Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06091998 - D12 .. . .i Contra Costa TO:TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS bounty FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD +t •t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: June 9, 1998 SUBJECT: An Appeal by Clayton Ranch Investors (Applicant & Owner) on the County Planning Commission's Denial of Vesting Tentative Map, 7584, a Request to Divide 1, 030 acres into 115 Lots in the Clayton/Marsh Creek area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt Option as listed below. Board Oi2tions A. Uphold County Planning Commission' s recommendation and deny the application without prejudice. (This action would allow the applicant to submit a new application at any time. ) B. Accept the appeal, overturn the decision of the County Planning Commission and allow the applicant until July 31, 1998 to submit the information necessary to perfect the record for a decision on the merits of the project, namely submit a site plan which clearly shows (1) landslides and other unstable soils, and (2) project impacts to existing trees . C. Grant the applicant' s request for additional time to complete negotiations with the East Bay Regional Park District. FISCAL IMPACT None . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ Z— YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMbIITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON June 9, .1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X See the attached Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A —?L UNANIMOUS (ABSENT sub. III TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Rose Marie Pietras - 335-1215 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED_ .nag- g._ n9s cc: Clayton Ranch Investors PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF East Bay Regional Park District THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa Water District AND OUi+iADhI� TRATO DEPUTY 2 . BACKGRQUNn f REASONS FOR BECMIENDATIONS At the Beard of Supervisors' hearing on December 9, 1997, after taking public testimony on the applicant's appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision, the Board voted unanimously to continue the hearing until June 9, 1998, to allow the applicant six months to complete an appraisal for Clayton Ranch and to negotiate a sale with the East Bay Regional Park District. (Board Order dated December 9, 1997 attached-#1. ) On May 13, 1998 County staff mailed a certified letter to Mr. Hal Boex, Clayton Ranch Investors, and Mr. Dave Carlson, Civil Engineer, as a reminder that SD907584 was to be 'scheduled for continued hearing on June 9, 1998 as directed by the Board of Supervisors (Attachment #2 Letter and certified mail receipts) . Staff requested that any new information the applicant would like the Board to consider, be submitted by May 18, 1998, to allow time for staff's review. On May 19, 1998 a letter from the applicant was received by Community Development Department (Attachment 03) . The applicant requested an extension of time to allow Mr. Jim Goodhue MAI to complete an appraisal for the applicant and continue negotiations with the East Bay Regional Park District. Additionally, can May 20, 1998 the applicant submitted information to the Community Development Department Director that included the appraisal prepared and completed on Clayton Ranch of the East Bay Regional Park District (see attached #4 Letter received from EBRPD) . Staff has confirmed via telephone that the 'Park District has been in negotiations with the applicant regarding the subject property. A response to the letter and information received on May 20, 1998 was sent to Mr. Boex separately. RMP/aa BO/Ranch. RMP �t �r 1�4 0NI RAI COSTA Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ' Costa 97 DEC 17 AM 10t 22 --. County FROM: DENNIS M. BA 11Y, AICA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT=OEPT DATE: December 9, 1997 z ?d SUBJECT: AN APPEAL BY CLAYTON RANCH INVESTORS (APPLICANT & OWNER) ON THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 7584, A REQUEST TO DIVIDE 1,030 ACRES INTO 115 LOTS IN THE CLAYTON/MARSH CREEK AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S)�& BACKGROUND AND JUS IT FICATION RECD l3D 2a1 Adopt option A listed below. Board aptigns: A. Uphold County Planning commission's recommendation and deny the application without prejudice. (This action', would allow the applicant to submit a new application at any time.) B. Accept the appeal, overturn the decision of the County Planning Commission and allow the applicant time to perfect the record for a decision on the merits of the project. The applicant has until January 31, 1995 to submit the following required information to proceed with the environmental review; i.e. , a site plan which shows (1) landslides and other unstable snails, and (2) project impacts to existing trees. After reviewing the completed site plan, addition information may be needed, which cannot be determined from the current site plan, such as geotechnical studies and arborist report. The applicant will have an additional 30 days 'after being informed by staff of any additional information >needed. If the required information is not submitted by the timeline specified above, then the project will be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for reconsideration. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -,._ YES SIGNATURE- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON December 9 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Hal B ex, applicant, Clayton Ranch Investors; Mrxo Tom ers,Greeabelt Alliance, 500 Ygaacio Valley Road, #250, Wahmt Crew, o=aented on the appeal. Fol testy and Board ddiscussi6n, IT IS BY 'IBE BQl M � Haat the big on the abbe matter is VOTE OF Following oNrINLW to jum 9, 1998, at 2:00 in the Board's Vie. 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 'SOARD .OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact;Rose Marie Pietras - 335 -1116 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED.JLUembpgr 9. 1997 cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK I OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND LINTY ADM3 TRATO BY , DEPUTY 2 FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUNDIREANS OR EEC S22 ENDAT This application was filed with the County in September, 1990 before the adoption of the current General. Plan in January, 1991. In 1991 the County indicated that an EIR would be required. The applicant was advised that he would have to bear the costs of preparation of the EIR. The County accepted proposals from consultants to do the EIR. However, at that time the applicant indicated that he was looking at modifying the project and asked staff to hold off on a project review. Several years passed. Staff asked the applicant for a letter as to whether or not they wished to continue with the process. other than verbal assurances, the applicant never submitted a letter stating he wanted to continue with the process. On October 24, 1995 this application was scheduled before the County Planning Commission with a recommendation of denial due to lack of interest. After hearing public testimony, the Commission continued the hearing to December 5, 1995 to provide the applicant an opportunity to meet with staff and try to resolve matters in a manner that would allow project review to continue. ', At the December 5, 1995 hearing the applicant submitted a letter to the County Planning Commission requesting a 60-day extension of time to February 6, 1.996. The applicant needed more time to work on a private public partnership between Mt. Diablo State Park, East Bay Regional Park District, Boy Scouts, and Easter Seals. The applicant assured the Commission that by that time a development plan and time line would be ready for the Commission. The applicant had not met with staff prior to the February 6, 1996 Commission meeting. However, at the meeting the applicant submitted a new plan with more lots and smaller Lots than the site plan associatedwith the original 1990 vesting tentative map application. The Commission continued the hearing to March 12, 1996 to give staff an opportunity to review the revised site plan and to discuss it with the applicant. Staff was unsuccessful in trying to schedule a meeting with the applicant due to health reasons of the applicant. Staff recommended that the matter be continued again to April 9, 1996 in order to meet with the applicant. ^ .„ Staff met with the applicant on March 14, 1996. Following the meeting, the applicant submitted a letter dated March 26, 1996 in which the applicant stated he would do the followings • Withdraw the revised site plan received earlier in the year. The site plan that was accepted as complete in 1990 constitutes their proposed project, and one on which to base the EIR. • Substitute a revised site plan reflecting the change in engineering firms, and • Make an initial installment payment of $15,000 towards the costs of the EIR preparation prior to the next Commission hearing. Staff also understood from the March 26, 1996 letter that the applicant agreed to pay for staff time and materials if the cost of the staff review (independent of the preparation of the Environmental. Impact Report) exceeds 120% of the initial filing fee. Staff indicated to the applicant at the March 14, 1996 meeting was that staff would consider for inclusion in the EIR an alternative 3 site plan proposed by the applicant that is consistent with current General Plan policies and law. 1 The County received a check for $15,400 from the applicant on April 8, 1995 as an initial installment payment towards the costs of the Environmental Impact Report preparation. At the County Planning Commission on April 9, ', 1996, staff recommended that the Commission continue the, hearing; on this item to give staff the opportunity to review with the applicant the policies and code requirements and findings necessary for the County to approve the project. On June 11, 1936 staff forwarded a follow-up letter to the applicant summarizing the current status of the application and how the County would proceed with the project review. That letter also requested additional information, consisting of a revised site plan showing (a) landslides and other unstable soils, and (b) project impacts to existing trees as previously indicatedwould be provided to the County by the applicant. On March 25, 1997 another follow-up letter was forwarded by staff to the applicant. The applicant was reminded that it had been 9 months since the last contact between him and staff. The last meeting that took place with County staff was on April 9, 1997 during which the applicant requested a suspension in processing to allow him the opportunity to investigate the possible sale of the property. At that meeting, Mr. Dennis Barry, Deputy Community Development Director, declined, but advised the applicant to submit the request to the Director in writing explaining the bases for the suspension. The applicant has not, to date, submitted a letter requesting a suspension.' On June 17, 1997 a letter from Valentin Alexeeff,', Director of Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, was forwarded to the applicant. A brief summary describing the status of the application was outlined. The applicant was given 30 days to submit the previously requested information or a letter of withdrawal. The applicant was informed that if the deadlines were not met, that staff would prepare the necessary project analysis on the basis of the information which is available. 4 110 The applicant was also advised that pursuant to Section 26-2.2202 of the County Code: "The applicant shall have the burden of producing evidence to convince the agency hearing the matter that all standards are met and that the intent and purpose of the applicable regulations and goals and objectives of the General Plan will be satisfied. Failure to satisfy this burden shall result in a denial. #' To date, the applicant has not contacted staff in this regard. Therefore, County staff scheduled this application for the October 21, 1997 County Planning commission public hearing with a recommendation of denial without prejudice. On October 21, 1997, after taking public testimony from the applicant and a representative of the Green Belt Alliance, the County Planning Commission voted unanimously of these present (one Commissioner absent) to deny the project without prejudice. 4 Appea On October 23, 1997 the County received a phone message from the applicant informing the County of his formal request to appeal the County Planning Commission's denial of his application. Staff faxed the applicant a letter on October 23, 1997 instructing the applicant of the requirements for an appeal process. In accordance with the County Code, Section, 26-2.2406 - Appeal - Notice: "An appellant may appeal a decision' of a division of the Planning Agency, to the appellant division indicated, by filing a written notice of appeal, specifying the grounds for appeal with the Planning Department within the calendar time herein allowed upon payment of the fees prescribed by Article 26-X2.28." Staff also included a pamphlet further describing standard appeal instructions. On October 31, 1997 the applicant submitted a letter formally requesting an appeal. (See attachment) However, he failed to submit properly stamped envelopes for the property owners of the surrounding 300 foot radius of the property. On November 4, 1997 staff faxed a letter to the applicant requesting the envelopes to help expedite the appeal process, to be received by November 14, 1997. RMP/aa BD/Clayton.RMP 11-24--97:df ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.12 June 9, 1998 Agenda On December 9, 1998, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the;hearing on the appeal of the Clayton Ranch Investors (Applicant and Owner), from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request for a vesting tentative map approval to divide 1,030 acres into 115 lots. Clayton/Marsh Creek area. (County File SD 90-7584). Dennis Barry, Community Development Director, presented the staff report, and noted that there were several recommended options that the Board might consider. He advised the Board that in December 1997, the Community Development Department staff recommended that the County Planning Commission deny the appeal, and that the Board uphold that denial. He further stated that at this time, the staff would again recommend denial of the appeal. Supervisor Uilkema inquired about the status of the negotiations between the applicant the East Bay Regional Park District. Mr. Barry responded that it was his understanding that the Applicant and the Park District had been discussing a possible sale, and that one appraisal had been completed by the Park District, and that Mr. Boex had requested additional time to have his own appraisal completed. The public hearing was opened and the following people commented on the issue: Hal Boex, applicant, Clayton Ranch Investors, 825 Sonoma Blvd., Vallejo (presented each Supervisor with a copy of the appraisal by East Bay Regional Parks); and Tom Mooers, Greenbelt Alliance, 1372 N. Main St., Ste 203, Walnut',Creek. Supervisor Canciamilla asked what was the current property tax rate and the property valuation. He further inquired about the development plan under the "New" General Plan Amendment versus the "Old" General Plan Amendment. Mr. Barry responded that the "New" plan was more conservative, but an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary along with possible other considerations before approval of the project. Supervisor Canciamilla stated that his office would contact the East Bay Regional Park District to facilitate resolving the matter. He then moved to continue the hearing to September 15, 1998, at 2 p.m., in the Board's Chambers, and expressed that at that time he wanted to see progress on the project's resolution. Supervisor Uilkema seconded the motion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above hearing is CONTINUED to September 15, 1998, at 2 p.m,, in the BoaW's Chambers.