HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03051991 - H.1 H. 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 5 , 1991 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson and Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None,
ABSTAIN: None
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing On Rezoning Application 2898-RZ And Appeal By
City Of Pinole On 2898-RZ And Subdivision 7530 In The
El Sobrante Area.
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa
County Planning Commission on the request by JEDCO Engineers
(applicant) and Gary Grenoble, Hans and Algie Lubinger, and Vernon
Allsup (owners) ( 2898-RZ) to rezone a 4. 08 acre site from Neighborhood
Business (N-B) to Single Family Residential District (R-6) , along with
the inclusion at the request of staff of two adjoining parcels
totaling . 867 acres; and to consider an appeal by the City of Pinole
from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
approving Tentative Map 7530 and Rezoning Application 2898-RZ, JEDCO
Engineers (applicant) and Gary Grenoble, et al (owners) in the El
Sobrante area.
Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the
staff report on the proposed project and the appeal, describing the
site location, conformance with the County General Plan, the addition
of the two adjacent parcels to the rezoning application, Mr.
Lubinger' s objection to being included, and the Planning Commission
approval with modifications and with the number of lots being 17. She
also commented on the options A, B, and C presented for Board
consideration.
Supervisor Schroder requested clarification on the access to the
proposed project, and the justification for the NB designation .at the
end of the cul de sac in a residential neighborhood.
Ms. Fleming responded to Supervisor Schroder' s request.
Supervisor Torlakson questioned whether this was in the sphere of
influence of the City of Pinole.
Ms. Fleming responded affirmatively.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared
to speak:
John M. Pierotti, 1326 Tina Court, Martinez, representing the
Balmore Development Group, presented a brief history of the proposed
project, and commented on issues including the number of lots,
annexation to the City of Pinole, and he requested approval of the
rezoning to R-6 and the project.
Don Bradley, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, representing the City of
Pinole, commented on the. appeal of the approval the Planning
Commission granted and commented on issues including good planning,
the process that has been followed, the need for better coordination
between the cities and the County, the difference in the City of
Pinole' s and the County' s General Plans, and annexation of the
property to the City of Pinole.
David Douswell, 2131 Pear Street, Pinole, City Planner, City of
Pinole, reviewed items listed in the appeal letter dated December 7 ,
1990. He also commented on the issues including the differences in
the General Plans, the differences in the standards for the City of
Pinole and the County, the number of lots, planning design and
process.
Supervisor Powers questioned the origin of the map before the
Board today.
Mary Fleming responded that this was the map before the Planning
Commission, and that they had requested a change, and that the Board
was aware of a modification in the plans that would be required if the
conditions do stand.
Manuel Rito, 1005 Balmore Court, E1 Sobrante, presented the Board
with a petition (not given to the Clerk of the Board) signed by the
people in the area opposing annexation to Pinole, and expressed
concerns on issues including access, sewage, and the size of the
proposed lots.
Supervisor Powers requested clarification on the paving of
Balmore Court.
Karl Wandry responded that the subdivider could be required to
pave the road as a condition of approval and that it is within the
subdivision ordinance to provide for that.
Victor Westman, � County Counsel, advised that the final map would
not go of record unless the subdivider could establish to the
satisfaction of staff that the lot owners would have legal access to
use the road which is usually resolved at the final map submittal.
Herbert Weslor, 3321 Silver Court, Pinole, owner, commented that
the project meets all of the County standards, and that they are
willing to comply with all of the Planning and Zoning Commission
requirements or changes in the plan. He also commented on the map
before the Board not being changed until approved by this body, and he
spoke on the proposed access to the project and the .planning process.
Philip Leech, 1045 Balmore Court, El Sobrante, commented on the
issue of schools, access, fire safety, traffic impacts, and that the
developer had been good in working to please the neighbors. He spoke
in opposition to annexation to Pinole and in support of the developer.
Hans W. Lubinger, 1055 Balmore Court, El Sobrante, expressed
concerns including keeping his property Neighborhood Business,
density, traffic impacts, and advised that he did not see any
advantage to annexing to Pinole.
Vernon Allsup, 1118 Vista Point Lane, Concord, commented on a
brief history of the area, the past opportunities for the City of
Pinole to annex the area, the annexation to West County Sanitary
District, andthe reason the area is zoned Neighborhood Business due to
a past horse stable.
John Corl, 1050 Balmore Court, El Sobrante, spoke in favor of the
subdivision of seventeen lots and not annexing it to Pinole, and he
requested that a foot path be provided from the end of the cul de sac
into the back of the shopping center.
Mr. Pierotti spoke in rebuttal on issues including the map, the
size of the lots, slope density, traffic problems in the area, fire
safety, and addressed the issue of the footpath. He advised there was
no problem with the possibility of providing the path, the problem
would be security.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Fanden suggested deferring the matter for two weeks to
allow the parties involved to meet with staff to resolve the concerns.
Mr. Pierotti advised that he would like to be included in the
meeting of parties.
Supervisor Fanden concurred with Mr. Pierotti.
Supervisor Powers advised that he agreed with the residents in
the area including the pathway and he discussed a possible location
for the pathway.
Supervisor Torlakson indicated support for the direction, the
pathway, and working with the cities.
Karl Wandry commented on the notification process and
communication with the City of Pinole and the City of Richmond.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the decision on the above matter
is DEFERRED to March 19, 1991 Determination Calendar.
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisor$on t e date shown,.c�
ATTESTED: S
PHIL BAT ELOR,Clerk of the Board
upervl and CountyAdministrator
0
By ,Deauty
Orig. Dept. Clerk of the Board
cc: Community Development Dept.
County Counsel