Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05211991 - H.5 60ARD OF SUPERVISORS H. 5 F ., Fes+: Harvey E. Bragdon, � Contra Director of Community Development Csb7`a DATE: May 1, 1991 Wuqy SUBJECT: Hearing on Appeal of Denial on the Request of Approval of the Tentative Map for MS 46-90 in the Crockett Area SPEC 1 F.I C .REOUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) 8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the appeal filed by Mr. Jay Hollander with respect to the denial of a request to divide 21.37 acres into four (4) lots. 2. Alternatively: Grant the appeal filed by Mr. Jay Hollander with respect to a denial of MS 46-90. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION The tentative map application for MS 46-90 was heard by the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 9, 1991. The County Planning Commission denied the applicant's appeal, thereby sustaining the decision of the County Zoning Administrator. The application was denied .for the following reasons: I. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed 'improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ._ YES SIGNATURE' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REC END ION- F AR COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S1: ACTION OF BOARD ON MA17 21 19_q] APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X This is the time heretofore noticed bythe Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on appeal of C. Jay. Hollander (appellant) from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals on the application by C. Jay Hollander (applicant and owner) to divide 21.37 acres into four (4) lots (Minor Subdivision 46-90) in the Crockett area. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, commented on a letter from .Mr. Hollander requesting cotinuance of this item. Supervisor Fanden. advised that she was not in favor of a continuance of this item. 1. Ms. Fleming presented the staff report on the matter commenting on the decisions of the Zoning Administrator and the 'County Planning Commission, the site location, and concerns with the project including access, traffic safety, narrowness of the road, and the inability to _ extend urban services to the property. Ms. Fleming commented that no California Environmental Quality Act review had been completed on this project. For this reason no adequate CEQA document is available discussing the project' s potential environmental effects; possible mitigation measures, and related matters. The public hearing was opened and the following person appeared to speak: C. Jay Hollander, 501 Cliffside Court, Pt. Richmond, appellant/applicant/owner, spoke in favor of the project, commenting on issues including the findings for the denial of the application, and he requested a tentative approval subject to the compliances required by the code and other statutes. Supervisor..McPeak requested clarification on the average grade on the property. Mr_. Hollander responded that it was between 20 and 30 percent. Ms. Fleming commented that would agree with the incomplete information staff has but that there was no actual average slope calculation for the site. Supervisor McPeak advised that her inquiry was because of the policy in the new General Plan, commenting that the property is outside the urban- limit line and includes slopes in excess of 26 percent, and she advised of the general request to Community Development Department for options on larger lot zoning for a variety of lands with steeper slopes throughout the unincorporated area. Supervisor Powers clarified that anything the Board does on this matter would have to meet the standards applicable at the time the project's application was determined to. be complete. Mr. Hollander reiterated material from the soils report from Hollenbeck Associates which was not a part of any CEQA document analysis completed for the project. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Fanden moved the intent to deny when appropriate findings are available for consideration; and directed that the staff bring proposed findings to the Board for its consideration. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors DECLARES ITS INTENT to deny the appeal; and the Community Development Department is DIRECTED to develop appropriate findings for Board consideration and final decision. CITE of SUPOW Isms I HEREBY CERT 1 FY TWAT TH I S IS A TRUE K UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TARN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE IDARD ikesENT: ABSTAIN' OF SERV ISMS ON TME DATE IIH MN. c; Community Development Dept., ATTESTED May 21, 1991 Attn: Rose Mary Pietras C. Jay Hollander (Applicant) PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF .Public Works SUP RVISORS ANOCOUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel 332.1-83 BY .DEPvrY 2.