Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02121991 - 2.6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra 'z mom: Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community costa Development Department � • •`�= County J. Westman, County Counsel DATE: February 8, 1991 SUBJECT: Clayton Valley Farms: Request for reconsideration by Save Mt. Diablo: February 12, 19.91 Agenda "Item; Determination Item 2.6 SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)A BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMMIDATION Deny Save Mt. Diablo's request for reconsideration of the Board's action of December 18, 1990. OMMARY The Board's action ;on December 18, 1990 is not subject to reconsideration pursuant to the County Ordinance Code. The subject January 7, 1991 letter from Save Mt. Diablo does not appear to contain any new matter which was not before the Board on December 18,. 1990. For these reasons, the Board is not required to reconsider its December 18, 1990 action. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMIENDATIONS We have reviewed the letter dated January 7, 1991 addressed to the Board of Supervisors from Susan Watson, President of Save Mt. Diablo and the attachments thereto. Ms. Watson requests• the Board to reconsider the Board's action on December 18, 1990 relating to the, Clayton Valley Farms property. On that date, the Board ordered corrections of the two grading violations on the property concerning steepness of slope and fill in the creek bottom. On December 18th, the Board did not find any current violations of the conditions of approval for the land use permit issued in 1988 and agreed with the Community Development Department's report reaching the same conclusion. The Board's action on December 18, 1990 is not subject to reconsideration under the provisions of the County Ordinance Code (C.C.C. Ord. Code -Art. 26-2.24 ) . Section 26-2.2.408 provides for timely motions for reconsideration from planning agency decisions involving an entitlement; e.g. , the •grant or denial of a land use permit. _ Here, no such entitlement was involved, only issues concerning alleged violations of existing permits (land use permit and grading permit) were raised and considered by the Board. Even if a motion for reconsideration would have been appropriate, it is untimely as it was filed after the ten (10) . day time limit (C.C.C. Ord. Code S 26-2.2408) . . The letter from Save Mt. Diablo is dated January 7, 1991 more than than days after the December 18, 1990 Board action. The Community Development Department has reviewed the January 7, 1991 letter and believes that all issues relating to the land use permit and� subdivision approval were considered and contained in its report' to the Board on December 18, 1990. The Community Development Department does not believe that the January 7, 1991 letter contains any substantive new matter that would require a response. The January 7, 1991 letter from Save Mt. Diablo does not appear to contain any new matter that was not considered previously by the Board. For this reason, and because section 26-2.2408 is not applicable, the Board is not required to consider granting reconsideration of its December 18, 1990 decision. However, to mitigate future concerns over what may be permitted in a scenic easement, the Board may -wish to consider directing staff of the Community Development Department to develop proposed policy guidelines regarding grading or development approvals in new scenic easements, open space or similar areas for Board consideration. This policy could include criteria for review. of applications for grading or development within such areas •established in the future. By separate memo to the Board, the grading division of the Building Inspection Department will furnish a current status report on the two grading violations that the Board ordered corrected in its December 18, 1990 order. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON / �' 9 / APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Chairman Powers advised that the procedure for reconsideration is if there is new information that was not brought to the attention of the Board prior to its making its determination, not whether the subject matter is to be re-decided Supervisor Torlakson advised that he felt he had new information with respect to the intent from the planner who originally worked on the project and moved to reconsider. Supervisor Fanden seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was- as follows: AYES: Supervisors Fanden and Torlakson NOES: Supervisors Schroder and Powers ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak The motion failed to carry and Supervisor Torlakson announced that he would bring it back before the Board in the afternoon when Supervisor McPeak is present, as she had indicated her support for reconsideration. Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, commented that the report from Community Development recommends that the Board direct the Department to develop, for ,Board consideration, proposed policy guidelines regarding grading or development approvals in new scenic easements, open space or similar areas, said policy to include criteria for review of applications for grading or development within such areas established in the future. Following the break for lunch, the Board reconvened and again addressed the request for reconsideration submitted by Save Mount Diablo. Chairman Powers advised that staff ' s report recommends the Board deny the request for reconsideration by Save Mount Diablo, but it suggests other issues that can be addressed, and if possible, he would suggest putting this item over for a couple of weeks and consider it at that point, and request staff to look at the item and ensure that as many of the considerations of the parties as possible are being addressed. Board members and staff discussed the matter in great detail. Supervisor Torlakson agreed that there is no formal process for reconsideration that applies here, but that he would like to move that staff make a total review of the permits and the situation, to look at the legal situation, look at the various permits, and to consult with the residents and the neighbors in the area,; the Save Mount Diablo organization and the applicant. Supervisor Fanden advised that she would second the motion, stating that she favored a complete review. Board members and staff discussed the timeframe for reporting. The Board took no action on the requet of Save Mt,. Diablo for reconsideration of the Board' s December 18, 1990 decision; REQUESTED the Community Development ;Department to review all issues pertinent to the Clayton Valley Farms Project, including meeting with all parties involved to address the concerns expressed, and REPORT to the Board on March 12, 1991. The Board REQUESTED County Counsel to respond to the Board on legal issues as soon as possible. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc County Counsel ATTESTED /.2 / q 9 Community Development PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Building Inspection SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Save Mount Diablo BY ;DEPUTY W82 (10/68)