HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06271989 - 2.9 o: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RCM: Harvey E. Bragdon, c=tra
Director of Community Development Costa
ATE: June 8, 1989 County
�
Adoption of Findings for the Approval of Minor Subdivision #37-88
uB.IECT; to Divide 271 Acres into Two Parcels, Pleasant Hill Area
PEC IFIC REQUEST(SI OR RECCMMENOATION(S( @ BACKGRoum APO JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the findings as set forth in the Attachment as the
determinations in these actions.
BACKGROUND
This was an appeal of the County Planning Commission' s denial of
Minor Subdivision #37-88 to divide the Oakmont Cemetery lands of
171± acres into 2 parcels for residential development of .70 acres
and the remaining for cemetery use, located northwesterly of
Reliez Valley Road opposite Grayson Road and at the westerly
extension of Hidden Pond Road, in the Pleasant Hill area.
On April 25, 1989 the Board accepted the environmental
documentation in this matter as being" adequate, and approved
Minor Subdivision #37-88. Subsequently, there was a request for
reconsideration denied by the Board May 9, 1989 at which time
staff was directed to prepare findings.
IONTINUED ON ATTACWS"T: YES SIGNATUR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM EN ION O DOA/0 COMMITTEE
-� APPROVE OTHER
i i GI'1ATUREI S I:
.CTION OF BOARO ON June 27F l Q RA APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X OTHER
on June 20, 1989, the Board of -Supervisors requested that the
findings supporting the Board' s decision on April 25, 1989 to grant
the appeal of DK Associates and M.B. Lines and approve Minor
Subdivision #37-88 with conditions be before the Board for
consideration on this date.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, advised the Board
of the staff recommendation that the Board adopt the findings which
include the conditions reviewed during previous deliberations as set
forth in the material before the Board today as a determination for
the Minor Subdivision #37-88
The following persons appeared to speak:
Judge Douglas R. Cunningham, 437 Ponderosa Court, Lafayette,
representing the Baywood Community Association, commented on a letter
to the Board dated June 26, 1989, suggesting additional conditions of
approval for Minor Subdivision 37-88 and he suggested that it would be
appropriate for the Board to hold open the question of conditions
until after the Superior Court has indicated what if any conditions it
intends to impose upon the conversion of any part of the land away
from permanent dedication to public use that is cemetery purposes.
Paul Ferrell, 110 Blue Ravine Road, Folsom, representing M.B.
Lines, commented that there have been no burials on the involved
property and that there is still a substantial amount of land that
will be remaining after this parcel split that will allow them to take
care of the future needs of Contra Costa County. He also commented on
the endowment care fund.
1.
Supervisor Torlakson questioned Mr. Ferrell on the endowment care
fund projections.
l
Mr. Ferrell responded to Supervisor Torlakson's concerns.
Supervisor McPeak inquired of Mr. Ferrell as to the reason for
the lot split.
Mr. Ferrell responded commenting that they have excess acreage
and an idle asset.
Supervisor Fanden questioned Mr. Ferrell on the notification of
the families of persons buried in Oakmont Cemetery.
Mr. Ferrell responded commenting that he was not aware that it is
a normal requirement to notify the families.
Supervisor Fanden inquired as. to whether plots were offered for
sale as cemetery plots that were a part of the 69 acre parcel that
Davidon Homes is attempting to purchase.
Mr. Ferrell advised that they have never had any sales in the
proposed area which Davidon is attempting to purchase.
Dan Curtin, Jr. , P.O. Box V, Walnut Creek, McCutcheon, Doyle,
Brown and Enersen, representing Davidon Homes, commented on issues
including Judge Cunningham' s proposed additional conditions, the
Assessment District for Hidden Pond, and urged the Board to adopt the
findings before them.
Supervisor McPeak requested clarification on the Hidden Pond
Assessment District.
Mr. Curtin and Mr. Wandry responded to Supervisor McPeak' s
request.
Supervisor McPeak suggested dissolving the Hidden Pond Assessment
District and placing the cost of the access road on Hidden Pond.
Bernard Norton, 1101 Silverhill Court, Lafayette, submitted a
written copy of his comments he wished included in the record. Mr.
Norton also commented on a letter dated May 26, 1989 to the Board in
which he requested Supervisor McPeak consider removing herself from
further involvement with the Davidon Subdivision application, and he
commented on the way in which the circulation of his letter was
handled. He also requested that Supervisors supporting the findings
presented here today provide him with reasons why they are being
supported versus those developed by the staff.
G.W. Stubstad, 2001 Reliez Valley Road, Lafayette, supported Mr.
Norton' s comments.
Hulet Hornbeck, 535 Main Street, Martinez, representing East Bay
Regional Park District, commented on the issue of trails.
Dorothy A. Sattler, 2620 Saklan Indian Drive #3, Walnut Creek,
commented on her lack of notification on this matter, and requested
the Board not to let them divide the cemetery.
Supervisor Fanden suggested that as a courtesy to the Board of
Supervisors that the 10,000 families that represent the dead should be
notified.
Liz Belcher, 1148 Silverhill court, Lafayette, commented that it
was premature at this time to approve the minor subdivision, and
commented on a letter dated June 26, 1989 concerning the land offered
for sale by Oakmont for future plots.
L. Wayne Policz, 1600 South Main Street, Walnut Creek,
representing Davidon Homes, commented on issues including the
contribution to Supervisor McPeak' s Senate campaign, Mr. Norton' s
comments, and requested the Board not let that be a judgement in their
findings today.
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board,
advised the Board that Supervisor McPeak had had nothing to do with
the circulation of the letter from Mr. Norton.
2 .
Supervisor Torlakson submitted a telegram from Walnut Hills
Country Club Estates opposing the subdivision of the cemetery.
Supervisor McPeak read a letter dated June 20, 1989 she had sent
to Mr. Bernard Norton in response to the issue of the campaign
contribution from Mr. and Mrs. Chaiken to her Senate campaign.
Supervisor McPeak also requested clarification from County Counsel
whether or not there is a problem with her participation in this
matter.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, responded that there are no
circumstances in Mr. Norton' s letter that would disqualify a
Supervisor from participating in the matter before the Board and
making a decision.
Supervisor Torlakson clarified that the Board needs to deal with
the merits-of the findings issue in front of the Board and commented
on the process for creation of the findings.
Supervisor Schroder requested clarification on the issue of the
proposed condition number 7 in the letter from Judge Cunningham.
Victor Westman responded that the persons who are party to the
action in the Superior Court will have to follow whatever prescription
the Superior Court may impose. He commented that the County is not a
party to that action but if the matter were to come before the Board
in a subsequent development form, the matter would be brought to the
Board's attention.
Supervisor Schroder expressed satisfaction with the findings
before the Board and moved to adopt the findings as determination of
this particular issue.
Supervisor Fanden requested that the Board delay any decision
until the Superior Court hearing of July 18, 1989 as Judge Cunningham
had requested. She also commented that the Board should take no
further action until hearing from Mr. Gill of the Cemetery Commission
relative to misrepresentation of the cemetery plots. Supervisor
Fanden commented that the General Plan is 25 years old and until it is
brought up to date, this was premature. She also commented on traffic
concerns on Reliez Valley Road.
Supervisor Torlakson offered an amendment to the motion to
include direction to staff if there is further pursuit of an
Environmental Impact Report and map application that the issues
including those raised by Judge Cunningham, the trail corridor, the
capacity of the cemetery system, the financial capability of Oakmont
and the traffic issue mentioned by Supervisor Fanden be thoroughly
examined.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution 89/433 adopting the
findings for the approval of Minor Subdivision #37-88 is ADOPTED.
T OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: III, IV, V NOES: I TT AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARO
ABSENT;_ ABSTAIN:-------- OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED June 27, 1989
cc: Community Development .Dept. PHIL BATCHELOR CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Attn: Byron Turner SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DK Associates
MB Lines
Public Works-Tom Dudziak" BY o.
County Counsel Deputy
Assessor
3.
RESOLUTION 89/433
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING
APPROVAL AND FINDINGS PERTAINING TO
MINOR SUBDIVISION 37-88 FOR OAKMONT
MEMORIAL PARK, PLEASANT HILL AREA
WHEREAS, DK Associates (Applicant) and MB Line, Inc. (Owner)
filed a Tentative Map application for a Minor Subdivision (MS
37-88 ) to divide 271 acres into two parcels was received by the
Community Development Department on April 8, 1988; and
WHEREAS, on June 17 , 1988 various applications were also filed
( 2802-RZ, 3025-88, SUB 7151) for the residential development of
proposed Parcel A of the Minor Subdivision (MS 37-88) ; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the California Environ-
mental Quality Act, and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, a
Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted
September 22, 1988:. to divide the property into two parcels as
requested by the Minor Subdivision application (MS 37-88) and it
was also determined that the further development of this property
may have a significant effect on the environment and preparation
of an environmental impact report would be needed for the
concurrent applications for the proposed residential development
of Parcel A of the Minor Subdivision (MS 37-88) ; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Zoning
Administrator October 3 , 1988 , at which time the matter was
rescheduled to October 17, 1988 and again continued to November
7, 1988 ; and
WHEREAS, on November 7 , 1988 the County Zoning Administrator
referred the application (MS 37-88) to the County Planning
Commission to be considered in conjunction with the concurrent
applications for residential development of the property; and
WHEREAS, on November 15, 1988 the applicant, owner, and purchaser
of a portion of the property, Davidon Homes, appealed the Zoning
Administrator' s decision to the County Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on January 17 , 1989 the Planning Commission sitting as
the Board of Appeals conducted an appeal hearing at which time
the appeal of the Zoning Administrator' s referral of the matter
and also the application for a Minor Subdiv.,ision.. .(.MS 37-88) were
denied; and
WHEREAS , on January .27 , 1989 the applicant, owner and purchaser
of a portion of the property, appealed the Planning Commission
Board of Appeals action; and
WHEREAS, on April 25 , 1989 having reviewed and considered the
record made available to the Zoning Administrator, the Planning
Commission and the Board, including, but not limited to, the
County General Plan, the Initial Study and the Negative Declara-
tion of Environmental Significance for the proposal and the staff
report prepared by the Community Development Department, dated
November 7 , 1988 and March 10 , 1989 , including conditions for
approval, together with other evidence and testimony in the
public record, the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal,
approved the Minor Subdivision with conditions and instructed
staff to prepare findings for approval of the Minor Subdivision
(MS 37-88) at a subsequent meeting; and
89/433
2.
WHEREAS, following the Board' s decision and before approval of
the findings for such grant and approval, written requests for
reconsideration were filed with the Board; and
WHEREAS, on May 9 , 1989 after hearing testimony from those
individuals filing written requests for reconsiderations
and from representatives of the applicant and owner, the Board
denied the motions for reconsideration and directed staff to
prepare findings; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after having considered all
of the evidence and testimony in the record made available to the
Board with respect to the Minor Subdivision application (MS
37-88) , including those documents and evidence previously
referenced and incorporated herein, the Board hereby has accepted
the environmental documentation as adequate and in compliance
with CEQA has granted the Appeal and approved the Minor
Subdivision (MS 37-88) , subject to the Conditions of Approval
attached hereto as Exhibit A. In connection therewith, this
Board hereby adoptes the following findings:
A. Findings Required Under the Contra Costa County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 9, Contra Costa County Code)
This Board hereby finds that:
1. Compliance with subdivision requirements - The proposed
Minor Subdivision (MS 37-88 ) meets and performs all of
the requirements and conditions imposed by Title 9,
Section 94-2. 806 of the County Code, as more fully set
forth in the findings incorporated herein and as
mandated by Condition of Approval #4(A) requiring
compliance with the provisions of the County
Subdivision Ordinance.
2. Consistency with the General Plan - The proposed Minor
Subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. There
are no applicable specific plans governing the
property.
The General Plan designates the property as single-
family residential low density providing for a range of
densities of 0 - 3 families per--net-- residential acre.
The Minor Subdivision is consistent with that desig-
nation because it would only permit development of one
single-family home on the new parcel. Condition #6 of
the Conditions of Approval, which requires the property
owner to provide to the satisfaction of the East Bay
Regional Park District a riding and hiking trail
extending from Reliez Valley Road west through the
property to East Bay Regional lands is made in further-
ance of the parks and recreational policies in the
General Plan.
89/433
3 .
3 . Construction Requirements - To the extent there are
construction requirements required by the County in
connection with the Minor Subdivision, they are
contained in Condition 44 of the Conditions of
Approval. The Minor Subdivision, therefore, complies
with County drainage, road improvement, traffic and
utility requirements, as may be applicable.
B. Findings Required under the Subdivision Map Act (Government
Code Section 66410 et seq. )
This Board hereby finds that:
1. Compliance with subdivision requirements - No substan-
tial evidence has been presented to the Board which
would require denial of the Minor Subdivision pursuant
to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act.
2. Consistency with General Plan - As more fully described
in Paragraph A ( 2 ) above, the Minor Subdivision and the
design or improvement of the Minor Subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan, including the land
use designation for single-family residential low
density.
3 . Site Physically Suited for Type of Development - The
Board finds that the Minor Subdivision would allow for
the construction of one residence and agriculture uses
and activities on the new parcel or the further
expansion of the existing cemetery by previous
approvals.
4. Site Physically Suited for Proposed Density of Develop-
ment - The Board finds that the density allowed by the
Minor Subdivision is an additional one residence on the
new parcel. The creation of the new parcel will allow
the owner of the new parcel to sell, lease or finance
the new parcel and does not provide for any right to
development at densities proposed in the pending future
project applications. The appropriate time to discuss
the suitability of the new parcel for any additional
density will be at the time the..._County -renders its
decisions on the future project appricatibns. The new
parcel is physically suited for the additional one
residence that will be allowed by the Minor
Subdivision.
5. Environmental Damage or Injury to Fish or Wildlife or
Their Habitat - The design of the subdivision is not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat. With the exception of the drainage,
road improvements, traffic and utility requirements and
the riding and hiking trail to be constructed pursuant
to the Conditions of Approval, the Minor Subdivision by
89/433
4.
itself will result in no physical alteration of the
property. In addition, as part of its environmental
determination evidenced in the Initial Study and the
Negative Declaration prepared for the Minor
Subdivision, the Community Development Department,
pursuant to CEQA, determined that the Minor Subdivision
did not have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment or substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species.
6. Public Health Problems - The design of the Minor
Subdivision is not likely to cause serious health
problems. Again, the Minor Subdivision will only allow
the construction of one residence on the new parcel.
Any public health problems that could be created by
such construction on a 70-acre site will be ameliorated
by the property owner' s compliance with the drainage,
road improvement, traffic, and utility requirements
contained in the Conditions of Approval as well as
compliance with applicable grading and building code
requirements.
7. Conflicts with Existing Access Easements - There is no
evidence in the public record before the Board on the
Minor Subdivision application that its design will
conflict with public easements for access through or
use of the property. Condition #4(B) requires the
conveyance to the County, by Offer of Dedication,
additional right of way on Reliez Valley Road, as
required for planned future width. In addition,
Condition #6 provides for a hiking and riding trail.
These conditions will enhance, not conflict with public
access considerations.
8. Regional Housing Needs - Pursuant to Section 66412 . 3 of
the Subdivision Map Act, this Board has considered the
effect of this action on the housing needs of the
region. In doing so, this Board has attempted to
balance the regional housing needs against the public
service needs of the residents of the County, as well
as against the available fiscal and environmental
resources. Because the Minor. Subdivision will only
result in one additional unit of housing on the new
parcel, the Minor Subdivision will have a negligible
effect on the housing needs of the region.
9. Passive Heating and Cooling - In accordance with
Section 66473 . 1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the design
of the Minor Subdivision shall provide, to the extent
feasible, for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
C. Findings in Support of the Negative Declaration on the Minor
Subdivision (MS 37-88) (Compliance with California Environ-
mental Quality Act [Public Resources Code Section 21000 et
seq. ] ) .
This Board hereby finds that:
The Initial Study and the Negative Declaration for the Minor
Subdivision properly evaluated the potential for environ-
mental impacts resulting from the Minor Subdivision applica-
tion for a lot split of a 171-acre parcel. The Minor
Subdivision application was filed prior to submission of the
future project applications and was not dependent on any
change to the General Plan. Therefore, the environmental
89/433
5.
review of the application properly considered the .lack of
substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that a minor
subdivision creating a 70-acre parcel within a single-family
low density acre designation on the General Plan might
produce significant environmental effects.
The approval of the Minor Subdivision will only permit the
sale, lease or finance of the new parcel independent from
the remaining parcel under the Subdivision Map Act. As a
result, the Minor Subdivision will not result in, lead to,
or presuppose the development project contemplated by the
future project applications as indicated by Condition #2.
Accordingly, the approval of the minor subdivision and the
adoption of these findings is not premature. It was proper
for the County to conduct its environmental review on the
impacts presented by the one residential unit which could
potentially be developed by the Minor Subdivision. In view
of the fact that the submitted future project applications
will be subject to extensive public review and analysis by
an Environmental Impact Report, the Negative Declaration for
the Minor Subdivision is appropriate.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of June, 1989 , by the
following vote of the Board:
AYES: Supervisors Schroder, McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Powers and Fanden
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
I hereby corny that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supe isors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: Al. 19 15
PHIL8 c�T HELO+R,Berk of the Board
of Supervia and County Administrator
E .Z_ Deouty
89/433
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 37-88
1. This approval is based upon the tentative map dated received April 8, 1988,
subject to. the conditions listed below.
2. This approval for two parcels does not create or establish the boundaries
or area for cemetery use or any future residential development which may be
approved substantially different than that indicated by this division and
may also require subsequent boundary adjustments.
3. Prior to filing the parcel . map for this minor subd°ivision, an application
for a land use permit shall be filed to modify and reestablish the ceme
tery use on the reduced area of the property. The application shall be
filed per Ordinance Code Section 88-2.402, including plans showing existing
and proposed cemetery development, particularly as .it relates to those ar=
eas near the common boundary of the two parcels and adjacent properties:
The application shall also include information concerning the effect or
impact if any, of the change of area to be devoted to cemetery use on the
endowment care fund.
4. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as
follows:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically
listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the
Ordinance Code includes the following requirements:
1. Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Reliez Val-
ley Road. Because of the nature of this application, an excep-
tion to this requirement is permitted.
2. Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. Because
of the nature of this application, an exception to this require-
ment is permitted.
3. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the
subject property to a natural watercourse having definable bed
and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility. As
these parcels are large and agricultural in nature, additional
run-off resulting from this subdivision will be negligible. An
exception to this requirement is permitted providing the appli-
cant maintains the existing drainage pattern and does not dispose
concentrated storm water run-off onto adjacent property.
4. Submitting a Parcel Map prepared by a registered civil engineer
or licensed 'land surveyor.
5. Applying for encroachment permits from the Public Works Depart-
ment, Engineering Services Division, for driveway connections
within the right of way of Reliez Valley Road.
EMIT A
2
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way
on Reliez Valley Road as required for the planned future width.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance
for Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Because of the agricultural nature of this application, the fee will
be due with the issuance of a building permit on the site rather than
at the time of the filing of the Parcel Map. Currently the fee, for
this region of the County, is $2,300 for each added single family
residence.
5. A lot line adjustment is approved for the area of Parcel C to become part
of the adjacent 20 acres to the east (H. Much 1ins ki-APN#365-160-004)
allowing additional access from Hidden Pond Road for pending subdivision
7144. The property transfer shall be accomplished by deed description or
by record of survey or both and indicated on the parcel map for MS 8-90-88.
The property being transferred shall be combined with the receiving
parcel and assessed as one parcel for tax purposes.
6. Prior to filing the parcel map, provision shall be made to the satisfaction
of the East Bay Regional Park District, for a riding and hiking trail
extending through Parcels A and 8 to complete a trail connection from
Reliez Valley Road west through the site, to East Bay Regional Park lands,
subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator.
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS ADVISORY ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONDITION OF
APPROVAL.
A. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire
Protection District.
BT/GA/df
msl7:ms37-88c.bt