Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071989 - T.3 'Y r' THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA T. 3 Adopted this Order on March 7, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Hearing On Appeal Of Walnut Knolls Association, Et Al, From The Decision Of The County Planning Commission Approving Subdivision 7097 In The Walnut Creek Area. This being the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of` Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of the Walnut Knolls Association, et al from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission approving Subdivision 7097, a request by Hasseltine Best (applicant) and Cliff Lane (owner) to divide approximately four acres of land into 8 lots with variances to have less than the required average lot width in the Walnut Creek area. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeal, described the subdivision request, the proposed subdivision site, the requested variances, the conditions proposed by the Planning Commission, and the approval by the Planning Commission. She commented that the staff recommended that the Board approve the Tentative Map for the subdivision as recommended by the County Planning. Commission, approve the conditions that the Planning Commission approved, adopt the Planning Commissions findings, accept the Environmental Review documentation as being complete and adequate, and deny the appeal of the Walnut Knolls Association. I The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to' speak: Eric Hasseltine, 2380 Salvio Drive, Concord, representing Cliff Lane Associates, commented on issues including the project being an in fill project, the compatibility of the project in terms of lot sizes and lot placement with the surrounding community, the history of the property, the flood control project along the old Southern Pacific right of way and the storage of dirt on the subject property, the issuance of a grading permit by Contra Costa County, the request being consistent with the zoning and general plan for the area, the request of' Mr. Young to limit the house on lot 1 to a single story, Mr. Hardie' s concerns relative to his view, a proposed landscape plan to shield the neighbors on the south at the bottom of the hill, and he expressed satisfaction with the conditions as they are, and requested the Board deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission' s approval of this project. Karl Wandry, Community Development .Department, clarified that item five of the Board Order should read to deny the appeal of the Walnut Knolls Association. Andrew LaFrenz, 2110 Carrol Road, Walnut Creek, Vice President of Walnut Knolls Association, referred to a letter dated March 5, 1989, submitted to Supervisor Schroder stating their concerns, commenting on issues including the fill on the property, the process involved in approval of the grading permit, and requested that the project be denied in its present form. � 1 a lqw Supervisor Torlakson inquired as to whether Mr. LaFrenz was aware of the grading activity when it occurred and the process when the permit was being granted. Mr. LaFrenz responded to Supervisor Torlakson' s question that they were aware of it but .had been told it was not the stage at which public comment was appropriate. Supervisor Schroder commented that he intended to make a recommendation at the close of the hearing relative to the process and policy of the County related to the issuance of building permits. Dick Hardie, 2061 Strand Road, Walnut Creek, whose property is contiguous with lot 2, commented on issues including drainage, his view corridor, the grading of the property, the elevation of the project site, use of public roads versus private roads, emergency vehicle access, concerns over his heritage oaks, and he commented that his concerns could be greatly mitigated if the fill on this project were half as high as it is. Steven Young, 2030 Doris Avenue, Walnut Creek, commented on the issue of limiting the building on lot 1 to single story requesting that the elevation, ridge height of that house be no greater than 210 feet and that the front setback of the home be more toward the southeasterly of that lot and that these conditions be recorded in the CC&R' s. Hubert Henderson, 2041 Doris Avenue, Walnut Creek, expressed his concerns on issues including the view corridor, privacy, and the grading on the proposed project site, and he requested that the subject site be restored to its original grade level. Sandra R. Price, 88 Cliff Lane, Walnut Creek, read a letter from her husband, Robert Price, expressing concerns relative to the proposed project. Eric Hasseltine spoke in rebuttal on various issues including that the owner had very little to do or to say with the storage of the fill. He stated that most of the problems that the residents have can be - solved, including the placement of the homes to respect the view corridors, and the elevation request by Mr. Young. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder thanked all persons who had worked on this problem in an extremely professional manner. He expressed distress with the creation of this situation by a permit issued by Contra Costa County without any notification to anyone and without the possibility of public input through a hearing process. He advised that it would be his intent to approve the project but defer the decision to March 21, 1989 to give consideration to the testimony that was given today in order to mitigate the concerns of the abutting property owners, and tying down the conditions to the approval in order to allow the abutting property owners consideration. He also recommended that the County Administrator coordinate a meeting before March 21, 1989 with representatives of the Public Works Department, the Flood Control Department, the Building Inspection Department, the Community Development Department and members of the Walnut Knolls Association who have been involved with this situation to answer questions relative to grading permits and to bring to the Board of Supervisors some recommendations for the Internal Operations Committee to deliberate relative to the possibility of a County policy that relates to grading permits and having to do with notification and public hearings on projects. He moved to declare intent to approve Subdivision 7097 and defer the decision to March 21, 1989 to allow for information for final approval. Supervisor McPeak expressed agreement with Supervisor Schroder' s motion but clarified that the Board had not been notified relative to the grading permit either. 2 I 'Y i i ♦ i. Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendation of Supervisor Schroder is APPROVED and the Board DECLARES ITS INTENT to approve Subdivision 7097 and decision is DEFERRED to the March 21, 1989 Determination Calendar; and the County Administrator is DIRECTED to� coordinate a meeting before March 21, 1989 with representatives of the Public Works Department, the Flood Control Department, Building Inspection Department, the Community Development Department and members of the Walnut Knolls Association relative to grading permits. 1 foreby Certify that this Is a true and correct Copy of an actbn taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of&Wr*M ontlts date 9110WI/M Q ATTt�8Tf 4 +���— PHIL SAT Cfeik of the Board of 8upemisora and County Administrator J M By ,0"uty Orig. Dept. : Clerk of the Board cc: Community Development Department County Counsel Hasseltine Best Cliff Lane Walnut Knolls Association, et al I i i i 1'. i. i 3 Gilbert Smith, 3181 Walnut Boulevard, Walnut Creek; applicant, presented a written copy of his testimony to the Board, commenting on issues contained in it including a brief history of the proposed project, the reasons for the minor subdivision, the objections of the neighbors and requested approval for his minor subdivision. He advised the Board that he would no longer request the variance of lot size on parcel 1, condition 3, as it will not be necessary since he was withdrawing the offer of easement. He presented aerial photographs of the site which he asked to be returned to him and subsequently were returned by the Clerk. Paul M. Weidoff, 626 La Vista Road, Walnut Creek, appellant, presented the Board of Supervisors with copies of his presentation today (no copy furnished to the Clerk) . He commented on issues including the reason for the residents opposition to the proposed minor ' subdivision, his letter of January 20, 1989, the lack of reasons for granting of this application, the lack of satisfactory answers to the questions the appellants have asked, and asked the Board to answer their questions relative to drainage, sliding terrain, water accumulation, sinkholes, maintenance of the easement, the location of the access road and the proposed home, open space, landslides, the disturbance of the crown of the road, and requested the Board consider a delay in granting the variance and leave the status quo until the Board has sufficient time to review in depth a final decision in this matter. Supervisor Schroder requested clarification from staff relative to the variance request being withdrawn. Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, clarified that the lot area variance was withdrawn because the access easement would have reduced the lot size to below the 20,000 square feet and is not required by the County or the Fire District, and that there was a variance to lot width but not area. Mark Williams, 639 La Vista Road, Walnut Creek, property owner adjacent to the subject property expressed his objections to the proposal, the need for access for rotovation of weeds, concern with the variance not being included, and the need for guaranteed access across ,either parcel A or B for weed abatement. He presented a history of the site, spoke on open space and trail access, drainage, grading, and the wildlife in the area. Vizma Cantwell, 442 Marshall Drive, Walnut Creek, spoke in support of Mr. Smith' s application. Harry Maes, 1605 Oak Park Boulevard, Pleasant Hill, spoke in support of Mr. Smith' s application, and commented on collect and convey for the proposal. Gilbert Smith spoke in rebuttal on issues including water accumulation, weed abatement, and access to the trail. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder expressed concern for the access to the area for weed abatement. Karl Wandry responded that the County ordinance requires abatement but does not define how it is done. He suggested that access could be required for approval of the subdivision. Supervisor Schroder inquired as to the Fire District' s position on this question. Mr. Wandry responded that they did not discuss this point. Supervisor Schroder commented that because of the recommendations of the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission for denial of the appeal he would recommend denial of the appeal and approval of the subdivision and he expressed concern. with the access issue. 2.