HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03231993 - H.4 H. 4
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 23 , 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Bishop, McPeak and Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Smith
ABSTAIN: None
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing On Appeal Of Dori and Bob Laurence Relative To
MS 8-92 , Clayton Area.
On March 2, 1993 , the Board of Supervisors continued to this date
the hearing on the appeal of Dori and Bob Laurence (appellants) from
the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of
Appeals on the application of Vincent Cunha (applicant) and Robert and
Dori Laurence (owners) requesting approval of a vesting tentative map
to divide approximately 8 . 11 acres of land into two lots with a
variance to allow for a 2. 8 acre parcel ( 5 acres required) (MS 8-92)
in the Clayton area.
Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the
updated staff report containing modified conditions of approval should
the Board move in the direction of approval.
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, commented on modified
conditions from the Public Works Department.
Supervisor McPeak questioned whether the proposed conditions met
the objections of the neighbors and were acceptable to the neighbors,
and had the proposed conditions of approval been distributed to the
parties.
The parties advised that they had not seen the conditions.
Supervisor McPeak advised that she would not participate in a
decision unless the parties have had a chance to review the material.
On recommendation of Supervisor McPeak, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that the appeal on the above matter is CONTINUED to March 30,
1993 at 2 : 00 p.m. ; and Community Development Department staff is
DIRECTED to distribute the proposed conditions to the parties.
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supsrvi rs on t s date shown.
ArrESTEt): 03, 1 Jq
PHIL BAT6dELOR,Clerk of the Board
SL
Supervi and CouM AOrninistrator
Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board
cc: County Counsel
By - .beauty
Public Works
Community Development
Dori and Bob Laurence
Phil Kelley
Seraphin Leal
.' � -'•••
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
,
:. Costa
� '
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ,_ ae., '.. ,'vim' County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ••, ! T o
ti
DATE: March 15, 1993 �Osr'� �ourii^� �4
SUBJECT: Hearings on the Appeal of the Denial of the Vesting Tentative Map for
Minor Subdivision 8-92 - Clayton Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Deny the appeal filed by Bob Laurence because no findings can
be made to justify approval.
2. Alternatively declare intent to grant the appeal filed by Bob
Laurence, approve project with modified conditions, direct
staff to prepare findings and set date for adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This project is an appeal by the applicant of a denial action by
the County Planning Commission for a proposed subdivision of 8. 11
acres zoned A-2 into two parcels with a variance. to allow f 6 a 2.8
acre parcel (5 acres .regVir,ed) in the Clayton area.
On December 9, 1992 the owner of the property, Bob Laurence,
appealed the Commission's decision to the Board.
On March 2, 1993 staff presented the staff report on the appeal
before the Board of Supervisors. Staff commented on q requested
continuance by the owner in order to work with staff on conditions
of approval. Since there were persons in the audience that ,
appeared to testify, staff recommended the Board take testimony and
continue this matter to March 23, 1993. The .Boara -wa`s advised by
staff of the staff recommendation for denial in accord with the
Planing Commission action on this approval. Staff also advised the
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM D ION O ARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S.) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Rose Marie Pietras - 646-2091
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
CC: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
2.
Board of a staff recommendation for approval `.of the conditions
contingent upon the rezoning of the property to an R-100 zoning
classification.
The following persons gave testimony at the public hearing:
Bob Laurence, owner, briefed the Board of his proposal and plans
for the use of the property, requested the Board to continue his
application, and was concerned with conditions of approval from
Public Works that was agreed with at a previous meeting that were
not included at a staff meeting, and that the reference of wells be
eliminated from conditions of approval since city water is
available.
Phil Kelley, adjacent neighbor, spoke in opposition of the project.
He expressed major concerns on issues that included the following:
City of Clayton, Marsh Creek Draft Specific Plan which has
designated this site as 5 acre ranchettes, severe dust problems
that is caused by the extensive agricultural use of the property
and the location of the barn over the leach field.
Seraphin Leal, neighbor, spoke in opposition and mentioned to the
Board that his concerns were the same as Kelley's concerns.
The site is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density in the
General Plan.
Board Action
The Board of Supervisors requested additional' information prior- to
concluding hearing on appeal.
Dust control/agricultural uses/information on number of
animals.
Consider a condition of approval contingent upon the rezoning
of the property . to an R-100 zoning classification because
required variance findings may be unreasonable- to make.
City of Clayton/Marsh Creek Draft Specific Plan.
Continue the hearing top March 23, 1993.
Dust Control/Agricultural Uses
This property is presently zoned A-2. Article 84-38.402 Uses -
Permitted: uses permitted in the A-2 district include all types of
agriculture, including general farming, livestock production,
animal breeding and etc. There are no limits on the number of
livestock head in the A-2 district.
During the public hearing, the owner testified that a fence was
constructed to the Kelley property line which eliminated access of
the horses. Kelley admitted that this fence helped reduce the dust
problem on his property. Water frequency-by automatic sprinkler
system is another mitigation that would help to improve the
situation. However, this would present an unreasonable
administrative burden to monitor on a timely basis.
Rezoning to R-100
The zoning ordinance for a R-100 district allows for permitted uses
as in the R-20 district outlined in Article 84-14.402 (5) , keeping
livestock on lots forty thousand or more square feet in an area
(with at least forty thousand square feet for each two head of
livestock) and all contiguous and in one fee ownership.
In the R-100 District commercial horse type related uses are
limited and require a land use permit, as those designated in the
R-65 district found in Section 84-18.404. (2) Horse riding academies
and horse riding instructions, providing that the requirements as
3.
listed in Section 84-14.402 (5) are complied with. Therefore, in
the R-100 district the only horse related uses not.requiring a land
use permit are for family ownership and recreation.
City of Clayton
The City of Clayton's, Marsh Creek Draft Specific Plan has
designated this site as Ranchette Residential/l unit per 5 acres.
The land use designations standards represent policy formulations
that encapsulate the overall density and development strategies.
Policy LU-6 p. 44
in order to minimize grading and geological description,
development should generally be limited to those areas with natural
slopes of less than 26 percent. No development shall occur in
areas with slopes in excess of 40 percent.
Policy LU-9 p. 45
The visual integrity of the entire study area shall be preserved
for viewers within the study area, in existing portions of Clayton
and for travellers along Marsh Creek Road by carefully siting any
development.
The City of Clayton's Marsh Creek Draft Specific Plan is not
consistent with the County General Plan designation of Single
Family Residential-Low Density. This designation allows a range of
1.0 and 2.9 single family units per ,net acre. Sites can be as
large as 43,560 square feet. Unique environmental characteristics
of a parcel may justify larger lot sizes: With an average of 2.5
persons per household, population densities would normally range
from about two to about 7.5 persons per acre.
Summary
Staff is continuing to recommend denial based on the County
Planning Commission's decision that required variance findings and
justification cannot be made in accordance with Bounty Ordinance
Article 26-2.2006.
Alternatively, the Board of Supervisors could approve the minor
subdivision without granting a variance, but contingent upon future
application and adoption of rezoning to R-100 prior to recordation
of a parcel map.
To help control and reduce dust, staff is recommending to the Board
that Conditions of Approval be added to read as follows:
The applicant/owner shall install and maintain on Parcel B a
sprinkler system for water frequency application to help control
and reduce dust on neighboring properties.
The applicant/owner has confirmed to the County that their property
is within the Contra Costa Water District service area. Therefore,
Condition of Approval 14 has been modified: .
RMP/aa/df
BDVI/8-92.RP
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 8-92 (Cunha /Laurence) RECOM-
MENDED BY STAFF PRIOR TO 12/8/92 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
The following staff-recommended conditions of approval have.-been
modified subsequent to the March 2, 1993 Board of Supervisors
hearing on the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission
denial. Modifications are identified by marked text (text
additions are identified by redline; text deletions are identified
by strikeout.
1. The request to subdivide the 8.1 acre parcel is approved for two (2) parcels subject
to the revised Tentative Map dated received by the Community Development
Department on September 6, 1990,and resubmitted with MS 8-92 on March 6, 1992.
2 Praoc:>t�<fec�rd�� :>tl�e>:l�airce3..M .:the..a . :licant:s#�atl<:�btair�:�:a : rau:af::x�r:r:::e�ane:81'1:
:..:..:.:...::.•�•.:....:.:...::'.:..•::..;...;..;.':::i ...::i:..:::...:.i.::....:i:.:.1.::.::i:.:...:ii::A; ::i:.:�.: ::}i".i".i'"::.:.:.:::.::a:..r.:-:.:,::•:'.:i:i...:..:.:..:...::::::v.:..i':'.y:::::Y,.: ,1..:i':i'::
The pFepeFty Shall be-limited-te twv-(2) he$d of li�vestvel( peF aeFe. This FeqUiFeffieAt
.+n.e.e ime nt with the appl:e+ant and pFepert.
A. ReBeFd a statement te Fun with deeds to the PFOpeFty ael(newledging the Ii
r�or .�e.rn ef_two_(2) loyestnnL neer a ffee.me nt e.f the P nrty e
3. Prior to approval of the building permit for Parcel A, the individual building envelopes
shall be subject to design review by the Zoning Administrator. Applicant shall indicate
on the tentative subdivision map the following information for each parcel: proposed .
driveways, building site, leach field site, and provision for water storage for fire
fighting. Homesites shall be designed with a minimum grading. Where significant
r grading is needed, an acceptable erosion control plan shall be provided with the
application: Homesiting shall be reviewed for energy conservation features (building
site orientation and feasibility for solar facilities will be considered). 'Revised tentative
subdivision map shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Adminis-
trator prior to filing the Parcel Map. The General Plan ranchette policy shall apply to
this proposal.
4. Prior to'filing the parcel map, comply with the policy criteria for subdivision of lands
within agriculture and open space General Plan categories adopted by the Board of
Supervisors March 15, 1983, including the following:
A. Eaeih paFeel must have an "on site" predue.ng wateF well er install-a"test well"
having a Fninimum yield ef thFee galle.is pe. ....imte with the State standaMs feF
a-PUFe,Jnrhefeseme-and-petablewateF SUpply-(Title-11,6eetien 6443). if the
ehemieal analysisemeeeds the—State-st eentainment
le els" fv ..Mtn pe.tabilit a state,m ..t must h atte+ h d aFun with the
v..e , . rev v ..��, v .amu�a.en.a..�� IT VJi 4G LTil�l�.��.+�
pie pe»t y deed adyi.wine, e.f these levels; e..'l':;;:•>::?:xy:;.>2;:.�'o-:: ;•x::•:....i
ubdr �€s an:>::sh l(:<��;ce....x.ei.r:::::tioxnest�c::<wat ::,su I::
::: :::::::: ::: .:: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: :::::::::::::P#�.:X:::::
�annect�o�>ta>:t�e::�x�.stri� :r��i:d�r���r`Farcei:€:B::has:6ie:�ncansurnated�>w�ti
13. 1 !a a r .ifiabl: wateFavailability date fFem_adjaeae,ntpaFeels ffesente l b +ham
eeneeFROAg wateF quality and quantity peF A. ;
G. Have astatement that "atttaehes and FURS with the-dee '�" indieating that a
wateF well hall be-installed enthe ubjeet pareel eemplying with the , eneFE;
n eats stated abeye r.rieF W obtaining a Building I. Spee tion 1'1epaFtFne ft
in add+tien to the-abeam ,
fix; Prior to filing building permit, land must be suitable for septic tank use
according to County Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services Department
regulations. Percolation tests must be passed on all proposed lots prior to filing
of the parcel map.
5. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site
excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology
(SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA) has had an
opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate
mitigation(s), if deemed necessary.
6. The following statement shall be recorded at the County Recorder's Office for each
parcel to notify future owners of the parcels that they own property in an agricultural
area:
"This document shall serve as notification that you have
purchased land in an agricultural area where you may regularly
find farm equipment using local roads; farm equipment causing
',dust; crop dusting and spraying occurring regularly; burning
associated with agricultural activities;noise associated with farm
equipment and aerial crop dusting and certain animals and flies
may exist on surrounding properties. This statement is, again,
notification that this is part of the agricultural way of life in East
Contra Costa Count_y and you should be fully aware of this at the
time of purchase."
7. Prior to issuance of building permits on Parcel A of this subdivision, submit an up-
graded report of the geotechnical engineer with a map showing final plan and grades,
including subsurface drainage, subdrain cleanouts and disposal or pickup points, and
any buttress fill with its keyway location, or retaining wall installed, and other soil
-2-
improvements installed during grading, all as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or
civil engineer.
8. Record a statement to run with deeds to a property acknowledging the approved report -
by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and
noting that the report is available from the seller.
9. All property above the approximately 680 foot contour line shall be within a scenic
easement recorded on the final map and granted to the County. Prior to filing a Parcel
Map, submit a revised site plan showing the scenic easement with a metes and bounds
description of the scenic easement for the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
10. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain and
augment poJice services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by
this subdivision approval. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with
appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board
of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax.shall be completed prior to the filing
of the Parcel Map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of
holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner.
11. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will
require.the review and approval of the Public Works Department:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this
conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the
following requirements:
1) Constructing road improvements along the frontagq of Marsh Creek
Road.
Widening the existing pavement and constructing a 10 feet " rock
shoulder along the frontage of Marsh Creek Road, subject to the review
and approval of the Public Works Department, will satisfy this require-
ment. The edge of pavement shall be 16 feet from the ester .
centerline of the road.
.................
An exception to this requirement is granted provided a deferred
improvement agreement is executed requiring the owner(s) of the
property involved in Subdivision MS 8-92 to construct the subject
improvements.
At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, submit
improvement plans, if required, to the Public Works Department,
Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the inspection fee, plan
review fee and applicable lighting fees.
-3-
2) Street lighting is not required.
3) Constructing a paved hammerhead turnaround at the end of the
proposed private road. '# ftriuit €€' tti )I # 'iSftaeleti» .t4r
fs,uance:'oj::finuxtdng �. r ► :for: arcef::: x;
4) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities.
5) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject
property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to
an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the
storm w^a'te/res to a natural watercourse.
,� ^
• s P8 Fe'el ,QT'S—i IaFge'La{•}�Fe�T'al i �AaWF ,
this peel--w+Nbe negligible. heFefeFe, an exeepren fFems--this
T e e' pl) ant_Wflfi :: rrn e
iw r€fr t Bl1:j €:0
a) The property owner deeds development rights over Parcel
to the County, pursuant to Section 94-4.409 of the county
Ordinance Code, until adequate drainage facilities are provided.
b) The applicant maintains the existing drainage pattern and does
#fit::::€::dispose concentrated storm water runoff onto adjacent
property.
................::.::::::::::::.;..:::..:............
C. n 92 >. 2..:::...T.,hese;:F nd4ngs.are:;as;f':0.oww:
ee::a;;re;:u:nu:sual:::crc urrxstances::or:> andt�€tsri af)
0tat r 3..-Y
y - f�fl �appra�rri�ti~I`�``: 1:`,Oi30 feet s�tsth af, tk��s ro er
<: r->::;.:::::::::::>:::::;<:>:;>:<:>::>:::;�>::;: .
<: oe:::: .reseruatro
f
a:pliantcannrst feas)tlydevez►xthis prpeitr ath�s
.....:...........:............................:....... ..............
'�>ha'.fi.6.:::: r�ritEr� :::::�f::<fh�::::ex�e: �Qr�::::t�rr 11><�Qt:>IS�:>�i . �.r.:r�Ii: .
:..:_,...imp.:...,.,..;:A. heublac .wetfere flr �nfunflus:to ath
)i fy fl f t�tf Qry w) .; ttx�l8�t.. � �f t 1t1.
l 'a>;iscraise:>isn<:rur�tfffwll:re ><; tier> f :ul
.: ... ....... ...
::.:::► ::: a.:::
:D;eMua .<. r €n; : :: �t <: #
ded
6)
-4-
the�7Fdinanee and on eemplianee with design StaAdaed.S_.o.fthe Publ:..
g .....�...
..+ a+ad steffn ate adside M:t
.,+„ r.ha lfif:< tI:G8i�t`:d(f s
P.::::;::::.::::::.::.:::..
with therc�vaiot►stlt�5nr > I i ` #r ;
1: nt::sha:il:
.. irertvfElydEnariceCofiihee . ..{......:.. ........:::::...
f ►te >r.:e: : the
1d ra►:n ..........................................
.`.i:' ' :::::::�:.:::::i :>:''.I:i. :f1'�y::::ii����://:14:1!':1:I::i::::y{�1y' .. .QV fii,..1�:/.L;1%:7!:::v'►'f :4'•� .t✓.:d:::::::1.<:!
:57.....;.7;!.,}.h.ii: fi .i:.: ::::: i'::::::::::::::::::::: i:::::::
i::.:i::.'i::i::isi:::::::isi::i::i::':F.:::is:i::ii:i::!:ii::i::i:!.:Y"':!::
'::}}''::i?:;is::::::'.'.' :i:'i::i:::i:ii�:::::::::::::::::::: ... ..
isaor::::>91::4»af>::::the:::::>CJr::dace::::::and::>: :::;ct�m: :tans; kesr
:::s orrrt:€:€:€wates::ato
. <7.
>< Izae:a..t..t...:.:.:.:........:....:.:.:.:......:.:.:.t .: .:.......d........:.c.....t......d..:.d.:.a.. :na ::s....: ...: .::...,.::..::..
rainess .ick::: ae s:�u —:i: m: c.::s...t..ree...t
... ........... .......
:..;';:;::;:.
C.;»>>.....>:<......mctt n ::>::m raver�n.ent::<:: .ta s;>::: .re: aced:>:::# :.<:>::a:::: :e. ste ed ntvit
::;fX( :f1: ::i1 :< �? 9 >sli(>I :ttiTl;Qit:. . .Q$:"r,':;']: f::::$9�`EJ.II :zQ
elt:<�rrm tflvernants:r�i urr�d:::fa::<:>the::>f�c€finance; 6ad:eor;; he ��nd�-
l.�rt
fil+�)ti:5s: .<i :' 'r `1ftf1itib ►.....S.O...........:;h8.&Q:..p.OAS
.:.� .::::::::: :u£.
:.::P p.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......::::::: :.: .::::::::::::::;:....:::: .::
:r.. >: .:.>:
;e ar ':::tragi#ic:s na e:€:and:€O :rn ans:for...eu�ew.b ..the
aril : 9 ::::9::: :.::: ::::::::::.p.:.: .: .:::::::.:::;':::::::.;:.;:.;::::.:;::;;':<:
ri `:::::Divi
rn.............rYt, �o :.:::.>: :.:......;:.;:.: .>:.>:.:::.::.::.; :< .:::.:<.
7) ,
ur>i�ittril
99 ..
ur }zr
C..he,.,:++ire+ e,. --meat plans _ e,d by a Fegi eFed_eiyil engineeF,
f ...
Payment of ra..:ew and inspeetien fees, and see Wity.fOF all
thin subd'visier. Thr. plans shall inelude r neeessaFy+raffie_signing
. /
Read EAgineeFing
... Map jrFv l;..a,...,v ..y .. ....g. ........ ...... ..off. ...... ...
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on Marsh
Creek Road as required for the planned future width of 110 feet, and slope
easements along Marsh Creek Road as required for the planned future road
width of 90 feet. Both the slope easement line and the ultimate right of way
line shall be shown on the Parcel Map.
C. Construct a 16-foot paved private roadway to County private road standards,
within a 25-foot easement, for that portion of the access road which will serve
one than one parcel in this proposed subdivision.
-5-
D. Relinquish abutter's rights of access along Marsh Creek Road, with the
exception of the private access road.
E. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed - in a
concentrated manner, from draining across driveways.'
F. Install all new utility distribution services underground.
G. Due to the inadequacy of Mt. Diablo reek downstream from the site, the
developer shall contribute to a drainage deficiency fund for Mt. Diablo Creek
based on a rase of $0.25 per square foot of new impervious surface crated by
this development. Funds will be used for future improvements to Mt. Diablo
Creek. Parcel "B" will not be required to pay these fees as there is an existing
house on the structure.
is 2 .::: :.}' >. >:::t r .in. . t3 f.:.i. : ,>'<:>' '� ' >:::<:::..:
................. A.:.:e r1 .: . ::.pa...Y:: :::::::Qty: : ::: .: -00-0-11't:: v:::::::: .:::: . .:.. .:::e:..e...:::�v.....:u t::t. t.
......::�..:....:...... .... : .:: ::_.:::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::.;..:...... ..
r t>r::tt:€:is ande", :> iIdi: ::>::ermi :: n::: ::'i` : ... . :..
.............. ..:....................nuance:.:...:.a.:Bu,......n. ::P.......lx fl...: h. ..:.areelE ratY r
P
rt ua�8t0 �fdtiir� t ernu� us.:.srfe...
:::: ::: r� »:: . :::::el:�: . ;:: r 1::tn »>:::h: ::>:: li n:::>:W.
At. le . :.:i .:s. . ± :: .: . .: . a. .� t. s :. . c . s::�.:..::s�.b...r......
...............::::.:..............::: .::::....f .............................................. .......................................................1 .....................
inst la:on::vf:<:a:s<:rr�:f�ier::<s. sae�<:nn�arc�l:f3:fo�:the:reviev�.anrf;:a . .r:�vaf:
Py .:::::.:::::.:: :::::::::::: :::: p.:::..::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::.9.
Wn.:sXt t .:;::.;:.;:.>:«:e: r k xt: .::a:.:<.; .: r d; ; . t.: .:: ttS ; .::::::: � ::b ::i . :: : ......:
r3 ::.::.;::.;:::::...::::.;:.;:.;;
; ..
Pr:.co :a :>::>:subrn. t....tv..... .e.... ..... n 1iani::::>:sYtal:l:>::::: ravde::::>::an
.::.:.:::::::::::::.
>:
; ':: ri it`.Phil t .. 1. ... f.. h .rr. .� h. . ren r. .: ... r fr..
v: :t ::: .:. :::::::::::.: : #.: :o.:::t.:.e.A(O:. :::bp.::::::. .:.p.:op� y., 8 8.5:::.:
9 . :::::::::::::::::..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::.::::...:.::.
to re ;< vl> d€ mire •or `tfiel<">:::>:::<<;;<::.'' < < :<.>:.>:..;;.:;::.,;>>::;.:; >::,.;:.>:>
e :.::.;:.::....::.....:.:: h. p.r.oposed sprinkler system....::
..:......:.::.......................... ..............................................................:::.:..........:.::..........:..........:.:.........:..:::.....:...::...:..::.....::...:...............::......
1~:eli7:ev�rin
•, approved spr�nkle� systet��has;beenistalle�: :°';ant>:�en:be inspected::
-6-
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
B. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the East Diablo Fire Protection
District.
C. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Health Department.
D. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Depart-
ment.
E. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by
the Board of Supervisors at $200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future
Consumer Price Index[CPI1 adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by
the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is $800
and is also subject to modifications in the future. ,The applicable tax and fee amounts
will be those established by the Board at the time of voting.
F. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Th6roughfare Fee Ordinance for the South County Area of Benefit as adopted
by the Board of Supervisors.
RMP/BT/cw/aa
MSXXI/8-92c.rmp
10/7/92
11/24/92
1;
-7-
.,l. r
E ..�(VITY- �F �CLA
Founded 1857..,.kcorporal 1964
Telepboner P.O. BOX 280 • CLAYTON,CALIFORNIA 94517
CITY HALL (510) 672-3622 • City Council
TELEPHONE (510) 672- �
COMMUNITY ,• WILLIAM R.WALCUTT,Mayor
DEVELOPMENT (510) 672.6690 R1:NCE,Vice hlaynr
ENGINEERING (510) 67ROBERT C.S�C.Ki�E
2.9700 RECEIVED PETER NDALL
March 17, 1993 GREGORY J.MANNING
JULIE K. PIERCE
r.�np 1 7 1993
Contra Costa County Board of supervisors
c/o Clerk of the Board CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
651 Pine street, Room 106 CONTRA COSTA CO.
Martinez, CA 94553
SUBJECT: MARCH 23, 1993 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
TENTATIVE MAP APPEAL OF BOB LAWRENCE (FILE #MS 8-92)
Honorable Chair and Members of the Board,
I understand the Board of supervisors is considering the appeal of Bob
Lawrence to the Planning Commissions denial of his vesting tentative map and
variance request (File #MS 8-92) . The City of Clayton is opposed to this
request. This letter is sent with the knowledge and approval of the Clayton
City Council.
Consistent Clayton opposition
The City of Clayton has been consistently opposed to this request and has so
stated at every opportunity we were made aware of. A letter of opposition
dated March 31, 1992 (see attached) was sent to county staff at the staff
review stage. A letter of opposition dated December 7, 1992 (see attached)
was sent and orally presented by a Clayton staff member at the County Planning
Commissions meeting of December 8, 1992. county staff contacted me during
the week of March 8, 1993, to ask questions concerning Clayton's opposition to
Mr. Lawrence's proposal. At that time, I learned that the hearing of March
23, 1993 is a continued hearing on this request. I am deeply concerned given
Clayton's consistent and long standing opposition to this request, why Clayton
was not informed of the initial public hearing before the Board. At minimum,
Clayton would have sent the Board a letter of opposition if not a staff member
to orally present our concerns. Nevertheless, I thank County staff for
informing me of the continued hearing date.
Basis of Clayton,s opposition
Clayton's opposition to this request is based upon our ongoing Marsh Creek
Road specific Plan. The subject property is within Clayton's LAFCO designated
sphere of Influence and within the study area of our Specific Plan. The Draft
Marsh Creek Road specific Plan designates the subject site and immediate
surrounding property as Ranchette Residential with a 5 acre lot size minimum.
As I understand it, the proposal would create a lot of 2.8 acres; far smaller
than the Draft Specific Plans recommended minimum.
Both Clayton City Council and Planning Commission have carefully considered
land use designations and policy direction in this Specific Plan area. To
date, nineteen (19) public meetings have been held on the Plan. Full
opportunity for comment on the planning process has been given to all. The
subject property,s owner, Mr. Lawrence, has expressed his concerns at
Clayton's public meetings on the Specific Plan. Based on substantial
technical analysis and the public input received, Clayton•s City Council and
Planning commission developed the recommended land use designations and policy
direction of the Specific Plan.
The Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan is still in draft form. One of the
alternatives considered in the Draft EIR would allow densities of 1 lot per
acre for Mr. Lawrence,s and surrounding property. Clayton requests that this
density question be settled by an adopted specific Plan prior to granting any
approvals in the study area which are contrary to the Draft Plan.
It is anticipated that the Marsh Creek Road specific Plan will be adopted by
mid-summer 1993. By coincidence, the first public meeting on the Draft
specific Plan and Draft EIR is scheduled for March 23, 1993. This conflict in
dates prevents staff from attending the Board meeting to present this letter
in person. (staff preparations with our consultant for our meeting will begin
the afternoon of March 23rd. )
Clayton's Recommendation
Clayton respectfully recommends two (2) options for the Boards action:
1. With the property owners consent, continue action on this request until
Clayton adopts the Marsh Creek Road specific Plan and final density for
the property is established.
2. Deny the proposed tentative map and variance, without prejudice, so that
the applicant may resubmit the request without waiting one year after
the date of denial. This option allows the applicant to immediately
resubmit the request if he prevails before the City of Clayton and our
adopted specific Plan allows for higher density.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request.
sincerely,
Randall Hatch
Community Development Director
RH/lc
attachments
cc: Clayton City Council
Clayton Planning Commission
tea. L
. _AVe
� = s .
t�-Yoe zINI
f
Fovndrd 1 L. rporoud1964
P.O. BOX 280 • CLAYTON,CALIFORNIA 94517 City Cu.."I
TELEPHONE (510) 672-3622 GREGORY J.MANNING..%IJ).F
WILLIAw R.WALCUTT. Vice.%IJ.
RObERT C.KENDALL
PETERA.LAURENCE
JEAN NE R.MUSTO
March 31, 1992
Candy Wensley
Contra Costa County
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553 .
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON MS8-92
MINOR SUBDIVISION OF 8. 1 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS AT
8325 MARSH CREEK ROAD
Dear Ms. Wensley,
The City of Clayton strongly urges the County to deny this
request to split the above identified 8. 1 acre parcel into two
lots. As you may know, the City of Clayton is preparing a
comprehensive specific plan for an approximate 1750 acre area to
the southeast of our city along Marsh Creek Road. This property
is within the specific plan study area. As part of the Marsh
Creek Road Specific Plan, the Clayton Planning Commission has
tentatively agreed to a land use designation for this property of
ranchette residential. This designation would allow one lot per
5 acres. This property is 8. 1 acres in size and therefore,
Clayton's tentative density designation would not allow the
property to be split. This is the basis for our request to deny
the proposed subdivision.
The owner of the above property (Mr. Bob Laurence) has
participated in the public meetings regarding the Marsh Creek
Road Specific Plan and has urged the Clayton Planning Commission
to modify their tentative designation for his property. While
the Specific Plan is not yet final, and the Clayton City Council
may change it, I request the County to confirm the Planning
Commission's direction of the Clayton Specific Plan process.
This process has to date involved 14 public meetings and an
extensive commitment of city time and resources in an effort to
determine development options for this area.
Page 2, Wensley, 3/31/92
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If
you have any questions or need further information, please
contact me at (510) 672-6690.
Sincerely,
i
Randall Hatch
Planning Director
RH/lc
cc: Planning Commission
i Pounded 1 � corporutec719(�Q h� -
f . ,
Teltpbonet P.O. BOX 280 CLAYTON,CALIFORNIA 94517 Circ Cok.,i!
CITY HALL (510) 672-3622 TELEPHONE (510) 672-3622 GREGORY J.MANNING,AU!"
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT (510) 672.6690 WJLLIAM R.WALCU-IT, VIII'AI.:j
ENGINEERING (510) 672-9700
ROBERT C.I1ENU.ILL
PETER A.LAURENC.E
JEANNE R.MU5T0
December 7 , 1992
Contra Costa County Planning Commission
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
SUBJECT: DECEMBER 8, 199.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP AND VARIANCE REQUEST, MS 8-92
AGENDA ITEM 3.
Dear Planning Commission,
On November 30, 1992, I received a copy of the staff report for
the above noted tentative map and variance request. I thank
County staff for sending this report to me. As mentioned in the
staff report, the City of Clayton is in opposition to this
proposal. Not withstanding this opposition, I have a number of
legal and procedural concerns with the staff report.
According to the staff report, this property is zoned A-2 which
requires a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. A variance is
requested to allow for a 2.8 acre parcel. I agree with the staff
report which states that there are no exceptional or
extraordinary circumstances unique to this property that would
justify granting of the requested variance. The approval of the
variance would be a grant of special privilege to this property
which would not be enjoyed by other properties similarly zoned.
However, there is no recommendation in the staff report regarding
the proposed variance. The staff report must clearly make a
recommendation regarding this proposed variance and suggest
findings for denial or, if exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances unique to the property are found, findings for
approval.
In lieu of the variance, the staff report states that the only
way the tentative map request could be approved is if the
property were to be rezoned to allow a minimum parcel size of at
least 2.8 acres. Discussion is presented in the staff report to
recommend the property be rezoned to R-100. A proposed condition
"2. " appears to have been presented to require this rezoning but
this condition has been struck out. Question: How can this
condition be removed? This tentative map cannot legally be
Page 2
December 7, 1992
recorded without a change of zoning. A condition to reflect this
must be part of any tentative map approval. The City of Clayton
respectively requests notification of any rezoning request and
reserves the right to oppose this request based upon our efforts
to date within our Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan.
As an aside, even if the condition regarding rezoning is adopted
I question the propriety of approval at this time. It is my
opinion and practice that a tentative map which requires a
rezoning is not a complete application absent the formal rezoning
request. Both the rezoning and tentative map requests should be
before the Planning Commission at the same meeting. A condition
requiring rezoning must still be part of any tentative map
approval to allow for the possibility that the rezoning is not
approved at the Board of Supervisors level.
An additional concern of mine questions the legality of the staff
report as written. The Planning Commission must make findings
which bridge the gap between the evidence presented within the
staff report and the recommendation and proposed conditions. As
presented, the staff report's recommendation is conclusionary
without any substantive indication of the basis for those
conclusions. Findings must be clearly stated and presented for
the Planning Commission's consideration. Further, these findings
must be available in sufficient time to allow for review by
interested persons and agencies.
In conclusion, I believe there is no legal basis for the Planning
Commission to approve this request given the staff report's
failure to make the required findings and the absence of rezoning
the property. If this matter is continued to a future meeting, I
request a copy of the revised staff report a minimum of ten ( 10)
calendar days prior to the hearing in order to evaluate the staff
comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this request.
Sincerely,
r
Randall Hatch
Community Development Director
RH/lc
cc: Clayton City Council
Clayton Planning Commission
Supervisor Sunne McPeak
Val Alexeeff