The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09101996 - SD4 F ' •�,�ti__S E _L _Ore,,, Contrz TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa Count,o FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ST'9 COUK'� DATE: August 21, 1996 SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration of the Board of Supervisors' Decision on Land Use Permit 952061, Dale Bridges (Applicant) - PETER OSTROSKY (Owner) , to Establish a Used Car Lot in the Alamo Area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) . & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Uphold the Board of Supervisors' decision and deny the request for reconsideration. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On June 25, 1996 the Board of Supervisors approved Land Use Permit 952061 to establish an used car lot in the Alamo area with conditions to allow for 21 vehicles on site. The applicant is now requesting reconsideration of the Board's decision. The applicant filed a request for reconsideration on July 2 , 1996 . The matter was referred to the Community Development Department for recommendation on July 16 , 1996 . The request dated July 3 , 1996 identifies five conditions of approval which the applicant is requesting reconsideration, they are as follows: CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI TEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON September 10 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X John 'Henderson, Alamo Improvement Association, 2445 Southview Drive, Alamo, commented on fhe request for reconsideration of a used care lot in the area; Following testimony and Board discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above matter is CONTINUED to October 22, 1996. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ _ _ _ TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Debbie Chamberlain - 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED September 10, 1996 cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND CO N Y ADMI ISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY 2 . Issue 1: Condition of Approval #1 which limits the number of cars on site to 21, 17 display cars and 4 for employees vehicle parking. Discussion: The request alleges that the site plan submitted was not drawn to scale, and did not properly reflect the true access to the subject property and the "openness" of the subject property. The applicant provided the site plan for the planning agency to consider. The same site plan was available to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors prior to rendering their decisions. Finding: No new pertinent factual or legal matters have been brought to the attention of the Board that were not known prior to the Board rendering their decision. Issue 2 : Condition of Approval #2 limits the time of the use until July 18 , 1997 . Discussion: The permit is set to expire on July 18, 1997 due to the applicant's request for a three year temporary permit to defer the installation of frontage improvements. In a letter dated November 4 , 1995 to Ms. Debbie Chamberlain of the Community Development Department, the applicant acknowledges that a three year permit would not require installation of the ultimate improvements for Danville Boulevard. The staff report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission dated April 24, 1996 discussed the issue that a temporary permit is a "use not to exceed 5 years from the date of initiation of the use. " The previous permit became effective on July 18, 1992 , and the applicant has had full benefit of the use during the hearing process . The reconsideration request additionally states that "This was not discussed at the Board meeting. . . " The applicant was given the opportunity through the public hearing process to raise any issues/conditions of approval which he objected to. The issues of the duration of the permit was not raised by the applicant at the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission meeting or the Board of Supervisors meeting. The condition of approval was available to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors prior to rendering their decision. Finding: No new pertinent factual or legal matters have been brought to the attention of the Board that were not known prior to the Board rendering their decision. Issue #3 : The permit does allow the sale of recreational vehicles or boats on the subject property (Condition of Approval #7) . Discussion: The applicant at the May 15, 1996 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission meeting requested an increase of the number of cars stored on site from 21 to 25 and permit the sale of one recreational vehicle and one boat. The Commission in their discussion felt that boats and recreational vehicles were not appropriate due the limited available area to display cars on the subject property and the need to provide adequate on-site circulation. The Commission's discussion focused 3 . on the additional space needed to display a boat/recreational vehicle due their increased length in comparison to the length of a car. Finding: No new pertinent factual or legal matters have been brought to the attention of the Board that were not known prior to the Board rendering their decision. Issue #4 : The project as adopted required variances to the required parking back-up standards for employee and guest parking. Discussion: The reconsideration request asserts that because the site plan was not drawn to scale it "did not identify the driveway access that assures direct access for" two vehicles that the applicant has identified as requiring variances. It would be unreasonable to require that vehicles for sale on a car lot be required to meet the parking standards of the County Code, since the vehicles are moved infrequently. Furthermore, at the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested staff to clarify the requested variances. Staff indicated that the variances identified in the staff report to the Commission are for the employee and guest parking spaces and not the display cars. Finding: No new pertinent factual or legal matters have been brought to the attention of the Board that were not known prior to the Board rendering their decision. Issue #5: The $200 . 00 quarterly deposit should be dropped. Discussion: This requirement for the monitoring was placed on the permit by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission following public comment and concern over the applicant exceeding the permit requirements for the number of display cars permitted on site. The condition was included in the conditions of approval presented to the Board. Finding: No new pertinent factual or legal matters have been brought to the attention of the Board that were not known prior to the Board rendering their decision. Conclusion: Staff finds no evidence that any new information has been provided that was not or could not of been known at the time of the Board of Supervisors' decision. The issues raised in the applicant's request for reconsideration were discussed in the staff report and public hearings and identified in the Conditions of Approval . DJC/aa BDI/2061-95 .DJC SEP— 9-96 MON •14 :34 THIESSEN LAW OFFICE 5108373352 P. 01 'l rtt£O (1 f fifes of BRIAN D.THIE55EN TLLEPHONE(510)837-3355 rt2C2f P. Cziliessell FAX(514)837352 otcoUySF� 3201 DANVILLE 9OULBVARD,SUITE 295 THOMAS P.HOGAN ALAN40,CA 94507 ATTOR% r AND C PA TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL LETTER DATE: 9 September 1996 TIME: 2: 30 p.m. FROM: Brian D. Thiessen OUR REF: Bridges Motor LUP 95-2061 TO: Shirley YOUR REF: Agenda 10 Sep cec Board of supervisors FAX No. : 335-1913 Total number of pages 2 ; please call if all not received. Dear Shirley Per our telephone conversation this afternoon, we represent Bridges ' Motors on the above request for reconsideration on the Land Use Permit application 95-2061. On 3 July we sent in our Request for Reconsideration and at that time suggested some dates for a possible hearing, but did not get any indication as to when the matter would be heard, even though we have called periodically to try to learn what date might be chosen. Late last week, when my paralegal again called, she was advised (while I was out of the area) that the matter was scheduled for 2 pm on 10 September -- a date and time for which (by now) I have a conflict. Upon calling your office this afternoon I am told it is instead scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. I am scheduled to be arbitrating a case for some attorneys tomorrow -- a case that was referred to me apparently due to some sharp time pressures from the Court that mandated its arbitration for two days this week. With that in mind I would ask that the hearing -on our request for a Request for Reconsideration be rescheduled and I will move whatever other items I can in order to accommodate the new hearing date. I understand these matters are heard in the morning and I have previously scheduled trials on the 17 and 24 September and 1 and 15 October that cannot be changed; I can change my calendar for or 22 October. I will block off those days until I hear from you as to which is a better day. 6A392\1- BSA SEP- 9-96 MON 14 :35 THIESSEN LAW OFFICE 5108373352 P. 02 Board of Supervisors 9 September 1996 page 2 Thank you very much for your assistance. Yours truly, rian D. Thiessen BDT:n cc: Bridges Motors CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, Confidential and exempt from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent, responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us by mail. Thank you. I &A392\Pz.13SA I