Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08122003 - D.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . . , • Centra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: July 8, 2003 SUBJECT: HEARING OF AN APPEAL BY ROBERT & TAMARA STEINER AND ROBERT & RENEE VERMILLION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMM'ISSION'S APPROVAL OF A LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW A HOME OCCUPATION THAT INVOLVES THE FABRICATION AND SALE OF MOTORCYCLE PARTS IN THE CLAYTON AREA, COUNTY FILE#LP022045(KERRY GAGER-APPLICANT & OWNER) (SUP. DISTRICT 111). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Alternative 1 1. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental (duality Act, ADOPT the finding that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 1(4)(n). 2. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission's decision to APPROVE the land use permit for the home occupation with the attached conditions of approva . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): -- --- ----- ACTION OF BOARD ON kigwt 12, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X **SEE ATMED AIS MEN FOR BOARD ACPIW* VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE x UNANIMOUS (ABSENTNo��} AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION AYES: NOES: TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Will Nelson (925) 335-1208 ATTESTED August 12, 2003 Orig: Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD cc: Kerry and Donna Gager (Applicants) OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY Robert and Tamara Steiner (Appellants) ADMINISTRATOR Robert and Renee Vermillion (Appellants) File BY � '` €.; i . DEP TY July 8, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Approval of County File#LP022045 Page 2 3. ADOPT the findings of the County Planning Commission stated in the resolution No. 39-2002 as the basis for the Board approval. 4. DENY the appeal of Robert&Tamara Steiner and Robert & Renee Vermillion. 5. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. Alternative 2 1. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, ADOPT the finding that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 1(4)(n). 2. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission's decision to APPROVE the land use permit for the home occupation with the attached conditions of approval, which includes an amendment to Condition of Approval #8. 3. ADOPT the findings of the County Planning Commission stated in the resolution No. 39-2002 as the basis for the Board approval. 4. DENY the appeal of Robert& Tamara Steiner and Robert & Renee Vermillion. 5. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs in review of this appeal. BACKGROUND FOR THIS LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATION This application is a request for approval of a land use permit to allow Internet sales of small motorcycle parts produced in the applicant's garage. The County Planning Commission first heard this application on November 19, 2002. After taking testimony, the Commission continued the hearing to December 10, 2002 to allow staff the opportunity to prepare revised conditions of approval. The Commission voted unanimously (7-0)to approve the project. On December 19, 2002 Robert &Tamara Steiner and Robert & Renee Vermillion appealed the Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. APPEAL DISCUSSION The appeal is based on 4 points. 1. Appeal Point: The land use permit is inconsistent with the County ordinances and General Plan. A home occupation is defined as: "An activity customarily conducted entirely within a residential dwelling, by a person residing in the dwelling unit, which is clearly a secondary and incidental use of such dwelling as a residence." Thus, a "home occupation" includes only those activities "customarily conducted entirely within a residential dwelling." The proposed use is manufacturing, which clearly is not customarily conducted entirely within a residential dwelling, as required by the County's ordinance. The land use permit is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of Single- Family Residential, Low-Density. The General Plan specifically designates certain areas as Light Industry (LI)for the proposed activity: "This (LI) designation allows light industrial activities such as processing, packaging, July 3,2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Approval of County File#LP022045 Page 3 machinery repair, fabricating...and similar uses which emit only limited amounts of...noise." Thus, the General Plan provides specifically for the proposed activity, even if it emits only a small or limited amount of noise, in the Light Industry areas. We believe the County would be setting an extraordinary precedent to allow Ll uses in areas designated for residential uses in the General Plan. Staff Response: The appellant relies on the first statement in the home occupation definition contained in County Code § 82-4.240 to make the point that the proposed use is not allowed. However, the definition contains seven conditions for the conduct of home occupations. The first condition states: "There shall be no merchandise or services for sale except that produced or made on the premises." It is a condition that manufacturing on the premises be a part of applicable home occupations. If a home occupation is an activity customarily conducted within a dwelling and some home occupations must include manufacturing on the premises, then one must infer that a certain amount of manufacturing is customarily conducted within the dwelling unit. Conversely, if manufacturing is not customarily conducted within a dwelling unit, then it cannot be a condition to conduct a home occupation. If that were the case the Code would contradict itself. The key issue here is the scale of the manufacturing use. "Manufacturing" could be anything from making bars of soap in a house to forging beams in a steel mill. The appellant relies on the description of the "Light Industry„ land use designation in the General Plan to argue that the proposed manufacturing is a light industrial use. However, this assertion can be refuted using the definition of the Light Industrial (L-1) zoning district and the standards that the General Plan applies to the Light Industry land use designation. County Code § 84-58.402 "Uses — Permitted," describes the uses allowed in the L-I zoning district. It states: "Uses which emit...noise...or are of a kind or quality that their operation interferes with development or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, may be established only after issuance of a land use permit establishing conditions for the use to prevent the creation or maintenance of such a nuisance; uses included within the meaning of this proviso include, but are not limited to, hot mix, asphalt plants, rendering plants, food processing plants, tanneries, wineries, breweries and other similar uses." The L-I zoning district is also consistent with the LI land use district, which lists the following development standards: (1) Maximum site coverage: 50% (2) Maximum building height: 50 feet (3) Maximum floor area ratio: 0.67 (4)Average employees per gross acre: 60 These standards, along with the uses allowed by right and by land use permit in the zoning district as described above clearly illustrate that "light industry" means activities whose scale is much larger and more intense than two employees producing small motorcycle parts in a garage, as is the case with the proposed use. The scale of the proposed home occupation obviously is not on par with a brewery or asphalt plant and hence it is not a light industrial activity. July 8, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Approval of County File#LP022045 Page 4 It should also be noted that the subject site is not zoned strictly for residential uses but is zoned A- 2, General Agricultural District. Uses allowed in this district without any discretionary approval are as follows: "all types of agriculture including general farming, horticulture, floriculture, livestock production, fur farms, poultry raising, animal breeding, nurseries and greenhouses, aviaries and apiaries." Certainly, various aspects of many of these activities could be considered "manufacturing„ and would undoubtedly cause far greater impacts in terms of noise, dust, fumes, odors, etc. than the proposed use. The General Plan designation is Single-Family Residential Very Low-Density, which allows home occupations and is consistent with all agricultural zoning districts. 2. Appeal Point: The proposed conditions of approval do not protect the neighbors from noise and other related impacts. "The Planning Commission added a condition to state, `Ambient noise levels shall increase by no more than 5-dBA.' While the neighbors appreciate the attempt to limit noise levels, this condition is inconsistent with the home occupation ordinance, which requires that there is to be absolutely no noise or other interference with adjacent residential uses. The Planning Commission has thus indicated that a certain amount of manufacturing noise is acceptable in a residential neighborhood, which is inherently inconsistent with the existing law." "We note in this regard that the appellants as neighbors to the project submitted to the County documented evidence and complaints regarding noise on the site prior to formal Land Use Permit project application. That evidence included reports of increased of heavy trucks, trailers, motorcycles (and motorcycle engine noise) and other vehicles entering and leaving the property. In other words, clearly the use of the site has been causing noise, traffic, and interference with residential uses even prior to these public hearings. The issuance of a Land Use Permit expressly allowing manufacturing/fabrication of parts can only increase those noise levels." Staff Response: The appellants argued to the Commission that noise levels in the neighborhood would increase if the home occupation were approved. The Commission did not agree that the noise produced by the proposed project would negatively affect the quality of life in the area and approved Condition of Approval#8 to read as follows: "Ambient noise levels shall increase by no more than 5-dBA line as a result of the home occupation. Noise insulation shall be installed, if necessary, to ensure that this limit is met." The Ordinance Code states that no noise shall be created by the home occupation. A 3-dBA change from the ambient noise level is considered just noticeable. Therefore, if the Board determines that the proposed use as conditioned may indeed create noise that is an annoyance to the neighborhood, it could consider modifying the condition of approval to read: "Ambient noise levels beyond the property fine shall not increase by ne mem than 6 49A as a result of the home occupation. Noise insulation shall be installed, if necessary, to ensure that this lid requirement is met." With such a condition in place the production operation would be required to be so quiet that it could not be heard by anyone beyond the subject property. July S,2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Approval of County File#LP022045 Page 5 Staff is aware that there are other sources of noise associated with this site such as motorcycle engines. However, the appellants have not been able to provide evidence that those noises are associated with the manufacturing and sale of the motorcycle parts, which is the scope of this land use permit application. The applicant's hobby is building motorcycles for racing, which would account for motorcycle engine noise. This hobby could certainly involve trucks and trailers visiting the property in order to transport the motorcycles. There is no basis to the assertion that issuance of the land use permit "can only increase those noise levels." The conditions of approval forbid the applicant from testing engine parts on the premises. Staff has also visited the applicant's website and it appears that most, if not all of the parts that are manufactured are not engine components, meaning the parts produced on the premises would not be related to engine noise. Engine noise will still be emitted from the site regardless of the outcome of this application because the applicant's hobby does not require a land use permit. If the permit were to be approved, it would be subject to conditions of approval that limit the impact of the home occupation. Non-compliance with those conditions could lead to revocation of the permit and an end to the use. 3. Appeal Point: The proposed manufacturing/fabrication activity will lower property values in the area. The appellants submitted evidence, through a qualified real estate broker, that allowing a manufacturing/fabrication activity in this residential area could "lead to lower property values." It is clear that issuance of this type of approval, which in effect allows a light industrial use in a residential area, negatively impacts real estate property values and creates disclosure issues for nearby residents. With regard to the above, the County Planning Commission merely found that the establishment of the proposed use "will allow the establishment of a new business, thereby adding to the tax base of the County." We do not believe the Commission or the County should sacrifice the integrity of its General Plan and residential areas in favor of the relatively minor monies derived from increased taxes. The General Plan's primary goals and related policies for residential designations are intended to establish and protect residential uses, not commercial/industrial uses. The establishment of a new industrial business in a residential area should be denied, even if a small, incremental tax benefit can be derived. Sta_ff_Response: This appeal point erroneous. The real estate broker, Lynne French, did state in her letter that in her opinion, issuance of a permit to "assemble and manufacture" motorcycle parts would adversely affect property values. The Commission was given a copy of the letter prior to the hearing and addressed the issue. Prior to the decision, Commissioner Mehlman made the following statement: "...With those conditions I think we can make the finding in paragraph three despite Ms. French's letter. I was actually out at Morgan Territory this weekend on Sunday and I noticed that Ms. French does sell quite a few properties out there. But when I read her letter I think she took into account things that were addressed by the conditions. The fact that there wouldn't be increased traffic because customers wouldn't be coming out to the property and mail delivery trucks wouldn't be coming out to the property. We're not talking about storage of a large amount of parts we're talking about July 8, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Approval of County File#LP022045 Page 6 his mailing a few parts that are custom made and so I think that she assumes facts that don't necessarily apply." Also, Ms. French concluded her letter with the following: "Without the exact details of the manufacturing and assembly facility, it is difficult to determine exactly how much property values would be affected.," Ms. French's statement illustrates that she does not have a complete understanding of the details or scale of the project. Therefore, Ms. French's assessment of the project's potential to adversely impact property values should be viewed with skepticism. The Commission did not sacrifice the integrity of the residential neighborhood or the General Plan in order to derive additional tax money for the County. The Commission conditioned the project to make it compatible with the neighborhood. It should be reiterated that uses with much greater impacts are consistent with both the zoning and the General Plan and are not open to discretionary review. 4. Appeal Point: "We believe staff properly recommended denial of the proposed land use permit at the Planning Commission level. Staff recognized that the applicant would perform its manufacturing/fabrication functions in the garage area of the home. Staff stated as follows: '...[T]he code has been interpreted [by the County in the past] to disallow use of the garage for any part of the application. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the application. (Staff Report dated November 19, 2002, at p. S-3)' For all the reasons set forth herein and based on further information to be presented at the Board of Supervisors hearing on this appeal, we believe staff made the correct recommendation." Staff Response: Staff's recommendation was based on an interpretation of County Code § 82- 4.20(8)that states the following: "Not more than one room or twenty five percent of the habitable floor area of the principal structure, whichever is greater, shall be used for the home occupation. Garage areas and areas within accessory buildings shall not be considered as being habitable floor area." This text can be interpreted two ways. It could be interpreted to mean that only the habitable floor area of the house can be used for the home occupation. Or, it could be interpreted to limit the amount of the house that can be used but not to restrict the use of garages or accessory structures. Staff determined that the first interpretation was correct and based on that interpretation, recommended that the proposal be denied because it did not comply with the Code. The Commission disagreed with staff and proceeded using the second interpretation. The Commission's action is supported by the fact that since 1999, six applications (LP 99-2002, LP 99-2033, LP 00-2007, LP 00-2018, LP 00-2060 and LP 01-2044) have been approved where the July 8, 2003 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Approval of County File#LP022045 Page 7 applicant proposed to use all or part of the garage in connection with the home occupation. In one instance a variance was granted to allow off-street parking within a setback area so that the garage could be used for the home occupation. CONCLUSION The appeal does not contain compelling reasons to overturn the County Planning Commission's approval of the land use permit application. The Commission determined that the proposed home occupation complies with all applicable codes and regulations and meets the intent of the law. Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the Commission's decision to approve the land use permit application, County File #LP022045. Staff also recommends that the Board adopt revised Condition of Approval#8 if it determines that the project could create noise that would be an annoyance to the neighborhood. ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA August 12, 2003 On this date,the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by Robert and Tamara Steiner and Robert and Renee Vermillion of the County Planning Commission's approval of a land use permit application to allow a home occupation that involves the fabrication and sale of motorcycle parts in the Clayton area. Catherine Kutsurus, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. The Chair opened the public hearing and the following persons presented testimony: Allan Moore,(on behalf of the appellants), 279 Front Street,Danville; Robert J. 'Vermillion,4711. Morgan Territory Road, Clayton; Renee Vermillion,4711 Morgan Territory Road, Clayton; TamaraSteiner, 4701. Morgan Territory Road, Clayton; K.G. Gager,4751 Morgan Territory Road, Clayton. The Chair closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Beard for discussion. Supervisor Greenberg asked staff if there was a condition of approval in regards to fire and building cede regulations and if the applicant was in compliance. Ms. Kutsuris advised there was not a condition of approval and they could add as condition that within 20 clays of the permit, the applicant must demonstrate that the home occupation is in compliance. Supervisor Greenberg also requested a condition be added to require a public hearing before the zoning administrator at 6 months and every year thereafter for three years to confirm the project's compliance with conditions. Supervisor Greenberg then moved to approve the staff s recommendation with the additional two conditions. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion. The Board took the following action: ■ DENIED the appeal of Robert and Tamara Steiner and Robert and Renee Vermillion of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission's decision to approve a land use permit to Karry Gager, to establish a home occupation at 4751 Morgan Territory Road in Unincorporated Clayton area; • ADOPTED the findings that the project is Categorically Exempt, Glass 1(4)(n)in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; SUSTAINED the County Planning Commission's decision; APPROVED the land use permit for the home occupation with the conditions of approval,which includes an amendment to Condition of Approval#8 and adding two new conditions. ■ ADOPTED the findings of the County Planning Commissions stated in the resolution No. 39-2002 as the basis for the Board approval and ■ DIRECTED the Community Development Department staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Kerry&Donna Gager APPLICATION NO, LP022045 4751 Morgan Territory Road Clayton, Ca 94517 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 080-020-010 ZONING DISTRICT: A-2 OWNER: Same APPROVED DATE: 8/12/2003 EFFECTIVE DATE: 8/12/2003 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a land use permit to establish a home occupation involving the manufacture of small motorcycle parts and the sale of those parts on the Internet from a home office, subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M.BARRY, AICD Community Development Director N By: Ck4l —�It-- �4 CATHERINE KUTSURIS Deputy Director Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE(1)YEAR from the effective date if the use allowed by this permit is not established within that time. PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE as no further notification will be sent by this office. FINy FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #LP022045, AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AUGUST 12,2003. Land Use Permit Findings 1) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. The proposed home occupation poses no threats to the health and/or safety of the general public. The proposed project will contribute to the general welfare of the County by allowing the establishment of a new business and by allowing a resident to work at his residence, thereby reducing the overall number of vehicle trips in the County and lessening the burden on the road system. 2) The proposed project, as conditioned will not adversely affect the orderly development within the County or the community. The scope of the project is minor and will not affect development within the County or community. 3) The proposed project as conditioned will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. The proposed home occupation will not affect property values in the neighborhood. While there are neighborhood concerns regarding disclosure of the home occupation to potential buyers, the conditions of approval are designed to make the home occupation innocuous and unperceivable to current or future owners. The Commission is aware of the concerns raised in the letter submitted December 10, 2002 by Lynne French and concludes, based on the evidence provided, that the project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County. Approval of the home occupation will allow the establishment of a new business, thereby adding to the tax base of the County. 4) The proposed project is consistent with the policies and goals as set by the General Plan. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. 5) The proposed project will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community as the use is consistent with the general plan for the area. The proposal, as conditioned, will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem in the neighborhood. The noise produced by the mill and lathe will not have detrimental impacts on the neighboring properties because noise insulation is required. No shipments would be made from the site and no customers would visit. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan policies for the Morgan Territory area. 6) The proposed project will not encourage marginal development in the neighborhood. The proposal entails no new development and will not impact development in the neighborhood. 7} Special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. There is precedent for special accommodations to be made for those who are disabled and seek to establish a home occupation. The Commission is satisfied, based on the evidence provided by the applicant, that he suffers from a physical disability requiring reasonable accommodation in the form of one employee. Conditions of Approval 1. The home occupation for Internet sales of small motorcycle parts is approved as shown on the site plan and floor plan received by the Community Development Department, dated July 22, 2402. 2. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-4.240, an application to conduct a home occupation is approved subject to the following conditions. A. There shall be no merchandise or services for sale except that produced from or made on the premises. B. The use shall not generate vehicular traffic in excess of that normally associated with single-family residential use. C. Not more than one room or twenty-five percent of the habitable floor area of the principal structure, whichever is greater, shall be used for the home occupation. Garage areas and areas within accessory structures shall not be considered floor space. D. There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation. E. No exterior signs shall be used. F. No noise, odor, dust, fumes, vibration, smoke, electrical interference, or other interference with the residential use of adjacent properties shall be created. G. No more than one person shall be employed, except the applicant, in the conduct of the home occupation for the purpose of assisting the applicant on the basis of his disability. 3 3. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$300.00, which was paid with the application submittal. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit, whichever comes first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation 4. No customers shall visit the site for any reason related to the conduct of the home occupation. 5. _ The garage door shall remain closed while machinery associated with the home occupation is in operation. 6. Hours of operation for the production component of the home occupation shall be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and is prohibited on state and federal holidays. 7. No motorcycle engines associated with the home occupation shall be operated at the residence. 8. Ambient noise levels beyond the property line shall not increase as a result of the home occupation. Noise insulation shall be installed, if necessary,to ensure that this requirement is met. 9. No shipments shall be made from the residence that are related to the home occupation and require visits by special delivery services (i.e. UPS, FedEx; etc.). 10. Within 20 days of the effective date of the permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the Zoning Administrator that the home occupation is in compliance with applicable fire district and building code regulations. 11. The Zoning Administrator shall hold a public hearing six months following the effective date of the permit and once a year thereafter for three years for the purpose of assuring that the home occupation is in compliance with the conditions herein. The applicant shall file with the Community Development Department a letter and fee requesting the public hearing at least 30 days prior to the date when the public hearing must be held. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL, REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. 4 A. Notification of 90-day opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, or other exactions pertaining to the approval of this permit. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 56400, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by the approved permit begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 39-2002 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS OF THE REQUESTED LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTED BY DERRY GAGER(APPLICANT & OWNER)(COUNTY FILE #LP022045)IN THE CLAYTON AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request was received on May 16, 2002 by Kerry Gager (Applicant and {owner), for a land use permit to establish a home occupation to fabricate and sell small motorcycle parts in the Morgan Territory area; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Planning Commission on November 19, 2002, subsequently continued to December 10, 2002, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and. WHEREAS, on December 10, 2002, after the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, APPROVED the applicant's request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission finds the application is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(Classl); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to conformance with the applicable General Plan policies and zoning district: Land Use Permit Findings 1) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county. The proposed home occupation poses no threats to the health andlor safety of the general public. The proposed project will contribute to the general welfare of the County by allowing the establishment of a new business and by allowing a resident to work at his residence, thereby reducing the overall number of vehicle trips in the County and lessening the burden on the road system. 2) The proposed project, as conditioned will not adversely affect the orderly development within the County or the community. .The scope of the project is minor and will not affect development within the County or community. 3) The proposed project as conditioned will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Page 2 The proposed home occupation will not affect property values in the neighborhood. While there are neighborhood concerns regarding disclosure of the home occupation to potential buyers, the conditions of approval are designed to make the home occupation innocuous and unperceivable to current or future owners. The Commission is aware of the concerns raised in the letter submitted December 10, 2002 by Lynne French and concludes, based on the evidence provided, that the project will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. Approval of the home occupation will allow the establishment of a new business, thereby adding to the tax base of the County. 4) The proposed project is consistent with the policies and goals as set by the General Plan. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. 5) The proposed project will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community as the use is consistent with the general plan for the area. The proposal, as conditioned, will not create a nuisance andlor enforcement problem in the neighborhood. The noise produced by the mill and lathe will not have detrimental impacts on the neighboring properties because noise insulation is required. No shipments would be made from the site and no customers would visit. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan policies for the Morgan Territory area. 6) The proposed project will not encourage marginal development in the neighborhood. The proposal entails no new development and will not impact development in the neighborhood. 7) Special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. There is precedent for special accommodations to be made for those who are disabled and seek to establish a home occupation. The Commission is satisfied, based on the evidence provided by the applicant, that he suffers from a physical disability requiring reasonable accommodation in the form of one employee. WHEREAS, in a letter dated December 19, 2402, the neighbors Robert&Tamara Steiner and Robert & Renee Vermillion filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors; and Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 10, 2002, by the following vote: AYES. Terrell, Hanecak,Mehlman,Battaglia,Gaddis, Clark,Wong NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Hyman Wong, Chair of the County Planning Commission. County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: i)-5��Pn DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #LP022045 AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY .PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 10 2002 WITH ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE FOR CONDITION OF APPROVAL 08. 1. The home occupation for Internet sales of small motorcycle parts is approved as shown on the site plan and floor plan received by the Community Development Department, dated July 22, 2002. 2. Pursuant to Contra Costa County Zoning Code 82-4.240, an application to conduct a home occupation is approved subject to the following conditions: A. There shall be no merchandise or services for sale except that produced from or made on the premises. B. The use shall not ,generate vehicular traffic in excess of that normally associated with single-family residential use. C. Not more than one room or twenty-five percent of the habitable floor area of the principal structure, whichever is ;greater, shall be used for the home occupation. Garage .areas and areas within accessory structures shall not be considered floor space. D. There shall be no exterior indication of the home occupation. E. No exterior signs shall be used. F. No noise, odor, dust, fumes, vibration, smoke, electrical interference, or other interference with the residential use of adjacent properties shall be created. G. No more than one person shall be employed, except the applicant, in the conduct of the home occupation for the purpose of assisting the applicant on the basis of his disability. 3. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$300.00, - which was paid with the application submittal. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit, whichever comes first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation 4. No customers shall visit the site for any reason related to the conduct of the home occupation. 2 5. The garage door shall remain closed while machinery associated with the home occupation is in operation. 6. Hours of operation for the production component of the home occupation shall be limited to 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and is prohibited on state and federal holidays. 7. No motorcycle engines associated with the home occupation shall be operated at the residence. 8. Ambient noise levels shall increase by no more than 5-dBA as a result of the home occupation. Noise insulation shall be installed, if necessary, to ensure this limit is met. ALTERNATIVE Ambient noise levels beyond the—property line shall not increase by no mer-g than '-dRA as a result of the home occupation. Noise insulation shall be installed, if necessary, to ensure that this 4m4 requirement is met. 9. No shipments shall be made from the residence that are related to the home occupation and require visits by special delivery services (i.e. UPS, FedEx, etc.). ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DUES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. Notification of 90-day opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservation, or other exactions pertaining to the approval of this permit. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees,dedications, reservation, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by the approved permit begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. APPEAL FETTER. LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMA.HON 8c ARMSTRONG WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORW0,RAT118N DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L. MCCOY 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J. MCMAHON P. O, MOX 218 MARK L. ARMSTRONG .. _ t _ - i i-3 DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526-0218 LINN K. COOMBS TELEPHONE: (92S) 837-OS$S STEPHEN W. THOMAS '} ��11 �j { FAX: (925) 8318-5985 CHARLES A. KOSS ��� j '.., t 1 I 1�I 2-- LS 14 MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA VALLEY OFFICE RICHARD C. RAIN€S THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE VICTOR J. CONTF ". .. `". � , 10.30 MAIN STREET, SUITE Zt2 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL "{'� �.y (�(}+`y94574 ROBERT M. FANUCCI December 19 2002 5T. HELENA, CALIFORNIA(70 )963- 909 > TEL€PHONE: {7177) 9(53-0909 ALLAN C. MOOR€ FAX: {7077) 9$3-5527 STEPHEN T. BUEHL. AMANDA SE:VINS PLEASE REPLY TO: ALEXANDER L. SCHMID MARTIN LYSONS CELIA M. KIM JANICE L. FITZSIMMONS Danville By Hand-Delivery on December 19, 2002 Attn: Will Nelsen Community Development Department Administration Building 651 Fine Street, 2"d Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ,fie:Appeal of County Planning Commission .Decision December 10, 2002 Coun&File i#LP022045I and Use Permit to.Establish a Home Occupation Gager Bear Mr. Nelson; As discussed, our offices represent Robert and Tamara Steiner with regard to their interests and residence at 4701 Morgan Territory Road in the unincorporated, residential area of Clayton, Contra Costa County, and Robert and Renee Vermillion who reside on adjacent property.' On December 10,2002,the County Planning Commission approved a Land.Use Permit to establish a Home Occupation at 4751 Morgan Territory Road, for the manufacture,fabrication of motorcycle parts, and sales of such parts. We ask that you consider this letter a formal Appeal of that Planning Commission decision,pursuant to the County Code at §26-2.2404. Our Appeal is made on the following grounds,and on evidence to be presented at the Board of Supervisors public hearing. (1)The Land Use Permit is Inconsistent with the County Ordinances and General Plan The Land Use Permit is clearly inconsistent with the County's ordinances governing home occupations. County Ordinance§82-4.240 narrowly defines"home occupations" as follows. 'The Steiner home at 4701 Morgan TerritoryRoad is directly across the driveway from the applicant's residence at 4751 Morgan Territory Road. The Steiner home and adjacent Vermillion residence share a common driveway area with the applicant's residence. F:\CLACM\31117\stap.1tr.wpd Will Nelson, Planner December 19, 2002 Page 2 "Home occupation" is an activity customarily conducted entirely within a residential dwelling, by a person residing in the dwelling unit, which is clearly a secondary and incidental use of such dwelling as a residence. Thus, a "home occupation" includes only those activities "customarily conducted entirely within a residential dwelling." By definition, a "home occupation" is a business conducted at home, or in a residence. Here, the proposed"occupation"is the manufacture and/or fabrication ofmotorcycle parts. This manufacturing ofparts is accomplished through use of a mill and a lathe, and related machinery and tools. Clearly, such manufacturing is not an activity"customarily conducted entirely within a residential dwelling"as required by the County's own ordinance. The Land Use Permit is further clearly inconsistent with the County's General Plan. The General Plan designation for the property is Single-Family Residential, Very Low .Density. This is a residential designation, not an industriallmanufacturing designation. We note that the General Plan specifically designates certain areas as Light Industry (LI) for the proposed activity: This (LI) designation allows light industrial activities such as processing, packaging, machinery repair,fabricating,..and similar uses which emit only limited amounts of....noise. (County General Plan at Chapter 3, Land Use Element,Commercial/Office/Industrial Uses,Section(i)Light Industry,p. 3- 30.) Thus,the General Plan provides specifically for the proposed activity,even if it emits only a small or limited amount of noise, in the Light Industry(LI) areas. We believe the County would be setting an extraordinary precedent to allows LI uses in areas designated for residential use in the General Plan. (2)The Proposed Conditions of Approval do Not Protect the Neighbors from Noise and Other Related Impacts The Planning Commission appeared to believe that imposition of several conditions of approval on this light industrial use would mitigate the impacts on the neighbors, however, that is simply not true. FACLACMl311171stap.1tr.wpd Will Nelson, Planner December 19, 2002 Page 3 First,the Planning Commission added a condition to state that"ambient noise levels shall increase by no more than S-dba." While the neighbors appreciate the attempt to limit noise levels, this condition is inconsistent with the home occupation ordinance, which requires that there is to be absolutely no noise or other interference with adjacent residential uses. (§82--4.2403).' The Planning Commission has thus indicated that a certain amount of manufacturing noise is acceptable in a residential neighborhood, which is inherently inconsistent with existing law. We note in this regard that the appellants as neighbors to the project submitted to the County documented evidence and complaints regarding noise on the site prior to the formal Land Use Permit project application. That evidence included reports of increased number of heavy trucks, trailers, motorcycles (and motorcycle engine noise) and other vehicles entering and leaving the property. In other words, clearly the use of the site has been causing noise, traffic, and interference with residential uses even prior to these public hearings. The issuance of Land Use Permit expressly allowing manufacturing/fabrication of parts can only increase those noise levels. (3)The proposed Manufacturing/Fabrication Activity Will Louver property Values in the Area The neighbors submitted evidence, through a qualified real estate broker, that allowing a manufacturing/fabrication activity in this residential area could "lead to lower property values."' It is clear that issuance of this type of approval, which in effect allows a light industrial use in a residential area,negatively impacts real estate property values and creates disclosure issues for nearby residents. With regard to the above, the County Planning Commission merely found that the establishment of the proposed use"will allow the establishment of a new business,thereby adding to the tax base of the County." We do not believe the Commission or the County should sacrifice the integrity of its General Plan and residential areas in favor of the Section 82-4.240(6)states: "No noise,odor,dust,fumes,vibration,smoke,electrical interference or other interference with the residential use of adjacent properties shall be created."(Emphasis added). The clear purpose of the ordinance is to ensure that home occupations do not impact neighboring residential uses in any way(not to merely minimize or limit impacts). 3See November 27,2002 letter from Lynne French,Coldwell Banker,submitted into the administrative record. F:ICLACM�31 I I I7tstap.Itr.wpd Will Nelson, Planner December 19, 2002 Page 4 relatively minor monies derived from increased taxes. The General Plan's primary goals and related policies for residential designations are intended to establish and protect residential uses, not commercial/industrial uses." The establishment of a new industrial business in a residential area should be denied, even if a small, incremental tax benefit can be derived. (4) Staff Recommended Denial of the Land Use Permit at the Planning Commission We believe staffproperly recommended denial of the proposed land use permit at the Planning Commission level. Staff recognized that the applicant will perform its manufacturing/fabrication functions in the garage area of the home. Staff stated as follows: ...[T]he code has been interpreted [by the County in the past] to disallow use of the garage for any part of the application. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the application. (Staff Report,dated November 19,2002, at p. S-3.) For all reasons set forth herein and based on further information to be presented at the Board of Supervisor hearing on this Appeal, we believe staff made the correct recommendation. Ve , lly y s, L� Allan C. Moore ACM:am Enc. (Check[$125.00] to Contra Costa County) cc: Clerk, County Board of Supervisors Robert and Tamara Steiner Robert and Renee Vermillion "See County General Plan at Chapter 3, Land Use Element, Residential Uses, p. 3-25); See also: p. 3-41 (`Buffers shall be provided between new industrial developments and residential areas");p.3-42("Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible land uses...") FACLACML31 I 171stap.Itr.wpd STAFF REPORT FOR COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 11/19/2003 ANIS 12/10/2003 Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 19 2002 a--7:00 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION KERRY AND DONNA GAGER Applicants & Owners), County File #LP022045: The applicant requests a land use permit to establish a home occupation. One hundred and thirty-five square feet of the residence would be used as an office for Internet sales of small motorcycle parts produced in the garage. The site is located at 4751 Morgan Territory Road, in the Clayton area. (Zoning: A-2; General Plan: Single-Family Residential Very Low Density; Zoning Atlas: P-20; Census Tract: 3551.03; Assessor Parcel Number: 080-020-010). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of County File#LP022045 based on the attached findings. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: Single-Family Residential Very Low(SV). B. Zoning: A-2, General Agricultural. C. CEOA Status: Categorically Exempt- Section 15301(n). D. Previous Applications: None. E. Regulatory Programs: A portion of the parcel lies in Flood Zone A. This has no bearing on the proposed project. IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The site is a .91-acre parcel located in a rural area. The area is a long established neighborhood characterized by large lots. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant seeks approval of a land use permit to allow a home occupation for the Internet sale of small motorcycle parts that are produced in the garage. VI. PUBLIC/AGENCY COMMENTS S-2 There were no comments received from any of the agencies that were notified of this project. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION A. Appropriateness of Use: Section 82-4.240 of the Ordinance Code regulates home occupations. Prior to establishing a home occupation, a land use permit must be obtained. A home occupation is an activity customarily conducted entirely within the residential unit by a person residing in the dwelling unit. The use is considered secondary to the dwelling unit and must not change the character of the unit or the residential area. Any items sold at the residence must be produced on the premises. Section 82-4.240(3) states, "Not more than one room or 25% of the habitable floor area, whichever is greater, shall be used for the home occupation. Garage areas and areas within accessory buildings shall not be considered as being habitable floor area." This section has been interpreted to mean that home occupations may not be conducted within the garage or an accessory structure. The room for interpretation comes from the wording that limits the use of habitable floor area but then goes on to say that garages and accessory buildings are not habitable floor space. B. Proosed Use: Mr. Gager builds and repairs motorcycles in his garage. In connection with his hobby, he produces small motorcycle parts using a mill and lathe. He now wishes to sell these parts via the Internet. Mr. Gager has stated that deliveries would be made through the mail and would require occasional visits by delivery trucks,which is normal for a residence.No signage is proposed. The requirement for the land use permit is triggered by the act of selling the parts from the residence, not producing them. Without approval of the permit, Mr. Gager can still make parts for his use. To sell the parts,he would use 135 square feet of his kitchen(0.054% of the approximately 2,500 square foot residence) for his computer and paperwork. This complies with the home occupation regulations limiting the home occupation to 25% of the habitable floor space. The garage area does not constitute habitable floor area. C. Parking: There is a paved driveway leading from the private street to the garage. Enough of the paved area lies outside of the required setbacks so that it can be counted as the two required parking spaces for the home. There are no regulations for single-family residences that require parking within a covered area such as a garage or carport or even require the existence of such a structure. Therefore, the use of the garage for activities other than parking does not violate any section of the County Code. D. Noise: The applicant demonstrated the noise generated by his equipment. With the garage door closed, the noise could be heard outside but it was not a nuisance. With the door closed the noise would not be detrimental to adjacent properties. S-3 E. General Plan/Zoning CMpliance: The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and complies with the County Code section pertaining to off-street parking. The proposal does not comply with the home occupation regulations for two reasons. First, the interpretation that the garage cannot be used as part of the home occupation prohibits its use for manufacture of the motorcycle parts. Second, the Code requires that anything sold on the premises must be produced on the premises. Since Mr. Gager cannot manufacture inside his garage, and there is no other practical place to do his manufacturing, then he cannot sell the parts from the premises. VIII. CONCLUSIONS The intent of the home occupation regulations is to allow businesses to be conducted at residences without changing the character of the residence or disturbing the neighborhood. The applicant would conduct the home occupation entirely within the building, but not entirely within the habitable floor area. Required off-street parking would be retained. Noise would not be a nuisance. However, the Code has been interpreted to disallow use of the garage for any part of the application. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the application. Should the Commission decide to approve the application, Finding #4 would have to be modified. Conditions of approval have also been attached in case the Commission approves the project. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE Ralph Hexter 4725 Morgan Territory Rd. Clayton CA 94517 November 18, 2002 Mr. Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Fine Street Martinez, CA 94533 Re: Kerry and Donna Gager's Application for Land Use Permit County File#LP022045 Dear Mr Nelson: I received the Notice of a Public Hearing on the above application. According to the notice, the applicant requests a land use permit to establish a home occupation. One hundred and thirty- five square feet of the residence would be used as an office for Internet sales of small mortorcycle parts produced in the garage, I have no objection. The Gagers today,gave me copies of letters filed with you from two other neighbors, Rob and Renee Vermillion and Robert and Tamara Steiner. I do not share their concerns. I have noticed neither a significant increase in the vehicular traffic on our common driveway nor an increase of noise of any sort attributable to the Gagers. As for the condition of the common driveway that our four homes share, as far as I am concerned it was poor well before the Gagers moved in. Indeed, the previous owner of 4751 Morgan Territory Rd., Steve Berg, got an estimate to have it fixed and repaved some time before the house sold. I was prepared to share in the expense, and Mr. Berg represented to me that the Steiners were as well; my understanding is that the Vermillions were unwilling to participate. I instance this only to show that the poor state of the driveway is not new; in my view, any subsequent deterioration is a function of time, not of the Gagers' activities. In sum,the Gagers' current activities cause me no concern as far as noise or traffic is concerned, nor do I anticipate that the granting of their request for a land use permit to establish a home occupation would change that. I for my part do not oppose it. Sincer , Rol Hexter Mary Carter Smith ` 4775 Morgan Territory Road � Clayton, California 94517 {925} 572-2529 November 19, 2002 Mr. Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 fine Street Martinez California 94553-1229 Re: Kerry and Donna Gager's Land Use Application County File#LP022045 Dear Mr. Nelson: My residence is next door, on the south side, of the Gager residence. As 1 understand their application, this will not be a major manufacturing activity. Therefore, at this time 1 have no objection to the granting of the use permit as requested. 1 understand that some other neighbor has complained about the noise factor. Subsequent to the Gager family moving in over a year ago, 1 have not noticed any increase in noise. My only minor complaint has been the accumulation of"garbage"; e.g., scrap lumber, old tires, appliances. However, the Gager's have removed most of this, much of which was left by the previous owners, and are steadily continuing to clean up all debris. 1 cannot be present at the hearing this evening and trust this letter will suffice. Respectfully Yours, Mary arter Smith cc: K. and D. Gager 1�Ec1iw-39 -OC C19: I9A tai adui�w Civic Assoc 520 3564 2520 P-01 4=L Kerry Gager 4751Mores Territory Rd Clayton, Ca. KC To follow up ran our phase cconvcrsatirssn on the ccs,,In road„Mair wid I noticed the road deteriorating during and after the construction of Rene and Bob's barn. When the haat was finished I got an e9fli ate from Morgan Banana Paving Co. to pave the road. Bob Steiner,Ralph and Manfred and Blair and i had some thoughts about repaving our drive-ways at the sow time. The cost to repave the conunon road was$2500 for the flour sof us:. When I got the estimate, Bob Steiner,Ralph and Manfred,and Blair and I thought it was a fair price and we should have the road re vel. When I wed Rene about the estirrrtste she said that they could not afford to have it done and she didn't think the barn construction had any thing to do with the road condition. I then patched the read as best t could. Also,during our conversations about you buying our house,i asked Rene it she would like to talcs you up on your comer to have bar and 14 ob come to your house to we exactly what your manufacturing business was. She said that wasn't necessary. Uwe can hens in any other way,}pease call. Steve Berg __ �rw-1�t®ce�rlc 11•e17 _ _ 51i�J t46 (lYJ1 r. November 13, 2002 Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street CON i P;� �:�I� C8U TY Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Kerry and Donna Gager's Application For Land U!4 QF, il County File#LP022046 Dear Mr. Nelson- We received the Notice of a Public Hearing on the above application on Friday, November 8, 2002 for a hearing scheduled on November 19, 2002. We live across the driveway from the Cager`s at 4701 Morgan Territory Read. It is our desire and intent to strongly oppose the granting of a use permit for a manufacturing activity. Unfortunately, my husband will be traveling that week,and because of the very short notice of the hearing, he is unable to reschedule his business trip. Our next door neighbors, Robert and Renee Vermillion, are also scheduled to be out of town on businessthat date and will be unable to attend. They will be writing a letter to you, as well. We strongly oppose this permit for a number of reasons: 1. We have been increasingly very concerned about the increase in traffic - delivery trucks, shipping trucks, etc since the Lager's moved in. We share a common driveway with the Gagers. During the short time that they have lived across from us, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of heavy trucks,trailers, motorcycles and other vehicles entering and leaving the property. This has caused more than usual wear and tear on the pavement of the common driveway. The pavement at the top of the drive and the area directly in front of their house is deteriorating rapidly and has now become riddled with big potholes. 2. We are very concerned about the increase in congestion and noise that an activity such as manufacturing would generate. Morgan Territory Road is a quiet, pastoral, residential area, which is why people move here and we feel that manufacturing is a completely inappropriate activity for our area. 3. Quite naturally, we are very concerned about our proverty values. We will be selling our house in the near future. By law, the land use permit for manufacturing would have to be disclosed to any potential buyer of our property, We have been advised by real estate professionals that this would have a very immediate and negative impact on the value of our property and more expressly,would most likely discourage many potential buyers from even making an offer on our home. Because of these concerns, we respectfully ask that the Planning Commission deny the land use permit, or continue the matter to a date in January so that we will be able to prepare and present our objections, wl-azL rtt . Robert and Tamara Steiner 4701 Morgan Territory Road Clayton, CA 94517 925-672-4542 TCT',:�L P.02 November 14, 2002 AY,, G "IT DSTA COURTY Will Nelson 02 NOV 18 AM 11: 18 Contra Costa County Community Development Departm V I Fy Lip 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Kerry and Donna Gager Application For Land Use Permit County File#LP02 Z045 Dear Mr. Nelson: We received the Notice of a Public Hearing on the above application on Friday, November 8, 2002 for a hearing scheduled on November 19,'2002. We live across the common driveway and next door to Mr. And Mrs. Bob Steiner, who are directly across the drive from the Gagers. Our home address is 4711 Morgan Territory Road. We moved to Clayton and bought our home in 1996 to get away from the noise and pollution of a city life. We did not expect to ever live next door to a family who would allegedly build a manufacturing facility within ear shot of our living space. Due to the extremely short notice of the hearing, we have had to cancel a business trip, reschedule our plane reservations and pay extra for our seats to travel a day later due to the lateness of this notice. We intend to appeal the request for a Land Use Permit in the courts if this permit is granted to Mr. And Mrs. Gager. We strongly oppose this permit for a number of reasons: I There are on a continuous basis delivery trucks, mo-,orcycles and activity of cycles starting up and going at high rpms on a daily basis. This noise has become increasingly higher since the Gagers moved into their home. Where the common driveway was reasonably level, there are now potholes; there is a large one at the entrance of the common drive from Morgan Territory Road, plus a large steel beam next to the Lager's property that has been allegedly placed by the Gagers on their side of the common drive near their house. If anyone accidentally rolls over this beam, the tires would be compromised. This is unacceptable. We do not live in a common housing development of low income homes. It would appear that way by the entrance since the Gagers acquired the property. 2. We live in a quiet area and that is why we chose to live here. We have invested thousands of dollars to upgrade our property. We spend a great deal of time outside and hear the noise on a continual basis. Plus the traffic is becoming more of a nuisance, If we decided to sell our home, we would have to disclose that the new neighbors had managed to build a manufacturing facility, which would in turn, I believe, seriously compromise the value of our property. I have an extensive real estate background and would be very hesitant to live in an area that allowed manufacturing when I had chosen to live in a safe, quiet and exclusive neighborhood knowing that a neighbor could be working on a machine, making I noise, plus genera,.,ig possible noxious fume's from paint or other contaminants within visible distance from my property. In short, we live in a residential area, an area that is higher in value than areas that would traditionally allow such permits, and therefore strongly oppose on the premise of a very possible drop in real estate value, combined with a significant increase in noise and possible air quality violations in this pristine area. Furthermore, we have been advised by the local real estate professionals that such granting of a manufacturing use permit could and would have an immediate and negative impact on the value of our property, plus discourage many potential buyers from evert making an offer on our Dome. And if they did, the value would be substantial;y lower. Because of the issues and concerns outlined above, we respectfully ask that the Planning Commission deny the land use permit, or continue the matter to a date in January so that we will be able to prepare and present our objections_ Bab and Renee Vermillion 4711 Morgan Territory Road Clayton, CA 94517 92.5-673-0225 2 TOTAL P.02 110u 10 Ue ud: b:lic the Gerald Hies trust 625-673-1304 P. 1 Susan Hewell 210 Tumbleweed Ct. Clayton,CA 94517 925-672-0652 925-673-1304 fax Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St. Martinez,CA ATTN: WILL NEL5©N November 18,2002 RE: Public Hearing 11/19/02 for Land Use Permit application County File#LP022045 Dear Mr.Nelson: These are my questions and/or reservations regarding the above application: Manufacturing commercial parts in a residential neighborhood. Will there be an increase of noise? Any noise of this type would unfairly impact the neighborhood. This residence is located on a narrow stretch of Morgan Territory Road where the posted speed limit is 30 to 35 mph. There is also a yellow caution sign warning drivers of horses on the road through this section. Will there be any increase in motorcycle traffic due to testing of these manufactured parts or motorcycles repaired at the residence? Sincerely, Susan Howell 1601 N,CALIFORNIA BLVD. WALNUT CREEK,CA 84506 (925)965.7100 SUS ,(925)938.4524 FAX November 27, 2002 Robert & 'Damara. Steiner 4701 Morgan Territory Rd. Clayton, CA 94517 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Steiner, After consideration on the matter of the shared driveway with your neighbors, who are in pursuit of a permit to assemble and manufacture motorcycle parts, in my opini©n, the value of the property would be adversely affected. The use of hazardous chemicals, the increased traffic, and storage of these parts could lead to lower property value. Without the exact details of the manufacture & assembly facility, it is difficult to determine exactly how much the property would be affected. Sincerely, cies�.�.. Lyrae French LF/as December 10, 2002 Will Nelson Contra Costs County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Fax: 335-1222 Re: Kerry and Donna Gager's Application For Land Use Permit County File OLPOZ2045 Dear Mr_ Nelson: Just to recap our conversation this morning: 1. Ralph Hexter is NOT the closest neighbor to the Gagers. We are. Mr. Hexter's property is at the endof the common driveway(past Gager's house,past our house and past the Vermillion's), is set back and faces the side of the Gager house that is at the opposite end from the garage. Our house is directly across the driveway from the Gager property and the front of our house faces the front of the Gager house and their garage. We hear the noise from machinery and motorcycles, Mr. Hexter does not. 2. May I remind you and the Planning Commissioners that the Gager's activities have been, in fact, a problem - a DIG problem caused by intolerable noise and traffic from the time they moved in. In fact,this is what prompted us to write to the County to find out if they had a use permit to run their business from their garage, if there had been no problem with noise and traffic, we would have had no reason to alert the county, they would have had no reason to apply for a permit and we STILL wouldn't know what they did in their garage. 3. It appears that their employee (who drives the black pickup) is still employed on the property by the Gagers. Is this the case? 4. We are not objecting to the Gager's application to run a home based business. We are objecting to the kind of business. Both my husband and Mr. 5. Vermillion work out of their homes. They are consultants that sit at a computer all day. They have no employees and no customers and no machinery. A manufacturing business is not appropriate for a rural, pastoral, residential neighborhood. 6. We are STILL gK erne/yconcernedabout the impact that this exception will have on our property values. Our home is our biggest asset, we have been in it for 34 years and there is no doubt that a use permit for a motorcycle parts manufacturing business will have an adverse effect on the value. Even though the Commission feels that the conditions of approval will make the "home occupation innocuous and unperceivable to . . . future owners", the fact of the matter is that this activity is required to be disclosed to any Page 1 potential brayer--and THAT POTENTIAL BUYER'S PERCEPTION is what affects property value. It is highly unlikely that future buyers will buy the house after this disclosure on the Planning Commission's assumption that the manufacturing business across the driveway would be "innocuous and unperceivable to current or future owners." If their manufacturing business were "unpercelvable", we would never have perceived it in the first place! In fact, we have spoken to Lynn French, a realtor who handles many properties in the rural areas of Clayton,specifically along Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road. It is her opinion that the use permit would have an adverse effect of an unknown amount on the value of properties along the shared driveway. I am attaching a copy of this letter. Finally, let me reiterate how dissatisfied we are with the whole process. We had very short notice of the first meeting. We didn't receive the notice until 6 days before the meeting. When we spoke prior to the meeting on November 19"', you advised me that it was "too bad" that we got our notice late, but that it (our inability to attend the meeting) probably wouldn't be a big problem because the staff(you)was recommending denial of the permit. But, worse yet, when we spoke on November 20h you told us that the permit had been approved pending the writing of the conditions and that approval would come on the December 10" meeting. You specifically and clearly told me that this would be a closed meet ncr and i ruo(e) "tha would not b-a heening any mare testimonyyn the 1 ti�h", Last night at almost 9:60, 1 retrieved a message you left on my home voice mall (since you had "misplaced"my work number)telling me(and again, I quote)"sorry about that, I gave you wrong information - - you CAN speak at tomorrow night's hearing, after all." This notice was less than 24 hours before the hearing. i am a pmfesslonal choir director and pianist and have a final concert rehearsal tonight that I absolutely cannot cancel. And because of your wrong advice on November 20'", my husband made no effort to alter his travel schedule to try to be at the hearing on December 101h. This was not some little oversight on your part -IT WAS HUGE. There is the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law." The County followed the"letter of the law" by postmarking the first notice 10 days before the hearing. However, if the "spirit"or the intent of the law is to hold a hearing so that everyone who is affected would have ample opportunity to be heard and their concerns considered, then this whole process has been a dismal failure! Tamara Steiner 4701 Morgan Territory Read Clayton, CA 94517 925-746-7100 Page 2 t } �. E �../V E t ._.4_�_ Dennis M. Barry,AiCP Comm nity Dt*opment Director Development Department ��� MA's 2 20-D �r County Administration Building 6551 Pine Street '{ F;,; Contra Costa County 4th door,North WingFlood Control And Water Conservation DisYrici Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)335-1214 "r , ` ti Date: AGENCY COMMENT REQL"EST We re uest your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as fo ows: Building Inspection • HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner /&44� HSI?,Hazardous Materials ( County File L}P- o 2l j , o._ P/W-EngineeringSvcs Full Size) Number: .Date Forwarded P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: - ___P/W Special Districts (Reduced) Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs Redevelopment Agency ap ly to this application: Historical Resources Information System CA Native Amer. Her.Comm. Redevelopment Area CA Fish &Game,Region US Fish &Wildlife Service A tjve,Fault Zone _Fire District A Sanitary Districtlood Hazard Area,Panel# Water D's rict City N L60 dBA Noise Control School Distr t i Sheriff Office-Admin. & Comm.Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site —Alamo Improvement Association —EI Sobrante Plg. & Zoning Committee L10 Traffic Zone _ MAC DOIT-Dep.Director,CommunicationsLLCEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo tegorical Exemption Section Com unity Or t j t PIease indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant& Owner. --e No comments on this application. — Our Comments are attached , Comments: 1.J Signature Agency S:current pianningltemplates/forms/agencq comment request Date Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Community �f"tY 1lf Dennis M. Barrk, AICF G� Community o Contra Community Delopment Director Development Costa DepartmentCount�/ County Administration Building 02 MAY 23 P 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing t Martinez,California 54553-0055 (925)335-1214 �� Phone: rGt`= Date: �'" coiix•� AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as fa ows: Building Inspection HSD,Environmental Health., Concord Project Planner HSD,Hazardous?Materials P/W -Flood Control (Full Size) Count=File P/W -Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: LP o2,:,!n Date Forwarded P/W Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: jo P/W Special Districts (Reduced) Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System CA Native Amer.Her.Comm. Redevelopment Area —CA Fish &Game,Region US Fish &Wildlife Service A tjv Fault Zone _ Fire District � ; Sanitary District loud.Hazard Area,Panel# Water D' ict 64 dBA Noise Control School Distr t Sheriff Office-Admin. & Comm. Svcs. '' CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association ; ____El Sobrante PIg. &Zoning Committee O Traffic Zone MAC DOIT-Dep.Director,Communications A CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A AIamo tegorical Exemption Section Coto uM Or �� Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by lava or ordinance. PIease send copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments: Signature (TT Or- C(-AfT2>t4 Agency 5:current planning/templates/forms/agency comment request Date Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month MAP j � t c« } i f \i h x C N _ a { ♦' N < i LX ,t. 1. 4 v C as u r�.CD O cc d 0 0 ` Cs d m OC ca �x j`�;,�t�S•' ,..E; 1... J r «; a W ji }yay as i tx rr a IN, �{. � V N� b yak 4 t n cal¢H a•�' ul W Zw Ci 63 y _ t5 a w a tq� 4 �� tiro Nli .9911 -� 70 kJ) `w✓ -NOTIFICATION DIST Building Inspection/ Save Mount Diablo LP022045 Code Enforcement 1196 Boulevard Way, Ste 10 Walnut Creel, Ca 94596 Gagen,.McCoy,McMahon&Armstrong 279 Front Street P.O.Box 228 Danville Ca 94525 Attn:Allan Moore 090020006 080020007 080 020 009 Richard&Gayle Schwartz Mary Smith Robert&Tamara Steiner 4825 Morgan Territory Rd 4775 Morgan Territory Rd 4701 Morgan TerritoryRd Clayton,CA 94517 Clayton,CA 94517 Clayton,CA 94517 080 020 010 080020012 080 020 013 Kerry&Donna Gager Ralph Heater Robert Vermillion&Mitchell-Vermillio 4751 Morgan Territory Rd 4725 Morgan Territory Rd 4711 IM—organ Territory Rd Clayton,CA 94517 Clayton, CA 94517 Clayton,CA 94517 080020014 080 040 011 080160017 James&Lois Desmond Walter&Margery Pease Michael&Virginia Gotfiied 4675 Morgan Territory Rd 7979 Shay Dr 4895 Morgan Territory Rd Clayton,CA 945117 Oakland,CA 94605 Clayton,CA 94517 08016001.8 080160020 Wayne&Karen Barker Steven Matthews&Carla Carmona 4885 Morgan Territory Rd 2464 Hooftrail Way Clayton,CA 945'.7 Antioch,CA 94531 Mary Carter Smith 4775 Morgan Territory Road Clayton, California 94517 (925) 572-2529 September 29, 2003 Ms. Danielle Kelly, Deputy Clerk Centra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, California 94553-1293 Re: Kerry and Donna Lager's Land Use Application County File#LP022045 .Dear Danielle: Thank you so very much for forwarding all the appropriate papers regarding the action taken by the Board of Supervisors with respect to the above application. I particularly appreciate your patience with my many phone calls and your keeping me informed so faithfully. I had no idea the documents would be so extensive!!1 I especially am interested in the conditions imposed in the conditional granting of this application. However, I did read through everything with interest. I did note that in the section, "Pertinent Correspondence", my second letter was not included so am including a copy. I would appreciate greatly if this would be added to the file since it outlines my current concerns and it was sent prior to the appeal hearing. Again, my many thanks for your total cooperation and assistance. Rectfully Yours, Ilk—,/C. 4&�, Mary I' er Smith Mary Carter Smith 4775 Morgan Territory Road Clayton, California 94517 (926) 672-2529 July 1, 2003 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors c/o Mr. Will Nelson, Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-1229 Re: Kerry and Donna Gager's Land Use Application County File#LP022045 Dear Board of Supervisors: I strongly oppose the granting of this land use permit to manufacture motorcycle parts on the property at 4751 Morgan Territory Road, Clayton. My residence is immediately adjacent to the Gager residence. I did not have any serious objections to the proposal as stated in November of 2002, however subsequently the Gager's business has expanded to a large area be-hind their residence. Please note that the land use application did NOT include any reference to the use of the land in the rear of the home. Currently and for some months this area has become a storage area including one old car,a truck, motorcycles, tires, a stove, scrap lumber,etc. Additionally, under the deck they have stored miscellaneous"garbage". I have requested the Gager's to clean up the area and they did make an effort to do so,but unfortunately never finish and more gets added. Much of this is visible directly from my living areas and deck, thus definitely is most unattractive, to say the least. However, my primary concern, at this time particularly, is the fire risk all of this presents, especially since everything is located relatively close to a propane tank-,several large trees and weeds. I also am quite concerned about my property value. I doubt any potential buyer of my home would be interested once they viewed the "garbage" next door. Definitely, having even a small manufacturing business next door would be unattractive to potential buyers and most probably will reduce the value of my property. I also am concerned about the noise/traffic issue. I do not personally hear much noise from their garage but the number of motorcycles going up and down the road has increased significantly in the last few months. I moved out here 29 years ago to enjoy the peace, quiet and a "country" lifestyle which certainly does not include commercial businesses and motorcycles. I am not in opposition to the Gagers' request to use some of their interior of their residence as a home office, but I am firmly in opposition to any manufacturing being done on their property for all the forgoing reasons. Therefore, I respectfully request the Board of Supervisors deny the land use permit allowing small motorcycle parts to be produced in the garage. R spectfull Yours Mary latter Smith cc: K. and D. Gager