HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07252006 - D.4 �w D ":
A t' .%
1�
07-4L
137 %, i!h
CO
000
t'•
d
cA
Q, R4
r^. O
dA
v� Q yv
(P ef1 c� NN
OV
'� v U
DA
07/25/06
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 25, 2006 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Pepho, DeSaulnier, Glover and Gioia
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DA CONTINUED August 8, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. the hearing on the administrative appeal filed by
William and Marie Parsons of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve an addition to the
existing single family residence on the property located at 1485 Emmons Canyon Road, Alamo
area.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ENTERED ON THE MWMS OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON.UC DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTE S Dd'
ufl rk of the Board of Supervisors
a Co nistrator
Byh
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
-Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: Phone: ffi,;,A0, Z 5L->
Address: CAMN,4Jj eAA-"OJ W City: - A LAM>
(Address and phone number are optional; please nate that this card will become a public record kept on Me
with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization.-
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: 7 ZS 10(.
My comments will be: General El For El Against
V
El I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM J
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name.- Phone: (,Z`) 82)— ',32 z
Address: 5 ca,Y1,lko City: ✓y7 _
(Address and phone number are optional4th
leas ote that this card will beco e a public record kept on file
with the Clerk of the Board in ass dation this meeting)
I am speaking for myself or organization:
CHECK ONE:
LSI I wish to speak on Agenda Item #. Date:
My comments will be: Generai ❑ For ❑ Against
❑ I wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ti Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR -��4 County
rq idU
DATE: July 25, 2006
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AT 1485 EMMONS CANYON
ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA. WILLIAM AND MARIE PARSONS (APPELLANTS)
KAREN AND LAWRENCE LESER (OWNERS)"(APN 193-660-011) (COUNTY FILE
#Z106-11413) (DISTRICT III)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
UPHOLD the issuance of the building permit which was based on the Community Development
Department's decision that the construction of the master bedroom closet and bathroom is
consistent with the Planned Unit District, and DENY the appellant's appeal.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE G_
is
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER-
VOTE
THER_VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
11k1Ak1111111111C /ADCC\IT \ /�/���GnT /+A Ir]V Ac A\I AnTI/1\I TA VC\I A\IM
V IflI11IV Vv`l1YVV1�1 / CORRECT COPY Vr ANI MVIIV17 IMI 1\ MI141./
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Aruna Bhat(335-1219) ATTESTED
Community Development JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Community Development Department(CDD). SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Carlos Baltadano, Building Inspection Director
William and Marie Parsons,Appellants
Larry and Karen Leser, Owners
County Counsel BY DEPUTY
Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association '
u11125; 006 .
frd 9f' ervisors
File#: Z106-11413
Page 2
II. FISCAL IMPACT
The appellants (William and Marie-Jeane Parsons) have paid the initial appeal fee of
$125.00. The property owners (Lawrence and Karen Leser)will be required to pay for staff
time in excess of $125.00 associated with the processing of this appeal.
III. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The appellants are appealing the addition of a 270 square foot master bedroom closet and
bathroom at 1485 Emmons Canyon Road in Alamo. The subject property is located within
the Bryan Ranch Development located in Alamo. The development plan for Bryan Ranch
was approved as a Planned Unit District in 1978 and filed on June 5, 1979.
In.September of 2006, the Lesers requested approval of a master bedroom closet and
bathroom addition. The addition was approved on September 28, 2006 by the Community
Development Department and a building permit was issued by the Building Inspection
Department on April 4, 2006 and the appeal was filed. on May 2, 2006 by William and
Marie-Jeane Parsons.
The single family home is located on an approximately 0.35 acre lot and was constructed in
1981. It is situated in an established neighborhood surrounded by other single family
residences. The proposed addition is on the west side of the existing residence surrounded
by existing trees.
IV. APPEAL DECISION
Listed below is a summary of the appellant's statements (letter attached) and staff's
responses.
A. Appeal Point: We never agreed to the extension of the existing wall by 4 feet. Our
neighbors asked for our approval to build out to the eaves' edge, i.e. between one and
two feet. They explained they did not want to change the roof design, nothing would go
beyond the edge, and the wall would be cantilevered on the existing foundation. Karen
had talked about moving the bedroom or bathroom into the spare bedroom. Every time
we talked about the remodeling, they were consistent with these representations.
Response: The current zoning designation for the subject property is a Planned Unit
Development (P-1) in the approved Bryan Ranch subdivision (SD5026). The addition
was approved with a minimum sideyard setback of 5 feet with a 25 foot minimum
between buildings shown on the site plan and a 15-foot rear yard setback requirement.
The issues presented by the appellant are civil matters and not matters in which the
County intervenes.
B. Appeal Point: The approval letter dated March 23, 2005 refers to the 8 months timing. If
construction is not started within 8 months,the approval is automatically revoked by the
Architectural Committee and a new approval has to be applied for. Thus the approval
was revoked automatically on November 23, 2005. A revoked approval can't be
extended. Despite this the Leser's asked for an extension in January 2006 and they
received it. We were never notified.
July.25, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#:Z106-11413
Page 3
Respolise: The approval letter being referenced to relates to the Architectural
Committee. The approval granted by the Architectural committee is strictly between the
homeowner and their homeowner's association (HOA). The HOA is not affiliated with
the County but is a concerned neighborhood group and the County considers their
recommendations. However, the County follows the rules and regulations set forth by
the County Zoning Ordinance and the Conditions of Approval for the specific subdivision
or projE;ct. Concerns regarding the processes of the HOA should be addressed to the
HOA.
C. Appeal Point: I informed Mr. Bloomquist that the condition of approval no. 2 was not
met since we had never been informed of the 4 feet and had not seen the plan. He also
indicated that Larry Leser called him and said that it was four feet and that probably my
husband had seen early plans when they asked him to sign the neighbor's form in
March 2005, and that they plans were changed thereafter. Mr. Bloomquist indicated
that since I had seen the plans at Bate's offices, the condition was now met. The fact of
the 4 feet impacting on our rights was not relevant.
Response: Please refer to the response of Appeal Point B.
D. Appeal Point: The real issue is: who decides who gets to build on more than their
share of the 25 feet empty space requirement? Were we not in a P-1, the decision
would have been fully that of the County, and we would have been notified by the
County. Because we are in a P-1, the County is looking at the approval of the
architectural committee. This one is only looking at the aesthetic and not addressing the
issues raised here. It became extinct at the end of November.
Response: The purpose of a P-1 zoning district is to provide a cohesive design where
flexible regulations can be applied. Condition of approval #2 of the development plan
County File#3011-77 states that "the guide to be used to establish setbacks, yard and
height dimensional requirements and other provisions for development and use on each
lot shall be the single family residential district R-15". In order to provide a better design
within -the development, the master developer Smith Company requested flexible
setbacks. Through a letter dated, November 16, 1979, the Community Development
Department granted 5 feet minimum sideyard setback with a 25 foot distance between
buildings.
The appellant has raised a concern that the neighbor's addition may take away her
rights to build an addition on her side of the property. If an addition is proposed by Mrs.
Parsons, the County would apply the R-15 standards as a guide since the P-1 zoning
district is flexible. The County's approval of the addition located at 1485 Emmons
Canyon Road by no means takes Mrs. Parson's rights to construct an addition on her
property. The County does not base its approval exclusively on that of the Homeowners
Association (in this case the Architectural Committee), but respects and appreciates its
efforts and comments.
E. Appeal Point: R-15 lots require a minimum sideyard of ten feet and an aggregate of 25
feet while in the R-20, the minimum sideyard is 15 feet with an aggregate of 35 feet.
These requirements are in line with what we were told when we bought our house from
the Smith Company 23 years ago. We understand from some of our neighbors who
July 25, 2006
Board of Supervisors
File#: Z106-11413
Page 4
added on recently that they were told by their architect of a total minimum space
between 25 feet are required between houses. A fair middle is 12.5 feet each. They do
not have that distance from their building to the lot line. So we already have to keep a
bigger portion of our land un-built than what they have. By giving them an additional 4
feet of building space, we are losing the same build-able space on our lot. We are not
interested in having them that close to our lot line or in decreasing the value of our lot,
for-their benefit. There is no reason to do it. It is not fair that the first one gets to do
this.
Response: Please refer to the response of Appeal Point D.
F. Appeal Point: Such issues can impact a lot of people who are in planned unit
development. Architectural committees are not extensions of the County of Zoning
decisions. They are volunteers not professional. Exceptions are made under pressure.
The county may feel that the Architectural committee considered the full impact of the
issue. Clearly that isnot the case here.
Response: The County's clearance was based on the applicable conditions of approval.
Issues related to the operations of the HOA should be directed to the HOA.
V. CONCLUSION ,
l
The clearance of the building permit which allowed a five foot sideyard is consistent with
decisions dating back to the initial construction of the community. The clearance of this
building permit does not limit the appellants' ability to file for a building permit on their
property which would provide for less than 25 feet between buildings. The approved permit
provides that the R-15 zoning standards are the guide to development: The issuance of
this building permit complies with the Planned Unit District requirements.
William and Marie-Jeanne Parsons
1493 Emmons Canyon Drive
Alamo, CA 94507
(925) 743 9636
lapinski2@earthlink.net
Mr. Carlos Baltadano cc: Ms. Catherine Kutsuris
Building Inspection Department Planning Department
Contra Costa County Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street 651 Pine Street
North Wing, 3"6 Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-1295 Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: 1485 Emmons Canyon Drive, Alamo CA 94507
Appeal of Building Permit No. 374508 issued April 4, 2006
Parcel No. 193-660-011
Dear Mr. Baltadano:
We are the next-door neighbor of Larry and Karen Leser, the owners of 1485
Emmons Canyon Drive. We bought our house in 1983 from the Smith Company.
The Leser's bought theirs in 2001. We had cordial relations with them, taking care of
their dog during their numerous vacations, watching out for their mother and
spending Christmas with them. We considered them as friends.
Thus we had no reason to ever think that they would ever misrepresent what they
were planning on building.
There is maybe 8 or 9 feet distance between their house and our fence. When the
Smith built the houses, they positioned the houses so as to leave more room on one
side for potential addition, and very little room on the other side.
We are appealing the issuance of the building permit for the remodeling of their
master bedroom and bath. We are in Bryan Ranch a P-1.
Bryan Ranch has four distinct areas: Bryan Ranch itself with lots of 1/3 acres and
more and where original houses were mostly in the 2500 to 3200 sgft range, Bryan
Terraces at the end of Stone Valley Road with smaller lots maybe 6000 sgft and
higher density houses go from 2100 to 2800 sgft, Country Oak Lane with 7 estate
size lots ranging from 3 to 22 acres and larger houses and the latter part, Bryan
Meadows which is accessed through Green Valley Road and has both estate lots and
1/3 acres plus lots.
1
The reasons for our request are as follows:
1. We never agreed to the extension of the existing wall by 4 feet. Our
neighbors asked for our approval to build out to the eaves'.edge, i.e.
between one and two feet. They explained they did not want to change the
roof design, nothing would go beyond the edge, and the wall would be
cantilevered on the existing foundation. Karen had talked about moving
the bedroom or bathroom into the spare bedroom. Every time we talked
about the remodeling, they were consistent with these representations.
2. In the Summertime Karen rant the doorbell and indicated that Mr.
Bloomquist (Architectural Committee) wanted us to be informed of the 25 ft
limitation and she reiterated that the wall would only go to the eaves' edge.
I asked to see the plans and she confirmed she knew I had never seen
them. Somehow she said she was in a hurry and would bring them. She
never did. She asked me to sign a neighbor's approval form, as if the
approval process was still going on.. I signed the! form on the basis of her
representation, still not seeing the plans.
3. It is only when their contractor was taking some measurements that I
found out about the extension was to be 4 feet instead of to the eaves'
edge. That was on April 18, 2006
4. That same day, I called Karen Leser to check whether they were building
out 4 feet rather than the eaves edge. She still confirmed it was to the
eaves' edge. I sent her an email confirming our conversation.
5. Her husband called me about 10 to 15 minutes later and stated that it was
also his understanding that it would be to eaves' edge until that morning
when he learned it was out 4 feet. He said .there was never any intent to
deceive us. I questioned how he could not have known. Later in the same
conversation he stated that the contractor had indicated that it was not
economically feasible to move the wall only 18". It begs to question then
why their plans,from March 2005 clearly showed 4 feet and he did not know
it. I suggested that he move the addition towards the center of the lot, to
which he replied they were already going to the eave's edge in that
direction. The "economically not feasible" only applies in one. direction.
6. Larry Leser asked me whether we would have agreed to the four feet had
we been told. I told him absolutely not, as the space on their side of the
house is already very narrow, and that there is no reason for us to give up
the option of building on 4 feet of our lot. We had agreed to the 18" not the
4 feet and feel that it was reasonable.
7. I contacted Mr. Bloomquist at the architectural committee to find out what
had been approved. He asked me to go see the approval documents at
Bates and Associates, the Management firm. He stated that I may not be
able to get a copy of the plans but the rest would be OK. He also asked me
to check that the plans did show the 4 feet extension of the wall.
2
8. I went to Bates and Associates and looked at the plans which clearly stated
4 feet and when I requested copies of the documents, they informed me
that they needed a request in writing and an approval from the Board of
Directors, as there is a new law governing this. I rn'entioned that Mr.
Bloomquist had said that I could geta copy of the documents. I wrote up
the request and left.
9. The association's legal counsel indicated to the board that I should not have
access to the plans (that I was supposed to have seen originally) for
privacy reasons, But I could get a copy of the documents.
10. The approval letter dated March 23, 2005 refers to the 8 months timing.- If
construction is not started within 8 months, the approval is automatically
revoked and a new approval has to be applied for. Thus the approval was
revoked automatically on November 23,, 2005. We were never contacted
for any new approval paperwork. A revoked approval can't be extended.
11. Despite this the Leser's asked for an extension in lanuary 2006 and they
received it. We were never notified: Others in the association receive their
revocation letter clearly stating that they have to reapply.
12. The approval from the Architectural Committee clearly states that it is for
aesthetic purposes only and that County and State Code requirements
apply. They do not pass judgment on that part.
13. 1 informed Mr. Bloomquist that the condition of approval no. 2 was not met
since we had never been informed of the 4 feet and had not seen the plans.
He also indicated that Larry Leser called him and said that it was four feet
and that probably my husband had seen early plans when they asked him
to sign the neighbor's form in March 2005, and that the plans were
changed thereafter. Mr. BI"oomquist indicated that since I had seen the
plans at Bates's offices, the condition was now met. The fact of the 4 feet
impacting on our rights is not relevant.
14. This would thus imply that he is passing judgment only on the aesthetic of
the approval. He does not seem to realize the issue of how one
homeowner is negatively impacted by the other, or does not view it as
being his concern.
15. The real issue is: who decides who gets to build on more than their share of
the 25 feet empty space requirement? Were we not in a P1, the decision
would have been fully that of the County, and we would have been notified
by the County. Because we are in a P-1, the county is looking at the
approval of the architectural committee. This one is only looking at the
3
aesthetic and not addressing the issues raised here. It became extinct at
the end of November.
16. It turns out nobody ever informed us of the 4 feet addition, so that we
never were in a position to say yeah or nay. Everybody relied on the
representation of our neighbors and the revocation of the approval was not
known or taken inconsideration.
17. Had we been informed that they were planning on building within 5 feet of
property line, we would never have agreed to it.
18. There is very little space on their side of the house towards our house.
19. The lots in our area are 1/3 rd of an acre, with open space on both sides of
the street, in a "secluded rural living" environment as described by Harold
Smith & CO. There is another part of Bryan Ranch, Bryan Terraces, where
the lots are substantially smaller and the houses much closer to one
another on one side particularly. This is not our case Our lot is 120ft wide,
our neighbor's 118ft feet wide. There is thus ample space tc have a nice
wide house without have to get right next to the neighbor. The depth is
130ft third of an acre, there is sufficient space on the lot for everyone to
have breathing space.
20. R15 and R20 lots call for the 10/15feet/total 25 feet, which is in line with
what we were told when we bought our house from the Smith Company 23
years ago. We understand from some of our neighbors who added on
recently that they were told by their architect of- a total minimum space
between
21. 25 Feet are required between houses. A fair middle is 12.5 feet each.
They do not have that distance from their building to the lot line. So we
already have to keep a bigger portion of our land unbuild than what they
have. By giving them an additional 4 feet of building space, we are loosing
the same buildable space on our lot. We are not interested in having them
that close to our lot line or in decreasing the value of our lot, for their
benefit. There is no reason to do it. It is not fair that the first come gets to
do this.
22. The plans they provided to the Architectural Committee are different from
what we were told. Larry Leser has indicated to Mr. Bloomquist that they
probably made changes after they got my husband to sign on the
neighbor's approval form and when they submitted the plans. The
procedures are flowed in that the neighbors are not required to sign on the
plans submitted and the architectural committee never addressed the issue
with us directly.
Since the Leser moved in they have had ongoing remodeling and additions
going on. First they transformed the workshop into a second unit with full
kitchen and bathroom and other redecorating. This was to be expected as
4
their mother in law lives with them. Less than a year later they started on
a kitchen/family room remodel that lasted forever. To date they are still
not in compliance with the roof requirement of Bryan Ranch that specifically
prohibit composition roof. Tony LaRussa was fined $25,000 for his
composition roof, but for them an exception is being made.
23. The approval they received was subject to notifying us of the 25 feet and
the 4 feet. They always represented the eave's edge that is less than 2
feet.
24. The approval was automatically revoked after 8 months if construction had
not started per the conditions of the CC&Rs. This means their approval
expired in November 2005. A new approval package should have been
submitted, including review forms. This was not done.
25. They requested and were granted an extension in January 2006. We were
never contacted. One can't extend something that has expired. The Bryan
Ranch Architectural Committee is not consistent in its approval process and
is riot following the CC&Rs.
This shows a loophole in the approval process. The only way to avoid substitution of
plans is to ask the neighbors to sign on the actual plans. The issues impacting
property values should be clearly dealt with the respective parties directly.
Such issues can impact a lot of people who are in planned unit development.
Architectural committees are not extension of the County or Zoning decisions. They
are volunteers not professional. Exceptions are made under pressure. The county
may feel that the Architectural committee considered the full impact of the issue.
Clearly this is not the case here.
This issue demonstrates why it is important that when one decision affects the rights
of other than the applicant, the neighbors need to be notified of the issue directly by
the deciding party. Nobody can anticipate the extent to which one will go to deceive.
In all of this, we also have lost the trust in our neighbors and the respect we had for
them.
I very much would appreciate your revocation of this building permit. Let's learn
from this and maybe avoid this issue for others.
Many thanks for your consideration.
� n
William and Marie Jeanne Parsons
5
r
A '
G I.
v
Q
of
Q
d
r
w, • d
A
•7" Q f au N
+ a,
5 �
}C
,.'� •t if .a��. "'�r� �`s k '``` �� "`�� "st`r fie.
JA
,
4 � _ � 4 •t \1H'" i*t t-,,'e, +.cam,
t '21t d ,� A`'iz'F
t 3 l
z
^��",�3'�" ° 9 i tri. a �'}� _ � � £V —•-:" `, �:,,..� ".
k
t
wtulam v.wallom ill
Ci, , ^ Plonsant Hill—Ch iirmnn
ia
Ginty Administration Building, worth Wing C�11 Albert z Vice h
.0 Box 951 cC?uC1�y Martinez—vice Cn�rrnrf,.
r Donald E.Anderson
Martinez, California 94553 Nnorage
Elton 6rombacher
Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Richmond
William L.Milano
Phone: 372-2091 Pittsburg
Carolyn D.Phillips
Rodeo
Andrew K Young
Alamo
November 16, 1979
Mr. Randall L. Smith, President
Harold W. Smith Company
2076 Mt. Diablo Boulevard
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Dear Mr. Smith:
The setback and sideyard dimensions as outlined in your letter of November 13,
1979 are in accordance with the Planned Unit District conditions for Whitegate.
The same dimensional standards should be applied to the Bryan Ranch Planned
Unit Development. These minimum standards are as follows:
(1) Setback - 15 feet for dwelling and 17.5 feet for the garage.
(2) Sideyards - S feet and 20 feet with 25 feet between buildings - plot
plans for building permiti to show the 25 feet between
buildings.
(3) Rearyard - 15 feet minimum.
A copy of this letter will be at the front counter so that there will be no
unnecessary delay in the issuance of permits.
Sincerely yours,
Anthony A. Dehaesus
Director of Planning
A.-
Norman L. Halverson
Special Projects Planner
NLH/mb
cc: Pile No. Subdivision 5026
File No. 1787-RZ (Cond. lt7)
File No. 3011-77 (Cond. #t2)
Al Rangel
HAROI:, �Usd '►S' 1TH COMPANY
u lbs Nov 14 79
N 937-8700 L November 13, 1979
Mr. Norm Halverson
Contra Costa Planning Department
P.O. Box 951
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Norm:
This letter is to confirm our conversation of this morning with regard to
the side yards and set back in subdivision 5026, which is part of the Bryan
Ranch Planned Unit Development.
_ You will recall that in White Gate Planned Unit Development adjoining the
Bryan Ranch, we adopted a policy which basically allowed the R-15 Zoning
side yard and set backs to apply with the following exceptions:
1. Side yards could be 5 and 20' instead of the conventional
10 and 15' as long as we maintained 25' between buildings.
The location and distance from the adjoining building was
indicated on the plot plan at the time of permit application.
2. Building set back was allowed "to be 15' for the dwelling
and 172 ' for the garagg, instead of the conventional 20' allowed
for R-15 zoning.
We would like to extend this policy into the Bryan Ranch because it gives
us more flexibility to comfortably site the homes on some of our more un-
usually shaped lots, and in addition, on sloping streets, you will recall that
we have run 4;1 slopes between buildings and that allowed us to shift all the
homes to the upper property lines to keep from building over the slopes.
We used this exception to the R-15 guidelines on approximately 30% of the
homes in White Gate with staff approval on a case by case basis and would
appreciate very much the ability to do this in subdivision 5026.
T would be happy to come to your office to discuss this matter if you feel
it necessary.
Regards,
HAROLD-W. SMITH COMP
Randall L.Smith
President
El CENTURY HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
I__1 2076 Mt. Diablo Boulevard
Wrlmti r;rnnb. ,.,lit�rni� 9dSOq
'
--- o .
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Subdivision 5026 EXHIBIT 'A"
|. ibis x|`provx\ is hxsu| n|um 1'mn| xLjvc Nk/|` JxtcJ rucoivcJ by tho
|`1umnioC Department Murch 2] ' 1978` :s ommnJcJ by the conditions
listed below and the conditions ordhu l;m/1 0cxr|n|noonr \`Lxn 3011 -77 .
2. The subdivision shall conform to the provisions in Title 9 of the County
'
Ordinance Code. Any variance therefrom most be spocificlu\ly applied for
aud` sboil not be allowed unless listed on the Planning Commission's condi-
tional approval statement.
3. The existing curbed section of Green Valley Road from Stone Valley Road to
No. 188I Green Valley Road shall be widened to u minimum of 32 feet of
pavement (two 12-foot lanes plus an 8-foot parking lane) . No reconstruction
of existing pavement will be necessary as the vertical and horizontal align-
ment of the existing pavement is satisfactory for widening.
4� From No. 1881 to No. 1935 Green Valley Road (the southerly boundary of
Subdivision S025) the existing pavement shall be widened to 24 feet.
||nrizootal and possibly vertical realignment of the road will be necessary
at the curve at No. 1927 Green Volley Road to provide adequate sight Jiownce.
With this exception' the existing pavement has satisfactory vertical and
horizontal alignment; widening only- will be necessary. `
S. From No. 1935 Green Valley Road to the bend in the existing road approximately
1 '700 feet northerly, the road shall he widened to 28 feet with (likes in x
60-foot right-of-way. There are two vertical curves in this section which
shall be reconstructed to provide adequate sight distance, buomJ. ou collector
road standards.
8. Northerly of the bond in the existing znud (1 ,700 feet northerly of the
boundary of Subdivision 5026) to Lot 200' Green Valley Road shall 'be con-
structed as a curbed 28-foot street with curbs or asphalt concrete dike in
a 60-fuot right-of-way.
7. From Lot 290 to the northerly boundary of Subdivision 5026, Green Valley Road
shall be constructed to arterial standards (curbed 40-foot street with side-
walks] , with appropriate transitions from the 28-foot wide section.
O. A bardsorfacc6 pedestrian path shall be provided from No, I881 Green Valley
KooJ to connect to the now sidowzlks at Lot 290. Alternatively, the
pedestrian path may be routed across the dam for the retention basin to
connect to Stone Valley Kuud and oxhitto6 along Croon Volley DouJ south of
the basin.
g. The improvements to Green Valley koxJ shall be Jmnn concurrently, with thxI
phase A the development that will be served by the road,
10. In accordance with the provisions to Section 94-4 .414 of the Ordinance Code,
the owners of all existing easements within areas to be conveyed to Contra
Cost: County for road purposes shall consent to the dedication or deeding
of the right-of-way.
'
` Conditions for Approva—V - Subdivision 5026 Page 3
Department: Any excess area shall be shown as one additional lot on
the Final Map over and above the number shown by the tentative map.
This lot would have potential for further development,
22. All flow diversions shall be developed as shown on the tentative map.
Inaddition, the following shall be provided:
A. An adequate facility shall be provided at the end of Bandito Way
to allow the Q100 flow to escape from the street into the ,deten-
tion basin without the flooding of homes.
B. Raise Stone Valley Road grade south of Black Derringer Drive suf-
ficiently to ensure that the required diversions along Black
Derringer will flow into the basin, not southerly on Stone Vallee
Road,
C. Install an adequate diversion facility at the cast end of Black
Derringer Drive to divert all the Q100 flow from the southerly
drainage area into the northerly drainage area to the satisfaction
of the Public Works Department.
D. Construct all diversion facilities adequate to pass the Q100 flow.
(Pipe flow for Q10 and surface flow for the remainder. )
L. The watershed areas lying easterly of Lots 80/100 (Black Derringer
Drive) shall have their flow diverted to the creek area lying between
Black Derringer Drive and Buffalo Range Road. The Q10 flow shall be
carried in a culvert. The remaining waters from the Q100 flow may
flow overland.
23. The subdivider shall provide the Flood Control District with aright of
entry to dispose of excess basin .excavation in the area south of Lots
84 and 85.
24. If the Flood Control District constructs a regional detention basin on the
site shown on the map, the subdivider shall participate in the cost of the
detention basin, in an amount equal to 14.440 of the final construction and
engineering costs. This amount will not exceed $139,380. 00 regardless of
the actual cost. In addition, the developer shall deed to the Flood Control
District 2.S acres of land lying within the detention basin area and encompas-
sing the control structure.
If purchase of land and construction of a detention basin is not underway or
committed by the Flood Control District within three years of this approval
or at the time of filing of the Final Map for the Green Valley Road phase
of the subdivision, whichever coeurs first, the subdivider shall. :
A. Construct a flood water detention basin of sufficient size to result j
in no increase in the flow rate (Q100 maximum) in Green Valley Creek
downstream of the subdivision as a result of the development.
Conditions Cur Approval - Suhdi.vislun 5020 Page 5
33. The developer shall comply with the San Ramon Unified School District 's
policy as it relates to contribution of funds for the development of
school facilities within the District. (The San Ramon Valley Unified
School District "Developer's Policy". )
34. Phasing .of development is approved for three units subject to review
and modification by the Planning Director.
35.. Prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map, plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for house numbering and approval of street names.
36. Prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map for the first phase, a riding and
hiking trail casement across the westerly portion of the development locate.]
at approximately the 800-foot elevation contour as shown on the Tentative Map,
shall be offered for dedication to the East Bay Regional Park District.
37. Prior to filing the Final flap for the first phase and :in furtherance of
Condition #22 of the Preliminary Development Plan (1787-RZ) for expansion
of Mt. Diablo State Park , the arca of Emmons Canyon at the northeast portion
of the development, the westerly boundary of which lies on the southwest side
of Pine Ridge at about the 1,000-foot elevation contour project southeast and
encompassing an area of not less than 60 acres, shall be offered for dedication
to the State Department of Parks and Recreation.
38. Final delineation of the expansion of Mt. Diablo State Park to include the
Emmons Canyon area and the provision of riding and hiking trails for the
East Bay Regional Park District, shall be shown on the Final Subdivision
Map. These proposals will satisfy 25% of the requirement for park land
dedication within the development of 500 square feet of land area per
dwelling unit. Park dedication fees will be 75% of the amount normally
applicable.
39. if during the construction, grading or excavation, any items of potential
historical or scientific interest are discovered, the County Planning
Department shall be notified. The Planning Director shall have the
authority to issue an order appealable to the Planning Commission, to
stop work in the area of any find pending verification of the discover)'
and the; development of methods for the protection and treatment of areas
of significant interest.
40. Miner Win Way shri l l he County ma i nt a tined and shall he constructed as
continuation of Stone Valley Road to the "T" intersection at the two
cul-de-sac sections of Miner Cabin Way. The radial connection to the
cul-de-sac bulb at Stone Valley Road shall be eliminated.
41. The CC&Rs shall include the following:
(a) Maintenance by the homeowners of the access road from Wild Stallion
Road to Green valley Road.
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen
Clerk of the Board
County Administration BuildinCosta and
g County Administrator
651 Pine Street,Roam 106 Count (925)335-1900
Martinez,California 94553-4068
:John Gioia,District 1 E..sE-
Gayle R.Uiikema,District 11
Mary N.Piepho,District III
Mark DeSaulnier,District IV ndatb, iS
Federal D.Clover, District V -- '
July 13, 2006
William and Marie Parsons,
1493 Emmons Canyon Drive
Alamo, CA 94547-2856
RE: APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MASTER BEDROOM CLOSET AND
BATHROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1485 EMMONS CANYON ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA.
WILLIAM AND MARIE PARSONS (APPELLANTS) KAREN AND LAWRENCE LESER
(OWNERS)(APN 193-660-011)(COUNTY FILE#2106-11413)(DISTRICT III)
Dear Mr.And Mrs,Parsons:
This letter is to inform you that Tuesday,July 25,2006 at 1:00 p.m. is the date and time set for the
Administrative Appeal hearing. The hearing will be held in the McBrien Administration Building, (corner of Pine
and Escobar Streets)Board of Supervisor's Chambers,Room 147,651 Pine Street,Martinez,California.
If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,or prior to, the public
hearing,
If you have any questions regarding this item,please contact Aruna Bhat at 335-1219.
Very truly yours,
John Cullen,County Administrator
and Clerk of the Board
13
Katherin mclair,Deputy Clerk
cc: Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association
County Counsel
Qerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen
Clerk of the Board
County Administration Building Costa and
County Administrator
651 Pine Street,Room 106County (925)335-1900
Martinez,California 945531-4068
,John Gioia,District I
Gayle B.Uilketna,District If
ti -
Mary N.Piepho,District III
Mark DeSaulnier,District IV
Federal D.Glover, District V
-----------
July 13, 2006
Lawrence&Karen Leser
1485 Emmons Canyon Drive
Alamo, CA 94507-2856
RE: APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MASTER BEDROOM CLOSET AND
BATHROOM ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1485 EMMONS CANYON ROAD .IN THE ALAMO AREA.
WILLIAM AND MARIE PARSONS (APPELLANTS) KAREN AND LAWRENCE LESER
((OWNERS)(APN 1.93-660-011)(COUNTY FILE#Z106-11413)(DISTRICT III)
Dear Mr.And Mrs. Parsons:
This lette-,-is to inform you that Tuesday,July 25,2006 at 1:00 p.m.is the date and time set for the
Administrative Appeal hearing. The hearing will be held in the McBrien Administration Building, (comer of Pine
and Escobar Streets)Board of Supervisor's Chambers,Room 107, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, California.
If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public
hearing.
If you have any questions regarding this item,please contact Aruna Bhat at 335-1219.
Very truly yours,
John Cullen,County Administrator
and Clerk of the Board
B
Kkherit�eSinclair,Deputy Clerk
cc: Bryan Ranch Homeowners Association
County Counsel
Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To Carlos Baltodano/BI/CCC@CCC,Catherine
05/03/2006 08:19 AM cc Kutsuris/CD/CCC@CCC
a 4
s-. .d s• a s A
bcc,
Subject Admin Appeal Received
Good Morning,
The COB is in receipt of an appeal from William and Marie Parsons, 1493 Emmons Canyon Drive,Alamo.
Appealing B.I. Permit No. 974508, issued 4-4-06, Parcel No. 193-660-011.
I will forward both of you a copy of the appeal, unless you would rather have someone pick it up.
The Parsons requested a hearing be scheduled for anytime after 6-8-06. If this is agreeable to you, I can
go ahead and set a date.
Thank you,
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
925.335-1902
William and Marie-Jeanne Parsons
1493 Emmons Canyon Drive
Alamo, CA 94507
(925) 743 9636
lapinski2@earthlink.net
Mr. Carlos Baltadano cc: Ms. Catherine Kutsuris
Building Inspection Department Planning Department
Contra Costa County Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street 651 Pine Street
North Wing, 3rd Floor
Martinez, CA 94553-1295 Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: 1485 Emmons Canyon Drive, Alamo CA 94507
Appeal of Building Permit No. 374508 issued April 4, 2006
Parcel No. 193-660-011
Dear Mr. Balt:adano:
We are the next-door neighbor of Larry and Karen Leser, the owners of 1485
Emmons Canyon Drive. We bought our house in 1983 from the Smith Company.
The Leser's bought theirs in 2001. We had cordial relations with them, taking care of
their dog during their numerous vacations, watching out for their mother and
spending Christmas with them. We considered them as friends.
Thus we had no reason to ever think that they would ever misrepresent what they
were planning on building.
There is maybe 8 or 9 feet distance between their house and our fence. When the
Smith built the houses, they positioned the houses so as to leave more room on one
side for potential addition, and very little room on the other side.
We are appealing the issuance of the building permit for the remodeling of their
master bedroom and bath. We are in Bryan Ranch a P-1.
Bryan Ranch has four distinct areas: Bryan Ranch itself with lots of 1/3.acres and
more and where original houses were mostly in the 2500 to 3200 sqft range, Bryan
Terraces at the end of Stone Valley Road with smaller lots maybe 6000 sgft and
higher density houses go from 2100 to 2800 sgft, Country Oak Lane with 7 estate
size lots ranging from 3 to 22 acres and larger houses and the latter part, Bryan
Meadows which is accessed through Green Valley Road and has both estate lots and
1/3 acres plus lots.
1
The reasons for our request are as follows:
1. We never agreed to the extension of the existing wall by 4 feet. Our
neighbors asked for our approval to build out to the eaves' edge, i.e.
between one and two feet. They explained they did not want to change the
roof design, nothing would go beyond the edge, and the wall would be
cantilevered on the existing foundation. Karen had talked about moving
the bedroom or bathroom into the spare bedroom. Every time we talked
about the remodeling, they were consistent with these representations.
2. In the Summertime Karen rant the doorbell and indicated that Mr.
Bloomquist (Architectural Committee) wanted us to be informed of the 25 ft
limitation and she reiterated that the wall would only go to the eaves' edge.
I asked to see the plans and she confirmed she knew I had never seen
them. Somehow she said she was in a hurry and would bring them. She
never did. She asked me to sign a neighbor's approval form, as if the
approval process was still going on. I signed the form on the basis of her
representation, still not seeing the plans.
3. It its only when their contractor was taking some measurements that I
found out about the extension was to be 4 feet instead of to the eaves'
edge. That was on April 18, 2006
4. That same day, I called Karen Leser to check whether they were building
out 4 feet rather than the eaves edge. She still confirmed it was to the
eaves' edge. I sent her an email confirming our conversation.
5. Her husband called me about 10 to 15 minutes later and stated that it was
also his understanding that it would be to eaves' edge until that morning
when he learned it was out 4 feet. He said there was never any intent to
deceive us. I questioned how he could not have known. Later in the same
conversation he stated that the contractor had indicated that it was not
economically feasible to move the wall only 18". It begs to question then
why their plans from March 2005 clearly showed 4 feet and he did not know
it. I suggested that he move the addition towards the center of the lot, to
which he replied they were already going to the eave's edge in that
direction. The "economically not feasible" only applies in one direction.
6. Larry Leser asked me whether we would have agreed to the four feet had
we been told. I told him absolutely not, as the space on their side of the
house is already very narrow, and that there is no reason for us to give up
the option of building on 4 feet of our lot. We had agreed to the 18" not the
4 feet and feel that it was reasonable.
7. I contacted Mr. Bloomquist at the architectural committee to find out what
had been approved. He asked me to go see the approval documents at
Bates and Associates, the Management firm. He stated that I may not be
able to get a copy of the plans but the rest would be OK. He also asked me
to check that the plans did show the 4 feet extension of the wall.
2
8. I went to Bates and Associates and looked at the plans which clearly stated
4 feet and when I requested copies of the documents, they informed me
that they needed a request in writing and an approval from the Board of
Directors, as there is a new law governing this. I mentioned that Mr.
Bloomquist had said that I could get a copy of the documents. I wrote up
the request and left.
9. The association's legal counsel indicated to the board that I should not have
access to the plans (that I was supposed to have seen originally) for
privacy reasons. But I could get a copy of the documents.
10. The approval letter dated March 23, 2005 refers to the 8 months timing. If
construction is not started within 8 months, the approval is automatically
revoked and a new approval has to be applied for. Thus the approval was
revoked automatically on November 23, 2005. We were never contacted
for any new approval paperwork. A revoked approval can't be extended.
11. Despite this the Leser's asked for an extension in January 2006 and they
received it. We were never notified. Others in the association receive their
revocation letter clearly stating that they have to reapply.
12. The approval from the Architectural Committee clearly states that it is for
aesthetic purposes only and that County and State Code requirements
apply. They do not pass judgment on that part.
13. I informed Mr. Bloomquist that the condition of approval no. 2 was not met
since we had never been informed of the 4 feet and had not seen the plans.
He also indicated that Larry Leser called him and said that it was four feet
and that probably my husband had seen early plans when they asked him
to sign the neighbor's form in March 2005, and that the plans were
changed thereafter. Mr. Bloomquist indicated that since I had seen the
plans at Bates's offices, the condition was now met. The fact of the 4 feet
impacting on our rights is not relevant.
14. This would thus imply that he is passing judgment only on the aesthetic of
the approval. He does not seem to realize the issue of how one
homeowner is negatively impacted by the other, or does not view it as
being his concern.
15. The real issue is: who decides who gets to build on more than their share of
the 25 feet empty space requirement? Were we not in a P1, the decision
would have been fully that of the County, and we would have been notified
by the County. Because we are in a P-1, the county is looking at the
approval of the architectural committee. This one is only looking at the
3
aesthetic and not addressing the issues raised here. It became extinct at
the end of November.
16. It turns out nobody ever informed us of the 4 feet addition, so that we
never were in a position to say yeah or nay. Everybody relied on the
representation of our neighbors and the revocation of the approval was not
known or taken in consideration.
17. Had we been informed that they were planning on building within 5 feet of
property line, we would never have agreed to it.
18. There is very little space on their side of the house towards our house.
19. The lots in our area are 1/3 rd of an acre, with open space on both sides of
the street, in a "secluded rural living" environment as described by Harold
Smith & CO. There is another part of Bryan Ranch, Bryan Terraces, where
the lots are substantially smaller and the houses much closer to one
another on one side particularly. This is not our case Our lot is 120ft wide,
our neighbor's 118ft feet wide. There is thus ample space to have a nice
wide house without have to get right next to the neighbor. The depth is
130ft third of an acre, there is sufficient space on the lot for everyone to
have breathing space.
20. R15 and R20 lots call for the 10/15feet/total 25 feet, which is in line with
what we were told when we bought our house from the Smith Company 23
years ago. We understand from some of our neighbors who added on
recently that they were told by their architect of a total minimum space
between
21. 25 Feet are required between houses. A fair middle is 12.5 feet each.
They do not have that distance from their building to the lot line. So we
already have to keep a bigger portion of our land unbuild than what they
have. By giving them an additional 4 feet of building space, we are loosing
the same buildable space on our lot. We are not interested in having them
that close to our lot line or in decreasing the value of our lot, for their
benefit. There is no reason to do it. It is not fair that the first come gets to
do this.
22. The plans they provided to the Architectural Committee are different from
what we were told. Larry Leser has indicated to Mr. Bloomquist that they
probably made changes after they got my husband to sign on the
neighbor's approval form and when they submitted the plans. The
procedures are flowed in that the neighbors are not required to sign on the
plans submitted and the architectural committee never addressed the issue
with us directly.
Since the Leser moved in they have had ongoing remodeling and additions
going on. First they transformed the workshop into a second unit with full
kitchen and bathroom and other redecorating. This was to be expected as
4
their mother in law lives with them. Less than a year later they started on
a kitchen/family room remodel that lasted forever. To date they are still
not in compliance with the roof requirement of Bryan Ranch that specifically
prohibit composition roof. Tony LaRussa was fined $25,000 for his
composition roof, but for them an exception is being made.
23. The approval they received was subject to notifying us of the 25 feet and
the 4 feet. They always represented the eave's edge that is less than 2
feet.
24. The approval was automatically revoked after 8 months if construction had
not started per the conditions of the CC&Rs. This means their approval
expired in November 2005. A new approval package should have been
submitted, including review forms. This was not done.
25. They requested and were granted an extension in January 2006. We were
never contacted. One can't extend something that has expired. The Bryan
Ranch Architectural Committee is not consistent in its approval process and
is not following the CC&Rs.
This shows a loophole in the approval process. The only way to avoid substitution of
plans is to ask the neighbors to sign on the actual plans. The issues impacting
property values should be clearly dealt with the respective parties directly.
Such issues can impact a lot of people who are in planned unit development.
Architectural committees are not extension of the County or Zoning decisions. They
are volunteers not professional. Exceptions are made under pressure. The county
may feel that the Architectural committee considered the full impact of the issue.
Clearly this is not the case here.
This issue demonstrates why it is important that when one decision affects the rights
of other than the applicant, the neighbors need to be notified of the issue directly by
the deciding party. Nobody can anticipate the extent to which one will go to deceive.
In all of this, we also have lost the trust in our neighbors and the respect we had for
them.
I very much would appreciate your revocation of this building permit. Let's learn
from this and maybe avoid this issue for others.
Many thanks for your consideration.
William and Marie Jeanne Parsons
5
ERVD-6-I V RANCH HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIAIT/ON
Architectural Committee
Project Review Request '
Project No. I4.05
Owner: Lawrence& Karen Leser
Applicant: Same Phone: 837-8194
Property Address: 1485 Emmons Canyon Dr. Tract: 5426 Lot: 79
The Applicant/Owner hereby applies for approval to make improvements to Owner's property as
described below or in attached pians and specifications. By making this Request,I acknowledge that
the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and Architectural Rules are binding on the Applicant/Owner, and agree
that the subject property and all improvements added thereto shall be maintained in full compliance
with the CC&R's and Rules.
Dated: March 9.2005 _ Signature On File
Owners Signature
Addition to the master bedroom and bath per attached plans by Michael Martin Architect, Sheets 1-7
dated 6/30/04.
The Architectural Committee reviewed the information submitted and based on that review and
consideration of the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and the Architectural Rules reached the following decision
on 3-23-45
f ) Approved
{ ) Not Approved
(X) Approved subject to the following conditions:
I. Wall-to-wall spacing between the addition and the neighboring home cannot be less than 25 feet
per Architectural Rule 1.
2. Please advise your neighbor that if the 4 foot addition to the side of your home reduces wall-to-
wall spacing between homes to 25 feet,they will never be able to add on to that side of their
home.
3. Exterior paint should match the existing,
Project timing: Per CC&R Section 3.04 D &E,work must start within 8 months of the approval date,
or the approval shall be deemed revoked. Within 8 months after start of construction,work must be
completed. The Architectural Committee is to be notified when work is complete.
Any/all approvals made by the Architectural Committee are for aesthetic purposes only. County and
State Code requirements apply. ,r}
Date: .� / �t~ �r', By: �' �� '";:''+ 1 G.
Fort a ommittee
File. 1485 Emmons Canyon Dr—P 14-05
Rev! June I$.2003
WILLIAM A. PARSONS 1221
MARK J. PARSONS j
1493 EMMONS CANYON DR
ALAMO,CA 94507-2856 Date I �� ii-a5tizio
33
Pay to the
orderof
._:---.Elena rs
Bank ofAmerica.,.-e"*� 7falued Customer
San rrancisco Main --�oven 5rfnns
345 Montgomery St
San<:ranriacoCA
650.6 i 5.4iFO
For Ma
i: 1210003581: 1221/i1003331,123 7 ?II*
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA - GENERAL RECEIPT
1; THIS COPY IS
DEPT: LJ�". i - 0— '
-,2Q0G.. NOT A RECEIPT
't� 1( ,1 s �;•� rt t, �f��-•,•``rF , :! r_ �{1t�� -----•----..----• ...,............—r""- --- DOLLARS - ..�
FOR
CASH ACCT.
RECEIVED FROM
SAL.
! AMT.
i , 4, 'r CHECK �' PAID
Postal
CO CERTIFIED MAILT. RECEIPT
tr
(Domestic
17- For delivery information visit our websit at www.usps.comg
Ir OFFICIAL USE
0
rU Postage $
p Certified Fee
C3
E3 Postmark
Return Receipt Fee
C3 (Endorsement Required) Here
M Restricted Delivery Fee
D^ (Endorsement Required)
M
M Total Postr
C3 Sent To Villiam and Marie Parsons,
C3 493 Emmons Canyon Drive
r'- S4reet,At.' flamo CA 94507-2856
or PO Box A
-------------
City, --
Postal
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT 7
CO I (Domestic
For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.comeN
rq
Ir
'
USE :10
ru Postage $
r-3 Certified Fee
O
M Retum Receipt Fee Postmark
r3 (Endorsement Required) Here
M Restricted Delivery Fee
Q- (Endorsement Required)
M
E3 Total Postr — 4b
C3 sent-To lawrence&Karen Leser
0 485 Emmons Canyon Drive ----
o Poe`, Elamo, CA 94507-2856
cr�;"s-rete -----
F_ C
TO: BO i' OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: -' ENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ;, ~ ° .' Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ` a County
Y
DATE: July 25, 2006
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MASTER BEDROOM
CLOSET AND BATHROOM ADDITION TO T EXISTING SINGLE FAM1 Y
RESIDENCE. THE PROPERTY 1S LOCATED AT k4 5 EMMONS CANYON ROAD IN
THE ALAMO AREA. WILLIAM AND MARIE PARSONS (APPELLANTS) AND
LAWRENCE LESER (OWNERS) (AP.N 193-660-011) (COUNTY FILE #Z106-11413)
(DISTRICT Ili)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
1. RECOMMENDATION
UPHOLD the Community Development Department's decision that approved the construction
of the master bedroom closet and bathroom and deny the appellant's appeal
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } 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: Aruna Bhat(335-1219) ATTESTED
Community Development JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Community Development Department(CDD) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
altadano, Building Inspection Director
William and Marie) Par-s-Un , p, pellants
Lar and-Karen Leser Owners j
County Counsel BY , DEPUTY
Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association
WILLIAM A. PARSONS �2�1
MARIE J. PARSONS
1493 EMMONS CANYON DR r�}�, 1 1-35112 1 0
ALAMO,CA ;)4507-2856 Date 33
Y n
¢
order oF e j`cul �tc? V W 1 C1 C l ! ��1 t r 1�s �P CY'!
s
1 V '� L'7 tV' '' L-*:►- - _uat{ars
dankofAmerica. . Valued Customer
San rranc4=Main 02. -<�en25—eft'
345 Montgomery St
Son rranciaco CA
G5D.615.4700
For M,
I: 1 2 1000 3 581: 12 2 1is,00 13 3-11 2 3 ? ?sill
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA — GENERAL RECEIPT
DEPT: t.//', /{1'� {( '. r ,' THIS COPY IS .k '
=—�- f-2000.- NOT A RECEIPT
/ DOLLARS$
POR ? 1.1�; },
CASH ACCT.
RECEIVED FROM BAL.
CHECK V AMT.
_.... •�'� PAID
00
CO
O. G)
OD
0
tgr
0
o
CD
CD
0
0,
(P Ss
Np
to %:�CD (P cc)�
O S�
C)
0 (P 0
I'D C D
co
CD
o
CD
03 p N 0-
rr 0 D it
Z.
�11
0
0 6) (-0 CD
W
0 0
Ln $ Ts
0 CD
t p 0 0
IS
o
7:5 CD
� p Z
tn; '7-
r- C) (P
03 m 00, ;4
0
9 co
03
O
0
s 9�30
'PA ;A 0 %a
0
�o -- 0
6 0) o
0
c)
0
04
0
0A