HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08091994 - H.3 = Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
`,faudhG County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON 3
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ',
DATE: August 4 , 1994 SrA �ovxr`t�c3`
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing on the Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo of the County
Planning Commission Approval of MS 100-88 (Morgan) in the Clayton area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Accept the environmental documentation as adequate .
2 . Deny the Appeal of Save Mt . Diablo.
3 . Approve MS 100-88 with the revised conditions .
4 . Adopt the Findings .
FISCAL IMPACT
None .
BACKGROUND
This matter (which concerns a subdivision application that was
filed with the County in . 1988) was last heard by the Board of
Supervisors on July 19, 1994 . At that time, staff presented the
report 'of the County Planning Commission on the appeal following
the Board referral . The Commission recommended that the appeal be
denied, and that its previous approval be sustained but with
modifications that specified where residential development could
occur on the site .
ACTION AT PRIOR BOARD HEARING
After taking .testimony, the Board continued the hearing to the
August 9, 1994 meeting and directed staff to prepare revised
conditions and findings for an approval . The Board requested that
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ x YES SIGNATURE � .!t
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON / 9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES:jc -15 NOES-,f6;1 ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drake 646-2091
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTEDf�
cc: Willard & Naomi Morgan PHIL 9ATCHELbR, CLERK OF
Save Mt . Diablo THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstong AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department
City of Clayton BY . •7J DEPUTY
County Counsel
-2-
additional restrictions on residential development be imposed to
limit potential visibility. The Board inquired as to how current
County code road design standards compare with those in effect in
1988 when the application was filed.
The Board also requested that the applicant and appellant try to
resolve their differences prior to the next hearing.
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The revised conditions provide for limitations on the light
reflectance of exterior materials, and for landscape improvements
to be installed prior to occupancy of the residences .
ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS
In a memorandum dated August 1, 1994 , the Public Works Department
reviews these matters . The memo indicates that the County road
design standards have not changed from the time the application was
filed.
The memo also discusses road design standards that have been
established with regard to recent State Responsibility Area (SRA)
regulations which differ from ordinance standards .
It should be noted that the application was filed with the County
on October 25, 1988, and was accepted as complete (by default) on
November 24 , 1988 . State law (9 66474 . 3 (a) ) provides that the
applicant is subject to only those ordinances and standards in
effect on the date the County determined the tentative map
application to be complete . The SRA regulations did not become
effective until three years later (January 1, 1992) .
=100-88.bo
RD
r
ADDENDUM TO H.3
AUGUST 9, 1994
The Board continued to this date the hearing on the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo
from decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission acting as the Board of
Appeals on the application of Willard G. and Naomi Morgan (applicants and owners)
requesting approval of a tentative map for Minor Subdivision 100-88 to divide 160 acres
into four(4) parcels in a General Agricultural District (A-2). In continuing the hearing the
Board requested that the parties involved meet to confer on a possible resolution of the
differences.
Robert Drake of the Community Development Department presented the
revised conditions to include residential exterior materials and landscaping
improvements to help soften the potential visibility of the residential development. Mr.
Drake advised that Mitch Avalon of the Public Works Department would speak on the
issue of road design and fire standards.
Mr. Avalon explained State responsibility and local fire requirements as they
apply to road grade and access to the parcels in MS 100-88. He also spoke on current
County Ordinance provisions as applicable to this minor subdivision.
Seth Adams of Save Mt. Diablo commented on the reasons for the appeal
which include the visual prominence of the project, lack of information necessary to
conclude that there are no significant environmental impacts from potential development
of the site or appropriate mitigations to decrease those impacts to less than significant if
they do exist, the position of Save Mt. Diablo as it refers to other developments on
neighboring sites, and the impact on endangered species in the vicinity. Mr. Adams
advised that should the Board decide to allow the subdivision by denying the appeal of
Save Mt. Diablo, that the Board include a condition allowing no further subdivision of
the parcel.
Patricia Curtin, representing Willard and Naomi Morgan, responded to issues
raised by Mr. Adams advising that the negative declaration stated that there were no
significant impacts as a result of the application. She referred to the geologic report
prepared by the Morgans and submitted with their application that concludes that there
will be no geologic hazards as a result of this application. Ms. Curtin advised that the
building sites are put at the lowest elevations so that the homes can be designed to
provide for buffering by the already existing terrain and landscaping. She referred to the
inclusion of a condition that requires landscaping plans brought to the attention of the
Zoning Administrator at the time the development plans are presented to show that the
visual impacts have in fact been mitigated and minized.
All persons desiring to speak were heard.
Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to adopt staffs recommendations that include
denying the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo and accepting the finding as attached. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Smith.
Supervisor Bishop advised that she would not be voting in support of the
motion because of the visual impact of the development of this property and concern
for fire access. Stating her support of a condition to preclude further subdivision of the
property, Supervisor Bishop moved to amend the motion to include that condition.
Supervisor Torlakson seconded the amendment to the motion. He advised that
he supported clustering of the homes or some way to approve the appeal to move the
clustering issue to a point where it could be negotiated or settled.
August 9, 1994
H.3
Page 2
Following comments of the Board and County Counsel, Supervisor Torlakson
advised that he was withdrawing his second to the amended motion; he then moved a
substitute motion to grant the appeal by Save Mt. Diablo. The substitute motion was
seconded by Supervisor Bishop.
The vote on the substitute motion was as follows:
Ayes: Supervisors Bishop, Torlakson.
Noes: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Powers.
Absent/Abstain: None
The substitute motion failed to carry.
Thereupon, the Chair called for the note on the original motion. The vote was
as follows:
Ayes: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Powers.
Noes: Supervisors Bishop, Torlakson.
Absent/Abstain: None
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 100-88 (Morgan)
Modifications to the conditions prompted by the Board of
Supervisors' July 19, 1994 direction are identified in marked text.
Recommended added text is identified in redline.
1 . This approval is generally based upon the vesting tentative
map submitted with the application dated received October 29,
1988, as modified by the revised site plan entitled
"Improvement Plans" dated received May 17, 1994 .
Residential development shall be sited at the designated
"Bldg. Site" as shown on the above-described Improvement
Plans . Any proposal to re-locate a building site on an
approved parcel shall be considered by application to the
County to modify this subdivision permit .
2 . Prior to recording a Parcel Map, issuance of a grading permit,
or installation of improvements, submit a preliminary geology
and soil report meeting the requirements of Subdivision
Ordinance Section 94-4 .420 for review and approval of the
Planning Geologist . Improvement and grading plans shall carry
out the recommendations of the approved report . Record a
statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the
approved report port by title, author (firm) , and date,
calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that
the report is on file for public review in the Community
Development Department of Contra Costa County.
3 . Prior to filing a building permit for each parcel, provide for
a public water system or comply with the policy criteria for
subdivision of lands within agriculture and open space General
Plan Categories adopted by the Board of Supervisors March 15,
1983 including the following:
A. Each parcel must have an "on-site" producing water well
or install a "test well" having a minimum yield of three
gallons per minute with bacterial and chemical quality in
compliance with the State standards for a pure, wholesome
and potable water supply. (Title 22 , Section 64433) . If
the chemical analysis exceeds the State standards for
"maximum contaminant levels" for water potability, a
statement must be attached and "Run with the property
deed" advising of these levels; or
B. Have verifiable water availability data from adjacent
parcels presented by the applicant or knowledge of the
same, known by the Health Services Department concerning
water quality and quantity per (A) above; and
C. Have a statement that "attaches and runs with the deed"
indicating that a water well shall be installed on the
subject parcel complying with the general requirements
stated above prior to obtaining a Building Inspection
Department permit for construction.
D. In addition to the above, a hydro-geological evaluation
may be required in known or suspected water short areas .
This will include seasonal as well as yearly variations .
E . In lieu of the requirements of A, B, C, and D above
alternatives, water supply may be provided by the Contra
Costa Water District .
F. The land must be suitable for septic tank use according
to the County Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services
Department regulations . Percolation tests must be passed
on all proposed lots prior to filing of the Parcel or
Final Map.
4 . Development plans for each building site shall be reviewed and
approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of
building permits . Homes and other large structures shall be
designed and placed to minimize the visual impact from
adjoining properties or roadways . All structures shall have
non-flammable roofs and fire retardant or non-flammable
siding. All out-buildings shall have adequate spacing from
residences .
__........_......._............................................................... ........._... __.._..__..............._..............................__....
::::>:::>:>:>:>:> ra te' a s >' r ... m. . . ...... .... . . . . . . .m .n. .... .�.ans.....sha .�.
:: s : :d::;:b:: >: ::: ;a .... :..........:...:�................. ... .:...:..: :::.: .a .::..: ..:ac : b.::. .
iiiiiiiiiYiii:::.i : ::::.:::.::: ::::.:::.:: ::::i:.::.iii: '.iiiiiii:'ii'.iiiii:.i:'::'::.::...:'.::.::.::.::.::.::.::".iiiiiii:.iiiii:.i::'.i:.::.::':::".::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.Y:.::':.:
a: >1 :e� :e :>:land :a: ::>:a:rGh : :::>:::>::< h :::> n:::>s : :::>
:::::>: '":> e > >:'<er: :xrte e:r::::>::::c XX : ::>::>::: :h6i:«:ideve: :c
c3 > :` a.:.: ..: :::::.......: .................................................................................................................:.....................
�.::: ::::::::::.::::::::::::.:::::::::: .:::::::::. .::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: :
e de 'c e' ie. > a e >e > e c e ve c gene o >
s: :::>:: >` :s >` t3zr :»:»:<:> e > ..Q. .......e. eets.....cal......the...... laz�.t
:.;;:;;;;:.;: .;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:.;;:.;;;;;;;;;;;;:.;:.;: F..............
:::...:.. ......:............................:
>::>::>::>::>::>::>::;:.: ................;:.;;;:
pa1e�<t`e <sh�'1 ':`� �..... . .. G.�es.... hs ....
::::::::::::::::.:.::::.::::::::::::::::.9.::::::::::::.:::::::::.:y.................:.........:::::::::::::. .::::::::::::::::.::::p::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::......:,::::::::
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................
ri:at:u:ra ::1::.. >::::>a: d :<: x�;c3us::>::>:t :::::>: :he::::<:H:a::::;::::>:Are:a:::>:::>:::>:>:::
x.xsl'33 <IF 7 rl3 aCl %; E^ 'a t3SJ >':'<`:`:""`'`' >_
`: seeees... trete. .
:.
?................................................................................................................................................ ..............................................
� e d.::: a }a:.. ....:........................................:n.... .. ... .1.I 4.z .::::..x..::.::::s:
:s:::::
P.......p................................. ............................................................................. g .............................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................
....................... ......... _.............._... _ ............ ..............
_.
' e > ` rc ee . . x...tc ... .r... .anc.......
P..................:::.p.::: p.._.::::::::::::. .:::: ::::: :::::::::::.y.:::
»::> tex:I.. a�or:s:::>w:::;The::::;:;'::..;:>..>::: .:::: : .::;::<::<:<: :
;; _<< e:sa€:c<t an :>c ..... ev Q .mz . : azs.
................... ................... ...............
ip_ a c t an: : :<:>::>b:.:«<<::a::_::>::::s:aMn :e*i-:::::ma::t o:r:a:a:��:>'<:>a�:c1::::�
: e ::Q e € :c...:......:: . . e a. :».and.::rc 0: x::::::: :: : er
:::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : .................::::::::::.:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.::..............
�i»» :::>::: d ...a . .........:... c.t........sha.�.1......Ai is:.q_..... e........ ub .t.tAd
: d :a: :::::<:::> ha:t:>:::>t ::.... . .. . .qse. ......��t.e.r.x or.......�a1.1.......an�l......r�of.
.::: : ::::.::::::::::. :::::::. .:::::::::::: ::.::::::::::::::::.:.....::::::: :
aa ; <> sa. ec.tan .e....
. iiiiiiiiiii:::::::':::i::i:::i::::::::::::::iY Y iiiii:i::::_i:_i:_::.i:;:,::.:i::i::i}iiii:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.::.i:iii :::(:i::i:"ii
C:: : : ::re:;,;: :erv. : e««:: e: r :s.ent.a.t. v:e:.;:.;:.Re:v:�.er:::»::: »»»' se::>::>::F: :re:::;::;S:e:rv : e.
»::
e r: : :n: :a: : ve:<:<:s ........................... ::::.an::::o oftn. . x . r :::: ::: zd
p ::: :::: ::::::::::.:::::.:::::.
he :>::a v: :;: ::.:'<.:::>:i::..:.
:e. .r�.�.::r.�rs....t..:.;....:............:.::::::::::::::::::................................:...: ...:..:: .: .::: .r .::..: Q. €c. . :fin
........................................................
5 . Prior to grading, an archaeological field reconnaissance
report shall be prepared and submitted to the Planning
Department . This report shall be prepared by a professional
archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California
Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Ar-
chaeology (SOPA) . The report recommendations shall be
implemented.
6 . Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility
requirements as follows :
A. In accordance with Section 92-2 . 006 of the County
Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the
provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) .
Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in
this conditional approval statement . Conformance with
the Ordinance includes the following requirements :
1 . Undergrounding of all utility distribution
facilities . Because of the large parcels involved
and the agricultural nature of the subdivision, an
exception to this requirement is granted.
2 . Conveying all storm waters entering or originating
within the subject property, without diversion and
within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a
natural watercourse having definable bed and banks
or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility
which conveys the storm waters to a natural
watercourse. As these parcels are large and
agricultural in nature, additional run-off
resulting from this subdivision will be negligible.
Therefore, an exception from this requirement is
granted provided the applicant maintains the
existing drainage pattern and does not dispose
concentrated storm water run-off onto adjacent
property.
3 . Submitting a Parcel Map prepared by a registered
civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.
4 . Submitting improvement plans prepared by a
registered civil engineer, payment of review and
inspection fees, and security for all improvements
required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of
approval for this subdivision.
5 . Relinquishing "development rights" over that
portion of the site that is within the structure
setback area of natural watercourses . The
structure setback area shall be determined by using
the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of
Way and Setbacks" , of the Subdivision Ordinance.
B . At the time a building permit is issued on the property,
construct a 20-foot all-weather surfaced road to County
private road standards from Marsh Creek Road to the
subject property. Upon each issuance of a building
permit on a parcel within the subdivision, continue con-
struction of a 16-foot all-weather surfaced private
roadway to County private road standards, for that
portion of the access road which will serve more than one
parcel in the subdivision. Provide turnarounds along
this access road subject to the review of the Public
Works Department and the approval of the County Zoning
Administrator.
C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering
Services Division, that legal access to the property is
available from Marsh Creek Road.
D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering
Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary
rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the
construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road
and drainage improvements .
7 . Notification of Prospective Buyers - At least 30 days prior to
filing a parcel map, the applicant shall submit two copies of
a proposed letter to be provided to prospective buyers or
other grantees of the parcels of this subdivision for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The letter
shall indicate the development restrictions on siting of
residences specified in Conditions #1 and #4 above . It shall
also indicate the need to comply with all the requirements of
the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division,
including demonstration of water supply and sewage disposal
prior to issuance of a building permit . Failure to so
demonstrate may preclude the issuance of a building permit .
8 . County Indemnification - Pursuant to Government Code Section
66474 . 9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent
thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra
Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and
employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the
Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to
attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency' s approval
concerning this subdivision map application, which action is
brought within the time period provided for in Section 6649-
9 . 37 . The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any
such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the
defense .
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements
of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide
Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors .
Currently the fee for the Marsh Creek region of the County is
$1, 904 for each added single family residence. Because of the
agricultural nature of this subdivision the fee will be
collected upon the issuance of a building permit or at the
time specified in Government Code Section 53077 . 5 (a) , as
applicable, and not upon recordation of the parcel map.
B . The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements
of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide
Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors .
Currently the fee for the East County region of the County is
$1, 904 for each added single family residence .
C. Comply with the requirements of the East Diablo Fire
Protection District .
D. VESTED RIGHTS AND FEES - This project is subject to the
development fees and regulations in effect under County
Ordinance as of November 24, 1988, the date the vesting
tentative map application was accepted as complete by the
Community Development Department . These fees are in addition
to any other development fees which may be specified in the
conditions of approval .
Park Dedication Fees $1100
An estimate of the overall fee charges for the approved parcel
may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection
Department at 646-4992 .
E. EXPIRATION OF VESTED RIGHTS - Pursuant to Section 66452 . 6 (8)
of the Subdivision Map act, the rights conferred by the
vesting tentative map as provided by Chapter 4 . 5 of the
Subdivision Map act shall last for an initial period of two
(2) years following the recording date of the final/parcel
map. These rights pertain to development fees and
regulations . Where several final maps are recorded on various
phases of a project covered by a single vesting tentative map,
the initial time period shall begin for each phase when the
final map for that phase is recorded.
At any time prior to the expiration of the initial time
period, the subdivider may apply for a one-year extension.
The application shall be accompanied by the applicable filing
fee . If the extension is denied by an advisory agency, the
subdivider may appeal that denial to the Board of Supervisors
by filing a letter of appeal with the appropriate filing fee
with the Clerk of the Board within 15 calendar days .
The initial time period may also be subject to automatic
extension pursuant to other provisions of Section 66452 . 6 (g)
relating to processing of related development applications by
the County.
At the expiration of the vesting time period, remaining
development (i .e . , new building permits) within the
subdivision shall be subject to development fees and
regulations in effect at that time.
BT/GA/df/aa
ms23 : 100-88c .bt
8/8/89
9/18/89 - Z.A. Revisions (v)
1/2/90
3/27/90 - P/C Revisions (v)
7/6/94 - P/C Revisions - RD
8/4/94 - Revisions - RD
FINDINGS REGARDING APPROVAL OF VESTING
TENTATIVE MAP 100-88
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, in
approving Vesting Tentative Map #100-88, specifically find as .
follows:
Description of Proiect
On October 25, 1988, the applicants, Willard G. and Naomi L.
Morgan, filed an application for a vesting tentative map to
divide 160 acres into four parcels of approximately 40 acres
each. Minor modifications were made to the application. as
evidenced on the revised site plan dated May 17, 1994 . As
directed by the Board of Supervisors, the revised site plan
identifies building sites on each of the four parcels. The
property is located north of Marsh Creek Road, with access
approximately 800 feet east of Russelmann Park Road. The
application was deemed complete on November 24, 1988. The rules
and policies applicable to the application are those rules and
policies that were in effect at the time the application was
deemed complete.
Approval of Tentative Map
1. Finding: The subdivision is consistent with the County
General Plan.
Facts: The general plan in existence at the time the
application was deemed complete ("previous General Plano)
designated the property as Open Space. (The current General Plan
designates the property as Agricultural Lands which includes
similar criteria as the former Open Space designation. ) The
zoning on the property was and continues to be General
Agricultural District (A-2) . These designations allow five acre
minimum parcels. The application is consistent with these
designations since it involves a request to divide 160 acres
into four parcels of approximately 40 acres each. The project
substantially conforms to the criteria contained in the Ranchette
Policy. This Policy was not included in the previous General
Plan but is included in the current General Plan. As required by
the conditions of approval, the applicable requirements of the
Policy must be met before building permits are issued. It is
premature and unnecessary to require strict compliance with all
requirements of the Ranchette Policy at this time or at the time
a final map is filed since the applicants are not proposing
actual development of the building sites as part of this
application.
2. Finding: The design of the subdivision will provide
for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities.
Facts: The design of the subdivision with its large
lots and varied exposures will allow for future passive or
natural heating or cooling opportunities in the design of the
homes. Such opportunities will be taken into account by the
Zoning Administrator in consideration of design approval
consistent with the approved conditions.
3. Finding: The discharge of waste from the subdivision
in the existing sewer system will not result in violation of
existing requirements.
Facts: Consistent with conditions of approval, prior
to actual development, the applicant must demonstrate that each
parcel is suitable for septic tank use according to the County
Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services Department
regulations.
4. Finding: Pursuant to G.C. §66474, the Board must deny
a tentative map if it makes any one of seven listed findings.
(§66474 (a) -(g) The Board confirms that it does not make any of
such findings, and rather finds the following in the affirmative:
a. Finding: The proposed map is consistent with the
County General Plan.
Facts: See Facts for Finding 1, above.
b. Finding: The design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with the County General Plan.
Facts: See Facts for Finding 1, above. The design of
the subdivision leaves the majority of the site in its present
form as open space lands. Agricultural uses (i.e. , cattle
raising) will continue on the project site.
C. Finding: The site is physically suitable for this type
of development.
Facts: The applicable General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance specifically designated the site for residential
development and thereby determined that the site is physically
suitable for such development. The building sites are located on
the flat portions of each parcel and not on the steep slopes or
ridges. In addition, the buildings sites are located to minimize
visual impacts to views from surrounding areas such as Marsh
Creek Road and Clayton. The building sites are located
approximately one and one half miles from existing homes that can
view the property. The natural terrain and existing landscaping
of the property will provide an adequate buffer from such views.
As required by the conditions of approval, if necessary,
additional landscaping will also be installed to provide
additional buffering. The conditions of approval require that
home sites and other structures be designed and placed to
minimize visual impacts. The conditions require that the
exterior and roofing materials for the structures not exceed 50%
light reflectants. The Zoning Administrator shall confirm that
visual impacts are minimized before building permits are issued.
d. Finding: The site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
Facts: See Facts for Finding 4.c, above. The
applicants are only seeking to divide 160 acres into four
parcels, thereby creating four building sites. The majority of
the property will remain as open space lands.
e. Finding: The design of the subdivision is not likely
to cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife or their
habitat.
Facts: An initial study and negative declaration
(senvironmental documentations) was prepared on the application.
The environmental documentation is included herein by this
reference. The environmental documentation concluded that the
application would not have a significant effect on the
environment. The applicants submitted a geologic report which
was reviewed by the County geologist. This report concluded that
the project would not pose any geologic hazards. The
environmental documentation confirms that there are no rare or
endangered species of plants or animals on the property that will
be impacted by the project. The building sites and accompanied
infrastructure only represent a very small portion of the project
area, thereby leaving the great majority of the property in its
present state as open space land.
f. Finding: The design of the subdivision will not cause
serious health problems.
Facts: The environmental documentation confirms that
the project will not result in any health hazards. A geologic
report was prepared for and submitted as part of the application.
This report concludes that the project will not pose any geologic
hazards. Consistent with the conditions of approval, prior to
filing a building permit for each parcel, the applicant must
demonstrate that each parcel has an adequate water supply and is
suitable for septic tank use according to the County Ordinance
Code criteria and Health Services Department regulations.
q. Finding: The design of the subdivision will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for
access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision.
Facts: There are no easements for public access
through the use of the property.
H.3 A
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California
Adopted this Order on_August 9, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier,Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Request for Report on a Specific Plan
At its hearing on the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo with respect to the application of Willard
G. and Naomi Morgan for approval of Minor Subdivision 100-88,the Board discussed the
feasibility of the establishment of a Specific Plan for the Clayton/Morgan Territory area.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Community Development Director
is REQUESTED to review and report on a possible Specific Plan for the Clayton/Morgan Territory
area as soon as possible.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: August 9, 1994
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
By Q•
U Deputy Clerk jF
CC: Community Development Director