Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04271993 - H.4 TO: BOARD OF SUP ,RVISORS � `-' • Contra Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON �;_ _ �'''��9j°p ;s County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o DATE: April 2, 1993 s�9`cOUN�`t SUBJECT: Continued Hearing on Trail Users' Coalition Appeal of County Planning Commission Determination of Compliance with Condition of Approval #14 for Minor Subdivision #55-90 - Access Road/Trail Design Requirements (Gustin; Feeder Trail No. 1 - Franklin Canyon Area) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the appeal of Trail Users' Coalition from the County Planning Commission decision relative to the applicant's compliance with Condition #14 . 2 . Sustain the finding of the County Planning Commission that the applicant has demonstrated that it would not be feasible to relocate project access to a route other than the proposed use of Dutra Road/Feeder Trail No. 1. 3 . If the applicant agrees to the conditions contained in Exhibit I, grant an exception to the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 98-4 . 002 requirement to pave the access road based on the findings listed in Exhibit I. The exception pertains to the required paving for portions of the Dutra Road/Feeder Trail No. 1 access to the subdivision. 4. Direct the Community Development and Public Works Departments to work with the Trail Users Coalition, East Bay Regional Park District, City of Martinez, and interested owners of property near Feeder Trail No. 1 to formulate a program for development of an ultimate trail facility basically along the Feeder Trail No. 1 alignment for Board adoption. 5. Direct the Public Works Director to defer vacation of County public road use on Feeder Trail No. 1 until Board action on the ultimate trail program described in Item #4 above is completed. (Reference the previous Board Order on this matter dated April 28, 1992 . ) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUREb", AT�,�n RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO TTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON Aprii 27—, -E77T- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x See Addendum for Board action VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: I , II , IV, V NOES: T I I ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: - ABSTAIN: - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Robert Drake - 646-2091 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED April 27 , 1993 cc: Scott Sommers PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Trail Users' Coalition TH BOARD O SUPERVISORS Public Works Department D COUNT MINISTRATOR East Bay Regional Park District County Counsel BY , DEPUTY 6. Direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption consistent with the Board's decision regarding the preceding recommended actions and staff report. FISCAL IMPACT• None. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Grant the appeal of the Trail Users Coalition. 2 . Sustain the Planning Commission decision without the addition- al road improvement modifications (i.e. , retain paving requirement) now recommended by staff. (Case V in 4/2/93 Public Works memo. ) 3 . Same as Alternative #2 except require a graded 5-foot shoulder for exclusive trail use adjacent to the project road improve- ments for entire length of "Segment All of the Dutra Road/Feeder Trail No. 1 right-of-way. See Figure I for location of Segment A. (Case II in 3/26/93 memo) 4 . Same as Alternative #3 except require a graded 5-foot trail for only those sections of Segment A to be paved. (Case IV in 4/2/93 memo. ) BACKGROUND This appeal concerns the issue of whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance with Condition #14 of Minor Subdivision 55-90. The condition reads as follows: 1114 . The applicant will attempt to provide alternative access away from Contra Costa County Feeder No. 1 Trail. If access cannot be provided away from the trail, the Dutra Road access shall be reviewed in a public hearing accommodating multiple trail use and automobile. " This appeal was initially considered by the Board on November 3 , 1992 . The item was continued and considered on several subsequent Board agendas. Staff reported that the County Planning Commission and staff felt . that the applicant had adequately demonstrated that alternative vehicle access route to the site was not reasonably available. (In a letter dated 3/26/93 , the applicant's legal counsel, Scott Sommers of Tobin & Tobin, has reviewed their efforts at trying to find a feasible alternative access route. ) However, at the last hearing, the Board requested additional documentation concerning the feasibility of accommodating trail and vehicle users for the affected access right-of-way. The Board also expressed an interest in the establishment of a program to provide for an ultimate trail facility along the Feeder Trail No. 1 alignment in the event that the Board should accept the proposed vehicle access to the subdivision. NEW INFORMATION Following the last Board hearing, staff has met with the applicant, her attorney, the appellant, East Bay Regional Park District staff, Supervisor Torlakson and owners of nearby properties. Meetings have been conducted in the field and in various County offices. Road Paving -2- Recently, staff has become aware of new information about the project that casts a different light on the compatibility of combining trail and automobile use on the right-of-way. Staff has learned that the subdivision ordinance requires the applicant to pave portions of the project's access road. In a memo dated 3/3/93 , the Public Works Department explains the type of road improvements that would be required. Previously, staff had assumed that the "all weather" road surface improvements referenced in Condition #15. F. of the approved permit would be limited to gravel improvements. Equestrians are generally able to traverse gravel surfaces with little difficulty. However, horses have a more difficult time on any paved surface because of their steel shoes. Horses would have a particularly difficult time with a paved surface on a grade. In staff's judgement, a paved surface would introduce an unacceptable hazard to equestrian trail users. The project conditions of approval only provide for 2-foot shoulders, too narrow for equestrian trail use. Segment "B" The right-of-way segment ("Segment B") east of the "switchback" is generally acknowledged by all interested parties to have topography that would permit a compatible arrangement for accommodating the required road improvements and ultimate trail facility. Feasibility Study for Exclusive .Trail Facility The applicant and Public Works Department have studied the cost of providing a trail facility and the required project access improvements within the Feeder Trail No. 1 right-of-way. The project access improvements alone for a key segment ("A") of Feeder Trail No. 1 have been estimated by Public Works to cost $60, 000. For purposes of costing the trail improvements, various designs were studied that provided a graded path for trail use within the road shoulder for Segment "A" . The shoulder area would provide for an exclusive trail facility that would not be paved. To accommo- date a trail facility of this type would require more use of retaining walls than are otherwise required by the conditions of approval. The expense would therefore be greater. The results of this study are contained in three documents: 1) 3/11/93 letter from Leptien Cronin Cooper; 2) 3/26/93 memo from Public Works Department; and 3) 4/2/93 memo from Public Works. Five different levels of trail improvements are studied by Public Works. The least expensive design that would still provide for practical . trail use would cost $155, 000 beyond the cost of the road improve- ment. In staff's judgement, that would be an unreasonable economic burden to impose on a project of this scale. DISCUSSION It would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to design and build an exclusive, graded trail along the required road improve- ments because of the exhorbitant expense in order to satisfy Condition of Approval #14 . At the same time, the County does not wish a project to interfere with the equestrian users enjoyment of the trail if possible. Recognizing these limitations, staff recommends that the Board consider granting an exception to the road paving code require- ments. Instead of paving, the applicant should instead be allowed to make gravel improvements. -3- Savings to Applicant While switching to gravel would entail more maintenance expense for the applicant than paving, it would yield net savings in improve- ment costs to the applicant. Public Works has estimated the savings in improvement costs at $43 , 000. Before granting an exception, the applicant should agree to several conditions pertaining to design of improvements; execution of a road maintenance agreement; and contribution to a trust fund to develop a program to provide a re-alignment of trail facilities away from the steeper section of road. ULTIMATE TRAIL While the proposed road improvement modification is a workable solution for the present, the County should also work toward a trail facility that meets higher design standards. Staff has been reviewing the possibility of providing a realignment of the Segment "A" trail, away from the road improvements. Two possible re- alignment routes are being explored as shown on Figure IV, which are on opposite sides of the existing alignment. Both would require the consent of the affected property owners. Potential Trail Realignment A route to the south of the existing alignment might be routed to the south across the Gerlack property. A route to the north might be acquired through the Tompkins/Johnson property. The owners of this latter property may have incentive to negotiate a trail access across their property. In 1990, the County approved M. S. 97-89 allowing for the subdivision of this 30 acre parcel into four lots and a remainder. A parcel map has not yet been recorded. The approval requires the applicant to construct an on-site road to serve three of the parcels. It appears these parcels could also be served by the Segment "A" portion of Feeder Trail No. 1. It therefore may be in the owners' interest to eliminate the costs associated with the required on- site road improvement. Means of Development A study is needed to determine a desirable trail design, alterna- tive alignments, and resources and strategies for acquistion and trail development. With the savings resulting from the reduced road improvement costs, the applicant should be required to contribute to a fund to finance the trail study. As part of the program, staff would contact owners of property near the existing trail regarding a possible realignment. Implementation costs should be primarily based on new development in the vicinity of Feeder Trail No. 1, unless other identified funding is available. Based on existing land use policies there appears to be development potential for at least 20 additional parcels that could contribute to local trail improvements. That has the potential of generating $80, 000 . Trails may also be developed as a result of improvements required of future projects or through negotiations with property owners. PROPOSED ROAD DEDICATION It has come to staff's attention that on April 28, 1992 , the Board directed the Director of Public Works to initiate proceedings to vacate the public road use of Feeder Trail No. 1. It is staff's understanding, that the required environmental review for this proposed action is presently being prepared. -4= To the best of our understanding, the Board direction was taken without opportunity for input from staff. It would appear that the motivation for taking this action might be to better protect trail use along the right-of-way. However, such action might instead hinder the development of an ultimate trail solution in this area. Unless the Board were to grant the appeal, there is going to be additional vehicular traffic on Feeder Trail No. 1 anyway. Vacating the public road use would not interfere with the appli- cant's right to use the road because they have a private access easement that would not be affected by the road vacation. On the other hand, a road vacation may confound the County's ability to negotiate with Gerlack or Tompkins for a trail access through their respective properties. Accordingly, the County should refrain from proceeding with a road vacation until an ultimate trail plan has been established. REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS If the .Board is not content with the staff recommendation, several decisions are possible on this matter, though from staff's perspective none would be desirable. The following discussion reviews those alternative actions identified above. Grant the Appeal - It is unclear what if any solution this action would imply. The County has already approved the minor subdivision project. The applicant has conducted the necessary investigation into a possible alternative (vehicular) access route and none has been identified. Unless this action included identification of an economically feasible access road for the project, the County would probably risk a successful legal challenge from the applicant. Sustain the Planning Commission Action Without Road Improvement Modifications - This action would force the applicant to install road paving along the trail. Because of the hazard to trail users, the trail would probably have to be closed. Such action would conflict with the General Plan trail policy. Require a Graded 5-Foot Trail Next to Entire Length of Secgment "A" Road - This improvement would avoid the granting of an exception to the pavement requirement. However, the costs of providing this facility would be approximately (Case III) $155, 000. It would be unreasonable to impose these costs on the applicant (nearly $40, 000 per parcel) . Require a Graded 5-Foot Trail Next to Paved Sections of Secgment "A" Road Only - This approach results in no substantial savings from the above approach. -5- ADDENDUM TO ITEM H. 6 APRIL 27, 1993 On April 6 , 1993 , the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the appeal of Trail Users Coalition from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on whether a condition of approval for Minor Subdivision 55-90 (Deborah Gustin, applicant and owner) had been met . Minor Subdivision 55-90 in the Martinez area was approved on October 29, 1990 . In response to Supervisor Smith' s request for clarification, Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, spoke on issues including fire district access, total road easement, and internal and external trail guards . Victor Westman, County Counsel, also commented on the issue of the fire district access . The Board discussed various issues on the trail including width, maintenance, abandonment of the road and dedication to a trail, and access . The public hearing was closed. The Board further discussed the matter and Supervisor Smith moved to declare intent to approve staff ' s recommendation with number two and direct staff to return with written findings and clear conditions on a subsequent agenda that address the issues he had raised. Supervisor Powers seconded the motion. Supervisor Torlakson suggested adding to the motion direction to staff to provide alternatives and ideas related to the maintenance issue . Supervisor Smith expressed that he would like to see rail guards in the narrow area. Supervisor Torlakson wished to add to the motion checking with the fire department that it is acceptable to their standards and requesting staff to come back with language that would give more precise direction to staff related to future proposed subdivisions . Supervisor Smith concurred and added but not as part of the motion as a separate interest to consider the possibility of abandoning the public right of way and making it a private road for the vehicle access . Julian Frazer of Martinez requested if included in the motion could be a direction to work with the sub-committee they had before and the trail people and Mr. Sommers . Supervisor Smith concurred and expressed he wished to see the matter return on the consent calendar next week with the language worked out . Supervisor Torlakson suggested placing the matter on the decision calendar. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter is CLOSED; and the Board DECLARES ITS INTENT to deny the appeal of the Trail Users Coalition from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on whether a condition of approval for Minor Subdivision 55-90 has been met and the Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED to prepare appropriate documentation for Board consideration on the May 4 , 1993 Decision calendar. . .ar AGENDA DATE 4- 2 l- 3 ITEM N0. - BACKGROUND NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME AGENDA PACKET COMPILED) INFORMATION FOR THIS ITEM PREVIOUSLY FURNISHED ORAL REPORT TO BE GIVEN AT BOARD MEETING ERROR IN NUMBERING AGENDA ITEM DELETED DOCUMENTS ON FILE WITH CLERK