HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06101997 - D11 D.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 'i Contra
Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON a� County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �'
DATE: May 12 , 1997
SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION ON THE TASSAJARA VALLEY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
(TVPOA) PROJECT PROCESSING
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Acknowledge that the TVPOA Citizen Committee has sunseted as
provided in the board order dated August 11, 1993, because the
Draft EIR was released on March 6, 1997.
2 . Appoint . Supervisors Gerber and DeSaulnier as Board members to
meet with members of Danville and San Ramon Councils and other
appropriate jurisdictions to discuss compliance with the
general plan amendment process according to CCTA guidelines.
3 . Determine that formally establishing a Tassajara Valley
Oversite Committee is not necessary.
4 . Acknowledge that according to Board policy the County Planning
Commission will be the "official" hearing body for the TVPOA
general plan amendment and rezoning applications. However,
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission shall
conduct joint meetings with the County Planning Commission
and such other meetings as deemed necessary and make an
independent recommendation to the Board on this matter. Those
joint meetings will be held within the San Ramon Valley.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUR C,
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON Juiie i0 , 1997 -APPROVEDIAS 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.
Contact: Jim Cutler, CDD (335-1236) ATTESTED June 10 , 1997
cc: Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
CAO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel AND NTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
HEB:JWC:aw
j:\aw\tvpoa.bo
Rev:May 12, 1997
CLARIFICATION ON THE TVPOA
PROJECT PROCESSING
May 12, 1997
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
1. TVPOA CITIZENS COMMITTEE
On August 17, 1993 , the Board established the Tassajara Valley
Citizens Committee. The Committee was established to include
members of TVPOA, residents of the San Ramon Valley, members
appointed by the Board and representatives appointed by
adjacent cities (see Attachment A) . The Board Order
establishing the Committee indicated it would sunset upon
release of the Draft EIR.
Since the Committee had membership that included TVPOA
representatives, it was setup to advise staff on materials and
alternatives to be considered in the Draft EIR. This was
purposely done to avoid any concern over possible conflict of
interest of TVPOA representatives reporting directly to
decision making bodies. Since establishing the Committee, the
Board has adopted even more stringent policies that state that
committees should take no action that gives the appearance of
conflict of interest.
The Tassajara Citizens Committee met over several months and
provided input to staff that was helpful in the EIR process.
In July of 1994 , the Committee voted that they had done all
they could until after release of the Draft EIR.
The Board further considered the status of the Committee in
deliberations on whether the Wendt Ranch could be processed as
a separate application or whether it needed to remain within
the TVPOA proposal. As a solution to this conflict between
Shapell Industries, representing Wendt Ranch, and TVPOA; both
those parties presented a proposal to the Board which allowed
for Wendt Ranch to be considered as a separate application.
That proposal also urged the Tassajara Valley Citizen
Committee continue in its review of materials to staff. That
action is Attachment B.
The Draft EIR was released on March 6, 1997 . Given the Board
action establishing the Committee, the Committee was due to
sunset on release of the Draft EIR.
The Board should confirm that the Committee has sunseted.
2 . COMPLIANCE WITH CCTA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS
The County has obligations in reviewing projects for which a
general plan amendment is required, to confer with adjacent
jurisdictions on compliance with the Measure C-88 growth
management program. The TVPOA application has been processed
consistent with the procedures established by the CCTA in
Resolution 95-06-G (see Attachment C) . The County, Danville,
and San Ramon have met and conferred in the past, informally,
as part of the Danville Liaison Committee.
Consistent with CCTA guidance, County staff will schedule a
presentation of the draft EIR with the Southwest Area
Transportation (SWAT) Committee, which is the Regional
Transportation Planning Committee who's territory includes the
TVPOA parcels. The focus of this presentation will be the
transportation impacts created as a result of the project. To
comply with Measure C-88, a general plan amendment must be
consistent with the Action Plan for Regional Routes as
Rev:May 12, 1997
CLARIFICATION ON THE TVPOA
PROJECT PROCESSING
May 12, 1997
Page 3
incorporated into the CCTA' s Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan.
In reaching a decision on the project, the Growth Management
Program obligates the lead agency to attempt to resolve
potential conflicts that may arise as a result of that
decision. Any process can be used to resolve such a conflict
as long as it is acceptable to the parties to the conflict.
It would appear appropriate to consider the SWAT Committee' s
comments on the project to help determine how the County' s
process should address the OCTA requirements. Supervisor
Gerber who represents the area and is a member of the SWAT
Committee and the CCTA, should be appointed to represent the
County in discussions with affected jurisdictions. It might
also be helpful to consider Supervisor DeSaulnier as an
alternate, given his knowledge of the history of this project
to date. Further modification to the County' s process could
be proposed by Supervisor Gerber based on input from the SWAT
Committee, or based on other factors such as the response to
comments on the DEIR or the county staff report on the general
plan amendment.
3 . STATUS OF DANVILLE OVERSITE COMMITTEE
The agreement between Shapell Industries and TVPOA on the
Wendt Ranch project also "suggested" that the Danville Liaison
Committee be restructured to become the Tassajara Valley
Oversite Committee made up of two Board members, two San Ramon
Council members and two Danville Council members plus
appropriate staff. To date, the Board of Supervisors has not
taken action to formalize this suggestion.
There is currently a Dougherty Valley Oversite Committee which
was setup to oversee the implementation of the Dougherty
Valley project and to insure that service standards are
maintained. It was established as part of litigation
settlement and after a policy decision had been made by the
Board of Supervisors that Dougherty Valley should proceed.
Until a general plan policy decision is made on this project,
it appears that an Oversite committee might be premature.
The appointment of Supervisors, suggested in #2 above, should
be sufficient to meet the growth management requirements at
this time. If TVPOA is approved as a project, the Board could
revisit the issue of establishment of an oversite committee.
4 . HEARING BODIES
On December 12, 1994, the Board of Supervisors established its
policy on the continuation of the East County and San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commissions. The Board came to its
position with the help of a committee which included members
of the regional commissions,. That policy is Attachment D.
It states that large projects such as TVPOA, that are big
enough to effect a subregion or the region, should be heard by
the County Planning Commission. A threshold of 1500 trips was
used as the cutoff between local projects and those of
countywide significance.
Rev:May 12, 1997
CLARIFICATION ON THE TVPOA
PROJECT PROCESSING
May 12, 1997
Page 4
When the Board considered the hearing body for the Wendt Ranch
and Tassajara Meadows projects, (see Attachment E) the Board
determined that those projects were related to TVPOA and
consequently had a countywide impact. The Board indicted that
for that reason, the County Planning Commission should be the
"official" hearing body, but that the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission should also review the project
and that joint hearings should be conducted.
For both the Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows General Plan
Amendments full recommendations were made to the Board by both
Commissions. Since those projects were related to TVPOA, the
same process is recommended for the TVPOA deliberations
itself. Bath the San Ramon Regional Planning Commission
perspective and the County Planning Commission perspective can
be considered by the Board in its consideration of this large
proposal.
Rev:May 12,1997
ATTACHMENT A nwt
ra
/ V a
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS coity
Blom: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MATZ: AUGUST 17, 1993
SUR ZCT: AMENDMENT TO STAFF REPORT DIITZD AUGUST Il, 1993 - ESTABLISEMENT OF A
COKKITTEE TO DEAL TITE THE TASSAnRA VALLEY PROPERTY OWNERS
ASSOCIATIONS°S GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING JtEQUZSTS
APZCIFIC JLEQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
REC0M)M"NDATION
That the subject staff report be amended as follows:
psae 2 - Timing. Revise paragraph one to read: OThe Committee
will hold its first meeting in September at a time and
place to be determined once the Committee is
appointed."
pave 2 - Proposed Committee membership. Revise and combine
Items 1. and 2. to read: "1. Five (5) San Ramon
Valley citizens -- two (2) of whom reside within, or
adjacent to, Tassajara Valley, but are not members of
TVPOA M
CON INGED ON ATTACHMENT: _ ?ZS SIGNAT
ACTION OF BOARD ON AurnAt 17♦ 1993 APPROVED AS RZCOXXENDEb OTHER
ATTACHMENT A to the August 17, 1993 Board Order Item 2.8.
QCOJ'l
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 4
?BOM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: August 11, 1993
suBi CT: Establishment of a Committee of County, Cities and interested Citizens
to Deal Frith the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Associations's
-General Plan and Zoning Requests
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
$ECOMMENDATIONS
Your Board should establish a committee to review the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Requests of the TVPOA and advise staff.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff time will be covered as part of the application fee paid by
the TVPOA.
AROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMMATIONS
In August of 1991, the board accepted the recommendation to review
the General Plan for Tassajara Valley and at the request of the
applicant also directed that a rezoning study for the entire area
be initiated. Since that time, the project proponents have been
gathering the information necessary to meet the rezoning ordinance
code requirements. On April 16, 1993 staff circulated a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and
required comments by June 7, 1993. Since then staff has been
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDA ON 0F^5ARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
NIGNATURE(S) :
.ACTION OF BOARD ON August 17 . 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X OTHER X_
APPROVED recommendations as amended by the Community Development Director:
on Attachment A included as a part of this order.
COTE OF SUPERVISORS
XI $
_ _ EREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
rNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
8UPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Drig: Community Development Department ATTESTED August 17, 1993
cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Py blic Works AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
•�VPOA (via CDD)
BY , DEPUTY
Establishment of a Committee of County, Cities and taterested Citizens to Deal
vitb the Tassajara Valley Property Owners Associations•s General Plan and Zoning
itequests
August 12, 1993
Page -2-
negotiating an EIR contract on this project. That contract should
come to the Board at its next meeting. It has been suggested that
due to the large scale of the project and the concerns over
cumulative impact of development in the area, a citizen committee
should be established to review the proposal. Such review should
be to assist staff but would be independent from a staff
recommendation on this matter.
The committee could be established as advisory to the staff and
would not be a formal decision making body.
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS
1. Strive for consensus building not formal voting.
2. Act as liaison to its respective organizations.
3. , Not conduct public hearings but hold its meeting in public in
accordance with the Brown Act.
RESPONSIBILITY
To review the application materials with staff
To help devise alternatives which need to be considered in the
EIR process
To advise and recommend to staff proposed amendments which
could be considered in review of this general plan and rezoning
applications
To review operational levels of service and compliance with
growth management standards
MING •
Given the commitment of staff time on Dougherty Valley, it will
create a strain to initiate committee meetings prior to conclusion
of heavy staff involvement in Dougherty Valley.
The group shall meet as needed prior to the release of the Draft
EIR and shall sunset once that document enters the public hearing
process.
PROPOSED COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
1. Four citizens residing or owning property within or immediately
adjacent to the Tassajara Valley, but not members of the TVPOA.
2. Three members of the TVPOA.
3. Two members of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission.
4. Two County members selected by the Board of Supervisors (but
not members of the Board of Supervisors) .
5. One member selected by the Town of Danville.
6. One member selected by the City of San Ramon.
7. One member selected by the City of Dublin.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
We recommend further that the members be proposed by Supervisor
Bishop and ordered by the Board. We envision the Committeefs task
to work with staff and that the formal recommendation to your Board
come from the San. Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
w2rrsvyHA.90
Q002
09/18/97 TUE 09:16 FAX 415 89
ATTACHMENT B FILE COPY
' D.5
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _ November 7. 1988`by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Desaulnier, Torlakson
NORS1 Supervisors Smith, Bishop
ASSBlIT s None
ABSTAINt !Ione
SUBJECT; Shapell Request to Separate Wendt'Property
i
from the TVPOA
The Board this day considered the recommendations of
th• Community Development Director dated October 13, 1995,
relative to Shapell's request for the Wendt Property to be
processed separately from the TVPOA1s (Tassajara Valley Property
Owners Association) request.
The following persons spokes
Tom Koch, representing Shapell, 2662 Bishop Park,
P206, San Ramon;
Mark Armstrong, representing TVPOA, Law Firm of Cagan,
McCoy, and Armstrong;
Joe Calabrigo, Town of Danville, 510 Lagonda Way,
Danville;
Gordon Rasmussen, 6000 Highland Road, Pleasanton]
Joan and Joe Case, 8651 Camino Tassajara, Pleasanton;
Nolan Sharp, TVPOA. (no address) ;
James Tong, 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100, Pleasanton;
Gloria Bing, 229 Chose Road, Danville. i
All persons desiring to speak were heard. The Board
discussed the request and the recommendation presented by TVPOA.
IT Is BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the request of Shapell
Industries is APPROVED for a separate study and application
process with a separate Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a
General Plan Amendment for the Wendt property only, which may be
accompanied by concurrent applications for rezoning and tentative
subdivision, subject to the following directions and with the
following undarstandings:
1. The Tassajara Valley General Plan and toning Study and
application prooess will continue in its present form
and with its present study boundary area. No changes
to the-Tassajara Valley General Plan and Zoning study,
applications and environmantal review will be reviewed,
with one exception only: the Tassajara Valley draft
Master ESR project description may identify a lower
residential density General Plan land use designation
for the Wendt Property as now preferred by Wendt and
Shapell.
2. The Danville Liaison Committee and the Tassajara Valley
Citizens Committee established by the Board should
continue, without delay or disruption, their review and
consideration of the Tassajara Valley General Plan
Study and the TVPOA applications in their present form.
n
t
03/18/97 71TE 09:18 FAX 415 834 0871 BELGRAVIA CAPITAL iZ 003
It is suggested that the Danville Liaison Committee be
restructured as the Tassajara valley Oversite
Comsuittes, consisting of two Danville councilmembers,
two San Ramon councilmembers and.two board of
Supervisors members, plus appropriate staff. It would
be desirous for the Tassajara Valley Oversite Committee
to provide a process to formulate an outline of a
multi-jurisdictional agreement on the Tassajara valley
before the Board of Supervisors hears any Tassajara
Valley applications.
3. The board discourages any other separateeneral plan
studies for other properties in the Tassajara valley.
4. Countystaff Will continue to proaase and review the
Tassaara Valley Property Owners Association applica-
tions in an expeditious manner and will take those
stops necessary to assure that the separate Wendt
Property study and applications will not delay or
' interfere With that process.
The Director of Community Development is requested in
processing the Wendt Property applications in an expe-
ditious mannar to assign additional county staff to the
extent possible so as not to delay or intarfaro with
review and processing of the TVPOA applications.
County staff assigned to the Wendt Property
applications Will be instructed ,to take those steps
necessary to avoid delay and interference with the
Tassajara Valley General Plan and Zoning Study and
TVPOA applications and review processes. Taking into
n000unt the foregoing, County staff is to use beat
efforts to avoid delay or interference between the
TVPOA applications and the Wendt Property applications.
S. County staff should use its best efforts to provide
that the public infrastructure and cumulative impact
analysis in the separate Wendt Property environmental
review and application processes, including circula-
tion, utilities, parks, schools and biotics, be
consistent with the analysis in the Tassajara valley
draft BIR, which is expected to be released first.
It the Tassajara Valley draft riR is not released
first, County staff should use its best efforts to
provide for public infrastructure and cumulative impact
analysis in the draft SIRs for the smaller projects
that is consistent with that anticipated for the
Tassajara Valley draft BIR.
The same direction applies to completion of the final
EIRs for the Tassajara Valley project and the two
smaller projects.
6. 8hapell Industries is strongly encouraged to
participate in the Tassajara Valley General Plan
Amendment and Zoning Study public planning processes to
address common planning issues. 8hapell represents-
tives shall not delay the TVPOA application processor
and vice versa.
T. 8hape11 Industries is directed to. work with Danville
and Ban Ramon in its County application process, for
various reasons including fulfillment of the early
consultation guidelines of the Transportation
Authority.
a. shapell Industries conceptually supports additional
roadway connections between Tassajara Valley and
Dougherty Valley (e.g., Johnson Road to Lawrence Road
or a direct Lawrence Road connection) , subject to
review of the updated Tassajara valley traffic analysis
i
03/_18/97 TUE 09:17 FAX 418 834 0871 BELGRAVIA CAPITAL ®004
i
to confirm it does not degrade traffic level of service
to unacceptable levels in the Dougherty Valley and
provided any such connection is supported by Danville
and San Ramon officials. TVPOA representatives
previously supported the southern link to Camino
Tassajara (i.e., Windemere Parkway) to accommodate
Dougherty Valley traffic.
P. Shapell Industries will publicly represent that it
accepts and agrees with these directions and
understandings, including its conceptual support for
roadway connections as stated above. With those public
representations, TVPOA will support this Board Order.
In voting against the motion, Supervisors Smith and Bishop
advised of their concern that proper planning procedures for the
entire area wars not adherred to.
t h@MbY scaly VW thb b 9 tnm mM camel m 'of
Lon taken enterer- '1:nlnutes a ur
CN
or Bupw an tn: mown.
PHIL 6008ELCA'r• 111-oo-ro
pi$uprrAvvi s10 Oou::-d»m-nLitiam
cc: Community Development
Mark Armstrong (TVPOA) i
County Counsel
Public Works
1
This Page Left
Intentionally Blank
ATTACHMENT C
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Resolution 95-06-G
RE: APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS
FOR THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
1) WHEREAS, Measure C requires the Authority "to establish a forum to cooperate in
easing cumulative traffic impacts. This will be accomplished through the Regional
Transportation Planning Committees . . .;"' and
2) WHEREAS, Measure C also stated that "Use of the countywide transportation computer
model provides an opportunity to test General Plan(s) transportation and land use
alternatives, and to assist cities and the county in determining the impact of major
development projects proposed for General Plan Amendments. This would provide a
quantitative basis for inter jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic
impacts;02 and
3) WHEREAS, Measure C further requires that "The Authority, jointly, with affected local
jurisdictions, shall determine and periodically review the application of Traffic Service
Standards on routes of regional significance. The review will take into account traffic
originating outside of the county or jurisdiction, and environmental and financial
considerations. Local jurisdictions, through the forum provided by the Authority, shall
jointly determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic
impacts. (See Section S)";' and
4) WH1 LEAS, in response to these mandates the Authority adopted in December, 1990
Implementation Doctonents, mg that the Action Plan process, the establishment of
Traffic Service Objectives and Actions, the General Plan Amendment Review process, and
the Conflict Resolution process would be used to meet the requirements outlined above; and
5) WHEREAS, the Authority will separately approve the details of the Conflict Resolution
process to be used in the event of disputes between jurisdictions; and
6) WHEREAS, to recognize the differences between jurisdictions, and the flexibility
provided to it within Measure C to judge compliance with the Growth Management Program,
the Authority has agreed to ultimately evaluate compliance with Measure C, as it relates to
review and negotiation of proposed General Plan Amendments, on the basis of "good faith;"
'The 1988 Measure C Expenditure Plan, Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and
Growth Management Program, p. 11, Paragraph 5. (Adopted August 1988)
2M 10.
311�id, P. 10.
Resolution 95-O&G
July 19, 1995
Page 2
1) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Authority hereby adopts the
attached summary (Attachment A) and flow chart (Attachment B) to serve as the General
Plan Amendment Review process required by Measure C; and
2) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in so doing, the Authority will evaluate the
compliance of individual jurisdictions at the time of its review of the Annual Compliance
Checklist submittal by the jurisdiction; and
3) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Authoritywill review each Agency's "good
faith" participation in the Growth Management Program during its annual review of the
Compliance Checklists. Good faith participation will be evaluated in consideration of the
following factors:
3.1 Analysis - Was the Countywide (or Regional) traffic model used to evaluate
projects with the potential to impact Routes of Regional Significance?
3.2 Evaluation - Were impacts to Routes of Regional Significance identified and
appropriate and feasible mitigations defined?
3.3 Notification-Were all affected agencies properly notified?
3.4 Meet and Confer - Did the Agency meet and confer with neighboring
jurisdictions, RTPCs and other who expressed interest in and/or concerns about
Proposed Projects?
3.5 Responsiveness to concerns/comments - Did the Agency agree to evaluate
specific concerns and project impacts? Were they responsive and did they attempt
to resolve and work out issues and concerns? Did the Agency propose to and/or
agree to participate in conflict resolution? (Attachment C includes examples of
"good faith" which the Authority may use, but is not limited to, individually or in
combination, in its assessment of a jurisdiction's responsiveness to concerns and
attempts to resolve issues, including its proposed mitigation of impacts.) and
4) BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Authority shall consider the concerns of both
the jurisdiction generating traffic as a result of a General Plan Amendment, and those of the
recipient(s) of such traffic, equally, in making its evaluation of "good faith."
Resolution 95-06-G
July 19, 1995
Page 3
Julie Pierce, Chair
This RESOLUTION was entered into at a
meeting of the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority held July 19, 1995 in
Walnut Creek, California
Attest:
Robert1Executive rr
rls\resolutnslre65-06.fat
Resolution 95-06-G
July 19, 1995
Page A-1 J I"TA t AKENT A
OVERVIEW OF THE
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS
1. The process shall be concurrent with the CEQA time line for preparation of a
Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report. It is recognized that Conflict
Resolution could extend the process beyond the date of expected CEQA certification
and corresponding approval of the project. However, every effort should be made by
both the project sponsor and by concerned jurisdictions to address potential issues of
conflict within the time frame provided under CEQA. Early identification of
problems and consultation with affected jurisdictions is recommended. All affected
jurisdictions shall participate in Qng Conflict Resolution process, if necessary, for
each General Plan Amendment.
2. The process requires that a jurisdiction study the impacts of a proposed GPA on the
Action Plan when the size of the GPA exceeds the threshold size established by the
RTPC in its Action Plan;or 500 peak hour trips if such threshold has not been
established.
3. The GPA sponsor may approve the GPA without consequence if: (1) the GPA does
not adversely affect the ability of local jurisdictions to meet the Traffic Service
Objectives (TSOs) or to implement the agreed-upon actions in the Action Plans; or (2)
the GPA and/or Action Plan have been amended to mitigate the impact on the
regional system relative to TSOs and actions, to the satisfaction of the affected RTPC;
or (3) the affected RTPC has agreed to amend the Action Plan; or (4) the Conflict
Resolution process has been otherwise successful. When any of these conditions is
satisfied, the sponsor and the local RTPC shall advise the Authority. Failure to
satisfy one of these conditions could result in a finding of non-compliance by the
Authority, unless the Authority finds the jurisdiction has acted in good faith to
negotiate resolution of conflicts.
Sponsoring jurisdictions must work in 'good faith" to address all concerns raised
during the CEQA review process for proposed GPAs. The Authority's evaluation of
"good faith" will consider the factors detailed in Item 6 below, and the sponsoring
Agency's responsiveness to concerns raised by other RTPCs and other Agencies.
4. The jurisdiction preparing the GPA should notify all impacted RTPC(s) and
jurisdictions as early as possible of potential impacts with respect to previously
approved TSOs and actions. Concerned jurisdictions may voice concerns to the GPA
sponsor, the RTPC, and the Authority regarding impact on TSOs by commenting: on
the Notice of Preparation; on the draft Negative Declaration or EIR and/or prior to
project approval.
5. If a conflict should arise during review by the affected RTPC(s) and or during CEQA
reviews of proposed GPA proposals, any party to the conflict may call for initiation
of conflict resolution. The parties may utilize the Authority's conflict resolution
process, or an alternative process, as long as it is acceptable to the parties to the
conflict. The Authority, during its annual review of the Compliance Checklists, will
t
S.
;. Resolution 95-06-G
d:
July 199 1995
Page A-2 A'f TALLWE:.i i A
evaluate each 's 'good faith" efforts to resolve conflicts. Failure to participate
Pty g P� Pate
in conflict resolution could be the basis for a finding of non-compliance.
6. Good faith participation in the Measure C program will be evaluated annually in
consideration of the following factors:
A
6.1 Analysis -Was the Countywide (or Regional) traffic model used to evaluate
projects with the potential to impact Routes of Regional Significance?
6.2 Evaluation -Were impacts to Routes of Regional Significance identified and
appropriate and feasible mitigations defined?
6.3 Notification -Were all affected Agencies properly notified?
6.4 Meet and Confer - Did the Agency meet and confer with neighboring
jurisdictions, RTPC(s) and others who expressed interest in and/or concerns
about proposed projects?
6.5 Responsiveness to concerns/comments - Did the Agency agree to evaluate
specific concerns and project impacts? Were they responsive and did they
attempt to resolve and work out issues and concerns? Did the Agency propose
to and/or agree to participate in conflict resolution? (Attachment C includes
examples of "good faith" which the Authority may use, but is not limited to,
individually or in combination, in its assessment of a jurisdiction's
responsiveness to concerns and attempts to resolve issues, including its
proposed mitigation of impacts.)
is
i
V�
ii
ckmlp3ac4tcm954rs9506Y.au
ri
ttttttt. tttttt. ttli ti i l i i i i i i i i IIN i
0 3'T0
�OoD
$�ov
----------------------------, 9
I I ° ;-4a0
W W NNry_
—C s I CL N N
C)
3 ;
a3 I RTPC comments
< I to NOP g,Z
" C —— ——————————————— —————————I W
I
I 1 I a m
I I a 7°
R.o I R DER reflects
N I
I omments to NOPI
RTPC comments I O
O I to DERI Ln
7O
I I
D 13 I
OS
o= Ca= o I
O I N I z
I I Z
I o~3 I n
�G)0 I 3
o p�G I `;
a N I os$ g I -4
Do >: i i i C i y a r
N N
on
I Z
l+ ° -n
I , z R > 3. >r.3 ,�T ) 7o Q
7o i ° ^' ^"o z gra "s I O a w
N
Vr1v3I I u I I rn
I I I c D
c c o
IR I m 0
H o ? O I N I �iLConfl'�GI �a�i.,
2 a 0 c o I $I o' � ^Ati RuoW Id ��uBirt� I rn
od "33335 ( N
v" D , vl-o I
tr Z 3 n N^ I oIR ^ ( I
o.
o , L------—_—__I
2. 3 "' n
'o I FEIR responds to I » f1
3 comments to DEIR, a raze
.�a"0
_' I rP�tetto EIR��I cjo,or—"
I (Legal action) I 1 m '00.0.p
zz -, 0
Ov m m L—————————————————— — ———————t r
O io 70 1 's
u n u n I------------I c 1 0
In
m
0 0 M 0 I TI p 1OR
25
><_ . ca
A >
0j 1 C
CD C
K N I —
7 — — ------ ------ n (D
0 D � �" wo
0
D o r
0 O 'OO V O (/�• rr 'S
�c� 0—
co w
CD
(A —. Q 1
�.
0
ATTACHMENT D
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: �' `' Costa
December 12, 1994 County
DATE:
CONTINUATION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION AND
SUBJECT: SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . CONTINUE the East County Regional Planning Commission and San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission until October 2,
1995 .
2 . REQUEST the Director, Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency (GMEDA) to report to the Board of
Supervisors on the activity of the two regional planning
commissions and on the implementation of the following
recommendations well in advance of October 1, 1995.
3. DIRECT that, until October 2, 1995, the general duties of the
Commissions be as follows:
A. County Planning Commission:
1 . Countywide general plan text or map amendments .
2 . General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan
proposals for projects generating over 1500 peak
hour trips .
3 . Subdivision applications over 1500 units within a
regional planning commission geographic area when
such subdivision is part of a larger project which
project would be countywide in impact.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMIN TR TOR _�RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
- .:PPROVE O H R
SMNATURE S : JE MA I�eSAULNIER
ACTION OF BOARD ON a ember 20, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
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.
ATTESTED �:.Rae-DJO-h-e-A
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: See Page 4 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
4 . Non-residential or mixed use projects generating
1500 peak hour trips within a regional planning
commission's geographic area when such project is
part of a larger project which project would be
countywide in impact.
5 . Zoning ordinance text amendments .
6 . All other duties presently performed by the
Commission.
7 . Other matters specifically referred by the Board of
Supervisors .
B. Regional Planning Commissions :
1. General Plan amendment requests or Specific Plan
proposals for projects up to 1499 units when such
amendments or proposals are not part of a larger
project which large project would be countywide in
impact.
2 . Subdivision applications between 101 units and 1500.
units, when such applications are not part of a
larger project which large project would be
countywide in impact.
3 . Non-residential or mixed use projects generating
between 101 and 1500 peak hour trips, when such
projects are not part of a larger. project which
large project would be countywide in impact.
4 . As Board of Appeals to consider appeals of
decisions of the Zoning Administrator.
5 . Holding meetings and taking testimony on local
proposed public works projects in order to provide
insights and recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors and the originating Department (i.e. ,
Public Works, General Services, etc. ) .
6 . Other matters specifically referred by the Board of
Supervisors.
4 . DETERMINE that under the County's adopted CEQA guidelines, the
division of the Planning Agency for hearings on Draft
Environmental Impact Reports is determined by the Director of
Community Development (the Board of Supervisors may express a
preference when reviewing proposed schedules for major items) .
5 . REQUEST the County Planning Commission to continue to meet in
various areas of the County when appropriate and to meet
jointly with the Regional Planning Commission when a project
of countywide impact is proposed within - the regional
commission's geographic area. The implementation of this
request should take into consideration the County Planning
Commission's other hearing obligations and hearing schedules .
In this regard, note that in the past two months the County
Planning Commission met:
A. In North Richmond on October 4, 1994, to conduct a public
hearing to rezone the area to P-1 .
B. In Rodeo on October 4, 1994, to conduct a public hearing
on the Unocal Clean Fuels Project.
C. In the San Ramon Valley on October 19, 1994 , October 26,
1994 , and November 9, 1994 in joint public hearings with
the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to
consider the "Country Club at Gale Ranch" project.
2
6 . DIRECT the Zoning Administrator to conduct evening hearings in
San Ramon Valley, East County, and West County on projects
located in those geographic areas, consistent with the
requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. Such meetings
should start in January or as activity warrants.
7 . DIRECT the Community Development Director to monitor the
activities of the three Commissions and the Zoning
Administrator and report back to the Board of Supervisors as
part of the Department's budget presentation for the 1995-1996
County Budget. In addition, DIRECT the Community Development
Director to include within the Department's budget request for
the 1995-96 fiscal year projections of anticipated planning,
and general plan proposals with plan implementation and
application work load for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal years
and the possible impact of these activities on Commission
activities.
8. REMOVE this subject as a referral to the 1994 Internal
Operations Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On ' October 18, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a report
from our Committee which included the following directions to
staff:
1 . DIRECT the Director, Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency, to return to our Committee on December 12,
1994 with additional information on the County Planning
Commission and Regional Planning Commissions, to include at
least the following:
J Additional clarification of criteria by which a decision
is made (or could be made in the future) to refer a given
application to the County Planning Commission rather than
one of the regional planning commissions .
./ What are the local concerns and what are the regional
concerns that should influence the decision to refer ,an
application to the County Planning Commission as opposed
to one of the regional planning commissions?
J What procedure and process could be used to get the
County Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator into
the community more often in order to insure local input
on issues?
J What process can the Board of Supervisors implement to
most effectively insure that both local concerns and
regional concerns are heard and fully considered without
tilting the process either toward local concerns or
regional concerns?
2. DIRECT the Director, Growth Management and Economic
Development Agency, to invite the members of the County
Planning Commission and regional planning commissions to
provide their comments and recommendations on what steps the
Board of Supervisors can take to improve the process of
insuring that we have in place as objective a system as
possible for receiving and considering all relevant local
issues and concerns as well as all relevant regional issues
and concerns .
On December 121 1994 our Committee met with Val Alexeeff, Harvey
Bragdon, Dennis Barry, Vic Westman and representatives from the San
Ramon area and the East County Regional Planning Commission. Mr.
Bragdon reviewed the attached report, which we agreed to endorse as
presented.
3
Representatives from the East County Regional Planning Commission
indicated their opposition to the October, 1995 sunset date for
further review of the Regional Planning Commissions and also voiced
their opposition to the use of the 1500 unit figure for the County
Planning Commission. They indicated they would prefer that the
Regional Planning Commissions be left with authority up to 2500
units .
It is the opinion of our Committee that it will be important to
maintain flexibility and communications among the Commissions and
between the Commissions and County staff. We are asking for
presentations as a part of the Department's budget presentations
this coming summer and are also asking that the Department report
back with an update on the activity of the Commissions and on the
implementation of the above recommendations well in advance of
October 1, 1995 so that the Board of Supervisors has time to make
a reasoned decision regarding the future of the Regional Planning
Commissions .
cc: County Administrator
Val Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management & Economic Development Agency
Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director
Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
4
ATTACHMENT E D.14
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON - Court
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
SUBJECT: NEED FOR CLARIFICATION ON PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR SAN RAMON/
DANVILLE AREA PROJECTS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. REAFFIRM the Board of Supervisor's action on December 20, 1994
(attached), dealing with the duties of the County's three planning
commissions.
B. DIRECT staff to process an ordinance amendment which clarifies the duties
of the three commissions consistent with that prior Board direction.
C. CLARIFY that the County Planning Commission (CPC) is the official hearing
body for the Dougherty Valley (Phase 2), Wendt Ranch and Tassajara
Meadows projects.
D. RATIFY the proposed hearing schedules (Attachments 1, 2, and 3).
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of staff time and for facilities for the public hearings on these projects and
for preparation of the ordinance code changes.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURP/
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS 'ECOMkIODED _ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: James Cutler (5101335-1236) ATTESTED
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK 0'
County Administrator THE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
Public Works Department AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
County Counsel
Applicants (via CDD)
BY DEPUT
JWC:gms
p16\bo/HrgProc.SRA
Need for Clarification on Public Hearing Process
for San Ramon/ Danville Area Projects
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Each recommendation is discussed below:
A. REAFFIRM Prior Board Policy on Roles of the Commissions
In the fall of 1994, the Community Development Department, in consultation
With representatives of the Regional Planning Commissions and the Internal
Operations Committee, worked out the General duties of the various planning
commissions. On December 20, 1994, the Board of Supervisors approved a
report from the Internal Operations Committee which extended the lives of the
regional commissions and outlined the way the Ordinance Code, continuing
the existence the regional commissions, should be interpreted. A copy is
attached.
This Board direction indicated that for General Plan amendment requests or
Specific Plan proposals generating over 1,500 peak hour trips or for
subdivision applications over 1,500 units within a regional planning
commission jurisdiction and part of a larger project, that the CPC will be the
official hearing body. Regional Planning Commissions would have primary
jurisdiction over smaller projects according to the Ordinance Code. The
Board's action reflected the view that projects which exceed this threshold
were Countywide in scope and impact and should be reviewed from a
Countywide perspective.
The Board of Supervisor's December 20, 1994 action clearly spells this
approach out. That Board action directed this policy was in effect until
October 2, 1995 since that was when the regional commissions were set to
expire. The Board action anticipated, that in late 1995 these policies would
be reviewed when consideration of extension of the regional commissions was
scheduled to take place.
Unfortunately, the action extending the Commissions on September 26, 1995,
merely extended the Commissions time frame until October 7, 1995. It made
no reference to the prior Board direction on large projects as outlined in the
December 12, 1994 Board Order. The Board Order of September 26, 1995,
extending the regional commissions, reference the continued work on
Dougherty Valley, Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association, and Cowell
Ranch. It failed to clarify that the existing Board policy on large projects was
carried forward along with the Regional Commissions extension.
The failure to include the roles of the Commission within the ordinance code
appears to have been an oversight. The remedy is to REAFFIRM that policy
until the ordinance code can be clarified in this regard.
B. DIRECT STAFF to process an ordinance code amendment.
if the board wishes to reaffirm the policy listed above, staff should follow-up
with an amendment to codify that policy.
C. CLARIFY that the CPC is the hearing body for the review of the Dougherty
Valley (Phase 2), the Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows projects.
JWC:gms
�� 06\bo\HmProc SRA
Need for Clarification on Public Hearing Process
for San Ramon/ Danville Area Projects
Page 3
As indicated above, the Board action of December 20, 1994 greatly simplified
the public hearing process for projects that contain 1,500 residential units or
that are a component part of a project larger than 1,500 units.
Staff is in need of additional guidance on how to best proceed with
consideration of the Dougherty Valley (Phase 2), Wendt Ranch and Tassajara
Meadows projects.
1. Dougherty Valley
When the original Dougherty Valley project was considered in 1992, the
CPC was the "official hearing body" for that effort, however, joint
hearings were held with both the CPC and SRVRPC. After the public
hearings were complete, - each Commission considered
recommendations separately. Under the December 20, 1994 Board
decision, only the CPC would need to hold hearings on the next phase
of the Dougherty Valley approvals.
2. Wendt Ranch and Tassajara Meadows
In late 1995, the Board of Supervisors considered requests for the
authorization of both these projects. Both were historically part of the
Tassajara Valley Property Owners Association (TVPOA) project. At the
Board meeting at the Clayton Library, a range of opinions and
approaches were presented on how integrated planning would be
approached in the area.
Ultimately, it was decided to separate the Tassajara Meadows project
totally from the TVPOA proposal, and it was to be processed separately
without reference to TVPOA.
The decision was slightly different as it related to the Wendt Ranch
project. Here the Board decided that the Wendt Ranch project could
also be authorized as a separate plan amendment, but that it should
continue to be considered as a part of the larger HPOA proposal.
In discussion on timing, our staff indicated to the Board that it was
anticipated that the TVPOA EIR would be out first and that the Wendt
Ranch EIR would follow. This has not turned out to be the case. The
TVPOA EIR has been delayed, well beyond staff expectations, to allow
for adequate time to explore traffic solutions in the area that would be
required for consideration of the project.
Both the Wendt and Tassajara Meadows Draft EIR's have been
released for public review; TVPOA's Draft EIR is anticipated to be
released in October or November.
Since many of the environmental issues would be similar for both
projects, the same environmental consultants, Environmental Science
Associates, was hired to do both jobs. Traffic issues and public
services issues appear to tie these two projects together. In fact, if
East Bay Municipal Utility District,(EBMUD) requires a new water tank
to be constructed to serve these two projects, the Draft EIRs examines
JWC:gms
r
Need for Clarification on Public Hearing Process
for San Ramon/ Danville Area Projects
Page 4
a site on Dougherty Valley lands. It is becoming difficult to separate
off-site requirements for these two projects.
Since the Wendt Ranch hearing body is presumed to be the CPC
(based on prior Board action discussed above), it might be practical
and consistent to have the same hearing body hear both applications.
If this is desired, the CPC should be the official hearing body for all
three projects.
D. PROVIDE guidance on the hearing schedule as may be appropriate.
The applicants for all three projects have urged County staff to insure action
on their applications by the current Board of Supervisors since they are
familiar with the requests and the issues surrounding them.
Staff is not in a position to respond to that request. Once items are scheduled
before a Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors, those bodies
have ultimate control over the decision making process and whether or not
items will be continued on their agendas. Staff indicated that since guidance
was needed on hearing bodies, we would mention this to the Board so that the
Board could give further direction on this matter, if so desired.
To help understand the issues involved with this, attached are schedules for
the three projects based on the most optimistic assumptions.
As can be seen, these schedules are very tight!
To meet these schedules, all the following need to occur and be allowed to
occur:
1 the close of comments date for the EIR's needs to be maintained;
1 the staff will need to anticipate that certain actions will occur on.a given
date so that public hearings can be adequately noticed for the next
superior hearing body;
1 the opportunity for additional public hearings will be limited due to
hearing notice legalities;
1 that there are no good reasons for additional continuances of public
hearings;
1 recognize that the Better Government Ordinance time lines for release
of written information may not be achievable; and
1 that the technical production efforts allows the schedule to be met and
that adequately sized meeting places are available.
JWC:gms