HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09091997 - D6 D.6
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on September 9, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla and
DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
On August 5, 1997, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the
hearing on the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission
on the request by Robert and Joanne Raymond (Applicants and Owners) for
approval to rezone approximately 2.9 acres from General Agricultural, A-2 to
Single Family Residential, R-65 (County File #RZ 3044-96), in the Alamo area.
Dennis Barry, Interim Community Development Director, advised that a
letter had been received requesting a continuation from the Applicants' attorney,
Mark Armstrong.
Supervisor DeSaulnier opened the public hearing, and no one appearing to
speak, Supervisor Gerber moved thauthe matter be continued to November 4,
1997, at 2:00 p.m.
Supervisor Uilkema seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter
is CONTINUED to November 4, 1997, at 2:00 p.m. in the Board's chambers.
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of an action taken
and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors the date shown. Gj /Coq
ATTESTED /
1 Batchelor,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisor nd ounty Administrator
BY
Barbara S. puty Clerk
c.c. Community Development Dept.
CAO
•��_ 'i ,� . Contra
Cotta
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1= County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACO-0
DATE: July 21, 1997
SUBJECT: August 5, 1997 Hearing on the Recommendation of the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission regarding _ a proposal to rezone
approximately 2 . 9 acres from General Agricultural, A-2 , to Single
Family Residential, R-65, in the Alamo area. County File #RZ963044
(Raymond - Applicant & Owner)
SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve Option A below.
OPTIONS
Option A - (R-100 zoning as recommended by the SRVRPC)
1 . Adopt a Negative Declaration on this proposal for
purposes of compliance with the California. Environmental
Quality Act .
2 . Rezone the approximate 2 . 9 acre site from General
Agricultural, A-2 , to Single Family Residential, R-100 .
3%- Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning
decision; waive reading and set date for adoption of
same .
Option B - (R-65 zoning as requested by the Applicant)
Take same actions as specified in Option A except allow ; for
the rezoning to the Single Family Residential, R-65 district
instead of the recommended R-100 district as specified in Item
#2 .
FISCAL IMPACT
None . All processing costs to be paid for by the Applicant .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE be,, k�n
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM TTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISOR
I HEREBY CE Y THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE RRECT COPY OF AN
AYES : NOES : ACT TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: TES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact : , Bob Drake (335-1214)
Orig: Community Development Depar nt TTESTED
CC: Robert & Joanne Raymond PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Gagen McCoy, McMah & Armstrong THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Alamo. Improveme ssociation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Work ept . - Eng. -Services Div.
BY DEPUTY
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The relevant zoning administration background of the current
application pre-date the submittal of the current rezoning
application.
Prior Minor Subdivision Application (File #MS 104-89)
In 1989, the applicant filed a minor subdivision application to
subdivide the 2 . 9 acre creekside property in Alamo into three
parcels . The site is designated Single Family Residential - Very
Low density on the general plan (0 .2 to 0 . 9 units per net acre) .
While the property is zoned General Agricultural (5-acre minimum
parcel size) , no rezoning application was filed at that time .
Early on, the Alamo Improvement Association had expressed concern
about the feasibility of additional development in a riparian
setting and soil stability conditions on this site. In 1990, after
conducting a hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved the project
for two parcels only. Furthermore, no variances were granted, but
the approval was conditioned on the applicant obtaining a rezoning
of the site to a conforming zoning district, the R-65 district
(minimum parcel size of 65, 000 square feet or approximately 1 . 5
acres) , and the Zoning Administrator authorized an exception to the
creek structure setback requirement .
The Zoning Administrator' s approval was appealed by the Alamo
Improvement Association to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission. After attempting without success to resolve issues
between the applicant and AIA, the Commission was unable to make a
majority vote on the appeal, and referred the matter to the Board
of Supervisors .
In June, 1991, the Board of Supervisors ultimately denied the
appeal of AIA,, and sustained the Zoning Administrator' s approval
with modifications to allow a 20-foot structure setback from the
centerline of the creek which was acceptable to the Public Works
Department . The approval also requires that scenic easements
(i .e. , grant deeds of development rights) be conveyed for the non-
building site areas (e .g. , hillside areas) .
It is staff' s understanding that the applicant has satisfied all of
the requirements for qualifying for a parcel map except the
requirement that the property be rezoned to the R-65 district (COA
#10 .
On May 17, 1997, the Zoning Administrator administratively
authorized an extension of the filing period for recording a parcel
map to June 25, 2000 .
Current Rezoning Application
Last year, the Raymonds filed a rezoning application, File
#RZ963044, to comply with the requirement that the property be
rezoned to R-65 . Copies of the application were referred to
potentially interested agencies including the Alamo Improvement
Association (AIA) . The Association indicated that it opposes the
rezoning application as it did the subdivision application.
The rezoning application was heard by the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission on March 19, 1997 . At that time, staff was
recommending approval of the proposed R-65 rezoning. After
completing the testimony, the Commission unanimously voted to
recommend that the R-100 zoning district be applied to the site
instead of the proposed R-65 zoning. The Commission was
sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the AIA.
In view of the Commission action, staff is recommending that the
site be rezoned to R-100 district .
-2-
It should be noted that either R-65 or R-100 zoning districts could
be found in conformance with the Single Family Residential - Very
Low Density designation. While the R-100 zoning would bring the
zoning into conformance with the general plan designation for this
site, this action would not satisfy COA #10 of the minor
subdivision, and the applicant would not be able to qualify for a
parcel map.
If the Board of Supervisors follows the Commission' s
recommendation, the only option available to the applicant would be
to develop additional documentation to try to convince the County
that creek and hillside stability issues would be satisfactorily
resolved. Minimally, the applicant would have to re-apply for
another R-65 rezoning application, and potentially may be required
to file a new subdivision application.
However, if the Board rezones the site to R-100 and the applicant
does not otherwise succeed in meeting the requirements of the
subdivisionapproval prior to the expiration of the filing period,
then the applicant would lose the ability to be able to create two
parcels .
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
On the other hand, were the Board to authorize a rezoning to the R-
65 district, then the applicant could complete the requirements for
the minor subdivision and allow for approval of a parcel map by the
County, and the sale and the development of two lots .
A denial action is not advised. That action would leave a general
plan/zoning non-conformity for the site.
C: \wpdoc\rz963044 .bo
RD\
-3-