Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05062008 - D.4 G/ TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS 'M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: May 6, 2008 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal by East Bay Associates of an Administrative Decision by the Deputy Community Development Director that Applications to Build/Restore Three Buildings at the Byron Hot Springs site are not eligible for building permits. #5400 Byron Hot Springs Road, Byron area (Dist. III) (Permit #CO 382731, #FD 382733, #R 382730) (APN 002-200-c vc014 & -015) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION A. After accepting any public testimony, close the hearing. B. DENY the appeal of East Bay Associates, and SUSTAIN the decision of the Deputy Community Development Director. ONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VQTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND OF (ABSENT/Z&9.1t+-- CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake`(925) 335-1214 ATTESTED JOHN CULLEN, RK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Daniel Muller, Morgan Miller Blair SUPERVIS S A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Steve Abrams, Abrams Associates Building Inspection Dept: _ Public Works Dept. BY DEPUTY Environmental Health East County Fire Prot. Dist. ;� County Counsel May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for Byron Hot Springs Site Page 2 C. FIND that the following applications for building permits do not provide sufficient information to show compliance with applicable code requirements including building, zoning and health and safety, and SUSTAIN the Community Development Department's decision disapproving the. clearance of the following building:permit applications'. Permit #CO 382731 (Reconstruction of 1902 Hotel) Permit #FD 382733 (Renovation of 1914 Hotel) Permit #R 382730 (Reconstruction of Mead Mansion) D. CONCUR with the Department's review process of prospective building permit applications for the rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of the three buildings identified above. II. FISCAL IMPACT The review of this matter.and the discussion with the applicant has predominately been funded by a deposit provided by the applicant. III. SUMMARY OF ISSUES The owner of the larger(160-acre) parcel of the former Byron Hot Springs resort site, East Bay Associates, has filed applications for building permits to renovate and reconstruct three major buildings that formerly were located at this.site: • Reconstruction of a 90,000 square foot 1902 hotel that burned down in 1912;' • Rehabilitation of a dilapidated 45,000 square foot hotel that was built in 1914; • Rehabilitation of the 1830 square foot Mead residence that burned in 2005 (which the applicant proposes to use as an office). Building permit applications customarily include construction level drawings, site plans and supplementary materials that demonstrate the construction meets the requirements of the zoning code and building code. Building permit drawings include floor plans, roof framing plans, foundation plans, floor framing, construction details (showing connections between structural elements), wall sections, Title 24 energy, and structural calculations demonstrating that the building meets code loading requirements. Applications also verify (through stamps and signature on the plans) evidence of water and sanitary services. In.this case, the applicant did not file this information. An aerial photograph of a portion of the site, photographs of the former buildings and a copy of what appears to be a portion of an old development plan created about 100 years ago were the substance of the filings. In addition, a floor plan for the Mead house showing future office use was submitted. The Department Information on size of hotels verbally conveyed by David Fowler at September 20, 2007 meeting with CDD staff. ADDENDUM DA May 6, 2008 Appeal by East Bay Associates Catherine Kutsuris Community Development Department, informed the Board a request had been received on behalf of the applicant to continue this matter in order to provide the applicant time to submit complete applications that demonstrate compliance with the building and zoning codes. She said that he applicant had also requested that';the Board reserve judgment on the General Plan issue until such time as the completed applications are received. Ms. Kutsuris recommended the continuance be left to an indefinite date to allow the applicant time to submit the full range of plans and information that are customarily filed with the building permit application. Chair Glover invited public comment on the matter. Steve Abrams, Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, said'there are some differences of opinion in the interpretation of General Plan regarding reconstruction and rehabilitation. Correspondence received from Mr. Abrams after the agenda material was distributed is included in the record: Letter dated May 1, 2008. Supervisor Gioia noted that the information is needed in order for the Board to make an informed decision on the matter. Chair Glover said the continuance would help because more information could be available and the additional time could allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with staff on the issue. By unanimous vote, with all Supervisors present, the Board CONTINUED the hearing to a date to be determined. y I I May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications.for yron Hot Springs Site Oage 3 subsequently issued a letter to Mr. Fowler of East Bay Associates confirming the decision that the applications were incomplete. That decision was appealed, and is the subject of the hearing. 'It is clear that the information submitted is inadequate to either determine compliance with applicable ordinance code sections, to determine consistency with either the County General Plan or with the policies of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission for the Byron Airport environs, or to evaluate against the standards of the. building.code. The information is partly needed to determine whether the proposal will require one or more discretionary approvals or whether the applications will be strictly ministerial. If discretionary approvals are required, then the project will be subject to the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Following the submittal of the appeal, the applicant requested the hearing date be indefinitely postponed so that they could meet with Department staff to try to resolve the issues, particularly the staff decision that a discretionary permit would be required. In the intervening period, our Department met with Mr. Fowler and various representatives and/or associates.on a .number of occasions. Those meetings were constructive and our understanding of Mr. Fowler's intended use of the property was clarified. In short, Mr. Fowler desires to obtain the planning clearance forthe three above listed buildings without a discretionary review and without undergoing a review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. In this case, given that there were no building plans to review, the discussion was based on Mr. Fowler's representations of what would be filed in the future. Given the history of various applications or proposals for this property, it is useful to present the information which was detailed to Mr. Fowler and his representatives. It was our understanding that the lengthy effort resulted in agreement on all points of the appeal with the exception that the appellant wishes the issuance of building permits without discretionary review for three buildings, whereas staff has identified the possibility to clear two. Mead House and the 1914 Hotel: The 1914 four story hotel building was the structure used during World War II as a prisoner of war center. The exterior walls of the structure still exist. (The appellant has represented that the following standards reflect his intent with respect to the development of the Mead House and the 1.914 hotel building) a. All building permit applications will contain conventional construction drawings at the detail customarily filed for a building permit application;_ b. All building permit applications will include conventional sign offs from applicable agencies including fire, water and sanitary service; c. All building permit applications will contain sufficient information (text and plans)to demonstrate that a discretionary permit is not required based on the County Code (with the exception of the compliance with the General Plan open space element which is separately addressed). The applicant has May 6, 2008' Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for Byron Hot Springs Site Page 4 represented that the future building permit applications will be in compliance with all sections of the Zoning Code such that no land use permit or variance would be required based on the County Code requirements including the following code sections: alcohol beverage commercial sales, adult entertainment, take-out food establishment, parking, cabaret, tree preservation and protection, and the C3 Clean Water requirements. d. The building permit applications will match the historic records of the buildings and floor plans for the property; e. The building permit applications will be reviewed by the Airport Land Use 'Commission and will be in compliance with their findings necessary to demonstrate consistency with the Plan; J. Site Grading: Grading for the two buildings and any necessary improvements to support the uses (e.g. parking)will be less than 1000 cubic yards such that the noticing provisions (and possible CEQA review) would not be triggered. It should be emphasized that the "requirements"are only necessary if the applicant wishes to pursue development of the property in a manner that would not otherwise require an amendment to the General Plan, a land use permit, development plan, tree permit or variance, permits which would also trigger review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act. If one or more of these standard review requirements cannot be met, the applicant could obtain approval of the project by filing for the applicable entitlement application. 1902 — Hotel'(approximately 90,000 square feet): This was'the second hotel built on the property following the destruction of the first hotel by fire in 1901. This structure, which was originally built in 1902 and destroyed by fire approximately 100 years ago could .be allowed upon the approval of a discretionary permit which would be reviewed within the context of existing General Plan policies. Additional Structures: The applicant has reported that approximately 26 additional buildings were located on the site at one, time or another. The applicant has agreed that any construction beyond the two hotel buildings and the Mead House would require a discretionary review, compliance with the County General Plan, and an environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Golf Course: The establishment of a golf course,which was discussed, could be approved with the issuance of a land use permit or development plan. Condo-hotel: The establishment of condominiums or a condo-hotel would require a discretionary review; challenges to the approval would be consistency with the Genera[Plan given the project's current location outside the urban limit line. I May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for �yron Hot Springs Site age 5 IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Setting The subject site is located approximately midway between the community of Byron and the Alameda County boundary in the southeast corner of the County. .The site is largely surrounded by rural land that is used for grazing, and other agricultural uses. Approximately one-half mile to the south is the Byron Airport, a County owned and operated airport facility. The airfield configuration consists of two,runways arranged in a westward facing `V' shape. The northwest/southeast-oriented primary runway is planned for ultimate extension southeastward (away from Byron Hot Springs) to 6,000 feet in length. Planned airport usage is primarily for general aviation aircraft, but also turboprop, and business and historic military jet. To the east of the site, are several properties that have industrial/commercial uses-on them that were established some time ago. The site is located off the main highways. Byron Highway that joins Byron with Tracy, is • locatedapproximately one-half mile to the east. Vasco Road that joins Brentwood with Livermore is located approximately one-half mile to the west, but there is no direct connection between the roads servicing the subject site (Hot Springs Road and Armstrong Road) with Vasco Road. B. Early History of Resort For this description of the history of Byron Hot Springs, staff has relied upon a recent publication that was authored by Carol A. Jensen and issued by the East Contra Costa Historical Society, entitled Byron Hot Springs.2 The origins of the resort stem from the natural salt springs on the property. It was initially used for camping, an informal spa and bathhouses, beginning around 1868. The first hotel, a wooden structure, was built around 1880, but was destroyed by fire,in 1901. A second hotel building was built in 1902 using a Moorish architectural style. It consisted of a three-story, frame-stucco structure, but within a decade (1912) it also was destroyed by fire. In 1914, a third hotel was built. This one was designed as a fireproof, brick and concrete structure,that is four-stories in height. While it is currently in dilapidated condition, the exterior walls of the structure,still exist today. 2 Published in 2006, by Arcadia Publishing. May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors - Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for' Byron Hot Springs Site Page 6 During World War ll, the War Department converted the resort into a prisoner-of-war interrogation center. Following the war, it was acquired by a church who envisioned creation of a spiritual center that apparently did not materialize. Staff understands that use of.property as a resort or for commercial use has not existed from the time it was'used as an interrogation center to the`present date. C. Description of Existing Site Conditions Ownership of the former resort property is"divided. The majority of the former resort property is owned by East Bay Associates. This portion consists of 160 acres identified by the Assessor's Office as APN 002-200-014 & -015. . After receiving evidence from the property owner, in 2007, the County issued. a letter to East Bay Associates advising that staff had determined that the subject 1,60-acre parcel was lawfully created in accordance with subdivision law. The other northerly portion of the former resort property consists of 40-acres, and is under separate ownership by members of the Taylor family. The portion of the site that is proposed to be developed is accessible from Byron Highway and Byron Hot Springs Road. An unpaved driveway extends from Byron Hot Springs Road to the portion of the site where the resort improvements (hotels) were located. The site is generally'level, but portions of the site contain rolling terrain. The property is currently fenced off to protect it from vandals, Staff was permitted access to the site approximately six years ago. At that time, the site contained two primary buildings: the skeleton of a former four-story hotel, and an older residential building. In 2005, the older residential building (Mead Mansion) was destroyed by fire. For the last several months, staff has unsuccessfully tried to coordinate with the owner to conduct another site visit to the property. D. Zoning 1 . Site.Zoninq —The subject property is zoned Forestry-Recreational, F-R district. a. The F-R district allows as permitted uses: 1.) All. of the uses permitted in ;single .family residential districts and agricultural districts, together with the uses permitted by the zoning ordinance after the granting of land use permits for the special uses authorized in any of those districts, except family care homes. The latter uses include hospitals, churches, private schools, community buildings of a' quasi-public, social, fraternal, or May 61 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for ron Hot Springs Site *age 7 recreational character, wind energy conversion systems, canneries, wineries, slaughterhouses, recycling operations, and museums. 2.) Public and private parks and playgrounds, summer homes, hotels,3 golf courses, organized recreation camps, residences, and other recreational uses. b. The F-R district allows the following uses on the issuance of a land use permit: 1 .) Gift shops 2.) Tea rooms 3.) Family care home. 1. c. The,minimum parcel size is one-half acre (21 ,780 square feet), and the minimum average width parcel size 'is 80 feet. d. The maximum building height is restricted to four stories and fifty feet. 2. Nonconforming Uses The zoning code provides that any lawful use of land or buildings existing at the time • (thezoning ordinance) became effective, which use does.not conform to the provisions of (the zoning ordinance), shall be a nonconforming use and shall not be in violation of the (zoning ordinance) until the use is discontinued or ceases for any reason. If any building or structure constituting a nonconforming use is destroyed or damaged by fire, explosion, act of God or the public enemy, or other accident or catastrophe, after the effective date of (the zoning ordinance), or if an existing use of land is temporarily terminated for any of these reasons, the building or structure may not be repaired or rebuilt',if damaged in excess of fifty percent of its reasonable market value at the time of destruction or damage. Any existing nonconforming use of land which is interrupted by any of these causes may lawfully be resumed within six months of the interruption. (Chapter 82-8) 3. Other Potentially Applicable Zoning Regulations In addition to the regulations of the F-R district, depending on the characteristics of a project, other zoning regulations may also apply. Some may require a discretionary approval. Potentially applicable regulations that ma'y apply to this project are identified in the discussion below. 3 The zoning ordinance defines a "hotel" as a building or part of it containing six or more guest rooms designed, tended to be used, or used by six or more persons for money, goods, services or other compensation. Excepted are Idings where occupants are housed or detained under legal restraint, buildings for the refuge, maintenance, or ucation of needy, aged, infirm, or young persons, and buildings where patients or injured persons receive medical or surgical treatment. (CCC Ord. Code § 82-4.242) May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for Byron Hot Springs Site Page 8 E. Pertinent General Plan Policies The last major update'of the General Plan was completed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in January 1991 . That Plan covered the area of this site and surrounding properties. 1. Land Use Designation The General Plan designates the site Agricultural Lands. The Agricultural Lands designation is one of several land use designations that comprise the County's Open Space Element and Open Space Plan. The General Plan defines the Agricultural.Lands designation in part as: This designation includes most of the privately owned rural lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that are located in or near the Delta. Most of these lands are in hilly portions of the County and are used for grazing livestock, or dry grain farming. The category,also includes non-prime agricultural lands in flat East County areas, such as outside Oakley, which are planted in orchards. Some of the Agricultural Lands east of Oakley and Byron are included in the 100-year flood plain, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber and plant materials. The title is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land- extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas, but the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural, open space or non-urban uses such as landfills, except as noted in the descriptions of "Agricultural Core", "Delta Recreation and Resources,""Watershed," "Parks and Recreation,"and "Open Space." The maximum allowable density in this category is one dwelling per 5 acres. The uses that are allowed in the Agricultural Land designation include all land- dependent and non-land dependent agricultural production and related activities. 'In addition,-the following uses may be allowed by issuance of a land use permit, which shall include conditions of approval that mitigate the impacts of the use upon nearby agricultural operations through the establishment of buffer areas and other techniques.... • Extensive recreational facilities and private.retreats. Table 3-5 of the Land Use Element also provides that all Agricultural zoning districts are consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation and that the Planned Unit(P-1)district May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for yron Hot Springs Site age 9 could be consistent with the designation. A footnote on the table also indicates that four zoning districts including the Forestry-Recreation district is antiquated and thatthe Plan presumes that they will be deleted from the Zoning Ordinance. Similarly, Implementation Measure 3-a provides that the County shall revise the Zoning Ordinance to conform with the land use designations, e.g., delete the F-R district and other "antiquated" districts. Statutory Requirement that Development Must be Consistent with .Open Space Plan before a Building Permit May Issue - Insofar as the Agricultural Lands designation is one of the County's open space designations, the subject site is part of the County's Open Space plan. State Planning Law does not allow the County to issue a building permit, approve a subdivision map, or adopt an open-space zoning ordinance, unless the proposed construction, subdivision, or ordinance is,consistent with the County open- space plan. (Government Code §§ 65567 and 65560(a)) 2. Land Use Element Policy That is Specific to Restoration of Historic Uses at Byron Hot_Springs In 2003, the Board of Supervisors amended the Land Use Element of the General Plan to include an additional policy that specifically addressed the restoration of historic hotel and spa use at the Byron Hot Springs site. That policy provides that. The historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site is acknowledged, the rehabilitation of buildings of historic value at the Byron Hot Springs site and the re-establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported. The rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs site should occur in a manner that is both consistent with other General Plan policies and compatible with the operation .of the nearby Byron Airport, as recommended in the ALUC Compatibility Plan. Implementation of this policy should occur through a discretionary permit review process. Any proposal for the development.of a larger resort complex on the Byron Hot Springs site, which may include the incidental rehabilitation of historic buildings, should be undertaken in the context of existing General Plan policies. (Policy #3-74) 3. Location Relative to the Urban Limit Line Byron Airport and properties adjacent to the Airport are located within the Urban Limit Line (ULL). The subject 160-acre site is one of the adjacent properties that are partially located within the Urban Limit Line. The southwestern portion of the site lies within the ULL; the balance is located outside of the ULL. ' ` I May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for Byron Hot Springs Site Page 1�0 4. Land Use Compatibility with the Planned Operations at. Byron Airport In 2000, the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the County. The Plan includes land use compatibility policies that are aimed at assuring that development proposed in the vicinity of the two County airports, Buchanan Field and Byron, will be compatible,with airport operations. For purposes of providing for land use compatibility with these airports,the Commission is primarily concerned with promulgating land use policies that are aimed at: • Protecting airspace (i.e., Limiting the height of structures where airport operations will be conducted), • Publ.ic safety, and . • Noise compatibility. The Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan references the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan. The site lies within the planning area forthe Byron Airport (Airport Influence Area)of the ALUC Plan, and within designated areas that are subject to public safety and noise compatibility policies. . 5. Other Policies Other General Plan policies that may be germane'to the Byron Hot Springs site are referenced in a CDD letter to the owner's legal counsel dated August 10, 2006. F. Community Services Fire Protection`- The site lies within the East Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The District relies on the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to provide fire prevention (site plan review) services. The site is also located within a CalFire4.State Responsible Fire area. Sewage Disposal - The site is not within a sanitary district. The nearest sanitary district is the Byron Sanitary.District which is located slightly over a mile to the north-. Water Supply - The site is not within the service area of a public water service agency. Byron-Bethany Irrigation District provides irrigation (not 4 Cal ifornia'.Department of Forestry and Fire Protection May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for ron Hot Springs Site Wage 11 potable) water to property owners in the area, but we understand that the site lies outside of the boundaries of this district. Police Protection — The Sheriff's Office would be responsible for responding to any reported criminal activity for this site. G. Prior Efforts to Try to Restore and Develop Resort 1 . 1990 Proposal to Rehabilitate Existing Hotel, Construct a Golf Course, and Build 200 "Golf Villas" In 1990'; another developer, Craig Lehmkuhl, proposed the renovation of the existing hotel, construction of a golf course and 200 "golf villas." However, this project did not go forward,because the developer passed away. Moreover, in 1991, the provisions of the adoption of the 1991 General Plan limited the development potential of this site. Similarly, the adoption of the 2000 Airport Land Use Plan by the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission established other land use policies that would restrict development of this site. 2. 2002 Proposal to Construct a Golf Course In 2002, the current owner, East Bay Associates applied for a grading permit for- a proposed golf course. Insofar as the project proposed the movement of 72,000 cubic yards of dirt that had not been authorized by other entitlement action, the grading code required public notice of the proposed grading activity to allow the-public an opportunity to request a hearing on the project. Save Mt. Diablo filed a request to have the golf course grading project heard. However, the Building Inspection Department felt that the request for hearing the project was received too late. No other request for hearing having been received, the Department issued a grading permit for the project. Save Mt. Diablo appealed that administrative decision. On February 25, 2003, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing on the appeal. After completing the hearing;the Board unanimously voted to grant the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo and revoke the grading permit, and-to require that the project comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and then conduct a hearing on the project before the Zoning Administrator prior to considering re-issuance of a grading permit. Staff issued a letter dated April 30, 2003 letter to the applicant seeking additional information concerning the project to assist with the CEQA review that the Board required. However, the applicant never responded to that request. According to the Building Inspection Department, sometime later, the application for grading permit lapsed, and therefore became null.and void. I May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative'Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for Byron Hot Springs Site Page 12 V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DETERMINATION THAT SUBMITTALS DO NOT QUALIFY FOR BUILDING PERMITS DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION After reviewing the submittals, in a letter dated August 10, 2006 to the appellant, the Community Development Department (CDD)advised him that the submittal was not complete; that the information was not sufficient for staff to determine whether the project complied with planning and zoning laws, and not sufficient to determine whether the project is ministerial or discretionary. The letter also reviewed pertinent General Plan policies, ALUC policies, State Planning Law, and Ordinance Code compliance concerns. Staff also indicated that pursuant to the Board of Supervisors 2003 action on Save Mt. Diablo appeal of the grading permit for the proposed golf course; the County would have to conduct a review of the project pursuant.to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). VI: APPLICANT REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CDD LETTER In a letter dated September 13, 2006, the legal counsel for the applicant requested that the Deputy Director review the findings and conclusion in the August 10, 2006 CDD letter. Specifically, the letter indicated that the staff review.- Had eview:Had not given sufficient attention and weight to the 2003 General Plan Amendment that provided for Policy #3-74, reviewed above, that supported the re-establishment of the historic use of the buildings. • That this policy suggests, but does not mandate a discretionary approval process forthe rehabilitation of buildings. The applicant clarified that the prior' 2002 grading permit application had been withdrawn. That the review .of the submittal is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act, and the County has not complied with its requirements. • While some discretion arguably exists relating to compatibility with the ALUC Plan, the applicant feels that the project is exempt from the ALUC's purview. If the project is determined ministerial, it is statutorily exempt from CEQA review. However, if the project is determined subject to discretionary approvals, the County should rule it Categorically Exempt from CEQA. VII. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DECISION TO SUSTAIN STAFF DETERMINATION THAT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL IS NOT COMPLETE In response to the review request from the applicant, on October 11, 2006 the Deputy Community Development Director advised the applicant that she found no basis to overturn any of the determinations made in the August 10, 2006 CDD .letter. The October 11 letter indicates that . the applicant had not provided sufficient information to the Community Development Department to enable it to determine whether the May 3, 2006 submittal complies May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject.Building Permit Applications for *yron Hot Springs Site age 13 with applicable planning and zoning law, and, consistency with the Airport Land Use Commission Compatibility Plan. The letter advised the applicant on the need to provide staff with: • A site plan with sufficient detail to describe the whole of the property, any existing encumbrances and improvements, and any proposed development, properly labeled. • A complete set of floor plans for all proposed buildings indicating proposed uses; • A complete set of elevations for all proposed building's. • A separate text description of the range, nature, and intensity of the various proposed and existing land uses on the site. Moreover, the letter indicated that: • The decision as to whether a discretionary permit is required is not simply a choice that can be made based on whether there is staff level or General Plan support for a project. -The County cannot limit its review to a segment of the project, CEQA requires that the County,consider the whole of an action which may be subject to several discretionary reviews by governmental agencies, and does not mean each separate governmental approval. • The County had done nothing to violate the terms of the Permit Streamlining Act as no development permit application had been filed. VIII. APPLICANT FILES APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT OF APPEAL HEARING In a letter dated received-November 13, 2006, the legal counsel for the applicant filed an appeal of the°administrative determination of the Deputy Community Development Director. Subsequently, the applicant provided the County with a letter agreeing to indefinitely postpone a hearing on their appeal so as to allow discussion with staff to try to resolve the issues associated with the appeal. IX. MEETINGS-WITH APPLICANT AND REVIEW TO OUTLINE INFORMATION NEEDED TO DETERMINE PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING AND ZONING CODE After the appeal was filed, staff met on several occasions with th.e applicant to discuss the issues raised in the exchange of correspondence. The applicant represented that he was familiar with all of the laws referenced in the staff correspondence and felt that he could define his project so as to avoid any discretionary approvals, and to thereby qualify as a ministerial project: In a letter dated April 16, 2007,staff responded indicating that the proposed resort requires approval of a development plan application, and identifying additional information and documentation that would be needed to process a development plan application. On June 26, May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for Byron Hot Springs Site Page 14 2007, the applicant clarified that they would not seek activities-that,would trigger by ordinance a discretionary approval (liquor sales, cabaret), and no grading would be proposed, but indicated that subsequent operators may seek such authorizations. On March 14, 2008, the applicant filed a compliance review application with the Community. Development Department, File #Z107-11757. The submittal consisted of: • Some project drawings and photographs,of the former resort facilities when they were operational, similar to the May 6, 2006 submittal, • A letter indicating that he would comply with various zoning, building and stormwater control plan code requirements; • That there would be no grading for this project; • A statement that the existing septic tank and system will be used. • "Carving out" the historical building area from the rest of the 160-acres and leaving the rest for a possible future project. X. DISCUSSION A. Existing (Forestry-Recreational; F-R) Zoning As indicated above, the existing zoning is one of the districts from original 1947 zoning • code. Its content has changed little since its creation. The provisions of this district are relatively permissive in comparison to agricultural zoning districts that are applied to properties designated for Agricultural Lands, and not consistent with the provisions of the Agricultural Lands designation. In 1991 , in recognition of this inconsistency, the updated General Plan identified the F-R district as one of several zoning districts that are antiquated and to be deleted. There are approximately ten other pockets in the County that are zoned F-R, including: • Taylor property immediately north of the subject site, and which was a portion of the original 200-acre Byron Hot Springs resort property; . • County Fairgrounds in Antioch; • Portions of Tilden and Mount Diablo State Parks;- • Marsh Creek Springs (another resort property); • Trail Ride Road (north slope of Mt. Diablo; and • Diablo Country Club. In view of the General Plan policy calling for its deletion, County staff has begun a study to change the zoning on all of the F-R properties to a district that is consistent with the respective General Plan designation for the sites. I May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for yron Hot Springs Site age 15 Due to the unique policies associated with restoring the historical character of this use, none of the existing conventional zoning districts would be appropriate. Very likely, staff would recommend application of the Planned Unit (P-1) zoning district because it would allow more flexibility in its provisions that could better accommodate both agricultural and resort restoration policies. However, to date, the property owner.has not applied to rezone the property. Any proposed rezoning could not be approved unless it was found consistent with the General Plan. It would require a noticed public hearing before both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. B. Other Applicable Zoning Regulations The applicant has not claimed that the project is a nonconforming use under the provisions of Chapter 82-8. That is appropriate insofar as the resort activity has been discontinued approximately 65 years. Depending on the proposed use, there are other regulatory elements of the County Code that may,apply to a particular development, including, but not limited to: Water and sewage requirements Ord'. Code§ 82-2.020 • Off'Street Parking (Chapter 82-16) • Child Care Facilities (Chapter 82-22) • Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments (Chapter 82-26) • Transportation Demand Management (Chapter 82-32) • Cabarets (Chapter 82-34) • Alcoholic Beverage Sales Commercial Activities (Chapter 82-38) • Adult Entertainment Businesses (e.g., massage) (Chapter 88-12) • Take-Out Food Establishments (Chapter 88-16). • Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 816-6) • Stormwater Management and Discharge Control (Division 1014 of the Public Works and Flood Control Ordinance, Title 10) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Forestry-Recreation zoning district, the regulations contained in these districts would apply to any development of this site. Depending on the circumstances, some may require a discretionary approval of a project. Typically, when developers file building permits for a commercial building, they provide the Community Development Department with a complete set of improvement plans (including site plans, floor plans, building elevations, and other design detail to document compliance with the zoning and ordinance code). The plans and supplemental documents will indicate the specific activities that are proposed to be conducted on the site. The plans will show May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for Byron Hot Springs Site Page 16 measurements of the buildings so that staff is able to evaluate.those measurements against code requirements. That level of detail has not been provided for this project. C.. Review of Appeal Points The points of the November 13, 2006 appeal are summarized below together with staff's response. The appeal points are similar to ones that were made in response to the August 10, 2006 CDD letter. A. Summary of Appeal Point- There were fundamental errors in reviewing development proposals at the historic Byron.Hot Springs property, causing the application to be side tracked. Staff Response — Staff has reviewed the policies and ordinance regulations that may apply to this project, and explained to the appellant that the documents provided are not sufficient to determine whether the project is consistent with the General Plan or complies with the ordinance code regulations. Extensive discussion has occurred between the appellant.and staff with respect to intended future use of the property and the permit requirements. B. Summary of Appeal Point— In its interpretation of the General Plan, staff has failed to harmonize those interpretations with the existing Forestry-Recreational zoning district. The staff response neglects that Policy#3-74 suggests a discretionary permit approval process, but.does not mandate one. Staff Response — The decision as to whether a discretionary permit is required is not simply a choice that can be made based on whether there is staff level or County General Plan support for a project. Department staff does not have the legal authority to waive any discretionary review procedures that are or may be required for this or any project. C. Summary of.Appeal Point- County staff are imposing higher, inappropriate standards on this application effort, largely in .light of the effort to impose highly discretionary review, but also perhaps to burden.this effort so tremendously, that it fails and allows unfettered open space to be acquired by the County without just compensation. Staff Response —The August 10, 2006 CDD letter from staff provides a detailed list of the potential discretionary decisions that may be required for the development of the site. The effort to identify any potential areas where a discretionary permit would be required was, in part, because of the lack of information provided as part of the building permit application. The review attempted to identify all of the possible compliance concerns. The information required by the County will be used to determine whether existing discretionary approval procedures in State planning law, and the County Code, will apply to this project. May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building-Permit Applications for 4ron Hot Springs Site kge 17 D. Summary of Appeal Point — The County,,is not allowing the project to be defined independently from the earlier 2002 grading permit .application for a proposed golf course for which the Board.required a CEQA review prior to considering any approval. Staff Response —The applicant has made clear that he does not intend to conduct any grading as part of the redefined project. Provided that the applicant submits site plans with topographic information that substantiate that no grading will be conducted, the Department concurs that the previous determination with respect to the site would not be applicable. E. Summary of Appeal Point— The County has not complied with the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act. Staff Response — Staff does not agree ,that the submittal is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act. No development plan permit application has been filed. There are no pending discretionary applications that have been filed on this property. Building permit applications have been filed (which staff has determined to be incomplete). Ostensibly, building permit applications are a ministerial action. The Permit Streamlining Act applies to "development projects". The Act provides that the term development project does not include- any ministerial permit that is proposed to be approved by a public agency. (Government Code § 65928) F. Summary of Appeal Point — To the extent some discretion arguably exists relating to compatibility with the Airport Land Use. Compatibility Plan, we believe there are important threshold issues to consider. We believe that the reconstruction of the previously operable historic buildings constitutes a land use which is exempt from the ALUC's purview. Staff Response — Subsequent to filing the appeal, the applicant has agreed that the building permit applications would be reviewed by the ALUC and that the construction would meet the Commission's findings with respect to compatibility with the Airport Land Use Plan. XI. CONCLUSION: Although it is clear that the filings by the appellant do not include any of the basic requirements to support the clearance of a building permit, the Department and the appellant used the appeal as opportunity to reach an understanding of how future applications for development of ' the site would be reviewed. Given the absence of conventional application materials, the discussion focused on identifying the range of uses that Mr. Fowler was considering and the permitting process that would apply. There is general agreement between the appellant and the Department regarding the review process with the exception that Mr. Fowler believes that May 6, 2008 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision to Reject Building Permit Applications for Byron Hot Springs.Site Page 18 the 1902 hotel (approximately 90,000 square feet)which was demolished by fire approximately by fire 100 years ago should be allowed to be built without a land use permit or development plan. The Department has concluded that the construction of a 90,000. square foot hotel, the construction of any of the additional 26 or more structures that were reportedly once located on the property and the establishment of a golf course would require a discretionary review. Similarly, a proposal to construct a condo-hotel or golf villas would also require a discretionary review. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\Byron Hot Springs\BHS Appeal3.bo[1] 04-30708 revised.rtf RD\ 1 Chronology of Recent Planning History Byron Hot Springs Property . 1947- Present Date Description of Event Feb., 1947 County Zones Site Forestry-Recreation (F-R) district - The Board of Supei-t isors adopts a pernlanent zoning code, including several zoning districts. One of the districts in the�code is the Forestry-Recreation (F-R) district which allows virtually any use that is allowed within a single family.residential or agricultural zoning district, or use that is allowable within those districts after the granting of a land use permit, as a pennitted use. It also allows hotels, summer homes, golf courses, and other recreational'uses as pennitted uses. Stricture height is limited to four stories and 50 feet. Parcel size is limited to one-half acre (21,780 square feet). The.F-R district is applied to the entire 200-acre Byron Hot Springs property. The zoning of the site has not changed and remains zoned F-R. (Copy of district is attached.) Shortly before this time, the property had been used by the United States' Arany as a prisoner-of-war interrogation center. 1990 Initial Attempt to Restore-and Develop Former Resort—In 1990, another developer, Craig Lehmkuhl, had proposed restoration of the former hotel buildings and other recreation improvements including a golf course and 200 "golf villas." At that time =the-Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission had not yet adopted an Airport Land Use Compatibility (ALUC) Plan that had been prepared by a professional aviation planner (only an interim plan) for the Byron Airport environs. Because a plan had not yet been adopted., State law had required that the project be heard by both the Airport Land,Use Commission and the County Planning Agency. However, while pursuing-the project, Mr. Lehmkuhl passed away, and no other party continued to pursue the matter. Jan. 29, 1991 Board of Supervisors Adopts Countywide Update to the General Plan— Following approval in November 1990 of Measure "C", Urban Limit Line/Land Preservation Plan by the County electorate, the Board of .Supervisors adopted the a Countywide update to the General Plan, including the Urban Limit Line and Land Preservation Plan. Except for the Byron Airport property owned by the County, the Plan designates the area around the airport Agricultural Lands (AL), including the Byron Hot Springs site. The AL designation generally limits land use to agricultural uses. In contrast to the F-R zoning, the allowable uses do not provide for hotels. The ALdesignation also limits a parcel's size to a minimum of five (5) acres. The southeast portion of the Byron Hot Springs site lies within the Urban Limit Line, but the majority of the site lies outside of it. 2000 The County ALUC Adopts an Updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan— With the assistance of a professional aviation planning frnrr, the Airport Land Use Commission adopted an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the area around the Byron Airport. The County ALUC is mandated by State law to fonnulate.and adopt a land use plan for the area around public-use airports such as Byron Airport. The plan " is based on the County's Airport Master Plan for the Airport and includes policies that are aimed at assuring that new development will be. compatible with planned airport operations. Specifically, the Plan considers protection of airspace; public safety, and noise compatibility. .In contrast to a general plan which identifies the allowable uses for different areas of the County, the ALUC Plan specifies uses that would not be allowed. The planning area for the Byron Airport extends approximately two miles from the perimeter of the airport. The entire Byron Hot Springs site lies within the planning area of the ALUC Plan. 2002-03 In Response to an Appeal, the Board of Supervisors Reverses a Gradintr Permit—In 2002, the Building Inspection Department issued a grading permit to East Bay Associates to allow grading for a proposed golf course. Prior to issuing the permit, the Building Inspection Department issued a public notice allowing for parties to request a hearing on the proj ect. After a grading permit was issued,the group, Save Mt. Diablo, filed an- appeal of the decision to issue a grading permit that objected to the procedures that were followed before a permit was issued. After conducting a hearing on the appeal, the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal; rescinded the grading permit; and directed staff to complete an environmental review of the project prior to considering re- issuance of a grading permit. After the decision, staff sought additional information from the applicant, but there was no response, and the applicant abandoned that project. 200 3 Board of Supervisors Adopts.Land Use Policy that Specifically Addresses Rehabilitation of Buildings and Historic Use of Bvron Hot Sprit nes In 2003, the Board of Supervisors adopted an Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan that specifically addressed the Byron Hot Springs site. The historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site is acknowledged, the rehabilitation of buildings.of historic value of the Byron Hot Springs site and the re- establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported. The rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs site should occur in a manner that is both consistent with other General Plan policies and compatible with the operation of the nearby Byron Airport, as recommended in the ALUC Compatibility Plan: Implementation of this policy should occur through a discretionary permit review process. Any proposal for the development of a larger'resort complex on the Byron Hot Springs site, which may include the incidental rehabilitation of historic buildings, should be undertaken in the context of existing General Plan policies. (Policy #3-74) May 3, 2006 East Bay Associates Submits Applications for Building.Penmits to the Community Development Department to Build/Restore three Buildings from the former Resort— The applicant indicates that he is seeking to restore or build two of the former hotel buildings and a Victorian-era residence.. The submittal includes photographs and portions of the original floor plans from the original hotel design from approximately 100 years ago, but otherwise does not include conventional documentation for construction plans that is required for compliance with current code requirements and General Plan policies. August 10, CDD Staff Rejects Building Plans Due to Incomplete Information— A 2006 plamner from the Community Development Department issued a letter to the applicant to inform him that the submittal for building pen-nits did not contain sufficient information to determine compliance with applicable zoning and platZning code, and that therefore State law did not authorize the County to issue the requested building pennits. The letter also indicates that the applicant may write to the Community Development Director of Deputy Director to see if they are willing to find the project complies with plamiing and zoning laws. 1 J 1 September Applicant Issues Letter Requesting a Review of the August 10, 2006 staff 13, 2006 Letter"The applicant issued a letter challenging the points made in the August 10, 2006 CDD letter, and requested that it be reviewed. October 1.1, Deputy Community Development Director Determines that Project Does 2006 Not Comply with Planning and Zoning Laws—In response to the letter from the applicant, the Deputy'Community Development Director finds that there is no basis to overturn the findings and determination contained in the August 10, 2006 letter. The letter indicates that the applicant must provide more information for staff to detennine whether the project . complies with the ordinance code, and whether the project is consistent with the General Plan. The letter also disagrees with points made by the applicant. November Applicant Files an Appeal of the Adn 1 strative�Decision by the 13, 2006 Community Development Deputy Director=The applicant files an appeal of the Community Development Department detennination. January 19, The Applicant (appellant) files a request for an iridefinite postponement 2007 of the Board of Supervisors hearing on their appeal so as to allow for discussions with staff to try to resolve the issues in the appeal. Beginning Appellant/Staff Meetings —The appellant and staff conduct the first of . February 7, several meetings to discuss the issues associated with the processing of 2007 the project. Staff proposes-that.the appellant provide more information on the project to help staff determine the scope of the project and what, if any, entitlement(s) would be required. They are seeking information that is needed only for a planning level of review, not necessarily the level of information that would be required for a building permit. March 14, Request for Compliance Review Submittal —The appellant files for a 2007 compliance review that includes a description of which laws the applicant intends to comply with, and some additional project plan ififornation.. April 16, Staff Response to Compliance Review —In a letter dated April 16, 2007, 2007 staff indicates that the project would minimally require approval of a development plan application. The'letter also sought clarification of the range of activities that might be conducted on the property for purposes of determining if such activities may require other,specific entitlements. June 26, Appellant Proposes Alternative Approach—Following two meetings with 2007 staff, the appellant issued a letter proposing an alternative approach to try to satisfy staff that the project might be able to qualify for ministerial approval, and thus avoid any discretionary approvals. 4 1 Additional Meetinas to :Discuss on What Basis StaffMia it Allow Development to Proceed — The applicant has indicated his understanding regarding the conditions under which a building permit for the Mead House and the 1914 hotel could be issued. Mr. Fowler also has indicated his agreement that discretionary pen-nits would be required for the other uses that have been proposed at various times. The Department has.. explained that these uses would be reviewed in light of the General Plan policies. It the Department's understanding that the appellant believes that the approximately 90,000 square foot hotel should also be allowed to proceed without a discretionary review. GACurrent Planning\cun plan\Board\Board Orders\Byron Hot Springs\Chronology of Recent Planning History.doc RD\ 5 F-R FORESTRY RECREATION L RICT 84-31:402-84-32.602 'Art Article 8432.2 e erence to ,b1-29 Dist ' General { 8431,40'2' Co to M-29 district. 84-32.202 General provisions. All land Except, as cified, the M-6 district is within an F-R forestry recreation district may be establis and.administered conformably with used for any.of the following uses, under the all a provisions of Ch •M-29 following regulations set forth in this chapter. . )• (Prior code §' 8153 (part)). 8431.404 Differences M-29 district. Article 84-324 The following ite r M-6 districts are Uses - different from for M-29 districts': (1) Cow e. .No building or structure '8432.402 Uses - Permitted. Uses permit- permi in. the 'M-6 district shall 'cover more ted in the F-R.'district shall be as follows: th twenty-five percent of the.lot area. (1) All of the uses permitted in single family (2) Unit maxtmu bee of residential districts and agricultural districts, n units allowed in the district is x per. together with the uses permitted by Division acre which maximum may be redu part of 84 after the granting of ,land use permits for development plan review roval. For each the .special uses authorizedin any of these apartment unit a Imum of seventy-two districts, except family care homes: hundred sq feet of land in area shall be , (2) For public and private parks 'and play provide rd: 78-40 § 1). grounds, summer homes, hotels• golf courses, organized recreation camps, residences, tem- porary and seasonal clubs and camps, and Chapter 84-32 other recreational. uses. (Ord. 86-43- §..8: prior code §.8153(a)(b) (part)): . F-R FORESTRY RECREATION DISTRICT 84-32.404 Uses —Requiring land use permit.. In the F-R district the tollowinL uses are permit- Article 84432.2 General ted on the issuance of a land use permit: Sections: ( 1) Gift shops: 84-32.202 General provisions. (2)' Tea rooms: Article 84-32.4 Uses (3) A family parr home where care. 'protec- Sections: tion and supervision of thirteen or more t hildren 84-32.402 Uses-Permitted. in the provider s -own home are provided for 84=32.404 Uses—Requiring land use periods of less than twenty-four hours per day, permit. while the: parents or giiitrdians are away. 10rd. Article 84-32.6 Lots 86-43. § 9': prior code ; 8 153(a)(b) (part)). Sections: 84-32.602 Lot-Area. Article -84-32.6 Article 8432.8 Building Height Lots Sections: 84-32.802 Building,height—Maximum. .84-32.602 • Lut — Area. All buildings or Article 84-32.10 Yards parts of buildings hereafter erected or altered for Sections: use as single family dwellings in forestry 84432.1002 Yard—Side. recreation districts sliall have a lot area of not 84-32.1004 Yard—Setback., less than.one-half.acre, and all these lots shall Article 8432.12 Land Use:and Variance have an average width of not less than eighty Permits feet. (Prior code § 8153(c)). Sections: 84-32.1202 Land use and variance permit—Granting. — 329 (Contra Costa County 1 t-86) 8432.802-84-34.402 ZONI Article 84-32.8 Cha Building Height (' WATER REC 84-32.802 Building height —Maximum. No RI CT building or structure or, part of it hereafter erected for use in a forestry recreation district Article 84-34.2 General shallbe more than four stories or fifty feet in Sections: height.-(Prior code_§ 8153(d)). 84-3neral provisions. Article 4.4. Uses .Article 84-32.10 Sec ons: Yards 8 2 Uses-Permit 84-34.404 Uses- rring land use, 84-32.1002, Yard. - Side. There shall be a p it. side yard on each side of each building in a Article 8 4-34. is forestry recreation district. The aggregate width Sectio of side.yards shall not. be less than thirty-five. 34.602 L.ot-Area: feet, and no. side yard shall be less than fifteen 84-34. - feet for each building. The depth of the rear 4.606 Lot-Depth. yard of any lot'on which a summer home is Article 84-34.8 Buildin; Height erected or altered shall not be less than fifteen Sections: feet. (Prior code.§ 8153(e)): 84-34.802 Bu' g height-Maximum. Article 84-34.1 ards 84-32.1004 Yard - Setback. Every Section structure erected in a forestry recreation district 8 4.1002 Yard-Side. and every structure accessory to it shall be 4-34.1004 Yar - located at least twenty-five feet from. the and-Levee setb ack. boundary line of any existing public road or 84-34.1008 Yard-Rear. highway. (Prior code § 8153(0). Article 84-34.12 Off_-Street P g Sections: Article 84-32.12 84-34.1202 street parking-Space Land Use and Variance Permits requirements. Article 4.14 Land Use and Variance 84-32.1202 Land use and variance permit - Granting. Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in Sections 84-32.402 and 84-3.4.1402 Lanes use and� nce permit 84-32.404 and variance permits.to modify the -Gra ; `` provisions contained in Sections 84-32.602 - Article 84-34.16 ,oble Homes 84-32.I004 may be granted after application in Sections: accordance with Chapter 82-6. (Prior code 84- 602 Mobi �1�e - estnc 1 Article 84-34.2 Gene 84-34.?02 neral provisions. All areas, within an water recreational district may be used any of the, foil ir���-mss the folio ing reg s set forth in this ch ter. (Ord. - 8 § I (part), 1967: prior c 8154 (part): Ord. 671: Ord. 613). Ar ' 4-34.4 Uses 84-34.402 Uses -Permitted. Uses permitted (Contra COsta County 11-86) 330 I MINUTES AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY December 13; 2000 Review of November 2000 Hearings The County conducted two hearings focusing on a proposed update to the Airport Land Use . Commission Plan. One hearing was held on November-13, 2000 at the Byron Airport Administration Building focusing on compatibility policies in the'vicinity of the Byron Airport. Anotherhearing was held on November 15, 2000 in Martinez, at the McBrien Administration Building that focused on compatibility policies around Buchanan Field Airport. After concluding the November 15 hearing, the Commission continued the hearing on the proposed update to the Plan to its December 13, 2000 meeting: DECEMBER 13, 2000 HEARING Commissioners Present: Durant, Leighton, Schaefer, Day, Kinney, and Harkleroad. Commissioners Absent: Manninc,. Representing Staff: Bob Drake (CDD), Karen Piona(CDU), Ken Brody (Shutt Moen Associates) Others Present: Including Hal Yeager (People Over Planes); Laura Hoffineister, (Mayor, City of Concord); Edward James, Joan Ryan and John Monta'ck (City of Concord, staff); Amy Barry (City of Pleasant Hill); David Fowler (East Bay Associates); Jim Gwerder (Souza Realty) The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. The Commission adopted the proposed minutes of November 13 and 15, 2000 as read (Commissioner Durant abstained from,adoption of the 11/15/00 minutes). Continued Hearing and Study Session on Proposed Update to ALUC Plan Staff reported that staff had met with Concord and Pleasant Hill city staffs in an effort to attempt to narrow the differences between the respective positions of those jurisdictions and'the plan proposed by staff. As a result of those discussions, staff had presented a matrix to the Commission that outlined specific concerns and alternatives for the Commission to consider. After allowing for public comment, the Commission unanimously voted to adopt the proposed plan update subject to modifications including the following: • Increase the persons per acre (ppa) compatibility criteria in Safety Zone 3 for Buchanan Field environs from 75 ppa to 125 ppa. • In response to concerns from the City of Concord the story height restriction for Buchanan Field Safety Zone 3 was increased from two to three stories, however any project proposing a building with more than two stories shall be required to provide a disaster management plan to facilitate rapid evacuation of the building occupants in the event of an aircraft accident. • Elimination of proposed policies providing for real estate buyer disclosure for both Buchanan Field and Byron Airports (Option C.2.). • In response to concern from Pleasant Hill, the proposed extended area of Safety Zone policies for the end of Runway 1 L would be changed from Safety Zone 2 to Safety Zone 3 (Option C.1). • Allowed for adjusted project review procedures (on redevelopment and availability of environmental documents) to address Concord's concerns. • Adjustment of Maximum Interior Noise Level Policy for Residential Development for Buchanan Field area from 40 db CNEL to 45 db CNEL in accord with State standard to address Pleasant Hill's concern. • To address County concerns, proposed aboveground fuel storage restrictions in Safety, Zone 4 were relaxed. • Substitution of_a revised exhibit that more technically and accurately identifies the existing land use designations of the adopted plans of various counties (Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin) for the area of the Byron airport in a composite forni (Exhibit 6H). _ • In the background section of the proposed plan, provide more detail on existing land use policies contained in the County General Plan that apply to the vicinity of the Byron Airport. • Provision-of general plan consistency criteria ("Checklist") as an aid to local jurisdictions in implementation of ALUC policies. At the same time, after consideration of the staff report, public testimony and other evidence presented, the Commission declined to change the proposed plan on other matters: • Policies affecting the Byron Hot Springs property. 2 Intensity criteria proposed for Safety Zone 2. (The City of Concord had initially expressed concern about the proposed criteria in their correspondence, but subsequently • at the 12/13/00 hearing withdrew their requested modification.) After providing for.specified modifications, and based on a draft resolution included in the staff report, the Commission unanimously'voted to adopt the draft resolution including the following actions: 1. Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration as adequate for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Adoption of the proposed plan subject to the directed modifications— Direct 3. Direct staff to refer the adopted plan to surrounding jurisdictions for the purpose of plan consistency review by those jurisdictions pursuant to State law. 4. Allow for action by the surrounding jurisdictions within 180 days of the date of distribution of the final adopted published plan,(Kinney/Leighton/m/s/c). The hearing was adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m. W\12-13.00.min RD\ MINUTES i AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY I (� July 11, 2001' Review of June 2001 Hearing . i. The Commission conducted a continued hearing on a proposed heliport facility for a new medical center, the Brentwood Campus of the John Muir;Medical Center. Due to a flaw in the agenda description, staff indicated that the Commission could hear the project but not act on it. After hearing testimony from the applicant, Commissioners indicated that they were generally satisfied with the project but continued the matter so as to allow compliance with the Brown Act. JULY 115 2001 HEARING Commissioners Present: Durant, Day, Kinney, and Schaefer. • Commissioners Absent: . Harkleroad, Leighton and Manning. Representing Staff: Bob Drake (CDD) Others Present: Michael Banducci (consultant to the Terrill Company) Joan Ryan (City of Concord) Rich Bottarini (City of Pleasant Hill) Jim Gwerder The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. In the absence of the Chairman and Vice- Chairman, Commissioner Schaefer chaired the meeting. The minutes of December 13, 200.0 were appro.v�d as read. The minutes.of June 13, 2001 were approved Staff indicated that Commissioner Harkleroad had caIIed in advance of the meeting to indicate that he had a conflict and could not attend. Staff also reported that Chairman Manning called,prior to the meeting to indicate that he had not _ received the packet for the meeting. In a subsequent phone conversation, the Chairman indicated to staff that he had learned what would be on the agenda for the meeting. . • 4 i �. 0 �' a tiz � � ""� N T +� D �� c ':�w �� -i� cn .r i 6 F� L TQ: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :; h.• ' { Contra f =ROM: CARLOS BALTODANO ' ^ - y Costa DIRECTOR'OF BUILDING INSPECTION '� r County b3 DATE: February 25, 2003 SUBJECT: Hearing on the Appeal of Save Mount Diablo to issue a Grading Permit for the Byron' Hot Springs Golf Course, in the Byron area. (Grading Permit File #G- 326706) (Sup. Dist. 111) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Motion to: A: Grant the appeal of Save Mount Diablo. B. Direct the Director of Building Inspection to revoke,the Grading Permit issued for the Byron Hot Springs golf course. C. Direct staff to schedule a noticed public hearing on the Byron Hot Springs grading permit application before the Zoning Administrator in accordance with. the provisions Of Chapter 26-2 of the Ordinance Code after taking appropriate actions to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE /,-APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S)^��J ACTION OF BOA"N FAY 25, 2773 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_r' S� attar arum for Bcarn a--Lia-i. V TE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS (ABSENTIA CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Gary Faria [(325) 335-1 i 23 A iTEE STED Fav 2=, 2DD3 cc: David Fowler, East Bay Associates JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF -THE BOARD • OF Seth Adams, Save,Mt. Diablo SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Community Development Dept Robert W. Floerk-e, California Dept. of Fish & Game Jan C. Knight, US Fish & Wildlife Service B1.)� EPUTY Michael Finan, US Army Corps of Engineers County Counsel CB:BD:nr February 26, 2003 Board of Supervisors Grading Permit File#G-3267D6 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT - None. The applicant will be required to cover staff time and material costs including hearing preparation, hearing participation, and environmental review costs. BACKGROUND This appeal concerns a grading permit issued by the Building Inspection Department for a proposed golf course at the Byron Hot Springs property near Byron. The hearing is not to deny or approve a development project with structures. Save Mount Diablo is appealing the issuance of the grading permit on the basis that it was issued prematurely. On June 20, 2002, David Fowler of East Bay Associates applied fora,grading permit with the Building Inspection Department. The plan proposed the grading of 72,000 cubic yards of dirt for the establishment of a golf course. The site is zoned.Forestry-Recreation'(F-R). The affected property, consists of 160-acres located south of the Town of Byron. n reviewing the project, staff contacted potentially interested agencies including the Community Development Department, Central Valley Regional Water.Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Contacts were attempted during the months of July, August, September, and October of 2002 to solicit comments from the DFG and US,FW. By November 2002 the BID had not received any requests, memoranda, or written documents from either the DFG or USFW expressing any environmental or habitat concerns regarding the golf course development. During this time Mr. Fowler was also instructed to contact both the DFG and the USFW since the grading division had not received a reply from either agency during the plan review. The Building Inspection Department also informed Mr. Fowler that he would have to provide to the Building Inspection Department.a list of all owners of real property within 300 feet of the site. Under Ordinance Code section 716-4.202, the Building Inspection Department must mail or deliver a notice of intent to decide a grading permit application to all owners of real property within 300 feet of the subject property before determining whether to issue a grading permit. The notice-of intent must state the last day to request.2 public hearing on the permit application. The last dayto request a hearing must be not less than 10 days after the mailing or delivery date. If a written request for public hearing is filed with the Building Inspection Department within 10 days of the mailing or delivery date, the Building inspection Department must schedule a public hearing on the application before the Zoning Administrator. �eauest for Notification Provided by Save Mount Diablo In a letter dated November 19, 2002 and received by the Building Inspection Department on November 21 , 2002, Save Mount Diablo (SMD) requested that it be placed on the list to receive any notice of intent to decide a grading permit application. ebruary 25, 2003 5oard of Supervisors Grading Permit File#G-326706 . Page 3 Notices of Proposed Gradinq The Building Inspection Department mailed a notice of intent to decide. a grading permit application to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. The notice was dated November 20, 2002. The notice . specified a December 2, 2002 deadline for requesting a public hearing :on the application. The Building. Inspection Department also mailed a courtesy notice of intent to.decide a grading permit application to Save Mt. Diablo, the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This notice was dated November 25, 2002. This notice specified a December 5,2002 deadline for requesting,a public hearing on the application. The December 2, 2D02 deadline date should have been the only specified date. The Building Inspection Department issued a grading permit on December 3, 2D02 based on the December 2, 2002 notification deadline required for the 300 foot notification. In a]etter faxed to the Building Inspection Department.on December 5, 2002, Save.Mt. Diablo requested a public hearing on the grading permit application and also requested environmental review of the proposal. DFG also requested a public hearing and review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in a letter faxed (and received by the Building Inspection Department on) December 5, 2002. The Building 0nspection Department conferred with the County Counsel's office regarding the discrepancy of the dates specified, and they advised that both dates are to be honored. APPEAL OF GRADING PERMIT BY SAVE MOUNT DIABLO On January 2, 2003, Save Mt. Diablo filed an appeal on the administrative decision by the Building Inspection Department to issue a grading permit for this project. The appeal concerns the decision by the Department to issue a grading permit prior to the expiration of the period for requesting a public hearing and prior to conducting_an environmental analysis. JANUARY. 28, 2003 ORAL REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On January 28, 2003, the Building Inspection Department provided an oral report to the Board of Supervisors. The Board also heard comments from David Fowler, Seth Adams and Greg Feere. After accepting'the report, the Board scheduled the appeal for hearing for this date. DISCUSSION • Because Save Mt. Diablo requested a public hearing on the grading permit application by the December 5, 2002 deadline specified in its notice, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors grant the appeal,.direct the Director of Building Inspection to revoke the grading permit, and direct the Building Inspection Department to schedule a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator on the grading permit application. 7 February 25,2003 Board of Supervisors 'Grading.Permit He#G-326706 . Page 4 Environmental Review Considerations The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to any project where the County exercises discretion in the review of the project. Where a public hearing is required for a grading proposal, the County is required to make evaluations of the project under County Planning Agency Ordinance Law (Chapter 26-2). These evaluations will involve the exercise of judgment, and therefore.will cause the project to qualify as a discretionary project. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15357). If a publichearing is held before the Zoning Administrator, the issuance of the grading permit would become a discretionary activity and CEQA would therefore apply. • ADDENDUM TO ITEM 1D.3 February25, 2003 The Board of Supervisors held a hearing on the appeal of Save Mount Diablo to issue a Grading Permit for the Byron Hot Springs Golf Course in the Byron area, Grading Permit File #G- 326706). Gary Faria, Senior Grading Inspector, Building Inspection presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present was Carlos Baltodano, Director, Building Inspection Department. The Chair then opened the public hearing. The following persons presented testimony: Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo, (Appellant), 1196 Boulevard Way, #10, Walnut Creek; Dave Fowler, 741 Shady Glen, Martinez; John Mattox, California Department of Fish and Game, 14,16 Ninth Street, 12th floor, Sacramento; Zane Bentley, 732 Katlin Court, Tracy; Douzal C.MacDonald, East Bay Associates, LLC, 1032 Justin Way, Dixon; Janice Gan;`California Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Sacramento; . Tom Trost, P.O. Box 554, Bethel Island; Robert Milano, East Bay Associates, 3815 Hummingbird Drive, Antioch; Greg Fe-ere, Contra Costa Builder Trades Council, 935 Alhambra Ave., Martinez Frank J. Ferris; East Bay Associates, 2235 Park Towne Circle, Suite 100, Sacramento. The Chair closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for discussion. S'rper750r Gerber moved f}1P CtaffrPr.(1 P.L1datl(1Tls to grant th, appe2l Cif Save Molt Di-blo, The Board of Supervisors took the following action: ❑ CLOSED the Public Hearing; ❑ . GRANTED the appeal of Save h'Iount Diablo; o DIRECTED the Director of Building Inspection to revoke the Grading Permit issued.for the Byron Hot Springs golf course; ❑ DIRECTED staff to schedule a noticed public hearing on the Byron Hot Sprinbs grading permit application before the Zoning Administrator in . accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26-2 of the Ordinance Code after taking appropriate actions to comply with the requirements of the'California Environmental Quality Act. CP Community Contra Dennis it Development Community DeveVopment Director Development Costa Department County qunty Administration Building l Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing _ :• Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 Srq�aaN April 30, 2003 David Fowler East Bay Associates 741 Shady Glen Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Fowler: Re: Provision of Necessary Submittals to Comply with the Review Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Proposed Grading for Byron Hot Springs #5400 Byron Hot Springs Road, Byron area Grading Permit #G326706 As you are aware, on February-2 5, 2003, after conducting a public hearing, the Board of . Supervisors granted the appeal of Save Mount Diablo concerning the issuance of a grading permit for the Byron Hot Springs project. The Board also directed the Building Inspection Director to revoke your grading permit, and to refer your grading proposal for hearing before the Zoning Administrator, but only after appropriate steps have been taken to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Board of Supervisors has charged the Community Development Department with . overseeing the administration of CEQA for the County. Under the requirements of CEQA, the County must review your project to determine if it may result in significant environment impacts. If significant impacts may result, and they cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level that are acceptable to the applicant, then CEQA requires the preparation and acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to considering any approval of a project. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 2 . Defining the Project for Purposes of Compliance with CEQA In considering your project, CEQA requires that the County define a project (including the Byron Hot Springs project) as the whole of the action that has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. . The term "project" refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term "project" does not mean each separate governmental approval. [CEQA Guideline § 15378] Further, the County may not segment the project into small parts if the effect is to avoid full disclosure of environmental impacts. Thus, the County is prohibited from performing a CEQA review that only considers the impacts of the specific activities that .may be authorized with the proposed grading permit, and omits consideration of other aspects of the Byron Hot Springs project (e.g., restoration of Spa, construction of 200 golf villas, etc.). Preliminary Environmental.Assessment Staff has begun the assessment of your project for potential environmental impacts. We have concluded that your project may result in a number of environmental impacts, including: Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population & Housing Utilities & Service Systems Water Biological Resources Cultural Resources Hazards Substantially Reduce Habitat of a Wildlife Population Based on this assessment, we have determined that an Environmental Impact Report will be required for your project for purposes of compliance with CEQA. The County procedures provide for notification of CEQA-responsible and—trustee agencies, and the public of our determination, and providing those entities an opportunity to comment on the appropriate scope of work for the EIR. The County also will request a number of private consultants to submit proposals to assist the County in the preparation of the EIR, and a consultant will be selected by the County to complete the assignment. The cost of the EIR preparation ('including consultant's contract, and a 30% surcharge to administer the contract) is borne by the applicant, and must be paid prior to execution of the contract. 3 Items Required Before Staff May Proceed with Environmental Assessment Before staff may proceed with the review of this project, staff will need the following Yp P J D items: 1) Provision of a Complete Project Description - A complete project description including text and maps that describe existing site conditions and proposed development. The description shall provide sufficient information to comply, with all applicable law and general plan.policy. We.will need a number of copies of the documents, and it should be organized for easy distribution. When you are about to submit this information, I suggest that you call me to make an appointment so that I may review the information and suggest how it may be prepared for submittal. 2) Provision of Initial Processing Fee Deposit - The review of this project is subject to a charge covering staff time and material:costs (Code S=53), with an initial deposit that is minimally sufficient to undertake the tasks for completion of the staff review. Among the tasks that staff must perform are the following, including an estimate of the staff time. Review of proj ect submittal for completeness (min. 10 staff hours) Preparation and Distribution of Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (min. 10 staff hours) , Solicitation of Proposals from Environmental Constultants to Prepare EIR (min. 4 hours). Selection of Consultant and Execution of Contract (min. 30 hours) Preparation of Legal Findings (ruin. 60 hours) Preparation of Staff Report (min. 8 hours) Attendance at Public Hearing, and Follow-up to Hearing (min. 6 hours) Reproduction Costs of EIR-($2000) Based on the above time and material factors, staff estimates that this project will minimally require 122 hours of staff time plus $2000 dollars in material costs. Assuming a staff charge of$150 per hour, the initial deposit to process this project is $21,200. A check may be made payable to the County of Contra Costa. Please note the following: Should staff costs exceed the above estimates, the County will invoice you for the amount due. • The above processing fee estimate is for staff processing costs of your project and does not include the EIR preparation fee discussed above. I 4 Should you have any questions, please call me at 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. 2/25/2003 Board Order 12/2/2002 Community Development Department Letter to East Bay Associates Cc: Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Patrick Roche Building Inspection Department Carlos Baltodano Gary Faria Public Works Dept., Eng. Services Div. Health Services Dept. Environmental Health Division, Ken Stuart Hazardous Materials Program, Randy Sawyer County Counsel Airport Land Use Commission, c/o Lashun Cross California Department of Fish & Game, Robert W. Floerke U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jan C. Knight U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Michael Finan Bhs-cegascope.ltr RD\ Building inspedtionCarlos Baltodano Contra Director of Building inspection Department Costa ty Administration Building 8 Connt)/ N me Street, 3rd Floor, North Win 1 1 r Inez, California 94553-1295 �J ftr�{� 1.7 AN 10; 2 s£n (925) 646-4106 ... ...o FAX (925) 646-1219 March 13. 2003 - �Fa David Fowler 741 Shady Glen Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Hearing.on Grading Pe=t G326706, Byron Hot.Spring Resort Dear Mr. Fowler: This letter is to advise you of the action taken by the Board of Supervisors on February 25, 2003 on the above referenced grading permit. The Board adopted a motion based on the staff report (see attached report and addendum). Based on the Board action; I hereby revoke the grading pe=t (0326706) issued for the Byron Hot Springs Resort. Staff was also directed to schedule a public notice hearing before.the Zoning Administrator (ZA) in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 26 ? of the Ordinance Code after taking appropriate actions to comply with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Conmunit�l Development staff will notin7 you of the date when the hearing is to be scheduled. I would also encourage you to contact the Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Fish & Wi-,l;fe. .Senu-i-C-- tnadd_rtss concerns the- have expressed relative to grad' If you have any questions on this matter please contact Gary Faria at (925) 335-1123. Sincerel),, Carlos Baltodano Director, Building Inspection Department Attachments: BOS Report and Addendum Cc: Dennis Barry, Community Development Director Gary Faria, Senior Grading Inspector Clerk of the Board CB:sem S:cierls-bi/B}7on Hot Springs/326706 C)n C o m m U n It CO ntra Dennis t Barry, me Y Community Development Director Development Costa department (gni ihh/ Ounty AdministrationBuiding 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 :T_.6ou- ` December 2, 2002 Robert Alan Milano Hot Springs Development 3 815 Hume nabird Drive Antioch, CA 94509 Dear Mr. Milano: Re: Response to Request for Planning/Zoning Law Clearance of Proposed Building Inspection Department Permits for -Proposed Renovation & Site Plan, Byron Hot Springs (dated September 2002) List of Additional Information and Procedures Required Before, Building Permits May be Cleared APN 002-200-014 & -015 This is in response to your submittals of November 14 and 22,.2002 and. Those submittals consist of the followina documents: 1. A Site Plan entitled Renovation & Site Plan, Byron Hot Springs,.(Sept. . 2002) (Two Sheets). `A revised plan provides for 100 two-unit, two-story "golf villa/cottaae"manufactured homes (flats). 2. A booklet entitled America's Greatest.Spa, Proposed Resort Facility, with colored exhibits and photographs from the past of the original resort and colored Master Plan. 3. A second typical floor plan and front elevation of a proposed "Byron Villa." You'have indicated that these structures would be placed on permanent foundations.' As we understand, at the present time you are seekina clearance from our department of . building and grading permits for the following improvements. A. Develop nl eat of 100 tyro=story,'two dw6llin5 _,n.it golf villa/cottages consisting of manufactured homes (total of 200 cottage/dwelling units). B. Restoration of a former multi-story spa building. C. Restoration of a former hotel building; but instead of serving as a hotel, the building would be converted to:a;coaference center. D. Development of an 18-hole golf course. Zonina Regulations The site is zoned Forestry-Recreational(F-R) District. That District provides for a range of permitted activities. At the same time, the District allows certain commercial uses (tea rooms and gift shops) only after the °ranting of a land use permit. The F-R district also requires that specified design standards be met(e.g. restriction on yards, number of stories in a structure and structure height). However, in addition to the F-R zoning district regulations, the proposed development of this site is also subject to other applicable regulations in Title VIII(Zoning Cod-.)'and Title IX (Subdivision Code); as well as State Planning and Zoiming Law. Noted Discrenancv in Composition. Siting. and Design of Two Subnmitted Plans In comparing the above referenced site plan with the (colored) master plan in the booklet; Nve note that there are a number of discrepancies in.the range of proposed activities, their siting, and design. You have indicated that you are seeking building permits based on the revised Renovation and Site Plan drawing, not on the Master Plan contained in the booklet. Notwithstanding your indication that the Renovation & Site Plan supercedes the Master Plan exhibit, staff nonetheless feels compelled to note that a number of proposed uses on the Master Plan are not permitted under existing ordinances and policies. • The proposed one-half acre parcels (Hot Spring Estates) located in the northwest portion of the site are not consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation of the general plan, which allows parcels of a minimum S-acres in size. Subdivision law_requires_a itnding of consistency with the general plan, thus.,parcels of this size could not be approved. The southeast comer of the project is proposed as an "Executive RV Park Facility." That use constitutes a commercial use which is not allowed in the Forestry Recreation district. Insufficient Information Provided to Determine COmDhance with Anplicable Plannina/Zoning Law Based on our review of the materials, staff has determined that it is not suitable to clear the requested permits. 3. Exhibit A identifies additional information and procedures that would be necessary before the Department could consider clearance of the requested permits based on ordinance and other legal requirements. Please provide that information. In addition to that information, staff has also identified in Exhibit B other agencies that may have documentation and procedures that this project may need to satisfy prior to commencement of development activity. You should check with those agencies on their respective requirements. Processing Fee Pursuant to the adopted fee schedule (Compliance Check for Issuance of Building Pe=t, Code.S-060C), any subsequent submittal of this matter for building permit clearance will be subject to a fee charge for staff time and materials. Further, pursuant to the fee schedule, the applicant is to submit an initial deposit for this purpose. Assuming a minimal staff review of any submittal, this project would require at least two staff days (18=hours). Therefore, the initial deposit that staff will require for this item will be 32700 (18 hours x 5150/hr.),payable at time of submittal of additional building permit documents. .In the event that staff costs exceed the initial deposit, then the applicant will be billed for payment of the additional fees that are due. At time of submittal, ,ve also ask that you identify who will be responsible for payment of any supplemental fee charges from the County. GE.NTER4L PLATT AIyIEltTDNIEI\TT/REZONLNG PROPOS_AT,TNT PROCESS The General Plan designates this site Agricultural Lands. As you are aware, at the direction of the'Board of Supervisors, staff is proposing amendments to the general plan and zoning that would apply to this site, File +GP020001 & -�"-RZ013105. The changes are intended to allo'-%�1 for consistency: • with the recently updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan of the Airport Land Use Commission (aimed at-assuring compatibility with planned Byron Airport operations), and • V%Yith existing general plan policies. Part of that proposal provides for+.he rezoning of this site to the Heavy Agricultural, A-3, district. The A-3 district would limit the use of the property to agricultural activity and related activities, some of which could only be established after the granting of a land use permit. The County Planning Commission considered the proposed rezoning at its November 19, 2002 hearing, and continued the hearing of the matter to its December 12, 2002 meeting. 4 Should the Board of S—cr<�isors ,.It; ately adopt the proposed A-3 rezoning of this site; .and were that zoning to subsequently take effect, any proposed development would be subject to the regulations of the new district. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (925) 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H..RAKE Principal Planner Enc. Exhibit A– Planning and Zoning Requirements Exhibit B – Other Agencies that May Have Requirements that Apply to This Project Cc: County COunSel D ennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Patrick Roche Building lasnection Denariment Carlos Baltodano S o en Thuna Gary F aria Health Services Department, Env. Health Ken Stuart Sherman Quinlan Public tri orks Dept., Eng. Services Div. File k:`\oyOnhs.ltr RD\ --;i--- r kilt ol cr ., c9 2 C un Ln LU 1 J ' vs0 0 r C~ 75 - ,�,\t� ijVY''C' —t�ia. (•�t!''S Nit7d5 1DH NDkiJ.Blw,r Zr n��i�nz• CST � },. ..(�/ I � --. . . .__. n, • W O �,V ..a 1. �� v�.. _ an _� Y� it 4s r a t . :. -w ..ter• - _ - l t C " t G S � A �' �• ! 'nom 1 �. s— — ter— f'= � / a. `� • r 'i,n�a ...yam• .e± .3+... - Y yj�� r". 41 Lx1ti,U1L Required Information and Procedures to.Allow Determination of Compliance.with Planning/Zoning Laws for Proposed Building Inspection Department Permits Renovation Site Plan Byron Hot.Springs December, 2002 1. Clarification on How Proposed Activities are Permitted by. Zoning (Land Use) Regulations (Chapter 84=32) You have indicated that you are seeking to renovate and otherwise establish a ranae of activities on the properties. 'We understand that you are proposing the.establishment of the following: • A conference center; • A spa, including provision for massage and mud bath activities; 200 golf villa units (within 100 2-story "manufactured home" structures); • An 18-hole golf course; Notwithstanding'the provisions of the Forestry Recreation District, it is not immediately apparent that all of the activities you'wish to establish are permitted. • It is not clear that the proposed conference center(i.e., restoration of former hotel building as a conference center) is a permitted.use within the Forestry Recreation district,. Provisions of the ordinance other than the Forestry Recreation District pertaining to special site and project characteristics [e.g., use of manufactured homes; possible impact to code-protected trees;possible establishment of activities ("massage parlor") that may be regulated by the Adult Entertainment Business Ordinance] may also regulate the proposed development. • The scale of some of the proposed activities should be quantified (gross floor area of commercial structures,maximum number of employees, maximum number of visitors to the golf course) in order to determine the level of improvements needed to satisfy the project's requirements under the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. Exhibit A Requiredlnformation to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs Please provide additional documentation that clarifies-and sufficiently describes the range and.scale of activities that are proposed, and why you believe the activities are permitted in order to allow staff to determine - compliance with potentially applicable ordinance requirements. The site plan should also clarify whether any special structures (e.g., manufactured homes) are proposed as part of the project (See below discussion under item t5, [Evidence of Compliance with the Mobile Home/Manufactured Home Park (T-1) District]. (ref. Ord. § 84-32.402 and Chapter 84-68) 2. Evidence of Compliance with Water and Sewage Zoning Ordinance (ref. Ord. Code § 82-2.020) We have found no evidence in your submittal of provision of water supply or sewage disposal in compliance with the requirements of the Ordinance Code. Prior to clearance of a building or grading permit for the proposed use, water supply and sewage system and/or facilities are required for the proposed uses, including construction, structure or other development to be established in compliance with Chapters 414-4 and 420-6 of the Ordinance Code, and the health officer's approval. You may satisfy this requirement by providing evidence to the Community Development Department that the proposed building and grading plans have been stamped by the health officer in the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. (ref. Ord..Code § 82-2.020) 3. Provision of Evidence that Subject Property was Created in Compliance with Subdivision Lays,s The subject site consists of several properties that have been identified and described by the Assessor's Office (APRT 002-200-014 R -015). Properties that have been identified by the Assessor's Office do not necessarily constitute parcels that have been lawfully established pursuant to subdivision ___ --:--laws------ .- ------ _. ------------------ The Department records indicate that there is a question on the Iegai status of some of the property lines affecting this site including the common property line with the property to the north. We had previously expressed concern about the legal status of the property in correspondence to your legal counsel dated November 9, 2000 (attached) relative to a lot line adjustment proposal that we understood'that you were contemplating. A Exhibit A Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs At that time, we requested that you provide staff with a chain-of-title.for the affected properties to see if coiupliance with subdivision laws could be substantiated. We are not aware that there was a response to our letter. The Ordinance Code requires that all County departments, officials,and employees vested with the duty or authority to issue permits necessary to develop any real property to conform with the Subdivision Ordinance, and that they shall not willfully issue any permit or license for use or construction or any other purpose in conflict with the provisions with the Subdivision Ordinance or of the Subdivision Map Act; and any such permit or license issued in conflict therewith shall be null and void. (ref.,Ord.Code § 92- 12.412) You may be able to satisfy staff that the affected properties were legally established by providing a chain-of--title going back to at least 1947.1 A chain-of--title may be obtained from either a title insurance company, or from the County Recorder's Office. We would appreciate receiving two sets of documents. We may refer one set to the County Surveyor in the Public Works Department to aid in the review and interpretation of the legal descriptions. Should staff determine that the parcel has not been legally created in compliance with subdivision laws; it may be necessary to apply for a tentative map permit, and subsequently record a parcel map prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. The evidence may also be sufficient to allow a presumption that the parcel(s) were lawfully created pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.6. In the latter instance, the County may still require a certificate (or conditional) certificate of compliance prior to.issuance of a building.permit, and compliance with the terms of such a certificate. (ref. Govt. Code § 66499.35) 4. Correction to Site Plah to ShQW' )N h_6Ie of Property Assuming that the subject site constitutes a legal building site under subdivision law, the site plan is nonetheless incomplete in that it omits a fee strip linking the main body of the property with Byron Hot Springs Road. Before we could clear any grading or building permits, we will require a site plan that includes a scaled drawing of the whole of the site, including any proposed improvements. The site plan shall also identify any encumbrances , affecting the site (eg.,right-of-way of the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District). The County first adopted a subdivision ordinance in 1953, hov-ever in.1948; the County adopted a zoning ordinance that enacted regulations izovernine the size of the creation of new parcels. A-, Exhibit A Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance ProDosed Development Byron Hot Springs Based on the County findings for Item#3 pertaining to determination of legal status of lots under subdivision law), the site plan should be revised as necessary to include all valid property lines (and associated metes and bounds description). Further, if APN 002-200-014 & -015 are.determined to be separate legal parcels, then the site plan should be revised to'include the common property line, and provide for appropriate_compliance with minimum structure setbacks and other pertinent zoning (on-site parking) regulations. 5. Eiridence of Compliance with Requirements of the Mobile Home/Manufactared Home Park(T-1) District (Chapter 84-68) You have indicated that it is yourintent to use modular (manufactured) residences for the proposed"golf cottages", and to be constructed on permanent foundations. The Zoning Ordinance defines a manufactured home/house as a mobile home (Ord. Code Section 84-68.418). Development of mobile homes is regulated under the.provisions of the T-1 Mobile HomeMlanufactured Home Park District. That Ordinance restricts the establishment of a "mobile home" except as follows: • •. A permanent mobile home where it is to be occupied only as a principal residence on the lot, and other restrictions; G Various provisions forspecified activities, but where the,moull" home is not permitted to be placed on a permanent foundation; • In a lawful mobile home park or travel trailer park: and • In a lawful recreational vehicle park or campground allowed by a land use permit and in certain specified zoning districts, not including the subject F-R district. (ref. Ord. § 84-68.1402) There are two provisions in the T-1 Ordinance that might allow your project. 11 Ina lawful mobile home park or travel trailer park; or 2) Ina lawful recreational vehicle park or campground allowed by a land use permit. Provision for a Lawful Mobile Home Park or Travel Trailer Park- 'We, can find no evidence that a mobile home park is one of the uses that is authorized in the Forestry Recreation district. A mobile home park is permitted in a T-I district, after the granting of a land use permit, and comphring with the terms of the land use permit. [Ord, Code §§ 84-68.604 (1), and 84-68.802)]. -4 Exhibit A Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs -Therefore, in order to approve a mobile home park at'the site it will be necessary to apply for and obtain approval of a rezoning from the F-R district to the T-1 district. However, in order to approve a rezoning application,the County must find that it will substantially comply with the general plan (Ord. Code Section 26- 2.1806 (b) and Government Code Section 65860 (a)]. The.Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this site Agricultural Lands; moreover approximately two-thirds of the site [including all of the area we understand that isproposed for siting of manufactured residences on permanent foundations ("golf villas")] lies outside of the.Urban Limit Line. The General Plan provides that: • All agricultural zoning districts are consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation, but not the T-1 district. (Reference Table 3-5) • The T-1 district is consistent with the Mobile Home or Multiple Family Residential (High;Medium or Low Density) general plan land use designations. (Ref. Table 375) The Mobile Home and Multiple Fancily Residential Land Use Designations are not designated as an open space designation. (Ref. Table 3-4) Therefore,before a'rezoiiing to the T-1 district could be adopted and applied to this site, it would be necessary to amend the General Plan designation to either a Mobile Home or Multiple Family Residential designation. Moreover, before the site could be re-desimated to one of these general plan land use designations, it would also be necessary to amend the Urban Limit Line to include the balance of the property within the Urban Limit Line. If you wish to pursue this option, we would refer you to Patrick Roche of this of5ce who may be reached at 335-1242. Mr. Roche could advise you on the procedure to amend the general plan. However, please note that it is unlikely that staff would support the necessary change in the general plan that could allow the application of the T-1 zoning district. Lawful Establishment of a Recreational Vehicle Park or CampEround — The T-1 Ordinance also allows for the development of mobile homes within either a campground or recreational vehicle park in an A-2 or A-3 district (and therefore) in an F-R district,but only after the granting of a land use permit. Therefore; it may be possible to allow the proposed development as either a A-5 . Exhibit A Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development �Bpron Hot Springs Recreational Vehicle Park or Campground, after the granting of a land use permit. In this instance, no rezoning application may be necessary. Alternative Course of Action The above procedure could be avoided by modifying the plans to substitute conventional site-built (aka, "stick-built") residential units for the proposed manufactured units. 6. Revised and_Additional Plans to Show Compliance with all Objecti-ve Forestry Recreation District development design standards (Chapter 84- 32) Proposed development within the F-R zoning must meet minimum yard and building height (structure height; number of stones). The proposed plans do not include sufficient information to determine compliance-,-Oth these standards. A complete set of building elevations and grading plans for the vicinity of the proposed development. If the project cannot meet one or more of these standards, then the affected structure could not be cleared for compliance with the zoning regulation without approval of a variance permit. (ref. Ord. Code §§ 84-32.802 through 84.32.1004, and 82.4.214) 7. Reidsed Plans to Show Compliance with the Design and Improvement Requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance (Chapter 52-16) The Off-Str--et Parking Ordinance intends and requires that: all land uses shall be provided with sufficient Space located of-street for the parking of vehicles to meet the needs of persons employed at or making use of such land uses. No application for a building permit for the erection of a new structure orfor the enlargeinent'of an existing si�-ucture, or for the development of a laid use, shall be approved unless it includes ofstreet parking facilities as required by this code. " To this end, the ordinance provides for parking; loading zone, and landscape design and improvement standards subject to the review and approval of the zoning administrator. We understand that you are presently proposing to obtain building and grading permits for a hotel, spa, 200 golf villa units, and an 18-hole golf course. We do not find evidence of compliance with the standards of the Off- Street Parting Ordinance. Before a building permit may issue, the Community Development Department must determine compliance with the A-6 Exhibit A Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development . Byron Hot Springs parking, loading zone and landscape design and improvement standards in accord.with the requirements of the Off-Street Parkin] Ordinance. .Alternatively, the ordinance also allows for variances (and land use pernaits) to'-be granted that may allow exceptions to those standards. (ref. Ord. Code §§ 82-16.002, 82-16.012, 82=16.020, and 82-18.024) 8. Revised Plans to Show Compliance with the Tree Protection and. . Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 916-6)- In 1994,the County enacted the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. . That ordinance provides for the"protection" of certain trees in the unincorporated area of the county. That ordinance provides for the protection of trees on private property by controlling tree removal while allowing for reasonable enjoyment of private property rights and property development. Among the trees designated as protected by the ordinance are any tree measuring twenty inches or larger in circumference,(approximately six and one-half inches diameter), measured four and one-half feet from ground level on any area designated for recreational purposes or open space [ref.. § 816- 6.6004 (2) & (3)]. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates this site Agricultural Lands, v<rhich is one of the designations that the Plan designates as an open space designation. Therefore, a tree of any species with a trunk circumference of 20-inches or greater on this site qualifies as code- protected.' The ordinance also prohibits trenchin, grading, or filling within the dripline of-any protected tree, or to cut down, destroy, trim by topping or remove any protected tree on private property within the county without a tree permit. It is not clear from your submittal that the project will avoid the removal or alteration of a code-protected tree that would otherwise.require approval of a tree permit. From Department A _ - Pnt rewords it appears� , � .. . .------- ethat the site may contain a number of mature trees; including ones that may qualify as a code-protected tree and be located where they may be impacted by the proposed development. Before,we could determine compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance, staff will need to obtain revised construction drawings containing the information identified in the attached Tree Packet, or otherwise substantiating . compliance with the Tree Protection. Ordinance. In the event that the proj ect requires approval of a tree permit, an application form for that purpose is included in the Tree Packet. A Exhibit A Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs No tree permit would be required if there are either no code-protected trees, or the project will not cause the removal or alteration of a code-protected tree. You should also be aware that it is standard Department practice prior to clearance of building permits to require applicants to attest on.the face of the construction site plans that.the information about trees,tree driplines, and creeks is accurate. The Department has standard language on a rubber stamp for this purpose. (ref. Ord. Code §§ 816-6.2004, 816-6.6002, and 816- 6.8002) 9. Disclosure of Possible Use of Hazardous Materials Compliance with State Law Requirement for Disclosure of Hazardous Materials (Government Code Sections 65850.2 & 65940) It is not clear whether the project will involve the use or storage of hazardous materials including spa and golf course (e.g., pesticides and fertilizers). State law bars the County from issuance of a building permit in which a regulated substance will be present in a process in quantities greater than the applicable threshold quantity, unless the owner or authorized agent for the project first obtains from the Count, Health Services Department'a notice of requirement to comply with; or determination of exemption from, the requirement to prepare and submit a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RIP). Enclosed is a packet containing a questionnaire for this purpose. Please complete the questionnaire and submit it to the Community Development Department. We shall refer the matter to the Health Services Department for review. 10. Compliance with Water Conservation in New Dec elopments Ordinance (Chapter 82-26) -The 'Water Conservation Ordinance intends to require water conservation methods for landscaping of new dedelopments by regulating turf areas, planting materials, and irrigation practices. To this end, the Ordinance requires that the water conservation landscape requirements apply to all new developments, and require landscape plans to be submitted to the community development department for final review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. For example, the Ordinance limits the extent to which turf improvements maybe established. (ref. Ord. Code §§ 82-26.402 and 82- 26.404) The Ordinance provides for landscape and irrigation design standards; and reporting requirements, including certification of compliance of plans with A-8 Exhibit A Required litformation to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs this chapter by either a licensed landscape.architect, a licensed landscape contractor,-or other landscape professional whose qualifications have been approved by the community development department: Ornamental Ponds—The proposed golf course and site contain several proposed water bodies. Please note that the Water Conservation Ordinance discourages the establishment of foundations, ponds or other water bodies that are part of the landscaping for new'developments, and are subject to the following restrictions. . Unless the water body is an integral part of the operation of the new development, the surface area of the water body is counted as turf in calculating maximum allowable turf for the landscaped area. Where well water or untreated water is used and the water supply is recirculated, the community development department may make allowances consistent with the other provisions of this chapter. In other respects, there is no provision for varying the requirements of the Water Conservation Ordinance. Prior to clearance of construction or grading plans for the proposed development, the Community Development Department must receive revised submittals providing evidence of compliance with the Water Conservation Ordinance. 11. Compliance with the.adult Entertainment Businesses Ordinance (Chapter 88-12) VVe understand that you are proposing the.restoration of a former spa (building) on the property that will involve various activities including mud baths and massages. VVe wish to.preface the following discussion by indicating that nothing in what you have communicated to staff has suggested that you intend to conduct any illicit commercial activity at the site. Still, the Adult Entertainment Businesses Ordinance may regulate some of the proposed activities that you have described to staff. The Ordinance regulates the establishment of"adult entertainment businesses'.'which are defined in the ordinance. One such business is a"massage parlor"which is defined as: "Any establishment licensed as a massage parlor pursuant to Chapter 518-2 of the Ordinance Code inhere,for any form of consideration 07- g-atuio), rg-atuio), massage, alcohol rub, or 277,1g72etic n•eatments, or any other treatment or inanipulation of the human body occurs. " [ref. Ord. Code 88-12.602 (7)] A 0 Exhibit A Required Information to Determine Planning/Zoning Law Compliance Proposed Development Byron Hot Springs The Ordinance provides that.it is unlawful to,establish any specified adult entertainment business if the location is.within 500 feet of any area zoned for residential use. The site is zoned Forestry Recreation. The adjacent property to the north is also zoned Forestry Recreation. Two of the permitted uses allowed in the Forestry Recreation District are (a) any use permitted in a single family residential district, and (b) residences. Therefore, if the proposed activity meets an Ordinance definition of a massage parlor,the proposed activity would not be permitted at this site. (ref. Ord Code § 88- 12.602). Alternatively, you may provide staff with.- 1) ith:1) Documentation that the proposed development will not allow for any"adult entertainment businesses" as defined in the ordinance including a massage parlor; or 2) Apply for and obtain a land use permit from the County to modif} the location restriction requirement. ENCLOSURES Zoning Map Chapter 84-32 Forestry Recreation District Ord. Code § 82-2.420Water and Sewage ZoIn a OrdinanceP.equirements Assessor'.s•Map V Ord. Code § 92-12.412 Violation Action of Subdivision Laws 11/9/2002 CDD letter to Dougal C. MacDonald on Proposed Lot Line Adjustment Mark-up of Site Plan Chapter 84-68 Mobilehome/Manufactured Home Park (T-1) District Chapter 82-16 __.. Off-Street Parking Ordiance __ . ... Tree Permit Packet including Chapter 816-6, Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance Hazardous Materials Disclosure Questionnaire, State Law.Requirement Chapter 88-12 Adult Entertainment Businesses Ordinance H:\b}Torahs-ex-a.att RD\ _ A-10 s, Exhibit B Advisory Notes THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER AGENCIES. THE APPLICANT IS ADVISED TO CHECK WITH THESE AGENCIES PRIOR TO SEEKING DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR THIS PROJECT, A. Compliance with the requirements of the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement District. The project is proposing a number of ponds in the golf course that may be regulated by the District. B. Compliance with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. The project will be required to meet the County requirements for dom estic water supply and sewage disposal. C. Compliance with the'requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The project may be required to,meet any applicable requirements of the District including fire suppression water supply,:emergency access improvements and other applicable safety measures. D. Compliance with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. The submittal to-date did not include many of the standard construction improvement drawings for all of the proposed improvements. Some of those drawings (e.a., building elevations, floor plans) are required by the Community Development Department for purposes of determining cbluphance vditll ZOnli'lg re LilCLLI . HOR'ever, Other ex11ib1tS (e g., rOOf plariS, foundation plans, electrical plans, plumbing) will also be required for determination of compliance with the building code. Prior to seeking building permits, you are urged to review this matter with the Building Inspection Department. E. Compliance with the requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The site has previously been permitted for application of bio-solids: H:\byronhs-ex-b.att RD\ Morgan Miller Blair 1676 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-4137 A LAW CORPORATION 925.937.3600 925.943.1106 FAx www.mmblaw.com • DANIEL A.MULLER dmuller@mmblaw.com May 2, 2006 Via Hand Delivery Contra Costa County Planning & Building Departments 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 RE: Building Permit Applications Historic Buildings at Byron Hot Springs 5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron, CA Our File No.: 9870-002 Dear Planning &Building Departments: This office represents David Fowler and his company, East Bay Associates, which owns the above-referenced Byron Hot Springs property. Enclosed herewith are three applications for building permits and supporting information to renovate, restore, and repair the three main historic buildings located at the Historic Byron Hot Springs property, as follows: 1. The 1902 historic Byron Hot Springs Hotel • 2. The 1914 historic hotel designed by the Reed brothers and architect Julia Morgan 3. The 191h Century Mead Mansion Mr. Fowler and East Bay Associates seek to rebuild the three historic structures in compliance with applicable law, including relevant historic preservation statutes, ordinances and regulations. None of the restoration work involves grading of the property. As noted in the applications, the structural drawings for the three buildings are currently at the State architects, undergoing review pursuant to the State architect's guidelines and the State historic building codes. Once the State architects complete their review, the structural drawings will be delivered to the Building Department. In furtherance of my discussions with Pat Roche and Bob Drake in February, on behalf of my client I offer two further comments. First, our client is only requesting and intending to reconstruct/rebuild the three structures noted in the enclosed permit applications. Such reconstruction is noted as an important goal in the County's General Plan. We invite discussion as to any questions regarding the limited scope of this effort.. Second, per Mr. Roche and Mr. Drake's recommendation, we have contacted the County's Environmental Health Department to initiate their review of the sewer/septic and water systems. There is a substantial septic system and a water system at the property, which we • believe will be deemed adequate for the requested reconstruction of the three historic buildings. The client's septic and water reports are in process, and will be completed in the relatively near. MMB:9870-002:640890.1 ing Departments County Planning & Build Re: Byron Hot Springs Property Building Permit Applications May 2, 2006 Page 2 • future. We acknowledge the need for the septic and water systems' review, and ask that the County address that by approving these permits subject to obtaining the Environmental Health Department's clearance. Recent legislation(e.g., AB 855) encourages the responsible use of appropriate septic systems, and none of the three buildings is planned to be constructed on any septic tanks, leach lines, or related septic facilities or structures. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and consideration. We welcome comments regarding the above matters. Very truly yours, MORGAN MILLER BLAIR DANIEL A. MULLER Enclosures • MMB:9870-002:640890.1 1.10 m m U rel "!y Contra Dennis M.Barry,AICP ` Community Development Director 'Development Costa Department County #nty Administration Building. Pine Street 6E.L 4th Floor, North Wing ',. Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 yn U srA`COUTj� , August 10, 2006 By FAX& by Mail Daniel A. Muller . Morgan Miller Blair 1331 North California Boulevard, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4137 Dear Mr. Muller: Re: Additional Information Required for Review of Applications for Building Permits to Rebuild/Restore Three Historic Buildings of the Former Byron Hot Springs Resort for Purposes of Determining Compliance with Applicable Planning and Zoning Law .2001 California Building Code 106.3.2 & 106.3.3 #5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron (APN 002-200-014 & -015) Permit#CO 382731 (Reconstruction of 1902 Hotel) Permit#FD 382733 (Renovation of 1914 Hotel) Permit#R 382730 (Reconstruction of Mead Mansion —Office) This is a follow-up to our August 7, 2006 meeting and is in response to your submittal of May 3, 2006, wherein you are seeking building permits to renovate and reconstruct three buildings that had been part of the Byron Hot Springs Resort development in the past. You have requested a determination from the Community Development Department as to whether your submittals should undergo discretionary permit review, or whether they may be approved ministerially. As this letter will explain, your submittals are not a complete application, so it is premature to make this determination. . Typically, when developers file for building permits, they provide the Community Development Department with a complete set of improvement plans, including site plans, floor plans, building elevations, and other detail associated with compliance with the Building Code. Your letter indicates that: .Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5,:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month f 2 • That the structural drawings for the three buildings are currently being reviewed at the Office of the State Architects and once the State architects have completed their review the plans "will be delivered to the Building Department." • Your letter also indicates that you are working with.the Environmental Health Department to gain their approval of proposed water and septic systems for the project, and that you are asking our Department to allow.this to be satisfied after our office has cleared the permits. • No grading is proposed for the restoration work. Based on the documents you have submitted, you are seeking our office's clearance of the plans for compliance with applicable planning, zoning and subdivision law. Description of Submittal Documents The documents that you submitted as part of your building permit applications are described as follows: • Aerial photos of what appears to be the site with some markings. One set of aerial photos for each building is labeled plot plan. • - A copy of what appears to be a portion of an old development plan that appears to be dating from the beginning of the 201h century for the original development when it was built around the beginning.of the 20th century. • Floor plans for the Mead Mansion structure (it should be noted that the reconstruction appears to be as an office, not a residence). • Photographs of the former building and photographs of the three respective building sites. Photographs of the former buildings indicate that they were multi- story buildings. We found no other substantive documentation included with your building permit applications. The site plan for the project does not provide the level of detail that is required (or is customarily provided) for commercial development of this nature for our office to review. There are no proposed building elevations; there are no floor plans for the current proposed hotels. There is no description on pian (or in text) of the range of activities that will be conducted on the property. Insufficient Evidence to Determine Compliance with Applicable.Planning and Zoning Law Section 106.3.2 of the Uniform Building Code provides that plans, specifications, diagrams, and other data shall constitute the submittal documents and shall be submitted with each application for a permit. Further, it is my understanding that State law requires that the plans for the two hotel buildings be prepared by a licensed engineer. . Section 106.3.3 of the Uniform Building Code provides that plans and specifications shall be drawn to scale and shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of 3 the Building Code and all relevant laws,.ordinances, rules and regulations. (emphasis added) Staff has determined that the application materials are not adequate to show compliance q P with: • Applicable Planning and Subdivision State law (Refer to discussion in Exhibit C); or • Applicable Ordinance Code(Refer to discussion in Exhibit D). The documentation is not sufficient to show that the proposed structures are permitted. These photographs of the former structures and the existing sites are not sufficient to show compliance with applicable ordinance standards, State law or policies of the General Plan, including compatibility with the design standards of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission Compatibility Plan with respect to.the nearby Byron Airport. Review of 2003 Board of Supervisors Action Requiring Environmental Review on Byron Hot Springs Project, and Follow-On Request for Additional Information On February 21,2006, Patrick Roche of this department and .1 met with you to discuss the background to this project. One of the items discussed at that meeting was a previous action of the Board of Supervisors concerning development that had been proposed by your client for this site. The documents you submitted on May 3, 2006 appear to be part of a largerproject that would also include a golf course and related resort facilities. On February 25, 2003, the Board of Supervisors granted an appeal of Save Mount Diablo concerning the issuance of a grading permit for the development of a golf course for this site. Prior to reaching that decision, the Board received correspondence and testimony from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the project might have adverse effects on biotic resources including a number of protected species believed to be present in the area. In reaching this decision, the Board directed the Building Inspection Director to revoke the grading permit, and to refer further review of the grading proposal for hearing before the Zoning Administrator, but only after appropriate steps had been taken to comply with the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) On March 13, 2003, the Building Inspection Director revoked the grading permit. Information Souaht on the Whole of the Project and Provision of a.Detailed Description Prior to completion of the CEQA review, staff sought additional information from your client on the "whole of the project"that your client was proposing. In a letter dated April • 4 30, 2003; staff requested additional information about other elements of a proposed project that had been described by your client in a public meeting. The letter indicated that CEQA defines a project as the whole of the action that has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The term "project"refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term"project" does not mean each separate governmental approval (CEQA Guideline § 15378). Further, the 2003 letter also indicated that the County may not segment the project into small parts if the effect is to avoid full disclosure of environmental impacts. Thus, the County is prohibited from performing a CEQA review that only considers the impacts of a segment of the "whole project"that may be authorized with a grading permit or other proposed development subject to discretionary approval. In 2002, staff had received information involving a similar renovation project for the site. In addition to restoration of the former hotel buildings, the project provided for the development of: • 100 two-story, two dwelling-unit golf villa/cottages (consisting of manufactured homes); • One of the restored hotel buildings would be converted to a conference center; • Development of an 18-hole golf course • An "Executive" Recreational Vehicle park. The 2003 CDD letter sought information about the project to assist staff in determinin g whether the whole of the project might result in any significant effects to the environment and determining what other entitlement actions might be necessary to allow the project to' proceed. Among some of the information sought by staff included: • Documentation on the range, intensity and nature of activities that are included in the project; • Compliance with existing zoning district standards and other applicable zoning regulations (e.g., Off-Street Parking, Water Supply and Sewage Disposal, Tree Protection; Water Conservation in New Developments); • Evidence of compliance with Subdivision law. (The configuration of the property has evolved; it is not clear from available documents that the subject site was lawfully created under subdivision law. Subdivision law regulates,the ability of the County to issue permits on lots that have not been lawfully created.) • Evidence of project consistency with the General Plan. Preliminary Assessment that the Project Would Require Preparation of an EIR Staff had concluded that the project might result in significant environmental impacts in several different subjects, and that as a result, the project would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. • 5 ' S Fees to Cover Staff Time and Material Costs • In addition, the letter indicated that the,staff review would be subject to a fee covering g staff time and material costs in the review of the project, including submission of an initial fee. Status of Grading Permit Application As we discussed with you at the meeting earlier this year, staff had received no written . response to that 2003 CDD letter to the applicant. We thought your recent submittal might respond to the various planning, zoning, and environmental review concerns raised in the 2003 CDD letter for this project. Your letter indicates that none of the restoration work involves grading of the property and that you are working on getting approval for water and-septic systems from Environmental Health. In-other respects, the submittal does not: • Indicate whether other elements of the 2002 project (golf course and golf villas) have been eliminated from the project; or • Respond to other information requested in the 2003 CDD letter. Earlier this year, an official in the Building Inspection Department indicated.that your , 2.002 grading permit application for a golf course was still active. • Because the golf course portion of the project is still active, we believe at this time that the proposed hotel restoration/renovation improvements must be included in the environmental review for the golf course improvements that have been applied for this site. In this regard,we request that you provide a point-by-point response to the 2003 CDD letter so that we might be better,able to evaluate the project. Requirements Before,the Building Permits May Be Cleared Before the Community Development Department will clear any of the applied for building permits, you will need to submit revised documentation to the Community Development Department that provides evidence of compliance with all applicable . Planning and Zoning law, and consistency with the Airport Land Use Commission Compatibility Plan, in accord with the above captioned requirements of the Building Code. Prior to issuance of permits, the project may also be required to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to the requirements of the cited State law and policies of the General Plan. The necessary documents shall include scale drawings of: .• A'site plan with sufficient detail to describe the whole of the project, any existing encumbrances and,improvements, and proposed development,properly labeled. It must also contain.a survey of existing trees and any impacts of the project on those trees in compliance with the requirements of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance.. • 6 • A complete set of floor plans for all proposed buildings indicating proposed uses; • A complete set of elevations for all proposed buildings. • All plans shall clearly label existing improvements and proposed improvements. Provide a separate text description of the range, nature, 'and intensity of the various proposed and existing land uses of the site. Please note, it is possible after reviewing any revised submittals, that staff will determine that one or more entitlement actions will be necessary before staff is able to determine the project complies with planning, zoning and subdivision law. The project must also comply with any applicable review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Permit Streamlining Act Considerations At our August 7, 2006 meeting, you implied that your submittals may be held to be deemed complete pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, Government Code Sections 65920, et seq. We disagree. As described in this letter your submittals are clearly incomplete. We have had a telephone conversation where I explained to you the reasons why the submittals were incomplete. More significantly, your May 2, 2006 cover letter clearly states that the submittals are not complete. The letter states, "once the State architects complete their review, the structural drawings will be delivered to the Building Department. " • Processing Fee for Staff Review Including Initial Deposit The County Fee Schedule provides that the project compliance review is subject to a fee covering staff time and material costs, with an appropriate fee deposit. We will not know what those costs will be until we receive a submittal from you that responds to this letter, and we have completed our review. However, we will assume that your response completely addresses the information items requested in this letter and, by reference, to items in earlier letters from our office dated December 2, 2002 and April 30, 2003. In the letter dated April 30, 2003, we provided an estimate of staff time for this project, and determined that it would minimally involve 122 hours of staff time. According to that estimate, an initial deposit to begin the processing of the application would be $21,200. Should the staff costs exceed the initial deposit, then additional deposits may be requested before the staff review is completed. Please provide the County with a check in that amount with your submittal. A check may be made.payable to the County of Contra Costa. Discourage Additional Other Design Work Until the County is Satisfied that Project Will Comply with Planning. Zoning and Subdivision Law • Your letter indicates that you have submitted building plans to the State for its review. • Staff is concerned that you may be expending resources on the construction design that is not required for demonstrating compliance with planning law, and before the County has been able to determine whether the use(s) for the proposed project are permitted or, if permitted,' whether the County has determined.that the design of the project complies with Planning and Zoning law. We do not wish to see you encumber avoidable costs for a project that the County may not be able to permit.' In this regard, until the County has, determined that the.project complies with applicable planning law,we would discourage you from proceeding with additional project design work and expense not directly related to demonstrating compliance with planning, zoning,and subdivision law, including consistency with the ALUC Compatibility Plan. Recourse if You Are Not Satisfied by This Determination In the event that you are not satisfied with this determination,you may write to either the Deputy Director or Community Development Director explaining why the documentation that you have submitted satisfies the planning, zoning and subdivision law for this project. If the decision of the Deputy Director or Director is not acceptable, you would have the right to file an appeal of that administrative decision within 30 days of that decision to the Board of Supervisors. Should you have any questions,please call me at (925) 335-1214: • Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. General Plan &Zoning Maps Excerpt from ALUC Compatibility.Plan Exhibits A—Applicable General.Plan policies B—Applicable Policies of the ALUC (Byron) Airport Compatibility Plan C—State Law Compliance Concerns D—Ordinance Code Compliance Concerns Brochures on Stormwater Control Plan Requirements 8 Cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Districts I, II, III, IV, and V • Clerk of the Board County Counsel Community Development Department Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Patrick Roche Lashun Cross Building Inspection Department Carlos Baltodano Deborah Sandercock Gary Faria Health Services_Dept., Env.Health Div., Sherman Quinlan Public Works Dept.,Brian Balbas File D:\Personal\bhs.ltr.do c RD\ • Exhibit A • Applicable.General Plan Policies Restoration/Renovation of Byron Hot Springs Resort August 2006 A number of General Plan policies apply to the development of this site including: I. General Plan Land Use Designation—The General Plan designates the site Agricultural Lands, one of several designations within,the category of Open Space, and identifies allowable uses. The Plan defines this designation in part as follows: This designation includes most of the privately owned rural lands in the County, excluding private lands that are composed of prime soils or lands that are located in or near the Delta. Most of these lands are in hilly portions of the County and are used for.grazing livestock, or dry grain -farming. The category also includes non prime agricultural lands in flat East County areas, such as outside Oakley, which are planted in orchards. Some of the Agricultural Lands east of Oakley and Byron are included in the 100-year flood plain, as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber and plant materials. The title.-is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land-extensive agricultural uses that take place in these areas, but the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural, open space or non-urban uses such as landfills, except as noted in the descriptions of'Agricultural Core "Delta Recreation and Resources, " "Watershed, " "Parks and - Recreation, " and "Open Space. " The maximum allowable density in this category is one dwelling per 5 acres. Table 3-5 of the Land Use Element also provides that all Agricultural zoning districts are consistent,with the Agricultural Lands designation and that the Planned Unit (P-1) district could be consistent with'the designation. A footnote on the table also.indicates that four zoning districts including the Forestry-Recreation district is antiquated and that the Plan presumes that they will be deleted from the Zoning Ordinance. Implementation Measure 3-a provides that the County shall revise the Zoning Ordinance to conform with the land use designations, e.g., delete the F-R district and other "antiquated" districts. The subject site is presently zoned Forestry-Recreation. Exhibit A Applicable General Plan Policies Building Permit Applications to Restore/Renovate Historic Buildings Byron Hot Springs r , II. Specific Land Use Element Policy Pertaining to Byron Hot Springs—The Land Use Element also specifically provides that: The historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site is acknowledged, the rehabilitation of buildings of historic value at the Byron Hot Springs . site and the re-establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported. The rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs site should.occur in a manner that is both consistent with other General Plan policies and compatible with the operation of the nearby Byron Airport, as recommended in the ALUC Compatibility Plan. Implementation of this policy should occur through a discretionary permit review process. Any proposalfor the development of a larger resort complex on the Byron Hot Springs site, which may include the incidental rehabilitation of historic buildings, should be undertaken in the context of existing General Plan policies. (Policy #3-74) III. Growth Management Element Performance Criteria,—Policy 4-1 of the Growth Management Element provides that new development shall not be approved unless the applicant can provide the infrastructure which meets the traffic level of serve and performance standards of the Element (including traffic, water, sanitary sewer, fire protection, public protection, drainage). IV. Transportation and Circulation Element Policies Pertaining to the Byron • Airport This element of the General Plan provides that the expressed intent of the County is to have a second airport free from urban encroachment, and to prevent the establishment of related commercial or industrial development around the planned airport. No residential development or sensitive receptors, e.g., hospitals, schools, etc. should be allowed within the projected 60 CNEL noise Icontours for the new airport. The policies also provide: 5-55. Establishment of commercial, industrial or residential development around the planned airport shall not be allowed. 5-58 Structural heights shall be designated by the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 surfaces associated with the various runway designations shown on the latest Airport Layout Plan. 5-60. All major-land use actions within the Byron Airport Influence Areas as shown on Figure 5-5 shall be referred to the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission for comment. The A-2 Exhibit A Applicable General Plan Policies Building Permit Applications to Restore/Renovate Historic Buildings Byron Hot Springs definition of what constitutes a major land use action is found on pages 2-6 through 2-8 of the Contra.Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan adopted"in December of 2000. If it is unclear whether or not an action falls within this listing, the County should err on the side of caution and refer the matter to the AL UC staff. V. Conservation Element Policies—The Vegetation and Wildlife description in the Conservation Element identifies Byron Hot Springs as a Significant Ecological Resource Area containing alkali mud flats, salt marsh and hot mineral springs. A rare snail.(Helminthoglipta spp.) inhabits the area; the site of an old resort-spa is in disrepair. A recently created shallow lake has enhanced the habitat for wildlife. The grasslandhills to the west support San Joaquin kit fox. (Table 8-1) The Element also provides for the protection of wetlands and the following implementation measure 8-e Prior to the approval.of discretionary permits involving parcels within a significant ecological resource area as described in Implementation Measure 8-a, the County-shall require a biotic resources evaluation based upon field reconnaissance performed at the appropriate time of year to determine the presence or absence of rare;. threatened or endangered species of plants or • animals. Such evaluation will consider the potential significant impact on these resources, and measures proposed to mitigate such impacts, where feasible, or indicate why mitigation is not feasible. ' VI. Open Space Element Policies—The Open Space Element provides that this element is closely related to the Conservation Element and is coordinated with that element. Primary impacts of the Open Space element are expected on land use policies, and in view of the interplay with the Urban Limit Line and 65/35 Land.Preservation Standard the Element is coordinated with the Land Use Element. With reference to the Land Use Element Map, the Agricultural Lands designation that applies to the Byron Hot Springs site is one of several designations considered to be an open space designation (pg. 9-2). .It also provides that the goals, policies and implementation measures contained in this element are intended to.guide planning for public and private projects that are subject either to approval of the County planning agency, or to review by County staff. Such goals, policies and implementation measures are intended to accord with other elements of the General Plan, and have equal legal status with other sections of the Plan. D:\Personal\bhs Exh A GP-b.doc RD\ A-3 Exhibit B Applicable Elements of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Pertaining to the area around the Byron Airport Restoration/Renovation of Byron Hot Springs Resort August 2006 State law provides for airport land use compatibility planning to adopt land use plans aimed at regulating development in proximity to public use airports, such as the Byron Airport. The law specifically requires that compatibility plans be adopted to regulate development to protect planned airport operations from: e Penetration of necessary airspace around the airport by structures; • Regulation of land use intensity and population densities in areas that may be subject to aircraft accidents associated with take-off and landing operations; and • Regulation of sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, hospitals, residences) that may be adversely affected by airport-related noise. In 2000, the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission adopted an update to its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("Plan"), including the area around the Byron Airport. The Plan includes an "airport influence area"that extends a radius of approximately two miles around the airport, and encompasses the Byron Hot Springs site. The Plan provides policies and development review procedures to assure that new development will satisfy appropriate public safety and noise compatibility standards. Restrictions on Intensity of Use The Plan also includes a Compatibility Map that segregates the area around the airport into different zones that are based on relative possible risks and noise impacts.from planned airport operations. The Byron Hot Springs site has three compatibility zones for different portions of the site. The southwesterly portion of the site lies nearest the runway extension of the airport runway and the Plan places within Zone B 1. Two other zones also cover the remaining portions of the site. The least restrictive zone affecting the northeastern two-thirds of the site, Zone Cl, still provides that the following restrictions on nonresidential land use intensity: (1) An average intensity of no more than 100 people per gross acre on the site at any one time.- (2) A maximum on any single acre (measured as a square) of no more than 300 people at any time. Exhibit B Applicable Policies of the CCC Airport Land Use Commission Compatibility Plan Building Permit Applications to Restore/Renovate Historic Buildings f Byron Hot Springs (3) in no case shall a proposed development be designed to accommodate more than the average number of people per acre indicated,in Paragraph (1) above times the gross acreage of the project site. A project site may include multiple parcels: The Plan provides that multi-story hotels with conference centers, and similar uses typically do not comply with these intensity criteria,but are acceptable if the usage is limited through building design, use permit, and/ or other mechanisms. (Policy#6.5.2) The compatibility policies for-the zones affecting the southwesterly portion of the site are more restrictive on the intensity of use based on the.greater proximity to the airport runway extension. The southwesterly) half of the,site lies within an area that may be subject to projected noise levels from airport operations of 60 decibels. Plan Review Procedures for Major Actions—Policy#1.5.3 of the Plan provides that the scope or character of certain proposed major land use actions, is such that their compatibility with airport activity is .a potential concern. Even though these actions may be basically consistent with the local general plan or specific plan, sufficient detail may not be known to enable a full airport compatibility evaluation.at the time that the general plan or specific plan is reviewed. To enable better assessment of compliance with the compatibility criteria set forth herein, ALUC review of these actions may be warranted. Policy#1.5.3,(b) includes in its definition of major land use actions, actions affecting land uses anywhere within the Byron Airport influence area involving any discretionary development proposal for projects having a building floor area of 20,000 square feet or greater. Policy#2.3.1 identifies the materials that the ALUC Plan requires for a major land use action submittal. D:\Personal\bhs Exh B ALUC Plan.doc RD\ B-2 Exhibit C f State Planning Law that Pertains to . g Proposed Development Restoration/Renovation of the Byron Hot Springs Resort August 2006 I, Consistency of Building_Permits with the local open-space plan—No building permit-may be issued unless the proposed construction is consistent with the local open-space plan. (Government Code § 65567) Government Code § 65560 defines a "local open-space plan" as the open-space element of a county general plan adopted by the county board of,supervisors. Staff Comment—Refer to policies referenced in Exhibits A and B. The submittal does not contain sufficient information to determine that the proposed activities are consistent with the local open-space plan as expressed in the Open Space Element of the General Plan and, by reference in the Open Space Element, to other elements in the General Plan, including: Transportation and Circulation Element Policies • Determining whether the use is consistent with Policy #5-55 which prohibits commercial development around the planned Byron Airport. The site lies within the Airport Influence Area for the Byron Airport. • There is not sufficient evidence that has been submitted to determine whether'the project constitutes a major land use action as defined in the ALUC Compatibility Plan. However, it would seem likely that this project would result in more than 20,000 square feet of non-residential floor area which is one of the criteria that defines a major land use action in the Compatibility Plan. (Ref. Policy #5-60 of General Plan, and #1.5.3(b) of the AL UC Plan. If the project qualifies as a major land use action, then Policy #5-60 requires that the project be referred to the AL UC for comment. The submitted information does not meet the submittal requirements of the ALUC(ALUCPolicy#2.3.1). It does not provide enough detail about the proposed development, land uses, or ALUCpolicies. Exhibit C State Planning Law Compliance Concerns Building Permit Applications to Restore/Renovdte Historic Buildings Byron Hot Springs f The site lies within AL UC Plan compatibility zones with policies that restrict population intensity. The AL UC Plan indicates that projected noise levels from planned airport operations will significantly affect this site. Approximately half of the site lies in an area that is projected to be subject to noise levels in the 55—60 db range. It is not clear from the documents submitted that the development will be consistent with the policies of the ALUC Compatibility Plan. It is not clear from the documents submitted that the proposed land use is consistent with land use policies contained in either the Transportation and Circulation Element or the Land Use Element. H. Map Act Provision for Withholdiniz of Permits and Approval - The issuance of permits and grants of approval for development is restricted by Government Code Section 66499.34, which state in relevant part as follows: No local agency shall issue any permit or grant any approval necessary to . develop any real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in violation of the provisions of this division (Subdivision Map Act) or of the provisions of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division if it finds that development of such real property is contrary to the public health or the public safety. The authority to deny such a permit or such approval shall apply whether the applicant therefor'was the owner of record at the time of such violation-or whether the applicant therefore is either.the current owner of record or a vendee of the current owner of record pursuant to a contract or sale of the real property with, or without, actual or constructive knowledge of the violation at the time of the acquisition of his or her interest in such real property. Staff Comment— The submittal does not contain sufficient information for staff to determine that the site was lawfully created under subdivision law. The submittal information also does not contain sufficient information to determine that the development of the subject property will not be contrary to either the public health or the public safety. Specific risk factors include the following: • Potable water supply that meets the County standards for quality and quantity. • Safe handling of waste water generated by the project. • 'Protection from fire hazards. • With regard to planned operations for the Byron Airport, development that may result in • o Inappropriate risks from aircraft accidents; Exhibit C State Planning.Law Compliance Concerns Building Permit Applications to Restore/Renovate Historic Buildings Byron Hot Springs o Penetration of the protected airspace (imaginary surfaces of FAR Part 77) above the site,and result in hazards to airport operations; o Users of the project being subjected to inappropriate noise impacts. D:\Personal\bhs Exh C State Law.doc RD\ { Exhibit D Ordinance Code Compliance Concerns . Restoration/Renovation of Byron Hot Springs Resort August 2006 Ordinance code regulations that apply to this project or that may,apply to this project, include the following: I. Forestry-Recreational (F-R) District! - The site is zoned'F-R. This district specifies certain uses that are permitted, and certain uses that require.approval of a land use permit (e"., gift shops or tea rooms): It limits building height to a maximum of four stories or fifty feet. (Chapter 84-32) Staff Comment- The submittal documents do not contain sufficient . information for staff to determine compliance with these standards (e.g., no complete set of floor plans, no building elevations). Another consideration is that some specific activities that may be included in'the project require approval of a land use permitor other development permit under,other provisions of the code e.g., Cabaret(Chapter 82-34); Alcoholic Beverage Sales (Chapter 82-36); massage parlor (Ord Code§ 88- 12.602 (7)J II. Water and Sewage Requirements Water'supply and sewage systems and/or facilities required for any use, construction, structure, or other development to- be established under a permit issued pursuant to this'titl"e shall comply with Chapters 414-4 and 420-6 (Health and Safety) of the' Ordinance code and the health officer's approval. (Ord. Code § 82-2.020)" Staff Comment- The 5/2/2006 letter from MMB indicates that the applicant is in the process of trying to. obtain authorization from Environmental Health Office, and asks that the County approve the permits subject to obtaining the Environmental Health Department's clearance. The necessary improvements may affect other characteristics of the property that would,trigger a discretionary review approval(e.g., tree permit, grading). Furthermore, alternatives for satisfying the water supply and sewage disposal requirements of the Health Officer may be limited by the policies of the General Plan including the Urban Limit Line. The F-R district is one of several zoning districts that the General Plan identifies as antiquated,and that are presumed to be deleted from the Zoning code. (Land Use Element Table 3-5 and Implementation Measure 3-a.) Exhibit D Ordinance Code Compliance Concerns Building Permit Applications to Restore/Renovate Historic Buildings Byron Hot Springs III. Evidence of Compliance with Subdivision Law— The Subdivision Ordinance provides that all County departments, officials, and employees vested with the duty or authority to issue permits necessary to develop any real property shall conform to the provisions of Subdivision Ordinance or of the Subdivision .Map Act; and any such permit issued in conflict therewith shall be null and void. (Ord. Code § 92-12.412) Staff Comment Properties that have been identified by the Assessor's Office with parcel numbers do not necessarily constitute parcels that have been lawfully established pursuant to subdivision laws. The first provisions of the Map Act were enacted in 1893. Beginning in 2000, on two previous occasions, staff has sought evidence from your client to indicate the legal status of the property; we have not received a response to either of those requests. What information we have collected from other sources about this property indicates that the site was at one time part of a larger property that has.been reduced in area by conveyances. It is not clear from our records that those conveyances complied with subdivision law. We still are not clear about the legal status of the property. Please provide us with the evidence that would allow staff to make a determination of the legal status of the property under subdivision law. This might be done by providing staff with two notebooks containing copies of a chain-of-title for the site with accompanying maps prepared by a licensed surveyor that identifies the properties referenced in the grant deeds. If you feel that the documentation you submit supports a conclusion that the property was lawfully created, we would encourage you to explain how you were able to reach that conclusion. IV. Off-Street Parking Ordinance—The Off-Street Parking Ordinance intends and requires that: "all land uses shall be provided with sufficient space located off-street for the parking of vehicles to meet the needs of persons, employed at or making use of such land uses. No application for a building permit for the erection of a new structure or for the enlargement of an existing structure, or for the development of a land use, shall be approved unless it includes off-street parking facilities as required by this code. " To this end, the ordinance provides for parking, loading zone, and landscape design and improvement standards subject to the review and approval of the zoning administrator. The ordinance provides that off-street parking areas (including driveways) shall be surfaced with an asphaltic or Portland cement binder pavement, or similar material so as to provide a durable and dustless D-2 Exhibit D Ordinance Code Compliance Concerns Building Permit Applications to Restore✓Renovate Historic Buildings Byron Hot Springs i surface, and shall be so graded and drained as to prevent the ponding of water. !' [Ord. C. § 82-16.012 (3)]. The ordinance-provides a schedule of required spaces for various uses (Ord. C. § 82-16.018). One of the land uses referenced in the schedule..are hotels: one space.for each sleeping unit. Other land uses are subject to.other parking space requirements. Loading spaces are also required for hotels and other commercial uses as specified in the ordinance. The ordinance also provides that variances for any of the requirements may be granted by the zoning administrator. (Chapter 82-16) Staff-Comment— We find no evidence that the proposed project complies with the requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. Unless said evidence is provided, the project minimally requires approval of a variance application pursuant to the procedures.contained in Chapter 26-2 (Planning Agency). V. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control (C.3.Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements)—Currently, development projects creating or replacing an acre or more of impervious area must be accompanied by a Stormwater Control Plan. The Stormwater Control Plan must contain descriptions and an exhibit showing how runoff will be treated to discharge from.the site. A Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, available on the Clean Water Program's website (www.cccleanwater.or ), details how to prepare a Stormwater Control Plan and provides design guidance. It should be noted that effective August 15, 2006, the requirements will apply to projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious area. Beginning October 12, 2006, new development projects must be designed so that post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates or durations. See attached handout materials on this matter issued by the Public Works Department. Staff Comment Even if a variance were to be granted to the design requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance to allow for crushed granite parking, it appears that the new buildings would be required to comply with the C.3 permit requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Stormwater Control Plan would have to be accepted as adequate by the County (Public Works Department) before a development application were to be accepted as complete. We would encourage you to discuss this aspect of County requirements with,the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. D-3 Exhibit D Ordinance Code Compliance Concerns Building Permit Applications to Restore/Renovate Historic Buildings Byron Hot Springs VI. Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance—This ordinance provides for protection of mature trees by regulating tree removal and/or alterations (grading, filling or trenching) prior to issuance of building or grading permits, or granting development applications. The effect of a project on existing trees with a trunk diameter of 6 1/2 inches or greater measured 4 1/2 feet above the ground must be accounted for. If a code-protected tree is impacted, then before a building permit may issue, a tree permit must be filed and obtained from the County. (Chapter 816-6) Staff Comment— The building permit submittals do not contain sufficient information for staff to determine compliance with the requirements of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. The tree survey must be based on a plan that shows all proposed land disturbance (septic systems, trenching for utilities,parking lot improvements, etc.) VII. Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance—The Water Conservation Ordinance provides that it is in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the County to require water conservation methods for landscaping of new developments by regulating turf areas, planting materials, and irrigation practices. The ordinance applies to all new developments. [Ord. C. § 82-26.402(a)] Staff Comment— The building permit submittals contain insufficient information for staff to determine compliance with the requirements of the Water Conservation-Ordinance design standards. VIII. . Provision of Revised Site Plan that Shows the Whole of the Property Staff Comment-In the CDD 2004 letter, staff requested a site plan drawn to scale that shows the whole of the subject property including details on any encumbrances, and existing structures. The building permit applications provide an aerial photo of a portion of the site that remains deficient to those standards. The site plan shall show all proposed improvements and accurately label the use of all proposed structures. D:\Personal\bhs exh D Code.doc RD\ , D-4 ;;r�'S "t—�"E � � x��'t J•i`E" #- t x'?�a;_� d ��' ,� .'f3�`r€ F y 'h. p�'n F fit .,_�.xG µ�'�` ��' � : { ;��� •, '2 •��'�C4r� ^Y.�'.;'"�a��'—".` � "' '.p T cl"•� � � R, N � h c u `��' 't`� Ak � �e-.x � 'Y' f` t^`Y.� �f3_��-✓y`tE' '^f +�Y Y_cch. 1��'t3� x'a� K i♦ J F� ;a� �- 1:� T�. -a� YDS' ' P,a.,y' .CY Y6T _'`?_���. MINI-,4�"t� 1�.1f��� =K ( M;r' .. .y', °+ ,y't�l� � ^.G�� �4 l :'Y' 3'.+7;.1�✓,�y.�i'•" l:; - � �.. �. - •� ���y„�q'.�. `L 3�G� �S b�Y.,u�^T` M^ C.T"{Y-Cf�'. I ArcIMS HTML Viewer Map f -z V Wi 1.5-1 A • r U s A&ID 9 http://ims-cd/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=CDDhns&ClientVersion=4.0... 8/4/2006 v Vuaaa� uvuai��uuu va�� +�uuasv ArclMS HTML Viewer Ma 1-4, t — �I _ i r '� . ,I i - Jew✓i�� ��/s. i r..Y.i'I✓/✓'9� �-I�✓Yw.✓�/v'� � - ''�//l!, �' �r•:�!�f'.!/.' i!i%if/r l�"fx •- �/� r/���/-',��//%/t� / �/%���a " 'may', Y �y� l' � r �'�'� - �' / 'I'i f'.:.'�l'/,i/�//''%./rl� ' '/•!!_.r/.'/,..•/'`��=n,,ry�''et!" F a', ..t;r pYj,�'p AFS/f.'�v`':-i%✓.,r!.: i.'ir/;. !!i!:!. / �., /i,-:�!!!i!/rr-'!k',.la°....a���<:� ��y_:..ol-�:.:�.d.�>��. = itt X E • http://ims-cd/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esi imap?Servi ceName=CDDhn s&ClientVersion=4.0... 8/4/2006 J O Q N U H- � Q j d O N V � Q O ¢ O N N N N N Y OU M N � O a m x Z O U O O ON ! . I I I �__ __�dM ('ON SONIadS 10H N08AB)N1aoN 3dOH I -� BLOI --Ll - .Z-B -----. - AZCI- - -_ - - -AZCI_- _ j- I 6 I SL'SE2. R1I ;, \ - 1/3\ IS/ip////Q•CB 9C11� y--5'1� I Id/L/f 1�0'�t I �' ¢` ozu o'sz; a• / �'~Y�4 .io'me M,.ot.ts.t�,x, �/�\gl �,�.��`• I �'/ I �H*,2�'�tlal urvNise�wouLe 1 L11-bb QO 3 tz2[z / I prj r w M,SIJC ALS O'•' 1 �� LLJ Y •°s M � I rfzzz —1— �� Ln 7^ w---- � --------- m 091'Al, I OQ F--- HMN 1� 3•fZH N 1.f7 82 LtlON I cavil I `� IZ t¢ ON, OM OM I I HIHON I m � I NO � -ZLe�z oajosE ' - poo 23in no; z Figure 11-5W Byron Airport Noise Contours . _._ . .. .. .... ...._................_ '' Mill lY� .' 3 9 •� ......... ......... �Q? ................. O: ................. .................... r ................. . • >s h ass E Y a:. ..... ...... ......... 1N. �I .."a,i�7 S, Et Sf x R MIN y:I ; ,� +,FMKFwiliw RINM ................................................... ..• 3 d 3 N £ 0 .............. .( ........................... 3 OR 21 IN { s 'i Y.. , F L L�._.. FLtLrP Activity Acs�mntlons � \�0 ., 160,200 Total Annual Aircraft Operations, including 20,000 Helicopter Operations and 200 Historic Military Jet Operations Airport Property Boundary ............ . ................. . . ....... .......... NOTES: 55-60 dB CNEL Future operations projection represents 60-6,5 dB CNEL the activity level associated with planned capacity of 400 based aircraft. 65-70 dB CNEL Runway lengths include planned extensions. 70+dB CNEL Source:Shutt Moen Associates(April 2000). i 1:24,000 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY `5 MV CRS w>��ln,2004 Page 0 125 o.s i �ffinC��y t,>k—io� ;. 11-34 M 651 Pim Sheet,4th Floor•N.Wing.Mar&=CA 945534095 �F Wes 37:59:45.455N 122:06:35.384W Contra Costa:" Coup"t v Airport Land Use Compatibilit Plan Y' Contra Costa County, California IL Adopted d by Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission, December'131' 2000 1 Prepared I by _ Shutt: Moen Associates Santa Rosa; California f . --- -- 4. v rL U CL �- r CL /r U 0 Qt1lm000rC m m m m o o c c c c �a ,C m N N N N N N S Q III l l::, 1.\ r ' a r' � 4 ' i \ ! w IIulOtiao ue5 i .. ! '.1 1, l;° ull4oaPau@I/ I 5 Jll H'J1VW 3NIl FIOIVW �. Ilunopepewuro . I � Ii._`4 f 4c y I 1 } I -• flet ��a - f :.�} L3�'� r c �'Pxi a k a'If°�11.• r Zn— or �� •' ata 4 P 6etl�Sdq.°j4 ' '° �d� d a +�A,q a.a •Pr.oa° a •�i ��:�;� �gfr`ni�fFyl if'QA Jebidlp�ae`�°.,Opp o h \ \\ aptPadP-0114�16aE9� U t dfd x��gyi m e U W M '1w Byron Airport Policies j Chapter 4 1 a f -- 316 2 ,, — 20MAC'SUR RORFACE 5�� 225S M .L.. t_ �",�,,, .Q., �h ;\N, \a �L7. t .. .. � < r"?•,s et �~` l - ''ct,��l.'�_� .:. 0176 M M.S. .e qi 4.�:.._y !",1; „a•. +`'Ytirw -'+,.� '\ . 1 2}, v. 'µ u�s3. �•,�-. � Pry _F �� ,. fv'� �` , *S. Yr,^� , T!r^'SURFACE' - •n. 'j, �\ q{or rXria` �"` ''f r�.i,- �„�.. fl ",7" T—'�•� ( \ •4 .ti`\_-T�---m,a:? �:.:'a,F" Hix,-.£r- -xb•Xi! R Y 7 ;1:1 �15y,yf 4 _ � �, 4.' �., ..✓c' I} SVRFAL'ES 44r\ i' L'Tvylile �) / ih •'�-1 1 1 (YYM®(/: 'CY ,'�{T .. {'!. Y cr \ .+r—.yl, t...., �-- r tri h�_y� �• 2 � �I''` f _ .;! 7; Mpg d,�s-a's.,�,�..� ! ,t y.n tt� a.�'_ z.t '4 ✓ } 1'"- A"� Si_ ( EL 7B - 'i� •� N.l'yY 3 tr'il M !; " pl ✓ir�i '6 � i u 1 � f � T .... .�,,,?N t 2'�.a �•.2r � ��c?k''' _—_�.... �f r +t r tit � � i r�i k,.� �,r.._ v x., 'Y�. 7,• S�'��e h�c r,i_ S ,� "`lt�,.i �C "M1"_. /. /• _ c I .,.. \ ., `jam �,: y ' cs,.t r *' y ' a H d"' ,'-vc+,• _zz`• _h'l1RFACE 5500.1 •"4'""'�'�� .�'�4... _ Y' , r � r t,'+. J 1 \ ..••' � �- x ,ws`)N i'a a4 5v n! � ynrt3rI V. J r .• ''` is�4,y�,fv '`7hsf�a��Yx"r����' .rr p\ t ti r ;''s � '.,� ., t , ;:r Ja �.F �� �-�} orf F w 1 v -ix �.�,�3a�',b:' ,��^�� xv '�` r+..• : 1 :'i 'r 'ti ���t 17t�3��°r�.+r t`�*t J 41 c,;; ixi�rF���4�"w.7"��• t �wtP�'�t"� ��J� r�` r ,�>:��;{� xf r t �rl�'�•�'y rte" [• �1F •S '$��3�«��`3� �.' "y �"�' �. i x �: x,"."J`�rh, ! '}+€�• .r..+— ti �Y. !f8 �r* ..n4 ��,, .f�'+u f '1's,'y F.�''7, 1 -� •, , _it. U'r�r� ��} - �SCMLOr l9y�'6 Zl. •y q •Y .t2C ^f�yG�,,.rN'NpfF "` \� - .,r 4 f'- t.xw v 1` i 1. x! y. 'N t..:, �•tA k^�'« 't t r,`L �i�Fy..ytr--'++r+ .,s m✓ x ns-"�,r dts�. - 1�5r, i� a.#' ,. x} .rr 4 i .. S ,.. ' r _, O .?_-. a*.`a. "�>7 ?` S'r�j�r'r�71'a.� !� 'i� +r 4'�„{cK' '�>a.xr+a R+e` '�+ar iM r,.-v,t•�.r 1 ' �` `\ xk��4u.h Sr h. +�'f rr.�•-./L.,..•-'f.r� it,rkY4.•�*•m r �SC.. �{�fi.��s "S`'1 1' S; .�„� t..--,�, '4 �.,. \..- y -t! Zti, •^Y+1 ,i;j"W 'lk M T L'-`T'r t y rwl. •tlh --_ t y r• ~ F r., Lt•% t �+•`t',+.'}" f Yr [ > f. •%,�' uq,,,,, w d{r••cr.�,.,.3,,.,,..r3.3 v..". ,- - - rt' `• �i" --•„ f ..3'ai �,y.��i ay'"^sy.tq r� rrY-t .yi�rf y,i, ����rr��yzb� � is t!7�•erF �i1 tma't ! r<�" �,�'z,, � r,'�"iu.�Ln»-'x' �i«� � � �t �._ � \ L �Y'I7.�s7�,. .A. �'!a ^�' � .•�^,�.f��-�rr y\,.,��Pi.. 4 ?if�(r.�' r - ' ltRAI�SJnONµ \ tet` _ ,. 1 41�<jt Al��C [Y`1�,v'y /^?i, ,�! c. ;.�-� .`..� •r 7n '• ,r+ � .,.' :;�•• £�•L 3ti.., ,�.-}, S F- �' t^ `a'".�•a � k tr f_ �.,,,.--6MFACE '4 �..� .\ ..- ' R� ( jy3°�?�!$,�'as�����„ �'3tik 't+.' I x-"'r�! LL•s.r � �'s--`'Y�� i ��. - •-fie.............. ��(74 � ����..�.v�� F �_"�� h..�,,,--� y Y. ",. it `i 7 �4��+� ��� S.::M.� ri,•:"a t,��'� 'r+w h 5,000' Terrain Penetrates Surf Indicated Surface N 0 FEET 10,000' 1"=5,000' Figure 4A Airspace Protection Surfaces Byron Airport tr 4-12 Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(December 20 Byron Airport Policies!Chapter 4 F J4 d- C 1 � 1 s r Holey Rd. -------------------------- 1 i r � � ------------ I Activity Assumptions •160,200 Total Annual Aircraft Operations 55-60 dB CNEL •20,000 Helicopter Operations Included CD 60-65 dB CNEL •200 Historic MilitaryJet Operations Included 99 65-70 dB CNEL -See Exhibit 6C for Details ON 70+ dB CNEL •—• - Airport Property Boundary Notes: Primary Airplane Flight Tracks •Future operations projection represents the activity level - - - - -Primary Helicopter Flight Training Tracks associated with planned capacity of 400 based aircraft. •Runway lengths include planned extensions. 2,500' 4 N 0• FEET 5,000'. � 1'=2,5D0' Figure 4C Projected Noise Contours Byron Airport Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(December 2000) 4-13 C.""ommunityDennis M.Barry,AICP. Contra Community Development Director .:Development Costa Department County r my Administration Building Ine Street 4t door, North Wing - Martinez, California 94553-0095 . o Phone: 925:335.1276 . S&cows September 20, 2006 Mr. Daniel A. Muller Morgan Miller Blair, A Law Corporation 1331 North California Blvd., Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4544 Dear Mr. Muller: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 2006 referring to your September 13, 2006 letter to Robert Drake, Principal Planner, regarding certain proposed improvements at the Byron Hot Springs property. You have asked that we review Mr. Drake's determination and confirm or overturn it in order that you may avail yourself of the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Article 14-4 of the County Code. I have referred your letter to Catherine. Kutsuris, Deputy Director-Community Development-Current Planningjor a thorough review and determination. You should expect a reply within approximately 30 days from the date of receipt of your initial inquiry. In response to your questions regarding further submittals, you are at liberty to submit any supporting documentation at any time, particularly copies of complete applications for building permits which you suggest have been submitted or evidence to support your allegations regarding staff. If you have any. questions concerning the foregoing, please feel free to contact me at 925.335.1276. Sincerely, Dnnis M. Bar ICP e ry', A Community Development Director DMB:gms -� h\ddocs\MullerrReBHS C w/encl: Members, Board of Supervisors County Counsel Clerk of'the Board Catherine Kutsuris Office Hours Monday Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Robert Drake Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Morgan MIIfer B 1 a i.I 1391 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-4544 A LAW CORPORATION 925.937.3600. 925.943.1106 FeX www.mmblaw.com DANIEL A.MUI I ER dmull er@nupblaw•.com September20,.2006 Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Mr. Dennis Barry, Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street— 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: Building Permit Applications Historic Building`s at-Byron Hot Springs 5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron, CA #CO 382731 (Reconstruction of 1902 Hotel) #FD 382733 (Renovation of 1914 Hotel) #R 382730 (Reconstruction of Mead Mansion-Office) Our File No.: 9870-002 Dear Mr. Barry: This letter is a follow-up to my letter of September 13, 2006 to Mr. Robert Drake regarding the above;-referenced permit applications. A copy of my September 13t" letter is enclosed for your reference. The reason for this letter is that we have not heard'from Mr. Drake regarding our September 13`' letter, in which we requested your or the Deputy Director's review of the determinations in his letter of August 10; 2006. Specifically, in my prior letter, I asked Mr. Drake to "Please lct us know at your earliest convenience whether this letter is sufficient.for that purpase." T left Mr. Drake a voicemail today,but have not vet heard back from him. We wish to have the aforementioned review completed as soon as possible, and to reach the Board of Supervisors thereafter, if necessary. We ask that the County provide its view of the process by which this review will occur, as well as the timing. We also would like to know of any applicable County Code.provisions or policies governing such review process. Among other things, ,ve wish to know if, prior to the determination, there will be a hearing and whether any further submittals from us are necessary or allowed prior to determinations based on the review. As you may know, this matter is rather urgent, given that the responses from the County regarding the above-referenced pennit applications have been long-delayed. Finally, we believe Mr. Drake has been misrepresenting the status of these applications and the facts surrounding the property to various interested parties. Specifically, on several occasions we believe he has given false or misleading information to appraisers, and he recently 'told potential lenders for this project that he has not seen the owner for several years and no M MR:99 70-002:68 8 54 6.1 Mr. Dennis Barry Re: Byron Hot Springs Property Building Permit Applications September 20, 2006 Page 2 plans to rebuild or develop the property are submitted. These falsehoods are damaging my client, and Mr. Drake's distribution of such misinformation must be stopped immediately. Finally, if you or the Deputy Director cannot or will not review Mr. Drake's August 10`h letter in a timely fashion, we would ask.that this matter be scheduled for a determination by the Board of Supervisors at the next meeting which can accommodate such review. Thank.you for your anticipated courtesy and consideration. Very truly yours, MORGAN MILLER BLAIR DANIEL A. MULLER Enclosure c: Mary N. Piepho (Vice Chair, Board of Supervisors, District 111) MMR:9970-002:688546:1 Morgan Miller Blair 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 2CO WALNUT CREEK,CAllFORNIA 94596-4544 A LAW CORPORATION 925.9373500 925.9C1106Fax ww -ITIMNaw.Com DAKmi-A.MULLER dmullcrLmmblaw.c= September 13, 2006 Na Facsimile & U.S. Mail Mr. Robert Drake Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street—4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: Building Permit Applications #CO 382731 (Reconstruction of 1902 Hotel) #FD 382733 (Renovation of 1914 Hotel) #R 382730 (Reconstruction of Mead Mansion-Office) Historic Buildings at Byron Hot Springs 5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron, CA Our File No.: 9870-002 Dear Mr. Drake: • Thank you for meeting with me on August 7t',prior to sending out your letter of August 10`h. Tlus letter is intended to.respond to yours. First, as discussed more fully below, we believe that your letter incorrectly assumes or determines that the,;County must treat the above-referencedapplications for building permits as fully discretionary permits, such as preliminary development plans for PD-zoned properties. We object to this fundamentally unfair process, and feel.that it contradicts the County's General Plan and zoning ordinance. Second, given that we were notified very late last week that this matter has been included as a"discussion item"on the agenda for the County Airport Land Use Commission's ("ALUC") meeting of this date (September 13, 2006), this letter is intended to address, at least preliminarily, some issues that might arise at the ALUC meeting. Essentially, as discussed below, it is our position that the ALUC specifically does not affect "existing uses" and that this exception applies to the reconstruction of the historic buildings at the Byron Hot Springs ('`BHS")property. Finally, in light of the first concern noted above, this letter is a formal request that your determinations in your August 10`x'letter be reviewed by the Deputy Director or Director of the County Community Development Department, and eventually,if necessary, by the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the final paragraph of your letter. MMB:9870-002:68.5105.1 Mr. Robert Drake Re: Byron Hot Springs Property Building Permit Applications - September 13, 2006 Page 2 I. Response to August 10`h Letter We believe that fundamental errors Have been made in your letter,regarding whether the County should exercise discretion, and if so,to what degree, in reviewing development proposals at the historic BHS property that merely seek to rebuild the historic structures. We believe these errors have caused the process for this application to be side-tracked, and wish for such determinations to be evaluated and reviewed by the Deputy Director or Director of the Community Development Department, and if necessary, the Board of Supervisors,before this desirable project,which is supported by the County's General Plan, is further delayed. A Determination is Needed Regarding the Threshold "Degree of Discretion"Issue The main error, in our view, appears to stem from a misinterpretation of the County General Plan, which states the County's support for the reconstruction of historic buildings at the BHS property. Specifically, the General Plan states: "The historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site is acknowledged, the rehabilitation of buildings of historic value at the Byron Hot Springs site and the re-establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported. The rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs site should occur in a manner that is both consistent • with other General Plan policies and compatible with the operation of the nearby Byron Airport, as recommended in the ALUC compatibility Plan. Implementation of this.policy should occur through a discretionary permit review process. Any proposal for the development of a larger resort complex on/the Byron Hot Springs site, which may include the incidental rehabilita�i'on of historic buildings, should be undertaken in the context of existing General Plan policies." (Policy 3-74, 2005-2020 General Plan, page 3-40.) We believe that the above policy expresses a manifest preference for the historic buildings to be reconstructed, and that it distinguishes between (and supports)basic rehabilitation of only the historic buildings and related historic facilities, compared to a larger project in which rehabilitation of the historic buildings/facilities is a relatively smaller, yet meaningful, component. We are proposing only to do the former, not the latter. We believe the above General Plan policy's use of the word "should" is an encouragement—that,a discretionary permit review process may or might be used -but such type of review is not mandatory, as would . be the case perhaps if the word "shall" had been used. Thus, as a threshold matter, we believe that there is some ambiguity as to the level of discretion the County might opt to apply to a proposal to merely reconstruct the historic buildings at the BHS property. Moreover,we believe that the County's "encouragement"and --—- "support" for restoring the historic buildings, clearly stated at the beginning of the above policy, would be severely undermined, if, as your August I O'h letter suggests, a very involved, lengthy, MM B'9870-002:095165.1 - Mr. Robert Drake Re: Byron Hot Springs Property Building Permit Applications September 13, 2006 Page 3 and expensive discretionary review process were required. Also, the fact that the General Plan policy is unclear.as to what specific manner of"discretionary permit review,process"may be entailed, leaves.the owner guessing, contrary to the mandates of the state Permit Streamlining Act("PSA"), discussed further below. In sum, an interpretation of the above policy that"follows your letter's guidance would contradict the County's statement of support and the PSA, and would severely undermine the investment-backed expectations of the owner,-based on the longstanding and as-yet unchanged zoning designation of the property as Forest Recreational (F- R), and based on prior efforts and determinations which deemed a more elaborate proposal on the BHS property as being consistent with the ALU compatibility criteria. Prior County Concerns Regarding "Conceptual"InfOrM2t1Dn Are Inappropriate At our meeting on August 7, 2006, which preceded your letter sent August 10th.(and also, as suggested in your letter of August l 0th), you acknowledged that my client never submitted an application seeking approval of the conceptual plan on which the County provided comments dated December 2, 2002. Similarly, the commentary in the County's letter dated April 30, 2003 was in no way a response to a project application. Specifically, you acknowledged at our meeting that the County asked for the,information, which was, in turn, provided by my client. No application was submitted and no project approvals were sought relating to what were merely concepts. We are dismayed and find it highly inappropriate that County staff appear to be using the informal concept information that they requested, to engage in inappropriate "peremptory challenges"— essentially.to dampen virtually any proposed use of the Byron Hot Springs property, which has been for many years designated in the County's General Plan as a valuable historic resource, the renovation of which is encouraged. That staff continues to seek to use that requested conceptual information (not a submittal)to allege that the owner of the BHS property is "piecemealing" the current, limited application effort, is similarly inappropriate and prejudicial. Since.there was not an application or submittal then, the County must start with a "clean slate"now. The County cannot ask us to submit information that is admittedly conceptual, and not a submittal, then "take the information to task," and use it now to allege anything less than the conceptual idea is "piecemealing". That is contrary to CEQA and proper land use planning protocol. The issues raised by the Countypreviously in its December 2, 2002 and April 30, 2003 letters (in response to information that the County admits was not a submittal)are only relevant if, and only if, they exist now in the current, limited application for building permits. ,What drew the County's concern then isnot otherwise relevant. Consequently, your statements in response to our current applications for building permits—i.e., that we "never responded to your prior letters", and that such silence should hold up our current application - is misleading. We ask that that "issue"be clarified as moot, and we are allowed to proceed with a clean slate. M MB:9970-002:685165.1 Mr. Robert Drake Re: Byron Hot Springs Property !' Building Permit Applications September 13, 2006 Page 4 ,Previous Grayling Permit Application As another,threshold issue, you have commented that in order to have a truly clean slate, we must withdraw the prior grading permit application,which the County deems to be still "active". To the extent the County is treating the former'application for a grading permit as. active, we hereby officially withdraw that application. We legitimately believed the application became inactive when the County took action to revoke the issued grading permit several years ago. This should now be a"non-issue". Permit Streamlining Act Issues In your August 10th letter, you claim that the current applications somehow do not trigger the protections of the PSA(Govt Code section 65920 et seq.). We wholeheartedly disagree with your reasoning. The Legislative intent of the PSA is as follows: "The Legislature finds and declares that there is a statewide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects and to expedite decisions on such projects." (Govt Code section 65921.) Thus, in addition to imposing certainty in terms of tune-lines for responding to applications, the Legislature mandated that cities and counties give clear and unambiguous direction to applicants as to what is required, rather than leave them in limbo. (See, Govt Code section 65940,requiring that agencies "shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project,"as defined. Further, Govt Code section 65941 states that"the information compiled pursuant to Section 65940 shall also indicate the criteria which the agency will apply in order to determine the completeness of any application submitted to it for a development project", as defined.) If the current application involves a discretionary approval, then the provisions of the PSA apply, and the applications must be deemed approved in light of County's failure to take any action on the permits within the requisite time period. (See Govt Code section 65943(a),which provides, in part'Not later than 30 calendar days after any public agency has received an application for a development project, the agency shaII determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant...") If this timeline is not followed, the PSAprovides that the application "shall be deemed complete..." (Id.) Your letter's claim that PSA does not apply - i.e., because of phone conversations,and/or because some information pertaining to these applications is being processed at.the State Architect's offices—are incorrect. Our phone conversations had nothing to do with the applicability of the PSA, and in any case the statutory requirement is for agencies to respond to ---- an application in writing. Further, any information pertaining to this matter that is located at the State Architect's office is supplementary, and is not necessary for the application to be deemed MM 8:9970-002:685165.1 Mr. Robert Drake Re: Byron Hot Springs Property Building Permit Applications September 13, 2006 Page 5 complete. Most importantly, the County did not timely respond with any request for any further information, nor timely note that the applications were incomplete in any way. In fact, it is my understanding that you personally accepted the applications when Mr. Fowler delivered them in early May 2006 (more than three months-before your letter of August 10`h), and he explained this issue, without any objectionon your part. Thus,we are not persuaded that the PSA does not bar the current staff efforts to request further, unnecessary information on this application. If, on the other hand, the applications are for ministerial permits; the PSA does not apply (see Govt Code section 65928). However,the County's discretion would, by definition, be nonexistent or severely limited. We believe the building permit applications should be deemed ministerial, rather than discretionary, because they are, fundamentally, for building permits which are traditionally deemed ministerial in nature. This would comport, as well, with the aforementioned General Plan's support for restoring the historic buildings,with the existing F-R zoning, and would preserve the owner's investmcnt-backed expectations. To the extent some discretion arguably exists relating to compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP"), we believe there are important threshold issues to consider. While we are willing to discuss compatibility, we strongly believe that as a threshold jurisdictional issue the reconstruction of the previously operablc historic buildings constitutes a land use which is exempt from the ALUC's purview. (See Pub. Utilities Code section 21670(a)(2).) Much discussion has occurred at the ALUC regarding the limits of statutory authority, and clearly, existing land uses are statutorily exempt. For purposes of argument, however, even if this application to reconstruct formerly operational facilities were not exempt, we believe the reconstruction should be deemed fully compatible with the ALUCP. (It is perhaps worth noting that a more extensive project proposal was deemed compatible by the ALUCP, and that after the ALUC determined the prior project to be compatible with the airport criteria, the County made significant, impermissible effons to impose illegal conditions on the applicant, .It was such efforts that caused a more extensive project proposal to languish, to the severe detrimentof the owner.) CEQA If the current applications are ministerial, the applications are for work that is not a "project" under CEQA, as CEQA does not apply to ministerial actions/approvals. (See Pub Resources Code section 21080.) On the other hand, if the applications are for discretionary approvals, they should be deemed exempt under categorical or other CEQA exemptions applicable to this type of historical restoration project. (See, e.g., Class 2 categorical exemption for"replacement or rcconstruction," CEQA Guidelines, section 15302.) At worst, while we believe they are exempt, they might be handled with a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration,.given the history of other Negative Declarations,used for activities on the BHS property and other nearby properties. Again, as noted above, there is no reasonable basis or substantial evidence for the allegation that we are "piecemealing". If there is ever any further development on the property, it will be fully subject to CEQA, as appropriate and required. MMB:9870-002:685165.1 Mr. Robert Drake Re: Byron Hot Springs Property Building Permit Applications September 13, 2006 Page 6 II. Preliminary Discussion of ALUC Issues As noted above, we were notified very late last week,that this matter has been included as a "discussion item"on the agenda for tonight's ALUC meeting. For timing reasons, while we are unprepared to discuss all issues that might possibly arise at the ALUC meeting, this letter is intended to address, at least preliminarily, some issues, Preliminarily, we note that we would have expected more adequate notice of this,matter's inclusion on such agenda, and are not preparcd to waive any defects in such notice. We have heard, indirectly, that we should not be surprised that our matter has been included on the ALUC's agenda, since my client has periodically, over the past year or two, requested to be heard by the ALUC. Essentially, we are hearing"now that he's on the agenda, what's the fuss about?". The issue is that my client was not asking to be on the ALUC agenda to discuss his current proposal, but to address the-ALUC oil other issues, primarily the County's proposals to rezone his and other properties near the Byron Airport, based on alleged inconsistencies between the ALUCP and the nearby properties'zoning designations. While this is not intended to discuss in detail the County's efforts in that regard, it is intended.to clarify that what my client was asking the.ALUC to address in the past, is distinct from the County's current effort to have the ALUC address your letter of August 10th Those clarifications aside, as noted above, the ALUC should..not take a position on the compatibility issue, but should deem the current application as dealing with an existing land use that is beyond the purview of the ALUC's statutory authority, per Public Utilities Code section 21670(a)(2). Fundamentally, the ALUC's authority does not extend to, or affect, existing land uses, and the.fact that the BHS property has been operated in the past for various uses should trigger such limitation. III. Request for Review by the Community Development Department For the reasons stated above, we believe it is highly inappropriate for the County to seek to make the BHS property owner pursue a process that treats this limited application for building permits to reconstruct historic buildings as involving a fully discretionary"development permit". It is not such.a fully discretionary matter, and deenung it to be such unreasonably contradicts the General Plan policy encouraging the reconstruction of the valuable historic buildings,.and related zoning permission and expectations based thereon. Consequently, we hereby request to exetcisc the option at the conclusion of your August 10`h Ietter, i.e., to have the determinations in your August 10t1i letter reviewed by the Deputy Director or Director of the Community Development Department. Please let us know at your earliest convenience whether this letter is sufficient for that purpose. M 1,4 B M 70-002:6 8 516 5.1 Mr. Robert Drake Re: Byron Hot Springs Property Building Permit Applications September 13, 2006 Page 7 Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and consideration. Very truly yours, MORGAN MILLER BLAIR DANIEL A. M ULLER c: John M. Gioia (Chair, Board of Supervisors, District I) Mary N. Piepho (Vice Chair, Board of Supervisors, District III) Mark DeSaulnier (County Supervisor, District IV) Federal D. Glover(County Supervisor, District V) Gayle B. Uilkima (County Supervisor, District II) Clerk of the Board Dennis Barry, Community Development Department ALUC Commissioners M Nf8:9870-00':68516 5.1 C o m m U n I ty Contra C Dennis M.Barry,AICP .� L O n t ra Community Development Director °`Development Costa Department . . County . Inty Administration Building . JoPine Street loor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 { Phone: y .. 925.335.1276 ~� =asp. " •s, October 2, 2006 Mr. Daniel A. Muller Morgan Miller Blair, A Law Corporation 1331 North California Blvd., Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4544 Dear Mr. Muller: I have reviewed your letter of September 28, 2006, regarding building permit applications at the Byron Hot Springs property. Your letter requested .that determinations made by Principal Planner Bob Drake be referred to the Board of Supervisors for hearing. You should note that County Ordinance Code section 14-4.004 provides that an appeal must be filed within 30 days of the'action appealed from. As you know, this matter involves determinations made by Mr. Drake in a letter,to you dated August 10, 2006. Your first response to Mr. Drake's letter was a letter dated September 13, 2006. If it is your intent to appeal the determinations made in Mr. Drake's letter directly to the Board of Supervisors, then any such appeal will be rejected as untimely.pursuant to Ordinance Code section 14-4.004, since your first response to Mr. Drake's letter was more than 30 days from the date of Mr. Drake's letter. Mr. Drake's August 10, 2006 letter indicated that you could request that his determinations be reviewed by the Community Development Director-or Deputy. Director. Mr. Drake's . August 10 letter further informed you that if the decision of the Director or Deputy Director was not acceptable, you could appeal that administrative decision to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days. You then requested that Mr. Drake's letter be reviewed by.the Director or Deputy Director. This request'was made in your September 13, 2006 letter to Mr. Drake. This request was repeated in your September 20, 2006 letter to me. My September 20, 2006 letter to you indicated that this matter has been referred to the Deputy Director for review. I will assume that you would like the,review process described above.to continue. Once that review is complete and a written determination is made by the Deputy Director, you will have 30 days to file an appeal of the Deputy Director's determination in accordance with Ordinance Code chapter 14-4. Please note that an Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 P.M. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd &.5th Fridays of each month Mr. Daniel A. Muller Building Permit_Applications at Byron Hot Springs; Appeal Process October 2, 2006 Page Two appeal of the Deputy Director's determination must be filed directly with the clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The clerk of the Board of Supervisors is located on the first floor of the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. In addition, a written notice of appeal must be verified and must concisely state the facts of the case and grounds for appeal. There is a $125.00 filing fee for an administrative appeal. A copy of Ordinance Code chapter 14-4 is enclosed, as well as a brochure regarding the appeal procedure in the County, which includes a section on appeals of administrative decisions. If you have further questions on the process of filing an appeal, please contact Mr. Drake at 925.335.1214. Sincerely, nnis M. B ry, CP Community Development Dire or DMB:gms h\ddocs\Muller.BHS.appeal Enclosures (2) c: Members, Board of Supervisors County Counsel Clerk of the Board Robert.-,Drake I lite I IDLINLM/AL I-'KVVIJIVIVJ Chapter 14-4 APPEALS 14-4.002 General. 14-4.00 --�! appellant. 4 Notice filed by appe t. 14-4.006 Settinq.of hearing--Notice. 14-4.008 Decision final. 14-4.002 General. Unless otherwise specially provided, any person aggrieved by an administrative action taken by any officer of this county under this code may appeal from the action to the board of supervisors, as provided in this chapter. (Ord. 70-36 § 1, 1970: prior code § 1207). 14-4.004 Notice filed by appellant. The appellant shall, within thirty days of the action appealed from, file with the clerk of the board a verified written notice of appeal concisely stating the facts of the case and the grounds for his appeal including his special interest and injury. (Ord. 70-36 § 1, 1970: prior code § 1207). 1474.006 Setting of hearing--Notice. The clerk of the board shall then promptly set the matter for hearing at an early regular board, meeting, and shall give the appellant at least five days'written notice thereof. (Ord. 70-36 § 1, 1970: prior code § 1207). 14-4.008 Decision final.. The board's decision, after appellant has had an opportunity to be heard, shall be final and conclusive. (Ord. 70-36 § 1, 1970: prior code §1207). previous next >> i cd U nD 'y 4.i Oto O .�^+. y ar' o y Q O o bA U cc 'cz O t) p cc p rcn. ftY r�i UU •„b„ U .y ''b.. O7>'V . 0myr J: U ryO Ow cz UU - ca 0 CZ I- . pcC � yUC7 V) p cC! ¢ sU. 'p '5 ' t. U t. U > U w � > ��+ CP 0() + L rcz Q1 c�C '� ++ O 'C O ryil >N +p ^�" U N hO 3 O ^ p y 7C o to ".1 y 6� �"" 'v p v y p U ?C RS ���.rr y Mil 'v7 ,,�,� L � ,. .. y +•' CZ 3. 0 Q. aj "" M "'' .�—� n dA RS cz .� '•. +�• rn '" R3 cOd �' > •y a «�. O �.y^. .O+ iU, >> O y .r O +� w L CZ p Z UczL fx cd y �. o i ¢ y n• >, a°i a> o O cz > .� cz a� �+ cu S7. O O .�^. 3 O O �" cz _ 'C7 y b e0i cd O" a� a, "C� rrL GJ A .�. .0 U � O y '0 � � CUO O b .O+ ,^•� ^p � � � yy�,i „rr„� _ y Q i+ c.7 cTjJ. O •O O O O VF2 •'.r-'• +r '� �..+ >, U yr, cn a) � 3 U a� -= Os. L-� y - sU� O +""7• ^_ cJ d s.. a.+ 4.4 cC y "d '� N - U b4 U Cd .. L ^ y cC •-~, to O W �. Q W «^. O " w O U i, b c�a R r w 'CJ.�. co E-" = '�, bAEj 7C �' .^. .•r. .� '� ^fl ..", •::� Or �. a•' i. Cj 'C7 U ,� .U^.. ^" 3 rr > c0 a O C7 -,°' "C O N O U 'C7 -~- U C7 O •'" (nn O ° O •"" ca �, .O eC O U ee! D "C O U > U O y vUi .7 a a. U �' U U U U _ y �" U .. cz .^+ O U U +•' y a) O cC cC f1. > ry•�. _ O :� .fl '.Q •�. 4-a Q, L > O •.Cs cz CZ rn t cz -• r � o a _o o cztz &. ° a 3 as kr) z U O _ p O .. IL. cz U y V U a) y cC y �' O cC cn cz > b t7 > O yO 6UJ O c7 O p 'C V] e :3, cz W rn CL 3 O rn O in c3 rr) > C y^ O r M U w �-•. ;. U C U d y O v O R b '3 Oi ° U rOi Com+ .N y _° ° cC 'n ° O kr) V-) ^ m y c cri tz ,.^. cz C/] s.. C- y r r ry O r0 Z U ^ v w U '3,— .�� i Z U -MU ,^., u .--� a. cz Ln c> w yy U O a) o bA w dlkon U` o o .• 0o En 0 :. ti U z r y p L r = r . .~. •r r O 1�4y - b U -. v, ° LO U) y r 'y cz yp L D ^ O "03r ct > O r1 U Cl. ct 'd cn OU y ^� L U N cp O m ' ti :� r . ° U "U ^� V U . ' ^ Co O p U .. r U ten,,. [n ° G^ ,>'. 0 r > �' -O U y C a; O U O w e .r. ° o U H -c r � Ca Z w 3 o v O o Q w H cy a� o o .. r Lt r r EL U O V) c6 00•' C j '� p 'n 'd U O ^ ti cJ �, c• y GJ i O •--••^y a r N r Crn -0 .7 r ti O 'O O O c' O U . O a� ct L.- o C. U > y O U r ^p. ... > y � "'C1 U ,p c0 Mr (/1 a) �' y .� ^^., U .^r U :•J rn '� vi U U i U CO �/ > .^.. rn M U '. N i .^r. � cct " _r. .� 4y .- y.:.� �-� -rrr i w CiA cz -0 II+ .... U O U ° U C O m r p O ^?_ Q ° o O U 0 v rn r .r. O rn ca O O cU U. r O M. r L:a �' O .1 O~ :: cz 7 U^ O O U O y O > O �" -+ bA r y U0 cu ticN U U o O ca o -^ 9: L. :=7 aUi n ^ a; U C-1 r O O bA r cC U co 3 rn U O V] > O c O Q a "O Or O y %+ O N . . r 'L ^C °y' .. a) N ..�. b m N r1 " rn " ^ > C a L l ^ ,. ° ^ "ro D - y U rr• ° c _ Oa) ,v °c � an zmo. a M. yaU U U ' p v cnO ^ O U^ - Lbm ca R cc cz fb u m = 0 = L) ^ a U C' U .^... _ in y U _ O -025 ccar O .�. O O -u r r H ^. m cs N t v . O r u U Co rn O.v Lt O ^. CD CD 0 ^c7 n dw CD y CD .zj �C @ y CD co w "c9 O. CD � � rl- CO "c ¢ >0 CD CD CD p w n a� �. = � CD , ° ?�. C!' p `�7 �tD r'' r0n cOi `O ria CD, CD cu o o c� O rv� h ' n V+ tNn CSD w KD y n !a- +y CO IN N '�'*. " " r� ... .� a .�cl, ' ++] y o o ".'•` CCD a CD G C �• F `d am'..* CC q CD O CD ►.t .q O O co CCD CD t +r, , vs O O CD sv O n y `C :* p n = r^" O O C, CEJ CD p .� c n c-. 0 w `e O w o -� �' CD m sv McOn CD N CD O p 0 N p' Z t— CD ✓ `� ^'• ¢" a. a, '� o. n �- cs El m cn a* cs t�5 a' �C CD CD a o `D .En �,„ ''L �•C ?; O �+ C4 �'` Ca ..•.`C = CD CD CD co n p' ro ^ C1. �+. O 0 w C "CD L.. to -e o CD n w � tv o G . ... y o '` tD n a G ca' = ^� �. � � c�D ">� , � CD rt ZQ �. � oo � m c�rn' Q as n tn � 2S o C� :t w.• n o � .� CD ; � M. CD w cD cv CD t d p Csj co CD =y ,a. va, cr `R Q y W' C o co �C rte d p� L� m ..• "'' to CD w CD .r L]- (D tSa CD ., "i O o G. + s�. O n ,CDD CD :z ,t w CD `C ro N T3 O O p r O **� n n CD CDCD .n r' ^ is o. °` �.• O � ` o " ``s b �' y o CD CD w o o tJ s,a o a� OD w d c.�' CD p. CD su R CCD N t-A" c:,- .4 CD = n wC� ;a. � o n � t j.� cn CD Ca- N O ¢ CD CD '-: l CD tD N CD CD .a CD O0 O CD 3. o CP C v � O CD LU Q s 0:Z � � a a pCD o En a En CD co 9 4 h a +� w a � tom? ✓ CD O u N a w * CD Z rn h J4:0. .e • " • a Morgan M1IIGr Blair 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-4544 A LAW CORPORATION 925.937.3600 925.943.1106 FAX www.mmblaw.com • - 16 DANIEL A.HULLER dmuller@ mmblaw.com September 28, 2006 Via Facsimile & U.S. Mail Mr. Dennis Barry, Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street—4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-009 RE: Building Permit Applications Historic Buildings at Byron Hot Springs 5400 Hot.Springs Road, Byron, CA #CO 382731 (Reconstruction of 1902 Hotel) #FD 382733 (Renovation of 1914'Hotel) #R 382730 (Reconstruction of Mead Mansion-Office) Our File No.: 9870-002 Dear Mr. Barry: • We.are in receipt of your letter dated September 20th regarding the above-referenced matter, which was post-dated September 22nd, and was received here Monday September 25th. Thank you for answering some of my questions regarding the timing and process for the review of Mr. Drake's determinations in his letter of August 10th. However; you noted that this process is govemed by County Code Article 14-4. These code provisions state, miter alia, that determinations of County staff are appealable directly to the County Board of Supervisors. They do not provide that staff detenninations are to be reviewed by the Director or Deputy Director of the Commmunity Development Department as an intermediate step. Thus, unless you or the Deputy Director are inclined to reverse Mr. Drake's determinations immediately, we respectfully request that this matter be referred to the Board of'Supervisors at.this time, pursuant to the relevant County Code provisions. According to County Code Section 14-4.006, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors "shall then promptly set the matter for hearing at an early regular.board meeting....": M M B:9870-002:691089.1 Mr. Dermis Barry Re: Byron Hot Springs Property Building Permit Applications �. September 28, 2006 Page 2 Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and attention to this request. Very truly yours, MORGAN MILLER BLAIR DANIEL A. HULLER Enclosure c: Mary N. Piepho (Vice Chair, Board of Supervisors, District iIII) M M B:9870-002:691089.1 Com m u n ityContra Dennis M.Barry,AICP Community Development Director Development COSta f. �Department 'Count y 1')unty Administration,Building AC L 1 Pine Street l 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 -- I Phone: 925-335-1210 ° - October 11, 2006 Daniel A. Muller Morgan Miller Blair, 1331 North California Boulevard, Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Mr. Muller: Re: Byron Hot Springs Site-#5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron (APN 002-200-014 & -015) This letter is in response to your request of September 13, 2006 for a review of the determinations made by Principal Planner Bob Drake in his August 10, 2006 letter to you regarding the Byron Hot Springs property. You had requested a' determination as to whether -, your submittal of May 3, 2006 is required to undergo discretionary permit review or whether it I can be approved ministerially. Your May 3, 2006 submittal purported to be an application for building permits to renovate and reconstruct three buildings that had been part of the Byron Hot Springs property. I have thoroughly, reviewed Mr. Drake's August 10, 2006 letter and subsequent correspondence provided by you to the Community Development Department. Based on my review, I find no basis to overturn any of the determinations made by Mr. Drake in'.his August 10, 2006 letter to you. Specifically, your May 3, 2006 submittal is incomplete. You have not provided sufficient information to the Community Development Department to enable it to determine whether your May 3, 2006 submittal complies with applicable planning, zoning, and subdivision laws. You must submit revised documentation to the Community Development Department that provides evidence of compliance with all applicable Planning and Zoning 1aw, and consistency with the Airport Land Use Commission Compatibility Plan. The necessary documents shall include scale drawings of: • A site plan ,with sufficient detail to describe the whole of the project, any existing encumbrances and improvements, and proposed development, properly labeled. It must also contain a survey of existing ;trees and any impacts of the project on those trees in compliance with the requirements of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. • A complete set of floor plans for all proposed buildings indicating proposed uses; • A complete set of elevations for all proposed buildings. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month 2 All plans shall clearly label existing improvements and proposed improvements. You must provide a separate text description of the range, nature, and intensity of the various proposed and existing land uses of the site. In addition, we require information to determine whether the subject properties were lawfully created under subdivision law. Pursuant.to Government Code Section 66499.34, the County is ' not authorized to issue a permit (discretionary or ministerial) if a real property was created in violation of subdivision law. Accordingly, before the County is able to issue any permit for this site, you must apply for a Certificate of Compliance with sufficient documentation, including a chain-of-title, to allow staff to determine whether the subject real properties were lawfully created under subdivision law. No building permits for the three buildings can be issued unless you provide the information described above, receive a determination from the Community Development Department that your application is complete, and receive a determination by the Community Development Department that the development activity proposed at the site is not required to undergo discretionary review. Please note it is possible that after reviewing any revised submittals staff will determine that one or more entitlement actions will be necessary. Any required entitlements would have to be obtained before building permits could be issued. If the project requires the exercise of discretion by the County, it must also comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to issuance of permits, the project may also be required to be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission. In any event, your client must comply with all applicable statutes and ordinances. tlf l The determinations made by Mr. Drake in his August 10, 2006 letter are hereby incorporated, into this letter by reference. I also want to address several points raised by you in your subsequent correspondence to the Community Development Department. In your September 13, 2006 letter, you contend that County General Plan policy no. 3-74 does not mandate discretionary review. Further, you argue that,; "a very involved, lengthy and expensive discretionary review process" would undermine the policy's support of the reestablishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa." , The decision as to whether a discretionary permit is required is not simply a choice that can be made. based on whether there is staff level or County General Plan support for a project. Department staff does not have the legal authority to waive any discretionary review procedures that are or may be required for this or any project. In the case of the Byron` Hot Springs property, as you know, the Board of Supervisors previously revoked the issuance of a grading permit for grading activity at the property. The Board found that the issuance of a grading permit was a discretionary decision, subject to review under CEQA. Your client's petition for a writ of administrative mandate, challenging the permit revocation, was subsequently denied by a Contra Costa Superior Court judge. (Superior Court Case No. N 03-0745.) Mr. Drake's August 10, 2006 letter provides a detailed list of the potential discretionary decisions that may be required for the development of the site. Mr. Drake's effort to identify any potential areas where a discretionary permit would be required.was, in part, because of the lack 3 of information provided as part of the building permit application. The review attempted to identify all of the possible compliance concerns. The information required by the County will be used to determine whether existing: discretionary approval procedures in State planning and subdivision law, and the County Code, will apply to this:project. Second, your letter argues that the County should limit the review to your request to rebuild or reconstruct three buildings on the site. As noted, above, the County Board of Supervisors previously determined that site grading was subject to CEQA. Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a `project" as the whole of an action which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, and that the term "project" refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies, and does not mean each separate governmental approval. The incomplete building permit applications appear to be part of a much larger project. Your client has testified in several venues during the past several years and provided documents that are in the public record establishing that the three buildings are part of a much larger project. A golf course, golf villas, single family housing, an "executive" RV Park, conference center, tennis courts and an equestrian center are land uses that have been described for the site. The Byron Hot Springs web site shows a much larger project at the site, including provision for industrial businesses. In light of the testimony from your client, the evidence in the record and provided to the County, as well as information such as the existing web site,,there is substantial evidence that your client intends to develop a much larger project. Limiting staff review to the three proposed buildings would constitute segmenting of the project. CEQA prohibits the fling of numerous, Fr_ , serial applications in order to disguise or minimize the cumulative effects of a large development . proj ect. .Finally, I disagree ,with your assertion that the County has not complied with the Permit Streamlining Act. No development plan permit application has been filed. There are no pending discretionary applications that have been filed on this property. In addition, your application did not include a statement that it is an application for a development permit, as required by Government Code section 65943(a). Moreover, your May 2, 2006 cover letter clearly states that the submittals are. not complete, and that other information " associated with the permit applications would not be made available until the "State architects complete their review. " Thus, by your own admission, your application was incomplete. . There is thus no basis to find a violation of the Permit Streamlining Act. In summary, I find no basis to overturn any of the determinations made in Mr. Drake's August 10, 2006 letter. In your subsequent correspondence to the Community Development Department, you contend that you were provided with inaccurate or misleading information regarding the appeal procedures. Based on my review of your correspondence and the Community Development Department's responses, there is no basis to support this contention. The information provided by both Mr. Drake and Mr. Barry in their correspondence of August 10`h, September 20`h and October 2°a is correct. In Mr. Drake's August'10, 2006 letter, he clearly 4 explained the process to be used in the event that you disagreed with the information contained f in the correspondence. In response to your argument that Mr. Drake's decision was directly appealable to the Board, Mr. Barry correctly noted in his October 2, 2006 letter that if you were to argue that point, your appeal period would have expired. Thus, if you review the responses, you'will find that both Mr. Barry and Mr. Drake have provided you information to ensure that you maintained the opportunity to appeal the positions stated in Mr. Drake's August 10, 2006 letter. In addition, the County appeal procedures are readily available,,both in our offices and on the County's web site. Brochures are also available which provide telephone numbers for any follow up questions. You may appeal the determinations made in this letter. Should you wish to file an appeal, it must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors within 30 days of the date of this letter. The Office of the Clerk of the Board is located on the first floor of the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California. In addition, a written notice of appeal must be verified and must concisely state the facts of the case and the grounds for appeal. There is a$125.00 filing fee for an administrative appeal. A copy of Ordinance Code Chapter 144 is enclosed, as well as a brochure regarding the appeal procedure in the County, which includes a section on appeals of administrative decisions. This information was also provided to you in Mr. Barry's October 2, 2006 letter to you. If you have further questions on the process of filing an appeal, please contact Mr. Drake at (925) 335-1214: Sincerely, Catherine Osterman Kutsuris Deputy Director CK/nip Enclosures: 1. Appeal Brochure 2. Application Form for Certificate of Compliance 3. Ordinance Code Chapter 14-4 c w/o enclosures: Board of Supervisors Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Counsel Dennis M. Barry, Director Bob Drake,Principal Planner Carlos Baltodano,Building Inspection Department Director F, G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Letters\rev.Byronhotsprings-c.doe �d ODcn C4 W N 0 CA cn s cn cn .r La 0 U �{ tn IPA w -= IPA d � N A cd V ui y, o n opo o V w � y � eta ��� d• k.' A �.t3 ca �•�.^ � � O N S3. o w N o> i" � a) w o �O cn V t)APA ss, rn, C y V say a, IPA ° oma °� a ' °, `a. o��eA� ` v q,o . z�y oy ca O ^� cd ..� o �g ° a? m an coca �`', � U � � SAV W R u `) ,� .. .� TP tAo ip'� . vs d� UQ A• svCD w O- ..3 so cr cr �i CD �' �^- C o OQ o '� p-G m `� �C �chn t7 GcD trfrDD' m CC�.OrC� ,.. r•,,, C Q-POC '�... C �. b"� hr* .unt `p a UQ O Un 0 . 0 0� pu d OR m v-h ' VQ hr *O9. `t co P Eft uawa CD tA s+ h O 0- 0 N , YsN-v+orr+• OoKtD'" sd�N y 5 sv C ? rn .0 UQ 'C3 O rOy cp frr'•C,- v? �t3, °'✓m• `ra° �'C�e tv-*C dcu O�c ao•Osdy OON d► by t`ydC k o�... CZ Ch a o o � � mO' O0• ,,� Nv aoQ O O 0 h r- t a*. N� „-. C c.NDtr sv ►Ca�DC•�O� sv *cC�ctDo''•' Orn 19 ;s� y OQ c : 0 CD wC 0 aCo ° C C et 3 =c. O hO o .40aQCA ,.. 1 'C 0 co mCD W r^, r01- 'C3 y *Xj N .e. �.• 1 CD. y 0 h m ✓ sv m 3 Q '� O-s C R co ,t co ,. `.. C o �. � �?:. V+ sy cc"D 0 � ', m O C) O G tv � S• aQ o., 13- C9 rrA p.� V1 txlJ �'• m O ¢- W Cs O- r0 U' � '� nr. O• 'rS O p UQ w N p t,r, `�' M ,"'l. O O „y "" �, �'' Cp v} C9 ,-.• �' _ i1 C O i1. O 0 O- N �d OP3 CD co wcD e o a C• o �• yrs .-_ '" m CD 0 CD sv �° o0- UQcD OQ C,W cryo �' h '0 6 CDI-p CO O '3 O swig 'a3 o co m sv P;* p P ¢, o-+, O CD T3 •s .• o o eD p h h e° t�o•r � C C � 9 r' O o C -• CD O cy CD 0 aQ sv 0- -.-0- n O Py -, CD -. 5• �- *� P. C . p o UQ W '+' 0 `- a aha p CCD coo �cD Z i coCD `C5 O' ON O UQ'A� CD 10 r+ ¢ .�, .�••' ,r--flit t r* w "-' ^� ,'3 '�-+ CD �r0 ". rn p O r-h CD o.— rf3 a W CD Tn r• ""S o o� Sv t MZ j p h+� �,a r3• o C, Cp r w UQ c`^`D m co `� CD s *" 7y p p er, N *, G d h �' o 0,�3 � o t .+ :: h ¢, <° rt• Cy O O W 0, •--M fD Co r3r PD N t:r ?� ,y sv 0 " O O fv_. CD CT *- t� w so t + w a r 0, CA C5D s✓UQ „ S� t� O a tv C w fv vt O O C Do `� O r+ cD tD d C ,� ✓ C d ttQ O ham.- uN• O `-' ON yC O' .�. t�, , �' © -' '> o Uq cL �.+ "`' 0- C sy + 0 In "d o, Q cD a t9 C �' Cliff a ro Od C a CD ON �='- N d.. Gam ' o w ,.. o 0 "tS Ca, tz v'tz w � CO CD 0n w r+ CD C i `c cD - C d = tw UQ Crd t3 O cu co �✓ p e`er* w ,+� �- C C N O G C PO>p d m oo sy V cD C Lt CDcr 10 h cD "/'�i S� o d ,•,, t Cp.,,CC C '" p- •�p-a h* ¢C hm CD . p,.. `v`"'t'' ", UOQ "t�mD- o, C r�r.'+t• ��t' tj93+„QO U'C4SD SK... Ot Q` p C CD CD r y 0 N tD d0d ~ O 3 0- 0CrOO 0 `t �-- W, Lvt Q 'O h"t O y R+ N0•Z cr o-3 ty C D CD "0 s- p C a m CD Q "Cd h C m l e r CD h 5 GQ o «!r* o ::hOmO CC . IYQ 'C O r--h w 0GO ' •sC+�, UQCD coo p' „O d r' nh` 0. c o � 0 t D `c �� c"a � o p C D C r+ R r n � Q' hi d CD w O O O O O tr 0 O co o. CD r'"�- pdp n t0 0 r+ Cr O svt�. sv ... ttO tv 't! G ` 0 '-" CD CD S"• `rt `� W 0- 0 � `O3' � d L'D"�C `�' t3. sn t9 ,.r "►� N 0- Nr,-t3 C N tD CD C9 .3 "e3± r`Q� r�rr R:h 10 " W 0 L/ly C �- C�p S" .O- ' O �• cD G G C, N ° Gr sv c�D CDD C° " d d AD �- c`,S C�'• -'� p ps O + y?� h 0y � -t QC 'D "o .C -+ hO 0 O � s Ost! C rY o- g =- d p • '" 0 a- sv o- m C Vl O- ,r ^t.. `r7 •• rn C t ' CqD r i a CD cD O CDr s � P CD - N pOq ro ' 1A N CO" �* '�^5- p'2' o h 0 ... •--- `�o O UQ m a. aQ co r'* 4 Morgan Miller Blair 1Iro T%a A LAW CORPORATION N OV 1 3 2006 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C®(dTRA COSTA CO. Honorable John Gioia, Chairman of the Board of Supervisor Members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Re: Appeal of Determinations in Kutsuris' Letter Dated October 11, 2006 Building Permit Applications, Byron Hot Springs Property, Filed/Submitted On or About May 2, 2006 I. Introduction & Summary This office represents the owner of the above-referenced historic Byron Hot Springs property, East Bay Associates, whose principal is Mr. David Fowler. This letter constitutes,East Bay Associates' appeal to the Contra Costa County (hereafter"County") Board of Supervisors, under County Code, Chapter 14-4, of the determinations in the letter authored by Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director of the County Community Development Department (hereafter "CDD"), dated October 11, 2006 (the"Kutsuris Letter"). The Kutsuris Letter responds to our letter of September 13, 2006 requesting a review of the determinations made by CDD plamier Bob Drake in his letter dated August 10, 2006 (the "Drake Letter"). In sum, the Kutsuris Letter found"no basis to overturn any of the determinations made" in the Drake Letter, which determinations were incorporated by reference in the Kutsuris Letter. As discussed below, and subject to further submittals that will be made when this matter is set for Board hearing,.this appeal asks the Board of Supervisors to interpret the County's General Plan in a manner that recognizes the General Plan's policies supporting and fostering efforts to reconstruct valuable historic buildings at this unique property, and asks the Board to also recognize, or at least interpret the General Plan in a manner that furthers, the property's long-standing zoning designations. Specifically, this appeal requests,that the Board of Supervisors reverse the central determination in the Drake and Kutsuris Letters, that the reconstruction of.three historic buildings at the Byron Hot Springs property may only be considered and approved pursuant to a time consuming and excessively burdensome discretionary review process. II. The Kutsuris Letter's Determinations By way of very brief background, this matter relates to building pennit applications filed on or about May 2, 2006, to allow reconstruct the three primary historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs property. After receiving no word from the County staff as to the permit applications, we requested a response from Mr. Drake. I met with Mr. Drake on August 7, 2006, and he issued the Drake Letter on or about August 10, 2006. Thereafter,we requested a CDD- 1 M M13:900-002:701539.2 Ievel review of the Drake Letter's determination, which prompted the Kutsuris Letter, essentially upholding the Drake Letter's findings. In sum, the Kutsuris Letter states as follows: Harmonizing the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance: As to our request that the CDD treat the building permits as subject to essentially ministerial review, the Kutsuris"Letter states that the CDD is not sure, and suggests that determination could only be made after further docurnentation is submitted: ". . . []]t is possible that after reviewing any revised submittals staff will determine that one or more entitlement actions will be necessary. Any required entitlements would have to be obtained before building pen-nits could be issued." Regarding our request that Policy 3-74 of the 2005 General Plan beinterpreted not to mandate discretionary review, the Kutsuris Letter states "[t]he decision as to whether a discretionary permit is required is not simply a choice that can be made based on whether there is staff level or . . . General Plan support for a project. [CDD] staff does not have the legal authority to waive any discretionary review procedures that are or may be required for this or ally project." CEQA: The Kutsuris Letter states that if the CDD detennines that discretionary review is necessary, the proposed development would be required to comply with CEQA and possibly be subject to review by the ALUC. Allegedly Incomplete Project Application: The,Kutsuris Letter contends that the penult applications are incomplete, and that the CDD cannot determine whether the submittal complies with applicable plamling, zoning and subdivision laws. Specifically, it states, "You must submit revised documentation . . . that provides evidence of compliance. . . and consistency with the Airport Land Use Commission Compatibility Plan." The`CDD purports to require the following additional documents: • A detailed Site Plan' describing the entire "project," witl`any encumbrances and improvements and all proposed development identified, with a survey of existing tress and impacts on those trees to comply with requirements of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance; • A complete set of floor plans for all proposed buildings with indicated proposed uses; • A complete set of elevations for the proposed building; and • Sufficient documentation (i.e., a chain of title) to assist staff in detennining if the subject property was lawfully created under subdivision law. Alleged Segmentation of the Project: The Kutsuris Letter disagrees with our position that the CDD should limit the review to our request to rebuild/reconstruct the three buildings at the site, stating: "The incomplete building permit applications appear to be part of a much larger project." Further, it states that over"the past several years" East Bay Associates and/or its principal Mr. Fowler have provided documents in the public record and "testified" that "the three buildings are part of a much larger project." A golf course, golf villas, an RV Park, single- { BMs.Kutsuris notes that all plans should label existing and proposed improvements, with a description of the "range, nature, and intensity of the . . .proposed and existing land uses of the site." M M B:9970-002:70)539.2 family homes, a conference center, etc. are all.land uses that have been described for the site. The Kutsuris Letter refers to the Byron Hot Springs website, claiming it shows'a much larger (f project at the site, and contends that "Limiting staff review to the three proposed buildings would constitute segmenting of the project." Permit Streamlining Act: Finally,,the Kutsuris Letter contests our position that the CDD's late responses violate the State Permit Streamlining Act. It contents that our application was incomplete, referring to the May 2, 2006 cover letter'for the applications, which stated that some information would be made available once the State architects.complete their review,and contends that thus the CDD could not have-violated the PSA. It further states that "[n]o development plan permit application has been filed;'.'and the application"did not include a statement that it is an'application for a development permit, as required by Goveniment Code section 65943(a)." III. Summary of Reasons for Appeal Mr. Fowler bought the Byron Hot Springs property in the late l980s. .His efforts to reconstruct the historic buildings (and at times, to add "`new" structures) began roughly 17 years ago. While this is not intended to recount in detail the history of the owner's efforts to reconstruct the.historic buildings, it is worth noting that in approximately-1990, Mr. Fowler applied for building permits for various structures at ByrgnHot Springs, and received a "consistency" finding`from the Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC'') as to those permits. Thereafter, he pursued issuance of the permits from the County, but those efforts languished, partly in our view, due,to misconduct on the part of County staff, which improperly sought to impose conditions on the permits that were not allowed due to the limited discretion afforded under the F-R zoning designation and then-current General Plan land use designation, Harmonizing the General Plan and.Zoning Ordinance: As to the County's applicable land use regulations, the'Byron Hot Springs•property's General Plan.land use designation and zoning designation.were and continue to be "AL" ("Agricultural Lands") and "F-R" (Forestry Recreation District), respectively. Although the County's prior199572010 General Plan ("1995 General Plan") and the County's current 2005-2020 General Plan ("2005 General Plan"), state that uses such as small tasting rooms, guest or"dude"ranches, Horse training and boarding ranches, improved campgrounds "bed and breakfast" inns, and extensive recreational facilities, and private retreats are allowed with a land use.pennit (2005 Generali Plan, p. 3-23), under Chapter 84-32 of the County Zoning Code, the F-Rzoning designation allows the following as "permitted uses" (i.e., without a land use permit): "(1) All of the uses permitted in single family residential districts and agricultural districts, together with the uses permitted'by Division 84 after the granting of land use permits for the'special uses authorized in any of these districts; except family care homes; (2) For public and private parks and playgrounds, summer homes, hotels, golf courses; organized recreation camps, residences, temporary and seasonal clubs and camps, and other recreational uses." Also, with a land use permit; the ZoningCode allows gift shops;tea rooms, and family .r` care homes. (Zoning Ordinance, section 84-32.404.) 3 M M B:9970-002:701539.2 At various times, County staff have claimed that some zoning designations should be deemed "antiquated"—including the F-R zoning district. However, the County has done little to change the zoning of all the F-R zoned properties in the County. California's Plaruzing and Zoning Law provides that if a zoning ordinance becomes inconsistent with a general plan because of an amendment to the plan, or to any element of the plan,then the ordinance must be • amended within a reasonable time so that it is consistent with the amended plan. (Govt Code § 65860(c).) Here, despite the claims that the F-R zoning is inconsistent with the various iterations of the General Plan, the County has never amended the zoning.for`the Byron Hot Springs property, i.e., it has not.amended the types of uses allowed in F-R''districts not the ability to obtain approvals without a land use permit. The only efforts to rezone the Byron Hot Springs property were based on an alleged inconsistency of the F-R zoning with the Byron Airport operations, which basis the ALUC has categorically rejected. Thus,we feel the most logical and reasonable conclusion is that the General Plan language and zoning ordinances should be harmonized, rather than deemed inconsistent, and that the General Plan language should be . interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the pre-existing zoning which allows various uses as "permitted uses". What appears to have happened is that County staff have sought to improperly erode the pennission historically granted by the zoning ordinance in order to further the County's pursuit . of the Byron Airport, which is very near the Byron Hot Springs property. Specifically, in light of the County's acquisition and development of the Byron Airport, the Transportation and Circulation Element of the 1995-2010 General Plan ("1995 General Plan") discussed the County's future vision for the Byron Airport, in part, as follows: (FF....,.., "The County has developed a new full-service general aviation airport at a site adjacent to the existing Byron Airpark....Long range plans call for construction of a runway capable of serving 250,000 operations annually, and construction of parking to accommodate 250 aircraft. The airport acquisition and development was jointly funded by the County, the State and Federal Goven-iments. The airport boundaries'encompass approximately 1,300 acres of which.only 230 will be developed for airport purposes. In addition to the land to be acquired in,fee, an additional 2,000 acres of conservation easements may be acquired to preclude additional residential development and to control noise, height of structures, etc. In addition, aviation easements within two miles of the airport will also be acquired, later if needed, to assist in controlling development. ¶ The expressed intent of the County is to have a second airport free from urban encroachment, and to prevent the establishment of related commercial or industrial development around the planned airport. Water and sewer services will be limited to serve only the airport; utilities will not serve growth on the adjacent properties. It is also for this reason that extra rights-of-way beyond the airport development proper are being acquired." (1995 General Plan', pp. 5-36 - 5-37.) Additionally, the 1995 General Plan contained"special policies" applicable to the East County Airport, including the following: F 4 M M B:9870-002:701539.? "The County shall acquire fee title and/or conservation(development rights) easements to an appropriate amount of buffer laird around the. plannedrEast County Airport." (1995 General Plan;Policy 5-52,p. 5-37.) "The,buffer"land or conservation easements acquired around the airport shall ensure that incompatible uses will not be allowed to locate within the safety zone." (1995 General Plan,Policy 5-53,,P.'5.-37.) "Establishment of commercial, industrial or residential development around the planned airport shall not be allowed." (1995 General Plan, Policy 5-54, p. 5-37.) Finally;'as noted in our previous letters, in;the 2005 General Plan a policy was added specifically addressing only the Byron Hot Springs property. The policy appears to reiterate the County's long-standing support for the reconstruction of historic buildings at,the BHS property, but also contains what we view as peculiar or ambiguous.wording, as follows: "The'historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site is acknowledged, true rehabilitation of buildings of historic value at the Byron Hot Springs site and the re-establishmenit of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported. The rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs site should occur in a manner that is both consistent' with other General Plan policies and compatible with the operation of the nearby`Byron Airport, as:recommended in the ALUC compatibility Plan. Implementation of this policy should occur through a discretionary permit review process. Any propoSahfor the development.of''a larger resort complex on the Byron Hot Springs site, which may include the incidental rehabilitation of historic buildings, should be undertaken in the context of existing General Plan policies.°' (Policy 3-74' 2005-2020 General Plan, pacr 3-40) We continue to believe that fundamental errors-'have been made in the Drake and Kutsuris Letters; i.e., regarding whether the'County should exercise discretion, and if so, to what, degree, in reviewing development proposals at the historic Byron Hot Springs property that . merely seek to rebuild the historic structures. We believe these errors have caused the process for this application;to be side-tracked,,andwish for such determinations to be evaluated and reviewed by the Board of Supervisors so that this desirable project,which is supported by the County's.General Plan, is not further delayed: As we have noted previously, the main error, in our view appears to stem from a misinterpretation of the aforementioned provisions in the General Plan, and a failure to. harmonize them with the as-yet-unchanged zoning designations. We;believe that the above General Plan policies express a manifestpreference,for the historic buildings to be reconstructed, and distinguish between (and support)basic rehabilitation of only the historic buildings and related historic facilities, compared to alarger project in which,rehabilitation of the historic - buildings/facilities:is:a relatively smaller, yet meaningful, component. -We are proposing only to do the former, not the latter. We believe the above the specific General Plan policy's use of the word"should" is an'encouragement-that a discretioniary'pennit review process nigy or migh.t.be M MB:9870-002:701539.2 used -but such type of review is not.mandatory, as would be the case perhaps if the word "shall" had been used. Thus, as a threshold matter,we believe that there is some ambiguity as to the level of discretion the County might opt to apply to a proposal to merely reconstruct the historic buildings at the property. Moreover,we believe that the County's"encouragement" and "support" for restoring the historic buildings, clearly stated at the beginning of the above policy, would be severely undermined, if, as the Kutsuris and Drake Letters suggest, a very involved, lengthy, and expensive discretionary review processwere required. Also, the fact that the General Plan policy is unclear as to what specific manner of"discretionary permit review process" may be entailed, leaves the owner guessing, contrary to the mandates of the state Permit Streamlining Act ("PSA"), discussed further below. In sum, an interpretation of the above policy that follows County staff's guidance would contradict the County's statement of support and the PSA, and would severely undermine the investment-backed expectations of the owner, based on the longstanding and as-yet unchanged zoning designation of the property as F-R, and based on prior efforts and determinations which deemed a more elaborate proposal on the property as being consistent with the ALU compatibility criteria. CEQA: If the current applications are ministerial, the applications are for work that is not a"project" under CEQA, as CEQA does not apply to ministerial actions/approvals. (See Pub Resources Code section 21080.) On the other hand, if the applications are for discretionary approvals, they-should be deemed exempt under categorical or other CEQA exemptions applicable to this type of historical restoration project. (See, e.g., Class,2 categorical'exemption for"replacement or reconstruction," CEQA Guidelines, section 15302.) At worst, while we believe they are exempt, they might be handled with a Negative Declaration or Mitigated ._ Negative Declaration, given the history of other Negative Declarations used for activities on the Byron Hot Springs property and other nearby.properties. Allegedly Incomplete Project Application: As stated inprevious submittals, and as will be further discussed in subsequent submittals prior to the Board of Supervisors' review, we continue to believe that County staff are imposing higher, inappropriate standards on this application effort, largely in light of the effort to impose highly discretionary review, but also perhaps to burden this effort.so tremendously, that it fails and allows unfettered open space to be acquired by the County without just compensation. Alleged Segmentation of the Project: ,The Kutsuris letter does not squarely address our requests to be granted a clean slate. As noted in our letter of September 13, 2006, County staff have acknowledged that Mr. Fowler never submitted an application seeking approval of the conceptual plan on which the County provided comments dated December 2, 2002. Similarly, the commentary in the County's letter dated April 30, 2003 was in no way a response to a project application. Specifically, you acknowledged at our meeting that the County asked for the information, which was, in tuns,provided by my client. No application was submitted and no project approvals were sought relating to what were merely concepts. We find it highly inappropriate that County staff appear to be using the.informal concept infonnation that they requested, to engage in inappropriate "peremptory challenges"=essentially to dampen virtually any proposed use of the Byron Hot Springs property, which has been for E ; many years designated in the County's General Plan as a valuable historic resource, the 6 MMB:9870-002:701539.2 renovation of which is encouraged. That staff continues to seek to 'Lise that requested.coi�ceptual infonnation (not a submittal) to allege that the owner of the BHS property is "piecemealing" the. current, limited application.effort, is similarly inappropriate and prejudicial.- Since there was not cannot ask us to submit information that is admittedly conceptual, and.not a submittal, then my an application or submittal then, the County must start with a "clean slate" now. The Coli "take., the information to task," and use it now to allege anything less than the conceptual idea is "piecernealin g". That is contrary to,CEQA and proper land use planning protocol. The•issues raised by the County previously in its December 2, 200.2 and April 30,,2003 letters (in response to information that the County.admits was not a subinittal) are only relevant if,.and only if, they exist now in the current, limited application for building permits. What drew the County's concern then is not�otherwise relevant. Consequently, your statements in-response to our.current applications for building permits-i.e.; that we"never responded to`.your prior letters", and that such silence should,hold up.our current application -is misleading.` We ask that that "issue"be clarified as moot, and we are.allowed to proceed with a clean slate. While the Kutsuns Letter points outthat Mr.`Fowler's website contains a vision for.the property that is more extensive than the proposal to reconstruct the thtee.main historic buildings, it should be clear td:any observer that such material is primarily for marketing.purposes.-It was posted long ago, significantly before the current applications for three building permits were submitted. As discussed'further below, we do not feel such"grand" and immensely personal designs, clearly intended to show only what might be possible someday, can reasonably evidence of an effort to segment this application. Moreover, given the constitute substantial length of time and significant funds that Mr. Fowler-has expended, he cannot pursue a more extensive reconstruction effort,but can only-afford to pursue the limited effort proposed by the three applications. Permit Streamlining Act: As noted in previous submittals on this issue, we continue to object to the County's;refusal to adhere to the PSA. A more detailed analysis of this issue will be provided reasonably prior to the Board hearing on this appeal. The claims that the PSA do not apply here are farfetched. The.Legislative.intent of the PSA is as follows: The Legislature finds and declares that there.is a statewide need to ensure clearunderstanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects andto expedite - decisions on such projects:" (Govt.Code section 65921.) Thus, in addition to imposing certainty in tenns of timelines for responding to applications, the Legislature miidated that cities and counties.give clear and unambiguous direction to applicants as to what is required, ratherthan leave them'in limbo. (See, Govt Code section 65940, requiring that agencies "shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the infonnation that will be.required from,any applicant for development project," as defined. ' Further, Govt Code section.65941 states that "the information compiled pursuant to Section 65940• shall also indicate the criteria which the agency will apply in order to determine the completeness of any application submitted to it for a development project", as defined.) If the current application-involves,a discretionary approval, then the provisions of the PSA apply, and the applications must be deemed approved in light of County's failure to take any '. action on the permits within the requisite time period. (See Govt Code section 65943(a)', which MMB:9870-002:701539.2 provides, in'part "Not later than 30 calendar days after any public agency has received an application for a*development project, the agency shall determine in writing whether theapplication is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant...") If this timeline is not followed;the PSA provides that the application'"shall be deemed complete..." (Id.) The Drake and Kutsuris Letters claim that the PSA does not apply - i.e., because of phone . conversations, and/or because some information pertaining to these applications is being processed at the State Architect's offices— are incorrect. The phone conversations had nothing to do with the applicability of the PSA, and in any case the statutory requirement is for agencies to respond to an application in writing. Further, any information pertaining to this matter that is located at the State Architect's office is supplementary, and is not'necessary for the application to be deemed complete. Most importantly, the County did not timely respond with any request for any further information, nor timely note that the'applications were incomplete in any way. In fact, it is my understanding that Mr. Dralce personally accepted the applications when Mr. Fowler delivered them in early May 2006 (more than three months before the Drake Letter of August 10th), and he explained this issue, without any objection ori Mr. Drake's part. Thus, we are not persuaded that the PSA does not bar the current staff efforts to request further, unnecessary information on this application. If, on the other hand, the applications are for ministerial permits, the PSA does not apply (see Govt Code section 65928). However, the County's discretion would, by definition, be nonexistent or severely limited. We believe the building pen-nit applications should be deemed ministerial, rather than discretionary, because they are, fundamentally, for buildin-permits ` which are traditionally deemed ministerial in nature. This would comport, as well, with the aforementioned General Plan's support for restoring the historic buildings, with the existing,F-R zoning, which has never been amended. To the extent some discretion arguably exists relating to compatibility with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ("ALUCP"), we believe there are important threshold issues to consider. While we are willing to discuss compatibility,we strongly believe that as a threshold jurisdictional issue.the reconstruction of the previously operable historic buildings constitutes a land use which is exempt from the ALUC's purview. Much discussion has occurred at the ALUC regarding the limits of statutory authority, and clearly, existing land uses are statutorily exempt. For purposes of argument, however, even if this application to reconstruct formerly operational facilities were not exempt, we believe the reconstruction should be deemed fully compatible with the ALUCP. (It is perhaps worth noting that a more extensive project proposal was deemed compatible by the ALUCP, and that after the ALUC.determined the prior project to be compatible with the airport criteria, the County made significant, impennissible efforts to impose illegal conditions on the applicant. It was such efforts that caused amore extensive project proposal to languish, to the severe detriment of the owner:) IV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above and in our previous letter dated September 13, 2006, and as will be explained further in additional submittals when the hearing before the Board of Supervisors is set, we believe that the Kutsuris Letter incorrectly assumes or determines that the, w' County must treat the above-referenced applications for building pen-nits as fully discretionary 8 M M B:9970-002:701539.2 pen-nits, such as,preliminary development plans for PD-zoned pyoperties. We reiterate our objections to this fundamentally unfair process, and feel that it contradicts the County's General Plan and zoning ordinance; and that the Board of Supervisors should seek to harmonize the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance by rejecting the,discretionary procedures sought by County staff. i Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and consideration. Very truly yours,.- MORGAN MILLER BLAIR DANIEL A. MULLER 9 M M 8:9570-002:701 539.2 IVIUIUQII Iv1111C1 IZPIa1.1Walnut Creek Office A Law Corporation Walnut Creek,CA 94596 1331 N. California Blvd. Suite 200 90-203/1211 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 - Telephone:(925):937-3600 0 Check Date ' 'Control No. Amount One Hundred Twenty-Five & No/100 Dollars 11/8/2006 114515 *""$ 125.00 ie t� 9 2 Signatures Required over$5,000 = PAY Clerk of the Board fA void atter 90 Days LL to the / } Order of N u■ LL4SLS Ii' 1: L211020361: 0L0LSO99V Morgan Miller Blair A Law Corporation Check No. 114515 Invoice Date Invoice No. Description Amount 11/8/2006 11/08/06 re#9870-002 125.00 Check Date 11/8/2006 Check Number 114515 *' Check Total "* 125.00 NOTES ECEI T �,. DATE NO. ,. RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS FOR ACCOUNT MOW:PAID `•=:a AMT.,OF. CASH: 'ACCOUNT' AMT. " CHECK PAID BALANCE. `.MONEY' BY DUE: ORDER.. ©2001 REDIFORMn 8L808 . u 6 m m u n I ty Contra Dennis Barry,AICP E Community Development Director Development Cost Department .. C-4 U my �,--".ounty Administration Building Pine Street Urth Floor, North Wing / \, Martinez, California 94553-1229 Phone: . 925-335-1210 January31, 2007 ' Daniel A. Muller Morgan Miller Blair 1331 North California Boulevard, Suite 200 Walnut Creek'CA 94596-4544 Dear Mr. Muller: The Community Development Department is', in receipt'' of your letter dated January 19; 2007 in which you request an indefinite postponement of the public hearing to consider the appeal of the Department's administrative decision related to the, Byron Hot Springs property. Although I cannot concur with an indefinite postponement, I can agree to a delay.of three .to four months. That should provide ample time to ascertain whether the issues can be resolved or whether the appeal should go forward. Thank you for,this proposal. I look forward to meeting you on February 7th. Sincerely, Q, .Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director cc: Paige D'Angelo, Chief of Staff,;District 11.1 Dave Fowler , Morgan Miller BisIr 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-4544 A LAW CORPORATION 925.937.3600 925.943.1106 FAx www.mmbiaw.com �+ U DANIEL A.MULLER . (925)979-3327 dmullerC mmblaw.com January 19, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL Ms. Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: David Fowler/East Bay Associates'Appeal to the Board of Supervisors of the CDD's Determinations Regarding Byron Hot Springs Site �,-- Our File No. 9870-002 Dear Ms. Kutsuris: Pursuant to our telephone conversation of Thursday, January 18th, this,letter is to confirm our request, on behalf of East Bay Associates and David Fowler, that the anticipated hearing on the above-referenced appeal before the Board of Supervisors be postponed indefinitely without prejudice to the applicants/appellants, to allow both sides to meet and try to resolve the issues relating thereto. 'Please let me know the County's response to this request at your earliest convenience. We look forward to meeting you on February 7th, at,2:30 p.m., as we discussed. Very truly yours, MORGAN MILLER BLAIR dv ; DANIEL A. MULLER c: David Fowler Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Mary Piepho, Chair of the Board of Supervisors M MB:9570-002:734006.1 . TERRA FIi SIA v Civil Engineering - Land'Pa €Su+rye ing c Golf'Course .3815 Hummingbird:Drive, Antioch, AfAA,404 ph:. 925-777-9222,:fax: 925-753-4001, �iir=Bterrairq�a1995.com Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Director. Bob Drake, Senior Planner' Contra Costa County„Community Development Dept. March,13, 2007 651 Pine St. 2nd Floor- North Whig Martinez, CA,94553 Re: ' Byron.Hot Springs Historic Buildings at Byron Hot Springs .5400 Hot-Springs Road, Byron, CA ,. . Clearance of the Plans for compliance withApplicable Planning,.Zoning,and Subdivision Law , Building Permit Applications: #,CO 382731. (Reconstruction of 1902 Hotel) # FD 382733,(Renovation of 1914 Hotel) . ( # R 382730 (Reconstruction of Mead Mansion-Office) Dear Catherine: TERRA FIRMA has been working with EAST BAY ASSOCIATES regarding the above referenced renovation of historic-buildings at the Byron Hot Springs, specifically,ahe "191.4 Hotel, the'old historic:"Mead home", and the:"1902 Hotel:" This letter is intended to provide responses to issues raised byz the County:regarding further application submittals'. Where referenced, we have enclosed relevant'documentation: 1."We will meet all requirements of Section 106.3.2 Uniform Building Code, and the ,design will meet state law and be done by a.licensed engineer. 2. We will meet all requirements of Section 106.3:3 Uniform Building Code and.we will conform to theprovisions of thehistoricalBuilding Code.' 3. - We will meet state subdivision law by providing for example the original patent, and - the transfer deeds (see enclosed). 4. We have met all the applicable zoning ordinance'standardsregarding setbacks, building heights, etc. :, 5. The plan will show compliance of parking standards i.e. 400-420 spaces including the loading spaces. 6. The plan will also meet the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance. 7. The reconstruction will only restore the historical buildings identified,and the historical resort's grounds to their original uses of a hotel, spa, garden, etc. 8. . There will be no grading on this application. 9. Carving out the historical building area from the rest of the 160 acres and leaving the rest for possible future process, is what we plan to do. ;We'assume that would require significant further analysis. 10.The project is supported by the General Plan and meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. We are meeting the General Plan requirements and guidelines by the following: a.) Sec 9-29-Historic value shall be protected. b.) Sec 9-30-Protect historical sites and enhance the historic quality of the.area. c.) Sec 9M-Promote the use of the State of California historic building code to protecthistoric sites in the county. d.) Sec 9N-Encourage owner of eligible historic property to apply for state and federal requirements. We will cooperate with the County whenever possible to ensure (F,.. that the reconstruction of the resort meets all the historical guidelines,. l 11. The reconstruction will comply.with any applicable review requirements.of the, California Environmental.Quality Act. 12. We intend to show that the reconstruction efforts will be compatible with the ALUCP.- 13. As to stormwater, topography of the entire site allows all the stormwater to stay on-site. This is presently being accomplished by both historical-and prior grading that has the low point in the middle of the site. With the several existing ponds on site, along with all the existing sand, and very little impervious structures, there are sufficient natural resources and topography, and ample data to address the issue of any stormwater leaving the site. The plans include proposing porous surfaces, either utilizing porous concrete, or an enhanced polymer to allow stormwaterto penetrate into the soil. Thus, any concern over imperviousness or dust will be taken!care of in regard to the interior roadways;and the C.3 Stormwater regulations will be complied with: 14. The RWQCB has jurisdiction over the water supply and lab testing requirements as well as wastewater. The existing historical and still-being used water system is sufficient for potable drinking water. A water analysis is available to support the water quality. The existing historical 100,000 gal septic tank and system will be used and will have i4. documentation that the system supports the development. We will also comply with the.water conservation and low water landscape with recycled water as per the RWQCB. 15. At present, all the existing sand/gravelporous roadways have atleast'a 20' width, .l allowing the entrance and exiting.of any Fire apparatus. 16. At present,the reconstruction site;is not within any floodplain of 100y ear or-500 year flood levels. 17:At present, no known occurrences of any land sliding have taken place onsite. All construction is on fairly level ground as shown'in topographic maps previously provided. 18.The existing power lines into the property are sufficient for the needs of the restored buildings. Should you have any.questions or concerns regarding the above;please contact us at any time. Thank you, Robert Milano . . Enclosures • Map by Terra Firma Restoration Plan drawn on March 7, 2007 • • Land Patent, i CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - � mg 0,� ca �1,\ �. ✓ TO BE COMPLETED BY'APPLICAIST/ONI�TER udoll WNER,,.., - _a,PPLICANT d Name `— S5 c Name Address ` Address City, State M t—z— -City, State Phoneq:_ 1 Z C X49 UZ Zip _ Phone Zip By signing below, owner agrees to pa all costs,including any By signing below,the applicant agr to pay all"costs fo accrued interest,if costs not paid b- applicant. processing this application,plus ccmed interes sts not .O Check here if billings are to b s t to applicant ra paid within 30 days of invoicing owner. r Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature CONT TP R ONoptional PROJECT DATA ��APPLICATION TYPE Name _,. N Total Parcel Size; 0 Development Plan Address Number of Units 0 Land Use Permit City, State Estimated Projeef Value O DP/LUP Combo Phon • f zip Cornm./Ind. Sq Foci e Other Nam of Request: (Attach supplemental statement if necessary) (1 NMI 1' F" 1 OFFIC SErY ,:r�, ication Description: µ 1 Property Description: Ordinance Ref. Type of Fee: FEE AMOUNT: S-CODE . Assessor's No. ^ *Base Fee/Deposit: $300D S- 3 — t Area 1 VJ 1 Site Address z ( /✓o.�(est-syvrS , *Late Filing Penalty $ S-066 if applicable-50%of above) t Zoning District —� �-- Sphere of Influence #Units x 195 $ S-014 (Development Plan) Census Tract Flood Zone Sq.Ft.x.20 $ S-014 ''/z%value over$100,000 $ S-029 Atlas Page 'est Panel No. (of est.Project value LUP) f S .X-ref.Files General Plan .FilNotification Fee $ S-052B �77-- #Addresses x$1.50+$30 Supervisorial Dist. _<< Fish&Game Posting $ 50.00 S-048 Rec'd by (if not CEQA exempt.) Environmental Health $ 33.00 5884 Concurrent Files: Date Filed _ Other $2 TOTAL $lel o Receipt# File T�}nmiib Other ,t *ADDITIONAL FEES BASED ON TIME AND MATERIALS i "v WILL BE CHARGED AFTER STAFF COSTS EXCEED BASE FEE 1 Con1 'u n{ly Dennis M.Barry,AICP l Contra' Community Development Director Development Costa Department Co-unty Administration Building ` S° 1 Pine Street L 4. �Irth Floor, NorthVing Martinez, California 94553-1229 Phone: (925):335-1,214 April 16, 2007 David Fowler East Bay Associates' ;741 Shady Glen - Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Dave: T Re: _ Response to Inquiry on Proposed Development To Restore Historical Development/Use of Byron Hot.Springs Resort #5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron (APN 002-200-014'& -015) County. .,File;#ZI07-:11757; . This is in response`to your submittal of March 14, 2007 in which you describea proposal to restore the historical development/use of Byron Hot Springs Resort. . The proposed project will minimally require,approval of a development planpermit.: Prior to Filing a Development Permit Application, Provide Evidence that Properties Comply with Subdivision Law It is not clear that.the subject properties were created in compliance with subdivision law. The subdivision ordinance provides that all County departments, officials, and employees vested with the duty or authority to issued permits,necessary to develop any real property Shall conform to:the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act; and any such permit issued in conflict therewith shallbe null and vbid.' (Ord. Code, § 92-12:412) We are enclosing information that describes the documentation that is required for staff to.make this determination. The review is subject.to a•processing fee coverinc, staff time and material costs, with an initial deposii of$1000.. A check maybe made payable to the 2 County of Contra Costa. For this purpose, we suggest that you apply for a Certificate of Compliance (Government Code, § 66499.35) (application form is enclosed). The application should specify the number of real properties for which you have applied for a Certificate. Upon filing the application, the County will review the documentation to determine whether to issue an (unconditional) Certificate of Compliance; or,,if the County determines that the properties were not lawfully created, a Conditional.Certificate of Compliance. If a Conditional Certificate of Compliance is to be.issued and recorded,then State law provides that The County may impose any conditions that would have been applicable to the division of the property at the time the applicant acquired his or her interest therein, and that had been established at that time by the Map Act or the Subdivision Ordinance, except that where the applicant was the owner of record at the time of the initial violation of the•provisions of the Map Act or the Subdivision Ordinance.who by a grant of the real property created a parcel or parcels in violation of this division or those ordinances, then the County may impose any conditions that would have been applicable to a current division of the' property; and • The fulfillment and implementation of these conditions is required prior,to subsequent issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for development'of the property. If staff determines that the property was divided.in violation of subdivision law, then staff will review the staff findings with other County departments (e.g., Public Works) to • determine appropriate conditions to be applied to a Conditional Certificate of Compliance. If an (unconditional) Certificate(s) of Compliance is issued and recorded, then you may immediately apply-fora Development Plan permit with the County. If a Conditional 'Certificate of Compliance is filed,.then you will need to fulfill/implement the conditions in the Certificate before a development permit application may be deemed complete. Submittal and Approval of a Development Plan Application Required The proposed resort restoration requires approval of a development plan application. Enclosed is an application form for this purpose. However, this application,should not be filed until the County establishes that the properties comply with subdivision law; see above discussion. We are enclosing a flowchart that describes the generalized procedures that the County follows in the processing of this type of application. The basic items that are required for this application are identified on the back of the application form. Depending on the characteristics of the project, other types of entitlements (e.g., land use permit)maybe required for the project. We will require a 3 more complete project description and site plans with!more detail°;than you have provided to date to help us determine if other entitlement actions will be required. Exhibits I identifies additional information that is.also needed before the application.may be deemed complete; Exhibit II requests other information to assist in the required review of the project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Clarification of Proiect Activities and Intensity of Operations -Your submittal indicates that the project will restore the original buildings and uses of the former resort. For purposes of our'review, your application must have a more precise written description of the range of proposed activities, and.their.intensity. Other than hotel accommodations, what other activities are proposed? We are particularly concerned with activities that may.require other types of entitlement approvals by the County. • Conference center? • Sale of,alcoholic beverages? (refer to Deemed Approved Alcohol Sales. Ordinance) .Cabaret (singing, dancing)?,(refer to Cabaret'Ordinanc'e) Gambling/gaming operations? • Massage?.(refer to provisions in Adult Entertainment Ordinance). How many total number of hotel rooms are proposed?: If more than 140 rooms are proposed, you'will be required to prepare and,submit al' Measure C traffic report. After the project is built, how many individuals will the project employ? Site Plan Will Require More Detail—The site plan must have sufficient detail to show compliance with applicable zoning regulations (e.g., Off-Street Parking"Ordinance).. Any proposed access;improvements (e.g, driveway, parking, loading, bridge) shall be clearly described.on.the site plan and other appropriate exhibits. Prior to submittal of an , application, we would encourage you to.meet with the'Public.Works Department, Engineering-Services Division to find out if they will require any frontage or,other access improvements along Hot Springs Road (e.g., added turning pocket? Traffic signal?) Please also-note that the project must comply with the Americans with.Disabilities Act (ADA).. The site plans shall be consistent with the requirements of that act (parking', access; etc.). Stormwater Control Plan Proposal.—;Your.submittal indicates that you are proposing`a storm water runoff.program that.will contain all runoff on-site and allow it to recharge into thewater table. We,do not necessarily objectto your proposal; but because the Ordinance Code°doesnot allow the County to accept your application as complete until the County:(Public Works Department),approves your,Stormwater,Control Plan, we would encourage y'ou to discuss your proposal with the Public Works Department prior to making a submittal`. 4 Sian Program—Please include a proposed signage program for the project. The program should focus on the signs that would be visible-from, off-site locations. The program shall include elevation drawings that provide design and color details including size of letters and any lighting. The site plan shall identify the location of signs relative to nearby property lines. Any proposed off-site signs shall also be identified. Application Processing Fee—The review of the project will be subject to staff time and, material costs, with an initial fee deposit. The fee deposit is based on the flat $6000 fee, plus a sliding scale component ($0.20/sq. ft. of gross floor area). Other smaller fee amounts also apply at time of application submittal. Withdrawal of November 17, 2006 Appeal of Administrative`Decision In a letter dated November 17, 2006, your-attorney filed an appeal of the County's administrative decision not to clear building permits for a proposed restoration of the I esort buildings. In view of the County's processing of a development application, we believe that there is no point in continuing.to process an appeal of the earlier County decision, and would request a letter withdrawing that appeal. Compliance with CEQA This project is subject to the review requirements of CEQA prior to considering any approval. Potential areas of concern include: - • Aesthetics • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources Hazards • Hydrology/Water Quality • Land Use Planning • Noise Public Services • Traffic Unless substantial evidence is provided to show that the proj ect will not result in ariy significant environmental impacts, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report may be required. We have identified certain studies and documentations that may assist the County in determining whether the project would result in any significant environmental effects. Requested Information on Project for Environmental Review Purposes • Preliminary Utility Report - A preliminary report,on provision for storm drainage, sewage disposal, domestic and fire suppression water`supply; and public utilities. The site plans shall be consistent with the information in this report. ri 5 • Fire Protection- As you are aware, there is a history of fire incidents over the`last 100+ years that have damaged or destroyed the structures in the resort. The site is located within a State Responsibility Area(SRA) that has been designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). Enclosed is a summary of the development standards that CDF requires for development in this area (access, gate'design, water supply, landscape buffer). Early in the review of this application and before the environmental review is completed, we would encourage you to discuss your project with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District; we would find it helpful if you were to provide us with a set of plans that the District has stamped approved as meeting the District's access and water supply requirements for the project. • Wetland Delineation Survey'-Provide a wetland delineation*survey by a qualified consultant (e.g. civil engineer, biologist). • Provision of Information to Be Consistent-with ALUC Development Policies for the Bvron Airport Environs. Following the initial application submittal, staff may provide additional detail. information on what is required to comply with CEQA. ALUC Hearing of Project for Consistency with the ALUCP Prior to conducting a;hearing on the merits of the project, staff will refer the matter to the Airport Land Use Commission to provide the Commission with an opportunity to advise the County on whether the Commission finds it consistent with'its development policies. - Should you have any questions, please call me at 335-1214. Sincerely, R04 H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. Application for a Certificate of Compliance Development Plan PermitApplicationForm Development Application Processing Flowchart Exhibit I - Information Required'to Deem a Development Application Complete Exhibit Il - Other Information Requested for CEQA Compliance Purposes CDF Fire Safe Development Standards 6 Cc: Brian Balbas, Public Works Dept. Soen Thung, Building Inspection Dept. Sherman Quinlan, Environmental Health Richard Carpenter, CCC Fire Protection District Lashun Cross, Staff to ALUC File D:\Personal\Zl07-ll757.ltr.doc RD\ �t List of Required. Tnf ormation for evelo went p Permit Applications J0.-- - - i }/ 04 . . ........ 'v ` 1 Covering Rezoning, Land Use Permit, Development Plan, Subdivision, and other Discretionary Permits Community Pevefopment Department r No Charge One per Customer L n � o- SECTION 6 O ANCES--AND POLICIES POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT. After the Applicant describes the proposed project to a Planner; the Planner should identify -which of the ordinances listed below should be reviewed by the Applicant in the preparation of the application submittal. ..,Some.of these ordinances will require specific information in order to qualify an application as complete. Before an application may qualify as complete, it must provide (1) the information.specified in the ordinance to accompany an application and (2) other information sufficient for staff to determine whether the project will meet standards within the ordinance. The same rule applies to applicable County policies. The more commonly used'.ordinances-and policies. are identified in bold type. Tin to Project Planner! A. Prior to Application;submittal- The planner should interview the applicant and mark the below listed ordinances and policies which are relevant to the project. The planner should also advise the applicant on how he/she might.obtain copies of those ordinances and policies. B. Following Submittal of an Application`- Before the deadline passes for determining whether an application is complete, the planner should review the application to determine if all necessary information for processing and evaluating a project under the ordinances and policies has been'submitte' d. If there is missing information, then before the-deadline for determining completeness expires,the planner should issue a letter indicating-that additional information is needed before the application may be deemed complete;' attaching the applicable ordinance(s); and identing what additional information is required. 4 *,The Ordinance or Policy requires specific project information to accompany applications:. This information must be provided before an application may be deemed complete: ✓ The Ordinance.requires thafspecial findings be made for this particular use. Bold text identifies more commonly used ordinances and policies. Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete A. Ordinances General Purpose Ordinances ❑ SubdiyJai6h.Ordinance (Title 9)* -- 4N . 11 anne nit (P-1) District (Chapter 84- 66 (] Multiple i y Residential District (M-29) (Cliap er 84-26)* Copy of Other Existing or Proposed Zoning District(R- , M- , A- , R- B, etc.) Ordinances - General Regulations 65/35 Land Preservation Plan(Urban Limit Line, Agricultural Protection, Minimum Parcel Sizes)(Chapter 82-1) ❑ Accessory Structure Section 82-4.212 Building Height(Section 82-4.214) ❑ Definitions (Chapter 82-4) ❑ Home Occupation, Definition (§82-4.240) Non-Conforming Uses (Chapter 82-8) [Note There is a.form at the APC to assist in determining whether a nonconforming use is legal] �k The Ordinance or Policy requires specific project information to accompany applications. This information must'be provided before an application maybe deemed complete. ✓ The Ordinance requires that special findings be made for this particular use. Bold text identifies more commonly used ordinances and policies, _.. 6-2 Section 6 0 Ordinances and Policies Potentially Applicable to Your Project ❑ ' Lots (Includes Small Lot Occupancy) (Chapter 82-18) ❑ Yards [Includes sliding scale (reduced) sideyard requirements for lots created prior to adoption of zoning](Chapter 82-14) Off-Street Parking(Applies to business, institution, and multiple family residential uses)(Chapter 82-16)* Sight Obstructions at Intersections (Regulates height of structures and . . landscaping at the corners of road intersections) (Chapter 82-18)* 0 Dog Keeping (Chapter 82-20) Child Care Facilities (Chapter 82-22) ; " Residential.Second Units (Chapter 82-24)* - Water Conservation Landscaping in Nev,7 Developments (Chapter 82-26) . [Requires Requires s ecial information, standards and certifications to be included . t with submittal of Final Landscape,Plan] ❑ 'Floodplain Management (Chapter ❑ Dual Water Systems (Chapter 82-30) Transportation Demand Management ' (Chapter 82-32) . ] Cabarets (Chaptert82-34)* H. ✓ " lel 1�� ■ u, �k The Ordinance or Policy requires specific project information to accompany applications. This information must be provided before an application may be deemed complete. ✓ The Ordinance requires that special findings be-made for this particular use. Bold text identifies more commonly used ordinances and policies. Section 6 • Ordinances and Policies / Potentially Applicable to Your Project ❑ Airport Zoning (Restricts structure heights and land use within two miles of Buchanan Field Airport) (Chapter 86-4)* Ordinances Special Uses ❑ Cemeteries (Chapter 88-2)(Also refer to §82-6.008)* ✓ ❑ Wind Energy Conversion Systems,(Chapter 88-3)* ❑ Junkyards (Chapter 88-4) 1 Outdoor Advertising(Chapter 88-6)* Sign Control Combining District, S-2 (Applied to the Alamo Business District. Also, the regulations of this district are often recommended by staff in the approval of commercial projects in other areas of the County) (Chapter 88-9)* �F. ❑ Surface Mining and Reclamation(Chapter 88-11)* ✓ [Also refer to Quarry & Reclamation Information& Forms available from the APC] 7❑ Adult Entertainment Businesses (Chap ter 88-12) ✓ Q ❑ Oil and Gas Drilling and Production (Chapter 88-14) ❑ Take-Out F od Establishmentsa ter 88-16 ( ., � 'Agricultural Land Conservation (Division 810) �k The Ordinance or.Policy requires specific project information to accompany applications. This information must be provided before an application may be deemed complete. ✓ The Ordinance requires that special findings be made for this particular use. . Bold text identifies more commonly used ordinances and policies. F` ,�' 6-5 Part Two •List of Information for . Deeming an Application Complete El Ag 'cultural . eserves (Chapter 810-2) ❑ Land ervation Contracts (Chapter,810-4) School Facility Dedications (Division 812) ✓ Tree Related Ordinances ' . . . Tree bst ction of Views Combining District, -TOV (Applied to Kcnsi ly) (Chapter 816-2) ❑ Heritag ee Preservation (HTP) District (Chapter.816-4)* ✓ Tree Protection and Preservation (Applies to all applications for development permits on-properties with development potential where the P P p site contains one or more mature trees)(Chapter 816-6)* ✓ Community Facilities Fees Ordinances (Division 818) 0 Fire Protection,Facilities(Chapter 818-2) ✓ Right-.to'Farm Ordinance (Division 820) B. Community Planned Unit Ordinance ❑ North,Richmond �k The Ordinance or Policy requires specific project information to accompany applications. This information must be provided before an application maybe deemed complete. ✓ The Ordinance requires that special findings be made for,this'particular use. Bold text identifies more;commonly used ordinances and policies. l , 6-6 -. Part Two •List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete D. General Plan Policies Applicable to Spectfis Locales Community Community ❑ East County Area O Oakley-North Brentwood Area ❑ Bethel Island Area ❑ Southeast County Area ❑ Bay Point(West Pittsburg) Area ❑ Morgan Territory Area ❑ Clyde Area ❑ Buchanan Field Area See Land Use&Circulation Element Policies ❑ Center Avenue (Pacheco) Area ❑ Vine Hill/Pacheco Boulevard Area ❑ Pleasant Hill BART Station Area ❑ Oak Road Area ❑ Cherry Lane.Area ❑ Saranap (Walnut Creek) Area ❑ Alamo-Diablo-Blackhawk Area ❑ Port Costa Area ., ❑ Briones Hills Area ❑ Crockett Area ❑ Rodeo.Area ❑ El Sobrante Area , ❑ North Richmond Area Byron Airport Area Policies See Circulation and Conservation Element Policies E. General Plan Policies for Special Concern Areas ❑ Appian Way Corridor �k The Ordinance or Policy requires specific project information to accompany applications. This information must be provided before an application maybe deemed complete. ✓ The Ordinance requires that special findings be made for this particular use. Bold text identifies more,commonly used ordinances and policies. << 1 6-8 �. Section 6 • Ordinances and Policies t Potentially Applicable to Your Project ❑ San Pablo Dam Road ❑ San Pablo Ridge ❑ Joint Planning.Process ❑ Southeastern Concord/California State University -Newhall Ranch Plan Area F. Other County.Policies ❑ .Rural Residential Development Implementation Measures* (GP, Conservation Element) 5/2/96Board Order on Private Rural Road Design Standards* - Adopted ( pursuant to "State Responsibility Area°Fire Safe Regulations" (Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7; Section 1270 of the California Code of.Regulations). . J ❑ July 1, 1998 Board of Supervisors Telecommunications (Antenna) Policy* ❑ Liquor Licen S. ,,-;wProces 9/19 6 ap.5 5-13-00 *.The Ordinance or'Policy requires specific project information to accompany applications. This information must be'provided before an application may be deemed complete. ✓ The Ordinance,requires thatspecial findings be made for this particular use. Bold text identifies more commonly used ordinances and policies. r 6-9 , SECTION 7 DOCUMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES (Air Quality & Hazardous Materials) State law requires that before the County accepts development,,permit applications as complete,. that applicants register their projects with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with the County Health Services lase dote thatis requarement does Department= Hazardous Materials Program, nit zzply to anyr'o�et which soler as described below. for residential construetcon 65850: of the Gov't C1.ode} L r NOTICE TO BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Before a:development permit application can be deemed — complete, the.Applicant and/or' .W; owner is'required to provide ` h. evidence':in writing to the ` Community Development Department of one of the following: A) Indicate whether the . ,. applicant will need to comply with the applicable e _. requirements of-Section , 25505 and Article 2 (commencing with Section ; 25531 of Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of the Health"and Safety Code; or B) File a"Permit Inquiry Form" with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Applicability` The Air Permit requirements apply to all.types of commercial and industrial-projects which generate direct sources of air pollution. x ; Date of Last Revision: 5/13/0.0 Part Two List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete Exempt Projects - Office and commercial buildings where the only emissions are from gas-fired space heating less than 10 million BTU/hour are exempt from the air permit requirements; however associated incinerators, and oil fired boilers or heaters would need permits. Copies of the BAAQMD Inquiry Form may be obtained from.the Application and Permit Center, Building Inspection Department, Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Section, or Contra Costa Regional Permit Assistance Center(651 Pine Street, Main Building, 4th Floor, Martinez, 229-5950). Action Required at Building Permit Stage - Prior to finalization of a building.permit(or its substantial equivalent), the owner must submit to the County certification from the District that the Applicant and/or owner is in compliance with the disclosures required by Section 42303 of the Health and Safety Code. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department.certification from the Air Pollution Control Officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District that the applicant has provided the disclosures required pursuant to Section 42303 of the Health and Safety Code. f'4f, DISCLOSURE OF THE HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TO THE i f COUNTY.HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT The following pertains to applications for development permits that involve one of the uses listed below, similar use, and/or other proposed use where hazardous materials will be handled. 'It also only applies to new development of non-residential (commercial, industrial, institutional, etc.) projects and not to alterations, additions, remodels to existing developed properties. If.(1) acutely hazardous materials will be handled or (2) mixtures containing acutely hazardous material will be handled in a quantity equal to or greater than that specified in Section 25536 of the Health and Safety Code, no application for a permit will be complete and no development project will be approved until an owner or applicant obtains a Notice of Requirement to comply with, or a Determination of Exemption from, the Requirement to prepare and submit a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP). E 1 Date of Last Revision: 5/13/00 7-2 Section 7 O Documentation of ., Environmental Circumstances If the proposed project involves the use or storage of significant amounts of hazardous materials, then State law requires that you provide documentation of those. materials before your application can be accepted as complete. A. Typical Types of Facilities-that Handle Hazardous Materials 1. General - Cold storage facilities (e.g., canneries, milk processors); wineries; and agricultural products manufacturers or warehousers. 2. Automotive -Automotive repair shops (e.g., dealers, body repair shops, radiator shops, or oil changing shops); wrecking yards; and gas stations. 3. General Commercial - Boat repair shops; contractors' yards; equipment repair shops; trucking yards including truck wash racks; tank car cleaning and repair yards;;dry cleaners; printers; pool product suppliers; painting contractors' yards; furniture repair shops; and university science laboratories or maintenance shops. 4 Manufacturing and Mineral Extraction - Chemical/petrochemical processing; refineries; ,manufacturing (e.g.,paint manufacturers, circuit board manufacturers, and catalyst manufacturers); oil and gas drilling; oil and gas terminals; metal working including steel mills and platers; research and development firms; paper mills; pharmaceutical firms; and. federal facilities, 5. Recycling - Drum recyclers; and coke and ash recyclers. 6. Other- Cogeneration F s water treatment and waste water(sanitary) treatment facilities golf courses;end pools (usually in parks or country clubs). B. " Suggested Steps to Facilitate Application Review Prior to,application submittal, to reduce the possibility that your application will be deemed.incomplete, you are encouraged to,follow the steps listed below. 1. Obtain and complete a Hazardous Materials Questionnaire and submit it to the Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Section. [4333-Pacheco Blvd., Martinez, CA 94553; Phone - (925) 646-2286; Date of Last Revision: 5/13100 7-3 Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete FAX 925 646-2073. Forms may be obtained from the Application and �. ( ) l Y Permit Center or from the Hazardous Materials Office. 2. Following submittal of the completed Questionnaire, the applicant should obtain one (or more, as applicable) of the following-documents from the HazardousMaterials Office (allow up to 25 days from date of submittal): a. Business Plan, Underground Storage and/or Hazardous Waste Generator Forms (AB 2185); b. Notice to Comply with the requirement to prepare and submit a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) for the project; or, C. Determination of-Exemption from the RMPP requirement. 3. Submit a copy of either a, b, or c above with your development application documents to the Application and Permit Center. f (Ref. §§ 65940 & 65962.5 of the Gov't Code; Undated transmittal from Laura Brown of the Health Services Dept. - Haz. Mat. Program) ap.31 `""' Date of Last Revision: 5/13/00 7-4 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 8 SITE & PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS'REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I. /Drainage and Road Improvements : : . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 8-1 II. Geotechnical'Reports' . . . . . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2 A.. Major Subdivision Applications . . : . . . : . 8-2 B. Minor Subdivision and Other Development Permit Applications . . . . . . . 8-4 i& -. III. /Disclosing Project Impaction Trees` : . . : . . . . . . . : . . . . 8-5. IV. DTP� ,, ^alculation for:Residential Subdivision/D`eveloprnent Plan Projects . . . . ;. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8-9 . V. F-Ieftd-Haz-�rd . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10 VL Creeks and Unimproved Earth'Channels - Creekbank Structure Setback : . . 8-11 VII. Rural Residential Policy Information . ..: . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . : . 8-13 VIII. /Open Space Space Areas - Fire Safe Regulations.. . . . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-14 IX. ✓Off-street Parking (including.Landscape Area and LoadingSpace). . . . . : . . . 8-16 X. 7 Possible Sale of Alcoholic Beverages . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..: . . . . . . . . 8-17 XI. t It Zone - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-18 XII. /Child Care.Facilities Report' . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 8-19 XIII. (1988 Measure "C") Traffic Report . . . : . . . 8-21 XIV.Aoise Impacted Site ... . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-23 XV. Proposed Activity That May Generate Significant Noise Levels . . . . . . 8-27 XVI. lication Submittals,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-30 XVII�rovision of On-site Buffer to Adjoining Agricultural Uses .... . . . . . . . . . . 8-30 XVIII. e for Meeting.Requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-31 XIX,.'-Projects near Buchanan Field or Byron Airports . . . . . . . . . . 8-32 XX. b tions to Subdivision.Ordinance Standards and Provision of Suggested Code Findings . . . . . . . . . ... ... : . . . . . . . . 8-34 . XXI.Xonsistency with General Plan;Standards 8-34 XXIL Other Possible Documents Needed with Application Submittal . . . . . . . . . . . 8-35 v"Preliminary Title Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ..8-35 vfhotos . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V__�Vfitten Description of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 8-36 Ref)(34 9- Con4pli—ftntr-with Existing Development Permit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8737 ef Gefiftpliattee -.0J.L11-1 nimum Lot Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-37 information on Protection of Sight Distance at an Intersection .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 8-38 Chain of Title . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38 cation rnum P till 1-fnr-St14d+V-1_ ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-38 v"General Plan Standards for Commercial/Office/Industrial Development . . . . . . . 8-39 . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-39 V;.List of any Other Agencies who must grant the Applicant a Discretionary Approval Before the Project Can be Established . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 8-39 Supply Documentation.that Existing Uses on the Site were Legally,Established . . . . 8-41 Compare Proposed (P-1) Project to Permitted Development Under Conventional Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-41 Justification for Application of Proposed Planned Unit(P-1) District Zoning . . . . . . 8-42 Disclosure of Balanced Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-42 Projects Involving Off-Site Hauling of Earth, Sand or Other Quarried Material . . . . 8-43 For Proposed Modifications to Existing Development Permits, Precisely Identify the Proposed Modifications to Conditions of Approval . . . .I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-43 Districts on the Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44, f9firximain Gtft4e44-Pf-eposed Roads and Driveways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44 Identify Proposed Variances to Zoning Ordinance Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-44 Point-by-Point Report Responding to Incomplete Letter.from the County . . . . . . . 8-44 ion: . . . . . . . . -45 Other Required Information: ... . . . . . 8 C", , SECTION 8 SITE AND ;PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS REQUIRING ADDITIONALINFORMATION Based on site and property characteristics provided by the applicant or otherwise known by the planner, the proposed application will also be required to provide the documents and other information that has been marked from the listings below. The information will be needed to determine compliance with County and/or State laws, and County development policies. In some instances, the applicant will need to retain the services of certain qualified professionals (soils engineers;civil engineer, architect, acoustic engineer, arborist, geologist, demographer, traffic engineer, etc.). Failure to provide any marked items may result in your application being declared incomplete by staff. Road ImprovenI. Drainage and m Your-project may require major drainage improvement's under the collect and convey requirements of County ordinances and policies. Additionally, your project may require major road improvements under County 1 ordinances and policies. Contact the Public Works Department at (925) 313-2000 as soon as possible.to determine the scope of required drainage improvements and road improvements for yourpr; ._— ' project. The counter at the Public Works Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 m., Monday through Thursday. ROAD WIDENING REQUIRED Applicability Where the"project for any type of development•permit application will require the dedication of additional road _ right-of-way or road widening; C: RequiredSite=Information r Date of Last Revision:6-30-00 Part Two • Li.v of Information for Deeming ari Application Complete /Th.e-s.ite plan shall clearly identify the location of the existing right-of-way; V/0 required right-of-way dedication; existing edge of pavement; and •. required road widening and other frontage improvements. (Title 9, § 94-2.206(1) & (4) and § 82-2.014 of the Ordinance Code) II. Geotechnical Reports Applicabili A. Major bdivision Applications Required S bmittal ❑ 1. Report Two copies_ of a prelim" ary eeologic and/or soils reconnaissance report. ach report of a geol gica] investigation shall be prepared and signed by n engineering Q loaist. Each report of a soil investigation shall be pre ared and si ed by a registered soi engin r. The GEOLOGic PUZZLES b n..y.....r.w. .. ...w W... required report h ld be based on LE6END Won the latest gradin lan'for the ====--= _ -==--= subject devel m t an hall - b and reference th date o that grading plan. The ormat for e required reports s all generally flow the guideli es for eologic/s ismicIn report required by the Counit r o UHDev opment Department. 11 _'_ _ �. ;;, :<;,,;;;,, .. rep rts shall include the foll Ing: a. Geologic Man - A detailed - - geologic map showing the _ _ location and extent of any 7, h....:...y,.rw f' ge logic bazar t ;: F ..�.., o d o w Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-2 Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information III. Discl, ing Project Impact on Trees Applicability For any application for a development permit (land.use.permit, development plan, variance, tentative map) where one or more existing trees with_a trunk circumference measuring 20 inches or more, measured 4t/2 feet above the ground lies within fifty feet,of proposed development (including buildings, grading,road improvements, patio improvements, etc.).2 The County has,adopted an ordinance that "protects" these trees from removal or alteration. In"protecting" existing trees, the ordinance intends that there be a discretionary decision by the County before allowing removal or alteration of protected trees. For purposes of compliance with the Tree Ordinance, the County requires that the location of all mature trees and'the proposed project effects on those trees be disclosed on the.site plans. � e uire l ; q d Submittal • A. Site Plan - A site (grading and development) plan (or version of the site plan) that accurately and fully discloses the location, species, tree dripline, condition, and trunk circumference of all trees 20-inches (50.8 cm) or more in circumference measured 4t/z feet (1.37 m)3 above the ground \vhose tree trunk lies within 50 feet (15 m) of proposed grading or other proposed improvements. 0: /Trees Along Property.Lines- The site plan shall include any qualifying trees whose trunks lie on adjoining property but whose canopy (dripline) extends onto the subject property. • V//H berinQ of Trees for IdentificationPumoses - If the proposed development is inproximity'to two or more qualifying trees, then each tree With some exceptions, these trees are protected by ordinance. Reference the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance for applicability to various types of projects and ".protected" status of trees. 3Also include any multistemmed tree where the sum of N�hose circumferences measures 40 inches (101.6 cm) or larger, measured 4 1/2feet (1.37 m) from ground level. 1 0 Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-5 Part Two • List of Information,for Deeming an Application Complete shall be assigned a number for identification purposes (e.g.,#3, #5, etc.). (Trees whose trunks are more than 50 feet removed from the proposed ground disturbance need be only denoted by the outline of the aggregate tree canopy.) • /fdentifzcation of Proiect Impact on Individual Trees The site plan shall also specifically.indicate whether individual trees are proposed to be (I) removed, or(2) altered'or otherwise affected. The plan shallN identify any proposed drainage ditches, sewer or water mains, drainage lines or ditches orIr i other utility improvements which would result in trenching. If mature trees are not shown on the site plan as proposed to be.removed or altered, the County may assume that those trees are intended to be preserved without alteration, and a County development permit may be so conditioned:_ Applicants should be aware that a subsequent ministerial permit (grading or.building permits, or approval of improvement plans) by the County cannot be cleared unless it is consistent with the Tree Ordinance and any applicable Development or Tree Permit. • /Tally of Trees to be Removed - The site plan shall contain a tally of the total number of trees proposed to be removed, and their respective aggregate trunk circumference sizes. • Project Construction Activity Near Trees - The site plan (or version thereof) shall disclose the location of any 'For purposes of the Tree Ordinances, "alteration" does not necessarily mean removal of a tree branch or pruning. However, "alteration" is defined to include any proposed trenching, grading, filling, paving, structural development, change in ground elevation within the dripline of a protected tree. Alteration also includes trim by topping (i.e., removal of the upper 25% or more of a protected tree's trunk or primary leader.) 5T hough not required, an applicant may also choose to identify on the site plan a third classification of trees - (3) trees to be preserved (without alteration). However, any tree designated on an approved site plan forpreservation, or so designated by condition of approval, automatically becomes a "protected" tree under the ordinance. No removal or (unauthorized) Jalteration of a protected tree is allowed without first obtaining a Tree Permit from the County. Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 .8-6 Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information • stockpiling, paving, compaction (which may be caused by maneuvering of construction vehicles), parking or storincr of vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, or construction trailers, or dumping. of oils or chemicals which is proposed within the dripline of any above- described tree.b • Impacts to Trees from Off-Site Project Improvements - If the project involves off-site improvements (e.g.,.storm drain, road widening), the site plan should encompass those components of the project and provide comparable information about nearby trees. • Previousl esianated Heritage Tree(s) - If the Board of Supervisors has previouslXTres more trees on the.site or on an adjoining site as a Heriose trees shall be so labelled on the site plan. The site dicate whether proposed development will encroach or a 12 foot radius of the tree trunk whichever is greater.. No Trees on t If the site contains no trees. then the following note should be added to the 'te ..,.. • "No trees ar- ated on the site.'` er Re uire ro`ect�Descn tion Information 1. Photographs of the tree(s) to be affected by proposed,development. 2. Written statement-indicating: description of any qualifying tree that is proposed to be "trimmed by topping", that is, the removal of the.upper 25% or more of a tree's trunk or primary leader, and the �t extent.of the proposed trimming; = the reason(s)for alteration or removal of existing trees; These construction related activities are normally prohibited by the Tree Ordinance. • Date of Last Revision:'6-30-00 8-7 C-7\ Part Two e List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete - the proposed method of tree alteration or removal; - information indicating the effect of tree alteration or removal ori soil stability and erosion if located on a steep slope or near any creek; and whether the applicant is agreeing to include any recommended restorative/remedial measures contained in an arborist report if submitted (see below). Arborist Report which may be Required by County Staff ❑ Arborist or Forester Report - Two copies of an.arborist report on the proposed development may be required by County.staff if(1) the reasons for alteration or removal relate to the health of the tree; or (2) if grading, trenching or filling is proposed under the dripline of an existing tree; or (3) the review is of a collective tree permit and (County staff)determines that more technical expertise is necessary to make the decision. The arborist report must follow the guidelines listed below: rry Report Preparer Qualifications - The report shall be prepared by a person who is either (1) certified by the Western Chapter of the International Society of • Arboriculture, as an expert on the care of woody trees, shrubs and vines in the landscape, (2) a:consulting arborist who satisfies the requirements of the American Society of Consulting Arborists, or (3) such other arborist who, after review by the Director of Community Development, is determined to meet the standards established for certified or consulting arborists hereinabove described. The report (or cover letter from the arborist) shall indicate how the individual meets these qualifications. Report Content- Minimally, the report shall provide: - the possible impact of development on trees or existing tree condition; - the impact of any alteration; the restorative or other remedial action that might be feasible to address tree alterations; and - whether after following any recommended restorative or remedial action, the project would still result in significant damage to any altered tree(s). l Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 g-� Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information Other Desirable Content -The report is also encouraged to: indicate that the arborist has reviewed the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance; and indicate that the report has incorporated into its review the factors which the County is required to consider prior to approval or denial of the removal or alteration of protected trees (ref. § 816-6.8010 of the Ordinance Code). (Ref. Chapter 816-6 of the Zoning Code, Tree Protection and Preservation; Particular reference.to § 816-6.1004; Chapter 816-4, Heritage Tree Preservation; and Policy 8-6 of the Conservation Element of the General Plan,pg. 8-26) IV. Net creage Calculation for Residential Subdivision/development Plan Proj ec f Applicabili The following in ormation should be requ' d for any residential subdivision or development plan oject (single fami or multiple family) for purposes of determining consistency with gen ral plan unit ensity standard. Required Information ❑ Please provide a site an (o revised version of a site plan) that identifies the gross and ID net acreage of the p 'ect site r purposes of determining consistency with the general plan unit density andard by on of the following methods: A. Assu ed Net Acreage - The et acreage is assumed to consist of the following bas d on the type of developm nt project. Single Family Residential 75% of the gross acreage. .2. Multiple Family Residential - % of the Gross acreage. B. Calculated Net Acreage Where sufficient roject information is available, the general plan also allows for an alternative me s of determining the net acreage of a project. This calculation is based on'the area of exclusive residentialuse. rDate of Last Revision:6-30-00 8-9 Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete until a parcel map or final map is filed. Should you have any questions on placement of proposed leachfields, please direct them to the Environmental Health Division of the Health Services Department at 646-2521. B. Identification of Grades Where the proposed roads,.driveways and/or leachfield sites are on sloping terrain, the maximum grade of each shall be identified on the site plan. C. Fence Enclosure for Each Parcel -The site plan shall provide for adequate (e.g., 6-foot tall) fencing to enclose each proposed residential site with all gates to be closeable by a nearby rancher/farmer. The purpose of the fence is to contain dogs and to prevent them from preying on grazing animals. (Ref. Implementation Measure #8.w. of the Conservation Element of the General Plan, pp. 8-43 thru 8-45; County Health Officer Regulations, Section 470-1.608) .VIII. Open Space Areas - Fire Safe Regulations .__...'` Applicability To all development applications (subdivisions, land use permits, development plans, etc.) within hilly.areas designated for open.space uses on the General Plan. [More precisely, all areas within a State Responsible Area (SRA) as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFF). Refer to the colored map issued by the CDFF at the Application & Permit Center.] equired Submittals A. Site Plan Information Road and Driveway Design Standards - Identification of existing and proposed road and driveway design standards including minimum improved width, maximum grade, minimum curve radius, load capability, minimum vertical clearance, location and design of any proposed turnarounds and turnouts, roadway surfacing, and location of any proposed gated entrances. In a Board Order dated May 2, 1995, the Board of Supervisors adopted the "Private Rural Road Design Standards." Copies may be obtained from the clerk at the Application & Permit Center. Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-14 Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Infonnation Emergency Water Supply- Identify the location'and size of any proposed tanks or other reservoirs intended to satisfy the emergency water supply standards pursuant to the SRA Fire Safe Regulations. (Note, the location of .' tanks for domestic water supply must also be shown on the site plan pursuant to the.Rural Residential 'Requirements.) Note. For subdivision applications, the above information is required in addition to the information required.pi rsuant to Section 94-2.204 of the Ordinance Code. B. Written Statement Statement on Whether all SRA Standards Are Being Met - Provide a written statement on whether alfstandards contained in the 5/2/95 Board Order are being met. If any exceptions.are being requested, please specify which standards they are, and why you believe it would be reasonable for the County to grant those exceptions. (` Prior-to submittal to the ComnlUnity Developrnew Department, the applicant should refer the site plana to: Public Works Department - Sunshine Forest Fire Station Engineering Services Division California Department of Contra Costa County Forestry 25.5 Glacier Drive, Martinez, 11851 Marsh Creek Road, (925) 31 3-2000Cldyton (925).672-6400 so that-those agencies might first stamp the plans(or verify in writing) that they meet the State and County Fire Safe Regulation standards. (Ref. 512195 Board Order Adopting Private Rural-Road Design Standards; Fire Safe Regulations, Public Resources'Code 4290) .Tip to Proiect Planner! The Co;untwide SRA display map is located in the Application and Permit Center. Copies of the above listed Board Order may be found in the ordinance cabinet behind the receptionist at the Application and Permit Center. • Date of Last Revision:6-30-00 '8-15 . Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete After receiving the above documents,forward copies of both the site plan and the written statement on compliance with SRA standards to the following agencies for review and comments: The Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division; and • Sunshine Forest Fire Station California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection 11851'Marsh Creek Road . Clayton, CA 94517 IX. Off-street Parking(including Landscape Area and Loading Space) Applicability For all commercial, industrial, institutional, multiple-family residential development. Required Submittal The site plan shall provide sufficient site plan information about any proposed off-street • parking and landscape planter area for the project to allow a comparison against the standards of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance, and, if applicable, the parking/landscape standards of the Multiple Family Residential Ordinance (M-29). [For example, number of spaces, dimension and angle of spaces, etc.] The site plan shall indicate the intensity of use (e.g., floor area, seating, etc.) to allow a comparison with the ordinance standard. • Listing of Variances and Suuaested Findings - If variances to code standards are being requested, then those shall be identified with the application and the . applicant should provide in writing suggested reasons as to why it would be reasonable for the County to grant the requested variances. • Disclosure of Other Activities Using Same Facilities - If the project is part of an existing facility that shares parking with other uses, then the site plan shall contain sufficient information to allow for evaluation of the proposed project in the ' context of the ordinance requirements for the other activities that use the same parking facilities. • /Loading Spaces - If the project is proposing retail. wholesale, manufacturing, warehouse, or similar use Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-16 Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information. . requiring receipt or distribution by vehicles of materials,the ordinance may require provision of off-street loading spaces. [Reference the Off-Street Parking Ordinance (Chapter 82-16) and the Multiple Family Residential District, M-29 (Chapter 84-26)] . X. Possible.Sale of Alcoholic Beverages Applicability For any retail commercial project requiring a discretionary permit (including applications for land use permit to establish a take-out food operation). Re fired Submittal The applicant shall provide a written statement indicating whether retail alcoholic beverages (on-sale or off-sale) are or will be sought Nvithin the proposed project. Tip to Project Planner! This information must be provided in • the pre-hearing agency referral to local community groups (e.g., MAC's, HOA's), the Sheriff's office, and the Health Services'Department(Substance Abuse.Advisory Coli17)ilttee). If retail sales of alcoholic beverages is sought now or in the future, it will require the issuance"of a license by the �� x California Department of Alcoholic Beverages (ABC). State law may re f Srequire the.Board o Supervisors to.make•"a q uP Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity before the ABC may issue a license. [Ref. to 9/19/95 Board Order and § 23958.4(b)(2) of the Business & Professions Code] XI. Noperty ault ne ` , Gated within a designated Earthquake r ) ( erly known as Alquist-Priolone) in lving either } Date of Last Revision:6-30-00 g-1 Section 8 • Site &.Project Characteristics equiring Additional Information Site Plan -The site p shall identify the loc n of any hazard of surface fault rupture (potentially.or recently a ive faults), a e report recommendations pertaining to site plan restrictions. (Ref. Chapter 7.5 of the P lic R ources Code & AB 672 (Woodruff), Approved by Governor 1017193.). Ti to Pro'ect P nner! - Provide a copy of t geology report together with a copy of the site plan wit a cover note to the County Cons ing Geologist for comments. . XII. ' Chid Care Facilities Report Applicability Any development permit application for a residential project consisting of 30 or more proposed lots/units.' y .t` Exemptions - There are a number of exemptions from the requirement to prepare a child care facilities report including senior housing. Before preparing a report, the Applicant is urged to review the Child Care Facilities Or finance or consult with the Application and 1 Permit Center.. 4uired Submi ✓ R qttal b'� ❑ 5 Facilities Report (Child Care Survey) - Submit twYclop es of a report that (1) assesses the demand for child care facilities that would be caused by the proposed.project, and (2) an appropriate response program showing how the child care demand from'the project are to be mitigated within Contra Costa County. A. Assessment of Estimated Child Care Service Needs of Project - The report shall . include include an assessment of the estimated child care service needs caused by the proposed project. B. Response Program -The response program shall include information: 7The County Ordinanc �dicates that commercial an trial uses are subject to the child c' e ordinanc -requirement. Wever, that provision has been re-empted b recent State \•T j Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-19 Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application.Complete • on the location and capacity of existing or proposed child care facilities and how these will be-used, established. maintained and operated; and • addressing the affordability of the child care to be provided. • how those needs for child care services identified in the assessment are to be mitigated within the county including. but not limited to, the manner in which the establishment of those services and.the use of child care facilities will be assured by the availability of qualified care providers and related resources. If the response program recommends that child care facilities be provided by existing facilities or through proposed,facilities of others not part of the project, the Applicant shall provide sufficient information to the Community Development Department to determine that the child care needs generated by the project shall be mitigated. To the extent possible, child care facilities shall be integrated with other facilities. Cooperative efforts with public and private schools shall be encouraged as the preferred method to provide off-site childcare. Coordinated use of recreational or . common areas within projects, with churches. parks or community facilities is to be fostered as a secondary method to provide child care facilities. The Community Development Department will make a determination of the adequacy of the report within 30 days of application submittal. Facilities Report Review Filing-Fee - Submittal of the report shall.be accompanied by a filing fee of$970. e (Ref. Chapter 82-22 of the Zoning Code, Child Care Facilities Ordinance) Tip to Protect Planner! - Provide a copy of the child care report and a (reduced copy of a) site plan to the Child Care Program Review Planner(Debbie Chamberlain) with a. cover note requesting comments prior to deadline for determining application to be complete. Section 82-22.806(c) of the Ordinance.Code requires that staff determine the adequacy of. the response document at least 30 days prior to the public hearing on the project. Report b)) County Selected Consultant - If staff deternnines that child care needs have not been adequately documented or that an acceptable response program for a proposed • Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-20 Section 8.0 Site-,&Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information project has been submitted, then the project planner should so inform the applicant before the application is accepted as complete (either by default or by timely notification). Also, in this instance the Ordinance Code authorizes staff to require that the applicant to enter into a contract with the county to provide for the preparation of a report by a consultant selected by the Community Development Department, but paid for by the applicant, to evaluate and assist in the determining of child care needs and programs to adequately address those needs for the proposed project. The letter to the applicant should suggest.how a workable program can be developed and the timeframe in which this program must be developed. XIII. (1.98 0 easure "C' ) Traffic Report M,• Any application fora development permit (except variance) 4 Ya that would result in 100 or more peak hour trips. The ■ �:. �'x ' following project thresholds are generally applied in ' , $' determining whether a project would generate that level of -���;�► traffic. Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-21 ' Part Two • List of Information for c Deeming an Application Complete TABLE 8-1 GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING IF PROJECTS REQUIRE 1988 MEASURE C TRAFFIC REPORT TYPE EEEY1 ZE Single Family, Detached 100 d«velling units (d.u.'s) Apartments 150 d.u.'s Condominiums 180 d.u.'s. ile Home P2rkq 180 d.u.'s Motel 140 rooms Light Industrial 100,000 sq. ft. (9290 m2) _ General Office 35,000 sq. ft. (3250M 2) Medical Office 28,000 sq. ft. (2600 MZ) Fast Food Restaurant 3,000 sq. ft. (280 m2) Discount Store 16,000 sq. ft. (1500 m'-) 'Convenience Market 1,500 sq. ft. (140 m2) Supermarket 11,000 sq. ft. (1029 m2) Bank (Drive-In) 3,700 sq. ft. (344 m2) Source: ITE Trip Generation, 4th Edition If the proposed activities of a project do not fit into one of the above categories, then among the categories that come closest to the proposed activity, the category shall be selected which.results in the highest volume of peak period traffic. In these instances, applica wis to consult with the Pulh'c-VYIT s--D,—_ nent�staff. Required Submittal ❑ Submit three copies o a repo bl project's traffic impacts. The report shall be in accord with the reporting requirements of Resolution No7/786 of the Board of Sue isors, A opting Interim Application Level � , �YO V�00'vt5 a*-- c—L-< r VJ Dat -00 8-22 "1 Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information of Service Standards in accordance with the Growth Managment Requirements of 1988 Measure C H611.1 tided on pecific content of reportfrom Public Works Contact the Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division at (925) 313-2254 on the appropriate scope and content of the report. (Ref. Implementation Measure#4.c. of the Growth Management Element of the General Plan,pg. 4-12; Resolution No. 891786, Adopting Interim Application of Level of Service Standards in Accordance with the Growth Management Requirements of 1988 Measure "C") Tip to Project Planner! - Forward copies of the traffic report to the Engineering Services and Traffic Divisions of the Public Works Department for comment.. If a project may qualify as one that generates 100 or more peak hour trips, then a copy of the application must be referred to (1) the Public Works Department - Transportation Engineering Division and.(2) the area transportation advisory commission at time of application submittal: West County -.WCCTAC; San Ramon Valley Area - SWAT; East County - TRANSPLAN; and Diablo Valley - TRANSPAC. XIV. Noise Impacted Site Applicability Any application for a development permit where: . A • the site is located within an area that is presently subject to significant noise-impacts, or within an area that is projected to be within a noise-impacted area (ref. Noise Contour Maps in the Noise Element of the General Plan, Figure 11-5, A-U); and • .. all or a portion of the project would be sited within an area where the proposed use is identified by the "Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments," Figure 11-6 of the Noise Element as lying within a noise exposure range designated as Normally Unacceptable or Conditionally Acceptable. 1 Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-23 Table 8 2 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE ( . ' "LAND USE CATEGORY Ldn OR CNEL, dB 55 60 65 70 75 80 ` RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY %j( r � ."GLE FAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES h RESIDENTIAL-MULTI FAMILY TRANSIENT LODGING- MOTELS, HOTELS IBRARIES --------------- CHURCHES, HOSPITALS, . . NURSING HOMES AUDITORIUMS,CONCERT HALLS,'AMPHITHEATERS SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR. SPECTATOR SPORTS HHHHHHH! Ili 1 11 PLAYGROUNDS, ( NEIGHBORHOOD-PARKS Milli did GOLFR COU SES, RIDING _ STABLES,WATER RECREATION, CEMETARIES OFFICE"BUILDINGS, - BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, UTILITIES,AGRICULTURE NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory,based New construction or development should upon the assumption that any buildings generally be discouraged. If new construction involved are of normal conventional or development does proceed, a detailed construction,without any special noise analysis of the noise reduction requirements insulation requirements. must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CONDITIONALLY UNACCEPTABLE CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the New constniction or development clearly should noise reduction' requirements is made and needed not be undertaken. noise insulation features included in the design.. For(ands within 3 miles of Buchanan Field and the East Contra Costa CountyAirpori noise compatibility shall be adjusted to those of the ALUC which are roughly 5 CNEL lower than shown on this table. Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Infonnation The Noise Element indicates that properties in proximity to the following facilities will be subject to significant noise levels associated with projected conditions for the Year 2005. Freeways Major Arterials Route 4 Appian Way Marsh Creek Road Route 24 Alhambra Valley Rd. Pacheco Boulevard Route.80 Bethel Island Road Pleasant Hill Road Route 160 Byron Highway Port Chicago Hwy. Route 680 Camino Diablo Reliez Valley Rd. Operating Railroads Clayton Road Richmond Parkway and Transit Crow Canyon Road San Pablo Avenue Cummings Skyway San Pablo Dam Road AT&SF Cypress Road Stone Valley Road Southern Pacific Danville Boulevard Camino Tassajara � BART Delta Expressway Taylor-Boulevard Airports' Gateway Boulevard Vasco.Road Kirker Pass Road Willow Pass Road Buchanan Field Laurel Road Ygnacio Valley Road yron Lone Tree Way The noise compatibility of a specific site and proposed project can be determined by (�fRequi =AiPermit Center at 925) 646-160. w �' r ❑ 1. AcousticReport - Submit two copies of a report prepared under the supervision of a.person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering (the County can provide a list of acceptable acoustical consulting firms) documenting projected (ultimate) noise conditions affecting the site. The report preparer shall consult the goals, standards, policies and implementation measures of the Noise Element of the General Plan. The report shall utilize the same measures of noise levels as are used in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-25 • �'- Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete, For projects that may be affected by projected (ultimate) noise conditions from vehicular traffic, the preparer shall contact the Community Development Department, Transportation Planning Division [(925) 335-1240], on traffic levels of nearby major roads projected to the Year 2010. The report shall: • be consistent with the Building Code adopted by the County, based on a consultation with a structural engineer within the Building Inspection Department [(925) 335-1119].. • indicate that the report's analysis and recommendations are based on the goals, standards, policies and implementation measures contained in the Noise Element of the General Plan, shall indicate that the preparerer has reviewed that document; • identify the assumptions (e.g., projected traffic levels) on which the analysis is based; Cbe based on ultimate road design (planned street width); • •' document projected ultimate noise conditions in the vicinity of the P J (ultimate) Y project asdocumented in either the Noise Element or as independently calculated by the acoustical engineer; (The Noise Element indicates that site specific noise levels and other acoustical issues should be addressed in the acoustical report); • analyze the project and recommend specific measures where feasible to mitigate any identified noise impacts; and • identify any significant noise impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. If there are no noise impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance, then that shall be so stated in the report. identify the applicable credentials of the report preparer and any supervisor of the report preparer. 2. Statement from Applicant -.With the application submittal, the Applicant shall" include a statement as to whether or not it is his/her intent to fully implement the recommended mitigation measures contained in the Acoustic Report. 4 �/ Date of Last Revision:6-30-00 8-26 Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information 3. Site Plan Information - The site plan (or version of the site plan) shall identify the location of: • the projected (ultimate) noise contours on the site as certified on the site plan by the preparer of the acoustic report, but not below a day/night _average sound level (DNL) of 45 decibels (dB) level. • any proposed soundwalls that the Applicant has agreed to install, and provide a soundwall elevation that identifies the construction specifications recommended in the acoustic report. [Ref. The Noise Element (Chapter 11) in the General Plan; and§ 1208A.8.5 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code, Appendix Chapter 12A] Tip to Proiect Planner! - Provide a copy of the acoustic report with the site plan containing the noise contour-lines to the Building Inspection Department(to the attention of one of the structural engineers)for comment. It should be noted that the projected noise impacts along in the general plan adjacent to some freeways do not take into account recently-erected soundwalls which were erected some time after the General Plan was adopted. These soundwalls serve to attenuate much of the noise from freeway traffic. Where such soundwalls have been erected next to a project, it may be appropriate for the project planner to visit the site and guage the level-of noise before requiring a noise study. XV. Proposed Activity hat May Generate Sicnifica Oise Levels Applicability Any application for a developm t permit f r a proposed project that may generate significant noise levels (e.g., auto epair op). Recommended Submittals ❑ 1. Acoustic Report - Submi o cop] of a report prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in he field of aco tical engineering (the County can provide a Ii of accep able acoustical cons ing firms) documenting projected noise conditions aff ting the site. The repo, shall utilize the same measures of noise levels as are sed in.-the Noise Element of the General Plan. The report Date of Last Revision:6-30-00 8-27 o Y Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information. Uses Sectio of the Land Use Element (Chapter 3 of General Plan). Note, these standar s may exceed those required b oning. Land Use esignation Maxim e Coverage Max' um ilding Height aximum Floor rea Ratio Average Employees r Gross Acre (Refer to e Land.Use Element of the General n) I1. ..Other Possible Documents Needed with Application Submittal Listed below are other documents that must be obtained before the application can be f deemed complete. Preliminary Title Report This report is usually available from a title insurance company. Among other information, it provides clarification on encumbrances (e.g., easements and rights-of-way) with regards to the nature of the encumbrance, Z- its location and the parties who have possessory rights over the encumbrance. . Tip to Project Planners - The nature, extent and holders of encumbrances (easements) on a project site may not be clear. Also,the easements which benefit a project site may not be clear. A preliminary title report can provide information that will often clarify these circumstances. This information may improve the accuracy of site plans, and review of site plans by planners. In some circumstances (e.g., underground fuel pipeline, sanitary sewer easements), the information can be used to notify potentially,interested parties of proposed activities before the project is heard and the environmental review is completed. Photos - Photographs of Site (and, if appropriate, adjoining properties). It is sometimes helpful to include a report-scale map indicating the vantage points and direction of view for identifying the location where photos were taken. Date of Last Revision:6-30-00 8-35 ( � Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an.Application Complete Written Description of the Project10- A written description detailing all proposed activities and maximum use intensity associated with the proposed project. The description might include the maximum number of employees and/or customers to be served on the site at any time of day. It might also.include a description of the type and size of service vehicles to use the site on a regular basis. It should include a description of the proposed hours of operation, days of the week. The description shall include a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project; and a general description of the project's technical, economic, and . environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals if any and supporting public service facilities. Tip to Project Planner! - The scope and nature of activities associated with some development permit submittals (particularly institutional, commercial or industrial projects) are sometimes not sufficientl*•defined for purposes of the staff review for(1) determining consistency with general plan policies; (2) determining compliance with zoning regulations; andlor(3) evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. _ The above written description should be required when a proposed project is not r sufficiently defined by the applicant to allow staff: to verify that.the applicant has applied for the correct (or for all of the correct) entitlement applications, or that the scope of the entitlement has been fully and adequately identified; 0 to assess potential environmental impacts of the project and to learn of public agencies which might have related project responsibilities under CEQA; and • to assess applicability of zoning requirements(e.g., off-street parking requirements). ❑ Report on Com liar e with Existing Devel ent Permit - To assist the planner, in assessing whether ex' in g uses on t subject property are in compliance with a previously granted develop ermit, provide a report on a previous development permit acro d by t ounty for the site, File# The report shall list the-conditions of approva hat permit and indicate whether the 10This information is intended to assist staff in completing any required environmental review for the project pursuant to CEQA. Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-36 Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information applicant fee ,. whether.there is c-ompliance with each,condition; cite evidence that would substan\athfinding. To assist in thsome instances; the ComX rtment may be able ton applicant with a copy ong the conditions of from.the previous permit.LCertification oance-with Minimum Lot certification by a regist ed civil engineer of e proposed lot/parcel dimensions (e.g., area, depth, averag width) which,ar required:by the zoning for each of the proposed lots within the s division. lculation of these figures shall be based on-.the zoning ordinance de nitions d,;Community Development Department diagrams for this purpose. T e c ification may appear on either the proposed (a revised) tentative map or on a parate.document. The document shall include a listing for any lots for whic e pplicant is seeking one or more variances; identification of the varia e(s); a d reasons whythe-applicantfeels it would be reasonable for the Cou to make t e ordinance findings necessary for the County to grant the r nested varianc (Ref. Definitions f Lot, definition, dime sions, area; Lot Depth, and Average Lot Width in C apter 82-4, and the CDD ' grants for calculating minimum lot dimensions a ailable at the Application:an Permit Center.) Tip to Proj ct Planner! - The above infonnatiot should be required for tentative map sub vision applications where it is not clea-that one or more proposed dots/par els comply with the zoning standards. In me instances, the planner may al o request that the registered civil engineer s w their work.` This-information may also be provided by a nonaicense rofessional, in those instances, the planner may need to verify that theinformd ion has been correctly prepared. Information on Protection of Sight Distance at an Intersection - Because the project involves development at the corner.of one or more road intersections (involving public or private roads); the applicant shall add_to the site plan the triangle area(s)that is to-be kept free of visual_obstructions as documented in the Sight Obstructions at Intersections Ordinance. The triangle area is bounded by road right-of-way lines, and.a diagonal line joining points on the right-of-way lines measured 25 feet back from the point of their intersection. No structures or vegetation of any kind is permitted within,'that triangular area that exceeds 2 '/z feet above the top of curb, or 3 feet above the edge of road pavement. Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-37 Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete (Ref. Chapter 82-12 of the Ordinance Code, Sight Obstructions at Intersections, and related diagram) Tip to Project Planner! - Require this information for any development project which.entails development at one or more corners of a road intersection (existing or proposed). Provide a copy of the ordinance and the related diagram to the applicant. Chain of Title - Where it is not clear that a parcel was legally created (i.e., created in violation of zoning and/or subdivision laws), a "chain of title" for the property is required. A chain of title is a series of grant deeds that have been recorded against the property. These documents may be obtained from the Recorder's Office; however many people find it easier to obtain these documents from a title insurance company for a fee. For the County's purposes, the chain usually must extend back to at least the grant deed that preceded February 18, 1956. Tip to Project Planner! - Require this information where it is not clear that the subject property was legally created. In some cases, the applicant may need to. obtain a Certificate (or Conditional Certificate) of Compliance. (Ref. § 66412.6 (� of the Government Code) ❑ Site beveloDment Plan for Subdivision Applicationgn� our co es of a prelimi y grading and site development'plan, incls drainage. [Ref. §.94-2.20 (4) of the Ordinance Code] Ti to Pro'ec Planner! - In order to assist in the evstorm water runoff, possibl streambed alterations, and impacttrees,preliminary drai ge plan should be required tho subdivision applications. ❑ Genera] Plan Standards r Comm ia]/Office/Indulo ment - Where a development requires a fin n -consistency wit e general plan (e.g., la use permit) and is proposed on e that is design ed a commercial, office industrial use in the ge al plan nd use p; the site plan shall pr ide sufficient informati for purposes f ermining consistency v,4ffi all applicable standards conta• ed in the descripti f the particular deli ation contained in the Land Us lement text. For amp] the general p standards sometimes require re restrictive land verage or st cture ght requirements than might othe ise apply. [Ref. La Use Element of eral Plan - . G mereial/Office/In strial Uses] . Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-38 Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete ❑ Identifthe Ma imum Grade of o osed Roads and Driveways —Identify the maximum grades /H; % proposed roads and driveways. (Ref. § Chapte -6(Gr the Ordinance Code] Identify Proposed Variances to Zoning Ordinance Standards - Provide either a written statement or notes on the site plan identifying all proposed variances to zoning ordinance standards. (Ref. § 94-2.608 of the Ordinance Code) ❑ Point-by-Point Report Responding to Incomplete Letter from the County - In response to a letter from the County declaring your application to be incomplete, please provide a:written report that fully responds to each item in the letter. Moreover, we would appreciate it if the points are addressed in the sequence that they appear in the letter from the County. Provide us with (#1 copies of full-size sets of site plans with the requested -- revisions, and (#1 copies of reduced (I I x I4") site plans, each stapled, if ( appropriate, and folded to 8 t/i x I I" or smaller. ❑ Other Required Information: ap 2 I t Date of Last Revision:6-30-00 8-44 1 Part Two • List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete XVI. Require Rezoning Application Submit s Required Sub ittal ❑ • A map desc i tion of th ubject property indicating names of adjoining streets and property o ners xisting zoning and general plan designation of subject and adjoining propert • A brief des iption of e justification for the request and a statement of how the request nforms to, an s consistent with, the applicable general and specific plans • Legal Description of the su ect property. (Re . § 26-2.1802 of the Zoning Code) X ILProvision of On-site.Buffer to Adjoining Agricultural Uses ca iiy. The General Plan encourages protection of agricultural uses. The following information should be provided for applications for projects involving non-agricultural structures within or adjacent to cultivated agriculture or agricultural districts in order to reduce potential conflict .__..-_ 'Required SubmittalI The site plan shall identify the nature of existing agricultural operations on adjoining properties and be designed to create a natural or constructed buffer between the agricultural and urban land use. Such buffer must occur on the parcel for which the discretionary1 - permit is sought. An adequate setback shall be .. provided for any non-agricultural structures located within or adjacent to cultivated agriculture. " In grazing areas, include within buffers fencing that will effectively contain grazing animals, keep . domestic dogs out of grazing areas, and deter : trespassing. Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-M Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics Requiring Additional Information. (Ref. Implementation Measures#8-ai, -aj, -ak, and-al of the General Plan Conservation Element, Agricultural Resources Section) XVIII. �sclosure of Applicant Preference for Meeting quirements of the' ark'Dedication Ordinance Applicability Any proposed res ential or agricultural subdivi 'on, multiple family residential project, or other housing su ject to the requirements the Park Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 920).8 '\ Required Submittal \\. ❑ As part of,the application b ttal,the applicant shall include aAtVy//`; statement of the applicantreferences for satisfying the- , ��'M project's park dedication rdi ..ce obligation: (1) to dedicate 1 r land for park and recre ion pu oses, or (2) to pay a fee in lieu thereof, or (3) do a mbination these. Only the paymernt of fees is required fo subdivisions o ifty lots or less. If the applican prefers to dedicate Ian the specific land shall be identified, a d the applicant shall demo strate why the specific land to be edicated fulfills the project's bligation under the park de cation ordinance. The applicant s 11 also specify any propo d park improvements. (R Section 920-12.002 of the Subdivision co e; October 7, 1997 Board Order on New P rk Dedication Fund Disbursement Procedure Attachment#1,.Item #1) " Tip to Project Planner. - It is the policy of the Boar . Supervisors to specify exactly how projects will meet their obligation for parkland de ication or payment of in-lieu fees, or combination of both, at time of project approval folio ng,coordination with the interested park providers. The specific allocation of resot ces for compliance with the park dedication requirement is to be included as a condition of approval for the project. BNormally, compliance with this disclosure"requirement is important when the project involves 50 or more dwelling units/lots [ref. § 66477 (g) of the Govt. Code (Quimby Act)], or where the applicant intends to dedicate land for park purposes. J Date of Last Revision:6-A-00 8-31 Part Two • List of Information for Deemingan Application Complete The developer may submit park facility options and preferences for the property; however,primary consideration of staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors shall be given to the wishes of the citizens'body of the community that is responsible for the park's facilities, if one exists. If the subdivision is to pay in-lieu fees, and options for expenditure of those fees have been recommended by the citizen's body, those recommendations should be considered in the staff report: At the time of project review, interested parties in the vicinity shall be notified of the potential existence of funds andlor facilities. Final project approval should,incorporate total land and fees to be provided and the expectation of when land will be accepted and when fees will be spent. Should a park proposal be identified and accepted from a district, city or..other public entity, such entity shall be.notified prior to final approval of the subdivision map for comment to ensure compatibility of plans and expectatio XIX. Projects near Buchanan Field or Byron Airports . ' Applicability Any project..that lies within three miles of Buchanan Field or Byron Airports which approaches or may exceed the development/use criteria contained in the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan pertaining to protection of Buchanan Field or Byron Airports. Refer to specific criteria listed below for purposes of determining if special information is required. Applicants and project planners are encouraged to.check with the staff for the Airport Land Use sion early in the project review process. Req ired Submittal A. .'Proposed Structure Height Max Exceed Protected Airspace Near Airport - The County has adopted structure height limits that apply to development within approximately three miles of either Buchanan Field or Byron Airports. The height limits generally do not apply to structures that are less than 35 feet above the ground. However, the project planner and/or applicant should check with the ALUC staff person early in the project review process regarding whether a project may encroach upon protected airspace for proposals with structures that exceed 35 feet in height within three miles of one of the airports. The applicant may be Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-32 Section 8 • Site &Project Characteristics • Requiring Additional Information required to provide evidence developed by a qualified aviation consultant (civil engineer) on the height'of a structure relative to airspace around the respective airport that is.protected by general plan. (Ref. General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element, Airport and Heliport Policies; and the Buchanan Field and Byron Airport Land Use Commission Plans; State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Initial Study form,.Question#VII.e.) B. Proposed Development within a Buchanan Field Safety. Zone -The half-mile long areas at the ends of the four major runways at Buchanan Field may be subject to significant aircraft accident risks associated with airport operations. Any development proposed within one of the four safety zones depicted on Figure 5-5 'in the General Plan shall be required to document compliance with the safety standards contained.in Policy 5-62. (Ref. General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element, Airport and Heliport Policies; and the Buchanan Field and Byron Airport Land Use Commission Plans; State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Initial Study form, Question #Vll.e.) C. Proposed Development-within the Area pof Projected Noise Impacts for Buchanan Field or Byron Airports - Refer to the Noise Element exhibits in the General Plan. If a development project lies within the noise impacted area for Buchanan Field or Byron Airports as shown on Figures 11-5C, -5I. -5R, or 5S; and the use is one that would be either conditionally acceptable,or normally'unacceptable on Figure 11-6 (Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments) then the applicant shall submit two copies of a report by a qualified acoustical consultant documenting projected noise conditions affecting the site. The report preparer shall provide evidence that the goals, standards. policies, and implementation measures of the General Plan Noise Element have been consulted. The report shall utilize the same measures of noise levels as are used in the General Plan Noise Element. [Ref. Noise Element(Chapter 11) of the General Plan; State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Initial Study form, Question#XI.e.] Tip to Project Planner! -All projects (including development proposals, transportati07iltransit proposals, and general plata amendments) within three (3) miles of either Buchanan Field or Byron Airports shall be referred to both the Airport Land Use Commission and Aviation Advisory Committee (via Manager of Airports/Public Works)for review and comment prior to any approval.9 9Refer to internal Community Development Department memorandum dated 10/16/87 l from the Deputy Director, Karl Wandry, entitled"Supplemental Notice Requirements. " Date of Last Revision: 6-30-00 8-33 SECTION 10 APPLICATION FEES AND FEE WORKSHEET A. GENERAL APPLICATION FEES Every application for a development permit is subject to a filing fee. A copy of the current Application Fee Schedule (green sheet) may be obtained from the Application and Permit Center. Filing fees are variously constituted. /Base Fee - All filing fees contain a base fee. l/include liding Scale Component _Many fees also a sliding scale component that increases the fee amount with the size of the project. For application fees involving a sliding scale component, documentation must be provided with the application submittal as follows: • Calculation of how the filing fee amount was determined; if the project.involves i more than one application, then separately account for each fee. ;w APPlicable For certain types of land use permit applications, the fee is based on the value of the proposed improvements. In these instances, the Applicant must '' documentation of the project's value (i.e., cost of proposed i rov ts�i"). P A' able / P CEQA Posting Fee - In addition to the standard application filing ee, a 1 projects that may be subject to CEQA review requirements are subject to a $50 fee which is paid with the submittal of the application to cover legal posting costs of environmental findings and the project decision. B. HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEW FEE At time of application submittal, a separate 3�W fee for review services by the Health Services Department (Environmental Health Division) will be required. Date of Last Revision: 6-9-00 Part Two List of Information for Deeming an Application Complete C. OTHER POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE FEES PAYABLE AT TIME OF APPLICATION SUBMITTAL Depending on the nature of the project, other filing fees may also be required at time of submittal of an application for a development permit. Child Care Facilities Report Review Fee - If the project is subject to the report requirements of the Child Care Facilities Ordinance (see Section 6), then the filing fees must include $970 for the review of the report. If the time and material cost of. processing the child care report exceeds 120% of the initial fee, then additional fees will be assessed against the Applicant. Applicable o0. Peer Review Fee - If the application b<ate ' ncludes a geotechnical report, the peer review fee is also subject to Time an charges, with an initial deposit of $750. Applicable ❑ Late Filing - When the Director Comm ity Development has determined that a person has begun an illegal land use ut first applying and obtaining all required permits and'entitlements, any applic ons d under these circumstances are subject to 1.5 times the normal application ee. (Ref. §2 ,2.2806 of the County Code) Applicable ❑ D. PAYMENT OF FEES All due application fees may be collectively paid with one check made payable to the "County of Contra Costa." If the fees consist'of multiple components, then please include documentation of the various components and how they were calculated. It is particularly important to provide documentation of fees when the project involves two or more related applications. E. ./OTHER PROCESSING FEES COLLECTED AFTER APPLICATION SUBMITTAL Supplemental Fees - The County filing fee schedule is generally structured to require sufficient filing fees to cover the cost of processing uncomplicated applications. However, where review costs exceed the initial filing fee, applicants will be billed for Date of Last Revision: 6-9-00 10-2 4f the payment of additional fees. Moreover, if the County retains the services of a consultant to assist in the staff review (e.g., peer review by a consulting geologist of geotechnical_report), the applicant will be billed for the full cost of those_services separate from any fee burden associated with the cost of staff services by County personnel. Staff Costs for Processing an Appeal are Borne by the Applicant - If an interested party files an appeal, the appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of$125. However, please note that the County fee schedule requires the applicant to pay.fees for all staff costs of processing the appeal, even if the appeal is filed by a party that opposes the project. California Department of Fish and Game Fees - At the time of the project decision and before permits are issued, an additional fee may be due. Pursuant to! Assembly Bill 3158, additional fees to fund the California Department of Fish & Game will be based on the California Environmental Quality Act determination for the project as follows: Categorically Exempt: No additional fee Negative Declaration: $-ice-5$ �? Environmental Impact Report: Post-Approval Fees - Once a development permit is approved, most development still requires issuance of other types of ministerial permits (e.g., building and grading permits, parcel maps, etc.). Development fees and additional processing fees are normally payable at the time of the issuance of those .permits. Development fees are often required for such area-wide infrastructure improvements as traffic and drainage improvements, park dedication, and child care. An estimate for many of the post-approval (ministerial permit processing and infrastructure development) fees may be obtained by contacting the Building Inspection Department at (925) 335-1195. F. QUESTIONS Should you have any questions on calculating the fee amount, please contact the Application and Permit Center, Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; 2nd and 4th Fridays of the month, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at (925) 646-1690. Date of Last Revision: 6-9-00 10-3 APPLICATION FILING FEE WORKSHEET BASE FEE SLIDING SCALE COMPONENT (If applicable) Attach documentation showing how sliding scale component a cal ted. 0. Z0 13 FEES INVOLVING MORE THAN ONE APPLICATION (If applicable) CREDIT FOR RTICIP -ON IN FORMAL PREAPPLICATIONqff IEW WITHIN LAST 6 MONTHS (Deduct I007o of "'pydapp n review fee) (If applicable) LATE FILI applicable, add nonrefundable 50% -- '` surcharge to rma FEE FOR NOTI ON ADDRESS SERVICE (S30,-plus \r $1.50/address) No of A ses . (If sought by applicant) CEQA POSTING FEE �� HEALTH SERVICES DEPT. (Env. Hlth) REVIEW FEE $33 OTHER POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE FEES Child Care.Facilities Report Review Fee ($970) Agenda Service.Fee (Optional, Variable) Request for Notice of Proposed Action on County Permit Process Initial Deposit for Peer Review of Submitted Geotechnical Report ($750) TOTAL .,One check for payment of all fees is acceptable. Checks should be made payable to County of Contra Costa. ap.9 M . Date of Last Revision: 6-9-00 a Morgan Miller Blair 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD,SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNIA 94596-4544 A LAW CORPORATION 925.937.3600 925943.1106FAx wwwmmblaw.com,7 1.11!IN S R 2001 JUN' 2 b r tO0 DANIEL A.MULLER (925)979-3327 r U<`i , �S,:F:; Lf;.-E �dmuller@mmblaw.com June 26, 2007 VIA HAND DELIVERY Catherine Kutsuris Robert Drake Community Development Department Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing q .Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Byron Hot Springs Reconstruction of Three Historic Buildings ~� 5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron, CA Community Development.Department Clearance/Compliance with Planning, Zoning, Subdivision Law . Building Permit Applications: # CO 382731 (Reconstruction of 1902 Hotel) # FD 382733 (Renovation of 1914 Hotel) # R 382730 (Reconstruction of Mead Mansion-Office); Our File No. 9870-002 Dear Ms. Kutsuris and Mr. Drake: This is a follow-up to our last three meetings on February 7, 2007, May 2, 2007, and June 20, 2007. As we have discussed in the past, this is a limited proposal to reconstruct three historic buildings at the above site. We believe that at the above meetings, we have made progress in terms of how to handle the applications for the three building permits, and would like to move forward expeditiously. 1. Introduction In our previous meetings, it appeared that the concept that we are following (at least how we viewed it) is to"carve out" (from the possible perceived tension between the longstanding "FR" zoning and 2005 General Plan policy (Policy 3-74)'which addresses how reconstruction approvals should proceed), the three_permits for the historical restoration, allowing them to proceed with some substantial consideration of the existing "FR" zoning - which would be a MMB:9870-002:791452.1 June 26, 2007 Catherine Kutsuris Robert Drake ' Page 2 relatively streamlined permitting process, and agree that any other possible future development of the remainder of the site - i.e., on the bulk of the property outside the envelopes of the.three buildings and related landscaping and nominal site improvements - would be handled by something more involved to address the "antiquated" FR zoning issue, such as a rezoning and/or development plan approval, with fully discretionary analysis and processing. . We reiterate that the proposal before the County involves no grading of the site, but merely reconstruction of three historic buildings to make them appear - and use them - as they existed in the past. No utilities would be extended to serve the site. To the extent the applicant'does not know exactly what uses would be made of the reconstructed "shell" buildings, we would fully expect the end-users to gain approvals for their specific uses, in compliance with County regulations and procedures. To that end, at the conclusion of our meeting on May 2nd, I believe we all agreed that the applicant would provide the County three distinct items of information, namely: (1) information on the."legal lot" issue, (2) a draft scope of the proposal/uses, and (3) elevations and floor plans depicting the reconstruction of the three historic buildings. The notion was to see if a workable streamlining could occur as to the present applications for three permits, while deferring anything not relating to the perhaps narrow reconstruction of the three buildings. Such deferral of anything more significant was supported by the reasonable notion that anything more 1 extensive was very speculative. We very much wanted (and still want) to proceed with the limited scope of reconstruction. In light of the urgency as far back as February (indeed, before), . we agreed at the May 2nd meeting that we would have a phone conference within about 10 days (either after the meeting, or after the applicant submitted the three items of requested information). (As an aside, we believe that some of the information requested by the County at the May 2nd meeting was perhaps included already in the submittal made around March 14th (on the applicant's engineer "Terra Firma's" letterhead), which we went over briefly at the May 2nd meeting. It appeared you (Catherine) had not seen that. The March 14th submittal addressed. many of the issues we had thought were vetted at the February 7th meeting, which was its main purpose.) In any case, we endeavored to provide theinformation on the three issues identified at the May 2nd meeting, as follows: 2.. Legal Lot Issue We submitted information on the "legal lot" issue (and a "description/scope of the proposal/uses", discussed below) via my e-mails sent Monday May 14th and Tuesday May 15th. On Thursday May 24th, Catherine and I spoke on the phone after business hours (that was the day involving the County's conferences with the AG's office on greenhouse gas issues, I ( believe). This was an attempt to check-in on status following the May 2nd meeting. I appreciated very much your(Catherine's) efforts to talk with me despite the other issues the County was forced to address. We focused mainly on the "legal lot" issue discussed in my e- MMB:9870-002:791452.1 1 June 26, 2007 Catherine Kutsuris Robert Drake Page 3 mails of.May 14th and.15th. You (Catherine) mentioned that, given the County's policy to review deeds prior to the County's initial.subdivision ordinance (adopted in the 1950s), the applicant should provide deeds prior to the 1950s,. and/or set up a meeting with Donna Allen to firm up the "legal.lot" issue. To that end, while I was away from the office in trial in Eureka, my associate Bryan Wenter met with Donna on Thursday May 31 st. After that meeting, on Tuesday June 5th, Bryan e-mailed Donna a grant deed from 1903.that we believe confirms the legality of the applicant's lots. That e-mail and the grant deed are attached as Exhibit"A After sending the June 5th e-mail, I called and asked for Donna on several occasions, and left messages asking for a chance to talk, but she did not return the calls. I would have e-mailed her, too, but did not want to "pester" her. I would very much like to have,confirmation that the "legal lot" issue is resolved,.as soon as reasonably possible, since it appears;to be languishing and I think we have provided the information that resolves that issue. 3. Scope of Proposal/Uses In my e-mail of May 14th, I provided a draft for review of the scope of the proposal, and uses, and some discussion of the services or utilities that would serve the buildings to be reconstructed, as follows: "The scope of this proposal is to reconstruct three enumerated historical buildings, and to recreate or simply maintain associated landscaping, golf course, and parking/roadway improvements (but no grading). The work and uses are described briefly below, along with our thoughts on public services/utilities. Construction and.Uses Permit number one is for the reconstruction of the '1902 Hotel' to its historic dimensions and design. The location and orientation of this building would be as it was historically, as well. The building footprint on-the site, and distance from property boundaries, are depicted in the initial building permit application materials. The elevations and floor plans of the building itself are being prepared, and should be ready soon, showing height and related information, complying with zoning requirements as per Bob Drake's request, and would provide a visual supplement to this text. Dave has provided significant photographic documentation of how this building looked in its "heyday", and this is what the reconstruction would accomplish. (See also, below, regarding the elevations and floorplans submitted in early June.) The uses of the interior space would track the historic'uses;'there would be 100 +/- lodging rooms, plus interior areas that are `accessory to, or serve' the primary residential or guest facility use. As to the specific uses of these interior areas, other than the individual lodging rooms, our view is that the.ultimate operator of the hotel building would decide what accessory services/uses they feel are most appropriate to complement the main lodging use, and they would presumably seek the necessary licenses, permits or approvals from the various agencies. For example,a restaurant, including a bar, and spa facilities may be-typical uses that the operator.would seek to MMB:9870-002:791452.1 June 26, 2007 Catherine Kutsuris Robert Drake f ' Page 4 • include (i.e. liquor license, cabaret license).. If there are certain uses that are discouraged, we would seek to ensure that our proposal does not include them. At the County's option, the permit to reconstruct the hotel could perhaps prohibit such discouraged uses unless and until further County approval was obtained. But we think it could be prudent to deal with specific, undefined uses as the operator becomes better defined. As the owner, we would not want to run afoul of County concerns in such future efforts. It is our understanding that the Building Department has adopted the Historic Building Code, and will apply that code's criteria to our structural drawings at the time of submittal of further drawings, to ensure the structural design meets all codes and ADA compliance. Permit number two is for the reconstruction of the '1914 Hotel' to its historic dimensions and design. The location and orientation of this building would be as it was Historically, as well. The building footprint'on the site, and distance from property boundaries, are depicted in the initial building permit application materials. The elevations and floor plans of this building are being prepared, and would visually supplement this text. The number of rooms, and uses, are substantially the same as the discussion above regarding the 1902 Hotel. Permit number three is for the reconstruction of the `1868 Office and Residence of the Byron Hot Springs' (also called the `Mead House' or `Mead Mansion'), which would be restored to its ( �\! historic dimensions and design. As for the other two buildings, the location and orientation of this building would be as it was historically, as well. The building footprint on the site, and • distance from property boundaries, are depicted in the initial building permit application materials. Separate elevations and floor plans are being prepared, to supplement this text, but the building is well depicted as it was historically, in the photos previously provided. It would be used as it was historically, i.e., for office and residential purposes. Unlike the above hotel buildings, we doubt that other accessory uses would be sought by the operator of this building. The approval to restore it could clarify what other uses, beyond residential and office, would need further approval. As noted in prior submittals (see mid-March 2007 submittal from Terra Firma, a draft of which is attached), there would be no grading associated with the above reconstruction of the three buildings. " With regard to the historic (existing) golf course improvements on the property, it is anticipated the course would be used by the guests,of the two aforementioned hotels, as would the parking areas and grounds immediately surrounding the three buildings. The golf course would be kept and operated true to its historical design. As with all other aspects of this limited proposal, the golf course requires no grading. We view the golf course's use as part of the above-referenced buildings' use, perhaps as an accessory use serving the main `lodging' uses. Also, there is no backflow prevention device associated with the golf course irrigation, due to water service coming from the Byron Bethany Irrigation District. As noted in Dave's submittal in March 2007, like the golf course, the parking areas would not require grading. They would incorporate J porous materials that allow storm water to penetrate. Finally, historic gardens and landscaping around the three historic buildings wouldbe maintained, or where necessary, redone. We do not MMB:98 70-002:791452.1 June 26, 2007 Catherine Kutsuris Robert Drake Page 5 view such work as requiring permits; these areas would utilize the same water system as the golf course. No trees would be removed. Roadways, Services, Utilities (NOTE - Much, if not all, of the information.below tracks the information previously submitted in mid-March 2007 on this matter.) Roadways/Fire Protection + The existing access roads to the site, and interior roads adjacent to the three buildings,would be maintained to serve these uses during and after construction, and would meet relevant standards and requirements. The fire protection service providers have reviewed the proposal and indicated the roadway widths are adequate and service can be provided. County Public Works research shows that the Byron access.road is privately held, but still meets County standards. Wastewater Treatment The existing 100,000 gallon septic tank and system would be inspected and serviced according to current public health standards administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board with a letter to Contra Costa County Health Department informing them of the operation. ( Water AsThe existing water system,, from wells, would be coordinated through County Public Health, and all updated lab work would be forwarded to them,and the relevant state regulators for compliance with drinking water standards. Power PG&E and the owner's consultant, Power Systems, have concluded that the existing high voltage . power lines and service running to the historic buildings is more than adequate. If copies of these determinations need to be sent to any County departments, we would provide the information." We would thus like to know if the:above is sufficient to move this matter forward or if further information is needed or desired. 4. Elevations/Floorplans The applicant submitted elevations, floorplans, and historic photographs of the three buildings to the County on Friday, June 8th. At the latest meeting with Robert on June 20th, there was some discussion of the details in those submittals,and we are willing to provide more detail, if such is necessary, but wish to know the level of such detail as soon as reasonably possible, and in light of the goal of moving this forward as expeditiously as possible. MMB:9870-002:791452.1 June 26, 2007 Catherine Kutsuris Robert Drake ... Page 6 5. Conclusion and Closing Thoughts . In sum,the County appears to have successfully narrowed the'issues to those three referenced above. We have diligently tried, and in our view succeeded, to supply the information you requested, and feel that we should be in a position to make significant headway. We'look forward to getting this moving forward, as soon as possible. . As to the general issue of"where to go from here" regarding processing, we believe that the aforementioned narrowing of issues is the logical result of a recognition that no rezoning is necessary. This proposal is substantially limited, such that it should not implicate the "antiquated zoning" concerns expressed in the General Plan,noted above. If and when anything more substantial is proposed for the site, which.we contend is very speculative, we believe the notions of the latest GP and the concerns about current zoning can be properly addressed. In the current effort, we believe that would be either premature or unnecessary (or both). Overall,the GP encourages the reconstruction of the historic uses on the property, and the current proposal would substantially further that overarching goal in a very limited fashion,and would use existing infrastructure (not extend utilities) to serve the reconstructed buildings themselves. Put differently, we believe the building permits for this limited proposal can be issued under the _ current zoning, consistent with the GP policies, because the latter support the historic (� reconstruction generally, and it is our hope that County staffs interpretation of the GP policy is that it does not require discretionary permit review for proposals as limited as this. Further, to the extent the GP (specifically Policy 3-74) appears to call for some degree of discretion, and if the County believes that this means some discretion should be applied to the current proposal, we would respectfully request that County staff interpret that GP policy as applying to the ALUC - i.e., that it acknowledges the ALUC's discretion to apply what it deems necessary under the current ALUCP. While past permitting history is perhaps only marginally relevant in this context, the ALUC previously conditionally permitted a larger project on the property some years ago. They felt imposing only limited conditions on the larger proposal was consistent with airport operations. Further, the ALUC recently stated that it does not view a . rezoning as necessary to make reconstruction on the subject property consistent with the ALUCP, and that it may, in the future, exempt historical buildings from ALUCP consistency requirements altogether, to assist in supporting historical resources and landmarks within the County. Finally, to the extent that the Community Development Department feels there are some items that require resolution prior to construction, we ask that this application be cleared by the Community Development Department, with reasonable conditions imposed prior to actual issuance of the building permit, commencement of construction, final inspection, or occupancy permit issuance. MMB:9870-002:791452.1 June 26, 2007 Catherine Kutsuris Robert Drake Page 7 Thank you for your continuing cooperation and courtesy regarding the above. Very truly yours, . MORGAN MILLER BLAIR DANIEL A. MULLER c: David Fowler MMB:9870-002:791452.1 Na ICP Community Contra Dennis it Barry, pme `1 Community Development Director ry Development Costa � County ("� Department t aunty Administration Building Pine Street ourth Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-1229 Phone: (925) 335-1214 `r�A COOK7� October 4, 2007 David Fowler East Bay Associates 741 Shady Glen- Martinez, CA 94553 Dear David: Re: Determination that the Combined area of Assessor's Parcel Number.002-200-014 & -015 Constitutes a Lawful Parcel under Subdivision Law (Corrected) Site of Former Byron Hot Springs Resort . #5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron County File #ZI07-11757 On March 13, 2007, you submitted documentation relative to your proposal to restore the former hotel resort complex at the above site, including a title document (1903 Grant Deed) as evidence to support a claim that the above captioned property was lawfully created. After reviewing that title documentation forsite, this is to adviseyou that I have determined that the combined area of the above captioned two assessor parcels constitutes one lawful parcel under subdivision law. . Option to Obtain Certificate of Compliance You may elect (but not required) to file a separate application with our office for a Certificate of Compliance pursuant to Government Code § 66499.35(a) of the Map Act. Were such an application filed, we would execute and record an (Unconditional) Certificate of Compliance against the title to the property. Enclosed is an application form for this purpose. The application is subject to a fee deposit of$1000; please also include with any application a legal description of the property that has been wet-stamped by a licensed surveyor. 0 2 As we indicated at our meeting on September 20, we expect to respond to your development proposal in the near future. Should you have any questions, please call meat 335-1214. -----.______ __---------_-------�_--- ____._____-.-- Sincerely,_ ? ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. App. for Cert. of Compliance Cc: Daniel Muller - Morgan Miller Blair Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris File D:\Personal\zi07-11757-b.Itr.doc RD\ i N � un CL o f` a \ N m Li O L) N o Q Z o O U 0 3 • I, - Avrs _�_� VM ('oa sONIads IOH N08i,q)NINON 3dOH — s[d -- - -I--- In ---—-- —-—- - -—-—� -I ------ --- ---- OzIl GZCI ,,ti., ^^aux ➢•['f , � � '� 1 S� Rurroar-I e: -� Is'vsc•a �Oa � ��n \(.�.•-1�-aSf Or3r�[N S6'' �. I / � �\ I wa s, Aaz/ a. o % �`"�"oc� an•rne.u..Atsss�,x, / a'1%'i. I �+��"}5ual-wrHz�e+loum I tQ1 �1ter/ I am 1 — I ,m., lz co l J Lj /Zll cic:"6: I Lj oz c HtaoN 1 .'•r2N � N / Y I -1� 'o jry Oo i b;un I� IQ " _ AZCI .nZCI ALCI �OZfI . '2t-'z�..��a ,. boo-iia 72 rl=�� ICP Community Contra- Dennis it Barry, pme 1, Community Development Director Development, Cost Department County. ounty Administration Buildingc sE L 1,1 Pine Street trth Floor, North Wing artinez, California 94553-1229ot Phone: `as=-------- w (925) 335-1214 rA you April 23, 2008 David Fowler East Bay Associates, LLC C/o 741 Shady Glen Martinez, CA 94553 Dear David: Re: Response toMarch 2.4, 2008 Letter on Byron Hot Springs Proposal This responds to your letter dated March 24, 2008 concerning the Byron Hot Springs ® property. Background To.briefly recap the situation, on May 3,.2006, you submitted materials that purported to be an application for.building permits to rehabilitate and reconstruct three buildings at the Byron Hot Springs property. At the time of your application, you proposed to reconstruct the former 1902 hotelbuilding and rehabilitate two other buildings—the 1914 hotel building and the Mead mansion building. It is our understanding that the Mead mansion building was destroyed by fire irr2005. On October 11, 2006, the Deputy Community Development Director issued a letter that made the following determinations: 1. T he May 3, 2.006 application for building permits to rehabilitate and reconstruct the buildings was incomplete. 2. There was substantial evidence that the incomplete application was part of a larger prod ect that would require discretionary review. 3. There was no basis to find a violation of the Permit Streamlining Act, because no development plan application was filed and no discretionary permit applications were pending on the property. In response, on November 13, 2006, the law firn-i of Morgan Miller Blair filed, on your behalf, a Notice of Appeal of the administrative determinations made in the October 11, • 2006 letter. Subsequently, in a letter dated January 19, 2007, Morgan Miller Blair asked that the anticipated hearing on the appeal be postponed indefinitely to allow the owner and staff an opportunity to try to resolve the issues relating thereto. In the intervening period, before scheduling your appeal for hearing before the Board of Supervisors, Deputy Director Catherine Kutsuris and I had numerous and lengthy meetings with you and your attorney, Daniel Muller. The purpose of the meetings was to review applicable legal requirements associated with the three proposed buildings, and to explore whether there may be a potential basis on which the County could allow the buildings to be constructed without necessarily requiring.a prior discretionary approval by the County or review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). While several possibilities were discussed, no final administrative determinations were made by the County as to whether any ministerial permits could be issued for any construction at the Byron Hot Springs property. References to Historical Property Statutes Your March 24, 2008 letter cites to two provisions of state law that address historical structures. You appear to contend that these two provisions authorize the County to issue ministerial building permits for the rehabilitation of one structure and reconstruction of (' two structures at the Byron Hot Springs property. You also appear to contend that if a project involves historical buildings or structures, CEQA would exempt such a project from extensive environmental review. We disagree with your analysis. • Your letter cites to Health and Safety Code section 18955 and to Section 8-302.1 of the 2007 California Historical Building Code. Health and Safety Code section 18955 is located in Part 2.7 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code,which is the State Historical Building Code. Section 8-302.1 of the 2007 California Historical Building Code is located in Part 8 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and are the regulations adopted to implement the State Historical Building Code. The purpose of the State Historical Building Code is set forth in Health and Safety Code section 18951, which provides: "It is the purpose of this part [Part 2.7 of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code], to provide alternative regulations and standards for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration (including related reconstruction), or relocation of qualified historical buildings or structures, as defined in Section 18955. These alternative standards and regulations are intended to facilitate the rehabilitation, restoration, or change of occupancy so as to preserve their original or restored architectural elements and features, to encourage energy conservation and a cost- effective approach to preservation, and to provide for the safety of the building occupants." 3 In other words, the State Historical Building Code was adopted to establish building standards different from the building standards in the California Building Code The State Historical Building Code allows alterations that would not otherwise meet the standards of the California Building Code in order to preserve the character of historical buildings while at the same time provide for-public safety. The specific alternative building standards themselves are located in the 2007 California Historical Building Code. For example, fireprotection standards that apply to qualified historical buildings are located in Chapter 8-4 of the 2007 California Historical Building Code, structural standards that apply-to qualified historical buildings are located in Chapter 8-7 of the 2007 California Historical Building Code, and mechanical, plumbing, and'electrical standards that apply to.qualified historical buildings'are located in Chapter 8-9 of the 2007 California Historical Building Code. Nothing in the State Historical Building Code or the 2007 California Historical Building , Code, including the sections you cited in your letter, exempts any project involving a historical building or structure from compliance with,CEQA. To the contrary, CEQA requires heightened environmental review for discretionary projects that involve a historical building or structure. CEQA specifically equates a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource with a significant effect on the environment: (Public Resources Code, § 21084.1.) , Thus, in any project where it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence in the record that the (r� project may have a significant effect on a historical resource, an environmental impact report must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines, § '15064..) Further, CEQA explicitly prohibits the use of categorical exemptions within the CEQA Guidelines for a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (Public Resources Code, § 21084(e).) Scheduling of Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal We have not revised or changed any'of the detenninations made in the October 11, 2006 letter, and your appeal of those determinations is pending. Thus, as we have previously discussed,we are still planning on scheduling a hearing on your appeal before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. At your earliest opportunity, please call me to confirm that you still wish to have your appeal heard on that date.,. If you no longer wish to appeal the determinations made in the October 11, 2006 letter, you may withdraw your appeal. If you make this decision, then please communicate that information in writing to us as soon as possible. Other Matters ' First, as you will recall, for several months, I have been trying to coordinate a time with you to try to get'inside the perimeter fence barrier to the site to examine it before completing our staff report. The times I made myself available for such a visit did not work into your schedule. I have only been on the property once, and that was 4 approximately six years ago, before you filed your applications for building permits. Due M to the passage of time, it does not now appear that we will have an opportunity to view the site before the staff report is completed for the hearing on the appeal. Second, on April 16, 2008 I attempted to mail you a letter to acknowledge receipt of your March 24, 2008 letter to let you know that we were actively reviewing it and would be responding to it. It was mailed to the address that was listed on your letter, 5400 Hot Springs Road, Byron. However, the letter was returned to us by the postal service who indicated that they are not able to deliver it to that address. I intend to call you to let you know that you may pick this letter at the Application and Permit Center reception desk. But if you do not pick it up by Friday, I will arrange for it to be mailed to your home address. I am.also forwarding a copy to Steve Abrams of Abrams Associates who indicated that he is currently representing East Bay Associates on this appeal. Should you have any questions, please call me at (925) 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Cc: Tomi Van de Brooke Julie Enea, County Administrator Office County Counsel Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Daniel Muller,Morgan Miller Blair Steve Abrams,Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering File y D:\Personal\Bhs-5.ltr.doc RD\ SYROIST f��\ H;' O S PR I lam.`''G '_S� March 24, 2008 Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Community.Development Department County Administration Building . 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Byron Hot Springs Resort Restoration, DCD Clearance for Building Permit Application # CO 382731 (Reconstruction of 1902 Hotel) # FD 382733 (Renovation of 1914 Hotel) # R 382730 (Reconstruction of Mead Mansion-Office) DearCatherine.- It atherine:It appears that our mutual efforts have not succeeded in resolving the appeal of East Bay Associates, LLC (filed 11/13/06) from DCD's denial of FBA's applications (filed ( 05/02/06) for three building permits for reconstruction/ restoration/ rehabilitation of three *(for the 1902 and 1914 hotels and for the Meade House,) of the 28 historical buildings of the Byron Hot Springs Resort. We understand that Staff is now preparing a staff report to the Board of Supervisors for the hearing in early May: We are disappointed with this event, as you probably are also, and I am wondering if we still could reach an under- standing on an item or two that could lead to an agreement that would make a hearing unnecessary. When we met together several weeks ago, we discussed a number of concepts that we considered important elements in a.suitable restoration plan for the BHS Resort. We . agreed on many items, and only disagreed on a crew others, but discussion was very constructive and helpful from our point of,view. At that time you said you were inclined to allow issuance of only two of the three building permits we applied for, but you added you would not be.offended if we chose to explain our reasons to the Board for request- ing all three permits, adding that you felt the County was already "way out on a limb" in granting building permits for "rehabilitation" (the term you used most frequently), of any buildings without a full CEQA evaluation of the "ultimate project" in advance after it was defined. From our discussion we did not really understand what "limb" the County was "way out on" given the broad exemptions that CEQA.allows for "historical' and "ministe- rial" projects, however our group'left that meeting with a definite feeling that you would give additional consideration to allowing issuance of.all three of the requested building permits as opposed to only two of them. We felt this made sense for all of us because 4`• 5400 Byron Hot Springs Road,Byron,California 94514 925 228-6183 byronhotsprings.com Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director March 24, 2008 Community Development Department Page 2 our discussions beginning in early 2007 started out in this way, and because we felt we were being very reasonable and restrained in asking that only the three out of 28 possi- ble permits prior to proceeding with the rezoning process from — F-R to P-1 —which the County desires, and which would.include full planning and CEQA compliance reviews of the ultimate P-1 plan and all of its components: It seems like we missed something along the way. We would like to ask at this time that if you could pinpoint any concepts where our views still differ, we might be able to reconsider and reconcile them. Of thing we thought of that might fall into that category could the fact that of the three building permits we ap- plied.for only two related to structures which were physically present when we applied, namely the 1914 hotel and Meade House. The 19102 hotel was not there. We have been thinking that perhaps that fact alone might lead to a conclusion that only two build- ing permits should be issued because only an existing historical building would qualify for "rehabilitation", "restoration", "reconstruction' or another such term. We would like to know if that is possibly a factor.in our failure to reach an agreement together. Since our meeting, we have tried to understand how California state law would Kook at this situation, since it does create a special niche for historical preservation/restoration projects and establishes statewide standards; guidelines and procedures for all parties to follow in dealing with this category of properties. What we have found is that Califor- nia law uses a concept different from "present physical existence", to define a "historical building or property Section 18955 of the California Health & Safety Code defines a "qualified historical building or property" as: ...any structure or property. collection of structures. and their related sites deemed of importance to the history. architecture. or culture of an area by an ap- propriate local or state governmental jurisdiction. This shall include historical buildings or structures on existing or future national. state or local historical renis- ters or official inventories, such as the National Register of Historical Places; State Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, and city or county registers or inventories of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, his- torical districts, or landmarks. This shall also include places, locations. or sites identified on these historical reaisters or official inventories and deemed,of.imoor tance to the history, architecture. or culture of an area by an appropriate local or state iurisdiction.n (Underlines added). We are all aware that the Byron Hot Springs Resort has long been recognized and in- cluded as a historical resource in state (Sonoma State University) and local (Contra Costa County).historical lists and inventories. State law also offers its own concept of how the use of a historical building or site is de- termined, and how that bears on their identification and qualification for preservation as. Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director March 24, 2008 Community Development Department Page 3 a "historical" structure orproperty. Section 8-302.1 of the Califomia Historical Building MCode in the California.Code of Regulations provides: "Existing Ilse The use or character of occupancy of a,qualified historical build- ing or property, or portion thereof, shall be permitted to continue in use regard- less of any period of time in which it may have remained unoccupied, or in other uses, provided such building or property otherwise conforms to all applicable re- quirements of the CHBC." (Underlines added), In general we have found the terminology used in the California Historical Building Code to describe the process of bringing "qualified historical buildings or properties" back into current service to be extensive and complex, employing such terms as "rehabilitation", "restoration", "reconstruction", "repair", and "preservation". While each such definition seems to be unique, they all seem to be intertwined. Our attempts to unravel these in- terrelationships have led us to the conclusion that a "qualified historical building" to be eligible to be brought back into current service under one or more of the processes mentioned above e.g. "restoration", "rehabilitation" or"reconstruction", need not be presently existing, visible or actually "there". ' In fact, such a historical resource need not even be a"building"or "structure" to be eligible for such treatment under the CHBC, but can just as well be a historical "property" or"sites and still be every bit as eligible under the CHBC. At the County level, also, we have noticed various terms used in documents generated Oover the nearly 18-year period our own efforts to bring the historical Byron Hot Springs - property and its facilities back to their historical function and prominence. We see the terms "rehabilitation" and "restoration' (and some others) used almost interchangeably to describe the same concepts, processes or proposed;actions, both in staff reports to the Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors describing and recommend- ing proposed actions, and in resolutions, either adopted (e.g. by the Planning Commis- sion) or proposed for adoption (e.g. by the Board of Supervisors), all without the benefit of an accompanying definition of those terms themselves. We would be happy to pro- vide you with examples we have found of such interchangeable use of these terms, but the point that comes through to us is that use of one or another of these terms or con- cepts by itself, whether at the state or county level, does not appear to provide a sound basis, justification or even rationale, for drawing a line between issuance of two building permits as opposed to the three building permits EBA requested in its application filed back in May o'120006. If we have got it all wrong or are missing some obvious point that would preclude our objective of starting with a package that is viable, and then pursuing the P-1 rezoning process under guidelines already set forth in the General Plan Policy No. 3-74 and Planning Commission Resolution 28-2003 that are subject to the normal planning and CEQA compliance rules, we would like to know what that point might be, so we can cor- rect our understanding and get-our mutual efforts back on the right track. Would you Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Mach 24, 2008 Community Development Department Page 4 please send us your thoughts immediately before additional efforts and energies are spent unproductively for all of us? We would be happy to give you any further informa- tion you,need, and copies of the pertinent documents that have led us to our conclu- sions, in hopes that they might help us to resolve this question of the third building per- mit which we feel is allowed under CHBC and CEQA, and which we need to assure the economic success of our efforts. We hope to receive your reply at your early conven-. ience. Sincerely yours, David Fowler East Bay Associates, LLC (925) 250-4402 cc: Supervisor, Mary Piepho, District 3 Community Contra'. Community Development Director -Development . .Costa Department County C".,unty Administration Building g� L Pine Street �. _��__•. h Floor, North Wing A. � � f *rtnezCalifornia 94553-1229 Phone: (925) 335-1214 srq�oU, April 16; 2008 David Fowler East Bay Associates, LLC 5400 Byron.Hot Springs Road. Byron, CA 94514 Dear David: Re: Acknowledgement of Receipt of March 24; 2008 Letter on Byron Hot Springs Proposal This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 24, 2008 concerning your November 13, 2006 appeal of the administrative decision by the Community `O Development Deputy Director to disapprove applications for three building permits for three buildings at the former Byron Hot Springs resort property. As you are aware, following receipt of your appeal, Catherine Kutsuris, the Deputy Director, and I met on several occasions for numerous hours with you and your attorney to explore the potential for allowing this project to proceed. The current letter is now asking staff to consider new information and-legal citations that were not included in the notice of appeal that was filed by your attorney. Still., we are studying your letter and anticipate providing you.with a more substantive response shortly. Should you have any questions, please call me at (925) 335-1214. Sincerely, (C"- ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Cc: Tomi Van de Brooke C", Dennis Barry C� , Catherine Kutsuris County Counsel File D:\Personal\byronhotsprinas.ltr.doc RD\ v f � � n CD o o C N co Z C) 0 o CD c0 � CD d W � m i� 000 Ln 1; £3 ct a =�� _ kitUl _ t4 xr binr . • e V-0110 D.. t C', Lvi • � E3 f A010AAbrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. April 29, 2008 • .(, jj ,. ,. �,��=� ,''illi§i Y Catherine Kutsuris Community Development Department HE APR 30 P 2: 20 Contra Costa County + T 651 Pine Street Fourth Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: May 6,•2008 Appeal on the Byron Hot.Springs Resort Dear Ms.Kutsuris, I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me about the May 6, 2008 Byron Hot Springs Resort appeal. It is my understanding that you do not support the approval of all three building permits through the-use of CEQA categorical exemptions and that you have concerns in several areas such as the consistency with the General Plan and issues associated with the urban limit line. I respect your concerns and recognize that you believe you are serving the County's best interests by recommending that this,appeal be denied (particularly with respect to the third permit). That being said, I believe this could be misleading to the Supervisors unless you also inform them of two'key facts: 1) it would be entirely legal and fully within the County's authority to determine that the reconstruction of these three historic buildings would be consistent with the General Plan and 2)that even the full reconstruction of these buildings could potentially be exempt from CEQA because they are fully documented historical resources. I have not yet seen your staff report on this so I apologize if this information has.already been included in it. However, if this was not made clear in the staff report I would request that each of the Supervisors';,be specifically notified that allowing a categorical exemption for these three permits is entirely legal under CEQA Section 15331, which covers historical resources. They should also be informed that many of the reasons for recommending denial of the appeal are based on the.Community Development Department(CDD) staff s interpretation of the project's consistency with one particular policy from the General Plan (Policy 3-74). It should be noted that the CEQA exemption does assume two things: I) hat the restoration/reconstruction of the historical resources would be done"in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties" -which is exactly what the applicant is proposing, and 2)that the Board has the ability/authority to have CDD,staff make findings that this project would be consistent with tlie General Plan. Both of these items are entirely possible so if the Board was not informed that a categorical exemption from CEQA could indeed be allowable for these buildings—that could be misleading. As far as the first assumption goes, it is clear that CDD.staff would need to verify that the final plans are in fact"consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties". However,this is not at all unusual and there is no 1660 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.945.0201 Fax: 925.945.7966 Byron Hot Springs Resort Appeal Abram TRAFASSOCRateS FIC ING,INC. Page 2 reason to assume that these three buildings can't be reconstructed to meet the required guidelines. As.far as the second assumption goes, not only does the Board have full • authority to make different interpretations of the General Plan Policies—they could actually alter them if they really wanted to. However, in this case no changes to the policy would be needed so it could be misleading to the Board if they were not informed that it is entirely possible for them to make a different interpretation of this policy. The Byron Hot Springs General Plan Policy clearly states"the re-establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported." It needs to be clarified that, although not recommended by the CDD, it would certainly be acceptable and legal for the Board to interpret this policy as meaning that reconstructing the minimum space needed to re-establish a hotel and spa use would not necessarily be inconsistent with the intent of this policy. In general,we maintain that all evidence indicates that the minimum space required to"re-establish" a viable hotel and spa can.only be provided With the"reconstruction"of the third historic building. Even if you disagree with this we are requesting that you still inform the Board that you are, in part, basing your recommendation to deny the appeal on an interpretation of the Byron Hot Spring General Plan Policy that could go either way. In other words, CDD has interpreted the policy to mean that the re-establishment of the historic use of a hotel and spa is only intended to support"rehabilitation"and was not intended to support"reconstruction"of any buildings, regardless of their historic significance or if they are required to actually re- establish the "the historic use of a hotel and spa". We believe the Board should be made aware that they could certainly make their own interpretation of this policy since allowing the applicant the minimum amount of building space to achieve a viable hotel and spa seems reasonable and consistent with the intention of this policy. In general,we are very concerned that some of the information provided by CDD (such as the April 23, 2008 letter from Bob Drake) could be misleading to the Board. For example, the April 23, 2008 letter states that for historical buildings CEQA actually requires "heightened environmental review". I recognize that Mr. Drake may not have been aware that the buildings were proposed to meet the required guidelines that allow -for a categorical exemption from CEQA. However, now that this information is being highlighted we believe it is critical that the Board be allowed to make its own conclusions regarding General Plan consistency. In addition,,the Board should also be made aware that a Categorical Exemption under CEQA is definitely an available (and entirely defensible) option for them. We recognize the CDD will likely recommend against this approach but we believe it should ultimately be up the Board to make these determinations. All we are asking is that you make the Board aware of all the options that are available to them. Clearly it should be up to the Board to make the final determination on.the interpretation of the Byron Hot Spring Policy.•Therefore, they need to be informed that they have every right to interpret their own policy—specifically with regard to the meaning of"support"when it.comes to the re-establishment of the hotel and spa. In other words, the Board should be made aware it is well within their authority to determine that"support"could mean permitting the standard CEQA exemption for historical resources. Bron Hot Springs Resort Appeal Abrams Associates � pp TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 3 Comparing this project to the many others that are looking for discretionary approvals is • ultimately unfair for several reasons= 1)The County's supportfor the re-establishment of this historic hotel and spa is specifically called out in the General Plan, 2)The hotel project is clearly a complimentary use to the adjacent County airport, 3)It is well documented that all three of the buildings proposed have major historical significance, and 4)The reconstruction of these three.historic buildings would be able to qualify for a categorical exemption under CEQA if they done according to certain guidelines. It is my understanding that there are no other comparable projects that are requesting these kinds of exemptions. There is little question that this is a unique property and the historic significance has been specifically acknowledged in the General Plan. The CDD responses tend to characterize the application of fully allowable CEQA exemptions as somehow requesting special treatment for.the applicant. If there are other historical sites with as much significance as the Byron Hot Spring then there shouldn't be any problem with a precedent,for allowing reconstruction of those sites using CEQA exemptions either. It is important to note that CEQA does not distinguish between "old" or"new"historic resources. For the purposes of the categorical'exemption, it doesn't matter if the building burned down last week or 100 years ago. The important thing is that the building has to be "historically significant"and, if so, then the reconstruction can clearly be exempt from CEQA if the correct guidelines are followed. Even though an exemption is requested we.will provide additional evidence in a follow up letter so the County be comfortable that the impacts from these three buildings are indeed less than significant. In conclusion, part of the reason that the'applicant is following through with this appeal is because the CQD has refused to acknowledge that it is, in fact, possible for the Board to determine that this project is consistent with the General Plan. We believe this is the main thing that is preventing the applicant from getting fair treatment from the Supervisors and otherinterested parties. We also believe this is the reason that the Board is probably not aware that a Categorical Exemption from CEQA for these three buildings is entirely possible and fully legal (if the Board wanted to allow it). I must reiterate my request that you immediately notify the Board of Supervisors and their staff once you verify that my statements about the General Plan interpretation and the CEQA issues are accurate. Waiting to present this information at the hearing would not be acceptable. If the above information is correct then the applicant's intentions and the proposed project are clearly being misrepresented due to the contention that the requested CEQA,exemption is not even an option. If there are any questions at all please don't hesitate to contact meat(925)945-0201. 1 look forward to discussing this with you at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, � L� Steplien C.Abrams President, Abrams Associates Figure 1 : Byron Hot..Springs Vicinity Map 7L Chestnut S_t :{{ B re n twood;Balfour Rd } C) h t Q; i - >; • It Discovery. iBay.ca � I Marsh Creek'Rd, `' Stockton - m Stat6,Highway,4, -Stale Highway4 4 1 ' ' San Joaquin Byron, p�abloi Cami o0 y^off Contra, SITE tii �f\ Byron j Airport �l J a�G� i Alameda i Tracy Map created 2/28/2008 Mlles by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIs Group 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information a' _ ' r i i •t, � i. ✓' .�� x 4ty tt t•7Fjg,�j�,,+`. �,:A'��a; 1, i t r � e.#• 1 A �'�JF ' .vim. 'C - rte..- —� .i.F:.> � ,• = on gar 1 � �� � ��•�, fir:: ! +�.� � ��\ .. a ,...ct � `,;� rr'""'`k o f �{�:..�.'._''_"''—�,M f ...�� 111•' � u.... ,� .-.� -- __ na j Figure 3: Byron Hot Springs General Plan Map \cO� Ra i n ZR d] c�a L� ArmMron,g Rd = 0 T Holey Rid Legend 0 site �S 0 Parcels General Plan PS (Public/Semi-Public) OS (Open Space) AL(Agricultural Lands) Map created 2/28/2008 a Feet by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group 0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information Figure 4: Byron Hot Springs Zoning Map LJ JMI . �7- y . - . x� A-3 �4 5 is �r ' imps - hN � r L_I ) Rarik�i'n, R'd `` Armstrong Rd a3 0 C o 41 Legend Holey R�d 0 site A-3 (Heavy Agriculture) CAD_AO_ParcelPolygons 0 A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) Zoning L-I (Light Industrial) P-1 F-R (Forestry Recreational) H-1 (Heavy Industrial) A-2 (General Agriculture) P-1 (Planned Unit) i Map created 2/28/2008 Feet by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group 0 625 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information 11 111 East Bay Associates LLC ZY t � . t � ...c� �. !S'1• y... .,� ':. I Lam.. _ .��� � 0 � e ca '� { , t r'��• -`Tr, k'r-gar t �'.,1�,�.� � k�',., t2�`�i"i ?r .� ��, ,� � �. 2200015 ,1r ' Associates LLC: 3' Ft : c' ! T ,a ': r ✓_ .+'yy,'^ ,_ �• � oC is ..-_�" __ �,�r�.,;'��/�^]J��� r �'•�� 1 ` ,�' � t .�+ �ewt r!. .� �P� T-++-•ter �. t-'.. 't'`._x>,- i�`-'¢. ��' nw +{,z• n,,'a r` l \ t y ii :t�_swaya�' s ��,..,..-+.a" '' .. ..Z - Iv 6CT-=7—..,-.x.__�CIiL_ ��'.2.�..>_ ..J�ti. �� _.s_1•�.�� ,c.•.:` � �41 �,r.",; 1 � 11 .11 •11 � 11 11 •1• /1• -�� -e Dilapidated1914 Hott" 1 dp < �'•• �t� tf C.� � ,y,,l ,{� �� S � � -:='�'`'1' ''�• �^ i::„ a � �r f3�t ,� � ,>< fid, ���. 'Ike,, r hiY � I �': fi ,zy,.. , ,w%G' `e � F h `{r�- ` '" w � � ��v2"�d7� '�` ", �}`�• i+ L T y1 ��� 'F'S �s �� ' "� S�}•) �t-,�� ,i��.�+-y f'�t�yr t nn�� )i � � � rybti- J + �."i'f w�r>t�� � -�i�,•Lr .t,}�1'J r ,j " u,�_ �{7c` �5'„i�/ ' � ti.�' �1+' �S'�� h: i A 2 •t t �1.�� ' y-P K, .��J'N � � •S�r: ..p y� ,41 A� l ,y��'�+ r n. yt yeR, Mea• • Sit f Destroyed F - e kr➢, -yA _ 11 ti4 { a `` 1902 Hotel gend ED site t ' Parcels Oft Contoursrf i '6 •jam. 11 / •1 it •1 !1 / ��� Figure' 7: Byron Hot SpringsAdjoining Owners x & Zoning Map Medium Scale A-3 A-2 A-2 SOUZA LOUIS B JR TRE � \ O COSl��NY&ANN TRE TAYLOR GAIL A EAST BAY A SOCIATES LLC r _ - F-R FOWLER DAVID T L-I FOWLER DAVID T • 1 EAST BAY ASSOCIATES LLC FOWLER DAVID T I A-3 WILDLANDS INC - c Armstrong IRd to Legend \ c Site A-3 (Heavy Agricultural) 'm 0 Parcels A-4 (Agricultural Preserve) Zoning D L-I (Light Industrial) F-R (Forestry Recreational) H-1 (Heavy Industrial) I _ P-1 [� Planned Unit N A-2 (General Agricultural) ( ) P-1 Map created 2/28/2008 Feet by Contra Costa County Community Development,GIS Group Q 4�� $�� ,6�� 2,400 3,200 651 Pine Street,4th Floor North Wing,Martinez,CA 94553-0095 37:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384W This map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be '- reproduced in its current state if the source is cited.Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information Figure Byron Airport Policies •� _.- - - _ .�,. IT 4 z N It ITE 20 \ �h �..r t F ♦ .w _ `�. 1 ^`,`^s �-\ t � .` '�.^.,`• •j .-ham .u.._,,,,.....9:---¢���g''�%� h "AbRiZONiAC"SURFACE r•.q ,; k,`•j5 #L r Yi .. .:; 1 y A _ /p �,� �?,••- ,y�','. ..�i15CY above aryott ekvaalion: 1 :•'` ^'' � ,�-A +Z}S .. �� 's' 2,♦.�.A} '` r \ > -\� M.S,L ..-_'�._•-r 't i � s�� 1 '" � ��.ti's .�s':\`"r`�`lr.,.:. '`�' G + t"'. �T z.,. � t n.r `�•, " ,✓'. .rdC'' t O:fi &A i'" �y� f it`s N y/ t •R �` s \ p _ k�."y- yG 7 r ..t. A.z'�.c•'i J.:j./f .i.M '+2. � � a t- ..,A -���! i n" `'''7� f r• `M1 W� -� f ��'g� --ytutc a sort 'Y"�,,:""'""' r.-s"`. '�.::.: F•',t �'^J.E'� � �'t \�t� ...snRreSs�°'-*,.. 1 � r t •z;. e •�;7,t 1 s .$ }JY .,. S• 4'>.-ry'`r• S + t< a � �t� ✓��� q z. - � f i,;-r t.F`r rz��_ k Y._ c'J Sa ,� � y'`+X' _ i \.i` . -titer y..r3�S r r � G �y,�L� ,..,.'`'. 'E � r?r ice'' t .C. y�r � �•ct_�,t,,,*a�4•t0 \ 1.. _ .+^x't`. 'ar . .roKTC. f �5��•'L ;` �y t !`� J ,mss 'S rY"" �i. Yr'xw'w.+ f ).� •n,tr y =a �+� y t`7• '.;1+� '+•��`'t5., r� re, <Fi -'l 'C .,4;^' ".ga ta"''t �„'ki4 SY - a.i,e�.. x�k� v e� y ,t 'x { t� ��.. SC..3C'1r'r"'`•�, k. '*.YYEY .e� ,v✓'�, SLt,Lr,<. � � y � + � ° 5 x K u�s) � .,•1''\ .. iiy'r "t�' �.. '�•' r td-{> y.... �"r r +r;,+=rf^�-.'�'��� 'k�'�x.�.ga�xt.� 4� t.< 'f^�t 'i^ �' .�.'• !/~ *fit '� ' �'�x,� �S t. 1},y�.�'ab�'.' r�J�tfi �]°k '✓"�•.f �'�" ;4_ ., ��t r^ �' ,� r`�':• Y .. �.. {,,� �ya���T'rr� �i..t •rte k {•�",1g1 �.''x?y1M.t� y'ar'e t � �+ -"`,,"t'�-h y. S+�c� _ .i.�sl/�,�,� r,�.�sr✓.Yr,4. r'd.k r-,� 1."\ �`t '1t -i `q ?.3 '`,j.nt"'� f Kv.'a afn�51 51�+`.` r° J~ G ; "• t�'� �i .. .^ t oa;'Di ..,.r; i�� �, \�•..•s�.1/ :.(.j! }�a �tw�Jin >< n �'�,•.- ._ _ { h .��id�t ', fr- ,;k�`�•,� u '� L-��j` J y ! +'•—r2�`"`""tJ�y \ `L M rr. �� y ��.,ttu s�/.{� '> `''ti `''� �^i��-,•'\..ati..a >.r y,a�,y�c,,�t�.t.,� 'y�y,r� \ ���` - ' •k t>• an,F ,z' A "+�-: T^m'*•A'�7>ajd\N.F.-L T—. ,y nnat<`c' t r rv�1.. � a^'� .i.'h+�r°:._•�+.y��'.,,,�...c..�y 5,000' Terrain Penetrates FEET 101000' Indicated Surface 0 N v=!5,O00` Airspace protection Surtaces Byron Airport Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatib"'ty Plan(December 2 001 4-12 Figure 9 b� o SITE � v Cliftor Foreba _ J C1 %A d w C1 F W ieight cep` on Overlay a �. ' B3� Cl B2 i God ourtY P = Privately-owned parcel S = State-owned parcel W = parcel under Williamson Act Byron Airport Compatibility Plan Airport Land Use Commission . Contra Costa County i 7 i .......... Figure 10 Byron Airport Noise Contours [ SITE 41 Q 17 a y 1 Iti i v ; ;r• ~4 ' ' Elill IrP.ActivRv Assum❑'ons .�0 160,200 Total Annual Aircraft Operations, including 20,000 Helicopter Operations and 200 Historic Military Jet Operations Airport Property Boundary NOTES: 55-60 dB CNEL Future operations projection represents F', �,"l 60-65 dB CNEL the activity level associated with planned capacity of 400 based aircraft. r7l 71 65-70 d6 CNEL Runway lengths include planned extensions. .. 70+ dB CNEL 1' Source:Shutt Moen Associates(April 2000). - 1:24,000 CONTRA COSTA COUNTYt�"' �;�;, � Page 0 0.25 o.s r Cot—A41hn--N.Wing, fmu=CP9m 11-34 ., 651 Pi.S 2�annoo,-N.w;1, �casasswas „ Miles 3:59-4e.45 5w iz:.oe:u.aeaw t'� 1405/6 AA1Zr Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC To Jane Pennington/COB/CCC@CCC 05/02/2008 11:02 AM cc i bcc Subject Item D4-Byron Hot Springs-Additional Correspondence -----Forwarded by Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC on 05/02/2008 10:58 AM----- Good Morning Jane: y, p Please find attached a letter received yesterday from Steve Abrams related to the Board's consideration of the Byron Hot Springs matter on Tuesday's agenda. The letter was received after the Board report was issued. I have also included my brief email response to Mr.Abrams. Thank you Catherine Kutsuris Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC y: 05/02/2008 10:50 AM To steve@abramsassociatescom cc Bob Drake/CD/CCC@CCC Subject Fw: Byron Hot Springs Appeal-Additional Information u -----Forwarded by Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC on 05/02/2008 10:49 AM----- Steve: The reference in the email below to a May 13th correspondence should have been:referred to as your April 29th correspondence. Thank you Catherine Kutsuris Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC 05/01/2008 07:00 PM' To Steve Abrams<steve@abramsassociates.com> cc bdrak@cd.cccounty.us Subject Re: Byron Hot Springs Appeal-Additional Information[] 5' ,Steve Abrams <steve@abramsas sociates.com> ._tl Mr. Abrams: This email is in response to both your letter which was just received this afternoon as well as your letter emailed on May 13th. Although the May 13th letter was not filed in sufficient time to allow for a response in the Board report, a copy of the letter was attached to the report. As such, the Board will have the document available t6them a sufficiently in advance of the upcoming hearing next Tuesday. We will also forward to the Board a copy of the second letter which you have just provided. I have briefly reviewed your most recent letter, along with the May 13th correspondence. The item that appears most apparent is a misunderstanding of either the appeal that will be before the board or the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act to ministerial projects. Most of the text of your letters focus on arguments supporting a CEQA Categorical Exemption. The decision of whether a project is exempt from CEQA or whether a mitigated negative declaration"or an environmental impact report should be prepared is based on a completed discretionary application. The appellant has not made such an application. Thus, without a discretionary application to review, we cannot presuppose what the outcome of an environmental review might be. Your statement that our Department has carefully reviewed the potential for environmental impacts is not correct. The filing was limited to an incomplete application for a building permit. I presume that you have received a copy of the report through your client. If you have not, and would like a copy, please call our office at 335-1210 and one will be readily available. Following the number of meetings held with your client and the-correspondence that has occurred during the intervening period following the appeal, I must say that I.am disappointed in the tone of your letters. I am hopeful, though, that after you have had an opportunity to review the report, that the basis of the staff recommendations will be more clear. (As a final note, although I haven't had an opportunity to review your recent letter in detail, I did quickly note that your traffic analysis is based on a maximum of 120 hotel rooms. This is lower than the historic records for the site, which presumably means that you have underestimated the traffic impact). Catherine Kutsuris Steve Abrams <steve@abramsassociates.c To ckuts@cd.cccounty.us �r om> cc bdrak@cd.cccounty.us 05/01/2008 05:48 PM Subject Byron Hot Springs Appeal-Additional Information Catherine, Since I haven't heard back from you I decided to send out my second letter with the supporting data and discussion to back up the points in my first letter. Let me know if you can show me that I'm off-track here and I'll be happy to back off. Thanks, Steve Stephen Abrams PRESIDENT Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering 1660 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 945-0201 FAX: (925) 945-7966 http://www.abramsassociates.com � I Additional Byron Appeal Info.pdf Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 1, 2008 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street,Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553-4068 Re: Additional Information on the Potential Environmental Impacts for the May 6,2008 Appeal on the Byron Hot Springs Resort Dear Board Members, I would like to summarize the key environmental and planning issues associated with the upcoming appeal, as I understand them. This;l letter is also intended to provide evidence to assure you that there are, in fact, no significant environmental impacts associated with the three building permits requested to restore the historic hotel and spa. In general, this letter contains additional technical details and data to support the arguments presented in my April 29, 2008 letter to Catherine Kutsur s of the Community Development Department(CDD). It is very important to keep'in mind that even if the project were granted a categorical exemption from CEQA based on its historical status (under section 1533 1)the County is still required to determine if there is any"reasonable possibility"that the three buildings will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, to imply that this project will somehow be able to circumvent the environmental review process with a CEQA exemption is nonsense. The project will still need to provide whatever studies or information are needed to help the County verify the project would not cause any significant impacts. The Real Issue is the Environmental Review for the Third Building Permit As described in the staff report, this is really all about the fact that CDD staff is only willing to clear two of the three requested building permits because the third one involves "reconstruction"of a building that had not existed for a long time. They can't point to any significant environmental impacts that would result from the inclusion of the third building but they just don't think it's a good idea to"support"this project by issuing anything beyond the first two permits. The reason I mention "support" is because the General Plan specifically states "that the re-establishment of a hotel and spa" is "supported". While we respect the CDD's right to recommend clearance of only two permits—we believe they have been misleading everyone involved by refusing to acknowledge that almost all of the confusing issues they have raised stem from their own questionable interpretation, that these three buildings are inconsistent with the General Plan. 1660 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 Walnut Creek,'CA 94596 925.945.0201 Fax: 925.945.7966 Byron Hot Springs Resort Appeal Abrams Associates l RAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 2 They have determined that since the third building would clearly, involve something more than "rehabilitation"that they don't believe this should be"supported"with any further building permits or expedited approvals. This is quite disappointing since it is clear that the site cannot be re-established as a viable hotel and spa project without the third building. In other words, they haven't provided any actual sold reasons as to why they want this third building permit to be subject toy.a more stringent environmental and planning review. They clearly don't like the idea of letting the applicant receive more than the two permits but since they can't point to any actual environmental impacts they've instead been using some very confusing tactics to prevent this from happening. The Supervisors need to be made aware that it is already required that the County verify this project would not have any significant impacts—that's a given even if it is allowed an exemption from CEQA. What the staff is, in essence, requiring is a more thorough and detailed environmental review (for a negative declaration or an EIR) even though ' there is no evidence that the additional studies would result in the identification of new impacts. It appears that without some clear direction from the Supervisors on this the CDD staff will continue to insist the project should not be expedited or given any other approvals regardless of whether or not the General Plan indicates "support" for it. Without your help it seems likely the CDD will continue to use their resources to find more reasons why this third building permit should not be approved. All this is being done based on the assumption that this is how the Supervisors actually want them to approach this. The Need for the Supervisors to Provide Direction to the CDD I think the main point here is that if the Board of Supervisors (the Board) voted to deny the appeal (and the third building permit) it 'would, in reality, be a vote that indicates there is not much support for putting an actual hotel and spa on the site. By denying the appeal the Board would essentially be instructing CDD staff to require a full environmental review for the third and find permit and CDD staff informed us that would take up to 4 years. The CDD staff really seems to believe this is what the Board wants them to do. As a result the CDD is using their full arsenal of planning tools to resist this including: claiming there is evidence this is part of a larger project, remaining rigid in their interpretations of the General Plan and CEQA, claiming the submittals are incomplete so they just can't make a decision, etc. We believe that if the Board directed the CDD to move this along they actually could very quickly issue the"planning" clearance for all three permits with a set of reasonable conditions that have, in essence, already been agreed to by the project applicant. The problem is that without a planning clearance from the CDD there is really no point in submitting detailed site plans or building designs for their review because without the third building there is no viable hotel/spa project. On a side note, it was the,applicant's understanding that the County implied previously that by abandoning the plan to reconstruct the numerous historic structures on the site and Byron Hot Springs Resort Appeal Abrams Associates B YPP TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 3 reducing his project to just the three most famous buildings in'a small area- it would be acceptable. He also understood that for this to happen any larger resort plans would be subject to the normal environmental review process. Since there have been previous approvals issued for larger projects on the site you can imagine that the currently proposed four-year delay for these three building permits is not acceptable for several reasons including 1)there are no actual environmental impacts and 2)the project can clearly be issued a categorical exemption under CEQA (as discussed in the CEQA Compliance section below), 3) after all these delays it is entirely possible that changes to the economy and the availability of funding could make the restoration project infeasible. The fact is all evidence available indicates there are no significant impacts and no one can point to any new impacts they believe could be identified at the end of several more years of environmental studies. During this time this property will remain blighted and the existing vandalism and safety concerns will continue. In addition, the County will continue to lose potential revenue and the East County will be denied a valuable source of new employment. While it may be debatable if we are in an actual recession there is no question that number of foreclosures and the unemployment rates have been going up and the East County has been particularly hard hit. In this current economy it is assumed that the Supervisors would want to be extra supportive of projects like this hotel and spa that clearly have he potential to create good jobs and stimulate economic development. Planning Clearance vs. the Building Permits Please recognize that at this point we are just looking to get planning clearance for the three historic buildings that;are being proposed. We fully recognize that a complete set of plans and some other items will be required before the building permits themselves can be issued. However, as you might imagine, we are hesitant to hire architects to prepare detailed plans if there is nojjchance of receiving the third and final permit. If a lengthy and detailed environmental'review (which we believe the project should be exempt from) will be required then that is a major problem because the current plan was specifically prepared to take advantage of the CEQA exemptions for these three buildings, which clearly have major historic significance. We have every intention of providing detailed plans and we believe there should be no problems resolving the remaining conditions and/or issues that CDD staff raised regarding the first two building permits. Please note that CDD staff currently believes they can issue only the first two permits so this is really the only scenario that has been discussed as far as the conditions go. It is certainly possible that they may have other issues to resolve with the third permit but right now we are assuming that no other major conditions would need to be added to accommodate the third (and final) permit. This seems reasonable since the third building would be immediately adjacent to the other two buildings and all three are contained in an area that comprises less than four acres of this 160-acre property. Byron Hot Springs Resort Appeal Abrams Associates Page 4 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Interpretation of General Plan Policy on the Byron Hot Springs We believe it is the interpretationof a specific General Plan Policy that is preventing this project from moving forward. The CDD staff referred me to some specific code sections they interpret as meaning the project should only receive two building permits. This conclusion begins with Section 65560 of the Government Code(attached and labeled as Item "A")that relates to "Open Space Lands". This section specifies that areas of historic value(that are designated as such in the local open space plan)would be considered"Open Space Land"and would be subject to the other associated code sections. The CDD staff then referenced Section 65567 (attached and'labeled as Item "B")that essentially states that no building permit may be issued unless the proposed construction is consistent with the local open-space plan. They then refer to the Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 3-74 on the Byron Hot Springs. This policy specifies that the ".rehabilitation"of buildings of historic value is supported. The underlying problem stopping this project is that CDD staff has interpreted this to mean that"reconstruction" of historic buildings is not supported. The main reason the CDD staff are insisting that the full environmental review process be required is because this final permit would involve "reconstruction"as opposed to just"rehabilitation". This may also be related to some confusion over the definition of the term "restoration" and how that might apply here. In any case, if the CDD staff really wanted to approve the three building permits we believe they have more than sufficient evidence to support doing this without a more detailed environmental review under CEQA. If the County decided to let the project move forward, resolving any remaining concerns about project impacts should be relatively straight-forward. However, none of this will happen without a different interpretation of the General Plan that would need to come from the Board, not the CDD staff. The Board clearly has the authority to provide some clarification on its interpretation of the Byron Hot Springs policy and could also modify it if they felt that was necessary. The Byron Hot Springs General Plan Policy A key consideration here is the Byron Hot Springs General Plan Policy 3-74 (attached and labeled as Item "C")that states"the re-establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported." However, if a viable hotel and spa can only be provided with the "reconstruction"of at least one additional historic building—then wouldn't still that be consistent with the policy to support the historic use of a hotel and spa? It seems that providing the minimum amount of building space to achieve a hotel and spa would be consistent with the intention of this policy. The main problem is that the CDD staff are clearly not comfortable making that conclusion without some specific direction to do so from the Board. We understand this is in part due to the fact that some conceptual plans were posted on a website before the Byron Hot Springs Resort Appeal Abrams Associates TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 5 applicant had determined his concept was not viable without a lengthy four-year environmental review. We hope you will not allow that mistake to indefinitely delay the current proposal to restore three historic buildings and re-establish the historic use of the hotel and spa. We believe that the Board's support for this is the only thing needed to prevent an environmental review that will be unnecessary and extremely time-consuming. In addition, as described below, exempting these historic buildings would not mislead the decision makers or the public about the impacts in any way because to the best of our knowledge no potential environmental impacts have been identified. I'm sure the CDD staff could probably come up with more things to study if the Board wanted them to but all currently available evidence indicates there would be no significant environmental impacts from this project. Information on the Project's Potential Environmental Impacts On-Site Environmental Effects It is our understanding that there were very few remaining issues or conditions that needed to be resolved to issue the two permits that CDD staff has indicated would be acceptable. The owners have agreed, in principle,to all of these so we don't anticipate any problems with on-site impacts due to the addition of the third building. We do assume that CDD staff will need to verify this. It is assumed that CDD staff carefully reviewed the potential for environmental impacts in the vicinity of the first two buildings and determined there would not even be any significant impacts or I'm sure they would not be suggesting that those two building permits could,.potentially be cleared: Off-Site Environmental Effects The hotel and spa project,as currently proposed, would generate a maximum of about 50 peak hour trips during the afternoon commute hour with all three buildings and a maximum of 120 hotel rooms. This is well under the 100-trip threshold that would require a detailed traffic study in Contra Costa County and clearly indicates that further review of off-site impacts to traffic, air, or noise would not be necessary. It should be noted that the assumption of 120 guest rooms is definitely conservative since we expect the space required for the spa,will result in a final total that will be closer to 100 rooms. The attached Table 1 presents the trip generation for the proposed project and also a comparison of the change in trip generation that would occur if the third permit were approved. We assume CDD staff will ultimately need to verify all this for you but for your records I've attached the pages on resort hotel trip generation from the primary reference that the County the for these kinds of estimates. Please note that additional facilities such as a spa or restaurant are assumed to be components of a resort Byron Hot Springs Resort Appeal Abrams Associates y pp TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 6 hotel and would not be assumed to generate additional traffic and there are preliminary plans for a shuttle to the Bay Point BART Station that could reduce the trip generation. It is important to also note that the Airport Land Use Commission has made it clear that this project is fully compatible with the Byron Airport expansion plans, which is required by the Byron Hot Springs General Plan Policy 3-74. As you might expect, a hotel is the kind of complimentary land use that most airports would like to have nearby. Submittal for the Building Permits Once planning clearance for the three historic buildings is received we certainly plan to meet all the remaining submittal,;requirements for the building permits. It is assumed that in addition to the standard review of the plans the CDD staff would need to verify the following: 1) The three buildings proposed for restoration are historically significant. The issue should be fairly straightforward given the well-documented history of the resort. 2) The proposed project's components with all three building permits (i.e. number of hotel rooms) would not generate more than 100 peak hour trips which would trigger the need for a detailed traffic study according to the CCTA's requirements. It should be possible to conclusively resolve this issue of potential traffic impacts by reviewing current information from the studies of the recently proposed Byron Airport expansion project. Those studies should cover everything since the airport expansion would add traffic to the exact same roadways and intersections as the proposed hotel and spa. That information, along with verification of the project trip generation, should be sufficient to lay to rest any concerns about off-site impacts. CEQA Compliance The CDD staff would also need to verify that the building designs would comply with the States Historic Architecture Guidelines and State Historical Building Code (HBC)which must be followed for a project to qualify for a categorical/ministerial exemption under CEQA. The April 23, 2008 letter from Bob Drake states that for historical buildings CEQA requires heightened environmental review. However, this would only apply if the project was proposing to deviate from the guidelines in the HBC. In this case;the proposal is to strictly adhere to the code so the"heightened environmental review" referred to would clearly not apply here. If the proposed buildings were being substantially modified from their original form or somehow violated the HBC requirements it would be a different story. I expect you're familiar with the common approach of obtaining CEQA exemptions for historic restoration projects like courthouses, churches, etc. The only way these projects can qualify for the exemption is by complying with all the HBC requirements. Byron Hot Springs Resort Appeal Abrams Associates y pp TRAFFIC ENGINEERING,INC. Page 7 Below I have provided the CEQA section under"Categorical Exemptions"that provides for the exemption of historical resource restoration. Please note that is not limited to "rehabilitation"and the section specifically mentions "reconstruction". This project is definitely proposing to handle the historic resources "in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. " Without boring you with more legal.details I am confident that, with the Board's approval, the CDD staff could indeed make,findings for a categorical exemption from CEQA for all three permits using the section cited on the following page. 15331. Historical Resource,Restoration/Rehabilitation. Class 31 consists of projects limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration,preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. Summary In summary, we are really asking for some help to break this thing loose since it has languished in planning limbo for so long now. We believe that unless some clear direction is given to the CDD staff they will continue to find ways throw up roadblocks for this project, primarily under the auspices of defending the sanctity of the general plan. I honestly believe there is a real opportunity here to turn this thing into something positive for everyone involved. I think that with your help we can get this going and provide you with a great project that will be a real source of pride and economic development for the East County. If there are any questions at all please don't hesitate to contact me at(925) 945-0201. 1 very much look forward to meeting you and discussing this further at your earliest convenience. Sincerely yours, Steplien C. Abrams President, Abrams Associates T.E.License No. 1852 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65560-65570 OPEN-SPACE LANDS 65560. (a) "Local open-space plan" is the open-space element of a county or city general plan adopted by the board or council, either as the local open-space plan or as the interim local open-space plan adopted pursuant to Section 65563. (b) "Open-space land" is any parcel or area of land or water that is essentially unimproved and devoted to an open-space use as defined in this section, and that is designated on a local,regional or state open-space plan as any of the following: (1) Open space for the preservation of natural resources including,but not limited to, areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, including habitat for fish and wildlife species; areas required for ecologic and other scientific study purposes; rivers, streams,bays and estuaries; and coastal beaches, lakeshores,banks of rivers and streams, and watershed lands. (2) Open space used for the managed production of resources, including but not limited to, forest lands,rangeland, agricultural lands and areas of economic importance for the production of food or fiber; areas required for recharge of groundwater basins; bays, estuaries, marshes, rivers and streams which are important for the management of commercial fisheries; and areas containing major mineral deposits, including those in short supply. (3) Open space for outdoor recreation, including but not limited to, areas of outstanding scenic,historic and cultural value; areas particularly suited for park and recreation purposes, including A access to lakeshores,beaches, and rivers and streams; and areas which serve as links between major recreation and open-space reservations, including utility easements, banks of rivers and streams,:trails, and scenic highway corridors. (4) Open space for public health and safety, including,but not limited to, areas which require special management or regulation because of hazardous or special conditions such as earthquake fault zones,unstable soil areas, flood plains,watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks, areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs and areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality. (5) Open space in support of the mission of military installations that comprises areas adjacent to military installations, military training routes, and'underlying restricted airspace that can provide additional buffer zones to military activities and complement the 1 65562.5. On and after March 1, 2005, if land designated,or proposed to be designated as open space, contains a place, feature, or object described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code, the city or county in which the place, feature,or object is located shall conduct consultations with the California Native American-tribe, if any, that has given notice pursuant to Section 65092 for the purpose of determining the level of confidentiality required to protect the specific identity, location, character, or use of the place,feature, or object and for the purpose of developing treatment with appropriate dignity of the place, feature, or.object in any corresponding management plan. 65563. On or before December 31, 1973, every city and county shall prepare, adopt and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency a local open-space plan for the comprehensive and long-range preservation and conservation of open-space land within its jurisdiction. Every city and county shall by August 31, 1972, prepare, adopt and submit to the Secretary of the Resources Agency, an interim open-space plan, which shall be in effect until December 31, 1973, containing,but not limited to,the following: (a)The officially adopted goals and policies which will guide the preparation and implementation of the open-space plan; and (b)A program for orderly completion and adoption of the open-space plan by December 31, 1973, including a description of the methods by which open-space resources will be inventoried and conservation measures determined. 65564. Every local open-space plan shall contain an action program consisting of specific programs which the legislative body intends to pursue in implementing its open-space plan. 65566. Any action by a county or city by which open-space land or any interest therein is acquired or disposed of or its use restricted or regulated,whether or not pursuant to this part,must be consistent with the local open-space plan. 65567. No building permit may be issued, no subdivision map B approved, and no open-space zoning ordinance adopted, unless the proposed construction, subdivision or ordinance is consistent with the local open-space plan. 3 3. Land Use Element Wind farm uses are to be considered appropriate within the resource area or along the periphery of the wind energy.resource area, subject to a careful review of the environmental impacts of specific wind farm proposals. 3-72. Within Southeast, Contra Costa County there is a geological deposit of domegine sandstone located just southerly of Camino Diablo and easterly of Vasco Road. This area is further discussed and mapped in the "Mineral Resources" section of the Open Space/Conservation Element. Limited residential`or ranchette development of these mineral properties may be appropriate, but residential use shall be identified as secondary to mineral operations and will not be allowed to preclude the full utilization of identified mineral resources. Any nearby residential use will be permitted conditionally after recognizing the probable expansion of mineral operations and accepting the possible nuisance and inconvenience associated with mineral operations. 3-73. Public agencies are in the process of acquiring substantial portions of the planning area to serve the needs of the growing population of the East Bay. Two major public works projects have been approved that are reflected in this plan the East Contra Costa County Airport and the Las Vaqueros Reservoir. Each is discussed' further in the Circulation Element and the Public Facilities/Services Element, respectively. The general location of the airport is shown on the land use element plan map. As the airport project proceeds, land developments in the area must take into account safety, noise, aviation easements, and preservation of the area's agricultural and biological resources. Transportation 3-74. The historic significance of the Byron Hot Springs site is acknowledged, the rehabilitation of buildings of historic value at the Byron Hot Springs site and the re-establishment of the historic use of the buildings as a hotel and spa are supported. The rehabilitation of the historic buildings on the Byron Hot Springs site should occur in a manner that is both consistent with other General Plan C policies and compatible with the operation of the nearby Byron Airport, as recommended in the ALUC compatibility Plan. Implementation of this policy should occur through a discretionary permit review process. Any proposal for the development of a larger resort complex on the Byron Hot Springs site, which may include the incidental rehabilitation of historic buildings, should be undertaken in the context of existing General Plan policies. 3-75. This plan further ,recognizes that if a reservoir or reservoirs'are built, that the Contra Costa Water District or other agencies may be required to construct additional secondary construction and access roads on these lands in order to serve their facility. 3-76. The Southern Pacific railroad provides rail service through Brentwood and Byron. No change in status is anticipated in this plan amendment. However, the railroad right of way does provide the potential for a recreational trail,route and for construction of future pipelines. POLICIES,FOR THE BAY POINT AREA Land Use. 3-77. The following policies shall guide development in the Bay Point area: 3-41 Table 1 Comparison of Trip Generation Characteristics for the Byron Hot Springs Resort AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Area Land Use Size ADT In Out Total In Out Total 1 Resort Hotel with all.three building permits) 120 rooms 391 27 10 37 22 29 50 2 Resort Hotel with just two building permits) 50 rooms 163 11 4 16 9 12 21 Difference in Trip Generation 228 16 6 22 13 17 29 Trip Generation, 7th Edition An Informational Report of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Volume 2 of 3 The Institute of TransportationEngineers(ITE) is an international educational and scientific association of transportation and traffic engineers and other professionals who are responsible for meeting mobility and safety needs. ITE facilitates the application of technology and scientific principles to research, planning, functional design, implementation, operation, policy development and management for any mode of transportation by promoting professional development of members, supporting and encouraging education, stimulating research, developing public awareness, and exchanging professional information; and by maintaining a central point of reference and action. Founded in 1930, ITE serves as`'a* gateway to knowledge and advancement through meetings, seminars and publications; and through our network of more than 15,000 members working in some 80 countries. ITE also has more than 70 local and regional chapters and more than 120 student chapters that provide additional opportunities for information exchange, participation and networking. Institute of Transportation Engineers 1099 14th St. NW, Suite 300 West Washington, DC 20005-3438 USA Telephone:+1 202-289-0222 Fax: +1 202-289-7722 ITE on the Web:www.ite.org ©2003 Institute of Transportation Engineers.All rights reserved. Publication No. IR-016E Second Printing 1,000/AGS/1203 ISBN No: 0-935403-79-5 Printed in the United States of America Land Use: 330 Resort Hotel , Description Resort hotels are similar to hotels(Land Use 310)in that they provide sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops and guest services. The primary difference is that resort hotels cater to the tourist and vacation industry,often providing a wide variety of recreational facilities/programs(golf courses, tennis courts, beach access,or other amenities) rather than convention and meeting business. Resort hotels are normally located in suburban or outlying locations on larger sites than conventional hotels. One site surveyed in the San Diego area is actually a"motel row"with combined facilities similar to a resort hotel. Hotel (Land Use 310), all suites hotel(Land Use'311), business hotel (Land Use 312)and motel(Land Use 320) are related uses. Additional Data Eleven studies provided information on occupancy rates at the time the studies were conducted. The average occupancy rate for these studies was approximately 82 percent. Some properties contained in this land use provided guest transportation services(such as airport shuttles, limousine services, or golf course shuttle service),which may have had an impact on the overall trip generation rates. The sites were surveyed from the 1970s to the 1990s throughout the United States. For all lodging uses, it is important to collect data on occupied rooms as well"as total rooms in order to accurately predict trip generation characteristics for the site. Source Numbers 18,40, 100,270,277, 381,436 'Aye•. i V t:: Trip Generation, 7th Edition 615 Institute of Transportation Engineers a Resort Hotel ' (330) } Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, f One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Rooms: 504 Directional Distribution:, 72% entering, 28% exiting _ Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.31 0.24 - 0.41 0.57 Data Plot and Equation 400 x 1 300 . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W Q x 200 . . .,.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. x :f c -r x .� too x Xic. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . • f LI t --- 0 - --I I I ;. 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 X=Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T;--0.40(X)-40.79 RZ=0.75 y Trip Generation,7th Edition 625 Institute of Transportation Engineers a 5. Resort Hotel (330) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Rooms On a: Weekday, F, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. i ' Number of Studies: 10 Average Number of Rooms: 495 i Directional Distribution: 43% entering, 57% exiting Trip Generation per Room Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.42 . 0.19 - 0.51 0.65 5 Data Plot and Equation 500 7——_.. -- _....._.__..... ----.... ---- i 400 .. . j / fa _ LU CL 300 ._ m U L f� 200 . . . . . Q Y II .X I JJ too 1 i 0 - 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 600 900 X=Number of Rooms X Actual Data Points`. Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=1.44 Ln(X)-3.62 R2=0.93 Trip Generation,7th Edition 626 Institute of Transportation Engineers REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: 5- ' L o 06- speaker's 6-speaker's podium, andvait to be called by the Chair. My continents will be: General Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For Naive (PRINT): 5 C Tkt P b A M 5 ❑ Against To ensure your Name is announced correctly,yon n;4 want to include its phonetic spelling ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of. Address: 12 o 1 y Hnrc (31,4Q. 02 u City: t�s�� �,�� Cv.�.�� cA 945- L Phone: a S $) - a '7 05 I am speaking for: ❑ Myself ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to N Organization: '5 A, � M w^-F p1A!5 l.0 leave comments for the Board to consider (Use the back of this form) REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak on Agenda Item#: Complete this forth and place it in the upright box near the Date: S b� speaker's podium,and wait to be called by the Chair. My comments will be: ❑ General Personal irtforntation is optional. This speaker's card will be incorporated hao the public record)of this meeting. ❑ For Name(PRINT). ��. `Q �u INt,s El Against To ensure vow-narise is announced correctly,you inay want to include its phonetic spelling .I wish to speak on the subject of: Address: 3 C 66 PI 1 City: Phone: I am speaking for: ❑ Myself 1 l� Organization: rra*i ❑ Ido not want,to speak but would like to leave comments for the Board to consider - -- (Use the back of this foi'ln) REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit)' I wish to speak on Agenda Itein#: Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date: C� speaker's podium,and wait to be called by the.Chair. My comments will be: ❑ General Personal h formation is optional. This speaker's card will be Incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ( For Name(PRINT): I)1�t- '�� C)co Against To ensure vow-name is announced correctly,you may want to include its phonetic spelling wish to speak on the subject of-' . Address: city: Ph le � t I ani speaking for: Myself ❑ Organization: ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to leave conunents for the Board to consider (Use the back of this fount) .A 1 14 H! s O dti � b3 r O to 0 mom I $ 't W O tC 0<E3 0 WWO rN _ f 0Qsl0 t,Jt -JF IMJ 01 LUD 4a 21' D k! 0 fA N � z a� o o Q cG 0 - 0 .3 j Oil!" CC , 0 cn o > W o W� f: uj L o W O C7 v W In 1�10 C mo w cnin c' W �. Project Description for Mailed Legal Notice for Board of Supervisors May 6, 2008 hearing. Ordinance Code § 14-4.006 requires that the Clerk of the Board give the appellant at least five days' written notice of the hearing. A hearing on an appeal filed by East Bay Associates of an administrative decision by the Community Development Department on building permit applications for three buildings on the site of the former Byron Hot Springs resort. The subject property is located at #5400 Byron Hot Springs Road, in the Byron area. (APN 002-200-014 &-015) Mailing List for Hearing ofAppeal David Fowler Steve Abrams of Adnzih Decision — Byron Hot East Bay Associates Abrams Associates Springs c/o 741 Shady Glen 1660 Olympic Boulevard, 4210 D:\Personalwlailiiw List for Hearing of Appeal of BHS Admin Decision.lab.doc Martinez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 9459.6 Daniel Muller INTEROFFICE MAIL CE MAIL INTEROFFICE Morgan Miller Blair Public 'Works Department INTINTEE Environmental Health 1331 North California Blvd. 4200 Engineering Services Division Concord Walnut Creek, CA.94596 Martinez INTEROFFICE MAIL INTEROFFICE MAIL INTEROFFICE MAIL Building Inspection Department Manager of Airports Sheriff- Coroner Office Martinez Buchanan Field, Concord East Contra Costa County Fire County Fire Protection District INTEROFFICE MAIL Protection District 2010 Geary Road Manager of Airports Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Buchanan Field, Concord INTEROFFICE MAIL Save Mt. Diablo Lashun Cross 1901 Olympic :Boulevard, Suite 220 Staff to Airport Land Use Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Commission c/o Community Development Dept. Steve Abrams to bdrak@cd.cccounty.us ;k <steve@abramsassociates.c om> cc 04/22/200801:01 PM bcc Subject Byron Hot Springs Resort Building Permits Bob, , I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the background and status of the Byron Hot Springs Resort permits. It remains to be seen if something can be worked out but now I'm starting to better understand the issues. Please add me to the list for any correspondence on this. Dave Fowler should also be kept in the loop but for the time being I will be the primary contact regarding the permits. Thanks again for your help, Steve Stephen Abrams PRESIDENT Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering 1660 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 945-0201 FAX: (925) 945-7966 http://www.abramsassociates.com BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF Hearing for: Appeal of East Bay Associates of an administrative decision by the Community Development Department on building permit applications for three buildings on the site of the former Byron Hot Springs resort. The subject property is located at 45400 Byron Hot Springs Road, in the Byron area. (APN 002-200-014& 015) Notice of hearing for Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 1:00 p.m., was mailed this day, Monday, April 28, 2008. I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled matter to the following: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: April 28, 2008 e McHuen, Deputy Clerk Nladin.1 List for Hearing of Appeal David Fowler Steve Abrams of Admin Decision —Byron Hot East Bay Associates AbramAssociates Spriiz�s c/o 741 Shady Glen 16600 1 lyrnpic Boulevard, #210 D:APersonal','Mailing List for Hearing of Appeal of BNS Admin Decision.lab.doc IVlartrnez, CA 94553 Walnut Creek CA 94596 Daniel Muller INTEROFFICE MAIL INTEROFFICE MAIL Morgan Miller Blair Public Works Department 1331 North California Blvd. #200 Engineering Services Division Environmental Health Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Martinez Concord INTEROFFICE MAIL INTEROFFICE MAIL INTEROFFICE MAIL Building Inspection Department Manager of Airports Martinez Buchanan Field, Concord Sheriff- Coroner Office East Contra Costa County Fire County Fire Protection District INTEROFFICE MAIL Protection District 2010 Geary Road Manager of Airports Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Buchanan Field, Concord INTEROFFICE MAIL California Department of Fish and Save Mt. Diablo Lashun Cross Game 1901 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 220 Staff to Airport Land Use Region 3 WahZut Creek, CA 94596 Commission PO Box 47 c/o Community Development Dept. Yountville, CA 94599 Central Valley Region U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Arany Corps of Engineers California Regional Water Quality .Division of Ecological Services Sacramento District Control Board 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2606 1325 J Street, Room 1320 3443 Routir Road, Suite A Sacramento, CA 94525-1898 Sacramento, CA 94814-2922 Sacramento, CA 94827-3098 i ; Project Description for Mailed Legal Notice for Board of Supervisors May 6, 2008 hearing. Ordinance Code § 14-4.006 requires that the Clerk.,of the Board give the appellant at least five days' written notice of the hearing. A hearing on an appeal filed by East Bay Associates of an administrative decision by the Community Development Department on building permit applications for three buildings on the site of the former Byron Hot Springs resort. The subject property is located at #5400 Byron Hot Springs Road, in the Byron area. (A-PN 002-200-014 &-015) The Board of Supervisors Contra Toho Cullen Clerk of the Board Costa and County Administration Building County Administrator - 65F-Pine Street,Room 106County (925)335-1080 Martinez;California 94553-4068 36hn Gioia District I<: L Gayle B.Uilkema,District II Mary N.Piepho,District III Susan Bonilla,District IV .FederalD.Glover,,.District V '$ o, �niw:. May 28, 2008 Mr. David Fowler East Bay associates C/O 741 Shady Glen Martinez,,CA 94553_ RE: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL You are hereby notified that.Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. is the date and time set for the hearing of appeal on an administrative decision by the Community Development Department on building permit applications for three buildings on the site of the former Byron Hot Springs resort. The subject property is located at#5400 Byron Hot Springs Road, in the Byron area. (APN 0027200-014& 015) If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else .raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written.correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public hearing. Very truly yours, JOHN CULLEN, County Administrator And Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By ;� ne McHuen,Deputy Clerk ' Daniel Muller,,Morgan Miller Blair Steve Abrains,Abrams Associates