HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05241988 - 2.6 a.6
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 24, 1988 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Bathed Appeal on Subdivisions
On recommendation of Supervisor Torlakson, the Board on
April 26 , . 1988 requested County Counsel to review a request by the
Sierra Club and People for Open Space to allow six separate appeals
to be filed under one appeal fee.
The board received the attached report dated May 19,
1988 from Silvano B. Marchesi, Assistant County Counsel, advising
that since each land use project involves a separate application
and decision, an appeal must be filed and an appeal fee paid on
each one.
Board members considered the report and agreed not to
change the policy relative to allowing the batching of appeals
under one appeal fee.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that receipt of the report
from County Counsel is ACKNOWLEDGED.
cc: County Counsel fherebycerf.fythat this isatrue and correctcopy of
Community Development an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Supervisor Torlakson Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
County Administrator ATTESTED: /?9,f
/Q8,
PHIL BA"�CHE60R, Cie,k W the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By v , Deputy
l
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Dore: May 19, 1988 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Victor J. West-man, County Counsel
By: Silvano B. Marchesi, Asst County CounseJJB
Re: Batched Appeal On Subdivisions
SUMMARY
Each land use project involves a separate application and
decision. An appeal must be filed (and an appeal fee paid) on
each one.
BACKGROUND
Owner Ronald Nunn has filed six separate applications for
parcel maps over six separate non-contiguous parcels in the
Brentwood area. We have been informed by the Community
Development Department that the applicant paid an application fee
on each project, totaling $7,860. All the applications were
. heard by the Zoning Administrator on April 4, 1988. The Sierra
Club and People For Open Space have appealed the Zoning Adminis-
trator's decisions, but have submitted only the fee for one
appeal ($100) . Upon demand by the Community Development
Department of the fee for five additional appeals, the appellants
asked a Board member for relief. -
On April 26, 1988 the Board referred this matter to this
office, requesting our opinion how such a "batching" of the
appeals might be accomplished.
DISCUSSION
Ordinance No. 86-94, adopted in November 1986, requires the
payment of a graduated fee when filing a subdivision map, varying
with the number of units. For example, as to Subdivision File
# MS 104-87, the applicant paid the following fee: $980 standard
fee plus $360 (4 lots @ $90/lot) = $1,340. The same property
owner (Ronald Nunn) paid similar fees for each of five other
minor subdivision applications.
The Community Development Department processed each
application separately, including separate environmental inves-
tigations, staff reports, and conditions of approval . We
understand that onlythe timing of the processing. was
Board of Supervisors May 19 , 1988
simultaneous, i.e. , the applications were heard on the same day
by the Zoning Administrator.
Ordinance No. 86-94 requires a fee of $100 for an appeal
from a decision of the Zoning Administrator. County Ordinance
Code § 94-2 .1002 provides, lin part, that an interested person may
appeal an action of the advisory agency., "paying the fee required
In light of existing ordinances, we conclude that an
appellant must pay the appeal fee in connection with each
subdivision action. This conclusion is supported by the facts
that the applicant was required to pay a separate fee for each
application, each application was processed individually, and
the subject properties are scattered around Brentwood and are
noncontiguous.
The Community Development Department has read a draft of
this memorandum and concurs in its conclusions.
cc: Harvey E. Bragdon, Dir. of Com. Dev.
Attn: Karl Wandry, Deputy Director
2