HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07211992 - D.1 D. 1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •! f ``';• Contra
•`"��, ��
Costa
FROM: HARVEY E . BRAGDON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEV.
VICTOR J. WESTMAN, COUNTY COUNSEL -4° County
DATE: Jul;
. 1 _ . . covK
SUBJECT: Denial of Appeal of William and Tanya Desmond (applicant/
owner and appellants) from denial of LUP #2085-91 to
establish a residential second unit at #8 Golden Hill Court,
in the Walnut Creek area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I . RECOMMENDATIONS: Find this project to be categorically exempt-
Class 3A from the provision of CEQA, deny the appeal and affirm the
planning commission' s denial of LUP #2085-91 to establish a second
residential unit, and adopt Findings supporting denial, attached as
Exhibit A.
II . FISCAL IMPACT: . None.
III . BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On April 21, 1992,
the Board of Supervisors heard the appeal of William and Tanya
Desmond from the Planning Commission' s denial of LUP #2085-91 . The
Board considered all of the testimony and documentation received
during the public hearing and declared its intent to deny the
appeal and directed staff to prepare findings to support its
intended decision. Our offices have prepared the attached Findings
for the Board' s consideration and approval .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 21 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: II, III , IV NOES: I . V ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED July 21 , 1992
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Mary Hudson THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
William and Tanya Desmond COUN(J ADMINISTRATOR
Maurice E. Huget
BY LA ° , DEPUTY
djs(2): a:\desmond.mem
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF LAND USE PERMIT NO. 2085-91
In denying the application for Land Use Permit (LUP) No.
2085-91 filed by William and Tanya Desmond (applicants/owners and
appellants , hereinafter "applicants " ) , to establish a residential
second unit at No . 8 Golden Hill Court in the Walnut Creek area
and affirming the action of the County Planning Commission
denying LUP No. 2085-91 , the Contra Costa County. Board of
Supervisors finds as follows :
A. The Record. In making the above decisions , the Board of
Supervisors has considered the County General Plan, the County' s
Zoning Ordinance, all documents and exhibits presented to all of
the bodies holding hearings on this application, all testimony
given at all public hearings held on this application, the
exemption status of the project under CEQA, and all staff
reports .
B. Background .
1 . Finding: On September 17 , 1991 , William and Tanya
Desmond, the applicants , submitted an LUP request to establish a
residential second unit to be attached to the single family
residence on the property located at No. 8 Golden Hill Court,
Walnut Creek, California in the unincorporated area of Contra
Costa County.
Evidence : Community Development Department ( "CDD" )
file LUP 2085-91 .
2 . Finding: The property is located in an R-15 ( single
family residential ) zoning district . Under the R-15 zoning
ordinance, residential second units which comply with the
provisions of County Ordinance Code Chapter 82-24 are allowed if
a land use permit is issued.
Evidence: CDD file LUP 2085-91 ; Co . Ord . Code, § 84-
12 . 404 ( incorporating § 84-4 . 404 ) .
3 . Finding: The property is designated in the County
General Plan as single family residential-low density.
Evidence: CDD file LUP 2085-91; County General Plan
(Land Use Element, p. 318 , referencing Land Use Element Map) .
4 . Finding: The application was scheduled to be heard by
the Zoning Administrator on December 2 , 1991 and notice of the
hearing was duly given . The staff recommended approval of the
request to establish a residential second unit . On January 6 ,
1992 the Zoning Administrator approved the project . An appeal
signed by fifteen neighbors was received by the CDD on January
15 , 1992 . The appeal was scheduled to be heard by the County
EXHIBIT A
Planning Commission on February 11 , 1992 and notice of the
hearing was duly given . On that date the County Planning
Commission heard all testimony and evidence submitted, granted
the appeal of those opposing the project, and denied the request
of the applicants to establish a residential second unit .
Evidence: CDD file LUP 2085-91 ( including transcripts
of hearings ) .
5 . Finding: On February 21 , 1992 the applicants , through
their attorney, Mary L. Hudson, appealed the Planning
Commission' s decision to the Board of Supervisors . A hearing was
scheduled and duly noticed for April 21, 1992 . At the close of
the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors declared its intent
to deny the applicant' s appeal and directed staff to prepare
findings to support its decision.
Evidence: Clerk of the Board file - appeal of William
and Tanya Desmond (LUP 2085-91 ) .
C . CEQA Finding.
6 . Finding . The project is a Class 3-A categorically
exempt project and is , therefore, exempt from the provisions of
CEQA.
Evidence: CDD file LUP 2085-91 , State CEQA Guidelines ,
section 15303 ; Clerk of the Board file - Appeal of William and
Tanya Desmond (LUP 2085-91 ) .
D. Land Use Permit Findings .
7 . Finding: The proposed second unit is architecturally
incompatible with the overall neighborhood character and the
primary residence in terms of scale, colors, materials and
designs for trims , windows , roof , roof pitch and other exterior
physical features .
Evidence: CDD file LUP 2085-91 ; Clerk of the Board
file - Appeal of William and Tanya Desmond ( including written and
oral testimony presented at hearings ) ; C .C .C. Ord. Code § 82-
24 . 1002 .
8 . Finding: The development of the second unit will
present a threat to the public health, safety and welfare in that
the second unit would result in excessive neighborhood noise and
would create traffic and parking problems .
Evidence: CDD file LUP 2085-91 ; Clerk of the Board
file - Appeal of William and Tanya Desmond ( including written and
oral testimony presented at hearings ) ; C .C .C . Ord . Code § 82-
24 . 1002 .
EXHIBIT A
9 . Finding: Special conditions or unique characteristics
of the subject property and its location or surroundings are not
established .
Evidence: CDD file LUP 2085-91 ; Clerk of the Board
file - Appeal of William and Tanya Desmond ( including written and
oral testimony presented at hearings ) ; C .C .C . Ord. Code § 26-
2 . 2008 .
10 . Finding: A second unit is not suitable in this
location, is out of. character with the surrounding neighborhood
and would be an intrusion into the neighborhood.
Evidence: CDD file LUP 2085-91; Clerk of the Board
file - Appeal of William and Tanya Desmond (including written and
oral testimony presented at hearings ) ; C .C .C . Ord. Code § 82-
24 . 1002 ; on site observations and comments by Supervisor Schroder
at April 21 , 1992 Board hearing.
DJS/df/jh
djs(?.):findings
EXHIBIT A