Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Meeting When: Where: Wednesday, September 23, 2015-7:00 P.M. Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553 AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Public Comment - Provides an opportunity for any member of the public to speak on any item under the purview of the ALUC that is not on the agenda. Consent (Items are subject to removal from Consent Calendar by request of any Commissioner or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the discussion items under Public Hearing. ) 3. Past and Pending Projects Report. Page 2* Public Hearing 4. RECEIVE report on funding of Contra Costa ALUC activities. Page 5* 5. Staff Updates 6. Commissioner Updates 7. Adjournment * - Attachment
Item 3 ALUC Packet Page: 2
Project Initiation File#/Name Location (Lead Agency) Description/Staff Determination ALUC Evaluation Completion Approval by Lead Agency August 2015 PLN15-0162: Redevelopment of Diablo Valley College ( DVC ) Shopping Plaza APN: 153-300-001; -004 and 153-270-001 (City of Pleasant Hill) Extensive remodel of the existing retail buildings at the DVC Shopping Plaza. This does not include the former K-Mart building and McDonalds restaurant at this time. Site improvements including new landscaping, hardscape and parking lot improvements. A new dog park. A new walking/bicycle trail extending from Golf Club Road to Chilpancingo Parkway adjacent to Grayson Creek. New freestanding signs (3), at entrances off of Golf Club Road and Old Quarry Road, up to 8 6 in height. A new 1,350 square foot building and a freestanding sign, up to a maximum height of 67 feet, located at 61 Chilpancingo Parkway. ALUC staff determined while the proposed project may be generally consistent with the applicable compatibility criteria, sufficient detail is not available to find the project fully consistent with the Plan. ALUC staff recommended the applicant request an FAA Obstruction Evaluation for the proposed 67 foot sign. Project may go before full ALUC. 8/25/15 Pending May 2015 PL150147: New Warehouse APN: 112-251-006-010 (City of Concord) Application to construct an approximately 19,096 square foot warehouse (33-6 building height) on a 0.90-acre parcel at 2371 Stanwell Drive, Concord. Application scheduled for 6/24/15 ALUC hearing. 6/24/15 Pending March 2015 CV15-0021: Carport and Solar Installation, Pacheco APN: 125-020-066 (Contra Costa County) Proposed installation of five (5) new carport structures (max height 21 ) and five (5) new carport mounted photovoltaic (PV) systems. Proposal does not contain characteristics likely to result in inconsistencies with the compatibility criteria set forth in the Plan. 3/18/15 Pending December 2014 (N/A): T-Mobile 1480 Gasoline Alley, Concord APN: 112-220-005 (City of Concord) Staff reviewed proposal to add 3 antennas with associated equipment to existing guyed tower at the request of Concord staff (no formal application submitted to City at the time of this review). Project would not be inconsistent with the ALUCP (site partially within SZ-4). Existing guyed tower may be within future departure surface. Staff recommended applicant consult with Director of Airports regarding height of any temporary construction equipment. 12/16/14 No formal application submitted ALUC Packet Page: 3
Project Initiation File#/Name Location (Lead Agency) Description/Staff Determination ALUC Evaluation Completion Approval by Lead Agency PLN14-0457: Retail Tenant Building (Pleasant Hill Shopping Center) APN: 153-030-106 (City of Pleasant Hill) Proposed 4,150 square-foot stand-alone tenant building. Proposal does not contain characteristics likely to result in inconsistencies with the compatibility criteria set forth in the Plan. 12/18/14 Pending October 2014 PL14-0357: Verizon Wireless Mt. Diablo High School (City of Concord) The proposed project would replace an existing football/track field light pole with a monopole with associated wireless service equipment and the existing light standards. The monopole would not obstruct Buchanan Field s protected airspace. Comment to the City of Concord indicated that light standards should be shielded or downward facing so they do not aim above the horizon creating a potential distraction and flight hazard. Overall, proposal does not contain characteristics likely to result in inconsistencies with the compatibility criteria set forth in the Plan. 10/9/14 Approved August 2014 LP14-2046: Major grading work for contractor s yard. North Martinez/Pacheco (Contra Costa County) Project site not within any of the Buchanan Field safety zones. No structures were proposed. Staff did not need to provide a formal consistency determination. 8/8/14 n/a March 2014 PR14-0002: Minor Subdivision Hosie Ave., Byron APN: 002-040-067 & 068 (Contra Costa County) Proposed minor subdivision of an approximately 30 acre parcel into four parcels and a designated remainder. Proposal does not contain characteristics likely to result in inconsistencies with the compatibility criteria set forth in the Plan. 4/1/14 n/a (pre-app review) February 2014 PL14-0047: Commercial Development 1100 Concord Avenue, Concord APN 126-010-054 (City of Concord) Proposed commercial development including the demolition of an existing 9,500 sq. ft. building and the construction of two (2) new buildings of approximately 7,000 and 8,000 sq. ft. Proposal does not contain characteristics likely to result in inconsistencies with the compatibility criteria set forth in the Plan. 2/19/14 Approved ALUC Packet Page: 4
Item 4 ALUC Packet Page: 5
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 674-7209 Fax: (925) 674-7250 TO: FROM: Members, Airport Land Use Commission Robert Sarmiento, Transportation Planning Division DATE: September 23, 2015 SUBJECT: Funding of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Activities Background Staffing of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) is a joint effort between the Public Works Department (Airports Division) and the Department of Conversation and Development (DCD). Currently and historically, DCD provides ALUC staff support, given the land-use planning aspect of the role. The Airports Division reimburses DCD staff charges through its operating budget, which is sourced from the Airport Enterprise Fund. At the June 24, 2015 ALUC meeting, DCD staff presented an item describing a proposal to conduct a survey of other ALUC s fee schedules, which would help provide a basis when developing the County s own ALUC fee schedule, and present the results to the Commission at a future ALUC meeting. The Commission discussed various methods of assessing fees on applicants for ALUC review that the County ALUC can potentially implement. The discussion resulted in the following: The Commission expressed concern that the fee schedule that the County will eventually implement should be reasonably proportional to the costs of processing ALUC permits. The Commission requested information regarding the County s ALUC time and costs to process ALUC permits over the past few years. The Commission directed DCD staff to perform a survey of ALUC fee schedules from other counties, specifically focusing on counties that were comparable to Contra Costa County. The Commission directed DCD staff to identify ALUC costs and time over the past five years. The Commission requested that the information be presented at a future ALUC meeting. Discussion This report is intended to respond to direction from the ALUC at its June 24 meeting. Per direction from the Commission, DCD staff conducted a survey on a number of other counties ALUCs to determine their fee schedules (Attachment A). To provide a basis for comparing the County to the other similar counties, DCD staff identified the population, number of airports and median household income for each of these counties. G:\Transportation\R. Sarmiento\Committees\County\ALUC\ALUC Fee Schedule\9-23-15 ALUC Meeting\ALUC Fee Schedule Memo.docx ALUC Packet Page: 6
Results Some ALUCs did not assess a fee. For the ALUCs that did assess a fee, the method of assessment varied, including: A flat fee for all projects Fees dependent on the type and complexity of the project being reviewed An hourly rate based on the salary of the staff reviewing the application Because of the diversity of assessment methods, the fees assessed by the different counties ALUCs for project review varied substantially as well, from a few hundred dollars to more than three thousand dollars. In addition, ALUCs had different minimum submittal requirements, with some ALUCs requiring specific submittal requirements for ALUC applications, usually detailed in a checklist, while other ALUCs using the same or very similar submittal requirements as their respective County s land-use permit applications. The fee schedule survey also included the following information from each of the other counties ALUC that would be useful in developing the County s ALUC fee schedule: Date of ALUC fee schedule adoption, if any Date(s) of ALUC fee schedule updates, if any How their ALUC fee schedule was determined Process for assessing fees for agency referrals (i.e. how cities remit payment to the ALUC/county for its review) DCD retrieved County ALUC costs and time from FY 2011/2012 through FY 2014/2015 (Attachment B). Costs and time are broken out by staff, administration, and overhead. ALUC time and costs vary considerably from year to year due to the number, complexity, and controversial nature of the projects that were reviewed in that year. Recommendation Receive report and direct DCD staff to: develop draft options for a County ALUC fee schedule, incorporating comments from the Commission, and bring the draft to a future ALUC meeting for discussion or action. Attachments: Attachment A Statewide ALUC Fee Schedule Comparison Attachment B Annual ALUC Costs and Time Attachment C Proposed Process for ALUC Fee Implementation cc: John Kopchik, DCD Director Maureen Toms, DCD Deputy Director John Cunningham, DCD Principal Planner Jamar I. Stamps, DCD Senior Planner Keith R. Freitas, Director of Airports Beth Lee, Assistant Director of Airports G:\Transportation\R. Sarmiento\Committees\County\ALUC\ALUC Fee Schedule\9-23-15 ALUC Meeting\ALUC Fee Schedule Memo.docx ALUC Packet Page: 7
ATTACHMENT A - Statewide ALUC Fee Schedule Comparison County Population Median Income Number of Airports Contra Costa 1,102,871 $78,756 2 Agency Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Current Fee Date of Adoption Date(s) Modified How Fee was Determined Minimum Submittal Requirements Process for Accessing Fees for Agency Referrals None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A County Population Median Income Number of Airports Alameda 1,594,569 $72,112 3 Agency Alameda County Community Development Agency, Planning Department Current Fee -Administrative Review- $500 flat fee -Commission Determination Hearingadditional $500 flat fee Date of Adoption Date(s) Modified Before 2000 2001 Fee based on staff salary and time. How Fee was Determined Minimum Submittal Requirements Process for Accessing Fees for Agency Referrals Minimum submittal requirements detailed in Alameda County's ALUC project application form. Amador 36,312 $53,684 1 Amador County Planning Department None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Butte 224,323 $43,752 4 Humboldt 134,398 $41,426 9 Kern 874,264 $48,552 16 Los Angeles 10,136,559 $55,909 15 Madera 155,878 $45,625 2 Mendocino 88,863 $43,469 6 Butte County/Department of Development Services Planning Division Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning $687.86 minimum 2013 Never Modified Fee based on staff salary and time. -Minor Project- $1,494 flat fee -Major Project- $3,000 minimum fee, plus planner time and materials 2004 March 1 Annually Fee based on the tasks involved, estimated amount of time required to process the entitlement and hourly rate for each staff member. Staff first created a list of all the tasks involved for each aviation permit (minor & major), then the title of each staff member, as well as their hourly rate and approximate time to complete each task. Minimum submittal requirements detailed in Butte County's ALUC project application form. Applicant pays the fee to the local jurisdiction, who then forwards it to the County Treasurer. The ALUC retrieves the fees from the County Treasurer. Applicant must pay the fee to the ALUC directly. County of Humboldt - Department of Public Actual cost for the review process and Fee based on all costs incurred throughout ALUC review process and hearing for a No minimum submittal requirements. Submittal requirements vary for each Applicant may pay the fee to the local jurisdiction, who then forwards 2010 Never Modified Works - Land Use Division hearing for the project ($2,500 deposit) project. project. it to the ALUC, or pay the fee to the ALUC directly. Kern County Planning & Community Development Department None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Minimum submittal requirements detailed in Los Angeles County's ALUC project application form. Madera County Community & Economic Development, Planning Division Mendocino County Planning and Building Services Department $1,239.20, plus automation fee. Mid 1990s Annually -Government Agency - $500 flat fee -Private Party - $1,000 flat fee Monterey 425,413 $59,168 4 Monterey County Planning Department $798.17 flat fee 2011 2012, 2013, 2014 Placer 369,454 $72,725 3 Riverside 2,308,441 $56,529 14 Sacramento 1,470,912 $55,064 14 Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) San Benito 58,344 $66,237 2 San Benito Council of Governments (COG) San Bernardino 2,104,291 $54,090 16 County of San Bernardino, Land Use Services Department All fees below are minimum fees, with additional fee imposed based on time and materials -Minor Project- $250 -Major Project- $750 (Supplemental Deposit - $2,500) -Mandatory Project- $1,250 (Supplemental Deposit- $2,500) -ALUC Appeals- $50 Flat fees based on type of permit to be obtained. Some examples: -General Plan- $1,188 -Conditional Use Permit- $792 -Environmental Impact Report- $1,815 -Building Permit- $347 Fee based on staff time (ALUC staff and staff from other departments), time and materials of support staff, and stipend for the ALUC. To avoid back and forth, hence causing project delays, staff has preconsultation meetings prior to application submittal. The pre-consultation is also to save money. Submittal requirements are the same for land-use submittals (site map, elevations, etc.). Early 2000s Never Modified Fee based on rate for time, materials, and noticing. Description of Project, Density, Height, Noise. Fee based on four hours of staff time, plus administrative fees to review and process the application, including preparation of a staff report for the ALUC hearing. 1997 2014 Fee based on staff salary and time. 2004 2007 Submittal requirements for ALUC projects are similar to, but not the same as, land use development/permit requirements. However, each project/application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the submittal requirements may be modified (e.g., expanded or reduced) based on staff review/discussions with the applicant or local jurisdiction staff. Minimum submittal requirements for ALUC project submittals can be found in Sections 2.9 and 2.10 of Placer County's ALUCP (http://www.pctpa.net/library/aluc/final%20report/document/plc.chap% 202.Procedural%20Policies.2014-02-26.pdf). Fee based on each type of project that the applicant has submitted to the local jurisdiction. Over multiple cases, these fees average out to cover costs. A benefit Minimum submittal requirements detailed in Riverside County's ALUC of flat fees is that the financial obligation is known up front. It s transparent and project application form. predictable. This at least results in (presumably) no back and forth in terms of requests for additional fee deposits. None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Minimum Application Fee- $300 Additional fee calculated based on staff hourly rates, from $45.27 to $120.00. 2013 Never Modified Fee based on cost recovery and hourly rate of staff. Minimum submittal requirements detailed in San Benito County's ALUC project application form. None N/A N/A N/A N/A None San Diego 3,227,496 $62,962 16 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Santa Barbara 437,643 $62,779 4 Santa Clara 1,889,638 $91,702 5 Sonoma 496,253 $63,356 6 Santa Barbara County Association of Governments / Santa Barbara County Airport None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Land Use Commission Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department -Da Minimus- $387 flat fee -Minor Project - $700 flat fee -Major Project- $3,500 flat fee 2004 2009 Tehama 64,323 $41,924 2 Tehama County Planning Department $540 flat fee 1998 Never Modified Fee based on staff salary and time. Tuolumne 54,337 $48,426 2 Tuolumne County Community Resources Agency, Planning Division Ventura 848,073 $76,554 4 Ventura County Transportation Commission $500 flat fee 2000 Never Modified Fee based on staff salary and time. Fee based on staff hourly rate and average annual ALUC costs for the past five years and full-cost recovery over a ten-year span. Submittal requirements are similar to land-use applications, but require additional information, depending on the level of complexity of the project to be reviewed. None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Minimum submittal requirements detailed in Tehama County's ALUC project application form. None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Minimum submittal requirements detailed in Ventura County's ALUC project application form. Applicant may pay the fee to the local jurisdiction, who then forwards it to the ALUC, or pay the fee to the ALUC directly. Applicant pays ALUC directly. Applicant pays the fee to the local jurisdiction, who then forwards it to the ALUC. Applicant may pay the fee to the local jurisdiction, who then forwards it to the ALUC, or pay the fee to the ALUC directly. Applicant pays the fee to the local jurisdiction, who then forwards it to the ALUC. Applicant must pay the fee to the ALUC directly, with the exception of one jurisdiction, the March Joint Powers Authority, who receives the fee for projects within its jurisdiction and forwards it to the ALUC. For one of two cities in San Benito County, the applicant may pay the fee to the local jurisdiction, who then forwards it to the ALUC. For the other city, the applicant must pay the fee to the ALUC directly. Applicant pays the fee to the local jurisdiction, who then forwards it to the ALUC. Applicant must pay the fee to the ALUC directly. Applicant must pay the fee to the ALUC directly. 1 ALUC Packet Page: 8
ATTACHMENT B - Annual ALUC Costs and Time FY 2011/2012* Item # of Hours Cost Hourly Rate Total N/A $ 24,759.60 N/A FY 2012/2013 Item # of Hours Cost Hourly Rate Staff 163.2 $ 25,368.60 $ 155.44 Administrative 2.0 $ 208.60 $ 104.30 Total 165.2 $ 25,577.20 $ 154.83 FY 2013/2014 Item # of Hours Cost Hourly Rate Staff 165.7 $ 23,696.29 $ 143.01 Overhead N/A $ 770.48 N/A Total 165.7 $ 24,466.77 $ 147.66 FY 2014/2015 Item # of Hours Cost Hourly Rate Staff 199.3 $ 33,035.93 $ 165.76 Overhead N/A $ 65.10 N/A Total 199.3 $ 33,101.03 $ 166.09 *For FY 2011/2012, DCD staff could only obtain total ALUC ALUC Packet cost. Page: 9
ATTACHMENT C - Proposed Process for ALUC Fee Implementation 1. (Optional) County Staff communicates with ALUC Commissioners regarding the establishment of an ALUC fee schedule (February 20, 2015) 2. Commissioner(s) discusses the establishment of an ALUC fee schedule at public hearing and direct(s) staff to prepare a fee study (June 24, 2015) a. Public Utilities Code Section 21671.5(f) allows ALUCs to establish fee schedule for services provided b. Fees cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of services provided 3. Staff prepares a fee schedule study (Summer-Fall 2015) a. Analyzes ALUC programs, functions, and tasks and their costs b. Analyzes staff time and costs for review c. Conducts a survey of other counties ALUC fee schedule (Summer 2015; present results on September 23, 2015) d. Develop a draft fee schedule (Fall 2015) i. Method of fee assessment 1. Flat cost 2. Cost based on type and complexity of proposal 3. Pay-per-hour a. Based on hourly wage of staff b. Based on cost of program divided by staff time/hours 4. Combination of the above choices ii. Refundable or non-refundable iii. Reviewed annually or as needed (by recommendation) for adjustment iv. Receive feedback from County Counsel v. Discuss draft fee schedule with County officials 4. ALUC receives draft County fee schedule (Winter 2016) a. ALUC provides feedback on County fee schedule b. ALUC approves draft County fee schedule 5. ALUC holds a public hearing to formally adopt County fee schedule (Winter-Spring 2016) a. Solicit input from public and other interested parties at public hearing i. Based on Government Code Section 66016, County must hold at least one open and public meeting on fee establishment or change before adoption ii. County must mail notice of time and place of meeting must be mailed at least 14 days prior to meeting to any interested party who files a written request iii. County must make public data indicating costs required to provide the service for which the fee or service charge is levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service, including General Fund revenues available at least 10 days prior to the meeting b. County fee schedule effective no earlier than 60 days after adoption ALUC Packet Page: 10