Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05161989 - 1.35 ? l Board of Supervisors FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator (OST'q CODIZ'�• DATE: May 11, 1989 SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: SB 1225 (Boatwright) Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a position of SUPPORT IF AMENDED in regard to SB 1225 by Senator Boatwright which currently prohibits a county from approving development in a city's sphere of influence until the city has been given an opportunity to comment on the proposed development and participate in negotiations regarding the development. BACKGROUND: Senator Boatwright has introduced SB 1225 which in its current form requires the county to consult with a city before development is approved in the city's sphere of influence. Specifically, SB 1225 as introduced, would do the following: 1. Require the county to designate as an Urban Transition Area.(UTA) any unincorporated territory within the sphere of influence and adjacent to a city. 2. Require the county to notify the adjacent city regarding any pending development permit within a UTA applicable to that city. 3. Authorize a city,within ten days of being so notified to submit a written request for a meeting involving the city,the county and the developer in order to negotiate and reach agreement on any negative impacts of the development deemed to exist by the city. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: LZ Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee Approve Other: Signature(s)• Action of Board on: May 16, i989 Approved as Recommended ✓ Other Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND Y Unanimous(Absent ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND Ayes: Noes: ENTERED ON HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD Absent: Abstain: OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED MAY 1 6 192-9 Community Development Director PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Senator Boatwright Les Spahnn,Jackson/Barish&Associates BY: ,Deputy Clerk clvm:eh(SB 1225bo) U .00, .ti Y 1 . SB 1225BO May 11, 1989 Page -2- 4. Require the county, upon receipt of a request from the city, to hold a public meeting before the Board of Supervisors within ten days. At this public meeting the city,county and developer must have the opportunity to negotiate and present their views. All parties are required to endeavor to reach an agreement on a plan to provide for the mitigation of any negative impacts which the city indicates would result from the proposed development. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, the development may go forward and the city is then authorized to participate as an interested party. We would suggest that ten days is too short a time for either the city or county to respond in the ways indicated above, that a public meeting before the Board of Supervisors may not be the best forum in which to negotiate the mitigation suggested by the city and that the bill,as introduced,is too one- sided in that similar requirements are not placed on development which cities may propose next to an unincorporated area. As a result we would recommend that the Board support SB 1225 only if the following amendments are acceptable to the author: 1. That the time limits on both the city and the county be extended to 30 days. 2. That the same notice and hearing requirements be imposed on a city which proposes development adjacent to an unincorporated area of the county. 3. That negotiations be permitted other than in public as long as the Board of Supervisors or City Council,as appropriate hold at least one public hearing on the development proposal at which time the city or county would be permitted to state their concerns. 4. That the notice and hearing requirements be waived for both the city and the county if the proposed development is consistent with the city's growth element of its general plan in the case of proposed development within a city or with the county's growth element of its general plan in the case of proposed development in a city's sphere of influence. 5. That the city be required to complete an analysis of the economic impact of any proposed development within the city on the county. It should be noted that for the period 1981-1985, 77.6% of the residential development and 63.8% of the office development in Contra Costa County occurred within incorporated cities. An additional 8.4% of residential development and 36.2% of office development occurred in the unincorporated area of the county that is within a city's sphere of influence. Only 14%of the residential development and none of the office development occurred in the unincorporated area of the county which was outside of the sphere of influence of any city. Therefore, the vast majority of development is occurring within cities, not in the unincorporated area of the county. If the author is unwilling to accept these amendments, the Board's position should be to oppose SB 1225 in the form in which it was introduced.