Copyright (c) 2010
Winters Express
312 Railroad Avenue, Winters, CA 95694
(530) 795-4551
news@wintersexpress.com
Web site by
shawnpatrickcollins
@yahoo.com

Burger King
plan appealed

By DEBRA DeANGELO
Express editor
The Burger King project approved by the Winters Planning Commission on Aug. 10 was appealed by a group of citizens on Friday, Aug. 20, forcing the entire project to be re-examined by the city council.
According to City Manager John Donlevy, the appeal lists all five sections of the commission’s approval, including the Conditional Use Permit, the site plan and design review, the sign permit for the freeway information sign, the variance to the city sign ordinance for the freeway information sign and the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) clearance.
City Attorney John Wallace explains that when an appeal of a planning commission decision is filed, it triggers a “de novo” public hearing, which means the public hearing process begins anew as if the first one never happened. However, the city council has the option to introduce information from prior planning commission meetings into the record if it chooses.
With a do-over of the public hearing process now in play, the city must pay consultants to study and give recommendations on a variety of related issues. Because these consultants are not city staff, the city will have to pay them out of the General Fund, with most of them charging $200 to $300 per hour.
When all the appeal work is completed, Donlevy says the total expense could be close to $10,000. Because this expense was not budgeted for, he says the city “will probably have to cut other things” to pay for it.
Donlevy says some, but not all costs for the appeal, will be passed on to the developer.
“We are trying to determine which ones will, but things like staff time, legal, engineering and some of the planning will be paid by the city.”
He notes that it will take awhile to address everything in the appeal.
“The appeal and letters cover a huge number of topics and we are in the process of sorting through everything. The appeal is 20 pages with multiple topics on each page. This is going to take a lot of time and costs to respond and prepare for the hearing before the city council.”
Donlevy says contract planner Heidi Tschudin, City Engineeer Nick Ponticello, contract traffic engineer Bob Grandy and an attorney not employed by the city will have to respond to the reasons cited in the appeal, which state:
~ The public was not given a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed project. The city and the planning commission prejudicially abused its discretion by pre-determining that the project was exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
~ Applying section 21083.3 of the Public resources Code (CEQA Guidelines, 15183) to exempt the project from CEQA was inappropriate as the project is not consistent with the General Plan.
~ There is evidence that staff held serial private meetings with members of the planning commission in violation of the Open Meeting Law.
~ The city needs a Master Plan to guide development of the Gateway area, rather than lot-by-lot, piecemeal planning, which incrementally will lead to a Burger King, a McDonalds, an Exxon station, plus a Taco Bell, Union 76 station, etc.
~ A freeway sign variance was approved. If other undeveloped lots in the Gateway and along Grant Avenue were given equal treatment, an unsightly, urbanizing impact of overlarge freeway signs will certainly follow.
~ Written public comments that were properly submitted to the planning commission at the (Aug. 10) meeting were not and could not have been fairly considered in the time available prior to the commission’s action.
Donlevy says that each allegation in the appeal must be responded to. The appeal was filed by Sarah Brown, Shaunie Briggs, Kresta Daly, Eric Doud, William (Bill) Hailey, Don Hutchins, Janice Koch, Ana Kormos, Michael McCoy, David Springer, Jeffrey TenPas and Albert Vallecillo.
Vallecillo submitted a written explanation of the group’s motivations for this week’s Express. He also summarized that the heart of the matter was the lack of opportunity for the public to give input on the planning process.
Noting that the public was told by the city manager that there would be “plenty of opportunities to weigh in” on the project after it appeared before the planning commission in January, Vallecillo says, “this is so far from what happened which is a complete disregard for the public process and a misuse of the public trust.”
He also notes that when the Burger King project application was complete, it appeared relatively suddenly on the planning commission agenda, less than two months after the application had been pulled “indefinitely” because it was incomplete.
“It was reported that the project was incomplete (in June), then in mid-July the project has a complete application, just like that, and it was going to the planning commission for the July meeting. The project was then pulled from the agenda for some reason — perhaps proper notifications had not been made?”
He explains that rather than being returned to the next regular planning commission meeting (the commission meets on the fourth Tuesday of each month), that the project reappeared at a special meeting on Aug. 10, and the agenda packed was released on Aug. 5.
“The public received five calendar days to digest it,” said Vallecillo. “Once into the package, it is discovered that the project has been granted an exemption from any further CEQA process. The project was declared to have no environmental impacts, therefore no more public hearings or input. So much for our ‘opportunities to weigh in.’”
So, to force the opportunity for more public input, an appeal was filed. The appeal includes a request for the following actions:
~ Reversal of the planning commission decisions to approve a Conditional Use Permit, to approve the site plan/design review, to approve the variance to the sign ordinance, and to direct staff to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption.
~ Preparation of a Gateway Master Plan that includes the subject property.
~ Development of a form-based code for Grant Avenue and the Gateway area.
~ Approval of this project subsequent to and subject to the conditions of a new Gateway Master Plan.
Donlevy said the notice of the appeal may be on the Sept. 7 city council agenda, but will more likely be addressed on Sept. 21. The date the council hears the appeal depends on the amount of time it takes for the consultants and city staff to respond to the items listed in the appeal.