HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04261988 - 2.07 2. 7
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'`�n ,1}t
DATE: April 19, 1988 Costa
SUBJECT: Status Report on Draft Growth Management Program Cou "y
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept the --report of the Director of Community Development
regarding the Draft Growth Management Program and supply comments
on the draft to the General Plan Congress through each member' s
representative.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 8 , 1988 , the Board of Supervisors requested the General
Plan Congress to adopt a target date to make its recommendations to
the Board regarding Growth Management by April 15, 1988.
On April 7 , 1988 , the General Plan Congress reviewed the attached
Draft- Growth Management Program and requested staff to return with
two versions of the program; one with and one without an urban
limit line. The item is scheduled for the May 5 , 1988 meeting.
Last August, the Congress approved inclusion of an urban limit line
in the Plan. At present, the debate is centered on where such a
line should be drawn. In general, the approach we have taken is
very similar to that used in delineating the boundary of the
Briones Hills Agricultural Preservation Area.
In the Growth Management program, the urban limit line is linked to
the establishment of performance levels for infrastructure items
and public services, along with annual development monitoring and
five year reviews on the implementation of the plan Aandtoedo
retain or modify the urban limit line.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNA
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO ...OF,:..BO .,.COMMITTEE::
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON Ap r i 1 26 , 1988 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 April 26 , 1988
County AdministratorPHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND OUNTY MINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
bogm.doc/DB2
' a
On April 21, 1988 , the General Plan Congress will hold its meeting
in the Board of Supervisors chambers in order to accomodate the
expected large turnout of members of the public wishing to address
the Congress regarding the urban limit line issue. Once members of
the public have been given the opportunity to comment, the Congress
will undertake discussion of the issue. Depending on the amount of
comment and discussion•, the Congress may decide the issue or con-
tinue its deliberations until the meeting of May 5 , 1988.
RECENT GROWTH IN
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA,
AND CALIFORNIA
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
April , 1988
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN REVIEW
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
April , 1988
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROGRAM RATIONALE
Growth management is the process of regulating land development to preserve a
quality of life in communities and to assure that essential infrastructure and
support services accompany new growth. Growth management is distinct from both
"uncontrolled growth" and "no growth." Uncontrolled growth is fueled by strong
market demand where there is sufficient land supply without adequate
infrastructure and service requirements. "No growth" is the philosophy that
there should be no additional economic development and no new growth.
Growth management is the only way to meet the future needs for housing and jobs
while also preserving and enhancing our quality of life. Workable, reasonable
growth management includes the following concepts:
o the establishment of performance standards, which would
outline a "Pay As You Grow" plan for providing essential
infrastructure and critical services;
o metering of growth according to the adopted performance
standards. New growth would be approved only if it can
meet the "Pay As You Grow" performance standards;
o establishment of an urban limit line which delineates where
new urban development may occur during the planning period; and
o reliance on classic market forces to regulate the pace of
growth once the growth metering process is in place and the
performance objectives have been met.
The Growth Management Program for Contra Costa County is primarily intended to
implement the General Plan goal of providing for the public health, safety and
welfare of its residents by preserving "quality of life" . For purposes of this
Program, "quality of life" is defined as a given level of public amenity,
service and facility capacity that is to be maintained for existing developments
as well as provided for future development.
Significant performance objectives must include growth management policies which
address the following infrastructure and service needs:
-capacity on the freeway network and transit system;
-service levels on surface streets and roads;
-the jobs/housing balance within geographic sub-regions of
of the County;
-implementation of Transportation Systems Management (TSM)
programs to reduce single occupant vehicle use and increase
efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure;
-availability of adequate police and fire services;
-assurance of necessary recreation, parks and open
space elements;
o Utilization of large acreage Area General Plans, augmented
by Specific Plans, for major undeveloped areas within the
urban limit lines. This will be most helpful for achieving
efficient and cost-effective financing of infrastructure.
o Adoption of Traffic Zone Management (TZM) which sets
different transportation performance standards according to
whether an area is defined as rural , semi-rural , suburban,
urban, or central business district. TZM has been
designed to take into account the different traffic conditions
that are aceptable to residents in rural versus more urbanized
portions of the County. By adopting such a TZM concept, the
traffic performance standards that a development project must
meet in a rural area might be a Level of Service (LOS) C,,
while the standard for development in a dense downtown area
might be LOS E.
o Cooperation between cities and the County regarding development
within the city Spheres of Influence. Upon the adoption of a
mutually agreed upon Growth Management Program, the County
should defer to the adopted city General Plans in the review
of development applications within the Spheres of Influence
of the cities. ,
This last strategy is especially important. Contra Costa must establish a new
city-County growth management decision-making process in order to successfully
.implement the program. Such a process of interjurisdictional decision-making is
not in existence anywhere else in the State; the attempt to establish one in
Contra' Costa County will be a pioneering effort.
Under this joint decision-making process, the County should negotiate agreements
with the cities to prevent development from occurring within each of the city
Spheres of Influence unless several items have been adopted: a city-County
growth management plan with performance standards; a city Housing Element which
provides for an appropriate jobs/housing balance for the sub-region; a growth
metering process and procedure for the region; and a plan for sharing revenues
generated by growth, including property tax, sales tax, and transient occupancy
(hotel ) tax.
In order to implement the Growth Management Program, five specific elements or
technical tasks must be carried out. These tasks include:
o a Land Supply and Development Monitoring process;
o an analysis of Performance Standards and Infrastructure
Constraints;
o Interagency Coordination and Decision-Making to provide
information for the first two tasks and successfully
implement the overall Growth Management Program; and
o Growth Management Determinations, a process which identifies
growth areas incapable of meeting performance standards,
directs resources to overcoming these constraints, and
evaluates and modifies, if necessary, the adopted Urban
Limit Line.
o Jobs/Housing Performance Evaluation to determine their relative
balance within each subregion.
These components are described in detail in the following section.
3
04
W0to I cc
Ill Q it1
Ul (D
O
Ow
H
d -
U W
H
H
0,
V:l
Aft
Ul
2 0
2 t� 2` •c� �' o r 0 Z m ca W
J •- � a d 4,� a 0 Z .� m � Q --
u-
�j j 0 4uCO
a-
a.•
X0
r
ko
Figure 2
Proposed Performance Standards
Traffic Zone Management
Rural Areas: Level of Service (LOS) of low C
(Volume/Capacity Ratio= .70-.74)
Semi-Rural Areas: Level of Service (LOS) of mid C
(Volume/Capacity Ratio= .74-.79)
Suburban Areas: Level of Service- (LOS) of mid D
(Volume/Capacity Ratio= .80-.84)
Urban Areas: Level of Service (LOS) of high. D
(Volume/Capacity Ratio= .85-.89)
Central Business Level of Service (LOS) of mid E
Districts: (Volume/Capacity Ratio= .90-.94)
Water
Verification by the appropriate water agency that adequate
water quantity and quality can be provided shall be required
for approval of new development.
Sanitary Sewer
Verification by the appropriate sewer agency that adequate
sewer service can be provided shall be required for approval
of new development.
Fire Protection
A maximum running time of 3 minutes, and/or 1.5 miles from the
first-due station, and a minimum of 3 fire fighters, shall be
maintained in all central business districts, urban and suburban
areas. In addition, a total response time (dispatch, plus running
plus set-up time) of 5 m4nutes shall be maintained in CBD, urban
and suburban areas for 90% of all emergency responses. (this
last clause has not yet been adopted by the Planning Congress)
Public Protection
A sheriff protection service standard of 1.5 patrol officers per
1,000 residents within unincorporated portins of the County shall
be achieved. A maximum response time goal for priority 1 and 2 calls
of 5 minutes shall be used by the sheriff when making staffing and
beat configuration decisions. (not yet adopted by subcommittee
or the Planning Congress)
6
The Land Supply and Development Monitoring process is prepared in an objective
fashion by staff, using a set methodology defined and agreed to by all of the
jurisdictions involved (the County, the 18 cities, the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) and the numerous service providers) . The re-examination of
the land supply (initially set by the General Plan Review Program) will occur on
an annual basis, in concert with the State Population Certification program
which is already conducted jointly between the County and city planning
departments. (This existing program involves each jurisdiction reporting to the
County the number of housing completions in each census tract during the
calendar year. )
Using a standard format and methodology should provide a high degree of
confidence in the process and the established annual schedule should alert the
development interests, city agencies, and special districts as to when their
contribution will be critical . At the beginning of each annual cycle, formal
notification will be given to all of the cities informing them that the Land
Supply and Development Monitoring process is being initiated and requesting
their active participation and cooperation.
The Land Use Information System (LUIS) , developed in 1987 by County and city
planning staffs and consultants for the General Plan Review Program, provides
the foundation for tracking overall land supply, land absorption, and changing
land uses in the County. However, it is vital that information regarding the
approval of development projects anywhere in the County be continually updated
and input into the LUIS data file. This will require close coordination and
cooperation of the city planning staffs in forwarding the project approval
information to County staff on a regular basis. Most cities in the County
already keep track of project approvals, in the form of General Plan Amendments,
tentative subdivision maps and development plan approvals and the issuance of
building permits, so coordinating the sharing of this information should not
prove an onerous, additional task for city staffs.
The specific questions that must be answered during this process with the use of
the updated LUIS data system are:
o how many acres of vacant land in the County, specified by
land use type, are identified as available for development?
o what changes have occurred in these numbers since the
the previous evaluation?
o how many acres of underutilized or previously developed
land are available for redevelopment?
o how many acres of land County-wide have been identified as
unavailable for development based upon environmental , health
and safety, public resource, or other conditions?
This step is designed to identify the quantity and location of remaining
developable lands within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County
(see Figure 3) . To accomplish this, all lands which are not currently developed
or approved for development are divided into three categories:
8
Figure S
ILLUSTRATION OF LAND AREAS/BOUNDARIES DEFINED
Growth Management Program_
County Boundary
Constrained_ Areas
Areas of pubilcly-owned land, protected open space (parklands, water-
sheds), steep slopes, and natural resource areas unsuitable for urban
development.
Non-urban Areas
Croplands, orchards, rangeland and other rural vacant lands where
urban service standards will not be met within 20 years.
20-year Urban Service Boundary/Limit Line
Undeveloped areas without environmental constraints potentially
available for mid-term development (10-20 years from present),
as Infrastructure Improvements allow service. standards to be
met.
Currently Built and AnDroved Develooment
Areas subject to continuing build-out,
Infill, and redevelopment In which
service standards can be met. 6+ year
land supply•
Category 1: Lands unavailable for development (parklands, flood prone
areas, environmentally sensitive resource areas, mining areas, etc. )
Category 2: Lands outside the boundaries of the currently adopted Urban
Limit Line where urban service performance standards are
considered unattainable within the next twenty year period.
Category 3: Undeveloped- lands within the Urban Limit Line for which
development is permitted when urban performance standards
can be met.
The Development Monitoring task is then applied to all Category 3 lands.
Basically, the County Community Development Department staff will prepare a
report which examines the absorption rate (i .e. approved development projects)
within Category 3 lands, as well as any requests to transfer lands out of the
undevelopable Category 2 into Category 3. The report on the status of Category 3
areas will rely upon residential and commercial/industrial building permit and
other project approval information from the cities. This permit approval and
transfer request information will then be compared to the expected rate of
residential and job growth projected for the jurisdiction over the planning
period by their General Plan. The annual report will be forwarded to
decision-making bodies for use in reviewing General Plan Amendments which would
alter the land supply component.
Performance Standards Evaluation and Infrastructure Constraints Analysis
While the second component of the Growth Management Program (Land Supply and
Development Monitoring) will be prepared on an annual basis, the final three
components will be performed only once every five years. The data and analysis
generated in the annual Land Supply and Development Monitoring reports will be
aggregated for use in the tasks outlined in the following processes.
The intent of the third component of the Growth Management Program, Performance
Standards and Infrastructure Capacity Evaluation, is to re-examine minimum
allowable service standards for development projects set in the General Plan,
and to determine the remaining available capacities of certain infrastructure
facilities.
The Growth Management Program for the Contra Costa County General Plan mandates
the establishment of infrastructure performance standards for several different
services or facilities, including circulation (traffic) , sanitary sewage, flood
control and drainage, water supply, police and fire protection and emergency
services, and parks and recreation. In addition, the General Plan will outline
specific policies, as opposed to technical performance standards, addressing
other services, such as child care, solid waste, schools, public transit, and
libraries.
These standards and policies attempt to define a quality of life by setting
benchmark indicators of the minimum levels of service required for specific
urban services. New development within unincorporated areas of the County will
not be approved unless the standards and criteria are met, or can be assured of
being met prior to occupancy.
10
o identification of major physical , economic and/or environmental
constraints to the provision of service- in a given area; and
o identification of possible sources of funding for the improvements.
The object of the data gathering is to illustrate where future growth can and
cannot occur without major -investment in new or improved infrastructure systems.
Additionally, the exercise will allow the preparation of estimates of future
required capacity based upon the performance standards. The data sought is not
anticipated to involve additional research work by the service districts, but
may require some aggregation or disaggregation to yield data capable of being
applied to an evaluation area. One outcome of this process will be to provide
the service agencies with up to date information concerning where future growth
is expected to occur, thus assisting in their capital facilities planning
efforts.
Jobs/Housing Performance Evaluation
(This section is based upon the recommendation of the Jobs/Housing Subcommittee
from its meeting of March 31, 1988 and has not been considered by the Planning
Congress)
The purpose of this step is to provide a basis for assessing the jobs/housing
balance within each section of the county for the current five year review
cycle, assist the jurisdictions in the subregions in determining preferred
locations for residential and employment growth, and to assist in focussing the
direction of implementation programs.
The jobs housing balance evaluation is based upon the Land Use Information
System -data base, augmented by the information provided in the Development
Monitoring Evaluation. The evaluation considers growth in housing units and
employment, and to the extent that the data are available, price of the units
and wage levels of the jobs added.
The Jobs/Housing Performance Evaluation will be used to identify areas where
jobs or housing should be stimulated and encouraged. It would also be used to
provide information about areas in which infrastructure deficiencies need to be
corrected in order to facilitate a better jobs/housing balance.
Interjurisdictional Coordination and Decision-Making
The Growth Management Program outlined here will not succeed without the
cooperation and active participation of the County, the Local Agency Formation
Commission, the 18 cities, and the service providers. These agencies and cities
may view cooperation with the County' s management program as a threat to their
local authority over land use or other growth issues. The County' s efforts to
achieve cooperation must be aimed at persuading the cities and agencies that the
Growth Management Program will ultimately enhance their ability to meet their
own General Plan goals.
12
o .add to the base map information regarding improvements or
extensions to service systems that have been completed
since the last review period, as well as constructed and
approved development projects and adopted General Plan
Amendments;
o identify lands that have been determined to be incapable
of development within the planning period, as well those
that are undevelopable;
o identify on the map the geographic areas with infrastructure
constraints and the locations of development projects that
have been denied due to failure to meet service standards;'
o review the annual Land Supply and Development Monitoring
reports in conjunction with the Performance Standards
and Infrastructure Constraints Analysis reports to
determine whether an adequate supply of vacant land
is designated for urban use in the County and city'
General Plans, on both a Countywide and sub-regional
basis, to allow the anticipated amount of urban
development during the next twenty year period; and
o modify the existing urban limit line, if a twenty year
supply of land (from the current 5 year period) is not
available, or if certain lands have been. determined to
be undevelopable since the last review (e.g. parkland
acquisitions, etc. ) .
In order to ensure that the urban limit line in the County General Plan is not
changed prematurely, criteria for modifying the line should be adopted. It is
suggested that one of the following criteria should be satisfied before the
urban limit line could be changed:
(1) An adequate land supply for housing or jobs is not
available within the urban limit line; or
Y (2) Modification of the line is very minor (i .e. would
not significantly impact existing infrastructure
systems or require new systems) , the land to be
added within the line is contiguous with existing
development, and the change will result in a
logical extension of planned growth; or
(3) Natural disaster response requires development in
some form outside the urban limit line, which was
not anticipated when the General Plan was adopted.
14