The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12162003 - D4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP "' Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS County DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2003 SUBJECT= COUNTY INITIATED GENERAL FLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO BRING CONFORMANCE WITH THE ALUC'S AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATABILITY PLAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION 1, OPEN a public hearing on three related Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan issues: Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment (County File #GP02-0001). County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County File #RZ01-3105). County Initiated Repeal of Airport Zoning Ordinance Chapter 86.4 (County File ##ZT02-0004). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C ?MMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Decd er 16. 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X See attached Board adden&in:for Burd action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ASSENT None) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Patrick Roche—(925)335-1242 ATTESTED Decor 16, 2003 cc: Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Public Works Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ALUC(via CDD) t n County Counsel r CAO (+ R r PUTY BY December 16,2033 Board of Supervisors Hearing on GPA and Rezoning to conform with ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Pian Page 2 RECOMMENDATION - continued 2. CLOSE the Public Hearings on these issues. 3. DETERMINE that the Negative declaration for the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: (SCH# 2000102048), adopted by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission on December 13, 2000 is adequate for environmental review for Contra Costa County's consideration of a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning actions that are necessary to conform to the adopted ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 4. ADOPT the repeal of County Airport Zoning Ordinance Chapter 86-21 (County File ZT02-0004), as recommended by the County Planning Commission under their Resolution No. 28-2003 (see resolution under Exhibit#2). 5. ADOPT the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment (County File#GP02-0001), as recommended by the County Planning Commission under their Resolution No. 28-2003 (see resolution under Exhibit#2), and INCLUDE it within the fourth consolidated General Plan Amendment adoption for calendar year 2003. 6. ADOPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in their Resolution 28-2003 (see resolution under Exhibit#2), pertaining to the County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County File#RZ01-3105),to retain the existing A-2: General Agricultural zoning district for the privately held lands adjacent to the Byron Airport, including the uses, uses allowed by land use permit, and the 5-acre minimum lot size under this district (except for the Byron Hot Springs resort site) and, pursuant to California Pubic Utilities Code Section 21676 (b), by a two thirds vote, OVERRULE the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission by finding that the A-2: General)Agricultural District is the appropriate zoning district for privately owned lands adjacent to the Byron Airport. See Attachment`°B"to this Board Report for draft Board Resolution with findings as required under the Public Utilities Code. 7. ADOPT the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in their Resolution 28-2003 (see resolution under Exhibit#2), pertaining to the County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County File#RZ01-3105), on the rezoning of the Byron Hot Springs resort site from the Forestry-Recreation (F-R) District to a Planned Unit development (P-1) District to permit the restoration of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure to the historic exterior design for resort lodging and/or conference center use, restoration of the Meade House, and restoration of the former spa facility for public use, and through a land use permit allow new resort related uses, including a golf course, permanent or seasonal residential or lodging uses, telecommunication sites, and utilities and public services, subject to submittal of applications for Preliminary and Final Development Plans and CEQA review. December 16,2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on GPA and Rezoning to conform with ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Page 3 3. INTRODUCE the ordinance giving effect to the aforementioned rezoning of the Byron Hat Springs resort site to a Planned Unit Development (P-1), waive reading, and set date for adaption of the same. J. DIRECT the Community Development Department to post and file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of analyzing this plan should be covered by submitting a SB90 claim to the State for recovering certain costs associated with the review of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, The total will not be known until this effort is complete. BACKGROUND/ REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION In August of 2002 the Board of Supervisors acknowledged receipt of an updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan from the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission and directed the County Planning Commission to serve as the primary hearing body for actions necessary to bring County land use policies and measures into conformance with the ALUC Plan, The California Public Utilities Code, Section 21760,et sec., provides procedures for airport land use planning. The primary focus of the ALUC Plan concerns appropriate land use planning policies and measures for areas near Buchanan Field and Syron Airport. The ALUC Plan is based on the adopted Master Plans for those two airports and the handbook published by the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics. The County is one of several local agencies within Contra Costa County with land use jurisdiction over significant portions of the planning areas for both Buchanan Field and Byron Airport, The other affected jurisdictions are Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martine. In response to the August 2002 Board direction, County staff prepared three staff reports on relevant subjects and proceeded with hearings before the County Planning Commission (copies of staff reports are included under Exhibit#3 to this Board Report). These reports and the actions of the Commission were also referred back to the ALUC as provided for by the Public Utilities Cade. The results of these actions are summarized below. 1. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment The staff proposed General Plan Amendment had many parts (as further described in staff reports and supplemental staff reports provided under Exhibit #3 this Board Report). December 16,2003 Burd of Supervisors Hearing on GPA and Rezoning to conform with ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Page 4 BACKGROUND/ REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION- continued Most of the initial staff recommendations to the County Planning,Commission were non-controversial; however, the suggested change to designate some privately held land as Open Space (OS) around Byron Airport became controversial. As a result of public testimony provided at the County Planning Commission hearing on the OS designation, staff Modified its recommendations to delete this one provision and the County Planning Commission approved the revised staff recommendation for the general Plan Amendment. With that change the proposed General flan Amendment appears to have become non-controversial. The ALUC concurred with the County Planning Commission's proposed General Flan Amendment recommendation. It appears appropriate for the Board to ADOPT the ALUC General Flan Amendment (County File # GP02-0001), as recommend by the County Planning Commission under their Resolution No. 28-2003. 2. County Initiated Repeal to Airport Zoninc Ordinance Chapter 86-4) This obsolete zoning district, originally adopted by the County in'1958, needs to be repealed since the zoning district text and map are inconsistent with ALUC policies. There appears to be no controversy over deleting this ordinance as recommended by staff and the County Planning Commission under their Resolution No.28-2003. It is recommended that the Board ADOPT the repeal of this ordinance. 3. Counly Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. As described in the staff reports included as exhibits to this Board Report,there are very complex compatibility policies for the Byron Airport found within Chapter 4 of the AL LIC Plan. There are two separate recommendations before the Board of Supervisors on this rezoning proposal. One from the County Planning Commission and a separate recommendation from the ALUC objecting to two concerns that the ALLIC has with the County Planning Commission recommendations, The paints of dispute between these recommendations can be summarized as follows: A. Rezoning F-R Zoned Lands to P-1. The ALUC Flan clearly states that the Forestry-Recreation (F-R)zoning district to be inconsistent with the ALUC Flan. The original staff recommendation was to replace the F-R zoning district with the A- ; December 16,2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on GPA and Rezoning to conform with ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Page 5 BACKGROUND/ REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION- continued Heavy Agriculture zoning district(I 0-acre minimum lot size). Staff made this recommendation because the Compatibility Zone B-2 under the ALUC Plan clearly requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. The County Planning Commission requested staff to develop a Planned Unit Zoning District(P-1)for the F-R zoned area,which was historically the Byron Not Springs resort site. The supplemental staff report dated January 28, 2003 responded to the County Planning Commission request. The County Planning Commission approved a recommendation for this P-1 rezoning proposal except for one change. The proposal under permitted use (1.A) stated "All uses permitted in the A-3; Heavy Agricultural District as defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code — Section 84-404." The County Planning Commission recommended that the reference be to the A-2: General Agricultural zoning district. The main difference is that the A-3 has a minimum I 0-acre lot size and the A-2 has a 5-acre lot size. The ALUC felt the P-1 district was acceptable but they strongly urged adoption of the original wording proposed by staff using A-3 standards. B. Rezoning of lands within the ALUC Plan's B-1 and B-2 compatibility zones to A-3: Heavy Agricultural zoning district. Pursuant to the ALUC Plan County staff recommended rezoning these area to A-3: Heavy Agricultural zoning district, which has a minimum 10-acre lot size. The areas that staff proposed to be rezoned to A-3 are shown on attached Map A. The County Planning Commission did not feet the ALUC Plan made an adequate case for rezoning privately owned lands around the Byron Airport to A-3, because in the view of several Commission members there was insufficient evidence or documentation in the plan to support the rezoning. They recommended that only the publicly owned lands around the airport be rezoned to A-3 as shown on attached Map B. The remainder of the lands privately owned would retain their existing zoning. The ALUC strongly objected to this modification from the original staff recommendation. They urge the lands within compatibility zones B-I and B- 2 be rezoned to A-3. December 16,2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on GPA and Rezoning to conform Wth ALUO Airport hand Use Compatibility Pian Page 5 BACKGROUND/ REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION- continued C. Consequences of not adopting the ALUC recommendation. The question of what consequences Contra Costa County would face if it does not take ,appropriate actions to bring the General Plan and related ordinances into consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are found in the Public Utilities Code Section 21764-21679.5. Section 21676.5 excerpted from the Public Utilities Code is providedfor the Board's consideration under Attachment "A" to this report. Although the Public Utilities Code does not call for sanctions against a local jurisdiction if it does not comply with the 180-day plan consistency review there is the possibility under the state code that the ALUC would then take a direct role in reviewing and determining if an action, regulation or permit within the airport influence area is inconsistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Public Resources Code (CEQA)also provides for special provisions for a local jurisdiction to consider when reviewing and evaluating the environmental impacts of a project located within the boundaries of an airport land use compatibility plan. See Attachment A to this report. Public Resources Code Section 21496 would still need to be applied to a project within the airport influence area even if the County dries not bring the General Plan and related ordinances into consistency with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. D. County Planning Commission Recommendation and Possible Ramifications Clearly, the Board has two distinctly different recommendations to choose between regarding the rezoning of land adjacent to the Byron Airport. This report is recommending the Board adopt the approach taken by the County Planning Commission, as contained in their Resolution No. 28-20343, which retains the existing A-2 zoning for the privately owned land adjacent to the airport(except for the P-1 recommendation for the Byron Not Springs resort site). This includes the retention of the uses, uses allowed by land use permit, and the 5 acre minimum lot size under the Art zoning district. As noted above the Public Utilities Code Section 21674®21679.5 provides a very distinct role for the Airport Land Use Commission in the development and adoption of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. It specifically requires under Section 21676 (b) that certain steps be 'takers by a local agency prior to the amendment of a general plan or specific plan or the adoption of a zoning ordinance within the boundaries of ars adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The first step is to refer the proposed action to the ALUC for review and comment as to consistency with the adopted Airport Lancs Use Compatibility Plan, and the ALUC is obligated to notify the referring agency as to a consistency determination. December 96,2003 Board of Supervisors nearing on GPA and Rezoning to conform with ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Page BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION- continued This first step of referring the proposed action and ALUC notification on consistency has been completed (see Exhibit#1:4/8/2003 letter from ALUC staff), The second step provides that the local agency may, after holding a public hearing, overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote if it makes specific finding that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of state law. Completion of second step requires the Board to overrule the ALUC by adopting the County Planning Commission `s recommendation by a two- thirds vote (4 out of 5) with the specific findings. The proposed Board Resolution provided under Attachment"B" includes the required findings for an override of the ALUC. The Board should be aware of the possible ramifications'with adapting the County Planning Commission's recommendation and overruling the Airport Land Use Commission, The ALUC under such a scenario may, after determining that the County findings for the two-thirds vote to overrule are insufficient, require the County to submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to them for review as provided at Section 21676.5(a). This implies that development applications submitted to the; County on land adjacent to the Syron Airport would then be subject to 'ALUC review for consistency with adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility'Plan. However, the law at Section 21876.5(b) also states that where the!local agency has overruled the ALUC by a two-thirds vote with specific findings,the proposed action shall not be subject to further ALUC review, unless the ALUC and the local agency(County)agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the ALUC. So, there is some ambiguity in the law as to arbiter for determining the adequacy of a local agency findings for the two thirds vote to overrule the ALUC. It should also be noted that under a new law, A.S. 332, which will became effective on January 1, 2004, a local agency would be required to notify the ALUC at least 45 clays prior to a decision to overrule the ALUC and the ALUC would then have 30 days to make advisory comments upon receiving of the proposed decision and findings. Consequently, this new law could have additional ramifications for the County by potentially adding to the timing and procedural steps for their review and approval of development applications on land adjacent to the Myron Airport. C:\Current€farming\carr-plan\Board\Board Carders ALUC Pian Conformity.doc ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA December 16, 2003 The Board of Supervisors considered the County Initiated Genual Plan Amendment and Rezoning to bring conformance with the ALUC's Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Patrick Roche,Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present was Dennis Barry,Director,Community Development Department. The Chair then opened the public hearing and the following persons presented testimony. Brent Thomas, 3463 Windsor Court,Pleasanton, Sate Stewart, P.Q. Box 19,Clayton; Diane Bradford,P.O. Box 538,6530 Armstrong Road,Byron David Towler, 741 Shady Glen,Martinez; David Durant,ALUC,645 Paso Nogal Road, Pleasant Dill Richard Taylor, 7021 Lone Tree Way,Brentwood The chair then returned the matter to the Beard for further discussion. On :Page 6 and 7 of the staff report regarding the County Planning Commission Recommendation and Possible Ramifications, Supervisor Uilke a requested that staff to provide further information of the ramifications if the Board of Supervisors were to adopt the County Planning Commission's recommendation overriding the Airport Land Use Commission's recommendation. She also requested that staff address the three parcels that are located on "MAP All around Armstrong Road. Supervisor Greenberg requested the minutes of both the Airport Land Use Commission and the County Planning Commission meetings regarding this matter. She also requested additional information on A-2 or A-3 zoning on those parcels and the development potential. In addition, regarding the parcel maps,she would tike the names of the landowners included. She then moved to continue this item to March 23,2004 at 1:04 p.m. Supervisor DeSaulnier second the motion and the Board took the following action: • CONTINUED to March 23, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. hearing to consider adopting.Resolution 2003/777 approving a General Plan Amendment and rezoning to bring the County into conformance with the Airport uric! Use Compatibility.Plan as adopted by the Contra Costa Airport.Land Use Commission; • DIRECTED staffto provide further information as requested.. 3,-,�, a r ,,.� .r,y s�.*rr x r�— ��;,�lS 4 .a� 3 tz r� > h", 4'"3 "*,* i�*, s... ys�.: I 11, """ ,l -- - , - ,I ,� ", " - " ""' — - ., I-� ,',,,,�..... ,, ,,,,,,, --- - -- �1"-'l-11 � ,—,� IN,1, ,,, I - R`11`---�� I r ��: � , 1,- I 'I" "ll." ,- I-1- I Iz 1 I y, I rs1-1 *� l ---1-1-11 , ,�l I `,x ,,I�l i� 1 4 - 1-1.0111 SII �� f & ;^. -- - "3{ 4^� a s Y al�r��rrri�, � a f zs rrlr�rirrl unrnlrl "� f ,{r►i. - -- } ' 'dry +`,'w.,, ,* �"S} 4 < +. -f t ;, E^ * a ,., s.fi# .� 3 *'{;fJ fff € _ _ 4' A a sCa * r t a ' a o 61. � - i k l �' - . ��11� f f -> MR, f w -- i r}at10, s f tki�P 7Ll k%t - t f 2 1 $til '� .7s.�x Y k *,� f f * f, /f f '.t - * j $ € . sem,. s Y t S�ryF 5 �..'� & t i - '£ e tt*F* it�'r f f *fff+ '"�' Vit. rR F .� � �K X11, "'r ` d >- f {�. I �IlsYi�`Iriyi % f I r "�' `�`s' °"` "� s :. * i k ,� €,zK€,S �'5, Y �r' �„, tax# �' €€ r.� t ' , € �'£ € c< �� "za , 11rffl z , x * a } f,, a 'z% ,�,� ,I S C r * j ac Yrr IMEno f w. � RIM x ' { x'� 3 - '�" * �'*�� €„ a '' t'S^`f '�ot, x '"r* uric *,€€f`; € � ` c < i NI!► �1M'111rMM� ar+ r ,, " r �,. ►:'®'�I ;.,�''c :fib. W. �,�';: IM �£ #.?�'�?St -. �$ +}� `-�', "e4 � fff.: '� {?t* rx't*' 1 �4 „' I. low r u r r Ef * c % , x " ✓ , r o A% � �l ,. ,v. *f Atl i Al, *� ,– 3% - f 110111 I.1MIr 11��r1ll i € fr 5 1M 11� 11�111 III�MIIrrrNA fff t' �� ¢a c r LL �.d 4 "k I , �� 111►' F V �� 3t - ti ��§ � a £X � °z _ !!! ! • • • • - '�� 1F R i - CPC Proposed Byron Airport Area Zoning Map B ii:23;m0 �f ZONING M q e2 A-3 n-4 Byron Airport Property Boundary -R Areas proposed for rezoning to A-3 L-� 3,000 1,500 0 3,000 Feet � H-1 LIST OF EXHIBITS 1, LETTER FROM STAFF, AIRPORT LANG USE COMMISSION RE: REFERRAL OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'Si PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ANIS REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE 2e COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 28- 2003 AND FINDINGS MAP FOR REZONE FROM F-R TO P-1 3. STAFF REPORTS TO THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION A. 11/19/2002, AGENDA ITEM #8, ALUC GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001)' B. 11119/2002, AGENDA ITEM #9, COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (COUNTY FILE: RZ#01»3105) C. 11/19/2002, AGENDA ITEM #10, COUNTY INITIATED REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ORD. (CHAPTER 88-4) (COUNTY FILE: ZT#02-0004) D. 12110/2002, AGENDA ITEM # 4, SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT ON ALUC GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001) E. 1/28/2003, AGENDA ITEMS 2&3, SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT ON ALUC GENERAL PLAN' AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001) AND COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (COUNTY FILE: RZ#01-3105) 4. RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION . PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND MAILING NOTIFICATION LIST EXHIBIT #1 LETTER FROM STAFF, AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RE: REFERRAL OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE Air ortContra Dennis M.Barry,AICP Land Use Community Development Director Commission Costa County /o Cornu un ty Deve':-iE~ ent DepcartCT1(:nt 3 AFF County Administration Building '� ` VS 4 Pine Street tt 7 fD / o- 4th Floor,North tiding � 1 Martinez,California 94553-0095 --fes'` 1 Phone: April 8, 2003 Contra Costa County Community Development Department ATTN:Patrick Roche 651 Pine Street,2'd Mr. NW Martinez, CA 94553 RP: Referral of Contra Costa County's proposed General Pian Amendment and repeal of Airport Zoning Ordinance for compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Dear. Mr. Roche: Pursuant to the State law the Airport Land Use Commission has, after referral, up to sixty days to review amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or ,Zoning Ordinance that impacts ALUC policies. On March 26, 2003 the ALUC held a public hearing on the County Planning Commissions recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on bringing its General Plan and Zoning into conformity with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Commission reviewed the proposed General flan changes and found theme to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. However, the Commission found that the proposed rezoning proposal to be in conflict, inconsistent and incompatible with the Airports Land Use Compatibility .Plan, The Commission agreed with portions of the proposed rezoning action; however strongly opposed the portion of the rezoning which did not rezone privatelands within Compatibility Zones, l_3-1 and B-2, from a 5 acre minimum size (County Zoning General Agriculture A-2). The Commission surges adoption on the Zoning as shown on the November 19, 2002 staff report as discussed on pages 5-11 and S-12 and shown on Map 2 of that report (except for the Byron Hot Springs and Taylor properties). (Copies of those pages are attached). 0)ffice Hours Monday- Frigy:8:030 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month The ALUC was not opposed to rezoning the Byron Hot Springs Resort site and Taylor Property to the County's Planned Unit District Zoning. The ALUC objects:to section 1A of the zoning proposals,which references"all uses permitted in the A-2,General Agricultural District as defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code, Chapter 84-38." Ordinance Code, Chapter 8-38 The ALUC feels this should reference the A-3 zoning district. They also disagree with section 2.A, which reads, "Uses allowed with a lard use permit in the A-2Y General Agricultural District as defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code, Chapter 84-38.'3 The ALUC feels this should reference the A-3 Zoning district. By its action and pursuant to Section 21676 (a-c)of the Public Utilities Cade, the Airport Land Use Commission will rewire the Board of Supervisors at a Public:Nearing to make the findings that the County Planning Commission's recommendations as proposed are consistent with the State Law and overrule the Airport Land Use Commission by a two- thirds vote. If the ALUC is overridden by a two-thirds vote, the commission will require individual projects on a case by case basis be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for those specified lands within zones B1,B2, and C1,not consistent with the ALUC. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact the ALUC staff person, Lashun Cross, at 925-335-1229 Sincerely, Lashun Cross ALUC Planner CC: ALU Coxunissioners Catherine Kutsuris-Deputy Director Robert Drake-Principal Planner 3irn Cutler-Consultant 2 Airport Luna'Use Commission Recommendations 4,1912003 PROPOSED PLANNED UNTIT DEVELOPMENT WINING DISTRICT (P-1) BYRON HOT SPRINGS RESORT SITE (APN: 002-200-014/015) AND TAYOLOR PROPERTY (APN: 002-200-013) The following report is the Airport eland Use Commission's overview and recommendations for consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 1. PERMITTED LYSES A. All uses permitted in the A-3 General Agricultural District as defined under County oning Ordinance Code Chapter 84-40. B. The following historically established uses are permitted subject to CEQA evaluation and submittal of applications for ;a Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan as established under the provisions of the P-1 Planned Unit District, Chapter 84-66, County Zoning Ordinance Cade: • Restoration of the farmer Byron Hot SpringsResort Hotel structure to the historic exterior design for resort lodging and/or conference center use. • Restoration of the Meade House. ® Restoration of the farmer spa facility for public use, which was once a functional part of the Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel, pursuant to the compliance procedures, for massage parlors under both Chapter 518-2 and County Zoning Ordinance Code Section 88-12.4 (7). C. As further defined under County Zoning Ordinance Cade Section 84-66.406, the following interim uses are permitted'until a Final Development Plan is approved: One single family dwelling on a vacant parcel that is a legal lot. 5-11 Airport Lanai Use Commission Recommendations 41"003 Any existing nonconforming use lawfully established at the time the P-1 District was adopted may be repaired, rebuilt, extended, or enlarged in accordance with Chapter 82-8 of the County Zoning Ordinance Code. 2. USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Uses allowed with a land use permit in the A-3: General Agricultural District as defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code Chapter 84-40. B. All new resort related uses that could be approved within the .Final Development Plan and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), include: • Golf Course and related facilities, including the design, grading, and construction of the golf course and its facilities. • Permanent or seasonal residential uses, or lodging uses, that are not within the Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure. The number, location, and density of these residential or lodging uses, which are not within the historic hotel structure, shall be subject to a determination by the Zoning Administrator these uses are consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and to a determination by the ALUC that these uses are consistent with the adopted',Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. # Cellular telephone or other telecommunication sites. Utilities and public services (e.g., sewer and water facilities not underground). 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following development standards shall apply to the P-1 District for the Byron Hot Springs Resort site: All strictures beyond 50 feet in height, any structure proposed within Compatibility Zone B-1, and any increase in height of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure shall conform with the height requirements and limitations of the adapted ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 5-12 Airport Land Use Commission Recommendations 41912003 Compatibility Zone B 1 Areas There are other areas found within Compatibility Zone B 1 at the terminus of both runways. A major restriction of the AL,UC .plan is that no new residential lots are permitted. See Attachment "A" to this report for a listing of Assessor Parcel Numbers that are zoned A-2 and located within Compatibility zone B1. The proposed General Plan Amendment staff' report urges all lands within Compatibility Zones A and B 1 be re-designed to an Open Space category. This designation would limit the subdivision of new residential lots due to the limit of one (1)residential lot per parcel (see the Open Space text in that Staff deport). Many of these areas are already zoned A-3 and the Byron Hot Springs site is proposed for this zoning district. The allowable land uses under the land use permit provision for .A-3 zoning is slightly more restrictive than A-2. The minimum lot size is more compatible than the A-2 district. It appears the B1 compatibility zone areas should be rezoned to A-3 consistent with the recommendations on Byron Hot Springs. The issue of major land use actions and potential inconsistencies with non-residential use permits will be regulated by the proposed Open Space land use designation under the general Plan and proposed revised policies necessary for compatibility. RECOMMENDATION Rezone all BI ares to A-3 Compatibility zone B2 Areas There are lands to the southeast, southwest, and east of the airport, which are zoned A-2 but are located within Compatibility Zone B2. See Attachment "A" to this report for a listing of Assessor Parcel NNumbers that are zoned A-2 and located within Compatibility zone fit. That Compatibility .zone requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. Rezoning to A-3 would be the most consistent zoning for these areas. S-13 Airport Land Use Commission Recommendations 41"003 RECOMMENDATION Rezone all A-2 zoned areas within AZ.,UC Compatibility Zane B2 to A-3 GAALUC PLANII'ROPOSED BY AiMPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 4-9-03.doc -14 A TTA C 1Y EN "B THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Adopted this Order on Tuesday,December 16, 2003,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOLUTION NO. 2003/777 SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING ) TO CONFORM WITH THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ) AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION(ALUC) ) AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN ) COUNTY FILE#'S: ) GP 02-0001: AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN } GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ) RZ 01-3105: REZONING FOR CONFOR_IMANCE WITH ) AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN ) ZT 02-0004: REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ) ORDINANCE CHAPTER 86-4 ) WHEREAS, on August 13, 2002 the Board of Supervisors acknowledged receipt of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. ("ALUC Plan")from the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission and referred the ALUC Plan to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission for review and a recommendation on the statutory plan consistency with the Contra Costa County General Plan.(1995-2010) and the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance Code; and, WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given., the County Planning Commission received reports from staff and conducted a hearing on November 19, 2002 on three separate but related actions addressing Contra Costa County's conformity with the ALUC Ilan: ► .Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment(County File#GP02-0001) • County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(County File#R.Z01-3105) County Initiated.Repeal of Airport Zoning District Ordinance Chapter 86-4(County File 4ZT02-0004) WHEREAS,the hearing on the above referenced three separate but related actions addressing conformity with the ALUC Plan were continued to County Planning Commission meetings on December 10, 2002, and January 14, 2003; and, WHEREAS, at the January 14, 2003 meeting the County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of County Initiated Repeal of Airport Zoning District Ordinance Chapter 86-4 (County File#ZT02-0004),as described in County Planning Commission Resolution No.28-2003, and, Resolution No. 2003/777 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the matters pertaining to Airport Land Use Compatibility Pian General Plan. Amendment (County File#GP02-0001) and County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County File #RZO1-3105) were continued to the County Planning Commission meeting on January 28, 2003, at which time a supplemental staff report was received on the potential rezoning to Planned Unit District for the area near the Byron Airport commonly known as the Byron Hot Springs resort site, and upon receiving further public testimony these matters were continued to the February 11, 2003 meeting of the County Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, on February 11 2003, after closing the public hearing on the two remaining matters pertaining to conformity with the ALUC Plan, the County Planning Commission fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the staff reports and public testimony and evidence submitted on these matters at the five hearing sessions,and forwarded recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to adopt the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment(County File 4GP02-0001) and County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.(County File#RZO1-3105), as described in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 28--2003; and, WHEREAS,after notice having been lawfully given,a public hearing was scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County ("this Board") after considering the staff reports, the recommendations of the County Planning Commission,the recommendations of the Airport Land Use Commission,and both written and oral testimony submitted in regard to these matters,takes the following actions and makes the following findings: .. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act),the State CEQA Guidelines, and the County's own CEQA Guidelines(together"CEQA'),this Board DETERMINES that the Negative Declaration for Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SCH#2000102048), adopted by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission on December 13,2000, is adequate for the purposes of compliance with CEQA for consideration.of General Plan Amendment and Rezoning actions that are necessary to bring Contra Costa County into conformance with ALUC Plan. 2. ADOPTS the repeal of the Airport Zoning District Ordinance, Chapter 86-4, under the County Zoning Ordinance Code, County File #ZT02-0004, as recommended in County Planning Commission Resolution No.28-2003.This action would repeal an obsolete Airport Zone District ordinance that regulates land uses around Buchanan Field Airport, because state law establishing the ALUC has superceded the Airport Zone.District's original purpose. ?. ADOPTS the proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. General Plan Amendment, County File#GP02-000, as recommended in County Planning Commission Resolution.No. 28-2003, to amend the Land Use, Noise, Transportation and Circulation Elements to the County General Plan bringing the County General Plan into conformity with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The General Pian Amendment includes the following changes: 1) Land Use Element: re-designate lands on and around the Byron Airport from Agricultural Lands(AL) and Public and Semi-Public (PS) use designations to the Open;pace(OS)use designation,2)Transportation and Circulation Element:revisions to the text dealing with the Byron Airport; and, 3) Noise Element: revisions to noise contours maps for both Byron Airport and Buchanan Field based on the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan noise contours;and INICLUDES this General Plan Amendment adoption as the fourth consolidated General Plan Amendment of 2004. Resolution No.2003/777 2 of 5 4. ADOPTS the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in their Resolution 28-2003,pertaining to the County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County File #RZ01-3105), to retain the existing A-2:General Agricultural zoning district for the privately held lands a4:1 acent to the Byron Airport,including the uses,uses allowed by land use permit,and the 5-acre minimum lot size under this district (except for the Byron Hot Springs resort site) and pursuant to California Pubic Utilities Code Section 21676(b), OVERRULES the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission as to the appropriate zoning district for privately owned lands adjacent to the Byron Airport. 5. ADOPTS the recommendation of the County Planning Commission, as contained in their Resolution 28-2003,pertaining to the County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(County File#RZO 1-3105).to rezone the Byron Hot Springs resort site from the Forestry-Recreational (F-R) District to a Planned Unit Development(P-1)District to permit the restoration of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure to the historic exterior design for resort lodging and/or conference center use, restoration of the Meade House,and restoration of the former spa facility for public use,and through a land use permit all new resort related uses, including a golf course,permanent or seasonal residential or lodging uses, telecommunication sites, and utilities and public services, subject to submittal of applications for Preliminary and Final Development Plans and CEQA review. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board makes the following findings for these actions: Findings I. California Public Utilities Code Section 21670-21679.5 (Requirements of California State Aeronautics Act A. Pursuant to the California State Aeronautics Act,beginning at California Public Utilities Code Section 21670, there is a public interest and purpose to provide for the orderly development of the two publicly owned airports in Contra Costa County,Buchanan Field and Byron Airport, and the area surrounding these airports, so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California Airport noise standards adopted pursuant to California Public-Utilities Code Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems, and the adoption of these actions will promote said goals and objectives. B. Pursuant to the California State Aeronautics Act,beginning at California Public Utilities Code Section 21670,there is a public interest and purpose in the actions adopted by this resolution to protect public health,safety,and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within the areas around Contra Costa County's public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. C. The Board, after considering the referral comments of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission letter of April 8, 2003, concurs with the findings of the County Planning Commission that there is insufficient evidence or documentation in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, adopted on December 13, 2000 by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission, to support or warrant the rezoning of privately owned lands adjacent to the Byron Airport from the A-2:General Agricultural District to the A-3 Heavy Agricultural District, and determines that retention of the existing A-2: General Agricultural District for privately owned lands adjacent to the Byron Airport will be consistent with the purposes and requirements stated in California Public Utilities Code Section 21670(except for the Byron Hot Springs resort site,as explained below in Finding#IV.B). Resolufion No.2003/777 3 of 5 Il. Growth Management Element Performance Standards A. The adoption of Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment,County File#GP02-000, as recommended in County Planning CommissionResolution No.28- 2003, will not result in violations of the standards for traffic and public services established in the Growth Management dement, Contra Costa County General Plan (1995-2010). III. Measure C-1988 and Related Resolutions A. The adoption of Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment,County .File#GP02-000,as recommended in County Planning Commission'Resolution No. 28- 2003,will not trigger the requirements for compliance with the traffic service objectives of Measure C-1988, the Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program and related Contra Costa Transportation Authority resolutions. IV. Rezoniny,Findings A. Repeal of the Airport Zoning Ordinance(Chapter 86-4)will remove>a zoning ordinance adopted in 1956 that is obsolete and superseded by the state law establishing the Airport Land Use Commission and will thereby update the County Zoning Ordinance Code to conform with state law. B. The Board concurs with both.the County Planning Commission and the Airport band Use Commission that some of the uses defined under the Forestry-Recreation (F-R)zoning district(Chapter 84-32) are in conflict with the ALUC Plan(at page H-3, Airport band Use Compatibility Plan, adopted. 12/13/2000) and therefore in order to protect public health,safety,and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within the areas around Contra Costa County's public airports,it is necessary to rezone the Byron Hot Springs resort site to a P-1: Planned Unit Development District to insure that future development of the site will not be in conflict the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. V. Findings for Adoption of the P-1. Planned Unit Devel pment District for the Byron Hot S2nngs Resort Site A. Establishment of a P-1: Planned Unit District for the Byron Hot Springs resort site will permit the potential restoration of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure to the historic exterior design for resort lodging and/or conference center use,restoration of the Meade House,and restoration of the former spa facility for public use,and new resort related uses, such as a golf course and additional lodging through a land use permit, in conformance with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Contra Costa County General Plan(1995-2010). STI. General Plan Consistency A. The actions addressed in this resolution are consistent with Contra Costa County General Plan(1995-2010). Specifically, the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment,County File#GP02-000,as recommended in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 28-2043, will not cause the General Plan to become internally inconsistent. The various changes to the Transportation-Circulation and Noise elements under the General Plan Amendment are compatible with the goals, objectives,policies and implementation measures of the General Plan as a whole, and will in fact further their attainment,by promoting the protection of public health,safety,and welfare and by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures Resolution leo. 2003/777 4 of 5 minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within the areas around Contra Costa County's public airports. B. The Board has considered these actions in relation to all relevant general Plan policies and the extent to which they conform or help to achieve each of those policies,including those contained in the Transportation-Circulation, Noise and band Use elements. The Board has also considered how these actions would affect performance standards in the General Plan, including growth Management Element policies and standards. Contact.Patrick Pioche(335-1242) Community Development Department CAO County Counsel Contra Costa Coupty ALUC G:lCunert PSan:ri.glean-ply.\3oardlR,esoiuttora\73ocrd�cao.utton 2633-777ve 2.doc Resolution Nes.2003/777 5 of 5 EXHIBIT #1 LETTER FROM STAFF, AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RE: REFERRAL OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE Airport y P^q o#y Dennis M. Barry,A1CP 3} t onus Community Development Dire.-Or Land Use Costa CommissionCounty I r E,. F °!a vornmu;i y Development Department 0 Coign Administration Buiieing ,/� � 3 r 651 Pale Street /f� lop 4th Poor;Porth Wing Martinez,California 94553-0035 ' ore: c y .. April 8, 2003 Contra Costa County Community Development Department ATTN:Patricl£Roche 651 Fine Street, 2 d Flr. Ned Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Referral of Contra Costa County's proposed General Plan Amendment and repeal of Airport Zoning Ordinance for compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Pian Dear. Mr. Roche: Pursuant to the State law the Airport Land Use Commission has, after referral, up to sixty days to review amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan or Zoning Ordinance that impacts ALUC policies. On March 26, 2003 the ALUC held a public hearing on the County Planning Commissions recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on bringing its General Plan and Zoning into conformity with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan changes and found them to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. However, the Commission found that the proposed rezoning proposal to be in conflict, inconsistent and incompatible with the Airports Land Use Compatibility Plan. The Commission agreed with portions of the proposed rezoning action.; however strongly opposed the portion of the rezoning which did not rezone private lands within Compatibility Zones, B-1 and B-2, from a 5 acre minimum size (County Zoning General Agriculture A-2). The Commission urges adoption on the Zoning as shown on the November 19, 2002 staff report as discussed on pages S-11 and S-12 and shown on Map 2 of that report (except for the Byron Hot Springs and Taylor properties). (Copies of those pages are attached). Office Hours Monday- Fridfy:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 pen:. Office is closed the t s-, 3rd &5th Fridays of each month The ALUC was not opposed to rezoning the Byron Hort Springs Resort site and Taylor Property to the County's Planned Unit District Zoning. The ALUC objects to section 1A of the zoning proposals,which references "all uses permitted in the A-2, General Agricultural District as defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code, Chapter 84-38." Ordinance Code, Chapter 8-38 The ALUC feels this should reference the A-3 zoning district. They also disagree with section 2.A, which reads, "Uses allowed with a land use permit in the A-2; General Agricultural District as defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code, Chapter 84-38." The ALUC feels this should reference the A-3 Zoning district. By its action and pursuant to Section 21676 (a-c) of the Public Utilities Code,the Airport Land Use Commission will require the Board of Supervisors at a Public Hearing to make the findings that the County Planning Commission's recommendations as proposed are consistent with the State Law and overrule the Airport Land Use Commission by a two- thirds vote. If the ALUC is overridden by a two-thirds vote, the commission will require individual projects on a case by case basis be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission for those specified lands within zones B1, B2, and C1, not consistent with the ALUC. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact the ALUC staff person, Lashun Cross, at 925-335-1229 Sincerely, Lashun Cross ALUC Planner CC; ALU Commissioners Catherine Kutsuris-Deputy Director Robert Drape-Principal Planner Jim Cutler-Consultant 2 Airport hand Use Commission Recommendations 41912003 PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (P-1) BYRON HOT SPRINGS RESORT SITE (APN: 002-200-014/015) AND TAYOLOR PROPERTY (APN: 002-200-013) The following report is the Airport Land Use Commission's overview and recommendations for consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plana 1. PERMITTED USES A. All uses permitted in the A-3: General„ Agriculturai District as defined under County7Zonfngbrdinance Code Chapter 84-40. B. The following historically established uses are permitted subject to CEQA evaluation and submittal of applications for a Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan as established under the provisions of the P-1 Planned Unit District, Chapter 84-66, County honing Ordinance Code: • Restoration of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure to the historic exterior design for resort lodging and/or conference center use. • Restoration of the Meade House. • Restoration of the former spa facility for public use, which was once a functional part of the Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel, pursuant to the compliance procedures for massage parlors under both Chapter 518-2 and County Zoning Ordinance Code Section 88-12.4 (7). C. As further defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code Section 84-66.406, the following interim uses are permitted until a Final Development Plan is approved: • One single family dwelling on a vacant parcel that is a legal lot. 5-11 Airport Land Use Commission ,Recommendations 41912003 • Any existing nonconforming use lawfully established at the time the P-1 District was adopted may be repaired, rebuilt, extended, or enlarged in accordance with Chapter 82-8 of the County Zoning Ordinance Code. 2. USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL PN THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Uses allowed with a land use permit in the A-3a General Agricultural District as defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code Chapter 84-40. B. All new resort related uses that could be approved within. the Final Development Plan and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), include: • Golf Course and related facilities, including the design, grading, and construction of the golf course and its facilities. • Permanent or seasonal residential uses, or lodging uses, that are not within the Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure. The number, location, and density of these residential or lodging uses, which are not within the historic hotel structure, shall be subject to a determination by the Zoning .Administrator these uses are consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and to a determination by the ALUC that these uses are consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. • Cellular telephone or other telecommunication sites. • Utilities and public services (e.g., sewer and water facilities not underground). 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following development standards shall apply to the P-l District for the Byron Hot Springs Resort site: +� All structures beyond 50 feet in height, any structure proposed within Compatibility Zone B-1, and any increase in height of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure shall',conform with the height requirements and limitations of the adopted ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.. S-12 Airport Land Use Commission Recommendations 41912003 Compatibility Zone B 1 Areas There are other areas found within Compatibility Zone B 1 at the terminus of both runways. A major restriction of the AI<UC Plan is that no new residential lots are permitted. See Attachment "A" to this report for a listing of Assessor Parcel Numbers that are zoned A-2 and located within Compatibility zone B 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment staff report urges all lands within Compatibility Zones A and BI be re-designed to an Open Space category. This designation would limit the subdivision of new residential lots due to the limit of one (1) residential lot per parcel (see the Open Space text in that StaffReport). Many of these areas are already zoned A-3 and the Byron Hot Springs site is proposed for this zoning district. The allowable land uses under the land use permit provision for A-3 zoning is slightly more restrictive than A-2. The minimum lot size is more compatible than the A-2 district. It appears the Bl compatibility zone areas should be rezoned to A-3 consistent with the recommendations on Byron Hot Springs. The issue of major land use actions and potential inconsistencies with non-residential use permits will be regulated by the proposed Open Space land use designation under the General Plan and proposed revised policies necessary for compatibility. RECOMMENDATION Rezone all B1 areas to A-3 Compatibility zone B2 Areas There are lands to the southeast, southwest, and east of the airport, which are zoned A-2 but are located within Compatibility Zone B2. See Attachment "A" to this report for a listing of Assessor Parcel plumbers that are zoned AP2 and located within Compatibility zone B2. That Compatibility zone requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. Rezoning to A-3 would be the most consistent zoning for these areas. 5-13 Resolution # 28-2003 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CONCERNING BRINGING THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC:) LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN On August 13, 2002 the .Board of Supervisors referred the ALUC Land Use Compatibility Plan from the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission to make a recommendation on the statutory plan consistency between the County General Plan and ordinance code with the ALUC plan. Can November 19, 2002 the Commission received reports from staff on three separate subjects. They were: - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment, County File #GP02--0001. - County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, County File #RZ01-3105 - County Initiated Repeal of Airport Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 86-4), County File ZT02-0004 At the completion of the hearing the Commission continued the matter until December 10, 2002 and requested staff to respond to the issues raised at the hearing. On December 10, 2002 the Commission received a supplemental staff report dealing with the issues raised to date. After receipt of testimony, the Commission further continued the hearing until January 14, 2003. On January 14, 2003, after receiving testimony on these issues, the Commission further continued the general plan and rezoning projects until January 28, 2003, but took the following action. RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration prepared by the ALUC for adoption of the Land Use Compatibility Plan is valid for consideration of County conformity issues and actions and approves the use of that Negative Declaration for this purpose. Further, the Commission made a decision to recommend approval to the County Initiated Repeal of the Airport Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 86-4) County File #ZT02-0004. This decision of the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on January 14, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners — Clark, Hanecak, Battaglia, Mehlrhan and Wong NOES: Comn-ussioners —None ABSENT: Commissioners — Gaddis and Terrell ABSTAIN: Commissioners — None On January 28, 2003 the Commission received a supplemental staff report on the potential rezoning of the area that is commonly known as .Byron Hot Springs to a Planned Unit Development District, as requested by the Commission. Upon receipt of testimony, the Cornmission farther continued these matters to February 11, 2003. On February 11, 2003 after receipt of additional testimony, the Commission closed the hearing on these two remaining projects. RESOLVED, that the County Planning Conunission took action to recommend approval of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan General Plan Amendment, County file #GP 02-0001 as recommended by staff including the modifications found in the December 10, 2002 staff report. FURTHER, the County Planning Commission recommends approval of a modified version of the County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, County File ##RZ01-3105. The modifications include rezoning the Byron Hot Springs area from. FR to P-1, as recommended by staff'in the supplemental staff report dated January 28, 2003, except the reference to section 2.A of that P-1 text. The Commission approved this item for referencing A-2 Zoning District instead of the staff recommended reference to the A-3 Zoning District. FURTHER, the Commission recommends only rezoning to A-3 the lands owned by public agencies and leaving privately held lands zoned A-2. The reason for the Commission's action is that the Commission felt the ALC Land Use 2 Compatibility Plan failed to provide adequate justification for requiring lands within Compatibility Zone Bat to have a ten acre minimum lot size. The decision of the County Planning Commission was given by notion of the County Planning Commission February 11, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners —Clary, Hanecak, Mehlman and Terrell NOES: Commissioners - Battaglia and Wong ABSENT: Commissioner—Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioner—None HYMAN WONG Chairman, County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California 1, Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on February 11, 2003. ATTEST: A Bennis M. Barry, Al Secretary of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California 3 ■ ■i d Map i A-2 A-2 A-3 r . �p A-4 A-3 L t r AR oy f . .. - Q_-j ClN4CM L6ViT PoRB. ' A-3 �3 A-3 A-2 A-2 �.� OUV Non Rezone From - To P Byron Area i, H. Wo7a Chair of the Contra Caste County Planning Commission,State of California,do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of d-, I- til of the County's 1978 indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of Contra sta Coun7W 1310 ATT; ,�)E,/� & — -yoftt�eContra=j�� P nr Co mission ORDINANCE NO. (Re-Zoning Land in the Byron Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Wage T-25m. T-28M of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. _ RZO13105 ) FROM: Land Use District F-R ( ForesLry Recreational } TO: Land Use District P4j _ 1_ Planned Development } and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec. 84.2.003. SECTION II. EFFECTIVE DA'Z'E. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on by the following vote: Swervisor Ave No Absent Abstain 1. .1. Gioia ( ) ( ) ( ) { ) 2. G. B. Uilkema ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. M. Greenberg ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. M. DeSaulnier ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5. F. D.Glover ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ATTEST: John Sweeten,County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board By Dep. (SEAL) O_RDENANCE NO. RZO13105 Contra Costa County EXHIBIT #3 STAFF REPORTS TO THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION A. 1111912002, AGENDA ITEM #8, ALUC GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001) B. 1111912002, AGENDA ITEM #9, COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (COUNTY FILE; RZ#01-3105) C. 11/1912002, AGENDA ITEM #10, COUNTY INITIATED REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ORD. (CHAPTER 88-4) (COUNTY FILE: ,ZT#02-0004) D. 12/10/2002, AGENDA ITEM # 4, SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT ON ALUC GENERAL. PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001)' Ex 112812003, AGENDA ITEMS 2&3, SUPPLEMENTAL .STAFF REPORT ON ALUC GENERAL PLAN' AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001)'AND COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (COUNTY FILE: RZ#01-3105) Agenda Item.#8 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER. 1 9 2002 — 7.00 P.M. ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001 STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. INTRODUCTION Government Code Section 65302.3 rewires each local government having jurisdiction within an Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) planning area to modify its General Plan and any affected specific plans to be consistent with the Commission's adapted compatibility plan. The local agency must take this action within one hundred eighty (180) days of when the Commission adopts or amends its plan. The only other course of action permitted for local agencies is to override the ALUC compatibility plan by a two-thirds vote after first holding a public hearing and making explicit Endings that the agency's plan are consistent with state law. On August 13, 2002, the Board of Supervisors acknowledged receipt of an updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared and adopted by the Contra Costa ALUC. In the August 13, 2002 action, the Board referred the ALUC Compatibility Plan to the County Planning Commission for the statutory plan consistency review requesting a report with recommendations within the 180-day review period as provided for under state law. A General Plan does not need to be identical with the ALUC plan in order to be consistent with it. To meet the consistency test, a General Plan must do two things: S-2 • It must avoid direct convicts with compatibility planning criteria. • It must include provisions for evaluation of proposed land use developments situated within an airport influence area relative to the compatibility criteria set forth in the compatibility plan. This proposed General Plan Amendment recommends changes to the Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, and Noise elements of the County general Plan bringing the County General Plan into conformity with the adopted Contra Costa County ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. II. CEQA A draft Negative Declaration on the proposed ALUC Compatibility Plan was released on October 12, 2000. The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission approved this Negative Declaration on December 13, 2000 at the time it approved the Compatibility Plan. This proposed County General Plan Amendment utilizes the ALUC Negative Declaration, for the purpose of bringing the County General Plan into conformity with the ALUC Compatibility Plan.. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached. III. LIMITATIONS ON GENERAL PLAN CHANGES TO BE CONSIDERED AND RELATED ACTIONS The sole purpose of this General Plan Amendment is to bring the County General Plan into conformity with the ALUC Compatibility Plan. It is noted that concurrent with this general Plan Amendment are County initiated proposals to re-zone certain lands adjacent to the Byron Airport and to repeal the Airport Zoning District ordinance to assure compatibility with the ALUC plan. There are three staff reports and recommendations associated with the ALUC plan. Airport Land Use Compatibility General flan Amendment, County File. CP#O1 0001; S-3 ■ County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Pian, County File RZ01- 3105; ® County Initiated Repeal of Airport Zoning District Ordinance (Chapter 86-4) dealing with Buchanan Field. Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission hear all three items concurrently. It should be noted that the Board of Supervisors has initiated a Master Plan update process for the Byron Airport. The results of that effort might lead to further refinements or the proposals to change the County General Plan for this airport and its environs. However, at this time, it is premature to speculate on what the master planning process will recommend. Therefore, changes to the non-agricultural or open space General flan categories around this airport are premature. Any proposals to allow for non-residential uses around the airport will need to be considered based on an EIR done on such a proposal. The Negative Declaration prepared by the ALUC for Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan does not cover such a potential. IBJ'. TIMING LIMITATIONS IN THE LAVE' As previously indicated the law requires local agencies, in this case, the County: along with the cities of Concord, Pleasant Hill and Martinez, to amend their respective general plans within one hundred eighty (180) days of adoption and availability. Since the Airport Land Use Compatibility flan was made available by ALUC staff on August 13, 2002, the needed conformance decisions are required to be completed by February 16, 2003. The law further gives the ALUC up to sixty days to review draft changes to any amendments to a General flan, Specific flan, or Zoning Ordinance that impacts ALUC policies. Staff has forwarded this proposed General Plan Amendment to the ALUC staff. To date no comments from ALUC staff has been received, Figure 3A Airport Influence Area Map Lel Airport Influence Area Airport Property Boundary xtAc k, Oros t \ , . J r F 1• + -N / Nth - F ; ._r Buchanan Field Airport Figure 4B Airport Influence Area leap ec 011, RTC 5M ry Y 14 Z � 1 �t 1w w-1w .'we a gym. "tee , -4 , RNs ' T" ,,r��s k FEET VW5, � ZoneAmm i � Zone 81 �. IM Rorie 82 IM Pirie C1 4% UM,'M Zone 1 s51f3 Height Exception Overlay Zone .. Airport Property Boundary Byron Airport S-4 Time needs to be reserved in the hearing schedule to allow the Board. of Supervisors to act within the l 0-day timeline. V. AREAS OF PLAN AMENDMENT IMPACT Almost all changes to the County general Flan maps and policies will occur within the Buchanan Pier Airport Influence Area shown in Map l and the Byron Airport Influence Area shown in Map 2. These maps are taken directly from the ALUC Compatibility flan.. There are minor potential impacts to the remaining unincorporated areas which deal with referrals of structures (including antennas) over 200 feet tall, or for proposed heliports, to the ALUC for review prior to the County final approval of applications for such new Facilities. DOTE "ere the term "map" has been used, it refers er to a map in this report. Where the terra 'figure" is used, at refers to original figures found in the ALUC Airport .Land Use Compatibility Plan or the County General.Plan. VI. THE EXISTING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, AIRPORT POLICIES The County General Plan has a section in the 'Transportation and Circulation Element entitled "Airports and Heliports" (5.10 Airports and Heliports, pages 5-35 through 5-42). This section includes the vast majority of policies that affect this subject matter. It was developed to insure compatibility with the ALUC policies that were in effect prior to December 13, 2000. This section provided additional County policies on appropriate land uses and infrastructure around the two County airports. One other major area of the County general Plan that provides guidance is the Land Use Element, specifically the Land Use Element map. That section uses standard County land use designations to reflect existing and potential land uses on or aroundthe airport. Sm5 Minor modifications to the Land Use Element map are required for ALUC conformity. In addition, the Noise Element includes CNEL noise contours for the two County Airports. These contours were based on prior airport generated information that is now obsolete and needs to be updated. It is these elements of the County General Plan that are proposed for modification. DTII. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT MAP FOR THE BYRON AREA ANIS PLAN TEXT A careful review of the ALUC Compatibility Plan indicates that no land use neap changes are required for Buchanan Field. The compatibility map for the Byron Airport, however, indicates that certain areas require modification to a more restrictive land use category. The existing General Plan Land Use Element map for Byron Airport is shown on Map 3. For the reader's convenience the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Map for .Byron Airport (identified as Figure 4B in the ALUC document) is attached as Map 4 to this report. The text on Compatibility Zones A, B 1, B2, C 1, C2, and D from the ALUC document are reproduced as Attachment A. Currently, the County General Plan Land Use Element map designates all the land around the Byron Airport as Agricultural 'Lands (AL). This category is consistent with the ALUC Plan in terms of use but it does not provide consistency in terms of conforming zoning or allowable land uses under the zoning. This category encourages the use of this land for agricultural purposes. It allows for consideration of subdivision of lots to as small as five acres and allows for a single family home to be built on each legal lot. It also allows for a range of non-residential uses as permitted uses or permitted through a land use permit. The ALUC Compatibility Zone A is almost entirely located on airport property. There is, however, an area north of Armstrong Read that is privately awned which is within the Zone A designation and which r o r AK w a r "i i`�'z r3+, w 'w,, w l,Mz,. X wf 7, M, s . air ; � '' IT 6 Y N 41F A41p"A A mo *540M#,�'!#mw 'm aT! �3 r h, or wr1+ ',«##!#�!'i,!!!#ll,�,##�#',#,*#,# ,t y,,; 'x. 4"'.,� "•z #,�##!'�yl w �!!## !!#!!##!##"M rMAW AM A !#!'l�l,�#�#��#!#�!#!!#�#��1rY#ft+ *#W au t #R####+F►#!�N''lR#try#!l�l�# + !#!�#!!#�l!!l <}x z 4 ##!1►� l ! ######!##### #!! #!!�###!!l111R#�!'�!!#! ##!`llz St RM MAMA MAE _W P IF !#!#!!###!# !#!##!!#♦#!# # WZWON>/►ll#!#+►+#M jllj#!!!!## #�1lEl+!►+!!#4 °�tr�#JR4 �#!I'4 h N.W.4 !#WWW1 yw yF#!!!#1►!# #`# #+ �'#Ike!##'!#!#�lml####l1�4= A W,W,A#/�lR ht # t#!#,1�►#�r!�►W-m2�1�r!##IIP!###!#�#!#�###til►###!##*�M'M�#!#�#� xli�iRil##.ylNt#iRIA ��"►#! ►+1► #�ll�!!!##�#�!####lF! Ih'# �f►e!!! w r ?" Nkl r a w f IA Aleft#! 0, r h r r �*w w x!#!# rx Fri# #,N#� t u# ! #! �#1lSAAW,, �t z.`` sAl !"R x�y rxr, o-x 1 wwJ 4 UP!!#�+�� § rr } ll #!►l 5 ' u *.r!' !#! r r +! #I W r", ,5 � >t *Y'i e£",art} �'k;� � - �r �`: ~4 �..,' .,.,5. •'" r'.,n.��1�� Nk IN NNI , r �",; t. 4 a At • R !l i r Compatibility Map Map 4 su €4 �4 1 +►AAA B#• A CARR �. '—,� r�a,�', �urtI-.- - R RffiA �ArpA� A��tR o R @ A A-A•� A,A R VIAARR RA� � A AA � ' AAffiA# AM ARRAA � a:,. a ., - AAd0AaA9�AAiAA�AA AA�RRAl1AAARA$AffiSY& -�tlE��RtlkRBf '2 : - ffi# #A � AdlAR AAOip Y � A 3}S A A A. .+�A 1R A � RA AA • As;,go tl6 Ab9FAR =" As. R R A A R A *,*to A n rt +& R A A R 4 A di a '. \' _ &B�tR R AR 4f RAY A ! :fit S •�. —j & R R A-A +lf Ii �RAABRRa�RR �" �°' r ,to aaffi � aaa � oaRAeaAbRA +�� ' • wRaa:a ffiRaaA � #AAABAW s;:. t A w a e a•o• affi ffi mAAA��affiveA�Aw�m.�w`'�aa 81�Y�RA9f�cR��RA!ffi3e � �: ._"S R.RRffiatid��fir ifRxt ' .. a aA �� yti Source:Strutt Moen Associates(April 20W) Byron Airport S-6 requires a more restrictive General Plan category. The ALUC plan restricts the construction of new dwellings in Zone A. Similarly, Zone B-1 prohibits new residential development including lot splits. It does allow for a single-family home to be "built on an existing lot of record." There are lands within Compatibility Zone B-1 off the ends of bath.runways (see Map 4). The County General Plan category with the best fit to Compatibility Zones A and B-1 is the Open Space (OS) use designation. The OS category restricts the development of land to agricultural, recreation and open space uses, but it does allow for a single family home to be built on a legal lot. The existing definition for that category is provided in Attachment B. Bringing the County General Plan into conformity with Compatibility Zones A and B-1 would require that all private lands be re-designated from Agricultural Lands (AL) to Open Space (OS). under this concept, the 120-acre parcel located immediately north of Armstrong Road that includes both. Zone A and Zane B-1 would be designated as Open Space (OS) and approximately 20 acres on the northwest corner of the property would remain as Agricultural Lands (AL). However, since the entire 1.20 acres is presently owned by Wildlands, Inc., and it has been established as a wildlife preserve under a recorded easement with the California :Department of Fish. and Came for wildlife uses in perpetuity, staff recommends that the entire 120-acre parcel be re- designated as Open Space (OS). The airport property is currently designated Public and Seri-Public (PS) in its entirety. while this category is deemed by the ALUC to be compatible with the ALUC plan, approximately a square mile of airport lands are protected as wildlife habitat with recorded easements to State and Federal agencies. A substantial portion of this wildlife habitat land is within Compatibility ,Zones A and B-1. It would appear logical to re-designate all the wildlife habitat lands on airport property as Open Space (OS) to reflect their protected legal status and to provide for more consistent Open Space designated areas around the airport complex. Map 5 } s j Cif tt3 C :. Hol '..Road Z3 O u5 Q icy I� i 4 Cka' i 'CY l� General Plan i Land Use Designations Public l Semi-Public a Open Space m Agricultural Lands Delta Recreation Go��' ' o to G sta me a Goy`'3 6(30` b 1200' },t �: F,w�atG:rea+rt-,ci~:;,�a c8us�rt cap n�rta7 �;<4�t13iic N!x�Yroe:�R�'V Proposed Land Use Element Plan Map Changes Byron Airport S-'7 The staff proposed Land Use Element map redesignation from Agricultural Lands (AL) and Public and Semi-Public (PS) to Open Space (OS) is shown on Map 5. The text of the Open Space category as shown on Attachment B should have the words "and airport safety compatibility zones" added to the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph. This proposed change would clarify that lands with airport safety compatibility restrictions are appropriately within the Open Space designation. An additional sentence could also be added which reads "Won- residential structures within the airport safety compatibility zones shall be referred to the ALUC staff for review and comment prior to action on any permit." VIII. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NOISE ELEMENT CONTOURS AND POLICIES As part of the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility flan development, new airport noise contours were developed based on updated: information. This included revised estimates of the number of flights and the noise characteristics of airplanes that utilize the two airports. The revised noise contours are shown on Map 6 of this report for Buchanan Field (ALUC Plan document Figure 3B) and Map 7 of this report for the Byron. Airport (the ALUC Plan document Figure 4C). The existing Noise Element shows noise contours on Figures I I-5C (page I I-19) and 11-5I (page 11-25) for Buchanan Field and. Figures 11-5L (page 11-28) and 11-5R (11-34) for Byron Airport. The contour changes are technical in nature, and reflect the fact that with today's quieter planes, the contours have shrunk somewhat. Staff recommends that the existing noise contours in the Noise Element be updated to reflect those from the ALUC plan. The new contours should be integrated into existing Noise Element reaps and updated noise contour maps are shown to update Figures11-5 and. 11- f of the County General Plan. Figure 3B Map » AV �N -41 `t" xti.... �,. �.,. �a,,.,,.� �u• ;';t "fix� ��..+�� *• t r x s+' ver 40 t :i- RAure Activhy Assumptions -320,000sal sou Aircraft � Operations 090,000 Helicopter Operations (64, Ti-wining Operations) per at ons `Y9 if' c vC `m ' .4 Notes These composite Contours also reflect current mise inpL s in locations where they exceed projected future noise levels i 5.5-60dB CNEL Z. f IM 60-65 dP),CNEL Od:CrIO$:Shutt Mfz8n rSraoWW(April 2000) FEET —,.._.Airport Prt�pert�Boundary @:1SL,e Res�Current•AMBob Jrake%Arport GP report GraphicskPro{ectedA.,por,Contours.CNV Projected Noise Contours Buchanan Field Airport' Figure 4C Map 7 71, ,t..... _.,....... i i t Y tsf Ad 4 i s -----,-ate;.- I i Activity Assumptions d 160.2D i Total Annual Aircraft Operations � SS.{�q�dB CNL •2€3, Helicopter rations Included — ____ _. 60-63 dB CNL •200 HIstorfc Military Jet Operations Included 00 65-70 dB CNEL IM 70+ dB CN L Airport Property Boundary Notes. Primary Airplane Flight Tracks m Future operations projection represents the activity level � ' Primary Helicopter Flight Training Tracks associated with plz'anned capaciry of 400 based aircraft. 2, *Runway lengths include planned extensions. SOUrM Stuff Mom AssocMtes(April 2 ) FEET D ASue P#!eS1Cu:rent-APQSab Draka !rport GP report g.%pttitls A:aiectedA!rpaY.Garfaurs.CNY Projected Noise Contours Byron Airport i ►ii to c' 00 m _ _ d vs s� d S �e 0Cal os y i' 0 CCS s i t S i - z Y t� ♦h 5r_ t � •iul ro {tt t µ 1 l t { li I C6YA 0 0 CS :�A CL1 Y f j p 0 0Z i r i i � � i .t�7 T :� L.✓ l � d Map Noise Contours Figure 11-5C y �v,.,,y?� � L•., t +' a �. ,' �. * ..,+. r 19� '. XG fT-."� -� .. ,fib ♦ 8�*. b e s a a . r ' • • =so �rw.. ox, u %4:: 70 _ P * 66 a r a, � L i For Buchanan Field Airport Contours refer to ¢g • r Figure 11-5V �q� 70 e F -'{ t _AFI t- � • i �'�� D:iS s FiE�s1 rent-�€�G\3ab f7r� rportP rapart les gUrsl I-SC.CNV LEGEND gine Mill 2005 DSL and CNEL NOISE LEVELS (dB) , � 0 � MILE Roadways are DNL _---Trains are DNL low 0 1000 SOW 7000 FEET NORTH Map 8c Noise Contours Figure 11-51 Ott Y For Buchanan Field Airport 100000 sc aContours refer t0 Figure o is IA f #lu ys X r # n 957f} •...� - Wa w } Y ....,..... �{ ai ' X4. -..,•�y m a y � � 'f�C,ca vra a8 a�•jPn s. erase �� ry_� 5�:: 'w,[�,. ��. k '� ._ DASue F%les\Current-tAP':,12oh 0a%stA rWt QP wort preUr Rcelfteu!sedFigurei i SI.CltV W, 0 70 75 a LEGEND Walnut Creek ME 2005 DNL and CNEL NOISE LEVELS (dB) �� - Roadways are DNL AL � h � i _ rain are DNL 1000 01000 3000 WW 70FEET NORTH Noise Neap 8d Contours Figure 11-5R X66660 80 _ 77, a� 7013 S N' 72 w- 's♦ i 9 : 9 s 66 ^.___rCtvvc::e...,r•^v .. .mow .........:. --,..,.:.ate. ..._ ._ .sr : xr�v t . .y g BIaVV $f h, � �V•a4 w � � I L ,r�' J' `�\ f ��'"�J♦ �� , ,, �.'` �! is :. J f 4 p. ash 'F. iA::., �,.: S / f�. V�,..✓'» r T Mll For Byron Airport ° Contours refer to Figure'FI 64'V i r .,_-,.. .... ...........,i.-.....................». r...! .. ..:ate,... ......._ ._�..._. xe'. xx C.\Sue R:9stCurren,-APC\Sab ArakeWrpar;GP report graphics\Ra,,isedFigure i i-5S.CNV LEGEND yron trot Springs 2005 €3N . and CNEL NOISE LEVELS (dB) - Roadways are DNL Q 1 MILE ---- Trains are i NL 1oGk�i�0 1000 3000 5DOO 7000 FEET NORTH Map 8e Oise Contours Figure 11-5S oy E 4 i 1 v r ` t'Srtt SA AY r r 3. .. 4 ' E 6070 ># t For Byron Airport contours refer tca _.-..___ 0 FEgurs 11-5W 1 � � _ �.„✓111 ... t � i l: i. I i4�"'�- �«,+;� �.,...... �/ � �\ . MY h 41", }t f � � i t r i r >r, ,Y 5 X 3� a i r to wt+, ~`'°a...:._` ,FN•..,...,,�..,,.w.a » Gt:iStxa F##asl:a:rre:�t-&E�C\Bob 5r�icetA#rpert t3P�eEseert gra�h#cstAsvSasd�#gurei i-SS.CN LEGEND Clifton Court Forebay 2005 DNS, and CNEL NOISE LEVELS (dB) ----- - Roadways are DNL � � � I MIL Trains are DN 1000 0 1000 30M 6000 7000 FEET NORTH Figure 3B Map { AN 71, x e - � .�� -sad 'S i^•a.l r.' � r .Y r.3 ..: � nip +� k .c � Y4'S�1• � y K. � a J y �''%1 •J� l. .+^fit\ YC �.,,,,qpTT rpt :i - `=r*� �i....;. ✓ �� Ow 44 ~ a r tlttfre Activity Assumptiom+ • r s a 320, `fatal Annual Aircraft 't t 0t tiL?rf8 Helicopter Operations (84�OW Training Operations) 20,0'0 Biagio ai j Airline Operations n; * 1 i N ( 1 hese eco POSite Contours also reflect current noise inputs in locations where they exceed projected fixture noise levels .Jl {.-sa..c..r. jF:•• �" j "{�k,§� �k,! / 55-60 dS`w.NEL 2,5W 6th-6.5 dB NE _- n_. .�.... (April 65+ d CNEL FEET 5,6W ` S,CIU O S17Utt Moon Ass iat ) �..� �ir�xart Property Boundary D:1Sue€SS\CI+rren'-Ar' 80b Dmkewrport sp repor grepr cslPr a etlA!rpo Y on:ous.GNV Projected Noise Contours BUChanan Field Airport Figure 4C Map 8g ` Y r w . _..._.� r � y , j t DII R O : ...�.__ _. .-7 +sww N ....T..e-......... r,rte �....... �,.,.e w..... i Ia i Y Activity f#m tion ' tP 160,200 Tow Annual Aircraft Operations *20,OW Helicopter Operations Included W-65 dB CNEL �200 Historic rM itaryet Operations Included W 6S-70 dE CNEL WX 70+ dB CNEL .... ... Airport Property Boundary Notes. Primary Airplane:Flight Tracks *Future operations prosection represents the activity level . - -~ -Primary Helicopter Flight Training Tracks associated with planned capacity of 400 based aircraft, 2,500' *Runway lengths include planned extensions, 01 5,OW SiWtCeShutt Moon Associates(April 2 ) N FEET DAS:e Fids\Carrs..^.t-aPC1Lo5 DrakMlrport GP report g.&aP l 4-rcy tdXrporiCortoum.CNV Projected Noise Contours Byron Airport S-8 Note that the airport contour maps are proposed on new General Plan Figures 11-5V and 11-SW. Notations on their status will be added to the index map on Figure 11-6 in the General Plan. The revised noise contour maps proposed under this General Plan Amendment are reflected in Map 8a through Map Sg. Noise Element Policy 11-5 reads: "11-5.In developing residential areas exposed to a DNL in excess of 65 dB due to single events such as train operations, indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not exceed a maximum A-weighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other habitable rooms. Single event indoor residential noise levels from airport related causes will be 40 dB CNEL." The ALUC plan uses CNEL not DNL as the means of weighting the noise decibels. This policy should be updated by deleting the reference to airport or helicopter activity in the first sentence. A new sentence should be added to this policy to deal with the airport issues by using a 45 dB CNEL to be consistent with state regulations. The updated policy would read: "11-5. In developing residential areas exposed to a DNL in excess of 65 dB due to single events such as train operation, indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not exceed a maximum A-weighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other habitable rooms. Single event indoor residential noise levels from airport related causes will be 45 dB CNEL." IX. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT A. Insuring Project Review Compatibility The ALUC Plan contains numerous sections dealing with the review of amendments to adopted General Plans or Specific Plans, amendment of Zoning Ordinances which: impact the S-9 airports, modification of an airport Master Plan, expansion of an existing airport or heliport or a proposal for a -new airport or heliport. Mate law specifies these actions and there is no need to include references to those processes within the County General Plan. Nor is there a need to include within the County General plan information on the ALUC review process, the information required for that review, or other issues of ALC concern. The law does require that provision in the general Flan be made for evaluation of proposed land use development within the airport influence area relative to the compatibility criteria as set forth in the Compatibility Plan. The rationale for the provision is that even if a project conforms to the General Flan, oftentimes the general Plan would not normally contain detailed airport land use compatibility criteria necessary for a complete compatibility evaluation of the proposed development. To insure compatibility, local jurisdictions have the following choices for satisfying this evaluation requirement: 1. The General Flan and/or referenced implementing ordinances and regulation must contain sufficient detail to enable the local jurisdiction to assess whether a proposed development fully meets the compatibility criteria specified in the Compatibility flan, 2. The Compatibility Plan must be adopted by reference; and/or . The general Plan must indicate that all major land use actions, as listed in Countywide Policy 1.5.3 or otherwise agreed to by the ALUC, shall be referred to the Commission for review in accordance with the policies of Countywide Policies Section 2. . S-l0 Staff does not believe it is practical or desirable to attempt to place sufficient detail within the County General Plan to utilize Option 1 above. Option 2 would still require that the review of all major projects meet the needs of the .ALtiC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and it would place individual County Planners in the position of trying to consistently interpret the ALUC plan. In staff's view, Option 3 appears to be the most logical way to proceed. This is the approach that is currently within the County General Plan under Policy 5-59. That existing policy currently reads: "5-59.All projects involving new construction or a building exterior alteration which would increase building height within the Airport Land Use Commission Planning Area and which would exceed the height limits of the structural heights limits plan, which are over two stories in height and within 3,000 feet of the side or end of any runway, or which are within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour, or which are within the safety zone areas shall be submitted to the Commission for review. Projects which require approval or permit shall be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission." To clarify the intent of this policy based upon the new Compatibility Plan, staff recommends that this policy be deleted and a revised policy 5-59 be included which reads: "5-59.All major land use actions within the Buchanan Field and Byron Airport Influence Areas as shown upon Figure 5-5 shall he referred to the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission for comment. The definition of what constitutes a major land use action is found on pages 2-6 through 2-8 of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in December S-11 of 2000. If it is unclear whether or not an action falls within this listing, the County shoulderr on the side of caution and refer the matter to the ALUC staff." B. Modify Policy 5-60 Policy 5-60 is also in need of refinement. It currently reads: "5-60.New construction or building exterior alterations located in areas of terrain penetration as defined by the ALUC Structural Height Limits Plan will be reviewed on a case by case basis with consideration given to topography, flight patterns, existing vegetation and any other factors which might affect airspace and safety. Maximum building height, including all appurtenances, shall be no greater than 45 feet above maximum ground elevation at the site." The title "Structural Heights Limit Plan" has been changed in the new Compatibility Flan to read "Airport Protection Surfaces." This policy should be modified accordingly. C. Obsolete Safety Zone Map The existing Figure 5-5 on page 5-40 of the General Pian (see Map 9) shows the safety boundaries in effect prior to December 13, 2000. This figure should be deleted from the General Plan. New General Plan Figure 5-5 (discussed above) will show the two airport area of influence maps and direct the referral of development projects to ALUC staff to insure compatibility. Map 10 shows the revised General Plan Figure 5-5. D. Clarify Safety Zone Policies Policy 5-64 references the safety zones ("excluding the clear areas") shown on old Figure 5-5 for Buchanan Field. Policy 5- 65 references safety zones and clear areas for the Fast Contra Costa Airport but no map of these areas is provided in the Figure 5.5 Buchanan Field Safety Element Map 9 xo° „ere 4 4 diattYAY G9yYdn44 l � ` ,~' `ti axfd`xx xta � i414[4kLYµ`w-wwre+m x �„.+k 8 tlrWtAgM dk�,{A ..Y.. 3i i42YZAt03Y � , A At. .I 1 Y VN 11701, bbee n ro' AY 4I. 54 M Q A Y k x�r of �`„ +}}i kSS.."(!°• � �7t I {{r t 1 rr rC Legend 4 L d< 9$ EER Safety/Zones Clear Areas S-I2 General Plan Both policies should be modified to substitute the wording "ALUC Compatibility Plan" for the text "Safety Zones" (excluding the clear areas). B. Correct Byron Airport Name This chapter references the East Contra. Costa Airport or the East County Airport throughout. The correct 'name of the facility is the Byron Airport. All references to this airport should be corrected within the General flan. F. Elimination of Now Completed Implementation Measures With the adoption of the ALUC Compatibility Plan two implementation measures in the General Plan are now complete and can be deleted from the document. They are: 5-at. The County shall adopt structural height limit zoning on a permanent basis for the East County airport. The purpose of the zoning is to protect the airspace near the airport for the planned airport operations." 5-ay. The General Plan supports preparation, adoption and implementation of a `state-of-the-art' comprehensive land use plan (CL,UP) for the East County Airport. The Plan should address 'public safety, protection of airport airspace and noise/overflight compatibility. The Plan should be formulated under the auspices of the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to State law. The CLUP should be completed prior to approving any general plan revision to permit nonagricultural open space uses near the airport." EXHIBIT #2 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 28-2003 AND FINDINGS MAP FOR REZONE FROM F-R TO P-7 x y h r ". f 4 t ',2 ( r. ns' in„k v l 5 4 11 ^"*"u i ..i h, ! —;' -5 a mss. 7 {l #:$ { CSM G ..�t __ - _ . ` ;. „„ ,. ... .. {rM }tt \�� } ,.,O,. - a ,.- MI�IR111�III IEI'll :, c ,,> , ,, , MIS l f X �� } - N€ s' f !f 4 r. G'.. _ #1 2• F ; f K �� i" r' C Z :-ilk � J f! 4 #R1E ,,'' ! a< NOW INIL a ��IP 2 ! .. � ry ,, i ! t f ►. ` r L +. r a { " . � .` x> : ' — 11 IT �, _ n _ '-Z ' 'Ill - - .. ,u. -_ A _ - - - - - - r - / j - - -- r , .. :.; ! --_ ._ - -.- - 1. 1. r G s I c: i t IIRm� r� R :: -;' , 4 # r r r�- , 3 -e n r a k y> -- - A wompow ! r "" a# . x,.x^.`. �� --- � w l R# � � „.,tir: >i a s. .::�r ^:; z ry. f, rr a tf< ,�' < 3 a ',.,x a ,, z.� 4n - � ' >nv`i ��"'*'h 't' } '..� 'J�' r x �r,,y k',,..$ i '` `te r^'* f f { j 2 `z, —Ill ly -1 Z,M a r } { n ``x z',y S3'A X k __ {4 F - - =n /{ 53 S ,.�* ^,.. } , /w rrt -0 ' { - yr ,g,r.? r s x z: a.x 1 '' r r y ! / 3 !' Itt1,11 11 # �� t YP-�` S !If r RI�f t 1�4e,ii�'#wi4 tk ,11 r 4 t ~r �r /. � I� ' . t x/ 4 - f F / l F,y s .' _ �, f zr t �''}f, ,{f y s t } y '� xx : z�' x j f , ” � � } ern e 1�111, {.. r {" `i'nr,';x"Sa'.*, _:�`: x`; 'r..`"'nr %h r f '�' 3k� Y ., z Y - r { ,,l r � '}" :4r ' h ',, ,,5,mei, t �- f✓ v t r a�',,, *'' ;4` `fix` # #k i�lf -' ,, c. ,_�;..fix: ,f 9,%Sc x ,' ' 1. s S r F 5�, t 5 x- t�,i- r �' �` ' ". t ; ` ,, ;`i ,F r y' :v ,� „jam �" ` sx'''',a "} �`x: Y{ '� s z s� .Yt ---- mmlmm-- { } ` ' #' '.` III �` h ass z" z r 11 � , #m f x — F f - z { f „ , , rn {f{ F r . ' a<`: 'fir` r i ✓'/ { , <,�,: { '. 1111 -r rrr X `r --�. � _ '' ,:-{`/ x' _ D k ¢ T i • R • R R t R • R �4l��1 t ��Jiii�j�� a a l��l��l��!�l�ill�l�l��ill�. 0 0 A 1, Z to 2 f l fi 4 I�il I�__/_' ." , '�It Q'11 -I''-- `Ri�i- I`, -Im �,��,11"1?:,�"",--"",.",��i�-..�'�,!�i"",��-��,"�.-I� 11�i`2�`_11_1 } } ✓ 11 ......! �`! " 'i;/"",!i .�.... �,,�,�,'��,',�,�,-"",?-""��,"�""", -, " 6 "", '_''-" 2X , ,,, t, ,d III ,-X "I -_� "/ � , �, J , j�",�"' .", ,,, 's /:z ` :' `'` �--,�.r7�,�;��,�,,,�,,i�,,,�,,,,�,,,i�i��,!ii��.�'�' ��:N :_� �__ —.... ",_ ,' ", C - '�',""i"':'�' �'.""""-.�"""-!,-"�,'��,,�,-,:"",,��,��"-".""",�� , '�i'��ii:`:...�;� _ ,. � £ '_',," ,"I's :"'�'i�""' w _,. ms's x^� n.t; , � �'i i i�i'.i i".,..','.';�i,-��""""',%��,:,�-"." — ' ."'".1,.,�-, I-I, ��', -- - ____ 11 i�_'N I3al F r. 111-1-1�1 I " , I ✓ - r 3 ",'�"".'_,IId �y*+� Al �� 7 ,""'`-` '- , ,, " , ","'��!!�iii i!��:�� I , ,, ,_ .: I�.", � ,,,,,, I ,,�, -1 � -�' "�:i�'i��'�: ',��'- ,-��";��':zi:'.�,,,� ��' --- � w w , ', -11...". , , - '. ". , � ` � '� i�7�:�-jiiiijji�!�i��!!��' I `___I , - '� ,�. .....� __.��'.,'::��:':.�.�:':.:' , , "''�""",",�-1,�",�,�,�i��-�,,��l�� ,�� "�_. - � '' ''I`I___ , ,,, I � �' "'."."'...'.. -1 :`-:�-.;'�'L�:�:��' ��::'�:� ,:' I , , "Ill— ''""::i"i:�j:'i��"'i�"'X. _11 � �,£c --" , �_�vv : � , -� - �'�' ,�":' , _1"I'l., - , ... ,�.:. ,:,:,. I I I 11/11- , �: est Lz`..- , �, , ,"'.- *4h'"thf "- �_—, 1. -1.1 } ' s : !• .' �� x \ / l��.,-,��".�,�,,,,,,,-."""..� -, I c 81 G.: �. .. , ': .,::. } r 1 i r -r ..: .. .-.: :,...5`. ,, - - -- .. "i��ii��i��,,��i 1-111111 "I'll'," ""',": :1 ��',,_ z��':, :, ! / c��r111 s `� jj n F _ � �� s S ��`,� `2,�'� k� 11� ,�'ti"' , maw £ �T E a o `� .,,- Ma��l R t 1 rx % as n �� - T b y q #�' 'moi .' S _` h 4�*k'* _ `� '� -y "` f` !. £'1 ", .� ,y '' c ". ` 2�,t ..,�... "�4"� n , Sa'a 'io x�, r s'+i `"`"3�r' ----- - - _ = "� zo ' ' a Y ��_ " 11 - s g y* �' ? — f ,�' —- 11 ' Y11 /i i ' s a _ 't } ',�� -- - ° - f � � -- - __ .-- _j.. _.--_ y r _ ` i _ r. a �,...,_.;. OWISPIO 0 RO - $ 1 j � -?""f .S Q SPT s" I 1�11 T '�` .> U 7®T s �� LIST OF EXHIBITS 1. LETTER FROM STAFF, AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RE. REFERRAL OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND 'REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE 2. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 28- 2003 AND FINDINGS MAP FOR REZONE FROM F-R TO P-1 3. STAFF REPORTS TO THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION A. 11/19/2002, AGENDA ITEM #8, ALUC GENERAL FLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001) B. 11/19/2002, AGENDA ITEM #9, COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH ALUC AIRPORT LANG USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (COUNTY FILE. RZ#01-3105) C. 11/1912002, AGENDA ITEM #10, COUNTY INITIATED REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ORD. (CHAPTER 88-4) (COUNTY FILE: ZT#02-000 #) D. 12/10/2002, AGENDA ITEM # 4, SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT ON ALUC GENERAL PLAN' AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0€101) E. 1/28/2003, AGENDA ITEMS 2&3, SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT ON ALUC GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (COUNTY FILE. GP 02-0001) AND COUNTY INITIATED► REZONING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN (COUNTY FILE: RZ#01-3105) 4. RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 5. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND MAILING NOTIFICATION LIST �n j 9 urCSF'9 ati3m f° � 1Edd ! ?—• ` GJ � :is ,.r:� � �, ".) � "�/ .. =,d t "Y S3 rE '4-� �� s�3r v Y+k $�`��q ��'•F.�a��A�a�a dxa.�. R #Y 5 N" 5A• 'M`�G y r INK p�s+k t 3p Ib r,G} F _ k a'k•-8 G a l��A�-�a�-{o�tR#A s'�w" m�rwA��p. i ''{ f i`„,� g;$ $ a➢uA.ffi dt U Y m.S6§ x 3 G yiX xi'+4,L� 33F 4i A 3- OM I }+ k0 �m �A� � �* fid ,y. $A ^.f'N :91 t �+� OV MF��M�3 i1 gk j}$ y e A �o u 9 s #rte c ansa :Ap a �, u Gz 0o N o a f h!4 N N Fv r Q f t i i I � s/ An ha `< 5 xA '� 1C t 2 i �� C y Fa•�» sir f. �j <�„, ; � { Wit ip 1 j Ti r IPN�" , o• ,.�, �v 47 al y \ ry �! Y �ar a rtrt,w 1Ag _11 1 r q4 i �gk "rk .: w,h �� < < C.,) 5. "TP, ,i+.*1 l t� s1'� t {•i 1!C i@ Sb r# �'v,�..--� t 1 "Xi S-13 X. RECOMMENDATION This amendment is different from many in that the state law requires that the County bring its General Plan into conformity with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In order to accomplish conformity with state law, staff recommends that the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility General Plan Amendment be approved as discussed in this report. The following map changes are proposed: 1. Modify the Land Use Element by revising the Land Use Element Map as shown on Figure 5. 2. Replace the existing Buchanan Field Safety Element Map Figure 5-5 with a new General Plan Figure 5-5 which shows the Airport Influence areas. 3. Modify the Noise Element Maps by adopting new CNEL Noise Contour Maps as shown as revised General Plan Figures 11-5 and 11-6 referenced above. The specific proposed General Plan text changes are listed below: 1. Modify the existing definition of Open Space by adding the words "and airport safety compatibility zones" to the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph (existing definition shown on Attachment B to this report). An additional sentence could also be added which reads "Non-residential structures with airport safety compatibility zones shall be referred to the ALUC staff for review and comment prior to action on any permit." 2. Update Policy 11-5 to read: 11-5 In developing residential areas exposed to a DNL in excess of 65 dB due to single events such as train operation, indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not exceed a maximum A- weighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 S-14 dB in other habitable rooms. Single event indoor residential noise levels from airport related causes will be 45dB CNEL." 3. Update Policy 5-59 to read: "5-59 All major land use actions within the Buchanan Field and Byron Airport Influence Areas as shown upon Figure 5-5 shall be referred to the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission for comment. The definition of what constitutes a major land use action is found on pages 2-6 through 2-8 of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in December of 2000. If it is unclear whether or not an action falls within this listing, the County should err on the side of caution and refer the matter to the ALUC staff . 4. Update Policy 5-60 to read: "5-60 New construction or building exterior alterations located in areas of terrain penetration as defined by the ALUC Structural Height Limits Plan will be reviewed on a case by case basis with consideration given to topography, flight patterns, existing vegetation and any other factors which might affect airspace and safety. Maximum building height, including all appurtenances, shall be no greater than 45 feet above maximum ground elevation at the site," 5. Modify Policy 5-64 to read: "5-64 The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Zones for Buchanan Field: a. agriculture; b. open space; C. warehousing; S-15 d. light industry; e. parking of automobiles; and f. low occupant density public uses, such as sewage treatment plants." 6. Modify Policy 5-65 to read: "5-65 The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Zones for the Byron Airport: a. agriculture; b. open space; C. warehousing; d. light industry; e. parking of automobiles." 7. Modify the General Plan text to refer to the Byron Airport rather than the East Contra Costa Airport throughout the text. 8. Delete completed implementation measures. 5-at. The County shall adopt structural height limit zoning on a permanent basis for the East County airport. The purpose of the zoning is to protect the airspace near the airport for the planned airport operations." 5-ay.The General Plan supports preparation, adoption and implementation of a 'state-of-the-art' comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) for the East County Airport. The Plan should address public safety, protection of airport airspace and noise/overflight compatibility. The Plan should be formulated under the auspices of the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to State law. The CLUP should be completed prior to approving any general plan revision to permit no-nagricultural open space uses near the airport." S-16 Attachments-(3) Attachment"A": ALUC Byron Airport Compatibility Zones Attachment "B": Definition of the "Open Space" (OS) land use designation in the County General Plan Attachment "C": Negative Declaration and Initial Study Issued by the ALUC for Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ATTACHMENT "A" ALUC BYRON AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY ZONES 6.2 Compatibility Zane `A' Criteria 6.2.1. Residential Development (a) No new dwellings are permitted. 6.2.2. Nonresidential Development (a) No new structures are permitted other than aeronautical facilities the location of which is set by PAA Criteria. (b) Outdoor activities shall be limited to a maximum of 10 people per gross acre. 6.2.3. Uses Specifically Prohibited - The following uses are specifically prohibited: (a) Storage of fuel and other hazardous materials. 6.2..4. Leight Limitations -- Unless a specific exemption is granted (see Countywide Policy 4.3.2.), the height of objects within Compatibility Zone A shall be limited in accordance with the Byron Airport Airspace Protection Surfaces drawing (Figure 4A). In most of Zone A, the allowable height is less than 35 feet and, in some locations, is zero. Implementation of these limitations on property not controlled by the airport may necessitate airport acquisition of fee title or easements on the affected property. 6.2.5. Cather Development Conditions - Proposed development within Compatibility Zone A shall meet the following additional conditions: (a) Any future nonaviation development or use of property within Compatibility Zone A shall meet the criteria for 1 open land as described in Byron Airport Policy 6.9.4. (b) Dedication of an aviation easement to Contra Costa County shall be required as a condition for approval of any development in this zone. See Countywide Policy 4.3.3. 6.3 Compatibility Zone `BI' Criteria 6.3.1. Residential Development (a) New residential development, including any lot split for the purposes of residential development, is prohibited except that a single dwelling may be built on an existing lot of record. (b) Buildings on existing lots of record shall be located as far as practical from the extended runway centerline and shall be limited to a maximum of two stories in height. 6.3.2. Nonresidential Development (a) Except as indicated in Byron Airport Policy 6.9.1, nonresidential uses within Compatibility Zone B 1 shall be limited.to: (1) An average intensity of no more than 25 people per gross acre on the site at any time. (2) A maximum intensity on any single acre (measured as a square) of no more than 50 people at any time. (3) In no case shall a proposed development be designed to accommodate more than the average number of people per acre indicated. in Paragraph (1) above times the gross acreage of the project site. A project site may include multiple parcels. 2 (b) Multi-story retail uses, fast-food establishments, large shopping centers (500,000 or more square feet), theaters, motels, and similar uses typically do not comply with the above intensity criteria, but are acceptable if the usage is limited through building design, use permit, and/or other mechanisms. (c) Buildings shall be located as far as practical from the extended runway centerline and shall be limited to a maximum of two stories in height. 6.3.3. Uses Specifically Prohibited - The following uses are prohibited regardless of their usage intensity-, (a) Children's schools and day care centers. (b) Hospitals and nursing homes. (c) Aboveground bulk storage of hazardous materials with the exception of: (1) On-airport storage of aviation fuel and other aviation-related flammable materials. (2) Up to 2,000 gallons of non-aviation flammable materials. (d) Highly noise-sensitive uses (for example, outdoor theaters). 6.3.4. Height Limitations - Unless a specific exemption is granted(see Countywide Policy 4.3.2.), the height of objects within Compatibility Zone BI shall be limited in accordance with the Byron Airport Airspace Protection Surfaces drawing (Figure 4A). (a) Generally, there is no concern with regard to any object up to 35 feet tall. (b) ALUC review is required for any proposed object taller 3 than 35 feet. 6.3.5. Other Development Conditions - Proposed development within Compatibility Zone BI shall meet the following additional conditions: (a) Open land characteristics as described in Byron Airport Policy 6.9.4 shall be provided on at least 30% of the land within Compatibility Zone B 1. (b) Dedication of an avigation casement to Contra Costa County shall be required as a condition for approval of any development in this zone. See Countywide Policy 4. 6.4 Compatibility Zone 'B21 Criteria 6.4.1. Residential Development (a) Residential development shall be limited to an average density of no more than 0.1. dwelling units per gross acre (that is, the average lot size shall be at least 10 acres). (b) Individual lots may vary in size. However, the minimum size for any new residential lot shall be at least 5.0 acres. 6.4.2. Nonresidential Development (a) Except as indicated in Byron Airport Policy 6.9.1, nonresidential uses within Compatibility Zone B2 shall be limited to: (1) An average intensity of no more than 50 people per gross acre on the site at anytime. (2) A maximum intensity on any single acre (measured as a square) of no more than 100 people at any time. (3) In no case shall a proposed development be designed to accommodate more than the average number of people per acre indicated in Paragraph (1) above times the gross 4 acreage of the project site. A project site may include multiple parcels. (b) Fast-food establishments, large shopping centers (500,000 or more square feet), theaters, motels, and similar uses typically do not comply with these intensity criteria, but are acceptable if the usage is limited through building design, use permit, and/or other mechanisms. 6.4.3. Uses Specifically Prohibited -The following uses are prohibited regardless of their usage intensity: (a) Children's schools and day care centers. (b) Hospitals and nursing homes. (c) Above ground bulb storage of hazardous materials with the exception of. (1) On-airport storage of aviation fuel and other aviation- related flammable materials. (2) Up to 2,000 gallons ofnonaviation flammable materials. (d) Highly noise-sensitive uses (for example, outdoor theaters). 6.4.4. Height Limitations - Unless a specific exemption is granted (see Countywide Policy 4.3.2.), the height of objects within Compatibility Zone B2 shall be limited in accordance with the Byron Airport Airspace Protection Surfaces drawing (Figure 4A). (a) Generally, there is no concern with regard to any object up to 70 feet tall unless it is located on high ground or it is a solitary object (e.g., an antenna) more than 35 feet taller than other nearby objects. (b) ALUC review is required for any proposed object taller than 70 feet. 6.4.5. Other Development Conditions - Proposed development within 5 Compatibility Zone B2 shall meet the following additional conditions: (a) Open land characteristics as described in Byron Airport Policy 6.9.4 shall be provided on at least 20% of the land within Compatibility Zone B2. (b) A deed notice shall be required as a condition for approval of any development in this zone. See Countywide Policy 4.4.3.(b). 6.5 Compatibility Zone 'Cl' Criteria 6.5.1. 'Residential Development (a) Residential development shall be limited to an average density of no more than 0.2 dwelling units per gross acre (that is, the average lot size shall be at least 5.0 acres). (b) Individual lots may vary in size. However, the minimum size for any new residential lot shall be at least 2.5 acres. 6.5.2. Nonresidential Development (a) Except as indicated in Byron Airport Policy 6.9.1, nonresidential uses within Compatibility Zone Cl shall be limited to: (1) An average intensity of no more than 100 people per gross acre on the site at any time. (2) A maximum intensity on any single acre (measured as a square) of no more than 300 people at any time. (3) In no case shall a proposed development be designed to accommodate more than the average number of people per acre indicated in Paragraph (1) above times the gross acreage of the project site. A project site may include multiple parcels. (b) Large shopping centers (500,000 or more square feet), theaters, stadiums, multi-story motels or hotels with conference centers, 6 and similar uses typically do not comply with these intensity criteria, but are acceptable if the usage is limited through building design, use permit, and/or other mechanisms. 6.5.3. Uses Specifically Prohibited - The following uses are prohibited regardless of their usage intensity: (a) Children's schools. (b) Hospitals and nursing homes. 6.5.4. Height Limitations - Unless a specific exemption is granted (see Countywide Policy 4.3.2.), the height of objects within Compatibility Zone Cl shall be limited in accordance with the Byron Airport Airspace Protection Surfaces drawing (Figure 4A). (a) Generally, there is no concern with regard to any object up to 100 feet tall unless it is located on high ground or it is a solitary object (e.g., an antenna) more than 35 feet taller than other nearby objects. (b) ALLC review is required for any proposed object taller than 100 feet. 6.5.5. Other Development Conditions - Proposed development within Compatibility Zone Cl shall meet the following additional conditions: (a) Open land characteristics as described in Byron Airport Policy 6.9.4 shall be provided on at least 10% of the land within Compatibility Zone Cl. (b) A deed notice shall be required as a condition for approval of any new residential development in this zone. See Countywide Policy 4.4.3.(b). 6.6 Compatibility Zone `C2' Criteria 6.6.1. Residential Development (a) Residential development shall either: 7 (1) Be limited to an average density of no more than 0.2 dwelling units per gross acre (that is, the average lot size shall be at least 5.0 acres); or (2) Have an average density of at least 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre (that is, the average lot size shall be no more than 0.2 acres; approximately 8,700 feet) (b) Individual lots may vary in size. However, wherever {option (1) is selected, the minimum size for any new residential lot shall be at least 2.5 acres. 6.6.2. Nonresidential Development - See criteria. for Compatibility Zone Cl. 6.6.3. Uses Specifically Prohibited - See criteria for Compatibility Zone Cl. 6.6.4. Height Limitations - See criteria for Compatibility Zone Cl. 6.6.5. Other .Development Conditions - See criteria for Compatibility Zone Cl. 6.7 Compatibility Zone `D' Criteria 6.7.1. Residential Development - Residential development is not restricted. 6.7.2. Nonresidential Development - Allowable intensities for nonresidential activities are not limited. 6.7.3 Uses Specifically Prohibited - No uses are specifically prohibited. 6.7.4. Height Limitations - See criteria for Compatibility Zone Cl. 6.7.5. Cather Development Conditions - None. G:\Advance Planning\adv-p'an\,ALUC P'ANIATTACHMENT A and C Comhined.rtf 8 ATTACHMENT "B" Open Space This General Plan designation includes publicly owned, open space lands which are not designated as `Public and Semi-Public,95 "Watershed," or "Parrs and Recreation." Lands designated "Open Space" include, without limitation, wetlands and tidelands and other areas of significant ecological resources, or geologic hazards. The "Open Space" designation also includes privately owned properties for which future development rights have been deeded to a public or private agency. For example, significant open space areas within planned unit developments identified as being owned and maintained by a homeowners association fall under this designation. Also included are the steep, unbuildable portions of approved subdivisions which may be deeded to agencies such as the, EBRPD but which have not been developed as park facilities. Other privately owned lands have been designated as "Open Space" consistent with adopted city General Plans. The most appropriate uses in "Open Space" areas involve resource management, such as maintaining critical marsh and other endangered habitats or establishing "safety zones" around identified geologic hazards. Other appropriate uses are low intensity, private recreation for nearby residents. The construction of permanent structures, excluding a single- family residence on an existing legally established lot, not oriented towards recreation or resource conservation, is inconsistent with this open space designation. One single-family residence on an existing legal lot is consistent with this designation. (an exeerptfrompage 3-37, Zany' Use Element, Contra Costa County General Flan, 199.E-2010) GAAdvercc Piennsnja&-pla IALUC PLAMATTACHMEN7 B,nf ATTACHMENT "C" NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ISSUED BY THE ALUC FOR PROPOSED AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN aC� oenrils M. Barry,AncP Contra tri Community Development Urector Land UseCosta Commission Counu L . %Community Development Department County Administration wilding 69-1 Pine:street 4th Floor,North Wing1 45 .o-i.:.n� Martinez,California 94553-0095 tl o October 12, 2000 Phone` (925) 335-1273 NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT .A PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Pursuant to the State of California Public resources Cone and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project. A proposed update to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Contra Costa County prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Mate Aeronautics Act. The plan would affect all of Contra. Costa County, but primarily apply to land use planning and future development within the environs of the two public-use airports in Centra Costa County: Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport. The Plan defines the affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed boundaries of each airport's influence are included in the plan document. At Buchanan Field Airport, the airport influence area measures approximately 5.9 by 6.3 miles with a 1.1-mile extension to the northeast. Byron Airport's influence area encompasses an area of approximately 5.3 by 6.3 miles with an extension of 5.1 mites to the southeast. The proposed plan provides a set of policies for use by the ALUC in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vicinity of the two airports and the aircraft activity at these airports: Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport. Specifically, the policies are intended to serve public safety, noise and overflight compatibility. The plana also establishes policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the two existing public-use airports and development pf i-W-Vo"r ani_"ri se new airport or heliport within Contra Costa County. '!he proposed development will not result in any significant impacts. q F IL 2 �000 I S.L. WEIR, COUNTY CLERK IA COSTA C(OUNTY Office Hours Monday - Friday;8:00 a.mn - 5:00 p.kn. 3`YDE)T� Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month- A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the Mc;Brien Administration wilding,North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Fine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period m The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents begins on Saturday,October 14, 2000, and extends to 5:00 P.M., Monday, November 13, 2000. Any comments should be in waiting and submitted to the following address: Bob Drake Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, ?North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 The proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at two meetings of the Contra Costa.County Airport Land Use Commission as listed below. The Commission will hold public hearings on the proposed plan at the same date, time and place. Monday,November 13, 2000 Wednesday, November 15, 2000 7.00 p.m. 7<00 p.m. Administration Building, Byron Airport McBrien Administration Building 500 Eagle Court, Byron 651 Pine Street,Rm. 1.07,Martinez cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) cAalup.nor RD\ v -2- September 2000 0 OCT 10 PM 2: _Via' Study of Environmental Impacts Contra I-sta County Airport Land Use Compatibility Flan BACKGROUND 1. Project Title; Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (May 2000 Draft) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission c/o Community Development Department Administration Bldg--4th Floor North 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Robert =i. Drape ,925} 335-1273 4. Project Proponent's Narr:e and Address; Sarre as *2 above. 5. Initial Study Prepared by: Shutt Moen Associates Santa Rosa, California 6, Project Locations; The Compatibility Plan primarily applies to unci use planning and future development within the environs of the two public-use airports in Contra Cost: County: Buchanan Field Airport and Byron Airport. The plan defines the affected locations as the airport influence area for each airport. Maps depicting the proposed boundaries of each airport's influence area are included in the p'san docurnent. The airport influence areas for both airport are oval shapes With extensions along the principal instrument approach routes. At Buchanan Field Airport, the airport influence area measures approximately 5.9 by 6.3 smiles with a 1.1-mile extension to the northeast. Byron Airport's influence area encompasses an area of some 5,3 by 6.3 miles with an extension of 5."-rniles to the southeast. The plan also applies to any proposed new airport or heliport for which a permit is required frorr� the Caltrans Aeronautics Programs, 7. General Plan Designations: Various. 8, Zoning- Various. Initial study of Environmental Impacts q. Description of Projects The plan provides a set of policies for use by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Com- mission in evaluating the compatibility between future proposals for land use development in the vicinity of the two public-use airports and the aircraft activity at these airports. The local agencies having jurisdiction over land uses within the areas covered by this plan include: Con- tra Costa County and the cities of Concord, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill. The plan also estab- €shes policies by which the Commission will review master plans for the two existing airports and development plans for any proposed new airport or heliport. The plan is prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Mate Aeronautics Act. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: >- Buchanan Field Airport; Surrounded by intensive existing urban development except to the north. Commercial and office uses predominate immediately to the southeast and southwest. Residential land uses occur farther south, as well as to the east and west. Oil refinery and wastewater treatment facilities are the major uses to the north. Byron Airport: Sparsely populated except for unincorporated community of Byron 2.0 miles north. Rising terrain and extensive areas of wind turbine installation to the west. 1 Other agencies whose approval is required: The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission can adopt the plan without approval from any other agency, either state or local. Nevertheless, in preparation of the plan, the Commission and its consultants have been guided by the Airport Lard Use Planning Handbook published by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program: as required by state law (Public:. Utilities Code Section 2-1674.7). Furthermore, implementation of the Compatibility Plan's policies can only be accomplished by the general purpose local governments which have authority over land use within the airport influence areas: Contra Costa County, the cities of Concord, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill. State statutes require these agencies to make their general pians consistent. With the Compatibility Plan within 1 SO days, unless they go through an override procedure. The override procedure requires a two-thirds vote and specific findings crust be supported. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one imt.)act that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow- ing pages. Aesthetics � Agricultural Resources — Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources — Geology/Solis Hazards&Hazardous Materials � hydrology/Water Quality _ Land Use/Planning ® Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic U4,alities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 4S-- _ Initial Study of Environmental impacts ��-��&�K�U��K��h� ��- om-w^,v^o/ nrxo ^��/ � On the basis ofthis initial evaluation: JC Ifind that,the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and aNEGAT/VEDECLARATION will be prepared. ___ | find that, although the proposed proiec1could have asignificant effect on *the environment there will not beasignificant effect inthis case because revisions inthe project have been, made bynragreed tnbythe project proponent. /\MITIGATED NEGAT/VEDECLARATION will be prepared. - ^ ___ | find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an EN- VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, __- ( find that the prnposed pojecL.MAYhave a "potentially significant impact" o/ "potentially significuntunlessnnitigated" |nnpactonthecnvironnncnt, butat {eastoneeffectl) haobeen adequately analyzed inanearlier document pursuant toapplicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on at- tached sheets. An ENV|R()Nk4EWTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ___ | find that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect nn the envirunnnent, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DE[L/\KAT![)W pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier E|Ror NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Authorized � ev , /0— I — 1) n Signature Date ^ Printed Name Rep-resenting � , � Initial Studer of Environmental Impacts EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Explanations of al „Potentially Significant," "Potentially Significant Unless mitigation Incorporated," "Less Than Significant impact," and "leo Impact" answers are provided on the attached sheets. General Comment The project is regulatory in nature. No physical construction would result from the adoption of the Contra Costa County Airport Lard Use Compatibility Plan or from subsequent implementation of the land use restrictions and policies. Although future land use development in the vicinity of airports in Contra Costa County would be influenced by the Compatibility Farr, it is speculative to anticipate the specific characteristics of that development or the types of environmental impacts which would be associated with it, One possibility is that land uses in much of the airports' environs would re- main unchanged from present conditions. On the other hand, the Compatibility flan neither prem cludes new development near airpor��s r or dictates the type of land uses which are allowed. The plan merely limits the density, intensity, and height of the uses so as to avoid creation of noise and safety compatibility conflicts with airport activities. Also, state law establishes a procedure by which affected local jurisdictions can override the compatibility policies set forth in the plan. Given these considerations, it is concluded that ALi,IC adoption of the Contra Costa County Airport Lard Use Compatibility Plan will have no impact with respect to the following environmental impact issues: 1. Aesthetics All 2. Agricultural Resources All 3. Air Quality All 4. Biological Resources All 5. Cultural Resources All 6. Geology and Soils All 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues a), b) c), d), g), h) 8. Hydrology and Water Quality All 9. Land Use and Planning Issue a) 10Mineral Resources All 11. Noise Issues a), b), c), d) 12. Population and Housing Issues b), c) 13. Public Services Issues a'/.i), a).ii), a)Jii), a).iv) 14. Recreation All 15. Transportation /Traffic Issues a}, b), d}, e), t7, g) 1 6. Utilities and Service Systems All r�-� 17. mandatory Findings of Significance Issues a), c) For each of these topics, the 'No impact" column has been checked and reference is trade to the above General Comment. Is--4 initial Study of Environmental Impacts 1. Aesthetics E Issues A sty sn ua z Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. t�✓�.'ti�at l bt?." None required. 2. Agricultural resources Z.c C r c 4 'F is �y `E CIt en C Issues tts M o = = oval 0 0. 0 CL Ji r i 2 ..s c z In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Lara Evaluation and Site Assess- ment Model {i 997) prepared by the California Department- of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the projecu a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farm- land of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown or the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ,,sapping and monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? � Initial Study of Environmental Impacts c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Furthermore, land use compatibility policies in the Compatibil- ity R'an favor continuation of agricultural land uses in the vicinity of Byron Airport. Vl itigat;cin: None required. 30 Air Quality :rl 0 0 M ars aCL E Issues o 21 0— pus z Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality rnanagernent or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determina- tion. `'Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applica- ble air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ex- isting or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attains-nent under an applicable federal or state ambient air duality standard ; Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Mitigation: None required. 4. Biological Resources ma ea a O ca a sss Issues do Ct C 40b LS to E W 9 07 .. s>° v: Gln Wit!? E Wouid the project: a; Have a substantial adverse effect', either directly or through habitat ;-modifications, or any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species m local, or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? � b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Califor- nia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with es- tablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Con- servation Plan, NaturaI Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat con- servation; plan? Discussion. 'see preceding Genera'; Comment. IS-7 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Mitigation; None required. 5. Cultural Resources r ra Issues ' C to CL 0) W CL va ern �2 °irh z 'Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined it §15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resources pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. 6. Geology and Soils , r_ r_ r_ r_ C G3 w 00 Issues � e � � c �n � � m E 0 CM CL ELCn wiz Fn E z Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ad- verse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known: earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geol- ogy Special Publication 42. � 1S--t3 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefac- tion? iv) Landslides? �g b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, `=liquefaction, or collapse? — at d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- stantial risks to life or property? X Discussion: See preceding General Comment. lvitigatd o.n: }one required, 7. Hazards and Hazardous Material a � 0 tv 4M tv4M a. Issues c o cs W €n`" e 0 es o- O ac'n J Jug Z 'Woul'd the Project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? � b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environ- ment through reasonably foreseeable upset and acci- dent conditions involving the release of hazardous ma- terials into the environment? c) trait hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X au-9 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts d, Be located on a site which is included on a list of haz- ardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govern- ment Cade Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the pudic or environment? X e) If located within ars airport land use plan or, where such a plans has not been adapted, within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? !t f) If located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evac- uation plan? #C h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlife fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where res- idences are intermixed with wildl mands? Discussion: 7.e) The CormPatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which safety hazards referred to in this issue would be evaluated, These criteria reduce the risk o`exposure to the hazards of an off-airport aircraft accident by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people in locations near the two public-use airports in Contra. Costa County. The risks of aircraft accident occurrence are reduced by limitations on the height of structures, trees, and other objects which ;night penetrate airport:airspace as defined by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. she plan also seeks to minimize the consequences of an off-airport aircraft accident by requiring a percent- age of the land in critical locations near Byron Airport to rernain open and reasonably suitable for a survivable emergency aircraft landing. 7,f, Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable. 7.a), 7.b), 7.c), 7..A), 7.g), and 7.h); See preceding General Comment. Mitigation_ None required. Is--i 0 InUMI Study of Environmental Impacts 8e Hydrology and Water Quality r� � sa0. asp = mss _ asaa Issues fly°. J5 9 3 r 3 it 9 Z Would the project: a) Violate any water duality standards or waste discharge requirements? b`r Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the produc- tion rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion: or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern, of the site or area, 'including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or a€count of surface runoff in a manner which wou, result in flooding on- or off-site? _ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of pol- luted runoff? X P) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? � g) dace housing within a 1 00-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary or Mood insurance late Map or other flood hazard delineation asap? ?� h) Place within a }00-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? b ix 0 Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or darn? X j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, inury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsu- r€ami, or rnudflow? � iS-1 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts Discussion: See preceding General Comment, Mitigation: None required. 9. Land Use and Planning Z,E C a a ., Issues as c ' css m sa 41 Wou;d the project: a) Physically divide an established community? � bl/ Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proj- ect (including, but not limited to the general plan, spe- cific pian, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? rrscussicn: 9.a) See preceding General Comment, 9.b) State law (Government Code 65302.3) requires each local government having jurisdiction over land use within locations addressed by an airport land use compatibility pian to modify its general plan and any applicable specific plan for consistenc),with the compatibility plan for to go through the special process required to override the airport land use commission). For a general plan to be considered consistent with the Compatibility plan, it must do both of the following: (1) it must not have any direct conflicts with the Compatibility Plan and (2) it must contain criteria and/or provisions for evaluation of proposed land use development situated within an airport influence area. With regard to the draft Contra Costa County Airport faro't%se Compatibility Plan, these re- quirements would apply, to the county of Contra Costa and the cities of Concord, �'v�`,artinez, and Pleasant Hill. Appendix 'H of the Compatibility Flan contains an initial evaluation of local general plans consistency with the Compatibility Plan policies. This evaluation indicates that certain modifications to the general plan and/or zoning of each of the four affected jurisdic- tions would be required as a consequence of ALUC adoption of the Compatibility Flan, Initial Study of Environmental Impacts No direct conflicts in land use designations have been identified in the jurisdictions around Buchanan Meld Airport. Additional limitations on the intensity of nonresidential develop- ment will be necessary in some locations, however. Current lard use designations in the Byron Airport vicinity are predominantly agricultural and not in conflict with compatibility criteria. Limitations on the intensities(concentrations of people) associated with certain types of agricultural activities will be necessary. Restric- tions also may be required to land uses within portions of the Byron Piot Springs property. The current recreational (F-R) zoning allows uses and intensities which are inconsistent with the compatibility criteria. The second requirement addresses the common problem that local general plans and/or anther policy documents do not contain: criteria for evaluating other compatibility factors such as lim- its on the height of structures and time intensity (number of people per acre) of land uses. The project evaluation: requirement can be met in any of several ways identified in the Compatibil- ity Pears. Options include: (1) incorporation of the ALUC`s connpatibility criteria into the gen- eral plan, zoning ordinance, and/or other local policy document, (2) adoption of the Compati- bility Plan by reference; and/or (3) agreement to submit certain major land use actions to the ALUC for compatibility review. Although ALUC adaption of the Contra Costa County Airport Card Use Compatibility flan would establish compatibility criteria which would be applicable countywide, the Commission does not have authority to implement the pian. This responsibility rests with individual land use jurisdictions through the general plan consistency process described above. Because the affected jurisdictions have multiple options with regard to how to implement the compatibility criteria, as well as the option to override the ALUC, the specific land use environmental im- pacts which may result carrot be determined at this time. Each jurisdiction will neem to assess these impalas at a higher level of detail as part of the CEQA process associated with the gen- eral plan changes and/or other policy actions taken in response to the Compatibility Plan. 94 The Compatibility Plan has no known conflicts with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. However, conflicts potentially could occur if such plans were to include proposals which could lead to increased attraction of birds to the vicinity of the airports. Attraction of birds also would conflict with established Federal Aviation Administra- tion, policies. Mitigation: None required. IS-13 Initial Study*of Environmental Impacts 10, Mineral resources M o M ras -!E CL Issues �s C.'a , p .us as a ( z Would the prc?iect. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral re- source that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated can a local general plan, specific plan;, or other land use plana? Discussion See preceding General Comment_ Mitigation: None required. 11. poise � m 4t M c to M o urs Issues in a P J5z `mould the project result in. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? __ X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ?t c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise lev-- eis in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) P substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 3C 9,_1 4 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts e) if located within ars airport land use pian or, were such a plan has not been ,adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public.-use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? €) if located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expo- sure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels= X Discussion: 11.6), 114, and 11 A): See preceding General Comment. 11.e) The Compatibility Plan establishes the criteria by which noise exposure referred to in this issue would be evaluated. These criteria reduce the potential exposure of people to excessive aircraft-related noise by limiting residential densities and concentrations of people associated with future development in locations near the two public-use airports in Contra Costa County. Also, new structures in the most highly impacted locations will be rewired to meet state and local criteria for exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. The plan does not regulate the oper- ation of aircraft or the noise produced by that activity; the ALUC has no.authority over such matters. 11.z Although the Compatibility Plan does not specifically pertain to land uses around private air- strips, the compatibility concepts presented in the plan would be generally applicable. Mitigation: Bone required. 12. Population and Housing �� C C to is s E Issues , cL in z Would the project. a) induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new Domes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g,, through extension of roads or oche, infrastructure)? _ b Displace a substantial amount of existing housing, ne- cessitating the construction: of replacement lousing elsewhere? X is_ls Initial Study of Environmental impacts c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? �t Discussion.- 12,a) iscussion.12,a) The Compatibility Plan does not directly or indirectly induce population growth either region- ally or locally. In fact, its provisions limit the location, distribution, and density of future resi-- dential and nonresidential land uses in the airports' environs to minimize potential noise im- pacts and safety concerns. Nevertheless, to the extent that such restrictions conflict with cur- rently adopted county and city land use plans, adoption of the Compatibility Plan could cause population growth to be shifted to locations different from where now planned. For different reasons, such a scenario is unlikely near either existing airport in the county. b, Within the Buchanan Field Airport influence area, little if any vacant land designated for residential uses remains. Also, residential uses are consistent with the compatibility criteria in all but the most noise and safety impacted locations near the runways, Limited areas of existing residential development might not be approved today if the proposed criteria were in dace. However, the Compatibility Plan does not amply to existing development or oth- erwise require any changes to such uses or their designation on local general dans. Current general plan and zoning designations within the Byron Airport vicinity are primarily agricultural with requirements for parcel sizes of 3.0 acres or ,More. Although the compati- bility criteria preclude otherwise permitted land divisions within a few locations, the total number of additional dwellings which would be eliminated is minute, This impact is not significant relative to future planned residential development within the east county area and in the adjoining portion of Sar. Joaquin County. The plan explicitly allows construction of a dwelling unit on any legal lot of record where such use is Permitted by local land use regulations. One other possible concern regarding the potential effects of the Compatibility Plan policies on housing stems from the recommendation that the proximity of Buchanan Field Airport orBy- ron Airport be disclosed as part of real estate and lease or residential agreements involving residential property within the respective airport influence area. ;No evidence exists that dis- closures of this type --even if they were rewired by the policy, which they are not---- have negative effects on property values. 12.b) and 12.c): No housing or people will be displaced as a result of the plan's adoption. The Com- patibility flan does not apply to existing housing. Moreover, it explicitly allows construction of single-family houses on legal lots of record where such uses are permitted by local !and use regulations. Also see preceding General Comment. Mitigation- None itigation-done required. Initial Study of Environmental Impacts 13. Public Services a C C C C C � r Issues 6 z C, (A tm �0 � �0 MO E .5ro i2 atrn � Z a) Mould the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi- cally, altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant impacts, in order to main- tain acceptable service ratios, response tunes, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii} Police protection? iii? Schools? - M Parks? _ - v' C?ther public services? niscussion: 13.a) i), ii), and iv): Seg: preceding Genera! Comment. 13.a) iii;: The Compatibility Plan prohibits new schools within a small portion of the Buchanan field Airport influence area and within much of the Byron Airport influence area. No schools are currently existing or planned within the effected locations. 13.a)v). Adoption of the Compatibility Plan would create a temporary increase in the workload of county and city planning department staffs as a result of the repuirernent to modify local gen- era[ plans for consistency with the Compatibility Plan. An initial assessment of the inconsisten- cies which would meed to be addressers are included in Appendix H of the Compatibility Purr. Over the long term, procedural policies included in the Compatibility Pian are intended to simplify the A€..UC project review process and thus reduce workload both for ALUC staff and the staff of the affected lard use jurisdictions. Allitigatioo: Gone required. IS-17 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts 14. Recreation ?"c c E ss Hca toa o ansa � is + e � c cas Issues CL° 0. 0 — _J a) Would the project increase the use of existing neigh- borhood and regional parks or other recreational facili- ties such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or re- quire the construction or expansions of recreational fa- cilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? � Discussion; See preceding General Comment, Mitigation: None required. 15. Transportation /Traffic : z � M 0 ca g Issues :CL L 0 '� � a� of c a 0 :i _OJ VVould the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantias in rela- tion: to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)2 _ - b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and high- ways? Q Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks? _ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a designs feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or in,-orn- patible uses (e.g., faun equipment)? IS-18 initial Study of Environmental Impacts e) Reset in inadequate emergency access? Pi Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs sup- porting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-outs bicycle racks, etc.)? Discussion 15.a), 15.b), 15.d), 15.e), 15.0, and ;S.g): See preceding General Comment. 154 The Compatibility Plan has no authority over the operation of airports or air traffic, although it does include policies for review of certain aspects of proposed airport development which could have off-airport compatibility implications. Mitigation: None required. 16. Utilities and Service Systems � � a � 6 E c � Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ap- pikable Regional Nater Quality Control Board? b) Require Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause signifi- cant environmental effects? cj Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environ- mental effects? it d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the wroject from existing entitlerments and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existingcormmit- rnents? & Initial Study of Environmental Impacts fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? it g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regu- lations related to solid waste? K D iscussion: See preceding General Comment. Mitigation: None required. S 17, Mandatory Findings of Significance ig �S ttl czt O "iIssues 3! C 3 CIE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the duality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- Vie population to drop below self-sustaining levels, th,eaten to elimn nate a plant or animal community, re- duce the number or restrict the range of a rare or en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important exam- ples of the major periods of California history or prehis- tory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually lim- ited., but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cur- rent projects, and the effects of probable future pro- jects.) _ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, ei- ther directly or indirectly? 9�t Discussion: 7.a) and 17.c): See preceding General Comment. €a--20 Initial Study of Environmental Impacts 17,6) Because the Compatibility Plan is regulatory and restrictive in nature and will not cause any physical development to occur, it has no potential to create cumulatively significant environ- mental impacts. Rather, the plan addresses potential noise and safety impacts and other air- port land use compatibility issues associated with potential future development which other public entities or private parties may propose for the vicinity of airports in Contra Costa County. Without adoption of the plan, the adverse impacts— both to airport-functionality and to community livability--of allowing incompatible development to occur may be individ- ually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The Compatibility!Marr thus, in effect, serves as a mitigation plan designed to avoid impacts which might otherwise be cumulatively significant, Mitigation': Mone required. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Alameda County. East County Area Plan land Use Diagram (map). Adopted by.Alameda County Board of Supervisors May �934. Byron Municipal Advisory Council. Myron Township general Pian, 7949-21720. June 1999, Concord, City of. City of Concord General Plan. Originally adopted by Co^cord City Council July 1994; amendments through November 1996. Contra Costa County, Community Development Department. Contra Costa County general Plan, 1995-2010. Adopted by Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors July 1996, Genera' Plan Lana`Use Element (neap). Approved by Contra Costa County Board of Supervi- sors January 1991, Martinez, City of. Martinez General Plan, Originally adopted by Martinez City Council 1973; amendments through January 1995. General Plan, Noise Element. Adopted by Martinez City Council November 1985. ;o;ern Muir Parkway Specific Area. Flan. December 1985- Pleasant Hill, City of'. General Plan. Adopted by Pleasant Hill City Council October 19901 Sar" Joaquin County. Mo,,ntain Nouse New Community Master Plan. Adapted by San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors November 1994, IS-21, EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM: wmmmowea Freeway / Expressway i i i4L4Ei8t8II8S Other Highway TO E 6 y SART NORTH TO REDDING TO SACRAMENTO .<....,.«..,.. e ! � f 5n5 t7i.an p� E t. t TO NAPA 6n t Vauvltia } I d r i NORTH Saiano County e . su;r�n cilY.. i i tost2 r 25 ..<...<...............yy:r TO NOVATO var. V.fl., TO LOBI' j � Narcuta z^ M.rtinat AiRfbu g TO h. SAN RAFAEL agYCXi Can,ord o se_ a 91¢a:anl Nili 9rennvnod ! j `x1 reta.ey EI Carrita walwt tr.rk u7 TO STOCKTON 28' � �as,Y.<.. Contra Costa County �•,• qa....a . . ? i," s4' } ta.r;Eei.v �or nd. 660 r dG t 68n , y � D.nv3ltt ,jam sap TO SAN saa Raman E ii FRANCISCO ! TO STOCKTON, .,2F bub?in °`•�iwrmca = a P.Y—d Pl.s.onion �a•e`•• . Alameda County TO SAN MATED remora .,o.'$`a 68-0 $ n N 88 TO MENLO PARK TO SAN JOSE ` AWC Plarvling Area FinurA 5_1 Ras, Bav Ren'sona9 T ransr)ortation System s-s - w' w TM't• MiN liffirz }�£» ' aEM:'r� a^�r� f4 :I � 'a'',a..,''�4Ti"► `'�'c ha-�c'r�a'�'a". Ltd zrr.�.l3�X71 �i.'�3e�' �,u�"�s�4&,K—= ...M{��'• .kms!" £`Wv41 y� �' � : '��xt` { ♦ .�"r�x�t` •q�.t' �.� ,#'•,� � * `� s.s` °tom. �',t.hn �;�� t�, l4 YL "• •n.�.�^. 'L'i�3 �'F'S{�.�' e,.1�f} �' �F2' '� t'x� ��;s,��'r�'3'�j+.`...-T�+t}s�,+n�rcl, �v: �k..t u � r '°`�� '.}E♦u,,,.�rc��i� rs�st'fi��`ca-v4 � .a, rca �y1 � �� "�,s�: f ,� �c .a *+•a *��,�,.i I k s c �` '��+' 4 L.�r, ;yk`r r KPI "� �„:. 5c kk�, �)� r� i;+s�a.^,�ata '^�� r �'t'"*a'• Ara � ��. �.y. a 4 a;? R�„"�..�.'..�» .,lalruji. tet• �ti' ` ^ e�ms },.�f c ma -illEI ✓ •r'I,`i" )'a �.'#+r •s -. '!,�k"' � ¢n�'•f `; ��♦i�:S° �, �� '�rtt}}e�� .�..,a, - � - ;. a� .a.► 1�r � ., aczl. ��1}.�--,g�.. r w� �-• ..kms �� -4r [ �� t �,, �.� s4 � �.�^'.`�.. M �♦R &.3:'i'r ' .iS� ;, *�*" *�vP}` �`3�s't'`" a`.4 .,'s.s".ui�d i� `a. fie, •.�"'T�v ,.. -:"" � .. AR'Ra?,t� �S^v� +'+'`��,�-y�♦ � a�S�•,t°� ms's }a . y 4 � i i % t i I? t Hiamede Cwnv cr MATCH UNE f 1 � MArcH L1 Alameda coon a I . - Sar aequin oOnty E I C'J, i 1 t j �`•c b o a o 0 0 I w Ami w mn z Air-0 17 o O ` o b is � Agenda Item#9 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLAN' COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002, 7.00 PM COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOUR CONFORMANCE WITH THE ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN, COUNTY FILE: RZ#O1-3105 STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION California Government Code Section 65302.3 requires each local jurisdiction having jurisdiction within an Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) planning area to modify its General Plan and affected Specific Plans to be consistent with the ALUC's adopted Compatibility Flan. On August 13, 2002, the Board of Supervisors acknowledged receipt of an updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared and adopted by the Contra Costa ALUC. In the August 13, 2002 action, the Board referred the ALUC Compatibility Plan to the County Planning Commission for the statutory plan consistency review requesting a report with recommendations within the 180-day review period as provided for under state law. A separate parallel staff report on the ALUC Compatibility general Plan Amendment (County File: GP#02-0001) has been prepared and deals with the General Plan policy issues. This report covers the rezoning incompatibilities as identified in the adopted ALUC Compatibility Plan. II. CEQA A draft Negative Declaration on the proposed ALUC Compatibility Plan was released. on October 12, 2000. This Negative Declaration was approved by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission on December 13, 2000 at the time it approved the Compatibility Plan. This proposed Rezoning for Conformance with S-2 the ALUC Compatibility Plan utilized the ALUC Negative Declaration, since its sole purpose is to bring the implementing ordinances into conformity with the ALUC Compatibility Plan. A copy of the Negative Declaration is attached to the General Plan staff report. III. ALUC INCOMPATIBILITY ZONING ISSUES There are no zoning incompatibilities identified for unincorporated lands around the BrewAirport. rididt Appendix.. PI of the ALUC Compatibility Plan dealing with the Byron Airport is included in its entirety because it sets the stage for the needed County zoning actions. It reads: "Land Use :resignations, Byron Airport Vicinity — Except for areas beyond the Contra Costa County boundaries, all of the land within the Byron Airport influence area is in unincorporated Contra Costa County jurisdiction, Dearly all of this land is designated in the General Plan as Agricultural. Furthermore, the Transportation and Circulation Element (Policy 5-53) specifically states that "establishment of commercial, industrial, or residential development" will not be allowed around the airport. The Agricultural designation is basically consistent with the Compatibility Plan. However, certain types of uses allowed within the Agricultural designation could pose compatibility conflicts: • Some uses are allowed upon issuance of a use permit that could conflict with the criteria for certain compatibility zones. Food processing facilities, for example, might exceed the intensity (people per acre) standards for Zones B 1 and B2. • The minimum parcel size requirement for agricultural lands varies depending upon the zoning designation. In some locations near Byron Airport, the allowable lot size can be as S-3 small as 5 acres (A-2 zoning). This zoning conflicts with Compatibility Zone B2 criteria, which require a minimum 10-acre parcel size. Also, any lots split for residential purposes would be unacceptable in Compatibility Zone B l. Most of the latter parcels, though, are depicted on the adopted Byron Airport Layout Plan for future acquisition of either fee title or approach protection (development rights) easements. The intent to acquire "an appropriate amount of buffer land" around the airport is also noted in the county General Plan. • A final potential conflict between Compatibility Plan criteria and current zoning involves the Byron Hot Spring property north of the airport. The recreational (F-R) zoning on this property allows such uses as hotels, golf courses, and related activities as well as 0.5-acre single- family residential development. Some of these uses conflict with the criteria for Compatibility Zones Bl, B2, and C1, all of which are present on the property., IV. EXISTING COUNTY ZONING The existing zoning for the Byron Airport is shown on Map 1. As the map makes clear, the area zoning is almost all agricultural except for the Byron Hot Springs site, which is zoned Forest Recreation (F-R), and other parcels zoned for residential and industrial uses in the greater Byron Area. See copies of the F-R and A-3 zoning districts under attachment "B" to this report. V. PROPOSED REZONING TO BECOME CONSISTENT WITH THE ALU C PLAN To simplify the zoning incompatibility issue, this report segments the areas of incompatibility into four ownership groups or properties. These are separately described below and are shown by location on Map 2. S-4 The rezoning of the County property is not under the jurisdiction of the ALUC or its plan. Consequently, no rezoning is required of County owned property. The County General Plan, however, does urge the creation of a new airport planned unit district for County owned airport lands. Staff has initiated work on this concept and such a rezoning proposal will come to public hearing in the future. A. Wildlands, Inc. Property (APN: 002-200-016) This area is identified as a parcel in the ALUC Plan to be protected through public acquisition. As noted in the related General Plan amendment staff report, this site has been acquired by the group Wildlands, Inc. as a wildlands preserve and the entire 120-acre parcel has a recorded easement with the California Department of Fish and Game for wildlife uses in perpetuity. Due to the length of time between preparation of the ALUC Plan and its final adoption, this change in ownership status was apparently not picked up by ALUC staff. The property is currently zoned A-3. Parts of this site are within compatibility Zones Al, B1, and Cl, which limit homes on the site. Since the site is permanently protected from development, the intent of the ALUC Compatibility Plan has been satisfied by the permanent protection of this property. RECOMMENDATION No change in zoning is required since the site will not be developing. B. Byron Hot Spring Property and Vicinity (AP's: 002-200- 0131014f015) According to the Assessor's records, the Byron Hot Springs property, which is zoned `-R, is approximately 201 acres in size. The following table provides a breakdown of the ALUC Compatibility Zones by Assessor Parcel Number (APIv) for the Byron Hot Springs site: S-5 € ALUC APN Compatibility Zone Acres 002-200-413 C1 40 002-200-014--!.-- B1 0 B2 i0 i C1 19.9 ' 042-200-015 BI 16.8 i ' B2 14.7 C1 104.4 Compatibility Zone C1 requires that "residential development shall be limited to an average density of no more than. 0.2 dwelling units per gross acre (that is, the average lot size shall be at least 5.0 acres." The ALUC Compatibility plan does allow for variance in lot size dawn to 2.5 ages in size. However, the existing County General Plan Agricultural Lands (AL) designation requires a 5-acre minimum lot size regardless of the flexibility allowed by the ALUC plan. 1. F-R Forestry-Recreation Zoning District This antiquated zoning district is applied to a handful of properties within the unincorporated area. ' It was originally established to allow for recreational uses that might have some residential uses associated with them. The lot area requirements allow for lots as small as 0.5 acres in size. Motels are allowed as a permitted use within this district. When the County General Plan was comprehensively updated and then adopted in 1991, a table showing conformity between the General Plan categories and Zoning (Table 3-5) was included. Footnote l to that table states "This inventory presumes that four antiquated zoning districts will be deleted from the County Zoning Ordinance F-R. (.Forestry-Recreation); U (Unrestricted), F-1 (Water Recreational); and A-1 (Light Agricultural)." In addition, Implementation Measure 3-a on page 3-43 under the Land Use Element directs that F-R and the z In addition to Byron Hot Springs,there are sever(7)locatio:s in the unincorporated area of the County which are still zoned F-R.;'hese locations include portions of T iiden Regional Park which are within Contra Costa County,portions of land owned by the University of California which are within Contra Costa County,!and within the Mt.5iah10 State Park,'and owned by the Concord Trail Riding Association,Diablo Country Club,Marsh Creek Springs,and the County Fairgro>utds. S-6 other antiquated zoning districts identified above be deleted from the County Zoning Ordinance Summarily the F-R.zone does not conform to any County General Plan designation and this F-R zoned parcel is an existing discrepancy between the General Plan and the zoning district. State planning law does not allow rezoning to a zoning district that is inconsistent with the General Plan. As part of the effort to implement the County General Plan, staff is working on a separate rezoning proposal to replace all F-R zoning districts within the County. The ALUC Plan has brought the issue of Byron Hot Springs up now--rather than waiting until that effort. 2. Historical Overview Byron Hot Springs was originally developed as a high quality destination resort in the late 1880s. People were drawn to the resort for the high duality mineral baths that used to exist on the site. During World War II the property was used as a prisoner of war facility for captured military officers and it was renamed the Tracy Interrogation Center. After the war the property fell into disuse and ruin. The subsurface water temperature declined which limited the ability to reclaim the former glory of the hot water springs. Little of the former glory of the site remains. 3. Adjacent Zoning The lands surrounding Byron Hot Springs are predominantly zoned for agricultural use. The general pattern is for A-3 zoning for lands surrounding the site on the south and east, A-2 zoning for lands to the north, L-I zoning to the northeast, and A-4 zoning for lands to the west, as shown on Map 1. z Source:Geothermal Potential Investi anon at the Byron hot Springs,Te ared for Conco Company,October 25,1981,by Harding Lawson Associates,and Byron Hot Springs,Building lvlaterfals Study,prepared for Conco Company,December 19811,Testing Engineers,Inc. S--7 4. ALUC Conformance Plan Requirements The entire F-R zoned site is not in conformance with ALUC Flan restrictions because this zoning district's requirements are loosely written to allow for a hotel. P-R. zoning also allows for the potential subdivision of lots as small as a half acre although as small as a half acre would not be consistent with County general Plan policies, and under the Subdivision Map Act approval of subdivision requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan. The ALUC Compatibility Plan's general concerns are described within that plan on page H-3. It reads: "A final potential conflict between Compatibility Plan criteria and current zoning involves the Byron Hot Springs property north of the airport, The recreational (P-R) zoning on this property allows such uses as hotels, golf courses, and related activities as well as 0.5-acre single- family residential development. Some of these uses conflict with the criteria for Compatibility Zones Bl, B2 and Cl, all of which are present on the property." In addition, as previously noted the entire site needs to be rezoned to a designation that would conform to the County General Plan Land Use Element map. Portions of land area for APN002-200-014/015, totaling approximately 25 acres, that fall within Compatibility Zone B2 would need to be rezoned to A-3 to be consistent with the 10-acre minimum required by the ALUC Compatibility flan. The portions of APP: 002- 200-013/014/015 that are within Compatibility Zone Cl could be rezoned to either A-2 (5-acre minimum) or A-3 (10-acre minimum) to make them compatible with ALUC Plan. S-8 Approximately 17 acres of APS: 002-200-015 are located in Compatibility Zone Bl. This land area could be rezoned to the A-20 zoning district (which has a 20 acre minimum lot size). Alternately, the area within Compatibility Zone BI could be rezoned to A.-3 and the County could regulate the lot size via the subdivision ordinance and notations on the relevant parcel books used at the Community Development Department's front counter located in the Application & Permit Center (APC). 5. Future Possibilities Over the last two decades there has been discussion about the potential reutilization to the historic structures and uses on the site. In 1991 the owners of the Byron Hot Springs property submitted a request for issuance of building permits to allow for the rehabilitation of the former hotel and the construction of a golf course and 200 golf villas (a resort complex). 3 The matter went before the Zoning Administrator because at that time the ALUC had not developed its compatibility plan. The record for the Zoning Administrator meeting of December 2, 1991 indicates that the matter was continued indefinitely. 5 There are no current applications before the County involving the rehabilitation of the hotel. The owners of Byron Hot Springs property in June 2002 filed for a grading permit for a golf course on the property. It should be noted that golf course is an allowable use under the proposed A--3 zoning through the issuance of a land use permit. 3 Prior t0 the request for building permits,a representative of Byron rot Springs ownersni p group was advised in 1999 by the Community Development Director that the site would be re-designated€Tom"Recreation"to"Agricultural Lands" (AL)under the Draft Countywide General Pian update(Source:Letter from Harvey E.Bragdon,Community Developm,Bent Director,to Mr.Dave Fowler,September 11,1989). The site was ultimately re-designated to AL in.anuary 1991 when the 3oard of Supervisors adopted the Countywide Genera:Plan,and the General Plan identified the F-R zoning as antiquated and directed that it be deleted from the County Zoning Ordinance.in response to an inquiry,a representative of the Byron Piot Springs ownership group was then informed in 1992 that an application could be submitted based on the F-R zoning, but this letter advised that the.Board directed staff to prepare an overall rezoning study to replace the F-R zoning (Source: Letter f om Harvey E.Bragdon,Community Development Director,to Mr.Ray Lehmkuhl,June 30,1992). An interim urgency ordinance was adopted by the Board of Supervisors to regulate development in the unincorporated area in the vicinity of the two County airports pending adoption of the ALl.1C Compatibility Plan.This ordinance,now expired, provided discretionary review of projects in the vicinity of the Byron Airport,including the Byron Hot Springs site. s A re resentative for the Byron Hot Springs s ownershi p Y}' p g p group requested a continuance of this matter in a October 1",1990 letter to the Community Development Department (Source: Letter f om Craig Lehmkuhl, Bradford Martin Co., dated October 11,1391). S-9 Given that the regulatory environment has changed over the 120 years since the resort was initially opened, staff feels that the proper approach to consider development of a resort complex (golf course, golf villas, hotel and spa., etc.) on the site should be done through a comprehensive planning process that would entail a proposal for a General flan .Amendment and planned unit development (P-1) zoning, and complete environmental review under CEQA. For example, a key planning issue that should be considered is that the site is located almost entirely outside the Urban Limit Eine and it is not presently served with urban services (water and sewer). The development of a resort complex on the site should be considered in such a planning context, and any development proposal would ultimately need to comply with ALUC Plan restrictions, The rehabilitation of the building that once housed the Byron Hot Springs hotel is a desirable goal. In staff s view, although A-3 is now the proper zoning district given the existing General Plan land use designation and policies and. the ALUC Compatibility flan, it does not accommodate the potential rehabilitation and re- established use of the Byron Hot Springs hotel. If the County Planning Conunission agrees that this should be accommodated, a recommendation should be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to include a new policy under "POLICIES FOR THE SOUTHEAST COUNTY AREA" (pages 3-51 to 3-54, Land Use Element, Contra. Costa. County General Plan., 1995-2010). The proposed new text under "POLICIES FOR THE SOUTHEAST COUNTY AREA" could be inserted on page 3-54 and would read as follows: "3-92. The historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site is acknowledged, the rehabilitation of buildings of historic The lower quarter of APN:002-200-015 is located inside the Urban Limit Line for Byron Airport(approx.30 acres). S-10 value at the Byron Hot Springs site and the re-establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported. The rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs site should occur in a manner that is both consistent with other General Plan policies and compatible with the operation of the nearby Byron Airport, as recommended in the ALUC Compatibility Plan. Implementation of this policy should occur through a discretionary permit review process. Any proposal for the development of a larger resort complex on the Byron Hot Springs site, which may include the incidental rehabilitation of historic buildings, should be undertaken in the context of existing General Plan policies." RECOMMENDATION Rezone the entire Byron Hot Springs site to A-3. Consider a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for a new policy under "POLICIES FOR THE SOUTHEAST COUNTY AREA" (pages -51 to 3-54, Land Use Element, Contra Costa County General Plan, 1995-2010) that acknowledges the historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site, supports the rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs site, and supports the re-establishment of the historic use of buildings as a hotel and spa. The rehabilitation of the historic Byron Hot Springs site should be (lone in a manner that is both consistent with other General flan policies and compatible with operation of the nearby Byron Airport. This policy should be implemented through a discretionary permit review process. Any proposal for development of a resort complex on the Byron Hot Springs site, which may include the incidental S-11 rehabilitation of historic structures, should be undertaken in the context of existing General Plan policies. C. Compatibility Zone B 1 Areas There are other areas found within Compatibility Zone Bl at the terminus of both.runways. A major restrictionof the AL.UC Plan is that no new residential lots are permitted. See Attachment "A" to this report for a listing of Assessor Parcel ivumbers that are .zoned A-2 and located within Compatibility ,Zone B 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment staff report urges all lands within Compatibility Zones A and B 1 be re-designated to an Open Space category. This designation would limit the subdivision of new residential lots due to the limit of one (1) residential lot per parcel (see the Open Space text in that Staff Report). Many of these areas are already zoned A-3 and the Byron Mot Springs site is proposed for this zoning district. The allowable land uses under the land use permit'provision for A-3 zoning is slightly more restrictive than A-2. The minimum lot size is more compatible than the A-2 district. It appears the B 1 compatibility zone areas should be rezoned to A-3 consistent with the recommendations on Byron Hot Springs. The issue of major land use actions and potential inconsistencies with non-residential use permits will be regulated by the proposed Open Space land use designation under the General Plan and proposed revised policies necessary for compatibility. RECOMMEDATIOI , Rezone all B I areas to A-3. S-12 D. Compatibility Zone B2 Areas There are lands to the southeast, southwest, and east of the airport, which are zoned A-2 but are located within Compatibility Zone B2. See Attachment "A" to this report for a listing of Assessor Parcel Numbers that are zoned A-2 and located within Compatibility Zone B2. That Compatibility Zone requires a 10-acre minimum lot size. Rezoning to A-3 would be the most consistent zoning for these areas. RECOMMENDATION Rezone all A-2 zoned areas within ALUC Compatibility Zone B2 to A-3. VI. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS To bring the County zoning into conformity with ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the entire Byron Hot Springs site and nearby A-2 zoned lands within Compatibility Zone B 1 and B2 should be rezoned to A-3. To insure conformity with the "no new residential lots permitted" requirement in zone B 1 the County Subdivision Act will be utilized to ensure conformity and the front counter parcel pages shall have the area shown within B 1 on those pages with a notation that "no new residential lots can be created that covers this area, according to the ALUC Plan, without deeds restrictions being required to implement the ALUC Plan. "Refer all permit request in this area to ALUC Staff'. This coupled with General Plan requirements should bring compatibility with the ALUC Plan. VII. FINDINGS FOR REZONING (County File: RZ#01-3105) Staff offers the following findings in support of the proposed rezoning A. That the project is consistent with the County General Plan Land Use Element map as modified by ALUC General Plan Amendment (County File: GP#02-0001). S-13 B. That this rezoning to A-3 will eliminate zoning inconsistencies with. the ALUC Compatibility Flan. C. That the uses authorized in the zoning district are compatible within the district and to the uses authorized in adjacent General Flan designations. ATTACHMENTS Q3 Map 1: Existing Byron Airport Area Zoning Map 2: proposed Byron Airport Area Zoning Attachment"A": parcels within ALUC Compatibility Zones B 1 or B2 recommended for A-3 Zoning Attachment"B": Copies of the p-R and A-1/A-2/A-3 'coning Districts G:4idvance P}entisg`adv-p}ar.\Ai.UC?LA \Re irg Byron Airpa:bmd on ALUC Pian-cp—pnr.nev193001d. • ! • x .. . • • �, • �� } h � x Yu, C y r ' yk �� s x, u +a ;111. w s Ott s t n " °3 iF `. r Fr n ra t E r, 11 � r m: a ' t � —. $a F'f ro"€' r.£�x�.3 »rte�. a'. a, a +' - Esq *` � > } z - T > - s # 1 ;x ,' 3� fir, � c ., ' ` r �� r t t1� All Y t,. �' r `' r�` ~ �Y r, .�dz2: t N l i# _ R �. a .z?a te ` y r '}F 5 f,, ..u,�'^m_ to f p,� �1► s a - a iW� r �� $ d y f 4 r ?. �� r s �� Y Y .. s r `` # s 3k s < 5 � 4 ` f z z c ads - r t 1 I'll."," — f y .1 r f t i ✓b £'� xs rPj,"l s4�"'"f' 4 Id - ,* .rr '' �' �Kb ,„�.- I'll « � a 1� #c < xx s x tI�Ui �� . .� a s -A YYfi.;x¢ 8 ss s 2 a �' x� > t "� 3 r y,. q �; ` 's,� f �,� i kx'`rnn; '§ aY' r ,, y�}�^' � `x's 11 �� r` x , $rg 3' Cn a 4 z { r t a7`xF , � e�,. t i £' 0 �^;,r i z a€=�a ,s: g s�, v. �, z w4�f z#4� # �,s,�„ f11 "fit ara ^{ #A r ,K ..;*"s rd 3 `d S 1 y �, a. �" w`�` q .. ,�"''s v rs.a` ran' ^3' li� r°'; k. c�,[. _;.:�r'' i ''� ..x`c +r ?Sa a a v`€s b$..� w s r , � '"a-° _fig*,, . ^a x.''e �I �? :.r a ass . »u �S.cax,� � a a a ,'' E rA * ze- 5.x, 2 a " lits v '� `k `p.iY s 'a, a w''" t a r __ a x �I I ,, '� � 4 aim.v2 � .,Y, �„, ;'.+ Y z sF' s � x � � ,x z �xay=,"� �! y s S !e , i t-n ,x ixA xi£- '+ - L xF='� - ,"ix „ '`�i Tis .} ! ''� ' �'� �. t b ,"e y 5. --,", * 'ss ' � F'v€�s r x""*•fr, ��.x`�`,�. �d..,1�,�"^d.�.._..- b' - ,ja 4 `;! x� 3 z~ - - - _ '� "' - - t � : est �......- - r.by 4� b� YS`� 5 ? d a '^§'1 ^.afc...fit ^ 'i F _ 5,.§}". �� Say qt N a11 �e �� ri k .T 1 a� - ,amu. ! f' M , li-OAvjt#lliwlg#LojilWIL'te.!MW-4*iI WO ,w 0 <' v^ x xy �,s, rr r f x �. as''" d .�, x'` z nnc ��`hx: r1 § r�i t _^2 •'✓ z a t,w "i r hh5 v h � r r r r rr v "` 7 h ?, `+'L s�. 1, I ! 1�1 2 r 5 bs 'err , '3 r z m �`! f j11-1 k r _ : rri `' f ✓r }w'r - ' i r rr" '. r r r ..,.mow -- C t )+' S.. 5;� ",s,* l t Y? a $i �i"' r r t 11 I I 11 $ , i4" w 4 r r r r z < 1. _ x..x: rf r xr �' diii� t , '+Rm ww!1 11 r ;;. "' ,". s`,t, /,rte,,, i ` r fh #r t � r r/ ,, r r % r .' r r , - - ■fir .N, - Gr/r i .lr ` trr -- ./r/ �t . r 11 e MIII� I i— r +r r , z r ri r r / / - , M ft / > ,, �r ;' �x i11�1r14 '`' t # 11 i , a ,1�� i fr �k r r e `;, r y/ � f ��r rz 2 s ', // ► r x r " * "is Y htr r � �1� t $ D! .,� ; ion 's ?:� ., r -1 I sic ' t "thy r ...:i 4.?4`I��II► / Ar � s ,Z,R : s s 3, '�'i :a : _ >K z.,, IIID!►' +. ;, �h r ` 1. �I. r l r r + , 11 P, t„,., r �e�.r ,' ,gin, _' ', , r 2 _ -- __ / r ! - - 0 __ — _ -- _ , ' ` ' r r a,'` r -r, ".^, �, 'fit - r ,: ,r r - -- -- / rs'r s x 11 'n { f ''^ t - - r"k i 01� I DAreas proposed for rezoning to A-3 zn �+ *� "� 4 1 1 1 111 ATTACHMENT"A" LIST OF ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS WITHIN ALUC COMPATIBILITY ZONES B1,B2 OR C1 RECOMMENDED FOR A-3 REZONING ASSESSOR APPROX. PARCEL ALL I C ACRES NUMBER ' OWNER TOTAL CUTI tRENT COMPATIBILITY AFFECTED BY (MN) NAME ACRES ZO'\Z�"G ZOIN'ES A-3 REZONING � 441-081-013 ; Gonzales 43.70 A-2 B2 43.70 € 041-031-015 State of CA 8.18 A-2 Bl :18.18 001-0331-019 i Ralph 58.53 A-2 B1, B2 58.53 401-081-0328 State of CA 11437 A-2 B2, Cl i 547 001-041-041 Carlson ' 145 A-2 C 1 14 001-041-024 State of CA 17.44 A-2 ` B2 12 001-011-045 Lopez 158 A-2 Bl, B2, Cl 158 001-011-040 Souza 190 A-2 B2 10 001-011-021 Bradford 80 A-2 B2 70 002-200-013 Taylor 40 I F-R Cl 40 002-200-014 East Bay 29.91 F-R B2,C1 29.91 Assoc. 1002-200-015 ' East Bay 131.09 F-R ; B1, B2, Cl 131.09 Assoc. 002-130-409 1 Tikalsky 403 A-2 B2, Cl 13 003-140-013 Coelho 159.69I A-2 IB2 52 A 2 A A4.HMEN T "B" COPIES OF THE F-R.AND A-1/A-2/A-3 ZONING DISTRICTS F-R FORESTRY RECREATION DISTRICT 84-31.402--84-32.602 0. Article 84-31.4 Article 84-32.2 Reference to M-29 District General 402 ConfJrrn to° M-2 district. 84-32.202 General provisions. All land EXce as cifrd, the f-6- 'strict is within an E=R forestry recreation district may be estab s ed and ad Nd onfo bly with used for any of the following uses, under the all t e . ns Chapter 2 on M-29 following regulations set forth in this chapter. dist ri (Ord. 78-4 1). � (Prior code 8153 (part)). i � 1 047- ces fro M- 9 district. Article 84-32.4 The o wen t for di it cts are uses differ nt e thos r M-4 trr tsi l (1) erage. building or . ructure 84-32.402 uses — Permitted. Uses permit- peY ted �' the M' district s I '"c v more ted in the F-R district shall be as follows: t -five per , nt of tl t are (1) All of the uses permitted in single family (2) nitlLien -16ixirtiurn q ber of residential districts and agricultural districts, apart nt its a 4istric;is$ix per together with the uses permitted by Divisionacre w `c xim may be re , °art of 84 after the granting of land use permits for develo plan re "ew and ap roval.Foy each the: special uses authorized in any of these apart- nt rmurrr h�andre # square feet I see n ytwo districts, except family care homes: of area slid be (2) For public and private parrs and play- provided. (Gid. 780 1}. , grounds, summer harries, hotels, golf courses, 1 organized recreation camps, residences, tem- porary ;cared seasonal clubs and camps, and Chapter 8432 ether recreational uses; (Ord. 86-43 5. 8: prier F-R FORESTRYcode § 8 153(a)(b)(part)). RECREATION DISTRICT 8432.404 Uses —Requiring lame use permit. In the E-R district tine following cases are perm, it- Article 84-32.2 General ted on the: issuance of a land use permit: Sections: (1) Gift shops. 84-32.202 General provisions. (2) Tea rooms; Article 84-32.4 Uses (3) A family card shame where care. protec- Sections: tion and supervision of thirteen or more children 4-32.402 Uses—Permitted. in the provider's own home are provided for 84-32.404 Uses--Requiring land use periods of less than twenty-four fours per day, permit. while the parents or guardians are away. (Ord. Article 84-32.6 Lots 86-43 3 g: prior code y 8 l53(a3(b) (part)), Sections: 8432.602 Lot—Area. Article 8432.6 Article 84-32.8 Building Height Lots Sections: 84-32.802 Building height—Maximum. 84-32.602 Lot — Area. All buildings or Article 84-32.10 Yards parts of buildings hereaftererected or altered for Sections: use as single family dwellings in forestry 8432.1002 Yard---Side. recreation districts shall have a lot area of not 84.32.1004 Yard-®-Setback, less than one-half acre, and all these lots shall Article 8432.12 Land Use and Variance have an average width of not less than eighty Sections: Permits feet. (Prior cede § 8153(c)). 84-32.1202 I-and use and variance permit—Granting. 329 (Contra Mosta County I 1-8Sr 84-32.802-84-34.402 ,ZONING Article 84-32.8 Chapter 84-34 Building Height F-I WATER RECREATIONAL 84-32.802 Building height — Maximum. No DISTRICT building or structure or part of it hereafter erected for use in a forestry recreation district Article 8434.2 General shall be more than four stories or fifty feet in Sections: height, (Prior code § 8153(d)). 84-34.202 General provisions. Article 84-34.4 Uses Article 84-32.10 Sections: Yards 84-34.402 Uses—Permitted. 84-34.404 Uses-Requiring land use 84-32.1002 "hard — Side. There shall be a permit. side yard on each side of each building in a Article 84-34.6 bots f forestry recreation district. The aggregate widtl; Sections: of side yards shall not be less than thirty-five 84-34.602 Lot--Area. feet, and no side yard shall be less than. fifteen 84-34.604 Lot--Width. feet for each building. The depth of the rear 84-34.606 Lot--Depth. yard of any lot on which a summer borne is Article 84-34.8 Building Height erected or altered shall not be less than fifteen Sections: feet. (Prior code e 8153(e)). 84-34.802 Building height—.Maximum. Article 8434.10 Yards 84-32.1004 'Ward -- Setback. Every sections: structure erected in a forestry recreation district 84-34.1002 Yard—Side. and every structure accessory to it shall be 84-34.1004 Yard—Setback. located at least twenty-five feet from the 84.34.1006 Yard—Levee setback. boundary line of any existing public road or 8434.1008 Yard—Rear. highway. (Prier code 5 8153(f)). Article 8434.12 Off-Street Parking Sections: Article 84-32.12 84-34.1202 Off-street parking—Space Land Use and Variance Permits requirements. Article 84-34.14 Land Use and Variance 84-32.1202 Land use and variance permit — Permits Granting. Land use permits for the special uses Sections: enurnerated in Sections 84-32.402 and 8434.1402 La.rad use and variance permit 84-312.404 and variance permits to modify the —Granting. provisions contained in Sections 84-321.602 — Article 8434.16 Mobile Homes 8432.1004 may be granted after application in Sections: accordance with Chapter 82-6. (Prior code § 84-34.16021 Mobile liomes—Restrictions. 8153(8)), Article 84-34.2 General 84-34.202 General provisions. All areas within an F-1 water recreational district ;may be used for any of the following uses under the following regulations set forth in this chapter. (lard. 67-38 § 1 (part), 1967: prior code § 8154 (part): Card. 671: Ord. 613), Article 84-34.4 Uses 84.34.40' Uses —Permitted. Uses permitted (Contra Costa County 11-86) 330 .jRAL D. RIOT 84-36.w', -84-36.606 � 84-36 ";-84-3&402 Z( NG I and transmitting facilities but not including or established on a lot l�ss than one hundred broadcasting studies or business offices: twenty feet deep. (Ord. 1569: prior code (6) Wind energy conversion systems, except ! � 8155'(e): Ord, 14036). when used only as an accessory to an allowable � Article 84-36.8 residential or agricultural use; (7) A family care home where care, protean Building Height tion and supervision of thirteen or more children in the provider's own home axe provided for 84-36.802 Building height -- Maximum, No periods of less than twenty-four hours per day, ' structure or building herein permitted shall while the parents or guardians are away. exceed two and one-half stories or thirty-five (c) Cather allowable uses are: feet in height, whichever is greater. ((3rd. 1569: .(1). Hospitals, anirr,al.. hospitals, eleemosy- E prior code § 81155(f): Mrd. 1406). nary and philanthropic institutions, and Article 84-36,10 con- valescent, homes; (2) Churches, religious institutions, and Yards parochial and private schools, including nursery schools: 84-36.1002 Yard a-- Side. There shad be an (3) Community buildings, clubs, and activi- aggregate side yard width of at least thirty-five ties of a quasi-public, social, fraternal,or recrea- feet. No side yards shall be less than fifteen feet tional character, such as: golf, tennis and wide. These minima may be reduced to three swimming clubs, and veterans' and fraternal feet for aria accessory building or structure if it organizations not organized for monetary pro- is set back at least sixty-five feet from the front fit: these uses are allowed only where not property line. No bar-is, stables, apiaries, organized for monetary profit, aviaries, or other buildings or structures used to (4) More than one detached dwelling unit on house livestock, grain-fed rodents. bees, birds, or a lot or parcel of land, poultry shall be located in this district nearer (5) Medical and dental offices and medical than fifty feet to the boundary line of any clinics. (Orris. 86443 § 12, 84-224 § 2. 7/4-37 § 1, resi-dential land use district. (Ord. 1569: prior 1569 § 2: prior code § 8155(b): Ords. 1406 § 2, code § 8155(g): Ord. 1406). 705 § 4 (382 § 4(1')1)• 84-36.1004 Yard _d Setback. There shall be Article 84-36.6 setback (front yard) of at least twenty-five feet Lots for any structure in the A-l district except on corner lots. where the principal frontage of the 84-36.602 Lot — Area. No agricultural pur• lot shall have a setback of at least twenty-five suit shall be permitted nor shall any structure feet and the other setback shall be at least or use herein permitted be erected, placed, or twenty feet. (Ord. 1569: prier code § 8155(h): established on a lot smaller than twenty thou- Ord. 1405). sand square feet in area:. (Ord. .559: prior code § 8€ 55(c): Ord. 1405). 84.36.1006 Yard — Rear. Rear yard provi- sions for the A-1 district shall be the same 84-36.604 Lest — Width. No agricultural as those for the R-6 district (Section 84-4.1006). pursuit shall be permittea nor shall any struc. (Ord. 1559: prior code § 8155(i): Ord. 1406), titre or use herein permitted be erected, placed, or established on a lot less than one hundred Article 84-36.12 twanty feet in average width- (Ord,. 1569: prior Land Use and Variance Permits code § 8155(d): Ord. 1406). 84-36.1202 Land use and variance permit- 84-36.606 Lot — Depth. No agricultural Granting. Land use permits for the special uses pursuit shall be permitted nor shall any struc- enu;nerated in Section 84-36.404 and variance ture or use herein pe -mitted be erected, placed, permilts to rnodit`y the provisions contained in Sections 84-36.602 through 84-36.10076 may be granted in accordance with Chapter 82.6. (Ord. 1569: prior code § 8155(j): Ord. 1406). 33 ,contra pasta County 12.39} A-1 LIGHT ACI2; Chapter 84-36 breeding, raising of grain4ed rodents, aviaries, apiaries, and similar agricultural uses; A-1 LIGHT AGRICULTURAL (2) A standd not exceeding two hundred DISTRICT square feet for sale of agricultural products grown on the premises. The.stand shall be set Article 84-36.2 General back at least, twenty-five feet from the front Sections: property line 84-36.202 General provisions. (3) A detached single family dwelling on each Article 84»36.4 Uses lot and the .accessory structures and uses Sections. . normally auxiliary to it; 84-36.402 Uses—Permitted. (4) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds; 84-36,404 Uses—Requiring land use (5) The keeping of livestock. No livestock permit. shall be kept on any taxable unit of land less Article 84.36.6 Lots than one acre, and no more than two head of Sections; livestock may be maintained per acre on any 84.36.602 Lot—Area. taxable omit of lard in the A-I district. Barns, 84-36.604 Lot--width. stables, and other buildings or structures used to 84-36.606 Lot--Depth. house livestock shall not be located or main- Article 84-36.8 Building Height tained in the A•1 district' nearer than one Sections: hundred feet to the boundary line of any street 84-36.802 Building height—!'axirnum. or public road, not nearer than fifty feet to any Article 84«36.10 Yards side, front, or rear property line of the lot or Sections: parcel of land. Fenced pasture, paddocks, or 84-36.1002 Yard—Side. other enclosed livestock areas shall not be lo- 84-3 6.1004 o- 84-36.1004 Yard—Setback. cated nearer than ten feet to any front, side, 84-36.10 6 Yard—Rear. or rear property lime of the lot or parcel of land; Article 84-36,12 Land Use and Variance (6) Poster home or family care home oper- Permirs ated by a public agency, or by a private agency Sections. which has obtained state or local approval 84-36.1 '0' Land use and variance permit (license) for the proposed operation, where not -Granttr g. more than six minors reside on the oretnises with not more than two supervisory persons. Article 84-36.' (7) A family slay cure home where care, General protection and supervision of twelve or fewer children in the provider's own home are provid- 84-36.202 General provisions. All of the ed for periods of less than twenty-four hours :and lying within an A-€ light agricultural disc per day, while the parents or guardians are *riot may be used for any of the following uses. away. ({)rds. 85-43 � $ 1. 58-?S 1. 1958, ;ender the following regulations ser forth in 1569; prier code § 8155(-): Ord. 1.406). this chatster. (Ord, 1569: prior cede § 8153 (part): Ord. 1406). 84-36.404 Uses -- Requiring land use permit. (a) In an A-I district the fallowing Article 84-36.4 uses are allowable on the issuance of a land use Uses permit. (b) Allowable uses are: 84-36.402 uses --- Permitted. uses per- (1) biome occupations, m,itted in the A-] eistrict shall be as follows: (2) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds: (1) Srnail farming, including horticulture, (3) Dude ranches. riding academies and tlonculture, nurseries and g.eenhouses, mush- stables, and dog kennels: roam rooms, Fur farms, poultry raising, animal (4) Publicly owned buildings and struc- tures, except as provided in Division 82: (5) Commercial radio and television receiving 3 94-36.100/2 84-38.4024 ZONING Arti 84-36.10 Article 84-38.6 Lots Yards ;` Sections: / 84-38.608 Lot area, width and depth. 4- .1002 Yard ---- Side. TTl�ers shall e an 84-38.61C} Existing legal lots excepted, ag eg side yard width of at least - e,feet. Article 84-38.8 Building Height No side. arils shall be less than. fifteen t wide, Sections: 'hese nu ' a may be reduced to three eet for an 84-38.802 Building height—Maximum. accessory UxIdding or structure if it i set back at Article 84�-38.10 Yards least sixty- e feet from.the front p rty line.-No Sections: hams, stable apiaries, aviaries, or Cher buildings 84-38.1002 Yard--Side. or structures ' -d to house liv tock, grain.-fed. 84-38.1004 Yard---Setback. rodents, bis, ds, or poultry 'all be located in 84-38.1006 Yard----Rea,:. this district indaip-r than fifty..f t to the boundary Article 84-38.12 Land Use and Variance Permits line of any resid .. gal lard district (Ord. 1569« Sections: prior cede § 81555 Ord. 1 }> 84-38.1202 .Land use and variance permit- 84-36.1004 Y ''d — etback. "here shall be Granting, setback. (front yard) .f at east twenty-five feet for .Article 84-38.2 any structure in the - district except on corner General lots, where the princifrontage of the lot shall have a setback of at 1 twenty-five feet and the 84-38.202 General provisions. All of the land other setback shall least twenty feet. (Ord. lying within an A-2 general agricultural district may, 1569: prier code I55 Ord. 1406). be used for any of the following uses, under the following regulations set ford(in this chapter.(,Ord. 84-36.1006 d—R .Rear yard provisions 1569. Ord. I555,: prior code § 8156 (pat): Ord. for the A-1 di ct shalt be e .same as those for 1405), the R-6 d5s-tric ( et oz s 8 IC106). (Ord, 1569. prior code l 55(1): "Ord. 14-0' , Article 84-38.4 Uses Article 84-36.1 L nd Use and Variance errnits 84-38.4132 Permitted.Uses putted in the A-2 district shall be as follows: 84-36 202 Laud use and vagi ` ce permit— (1) All type's of agriculture, .including general Grra.nti�g. Land use permits for th ' special uses farming, horticulture, floriculture, nurseries and enum. Ated in Section 84-36.404 and lance per- greenhouses, mushroom rooms, d ry%ng, livestock. rnits modify the provisions conttaine Sections production,fur farms,poultry raising,animal breed- 84~3 .602 through 84-36.10 may be ted in ing, aviaries, apiaries,forestry, and similar agricul- ^ dance with Chapter 82-6. (03rd- 1569: prior Lural uses; co § 81.55(;): Ord. 1406)< (2) Other agricultural uses,including the erection and maintenance of sheds, warehouses, ,granaries, dehydration plants,hullers,fruit and vegetable pack.- Chapter 84-38 ing plants, and agricultural cold storage plants can Parcels at least ten acres in size and buildings for A-2 GENERAL A GRIGULT TRAL DISTRICT the storage of agricultural products and equipment; Article 84-38.2 General ('3) A stand not exceeding two.hurled square feet for sale of agricultural products grown on the Sections: premises.The stand shah be set bask at least twen- 84-38.202 General Provisions. ty-five feet from the front property une.; Article 84-38.4 Uses (4) A detached single-family dwelling on. eacl: Sections: parcel and the ar.,ressory s,.ct res and uses uor-r:zs- 84-38.402, permitted. IY auxiliary 84-38.404 U=ses witt land.use pvrrr�it 1 �'to it; 84-38.406` Uses---- ,-6Las;,disposal site-Pert (5, poster home or family care home. operated required. by a public agency, or by a prie,ate agency wilich tCanLrz cc.:cocmy 10-94, 334 A:-2 GENERAL ACIRICULTURAL, DISTRICT 84-38.40---84.38.1006 has obtained state or local approval(license)for the Article 84-38.6 proposed operation.,where not more than six minors Lots reside on the premises Aith not more than two su- pervisory persons. 84-38.608 Lot area,width and depth.Except ( A,family day care home where care,protec- as provided in Section 84-38.610, uses allowable tion and supervision of twelve or fewer children in under Article 84-38.4 are allowable only on lots the provider's own Borne are provided for periods which equal or exceed all of the following: five of less than twenty-fbur hours per day, while the acres in area, two hundred ffty feet average width, parents or guardians areaway.(Orris.94--28 §2, 86- and two hundred foot depth. (Ord. 73-86 § 1 43 § 13, 68-25 § 2, 1968, 1569, 1555, 1.535. prior 1973). ccde, § 8156(x): Card.. 1446). 84-38.610 Existing legal lots excepted. Any 84-38.404 Uses with land use permit. The single lot legally created in. an. A-2 district before fo.lowing uses are allowable on the issuance of a November 29, 1973, at least forty thousand square land use permit: feet in area may be used as provided in Article 84- (1) Allowable uses designated in Section 84- 38.4. (Ord. 73-96 § l art), 1:973). 36.AG4t (2) Merchandising of agricultural supplies and Article 84-38.8 services incidental to an agricultural. use; Building Height (3) Canneries,wineries and processing of agri- cultural products and buildings for the storage of 84-38.802 Building height — Mwdrn.urn. agricultural products on parcels less than ten acres Building height provisions for the A-2 district shall in size; be the same as those for the A-1 €istrsict< (Section (4) Slaughterhouses and stockyards, 84.36.810. (Ord. 1569: Ord. 1555: prior code § (5) Rendering plants and fertilizer plants or 8156(f): Orsi. 1406). yards; (6) Livestock auction or sales yards, Article 84-38.10 (7) Living accommodations for agricultu al Wards workers to be primarily used for temporary housing of agri.cultura` workers while performing seasonal 84-38.10€32 Yard -- Side. Them shall be an agricultural work on the owner's property; aggregate side yard width of at least forty feet. No (8) Cornerciall recreational facm`lities wher,the side yards shall be less than twenty feet Jn width., principal use is not Jn a building, No barns, stables, apiaries, avMes, or other build- (9) Boat storage areas witbin one anile by public ings or structures used to house livestock,grain-fed road of a boat launching facility open to the public; rodents, bees, birds, or poultry shall be located in (10) Retail firewood sales; the A.-2 district nearer than fhly feet to the boundary (11) Recycling operations intended to sort and/or line of any residential landd use district. (Ord. 1569: process material for rein except for those activities Ord. 2555: prior code § 8156(g): Ord. 1405). described in Section 88-4.206, (12) Musenurn in which objects of historical., 84-38.1004 Yard — .SetbacL Setback (front artistic, scientific or cultural importance are pre- yard) provisions for the A.-2 district shall be the served and displayed. (Ords. 94-28 § 2, 89-46 § 2, same as those for the A-1 district (84-36,10041). 76-36 § 3, 7437 § 2, 60-82, 1988, 1569 § 2: prior (Ord. 2569: Card. 1555: prior code § 8156(Ca): Orsi. code § 8156(b). Ords. 14016 § 3,497 §4, 382 §4M. 1406). 84-38.406 Uses ---- Refuse disposal site 84-38.11 Yard—Rear.ear.There shall be a.rear Pen-nit required.Refuse disposal sites are permit'.tec3d, lard of at least fifteen feet for any structure. (Ord.. is the A-2 district upon the issuan^e of a permit 1569. Ord. 1555: prior code § 8156(1): Ord.. 140}6), under the provisions of Chapter 418-4. (Ord.. 72-89 § 2, 1972). RECEIVED 335 i oa c Cauntc 10-0) . ��to r• - 84-38.1202-84-40.604 ZONI NG Article 84-38.12 Article 94-40.4 Land Use and Variance Permits Uses J 4-38.1202 Land use and variance permit 84-40. 2 Uses---Permitted. Uses plimitted Granting. Land use permits for the special uses in the A-3 strict shall be as follows: q' enumerated in Section 84-38.404 and variance per- (1) All e uses designated for the A-2 district mits to modify the provisions contained in Sections in Section 38.402 except for the dele on of"A 84-38.60 through. 84-38.1006 may be granted in detached si le-family dw=elling on eac lot, etc."; accordance with Chapter 82-6. (Ord. 1569: Ord. (2) P,esi ence of the owner, owner , lessee, or :.555: prior cede § 81560: Ord. 1406). lesser of the land on which the use i"'conducted. (Ord. 2569: d. 1535; prior code § 8`".57(a). Card. 24, Chapter Chapter 84-40 8440.414 '�1Uses with land.use 'ermit.(a.)In an A-3 l AGRICULTU A DISTRICT A-3 district, a and use permit anal, allow the fol- lowing uses. Article ,2 General (b) Allow a e uses are thoO luted in Section Sections: 84-36.404(b). x 84-40.2 General. pro./i'sions. (c) Other al1�wable uses i, e those listed in Article 84 . Uses Section 84-38.404, xcept live4ck auction and sales Sections: yards. 84-44.402 Uses---P °�. (d) Other allo able us"'are: 8440.404 Uses wi land we permit (1) Single-fazni or to-family dwellings for 84 .406 Uses— efuse disposal site--- members of the fa fly w1i hin the third degree of ermi required. consanguinity; J/ Article 8440.5 Lis (2) Processing " n�,Ilk not produced on the Sections: premises. (Ords. 94-2, '3, 74-37 § 3, 1569 § 24, 8440.60 Area. 1.535 § 4; prior code'§'`8157(10: Ords. 12.41 § 2 84-40.604 Lo idth. [382 § 4M]), 8440.606 Lot Depth. Article 84.40.8 B " di height 84-40.406 Uses =-d Refuse disposal site — Sections: Permit required.R.e 'sposal sites are permitted84 .80 uildin height-maximum. in the A-3 district pon the issuance of-a permit Article`84-40,10 � a!,rds under the provisio of O ter 418-4.(Ord. ?2-89 Sections: § 3, 1972). 84-40.1002 Yard—S! e. 84-40.100.4 j "Yard--S ack.. rtide S .6 84-40.1W6 j Yard----Rea. 1,o Article 54-40.1 Land Use an. Variance Permits Sections: , 54-40.602 of--urea. -o agricultural pursuit 84-40.1.2 . Land use and mance peermit shall be permi $ and no ctur`permitted in the, l Granting. -3 district all be ere to or,placed on a lot Smaller thanen acres, excep that poultry raising, Article 84-4-}.2 raisingof }-fed rodents, farming, reen- General houses and urseries,mushroo s rooms, fur farms, aviaries, apiaries may be rmitted on a lot at 84 -40.2 2 General provisions. All anal within least two d-one-half acres i area. (Ord. 1569: an A-3 h agricultural district may used for prior cod § 8157(c): Ord.. 12.41 any of th following uses,under the fo'lo 'ng regu- lations s r forth in this chapter. (Ord, 15 : prier 84-40. 04 Lot—'Width. N agricultural pur- code § 57 (part): Ord. 1241). suit shat be permitted and no sty e permitted in the A-3 ' 's�ict shall be erected or laced on a lest less th one hundred forty feet in veragee. width, (Ord. 1569u prior code § 8157(d): d. 1241). (C-On r&Costs Cauaty 10,941) 336 84-38.1202--84-40.604 ZONING Article 84-38.12 Article 84-40.4 nce e r its Uses ' 84-38.120 ariance permit--- 84-40.402 Uses—Permitted. Uses permitted Gran for the special uses in the A-3 district shall be as follows: e ilei IRS ce peri (1) All the uses designated for the A-2 district rovisi n's contalsi ,' Sections in Section. 84-38.402 except for the deletion. of "A 8438.602 through 84-38. e granted in detached single-family dwelling on each lot; etc.", accordan - r 82-6. Ord. 1569: Ord. (2) Residence of the owner, owners, lessee, or 1555 code § 81560 : Ord. 1403.. lesser of the land on which the use is conducted. *' 1`1" (Ord. 1569: Ord. 1535; prior code § 8157(a): Ord. 1241). Chapter 84-40 8440.404 Uses with land use permit.(a)In an A-3 HEAVY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT A-3 district, a land use permit may allow the fol- lowing uses. Article 84-40.2 General (b) Allowable uses are those listed in Section Sections: 84-36.404(b). 84--40.202 General provisions. (c) Other allowable uses are those listed in Article 84-40.4 Uses Section 84-38.404 except livestock auction and sales Sections: yards. 84-40.402 Uses--FPermitted. (€) Other allowable uses are: 84-40.404 Uses with land use permit. (1) Single-family or two-family dwellings for 84-40.406 Uses—Refuse disposal site— members of the fly within the third degree of Permit required. consanguinity; Article 84-407.6 Notts (2) Processing of milk not produced on the Sections: premises. (Ords. 94-28 § 3, 74.37 § 3, 1569 § 24, 84-40.602 Lot—Area. 1535 § 4; prier code § 8157(b): Ords. 1241 § 2 84-4€7.604 Lot—Width. [382 § 4()Q]). 84-40.606 Lot—Depth. Article 84-40.8 Building Height 84.40.406 Uses — Refuse disposal site — Sections: Permit required.Refuse disposal sites are permitted 84-40.802 Building height—Maximum. in the. A-3 district upon the issuance of a permit Article 84-40.1.0 Yards under the provisions of Chapter 418-4. (03rd. 72-89 Sections: § 31 1972). 84-40.1002 Yard—Side. 84-40.10304 Yarm----,Setback. .Article 84-40.6 84-4-0.1006 Yard—Rear. Lots Article 8440.12 Land.Use and Variance Permits Sections: 84}40.6032 Lot---Area.No agricultural pursuit 84-40.12.02 Land use and variance permit— shall be permitted and no structure permitted in the Granting. A-3 district shall be erected or placed on a lot smaller than ten acres, except that poultry raising, Article 8440.2 raising of grain-fed rodents,',berry farming, green- General houses and nurseries, mushrooms rooms, fuwr farms, aviaries, and apiaries may be permitted on a lot at 8440.202 General provisions.All land within least two and one-half acres in area. (Ord. 1559: an A-3 heavy agricultural district may be used for prior code § 8157(c): Ord. 1241). any of the following uses,under the following regu- latioas set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 1569, prior 84-40.604 Lot—Width. No agricultural pure code § 8157 (past): Ord. 1241). suit shall be permitted and no structure permitted in the A-3 district shall be erected or placed on a lot 'Less than one hundred forty fleet in average width. (Ord. 1569: ,prior code § 8157(d',: Ord.. "1241). (Cowin COFLa Cautty!0-94) 336 A-E HEAVY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 84-40.606-84-40.1002 84-40.606 Lot — Depth. There shall be no minimum lost depth in the A.•3 district. (Ord. 1569: prior code § 8157(e): Ord. 1241). Article 84 .8 Building Height 84-40.802 Building height — Maximum, There shah be no maximum building or structure height in.the A-3 district. (Ord. 15699 prior code § 8157(f): Ord. 1241). Article 84-40.10 Yards 8440.1002 Yard -- Side. No side yards shall be less than twenty-five feet wide; barns, stables, and rather buildings or structures used to House 337/341 (Contra Cosa County 10-44) Agenda Item #. 10 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2002, 7:00 PM COUNTY INITIATED REPEAL OF AIRPORT ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 86-4) COUNTY FILE: #ZT02-0004 STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. INTRODUCTION This is a County initiated rezoning to repeal the Chapter 86-4 of the County Ordinance Code entitled "Airport Zoning". This ordinance was last modified in 1984. II. CEQA This project is a Class 5 Categorical Exemptions, which deals with minor alterations in land use limitations. III. HISTORIC PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE This ordinance was adopted to protect the airport from hazards, which might affect the viability and safety of "The Contra Costa County Airport (Buchanan Field)." In 1956 when this ordinance was originally adopted the area around Buchanan Field was far less developed than it is today. This ordinance was the first effort at trying to insure the safety of the airport and to regulate adjacent development to be compatible with the continued needs of Buchanan Field. The ordinance (Chapter 86-4) and related map "Land Use Map for Buchanan Field" covered lands "within approximately two miles of the landing area of the airport is divided into airport approach zones, airport transition zones, and airport clear zones, the boundaries of S-2 which are shown on the `Airport Zoning Plan for Buchanan Field, Contra Costa County, California.' " A copy of the ordinance and referenced map are attached to this report (see Attachment "A"). IV. CHANCING REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT Requirements for creation of airport land use commissions (ALUCs) were first established under the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utility Code Sections 21670 et seq.) in 1967. In 1970, the requirements were extended to all counties having a public-use airport. Although the law has been amended numerous times since then, the fundamental purpose of ALUCs to promote land use compatibility around airports has remained unchanged. As expressed in the present statutes, this purpose is: "...to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards :within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." The current statute gives the ALUC two principal powers by which to accomplish this objective. First, an ALUC must prepare and adopt an airport land use compatibility plan. Secondly, the ALUC reviews the plans, regulations, and certain other actions of local land use jurisdictions and the master plans of airports for consistency with the compatibility plan. With the creation of the ALUC, the Airport Zoning District ordinance (Chapter 86-4) fell into disuse in the County. The ALUC took on an active role in working with the County, Pleasant hill, Concord and Martinez on the regulation of private lands around public airports. Since 1956 when the ordinance was adopted to the present, vast unincorporated areas the ordinance regulated have been annexed into these adjacent cities, rendering the geographic arca the ordinance regulates to be much diminished in scope. S-3 V. RATIONALE FOR REPEAL The adoption of the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and related implementations measures, has superceded the historic purpose of the Airport Zoning ]district ordinance. VI. RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the Board of Supervisors that all of Chapter 86-4 be repealed including any maps adopted by reference in the ordinance. Attachment 1 Attachment"A": Chapter 86®4 Airport Zoning and Map C 4'Y4V=.?1PP.nffi9\RdV-P1.'ALUC Pi"Repa!dfA:[p.Zmin$Dt6Xic!Or inknce-epm-192OO7.dw Attachment "A": Chapter 86-4 Airport Zoning and Map 36-4,0'(0?-86-4.004 ZONING Chapter 86-4 Sections. 86-4.002 Short title. 86-4.004 Parpose of chapter. 86-4.006 Definitions. 86-41.008 Application of chapter. 86-4.010 Conflicting regulations. 86-4,1312 Adoption of land use map for Buchanan Field. 86-4.014 Height limits. 86-4.016 Use restrictions, 86-4.018 Nonconforming uses. 86-4.020 Variances. 86-4.022 Hazard"narking and lighting. 86-44.024 Planning commission powers. 86-4.026 Ad-vninistrative agency. 86-4.028 Nuisance abatement. 86-4.002 Short title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited, as the Buchanan Field airport zoning ordinance of Contra Costa County. (Ord, 8456 § 2: prior code § 82113: Ord. 976). 86-4.004 Purpose of chapter. Under the authority confem- d by the Con servation and Planning .Act of the state of California and in conformity with regulations and standards of the C zB Aeronautics Administration of the United States Department of Commerce. the icuntra Cosh Count! x•85; i"4-6 r'i11.?l'?jil`1 t�.l._`�iii4.'y.e J��-�.tv.IU:i••L'i7-',.(-�1�+ ilrind of ititarvisurs dewns IL Ili:tY'.ti4i1r'.y` to C'auta C't'Cnt uC 1.,1't'E'dccn this chapter and :i17-y �'"'an Airport zoning chapter tu,' Firornot?_- the -other i°e,gulzldons [ilpl;cabfe to the Sarno, art.d 17r 00th, Safety an-,! ( genrail ws !Jfare of IIIc parcel of lend, whr;Alici the conflict iio Viii?. ::1,faLU.ii!i:tS of .s7iS CCi,.1lYt} by i?;i'i'e,;,ti12g 1,1c rL'.51J.Ct to +.11E; )1:.t�.;. of 5tr1.':t:t?.iLCS or ti'E'f";, tliC creation or CS blisi731':i;nt of airport hazards, use of And, or any otiizr i7iattcr and whetlier i'hc thCrCby l?I'otLCdng the lives-and propegy of be other regulations were adonted by the county or usCrs of tue ConAm Coma Mqy Airport by sonic cullet'public agency, the inure .a`,17`iigent (J.11.3CIlctnan Field) and of the occupants of the 11Ntations or requirement shall goveri). (Prior :a d I its vieinRy, and Y?reveY hng :tristrt?cdon or code- § 8224f Cod. 976). IInpairY11e,nit of the utility Oi tilt^ 2i pori and the vubliu investment in it, in accordance adth and 86-4MU adoption cl land use nap fclr as a part of tim cC7ii7pnCS1 ensile maser l?1211 of Buc Yi!i nn Field,* In order to cah-" out the aiF17Cns of ON .Giiiibn (1 Por code § 8211: Ord. ptiq)oses of this chapter, all cf tlit land c"utsijc 976). the boundaries of the Contra Costa County Airport (Buchanwi Field) And iJi%An 86-4,006 Defillit#otis, As tir,d in this anl)roxhliatt'l}' two i2liles of the landing tir;'c of chapter, unless the conte..;,.% otherVW reC uNes, the airport is c114'ided into airport approach t is following !'.'on's and phi—ttit:.s.' shall 173 vv titin zones. a.',iglart turning. zolli S, :'iiri;crt n'nsition iYIC'i nings-givel, "I this ;LaCflori: zones, and alpart char 7;on , the bnunClM of (1) "Airport" i77eans the Contra Falba which are. silClvvn on til; "A1,p);'t l.,tei'ing PI-111 Count, AL , Buchanan ed. for IcllanaE Field, Contra Coma County, (G) 6Airport llazardlt'.' ruearis an}' struchire, Cah mmia,' adopted under Tido 7 of it?C tore.`'., or use of land which obstructs the airspace Government Code and thE: "Airport r'ppr•o3cl es required for the flight of aircraft ill landling or Zoning Law"of'lilt stato of"California. to}hig off at the airport or which is 4 diervise A. rnap entitled. "Tne A?y"}.'ort Z,IY':,i'g Plan, for hazanjous to the 1b:nTris or takeoff of aircraft. Buchanan F'1eld, Contra C 0St:i ti3OL121t}', (3) "La"ndIg urea" means the area of die Chdifornial' 1 rt'.femo:1 to, and inChi.dCCd 1ea'�i7 t c?ITort used for the ldndbig, take--oft or taxhng to the swine effect as thoiter!? it wt.i"e 3t Il?i5 1:; C� of aircraft. set forth, and is ria s a part of this chaptzn (4) "Noncom.-nerchl" use inea.ns any (Pricr cede S. !:,213: Ord. 976). kructt xal ti`:'e, or use of ta.`:id which does not contori72 to a fegnil'�ticn prescribedti 86-4.101 Ifeight t; E7.+s .pt c ate. c. 3E7 .,Y75 4t.• :'lil,i •aiiZft,$. {,..-a. ri. C3tl'i�'r".d25�c ch,apt'er, as of h the; effCowc date ' of on pro\'kind in this chapter, no structure or it's( rC ulat '4 31. a .1 iia a t pow,t:, or gt ? shall C?L' erected, alt�.red, ai £i1,L•?t. t7 .Lr 1. (5) "l Mi:011" 31Zi.i nS any E12{lMClllti1, t ii'ln, rnaintainad in my input ill?Koa li 7.C7nq aii'pwt coparin rshil?, corporation- cC53221'any, turning zoo , or Arpart transition ?. ne to :I assoclatEon, joint stock assochti n. or t7C'dy l"1C1 ht greater than the Jheight litwit ltitElf}iitil7Ct.3 1>UNUC ilial 111C1tide: 211!' trli;;tt�c. rccuivcr. in this section for that lone. For tiio 1?li2•,po.,ic o `ssi,,gn v, or oti7cr sif 7Hor repro entative zi7C'fvuE t1lis rt°gulatial" thin f'v`.licWIng fmighi limps ar,_ (6) "Structure" nieuYis nny 01',,;0t:t established for each zone: constructed cm histalleA by nnan, including bur (l ) Approach Zones Bios. onc•, ono, thrcc, not HinHed to buildings, los„eE smokestacks. and roux shall have a m2,xin urn height linYit of e lite•" 3 L.'ci t`° feet t a distance of o houscmd ect 2iYd �J1 r. c%. t!'i~ti•2:,i'i]='sSioi3 il;YL'r. '+; .°. le t 1 x (7) "Tree" means any o est of natural froin title' and of Um runway. The .Ili=.;till11um (Prior code § 8212: Ur:. 976). anmble height shall c. increased in step-ups s cf fivp feet ei,ich for eve,.--y two hundred foot 86-4 0103 AppIi,,aticn of chapter. "I"7c setgsllrnt akidc.cl to thy' :Ills, thousand fool rC?!'%YJ.JiI: Cif this cliapter MY! apply only in bt i r � n runway, a f _ +}, Ci,..3 ti.t`. f_JY72 i11C end of the aL31:�,a1 , LO Ei arcs within the airport approach zones, turiiin g rimx1run ht.illt Cf one-Chundred ` feet. zones, and tr insition Toms v idl i the ( ) Api:rwicli Zones Nos. Eve and .six stall IMICr..)il%v:'ii ed 1ir::Its of the c'.'wity (Pnoir Code �..___._... 8223: Dj-0, 976)< My shale a,iu{pwd W rrfc;:�ltce in,, this secticsl v;•as adorieti::1 / reiOWwd in On rMuhv wanes, but is not prWed MA M, cud:•. A r:.Ty cell this n ni: &w15A An hultik inTociiun 4 8640 10 Un Ucting 3CgulatYin, 137 ills` 1?tz! L^tally vr.Ilwiup, deli E;rs6�n!. 373 86-4-CIG-86-4,024 Z0NH,,,G have a Maxinlum height limit of twenty feet at a bo srd of adJustrieiit tine I dlstanc0 of sLx hundred feet florn the end of the rep1act-m1-1it,.cha?nit', or rtpaix. No permit shall rull ay. 'dile rna)Jlnuln allowable height shall be bo Lp-anted that would allow the estaTHshrlielit incacas,'d in step-ups of f±vc. feet eachfor even, or creation of an 4irl3ort hazard or permit a huladrCd fort se;`yh ent added to the'six hundred nonconforming structvre or tree or foot distance from the crud of tiie rur`;��'ca}', 'to a TlOn'�L7T1iOT7n ink use to be made or become maxi?u,ni hei!_-t Of osiu huli&ed f 1ft)' feet. high4% ' or become a greal-er hazard to air ,3' All t lrlii''+ ZvTiCS shall 918\4°! a 1113M11111111 na1'ly-atlon than, It was on February 9, 195061, Or ,lit inii6 of on- hundred fifty feet, except than it was Milan the application for permit is that pertion of the turning zonc marked on the made. Except as provided in this section, all Airp_-rt ZOmng Plan for Buclianuarl Field, Contra , at;p9ic3tiorls for permits shall be granted. No Costa County, California, as "not included in permit shall be required to'marc. mamterlanct; tnamul zone." ielnaLrs to or to replace parts of existing (4) All transition zone areas small have the structures which do -not enlarge or increase tlic iraxifni ire Iieig,ht nil d, indicated on the airport hei�9ht of the existing structure. (Prior code, § vollLng plan. for Duchanan Field, Contra Costa 8216: Card. 976), County, California. (Prior code § 8214: Ord, 9 6 86.4.020 Variances. Any person desiring to erect ant-- structure, increase the heigtlt of any 86-4.016 'Use re trice ons. Notwithstanding stnicture, 'Us-, the growth of any free, or iy� F other p`rovisl.olis of this chapter, no use snail tithe vise ' s-, its property Ct:ieiv,,se than is be Tilade of hind within. any airnrt approach required hi this chapter may apply to the.board zone, airport turaing Zone, A: girl�Jrt tF'u*t5it3Ctri of dust.-me 1t for a variance from,the regulation. xone inn a manner to: Tide variance shall be allowed where a life.ral (l) Create electrical interfere-nce wit^ radio apphcation tit° enforcement of tlje reg,,Lilatlo Fs coinrn'arucaiion between the a pori- and a'ir.craftq would TeSnnit in practical diff11culty or (2) i�Iake it diff<ctilt for fly ers to distffi¢ttish unnecessary hardship and the relief g-anted bio-Iwue,wi aitlholt hipht:and, other llgllts. Y,.,ould not be contrary to the public interest but (3) Result in glare in the eyes of the flyers do substalntialustice and be h, accordance 1'tlith :icing the2ipnort; the spirit of the regtllati:�ias ani tl�zs chapter. (4) TinipFiir 'Visibility in elle vac imt'y' of tin Any variance may be 5tll,`L'cted to reasonable airport, coed;tions that the adi-iliniStrativ"e agency I _-y (5) Otherwise t"ndangre,r the land, talo-off, or cice ?1 necessary to effectuate the put-pose of 11715 maneuvering of aircraft. (Prior code § 8215: chaliter. (Prior code § 92217. Ord. 976). Ord. 976). 86"'.022 hazard marking and lighting. Any 86-4.0318 Nonconforming uses. `1lie variance granted ',ander Sections 86-4.018 or , regulations prescribed in Sections 86-4.014 and 86-41 020, if elle action is deemed aev sable to 86-4.016 shall not be construed to requite the effc.c late the purpose of this chapter and renioVal, lowering, or other cluirge or alteration reasonable �n tl,e circumstances, may be of any, st®ltact=ire or tree not confonning to the -co!1ditioned to require the owner of a structure rcgulations as of a ebrmry 9, 1956, or othenise or tree to iermit the county,at Its own expense, illterf^re Ch the continuance of any to install, operate., and maintain thereon the TIO'Icolnforrnira List:. Nothing Contained in this markers a1ld Eghts rieclss,-Li3' to indicate, to flyers cha7lcr sh3111 require any change in the the presence of an airport hazard. (Prlior cede j COIISt!-Uc:tion, alteration, or untended use of any 82196 01d. 976). stn:?cturc, the constr'..ction or alteration Of which v,-as begin bcforc Febn ury° 9, '19576, and 86-4.024 P13"intng comiuis-icon flowers. In is diligently prosectited and completed Within addii.ion to the pov ers delegated in Section two y,tars. 86-4.020. the planning cornRiiss:jo-,n sliall have T3 t'{OSC any nonconfonning rJ StrEiCrlirC or ere tliL i 11GS`'1:1 r ' eCSflC rSw('jS: rilay be re laced, vubstanfl3ll,7 altered or ?r:vF:v changes in the restrictions and lmraired, rebuilt, ail{7wad t0 grow higher, or boi,F,J'iio; Cif th- e 20Ii;`S eStrtblia'tt'Cl in 11115 replanikCd, a permit must be s-ecuired froiln the ch-,:}rer. ill accordance with tint: l7roccC9t11e prescribed for amendments and reclassification Chapter 88-2 fin Title 7 of the Government Code of the state of California. (Prior code § 8218: Ord. 976). CEMETERIES* 86-4;026 Administrative agency. The Article 88-2.2 Permits building inspector shall administer and enforce Sections: this chapter. The duties of the building inspector 88-2.202 Permit—Required. shall include that of reviewing all applications 88-2.204 Permit—Granted to existing for building per=its within the approach zones, cemeteries. turning zones, and transition zones of the 88-2.206 Permit—Authorized in only Contra Costa. County Airport (Buchanan Field), certain land use districts. but the building inspector shall not have or 88-2.208 Permit—Assignment. exercise any of the powers or duties delegated to Article 88-2.4 Applications the planning commission. (Prior code § 8220: Sections: Ord. 976). 88-2.402 Applications--Information requirements. 86-4.028 :Nuisance abatement. If any person 88-2.404 .Application--Action by board erects, constracts, moves, alters, or attempts to of adjustment or beard of erect, construct, move, or alter any structure or supervisors. allows any tree to grow to a height in violation 88-2.406 Application--Renewal. of this chapter, the condition is declared a Article 88-2.6 Uses public nuisance. The district attorney, when Sections: ordered by the board of supervisors, shall bring 88-2.602 Uses—Incidental. and prosecute an action in any court of 88-2.604 Uses—Permittable. competent jurisdiction to enjoin that person from continuing the erection., construction, Article 88-2.2 moving, alteration; or growth, or if the.erection, Permits construction, moving, alteration, or growth is being or has been accomplished, the district 88-2.202 Permit — Required. No person attorney, when ordered by the board of shall dedicate, establish or maintain any supervisors, shall' bring action to enjoin that cemetery, as defined ir. Section 82-4.2118, or person from maintaining the nuisance. (Prior extend the boundaries of any existing cemetery code § 8221: Ord. 976). at any place within the unincorporated territory of the county without first obtaining a permit as -' specified in this chapter. _(Ord. 1513: prior code 8315). Division 88 88-2.204 Permit -- Granted to existing cemeteries. (a) Cemeteries: Any premises which SPECIAL, LAND USES on March 18, 1961, are dedicated and established as a cemetery are granted a permit Chapters: for the purposes of Sections 88-2.202 and 88-2 Cemeteries 88-2.204. 88-3 Wind Energy Conversion Systems (b) Other Authorized Uses: Any premises 88-4 Junkyards which on March 18, 1961, are dedicated and 88-6 Outdoor Advertising established as a cemetery and on which any 88-8 Sign Control Combining District building or structure has been erected for the 88-9 S2 Sign Control Combining District uses specked in Section 88-2.6014 are granted a 88-10 Quarries and Crushing Plants permit for such building and structures for the 88-12 Adult Entertainment Businesses *For the statutory provisions regarding cemeteries,see Health 36 Saf. C. ¢1 7000 ff, $ 8100 ff and 8890 ff;for the provisions regarding the operation of private cemeteries,see Bus. &-Prof. C. 6%00 ff;and for provisions regarding public cemeteries,see Goer,C.§37681 ff. 375 (Contra Costa County 10-85) 7MA°VWN 9VHNAT L��,1 RUNT OF us A.TUAt% A.'p ?4LiNSiT?WL {Cd'iA 010<M€10 F 904 "RO SG #aa• ..resurc_re.r CR113 SfC,!4N Cr 4G.; AFMACN ZOK HflIXT'W3 by 10 ST A%t%CACit WC RBCFU li f I. I c 1� i d O "THE AIRPORT" ZONING PIAN FOR BUCHANAN FIELD, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CALWORNIP NEAE3Y GExT:FP T $SlEFtl ffiCCTibM d, $U6S{CT30M i. LSF tlA°?MANCE NO.RTST LYS AT 4S YM{ 1.d.f,CgHHd%3.CNu%uuv Tnti°THY A:p%bmt EdHumD AIRPORT 3bNIN8 OA C:N AYCB OF TMS COUNTY OF CON"3A C0A. STATE OF CALIFON'NtA. ar YNt sLA+[arrd[ai.Y.d3:gH rL+W Yam a+;E}ANAM macs. THIS SS A SECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION FLAN WHICH IS cats...a**s Yi -niss c+L;ra1m CDNT%A {bUHYT, p e<.urdxw a•wA[ od r?[a A DAFT OF THE MASTER PLAN OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, C.ALIFOR NIA. �H.�E.—T sr a l:,aN it Y.s vaaxa bF 3#.[%vnaw x desnaH%x r[L0.senna bi Yn[C3uNTY D cansxx LC3YR CDYHTY.6A4faxma- CDaT:,%FFP£8Y[aafdxrcm, . wnrGN waa+.bsT[D by ma�q TN .TrCGxadxAP[m!A nnA mFS3Y uaD[ a Y RT L VLMNp+a Caatr:d3rDN d Yx[ utti Dur PY uuWM.i[ss. 3#bin xNCi Ha.btt. 3Ata �(�,,, axdlrvaH u`ri�fil iM AlxwNeT (�j Y�CCx« EDrcrvC [dY 3 CHAt3u aH Mxi NF CDux?t 41¢CHTxA 1.- ..IA l. d%T t,..IAmral. DwO'r aY iGHixA o A, C?'Cti:FD%Hta. CORRECTED COPY Agenda#4 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY,DECEMBER 10,2002, 7:00 P.M. ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0001 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT I. INTRODUCTION Only two speakers commented on the Draft General Plan Amendment. They were Jim Gwerder, representing Souza Realty, and Dougal C. MacDonald, representing Byron Hot Springs. This report also discusses a map cleanup to Figure 5-5 for the General Plan. Each of the speaker's comments are discussed separately below: II. JIM GWERDER COMMENTS A. Noise Contour Map 8d The County noise element maps are proposed to be modified by taking the airport noise contour reaps, produced by the ALUC, and putting them on new separate map pages. Consequently, the ALUC noise contour for Byron Airport would be placed on a new Figure 11-5W. The remainder of Map 8d was to remain unchanged. A comment was made that Map 8d showed noise contours for old Vasco Road. Vasco Road has been relocated to the east and the existing noise contours shown on the map are for a road that is now under Las Vaqueros Reservoir. The speaker recommended the contours on old Vasco Road be deleted. RECOMMENDATION: Modify map 8d (and adjacent maps) to delete the noise contours on old Vasco Road from Camino Diablo Road south to the County line as shown on revised map 8d. Revised Map 8d is attached to this report. q= CORRECTION S-2 B. Policy 5-60 The staff report on page S-11 only urged modifying the County General Plan policy to change the title ALUC "Structural Heights Limits Flan" to ALUC "Airport Protection Surfaces" to mirror the title given in the current ALUC Plan on the document Figure 4A. The policy as it was proposed to be rewritten reads: "5-60. New construction or building exterior alterations located in areas of terrain penetration as defined by the ALUC Airspace Protection Surfaces will be reviewed on a case by case basis with consideration given to topography, flight patterns, existing vegetation and any other factors which might affect airspace and safety. Maximum building height, including all appurtenances, shall be no greater than 45 feet above maximum ground elevation at the site." The comment was made that this warding is more stringent than is found in the current ALUC Compatibility Plan. The height limitation in the ALUC plan is described in the ALUC Plan text on 6.3.4. It reads: "6.3.4.Height Limitations-Unless a specific exemption is granted (see Countywide Policy 4.3.2.), the height of objects within Compatibility Zone Bl shall be limited in accordance with the Byron Airport Airspace Protection Surfaces drawing(Figure 4A). (a) Generally, there is no concern with regard to any object up to 35 feet tall. (b) ALUC review is required for any proposed object taller than 35 feet." While the ALUC Plan for Byron Airport uses a 35-foot tall structure as the point of "no concern," it does allow for higher structures if a specific exemption is granted. The County General Plan wording would only allow for an additional 10 feet height to be granted. As a practical matter, this existing General Plan height limit for Byron Airport might preclude reconfiguration of existing wind turbines to a smaller number but higher wind turbines on land to the southwest of the airport. S-3 The ALUC approach for Byron Airport may provide more flexibility to determine safety by reducing the allowable height by 10 feet to 35 feet, but allowing for a specific exemption after a detailed airspace analysis. A difficulty with modification of this General Plan policy is that it deals with both Byron and Buchanan Field Airports and the ALUC Compatibility Plan continues to use a 45-foot height standard around Buchanan Field. Staff can support flexibility in a revised policy as long as it does not relax safety controls around both airports. Our thinking is to delete the wording on maximum height and substitute generic wording that requires compliance with detailed airspace safety analysis consistent with the ALUC Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Modify Policy 5-60 to read: "5-60 New construction or building exterior alterations located in areas of terrain penetration as defines by ALUC Airspace Protection Surfaces will be reviewed on a case by case basis with consideration given to topography, flight patterns, existing vegetation and other Factors which might affect airspace and safety. f , atthe sitti. The County will rely on ALUC laud use compatibility guidance and programs for considering airspace safety analysis issues and height limitations of structures." C. Open S ace Designation for Comm atibilily Zone B-1 The'november 19, 2002 staff report proposed changes to the General flan Lane Use ]Element Map (Map 5 in the 11/19/2002 staff"report) for two reasons. First, that land is deed restricted through conservation easements. This is the case for the County airport owned habitat lands and the Wildland, Inc. property, a 120-acre parcel north of Armstrong Road. Second, the land area falls within Compatibility Zone B4 of the ALUC Plan. The speaker was concerned with the second reason. He was concerned that designating privately owned lands under the B-1 Compatibility Zone as open space, the public would believe them to be "parklands." The reason staff recommended that the lands within Compatibility Zone B-1 be placed in an open space designation was due to the structure of the S-4 ALUC Lane Use Compatibility Plan. Compatibility Zone B-1 criteria specifically states: "6.3.1. Residential Development (a) New residential development, including any lot split for the purposes of residential development, is prohibited except that a single dwelling may be built on an existing lot of record. (b) Buildings on existing lots of record shall be located as far as practical from the extended runway centerline and shall be limited to a maximum of two stories in height." These restrictions parallel the limitations found within the Open Space definition. (Shown on Attachment B of the November 19, 1002 staff report.) This Open Space category allows for one single-fancily residence on an existing legal lot,but it would not accommodate further lot splits. Without a doubt the Open Space definition provides the best fit between the B-1 Compatibility Zone and the criteria allowed by the existing General Plan categories. If, however, an alternative approach was desired that focused on General Plan text modifications while retaining the existing Agricultural Lands designation, the following approach could be considered The existing General Plan text for Policy 5-65 reads: "5-65 The following are suggested uses within the safety zones (excluding the clear areas) for the East Contra Costa Airport: (1) agriculture; (2) open space; (3) low intensity park and recreation uses; (4) low occupant density public uses; and (5) parking of automobiles." The General Plan text could be modified in Policy 5-65 to read: "5-65 Within the ALLC Compatibility Zone B-1, no new lot splits shall be allowed and buildings on existing lots of record'shall be located as far as practical from the extended runway centerline and shall be limited to two stories in height. S-5 The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Zones for the Byron Airport: (1) agriculture; (2) open space; (3) low intensity park and recreation uses; (4) low occupant density public uses; and (5) parking of automobiles." In this fashion the existing "Agricultural Lands"designation can be maintained on the General Plan map and allowable uses from the existing General Plan could be expanded to clarify the limitations for lands within Compatibility Zone B-1. RECOMMENDATION: Either re-designate the land within Compatibility Zone B-1 as Open Space as described in the ?November 19, 2002 staff report, or, retain the Agricultural Lands designation as shown on a revised version of Map A included as part of this supplemental staff report and adopt the revised wording for Policy 5-65 as described above. Staff acknowledges this second approach will be easier to implement and now recommends this approach should be approved. A revised version of the land use plan map (Map 5) is attached. III. DOUGAL C. MACDONALD Mr. MacDonald submitted several comments on the General Plan staff report. A copy of the letter is attached to this report. A. 184 Day Time Frame The comment relates to the starting date for the 184-day statutory requirement to act on bringing the County General Plan into conformance with the ALUC Compatibility Plan. The speaker is correct that there was a time delay between approval of the ALUC Plan and its printing and forwarding to local jurisdictions including the County. The Board of Supervisors, upon receipt of the printed version of the ALUC Plan, directed staff to proceed with bringing the County General Plan and Ordinances into compliance with the ALUC Plan, using as the starting date when the County received the plan. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with efforts to adopt plan modifications within the 184-day time line as directed by the Board of Supervisors. S-6 B. Treatment of County Owned Lands and CEQA This comment discusses two separate thoughts. Each is responded to separately. I. Treatment of County Lands The staff General Plan land use map recommendation is to tape deed restricted airport lands and to redesignate them. to Open Space. It also acknowledges that the "County General Plan text urges the creation of a new airport planned unit district for County owned airport lands" and that staff is working on such a rezoning. It is important to note that the Airport Land Use Commission jurisdiction does not include airport owned lands, but the Commission only has regulatory powers over private lands in the environs of the airport. Nonetheless, as part of this General Plan proposal, staff is urging that substantial County owned acreage be redesignated from Public and Semi-Public (PS) to Open Space (OS) as a further effort to protect airport lands. This will provide added guidance to a future rezoning of County airport property. The state law governing the ALUC does not require a rezoning of airport property since it is beyond the ALUC's jurisdictional control. RECOMMENDATION: Support the staff recommendation to redesignate the County owned deed restricted lands as Open Space along with the similarly restricted,but privately owned, Wildlands Inc. property. 2. CEQA Concerns The letter implies that the ALUC Negative Declaration was inadequate,but fails to specify how it was inadequate. The ALUC Negative Declaration was circulated in 2000 and was not challenged at the time the ALUC Plan was adopted. Consequently, it is appropriate for the cities and the County to use it in bringing their plans and policies into compliance with the ALUC Compatibility Plan. S-7 RECOMMENDATION: Proceed relying upon the ALUC Negative Declaration. C. Future Master flan Study This comment references a fixture Master Plan effort that may lead to further refinements "of these two proposals." This statement is incorrect. The staff report on page 5-3 references a future Master Plan study, which might lead to further refinements of County Policies several years from now after completion of that study. This Byron Airport Master Plan study while authorized, has not yet begun and after it begins, it is anticipated the effort mare take up to two years to complete. If that proposal suggests the potential for policy changes around Byron Airport, the proposal will be subjected to CEQA, and will be the subject of additional hearings before the County Planning Agency. RECOMMENDATION: Proceed with ALUC Plan compliance efforts as directed by the Board of Supervisors. D. Rationale for R.edesipAtion of a Portion of Byron Hot SpringProperty to ©pen Space. The comment states there is a rationale for redesignation of the County Airport and Wildlands, Inc. property to Open Space, but none for the Byron Hot Springs property. In the 'November 19, 2002 staff report, page 5-6, third paragraph and the top of page 5-7 discuss redesignation of all Compatibility Zone B-1 lands, not on the airport, to be redesignated to Open Space. Byron blot Springs is only one such property affected. All affected lands were discussed as one item. RECOMMENDATION; Modify the general plan text as described under the response to Jim Gwerder's comment 11 C above and make no changes to the land use general plan map affecting B-1 properties. Ted. MODIFICATION TO FIGURE 5-5 OF THE GENERAL PLAIN Staff has developed a simplified version to Map 10 as discussed in the November 19, 2002 staff report. The new version is to be substituted for the existing County General Plan Figure 5-5 and is attached to this report. S-8 It simplifies the Airport Influence Areas map for the Byron Airport to show the area within the influence area rather than also including the Compatibility Plan categories. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the revised Map 10 for Figure 5-5 in the County General Plan. A copy is attached to this report. V. REVISED RECOMMENDATION S This amendment is different from many in that the state law requires that the County to bring its General Plan into conformity with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. In order to accomplish conformity with state law, staff recommends that the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility General Plan Amendment be approved as discussed in the original staff report, except as modified by this supplemental staff report. The following snap changes are proposed: 1. Modify the Land Use Element by revising the Land Use Element Map as shown on Figufe 5 (Now revised map at4aehe44 revised version. Map 5 (attached to this report). 2. Replace the existing Buchanan Field Safety Element Map Figure 5-5 with a new General Plan Figure 5-5, which shows the Airport Influence areas. 3. Modify the Noise Element ?Maps by adopting new CIN-EL Noise Contour Maps as shown as revised General Plan Figures 11-5, 11-6 and 8d referenced above. The specific proposed General Plan text changes are listed below: 1. Update Policy 11-5 to read: "11-5 In developing residential areas exposed to a DNL in excess of 65 dB due to single events such as train operation, indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not exceed a maximum A-weighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other habitable rooms. Single event indoor residential noise levels from airport related causes will be 45dB CNEL." 2. Update Policy 5-59 to read: S-9 "5-59 All major land use actions within the Buchanan Field and Byron Airport Influence Areas as shown upon Figure 5-5 shall be referred to the Centra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission for comment. The definition of what constitutes a major land use action is found on pages 2-6 through 2-8 of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in December of 2000. If it is unclear whether or not an action falls within this listing, the County should err on the side of caution and refer the matter to the ALUC staff". 3. Update Policy 5-60 to read: "5-60 New construction or building exterior alterations located in areas of terrain penetration as defines by ALUC Airspace Protection Surfaces will be reviewed on a case by case basis with consideration given to topography, flight patterns, existing vegetation and other factors which might affect airspace and safety. The County will rely on ALUC land use compatibility guidance and programs for considering airspace safety analysis issues and height limitations of structures." 4 Update Policy 5-64 to read: "5-64 The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Zones for Buchanan Field: a. agriculture; b. open space; C. warehousing; d. light industry; e. parking of automobiles; and f. low occupant density public uses, such as sewage treatment plants." 5. Update Policy 5-65 to read: "5-65 Within the ALUC Compatibility Zone B-1, no new lot splits shall be allowed and buildings on existing lots of record shall be located as far as practical from the extended runway centerline and shall be limited to two stories in height. The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Zones for the Byron Airport: S-10 a. agriculture; b. open space; C. low intensity park and recreation uses; d. low occupant density public uses, and e. parking of automobiles." 6. Modify the General Plan text to refer to the Byron Airport rather than the East Contra Costa Airport throughout the text. 7. Delete completed implementation measures. 5-at. The County shall adopt structural height limit zoning on a permanent basis for the East County airport. The purpose of the zoning is to protect the airspace near the airport for the planned airport operations." 5-ay.The General Plan supports preparation, adoption and implementation of a 'state-of-the-art' comprehensive land use plan (CLUP) for the East County Airport. The Plan should address public safety, protection of airport airspace and noise/overflight compatibility. The Plan should be formulated under the auspices of the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to State law. The CLU should be completed prior to approving any general plan revision to permit nonagricultural open space uses near the airport." G:Adv Plan/ALUC/CDD ALUC Land Use Camp Plan I2-14-02-Corrected Copy-JC 9-30-03 Map 8d Noise Contr 60 60 figure 11-5R 't 3 �S, U 8 ffi Y a}k N O S�; f��'•� g l.. 4 it ....................... ^y�=^,^^fit .. _ ...................... ..._ _.•._._.___...�_.......-...._.......84'_ ___..._...._...�^� �Sm__ .moi _ ....... ._... .' \ a. ac•,�,,. �E,' +y amu.w:'• �'....... . W p�^a , i #et yr ,. , 1 i � y � Az C-2 LL 3 } If I .'•' �;� � \`i ��ti� `•:tom .., ��1 �1 r "4g,`n ......._ t _rr A3 F�, ! 3n t 4 �{ '��,..,„,; I + •,�F, 7 jam-- ••� ,,� ___-'_ 1 J �, ✓' • ` 1. .by >, ;. For Byron Airport ., u > Contours refer to , g 'w °_ -• a. f=igure 11 5W w ...,,,,^..__ \ � .:P' f�..-'.' `�....� .. j� i, .�� i„j .ar '•, �f`t....m 'ti.� ,$rrv,a yea m , : "moi_�,,u.... _. ... ... _._.._!_... __ _. .__...__.�... _ ..__ __�_:�:.�.•'"+ . ". { p•"fi as� ^G - r � ,w .......... ax .4 ae ;;` at .._.. ._.._......... DASue File9\0urrant-AP0\3oh Urake\Alrport GP report 9ra0llcs\RevisedFlgure!!-5S.CNV LEGEND Byron Hot: Springs 2005 DNL and CNEL NOISE LEVELS (dB) , � - - Roadways are DNL 'h C t MILE ®_— Trains are DNL 1o00 Q 1000 3000 5000 7000 FEET NORTH Revised Version Map y �7I Armstrong Road c 02 Sw Hol RD 0 x cls w i. {5� General Plan1 0 Land Use Designations Public/Semi-Public 0 Open Space Agricultural Lands Delta recreation Gosh h19edaoufi 600.^00` C:\Sse F4eek^.3rmnt-AFC3ob Omk"!span GF-capon 9MP`t;MtByronAi port\Bfi,-VMBYSanGP..CNV Proposed Ladd Use Element Flan Map Changes Byron Airport t tr,,� 9�1 �{b� � .ti .• ( 1),�i itt)4�5,II7S k �1rr I � }35 'v POP k Sir` ,gj P.. �I �"�1tj�a✓Si�h3�� ItJ��:, .,�}yr �', l _ I 9 C��7 37 r 1 .'t( S� n y,7 >•��t.tj w1: y� i�, a � 1 r , � � Uyt 4 .. �.• .,: -s 1 7.-maI F��''k7• 0 t k13,- } l � {41 {� j'� 9 $ �, `� �h"j� +�i —.I�t ys �r.( 1 �� i ,! ,�J(�'� fry• �l, r �s' �, ,fig an t n r' q'at` F . y,`at� i r F 1r • 1 f' "*i Y W 1, y, 4 R- ii j I �� }�ir `;� s •. '�t�4 r�� .f,�f�`I��+`�. '"fir ki>i s��'t;� i ry 1, s ~r• - aa �.?5✓ xis 3:r`i.. ar lfA.. I� tc, i i �� ,3{ 4• .:.��/3 r i 1 t9� H & i�,.k Ut � 'M � k� � hw• rll � � ',+�', r � q � i.. t,PA - _ n, �xis vs ptf 17 Wo ' i e i { II I f jr � t I � f , # r i m r 41 � I ti I _....., L, r� 1 1 ,� # _""...`..F _,... . A �...._.... 1�§y ,.`r.�" � _�a,,yt�,G�.r... �1 � SJ •e'�:..Q¢ } j I .. r M m , L. to fes' • I � `r, ,r• „s„ I# �� ,,,,,,Ps' � ��_ 11 '. �°�� \��, � ��, i to j pp Agenda Items#2 & 3 Corm. unity Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY,JANUARY 28, 2003 7:00 P.M. ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY FILE. #GP02-0001 COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAIN COUNTY FILE: #RZ 01-3105 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT Iel-TROI;3t,;CTIQN' At the continued public hearing on Ja=nuary 14, 2003 for the General Plan Amendment and Rezoning for ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan., the Commission requested staff to provide a report update on the following matters; a) what are the consequences for Contra Costa. County if it does not bring its General Plan and related ordinances into consistency with the adopted ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan within 180 days?; and b) possible rezoning of the Byron Hot Springs site and adjoining Taylor property from the Forestry- Recreation (F-R) District to the Planned Unit (P-1) District. This supplemental staff report responds to the Commission's request. II. CONN SEQUENCES. IF COUNTY DOES REVISE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDINANCE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ALUC AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBTL,ITY PLAN The question of what consequences Contra Costa County would face if it does not take appropriate actions to bring the General Plan and related ordinances into consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan are found in the Public Utilities Code Section 21760-21579.5. Section 21676..5 excerpted from time Public Utilities is provided for the Commission's consideration under Attachment "A"to this report. As noted at the continued public hearing on January 14, 2003, although the Public Utilities Code does not call for sanctions against a local jurisdiction if it does not comply with the 180-day plan consistency review there is the possibility under the state code that the ALUC would then taike a direct role in reviewing and determining if an action, regulation or permit within the airport influence area is inconsistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. S-2 Furthermore, the Public Resources Code (CEQA) also provides for special provisions for a local jurisdiction to consider when considering and evaluating the environmental impacts of a project located within the boundaries of an airport land use compatibility plan. See Attachment A-1 to this report. Public Resources Code Section 21.096 would still need to be applied to a project within the airport influence area even if the County does not bring the General Plan and related ordinances into consistency with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. REZONING TO THE PLANNED UNIT (P-1) DISTRICT The Commission requested that staff prepare a proposal for a Planned Unit Development (P-1) District for the Byron Hot Springs site and the adjoining Taylor property as an alternative to the recommended rezoning from F-R to the A-3 Heavy Agricultural District. The P-1 proposal is intended to accommodate the proposed rehabilitation of the historic Byron Hot Springs Hotel and Spa. The P-1 proposal would work in tandem with a proposed new policy in the Land Use Element to the General Plan that acknowledges the historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site, supports the rehabilitation of the historic structures on the site, and supports the re-establishment of the historic use of the hotel structure and spa facility. For more discussion on the new policy text in the General Plan see pages S-8 to S-10 in the November 19, 2002 Staff Report on the County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (Agenda Item, #9). A proposal for rezoning the Byron Hot Springs site to P-1 is provided for the Corr-mission's consideration under Attachment "B" to this report. This P-1 proposal is tailored to the particular circumstances of the Byron Hot Springs site. Its intent and purpose is to strife a balance between three very distinct goals. 1) to assure substantial compliance with County General Plan and the intent of the County Code in requiring adequate standards for development that are necessary to meet the requirements of the public health, safety, and general welfare; 2) to meet the statutory requirement to conform County land use policies and ordinances to the adopted ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan; and, 3) to implement the proposed new General Plan policy that acknowledges the historic significance of the site and supports the rehabilitation of the historic hotel stricture and spa and supports the re-establishment of the historic use of the str=uctures as a hotel and spa. As structured, the P-1 proposal identifies the permitted uses and uses that could be permitted through a land use permit or upon approval of a Final Development Plan for the site. The P-1 proposal also defines specific development standards for the site in relation to the ALUC Airport Lard Use Compatibility Plan., and it establishes specific requirements for a development plan application for the site that are in addition to those already defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code for the P-1 District. S-3 Attached for the Commission's reference under Attachment "C" is a copy of County Ordinance Code's P-1 planned Unit District. As currently drafted, this P-I proposal tailored for the Byron Hot Springs site would enable the current or future owners to proceed with the rehabilitation of the hotel structure as a lodging or conference facility, the rehabilitation of the Mead House, and restoration of the hot springs spa., essentially as a utter of right, subject to compliance with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance Code. It provides for the potential to develop a golf course on the site and it would provide for a potential to develop a limited number of residential or lodging uses on the site that are not withdn the historic Byron Hot Springs Motel structure, each of these subject, of course, to the review and approval of a Final Development Plan and compliance with CEQA. It also provides for interim uses of the site until a Final Development Plan is approved. Any new use not specifically compatible with or related to the historic uses of the site as a resort, except as permitted by this P-1 ordinance,would be prohibited. The P-1 proposal could be extended to the adjoining Taylor property (AP'-N': 002- 200-014). Staff notes, however, that since there is no development proposal for this vacant 40-acre parcel, as presented in testimony before the Conunrussion, the provisions for interim use under the P-1 zoning district would be applied. This would allow one single family dwelling on a vacant parcel that is a legal lot. As originally recommended in the November 19, 2002 Staff Report (Agenda Item #9), rezoning the property to A-3 would provide more options for future use that would be presumed as consistent with both the General Plan and the adopted AIJI~.TC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Attachments 3.1 Attachment"A": Sec.21676.5 excerpted from CA Public Utilities Code Sec, 21670-21679.5 Attachment"B": Proposed P-1 Zoning District for the Byrom Hot Springs Site Attachment"C"e Chapter 84-66,P-1 Planned Unit District,Contra Costa County honing Ordinance Code GAAdvance:'lanniagladv-plan\ALUC PLAN\CDD ALUC Lard Use Cornp plan i-28-t)3-supple.mental Staff Report.doc Al TA 6:dllYdliN "A" WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES IF COUNTY DOES NOT REVISE GENERAL PLAN AND ORDINANCES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN, OR, 'SHAT HAPPENS IF BOARD OVERRULES ALUiC ON THE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN? EXCERPT FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE SECTION 21760-21679,5: "21676.5. (a)If the,commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan or overruled the commission by a two-thirds vete of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section.21.670, the commission may require that the local agency submit all subsequent actions,regulations, and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, an action,regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, the local agency shall be notified and that local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may overrule the commission after the heading by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated. in Section 21.670. (b)Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a), the proposed action of the local agency shall not be subject to further commission review, unless the commission and the local agency agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission." t4oh.cArl /* APPENDIX A STATE LAWS RELATED To AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE California Environmental Quality Act Statutes Chapter 2.6—General (excerpts) 21095. Airport Planning (a) 'f a lead agency prepares an environmental impact report for a project situated within airport compre- hensive land use plan boundaries, or, if a comprehensive :and use plan has not bee: adopted, for a ;project wiffiLn two nr:utical miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Airport land Use Planning Handbook published by the Division of Aeronautics of the Department of'transportation, in compli- ance with Section 21674.5 of the Public Utilities Code and other documents, shall be utilizes' as tech- nical resources to assist in the preparation of the environmental impact report as the report relates to airport-related safety hazards and noise problems. (b) A lead agency shall not adopt a negative declaration_ for a project described in subdivision (a) unless the lead agency considers whether the project will result in a safety hazard or noise problem for per- sons using the airport or for persons residing or working in the proiect area. A-30 California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (January 2002) ATTA CHl ENT ug ss DRAFT PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (P-1) B YRON HOT SPRINGS RESORT SITE (APN. 002-200-0141015) 1. PERMITTED USES A. All uses permuted in the A-3: Heavy Agricultural District as defined under County "'ening Ordinance Code Section 84-40.4. B. The following historically established uses are permitted subject to CEQA evaluation and submittal of applications for a Preliminary Development Plan and Final Development Plan as established under the provisions of 'the P-1 Planned Unit District, Chapter 84-66, County Zoning Ordinance Code: • Restoration of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure to the historic exterior design for resort lodging and/or conference center use. • Restoration of the Meade House. • Restoration of the former spa facility for public use, which was once a functional part of the Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel, pursuant to the compliance procedures for massage parlors under both Chapter 518-2 and County Zoning Ordinance Code Section 88-12.4 (7). C. As further defined under County Zoning Ordinance Code Section 84-66.406, the following interim. uses are permitted until a Final Development Plan is approved: • One single family dwelling on a vacant parcel that is a legal lot. • Any existing nonconforming use lawfully established at the time the P-1 District was adopted may be repaired, rebuilt, extended, or enlarged in accordance with Chapter 82-8 of the County Zoning Ordinance Code. 1 A TTA 4..lZLYlEN "B DRAFT 2. USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Uses allowed with a land use permit in the A-3: Heavy Agricultural District under County Zoning Ordinance Code Section 84-40.404. B. All new resort related uses that could be approved within the Final Development Plan and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), include: • Golf Course and related facilities, including the design, grading, and construction of the golf course and its facilities. • Permanent or seasonal residential uses, or lodging uses, that are not within the Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure. The number, location, and density of these residential or lodging uses, which are not within the historic hotel structure, shall be subject to a determination by the Zoning Administrator these uses are consistent with all applicable General Plan policies and to a determination by the ALUC that these uses are consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. • Cellular telephone or other telecommunication sites. : Utilities and public services (e.g., sewer and water facilities not underground). 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following development standards shall apply to the P-1 .District for the Byron Hot Springs Resort site: All structures beyond 50 feet in height, any structure proposed within Compatibility Zone B-1, and any increase in height of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure shall conform with the height requirements and limitations of the adopted ALUC Airport band Use Compatibility Plan. 2 DRAFT Pursuant to Policy 4.3.3 in the adopted ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Flan, avigation easements' over that portion of the site within Compatibility Zone B-1 shall be deeded to the County for any development. 4. REQUIREMENTS Development of the Byron Hot Springs Resort site under the P-1 District shall conform to the following requirements in addition to those defined under Section 84-66.1006 and Section 84-66.12 to Chapter 84-66 of the County Zoning Ordinance Code • The required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be secured prior to issuance of building permits to assure compliance with the legal requirements relating to endangered species, critical habitats for endangered species, and wetlands. • The application for a Final Development Ulan shall include evidence in the form of a study from a qualified environmental health specialist that the prior application of bio-solids on the site will not pose a risk or hazard to the public in the use of the restored spa or proposed golf course. The applicant may undertake this study, however it will be subject to a peer review conducted on behalf of the County at the applicant's expense, or, alternatively, the applicant may secure a fee deposit with the Community Development Department for the County to undertake this study. GAAdvance P1ann=:ng\adv-p1a AkLUC PLAMPROPoSED P-1 FOR BYRON POT SPRINCS.doc ' Avigation easements shall provide the right to flight in the airspace over the property,allow generation of noise and other in pacts associated with aircraft overflight,and restrict the height of structures,trees, and other objects,permit access to the property for the purpose of removing or aeronautical marking of objects which exceed height limits,and prohibit electrical interference, glare, or other potential hazards to flight from being on the property. 3 C'O'UNTY ORD. CODE, CH. 84-66 6 53.61-2---64-ab4.UO N.1 ( If the zoning administrator determines w h all requirements of Section 84--53.8 and ' that heproject or expansion will not sig- any ew requirements of the county at can nilical tly and adversely affect public ealth, reasoi, ly be met. (Ord. 86-100 53 io or the nvironrnent, the project or expa n is an exe pt permitted use, provided t e con- ditions t forth, in Section 84-63.8178 an met. Chapter 84-6 (c) If the zoning administrator d 'eranines that the oject or expansion could,si ificaantly U UN CTE DISTRICT and adve ely affect public health r the en- vironment, a land use permit shall required. Sections: (Ord.,86-1 5). 84-64.002 Gen visions. 84-63.S12 Decisions--Notice. decisions 84-64.002 Ge rat pray ' ns. All land and deterani_ tions made pu ant to this within. a U unre 'cted district y be used for chapter shalt e made in wri ` and shall be summarized in he next agend of the county any lawful use ut the board of su rvisors may planning coram' 'on.(Ord. 86- 0 § 5).f hereafter am d this division to pla land now placed in unrestricted district int another 84-63.814 Ap eats. Ap als from all district, by proper amendment of this 'vision decisions and Bete inations ade pursuant to may pr ice regulations for the use of lin ow this chapter shall b govern by the land use in an nrestricted district. (prior code § 8 5: (3rd. 82). permit provisions o Artic 26.2.24 and are subject to the provt ions f Article 26-2.30; - provided, that the tim fo filing an appeal from Chapter 84-66 a decision or deterrnin made by the zoning administrator shall be n ore than teat calendar p-1 PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT days from the dateof t county planning com- mission meet=ing on W agenda the decision or determination is a arized. but in no ArticleSections: event 2 General event more than th' d els after the date of S - the decision or de rutin- ion, (Ord. 8b-110 84-66.'_'02 P-1 planned unit distict. . R 5). 84-66.204 Intent and purpose, Article 84-66.4 Uses Ar cle 84-63. 0 Sections; Land Us nd Varianc Permits 84--66.402 Uses. 84-66.404 Restriction. 84-63,1002 ranting. Lan " use permits 84-66.406 Interim exceptions. required under his chapter and riance permits Article 84.66.6 Site Minimums to modify it provisions may e granted in Sections: accordance dth the provision of Chapters le 84-66.8 Areas. 25-2 and 82 . (Ord. 86-100 § 5). Article ons: 8 Density Sections: 84-63.1 4 Term. Land use p its issued 84-66.802 Residential. -under t s chapter shall expire t teen years Article 84-66.10 after the date of issuance and sha be auto- Sections: matica renewed for an additional teen-year 84-66.1002 Procedure. term pon applicationto the c munity 84-66.1004 Ordinance p.an. deve pment department before exp` tion of 84-56.10°6 Rezoning and development the riginal land case permit, or current enewal, plan. application, an ' the determinauor, by the zoning minis- ttar that tine project or expansion c plies (Contra Casts County 5.87) 354-4 P-; PLANNED UNIT DIST. 84.6&202-84-66.402 Article 8466. 2 be observed without unduly inhibiting the Sections: advantages of large-scale site or special area 84-66.1202 Requirements. planning. (Ord. 79-74: 84-66.004: prier code $466.1204 Approval procedure, 8166(a): Ord. 1743). 84-66.1206 Combined application and final plan. Article 8466.4 Article 8466.14 Plan Objectives, Regulations uses and Evaluations Sections: 84-66.402 Uses. The following uses are 84-66.1402 Design objectives. allowed in the P-1 planned unit district: 84-66.1404 Latitude of regulations. (1) Any land uses permitted by an approved 84-66.1406 Evaluations. final development plan which are in harinoriy Article 84.66.16 Termination with each other, serve to fulfill the function of Sections: the ,planned unit development, and are con- 8466.16€32 Procedure. sistent with the general plan; Article 84-66.18 Plan 0✓hanges (2) A detached single-family dwelling on each Sections: legally established lest and the accessory struc- 84-66.1802 Preliminary development titres and uses normally auxiliary to it; plan. (3) 1n a P-1 district for which residential 84-66.1804 Final development plan, uses are approved, residential second units Article 84-66.20 Variance Permits, complying with the provisions of�thapter 84-24. Sections: (Orris. 87-67 § 6, 79-74: § 84-66.0706: prior 84-66.00032 Granting. code 9 8166(j): Ord. 1743). Article 84-66." General 84-66.202 P-1 planned unit district. Ail land within. a P-i planned unit district may be used as allowed and regulated in this Chapter. (ord. '9- 74: 3 84--66.O02: prior code ti 8166: turd. 17143). 84-66.2014 Intent and purpose. A large-scale integrated development or a general plan special area of concern provides an opportunity for, and requires cohesive design when flexible regulations are applied; whereas the application of conventional regulation, designee primarily for individual lot development. to a large-scale development or special area may create a monotonous and inappropriate neighborhood. The planned unit district is intended to allow daverstfication in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structwlares, lot sizes and open spaces whsle insuring substantial compliance with the general pian and the interit of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general %�effare. These standards shall 364-` (Contra costa count% ' �B) P-1 PLANNED UNIT DIS 11 84-66.404-84-66.1006 84-66.404 Restriction. No person shall densities, use the genera{ plan as a guide and grade or clear land; erect, :Hove, or alter any exclude areas set aside for churches, schools, building or structure on any land, after the streets, commercial use or other nonresidential, effective date of its rezoning to a P-1 district, use, but include areas set aside for common except when in compliance with an approved open space, outdoor recreation or parks. (Ord. final development plan and/or this chapter. 79-74: § 84-66.026: prior code § 8166W: (Ords. 79-74, 76-26 § 2, 76-25 § 2: § Ord. 1743). 84-66.010: prior code § 8166(c): Ord. 1743). Article 84-66.10 84-66.406 Interim exceptions. If any land Rezoning has been zoned P-1 district but no preli ninary development plan approved thereon, the 84-66.1002 Procedure. After initiation by following may be approved: the planning agency or final application (1) Single-family Dwelling. Where it is approval, an area may be zoned "P-1 plar:n ed established to the satisfaction of the director of unit district" in accordance with Title 7 of the planning that a vacant parcel of land as a legal California Government Code and this code, and lot and the one detached siangle-family dwelling the zoning map of the area shall then be proposed to be located, thereon is' consistent identified with the map symbol "P-l", (Ords. with the general plan, the dwelling may be 79-74, 76-26 § 2: 76-25 § 2: prior code placed on the lot without being subject to the 8166(c): Ord. 1743). application submittal, development plan review - and approval provisions of this chapter. 84-66-ION Ordinance plan. If an applica- (2) Nonconforming Use. Until a finial tion for P-1 zoning and a preliminary or final development plan is approved, any development plan is finally approved, the nonconforming use lawfully existing at the time preliminary or final development plan and any of the establish-meat of P-1 zoning on that conditions attached thereto, as approved or later property may be repaired, rebuilt, extended, or amended, shall be filed with the planning enlarged in accordance with Chapter 82-8. (Ord. department, and they are thereby incorporated 79.74). into this Title 8 and become a part of the ordinance .referred to in § 84-66,1002. (Ords. Article 84-56.6 79-74, 76-1-6 § e: 76-25 § 2: prior code § Site Minimums 8166(c): Ord. 1743). 84.66.602 Areas. The minimum areas for a 84-66.1006 Rezoning and development plan P-1 district are: application. Except as waived in writing by the (1) Residential. Five acres for residential uses planning director, the application for rezoning except that a mobile home subdivision shall have to P-1 district and concurrent approval of a a minimum of ten acres: preliminary development consists of :five copies (`?) Nonresidential. Ten acres for nonresiden- of each of the following: tial uses: (3) Mixed. Fifteen acres for mixed residential (1) � ndictig:preliminary development pian, drawn and nonresidential uses:and to scale, indicating. (4) Office. No minimurn for office uses which (A)Proposed use(s) of all land in the sub ect do not require heavy vehicular delivery or have area, easy automobile site access including some ancil- (B) Existing natural land features. and lacy retail, service and residential uses when con- topography of the subject area, sistent with. the general plan. (Ords. 80-74 § 1, (C) Circulation plan for all vehicular and. 79-74, 7€3-50: § 84-66.024: prier code § 8166 pedestrian ways, (i): Ord. 1743). (D)Metes and bounds of the sub;ect property, (E) Location and dimensions of all existing .-vticle 8466.8 structures, Density (r) Landscaping, parking areas,-and typical proposed structures. 84-66.802 Residential. In computing the (G) Anticipated grading for the deveiopment: net develovmeni area to se: residential A written legal description of the subject area, 365 tConcra Cassa County 'fib} Y 84-66.1202—84-56.1-1-04 �G � (3) A preiiminairy report on provision for (l) indicate the metes and bounds of the storrn drainage, sewage disposal and public boundary of the subject property together with utilities; dimensions of lands to be divided; (4) An economic feasibility report and (2) Indicate the location, grades, widths and analysis of all commercial and industrial uses, types of improvements proposed for all streets, if any, proposed to be located within the driveways, pedestrian ways and utilities; development; (3) Indicate the location, height, number of (5) A feasibility analysis of all public and stories, use and number of dwelling units for serrupublic recreational and educational areas each proposers building or structure; and facilities proposed to be located within (4) Indicate the location and design of vehicle the development, stating anticipated fbnancing, parking areas; development and maintenance; (5) Indicate the location and design of (6) A residential density analysis of the proposed landscaping, except for proposed subject area, and the estimated population single family residential development; resulting therefrom; (6) Indicate the -locationand design of all (7) A statement of Trow the proposed develop- storm drainage and sewage disposal facilities; meat is consistent with,and will further t#e goals (,) provide an engineer's statement of the and objectives of the general plan including, but proposed grading; riot limited to, its community facilities lement: ($) Indicate the location and extent of all (3) A request for zoning change sig d by the proposed land uses; owner. and by the owner of any option to pur- (9) Indicate the location of any residential chase the property or any portion thereof,if any: dwellings proposed to be used as new sales ( ) Schema tic drawings indicating the models. architectural design of all nonresidential (b) In addition, the final development plan buildings and structures and all residential shall be accompanied by: buildings having attached units. Residential (1) Elevations of all buildings and structures buildings utilizing zero lot line, cluster or other than single-family residences: patio techniques, typical designs sha;at be (2) A statement indicating procedures and submitted. Singe-family detached units on programming for the development and main- difficult topography may require design and €mance of pudic or semipublic areas, buildings placement review when requested by the and structures; planning director; (3) A statement indicating the stages of de- (10) A statement of the stages of velopment proposed for the entire development; development proposed for ' the entire (4) A statement indicating if any new resi- development, indicating the sequence of units dential dwellings are proposed to be used, as sales and explaining why each unit standing by itself models and asking approval of that use; would constitute reasonable and orderly r development in relations to the entire ( ) Any additional drawings or ir.orr «tion contemplated development where it is proposed as may be required. by the planning commission at the time of any public hearing in the :-natter. to file final development plans by =snits for . portions of the area to be covered by the (Urds. 57«43 � �, 79-74: � 84-66.102: prior preliminary development plan;and code l66(d). Mrd. 1743). (Il) Any additional information as may be -£6.1204 Approval procedure, (a) The required by the planning commisson or bosrd final development plan shall be submitted to the of supervisors at the time of any public hearing. planning commission for approval. as with use (girds. 85-56 7, 79-74, 76-25 § 1 , 76-25 2: prior code � 8166(b): Mrd. 1743). permit applications, except it is the commission, which hears and reviews it. The commission's decision may be appealed to the board of Article 84supervisors in accordance with Article :6-2.m4, Final Development Plant otherwise it becomes #final. 84-66.!202 Requirements. (a) The final (ol A final development pian may be development plan drawn to scale, shall: approved by the panning commission for a portion or unit of the approved preliminary development plan, in accordance with the {Contra Cosh County 7,38} 366 P-1 PLANNED UNIT DIST' 84-66.1206—84.66,1404 i sequence of units authorized by its conditions of (4) Provisions are to be made for an efficient, approval, or upon a showing of both good cause direct and convenient system,: of pedestrian and that the proposed portion or unit would, circulation., together with landscaping and standing by itself, constitute reasonable and appropriate treatment of any public areas or orderly development in relation to the entire lobbies. development. (Ords. 79-74, 76-26 § 3, 76-25 § (5) Off-street parking and loading areas 3: § 84-66.014: prior code § 8166(e): Ord. should be integrated into the overall vehicular 1743). circulation system. (Ord, 79-74). 84-66.120.6 Combined application and final 866.1444 Latitude of regulations. The plait. (a) Combination. At. applicant forrezoning planning commission may recommend and the to the P-1 district may submit simultaneously board of supervisors may adopt as part of the and in combination with the zoning applicatior preliminary development plan, and may require or thereafter but before the board's final zoning in the final development plan, standards, decision, an application for approval of a pinnal regulations, limitations and restrictions which development plan for the entire property. The are either more or less restrictive than those application and proposed final development plan specified elsewhere in this ordinance code, and shall comply with the requirements of Sections which are designed to protect and maintain 84-66.006 and 84-66.1202. property values and community amenities (b) Procedure. Suchh a combined final in the subject community, and which would development plan application shall be processed, faster and maintain the health, safety and noticed, and heard by the planning commission. general welfare of the comrr:unity, including and The commissions decision shall be a relating to but not limited to the following: recommendation to the board of supervisors (1) Height limitations on buildings and which shall make the final decision on the final: structures; development plait along with the rezoning (2) Percent coverage of land by buildings and pursuant to Article 84-66,10. (Ord. 79-74). structures; (3) Parking ratios and areas expressed in Article 84-66.14 relation -to use of various portions of the Plan Objectives, Regulations and. Evaluations property and/or building fsocr area: (4) The location, width and improvement of 84"-66,1402 Design objectives. To -achieve vehicular and pedestrian access to various design and aesthetic quality for large-scale portions of the property including portions integrated developments andlor general plan within abutting streets; special arras of concern, the. following design (5) Planting and maintenance of trees, shrubs, objectives shall be met: plants and lawns in accordance with a (1) Building bulk, height, land coverage, landscaping plan: visual appearance from adjacent land, and design (6) Construction of fences, walls and flood- compatibility with existing adjoining lightL-,,g of an approved design; development and land which will remain:, shall (7) limitations upon the size, design, be considered and controlled: number. lighting and location: of signs and (2) A development's design should successfullyadvertising structures; integrate individual buildings and building (8) arrangement and spacing of buildings and groups with the surrounding development, other structures to provide appropriate open spaces physical features in the area, and existing around same• developrnent which will remain; (9) Location and size of off-street loading. ( ) The design of structures should provide areas and decks; for harmonious composition of mass. scale, (140) Uses of buildings and structures by color, and textures, with special emphasis on the- general classification, and by specific designation transition frogs one building type to another, when there are unusual requirements for parking. termination Of groups, tap structures, relationships to streets, exploitation of' views, or when use involves noise, dust, odor. fumes. and integration of spaces and building forints smoke, vibration, glare or radiation incompatible with present or potential development of sur- with the topography at the sate and the urban or roundir:g property: suburban character of the area. 367 Contra Costa County i-88) 84-66.1406--84.66.1802 ING (11) Architectural design of buildings and (6) The development of a haz,nonious, } structures; integrated plan justifies exceptions from the (12) Schedule of time for construction and normal application of this code. (Ord. 79-74: § establishment of the proposed buildings, struc- 84-66.020: prior code § 8166(g): Ord. 1743). tures, or land uses or any stage of development thereof; Article 846.16 (13) Requiring of performance bonds to in- Termination sure development as approved;and (14) Requiring that where any residential 84-66.1602 Procedure. (a) Reversion. P-1 dwelling unit (one-family dwelling or duplex) or district shall become null and void, and the ',and units are approved to be used asa' sales model or use district classification shall revert to the models at least one such unit have a sprinkler immediately preceding zoning, designation if system installed therein meeting the standard either: specked in Chapter 718-6. (Girds. 87-43 § 4, (l) Within eighteen months after the effective 79=4: § 84-66.1404: prior cede § 8166( ): Ord. date of the establishment of the P-1 district 1743). and/or the approval of the preliminary development plan (whichever is sooner), a final 84-66.1406 Evaluations. When -approving development plan is not submitted to the and adopting the rezoning application, the pre- planning commission, or tirninary development pian or the final develop= (2) Within twelve months after the planning went plant, the planning commission and/or commission.°s approval of the final development board of supervisors as the case may be, shall, be plan, the construction specified in the frnai satisfied that: development plan. has not been commenced. (l) The applicant intends to start construc- (b) Time Limit Exception. The tin,e tion within two and one-half years from effective limitation in subsection (a)(I) of this section date of zoning change and plan approval; applies only to the first final development plan (2) The proposed planned unit development of a unit of a phased preliminary development is consistent with the county general plan; plan. it does not apply after approval and j (3) In the case of residential development, it implementation of such first final development will constitute a residential environment of sus- plan. tahied desirabiiity and stability, and will be in (c) Extensions. Upon showings of good cause, harnrtony with the character of the surrounding the 'board of supervisors may ,grant not more neighborhood and cornmurdty; , than five extensions of the time limitations set (4) In the case of the commercial develop- forth in subsection (a), each for no more than ment, it is needed at the proposed location to one year and all extensions totalling five years or provide adequate commercial facilities of the fess. (Ords. 79-74, 76-26 § 4, 76-25 § 4: § 84- type proposed, and that traffic congestion will 66.022: prior code s 8165(1): Ords. 71-17, not likely be created by the proposed center,or 1743). will be obviated by presently projected improve- ments and by demonstrable provisions in the Article 84.66.18 plan for proper entrances and exits. and by int- flan Changes ternal provisions for traffic and parking, and that the development will be an attractive and 84-66.1802 Preliminary development plain:. efficient center which will fit harmoniously into (a) Changes. Changes, in the approved and will have no adverse effects upon the preliminary development plan and its conditions adjacent or surrounding development; of approval, may be approved by the planning (5) In the case;f proposed industrialdevelvp- commission, as with land use permit appLcations meat, it is fully in conformity with the appd- _ except that it is the commission which hears and cable performance standards,and will constitute reviews them. The commission's decision may be an efficient and well, organized development,with appealed to the beard of supervisors in adequate provisions for railroad and/or truck accordance with Article 26-2.:4, otherwise it access service and necessary storage, and that becomes final. i such development will hr:ve no adverse effect (b) Rezonina. When substantial chances in the -upon adjacent or surrounding development; and (Contra Costa County `-88) 368 T MOBILE HOME PARK DISTRI 84-66.1804--84-66.200-" I preliminary development plan involve a reduc- 84-68.404 Camp car. tion of or addition to its land area, then a re- 4-68.406 Lot. zoning application shall be submitted for 4-68.408 Mobile ;some. consideration. (Ord. 79-74, 76-26 § 2, 76-25 . 8.410 Mobile home park. § 2: § 84-66.0.10: prior code § 8l66(c): Ord. 8 X8.412 Travel trailer. 1743). 18.414 Travel trailer park. 84- .416 .Recreational vehicle rk or 84.66.1804 Final development plan. (a) campground. Reveiw, Hearing. The zoning administrator shall 84-6 418 Manufactured hom house. review a Article 8 8.6 Uses approved final development plan applica.- Sections: tions for modification pursuant to and otherwise 84-68. 2 Uses--Perrnitted. regulated by the land use permit provisions of 84-68.6 4 Requiring land e Derr^it. Chapter 26-2, for which he may schedule a Article 84-68. Restrictions public hearing and shall do so if he determines Sections. that a substantia? modification is being re- 84-68.802 Rezoning to -1 district. quested in an approved final development plan. 84-618.804 Use for hum n habitation. (b) Findings. In approving the modification 84-68.806 areta.ker . bile homes. .application, he shall find that it is 'consistent 84-68.808 ingle-fain` y zones. with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district 84-68.810 orage o'mobile homes, and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, tr vel tr ' ers and camp cars. both inside and outside the district. 84-68.812 Lo occ pied as living (c) Conditions. The zoning administrator qua, e may impose reasonable conditions and limita- Article 84-68.10 App1 ion tions to carry out the purpose of the P-1 district Sections: when approving any modification. (Ord. 79-74: 84-68.1002 Requi rnents. 84-66.016: prior code § 8166(1): Card. 1743). Article 84-68.12 Mob` +e ome and'Travel Tra' r rk Standards Article 84-66.20 Sections: Variance Permits 84-68.11201 Par star ards. 84-68.1202 Pa k stand rds--Lot size. 84-66.2002 Granting. (a) Procedure. Vari- 84-58.1''0'4 .0 k stand ds- ,Number of ante permits to modify the provisions curtained v hicles per cre. in Article 84-66.6 may be granted in accordance 84-68.1206 ark standar s--Minimum with Chapters 26-2 and 82-6. ark size. (b) General Plan Consistency. Such variance 84-68.1208ark standard Loc Perm,-. shall not be granted by the planning dimensions.agency hearing the matter unless it finds that 84-668.1210 Park standards Yard the variance is consistent with the general plan. requirements. (Ord. 79-74). 84-68.121 Park standards- rveways. 84-68.121 Park standards-R creational area. Chapter 84-68 84-68.1 6 Park standards-Fe ce. $4-68.1 18 Park standards l a scaping. -I MOBILE HOME/TNIAN ACTURED Article 84-6 .13 Mobile Home Subdi ' ion HOME PARK. U RIOT Standards Sections: (Ord. 74 § 29 S s. 1980„ Chap, 528). 84-68 302 Standards. 84-68 1.304 Minimum subdivision si e. Article 84-685.2 oral 84-6 .13{}6 lots. Sections: 84 6 ,1308 Yards. 84.6 .-,02 Gene ' rovisions. 8 .1310 lieight. Article -68.4 Definition 84 8.1312 Off-street parking. Se ions: 84 8.1314 Pence. 84-•68.402 Generally. 8 8.1316 Subdivision ordinamx, 369 (Cones.Costs Count 5-87 EXHIBIT #4 RELEVANT CORRESPONDENCE AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT HEARINGS CONDUCTED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION To. The Commissioners: of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission 1-2$-03 The following compares specific paragraphs from the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility .Flan (elated 12113100&prepared by Shutt Moen associates). Versus California.Public Utilities Code (From)Contra Costa County-ALUC_Plan: Limitations Also explicit in the statutes are two limitations on the powers of ALUCs. Specifically, ALUCs have no Authority over existing land uses (Section 21674(x)) or over the operation of airports (Section21674 (e)). Neither of these terms is defined within the statutes, although the interpretation of their meaning is fairly standard throughout the state. Y Existing Land Uses —The precise wording of the Aeronautics Act is that the authority of ALUCs extends only to land in the vicinity of airports which is "not already devoted to incompatible uses". The working interpretation of this language is that ALUCs have no state-empowered authority over existing land uses. The question then becomes one of determining what conditions qualify a land use as existing. For airport land use planning purposes, a land use can generally be considered existing once the local agency has completed all discretionary actions on the project and only ministerial approvals remain. A vacant property thus can be considered "devoted to" a particular use, evenif the activity has not begun, once local government commitments along with substantial construction investments by the property owner make it infeasible for the property to be used for anything other than the proposed use. (From) California Public Utilities Code= .11ceres.ca. ovl Tannin l d199g71mis 6.html Airport Land Use Planning (Excerpts from California Public Utilities Code Sections 29670-21679.0 Chapter 4. Airports and Air Navigation Facilities Article 3.5. Airport Land Use Commission 21670. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that. (1) It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. (2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. 21674. The commission has the following powers and duties, subject to the limitations upon its jurisdiction set forth in Section 21676: (a) To assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses. Tavlor Family Response: Shutt Koen Associates whom was hired by CCC Planning Dep, to write the CCC ALUCP has interpreted"not already devoted to incompatible uses"to mean "existing land uses". The Planning Dep. Staffhas then taken this to determine that our property, clue to it's FR zoning, is dedicated or devoted to incompatible uses must be rezoned???? These statements appear to be in conflict. I have contacted the California Dep. of Transportation Division of.Aeronautics for an interpretation of "devoted to incompatible uses"and"existing land uses" Ron Bo' responded with the following From: ion BoIyard@dot . ca. gov (Monday, January 27, 2003; wh-J crl states the fol?owing: Existing Land Uses (p. 1--2 in the Handbook) Perhaps foremost among the statutory limitations on ALUCs is that they have no authority over existing :Land uses regardless of whether such uses are incompatible with airport activities (sections 21670(a) (2) and 21674 (a) ) . ALUCs, for example, cannot acquire property or otherwise farce changes in the way a property is developed or used. We are requesting that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission leave the zoning elf our property(Parcel #x2002-200-013-7) unchanged. If there needs to be a study of FR Property conducted by the County, then all FR zoned property should be reviewed to insure a quality of fairness. My family purchased this property in 1989 for the sole purpose of investment and future resale due to its FR zoning. We objected to the Urban Limit kine change in 1991 in writing to the County and requested that our property be included within the Urban Limit Line. The written response that we received only indicated that our objection was noted. 4t the time the Urban Limit Line change was adopted, our 4th-acre parcel was not separate from the original 202.Fid acres. however, the Urban Limit Line only included a portion of the total 202 acres and not the entire parcel. .Furthermore, in previous Meetings and hearings, the Contra Costa County Planning Department has informed us that we can pull building permits but the property cannot be subdivided for development because it is outside the Urban.Limit Line and is therefore worthless. This perceived "worthlessness"is not true. It is common practice to lease commercial properi,y for development on a long-term contract. Michael.4. Taylor. Rep. ,Richard J. Taylor Paul E. Taylor Richard M. Taylor Robert M Taylor Owners of Parcel 2002-200-013-7 Dougal C. MacDonald Attorney at Law 1032 Justin Way Dixon, CA 96620 voice(925)383-6525 fax(707)678-6575 January 13, 2003 Contra Costa County Planning Commission County Administration Building Martinez, CA 94653 RE: Byron riot Springs Resort December 10, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Hearing re: (1) Proposed General Pian Amendment re ALUC Land Use Compatibility Pian, County File# GP02-0001; (2) County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport nand Use Compatibility Plan, County File RZ#01-3106; and (3) Supplemental Staff Report dated December 4, 2002. Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of East Bay Associates, LLC ("EBA"}, owner of the 160-acre Byron Not Springs ("BHS") property in Byron, I offer the comments set forth below, to supplement my letter and testimony on November 19, 2002 and my letter of December 10, 2002, regarding the above two County-initiated planning actions, and to respond briefly to Staff's January 4, 2003 Supplemental Staff Report ("01/04/03 SSR" or'SSR") captioned above; regarding ESA's application for building permits for the BNS project. The 01/04/03 SSR was made available to the Planning Commission members at or before the continued hearing on December 10, 2002, but was not distributed to the public or to EBA prior to (or even after) the December 101' hearing. Response by Staff to EBA's inquiry as to why the SSR was not made available to the public or to EBA, apparently referred to a "96-hour rule", under which such distribution was not required for new materials issued by Staff within 96 hours of the public hearing. EBA questions the applicability of such a"96-hour rule" in this instance, as the 01/04/03 SSR was dated six days /.e. 144 hours, before the scheduled hearing, EBA also questions why the SSR Contra este County Planning Commission January 13, 2003 County Administration wilding Page 2 has not been transmitted to EBA or to myself since the hearing. We wish to note that lacy of availability of the SSR to EBA precluded its consideration prier to the December- 10' gearing, and precluded informed testimony by EBA representatives at that hearing. My comments to the SSR are as follows, referenced to page numbers of the SSR: SSR, p. S-5. Under Section 11, C, Staff s recommendation appears to support continuation of the General Plan designation of the southwest comer of the BHS property as agricultural, rather than to change it to open space. The Revised Version of Map 5 appears to reflect this recommendation. if this is correct, EBA has no objection SSR, p. S-5. Under 111, A, Staff indicates that the 180-day statutory time limit for bringing the County General Flan into conformance with the ALUCP begins with the date of receipt by the County of the "printed version" of the ALUCP, rather than with the date of adoption of the ALUCP by the Board of Supervisors. If the 180 day time limit were to begin when the "printed version" of the ALUCP was "made available" to the County, the statutory time limit of 180 days would be rendered utterly meaningless, as illustrated in this case where the elapsed time between the adoption of the ALUCP on December 13, 2000 and its "availability" to the County on August 13, 2002, was a full one year and eight months, for whatever reason or reasons. It could as well have been two years or three years, or longer. EBA respectfully questions this proposed interpretation of the statutory requirement. SSR, p. S-6. Under Ill, B. 2., Staff asserts that my November 19, 2002 letter failed to specify how the ALUC Negative Declaration was inadequate. The second paragraph on Page 3 of my November I V' letter states: "in this context, the negative declaration made to support the ALUCP's adoption in 2000, conceals many significant impacts in several important areas. "No Impact" answers to questions in the sections dealing with land use planning, mineral resources, public services, recreation, utility and service systems, as well as the section covering mandatory findings of significance, were highly erroneous and misleading with respect to the current GPA and CIR actions, and impair the integrity of the entire pro- cess." I believe this statement specifies a number of inadequacies of the Negative Declaration as applied to the current County-initiated down-zoning actions, which, I would hope, were not even thought of in the year 2000 at the time of adoption of the ALUCP. With respect to the proposed General Plan amendment, the question of the adequacy of the Negative Declaration would be moot, however, if the County's proposed change to the General Plan designation viz. from an agricultural to open space, has been dropped, as reflected in the Revised Version of Map 5, in so far as it affects the BHS property (the Contra Costa County Planning Commission January 13, 2003 County Administration Building Page 2 southwest corner thereof. 1 request that this letter be made part of the record at the hearing. Sincerely yours, Dougal C. Macdonald cc; East Bay Associates, LLC e. : Unlawful Acts of Planning Staff regarding the Byron airport and the Unlawful Taking of Allowed and Historical Ind Lues at Byron Hot Springs Resort and Golf Course TO: Contra Costa County Planning Commission— 1/14103 Dear Sirs: At the Planning,Commission meeting on December 10P,2002,1 provided the Commissioners with a copy of the Request for Proposals by the PlanningStaff for a study paid for in part by the federal government for a Master Plan update and Business Plan for the Byron Airport.As delineated in my letter accompanying the copies of the RFP, i was originally heartened by hearing that the Planning Staff had finally started the process of business planning for the Byron Airport, because this was something that should have been accomplished in 1986, as delineated in:the 2000 Grand Jury Report Regarding Neglect of the Byron Airport. i was shocked by the results of my investigation of what Staff has accomplished, however.Once again,it appears that Staff has flagrantly broken the lav in pursuit of their hidden agenda for Fast Contra Costa County without public notice,and in flagrant disregard for the commissions they are charged with serving,including the ALUC and the Planning Commission. in this situation,the Planning Staff has not just broken State law.This time they have broken Federal law,by defrauding the federal government in asking there to provide funds for the study for their proposed Master Plan'Update without taking the necessary steps of receiving the informed consent sof the concessions they are supposed to serve,including public notice of the Staff actions,and their agenda. As stated in my December letter, Staff's Request for Proposals for a Master Acte Update and Development of to Business Flan for the Byron Airport, lists only one passible use for the Byron Airport,and that was as an Air Cargo Facility. The first full paragraph on page 2 of that RFP reads as follows: "Early in the study,the Consultant will perform an initial feasibility analysis in the following order: Part 1. Feasibility of Byron Airport as a potential air cargo facility including: 1. Preliminary air cargo demand analysis for design 2. Preliminary environmental constraints 3. Preliminary facility,infrastructure,utilities,and operational lay-out within constraints. Part 11 Feasibility of Byron airport other than an air cargo facility..." No other possible uses for the Byron Airport were suggested in Staff's IFP.And this is for what Staff Is caflfng a Nbster Pan Update,not just a Business Plan.The Byron Airport is miles from the nearest freeway, so creating an air cargo facility there would require Contra Costa County to commit millions of dollars to road improvements,while AlMore Asxnriatps 7674 Pipavant H=ill Pewd Plpava t Hill. r A 94.17.3 (925) 937-09.57 1 Providing little in the way of economic benefits to East Contra Costa County.As it clearly is not in the economic best interest of Contra.Costa County to pursue the Staff agenda,one can only hope that the individual staff members have received bribes for their actions that are large enough to justify their violating their duties in this way.At least then someone in the county would be benefiting from their fraud. I went to the scheduled December 11 meeting of the ALUC to talk to the Commissioners about the Planning Staffs illegal actions in the name of the ALUC.But the scheduled meeting was never held. Staff had candled the meeting without notice,after allowing so many vacancies to build yap on the ALUC that it no longer has a quorum,and, therefor cannot legally meet. Allowing the lapse of the ALUC is a continuation of the acts and omissions for which the Grand Jury investigated the Planning Staff in 2000,and constitutes yet another gross derelicti The 1986 East Contra Costa County Airport Master Plan Report states that the Byron Airport was initially created"to relieve the aircraft parking and operational pressures on busy Buchanan field in Concord."The report goes on to state"The rale has shifted from one of reliever for Buchanan Field to one of service to local users.The rapid population growth of East County over the last few years,along with projections for tremendous future growth, is the primary reason for this shift., Drake lied to me,and this is not the first time. Evidence indicates that Drake's lies have been made to cover illegal acts taken by the Planning Staff to advance what appears to be a conspiracy by members of the Planning Staff to discriminate against the owners of property in East County in order to further their private agenda to farce Contra Costa County and the Federal Government to bear the costs of dedicating the Byron Airport to Air Cargo eases for the benefit of air freight corporations which otherwise have no tie to Contra Costa County.The acts and omissions by Staff have been to the detriment of the cities of Contra Costa County and to the numerous potential visitors from around the world that would otherwise be flocking to the historic recreational facilities which Staff has prevented the owner of Byron Hot Springs Resort from renovating on his property for the past 12 years.These acts and omissions by Staff have also been to the detriment of the vintners and other farmers whose land uses are otherwise withering on the vine because of the neglect by the Planning Staff, as well as to the State of California,the purchaser of the new Cowell State Park originally purchased by the`"rust for Public Land for public use;and offer recreational atm of East County who a„ould stimulate the local economy and provide the needed income for the operation of the Byron Airport and for the construction of the transit system being proposed for East County. At the request of Planning Commissioner Richard Clark, I am referring the problem of the dishonest Staff to the District Attorney.I am also submitting this information to the Grand Jury, so they can re-open their investigation into the acts and omissions of the County Planning Staff regarding East Contra Costa County began with their investigation of the neglect of the Byron Airport in 2000. In the meantime,I ask that the Zoning Administrator,Dennis Berry,be given the opportunity to resign. If Mr. Berry does not resign.immediately,I ask that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors that Mr.Berry be relieved of his position of Trust with Contra Costa County pending a complete investigation of his acts and omissions,with full Prosecution for the laws that appear to have been broken. I further recommend that Staffpersons Bob Drake and pat Roach also be afforded that same curtsey of being Mowed to resign,and if they do not,they too should be placed on administrative leave without pay while they face full prosecution for their illegal acts, as can be ascertained by a complete investigation by the District Attorney. As a further step to protect the interests of Contra Costa County,I ask that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that TRANSPLAN act as the ALUC A lMprp Axxnriates 1674 P',p xvatnt Hitt 3?nad. Plo :vent T-UL CA :52.3 f97-5)9.37-M-57 until a legally constituted body can be created which is free of the undue influence of Berry or his lackeys in the Planning Staff.TRANSPLAN was created to deal with Transportation issues,and consists of members of the Board of Supervisors as well as Planning Commissioners and City Council members from East County. The County Staff contact for TRANSPLAN is John Gretzer. I fuer request the following: 1. That the Staff for the ALUC be permanently separated from the regular Planning Staff so the roles of the ALUC and the Planning Commission can each be respected without the conflicts of interest which the Planning Staff has demonstrated it can't handle. 2. That until an interim Zoning Administrator is appointed,that the Pluming Department take direction from the wilding Department. 3. That the Zoning Department be directed to issue a stop-work order to the consultant they hired illegally to justify the conversion of the Byron Airport to become an Air Cargo facility.The stop work order should continue pending the investigation,properly noticed hearings,and proper direction of this or another consultant regarding the true interests of Vitra Costa County as delineated by the 1986 East Contra Com County Airport Master Plan Report and the AlL` C Land Use Compatibility Study,both of which delineate the Byron Airport as needed to relieve the overcrowding of Buchanan Field and to serve the expanding population of Fast County.As a result of the errors and omissions of Staff,Buchanan Field has been forced to subsidize Byron Airport by approximately one million dollars.But this problem can be alleviated by a legal planning process.Any mention of Air Cargo in the consultant's report will be taken as evidence of the furtherance of Stafs previously secret agenda which they have advanced by illegal means. 4. That the Planning Commission reject Staff's agenda,including by rejecting Staff's recommendation to down-zone Byron Hot Springs without cause,in violation of the Contra Costa County General Flan. 5. That the Planning Commission order the Building Department to immediately issue the Building Permits which Dave fowler applied for regarding Byron Hot Springs 12 years ago, and which continue to be withheld,in gross violation:of the Peru Streamlining Act of the State of California,which states that the permits be deemed'issued if the County withholds their issuance by more than.30 days. The above action was wan-anted based upon the Grand Jany Findings in 2000 alone. Such aeon is certainly warranted in light of the additional facts that have come to lights since the Grand Jury was reconstituted this year. All or,-Assnriate-s 1674 Pleavwa Hill Tc'rowl ftpavant Hill. CA 04573 N2-5)9.37-0 9.57 4 T'he most important way that Staff's RFP for their fir Cargo facility misrepresented the interests of the County,is that it does not ask for an analysis of the damage that an Air Cargos facility will have to the future recreational uses of East County.Restoration of the Byron Hot Springs Resort under its current Ft zoning is absolutely in keeping with these recreational uses,and both the recreational and executive business uses of the Byron Airport are as well.Indeed,the executive business and recreational uses of the Byron Airport is where the true economic best interestsof Bast County he,despite the deceitful acts and omissions of the Planning Staff,including their bizarre failure to provide the Byrom Airport with an exit from the;newly configured Vasco Road. The Byron Springs Calf Course and pristine agricultural uses of the area are absolutely compatible with the Regional Parry plan;as is the;burrowing owl habitat created by the owner of Byron Springs as a buffer between the airport and the.historic Byron Springs Golf Course; as is the Historic Byron Springs Golf Course itself.The F.zoning allows for all of this,contrary to the deceitful claims of Staff'made in a now transparent attempt to further their private agenda at the expense of the citizens of Contra Cost County. I have personally heard Staff members make boldfaced lies to the]East County Planning Commission.Some of these lies are repeated in their Staff report regarding the essential part of their agenda.,the taking of the economic uses of the Historic Byron Hot Springs Resort and Golf Course by an unwarranted ming action of the Planning Commission rather than what would be calculated as a cost to the County of forcing an air cargo facility onto East County residents at the Byron airport, The County Master Plan clearly calls for properties zoned FR(such as Byron Springs) to be shifted to a zoning designation that has not yet been mated,called Coninweial Recreation..'.Thus, Staff's prowl to down-zone Byron Hot Springs to A-3 is,in itself, illegal,The Planning SWf must be:told immediately that they are not above the law,but were instead hired to serve it, and the citizens of Conte Costa County,acting under rights guaranteed to thein by the 5b and 14h Amendments to the United States Constitution for fair and equal treatment,free of the unlawful tag of their Property without due compensation as they pursue their constitutionally guamateed rights to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness as they,not selfish members of the Planning Staff",define it. It is now the responsibility of the Planning Commission to act to protect the interests of the citizens of Contra Costa County.I humbly submit that the actions I have recommended are the least the Planning Commission must do under to meet its responsibility. you fear yorar it ediate at atiara to this matter. Peter Clark cc Contra Costa.Times,Office of County Counsel,Office of District Attorney AlMoro Avvnriatex 1674 Noavaw M11 Ruaava-rpt Bill. rA 94573 N2_5i 9.37-0957 Contra Costa County H'I 'S LAND ALLIANCE e �.�� , k>< , alga � ��i��`� Past Office fox 553 Byron, CA g41 �g� 3 5� ' prCsid,g lt7'nsstk P".1,111 Yice 6I'loidcnt Alike Viskef h'Secretary Imes A.07doerMrtmourzr Ali. M D 32 Dt r.ctbrs Mike Am&asino,Toss Briiruleve,Tisa Baerlhhi,Bos ch opsssisss,Enrirr3 0111 tisni,gob Dal Parrs, Etagerad Harrison,Bob Pdgelikapp,7"ossy Sown,Clomia Y#ttgo r11lkt ��11 ��V'-i , ,P',,� fi,p.f January 14,2003 TO Contra Costa County Planning Commission RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT(County File#GP02-0001)and COUNTY INITIATED REZONING FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE ALLIC PLAN(County File#RZU1y3105) Deas Chairman Wong, Please read the following'lntao the record. The Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alliance considered the General Plan Amendment and RezonInjrefs ronced above at our Board meeting In December, The downzonings and General Plans language changes presented to you for your consideration tonight are the harshest Interpretation of the language in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. If they are Implemented, they will represent a regulatory taking against the underlying property owners for the benefit of the public. The united states Constitution allows for such a taking for the benefit of the public, if the property owners are fairly compensated. There is no such proposal for compensation in the staff reports before you. The Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alilance is therefore in opposition to the General Plast changes arra#reasonings suggested In these two items. Prank Pereira,President / a Contra Costa County Citizens Land Alliance 4 � �A g ry Dougal D. MacDonald Attorney at Law ' 1032 Justin Way Dixon, CA 95620 voice(925)383-5525 fax(747)678-5575 Tuesday, December 10, 2002 Contra Costa County Planning Commission County Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Byron Hot Springs Resort December 10, 2002 at 7.00 p.m. Planning Commission Hearing re: (1) Proposed General Plan Amendment re ALUC Land Use Compatibility Plan, County File # GP#02-0001; (2) County initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, County File RZ#01-3105; and ( ) Letter of Mr. Robert H. Drake, Principal Planner, dated December 2, 2002, captioned "Response Request for Planning/Zoning Law Clearance of Proposed Building Inspection Department Permits for Proposed Reno- vation & Site Plan, Byron Hot Springs (dated September 2002)". On behalf of Fast Bay Associates, LLC ("EBA"), owner of the 160-acre Byron Hot Springs ("BHS") property in Byron, i offer comments and documentation set forth below, to supplement my letter and testimony to the Commission on November 19, 2002 regarding the above two County-initiated planning actions, and to respond to Staffs December 2, 2002 letter ("12/02/02 letter"), captioned above regarding FBA's applica- tion for building permits for the BHS project. 1. Response To Staff's 12/02/02 Letter. Staff's 12/02/02 letter responds to submittals made by EBA in further processing of its pending applications for building permits for the several segments of the Byron Hot Springs Resort restoration project. The response contained in the 12/02/02 letter is inappropriate and improper in that it proceeds on the assumption that EBA's "submittals of November 14 and 22, 2002" constitute a new application for building permits. This is made evident by the letter's following statements: Contra Costa County Planning Commission December 10, 2002 County Administration Building Page 2 Martinez, CA 34553 (a) "used on our review of the materials, staff has determined that it is not suitable to clear the requested permits". (p.2, fl) (b) "Exhibit A identifies addtional information and procedures that would be necessary before the department could consider clearance of the requested permits based on ordinance and other legal requirements. Please provide that information." (p.3, to (c) "in addition to that information, staff has also identified in Exhibit B other agencies that may have documentation and procedures that this project may need to satisfy prior to com- mencement of development activity...." (p.3, 0 (d) "Pursuant to the adopted fee schedule (Compliance Check for Issuance of a Building Permit, Code S-060C), any subsequent submittal of this matter for building permit clearance will be subject to a fee charge for staff time and materials. Further, pursuant to the fee schedule, the applicant is to submit an initial deposit for this purpose." (p.3, m) (e) "`Che General Plan designates this site Agricultural Lands. As you are aware, at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, staff is proposing amendments to the general plan and zoning that would apply to this site, File #GP020001 &#RZ013105.... Should the Board of Supervisors ultimately adopt the pro- posed A-3 rezoning of this site, and were that zoning to subse- quently to take effect, any proposed development would be subject of he regulations of the new district." (p4, to None of these statements are applicable or appropriate to applications pending at the time of initiation of the two County-initiated actions. These statements would only be properly applicable to applications initiated after commencement of the two county planning actions. No reference whatsoever is made in Staff's 12/02/02 letter to any pending application or applications, which is entirely consistent with Staff's statement in its staff report for the November 13, 2002 hearing of RZ#01-31 tis: "While there has been much talk, no applications have been submitted." (p. 7, t). Documentation is provided below establishing the incorrectness of this statement, Staff's awareness of its incorrectness, and the invalidity of 12/02/02 Letter's entire premise. Contra Costa County Planning Commission December 10, 2002 County Administration Building Page 3 Martinez, CA 94553 In addition to the above reason; the matters raised on Page 2 of the 121032/032 letter viz. "discrepancies" between two submitted plans, etc., are of no importance or relevance as Staff acknowledges in at least two places EBA's statement that the "Master Plan" was not part of the submittal for building permits. (The fact is that it was only submitted at the request of Staff, because of the historical depictions and illustrations it con- tained). 2. Documentation of Applications Pending Since December, 1990. The following documentation is submitted as some of the documentation existing in CDD°s files and in FBA's files that establishes the fact that applications for building permits on the various elements of the restoration project were filed in December of 1990, have never been terminated, and have been dealt with and acted upon by Staff during the intervening period right up to the present time. The documents submitted are as follows: (a) Memorandum from Bob Drake to Donna Allen dated 12/17/90, stating that the Airport Land'Use Commission has conditionally approved [the project], and that it is currently under review by the Zoning Administrator; and also indicating "no objection to the assignment of building permit numbers on condition that no build- ing permits are issued until I have verified that all ALUG conditions have been satisfied, and that any ZA conditions to be imposed have been satisfied". (b) Computer records of "BI" [Building & Inspections] dated 12/20/90, for grading/building permits for "Irrigation for Golf Course", Hotel Restoration, and 200 Villas, showing "Permit Is- sued: 12/2O/90", showing "Approved: DEA" [Donna Allen], showing "0:3wner: Fowler David T & Susan M", showing "Motif: 741 Shady Glen, Martinez, CA 94553", and the Assessor's Parcel Numbers of the BNS property. (c) Agenda of Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator dated December 2, 1991, showing the application for the BHS project as "Continue indefinitely" per RHD [Bob Drake]. (d) Permit Issued by Building Inspection Department dated 11117/- 99 for "Grading for Golf Course". Contra Costa County Planning Commission December 10, 2002 County Administration Building Page 4 Martinez, CA 94553 (e) Memo from Bob Drake of CDD to ALUC dated February 4, 2000, discussing "Previous Commission Review of Project at Byron Hot Springs Bite", and attaching the Getter from Airport Land Use Commission to Bob Drake, reporting the 5-to-0 finding of compat- ibility by the ALUC, on conditions stated. Attached',as Figure IV is the BHS proposed project plan. Although a four-year time limit was placed on this finding, neither the BHS plan nor the airport plan has changed. (€) Letter of East Bay Associates, LLC dated May 14, 2002, respon- ding to paints made in Supervisor's May 8, 20012 letter, as provided by Staff. This letter indicates ongoing awareness by Staff and resistance to efforts by EBA to proceed with the BHS restoration project. (g) Letter of Donna Gerber, District Supervisor, dated 8 May 2402, incorporating written response furnished by CDD to requests for review made by BHS. (h) Letter by Patrick Roche of CDD to Mike Quirk of Redwood Associates dated March 14, 2042, confirming their meeting and transmitting information on the ECCC Habitat Conservation Plan, which has not been adapted. Shortly after this meeting and infor- mation, 1ltllr. Quirk informed EBA that his group had no further interest in the BHS project. (i) `transcript [partial] of Meeting of East County Planning Comm- ission on November 7, 2002, re County-initiatedPlanning Actions, containing incorrect statements by Staff regarding permit applications by EBA and suitability of A-3 zoning for BHS restora- tion as proposed. (j) Summary of Commissioner Recommendations/Comments To the Planning Commission Regarding the Byron Airport, dated °1117/02 (Special Study Session of the ALUC Compatibility Plan), indicating East Bay Commission's recommendation that the F-R zoning be retained for another sic months to allow the owners of the Byron Hot Springs site to secure neessary permits to pursue the development concept that was before the Zoning Administrator in 1991 (golf course, 200 golf villas, and rehabilitation of ho- Contra Costa County Planning Commission December 10, 2002 County Administration Building Page 5 Martinez, CA 04553 tel/spa), but to rezone to A-3 after six months. 3. Summary. In summary, BHS has demonstrated; (a) Applications for the restoration of the Byron Hot Springs Resort were filed in 1990, and have been pending ever since. (b) Staff has demonstrated no necessity whatsoever for clown-zoning the BHS property to A-3 from F-R. The applicant has never requested any use of the BHS property which would conflict with the ALUCP or which differs in any way from the 1990 plan which the ALUC unanimously found compatible. Although the Applicant, in meetings with Staff, has requested Staff to consider a transfer.of density to move development farther away from the airport, Staff has indicated that the County has never implemented these provi- sions of the County's ordinance. Neither has Staff proposed a recorded development agreement with the Applicant under which development of the BHS property would be restricted to uses as proposed in the 19901 plan, and "any "conflicting" use would be prohibited, which would give complete protection against any incompatible use. And even the simple requirement that any development approval condition} on a finding of "compatibility„ by the ALUC, one of the options cited in the Staff Report, would prevent any future "incompatible" development of the BHS prop- erty. There is no necessity whatsoever to rezone the entire BHS property to A-3, when only a small portion lies within the -1 compatibility zone. Any of these other measures would give abun- dant protection to any "compatibility" issue— which is never defined by Staff—without unfairness to the Applicant. 4,eqhat this letter 4madeof the record at the hearing. our , ac a d cc: East Ba Associa SUBJECT ff 4 — �✓ 5 . __`�� e' L 2�.c.+u a t4 S c�3 4dl Y - i ell-' i 4 r far &A 1 1 r�Y 3: W,4,*, Q � F " " e" eA- SIGI dE PLEASE REPLY HERE TO —DATE i ` Sal 1,�'✓��..�:�...�`..�.��.-t"'"-."G+"''r'`%:s',, � � ....k-...1�� Y "+.r'��.t � elf i s . SIGNt9D- MSTAtl CTI W45•ftt#.9N TOP P$)RT#ON,AtUOVS OUPPACATA(YtLLOVvl AMO POitWAAD$k6m Ati f.G►ART'i WITH CARDON3..TO AMY. t ffLL SN towrR ftL"'!t'TIO'4 ANO SNAP OUT GAlteotm fk$.TAtN YRiPLSCATi(omfo ANo RHTURN opua NAL. ' i Grit Y i 2 ) LEFc844' , I3I PRCI��ERTY CMARAClt.RxSTICS UPDATE PROCEED WITH IUPDATE., PERMIT: CC DI E AN 5275 PARCEL: 002 200 015 2 TRACT: LOT: CITY: SAN DIST: PERMIT ISSUED: 12 ;::0 Dt SITE: SYRON HOT SPRINGS RD OWNR. -FOWLER DAVID T &'SUSAN M NOTE: 741. SHADY GLEN 945" MARTINEZ CA a� ******************* .GRAD PMT: AREA SYRON TRA: 60014 OVERRIDE TRA: 60 014 ZONE: F--R C. T. 3040. TRACT LETT LUQ=# ^T. : BYRON HOT SPRINGS LOOP CROSS ST: BYRON HOT SPRINGS RD AX HT: 01."` STORIES: 4 MIN SETBACK: 251 MIN 'SIDEYARD: 151 AGG MIN: TOTAL 351 REAR YARD: 151 HAZARDOUS MAT/AIR U. C. : SCHOOL DIST: *TBYRON- EL.EM DRAINAGE EEE: FIRE DIST: DY RON E=IRE SEISMIC ZN: PARK DED: FLOOD ZN: AREA QF BENEFITS: NOTIF 741 SHADY GLEN MARTINEZ CA 94553 IRRIGATION FOR GOLF COURSE STATUS; APPROVED: DEA (AS QF: 12 20 90 OVR: 3 DATE: 12 20 121:0/90 °` : F LEF2a44 BI PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS UPDATE PROCEED WITH UPDATE. . . PERMIT: CC BI CA AN53274 PARC CEL: t 0'2�' 200 014 5 TRACT: LOT-. CITY: SAN DIST: PERMIT ISSUED: 12 20 90 SITE: BYRON NOT SPRINGS RE) BYROt OWNR: FOWLER DAVID. T & SUSAN M NOTF: 741 SHADY GLEN 9400; MARTINEZ CA AREA BYRON TRA: 60014 OVERRIDE TRA: 60 014 ZONE: F--R C. T. : 3040. c-)O TRACT LOT LUP#: ST. . BYRON HOT SPR I�'GS LOOP CROSS S T: BYRON HOT SPRINGS RD X NT: 501 STORIES: 4 MIN SETBACK: 251 MIN SIDEYARD: 151 AGG MIN: TOTAL 35; REAR YARD: 151 HAZARDOUS MAT/AIR O. C. : N SCHOOL. DIST: *BYRON ELEM DRAINAGE FEE: EIRE DIST: BYRON EIRE SEISMIC ZN: PARK DEB: FLOOD ZN: AREA OF BENEFITS: NOTIE 741 SHADY GLENN MARTINEZ CA 9455-3 HOTEL RESTORATION STATUS% APPROVED: DEA €FTS OF; 12 ECS 90 OV R: ) BATE: 12 20 90 12/20/90 T LEF 844 , BI PROPERTY CHARACTERI TICS UPDATE PTRESS: PF FOR `ASSF.SO ' TRACT LEST PERMIT: ,CC BI' R ' AN 3214 PARCEL: 002 200 014 5 TRACT: NONE LOT: 14 CITY: SAN DIST: PERMIT ISSUED: 12 20 SITE: BYRON HOT SPRINGS RD BY OWNR: FOWLER .DAV I D T & SUSAN M. NQTF: 741 SHADY GLEN 94 MARTINEZ CA a GRAB PMT: a AREA BYRON TRA: 60014 OVERRIDE TRA: 60 014 ZONE: F—R C. Td : 3040. TRACT NONE LOT 141 LUP#: ST, : . 141. BYRON .HDT ;}WRINGS LOOP CROSS ST; BRYGN HOT SPRINGS RD "AX HT: 501 STORIES: 4 MIN SETBACK: 25' MIN SIDEYARD: 15' .GG MIN: TOTAL 351 REAR YARD: 151 HAZARDOUS MAT/AIR O. C, SCHOOL .DIST: *BYRON ELEM DRAINAGE FEE: FIRE DIST: BYRON FIRE SEISMIC ZN: PARS: DED: �^,r', ,�!} FLOOD ZN: AREA OF BENEFITS NUT IF"741 SHADY GLEN MARTINEZ CA 94'J53 FINAL' BUILDING PLAN::3 TO BE CLEANED BY Re DRAKE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE{COF BUI LDING PERMITS STATUS: APPROVED: DEA {AS OF: 12 Eta 90 GVR: 3 DATE: 12 20 9 12/20/90 F F Contra Costa County Community Developmetit Department Park Land Dedication Form P D. No. 203 --- r NAME -- 27 '��----� ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER . C'iC t 14 ENSUS TRACT N . 't AMOUNT OF FEE TO BE COLLECTED— TYPE OLLECTETJ TYPE OF STRUCTURE: Single !"airily !Multiple Farni!yo Subdivision No. DISTRICT 11 SERVICE AREA ,OTHER) QAT1= l" .. REVIEWED BY— BUILDING DEPT. RECEIPT NO. PUBLIC WORKS RECEIPT NO. y Y LEF28741 PROTECT LIST INQUIRY DOCUMENT CODE: R .,.IST STATUS: PR ,gVALID LIST STATUS � e ,.AGENCY CC DEPT 8I LIST NBR: LM 90,5, I TRACT: NONE DESC: 'PARCE,L: 002 200 015 . RET I RED CONTRACTOR E PL: M CREATED 12 20 90 �A LOT APPLIC NBR MPR CR A LOT APPLIC NSR MPR CFS 1 AN5307 1 16 AN5 3086 2 ANS3072 17 AN53087 .3; AN53073 18 AN53088 4 AN53074 19 AN53089 AN53075 20 AN 3090 6 AN53076 21 AN 53091 7 AN53077 22 AN 3092 8 AN5 3078 CD3 AN5 3093 9 AN 53079 24 AN 53094 10 AN53080 25 AN53095 11 AN 53081 26 AN 3096 12 AN53082 27 A`.N53097 13 AN.53083 :,8 AN53098 14 AN53084 2:9 AN53099 15 AN53085 30 AN53100 APPROVED: DEA PAY ALL: 12/2-0/90 PACE; 1 OF a ITEMS: 140 DA FE '12 90 s LEF2874I PROJECT LIST INQUIRY D(l(:UMEM i' CODE. R M_I f, f" STATUS - 4:'R �iNVALI# LIS STATUS . AGENCY . CC . .DEPT BI LIST NBR: LM5905 TRACT NONE DESCw 'PARCEL:- 002 200 015 ' RETIRED CONTRACTOR �•�••��••��•��•�•�""-��t�-�-�•��•�••�a�•��•��•�at•��-�•��•��•��"�a�•�a��•�€•��-�•��t�t"•��•�•��•�•mat•��••��t-�-�"°�-�-•�-��€-a�x �-K�x E PL-. M CREATED 12 20 90 A LOT APPL.IC NBR MPR CR A LOT APPLIC NBR MPR Y 31 AN 53101 48 AN 53116 32 AN 53,102 47 AN53117 ,..3 AN53103o 48 AN 53118 34 AN53104 49 AN53119 — 35 AN 5310; 50 AN53120 36 AN53106 51 AN153121 37 A N 53107 52 AN53122 _ 38 AN53108 53 AN5 3123s 39 AN 531 U9 54 AN 53124 40 AN53110 55 AN 53125 41 AN 3111 5 AN331226 4E AN 53112 57 AN5.3127 43 AN531 13 58 AN 53128 44 AN53114 59 AIN 53129 — 45 AN531 15 SCS AM 53130 APPROVED: DEA '"'AY ALL 12/20/90 PAGE, E OF 5 FE"Mtw): 140 D()rE 12 20 1`7e i 1 LEF28741 PROJECT LIST INQUIRY DOCUMENT CODE: R LIST STATUS. PR 4VALID LIST STATUS kGENCY CC DEPT BI LIST NBR. LM5905 TRACT: NONE BESC. ARCEL: 002 200 015 L RETPED RED CONTRACTOR E PL. M CREATED 12 20 90 LETT APPLIC NBR MPR CR A LETT APPLIC NBR MPR 61 AN 53131 76 AN3146 62 AN53132 77 AN53147 63 AN53133 78 AN53148 64 AN53134 79 AN53149 65 AN53135 80 AN53150 66 AN 531;6 81 AN53151 67 AN53137 8� AN 531 s2 68 AN53138 83 AN53153 69 AN53139 84 AN53154 70 AN53140 85 AN53155 71 AN53141 86 AN53156 7E AN53142 87 AN53157 73 AN5.3143 88 AN5,13158 74 AN53144 89 AN53159 75 AN553145 90 AN53160 APPROVED.: IAEA POY ALL ta/20/90 PACE: 3 OF 5 ITEMS: 140 SJR f Ew' 12" 20 °>0 a LEF2874.1. PROJECT LIST INQUIRY DOCUMENT CODE: R LIST STATUS: PTT NYALID LIST STATUS AGENCY CC DEPT BI . LIST NBR: LM5903 TRACT: NONE DESC: PARCEL.: 002 200 015 2 RETIRED CONTRACTOR E PL: M CREATED 12 20 90 A 'LOT APPL..TC NBR . MPR GR A LOT APPLIC NBP. MPRCR 91 AN53161 106 AN53176 92 AN53162 107 AN 53177 93 AN5316 3 1438 AN53£78 94 AN53164 109 AN53179 9 5 AN53 t65 110 AN 53180 96 AN53166 111 AN53181 97 AN x3167 112 AN 53182 98 AN53168 113 AN53183 99 AN53169 114 AN53184 100 AN53170 115 AN 3185 101 . AN53171 116 AN53186 102 AN53172 117 AN53187 1033 AI t 53173 Ila AN53188 1t3 AN53174 119 RN53189 105' : AN53175 120 AN5319O APPROVED: DEA PAY ALL: 1 '/241903 PAGE: 4 OF 5 ITEMS: 140 DATE 12 20 `30 s L.E€ 2374 I . PROJECTL IST INQUIRY DOCUMENT CODE: R LIST STATUS. PR INVALID LIST STATUS AGENCY CC DEPT B I ` ' L.I sT". NBR 9 LM594:15 TRACT: NONE DEEC PARCEL., 002 200 015 2 RETIRED CONTRACTOR 'E pL . M CREATED 1E 20 90 A LOT" APPLIC NBR MGR CR A LOT APPL.IC NBR MPR CR 121 AN53191 136 ANS3E46 12AN5 319E 137 AN53207 123 A7'653193 138 AN5320e 124 AN53194 139 AN53209 1125 AN5.3195 140 AN53210 136 AN5.3196 137 AN53197 128 AN53198 tat) AN53199 1.30 AN53200 131 AN53201 13` ANS3L 133 , AN53203 134 AN5.3204 135 AN53205 APPROVED: DEA PAY AL.L. 12!20/90 PAGE: 5 OF a' ITEMS: 140 BATE 13 20 90 z 4 LEF28741 PROJECT LIST. INQUIRY DOCUMENT CODE. R LIST STATUS. PR tNVALIB LIST STATUS AGENCY CC ' DEPT Bl - LIST NBR; LM5907 TRACT. NONE DESC. PARCEL: 002 200 014, 5 RET I RED CONTRACTOR E PL. M CREATED 12 20 90 UA LOT APPLIC NBR MPR CR A LOT APPLIC NBR MPR CF 141 AN53214 156 AN53229 142 AN53215 157 AN53230 143 AN53216 158 AN53231 144 AN53217 159 AN53232 145 AN53218 160 AN53233 146 AN53219 161 AN53234 147 AN 53220 162 AN53235 148 AN 3221 163 AN532,;6 149 AN53222 164 AN53237 150 AN53223 165 AN53238 151 AN532 24 166 AN3239 152 AN53225 167 AN53240 - 153 AN53226 168 AN 53241 154 AN53227 169 AN53242 155 AN53228 170 AN53243 APPROVED: BEA PAY ALL: 12/20/90 PACE. 1 OF 2 ITEMS. 60 BATE 12 20 90 i CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING AOMMISTRATOR DECEMBER 2, 1991 ROOM 107 • McBRIEN ADMINISTRATION BUiLOING PINE AND ESCOBAR STREETS, MARTINEZ °••13:30A.€>Ii.... Fleming,, Drennan, h=aft. - Lysons of Pub.Wks.Dept. NOTICE, The Zoning Administrator may alter the order of agenda items at the meeting. Environmental Impact Reports have been prepared for each of the agenda items indicated by an asterisk{°), REVOCKTION CONTINUED NEAMNG: LANDS USE PERMIT 1, ROBERT A. JONES (Applicant & Owner), County Fila #2614-81 and Zoning investigation #90-42, This is a County CONTINUE to initiated hearing to consider whether cause exist to revoke land Use Permit#2014.81,a permit approved on June 24, '11/06/92 Mtg. 1981 to amend a land use permit by adding parking and service facilities on adjoining property zoned Duplex District (L5-1). Terms,limitations, and conditions of the approved land use permit have riot be`e'l!`rrset or crsrnplied with by the use permits applicant and land owner, Robert A. Jones. Subject property is described as follows: #'2425 Pacheco Blvd., Martinez. Descriptive properties fronting on the northwest corner of Pacheco Blvd. and Shall Avenue,in the Martinez area, (R_g&0-1) (ZA:F12) (CT 3190) (Parcel #378.092-009 &0101 (Continued from 1114151) JH BUILDING PERMITS.CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 2. PRO OS G) BYRON HO SPRINGS HOTEL AND GOLF OURS : A public hearing regarding a request for issuance of CONTINUE i ntie-1— building permits to allow the rehabilitation of a former hotel and construction of a golf course and 200 golf villas. The ini f s subiect property consists of 130 acres at #5400 Byron Not Springs Road (ska.Hope Way) in the Byron area, approximately one-quarter mile north of the East County Airport. Icnnt;n"A'd {rl rm 10/7,01) ruit3 LANG USE PERMIT:CONTINUED PUBLIC;HEAPING ,,. MARK&ELIN SRF,PATTON ON(Applicants&Owners),County File#2105-90: The applicant requests approval to establish APPROVE with a temporary family member mobilehome. Subject property is located at 4260 Morello Avenue, in the Martinez area. Btt con-dit ions. (A-1) (ZA:G-12) (CT 3200.02) (Parcei #161-301-027)(Continued from 11/4/91)biz 4. ROCS HAMILTON(Applicant)- ANTIOCH CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE(Owner),County File$2106-90: The applicant "GNT I NU E to requests approval of a land use permit to allow a church with a variance to have 30 percent"compact parking spaces% 111136192 Mtg. Subject property is lot #8,Track 5411, and addressed #2400 Jeffery Way, in the Antioch*fee .which is south from. Lone Tree Way, (A-2) (ZA:K•24) (CT 3032.00) (Parcel #054-292-005) (Continued from 1114{51)QiD 5. GARY MOHR (Applicant)- CALIFORNIA ERECTORS (Owner),County File#2012-91: The applicant requests approval WPROVE W i t r,; to re-new expired Land Use Permit#2130-83 for an auto dismantling yard,auto parts and auto storage with a variance -evi SOLS COnd i t e for an a foot fence(6 feet permitted). Subject property is a descriptive parcel located at 01500 Willow Pass Road,in the West Pittsburg area. FC) (ZA:E-181, (CT 3141.00) (Parcel#095-092-012)go 6. JOHN T"YNAN (Applicant & Owner), County File #203291: The applicant requests approval to establish a dry boat 'ONT I NsU E to storage facility and caretaker mobilshome. The subject property is located at#6930 Piper Road,immediately north of /06/91 Mtg. Sugar Barge Road, in the Bothe! Island area. (A•2) (ZA:E-28) (CT 3010.00) (Parcel #030-100-006) (Continued from f#119/91)LSD 7. CHRISTIAN A.LAURITZEN (A'pp licant& towner), County File 120335-91: The applicant requests approval to expand ONTINUE to a legal non conforming harbor by adding two 8 foot by 20 foot berths and three (3)docks, with docking facilities for 120/92 Mtg. 24 boats. Subject property fronts approximataiy 600 feet on the south side of the San Joaquin River, approximately 500 feat east of Bridgehead Road,in the Oaklay arae. (C)(ZA:F-24)(CT 3020.00)(Parcel#037-010-004)(Continued from 1017191)go THE PER THIS FORMB£CGbt€S THEPKRMIF WHEN APAftQuErJ $i31i.1?li1G kidSPBCTIC7fi DEPARTMENT BY BUIWING DEPARTMENT ANG NUMBER ASSIC,NF,D CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 855 Pins St.,31M!=Soar•Novi Wing PARCEL f 002--200--015--2 Mariinez,CA PH.{825}&46-2300/FAx{25}$58.1aS PE!'-,MI. * G 2Pf b X107 DATE 11/17199 GRADINO–SUPERV:ISK:D Ara L'fLICAN T R 0 W CONST. r .%?+ti=. CF'"l r:M7f: PV D€D f ,.'> 7N X D11 JVff STREET PO Pox i808 SCH DIST *E;YRGN ELEM CITY F'REMOMT r CA D cr' r—RADTNC FOR 001.F C0!111!:,;f Z1 94538 ,C`f'fONE 510--490-1070 NSR SR Nm u i AREA BYRON ZONE i=_R CT 3040.00 FEE CD DIMENSIONS RATE 3e IJC._i111,. TRACT LOT L UP t ` 25A 90000 @ .00 el0 01 11;r; ST RE'ET 5400 BYRON HOT SPRING'S' RD TOTA.f_ ?0000 10 rAt» 60001 CROSS ST MX HGT1 50' NR ST 4 MNSS 25' MNSY 15`PLAN CHK PC991.395 R'EV .>=WO 8'Y. DATA ,_ AGG TOTAL 35REAR YD is, DATE RECD 11/10/99 ENC Cl£�MER EAST SAY ASSOCIATES LLC 4Ec: ! STREET 2290 DIAMOND BLVD #101 BRAD CITY Ct3•NCORO CA __–..___________–__v__d_..._._._._.._._. _...._ _.... ZIP 94520 EGyCC33�tTR��t'�:a��I�CC'�'tS�`a7��.f'iCa..w_..�_,...._.._.. -...._....i...__..._.......�iECE.I,f'3'_�_._..._._3fsbt58t5_.._._ _.__.. STREET Pty sex 1808 AD PMT Z250.00 CITY F REMONT i CA 00 XFLO 0PLNCHK 750.00 LIC CLASS 945315_ __.__•wPt�ft`71 4"t�0�49<?-i{37t1OD6t5•`.N -18/.50 LIC CLASS A LIC 5919" 0 FLOOD ZONE st . fl ..– h"°F'ymN 1,57.50 AL PAID** 1 l t ti . RACYOR4 O.N$#r ftertfsy i rm t � al#arse pdteutd u:ederprwfattira!of ChsPtrr 4 tcamre:ednq and*9 otitxa naaa Y.'Sf!Ptd{taafarta Ceda,and rtrY:!Cdn61r N m tu#Fa:ca f74d aisaci. LIC I LIC # 591940 CON t RC ` s !4 C+4IiSa Y !R INCi ow+sl€R-ewa.a>�R a�cLAR.tnc�,a #f:+t'ibY it;Ittt;xvfti patu#t{d+ if$aty kiet f er4 taWtVt ft"the C*P.btoton 0--1,46 Law for the #ottuwir+p riaaan 7631.8, tai arfi PrcMtataat♦Coda.AN ony or county which raq;$rea t i:s.+1t Ia sarwtruci ahi•�'mpraw,cima?lih.W+'r+ipair at�y lenwtcfwG�w ti h bmwwi,Os*r4wate mtttg tamkraKhptratt4di toa�t aiswRtdOifhtortholsptt atd tasttpmaialona of ane CxfraG^acta!s Lfdar>sa Law tChtprxr&(uxtvr'.+• wort SaddWrt 7006)of�R3 of tha ftchtat bled PmttaataM L',otti)dt tap M N i7Ni H t%t 'I##torah'ai"ft 6sa#a 3tlr tH #a';i frt 6%iitu;'YAn. A'ty w+,tiffd!t df StCCati 71i3i.�#rf n' r a 3trrfip fULti1I+'.li thi ayPswnt t,'a ohll ptnilty of twl t�ttae't ttlaf:l}rt fna+drit t5dtan 'f,aa.twlMt al t1a Y,d:ff#Y ttW.rfOYtei Wit!!wag"as tta#r waft atxnPanaadttt.wi:do dw woea,an»t ffH abuoaart 2L±5tlf pY.t+tda><l 77!'Tsfft!td tdr Nia($to.7044,$uvlr ew arts pm"$ian*oodt: '!'S:t CaWaoitwt Lioanit Ltw dria s tpp!y to en owrtrr of pmotetj who ok"ar a wow iatmon, ttkl wha dasa ttdn wpt hbnetfF of taw+t!df ftwgh N*ar hat OM+.attpld'.ye*s,provided scat itch wmaraaartRoti#tndt0oratfered#ttos.##.Mraavit,11tk 01st gd itptdvtye*!t satsMh[ ane year Of awvie"m tea owwi 'A w wta have trt#utdtrt of 3rawM+q inxt ttt or ani did Rot buttd ortar ft PX"".*.safic.}. u i,�owttir of the prpttly wn aachlo+rtttyy��prtaic0 w1At fa»,'�t�aC owitnofors io w1atrao Eha taaisa(Sw 7t sa,g tNru N a r 1 rmitWa#ana Cult!Tft tremae taw clava naf+pF'tti'to art dWrwt ttl waw bLdw%w limm t4 ataraw,wet who to fttat for*00Pmscta wtt,a a:Kttnadto<(+; pctrawlau to tea Cdntraxdts Lidtnw Law.`, £ f am arvw vAdw Std, $Ap�,kc ttla mw Data Ownw WORKERS'COMPEN$AMN DECLARA'FM t MrWy a'M�R'..idar spy of gwowy cert of Yttdodaragm: t haw arcs wit M41-11i a dartff wo of conaitt�t.7 ^m um fat wvurs'onm"naat#on,as 0m'46ed far by 9ac6or!3900 of Me L atKlf CO&,Kir pat gaRorenarxi of the work!or whldh mN ?irr o"at LAb01 of"at a�OW p d om*ft i naatoat kidurtnce,as rtquitd by Sadtdn$70Ci of!tri LAaw Cads.'tar tta pir(avlof i at Yha wort gf whkn tui w*mit k!atUid.my woA., oo:wgtnaaaan zw.ttacatK carriar aatd poky rculrbar art: POLICY # WCS860289 COMPANY AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE i+ to woon nano hot Aa odry3teted N#ha Parmft#t for ona#stusorsd got%Kf �.. I e*nay ttif m tM poft"ahct of mt weta tet trRiGfa Oto If b I anyy I3tria.an anry wmw ad at to toon.twa sa f to work" Cairo"&At d t6ret CHt N#*haWo 8i4+areta*trVkrtt to ow w•ot vv S at t a&sr CNdt.!t#ua tate wm 00ft'6Fy andt puts WA MO.PAIL ;ToSCi{R!WOAKjRB'CoatPSNSAr#} Y URLAVOUL ANO o.___ �......_._.._._. ...._... ..._-.... StIA SU#dECt Atf fMir.$YER YO CRiMiNAL PCNA1.7tt ANO Cf NSS UP to ON6 _ _ _....._ . ......... .. +tuN:x+tt#rftctusANo DOLLARS((atca,ma}},!N Aaafrxna rtr Tkv 0th o'.�vM�EN�AYtnf�, GTit O.T.t Cy PERMIT #AMAi3E8,AS PROY11010 POA p't SECC1Ctt S70t t}ir 7H8 LABOR COOL;tNUACST AND AS"PrJRNSY'S tE88, f htcaby 5!5551 tutaar otMpy CONSFRUCMN LdNytNG AOINCY L iww tt+t owtwr, M'£ agent to da Ox 6bort 4ag wrod work. G01PY ow tr4at'•*a owshcow 1and'.nI&"I'zy for the{»KomMnca I certny ttJt l ha" M4 statt that mt 460",mots Cti Is torte!.I a .a la to oa tN nark tdr ,wR .n tNt Germ!it NIauW(9ac,3007,CH.C.). w,;n at rxy ins .i#awi rtttrnnY ra b..' g eohaen��t+o�,.ani h"by a'Aromt ;"77 Sha adaw•tesenitaRW Pfaatny iW in{attt�On p}utPaf tt to STPeT LN D R NAME CITYZIP S a dart Oa{ Building Ospl,fay: . rrtt Ct*tat y CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN ' +` X51 Pine Street, N. Wing 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 elephone: 335- 1210 Fax: 335- 1222 TO: Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Bob Drake, Principal Planner DATE: February 4, 2000 SUBJECT: Prior ALUC Review of Development Proposal at Byron Hot Springs At the last Commission meeting, one of the speakers, Dave Fowler, reviewed his interest in pursuing a development project at the Byron Hot Springs site, located'approximately one- quarter mile north of the Byron Airport. Subsequent to that meeting, staff'met with Mr. Fowler to review planning matters as pertains to that property. Previ Co issi n Revi w ofP o ect at B r n. Hot S rin S' e In 1990, prior to the Commission's adoption of an ALUC plan for the Byron Airport area, the Commission reviewed a proposed development for this former resort site. The applicant at the time (Lehmkuhl) was proposing to develop a golf course, 200 hotel rental units ("villas"), and a conference center at this site. The more intense activity was proposed to be located away from the primary runway alignment extending through the southwest corner of that site. At the request of Mr. Fowler, staff is forwarding copies of pertinent documents from the Cornrnission's review of that proposal. In recognition that new airport land use compatibility guidelines were being formulated by the State that might affect future land use compatibility of this site, the Commission placed a four-year time limit (i.e., until December, 1994) on its conditional clearance of any development on this site. "DOC. � .� Att. 12/12/90 ALUC letter to County Related Background material c:\byror-�s.mem t ;� Airport .and Use 4 Contra Harvey o. c-ragdon '� D;reCtCr of Caeesmc;n!:v Leve#ailment Commission Costa County Administration wilding County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, Niorth Wing Martinez, California 94553.0095 Phone: 546-2091 r. December 13, :.990 Bob Drake Community Development County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear lir. Drake: RE: Byron Hot: Springs Resort Rehabilitation On December 12, 1990 the Airport band Use Commission doted 5 _ 0 (Dennis Mesick, proxy for Commissioner Cooper, abstaining) that the required ALUC findings for compatibility with the Bast County Airport cannot be made UNLESS the attached conditions are required by the county. Should these conditions be imposed then the required ALUC findings are established. Sincerely,,� ' r JOSEPH s CAMPBELL, Chairman Airport Land Use Commission RD/aa ALUC11/3yron.RD Attach. -- Required ALUC Findings Conditions of Approval Madel Avigation Easement cc. Manager of Airports ALJCC File #16m90(B) s y ; REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION OF THE BYRON HOT SPRINGS RESORT AND CONSTRUCTION OF 200 GOLF VILLAS (ALUC File #1 6-90(E,',_) Required Findinris 1 . The Commission is making substantial progress toward the completion of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the East County Airport as evidenced by the draft (staff-prepared) plan that the Commission reviewed at its September meeting. 2. There is a reasonable probability that the proposed resort as conditioned will be consistent with the CLUP to be adopted by the Commission insofar as the proposed structures lie one-quarter mile beyond the projected noise print for the Airport. Further, a professional aviation consultant familiar with noise complaint problems at Buchanan Field is satisfied that the project would not be incompatible with the Airport. 3. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment or interference with the future adopted plan if the proposed resort is ultimately inconsistent with a Subsequently adopted CLUP. Conditions of Al2proval 1 . This project is approved as generally shown on the conceptual site plan accompanying the project. This approval is.granted for a period of 4-years. 2. The applicant shall dedicate an avigation and noise easement to the County over the subject property. A model easement for this purpose is attached. At least 30 days prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of a draft easement for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved easement shall be dedicated to the County. 3. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final site plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator after comments by the Manager of Airports. The purpose of the review shall be to assure that window reflectivity, attraction of birds, and project exterior lighting donot become a safety problem for the East County Airport. The site plan Shall be accompanied by a workable program to deter birds from being attracted to the proposed ponds. 4. Habitable structure design shall be based on the recommendations of a study by an acoustical engineer to mitigate future airport noise. RD/aa ALUC 1 1116-90C.RD 1215/90 ` M fSTA ` / ! ! `per: a ! _ - - t' NWRO A 9452 � ��3 � �A 4.'� yyyy� "� �qy .y HO 6' 4 ./w�rr + ' DATA: October 3, 1990 E TO: Bob Drake, Community Development Depa meet FROM: Harold E. Wight, Manager of Airports ! ! SUB, C1: Byron Hot Springs Hotel and Golf Coarse !4 i 1� i9 !! ! E9 Per your request, I reviewed the single page drawing by the Donald Free Golfplan Design _ Group Ltd. dated September 7, 1990. The amount of water involved in the two lakes needs to be looked at further. If this would be a water fowl attraction, it could cause a problem for the Airport. I understand from the developer that these lakes are heeded as a standby 9! source of water for the golf course. If these lakes need to be at that location and of that !s� size, it would be appropriate to get an opinion from a water fowVwildlffe expert as to the i1 likelihood of the water being an attractions for birds which could be a potential for an 3 !! accident at the Airport. � �I According to the developer, the living unit shown is to be short-term rental units only, such as a hotel resort complex. If in fact these are used in this manner, I would see no abjection to the development as proposed. If these units, however, are to be sold or long-term leases are entered into, then the conditions of sale and/or leases must be examined very carefully in order to eliminate any possibility of permanent residents finding objection to the nearby 3 airport, now or in the future. ii The 5560 CNEL as shown should not be used as a basis for determining livability in the proximity to a busy airport. We anticipate that within five years, this airport could have in 6� excess of 200 airplanes, including some of the smaller corporate jets. Single event noise and i € frequent overflights must be the basis for determining livability in residential units. For hotel-t, e units, however, this concern generally does not apply. ;{ In general, the rest of the proposal shown on the single page drawing appears to be acceptable. if you want to discuss this further, please contact me alt extension 5722. i 1iEW:dg i drake.t 10 s cc: C. Lchrnkiihi ! ' d _ ,lo ft y 1 1 ,, { •� i fir''" r Y � :�s', . � •%�� t\ +� Yr.\tea�,_.3\t ,� � 1� � t t' � ;t�i=� z .�� e,y s :Q a , <•7� .± �i ✓." 1 S •� i ,,_\11.x, tf3 t et }\ , ��, t \ ..� � � � � ' � �-LLL` • �'�= x.1� • x:lit�'3 -""�� - t � �� '� ��t y I�V ..,i�}; t � ��✓�� a � }}l�(/ � � 5 r� 't/ �•� }'. i#.w tai } i 1 q,Lpi r N. - __ xktd�l7a Hieb vol'kvi __ � � yr Hill i##It co s � tall +: 4 C4 �_- C j jj cs 0 +� C Vj 6 Hill � t JIM- J[ t7i#i- � '`� •, � j (1111 t MH i ! t 00, T ,yL. wWe T� + Y. W E E zs__1 `a of ¢:a • ��. wax /� y 4 CS Y 10 LI )7 tet, 1 v X12 T �' m ' y�yt, � �!r;�� •� � � 'rte � r �`'�'`�S' �°` J�•3 � �' f a tY ' i ''� i3 _ '• ji 4 Ti m g b -a •�+� � Y �� Y ropy tvt � h.` �E•'� �. ��. Fy m.+: :9 \�� ij;!( 1 � +Ili!! � a { .$g� t •-�"�j/j/ d Q'�� 1'.':4 /�f �� l J/(1,` +-../' ! ``,� 8d.r. �y„� s /�� t. a•�3 ..—��,,. � `; / ,.... 1��• `�.. z�- ��,. t, to F ..•7 vt� �f / / / � .^� lll��i� i) �f � 7 - "—��_`� t� �t��# tt i13# ,... 0.1 Ila .713 till v, nicer : ed buckwheat insandshipped t,, habitat has been; ' Pi the Antioch Urines National Wildl1t3tt C) :a Refuge onWilbur Avenue, The plant is a habitat for the 4 "` --A lM lange's MetalwArk Butterfly; a spe= cnneY► 4 btolo is# ,f; i cies that once thrived all along the' 14 : San Joaquin River.But development �tt"Lxlednesday rriornirig, P'' i along the river has reduced the tricked sand from its Antioch pow. �- t,rily's habitat,td'70'acres-on the-: r rplant site to the dunes:"By bring- refuge and adjacent PG&R-land ing in the sand, we'll be:recreating At sine time, according to PG&E ° the, original ecosystem, McKinney biologist.aim McKinney'the Antioch,,.:.fid. 4 � y Liur s.; as just that sand dues The Metalmark-t4a sti,orange imii g leil bin&6f the river. Buck-e and black markings and has a izfe� wk eat'#hrtvecl along with the lnut- -'span of one week.A wildlife service telt ,'count last August,when.the butter- 9'"diris torn of the centu— flies emerge from their etacoons, re- ry,'people began removink the sand vealed only about 1,200 of the in- for use,in construction projects'aril Asewhere, McKinney said. Today, AiF'or insects,that's nothfng,'?:Mc- mosv6f the sand and buckwheat are Kinney said of the population, - gong. the Metalmark Butterfly ` h used to,be a smile dune is an-endangered species a e they 3averl *lour, with haus- In the place of,buckwheat,Trios»j: rssgzd.industry lining the.;shore, =y non-native plus and weeds haemeiratat has,been choked off." sprung up trams dratrodticed zit`�� . t�.tedn�iday's effort.was only.the tentioznatly, some b"accident, MG; �aegl riirig of the project, said t e ;, Kinney saitt',: Perezndie11, assistant refuge aria ' .=„PG&E is requires€ by the federall = er;with the t3 S% Fish and.wildlife government to do all;it can to pre- Service `; serve endangered species rfr the ,-:..The Contra_G�star Wtallflower _: area:Two major transformer#ts vers and Antioch l)uti s'1✓vtrung 1"rnrrn= standon the PG&E Md.'The cbm-i. rm- are other eridangered- species parry is spending about 410,000,on that survive o*;at the refuge � y- the effort to preserve the butterfly' Y'This winter, he :said,;primroseSAY REGIONAL PARK Rah '6 stbph6 Land other'threatened species in the,, 9nd. wallflower plants also'. be �r der Gorltrd CostaR4gionaC Park A€ad#hgAn area. i 'szitroduced unto the zd. , ' „, _. ' �Ilr 44 .r por , idn Xxii ai naorse,,.. ' :. for, + � r .r_rest $ , ..f{i.• Byyt31d #.oCkllrz% t =. C�1I�1!�OFt�}� hiie Staff writer ' re s �`. t $si p t .4 'oinnmitsitnriez' � A W k�e o r why `:`Thaf crimnnzsan, et ewer tstirids after` Lehntl� d: s de+ to iris gxtfiar nab n .., . Wd P hired insttarit whb sttzdiect Tarns mid agreed that the rep hz `far enough away from the«. .-W ; " ty O , a1r the coiitxrf sc airport d- four-fifths of a mile fourth of the. fiZna so '11trn thatplanes would not bather the pdzns renovate Co rzimissiranert said the villas guests. for the reserui�w. tlxe I22-yearpId resort hotel, in- would be too close to the Byrom Leh kohl also brought the -buffer zone. � i � on its palm- Airport and guests would corn- staff a golf commission a report from the 17i'ttrict o data studded grounds and build up to plain about planes passing over. Reno Airport, where wires are Thursday th4_..rea4* 200 small villas for guests_ head, Drake said. Complaints strung up around ponds to repel went with-,the prop The move allows the Ray about noise have been a major birds. The same could be done at heirs of the la#e EAW Lehrmkuhl Co. to finally "spend problem for years at Buchanan the Byron resort,he said. some serious money on consul- Airport in Concord, the lather The company still needs corn- .7-0 -0 !► � tants and design," said Craig county owned airport, he said. nnitments from investors and puts,- i..s l./ Lehrmkuhl, an associate with the The commission was also con- spertive partners who.have shown,,-,. company. The company can'now c+e ed that ponds on the 'golf interest in-tine project, said Uhztt- design hotel rooms,pian the hotel course would attract birds, which kohl,Tchainshree.hotel cand t :� r�'L.�►NNLI ;YEA renovation and design a 'water -could become tricked into an air- golf management Arjus,114vt - ec#. Aatii6ch4ree system.for,the golf wours+e. - i-Plank engine or..hit a prc>pellrsr: sated they t night be,inter lit* s 'ya,to"e.-the •i "If they had turned us own; . and possibly to a c iisbt tarn op i jrtlt servicers I£# C s } District T _ - � , . voters are remove �'t�►''' �Yl �� m a claim filed with then � 1 Pset t:eraan,+3n c" i,] rnlea i3afl � 'shed. East Bay Associates, LLC 741 Shady Glen Martinez, CA 94553 phone(925)250-4402 fax(925)228-6185 Tuesday, May 14, 2002 Flon. Donna Gerber District Ill Supervisor Contra Costa County 1200 Central Blvd., Suite B Brentwood, CA 94513 RE: Syron Hot Springs Dear Supervisor Gerber: Thank you for your letter of May 3, 2002 following up our meeting in April regarding the proposal of East Say Associates, LLC for restoration of the Byron loot Springs Resort property, We very much appreciate the time and effort you and your staff have expended to help us clarify the County's policies, guidelines and expectations for the project. To complete my understanding, 1 would like to ask a few questionsregarding the information furnished you by the Community Development Department, which you included in your letter. Paragraph 1. Paragraph 1 of your letter indicates that numbers were assigned to applications in December of 1990 for building permits for certain elements of the proposed project. That information is confirmed by the print-outs issued by the CDD, who actually assigned the application numbers, on 12/20/90 for"Hotel Restoration (AN53274), Golf Course (AN53275) and the 200 Villas (AN53071 through',AN'53273) under List Number LM5907. We are enclosing copies of the three print-oats issued by CDD under date of 12/20/90, bearing these assigned numbers for the hotel, golf course and villas. The procedure for issuance of building permits with which we are familiar, and which we have again verified with CDD, requires an applicant to obtain clearance by the planning section of CDD for general plan and zoning compatibility be€care fling construc- tion plans for plan check and issuance of permits by the Building Inspection Department. The enclosed print-outs indicate"Approved: DILA[Donna E. Allen, in the planning section of CDD[ as of 12 20 90", evidencing the planning section's finding of plan and zoning compatibility of the requested building permit applications. As the process has been explained to us by CDD, no application numbers would be assigned by the planning section in the absence of such finding of planning and zoning compatibility. Hon. Donna Gerber Tuesday,May 14, 2002 District III Supervisor Page 2 Contra Costa County These print-outs also indicate "Permit Issued: 12 20 90", which we always interpreted as evidence of the actual issuance of the permits. However, a recent conversation with CCC, per the recommendation of your May a letter, produced a contrary answer, namely that the wards "Permit issued. 12 20 90" dor not mean that permits were issued on 12/20190. The explanation given to us by CDD was that the application numbers shown in the print-guts would have been converted by the com- puter to building permit numbers upon actual issuance of the building permits, and that the absence of building permit numbers on these print-outs indicates that no building permits were issued. Somewhat surprising to us was the fact that the CDD's computer had no record of even the application numbers, despite the fact that the hearing of the zoning administrator a year later was "continued indefinitely". It Isnot of great concern to us or to our prospective developer participants that building permits were never actually issued for these portions of the Byron Hort Springs Resort restoration program. The concern lies, rather, in the suggestion made by CDD in response to numerous inquiries by prospective developer groups, that the restoration project, as reflected in these applications, is "inconsistent" or "incompatible" with the County's general plan and zoning ordinances, and even that the present F-R zoning itself is inconsistent with the County's general plan. The message given to prospective project sponsors and participants by statements of this type is that the County does not want and will not allow the Byron Hot Springs Resort to be restored to the previous status and role that it occupied in East County from 1878 to 1938. Can that be true? Why wasn't the question of general plan or zoning compatibility be settledat the point the planning section of the GCC "approved" issuance of the application numbers? The question of issuance of the building permits themselves, a separate step, >must in any event await receipt by the County of the actual working drawings for the improvements which will implement the restoration program, so what does it prove to say that building permits were never issued? if the request for building permits in 1990 was °inconsis- teat" or"incompatible" with the general plan or F-R zoning, why was "approval" given by COD to issuance of application numbers, as indicated on the print-outs? And how could these permit applications advance to a hearing by the zoning administrator if they were "incompatible" or"inconsistent" with the general plan? And finally, why would the COD inform you, as indicated in your May 8"' letter, that the activities central to the restoration proposal are "permitted" under the F-l; zoning if they are at the same time "inconsistent" or"incompatible" with the general plan? In our visit to the CTPD yesterday we requested the file on the December 2, 1991 hearing before the zoning administrator, which according to the record was "Continued indefinitely'. We received no notification of those proceedings in 1991, We have no idea why they were "continued indefinitely" and at who's request. And we have no idea of why building permit applications would even be referred to the zoning administrator, We hope to have further information on this aspect of the process when the file is retrieved from archives in two or three days. Hon. Donna Gerber Tuesday,May 14, 2002 District Ill Supervisor Page 3 Contra Costa County Paragraph 2. Paragraph 2 of your letter indicates that a grading permit was issu- ed by the CDD on November 19, 1999 for"two silt retention basins on the subject property", indicating further that this permit was for a "limited area for the excavation of the two basins" and that a grading permit for the golf course itself`mould require a separate permit, as indicated in a letter of Carlos Baltodano, Director, Building Inspec- tion Department, dated November 24, 1999. The understanding we reached with Mr. Baltodano prier to issuance of that grading permit, in a meeting attended by Mr. Baltoda- no and his staff; as well as a representative of County Counsel's office, was that the grading permit would be issued for grading of the golf course, starting with the creation of two large lakes that constitute an integral part of the golf course's irrigation system and esthetic design. We are enclosing a copy of the permit issued 11 17 99 for "Grading for Golf Course35. There is no mention in this permit of"silt retention basins". The first mention of"silt retention banns" that we have ever heard as a purpose for this grading permit is in your May a letter. The reason for the meeting with Mr. Baltodano and his staff, and County Counsel staff, was to resolve the "stop work order" issued by Public Works on the stated grounds that the grading work constituted a "surface mining" operation. That issue was resolved, with the help of our reference to a nate from Mr. Gordon Whistler dated October 2, 1990, indicating that the grading was in,the "old golf course area", and was in a "self-contained, isolated area" and was "exempt from a grading permit, per Ord. 69-69." As a means of resolving this unexpectedissue, we agreed to request issuance of a formal grading permit, and Mr. Baltodano agreed at the meeting to issue the new permit. First Paragraph page 2. The first paragraph of Page 2 of your May 6- Letter summarizes the CDD's oft-repeated position that the F_R zoning is "antiquated" and will be retired in new revisions of the general plan. As we all know, this language is contained in a footnote in the Land Use Element of the 1990—2005 general plan. The "review" of these"antiquated" zoning designations, foretold in the 1990 footnote, has been in progress ever since, leaving our restoration project somewhere in bimbo. Even if the F-R zone is considered "antiquated" (although we have no idea why) and is intended to be phased out someday, the designation affects only a handful — perhaps four-- properties in the County. One of these is owned by the County, and two Gathers (Diablo Country Club and the Marsh Creek Springs RV Park) are already fully developed. We see the practical necessity and importance of phasing out this zoning as extremely low, hardly justifying the cost to the County in staff time to go through the procedural steps necessary to complete the process. And when completed, what impact will the elimina- tion of the current F-R zoning have on future land use decisions in Fast County? Our proposal for the one remaining "undeveloped" F-R zoned property does not seek to introduce any land use not previously present on the site, and we fail to see how the long history of use of the site could ever be eradicated by a change of the F-R zoning to something else. So this`antiquated zoning" issue, in our view, serves no purpose other than to cast a cloud over our efforts to restore the Byron Hot Springs property to its Hon. Donna Gerber. Tuesday,May 14, 2002 District fit Supervisor Page 4 Contra Costa County historical farm and function and bring it back into productive use as a treasured East County landmark. Mention of the "antiquated zoning" argument by CDD in response to your inquiry again leads us to ask why the 1990 applications for building permits were processed or even accepted if tate project was so clearly unacceptable from the planning or zoning compliance standpoint. As no new use is proposed by the restoration, was the historical use considered unfitting or unacceptable by the County? What would be a better use for the site than to restore it to its former role as a natural hot springs resort and landmark of statewide renown and patronage? Would Contra Costa County be better off without this restoration project, leaving this former Fast County asset to fall further into decay and disuse? Wouldn't the community be better served by a restoration plan that not only brings the Byron Hot Springs Resort back into its prime, but also incorporates current county-wide "smart growth" guidelines, and helps achieve the desired job-balance-ratio goals established for East County? We feel that the priority we have given to these goals and objectives has been a significant factor its gaining the support of the Byron MAC, the Chamber of Commerce and Byron and Contra Costa Historical Societies for our Byron Hat springs restoration project. We would hope that these compelling community objectives would receive as much consideration by project reviewers as technical planning arguments that do not appear to address the current challenges facing East County. We are currently engaged in discussions with several prospective development participants for the restoration project, Before making commitments of time and financial resources to a project, these groups routinely conduct their`due diligence" investigations to determine the project's feasibility, The questions of local planning and zoning approval arra community support are at the top of their fist of concerns. Unfortu- nately for the Byrom Hot Springs restoration project, reports by these groups of their discussions with CDD staff indicate a consistently uncertain or negative assessment of the status of planning and zoning approval, despite the property's history and apparent suitability for restoration. What we feel is needed here is a clear statement by the CDD, such as the one in the first paragraph of Page 2 of your May 8t! letter, that the current F- R zoning allows the uses contemplated by the project, and in addition that the project is consistent and compatible with the general plan in farce at tate present time. Such a statement would enable an interested project participant to expend the time and resources to complete the plans and financing arrangements necessary to proceed with the project. You have suggested that we contact CDD directly for more information. Would you lend your guidance and support to a joint effort with CDD to work out a;definitive statement of planning and zoning compliance and of the steps presently required for commencement of implementation of our plan for restoration of Myron brat Springs` Ikon. Donna Gerber Tuesday,May 14; 2€02 District III Supervisor Page'5 Contra Costa County Again, we sincerely appreciate your gratifying responsiveness and sincere efforts to understand our Mapes and plans for a project that we feel offers great benefits for East County as well as all of Northern California. Sincerely yours, EAST SAY ASSOCIATES, LLC, By David T. Fowler 309 Diablo Road Danville, California 94526 Contra Co6tz County ' km` ward of Supervisors (925)824-8683 (925)8201 627 FAX Email: dist:3@b zo.contra-costa.ca.LIS 1200 Central Blvd., Suite B Brentwood,California 94513 (925)240.7260 (925)244D-7261 FAX DONNA GERBER 8 Mav 2,002 Districi lti Supervisor R.E: Bi-on Hot Springs DeaF Mr.Fowler: As a follow-,lp to our wetting in April, I askc t Brenda de la Ossa from my Brentwood off c:to contact fire Community Development Departmeio ragardhig questions raised d.tring our i.re�:ting I have becnhifomI ed that neither rile Community Development nor the l uilddng hupeetion Dcpzurtments have any active applications related to building pert-nits or grading permits for the proposed ByTon Hot Springs I-+ote' and Golf Course. Tb,-record on this nropost;d project indicates the following- 1 The revicNv and approval of the building pennits for the proposed Myron riot Springs hotel and Gel Course were originally scheduled for a hearing bryfore the County Zoning Administrator begiatidrig on December 17, 1990, and at this tiara the Buildhig Inspection Department did assign permit numbers to the project. However, the proposed project was subsequently continued to several County Zoning Administrator hearinis through calendar year 1991 without an action of :ppro- ai. According to t:e record for the December 2, 1991 County Zoning Administrator ineeting.the,natter of the proposed Byron Clot Springs Hotel and G olf'Course was con.6nued indefinitely and there is no record that the County Zoning Admmistrator acted io approve the requested building permits or that Lhe Building Inspectiori Depax-trnent issued the re uestcd building permits. It ;appears that in 1990 when the original application was submitted the Building Inspection Departmient did assign permit numbers to the project,but no permits were ever actually issued. y There is on record the issuance of a grading permit on rovernber 17, 1999 for hNeo sill.etentior b sins on the subject property. This penxrit encompassed a lira:ted area for the, excavation of the two basins, acrd,as indicated in a November 24, 1939 letter to you from Carlos Baltodano, Director, Building Inspection D pa lment, a grad ng perin,"t "car a proposed golfco}.rrse',-vould require a separate Pen-nit. p. c z a),c been advised by the Corwnuruty Development Department that the subject site is listed. under an older zoning district designation called l^orestry-Recrealloil (F-R)which dates back to tl~e establish-ment of the County Zoning Code in 1494'7. This zening district permits public and private park and recreation facilities, and it specifically allows for golf •wourses and stttn?ner homes. 'hhe l -R zoning district is Line of four"antiquated"zoning districts referred to in the Cowity Genwral Plat!,which directs that they be deleted frora the County Zoning Code. It is my understanding that the ConunFaxrity Development l��!partrne tt is undertaking a review of each of the four antiquated zo:ring distracts refe,ied to in the General Platt, I would suggest that you contact the Conus unity Development Department directly for :wore information related to the proposed development of the Bt Ton Plot Spri, gs 110tel and Golf Course, Ti Nvas a pleasure mecting with you and good rack with your project. Si erely yours., l Donna Gerbe Supervisor,District Ill Dennis M. Barry,AICP Community Contra Community Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: March 14, 2002 Mike Quirk Redwood Associates 961 Woodside Road Redwood City, CA 94061 Dear Mr. (quirk: As a follow-up to our meeting today regarding the Byron Hot Springs property, enclosed is background information on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Flan (HCP). I encourage you to review the enclosed material on the proposed HCP as it may affect the potential development on the Byron Hot Springs property. Should you have further questions regarding County land use policies relating to the subject property, please contact.me. Sincerely yours, Patrick Roche Advance Planning Division Enclosures(3 ite�m) CC: Byron Hot Springs file Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. > e , Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each r,Month /l/O 7/-0 Z Quote by Pat Roche Contra Costa Planning Department—Public Notice will be given as duly required by law Walter Is there a policy as far as a study session., if we are going to do a study session we need to give people as much notice as we can. If we don't get people notices on it , it is not easy for us to do our job. If all we get is a staff' report. I think what we need when we do a study session like this, when we've got something such as the Byron loot Springs which is definitely going to be effected by this, I would life to .make sure those people are noticed so that we can hear their concerns so we can make appropriate comments. Katherine Cacersis I understand and that is so noted for the future but: The Law Says, "A study session, the county staff has the option of placing it on the agenda", that was not required, we chose to place it on the agenda according to law, and under county law there is no noticing that is done, that is the practice of the department that is the practice for a number of years and that has not changed, the public hearing, this is not a public hearing tonight, it is a study session to obtain your comments, because we have an agenda and because the law works to insure we have public participation, everybody can speak that comes here, but it should not be confused with. a public hearing, that public hearing will be heard in front of the planning commission on November 19, the purpose of it tonight is to obtain your comments, Pat Roche Where have been no permits issued or a project on the Byron Hot Springs , r. Fowler, Bast Bay Associates have applied for a grading permit as early as June 2002 but no building permits have been issued for a project. Walter But a there's a grading permit. Pat There is a grading pen-nit, that has been applied for, but has not been issued. Oh there is no grading pennit issued only an application Frank So since 1991 no pen-nits have been issued to blot Springs. Pat Hoche No Permits have been issued, V/ Paul Again 1 am not familiar with this whole Byron Hot Spring thing but we have got some information from the floor, so if you could give us some information from what has gone on with the staff regarding this how many times the applicant has came in how many conditions have been asked to be reviewed, how many changes have been asked, and made and what time line there was in the past, and where it might go from this clay forward. Pat Well we could certainly provide you with a full chronology of events but very briefly in 1991 the county zoning administrator conducted hearings on the Byron Hot Spring hotel & golf course, a public hearing regarding a request for the issuance of building permits to allow the rehabilitation of a former hotel and construction of a golf course and. 200 golf villas the subject property consists of 130 acres and is located at 5400 Byron Hot Springs Rd, the notation from the Dee 2 1991 Zoning administration meeting was that it was continued indefinitely. As far as the records show, it was continued because there were questions related to the use compatibility plan that the airport land use commission directed to prepare, Airport Land Use Commission was approved in December 2000, the county formally received that document in July 2002, the board of supervisors received that document on August 13 and directed that the county planning commission conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed changes to make the general plan and zoning ordinances conforming to that land use compatibility plan. They also directed. the East County Planning CoiTunission to consider this proposal and also forward comments to the county planning commission that is essentially the chronology of events. Paul Now if he puts his request f'br pen-nits in, but you don't have them today, tomorrow. Would they go forward now that you have the report, without the I charges, another words could he get permits under the current zoning, that is there, that he has been waiting for all these years. Pat OK currently we have a grading permit that is before the building inspection department, they are reviewing that grading permit, I think your question goes to that is if he was to put in a request for a building permit for a project / which I gather would be something along the lines of what was requested back in 1991, under the FR zoning we would have to receive that and that would be processed, but we do not have any current proposal. Paul Thank You Walter I have a question, is really I think our focus tonight is really on one area and that is the C I area. Which is along the J4 corridor, there and in reading the that's the Af,UC Byron compatibility zone and that is what I am understanding that then were trying with that, correct? Pat That is correct Walter So my question is as I read thni 6.5 on page 6 of that Compatibly .done I criteria are we not, are we, is the recommendation then of the AG what I read here that they say could happen, another words, I see here that non residential development, large shopping centers, a half a million or more square feet, theatres, stadiums, multi - story motels , Motels, with conference centers is similar use, typically do not comply with these density criteria are acceptable if the usage is limited through a building design use permit and other mechanises,, now my question is, as I read this is, what.s being proposed consistent with this? Pat Yes, the , In all of our agricultural zoning districts A-3 for example a commercial recreational facility is pennitted under a land use permit in the normal course of things, somebody proposing, for example a golf course, with a hotel proponent with it, would come in with a use permit under an A- 3 zoning designation. Walter OK what I am hearing is you, still with the changes, a golf course conference center and basically what is being proposed, there is a potential for that to be built with a land use permit ? Pat Yes, but we would be obligated to review it in terms of the airport land use compatibility pian assuring that there would be no conflicts with that airport land use compatibility plana Walter But as I read here, it seems like it would not, be in conflict. Pat That is correct Katherine Cathersis Can I make a clarification to that, under the county A-3 zoning, public and private fraternal quasi fratemal organization type building golf courses, social clubs, swimming pools, all of these sorts of uses; which is similar to what has been described is allowable within the A-3 zoning district so the testimony that was received trying to equate the fact that proving a rezoning change to A-3 somehow signals the demise of the Byron Hot Springs is factually incorrect. That's not what the county zoning says, its allowed with a land use pen-nit, the question is that it's a change that Commission Dell suggested that it would be a change in pennitting. The one criteria that is significantly different which I wanted to clarify what Mr. Roche told you is the suggestion that the villas the golf villas, I don't know how that could be found to be consistent with the General flan or with the Zoning that is a piece that you should understand. I don't believe would be allowable under this proposal but a golf course is clearly allowable within an A-3 zoning district as well as social public other sort of facilities are allowable with a land use permit. Walter What you are say is that your interpretation is that the villas would came under and I am focusing on the C I criteria under the residential development verses to the non residential development that the residential is more SUMMARY OF COMMISSIONER RECOMMENDATIONS/COMMENTS TO TIIE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE GARDING THE BYRON AIRPORT EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION,11/7/2002 SPECIAL.STUDY SESSION ON THE AL;UC COMPATIBILITY PLAN f`onsersus N11ot-on 3v the Com russs;overs Present(Commissioners L7ei1 ia�er and NfacVit.'e • Recommendation: Q the p'-R zoning be retained for another six months to allow the owners of the Byron Hot Springs site to secure necessary permits to pursue the development concept that was before the Zoning Administrator in 199' (golf course,200 golf villas,and rehabilitation of hotel/spa},but after six months.the site should be rezoned to A•3 as recommended;and, 2)Compatibility Zone C l and,any subsequent rezoning to A-3,should not preclude the potential development of train station in the Byron vicinity, which would serve the residents of the Byron/Discove:y Bay area,should the"e-BART" conunuter transit service be implemented. Comruner S cf CO-Mmi�si-ers Corunissioner Walter MaWittir: • Expressed concerts that the ALUC Compatibility Plan's Cornpatibility Zone Cl and any rezoning to A-3 would rot preclude the potential development of train station in the Byron vicinity,which would serve the residents of the Byron/Discovery Bay area,should the"e-BART"commniter transit service be implemented. • Supported the concept of the A-3 rezoning for the Byron Mot Springs site,cum.menting that a golf course project could still proceed through:the issuance of a lard use permit order A-3. • Supported the concept of rehabilitation and re-establishment of the historic hotel use for the-Byron Hot Springs site. • Expressed a general view that the land use permit process is appropriate for such proposals because it provides the community with a}tlblic forLrn and in many cases has resulted in better development. • Supported the balance of recommendations relating to the Byron Airport as presented in the staff reports. Comm S9io:er Parts Dell: • Supported the concept of rebabilitation and re-establishment of the historic hotel use for tt e Byron,Hot Springs site. • Supported the concept of a golf course on the.Byron Riot Springs site. • Recommended that the P.R zonmg be retained for another six months to allow the owners of the Byron. Hot Springs site to secure necessary permits to pursue tate development concept that was before the Zoning Atttttsmstrator in 1991(golf course,200 golf villas,and rehabilitation of hotel/spa),but after six months the site should be rezoned ccs A-3 as recommended. • Supported the balance of"recommendations relating to the Byron Airport as presented in the staffreports, C o>xsrnissioner Paul Harper: • Suppor ed.;'ie cone pt of rehabilitatior and re-establishment of the historic hotel use for the Byron Hot Springs site. • Supported the concept of a golf course on the Byron Hot Springs site. • Expressed concern that rezoning to A-3 would alter the development plans on the Byron Hot Springs site. • Supported the balan=ce of recorninendations,elating to the Byron Airport as presented in the staff reports. CornmissionerPhillip Day: • Determined to recuse himself and not participate in the Study Session since he is a morn er of the Airport bard Use Commission which approved the ALUC Compatibility Plan. GAA&anct P2a»ning\sdv-p1an\ LUC PLAMsomsnm or CCCUC SPECIAL STUDY SESSi6N Nov 7 2402.doc CHRONOLOGY BYRON HOT SPRINGS/BYRON AIR-PORT 1880- 1920 The Byron Hot Springs Hotel and hot springs spa is opened in the late 1880's. It becomes a popular resort and health spa serving the San Francisco Bay Area, The resort consisted of a large hotel with several developed outdoor he,, pools and two sulfur pools. The site is continuously operated as a resort hotel and spa through the early 1900's. It is believed that the S.F. Earthquake of 1906 disrupts or affects the undergrolsnd hot springs diminishing its value as a resort destination. Records indicate that the site suffered t1rough two fires and was rebuilt twice in 1903 and 1915. 1920- 1950 The ownership of the property changes hands and it ceases to be operated as a resort hotel and spa prior to WWII. During WWTI, the property is used as au interrogation center/internment camp for prisoners of war. This the last recorded use of the site for lodging, 1947 The first Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance is adopted. The Byron Hot Springs site is designated under the Forestry-Recreational( R)Zoning District. 1950-1970 During this period the site falls into disuse with the hotel structure and Mead house in need of repair and exposed to the elements. Newspaper accounts indicate that the hotel has been stripped of the original interior,windows broken, etc. The privately owned and operated Byron Airport is opened during the 1950's. 1970- 1980 In the early 1970's there was an attempt to establish an artist colony on the site.In 1978 the property was sold to a foreign: businessman who wanted to build a mobile home park, health spa, and recreation area on the site. The businessman's foreign assets were seized during a revolution in his home country,and he could not pursue the project The property was placed under control of the Federal Barkn ptcy Court and it again changed ownership several times. A residential use on the site was maintained during this period. 1976 Contra Costa County Historic Resources Inventory identifies the Byron Hot Springs Hotel as a Structure of Historic Sig:nif,cance 1978 East County Area General Plan is adopted by the Board of Supervisors on Apr,; 4, 1978. The Byron Hot Springs site is designated as "Recreation_" an open space land use designation ender the East County Area General Pian. I 1980- 1990 1986 East Contra Costa County Airport Master Alar. Report is completed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in June 1986, it recommends the selection of the privately owned Byron Airport for acquisition and development as a publicly owned and operated General Aviation Airport to serve East County. The airport is located approximately /z mile to the South of the Byron Hot Springs site.The County begins the acquisition and development of the Byron Airport. 1986-1990 The County initiates process for a comprehensive General Plan update that would consolidate Area General Plans into a countywide plan through the General Plan Congress. A draft of the Countywide General Plan prepared with the in'?Put and recommendations from the General Plan Congress designates the Byron Hot Springs site under the Agricul#ural Lands(AL)designation, 1988- 1990 A group known as the Byron. Hot Springs Development Company purchases the property and begins planning for the development of a ,golf course, rental golf villas, and restoration of tine hotel. Ln an October 10, 1989 letter,a representative of the Byron Hot Springs Development Company requests that the proposed AL, designation on the site under the Draft General Plan be removed. The requested change is considered by the Lard Use Committee for the County General Plan_Congress and it is rejected. 1990 to 2000 1990 The Byron Hot Springs project proponents make a request for building permits. The matter is referred to both the County Zoning Administrator and ALUC. This request for building permits was treated as a discretionary approval to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Adminisuator under an interim urgency ordinance because the ALUC had not adopted a Compatibility Plan. The matter is first heard before #ie County Zoning Administrator. on 12/17/90 and subsequently continued to meetings on 1/7/91, 1/28/91, 2/25/91,5/6/91,5/3/91,9/9/91, 10/7/91 and .2/2/91. On December 12, 1990, ALUC determined that the required findings for the compatibility of the Byron Hot Springs Resort Rehabilitation with the Byron Airport cannot be:Wade unless required conditions are included in the County's approval.l Subsequent to ALUC actions, an 12/:9/90 inter-office memo from Bob Drake, Community Development Department, to Donna Allen,Applications& Permit Center, advises that building permit numbers can be assig ed on the condition that no building permits are issued until ALUC and ZA conditions are satisfied. December 13,1990 letter from ioseph L.Campbell,Chair,Airport Land Use Commission,to Robert Drake,Contra Costa County Community Development Department 2 1991 The Board of Supervisors adopts the updated countywide General Plan in January 1991. It replaces the East County .Area General Plan and designates the Byron Hot Springs site as Agricaltural sands (AL), and most of the site is placed outside the Urban Limit Line in the newly adopted General Ilan. Also,text is included in the updated General Flair that directs the F-R zoning be repeated from the County Zoning Ordinance Code. The record for the December 2, 1991 Zoning Administrator meeting indicates that the matter of building permits for the Byron Hot Springs site is "continued indefinitely". In a October 11, 1991 letter, a representative of the Byron.Piot Springs ownership group requested a continuance on the matter until further notice pending an economic review of the project. Comprehensive Land Use Flan: East Contra Costa County (Byron)Airport adopted in 1991 by the ALUC—functional equivalent to an Airport Lard Use Compatibility flan. CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, issues a permit (91-0377) for spreading sewage sludge(bicsolids)on the Byron Hat Springs property.2 1992 In response to an inquiry, a representative for the Byron Pict Springs ownership group is informed in a 6/30/92 letter from the Community Development Director of the uses permitted in a F_R zoning district, but he is advised that General Plan and Board directed staff to conduct rezoning study to repeal obsolete zoning districts,including F-R,and this could affect the potential range of allowable uses on the site,3 1994 The present publicly owned Byron Airport opens for aught operation. 1995 On November 7, 1995,the Board of Supervisors accepts a set of recommendations for a Byron Airport Action Plan from the Board's Finance Committee, which outlines the next steps associated with planning in the vicinity of the Byron Airport.4 Included within the November 7, 1995 Board action is acceptance of the Biological Constraints Analysis, Byron Planning Area 3 This study was an assessment of biological constraints in the Byron Area, covering approximately 5000 acres, which includes the area surrounding the Byron Airport. The Board of Supervisors directed that this study be used as a basis for considering potential growth to the northeast of the Byron Airport.The purpose of the surveys was the early identification of biological constraints to future development in the .Byron Planning Area and site-specific biological constraints to the extension of Axnistt ong Road to the Vasco Road aligrument. The study recommended that the constraint areas snapped ' Waste Discharge requirement Order No.94-362 for rte biosolids land application on tha Byron Hot Springs site was rescinded on August 7,2002 by the CA Regional Water Quality Control Board. } Lotter to:v r.Rity Lehmkuhl from i:arvoy E.Bragdon,Community Development Director,Contra Costa County,dated .une30,1992. " Nove-mber 7,2995,Agenda T.'.em C.99,Board order from Finance Committee to Board of Supervisors,Subject:;Byron Airport Acron Plan s Biological Conatmints Analysis,}Byron Planting Area,Contra Costs County,CA,submitted to the Contra Costa Community^uevelopment Department on March 8,2995,prepared by Laurence P.ssomberg,Ph.D.,Wetlands Consultant 3 should be considered representative of the type for avoidance and/or protection_ during the project review process. The Byron Hot Springs site is identified and mapped as a Level-1 High Constraint Area and bevel-3 Moderate Constraint Area because the site contains alkali wetland habitat (California tiger salamander and western pond turtle are know to breed in ponded alkali wetland habitats, burrowing owls were and a high density of field of ground squirrel burrows were observed. 1999 A grading permit is issued on for the excavation of two silt retention basins on the Byron Hot Springs site, In a lvovernber 24, 1999 letter verifying the issuance of County Permit 6241807, the Director, Building Ins_=tion Department states that the permit is for basin excavation only and that all future work associated with a "proposed golf course" would require separate permit(s). T'ne excavated earth is transported off site for use as fill for future middle school site in Oakley. The Board of Supervisors receives "Byron Township General flan (6/17/99)" from the Byron Municipal Advisory Council (MAC). The plant is an unofficial planning document prepared by the Byron MAC in collaboration with several landowners. It presents their vision for growth and development within the Byron Planning Area through 2020. The Laud Use reap in this document identifies the Byron. Airport site as "Public Service", land area immediately adjacent to the airport as "Dight industrial/Airport", and the Byron Hot Springs site as"Agricultural". 2000 2000 ALUC adopts the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan on December 13, 2000. The plan includes recommendations to not only update the General Plan, but to conform the zoning designations for certain properties hear the Byron Airport, including the Byron Hot Springs site, to the standards in the ALUC Compatibility Plan. 2002 Board of Supervisors formally receives the Airport Land Use Cornpatability flan on August 13, 2002 and refers the plan to the County Planning Commission for the statutory plan consistency review and requests a report be submitted to the Board with u the 180-day review period as referenced under state law. June 2002,Bast Bay Associates LLC the new name for the Byron Hot Springs ownership group submits a^d application to the Building Inspection Department for a grading permit to grade the site for an 18:pole golf course. On December 3, 2002 the Budding Inspection Department issues Grading Permit No. 326706 to East Bay.Associates LLC for an 18- hole golf course, 7 November 14, 2002, East Bay Associates LLC submits Building Permit applications to the Building Inspection Department for the renovation of the hotel building, ° USFWS proposes to designate the southeast portion of Contra Costa County,including Byron Hot Springs site,as critical habitat area for vernal pool species,Fedaral Register,September 24,2102 7 Building Permit No.329266 and 329261 were issued on 813112002 to East Boy Associates LLCfor fire repair and re- roafing. 4 including removal and replacement of walls, replacement of floor and foundation wor1c, new windows, roofing, r--- wiring, and re-plumbing. in addition drawings are submitted to the Com inimity Development Depat-t mnt entitled "Renovation and. Site Plan Byron hot Springs (dated Sept. 2002)„for the development of an 18-hole golf course, the remodeling of the hotel structure and.the Mead house, and the placement of approximately 200 modular residential units on the site. November 19,2002,East Bay Associates submits a booklet entitled "America's Greatest Spa: Proposed Resort Facility"to the County Planing Commission. Included in the booklet is a rnap of the proposed Byron :lot Springs Resort and Spa Master Plan (the plan differs frorn the drawings submitted to CDD on 11/14/2002). December 2, 2002, Community Development Department issues a letter to Robert Milano,Hot Springs Development Company, responding to request for Alar g and zoning law clearance relating to the proposed Renovation & Site Ilan, Byron Hot Springs (8/2002). The letter lists and identifies additional information and procedures required before requested Building Permits can be cleared by the Community Development Department. Note:Text in italics indicates pe mils issued by County or other Public Agency. G:1ACwnce UC PLAYCKXONOLOOY.d.c 5 October 11, 1951 # ' Bob Drake c/a Zoning Administrator Contra: Creta County FAX sgs_isee Subject: Z.A. Appr-cvals/ -H _S : Dean Bob: Please du plat schedule a zoning adminietratar meeting as regards Byron Hot Springs . The issues to be discussed it such e forum ave st 11 under eeruti nU by elconomie analWc-t5 and are still an :he table with WalFcrd, White and Alexeaf, The suron HLpr-i.-lge should not be eunsiderad as an eminent canstructian project Fa; consideration bg the zoning ad,,ministration untilk further notice . Thank Uou for gcur= fcrhesr-ance in these challenging times P1e4:,se cal-1 if l can he cf anV help whatsoever . Reg e, C L b, 24W flL'PIAP:C BLVn.5U1TIE 3=2 WALt*(TJ'F CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94595 (51 o)281-9165 o m m u n i ,7tr Dennis K Barry,AMP Development ConaCornmunIty ?Development Director Department Costa County County Administration Building SEA 651 Pine Street 4th Floor.North ging Ma:11nez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 ......5��4K ~~ December 2, 20302 Robert Alan Milano Hot Springs Development 3815 Hummingbird Drive Antioch, CA 94509 Dear Mr. Milano: Re. Response to Request for Planning/Zoning Lav Clearance of Proposed Building Inspection Department Permits for Proposed Renovation & Site Plan, Byron Hot Springs(dated September 2002) List of Additional Information and Procedures Required Before Building Permits May be Cleared APN 002-200-014 & 6015 This is in response to your submittals of November 14 and 22, 2002 and. These submittals consist of the following documents: L A Site Plan entitled Renovation &Site Plan, Byron Hot Springs, (Sept. 2092) (Two Sheets). A revised plan provides for 100 two-unit, two-story "golf villa/cottage"manufactured homes (flats), 2. A booklet entitledAmerica's Greatest Spa, Proposed Resort Facility, with colored exhibits and photographs from the past of the original resort and colored Master Plan. 3. A second typical floor plan and ftont elevation of a proposed"Byron Villa," You have indicated that these strictures would be placed on permanent .foundations. As we understand, at the present time you are seeking clearance from our department of building and grading permits for the following improvements, Office Hours Noonday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. r)ffincn is nincar<. tha let .irri A nth Fririavc of opr,h mnnth 2 A. Development of 100 two-story, two dwelling-unit golfvilla/cottages consisting of manufactured homes (total of 200 cottage/dwelling units). B. Restoration of a former multi-story spa building. C. Restoration of a -former hotel building, but instead of serving as a hotel, the building would be converted to a conference center. Development of an 18-hole golf course. Zoning Regulations The site is zoned Forestry-Recreational(IF-R) District. That District provides for a range of permitted activities. At the same time, the District allows certain commercial uses (tea rooms and gift shops) only after the granting of a land use permit. The F-R district also requires that specified design standards be met(e.g. restriction on yards,-number of stories in a stnacture and stricture height). However, in addition to the F-R zoning district regulations, the proposed development of this site is also subject to other applicable regulations in Title VIII(Zorin Code) and Title DX(Subdivision Code), as well as State Planning and 'Zoning Law. Noted Discrepancy in Composition, Siting, and Design of Two Submitted Plans In comparing the above referenced site plan with the(colored.)master plan in the booklet, we note that there are a number of discrepancies in the range of proposed activities, their siting, and design. You have indicated that you are seeking building permits based or., the revised Renovation and Site Flan drawing,not on the Master Plan contained in the booklet. Notwithstanding your indication that the Renovation &Site.Flan supercedes the Master .Plan exhibit, staff nonetheless feels compelled to note that a number of proposed uses on the Master Flan are not permitted under existing ordinances and policies. • The proposed one-half acre parcels (mat Spring Estates] located in the northwest portion of the site are not consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation of the general plan,which allows parcels of a minimum 5-acres in size. Subdivision law requires a finding of consistency with the general plan, thus parcels of this size could not be approved. • The southeast corner of the project is proposed as an"Executive RV Park Facility." That use constitutes a commercial use which is not allowed in the Forestry Recreation district. Insufficient Lnformation Provided to Determine Compliance with Applicable Plannin /g Zonun Law Based on our review of the materials, staff has determined that it is not suitable to clear the requested permits. 3 Exhibit A identifies additional information and procedures that would be necessary before the Department could consider clearance of the requested pernLits based on ordinance and other legal requirements. Please provide that information. In addition to that irzforination, staff has also identified in Exhibit B other agencies that may have documentation and procedures that this project may need to satisfy prior to commencement of development activity. You should check with those agencies on their respective requirements. Drocessinee Pursuant to the adopted fee schedule (Compliance Check for Issuance of Building Permit, Code S-060C), any subsequent submittal of this matter for building per nit clearance will be subject to a fee charge for staff time and materials. Further, pursuant to the fee schedule,the applicant is to submit an initial deposit for this purpose. Assuming a minimal staff review of any submittal,this project would require at least two staff days (I8-hours). Therefore, the initial deposit that staff will require for this item will be$2700 (18 hours x $150/hr.), payable at time of submittal of additional building permit documents. In the event that staff costs exceed the initial deposit, then the applicant will be billed for bayment of the additional fees that are due. At time of submittal, we also ask that you identify who will be responsible for payment of any supplemental fee charges from the County. GENERAL PLAN A?ENID ENTUREZONING PROPOSAL IN PROCESS a he General Plan designates this site Agricultural Lands. As you are aware, at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, staff is proposing amendments to the general plan and zoning that would apply to this site,File 4GP020001 &#R.Z013105. The changes are intended to allow for consistency: • With the recently updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan of the Airport Land Use Commission.(aimed at assuring cornaatibility with planned:Byron. Airport operations), and p With existing general plan policies. Part of that proposal provides for the rezoning of this site to the Heavy Agricultural,A-3, district. The A-3 district world limit the use of the property to agricultural activity and related activities, some of which could only be established after the granting of a lard use permit. I he County Planning Co=Ission considered the proposed rezoning at its November 119, 2002 hearing, and continued the hearing of the matter to its December 12, 2002 greeting. d Should the Board of Supervisors ultimately adopt the Proposed Aa3 rezoning of this site, and were that zoning to subsequently take effect, any proposed development would be si:bject to the regulations of the new district. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (925) 3351214. Sincerely, I� . I ROBER(H. RAKE Principal Plaimer Enc. Exhibit A— Planning and honing Requirements Exhibit B— Other Agencies that May Have Requirements that Apply toThis his Proj ect tt` County Counsel Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Patrick Roche Building Inspection Department Carlos Baltodano Soen Thung Cary Fari a Health Services Department, Env. Health Ken Stuart Sherman Quinlan Public Works Dept.,Eng, Services Div. File H:\byronhs.Itr R`3\ ��•� �Cd S�t3F�S � � � c7 y//F{r, r,��ytacd. F��>y '••}��5��.t[w,. � d 8 r�� t�4� ay —s � $� W'4;�� ..ea•'4 C}+1 ?IT�.v;2�i'w ( +" `a � �t}' twrN. rtt 1110 00 v*• lftj { . ) s" on r i tt i ot� f f 6 . �^�ew✓ � S q 1 _ i .X25 y t }b+s✓ ` �"i �� (r� g t y ■ r.r,ifyy r S" AL 3 F.1 ' A-3 �. r ,,," C.1 "Yw i f LIFT Ofd COURT RD. OA DAL 3 A - 3 i jj ROAD I art : ppq x � A-2 am,}x th P5 � H A'3 A - 2 A - 3 ii?N 0 19 } loW no0 3000 l FEE, CERT If ICAI ERY O I R ECTOR OP COmmU1,41 DEVELOPMENT � r,rt,c Clrseeor al Carnmurd;y L1e•ernn+n:n„ni r.,nrra Crsxta Cnunty,ecrr:i:Y:har,hes nraP's P.lr of!hc sct oLmxps conxtav dna qre 9 Zon,n,?Mxjfat Contra Caslx Caunrv's..s,rfs,was xini»r,of':v:tee 9j,i,; 4 , :1,snrx itJr 0111ce Crxis 5+ccR,on 8a 2.00.2 MAP T - 25m cnxtatl by fJ:d.Mn.7853 an(Int-l—19•;9791 rK Fr,n.egr;si y,art ai Llivision 9A rrE:n Cne:ntV Clrtl=^an':e Ca*tc. d tt"°nr�nt indicylrs a#i the)n.-e,ng r:haett}rs in trn:r+r.0rtxsrp lcrf SPeax,>u+:fe hrt+vnen el,er.FnA nnw. �� d f 6e{kYCC 1Ii1lCe IIGna1tY n{IM'P1��rY 1tYA.,i1+C In,CM1i�SR ix(flan An(i t'a:<tY:�. v_ y_ C'_,Iifr)rni Exhibit A Required Inforrnation and Procedures to Allow Determination of Compliance with Plan-ming/Zoning Laws for Proposed Building Inspection Department Permits .Renovation & Site Flan Byron Hot Springs December, 2002 1. Clarification on Hove Proposed .Activities are Permitted by Zoning(Land Use) Regulations (Chapter 84-32) You have indicated that you are seeking to renovate and otherwise, establish a range of activities on the properties. We understand that you are proposing the establishment of the following: * A conference center; ® A spa., including provision for massage and mud bath activities; • 200 golf villa units (within 100 2-story"manufactured home" structures), ® An 18-hole golf course; Notwithstanding the provisions of the Forestry Recreation.District, it is not immediately ately apparent that all of the activities you wish to establish are permitted. ® It is not clear that the proposed conference center (i.e.,restoration of former hotel building as a conference center)is a peri fitted use within the Forestry Recreation district. • Provisions of the ordinance other than the Forestry recreation District pertaining to special site and project characteristics [e.g.,use of manufactured homes; possible impact to code-protected trees; possible establishment of activities ("massage parlor") that may be regulated by the Adult Entertainment Business Ordinance] may also regulate the proposed development. • The scale of some of the proposed activities should be quantified (gross floor area of commercial structures,maximum number of employees,maximum number of visitors to the golf course) in order to determine the level of improvements needed to satisfy the project's requirements under the Off-Street.,Parking Ordinance. Exhibit A Required.Information to Determine .PlanninglZoningLaw Compliance .Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs Please provide additional documentation that clarifies and sufficiently describes the range and scale of activities that are proposed, and why you believe the activities are permitted in order to allow staff to determine compliance with potentially applicable ordinance requirements. The site plan should also clarify whether any special structures (e.g., manufactured homes) are proposed as part of the project(See below discussion under iteaa #5, [.Evidence of Con pliance with the Mobile Home/Manufactured Hoare parr (T-1)District]. (rel; Ord. § 84-32.402 and Chapter 84-68) 2. Evidence of Compliance with `mater and Sewage Zoning Ordinance (ref. Ord. Code § 82-2.020) We have found no evidence in your submittal of provision of water supply or sewage disposal it comphance with the requiresneaats of the Ordinance Code. Prior to clearance of a building or grading permit for the proposed use, water supply and sewage systems and/or facilities are required for the proposed uses, including constriction, structure or other development to be established in compliance with Chapters 414-4 and 420-6 of the Ordinance Code, and the health officer's approval. You may satisfy this requirement by providing evidence to the Community Development Department that the proposed building and grading plans have been stamped by the health officer in the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. (ref. Card. Code § 82-2.020) 3. Provision of Evidence that Subject Property was Created in Compliance with Subdivision Laws The subject site consists of several properties that have been identified and described by the Assessor's Office(APN 002-200-014 & -015). Properties that have been identified by the Assessor's Office do not necessarily constitute parcels that have been lawfully established pursuant to subdivision laws. The Department records indicate that there is a question on the legal status of some of the property lines affecting this site including the common property line with the property to the north. We had previously expressed concern about the legal status oftihe property in correspondence to your legal counsel elated november 9, 2000(attached.) relative to a.lot line adjustment proposal that we understood that you were contemn plating. A-2 p'xhibit A Required Information to Determine planninglZoning Law Compliance Proposed Developm ent Syron,Plot Springs At that time, we requested that you provide staff with a chain-off'-title for the affected properties to see if compliance with subdivision laws could be substantiated. We are not aware that there was a response to our letter. The Ordinance Code requires that all County departments, officials, and employees vested with the duty or authority to issue permits necessary to develop any real property to conform with the Subdivision Ordinance, and that they shall not willfully issue any permit or license for use or construction. or any other purpose in conflict with the provisions with the Subdivision Ordinance or of the Subdivision Map Act; and any such permit or license issued in conflict therewith shall be Null and void. (ref. Ord. Code § 92- 12.412) You may be able to satisfy staff that the affected properties were legally established by providing a chain-of-title going back to at least 1947.' A chain-of-title may be obtained from either a title insurance company, or from. the County Recorder's Office. We would appreciate receiving two setts of documents. We may refer one set to tine County Surveyor in the Public Works Department to aid in the review and interpretation of the legal descriptions. Should staff determine that the parcel has not been legally created in. compliance with subdivision laws, it may be necessary to apply for a tentative map pernnt, and subsequently record a parcel*nap prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. The evidence may also be sufficient to allow a presumption that the parcel(s)were lawfully created pursuant to Government Code Section 56412.6. In the latter instance, the County may still require a certificate (or conditional) certificate of compliance prior to issuance of a building permit, and compliance with the terms of such a certificate. (ref. Govt. Corte § 65499.35) 4, Correction to Site Plan to Show Whale of Property Assuming that the subject site constitutes a legal building site under subdivision law, the site plan is nonetheless incornplete in that it omits a fee strip linking the main body of the property with Byron Hot Springs Road. Before we could clear any grading or building permits,we will require a site plan that includes a scaled drawing of the whole of the site, including any proposed improvements. The site plan shall also identify any encumbrances affecting the site(e.g., right-of-way of the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District). T'he County first adopted a subdivision ordinance in 1953,however in 1948,the County adopters a zor...ing ordinance that enacted regulations governing the size of the creation of new parcels. A-3 p'xhihit A RequiredInformation to Determine .Planning/Zoning Hary Compliance .Proposed Development .Myron Hot Springs Based on the County findings for Item#3 pertaining to determination of legal status of lots under subdivision law), the site plan should be revised as necessary to include all valid property lines (and associated metes and bounds description). Further, if APN 002-200-014 & -015 are determined to be separate legal parcels, then the site plan should be revised to include the common property line, and provide for appropriate compliance with IMIM structure setbacks and other pertinent zoning (on-site parking) regulations. 5. Evidence of Compliance with Requirements of the Mobile Home/Manufactured Dome Parr(T-1)District (Chapter 84-68) You have indicated that it is your intent to use modular(manufactured) residences for the proposed"golf cottages", and to be constructed on permanent foundations. The Zoning Ordinance defines a manufactured home/house as a mobile home (Ord. Code Section. 84-58.418). Development of mobile homes is regulated under the provisions of the T-I Mobile.Home/Manufactured Home Park District. That Ordinance restricts the establishment of a"mobile horse" except as follows: • A permanent mobile home where it is to be occupied only as a principal residence on the lot, and other restrictions; • Various provisions for specified activities,but where the mobile home is not permitted to be placed on a permanent foundation; • In a lawful mobile home park or travel trailer parr; and • In a lawful recreational vehicle park or campground allowed by a land use permit and in certain specified zoning districts, not including the subject li-R district. (ref. Ord. § 84-68.1402) There are two provisions in the T-1 Ordinance that might allow your project. 1) In a lawful mobile home park or travel trailer park; or 2) In a lawful recreational vehicle park or campground allowed by a land use permit. Provision for a Lawful Mobile Horne Park or Travel'frailer Park- W-1 can find no evidence that a mobile home park is one of the uses that is authorized in the Forestry Recreation district. A mobile horse park is permitted in a T-1 district, after the granting of a land use permit, and complying with the terms ofthe land use permit. [Ord. Code §§ 84-58.604 (1), and 84-68.802)). A-4 Exhibit A Required Information to.determine PlanninglZoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron riot Springs Therefore, in order to approve a mobile home park at the site it will be necessary to apply for and obtain approval of a rezoning from the F-R dis+xict to the T-1 district. However, in order to approve a rezoning application, the County must find that it will substantially comply with the general plan (Ord. Code Section 26- 2.1806 (b) and Government Code Section 65860(a)]. The Land use Element of the General Plan designates this site Agricultural Lands; moreover approximately two-thirds of the site[including all of the area we understand that is proposed for siting of manufactured residences on permanent foundations ("golf villas")] lies outside of the Urban Limit Line. The General Plan provides that: • All agricultural zoning districts are consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation,but not the T-1 district. (Reference Table 3-5) • The T-1 district is consistent with the Mobile Horne or Multiple Farnily Residential (High, Medium or Low.Density) general plan land use designations. (Ref. Table 3-5) • The Mobile Home and Multiple Family Residential Land Use Designations are not designated as an open space designation. (Ref. Table 3-4) - Therefore,before a rezoning to the T-1 district could be adopted and applied to this site, it would be necessary to amend the General Plan designation to either a Mobile Home or Multiple Family Residential designation. Moreover, before the site could be redesignated to one of these general plan land use designations, it would also be necessary to amend the Urban Limit kine to include the balance of the property within the Urban Limit Zine. If you wish to pursue this option, we would refer you to Patrick Roche of this office who maybe reached at 335-1242. Mr. Roche could advise you on the procedure to amend the general plan. However,please note that it is unlikely that staf_�would support the necessary change in the general plan that could allow the application of the T-1 zoning district. Lawful Establishment of a Recreational Vehicle Park.or Camp • ound—The T-1 Ordinance also allows for the development of mobile homes within either a campground or recreational vehicle park in an A-2 or A-3 district(and therefore) in an F-R.district,but only after the granting of a land use permit. '"herefore, it may be possible to allow the proposed development as either a A-15 Exhibit A Required Information to Determine PlaanninglZoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron HotSprings Recreational Vehicle Park or Campground, after the granting of a land use permit. In this instance,no rezoning application maybe necessary. Alternative Course of Action The above procedure could be avoided by modifying the plans to substitute conventional site-built(aka, "stick-built")residential units for the proposed manufactured units. 6. Revised and Additional Plans to Show Compliance with all Objective Forestry Recreation District development design standards (Chapter 84- 32) Proposed development within the F-R zoning must meet minimum yard and building height (structure height; number of stories). The proposed plans do not include sufficient information to determine compliance with these standards. A complete set of building elevations and grading plans for the vicinity of the proposed development. it the project cannot meet one or more ofthese standards, then the affected structure could.not be cleared for compliance with the zoning regulation without approval of a variance permit. (ref. Ord. Code §§ 84-32.802 through 84.32.1004, and 82.4.214) 7. Revised Plans to Show Compliance with the Design and Improvement Requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance (Chapter 8216) The Off-Street Parking Ordinance intends and requires that: "call land uses siaall be provided with sufficient space located oJf=street for the parking ofvehiclesto meet the needs ofpersons employed at or making use of such land uses. No application for a building permit for the erection of a new structure or for the enlargement of an existing structure, or for" the development of a land use, shall be approved unless it includes oJ'Istrreet parking facilities as required by this code." To this end, the ordinance provides for parking, loading zone, and landscape design and improvement standards subject to the review and approval of the zoning administrator. We understand that you are presently proposing to obtain building and grading permits for a hotel, spa, 200 golf villa units, and an 18-hole golf course. We do not find evidence of compliance with the standards of the Off- Street Parking Ordinance. Before a building permit may issue, the Community Development Department must determine compliance with the A-6 Exhibit A Required Information to Determine PlanninglZoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs parking, loading zone and landscape design and improvement standards in accord with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. Alternatively, the ordinance also allows for variances (and land use permits) to be granted that may allow exceptions to those standards. (ref. Ord. Code §§ 82-16.002, 82-16.012, 82-16.020, and 82-16.024) 8. Revised Plans to Show Compliance with the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 816-6) In 1994, the County enacted the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. That ordinance provides for the "protection" of certain trees in the unincorporated area of the county. That ordinance provides for the protection of trees on private property by controlling tree removal while allowing for reasonable enjoyment of private property rights and property development. Among the trees designated as protected by the ordinance are any tree measuring twenty inches or larger in circumference (approximately six and one-half inches diameter), measured four and one-half feet from ground level on any area designated for recreational purposes or open space[ref. § 816- 6.6004 (2) &(3)]. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this site Agricultural Lands, which is one of the designations that the Plan designates as an open space designation. Therefore, a tree of any species with a trundc circumference of 20-inches or greater on this site qualifies as code- protected. The ordinance also prohibits trenching, grading, or filling within the dripline of any protected tree, or to cut down, destroy,trim by topping or remove any protected tree on private property within the county without a tree permit. It is not clear from your submittal that the project will avoid the removal or alteration of a code-protected tree that would otherwise require approval of a tree permit. From Department records, it appears that the site may contain a number of mature trees, including ones that may qualify as a code-protected tree and be located where they may be impacted by the proposed development. Before we could determine compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance staff will need to obtain revised construction drawings containmig the information identified in the attached Tree Packet, or otherwise substantiating compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance. In the event that the project requires approval of a tree permit, an application form for that purpose is included in the Tree Packet. A-7 Exhibit A Required Information to Determine Planning/Toning Law Compliance Proposed Development Myron Hot,Springs No tree permit would be required if there are either no code-protected gees, or the project will not cause the removal or alteration of a code-protected tree. You should also be aware that it is standard Department practice prier to clearance of building pennits to require applicants to attest on the face of the construction site plans that the information about trees,tree driplines, and creeks is accurate. The Department has standard language on a rubber star p for this purpose. (ref. turd. Code §§ 816-6.2004, 815-6.6002, and 816- 6.8002) 9. Disclosure of Possible Use of Hazardous Materials Compliance with State Law Requirement for Disclosure of Hazardous Materials (Government Code Sections 65850.2 &_65940) It is riot clear whether the project will involve the use or storage of hazardous materials including spa and golf course (e.g.,pesticides and fertilizers). State law bars the County from issuance of a building permit in which a regulated substance will be present in a process in quantities greater than the applicable threshold quantity, unless the owner or authorized agent for the project first obtains from the County Health services Department a notice of requirement to comply with, or determination of exemption from, the requirement to prepare and submit a Risk Management and Prevention Program.(RMP). Enclosed is a packet containing a questionnaire for this purpose. Please complete the questionnaire and submit it to the Community Development Department. We shall refer the matter to the Health Services Department for review. 10. Compliance with Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance (Chapter 82-26) The Water Conservation Ordinance intends to require water conservation methods for landscaping of new developments by regulating turf areas, planting material;, and irrigation practices. To this end, the Ordinance requires that the water conservation landscape requirements apply to all new developments, and require landscape plans to be submitted to the community development department for final review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. For example, the Ordinance limits the extent to which turf improvements may be established. (ref. Ord. Code §§ 82-26.402 and 82- 26.404) The Ordinance provides for landscape and irrigation design standards, and reporting requirements, including certification of compliance ofpla is with A-8 Exhibit r4 Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning haw Compliance Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs this chapter by either a licensed landscape architect, a licensed landscape contractor, or ether landscape professional whose qualifications have been approved by the community development department. Ornamental Ponds The proposed golf course and site contain:several Please proposed water bodies. ease note that the Nater Conservation Ordinance discourages the establishment of foundations,ponds or ether water bodies that are part of the landscaping for new developments, and are subject to the following restrictions. Unless the water body is an integral parr of the operation of the new development,the surface area of the water body is counted as turf im calculating maximum allowable turf for the landscaped area. Where well water or untreated water is used, and the water supply is recirculated, the conTir- unity development department may snake allowances consistent with the other provisions of this chapter. In other respects,there is no provision for varying the requirements of the Nater Conservation Ordinance. Prior to clearance of construction or grading plans for the proposed development,the Community Development Department must receive revised submittals providing evidence of compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance. 11. Compliance with the Adult Entertainment Businesses Ordinance (Chapter 88-1.2) We understand that you are proposing the restoration of a former spa (building) on the property that will involve various activities including mud baths and massages. We wish to preface the following discussion by indicating that nothing in what you have communicated to staff has suggested that you intend to conduct any illicit commercial activity at the site. Still, the Adult Entertainment Businesses Ordinance may regulate some of the proposed activities that you have described to staff. The Ordinance regulates the establishment of"adult entertainment businesses„which are defined in the ordinance. One such business is a"massage parlor"which is defined as: "Any establishment licensed as a massage parlor pursuant to Chapter 5I8-2 of the Ordinance Code where,for any form of consideration or gratuity, massage, alcohol rub, or magnetic treatments, or any other treatment or manipulation of the human body occurs. " Fref; Ord. Code § 88-12.602 (7)] A-s Exhiait A Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Syron Hot Springs The Ordinance provides that it is unlawful to establish any specified adult entertainipent business if the location is within 500 feet of any area zoned for residential use. The site is zoned Forestry Recreation_. The adjacent property to the north is also zoned Forestry Recreation. Two of the permitted uses allowed in the Forestry Recreation District are (a) any use permitted in a single family residential district, and (b) residences. Therefore, if the proposed activity meets an Ordinance definition of a:passage parlor, the proposed activity would not be permitted at this site. (ref. Ord Code § 88- 12.602). Alternatively, you may provide staff with: 1) Documentation that the proposed developnnent will not allow for any"adult entertainment businesses"as defined in the ordinance including a massage parlor; or 2) Apply for and obtain a land use permit horn the County to modify the location restriction requirement. ENCLOSURES Zoning Map Chapter 84-32 Forestry Recreation.District Ord. Code § 82-2.420 Mater and Sewage Zoning Ordinance Requirements Assessor's Map Ord. Code § 92-12.412 Violation Action of Subdivision Laws 11/9/2002 CDD letter to Dougal C. MacDonald on Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Mark-up of Site Plan Chapter 84-68 Mobilehome/Manufactured Hope.Park(T-1) District Chapter 82-16 Off-Street Parking Ordiance Tree Permit Packet including Chapter 816-6, Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance Hazardous Materials Disclosure Questionnaires State Law Requirement Chapter 88-12 Adult Entertainment Businesses Ordinance H:\byronhs-ex-a.att RD\ A-10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 9455 Telephone: 335-1210 Fax: 335-1222 TO: Lashun Cross, Staff, Centra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Patrick Roche, Advance Planning Division DATE: February '12, 2003 SUBJECT: County Planning Commission's review of the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan In accordance with an August 13, 2092 referral from the Board of Supervisors, the County Planning Commission concluded public hearings and completed their conformity review of the County General Plan and relevant ordinance with the adopted.Airport Ladd Use Compatibility on Tuesday,February 11,2003 In summary,the County Planning Commission adopted the following recommendations for the Board of Supervisors: 1. Repeal the Airport Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 86-4 County Code). County pile # ZT92-0004. This action would repeal the obsolete Airport Zone District ordinance that regulates land uses around the Buchanan Field Airport.The Airport Zone District ordinance's original purposes have been superseded by the State law establishing the Airport:Land Use Cornmission. 2, Adgpt the AiKport Land Use Com atp ibilily Plan General Plan Amendment. County File#GP 02- 0901. This is a proposal to amend the Land Use, Noise, and Transportation and Circulation Elements to the County General Plan bringing the General Plan_into conformity;with the Airport Land.Use Compatibility Plan.As recommended by the County Planning Commission this General Plan Amendment includes the fallowing changes: Land`lJ4se Element A.Re-designate the deed restricted County owned lands within the Byron Airport property set aside for habitat protection from Public/Semi public(PS)to Open Space(OS)as a further effort to protect airport lands. Ivlerno to L. Cross,ALUC staff re: CPC's review of the adapted Airport Land Use Conapat?bi?ity Flan Febraary 12,'4003 Page Two B. Re-design, ate the 120 acre parcel directly north of the Byron Airport, which is deed restricted land with conservation easement under ownership by Wildlands Inc. and within Compatibility Zone B-1, from the Agricultural Lands (AL) designation to Open Space (OS). C. Establish new a policy under "Policies for the Southeast County Area", page 3-54, that ac'nowledges the historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site, supports the rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron loot Springs site, and supports the re- establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa. Noise Element A. Modif the Noise Element Maps by adopting new CNEL Noise Contour Maps including Figures 11-5, 11-6 and 8d. Transportation and Circulation Element A. Change policy text in the Transportation and Circulation Element as follows: 1. Update Policy 11-5 to read: "l 1-5 In developing residential areas exposed to a DNL in excess of 65 dB due to single events such as train operation,indoor noise levels due to these single events shall not exceed a maximum A-weighted noise level of 50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other habitable rooms. Single evert indoor residential noise levels ftom airport related causes will be 45dB CNEL." 2. Update Policy 5-59 to read: "5-59 All major land use actions within the Buchanan Field and Byron Airport Influence Areas as shown upon Figure 5-5 shall be referred to the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission for comment. The definition of what constitutes a major land use action is found on pages 2-6 through 2-- 8 of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted in December of 2000. If it is unclear whether or not an action falls within this listing,the County should err on the side of caution and refer the matter to the ALUC staff'. Memoto'.. Cross,ALUC staff re: CPC's review of the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Flan February 12,2003 Page Three 3. Update Policy 5-60 to read: "fi5-60 New construction or building exterior alterations located in areas of terrain penetration as defines by ALUC Airspace protection Surfaces will be reviewed or,a case by case basis with consideration given to topography,flight patterns,existing vegetation and other factors which might affect airspace and safety. The Conray will rely on ALUC land use compatibility guidance and programs for considering airspace safety analysis issues and height limitations of structures." 4 Update Policy 5-64 to read: "5-64 The following are suggested uses within the ALUC Compatibility Zones for Buchanan Field: a. agriculture; b. open space; C. warehousing; d. light industry; e. parking of automobiles; and f. low occupant density public uses, such as sewagetreatment plants." 5. Update Policy 5.65 to read: "5-65 The following are suggested uses within the ALLYC Compatibility Zones for the Byron Airport: a. agriculture; b. open space; c. low intensity park and recreation uses; d. low occupant density public uses; and e. parking of automobiles.," 6. Modify the General Plan text to refer to the Byron Airport rather than the East Contra Costa Airport throughout the text. 7. Delete completed implementation measures. 5-at. The County shall adapt structural height limit zoning on a permanent basis for the East County airport. The purpose of the zoning is to protect the airspace near the airport for the planned airport operations." Memo to L. Cross,ALUC staff re: CPC's review of the adopted Airport Lard Use Compatibility Plan February 12,2003 Page Fo•.-u 5-ay.The General Plan supports preparation, adoption and implementation of a `state-of-the-art' comprehensive land use plan.(CLUP) for the East County Airport. The flan should address public safety,protection of airport airspace a.Fid noiseloverflight compatibility. The flan should be formulated under the auspices of the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to State law. The CLUP should be completed prior to approving any general plan revision to permit nonagricultural open space uses near the airport." 3. Adopt County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use- Com ate ibility Plan. County File##RZ 01-3105.As recommended by the County Planning Commission, this is a proposal to rezone lands adjacent to the Byron Airport now zoned. Forestry-Recreation(FR)that are within the ALUC Compatibility Zones B-1,B-2,C-1 to a Planned Unit(P-1)Zoning District.A draft copy of the proposed P-I District for the Byron. Hot Springs site and the Taylor property is attached for your reference.Please note that staff had recommended rezoning other lands near the Byron Airport that fall within the ALUC Compatibility Zones B-1 and B-2, to be rezoned from A-2: General Agricultural honing District to the A-3: Heavy Agricultural Zoning District to conform with the 10 acre minimum. lot size as defined in the Airport Land Use Compatibility flan. The County Planning Commission agreed with the staffrecommendation to rezone lands near the Byron Airport under public ownership(Mate of California)to the A-3 District,but they reached a different conclusion on the privately held lards recommended for rezoning to A-3. The County planning Commission.,instead,have recommended that the A-2 District be retained on privately held lands reasoning that the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan did not provide sufficient evidentiary support to rezone these properties to a higher minimum parcel size requirement. Several commissioners reasoned that the rezoning of land for conformity with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan should, be done or, the basis having the least economic impact on private property,particularly when in their judgment the ALUC plan does not explain the rationale for setting a higher minimum parcel size. The County Planning Commissions'recon.endations will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration at a public hearing.No date for a public hearing by the Board has been set,but I would expect that it will likely be scheduled for some time in March or April.I will let you know when a hearing date is set, and then forward a copy of the Board Report for you to share with the ALUC. Enclosures (1) cc: C. Kutsuris, CDD-Dep. Dir. R. Drake, CIT-Current Planning G:\Advance Plaatingladv-plan\Ai LJC PLAMCDDMEM0 to ALUC on CPC action Amort Land Use Cnmpatsb:i:y Plan.doe County Planning Commission Recommendation Z/11/2003'" PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (P-1) BYR.ON HOT SPRINGS RESORT SITE (APRT: 002-200-014/015) ANIS "TAYOLOR PROPERTY (APN. 002-200-013) l a 'PERMITTED TED USES A. All uses permitted in the A-2: General Agricultural District as defined under County.ening Ordinance Code Chapter 84-38. B. The following historically established uses are permitted subject to CEQA evaluation and submittal of applications for a Prelirmnary Development Plan and Final Development flan as established under the provisions of the P-1 Planned Unit District, Chapter 4-66, County Zoning Ordinance Code: • Restoration of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure to the historic exterior design for resort lodging and/or conference center use. • Restoration of the Meade House. • Restoration of the former spa facility for public use, which was once a functional part of the Byron. Hot Springs Resort Hotel, pursuant to the compliance procedures for massage parlors under both. Chapter 518-2 and County Zoning Ordinance Code Section. 88-12.4 (7). C. As further defined under County .Zoning Ordnance Cade Section 84-66.406, the following interim uses are permitted until a Final Development Plan is approved: • One single family dwelling on a vacant parcel that is a legal lot. • Any existing nonconforming use lawfully established at the time the P-1 District was adopted may be repaired, rebuilt, extended, or enlarged in accordance with Chapter 82.8 of the County Zoning Ordinance Cade. 1 County Planning Commission Recommendation 2/11/2003 2, USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO REVIEW AN-D APPROVAL IN THE FATAL DEVELOPMENT PLA` A. Uses allowed with a land use permit in the A®2: General Agricultural District as defined under County ,honing Ordinance Code Chapter 84®38. B. All new resort related uses that could be approved within the Final Development Plan and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), include; • Golf Course and related facilities; including the design, .grading, and construction of the golf course and its facilities. • permanent or seasonal residential uses, or lodging uses; that are not within the Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure. The number, location, and density of these residential or ledging uses, which are not within the historic hotel structure, shall be subject to a determination by the Zoning Administrator these uses are consistent with all applicable General Plana policies and to a determination by the ALUC that these uses are consistent with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.. • Cellular telephone or other telecommunication sites. • Utilities and public services (e.g., sewer and water facilities not underground). 3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following development standards shall apply to the P--1 District for the Byron Hot Springs Resort site: All structures beyond SO feet in height, any structure proposed within. Compatibility Zone B-1, and any increase in height of the former Byron Hot Springs Resort Hotel structure shall conformm with the height requirements and limitations of the adopted ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 2 County Planning Commission ,Recommendation 2/Z11 003 Pursuant to Policy 4.3.3 in the adopted ALUC Airport band Use Compatibility Plan, avigation easements' over that portion of the site within Compatibility Zone B-1 shall be deeded to the County for any development. 4. REQUIREMENTS Development of the Byron Hot Springs resort site under the P-1 District shall conform to the following requirements in addition to those defined under Section 84-66.1006 and Section 84-66.12 to Chapter 84-66 of the County Zoning Ordinance Code: • The required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be secured prior to issuance of building permits to assure compliance with the legal requirements relating to endangered species, critical habitats for endangered species, and wetlands. • The application for a Final Development flan shall include evidence in the forn of a study from a qualified environmental health specialist that the prior application of bio-solids on the site will not pose a risk or hazard to the public in the use of the restored spa or proposed golf course. The applicant may undertake this study, however it will be subject to a peer review conducted on behalf of the County at the applicant's expense, or, alternatively, the applicant may secure a fee deposit with the Community Development Department for the County to undertake this study. G.Advance Planningladv-p:an�A.T UC PLAWROPOSED P-1 FOR BY12ON?SOT SPIKINGS AS RECOMMENDED BY CPC FEB 11 2001doc f Avigation casements shall provide the right to flight _n the airspace over the property,allow generation of noise and other impacts associated with aircraft overflight,and restrict the height of stractures,trees, and other objects,permit access to the property for the purpose of removing or aeronautical marling of objects which exceed height limits,and prolrlbit electrical interference, glare,or other potential hazards to flight from being on the property. 3 Dougal C. MacDo ala Attorney at Law 1032 Justin Way Dixon, CA 95520 voice(925) 383-5525 fax(707) 678-5575 Thursday, November 419, 2002 Centra. Costa County Planning Commission County Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Planning Commission Hearing November 19, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. Byron Hot Springs Resort, re. (1) Proposed general Plan Amendment re ALUC Land Use Compatibility Plan, County File #. G°P#02-00019 and (2) County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport sand Use Compatibility Plan, County File RZ#01-3135 On behalf of East Bay Associates, LLC ("FBA.,), owner of the 160-acre Byron Hot Springs ("BHS") property in Byron, I am offering the following comments to the Staff Report and Recommendations on the proposed General Plan Amendment ('GPA") and County Initiated Rezoning ("CIR") actions captioned above. My comments are made to the GPA and CIR in that order. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1, Rage S-1 & 2. The Staff Report states that the County must take action within 180 days of the adaption by the Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") of its Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP") to bring the County's General plan and zoning ordinance into conformance with the ALUCP. The Staff Report states on Page 2 that the LUCP was adopted on December 13, 2000, almost two years ago, "Chen on Wage 3, the Staff Report says that the ALUCP was "made available" on August 13, 2002, and therefore the needed conformance decisions are required to be completed by February 15, 2003, These statements are contradictory and suggest that the 183-day lima for conformance decisions has long ago expired, The Staff Depart contains no explanation of what "..Sade available" means. The ALUC proceedings were public proceedings, creating records available to the public, and to Staff. The Staff Deport offers no explanation why this action to "bring the Byron Hot Springs property" into conformance" with the ALUCP should be delayed until now, some two years after adoption of the ALUCP, and leave the possible use of the property uncertain during such period. Contra Costa County Planning Commission November 19, 2902 Centra Costa County Page 2, Page S-2, The Staff Report states that the "sole purpose' of the CEPA is to bring the County General Pian into conformity with the ALUCP, and therefore the negative declaration issued for the ALUCP is adequate for these CPA and ClR actions. This "sole purposes' assertion is brought into question by two facts --one mentioned in the Staff Report and another omitted—that seem to suggest that other possible agendas or"purposes" may be present in the County's current action to downzone the Byron Hot Springs property. The first possible "other purpose" is visible in the Staff Report for th Cl'R, which acknowledges (Mages 3 and 4) that "the County General Plan urges the creation of a new airport planned unit district for County owned airport lands"'and that "'Staff has initiated work on this concept and such a rezoning proposal will cone to public hearing in the future." Stripping the BHS land of its entitlements for commer- cial activities by approval of the current CEPA and C1R actions would fit very nicely into these plans and remove the Syron Hot Springs property as a potential competitor to the County's own airport land destined for similar uses. The second possible "ether purpose" is revealed in the Open Space Element of the County General Plan, which states in time text accompanying Figure 9-3: "New opportunities for parks arise when additional lands are acquired for Other purposes, such as the proposed Los Vaqueros Reservoir in South- east County. It is anticipated that if one or more reservoirs are con- structed in that area, there will be recreational facilities associated with the water project. A park symbol in shown on the Parks and Recreation map to recognize potential parks and recreation uses within the Los Vaqueros watershed area.. "There are other locations within the Southeast County area which have potential for development of major new recreational facilities; however, plans for their acquisition are just now being realized. At the time that the East Say Regional bark District or another public agency is prepared to consider seriously the establishment of such facilities, these proposed facilities should be reviewed b the County to ensure compatibility with the concepts found in this plan and with adjacent land uses, Among time sites with such potential are Round Dalley, the Byron %scat jprings, and the Vasco Caves."' [Emphasis added.] Of the three potential sites, only the Byron Hot Springs property remains to be acquired for public use, leading one to wonder whether its time has now come. Could the current County-initiated GPA and C1R actions, which propose to all but eliminate -- or at Contra Costa County Planning Commission November 19, 2002 Contra Costa County Page 3 least drastically impair the property's allowed commercial uses under its present F-R zoning, be just the first step in the process of acquiring the property at the right price's In this context, the negative declaration made to support the ALUCP's adoption in 2€300, conceals many significant impacts in several important areas. "No Impact" answers to questions in the sections dealing with as land use planning, mineral resources, public services, recreation, utility and service systems, as well as the section covering mandatory findings of significance, were highly erroneous and misleading with respect to the current GPA and CIR actions, and impair the integrity of the entire process. 3. Page S-3. The Staff Report nates (under l l l) that the Board of Supervi- sors has initiated a Master Flan update process for the Byron Airport, which might, in Staff's view, "lead to further refinements" of these two proposals. Thus Staff acknowl- edges that it is pre-empting the Board on the broad policy decisions, but allowing some possibility that the Board may "refine" the policy decisions made in these proceedings. That approach is totally contrary to the Board's function, 4p Page S-6, In support of its recommendation for adoption of Map 5 effect- ing the proposed changes in general plan land use designations, which would affect part of the BHS property and property adjacent to the west, the Staff Report discusses only two properties of (1) the 120-acre Wildlands habitat property (which BHS sold to WIldlands, Inc. at cost to create a buffer for the airport); and (2) the airport's own property. There is no mention of the BHS property, no support for the pronouncements that Open Space is the "best fit" for Compatibility Zones A and B-1 -- no discussion anywhere of Compatibility Zone C-1 ® and no justification for the proposed change of general plan designation to open Space of the properties shown in leap 6, COUNTY INITIATED REZONING 1, Page 1. Under CEQA, the Staff Report acknowledges use for these GPA and CIR actions of the negative declaration which accompanied adaption of the ALUCP in December of 2000. The negative declaration is seriously deficient with respect to these two actions, as noted in GPA Paragraph 2, above. 2. Mage 2, The Staff Deport states under III "ALUC Incompatibility Zoning Issues" that "There are no zoning incompatibilities identified for unincorporated lands around the Byron Airport. BHS agrees with this statement, and questions (and objects to) this CIR conformance action. , Page 2. T he ALUCP is replete with "might", "could" and other vague Contra Costa County Planning Commission November 19, 2002 Centra Costa County Wage 4 descriptions of possible conflicts between the plan and uses on the BNS property the Commission found by a 5 to 0 vote to be "compatible'" with the airport in the early 1990's. The Staff Report contains no demonstration of any insurmountable inconsis- tency between the ALUCP and the F_R zoning of BNB. There is no justification for rezoning the BNS property and stripping it of the entitlements it has had for years, which are necessary and appropriate to effect proper restoration of the historical facility. 4. Pages 2 -7. The Staff Report makes numerous misleading or false factual statements and characterizations, such as: (1) that the area zoning is "almost all agricultural except for the Byron Not Springs site and other parcels zoned for residential and indus- trial uses in the Greater Byron Area. (p. 3). In fact, the F-R zoned property amounts to 200 acres, and the industrial-.zoned property on blot Springs Road (under an agricultural general plan designa- tion) totals approximately 35 or more acres. (2) that "The subsurface water temperature declined which limited the ability to reclaim the former glory of the hot water springs. Little of the former glory of the site remains." (p. 6) Both statements are unsupported and utterly false. (3) that the lands surrounding Byron Not Springs are zoned agricultur- ally. (p. 6) The Taylor 40-acre property adjacent to BHS is zoned F-R, and some 35 or more acres across Not Springs Road are zoned industrial, and have been granted use permits in the past several years despite their agricultural general plan designation. (4) that "the site is outside the Urban Limit Line and not presently served with water and sewer). (p. 6, Par 5). These statements are completely false. (5) that"while there has been much tall, no applications have been submitted". (p. 7). Applications were in fact filed in 1990 for a golf course, 290 villas, a spa, and other components of the historical resort. Another application was filed within the past two years for excavation and removal of sand from the site. ermlt wasgrant- ed for that application. Because of Staff's denial that any of the permits were effectively granted in the early 1990's— Staff says the permit applications were "continued indefinitely" — BNS obtained a Contra Costa County Planning Commission November 19, 2032 Contra Costa County Page 5 re-issue of two of the permits within the past year raiz. restoration of the Mead louse, and grading of the golf course. Staff's attempt to portray the land owner as failing to make permit application for restoration and improvement work on the Byron loot Springs property is simply an attempt to cover up Staff's intransigent resistence to any action by BIAS which would move the restoration project forward. Staff would have the Commission believe that no damage would be suffered by the BMS property if it were rezoned to A-3, because the "A-3" zoning -With a use permit°' -would allow most of the uses planned for the property. Imposition of a use permit requirement for each of the activities planned for the BHS Resort would add tremendously to the cost and difficulty of restoring the property to its historical uses, and, contrary to Staff's assertion at the Bast Bounty Planning Commission hearing on November 7t', 2002, the hotel use, allowed under the present F-R zoning, is not allowed under A-3 even with a use permit. 1 request that this letter be made part of the record in addition to my testimony at the hea.rin Sin(erely yours, tl�' Dougal . lacDonal cc: ast Bay A ociates, LLC Contra Costa County Planning Commission November 19, 2032 Contra Costa County Wage 5 qR I j �. �... I. z ' a 4. M, A t r A � 4¢ J � ,�'$'t E x � 4�`��sR•--r'e. 1. h Y ' F '� 'F g ' K fy�K , M1x�.�k Sy.M 4� R S�•;-� %M, z� x all a ltia z s Jtiy o F ' 1 f e1 T� n e r! A A Y v � S y J Q r. t"h {� ;cro . € �t; t' t l i S 0 0, 00 w, lla,t R +� ,a � s t t - � �.r✓ Cly t y t Lia k7 I � Fa t5 e� a, zs xb�� C� t Xil ,m4 , i > f"tel r ti, ' 5, ;IN h ppy � f Ng � ► - Zm �.iC 6 S'° "� rvy •4 I Z%,% tl 1 CCS e•} `+ 1{j�� ,/ • ! y�.. � �' �lfl�t� �i `i ��f;� ��'l)l�t�, t4 /XJ/`jr' rf/!"elf"�llJ1�i�1 i �" k Yom.✓ ':.; �'.� i� y� J jt/t ��, ,r�J•�Y. �J�t t _y •�JI/��.:'. l� t _ / 1 1 1 \ : G i i ivu► F., 2425 Bisso Lane,Suite 11 '�'. Contra Costa C qtr Concord,California 94520-4817 Board of Supervisors (925)646-5763 (925)646-5767(FAX) dist4 bos.co.co tra- to ns Mffk DeSaulnier Supervisor,District IV I ClaS n,Clyde,Concord,Pwhew,Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek i �I June 17,2002 Dave Fowler 741 Shady Glen Martinez,CA 94553 Dear lir.Fowler: 1 commend you on your efforts to restore the Byron Hot Springs Resort. This resort lies significant historic value.. The Hotel by Reid Broth Architecture and.Julia Morgan,t1w mineral baths,and the grounds offer an excellent opportunity to resuve an important part of the history of Contra Costa County. It will benefit East County greatly with the potential to create jobs and recreation and promote tourism. 1 asp happy to join the Byron Chamber of Comrnerce,the Byron Municipal Advisory Coil and the Byron historical Society in supporting this project. Sincerely, MDays -jv-Jsvl' LAID AV— all, t tt \ �""��.�� 4€a d ✓ .; y `- r zt, fue .5 82-2.01 S Zoning districts for open space. page 1 of I Title 8 ZONING mer 82-2 GENERAL PROVISIONS 82-2.018 Zoning districts for open space. To comply with the Government Code Section 65 10 the following zoning districts are deemed to be zoning districts for open space when applied in conformance with the open spade policies of the county general plan;Agricultural preserve district(A-4),heavy agricultural distract(A-3), general agricultural district(A-2),exclusive agricultural districts(A-20,A-40 and A-80),and forest recreation district(F-R),This section neither limits the use of these zoning distrix to the implementation of general plan open space policies,nor precludes the planning agency, from adopting additional ordinances to implement those policies. (Ord. 80-35,74-23), hr,,p.i/-�&i .ordiink.com/codes/ccosW ATA/ME08/Chapter 82_2_ N''E ,-'�I PROVIS 613/2002 1W Vrl-w 1w, io , EAST CONTRA COSTAHISTORICAL SOCIETY 3tWSMAUPS AVE z P,0-BOX 2 r$Ra=t4y1f4d00,CA1.i?z. ?3>TeI6 611 034-MT MAY 23,2002 Supervisor Donna Gerber 1200 Central Ave.StAte D Rreratwo4 Callfrrraais 94513 I Dear Donna, I air writing you today or, behalf of the East Contra Costs fttorleal Society. Our board has caret with Dave Fowler, of East Bay Associates,several times ever the past eaadple years to discuss pleas for the renovation of the Syme not Springs. ]be Springs played a huge relit la the early development ofLost Coatrra Costs and es us as important chapter of our past. I e would like to gra on record as supporting any efforts to restore aad rfnovate the hotel,mineraz baths,golf course,gaarderaa.and spat that once served thin r6gion of California. East Contra Costa has a wonderful*ad rich history and the Byron Rot�ipr lass is a key part J that hlstory> Any assistance you oul€1 give Mr. Fowler in has efforts in with this project:would be appreciated. { Thank you, Kathy Ulghton president wl im T i i i 1 i i i i I ✓; z �� c 5?OCAPITOL ROM 2068 O;STR;CT OFFIC��'� 2Ci0) CONCORD 50UdEVAR)S SACr'?AYFE;tiFO,CA 958;4 any- g +g q q gg' CONCORD,CA 94519 FAX(3767 44 2523 ,i,b-i FAX(325)602-6598 FAX(916)44$-2527 FAX(928)6t>2-Fi'39d JOINT GOVERNMENT CENTER SENATOR � � 420 WEST 3RO STREET A.N�'I.TFOC`v.CA 94509 STANMN,COMM T`t'EES TOM Tt3FsL,.A.F��C�� TEL(925)754-1467 LOCAL GOVE'R14ME T <AX(925)778-5174 CNA,R SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT DUSL%u SA'T'ELLITE OMCE SELECT COMMIT-FEES 100 CIVIC PLAZA Ci.i3LIN.CA 9456$ BAY AREA 4FVF'S�AS"�K'UCT:i>ec TEL(928)560.6880 FAX(925)329.7318 jO June 6,202. Dare Fowler 741 Shady Glen Martinez, CA 945553 Bear lave: I am pleased to learn of your continuing efforts to restore the Byron Hot Springs resort. As the former county supervisor representing that area,I saw the great economic value to the region-Mith its potential to create new jobs and provide recreation. I think it is compatible with our dent efforts to enhance tourism in the area. I also appreciate the historic significance ofthe resort. I understand the existing Hotel has ties to the Reid Brothers Architecture and the renowned Julia Dorgan. The effort to restore the mineral baths, grounds and buildings of the famous resort bring an invaluable opportunit y-to recreate a bit of history in East County.--44 A.'s-project, in my view, is also compatible with the Byron airport and plans for some business development around this important asset. I arra pleased to join the Byron:Chamber of Cornmerce,the Byron Municipal Advisory Council,and the Byron Historical Society in lending my enthusiastic support for this project. Sincerely, Tom Torlakson 6 u cell Count of Contra Caste BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT Martinez, California 94553-1213 RECEIPT RECEIPT DUMBER: P119908 38 APD*: 326706 Activity TYPE. Building Combo SITE ADDRESS: 5400 BYRON HOT SPRINGS RD BY Saab-Type,.....,GRADfNG/UPERVI ED PARCEL: 002-200-014 TRA€ ACTION DATE: 06/20/2002 TOTAL.PAYMENT: 625.00 TRANSACTION LIST. Type Method Descrmpt;oa Amount. --------------- ------------------------ _-----J.-- ay Check 314 62� ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Item # Descriptmcsn Total Fee Current Pay Total Pay _____i12 Planr-heckGrading - PC# 625.00 62500 1,125 v - W ____ T -____-- f _____-V `00 230 Grading Supervised - G3 1,875.00 .00 .00 233 Grad. Hand!ng Fee - G5 10.00 .00 .00 350 Flood Zone - #r2 30.03 .00 .00 ISSUED BY: PIIS DATE: 06120/2002 10:31 Alli r County of Contra Costa BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT Martinez, California 94553-1213 Receipt RECEIPT NUM :P121574 TRANSACTION BATE......... 08113/2002 TRANSACTION AMOUNT. 260.75 NOTATION............................o SENTIAL PRODUCTS/741 SHADY GLEN, MARTINEZ1925-22 -6'63 Set' arn-.ber Feld Set Member Paid 329260 60.00 329261 160.75 TY� Method Description Arriourit Payment Check 11026 260.75 TOTAL PAYMENT- 260.75 Account Code Description Amount 3420/9090 Building Permit-BE1 260,75 . � x ... - _. ._. , <;: .. _ , � � .... _. - ,, �. ,. ,. ,., x '. .,. �: �. .. :, �.:� �`� - 'iii . . � �: �' � - «s s s � � ti _..... ai ..- _ �e. '.. alF .. � .. —. ,. x Z „ ,::: .�: _ � � _. ... .,. ; ... � � M ... ... .. � � �' ,. ::.:�:.. y .- ;. ... .. - ... :� -. _ :., ,.. ... �}. � �q ; � � { � 4" ;. 7R aU '' _ :,_ ... ' ` �� ... �� - _ 1 .:. � '.,. ...,. .. .. .. "Y .. ..... .. .. - .:, f ., t. ;.,:: �'' �� .. -: .. .. f . ...: `i -.. � � .. � � .. .... ... ' .� ��- ...'. x'� . :� � �!.. '� s i. im * .i� .. .. ..... .,: � .::. '� r :.. .. � ... � , �. if Y -, ,.. r �" 4 1 .. .. ,; 4 :.� .. ,. Y _ M .. � _ .y .,. ,� _ _ ;. w ,. s .., .. <.; �,. ,:, ;: _ <:;: +� ' �4► b, � xAE �,� �'- .. �4* .�, � � :� - � .. .. .: f ... :,; ,. � .. �' #: a K. -:... ._. 4 - 7)-; .. .. .. -... .. ?* +r t ,. 9. ,' .'.. ... .. ;� ..a - ,.. .. _. ... .: .. } � ..,. ,:::: w� �' r ,. '` � x �. .... .,:. &,x�'.. Federal D. Glover 315 East Leland Road ,� Pmts urg,,CA 94565 Supervisor,District Five _ :925; 427-8138 Ccsn ra Costa C ounry (9250 427-8142 Fax Beard n;Supervisors "` 925j 634-59155 To' Free I S July 15. 200 I lir arae Fowler 741 Shady Glen Martinez, CA 94553 'i Deer Dave: I went to take this opportunity to express my support for your efforts to restore the Byron loot Springs Resort. i As you know, this area hes played ars integral pert in the history and culture of Fret County. l em pleased that you have undertaken pleas to restore the resort to e vital business and recreation center. Please keep rye posted as to ways 1 may assist you in your journey to return the Byron !-tot Springs to its majestic glory. Si ely, edere D. Glover Supervisors District i i I E-Mail:dist5@bos.co.c:)rtt a-costa.caaus 1 Antioch Bay Point - Bethel,Island - Oakley . � Pittsburg I 4-32.402 Uses—Permitted. Page 1 of 1 Title 8 ZONING c_haoter 84- F-R FORESTRY RECREATION DI RtQT 84-32.402 Uses—Permitted, ed, Uses permitted in the F-R district shall be as follows: (1)All of the uses permitted In single family residential districts and agocultural districts,together with the uses permitted by 31 is+ora er a bran ng and usrmffisJorthe sP cial uses authorized in any of these districts,except family care homes; (2)For public and private Parks and playgrounds,summer hones, hotels,golf courses,organized recreation camps,residences,temporary and seasonal clubs and camps, and other recreational uses. (Ord. 86-43§ 8: prior code§ 8153(a)(b)(Part)). htt,,p.//www.ordlank.co /codes/cc ta/ DATAI ITLE08/Cha ter 84—"s2 F R FORF,STRY,. 6/3/2002 foll,� FA �' j 7;%w `� eta ��•-+ � .fir ;�, i�v� `'`� ri- ��( }�� ` f� 'gyp 1 J ��J ...�,-YvpJ P 61 i 411 s _ (r' ti i``�.{�1. ,5�. � l�" 1 / -�� tiAfJ� \ � �✓'./':tlly i r c _ _ i 7 w Y �4 Ail, '`tel 04 c •, ' � ' ..-/'�... _..._....�....._. 2PS;s'.i+ayr .. Y. __ XNW3a'd Sae _esti�o. AAa��Aa a n. fir a f r k I ' - »: axXeee�ae»Fer� � I Dougal C. MacDonald Attorney at Law 1032 Justin Way Dixon, CA 95620 voice(925)383-5525 fax(707) 578-5575 Thursday, November 7, 2002 East County Regional Planning Commission Contra.CostB County Antioch City Council Chambers Third and H Streets Antioch, CA RE: East Bay Associates, LLC Byron Not Springs Resort, re: (1) Proposed General Plan Amendment re ALUC Land Use Compatibility Plan, County Pile # GP#02-0001; and (2) County Initiated Rezoning for Conformance with the ALUC Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, County File RZ#01-3105 On behalf of East Bay Associates, LLC ("EBA"), owner of the 160-acre Byron Not Springs ("BHS") property in Byron, I am offering the following comments to the Staff Deport and Recommendations on the proposed General Plan Amendment ("GPA') and County Initiated Rezoning ("CIR") actions captioned above. These comments have been prepared under extreme pressure, without adequate time, as neither EBA nor any person associated with EBA received information regarding these proposed actions or notice of tonight's meeting until Tuesday afternoon, when Gave Fowler was notified by a community member familiar with the efforts of EBA for restoration of the BHS property extending over many years. Considering the extensive history of meetings, discussions, and correspondence between County Staff and BNS personnel over a period of many years; the County's failure to give BHS notice of these County-initiated actions in my opinion defies explanation and draws the validity of the entire proceedings into question. '' y comments are made to the GPA and CIR in that carder. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1. Page S-1 & 2. The Staff Report states that the County must take action within 180 days of the adoption by the Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") of its Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP') to bring the County's General Plan and zoning ordinance into conformance with the ALUCP. The Staff Report states on Page 2 that the LUCP was adopted on December 13, 2000, almost two years ago. Then on Page East County Regional Planning Commission November :7, 2002 Centra Costa County Page 2 3, the Staff Report says that the ALUCP was "made available" on August 13, 2002, and therefore the needed conformance decisions are required to be completed by February 16, 2003. These statements are contradictory and suggest that the 130-day limit for conformance decisions has long ago expired. 2. Page S-2. The Staff Report states that the "sole purpose" of the GPA is to bring the County General Plan into conformity with the ALUCP, and therefore the negative declaration issued for the ALUCP is adequate for these GPA and CIR actions. Staff, however, acknowledges on Pages 3 and 4 of the Staff Report for the CIR that the "County General Plant urges the creation of a new airport planned unit district for County owned airport lands" and that "Staff has initiated work on this concept and such a rezoning proposal will come to public hearing in the future." In this context, an obvious purpose of these GPA and CIR actions is to strip the BHS land of its entitlements for commercial activities as a prelude to substituting similar entitlements on County-owned lands. In any event, the negative declaration made as part of the ALUCP indicated "no impacts" in several important areas, such as land use planning, mineral resources, public services, recreation, utility and service systems, and mandatory findings of significance, which would be highly erroneous with respect to the current GPA and CIR actions. 3. Page S-3, The Staff Report notes (under 111) that the Board of Supervisors has initiated a Master Plan update process for the Byron Airport, which might, in Staff's view, `;lead to further refinements" of these two proposals. Thus Staff acknowledges that it is pre-empting the Board on the broad policy decisions, but allowing some possibility that the Board may "refine" the policy decisions made in these proceedings. That approach is totally contrary to the Board's function. 4. Page S-6a In support of its recommendation for adoption of Map 5 effecting the proposed changes in general plan land use designations, which effect part of the BIS property and property adjacent to the west, the Staff Report discusses only two properties vi.. (1) the 120-acre Wildlands habitat property (which BHS sold to Wildlands, Inc. at cost to create a buffer for the airport); and (2) the airport's own property. There is no mention in this discussion of the BHS property or offer of any justification for a general plan designation change contained in Map 5. COUNTY INITIATED REZONING . 1. Page I. Under CEQA, the Staff Report acknowledges use for these GPA and CIR actions of the negative declaration which accompanied adoptions of the ALUCP in December of 2000. The negative declaration is seriously deficient with respect to these two actions; as noted in CPA Paragraph 2, above. Fast County Regional Planning Commission November 7, 2302 Contra Costa County Page 3 2. Page 2. The Staff Report states under Ill "ALUC incompatibility Zoning Issues" that"There are no zoning incompatibilities identified for unincorporated lands around the Byron Airport. BHS agrees with this statement, and questions (and objects to) this CIR conformance action. 3. Page 2. The ALUCP is replete with "might", "could" and other vague descriptions of possible conflicts between the plan and uses on the BNS property the Commission found by a 5 to 0 vote to be "compatible" with the airport in the early 1990`s. The Staff Deport contains no demonstration of any insurmountable inconsistency between the ALUCP and the F-R zoning of BNS. There is no justification for rezoning the BNS property and stripping it of the entitlements it has had for years, which are necessary and appropriate to effect proper restoration of the historical facility. 4. Pages 2 - 7. The Staff Report makes numerous misleading or false factual statements and characterizations, such as: (1) that the area zoning is "almost all agricultural except for the Byron Not Springs site and other parcels zoned for residential and industrial uses in the Greater Byron Area. (p. 3). In fact, the F-R zoned property amounts to 200 acres, and the industrial-zoned property on Hot Springs Load (under an agricultural general plan designation) totals approximately 35 or more acres, (2) that "The subsurface water temperature declined which limited the ability to reclaim the former glory of the hot water springs. Little of the former glory of the site remains." (p, 6) Bath statements are utterly false and outrageous. (3) that the lands surrounding Byron Hot Springs are zoned agriculturally. (p. 6) The Taylor 40-acre property adjacent to BNS is zoned F-R, and some 35 or more acres across Hot Springs Toad are zoned industrial, and have been granted use permits in the past several years despite their agricultural general plan designation. (4) that "while there has been much talk, no applications have been submitted". (p. 7). Applications were filed in 1990 for a golf course, 200 villas, a spa, and other components of the historical resort, as well as removal of sand from the site. Because of Staff's denial that any of the permits were effectively granted in the early East County Regional Planning Commission November 7, 2002 Contra Costa County Page 4 1990's, BHS obtain a re-issue of two of the permits within the past year viz. restoration of the Mead House, and grading of the golf course. The lack of time precluded further comment in this letter. I request that this leiter be made part of the record in addition to my testimony at the hearing. Sin erel yours, Dougal C acDona cc: E st Say As ciates, LLC Pi) Sheldon G. Moore 7555 Herdlyn Road 02 NV 18 PM 126 49 Byron, C.A. 94514-1607 Phone (209) 835-5327 FAX (209) 835-1529 Dennis M. Barry Community Development Director Contra Costa County 651 Pine Streets 0 Floor Martinez, CA 95553-1.229 November 14, 2002 Dear Mx, Barry We object to any process or procedure, which could ever have a negative impact on our properties. County files #GP02-0041 and #1201-3105 are adverse to our interests. We consider the Contra Costa. County Airport to be a waste oI°taxpayer's funds. The true cost/benefit would be shameful. It is apparent that the site was selected without knowledge of existing hazards and wind patterns. I have held a pilot's license for 47 years. Si q � Sheldon G. Moore SUMMARY OF COMMISSIONER RECONLMENDATIONS/COMMENTS TO THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE BYRON AIRPORT EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION,11/7/2002 SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ON THE ALUC COMPATIBILITY PLAN 11,Hamer,and YacVittiqj 0 Recommendation: 1) the F-R zoning be retained for another six months to allow the owners of the Byron Hot Springs site to secure necessary permits to pursue the development concept that was before the Zoning Administrator in 1991 (golf course,200 golf Villas,and rehabilitation o'hotel/spa),but after six months the site should be rezoned to A-3 as recomm rehabilitation and, '2)Compatibility Zone C1 and,any subsequent rezoning to A-3,should no,preclude the potential develornuent of train station in the Byron vicinity, which would serve the residents of the Byrott/Discovery Bay area,should the"e-BART V' commuter transit service be implemented. _Q91-WrIents Of—00r=-SS`0rerS Commissioner Walter MacVittie: 0 Expressed concern the,the ALUC Co rapatibility Plan's Compatibility Zone C1 and any rezoning to A-3 would not preclude the potential development of train station in the Byron vicinity,which would serve the residents of the Byron/Discovery Bay area,should the"e-BAXI—commuter transit service be implemented. • Supported the concept of the A-3 rezoning for the Byron Hot Springs site,conumenting the, a golf course project could still proceed through the issuance of a land use permit under A-3 • Supported the concept of rehabilitation and re-establishment of the historic hotel use for the Byron Bot Springs site. • Expressed a general view that the land -ase permit process is appropriate for such and in ma propwith a public for-urn- ny 0asesas hosals because provides,the community resulted in better developrien • Supported the balance of recommendations relating to the Byron Airport as presented in the staid'reports. Co,ru-pissioner Frank Dell: • Supported the concept of rehabilitation and re-establishment of the historic hotel use for the Byron Hot Springs site. • Supported the concept of a golf course on the Byron Hot Springs site. • Reco-m-nonded that the F-R zwung be retained for another six months to allow the owners of the Byron Not Springs site to secure necessary permits to pursue the development concept that was before the Zoning Administrator in 1991 (golf course,200 golf villas,and rehabilitation ofhotel/spa),but of six months the site should be rezoned to A-3 as recommended. • Supported the balance of reconumendations relating to the Byron Airport as presented in I the staff reports. Conun,'ssioner Pau,Harper: • Supported the concept of rehabilitation and re-establishment of the historic hotel use for the Byron Hot Springs site. • Supported the concept of a golf course on the Byron Hot Springs site. • Expressed concern that rezoning to A-3 would alter the development plans on the Byron Hot Springs site. • SLpp,,%-,ed the balance of recommendations relating to the Byron Airport as presented in the staff reports. Commissioner Phillip Day: 0 Determined to recuse himself and not -participate in the Study Session since he is a vnernber of the Airport Land Use';orriniission which approved the ALUC Compatibility Plan. G.\Advanct Pianrins�adv-pian\ALUC PLAmsurnmary of CCCUC SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Nov 7 2002-doe EXHIBIT #5 MAILING NOTIFICATION ITT AND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE APN 001-011-017-9 APN 001-011-021-1 APN 001-011-031 ADRIENNE P TRE APPLEGARTH ALAN F & DIANE BRADFORD ALAN & DIANE BRADFORD 3790 ARMSTRONG RD P O BOX 548 4970 PEABODY RD BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 FAIRFIELD CA 94533 APN 001-041-030-6 APN 001-051-006-3 APN 002-030-004-2 BYRON-BETHANY IRRIGATION D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BYRON SANITARY DISTRICT BRUNS RD 2800 COTTAGE `,NAY BOX. 72 BYRON CA 94514 SACRAMENTO CA 95825 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-030-016-6 APN 002-030.017-4 APN 002-040-028-9 KEVIN R F€NTA ROBERT W KELLY LORETTA A TRE BARGES 741 MCCLARREN RD 2187 PRESTWICK DR 3130 BYER RD BRENTWOOD CA 94513 DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-060-023-5 APN 002-070-019-1 APN 002-081-003-2 BOBBY GLENN & BARBARA S BYER JUAN SR& LOURDES ARGUETA JAMES E A€RINGTON P O BOX 2 5301 DELTA RANCH DR P O BOX 834 BYRON CA 94514 OAKLEY CA 94581 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-083-013-9 APN 002-090-005-6 APN 002-101-001-2 PEDRO & MARIA L ARGUETA MAIN STREET PROPERTI BYRON NELL.O & DIANE TRE BALDOCCHI 14825 BYRON HWY 1432 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR WAY 1914 PARSONS LN BYRON CA 94514 OAKLAND CA 94612 ANTIOCH CA 94509 APN 002-101-046-1 APN 402-102-003-7 APN 002-102-004-5 JASON W & MARYBETH BERGQUI ST BYRON COMMUNITY LIBRARY CL ADONA FAMILY TRUST 3011 CAMINO DIABLO P O BOX 388 P O BOX 8118018 BYR03N CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 SAN JOSE CA 95161 APN 002-102-046 APN 402-110-004-5 APN 002-122-014 BYRON BETHANY IRRIGATION NOLAN & RUTH BARRETT LEONARD BOTELHO P O BOX 160 2.5987 MARSH CREEK RD P O BOX 384 BYRON CA 94514 BRENTWOOD CA 94513 BRENTWOOD CA 94513 APN 442-1301-007-4 APN 002-150-009-5 APN 002-150-021 LEONARD L& KAY I TRE BAIO ROY W & MILDRED TRE BLANCHARD PAUL MILLER 5140 OLIVE DR P O BOX 592 3440 CAMINO DIABLO CONCORD CA 94520 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-160-004-4 APN 002-210-008-5 APN 002-270-002-5 HAROLD W ALBRIGHT JOSEPH M TRE ARMSTRONG GEOFFREY M ANTHONY P 0 BOX 353 2263 AZUSA CT 758 CURLEW RD BYRON CA 94514 TURLOCK CA 95382 LIVERMORE CA 94550 APN 002-270-005-8 APN 002-270-008-2 APN 003-110-014-2 TONI J ADAMS DUANE &WENDIE BON€NI MARY TRE ALMAND 3811 CAMINO DIABLO} RD 3985 RANCHO DIABLO RD 1712 GREER AVE BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 CONCORD CA 94521 APN 003-120-016¢5 APN 003-1301-009-8 ALVARO &`fAA N41E BELTRAN DAVID E BALZWIBER P 0 BOX 545 2471 CAMINO DIABLO BYRON CA 94514 BYRCN CA 94514 APN 001-021-010-2 - APN 001-081-013-3 APN 002-040-025-5 HERBERT B &JEAN TRE ELWORTHY DAVID DOMINGO TRE GONZALES SUSAN HENDERSHOT-STEINER P O BOX 97 666 LA CORSO DR 3741 CAMINO DIABLO SAN RAMON CA 94583 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-040-046-1 -- APN 002-040-049-5 -- APN 002-050-008-8 - MICHAEL S & MICHELLE D GRAY JIM M & CHERYL L HASLAM BARBARA J HAXBY-GLAZIER 3256 BYER RD 3515 CAMINO DIABLO P O BOX 6101 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 AIN 002-050-011-2 APN 002-060-006 APN 002-060-010-2 --- KEVIN D & DAWN E HUMPHREY RICHARD D TRE ERICKSON DENNIS J GROVE-PAULO P O BOX 481 P O BOX 301 P O BOX 242 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-060-011 APN 002-060-015-1 .- APN 002-060.022-7 KEVIN & DAWN E HUMPHREY LUIS & ELENA DUARTE STERLING F &JANICE HOGGAN P O BOX 481 P O BOX 192 P O BOX.771 BYRON CA 94514 BRENTWOOD CA 94513 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-060-024-3 APN 002-060-025 .- APN 002-070-001-9 RODDIE E TRE DUARTE KEVIN W DUNSTER WESLEY& IONA L TRE HOLDEN 3172 HOSIE AVE P 0 BOX 564 P d BOX 293 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-081-001-6 --- APN 002-083-002-2 APN 002-083-014-7 NIMROD & ELIZABETH GUFFEY SADIE B TRE INFELISE PAMELA GRADY P 0 BOX 38 1902 ALPHA WAY 3840 WASHINGTON ST BYRON CA 94514 ANTIOCH CA 945019 BYRON CA 94514 AIN 002-101-007-9 APN 002-102-013-6-- APN 002-140-005-6 —' REBECCA A TERRY FLOYD EARL=&VERNA J WETZEL EVELYN L GONSALVE S 3959 HOLWAY DR PO BOX 184 P O BOX 185 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-140-006-4 -' APN 002-140-020-5 APN 002-140-021-3 EMANUEL JR & JUDITH TRE GUNDER JAMES R&GAIL L GOLDEN TINA GAINOUS 8706 HIDDEN VALLEY RD 3420 CAMINO DIABLO 34301 CAMINO DIABLO MOUNTAIN RANCH CA 95246 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 .-APN 002-150-020-2 " APN 002-200-014-5 ~` APN 002-210-018-4 — JOSEPH J &TINA M TRE BANGO EAST BAY ASSOCIATES LLC R DYSAR`€' 4359 THOMPSON CREEK RD 3815 HUMMINGBIRD DR 5762 LEWIS WAY APPLEGATE OR 975301 ANTIOCH CA 945019 CONCORD CA 94521 APN 002-270-003-3 — APN 002-270-007-4 - APN 003-110-004-3 ..a.. DANNY A& SALLY HAMBY MICHAEL. & GERALDINE TRE HOGAN JOSEPH A&5AY TRE DUARTE P O BOX 94 P O BOX 1003 1380 CARPENTER RD BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 OAKLEY CA 94561 APN 0103-110-012-6 ` APN 003-110-015-9 � APN 003-120-001-7 SALLY E TRE DUARTE RUTH W TRE FACHNER DAVID A TRE FISHER 1380 CARPENTER RC 3800 HOLWAY DR P O BOX 37 OAKLEY CA 94561 BYRON CA 94514 DIABLO CA 04528 APN 003-120-010-8 APN 003-130-011-4 ' APN 005-120-003-8 JOHN W JR& BARBARA E TRE HOYT HUBERT E &SHARON TRE FRAZIER ALVIN &JUKE TRE EKENBEROO PO BOX 384 P O BOX 72 627 NORVELL ST BYRON CA 04514 BYRON CA 04514 EL CERRITO CA 94530 P4 APN 001-011-032-8 APN 001-011-040-1 APN 001-011-042-7 BRENT P &WILMA W THOMAS SOUZA THELMA LEO & MARIA MASTER 3453 WINDSOR CT 105 E 10TH ST#100 40 HIGHLAND AVE PLEASANTON CA 94588 TRACY CA 95376 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110 APN 001-021-003-7 APN 001-021-004- APN 001-021-0'12-8 SAMUEL &J TRE STEWART VALERIE J BRONGER JOSEPH R & ESTHER MARTINEZ P O BOX 19 7700 BYRON HOT SPRINGS RD P O BOX 631 CLAYTON CA 94517 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 001-021-014-4 APN 001-031-001-9 APN 001-031-022-5 MARIE CONIES FARMS INC NORMA L TRE & ROBERT E MYGRANT NORMA L TRE MYCRANT 1130 MARIAN CT 1168 ALTA MESA 5050 CLIFTON COURT RD#C TRACY CA 95376 MORAGA CA 94556 BYRON CA 94514 APN 001-041-001-7 APN 001-041-002-5 APN 001-041-033 KENNETH & PATRICIA MANNING ROBERT& EVELYN TRE MCMILLEN MICHAEL J &MARGARET MULRO( 160 DISCOVERY BAY BLVD 2524 MC ARTHUR AVE 7705 N BURNS RD DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 UNION CITY CA 94587 BYRON CA 94514 APN 00°1-041-035-3 APN 001-041-037-1 APN 001-051-008-9 MICHAEL J & MARGARET MULROONEYMICHAEL J & MARGARET MULROONEYSALEH HASHER SHAIBI 7705 N BURNS WAY 7705 N BRUNS RD 290 W 10TH ST BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 PITTSBURG CA 94565 APN 001-051-010-5 APN 001-08'1-024 APN 002-010-012-9 DANIEL J & DEMISE L SIMONICH SHELDON G & NANCY D MOORE STEVEN E & KIRSTEN J MILLINGA 441 W 20TH ST 7555 HERDLYN RD 3245 BYER RD TRACY CA 95376 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-010-017-8 APN 002-040-010-7 APN 002-040-019-8 DAVID S & ELIZABETH TRE MASRI PETE K & DIXIE A SCHOCH CURTIS L SHIMER 290 27TH ST P O BOX 81 P O BOX 118 OAKLAND CA 94612 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-040-023 APN 002-040-024-8 APN 002-040-032-1 TROY D & PATRICIA L MYERS LARRY LOPEZ STANLEY R&CHARLENE V MONT P O BOX 312 3731 CAMINO DIABLO 32507 BYER RD BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-040-036-2 APN 002-040-042 APN 002-040-045-3 MICHAEL & MARGARET MATHENY ANDRA P SCHREIBMAN RALPH R & LINDA L MERRILL 550 COLETAS WAY P O BOX 192 P O BOX 594 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-040-048-7 APN 002-040-055-2 APN 002-040-058-6 RICHARD A&JOYCE A MATTOS DENNIS B & LOUISE E TRE NELSON THOMAS J &JAMIE L GAVELLO P 0 BOX 413 1067 LYNN ST 490 COLETAS WAY BYRON CA 94514 LIVERMORE CA 94550 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-050.002-1 APN 002-050-006-2 APN 002-050-010-4 ROBERT K& FREDA C TUCKER MICHAEL T MCCAFFREY BRUCE L & SUSAN M STUART P O BOX 356 P O BOX 220 P O BOX 362 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-060-026-8 APN 002-060-027-6 APN 002-060-028-4 MARC TANNENBAUM CONCETTO & DIANE SCORSONELLI JOE& DONNA SIMON 3154 HOSIE AVE P O BOX 611 5670 MARLIN DR BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-070-020-9 APN 002-070-021-7 APN 002-070-024-1 LINDA MILES CIRO & ESTE.L.A TRUJILLO GERALD V MUELLER 3855 WASHINGTON ST P O BOX 208 P O BOX 13 BYRON CA 94514 BRENTWOOD CA 94513 BYRON CA 94514 APIA 002-082-002- APN 002-082-003-1 APN 002.-083-001-4 DAVID CLARENCE LUCAS DAVID CLARENCE LUCAS JAMES W & MARILYN TRE TUBAU 3985 AAJAKER CKR RD 3985 AAJAKER CR RD RT 'I BOX 19A BOZEMAN MT 59718 BOZEMAN MT 59715 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-110-002-9 APN 002-110-010-2 APN 002-110-011 MICHAEL J & LINDA A MORSE THOMPSON MARSHALL J EST OF DINA L TRE SAN P O BOX 685 133 ORCHARD ST P O BOX 326 BYRON CA 94514 NEVADA CITY CA 95959 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-110-013-6 APN 002-110-018-5 APN 002-122-003-3 THOMAS LEO EST OF LINDA A& MICHAEL J MORSE TWYLA S MCCULLOUGH P O BOX 56 P O BOX 685 P O BOX 597 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-122-005-8 APN 002-122-018-1 APN 002-140-002-3 THOMAS A TRE MCWILLIAMS MITCHELL.L & KELEN MANESS MARGARET L TRE SCHULZ P O BOX 58 2830 CAMINO DIABLO 15161BYRON RD BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-140-004-9 APN 002-140-007-2 APN 002-140-008 HOWARD& DOROTHY R SILVA DAVID A STACK CHRISTOPHER J BROWN P O BOX 488 P O BOX 1 15057 BYRON HWY BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-140-010-6 APN 002-150-005-3 APN 002-150-016 JASVIR SINGH SHAHI FRANCES A TRE SPRAU JOHN W & MARGARET L SCHULZ P O BOX 568 355 W GRANTLINE RD RT 1 BOX 47B BRYON HWY CA 94514 TRACY CA 95376 BYRON CA 94514 APN 002-160-001 APN 002-170-003-4 APN 002-190-004-8 REATHA TRE MARTIN MARITZ PROPERTIES LOUIS B JR SOUZA P O BOX 853 46509 MISSION BLVD 28007 W MARCH LN #330 EL CERRITO CA 94530 FREMONT CA 94539 STOCKTON CA 95219 APN 002-190-005-5 APN 002-200-007-9 APN 002-200-013-7 JOSEPH A&JOAN L TRE TEIXEIRA FATIMA COEHLO SILVA PAUL & RICHARD J TAYLOR P O BOX 281 23469 S CURRIER DR 1110 AMANDA CIR BYRON CA 94514 TRACY CA 95376 BRENTWOOD CA 94513 APN 002-210-019-2 APN 002-210-023-4 APN 003-050-010-2 JEFFERY& SARA L TRE TAMAYO MICHAEL & KELLY WEDMAN UNIMIN CORPORATION 5401 BYRON HOT SPRINGS RD P O BOX 783 258 ELM ST BYRON CA 94514 BRENTWOOD CA 94513 NEW CANAAN CT 06840 APN 003-060-003-5 AIN 003-110-001-9 APN 003-120-008-2 G COELHO MATHEW JIMMIE CLEAN &JAMES CHRISTOPHER WELLY& MIYOYEI SUZUKI 3590 POINT OF TIMBER RD 8501 RIDGE DR 20665 VERDE VISTA LN BRENTWOOD CA 94513 CONCORD CA 94518 SARATOGA CA 95070 APN 003-130-001-5 TIMOTHY R& DARK J MAGGIORE 820 QUIET GABLE CT BRENTWOOD CA 94513 APN 002-110-009-4 APN 002-130-049 APN 002-130-012-4 JOS F SANTANA MICHAEL & PATRICIA A TIKALSKY DENNIS A& LAURIE C SEVERS P C BOX 52 2043 WINDWARD PT 4851 SPINNAKER WAY BYRON CA 94514 DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514 Gary Milano Jim GwerderSousa Realty Company David Fowler 2855 Honeysuckle Circle 105 East 10"' Street 741 Antioch, CA 94531 Tracy, CA 95376 Martinez, CA 94553 Robert Milano Peter Clark Scott Weir 3815 Hummingbird Drive 1674 Pleasant Hill Rd. 1804 Camino Verde Antioch, CA 94509 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Don Ferguson Steve Wilkins Douglas C. MacDonald 820 Rutherford Circle 1424 Melanie Way 1032 Justin Way Brentwood, CA 94513 Livermore, CA 94550 Dixon, CA 95620 Michael Milano Joe Weber Peter Sergi 3815 Hummingbird Drive 2719 Ivy Lane 310 North Civic Drive#315 Antioch, CA 94509 Antioch,CA 94509 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Michael &Patricia Tikalsky Thomas Haglund Byron MAC 2043 Windward Point City of Brentwood c/o Sharon Marsh Discovery Bay, CA 945514 708 Third Street 2515 Taylor Lane Brentwood, CA 94513 Byron, CA 94514 Speaker Card Labels Gary Milano Jim Gwerder David Fowler Sousa Realty Company 741 ShadyStreet Glen 2855 Honeysuckle Circle 105 East 10��' et Antioch, CA 94531 Tracy, CA 9Stre Martinez, CA 94553 Robert Milano Peter Clark Scott Weir 3815 Hummingbird Drive 1674 Pleasant Dill Rd. 1804 Camino Verde#N Antioch, CA 94509 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Don Ferguson Steve Wilkins Dougal C. MacDonald 820 Rutherford Circle 1424 Melanie Way 1432 Justin Way Brentwood, CA 94513 Livermore, CA 94550 Dixon, CA 95620 Michael&Antoinette Milano Joe Weber Peter Sergi 3815 Hummingbird Drive 2719 Ivy Lane 314 North Civic Drive#315 Antioch, CA 94509 Antioch, CA 94509 Walnut Creek., CA 94596 Michael &Patricia Tikalsky Thomas Haglund Byron MAC 2043 Windward Point City of Brentwood c/o Sharron Marsh 708 Third Street 2515 Taylor Lane Discovery Bay, CA 94514 Brentwood, CA 94513 Byron,CA 94514 Zane Berkeley Michael Taylor Peter Clark 732atlin Court PO Box 567 1053 2"d Street 41 Tracy, CA 95376 Byron, CA 94514 Lafayette, CA94549 Neil Garcia-Sinclair Charles Jorgensen Phil Weber 2825 Newport Road 22 Bryan Avenue 2879 Dandelion Circle Alameda, CA 94541 Antioch, CA 94509 Antioch, CA 94531 Glenn Sobolik Steven Tanno Michael Taylor .369 Wintergreen Drive 9081 Drake Meadow Way PO Box 567 Brentwood, CA 94513 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Byron, CA 94514 Richard Taylor Robert Taylor Allan C.Moore 345 Mild Berry Drive 1110 Amanda Circle 279 Front Street Brentwood, CA Brentwood, CA 94513 Danville, CA 94526 Badrin Valani Al &Rosalie Milano Michael Taylor 46509 Mission Blvd. 1983 Mohawk Drive PO Box 567 Fremont, CA 94539 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Byron, CA 94514 Michael Cook Cindi Moskowitz Peter Clark .2150 River Plaza Drive 22 Bryan Avenue 1674 Pleasant Hill Road Sacramento, CA 95833 Antioch., CA 94509 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Names from Speaker Cards G:CurP1an/Cu rPlan/Airport band Use Compatibility/ALUC Compatibility-GenPIn A end.labels ' r To: The Commissioners: of the Contra Costa County Punning Commission,1 -16-03 The following compares specific paragraphs from the Contra Crista Count, Airport Lana Use Compatibility f .Flan (dated 12113100&prepared by Shutt Moen Associates). Versus Cali ornia Public Utilities Code (From)Contra Costa County ALUC Plan: Limitations Also explicit in the statutes are two limitations on the powers of ALUCs. Specifically, ALUCs have no Authority over existing land uses (Section 21674(x)) or over the operation of airports (Section21674 (e)). Neither of these ter s is defined within the statutes, although the interpretation of their meaning is fairly standard throughout the state. >- Existing Lard lyses ---The precise wording of the Aeronautics Act is that the authority of ALUCs extends only to land din the vicinity of airports which is "not already devoted to incompatible uses". The working interpretation of this language is that ALUCs have no state-empowered authority over existing land uses. The question then becomes one of determining what conditions qualify a land use as existing. For airport land use planning purposes, a land use can generally be considered existing once the local agency has completed all discretionary actions on the project and only ministerial approvals remain. A vacant property thus can be considered "devoted to" a particular use; even if the activity has not begun, once local government commitments along with substantial construction investments by the property owner make it infeasible for the property to be used for anything other than the proposed use. I ffrom) California Public Utilities Code: htt :f/ors.ca. cvl lapin / i76ris .hti Airport Land Use Planning (Excerpts from California Public Utilities Code Sections 21670-21679 5) Chapter 4. Airports and Air Navigation Facilities Article 3.6. Airport Land Use Commission 21670. (a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that: (1) It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. (2) It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.. I 21674. The commission has the following powers and duties, subject to the limitations upon its jurisdiction set forth in Section 21676: (a) To assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of all new airports and in the vicinity of existing airports to the extent that the land in the vicinity of those airports is not already devoted to incompatible uses. Tavlor Famil- y Response: Shutt Moen Associates whom was hired by CCC Planning Dep. to write the CCC ALUICP has interpreted"not already devoted to incompatible uses"to mean"existing land uses". The Planning Dep. Staff has then taken this to determine that our property, due to it's FR zoning, is dedicated or devoted to incompatible uses must be rezoned???? These statements appear to be in conflict. I have contacted the California Dep, of Transportation Division of Aeronautics for an interpretation of "devoted to incompatible uses" and"existing land uses" Ron Bolyard responded with the following From: Ron Bol.vard@dot . ca. a�oVy (Monday, January 27, 2003) which states the following: Existing Land Uses (p. 1-2 in the Handbook) Perhaps foremost among the statutory limitations on ALUCs is that they have no authority over existing land uses regardless of whether such uses are incompatible with airport activities (Sections 211-670(a) (2) and 21674 (a) ) . ALUCs, for example, cannot acquire property or otherwise force changes in the way a property is developed or used. We are requesting that the Contra Costa County Planning Commission leave the zoning of our property (Parcel #2002-200-013-7) unchanged If there needs to be a study of FR Property conducted by the County, then all FR zoned property should be reviewed to insure a quality offairness. My fancily purchased this properV in 1989 for the sole purpose of investment and future resale due to its FR zoning. We objected to the Urban Limit Line change in 1991 in writing to the County and requested that our property be included within the Urban Limit Line. The written response that we received only indicated that our objection was noted At the time the Urban Limit Line change was adopted, our 40-acre parcel was not separate from the original 202 FR acres. However, the Urban Limit Line only included a portion of the total 202 acres and not the entire parcel. Furthermore, in previous meetings and hearings, the Contra Costa County Planning Department has informed us that we can pull building permits but the property cannot be subdivided for development because it is outside the Urban Limit Line and is therefore worthless. This perceived "worthlessness-is not true. It is common practice to lease commercial property for development on a long-term contract, Michael A. Taylor. Rep. Richard J. Taylor Paul E. Taylor Richard M. Taylor Robert M Taylor Owners of Parcel2002-200-013-7 John Sweeten Cly of the Board of Supervisor and Courcy Administrator Administration Building,Room 108 651 Pine Strew l fart nez, CA. Ref: Ah or,Land Use Compatibility Plan General flan Amendment County Initiated Rezoning for Conform nce with the A1.:UC Airport Land d Use Compatibility Plan County Initiated Repeal of Airport Zoning Ordinance Dear Sir, Having nivel your Notice of December 1,2003 regarding the hearing on.December 16,at 12:3£1 PM& 1 MM I hereby notify you of my intention to attend and register my strong objection to any rezoning of my property looted at 6600 Armstrong Road,Byron CA. he notice rnrakes reference to designation of land from agricultural and public and semi-public use to Open Space, such an act would have:significant and negative impact on the value and potential of this parcel of 40 acres. I hereby advise you that I shall sock legal counsel if necessary to protect my properly rights and to demand fair economic compensation. I am well await of the prior studies regarding this property. It has previously been designated as ag i ltural,light industrial-Adth five-acre minimum. Prior stupes show that this parol is not in the path of current nor anticipated f€tture air traffic. The noise studies have never shown problems associated g ith this parcel. The neaps that I have identified on the internet recently show the:planned aspen space is at the rear of the property,the area most reniovel from the airport. To d€s grade this area to open space in the; narnc of airport compatibility is a farce and administrative abuse. My parcel is associated and accessed froin Armstrong Road,the area of down grade seem to be associated with the Vasco Rand corridor. I hereby demand that my objection be recorded and considered. ` here is absolutely no reason nor justification to down-grade my prope nor that of any of my neighbors at this time or a any tient in flee etre. Sincerely f{ Brent P. Thomas (925)330-82565 (92511280-5702 CC: Patrick Roche, ;925;335-1242 Conon unity Development Department