HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03051991 - S.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
r f ..� ,•
FROM: SUPERVISOR TOM POWERS
Costa
DATE: March 5 1991 ��sr�.,�•Jy. Coun`J
c°ur+
Reorganization of Planning Commissions
SUBJECT:
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County directs the
Community Development Department Director and the Internal Operations
Committee to review and examine the current structure of the county's
Planning Commission and other regional planning commissions in light
of the new county General Plan.
2. That the Community Development Department and the Internal Operations
Committee should consider the following approaches in their review:
A. The Planning Commission should only be responsible for larger
development projects thereby taking a broader approach to
matters like general plan modifications, large specific plans,
and large subdivision approvals.
B. Regional commissions should represent and respond to
neighborhood concerns by focussing on the more detailed work
within -their jurisdiction.
C. Regional commissions should serve as advisory bodies to the
Board of Supervisors on the issue of local economic
development.
D. Membership qualifications for the regional commissions should
be reviewed and reassessed to ensure that members reflect the
new missions of the reconstituted groups.
X
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 5, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) 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: Community Development Director ATTESTED *',t-+� r,
C. VanMarter,, CAO PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ��` ,DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
BACKGROUND•
The significant differences between the county's old General Plan and
the new one the Board of Supervisors recently adopted suggest that the
responsibilities of the various land use commissions in the county need to
be reevaluated. Previous duties should be considered and adjusted to meet
the mandates of the new General Plan.
Area and regional commissions are clearly better able to review and
evaluate local concerns. These commissions could be charged with that
responsibility.
The mandates and complexities of the new General Plan suggest that a
county-wide perspective is needed to implement the plan's important
elements such as locating major transportation facilities that span large
areas of the county; ensuring compliance with growth management
objectives; and evaluating the goals and status of the 65/35 plan approved
by voters last November. The county Planning Commission should devote its
time to these broader issues.