The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03221988 - T.3 I THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA T. 3 Adopted this Order on March 22, 1988 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fanden, McPeak and Schroder NOES: Supervisor Torlakson ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Powers SUBJECT: Hearing on Appeal of Serafino Bianchi from San Ramon Valley Planning Commission Decision To Deny LUP 2048-87 in the Alamo Area. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors heretofore noticed this date for hearing on the appeal of Serafino Bianchi from the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, serving as the Board of Appeals, decision denying the application by Serafino Bianchi (applicant and owner) for land use permit approval (LUP 2048-87) to establish a pre-school facility, and sustaining the appeals to the Zoning Administrator' s decision failed by the Alamo Improvement Association, Association for the Preservation of Danville Boulevard and nearby homeowners, Frank Billeci, et al in the Alamo area. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, described the proposed child care facility project and site. She also described the history of the proposed project from the approval by the Zoning Administrator for 65 children, the appeal by the Alamo Improvement Association, the Association for the Preservation ofiDanville Boulevard and nearby homeowners, the decision of thel San Ramon Valley Planning Commission for denial of the project, and commented on various concerns expressed by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission relative to the proposed project. The staff presented several options for Board action but recommended upholding the. decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak: The following people spoke in support of the appeal: Serafino Bianchi, 4347 Cowell Road, Concord, representing Bianchi Schools, appellant, requested that the Board reverse the appeal decision by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission and approve LUP 2048-87 for 85 children; Leonora Bianchi, 4347 Cowell Road, Concord, representing Bianchi Schools, appellant, commented on the history of the Bianchi schools and requested approval of the project; The following person appeared and spoke on child care needs in Contra Costa County: Ginny Cook, 3020 Grant Street, Concord, representing the Contra Costa Child Care Council commented on child care needs for the San Ramon Valley area and the great need for infant care; Tom Thie, 1420 Livorna, Alamo, owner of the property for the proposed project, commented on child care needs in the office where he works; The following persons appeared to speak against the project and the appeal by Mr. Bianchi: Eve Auch, Box 271, Alamo, representing the Alamo Improvement Association, commented on packets of information prepared by Mr. and Mrs. Frank Billeci, and various issues including a traffic study, the character of the neighborhood, the number of children being considered, requesting that the Board uphold the decision of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission and the Commission finding that an Environmental Impact Report is mandatory if the Board were to consider granting the proposed project; Myrna Fourcade, P.O. Box 334, Alamo, representing the Association for the Preservation of Danville Boulevard, requested that the Board uphold the decision of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission, and spoke in support of maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood; Charles F. Jarrett, 305 Cross Road, Danville, representing the Alamo Oaks Homeowners Association, commented on a child care project. in the Alamo Oaks community, and the residential character of the neighborhood being considered for Mr. Bianchi' s proposed project; Robert P. Elliott, 137 Romero Circle, Alamo, representing the Alamo Improvement Association, commented on issues including traffic safety concerns, on-site parking, and speeds on Livorna Road; Frank Billeci, 1430 Livorna Road, Alamo, representing himself and residents on Livorna Road, also presented material to the Board to support his position against the appeal and requested denial of the project; Joan Billeci, 1430 Livorna Road, Alamo, representing herself and residents on Livorna Road, agreed with the comments expressed by Mr. Frank Billeci; Sally Ware, 1431 Livorna Road, Alamo, commented on traffic safety concerns; Eldred L. Raun, 1440 Livorna Road, Alamo, commented on issues including traffic safety concerns, the creek being an attractive nuisance to children, and the residential character of the neighborhood; Janet Johnson, 1421 Livorna Road, Alamo, commented on the abundance of child care available and traffic safety concerns, and requested that the Board let Livorna Road and the area remain residential; Serafino Bianchi spoke in rebuttal, and presented material to the Board to support his appeal, commenting on issues including the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission resolution, the staff report, traffic, the size of the project and he presented letters from people and a petition in support of the project and requested approval .of the project. Frank Billeci commented- in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder commented on the County policy on child care facilities, the opposition to this proposed project, and moved to sustain the denial decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission based on the Commission' s findings contained in their recommendation to the Board. Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion supporting Supervisor Schroder' s motion. Supervisor Torlakson requested information from staff on issues including traffic studies, the capacity of Livorna Road and trips generated, and the impact of the proposed project on traffic on Livorna Road. Jean Mesick, Community Development Department, responded to Supervisor Torlakson' s concerns. Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification on the staff ' s position on the proposed 100 student project. Mary Fleming responded that the staff had recommended approval on the 100 unit proposal but that the Zoning Administrator had felt it appropriate to reduce the project to 65. Supervisor Torlakson recommended approval for possibly a 75 unit proposed project, not for the two stories and not with a variance to allow the facility to have potential further impacts on the one adjacent neighbor, Mr. Billeci. He expressed disagreement with the staff on some of the findings. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the denial decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission is SUSTAINED based on the Commission' s findings contained in Planning Commission' s February 3, 1988 resolution (Exhibit A attached) . 1 hereby certify that tfais is n Ime and correci copy of an action t€akeii and entered on of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: �M .61 amid p 91 PHIL SATO LOR,Clerk of the Beard of Superv9sors and County Administmtor 0 By , Deputy Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development Department County Administrator County Counsel f Serafino Bianchi i Alamo Improvement Association Association for Preservation of Danville Boulevard Frank Billeci J a BEFORE THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - CALIFORNIA APPEAL - Serafino Bianchi, of the. Denial of Land Use Permit #2048-87 WHEREAS r .. e �prr "it MM ad tiemmin�jt � WHEREAS, g'r=oposed.requetz°was c�+eterma - y �Tegat v-a Dec1ar tI��C�i�'ifo�n�a�-Env�rorimentalQ�°a° rty`�,ct;-° aridy WHEREAS, on December 21, 1987, Via. on�i-g, 'Admini_stragpr �t�veti>.ra s�arersahc�,o�, �aci�,,��ty.°fat.� �reduceci :�cae;aa� d WHEREAS, oythe �Zorng '-Acizriiiistator'tifi deai�son `ire f�a 3et3, bY. file A aino Improvement Associa"tion AssooZt on`-rrdr-- he B `eservat on of- Danville` Boulevard, --and nearby, 3 omeowuers ra233 BecN, et+al °t-and Y WHEREAS, after notice thereof was lawfully given, a public hearing was held by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission serving as the Board of Appeals on February 3, 1988 where the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter was reviewed and considered; IST-~=MFORE-{BE"IT`RESOLVED::t-that"the =S'an,-Ramon Va411e! i.t�ta anniig'commission ;SUSTAINS =alae above, dentf° 'ed: lsx . DENIES Awa 'Use,Permit:,>,Applricatlon-y#¢2048-87 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission received considerable testimony and correspondence in opposition to the project from a substantial segment of the Alamo community including most nearby property owners; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the denial decision was based in part on the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission' s determination that the project might generate noise, traffic, flood hazard, geologic and other significant environmental impacts warranting the preparation and hearing of an environmental impact report to which the applicant refused to consent; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED ' e Satir= es DEW A Appeal - LUP 2048-87 Page 2 findings pursuant, :ta_ .Section_:26 2:2008 of,. the Zoning Ordinance; ode far. afollowing-.-demonstrated reasons: i 1. The project threatens the safety of the immediate neighborhood and enrollees by exacerbating a situation of high traffic volumes and speeds. 2. The proposal affects the orderly development of the county by promoting transition to. commercial use of a mature, stable, residential land use pattern. Such a transition would further encourage such negative land use changes as the establishment of a new commercial node between Alamo and Walnut Creek and the spread of strip commercial development along Livorna Road and Danville Boulevard. 3 . The project would have a negative effect on property values as vouched for by a number of real estate professionals who have submitted written testimony. They have indicated that the pre-school would adversely affect the value of residential properties nearby. 4. The size and market area of the proposed pre-school disqualifies it as an accessory use to the locality. Therefore it cannot be found to be consistent with the intent of the Single Family Residential - Low Density Designation. The proposal would undermine general plan policies aimed at protecting viable residential uses in the Danville Boulevard corridor. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated the need for such facilities at that site. 5. The proposed pre-school is in an exposed location and would be vacant at night leaving it vulnerable to security and nuisance problems. 6. The project would encourage marginal development in an area dominated by owner-occupied housing by the establishment of front-yard parking lots and a 25-foot tall addition. These changes would be out of character with the existing neighborhood and detrimental to the quality of life for nearby residents. 7. The site does not have unique characteristics for the proposed use in relation to the overall land use needs and interests of the community. The site is essentially similar in size, configuration and accessibility as other adjoining residential lots. More suitable sites are located in Alamo and adjacent communities. ��,�-�T:,,�rr�I3R�IER-vR�SOLVLII'=t�att="-among�other=��proj ect�r==�hort�c�riri�5, - -; mnis!s on...deemedr..�the hZoning,A nistrator's..:;appso�al..to ;be ; fait - 4nsafar'a� (l),, there_are no restrictions ora the EyNiM ff A Appeal - LUP 2048-87 Page 3 establishment-of outdoor Sighting, - a2 a°; there... s-na- regvtrFrt:, or the-. 21.acement..of-:traffic -.signs. -to--alert--drivers_.of' 'fie .:presence cldren, (3) .the -road ;azdening `requrement`" s i�rtappropra ,{ 4 the approval _reducing.sthe:-enrol73nent=.-3.eve1 failed;_.to proves 3, Qr corresponding ;reduction ,in the 'scale--of<the*.—1ding;'=Y,arnd trail ;easement on -thi•s site °i-s root :appropriate. The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission DENIED the land use permit by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Nudelman, Kaye, Cameron, Cardinale, Lehman, Moore, Freeman NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - None ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t-hat,,,_on -Febr-uary 9., :1988, Seraf ino Bianchi ,appealed the decision of the San Ramon Valley_ Regional' Blanning Commission. L& Chairman of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: Secr an Ramon Valley Regi n 1 Pla ni Commission, County of Con a Co to State of California RHD:plpSRII DEW A