The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10221996 - D4 D. 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 22. 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES: Supervisors Rogers and Bishop ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Request For Reconsideration of the ,Board of Supervisors' Decision on LUP 95-2061, Dale Bridges and Peter Ostrosky, Alamo Area. On September 10, 1996, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date consideration of a request for reconsideration of the Board of Supervisors' decision on Land Use Permit 95-2061, Dale Bridges (applicant) and Peter Ostrosky, (owner) , to establish a used car lot in the Alamo area. Debbie Chamberlin, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the request for reconsideration and commented that staff found that there was no new evidence and Ms . Chamberlin recommended that the Board uphold their previous decision and deny the request for reconsideration. Supervisor Bishop commented on the staff recommendation that no new facts or information had been presented. Supervisor Rogers requested clarification on the Planning Commission' s and the Board' s prior vote on the proposal . Ms . Chamberlin responded. The following persons presented testimony: Brian Thiessen, 3201 Danville Ste 295, Alamo, representing the applicant, Dale Bridges; John Henderson, 2445 Southview Drive, Alamo, representing the Alamo Improvement Association. Supervisor Bishop spoke in support of not granting reconsideration. Supervisor Torlakson and Supervisor DeSaulnier expressed that they would like to visit the proposed site . Supervisor Rogers requested clarification on a new configuration for placement of the cars . Ms . Chamberlin responded to his request . The Board discussed the request for reconsideration. Supervisor DeSaulnier moved to grant reconsideration. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the request for reconsideration of the Board of Supervisors' decision on Land Use ,D� Permit 95-2061, Dale Bridges (applicant) , Peter Ostrosky (owner) to establish a used car lot in the Alamo area is GRANTED; and November 19, 1996, is FIXED as the date for hearing to reconsider. t hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes W the Board of Sup�at�gp the date shown. ATTESTED: �l J I q q I. PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board uperviso d Coon Ad inistrator By ,Deuuty Orig. Dept : Clerk of the Board CC : Community Development County Counsel Dale Bridges Brian Thiessen John Henderson, AIA Contra • Costa iTO:,,' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ;., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT srq ------- DATE: u �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) 6 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 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A 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 cc: Dale Bridges PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Peter Ostrosky THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY a 2. J Issue 1: Condition of Aparoval #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. J.. 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 RA COST.:, C.77, C.78, C.79 016JUL 25 PN 4: 28 �~ CC'i' THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF DEVELOPMENT DEPT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 16,1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C.77 LETTER dated July 3, 1996,from Arthur Miner, Executive Director, Private Industry Council, 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 100, Concord, 94520-4891, advising that the PIC Executive Committee disagrees with Paul Mclntosh's, "Report on the Organization and Services of the Contra Costa County Department of Community Services" which recommends combining other social service program providers (including the PIC) into one unit. *• REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C.78 CLAIM dated June 28, 1996, from Jim Winningham, Senior Manager, KPMG, Peat a. Marwick., 750 B Street, San Diego, CA 92101, submitted on behalf of Great Western Bank, for refund of excess property taxes in the amount of $3,800, levied for fiscal year 1992-93. b. CLAIM dated June 27, 1996, from Jim Winningham, Senior Manager, KPMG, Peat Marwick., 750 B Street, San Diego, CA 92101, submitted on behalf of Bank of America for refund of excess property taxes in the amount of $7,600, levied for fiscal year 1992-93. ****REFERRED TO ASSESSOR,TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR, AND COUNTY COUNSEL C.79 LETTER dated June 3, 1996, from Brian Thiessen, Esq., 3201 Danville Boulevard, Ste 295, Alamo, CA 94507, representing Dale Bridges requesting reconsideration of the Board's decision of June 25, 1996, relative to the Conditions of Approval for LUP 2061-95, Alamo area. *—REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR RECOMMENDATION IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted ("") are approved. an o� �reonheuthc.c. Correspondents Q� � Oonteerd tminutes of e County Administrator ATIES f to Assessor M rESTED P, B NEL Ge of the Ebaro Treasurer/Tax Collector supe ^ AdmintatratW County Counsel C7�A- .b/A a �oeputY