HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10271992 - H.3 H. 3
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 27 , 1992 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson and McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing on Rezoning Application 2954-RZ, Development Plan
3009-91 and Subdivision 7557, Garrett Development, Inc. in
the West Pittsburg area.
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors for hearing on recommendation of the East County Regional
Planning Commission on the request by Garrett Development, Inc.
(applicant and owner) for approval to rezone 5. 39 acres of land from
General Agricultural District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development (P-1)
to accommodate up to 17 single family units ( 2954-RZ) and for approval
of a final development plan (County File 3009-91) to develop up to a
maximum of 17 single family units on the 5. 39 acre site, and for
approval to subdivide the 5 . 39 acre site into 17 single family
residential units (Subdivision 7557) in the West Pittsburg area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the
staff report on the proposal, described the site location, and the
staff recommendation to accept the Negative Declaration prepared for
this project as being adequate, approve rezoning application 2954-RZ,
development plan 3009-91, and subdivision 7556 subject to the
conditions of approval of the East County Regional Planning Commission
attached as Exhibit A to the staff report and adopt the East County
Regional Planning Commission findings as set forth in the resolution
51-1992 as the determination for these actions, and that the Board
introduce the ordinance giving effect to the aforesaid rezoning, waive
reading and set a date for adoption.
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification on issues related to
the Lighting and Landscaping District and the application of the
Police District Policy.
Mr. Barry responded that the Police Services District is included
in condition of approval 10 on page 3 of the conditions and that the
first condition of approval includes the Lighting and Landscaping
District.
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, advised of a modification
to condition 19 (d) , in the last line to strike in conformance with
and to add or as required by Flood Control.
Supervisor McPeak requested clarification on the application of
the Child Care Ordinance, and indicated that this project should be
subject to this Ordinance.
Steven Cross, 2290 Diamond Boulevard, #400, Concord, representing
Bellecci and Associates, commented on the child care being addressed
in the Sea Breeze I Subdivision, and he commented on the proposed
project before the Board today and the similarities and differences
between this project and the Sea Breeze I project. Mr. Cross
expressed concerns and requested changes relative to conditions 4 (b)
that the color of the homes be the same as Sea Breeze I , 9 (f) that
the height of the fence should be five feet, and 17 that a grading
permit needs to be pulled before the building permit for the line to
be pulled and relocated.
i
IL
Supervisor Torlakson inquired as to whether the controversy over
the trail extension to the canal had been resolved.
Mr. Cross indicated that the trail would be limited to Sea Breeze
I and II .
Mr. Barry responded to Supervisor Torlakson' s inquiry relative to
the trail and access to the canal.
Supervisor McPeak requested clarification on the condition
relative to water conservation and reclaimed water being from Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District and Contra Costa Water District, a
change in condition 7, and condition 9, and the letter of comment from
the West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory Committee.
Mr. Cross responded on the history of the trail.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Torlakson spoke in support of this area as an infill
area, the change in item 4(b) , the color condition, and the fence at
five foot tall, and he advised that he would like to set this matter
for decision one week from today to allow staff to write up the
changed conditions and consult with County Counsel regarding the Child
Care Ordinance and whether it applies or not.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised the Board on the
application of the Child Care Ordinance to Planned Unit Developments.
The Board discussed the effective date of the Child Care
Ordinance.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter
is CLOSED; and the decision on the above matter is DEFERRED to
November 3, 1992 at 10: 45 a.m. ; and staff is DIRECTED to respond to
issues raised today.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supe ors[�}fie date shown.
ATTESTED: a:e 9 44 �? Z
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
d—
ofSupery ors andCou ty Administrator
a
By J ,Deauty
cc: Community Development
County Counsel
i
I
I