HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06241997 - D6-D8 ra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON CoU
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 11nty
DATE: February 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Consideration of Oakley Old Town General Plan Amendment & Specific Plan
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Open the public hearing and receive testimony on the Oakley
Old Town General Plan Amendment and the related Oakley Old
Town Specific Plan concurrently.
2 . Close the public hearing and ADOPT the Oakley Old Town
Specific Plan Amendment and APPROVE the Oakley Old Town
General Plan Amendment subject to adoption of the second
consolidated General Plan Amendment being adopted.
3 . Include the Oakley Old Town General Plan Amendment as part of
the second consolidated General Plan Amendment for 1997
recommended by the East County Regional Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
Covered by Community Development and Redevelopment Agency budgets.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This project is in fulfillment of the County redevelopment program
for the community of Oakley.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURES '�i
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON lnne 24 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
See attached Addendum
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: Jim Cutler (335-1236)
cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED June 24 , 1997
CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
Public Works COUPTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY � , DEPUTY
J:\aw\oakotjwc.bo
ADDENDUM TO D.7
June 24, 1997 Agenda
on June 3, 1997, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on
the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the
request of the County of Contra Costa to consider modification of the County
General Plan policies for the Oakley Old Town General Plan Amendment,
Oakley (County File #GP 0005-95); and on the request of the County of Contra
Costa for the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan establishing policies, plans, and
programs to revitalize the area. Included are roadway infrastructure
improvements and realignment to State Route 4, other infrastructure
improvements, creating a commercial core as a center of economic activity and
major urban design activities, Oakley. (County File #SP 0003-95).
Dennis Barry and Jim Cutler, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report.
The public hearing was opened, and the following people presented testimony:
Brad Dozier, United Centro Properties, 305 N. El Dorado Street, Ste 301,
Stockton;
Curt Blomstrand, Capital Salvage, Inc., Oakley Hotel owner, 3675 Mt.
Diablo Blvd., Ste 110, Lafayette;
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the public hearing was closed,
and the Board considered the issues presented.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that staffs recommendations are
APPROVED; Resolution No. 97/337 is ADOPTED relative to the Oakley Old
Town General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment, with the
General Plan amendment to be included in the second consolidated General
Plan; decision on the design plan for the roadway realignment is DEFERRED
until after June 1998, after election results are known regarding Oakley's
incorporation, or until after the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
considers the feasibility of Oakley's incorporation; and any design review
process for the roadway realignment is DIRECTED to include input from the
Oakley Municipal Advisory Council (GMAC).
1
RESOLUTION NO. 19-1996
RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN, OAKLEY OLD TOWN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT#95-0005 AND
OAKLEY OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN#95-0003,FOR THE OAKLEY AREA.
WHEREAS,the County initiated a proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the
County General Plan. The request is to change the Land Use Designation on 54 acres in the
Oakley Old Town Specific Plan area; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the General Plan
Amendment study area and Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending changes in the proposed General Plan
amendment and Specific Plan for the area and circulated it to interested agencies, organizations
and individuals; and
WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the
East County Regional Planning Commission on Monday, August 5, 1996, and continued to
October 7, 1996; at which all persons interested might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, after taking public testimony on the issue, the public hearing was closed; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission
accepts the Environmental Impact Report to be adequate to consider this amendment; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed general plan amendment and a Oakley
Old Town Specific Plan would help implement the Oakley Redevelopment Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Oakley Old Town General Plan Amendment and Oakley
Old Town Specific Plan to the Board of Supervisors; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the lands at the Northwest comer of Vintage
Parkway and the realigned State Route 4 should be redesignated from Single Family Residential
High Density and Commercial to Mixed Use and staff is directed to revise the General Plan and
Specific Plan text accordingly; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and
pertaining to these proceeding are made part of the record; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the East County Regional Planning
Commission shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the
Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law.
RESOLUTION NO. 19-1996
The instruction by the County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution
was given by motion of the Commission on Monday, October 7, 1996.
AYES: Commissioners - Sobalvarro, Anderson, Nunn
NOES: Commissioners- Wetzel
ABSENT: Commissioners- Andrieu,Hanson, Wagner
ABSTAIN: Commissioners- None
I, Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission,
hereby certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on October 7, 1996.
ATTEST:
'riey E. B a on, Secretary of the
East County'Regional Planning Commission
Contra Costa County, State of California
BL-."
a: Jim cutler
Debbie Foley
BUeasfco.res
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 24. 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla and DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 97/337
SUBJECT: In the Matter of the Oakley Old Town )
General Plan Amendment )
County File #GP95-0005 )
and the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan )
County File #SP95-0003 )
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that:
There is filed with the Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 19-1996 adopted by
the East County Regional Planning Commission which discusses a General Plan
Amendment in the Oakley Area (County File #GP96-0005) and Oakley Old Town Specific
Plan (County File #SP95-0003).
On Tuesday, February 11, 1997 and June 24, 1997, the Board held public hearings on
said General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan discussed by the East County Regional
Planning Commission (Resolution No. 14-1996). Notice of said hearing was duly given
in the matter required by law. The Board, at the hearing, called for testimony and
numerous speakers provided testimony.
The Board closed the public hearing and APPROVED the General Plan Amendment and
directed staff to include the Oakley Old Town General Plan Amendment into one of the
consolidated General Plan Amendments as allowed by State Planning Law. Further, the
Board ADOPTED the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan to be effective with the adoption of
the consolidated general plan amendment.
Additionally, the Board directed staff to defer implementation activities of the bypass road
beyond the 35% level design work until either a decision has been reached by LAFCO on
incorporation feasibility or an outcome on the June 1998 vote on incorporation is known
and to follow the community preferences on siting a preferred location for a community
center as outlined in a June 5, 1997 memo from the Director of Community Development.
Contact: Jim Cutler, CDD (335-1236) 1 hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of an action taken
Orig. Dept.: Community Development and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
cc: Director of Community Development ATTESTED .Tttna 24 1997
Director of Public Works Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board
CAOof Supervis rs nd unly Administrator
County Counsel B
Jim Kennedy Barbara S. rant, puty Clerk
JWC:aw
jAawbakley.res
FIGURE 1
East County Regional Planning Commission Recommended
Proposed General Plan Amendment
_. � \ :why;•♦ ` . J:�,u1 ,
MU ;� OACO
do D' 11 1 CO'
AIN - �•
• j' i i CO O
• 1 CO
1 1
� i .J.�.- 1 i i 1 SH
I -
1
• I
t■ 4-14--y
L 11 - [U
— =-ALUL
I
--1•_- 1 1•_ 1
LEGEND
SH Single Family Residential - High Density
CO Commercial
MU Mixed Use
Agenda#_
OAKLEY
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
General Plan County File#GP-95-0005 and
Specific Plan County File#SP-95-0003
I. INTRODUCTION
The Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency, as part of its effort to revitalize Oakley,
has sponsored a General Plan review of Oakley Old Town area. This is coupled with the
development of the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan which has been developed with
community input. The Specific Plan's purpose is to add substantial County policy detail to
what is needed for this revitalization effort.
There is strong inter-relationship between this General Plan Amendment and the Specific
Plan. The first part of this report will deal almost exclusively with General Plan policy issues.
Both are addressed in this report.
H. CEQA
Due in part to the public controversy surrounding the Draft Specific Plan's alternative
circulation alternatives, the County determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was required for this project. A Draft EIR was released on February 14th of 1996 and a
public hearing was held in the Antioch community. The County Zoning Administrator on
June 24,1996 has found that the Draft EIR, together with the Responses to Comments
document,to be adequate and has recommended the Board of Supervisors to certify the Final
EIR.
A copy of the Final EIR will be provided to the Commission under separate cover.
This staff report utilizes the EIR and is related to its findings and analysis.
M. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Downtown Oakley has gradually deteriorated with many empty buildings and vacant parcels,
and many developed parcels are underutilized. A haphazard mix of land uses has sprung up
along Main Street (SR4) and when coupled with the gradual deterioration of many of the
structures, has served to reduce the economic and physical viability of the commercial and
residential areas. Additionally, the increase in traffic, particularly the heavy volume of truck
traffic on Main Street, further exacerbates a safety problem for pedestrians attempting to
cross Main Street.
The Board of Supervisors adopted a Redevelopment Plan for Oakley in 1989. The
Redevelopment Plan was designed to provide a means to address and finance transportation
improvements, upgrade community facilities and revitalize older residential and commercial
areas.
2
In late 1992, the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency initiated formal discussion
with the Oakley community regarding its downtown area, known as Old Town. Old Town
Oakley represents an underutilized asset to the community and to East County. Oakley
residents indicated they were sensitive to the unique character of Old Town. It was felt that
preservation of Old Town's character, combined with the introduction of new compatible
commercial and civic uses,with parks and landscaping, would enhance Old Town's identity.
Developing such an identity is a challenge due to State Route 4 traffic, general traffic
circulation problems, poor landscaping, vacant lots and inconsistent land uses.
The catalyst for the Specific Plan was the County's plan to alter SR4 through the Oakley Old
Town area. Because the SR4 improvements would impact both commercial and residential
areas of Old Town,it became clear that addressing the SR4 problem should only be done as
part of a comprehensive planning effort that would create a new vision for Old Town's role
in the Oakley community.
The Oakley Municipal Advisory Council (GMAC), augmented by periodic workshop
sessions, identified the major alternative approaches that could be used to revitalize Old
Town. Three planning alternatives were evaluated and presented in Oakley Planning
Alternatives-Background and Alternatives Evaluation for the Old Town Oakley Specific
Plan (April 1993). Driven by the need to expand the capacity of SR4 through Oakley, the
three alternatives evaluated were as follows:
Alternative A: Widen State Route 4 along its current route through Old Town and maintain
strip commercial development;
Alternative B: Separate State Route 4 into a one-way couplet, with eastbound traffic on
Acme Street and westbound traffic on Main Street; create a commercial and
civic center along Acme Street; and
Alternative C. Relocate State Route 4 to an alternative route north of its present location and
create an expanded commercial and civic center along Main Street.
In November 1993, OMAC gave direction to prepare an Old Town Oakley Specific Plan
using a relocated SR4(Alternative C)as the preferred vision. The Oakley Old Town Specific
Plan was developed around the proposed highway realignment and presented in August 1994.
In a September 1994 meeting, OMAC showed renewed interest in the widen-in-place
alternative (Alternative A). Therefore, both the roadway realignment and widen-in place
options that are focused upon in this report were fully documented in the EIR.
3
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. General Plan
The County General Plan policy for Oakley was last reviewed in 1989. In the
intervening years, several project specific amendments have been reviewed in the
Oakley area, but none in the Oakley Old Town area.
The County's adopted Circulation Element presently calls for one-way couplets to be
built to serve Old Town. The proposed General Plan would delete this plan provision
and substitute either a relocated northerly two-way alignment of State Route 4
(Alternative C)or cause the road to be widened in place (Alternative A). The 54 acre
Old Town planning area would have minor Land Use Element changes made to it
depending on which Circulation Element concept is selected. The Final EIR covers
potential Land Use Element changes based on the differing circulation alternatives.
The proposed Land Use Element Amendment covered in the DEIR is shown on
Figure 1.
B. Specific Plan
The goals of the Draft Specific Plan are to enable Oakley's Old Town to function as
a commercial and community center for the town while simultaneously accommo-
dating regional traffic needs. Fifteen Draft Specific Plan goals are listed below:
"Land Use
1. Establish Old Town as a focus of economic and community activity;
2. Maintain and enhance the existing residential neighborhoods adjacent to
commercial areas;
3. Establish Main Street as a pedestrian-friendly commercial focal point; and
4. Assist the Oakley community in establishing a community focal point.
Circulation and Parking
5. Provide safe and efficient vehicular movement by separating local from
regional traffic and providing appropriate traffic controls throughout Old
Town.
6. Develop Main Street as a pleasant and safe environment for pedestrian
movement. Provide vehicular access along Main Street as well as convenient
parking along its length which is conducive to Old Town's development as a
commercial area.
FIGURE 1
Proposed General Plan Amendment
ML FaCO
=.STATE ROUTE /: `�'' •.�` � '•\�
,
CO.
--- AIN 5���: -•--'-- --.._.. .___'_ i-
CO o
CO is
SH
r- ;�r T- C
r r r , .-I--
it �----
-
,
,
Ir - __; i r
IL
- _
LEGEND
CO - Commercial
ML - Multi-Family Residential - Low Density
SH - Single-Family Residential - High Density
5
7. Improve access to currently vacant and underutilized parcels in order to
enhance opportunities for future development.
8. Provide public parking resources to support commercial development within
Old Town,
Public Infrastructure
9. Provide the necessary public infrastructure required to support future
projected development in Old Town Oakley.
10. Coordinate all public infrastructure changes so that they occur efficiently and
produce minimal disruption to public investments and private business
activities.
Community Development and Urban Desi=
11. Establish a strong visual image for Old Town as a commercial destination and
community focal point.
12. Develop a strong pedestrian-friendly environment in Old Town.
13. Preserve and enhance the unique historical character of Old Town Oakley.
14. Stimulate property revitalization improvements and new construction in Old
Town.
15. Establish a self-sustaining mechanism for future Old Town planning and
improvements."
Specific Plan Implementation and Actions
A combination of regulatory actions, roadway improvements, infrastructure
improvements, land acquisitions, and community identity projects will be required to
implement the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan. Regulatory and Administrative
actions needed to achieve the previously stated goals are shown on Table 1.
V. PROJECT SETTING AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Oakley's downtown lies on a flat plain. Major vehicular access in the area is on Main Street.
Oakley's historic Old Town structures are concentrated in an area bounded by O'Hara
Avenue, the Santa Fe railroad tracks, Third Street and Ruby Street. The railroad and Main
Street also form the northern boundary of a traditional north-south and east-west street grid
that connects Old Town to areas to the south. Most of Oakley's oldest and historically
interesting commercial and community buildings are contained in Old Town.
TABLE 1
REGULATORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
TO
EWPLEMENT THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Re¢ulatory Changes
1. Amend General Plan.
Amend General Plan Map to be consistent with the Specific Plan (Figure 2-2). Changes to
existing Land Use designations would be west of Vintage Parkway (SF to ML) and on the
block bounded by Acme Street, Second Street, Ruby Street and O'Hara Avenue (PR to
SLD).
2. Rezone Old Town properties within the Specific Plan Area to Planned Unit Development (P-
1). Properties within the area would be governed by the Development Standards provided
in the Specific Plan.
Roadway Improvements
3. Realign State Route 4 as a four-lane roadway between Gardenia Avenue and Third Street
along a new right-of-way north of Main Street and extend Norcross Lane and O'Hara Avenue
north to new intersections. Create a one-way couplet with Second Street northbound and
O'Hara Avenue southbound between SR 4 and Las Dumas Avenue (Figure 2-3, Circulation
and Parking Plan).
4. Reconstruct Main Street as a pedestrian-friendly, commercially oriented street. Redesignate
Main Street as a two lane collector, as opposed to its current arterial designation.
Infrastructure Improvements
5. Install new water distribution lines along the SR 4 realignment and along roadway segments
between the new alignment and Main Street (Figure 2-4).
6. Install new sewer lines along the SR 4 realignment and for a segment on Main Street (Figure
2-4).
7. Underground electrical utility lines(Figure 2-5).
Land Acquisition
8. Public Parking Lot - Purchase land between Main Street and realigned State Route 4 for a
public parking lot to serve Old Town Parking District(Figure 2-3).
9. Community Center Site-Purchase land for a future Community Center.
TABLE 1 (continued)
Community Identity projects
10. Main Street Streetscape - Design and install sidewalks, landscaping, crosswalks, lighting,
benches, and other street furniture and special fighting(Figure 2-6).
11 State Route 4 Landscaping - Install street trees and median landscaping between Gardenia
and Third Street..
12. Old Town Logo - develop a unique logo or logotype for use on Old Town signs and
promotional materials.
Old Town Initiatives
13. Old Town Business Association-Establish of a business association to represent the interests
of Old Town property and business owners.
14. Business Improvement District-Creation of an assessment district for additional urban design
improvements, parking and other on-going activities.
8
The study area for this EIR is larger than historical Old Town and is defined as the area within
the proposed Specific Plan boundaries, which is centered around the Main Street/SR4
corridor. This includes the area north to the Santa Fe railroad tracks, west to the Claremont
subdivision(approximately 650 feet west of Vintage Parkway), east to Third Street and south
roughly to Ruby Street. (Figure 2).
Land use and development patterns in the Oakley project area are dominated by commercial
and residential use. Old Town can be divided into three basic land use areas: 1) along SR4 -
Main Street is a long established pattern of strip commercial development oriented to traffic
on SR4;2)the blocks along Acme Street, parallel to Main Street and one block south, form
a transition zone with a combination of commercial residential and community uses; and 3)
two blocks south of SR4 Ruby Street is the northern boundary of an old and established
residential neighborhood.
Commercial land uses line Main Street on both the north and south sides. These commercial
uses include typical retail operations such as small restaurants, liquor stores, and antique
stores as well as community-oriented services such as cleaners and hair care. Main Street also
contains professional office space that includes chiropractors and insurance companies.
The eastern end of the Main Street corridor (east of Norcross Lane) has a traditional town
layout with small parcels fronting directly on Main Street. Each parcel usually contains a
separate business. On the west end of the Main Street corridor is a more suburban style of
development with stores set back from the roadway surrounded by large parking areas, such
as Centro Mart and the Oakley Plaza, but the Main Street corridor is not exclusively
commercial. There are still a number of single family residences along Main Street as well
as community uses such as the YMCA and a preschool.
Acme Street forms a transition zone between the highway commercial land uses along Main
Street and the residential area to the south. Commercial uses are clustered along the north
side of Acme Street and tend to be more light industrial than retail in nature, such as auto
repair. As on Main Street, residential uses are intermixed with the commercial uses.
The south side of Acme Street is primarily residential with the exception of one large, vacant
lot at the comer of O'Hara Avenue which is used for RV storage. Acme Street also contains
important community uses. The Baptist Church is located on Acme Street at O'Hara Street
and the block south of Acme Street between O'Hara and Second Street contains the County
Library, the Fire Station and the Sheriffs Department Delta Substation.
Ruby Street, and the area to the south, consists of smaller traditional single-family residences
surrounded by lawns and mature landscaping. There are a number of large and impressive
trees in the area, some of which may qualify as heritage trees.
The overall residential and commercial land use density is relatively low. This is especially
true in the commercial areas because of the low, largely one-story structures and because
much of the land is vacant. There are a number of vacant parcels within the project area. The
. iuo Bio omni iii�� 1 I I II �� III I I I
ILII
III IIII (161 °•••❖•••
Illi � II IIIII
I IIuII��i III
r . �►.I►�.. I I II IIII II IIII III
'•'•'•••••••'•••••�•` IIIIIIIII�II�I��III�III
...........
III 11 111 IIII 1111 11 II I III
Ei�ll�,� res g t
iil ��----gl�- ri^'ll.Il f r1i11Y I::1
III ( 'IIII lil.1 j�,l�ll 111 p.ni I11111..� Iliilr I! • .1:II►
l►I;,►►I���►iillii 11�,.a111•�i►II��I II•'1�., I..� ..,,
•Ai:t t 1 ! .:Ilia
II of IIII ►Iii' �;ii i i'f t:.lE
jiit 111111 , ►:ii ;_ tea-
Illlull6lii liiiilllull <
n••. -----
-
.nl[Ulll::.i;:rjii --. � u.•' 111"
�I ..111
ILI
ii►IIN-111!!11111►111111 Igo:11111►��n�s ' jQli I �' •�
�'IIIi0 Illi^:::I I:?:: 11 il��la�l► A�,m
11. Ilu lu.'1 li
r;:►I is !I,II I, h.�� "- I � -..., � I�,[;�11 II 4r
iitllllYfilllli��Iii:111D'LIl�iilIll-fill,ill 'IID,
•III Ill l 1 r''1 :� i� iioo8 r. Ir�o�u(i 1�
III ,I�� � I'..� 11::• � �_. r
:.6i,{i ^�„�;1 (11��' : ���'�+�li ' ' � ■ : � €� (IIII
IIS:: I l;Il:i;t !:❖•• �-� F„I •
1111It1 1111111 .. I :� •.❖. •rf_ •
1111111 IIII I]Illrlll:_'ll� ;�(�A I A1� ��`I
I ' ;I a { a in+ill: I►!l lul a
�yl�lllii,.{
la ililm4li 41I'A: 1•71I'
11 .:r1 li Irl I II 'll sl:r 1 b
Ili:Rl:^.ill+{1111 iC
ll. . Il.luil!�II iirTr `
IIIui1i Ir 111 lMi1�e: IN
i
nil
:':;iillliiiiil
u.j O � ao V UtJf A tNN -.�
O 6 0
N
a �• V. � i i p O Q v� 1:
_ — N
i � N ts7
E.
CD
CD
--- .
'j = v z
__ ------- —.r -- - N
� f C1
O O O O OZ,
b b0 M 0�0 N J
-@,
E •oo i O 1 �� yt� �•� O� e� ri -
jy CQ
C r�7.•r'
�O A
� aQQi'
c .... N . �bO
AtA/iA v \ Lph
11
largest (approximately six acres) lies along Main Street west of Norcross Lane. There are
also a number of underutilized parcels; parcels that are only partially developed or difficult
to access. For example, the land north of the parcels fronting on Main Street is difficult to
access and is underdeveloped. In addition to vacant and underutilized parcels, there are a
number of vacant stores along Main Street and Acme Street.
Table 2 presents a summary of existing land use within the project area. The total
developable area is approximately 47 acres, located on 10 different blocks. Thirty-two
residential units are also included in the project area. Retail and other commercial uses
(88,560 square feet) account for almost 75% of the non-residential space in the project area
(120,840 square feet).
Most of the structures in Oakley are older and in need of renovation or redevelopment. Some
may qualify as historical resources(see Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR). However, many of the
older structures are unreinforced masonry structures which may be prohibitively expensive
to bring up to code.
VI. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
The existing County General Plan Land Use Element for this area is shown on Figure 3. Most
of the Old Town area is designated as Commercial, with small areas designated as Single-
Family Residential High Density and Parks and Recreation.
There are several General Plan Land Use policies which appear to relate to the Old Town
Specific Plan;these are listed on Table 3.
The Circulation Elements Roadway Network map (Figure 4) calls for one-way couplets to
serve the Old town area.
VII. ZONING
The existing zoning is shown on Figure 5. Most of the Old Town area is zoned R-B (Retail
Business),with small areas zoned D-1 (Two-Family Residential). Comparison of the existing
General Plan map (Figure 3) with the Zoning map (Figure 5) show small areas of
Zoning/General Plan inconsistencies.
The Specific Plan calls for rezoning the site to P-1, Planned Unit District, to eliminate these
inconsistencies.
VII. STATE ROUTE 4 ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES
State Route 4 between the freeway and Empire Avenue is a four-lane roadway with a two-
way left turn lane. East of Empire Avenue(through Old Town), SR4 narrows to two lanes
(plus a two-way left tum lane). Today this roadway is working at acceptable levels of service.
As Section 3.2 Traffic and Circulation, in the DEIR, shows traffic volumes in the area due to
general growth are expected to increase necessitating roadway improvements in the area.
r =
iIIIIIIIIIII �
�ni i fl I�I� i i i �1�,��-�l�l�► , ,,,
�! I�ir'I,i , Il�,llll�•n,t!II���III!!!�fill II � ,
• =+� 11I11M ;Ali.su
toy'. !4 l,l 4li,,��iiii��' I II!
__ ►-t' ia''. •i. Iii 111 i;li;i;ri;, l::`l,
. y ,.Ii,i! n l Vii`iiit,{�� IlEl�llit
�' n ,�_._�t111 III lIi ;::irttii III III u;lh ;iuu
iitt�:i: iuilll
1-lullr�ii��� ��lif
i�I�iii 11` inn1111i i�� ( il
�► ""�- tI Illlli ` nnsi�l �II •
pal
1 n�unl
r ��� ,'I���Ih� nnuull irp( `• �=�! !I
tta„u,yit u
tiS • pry' 9tlnt I _ ,i r'
r it j + i
l:ybigg\o.Weyotiwc
TABLE 3
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
RELEVANT TO OLD TOWN OAKLEY
3-55 Design guidelines for the Oakley area shall be made. The guidelines should include themes
that will assist neighborhood commercial development to reflect the residential character for
the surrounding area, existing commercial development to upgrade its appearance, and that
will establish architectural and landscape continuity. The design policies for the area shall be
adopted by the East County Regional Planning Commission (ECRPC) and confirmed by the
Board of Supervisors.
3-56 Housing which accommodates the needs of fixed income persons, elderly persons, or both in
and around the Old Town of Oakley shall be encouraged.
3-57 Higher residential densities around the Old Town of Oakley shall be encouraged.
3-58 Existing Old Town development currently lacking on-site parking shall be accommodated
through developing a specific strategy for providing off-street parking. Such a strategy would
include programs to incorporate public parking into any reuse, or development of abandoned
railroad rights-of-way adjacent to the Old Town area, and building new sidewalks and bicycle
paths.
3-59 Economic development and employment growth possibilities shall be expanded by preparing
a comprehensive economic development strategy. Such a strategy may include joint ventures
with the private sector and the County for the establishment of a redevelopment area.
3-65 Agriculture-related businesses to expand or relocate to Oakley shall be assisted.
Land Use Policies
34 To encourage a development pattern that promotes the individuality and unique character of
each community in the county.
Land Use Policies
3-8 Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. Proposals that would prematurely
extend development into areas lacking requisite services, facilities and infrastructure shall be
opposed. In accommodating new development, preference shall generally be given to vacant
or under-used sites within urbanized areas, which have the necessary utilities installed with
available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban lands are utilized.
3-16 Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment, where appropriate,
to replace inappropriate uses.
3-31 Commercial areas of appropriate size and location shall be provided to accommodate the
needs of the present and anticipated population in each subregion or community of the
County.
FIGURE 4
Existing Circulation Plan
�ti O d
0
o d
0
6
N
1" =4000'
4 ♦ 9
GYPPESS RD. 4
�'\ v
%
I.
w Q
' \ LAUREL RD
— a
w
Imo''
Z
a Y
i I I 1
I I 2
I '
LONE TREE WAV
I I
LEGEND
Existing Collector
Proposed Collector ,� I SUNSET RD
Existing Arterial •� N
Proposed Arterial ,
a
Existing Freeway w
r• • 4 Proposed Freeway •��
uuouannuui Expressway on Existing Road
■I I Proposed Expressway 4 1 1 2
BIndicates
Number of Lanes I 1 BRENTWOOD R
Indicates Number of Lanes Required
for Right-of-Way Preservation ( 1
(Shown for unincorporated areas only) UR RD y _ q 1
s„
O
4� A
C
� C7
til
a
U
Gi 1 t !tet•• .♦ 3 F
i 1 11 4 a I
_I I ' M
vi
7 Il SI1 s" 36 S it
S .... H
ti
. ..u: H'SS a �1�, �sP,�* t ,yg� 13
C / , • ( 1 at
d � �
{ ! p w7
fl �
OD m
f�,t 3
16
The existing General Plan calls for one-way couplets to be built. This concept is not presently
well received in the community.
It was decided to utilize the EIR and Specific Plan process to determine the nature of
improvements for State Route 4 in Oakley. Three main alternatives were studied. They are:
Alternative A widen in place; Alternative B - one-way couplet; and Alternative C - relocate
SR4 to an alternate route north of its present location.
The Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee has endorsed Alternative C to relocate SR4
northerly.
There are advantages and disadvantages to the alternatives which are described throughout
the DEIR. The staff conclusion from that analysis is that the relocation of SR to a new
northerly alignment will provide the basis for an enhanced redevelopment program for Old
Town Oakley. By moving through traffic off Main Street and having it serve local travel, new
opportunities for a desirable cohesive commercial area will exist. Presently the through road
traffic serves to divide and diminish commercial value of the area.
None of the roadway alternatives are totally free of impacts to some individual property
owners. Staff feels this choice will lead to new opportunities as discussed in the Draft
Specific Plan(which is written based on Alternative Q.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept Alternative C to relocate SR4 northerly as the preferred alignment; amend the General
Plan Circulation Element accordingly,
X. OTHER PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CHANGES
Most of the existing General Plan Land Use plan map areas (Figure 2) would be retained
based on either road alignment for the Specific Plan. There are, however, a few small areas
of potential change.
A. Lands North of SR4 and west of Vintage Parkway
These lands are currently designated as Single-Family Residential High Density and
Commercial. The proposed Land Use plan would utilize Vintage Parkway, north of
SR4, as separation between Commercial development and the single family homes to
the west.
The DEIR on page 3.1-14 points out that under either roadway option that marketing
studies estimates a potential for 303,000 square feet of commercial development at
build-out (year 2010) and that this represents a 173% increase over existing
conditions. The Draft Specific Plan would focus this commercial growth to the
remaining commercial designated area. These lands would provide a critical higher
17
density residential component to the project area. On Table 2, policy 3-56 of the
adopted General Plan specifically encourages"Higher residential densities around
the Old Town of Oakley..." This redesignation would be in furtherance of that
policy. The marketing study prepared for the Draft Specific Plan shows that there is
extensive land designated for commercial development in Oakley. That study states
that Old Town's commercial dominance may not survive if new development which
challenges the Old Town area is allowed in accordance with the existing General Plan.
The marketing study further indicates, as also shown in the DEIR on page 3.1-14, that
there is a potential for 303,000 square feet of commercial development at build-out
(year 2010) under either roadway option, which represents a 173% increase over
existing conditions. The Draft Specific Plan would focus this commercial growth to
the remaining commercial designated area within Old Town to strengthen its market
potential. The marketing study also points out that Old Town presents a prime
opportunity to retain diversity for the Oakley housing stock. These housing
opportunities include introducing higher density units into Oakley to increase
population densities necessary to support commercial activities and to insure that the
supply of affordable housing is expanded. These lands would provide a critical higher
density residential component to the project area.
A Multiple-Family Residential Low Density designation allows a range of 7.3 to 11.9
units per acre. The NE designation would allow for approximately 133 units in this
area(maximum).
RECONDAENDATION:
This area shown be redesignated to Multiple-Family Residential Low Density as suggested
in the Draft Specific Plan.
B. Lands on south side of Acme Street between Norcross and O'Hara Street.
The Draft EIR on page 3.17 points out the Draft Specific Plan would maintain the
Commercial designation in this area currently zoned D-1, which is an existing Zoning/
General Plan inconsistency. This is an established residential area that has resisted
conversion to commercial use in spite of its existing commercial designation.
Redesignation to Single-Family Residential High Density would help maintain this
area at this time. There are other areas more appropriate for new development
already designated for commercial use.
RECOMMENDATION:
Redesignate this area from Commercial to Single-Family Residential High Density.
18
C. Lands between Acme and Ruby and O'Hara and Second Street
This area is publicly owned and currently houses the Oakley branch library and fire
station. This area is currently inappropriately designated Parks and Recreation.
Given its use, it should be redesignated as Pubic and Semi-Public.
RECOMMENDATION:
Redesignate this site as Public and Semi-Public.
XI. OAKLEY OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Minor adjustments need to be made to this document as drafted to either eliminate errors or
to be consistent with the General Plan recommendations suggested above, specifically;
A. Relationship to Zoning Code
On Page 1-3, it states that adoption of this Specific Plan will supersede the County
Ordinance Code. This is inconsistent with other Specific Plan provisions calling for
rezoning of the Specific Plan area to P-1, Planned Unit District.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delete the sentence which calls for superseding the County Zoning Code and replace it with
wording which states "The Old Town Specific Plan area will be rezoned to P-1 planned unit
district. "
B. Land Use Districts
On Page 2-10, it discusses Land Use District 4 -Neighborhood Commercial. The
General Plan discussion calls for changing this area to Single-Family Residential High
Density rather than Neighborhood Commercial. To be consistent, the text should re
revised and Specific Plan Figure 2-2 should be modified to shift the small area north
of Acme and west of O'Hara Avenue from Land Use District 4 to District 6.
Modify the boundary of area 4 as described above and substitute this text for the
existing text for Land Use District 4 to read "Single-Family Residential.
This is a stable residential area that needs to be protected from the impacts
of commercial development to the north. The infill of single-family homes
and duplexes in the area is appropriate."
RECOMMENDATION:
Make the text changes described above and substitute the revised Figure 2-2.
—r—
O I 1 I i •�
� -
y 1 I 1 1 I
CD
ir
m YARx n !
CD
Lnm
Pilo' r' r �,�• •�•,,
LY
AVtNuh
L •
N S �� f..... r ;` -t` •
t THIRDSTREET
n p y
� o �'• ry A
00
C,cl a,
o. = s � C
s
�y to
@ y K
L m ti
s3 a
p O
R � q
l'�
20
C. Figure 2.3
This figure needs to be modified to reflect Single-Residential High Density and Public
and Semi-Public designations as discussed in the General Plan staff report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Modify Figure 2-3 to be consistent with the General Plan decisions described above.
D. Development Standards
Page 2-19 discusses the development standards for District 4 - Neighborhood
Commercial. To be consistent with the discussion on General Plan Change and B
above, this should be rewritten to read:
"District 4 - Single-Family Residential
This district consists primarily of small parcels which are vacant or
contain single family home& Development standards for this district
must conform to the duplex or single family use allowed by the
Single Family Residential High Density General Plan designation."
XII. GROWTH MANAGEMENT ISSUES
This project adds detail to the County General Plan through the adoption of a specific plan
and provides for improvements to the roadway and other public facilities to serve the
revitalization effort in Oakley's Old Town. It will not cause an increase in traffic from
existing general plan policies.
XHL RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS that:
1. The attached General Plan Amendment maps A and B be adopted; and
2. That the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan be adopted, including recommended
amendments as found in this staff report.
j.JbiggN0&WcY0t jwe
' f� =.STCO
ML ts
ATE ROUTE 4__ •.`,t`'•-:� f ,•`I t
co._.. AI4:4 ° .T . .._...' -_..." '
CO o
p�-
'
_
1 -
1_. I
�IU
1 J .f--
J 1 tL i
1 1 i 1 I \ _ • � � __ __
1 LIT
1 �
1
--__---
--'i--- __
LEGEND
SH Single Family Residential -High Density
ML Multiple Family Residential-Low Density
CO Commercial
PS Public/Semi-Public
MAPA Staff Proposed General Plan Amendment
MAP B Staff Proposed Roadway Network Plan Amendment
0
0
a
6
N
1• _4000,
41
A {p
N >
♦ a CYPRESS RD. 4
/ ♦ c W
a
'•♦\ n v
♦ W Q
' \ LAUREL RD >
a
z
II ¢ 1
=
II Q r V1 f N
z v
o ; o u
1 A Y
I I
1 1 • � 1 _ — _1 — _
/ 2
LONE TREE WAY 4 ,
/ 1
LEGEND / ' 1
Existing Collector
Proposed Collector , 1 SUNSET RD
1
Existing Arterial 1 0�
• — Proposed Arterial >
1 ♦ N
1 n �
Existing Freeway 1 1 J
r••••4 Proposed Freeway
nnnuwiwnu Expressway on Existing Road 1 1
■10 1 Proposed Expressway 4 1 1 2 / 1
Indicates Number of Lanes 1 1 BRENTWOOD n
q Indicates Number of Lanes Required �\
for Right-of-Way Preservation 1 1
(Shown for unincorporated areas only) uR RD 2 _ 4 1
s�
Add to the General Plan text the following wording on Page 3-32:
'k. Mixed Use - Oakley Old Town
The Oakley Old Town area is covered by a Specific Plan which defines the uses
allowed in this area".
,p, I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEJ IT
EIVED
19� ATE: June 5, 1997
TO: Board of Supervisors _
CLERK E � FERVISORS
FROM: Harvey E.Br gdon oss�+co.
Director of Communi Development
SUBJECT: OAKLEY SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTION ALTERNATIVES
I. OAKLEY OLD TOWN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
ADOPTION - CURRENT PROJECT STATUS
The Board of Supervisors at the conclusion of the February 11, 1997 noticed hearing on
these items, continued the public hearing until June 24, 1997, and requested staff to
come in with a report on policy options which could be taken by the Board in acting on
this matter.
II. MAJOR PLANNING ISSUES
There was a substantial range of issues which were considered in the development of
the Specific Plan, most appear to have been resolved in the plan preparation process,
the EIR mitigations or the East County Regional Planning Commission (ECRPC) hearing.
A staff recommended minor change to the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan is noted in
Section VII. below.
The two main issues discussed at the ECRPC hearing, were:
• whether the land use designation on the northwestern corner of the area should
be commercial, multiple family residential, or single family residential; and,
• which roadway alignment should be adopted.
The ECRPC apparently resolved the first issued by recommending this area be placed
in a Mixed Use General Plan designation. Staff has no indication that the other items
continue to be controversial.
As was Gear at the Board hearing, the major outstanding issue is one of road alignment
and ultimately of the cost of construction. The ECRPC voted 3-1 to recommend
Alternative C (the northern realignment) after hearing testimony. The Oakley Municipal
Advisory Council (GMAC) also supported Alternative C.
Oakley Specific Plan Adoption Alternatives
June 5, 1997
Page 2 --------
IMP RANT.
T1
It meds to be emphasized t t while some community members
have q stioned the need fo a four-lane facility, all analysis and
mogels have shown a four'- a facility is needed to serve regional
traffic needs and to meet g h management requirements.
Previous traffic studies conducted over the years have consistently identified the need
to provide four travel lanes on State Route 4 through Oakley, and, although the State
Route 4 Bypass EIR traffic study determined that traffic volume on State Route 4
through Oakley will be reduced approximately 20% by constructing the State Route 4
Bypass Project, it also indicates that travel demand will be such that four lanes would still
be need on State Route 4 through Oakley. Therefore, each of the roadway alternatives
considering State Route 4 consists of four travel lanes.
Moreover, the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report indicates
that there is sufficient growth potential in the Oakley area that would increase travel
demand on State Route 4 and this might cause a potential violation of the level of
service standards in the future without construction of four lanes on State Route 4
through the downtown area. If found in violation of the level of service standards without
providing for a program of corrective measures, the County's share of the Return-to
Source Measure C 1988 Sales Tax Revenue could be withheld by the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority. Additionally, staff is concerned that a delay could significantly
limit the opportunities to improve State Route 4 as properties are developed within the
alignment.
Driven by the need to provide capacity for State Route 4 through Oakley and to revitalize
the downtown area, three alternatives were evaluated:
Alternative A: Widen State Route 4 along its current route through Old Town and
maintain strip commercial development,
Alternative B: Separate State Route 4 into a one-way couplet, with eastbound
traffic on Acme Street and westbound traffic on Main Street; create
a commercial and civic center along Acme Street; and
Alternative C: Relocate State Route 4 to an alternative route north of its present
location and create an expanded commercial and civic center
along Main Street.
Alternative B, the one-way couplet, is the current adopted General Plan policy but has
received almost no support from anyone. It is for this reason that the remainder of this
report focuses on concepts that may affect the road alignment decision.
Oakley Specific Plan Adoption Alternatives
June 5, 1997
Page 3
Ill. POTENTIAL OAKLEY INCORPORATION
One option that has been raised is to defer adoption of the Specific Plan and related
actions until a determination is reached on the incorporation of Oakley. Obviously, the
Board could follow this course of action if it so chooses.
This course of action would, of course, further delay the design and construction of any
alignment alternatives considered for State Route 4 through Oakley.
Discussions with LAFCO staff on the incorporation issue yielded the following thoughts:
The incorporation proponents are in the process of signature gathering and have told
LAFCO staff they would be submitted in June 1997. Once submitted, the County Clerk's
office may need approximately a month to verify the signatures. The reports on financing
are required from the State Board of Equalization, among others. LAFCO staff reports
would be prepared and a public hearing would be conducted.
If LAFCO approved a vote for incorporation, all material would need to be submitted to
the Election Department by August for a November 1997 election. It is noted that much
of this process is outside the timing or control of LAFCO and historically a decision to
conduct an election for incorporation has taken several months of deliberation at
LAFCO. While it is possible that a November 1997 election could occur, LAFCO staff
anticipates that it would be difficult to meet this schedule based on previous
incorporation considerations. The next available election date would be June 2, 1998.
IV. CALTRANS INVOLVEMENT
Since State Route 4 is a state-owned facility, Caltrans must approve any new
improvements or facilities. Given time and staff limitations of Caltrans, they suggested
the County proceed with the design and implementation of the facility. Provided the
State design standards are incorporated and the Caltrans staff has reviewed relevant
materials (e.g., EIR, project report and description, project design, etc.), Caltrans would
accept the new road.
V. NEED FOR EXPEDITIOUS DECISION
There is always the possibility of litigation on issues when an Environmental Impact
Report has been completed. One concern is that by unduly delaying a decision on the
matter there could be changes in conditions or circumstances which would require
supplementing, modifying, or recirculating the EIR. Already there have been concerns
raised about the length of time necessary to make a decision on this matter. The County
Counsel's Office will advise the Board of this specific matter in a separate memo.
In addition, staff is concerned that a delay in deciding the roadway alignment question
could complicate how right-of-way standards and dedication requirements should be
applied toward current and future development applications in the Old Town area. The
Oakley Specific Plan Adoption Alternatives
June 5, 1997
Page 4
current standards and requirements are based on the couplet alignment, and, should
selection of a preferred alignment be delayed, the County would have limited options to
prevent development projects from encroaching within the alignment of either Alternative
A or C.
VI. POSSIBLE COURSES OF ACTION
There are a range of choices which the Board could take, from approval of the items
before the Board and direction to staff to proceed with all due haste, to freezing
conditions until it is clear if a new city is to be incorporated. Among the choices are:
A. DEFER DECISIONS
The Board could continue this matter until a future date, after November 4, 1997,
to see if incorporation is approved. It could either close or leave the public
hearing open. Alternatively, the Board could defer action until August to see if
this item was going to make the November ballot and take action with that
knowledge in mind.
Advantages: Defer the issue to see if a new municipal jurisdiction
will be in place to make the decision.
Disadvantages: Additional loss of time and deferral of all other
actions which could have been resolved through the adoption of a
specific plan. Standards applied to development applications would
be based on a couplet alignment and some property owners, which
are directly affected by the various roadway alignment alternatives,
could face hardships if they chose to develop their property during
this period due to the uncertainty about the ultimate roadway
design and alignment.
B. ADOPT INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE
One option which has no constituency today would be to adopt an interim
urgency ordinance (moratorium) to freeze development decisions in Old Town.
Advantages: Deferral of most public and private development
actions which would truly provide an opportunity for any roadway
alignment to be chosen by a future City of Oakley.
Disadvantages: Hardship to property owners and loss of
momentum for a decision.
Oakley Specific Plan Adoption Alternatives
June 5, 1997
Page 5
C. ADOPT GENERAL PLAN DECISION ONLY
As previously indicated, the adopted General Plan provides for the one-way
couplet. This concept has had no public support throughout the process. By
selecting either the widen-in-place option or the realignment configuration and
adopting a land use plan map consistent with that decision, the current one-way
couplet policy can be eliminated. This action would clarify County General Plan
policy in the area.
Advantages: Eliminate a General Plan policy currently out of favor
in Oakley, clarifies County land use and transportation intent in the
area, and provides a preferred roadway alignment for new
development.
Disadvantages: It does not deal with the other range of issues
covered by adoption of the Specific Plan.
D. ADOPT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN
The purpose of a Specific Plan is to add detail to a jurisdiction's land use policies
which are more detailed than usually found within a jurisdiction's General Plan.
OMAC directed that a Specific Plan be prepared; to be funded out of the
Redevelopment Agency's Oakley funds. To date, about $269,000 has been
expended on preliminary engineering, planning and environmental studies based
on this direction.
Approval of the Specific Plan with Alternative C could proceed as recommended
by ECRPC and GMAC. Approval of Specific Plan with Alternative A would only
require a minor change in the land use plan map for the Mixed Use area.
Adoption of the Specific Plan would allow these added policies to be put into
place.
Advantages: Support for OMAC funded and approved process.
Disadvantages: It further strengthens County policy on which
alignment to adopt.
E. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROAD ALIGNMENT DECISION
So far, only initial preliminary design work has been prepared on the road
alignment alternatives. The next step would require more detailed design work
(to 35% design level standards) for a preferred alignment which is needed to
determine the alignment's right-of-way and for the subsequent right-of-way
acquisition process. The design work would be prepared by the Public Works
Department and would be financed by the Redevelopment Agency. This task is
Oakley Specific Plan Adoption Alternatives
June 5, 1997
Page 6
included in the Redevelopment Agency's current budget (no additional bonded
indebtedness would be required), Public Works staff has estimated it would take
about six to twelve months to complete the 35% level design work and cost
approximately $100,000.
The subsequent acquisition of all required right-of-way would require the
Redevelopment Agency to incur additional bonded indebtedness. At present, the
Agency could conservatively incur about $5.5 million in additional indebtedness.
Most of the acquisition program could not proceed until the 35% level design
work has been completed. The design work, along with other required reports,
would then be sent to Caltrans for their review and approval.
IMPORTANT.
As a control point, the Board of Supervisors could give
direction on how staff should proceed in implementing
whatever policy decision is reached.
The obvious choices are:
The Board could direct staff to defer any further design work until a decision is
reached by LAFCO or an outcome of a November 1997 vote to incorporate is
known. This action would enable the Board to revisit the issue in August when
it will be known that an election on incorporation will officially be scheduled for
November 4, 1997. This action would minimally delay work by six to eight
months.
OR
The Board could authorize Public Works staff to proceed with design work but
defer right-of-way acquisition activities following the incorporation vote for
November 4, 1997. This would keep the process moving but would limit
expenses to design work until the jurisdictional decisions are more clearly in
focus, and allow for further action to be determined once the incorporation issue
is resolved.
VB. OAKLEY OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CHANGE
The proposed Specific Plan references developing a community center in the downtown
area. At present, the Oakley community has identified a preferred site for a community
center and other public facilities outside of both the downtown and redevelopment
project area.
On page 5-12, the Specific Plan discusses the Urban Design Plan for the community
center. The site location discussion in the second paragraph makes reference to a
Oakley Specific Plan Adoption Alternatives
June 5, 1997
Page 7
preferred site for the community center. To be consistent with the community's present
desires, staff recommends the text for the second paragraph, page 5-12 be modified to
state:
The preferred site for a downtown community center should be
determined by the following criteria (in descending order of
importance) as follows:
• Size, shape and access are adequate to accommodate the needs
of the community center and public plaza;
• Direct frontage along Main Street; and
• Pedestrian access to/from Main Street, the school at Norcross
Lane, and the larger Old Town neighborhood."
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve changes to the General Plan, as recommended by OMAC and ECRPC, which
includes removal of the downtown couplet from the Circulation Element to be replaced
with Alternative C -the Northern Realignment of State Route 4, but defer implementation
activities on this roadway alignment (35% level design work) until either a decision has
been reached by LAFCO on incorporation feasibility or an outcome on the November 4,
1997 vote on incorporation is known. Adopt the Oakley Old Town Specific Plan with
modification in the text to match community preferences on siting a preferred location
for the community center.
JWC:aw/gms
j:Wwbakley.mem
cc: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
Val Alexeeff, Director of GMEDA
Jeanne Maglio, Clerk of the Board
Press Box
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ti
FROM: Val Alexeeff, GMEDA Director
DATE: June 24, 1997
SUBJECT: Status Report on Proposed Improvements to the Permit Process
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
A. ACCEPT the attached status report and detailed action items to implement process improvements
for permit streamlining.
B. APPROVE the Development Policy Approval Process as outlined in the attached report.
C. AUTHORIZE staff to prepare and review draft modifications to home occupation ordinance
regulations in accordance with the Development Policy Approval Process as follows:
1. Submit the draft changes to the Regional Planning Commissions (RPC) for comment,
discussion or hearing (at their discretion), and to the Municipal Advisory Councils (MAC),
and active Homeowner's Associations (HOA).
2. Set a hearing before the County Planning Commission to consider the proposed
modifications, comments and recommendations from the RPC,MACS and HOAs. Identify
and resolve key issues if necessary and make a recommendation to the Board.
3. Report to Board of Supervisors on the comments of the MACS and HOAs and the
recommendation from the Planning Commission, and set date for hearing before the Board.
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: II I
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 24, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED—OTHER X
APPROVED Recommendations A and C as set forth above; and DEFERRED further consideration of
Recomendation B until after the July 1, 1997, Board of Supervisors' Retreat.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT -------- )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
RMA:nov sd
g:\engsvc\bo\permitbo
I11Bf8by ClAlly fM!Ih16 b ttM1ISCfW COfI9Ct copyof
Orig.Div: Public Works(E/S) OA IIIIAY�OI
Contact Mitch Avalon(313-2231) M
cc: CAO A
County Counsel ---
GMEDA Dcparhnents
s in
SUBJECT: Status Report on Proposed Improvements to the Permit Process
DATE: June 24, 1997
PAGE 2
II. Fiscal Impact:
Staff time expended and charged for any changes to the ordinance, and responses to calls and additional
inquiry resulting from hearings on any home occupation modification.
III. Reasons for Recommendation and Background:
Examination of home occupation requirements is a part of the overall program for permit streamlining. The
contemplated changes will allow home occupations,restricted by specific criteria, as a matter of right within
residential zoning districts. This would affect such home occupations as accounting and telemarketing,
where the activity is oriented to the computer and no activity exists outside of the home. The detailed
background for the proposed changes to the home occupation ordinance provisions, along with other permit
streamlining changes, is included in the attached report.
IV, Consequences of Negative Action:
There will be no follow up to the workshop on permit streamlining.
�. 8
Permit Streamlining
Background and Status of Proposed Improvements to the Permit Process
June 24, 1997
I. Financial Impact:
A. Financial Impact to County
There have been and will continue to be initial costs associated with staff time needed to implement
the permit streamlining improvements. Many of these improvements,however,are aimed at creating
a long term savings through improved process efficiencies and reduced delay to applicant.
B. Financial Impact to Applicant
1. Permit Streamlining: There are 61 improvements identified in the Permit Streamlining
effort. Many of these improvements are intended to reduce the time involved in processing
an application, increase coordination and communication between County Departments,
improve accounting and billing to applicants, and improve the use of technology to increase
process efficiencies. Many of these improvements will result in a cost savings to the
applicant.
2. Repercussion of Applicant Process Deviation; When an applicant submits a development
project to the County for processing, a fee is paid. This fee is based upon the cost to process
a normal project with no deviations in the normal process. Some projects evolve into
projects that are no longer"normal." For example, the applicant may decide to change the
scope of the development half-way through the process or there is considerable
neighborhood opposition to the project. When the applicant revises the development project
due to neighborhood concerns or changes in the marketplace, the staff time to review the
project increases. At the same time, when a project is overly complex or has considerable
neighborhood opposition, then the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission may
request several continuances in their need to obtain as much information as possible to make
an informed decision on the project. There have also been times where Planning
Commissions have either not trusted the applicant's consultants or prefer to have an
independent analysis, and have "directed" staff to prepare additional studies and reports.
All of these activities add up to additional staff time and project expense resulting in greater
overall costs to the applicant.
II. Background:
A. Permit Streamlining Workshop: On June 4, 1996, the Board held a workshop on permit
streamlining. At the workshop staff reviewed the current permit process along with a conceptual
layout of a streamlined process. Staff had also analyzed the zoning ordinance, in the context of
streamlining the review of projects,to determine which review steps are required by State statute and
which are the result of local ordinance or Board policy.
B. Consultant Report: At the June 4, 1996, Board Workshop, staff included a Development Process
Streamlining Report which was prepared by Pacific Mutual Consultants. The report compared the
Contra Costa County process to State regulations and to current procedures in Tracy, Livermore and
Sutter County. The report methodology allows comparison of the Contra Costa County process with
any other jurisdiction in California for the various types of projects, such as zoning changes, specific
plans, subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits and CEQA review. The report listed
29 recommended system modifications. These recommended modifications have been incorporated
in the process improvements described in this report.
C. Process Improvements: At an August 6, 1996 workshop, the Board approved a conceptual outline
of proposed changes to accomplish permit streamlining. The proposed improvements were grouped
into four categories with a fifth category subsequently added due to the incorporation of the
consultants recommendations:
1
V• a
I. Application Acceptance Process: To achieve the highest quality of submittal materials and
to allow as many decisions as possible at the time of application submittal.
2. Ordinance Changes: To revise the ordinance code to reduce the application processing time
while maintaining the desired overview.
3. Application Tracking, Cost Accounting and Billing: To improve timeliness of billing,
accounting automation and project tracking.
4. Staff Reports and Conditions of Approval: To improve the format of staff reports and
conditions of approval to make them more user friendly and understandable, and distribute
them to applicants and interested parties for review prior to the hearing.
5. General and Administrative: To improve general and administrative processes.
D. Status Report: Since the Board workshop, staff has worked on completing many of the proposed
improvements. The last section of this report lists all 61 of the recommended process improvements
and provides a status of the work done to date and projected time of completion for the balance of
the work to be done.
E. Home Occupation: One of the specific recommendations for streamlining the permit process is to
provide ministerial permitting authority for home occupation activities which meet certain baseline
criteria. If an applicant wants a home occupation permit that exceeds the baseline criteria then the
applicant would apply for a land use permit and go through the discretionary hearing process.
M. Project Roles and Responsibilities:
A. Project Compliance and Project Compatibility: Project processing has evolved over time in
response to community needs, developer needs and State law. Upon examination of the land
development process, it becomes clear that the review and compliance functions of staff have
become intertwined with the evaluation and participation functions of community groups. Often
parties involved in the process become confused about authority, procedure and role.
Inherent to the proposed process changes is the intent to separate the compliance function performed
by staff(that which is required by State law) from the evaluation of project compatibility which is
performed by the community. It is proposed that the compliance aspects of project review are made
as brief and well defined as possible, allowing whatever time is desired for addressing compatibility
issues. This change will allow staff to maintain a higher level of accountability because of the clear
delineation between the role of staff and the role of community groups. Also, by separating the
compliance function from the compatibility function, time and costs associated with development
application processing will be easier to predict.
B. Project Coordination: The information technology currently in use includes components which
are antiquated, limited in flexibility and adaptability and do not provide the interaction opportunities
necessary for the three departments in GMEDA to maximize efficiencies in processing development
applications. Staff is working on both the functional and technical requirements of a new system
which will enable every aspect of a project to be processed and monitored throughout the life of the
project. Until a fully integrated system is available, staff is engaged in a team approach to
information integration, using the available automated systems together with manual methods to
produce integrated reports and billings.
IV. Development Policy Approval Process:
A. Department Upgrades Versus Policy Changes: There are two types of improvements outlined in
the Status Report section of this report; department upgrades and policy changes. Of the 61
proposed improvements, many are department upgrades of existing processes or equipment. Other
proposed improvements are changes that require a policy decision. It is suggested that those
improvements which are of a department upgrade type would be implemented at a staff level. Those
changes, however, which require policy decisions would be implemented through a development
2
�. g
policy approval process described below. The process provides for public input by any interested
party. Of the 16 improvements proposed to be completed in Fiscal Year 97/98 (identified with an
"H" in the Status Report section), six of those require policy changes. Those items are:
I. Develop design standards and guidelines to clarify code requirements (l.d).
2. Promote small project approval at the Applicant and Permit Center(l.m).
3. Streamline processing of small lot building design and location(2.a).
4. Streamline processing of home occupation (2.e).
5. Adopt regulations clarifying roles of advisory committees (It should be noted that the issue
of MAC protocol, which the Board has requested staff to review in its Board Order dated
July 23, 1996, will be included in this effort to adopt regulations clarifying the roles of
advisory committees) (5.b).
6. Eliminate requirement for Board of Supervisors' approval for release of improvement
security (5.e).
B. Development Policy Approval Process: The following process is proposed to be used for policy
changes. The process is designed to gain Board direction in addition to gathering input from all
interested parties. It is designed to keep the Board fully informed throughout the process, and to
provide opportunities for input from interested parties and forums for resolution of issues as they
arise. The process has four steps:
Step l:
Board Authorization: This first step is to gain authorization from the Board for staff to examine a
policy change through the Development Policy Approval Process. For example, as part of this
report, staff is requesting authorization to implement changes to the home occupation ordinance
provisions. The authorization will allow staff to take proposed changes through the policy approval
process. At this first step in the process, the Board may decide not to authorize staff to make
changes to policy or may provide staff with any modifications or direction to the proposed policy
changes.
Step 2:
Input from Interested Parties: In this step of the process all interested parties are identified and are
given the opportunity to provide input to the contemplated policy changes. The policy change is
placed on the agenda of the Regional Planning Commissions who can, at their discretion, either
comment, discuss or hold a hearing on the proposed changes. All interested parties would be
provided with the proposed policy changes and would have an opportunity to state their comments
at the Regional Planning Commission meetings, or to submit comments in writing to staff for
inclusion in the County Planning Commission packet. Any comments from the Regional Planning
Commissions,MACS or other interested parties will be submitted and considered at a public hearing
before the County Planning Commission. Key concerns will be identified at the hearings and
resolution will be sought at that time. The County Planning Commission will consider the proposed
policy changes and make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. For example, staff will
submit the proposed home occupation ordinance changes to the Regional Planning Commissions,
Municipal Advisory Councils, interested Homeowner's Associations, and neighborhood and
community planning organizations for comment. Staff will subsequently schedule a hearing for the
County Planning Commission. It is suggested that the final hearing be held before the County
Planning Commission,because resolution of Countywide issues is best conducted in a single forum.
Regional commissions may, however, hold hearings at their discretion to provide advisory
recommendations to the County Planning Commission.
3
1�, g
Step 3:
Report to the Board: Staff will report the Planning Commissions recommendation to the Board,plus
the status of the policy change and any unresolved issues identified in the community input process.
The Board will then provide direction on the unresolved issues and set a public hearing before the
Board for consideration and a decision on the policy change, if a hearing is deemed necessary.
Step 4:
Board Hearine: The Board will hold a hearing, if necessary, receive additional input , and then make
a decision on the policy change.
V. Status Report of Permit Streamlining Process Improvements:
A. Completed Improvements: This sections describes the specific process improvements that have
been completed since the last Board Workshop of August 6, 1996. It also describes some of the
permit streamlining activities in which we have been involved over the last year.
1. Process Improvement Activities
a. Meeting Business Needs
1) Staff now holds quarterly forums with members of the building,
development, and engineering community to clarify processes, identify
impediments and formulate strategies to simplify development processing.
2) Just two years ago, a quarter of the companies in California planned to leave
because of the high cost of doing business. Today the State and Contra
Costa County are reversing the trend by creating a more business friendly
environment. In October, 1995 the Contra Costa Council commissioned a
study of the economic vitality of Contra Costa County. The report identified
six areas where improvement was needed. The report recommended
realignment of the permitting process to make it more customer friendly. The
Contra Costa Economic Partnership working with County staff addressed this
recommendation by implementing the following new streamlining procedures
in the permitting process:
a) State of California Regional Permitting Center located in the County
offices in Martinez offering one stop shopping for State required
permits.
b) Reduction and consolidation of local amendments to the Uniform
Building Code (UBC) throughout Contra Costa County building
inspection departments.
Other streamlining efforts are currently under discussion by the Economic
Partnership and staff with anticipation of restoring a business friendly
atmosphere to Contra Costa County.
b. Pursuing Excellence
1) The Permit Center staff attends monthly meetings to coordinate activities and
share information. Public Works staff and planners discuss issues such as
consistency in ordinance interpretation, clarity in conditions of approval and
timing of staff reports. The Building Inspection counter staff and structural
engineers meet with the Current Planning counter staff to improve
coordination of activities, consistency in code interpretation, and customer
service enhancements.
4
2) An integrated Floodplain Management Program team has been formed of
staff from Community Development, Building Inspection, and Public Works.
The team coordinates program administration and floodplain permit
processing and has earned reduced insurance rates for citizens requiring flood
insurance.
3) The Public Works Department recently completed an analysis of the process
for placing items on the Board of Supervisor's Agenda. Their work resulted
in reduced processing time and in a public information handout designed to
explain simply and to demystify the process for the novice developer.
4) The Code Enforcement program is currently under critical review for
improved efficiency in operation. Coordination meetings among Code
Enforcement staff, Current Planning staff, and staff of the Redevelopment
Agency are being held regularly.
2. Recommendations Completed
The following is a list of the specific process improvements which were part of the Board
Workshop on August 6, 1996 and have since been completed. Each is identified by the
status list designation in parenthesis.
a. Determine what information/maps are needed at the Application and Permit Center
to enable preliminary conditions of approval to be prepared (Lc). Action: An
inventory of the needed maps and information was performed at the Application and
Permit Center. Staff was also interviewed to determine what information was
needed. The maps and information was then assembled and placed at the Application
and Permit Center.
b. Install computers at the Application and Permit Center front counter. (Le). Action:
Computers were installed at the Permit Center front counter during March 1997.
C. Require photos of the site to be submitted with the application (1.g). Action: The
application form at the Permit Center was modified to require photos to be submitted
with the application.
d. Provide customers with evaluation forms to receive feedback on our service delivery
(1 j). Action: Evaluation forms and survey forms are now provided to our customers
at the Application and Permit Center, Building Inspection (Housing Division
Counter) and the Public Works Department Counter.
e. Provide self service facilities (Lo). Action: There are self service facilities at the
Application and Permit Center for customers to obtain development related
information.
f. Provide zoning maps and zoning indexes (l.p). Action: These documents are
available to the public at the front counter at the Application and Permit Center.
g. Transportation demand management (2.d). May 1997, County ordinance was
changed to be consistent with new State Law.
h. Prioritize work lists from Community Development Department to Public Works
Department(3.b). Action: Staff from both departments jointly developed a format
for a priority list that informs Public Works on which projects Community
Development needs information. This list is updated every two weeks and allows
more efficient use of staff time in both departments.
5
�• 6
i. Develop notices to applicant before expenditures reach 100% of fees (3.c). Action:
Public Works and Community Development now share cost data on projects and
notify applicants when charges reach 80% - 100%of the fees collected. This allows
the applicant to estimate the amount of charges necessary to complete the project if
the project is not complete.
j. Update and regularly review all planning documents and tools (3.m). Action: There
is currently a process of ongoing review of development related documents and
forms.
k. Identify project issues in staff reports (4.c). Action: Staff now identifies project
issues during the 30 day comment period. This has been very helpful for applicants
as they can identify costly factors associated with the project before preparing plans
and detailed application work. These issues are carried forward into the project staff
report.
1. Identify timing and sign off for Fire District requests (4.f). Action: The role of the
Fire District's has been clarified. The Fire Districts sign off on plans at the
Application and Permit Center.
in. Distribute conditions of approval to interested parties prior to hearing (4.g). Action:
The staff report and conditions of approval are distributed to all identified interested
parties prior to the project hearing.
n. Reduce length and complexity of staff reports (41). Action: Staff has reduced the
length and complexity of staff reports. However, the reports still provide the
information required and requested by the various hearing bodies of the planning
agency.
o. Use standard document format (4.j). Action: Our document format has been
standardized.
P. Fast track high-priority items (SA). Action: Both Community Development and
Public Works have an accelerated review process that speeds up the review of
applications at the request of the applicant.
q. Color code plans (51). Action: This recommendation was considered, but not
implemented because it would cause unnecessary applicant and County expense.
B. Status Report: This section provides the detailed status of each recommended process
improvement. These improvements are designed to accomplish permit streamlining. Those
improvements that were recommended by Pacific Municipal Consultants are identified by (PMC)
at the end of the recommendation. The status of the process improvements is shown as follows:
C = Completed
H=High priority to be completed in fiscal year 97/98
M=Medium priority to be completed in fiscal year 98/99
L=Low priority
1. Application acceptance process - To achieve the highest quality of submittal materials and
to allow as many decisions as possible at the time of application acceptance.
H a. Develop matrix of standard requirements for simple, straight forward
projects.
H b. Improve information access at the Application and Permit Center to enable
preparation of preliminary Conditions of Approval.
6
4
C C. Determine what information/maps are needed at the Application and Permit
Center to enable preliminary Conditions of Approval to be prepared(e.g., like
N. Richmond P-1 maps).
H d. Develop design standards and guidelines to clarify code requirements (e.g.,
creekside development).
C e. Install computers at the Application and Permit Center front counter.
M f. Develop threshold criteria of when certain requirements are needed (e.g.,
right of way, sound wall, frontage improvements, etc.).
C g. Require photos of the site be submitted with the application.
H h. Develop a list of required information to be submitted with development
permit applications.
H i. Develop a handout to advise applicants of the time limits to which the
County must adhere when processing development applications.
C j. Provide customers with evaluation forms to receive feedback on our service
delivery. (PMC.2)
M k. Provide customer with sample conditions of approval, sample plans, and
process checklist. (PMC.3)
M 1. Photograph project area during site check. (PMC.4)
H in. Promote small project approval at the permit counter. (PMC.7)
L n. Use development review process in place of the pre-application review
process. (PMC.12)
C o. Provide self-service facilities. (PMC.18)
C P. Provide zoning maps and zoning indexes. (PMC.19)
L q. Develop computerized library of documents. (PMC.20)
2. Ordinance Code changes -To revise the ordinance code to achieve the intended overview
and project outcome without undo expense or delay.
H a. Small lot building design and location- Limit design review process(current
process can require six months). (PMC.5)
L b. Off-street parking - Modify to allow for compact car dimensions and
enhanced landscape standards (may reduce process time of commercial,
industrial, multiple family projects by three months).
M C. Child care- Modify the administration of the Ordinance to see that concerns
are addressed early in the review of a project.
C d. Transportation Demand Management - Recommend the ordinance be partly
repealed due to change in State statute.
H e. Home Occupation-Modify this provision in the code to allow for ministerial
review where specified criteria are met.
M f Commercial Radio and Television Transmitting Facilities-Modify ordinance
requirements where certain characteristics are present (size, shape, height,
etc.). Retain development permit requirements for other transmitting and
receiving facilities to avoid negative siting effects.
L g. Forestry-Recreation District (F-R), Water Recreation District (F-1), Light
Agricultural District (A-1) - Rezone existing properties to districts that
conform with the general plan.
L h. General Agriculture District(A-2),Heavy Agriculture District(A-3),Limited
Office District (0-1), Administrative Office District (A-0), Community
Business District (C-B), Controlled Manufacturing District (C-M), Light
Industrial District(L-1) - Zoning district provisions should be modified and
clarified to meet need of contemporary land use.
M i. Planned Unit District (P-1) -Expand the use of this district.
L j. Agricultural Zoning Districts- Modify agricultural districts to allow for more
agriculturally related uses as permitted uses.
L k. Commercial Business Zoning Districts - Modify the structure of commercial
zoning districts (R-B Retail Business District, N-B Neighborhood Business
District, P-N-B Planned Neighborhood Business District, C General
Commercial District, and C-B Community Business District)to better reflect
the range of types and complexities of involved projects. Consider combined
and simplified review of development plan and land use permit application
reviews for less complex projects.
7
I/• d
L 1. Light Industrial District (L-I) - Modify the provisions of the L-I Light
Industrial District to provide clarity on land use permit requirements, and to
allow consideration of identification sign meeting criteria without issuance
of a land use permit.
L in. Take-out Food Establishment Ordinance - Modify ordinance to change
existing land use permit requirements to allow ministerial review for take out
food establishment, but to retain bonding requirement for litter pick up.
3. Application tracking, administration, cost accounting and billing - To improve
accounting automation and project tracking.
H a. Coordinate project tracking with Community Development Department,
Public Works Department, and the Application and Permit Center.
C b. Prioritize work list from Community Development Department to Public
Works Department (what project Community Development Department
wants Public Works Department to work on).
C C. Develop noticing to applicant before expenditures reach 100% of fees.
H d. Implement joint Community Development Department/Public Works
Department database for accurate billings and timekeeping.
H e. Develop mission statements for each department. (PMC.1)
L f. Develop service level goals/measures for each department. (PMC.1)
L g. Computerize project logs. (PMC.6)
L h. Use formal application process schedule. (PMC.11)
M i. Develop an application listing and circulate to Building Inspection and Public
Works. (PMC.13)
L j. Cross train employees and circulate permit center employees. (PMC.14 &
15)
L k. Minimize physical separation between departments. (PMC16)
L 1. Install an automated phone system. (PMC.17)
C in. Update and regularly review all planning documents and tools. (PMC.21)
4. Staff reports and conditions of approval - To improve the readability and clarity of staff
reports and conditions of approval and to improve distribution to interested parties.
H a. Clarify and simplify standard conditions of approval.
M b. Group conditions in relation to project milestones.
C C. Identify project issues in staff report.
H d. Require applicant to indicate status of completion of each conditions of
approval at each project milestone.
H e. Add sign off space and date line to each condition of approval.
C f Identify timing and sign off for fire district requests (e.g., hydrants).
C g. Distribute conditions of approval to interested parties prior to hearing.
C It. Reduce length and complexity of staff reports. (PMC.8)
M i. Reduce length of time for receiving departmental comments to project
referrals. (PMC.9)
C j. Use standard document format. (PMC.10)
5. General and Administrative - To improve general and administrative processes.
L a. Use Specific Plans. (PMC.22)
H b. Adopt regulations clarifying the roles of advisory committees. (PMC.23)
M C. Consolidate inspections departmentally. (PMC.24)
C d. Fast track high priority items. (PMC.25)
H C. Eliminate requirement for Board of Supervisor approval of release of
improvement security. (PMC.26)
M f. Relocate grading functions to the Public Works Department. (PMC.27)
M g. Establish computer linkage between Permit Center and on-site inspectors.
(PMC.28)
C It. Color code plans. (PMC.29)
8
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
ADVISEMENT FORM
AGFNDADATE: OEM NO.: .08
Q` ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN THE MINUTES
❑ ITEM CONTINUED TO:
❑ ITEM DELETED
❑ PUBLIC COMMENT - NONE
❑ CONSIDERED CONSENT ITEMS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED -
SEE SUMMARY FOR CHANGES; OTIIERWISE APPROVED AS
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
THIS SEMON FOR PLANNING HEW ONLY
❑ ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN FILE (NAME):
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL
ADVISEME++T FORM
AGENDA DATE: DIEM NO.: dg�
C3 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN THE MINUTES
❑ ITEM CONTINUED TO:
❑ ITEM DELETED
2 PUBLIC COMMENT - NONE
❑ CONSIDERED CONSENT ITEMS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED -
SEE SUMMARY FOR CHANGES; OTHERWISE APPROVED AS
LISTED ON THE AGENDA
TM SECTION FOR PLANNING I uos ONLY
❑ ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN FILE (NAME):