Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08042009 - D.4RECOMMENDATION(S): A. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony. B. ADOPT a motion (Resolution No. 2009/256) to: 1) SUSTAIN the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission’s decision to deny an application for a modification to the Final Development Plan; 2) DENY the Appeal of David Bowie; 3) FIND that the project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15270; APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/04/2009 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz (925) 335-1213 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 4, 2009 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: Alamo Improvement Association, Stone Valley Oaks Owners Association, Save Mount Diablo D. 4 To:Board of Supervisors From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation & Development Director Date:August 4, 2009 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on an appeal of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commissions decision to deny an application for a Final Development Plan modification. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact. The applicant has paid fees to process this project and is obligated to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100% of the initial fee deposit. BACKGROUND: The subject property is lot # 32 of Subdivision 8016 (Stone Valley Oaks) approved by the County Board of Supervisors in 1999. The subdivision involved the approval of 47 single family residential units with approximately 62 acres dedicated to open space. The subject property is one of several properties that abut the open space area. The applicants are proposing a lot line adjustment between their property and open space to incorporate common open space area into their lot. Approximately five years ago, the DeMaios (the Applicants) performed some improvements to their property including installing tiered retaining walls and landscaping. This work was also done in the dedicated open space area. Further, the applicants did not obtain prior approval from the County for the work in the common open space area. The Applicant's work, for private use, encroached into open space area. In 2007, the applicants filed a development plan modification to allow for a lot line adjustment between the subject property and the abutting open space “Scenic Easement.” A Notice of Intent was sent to property owners and the Home Owner's Association (HOA) on August 17, 2007. Two letters requesting for a public hearing were received by the County from Jogen Shah and the Stone Valley Oaks Owners Association. Three additional letters were also submitted within the comment period indicating their comments and concerns. Mr. Shah rescinded his request for a public hearing in a letter dated October 29, 2007. The application was heard at the December 3, 2007, Zoning Administrator public hearing, where the Zoning Administrator received testimony, considered the issues raised at the hearing and denied the application. On December 12, 2007 an appeal on the Zoning Administrator’s decision was filed by the appellant, David Bowie on behalf of the DeMaios. The project was heard at the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on April 23, 2008, where the Commission received testimony, considered the testimony and made a decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision. On May 2, 2008, the appellant filed this appeal on the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision. San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearing The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission heard the appeal on April 23, 2008. The appellant, applicant, and a representative from Save Mount Diablo testified. Some of the concerns from Save Mount Diablo were that Open Space was created to benefit and mitigate negative impacts of the development and should not be encroached upon by private property owners. The appellant testified that the project is not precedent setting, the land to be transfered is minute, and the proposed project is to help alleviate the drainage problem that the subject property has incurred. The appellant has also indicated the same reasons in this appeal which are discussed under the Appeal Points Section of this report. After receiving testimony, the Commission (Commissioners Matsunanga, Couture, and Gibson - Yes and Neely - No) voted 3-1 to deny the proposed project. Commissioners Bowlby, McPherson, and Mulvihill were absent. Analysis of the Appeal Following the Commission action, an appeal was timely filed by David Bowie, the attorney for the DeMaios on May 2, 2008. Staff has paraphrased the appeal points and provided a response to each point. Appeal Point #1: The minute land area involved in the proposed lot line adjustment involves less than 5/100ths of 1% of the common area. Staff’s Response: The proposed 1,280 square feet of land transfer is precedent setting and there is no feasible location on the subject property to convey to open space. Approval of the project would lead to similar requests for lot line adjustments between private land and dedicated open space resulting in further loss of the approved open space. Appeal Point #2: The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to resolve significant drainage problems. The improvements constructed were intended to address drainage problems - a permissible exercise of development rights by a landowner notwithstanding a Scenic Easement. Staff’s Response: A proposal for a lot line adjustment does not resolve drainage problems. The Grand Deed of Development Rights clearly indicates the developments rights that are permitted within the Scenic Easement. Development rights are defined to mean and refer to the right by the Zoning Administrator or his/her successor to approve or disapprove of any proposed grading, construction, development activity, improvement, or tree removal within the areas marked “restricted development area.” Maintenance of storm water detention basins, trails and Emergency Vehicle Access, along with maintenance of vegetation and erosion control measures are allowed in the Scenic Easement. The improvements made within this area are not methods of maintenance of storm water detention basins. Furthermore, construction and improvements within the restricted development area first requires the Zoning Administrator’s approval. Appeal Point #3: The HOA and the DeMaios would like to complete the proposed lot line adjustment in which the HOA approved, so that the DeMaios could manage the area and avoid pre-existing drainage problems. The involved parties have both consented to the reconfiguration of lot lines. Staff’s Response: The proposed lot line adjustment requires approval from the Board Supervisors because the transfer of land is between private property and the open space area, subject to the scenic easement. In addition, the development rights have been grant deeded to the County. The subject properties are zoned P-1, Planned Unit Development, which requires approval of a modification to the Final Development Plan prior to obtaining an approval of a lot line adjustment. Appeal Point #4: Approval of the project would ensure that their drainage problems would be resolved, and would avoid personal hardship and financial loss. Staff’s Response: There are a variety of reasons why homeowners wish for open space area to be included as part of their residential lot. After reviewing the facts, both the Zoning Administrator and San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission determined that such a transfer of land is inconsistent with the Final Development Plan. Appeal Point #5: The project would have no impact on precedence and would not defeat the intent behind the creation of either common area or a scenic easement. The conveyance of property does not necessarily remove the effect of the Scenic Easement or restrictions as to development. Staff’s Response: Sixty-two acres of open space were approved as part of the subdivision to maintain the hillside aesthetics. Approval of the proposed project would be precedent setting. The Scenic Easement has General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space. The Open Space Element defines “open space land” as any area of land or water which is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open space use and which is designated on a Local, Regional or State open space plan as open space for the preservation of natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, or for public health and safety. The improvements constructed within the open space area do not preserve the natural resources in the area. There are no other approvals within this subdivision that allowed for a Final Development Plan modification for a proposed lot line adjustment between private property and a Scenic Easement. Appeal Point #6: The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the Final Development Plan approval. Staff’s Response: The proposal to transfer open space land to a private residential property is inconsistent with the Final Development Plan. The Final Development Plan (DP963021) was approved based on the site plan and architectural guidelines that would guarantee aesthetic protection of the hillside areas. The boundary lines were drawn to delineate the locations of the common open space areas and the residential properties of the subject site. There are no other lot line adjustment approvals to transfer open space to private properties. Appeal Point #7: The proposed lot line adjustment is not inconsistent with the grant of development rights. Staff’s Response: The proposed lot line adjustment was found by the Zoning Administrator and San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to be inconsistent with the Final Development Plan. Further, it is staff's opinion that work on the property by the DeMaios is inconsistent with the grant deed. Appeal Point #8: A lot line adjustment is normally ministerial and is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act because the adjustment involves four or fewer parcel and creates no greater number of parcels than originally existed. Therefore, the lot line adjustment shall be approved. Staff’s Response: A lot line adjustment is ministerial, if the proposal meets the zoning requirements. The subject property is zoned P-1, which requires a Final Development Plan modification prior to an approval of a lot line adjustment. In addition, the proposed lot line adjustment involves the alteration of a Scenic Easement boundary, which requires approval from the Board of Supervisors. Conclusion The proposed Stone Valley Oaks Subdivision was approved based on its consistency with the General plan and the Planned Unit District. The design of the subdivision provided for aesthetic protection of the hillside areas. Sixty-two acres of land was dedicated to open space as part of the approval to build 47 single-family homes. Any proposal to encroach into this area is not consistent with the previous approval of the subdivision. The boundaries of the single-family lots and the common open space are clearly delineated and any encroachment (i.e. movement) of this line into the common open space would be unnatural and precedent setting. The Zoning Administrator and the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission both denied the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to deny the Development Plan modification application. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Aruna Bhat, Conservation and Development Department Department, presented the staff report. Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Development Director, assisted the Board with questions. David Bowie presented testimony on behalf of the property owners John and Karie DeMaio. Mr. DeMaio also spoke. Troy Bristol, Save Mount Diablo, spoke in opposition to the appeal. Supervisor Piepho inquired about the possibility of an equitable trade of land area. Staff and the applicants indicated a willingness to investigate the possibility. ATTACHMENTS Letter of Appeal SRVPC Resolution Maps Previous Staff Reports Previous Staff Reports Letters from Neighbors Site Plan Photographs