The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12102002 - D3 D.3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on December 10, 2002,by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gerber, DeSaulnier, Glover& Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Uilkema ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: HEARING on an appeal filed by Michael Bauman, (Permittee and Owner) Bauman Landscape, from the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke a an administrative permit for a contractor yard located that the northwest corner of Brookside Drive and Third Street(115 Brookside Drive),North Richmond area. CONTINUED to January 14, 2003, at 11:00 a.m., and DIRECTED that evidence be provided by Mr. Bauman showing proof of payment for the remainder of fees owing in the amount of$15,500 and proof of a bond for the necessary improvements. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: December 10, 2002 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board Of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Clerk TO: ; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ` - --' Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County [SATE: DECEMBER 10, 2002 SUBJECT: HEARING OF AN APPEAL FILED BY MICHAEL BAUMAN, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE ADMINSTRATIVE PERMIT#NR950020 FOR A CONTRACTOR YARD. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BROOKSIDE DRIVE AND THIRD STREET(115 BROOKSIDE DRIVE)IN THE NORTH RICHMOND AREA. (H-1)(CT 3650.02)(PARCEL 409-202-004). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS FIND that the appellant remains Out of compliance with the Conditions of Approval of Administrative Permit #NR950020 and revoke the use permit. ACCEPT the August 8, 2000 recommendation of the County Planning Commission to uphold the Zoning Admistrator's decision to revoke the Administrative Use permit for the contractor yard. DIRECT staff to begin abatement proceedings within 30 days if the site is not cleared. REFER the matter to the District Attorneys Office for further action as outlined in the Complaint, Stipulation, and Consent Decree against Michael Bauman and Bauman Landscape dated August 17, 2000. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE * r � RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �OTHER— VOTE THER—VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ASSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Maureen Toms, Community Development-355.1250 ATTESTED CC., Public works department-H.Ballenger JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Redevelopment Works snt Agency-B.Lse SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMININISTRATOR Building Inspection Department-m. M.Sllva Health Services Department-K.Stuart B DEPUTY District Attorney's Office-J. Sepulveda December 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#NR950020/P1018 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Costs incurred by this County-initiated revocation are covered by the Redevelopment Agency. BACKGROUND This is a continued public hearing on the revocation of an administrative use permit. Administrative Use Permit #NR950020/P1018 was issued on August 24, 1995, subject to Conditions of Approval. Staff notified the applicant via a letter sent on December 12, 1996,that the project was in violation of the Conditions of Approval of the permit. The applicant was notified on October 28, 1997, via certified mail, of the continued violation of the conditions of the permit and the scheduling of a revocation hearing. Due to continued non-compliance of the Conditions of Approval, the Zoning Administrator revoked the use permit for the contractor yard on June 26, 2000. The Zoning Administrator's . decision to revoke the use permit was appealed to the Planning Commission. On August 8, 2000,the Planning Commission upheld the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The Board considered the appeal on December 5, 2000, February 13, 2001, March 20, 2001, June 12, 2001, July 24, 2001, September 11,2001, and January 22, 2002, April 9, 2002,and June 11, 2002. Until June 2002, the applicant was showing progress toward meeting the conditions of approval, thus staff recommended continuances of the hearing. Community Development and Public Works Department staff continued to work with the property owner to meet the final conditions, comple and approve the improvement plans for frontage improvements, submittal of review and inspection fees, and construction of the frontage improvements. The Public Works Department staff allowed the property owner to set up a payment schedule pay of the $20,000 in staff charges for plan checking and anticipated construction inspection. The property owner agreed to pay$5,000 can June 24, 2002; $5,000 on July 24, 2002; $5000 on August 24, 2002; and$4,000 due on September 24, 2002 or when the project is completed (whichever is sooner). Despite phone conversations with the property owner and his staff over the last five months, no fees have been submitted and the improvement pians are still not approved. V. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that due to the lack of compliance with the conditions of approval,despite a more than adequate time granted for compliance, the permit should be revoked. Staff further recommends that the Board direct staff to begin abatement proceedings should the site not be cleared within 30 days.