HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11061990 - H.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on November 6 , 1990 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Hearing Of Appeal On Minor Subdivision 18-90,
Charles Pringle (Applicant and Owner) In the
Sandmound/Bethel Island Area.
On October 16, 1990, at the request of the applicant, the Board
of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the appeal of the
Contra Costa County Public Works Department from the decision of the East
County Regional Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals on the
request by Charles Pringle (applicant and owner) for approval of a minor
subdivision (MS 18-90) to divide 5 . 23, acres into four lots with variances
for lot width and lot area in the Sandmound/Bethel Island area. The 5 . 23
acre site is zoned A-2 Agriculture with a 5 acre minimum lot size.
Charles Pringle, 8300 Jantzen Road, Modesto, applicant and owner,
appeared before the Board and requested that the Board dismiss the appeal
because he has agreed to the conditions that the Public Works Department
has appealed.
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification from staff as to
what was before the Board for consideration today. Victor Westman, County
Counsel, responded to Supervisor Torlakson's request, indicating that the
entire matter pursuant to law was before the Board today. He also noted
that the Board of Supervisors could sustain, modify, reject or overrule any
or all rulings of the Board of Appeals (the East County Planning
Commission) and was required to determine if the MS 18-90 application would
meet the goals of the general plan and comply with applicable zoning
regulations and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, presented a brief
description of the location of the proposed site, the request to divide the
parcel, , and commented on the staff recommendation for denial based on
inconsistency with the General Plan. In addition, Mr. Westman noted that
at the time the Planning Commission approved this application, it did not
make any finding as to how this application is consistent with the General
Plan and that the Commission was advised by staff at the time of that
hearing that the Board of Supervisors had determined that the proposed
division of the property adjoining it with similar circumstances would not
be consistent with the Board's adopted General Plan.
.Darrell B: Edwards, 4292 Sandmound Boulevard, Oakley, spoke in
opposition to the proposed project. Katie All, 4384 Sandmound Boulevard,
Oakley, spoke in opposition to the proposed project. The speakers objected
to the lack of an adequate CEQA analysis particularly concerning site
soils, increased area housing density, lack of traffic safety and area road
capacities .
Charles Pringle commented that he was still unclear as' to the
basis of the matter before the Board today as he had agreed to the Public
Works conditions and asked for a staff explanation of why it believes MS
18-90 is not consistent with the general plan. Victor Westman clarified
that Mr. Pringle had previously received a copy of the staff report
presented at the Planning Commission which discussed in some detail the
position of the department and why the application is inconsistent with the
General Plan and that since the Board had received the report at a previous
meeting, the staff saw no need to describe it in detail again for the Board
today.
J
Mr. Pringle indicated that he disagreed with the staffs' views on
the general plan and asked that MS 18-90 be approved. He did not offer any
comments about required zoning variance standards or CEQA requirements .
The public hearing was closed except for the further action
ordered below.
Supervisor Torlakson commented on the staff's correctness in
determining that this project is not in conformance with the General Plan,
and he advised that he was going to make a motion to deny the project and
not grant any parts of any appeals .
Karl Wandry commented that even if General Plan conformance was
not a question, that the findings relative to zoning variances from going
from five acres to one acre are not present and the record before the
planning agency doesn't allow them to be made, and that the CEQA review is
insufficient for the Board to approve MS 18-90.
Supervisor Torlakson commented that the proper motion would be to
express the intent to deny and direct staff to prepare findings for the
Board's consideration, and he so moved.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors DECLARES
ITS INTENT to deny the appeal of the Public Works Department on MS 18-90
and to deny MS 18-90; and Community Development Department and County
Counsel are DIRECTED to prepare findings for the Board's consideration.
df4:v jw\ord\pringle' Ire onCe taken t hand isIsentered otrue t
e rA s
comet copy of
an he
Orig. Dept: Board of Supervisors on 71JA,
date shown. G
cc: Community Development ATrESTED:1 61 J ( qQ
PHIL M CHELOR,Clerk of the Board
County Counsel O upervis and Cou dministrator
BY .Deouty