HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10191993 - 2.3 c)
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 19, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop and Torlakson
NOES: Supervisor McPeak
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Adoption Findings for Denial of MS 206-90, Symat Hillside
Homes (Edward Patmont, Applicant) , Walnut Creek Area
WHEREAS, on October 5, 1993, this Board heard testimony on the reconsideration
of the denial of the appeal on the request for approval of the tentative map for MS 206-90
in the Walnut Creek area; and
WHEREAS, at the time of the October 5, 1993 hearing this Board received the
staff's written report, related documents and oral comments, all comments of persons
appearing, including the applicant, and all other written material presented; and
WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed and considered all of the testimony and
materials available to it as set forth above and referred to herein and as otherwise known
to it or some of its members by actual viewing of the site, with respect to proposed MS
206-90, and the Board hereb disapproves the revised tentative map for MS 206-90, and the
applicant's (Edward Patmont� appeal , subject to the following findings and determinations:
1. The appeal of Symat Hillside Homes, (Edward Patmont) with respect to
proposed MS 206-90 is denied and its proposed revised tentative map is disapproved.
2. This Board hereby makes the following determinations and findings
concerning proposed MS 206-90 and its denial pursuant to the State Subdivision Map Act,
the County's Subdivision Ordinance, CEQA and related statutes and regulations:
(1) The Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance dated July 12,
1993 for MS 206-90 was not the appropriate environmental document in
light of further testimony, documentation and other evidence received
following the issuance of the Negative Declaration which indicates there
may be possible significant adverse environmental impacts (as further
hereinafter noted, in part) which may result from the project and the
Board therefore rejects the Negative Declaration as inadequate for MS
206-90.
(2) The Board finds that the site is not physically suited for the proposed
type of development in view of the drainage problems in the immediate
surrounding area of the subject property which will be increased by the
proposed project and have not been adequately addressed.
(3) The Board finds that the proposed development is in an area where the
neighboring property has a history of landslides, instability of the
land and potential for land disturbances and the site therefore, appears
not to be physically suited for the proposed type of development.
(4) The Board finds that the site is not physically suitable for the current
proposed density of development in view of the additional traffic to be
generated on a narrow, winding and somewhat steep road.
(5) The Board finds that the site is not physically suited for the proposed
type of development with regard to the proposed size, height,
architectural design and aesthetic impacts upon the neighboring
residents of the project.
(6) The Board finds that CEQA does not allow the approval and granting of an
entitlement (e.g. , a minor subdivision) without appropriate
environmental documents analyzing any potential significant adverse
environmental impacts and showing that possible adequate mitigation
measures have been completed and reviewed. As the Board finds that the
above-noted Negative Declaration was not the appropriate environmental
document, adequate CEQA review has not been done.
Orig. Dept:
cc: County Counsel I hereby certify th-,t this is a true and correct
Community Development Dept. copy of an anvil; 1 te'."'on and entered on the
DJS(3)a:\patmont.ord minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the
date shown.
ATTESTED: 3
PHIL BPnTr,l _ ;_�w, Clerk oft a Board
of pervi° and C u ty Administrator
Sy Deputy