HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01171989 - T.6 T. 6
Contra
TO: =D ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Coily
Director of ,Community Development
I
DATE: November 3, I 1988
SUBJBCT: Hearing on Appeal of the Appeal of Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. ,
relative to !the Planning Commission's denial of the tentative map for
Subdivision) #6973 (Crown Point) , in the Walnut Creek area. (S.D. III ) .
I
SPECIFIC RBgUE.ST(S) OR RECONMENDATIONS(S) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Accept the Environmental Review documentation prepared for this
project as being complete and adequate.
2. Deny the appeal filed by Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. , on the
denial of the tentative map for Subdivision #6973.
3. Grant thelappeal filed by Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. ,
relative Ito the denial of Subdivision #6973.
4 U
CONTINUED ON AT, YES YES SIGMA
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECO—M1EXDA-TtW OF MARV COMUTTEE
APPROVE OTHER
I
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON �-Ja,�r uary-17 , .1989 APPROVED AS RECOI�II�IdDED _� OTHER �
This bei ing the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of Sun Capitol Properties,
Inc. (appellant) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning
Commission for denial of the application filed by Sun Capitol
Properties, Inc. (applicant and owner) for tentative map approval for
Subdivision #6973 to divide 9 (plus or minus) acres of land into 19
lots in a Single Family Residential District (R-6) , in the Walnut
Creek area.
Mary Fuming, Community Development Department, presented the
staff report! on the item before the Board and the staff recommendation
that the Board accept the Environmental Review documentation as being
complete and adequate and she commented on the options for denial or
granting of ithe appeal.
Supervisor Schroder requested clarification of the original staff
recommendation.
Ms. Fleming commented that the staff had recommended approval
with a large number of conditions as mitigation measures.
I
The public hearing was opened and the following people appeared
to speak:
i
Clancy Becker, 165 Lennon Lane, #101, Walnut Creek, representing
Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. , applicant, presented letters in support
of the project, and commented on the history of the project. He also
commented on issues including traffic and mitigation measures,
geology, seismicity, visual impacts, grading, landscaping and on
working with the neighbors relative to their concerns. He requested
that the Board approve his appeal.
The following people spoke in opposition to the project,
commentinglon issues including traffic impacts, potential drainage
problems, Ithe impact of the reopening of the Parkmeade School,
potential geological problems and seismic hazards, open space, visual
impacts on! the ridge, and landslide concerns.
j
1.
f
i
Milton Terry, 179 Arlene Drive, Walnut Creek.
Stephen Sankey, 1661 Arbutus Drive, Walnut Creek.
Lewis Ures, 1525 Arbutus Drive, Walnut Creek, presented a
petition and spoke in opposition to the project.
i
Cathy Ures,j1525 Arbutus Drive, Walnut Creek.
Craig Dorman, 8 Arbutus Court, Walnut Creek.
I
Mary Andre,I 21 Lee Street, Walnut Creek.
Ren Terhune, 1573 Arbutus Drive, Walnut Creek, Treasurer of the
Parkmeade Homeowners Association.
Cheryl Ronirat, 173 Arlene Drive, Walnut Creek.
Robert Plata, 1521 Arbutus Drive, Walnut Creek.
Wesley Reeser, 1751 Lilac Drive, Walnut Creek.
The following people submitted comments in opposition but did not
wish to speak: I
Evelyn Parsons, 168 Arlene Drive, Walnut Creek.
Dennis Hoiglund, 21 Lee Street, Walnut Creek.
Berna Rasmussen, 50 Arlene Lane, Walnut Creek.
Mr. Becker spoke in rebuttal on issues including drainage, open
space, and controlling the follow through of the development over time
through CC&R's'.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Schroder commented on the sensitivity of the Board to
the rights of the property owners and the use of their property, and
the rights of� the owner to utilize his property and also the rights of
the property owners that live in the area. He expressed concerns
including the roads and intersections, building on the steepness of
the area, the'' geology, drainage, and he moved to accept the
environmental review and to deny the appeal and the subdivision map
6973 without prejudice.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, inquired as to whether the motion
is based on a concern that the significant adverse affects of this
subdivision as identified in the Environmental Impact Review cannot be
adequately mitigated at this time under the current development
proposal, and whether this concern is a principal reason for the
motion.
Supervisor Schroder clarified that that was his intention.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendation 1 is APPROVED; and
the appeal of Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. and Subdivision #6973 are
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, on the basis, principally, that the
significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the EIR cannot
be adequately mitigated under the current proposal.
VOTE OF SUPERVISO�tS
I BERM CERTIFY TEAT TRIS IS A
X =animus, (ABSENT I. ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYB,S: MOM: ACTION TAKEN AND QED ON T88
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISOR ON TRE DATE BOOM.
i
a: Community Development ATTESTED January 17, 1989
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Sun Capitol Properties, Inc. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public 'r;orks-ITom Dudziak AkM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
I BY , DEPUTY
2.
I �