HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04011986 - 1.51 1 .51
THE BOARD, OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on April - 1 , 1986 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None .
SUBJECT. DECISION DENYING APPEAL Minor
Subdivision NIS 20-85 CHARLES
PRINGLE (Applicant ) FRANK JUENEMAN).
(owner ) - To divide 4. 11 acres
into four parcels in a General
Agricultural A-2 Zoning District
(APN 018-040-021)
--------------------------------
1 . On April 4, 1984 , Applicant CHARLES PRINGLE, filed an
application for Minor Subdivision 20-85 , seeking 4 parcels on ,4'. 11
acres , ,and ,requesting a variance for all parcels from the A-2
zoning requirements foraveragewidth and 5-acre minimum pa*rcel
size .
2. The property is a parcel in the Brentwood area fronting on
the south side of a private road approximately 183 feet east of
Anderson Lane and approximately 200 feet north of. Almond Drive .
The property is within Drainage Area 30-B,,,. is zoned A-2 , and is
designated Single Family Residential and in the Secondary Growth
Area , which is designated for Interim Agriculture, on the Oakley
Community Plan of the East County Area General Plan (ECAGP) .
3 . A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has
been filed under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for
the proj-ect .
4. After notice being lawfully given , a public hearing was
scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on June 17, 1995 ,
allowing all interested persons to appear and be heard.
5 . On June 17 , 1995 , the County Zoning Administrator denied
the minor subdivision application because 1) the size of the pro-
posed lots of the application are inconsistent with the A-2
zoning , 2) the findings for a variance from A-2 zoning cannot be
made , 3) , the nine point criteria 'of Board of Supervisors
Resolution 78/318 , allowing for the subdivision of land to parcels
of less than 5 acres in areas of established one acre development
designated Agriculture-Residential on the general plan , does not
apply because the property is not -designated
Agricul'ture-Residential but rather is designated Single Family
Residential and is in the Secondary Growth Area , which is
designated for Interim Agriculture , and 4) the project does not
conform to the policies and goals of the General Plan in that a)
the contiguous Planned Community ( i .e . , most of the area north of
Laurel 'Road) is not largely developed andb) public sewer , water
and storm drain facilities are notcloseenough to the subject -
property that it would be feasible for the Applicant to finance
connecting improvements , as required by the General Plan criteria
for development south of Laurel Road . . (See ECAGP' p . 21 & 22 '. )
6 . On June 17 , 1985 , Applicant appealed the decision of the
zoning administrator on grounds that the Zoning Administrator
" . .doesn' t understand the General Plan and .should have approved
this application" .
7 . On' July 30, 1985 , the Planning Commission, acting as a
Board of Appeals , heard and denied the appeal on the grounds
stated in paragraph 5, above .
8 . On August 9, 1985 , the Applicant appealed the Planning
Commission' s denial on grounds that " . . . the Planning Commission
acted arbitrarily in denying the application , after having
approved other minor subdivisions in the immediate area , with sub-
sequent `lot sizes the same or smaller than those called for in
appellants application" and 'that " it is argued that appellant
meets the nine point criteria which should apply to said parcel ,
and the lots are consistent with zoning."
9. On September 24, 1985 , this Board heard this appeal .
This Board , having heard all testimony and having reviewed all
relevant' material and files , hereby finds and determines that :
a . Chapter 914-2 , part of the Subdivision Title of the
County Ordinance Code , requires that all surface water occurring
on or flowing through a proposed subdivision be collected and con-
veyed to an existing adequate storm drain facility or a natural
watercourse , that such be accomplished without damage to property,
and that storm drainage facilities to be constructed outside of
the subdivision be designed to convey the runoff from the ultimate
development of the drainage basin or watershed within and above
the subdivision .
Ordinance 79-138 of the Contra Costa Flood Control and
Water Conservation District established Drainage Area 30-B in the
area including the Applicant ' s property. Said Ordinance
establishes a plan for an integrated system of storm drainage
improvements to meet the requirements of Chapter 914-2 , including
planned improvements which would allow the Applicant to properly
collect and convey water occurring on or flowing through the pro-
posed subdivision . The purpose of Ordinance 79-138 and Chapter
914-2 is to impose requirements by which all property in the Area
can be protected from storm water runoff . Except when all fin-
dings of Ordinance Code X92-6 . 002 can be made , each new sub-
division must be required to construct such planned improvements
as are necessary to connect to existing improvements . Failure to
require the Applicant to construct the required DA30-B improve-
ments would unfairly exempt Applicant from the similar require-
ments that have been imposed upon all subdivisions approved ' in
that Drainage Area since October 28 , 1980 and would likely lead to
similar requests for exemption which , if granted , could well
subvert Ordinance 79-138 and Chapter 914-2 of the Ordinance Code
and result in serious harm to property in the Drainage Area .
Further , failure to require the Applicant , and others similarly
situated , to construct or connect to the DA30-B improvements could
subject the County to liability from property owners whose pro-
perty might be damaged by runoff.
b . The aforenoted collect and convey stormdrainage
requirements must be imposed unless , pursuant, to Ordinance Code
S92-6 . 002 , all of the following findings can properly be made to
support an exception:
( 1) That there are unusual circumstances or con-
ditions affecting the property which would justify an exception;
( 2) That the exception is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appli-
cant ;
-2-
( 3) That the granting of the exception will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious t-o other
property in the territory in which the property is situated.
An exception to the aforenoted requirement to collect
and convey by constructing improvements conforming to the DA30-B
plan cannot be made in .this case because:
( 1) There are no unusual circumstances or con-
ditions affecting the property that would justify the exception .
( 2) The exception is not necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of any substantial property right of the
Applicant . The Applicant can ultimately develop his property,
but , like other property owners , must wait until enough of the
planned drainage system has been installed to make it economically
feasible for him to construct such planned improvements as will
allow him to connect to the system. Until such connection is eco-
nomically feasible , his proposed subdivision is premature .
( 3) Granting the requested exemption would be
materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to
other property in DA-3OB because many properties in that Area will
be subject to erosion and flooding unless substantially all
property to be improved in the area provides for collecting and
conveying runoff by the properly designed and integrated drainage
facilities specified in the plan of DA30-B.
No exception to the DA30-B and Ordinance Code §914-2 require-
ments has been granted in DA30-B for parcels less than 5 acres in
area since October 28 , 1980 , and this Board will not grant such
exceptions in the future in DA30-B unless extremely well-
justified , as shown by the findings required by Ordinance Code
X92-6 . 002 . Upon ultimate development of the Drainage Area in
accordance with the DA30-B plan , substantially all properties in
the Area will collect and convey by proper connections to approved
DA30-B improvements . All property in the area will thereby be
protected .
c . The proposed subdivision of four one acre parcels is
inconsistent with the A-2 zoning district because the proposed
parcels would be smaller than the 5-acre minimum allowed, would
not meet the average width requirements under such zoning, and no
special circumstances justify the requested variances . Also, sub-
division of property must be consistent with the intent, goals ,
purposes , programs , objectives and policies of the ECAGP; granting
the requested subdivision would be inconsistent with and adversely
affect the intent , goals , purposes , objectives , programs and poli- .
cies of the East County Area General Plan , because to grant a
an exception to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
would encourage •" leap- frog" development rather than contiguous
growth in an orderly and efficient manner , and would be contrary
to the General Plan policies requiring that development be ser-
viced by' urban facilities , including sewer , water and storm drain ,
which are paid for by developers . (See ECAGP, p . 8, 17,, 18, 19,
21 , 22 . ) Further , granting the requested subdivision and varian-
ces would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the A-2 zoning , ECAGP and DA30-B limitations imposed upon
other properties in the same zoning , general plan designation and
drainage' area . Because of the foregoing, the variance standards
of Ordinance Code §26-2 . 2006, and particularly subdivision (3)
thereof , cannot be met by the present application . Similarly , the
,parcel 'map would not satisfy the Ordinance Code S94-2 . 806 general
plan consistency requirement .
The findings for a subdivision with variances from A-2
zoning cannot be made under Resolution 78/318 because the 9 point
criteria established by Resolution 78/318 for the subdivision of
land into parcels smaller than five acres in areas of established
-3-
J
one-acre development in exceptional circumstances does not apply
to this property in that itis not in the Agricultural-Residential
land use category but is in the Single Family Residential ,
Secondary Growth Area , Interim Agriculture land use category of
the ECAGP. Further , even if Resolution 78/318 were applicable,
the Applicant ' s property would not meet several .of the 9 point
criteria prerequisite to approval of a subdivision (e .g . , criteria
number 1 and 6) .
d . Since the 1978 adoption of the current ECAGP, public
sewer or ,water are required in order to subdivide property into
parcels less than 5 acres in the area in question , but the parcel
is not located within such a distance of existing public sewer or
water that connection thereto would be economically feasible .
e . A Negative Declaration is not sufficient for the pro-
posal , and an EIR would be required because the project may have a
significant effect on the environment . This is because , at the
Zoning Administrator ' s hearing, the Applicant specified that he
wants to ; develop without the required collect and convey drainage
improvements , and an adverse effect on the environment from storm
water runoff can be avoided only with such improvements . Further ,
although the potential environmental effects of the drainage from
this one subdivision may be somewhat limited , if this precedent is
set the effects from this subdivision when taken with the effects
from other projects avoiding the collect and convey improvements
requirement are likely to be cumulatively considerable (14 CAC
§15065 (c ) ) and would be expected to have cumulative significant
effects of substantial flooding, erosion and siltation ( 14 CAC
§15064(e ) ) . These environmental effects could and should be
avoided by the proper implementation of the DA30-B plan
established by Ordinance 79-138 and the collect and convey
requirements of the Ordinance Code . In addition , to the- extent
that there may be a disagreement between experts over the poten-
tial negative cumulative effect of such drainage , the law requires
that the potential cumulative effect be treated as significant and
that an EIR be prepared. (See 14 CAC §15064(h ) ( 2) . ) Finally,
this Board notes that the initial study of environmental signifi-
cance is, inadequate or ,wrong in several statements , and said study
is not accepted or approved.
10. This Board hereby determines that each of the 5 findings
of Paragraph 9, above , justifies and requires denial of the
Application . Given the foregoing, this Board hereby affirms the
decisions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission and
denies the appeal and proposed subdivision number MS 20-85 .
DCG/ j h 1 hereby certtty that this is a true and corrrectcopy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shoow&
ATTESTED:
PHIL BATCH Oft, Clarkof the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
�l► Deputy
cc: Charles Pringle
County Counsel
Community Development
Public Works (Flood Control )
-4-