HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12091997 - D14 ..s............ff, L I�4
•,'.. - ', Contra
-•' ,t Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �; ..u��1Nfn► t� .. ,'
County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR osra co"v-'-
DATE: December 9, 1997 '
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL BY CLAYTON RANCH INVESTORS (APPLICANT & OWNER) ON THE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 7584, A REQUEST
TO DIVIDE 1, 030 ACRES INTO 115 LOTS IN THE CLAYTON/MARSH CREEK AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt option A listed below.
Board Options:
A. Uphold County Planning Commission' s recommendation and deny
the application without prejudice. (This action would allow
the applicant to submit a new application at any time. )
B. Accept the appeal, overturn the decision of the County
Planning Commission and allow the applicant time to perfect
the record for a decision on the merits of the project. The
applicant has until January 31, 1998 to submit the following
required information to proceed with the environmental review;
i. e. , a site plan which shows (1) landslides and other
unstable soils, and (2) project impacts to existing trees.
After reviewing the completed site plan, addition information
may be needed, which cannot be determined from the current
site plan, such as geotechnical studies and arborist report.
The applicant will have an additional 30 days after being
informed by staff of any additional information needed. If
the required information is not submitted by the timeline
specified above, then the project will be brought back to the
Board of Supervisors for reconsideration.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE �.
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON December 9 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
Hal Boexp applicant, Clayton Ranch Investors;
Tom Mooers,Greenbelt Alliance, 500 Ygnacio Valley Road, #250, Walnut Creek, commented on the appeal.
Following testimony and Board discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above matter is
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS CONTINUED to June 9, 1998, at 2:00 in the Board's chambers.
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:Rose Marie Pietras - 335-1216
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED December 9 . 1997
cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND OUNTY ADMI I TRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
2
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This application was filed with the County in September, 1990
before the adoption of the current General Plan in January, 1991.
In 1991 the County indicated that an EIR would be required. The
applicant was advised that he would have to bear the costs of
preparation of the EIR. The County accepted proposals from
consultants to do the EIR. However, at that time the applicant
indicated that he was looking at modifying the project and asked
staff to hold off on a project review. Several years passed.
Staff asked the applicant for a letter as to whether or not they
wished to continue with the process. Other than verbal
assurances, the applicant never submitted a letter stating he
wanted to continue with the process.
On October 24, 1995 this application was scheduled before the
County Planning Commission with a recommendation of denial due to
lack of interest. After hearing public testimony, the Commission
continued the hearing to December 5, 1995 to provide the applicant
an opportunity to meet with staff and try to resolve matters in a
manner that would allow project review to continue.
At the December 5, 1995 hearing the applicant submitted a letter
to the County Planning Commission requesting a 60-day extension of
time to February 6, 1996. The applicant needed more time to work
on a private public partnership between Mt. Diablo State Park,
East Bay Regional Park District, Boy Scouts, and Easter Seals.
The applicant assured the Commission that by that time a
development plan and time line would be ready for the Commission.
The applicant had not met with staff prior to the February 6, 1996
Commission meeting. However, at the meeting the applicant
submitted a new plan with more lots and smaller lots than the site
plan associated with the original 1990 vesting tentative map
application. The Commission continued the hearing to March 12,
1996 to give staff an opportunity to review the revised site plan
and to discuss it with the applicant. Staff was unsuccessful in
trying to schedule a meeting with the applicant due to health
reasons of the applicant. Staff recommended that the matter be
continued again to April 9, 1996 in order to meet with the
applicant.
Staff met with the applicant on March 14 , 1996. Following the
meeting, the applicant submitted a letter dated March 26, 1996 in
which the applicant stated he would do the following:
0 Withdraw the revised site plan received earlier in the year.
The site plan that was accepted as complete in 1990
constitutes their proposed project, and one on which to base
the EIR.
• Substitute a revised site plan reflecting the change in
engineering firms, and
• Make an initial installment payment of $15, 000 towards the
costs of the EIR preparation prior to the next Commission
hearing.
Staff also understood from the March 26, 1996 letter that the
applicant agreed to pay for staff time and materials if the cost
of the staff review (independent of the preparation of the
Environmental Impact Report) exceeds 120% of the initial filing
fee.
Staff indicated to the applicant at the March 14, 1996 meeting was
that staff would consider for inclusion in the EIR an alternative
3
site plan proposed by the applicant that is consistent with
current General Plan policies and law.
The County received a check for $15, 000 from the applicant on
April 8, 1996 as an initial installment payment towards the costs
of the Environmental Impact Report preparation.
At the County Planning Commission on April 9, 1996, staff
recommended that the Commission continue the hearing on this item
to give staff the opportunity to review with the applicant the
policies and code requirements and findings necessary for the
County to approve the project.
On June 11, 1996 staff forwarded a follow-up letter to the
applicant summarizing the current status of the application and
how the County would proceed with the project review. That letter
also requested additional information, consisting of a revised
site plan showing (a) landslides and other unstable soils, and (b)
project impacts to existing trees as previously indicated would be
provided to the County by the applicant.
On March 26, 1997 another follow-up letter was forwarded by staff
to the applicant. The applicant was reminded that it had been 9
months since the last contact between him and staff.
The last meeting that took place with County staff was on April 9,
1997 during which the applicant requested a suspension in
processing to allow him the opportunity to investigate the
possible sale of the property. At that meeting, Mr. Dennis Barry,
Deputy Community Development Director, declined, but advised the
applicant to submit the request to the Director in writing
explaining the bases for the suspension. The applicant has not,
to date, submitted a letter requesting a suspension.
On June 17 , 1997 a letter from Valentin Alexeeff, Director of
Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, was forwarded
to the applicant. A brief summary describing the status of the
application was outlined. The applicant was given 30 days to
submit the previously requested information or a letter of
withdrawal.
The applicant was informed that if the deadlines were not met,
that staff would prepare the necessary project analysis on the
basis of the information which is available.
The applicant was also advised that pursuant to Section 26-2 . 2202
of the County Code:
"The applicant shall have the burden of producing
evidence to convince the agency hearing the matter that
all standards are met and that the intent and purpose of
the applicable regulations and goals and objectives of
the General Plan will be satisfied. Failure to satisfy
this burden shall result in a denial. "
To date, the applicant has not contacted staff in this regard.
Therefore, County staff scheduled this application for the October
21, 1997 County Planning Commission public hearing with a
recommendation of denial without prejudice.
On October 21, 1997 , after taking public testimony from the
applicant and a representative of the Green Belt Alliance, the
County Planning Commission voted unanimously of those present (one
Commissioner absent) to deny the project without prejudice.
4
Appeal
On October 23 , 1997 the County received a phone message from the
applicant informing the County of his formal request to appeal the
County Planning Commission's denial of his application. Staff
faxed the applicant a letter on October 23 , 1997 instructing the
applicant of the requirements for an appeal process. In
accordance with the County Code, Section 26-2 .2406 - Appeal -
Notice: "An appellant may appeal a decision of a division of the
Planning Agency, to the appellant division indicated, by filing a
written notice of appeal, specifying the grounds for appeal with
the Planning Department within the calendar time herein allowed
upon payment of the fees prescribed by Article 26-2. 28." Staff
also included a pamphlet further describing standard appeal
instructions.
On October 31, 1997 the applicant submitted a letter formally
requesting an appeal. (See attachment) However, he failed to
submit properly stamped envelopes for the property owners of the
surrounding 300 foot radius of the property. On November 4 , 1997
staff faxed a letter to the applicant requesting the envelopes to
help expedite the appeal process, to be received by November 14,
1997 .
RMP/aa
BD/Clayton.RMP
11-24-97 :df
SUPPLIIVIENTAL MATERIAL
ADVISFAIM FORM
AGENDA DATE: �OZ 9 9 TIEM NO.:
❑ ADDIITONAL MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN THE MINUTES
❑ ITEM CONTINUED TO:
❑ ITEM DELETED
❑ PUBLIC CODM9ENI' - NONE
❑ CONSIDERED CONSENT ITEMS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED -
SEE SUMMARY FOR CHANGES; OTHERWISE APPROVED AS
LISTED ON TfE AGENDA
TIIIS SECITON FOR PLANNING 1TENE ONLY
Cd ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN FILE (NAME):
1?907 &-.j Ad'Jf/ �v1tCit[.i