Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04211992 - D.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra %t CostaFROM: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel and Harvey E. Bragdon, Director of Community Development �z County •T DATE: April 21, 1992 SUBJECT: Denial of Appeal of Carole Baird, et al. from approval of LUP #2090-91 (Bi-bett Corportion) to establish a 20-bed alcohol and related drug recovery facility on south side of Marsh Creek Road east of Morgan Territory Road- SPECIFIC REQUESTS)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I . RECOMMENDATIONS: Accept environmental documentation as complete and adequate and adopt Negative Declaration for the project, deny appeal and affirm Planning Commission' s approval of LUP #2090.-91 with conditions of approval as modified by the Planning Commission on February 11 , 1992 (Exhibit B attached hereto) to establish a 20-bed alcohol and related drug recovery facility, and adopt Findings supporting denial, attached as Exhibit A. II . FISCAL IMPACT: None. III . REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On March 17 , 1992, the Board of Supervisors heard the appeal of Carole Baird, et al . from the approval of LUP #2090-91 by the County Planning Commission. The Board closed the public hearing on March 17 , 1992 and continued its decision on the appeal to the Board' s next meeting on March 24, 1992 to receive and consider additional information from the parties and comments from County staff . On March 24, 1992 , having considered all the testimony and documentation received during the public hearing and to that date, the Board declared its intent to approve the Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document, deny the appeal, to adopt the recommendations made by staff on March 17 , 1992, and directed staff to prepare findings to support its intent and decision, including an additional condition of approval to LUP # 2090-91 , regarding the establishment of a monitoring schedule for the project. Our offices have prepared the attached findings for the Board' s consideration and approval . djs(2) a:\bi-bett.bo • CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 21 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I I ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Community Development Dept . ATTESTED April 21 , 1992 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Bi-Bett Corporation SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Carole Baird, et al Ken Schiedig David Goldman BY O0tJLV ,DEPUTY M382 (10/88) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL LAND USE PERMIT #2090-91 o In approving the application .for Land Use Permit (LUP) 2090-91 filed by Bi-Bett Corporation ( "applicant" ) , to establish a 20-bed alcoholism and related drug recovery facility on the south side of Marsh Creek Road east of Morgan Territory Road - Clayton area (with the Conditions of Approval as modified by the Planning Commission on February 11, 1992) , and denying the appeal of Carole- Baird, et al. from the action of the County Planning Commission approving LUP 2090-91 , the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds as follows : A. The Record. The Board of Supervisors , in making the above decisions, has considered the County General Plan, the County' s Zoning Ordinance, all documents, maps, and exhibits presented to all of the bodies holding hearings on this application, all testimony given at all public hearings held on this application, the CEQA review performed, including the Initial Study and the proposed Negative Declaration, all comments on the proposed Negative Declaration received during the noticed public review period, and all staff reports . B. Background. 1 . Findings : On September 26 , 1991 , Bi-Bett Corporation, the applicant, submitted a LUP request to establish an approximately 5,402 sq. ft. 20-bed alcohol and related drug recovery facility on a 2 . 78 acre portion of a 36 acre site known as Diablo Valley Ranch, at 11540 Marsh Creek Road in the Clayton area. The front of the property is approximately 149 feet on the south side of Marsh Creek Road, approximately one-half mile east of the intersection of Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road. Evidence: Community Development Department ( "CDD" ) File LUP 2090-91 . 2 . Finding: The property is located in an A-2 (General Agricultural ) zoning district. The property is designated Agricultural Lands in the General Plan Land Use Element . Under the A-2 zoning ordinance, the following uses are among those allowed upon the issuance of a land use permit: "hospitals , animal hospitals, eleemosynary and philanthropic institutions and convalescent homes . " EXHIBIT A Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91 ; Co. Ord . Code, . § 84- 38 . 404 (incorporating § 84-36 . 404 ) . 3 . Finding: The application was scheduled to be heard by the County Planning Commission on December 10, 1991 , and notice of the hearing was duly given. Due to lack of a quorum, the hearing was rescheduled to February 11, 1992 . The matter was heard by the County Planning Commission on February 11 , 1992 . The staff recommended approval of the 20-bed alcohol and drug rehabilitation facility. The County Planning Commission approved the establishment of the alcohol and drug treatment facility as described in LUP 2090-91 , adopted the Negative Declaration as being complete and adequate and approved the issuance of LUP 2090-91,- subject to .the Conditions of Approval as modified by the Planning Commission ( set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto) . Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91; Co. Ord. Code, § 26- 2 . 1206 . 2 4 . Finding: On February 21, 1992, Carole Baird, Mr. and Mrs . John Williams, Mr. and Mrs . James LaFond, Mr. and Mrs . Joseph Pattison and Mr. & Mrs . Ben Galvin appealed the Planning Commission' s decision to ,the Board of Supervisors . A hearing was scheduled and duly noticed for March 17 , 1992 . The staff report recommended that the Board deny the appeal, accept the environmental documentation as complete and adequate, and adopt the Negative Declaration for the project. On March 17 , 1992, the Board of Supervisors opened the public hearing and heard testimony. At the close of the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors continued its decision on the appeal to its next meeting on March 24 , 1992 to receive additional information from the parties and comments from County staff . On March 24 , 1992, the Board declared its intent to approve the Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document, deny the appeal, to adopt the staff recommendations made on March 17 , 1992, and directed staff to prepare findings to support its decision, including a finding requiring an additional Condition of Approval for LUP 2090-91, establishing an annual monitoring program for the project. Evidence: Clerk of the Board File - Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91 ) . EXHIBIT A C. CEQA Findings . 5 . Finding: A Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document and a Notice of Determination is authorized to be filed. a. The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment . b. The Board has considered the proposed Negative Declaration with all the comments and documentation received during the public review process and, based thereon, finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. C . Appellants do not raise any environmental issues which bear any relationship in time or location to the proposed project . Information received from appellants was not relevant to the project. It could not be reasonably inferred that a fair argument could be made to support a conclusion that the project has the potential for a substantial adverse environmental impact based on the entire record before the Board. In addition, information submitted by appellants consists of uncorroborated opinion, rumor, and/or hearsay. d. Issues raised by appellants bear no relationship to the 2 . 78 acre site for the project or the project itself . Neverthe- less, the Board finds, concerning the issues raised by the appellants, as follows : 1 . Allegation of oil ponds and/or oil residue. There were unsupported allegations that a portion of the Diablo Valley Ranch may have been used by Shell Oil at one time for the storage of oil in open ponds . The record shows , however, that the location of the alleged ponds is not within the area of the project but more than 700 feet away and downhill from the project. Photo- graphs submitted by the appellants, do not appear to depict any oil ponds or oil residue on Diablo Valley Ranch. No evidence was submitted to substantiate the allegation that oil was stored on the property or, in the alternative, if oil was once stored on the property, that any residue from the oil remains which might constitute a health hazard. In December, 1991 , the area of the alleged ponds was excavated by Bi-Bett to a depth of at least six feet to remedy a failure of its septic system. No evidence of oil residue was discovered. EXHIBIT A Shell Oil sold the property containing the alleged ponds in 1951 . The property was used as the Sunshine Boys Camp from that time until its use by Bi-Bett in the late 1960s . There is no evidence that the area was used for the storage of oil or that anyone expressed concern that the area was being used by youths who might be affected by alleged oil residue. An appraisal of the property was performed in 1977 by an MAI appraiser for Bi- Bett. There is no indication in the appraisal of the presence of any oil ponds (or former oil ponds ) or any attendant residue, a fact which would have been material to the purchase of the property. Test results on water from a well and Marsh Creek, adjacent to the alleged oil storage site, and from a pond uphill from the alleged oil storage site (but approximately 400 feet downhill from the project site) demonstrated that there is no oil-related residue in these waters . 2 . The Old Mercury Mine. Sometime during the 1890s , a mercury mine located approximately 2 , 000 feet east of Diablo Valley Ranch was abandoned. Appellants made unsupported allegations that mine tailings from the old mercury mine might have contaminated Marsh Creek, which is located on the edge of Diablo Valley Ranch and approximately 1, 000 feet downhill from the project. There is no evidence that the youths residing at the project would use the Marsh Creek area. Furthermore, the record contains a personal communication with staff of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board indicating that Dunn Creek, upstream from Marsh Creek, has been monitored and found not to contain significant levels of mercury from the mine to constitute a health hazard. There is no evidence to indicate that the more remote and distant portion of Marsh Creek located on the edge of Bi-Bett' s property would contain greater concentrations of mercury. 3 . The Septic System. In December, 1991 Bi-Kett undertook extensive work to remedy a failure of its septic system which handles sewage from the existing uses on Diablo Valley Ranch . This work corrected any deficiencies which may have existed in the septic system. This system, however, would not serve the project herein, which will have its own septic system located within the project boundaries . Since the project is uphill and more than 700 feet from the other uses, it would not be affected by the sewage system serving the other uses . Also, the project will be served by an enclosed water line that is separate and distinct from the water line serving the other uses . Therefore, appellants ' allegations that the existing sewage system serving Diablo Valley Ranch will somehow affect the project is without support . EXHIBIT A 4 . Police Services . The record contains a memorandum from the County Sheriff 's Department that the project will not have a significant impact on the Sheriff ' s provision of police services . Substantial evidence shows that the project will have adequate supervision and that a similar facility run by John Muir Hospital in the San Ramon area has not created problems for either the police or adjacent property owners . Appellants ' allegations to the contrary are unsupported. Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91, State CEQA Guidelines 15070.(a) , 15074 (b) , 15384 (a) ; Clerk of the Board File-Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91 ) ) . D. Land Use Permit Findings . 6 . Finding: The proposed conditional land use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. Substantial evidence supports the finding that the proposed facility will provide a needed service which will be of general benefit to the entire County. A similar facility has been operated by John Muir Hospital in the San Ramon area for approximately three and one-half years . That facility has not created any health or safety problems, but has served the needs of youth in this County who need assistance in dealing with alcohol and related drug depenency problems and who have insurance coverage or the financial resources to pay for these services . There is no substantial evidence in the record to indicate that Bi-Bett's facility will create health or safety problems in the area . It will serve youth within the County who have a similar background of alcohol and related drug dependency as the youth using the John Muir facility, but who cannot afford to attend that facility. The project will be supervised at all times . The Conditions of Approval for the land use permit (Exhibit B) ensure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. The lack of a facility such as this project has forced County families to send their children to facilities in other counties . This has created a hardship for these families to provide the support necessary for successful recovery. In addition, the lack of an in-County support group makes it more difficult for recovering youth to avoid regression to alcohol or drugs . The project will improve the health and welfare of County residents by providing these services within the County to families who might not otherwise be able to afford this assistance. EXHIBIT A Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91 ; Co . Ord . Code § 26- 2 . 2008 ( 1 ) ; Clerk of the Board File - Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91 ) . 7 . Finding: The use will not affect the orderly development of property within the County. ,The subject property/area is zoned A-2 (General Agricultural ) . The use is consistent with the General Plan and applicable zoning. Due to its topography, the site is generally isolated from other properties; the proposed project will not be visible to residences adjacent to the project site. Comments from those opposed to the project were directed to the existing County detention facility, the approved Marsh Creek Landfill, and the existing use of Diablo Valley Ranch, and are not relevant to the proposed project. Comments regarding the effect on property values were unsubstantiated by any factual evidence to support the contention that the use would have 'an adverse affect upon property values . Evidence in the record indicates that the detention facility and the existing uses at Diablo Valley Ranch (adult alcohol and related drug dependency program) predate the development which has occured on Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road. Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91; Co . Ord. Code §26- 2 . 2008 ( 2 ) ; Clerk of the Board File - Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91 ) . 8 . Finding: The use will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County. Development has occurred in the surrounding area following the establishment of the detention facility in 1950 and the Diablo Valley Ranch .in 1968 . There is no substantial evidence in the record to support an allegation that the proposed facility will be detrimental to property values . Comments by certain residents and a real estate broker to the contrary were unsubstantiated and lacking in credibility. A similar facility in the San Ramon area apparently has not affected property values or the tax base in ,that area . The impact of the project on property values and tax base must be considered within the entire County, not just one isolated area . No credible evidence indicates that the project will affect property values in either the immediate area of the proposed project or within the County as a whole. Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090=91; Co. Ord. Code §26- 2 . 2008 ( 3 ) ; Clerk of the Board File .- Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91 ) . EXHIBIT A 9 . Finding: The use will not adversely affect the policy and goals set forth in the General Plan. The proposed use is consistent with the Housing Element of the County General Plan, which states : " . . ., there is a need for housing facilities which support sobriety. " In addition, the project is within the Land Use Element of the General Plan designated Agricultural Lands . The General Plan considers all agricultural zoning districts consistent with the agricultural land designation. The proposed project is within the general agricultural (A-2 ) zoning district. The A-2 zoning district allows certain uses upon the issuance of the land use permit. Permitted uses include "eleemosynary and philanthropic institutions . " The proposed project comes within the meaning of eleemosynary and philanthropic institutions as generally interpreted by staff of the Community Development Department. The proposed project is operated by Bi-Bett Corporation, a non-profit charitable corporation. The project will provide a service to residents of the County who do not have the financial ability to receive assistance at a for-profit facility such as the one operated by John Muir Hospital in the San Ramon area. Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91 ; Co'. Ord. Code §§ 26- 2 . 2008 ( 4 ) , 84-36 . 404 (c) ( 1 ) , 84-38 . 404 , County General Plan Land Use Element, p. 3-25; County General Plan Housing Element, p. 6- 50; Clerk of the Board File - Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91) . 10 . Finding: The use will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. The County Sheriff ' s Department indicates that the proposed facility will not affect current police services (February 4 , 1992 memo) . Unsubstantiated comments made during the public hearing process , largely unrelated to the proposed project, do not constitute credible evidence that the project would create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem. Substantial evidence was received indicating that youth served by the facility will be adequately supervised. Based on experience with a similar facility and the twenty-four-hour-per-day supervision of the proposed facility, the Board finds substantial evidence that there will not be enforcement problems created by the project. The proposed facility is isolated from adjoining properties and will not constitute a nuisance. The relatively small size of the project and the Conditions of Approval will prevent it from creating a. nuisance. The project has been designed to blend into the environment. Outside - lighting is minimized and reflected downward to avoid unnecessary light pollution. It will be adequately served by a septic system. Potable water will be provided to the facility. The project will add few cars to the road system. EXHIBIT A Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91; Co. Ord. Code § 26- 2 . 2008 (5 ) ; Clerk of the Board File - Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91 ) . 11 . Finding: The use will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. The previous land use permit findings (#6 - #9 ) are incorporated by reference here. The subject area has continued to develop even with the existence of Diablo Valley Ranch and the detention facility. The proposed project will be isolated from the surrounding properties and area . There has been no evidence presented that the facility' s existence will have an effect on development in the area . Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91; Co. Ord. Code § 26- 2 . 2008 ( 6 ) ; Clerk of the Board File - Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91 ) . 12 . Finding: Special circumstances or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location and surroundings are .established. The property is isolated from adjoining properties and provides a natural surrounding to enable the proposed project to be successful . The project will serve only twenty youths at a given time. They will be supervised 24- hours-per-day and will not be able to come and go at will . The resident youths will be brought to and will leave the facility only in the custody of a responsible adult. A van operated by Bi-Bett normally will be the means of access to the facility. The project location will permit the resident youths to be freed from an environment which fosters dependency on alcohol and related drugs . Due to its unique location, the facility will not be visible to the adjacent residents . Evidence: CDD File LUP 2090-91; Co . Ord . Code § 26- 2 . 2008 ( 7 ) ; Clerk of the Board File - Appeal , of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090-91 ) . 13 . Finding: Condition 8 is added to the Conditions of Approval for LUP 2090-91 to read: "8 . Bi-Bett will provide an initial and, subsequently, an annual report to the Zoning Administrator regarding the operation of the facility. Such reports will include management and security issues and will be available for review by the public at the Office of the Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez , EXHIBIT A California . The initial report will be filed within 60 days of initial occupancy of the facility. " Evidence: Board of Supervisors hearing March 24 , 1992; CDD File LUP 2090-91; Co.Ord. Code § 26-2 . 2008; Clerk of the Board File - Appeal of Carole Baird, et al . (Bi-Bett, LUP 2090- 91 ) . djs(2): a:\findings.lup EXHIBIT A As aj)proved by the I'1 ann i ng Commission on February 11 , 11192 y _ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2090-91 - AS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 11 FEBRUARY 1992: 1. The permit is approved subject to the plans dated received by the Community Development Department on September 26, 1991 and subject to the following conditions. 2. The permit is issued to Bi-Bett Corporation for an alcohol and drug recovery facility and shall not exceed a 20-bed capacity. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits submit landscape and irrigation plans in compliance with Water Conservation and Landscape Ordinance for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. A. At least 30 days following approval submit landscape plans to screen the facility for protection of the scenic view corridor. Subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. B. Landscape plans shall include screening of the facility for protection of the scenic view corridor as viewed in a southwest direction from Marsh Creek Road. 4. Submit color samples of proposed exterior colors for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to application. The colors shall have reflectivity of 65% or less. 5. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. Supervision of this requirement shall be maintained. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away.from existing residences as possible. 6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 7. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department: EXHIBIT B r 2 A. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Conformance with. Division 914 includes the following requirements: 1) An exception to Section 914 of the Ordinance Code is granted, since this parcel is large and agricultural in nature (approximately 35 acres in area) and any additional run-off resulting from this development will be negligible. The applicant shall maintain the existing drainage pattern and will not dispose concentrated storm water. B. Provide for adequate stopping sight distance at Marsh Creek Road based on a design speed of 45 miles per hour in accordance with CALTRANS standards. C. Construct a 20-foot paved roadway, to current County private road standards, to serve the subject property as shown on the site plan. D. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department, Application and Permit Center, for construction of driveways, or other improvements within the right of way of Marsh Creek Road. E. Modify the Marsh Creek Road access to facilitate egress for southbound traffic, subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. ADVISORY NOTES A. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47,Yountville, California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code. B. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained. C. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Marsh Creek Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. DD/aa LUPXXXI/2090-91 C.DD 12/3/91 1/29/92 2/11/92 - P/C Rev. (v)