HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06121990 - IO.1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Date: June 12, 1990 MATTER OF RECORD
----------------------------------------------------------=------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 1990 the Board continued to this day its
consideration of the recommendations of the Internal Operations
Committee on the General Plan update, Urban Limit Lines, and
related issues.
The following persons spoke:
Lilliam J. Pride, City of Pittsburg;
Gordon Gravelle, 2717 Lone Tree Way, Antioch;
Filip Johansson, 13 Zumch Court, Pleasant Hill;
Jack Bloomfield, 4955 Discovery Point, Byron;
Ron Gatti, 311 Barton Court, Danville;
Tom Brumleve, Contra Costa Farm Bureau, 1512 N. Gate Road,
Walnut Creek;
Sam Stewart, Stewart Bros. Land and Cattle Co. , P. O. Box 19,
Clayton;
H. Boex, 15 Lily- Court, Walnut Creek;
Diane Maybee, P. O. Box 1339, Bethel Island;
Lucia Albers, 1400 Deer Valley Road, Brentwood;
Nolan C. Sharp, Tassajara Valley Property Owners, 4510 Camino
Tassajara, Danville;
John B. Mass, P. O. Box 170, Knightsen;
John M. Compaglia, 3370 Worth Court, Walnut Creek;
Joanne M. Schifini, Secretary for Supporters of the Byron
Airport Project, 1104 Curtis Street, Albany;
Sylvia Scott, 3145 Byron Highway, Byron;
Joanne .M. Schifini, 1104 Curtis Street, Albany; and
Dorothy Silva, 173 Dogwood Place, San Ramon;
Written comments were presented to the Board from Bill R.
Bruner, 1453 North Gate Road, Walnut Creek.
The Board then proceeded to consider each recommendation of
the Internal Operations Committee.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY.
I .O. 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 12 , 1990 by the following
vote (where the vote was unanimous) :
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
(See separate listing for vote on motion where
it is not unanimous)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Consideration of Report from the Internal Operations
Committee including Recommendations on the General Plan
Update, Urban Limit Lines and Related Issues.
The Board of Supervisors considered the attached report from
its Internal Operations Committee dated June 4 , 1990 on the
referenced subject. At the conclusion of the testimony of all
individuals who addressed the Board on this subject, the Board
reviewed each recommendation of the Committee and approved the
following actions:
1. REQUESTED the Board of Supervisors ' Water Committee to
recommend to the Board of Supervisors the approval of maps
identifying existing wetlands which need to be preserved.
The Internal Operations Committee Committee continues to
prefer that the County use a standard definition of
"wetlands. "
The vote approving Recommendation No. 1 as amended was
unanimous.
2 . 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, AGREED 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 resulting from the General
Plan Congress process, 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, and adopt the revised General
Plan and appropriate findings.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 2 as presented was
unanimous.
3 . REQUESTED 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 fifteen 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 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, the current boundaries of
- 1 -
urban service providers, and areas not desired for open
space, parks, agriculture, recreation orether non-urban
uses. The Community Development Department should also
strive to place . the Urban Limit Lines so that they do not
split parcels.
,The vote approving Recommendation No.3 as amended was
unanimous.
4 . REQUESTED . the Community Development Director to include in
the concept of Urban -Limit Lines criteria for changing such
Lines. The Committee suggested 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. 1
* In case of a national emergency.
* Based on substantial evidence that the Urban Limit Line
is, in fact, making it impossible fo.r . the County to
meet its appropriate share of regional housing needs
for all income levels and upon the adoption by the
Board of Supervisors of a finding that modifying the
Urban Limit Line will make it possible for the County
to meet that statutory requirement.
The approval of any changes to Urban Limit Lines where a
"preserve agreement" has been signed by the County and the
cities in the subregion should require both the approval of
a majority of the members of the County Board' of Supervisors
and a majority of the members of the city councils of the
majority of the cities in the affected subregion. If no
such "preserve agreement" is in place, the approval of any
changes to Urban Limit Lines should require a 4/5
affirmative vote by the members of the Board of Supervisors,
if and under such circumstances as County Counsel determines
would allow such a higher than majority vote in order to
approve such a action.
The motion approving Recommendation No. 4 as presented was
passed by the- following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Schroder, Fanden
ABSTAIN: None
5. DIRECTED the Community Development Director to establish
Urban Limit Lines in the draft General Plan for the duration
of .the planning period (through the year 2005) such that no
more than approximately 350 of the land area of the County
of Contra Costa is included within the Urban Limit Lines and
approximately 650 of the land area shall remain in open
space, agriculture, recreation, wetlands , and non-urban
uses. Direct staff of the Community Development Department
to assure greenbelt buffers to the extent possible between
communities.
6 . DIRECTED staff of the Community Development Department to
include in the draft General Plan instructions to the
County' s representatives on LAFCO that they vote to oppose
annexations or service extensions which would cause more
than approximately 350 of the land area of the County of
Contra Costa to be developed for urban purposes through the
year 2005 . Request LAFCO to respect Urban Limit Lines and
develop rules to enforce them.
2
i
The motion approving Recommendations No. 5 and 6 as amended-
was passed by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Schroder
7 . DIRECTED 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 the
Internal . Operations Committee with a report on this subject
on June 25,1990.
Motion approving Recommendation No. 7 as presented was
unanimous.
8 . TABLED (see motion below) direction to staff of the
Community Development Department to include in the draft
General Plan an intent to increase the minimum parcel size
allowed by the zoning of prime agricultural areas. of the
County from their present 10 acre minimum to 40 acre
minimums along with the concept of cluster development on
not to exceed 5% of the acreage for such prime agricultural
areas in not less than one acre parcels and to require that
the owner of such property convey to the County the
development rights on the balance of the property to prevent
further development of the land for non-agricultural
purposes and to insure that upon subdivision the balance of
the acreage will be dedicated to agriculture on a permanent
basis. Approval of such "cluster development" on a parcel
should require a finding by the Board of Supervisors that
the agricultural uses of the balance of the property will be
enhanced !by such development and that in no case will such
development hinder the agricultural use of the balance of
the property.
It was moved and seconded to encourage owners of prime agri-
cultural land to voluntarily aggregate contiguous parcels in
common ownership to 40 acres by providing cluster
development on the edge of the parcel, not to exceed 5% of
the parcel size and not allow division of existing parcels
in prime ; agricultural areas below 40 acres unless cluster
development on not to exceed 5% of the parcel is agreed to
and unless the land owner agrees to convey to the County the
development rights on the balance of the property to prevent
further -development of the land ' for non-agricultural
purposes iand to insure that upon subdivision the balance of
the acreage will be dedicated to agriculture through the
year 2005. Following discussion on this motion, the Board
unanimously approved tabling this motion. Therefore, no
further action was taken on Recommendation No. 8.
9. DIRECTED 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 Country to provide such services.
THE vote. approving Recommendation No. 9 as presented was
unanimous.
10 . DIRECTED staff of the Community Development Department to
include in the Growth Management Element of the draft
General Plan all requirements of the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority regarding Growth Management.
- 3 -
The vote approving Recommendation No. 10 as -presented was
unanimous.
11. ADOPTED 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 be annexed) be utilized, including the provision for
affordable housing.
The vote) approving Recommendation No. 11 as presented was
unanimous.
12. DIRECTED 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 the Internal Operations Committee on this
subject June 25 , 1990.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 12 as presented was
unanimous.
13 . DIRECTED 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 the Internal Operations
Committee on this .subject June 25, 1990.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 13 as amended was
unanimous.
14. DIRECTED the Community Development Director to consider the
feasibility of establishing a buffer around the agricultural
core area in the County in order to protect agriculture from
the intrusion of urbanization and to protect urban areas
from the disadvantages of close proximity to an agricultural
area and to report his findings and recommendations to the
Internal Operations Committee. In this regard, direct the
Community Development Director to request the City of
Brentwood to zone any areas which are not yet urbanized and
which abut the agricultural core of the County into a buffer
zone around the agricultural core of the County and to enter
into ' an agreement with the County to maintain the
agricultural designation for that area within the City of
Brentwood and Brentwood' s sphere of influence which abuts
the agricultural core of the County and which already bears
such a designation.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 14 as presented was
unanimous.
15 . DIRECTED the Community Development Director to prepare maps
for review by our Committee which outline the Agricultural
Core area of the County using the area originally defined in
the East County. Area General Plan, the changes proposed by
the Agricultural Task Force and modified as necessary to
incorporate at least the following factors:
* Areas which contain Class I and II soils.
4 -
* Areas which are unlikely to have reasonable access to a
regular supply of water in the future.
* Consideration of the actual condition of the soil in
terms of such factors as alkalinity.
* That the area conform as much as possible to the
findings of the Agricultural Task Force.
* Consideration of the distribution of Class I or II
soils in relation to existing parcel boundaries.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 15 as presented was
unanimous.
16. DIRECTED the Community Development Director to use, as one
factor in establishing any Urban Limit Line, whether the
given area has a slope gradient of 260 or more, is a public
park or watershed land, or constitutes wetlands or other
sensitive open space or grazing lands. For any such
properties located within the Urban Limit Line, the Director
shall. include in the draft general plan policies limiting
development of such properties.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 16 as presented was
unanimous.
17. AOPTED as a clear policy of the Board of Supervisors and
direct the Community Development Director to include in the
draft General Plan a statement that the creation of Urban
Limit Lines in no ways indicates the intent or desire of the
Board of Supervisors that all parcels contained within an
Urban Limit Line. are to be developed and that each
development application within an Urban Limit Line will be
judged on its own merits.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 17 as presented was
unanimous.
18. DIRECTED staff : of the Community Development . Department to
map and recommend appropriate steps to preserve the existing
rail corridors. in the County for future use as rail lines
even though they pass through non-urban areas. This should
be able to be accomplished by zoning the corridors in such a
way as to discourage development of the corridors until such
time as the County is in a position to purchase or otherwise
make the corridors available for transportation purposes.
The impact of such rail lines on development potential can
be minimized by reviewing carefully the location of stations
in non-urban areas.
The vote approving Recommendation # 18 as presented was
unanimous.
19. DIRECTED the Community Development Director to communicate
in writing on behalf of the Board of Supervisors with each
County whose development decisions are likely to have a
significant impact on Contra Costa County and each city in
each such County, requesting that the Contra. Costa County
Community Development Department be . notified of each
development project in such counties or cities which could
have an impact on Contra Costa County. Direct the Community
Development Department staff to review each such development
application and request mitigation measures designed to
.mitigate the impacts of such developments on Contra Costa
County.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 19 as presented was
unanimous.
- 5 -
20 . REQUESTED staff from the Community Development Department to
report to the Internal Operations Committee on June 25 , 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.
* 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.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 20 as presented was
unanimous.
21. REQUESTED 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.
The vote approving Recommendation No. 21 as presented was
unanimous.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE BOARD that this Order super-
cedes the Board' s Order on this subject. dated May 22 , 1990
approving the Report of the Internal Operations Committee dated
May 14, 1990 and the attached proposed Report from the Internal
Operations Committee dated June 4 , 1990.
The vote approving this action was unanimous.
Following discussion; there was consensus among Board
members that the Community Development Director report on the
following issues:
22. Develop a 'policy restricting rural subdivision by:
A. strengthening the existing ranchette policy,
B. limiting building density on slopes,
C. protecting view corridors and ridgelines,
D. strengthening water quality policies, and
E. requiring planned unit developments in such areas.
23 . Recommend some mechanisms to. obtain permanency to the areas
outside the Urban Limit Lines.
24 . Provide justification for the seemingly large area set aside
for urban development around the proposed site of the Contra
Costa County Byron Airport or modify the proposal. In this
regard, agree that whatever development occurs within the
Urban Limit Line around the Contra Costa County Byron
Airport is not to include any residential developments. In
addition, explain the size of the development area around
the Byron Airport and which properties are included or
excluded from the Urban Limit Lite.
25. Review the following areas and recommend whether they should
be included within an Urban Limit Lines or left outside such
a Line:
* The area east of Discovery Bay.
* The area of the Cowell property south of the Marsh Dam.
6 -
* If development is to be permitted on Veale Tract,
whether such development should be required to meet a
specific need such as housing for senior- citizens in
order to justify development in such a remote area.
* Why the small area southeast of the prime agricultural
core, south of Highway 4 and north of Byron is not
included within the prime agricultural core area.
(Isn' t part of the existing core and the staff ' s
recommended new core area? )
* Each rural area identified on the existing map as
cross-hatched to indicate areas which are subject to
potential development within the next 15 years.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and Correct Copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
cc: 1 . 0. Cte. Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Director, CDD Ate, z �_..��.
County Administrator IL TCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
County Counsel of&"vborsand Go"Administrator
Illy ��`� Oeputy
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: r r
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE g .; Costa
County
DATE: June 4 1990
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN, URBAN LIMIT
LINES AND RELATED ISSUES
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)O RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
i
RECONbIENPATIONS:
1. Defer, to the Board of Supervisors ' Water Committee in terms
of recommending to the Board of Supervisors the approval of
maps identifying existing wetlands which: need to be
preserved. Our Committee continues to prefer that the
County use a standard definition of "wetlands" . We believe
that the Federal Fish & Game definition is ian appropriate
one to use.
2. Amend Recommendation # 3 in our Committee' s Report on this
subject which the iBoard of Supervisors approved on May 22,
1990 regarding the criteria and process by which Urban Limit
Lines can be modified to read as follows:
"Request the Community Development Director 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.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YeS YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOA Q EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREM: SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK OM POWERS
ACTION OF BOARD ON June , APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
i
I
(See Separate Biard Order)
i
i
i
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) J AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Community Development Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Dennis Barry, General Plan Coord.
County Counsel
M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY
1 r' -2-
Based on an objective, external evaluation that the
Urban Limit Line is, in fact, making it , impossible for
the County to meet its fair share quota of affordable
housing and upon the adoption by 'the Board of
Supervisors of a finding that modifying the Urban Limit
Line will make it possible for the County to meet that
quota.
The approval of any changes to Urban Limit Lines where a
"preserve agreement" has been signed by the County and the
cities in the subregion should require both the approval of
a majority of the members of the County Board, of Supervisors
and a majority of the members of the city councils of the
majority of the cities in the affected subregion. If no
such "preserve agreement" is in place, the approval of any
changes to Urban Limit Lines should require a 4/5
affirmative vote by the members of the Board of Supervisors,
if and under such circumstances as County Counsel determines
would allow such a higher than majority vote in order to
approve such a action. "
3 . Amend Recommendation # 4 in our Committee ' s Report on this
subject which the Board of Supervisors approved on May 22,
1990 regarding appropriate uses for those lands which are
not contained within Urban Limit Lines to read as follows:
"Direct the Community Development Director 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, wetlands, and non-urban uses.
Direct staff of the Community Development ; Department to
assure greenbelt buffers to the extent possible between
communities. "
4. Amend Recommendation # 6 in our Committee' s Report on this
subject which the Board of Supervisors approved on May 22,
1990 regarding increasing the minimum parcel size allowed by
the zoning of prime agricultural areas of the County to read
as follows:
"Direct staff of the Community Development Department to
include in the draft General Plan an intent to increase the
minimum parcel size allowed by the zoning of prime
agricultural areas of the County from their present 10 acre
minimum to 40 acre minimums along with the concept of
cluster development on not to exceed 50 of the acreage for
such prime agricultural areas in not less than one acre
parcels and to require that the owner of such property
convey to the County the development rights on the balance
of the property to prevent further development of the land
for non-agricultural purposes and to insure that upon
subdivision the balance of the acreage will be dedicated to
agriculture on a permanent basis. Approval of such "cluster
development" on a parcel should require a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that the agricultural uses of the
balance of the property will be enhanced by such development
and that in no case will such development hinder the
agricultural use of the balance of the property. "
5 . Direct the Community Development Director to consider the
feasibility of establishing a buffer around the agricultural
core area in the County in order to protect agriculture from
the intrusion of urbanization - and to protect urban areas
from the disadvantages of close proximity to an agricultural
area and to report his findings and recommendations to the
Internal Operations Committee. In this regard, direct the
\ I
-3-
Community Development Director to request , the City of
Brentwood to zone any areas which are not yet' urbanized and
which abut the agricultural core of the County into a buffer
zone around the agricultural core of- the County and to enter
into an agreement with the County to maintain the
agricultural designation for that area within the City of
Brentwood and Brentwood' s sphere of influence which abuts
the agricultural core of the County and which already bears
such a designation.
6. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare maps
for review by our Committee which outline the Agricultural
Core area of the County using the area originally defined in
the East County Area General Plan, the changes proposed by
the Agricultural Task Force and modified as necessary to
incorporate at least the following factors:
* Areas which contain Class I and II soils.
* Areas which are unlikely to have reasonable access to a
regular supply of water in the future.
* Consideration of the actual condition of the soil in
terms of such factors as alkalinity.
* That the area conform as much as possible to the
findings of the Agricultural Task Force.
* Consideration of the distribution of Class I or II
soils in relation to existing parcel boundaries.
7. Direct . the Community Development Director to use, as one
factor in establishing any Urban Limit Line, whether the
given area has a slope gradient of 26% or more, is a public
park or watershed land, or constitutes wetlands or . other
sensitive open space or grazing lands. For any such
properties located within the Urban Limit Line, the Director
shall include in the draft general plan policies limiting
development of such properties.
8 . Direct the Community Development Director to prepare and
forward to the Board of Supervisors on June 12 , 1990 maps of
Contra Costa County which display in as much detail as is
feasible Urban Limit Lines which meet the criteria of the
Report from our Committee on this subject which the Board of
Supervisors approved on May 22, 1990 , modified in accordance
with this Report, and which displays visually the following:
* Outside of the Urban Limit Lines, the following:
-- Publicly owned versus privately owned land.
-- The buffer area between an urbanized area and the
prime agricultural core of the County.
-- The prime agricultural core of the county.
* Inside the Urban Limit Lines, the following:
-- Currently urbanized areas versus areas which are
not yet urbanized but have the potential to become
urbanized within the General Plan period.
9. Adopt as a clear policy of the Board of Supervisors and
direct the Community Development Director to include in the
draft General Plan a statement that the creation of Urban
Limit Lines in no ways indicates the intent or desire of the
Board of Supervisors that all parcels contained within . an
Urban Limit Line are to be developed and that each
development application within an Urban Limit Line will be
judged on its own merits.
-4-
10. Amend Recommendation # 13 in our Committee 's :Report on this
subject which the Board of Supervisors approved on May 22,
1990 regarding mapping and preserving the ; existing rail
corridors in the County for future use as rail corridors to
read as follows:
"Direct staff of the Community Development Department to map
and recommend appropriate steps to preserve the existing
rail corridors in the County for future use' as rail lines
even though they pass through non-urban areas. This should
be able to be accomplished by zoning the corridors in such a
way as to discourage development of the corridors until such
time as the County is in a position to purchase or otherwise
make the corridors available for transportation purposes.
The impact of such rail lines on development potential can
be minimized by reviewing carefully the location of stations
in non-urban areas. "
11. Direct the Community Development 'Director to ;communicate in
writing on behalf of the Board of Supervisors with each
County whose development decisions are likely to have a
significant impact on Contra Costa County and each city in
each such County, requesting that the Contra Costa County
Community Development Department be notified of each
development project in such counties or cities which could
have an impact on Contra Costa County. Direct the Community
Development Department staff to review each such development
application and request mitigation measures designed to
mitigate the. impacts of such developments on Contra Costa
County.
BACKGROUND:
Our Committee is continuing to review issues including the need
to update .the General Plan, the draft Environmental Impact Report
on the General Plan and all related issues as they were reported
to the Board of Supervisors on May 22, 1990 . Based on the report
from our Committee which the Board of Supervisors approved on May
22 , 1990 we received the attached report from ::. the Community
Development Director on June 4 , 1990. We reviewed this report
with a number of individuals and representatives of organizations
on June 4, 1990 and formulated the above recommendations, which
were discussed fully with all of those who were present.
We plan to review the actual "Urban Limit Line" maps with the
Community Development Department staff and all interested
individuals on June 11, 1990 and will revise this report as
necessary and report it back to the Board of Supervisors on June
12 , 1990.
6