HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10041988 - T.5 Y.r'� .,:i. t.L�#. •-rs'i a�,�`' w f,c `' B :z 4 J t F .�?,.'�y ... t
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T. 5
FROM: ' Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development Cwtr
DATE: September 23, 1988 Cwa
SUBJECT: Appeal filed by People for Open Space/Greenbelt Con ss et-a7 o�the
approval of Minor Subdivision 104-87, Robert Nunn (Applicant) and
Ronald Nunn (Owner) , in the Brentwood area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOM MNDATIONS(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 `6f ,Minor Subdivision #104-87 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 RECOBUMATION OF BOARD COMM1
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 25, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 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.
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. 1.
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.
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.
2.
Supervisor Torlakson responded to Mr. Evanoff's question.
Karl Wandry recommended a different configuration of the parcels
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
AYES: I, IV, V. iii NOES: IT ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON TSE
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
oldTunn D COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
u is or s-Tom Dudziak
Assessor BY ° , DEPUTY
3.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MS 104-87
1. This approval is for a four lot minor subdivision as depicted on the ,
tentative map submitted with this application to the County Community
Development Department on December 22, 1987. The following conditions
shall be met prior to filing the Parcel Map unless otherwise stated.
2. The applicant shall demonstrate that water is available to each proposed
parcel that meets the County Health Department criteria.
3. The applicant shall comply with the County Environmental Health Departments
sewage disposal regulations.
4. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other
on-site excavation(s) , 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 Archaeology
(SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and
suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed necessary.
5. Comply with the Park Dedication ordinance.
6. 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
property 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
local roads; farm equipment causing dust; crop dusting and spraying
occurring regularly; burning associated with agricultural activities; noise
associated with farm equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals
and flies may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again,
notification 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
purchase."
7. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as
follows:
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
subdivision:
1. Chapter 96-10, "Underground Utilities".
2. Section 914-2.006, "Surface Water Flowing from Subdivision",
provided the applicant maintains the existing drainage pattern
and does not dispose concentrated storm waters onto adjacent
properties.
2
3. Section 96-14.002, "Improvement of County Streets
C. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 20 feet of right of way
on Byron Highway as required for the planned future width of 100 feet.
D. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, 30 feet of right of way
along Balfour road as required for the planned future width of 100
feet.
E. Relinquish abutter's rights except for farm equipment along Parcel D's
frontage with Byron Hwy. Access to Parcel D shall be from Balfour
Road.
F. Relinquish abutter's rights of access, along the Byron Highway
frontage of Parcel A, Parcel B and Parcel C with the exception of a
30 foot opening centered on the common property line between Parcels B
and C, and a 30 foot opening at the northerly end of Parcel A. Farm
equipment shall be exempt from this stipulation.
G. 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.
H. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department, Engineering
Services Division, for construction of driveways or other improvements
within the right of way of Balfour Road and Byron Highway.
8. Development rights other than a one (1) acre home site along the Byron
Highway frontage, shall be dedicated to Contra Costa County on parcels A,
B, C and D. This fact shall be shown on the parcel map.
Advisory Note
The following is not a Condition of Approval but one should be aware of it prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
1. The applicant will have to comply with the Byron Fire Protection District
requirements that were set forth in their letter dated January 25, 1988.
MM/df
ms12:104-87c.mm
3/3/88
11/1/88
2/8/89