|
Project Title: |
Appeal of Staff’s Determination on the Incompleteness of the subdivision and development plan application. |
|
County File(s): |
CDSD23-09669/CDDP23-03040 |
|
Applicant/Appellant: |
Kevin Weiss |
|
Owners: |
Duong Estuary Cove LLC |
|
Zoning: |
P-1, -CE, Planned Unit District, Cannabis Exclusion Combining District |
|
General Plan: |
Currently Agricultural Lands (AL) Previously AL and Off Island Bonus Area (OIBA) |
|
Site Address/Location |
77-acre vacant lot located east of the Bethel Island Road and Sandmound Boulevard intersection, unincorporated Oakley APN: 032-112-007 |
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
The determination that the subdivision and development plan application is incomplete is not considered a project under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378. |
|
Project Planner: |
Jennifer Cruz, Principal Planner - phone: (925) 655-2867 and email: Jennifer.Cruz@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny the Appeal and determine the application is incomplete as identified in Section II (recommendation) of the staff report. |
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
This is a hearing on an appeal of County staff’s determination that the subdivision and development plan application, County File Nos. CDSD23-09669 and CDDP23-03040, is incomplete. The applicant seeks approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for the proposed subdivision of an approximately 77-acre vacant property to allow 271 dwelling units, consisting of 209 market-rate low density single-family detached homes and 62 below-market-rate duets, and approximately 36 acres of open space, including a private trail system and parks.
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Conservation and Development (DCD), Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. OPEN the public hearing on the appeal of County staff’s determination that the subdivision and development plan application is incomplete, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing.
2. DENY the appeal by Kevin Weiss and DETERMINE that the subdivision and development plan application is incomplete.
3. ADOPT the attached findings in support of denial of the appeal (Attachment A).
4. DIRECT staff to provide the appellant with the Planning Commission’s written determination on the appeal.
III. BACKGROUND
The present appeal is an appeal of County staff’s determination that the subdivision and development plan application submitted for the proposed project is incomplete. The project itself is not at issue; only whether the application and re-submitted materials constitute a complete application is at issue. Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the applicant has appealed staff’s determination to the Planning Commission for a final written determination as to whether the application is complete.
A. Legal Background
Permit Streamlining Act
The Permit Streamlining Act (commencing with Section 65920 of the Government Code) (hereafter, the “PSA”) regulates local agency review and approval of development projects. Relevant here, the Act specifically governs the review and processing of development project applications and requires local agencies to make timely determinations on an application’s completeness. The below outlines the Act’s requirements for processing development project applications.
Preliminary Application
The PSA permits, but does not require, an applicant for a housing development project to submit a preliminary application. If an applicant elects to submit a preliminary application, it need only contain the information specifically identified in the PSA for preliminary applications. (Gov. Code, § 65941.1(a).)
Under the Housing Accountability Act, a separate State law providing regulatory protections for housing projects, a qualifying housing development project is only subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time a complete preliminary application is submitted. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5.) However, to maintain these protections, the PSA requires that within 180 days after submitting a complete preliminary application, the applicant must submit a formal application that includes all of the information required to process the development application. (Gov. Code, § 65941.1(e)(1).) If the local agency determines that the formal application is incomplete, the applicant must submit the specific information needed to complete the application within 90 days, or the preliminary application expires and has no further force or effect. (Gov. Code, § 65941.1(e)(2).)
Formal Application
In processing a formal application under the Act, a local agency is required to compile “one or more” application lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. (Gov. Code, § 65940.) Upon receipt of a formal application for a development project, a local agency has 30 calendar days to provide the applicant a written determination whether the application is complete. (Gov. Code, § 65943(a).) If the written completeness determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the development project application, the application is deemed complete. (Id.)
If the local agency determines that the application is incomplete, the local agency must provide the applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete. (Id.) That list must be limited to those items actually required on the local agency’s application lists. (Id.) Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall begin, during which the local agency must determine the completeness of the application. (Id.) In reviewing a resubmitted application for completeness, a local agency is limited to determining whether the resubmitted application includes the information specified and required by the local agency’s prior written determination that the application was incomplete. (Gov. Code, § 65943(b).) If a written determination is not made within that new 30-day period, the resubmitted application is deemed complete. (Id.)
Appeals
If the local agency still determines that the resubmitted application is incomplete, the local agency must provide an appeals process for the applicant to have the incompleteness determination reviewed. (Gov. Code, § 65943(c).) The local agency must provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 calendar days after receipt of the appeal. (Id.)
B. Timeline of Application Submittal and Processing
Below is a timeline of the application submittal and processing for the subdivision and development plan application.
• September 25, 2023 - Preliminary Application submitted by applicant (Attachment B)
• October 24, 2023 - Notice of Incomplete Preliminary Application issued by DCD (Attachment C)
• October 26, 2023 - Resubmittal of Preliminary Application by applicant (Attachment D)
• November 2, 2023 - Preliminary Application deemed complete by DCD (Attachment E)
• April 19, 2024 - Formal Project Application submitted by applicant (Attachment F)
• May 17, 2024 - Notice of Incomplete Application issued by DCD (Attachment G)
• August 22, 2024 - Resubmittal of Formal Project Application by applicant (Attachment H)
• August 28, 2024 - Response Letter to DCD’s Notice of Incomplete Application from applicant (Attachment I)
• September 20, 2024 - Second Notice of Incomplete Application issued by DCD (Attachment J)
• November 12, 2024 - Response letter to DCD’s Second Notice from applicant (Attachment K)
• December 11, 2024 - Third Notice of Incomplete Application issued by DCD (Attachment L)
• December 23, 2024 - Appeal of staff’s determination that application is incomplete submitted by applicant (Attachment M)
C. General Information
1. General Plan: Currently Agricultural Lands (AL)
[Previously AL and Off Island Bonus Area (OIBA)]
2. Zoning: P-1, Planned Unit District
3. Site/Area Description:
The subject property is an approximately 77-acre vacant parcel located north of Sandmound Blvd. in unincorporated Oakley. The subject property is relatively flat with trees located along the eastern to the northern portion of the property. Several wetlands are located throughout the property, primarily in the middle of the property and to the eastern portion of the property. Several drainage ditches are located on the property, specifically in the middle and the northern portion of the property. An existing 2.03-acre drill site easement is located on the southern portion of the property. The property is accessible from Sandmound Blvd. on the southern portion of the property and Wells Road on the northern portion of the property. The subject property is also bound by Mariner Road along the eastern portion of the property.
Dutch Slough is located north of the subject property. Retail Business (R-B) and Multiple-Family (M-12) zoned properties are located immediately north and east of the site respectively. A variety of commercial uses including boat and recreational vehicle parks, and mobile home park are located on the R-B zoned properties. The Willow Park Marina is located on the M-12 zoned property. Approximately 0.18 miles north is the Delta Coves development. The City of Oakley is located directly south of the subject property, consisting primarily of vacant land. Residential homes within the Water Recreational (F-1) zoning district are located east of the property.
IV. STAFF’S DETERMINATIONS REGARDING APPLICATION COMPLETENESS
A. Preliminary Application
The applicant submitted a preliminary application to DCD for the proposed project on September 25, 2023. A preliminary application, to be determined complete, need only contain the information specifically identified in the PSA for preliminary applications. (Gov. Code, § 65941.1(a).) On October 24, 2023, Staff provided its determination that the preliminary application was incomplete. The applicant resubmitted the preliminary application on October 26, 2023. On November 2, 2023, Staff provided its determination that the preliminary application was complete.
Staff’s determination letter also identified other items that should be considered and addressed in the formal application submitted for the proposed project, including, among other items, that the proposed project density did not comply with the project site land use designation, and that the application would be incomplete without a complete inclusionary housing plan in accordance with Section 822-4.414 of the County Ordinance Code. To maintain the protections provided by the Housing Accountability Act for projects filed with a preliminary application, the applicant was required to file a formal application that includes all of the information required to process the development application no later than April 19, 2024. (See Gov. Code, § 65941.1(d).)
B. County Planning Application Checklists
DCD informs the public of application requirements, depending on the application type, on its website and through the County’s ePermit Center. Application checklists applicable to different types of proposed projects can be found at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4782/Submitting-a-Planning-Application (see Attachment N for a screenshot of the checklists and reference materials provided to applicants). The checklists provided there include, amongst other checklists and reference materials, the County’s General Planning Application Checklist (see Attachment O) and an Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist (see Attachment P).
The County’s General Planning Application Checklist requires, amongst other items, that a complete application must include:
• Site plan with:
o Clearly labeled setbacks
o Traffic circulation
o Dimensioned parking spaces
o Existing/proposed rights-of-way
o Easements
o Conceptual grading and drainage plan
• Tree information, including accurate and full disclosure of tree location, species, dripline, and circumference
• Signage plans, including a site plan with monument sign setbacks
The Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist requires an inclusionary housing plan that complies with the requirements listed in the checklist. The checklist refers to County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including Section 822-4.414 of the County Ordinance Code, which provides:
“An application for a discretionary approval of the residential development will not be deemed complete for processing until after the inclusionary housing plan has been accepted as complete. Preliminary approval of the inclusionary housing plan is required prior to any discretionary approval of the residential development.”
C. Formal Application, Submitted April 19, 2024
Notice of Incomplete Application, Issued May 17, 2024
The applicant submitted a formal application to DCD for the proposed project on April 19, 2024. On May 17, 2024, staff provided a Notice of Incomplete Application with staff’s determination that the formal application was incomplete. The incomplete items identified by staff included, amongst other items:
1. The proposed project’s dwelling unit density did not comply with the County’s General Plan land use designation for the project site, and that either the project would need to be revised or the applicant would need to submit an application for a General Plan amendment feasibility study. Staff informed the applicant that the submittal would remain incomplete until either the project was revised to conform or the correct application was submitted.
2. The site plan provided conflicting rear yard setback information for detached single-family units.
3. The site plan included unlabeled utility easements.
4. The site plan did not include parking and traffic circulation details for the public park parking area, including parking space dimensions, driveway aisle width, and access width in compliance with the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance standards. Staff’s determination letter attached the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance, Chapter 82-16 of the County Ordinance Code.
5. The site plan did not include the width dimensions between parking spaces on Street F.
6. The application identified six proposed monument signs, but the site plan provided the location and setbacks for only three monument signs.
7. The application included conflicting tree information and tree locations.
8. The application did not include a complete inclusionary housing plan in conformity with the Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist and as required by the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including Section 822-4.414 of the County Ordinance Code. See agency comment letter from DCD’s Housing and Community Improvement Division, dated May 14, 2024, attached to and referenced in staff’s determination letter.
9. The application did not include a preliminary stormwater control plan. The application also included an incomplete grading plan without underlying contours or spot elevations necessary to determine depths of fills or conforms to adjacent properties or streets, and without an estimate of the proposed cut/fill. See agency comment letter from Public Works, dated May 17, 2024, attached to and referenced in staff’s determination letter.
D. Formal Application, Re-Submitted August 22, 2024
Second Notice of Incomplete Application, Issued September 20, 2024
The applicant re-submitted its formal application, in response to staff’s incomplete determination, to DCD for the proposed project on August 22, 2024. On September 20, 2024, staff provided a Second Notice of Incomplete Application with staff’s determination that the re-submittal of the formal application was still incomplete. The remaining incomplete items identified by staff included, amongst other items:
1. The proposed project’s dwelling unit density did not comply with the County’s General Plan land use designation for the project site, and that either the project would need to be revised or the applicant would need to submit an application for a General Plan amendment feasibility study. Staff informed the applicant that the submittal would remain incomplete until either the project was revised to conform or the correct application was submitted.
2. The re-submitted site plan provided conflicting rear yard setback information for detached single-family units.
3. The re-submitted site plan revised the park from a public park to a private park. Staff informed the applicant that parking is still required. The site plan did not include parking and traffic circulation details for the private park parking area, including parking space dimensions, driveway aisle width, access width, and the number of parking spaces in compliance with the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance standards. Staff’s Second Notice of Incomplete Application attached the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance, Chapter 82-16 of the County Ordinance Code.
4. The re-submitted site plan omitted the typical duplex easements and setback diagram that had been included with the original submittal. Staff requested clarification regarding this omission and, if inadvertent, that the applicant re-submit the diagram.
5. The re-submitted application did not include a complete inclusionary housing plan in conformity with the Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist and as required by the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including Section 822-4.414 of the County Ordinance Code. See agency comment letter from DCD’s Housing and Community Improvement Division, dated September 16, 2024, attached to and referenced in staff’s determination letter.
Staff’s Second Notice of Incomplete Application also informed the applicant that any protections afforded by the Housing Accountability Act to the proposed project by virtue of the applicant’s submittal of a complete preliminary application had expired. Section 65941.1(e)(1) of the Government Code, part of the PSA, provides that within 180 days after submitting a complete preliminary application, the development proponent must submit a formal application that includes all of the information required to process the development application. If the public agency determines that the formal application is incomplete, the development proponent must submit the specific information needed to complete the application within 90 days. (Gov. Code, § 65941.1(e)(2).) If the development proponent does not submit the required information within the 90-day period, then the preliminary application expires and has no further force or effect. (Id.)
Here, staff deemed the project’s preliminary application complete on November 2, 2023. The applicant timely submitted a formal project application on April 19, 2024. Staff’s May 17, 2024 Notice of Incomplete Application found the formal project application incomplete and identified specific information needed to complete the application. The applicant’s resubmittal of the formal project
application, which did not include all of the required information, was submitted on August 22, 2024, more than 90 days after staff’s May 17, 2024 Notice. Accordingly, the project’s preliminary application had expired, and the project will be subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when the project application is ultimately determined to be complete.
E. Applicant Response to Second Notice, Submitted November 12, 2024
Third Notice of Incomplete Application, Issued December 11, 2024
The applicant submitted a letter, on November 12, 2024, responding to staff’s Second Notice of Incomplete Application. The applicant’s response letter again asserted that the project application was complete, but provided no additional information, materials, or revised plans that addressed the remining incomplete items in the Second Notice of Incomplete Application. On December 11, 2024, staff provided a Third Notice of Incomplete Application stating that staff’s determination had not changed and that formal application, with the re-submitted materials, was still incomplete. Staff’s Third Notice again listed the remaining incomplete items, including, amongst other items:
1. The proposed project’s dwelling unit density did not comply with the County’s General Plan land use designation for the project site, and that either the project would need to be revised or the applicant would need to submit an application for a General Plan amendment feasibility study. Staff informed the applicant that the submittal would remain incomplete until either the project was revised to conform or the correct application was submitted.
2. The re-submitted site plan provided conflicting rear yard setback information for detached single-family units. Staff informed the applicant that this item will remain incomplete until the conflicting information is clarified and a corrected site plan submitted.
3. The original site plan identified the parks as public parks and no details on the parking area were provided. The re-submitted site plan revised the park from a public park to a private park, but still did not include parking details. Staff informed the applicant that parking is still required. The site plan did not include parking and traffic circulation details for the private park parking area, including parking space dimensions, driveway aisle width, access width, and the number of parking spaces in compliance with the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance standards. Staff’s Third Notice of Incomplete Application attached the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance, Chapter 82-16 of the County Ordinance Code.
4. The original site plan included dimensioned parking spaces on Street F, but did not provide the width dimensions between the parking spaces. Staff’s Second Notice requested the missing information regarding the width between parking spaces on Street F. The re-submitted site plan provided the width between the parking spaces on Street F, but removed the parking space dimensions. The site plan should be revised to include the correct information, including both space dimensions and width between spaces, for parking spaces on Street F.
5. The re-submitted site plan omitted the typical duplex easements and setback diagram that had been included with the original submittal. Staff requested clarification regarding this omission and, if inadvertent, that the applicant re-submit the diagram.
6. The re-submitted application did not include a complete inclusionary housing plan in conformity with the Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist and as required by the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including Section 822-4.414 of the County Ordinance Code. See agency comment letter from DCD’s Housing and Community Improvement Division, dated September 16, 2024, attached to and referenced in staff’s determination letter.
V. APPEAL OF STAFF’S DETERMINATION
County staff issued its Third Notice of Incomplete Application on December 11, 2024. On December 23, 2024, the applicant submitted an appeal of staff’s determination that the project application is incomplete. Below is a summary of the appeal points raised in the applicant’s appeal letter and brief staff responses.
1. Summary of Appeal Point #1: The County’s first notice fails to meet the requirements of the Permit Streamlining Act as it does not identify any items actually on the County’s application checklist that were not provided with the formal application. The County did not provide a valid incompleteness letter when it provided the first notice.
Staff’s Response: Staff’s Notice of Incomplete Application, dated May 17, 2024, identified a number of incomplete items based on the applicants original April 19, 2024 submittal. The incomplete items identified in the Notice include:
• Conflicting rear yard setback information for detached single-family units (see General Planning Application Checklist, Site Plans, “Existing and proposed building/structures/uses clearly labeled with setbacks”).
• Unlabled utility easements (see General Planning Application Checklist, Site Plans, “Existing/proposed right-of-ways” and “Easement”).
• Omitted parking and traffic circulation details for the public park parking area, including parking space dimensions, driveway aisle width, and access width in compliance with the County’s Off-Street Parking Ordinance standards (see General Planning Application Checklist, Site Plans, “Traffic circulation” and “Dimensioned parking spaces”).
• Omitted width dimensions between parking spaces on Street F (see General Planning Application Checklist, Site Plans, “Dimensioned parking spaces”).
• Omitted location and setback information for three monument signs (see General Planning Application Checklist, Signage Plans, “Setback to monument signs”).
• Conflicting tree information and tree locations (see General Planning Application Checklist, Site Plans, Tree Information, “The site (grading and development) plan shall accurately and fully disclose the location, species, tree dripline, and trunk circumference of all trees”).
• The application did not include a complete inclusionary housing plan as required by the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (see Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist)
• The application did not include a preliminary stormwater control plan (see General Planning Application Checklist, Signage Plans, “Conceptual grading and drainage plan”).
• Incomplete grading plan without underlying contours or spot elevations necessary to determine depths of fills or conforms to adjacent properties or streets, and without an estimate of the proposed cut/fill (see General Planning Application Checklist, Signage Plans, “Conceptual grading and drainage plan”).
Additionally, the Notice of Incomplete Application identified that based on the project’s proposed residential density, the application was incomplete in that it did not include the requisite General Plan amendment application.
Staff’s Notice of Incomplete Application identified items on the County’s planning application checklists that were not provided with the formal application. Thus, the County provided a valid incompleteness letter under the PSA when it provided the Notice of Incomplete Application on May 17, 2024.
2. Summary of Appeal Point #2: The first notice identifies an alleged inconsistency with the location of certain trees on the project site and does not allege that there is anything based on the Application Submittal Checklist that was incomplete or missing.
Staff’s response: Specifically, the Notice of Incomplete Application cited the following as an incomplete item:
“Sheet L1.3 identifies Tree #1 on Sandmound Blvd. while the Tree Inventory Map in the Arborist Report locates Tree #1 on the adjacent property to the west. Please clarify this inconsistency and make appropriate revisions.”
The County’s General Planning Application Checklist requires that “[t]he site (grading and development) plan shall accurately and fully disclose the location, species, tree dripline, and trunk circumference of all trees ...” With the inconsistency cited by staff, the site plan did not “accurately and fully disclose the location” of Tree #1, and the application did not comply with the requirements of the County’s General Planning Application Checklist. Accordingly, staff identified this item as incomplete until the applicant clarified the inconsistency and made appropriate revisions. This item was completed with additional information submitted with the application resubmittal on August 22, 2024.
3. Summary of Appeal Point #3: The first notice identifies an alleged inconsistency with the rear yard setback for the single-family detached homes and asks for clarification about which setback is correct and does not allege that there is anything based on the Application Submittal Checklist that was incomplete.
Staff’s response: Specifically, the Notice of Incomplete Application cited the following as an incomplete item:
“Sheet C1.0 states the rear yard setback for single-family detached is 15 feet. However, Sheet C3.0 indicates a 10-foot rear yard. Please clarify and make necessary changes on the respective sheet as to which is the correct proposed rear yard setback.”
The County’s General Planning Application Checklist requires that site plans include “[e]xisting and proposed building/structures/uses clearly labeled with setbacks.” With the inconsistency cited by staff, the site plan did not provide accurate setback information on which staff could rely to process the application. Accordingly, staff determined that the information was incomplete and did not comply with the requirements of the County’s General Planning Application Checklist, and would remain incomplete until the applicant clarified the inconsistency and made appropriate revisions. This item remains incomplete.
4. Summary of Appeal Point #4: The first notice alleges that certain parking details were not provided and asks for dimensions that comply with the code. The first notice does not allege that there is anything based on the Application Submittal Checklist that was incomplete.
Staff’s response: Specifically, the Notice of Incomplete Application cited the following as an incomplete item:
“Details on the parking area for the public park are not provided. At a minimum, please provide parking space dimensions, driveway aisle width, access width that complies with the Off-Street Parking Ordinance standards.”
The Notice also cited the following as an incomplete item:
“Please provide on Sheet C3.4 the width between parking spaces on Street.”
The County’s General Planning Application Checklist requires that site plans include “[t]raffic [c]irculation” and “[d]imensioned parking spaces.” The application did not include the required parking information for the public park (later revised on re-submittal to a private park). This item remains incomplete.
The original application also did not include required dimensions for parking spaces on Street F. This item was completed with additional information submitted with the application resubmittal on August 22, 2024. However, the re-submitted materials removed the other parking space dimensions for parking spaces on Street F. This item remains incomplete.
5. Summary of Appeal Point #5: The first notice asked for clarification on easement shown on plans. The first notice does not allege that there is anything based on the Application Submittal Checklist that was incomplete.
Staff’s response: Specifically, the Notice of Incomplete Application cited the following as an incomplete item:
“Sheet C3.4 identifies a paseo easement for the duplex/duets for lots that abut another lot with dashed lines. However, the lots that abut the park area and the depressed vegetated area also appear to have dashed lines similar to the interior lots. Please clarify if the dashed lines at the rear of the property on the exterior lots is an easement on the properties.”
That is, the application included unlabeled demarcations that could have been, but were unlabled, easements. The County’s General Planning Application Checklist requires that site plans include “[e]xisting/proposed right-of-ways” and “[e]asements.” The County’s Application Checklist requires all easements to be identified on the site plan. With the unlabled easement, the site plan did not provide accurate easement information on which staff could rely to process the application. Accordingly, staff determined that the information was incomplete and did not comply with the requirements of the County’s General Planning Application Checklist. This item was completed with additional information submitted with the application resubmittal on August 22, 2024.
6. Summary of Appeal Point #6: The first notice asked for confirmation regarding the location of the monument signs. The first notice does not allege that there is anything based on the Application Submittal Checklist that was incomplete.
Staff’s response: Specifically, the Notice of Incomplete Application cited the following as an incomplete item:
“Sheet L2.4 identifies six monument signs proposed. Sheets L2.2, L2.3, and L2.4 identifies only one monument sign on each page for a total of three signs. Where will the remaining three signs be located? Please note that the signs must comply with the County’s Sign Ordinance.”
The County’s General Planning Application Checklist requires signage plans that include a site plan with “[s]etback to monument signs.” That is, the County’s Application Checklist requires that the location and setback of all monument signs by identified on the site plan. Here, the original application identified that six monument signs were proposed, but not all were identified on the site plan. Accordingly, staff determined that the information was incomplete and did not comply with the requirements of the County’s General Planning Application Checklist. This item was completed with additional information submitted with the application resubmittal on August 22, 2024.
7. Summary of Appeal Point #7: The first notice stated that the project is inconsistent with the density range for the AL and OIBA General Plan land use designation and that a General Plan Amendment is requirement, which are consistency issue and not a completeness issue.
Staff response: Specifically, the Notice of Incomplete Application cited the following as an incomplete item:
“The proposed project must comply with the County’s adopted General Plan. ... An email from our Advance Planning staff dated October 23, 2023, which was provided to you indicates that the project is inconsistent with the AL/OIBA land use designation in terms of use and density (attached). Please revise the project to comply with the current AL/OIBA designation or apply for a General Plan amendment (GPA) feasibility study.”
The Notice acknowledged that the proposed project was inconsistent with the General Plan based on the project’s proposed residential density. The applicant had been previously advised of this issue during the preliminary application process. As such, the applicant was aware that the project, as proposed, would require a General Plan amendment application. Accordingly, the Notice identified that the application was incomplete in that it did not include the requisite General Plan amendment application. This item remains incomplete.
8. Summary of Appeal Point #8: The first notice requested reason for the project’s design and required design compatibility of the surrounding area, which were not required items on the Application Submittal Checklist.
Staff response: Staff acknowledges that this item is not required by the County’s planning application checklists. Staff included this item as staff is concerned that the proposal may not comply with requirements of P-1 zoning district with respect to compatibility with the surrounding area. This issue will still need to be addressed in the project’s final development plan once a complete application is submitted.
9. Summary of Appeal Point #9: The first notice identifies certain agency comments regarding including housing, transportation planning, Delta agriculture, geologic issues, cultural resources, public works issues, and reclamation issues. The items do not allege that there is anything actually required on the Application Submittal Checklist that was incomplete.
Staff response’s: The Notice of Incomplete Application includes agency comments from other County departments and divisions and requires the applicant to address the incomplete items identified in those comments.
Specifically, the agency comments from DCD’s Housing and Community Improvement Division, attached to and referenced in the Notice, identified that the application did not include a complete inclusionary housing plan in conformity with the Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist and as required by the County’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including Section 822-4.414 of the County Ordinance Code. The County’s Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist requires a complete inclusionary housing plan that complies with the required elements in that checklist. Accordingly, staff determined that the information was incomplete and did not comply with the requirements of the County’s Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist. This item remains incomplete.
Also, the agency comments from Public Works, attached to and referenced in the Notice, identified that the application did not include a preliminary stormwater control plan, and that the application also included an incomplete grading plan without underlying contours or spot elevations necessary to determine depths of fills or conforms to adjacent properties or streets, and without an estimate of the proposed cut/fill. The County’s General Planning Application Checklist requires that site plans include a “[c]onceptual grading and drainage plan.” The County’s planning application checklists, located on the County’s DCD website at <https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4782/Submitting-a-Planning-Application>, also identifies that a stormwater control plan is a required special report. Accordingly, staff determined that the information was incomplete and did not comply with the requirements of the County’s General Planning Application Checklist. This item was completed with additional information submitted with the application resubmittal on August 22, 2024.
VI. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, the determination that the subdivision and development plan application is incomplete is not considered a project. Upon deeming the project complete, staff will review the project in compliance with CEQA and prepare the appropriate CEQA document.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The originally submitted project application was incomplete as detailed in staff’s Notice of Incomplete Application. The resubmitted application was still incomplete as detailed in staff’s Second Notice of Incomplete Application. And the application remains incomplete as detailed in staff’s Third Notice of Incomplete Application. Therefore, staff recommends that the County Planning Commission deny the applicant’s appeal and find that the application is incomplete.
Attachments:
A. Findings in support of denial of appeal
B. Preliminary Application - September 25, 2023
C. Notice of Incomplete Preliminary Application - October 24, 2023
D. Re-submitted Preliminary Application - October 26, 2023
E. Preliminary Application Deemed Complete Letter - November 2, 2023
F. Formal Project Application - April 19, 2024
G. Notice of Incomplete Application Letter - May 17, 2024
H. Re-submitted Formal Project Application - August 22, 2024
I. Applicant Response Letter - August 28, 2024
J. Second Notice of Incomplete Application Letter - September 20, 2024
K. Applicant Response Letter - November 12, 2024
L. Third Notice of Incomplete Application Letter - December 11, 2024
M. Appeal on Staff’s Determination - December 23, 2024
N. Screenshot of County planning application checklists
O. County General Planning Application Checklist
P. County Inclusionary Housing Plan Checklist
Q. Maps