HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01301990 - T.4 T.4
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on January 30, 1990 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, MCPeak, Torlakson and Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Development of Substandard Lot, Alamo Area (Consuelo Kirn,
Owner)
Consuelo Kirn, 3181 Miranda Avenue, Alamo, appeared before
the Board to explain her concerns relating to the development
potential of her substandard lot in an R-20 zoned area, and her
objection to the way Ordinance 87-67 (the Granny Unit Ordinance) is
written.
As recommended by Supervisor Schroder, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that the matter is REFERRED to County Counsel, the Director of
Community Development and Supervisor Schroder for review.
Chairwoman Fanden requested staff of the Community
Development to meet with Ms. Kirn immediately upon leaving the
Chambers to begin the review.
I hereby certify that this is a true and Correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervise on the date shown.
ATTESTED: AA A 4,0. /P f'o
CC: Community Development PHIL BATOELOR,Cie'k of the Board
County Counsel of Supervisors and County Administrator
Supervisor Schroder
BY ,Deputy
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Clerk of the Board
Inter-Office Memo
TO: Harvey Bragdon, Director DATE: December 22, 1989
Community Development Department
FROM: Jeanne O. Maglio, Chief Clerk
?77"-�
SUBJECT: Development of Substandard Lot, Alamo Area
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consuelo Kirn has been scheduled for presentation before the Board
of Supervisors on January 30, 1990, 11 a.m. relative to development
potential of her substandard lot in an R-20 zoned area. (Her
letter to Supervisor Schroder is attached. )
Supervisor Schroder' s office has requested you to have a
representative from your office present during this presentation
who is familiar with the situation and can respond to questions of
Board members.
cc: Board Members
County Administrator
County Counsel
JVr V Qt—n CUUGI\ UIQ I J I Gl. IVV .'ilJ—OLV—VVL f UCL. 1J s 07 10 94V IVU VUJ r UL/ UV
b _
December 8, 1989
Supervisor Robert Schroder
3rd District RECO Eo
510 Lagonda Way
Danville, CA 94525 DEC 1989
Attn: ,Virginia SUPERVISOR SCHRODER
Dear Virginia,
Thank you for your taking the time about my concern of my
property value. Enclosed please find a copy of my letter to your
office on September 23 , 1989.
As we spoke today, I did not further my request on this Ordinance
with an Appeal to the Board of Supervisors because I felt that
their "hands would be tied" , just as were the Commissioners
because of the writing of the Ordinance.
8-16-89 SRV Regional Planning Commission
IV. Discussion - "The second unit ordinance does not allow
the Commission to approve this project. Ther-ore-the'
Commission's only choice is to deny the appeal and the
project."
My only concern at this time is that-an Ordinance can j2e written
that completely exgj3ades SUBSTANDARD proppgties. (Ordinance 87-
67 is now only an example. )
If this is truly the case, then I feel that I am then compelled
to bring it to the attention of the Board of Realtors, that
homeowners of SUBSTANDARD properties DON= have the opportunity
of receiving the same benefits as their neighbors in some present
and possible future Ordinances.
This then, will have an effect on the value of SUBSTANDARD
properties, something I was not aware of when I purchased my home
6 years ago.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Con_suelo Kirn
..0. Box 315
Alamo, CA 94507
838-1813
Enclosed find copy of homeowners of SUBSTANDARD properties in
Alamo alone. (i.e. less than 20,000 sq. ft. in R-20 zoning. This
does not include Roundhill or Stonegate as they are PUD's. )
September 23, 1989
Supervisor Robert Schroder
3rd District
510 Lagonda Way
Danville, CA 94526
Dear Supervisor Schroder,
Last night I was denied my request for a Second Residential Unit.
The way that the Ordinance 87-67 is interpreted, there is no
allowance for variance for lot size though there are allowances
for lot width and lot depth.
With -::his interpretation, my property being smaller than 20,000
sq. ft. in an R-20 zone area is SUBSTANDARD and pot to "enjoy the
same privileges" as those of my surrounding neighbors.
This makes my property considerably decreased in value, and I
strongly argue this.
Please do not feel that I believe that I should automatically be
granted the above request, that is not my point at all at this
time.
I do not feel that the county should be able to pass any
Ordinances that should not include ALL property owners.
The Ordinance for a Second Residential Unit is only a couple of
years old. But who is to know when another Ordinance will be
drafted, and another, and another?
The above is only an example that I, (and at least 350 other
homeowners in AlanQ alone) , are to be treated in a less than
equal manner.
I have enclosed the package of what has transpired at present and
you can see by my letter dated September 10, 1989 , that I have
altered my plans, received a regular building permit, and built
my addition. (There is also the matter of the difference in fees
and a matter of street dedication. )
if, at this time, I had been declined my LUP request for any
other reasonable reason, I would have walked away. However, to
be declined because I am SUBSTANDARD, this is not right.
I am not a politically aware citizen and while I waited after the
vote of the Commissioners, I did not know that I could talk
during "Public Comment". It wasn't until after that that a
commissioner finally excused himself that I could follow him to
the hallway and ask the procedure. Mr. Cardinelli told me that I
could not go back and ask that they bring back "public Comment"
so that I could talk to them again last night.
If I were to appeal my case to the Board of Supervisors, I
believe you would be in the same situation as the Planning
Commission and the Board would again uphold the writing of the
Ordinance. —'
Therefore, I am asking that I may speak to the Board about my
being a SUBSTANDARD property owner and my rights. My rights at
the present and in the future and upon the sale of my property.
And what exactly does "grandfathering' mean and what is it's
effect.
Thank you for .your attention to my request. Any suggestions will
be greatly appreciated.
js ncerply,
ons o Kirn
P.O. Box 315
Alamo, CA 94507
838-1813
$UPS . SCHRODER DIST . 3 TEL No .415-820-6627 Dec 15 ,89 16 :49 No -005 P .05/06
• �� tom.. 2f�Z��8� •• . .
• fit•ego � - ' . • • •
4=0-
S42 67
-+