The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRESOLUTIONS - 08301988 - 88-561 1. 56 1W THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on Au4.usts°30 , '-7?-988 ;by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden and Tbrlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Schroder and McPeak ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: First Combined Amendment RESOLUTION NO. 88/561 of the County General Plan as it Applies to the Danville, Clyde and Concord Areas The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES THAT: PART I - General . Contra Costa County is carrying out a program to systematically review the County General Plan for the purposes of keeping the Plan up to date and achieving consistency with the County' s development ordinance. California Planning Law provides that each General Plan Element mandated by the State cannot be amended more than four times in the Calendar Year 1988. The Board has considered the proposals described in Parts II , III , and IV below to amend the County General Plan, and at public hearings declared its intent and directed st-aff to prepare this resolution for adoption. The Board therefore declares that adoption actions described below are to constitute its first combined amendment and second plan amendment of the Land Use Element and other mandatory elements of the County General Plan in Calendar Year 1988. PART II - Danville Area. A copy of Resolution No. 29-1988 adopted by the San Ramon Valley Regional County Planning Commission is on file with this Board in which the Commission sets forth its report on the proposed amendment of the County General Plan for the Camino Tassajara area as described in the Board's subsequent Resolution No. 88/491. This Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for the Camino Tassajara area as specified in the ' Board Resolution No. 88/491 as part of this first combined amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed Plan, text, and" map prepared by the Community Development. A copy of the Plan map and' text reflecting this amendment, on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk as provided herein. PART III - Clyde Area. A copy of Resolution No. 68-1987 adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission is on file with this Board in which the Commission sets forth its report 'on the proposed amendment of the County General Plan for the Westmont property in the Clyde area as described in the Board's subsequent Resolution No. 88/73. This Board hereby adopts the amendment of the County General Plan for Westmont property as specified in Board Resolution No. 88/73 as part of this combined amendment to the County General Plan, including both the filed Plan, text and map, prepared by the Community Development Department. The copy of the Plan, map and text reflecting this amendment, on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk as provided herein. PART• IV - Concord Area. A copy of Resolution No. 33-1988 adopted by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission is on file with the Board in which the Commission sets forth its report on the proposed amendment of the County General Plan for the Lesher property in the Concord Area as described in the Board' s subsequent Resolution No. 88/534. 88/561 This Board hereby adopts the amendment to the County General Plan for Lesher property as specified in Board Resolution No. 88/534 as part of this combined amendment to the County General Plan, including' both the filed Plan, text and map, prepared by the Community Development Department. The copy of the Plan, map and text reflecting this amendment, on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board, shall be endorsed approved by the Clerk as provided herein. PART V - CEQA Notice. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file with the County Clerk Notice of Determinations concerning this adoption and the related CEQA actions. JC:cg I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of cc: Director of Community Development an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Director of Public Works Board of Supe ors on the date shown. County Counselg cd9/88-.res ATTESTED: PHIL BAT6HELLOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By 4 AW Deputy 88/561 1 * 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA T. 4 & T. 5 Adopted this Order on October 4, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisors Powers and Schroder ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------=-------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hearings on Appeals Filed By People For Open Space/ Greenbelt Congress Et Al From The Approvais Of Minor Subdivision MS 99-87 and Minor Subdivision MS 104-87 In The Brentwood Area. This being the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearings on the appeals by People for Open Space/Greenbelt Congress, Sierra Club Bay Chapter, Mt. Diablo Audubon, Residents for a Better Contra Costa, Richard Dillon, and Christy Schneider from the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals approving the request by Ronald Nunn (owner) and Robert Nunn (applicant) to subdivide a 154 acre parcel into four ten acre lots and leave a 114 acre designated remainder (MS 99-87 ) and the request by Robert Nunn ( applicant) and Ronald Nunn (owner) to subdivide a 139 acre property into four ten acre parcels with a 99 acre designated remainder (MS 104-87) , in the Brentwood area. Jean Mesick, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposals for MS 99-87 and MS 104-87 , commenting on the location of the property, the designation of the site as ag ' core in the East County General Plan, the approval of the Zoning Administrator, the approval by the East County Regional Planning Commission, and the staff recommendation to the Board that the Board uphold the Planning Commission' s decision, deny the appeals and grant . the subdivisions on both of these properties. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak: Steve Herum, P.O. Drawer 20, Stockton, representing Mr.Nunn, advised the Board that they are not waiving any rights that they may have with respect to the fact that the maps have already been deemed approved by operation of law due to the time when they were filed versus when they were first heard, and so they contend that this appeal is untimely at this time. He also commented on the appeals not being perfected inasmuch as the full amount of the appeal fee was not submitted within the proper time period. Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification on the time clock period. Mr. Herum advised that it was their opinion that under state law a map must be heard within fifty days of it being filed and completed which is generally thirty days after it' s originally filed and that time lapsed prior to the Zoning Administrator ' s hearing in April. Ronaid. Nunn, Rt. 1, Box 200 , Brentwood, commented on the principal reason for his request for the minor subdivisions as a tool for estate planning. He commented on the consistency of the requests with the area, and with the parcels surrounding these parcels. Mark Evanoff, 116 New Montgomery #640, San Francisco, representing Greenbelt Alliance/People for Open Space, summarized statements made in their letter of appeal, and commented that this application is basically inconsistent with the Ranchette Ordinance and the East County Area Plan. David Nesmith, Conservation Director for the Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club, commented that this proposed subdivision is contrary to the General Plan in the East County and contrary to the County General Plan. He urged the Board not to approve the subdivision request. A.B. McNabney, 161 Leisure Lane, Walnut Creek, commented on the importance of agricultural lands and the importance of maintaining them in production. He advised that it might be worthwhile if the Board is inclined to grant the application, that something be included in the approval that makes these agricultural lands in ,perpetuity the same as they would be now. Supervisor McPeak requested clarification from Mr. Nunn on the minimum subdivision size and also on the ranchette policy and from County Counsel and staff on the integration of the ranchette policy and zoning. Ron Nunn responded to Supervisor McPeak' s request commenting on issues including the minimum size and the ranchette criteria as being developed for grazing land and non-prime ag land. He commented that he would be pleased to talk to the People for Open Space about ideas about enhancing the viability of agriculture in East County. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Torlakson advised that he would request a two week continuance on these matters before making a final decision in order to review what the ranchette activity has been. Supervisor McPeak requested staff look at the question of what occurred in development in the prime agricultural core. She also concurred with Mr. Nunn' s invitation to meet with the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and People for Open Space relative to agriculture. The Board discussed the issues. Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, commented on the minimum acre size in the 1978 General Plan and the present zoning of the property involved, as well as the ranchette policy, and he commented that the policies that are intact right now do parallel each other. Supervisor Fanden commented on the need for an agricultural inventory of who is involved in farming, and a presentation to the General Plan Congress. Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification of the application of the ranchette policy to non-prime ag core lands or to all agriculturally zoned lands in the County. Karl Wandry clarified that the policy was directed at agricultural residential uses in which five acre minimum uses were discussed. He commented that the policy does not say ag core is .included or excluded. Supervisor Torlakson requested County Counsel to review both of the comments made by Mr. Nunn' s attorney relative to the time limits and filing of appeal fees. Supervisor McPeak moved to keep the hearings open for further written or verbal testimony and continue the matters to October 18, 1988 at 2 : 00 p.m. i •� Y. .J IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearings on the above appeals are CONTINUED to October 18, 1988 at 2 : 00 p.m. ; and the Community Development Director is DIRECTED to report to the Board on the status of development in agricultural lands; and County Counsel is DIRECTED to review the legal issues raised by the applicant relative to time limits and filing of appeal fees. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an 0CV011 taken and entered on ncc minutes of the Board of Supero ors on the date shown. ATTESTED: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator o By , Deputy Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development Dept. County Counsel Robert and Ronald Nunn People for Open Space/ Greenbelt Congress