Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08142012 - D.2RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing and accept testimony on the appeal. 2. CLOSE the public hearing. 3. FIND that on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. 4. ADOPT the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as adequate for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and prepared in accordance with the County CEQA Guidelines. 5. DENY the appeal filed by the appellant, Linda Sanders. 6. UPHOLD the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve the minor subdivision County File #MS10-0001, subject to the revised conditions of approval. 7. ADOPT proposed Resolution No. 2012/339 which incorporates certain findings as the basis for the Board’s approval. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 08/14/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes:See Addendum VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor ABSENT:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Contact: Jennifer Cruz, (925) 674-7790 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 14, 2012 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D. 2 To:Board of Supervisors From:Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director Date:August 14, 2012 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a two lot minor subdivision. (District II) RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) 8. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the necessary initial application deposit and fees, and is obligated to pay any additional costs above the initial application deposit associated with the processing of the minor subdivision application and appeal. BACKGROUND: PROJECT SUMMARY The site is zoned R-15, Single-Family Residential Zoning District, where a minimum of 15,000 square feet, lot depth of 100 feet, and an average width of 100 feet is required. The proposed lot areas, average widths, and lot depths comply with the required minimums for the R-15 District. Parcel A will be 15,000 square feet, with a depth of 150 feet, and an average width of 100 feet. Parcel B will be 25,100 square feet, with a depth of 251 feet, and an average depth of 100 feet. The subject property has a General Plan Land Use designation of Single-Family Residential-Low Density (SL). The existing garage located on proposed Parcel A will be demolished. The off-street parking (9 feet by 19 feet) will be relocated to the rear of the existing residence and will be located outside of the required setbacks. The project also includes variances for the existing residence located on Parcel A and two (2) retaining walls up to 14 feet tall on Parcel B. The variance on Parcel A is to allow an 11-foot secondary front yard setback (where 15 feet is required) for the existing residence. The variances on Parcel B include a 16-foot front yard setback (where 20 feet is required) and a 6-foot side yard setback (where 15 feet is required) for the construction of a retaining wall over 3 feet tall, and an 8-foot side yard setback (where 10 feet is required) for the construction of a second retaining wall over 3 feet tall. The project also includes a request to remove four (4) trees and to work within the drip line of two (2) trees for the proposed access driveway improvements. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING On May 22, 2012, a hearing on an appeal of the County Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the minor subdivision was held before the County Planning Commission. The Commission received testimony at the hearing, where five members (5) of the public provided testimony in opposition of the project. After accepting testimony from those in opposition of the project and allowing rebuttal from the applicant, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the appeal, upheld the decision of the Zoning Administrator, and approve the project, modifying condition of approval (COA) #17. The modification requires that the applicant have a geotechnical engineer review and approve the foundation plans, and have a qualified geotechnical engineer present during pier drilling. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING After accepting testimony at the March 19th hearing, the Zoning Administrator closed the hearing and continued the public hearing to April 2, 2012. The Zoning Administrator approved the project with modifications to the conditions of approval. The modifications were as follows: a reduction of hours for noise generating construction activities to end at 4:00 pm, evidence from an engineer that the retaining walls are built at the lowest height feasible, and restriction on the type of outdoor lighting permitted. On April 12, 2012, the project was appealed by Laurie Dunne and Linda Sanders to the County Planning Commission. APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION An appeal filed by Linda Sanders was received by the Department of Conservation and Development on June 1, 2012. A copy of the appeal letter is attached. Below is a summary of the appeal points and responses by staff to the appellant's appeal letter. Appeal Point #1 The neighborhood is zoned R-15, with an average lot size of over 35,000 square feet. Parcel A fails to meet the lot size requirement for R-15 zoning. Section 82-4.244 (c) specifically excludes private road or driveway from being included in the lot size. Staff Response The surrounding area is predominately zoned R-15, Single-Family Residential Zoning District. The minimum lot size required for the R-15 zoning district is 15,000 square feet. Several properties east of the subject property, including Ms. Sanders’ property are less than 15,000 square feet. The applicant proposes two lots resulting in 15,000 square feet and 25,100 square feet. Proposed Parcel A meets the minimum 15,000 square foot lot size requirement and proposes a private access easement on Parcel A. County Ordinance Section 82-4.244 (c) states that “no part, nor all, of a lot within a public road, street, highway, right-of-way, or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed, shall be used to satisfy minimum area, yard, dimensional or coverage requirements.” The Ordinance does not include private easement, roads, etc. among the exclusions because this section was adopted principally to protect road rights-of way in which the County now has interest or may in the future. Appeal Point #2 The proposed subdivision would have a significant and detrimental effect on the character of our neighborhood, and our home. The impact of increased noise, nighttime light, increased traffic, and loss of privacy will have a significant and detrimental impact on the monetary value and the enjoyment of our property. Staff Response The proposed subdivision is consistent with the (R-15) Zoning District and the (SL) General Plan land use designation. The (SL) General Plan allows a density range of 1.0 and 2.9 single-family units per net acre. The subject property is approximately 0.92 acres (gross) and 0.69 acres (net). The proposed project is consistent with the density requirement (0.69 x 2.9 units per net acre = 2 dwelling units). Approval of the project would yield one additional residence on proposed Parcel B, which would not be a significant impact. The Zoning Administrator conditioned the project to reduce the hours of noise generating construction activities (COA# 15). The Zoning Administrator also conditioned the project to minimize nighttime light (COA #25). If lighting is proposed it will be limited to low intensity landscaping lights. Further, landscaping lights shall not be installed to the exterior walls of the residence or exterior retaining walls, except for identification/safety purposes. Appeal Point #3 Demolition of the garage would result in an inconsistency with the neighborhood and result in a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. The elimination of a garage would result in view of vehicles and unsightly household objects. Staff Response The R-15 zoning district requires that off-street parking spaces shall have a covered or open surfaced area of at least nine by nineteen feet, and shall be entirely outside the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure (CCC § 84-4.1202). The proposed project complies with this requirement. Appeal Point #4 Ms. Sanders is concerned with the variances requested and the reduction in required setbacks. Ms. Sanders is also concerned with the proposed 11-foot tall retaining wall along the east side of the subject property. Staff Response The County Ordinance allows variances to modify the required setbacks (County Ord. Section 84-12.1402) if the variance findings can be made (County Ord. Section 26-2.2006). The variance findings were made by the County Planning Commission. To minimize the potential development further into the hillside on proposed Parcel B, the development requires retaining walls more than 3 feet tall to be located within the required setbacks. The retaining walls will be minimally visible when viewed from Ms. Sanders' property because of the topography and location of the walls. Ms. Sanders’ property is adjacent to the subject property; however, Ms. Sanders' property is closest to proposed Parcel A. In fact, Ms. Sanders' is in close proximity to the existing residence on Parcel A. The proposed walls will be most visible to the future owner of Parcel B due to the grading for the driveway (which the proposed retaining walls will support).Two conditions have been added by the Zoning Administrator that requires design review of the wall by the Zoning Administrator (COA #22) and also requires landscaping along the access easement to minimize visual impacts of the retaining wall (COA #23). Appeal Point #5 The applicant requests a 6-foot side yard setback (where 15 feet is required) for a retaining wall on Parcel B. Ms. Sanders believes the required setback should be where 20 feet is required, as indicated on the Tentative Map. Staff Response The property has a zoning designation of R-15, where the minimum side yard setback is 10-feet and an aggregate of 25-feet. Appeal Point #6 A grading inspection determined that the average slope of this parcel is 25%. According to the density table in the County Ordinance, this steep of a slope should result in a decrease in the allowable density of houses that would be well below two houses on this 0.92 acre parcel. Staff Response The County Ordinance Section 814-2.202 - SD-1 Combining district states that all land within a land use district combined with an SDHD-l slope density and hillside development combining district shall be subject to the regulations in this chapter. The County Zoning Map identifies two areas in the County, south of Orinda and west of Moraga as having the Slope Density and Hillside Development Combining District zoning designation. This Ordinance does not apply to the subject property, and therefore, the property is not subject the requirements. General Plan Policy 10-28 states "generally, residential density shall decrease as slope increases, especially above a 15 percent slope." COA #18 requires the upper elevation of Parcel B shall be included as a deed restricted open space to prevent further development beyond the contour elevation line of 410 feet and beyond. Appeal Point #7 The proposed driveway improvement may have a detrimental effect on the viability of the five redwood trees located on Ms. Sanders' property. In addition, the tree trunk will significantly obstruct the view of traffic in an out of the driveway, creating a hazardous situation due to poor visibility. Staff Response The applicant is required to take protective measures when working near the Redwood trees (COA #7). Current access to the property is via the existing driveway near the Redwood trees and the proposed access easement will be located within the existing driveway. Thus, no hazardous situation exists currently or is created by the approval of this subdivision. Appeal Point #8 The Tentative Map indicates a proposed driveway that intrudes upon the corner of Ms. Sanders’ property, as the driveway fans out near the street. The proposed 16-foot wide private road would run 150 feet directly along the entire length of Ms. Sanders' property and would significantly affect the noise level and nighttime light. Staff Response The proposed easement will remain on Parcel A. The Tentative Map identifies proposed improvements along Springbrook Road. The applicant is required to obtain an encroachment permit for the construction of any improvements within the Springbrook Road right-of-way (COA #33). Appeal Point #9 Ms. Sander’s has concerns about drainage created by the proposed subdivision due to the additional impervious surface created. Staff Response The applicant is required to comply with the drainage requirements in accordance with Division 914. All stormwater entering and/or originating on this property shall be collected and conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage system, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks, or to an existing adequate public storm drainage system which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse. Further, submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) is not required with this project because new or redeveloped impervious surface area proposed with this subdivision will total less than 10,000 square feet, the threshold for submittal of a SWCP. Appeal Point #10 A member of the Planning Committee conferred with the applicant privately in the parking lot before the Commission meeting. Staff Response The Brown Act defines a "meeting" as any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location (including teleconference locations) to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body [Government Code Section 54952.2(a)]. The communication of one commissioner with a member of the public or the applicant does not violate the Government Code. CONCLUSION The proposed minor subdivision conforms to the development standards of the (R-15) Zoning District and the (SL) General Plan land use designation. Variance findings were made by the Planning Commission to grant the variance requests for the existing residence on Parcel A and two (2) proposed retaining walls on Parcel B. The project will not result in the creation of any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, it is recommended that the appeal by Ms. Linda Sanders be denied and sustain the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve the two lot minor subdivision (County File #MS10-0001). CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board decides to uphold the appeal and deny the minor subdivision, then there will be no subdivision of the property. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: Not applicable. CLERK'S ADDENDUM CLOSED the hearing; FOUND that on the basis of the whole record before it, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment and analysis. ADOPTED the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program as adequate for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and prepared in accordance with the County CEQA Guidelines. DENIED the appeal filed by appellant, Linda Sanders. UPHELD the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve the minor subdivision County File #MS10-0001, subject to the revised conditions of approval; with a modification to COA No. 1. ADOPTED proposed Resolution No. 2012/339 which incorporates certain findings as the basis for the Board’s approval. DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2012/339 Maps CPC Resolution 2012-08 Conditions Approved by Planning Commission CPC Letter of Appeal Board of Appeals Staff Report ZA Letters of Appeal ZA Staff Reports CEQA CEQA Public Comments Tentative Map