Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03021993 - H.3 t 1 H. 3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 2, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hearing On Appeal Of Dori and Bob Laurence Relative To MS 8-92 , Clayton area. This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for 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. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeal before the Board for consideration today, and he described the location of the requested minor subdivision. Mr. Barry also commented on a requested continuance by the owner to work with staff on conditions of approval, and he recommended that the Board take testimony from those present today and continue this matter to March 23, 1993 . Mr. Barry advised the Board of the staff recommendation for denial of the appeal and that the Board uphold the Planning Commission decision, and he also advised of a staff recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of the subdivision with conditions contingent upon the rezoning of the property to an R-100 zoning classification. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to testify: Bob Laurence, 301 Chardonnay Circle, Clayton, requested a continuance of the matter, made a brief presentation of an overview of his proposal, and he expressed concern with conditions of approval. Mr. Laurence commented on his plans for the use of the property. Phil Kelley, 8385 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton, spoke in opposition and expressed concerns on issues including a proposed designation of the property by the City of Clayton, a barn on the property in question, agricultural use of the property and dust problems. Seraphin Leal, P.O. Box 625, Clayton, spoke in opposition. Supervisor Torlakson expressed concern with addressing the issues of dust control and the agricultural use. Supervisor McPeak commented on the issue of reprocessing the application under the zoning that would accommodate the smaller lot and she requested clarification on the City of Clayton' s direction in planning for this area. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter is CONTINUED to March 23 , 1993 at 2: 00 p.m. ; and staff is REQUESTED to respond to issues and concerns raised today. CC: County Counsel 1 hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of . an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Community Development Board of S pervisors on the date shown. Dori and Bob LaurencePhil Kelley PHIL BA HELOR,Clerk of the Board S e r a p h i n Leal f Supery rs and Coun Administrator 9 By Deputy A P P E A L - MINOR SUBDIVISION #5-92 VINCENT CUNHA (APPLICANT) ROBERT & DORI LAURENCE (OWNERS) THE APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO DIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 5.11 ACRES INTO TWO (2) LOTS, A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR A 2.5 ACRE PARCEL (5 ACRES REQUIRED) . SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED 5325 MARSH CREEK ROAD AND IS LOCATED DUE NORTH OF PINE LANE, CLAYTON AREA. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2 PARCH 1993 - 2:00 P.M. + 1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .;'_ � Contra Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON - " '3 County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �'r'•, "�' oo. _ tisk° DATE: January 22, 1993 STA CUUiAi, SUBJECT: Hearing 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 grant the appeal filed by Bob Laurence with respect to the findings made to justify approval. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The background for this project is reviewed in the December 8, 1992 staff report to the Contra Costa County Planning Commission. The Commission reviewed the staff report and denied it based on no findings made to justify approval. On December 9, 1992 the owner of the property, Bob Laurence, appealed the Commission's decision to the Board. Mr. Laurence's appeal contains no new information that was not available to the Commission. Condition of Approval #2 was omitted and replaced with an agreement made with owner to limit 2 horses per acre. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATOR RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMM D ON OF O D 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: MS 8-92 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Bob Laurence THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY 140TIFICATI-ON LIST - Vincent Cunha/Robert 9 Dori Laurence - MS 8-92 Vincent Cunha Benjamin & Levina Manion 970 Baypoint Way 186 Paso Nogal Rodeo, California 94572 Pleasant Hill, California 94517 Robert & Dori Laurence Wendy Belvedere P. 0. Box 134 546 Civic Drive Clayton, California 94517 Walnut Creek, California 94517 Frank 8 Jeannine Betrencourt P. 0. Box 231 Clayton, California 94517 Phillip S. & Ann R. Kelley 8385 Marsh Creek Road Clayton, California 94517 Clifford & Gloria Soares 8425 Marsh Creek Road Clayton, California 94517 David & Sharon Osteen 1060 Pine Lane Clayton, California 94517 Roland & Doris Shirley 0. Box 189 ,layton, California 94517 lrald & Carolyn Hellmers .20 Marsh Creek Road ayton, California 94517 ,aphin & Beverely Leal 0. Box 625 yton, California 94517 en T. Tobin lyn Y. Trent . LiUz' 5 ton, California 94517 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL - Vincent Cunha (Applicant) , Robert & Dori Laurence (Owners) , Minor Subdivision #8-92 - Clayton Area - (S.D. V) / Resolution No. 6-1993 WHEREAS, on March 6, 1992, Vincent Cunha (Applicant) and Robert & Dori Laurence (Owners) , filed an application with the Community Development Department requesting approval of a vesting tentative map to divide approximately 8. 11 acres into two lots with a variance to allow for a 2 . 8 acre parcel (5 acres required) , (MS 8-92) , property addressed as 8325 Marsh Creek Road, north of Pine Lane, in the Clayton Area; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted for this project on July 23 , 1992 ; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on December 8, 1992 , whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, the applicant and the owner as well as others in opposition appeared and spoke on this application; and WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission DENIED the request of Vincent Cunha (Applicant) and Robert & Dori Laurence (Owners) , (M-S 8-92) , to divide approximately 8. 11 acres into two (2) lots with variance for the following reasons: 1. The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing general plan for the area. 2 . No findings could be made to justify approval of the application. The foregoing order was given by vote of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 8, 1992 , as follows: 2 . Resolution No. 6-1993 AYES: Commissioners - Frakes, Gaddis, Clark, Terrell. NOES: Commissioners - Accornero, Sakai, Woo. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Marvin J. Terrell Chair of the Planning Commission, Contra Costa County - State of Califor a. January 22, 1993 ATTEST: r ey E. Br on, Secre ary of the anning o ission, Contra Costa County, State of California. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 8-92 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. , Family Residential DiStFiet R 100 (100,000 sq. ft. FniAiFF1UFA aFeB.) r er shalf>::be::::lfri„ > i :: v �> 2 fiadsf'Iive.sto'c'k; er=:acre::>:Tf s.. . Te.;:p.::.::P:::::ty.::::::.::.:.::::::::::; ted:: ,:;:..::.::::::: : }.::.::.::.:: :: :.: :::::.:.:: .:,..p..:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: W.:::::::::::: :::::::. .::.......:...................: :.;:.>:.:::: ..........:.....;..;....................................................................... :. :i ...; ;rr :.ri >vu is h '; Ii s� , d, ...r '.'..,': '''owners'.. ' :5>...... : e;.;:.;; .;:< :.;:;.:;t;.;:.;th .; pp«<ca :t:a .cf p. perty;; ; . . .... .... ... : . . . :,.:.:..:...:. . .: gin:.: .... A >: >:::::<:> R r ::: ::. :: rnen ::: . :rur�:::w►th;:cie d he::: t: ;::: ie:. :w:e .:i^3tiit CC:.;d.a:state.:::..:.:t: 0.......;««<.......... e...,�to.;t::... ..p..... ; y:; ;;.;:.;:a:;:.;,:.;; 9.;:.;:.:s>�....:::.;::::::.::: ................ Per...apr�:af twQ (2� tiuestoc# per agreement.:of the>=.q.p j; urn r :: 3. Prior to approval of the � uiln <ertiforP:arcl' the individual building 9..p........:..................:........:.......: .......................................................................... 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, well site, leach field site, and provision for water storage for fire fighting. Homesites shall be designed with a minimum grading. Where significant 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 Administrator 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. Each parcel must have an "on-site" producing water well or install a "test well" having a minimum yield of three gallons per minute with the State standards for a pure, wholesome and potable water supply (Title 11 , Section 6443). If the chemical analysis exceeds the State standards for "maximum containment levels", for water potability, a statement must be attached and run with the property deed advising of these levels; or B. Have a verifiable water availability data from adjacent parcels presented by the applicant or knowledge of the same, known by the Health Services Department concerning water quality and quantity per A. above; and C. Have a statement that "attaches and runs with the deed" indicating that a water well shall be installed on the subject parcel complying with the general requirements stated above prior to obtaining a Building Inspection Department permit for construction. 2. D. In addition to the above, a hydro-geological evaluation may be required in known or suspected water short areas. This will include seasonable as well as yearly variations. E. The E'rior'tc� >M bu lc r` err Vit, 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 County 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 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. 3. 9. All property above the approxi atet il; 80 the 6:70 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. actier of thy_grope ty shall pa t�cEpate trthe.prov sion of funding t rne:r)I`a n a c ... r .:j > :;» Vii;':,..: '"."".:li;.> ».; :>:»:.::;«> r>;:v: ;:;>::.>:.:;.:><:> I f 'r ::h r. i� aug errt po ce se vices lay voting to app o e a spec:�a tax:..f�...t e pe. e s p..eate. :A y .. . tf i;` < stilj ivis:i'on>a "`ro a:l >>>T}'e tax shall«be»tl e ' er aed. nual... rn.o ....wttf pP::.:::::::::::::::.:::.::::::.:::.::::::: : ::::: ..::R.:::::::I : :::::::::::::::::f:::::::::::: ap rap ate utu e. Pf adjuS#rnent�then. ab,shed at the t� : e:� cit g_bY:t Dar d. ;.Supevs©cs�>:TYie`slecticsri:t provide fir the tax shah be cc�mpieted:: rririo;tfa#ilitig >tl :`>Prc� : , ap Thi prppertY;:nv�rner Shal) be respons£ble fpr pY:;.g t„e Cyst, ; :. . ... . ::. ... . holdtnc3 the slectznr payable at.ihe time:tfiat:tile electien:ls=r±rquese1 Ha......fie 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 frontage of Marsh Creek Road. Widening the existing pavement and constructing a 10-foot 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 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. 2) Street lighting is not required. 3) Constructing a paved hammerhead turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. 4. 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 waters to a natural watercourse. As Parcel "A" is large and agricultural in nature, additional runoff from this parcel will be negligible. Therefore, an exception from this requirement.is granted provided that: a) The property owner deeds development rights over Parcel "B" 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 dispose concentrated storm water runoff onto adjacent property. 6) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of the Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. The Ordinance prohibits the discharging of concentrated storm waters into roadside ditches. 7) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off rom public streets. 8) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve- ments required by the Ordinance code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signing and striping plans for review by the County Public Works Department, Road. Engineering Division. 9) Submitting a Parcel Map prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. 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. 5. 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. 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 $0.25 per square foot of new impervious surface crated by this development. Funds will be used for future improvements to Mt. Diablo Creek. Parcel "B" will not be required to pay these fees as there is an existing house on the structure. ADVISORY NOTES A. The applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. B. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the East Diablo Fire Protection District. C. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Health Department. D. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Depart- ment. ..:........:...... .:::......... .. :>< :> >Teiii' lidart°>'is::aduEs .c.;tFt:tle:t .x::.:ca..:t .e. ..A.ce.se...,.Cel.d.st....Ct..: :ertntl..::. e#..b.. ::..............t A...................:......................:.:..:..:::.:::.::::::.:::::..::.:,...:::::::.::::: .:::::..:::::.:::.:.::........_......:..::::. Y:::: :.::::Y #f€ <>.B a d °: f:-5y :ery sots at ;$�0(7;.:'pe: pa.,,cel a r uafly. (with aP r .f�a a future p F r urrt r:`:Pr Irtic e� C.CPtl.atl ustrrierifs} The annu6:4.004[ s sub �t t4>i�ddi fi�atfc�r�d t :: ...:..::.::..:.:: X tl e;B ard:c f::: u.ervsor.:s:�nth.e:fiuture.::The;;ou.r ent.fee:far.:U:dl..drn' ;;the eieeti:4rt.:fs..�. .. p 9 :.: .::.:;.....:...::.......:.::.:.... . .. ....... . . ..... .. . . . .. dr tl'is5 15 `Su ijeCt c `mQdifi ations<trt the futu a he appt�Cab: td . rsd:fea.a Qu t :.>....; Will those established by,the Board at the time of vottrtg 6. F. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare 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 December 9 , 1992 Contra Costa County Community Development Department County Administration Building 4th Floor, North Wing 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 RE: MS 8-92 PLANNING STAFF Gentlemen: 1, the undersigned hereby appeal the Planning Commission's decision of December 8, 1992, related to MS 8-92. Dori Laurence Bob Laurence Owner/Applicant Owner/Applicant 1 1992 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APPLICATION&PERMIT CENTER r i E. munity Contra Harvey of Community Director of Community Development Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing sE ` Martinez, California 945530095 646-2031 December 14, 1992 Phone: rll:!E a. ._. 71 OT' COON Bob & Dori Laurence P.O. Box 134 Clayton, CA 94517 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Laurence: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated December 9, 1992 for application #MS 8-92, which was denied by the County Planning Commission on December 8, 1992. Your appeal will be heard by the Board of Supervisors. You will be notified by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the Board. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. Also, please note that in order to proceed promptly with the scheduling of this appeal, you should submit a list of names and addresses for the applicant and owner of the application and all properties within 300 feet of the property along with stamps and mailing labels for each individual property owner, no later than January 4, 1993. Please direct the labels, stamps and list to: Community Development Department, Attention: Rose Marie Pietras, 651 Pine Street, North Wing - 4th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553-0095. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Rose Marie Pietras at 646-2031. Sincerely yours, t Mary Fleming Chief of Land Development :df L2:MS8-92.bos cc: File Vincent Cunha Public Works Attn: Mitch Avalon Leonard Vecchi Agenda Item # Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION VINCENT CUNHA (Applicant) - ROBERT & DORI LAWRENCE (Owners), County File #MS 8-92: The applicant requests approval of a vesting tentative map to divide approximately 8.1 1 acres into tow (2) lots. A variance is requested to allow for a 2.8 acre parcel (five (5) acres required). Subject property is addressed #8325 Marsh Creek Road and is located due north of Pine Lane, in the Clayton area. (A-2) (ZA:M-19) (CT 3553.04) (Parcel #078-010-016) This project was continued from the October 27, 1992 County Planning Commission hearing. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Minor Subdivision 8-92 be approved with conditions. Ill. PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS This proposal to divide 8:L- acres into two parcels under MS 8-92, is a reapplication of previous MS 150-90 with no changes. The previous Minor Subdivision was denied by the Planning Commission September 24, 1991. There were attempts to file an appeal to the Board of Supervisors but was beyond the period for filing an appeal at that time. Staff had recommended approval of the previous application as with the current application. The adjacent neighbor is objecting to this proposal as did previously, because of the reduced area for keeping horses (see attached letter). IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: General Plan designation is Single Family Residential-Low Density, 1 to 2.9 du/ac. Zoning is General Agricultural District (A-2). The proposal to divide 8± acres into two parcels is consistent with the General Plan. B. Zoning: A-2 - 5 acre minimum per parcel. C. CEOA Status: A Negative Declaration was posted on Jtfly 23, 1992. 2 D. Regulatory Programs: Subject site is within Zone C area of minimal flooding. It is not within an active earthquake fault zone; it is not within a 60 dBA noise control zone. Subject site is not within a Redevelopment Area. E. Previous Applications: MS 240-64 was a 3 lot subdivision, of which the Parcel C is the subject site. MS 150-90 was a request for a 2 lot subdivision, which was denied by the Planning Commission. F. Archaeological Review: There is a low possibility of archaeological sites. V. AGENCY COMMENTS A. East Diablo Fire Protection District: See attachment. B. City of Clayton: The City has requested a delay until their specific plan for the area has been completed. See attached letter. C. Health Department/Environmental Health Division: See attachment. D. Building Inspection Department: 1 . A grading permit may be required for the earthwork necessary to develop all parcels in the above minor subdivision. 2. Plans accompanying the application for building permits shall show the existing contours, the extent of the proposed grading and drainage improvements and shall be reviewed by the Grading Section prior to issuance. 3. Prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits in minor subdivision, a preliminary soil investigation report prepared by a licensed soil engineer will be required. It shall report on the ability of the site to support the improvements anticipated, and shall include recommended foundation designs to achieve maximum stability of the proposed structures. 4. A licensed soil engineer may be required to control grading operations and to report on the ability of the site to support the improvements anticipated. 5. The depth and location of the uncompacted fill on parcel A shall be indicated on the plans accompanying the application for building permits in the above minor subdivision. 6. Building foundations shall be designed to counteract swelling and uplift characteristics of the expansive soil at this site. 3 7. Grading has been done on Parcel A - it appears by the plan that additional grading would be needed. This involves cutting into existing slope above the existing pad. Excess dirt would need to be disposed of properly - hauled off or placed as engineered fill. VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS The applicant's neighbor submitted on August 14, 1992 a response to the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance - see Attachment. Subsequent to the previous denial to divide the property, the applicant responded to the neighbors concerns. See attachment. VII. PROPOSAL AND STAFF EVALUATION The proposed site is in the Marsh Creek area. The site contains essentially no flat area with the exception of a bench area the full length of the site consisting of an existing house, barn, and corral. The surrounding area comprises narrow valleys and rolling hills covered mainly by natural grasses with some masses of trees and bushes in ravines and drainage ways. This proposal is to divide 8 ± acres into two parcels of 2.8 acres and 5.3 acres, retaining the existing residence and barn/corral on the smaller 2.8 acre parcel. Staff finds this project to satisfy the provision outlined in Article 92-2.2 of the County Ordinance Code (Tentative Map) and each parcel to satisfy the provision of Article 84- 38.4 (A-2 District). The project site is located in the Single Family Residential - Low Density Designation in the General Plan. Primary land uses which shall be permitted in this designation include detached single family homes and accessory structures, and the keeping of a limited number of livestock, consistent with a rural lifestyle. Secondary uses generally considered to be compatible with low density homes may be allowed, including home occupations, small residential care and child care facilities, churches and other similar places of worship, secondary dwelling units and other uses and structures incidental to the primary uses. The proposed parcels are compatible with the applicable General Plan designation. Parcel B is at significant variance to the zoning requirements. Staff does not recommend approval of the variance but recommends that both parcels be rezoned to R-100. Parcel A is very steep and does not have a suitable site for an additional residence. It is, therefore, recommended that the slope area on Parcels A and B be placed in a scenic easement. A letter sent by the City of Clayton dated received by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department on April 2, 1992 indicates that MS 150-90 is within the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan area. The City of Clayton requested that any development of property within the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan area should be delayed until the completion and adoption of the Specific Plan. However, the proposed project is consistent with the County General Plan. Therefore, staff cannot make findings to justify a denial as requested by the City of Clayton. 4 T::: c:l�nov+fledging::;the;,lmit:°per;;acre:o :twat:{�};1.uest�c VIII. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS The attached conditions of approval based on the August 22, 1990 tentative map include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Subdivision Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. IX. CONCLUSION Zoning of the property should be made consistent with the General Plan designation of Single Family Residential. The number of horses permitted would be two per 40,000 sq. ft. of land area. Staff is recommending the applicant be required to rezone the property as indicted in Item Vlll above. RMP/BT/cw/aa MSXXI/150-90.rmp 10/14/92 11/24/92 EAST DIABLO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 745 First Street ,0s Ta Brentwood,California 94513 Business Phone(415)634-3400 P�' '�• 34 1 E! y• April 23, 1992 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ATTN: Candy Wensley SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision 8-92 Marsh Creek Road Clayton, CA Dear Ms. Wensley: We have reviewed the Minor Subdivision application, dated arch 17, 1992, for the subject project. The application is to allow lot split. This project is subject to fire and life safety requirements of the Uniform Fire Code, as adopted by Contra Costa County Ordinance 89-69, and the applicable provisions of the California State Fire Marshal's regulations. If this project is approved, we request that the following Uniform Fire Code and State Fire Marshal requirements be included as Conditions of Approval: STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1 The developer shall obtain County-assigned street numbers/addresses for each parcel and post them in such a manner as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property, in accordance with County Department of Public Works standards. (10.208 UFC] 2. Where open space is to be maintained for public or private use, the developer shall provide access into these areas from public ways. These access ways shall be a minimum 16-foot width to accommodate fire department equipment. All open spaces, when left in their natural state, shall meet the Fire District's weed abatement standards. [10.207(m) & 88.104 UFC] 3. The developer shall be required to contribute Fire Facility Fees to mitigate operational costs associated with increased service demands throughout the Fire District. Fire Facility Fees are currently set at the rate of $450.00 per individual residential dwelling unit. The developer shall pay all required Fire Facility Fees prior to the issuance of any building permit. CoB Planning Dept. MS8-92 April 23, 1992 Page 2 4. The developer shall provide access roadways with all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, and not less than 13'-6" of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, and shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 45 feet, and must be engineered to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (30 tons maximum). [10.207 UFC] 5. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire department apparatus. [10.207(h) UFC] 6. The developer shall provide paved Fire Department access roads to within 150 feet of all exterior building walls, as measured along an approved route around the building, prior to beginning any combustible construction. The specific limits of required access roads will be determined by the Fire District upon submittal of two (2) copies of a Final Site Plan. [87.103(b) UFC] 7. The developer shall submit two (2) sets of Improvement Plans to the Fire District for review and comment prior to construction. [2.206 UFC] These conditions are intended to ensure that the project will be in general compliance with applicable fire codes and regulations enforced by the East Diablo Fire Protection District. Review of subsequent plan submittals, required above, may result in additional requirements. Projects beginning construction more than one (1) year from approval may be subject to additional requirements. It is requested that a copy of the Conditions of Approval for this project be forwarded to our office when complied and adopted by your agency. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact the undersigned at (510) 757-1303 Ext. 23 between the hours of 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. (Monday through Friday). Sincerely, PAUL HEIN Fire Chief C By: J�WN'P. McCARTHY PH:KPM:rh Fire Inspector PC: Robert Laurence MS 8-92 intra _ C Health Services Department JOSto ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION "" East/Central Office Cunt\/ O: t 1111 Ward Street J Martinez,California 94553-1352 (510)646-2521 April 7, 1992 Vincent Cunha 970 Bay Point Way Rodeo, CA 94572 SUBJECT: M.S. 9-92: Dear Mr. Cunha: The tentative map of this proposed minor subdivision has been received by this division. An investigation to determine the feasibility of installing individual sewage disposal systems must be made by this division before our comments concerning the tentative map can be forwarded to the Community Development Department. The charge for conducting this investigation as a site evaluation will be $160.00 payable to Contra Costa County Health Services (see fee schedule enclosed). Upon making the site evaluation, the Environmental Health Inspector may find it necessary to require percolation tests. You should be prepared to provide the percolation test holes, supply the water necessary and pay $265.00 for each percolation test needed. If you wish to proceed with processing of the tentative map, we suggest you make application to this office. The investigation may take a week or more to complete. Sin rely, reni Parker, R.E.H.S. Environmental Health Specialist FP:jc Enclosure cc: Community Development Department f Public Works, Road Engineering Building Inspection Owner °CITY OF -~CL1 T C2T- -z P2;22 j Founded 1837....Jncorporaied 1964 P.O. BOX 280 • CLAYTON,CALIFORNIA 94517 City Council TELEPHONE (510) 672-3622 GREGORY J.MANNING.,Mayor WILLIAM R.WALCUTT. Vice Alayor ROBERT C.KENDALL PETER A.LAURENCE JEANNE R.i1IUSTO 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. C 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,, Randall Hatch Planning Director RH/lc cc: Planning Commission . �` � t.� � yz Covcr`ty �1 �E n v i '� o �rn ert �. C vrCe� rn St S o`c V 5 S o, `c e ► �nSe � 'th .�G� ..1� J\c , o Y1 a N4 CO �a �.L � `f +� Q tz,\j e bite JAS R -q 22 L aS� e o,Y `G�1� w eYr �.. cx\k er c y Yin ck O i v �` c\,'y t o • 8 A\ CA,C,-'C P- 1 fa, vc�Yi► a.nc2 waS `ce �ueS11a \ O altw�v �vY ca. 2• �s' chcxR 4ckxce1 � ac-ceS Q1. aY\rtny Cv � Ss► vn Clrrair� GSk e a `� • �. 4uY eS�� e w\VAcl� h e w ck S c4 v\» ckbokAZ the !� dv.S� �Y � ,Lp�m , � l.autencE SZ ckj 4Za he vv �� a �� G �{ Yin e1r o n vi SYS � ern , ` 1r, cA . ick drum l't\r\aN ?oY� iOn 0-V u Yr ht n 5 t�v mrn S S ons m e e'4+n 9 , b"k '� ca S OL dom e h o�W% the . CLn YN Y\ (,Qwrv% SS►or C. �%f,C.. � ,yb LCAuYev) roe . kr C. S �eYt� It h e St-03 at`v� Sr ort T\ G2. c:.u.'t etifiLy} tu•,,�c erc�e S aye c,, � �m�! � n � h e ckb av e a ai ti, • �.. r,,"XY•ere S \J14 carr �ttal S Q b �.� �u S\Y\ e S , cv,n S % S �\ o4 a \, cxY h V 2. �' G r Y eS 'w'4►i C1n r h e n S•i ! Q e v O-x t a\k S Qac v bl L e`t e ` NCk beers. by C�natrC��nS v YeY�neay '��ntiS Cona► }ta►, 1 h Vh ck P\?t% C o C �v�C�nYTc,-l'r4\y 1r,oY Se S on ci S4 \j Cv�IL L ec. � Q dal.e Yll �v h ct. YN to N �n 41. 'ttie \-- GSA I cc,: rn� Thr S. wo e • ro% sh r e5s w y��: n � �4ckx \ an cuct��� Cx Lckc�ny 0. V� h p 4z)CR-C410 ��nC e oxopnE�n� ` cA 4� +� a ,c��� or►�►L CAS c�r� cecr�S - _� ZcaI Yl \N 4 S bu�L� o� �� �h � how � e s ar �.�r. oY L e ec.�• Fi eta tin e , \v� 5�cx aYoVh -'em ec� �ic Qt�►Y, 3 GN,\ �h �bo�e vn enVI u) o rn eikV%n9 S ) 1v�v e5� -t much -SMA? CvyYN� Q-.Y-% PLQNNYN, hg • Comr{:,ss,oh CXc � ei:,, e5� ���n'r�r�� "C h r S �►-�Si n Ck V(s n w vii.a OL q\^j kti St-Le a n Z� \h 4`t %�' X4e .�.a�`� t)'rt1`S en ani e c1e5ichaiom huh attvwh e ��e l ck Cal• �� hi 4 nv;gown� c3� \ eN `yr\r , Vi, 161 �A �C u� r� per h CAr7 q 1 '� S 1 r►Ce�c eL.� , 4�c•,'�L.L�� S. �eLLe � $3 ; NAaySh CLQ � uh Cq . y � St ''7 November 26, 1991 Contra Costa County Planning Commission County Administration Building 4th floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 RE; MINOR SUBDIVISION 150-90 Dear Members of the Planning Commission, Because of what happened at the hearing on Tuesday, September 24, 1991 at 7 : 30 P .M. , I feel compelled to write this letter and include photographic evidence to support and clarify my position. I hope this effort will also provide you with the "whole" picture instead of the very one sided presentation by Mr. Kelley.. As you recall, the Planning Staff approved the subdivision with certain conditions. One of the concerns voiced by the commission was - item number 2 (conditions for approval ) . It was asked of the staff if this type of condition was usual . The staff reply was that it was . A re-zone from A-2 to R-100 was a condition of approval - just like all the rest of the conditions - and I fail to see how this should have been a concern of the Planning Commission. Obviously, if approval was denied for the re-zone, then it follows that the subdivision would also be denied . I believe the County Staff concluded that because of the existing parcel sizes in the immediate area, approval of this request should be approved . In fact, the Kelley property to the East. of our property is approximately 2 acres and the Leal property to the South is one acre. R-100 is in conformance with the general plan and the land density requirements . - I fail to understand why the Commission denied my request because of this particular concern. In fact the re-zone would have eased the amount of horses on the property from "unlimited" to 5 .or 6 . This should have made Mr . Kelley very happy indeed . On the other hand, perhaps I do understand why the decision was made to deny the application. Could it be that the neighbors in the East (Kelley) and to the South (Leal) convinced the panel that the Laurences ' horse set up was, indeed, a terrible place and that the Laurences ' were inconsiderate of their neighbors concerns? I was astounded when, on the night of September 24, 1991, Mr . Kelley spoke to the panel and indicated that a video was produced of my property, along with an indication that personal inspections were made by members of the commission. Mr . Kelley's attack on me was being waged at the same time negotations were under way to try to resolve this problem. It is obvious to me that the commission was aware of the Kelley representation of the Laurence property well before the actual hearing on September 24, 1991 . It seems to me that in order for the panel to make a fair and just decision on this application, the Laurence side of the story should have been considered also . The panel made a decision, in my opinion, to deny our application based a one sided view point. I had no opportunity to rebutt, effectively, the Kelley/Leal concerns . It would have been better to move the application from the adgenda and defer the request until the concerns are settled or proven false. My engineer, Robert Costa, and I have been working with the County Planning Staff for almost one year - not to mention the thousands of dollars of engineering expenses . The decision to deny was not a fair one. You did not have both sides of the story. You only had one side of the story. In this regard, I am submitting photographic evidence of how the Laurence Horse facility actually looks 85 to 90 percent of the time . The visual tapes, etc. that you saw reflect a 10 to 15 percent picture. . .a horse facility cannot be "squeeky clean" 100 percent of the time. Maintaining a horse facility takes a lot of hard work as well as a dedication to the well being and safety of the animals as well as concerns for neighbors rights. The horse facility conforms to the county code in every aspect; from the housing of the animals to the removal of waste and the . control of dust. The photographs that follow will each have a brief description. I realize that your decision is made and we have to go on, but I do want you to know that I am very disappointed in the treatment we received at the hearing. I feel your decision was inappropriate and did not show the usual wisdom of your panel . The subdivision effort represents many long years of hard work in preperation for our retirement program - this is serious business to us. . . I have contacted my attorney, Peter Mankin, and he will be in touch. Sincerely, Robert Laurence 1• ' -� +.per`• _��;-,,,- - =1 1 • � 1 1 1 jS Fp{i i izo- a. 74 - 1 • • y WE-rrr _ffFNIF " PlipiRr r+ Adik HE PADDOCK AREA TO THE SOUTH OF :THE STALL/BARN AREA. NOTE THE CLEAN PADDOCK AREA HIS AREA HAS 4- X' DUST. CRUSHED ROCK FOR DUST CONTROL, MORE EFFICIENT MANURE COLLECT 014 AND ODOR CONTROL.. HORSES DO NOT STAND IN ANY MUD AT ANY TIME. f q• .icy :ERCISE AREA TO THE WEST OF THE BARN AREA. HORSES ARE TURNED OUT INTO THIS AREA JITH SAME GROUND COVERING AS NOTED BEFORE) OR ARE "LUNGED" IN A CIRCLE FOR :ERCISE . ALL STALLS AND EXERCISE AREAS ARE CLEANED BETWEEN 3 & 6 TIMES PER WEEK. 41: � W �/'� • .�-♦ l.V ♦ .y J.P. I 13 -�`*�_/�"'.� •'s•�.es`�•„7,. +id�1r' � ,rF�S4 "ii'��'•''t�r��'+ a�:>- TIT: J� 'I _ : ` . .. ti .3 -•j 1 :gait r STALL AREA W./AUTOMATIC WATERER $ METAL 'SIDE TYALLS. STALL. HAS BEEN CLEANED & LIME HAS BEEN PLACED ON WET AREAS FOR ABSORPTION & ODOR CONTROL. FRESH BEDDING (SHAVINGS) ARE TO THE RIGHT & WILL BE SPREAD AFTER 24 HOURS EXPOSURE TO THE AIR. e y •err.. i SAME STALL W/FRESH BEDDING APPLIED . HORSES ARE ALTERNATED BETWEEN TWO STAT.T,S Sn fir} I r ,•V SHAVINGS BIN - THIS MATERIAL IS A SOFT FOUNDATION FOR THE :MORSE TO STAND AS WELL AS A SANITARY BARRIER. . - 1 ►i r y . S � f • rl BREEZEWAY AREA ON EAST SIDE OF BARN . THIS ENTIRE BARS FLOOR IS COMPOSED OF 4" X DUST KATERIAL WHICH IS COMPACTED. THE AREA IS t2AI'= SFVE.RAL TIMES A WEEK a LIGHTL WATERED DOWN FOR DUST CONTROL . NOTE THE 2 - 14 ' HIGH DOORS THE HUGE OP;:N AREA ABOVE THE STAL1,1; T-OR ?:tAXT%M(i?d VF,NTTT,ATTnN - v "BLUE" - MY PERSONAL HORSE WHICH. I USE IN MY DUTIES WITH .THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. THESE DUTIES INCLUDE FIRE PATROL IN MT. DIABLO STATE PARK, THE REGIONAL PARKS IN THE AREA AS WELL AS SEARCH A14D RESCUE ASSIGNMENTS. THIS HORSE OPERATION IS RUN BY EXPERIENCED HORSE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS 0 THE ANIMALS AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS . WHILE ANY HORSE FACILITY CANNOT MAIlgTAIN A "STERILE" CONDITION, THIS HORSE OPERATION DOES MEET ALL COUNTY CODES/ ORDANANCES AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS TO THE FULLEST AND THEN SOME. FOR OTHERS TO IMPLY THAT THIS OPERATION IS DIRTY AND LACKS ATTENTION' IS LUDICRUS . THE COM14ISSIO SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE LAURENCES HAVE HAD NO ASSISTANCE FRO-M ANY NEIGHBOR IN CONTROLLING THE DUST PROBLEM. WE HAVE INITIATED EVERYTHING! WHEN THE EUCALYPTUS HEDGE LINE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN THE FROST OF THE 1990 WINTER - :THESE SAME NEIGHBORS HAVE YET TO REPLANT THE DEAD TREES . THIS CERTAINLY WOULD HELP THE SITUATION. HOWEVER THESL'NEIGHBORS SIT BACK AND COMPLAIN AND MAKE NO EFFORT TO MITIGATE THE PROBLEM (IF INDEED THERE IS A REAL .PROBLE14?) MAR-01-1993 15:04 FROM PRU CAL REALTY WALCR TO 6461059 P.02 The Prudential California Realty 1801 N.California Blvd..Suite 100 walnut Creek.GA 94596 Bus.(510)937.5100 Fax (510)939.9519 February 26, 1993 Rose Marie Fietras Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor - North Win$ Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: M.S. 8-92 This letter is to inform your department that upon inspection of the "NEW" conditions of approval for M.S. 8-92, my engineer has unformed me that there are STILL many errors in these documents. The new documents do not reflect the changes we agreed to at our prior meeting. There are also errors with the Public Works portion of the conditions. I need to set up. an appointment with you .and Steve Wright as soon as possible along with my engineer, Vince Cunha. There is no way that I will be able to present this to the Board of Supervisors on March 2, 1993 at 2:00 P.M. I will need an extentivn for the Board hearing. I would appreciate your cooperation In arranging a meeting .at .your earliest.convenience. I can be reached Monday A.M. (early) at 672-8350 or on my voice mail 746-0686. . Sincerely, Bob Laurence Owner