HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041988 - T.4 1 .
• 4
i
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Contra
Director of Community Development C4)sta
DATE: September 23, 1988 cou /
SUBJECT: Appeal filed by People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress et al of the
approval of Minor Subdivision 99-87, Robert Nunn (Applicant) and
Ronald Nunn (Owner) , in the Brentwood area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the environmental documentation as adequate.
2. Make the required findings as contained in the East County
Regional Planning Commission resolution.
3. Deny the appeal' of the People for Open Space/Greenbelt
Congress, et al.
4. Sustain the East County Regional Planning Commission's
approval.-of Minor Subdivision #99-87 subject to the attached
conditions.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This application is for four parcels with a remainder. The
application was heard and approved by the County Zoning
Administrator.
The proposal does not conflict with the East County General Plan.
The proposed parcels would be economically viable for continued
commercial agricultural production should the landowner wish to
continue farming. The smaller parcels would allow for start up
farms. Further, the practices of operating a single farming
enterprise composed of a number- of parcels either owned or rented
is common practice in California.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:/
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CONM
APPROVE OTE ER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON nctnhPr ��g,Q APPROVED AS RECEDED X OTHER X
The Board of Supervisors on October 18, 1988 continued to this
date the hearing on the above matter.
Supervisor Schroder commented on the memo the Board had received
from Victor Westman, County Counsel, relative to the appeals on MS
99-87 and MS 104-87, and requested clarification as to whether the
matters were properly before the Board.
Victor Westman responded that the matters are before the Board
and the Board has the jurisdiction to make decisions.
The following people appeared to speak:
A.B. McNabney, P.O. Box 53, Walnut Creek, Conservation
Vice-President for Mt. Diablo Audubon, expressed opposition to what
was proposed at the present time. He commented that the requests could
be accomplished if handled correctly but not so that development could
occur later on.
1.
Mark Evanoff, 116 New Montgomery, San Francisco, representing
Greenbelt Alliance/People for Open Space, spoke on issues including
the ranchette policy, not allowing unrestricted minor subdivisions in
the ag core, and encouraged the Board to take action to protect the ag
core. He commented on a meeting with Mr. Nunn and that there was a
solution to Mr. Nunn' s request, and urged the Board to uphold the
appeal.
Ronald Nunn, Rt. 1, Box 200, Brentwood, applicant, commented on
his applications before the Board being consistent with approximately
forty years of land use in the area, consistency with the General Plan
and asked the Board approve his requests. He commented on reasons for
the proposed minor subdivisions including estate planning and
distribution to his children.
Supervisor Torlakson commented on the complexity of the situation
and the conflict in policies and expressed a need for clarity in the
new General Plan. He commented on a compromise approach as a good
solution for the interim period before the new General Plan is in
place. He recommended allowing the ten acre parcels to occur with the
dedication of the development rights on nine of the ten acres and
allow one acre to be a buildable site with staff having the ability to
site the one acre homesites in such a way to leave the balance of the
land for efficient farming. He requested further information from
Community Development staff on the ranchette report they had
completed.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, commented on the
report on agricultural subdivision in the County the staff had
submitted to the Board. He commented on the ambiguity of the
ranchette policy and suggested that the General Plan Congress look at
the ranchette policy relative to the various agricultural land uses
that are proposed in the plan as to where and how the policy should be
applied. He also suggested the General Plan Congress review the
minimum acre parcel size. He commented that if the Board wished to
approve this request it would be reasonable to do so with the
dedication of the development rights to the County on nine of the ten
acres allowing one acre for the development of a home.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Torlakson moved denial of the appeal and approval of
the subdivision, forming the subdivision as outlined by staff with the
requirement that there be a dedication of development rights of nine
of the ten acres in each of the ten acre parcels with the staff having
the ability to direct the location of the acre that will be the
homesite in order to try to cluster those sites in such a way as to
leave the bulk of the property open for farming activity. He further
moved to direct the General Plan Congress to address the issues of the
ranchettes and minor subdivisions in the ag area.
Supervisor Schroder seconded the motion.
The Board discussed the matter.
Supervisor Fanden requested information from staff relative to
the provision of water on each of the ten acre parcels, and on the
application of the ranchette policy.
Karl Wandry responded to Supervisor Fanden' s concern.
Supervisor McPeak requested information from Mr. Nunn relative to
the advantages and disadvantages to a farming operation of doing four
ten-acre divisions as opposed to twenty acres, and the dedication of
the development rights of nine of the ten acres.
Mr. Nunn responded to Supervisor McPeak inquiries, agreeing with
the dedication of the development rights as suggested by Supervisor
Torlakson.
Supervisor Fanden requested clarification on what the development
rights intitled a person to do with property.
2. -
f
Karl Wandry and Victor Westman responded to Supervisor Fanden' s
request.
Mark Evanoff requested clarification on the difference between
what is allowed now under the law and this proposal with the deeding
of the development rights.
Supervisor Torlakson responded to Mr. Evanoff' s question.
Karl Wandry recommended a different configuration of the parcel$
on MS 99-87, relative to fronting the homes along Highway 4, requiring
the applicant to file a revised tentative map.
Mr. Nunn responded on the issue of access from Highway 4,
commenting the present configuration was a better proposal.
Supervisor Torlakson responded to the staff suggestion for
modification of the request that the map relative to MS 99-87 be
redesigned to reflect the staff suggestion to avoid impact on the
agricultural land, and included in his motion a requirement that the
map for MS 99-87 be modified to reflect the staff ' s suggestion.
Mr. Wandry suggested that there only be two accesses and require
joint accesses between two parcels so there would be two access coming
out on Highway 4.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4
with amended conditions are APPROVED; and the issues of the ranchettes
and minor subidivisions in ag areas are REFERRED to the General Plan
Congress.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYESI , zv' y. III NOES: .II ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED October 25, 1988
People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Robert Nunn THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Ronald Nunn CO ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works-Tom Dudziak
Assessor BY , DEPUTY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MS 99-87
1. This approval is for a four parcel minor subdivision with all parcels I
fronting on State Highway 4. All conditions herein, unless otherwise
stated, shall be met before the filing of the Final Parcel Map. Each par-
cel shall have net area of at least 10 acres.
2. Prior to recording the Final Map, the applicant shall demonstrate that po-
table water is available to each proposed parcel from either a public water
supply or from one well per parcel that meets the criteria of the County
Environmental Health Department.
3. If archaeologic materials are uncovered during grading, trenching or other
on-site excavation, earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be
stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society
for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archae-
ology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the
find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed neces-
sary.
4. Parcels A and B shall share access from State Highway 4, as shall Parcels B
and C. A 25' wide access easement shall be developed central on the A/B
parcel line. Likewise, a 25' wide access easement centered on the C/D
parcel line shall be developed. The access easements shall extend to the
south parcel lines of parcels A/B and C/D.
5. The applicant shall comply with the following roadway, drainage, and traf-
fic requirements:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically
listed in this conditional approval statement.
B. The following exceptions to Title 9 are permitted for this subdivi-
sion:
1. Chapter 96-10, "Underground Utilities".
2. Section 914-2.006, "Surface Water Flowing from Subdivision", pro-
vided the applicant maintains the existing drainage pattern and
does not dispose concentrated storm waters onto adjacent proper-
ties.
3. Section 96-14.002, "Improvement of County Streets".
C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that legal access to each parcel is available from State
Highway 4.
D. Observe a 55 foot structure setback from the southern and western
property lines of this property.
2
E. Provide a 30 foot non-exclusive easement along the easterly property
line of this property and also along the property line between Parcels
B and D, terminating at Parcel C.
F. Comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee ordinance
for the East.Central County Travel Corridor Area of Benefit as adopted
by the Board of Supervisors.
G. Except for farm equipment and a 30 foot access located at the easterly
and westerly property lines of Parcels A and B, abutters rights of
access shall be relinquished.
H. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 30 feet of right of way
along the easterly property line of Parcels B and D (correlates with
the 30 foot non exclusive access easement) .
I. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 20 feet of additional
right of way on State Hwy 4 for the planned future width of 100 feet.
J. An encroachment permit for construction within the State right of way
shall be obtained from Caltrans through the Public Works Department,
Engineering Services Division.
6. The applicant shall comply with the County Environmental Health Department
standards relative to sewage disposal .
7. The applicant shall comply with the County Park Dedication Ordinance.
8. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office
for each parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own prop-
erty in an agricultural area:
"This document shall serve as notification that you have purchased land in
an agricultural area where you may regularly find farm equipment using lo-
cal roads; farm equipment causing dust; crop dusting and spraying occurring
regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise associat-
ed with farm equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals and
flies may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again, noti-
fication that this is part of the agricultural way of life in East Contra
Costa County and you should be fully aware of this at the time of pur-
chase."
9. Development rights other than a one (1) acre home site along the Highway 4
frontage shall be dedicated to Contra Costa County on parcels A, B, C and
D. This fact shall be shown on the parcel map.
3
Advisory Notes ,
The following is not a condition of approval but the applicant should nonethe-
less be aware of it prior to the issuance of a building permit.
A. The applicant will have to comply with the stipulations set forth in the
Byron Fire Protection District's letter dated January 4, 1988.
MM/df
msl8:ms99-87c.mm
1/25/88
3/3/88
11/1/88
2/8/89