HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05191998 - SD7 Contra
vista
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
-; County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR - .•
DATE: May 19, 1998
SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration on the Board's Decision to Revoke County
File LP952061, to Establish a Used Sales Lot in the Alamo Area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Q END mIONE
Staff would recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the request
for reconsideration.
FISCAL 7'M AICZ1
None. The cost of the reconsideration hearing is paid for by the
applicant.
ONS
The Board of Supervisors on May 5, 1998 revoked Land Use Permit
LP.952061 due to non,-compliance with the Conditions of Approval as
they related to providing evidence that legal access exist over the
adjacent property (Condition of Approval #14 .B. ) and approval of a
sign program (Condition of Approval #4. ) . The applicant on May 11,
1998 submitted a request for reconsideration.
As provided for in County Ordinance Code §26-2 . 2408, a motion for
reconsideration may be filed in writing "alleging pertinent factual
or legal matters which were not brought to the attention of the
division rendering the decision. " The reconsideration requests
provides new factual evidence in the form of a .recorded easement as
required by Condition of Approval #14 .B. That information was not
before the Board of Supervisors when they rendered 'their decision
on May 5, 1998 .
CONTINUED ON .ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON may 19.._ 1928 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
Contact:Debbie Chamberlain _ 335-1213 SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orifi: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 19, 1998
cc: Dale Bridges PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERIC OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND OUNTY AD. I ISTRATOR
B , DEPUTY
'xaf" (Offices of BRIAN D.THIESSEN
TELEPHONE(510)837-3355 �Rrian1,tf C C
FAX(510)837-9352 HILLARY JOHNS
3201 DANVILLE BOULEVARD,SUITE 295
ALAMO,CA 94507 OPCOUNSE.
THOMAS P.HOGAN
A7MRNE`(AN'7i.C.A.A.
BILLI JO A.DYER
4.xw
JACQUELINE RUSH
i PARALEGALS
ray I May 1998
6�A of Supervisors
1 Pince Street
Martinez, California 94555
re: Request for Reconsideration
Land Use Permit 2061--95
Dear Members of the Beard
On 5 May the Board of Supervisors voted to revoke the above Land
Use Permit, based upon incorrect information that was relayed to it
and the applicant was denied the opportunity to ,correct that
.information, even though a specific request was made at the
hearing. The Board determined it was a closed session and the
applicant was refused the right to correct the misinformation. The
correct information, not before the Board, shows that the applicant
fully met the two conditions set by the Board on 21 April at which
time the Board directed the applicant to "get into compliance" by
5 May. Let me go over those two conditions as will be confirmed by
a review of the tapes of the 21 April hearing:
a. Sign program. Dale Bridges was directed to bring his sign
program into compliance (he had submitted a sign program which
required some revision with the one remaining sign)'. At the 21
April hearing Dale submitted his amended sign program', request (see
Attach. A 20 April letter which was delivered to Staff just prior
to the 21 April hearing) . Dale was told Staff would get back to
him re whether this was in compliance . No response was received
from Staff.
The following week I contacted Staff and on 30 April was
advised that the matter was still ander advisement, it appeared
possibly satisfactory but Dale would hear further' later. No
further response from Staff was received.
6A3921IABdSup.6M8
.. .. ........ ......... .............................. .... _.._.... .._._.... __..._........___.
........ ...................................
Board of Supervisors
7 May 1998
Page 2
On 4 May, with the hearing just a day away, I again contacted
Staff and was advised that although their report was not yet
completed it appeared the 18" x 12 ' sign was slightly larger than
could be allowed given the apparent size of the building upon which
it was placed, but it could be reduced proportionately and would be
acceptable and we would get confirmation at the hearing on 5 May.
No Staff written response to Attach. A was received.
At the 5 May Board hearing, the Board was only told that the
sign proposed was not completed and that Dale was therefore not
technically in compliance but that the Staff would accept a sign as
proposed, reduced proportionately to reach the 10% coverage
limitation. We respectfully submit that Dale did what anyone could
do, starting on 21 April, to come into compliance by, 5 May.
[This morning, 7 May, I did receive a FAX from Staff advising
that they are working with Dale to get dimensions of, the building
so Staff can get get this matter completed. ]
b . Access to the North. The Condition of Approval (14 .B. )
has been regularly misstated to and by the Board --- for clarity it
is attached as Attachment B. You will note that it does not
require a recorded easement, only that Dale show that
legal access to the property is available over the
driveway (both on and off-site) along the north property line
of this property"
and to provide such showing to Staff within 30 days of the 2
December hearing.
Dale provided that proof which is all that is required under
this Condition of Approval even prior to the 2 December hearing --
a copy of that proof of "legal access to the property„ is attached
as Attachment C _a a writing dated 11 November 1996 signed by the
adjacent property owner expressly confirming such access and
referring specifically to this Land Use Permit application. That
is all that Dale was required to do and .it is our position that the
applicant is and has been fu11y in compliance with this Condition
as written since December 1996.
6A4392\LtBdSup.6M8
Board of Supervisors
7 May 1998
Page 3
Some County Staff have stated that the condition required a
recorded easement and that is not true. As we have pointed out
before (and hence the Board' s alternative condition) easements can
be obtained from a wide variety of sources including among others :
by necessity, by implication, by oral agreement, prescriptive,
recorded, etc. etc. Each is a legal easement . A year and a half
ago we provided the required proof that the Ostrosky property at
all times here relevant has had such legal easement . .Dale is
prepared to litigate that compliance issue, if necessary.
Notwithstanding Dale' s full compliance, some County Staff have
incorrectly taken the position that the LUP approval condition
requires a recorded easement when in .fact, as you can see, it does
not.
When the hearings were scheduled in April, rather than going to the
expense of litigating this issue, Dale agreed to ',approach the
adjacent property owner (Ed Stein) to see if he would sign a
recordable document confirming the existing easement. He referred
it to his attorney and eventually agreed to do so. We submitted
that document, signed and notarized, to the Staff; prior to 21
April. At hearing, County Counsel Vic Westman asked for further
revisions to that- document. Vic also added the requirement that
Dale go to the additional expense of obtaining a Property Profile
for his office to review to satisfy it that Mr Stein and Mr
Cstrosky are, in fact, the owners of the two parcels involved --
rather than just accepting Staff and our reports on that.
Thus, on 21 April the Board directed Dale, by the next hearing
on 5 May, to have the confirmation of easement document revised and
approved by Staff. This required multiple reviews and approvals:
by Mr Stein and his attorney, by Public Works, by County Counsel.,
and also required Dale to go to the additional expense of obtaining
a Property Profile even though county records showed ownerships.
The very next morning by 10 am on 22 April, we had revised the
document as we understood County Counsel wanted it done, and FAX'd
it to Mr Stein' s attorney for review and approval. As sometimes
happens when dealing with counsel (particularly where there was no
requirement that Mr Stein execute anything - he was doing this as
an accomodation to the Board) , we did not get the approved, signed
and notarized document back from Mr Stein until late on 30 April --
6A392\IAsasup.6NI8
Board of Supervisors
7 May 1998
Page 4
and only then by my driving to his attorney' s office and picking it
up. The following day, Friday 30 April, 5 days before the 5 May
hearing, Dale Bridges hand delivered copies of the documents,
including the Property Profile, to Public Works and to County
Counsel and to Community Development for their necessary review and
approval . We asked for confirmation of the adequacy of the
document, which confirmation had to be received before it could be
recorded.
On Tuesday morning 5 May I contacted Staff to find out the
status and was told that Community Development believed the
easement document was probably acceptable but had to obtain
confirmation from County Counsel and that we would be advised at
hearing if it was acceptable -- but that it looked positive
With that frame of understanding that he had done what he could to
meet the request of the Board to be "in compliance" (again, I need
to point out that we believe Dale has been in full compliance on
the easement issue since December 1996) , Dale went to the Board
hearing understanding he had done everything he could based upon
the input we had received from Staff, and were awaiting Staff
response on both items .
At the Board meeting itself, as part of the Staff report, for the
first time County Counsel confirmed to us that the form of Easement
Confirmation we had prepared was acceptable to them.
Dale was more than a bit surprised, then, and dismayed, to have
Staff' s negative report saying Dale was "not in compliance",
recommending revocation, and failing to detail the ' above to the
Board. The truth was that Dale had done everything he could do to
get into compliance but was still waiting, as of that ;very day, for
Staff' s response.
Moreover, Staff suddenly sought to impose a new requirement, not
once previously raised to the applicant or Owner or to the Board
(you may confirm this by reviewing the tapes of all hearings) ie
that the property owner pay $7500 for "additional staff fees„
allegedly incurred in processing this matter. We sought to object
on several grounds :
6A392\LtBdSup.6M8
Board of Supervisors
7 May 1998
Page 5
* On a procedural basis it is improper to insert a new
condition, never raised in Staff Deport or in public hearing or
anywhere else, as a requirement -- without the opportunity for the
applicant to comment, after the Public Hearing is closed. When we
sought to address this, and to clarify the factual history as
above, the Board refused the applicant an opportunity to address
any of these issues .
* On a factual basis, I had recently learned (unrelated
to these proceedings at all) that Staff was seeking to assess extra
processing fees on the Owner. After the 21 April hearing (where
Staff had also not mentioned anything about this) I raised to the
Public Works representative this matter of the process to review
those supplemental bills, discuss which were valid; charges the
applicant should pay and try to resolve the matter. I inquired
about what procedure Staff has to review a bill that arises and was
told that there is no formal procedure but that Staff would be
willing to meet with the applicant and verify the charges, and what
was appropriately chargeable to an applicant. A reminder: this
had not been raised by Staff to the applicant but was' a question I
raised to Staff after the 21 April hearing in order to try to work
on getting that separate issue discussed and resolved.
Instead, without any advice whatever and any opportunity to
review and verify the fees charged, Staff on 5 May sought to tack
on this condition as a mandatory part of the LUP review conditions .
* Legal basis . I have asked for some confirmation that
this applicant is indeed responsible for these additional fees
since the ordinance which now requires supplemental fees may indeed
have gone into effect after this application was submitted. Staff
has indicated it will research that for us and get back to us.
Let me be clear on the issue re these supplemental bills .
Clearly there has been some valid staff time chargeable to
these proceedings. Dale acknowledges he may ;be obligated
under the Board' s 19 December 1996 Resolution 95/63 to
reimburse the County some of those costs . But Dale [and
indeed any applicant, to meet due process requirements] is
entitled to review those charges (after those charges are
identified by charging person and what work they represent) ,
to verify their accuracy as applicable to him rather than
general staff time, etc. Once that review is completed Dale
understands he is obligated to pay any proper fees .
6A3921 ABdSup.6M8
Board of Supervisors
7 May 1998
Page 6
General Due process failure. In addition to the due
process failures referenced above re the excess fee condition, from
the attached newspaper article (Attachment D) it appears that other
issues -- not discussed with the applicant or mentioned at hearing
-- were also involved in the Board' s decision. Dale had no chance
to respond to these false charges which were clearly (from the
article) considered by Staff, and presumptively the Board) . The
article refers to excess cars "parked on the street" and Staff' s
investigation and determination that this was an ongoing problem.
it was never (thru now) raised by Staff to Dale. As Staff would
have found out (and is obvious to those of us whose offices are in
Alamo) the area in front of this property is used for parking by
people who work at or shop at the very busy Yardb.ird' s shopping
center across the street. Dale' s personal car, with "Dealer' s
plates", may have been parked in the public parking area in front
on 29 April; no one from Staff even contacted him or inquired to
find out if their concerns were valid.
After this week' s hearing I have asked Staff to provide me the
factual and other confirmation that this applicant on this matter
is obligated to pay additional fees as Dale is anxious to review
that factual basis and try to work out any issues amicably. The
bills have apparently been going to the property owner, Pete
astrosky, (who we do not represent) not to Dale Bridges the
applicant here. Staff has promised to get me the requested
information and I have today received by FAX from Community
Development a listing of some time charges, and axe advised that
Staff will continue to investigate whether this represents all
charges claimed, etc. (a glance at the summary shows that some of
them go back to August 1995, predating the effective date of the
enabling ordinance) and none of which identify what the charge
represents .
If the Board seeks to impose this new condition under these
facts, one of Dale' s alternatives may be to try to pay the bill,
clearly marked as being done under protest, and reserve his right
to challenge it in the appropriate forum.
6A392\1ABdSup.6M8
...... ._......1 .11__1... _.. ._...... _
....... ....... ........ ....... ............. ......_.... 11.11. _. _........ ......... .........
Board of Supervisors
7 May 1998
Page 7
I have had several developers in the last several months
object to the way these post-processing bills come in, often years
(as here) after work was allegedly done, not identifying what work
was done, and with no apparent reasonable procedure for review,
meeting and conferring. The bills do not identify what work was
done but contain at most a coded employee identification number
(Public Works) or initials (Community Development) with no
identification of what work was done, but just an identification of
time allegedly spent and a dollar translation of that time into a
bill . In order to be a valid charge it seems to most folks with
whom I have spoken that there must be identification not only of
who the charging party is but what work was done so the applicant
can confirm whether the time was properly chargeable to her/his
matter rather, than either being general staff work not specifically
related to that project or, more troubling, work that should have
been charged to some other applicant .
With that background, then, we request the Board reconsider its
decision of 5 May 1998 on this Land Use Permit and that it drop the
revocation hearing.
Since the Board meeting the applicant has recorded the now
approved form of Confirmation of Easement (Attachment E) and per
Debbie Chamberlain' s FAX of today Staff is working with the
applicant to provide us soon a response to the applicant' s 24 April
letter on his proposed revised signage so that can be resolved as
well .
Yours truly,
Brian D. Thiessen
BDTcn
cc. All Supervisors
Dale Bridges
Community Development Department
6A392UBdSup.6M8
f
Brid,oes
<` CALIFORNIA DEALER #2
Motors r .3212 Danville Blvd.,.Alamo, California 94507
ofA ra o Tel.(510)838-1801 Fax: (SIO)838-1808
20 April 1998
Debbie Chamberlain
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street - 4 t Floor
Martinez, California 94553-0095
re: Land Use Permit 95-2061
Sign program
Dear Debbie
In response to recent telephone conversations, I understand that
the sign program I submitted to the County on 15 May 1997 is
considered acceptable regarding the 18" x 12 ' sign on the main
building itself but my request for signage on the awnings for
this LUP is not acceptable without a variance.
Rather than seeking a variance at this time, please consider this
an amendment to my sign program request . Please approve the
signage as submitted., absent the signage on the "canopy" . As you
know I have recently removed any signage on the "canopy" .
Thank you for your cooperation.
Since ely,
Dale A. Bridges
President
Customer Satisfaction Guaranteed "Let's Do Business" New-used Auto Broker
* �VHa
J.
11.
One boatlrecreational vehicle space is permitted, located out of view of Danville Boulevard.
This space is not in addition to the 23 cars displayed on site.
C NDITIONOF ROVA'L FROM THE PIM WORKS DEPARTMENT.
The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road and utility improvements will require the
review and approval of the Public Works Department prior to continuance of this use for the
effective period ending July 19, 1997:
12. General Requirements:
A. This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage), and
the remainder of Title 9 and Title'lfi oftthe County Ordinance. Any exceptions
therefrom must be specifically listed `in this conditional approval statement.
.Drainage, road and utility requirements are based on the; plan submitted on
November 14, 1995, and shall be subject to the review and approval of Public
Works.
B. improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, along with review and
inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by/the Ordinance Code
or the conditions of approval for this project.
13, Roadway Improvements(Frontage/On-site/Off-site):
The applicant is permitted an exception from construction of frontage improvements and off-
site traffic mitigation, at this time, due to the temporary nature of this project. This
exception is based on a five year effective period ending July 10, 1998.
14. Access to Adjoining Property.
]'roof of Aq&essfAcauisition
A. Applicaiit shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department,Engineering Services
Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits
and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road or
drainage improvements.
B. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that legal access to the property is available over the driveway(both on and
off-site) along the north property line of this property, since parking on the Site
Improvement Plan is dependent on utilization of that driveway. If the applicant
A
3
cannot furnish a recorded easement, or otherwise prove',legal access, then the
increase in parking spaces above 17 is not approved and any use of the property in
excess of 17 spaces would then have to be brought back to the Board of Supervisors
for reconsideration.
If the applicant does not have these access rights, he shall attempt to obtain joint
access rights over this driveway,within 30-days of the approval of this permit. If he
is unable to obtain these access rights, he shall revise his Site Improvement Plan to
provide adequate parking, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
Encroachment Permit 4
C. Obtain an encroachment pernut, ftp he Application & Permit Center for
construction of driveways,or othertmpro sments within the right of way of Danville
Boulevard.
D. Obtain a drainage permit for any worl " e performed within San Raman Creek.
Restrict Access
E, Restrict access along Danville"Boul d, with the exception of the existing
driveways. ,, x,
15. Parking; r
The applicant shall provide adequate p rktti fo"# s"permit to minimize this project's need
for on-street parking. The adequacyofafi-gst g shall be subject to the review of the
Zoning Administrator.
16. Road Dedication: J;
The applicant is permitted an exception:frcim" kation of right of way'at this time due to
the temporary nature of this permit,which will expire on July 10, 1998.
17. Utilities/Undergrounding:
All new utility distribution services shall be installed underground.
_. .. _.
11 November 1996
re: Land Use Permit 95--961.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I am the owner of the parcel immediately to the North of the
property owned by Peter Ostrosky that is the subject of the above
Land Use Permit application. I understand that a question has been
raised whether t c Ostrcvl-.y parcel (Mild the holder of the subject
Land Use Permit) has access across the common driveway currently
partly on my property and partly on Pete Ostrosky's' property.
Please consider this confirmation that the applicant for the Land
Use Permit here does indeed have full vehicle access to serve the
Used Car lot facility as requested in the Land Use Permit
application.
' I
name:
address: rr
4
telephone: Iq/, 52? 3
912\Acc 77 1C 1
00
_ .. .. ]
y
.t�
¢ IV
M
C
r e
tau
8 Event promoter
_ land
pel
��C�� candidate for distri
JOE GARC?Ft?LT
loses
attorney,says his o
Times columnist ® Owner of Bridges Motors eluding six vehicles parked at a 45- discouraged local 1
parked too marry vehicles
degree angle
in the street,one with from participating
Retur= on the lot,supervisors say "It's gotten so blown out of pro- By Robert BLU
portion,"Bridges said after the hear- TIMES MARTINEZ Br
By Tony Hicks ing."We were shocked." RICHMOND — Po
BetheltO
TIMES STAFF VAUM Conditions of the dealer's land- came from as far a
MARTINEZ—County supervi- use permit state that he can have no Sierra foothills for i
sors on Tuesday revoked the land- more than 17 vehicles on the lot,un- grab the title "Badde
glory
d
use permit for Bridges Motors of less his property has a legal ease- the Bay" at an amai
y Alamo,saying owner Dale Bridges ment from the adjacent landowner. event last week at th
ignored conditions of the permit for This would allow 23 vehicles on the auditorium.
ALPH WALLACE sells Bethel more than a year. lot. There were offieei
ALPH hard.It's not is Beth County officials say Bridges reg- Bridges said the county wanted Francisco, Oakland, S
Rng, since d. works in the ularly parked too many vehicles on his neighbors'permission in writing, even Rancho Cordo
his lot,which is on the east side of which he said he obtained, but not Sacramento. But note
last real estate office left on this Danville Boulevard just south of in the required form. police officer from C
faded Delta resort just east of Oak-
Stone Valley Road. He said he finally accomplished County stepped into
ley. So when he points out the win- Supervisors also claimed Bridges that hours before the hearing, but the homegrown event
dow of his Caddy at The Future of was using an adjacent property the board told him it hadn't been Why not?
the island, I look. owner's driveway to enter the lot and regarded in time. According to ever
I see a trash fire burning in the using the main street for vehicle stor- Bridges said the county previously and district attorne;
middle of hundreds of acres of age told him not to use the side of his Michael Gressett, hi
nothing.In the middle of The Fu Supervisor Donna Gerber,whose front canopy for advertising. He Contra Costa Distrix
Lure.The plume rises two stories, district includes Alamo, recom- painted over the sign,even though Gary Yancey, "squeez
high above the dozen yellow mended revoking the permit. The he claims a number of other area local competitors.
Dumpster-size bins of garbage just board unanimously agreed. businesses advertise on the sides of "Gary was afraid i
collected from an all-island 7 Gerber said Bridges left them no their buildings. to be a political fund-r,
cleanup.Nearby are dozens of dis- I other choice. "I don't want to turn people in," so he contacted (poli(
carded dryers and refrigerators. "It's been out of compliance for Bridges said. "I just want to peace- and discouraged anyoi
There Wallace sees The Future: more than a year,"Gerber said. "I fully run my car business in Alamo." ticipating,"said Gress{
556 residences on an inland water- see no indication that giving more The decision jeopardizes Bridges' district attorney who
way system,with a marina,tennis
courts and 308-acrere lagoon.Most time will resolve this matter." plans for other amenities at the site. 'unseat his boss in the
of the h 3 wasell for M Bridges said he plans to petition The county already approved his tion.
tween$800,040 and$354,04(?. the board to reconsider and hopes plan to install antique light poles on Yancey admits he
'Ihfaltients+rood meets Discovery to remain open until that petition is the property line. the event at a March
.,i cat's twoodurban.Not real ry heard. But the San Ramon Valley Plan- of the Contra Costa C4
d. The board granted Bridges a ning Commission denied his re- Chiefs Association
BetIhel Island?There's a number of extensions,most recently quest to build a deck behind the lot Creek. He said he."e
on April 21,An inspector visited the that would hang over San Ramon chiefs that "%%'Irat,log
o lot April 29 and found violations,in. Creek. charity event was
..........
4
CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder's Office
STEPHEN L. WEIR, County Recorder
When recorded return to: DOC - S8--0 y 00`i 1 7--(:)o
Check Number
Brian D. Thiessen, Esq. Wednesday, MAY 06, 1998 09V48.2
3201 Danville Blvd -- Ste 295 MIC $1 .00;MOD $3.00;REC $7.00
Alamo, California 94507 TCF $2.00; 1
(925) 837-3355 Ttl Pd $13.00 Nbr--0000116117
lrc /R9
CONFIRMATION OF .ACCESS EASEMENT
A.LAMO 114VESTMENT COMPANY, a California Partnership, owner the real
property described on Exhibit B(commonly referred to as Contra Costa County Assessor's
parcel 197-010-007-7), located in the community of Alamo, Centra Costa County,
California, hereby confirms that the owner of the adjacent parcel described in Exhibit A
(commonly referenced as Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel 197-010-007-8), PETER
OSTROSKY, has a limited jointnon-exclusivevehicle access across the 8' driveway on the
southern side of my parcel (4' on his parcel, 4' on mine), which easement is of unlimited
duration, and which is currently used to serve the Used Car lot facility that operates
thereon by Land Use Permit.
Dated:�'�)April 1998
Alamo Investment Company
A California Partnership
by
Edward V. Stein
NOTARY jurat n
6A392\ as=,-nLCnf