The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10062015 - D.2RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing and receive testimony on the project. 2. CLOSE the public hearing. 3. CERTIFY the 2015 Addendum to the Pantages Environmental Impact Report (Attachment B); and CERTIFY that the Board has reviewed and considered the contents, that it is adequate and complete, that it has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, and that it reflects the County's independent judgment and analysis. 4. ADOPT the findings and recommendations as contained in County Planning Commission (CPC) Resolution No. 15-2015 (Attachment A). 5. APPROVE the modified Amendment to the County General Plan (County File No. GP99-0008) to re-designate the project site from Single-Family Residential High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium Density (SM), Public / Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA) to a modified configuration of Single-Family Residential High Density (SH), Single-Family Residential Medium Density (SM), Public / Semi-Public (PS), Open Space (OS) and Water (WA), as shown on Exhibit 2 of Attachment F. 6. APPROVE Rezoning (County File No. RZ04-3146) of the project site from P-1, Planning Unit District to a modified configuration of P-1, Planned Unit District, as shown on Exhibit 3 of Attachment F. 7. APPROVE the Modified Final Development Plan (County File No. DP14-3017), as shown on Sheet 5 of Attachment E APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 10/06/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: John Oborne / 674-7793 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: October 6, 2015 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: D.2 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:October 6, 2015 Contra Costa County Subject:Pantages Bay Residential Redesign / Discovery Bay Area RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D) . 8. APPROVE the Conditions of Approval for the Modified Final Development Plan. 9. ADOPT the attached Mitigation Monitoring Measures for the project. 10. DIRECT the Community Development Division to post the Notice of Determination for the project with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT: None. All costs for processing this application are borne by the applicant. BACKGROUND: The applicant has applied to the County to reconfigure the approved project. What was Approved In December of 2013 the Board of Supervisors approved the Pantages Project, which consisted of the following features; widening of Kellogg Creek with the creation of waterfront lots; 292 single-family homes ( 116 waterfront lots and 176 non-waterfront lots); construction of a Sheriffs' Marine Patrol Substation on the project site next to the water; creation of two open space areas; public trail from the project entrance through the open space area to the water's edge. What would Change The reconfigured project would keep the same number of homes and the same design features. However, the new design would provide for improved roadway circulation and waterfront layout, significantly improve the long term durability of the shoring walls at the rear of the waterfront lots and significantly reduce the public trail development footprint through the Open Space area. For comparison please refer to Sheet 1 of Attachment E. The following features would be updated in the reconfigured plans: Replacement of cement shoring wall with sheet pile shoring wall. This method would improve structural stability and longevity of the shoring wall and is considered a superior method of construction by the Reclamation District 800 (RD 800), who would be responsible for its maintenance. Improve roadway circulation through the addition of interior lots and the elimination of one of the bays; Convert some waterfront lots to internal lots. The total number of residential lots remains 292, but the number of waterfront lots has been reduced by 11 to 105 and the number of interior lots has increased by 11 to 187; Reduced developmental footprint of the public trail through the Open Space area. Reasons for the Proposed Changes The following are reasons for the proposed changes to the approved Final Development Plan / Vesting Tentative Map (FDP/VTM): Construction of the approved project included a cement shoring wall (CDSM) which, after the project was approved and final engineering calculations were performed, was found to have a short lifespan; maximum 25 years.This was due to increasing the height of the wall to accommodate for sea level rise. Also, RD 800 expressed reservations about maintaining the CDSM walls given their short lifespan. With technological advancements in construction, the applicant is now proposing sheet pile walls because they have an indefinite lifespan, and RD 800 is prepared to accept responsibility for maintaining and repairing the sheet pile walls. Also, a qualified acoustical consultant determined in the attached addendum to the Pantages Environmental Impact Report (Attachment B) that the method of installation (vibratory versus piston) would not create a significant impact to the surrounding neighborhood. As a result of an improved roadway circulation there is no need for a large portion of the emergency vehicle access (EVA) on the north end of the project. This section,which originally included an elevated EVA with public trail, would now contain only a public trail at grade, which would have a much smaller footprint and far less impact on the marsh/wetlands which it travels through. Flexible phasing opportunities in the construction of the project. Planning Commission Hearing July 7, 2015 The County Planning Commission (CPC) held a public hearing on July 7, 2015 for the reconfigured Pantages Project. After evaluating the project, including all public testimony and evidence in the record, the Commission approved the reconfigured subdivision ( County File SD 06-9010) and recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the reconfigured General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Final Development Plan. The Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division, located at 30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA, is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: If the Board did not approve the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Final Development Plan the applicant would not be able to construct the project with long term shoring walls, better roadway system and reduce the impact of the public trail through the Open Space area. CLERK'S ADDENDUM CLOSED the public hearing; and ADOPTED all recommendations as presented. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - County Planning Commission Resolution No. 17-2015 Attachment B - Addendum to Pantages EIR Attachment C - Conditions of Approval w/ Mitigation Measures Attachment D - County Planning Commission Staff Report 7/21/15 Attachment E - Full Plan Set Attachment F - General Plan / Zoning Maps Attachment G - Notification List Attachment H - PPT Claim for Property Tax Refund Lafayette Christian Church Presented by Beth Grose, Principal Appraiser, Contra Costa County Assessor’s Office 1 Assessor’s Office •Reviews thousands of exclusion applications annually •Past year over 1,000 religious institutions, including churches qualified •Many of those had parsonages or similar living structures that also qualified for the exclusion 2 Welfare Exemption “Property used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes owned and operated . . . for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes is exempt from taxation . . . .” Revenue & Taxation Code, § 214(a). 3 Actual Use Required “The property is used for the actual operation of the exempt activity, and does not exceed an amount of property reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the exempt purpose.” Revenue & Taxation Code, § 214(a)(3). 4 Timeline 1/28/13 - LCC gifted property with residence 2/15/13 – LCC timely files for exemption based on religious use as parsonage within 90 days of acquisition 6/15/13 (approx.) -Assessor’s Office grants exemption for 2013, effective 1/28/13 10/13-9/14 –Residence vacant 3/24/14 – LCC late files for exemption of residence based on religious use 6/17/14 - Assessor’s Office denies exemption as to residence, grants majority of exemption as to property where Church located 5 Initial Reason Provided for Exemption LCC’s request for exemption stated that the residence on the property was intended for future use as a parsonage. 6 Reasons for Denial Law requires exempt use of property on lien date to qualify for exemption (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 214). - Residence vacant on lien date - No anticipated occupancy date 7 Later Reasons Provided for Exemption furniture and appliance storage furniture repair one meeting with applicant for Regional Minister one-time use of washer/dryer one pastoral search committee meeting two finance committee meetings one choir practice 8 Later Reasons Provided for Exemption (part II) meetings to discuss maintenance of residence cleaning and yard work continuation of utilities recruitment tool 9 Bases for Decision Welfare Claim Submitted by LCC Conversations with LCC (primarily 10/13 - 12/13) Statutes Case law SBE Assessor’s Handbooks SBE Letters to Assessors Conversations with State Board of Equalization Other county assessors’ offices 10 Statutory Requirement of Actual Use “The property is used for the actual operation of the exempt activity, and does not exceed an amount of property reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the exempt purpose.” Revenue & Taxation Code, § 214(a)(3). 11 12 Taxpayer Has Burden to Show Exemption Applies “Tax exemptions are construed strictly against the taxpayer. A private owner of property has the burden of showing it clearly comes within the [property tax] exemption.” Amdahl Corp. v. County of Santa Clara (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 604, 614 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 13 14 15 16 17 Property Tax Exemptions for Religious Organizations, State Board of Equalization (2011), p. 12. 18 Case re Intended Use of Property for Exempt Purpose Question considered by California Supreme Court: Was taxpayer’s intention to use buildings for exempt purpose sufficient to exempt the property from property taxation? Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los Angeles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 729, 742-743. 19 Decision No. Welfare exemption has “express limitation, making use the focal point of consideration, contemplates actual use as differentiated from an intention to use the property in a designated manner.” Cedars of Lebanon Hospital v. County of Los Angeles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 729, 742-743. 20 Reasons Provided Are Not Exempt Uses furniture and appliance storage – furniture listed is all appropriate to residence, not storage of religious materials used for worship furniture repair one meeting with applicant for Regional Minister one-time use of washer/dryer one pastoral search committee meeting two finance committee meetings one choir practice 21 Reasons Provided Are Not Exempt Uses furniture and appliance storage – furniture listed is all appropriate to residence, not storage of religious materials used for worship furniture repair – incidental use one meeting with applicant for Regional Minister – incidental use one-time use of washer/dryer – incidental use one pastoral search committee meeting – incidental use two finance committee meetings – incidental use one choir practice – incidental use 22 Reasons Provided Are Not Exempt Uses meetings to discuss maintenance of residence – incidental use and property maintenance cleaning and yard work – property maintenance continuation of utilities – property maintenance recruitment tool – not an exempt use and further evidence property was not being used for other purposes but, rather, held for future occupancy 23 If claim denied, Generally taxpayers have recourse to the courts by filing a complaint for property tax refund. (Rev. & Tax. Code, §5140). Court determines whether claim properly denied. 24