HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05041993 - D.2 fig
• Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •; / �' Costa
FROM:.. . HARVEY E. BRAGDON '°'"n County
.•DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �'•, .�`} V oc�
DATE: May 4 , 1993 ST9•�ourii"�-cA
SUBJECT: Findings Relative to Compliance with Condition #14 of Minor Subdivision
55-90 (Gust`in - Applicant & Owner) in the Martinez/Franklin Canyon
Area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Deny the Appeal of Trail Users Coalition.
2 . Adopt the findings contained in Exhibit A.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On August 27 , 1992 an appeal was filed by the Trail Users Coalition
on a County Planning Commission decision relative to compliance
with a road access requirement for an approved minor subdivision,
MS 55-90 (Condition of Approval #14) . The Commission had deter-
mined that the applicant had complied with the condition of
approval .
The Board of Supervisors conducted several public hearings on the
appeal and directed staff to formulate a design proposal that would
better accommodate trail and vehicular use of the affected access
route.
On April 27 , 1993 staff presented thel design alternative to the
Board. The Board was also informed that neither the applicant nor
East Bay Regional Park District objected to this right-of-way
design recommended by staff . After closing the hearing, the Board
voted (4-1, Supervisor Bishop dissenting) to declare its intent to
deny the appeal of the Trail Users Coalition and to find that the
applicant had satisfied the condition of approval . The Board
directed staff to prepare findings consistent with the Board
directive for adoption. The findings are attached as Exhibit A.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE\-
a'-�a fc,..
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OP*.'30ARD COMM TTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON May 4 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 NOES: 3 ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Robert Drake - 646-2031
Orig.: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 4 , 1993
cc: Debra Gustin, c/o Tobin & Tobin PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Trail Users Coalition THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
EBRPDA COUN Y ADMINISTRATOR
City of Martinez
Public Works Dept. BY , DEPUTY
County Counsel
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RELATIVE TO COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION #14 OF MINOR SUBDIVISION
55-90 (GUSTIN - Applicant & Owner) IN THE MARTINEZ/FRANKLIN CANYON
AREA.
1. On April 27, 1990, an application for minor subdivision
approval was filed by Deborah Gustin (Applicant & Owner)
with the Community Development Department to subdivide 80
acres with access along an existing graded dirt road
extending southwestward from the terminus of Dutra Road in
the Martinez/Franklin Canyon area.
A portion of the access involves a section of 40 foot public
right-of-way and private easements established in the
18001s. The County has not accepted the right-of-way for
maintenance purposes.
In 1952 , the County Board of Supervisors established a trail
(known as Feeder Trail #1) over the same section of the
proppsed access road.
2 . On September 7, 1990, after completing an initial
environmental study, staff concluded that the project would
not result in any potential environmental impacts and posted
a Negative Declaration for the project for purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
3 . On October 29, 1990, after conducting a noticed public
hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved MS 55-90 for
three parcels and a designated remainder. In response to
public concern that the proposed vehicular access might
interfere with retention of public trail access, the project
approval was made subject to the following requirement.
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. "
Further the project approval was conditioned on the
applicant providing a minimum 16-foot all-weather surface
roadway within a 20-foot graded access (C/A #15.F) . No
appeal having been filed, the project approval stood as
rendered and a subdivision permit was issued.
4. On April 28, 1992 , at the recommendation of the Contra Costa
- East Bay Regional Park District Liaison Committee, the
Board of Supervisors directed the Public Works Department to
initiate vacation proceedings to abandon the public right-
of-way on Feeder Trail #1.
Even if the .County vacates the public right-of-way, the
applicant has a private access easement over that section of
road.
5. On April 24 ; 1992 , the applicants reported that they were
unable to identify an alternative access route to the
project site (away from Feeder Trail #1) and that the
required public hearing be scheduled so that Dutra Road
could be used for project access as originally proposed.
6. On May 18, 1992 , after notice thereof having been lawfully
given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Zoning
Administrator at which time the project was referred to the
County Planning Commission for hearing and determination due
to substantial public interest.
7 . On August 25, 1992, after conducting a public hearing, the
County Planning Commission voted to find that no alternative
access is attainable; that the applicant had satisfied
Condition #14; and approved the use of Dutra Road for
vehicular and trail access, subject to the provision of an
adequate signage program as reported in Planning Commission
Resolution No. 54-1992 .
8 . On August 27, 1992 , an appeal of the Planning Commission
decision was filed by the Trail Users Coalition.
9. On November 3 , 1992 , after a notice thereof having been
lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the
Board of Supervisors, which was continued to December 8,
1992 , January 12 , January 26, February 23 , April 6 and April
27, 1993 .
In the course of considering the appeal, it was learned that
the project approval would allow, and in some steeper
sections, require by subdivision ordinance, paving within
the right-of-way section proposed to be shared by both trail
users and vehicles. Such paving might interfere with the
continued use of the right-of-way by equestrians because
horses find it difficult to maneuver on paved surfaces.
As a portion of the right-of-way involves some steepness, to
require a sixteen foot paved road width and a ten foot trail
width would be disproportionately expensive to the
applicant. Such a facility would require extensive use of
large retaining walls. Mandating that type of design
standard on the applicant might result in the imposition of
unreasonable costs relative to the scale of the entitlement
that has been issued.
-2-
10. On April 6, .1993 , after staff suggested that the applicant
agree to an exception to the road paving ordinance
requirement and instead exclusively limit road improvements
to gravel so as to permit continued trail use, the applicant
indicated that she wished to retain the ability to pave the
road.
11. On April 27, 1993 , after meeting with East Bay Regional Park
District staff, the applicant's agent, and the appellant,
staff proposed another right-of-way design alternative to
the Board as described in a memo dated April 27 , 1993 from
the Public Works Department. That design would allow for
only limited paving to satisfy the required road
improvements, and the granting of an exception to the
subdivision ordinance paving requirements. Concomitantly,
the design would require that a minimum 6-foot wide graded,
unpaved area be provided adjacent to the road improvements.
In a letter dated April 23, 1993 , the East Bay Regional Park
District indicated that it .would not object to this type of
trail design.
At the April 27, 1993 hearing, the applicant indicated that
the right-of-way design suggested by staff would be
acceptable.
12 . After providing an opportunity for all present at the April
27, 1993 hearing to testify, the Board closed the hearing.
The Board then voted 4-1 (Supervisor Bishop dissenting) to
declare its intent to (1) deny the appeal of the Trail Users
Coalition; (2) to find that the applicant had satisfied
Condition #14 subject to the road/trail design recommended
by staff (described in paragraph #11) and concurred with by
the applicant, including the granting of an exception to the
subdivision ordinance requirement to allow only partial
paving of steeper sections of the access road; and (3)
directed staff to prepare consistent findings for final
Board review and approval.
13 . There is no other feasible route to the property. Areas to
the north, east and west consist of extremely steep terrain,
which would be extremely expensive to develop to County
private road standards.
14 . Recognizing these obstacles to re-routing vehicular access
to the site, the applicant has agreed to the following
road/trail design and maintenance specifications so that the
proposed Dutra Road route may continue to be used for trail
use as well as project vehicular use.
The design parameters for the section of right-of-way that
accommodates Feeder Trail #1 as well as the proposed project
-3-
access is portrayed in attached Figures I and II . The
terrain for approximately the first mile of right-of-way
extending from the end of Dutra Road is relatively steep.
This section of right-of-way, identified as "Segment All ,
occupies the lower, steeper section of the right-of-way and
extends up to the location known as the "Switchbacks. "
Special design parameters have been developed for this
segment so as to allow for the approved project access and
continued trail use without imposing excessive improvement
costs on the applicant.
The section of right-of-way just beyond the Switchbacks
occupies a more elevated but . flatter terrain. This section
of right-of-way, identified as Segment "B" , does not pose
the types of design limitations characteristic of Segment A.
Consequently, there is greater ability to accommodate wider
road and trail facilities without imposing unreasonable
costs on the applicant.
A. General Design Parameters
1) Segment "A" - The developer may pave all or parts
of Segment "A" of Feeder Trail #1, but shall, at a
minimum, pave those portions where the grade
exceeds 10% . An unpaved shoulder shall be
provided at a minimum width of 6 feet for trail
use at all locations throughout Segment "A" of
Feeder Trail #1. As recommended by the East Bay
Regional Park District, the trail shall be sited
on the outside portion of the road (i. e. ,
adjoining the downslope side) . The shoulder width
shall be increased wherever the graded width is
wider.
Road design of the Segment "A" portion of the
right-of-way shall generally be guided by the two
typical road/trail improvement cross-sections
shown in Figure II . Where there is not adequate
sight distance for a design speed of 20 miles per
hour, the developer shall provide a 16 foot wide
paved road surface in a graded width of 22 feet.
The inside shoulder may be eliminated in these
areas.
Where there is adequate sight distance for a 20
mph design speed, the pavement width may be
reduced to 12 feet with a 4 foot gravel shoulder
and the minimum graded width may be reduced to 20
feet.
2) Segment "B" - The required access improvements for
the section of right-of-way identified as Segment
-4-
"B" shall be designed as generally shown in the
typical cross-section shown in Figure II . The
purpose of this design is to maximize the
remaining right-of-way area for exclusive trail
use and buffer area. The developer shall provide
for a 10 foot minimum usable width for the trail
with a four foot minimum buffer between the trail
and the roadway. The road shall be located as far
from the trail as feasible. The improvement plans
shall include cross sections to show the
feasibility of providing a 10 foot usable trail
width and 4 foot buffer.
Throughout Segment "A" and Segment "B" , the developer
shall provide a total of five turnouts at locations
specified by the County Fire District. The turnouts
shall be gravel and shall provide for a total roadway
width of 20 feet. Turnouts shall be 50 feet in length.
B. Road Signage Program - The applicant shall install
appropriate signage along those sections of Feeder
Trail #1 where there is joint vehicular and trail use.
The sign program shall include signage restricting
travel speeds to a safe speed, e.g. , 15 miles per hour.
The signs shall be installed in accordance with a
signing plan subject to the prior review of the East
Bay Regional Park District, and the review and approval
of the Public Works Department. The signing shall be
approved prior to the filing of the parcel map.
C. Review of Road/Trail Improvement Plans - The East Bay
Regional Park District and the Trail Users Coalition
shall be notified when the the road improvement plans
are submitted to the Public Works Department for
review. The applicant shall provide evidence that a
set of plans has been forwarded to the Park District
and Trail Users Coalition at time of submittal of plans
to the Public Works Department.
D. Road Maintenance - Prior to filing a parcel map, the
applicant shall submit a Road Maintenance Agreement
(RMA) for the review and approval of the Public Works
Department in a form acceptable to the County Counsel.
The agreement shall provide for the maintenance of the
road improvements for the right-of-way section
encompassing Feeder Trail #1 (i.e. , Segments "A" &
"B") . The agreement, which may include deed
restrictions, shall provide for the following:
1) Maintenance shall be defined as providing at all
times a twenty (20) or twenty-two (22) foot
minimum graded width as shown on the approved
-5-
improvement plans for MS 55-90 . Maintenance shall
be defined also to include maintaining the road
surfacing within the twenty (20) to twenty-two
(22) foot minimum graded width. Maintenance shall
also be defined to include maintaining the signage
in accordance with the approved signage program.
2) The RMA shall define the level of safe
maintenance.
3) The RMA may have a provision that will allow other
beneficiary parcels or parties to participate in
the agreement for maintaining road and trail
facilities in Feeder Trail #1 .
4) Prior to submittal to the County Public Works
Department, a copy of the RMA shall be submitted
to the East Bay Regional Park District for
opportunity to review and comment.
15. If in the future, the County vacates the public right-of-way
including public trail access over Feeder Trail #1 and no
other public entity is assigned or acquires public trail
access rights, then the owners of beneficiary parcels shall
no longer be subject to the improvement restrictions to the
right-of-way identified in Item #14 above and as portrayed
in Figures I and II .
16. An exception is granted to Section 98-4 . 002 of the
Subdivision Ordinance, which would otherwise require sixteen
foot width paving of the right-of-way sections, based on the
findings listed below.
A. There are unusual circumstances and conditions
affecting the property.
Because approved development in this area has been
minimal, the affected section of the Dutra Road right-
of-way will be subject to very little traffic.
Therefore, the road will 'not be heavily impacted.
The County has already approved a tentative map for
this project. The only feasible access to the property
involves a 40-foot wide right-of-way which also
accommodates a longstanding County trail . The normal
practice of requiring full pavement of steeper road
sections might adversely impact trail conditions.
Sections of the proposed access have a grade of up to
14% . Horses may have difficulty climbing or descending
such a surface or safely reacting to approaching
vehicles.
-6-
The unpaved road shoulders (2-feet wide) would be too
narrow to accommodate equestrian trail use and might
require the County to consider closure of trail access
along this route. Such action might conflict with the
hiking and riding (equestrian) policies of the Open
Space Element in the General Plan 1990 - 2005 .
Substitution of gravel road improvements in lieu of
pavement along the Segment "A" section of Dutra
Road/Feeder Trail No. 1 right-of-way so that road and
trail facilities would partially overlap would allow
the development of project vehicular access within the
right-of-way and continued trail use. These
improvements would be preferable for equestrian use.
B. The exception to the road pavement requirement is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The cost of providing for paved road sections and an
adjoining unpaved, graded, separated trail facility
within the affected right-of-way would be exhorbitant
relative to the scale of the entitlement that has been
granted. Were a design of this type considered, the
(exclusive) trail component would have to be at least
5-feet wide. The improvement would require more
retaining walls than would otherwise be required to
accommodate the road improvements alone. The cost of
providing an exclusive trail facility of this nature
would be approximately $155 , 000 beyond the cost of the
vehicular road improvements.
The entitlement that has been granted by the County
only provides for three (3) parcels and a remainder.
That entitlement was granted without stipulation of any
detailed design requirements for a trail facility.
C. The granting of the exception will not be materially
detrimental to the .public welfare nor injurious to
other property in the project vicinity.
The elimination of the road pavement requirement will
not adversely affect the ability of trail users to
continue use of the Dutra Road/Feeder Trail No. 1
right-of-way. A gravelled surface would still allow
for reasonable vehicular access along this section of
road.
The substitution of gravel for pavement will require
greater maintenance costs to be born by the future
-7-
owners of the parcels that will be created by the
approved subdivision. One of the conditions agreed to
by the applicant for granting of this exception
requires the applicant to execute a road maintenance
agreement so that the responsibilities of the future
property owners are made legally binding.
The substitution of gravel for pavement will not
adversely affect the ability of owners of other
properties in the area with access rights to use the
road for trail or vehicular purposes.
17 . Based on the foregoing, the Board DENIES the appeal of the
Trail Users Coalition and SUSTAINS the finding of the County
Planning Commission that the applicant has complied with
Condition #14 to accommodate automobile and trail use of
Feeder Trail #1 based on compliance with the right-of-way
improvement and maintenance program outlined in Item #14
above.
18 . The Board of Supervisors further directs that the following
actions be undertaken:
A. The following matters are referred to the Contra Costa
County - East Bay Regional Park District Liaison
Committee with participation by Community Development
and Public Works Departments and County Counsel for
further consideration and recommendation to the Board:
1) Deeding of Feeder Trail #1 to the East Bay
Regional Park District, or other appropriate
public entity;
2) Abandonment of the public right-of-way within
Feeder Trail #1 preceded or followed by the
deeding of access rights to East Bay Regional Park
District, or other appropriate public entity; and
3) Formulation of a trails master plan for protection
and further development of trails in this area,
including possible additional trail routes.
B. The Community Development Department is directed to
give more consideration to the conduct of environmental
analysis for subdivision projects in the Briones Hills
area. In the future, if during the required initial
CEQA review a proposed project is found to have one or
more potentially significant environmental impacts, the
appropriate environmental determination will be made,
including preparation of environmental impact reports,
where necessary.
-8-
The East Bay Regional Park District and nearby cities
shall be provided a copy of all development
applications within the Briones Hills area at time of
submittal, and shall be provided a copy of all
environmental documentation at time of environmental
determination by staff.
-9-
a �--�._ ���r+++•••���'''—""�rI����7-�y�rrttl!rypryp�{{5gg��,�1�. r•�;��''''`�'�+''�`�"�✓.y�((�� ,�'�;`�,�f w,��r�`` �:r ;��,,)t°'��rJ '�� .. .:r ./�
-�r-T',�, �.� �:..✓� ��, ��it �� •'7.(!� / \ Ltd
�.i � ir�.%�/ �r iti('_ � ;�.����ll�� �j �r.�-`���ill `••'�r1 �� s
t t
. , , ,r, ,fir,-�._-•SCJ �� � � �,"� r''�� h
tj
�(` •;j� ��� -f'�--��� X1,1 �c�=��,1� 11"�;,�°�/�� `'��
'¢ � � ,i} � r�..'-� ,.r��y5 �� �l�� iQ'►-1,�. � tta, ter, ,;��s�N
'1911 oN
��'��l/�� � ��r's/��^-"``�"`�:•��"'/��ij:�� mss. �JJ ��/(��.%'' �'
�,�T,:i,�lt(l ;'``� �,"` �! J, /��=�/'�-!'1����'����/f�lf��
ovmty,,i.,�p-p-tt�li 4 )� �:^;N rr(�/�'.»_lxy�^'�`�a `=��l��j{l�• , T �'11� ) �APP '�/!
+ it;, //%" \ �N ~�1'►�\, r '` 1�{
��. 17.;1,15(.//• `�:\��\ � ��C�,��jf,��"�./'',t.F%.�(�"/^r\'`�. , �..v�r�-s. tt�:J 14j �;:i^-•''
�(w ��i,J/l"�' � \ ��``. #.� �� l,�s`••'y''l/�.[m.�Yr•`T:.,.�/.qli:�t f,�;t)j�,' •4 \nv "I ✓ v�
r 1l
��/�i//r1.--�'�1)1)lj� �r� `/�^.--���1 � �r.�� � ., i.�` *�.-����� � ��'�\;��:-�`�,ti .� >7 1,((i�l�t��---''_�'"'^ `L"••
l
n%Si ��� , �^.:._<�,�:• _ ---�- •
1, , , , � ir�� --•vr�,...���{;�{!'7✓�.�1-,���y���}�v(���ff'.
�r,'�G•,,. ,� �� -.`� Jam"�'1) `�,"� �•'��'✓ d ���•t"Ifl� 1�,.1 i: t1�� ---`� �"
f`II ��� t����� �ti • ��l�. tY. .4f�,
� •` '� !t'11 •� , �" �1�.,,, ��;��?:�`�
� , � ��� .�•..� �� tib.,�t�.,.� -•y„�, _
CA
2 2-' M,Ar.
`.
16 ' PAVED ROAD 6' AIM.
TRAIL
7ZE5'rT{IC r ED 5/�iH7 D,STA A%cE �kREA-S : A
/6 WIDE PAVED ROAD WITH A 6 ' �
lV IMMLIM. UNPAVED S140uL2]E7� .
20'
/6' 90ADWAY
12' PAVJ5-D ROAD 6 MIA/
. y
`. ei'RAVE
CLE&K' SIC74T D/STAAjcE AREk s
V WIDE ,ROADWAY wlrM 12' FAVED ANP
y' 6RAV6� . M,AJ,Mum UNPAVED s AOL11-nE7Z
w1nTt- of 6 '
Rfw Raw
2.6' MAX.
�RDADwAY
PROV1Df FOR A i0' M/AllmuIV u5,EA734-,1F- WIV*rq fUR
7'ff F 'rRAll- W1774 A, Y ' MIAlimuM 9U,f-rk 8ErWerA1
rffF- MAIL A"n rHE ROADU10 - TRE IkOAD Sggl L Be
LOC tkTFtl �kS . FAR, r OAS r-HE 7-RA11. AS rFA S/81-E.
s 55- ?o