Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07131993 - 2.7 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 17, 1993 SUBJECT: Foskett Request For Reconsideration On Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Deny the request of Walter Foskett to rehear (reconsider) the Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment (County File #2-93-CO) . FISCAL IMPACT None if recommendation is adopted; staff noticing and possible legal costs if process is reopened. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On May 18-, 1993, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment which removed the Landfill designation from approximately 1, 122 acres and substituted the Agricultural Lands designation. The site is located south of Marsh Creek Road about five miles to the west of Brentwood and six miles southeast of Clayton. On May 26, 1993 , the Board received a request for "rehearing" of this matter from Walter Foskett, one of the property owners of the site. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMME TION OARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON ,7„ly 13F 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: 1 , 2 , 3 NOES: 4 , 5 ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Jim Cutler (646-2035) cc: Community Development Department ATTESTED July 13 , 1993 CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public WorksCOUN ADMINISTRATOR Wm. Walter Foskett, III BY a , DEPUTY Mal/jcfosket.bo Foskett Request For Reconsideration On Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment June 17, 1993 Page -2- Although there are no provisions of the County Code regarding reconsideration by the Board of Supervisors, it has been the County's practice for many years to consider reconsideration requests which were (1) submitted within 10 days of the decision and (2) allege pertinent factual or legal matters which were not brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors at the public hearing. These are substantially the same requirements for reconsideration as are contained in the County Code (Sec. 26- 2 .2408) for decisions by other divisions of the Planning Agency. (Those reconsideration provisions also require payment of a fee) . Staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors decline to reconsider the approval of the Marsh Canyon General Plan Amendment for the following reasons: 1. Mr. Foskett's letter requesting rehearing indicates that his reasons for that request are included in his presentations before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors and his May 12, 1993 letter. These are references to items already part of the public hearing process and in the public record which formed the basis for the Boards original decision. He has not indicated any new information which would serve as the basis of rehearing. 2 . The other issues in his letter (attached) are points he raised in his presentation before the Board of Supervisors during the public hearing. Inasmuch as this request does not claim to have any new information to bring to the Boards attention, staff recommends that this request for hearing be denied. Ms1/jcfosket.bo I 1 /34,, RECEIVED WM. WALTER FOSKETT, III 100 VERNAL DRIVE I�Y 2 6 IM ALAMO, CA 94507-1230 (510) 935-0741 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COINTRA COSTA CO. May 26, 1993 The Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chair Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County c\o Clerk of the Board County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553-1293 Re: Item H.7 - Calendar for the Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County, May 18 , 1993. Hearing on recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on a County initiated General Plan Amendment (2-93-CO) for the Marsh Canyon Landfill site. The proposed project is to change the County General Plan land use designation for the subject site from Landfill to Agricultural Lands. The plan amendment would also require related changes to Chapter 7 of the County General Plan-Public Facilities/Services Element, Marsh Creek Road area. Dear Chairman Torlakson: The purpose of this letter is to request a rehearing on the above referenced matter. The bases for this request are enumerated in my letter of May 12, 1993 , my speech at the Planning Commission meeting on April 6, 1993 and my speech at the Board of Supervisors meeting on May 18, 1993 . As you know an agreement was reached last year to settle a lawsuit between litigants in the Marsh Canyon Landfill site matter that included the possible removal of the site from the general plan as a landfill site. That portion of the agreement was to study the possibility of such a change, not to make the change. In fact the study in support of the change was extremely brief and did not do a comprehensive review of the question at hand. In conducting the study in that manner and subsequently removing our land from the General Plan as a landfill site, you have violated our due process rights as granted by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the state of California. It is noteworthy that your staff never even contacted me for a meeting to discuss this matter. That no mention was made in the study of the objective data that formed the basis for placing our land in the General Plan as a landfill site and how those data cc; COARD MEAYMERS (Provided) s - changed in the mean time to require the present change. That no discussion of the legal ramifications of the change were discussed in staff report. That there is no justification in the staff report relative to the need for the change to promote the public health, safety, morals or general welfare of the people of Contra Costa County. That there is no mention of the fact that County bureaucrats have been looking in Utah and Washington for a landfill site because Keller Canyon does not work due to its expense. That there is no mention of the fact that your Planning Commission rejected this change in the General Plan. That there is no discussion of the recent cases that allow waste disposal companies to haul waste across county lines and thereby possibly greatly reducing the life span of Keller Canyon Landfill Site. In short the entire process has been nothing but a sham that benefits the large garbage companies to the detriment of the Foskett family and the people of our county. Will you kindly instruct your staff to conduct a proper study in this matter so that a decision can be make based on objective land use determinants. incere , 4 T �Q�4, , 6 William alter Fos ett III