HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05221990 - IO.1 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS bE L Contra
I FROM: `... \;.
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE o ',< Costa
DATE: May 14 , 1990 ��•i _=--_ `�P' Coun`y
C°UN
STATUS REPORT ON GENERAL PLAN HEARINGS, COMPLIANCE WITH
SUBJECT: MEASURE "C" GROWTH MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND EFFORTS TO
COORDINATE A POLICY TO PROTECT PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOILS
AND OPEN SPACE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In view of the significant actions which have been
taken between the time the draft General Plan was
.published and circulated and the time hearings were
scheduled before the Planning Commission, agree that
the course of action which should be followed in regard
to the draft General Plan and its draft Environmental
Impact Report should be to modify the draft General
Plan to address issues in a manner which would differ
from the approaches approved by the General Plan
Congress, determine what affect such modifications
might have on the expected impacts of the General Plan
and revise and recirculate the draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) , hold hearings before the County
Planning Commission on both the DEIR and the revised
draft General Plan, adopt the revised General Plan and
appropriate findings.
2. Request the staff of the Community Development
Department to include in the draft General Plan the
concept of Urban Limit Lines which would define the
outside limits of ultimate development for the next
twenty years (the expected planning lifetime of the
General Plan) . Options for Urban Limit Lines should be
developed by the Community Development Department. In
proposing options for the Urban Limit Lines, the
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREM:
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER A
The Board heard comments from Mark Evanoff , attorney representing the
Greenbelt Alliance , and A. B . McNabney , representing the Mt . Diablo Audubon
Society . Folloiiing discussion , the Board approved the recommendations
referenced above and instructed staff to place this item on the June 5 , 1990
Board Agenda for final consideration .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: I . 1 V . U NOES: - - - AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1 1 I , I I OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
May CC: ATTESTED ay 22 , 1990
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Community Development Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
Dennis Barry
Community Development Dept. /D
M382 (10/88)
BY v DEPUTY
-2-
Community Development Department should consider including
within the Lines the existing spheres of influence of
cities, the unincorporated areas now designated or
anticipated for development, and areas not desired for open
space, parks, agriculture, recreation or other non-urban
uses.
3 . . Request the staff of the Community Development
Department to include in the concept of Urban Limit
Lines criteria for changing such Lines. Our suggestion
is that Urban Limit Lines, once adopted, could not be
changed except upon the adoption of findings that
appropriate criteria had been met. These criteria
should only provide for changes to the Urban Limit
Lines under very strict circumstances, including, as
examples, the following:
* In case of a natural disaster.
* In case of a national emergency.
* Based on an evaluation that the Urban Limit Line
is, in fact, restricting affordable housing and
forcing up home prices.
* Based on an evaluation that the Urban Limit Line
is, in fact, causing a severe impact on County
government financing.
In any case, the adoption of Urban Limit Lines and the
approval of any changes in such Lines should require
both the approval of the County Board of Supervisors
and a majority of the city councils of the cities in the
affected subregion. These boundaries could be further
supported through "preserve" agreements, MOU' s among
jurisdictions and LAFCO rules.
4. Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
include in the draft General Plan as a policy goal that
at least 500 of the land area of the County of Contra
Costa shall never be urbanized and shall forever remain
in open space, agriculture, recreation, and non-urban
uses. Direct staff of the Community Development Department
to assure greenbelt buffers to the extent possible between
communities.
5. Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
include in the draft General Plan instructions to the
County' s representatives on LAFCO that they vote in a
manner designed to achieve the above goal
(Recommendation # 4) and not support annexations or
service extensions which would cause more than 500 of
the land area of the County of Contra Costa to be
developed for urban purposes. Request. LAFCO to respect
Urban Limit Lines and develop rules to enforce them.
6. Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
include in the draft General Plan an intent to increase
the zoning of prime agricultural areas of the County
from their present 10 acre .minimum to either 40 acre
minimums with the concept of cluster development on not
to exceed 50 of the acreage or move to minimum zoning of 20
acres for such prime agricultural areas. Request staff of
the Community Development Department to consider additional
policies to assure farmer occupied units on parcels that are
farmed.
-3-
7. Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
develop possible mechanisms for recognition of the need
for an agricultural mitigation fee or other means of
insuring economic compensation for, and the economic
viability of, the County' s prime agricultural land and
return to our Committee with a report on this subject
on June 4, 1990.
8. Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
include in the draft General Plan and reflect in the
draft Environmental Impact Report the need for LAFCO to
consider an analysis of the. potential impact of their
decisions on the demand for County services whenever
they consider changes in service boundaries and the
economic ability of the County to provide such
services.
9. Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
include in the draft General Plan a requirement to
incorporate all requirements of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority regarding Growth Management.
10. Adopt as a policy of the County a request to LAFCO that
upon annexation of any unincorporated lands to cities,
that the Growth Management requirements of the County
(if they are more stringent that those of the city to
which the area is being annexed) be utilized, including
the provision for affordable housing.
11 . Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
work in consultation with the Water Committee and the
Fish and Wildlife Committee to identify the areas of
wetlands which should be preserved through the County
General Plan. This should include at a minimum the
identification of criteria which could be used to
identify such areas. The criteria should use existing
processes and not create new local definitions. In
addition, staff should indicate what mapping of such
areas has already been accomplished and report back to
our Committee on this subject June 4, 1990.
12 . Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
identify the areas of prime farmland which should be
permanently preserved through the County General Plan.
This should include at a minimum the identification of
criteria which could be used to identify such areas.
In addition, staff should indicate what mapping of such
areas has already been accomplished and report back to
our Committee on this subject June 4, 1990 .
13 . Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
examine the feasibility of mapping and preserving the
existing rail . corridors in the County for future use as
rail lines even though they pass through non-urban
areas. The impact of such rail lines on development
potential can be minimized by reviewing carefully the
location of stations in non-urban areas.
14. Request staff from the Community Development Department
to report to our Committee on June 4, 1990 on the
status of all of the above issues and in addition the
following:
* The impact of growth management issues from
development in other counties.
• -4-
* The impact of and need for regional government in
order to address some of the impacts caused by
growth in one area which impact this County
without providing any of the mitigation for the
impact.
* An updated schedule for completion of the
revisions to the draft General Plan, draft
Environmental Impact Report and hearings on both
documents.
15 . Request the Community Development Director to notify
all interested parties of our meeting on this subject
June 4 , 1990 and supply each interested individual and
organization with a copy of this report.
16. Request the County Administrator to determine the financial
impact of these policies on the County as well as the
financial, impact on the County of the proposed initiative
effort and report his conclusions and findings to the Board
of Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
On April 3 , 1990 the Board of Supervisors referred to our
Committee the following responsibilities:
a. Monitoring of the process on the new General Plan
hearings and determining the need for any
additional information workshops.
b. Monitoring the compliance with Measure C Growth
Management requirements in the new County General
Plan.
C. Coordination of a comprehensive policy and program
to protect prime agriculture soils and open space.
On May 14 ,• 1990 our Committee met with the Community
Development Director; Dennis Barry, General Plan Project
Manager; County Counsel; Supervisor Torlakson and representatives
from a wide variety of groups interested in the decisions the
Board of Supervisors may make in regard to the General Plan.
We received and reviewed in detail the attached report from
the Community Development Director. . We also received the
attached letter from Supervisor Torlakson to Brentwood Mayor
Palmer.
The above recommendations grew out of our discussions on the
need to revise the General Plan and the draft Environmental
Impact Report.
We intend to receive a status report on these issues again
on June 4, 1990 and will provide a further status report to
the Board of Supervisors on June .12 , 1990.
Course Options
In reviewing the comments received on both the Draft General Pian and the DEIR,
staff became concerned that pursuing the adoption of the plan as formulated in
reliance on the EIR was problematic at best. During the period between publica-
tion/ circulation of the Draft General Plan and the Hearings before the Planning
Commission, a number of significant decisions were made by the Board on planning
matters which had not been prejudged by the preparers and were therefore ex-
cluded from the plan.
Chief among these decisions were the general plan amendments for the landfill
sites, the Oakley Area General Plan, the Rancho Paraiso residential project near
Walnut Creek and the recommendation from the East County Regional Planning
Commission rearding the Bethel Island Specific Plan. In addition, the
statutorily mandated five year update of the Housing Element had become a
current item in the County's planning work program. Finally, the volume of
comments on the DEIR might themselves be sufficient cause for revising the
document, rather than attempting to address the comments in a separate response
document. This set of circumstance suggested to staff the following options:
Course option 1.
Respond to the comments on the DEIR and certify the Final EIR, adopting
appropriate findings supported by factual information in the project
record; make the changes to the plan which were identified as mitigating
measures, and adopt the plan substantially as proposed.
Course option 2.
Modify the draft plan to address issues in a manner which would differ from
the approach(es) approved by the General Plan Congress; determine what
effect such modifications might have on the expected impacts of the plan
and revise and recirculate the DEIR. Hold new hearings before the County
Planning Commission on both the DEIR and the revised Draft General Plan;
adopt the revised pian, and appropriate findings..
Discussion
Staff sees Option 2 as the appropriate course of action for a number of reasons.
Clarity of the record is an important consideration; responding to the comments
on the Draft EIR might entail additional or modified mitigation measures. Due to
the large number of such measuures in the draft plan, tracing the evolution of
the document through that type of proces.s would likely be difficult if not
confusing for many. The public disclosure function of CEQA would seem to be
better served by entirely revising the document.
In addition, the numerous changes to the draft called for in the DEIR (with
potentially more in the response document) require mitigation monitoring and
reporting systems to be specified in the project findings. It would be much less
costly to eliminate that requirement by changing those aspects of the plan and
revising the environmetnal evaluation to avoid the need to adopt those mitiga-
tion measures.. Furthermore, clarity of the project record would be a critical
consideration in the event of the filing of proceeding to set aside the approval
of the project. In addition, the probability that one or more mitigation
'.# .
measures could be inadvertently overlooked is vastly less with course option 2,
since there could be substantially fewer such measures included, and additional
attention could be given to the manner in which the are presented, thus facili-
tating transfer to the required findings document.
Beyond these rather technical considerations, staff and the Congress disagreed
on a number of issues; the clear direction from the Board of Supervisors was
that the Draft Plan was to reflect the collective thinking of the Congress.
Since staff has not changed it's position on these issues (principally the
exclusion upon reconsideration of an urban limit line and the advisability of
increasing minimum parcel sizes in the designated zoning districts for open
space) the recommendation to change the Draft General Plan and revise the EIR
should not come as a great suprise to those who have been involved in the review
program.
It should be noted that if option 2 is selected, the revisions should be aimed
at making the Plan the best that it can be, not merely including the staff,
rather than the Congress, recommendations on the issues mentioned above.
Schedule
Assuming immediate initiation of the efforts needed to revise the plan and DEIR,
the following simplified schedule is possible, according to the urban and
environmental planning consultants (not otherwise affiliated with the program)
with whom we have discussed the matter:
. Delivery of Administrative Draft Plan for staff review July 15, 1990
Publish/circulate- DEIR August 15, 1990
Certify Final EIR/ October 15, 1990
In order to proceed with such a schedule, the Director of Community Development
could enter into a "short form" (less than $25,000) contract with a consultant,
with a provision that the remainder of the work would be included in a separate
contract. This would allow the consultant to proceed while the county further
defines the specific revisions desired, especially updating the data upon which
all of the elements rely, including the mandatory 1990 Housing. Element revision.
In addition, this approach would accomodate about three weeks continuing inten-
sive oversight and policy direction by the Internal Operations Committee toward
the development of the revised draft plan. This role could be instrumental in
shaping a plan which can be expeditiously heard and adopted.
Tom Torlakson 300 East Leland Rd.
Suite 100
Supervisor, District Five •;,
Pittsburg, California 94565
Contra Costa County ^•°""" S (415)427-8138
Board of Supervisors 40
OS)a C'pUNT�
April 4, 1990
Mayor Catherine Palmer
City of Brentwood
708 Third Street
Brentwood, CA 94509
SUBJ: NON-URBAN PRESERVES FOR EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND
DISTRICT FIVE
Dear May .Palmer:
The results of the first couple of meetings with
District 5 mayors and city council members as well as staff
representatives have been very positive. The discussions
have opened up many good ideas for further exploration.
The basic concept of a Briones Hills type preserve--the
idea of an agreement between the incorporated cities and the
county regarding development lines for a period of time such
as 15 years--is very appealing to me the more we discuss it.
Such a "Non-Urban Preserve" could be established by
agreement and made binding unless a popular vote in the
involved jurisdictions passes favoring change.
The defined area would not allow new extensions of
urban sewer and water lines or the installation of "package"
sewer and water treatment plants. Other zoning criteria
such as slope density standards could be applied as well as
additional guidelines to the existing Ranchette Policy.
I believe this type of planning would give our
constituents greater assurance regarding our ability to
manage traffic and growth while allowing us to concentrate
in the areas where we believe urban development and housing
should be. provided in our general plans .
We are in the midst of a historic planning process with
the completion of the county-wide General Plan. For the
first time ever, a single document compiles cumulative
impacts of housing and jobs projections, traffic trips and
other infrastructure needs for the all of the 19 planning
Mayor Catherine Palmer
April 4, 1990
Page TWO
jurisdictions in Contra Costa. It is my belief over the
next 15 years that we will have the incorporation of several
more cities, including Oakley, Discovery Bay and possibly
West Pittsburg and Alamo. This reality will make regional
and inter-regional planning even more complicated. It will
challenge us all to work even closer in resolving planning
issues .
As this incorporation process unfolds in the next five
years, the General Plan's projection of an 88/12 percent
split in growth between the incorporated and unincorporated
area and the population projection split of a 92/8 percent
between the incorporated cities and county communities will
be changed greatly. The shift will be even more
dramatically. towards having development occurring within
existing cities and urban areas. with the capability of
providing adequate infrastructure and services. My
prediction is that with Oakley incorporation alone (probably
in 1992) 95% of growth will be in the 19 incorporated
cities . With Discovery Bay, West Pittsburg and Alamo
following suit by 1994 , about 98% of development and
population from now to 2005 will occur within cities.
Again, this, of course, challenges -us all the more to work
together to resolve boundary issues, service issues, finance
issues and infrastructure issues.
Only for purposes of discussion and to begin a dialogue
of where lines for a "non-urban preserve" should be drawn
defining boundaries, I submit the attached map for your
consideration and that of your council and staff . Your
ideas and feedback are, of course,. essential to developing
this concept further.
I . am also forwarding a copy of the existing Ranchette
Policy that provides guidelines for subdivision development
in .the rural areas . Any thoughts you have regarding these
guidelines would be appreciated.
I am looking forward to discussing this further at our
next meeting.
Sincerely,,ma /
Tom Torlakson
TT:gro
Attachment
cc: City Council. Members
Don Russell, City Manager
r
DETERMINATION ITEMS - contd.
2. 10 REPORT from Social Services Director recommending that
temporarily leasing trailers for housing the homeless at 847
Brookside Drive, Richmond, is an emergency project under CEQA;
and that, notwithstanding the emergency, the temporary leasing of
trailers falls within the previous environmental review for a
homeless shelter at 845 and 847 Brookside Drive; and that the
County Purchasing Agent be authorized to temporarily lease
trailers for such use. APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS
2. 11 DECISION on the appeal of Smith Companies from the administrative
decision by the Community Development Department for the setback
requirements for a proposed single family residence on Lot 6 of
Subdivision 7109, Alamo/Danville area. (Hearing closed May 15,
1990. ) RENDER DECISION
2 . 12 DECISION on the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission on the request (2776-RZ) of Alamo Summit,
Inc. (applicant and owner) to rezone 178 acres of land from
General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit District
(P-1) and preliminary development plan approval for a 37-lot
residential project with a minimum one acre parcel site, Alamo
area. (On April 17, 1990 the Board of Supervisors declared
intent to approve the request and directed staff to prepare
findings for Board consideration. ) (Continued from May 15,
1990. ) RENDER DECISION
RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD COMMITTEES
Internal Operations
I0. 1 STATUS report on General Plan hearings and compliance with
Measure C Growth Management requirements.
I0.2 REPORT on the status, structure and membership of the
Agricultural Resources Advisory Committee and the Agricultural
Task Force.
I0.3 REPORT on prospective financing of apartment projects with tax
exempt bonds.
I0.4 REPORT on selection of qualified investment advisers and bond
counsel for single family and multi-family housing bonds.
I0.5 REPORT on the status of efforts to get all contractors off of the
pre-audit by June 30, 1990.
I0.6 STATUS report on the implementation of the Drug & Alcohol Action
Plan.
I0.7 APPOINTMENT to the Hazardous Materials Commission.
I0.8 REPORT on the development of an application to the National
Cancer Institute for a prospective study of the incidence of
cancer in Contra Costa County.
14 (5/22/90)
RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD COMMITTEES - contd.
Transportation Committee
TC. 1 REPORT on proposed. transportation legislation.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARD MEMBERS
S. 1 AUTHORIZE the County Chambers of Commerce to enter an exhibit
representing Contra Costa County at the 1990 California State
Fair. (McPeak)
S.2 DIRECT the County Administrator's Office to prepare an analysis
of the five-year plans for each of the County fire districts for
review by the Finance Committee. (Torlakson)
S.3 ENDORSE the California Health Access Plan and declare June 23 ,
1990 as. "Health Access Day in Contra Costa County. " (Powers)
S.4 REQUEST County Counsel and Community Development Department' to
investigate the feasibility of imposing fees on developers
including the relationship of a "growth requirements capital fee"
to existing Area of Benefit Fees. (Torlakson)
S. 5 AUTHORIZE Chair to send letter to the East Bay Municipal
Utilities District urging the annexation of the west side of
Lawrence Road, Danville, to EBMUD. (Schroder)
15 (5/22/90)
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MET IN ALL ITS
CAPACITIES PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE
SECTION 24-2.402
IN R GULAR SESSION
TUESDAY D
IN R fffiOfil 107
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
PRESENT : HONORABLE NANCY C. FAHDEN
CHAIRWOMAN, PRESIDING
SUPERVISOR THOMAS M. POWERS
SUPERVISOR ROBERT I . SCHRODER
.SUPERVISOR SUNNE W. MCPEAK
SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON
ABSENT : NONE
PHIL BATCHELOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND
CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CHIEF CLERK: Jeanne 0. Maglio
f
And the Board adjourns to meet .on May 23 , 1990,
at 7 : 00 p .m. , in the Jury AF&embly Room, A. F, Bray
Building, 1020 Ward Street , Martinez , for the Quarterly
WorkFhop of AdviFory Boards .and Commissions .
And the Board then adjourns tomeet in regular
session on Tuesday, June 5 , 1990 at 9 : 00 a,m, , in the
Board Chambers , Room 107 , County Administration Building,
Martinez , California,.
Nancy C. Fanden, Chairwoman
ATTEST: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By Q /
Jeanne 0. Maglio, Deputy Clerk
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: May -22, 1990 CLOSED SESSION
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT; Closed Session
The Chairman announced that a closed session would be
held in accordance with the parameters as set forth in the
attached announcement.
At 1 : 30 P.M. the Board recessed into closed session in
Room 105 of the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,
Martinez.
At 2: 30 P.M. the Board reconvened and continued with the
regular agenda.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT - May 22, 1990
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in all of its
capacities)
A-1 . This Board will hold a closed session with its designated
representatives concerning employee salaries and compensation and
to consider employee appointment, employment, evaluation of
performance, or dismissal.
B-1 . This Board will hold a closed session concerning pending
litigation pursuant to Government Code S 54956 . 9, subdivision:
(b) Significant exposure to litigation.
(c) Decided or deciding to initiate litigation.
C-1 . This Board will hold a closed session concerning pending
litigation pursuant to Government Code § 54956 . 9 , subdivision:
(a) Litigation initiated formally. The titles of the
litigation are:
1 . San Diego County v. Unruh, et al .
San Diego Countv v. O'Connor, et al .
2 . Scates v. Rydingsword
3. Randolph v. County
4 . Gascoine v. County
5. CCC v. State of California
6 . Macy v. C.C.C.
7 . In re U.S. Windpower
8. Anthony Lynn Glenn v. County of Contra Costa
9. Wei.senburg v� County of Contra Costa
df4:May22.ann
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MEETING IN ALL ITS CAPACITIES
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 24-2. 402
TUESDAY, MAY 22 , 1990
CONSENT ITEMS: Approved as listed except as noted below:
1.75 ACCEPTED notice of completion of contract with Oliver De
Silva, Inc. for Project A. , West County Justice Center,
Richmond.
1. 102 REFERRED letter from ABAG transmitting a policy paper on
growth management and requesting input on the concept
and policy statements to the Community Development
Director and the Internal Operations Committee.
DETERMINATION ITEMS: Approved as listed except as noted below:
2. 2 RESCINDED previously adopted position in support of
Proposition 117, the California Wildlife Protection Act
of 1990; and ADOPTED position in opposition to
Proposition 117 .
2. 4 AUTHORIZED County Administrator to meet with the
Presiding Judge of the Superior Court and the Juvenile
Judge relative to the Grand Jury request for funds to
conduct a study of the Probation Department and report
back to the Board on June 5, 1990.
2. 5 ACCEPTED as amended the report from the City/County
Revenue Committee on status of activities and
recommendation relative to a Council of Governments.
(V voted NO on the amendment)
2. 8 APPROVED recommendations relative to development of the
waste characterization and household hazardous waste
components of the AB 939 Source Reduction and Recycling
element.
2. 11 DENIED appeal of Smith Companies from the administrative
decision of the Community Development Department for
setback requirements on Lot 6 of Subdivision 7109,
Alamo/Danville area.
2. 12 APPROVED, with conditions, rezoning 2776-RZ, Alamo
Summit, Inc. (.applicant and owner) to rezone land in the
Alamo area.
2. 13 ACCEPTED report from Public Works Director on helicopter
training flights at Buchanan Field Airport; and
REQUESTED Public Works Director to coordinate trial
flight patterns with Tosco to determine impact, if any,
on community.
1