Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10281986 - X.1 +TOLE BOAR® OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 28, 1986 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None . ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Decision denying appeal, Minor Subdivision MS 10-86, John W. Moore (applicant, Oakley area) 1. On February 7 , 1986 applicant John W. Moore, filed an application for Minor Subdivision 10-86, seeking four parcels on 5. 7 acres and requesting variances for all proposed subdivision parcels from the A-2 zoning district' s requirement of a 5-acre minimum parcel size. 2 . The property is a parcel in the Oakley area located approximately 635 feet east of Sellers Avenue and 770 feet south of Cypress Road. The property is zoned A-2 and is designated Agricultural-Residential on the East County Area General Plan (ECAGP) . 3 . No environmental determination has been made about this project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . 4 . On July 15, 1986 the County Planning Commission (Board of Appeals ) upheld the zoning Administrator' s denial of approval of this subdivision because it is inconsistent with the existing General Plan (ECAGP) . The Planning Commission further denied it for the reasons set forth in its July 15, 1986 order. 5. On July 18, 1986 the applicant, John W. Moore, appealed the decision of the Board of Appeals to the Board of Supervisors . 6 . On October 21, 1986, this' Board heard this appeal. At that time Mr . Moore appeared and presented his appeal. Mr. Karl Wandry, staff planner, commented in response that none of the three past minor subdivision approvals referred to by Mr. Moore had occurred within the last 6 to 7 years, none of them had been approved by this current Board and that they were not comparable to this pending application since there has been no similar subdivision activity on the East side of Sellers Ave and in the appropriate vicinity of the pending application. Mr. Wandry also stated that approval of this application would set a precedent for similar applications which would have adverse impacts on existing farming and ranching uses established in the area. 7. This Board on this date after having heard all testimony and having reviewed all relevant material and files, hereby finds and determines that:. a. Proposed Minor Subdivision Application MS 10-86 is not consistent with the County' s 1978 East County Area General Plan (ECAGP) . Among other reasons , the proposed minor subdivision is not consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan, which are to encourage the preservation and enhancement of agriculture by encouraging and maintaining the integrity of viable agricultural lands and only allowing subdivisions where compatible with those goals and surrounding agricultural uses. The proposed subdivision' s parcels of residential lots as small as 1. 3 acres would inhibit the future viability of continued agricultural operations on the properties in the immediate area. Farming orchards and animal raising exists in the area and on the subject property. There are no demonstrated overriding considerations existing which justify the approval of such premature residential growth-inducing impacts (by approving this minor subdivision) , and the resulting damage to the County' s general plan, goals and policies to protect and continue agricultural use. Further, the area covered by the proposed minor subdivision application is not now required for residential development; therefore, the existing farming and ranching uses in the area should be encouraged to continue by denial of this application. b. The proposed subdivision of four approximate 1-acre parcels is inconsistent with the A-2 zoning district because the proposed parcels would be smaller than the allowed 5-acre minimum and no special circumstances have been established to justify granting the requested variances . Further, granting the requested subdivision would be inconsistent with, and adversely effect the intent, goals, purposes, objections, purposes and policies of the East County General Plan, because to grant an exception to the zoning requirements would encourage "leap-frog" residential development rather than contiguous growth in an orderly and efficient manner, and would be contrary to the General Plan policies requiring that this type of development should be served by appropriate public facilities including public sewer or water availability. Finally, granting the requested minor subdivision and variances would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the A-2 zoning and the ECAGP' s limitations imposed on other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning and general plan designation. Because of the foregoing, the variance standards of Ordinance Codes 5 26-2 . 2006, cannot be met by the present application. Similarly, the parcel map would not satisfy Ordinance Code S 94-2 .806 General Plan consistency requirement. This Board based upon the evidence presented to it cannot make the findings required by Ordinance Code § 26-2. 2006. C. This Board cannot find the proposed minor subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. It appears , significant septic tanks limitation problems exist in the area together, with a very high ground water level. Since the 1978. adoption of the current ECAGP, public sewer or water should be available before this type of property is subdivided. The subject parcel is not located within a reasonable distance of existing public sewer or water that connection thereto would be assured to avoid possible public health problems. Also in the absence of an environmental evaluation of this project it is not possible to determine at this time what measures should be taken to mitigate potential public health problems . i -2- i I r Y d. In addition to the foregoing findings this Board hereby adopts as its findings the Staff Comments made in part V. at pages 2 , 3 and 4 , of the Staff Report presented to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on July 15 , 1986, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. This Board hereby determines that each of the findings of paragraph 7 above, justifies and requires denial of the application. Given the foregoing, this board hereby affirms the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission and denies the appeal and proposed Minor Subdivision 10-86. t hereby certffy that this is a in=andcomeetcopyof an action taken and entered Mn the minutes of the Board of Supervisor on tt e��_a�t�e /s�hown. ATTESTED: C �! -ILI PHIL BATCHELOR,Cicilh of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator ='`rte`}•� {M -- .Deputy.. cc: John W. Moore Community Development County Counsel -3- Page 2 V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE ESTABLISHED NINE-POINT CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF ONE-ACRE PARCELS 1. "The parcel is in an area where substantial subdivision 'to one-acre lots has occurred and in which the Commission determines that there has been a transition from commercial agricultural uses to Agriculture-Residential and ranchette uses." Staff Comment: There has been no subdivision activity on the east side of Sellers Avenue to parcels comparable to those requested. Furthermore, it would appear that no transition has occurred as evidenced by both OMAC and staff proposals for the Oakley Area General Plan Amendment 2. "The minor subdivision will not adversely impact existing farming or ranching activity." Staff Comment: Approval of this request would set a precedent for additional similar requests which would have adverse impacts on existing farming and ranching uses. 3. "The parcel to be divided is less that seven acres in size." Staff Comment: The parcel is 5.78 acres. Page 3 4. "The parcel -to be divided shall be bordered on at least two sides by parcels which have previously been subdivided to less than five acres. Staff Comment: The parcels bordering are: west - 5.77 acres; north - 23.4 acres; east - 5.0 and 5.24 acres; and south - 10.0 acres. None have been recently subdivided and none less than five in area. 5. "The parcel is not located adjacent to a large parcel currently in agricultural production with which it could be formed, and would not otherwise adversely affect agriculture in the area." Staff Comment: The parcel abuts on the north a 23-acre productive orchard. Currently, there are horses on the subject site for which a caretaker's mobile home was granted approximately 1 1/2 years ago. East of the property are 10-acre and 5-acre parcels which are used primarily for horses. In addition to the viable orchards in the area a substantial amount of land is currently in corn. 6. "The parcel to be divided adjoins an existing public road or existing non-exclusive road easement." Staff Comment: The project abuts existing non-exclusive road ease- ments. 7. The parcel is not located within the 100-year flood plan as shown on the federal flood hazard boundary maps. Staff Comment: The parcel is not located within the 100-year flood plain. .8. "All applicable zoning, health and other codes, ordinances, regula- tions and standards will be complied with, and the parcel is not in an area where the County Public Health Department has a history of septic tanks failure." Staff Comment: Variances to lot sizes are requested. The County Public Health Department has indicated that the subject area (within the Sellers, Cypress, Knightsen area) has a history of both septic tank failures and very high ground water. The Health Department would require a 91observation hole and if ground water existed at the 8' elevation or higher, they would not allow a new septic system. Tests in the subject area have shown ground water to exist in some cases as high as 18" to 2' . 9. "The resulting parcels should be of a size which is not smaller than the average parcel size in the specific area in which it is located." Staff Comment: East of Sellers, out of 188 acres there are approxi- mately 40 acres in 5-acre parcels, approximately 40 acres ranging from 6-acre to 12-acre parcels, and 108 acres ranging from 16-acre to 23-acre parcels. There are no parcels similar in size to those Page 4 requested. rf west of Sellers is also considered "in the specific area in which" the subject parcel is located out of an additional 180 acres, there is only approximately 18 acres devoted to parcels of comparable size (1-1 1/2 acres), another 18 acres in parcels approxi- mately -twice the size requested (1.9-3.9 acres), 61 acres are in parcels ranging from 4.8 acres to 7.5 acres and 83 acres in parcels over 10 acres. In addition, there are 126-acre and 140-acre parcels across Cypress to the north which are in productive corn farming. Staff concludes that even stretching across Sellers Avenue to include parcels referenced by the applicant that this criteria is not met in that only 18 acres of 368 acres are devoted to parcels of comparable size.