HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06221993 - IO.3 -3
O.
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I . Contra
..._.
FROM:
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa
•;
Coun
DATE: June 14, 19 9 3 �:s :_ `y
SUBJECT: REPORT ON PROCESS USED TO NOTIFY INDIVIDUALS OF THE BOARD'S
DECISION ON VARIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)$BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . DIRECT the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to add to the
Board agenda, perhaps on the "General Information" page, a
notation which indicates that a request for reconsideration on
a planning item must identify the new information which was
not before the Board of Supervisors when the decision was made
and which identifies the deadline for submitting a request for
reconsideration.
2 . DETERMINE whether to provide funding for the additional staff
required to provide additional written notification of
property owners on continuances, final decisions, and the
process for requesting reconsideration. This would have to be
done either by an increase in the budget of the Community
Development Department or Clerk of the Board of Supervisors or
by increasing development fees for this purpose.
3 . REMOVE this matter as a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On March 2, 1993, the Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with
action denying the request of Irene Dotson for reconsideration of
the Board's approval of a tentative map for Subdivision 7693,
requested staff to report to the Internal Operations Committee on
.notification procedures which are in use (or could be put into use)
regarding advising individuals of decisions the Board makes on
planning issues or on continuances of hearings .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO IT
APPROVE OTHER\ C �._-�•�
SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK J SMITH
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 22, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
The Board discussed the above recommendations and determined to implement
Recommendation No. 1 and approved Recommendation No. 3
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED June 22, 1993
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Community Development Director
County Counsel
BY DEPUTY
I.O.-3
On June 14, 1993, our Committee met with Dennis Barry, Deputy
Director of the Community Development Department, and reviewed the
-attached report, which outlines the notification process which is
now in place. The report also notes the possible legal questions
which could be raised regarding payment for a notification
procedure which is not required by State law. Finally, the report
notes the rather substantial costs which could be associated with
additional notification requirements .
As an alternative to such individual notification, we are
recommending that language be . added to the Board agenda which
indicated the Board' s policy on hearing requests for
reconsideration, the deadlines involved and perhaps a telephone
number which can be called to obtain the status of any hearing,
continuance, decision, or request for reconsideration.
If the Board of Supervisors is still interested in providing
individual written, mailed. notification to interested parties in
these situations, then a decision must be made regarding how to pay
for the added costs .
-2-
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 4, 1993
TO: !Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP
.Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Report on Notification Procedures on Board Items
On March 2, 1993, The Board requested the Community Development Director to
report to the Internal Operations Committee on the process used to notify
individuals of Board decisions regarding planning matters. In reviewing the tape
of the meeting, it appeared that two issues were involved. The first issue was
the notification of individuals or organization of the continuance of an item
for decision, the second was the notification of these individuals of the
outcome of the hearing, or notification of the decision. The County's practice
since the passage of Proposition XIII in 1978 has been to send out notices of
decision only to the applicant on administrative decisions made pursuant to
Article 26-2.21 of the County Code, and notices of denial on matters heard by
the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission in a public hearing to explain
appeal procedures. Our practice reflects an assumption that if a person is
interested in an item, but is not able to attend the hearing, they will call to
determine whether the matter was decided or continued to a certain date, time
and place.
Following the Board's direction to review this matter, a staff meeting was held
including representatives of the Community Development Department, Growth
Management and Economic Development Agency, the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Counsel, to discuss the issues involved.
Staff identified the following noticing steps (in addition to required CEQA
notices) :
10 days before a hearing by any division of the Planning Agency, written notices
are sent to all property owners and persons who have requested such notice
indicating the subject and the date, time and place of the hearing.
At least 72 hours prior to any public hearing before a division of the Planning
Agency, an agenda is posted indicating the items scheduled for hearing. If an
item has been requested for continuance, this will be noted on the agenda.
Approximately 1 week prior to the hearing, the agenda is also mailed to a list
of persons who subscribe to this service .
At the time of the public hearing, it is the practice of the County to either
decide the item or continue it to a date certain. In this way, interested
persons are informed of the time and place of future action on the item. In the
case of a decision before the Zoning Administrator, or the Planning Commission
or Area Planning Commissions, staff orally summarizes the appeal procedure for
persons dissatisfied with a decision, or indicates that the Commission decision
is advisory to the Board, and outlines how persons can have their names and
addresses added to the mailing list for future hearing by the Board of
Supervisors.
In hearings on legislative matters, such as rezonings or General Plan
Amendments, it is not uncommon for staff to recommend that the Board of
Supervisors declare its intent to decide an item, and direct staff to return
with written findings supporting the decision and any findings which may be
required for compliance with CEQA. In this case, the Board will set a date
certain for consideration of the findings, and the item will be scheduled on the
Board of Supervisors' Agenda as a Decision Item. Noncontroversial items may be
considered on the consent calendar.
It has been suggested that the County initiate a new procedure whereby
interested parties could be notified of continuances for decision, and/or
notified of final decisions, and notified of the Board of Supervisors' policy
concerning requests for reconsideration.
As indicated in the attached memo from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors,
this procedure would result in fairly substantial costs; approximately $30,000
for clerical costs per year, and about $60.00 per mailing to ten persons. Larger
mailings would be proportionately more expensive. County Counsel's
representative at the staff meeting expressed concern that since these costs are
not required by state law that there is a legal issue concerning who pays for
the service. Counsel also expressed concern that there could be some legal
jeopardy in setting up what could be interpreted as a new appeal process that
would not allow for certain closure of. issues within a specified time period.
As indicated in the Mrs. Maglio's April 20 Memorandum, alternative methods of
notification include press releases and encouraging citizens to subscribe to the
agenda services. The press release would have some staff costs for the Clerk,
although these have not been estimated. The subscription cost would be borne by
the subscriber.
Staff will be available at the Internal Operations Committee of June 14th to
discuss these issues, or answer any questions the Committee may have concerning
this report.
CLERK OF THE BOARD
M E M O
TO: Director, Community Development DATE: April 20, 1993
FROM: Jeanne Maglio, Chief Cler
SUBJECT: Noticing
In response to your request for information on additional noticing
requirements for land use matters, listed below are our comments on some of
the issues we have been able to identify:
1. If the Board sets a date/time during a Board Meeting when a decision
will be rendered, it would appear that additional noticing by mail may
not be required because those present at the hearing would be aware of
the date.
2. If the Board defers a decision to some time in the future, the Clerk of
the Board would not be aware of when this matter would be presented for
Board action until the agenda is drafted. This can average between 11
to 5 days prior to the Board Meeting. Until the Board Agenda is in
final form, there is always the possibility that this land use decision,
etc, can be removed. Therefore, for practical purposes, it might not be
prudent to mail notices of the decision, etc. , until the Thursday prior
to the Tuesday Board Meeting.
3. Who is to receive these mailed notices? This can require a "generic"
notice mailed to 3, 10, 20, or more persons on the lists provided by the
Community Development Department or the developer or applicant.
Will master label lists be provided for the mailing? When will these be
provided? If not provided, who will type them? What cost unit will
absorb the additional costs associated with this assignment,
particularly at a time when all departments are required to cut back?
For a mailing of 10 individuals whose names and addresses were on a list to
receive the notice of hearing, it would incur an additional cost of $60. If
there are more than one land use matter presented for Board decision, the
costs would increase appreciably. However, it has been our experience that
the minimum mailing would average 20 pieces of mail per agenda item.
As in the case of Dougherty Valley, or the Trail Users Coalition, when the
decision is constantly being deferred to another date/time, are we expected to
notify the list of 200 to 300 people of each new date and time? Also to be
considered is a proposal to advise individuals on the hearing mailing list of
the Board's decision with copies of support documentation enclosed. Since we
would be unable to provide this additional notification service with existing
staff should the Board decide to require it, we would need to hire a Clerk to
perform this assignment at an initial annual cost of $30,000 and identifica-
tion of the funding source for it.
Although I agree that County residents should be informed of issues before the
Board, I would suggest the notification process be by press release, possibly
in a bulletin board type format. Another alternative would be to encourage
residents to subscribe to the Board's Agenda.
jm