HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12011987 - 2.7 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ° +
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Cwtrd
Director of Community Development
0 Cpsta
DATE: November 17 , 1967 cirty
SUBJECT: Request of Richard Dillon for Planning Congress Review of the
Oakley Area General Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS °
Determine if it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors that the
Planning Congress consider changes in the Oakley Area General Plan
as suggested by. Mr. Dillon.
0
FISCAL IMPACT
0
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
O
On October 29, 1987, staff received the attached letter from
Richard Dillon requesting that the topic of the Oakley Area General
Plan be placed on the agenda for the Planning Congress and that the
Area General Plan be referred to a Subcommittee to explore changes
he feels are needed in the Plan.
Mr. Dillon makes a number of statements in his letter regarding the
propriety of the process leading to approval of the Area General "
Plan. Although staff does not agree with these statements, Mr.
Dillon was requested to specify what particular changes he was
seeking in the Oakley Area General Plan. In response, on November
16, 1987, Mr. Dillon submitted the attached maps indicating the
areas which he suggests should be limited to a density of one
dwelling unit per acre, rather than the 1 to 3, 3 to 5 or 5 to 7
unit per net acre currently designated in the Oakley Area General
Plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNA .4 tj-.�
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATTM OFIB9ARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON D .rPmhPr 1 , 1A87 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x
The. Board ACKNOWLEDGED letter from Richard Dillion relative to changes
in the Oakley-'Area General Plan; and DETERMINED to take. no action on request
to refer the matter to the Planning Congress .
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.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED December 1 , 1987
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Community Development c/o Richard Dillon THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY DEPUTY
HEB/DB/mb
IA-2 .dillon.bos
aquest of Richard Dillon for Planning Congress Review
E the Oakley Area General Plan
age 2
On November 12, 1987 , staff discussed Mr. Dillon' s request with the
Planning Congress Coordinating Committee, which is composed of the
Chair of the Congress and the three subcommittee chairs. (The
Congress Chair was unable to attend the Coordinating Committee
meeting. ) The consensus of the Coordinating Committee was that the
request should be referred to the Board of Supervisors for guidance
on whether it was their intent that the Planning Congress focus
specifically on the Oakley Area General Plan in isolation from the
rest of the County. The Committee also suggested County Counsel be
consulted, since the Area General Plan is currently the subject of
litigation.
After discussion, County Counsel concurred that the matter could be
referred to the Board to determine if the requested review was
consistent with the Board of Supervisors charge to the Planning
Congress.
I
October 29, 1987
Dennis Barry �� u3 L: ' U
Community Development U
Department OCT 2 91987
Contra Costa County
Planning Congress CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
651 Pine Street, North Wing . C�Ml�f!(;'did 4' D`bELO!',4tENT
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Review of the Oakley Area General Plan
Dear Mr. Berry:
Please consider this a formal request to place the
topic of the Oakley Area General Plan on the Agenda for
the Contra Costa County Planning Congress. As a member
of the Congress, and as a resident of Oakley, I am requesting
that the entire Oakley Area General Plan be reviewed by
the Planning Congress in its' formulation in a County Wide
General Plan, and that specifically the following areas
be addressed:
a. Land Use and Density: The Oakley Area General
Plan as adopted by the Board of Supervisors fails to reflect
the reality of existing densities in the community. As
a result, every sub-division application which has been
received since adoption of the Oakley Area General Plan
has given rise to a great deal of community controversy,
resulting in lengthy, acrimonious Public Hearings at both
the OMAC and East County Regional Planning Commission levels.
b. Growth Management Element: The current growth
management element of the Oakley Area General Plan has
done nothing to control or regulate the rate of growth
in Oakley. Since adoption of the Oakley Area General Plan,
approximately 2,000 new residential units have been proposed
for development in Oakley, and the only factors which might
prevent all of those units from being developed at the
same time are market factors, not the Growth Management
Element of the Plan.
C. Transportation Planning: The Oakley Area General
Plan was conceived and approved without adequately tieing
the plan into a Transportation Master Plan for the entire
County. Steps should be taken immediately to intergrate
the Oakley Area General Plan into the County-wide
transportation element.
d. Phasing of Densities: The Oakley Area General
Plan has attempted to experiment with phraseology controling
the phasing of housing densities, which leaves almost all
of the discretion 'in determining how to phase those densities
with County staff. In the brief time since this policy
has been adopted, it has clearly demonstrated that additional
guidance is needed in order to adequately meet the needs
of the local Community, and provide both the developer
and community residents with guidelines concerning what
they can reasonably expect.
I regret that such a review needs to be made of a
Plan which has so recently been approved by the County
Board of Supervisors. Unfortunately, many of the items
which I have identified above as being in need of review
were not subject to rigorous public hearing due to the
manner in which the General Plan was formulated and adopted.
While it is true that informal public hearings involving
hundreds of Oakley residents were held over a period of
three (3) years before the Oakley Municipal Advisory Council,
those Hearings, and the Staff Report, which included the
proposal to designate all of Oakley as a PUD, the growth
management element, the modification of the densities being
considered by GMAC, and the policy concerning the phasing
of densities, were not developed by staff and submitted
to GMAC and the Regional Planning Commission until after
OMAC had concluded its ' • public hearing process. At that
point in time, many of the residents of Oakley, who felt
that they had been afforded an opportunity to provide input,
had gone home, satisfied that their task was done. The
end result was that as the General Plan moved through the
final stages of approval at the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors level, with minimal community input.
The final plan which was adopted did not reflect the
original OMAC Land Use Map which accurately reflected areas
of Oakley which are currently subdivided into one (1 ) acre
lots. The current plan does not reflect OMAC's
recommendation concerning the phasing of housing densities
between higher and lower density subdivisions, which policy
statement was specific enough to have avoided much of the
controversy currently being aired at public hearings on
applications being brought before the commission. Nor
did the community have a full opportunity to understand
the consequences of the growth management element, and
designating the entire community as a planned unit
development. Only now, months after the plan has been
adopted, has even the Planning Commission been given the
benefit of workshops to fully explain the consequences
of PUD Development. Lastly, the Oakley Area General Plan,
did not adequately attempt to intergrate its ' road system
with the transportation network servicing the balance of
the County.
Given all of these facts, I have been approached by
a number of residents in the community, . who are interested
and pursuing an amendment to the Oakley Area General Plan.
I was advised, however, by County Staff, that given the
fact that the Contra Costa County Planning Congress is
currently revising the County Wide General Plan, that it
would perhaps be more appropriate to bring these issues
before the Congress, rather than having .the residents of
the community file an application with the Board of
Supervisors for a direct amendment of the Oakley Area General
Plan. (See attached letter) . I would therefore respectfully
request that this matter be placed on the Planning Congress'
Agenda, and that this matter be referred to a sub-committee
to explore those changes which are currently needed in
the Oakley Area General Plan.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Dillon
1 `\Q&dn:I.WLSIMAN orrlcr:or COIrtJIYCOIJ ;II ilrf'I I11F'7
COIINrY coUP1SFl_ $n Aln m 1 AnI n n.• •,
SIL VAfiO 11.rd AN1JH F?GI
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY "'A °h "i
AtiTI 11177 W,WAi.r N'I'A•JIi. vu 191 1 ,AVA•.
(7.01J141 Y AtItAlI11S1RAIVIII 111)11 I•Irir; VV rvJ I1.1111, Ant
A5.^•ISI Ali IG
I II I JAI 1 111111
rau I Inn.It.r Ann
P.O.DOX CM 111'11111'., 1.1:A1.
Fuwnnu v.1 Mr.JIi. MAR I INI J,r:Al_lI OHNIA D.t!i!;.!r r y u; 11 vAn1 III 11 1.1 11 1 .
P I VIII I I'.1 111;
rmNcn>nt u1'run¢ 1'l lgror lnlsl i,;;11)11 r.1Au�An111.1.11111
;r 1,1 ?Inber 2 , 1 987 ;g1V;1 f'.911I..P,.I
;Juli.e E. MCI)orlt).Ld
Staff ALtorney
Sierra Club l.lectal. 17efe1-ise Fund, ]AW .
2044 F.i..11moto Street
all 1'.1"anci !71':(I CA 1)41.1.5
i �:::•.._fl....
• 11 ._1'.:...:r...
Re : Mt. Diablo Audubon SOC-LOL , eL al V . Contra Costa County
Dear Ms . McDonald:
Thi.s rnsportds tb your 8- 1.8-ft7 redur`.,I: for i.nrormilJon . 'I'llo
following par.agraplls correspond to Lhosc in your leLl:cl:
l. . we ex1)r?ct to p.resenl-. a draft-. clonr'ra1. plan to Ih1' 111an11inrl
Con(jribss i.n Decrulber 1.987 . Assumi.nrl thc, Congress , rcv.i ew
three monL-hs , we would exprcL Lo .i.11i.ti.c-lte hearings hnforn I:ho
Comity Plajin.i.nct Commission .i.n March 1.988 .
2. . ll: i.r; ant.i.ci.pated that Llle adopl:i.mi would take hlacr, in
:June 1988 .
3a . '.I'hc I:evi.sed General. Plan wi.l.l he comprehensive in sropn
and will replace all existing elemertl:s ;Ind Area Genera]
3b. Jt i.:; not possible at th.i.s ti.nu to prerl i.cl_ whol:hor
subsL-ant.ial changes w.l.11. be made 1.11 the onumeratrrl r?] nmelll s oF I:ho
Oakley Area General. Plan. For instance , the land Its- olom(?nl 11my
or may not: b1'? :i.ncorlpprated w.i.LhouL chan(lo in the rf:!vi.!;( d plan .
S.i.ncc the_rev.i!;.i.on will be compr.ehellrJvn , .11.1. or t:hc nlnnv`nt ;; wi
be !;r1b_ject: in 1-.he Publi-c. h(naring L>rnccss aril dor.is.ir,n by holh III•,
County Planni.ncl Connni.ssion and the ttoar.d of Sliporvisorr: .
3c . Ar J.n(11.c,1L(?d abovr , tho ( 111-JI-f' Colllity Gollotal 11I :III ,
i.nclud:i.ng Lhe Oakley Area General. Il an i.1'; !:uh j1'>ct. Ln I—Vi "'..2 .
whc,l.her .i.t w.i:1 1 he revi.sed wi l. i. 1'l( 1x`nd itipm I:hr' otil ,•Inn" 111 111-
rev
f1roI-Illat:toll , provl.(lnd Lo InC'. by 1'.11C collllmilll.I y 111`v1>it1111nI'rll
Dep,, rLtnc?n. !i1:.;1rf , 1.s our hr`i1. of;I-.lIlia l.f' ) Ilowr�vnr . !;r`vr•I';ll Iar:tl,rr'
which cannot he accurately Predicted could chnnitr` I:hin1l!; . I'h1
i.nc:hide L-he rai:c? aC which HW Pl.anni.liq c'ongr(Is!-, conlltlr-I:!; il.r•
1"Q Ji,r}w, thr` alllolint of Cl.tl.zoll p'il 'l:.6-ip'll: oll .1.11 i:Ilr' llr'al 11111 111-r,r'1
1)C1017r? the PI.:.InIll.Ilr1 C0II1mi.ssiioil and lloarrl (1r supl v1.57r)r!: , and I it,
ra1l.i.di.ty wi.tll wh.tcli other jul:i.sd:i.cL.i.on; i.an rQ!;pond Lo
ror i.nfot ntal_ i.I)n , pl ii- .i.cul.al l y wi.t-.h 1'r?s1r1>1 I. I r, i.nlrlr m;l l i l,ll
coni'f'r.ni.nd Ira n!;prlrl:ati.on nr!Lworl: imlrrnvr`nlnnl 11111 j1' c I ;
JUJ i.n E. MCDOM711A `'opt--o lhor 2 , 1 '187
1:11it; acloclual-.ol.y anr;wr I:r; yolir r.filost-.i.uns . I f
cool free, t
Very L-r.ul.y yours ,
Vi.rLor J . 1-1r,F;LInaII
collllLy Colllls(r]-
By : Si.lvano B. flall'.1w; i.
I'nunl:y Comv;r• I
513A1:d C
cc: Commun.i Ly Oevel-opincrit Uepar. i:rnenl:.
AI.Ln : lf,;Ill G. jle:;ick , ollnlnni-
u
o U'
k
i
a a l�l xa
w-� •p 49 �
'r
.i. z h t dF t l �>•'
^•^ • r, t •lM.rlY ,�- o
a
a � i
f W �
n t e j - .�� I t •.g _ _ y
Y �
f _G
c• t" _
s
D _
� a n
e
i 4
4
------------------------ - - .._
- ---"- - - -
_ _ --
-_..":yam-,�• �_,-_ ��..��
.V
�J
",1 g 4.29
N_
�I ,rT�1�_y •' '--• y 00001. �V � 1�
z _
\ II I
•� O
V
\
6
e I ;
' + u
7
----- -----
Ilk
__ __==
kk k�
o
9ZH
C%I
Ft i
n�
it
fit
...............
fill
it "t t
tp
F1
92P
I
E Ln
-------------
------------- ------------
it
II
- - --------
--------------
it
O
IF I
Ii
II.............. JL
-----------
p
O
00 ----------
LoL-
4 P,• .0
Ni ip�14.4 V
6*1 T'11:
Mang
MFT
z Fx ----------T-1 "I',
T-1 I I I
;i 7-4-:I'!le 1-!n "Inf; [tr
iO
tZH
H25 T
IP I
11
01
---------- ---------
II iit
11
I II
I ii
------------
I
7T
---- ---------
H27