Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02052002 - D3 D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _�✓ Contra FROM:! DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR � z�i� - County DATE: February 5, 2002' SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL FROM CLAIR CALHt3ON RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S' DECISION TO REJECT AN APPEAL RELATED TO A TREE PERMIT AT 2300 TICE VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE WALNUT GREE!{ AREA(TP010020) (DISTRICT 111). SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ACCEPT the report from the Community Development Department Director regarding the timely filing of appeals; 2. UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision to reject the filing of an appeal which was received after the expiration of the appeal period. FISCAL IMPACT Should' the Board direct that the appeal be accepted, the applicant would be responsible for staff casts. CONTINUED ON ATTACH1111ENTt X YES SJQ1 ATVRE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF SOAFfD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD C7N F b uar'y S. Mm APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ' X ETHER X CLOSED the public hearing;UPHELD the Community Development Department's decision to reject a late appeal filed by Glair Calhoon relating to a tree removal permit to remove seven trees at 2300 Tice Valley Blvd.,Walnut Creek;DIRECTED the Community Development Department to return to the Board with brochures on the procedure of filing an appeal in a timely matter. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ASSENT None 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': Catherine Kuts ris(925.335-1210) ATTESTED February 5, 2002 cc: County Counsol,Slivano IMarchesi JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Clair Calhoon SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' Chris W righ BY �� !` -4� ,DEPUTY February 5,2002 Board of Supen(tsors File#i:TP010020 Page 2 BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Tentative Approval for a permit to remove seven trees from a property in the Walnut Creek area. This decision was appealed, and a public hearing was held by the County Planning Commission on August 28, 2001. At the hearing, the Commission rejected the appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the tree permit. On September 18, 2001, eleven days following the close of the appeal period, the Department received an appeal)letter from Clair Calhoon. The appeal was not accepted because it was filed after the close of the appeal period. The October 3,2001 letter from the Department explaining this decision is attached as Exhibit A. The Board initially heard this item at the January 15, 2002 meeting, and asked the Department to return with recommendations. ANALYSIS: The County Code expressly defines the process of appeals including the time period within which an appeal must be filed. The Department does not have any records identifying a similar situation in which an appeal was rejected due to a late filing. To the recollection of planning staff, we have not had a similar case. There have been many instances, however,where the Department has expended significant effort to ensure that appeal filings are valid.' For example,there have been several cases during this past year where the planning staff has contacted individuals who have requested an appeal but have neglected to pay the required fee. This is not simply a case of the Department attempting to ensure revenue collection. According to the Code, the submittal of the fee is required in order for the appeal to be considered valid. In one case, when a prospective appellant could not be reached, a planner was sent to their home to explain what they needed to do to ensure that their appeal would be valid. In the case of small lot reviews,,there'have been many instances where a letter was received which expressed concern, yet the writer did not state that they wished to have a'public hearing. As another example of the Department's practice of assisting those who may have concerns about a project, planning staff individually contacts the writer(s) and clearly explains the system and what needs to done if they wish to request a public hearing'. At the Board meeting, it was suggested that the appellant's"intent"should have been considered. However, the Code clearly states that the appeal must be filed"with the Department.Adding an "intent" layer creates a system where a county employee must subjectively'judge how hard an individual tried to file. There are public and private mail delivery entities which may argue that they have "valid" reasons for a delay. Adopting a system whereby an appellant need only provide the appeal filing to a third part delivery system prior to the close,creates an indefinite appeal period. If eleven Clays after the filing period is acceptable, as in this case, it would be difficult to justify why a February 5,2042 Board of Supervisors File 41TP0100 0 Page 3 longer period (e.g.fourteen,seventeen,or thirty clays)would not also be acceptable. Thus,it is not surprising that the Codedoes not cite "mailing„ when referencing appeals, and instead, requires that they be "filed." The Department clearly understands that the planning process is an imperfect system. We deal with a set of laws and a changing regulatory environment, applying them to very different types of land located in very different communities. When a permit is granted,applicants proceed with their projects,spending significant money developing construction level drawings,conducting site work and grading,',and hiring construction employees.Removing the certainty of when a permit is valid is a serious issue that would have broad ramifications in the land development area. The case before you is not a trend. It is a single incident of an appellant'filing eleven days after the close of the comment period. The Department cannot support changing a system that affects hundreds of properties each year because of a single incident. However,if the Board believes that a ten stay appeal period its insufficient, the Code-could be changed to extend that time period.` We conducted a survey of the cities within County, and found the time period for filing an appeal varies from five to fifteen days. In addition, some cities use calendar days, while others use "working"days. The most common among the cities is the use of a ten calendar day appeal period which is also used by the County. Perhaps the Board may wish to consider a longer time period because of the scope of activity in the county and the greater distance an individual must travel to reach the county offices in order to file an appeal. Although there is some variety in the appeal period, each of the sixteen planning agencies contacted treat the close of an appeal period the same, and do not accept appeals filed beyond the deadline. There are also other administrative steps that could be taken to avoid'.a similar situation. These include: • Amending all brochures and public information documents,including web site information,to highlight the requirement that the appeal must be"filed"within the time frame and to caution any prospective appellants from using third party transmittals or a mailing or delivery system. • Amending the text of the oral information that is provided at every public hearing regarding appeals to clearly caution against mailing appeals. If the Board wishes to pursue considering amending the time period in which to file'an appeal,the Department would, in cooperation with the Office of County Counsel,prepare a code change which would then be scheduled for initial hearing before the County Planning Commission. u0I'?"'lC7 uillljl uontra Dennis M.Barry,'A[GP Development Community Development Director Oa Department0u1t / County Administration Building � . Exhibit A 651 Pine Street pith Floor, North Wing .•,--"; ' Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone r� 646-1210 October 3, 2001 Clair Calhoon 2328 Tice Valley Blvd. Walnut Creek., CA 945965 Bear Mr. Calhoon: The Community Development Department received your letter ;appealing approval of a Tree Permit for 2300 Tice Valley Blvd., on September 13, 2001, ten days following the close of the appeal period. After reviewing the information you submitted regarding the delay and the letter from .Brian D ' Seibel, we unfortunately cannot °concur with your position that the appeal must be accepted. The decision to reject the appeal' is based on the late filing. Upon reviewing the matter, we found that the appeal brochure correctly provides the location for the filing of appeals. This information was; also stated'by the Department Director at the August 28, 2001 County Planning Commission hearing. The audio tape of the meeting revealed that three in attendance were told that the Community Development Department offices would be closed on the last date to file an appeal and any appeal should be filed with the Clerk of the Board, located outside the chambers in Room 106.; l also considered your attorney's position that the events of September 11 2001 should be used to allow the:acceptance of the appeal. Since the appeal' period closed on September 'it", this event cannot be used to extend the appeal period. County Cade Section 144.0021004 provides that this decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Should you wish to file an appeal, the letter of appeal and the $125 filing fee must be received by the office of the Clerk'of the Board by 5.00 p.m. on Friday, Alovernzber 2, 2001. The appeal Office Hours Monday- Friday,8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p rn: Office is closed the 1st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each month letter must concisely statethe facts of the case and the ,grounds for the appeal, including your special interest/injury. A brochure on the filing of an appeal has been included. Please review the porion of the brochure relating to the filing of appeals of administrative decisions. In addition, we are returning your check #1623 in the amount of $125.00 addressed" to Contra` Costa County. Sincerely yours, Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Zoning Administrator cc: R.eliez Valley Builders Brian Siebel CK/df Calhocn.ltr \/li ��Yl Y 1 ♦T'v'�°'�1 �'aJ�'Z L�-4}1� RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2001 CLERK BOARD OF$UPERVISORS 00 TRACOSTACO. / r ' L71... �•72 G-r'Ll �.L` %n..�L'z`— 4i'.. � .�-,LG�'�'i✓Y- 1�4 2bC,i T�tvtn. .G ^� ,a,u+v d22 r-LV �f 5 ct E-4,t `2✓t' t P1 E P L- � ;�f c' L C Mil�1{' � CiL€� cc// f T"t� [%•Ld'tr�u� G:Lx-��. �'1 $�21W+r ��- �r.2 4z— rttu u 2 raj �-a'2� �'�4:w Yc;r's f2f C.7.,li.. !.•f j�_5 .-r�,''„'Tir t v �' C��:� �. .444 I PACIFIC �i�� � ��� CONSIDER WITH L. January 28, 2002 Dear Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, My name is Holly H. Kersis. I am a 20 year resident of the county. I have been in real estate for 25 years,as an appraiser and a sales associate. I am a very honest,hard-working individualwith a lot of repeat business because of my thoroughness and commitment to my clients. in June of 2000, l represented Kevin Campbell in the purchase of 2300 Tice Valley Blvd. and 2310 Tice Valley Blvd, One property was an improved site with a house and the other an unimproved subdivided site. The escrow took over 60 days and I spent a great deal of time confirming with the County Building Department and the Public Works Department that the site was buildable. Both departments assured me that this was a legal site and the only requirement for developing was the posting of a bond. We did spend several months fulfilling the bond requirements. Once the bond was posted and the Public Works Department approved the bond, we closed escrow with the assurance that Mr.Campbell could build his home. If fact,Mr. Campbell has posted a bond that he will complete the improvements the County Public Works Department has requested. I would like to point out that the purchaser is not a sophisticated developer. He is a young man who is trying to pursue the American dream. Guided by a trusted real estate counselor and a good friend,who is a builder,he is trying to build a home for his personal residence. He is not some one out to"make a buck and alienate people". When it came to our attention,that Mr. Calhoon had objections to building on the site, Christopher Wright, the contractor and I set-up an appointment with him. It was the contractor's goal to see what he could do to address Mr. Calhoon's concerns. Mr.Calhoon was not cooperative and in fact he promised to our lives miserable and to fight us all the way. fie has been totally non-cooperative and confrontational. I'wOuld also like to mention that this proposed construction is about one quarter of a mile away from Mr. Calhoon's residence and not in any was visible from his home. I have known the builder,Christopher Wright for approximately 18 years. We have been involved in about 10 real estate transactions. I can produce hundreds of people who will tell you Mr. Wright is not your typical developer, but one who is concerned with people's feelings and the aesthetic value of the homes he creates and the neighborhoods he impacts. I have seen him go out of his way to please people. He was not successful with Mr. Calhoon. I am unclear why Mr. Campbell and Mr. Wright are in this current situation. They have met every deadline, every requirement of the Building Department,and the Public Work department, and should be proceeding according to their rights. PACIFIC UNION REAL ESTATE GROUP, LTD. A GMAC Home Services Company 3799 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette,California 94549 Tel (925)284-3700 Fax (925) 284-5015 Mr.Calhoon failed to object when the subdivision was planned,never objected when the site was offered for sale,has failed to meet several deadlines,has trespassed and gone through Mr. Campbell's mail and has meet our efforts to work with him with anger and threats. It is a wonder Mr.Campbell wants to proceed with his dream home,but he does,and he has every LEGAL right to do so. Please protect the system you were elected to administer. Sincerely and with my best regards, 0 Holly H. Kersis 2008 Norris Rd. Walnut Creek,Ca.94596 (925)947-0786 Pacific Union Real Estate 2085 N. Broadway#IOU Walnut Creep,Ca. (925)974-1650 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP y Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: JANUARY 15, 2002 SUBJECT: CLAIR CALHOON (APPELLANT) HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO REJECT AN APPEAL FILED RELATIVE TO A 'TREE PERMIT AT 2300 TICE VALLEY BLVD IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA {COUNTY FILE' #TP010020). (DISTRICT 111) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision to reject the filing of an appeal which was received after the expiration of the appeal period. FISCAL IMPACT None. Should the Board decide that the appeal will be accepted, the applicant is responsible'for all staff costs. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES' SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S ACTION OF BOARD 0N' January 15. 2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX CONTINUED this matter to February 5,2002 at 11.00 a.m..`,the hearing on the appeal of Clair Calhoon objecting to the Community Development Department's decision to reject a late appeal relating to a tree removal permit to remove seven trees at 2300 Tice Valley Blvd.,Walnut geek and DIRECTED the Community Development Department to "return to the Board of Supervisors with recommendations. VOTEOF SUPERVISORS 1'HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 15 A TRUE AMMO X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None) CORRECT COPY OF AM ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES; ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: —ABSTAIN:— SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE'SHOWN Contact: Aruna Bhat(335.1219) ATTESTED January 15, 2002 cc: Clair Calhoon JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR f CKImp BY ,DEPUTY January 15,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP010020' Page 2 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: This item was originally scheduled for the Board's December 11,2001 meeting. It appears that the appellant did not receive notice of the hearing. The matter was continued to this date to ensure that the appellant wouldbe present. On June 14,2001, the Department issued a Notice of Tentative Approval for a permit to remove seven trees from a property in the Walnut Creek area. This decision was appealed, and a public hearing was conducted by the County Planning;Commission on August'28,2001. At the hearing, the Commission rejected the appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the tree permit. The County ;Planning Commission's decision is final, upon the expiration of the ten day appeal period(assuming no appeal is filed). The appeal period closed at 5:00 p.m. on Friday,September 7, 2001, On September 18, 2001, eleven days following the close of the appeal period, the Department received an appeal letter from Clair Calhoon. The appeal was not accepted because it was filed after the close of the appeal period. The October 3, 2001 letter from the Department explaining this decision is attached'as Exhibit A. The appellant has explained that their appeal letter was mailed (via UPS) on September 5, 2001 and that it was not returned by UPS as undeliverable until several dvs after the close of the appeal period. The appellant suggests that the events of September 11 likely contributed to the delay in UPS returning the package as undeliverable. The appellant's letter has been attached as Exhibit B. County Code Section 26-2=2406 requires an appeal to be filed with the Community'Development Department by the close of the appeal period. In this case,the appellant chose to send the appeal via UPS. From: the records we have reviewed, it appears that Mr.'Calhoon mislabeled the document. UPS was unable to deliver the document and, on September S, 2001, sent the appellant a notification that the document could not be delivered. The document was eventually sent back to Mr. Calhoon on September 13, 2001. The County Code clearly specifies that an appeal must be filedwith the Community Development Department. Mailing within the required appeal period does not constitute a timely filing. The Department cannot concur with the assertion that the events'of September 11't' contributed since the comment'period closed on September 7, 2001. Community Contra Dennis M.Barry,AiCP Community Development Director Development Uosta Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th floor; North Wing Martinez;California 94553-0095 Phone: 646-1214 October 3, 2001 Clair Calhoon 2328 Tice Valley Blvd. Walnut Creek, CA 945965 Dear Mr. Calhoon: The Community Development Department received your letter 'appealing approval of a Tree Permit for 2300 Tice Valley Blvd., on September 13, 2001, ten days following the close of the appeal period. After reviewing the information you submitted regarding the delay and the letter from Brian D. Seibel, we unfortunately cannot concur with your position that the appeal must be accepted. The decision to reject the appeal is based on the late filing. Upon 'reviewing the matter, we found that the appeal brochure correctly provides the location for the filing of appeals. This information was also stated by the Department Director at the August 28, 2001 County'Planning Commission hearing. The audio tape of the meeting revealed that those in attendance were told that the Community Development Department offices would be closed on the last'date to file an appeal and any appeal should be Bled with the Clerk of the Beard, located outside the chambers in Room 106. 1`also considered'your attorney's'position that the events of'September 11, 2001 should be used to allow the acceptance of the appeal. Since the appeal period' closed on September 7", this event cannot be used to extend the appeal period. County Code Section 14-4.002/004 provides that this decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, Should you wish to file an appeal, the letter of appeal and the $125 filing fee must be received by the office of the Clerk of the Board by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 2, 2001. The appeal Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:04 a.m.-5:oo p.m. Office is closed the`1 st,3rd&5th Fridays of each month letter -must concisely state the facts of the case and the grounds for the appeal, including your special interest/injury. A brochure on the filing of an appeal has been included. Please review the portion of the brochure relating to the filing of appeals of administrative ;,decisions. In addition, we are returning your check ##1623 in the amount of $125.00 addressed to Contra Costa County. Sincerely yours, Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Zoning Administrator cc, Reliez Valley Builders Brian Siebel CK/df Calhoon.Itr V0 €uev �re��; r-A c3zi515 RECEIVED OCT 3 Q ZQ0t c�ER co°rA °ac�nsr�ca sn�s /3F&I 1$-'--ZZ — 03'7,0J r P ox o C,,Sc ) L 5.n 2 is €ncv��u•a..x: ', a�t�`-..�.,.N•c�„� 1�v�j ��/ f�-�'.�z ��,; �� .etrg "`�ifSS3 61 e5 L SO— Oft ,�.,��t`{,_i:� CJ�� ct/(/+-F't ,T"� (%Lo'YLL� G:G.c.�\F'• 1 Gi.r�j i�r rvZ s 2: e C a7 ct�IIrf �2t1t� fGtu k�l�'cv4 2 ? ? L td tL,y d AE f Qu�1— r sf{ti{ ;J�� ave gig -7_82.# 1-�Y2 ' .�(,�' �2ls f�-l.I���rt�k�� C! Cl.-,r '�'fi�l�} �— L+•"�t.-�.-�isara� it / �oj ,, GA 3i amok Q AS :gym O bbNAM @ca Amocos xa fl [ ©© LS :<k � k ... : hit a Q hall ez fakSy sr 'snEd Sc i �i _ � I®❑ k • CC 14 E Xs 'FF�� � t3 e' ? 9E i A c a f; 4V R v3 -CLn 1C = ni ru 0 _ 4s c ° sub p il €+e S1 !l1LL �A am so g € I. ,g m . � P .may„„`•ai WEI Fill € `T1 all x,`i` The, Bbatd of Super 11 John Sweeten Contra Clerk olthe Board County Administration Building Costa and County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Rom 106 (325)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1233ountk , John Giola,�Ist District JJ Gayle S.tifilkerna,2nd District �t��S [Tonna Gerber,3rd District A Mark beSaulnier,4th District Federal 0.Glover,5th District Q` December 13, 2001 Mr. Mair Calhoon 2328 Tice Valley Road Walnut Creek,Ca 94595 Dear Mr. Calhoon, Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County Ordinance Code,notice is,given that your December 11,2001,bearing has been continued to January 15, 2002 at 11:011 a.m.,at 651 Fine Street, Room 107, (the Board's Chambers)Martinez, California,by the board of Supervisors of your administrative appeal of'the Community Development Department's decision to reject an appeal received after the expiration of the appeal period. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only;those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at;or prior to the public hearing. very truly yours, JOHN SWEETEN,Clem of the Board of Supervisors:and County..Administrator By. Danielle felly,Eleputy if cc: Aruna Bhat, Community Development County Counsel BOARD OF SUPLRVIS€)RS, CON'T'RA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) ) ) Clair Calhoon j 2328 Tice Valley Road } Walnut Creek,Ca 94595 } Re: Administrative Appeal j I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now,and at all times herein mentioned have been,;a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited snail and with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fullyprepaid, a copy of the hearing notice in the above matter to the following: Mr. Clair Calhoon 2328'Tice'Valley Road Walnut Creek, Ca 94595 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct., Martinez, CA. Date: December'17,2001 Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk John Sweeten The Beard of Superyrs Contra Clerk of the Board and County Administration Burling ��� County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Froom 106 (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553.1293 County John G"a'1 st District 5 Gayle B.lii€kema,2nd District Donna Gerber,3rd District - �» t Mark DeSautnier,41h District Federal t!_Gtouer,5th District Y December 13, 2001 Mr.Clair Calhoon 2328 Vice Valley Road Walnut Creek,tea 94595 Dear Mr.!Calhoon, Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County Ordinance Code,notice is given that Your December 11,2001,hearing',has been continued to January 15,2002 at 11:00 a.m.,at 651 Pine Street,Roam 107,(the Boards Chambers)Martinez, California,by the Board of Supervisors of your administrative appeal of the Community Development Department's decision to reject an appeal received after the expiration of the appeal period.! If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at or prior to the public hearing. Very truly yours, JOHN SWEETEN,Clerk of'the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator'' By- IIU Lei k�2t Daniellel{elly,Deputy CtJrk cc: Aruna Bhat, Community Development County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) } Clair Calhoon ) 2328 Tice Valley Road ) Walnut Creek, Ca 94595 ) Re: Administrative Appeal ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail and with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing in the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice in the above matter to the following: Mr. Clair Calhoon P 165 4 2328 Tice Valley Road Walnut Creek, Ca 94595 US Postai service receipt for CertifiedMail Bury that the foregoing is true and correct.,Martinez, CA. No insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International MaN See reverse Saar St &Nu ,,� _ n f Danielle Telly,Deputy Clerk POMP cafified Fee Special Fee Restdctsd Dd FY t ea Return Receipt Showing to Whom&Date f)e wwad Return� ro whaE,, tle,& �Addea TOTAL Postage&Fees ') Fostraark or[Tate 12 Thee Board of upert.�, rs Contra .tohnSweBoard Clerk o1 the B Bawd County Administration Building and ComtyAdmtnistraiar 1, 6 'Pine Street,Room 106 Costa (925)335-1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County John Gioia,1st°District ; Gayle B.Uitkema,2nd District Donn Gerber,3rd District � Mark DeSaulnier,4th District s FederalD.Glover,5th District December 13, 2001 Mr. Clair Calhoon 2328 Tice Valley Road Walnut Creek,Ca 94595 Dear Mr. Calhoon, Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County Ordinance Code, notice is given that your December 11,2001,hearing has been continued to January 15,2002 at 11::00 am.,at 651 Pine Street, Roam 107,(the Board's Chambers)'Martinez, California,by the Board of Supervisors of your administrative appeal of the Community Development Department's decision to reject an appeal received after the expiration of the appeal period. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at or prier to the public hearing.,, Very truly yours, 3OHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: "--- Danielle Kelly,'Deputy k cc. Aruna Bhat, Community Development County Counsel TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY,'AICP' �.": v Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR �; ::� County DATE: December 11, 2001 SUBJECT: GLAIR CALHOON' (APPELLANT)' HEARING ON AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO REJECT AN APPEAL FILED RELATIVE TO A TREE PERMIT AT 2300 TICE VALLEY BLVD IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA (COUNTY FILE ##TP010020). (DISTRICT Ili)' SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &'BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS UPHOLD the'Community Development Department's decision to',reject'the filing of an appeal which was received after the expiration of the appeal period. FISCAL IMPACT Nene. Should the Board decide that the appeal will be 'accepted, the applicant is responsible for all staff casts. CONTINUES ON A7TACHIf�ENT: X YES SIGNATURE -�— - RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD'CoMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE`S own ACTION OF BOARD ON6 December 11 6. 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX 0n this date, the Board of Supervisors CONTINUED this matter to JANUARY 15, 2002 at 11:00 a.m. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS ''A TRUE AMIE? --X—UNANIMOUS(ABSENT x nCORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES- ENTERER ON THE MINUTES'OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: " -ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact= Aruna Shat(335.1219) ATTESTED December 11, 2001 cc: Clair Calhoon JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CK/mp BY _ ,DEPUTY December 1°1, 200 Beard of Supervisors File#TPO10020 Page2 REASONS'FOR'RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2001, the Department issued a Nonce of Tentative Approval for a permit to remove seven trees from a property in the Walnut Creep area. This decision was appealed, and a public hearing was conducted by the County Planning Commission on August 28, 2001. At the hearing, the Commission rejected the appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the tree permit. The County Planning Commission'sdecision is final upon the expiration of the ten day appeal period (assuming no appeal is filed). The appeal period closed at 5:00 pm. on Friday, September 7,'2001 On September 18, 2001, eleven days following the close of the appeal period, the Department received an appeal letter from Clair Calhoon. The appeal was not accepted because it was filed after the close of the appeal period. The October 3, 2001 letter from the Department explaining this decision is attached as Exhibit A. The appellant has explained that their appeal letter was mailed (via UPS)on September 5, 2001 and that it was not returned by UPS as undeliverable until several dIs after the close of the appeal period. The appellant suggests that the events of September 1 It likely contributed to the delay in UPS returning the package as undeliverable. The appellant's letter has been attached as Exhibit B. County Code Section 26-2.2406 requires an appeal to be filed with the Community'Development Department by the close of the appeal period. In this case,the appellant chose to send the appeal via UPS. From the records we have reviewed, it appears that Mr. Calhoon mislabeled the document. UPS was unable to deliver the document and, on September 6, 2001, sent the appellant a notification that the document could not be delivered.' The document was eventually sent back to Mr. Calhoon on September 13, 2001. The County Code clearly,specifies that an appeal must be ffledwith the Community Development Department. Mailing within the required appeal period does not constitute a timely filing. The Department cannot concur with the assertion that the events of September 110, contributed since the comment period closed on September 7, 2001. crq C3ajSy$ OCT 3 0 2061 C' J CLERK BOARD Of§l RUES01�s CONTRA COSTA CD. c� »t v w: n�i; 'sG'' �5 - �.�-• v: 7 c� i P Gi o cc 2-Li .��+t.�'�.-�r�'�.t-�?,.�� C",11,�,'�,ji, cCr�f '✓ "`C� L%�Gd-tit.<:u-y` :'�'�"�.',�fr1 �"�, r G 'a a ` f G tL�: a u It+ et2Rz 1 fit+�1 ✓�v'i+'L.�u .. C+Z:"'t.+...�trf} ��' ..�.t�-++�-.�C� •(,G`"— '�Z,cz -k.�3a`k3C✓W.- t�, g��� 1��LC ;.''u" �+,,c�. t-•�, r`"rotiC' ��.&�"' �i• �'sy ��•2;.'�-.' +�9.rz .�"7�C�2Y The Board © Supervisors ��r Johnsweele 00A of the Board County Administration Buildingunty Administrator Coam Costa 651 Pine Street..Room 106 (925)335-1900Martinez,California 945553-1283 County John Gioia,t st District Gayle B.Uilke€na,2nd District Donna Gerber,3€d District AI UeSaulnier,4th district Federal Glover,5th District op. GN �r'� COL November 26,2001 Nr. Clair Calhoon 2328 Tice Valley Road Walnut Creek,Ca 94595 Dear Mr. Calhoon, Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County Ordinance Code,notice is given that December 11, 2001,at 9;30 a.m.,at 651 Pine Street,Room 107, (the Board's Chambers)Martinez,,California,has been set as the time and place for the bearing by the Board of Supervisorsof your administrative appeal of the Community Development Department's decision to reject an appeal received after the expirationn of the appeal period. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County,at or prior to the public hearing. Very truly yours, JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By � ' ' - 6e:rk— cc: Danielle Felly, Deputy Aruna Bhat,'Community'Development County Counsel