HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04211992 - H.10 H.10
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on April 21, 1992, by the following vote
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, and McPeak
NOES: Supervisors Powers and Torlakson
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------=-----------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing On Appeal By William and Tanya Desmond From The
Decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission
On Land Use Permit 2085-91 In The Walnut Creek Area.
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal of William and Tanya
Desmond (appellants) from the decision of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals on the request
of William and Tanya Desmond (applicants and owners) for approval
to establish a residential second unit (LUP .2085-91) in the Walnut
Creek area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, pre-
sented the staff report on the appeal, describing the site loca-
tion, and he presented a brief history of the second unit. He also
commented on the two options presented for the Board' s considera-
tion in the staff recommendation dated February 27, 1992.
The following persons appeared to give testimony:
William Desmond, 8 Golden Hill Court, -Walnut Creek,
appellant/applicant, presented a history of the request before the
Board and he requested approval by the Board of the Land Use
Permit.
Mary Hudson, 1736 Franklin Street, 8th Floor, Oakland,
attorney representing William and Tanya Desmond, commented on the
issues before the Board this afternoon including standards for
second units, architectural compatibility with the neighborhood,
parking, traffic, and she presented exhibits for Board considera-
tion.
Maury Huguet, 924 Main Street, Martinez, attorney
representing Jan and Jack Binkley, spoke in opposition to the land
use permit and the second residential unit.
Jack Binkley, 112 Golden Hill Place, Walnut Creek, spoke
in opposition to the land use permit request.
G. Howard Strain, 125 Golden Hill Place, Walnut Creek,
spoke in opposition to the land use permit.
Jan Binkley, 112 Golden Hill Place, Walnut Creek, spoke
in opposition to the land use permit and she commented on a peti-
tion she had circulated in opposition.
Hans Beetz, 136 Golden Hill Place, Walnut Creek, ex-
pressed opposition to the land use permit.
Elizabeth Baxter, 141 Golden Hill Place, Walnut Creek,
spoke in opposition to the land use permit.
Edward Fraser, 117 Golden Hill Place, Walnut Creek,
spoke in opposition.
Jeri Beetz, 136 Golden Hill Place, Walnut Creek, spoke
in opposition.
Sue Smead, 275 Shady Glenn Road, spoke in support of
granny units and in opposition to the Desmond addition and the
negative effect on property values.
Ms. Hudson spoke in rebuttal.
Supervisor Schroder requested clarification on the
sequence of the process that had taken place.
Ms. Hudson responded to. Supervisor Schroder' s request
commenting on the process of the application for the land use
permit process and the building permit being issued during that
process.
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Schroder commented on the process being
reversed and he moved to sustain the Planning Commission decision
to overturn the Zoning Administrators decision and accept the
environmental documentation, deny the appeal of the owners, deny
the residential second unit and approve the findings contained in
the resolution of the Planning Commission.
Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion.
Supervisor Powers advised that he was of the opinion
,that the second unit was compatible with the neighborhood.
Supervisor Torlakson requested clarification on the
legal position of the Board if the second unit is denied.
Arthur Walenta, County Counsel, advised that Counsel
would need a week to give the Board his views.
The Board discussed the various issues concerning the
land use permit and the building permit and the necessary findings.
Mr. Barry requested two weeks to prepare the findings
for Board consideration.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, concurred with Mr.
Barry' s request.
Supervisor Schroder clarified that his motion would be
the intent to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission
decision, deny the residential second unit and direct staff to
return in two weeks with findings for Board consideration.
Supervisor Torlakson indicated that .he did not see a
problem with the architecture or the welfare issues, and so he was
not going to support the motion at this time.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors
DECLARES ITS INTENT to deny the appeal of William and Tanya Desmond
(appellants) from denial of approval to establish a residential
second unit (LUP 2085-91) in the Walnut Creek area, and uphold the
Planning Commission' s decision; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE BOARD that the Community
Development Department is DIRECTED to prepare the appropriate
documentation for Board consideration on May 5, 1992.
cc : Community Development
County Counsel i i iereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
Mary Hudson an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
William & Tanya Desmond Board of Sup •sora o the date shown.
Maurice A. Huget ATTESTED' a1 . iqU
PHIL BA HELOR,Clerk of the Board
of Superviso nd Coun Administrator
00
By ,Deputy