The developer of the proposed Spur Hotel called the county
counsel’s guidance on the project a
”
disgrace
”
a day after supervisors rescinded a crucial zoning approval due
to an apparent procedural botch.
The developer of the proposed Spur Hotel called the county counsel’s guidance on the project a “disgrace” a day after supervisors rescinded a crucial zoning approval due to an apparent procedural botch.
Developer John Eade blasted County Counsel Dennis LeClere today saying the October ordinance to approve the zoning change – from a residential to commercial designation – violated state law. Supervisors in October voted 3-2 to approve the zoning revision.
On Tuesday they sent the project back to the planning commission so staff can conduct a commercial district review that hadn’t been done the first time around. The board had planned to consider the same move a month ago, but members delayed it because Supervisor Anthony Botelho was in Washington, D.C. at a conference.
Though county officials have kept quiet on precisely what went wrong, Eade said the most substantial mistake with the zoning ordinance was unrelated to the commercial review. He blamed supervisors’ reversal on a failure in October to certify the “mitigated negative declaration” – a lesser version of a full environmental impact report that addresses piecemeal question areas. Supervisors should have certified it when they approved the zoning ordinance, Eade said, and they had no choice but to repeal the law and start again.
He also stressed that the planning department did an “exemplary job” on the mitigated negative declaration and its staff did everything possible to ensure the document met all necessary legal criteria.
LeClere was out of the office today and could not be reached for comment.
The Spur Hotel is John and Jae Eade’s proposed 44-unit hotel in Tres Pinos at Highway 25 and Southside Road. It has sharply divided hotel advocates who argue it would boost the local economy and neighbors who contend it would infringe on their otherwise quiet area of town.
Controversy over the board’s decision to approve the zoning change compounded because supervisors did so without a full environmental impact report. County staff had recommended it could progress without the inevitably expensive EIR, but a group of residents have sued the county to halt the project, claiming the broader environmental work should have been done.
John Eade said the county counsel showed “gross negligence and ineptitude” in advising supervisors on the process.
“We’re back to where we were 19 months ago,” said Eade, who acknowledged he’ll likely have to carry an extra financial burden with the reversal.
Supervisor Pat Loe, in the minority on the project’s first approval, acknowledged recently that California Environmental Quality Act guidelines weren’t met in the process.
Supervisor Reb Monaco today said the project is back to “square one.”
“I will go so far as to say I really feel bad that it’s taken this long and we’re back to basically where we started,” Monaco said.
County Administrative Officer Susan Thompson declined to comment when asked whether the prior ordinance broke any laws. “I certainly won’t comment on that,” she said.
A county staff report on the project released last month contended that a recommended nixing of the zoning change should not be interpreted as evidence that the county “concedes error” on the project.
Thompson said that upon the commercial district review’s completion, the planning commission will make recommendations on that as well as the new zoning ordinance.
