File #: 25-00318    Version: 1
Type: Departmental Agenda Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 4/1/2025 In control: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On agenda: 4/8/2025 Final action: 4/8/2025
Title: HEARING - Consider recommendations regarding an appeal, filed by Michael Stoltey, Applicant, of the County Planning Commission's incomplete application determination for the Richards Ranch (Key Site 26) Project, Fourth District, as follows: (EST. TIME: 45 MIN.) a) Deny the Appeal, Case No. 25APL-00009; b) Determine and find that the Application, Case Nos. 24DVP-00018, 24CUP-00033, and 24TRM-00003, is incomplete for the reasons discussed in the associated Board Letter and Staff Report; and c) Determine that the above recommended action is an administrative activity of the County that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and is therefore not a "project" defined for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5). Alternatively, the Board may take the following action, as follows: a) Uphold the Appeal, Case No. 25APL-00009; b) Determine that the Application, Case Nos. 24DVP-00018, 24CUP-...
Sponsors: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Attachments: 1. Board Letter, 2. Attachment A - Application for Appeal to the Board of Supervisors, 3. Attachment B - Incomplete Letters, 4. Attachment C - SB 330 Preliminary Application Form and Cover Letter, 5. Attachment D - Application Re Submittal Package, 6. Attachment E - Applicable Plan Set Checklist, 7. Attachment F - Planning Commission Action Letter, 8. Attachment G - Planning Commission Staff Report, 9. Attachment H - Planning Commission Appeal Application and Letter, 10. Appellant Comment Letter, 11. Public Comment - Californians for Homeownership, 12. Public Comment - NAHB, 13. Public Comment - HBACC & CBIA, 14. Applicant-Appellant Letter of Technical Assistance from California Department of HCD, 15. Presentation, 16. Applicant-Appellant Presentation

Title

HEARING - Consider recommendations regarding an appeal, filed by Michael Stoltey, Applicant, of the County Planning Commission’s incomplete application determination for the Richards Ranch (Key Site 26) Project, Fourth District, as follows: (EST. TIME: 45 MIN.)

 

a) Deny the Appeal, Case No. 25APL-00009;

 

b) Determine and find that the Application, Case Nos. 24DVP-00018, 24CUP-00033, and 24TRM-00003, is incomplete for the reasons discussed in the associated Board Letter and Staff Report; and

 

c) Determine that the above recommended action is an administrative activity of the County that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and is therefore not a “project” defined for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

 

Alternatively, the Board may take the following action, as follows:

 

a) Uphold the Appeal, Case No. 25APL-00009; 

 

b) Determine that the Application, Case Nos. 24DVP-00018, 24CUP-00033, and 24TRM-00003, is complete; and

 

c) Determine that the above recommended action is an administrative activity of the County that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and is therefore not a “project” defined for the purposes of the CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).

 

COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: POLICY