�al
land-uses-th�et�gh-effeetl�*e-level-t�se-plenning-whleh-makes
t�exlm�-rise-ef-nett��el-e�-eenst�t�eted-bttffe�s-st�eh-as
stream-ehannels;-freeways;-end-parkland- (deleted by the
committee) .
Objective 6.4 Eliminate Control predation on grazing
animals by domestic dogs.
Policy Options
1. Establish a County-wide leash law which prohibits free run-
ning dogs.
2. Post grazing areas with signs specifying the provisions and
penalties imposed by the leash law prohibiting free running
dogs.
3 . Impose civil fines upon dog owners whose dogs damage live-
stock.
4. Increase efforts by County Animal Control to manage feral
free running dogs.
EP/jb
EP/paperno2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
PLANNING CONGRESS
Jobs/Housing Subcommittee
Position Paper No. 2
Position paper No. 1 of this subcommittee was adopted by the Planning Congress
at its March meeting. It included the consideration of environmental or
practical constraints to land for development. The purpose of determining
constraints is to limit areas for consideration of development potential in the
preparation of alternatives that will be prepared for indepth testing.
The subcommittee recommended and the Planning Congress concerned with the
following areas being excluded from consideration of urbanization:
o All existing major and local parklands owned or operated by a public
agency.
o East Bay Municipal Utilities District owned watershed lands.
o The major mineral extraction areas in the Byron and Clayton areas.
(Implementation of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. )
o Major low intensity use State and Federal land holding e.g. , the Concord
Naval Weapons Station. (The proposed State College site on Ygnacio Valley
Road is specifically not included in this grouping. ) .
o Marshlands.
o Existing major water areas, e.g. , San Pablo Bay or Clifton Court Forebay.
o The Southeast Contra Costa County area (as recommended by the Southeast
Contra Costa County General Plan Review Subcommittee) except for the
proposed Byron Airport and Byron Hot Springs areas which were held over for
further discussion.
The subcommittee has continued its discussion of constraints and has two
additional concepts and associated land areas to recommend to the Congress as
being included as constraints to "urban" development for the plan alternatives
which are to be developed. They area discussed individually below.
o Flood Inundation Areas
The Committee agreed to limit development potential from major flood
inundation areas. For this initial cut, the larger contiguous areas within
the 100 year flood hazard area as defined by the Federal Emergency
Jobs/Housing Subcommittee -2- Position Paper No. 2
Management Agency have been recommended. The two exceptions are Bethel
Island which is currently under indepth evaluation for its urbanization
potential as part of a specific plan program and the partially developed
lands along the levee perimeter of Dutch and San Mound Sloughs.
While there may be additional lands subject to similar limiting factors,
the Committee selected these areas as the inital constraint areas due to
their logical boundaries and large size. The generalized boundaries are
shown on the attached map.
The Committee spent over one entire meeting discussing the problems of
lowland development and five main issues were identified:
- flooding due to runoff and tides
- settlement of shallow soils
- deep subsidence
- liquefaction
- flooding potential from a world wide sea level rise.
The Subcommittee recommends this action by unanimous vote.
Recommendation:
Show the areas designated on the attached map as a constraint for conventional
urban development.
o Extensive Areas Exceeding 26% Average Slopes
The subcommittee spent considerable time discussing the impacts of slopes
as a constraint to development with the County's engineering geologist. It
was decided that extensive areas with slopes exceeding an average of 26%
would be recommended as a constraint to be recognized in the development of
plan alternatives.
The Committee put limitations on the use of this as a constraint;
- It only include lands outside of currently adopted city and sewer
spheres of influence.
- That the boundaries are not meant to be considered precise at this
time and are to be interpreted flexibly.
That areas designated above 26% slope can be redesignated for
development if that is necessary to create logical plan boundaries or
if they can be developed in a fashion which meets logical development
standards.
Jobs/Housing Subcommittee -3- Position Paper No. 2
Based on these limitations, the Subcommittee approved this constraint with only
one negative vote. (A display map of the areas will be available at the
Congress meeting)
Recommendation:
Show extensive areas with an average slope over 26% as a constraint outside of
city or sewer district spheres of influences and subject to the stated
limitations listed above.
JWC:PlP
:'•' I / ! . r �'i /I `� #• I I I I I'I I I I ' I I -� _ T �../f A..x.� r •�,(,f` 4;r, \\
�7�
` - •V•. I I f I 1 I I (� i ' ' '' ' "=7- ' I. ' ' e ,ss 1 j - /�,(`\`e/)n».
I I I 1. � \ (• �J
' '-(• ��to � I Y�, '~r_..�f I t' :i t_ ���'�!y � ' ' I `� r� �+�' S#kl�,t�"' �_r .• -t���..•�y�T ' ;.
? • + / , I I 1 - •::I= 1•.•`/ Rt \�. t_ 1 t Y A r. a"tl 1 S !_ �'. • r:: ;r'•�' t+'
�, ���•'.�«►+ • %/ I r y'r ,til I! /��k�� _ n _\�J 'I I ' J.' ii ii t Ff ti` L�'j=•`�. i. .'/ 'f t , i J- I
1\ I
`�• r• t•�. �. 1•� �"' .1 Pt *+ 1 F♦t � "A! f T� .' 1 r t k�i i �i .`�3..-r'}"�" _1
/ J" •• � �I�.I '♦ s s j it=i ` .� .t1' rt.\ '": a.r... 3:r=tt 1 :\, F_tl l 1 E I
�.•�. _\•`'- _III-+. .' ii#il rT rs GI'F� � IIs Y '� "••»=. p .
� � �'•....... _ .If t f,• �«,"`l s s �t�klsl sttc`t? s � w � s kkk: � /,�•� � ��::�,I
. I Ta`,�• � I I 1 ': �: �, =� V 3�t'.�.F` = tai t. r/� ..Il�l'In
��/,. . wi -III V` -�.r � t 6 �� aT:t k k �=t s• T '\ i 1 I l l l l i
NORTH
t ' ' SCALE.1f1-7000 E •, ;�1,�• a: N4. t t=.: T"P �`•"'!'Tt '`+ •,t' ••`\ I V__
# :it = i#issi:#ti tl'.-'r•,�� .`\.•\\
' i -- '1 ,:- _.�,. - �..._._T_ � t ► � o � � ,! F 1 #^ ksjtS•�ft�_� It tl! f��•�.1�;�1� ,
1 _ r• , , .. Z.- y,i is•gs ♦ £;t +s f t3 kY ): .,: r -
1 'r `\ r ._'I� '• < :w [ 1#�Irrl'e•flk ## .. t„ a✓ `� 'IL
' I - � - -t.- a - . c rr ` �itlt :3 r � 1 kiS�•.•7!•�,� �t.' � r yrl �I
t
, _ �.. r I J ,/ ��" `. Iltti. Fi l l i FiVN,f 1 �f � t t ., ..,G-.,` ,-�•�
OK
_�_ - I � I ?` S t 'c _7.-. _a e.�� "•moi �. a'; ,
1 - ' I�r r /�I Wit,... / +\ L f. - y'kf •s„ R:!< .l ♦M X I 3' `I poi ,
� tet„ V' ''�1•i �/ QIT,M� k ,'1 ' � II:rte � ,f a;. y� , L Iarn rakNa a � as •. : `' \ t , . ''i �(i
✓r 4
�1 r �� ♦r [ ' cl Ir 1 I � I iF tt
, : xaf' T I � 1. 11 1.^•�I 1 .•rsY i
:1
BETHEL ISLAM fr= #
.wl,��`. I : ♦ 3t ♦ • it � �..: _ {r 1r'•s� � S. V- �('\?'
1 :' n 1 ° .. gF Ra •alun � \�` .,� ,+t 3 - .: 1y.:. r ' : "�
' t•��'-YII '`f �• q... p' � •( n...�.'Itdnt .:M V�,.r«�:n•'E'' '^ �•wtrr I \'- ��� 'T.: I J-
r 'ter•-_.w. »t h:1' J> � �5 .;
3..v' . y. n '�.. e =s ci♦ f rt � .:f �`,T(. r►Ya� saee.n • ♦t� Hake �f. a xT: t � _.j. f
au,wr�,,.�},k3 ,,. 3 iY 'a.�•2 � t: t ':x # t s. >. t :: �`
�•'-"I 'In _1'A w j. .-�_. t -- ♦ - __ .Lc�•...� �'a" � I t i:. ..•..a r._ I_ � �-i
.OAKLEY
+
r t f
I"l
t.. ... -•ct n` ��.s� _;;�._ 4 "..�-_..:_. .ice;� ^.•� 'E_ `t ;.
ZZ
1[ rasa!• t t 1
I
- C r
Jf •
._�_. .. ..... _ ,moi.. "�'i _ I1 � { f i E••t_;e s �� : V �1��%-' _ --
1 3
_ .. �•. - - -� 1 ... ' -•''�-- ---_-_---___ — - �yL.l t 'e _ •r__Iitr
l` '-�•.I,`I �`lV__ l'I ` � � � • I � I ,1>: - f t;f 1 ;y,t T f t=..�.<x ti. .....-... _-
•„I /• ^ ,_ .•+�”: F.i til t afi#ift �ttx: --
'\I . I +1_ f, •' '--�•�l BRENTWOOD
J },-•. •.a••_C•--�• ..? iti4 1 t :} It It It ittfff t�
I i., r . 1 •i � I i .=_ =`t t =:;i =111!1 I:f Rtft 1.1 ..'
w
l• SRI I• ». { ^ 3 (� dt F; 3 1.e �«� tt�irf t t FitF31 _ __
1,1 ...�� -^w-J.� .»�,.- 4-. I- �4•- , - __ •_.._.._� — _r.. _ E ':¢ 1 3 ; t 3 f :i t i t tFlYitftl --_
r j,»..� �•� j 1 � I t :.. I 3: t F _`�-_ _ = ttt4rij'.'2• -
r
FLOOD INUNDATION AREAS
A
RECENT GROWTH IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA,
AND CALIFORNIA
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
April , 1987
Recent Population Growth in California (1985-1986)
According to recent population estimates released by the California Depart-
ment of Finance, the state grew by 623,000 persons between June 30, 1985
and June 30, 1986. More than one half of the gain was the result of
in-migration. The jump in population was the biggest one year increase
since 1942-1943, when defense industries lured thousands of workers and
their families to the state. Almost two thirds (395,000) of the new resi-
dents live in the greater Los Angeles-Orange-San Diego metropolitan areas
of Southern California. The net increase in the San Francisco Bay Area's
population amounted to 80,600 additional residents over the twelve month
period (see Table I) .
TABLE I
POPULATION GROWTH IN
SELECTED CALIFORNIA COUNTIES
(1985-1986)
Population Percentage
County Increase Increase
Los Angeles 159,600 2.0%
San Diego 75,700 3.6
Orange 43,600 2.0
San Bernardino 55,600 5.1
Riverside 45,900 5.6
Ventura 14,700 2.4
Sub-total : LA-San Diego 395,100 2.7
Sacramento 26,500 3.0
San Joaquin 16,100 3.9
San Luis Obispo 7,100 3.8
Lake 1,300 2.7
Sierra foothills/
Mother Lode (9 counties) 16,300 3.9
Santa Clara 6,700 0.5
San Francisco 14,800 2.0
Alameda 18,900 1.6
Contra Costa 14,500 2.0
Solano 11,400 4.2
Sonoma 10,400 3.1
Sub-total : SF Bay Area 80,600 1.4
(9 counties)
Total : California 623,000 2.4
Source: California Dept. of Finance
estimates for July 1, 1985
and 1986.
-2-
In terms of the percentage increase in population (the rate of growth) ,
California as a whole grew at an annual rate of 2.4%. Some of the fastest
growing urban counties in the state are in Southern California, including
Riverside (5.6% increase) , San Bernardino (5.1%) , and San Diego (3.6%) .
Other counties that are growing faster than the statewide average are
located in the Bay Area (Solano and Sonoma) , in the Central Valley (San
Joaquin, Sacramento) , in the foothills of the Sierra, and on the Central
Coast (San Luis Obispo) .
In the two population centers of the state, the six counties of the huge
Los Angeles-San Diego magalopolis are growing at a rate of 2.7%, while the
nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area are growing only half as fast
(1.4% annually) . Surprisingly, the largest county in the Bay Area, Santa
Clara, grew very slowly over the last year (0.5%) , reflecting the continuing
slowdown in the electronics industry and other constraints. The most
rapidly growing region of California is the Mother Lode country, consisting
of the retirement and recreation communities in the Sierra Nevada foothills
stretching from Mariposa to Sierra County, including Lake Tahoe.
Population Growth in California (1980-1986)
Since the U.S. Census taken in April , 1980, California has grown by an
incredible 3.3 million residents. The urbanized area in Southern California,
consisting of the Los Angeles Basin, Ventura and Orange Counties, and the
San Diego metropolitan region, now contains an estimated population of 15.3
million, while the State population has surged to almost 27 million (see
Table II) .
In contrast, the San Francisco Bay region has grown by almost one half
million persons since 1980, representing a 9.4% increase. The Bay Area is
now home to 5.7 million residents scattered throughout nine counties. Three
counties in the region have grown very slowly over the last six years
(Marin, Napa, and San Mateo) , the four largest counties have grown at a
rate slightly less than the statewide average of 14% (Santa Clara, Alameda,
San Francisco, and Contra Costa) , and the remaining two northern counties
(Solano and Sonoma) are experiencing rapid growth as they change from a
rural to suburban environment. While Contra Costa's growth rate for the
1980 to mid-1986 period was higher than the regional average, it's inter-
esting to note that in the East Bay, Alameda County has added a third more
residents (106,600) than Contra Costa (73,500) .
1
TABLE II
POPULATION GROWTH IN
SELECTED CALIFORNIA COUNTIES
(1980-1986)
Pop. Increase % Increase 1986
County (1980-1986) (1980-1986) Population
Los Angeles 815,400 10.9% 8,292,800
San Diego 344,100 18.5 2,205,900
Orange 238,300 12.3 2,171,200
San Bernardino 243,000 8.4 1,138,000
Riverside 201,400 9.6 864,600
Ventura 86,200 27.1 615,400
Sub-total : LA-San Diego 1,928,400 14.4 15,287,900
Sacramento 133,300 17.0 916,700
San Joaquin 83,700 24.1 431,000
San Luis Obispo 39,700 25.5 195,100
Lake 12,600 34.7 49,000
Sierra foothills/
Mother Lode 90,200 26.2 434,100
(9 counties)
Santa Clara 108,200 8.4 1,403,300
Alameda 106,600 9.6 1,212,000
San Francisco 65,600 9.7 744,600
Contra Costa 73,500 11.2 729,800
San Mateo 28,100 4.8 615,400
Sonoma 45,100 15.1 344,800
Solano 50,800 21.6 286,000
Marin 4,700 2.1 227,300
Napa 5,300 5.3 104,500
Sub-total : SF Bay Area 487,900 9.4 5,667,700
(9 counties)
Total : California 3,312,800 14.0 26,980,800
Source: U.S. Census of 1980; California
Dept. of Finance estimates for
July 1, 1986. Figures have been
rounded.
-4-
Recent Housing Growth in Contra Costa County
During the year ending December 31, 1986, almost 7,800 housing units were
completed throughout Contra Costa County, an increase of 24% over the
previous year. Seventy percent of the new housing completions were in
either the traditional growth areas of the North Central cities (Concord,
Pleasant Hill , and Walnut Creek) or in East Contra Costa (Antioch,
Pittsburg, Brentwood, and Oakley) . Surprisingly, housing growth during 1986
in the San Ramon Valley was only 1,002 units, trailing the West County area
(1,365 units) , North Central County (2,648 units) , and East County (2,775
units) (see Table III) .
Table III breaks down housing completion data for each jurisdiction by type
of unit, categorized as single family homes (either detached homes on
separate lots, or attached condominiums or townhouses) and multiple family
(apartment) units. It should be noted that the data in Table III measure
housing unit completions, i .e. a final building permit, not the issuance of
an initial building permit to construct. Thus, the numbers are a very
accurate representation of exactly how many units were actually finished
and ready for occupancy. Housing construction "hot spots" are illustrated
on Map 1, at the end of this report.
In Contra Costa County, Antioch has been by far the most active location
for new home construction. The city registered an incredible 1,200 units
completed during the last year, or a building pace of 100 new homes each
month. One out of every six new housing units built in the County last year
was in Antioch. Construction in the city was divided roughly equally
between single family homes (676 units) and new apartment units (521
units) . Much of the building has occurred in the rapidly growing Southeast
Antioch area along Hillcrest Avenue. Several thousand additional units are
currently under construction in this area, and a total buildout of
approximately 15,000 homes has been planned.
In neighboring Pittsburg, a total of 430 apartment units were finished
during the last year. New rental housing is being built in Pittsburg, as
well as in Antioch, at a very rapid pace. Both cities gave preliminary
approval during 1986 to build 1,000 apartment units, some of which are
reflected in the completed numbers. In Pittsburg, about 100 single family
homes were also added, primarily located in the foothills south of Route 4.
The small city of Brentwood experienced a very high rate of growth during
the last year. Well over 300 homes were completed in several medium sized
subdivisions that have been constructed on the west side of the city. North
of Brentwood in the unincorporated community of Oakley, a similar amount of
growth (335 homes) has occurred. Oakley's new housing is centered in the
large Gateway project (Garrow & Cardinale) , as well as in the later phases
of subdivisions being built by the Hofmann Company, Seeno, Woodhill Devel-
opment, and others. Development activity is expected to remain strong in
both the Brentwood and Oakley areas in the coming years, assuming major
infrastructure problems do not constrain growth.
TABLE III
HOUSING GROWTH BY AREA
AND TYPE IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
(1986)
Single Family Multiple Family
Homes Units Total
------------- ----------------- -----
EAST COUNTY
Antioch 676 521 1,197
Pittsburg 104 430 534
Brentwood 327 0 327
Unincorporated 706 11 717
Sub-total 1,813 962 2,775
NORTH CENTRAL COUNTY
Martinez 178 32 210
Concord 307 481 788
Clayton 3 0 3
Pleasant Hill 290 224 514
Walnut Creek 185 406 591
Lafayette 27 0 27
Moraga 86 0 86
Orinda 20 0 20
Unincorporated 387 22 409
Sub-total 1,483 1,165 2,648
SAN RAMON VALLEY
Danville 124 0 124
San Ramon 202 24 226
Unincorporated 574 78 652
Sub-total 900 102 1,002
WEST COUNTY
E1 Cerrito 9 16 25
Richmond 230 435 665
San Pablo (1) 12 11
Pinole 80 54 134
Hercules 317 161 478
Unincorporated 36 16 52
Sub-total 671 694 1,365
COUNTY TOTAL 4,867 2,923 7,790
Source: Contra Costa County Community Development Department
population and housing estimation program
Note: Condos and townhouse units are included in the
Single Family Homes category.
-6-
The only other areas in East County where significant new housing is being
built is in the unincorporated communities of West Pitsburg and Discovery
Bay. In West Pittsburg, over 300 new units were completed during 1986,
including 56 new homes in Kaufman & Broad's California Landing project, 90
homes in Presley's Amber Cove, and another 150 units spread out between the
Lynbrook project (Crocker Homes) and Woodhill 's Westwood Village. In
Discovery Bay, the planned community of waterfront homes near Byron, 62
units were finished during 1986 by either custom homebuilders or the master
builder of the project, the Hofmann Company.
North Central County includes the five northern cities along I-680, from
Martinez to Walnut Creek, as well as Lamorinda (Lafayette, Moraga, and
Orinda) . This part of the County has historically been a high growth area
since the 1950's. The cities are now reaching a built out environment, as
the last remaining vacant parcels are being developed. In addition, the
downtown business districts in some of the cities are being redeveloped
with multiple family housing. Surprisingly, the North Central cities of
Concord, Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill added almost 1,900 units of
housing last year, compared to about 2,050 units added in the three East
County cities. However, the building activity in North Central County is
expected to slow in the coming years.
Concord, the largest city in the County, has experienced very strong
residential growth recently. Over 300 single family homes were completed in
outlaying subdivisions on Pine Hollow Road and elsewhere. An impressive
amount of multiple family housing, almost 500 units, was also built, most
of which consisted of several large apartment complexes built along Clayton
Road, between Kirker Pass and Alberta.
In Walnut Creek, over 400 units of apartments were also added to the
housing stock. Most of the projects were located in the downtown area, with
some construction along Oak Road. New single family development included
the Main Chance townhouses north of the downtown. The City of Pleasant Hill
added over 500 housing units, with several hundred single family homes
finished in subdivisions on the hilly west side of the city. About 150 new
senior citizens apartments were also constructed in the large Ellinwood
mixed use project. Homebuilding activity in these two cities is expected to
slow significantly in the coming years, however, due to slow growth
initiatives recently adopted by the voters, as well as a dwindling supply
of vacant land for development.
A significant amount of housing was also completed in the unincorporated
areas within North Central County. Many of the 409 single family units that
were finished under County jurisdiction were located at the Pleasant Hill
BART station and on nearby Oak Road, and consisted of condominiums designed
for nearby office workers.
-7-
Martinez added 210 units of new housing during 1986, primarily located in
the growing John Muir Parkway area just north of Route 4. Several thousand
additional units have been planned in this area, as well as a substantial
amount of job generating uses. In tiny Clayton, almost no development
occurred during 1986, although in the coming year it is anticipated the
city will approve final plans for the 1,400 unit Oakhurst Country Club
development by Presley Homes, which will eventually double the size of the
city.
In the older Lamorinda area, a modest amount of development was recorded
(approximately 125 single homes) . This portion of the County is effectively
built out, except for one isolated pocket of vacant land that could be
developed in the near future, the Gateway Valley in Orinda.
Although the San Ramon Valley has a reputation as one of the most rapidly
growing areas in the Bay Area, the number of homes that have been completed
there over the last two years has been consistently lower than in the other
three sections of the County. In 1986, the Town of Danville completed only
124 homes, many of which were in one project (Danville Ranch by Braddock &
Logan) . However, approximately 1,800 units have already been given prelimi-
nary or final approval in the large Sycamore Valley, and several hundred
are currently under construction. The City of San Ramon registered 200 new
single family units and two dozen apartments.
The largest amount of development occurred in the huge 3,700 unit Canyon
Lakes project, which is being built in the unincorporated area east of San
Ramon by several different companies. Approximately 300 homes were completed
in the first neighborhoods of the project, coupled with some building in a
nearby Shapell Industries subdivision (New Castle) and an apartment compex
(Lincoln Properties' Country Brook) . Upon completion, the units in these
unincorporated development have been immediately annexed into the City of
San Ramon, under the terms of a tax-sharing agreement worked out with the
County.
At Blackhawk, the planned community of luxury homes east of Danville in the
unincorporated area, custom homebuilding has continued at a steady pace.
The project added 266 new homes in 1986. The final phase of the 2,300 unit
community is expected to be completed during the next two years. In
addition, five other large residential projects in the unincorporated
Tassajara area, with a combined total of approximately 2,500 proposed new
homes, are in the process of receiving final approval from the County, in a
joint review process with the two cities. These developments are expected
to be under construction during the late 1980's.
In West Contra Costa County, there are two locations where a substantial
amount of new development has taken place: Hercules and Richmond. Hercules,
a former company town for a dynamite manufacturer, has consistently been
one of the fastest growing cities in the State. In 1975, the city contained
only 51 residents; the city's population is now estimated at about 12,000.
During 1986 the city added over 300 single family homes and 161 apartment
units. A similar amount of annual growth is expected to continue through
the 1990's.
-8-
Richmond expeienced a very large increase of 665 housing units during the
last year, primarily located in three areas of the city: along the water-
front, around the Hilltop regional shopping mall , and along Castro Ranch
Road in E1 Sobrante.' Large projects which were active in 1986 included the
Brickyard Landing and Marina Bay condominiums at the waterfront; the
Hilltop Village condominiums and Hilltop Bayview apartments; and Carriage
Hills subdivision by Dame near E1 Sobrante.
Other locations in West County which supported a moderate amount of housing
development included Pinole, which added 134 units during 1986, and the
unincorporated community of E1 Sobrante, with about 50 new homes.
Growth Trends in Contra Costa During the 1980's
Over the last decade as unincorporated land adjacent to cities has been
annexed and developed, and new cities have incorporated, the County's role
in approving and servicing new residential areas has shrunk dramatically.
In 1980, approximately 43% of all housing completions occurred under County
jurisdiction. By the end of 1986, the proportion of development in the
unincorporated areas had plummeted to under one quarter (see Figure IV) .
FIGURE IV
HOUSING GROWTH IN CITIES AND COUNTY
(196D-1966)
6
76.5%
M
F 6
x
0
x 4
04 Cities
M e 57%
Ob
x �
G 3 43%
x
P. 71%
0 2
a 23.5%
Unincorporated
i x 1
I 9%
D
196D 1991 1962 1963 1964 1985 1996
-9-
Growth in Contra Costa County has added 35,700 units of new housing since
1980, for an average of 5,100 homes completed each year. But homebuilding
during the 1980's has fluctuated wildly consistent with the national
economic climate (see Table V and Figure VI) .
The decade began on a relatively high note, as 6,240 units were finished in
1980. Housing starts began a nosedive during the next year, however, due to
very high interest rates and a national recession. By the end of 1984 the
local homebuilding industry had recovered, completing 5,100 new units. The
following year saw almost 6,300 homes and apartments built in the County,
an increase of 23%. During the most recent year, 7,800 units were con-
structed, representing another 24% increase over the previous twelve month
period.
By examining the housing statistics for each jurisdiction in the County
over the last seven years, it becomes apparent that the strong construction
activity in North Central County during 1986 has been a consistent pattern
for some time (see Table V and Figure VI) .
Almost 12,600 housing units have been built in the communities along the
northern section of I-680 since 1980, compared to 10,900 units completed in
East County, 6,300 in West County, and 5,900 in the San Ramon Valley. The
cities that have experienced the most development activity over the last
seven years are Antioch (approximately 3,900 new units) ; Concord (3,300) ;
Pittsburg (2,850) ; Martinez (2,600) ; San Ramon (2,250) ; and Richmond
(2,200) . Other communities that added over 1,000 units since 1980 include
Walnut Creek (1,900) ; Pleasant Hill (1,900) ; the unincorporated areas of
North Central County (1,700) ; Hercules (1,700) ; unincorporated Oakley
(1,500) ; Danville (1,450) ; and the unincorporated communities of Blackhawk
(1,250) and West Pittsburg (1,050) .
In terms of the type of housing that has been constructed in Contra Costa
County since 1980, Figure VII illustrates the change over time of the mix
between traditional single family homes on a separate lot, attached
condominiums or townhouses, and multiple family apartment units. In 1980,
about three quarters (73%) of the new housing built in the County consisted
of single family homes, 7% was condos or townhouses, and 20% was apartment
units. Over the last eight years, the mix of new housing has shifted
significantly away from homes on individual lots toward attached housing
(either condos or apartments) . During the construction slowdown of the
early 1980's, the percentage of new housing that was detached homes dropped
from three quarters of the total to about six out of every ten new units.
By the end of 1985, that proportion had shrunk further to about one half,
and during the last construction year, for the first time less than one
half (42%) of the housing completed in the County was detached family
homes.
d
a
W
a,
d
a
d
�
LL.
a
Q io
oti
(ap n-effnojCj,L)
o1jull ZuTum og asp X jm xogiunN
TABLE V
ANNUAL GROWTH IN HOUSING UNITS
BY JURISDICTION IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (1)
(1980-1986)
Total
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1980-1986
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---------
EAST COUNTY
Antioch 478 361 273 462 267 865 1,197 3,903
Brentwood 36 79 16 5 15 100 327 578
Pittsburg 443 529 246 308 196 596 534 2,852
W. Pittsbg (uninc) 188 223 20 75 94 137 304 1,041
Oakley (uninc.) 300 80 73 214 307 234 335 1,543
Disco Bay (uninc.) 187 139 92 44 112 154 62 790
Other unincorp. 111 27 12 23 (2) 15 16 202
Sub-total 1,743 1,438 732 1,131 989 2,101 2,775 10,909
NORTH CENTRAL COUNTY
Martinez 240 360 199 239 1,020 371 210 2,639
Concord 450 272 370 280 314 841 788 3,315
Clayton 99 0 2 19 63 54 3 240
Pleasant Hill 343 292 210 135 67 311 514 1,872
Walnut Creek 233 331 96 85 210 385 591 1,931
Lafayette 85 47 31 13 27 25 27 255
Moraga 62 40 4 5 58 136 86 391
Orinda (2) 48 60 25 26 26 35 20 240
Unincorporated 322 360 196 171 147 100 409 1,705
Sub-total 1,882 1,762 1,133 973 1,932 2,258 2,648 12,588
SAN RAMON VALLEY
Alamo (uninc.) 40 63 24 27 56 57 78 345
Danville (3) 425 310 125 63 250 155 124 1,452
San Ramon (4) 600 225 145 135 730 197 226 2,258
Blackhawk (uninc.) 110 110 80 120 307 268 266 1,261
Other uninc. 159 31 3 44 3 43 308 591
Sub-total 1,334 739 377 389 1,346 720 1,002 5,907
WEST COUNTY
E1 Cerrito 41 30 (1) 36 48 145 25 324
Richmond 449 216 146 211 237 279 665 2,203
San Pablo 249 222 31 133 81 114 11 841
Pinole 30 60 42 91 90 92 134 539
Hercules 275 3 70 152 273 452 478 1,703
Unincorp. 237 161 61 24 101 97 52 733
Sub-total 1,281 692 349 647 830 1,179 1,365 6,343
COUNTY TOTAL 6,240 4,631 2,591 3,140 5,097 6,258 7,790 35,747
Source: Contra Costa County Community Development Department
population and housing estimation program
NOTES TO TABLE V (con.,)
Notes: (1) Data is housing completions during the calender year minus demolitions.
Totals do not include the effect of annexations.
(2) Orinda was incorporated in 1985. (New building is included in the
the unincorporated totals through 1985.)
(3) Danville was incorporated in 1982.
(4) San Ramon was incorporated in 1983.
't` m
tit
LO
a)
� m
EMO
4-5
� u
1--�-i
0
CLD� 0
m
to
L L LO ril LID L
to ra ED
(cp un c ncu Z)
'411111nS c'4i u fl 5ui cn ag xQ K
+ 4 -14-
As the proportion of new housing that is on separate lots has declined, the
amount of new multiple family units and other attached housing has grown.
Townhouses and condominiums together accounted for only 7% of the new
housing in 1980. That portion climbed rapidly to about 24% of all new
residential construction by 1983, but decreased to about 21% of the total
by the end of 1986. Apartment building has flourished during the last two
years, with 1,652 and 2,755 units completed in 1985 and 1986, respectively.
Apartments represented one out of every five new units during 1980, dropped
to only 15% of the total in 1983-1984, and have sharply increased to
account for 29% and 37% of all completions during the last two years.
However, multiple family construction is expected to weaken in the coming
years due to changes in Federal tax laws.
EP:mkd: rcnt-gro.txt
Disk: Growth Trends
04/13/87
e
•a O
O !9 � •°a w � � •
o4 Q
' sr
14 rn
Ot�, CD D �. o ems')
1 j; y � ��" � �
'Lt 0
00 C r+ 00 iv y
r I" , 74o
r
Z ! ,1111
`V
r
r rn }
�! p I
/ CD CA i E
0ncnm z `
- C
O •'Y ch F-+ N _ y
c*(C
Z L. V) b
t'+o i� ~C7 y m r' s
-1 = V-+ I O
n
O«mow c t
3 0
r^
l c
to
r `V,
i O� p m
r CZ)--i
r m /r' Co-a
i m
{ N
t to c
f.7
N to X ," m'O
W 4 W —{
.t l0
_._.._ O ^I
1 O� a OO O co
O 2: G G
t n
• 7C)ct
`,.,...._ rt
1-
i A
C74 r �
W
Cp
tn
O X
ago W
1,
1 T
• � 1 � f r o
D
ice. t C)
O X
r.
D 0 �.-<
C ` rvi
t
AN
� � r
—est r-4v
z�