HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05101994 - H.6 H. 6
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 10. 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Bishop
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Decision on Appeal By Save Mt . Diablo on MS 100 88,
Willard G and Naomi Morgan, Clayton/Marsh Creek Area.
On April 26, 1994, the Board of Supervisors continued
to this date the consideration of final Board of Supervisors
action on the appeal by Save Mt . Diablo from the decision of the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission acting as the Board of
Appeals on the application by Willard G. and Naomi Morgan
(applicants and owners) requesting approval of a tentative map
for Minor Subdivision 100-88 to divide 160 acres into four (4)
parcels in a General Agricultural District (A-2) . After
conducting a noticed public hearing on July 17, 1990, the Board
of Supervisors declared its intent to grant the appeal and to
deny the project and directed staff to prepare findings for Board
consideration and approval .
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report on the above matter and a brief history of the
appeal . Mr. Barry also commented on the options presented to the
Board for consideration today and on an alternative to refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission for further evaluation,
especially on the claims for environmental -documentation, with
direction from the Board to rehear the matter.
The following persons presented testimony:
Patricia Curtin, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon and Armstrong,
Danville, attorney representing Willard and Naomi Morgan,
commented that the Morgans are asking to subdivide their property
for estate planning purposes and they have no intent at this time
to build on or develop the property. Ms . Curtin also presented a
brief history of the appeal, and she commented on compromise
language she had prepared that could be attached to a condition
of approval if the Morgans' request is approved. Ms . Curtin
commented on the proposed findings before the Board.
Supervisor DeSaulnier requested clarification on the issue
of the costs associated with identification of the building
sites .
W. G. Morgan, 6040 Morgan Territory Road, Clayton, responded
that the costs would be substantial and expressed concern with
identifying the building sites at this time .
Supervisor Torlakson expressed concern with not having the
sites identified especially for equity in estate planning.
Cheryl Morgan, 2250 Monroe Avenue, Santa Clara, spoke in
support of approving the minor subdivision.
Jim Moita, 8817 Marsh Creek Road, Clayton, spoke in support
of the minor subdivision approval .
Henry Alker, 155 Montgomery Street #504 , San Francisco,
representing Southport Land and Commercial Company, spoke in
support of the subdivision application.
Seth Adams, representing Save Mt . Diablo, P.O. Box 44 ,
Martinez, spoke in opposition to the approval of the minor
subdivision and in support of the Board' s declaration of intent .
Ms . Curtin spoke in rebuttal .
Mr. Adams spoke in rebuttal .
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Torlakson requested if there were any way process
could be directed to having the parties work the issues out .
Dennis Barry responded that in order to allow a compromise
to be reached that a condition of approval could be crafted
whereby the designation of the building sites is required prior
to the recordation of the parcel map and that would only be
reviewed and considered by the Zoning Administrator after
appropriate notice and time for consideration of those potential
sites by Save Mt . Diablo.
Supervisor Bishop commented on issues and expressed strong
support for the denial of the minor subdivision and the adoption
of the findings before the Board.
Supervisor DeSaulnier expressed concern about property
taking or inverse condemnation, and he requested clarification
from County Counsel on the adequacy of the findings .
Mr. Westman responded to Supervisor DeSaulnier, and advised
there was not a taking problem with respect to the proposed
findings .
Supervisor DeSaulnier requested clarification on the
ranchette issue .
Mr. Westman responded on the ranchette policy and criteria.
Supervisor De Saulnier suggested delaying this matter.
The Board discussed the matter.
The Chair reopened the hearing to hear from the applicant
and the appellant .
The Board, staff and the parties discussed various
alternatives for procedure .
Mr. Westman suggested keeping the appeal in front of the
Board but referring the matter back to the Planning Commission
for review and suggestions as to conditions to address the
concerns that the Board is asking the Commission to comment on
and it would come back through the staff as a report from the
Commission for the Board to make a decision.
The Board discussed the matter.
Seth Adams expressed that Save Mt . Diablo did not support
the recommendation and that the application needs major work in
terms of determining building sites and the relative effects of
that, and in terms of the environmental analysis of those
building sites . Mr. Adams also requested that the Board deny the
application.
The Board discussed the matter further.
Supervisor Smith expressed concern with the process and he
requested that the Planning Commission consider the language
offered by Ms . Curtin in addition to the other issues brought
forth today.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the final
Board of Supervisors action on the appeal by Save Mt . Diablo from
the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on
the application by Willard G. and Naomi Morgan on Minor
Subdivision #100-88 is CONTINUED to July 19, 1994 at 2 : 00 p.m. in
the Board chambers; and the matter is REFERRED to the County
Planning Commission, with policy direction from the Board, for
further review and report to the Board before July 19, 1994 .
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of supers sora on the date shown.
ATTESTED: MI
PHIL BA LOR,Clerk of the Board
of upervisore and County Administrator
0
By ,Deputy
CC : Community Development Department
County Counsel
Willard G. and Naomi Morgan
Save Mt . Diablo
APR-26-1994 09:38 FROM ARTHUR ANG (415)322-0160 TO 15106461059 ilP.02
AMAJA CAL CORPORATION
April 25 , 1994
The Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County ,
651 Pine Street
Martinez , CA 94553
Gentlemen/Madam:
RE: MS_100_88_Willard`G__&_Naomi—Maorgan
We are the neighbor of the Morgans . Our property
under the name of Amaja Cal Corporation and Poon Associates
is adjacent to the Oakhurst Development in the City of
Clayton .
We wholeheartedly support the Plan of the Morgans to
subdivide their land to four (4) parcels . Since the
subdivision will be in big parcels of 40 acres , we do not
forsee any problems to all the land owners in the vicinity .
Thank you for your kind attention . .
Sincerely .
AMAJA CAL CORPOR ION
Arthur L . Ang
PRESIDENT
a ,DDD
4
SAALciq
APPEAL - Minor Subdivision #100-88
APPLICANT/OWNER: Willard G. & Naomi L. Morgan
APPELLANT: Save Mt. Diablo
The applicant/owner requests approval of a tentative map to
divide 160-acres into four(4) parcels.
The property is located north of Marsh Creek Road, having
access approximately 800-ft., east of Russelmann Park Road,
Clayton/Marsh Creek Area.
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
26 April 1994 - 2:00 P.M.
I
a£-.s E___t••o
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
n. Jt Costa
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '• - o
np•, ti�4
DATE: April 18, 1994
S�qCOU2i'C'�
SUBJECT: Hearing and Decision on the Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo to the County
Planning Commission Approval of MS 100-88 (Morgan) in the Clayton/Marsh
Creek Road Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION .
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Grant the Appeal of Save Mt. Diablo.
2. Deny Minor Subdivision 100-88.
3. Adopt the attached findings as the basis for the Board's
decision.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Prior Board Action
This appeal by Save Mt. Diablo was initially heard by the Board of
Supervisors in 1990. Save Mt. Diablo objected to the Planning
Commission approval of this four-parcel minor subdivision proposal
which occupies a section of Keller Ridge, north of Marsh Creek Road
and east of the City of Clayton.
Save Mt. Diablo had expressed concerns that the project would have
unacceptable scenic and wildlife impacts. The group also expressed
concern that the project was not in compliance with the Board's
1983 Rural Residential Policy relative to identifying building
sites, leachfield sites, wells and water storage for fire
protection, and an acceptable erosion control plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE
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
. Contact:Robert H. Drake - 696-2091 SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: Willard & Naomi Morgan PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Save Mt. Diablo AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
City of Clayton
Public Works Department BY , DEPUTY
County Counsel
2.
On July 17, 1990, after taking testimony and closing the hearing,
the Board voted (3-2, Schroder and Fanden dissenting) to declare
its intent to grant the appeal and to deny the project based on
concerns about possible ridgeline development, the need for
biological studies, availability of water, and lack of information
about building sites. The Board then continued the matter to allow
for the preparation and adoption of findings.
Applicant's Request to Defer Final Action
In December, 1991 staff was prepared to present findings to the
Board for final Board action, but at the request of the applicant
deferred such action (see letter from the applicant's
representative dated 12/26/91) .
x
The applicant has indicated that they attempted to resolve their
differences with the appellant. They have proposed the addition of
a new condition to restrict placement of homesites. They have
indicated that the appellant has not responded to this proposal.
More recently, the applicant has requested that the matter be
scheduled for decision, and that the hearing be re-opened so that
the applicant can review the matter with the Board.
PROPOSED FINDINGS
Attached are proposed findings which staff is recommending be
adopted by the Board as the basis for a denial of the project.
RE-OPEN HEARING
Because of the passage of nearly four years from the date of the
1990 Board action, and that there are three new members on the
Board of Supervisors who were not members at the time of the prior
Board action, staff has noticed this matter for hearing before the
Board of Supervisors. All the participants in the appeal hearing
including the applicant, the appellant, and the City of Clayton
have been notified of this new Board hearing.
RELATED BOARD ACTION
It should be noted that at about the same time that the Board
declared its intent to deny this application, the Board also denied
a minor subdivision on a nearby ridgeline property to the west
(Moita, MS 116-88, November 1990) . That decision was based on
concerns about wildlife and scenic impacts.
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION 100-88
In denying the vesting tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 100-88, filed by Willard and
Naomi Morgan (applicants and owners, hereinafter "applicants"),to divide 160 acres into four parcels of
over 40 acres each, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds as follows:
A. The Record
The Board of Supervisors, in making the above decision,has considered the County General Plan
in effect before January 29, 1991, including the 1973 Open Space/Conservation Plan, the 1974 Scenic
Routes Element, and 1975 Safety Element; its zoning ordinances; its subdivision ordinances, all
documents, maps, and exhibits before all the bodies holding hearings on this application; all testimony.,
given to all public hearings.held on this application; and all staff reports.
B. Background
1. Finding: In October, 1988 the applicants submitted a request to divide a parcel of 160
acres north of Marsh Creek Road, east of Clayton, into four parcels of over 40 acres each. The request
was based on the provision of the Subdivision Map Act that obviates a tentative or parcel map when
parcels are not less than 40 acres each or not less than a quarter of a quarter-section each.
Evidence: Community Development Department ("CDD") File MS 100-88,
2. Finding: On March 23, 1989 the applicants were advised that the County Subdivision
Ordinance requires the processing and approval of a tentative map and a parcel map, and the applicants
then amended their application to proceed in accordance with such requirements.
Evidence: CDD File MS 100-88.
3. Finding: On August 1, 1989 a negative declaration was issued for the proposed project,
finding that the project would not generate any significant environmental impacts.
Evidence: CDD File MS 100-88.
4. After legal notice was given, on August 21, 1989, the Zoning Administrator conducted
a public hearing on the application. Said hearing was continued to September 18, 1989, at which time
the application was approved with conditions of approval. The conditions of approval included Condition
No. 7, which required the applicants to submit to the County a deed of development rights to the entire
160-acre property, except for a 2-acre building site for each subdivided parcel, which deed restricted the
location of buildings on the site.
Evidence:. CDD File MS 100-88.
5. Finding: On September 18, 1989 the applicants appealed the Zoning Administrator's
imposition of Condition No. 7.
Evidence: CDD File MS 100-88.
2
6. Finding: On March 27, 1990, pursuant to legal notice, the Board of Appeals (County
Planning Commission)held a public hearing on the applicants' appeal. Staff recommended that the Board
of Appeals grant the applicants' appeal, on the ground that there were other requirements in the conditions
of approval that restricted the location of buildings on each proposed parcel. At the conclusion of the
hearing the Board of Appeals granted the applicants' appeal, thus eliminating Condition No. 7 from the
conditions of approval for Minor Subdivision 100-88.
Evidence: CDD File MS 100-88.
7. Finding: On April 4, 1990, Save Mount Diablo filed a complaint (in accordance with
Gov. Code § 66452.5(d)) with the Board of Supervisors concerning the decision of the Board of Appeals.
e
Evidence: CDD File MS 100-88.
8. Finding: After legal notice was given, on July 17, 1990 the Board of Supervisors held
a public hearing on the complaint filed by Save Mount Diablo. After the hearing was closed, the Board
of Supervisors declared its intent to deny applicants' application. The Board further expressed its intent
to permit the applicants to refile their application if they could resolve certain issues,such as water supply,
biological studies, and building on ridgetops and other visible portions of the property. The Board of
Supervisors further directed staff to prepare findings for denial of the application for consideration by the
Board.
Evidence: Clerk of the Board's File "Clayton/Marsh Creek 1990; Appeal MS 100-88
Morgan/Save Mt. Diablo".
C. Findinas for Denial of Subdivision MS 100-88
9. Finding: The standards, policies, and ordinances applicable to this application are those
in effect when the application was determined to be complete, i.e., in late 1988. The County General Plan
adopted on January 29, 1991 is not applicable.
Evidence: CDD File MS 100-88; Gov. Code § 66472.4.
10. Finding: The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the applicable general plan.
Evidence: CDD File MS 100-88; Clerk of the Board's File "Clayton/Marsh Creek 1990;
Appeal MS 100-88 Morgan/Save Mt. Diablo"; Board of Supervisors' hearing July 17, 1990.
H. Finding: The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Rural Residential
Development policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 15, 1983 for the subdivision of certain
land and area designated on the general plan for open space. The vesting tentative map fails to designate
on each proposed parcel the location of a building site, proposed driveway, leachfield site, well site, or
provision for water storage for fire fighting. There is no evidence in the record that development could
occur without grading being kept to a minimum. There is no evidence of an acceptable erosion control
plan for the project.
Evidence: CDD File MS 100-88; Clerk of the Board's File "Clayton/Marsh Creek 1990;
Appeal MS 100-88 Morgan/Save Mt. Diablo"; Board of Supervisors' hearing July 17, 1990.
3
12. Finding: Approval of the proposed subdivision may result in significant adverse
environmental impacts. Development may result in signficant impacts to existing plant and animal species
on the site.
Development might result in unacceptable scenic impacts. Most of the site including parts of three of the
four proposed parcels lie within the Scenic Corridor of Marsh Creek Road, a designated scenic route in
the 1974 Scenic Route Element.
It may not be possible to satisfy the domestic and fire protection water supply needs, and septic system
requirements of the County and fire protection district. Placement of leachfields on slopes in excess of
20% slopes would be contrary to the standards of the County Health Services Department; yet nearly all
of the site involves slopes in excess of 20% slopes.
The proposed development may result in the removal of significant lands from agricultural production.
The proposed project may constitute premature development which could set a precedent for additional
development of like character in the vicinity.
Evidence: There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the
proposed subdivision is exempt from CEQA, or a finding that the project will not have any significant
impact on the environment. To the contrary, the evidence in the record supports a finding that there is
a fair argument that the proposed subdivision may result in one or more significant adverse environmental
impacts, including availability of water, impacts on scenic views and removal of significant lands from
agricultural production. (CDD File MS 100-88; Clerk of the Board's File "Clayton/Marsh Creek 1990;
Appeal MS 100-88 Morgan/Save Mt. Diablo".).
RHD/aa
LTRII/100-88.RHD
3/29/94
4/20/94
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON A PLANNING MATTER
CLAYTON/MARSH CREEK AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, April 26_ , 1994 at 2:00
p.m. in Room 107 of the County Administration Building, corner of
Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider
the following planning matter:
Final Board of Supervisors Action on the Appeal by Save Mt.
Diablo from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission acting as the Board of Appeals on the application by
Willard . G. and Naomi Morgan (applicants and owners) requesting
approval of a tentative map for Minor Subdivision #100-88 to divide
160 acres into four (4) parcels in a General Agricultural District
(A-2) . After conducting a noticed public hearing, on July 17,
1990, the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to grant the
appeal and to deny the project, and directed staff to prepare
findings for Board consideration and approval.
The location of the subject land is within the unincorporated
territory of the County of Contra Costa, State of California,
generally identified as follows (a more precise description may be
examined in the office of Director of Community Development, County
Administration Building, Martinez, California) :
1, 000 feet north of Marsh Creek Road having access
approximately 800 feet easterly of Russelmann Park Road in the
Clayton/Marsh Creek area.
Date: March 29, 1994
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
BY CL
An Cer a li, Deputy Clerk
NOTIFICATION LIST - APPEAL - By: Save Mount Diablo - Willard G. & Naomi Morgan MS 100-81
Willard G. & Naomi L. Morgan Walter & Jaqueline Lititz
6040 Morgan Territory Road 8861 Marsh Creek Road
Clayton, California 94517 Clayton, California 94517
Save Mount Diablo Robert J. & Sophie M. Wing
P. 0. Box 25 P. 0. Box 725
Concord, California 94522 Clayton, California 94517
Christopher Valle-Riestra City of, Clayton
257 .Vernon Street #321 P.O. Box 280
Oakland, California 94610 Clayton:, CA 94517
Jim J. Moita Save Mt. Diablo
69 Hamilton Place P.O. Box 44
Oakland, California.94612 Martinez, CA 94553
Frank & Jeannie Bettencourt Patricia Curtain
P. 0. Box 231 Gagqn, McCoy,
Clayton, California 94517 McMahon & Armstrong
P.O. Box 218
Danville, CA 94526-0218
A & P Partners
730 University Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025
Roy & Doris James
1424 Aster Drive
Antioch, California 94509
William & Ann Thomas
1100 Buchanan Road
Pittsburg, California 94565
Everette J. Galyin
9155 Marsh Creek Road
Clayton, California 94517 .
Robert G. & Linda Rodenburg
4885 Morgan Territory Road
Clayton, California 94517
74
��•' � �`dF'�; �, d � .I' _� tJ,:,� _SFr ;a•I>' r �,� •�•
litro
r
►�.i N
_•��1 tet. �� , � y�� I I '
A P P E A L - MINOR SUBDIVISION #100-88
APPLICANT/OWNER: WILLARD G. & NACMI L. MORGAN
APPELLANT: SAVE MOUNT DIABLO.
THE APPLICANT/OWNER REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO DIVIDE
160 ACRES IN'TO FOUR (4) PARCELS.
Tim PROPER'T'Y IS LOCATED NORTH OF MARSH CREEK ROAD, HAVING ACCESS
APPROXIMATELY 800-FT., EAST OF RUSSEIMANN PARK ROAD,
CLAYTON/MARSH CREEK AREA.
UPI11.E
HOARD OF -SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY -
12 JUNE 1990 - 2:00 P.M.
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - Costa
County
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon,
Director of Community Development'
DATE: 18 May 1990
SUBJECT: Hearing on APPEAL related to MS 100-88, Willard G. & Naomi L. Morgan,
(Applicants & Owners), By: Save Mount Diablo, with respect to the
approval of the application by the Board of Appeals - Clayton/Marsh
Creek Area. (S.D. V)
Parcel 1075-200-004.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. GRANT or DENY the appeal filed by Christopher' Valle-Riestra
representing Save Mount Diablo, with respect to the approval
of MS 100-88, by the Board of Appeals.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNAr
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RS( ID ON OF BO COMMITTEE
_ APP
ROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECON34ENDED 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.
cc: Cama mity Development Department, ATTESTED
Attn: Byron Turner PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Willard G. & Naomi L. Morgan THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Save Mount Diablo AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL - Willard G. & Naomi L. Morgan,
Applicants & Owners) , Minor Subdivision
#100-88-, by Save. Mount Diablo (Appellant) ,
Clayton/Marsh Creek Area. Resolution No.28-1990
WHEREAS, an application by WILLARD G. & NAOMI L. MORGAN,
(Applicants & Owners) , requesting approval of a tentative map for
Minor Subdivision #100-88, to divide 160 acres into four ( 4)
parcels in a General Agricultural District (A-2) , was received by
the Community Development Department on October 25, 1988; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act, a Negative Declaration of En-
vironmental Significance was issued for the proposed project indic-
ating that the proposal was consistent with the General Plan and
the General Agricultural (A-2) Zoning on the property and the
initial study did not indicate significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposal; and
WHEREAS, on September 18 , 1989, the Zoning Administrator, at
public hearing, APPROVED the minor subdivision ( #100-88) with
additional requirements to restrict the use of the property and to
further limit any future division of the proposed 40+ acre parcels,
which was also appealed on September 18, 1989, by Willard G. &
Naomi L. Morgan (Applicants & Owners) ; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been given, a public
hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission (Board of
Appeals) , on January 9, 1990, whereat all persons interested there-
in might appear and be heard, which hearing was rescheduled to
January 23 , 1990, February 27, 1990, March 27, 1990 ; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Appeals, on March 27, 1990, having fully
reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence
submitted in this matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals
GRANTS the appeal of Willard G. & Naomi L. Morgan and APPROVES
Minor Subdivision #100-88 to divide 160 acres into four ( 4) parcels
with conditions of approval which are attached hereto and made a
part hereof, not including the additional requirement to restrict
the use of the property and to limit future divisions of the
proposed 40 (plus or minus) acre parcels; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing order was given by
the Board of Appeals in a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 27,
1990, as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Gaddis , Frakes , Terrell,
-2- Resolution No. 28-1990
Woo, Lane.
NOES: Commissioners - None.
ABSENT: Commissioners - Emil Accornero.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on April 4, 1990, an appeal of the
Board of Appeal's decision was filed by Christopher P. Valle-
Riestra on behalf of Save Mount Diablo.
Eric E. Lane,
Chair of the Planning Commission,
Contra Co County, State of
Californ'
ATTEST:
Ha v E. gd n - Secretary of
lann' Commission, County
of Contra osta, State of Calif-
ornia.
' r
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 100-88
1. This approval is based upon the tentative map submitted with the applica-
tion dated received October 29, 1988.
2. Prior to recording a Parcel Map, issuance of a grading permit, or instal-
lation of improvements, submit a preliminary geology and soil report
meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for
review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement and grading
plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. Record a
statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved
report port by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to
approved recommendations, and noting that the report is on file for public
review in the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County.
3. Prior to filing. a building permit for each parcel , provide for a public
water system or 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
bacterial and chemical quality in compliance with the State standards
for a pure, wholesome and potable water supply. (Title 22, Section
64433) . If the chemical analysis exceeds the State standards for
"maximum contaminant levels" for water potability, a statement must be
attached and "Run with the property deed" advising of these levels; or
B. Have verifiable water availability data from adjacent parcels pre-
sented 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 Build-
ing Inspection Department permit for construction.
D. In addition to the above, a hydro-geological evaluation may be re-
quired in known or suspected water short areas. This will include
seasonal as well as yearly variations.
E. In lieu of the requirements of A, B, C, and D above alternatives,
water supply may be provided by the Contra Costa Water District.
F. The land must be suitable for septic tank use according to the County
Ordinance Code criteria and Health Services Department regulations.
Percolation tests must be passed on all proposed lots prior to filing
of the Parcel or Final Map.
2
4. Development plans for each building site shall be reviewed and approved" by
the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits. Homes and
other large structures shall be designed and placed to minimize the visual
impact from adjoining properties or roadways. All structures shall have
non-flammable roofs and fire retardant or non-flammable siding. All out-
buildings shall have adequate spacing from residences.
5. Prior to grading, an archaeological field reconnaissance report shall be
prepared 'and submitted to the Planning Department. This report shall be
prepared by a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society
for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society df Professional Ar-
chaeology (SOPA). The report recommendations shall ' be implemented.
6. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as
follows:
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. Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. Because
of the large parcels involved and the agricultural nature of the
subdivision, an exception to this requirement is granted.
2. 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 storm drainage facility
which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. As
these parcels are large and agricultural in nature, additional
run-off resulting from this subdivision will be negligible.
Therefore, an exception from this requirement is granted provided
the applicant maintains the existing drainage pattern and does
not dispose concentrated storm water run-off onto adjacent prop-
erty.
3. Submitting a. Parcel Map prepared by -a registered civil engineer
or licensed land surveyor.
4. Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil en-
gineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for
all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions
of approval for this subdivision.
5. Relinquishing "development rights" over that portion of the site
that is within the structure setback area of natural watercours-
es. The structure setback area shall be determined by using the
criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and Set-
backs", of the Subdivision Ordinance.
s
3
B. At the time a building permit is issued on the property, construct a
20-foot all-weather surfaced road to County private road standards
from Marsh Creek Road to the subject property. Upon each issuance of
a building permit on a parcel within the subdivision, continue con-
struction of a 16-foot all-weather surfaced private roadway to County
private road standards, for that portion of the access road which will
serve more than one parcel in the subdivision. Provide turnarounds
along this access road subject to the review of the Public Works De-
partment and the approval of the County Zoning Administrator.
C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that legal access to the property is available from Marsh
Creek Road.
D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or per-
manent, road and drainage improvements.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Currently the fee for the Marsh Creek
region of the County is $1,904 for each added single family residence.
Because of the agricultural nature of this subdivision the fee will be
collected upon the issuance of a building permit or at the time specified
in Government Code Section 53077.5(a) , as applicable, and not upon
recordation of the parcel map.
B. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
Currently the fee for the East County region of the County is $1,904 for
each added single family residence.
C. Comply with. the requirements of the East. Diablo Fire* Protection District.
BT/GA/df/aa
ms23:100-88c.bt
8/8/89
9/18/89 - Z.A. Revisions (v)
1/2/90
3/27/90 - P/C Revisions (v)
.. , j• iSISTANCE
1•E 104.26 lit
l'E ~ 42.57 • '
'_'E 75.42 y'
l'E 58.47 t
l'N 82.14 (�
VE 84.58 $
low 187.20
VE 55.83
!'w 33.14
i'w 43.54
-. .-..,
E 222.83w�
. E 283.96 FMD FENCE MTFlip. FENCE P05TA kA
I'E 119.24 ACCEPTED Ara j [:C AGLEPTED Ah
Nw 95.66 GEt1TEh %G.18 E '/4 CON,SEG i8
w 203.31 N 89.1411'W 2G46.58'(T)
77.90•w 106.86 _ 1323.24' !323.29"
E 81.75 044 G43
E 98.06 $ q 60'AGGE"
'w 137.00 EA6EMENT' 14
*E 269.43 �. G p �� T35
'E255.57 PARCEL A ���� 6Y� VICINI
'w 58.84 N 41.51 39.17 AC.s C2O V '�
'w 20.77 T17 06:ob NOT TO
C11
'E 20.01 0 C111 TV to
OE .o
'E 252.85 T 85.88 ° T16 C28 C21
•w 145.31 is rt 60'AGGM
'E 50.73 EASEMENT
•E 185 .43 C21 C& PARCEL B T3� z 15 5
'w 66.65 = it 38.90 AC.s 0ar
'E 122.19 O Ti4 ` rt 60'AGGESS c 6'
•w to
91.96 E16EMENT "�
•w 158.63 CIG •
*
w 83.56 NE9'3134"W ��g C24 N89''S•4'34'WJ0.T3' v
w 161.94
•w 233.94 *319.83 • fC+% 7 61 t•1$. T23
'w 148.05 N �, C23 C25 -0 . ..• ..
'w 38.96 a� ,�� T2k Y
'E 167.75 �' •�.. C14 ch _ 4r,
OE 149.25 ` T44 -4
'E 54.83 O t T C22
fJt ''- N
t1i CIO PARCEL. C N 6° PARCEL D
Gil TIO C4
38.70 AC.s0
o9
38.45 AC-s
TC7 +
T TE Tj T6 Gs
�gta-ar. C6 rr
•�}.. «... m v rr 60'ALGES'S t3 C3 C•f
EASEMENT t,9 T4
t,jK �l�r �ty T2 .
NES 5507•E 142.16 1313.46'
• N$9'05'!0"W 1$05.62'(T) f}
f
(1121.!7') (NE905Y42-W 1508.67')
fND.RE9AR FI�--p! A � ' Ft
,� • f�;� � .� � J
AND CAP s
PA te. LD
/ % **",-.A Al'i
v • i
`^. .• / • Y
•� `•-Pa RCEL C .PARCEI
• i ' pa QBASIS OF BEARINGS
AGGES9 THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP IS DETERMINED BY
EA5EMENT MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON. THE BEARING BEING N 68'06':
is ?� -.0 4 � iOPCl�AN PER MARSH CREEK ROAD PRECISE ALIGNMENT, ROAD NO. 99
• z 5 4 OR 7 7 O CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
`! MARSH C{y� (T26 "�Roaa FILE NO. PA-3971.69.
Mu /a -►O ---
1
G, �� W• b-
�� ua .
AIL
' J y � t� 1Pl r �,•j, �• .
• V �y, � u� � •vS
S y J V• � � � t
�~ t
r M`
t
gr
J t Lcr
t• _ �` '
V�` • j t {f ' •` 'Q
tp
st
r
''t v
u
}` r
d ea
1
t ,
♦ � iV
i
i
CONTRA COSTA
90 APR -4 PM 2-- 04 sav
IounT DIABLO
C W Tbt-PT
D E V E L00�4PMPI Eft4jj Y E
April 2, 1990
Contra costa County
Community Development Dept.
Attn.: Byron Turner
651 Pine Street
Fourth Floor, North Wing
Martinez, Calif. 94553
Re: File no. M.S- 100-88 (Morgan)
Dear Mr. Turner:
Save Mount Diablo appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission approving
the tentative subdivision map submitted by Willard G. and Nami L. Morgan, county file no.
M.S. 100-88. The grounds of appeal are as set forth in our correspondence of December
190 1988. In addition, the planning commission removed important conditions of approval
that the Zoning Administrator had included. Of particular concern to us are the almost
complete lack of compliance with the "Ranchette Policy" and the fact that no
environmental impact report has been prepared.
Enclosed is a check for $100.00 to cover the appeal fee. Please set this matter for
hearing before the Board of Supervisors, and notify us of the hearing date.
Very truly yours,
SAVE MOUNT DIABLO
Christopher P. Valle-Riestra
eAdf Member, Board of Directors
cc: Gen Sattler
Seth Adams
Bob Doyle
Sue Watson
-.4 9c)
"MOUNT DIABLO IS A NATIONAL NATURAL LANDMARK"
TELEPHONE(415)685-5315 - POST OFFICE BOX 25 * CONCORD,CALIFORNIA 94522
cos,
C
mounT DIABLO
December 19, 1988
Byron Turner
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street
Fourth Floor, North Wing
Martinez, Calif. 94553
Re: M.S. 100-88 (Morgan)
Dear Mr. Turner:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the
application of Willard and Naomi Morgan for approval of a parcel
map subdividing 160 acres in the Keller Ridge-Irish Canyon area
into four parcels (county file~ M.S. 100-88) . Save Mount Diablo
opposes this application because its only conceivable purpose would
be to create parcels for sale as home sites, which would be
inconsistent, with the area' s value as agricultural land and
wildlife habitat. Building of homes and driveways in this rugged
terrain would mar scenic views, particularly those from Mount
Diablo State Park. The applicants have not complied with the
county' s "Ranchette Policy". The proposal would have significant
environmental impacts, for which preparation of an environmental
impact report would be necessary.
Environmental Impacts
The subject property lies in rugged terrain north of marsh
Creek Road and east of Clayton, straddling Keller Ridge and Irish
Canyon. Keller Ridge is a prominent and scenic ridge line, easily
visible from Mount Diablo State Park, Marsh Creek Road, and Black
Diamond Mines Regional Preserve. The parcel lies one-half mile
from the eastern boundary of the Keller Ranch development. As
required by the Town of Clayton, the portions of Reller Ranch
nearest the -parcel will be dedicated as permanent open space, for
the purposes of preserving scenic ridges and maintaining buffer
between residential and agricultural areas .
The parcel' s vicinity includes a rich mix of woodland,
grassland, chaparral, and riparian areas. It is one of the least
developed areas of the county. . There is a broad corridor of
natural lands joining the regional preserve to the north with Mount
Diablo State Park to the south.
The parcel and surrounding areas are designated as agricul-
tural lands on the county' s general plan. The draft land use
"MOUN F DIAM V`) A t,.;,,\F10rJAL NATURAL LANDMARK"
TELEPHONE (415) 665-531', 'O;T nFFirr anj 1a -
Page 3
Ranchette Policy
All subdivisions and minor subdivisions in agricultural and
open space general plan categories are subject to the requirements
• of the "Ranchette Policy", Board of Supervisors resolution no.
83/407. In numerous respects, this application has not complied
with the Ranchette Policy.
Paragraph 5 of the Ranchette Policy requires that prior to the
filing of the parcel map, either each parcel must have on site a
producing water well or test well, or the applicant must present
satisfactory water availability data. It appears that the
applicants have not satisfied this requirement. Paragraph 7
requires percolation tests prior to the filing of the parcel Papp ..
Paragraph 8 requires the map to indicate proposed building sites ,
well sites, leach field sites, and provision for water storage for
fire fighting. Where significant grading is needed, an acceptable
erosion control plan 'must be provided with the application.
Paragraph 9 requires the applicant to demonstrate that parcels are
reasonably free of hazards. The map complies with none of these
standards.
Status of Application Under Govt. Code Sec. 66426 (d)
We understand that the applicants assert this map must be
approved because it comes within Government Code Sec. 66426 (d) .
That statute does no more than set forth which subdivision
proposals may be presented by parcel map as opposed to tentative
map. Subdivision (d) allow the use of a parcel map where, "Each
parcel created by the division has a gross area of not less than
40 acres or is not less than a quarter of a quarter section."
Government Code Sec. 66463 (a) provides that the procedure for
processing, approval, conditional approval, or. disapproval of
parcel maps shall be as provided by local ordinance. There is no
automatic right to approval of a parcel map.
Conclusion
Save Mount Diablo asks that codnty planning authorities
disapprove this subdivision map. Approval would result in
substantial adverse impacts inappropriate to the agricultural and
open space area in which the land lies. If the county wishes to
entertain approval, an environmental impact report should first be
prepared.
Please keep us informed of further action on this application.
Among other matters,. we would like notice of any public hearing-
scheduled on this proposal, any notice of negative declaration, and
any notice of preparation of an environmental impact report. We
.r.
i
i
Page 4
will be happy to reimburse the costs of providing notices. Thank
you for notifying us of the application.
Very truly yours ,
SAVE MOUNT DIABLO
Christopher P. Valle-Riestra
Member, Board of Directors
cc: Gen Sattler
Seth Adams <
Bob Doyle
Mark Evanoff
Alan Carlton
Agenda Item #1
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, MARCH 27, 1990_ - 7:30 P.M.
BOARD OF APPEALS
I. INTRODUCTION
WILLARD G AND NAOMI L MORGAN (Applicants and Owners), County File #MS
100-88: This is an appeal of the Conditions of Approval (0) for a minor
subdivision to divide 160 acres into four parcels. Subject property is
located 1,000 feet north of Marsh Creek Road, having access approximately
800 feet easterly of Russelmann Park Road, in the Clayton (Marsh Creek)
area. (A-2) (ZA: M19m) (CT 3553.04) (Parcel #075-200-004)
II. APPLICATION STATUS
This matter has been referred to County Counsel concerning proposed
Condition #7, as to whether it is a reasonable or legally proper
requirement to prevent further division of 40 acre parcels when otherwise
permitted by ordinance, and to restrict development to an area of 2 acres
on the 40 acre parcels. See attached prior staff report.
It is expected that County Counsel will have comment concerning this at the
time of the hearing.
This application also relates to an adjacent minor subdivision to the west
of this proposal , which has a similar proposed requirement, currently under
appeal to the Board of Supervisors (MS 116-88).
III. BACKGROUND
Adjacent Minor Subdivision #116-88 to divide 123-acres into 4 parcels,
located east of the City of Clayton, was approved by the Zoning
Administrator July 10, 1989. Two conditions were added at the request of
the City of Clayton and later appealed by the applicant to the Board of
Appeals and currently to the Board of Supervisors, reads as follows:
MS 116-88:
7. Prior to recordation of a parcel map, each parcel will indicate a
two (2) acre homesite and access road that has been reviewed by
the City of Clayton and subject to review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator. The homesite shall not be placed on
prominent knolls or ridges visible from Marsh Creek Road.
8. A conservation easement will be placed on each parcel except the
identified homesite as per Condition #7 above. The easement will
be for the purposes of watershed, grasslands, soil erosion,
geologic conditions, habitat and oak tree protection. These
easements shall be recorded and the development rights shall be
held by the .County or a suitable land trust organization subject
2
to the approval of the Zoning Administrator. The easements shall
not be abandoned unless the above conditions--watershed, etc.--no
longer exist. (The uses and activities permitted by the General
Agricultural District (A-2), which applies to this property,
shall not be permitted within the conservation easement areas as
required by this condition).
The appeal concerning Minor Subdivision #100-88 which is currently
before the Board of Appeals, was subsequently approved by the Zoning
Administrator with a condition intended to effect the same requirement
as adjacent MS 116-88, which reads as follows:
MS 100-88:
7. Prior to filing and recordation of the parcel map, a two (2) acre
site for a residence shall be provided for each parcel , subject
to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The
development rights for the entire property shall be deeded to the
County except for two acre building sites for residences
indicated above.
BT/df
ms27:ms100-88.apl
3/22/90
Vnunity Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1990 - 7:30 P.M.
BOARD OF APPEALS
INTRODUCTION
WILLARD G. AND NAOMI L. MORGAN fApplicants & Owners), County File #MS
100-88: This is an appeal of the Conditions of Approval (#7) for a minor
subdivision to divide 160 acres into four parcels. Subject property is
located 1,000 feet north of Marsh Creek Road, having access approximately
800 feet easterly of Russelmann Park Road, in the Clayton (Marsh Creek)
area. (A-2) (ZA: M19m) (CT 3553.04) (Parcel #075-200-004)
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Minor Subdivision 100-88 be approved with Conditions
as had been recommended to the Zoning Administrator (see attached prior
staff report), not including Condition #7 which takes all future
development rights of each of the four proposed 38+ acre parcels, except
for two acre building sites.
Imposing Condition #7 eliminates the property owner's full use and possible
future division of the property as permitted by the existing General
Agriculture A-2 zoning and the General Plan as it applies to the property.
A more appropriate and equitable approach would be to rezone the 160 acre
property for a larger parcel size. A rezoning study for the area is
currently underway.
III. BACKGROUND
Minor Subdivision 100-88 was filed October 25, 1988, which requested
recordation of a parcel map to divide 160 acres into 40 acre parcels per
Government Code Section 66426(d):
Section 66426. "A tentative map and final map shall be
required for all subdivisions creating five or more
parcels. . .except where: (d) each parcel created by this
division has a gross area of not less than 40 acres."
State law in this instance is extended by local ordinance with the
additional -requirement that a tentative map approval is required for four
parcels or less. See attached letter from the applicant's attorney of
December 15, 1988 and the Community Development Department response. On
April 25, 1989 the applicant requested withdrawal of the application. This
was subsequently change on July 10, 1989, with a request to proceed with a
modified application for tentative map approval . The Zoning Administrator
acted on the matter September 18, 1989, with added Condition V.
: , l Agenda Item # '-
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 - 9:30 A.M.
I. INTRODUCTION
WILLARD G. & NAOMI L. MORGAN (Applicants and Owners), County File #MS
100-88: The applicants request approval to divide 160 acres into 4
parcels, the subject property is-. located on the north side of Marsh Creek
Road, approximately one mile southeast of Black Diamond Way, in the Marsh
Creek/Morgan Territory area. (CT 3553.04) (ZM:M-19) (A-2) (Parcel
#75.200-004) ,
II. RECOMMENDATION Approval with Conditions.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan and Zoning: The General Plan shows the area of this
proposal for open space and the County Ordinance designates the
existing Agriculture A-2 zoning on the property for implementation of
open space. The proposal complies with the A-2 zoning and is,
therefore, consistent with the General Plan. The Morgan Territory
Area General Plan states that "the restriction on further
fragmentation of parcels is crucial to this plan" and that "a rezoning
study should be initiated to apply new more stringent zoning
categories". The plan was adopted in 1980 and no such study has been
initiated. The proposal is also consistent with previous land
divisions in the area.
B. CEQA Status: A Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has
been posted for this- proposal .
C. Community Organizations: A letter has been received from the Save
Mount Diablo organization asking that the Tentative be denied.
D. Ranchette Policy: On March 15, 1983 the Board of Supervisors adopted
criteria for the subdivision of land •in areas designated on the
General Plan for open space, if the proposed parcel size is 5 acres
and isnot in the sphere of influence of .an adjoining City and is not
in an area of agricultural crops or orchards. This proposal
substantially conforms to the criteria and can also be made part of
the requirements for development, including fire protection.
E. Cultural Resources: Sonoma State University has indicated that the
site has the possibility of containing cultural resources and
recommends a study be made.
F. Other Proposals: The property adjacent to the west was approved for
division of 123 acres into 4 parcels, July 10, 1989. This included
taking development rights on entire property except 2 acre building
sites.
BT/df
ms23:ms100-88.bt
8/8/89
2.
An adjacent minor subdivision to the west (MS 116-88) to divide 123 acres
into four parcels was previously approved and is under appeal of the same
restrictions to require two acre building sites while taking the develop-
ment property rights of the remaining 115 acre. This was a staff request
of the City of Clayton so as to preclude development outside city bound-
aries (not in their sphere of influence) which was also applied to this
proposal .
If the-) adjacent minor subdivision (MS 116-88) is approved under appeal
with a revised map reduced from 123 to 32 acres and the requirement is made
to take development rights, it will restrict the land divisions to the
proposed parcel sizes of 7+ acres. If this same requirement is applied to
this proposal , it will restrict land division to 38+ acres. This
inconsistency will likely become more apparent with other future land
division proposals in the vicinity. This will be particularly so if the
property contiguous to the west nearer to Marsh Creek Road is annexed to
the City of Clayton as has been indicated for development of a much higher
density than these proposals.
IV. CONCLUSION
Subsequent to action in this matter, the Board of Supervisors directed the
Community Development Department to proceed with a rezoning study of the
Marsh Creek/Morgan Territory area. If land adjacent to Clayton is to be
restricted to 40+ acre parcels and not as permitted by the present zoning
for the area, it could be more easily accomplished by rezoning to a
district which requires a larger parcel size than is presently allowed.
The area of this proposal will be considered for a zoning change with the
rezoning study now is underway.
BT/aa
MSX/100-88.BT
1/2/90
CL,plaLytont Calif.
J
1990
`,_,
Honorable Nancy Fanden -';V'7 t
Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Superva�sors �' j:21
651 Pine St.
Martinez, Ca 94553
Dear Chair Fanden and Members of the Board:
On March 27, 1990 the planning commission unanimously approved
our minor subdivision application #100-88 to divide 160 acres
into four 40 acre parcels. The "Save Mt. Diablo" organization
filed an appeal. The Board of Supervisors heard this appeal on
June 12, 1990. What follows are the circumstances associated with
our application.
1 .The property has been owned by our family for over 100 years.
2.The property is currently zoned A-2, 5 acre minimum parcel
size. Our application is for 40 acre parcels, and involves
no variances.
3.We, the Community Development planning staff, and the
planning commission have reviewed, considered, and evaluated
many alternatives in creating these parcels. We jointly
agree that this arrangement of 4 similar parcels achieve the
maximum desireable benefits with the minimum of adverse
impacts. The City of Clayton concurs with the proposal .
4 .The 160 acre property adjacent to the west of our parcel
is being annexed to the City of Clayton. The City is
considering a development of about 100 homes on this parcel .
5.The 800 acres adjacent to the north of our property is
zoned A-2. It is owned by investors who apparently hope to
annex to Clayton and subdivide into high density housing.
With property taxes greatly exceeding rental income from
grazing;agriculture is no longer .a viable use for this
property.
6.The property to the east of this parcel is zoned A-4 ,
agricultural preserve.'
7.We believe that our proposed 40 acre parcels create a
practical and reasonable buffer between the high density
growth of Clayton and the open space to the east.
Your planning staff agrees.
R RECEIVED
C;L: CIO_ JUN 2 5 IMM
C� ID�ro� -.M .
C'S CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
8.Our preferance is to create these 40 acre parcels,continue
to use the property for cattle grazing, and not develop any
of the parcels. Our plan and our goal is to allow us and
our heirs the flexibility to plan and manage our estate.
We will have the options needed to avoid the loss of our
family's historic ranch through estate taxes. We have seen
this tragedy happen to so many farming families in this area.
9."Save Mt. Diablo's" appeal requests that the "Ranchette
"Policy" conditions be applied to our application. All of
these conditions are already required in the approved
application, but after building permits are applied for,
not prior to, recording the parcel map. Requiring these
conditions prior to applying for building permits would
force us to sell one or two lots to recoup the cost. Then
houses would be built, defeating the purpose of our trying
to hold the ranch in it' s current state, whole and open.
We are requesting this subdivision as a management tool, so that
we and our heirs have the flexibility needed to manage the whole
ranch. This is not a subdivision to build houses. No building
permit would be issued unless all of the conditions were met. The
County Planning Staff did an enviromental study that "did not
indicate signifigant enviromental impacts associated with the
proposal". A Negative Declaration of Enviromental Impact was issued
for the proposed project. Please support the unanimous vote of the
Planning Commission, the City of Clayton, and your staff. _Please
approve our subdivision request.
Respectfully,
W.G.
Naomi L. Morgan
CC: -
Nancy Fanden
Tom Pnwcr F
Robert Schroder
Sunne McPeak
Tom Torlakson
ELI��'�I CAN
06
b dl r l
• o w
ip
ct 4. 1 C \ •
r-
71
14
•ve ��rl � D s �.3 r ! 1 Y r�'o l�t�
o _
' 1
r 1 <
MmM .. /J
_ ( NT1OCH SOUTt — cn
LUtiTf;A OUST.COUNTY
IN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PLA II II im P.PApTMEfiT
OF
CONTRA COSTA.COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA MAR 28 4 34 PM t83
In the Matter of Criteria for )
Rural Residential Development ) RESOLUTION NO. 83/407
Policy. )
The Board on March 8, 1983 closed the public hearing and
directed staff to draft revised criteria for a rural residential
development policy for the Board's consideration this day.
Harvey Bragdon, Assistant Director of Planning, submitted
a list of revised criteria as previously outlined by the Board.
Supervisor Torlakson reiterated that he supported the
Planning Commission's recommendation to require water and percolation
tests at the tentative map stage and moved that the criteria be
adopted as proposed with the exception that the water and septic tank
criteria be amended to indicate compliance prior to filing the
tentative subdivision map instead of the final map.
Chairman Schroder ruled that the motion of Supervisor
Torlakson died for lack of a second.
Supervisor Powers expressed the opinion that the word
"particularly" should be deleted in reference to cities having
urbanization planned in their spheres of influence and recommended
that the proposed criteria be .adopted with the word modification.
The Board discussed the matter and concurred with the
recommendation of Supervisor Powers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors hereby ADOPTS the criteria, as set forth in the attached
Exhibit A, for the subdivision or minor subdivision of lands within '.
the .Agriculture Residential and Open Space General Plan categories.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution is a statement
of the Board's policy and is not a general plan amendment or an
amendment to the County's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
PASSED by the Board on March 15, 1983 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson,
Schroder.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
f hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
board of Supervisors
on the date shown. q
$4TTESTED:
J.R. OLSSON, COUNTY CLERK .
.and ox officio Clerk of the Board
cc: Director of Planning
Py ,Deputy
Public Works Director
Health Services Director
County Counsel
RESOLUTION N0. 83/407
' MEN p
/ CRITERIA FOR THE SUBDIVISION OR MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LANDS WITHIN THE
AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE GENERAL PLAN CATEGORIES
I. Ranchettes are deemed to be inappropriate and are to be discouraged in prime
agricultural areas'(prime soils plus available useable water of a quality suitable for
agricultural purposes) where"active cultivation such as row crops or orchards is taking
place.
2. Ranchettes are deemed to be inappropriate and are to be discouraged in the existing
Sphere of Influence of cities where such cities have urbanization planned in their
Sphere of Influence (as indicated, for instance,-in their general plans or specific
plans). Cities should be informed in a timely manner when applications are filed and
consulted as to their ultimate plans in the relevant area. '
3. Agricultural/Open Space subdivisions are considered a long term, rural residential use
of the land. Parcel sizes shall be a minimum of 5 acres.
4. Any application for parcels to be separated from a larger parcel or parcels under the
same ownership shall indicate on the plan all of the contiguous land held by the
applicant.
5. Prior to the filing of the Parcel or Final Map applicant must comply with 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 bacterial and chemical
quality in compliance with the State standards for a pure, wholesome and potable
water supply. (Title 22, Section 64433) If the chemical analysis exceeds the
State standards for "maximum contaminant levels", for water potability, a
statement must be attached and"Run with the property deed" advising of these
levels; or
(B) Have 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
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.
(C) In addition to the above, a hydro-geological evaluation may be required in known
or suspected water short areas. This will include seasonal as well as yearly
variations.
(D) The purpose for requesting hydrogeological evaluations is to determine the total
projected numbers of dwelling units that can be supplied with drinking water
from existing aquifers. The two primary circumstances that would generally
require hydrogeological evaluations are:
(a) Where a proposed major subdivision contemplating the addition of large
numbers of dwelling units on individual wells would substantially increase
the density within an existing drainage basin. Hydrogeological data relevant
to recharge of aquifers and projected yield would become essential not only
to support approval of large major subdivisions under these circumstances,
but also to ensure that the water supplies serving existing structures would
not be depleted by the proposed increased demand.
(b) In those cases where density is increasing in particular drainage basins due
to the build out of previously approved subdivisions using individual wells for
water supplies and existing well yields begin to evidence declines due to the
increased demand. In these circumstances, or in water short basins,
hydrogeological studies would be appropriate as a condition for subsequent
development to provide sufficient yield for proposed uses. Specific reasons
will be stated in support of requested hydrogeological evaluations in each -
case.
1
• Page 2
5. Road, street and access requirements, including necessary right of way acquisition
j and/or dedications, will be subject to the Department of Public Works recommenda-
tions for each parcel in accordance with the County Subdivision Ordinance and with
standards and policies of that Department.
7. The land must be suitable for septic tank use according to the County Ordinance
Code criteria and Health Services Department regulations. Percolation tests must be
passed on all proposed lots prior to filing of the Parcel or Final Map.
S. Applicant shalt indicate on the tentative subdivision map the following information
for each parcel: proposed driveways, building site, well site, leach field site,
provision for water storage for fire fighting. Homesites shall be designed with a
minimum of grading. Where significant grading is needed an acceptable erosion
control plan shall be provided with the application. Home siting shall be reviewed for
energy conservation features (building site orientation and feasibility for solar
facilities will be considered).
9. Parcels shall be reasonably free of hazards including, but not limited to, flooding and
high landslide susceptibility.
10. Special detailed plans may be required for provision of flood control, roads and other
services.
11. Developer shall obtain requirements for road and flood control improvements from
County Public Works Department prior to submitting an application for subdivision.
Required improvements shall be included on the Tentative Subdivision Map.
12." Adequate fencing shall be provided to contain domestic animals on the residential
parcels with all gates to be closable by a nearby rancher when necessary.
13. Exception to any of the above criteria may be considered by the hearing body upon a
showing, in writing, of unique or unusual circumstances relative to the subject
property.
i
• H.3
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 17, 1990 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, McPeak and-Torlakson
NOES: Supervisors Fanden and Schroder
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT Hearing On Appeal Of Save Mt. Diablo On Minor Subdivision
MS #100-88, Willard G. and Naomi L. Morgan In The Clayton/
Marsh Creek Area.
On July 10, 1990, the Board of Supervisors continued, to this date
the hearing on'the appeal by Save Mt. Diablo from the decision of the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals
on the application by Willard G. and Naomi L. Morgan (applicants and
owners) requesting approval of a tentative map for Minor Subdivision
#100-88 to divide 160 acres into four (4) parcels in a General
Agricultural District (A-2) in the Clayton/Marsh Creek area.
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, presented the
staff report on the status of the appeal before the Board today, and
commented on the staff recommendation of support for the Planning
Commission recommendation.
The following persons appeared to speak:
Seth Adams, P.O. Box 25, Concord, representing Save Mt. Diablo,
spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Willard G. Morgan, 6040 Morgan Territory Road, Clayton, spoke in
support of the Planning Commission and staff recommendations for
approval of the project.
Mr. Adams spoke in rebuttal.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Torlakson commented on concerns including application
of the ranchette policy to this subdivision,, water supply, the scenic
corridor, and he proposed various alternative resolutions to the
appeal today.
Supervisor Torlakson and staff discussed issues including the
ranchette policy and the dedication of development rights.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, commented on a memorandum from
County Counsel that had been requested by the Community Development
Department on this development.
Supervisor Powers advised that it is not consistent with the
General Plan to subdivide this property and the subdivision is
premature at this time, and he advised of his intention to move to
deny.
Supervisor Torlakson moved to deny the subdivision without
prejudice which would allow the applicant to be able to come back if
there are some clear General Plan policies, and indicated concerns
about the issues including water supply, lack of information about
sites and biological studies and concern about building on ridgetops.
Supervisor Powers clarified that it was Supervisor Torlakson's
intention to deny the subdivision and seconded the motion.
Mr. westman discussed the proposed action.
Mr. Morgan advised that he could not accept the dedication of
development rights as a condition.
Supervisor Torlakson moved to refer the matter to staff to
develop findings for denial of this project, looking at issues raised
during the hearing, along with the negative declaration in terms of
potential environmental impacts that the Board may wish to look at in
terms of further development potential of the property.
Supervisor Powers seconded the motion.
Supervisor Schroder advised that he would vote against the motion
because he believes that the unanimous decision of the Planning
Commission giving the conditions of approval of the minor subdivision
is more than adequate.
Supervisor Fanden requested clarification as to whether the
issues were before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wandry responded affirmatively.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board DECLARES ITS INTENT to
grant the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo on MS 100-88 and to deny MS
100-88; and the Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED to
prepare findings for Board consideration.
1 hereby oertAy that this to a trw end ported Dopy of
an adkm taken and entered on the rnlmut s of the
Board ofon the data��'
ATTESTED:of=
1-) 1 9 1 D
PHIL WCHWOR,Clerk of the Board
upend and Go u mlmiatrator
BY a .Deouty
cc: Community Development Dept.
County Counsel
^1 A1\
• LAW OFFICES OF (� # Jj
GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG
WILLIAM E.GAGEN,JR. A PROFESSIONAL,CORPORATION MICHAEL P CANDELA
GREGORY L. MCCOY
279 FRONT STREET r1 DEC0 PH 2: ^C KAREN MATCKE CROSB1
PATRICK) MCMAHON L.)�..=J Vj.; �+1E > 'IC
PATRICIA F. CURTIN
M.- L ARMSTRONG P O (30X 218
H Afif\AfrA (1lIV Al. .1 i. L
'✓vF 1.
LIN.N K LOOMRS DANVILLF-.CALIPORNIA 94:52(1.02/'{;L ' '_•-I= _ INt:r
STEPHEN W TI-OMAS �'� °'` _ _ PAROLE. A. LAW I
C`+r-PLEs A KOSs _, -_ r .
L �_T'- ALLAN C MCOPE
M-CI+AEL J. MARKOWITZ TELEPHONE fS10)8370585 ALEXANDER L SC:
MICHAEL W. CARTER
FAX(510)8385985
RIC-ARD C. RA1NE5
VICTOR J.CONTI
December 26, 1991
Mr. Valentin Alexeeff, Director
Growth Management and Economic Reform Agency
651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor - North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Willard and Naomi Morgan
Minor Subdivision #100-88
Dear Val:
Thanks again for causing the above-referenced matter to be
continued from the Board of Supervisors meeting on December 17 ,
1991. I plan on going back to work at the office and driving on
January 6, 1992 .
Mr. Armstrong and I met with Supervisor Torlakson on December 23 ,
1991, to discuss the subdivision application. He advised that we
work with Save Mount Diablo in an attempt to address their
concerns raised in their appeal. I plan on doing so as soon as I
return to work on January 6th. Supervisor Torlakson stated that
there is no need to come back to the Board on this matter until
we had a chance to talk with Save Mount Diablo. I will call you
as soon as I speak with Bob Doyle or Seth Adams the week of the
6th to inform you of our negotiations. Until you hear from me, I
respectfully request that this matter not .be scheduled before the
Board. You have my word that I will work diligently and not
delay this matter.
Once again, thank you for your assistance. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
GAGEN, McCOY, McMAHON & ARMSTRONG
A Profes5ionallorporation
Patricia E. Curtin
PEC:kh
cc: Byron Turner
Willard and Naomi Morgan
is\vo12\ciicnt\224:19\alexccff.11 r
FILE COPY
LAW OFFICES OF
• GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG
WILLIAM C. GAGEN, JR, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE
GREGORY L. IIACCOY 279 FRONT STREET
PATRICK J. MCMA1.4 ON P. 0. Box Zia
MARK L. ARMSTRONG DANVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94526-(:)218
LINN K. COOMBS TELEPHONE: (SIG) 837-0585
STEPHEN W. THOMAS FAX: (510) 838-5985
CHARLES A. KOSS
MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA OFFICE
MICHAEL W. CARTER
RICHARD C. RAINES 1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 315
NAPA, CALIFORNIA 914�559-3017
VICTOR J. CONTf Sep
BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL tember 16, 1992 TELEPHONES (7071 224-8396
R091CRY M. FANUCCI FAX: (707) 224-5817
CAROLE A. LAW -
ALLAN C. MOORE PLEASE REPLY TO:
ALEXANDER L. SCHMID
PATRICIA E. CURTIN Daaviuc
MICHAEL P. CANDELA
CHARLES A. KLINGE:
FACSIMILE
Dennis Barry
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor, N. Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Bill Morgan
Minor Subdivision 100-88
Dear Dennis:
As of today's date, I have not heard from a representative of Save
Mt. Diablo about meeting on the Morgan Subdivision. As you know,
I telephoned Chris Valle-Riestra on September 8, 1992 to ask that
he or another representative of Save Mt. Diablo meet-with you and
I to discuss the Morgan Subdivision. During that conversation, Mr.
Valle-Riestra informed me that he would not meet with us, but that
he would see if another representative of the organization would.
I asked that he or someone else get back to me by September 11,
1992.
As you know, some time ago, I proposed a condition in an effort to
address Save Mt. Diablo's concerns. I sent this language to Mr.
Valle-Riestra in February, 1992. Mr. Valle-Riestra never called
me to discuss the proposed condition despite the fact I asked him
to do so.
The condition is as follows:
If building plans are ever proposed for any of the
parcels, such plans must be reviewed and approved by the
Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of building
permits. All interested parties who request notification
must be notified of the plans before permits are issued.
Homesites shall be designed with a minimum of grading.
If significant grading is needed, an erosion control plan
must be submitted to and approved by the Zoning
Administrator. Homesites shall not be placed on
significant hillsides with slopes over 26% or more if
Dennis Barry
September 16, 1992
Page 2
extensive grading or other land disturbance would be required.
Homes and other large structures shall be designed and placed
to minimize the visual impact from adjoining properties or
roadways. All structures shall have non-flammable roofs and
fire retardant or non-flammable siding. All outbuildings shall
have adequate spacing from residences. The building plans
shall conform to the policies contained in the General Plan
adopted in January, 1991.
Dennis, it is important that we finalize this tatter. I feel that
we have been extremely reasonable and patient. - If you have any
additions to the condition that you would like to discuss, please
do not hesitate to call.
If there is anything else that you think we can do to move this
matter along and get a favorable recommendation and decision,
please inform. I will contact you in a few days to discuss our next
step on this matter.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Very truly yours,
GAGEN, McCOY, McMAHON 6 ARMSTRONG
K-'A Profes 'Anal poration -
Patricia E. Curtin
PEC/alp
✓cc: Bill Morgan
i:\vo12\dicnt\22438\barry.1tr
.�
LAW OFFICES OF
GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAFION & ARMSTRONG
WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE
GREGORY L. MCCOY 279 FRONT STREET
PATRICK J. MCMAHON M. 0. BOX 218
"ARK L. ARMSTRONG DANVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94526-0218
LINN K. COOMBS TELEPHONE: (5101 837-0585
STEPHEN W. THOMAS FAX: (510) 838-5985
CHARLES A. KOSS
-ICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NADA OFFICE
M'CHAEL W. CARTER
1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 315
RICHARD C. RAINES NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-3017
VICTOR J. CONTI
BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL January 25, 1993 TELEPHONE: (7071 96
FAX: (707) 224-5817-5817
ROBERT M. FANUCCI
CAROLE A. LAW
PLEASE REPLY TO:
ALLAN C. MOORE
ALEXANDER L. SCHMID
PATRICIA E. CURTIN
MICHAEL P. CANDELA Dani&
CHARLES A. KLINGE
Bob Drake
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, Second Floor, N. Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Minor Subdivision 100-88
Bill Morgan
Dear Bob:
Thank you for meeting with Bill and me on January 20, 1993 to
discuss the further processing of the above-referenced minor
subdivision map. As relayed in that meeting, you will meet with
Silvano Marchesi to discuss alternative Board actions before
preparing the staff report. Once again, Bill and/or I would like
the opportunity to discuss those alternatives with you prior to the
finalization of your .staff report.
We are most anxious to have the project heard by the Board as soon
as possible. We realize that you need additional time to review
the file. Thus, we understand that it is not likely that we will
be before the Board until the end of February. As soon as a
meeting date' is ascertained, please telephone Bill and me.
As explained at our meeting, we will request the Board to re-open
the public hearing on the project. So much time has passed and
many events have occurred (i.e. , communications with Chris Valle-
Riestra and our drafting of an additional condition of approval to
attempt to satisfy Save Mount Diablo's concerns) since the last
hearing on July 17, 1990.
7M t77:Kt?
4
Bob Drake
January 25, 1993
Page 2
We will be in touch with you to further discuss the project. In
the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
call.
Very truly yours,
GAGEN',., McC91r, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG
%Pa
ss ona Corporation
ricia .h
PEC/alp
cc: Bill Morgan
is\vo12\client\22438\drake.1tr