Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08122003 - D.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS y 4 ' Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD ��, " Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR .. . County +r x DATE: July 15, 2003 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal by William Reddick (Permittee, Applicant & Owner) of Decisions by the East County Regional Planning Commission to Revoke a Land Use Permit for a Boat Storage Yard (County File #2059-88) and Deny an Application to Amend Said Land Use Permit, (County File#LP992063), located at #4091 Orwood Road, in the Brentwood area. (BID File#RF970061)(Sup. Dist. III) SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATION (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the appeal of William Reddick. 2. Sustain the January 14, 2002 decisions of the East County Regional Planning Commission to: a. Deny File#LP992063 seeking to amend an existing boat storage land use permit. b. Revoke the 1988 land use permit for a boat storage area, File #2059-88. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE ,- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Augmt 12, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X **See attached addendrnn for Board action** VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake(925)335-1214 ATTESTED August 12, 2003 Cc:William Reddick JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Hasseltine Consulting SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR The Johnson Law Firm Building Inspection Dept. h Health Services Dept.,Env. Health Div. BY ;L. �� ,DEPUTY Public Works Dept., Eng.Serv. Div. County Counsel ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2 August 12, 2003 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by William Reddick(Permittee, Applicant&Owner)of decisions by the East County Regional Planning Commission to revoke a land use permit for a Boat Storage Yard(County file#2059-88) and deny an application to amend said land use permit, (County Pile#LP992063), located at#4091 Orwood Road, in the Brentwood area. Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. The Chair opened the public hearing and the following persons presented testimony: William Reddick, 4091 "A"Orwood Road, Brentwood; Reece Barnes, 940 Lido Circle, Byron The Chair then returned the matter to the Board for further discussion. Supervisor Greenberg then moved to continue this item for 30 days to allow the applicant to provide a timeline of when the violations will be in compliance and if that could not be provided within the 30 days, Supervisor Greenberg will then recommend that the Board uphold the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission and revoke the land use permit. She also requested that the Community Development Department staff to look at the possibility of allowing 30%of the operable vehicles,boats and recreational vehicles to be stored on the site. Supervisor i..Iilkema second the motion and the Board took the following action: o CONTINUED to September 23, 2003 at 10:00 a.m., hearing on the appeal of William Reddick from the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission revoking the land use permit granted by the County in 1988 to operate a dry boat storage facility located at 4091 Orwood Road, Brentwood,due to continued violation of the terms of the permit; o REQUESTED the owner to provide a timeline of when the violations will be in compliance; o DIRECTED the Community Development Department staff to look at the possibility of allowing 30%of the operable vehicles,boats and recreational vehicles to be stored on the site. July 15, 2043 Board of Supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2459-88 Page 2 3. Adopt the findings contained in East County Regional Planning Commission Resolution #222003 as the basis for the Board action. 4. Direct the Building Inspection Director to initiate appropriate code compliance action to effect code compliance at the site. FISCAL IMPACT— None. The adopted Ordinance Code requires that the applicant pay fees to cover staff s time and material costs in processing this matter. BACKGROUND The site consists of 2.5 acres of flat ground on Orwood Road, just east of Bixter Road in the Delta area. The site is designated Agricultural Lands, and is zoned General Agricultural, A-2. The A-2 zoning allows agricultural uses and a single-family residence. A mobile home on a permanent foundation may also be permitted provided that it meets certain design and structural criteria. The A-2 district also allows other activities after the granting of a land use permit. It also allows boat storage areas within one mile by public road of a boat launching facility open to the public. Orwood Resort is located approximately 1000 feet to the east of the site. Processing of Original Land Use Permit This matter concerns a commercial boat storage operation that was granted a land use permit in 1983. However,the applicant,William Reddick, originally sought permission for more activities than he was ultimately granted. The Zoning Administrator approved a land use permit for boat storage, but denied a request to stare other types of vehicles on the site (RV's). The applicant appealed that decision to the East County Regional Planning Commission, which after conducting a hearing on the appeal, voted to sustain the Zoning Administrator decision. Similarly, the applicant appealed the Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. On December 13, 1988, after conducting a hearing, the Board unanimously voted to sustain the Commission's decision and denied the applicant's appeal. Code Enforcement Investigation and Noticing When the Board denied the applicant's appeal, the Board also determined directed staff to initiate an investigation of recreational vehicles at the site for code compliance purposes. Notwithstanding the Board action authorizing a restricted permit (no storage of vehicles other than boats allowed), the permittee proceeded to establish a number of buildings and vehicles that are not permitted by the Code. He also established a mobile home as a residence and office without any July 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2059-88 Page 3 building permits or clearance from the Health Services Department.' In 1997 and 1999, the Building Inspection Department issued Notices to Comply to the permittee, noting code violations. Presumably,the permittee was advised that he could either cure the violations by eliminating the non-permitted activities, or alternatively try to obtain approval of an amendment to the land use permit that would allow existing activities to remain. Ultimately, in 1999, the permittee filed an application with the Community Development Department, File#LP992063,apparently aimed at curing the violations by trying to obtain an amendment to the existing land use permit to allow existing (unauthorized) activities to remain. Initial Processing of Land Use Permit Amendment Application Shortly after the Community Development Department received the LUP application, the assigned planner determined that standard application information was missing,and that there was no evidence that the permittee had complied with most of the conditions attached to the original permit. This information was communicated to the permittee and he was advised that staff would not be able to support his application until the necessary information was provided. The permittee response did not provide did nor provide substantive information that addressed the concerns of code compliance Issuance of Notice of Violation of 1988 Boat Storage Land Use Permit Pursuant to provisions in the Ordinance Code, staff determined that the permittee had established the boat storage operation without complying with many conditions of approval, and on January 10,2000 issued a Notice of Violation of the Boat Storage Land Use Permit to Mr. Reddick. The letter also advised the permittee that failure to timely respond with complete and adequate documentation might result in staff scheduling for hearing a determination of whether cause exists to revoke the land use permit. Staff indicated that no evidence could be found that the permittee done any of the following land use permit requirements. • Provision of a landscape plan (COA#2);the permittee has elected not to follow the procedures and design specifications in the permit,and instead make landscape improvements without first reviewing the plans with the County. The permittee has planted Italian cypress trees,which do not provide much screening value of the outdoor business. Compliance with Division 914 of the Ordinance (Drainage) (COA#9.A) • Execution of a Deferred Improvement Agreement for compliance with Division 1008 of the Ordinance (Road Dedication and Setbacks) relative to required road frontage improvements (COA#9.B.). Construction of pavement widening along Orwood Road to provide for turning movements into and out of the site (COA#C). • Relocation of the entry gate 20-feet south of the widened Orwood Road right-of-way (COA #9.D). It is not clear how the applicant was able to obtain an electrical connection to allow site occupancy. July 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2059-88 Page 4 • Contribution of regional traffic mitigation fees in accord with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance (COA#9.G.). • Proof of acquisition of all necessary right of entry, permits and/or other easement for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements (COA #9.H.). • Submittal of improvement plans to the Public Works Department for the review and approval of the Public Works Department (COA#9.1.). • Evidence of storage of items other than boats on the site (mobile homes,trailers, recreational vehicles, campers, camper shells, buses, cars, etc.)contrary to the authorized storage uses on the site (COA#5 & #6). The permittee responded to this Notice with a letter dated January 25, 2000 in which he indicated that he felt that his recreation vehicle storage operation was being singled out among a number of such operations in the East County area. He objected to providing staff the requested information in the absence of code enforcement actions being initiated against similar operations he felt were in violation of the ordinance code. The January 2000 Notice of Violation was followed up with a July 25, 2001 Supplemental Notice that identified other violations of the land use permit and County Code. • Violation of COA #1 insofar as the site contains structures (other than ones accessory to a single family residence) not authorized under the 1988 Land Use Permit. Some of those structures also appear to have been placed within the required front yard (25-feet from front property line) contrary to zoning district regulation. • No evidence of compliance with the plan submittal requirement for exterior lighting of the project (COA#4). • No evidence that the driveways and boat storage areas have been graveled to provide for a low dust— all weather driving surface and boat storage area. • Violation of the Health Code requirement for advanced written approval of an individual sewage disposal system by health officer(ref. 7/1812001 letter from the Health Services Department). • Violation of building, plumbing and electrical code for various buildings and dwellings(ref. July 23, 2001 memorandum from the Building Inspection Department). That memo also cites violation of the code relative to junkyard, contractor's yard and mobile home siting provisions of the ordinance. General Plan Considerations The site is located outside of the Urban Limit Line. The Urban Limit Line is located approximately one- quarter mile to the south of the site. The site is also designated Agricultural Lands. The general plan policies only allow open space uses to be considered for this site. The General Plan indicates, "the purpose of the Agricultural Lands designation is to preserve and protect lands capable of and generally used for the production of food, fiber, and plant materials. The title is intended to be descriptive of the predominant land-extensive July 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2459-88 Wage 5 agricultural uses that fake place in these areas, but the land use title or description shall not be used to exclude or limit other types of agricultural, open space or nonurban uses such as landfills..." The general pian also provides that the A-2 district is one of the districts that is consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation. Planning Commission Hearing on Proposed LUP Amendment and to Determine if Cause Exists to Revoke Existing Land Use Permit Ordinarily a hearing on a modification to a boat storage land use permit, and a determination on whether cause exists to revoke a land use permit would be considered by the Zoning Administrator. But due to the prior Planning Commission involvement in the approval of the boat storage land use permit, and pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 26-2.1206, the Zoning Administrator referred this matter to the East County Regional Planning Commission for hearing and decision. The matter was initially scheduled for hearing on May 1, 2000. However, after the notice was issued the hearing was cancelled due to a lack of a Commission quorum. The matter was rescheduled to the next hearing, however prior to that hearing, a representative of the permittee contacted staff and asked that the matter be rescheduled again to allow a meeting with staff to discuss the matter. Staff met with the permittee and his attorney on June 28, 2000. At that meeting, staff indicated that the County wished to obtain evidence of compliance with the terms of the permit. Staff also indicated that the range of vehicles that the permittee wished to store on the site was not allowable within the General Agricultural zoning district, or consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation. The permittee indicated that he would be providing a compliance report to staff prior to the next Commission hearing. A report was received several months later (on September 7, 2000 from the permittee's attorney. Rather than show compliance with the permit requirements, the report challenged the appropriateness of many of the conditions of approval.2 The permittee also claimed that the storage of recreational vehicles was permitted under another provision of the A-2 district. Another use that is allowable in the A-2 district after the granting of a land use permit are commercial recreational facilities where the principal use is not in a building. Staff advised the permittee that that provision of the ordinance would not authorize storage of recreational vehicles on this site for the following reasons: 1) Storage of recreational vehicles are not commercial recreational facilities. 2) Storage of recreational vehicles were specifically excluded in the 1988 denial of the permittees appeal by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission initially heard the matter on October 1, 2000. At that time, the permittee testified that he felt that the County Code Enforcement practices were not fair to him. He identified 2 A similar compliance report dated January 23,2401 was provided by a successor representative of the permittee, Hasseltine Consulting. That report reviewed conditions of approval, but generally did not provide evidence of compliance with the terms of the permit. shortly after,the applicant called staff to indicated that he did not agree with the few action items proposed to comply with permit requirements. July 15, 2003 Beard of Supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2059-88 Page 6 other similar operations in the vicinity that stored non-boat items, and were not being investigated by the County. He objected to the cost necessary to comply with the permit requirements. Planning Commission Request to Board of Supervisors to Consider Broadening of Types of Vehicles That Could be Permitted with a Boat Storage Permit, and Establishment of Agricultural Task Force In the early stage of the process, the Planning Commission expressed sympathy with the restraints applied to agricultural property, and the difficulties it posed allowing for an economically viable operation. On February 5, 2001, the Chairman of the Planning Commission issued a letter to the District V Supervisor indicating that the Commission would like to have the Board of Supervisors study existing limitations on agriculturally zoned property,and consider additional flexibility of permitted uses that might enhance the opportunities for developing and maintaining economically viable operations on agriculturally zoned land. The Agricultural Task Force has been reconstituted, and has held meetings. Mr. Reddick made a presentation to the Task Force on how existing restrictions on agriculturally zoned property should be modified to accommodate his operation. The Task Force is still considering the permittee's testimony and has not taken a position on the matter to date. Planning Commission Field Trip, Hearing and Decision To facilitate an understanding of site conditions and the violations cited by staff on the property, on September 18, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a field trip to the site. The permittee and representatives from the Public Works, Health Services, Building Inspection and Community Development Departments were present. Staff reviewed the requirements of the land use permit and the Ordinance Code as applies to the site. The matterwas the subject of a number(13)of continued Planning Commission hearings. While staff was recommending that the land use permit be revoked due to noncompliance with the land use permit and other provisions of the Code, the Planning Commission attempted to work with the permittee to try to persuade him to take necessary actions to comply with the terms of the permit and the ordinance. However, at the last Commission hearing, while the permittee was willing to move some vehicles, the permittee was not willing to remove recreational vehicles from the site and take other actions to comply with the land use permit and Ordinance Code. The Commission generally expressed dissatisfaction with the efforts to achieve code compliance. On a 4-0-1 vote (Harper abstaining), the Commission voted to revoke the 1088 Boat Storage Land Use Permit, and to deny the application to amend the land use permit. JANUARY 2002 APPEAL BY PERMITTEE/APPLICANT In a letter from the permittee's attorney dated January 24, 2002,the permittee/applicant appealed the Planning Commission's actions. The permittee/applicant provided two additional letters dated May 6, and an undated letter(received 6/1712002) providing additional comment on the Commission action. July 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2059-88 Page 7 DISCUSSION While staff has taken steps to revoke the land use permit, it is not clear that the land use permit was ever timely exercised. Normally,the permittee would have had one year(until December 13, 1989)to exercise the land use permit. Various actions could qualify as having exercised the permit including (issuance of a building permit and some private actions). However, for the purpose of this review, staff has assumed that the permit was timely exercised, if not fully complied with, thus activating the land use permit. Review of Appeal Points Staff has attempted to summarize the appeal points and respond to each in the following discussion. 1. Summary of Appeal Point— The permittee understands that his contractor obtained a well permit from the Health Services Department. If there are problems with compliance with the well permit, he is prepared to correct them. Staff Response — Comment noted. The July 2001 Notice of Violation contained a letter from the Health Services Department indicating that the site was in violation of the Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Ordinance requirement. Commissioner Frank Dell indicated that he had learned that a well permit had been obtained, but not fully complied with. Neither staff nor the Commission based its revocation position on whether the permittee had obtained a permit for water well. It should be noted that the document attached to the May 8, 2002 letter is a 1990 Water Well Drillers Report to the California Department of Water Resources, not a permit from the County Health Services Department. 2. Summary of Appeal Point — Is the County prohibiting the storage of any recreational vehicles of any kind on this site? Staff Response—This site is permitted to have a single-family residence,and the accessory uses and structures that are normally auxiliary to it, agricultural activities of all types,and an open boat storage area. Those are the activities that are permitted. Recreational vehicles other than boats may not be stored on the property until the zoning ordinance is amended and any necessary permits are obtained from the County and fully complied with. Presently, the applicable zoning district does not allow the storage of recreational vehicles other than boats. 3. Summaly of&pea/Point---In pursuing code enforcement activity against the permittee, Mr. Reddick feels that staff has not investigated other storage operations (e.g., storage activities at Byron Airport) that the permittee feels are subject to similar zoning regulations and are apparently not subject to similar code compliance investigations. July 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2059-88 Page 8 Staff Response—Due to limited resources,the County is only able to investigate properties in response to code compliance complaints. If Mr. Reddick, or other member of the public, files a code compliance complaint on a specific property(ies) with the Building Inspection Department, then the matter will be investigated to determine if there is evidence of a violation and, if confirmed, staff will initiate appropriate action seeking to attain code compliance. 4. Summary of Appeal point— The permittee objects to the County approving an amendment to the General flan for the Hoffman Company for a site in Discovery Bay that would allow the development of a storage facility. Staff Response—The site that the permittee is referring to is located within the Urban Limit Line. In reviewing that proposal, staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors all determined that the project would be compatible with adjoining uses and consistent with policies in the general plan that would allow for storage of a range of items, not necessarily limited to boats. That review led to the redesignation of the site to Light Industry. By contrast, the permittee's site is outside the urban limit line, and the general plan designates the site Agricultural Lands. The A-2 zoning district only allows consideration of storage of boat vehicles at that site, and only because it lies within one mile of a boat launch that is open to the public. The appeal points are not persuasive that the permittee is prepared to comply with the limitations and procedures of the Ordinance Code, and the land use permit that was granted in 1988. Other Permittee Communication In addition to the correspondence, the permittee has also telephoned staff to indicate that he has removed some of the non-boat vehicles from the property. However, he indicates that he is continuing to store recreational vehicles and trailers on the property. Other Considerations • It is evident that the permittee views the non-boat recreational vehicle portion of his operation as essential. It does not appear that the permittee is willing to limit the operation in a manner that will comply with only those uses authorized by the zoning ordinance and land use permit. • Compliance with other terms of the land use permit may be problematic, but not necessarily complicated or very expensive to complete. Still, it does require the willingness to take steps necessary to comply with the permits. • While the Agricultural Task Force has been presented with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and permittee to ease the regulations now in effect for agriculturally zoned property, it does not appear that the action of that group or any subsequent Planning Agency action would occur in the near term that might provide the regulatory relief that the July 15, 20303 Board of supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2059-88 Page 9 permittee is seeking. • Approval of the land use permit amendment application would not be sufficient to address all of the noncompliance points with the existing land use permit,or resolve code compliance points associated with building and health code permits. • While the A-2 zoning allows a single-family residence as a permitted use, mobile homes are subject to special regulation under the Mobile home Ordinance. If the existing caretaker unit is intended as the single-family residence on the property, it must still comply with structural(e.g., permanent foundation)and design regulations if it is intended to be kept there on a permanent basis. Otherwise, the ordinance would allow a caretaker unit provided it met certain code criteria, subject to a land use permit, and only on a temporary basis. The office trailer mobile home would have to comply with the uniform building code including provision for access for the disabled. CONCLUSION The boat storage business is an appropriate and needed business for this site. Staff would much prefer to support the completion of the original project as it was approved. However, the permittee seems unwilling to accept the limitations of the zoning and the permit requirements that have been imposed on his operation. Father than comply with the Ordinance Code and the land use permit, he has established the business in the manner that he originally proposed. He has not obtained permits from County agencies before establishing activities that are subject to permit procedures. Even though the loss of boat storage may adversely affect the property owner and create similar adverse effects on the community, it would not be appropriate to allow the operation to continue in violation to the County Ordinance. If the permittee is willing to commit to amend his past practice; modify the operation to fully comply with Ordinance Code requirements including obtaining the necessary permits and fully complying with those permits within a reasonable period of time, then it might be reasonable to allow further consideration of allowing the operation to remain. However, the permittee has not been willing to make that commitment to date. In this situation,the Planning Commission's decisions should be sustained and the permittee's appeal denied. The matter should be referred to the Building Inspection Director for appropriate code compliance action. This would involve the removal of at least some stored vehicles and equipment and some structures, and activities to establish code compliance. Presumably if the permittee's cooperation in this effort was not forthcoming, then the County would initiate abatement actions to force the removal of the structures and activities. It is staff's understanding that the County would also be able to place a lien on the property to recover the cost of any abatement action. POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTIONS If the Board is not satisfied with the staff recommendation, there are a range of possible alternative actions it could consider. July 15, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of ECRPC Revocation of Boat Storage Land Use Permit File#2059-88 Page 10 Grant Appeal, Approve Land Use Permit Amendment Application If the Board were satisfied that the zoning regulations permit the storage of non-boat recreational vehicles on the property, then the Board could grant the permittee's appeal, reverse the revocation action, and approve the land use permit. Again, it should be noted, that these actions would not be sufficient to resolve a number of code compliance points dealing with the existing permit and the requirements of other ordinances. Alternatives Where the Board Concludes that There is Cause for Revocation of the Land Use Permit Should the Board determine that cause exists for revocation, Section 26-2.2028 of the Ordinance Code identifies several other alternatives that could be considered. The Board could order: • Additional terms, limitations, or conditions. This would not seem appropriate because it does not provide any certainty that it will cause the permittee to comply with the land use permit. • A specified probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements. Provided that the permittee signaled his willingness to fully comply as stated above, the Board could order a revocation of the land use permit and direct staff to proceed with code compliance/abatement procedures unless the permittee showed full compliance with Ordinance Code requirements within a stated probationary period of time (e.g., 180 days). That might allow sufficient time to process a thoughtfully considered amendment to the existing land use permit that staff might be able to support. In the absence of a positive signal from the permittee, the County might give false encouragement and additional cost expenditure to the permittee that would inevitably lead to an abatement action. • A future review at a time specified. G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\2059-88.bo.doc RD\ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION Resolution No. 22-2003 East County Regional Planning Commission RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO DETERMINE WHETHER CAUSE EXISTS TO REVOKE A LAND USE PERMIT (County File #2059-88) FOR A BOAT STORAGE FACILITY, AND RELATIVE TO AN APPLICATION PROPOSING TO AMEND THAT LAND USE PERMIT TO EXPAND THE RANGE OF PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES (County File #LP992063), IN THE BRENTWOOD AREA (William Reddick, Permittee, Applicant& Owner) In June of 1988, the applicant, William Reddick, applied for a land use permit with the Contra Costa County Community Development Department to allow the operation of a boat storage facility and recreational vehicle parking on a site located on the south side of Orwood Road in the Brentwood area that is designated Agricultural Land in the General Plan and zoned General Agricultural, A-2, County File#2059-88. On September 19, 1988, a noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Zoning Administrator, testimony was accepted, and the Zoning Administrator approved the operation of a boat storage facility. The request for storage of recreational vehicles on site was denied because the use is not allowable under the General Agricultural zoning district. Instead,the approval was conditioned to specifically not allow any use beyond that of open boat storage. The applicant timely filed an appeal on the Zoning Administrator's decision seeking modification of the approval to allow for storage of recreational vehicles. On October 10, 1988, after notice was issued as required by law, the East County Regional Planning Commission heard the appeal of the applicant. After taking testimony,the Planning Commission voted to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and denied the applicant's appeal. The applicant timely filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on his appeal of the Zoning Administrator approval. On December 13, 1988, after legal notice having been issued as required by law, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing on the applicant's appeal. After taking testimony,the Board unanimously voted to sustain the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission and to deny the appeal of the applicant. The Board also directed staff to initiate an investigation of alleged violations of zoning regulations relative to the parking of recreational vehicles. On January 30, 1997, after receiving a code compliance complaint,the Property Conservation Division of the Building Inspection Department investigated the site and posted a Notice to Comply on the site relative to unauthorized storage and occupancy of Resolution No. 22-21103 Rust County Regional Planning Commission mobilehomes and trailers on the property. After staff determined that the applicant had still not modified site conditions to comply with the Ordinance Code,on March 4, 1999, the wilding Inspection Department issued another Notice to Comply to the property owner. On August 3, 1999, the permittee filed an application with the Community Development Department, File#LP992063, seeking to amend the existing land use permit to expand its provisions to allow the use of enclosed storage structures, an office trailer, and a temporary caretaker mobilehome unit(existing use already established without permits). On September 24 and November 12, 1999, staff issued to the permittee Notices of Incomplete Land Use Permit application, identifying the additional information that would be required before staff could accept the application as complete for processing purposes, including items needed to confirm compliance with the terms of the existing land use permit. On January 12,2000,the Community Development Department issued to the permittee a Notice of Violation of Land Use Permit File#2059-88 which had authorized approval of a boat storage yard, subject to conditions. The notice requested immediate submittal of documentation for evidence of compliance with the land use permit. In a letter dated received by the Community Development Department, January 25, 2000, the permitee responded to the Notice of Violation letter; said letter was adjudged by staff not to be responsive to the violations cited in the January 10, 2000 letter from the Department, and leading staff to conclude that there is cause to consider revocation of the 1988 land use permit. On May 1, 2000, after notice having been issued as required by law, a hearing was scheduled before the East County Regional Planning Commission to (1) determine whether cause exists to revoke land use permit File#2059.88; and(2) on the proposed modification to the land use permit, File#LP992063. After issuance of the hearing notice, the hearing was rescheduled to the next Planning Commission meeting on June 5, 2000 due to the absence of a quorum. Prior to the June 5, 2000, staff received a request from the permittee to allow an opportunity to meet with staff prior to a hearing before the Planning Commission;the Commission's June 5,2000 hearing was subsequently rescheduled to the July 10, 2000 meeting, and again from the July 10, 2000 meeting to the September 11, 2000 Commission meeting. On September 7, 2000, the permittee submitted a letter to the Community Development Department concerning the status of the land use permit, which meeting was subsequently cancelled. On October 2,2000, after notice was issued as required by law, a hearing was held before the East County Regional Planning Commission to (1) determine whether Page 2 _. ......... Resolution No. 22-2003 East County Regional Planning Commission cause exists to revoke land use permit File#2059-88; and(2)on the proposed modification to the land use permit, File#LP992063; at which time the hearing was continued to November 6, 2000, and thence continued to December 4, 2004, and thence continued to January 8, 2001, at which time the matter was continued to February 5, 2001 and thence, continued to June 11, 2001, which was subsequently determined to be the incorrect June meeting date (the correct date for June,was June 4, 2001); for the June 4, 2001 hearing,the matter was again noticed as required by law, at the June 4, 2401 hearing the matter was again continued to the July 9, 2001 meeting of the Commission. At the July 9, 2001 meeting,the Planning Commission scheduled a field trip to view the site for September 18, 2001, and otherwise continued the matter to the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 2001. During the period that this item was being heard, the applicant testified on the economic hardship of allowing for an economically viable operation subsisting on boat storage alone, and sought assistance in broadening the range of commercial activity(i.e., storage of recreational vehicles and trailers)that could be considered in the Agricultural Lands designation and General Agricultural zoning district. In response to this issue and other agricultural viability concerns, staff informed the applicant and the Planning Commission that the Board of Supervisors would be reconstituting the Agricultural Task Force to make recommendations to the Board on suitable measures to enhance the viability of agricultural protection policies. In a letter dated February 5,2001 to the District V Supervisor(Supervisor Glover),the Chairman of the East County Regional Planning Commission expressed concern about restrictions on the range of land uses that were allowable on agriculturally zoned property, and requested that the Board of Supervisors reconstitute the Agricultural Task Force with a task of reviewing existing regulations affecting these properties to better assure their economic viability. In a letter dated March 10, 2001,the Community Development Department informed the permittee that in addition to the zoning permit and building code violations determined by County staff that apply to his property,the Health Services.Department has also determined that the activities violate the Health Code, and that the permittee was advised to contact the Health Services Department and then to contact Community Development Department staff on actions that would lead to compliance with the Health Code. In a letter dated July 25, 2001, the Community Development Department provided a Notice of Violation--Supplement to the permittee augmenting the original January 10, 2000 Notice of Violation and providing citations of violations of the plumbing, electrical, and building, zoning codes as itemized in a July 23, 2003 memorandum from the Building Inspection Department, and code violation for individual sewage disposal system as described in a July 18, 2001 letter from the Health Services Department. On September 18, 2041, the Planning Commission conducted a field trip to the site that was also attended by representatives of the Public Works,Health Services, Building Inspection and Community Development Departments. Page 3 Resolution No. 22-211113 .Last County Regional Planning Commission On October 8, 2001, the Commission continued the matter to its December 3, 2001 meeting; the matter was subsequently continued to the Planning Commission January 14, 2002 meeting. The Commission attempted without success to persuade the applicant to modify his operation to limit the storage of vehicles to those permitted by his land use permit (while allowing the future potential for recreational vehicles should the County amend provisions in the Ordinance Code). The applicant responded by indicating that he felt that accepting these limits would place his business at a competitive disadvantage with nearby businesses. He also asserted(without concurrence from either the Commission or staff)that storage of recreational vehicles was allowed under another provision of the A-2 district that allows the commercial recreational facilities when the principal use is not in a building. The East County Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter. Commissioner Harper commented that a boat storage business in this area serves a need and purpose. However, setting aside the question of whether recreational vehicles should be allowed on the site,he was concerned with other vehicles on the site that should not be allowed in any case including a doublewide trailer, inoperable vehicles (some with flat tires), deteriorated trailers. The smaller structures were not a concern to him as long as they were a size that does not require a building permit; however,he was concened with one larger building containing an exercise room that appears to be larger than 120 square feet in floor area, and therefore subject to a building permit requirement. He indicated that he did not want staff or the Commission to put in any more time in the review of this matter, and indicated that a timeline may be appropriate to require code compliance. Commissioner bell indicated that he was informed that the applicant had obtained a permit for a well providing domestic water on the site,but that the applicant had not fully complied with the terms of that permit in that he had not installed a slab of concrete around the well hole, and that the applicant should fully comply with that permit. Chairman MacVittie expressed concern with continued storage of vehicles that are not permitted on the site (e.g., mobilehome, tractor trailer, inoperable vehicles). RESOLVED, that the East County Regional Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa finds that there has been: • Continued violation of the terms, limitations, and conditions of the land use permit after notice of violation has been issued; that the applicant continues to store non-authorized vehicles on the property; and Page 4 Resolution No. 22-2003 East County Regional Planning Commission • Violation of the requirements of the code relating to the premises and authorized activities that have been established. The Planning Commission also finds that the correspondence submitted by the applicant following issuance of the Notice of Violation does not provide adequate measures for assuring compliance with the land use permit within a reasonable period of time. The Planning Commission also finds that not all of the required findings provided under Ordinance Code Section 26-2.2008 for granting the requested amendment to the existing land use permit can be made, including the following. 1. Required Code Finding— The proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. Commission Finding—The applicant has made improvements to the property without obtaining and fully complying with necessary construction permits including but not necessarily limited to building, plumbing, electrical, and individual sewage disposal system Ordinance Code requirements. 2. Required Code Finding— The proposed conditional land use shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Commission Finding—The existing operation has been an enforcement problem for the County going back to at least 1988,when the Board of Supervisors directed staff to initiate a code compliance investigation because the applicant had initiated storage of recreational vehicles on the property contrary to provisions of the zoning ordinance. At the recent Planning Commission hearing,the applicant testified that he was not willing to remove from the site unauthorized vehicles that were present at the time of the Commission decision. Granting an application to allow an amendment to the existing land use permit to allow expanded use of this property may encourage the applicant to continue violations of permit and County Code that have characterized this site since at least 1988. The Planning Commission therefore REVOKES land use permit File#2059-88 and requests staff to undertake appropriate code enforcement action to eliminate all uses (including structures and vehicles) from the property except those that are otherwise permitted by Ordinance; staff is also requested to undertake appropriate code enforcement action to eliminate all off-site uses (e.g., signs)related to the business which are not permitted by the Ordinance. Page 5 _: . Resolution No. 22-2003 East County Regional Planning Commission The Planning Commission also DENIES land use permit application File #LP992063 because the proposed storage of items other than boats are not allowable by the zoning or by the general plan. The decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission was rendered on January 14, 2002,by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners—Ashe,MacVittie, Day, and Dell. NOES: Commissioners—None. ABSENT: Commissioners—None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners—Harper. WALTER MacVITTIE, Chairman East County Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California I,Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on January 14, 2002. ATTEST: ..-,y7,'-DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP, Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California G:\Current Planning\cusr-plan\Resolutions\2059-88.res.doe ISD\ Page 6 ZONING MAP AND A-2 ZONING DISTRICT \ ! Km cu r mug I i4 N .�.� (l Cn� 22 ON 1 il11I a -It � i It I � a ,wrrwar ,Q w W a Ji� 3 a Ya 2i3'iXtB t � a co LZN Lzl 43-Nt .n► tY. iE�.IY Y ,.V #g�' N x ;v 'b h 1 $ PIR y i �• S G I [y 0 CL Tnj to { .41 4 sz oc avolA ^i: P 84-36.1002-•--84-38.402 ZONING Article 84-36.10 Article $4-38.6 Lots y Yards Sections: 84-38.608 Lot area, width and depth. 84- .1002 Yard — Side. 'Dere shall e an 84-38.610 Existing legal lots excepted_ aggreg side yard width of at least thirty- e feet. Article 84-38.8 wilding Height No side arils shall be less than fifteen: t wide. Sections: These mi ' a may be reduced to three eet for an 84--38.802 Building height--Maximum. accessary ding or structure if it i set back at Article 84-38.10 Yards least sixty- e feet from the front pr rty line.No Sections: barns, stable aplanes, aviaries, or Cher buildings 84-38.1002 Yard--Side. or structures d to house liv tack, grain.-fed 84-38.1004 Yard--Setback- rodents, bees, ds, o/awenty all be located in 84.38.1006 Yard—Rear. this district ne r that to the boundary Article 84-38.12 Land Use and Variance Permits line of any resicdie¢tial district. (Ord. 1569: Sections: prior code § 8155` : ). 84--38.12012 Land use and variance permit— Granting. ermit Granting. 84-36.1004 Y "d ack. There shall be setback (front yard} t twenty-five feet for Article 84-38.2 any structure in the ict except on corner Ge�aeral lots, where the princtage of the lot shall have a setback of at Inty-five feet and the 8438.202 General provisions. All of the land other setback shall twenty feet (Ord lying witluin an A-2 general agricultural district may 1569: prior code § As��.Iord. 1406), be used far any of thee following uses, under the following regulations set forth in this chapter.( `3rd. 84-36.1006 �/rd—Rear.Rear yard provisions 1569: Ord 1555: prior cede § 8156 (part): Ord. for the A-1 di ct shall be itue same as those for 1406). the R-6 distri (sews 8 .1006). (Ord. 1569: prior code § 55(i):`Gird. 1 Article 84.38.4 Uses Article 84-36.1 L nd Use and `Srariance errnits 84-38.4€2 Permitted.Uses permitted in the A-2 district shall be as follows: 84-36 202 Land use and vari ce permit— (1) All types of agriculture, including general Grand g. Land use permits for thyXsjal uses farming, horticulture, floriculture, nurseries and enume ated in Section 8436.4134 andi per- greenhouses, mushroom roams, dairying, livestock mits modify the provisions conta:inions production,fur farms,poultry raising,animal breed- 84-3 .6012. through 84-36.1006 may d in ing,aviaries, apiaries,forestry, and similar agricul- a dance with Chapter 82-6. (Ord. 1569: prior Lural uses; co § 81550): Ord. 1406). (2) Other ax*ricultural uses,including the erection and maintenance of sheds, warehouses, graruaries, dehydration plants,hullers,fruit and vegetable pack- Chapter 84-38 ing plants, and agricultural cold storage plants on parcels at least ten acres in size and buildings for A-2 GENERAL AGRICULTLTRAL DISTRICT the storage of agricultural products and equipment; (3) A stand not exceeding two hundred square Article 84-38.2 General feet for sale of agricultural products ,grown on the Sections: premises. The stand shall be set back at least twen- 84-38.202 General provisions. ty-five feet from the front property line; Article. $438.4 Uses (4) A detached single-family dwelling on each Sections: parcel and the accessory structures and uses normal- 84-38.432. Permitted. ly auxiliary to it; 84-38.434 Tries with land use permit. (5) Poster home or family care home operated 84-38.406 Uses---Refuse disposal site---Permit by a public agency, or by a private agency which required. (couur coazcocpty 10.94) 334 A-2 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DlSTR1CT 84-38.404---34.38.1006 has obtained state or local approval(License)for the Article 84-38.6 proposed operation,where not more than six minors Lots reside on the premises with not more than two su- pervisory persons. 84-38.608 Lot area, width and depth.Except (6) A family day care home where care,protec- as provided in Section 84-38.610, uses allowable tion and supervision of twelve or fewer children in under Article 84-38.4 are allowable only on lots the provider's own home are provided for periods which equal or exceed all of the following: five of less than twenty-four hours per day, while the acres in arca, two hundred fifty feet average width, parents or guardians are away.(Orris.94-28§2,86- and two hundred foot depth. (Ord. 73-86 § 1 (part), 43 § 13, 68-25 § 2, 1968, 1569, 1555, 1535: prior 1973). code § 8156(x): Ord.. 144)6), 84-38.610 Existing legal lots excepted. Any 84-38.404 Uses with land use permit. The single lot legally created in an A.-2 district before following uses are allowable on the issuance of a November 29, 1973, at least forty thousand square land use permit feet in area may be used as provided in Article 84- (1) Allowable uses designated in. Section. 84-- 38.4. (Ord. 73-86 § 1 (part), 1973). 36.404; (2) Merchandising of agricultural supplies and Article 84-38.8 services incidental to an agricultural use; Building .Height (3) Canneries,wineries and processing of agri- cultural products and buildings for the storage of 8438.802 Building height -- Mmdmurn. agricultural products on parcels less than ten acres Building height provisions for the A-2 district shall in size; be the same as those for the A-1 district. (Section (4) Slaughterhouses and stockyards; 84-36.802). (Ord.. 1569: Ord. 1555: prior code § (5) Rendering plants and fertilizer plants or 8156(f): Ord. 1406). yards; (6) Livestock auction or sales yards; Article 8438.10 (7) Living accommodations for agricultural Yards workers to be primarily used for temporary housing of agricultural workers while performing seasonal 84-38.10412 Yard. --- Side. There shall be an agricultural work on the owner's property; aggregate side yard width of at least forty feet. No (8) Commercial recreational facilities when the side yards shall be less than twenty feet in width.. principal.use is not in a building; No barns, stables, apiaries, aviaries, or other build- * (9) . Boat storage areas within one mile by public Ings or structures used to house livestock,grain-fed Broad of a boat laimching facility open to the public; rodents, bees, birds, or poultry shall be located in (10) Retail firewood sales, the A-2 district nearer than fifty feet to the boundary (11) Recycling operations intended to sort and/or line of any residential land use district. (Ord. 1569: process material for reuse except for those activities Ord. 1555: prior code § 8156(g): Ord.. 1406). described.in Section 88-4.206; (12) Museums in which objects of historical, 84381004 Yarn -- Setback,. Setback (front artistic, scientific or cultural importance are pre- yard) provisions for the A-2 district shalt be the served and displayed. (Ords. 94-28 § 2, 8946 § 2, same as those for the A-1 district (84-36.1004)- 76-36 § 3, 7437 § 2, 60-82, 1988, 1569 § 2: prior (Orsi 1569: Ord. 1555: prior code § 8156(h): Ord_ code § 8156(b): Orris. 1406§ 3,497 §4, 382§4E). 1406). 84-38.406 Uses — Refuse disposal site -- 84-38.1006 Yard.---Rear.1here shall be arm I"ermit required.Rtf=disposal sites are perutitt d yard of at least fifteen feet for any structure. (Ord. in the A-2 district upon the issuance of a permit 1569: Ord.. 1555: prior code § 8156(i): Ord. 1406). under the previsions of Chapter 418-4. (Ord.72-89 § 2, 1972). RECEIVED o. 335 (Contm c�Coumy 10-9A) t 1_ 84-38.1202---84-40.604 ZONING Article 84-38.12 Article 8440.4 Land Use and Variance Permits Uses 84-38.1202 Land use and variance permit-:-- 84-40. 2 Uses•---Permitted. Uses 'tom Granting. Land use permits for the special uses in the A-3 'strict shall be as follows! enumerated.in Section 84-38.404 and variance per- (1) All e uses designated for the.lei district wits to modify the provisions contained in Sections in Section 38.402 except for the dele ori of"A 84-38.602 through 84-38.1406 may be granted in detached si le-family dwelling on eacu��lot, etc.,,; accordance with Chapter 82.-6. (Ord. 1569: Ord. (2) hest ence of the owner, own lessee, or 1555: prior code § 81560): Ord. 1406). lessor of the land on which the use ' conducted. (Ord. 1569: rd. 1535; prior code § A57(a): Card. 1241). i Chapter 84-40 l 84-40.404 `Uses with land use ' rmit.(a)In an A-3 HE VY AGRICULTURA DISTRICT A-3 district, a and use permit may allow the fol- lowing uses. Article .2 General (b) Allowat e uses are tho listed. in Section Sections: 84-36.404(b). Ail 8440.2 General pro inions. (c) Other all wable usesi are those listed in Article 8440. Uses Section 84-38.404 xcept lives./ck auction and sales Sections: r yards. ;E 84-40.402 User P tied (d) Other allo able uses are. 84-40.404 Uses land use permit. (1) Single-faarni o tw's -family dwellings for 84-40.406 tTses-- efuse disposal site-- member of the f "ly within the third degree of ermit%rerluixed consanguinity; Article 84-40.6 L is ;jf (2) Processing o aAk not produced on the Sections: premises, (Ords. 94- �3, 74-37 § 3, 15,69 § 24, 84-40.602. �Are� 1535 § 4; prior code § 8157(b): Ords. 1241 § 2 84-40.604 Lo idth [382 § 4()Q]). 8444:60 Lo Ilepth. Article 84-4U.8 Brd di i Height 84-40.406 Uses -- Refuse disposal site -� Sections. Permit required.ReL disposal sites are permitted 84-40.802 Buildin height--max mum. in the A-3 districttn* issuance of a permit Article 84-40.10 ands ' under the provisiolaapter 418-4. (Ord.72-89 Sections: § 3, 1972). 84-40.1002Yard- Si e. 8440.1()()4 Yard--Se ack. ' rticle 8 .6 84-44.1006 Yard—Re Lo Article 84-40. Laird Use an Variance Permits' Sections: 84-40.602 of o--Area.• o agricultur-al pursuit 84-40.12 Land use and once permit shall be permi and no cture permitted.in the Granting. Aga district Mall be erecte or placed on a lot smaller than n acres, excep that poultry raising, Article 84-40.2 raising of "n-fed rodents, . farming, green- General houses and ,urseries, mushroo s rooms,fur farms, aviaries, apiaries m.ay be rmitted on a lot at 84-40.2 2. General provisions.All and within least two d one-half acres i area.. (Ord. 1569: an A-3 h vy agricultural district may used for prior cod § 8157(c): Ord- 1241 . any of th following uses,under the folio `ng regu- lations s t forth in this chapter. (Ord. 15 : prior 84-�40. 04� Lot--Width.N agricultrzral pur- code § 57 (part): Ord. 1241.). suit steal be permitted and no stru e permitted in the A-3 'strict shall be erected o placed on a lot less th one hundred forty feet in verage width. (Ord. 1559: prior code § 8157(d): d_ 12.41). (C.cAua costa County is-sa) 336 NOTICES TO COMPLY AND NOTICES OF VIOLATION a. 1997 BID Notice to Comply b. 1999 BID Notice to Comply c. 2000 CDD Notice of Violat%on d. 2001 CDD Supplemental Notice of Violation Building Inspection Department Cc�I�ttr�. .. PROPERTY CONSERVATION DIVISION � t���c'� NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION PROGRAM 651 Fine street,4th Floor County / Martinez,California 94553-0152 PCD 510 335-1 ill NPP (510)335-1137 FAX (510)646-4450 lanuary 30, 1997 Vbliam Reddick It 1 Box 84 A 3rentwood CA ;ITE: 40191 Otwood Road, Knightsen CA CPN: 015-270-004 IEF: RF970061 )ear Property Owner, his is to advise you that on January 24, 1997, the fallowing was issued Involving the above described property: NOTICE TO COMPLY X STOP WORK )r failure to comply with the requirements regarding installation of mobilehom%and accessory buildings constructed without ermit. he following permits are required: BUILDING X ELECTRICAL_X PLUMBING X HEATiNGfVENTILATING._ GRADING LAND USE X VARIANCE_, MOBILEHOME SET-UP X ne following department approvals are required: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT X HEALTH DEPARTMENT X SANITARY DISTRICT X FIRE DEPARTMENT X OTHER Is necessary that you apply for the building permit within the next 30 days and make arrangement to clear the above 3mplaint. If you do not apply and receive your building permit within 30 days, a code enforcement fee shall be charged fual to two times the amount of all permit fees required with a minimum of$100.00. If a repeat site visit Is required because 3 permits have been taken out a $25.00 reinspection fee per trip will be charged. The fees are additive to the building 3rmit fees. Aure to comply with this notice within 30 days shall cause this office to take further action, e.g.; 1. Record "Notice of Abatement". 2. Refer to County.Counsel for legal action --court-appearance. 3. Issue a Citation - court appearance, penalties and fines. 4. Obtain abatement order- public hearing before the Board of Supervisors -costs billed to owner. x further information concerning the above, you may contact me at 335-1138 any workday between 6:30 and 10:00am. ur offices are closed the first, third and fifth Fridays of every month. ncerely, / 3 Omenn k�`t,i�, gilding Inspector 11 s l i PR OPERTY CONSERVATION tXVISIONON Otto-OR NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION PROG AM 0S a Director of Sutidtng Inapt JL 651 Fine Street,4th Floor u m/ Martinez,California 94553-0152 _ POD {925} 335-1111 NPP (925) 335-1137 FAX (925) 646-445E7 `-- sTA.e-U March 4, 1999 William Reddick Rt . 1 Box 84A ! Brentwood, CA 94513 C(DPY SITE: 4091 Orwood Rd. , Knightsen A.PN: 015-2701-0104 REF: RF970061 NO'T'ICE TO COMPLY You are hereby notified this department has observed your property at the above location and determined it is apparently in violation of the Centra Costa. County Zoning or Building ordinance Cade for the following reason/s : Violation Dgegc . -rinti-on- and County -Ordiaanae- Code Section 1 . Land Use CC ORI} 82-2 . 006 2 . Building code CC ORD 74-1.002 You are hereby notified to clear the above violation/s. Corrective Ac t iQn 1. Apply for and obtain land use and building permits It is necessary that you apply for the building/zoning permit within the next ten days and make arrangements to clear the above complaint. If you do not apply and receive your building permit within ten days. A code enforcement fee shall be charmed equal to two times the amount of all permit fees required with a minimum -of $100.00- A fee of $25.00 per grip will be charged until compliance is met The fees are additive to the building permit fees. Failure to comply with this notice shall cause this office to tape one or more of the following action/s : Record "Notice of Violation." on property records Refer to County Counsel/City Attorney for legal action - court appearance Issata a Citation - court ea. Notify the Franchise Tax Board (on rental units declared svbstandaa=d) . Obtain abatement order - All costs plus administrative fleas billed to owner I may be ruched at (325) 335-1128 any workday between 8 :00 and 10 : 00 am. Our offices are closed the first, third and fifth Fridays of every month. _ _ -- Sincerely, Frk +lark VanB s Building Inspector I MV:cw4 NOTICE TO COMPLY.2ndiir Bar Community Contra Community Dennis t Deve ACCP y Development Director Development Cost. Departmentsur LI-y. County Administration Building 651 Pine Street ' 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone. (925) 335-1214 July 25, 2001 William Reddick 4091-A Orwood Road Brentwood, CA 94513 Dear Mr. Reddick: Re: Notice of Violation—Supplement Notice of Planning Commission Field Trip to Inspect Site #4091 Orwood Road, Brentwood Assessor's Parcel Number 415-270-004 County File#2059-88 & #L,P992063 As you will recall, on July 9, 2001, the East County Regional Planning Commission continued the hearings on(1)whether cause exists to revoke your boat storage land use permit, County File#2059-88, and (2) on your request to amend that land use permit, File #LP992063, to the October 8, 20011 Commission meeting. Previously Issued Notice of Violation In a letter dated January 10, 2000(attached), our office issued a Notice of Violation to you that cited violations of a land use permit for a boat storage yard that the County had granted to you, County File#2059-88 (attached). New Citations of Code Violations Attached are two additional memoranda from two other County agencies indicating that they have reviewed the above captioned property and determined that the property is in violation of the ordinances that those agencies respectively administer. The Building Inspection Department in a memorandum dated July 23, 2001 indicates that the site is in violation of a number of provisions of both the Uniform Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance,the Health Services Department indicates that the site is in violation of the County Health Code(prior written approval of individual sewage disposal system) in a memorandum dated July 23, 2001. Office Hours Monday -Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5-.00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month This is to inform you that staff is augmenting the previous Notice of Violation to include the Ordinance Code violations cited in the memoranda from both the Building Inspection and Health Services Departments. Planning Commission Field Trip to Inspect Site The Planning Commission has scheduled a field trip to inspect your property on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. Staff will also be present to review circumstances with the Commission. Should you have any questions,please call me at(925) 335-1214. Sincerely, - 6 'r --. ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. 1/10/00 Notice of Violation Issued by the Community Development Dept. 7/18/01 Health Services Dept. memo 7/23/01 Building Inspection Dept. memo cc: Members, East County Regional Planning Commission Public Works Dept., Jerry Fahy Health Services Department, Env. Health Div., Salvador Ruiz Building Insp. Dept., Lou Reinthaler File WA2059-88.Itr RD\ 2 .✓ommunitCol I ra DennisM. Berry,A1C Community Development Director Development osta Depail lent Coun� County Administration Building E 651 Pine Street ,X 4th Floor,North Wing - Mar#inez, tor 1 -0095 Phone: ��SA CC}liYr January 10, 2000 William Reddick 4091-A Orwood Road Brentwood, CA 94513 Dear Mr. Reddick: RE: Notice of Violation of Land Use Permit Request for Immediate Submittal of Documentation of Permit Compliance County File 42059-88 In December of 1988, in response to your appeal of the decision of the Fast County Regional Planning Commission attaching restrictions to the approval of your land use permit application for an open boat storage, the Board of Supervisors approved your land use permit. In so doing,the Board denied your appeal of the restrictions which had been imposed by the Planning Commission. Under the approval of this boat storage land use permit, a number of conditions of approval require compliance. Through staffs review and conversations «Pith you of your recent application seeking to amend the 1988 land use permit, County File#LP992063,staff is unable to find evidence that a number of conditions of the 1988 permit have been satisfied. Attached is a marked copy of the approved permit. The markings identify the conditions for which staff can find no evidence of compliance. Staff has determined that the following conditions of approval for File 42059-88 have not been complied with: • Condition 2 requiring the submittal and approval by the Zoning Administrator of a landscaping plan. + Condition 9A requiring conformance with division 914 or the Ordinance. + Condition 9B requiring the execution of a deferred improvement agreement for compliance with division 1006. • Condition 9C requiring the construction of pavement widening along Orwood Road. • Condition 91) requiring the relocation of the entry gate to a point at least 20-feet south of the widened Orwood Road right of way. + Condition 9E requiring the observance of a 55-foot structure setback from the southerly line of the property. • Condition 9G requiring compliance with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the County Wide Area of Benefit. • Condition 9H requiring the applicant to furnish proof to the acquisition of all necessary right of entry, permits and/or other easement for the construction of off-site,temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. Office Hours Monday Frday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd &5th Fridays of each month • Condition 91 requiring the submittal and approval of improvement plans to the Public Works Department. • Additional,condition of approval#5 and 46 specifically state that that any use above and beyond the use of an open boat storage facility is not allowed under the permit approval. Also attached is a memorandum dated September 24, 1999 from the Public Works Department also indicating that that Department has no evidence that conditions from the above permit have been satisfied. Therefore, this is to serve notice of violation of the above Land Use Permit. RAuest for Immediate Submittal of Evidence Documenting Compliance with Existing Land Use Pernut At your earliest opportunity please provide this Department with evidence of full compliance with the conditions of this land use permit. Your submittal will need to include evidence(e.g,memo) from the Public Works Department that you have satisfied all of Condition 49. When you are ready to submit the information, please call me at 335-1214 to make an appointment so that l might personally receive it. Please note that should we fail to receive the above specified information by 5:00 p.m., Thursday, January 27, 2000,and based on continued violation of the conditions of the permit, staff will schedule a hearing before the Zoning Administrator to determine if cause exists to revoke Land Use Permit Pile #2059-88 pursuant to Sections 26-2.2022 and 26-2.2024 of the Ordinance Code. Should you have any questions or wish to make an appointment,please call me at (925) 335-1214. Should you wish to review this matter with a staff person for the Public Works Department, l would refer you to Mr. Steve Wright who can be reached at(925) 313-2259. Sincerely, ROBERT4. DRAKE Principal Planner Att: 12/13/88 Board of Supervisors Approval of Land Use Permit#2059-88 9/24199 Memo from the Public Works Department CC: LP992063 Building Inspection Department Mickie Perez Jaime Perez Steve Wright, Public Warks Jennifer Peterson,Community Development . T.6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon Contra Director of Community Development Costa DATE: November 14, 1988 coily SUBJECT: Appeal filed by William M. Reddick, Applicant and Owner, of hand Us Permit 2059-88, to establish a dry boat storage business onl-a 2.45 acre site fronting 206 feet on the south side of Orwood Road approximately 396 feet east of Bixler Road in the Brentwood area: SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACK 55UND ANY) JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS' 1. Accept the environmental documentation as adequate. 2. Deny the appeal of William Reddick and sustain the decision of the East County Regional Planning "Commission to approve hand Use Permit #2059-88 with conditions hereto attached. BACKGROUND This application was filed on June 8, 1988. Can September 19, 1988, the Zoning Administrator approved Land Use Permit 2059-88 subject to conditions of approval. The applicant appealed Conditions #5 and #6 which allowed for boat storage only. Conditions read as follows: 5. No outdoor storage of materials other than boats shall be allowed. 6. This permit is for open boat storage only. No boat repair or maintenance is allowed. No recreational vehicles or automobiles may be stored on the site. A new Land Use Permit would have to be approved to allow for covered boat storage. On October 10, 1988, the East County Regional Planning Commission, after taking testimony, denied Mr. Reddick's appeal and sustained the Zoning Administrator's decision. The property is zoned A-2, which explicitly allows for the storage of boats provided that the site is within one mile by public roads of a boat launching facility open to the public. Other types of storage are not stated, therefore are not expressly permitted with a land use permit. Other districts including General commercial, Light Industry and Heavy Industry specifically allow storage of recreational vehicles, automobiles and commercial vehicles w t'h an approved development plan or land use permit, It Was the finding of both the Regional Planning Cor=ission and the Zoning Administrator that this:.use-is not permitted in the existing general agricultural zoning district. CONTINUED ON ATTACH: YES SIGNATURE.- RRCCENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEKDATTW OF APPROVE OTfiER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 13, 1988 APPROVED AS RRCOM F.Y3 x CaEo This being the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Berard of Supervisors for hearing on the above matter, Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report and recommendations. At the request of Supervisor Torla.kson, Mr. Wandry elaborated on the staff position and recreational vehicle storage and boat storage. The public hearing was opened and the following person spokes Mr. William M. Reddick, Rt. 1, Box 84=A, Brentwood, appellant, spoke on his appeal of conditions five and six, parking of recreational vehicles, presented a copy of an ad by the Long Way To Go Ranch, and requested fair treatment from the Board relative to parking vehicles as well as boats to be able to be competitive and make a living. The public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the matter. On recommendation of Supervisor Torlakson, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recondations 1, and 2 are APPROVED; and Community Development Department is REQUESTED to investigate alleged violations of the zoning regulations relative to the parking of recreational vehicles. VOTE OF SUP13MSORS I H.EMY CERTIFY TEULT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KINUTES OP THE BOARD CIL` SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE :Vii. CC: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED December 13, 1988 William M. Reddick PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK. Of County Counsel "'HE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR-,- Building Inspection AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATO' Public Works-Tom Dudziak � .E � �i ast Diablo Fire Protection Dist. BY� y� A-Z , DEPUT"i 1 AB:plp CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PEPJ41T 2059-88: 1. Development shall be generally as shown on the plot plan submitted with the application and dated June 8, 1988 by the Community Development Department, Development shall be subject to final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Comply with the landscape and irrigation requirements as follows: A. At least 30 days prior to anticipated development on the site, a landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. A cost estimate or copy of contract for landscaping improvements shall be submitted with the plan. Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to rental of any space for boat storage. B. The proposed trees on the site are to be a minimum of 15 gallons in size. The proposed shrubs on the site are to be a minimum of 5 gallons in size. Suitable trees shall be planted along along the frontage of the site on 25' centers. Suitable evergreen bushes shall be planted between the trees. C. The side and rear fence shall be planted with an evergreen, non-invasive vine. Mines shall be planted on 20' centers. D. Drought tolerant and/or native plant species shall be used as much as possible. E. Landscaping must comply with the Contra Costa County Policy on Water Conservation Requirements which controls the amount of turf area, types of plants and irrigation systems. E. The site shall be fenced with a B foot tall cyclone fence with redwood slats. 3. A non-illuminated wood sign with a total area of 32 square feet or less is allowed in front of the fence for site identification. The height of the sign 'shall be 6' or less. The sign may be painted and or be made of carved wood. 4. Any proposed exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties. The Zoning Administrator shall review and approve lighting details prior to development of site if any exterior lights are to be installed. Exterior lights shall be on timers set to be turned off after 10:00 p.m. to daybreak. 5. No outdoor storage of materials other than boats shall be allowed. 5. This 'permit is for open boat storage only. No boat repair or maintenance is allowed. No recreational vehicles or automobiles may be stored on the site. A new Land Use Permit would have to be approved to allow for covered boat 'storage. 7. If archaeological ,materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the t , Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of f the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 8. The driveways and boat storage areas shall be graveled to provide for a low dust-all weather driving surface and boat storage area. /9. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: A. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. This includes the following: 1. Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility. The nearest drainage facility is a drainage facility which drains into Werner Dredger Cut located to the east of this property. Its adequacy must be verified prior to being allowed to discharge run-off to it. 2. The following exceptions to Division 914 are permitted for this project: a. Section 914-2.005, "Surface Water Flowing from Subdivision", provided that the applicant. (1) Maintains the existing drainage pattern and does not dispose concentrated storm waters onto adjacent properties. (2) Does not increase the area of impervious surface on this site. Compacted agrregate gravel will not be considered impervious surface provided that it is not, and will not be, oiled or treated with any substance which will tend to make it impervious. Surfacing or treating this surface to make it impervious will be grounds for revocation of this permit. b. Section 9144.402, "Discharge to Roadside Ditches", provided the applicant verifies the adequacy of the downstream ditch system or constructs necessary improvements to upgrade the system to adequately convey runoff from this property. 3. Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. 4. Prohibits discharging storm waters into any water conveyance or impounding facility for domestic water consumption. B. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the , County Ordinance Code. This includes the following: 1. Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Orwood Road. An exception is permitted from Section 1006-2.402, "Requirements - Generally", provided a deferred improvement agreement is executed requiring the owner(s) of the property involved in Permit 2059-88 to: a. Construct curb, 4-foot 6-inch sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage (including culverting of the ditch along this property's frontage) , and approximately 10 feet of pavement widening on Orwood Road. The face of curb shall be located 10 feet from the widened right of way line. b. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across the sidewalk and driveway. C. At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, submit improvement plans, if required, to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review, pay the inspection fee, plan review fee and applicable lighting fees. C. Construct pavement widening along Orwood Road to provide for turning movements into and out of this property in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department, Road Engineering Division, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Relocate the entry gate to a point at least 20 feet south of the widened Orwood Road right of way line. E. Observe a 55-foot structure setback from the southerly line of this property. F. Install all new utility distribution services underground. G. Comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. M. Furnish proof to the Public Works Oepartment, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. I. Submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to the Public works Department, Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the inspection and plan review fees. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic Engineer. The improvement plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. Engineering Services Division, prior to the issuance of any building permit. The review of improvement ,• plans and payment of all fees shall be completed prior to the clearance of any building for final inspection by the Public Works Department. If final inspection is requested prior to construction of improvements, the applicant shall execute a road improvement agreement with Contra Costa County and post bands required by the agreement to guarantee completion of the work. J. The portion of the dedicated strip of land on this property which is located south of the tlrwood Road right of way may be used for boat storage until it is needed for roadway purposes. The following statement is not a' Condition of Approval , however the applicant should be aware of it prior to development of the site. A. East Diablo Tire Protection District. Comply with their requirements as outlined in their July 14, 1988 letter on LUP #2059-88. AB:vpl LUPXIXja:2059-88.coa r� ?Irx' ,rC'LrC�W J(yn�n>e/v H ika y, t: e� AS ;.Lc �.----- i vii b 4.; >4 Wl 41, _. x r It �ytt 3.ay+�=t+.w,a .a ,.�srr9rtF+..�e'�`t-'m.-•:--�:.�o=�,,"-�^-�- -�'"t`—'-��are.^✓�' t r { �"SCS.(/ /'./'�`.��'� �_ ••1 i r � y Y f7AA i9'!« ....,N-., ,....,�,...-.,. ...,.�.., ,..,T.�•-,sj nr°^ran.r •-,^sem tlrC7 t'.'TC 4ZZA VV4 fIT;QT fJOW RR/Tn/TT !e/z4/;+.y rl%.t Li . LV i'tl<1 JLJ 00.4 4.44r Lids e� �uu� Past-it`Fax Nate 7671 gat/ �y�,� > r+� Fra Ty Phone t P 1 2S PUBLIC;WORKS] Fax x Fax� CONTRA COSI DATE: September 24, 1999 TO: Jennifer Peterson,Project Planner, Community Development FROM: Steven 1. Wright, Associate Civil Engineer,Engineering Services SP SUBJECT: I."ER?AIT 99-2063, ADDITIONAL 30-DAY COMMENTS (Reddick/Orwood Road/Brentwood area/APN 015-270-004) PILE: Permit 99-2063 We have looked into this application farther, and found that the previous application on this site was only for boat storage. The applicant should be informed that he has not complied with the requirements of Permit 88-2059, and that the conditions of approval for Permit 88-2059 restricted use of this property. Public Works recommends that the applicant also be informed, early on, regarding the major concerns with request for expansion of use. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PERMIT 88-2059: It appears that the applicant has never provided substantiation that the following public Works related conditions of approval have ever been complied with.regarding. 9. A. Conformance with Division 914 of the Ordinance, as specified in condition. 9. B. Comply with Division 1006, as-specified in condition. Execute a deferred improvement agreement for the required improvements. 9. C. Construct pavement widening along Orwood Road as specified in condition. 9. D. Relocate the entry gate to a point at least 20-feet south of the widened Orwood Road right of way lane. 9. E. Observe a 55-foot structure setback from the southerly line of this property. 9. P. Install all new utility distribution services underground. 9. G. Comply with the requirements of the Bndgefl horoughfare Pee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit (applicant will now be required to pay the Pee Ordinance for both the County wide Area of Benefit and the Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Fee Area of Benefit fees. 9. H. Furnish proof of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. 9. I. Submit improvement plans. Public Works recommends that a land use permit for additional use of this site only be considered after the applicant has adequately substantiated that the conditions of approval for Permit 99-2063 have been adequately complied with. x9/24139 FRI 12:20 FAX 925 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORKS ,,� �� ,•�.•,. �_ t,rva RESTRICTIONS ON USE, UNDER.PERMIT 88.2059: • Conditions of approval 5 and 6 of the November 14, 1988 conditions of approval, specifically do not allow outdoor storage of materials other than boats, nor do they allow boat repair or maintenance or storage of recreational vehicles, cars or covered boat storage. The applicant had appealed these two conditions of approval, and the appeal was denied by the Board of Supervisors. • Condition of approval 9.A.2 does not allow an increase in the area of impervious surface, or oiling or treating the graveled areas with any substance which will tend to make it impervious. ZONING VIOLATIONS: Since Permit 88-2059 was approved, the applicant has not adequately satisfied the required conditions of approval. Therefore, he is not in compliance. Also, the applicant has placed structures and facilities on this property which are explicitly not permitted with this permit. These structures result in additional impervious surfaces, which is specifically not permitted under Condition of Approval 9.A.2. In addition, it does not appear that the applicant has paid road fees which are required under the Ordinance Code for utilization of these facilities on this site. MAJOR CONCERNS WITH APPROVAL CSF REQUEST FOR E"ANSION OF USE: 1. Compliance with conditions of approval for Permit 88-2059: The applicant should be required to comply with the requirements of the previous permit before Permit 99-2063 is considered. 2. Drainage Concerns: The applicant has been permitted to gravel his property, provided that: he does not increase the area of impervious surface; and, provided that compacted gravel will not be oiled or treated with any substance which will tend to make it impervious. In circler to place, or construct additional impervious surfaces on this site,the applicant should be required to comply with the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance. This will require compliance with the drainage requirements of Division 91.4 of the Ordinance. This may be very costly for a project of this magnitude. The applicant should consider contacting a private registered civil engineer-who is familiar with the County's drainage requirements, to determine if the cost of compliance would be feasible for a project of this magnitude. 3. Road Area. of Benefit Fees: Construction, and/or installation, of the storage units, gym, gazebo, caretaker mobile home and mobile office will require payment of area of benefit fees. The applicant will also be required to pay the area of benefit fees for facilities which have been previously placed on this property, if the area of benefit fees have not previously been paid. The applicant should be aware that the fallowing road fees are presently in effect: • fast County Area of Benefit Fee: Presently$1702 per single family residential structure. J/24/V`l rn� xy.av •rin ucv v .. __ _ _ Presently$1.20 per square foot for commercial. Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit Fee: Presently$5088 per single family residential structure. Presently$0.33 per square foot for commercial. The applicant will be required to pay the single family residential structure rates for each residential unit. The applicant will be required to pay the commercial rate for all other structures on this property. Permit 88-2059 did not provide for any structures on this property. 'These fees will be required for all existing structures, and prier to issuance of a building permit for the structures proposed on this property. 4. lltoad Improvements: The project results in traffic safety impacts since the applicant has not: constructed the required widening of O wood Road in the vicinity of his access paints-, and has not relocated the entry ,gate to at least 20-feet from the Arwood Road right of way line. Permit 88-2059 only permitted one access to this property. Traffic, with trailers, will extend into the roadway area when waiting to enter the closed gate access. This is a traffic safety problem for vehicles approaching this property from the west.. In addition, the applicant is required to provide pavement widening along 4rwood Road snW: CrttCrpl3at�fln�SvaLS�J19A9.Sc�cmbcrV^05399c,dx ccs �T.$s1lanlcr.Enguscering Srarvkcs M.Motmr; incctisg Scxvicce W.14 Rcd"— 4091 4nvood Road..Bmntwwod CA 9+513 PLANNING AGENCY 26-2.2020-26-2.2104 26-2.2020 Variance,conditional use and spe- 26-2.20.28 Variance,conditional use and spe- cial permits—Revocation generally.Conditional tial permits—Revocation hearing— Decision. use, variance and special permits are subject to The agency Bearing the revocation shall make its revocation in the manner and for causes as provided findings and render its decision in writing. `The in Sections 26-2.2022 26-2.2030. (Ord. 1975: decision may order additional terms, limitations or priorcode § 2207: Ord. 917). conditions, a specified probationary period for cor- rection or implementation of new requirements, a 26.2.2022 "Variances conditional use and spe- future review at a time specified, or a.combination curl permits r-- Causes for revocation. A permit of these, or revocation. (Prior code § 22:07.40). may be revoked if the permittee, his successors or assigns, has committed or allowed the commission 262.2030 Variance,conditional use and spo- of any of the following acts relating to the premises, cial permits --- Appeal from revocation., if the or any portion thereof, covered by the permit: permittee is dissatisfied with the decision, he may (1) Continued violation of the towns,limitations appeal as provided in Section 26-2.2.406.The appeal or conditions of the permit after notice of the viola- shall be on the record only consisting of the applica- tion; tion, a transcript of all testimony and map,plans or (2) Violation of requirements of this code relat- other exhibits offered in evidence.'The appellant,in ing, to the premises or activities authorized; addition to payment of the fee on appeal, shall (3) Failure to abate a nuisance after notice; deposit with the planning department the estimated (4) Any suspension or revocation of a license cost of preparing the record on appeal, any unused required for the conduct of the business on the portion of which shall be refunded. The record on premises covered by the permit; appeal shall consist of one original and sufficient (5) Any act or failure to act resulting in the con- copies to provide one copy for the appellant and one viction of a permittee, operator, or employee of a copy for each member of the division hearing the violation of federal or state law,or county ordinance appeal.(Ord. 1975:prior code§2207.50:Ord.917). in connection with the operation of the permitted use. (Card. 1975: prior code § 2207.10: Ord. 917). Article 26-2.21 Administrative Decisions 26-2.2024 Hearing notice.Unless otherwise re- quired by this section, hearing on revocation shall 26-2-2102 Decisions without public hearing. be scheduled by the planning department before the unless otherwise required by this article,the zoning division of the planning agency having authority to administrator may, without public hearing, decide initially grant the type of permit involved. If within applications for: the last two years the board of supervisors has made (1) Variance permits pursuant to subsection (1) a decision on a permit pursuant to Sections of Section 26-2.1204; 26-2.2028 and 26-2.2030,the hearing on revocation (2) Minor subdivisions pursuant to subsection(3) of that permit shall be scheduled by the planning of Section 26-2.1204 including applications for department before the board. improvement exceptions; and The department shall give notice of the hearing (3) After zoning administrator determination on on revocation in the same mariner as on an initial it, any involved small lot application pursuant to heating to grant such a permit. (Orris. 85-20 § 1, Section 82-10.002(c). (Orris. 95-51, § 3, 80-87 § 2: 1975: pricer code § 2207.30: Ord. 917). See Gov. C. § 65901). 26-2.2026 Variance,conditional use and spe- 26-2.2104 Notice.Before the zoning ad inistra- Bial permits—Revocation hearing---Procedure. for decides any application pursuant to this article, The hearing shall be conducted according to any the planning department shall mail or deliver notice rules of procedure adopted for initial hearing,except of intent to decide the application pursuant to Gov- that the department shall have the burden of proving eminent Code Section 65901 and the notice provi- the chargers and shall open and close the hearing. sions of Section 26-2.2004. The notice shall state (Ord. 1975: prier code § 2207.30: Ord. 917). the last day to request a public heating on the appli- cation (which shall be no less than ten days after V�E:D) date of mailing or delivery), the general nature of the application(including any subdivision exception x 28-1 (Contra C:ostaCounty 4-96) 4 WILLIAM B. WALKER, M. D. CONTRA COSTA HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR KENNETH C. STUART, ENV11tONMENTAL MSEH,KEHS HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIRECTOR ('* T ^{ } /� (� "� 2120 Diamond Blvd., Suite 200 l_ O 1�fLRA 1{�l..J, k 7 �}Cl �}�� �L Concord, California HEALTH S E R V I C E S 94520 Ph(925)646-5225 July 18, 2001 Fax(925)646-5225 Robert Drake Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pirie Street,North Wing, 4"' door Martinez, CA 94553 Re: 4071 Orwood Road, Brentwood, CA A.PX: 015-270-004 Dear Mr. Drake: This letter is in response to your request for information on any code violation notice issued by Contra Costa Environmental Health(CCEH) to the owner of the above referenced parcel. As per our records, CCEH has not issued any violation notice to owner William Reddick. On September 23, 1999, CCEH submitted comments to Contra Costa County CDD regarding permit application, county file number LP992063, for compliance of structures in violation; boat storage, caretaker, and requesting R.V. storage (see attachment). At present time, this property is in violation of Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section. 420-6.303, which prohibits the installation of any individual se-,Nage disposal system without the healthofficer's advanced written approval. I would like to schedule a meeting with you during the week. of August 13, 2001 to further discuss our records in regards to this matter. Please contact me at (925) 646-522.5 ext. 220, to inform me of the date and time you would like to have this meeting or if you have anyquestions. Sincerely, Salvador M. Ruiz, R.E.H.S. Senior Environmental Health Specialist Enclosure cc: Richard Lee, Supervising Environmental Health Specialist SMR:ds x { d + Contra Costa Community Substance Abuse Services + Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services + C Costa Env ronmentai Health + Contra Costa Health Plan + 1 Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs -Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public N<_.n , Contra Costa Regional Medical Center + Contra Ccsta Health Centers WMAANI B. WA[K!:tz, M. D, � CONTRA COSTAHEAMI. Sta.rces pr_---oa KtNrt4 M C Si"fiE. ENVIRONMENTAL MSEH.REH5 •...,-_ HEALTH ENViRQNA E"TAt HEA_ D!REC30R CONTRA 2120 Diamond Blvd., Suite 200 COSTAConcord, California HEALTH SERVICES94520 Ph (925) 646-5225 Fax (925) 545-5225 September 23, 1999 Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 4' Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: Project Number LP992063 Location 4091 "A" Orwood, Brentwood Assessor's Parcel Number 015-270-004 Dear Sir or Madam: The following must be completed as a condition of the Use Permit/Rezone: 1. WATER SUPPLY: The means of providing a safe and reliable supply of water for the project.. Individual Wells 1. Provide well meeting construction, water quality and sustained yield standards applicable to new wells. For further information, obtain the handout ne Well Permit Process. 2. If connection to an existing well is proposed, demonstrate that the well complies with construction, water duality and sustained yield standards applicable to new wells for the use intended. Demonstration must consist of either of the following: a. Finaled permit showing well construction meets standards for new wells for the use intended and was not a well constructed under waiver provisions; or b. Reconstruct well to meet current standards. } i=a Costa C xn mrr,rty '.a _a Abuse Contra Costa Emerge.. ',tec_a{5z. onmenta -1tl - Conuu-. a Hearty ^t a Costa Hazardous va e ngram: __ .-Costa^,trental Health Cc:'.- -- LLosta Reg Medic<, contra C H2e+!th Cer s � 2. WASTEWATER DISPOSAL: Method of providing safe and reliable wastewater disposal for the project. B. Individual Septic ystems 1. Provide septic system meeting construction standards applicable to new systems. For further information, obtain the handout The Septic System Permit Process, 3. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Destroy all abandoned on-site wells and septic tanks pursuant to Contra Costa Environmental Health requirements. Appropriate permits and inspections for this work shall be obtained. For further information obtain the handouts Septic Tank Destruction Requirements and Well Destruction Guidelines. Sincerely, Salvador Ruiz, R.E.H.S. Senior Environmental Health Specialist cc: Planning Agency SR:bjm EHLUT.29-4/93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N. Wing--4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 c - Telephone: 335-1111. Fax: 646-4450 DATE July 23, 2001 r_ TO Bob Drake, Principal Planner Community Development Department 4 FROM Lou Peinthaler, Building Inspector I Property Conservation Division SUBJ Code Violation Info for Planning Commission Field Trip Reddick Boat Storage 4071 Orwood Road, Brentwood (CDD File#2059-88) (BID File#RF970061) In response to your request for this Departments Information on code violations at Reddick Boat Storage (above.referenced address & file number), APN 015-270- 004, here is a list of violation documented by this office. CCC Ord: 74-1.002 UBC 106.1 Building Permits required: Storage buildings and dwellings built without permits or approvals. CCC Ord: 78-1.103.1.1 UPC 143.1.1. Plumbing Permits required: Buildings and mobile homes with non-permitted plumbing setups. CCC Ord: 76-8.202 Electrical Permits required: buildings and mobile homes with non-permitted electrical setups. CCC Ord: 84-68.16 Permanent mobile home: Mobile homes without permanent foundations or inspections. CCC Ord: 84-68.1404 Storage of mobile homes and travel trailers: renting storage space for mobile homes and travel trailers without approvals and puts. CCC Ord: 88-4.206 Junkyard conditions: automobile storage general debris on property. GCC 'Ord: 82-4.221 contractors yard: various contractors trucks, tractors and machinery stored on property. I understand that the Planning commission is scheduled to do a site visit on this property on September 18, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. and will make myself available to attend. MP:ptc HAS ELTINE CONSULTING Government Relations 3182 Old Tunnel Road Planning and Suite F Development Lafayette,CA 94549 (925)938-7870 (925)938-8045 FAX January 23, 2001 Mr. Bob Drake � � Community Development Department Contra Costa County North Wing, 2"d Floor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 l4 � Re: LP2059-88; LP992063 '7 Dear Bob: This letter will address the outstanding issues relative to the two referenced permit applications, specifically: + Non-compliance with the conditions of approval for LP2059-88. + Use of LP992063 to mitigate conflict with LP2059-88 requirements. + Requested modification of the County A-2 Zoning Ordinance to allow storage of recreation vehicles in conjunction with allowed storage of boats. The subject property is located on C>rwood Road, east of Byron Highway. The site contains 2.13 acres. There is a chain link fence along the frontage of Orwood Road with a rolling chain link gate at the entrance. There are two mobile home units on the site, which are used as an office and a caretaker's quarters. There are also a 16x24 gazebo and five fully enclosed wooden sheds along the front of the property. The sheds include: 1. A 12x16 shed used to store lawnmowers, weedeaters, spreaders and other ground maintenance equipment. 2. A 12x16 shed, which is used to store files, papers and personal items. 3. A 20x20 shed, which is equipped and used by the owner as a workout and training room to follow a personal exercise program prescribed by his physician for his health. 4. A 12x16 shed, which contains the well for the property, a large sink and laundry facilities. 5. A 12x16 shed, which is used to store lawn furniture for use on the property and the deck of the office trailer. The ability to retain these units on the property is the purpose of the application for LP992063, which if approved would allow the applicant to apply for the appropriate building permits. Approval of LP992063 would also remove or mitigate current conflict with the conditions of LP2059-88. With respect to the existing LP2059-88, I will use your letter of January 10, 2000 as a basis and follow the order of presentation therein pertaining to compliance issues. There were ten bullet items in that letter, which for clarity I will number 1-10 in the order presented. 1. Condition 2, regarding the landscape plan. I am enclosing a more detailed landscape plan drawn by the owner, Mr. William Reddick, which contains specific descriptions of the plantings. 2. Condition 9A, regarding collect and convey. Mr. Reddick has constructed some small sheds at the front of his property for storage purposes, a personal training room and a well/laundry room. These sheds and anticipated future expansion for storage of equipment used on the property are the subject of the LP992063 application discussed below. The presence of these sheds triggers the blood Control collect and convey requirements by exceeding the impervious surface threshold. Mr. Reddick proposes to drain what runoff may occur into the roadside ditch along Orwood Road at the front of the property. There are two options for this to be a satisfactory option: Obtain a Drainage Release from each downstream property owner, or produce an analysis of the drainage indicating that there is adequate capacity for this drainage in the ditch and its outfall course. We are currently working on this problem, but unless there is approval of LP992063, this will not be needed. Therefore, we request that the other issues of LP2059-88 be resolved, the application for LP992063 be heard, and if granted, the collect and convey condition be assigned to that permit. 3. Condition 9B, regarding frontage improvements. The applicant will execute a deferred improvement agreement as required. 4. Condition 9C, regarding widening of Orwood Road. The applicant will construct the pavement area necessary for turning movements at the property entrance. 5. Condition 9D, regarding the entry gate. Currently, there is approximately 12 feet of pavement from the centerline to the edge 9f Orwood Road. The existing right- of-way is 50 feet, or 25 feet on each side of the centerline. The ultimate right-of- way ight-ofway is set at 60 feet. The entry gate now stands at 45 feet from the centerline of the road. Condition 9D requires the entry gate to be 20 feet south of the "widened" ROW. If"widened" means widening the road within the 50 feet, the gate would be 20 feet from the ROW. If the more conservative interpretation of "widened" means the gate mint be 20 feet from the 60 feet ROW line, then the gate is only 15 feet from that. The road is not currently nearly as wide as the existing 50 feet ROW would allow. Any potential widening sequence would appear to be widening within the 50 feet first, and if there should be some sort of land rush to Orwood Tract necessitating widening to the 60 feet RO'W', the road would be widened again. We request that this requirement be a deferred improvement. It is not difficult to move the gate back, but until it is necessary, which frankly seems rather unlikely, there is no purpose served. The motivation of the condition is to not have a car stopped at the gate and be an obstruction to Orwood Road traffic. Until the pavement is more than double its current width, this is not a problem. 6. Condition 9E, regarding a 55 foot setback from the southerly line of the property. This condition is met now and there are no plans or intentions to do anything in violation of this condition. 7. Condition 9O, regarding Bridge and Thoroughfare fees. If these permits trigger the fees,the applicant will pay the fees. 8. Condition 9H, regarding proof of right of entry and construction of improvements. We assume that this refers to building permits on the property and encroachment permits to construct the turning pavement and any improvements to the ditch and drainage system The applicant will apply for the encroachment permit to do the paving. LP992063 represents the applicant's effort to allow the uses that require a building permit. The applicant will acquire the necessary permits and rights-of-entry if there is work to be done on the drainage system. 9. Condition 9I, regarding improvement plans. These plans would only apply to Orwood Road improvements, which at this time consist of the pavement for turning. In conjunction with Item 4, these plans will be submitted. Any other improvements would be subject to the deferred improvement agreement of Item 3. 10. Conditions 5 and 6, which prohibit covered storage and storage of any material other than. boats. This condition would be removed by the approval of LP992063 and an amendment to the Contra Cost County code for the A-2 Zoning District. Storage of recreational vehicles and trailers is not allowed in the A-2 district, although there are blatant violations existing in East County. Mr. Reddick believes that many of his potential boat storage customers also have a need to store a recreational vehicle or trailer, and that he loses business by being constrained to storing the boat only. Once the property is in conformance with the ordinance and the permit for boat storage, there is little impact created by parking a trailer or RV in a space instead of a boat. However, it is clear that the County does not want general storage yards per se in the agriculture zones, but recognizes the need to address boat storage in the vicinity of boat launching ramps on the Delta. We submit that allowing the additional use of storage of RVs and trailers as an accompanying use to the storage of boats does not cause a problem and, in fact, is helpful to the boat storage business. Therefore, the applicant requests the East County Area Planning Commission to forward to the Board of Supervisors a recommendation that Section 84-38.404 of the A-2 Zoning Ordinance be amended to include the following as an allowable use requiring a land use permit: (14) Storage of recreational vehicles and trailers as an appurtenance to approved boat storage areas as permitted in compliance with Item(10) of this Section. Such storage of recreational vehicles and trailers shall be restricted to a number equal to or less than the number of boats actually stored on the site, the combined total of which may not exceed the total storage spaces approved for the site. In furtherance of the applicant's desire to comply with LP2059-88, to obtain LP992063 and to modify the A-2 Zoning Ordinance, he agrees to remove all other vehicles which do not meet the combined restrictions of these two permits and the amended ordinance. One such vehicle currently is used to store hardware, tools and other equipment used for maintenance on the site. This material would be moved to one or more new sheds similar to those described above for which approval is sought in LP992063. We look forward to a discussion of these items with you and with the Commission in hopes of a reasonable resolution for this property. Sincerely yours, Eric Hasseltine 4 PLANNING AGENCY 26-2.2012--26-2.20118 authorizing its issuance, but in the absence of 26-2.2418 Variance, conditional use and specific standards,either the standard prescribed special Permits — Previously expired. Any for variance or conditional use permits shall permit previously issued which expired, was apply, whichever is deemed more appropriate. revoked or became void under any provision of (Ord. 1975: prior code § 2204.50: Ord.917). law then in effect shall not be revived by any of these , provisions. (Ord. 1975: prior code § 26-2.2012 Variance, conditional use and 2206.30: Ord. 917). special permits --- Termination. Conditional use, variance and special permits and licenses issued pursuant to this chapter or Title 8 of this cede shall terminate as provided in Sections 26-2.2014 through 26-2.2018. (Orris. 77-33 § 10. 1975. 1495: vrior code § 2206: Ord. 917). 26-2.2014 Variance, conditional use and special permits Exercise and use. A permit issued under provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be exercised, used or established when, within one year of the granting,or within a the time' 1 ""specified on the permit, a building permit is issued by the building inspector for the purpose and location described on the permit, providing that the building #. permit does not expire. If no building permit is required under the building code to establish such variance, use or other matter granted, then the permit shall be deemed to be exercised, used w or established when clear and visible evidence is emonstrated on the subject property as to its eginning and continual development thereafter nail completed. Upon a showing of goad cause therefor, the director of planning may extend the period of a it, in which it is to be exercised, used or efiablished, for a maximum of one additional ear. time period stated in the permit shall ern over this provision. (Ord. 1975: prior 2206.10: Ord. 917). 2.2016 Variance, conditional use and -,-..permits — When void — Time extension. ase is established according to the terms and tions of a permit and the use is :F tinued for any reason for a period of sire s, the permit shall become void and the 'all not be resumed. Upon application the six months period by the owner and showing of good cause the director of ,$ may grant an extension not to exceed a f six months. (Ord. 1975: prior code § Ord. 917). ' (Contra costa County o-8e) f J U L 2 8 1986 LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND PROPOSED SITE PLAN (LP992063) -,-IONTR2A COSTA COUNTY CO1YIMU �LTY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR TIENT, TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANTIOWNER OWNER APPLICANT Name `,• Y3 t Dame Address 4 to de Address City,State _ + C=am _ t City,State Phone ` Z --Cv {{ Yt'c7 Zip Phone Zip By signing below,owner agrees to pay all costs,including any By signing below,the applicant agrees to pay all costs for accrued interest,if costs not paid by the applicant. processing this application,plus any accrued interest,if costs not Cl Check here if billings are to be sent to applicant rather than paid within 30 days of invoicing. owner. fJ Owner's Signature L--t. f/C E ck—e Applicant's Signature s CONTACT PERSON(optional) PROJECT DATA APPLICATION TYPE Name Total Parcel Size ` � ''��' © Development Plan Address Number of Units O Land Use Permit City,State Estimated Project Value 0 DP/L P Combo Phone Zip Comm./Ind. Sq.Footage © Other Mature of Request: (Attach supplemental statement if necessary) C(At4 &ct q .OFFICE USE QNLY , Application Description: com comf e.7 _� 1 't��., n l C) +00 Q to, ,&r I ^i Property Description: 3rm 4yyo ro Ordinance Ref Type of Fee: FEE AMOUNT: S-CODE Assessor's No. G'�C 5�• 70` -00 *Base Fee/Deposit: $ 2700 S-de.21? AreaT Q,-V0 *Late Filing Penalty $ 5- 5-066 Site Address L4W o Fire Dist. 6AST P(A- (if applicable-50%of above) Zoning District Sphere of Influence #Units x 195 $ S-014 (Development Plan) Census Tract C7. 0 O Flood Zone , Sq.Ft.x.20 $ 5-014 a ' 1J2%value over$100,000 $ S-029 Atlas Page Panel No. (of est.Project value LOP) x as -ref Files L- ' General Plan L. Notification Fee $ S-052D #AdWs x N.50+$30 Supervisorial Dist. Fish&Game Posting $ 50.00 S-048 Iiec,d b (if not CEQA exempt.) Environmental Health $ 33.00 5884 Date Filed '' "`gi Concurrent Files: ��•��_ r � Other $ TOTAL $ Receipt# Ss ' _ Other File Number L-C i :c lc zo "A Df hIAL MRS 97kSfD— TIME STAFF CEAE L BE CHARGED AFTER BASE FEE zlapp.frm(3/99) INSTRUCTIONS ON'REVERSE Slip L t'., x 2 WAY C� C� Cj p Cj a 2740 p f o c NOTICES OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Dennis M. Barry,AICP Community Contra Community Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building651 Pine Pine Street '` F 4th Floor,North Wing . Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: ------ = September 24, 1999 William Reddick 4091-A Orwood Road Brentwood,CA 94513 RE: Land Use Permit Application County Fite#LP992063 Dear Mr. Reddick, The Contra Costa County Community Development Department has reviewed your application,County File LP992063. Your application has been found to be incomplete. The following information will be required before we can further review your request: 1. Please submit a written statement clearly stating the requested entitlement sought through this application. The description on the application of the requested entitlement states"Compliance". Staff requires a thorough application description detailing all uses requested,and the amount of space the use intends to utilize. For example,when requesting storage buildings,please specify how many structures,the total square footage of the structures,and what you are requesting to store. Staff requires this detailed written description for the continued processing of the application. 2. Please see the attached Public Works comments. County staff requests that you submit the information outlined above simultaneously and in one package. Once the application has been deemed complete,and before any hearing is scheduled,staff will review it for compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and inform you of the determination on CEQA. If you have any questions,do not hesitate to call me at(925)335-1206. Sincerely, Jennifer A. Peterson Planner CC: File Public Works,Eng. Services(S. Wright) Office Hours Monday- Frday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. r)f€irA is nin.qari thr-. Y qt 'Ird & qth Fririavq of agr,h mnnth 0q/24/99 FRI 12.19 FAX 825 313 2333 CCU rUBLIC; WUKKb 444 tuAELN1 rL2UN. Post-it'Fax Nott- 767! � ' � S,. 5 T Fro Phone Fh 3*2 2S PUBLIC WORKS l Fax Fax M CONTRA COST DATE: September 24, 1999 TO. Jennifer Peterson, Project Planner, Community Development FROM: Steven J. Wright, Associate Civil Engineer,Engineering Services SUBJECT: PERMIT 99-2463, ADDITIONAL 30-DAY COMMENTS (Reddick/Orwood Rosid/.Breatwood arealAPN 01.5-270-004) FILE: Permit 99-2063 We have looked into this application farther, and found that the previous application on this site was only for boat storage. The applicant should be informed that he has not complied with the requirements of Permit 88-2059, and that the conditions of approval for Permit 88-2059 restricted use of this property. Public Works recommends that the applicant also be informed, early on, regarding the major concerns with request for expansion of use. CONYL ANCE WITS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PERMIT 88-2059: It appears that the applicant has never provided substantiation that the following Public Works related conditions of approval have ever been complied with regarding: 9. A Conformance with Division 914 of the Ordinance, as specified in condition. 9. B. Comply with Division 1006, as specified in condition. Execute a deferred improvement agreement for the required improvements. 9. C_ Construct pavement widening along Orwood Road as specified in condition. 9. D.Relocate the entry gate to a point at least 20-feet south of the widened Orwood Road right of way line_ 9. E. Observe a 55-foot structure setback from the southerly line of this property. 9. F. Install all new utility distribution services underground. 9. Cr. Comply with the requirements of the Bridgvlhoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit (applicant will now be required to pay the Fee Ordinance for both the County wide Area of Benefit and the Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation.Fee Area of Benefit fees. 9. Ii. Furnish proof of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. 9. I. Submit improvement plans. Public Works recommends that a land use permit for additional use of this site only be considered after the applicant has adequately substantiated that the conditions of approval for Permit 99-2063 have been adequately complied with. 99/24/99 FR1 12:20 FAX 925 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORKS 444 (XXX N1 rLAN. WJUUZ RESTRICTIONS ON USE, UNDER.PERMIT 8s-2o5 . • Conditions of approval 5 and 6 of the November 14, 1988 conditions of approval, specifically do not allow outdoor storage of materials other than boats, nor do they allow boat repair or maintenance or storage of recreational vehicles, cars or cornered boat storage. The applicant had appealed these two conditions of approval, and the appeal was denied; by the Board of Supervisors. • Condition of approval 9.A.2 noes not allow an increase in the area of impervious surface, or oiling or treating the graveled areas with any substance which will tend to make it impervious, ZONING 'VIOLATIONS: Since Permit 88-2059 was approved, the applicant has not adequately satisfied the required conditions of approval. Wherefore, he is not in compliance. Also, the applicant has placed structures and facilities on this property which are explicitly not permitted with this permit. These structures result in additional impervious surfaces, which is specifically not permitted under Condition of Approval 9.A.2. In addition, it does not appear that the applicant has paid road fees which are required under the Ordinance Code for utilization of these facilities on this site. MAJOR.CONCERNS WITH APPROVAL OF REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF USE: t I, Compliance with conditions of approval for Permit 88-2059: The applicant should be required to comply with the requirements of the previous permit before Permit 99-2463 is considered. 2. Drainage Concerns: The applicant has been permitted to gravel his property, provided that: he does not increase the area of impervious surface; and, provided that compacted gravel will not be oiled or treated with any substance which will tend to make it impervious, In order to place, or construct additional impervious surfaces on this site,the applicant should be required to comply with the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance. This will require compliance with the drainage requirements of Division 914 of the Ordinance. This may be very costly for a project of this magnitude, The applicant should consider contacting a private registered civil engineer who is familiar with the County's drainage requirements, to determine if the cost of compliance would be feasible fnr a project of this magnitude. 3. Rand Area of Benefit Fees: Construction, and/or installation, of the storage units, gym, gazebo, caretaker mobile home and mobile office will require payment of area of benefit fees. The applicant will also be required to pay the area of benefit fees for facilities which have been previously placed on this property, if the area of benefit fees have not previously been paid. The applicant should be aware that the following road fees are presently in effect: • East County Area of Benefit Fee: Presently$1742 per single family residential structure. 09/24/99 F'RI 12:20 FAX 925 31.3 2333 (X(,; rUbLlf; WVf(1t5 444 ('U"LIvl rl_nUN. �uus Presently $1.20 per square foot for commercial. ® Eastern Contra Costa Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fee Area. of Benefit Fee: Presently$5088 per single family residential structure. Presently $0.33 per square foot for commercial. The applicant will be required to pay the single family residential structure rates for each residential unit. The applicant will be required to pay the commercial rate for all other structures on this property. permit 88-2059 did not provide for any structures on this property. These fees will be required for all existing structures, and prior to issuance of a building permit for the structures proposed on this property. 4. Road Improvements; The project results in traffic safety impacts since the applicant has not: constructed the required widening of Orwood Road in the vicinity of his access points, and has not relocated the entry gate to at least 20-feet from the Orwood Road right of way line. Permit 88-2459 only permitted one access to this property. Traffic, with trailers, will extend into the roadway area when waiting to enter the closed gate access. This is a traffic safety problem for vehicles approaching this property from the west. In addition, the applicant is required to provide pavement widening; along Orwood Road srw: G:i�I�etaiLnpSvclSri�l149�Scptcmbe�205399e,dog cc: Ti Ee!lcn�,cr,Engincsrin&Scrviccs M i.3armn,&yguscciino SctviccE W.M koddkl 4091 Orwood Road.Brw wood CA 94513 Cibmmunity Co[ tli a Dennisommt Barry, ACCP Community Development Director Development Costa Depeitment Coun.L / County Administration Building E.s .--- 651 fine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 04553-0055 0' October 4, 1999 Phone. srA`c�v William Reddick 4091-A Orwood Road Brentwood,CA 94513 RE: County File LP992063 Dear William Reddick, This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation earlier this afternoon. In a letter dated September 24, 1999 your application was deemed incomplete. Your application is lacking a written statement of all entitlements you seek on the property at 4091 Orwood Road. For the Community Development Department to form a formal recommendation for hearing on your application,a statement clarifying your request is necessary. I have attached a copy of this letter. Please submit this requested information as soon as possible. Secondly, in our conversation I relayed discussions County staff has had regarding your application. I stated that given the information staff has at this time,it appears that possible conditions of approval associated with your present application may be very costly. The land use permit(County File LP2059-88)granting the establishment of a boat storage facility in 1988 specifically stated that open boat storage is the only use granted under that permit. Therefore any additional structures requested under this new land use permit would require you to collect and convey any drainage impacts created by the new structures and uses. This requirement could be cost prohibitive. Please contact Steve Wright in the Public Works Department with any questions and concerns regarding this issue. Additionally,it appears that all of the necessary information required by the Public Works Department as a part of the land use permit LP2059-88 approval has not been submitted. Again,please contact Steve Wright of the Public Works Department for the resolution of this issue. As you requested, 1 spoke with Catherine Kutsuris the Deputy Directory for Community Development. If you wish to set a meeting to discuss your application you may contact her secretary Debi Foley at(925)335-1210 to arrange an appointment. For staff to continue processing your application,please submit the requested information as outlined in the September 24, 1999 incomplete letter. Please submit the information by November 1, 1999 to avoid having the item scheduled for denial due to a lack of interest in the project. Sincerely Jennifer Peterson Planner Att: Letter, September 24, 1999 cc: Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Steve Wright, Eng.Services Daniel Stough,Code Enforcement Office Hours Monday- Frday:8.00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Dennis M.Barry, AtCP Community Centra Community Development Director Development Costa Department Counj/ County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 ` Phone: November 12, 1999 William. Reddick 4091 A Orwood Road Brentwood,CA 94513 RE: Notice of Incomplete nand Use Permit Apptication County File 4LP992063 Dear William Reddick: On September 24, 1999 and again on October 4, 1999 staff letters were written and mailed to your attention regarding the status of your above mentioned land use permit application. The letter included a discussion of additional information that is necessary forthe continued processing of you application. On October 20, 1999 1 received your written response to this request for additional information. Unfortunately the content of your letter does not adequately address the information requested in staff's previous two letters. The September 24"`letter from staff requested a written description of all entitlements sought through the filing of your land use permit LP992063. Your response has clarified the size of the structures proposed in this application, however the uses of some of the structures still needs clarification. 1 would also like to take this opportunity to clarify and am attaching sections of the Zoning Ordinance that may or do apply to your application. Before your application may be deemed complete,we must receive the following information: 1. The site plan you submitted on August 26, 1999 shows eight structures along the front of the property. You have stated the size of the structures as requested, and the proposed uses of two of the structures. Your letter states that the remaining six structures will "be used for nay own storage to benefit the appearance and usefulness of my business". Staff requires further clarification as to the specific type of storage in the proposed structures. What items are proposed to be stored and for whom? What relationship do each of the proposed buildings have to the boat storage permitted use, if any? The A-2 zoning allows for boat storage on parcels within 1 mile of a public boat launching facility with the approval of land use permit. No other forms of cornmercial storage facilities are allowed within the A-2 zoning district_ Office Hours Monday- Frday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. 2. Your site plan also indicates an office trailer,gazebo, and a personal gym you are seeking to legalize. Again, please state the relationship these structures and uses have to the boat storage permitted use, if any. 3. You have also stated you are seeping to legalize an existing caretaker mobile home unit on the property. In an A-2 zoning district a caretaker unit is allowed with Zoning Administrator approval when a number of criteria are cnet(Article 84-68.18). Among these criteria is the requirement that the applicant supply proof that there is a need for an onsite. Please state how the caretaker unit proposed meets the requirements for consideration as a part of the land use perm it. Secondly,staff must determine if the proposed land use permit application is an amendment to the land use permit for open boat storage approved in 1988. As stated in staffs October 4, 1999 letter, it appears that the conditions of approval for the 1988 land use permit were not complied with. Community Development files do not indicate any required submittals such as a landscaping plan were submitted. The Public Works Department has also created a list(please see September 24(h and October 4'1`letters from staff)of all 1988 conditions that were not submitted. If none of the conditions requiring approval have been submitted within one year of the approval of the 1988 land use permit,the use of the boat storage facility was not established,and the permit is determined to be expired. If your 1988 land use permit expired,then the application under review presently would also be considering the approval of boat storage facility, in addition to the other uses proposed. Presently County files,give no indication that the use permitted in 1988 has been legally established. Please submit any documentation you may have, such as approved landscaping plans,etc,clarifying this issue. Until it is determined if the 1988 land use permit approving open boat storage was exercised through Community Development or Public Works conditions of approval compliance, the current 1999 land use permit is not defined. Please submit any documentation you may have as soon as possible for the resolution of this issue.Please contact myself (335-1206)or Steve Wright in Public Works(313-2259)with any questions you may have. Thirdly, you have sited eight examples of competing storage facilities in the region. You have requested a considerable amount of research to justify how all of the facilities meet any and all conditions of approval placed upon the facilities. Staff does not provide such a service as a part of the application process. All records are public,and you are free to do this research on your own behalf if you feel the research may aid your land use permit application. I have attached the two previous staff letters discussed in this letter,and all Zoning Code sections and articles discussed in this letter. 1 [lave also attached a copy of the findings that must be made in order to approve any land use permit. Any statements you can supply regarding[tow your proposed project meets the required finding may aid in the processing of your application. For staff to continue processing your application,please submit the requested information as outlined in this incomplete letter. Please submit the information by December 13, 1999 to avoid having the item scheduled for denial due to a lack of interest in the project. Sincerely, Jennifer Peterson Planner (925)335-1206 Art: utter,October 4, 1999 Letter,September 24, 1999 Zoning Cade references cc: Pile L,P992063 Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Steve Wright, Public Works APPLICANT RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION 1u�tura YY�U t5 a� me X6.7 ata c�Ja +L� rubL1L YYUt(1%.5 r-► r t.LttttlGl'(I r"LN- artuut gr 4�� � � ✓� r r'CT 13 1999 /� u t� ` .amu ttc ' -r J ENGINEERING SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS DEPS. CA, i s a .+��c to(e t?l A mi I 4 " cevu4rY 4 f t�va,-ts SIV v v 40 P4� AD t'jt��,t� f t.,vc..•T.cc. 11�1�c ��(tc�c,�fltrrc, �` `�' /"�c'tCc.t. c.13r7S .�`t�ft�eC��+.. j t A 44 tA 4(.. by S.v tlra4as s�r•2 �,t�` ct ` `f�+� YA led ��ocC �7`rTrv�rs� tvl7"Y CSG , ( 9Tj.r.,d?c- rlwy zf 3) Lt) 8cxt f�c f?�t• 5 slr cr2� .!c f 40 '1 7) 461 DA , 0 t2 t /!aP ta` `t s Abe ,�c c Y 2 6,q�i eb"m,4A Cis 4n«Y . tV1 LV/yy nLV 10:44 rAA VZO JIJ CJJJ ULL rubL1L WUKA.) LUhK INI YLA1N. wjuu S g v TO S c aAcj 1r-j `f au- 5'�caw ,/3owu 'GCS' `!` /,Ie( ` `t c -k-S Acca -F ...ct(4S"r Cctusr�d 1 i t Pl) r. S'it's d�t+ttue 4r e',os r ��p 1-► r 7`,`2x3 t t'� �L s'G 4 '�}� Cv�u�o'�r.�4��'t �F►2uc•��, `'f`�- acv �r1��C�5' tt/c� A,-*-Ir-&<-) `P(fj z At-Z, ,rgVdi v C-�, 4 `fes- , ?(jd 1 S T,06 t Cau4a�, d.-(- , W . L-e Ws 10 yV/LV/.7 L7 tTG37 1ii.Jis rna. V44 d1.3 LJ.}J ruDLt" "VAIA60 .r 11VINI%ZINI r"Im. WJVV'£ :r 4) Act 34,r 4,44 f rx c ep r z We 1 c 'h F tar-4( 4t +Ecce 414040 �� .� •� 1� � `� �pc� �r cts��t1bFs.� �� Puy, st a t K ?' � xa ► Wit' ,. t/( � �"` . A4dr(, r .Polo).' f,)rucf yz�c lac,�t x" oaa o kac-C`6 ` cs w c/ <,e- Orr &mac. If _5X-,' 4a64F-c ra jlo,�,0 JLht9 cry t��i. . ` a `was �+�� � +�•,�, ,res�s`Z' f'2;�'�cl-5�t`� ,�"y t�t� 4 + 3511 A�tv�+ ltcsuCs 7` rlcQts� t2 Kj�r t�q 'Yrt � ;lam t•`t � r j a rx5�, c� { c 57r , < M v C- (nnf"Z S`rolofv Y/" � ' �5 xtgw-t l?r -* t 12'. e d Vh f,9 3 hurl-X r s -T ltccA lit/ZU/99 WbJU 1o:3b PAX VZO :SIJ ZJJJ (,AX YUbLLC WUXNb + ►+ (XXf r;N'i PLAN. wJUtlS PAls �mel :y a 3r +t r,.t,4 rt t � av It i ct� (OW -thluod; ( !1,E,< d -J&- 12 � --f tmY YticA, c `s f ct�ta` #cC 4v'e t?/ zt. l ql G c tlT t tv 464 j < -'t rJT lot VC-3I.9� 4Kt t+tsd• tis t�fG ( tt•c.�dt to * /it mwf- �r�g� t ��� C.•vt.c•,c,sc�.�+t�� 1.����• f�hz►�rc 2c�5`�-bB �' c�. �A�' Ldrt�lrt�9 �rcf� �"t` 1.+4tJE/Lal�so`GG ( ilr�ccsLt7L' tt � 6, AA-5 tduy&AW k/t`l-y 45 `>3' 'd vp-tb x `75 pqk ie fifth `ti OF (aV4&'C Off" CK9 011, jut-"Yi"7 ek) ar -ZP,•K, , ooco iT r s h ZW ` &t ?Ac6c- fx 7y ri -r- rT,xf—IAcic 2 ''rt—� ' &UwOQd 4AAf ,ntr,, ,� restLicd7 � � tGud.�t�au.�d`k.7-.,t i`C`t�s '- �c;v+� �' � s4 °� �Mt� �L ED•t,,ct r"�`<oma` i < 44, L 10/20/99 WED 15:35 FAX 915 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORKS -�►� CUHK�Nf' Yi.A1V. tpJUtJti C CGc.sJY G�+��1"� l.+tdG►�. ,� [1 rT7rZ ��� 7�L'�`J',� Gcir�7r uti►c(�s Cvuc•cct.�r'�s � ��a�CE �'��`tc�s� CvSrs `� C`rws7.ircr, . Ott+u , 60 5rou c,,- /)Gn"e las- -8g &2uxwa t � P AZ/B e tax" sra4k glzzliv 4k��r--€� &44 �1`rf;f-j .ted Idol--3'f c'tc o,s V r i u c i- qtr t P1cs � 'acs c"v� l�• vc 7 cr .�. A vv AUO flt9dfi. Awwde jd tt ltc fir�"�"�-- �'!f�►r�C f �.�`�Gt.. xt etc rrzsf �� ut�v 6A-5r pW,,c7,Vodk )<,g I 4 i d14cVi a o. 7i!'ll L.7i+ iC K�G I�"irt.i'I"�.tLicApi IfY X 6.3 Is d jai eT1y C Ld /AtkJ Y** 5?eIz,Y' egg o- . pArz--tzl IU120199 WEE) lb:Jz r" VZS JIJ ZJJJ t t t rUbLlt; WVKAb �►+ t unttrivt rLn�v. r�utr� r ry -'� w � � �.�w.<.� G�'tc�t �`P�2 Esc��. 2 '•-�'3� �{' S�'t�:�2 r�$, Il, r'�p ccc,�t-7�.�,, � dt�scrtcp`tfc� c� 7�- .�e�l�cs� .. d�' Y r1�Q�ttS ,► 19 �vtl.U7 e S}� -c F 45 5 4 o4-r eta` `lam- C �t�e r" w a4e e y8cq 14+o /gee tC,ts t.�, 4-'S6.fc C S7Ai fi tt1r14-r 747'...t 4tCg+" to . f+770 57 r- "(g#r Y- Scv tl}s,044,) fiat.Frau t(4 An7; t 10/20/99 WEV I5:Jb r'AX 9G5 JiJ 1JJ3 4 t;G rUbLll: WVK1t5 LUKXtINi riAiN. +E� Uvo Y-- ott y t Yo 1 ar i i { x 1 { ',U W i __ ._. ___��.��;►-f�.�....}��.�`t.����_- . .__ NOS 22 _____...._._...___.._....-�! t,t..v..e�._a ,S�--_�.r�iz.'���ccrLd� ..�__... �...'7�► ._+�kse'�. �t'�.7`.+�..�. _` Ls. ._.(�,h'.�T:�tP..). :..._�..___ _-- __ _._ _-_. __ __�r�vc.�+cc.z�-w�''--_�'r.., �`�,,u,r._.. `. _�-.�vr.l.�__LL,7.c�fltr .����/�d' _._ t�• ic._+ .t�'.Ltf t� e5ir kz. AS 46,ywv, zoiczo .� .my Aryl "t" Ye e 14` C- .._- . _ - - - —{,t�iL f r s9 __L �u_ral.faa� f .. ►� t«p.n w-C-t- S*j --- __. ` a Gtraa' 57, ., .. l�f ..,clf 5'�xurrt ? Z 54e Lw f ,d-rte s= } LL,t f Wrt 77-ft 5 Chi 7�izki f to ,. c �i's{tl P�rf�C.?,l.'�l C CTc src e rcl.rrf c, G�� 979 sLfr .c 5 f•✓•r� tf o f etas Yv 7f A, 44 r � SEe_ 4felcc1 _ ft �gr 40 G` ftc z ... b 7 zlc 'p��fv r :: "Y _lr,vs._G•rJ .� ..v _ _. ! _ _.�-��fcv`t�vv�r:�r r�r,,�,�7`_ c.s .tc."c�Gl`r,�_.�^i� `f_F_.�•+�. .r�t•�W.(.5: ..�r—_y`__u2►uLc�._______..._ _.__ -_ ��.��""F•t:Qt��P f�. !�('+vt� .5`y1.Y'f+f' �.. _. .: . `�-=d'�7"t.�-f,.��-_'�_svCf...�1+Vc,F._.ws. . . _ i f`'j---��d" ,��'�.sr .•41.1 �?z'� � S�Ett'rt�_,�-� >4 C'�'_f�7-.�.1��._.`� _c_'r+c,c•r .t_tt c!t-'.'-7__ ... 'wsu6rL /awi_-_,27`«•v� ., _. ? c�rcxzs�t`rr,�r►_ . ._....__ �6,_kdi" .6tt(,<eauY Z4,V CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 s, o Fn Telephone: 335- 1210 Fax: 335- 1222 TO: Jennifer Peterson, Planner FROM: Bob Drake, Principal Planner /tt/j DATE: December 3, 1999 SUBJECT: Conversation with Bill Reddick Boat Storage Land Use Permit Orwood Road, Brentwood County Pile #2059-88 In a telephone conversation today with Mr. Reddick, I noted that the December 13, 1988 approval of the captioned land use permit project by the Board of Supervisors required that the applicant submit a landscape and irrigation plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator as specified in Condition #2.A. I asked Mr. Reddick as to whether he had filed a proposed landscape plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. He indicated that he had not, but that he had proceeded with the planting of several trees (cypresses) around the perimeter of the site. c:\wpdoc\reddick.mem RD\ 67 r-t�PU LPou 1`-17 L -Y/ , iE' -S /-ir ,— I f c4 B i ct / -dwec� t r r4 �7tz�c carl tZ��'.r 7�ic1, . [z' r3 rt e,t�d. sfw 7 7r, ct�cr s4G�r - L€ Zc Sri'- e�z x �2 U.2 pcf 'd o,4d) 51re-e.4tNo�f�tt;CrZ 1 Z r 1 r C J ,' ~��,��y c1+''. j�'k `x i .C��. rf�+ /-IV,&cziatlrvct t4' /'e,7 t,+r4'� 11•�c.�f +,! .�tr7cy:�e[t�Fic� t1,�t7et r.+e:� G'Yi.� tJf �' r'� Y�- e A&-Z4 fug gzwld t�Cs� �� c s[cic ,•� /ff s 57, -Pf /aAC2,ae Gt�•vt�fr5d`{��- 04, X06 blzqke 5Ln-v YW,+z-6d' 1,tr.4,or � pCt�vf �'o•�[>f- �- �zl�frr ��.�,�`� �aC l�z , �f.v���.� t �� r� I� LL°�t ���ti'L"fir"51 `D�'+ �Z�Ctt�✓t r 'tCziOcuV by �/1l��FJ CG��► �c `kms ra` t 1crC( t 40& t L � c�, `� 1 :�� t` ••c You- f�4oe 15`dvl-yrs. • 46 {5 �7 Olt -T 1 ,4` .czCa I - L l C �# C c� [ ct �C 1Cvcdc 3.3�u L".•t c{. c c S �i c e o ` 5k zO 7AZ3 CS I-A--s I r 3 4 / 7Rrsl5trit� Wca s'"-.QLD uLt r60 Gltc< ri-LL tlr�tz fj2�[�c� > rS1 Cttt{ �� � dt tic'*7�eX, crC > is(_' 4OtjCfd tt:z- fFi ;dP, Lltdtrr ,cscf r`ys' . Zt� 3 �" �Zmla � t4rcrl1 W'Cl.r4 tdtJ 4f.1. C +Cl t--'iC�� ✓L:� �Q�rJ .r i1L' �va9cc7 r� . t_ tv t#r I.t7 �r L� 1�a �rL1 t' Sc�eJ f `I.trJtY } •G tf t c'x a Cd' J IC7T ttt'f i"t }}t J r' fxr 7cr/7 tr c'C9ruuttrut,rl.G totK ,'car ��r �r�r, 1�`��J r r'��� 1�rr' c xv.'' +C. �ICL���,�+�tr��.7t�:..� ��G�.'%�' 7 K,t��f lT "f" L��.��+C.?�,Gj �� �1 7 A'�4'✓ ,�j'�r C.� fLT"C'�r.+C', d r d ssc r csre f t e. ?'Fr"'C'T' ( 4.-.Ur(l4c E< 44"'d 4 �?Al• r7! Lis i S r7 -Aee�f 4 -rAZ {J4.WS f- .el r C�+S L y:tic `�c�j � +c 1 ,"CIL-- 4 ,G�K a�t..'�r Ct�cC�='F1'' r`w'^- � �2�� �/,G1�ircX�u"�i.u- -r` �z�•� 2. �d��f r3`S t ��rSr Cid r7�.•e�' .� � ���� �'jt(r- ���� �..c d��"ct:� �-r�.a.'?,a'i'2'�v�.c L�,.c�" � �c t t,txr�,' act- "rats 77ruL .4 X Sate tr-, ':': x[r7r 2 tact rtt�f e'- tvof wet( ( X 5pw-( r„L' GtcrGCc,J rye `[t snr+t l rtst7l' -� GL"ffF 2 ta 741;S r K 9 ccjbwt r G t .3 l:i2 4' r4 6 i t Lade . PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORTS (Excerpts) Agenda Item# 14-4' Community Development Contra Costa County EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION May 1. 21300 - 7:04 P.M. L INTRODUCTION WILLIAM REDDICK (Permittee& Ownerl A. County File LP2059-88 - A hearing to determine if cause exists to revoke a land use permit to operate a dry boat storage facility due to continued violation of the terms, limitations, and conditions of the permit after notice of the violation. B. County File.LP992063 —A request to amend LP2059-88 to include the use of enclosed storage, an office trailer, and a caretaker unit. The site is located at 4091 Orwood Road, in the Brentwood area. (A-2) (ZA: M28m) (CT 3040) (Parcel #415-274-404) II. RECOMNIENDATION Staff recommends the Commission adopt a resolution to revoke the Land Use Permit LP2059-88 and deny the Land Use Permit application LP992063, and direct staff to request that the Building Inspection Department initiate appropriate code enforcement action to limit the use of the site to only permitted uses within an A-2 district. Based upon staff'review of the conditions of approval of LP2059-88 and the lack of submitted evidence showing compliance with conditions, staff is recommending revocation of the permit. Staff is recommending denial of the current application LP992063 based upon the fact that the request is to expand upon the uses and development approved under LP2059- 88. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: Agricultural Lands, AL B. Zoning: General Agriculture, A-2 C. Site Description: The site currently contains two mobile homes, 5 small red wooden buildings along the road, two mobile homes, and a gazebo. The site also contains stored busses, trailers, cars, boats, farm and construction equipment. 2 IV. BACKGROUND A. Application and Approval for LP2059-88 --In June of 1988 Mr. Reddick applied for a land use permit for a boat storage facility and recreational vehicle parking. The zoning administrator approved the use of a boat storage facility but not the use of R.V. parking since the use is not allowed under the A-2 zoning district. Brut storage is the only storage use allowed in an A-2 district. The project was conditioned to be an open facility, meaning that no impervious surface is allowed on the site due to drainage problem on the property. The applicant appealed the decision to not allow R.V. storage to the East County Regional Planning Commission who upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision. The applicant then appealed the matter to the Board of Supervisors who upheld the Zoning Administrator's and ECRPC decisions. Please see the December 13, 1988 Board Order. B. Notices of Violation—The Code Enforcement Division of the Building Inspection Department has filed code violations on the property from 1994 and 1997. The violations from 1997 include the unauthorized storage and occupancy of mobile homes on the property. In March of 1999 Mr. Reddick was issued a Notice to Comply with the Zoning Code and Building Code. The result of this Notice to Comply was the applicant filed the current LP992063 to see if the violations could be remedied through a Zoning permit. C. Application for LP992063 —Due to the above mentioned violation notices, the applicant has now filed a new land use permit to add additional uses to the 1988 land use permit. The applicant is requesting to construct and legalize eight (8) small storage structures, an office mobilehome and a caretaker mobilehome. D. Failure to Comply with Conditions of Atproval for LP2059-88 —During the processing ofLP992063 Community Development and Public Works staff discovered eleven(11) conditions of approval placed on the 1988 land use permit are in violation. The applicant was informed of this discovery in September 1999 as a part of the normal 30-day initial review period for an application, Since that time the applicant has not submitted any of the information required to comply with the 1988 land use permit. E. Issuance of a Notice of Violation of the Land Use Permit 4LP2059-88 — The applicant was issued a Notice of Violation and a request for immediate submittal of documentation of permit compliance on January 10, 2000. In this notice all conditions of approval with outstanding submittal requirements were listed. The notice also stated that the applicant had until January 27, 2000 to submit the materials otherwise staff would schedule the item for revocation. Staff did receive 3 a letter from the applicant including a letter from the Delta Fence Company stating that the growing of vines over the existing fence may create a windload factor that could blow the fence over. The applicant submitted no other requested evidence. F. Items of Noncompliance of LP2059-88—The following conditions of approval have not been submitted and/or complied with. Condition 2 requiring the submittal and approval by the Zoning Administrator of a landscaping plan. Condition 2 states that the landscaping plan must include a cost estimate, a planting of trees and shrubs along the property road frontage, and the planting of vines along the side and rear cyclone fence. The applicant has not submitted a plan for review to date. Staff has visited the site and observed Cypress trees along the frontage of the site, however no shrubs are planted. The required 6- foot high fence appears to be under height, nor have vines been planted to grow up the fence as required. The applicant recently submitted a letter from Delta Fence Company stating that if the fence were to be covered with vines the windload factor that could blow down the fence. • Condition 3 limits the amount of sign to a total area of 32 square feet or less. Staff visited the site and discovered that three signs totaling over 32 square feet are along the property frontage. Additionally, there are two equally sized signs off site. One is located at the corner of Orwood/Bixler and the other at the corner of Bixler/Byron Hwy. Neither one of these off site signs have received approval by the Community Development Department or received a building permit. • Condition 9A requiring conformance with Division 914 of the Ordinance. • Condition 9B requiring the execution of a deferred improvement agreement for compliance with division 1005. • Condition 9C requiring the construction of pavement widening along Orwood Road. • Condition 9D requiring the relocation of the entry gate to a point at least 20-feet south of the widened Arwood Road right of way. • Condition 9E requiring the observance of a 55-foot structure setback from the southerly line of the property. • Condition 9G requiring compliance with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the County Wide Area of Benefit. • Condition 9H requiring the applicant to furnish proof to the acquisition of all necessary right of entry, permits and/or other easement for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. • Condition 9I requiring the submittal and approval of improvement plans to the Public Works Department. • Additionally, condition of approval #5 and 46 specifically state that any use 4 above and beyond the use of an open boat storage facility is not allowed under the permit approval. V. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION The Ordinance authorizes the County to revoke a land use permit to any of the following reasons: • continued violation of the terms, limitations, or conditions of the permit after notice of the violation. • violation of the requirements of the this code relating to the premises or activities authorized. failure to abate a nuisance after notice. • any suspension or revocation of a license required for the conduct of the business on the premises covered by the permit; or • any act or failure to act resulting in the conviction of a permittee, operator, or employee of a violation of federal or state law, or County Ordinance in the connection with the operation of the permitted use. Section 26-2.2026 of the Ordinance Code places the burden of proving any charges relating to the determination of whether cause exists to revoke a permit on the County. Staff concludes that the adequate evidence exists to determine that there has been continued violation of the terms, limitations, or conditions of the permit after notice of the violation. This conclusion is based upon the lack of subn-iitted evidence that the abovelisted conditions of approval from the 1988 permit have been met, and the continued notices of violation issued by the Code Enforcement Division. Based upon the above conclusion staff is recommending the current land use permit request, LP992063, to allow additional structures on the property, be denied. VI. POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION A. Commission Determines that No Cause Exists to Revoke the Land Use Permit or Deny of the Current Request In the event the at the Commission determine that no cause exists to revoke the Land Use Permit LP2058.88, there is no further action required with regard to this land use permit. Staff recornmends the Commission then direct staff to continue the processing of LP992063 by completing an initial study, proposing and posting 5 a suitable environmental determination and allow for adequate public comment period to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and return to the Commission with findings and a recommendation. B. Commission Determines that Cause Exists to Revoke the Land Use Permit without the Denial of the Current Request Should the Commission determine that there is cause to revoke the Land Use Permit LP2059-88, however no cause for the denial of the Land Use Permit LP992063 at this time, staff recommend the Commission revoke the permit LP2059-88, then direct staff to continue the processing of LP992063 to verify conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and return to the Commission with findings and a recommendation. C. Commission Determines that No Cause Exists to Revoke the Land Use Permit and Denies the Current Request Should the Commission determine that no cause exists to revoke the Land Use Permit LP2059-88 and deny the current application concurrently, staff recommends the Commission deny the request for LP992063, and no further action is necessary for LP2059-88. D. Additional Actions Available to the Commission In any of the above options available the Commission, should the Commission determine that one or more causes exists to revoke the Land Use Permit LP2059- 88, but the Commission is not satisfied with the remedial action recommended by staff, then the Commission could consider the following additional actions: + Order other terms, Iimitations, or conditions to the one recommended by staff, + Order a probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements; + Order a combination of the above; or • Revoke the Land Use Permit. VII. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the revocation of County File LP2059-88 and the denial of County File LP992063 based upon the above discussion and the following findings discussion. Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Monday , June 5, 2000- 7:00 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION WILLIAM REDDICK(Permittee &Owner) A. County File LP2059-88 - A hearing to determine if cause exists to revoke a land use permit to operate a dry boat storage facility due to continued violation of the terms, limitations, and conditions of the permit after notice of the violation. B. County.File LP992063 —A request to amend LP2059-88 to include the use of enclosed storage, an office trailer, and a caretaker unit. The site is located at 4091 Orwood Road, in the Brentwood area. (A-2) (ZA: M28m) (CT 3040) (Parcel#015-270-004) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission adopt a resolution to revoke the Land Use Permit LP2059-88 and deny the Land Use Permit application LP992063, and direct staff to request that the Building Inspection Department initiate appropriate code enforcement action to limit the use of the site to only permitted uses within an A-2 district. Based upon staff review of the conditions of approval of LP2059-88 and the lack of submitted evidence showing compliance with conditions, staff is recommending revocation of the permit. Staff is recommending denial of the current application LP992063 based upon the fact that the request is to expand upon the uses and development approved under LP2059-88. Initially this was scheduled for May 1, 2000 but was continued for lack of quorum. Please see attached staff report. Agenda Item Community Development Contra Costa County EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Monday October 12000-7:00 l'.M. I. INTRODUCTION WILL IAEDDICK(Permittee Applicant-&-Owner) A. County File#LP2059-88 - A hearing to determine if cause exists to revoke a land use permit to operate a dry boat storage facility due to continued violation of the terms, limitations, and conditions of the permit after notice of the violation. B. County File#LP992063 - A request to amend Land Use Permit File#LP 2059-88 to include the use of enclosed storage, an office trailer, and a caretaker unit. The subject site is located at#4091 Orwood Road, in the Brentwood area. (A-2)(ZA: M- 28m)(CT 3040)(APN 015-270-004) II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW This matter was initially scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission on May 1,2000, and subsequently continued at the request of the permittee so that he could meet with staff. The permittee did meet with staff on June 28, 7000 with his attorney. At that time,the permittee's attorney indicated that he would be providing a report to staff indicating how the permittee would comply with the terms of the land use permit. On September 7, 2000, a report was provided by the permittee that discussed various conditions attached to the 1988 permit,but did not provide any real evidence of compliance with those conditions. Instead, much of the report challenges the appropriateness of the conditions of approval. Given the tenor of the response,it does not appear that the permittee is willing to make any serious effort to comply with the terms of the permit. III. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: Fire#2059-88 File#LP992063 A. Adopt a resolution finding that cause exists to revoke Land Use Permit#2059-88; revoking Land Use Permit#2459.88; and requesting staff to take appropriate code enforcement action to eliminate all existing uses(including structures and vehicles)except those that are otherwise permitted by Ordinance from the property and business signs from other properties in the area, as necessary to establish code compliance. B. Deny Land Use Permit Application#LP992063 because the proposed expansion of the range of items for storage is not allowable within the General Agricultural zoning, nor would it be consistent with the Agricultural Lands desgination in the General Plan. IV. GENERAL INFORMATIOI A. Background This matter involves a code enforcement investigation concerning a land use permit for a dry boat storage facility that the Board of Supervisors granted in 1988. The decision of the Board of Supervisors also involved denial of an appeal by the permittee to allow storage of items other than boat storage on the property (e.g., recreational vehicles). The Board's 1988 decision to deny the permittee's appeal was made because the storage of the other items is not allowable under the applicable zoning district (General Agricultural, A-2), nor by the General Plan open space designation. In denying the perr ittee's appeal, the Board sustained the decisions of both the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator on this matter. The permittee did not elect to challenge the Board's decision in court. The permit conditions allowed the establishment of open boat storage uses only (COA#5). To protect varied community 'interests,the permit also required that the permittee provide certain improvements following review and approval by County staff, and abide by certain specific development restrictions formulated for this particular use and site. 0 landscape improvements approved by the Zoning.Administrator(COA #2); i -gravel improvements of driveways and boat storage areas (COA#8); S-2 William Reddick East County Regional Planning Commission Monday, October 2,2000 • drainage improvements and/or development restrictions that limit impacts generated project runoff(COA#9.A.); • road widening, or as an alternative,entering into a deferred improvement agreement with the County to allow for such widening in the future,if the County should deem it necessary (COA#9.B.); • submission and approval of improvement plans to the Public Works Department (COA#9.I.); and • payment of fees for regional bridge and road improvements (COA#9.G.) Section 26-2.2014 of the Ordinance Code(attached) allows a permittee one year in which to exercise a land use permit, which may be extended one additional year by the County upon showing of good cause. The conditions of approval were not satisfied within the year following this approval; nor did the permittee request a one-year extension of the period for exercising the land use permit. Some years after the Board of Supervisors approved this project, it became apparent to staff that the permittee had begun storing boats and other items on the property contrary to the procedures and restrictions of the use permit. The permittee was cited for violation of his use permit, including the storage of materials that had been expressly denied by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The permittee failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that he had complied with his permit. Consequently, staff deemed it appropriate to bring the noncompliance situation to the Commission to allow a public hearing of the matter and to determine if cause exists to revoke Mr. Reddick's land use permit. Simultaneously,Mr. Reddick filed a new land use permit application (Pile #LP992063)with the County to allow for storage of items other than boats. The background of this matter is reviewed in greater detail in the attached 5/1100 staff report to the Commission. B. Meeting with Permittee On June 28,2000, staff met with the permittee and his attorney. At that time, the permittee's attorney indicated that he would be providing a report to staff that consists of(1) evidence to show compliance with certain permit conditions, and S-3 File#2059-88 File#LP992063 (2)for other permit conditions, a program and time schedule for compliance.The attorney indicated that the report would be submitted to staff by July 31, 2000. See attached letter from the Johnson Law Firm dated June 28, 2000. C. Permittee Response to Code Enforcement Documentation No report was received by staff until September 7, 2000, which was prepared by the permittee,not his attorney. The report challenges the appropriateness of many of the conditions. The report does not provide the evidence which the permittee's attorney indicated would be forthcoming; nor does it provide much clarity as to a specific program and timetable for compliance with the permit requirements. Following the June 28, 2000 meeting with Community Development Department staff, the permittee apparently also met with Public'Works Department staff to review the conditions of approval which that Department administers (drainage, traffic, road improvements, utilities). However, Public Works has not seen fit to alter its previous conclusions as to the noncompliance on the conditions which it administers. D. Amendment to Expand Range of items Stored on the_Property The proposal to expand the range of items stored on the property is not allowed under the A-2 zoning. Only storage of boats is allowed with a land use permit. The request would also be inconsistent with the Agricultural Lands designation in the General Plan. Therefore, the County cannot legally approve the request to expand the range of items that could be stored on the site. Before the County could consider storage of the other items, the permittee would need to: • amend the general plan to place this site within the urban limit line and redesignate the site to a Commercial designation, and + rezone the property to General Commercial zoning. In staff's view, there are only remote chances, at best,that the County would consider any of these actions in the foreseeable future. S-4 William Reddick East County Regional Planning Commission Monday, October 2,2000 V. CONCLUSKJN Land use permits are an entitlement that are granted only after the County finds that special circumstances will be addressed to adequately protect community interests. Where permittees responsibly comply with the terms of their land use permit, the County should not disturb the use of that property. However, where permittees fail to comply with the terms of their land use permit, then they should be held to account. The ordinance recognizes that certain uses should only be established under the appropriate circumstances to protect surrounding properties and the County from spillover effects of development activity. In reviewing this situation,it is proper to be hesitant to undertake an action that might damage an enterprise, much less cause it to terminate. Still, it would not be fair to the public in general,nor to other business owners who at some sacrifice comply with applicable law,to allow a business enterprise to skirt the law. Rather than going through revocation proceedings, staff would much prefer to be assisting the permittee in a program that would attain permit compliance at the earliest date possible. In approaching this task.,the sole objective of staff has been to try to find a way to bring this property into compliance with the ordinance requirements. However, that objective can only be reached with the full cooperation of the permittee. Based on the written and oral responses from the permittee received to date, the permittee does not appear to understand his legal responsibilities to comply with the terms of his land use permit and applicable ordinances. Moreover,the permittee seems to mistakenly believe that staff can administratively eliminate ("waive")conditions of approval which were required by the decision-making bodies! It has been nearly twelve years since the Board of Supervisors granted the permittee a land use permit. While boat storage uses have been established on the property,the permittee has not complied with the terms of his permit. Those terms were established to protect the surrounding area relative to possible drainage and visual impacts from the project, developing added roads to serve the business; and limitation of land uses to those which the County has deemed suitable for the area given the low level of infrastructure in the area. Modifications of permit conditions of approval require approval of a new land use permit application. If variances to zoning standards or exceptions to ordinance standards are requested, then the Ordinance requires that special findings first be made by the hearing body. S-5 Fire#2059-88 File#LP992063 Most of the permit conditions do not appear very complicated, expensive or difficult to complete. It is baffling to staff as to why the permittee has not been able to complete at least some of the requirements. Regrettably, the responses of the permittee do not suggest that he is prepared to take the steps necessary to demonstrate compliance with his permit. Potential Code Compliance Action The Ordinance Code (§ 26-2.2028)provides the County several options to attain code compliance. Besides taking the ultimate act of revocation, the County may: • order additional terms, limitations or conditions; s establish a specified probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements; or, • a combination of these actions. Some of these alternatives could result in code compliance if the permittee were to approach the task with a cooperative spirit. However,none are feasible without his full cooperation and an appreciation of responsibility to the community. If the permittee is not willing to comply with the conditions of his permit,then the only means available to establish compliance with the code is to revoke the land use permit, and request staff to take appropriate code enforcement action to eliminate all unauthorized uses. Such action would involve the removal of all uses(e.g., structures and vehicles) other than those allowed by zoning and building codes. The County would normally try to obtain the voluntary compliance of the property owner,however, if that were not forthcoming then the County would be willing to take the matter to court to try to obtain court action to authorize removal of unauthorized uses fom the property including the removal of possessions. The County would charge the cost of those actions to the property owner. In this situation, the only viable option to attain code compliance for the County is to revoke the land use permit. Relaxation of Permit Restrictions If the permittee feels that some of the conditions of approval imposed by the County are not fair or reasonable,then he may file a new application for a land use permit and go through the process. That process could lead to a relaxation of some of the requirements; or it may result in application of the same conditions of approval; or,due to laws and other regulatory actions that have been enacted since 1988,it is possible that more development restrictions could be imposed on a new boat storage application. S-6 William Reddick East County Regional Planning Commission Monday,October 2,2000 However, whatever future action the permittee may wish to take in attempting to restructure a boat storage land use permit should not interfere with the Commission's review of the permittee's record to date in failing to meet his permit obligations. VI. ALTERNATNE ACTIONS Given the tenor of response from the permittee, it is difficult to conceive of any alternative that would provide for compliance with his permit at an early date. The permittee does not appear to accept his responsibilities for compliance with his land use permit. For awhile, he retained the services of an attorney who was counseling him on these matters, however it appears that that attorney is no longer assisting the permittee. It appears that the permittee would need professional assistance before the problem could be cured. One means that might be workable is if the permittee were to make clear to the County that he was prepared to satisfy all permit conditions and to retain the services of a qualified professional (e.g., attorney, civil engineer) to assist him in completing the required steps. In this instance, the Commission should still authorize revocation of the land use permit unless the permittee had demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County that certain conditions had been met at specified milestones. In this instance, the recommended resolution for revocation of the land use permit might be modified to read as follows- .... Land ollows:.... .L,and Use Permit File#2059-88 is revoked unless the permittee provides evidence for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that both of the following requirements have been satisfied. A. Within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution, the permittee provides written evidence that a qualified professional(e.g., attorney, civil engineer)has agreed to diligently work. with the County to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the land use permit within 180 days of the adoption of the resolution; and B. Within 180 days of the adoption of the resolution, evidence is presented to the Zoning Administrator that all conditions of approval have been fully implemented. cAwpdoc\p882059.rpt RD\ S-7 Agenda Item# Community Development Centra Costa County EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 9, 2001 _7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION WILLIAM REDDICK(Permittee, Applicant &Owner) A. CountyFile#LP2059-88 -A hearing to determine if cause exists to revoke a land use permit to operate a dry boat storage facility due to continued violation of the terms, limitations, and conditions of the permit after notice of the violation. B. County File#LP992063 - A request to amend Land Use Permit File#LP 2059-88 to include the use of enclosed storage, an office trailer, and a caretaker unit. The subject site is located at#4091 Orwood Road, in the Brentwood area. (A-2)(ZA: M- 28m)(CT 3040)(APN 015-270-004) 11. SUMMARY OF REVIEW This matter was initially scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission on May 1, 2000, and subsequently continued at the request of the permittee so that he could meet with staff. The permittee did meet with staff on June 28, 2000 with his attorney. At that time,the permittee's attorney indicated that he would be providing a report to staff indicating how the permittee would comply with the terms of the land use permit. On September 7, 2000, a report was provided by the permittee that discussed various conditions attached to the 1988 permit,but did not provide any real evidence of compliance with those conditions. Instead, much of the report challenges the appropriateness of the conditions of approval. Earlier this year, the permittee retained the services of a real estate professional,Eric Hasseltine, to assist him with this process. Mr. Hasseltine submitted a report to staff in January with proposals to comply with some of the conditions; other proposals were seeking amendment to the terms of the existing permit. However, shortly after the report was received, Mr. Hasseltine indicated that he was no longer representing the permittee, and the permittee disassociated himself from the proposals in the Hasseltine report. in. RECO1NiMENDATION Adopt a motion to: A. Adopt a resolution finding that cause exists to revoke Land Use Permit#2059-88, revoking Land Use Permit#205988, and requesting staff to take appropriate code enforcement action to eliminate all existing uses (including structures and vehicles) except those that are otherwise permitted by Ordinance from the property and business signs from other properties in the area, as necessary to establish code compliance. B. Deny Land Use Permit Application#LP992063 because the proposed expansion of the range of items for storage is not allowable within the General Agricultural zoning, nor would it be consistent with the Agricultural Lands desgination in the General Plan. IV. GENERAL WFORMATION a. Background This matter involves a code enforcement investigation concerning a land use permit for a dry boat storage facility that the Board of Supervisors granted in 1988. The decision of the Board of Supervisors also involved denial of an appeal by the permittee to allow storage of items other than boat storage on the property(e.g., recreational vehicles). The Board's 1988 decision to deny the permittee's appeal was made because the storage of the other items is not allowable under the applicable zoning district(General Agricultural, A-2), nor by the General Plan open space designation. In denying the permittee's appeal, the Board sustained the decisions of both the Planning Commission and the Zoning Administrator on this matter. The permittee did not elect to challenge the Board's decision in court. The permit conditions allowed the establishment of open boat storage uses only (COA#5). To protect varied community interests, the permit also required that the permittee provide certain improvements following review and approval by County staff, and abide by certain specific development restrictions formulated for this particular use and site. • landscape improvements approved by the Zoning Administrator(COA #2); • gravel improvements of driveways and boat storage areas (COA#8); • drainage improvements and/or development restrictions that limit impacts of generated project runoff(COA#9.A.); William Reddick Last County Regional Planning Commission Monday,July 9,2001 • road widening, or as an alternative, entering into a deferred improvement agreement with the County to allow for such widening in the future, if the County should deem it necessary(COA#9.B.); • submission and approval of improvement plans to the Public Works Department(COA#9.I.); and • payment of fees for regional bridge and road improvements (COA#9.G.) Section 26-2.2014 of the Ordinance Code (attached) allows a permittee one year in which to exercise a land use permit,which may be extended one additional year by the County upon showing of good cause. The conditions of approval were not satisfied within the year following this approval; nor did the permittee request a one-year extension of the period for exercising the land use permit. Some years after the Board of Supervisors approved this project, as a result of a complaint from a citizen, it became apparent to staff that the permittee had begun storing boats and other items on the property contrary to the procedures and restrictions of the use permit. The permittee was cited for violation of his use permit, including the storage of materials that had been expressly denied by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. The permittee failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that he had complied with his permit. Consequently, staff deemed it appropriate to bring the noncompliance situation to the Commission to allow a public hearing of the matter and to determine if cause exists to revoke Mr. Reddick's land use permit. Simultaneously, Mr. Reddick filed a new land use permit application (File #LP992063) with the County to allow for storage of items other than boats. The background of this matter is reviewed in greater detail in the attached 5/1/00 staff report to the Commission. b. Prior Commission Hearings on Proposed Revccation Proceedings On October 2, 2000,the Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the proposed revocation of the use permit. At that time, the applicant sought greater flexibility in the types of recreational equipment that might be stored on the property(not just boats). The Commission indicated that it wished: S-3 File#2059-88 File#LP992063 * to encourage the Board of Supervisors to modify the regulations of agricultural zoning districts (including regulation of the Reddick property) that might allow consideration of recreational equipment and vehicles other than boats; + to provide Mr. Reddick, the permittee, an additional opportunity to come into compliance with the land use permit and other applicable portions of the Ordinance Code. c. Formation of Agricultural Task Force At the initiative of the Planning Commission, the Board. of Supervisors has established an ad hoc agricultural task force committee which will be looking into formulation of a proposal to relax zoning regulations to allow more flexibility in the range of activities that might be established on agricultural property. The Committee has already had one meeting. d. Retention of Real Estate Professional by Permittee Earlier this year,the permittee retained the services of a real estate professional, Eric Hasseltine, who was attempting to resolve the situation. Staff met on several occasions with Mr. Hasseltine which led to the submission of a report (attached) dated January 23, 2001 which sought to narrow the violations in the permit cited by staff. However, shortly after staff received this report, Mr. Hasseltine indicated that he was no longer representing the permittee. The permittee also indicated to staff that he did not support the proposals contained in the Hasseltine report. e. Health Services Department Report Staff also was contacted by the Health Services Department who reported that activities on the property constitute violations of the health code. This information was relayed by staff to Mr. Hasseltine and the permittee in a letter dated March 10, 2001 (attached). f. Recent Discussions with Permittee Recently, staff contacted the permittee to find out whether he has any proposal to remedy the various code compliance concerns. He indicated that he is not prepared to alter his operation. S-4 William Reddick East County Regional Planning Commission Monday,July 9,2001 V. CONCLUSION Land use permits are entitlements that are granted only after the County finds that special circumstances will be addressed to adequately protect community interests. Where permittees responsibly comply with the terms of their land use permit,the County should not disturb the use of that property. However, where permittees fail to comply with the terms of their land use permit,then they should be held to account. The ordinance recognizes that certain uses should only be established under the appropriate circumstances to protect surrounding properties and the County from spillover effects of development activity. In reviewing this situation, it is proper to be hesitant to undertake an action that might damage an enterprise, much less cause it to terminate. Still, it would not be fair to the public in general, nor to other business owners who at some sacrifice comply with applicable law, to allow a business enterprise to skirt the law. Rather than going through revocation proceedings, staff would much prefer to be assisting the permittee in a program that would attain permit compliance at the earliest date possible. In approaching this task, the sole objective of staff has been to try to find a way to bring this property into compliance with the ordinance requirements. However, that objective can only be reached with the full cooperation of the permittee. Based on the written and oral responses from the permittee received to date, the permittee does not appear to understand his legal responsibilities to comply with the terms of his land use permit and applicable ordinances. Moreover, the permittee seems to mistakenly believe that staff can administratively eliminate ("waive")conditions of approval that were required by the decision-making bodies.r It has been twelve years since the Board of Supervisors granted the permittee a land use permit. While boat storage uses have been established on the property, the permittee has not complied with the terms of his permit. Those terms were established to protect the surrounding area relative to possible drainage and visual impacts from the project; developing added roads to serve the business; and limitation of land uses to those which 'Modifications of permit conditions of approval require approval of a new land use permit application. If variances to zoning standards or exceptions to ordinance standards are requested, then the Ordinance requires that special findings first be made by the hearing body. S-5 File#2059-88 File#LP992063 the County has deemed suitable for the area given the low level of infrastructure in the area. Most of the permit conditions do not appear very complicated, expensive or difficult to complete. It is baffling to staff as to why the permittee has not been able to complete at least some of the requirements. Regrettably,the responses of the permittee do not suggest that he is prepared to take the steps necessary to demonstrate compliance with his permit. Potential Code Compliance Action The Ordinance Code (§ 26-2.2028)provides the County several options to attain code compliance. Besides taking the ultimate act of revocation, the County may: • order additional terms, limitations or conditions; • establish a specified probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements; or, • a combination of these actions. Some of these alternatives could result in code compliance if the permittee were to approach the task with a cooperative spirit. However, none are feasible without his full cooperation and an appreciation of responsibility to the community. If the permittee is not willing to comply with the conditions of his permit, then the only means available to establish compliance with the code is to revoke the land use permit, and request staff to take appropriate code enforcement action to eliminate all unauthorized uses. Such action would involve the removal of all uses (e.g., structures and vehicles) other than those allowed by zoning and building codes. The County would normally try to obtain the voluntary compliance of the property owner, however, if that were not forthcoming then the County would be willing to take the matter to court to try to obtain court action to authorize removal of unauthorized uses four the property including the removal of possessions. The County would charge the cost of those actions to the property owner. In this situation, the only viable option to attain code compliance for the County is to revoke the land use permit. Relaxation of Permit Restrictions If the permittee feels that some of the conditions of approval imposed by the County are not fair or reasonable, then he may file a new application for a land use permit and go through the process. That process could lead to a relaxation of some of the requirements; S-6 William Reddick East County Regional Planning Commission Monday,July 9,2001 or it may result in application of the same conditions of approval; or, due to laws and other regulatory actions that have been enacted since 1988, it is possible that more development restrictions could be imposed on a new boat storage application. However,whatever future action the permittee may wish to take in attempting to restructure a boat storage land use permit should not interfere with the Commission's review of the permittee°s record to date in failing to meet his permit obligations. VI. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Given the tenor of response from the permittee, it is difficult to conceive of any alternative that would provide for compliance with his permit at an early date. The permittee does not appear to accept his responsibilities for compliance with his land use permit. For awhile, he retained the services of an attorney who was counseling him on these matters, however it appears that that attorney is no longer assisting the permittee. The permittee then retained the services of a real estate professional, who within two months discontinued representing the permittee. The consultant report from which the permittee has disassociated, would provide for a number of modifications to the existing permit. The modifications go beyond those listed with the original application. The report also did not address some of the details (e.g., modification of collect and convey requirement, placement of gate, size and placement of vegetaion) in the original permit. The report also does not address compliance with other ordinance requirements such as building and health codes. Were the applicant to reconsider and accept the report's proposals, a new land use permit application would be required and appropriately noticed before these proposals could be authorized. A. Probation If the permittee were to make clear to the County that he was prepared to satisfy all permit conditions and to retain the services of a qualified professional (e.g., attorney, civil engineer)to assist him in completing the required steps, it still may be possible to provide for permit and ordinance compliance. In this instance,the Commission should still authorize revocation of the land use permit unless the permittee had demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County that certain conditions had been met at specified milestones. In this instance, the recommended resolution for revocation of the land use permit might be modified to read as follows: S-7 Pile#2059-88 Pile#LP992063 .... Land Use Permit pile#2059-88 is revoked unless the permittee provides evidence for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that both of the following requirements have been satisfied. 1. Within 34 days of the adoption of this resolution, the permittee provides written evidence that a qualified professional(e.g., attorney, civil engineer)has agreed to diligently work with the County to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the land use permit within 180 days of the adoption of the resolution; and 2. Within 180 days of the adoption of the resolution, evidence is presented to the Zoning Administrator that all conditions of approval have been fully implemented B. Continuance to Allow Permittee Another Opportunity to Formulate a Program for Code Compliance The Commission could continue the matter again for 2-3 months to allow the permittee another opportunity to present to the Commission a program for compliance with the permit. In this instance, the Commission should require that the permittee provide the program in writing (preferably typed) at least four weeks prior to the continued hearing to allow the report to be distributed to various County agencies for review. It should be noted that any action that the Commission may take on either the existing permit or proposed permit amendment is appealable to the Board of Supervisors. cAwpdoc\1p8 82059-c.rpt RM S-8 __. _... Agenda Item#2 & 3 Community Development Contra Costa County EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, Januar 1y 4, 2002 -7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION WILLIAM REDDICK.(Permittee, Applicant & Owner) A. County File#LP2059-88 -A hearing to determine if cause exists to revoke a land use permit to operate a dry boat storage facility due to continued violation of the terms, limitations, and conditions of the permit after notice of the violation. B. County File#LP992063 -A request to amend Land Use Permit File#LP 2059-88 to include the use of enclosed storage, an office trailer, and a caretaker unit. The subject site is located at#4091 Orwood Road, in the Brentwood area. (A- 2)(ZA: M-28m)(CT 3040)(APN 015-270-004) II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW This matter was initially scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission on May 1, 2000, and subsequently continued at the request of the permittee so that he could meet with staff. At subsequently continued hearings, the Commission indicated that they wished to allow the applicant an opportunity to come into compliance, after the County had an opportunity to consider ordinance text amendments that might expand the range of vehicles that could be stored on agriculturally zoned property, including the Reddick site. On September 18, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a field trip to the site, which was also attended by representatives of the Public Works, Health Services, Building Inspection and Community Development Departments. At the October 1, 2001 meeting the Commission directed staff to schedule the matter for hearing to try to clarify those concerns that the Commission feels would need to be addressed independent of the changes to the agricultural zoning which the Commission would like to see the County make. III. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt a motion directing staff to prepare a Commission resolution finding that cause exists to revoke Land Use Permit#2059-88; revoking Land Use Permit#2059--88; and requesting staff to take appropriate code enforcement action to eliminate all existing uses (including structures and vehicles)except those that are otherwise permitted by Ordinance, from the property and business signs from other properties in the area, as necessary to establish code compliance. B. Deny Land Use Permit Application#LP992063 because the proposed expansion of the range of items for storage is not allowable within the General Agricultural zoning, nor would it be consistent with the Agricultural Lands designation in the General Plan. IV. AGRICUL'T'URAL TASK.FORCE COMMITTEE The Commission had asked that the County entertain some revisions to uses permissible that are zoned for agricultural uses. Specifically,the Commission wished to see the range of vehicles expanded to consider other types of vehicles including recreational vehicles,boats and trailers. An Agricultural Task Force (ad-hoc)Committee has been formed. However, staff has indicated that it is unlikely to complete any code amendments emanating from that Committee before the end of 2002. V. REVIEW OF CODE COMPLIANCE CONCERNS a. Land Use Permit#2059-88 — Staff has previously reviewed with the Planning Commission that we can find no evidence of compliance with certain conditions of approval of the 1988 land use permit. The project remains in noncompliance with those conditions of approval, except that staff is now prepared to accept that the applicant has complied with the perimeter fence requirement (COA#2.F.). b. Other Zoning Compliance Concerns A. Inoperable Vehicles— Included in the vehicles stored at the site, appear to be a number of inoperable vehicles. The commercial storage of inoperable vehicles is only allowed by the County in commercial and Industrial properties, and only after a land use permit for a junkyard has been applied for, obtained, and complied with. The site does not have a land use permit for a junkyard, nor is it zoned for commercial or industrial use. The Commission has not indicated that it 2 desires the County to allow inoperable vehicles on the site. See attached code excerpts on definition of a junkyard and B. Other non-permitted vehicles—In addition to conventional recreational vehicles, the site also included non-recreational vehicles (cars, buses, etc.). It is staff's understanding that the Commission was not necessarily seeking changes to the zoning code that would allow these types of vehicles to be stored on agriculturally zoned property. C. Minimum Yard Areas (Structure Setback from.Property Lines)for Structures D. Floodplain Mana„gernent Ordinance—The site lies within a designated flood zone. It is staff's understanding that all of the existing structures (none of which were legally established),would be required to comply with the Floodplain Management Ordinance, which would include obtaining a floodplain permit. Some may need to be elevated to meet that standard. c. Building Code Violations—None of the existing structures were established with building permits. See attached memo dated 7/23101 and letter dated 3/4/99 from the Building Inspection Department. d. Health Code Violations—The Health Services Department indicates that the existing operation is in violation of sewage disposal code requirements. Even though the site lies within a floodplain,the Health Services Department has indicated that with special design measures recently adopted by the County,it may be possible to meet the Health Code requirements for an individual sewage disposal system. VI. DISCUSSION The staff position and recommendation remains as previously presented to the Commission. However, the Commission indicated that it wished to consider other aspects of the existing operation that may warrant change independent of the outcome of possible change to the zoning ordinance. 3 February 5, 2001 Letter from Chairman, ECRPC, to Supervisor Glover Requesting Reconstitution of Ag. Task Force to Consider Easing of Restrictions of Agriculturally Zoned Properties yojrity Community Contra u Keve AICP Development Cost. Department Corona C wrsty AdrigNst eilon Building 651 Street - Ah Floor,North Ung *' Martkw,Caftrft 94553-OWS rR: Phone: 924 335-1210 February 5,2W Federal Glover,District V Supervisor 31.5 E. Leland Avenue Pittsburg,C,A, 94555 Dear Supervisor Clover. During the past several moths,the Commission has been considering a land use permit application and a per' it'revocation for a property that currently stores boats and: recr6ational vehicles. Through:this process,we have learned that the Conry Cade allows boats to be stored in agricultural Zoning Districts if they are within one mile of a waterway. A.gzicultilralty zoned properties beyond the one mile standard,may not obtain a land use permit for boat storage. Although we recopize why the County Code limits the storage to boats only,we believe that additional flexibility should be included to ensure that such businesses will be viable. The Commim sirxl requests that you consider requesting a review of the.relevant code sections to evaluate whether the storage of recreational vehicles which is ancillary to boat storage may be allowable with,a land use permit. We understand that the Agricultural Task Porce will be meeting soon,-and suggest that this might be an item for their consideration. We ask that this review be completed in the near term so that we may resume considezatio n of the above mentioned hand use petnnait. On a broaden note,we are concerned that there Haight not be a sufficient amount of commercially designated properties to handle the expanding,storage needs of our growing urban population. Separately,as time permits,eve.request that a review be conducted to assess whether the county code should be amended to allow for storage facilities on agriculturally zoned properties proximate to residential communities, Thank you for considering our request. If you have any questions,please coo not hesitate• to contact ane.. Sincerely, Walter MacVittie,Chair Fast County Regional Planning Cornrnission Office Hours Monday-Friday:8.00 a.m.-5.00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd&Sth Fridays of each month January 2002 Fetter of Appeal of Planning Commission actions and. Follow-up Correspondence .JPN.29-2 002 4:25'PM CCC COMMUNITY DEYLEP MO.082 P.2 Ronald R Julmsou Ar orney at Law t January24p 2002 Board of Supervisors County of Centra Costa 651 Pine St. 24 FL North Vmg Martinez, Ca. 94553 R,e: Appeal of Action.takea by East Country � Regional Planning Commission January 14, I 2002, Fid LP992063 and LP 205988 � To the Board of Supervisors: � � C I This appeal is made pursuant to your p7ocedures for appeal to the Board of Supervisors County s y of Contra.Costa for actions taken by.bast Coun=ty Regional Contra.Costa Pig Commission f on January 14, 2002. , The action wbkh is appealed is the planning comrnission's denial of a permit and a request to amend L?2459-58 to include the use of'enclosed stora=ge, an office trOer and a caretaker unit at 4091 Arwood Road in Brentwood area, unincorporated Contra Costa County. Further,the appeal is taken from the action of said planzung ctin=ission in revolt a land rise � permit to operate a dry boat storage fa=cility at 4091 Orwood Road in the Brentwood,Area; unincorporated Contra.Costa County file number LP2059-88. Said actions are referred to as Agenda.Items 2 and 3 of the East County Regional Planning j Co i.Ssion, Contra.Costa County California, Monday January 14, 2002. � P yt 4 Said appeal is based on the alleged violations and notice thereof were insufficient to justify as a } reasonable action and that ca=use did not exist to revoke said permit for operation of said business as a dry storage facility and that aL acti=vities at said site were consistent with the scope and condition of said busi=ness and permit as allowed by the appropriate county or iamaes and zoning, k regulations. i The 3ohrson Law Firm 430 Railroad Aveiue - Piti,btu , California 44565 (9:5)427-9006-Fra (92$)427-.3020 Moreover,the denial of a.perms for the use of storage and office trailer and caretaker tmh which should be deemed consistent with the option of appellant's business was unreasotable and inconsistent with the scope of the General Flan or as acceptable departure therefrom in order to operate the business for which a.permit should be issued consistent with the present use at the location and other property within the general area. As well as the appropriate ordinance of the County of Contra Costa. Further, such action appealed from herein adversely affects property rights of appellant and value of subject property, as well as being inconsistent with the enforcement of the appropriate ordinances as to all persons who are similarly situated in Contra Costa.County. RespectWy submitted, l l�rzscm.Dr Appellantck 02 MAIY -8 PM 2; 42 a , CV v c" F I 14,t aK LCA �' [ s ' ��►� r`��.l�,y��r,�`_'�,. �k?�;cam��y ���----- --- 4�,- -AZA—ZT—M_e_ 1 t �.— t I � b f C 40( ev t c�srA.4U-MS r Me)4 - � -- c` r yt& _- IC: � f / r f ---------- two s r--; i �--- f, {� i �. D i 4 1 I gMIT AIK AW1 PC � k cc v n it .s': � 1 elf I �i ti-J 7 'Ll_.1-. (-I � 3 - r x � 6a�b 771.�''!'t'�cc.� _—___�.__.__�Ltr�Q--� 'C,._�?5cfr _�Jc�_�.�i•�?,ccS,SLrxr2�cc...,�_Lv __(5___-- �r rvytt— fi _ Gcrj.L °� t ie ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA DUPLICATE v . THE RESOURCES A43ENCY Do not fill in Driller's Copy DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES INATER WELL DRILLERS REPORT No. 327422 .otice of Tntent No. State Well No. Local Permit No. or Date 90-0256 tither Well No. (1) OWNER: Name Bill edd2.ck (12) WELL. LOG: Total depth 1" ft. Completed depth !�! ft. Address 55 Bix er Rd. from ft. to ft. Formation(Describe by color,character,size or material) Cit Brent-wood oo ZIP t _ r City— � J l CS f1f_1 (2) LOCATION OF WELL(See instructions): 5 — 6 sand County Contra Costs Owner's Well Number 6 - clay Well address if different from above P t 1 T Box 84GE Orwola � Rd` — Township Brentwood Range Section 8 — 34 sand--f i n e Distance from cities,mads,railroads,Fences,etc. 34 — 53 clay ` 53 - 65 sae 65 - 76 c 1AIX y . 76 -- 85 Is ain 6 "n (3) TYPE OF WORK: 85 — 10(1.„, c l3`Q ,,^, , New Well 6 Deepening ❑ 10 — 1 .3 =:; anIN,-fine on top Reconstruction ❑ l )3 — 35 't, la v Reconditioning 0 135 'F,`_.4 1,4 0 sL a n d”"T i r:e Horizontal Well © r .Destruction Or (Describe �t ``rr destruction materials and pro- cedures rwcedures in Item 12) — (4) PROPOSED USE:",",1, ljgtneStiC ~� 4�, Irrigation Industrial �`*t ❑ ,— ` a . Test Well R ❑ ". � t 1 Qlber �� t..rf 5 .�•,.... fl WELL LOCATION SKETCH �oe, 'P b b 1.y C':'a lr (5) EQt3IPMENT: ,(54..GRAV151,IkACK: muuy l Reverse ❑ Ttas N. Sirx ` r Cable Air © t''fy iasrrrteh;,at bore 123 tg23 Other ❑ BuLke2"— )—1 Packed franc (7)CASING INSTALLEi3 y t (B) PEi'�f�1KATIt?�1�: t' Steel ❑ Plcuttc C�ncrete„[' Tye of Orfo6hon or size ref sc From 'I Dla. Cage or• F rtrttt ; f y�rtdcit — ft. ft, f•�f. Wan t." w€..t: size (9) WELL SEAL: i Was surface sanitary seal provided? Yes No ❑ If yes,to depth ft Were strata sealed against pollution? Yes ❑ No ❑ Interval ft Method of sealing Bentonite ' Work started 1 tJ___ Comp€eted i cJ� (10) WATER LEVELS: WELL DRILLEF STATEMENT, Depth of first water,if known ft This well utas drVlA under my fta ' teflon nd this report is Prue to the Standing level after well completion 4-I ft t of my]rytnuy d he icy (11) WELL TESTS: Signed Was well test made? Yes ❑ No [N If yes,by whom;? ��' a�,LI� _ 'EI� � Iter)��,��.�1.II�x inc. ypeoftest Pump M €Ias`ier ❑ Airlift ❑ NAME i k '.?epth to water at start of test ft Atend of test ft x Q1-1 so ar vyped or printed) Dfsrlsarge gal/min after - hours Water temperature Address Chemical analysis made? Yes [I No 0 If yer,by whom? City ZTP 9 5 15 Was e)ectric log made Yes ❑ No ❑ I€yes attachroo to this rcpr rr License Na. Date of this report 5-23--90 OWR 18s(REV. 12.663 IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEED90, USE NEXT CONSECUTIVELY NUMBERED FORM 86 94.3.53 A_2 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 84-38.404--84-38.1002 ,a (1) All types of agriculture, including general (9) Commercial recreational facilities when farming, horticulture, floriculture, nurseries and the principal use is not in a building; greenhouses, mushroom rooms, dairying, (10) Boat storage areas within one mile by livestock production, fur farms, poultry raising, public road of a boat launching facility open to animal breeding, aviaries, apiaries, forestry, and the public; similar agricultural uses; (11) Retail firewood sales; (2) Other agricultural uses, including the (12) Recycling operations intended to sort erection and maintenance of sheds, warehouses, and/or process material for reuse except for granaries, dehydration plants, hullers, fruit and those activities described in Section$8-4.206. . vegetable packing plants, and buildings for the (13) Museums in which objects of historical. storage of agricultural products and equipment; artistic, scientific or cultural importance are (3) A stand not exceeding two hundred preserved and displayed. (Orris. 89-46 § 2. square feet for sale of agricultural products I6-36 § 3, 7437 § 2, 60.82, 1988, 1569 § 2: grown on the premises. The stand shall be set prior code § 8156(b); Ords. 1406 § 3, 497 § 4, back at least twenty-five feet from the front 3$2 § 4E). property line; (4) A detached single family dwelling on each 84-38.406 Uses — Refuse disposal site — parcel and the accessory structures and uses , Permit required. Refuse disposal sites are normally auxiliary to it; permitted in the A-2 district upon the issuance (5) Foster' house or family care home of a permit under the provisions of Chapter operated by a public agency, or by a private 418-4. (Ord. 72-89 § 2, 1972). agency which has obtained state or local approval (license) for the proposed operation, Article 84.38.6 where not more than six minors reside on the Lots premises with not more than two supervisory persons. 84-38.608 Lot area, width and depth. (6) A family day care home where care, Except as provided in Section 84.38.610, uses protection and supervision of twelve or fewer allowable under Article 84-3$.4 are allowed only children in the provider's own home are provid- on lots which equal or exceed all of the ed for periods of less than twenty-four hours following: five acres in area, two hundred fifty per day, while the parents or guardians are feet average width,and two hundred foot depth. away. (Ords. 86-43 § 13, 68-25 § 2, 1968, 1569, (Ord. 73-86 § I (part), 1973). 1555, 1535: prior code § 8156(a): Ord. 1405). 84.38.610 Existing legal lots excepted. Any 84-38.404 Uses--Requiring land use permit. single lot legally created in an A•2 district before The following uses are allowable on the issuance November 29, 1973, at least forty thousand of a land use permit: square feet in area may-be used as provided in (1) Allowable uses designated in Sectior. A iccie 84-38.41. (Ord. 73-86 § I (part), 1373). 84-36.4034: .. (2) Merchandising of agricultural supplies Article 84-38.8 and services incidental to an agricultural use: Building Height (3) Canneries, wineries and processing of agricultural products. 84-38.802 Building height — Maximum. (4) Cold storage plants. Building height provisions for the A•2 district (5) Slaughterhouses and stockyards: shall be the same as those for the A-1 district (6) Rendering plants and fertilizer paints or (Section 84-36.802). (Ord. 1569: Ord. 1555: yards. .prior code § 8156(f): Ord. 1406). (7) Livestock auction or sales yards; (8) Living accommodations for agricultural Article 84-38-.10 workers to be primarily used for temporary Yards housing of agricultural workers while performing seasonal agricultural work on the owner's 84-38.1002 Yard — Side. There shall be an property; aggregate side yard width of at least forty feet. 341 (Contra cu+ta County t2-89) PAJ�0:7 t 02 JUN' 17 Phil 3: 4 4 C x, c if 1,,y d.-9 Y • ��.�3, c;� �.+ fr7� C��' rte, .si�'�t` �1 ". s A. o, e a r r -hr t o .p� € ow 4ZbL`rem t - Zr46 cit a?, 330- o11 r 40eklt&7 -7b tach f 9w� mal oTtm�k¢ errae � . SG✓" Ym°i+#�'�'W� F 4.�L'+'Ft�+v�'N�I`TiW'Pu"A F� ��C��*"iG:%sv'C� � �� C Lnf + "' r�"-VL !✓'L"��I.�ryTT. sYP �LY''43 4 !b"'"Y'.#6� 6 d �f { f k I V Ir r� 0 17ye)v, cid jj atj� -c5 Wit.,--71 j: /As eova, yok o 14, b km it y A-pgTct ezaFl ; retz L—D V 0 64456 X 40 t '�-�,���"� � � �� alrLu � €�,..�-�C� Cl.�" •,,. � cam..., c�. 11i' t'�d>r F 'S toms " lij ` y i 'L�'C_ 4 V( l Y f t S} 4 copy S455 —RALL tri� ray � . It Ic Add � � ����-'� ,. ��.. ��� .. .5'��,r.•Gr.., x"12` ` t�r���x� �.. .�� C r4 F EY-157(0 F 3 i { f i qOO £ 1TY O&VC-4 awr 7-z4p5dam- ._ .fir .. �/�{ /�F_,,� ,y (r ``]�;r���yry ' G'$„t✓T d 1. A' l I A A l,::iz sf ! e.s.+C.aL✓f�L.J.w".G � '.»�^°.. iat+' �+/ c r oc o4- y Tl��-7,z Z, P,6", a AVE GoapT mel,Nzt�" y az 77#- t t �. �,. '�. �� � �ae�.t ���;� �C Cts� "�`�`�•�'" '` +�5 �'"�'� 4T/44&, a44� lw a i r !h,&Q, Wi+' 1 y'°'r� e- Ar it r G34+.rL P 7 1 r-� I�'wcvu-'r co,'-"B a5 X14 " s,i 4 rS gG[[¢a 4 4 Y Y f { fl i y� 5 Y. 3 z ._... ries s; v: duLSd�l. 1J1 1t�11 1 64-38.404-8-38.1002— (1) All types of agriculture, including general (9) Commercial recreational facilities when farming, horticulture, floricidture$ nurseries and the princ pal Tose is not in a building; greenhouses, mushroaXII rooms, dairying, (101 Boat vi,thin one anile. by livestock production, fur fauns, poultry raising, p�wblfc road of a boat launching facility open to arnmal breeding, aviaries, apiaries, forestry, and :'.Y public; similar ag:•icufiural uses; (11) Retail firewood sales; (2) Other agricultural uses, including the (12) Recycling operations intended to sort erection and maintenance of sheds, warehouses, and/car process material for reuse: except for granaries, dehydration plants, hullers, fruit and those activities describer) in Section 88-4.2.06,, . vegetable pacldng plantsbi , and buildings for the (l3) Museums in which oects of historical, storage of agricultural products and equipment; artistic, scientific or cultural importance are (3) A stand not exceeding two hundred preserved and displayed. (43rds. 89.46 square ` feet for sale of agricultural products 76-36 § 3, 7437 § 2, 60-82, 1988, I569 § 2: grown on the premises., The stared shall be set prior cede § 8156(b), 43rds. 1406 § 3, 497 § 4, back at least twenty-five feet from the front 382 § 4E): property line; (4) A detached single family dwelling on each 84.38.406 t — Refuse disposal site .� parcel and the accessory structures and uses Permit required. Refuse disposal sites are nominally auxiliary to it; permit-ted in the A-2 district upon the issuance (5) Foster home or family can home of a permit under the provisions of Chapter operated by a public agency, or by a private 418-4.(Ord. 7249 § 2, 1972), agency which has obtained state or local approval (license) for the proposed operation, Article 84-38.6 where not more than six minors reside on the Lots premises with not more than two supervisory persons. 84-38.608 Lot area, width and depth. (6) A family day care home where care, Except as provided in Section 84-38.610, uses protection and supervision of twelve or fewer allowabie under Article 84-38.4 are allowed only children in the provider's own home are provid- on lots which equal or exceed all of the ed for pen.ods of less than twenty-four hours fallowing: .five acres in area, two hundred fifty per day, while the parents or guardians are feet average width, and two hundred foot depth. away, ('43rds. 86-43A 13, 68-25 § ?, 1968, 1569, (Gerd. 73-86 § I (part), 1973). 1555, 1535: prior code § 8156(a): Ord. 1406). 84-38.610 Existing legal bats excepted. Any .84-38.404 Uses—Requiring land use permit. single lot legally created in an A-2 district before The tcallowing uses are allowable on the issuance November 29, 1973, at least forty thor. nd of a land use permit: square feet in area may ,be used as provided in (1) Allowable uses designated in Sectior. Article 84-38.4. (Gird. 73-86 § I (part), 1973) . 84-36,4474: (2) Merchandising- of agricultural supplies- Article 84.38.8 and services incidental to an agricultural use. Building Height (3) Canneries, wineries and processing of. agricultural products: 84-38.802 Building height -- Maxirnu-m. (4) Cold storage planets: Building height provisions for the A-2 district i51 Slaughterhouses and stockyards: shall be the same as those for the A-I district (6) Rendering plants and fertilizer paints or (Section. 84-36.802). (Ord. 1569; Ord. 1555: yards: prior code § 8156(f): 43rd. 1406). (7) Livestock auction or sales yards: (8) Living accommodations for agricultural Article 84-38J0 workers to be primarily used for temporary Yards housing of agricultural workers whale performing seasonal agricultural work on the owner's 84-38.14702 Yard Stew. There shall be an property', aggregate side yard width of at least forty feet. 341 (Curtrz cusiz cuunty i2-69) a,,.4€1 M . 1 Thursday, June 6, 2002 yy pp i ..v e�a VI�� "` pmnlnW�o,;Vrff?%rfV vet{.'':if N��Y..r ..... .. ,3. ..:..XF ........ �i+"G i�!'f' Departmentof Motor Vehicles � .� •. QxJ.Iitae �°.t'„-��:ew � y CA r This site Health and Safety Code Recreational "vehicle, Manufactured Home,Mobilehome, Commercial each, Truck Camper, or Floating Horne • ubii.catio�xs Forms 18010. "Recreational vehicle”means both of the following: New Arrivals (a.)A motor home,travel trailer,truck camper,or camping trailer,with or without motive ti� ,�✓,tc '_ :c�a s power,designed for human habitation for recreational, emergen , or ether occupancy,that FA els meets all of the following criteria: j t� 4a Title&Registration (1)It contains less than 320 square feet of internal li-,ing room area, excluding builtin Information equipment, including,but not limited to,wardrobe, closets, cabinets, kitchen units or L7�hEt g fix#ures, and bath or toilet rooms. ,tabor), (2)It contains 400 square feet or less of gross area measured at maxitnum horizontal License and ID Card projections. Information (3)Itis built on a single chassis. ..Driver License 1- •a , s (4)It is either self-propelled, truck.-mounted,or permanently towable on the highways n—,I .a l:i=weg�sIe without a last, ..............._....... Vebide hidusin., ; )A park trailer, as defined in Section 18009.3. ("o€a emi al Permas Special Plates (Amended sec.2, Ch. 566, stats. 2000, Effective January 1, 2001.) tes i�,.�ibled .Phacard. _...................._.....•._._............_ u............_..............__._...,.. ether Information tan ,3 i . u at*, of Coptwo t elhr ct e �pdix A Tableasrgtea OtIIC-f Services Contact CJs y( � Baer,%3!Q e ? 0 2000 state of California. Gray Davis, Governor. 6,iTi, o k seth,.,?,- Po)i y file.// :Myl/aZ oewiuents`Health°/o! an€1/'02Osafety°r'o2O odes ZOSe on%'2O1801 %20--O/o2OR.ecreatio ,. 6/6/2002 Rtornia'Home RWK-001P—SE�e Department of Motor Vehicles —MV Long—do ms-A fi rs Recreational Vehicles and Trailers BUo A Type',, orf ?€°crleafiz mt a'Vehici s, �a There are several types of recreational vehicles(RVs)and trailers which offer living accommodations in a mobile New Arrgvals Batting.These are the diffsrenttype•s: a Nowto * FAQs Type of Vehicle Explanation �Which Class 10,Ucense a Site Map Required Title&Registration Conventonal--thane vary in size from 13 to 35 Any clan Information fete,Most can to towed with a small size vehicle. except larger model may require a heavier pickup or MIN2.See a 'vehicle Reralstration van as the towing vehicle. the License a Boat Registration Class chart License and BD Carni - 0g- -- � - l"Id#fa-�n+hscsl--�s :��Siac!to the towing vehicle 6an}+ciao intarmation {usually a pip track}califs a hitch centered over except a Oviver t icense the vehides's-rear axis.F tti'S-wheals s-ary in tends M1 IM2,See 0 10 Cards �- - front 17 to 40 feet. the License Class cert * Convmrclal License nse a Vehide irxdsastry Folding Camping Trasfer—has collapsible sides Any class that ars folded down for compact travel and exert Corrrmerclai Permits unfolded at a c ampaits•Most can be towed by ars W tM2.Sae � average size Vehicle. the Uoense speclal Rat _, Claes decant. e Personalized.Piates 11 * Disabled Placards - - - Motor home--divlderdt into rano types.The larger Apy class one is built can a truck chassis with a gasoline or except Other informationrr diesel engines andis da pabie of traveling tong ml=-See a Yoar° MV Records distances due to,a large foal pacify.The the License Other Services smaller or mint-rno for home is gilt on a modified Class chart. th _ es van chassis and usually has a section that * About VMV loverhangs the cab. * conuct his ' , 4Pan Camper and Conversion van camper is Any class i equip ad with most of the arnenWas found in except at&qalNotice and, mootor homes,but bad size and'ice to MI N2.See 01sclainfter maneuver are limited,Vehicles usually have a the license t raised roof for additional headroom.A van Class chart. ar r U conversionnormally has a herd,dinette,sink an fa small water supply but is not as 1s slly equipped. ,.� ,� ... far camping as a van camper. Truck Gamper—a detachable section designed to Any class g` k ` " A•F g-�---�. be transported on a pickup truck The larger except vatietes may requires trucks with dual-mar MI/M2.See Wheals.Also called pickup camper or cab over the License camper. Class chart. s +f Table sof Contertsf Previous PsoeJ,'text, Pape >ra.�.,�u,<,.,.,,.:.,��,,� w„�;�.,.,,v.,..s,•.,,,.�.s,.,�,..�:.,�,••�,,,.,»,,,.��,,:,.,M:1.,.•..�_W,,,v,,.M.v..,w.y,�,.ru w...-,u ,...n. �.ur�,,M. m„ r,.u, ,.� ;J ,.ur l ad lc co oCJ cal Pace 2000 State of Carlfornfa.Gray Davis,'Govemor. Conditions of Use Pri PHOTO mak`, f t / s _... -::........:........_..............:.:..... _..._..... ..._...._......._.........__..._................._....................,.... . .:..:. -: ... ....... }.::. x....,. ..,...,. ::: :::::.�:::::::::::::::::.;.:;:::r:::?.:::::::::::xr::::?::?.:.::<:/:....}:b::••r:r:x.;.::.,.,;.;.f ;r.r/.rr.?•lx,x:.;;,r.r .....' ::<:.::::::.::.;:;:::.:.:::::::;::::.:: ::::. ......:..........._.:.........,..,............r:.:::::::::::::::•:::: ,...........rte.. r.x r.,,.,r...,.f.:,r.r.. x... ,rr.xf:xr a:: ::::: r::,...,..:r..,. :.. rr r,:....:.;..,.r.::,::::•: . _. .. .............. ....,......:.........,:::::::::.::.::::::::.::::•:::::.:::::.;;::kr. �.,:?<. ..............r:r..., xf.::x x .. .xx%: fi f.,. xx. ,............,...:,rr:r,:::::...............,::::::::::: .�:::::.�::::::.:::.�:::::: ;:;::<.;:::;,:;;:;>:•;>:>::?>:.;,.»;:;:«.>'::.::::.?:r::::::..:.....r :f:::::r ......r}:r ,.r..r r .,..:r :f,f fr..::r,:?%,?..xr/ �. ,. r� xx ..r x,r.:.,..�%r�:::,. f .,.f,...,rr .............. ,r.............. :?.rr :.:::•>:<.>:.>::.�.�:::...,....:::,:::,:�.;:.?:;.;;r:::::'::.>;o-w � 1, x.., f ?,;r x2'r.'l,:r:%r,: •fx }%: .dx }..r rr rr ,}} %%/": r ,is^ ii%fit? .:%r<?•::.;:.>:-;:';:;> r;:rr':::x:•:::-::;o-;:o-:::??%+;;;>:%::�x';:?a.. ': '�r. ..r:... ..rr.....x.r., .......... r; ,�: ,;:r::: ../::. .. . xr..../.. }}l ,xr��x?+•� :f•:x::.,,.,..,.r.:. ..rr::r;;;.<.';:rr;•.�%::,:r... r� +:;rx:,r•:;r%:'. }/..•: x,!%x::f' i:..%';..f }, x x } � } !' fix} x! .xx�, i'?x''.:"r :::�:.....• .. /. ty%"'�f xj,f/x � : x r � �r���'�y � �. .!x ';.•'.,��'?'rr::: : -.. ,:,x ,:� }: f r;:,�}x:,r r r� r} �+} l } } x f ��r ffj� .,l;lf;.../'f;�::i:�:�i:;:;;:<•;;:;:;':.:. �xr� � ,%x; r.G � } x x / / �� x}�t%x xf;tr x.f%f.;•�:'<+?:':;;%:;:<:r;�;rr, � � ;f �/�+�f+�+r � •} % x�r' r�: i'�',: x;:?:%:x':ri;r ze x eft i}:i•f` / } r}}� �' t,« 4 �� rr r y x /. ! ':x'x r}f�x rr�,} +}3xl,�f}r�x�• fr;:'�r'� f - x�' x�x�x/x� xx x x ffr f x --� xrff x x/ o f r x, }i y r x}y;/`� :i:v c- .r /d�G�l�f� �rfx'r� � � �r f x f f} x li x}x'ii x}..�: x �i:�fxF orf x� � x rr. � llr` .}/x rr r' }}} "iq�� x''� r�r'rx FEE:. IMI 11.9c x/ XI' X x:,,:ii� x x x} x �r.:•r":/ ,} xx- .......... } xi}xrl }f r ✓F,f r x "x�fxxx�x r x` f'fr' .fx!l;:ff f�i;;'::f:r lrf .:x�,'ri�%xx x} ...... MOMM •f..�.. % } //x r} r .: .: c.%% %i'?x'%;.!c;;: +.,:::f???.... ..... r r w i I +f A. i ?i fr A� /f firf F/f,. I, E �iY t try}f: :. .^•• F ff •�NA'rYf�r r rte/ :. 1:•.�•ifmY/ff.: .- t, f f fff A ff f /i} ff� }F fff f�� }///F F�F .: ff f f,��rl•' f' 7F if}F . 'ffu}fir}. f.{r •/ f,w�Nfa ,w." " f f� } Hill f�} } f t. }�`/�f f f f /•� / f r r �/`�',d.{i/ //r f'�" f,�it�`rd/ f 1�;} }}f/ F/} }f f >" r:/}f `;r,.,...: f,...,;,/�'•: r :::/y'? ;r: {. f f }} f}.N`. ' ..!?�- LION k f 1 • l Y, y. a � r Y / r' > F f X xr t t S� c r r sites r fi> m � porm 0-1 M �. w �r e, s gam' y Y f 4 4 1 may, y, {,f s # rz Yi�J S R NOTIFICATION LIST _ 015 120 003 015 170 002 015 170 008 H John&Cardl Bloomfield James&Brenda Lagasca Arnaudo Bros Inc Nancy Bloomfield Victor Selga 16505 S Tracy Blvd 7026 Valley Greens Cir#7 4231 Arwood Rd Tracy, CA 95376 Cannel,CA 93923 Brentwood,CA 94513 015 270 001 015 270 002 015 270 003 Bruce&Pamela Hollis William Reddick William Reddick Rr i Box 83A 55 Bigler Rd 4091 4rwood Rd Brentwood,CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 Brentwood, CA 94513 015 270 005 Nolen&Darlene Reek 4101 Orwood Rd Brentwood, CA 94513 _. __._.. Lou Reinthaler Richard Lee Supplemental notices for Health Services Dept. Reddick Bearing Building Inspection Dept. Environmental Health Div. Lp9920t53.lab Brentwood Martinez INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE East Contra Costa Fire Prat. Dist. Knightsen Town Advisory Council Agricultural Task Force Committee 134 Oak Street PO Box 170 C/o Patrick Roche Brentwood, CA 94513 Knightsen, CA 94548 Com. Dev. Dept. Jerry Fahy Mike Silva Eric Hasseltine Public Warks Dept. Building Inspection Dept. Hasseltine Consulting Martinez Martinez 3182 Old Tunnel Road, Suite E INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE Lafayette, CA 94549 Ronald R. Johnson The Johnson Law Firm 430 Railroad Avenue Pittsburg, CA 94565