Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03121985 - X.23 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY , CALIFORNIA March 12 , 1985 Adopted this Order on , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers , McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden. NOES: None . ABSENT: Supervisor Schroder. . ABSTAIN: None. SUBJECT: Ordinance (s) Introduced The following ordinance (s ) which amend(s ) the Ordinance Code of Contra Costa County as indicated having been introduced , the Board by unanimous vote4ofthe mepngs present waives full reading thereof and fixes as the time for adoption of same: Section 26-2. 2024 amended to allow permit revocation hearings to be directly scheduled before the board if within the last two years the board has made a revocation decision concerning the permit . hereby certily that th s isg)trtle-3nd cos race cosy of an action taken vn.a.e.rfered c„ tre rr_ir)w-�es of the Board of Super ATTESTE onrd Of 5upert°'. c• a;:r ��u:; Avniinistrator By , Deputy I I I • COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE 1 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 985 MART14Z, CALIFORNIA Date: February 28 , 1985dip To: Anthony A. Dehaesus , Director of Planning From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel I I Re: Proposed Ord.C. Amendment & Board Revocation hearings Pursuant to the Board of Supervisors ' 2-5-85 direction, we have prepared the attached draft ordinance for your review and possible revision prior to presentation to the Board. Con- cerning the 'attached draft, we call the following matters to your _ . particular attention: 1. Ord. Code Amendment. The attached ordinance provides that where the Board of Supervisors (on appeal) has heard and made a decision on a permit (LUP, zoning variance, etc. ) matter and within two years thereafter another revocation of the same permit is to be consideration, it may be directly scheduled before the Board. 2 . State Planning Act. While the State Planning Act requires that applications for conditional uses (LUPs) and variance permits be heard either by a zoning administrator, board of zoning adjustment or planning commission (Gov.C. §§65901 & 65902) , that Act does not expressly require that hearings to revoke LUPs or variance permits be first considered by a zoning administrator, board of zoning adjustment or planning commission. There doesn ' t appear to be anything in the State Planning Act which requires the Board to restrict itself in revocation proceedings to an appellate status. 3. Current Ord_Code . l It should be noted that under current County Ordinance Code previsions (§26-2 . 2028) the Board of Super- visors when making a revocation. decision may condition it "on a future review at a time specified. " VJW:df attach. cc: hil Batchelor, County Administrator + Tom Torlakson, Supervisor (Pittsburg Office) i ORDINANCE NO. 85- (Permit Revocation Hearings) THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORDAINS as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text as enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code) : SECTION I . SUMMARY. This ordinance amends that Contra Costa County Ordinance Code to allow permit revocation hearings to be directly scheduled before the board if within the last two years the board has made a revocation decision concerning the permit. SECTION II . Section 26-2 . 2024 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read : 26-2 . 2024 Hearing Notice. Unless otherwise required by this section, hearing on revocation shall be scheduled by the planning department before the division of the planning agency having authority to initially grant the type of permit involved. If within the last two years the board of supervisors has made a decision on a permit pursuant to Sections 26-2 . 2028 and 26-2 . 2030, the hearing on revocation of that permit shall be scheduled by the planning department before the board. The department shall give notice of the hearing on revocation in the same manner as on an initial hearing to grant such a permit. (Ords. 85- §1, 1975: prior code §2207 . 30: Ord. 917 . ) SECTION III . EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective thirty days after the passage , and within fifteen days of passage , shall be published once with the names of the supervisors voting for and against it in the , a newspaper published in this County. PASSED ON , 1985 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: i ABSENT: ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: Deputy Clerk Board Chair [SEAL] VJW:df (2--28-85) February 13, 1985 TO: Harvey Bragdon FROM: Tom Torlakson, Superlisor District V SUBJECT: SCHEDULING OF REVOCATION HEARINGS Background: I believe a serious fault in the current ordinance is the process which reroutes any recurrence of a LUP violation (even after a lengthy revocation process as we have gone through with Delta Resort) through the same entire process even if the same violations recur within 30 days or within deadlines established during the preceding revocation process . There is a great potential under the current process for three months of slippage at the Zoning Administrator's level, three months at the Planning Commission's level and perhaps another three months delay at the Board of Supervisors ' level. I propose that when a LUP comes up for consideration of a revocation proceeding a second time that the matter be brought directly to the Board of Supervisors . The Board should have the option of directly proceeding with the revocation hearing as scheduled and noticed or sending it to the Planning Commission to sort out the issue. In situations of recurring violations , it is likely that the issues have already been sorted through and dealt with rather thoroughly by the Board of Supervisors enabling the Board to quickly make a determination as to revocation. This would serve the public interest and all parties and also provide a greater hammer or leverage in enforcement and compliance with the terms of the LUP. . A trigger mechanism would be in place. Then, saying that if in a year's time of a revocation hearing a LUP is brought to the attention of the County planning staff to be in violation of any of its terms or conditions or deadlines , the issue should be directly and immediately calendared before the Board of Supervisors for a hearing rather than send it back through the same revocation process . i SCHEDULING OF REVOCATION HEARINGS Page 2 i I I Another part of this ordinance change should, in Supervisor Torlakson's opinion, include wording that all costs incurred in such a riepeat revocation process should be borne by the LUP holders where it is determined by the Board that there are legitimate grounds for calling for a revocation hearing. This should include the cost of all enforcement. Staff time should be totalled and billed to the property owner. If not paid, the costs should then be leined against the property and be further grounds for revoking the LUP if not paid within a set period of time . Recommended action: Refer to the County Counsel to review the provisions in the ordinance for setting revocation hearings .