HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10221985 - T.6 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 22, 1985 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers , Schroder , McPeak , Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing on Proposed Moratorium in the Southeast
Section of Contra Costa County
The Board on September 24, 1985 fixed this time for
hearing on the need for a moratorium on development applications
under consideration for the southeastern portion of Contra Costa
County pending completion of the General Plan review for that area.
A. A. Dehaesus presented to the Board a report , dated October 22,
1985 , (copy of which attached hereto and by reference incorporated
herein) , outlining the major developments and proposals for the area
of the County generally bordered by Byron Highway, the Alameda
County Line , Vasco Road and Camino Diablo . He presented three
options the Board may wish to consider relative to the establishment
of a moratorium.
Charles Zahn , staff member of the Community Development
Department , commented on the many diverse applications for land use
permits being proposed for that area which include windfarms , reser-
voirs , refuse disposal sites , the Byron Airport , and a park-preserve
site .
The Chairwoman declared the hearing open and the following
persons spoke:
Mary Urich, City Clerk of the City of Pittsburg speaking
on behalf of Nancy Parent (City of Pittsburg) and Frank L . Stone
(City of Antioch) , expressed reservations with respect to the many
and diverse development projects under consideration for the east
county area .
G . Gordon, representing the Bettencourt Family interests ,
P . 0. Box 630 , Martinez , spoke on the adverse impact a moratorium
would have on his clients and therefore requested the Board to
oppose the imposition of one .
John Devito , Director , Contra Costa County Water District ,
advised of the need to improve the quality of water for users in the
east county area and of a study being conducted by his District to
identify a specific site for construction of a reservoir . He advised
of his District ' s work in securing options to purchase land that
will be included as part of the watershed .
Dale Sanders , Contra Costa County Greenbelt Steering
Committee , 1158 Temple Drive , Pacheco , expressed support for proper
planning and development in east county and expressed reservations
with the moratorium concept .
Pat Randa, on behalf of the Citizens Land Alliance ,
147 Bernal Avenue , Pleasanton , advised of support for the General
Plan review for the subject area, but strongly opposed a moratorium
because of its impact on the ranchers .
Ray Fujii , Farm Bureau , 541 Danville Road , Richmond ,
expressed opposition to the moratorium concept .
Charles A . Hansen , representing Bankhead Ranch General
Partnership , 20 Redcoach Lane , Orinda, voiced his opposition to a
moratorium.
The Board considered the testimony presented and were in
agreement that a moratorium should not be imposed . However , there.
was agreement relative to the need for an update on the General Plan
review.
There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that the hearing on the proposal for a moratorium is CLOSED .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Director of Community
Development is REQUESTED to report to the Board in two weeks
(November 5 , 1985) on a plan and timetable for the study on develop-
ment issues for the southeastern portion of the County.
I hereby certify t":lt this lr�a twke 4 nd cc;i-ect 4-.Ani.�f
an action taken and meed on t m
Board of Supervisors on the date shovin.
ATTESTED: 2 2, /,*
J',5
PHIL B&Ti CHELOR, Clerk of the Bcar¢t
of Supervisors and County AriTJn1strator
By Deputy
cc: Director , Community Development
Department
County Administrator
u,. RECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OCT ZZ 1985
PHIL BATCHELOR
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA O.
B " Deputy
TO: Board of Supervisors DATE: October 22, 1985
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaes SUBJECT: Southeastern Contra Costa
Director of Comm n De elopment County Interim Urgency
Ordinance
On September 24, 1985, I made a presentation to the Board outlining the diverse nature of
applications and proposals being considered in the southeastern portion of Contra Costa
County. The presentation consisted of written materials keyed to a map and a series of
overlays which formed the basis of my presentation.
In response to that presentation, the Board directed that the review of the General Plan as
it pertains to reservoir sites be expanded to include all types of potential land uses. Work on
that amendment is actively underway but will take slightly longer to bring it to a hearing
due to the expanded scope of consideration for the amendment. A public hearing on this
amendment is anticipated before the County Planning Commission in December.
In further response to that presentation, the Board raised the issue of whether a moratorium
should be amended to withold applications and entitlements which could adversely prejudice
a general plan review. The Board further fixed October 22, 1985 at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing
to consider whether such a moratorium should be imposed.
The Board, in directing consideration of a moratorium, did not limit consideration of the
degree of a moratorium that could be applied. With that in mind, County Counsel and we
have had the hearing noticed to provide the largest latitude possible in terms of potential
items to be included should an interim urgency ordinance be adopted.
7. The geographic area noticed for the hearing are the lands being considered for the
Southeastern Contra Costa County General Plan Amendment. Thus the Board can consider
adoption of an interim urgency ordinance for all the 74 square mile area, or less, and can
select which types of applications on entitlements the Board wishes to include within the
ordinance.
The land use entitlements which have been noticed and could be included in the ordinance
are: rezoning, land use permit, zoning variance, tentative subdivision map, final subdivision
map, parcel map, preliminary of final development plans, building permits, special permit,
or any combination of such entitlements.
A list of pending and recently approved applications is included as Attachment B. The
pending major applications would be most affected by this interim urgency ordinance. The
processing of those applications would cease until the moratorium .was lifted. Applications
which already have been approved with final subdivision maps or land use permits may be
awaiting building permits to be completed. If building permits were included in the
moratorium, most construction in this area would then be halted until the ordinance expired.
The major decision then, before the:Board, is whe:ther._a moratorium should be imposed and
if so, to what degree. "There.are basically three options in establishing a�moratorium. One
is to establish a complete "moratorium -which-=:prevents the -taking and processing of
applications and the issuance of building permits.` The.second option would be the allowance
of applications already received, but -not decided, -,to be processed, but refuse, new
applications. The third option would,.be.to.,allow.the:issuance of building permits for already
approved applications.
In determining which options should be applied, the purpose of the urgency interim
ordinance needs, of course, to be considered. Such an ordinance is generally needed to allow
time to do a special review of, in this case, the General Plan. And the thrust here would be
the compatibility of the considerable land uses being comtemplated for the area and their
affect upon the established agricultural use of the area which is principally cattle grazing.
If the Board chooses to enact a moratorium, findings for such an action could include:
- The moratorium would allow time for review of programs to enhance agriculture in
the area. Such a review would include consideration of a general plan amendment
as well as appropriate ordinance provisions.
- The moratorium would provide time to review the compatibility of the range of
proposals that are being suggested for the area.
- The moratorium would provide an opportunity to fully inventory and analyze the
natural resources of the area to determine the cumulative impacts of these
proposals upon the continued existence of these resources.
If any moratorium is . to proceed, it probably should be done on the basis that new
--applications should not be accepted and new entitlements given. Those applications that
have received approvals would then be allowed to proceed except that final subdivision maps
and parcel maps would be withheld.
With this approach, it seems thatany reviews would.not be unduly or adversely prejudiced.
AAD/mc4d
Attachment
cc: County Administrator
County Counsel
.. »,--.rte+.-ter.` _ _... ._..+�w.,-.•x-s_�•..._:""^.'�"_"""^?"""" _ .-� .`.`-+y-"- ..-.��»w...;. .,��Mh-oao.^�"..°P'^V..P'.,.M,.�-4+,t�x-" _':
SOUTHEAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FACT SHEETS ON DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
- Windfarms
- Reservoirs
- Refuse Disposal Sites
- Park-preserve Sites
for
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
September 24, 1985
by
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Major Developments and Proposals in the South Eastern Portion
of Contra Costa County in Area Generally Bordered by Byron
Highway, the Alameda County Line, Vasco Road and Camino
Diablo
There are several major developments and proposals for the area of the County
generally bounded by Byron Highway, the Alameda County line, Vasco Road and
Camino Diablo. The proposals involve possible reservoir sites, parks, wind power
generation facilities, landfills, the Byron Airport and a major subdivision.
The area is characterized by moderately rolling to steep terrain. The hills are mostly
grass covered with occasional area of oak trees and related brushy type of plans and
rock outcrops. The maximum elevation in the area is approximately 1,300 feet. The
higher, steeper hills are generally located to the south and west of the area. Kellogg
Creek is located along Vasco Road and flows to the northeast. Brushey Creek runs
through the south central and eastern portion of the area.
Clifton Court Forebay is located to the east of the area is shown blue on the base map.
The California Aqueduct and Delta Mendota Canals cross the southeast portion of the
area. The Morgan Territory Regional Preserve is shown on the west side of the map in
light green.
Bankhead Subdivision
The Bankhead Subdivision is located along the east side of Vasco Road just north of the
Alameda County line. The Subdivision.is shown in light gray stripes on the base map.
The area of the Subdivision is 1,128 acres. The Board of Supervisors has approved the
request for 65 lots. The size of lots range from 6.5 acres to 66.8 acres.
Wind Power Generation Facilities
To date, there have been twenty land use permit applications filed for wind power
generation facilities. These are shown on the base map, color coded by the name of
the applicant.
Of the twenty applications for wind power generation facilities, twelve have been
approved, all by the Zoning Administrator with little controversy. Land Use Permit
2025-85 (Howden Wind Parks Incorporated -- 107 units on 1,080 acres) is under appeal
at this time. It is scheduled for its second hearing before the Planning Commission on
October 1, 1985. Staff has recommended approval subject to stringent conditions to
protect the archaeological and biologically sensitive areas.
Prior to the adoption of the County Ordinance requiring land use permits for wind
power generation facilities, a building permit was issued for 61 machines near the
Alameda County border. This approval was superseded by Land Use Permits 2130-84
and 2131-84 (Windmaster).
There are four land use permit requests pending at this time. These areas are
surrounded by dashed lines on the base map. There are three requests for wind power
generation facilities that have been withdrawn. These areas are surrounded by color
coded dashed lines on the base map and indicated in black ink that they are withdrawn.
Page 1 of 3
Following is a table of the various wind power generation facilities. To date, approval
has been given for 2,101 machines. There is one application under appeal for 107
machines. The four pending applications include a total of an additional 521 machines.
Color On Date No. of Area
L.U.P. # Applicant Base Map Approved B Machine (AC)
2126-82 U.S.Windpower Yellow 2- 7-83 ZA 215 1,822
2127-82 U.S. Windpower Yellow 2- 7-83 ZA 276 1,675
2019-83 Windmaster Green 3-28-83 ZA 205 432
2095-83 U.S. Windpower Yellow Withdrawn -- (187) 1,822**,
2096-83 U.S. Windpower Yellow Withdrawn -- (124) 1,675**
2103-83 NFC Energy Corp Blue I1-21-83 ZA 24 158
2063-84 NFC Energy Corp Blue 4-16-84 ZA 160 624
later Howden mind
Parks,.Inc.
2130-84 Windmaster Green 8-20-84 ZA 49 240ac
2131-84 Windmaster Green 8-20/84 ZA 48 240ac
2132-84 Windmaster Green 8-20-84 ZA 91 480ac
2137-84 Altamont Energy Red 8-20-84 ZA 551 960ac
Corp. Later
351*
21451-84 U.S. Windpower Yellow 9-10-85 ZA 293 1,822**
2146-84 U.S. Windpower Yellow 9-10-85 ZA 243 1,675**
2172-84 Wind Energy Orange 9-09-85 ZA 146 205
2224-84 Fayette Purple Withdrawn (25) 80
Manf. Corp.
2025-85 Howden Wind Blue 7-22-85 ZA 107 1,080 .
Parks, Inc. On Appeal
* Number of machines reduced to 351 by use of a different machine.
** U.S. Windpower applications have all been on the same two properties.
Page 2 of 3
Color On Date .#Machines Area.
L.U.P. # Applicant Base Map Approved By Proposed (AC)
2104-85 Altamont Energy Red - -- 183 640 .
Corp.
2105-85 Altamont Energy Red -- -- 151 480
Corp.
2127-85 Altamont Energy Red - -- 163 520
Corp.
2131-85 Windmaster Green -- -- 24 160
Byron Airport
The proposed Byron Airport is shown on the first overlay in black ink. The ultimate
airport boundary is a dashed black line. The proposed runways are shown on the
overlay. The dashed line portion of the northwest-southeast runway shows a possible
ultimate extension of the runway to 6,000 feet. The conservation easement is outlined
by a green line. Within the conservation easement, residential or other noise sensitive
uses should not be allowed. The airport covers 1,270 acres and the conservation
easement area covers 1,720 acres for a total of 2,990 acres.
There is a critical height restriction zone to the south and west of the airport. In this
area, any structure must be kept below the approach surfaces and the horizontal clear
area 150 feet above the airport itself.
The airport consultant, Hodges & Shatt, are presently preparing the Environmental
Impact document for the Byron Airport. The document should be submitted for public
review in the near future.
East Bay Regional Park District Proposals
The areas of proposed Park/Preserve concern are shown on the overlay in green. The
areas of concern are the Round Valley area and the Byron Hills. The existing Morgan
Territory Regional Preserve is shown on the west side of the base map in light green.
These proposals are from the proposed changes to the District Master Plan to
Incorporate Liberty Union High School District. The transmitted letter is dated
November 15, 1984.
AB:gms
ab:windpwr.t9
9/23/85
Page 3 of 3
SOUTHEAST COUNTY PROPOSED RESERVOIRS
LOS VAQUEROS RESERVOIR
Department of Water Resources
SOURCE: Los Vaqueros Offstream Storage Unit _ Studies:
Wrap-up Report (April 1983) - DWR.
RESERVOIR: Los Vaqueros -- Largest study reservoir shown.
Water surface elevation: 780 feet;-storage volume:
1,065,000 acre - feet.
Kellogg Forebay -- Water surface elevation: 243
feet; storage volume: 20,100 acre - feet
RELATED AREA: Watershed plus View-shed -- given to County by
State staff in 1981, not in any published documents.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $810,000,000 (June 1982 $) .
STATUS OF PROJECT: Inactive. Not authorized as part of State Water
Project. "De-authorized" by Proposition 9 vote in
June 1982.
Contra Costa Water District
SOURCES: Los Vaqueros Reservoir Site Aquisition (August 20,
1985) - Contra Costa�o y Water District.
RESERVOIR: Los Vaqueros -- Largest study reservoir shown.
Alternative water surface elevations at 656,570 and
495 feet.
Respective reservoir capacities: 553,000, 300,000
and 135,000 acre - feet.
Kellogg Forebay not shown, but would likely be
needed if other agencies are to be served.
RELATED AREA: Watershed as identified by Contra Costa Water
District (CCWD).
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Not reported in publication, but project is essen-
tially the same as DWR Los Vaqueros Project.
STATUS OF PROJECT: Project proposal under development by CCWD staff
for CCWD Board approval and subsequent site .
acquistion.
KELLOGG RESERVOIR
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
SOURCE: Kellogg Unit RzeleHY46,on -- Preliminary Phase
Results (January 1984) -- U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR).
RESERVOIR: Kellogg Reservoir -- Water surface elevation: 300
feet; storage volume: 135,000 acre - feet.
RELATED AREA: Watershed not defined by USBR yet in publication.
County staff has estimated immediate watershed
boundary.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $170,200,000
Benefit - Cost ratio: 0.50:1.00
STATUS OF PROJECT: One of seven alternatives in Kellogg Unit
Reformation Study. Only one alternative contains a
reservoir. A preferred alternative will be selected
bythe end of 1985 and an Environmental Impact
Statement done of the selected alternative.
dbo:rsrvor.t9
9/20/85
SOUTHEAST COUNTY REFUSE DISPOSAL STUDY SITES .
From Contra Costa County Sanitary District/Contra Costa County Phase I Study
SITE VI - 4 (part shown), MARSH CREEK SITE
Capacity: 220 million cubic yards, estimated by reconnaissance level study
Longevity: 110 years as sole landfill
Site Area: Unknown, Phase I identified fill areas
Status: A finalist site (1 of_A-�study-originated finalist sites) of the Contra
Costa County Sanitation District/Contra Costa County
(CCCSD/CCC) Phase I Study.
SITE VI - 8, CAMINO DIABLO (OR HIDDEN VALLEY OR BETTENCOURT) SITE
Capacity: 43 million cubic yards (Section 11), estimated by Preliminary Design
based on detailed on-site geo-technical studies
Longevity: 22 years as sole landfill
Site Area: ± 640 acres
Status: Section 11 was recently optioned by Central . Landfill Inc. The
CCCSD/CCC Phase I Study did not identify a site, but recommended
this general area for further study
SITE VI - 9, LOWER VASCO ROAD AREA (BRUSHY CREEK AREA)
Capacity: Unknown. CCCSD/CCC Study did not identify sites, only the area.
There are several canyons in the area.
Longevity: Unknown. Phase I Study opined that a canyon with ± 52 million cubic
yards -- ± 25 years -- could be found.
Site Area: Unknown.
Status: CCCSD/CCC Phase I Study recommended further investigation in
this area.
cz:rfzSite.t9
PENDING WIND POWER"TURBIN£'D;EVELOPMENT
'IN .CONTRA"COSTA COUNTY
IN PROPOSED MORATORIUM-AREA
Applicant -#,of W:P.T:*
'Proposed
Altamont Energy Corp. 497
Howden Wind Parks, Inc. 107
Wi ndm aster 24
TOTAL 628
*W.P.T. - Wind Power Turbine
OTHER PENDING OR RECENTLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENTS IN PROPOSED MORATORIUM AREA
Applicant Request Status Remarks
Brooks Ct. Mo. Ho.* A Building Permit
Not Requested Yet
Bradford Ct. Mo. Ho. d A Building Permit
Not Requested Yet
Bradford Minor Subdivision P To Be Heard By Zoning
2 Parcels Administrator 10/28/85
The Bankhead Ranch Major Subdivision A Final Map Not
.65 Lots - Recorded Yet
*Caretaker-Mobile Home
AB:plp 13c
10/16/85
N
O 00
O CN ^ C) O O N
N � C)
o
C
cc
..a
> EL
a
LLN
3 0 ¢ h a, � -t w � N m
41
O
Co to
F
Z x
F y
O Z L
> O
3 0 to cn o r. 0 0 0 .o
(U
4)
m 0 -•. en E;
zi 3
U m t7
V
� c
3 U L 1 3
Z c
a� _
� ►. F: c �
z
Z O D N N � h � d N s O .�
3 0 0 N
,ca cam
O L L N c
d Cd GO
¢ 3 Q•
c � -
° c
ca v
_ U
1 L
V: bo
UN it7
ou
a� .a
01-
4), W ':: �o°. opo Cal
~` 3 ca
C C O. C -.. N, .O 1 U a1
0 a�
3 v .o
'. 1 . Moratorium on develop in East GCC
2 . Moratorium hrg closed not
imposed
i
I