The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 07161996 - C79 C. 77 , C. 781 C . 79 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 16,1996, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Smith NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C.77 LETTER dated July 3, 1996, from Arthur Miner, Executive Director, Private Industry Council, 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 100, Concord, 94520-4891, advising that the PIC Executive Committee disagrees with Paul Mclntosh's, "Report on the Organization and Services of the Contra Costa County Department of Community Services" which recommends combining other social service program providers (including the PIC) into one unit. ****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C.78 CLAIM dated June 28, 1996, from Jim Winningham, Senior Manager, KPMG, Peat a. Marwick., 750 B Street, San Diego, CA 92101, submitted on behalf of Great Western Bank, for refund of excess property taxes in the amount of $3,800, levied for fiscal year 1992-93. b. CLAIM dated June 27, 1996, from Jim Winningham, Senior Manager, KPMG, Peat Marwick., 750 B Street, San Diego, CA 92101, submitted on behalf of Bank of America for refund of excess property taxes in the amount of $7,600, levied for fiscal year 1992-93. ****REFERRED TO ASSESSOR, TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR, AND COUNTY COUNSEL C.79 LETTER dated June 3, 1996, from Brian Thiessen, Esq., 3201 Danville Boulevard, Ste 295, Alamo, CA 94507, representing Dale Bridges requesting reconsideration of the Board's decision of June 25, 1996, relative to the Conditions of Approval for LUP 2061-95, Alamo area. ****REFERRED TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR RECOMMENDATION IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as noted (****) are approved. c.c. Correspondents I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken nd entered on the minutes of the County Administrator Board of Su rs n t to Assessor A1RES�D: Treasurer /Tax Collector PH an ' jjn rk Adm the County Counsel B'= .Deputy 3JEalu(Offires Of BRIAN D.THIESSEN TELEPHONE(510)837-3355 �BXtan P4 T4icssint FAX(510)837-3352 C' OF COUNSEL 3201 DANVILLE BOULEVARD,SUITE 295 THOMAS P.HOGAN ALAMO,CA 94507 ATTORNEY AND C.P.A. RECEIVED A - 3ms July 3, 1996 CLERK 80ARD OF SUP RVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Board of Supervisors 651 "rine Street Martinez, California 94553 re: Request for Reconsideration of Conditions Land Use Permit 2061-95 Dear Members of the Board On 25 June the above Land Use Permit by Dale A. Bridges was heard by the Board and granted. We appreciate the Board' s review and consideration, but on behalf of the Applicant request reconsidera- tion of the following conditions for the reasons indicated where new facts should be considered that were not brought to the atten- tion of the Board at the hearing: 1. The Applicant requests reconsideration of the condition to permit 25 vehicles. New facts/law. The site plan submitted was not drawn to scale, nor did it reflect the three driveways that service the property. Accordingly, the plans discussed by Staff and presented to the Board did not show the openness that the actual site will have for the requested 25 vehicles, nor did the Board have information about the free flow of customer vehicles onto and off of the property taking when considering the actual access that exists on the site. A number of citizens have heard of the Board' s decision on 25 June and have contacted the applicant urging that he file this request for reconsideration; we will be able to submit to the Board unsolicited letters of support and .also signatures from large numbers of Alamo residents who support this reconsideration request. This legitimate tax-generating business must compete with the "unofficial" showing of . cars in Alamo parking lots and streets and thus needs a minimum of 25 cars to provide bredth of offering. 6A392\Lt.BdA Board of Supervisors July 3, 1996 Page 2 2 . The Permit needs to be through 18 July 1999 . New facts/law When the Applicant acquired the property he applied in July 1995 for an extension of the current application for 3 more years, ie to July 1998. It has taken more than a year to process the matter to this point and somewhere along the way, it was recommended that the duration be for only 2 years. After a year of working on this matter, the application as granted thus would allow only one more year on the permit and the entire process would have to be gone through again. Such a short time period for a permit is unreasonable given the $2700 the Applicant paid for the permit application which he was told would be a three year use permit extension; to amortize that into the cost of doing business, any extension, in effect, to one year is wasteful of County resources (staff and Board time) and extremely expensive to the applicant. This was not discussed at the Board meeting and such an expense is prohibitive to the business. Given the investment in the business, a 3 year permit is reasonable. 7. The applicant requests that one boat and one recreation vehicle be available for sale on site (under the canopy) . New facts/law. The permit as drafted on 25 June is unclear as it says that none may be "stored" on site; the applicant does not wish to store any such vehicles on site but does want the capacity to have one of each vehicle (for which he is currently licensed by the California Department of Motor Vehicles) for sale on under the canopy. There is need for clarity on the request for placing such vehicles on site for sale, not for storage. There is substan- tial need in Alamo for such a sales location -- to help remove the alternative of people parking such vehicles along roads and streets with "for sale" signs on them, (which is apparently disfavored by neighbors but okay under the Code?) instead of placing them in a place for such vehicles in Alamo. There are no other locations in Alamo which are approved for such sales. 10.A. Removal of the "parking back up" requirement. New facts/law. Each of the locations for vehicles (except two) has direct access to a driveway and thus no additional parking back-up is required. The site plan, which was not to scale, may have been, unclear on that, and also unclear in that it did not identify the driveway access that assures direct access for these vehicles without any need for parking back up space except for the two spots. 6A392\Lt.BdA Board of Supervisors July 3, 1996 Page 3 11. The $200 quarterly report deposit should be dropped. New facts/law. In discussion with the County Community Development office the applicant is advised that the County is not interested in this sort of policing requirement which is onerous and expensive for County personnel. It should also be noted that various Alamo residents seem to delight in walking/bicycling/etc through the site almost daily, counting cars, due to publicity and concerns -- thus providing more effective "policing" than this expensive and onerous condition. . For the foregoing reasons we request the matter be reconsidered by the Board. Let me also request that the date of the request for reconsidera- tion hearing be scheduled in advance as I will be out of State or have other prior commitments on some days and need to be sure that the date of the reconsideration hearing is one where we can be present. The following Tuesdays are not available to me: July 16 and 23 (on the East coast) , July 30 (Court hearing mandated by the Court, cannot be changed) ; August 6th (Court appearance in the morning and sitting in Bay Municipal Court in the afternoon) August 13th is available at this time. I understand the Board is on vacation through September 10 and I could be present on September 10 or 17th in the morning. Thank you for your consideration of this Request for Reconsidera- tion and the scheduling problems as well. I have only, today become involved in this matter and may have additional new facts and/or law to present at the time of the hearing. Yours truly, Brian Thiessen BDT:n cc: Dale Bridges Community Development Department 6A392\Lt.BdA