Calaveras Supervisors side with developer over Caltrans

By Stephen Crane | Posted: Friday, July 25, 2014 6:00 am /Calaveras Enterprise

Dispute centers on access issues

Tuesday’s Calaveras County Board of Supervisors meeting wasn’t quite a “David versus Goliath” confrontation, but for many in the board chambers, the showdown between a developer and Caltrans sure felt like it.

The county was thrust into the middle of the conflict, ultimately siding with the developer in a split 4-1 vote.

“I’ve been told we need to have a good relationship with Caltrans,” said Supervisor Cliff Edson amid the tense discussions. “This is not a good relationship.”

On one side of the debate was Katz Kirkpatrick Properties (KKP), a development group trying to purchase about 1.5 acres of property off Highway 26 in Valley Springs and build an AutoZone auto parts store.

On the other was Caltrans, which had worked previously with the landowner, Laurence Vosti, to approve a subdivided business park on the larger 37-acre property. Vosti got conditional approval for that previous map in 2004, which detailed the development of about 32 acres of the land for a planned business park, leaving a 5.62-acre remainder with no plans for development in that proposal.

“When we applied for a subdivision map, we excluded the 5-acre parcel because it was in a separate sewer and water district,” Vosti explained to the board in a July 1 letter. “It is also in a separate tax parcel.”

As a condition of approval for that initial map, Caltrans insisted that only two encroachments be developed – one onto Highway 12 and one onto Highway 26.

Following the tentative map approval, the economy tanked and Vosti held off on pursuing the planned development on the 32 acres. And in fact, the final map of the development has not been officially recorded as of yet. Vosti has until 2017 to do so, following extensions passed down from the state. Until then, the map is technically not official.

In the meantime, Vosti was approached by KKP about purchasing and developing a portion of the 5.62-acre remainder.

To do so, the property group did the required studies, assessments and reviews, including the traffic study, which showed that any traffic impact from the proposed development “conforms with Caltrans guidelines” according to Ken Anderson, a traffic engineer with the transportation firm K.D. Anderson and Associates.

As part of the project, KKP is also seeking an encroachment onto Highway 26, and that encroachment was at the heart of Tuesday’s debate.

“Caltrans is obligated to provide ‘reasonable and convenient’ access,” said Fred Katz, of KKP. “We believe our access is very reasonable and convenient.”

Instead, Caltrans has insisted it won’t allow the encroachment for the new development and still allow Vosti’s original map to be recorded, since Caltrans and Vosti agreed to only two encroachments.

“(Caltrans) asks customers to almost go a half-mile to access the (Autozone) site from the rear” using one of the two approved encroachments, Katz said.

Vosti is not willing to modify his original map for the sake of the project; KKP is not willing to pursue the project without its own direct access to Highway 26; and Caltrans is not willing to approve that new encroachment.

“This is about breaking the planning process,” said John Gedney, chief of Caltrans’ Office of Rural Planning and Administration. “(Caltrans) agreed to the two access points for the original Vosti map. … The Autozone project seeks to do an end run around that.”

Caltrans pleaded the same case before the Calaveras County Planning Commission at its June 12 meeting, and the commission listened, deciding not to recommend that the project be approved.

Two motions to approve portions of the project failed in a 2-3 vote, with commissioners Ted Allured and Kelly Wooster being the only two supporters.

KKP appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors hoping for a different conclusion.

For its part, the county’s Planning Department supported the applicant and recommended that the board approve AutoZone’s tentative map and road modification.

“The state highways here in Calaveras County really serve as the main streets for many communities,” said Peter Maurer, planning director for the department. “There are many encroachments and that’s what we feel about this project. … We have asked that Caltrans look at an additional encroachment on Highway 26 to accommodate a 1.5-acre development and they refuse to comply. I’m very frustrated about this.”

Gedney repeatedly pointed back to the planning process, and he saw the request for an additional encroachment as a threat to that.

“What good is the planning process if carefully negotiated deals can be discarded?” he asked the board. “I know it’s very frustrating, but that’s the planning process we have right now.”

Edson was the most vocal member of the board, and after hearing the presentation from both sides, he pushed for approval.

“I’m disheartened by this hardline approach (by Caltrans), I really am,” he said. “I like the idea of planning, but I also know that times change and we’ve got to make adjustments. … I just want to put people to work here in the county.”

Supervisor Merita Callaway, who was ultimately the sole vote against approval, expressed her concern for the role the county was playing in the debate, not to mention the potential litigation that may result from the project. She pushed for a continuance on the issue to allow both sides to push through the impasse.

“I feel the county is in the middle of something we should not be in the middle of,” Callaway said. “My concern is the traffic and circulation, which is why the county got sued, twice.” She worried that “the county is going to get sucked into some kind of litigation or lawsuit.”

Callaway’s concern was underscored by Gedney, who said that KKP “has already lined up a slew of attorneys to sue us for access based on your action today.”

Most in the audience who spoke, however, supported the project and encouraged the board to approve it.

“When did we decide that Caltrans was god and they got to rewrite the Bible?” asked Guy Meyers. “They are trying to do what they’ve been doing for the last 30 years consistently; they argue every project.”

Representatives of MyValleySprings.com voiced support for Caltrans.

“This is about planning,” said Joyce Techel, president of the community planning group’s board. “That’s all Caltrans wants you to do. They want you to stop using Highway 26 like a county road.”

Most members of the board, however, were unconvinced and sided with the developer.

“This is not good planning,” acknowledged Supervisor Chris Wright. “But the reality is what the reality is. The project before us is this parcel split. We can’t look at the entire county.”

“I’m really saddened by all the bureaucracy of ‘he said, she said,’” said Supervisor Debbie Ponte. “I’m not sure with a continuance that would even settle that. … I think we’ll just further burden the bureaucratic process. … I think we need to be able to support this project and move forward.”

With that, the board voted to approve the new parcel map on a 4-1 vote.