HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11171992 - 2.7 2.7 A
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on November 17, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Fanden
ABSTAIN: None
---------------------------------------------------------=--------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Subdivision Indemnification
The Board this day adopted findings approving Minor Subdivision 32-91 as amended
to include a subdivision indemnification approval condition.
In connection therewith, as recommended by County Counsel, IT IS BY THE
BOARD ORDERED that Community Development staff is DIRECTED to include the
subdivision indemnification condition in the preparation of conditions for future subdivisions.
hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of SuperkIsors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: 'hs�uJ LZ- /99-2,
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk oft a Board
at Supervisors and County Administrator
Qaa'JBr� .Deputy
cc: Community Development
County Counsel
County Administrator
c p/. 7
�E�,S E,,,l,,•O
- Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS e)l J* Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON �
County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �;�
DATE: October 26, 1992
SUBJECT: Adoption of Findings for Minor Subdivision 32-91 (Bruce Lindorf -
Applicant 6 Owner) to subdivide 2.86 acres into Four Parcels, in the
Walnut Creek Area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt the findings approving Minor Subdivision 32-91 as attached
hereto.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Siting as Board of Appeals on October 13 , 1992 , the Board of
Supervisors gave their intent to approve MS 32-91 with a
modification to the conditions of approval allowing neighborhood
review of proposed home designs and Zoning Administrator review and
approval of home designs and structure height and direct staff to
prepare findings consistent with their decision.
The conditions of approval have been modified and are attached.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATIQN OF BOARD COMM TEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON November 17 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
On October 13, 1992, the Board of Supervisors declared its
intent to deny the appeal of Mr. and Mrs . Philip Deatsch et al
from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
on the request of Bruce and Angie Lindorf (applicants and owners)
for approval of a tentative map MS 32-91; and declared intent to
approve MS 32-91 with amended conditions and directed the
Community Development Department staff to prepare the appropriate
documentation for Board consideration.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report and recommendation for adopting the findings and
conditions of approval and he commented on a typographical error
in condition number one that should read that the map was
received in 1991 .
Victor Westman, County Counsel, requested that should the
Board approve the development and adopt the findings, that the
Board attach a subdivision indemnification approval condition.
1 .
Supervisor McPeak advised that it shall be the practice of
the County to attach this condition to all actions approving
subdivisions .
Supervisor Schroder moved the staff recommendation and to
add the additional condition.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the findings approving Minor
Subdivision 32-91 as attached (Exhibit A) are APPROVED; and Minor
Subdivision 32-91 is APPROVED with amended conditions (Exhibit B
attached) .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
.�_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NO ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Debbie Drennan - 646-2031
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED November 17, 1992
cc: Bruce Lindorf PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County CounselADMINISTRATOR
Consolidated Fire Protection Dist.
BY_jAmTO
COU7 40
, DEPUTY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 32-91 - As approved by the Board
of Supervisors on October 13, 1992.
1 . This application is approved for four lots subject to the tentative map dated received
August 1 , 199t by the Community Development Department and subject to the
following conditons of approval.
2. Approval is granted to allow variance(s) as indicated below. The variance(s) meet the
requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code:
A. Parcel A
120 required by zoning ordinance.
59-feet approved.
B. Parcel D ,
120 required by zoning ordinance.
89-feet approved.
3. This subdivision is approved to allow for residential uses as permitted by the R-20
zoning currently effective on this property. Any other uses may only be allowed with
the issuance of a Land Use Permit. The existing auxiliary structure on Parcel C shall
be removed when the house is removed.
4. Any additional structures and their uses shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Administrator prior to issuance of building permit.
5. At least 30 days: prior to issuance of building permits, submit architectural designs
including but not limited to size, height, and placement of home for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. Home heights may be reduced by the Zoning
Administrator to avoid significant visual impacts.
A. Any home design on Parcel A shall protect the 18-inch oak tree as specified in
Conditions of Approval #17.D.
B. Provide self-addressed, stamped (not metered) envelopes (9-inch X 4-inch) for
adjacent property owners, for notification of the Zoning Administrator's review
of home designs.
C. Homes and other structures shall be designed and placed to minimize the visual
impact from adjoining properties or roadways. Garages not attached shall be
single story and contain no living units.
6. Prior to filing the;map submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator an
arborist report from a certified arborist detailing measures to insure protection of the
trees during construction and care and maintenance of the trees in conjunction with
residential landscaping.
2.
7. A. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator prior to the filing of the Parcel Map.
B. No further mature (6-inch) trees shall be removed from site, without written
permission from the Zoning Administrator.
C. The removed 14-inch oak tree shall be replaced with two 24-inch box oak
trees, to be located in the southwest corner of Parcel D.
D. The 21 removed walnut and other ornamental trees shall be replaced on at least
a 1 :1 ratio.
8. Where a lot/parcel is located within 300 feet of a high voltage electric transmission
line, the applicant shall record the following notice:
"The subject property is located near a high voltage electric
transmission line. Purchasers should be aware that there is
ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects
caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high
voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before
the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse
health effects can be resolved, the basis for such an hypothesis
is established. At this time no risk assessment has been made."
When a Final Subdivision Public Report issued by the California Department of
Real Estate is required, the applicant shall also request that the Department of
Real Estate insert the above note in the report.
9. 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.
10. Access to Parcel A shall be from the cul-de-sac to insure preservation of the oak tree
or from the private road if the arborist report states the tree shall not be harmed by the
proposed home location. The report shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
1 1 . Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements:
3.
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power
generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The
restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval
by the Zoning Administrator.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all
internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post
the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The
notice sha'll include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number
and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall
be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of
persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area
of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter
control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued
with each phase of major grading activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the
names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the
are noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or
applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction
work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
construction bond has been posted.
12. No windows on the easterly side of a structure on Parcel B shall be more than 19-ft.,
above grade level.
13. An additional setback of 15 feet from the indicated creek setback line for protection
of the riparian habitat shall be observed.
14. No structures shall be constructed within the creek setback corridor.
15. The riparian corridor shall be shown on the final map.
4.
16. Prior to filing the map submit the tentative map for review and approval of the Contra
Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection District - Captain Frank Boyle. A written
letter shall accompany the final map stating the Fire District's approval of the
roadways.
17. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will
require the review and approval of the Public Works Department:
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. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the
following requirements:
1 ) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private
road.
2) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities.
3) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject
property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to
an'existing public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm
waters to a natural watercourse.
4) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the
Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of
the: Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public
Works Department.
5) Verifying that the on-site creek is adequate to convey the required
design storm (based on the size of the watershed) and, if necessary,
constructing improvements to guarantee adequacy.
6) Relinquishing "development rights" over that portion of the site that is
within the structure setback area of the creek. The structure setback
area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-
14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance.
7) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve-
ments required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for
this subdivision.
8) Submitting a Parcel Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
5.
B. Conveying to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on
Scots Lane as required for the planned future width of 50 feet.
C. Provide for adequate sight distance at Scots Lane based on a design speed of
35 miles per hour in accordance with CALTRANS standards.
D. Construct a 20-foot paved private roadway to the property boundary to County
private road standards, within a 20-foot easement, to serve all parcels in this
proposed subdivision, subject to the review of the Contra Costa County Fire
Protection District. The portion of the private road which lies along Parcel A
shall be a 28-foot roadway with 2-foot rock shoulders, within a 32-foot private
road easement, and that portion of the private road which serves only Parcels
B and C shall be paved to a 16-foot width.
E. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across driveways.
F. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site drainage improvements, temporary or permanent.
G. Establish and enter into a maintenance agreement to insure future maintenance
of the private road.
H. Provide off-street parking for six (6) vehicles per residential unit subject to the
review of the Public Works Department and the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. This project may:be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game.
It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box
47,Yountville, California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development
that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code.
B. This project may ialso be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained.
C. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Central County Area of Benefit as adopted
by the Board of Supervisors.
D. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 8 ,as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
6.
E. Applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
F. Comply with requirements of the Central Sanitary District (see attached).
G. Comply with requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire Protection
District (April 2, 1992 memorandum).
DD/aa
MSXIX/32-91 C.DD
1/13/92
2/26/92
3/6/92
5/26/92 - Rev. P/C (v)
10/13/92 - BS (a)
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FINDINGSIRELATIVE TO MINOR SUBDIVISION MS 32-91
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEOA") ,
THE CALIFORNIA SUBDIVISION MAP ACT ("THE MAP ACT")
AND THE COUNTY CODE
The Board of ;Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California,
(this "Board") adopts the following findings regarding approval of
Minor Subdivision MS 32-91, including a tentative parcel map,
variances for average lot width for two of the four parcels, and an
exception for road right-of-way width (the "Project") .
I. INTRODUCTION
The applications before this Board relate to subdivision and
development of the Project in the Walnut Heights area of Contra
Costa County (the :"County") . These findings are adopted to comply
with the requirements for findings under CEQA, the Map Act and the
County Code and generally to explain this Board's decision in
approving the Project.
A. The Project
The Project is a proposal to divide approximately 2.86 acres
into four parcels on a property addressed as 1050 Scots Lane,
located outside of Walnut Creek in the unincorporated territory of
the County (the "Project Site") . The Project Site is located on
the eastern side' of Scots Lane between Walnut Boulevard and
Greenview Drive, in the area commonly known as Walnut Heights.
Access will be provided via a private road following a 20-
foot-wide right-of-way leading from Scots Lane into the body of the
flag-shaped lot. . Variances are required from the zoning
requirement of 120-foot average lot widths as to Parcel A (which
averages 59 feet) and Parcel D (averaging 89 feet) . An exception
is required from the subdivision requirement that rights-of-way for
private roads be 25 feet wide.
County staff. prepared an initial study and filed a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance for the Project on
November 14, 1991: The Project was scheduled for public hearing
before the County Zoning Administrator for January 27, 1992; the
hearing was continued to February 24, 1992. On March 9, 1992, the
Zoning Administrator approved subdivision of the Project Site for
only three lots, and imposed certain conditions on development.
The Zoning Administrator adopted a negative declaration for the
Project under CEQA.
- 1
The Project ; applicants filed an appeal, and the County
Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Appeals conducted a
public hearing on �May 26, 1992, after which the Commission granted
the applicants' appeal and approved the subdivision for four
parcels with revised conditions. The Commission confirmed adoption
of the negative declaration.
Residents from the neighborhood of the Project Site (the
"appellants") filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
approval. This Board conducted a public hearing on October 6,
1992, which was continued to October 13, 1992. After closing the
public hearing, this Board stated its intent to deny the appeal and
uphold approval of the Project, with certain modifications to the
conditions of approval.
B. Description of the Record
The record before this Board relating to the Project includes,
without limitation, the following:
1. The applications for the Project, including the
subdivision and variance requests.
2 . The conditions of approval for the Project as approved by
the Planning Commission, as modified by this Board.
3. All staff reports and their attachments relating to the
Project, together; with all documents, files and reports on the
Project maintained by the County Community Development Department.
4 . The initial environmental study and negative declaration.
5. All correspondence received and reviewed by the Zoning
Administrator, Planning Commission and this Board before and during
the public hearings on the Project.
6. All other documentary and oral evidence received and
considered by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and
this Board before and during the public hearings on the Project.
7. The findings, resolutions, orders, conditions of approval
and all other documentation related to the actions taken by the
Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission on the Project.
8. All matters of common knowledge and all official
enactments and acts of the County, such as (a) the County General
Plan; (b) the County Code; (c) other County policies and
regulations; and (d) applicable State and Federal laws, rules and
regulations.
The foregoing list of items included in the record is not
necessarily exhaustive. This Board has reviewed and considered the
2
above-referenced evidence, and this Board's findings are based on
this evidence and' all other evidence in the record that supports
these findings.
II. CEQA FINDINGS
A. Facts
1. The Project involves the addition of three single-family
homes to an established residential community.
2. No evidence has been submitted to counter the conclusion
of County staff that all public services and infrastructure,
including roads, utilities and drainage, are adequate to
accommodate three additional homes.
3. The four proposed parcels are larger on average than most
other lots in the neighborhood. Consequently, the Project will not
result in excessive density of development. The building set-back
and other design requirements contained in the County Code will
assure adequate separation of dwellings to avoid any potential for
impacts on views, privacy, light or air. The conditions of
approval will provide added benefits in this regard.
4 . The proposed design of the subdivision has been accepted
by the Public Works Department and the Fire District as adequate to
insure public safety. Specifically, the private paved road will be
widened from 11 feet to 20 feet or more, improving safety and
accessibility for- residents and emergency vehicles. In addition,
fire safety will be improved through provision of an on-site fire
hydrant, improved water volume, and an on-site turn-around.
5. The applicant has documented that line-of-sight along both
directions of Scots Lane at the private access road exceeds State
and County standards. The Public Works Department and Fire
District have approved line-of-sight and roadway design related to
safety along the private access road.
6. The Project Site does not contain any unique topographic
or geologic conditions warranting further study or requiring
special mitigation measures. The Project Site and the proposed
Project do not pose any special constraints or raise any unique
problems for development. Standard County regulations and
procedures for reviewing and approving development design and
construction which are commonly applied to development of this type
without the need for added mitigation measures will be adequate to
assure no potential for any significant environmental impact.
7 . The Fire District and the Public Works Department have
accepted the 20-foot right-of-way instead of the 25 feet normally
specified under the County Code as providing adequate guarantees of
safety and not raising any potential for significant safety impact
3
under the circumstances of this property. Specifically, the
relatively short distance for the narrower right-of-way
(approximately 255 feet) , and the provision of 20 feet of paving
compared with the County requirement of only 16 feet, result in a
net benefit regarding safety. Sufficient parking will be provided
within the Project to avoid the risk of parking along the narrower
portion of right-of-way.
8. County regulations plus the proposed Project design will
provide adequate protection for the intermittent creek and mature
trees on the property. The Project Site is an abandoned walnut
orchard, and there is no evidence of rare or endangered plant or
animal species or valuable habitat.
9. The incremental increase in local traffic generated by
three additional houses is minimal, and poses no risk of a
significant adverse impact on peak-hour traffic or road safety.
10. The Public Works Department has concluded that the
intermittent creek and downstream drainage facilities are adequate
to serve the Project, there are no existing flood hazards in the
vicinity, and standard County regulations and procedures will
assure that grading and construction do not cause any drainage
impacts. Given the relatively large parcel sizes, site coverage
with impervious surfaces is not substantial and will not cause
runoff impacts.
11. Homes constructed on the Project Site will not be visible
from Scots Lane or any other public road.
12. There is no evidence that the Project will contribute in
any measurable way to any significant cumulative impact.
B. Findings
1. The negative declaration, together with the initial study
and the supplemental environmental checklist form, which were
relied upon by this Board in approving the Project and denying the
appeal, . comply with the requirement of CEQA and all applicable
State and County guidelines.
2. The initial study concludes that there is no potential for
significant environmental impact from the Project warranting
preparation of an environmental impact report. The conditions of
approval adopted by this Board for the Project may improve the
quality of development and reduce or avoid adverse effects, but are
not required under CEQA as mitigation to address impacts that
otherwise might be considered significant.
3 . There is no substantial evidence before this Board that
the Project, including the conditions of approval, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
4
4. No mitigation reporting or monitoring programs is required
as a part of approving the Project or adopting the negative
declaration, in that no mitigation measures are adopted to address
potential significant impacts.
5. This Board notes that although comments were submitted to
the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission questioning
the negative declaration and suggesting the need for an
environmental impact report, the appellants did not raise this
issue to this Board either in writing or orally before or during
this Board's public hearing on the Project as a part of their
appeal of the Planning Commission's approval.
6. In the; letters and other documents that appellants
submitted to the' County and in their comments at the public
hearings, appellants opined or implied that the Project may have
unmitigated significant environment impacts. However, this Board
finds that neither the appellants or any other person submitted any
real or substantial evidence to support appellants' opinions
regarding environmental impacts. This Board further finds that the
persons who spoke ; at the public hearings and who submitted written
comments to the County failed to provide any foundation or factual
basis for their comments and failed to establish that they had any
expertise in the subject matters about which they commented. This
Board finds that all such comments constitute mere speculation and
controversy over approval of the Project, and do not represent
evidence of environmental impact potential.
III. PROJECT APPROVAL FINDINGS
A. Findings With Respect to the Tentative Map Pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code section
66410 et seq. ) and the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Contra- Costa County Code Title 9)
1. This Board finds, pursuant to Government Code section
66473, that the tentative map (together with the variances for lot
width and the exception for right-of-way width) meets and performs
all of the requirements and conditions imposed by the Subdivision
Map Act and Contra Costa County Subdivision Ordinance.
2. This Board finds, pursuant to Government Code section
66473 . 5 and County Code section 94-2.806 that the tentative map,
together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the County General Plan. This Board further finds
that there are no specific plans applicable to the Project Site.
The General Plan designates the Project Site as Single Family
Residential Low Density (1.2-2.9 units per acre) . The Project is
not inconsistent with any goal, policy, implementation measure,
diagram or other provision of the General Plan that might prevent
or restrict development of the Project.
5
3. This Board finds that the tentative map (subject to the
lot width variance) is consistent with the current R-20 zoning for
the Project Site.; All parcels are larger than required by the
zoning. The Project is consistent with all applicable policies,
standards and other provisions of the County Zoning Ordinance.
4 . This Board finds that no substantial evidence has been
presented before the County which requires a finding pursuant to
Government Code section 66474 mandating denial of the tentative
map, as further,. supported by the CEQA and other findings
incorporated herein and by the evidence in the record as set forth
herein. The Project is consistent with the General Plan; the
Project Site is physically suitable for the proposed type and
density of development as an infill parcel lacking any constraints
to large-lot residential use; the design of the Project and its
proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat; design of the Project and the type of improvements
are not likely to. cause public health problems; and design of the
Project and type of improvements will not conflict with public
easements.
B. Findings With Respect to Lot Width Variances
1. County Code section 84-14 .604 requires parcels in the R-20
zoning district to have average widths of 120 feet or more.
Section 84-14 . 1602 authorizes variances from this provision subject
to the standards 'specified in Section 26-2.2006. Following the
standard County method of measuring lot dimensions, proposed Parcel
A provides an average lot width of only 59 feet, because the
private access road is included in Parcel A and affects the
calculation. Proposed Parcel D averages 89 feet in width, as a
result of the parcel's location on a cul-de-sac and its use of an
exclusive entryway into the parcel.
2 . This Board finds that variances from the 120-foot average
lot width standard for Parcels A and D will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties in the vicinity and the R-20 zoning district. Evidence
in the record indicates that a substantial number of developed
parcels in the vicinity also fail to meet this minimum average lot
width, including ,Lots 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 19 in the
Greenview Drive Subdivision west of the Project Site. This Board
further acknowledges that because of the method of lot width
calculation employed by the County, parcels that are flag-shaped or
located on cul-de-sacs commonly fail to satisfy this requirement.
3. Because of special circumstances applicable to the Project
Site, regarding its flag shape, need for a cul-de-sac, inclusion of
the entry road as part of one parcel, and other circumstances of
size and surroundings, strict application of the R-20 zoning
regulation for average lot width will deprive the Project Site of
6
property rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
within the R-20 zoning district. The shape of the Project Site is
such that four lots cannot be created without variances, even
though substantially more than 20, 000 net square feet is available
for each parcel,, and each parcel is shaped to allow proper
development and satisfy all other County requirements such as yards
and setbacks. This Board finds that there is no alternative lot
arrangement capable of creating four parcels without similar
variances. Given that the four proposed parcels are larger than
most other lots in the neighborhood, strict application of the
minimum average width requirement in this case will deprive the
property owner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity within the R-20 district by forcing fewer and excessively
large parcels.
4. This Board finds that these variances do not authorize any
use of the Project Site which is not otherwise expressly permitted
by the R-20 zoning regulations, and that the variances
substantially meet the intent and purpose of the R-20 .district.
Four homes will be developed on parcels well exceeding the minimum
required lot size in the R-20 district, and satisfying all R-20
setback and other development requirements.
5. This Board finds that granting these variances from
average lot width ,requirement will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or other property in the vicinity of the Project Site.
C. Findings With Respect to Right-of-Way Width Exception
1. The only access to a public road from the Project Site is
via a private right-of-way that is only 20 feet wide along its
first approximately 255 feet. County Code section 98-4.002
specifies a minimum right-of-way for private roads of 25 feet, with
16 feet of paving. The proposed Project will provide 20 feet of
paving width along the first section of entry road. Section 92-
6.002 authorizes this Board to grant an exception to the private
road right-of-way width requirement.
2. This Board finds that there are unusual circumstances or
conditions affecting the Project Site which warrant granting an
exception to the private road right-of-way width requirement. The
property owner is unable to widen the right-of-way, in that land on
either side is separately owned by private homeowners and is part
of yards for each home.
3. This Board finds that the right-of-way width exception is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. Failure to grant the exception
will prevent subdivision of the Project Site and restrict its use
to one house on 2.86 acres in a neighborhood of much smaller
developed parcels (including many non-conforming parcels below
20, 000 square feet in size) .
7
4 . This Board finds that granting the right-of-way exception
will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property in the neighborhood. The current
narrow 11-foot driveway serves three homes. Without this
exception, the residents of those houses must continue to rely on
the narrow driveway with its limited emergency vehicle
accessibility. Development of the Project will result in a wider
road and improved safety for the existing residents. The Fire
District and Public Works Department have agreed to the right-of-
way width exception in light of the distance being relatively
short, the paved roadway being wider than required by County
regulations, improved fire safety protection (new fire hydrant and
turn-around) , and sufficient parking being provided in the Project
to avoid parking along the narrower section of road. Any potential
adverse affects from increasing use of this road from three to six
houses is more than offset by the better accessibility and safety
provided as a result of the Project.
IV. MISCELLANEOUS
1. In addition to the foregoing specific findings, this Board
hereby incorporates into these findings by this reference the
applicable portions of the County staff reports and studies, oral
and written evidence submitted into the record, determinations by
the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, this Board's
resolutions and determinations, and the conditions of approval, all
relating to the Project.
2 . This Board intends that the foregoing findings and
determinations be considered as an integrated whole and, whether or
not any subdivision of these findings cross-references or
incorporates by reference any other subdivision of these findings,
that any finding and/or determination required or permitted to be
made by this Board with respect to any particular subject matter of
the Project shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of
these findings and determinations or in any document incorporated
into these findings by reference. This document in its entirety
constitutes findings and determinations by this Board whether or
not any particular sentence or clause states such.
3. Each and all of the findings contained herein are based on
competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written,
contained in the entire record relating to the Project, including
without limitation, that evidence presented in hearings on the
Project before the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and
this Board. The findings and determinations herein constitute the
independent findings and .determinations of this Board in all
respects and are fully and completely supported by competent and
substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
8
SUBDIVISION INDEMNIFICATION APPROVAL CONDITION
Pursuant to Government Code section 66474 . 9 , the applicant
(including the subdivider or any agent thereof ) shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning
Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or
annul, the Agency' s, approval concerning this subdivision map
application, which action is brought within the time period
provided for in Section 66499 . 37 . The County will promptly
notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding
and cooperate fully in the defense.
df10: approval.sub