HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11271990 - 1.132 • v /. /32—
TO:
. /32—
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM• Victor J. Westman, County Counsel ;.; - �= Contra
s'
Harvey E. Bragdon, Dir. of Community Develop '' `s Costa
November 26, 19 9 0
County
DATE: o rra cooN�
Denial of Appeal of Minor Subdivision #18-90 (Charles Pringle:
SUBJECT: Applicant and Owner) , Sandmound Slough/Bethel Island Area.
(APN 032-340-010)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATION: Deny appeal, subdivision map application MS 18-901
and request for variances, and adopt the Findings supporting denials,
attached as Exhibit A.
II. FISCAL IMPACT: None.
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: On November 6, 1990 the Board of
Supervisors heard the appeal of the Public Works Department from the
approval of minor subdivision application 18-90 by the East County
Regional Planning Commission. The Board declared its intent to deny the
subdivision map application, the requested variances, and the appeal,
and directed staff to prepare findings to support those decisions. Our
offices have prepared the attached findings for the Board' s
consideration and approval.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
r
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): e�
ACTION OF BOARD ON November G7 , 1990
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED November 27, 1990
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Community Development SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department
Charles Pringle
D
M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION 18-90,
VARIANCES, AND APPEAL
In denying the tentative map for Minor Subdivision No. 18-90, filed by Charles
Pringle (Applicant and Owner, hereinafter "applicant"), to divide 5.23 acres of land into four
parcels, denying the requested variances, and denying the appeal of the Public Works
Department from the action of the East County Regional Planning Commission, the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors finds as follows:
A. The Record.
The Board of Supervisors, in making the above decisions, has considered the
County General Plan, including the East County Area General Plan; its zoning ordinances;
its subdivision ordinances; all documents, maps, and exhibits before all of the bodies holding
hearings on this application; all testimony given at all public hearings held on this
application; and all staff reports.
B. haftr-ound.
1. Finding: In January 1990 Charles Pringle, the applicant, submitted a tentative
map to divide a parcel of 5.23 acres into four parcels. The property is located on the south
side of the East Cypress extension, approximately 105 feet west of Sandmound Boulevard, in
the Sandmound Slough/Bethel Island area.
Evidence: Community Development Department ("CDD") File MS 18-90.
2. Finding: The property is located in an A-2 (General Agricultural) zoning
district, which requires a minimum lot size of five acres. The applicant requested variances
from that requirement for each lot, which is proposed to consist of the following areas:
Parcel A: 1.4 acre
Parcel B: 1.1 acre
Parcel C: 1.1 acre
Parcel D: 1.6 acres
In addition, the applicant sought variances from the A-2 zoning district requirement of a
minimum lot width of 250 feet for Parcels A, B, and C, which were proposed to have the
following widths:
Parcel A: 198.5 feet
Parcel B: 198.5 feet
Parcel C: 173.5 feet
Evidence: CDD File MS 18-90; Co. Ord. Code, § 84-38.608.
3. Finding: The application was scheduled to be heard by the zoning
administrator on 2 April 1990, and notice of the hearing was duly given. At the applicant's
request, the hearing was rescheduled to 16 April 1990 and 7 May 1990. The matter was
heard by the zoning administrator on 7 May 1990. The staff recommended denial of the
application, on the ground that it is inconsistent with general plan criteria. In light of this
recommendation, no initial study was prepared, in accordance with CEQA. (Pub. Resources
Code, § 21080(b)(5).) The zoning administrator denied the application on the ground that he
could not make findings that the proposal conformed to the intent of the County General
Plan.
Evidence: CDD File MS 18-90.
4. Finding: On 14 May 1990, the applicant appealed the zoning administrator's
decision to the Board of Appeals, the East County Regional Planning Commission. A
hearing was scheduled and duly noticed for 25 June 1990. The staff recommended denial,
on the same grounds as before. The Board of Appeals continued the hearing to 9 July 1990
and directed the staff to prepare conditions of approval for the proposed subdivision. On 9
July 1990 the Board of Appeals held the hearing and heard testimony of all those who wished
to speak on the matter. The Board of Appeals granted the appeal and approved the
application, subject to conditions of approval.
Evidence: CDD File MS 18-90.
5. Finding: On 19 July 1990, by memorandum by J. Michael Walford, Director
of Public Works, the Public Works Department appealed from the Board of Appeals'
decision. A hearing before the Board of Supervisors was scheduled and duly noticed for 11
September 1990. The staff recommended denial of the application, as not being consistent
with the General Plan. Said hearing was continued to 9 October 1990 and 16 October 1990.
On 16 October 1990 the Board of Supervisors opened the public hearing, heard testimony,
and, at the request of the applicant, continued the hearing to 6 November 1990. On 6
November 1990 the Board of Supervisors resumed the hearing and heard testimony from all
those who requested the opportunity to speak, including the applicant. The applicant
requested that the Board dismiss the appeal because he had agreed to the conditions of
approval sought by the Public Works Department as grounds for its appeal. After closing the
hearing and deliberating, the Board voted unanimously to declare its intent to deny the
appeal, deny the subdivision application, deny the request for variances, and to direct the
staff to prepare findings for the Board's consideration.
Evidence: Clerk of the Board File 1990 - Sandmound/Bethel Island - Appeal
MS 18-90 Pringle.
C. Findings For Considering the Appeal.
6. Finding: The Board of Supervisors properly considered the appeal by the
Public Works Department, notwithstanding the applicant's agreement to all the conditions of
approval requested by the appellant.
Evidence: County Ordinance Code, Article 26-2.22. The Board's
administrative practice consistently has been to consider the entire matter on appeal, and not
just the narrow grounds of appeal.
D. Findings For Denial of Subdivision MS 18-90.
7. Finding: The proposed tentative map is not consistent with the County
General Plan. The proposed tentative map is not compatible with the objectives, policies,
general land uses, or programs specified in the General Plan.
Evidence: The East County Area General Plan designates the area in which
this property is located as Agriculture/Residential and provides that, under certain specified
exceptional circumstances, a development in an area with a pattern of parcels of under five
acres may be considered consistent with the General Plan. However, the following
circumstances preclude the application of this exception to the five-acre-minimum lot size
requirement. The parcel proposed to be divided is not bordered on two sides by parcels of
fewer than five acres. Further, the parcel is located within the 100-year flood plain as
shown on the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary Maps. Finally, the proposed resulting parcels
would be smaller than the average parcel size in the specific area. (See staff report to the
EXHIBIT A
2
East"County Regional Planning Commission, dated 9 July 1990.) Since this area is
designated as Agriculture/Residential and not Residential, the service availability criteria are
not applicable. (East County Area General Plan, p. 14.)
8. Finding: The design of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the
County General Plan.
Evidence: The East County Area General Plan designates the area in which
this property is located as Agriculture/Residential and provides that, under exceptional
circumstances, a development in an area with a pattern of parcels of under five acres may be
considered consistent with the General Plan. However, the following circumstances preclude
the application of this exception to the five-acre-minimum lot size requirement. The parcel
proposed to be divided is not bordered on two sides by parcels of fewer than five acres.
Further, the parcel is located within the 100-year flood plain as shown on the Federal Flood
Hazard Boundary Maps. Finally, the proposed resulting parcels would be smaller than the
average parcel size in the specific area. (See staff report to the East County Regional
Planning Commission, dated 9 July 1990.) Since this area is designated as
Agriculture/Residential and not Residential, the service availability criteria are not applicable.
(East County Area General Plan, p. 14.)
9. Finding: Denial of the proposed subdivision is required by the Subdivision
Map Act.
Evidence: Government Code section 66474 requires denial of a subdivision
map where the County finds that the proposed subdivision map is not consistent with the
County General Plan.
10. Finding: The proposed subdivision does not comply with the County
Subdivision Ordinance.
Evidence: County Ordinance Code section 26-2.2412 requires the Board's
decision to comply with the Subdivision Map Act, in particular Government Code section
66473.5, which in turn prohibits the approval of a tentative map where the County does not
find that the map is consistent with the County general plan.
11. Finding: The design of the proposed subdivision may not provide for future
passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
Evidence: There is no substantial evidence in the record that would support a
finding that the design of the proposed subdivision will provide for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision, as required by Government Code section
66473.1. Government Code section 66473.1.
12. Finding: The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the applicable zoning
regulations.
Evidence: The subject property is located in an A-2 General Agricultural
zoning district. The zoning ordinance provides that a lot in such a district must be at least
five acres in area and must have an average width of 250 feet. (Co. Ord. Code, §§ 84-
38.608, 92-8.002.)
E. Findings For Denial of Variances.
13. Finding: There are no special circumstances, such as size, shape, topograghy,
location, or surroundings, unique to the subject property.
EXHIBIT A
3
Evidence: No evidence was presented to distinguish the existing parcel from
the adjoining, larger parcels to justify a finding of special circumstances. (Gov. Code, §
65906; Co. Ord. Code, § 26-2.2006(2).)
14. Finding: Denial of the requested variances does not constitute an unnecessary
hardship.
Evidence: There is no substantial evidence in the record to support a finding
that special circumstances cause the strict application of the zoning ordinance to deprive the
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical
zoning classification (land use district). (Gov. Code, § 65906; Co. Ord. Code, § 26-
2.2006(1).)
15. Finding: The variances sought by the applicant would constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and
zone in which the subject property is situated.
Evidence: The area in the vicinity of the subject property consists generally of
parcels larger than five acres, as required by the zoning ordinance. Almost all the parcels
smaller than five acres were created under a superseded zoning regulation that allowed one-
acre parcels. (See staff report to the East County Regional Planning Commission, dated 9
July 1990.) (Gov. Code, § 65906; Co. Ord. Code, § 26-2.2006(1).)
16. Finding: The variances sought by the applicant would not substantially meet
the intent or purpose of the A-2 (General Agriculture) land use district.
Evidence: The applicant's existing parcel consists of 5.23 acres in size, which
barely surpasses the five-acre-minimum lot size requirment of the A-2 district. To permit the
division of this parcel into lots of 11/2 acres or less and lot widths of less than 200 feet would
do violence to the requirement and, in effect, change the zoning district. Such severe
deviations from the requirements demand a re-zoning instead of variances. (Co. Ord. Code,
§ 84-38.608.)
F. CEQA Finding.
17. Finding: Approval of the proposed subdivision may result in significant
adverse environmental impacts.
Evidence: No initial study was prepared, in light of the staff's determination
to recommend denial of the project. There is no substantial evidence in the record to support
a finding that the proposed subdivision is exempt from CEQA or a finding that the project
will not have any significant impact on the environment. (CDD File MS 18-90.)
11-26-90
(SBM)
EXHIBIT A
4