HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11142000 - SD3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .. .i
' Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP _n.:^ Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000
SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration of Board of Supervisors' Decision to DENY
an Appeal of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Decision to
Deny County File # LP002039 to Allow the Outdoor Sale of Christmas trees.
Subject property is located at 3212 Danville Blvd In Alamo. Dale Bridges
(Applicant and Appellant) Peter Ostrosky (Owner).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
DENY the request to reconsider the Board's decision to UPHOLD the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission decision to deny the outdoor sale of Christmas trees.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO MITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON November 14, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER
The public hearing was OPENED, and Dale Bridges,Appellant, 3212 Danville Blvd.,Alamo, appeared to
speak; no one else wishing to speak,the hearing was CLOSED; the Board considered the matter, and took the
following action: APPROVED the staffs recommendation.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
XX UNANIMOUS{ABSENT - - _3 CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Aruna Bhat(925)335-1219 ATTESTED november 14, 2000
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc:County Counsel SUP RVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Building Inspection Department
Public Works Department
Dale Bridges
Peter Ostrosky
Date NOVEMBER 14, 2000
Board of Supervisors
File# LP002039
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant is responsible for all staff time and material charges for the review of
the appeal associated with his request,
BACKGROUND
On April 17, 2000, the applicant filed an application( LP002039)with the County to amend the
existing land use permit (LP952061) to allow the sale of Christmas trees. Such sales are
specifically prohibited by the conditions of the existing permit ( COA# 10 of LP95201 1). The
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denied the proposed amendment to the
land use permit on September 20, 2000. The applicant appealed the Commission's decision
on October 2, 2000. The appeal hearing was scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on
October 24, 2000 and the Board denied the request for the Christmas tree sales.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
In a letter dated November 3, 2000, the applicant Dale Bridges has requested the Board to
reconsider it's decision to deny the Christmas tree lot. Mr. Bridges has indicated in his letter
that he would be submitting a revised parking plan to address the traffic & safety concerns.
DISCUSSION
The applicant submitted a revised parking plan to staff on October 23,2000 and had requested
the Board to continue the matter to allow sufficient time to review the parking plan. The parking
plan submitted indicates 6 off street parking spaces. However, providing the additional parking
does not overcome other facts relied upon by the Board as the basis for denying the proposed
Christmas tree sales, including the intensity of the use, the lack of adequate area for loading
trees & other safety concerns. The proposed new parking plan is also inconsistent with the
striping plan for the used car dealership. Staff recommends that the Board deny the
reconsideration request.
ridkes -a r CALIFORNIA DEALER #2
Motors �'' , , --<=�-: �` ��' 3212 Danville Blvd., Alamo, California .94507
of A l amo Tel:(510)838-180.1 Fax: (510)838-1808
Dale A. Bridges
321.2 Danville Boulevard
Alamo, California 94507
3 November 2000
RECEIVED
NOV q 3 2000
CLEriK•, '"317 OF SUPERVISORS
Ms Donna Gerber, Chair .. COSTAco.
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
re: Request for Reconsideration re denial of LUP 00-2039
Item D8 on 24 October 2000 agenda
Dear Chair Gerber
On 24 October the Board of Supervisors heard my appeal of the denial by the San Ramon Valley
Planning Commission of a request to sell Holiday Trees on my property here in Danville and
denied that appeal. Please consider this a Request for Reconsideration of that decision, which
Request is based on several factors which include but are not limited to
* The Staff had recommended denial to the Board because the SRVRPC recommended
denial--but all objections to the proposed Holiday Tree Sales had been carefully considered by
Staff--including traffic, safety, and related issues--and Staff' had supported my application and
recommended approval of the LUP at the Planning Commission level. I believe Staff's thoughtful
and careful consideration and recommendations were not given sufficient consideration by the
Board.
* The opposition at the Planning Commission level(and at the Board)focused on a
parking arrangement that had been approved by Staff. But since that time I have prepared (and
the Staff' has not had an opportunity to review and continent on it) a revised parking plan that
would effectively dissolve any remaining traffic and safety questions raised against the application
and which revised plan will be submitted to Staff within two weeps of this date.
1
Customer Satisfaction Guaranteed "Let's De Business" New-Used Auto Broker
Contra Costa.County Board of Supervisors 3 November 2000
Request for Reconsideration LUP 00-2039
* The suggestion had been made that we simply resubmit for next year but under County
rules as they have been explained to me, the application cannot be resubmitted until at least a year
has passed after it is turned down. Thus, if the revised parking configuration is not handled as a -
Request for Reconsideration I will be prevented from,even applying to have Holiday Tree sales on
this site in the year 2001 as well.
* The evidence submitted in opposition was not accurate re traffic or safety issues, and
incorrectly indicated that adjacent neighbors all opposed this project whereas most neighbors and
most citizens of Alamo support it --they do not'support denial of this application. Rather than
seek judicial relief I would prefer to resolve the matter amicably by requesting reconsideration.
I am submitting with this application the required fee for this process and loop forward to
worsting with you on this--and answering any questions you may have.
Thank you for your consideration.
You truly
rA
D?A. idges
cc: all members of Board of Supervisors
Community Development Department
2
Alamo Chiropractic Clinic
Family Chiropractic Care
Massage Therapy
Nutrition
€'hysiotherapeutics
DANIELS. SMITH, D.C. Sports Medicine
RECEIVES
November 11, 2000
NOV 14 2000
CLERK BQAR5 OF SUPERVIS S
Ms. Dong Gerber, Chair CONTRA COSTA CO.
Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553
Re: Request for reconsideration of the application for a land use permit, file
#LP002039,to sell Christmas trees at 3212 Danville Blvd.,Alamo, Ca. by Mr, Dale
Bridges of Bridges Motors.
Dear Members of the Board,
I have learned through the CCC Times article on Saturday 11-11-00 that Mr. Bridges will
apply for a Christmas tree sales permit at the Board meeting on Tuesday, 11-14-00.
Unfortunately,due to previous commitments as a health professional, I am unable to be
present for this meeting. Although I am unable to listen to Mr. Bridges proposal of
selling trees and resolving the traffic,parking, and safety issues I still take the position
that I do not oppose Mr. Bridges business adventures but that this is an inappropriate
location for this type of business use. Mr. Bridges has had several opportunities to
present his case over the past several months to the AIA, SRVPC and to Board of
Supervisors' at the 10-24-00-land use permit appeal hearing. We sat through hours of
testimonials. The Board of Supervisors' voted 4-0 in opposition to this land use permit.
Supportive factors to deny the tree lot at this time are based on:
1. In September through November of the year 2000 the AIA, SRVPC, and the
Board of Supervisors' all voted unanimously against the land use permit
application to sell trees at this location.
2. The Staff report signed by Dennis Barry on October 24, 2000 recommends that
the Board uphold the SRVPC's decision and deny the appellant's appeal.
3. The letter from January 1991 from Dr.Ted Stein,President of Alamo Investment
Co., (owner of the building at 3206,08,10 Danville Blvd.)to CCC Community
Development Dept. regarding traffic congestion,parking, and safety issues as a
result of the tree lot at 3212 Danville Blvd.
4. Mr. Bridges sold trees in 1999 which is in direct violation of Condition of
Approval#10 of his used car lot land use permit, which states a new land use
permit is required for Christmas tree sales. Note: selling trees without a new land t
use permit also violates COA# 1 of Mr. Bridges used car lot land use permit.
3210 Danville Blvd.• A€amo,CA94507 - Tel(925)831-0766* Fax(925)831-0996 • Email:a€amo.chiro@woridnet.att.net
1
5. The AIA, SRVPC, and the Board of Supervisors all have recognized this location
to be inappropriate for the intensive use of a Christmas tree lot.
6. The frontage road,public parking, on Danville Blvd. has changed from(9)to (3)
available parking spaces as a result of the new sidewalk construction.
7. The impact of the tree sales on the five businesses to the north of this location has
proven to be a safety,parking and traffic congestion issue. Each of these
businesses have written letters or signed the petition along with dozens of
customers who have also signed the petition to be in opposition of the tree lot at
this location. It not only affects the normal conduct of business operations but it
causes confusion as to where our customers will park and safety hazards.
Recent conversations with the previous real estate broker of this building and a member
of the AIA have both stated they remember a previous tenant complained to them that the
tree lot was negatively affecting the business due to lack of parking and traffic congestion
during this businesses prime sales from Thanksgiving through the Christmas season.
This neighbor spoke to me on several occasions from 1996-1998 with similar complaints
as mentioned above. The real estate broker has communicated to me that he reported this
complaint to Dr. Ted Stein. This is mentioned due to the letter Mr. Bridges submitted to
the Board of Supervisors on 10-23-00. On page two,paragraph two, Mr. Bridges
comments the AIA and the SRVPC were offered incorrect information and he states"my
neighbor, who mistakenly told them that a business had left Alamo because of our
Christmas tree lot. He had no valid information about that but the Planning Commission
relied in part on that in denying my application". My communication to the Planning
Commission was "one of the reasons this previous tenant left this business location was
because of the lack of parking and traffic congestion as a result of the tree lot during the
holiday season". I declare this as a true and accurate statement to the intent of my
communication to the SRVPC.
Currently,but not limited too, Mr. Bridges continues to violate COA# 1 of his used car
lot land use permit; .Pile#LP952061. If Mr. Bridges can not conduct his business in
compliance with his used car lot land use permit, how can it be expected that this would
be any different with a tree lot use permit.
Please advise me of the Boards decision of the meeting on Tuesday, 11-14-00. I would
also like to know how many times is it necessary to do this process. The County's and
the community's time is too valuable to continue administrating this same issue.
Thank.You,
t�W<
Daniel S. Smith, D.C.
cc:Board of Supervisors Districts 1-5, Clerk of the Board, CCCCDD, AIA, SRVPC,
Alamo Investment Co., attn.: Dr. Ted Stein, Ed Barr, esq., Peter Ostrosky, Mr. Bridges.
2
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE(3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers" rostrum before addressing the Beard.
Name; A� A. ik' r, Phone:(laslew--Z /
Address: / SAN 'gid c c v,� City; Atn o
I am speaking for myself X or organization: r Not, rr&,g S
(name Of ' t W)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda item# 5 b Date: J&11Y-a
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board.to Consider: