Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09181984 - T.7 1 ,7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 18, 1984 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers , McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Fanden , Schroder ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Hearing on appeal filed by Charlie Pringle Construction from the Board of Appeals decisions on MS 7-84 and LUP 2115-84 in the Oakley area . This being the time fixed for hearing on the appeal filed by Charlie Pringle Construction from the Board of Appeals decisions on MS 7-84 and LUP 2115-84 in the Oakley area; and Norm Halverson , County Planning Department , described the property site and advised that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted for this project , and also advised that the Zoning Administrator approved two parcels with conditions of approval , and stated that the applicant has filed an appeal on the con- dition of Collect and Convey, Title 9 , for providing drainage from the site; and I Supervisor Torlakson requested that the Public Works Department comment on the condition in question; and Boyd Jewett , County Public Works Department , advised that the Contra Costa County Flood Control Water Conservation District has a Collect and Convey, requirement and that this property is subject to the Drainage Area 29H Drainage Plan , and stated that the applicant is therefore required to collect and convey, and also advised that there is presently no drainage system in place , and that none of the system formed in June 1983 is in the drainage area; and Chairman Torlakson declared the public hearing open; and Charlie Pringle , applicant , appeared and stated that the con- dition he is appealing is that he purchase 2.7 acres for the reten- tion basin and donate it to the County , that he has only 2V2 acres , and that he felt this requirement was unreasonable , commenting that he had agreed to pay drainage fees that the County ordinance calls for; and Mr . Pringle also commented that the State Map Act provides that the County shall impose only conditions that are reasonable , and inquired as to .the discrepancies in the County General Plan which allows for a trucking yard on one side of the subject pro- perty, but does not allow four parcels , and requested that the Board approve his appeal for four lots , and remove the condition which would require the .purchase of a 2.7 acre parcel , and also requested that the fees he has paid for the appeals be returned to him; and Supervisor Torlakson inquired as to whether the County Planning. Department could respond to the question of the General Plan and zoning requirements; and Norm Halverson commented that at the time the East County General Plan was developed the Oakley Sanitation District and Water District were not able to serve all of the East County area , and commented that if there is a minimum lot size in this area , it should be one acre; and Mr . Jewett advised that the condition in question requires that if the applicant elects to solve the Collect and Convey 3 requirements with the drainage basin method he can purchase the site and then would be reimbursed in accordance with the drainage area reimbursment policy; and Supervisor Torlakson commented that he felt this property was premature for development because it does not have the necessary infrastructure , and requested staff to comment on the adjacent trucking yard mentioned by Mr . Pringle; and Mr . Jewett commented that this was under a Land Use Permit to be reviewed each year; and Supervisor Torlakson commented that in reviewing this case and listening to the testimony at this hearing, he felt it reaso- nable to support the decision of the Board of Appeals and the staff position , that there is an alternative , that the development in the area is premature , and also commented that a requirement throughout East County was that builders be required to front money for impro- vements , the money is for laying pipes into the main network, and as time goes on they would be reimbursed; and Supervisor Torlakson also stated that this method has been a reasonable approach to letting property develop and subdivide , and at that point recommended that the Board deny the two subject appeals; and Supervisor Powers inquired as to whether or not the County was complying with the laws and regulations for this project , and inquired as to whether the application of these ordinances is being applied here as it has been with other similar applications in the past; and Supervisor Torlakson commented that he felt a precedent would be set for breaking away from the guidelines if this appeal were to be granted and recommended that the appeal be denied both for extra lots and for the removal of the conditions relating to the drainage requirements . Board members discussed the matter , and reviewed and con- siderd all of the testimony given and the written materials pre- sented to and on file with its Clerk, and based thereon, IT IS ORDERED that the appeals filed by Charlie Pringle Construction from Board of Appeals decision on MS 7-84 and LUP 2115-_84 in the Oakley area are DENIED , in part , for the following reasons: 1 . (A) The evidence presented to the County's Planning Agency is not sufficient to support the findings required by Ordinance Code §26-2.2008 for the requested Land Use Permit to establish four homes . (B) Based upon the evidence presented to it , this Board cannot make the findings required by Ordinance Code §26-2.2008. 2. The proposed tentative map application (MS 7-84) for four lots is not consistent with the County' s 1978 East County Area General Plan . Among other reasons , the proposed map is not con- sistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan , which require a minimum parcel size of one acre for properties (such as the applicant' s 2.5 acre parcel ) with only one public service (water but not sewers ) available . 3. (A) The evidence presented is not sufficient to sup- port the findings required by Ordinance Code §92-6.002 for the requested exceptions to the minimum subdivision drainage improvement requirements of Division 914 of the Ordinance Code . (B) Based upon the evidence presented , this Board can- not make the findings required by Division 914. 4 . MS 7-84ts proposed four lots donft conform to appli- cable zoning requiations (Ord . Code § 84-58. 4.4) . I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the Mj,,U4 .esr of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Arl ATTESTED: PHIL BATCHfLOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator - Deputy Orig Dept: Clerk of the Board cc: Director of Planning Public Works Director County Counsel Charlie Pringle Constr .