HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09191989 - 2.3 ., "003
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development ++
DATE: _ _ �l ra
Sxa
September';- 19,' i989 C10
SUBJECT: Clayton-Morgan Territory Development Issues Courly
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Direct staff to continue to notice the City of Clayton, Save
Mt. Diablo, and initiate noticing of Greenbelt Alliance and
the Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, of all pending
applications for the Clayton, Marsh Creek, Morgan Territory
Area, as shown on Map 1 (Clayton area of planning interest) .
2 . Direct staff to notice the City of Clayton on major policy
issues in East County which have the potential to impact that
city, e.g. the Oakley or Bethel Island General Plans or the
Delta Expressway. Where EIRs are required by the County they
should be forwarded to that city. If County Negative
Declarations are proposed for projects which have over 100
housing units (or equivalent impact for non-residential uses)
which were not addressed- in a community general plan (e.g. ,
Oakley) they will also be forwarded to that city for comment.
3 . Request the County Community Development Department to
initiate discussions between Clayton; Concord, and Pittsburg
on the desirability of establishing a Kirker Hills
Agricultural Preservation Area (similar to the Briones Hills
agreement) . Upon completion of those discussions prepare a
status report for Board action on this item.
4. Initiate a rezoning study for the Marsh Creek/Morgan Territory
area to determine the appropriate agricultural zonings to
implement- the General Plan policies for this area. This will
include Mt. Diablo State Park.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUR .
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM TIO OF BltAPt COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 19, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ x OTHER x
The Board approved the seven recommendations as stated and recommendation No.. 8 as
follows: "Until completion of the rezoning effort, all minor subdivisions and use
permits within the Map 1 area will be referred from the Zoning Administrator to the
County Planning Commission for public hearings.'
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
xxUNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN ANDENTEREDON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development ATTESTED September 19, 1989
City of Clayton PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works Department AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CAO ,
BY DEPUTY
JWC:Cg
cjc2/clytnmt.bo
1i
5. Undertake a scenic route implementation study for Morgan
Territory and Marsh Creek Roads as staff time becomes
available.
6. Direct County staff to require full compliance with the Boards
1983 adopted ranchette policy for all development applications
within the City of Clayton' s area of Planning Interest (Map
1) . Applications which aren' t submitted including all the
required data submittals shall be deemed incomplete until the
necessary data is provided.
7 . Initial studies within the Clayton Area of Planning Interest
shall include consideration of the cumulative impact that
developments are having on the agricultural/rural nature of
the area, and on the road capacity and safety of Morgan
Territory and Marsh Creek Roads.
FISCAL IMPACT
Costs for consideration of an agricultural preservation area and
rezoning will be from the existing Community Development Department
budget. Costs relative to development applications and CEQA
determinations are developer costs.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In response to a Board referral of a letter from the City of
Clayton on planning issues adjacent to the city (referred to the
Community Development Department) , Supervisor Torlakson set up two
meetings between himself, Clayton elected officials, staff of both
agencies, and selected citizen groups from the area. The joint
purposes of these meetings were to arrange for more effective
communication between Clayton, citizen groups, and the County, and
to discuss measures to implement the adopted City and County
General Plans for the greater. Clayton area. This board order
reflects the results of those meetings.
The following is a response to discussion items raised at the
meeting and relates directly to the Recommendations to this
.Board Order:
o Notification of Clayton and Conservation Groups of
Applications Adjacent to that City
The City of has been noticing an increased amount of traffic
entering the city on Marsh Creek Road from the east and has
raised the issue of the City being noticed on applications
well beyond the sphere of influence of Clayton, which might
affect the city, especially in terms of traffic. A Save Mt.
Diablo representative at the meeting indicated that they were
generally noticed for applications but other conservation
groups didn' t always receive this courtesy. It was suggested
that Clayton, Save Mt. Diablo, Greenbelt Alliance and the Bay
Chapter of the Sierra Club be noticed for applications within
the Clayton/Marsh Creek/Morgan Territory areas. The attached
map identified as the Clayton Area of Planning Interest was
requested to be the boundary for notification (Map #1) .
State planning law allows for written request by groups for
such notification. Adoption of this recommendation would
clarify the need to notice all these agencies of pending
applications.
o Notice Clayton on Major East County Policy Issues
In addition to the cumulative applications for rural projects
east of Clayton (discussed above) the County is considering
major policy changes in East County distant from Clayton which
may have a secondary impact on them due to the limited number
of roads connecting east and Central County.
Clayton staff requested that they be notified on public
hearings on these major issues and that when EIR' s are
prepared on these issues, that they should be mailed to the
city.
Major projects were limited to those that might have a
secondary impact on that city and would include general plan
amendments or major road infrastructure issues. The city
should consider contacting Antioch and Brentwood for similar
treatment. If they are projects which aren' t covered by a
community plan amendment (e.g. , Oakley or Bethel Island) and,
are to be processed via a Negative Declaration they will also
be forwarded to the city; non-residential uses of equivalent
off-site impacts processed via Negative Declarations should
also be forwarded to the city.
o Agricultural Preservation Area
In mid-1988, the staff of the County, Clayton, Concord, and
Pittsburg met to discuss the potential for creating an
agricultural preservation area ( similar to the Briones Hills
example) . It was tentatively called the Kirker Hills
Agricultural Preservation Area.
Discussions were dropped on this due to a pending LAFCO
decision on a proposed Pittsburg sphere of influence which was
proposed south from Pittsburg into this area. Now that LAFCO
has resolved the sphere of influence boundary issue in the
area, it was suggested that City and County staff should meet
to discuss whether further action on this 13 desirable.
A follow-up discussion is recommended on the potential for
this proposal with a report back to the Board on the viability
and timing of this proposal.
o Agricultural Rezoning Study
In 1980 the County adopted the Morgan Territory General Plan.
That plan text on page 3 references policies and studies which
need to be completed. It states:
"The restriction on further fragmentation of parcels
is crucial to this plan. A rezoning study should be
initiated on this planning area to apply new, more
stringent zoning categories. A scenic route
specific plan will be implemented to ensure adequate
rights of way for the scenic routes along Morgan
Territory Road and Marsh Creek Road. "
Due to the press of staff time that study has never been
initiated. Given recent development applications, in this
area, this rezoning study should be undertaken so that the
level of development can be resolved prior to consideration of
development applications. Previously the Board initiated a
request to rezone Mt. Diablo State Park. These two rezoning
proposals should be initiated and scheduled for public
hearings.
o Scenic Route Studies
As the quote above indicates, both Marsh Creek and Morgan
Territory Roads have been urged to have scenic route studies
completed upon them. While a low priority item, this could be
done as staff time becomes available.
-3-
o Ranchette Policy _
Several citizen groups have challenged that the County has
not been fully implementing the 1983 ranchette policy adopted
by the Board. Although staff doesn' t agree with this
position, it is clear that by directing staff to not accept
applications as complete until all provisions have been
submitted, this issue can easily be resolved.
o CEQA Compliance
Subdivision applications have been a source of disagreement
between several conservation groups and County staff when it
comes to determining the environmental insignificance of
applications, Numerous Negative Declarations have been
challenged or appealed within this area, many by Save Mt.
Diablo. These appeals are draining on the system, both from
a time and monetary viewpoint; it diverts from resolving the
underlying real issues.
In many cases the issue revolves around the cumulative impacts
of small developments.
It had been suggested that all subdivision requests in the
Clayton Planning Area of Influence be required to have an EIR.
Staff disagrees strongly with this approach. CEQA requires
that an initial study is , the appropriate vehicle for deter-
mining if a project may have a significant impact on the
environment.
It would, however, be appropriate to remind all parties to
consider, in determining whether an EIR is required, the
cumulative impact that developments have on the rural nature
of an area and on the road capacity and safety on Morgan
Territory and Marsh Creek Roads.
CEQA considerations will continue to be based on Initial
Studies as required by State Law, but staff will specifically
examine the aforementioned issues in making that decision.
In some cases an EIR may be required covering several pending
applications together rather than individually.
-4-
i 17 �i I
'• I• � iis 0
1 O
it
i it:.^ :. 1� �• 1. � t - I �.``f. I _ t .JIB.. � it t rr
!I -I I' Irl � 1•' I. :_ •I, '=•1 :• /., �!" It ;.-ro it r1 , �.
�I' le N.~- +� ' I I t - ( •�� ns-� ,«,,„.�kY l ,•ten I1
it
�,1{I. Z'I 1'� ' 1 s I. Ali �� li, ���— �' i; �✓ �� - _ ` i
_
I, 1=i ;E Ili i ,r %I� �' ICI, - �►~ {,__ '
>S
e. Ll
1 �' '• ��'' ii i��i '� i ic=- i r4 J1 l� �,1 // � {�- - I 'a'c *t � �-_.
N,
-777
+_ 1 �> ♦. ' / �..r r� ,,� � ,_�.--1.>t it `' I .1 .Y
7: �' � k R - i' ..,iii-: lit iI 'lr�� -^� �� � , � �• � �!I
I 5-.. i• �t,,,y... //•l I ,..'' Il •ji_'sY.�i.. 1' �_ �. _ ! -.
1
�-i,
S Ti 5.,. +� sf, r—;�� t l�- t••••, ..4, `.#� ,- I. 'tv/ ' . f �j �Y..�. "„`• --
I` � :i• , .�YK r�; y ` l., _r: .:}~ ./' if - •45Tli
rill- 4df
t i I �_ •" __ I 7: r #£ ��{;, t x. •_ i_ - V
14
L .J;' 1 vl•) 1 '.a_ t- 1� .- ',.- r/T -rlit if