The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 01261993 - H.2 ........... H. 2 ''.< " '.�;' � ••�• i ��• Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '•, �'o�z DATE: December 22 , 1992 SUBJECT: Appeal - LUP #2030-92, filed by John Rolf Hattam (Applicant & Owner) Kensington Area (S.D.I. ) - Parcel #572-060-027 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS I. Deny the appeal and uphold the County Planning Commission's decision to deny the request for a second residence on the site. 2 . Adopt the findings of the County Planning Commission as the reasons for this denial . 3. Find the environmental documentation for the project complete and adequate. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS A building permit to build a new primary residence on the site has been issued. The property owner, Mr. Hattam, has filed LUP 2030-92 to allow for the continued use of the existing 600 sq. ft. residence on the site as a second residence when the new primary residence is occupied. On October 26, 1992 the County Zoning Administrator held a noticed, ' public hearing on this request. The applicant spoke along with _ several neighbors who opposed the project. The Kensington Municipal Advisory Council recommended denial of the proposal. After taking testimony where it was clear that no matter what the Zoning Administrator's decision was, it would be appealed, the Zoning Administrator referred LUP 2030-92 to the County Planning Commission for. hearing and decision. On November 24 , 1992 the County Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on this request. After taking testimony, the County Planning Commission denied Mr. Hattam's request due to substandard access to the site, steep terrain and the fact a creek crosses the site near the location of the proposed second residence. The applicant appealed the County Planning Commission's denial to the Board of Supervisors for hearing and determination. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON January 26 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER _x This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by John Rolf Hattam from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the application of John Rolf Hattam (applicant and owner) for approval to continue the residential use of the existing 600 square foot second residence on site after new primary residence is completed (LUP 2030-92) in the Kensington area. 1 . Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeal, described the site location, and he commented on the Planning Commission' s denial of the request. The following persons appeared to testify: John Rolf Hattam, 37 Kensington Road, Kensington, applicant/appellant, commented on two errors he felt were in the staff report, and he requested that the Board of Supervisors approve his second unit application. John Grosvenor, 4 Franciscan Way, Kensington, representing the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council, spoke in opposition to the Land Use Permit. Chuck Grant, 26 Sunset Drive, Kensington, spoke in opposition and presented written testimony. Ernest S. Kuh, 50 Sunset Drive, Kensington, spoke in opposition and presented written testimony. Mrs. Marguerite Jukes, 170 Arlington Avenue, Kensington, spoke in opposition and presented written testimony. Sam Witten, 30 Sunset Drive, Kensington, spoke in opposition and presented written testimony. Alice Pasqualetti, 38 Sunset Drive, Kensington, spoke in opposition and presented written testimony. Mr. Hattam spoke in rebuttal. Supervisor Bishop and the appellant discussed the issue of the removal of the kitchen sink. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Powers commented on the staff report for the Planning Commission dated November 24, 1992 contained in the packet and a compromise that had been worked out when the original large residence was built, and he recommended denial of the application. Supervisor Bishop second the motion. Victor Westman, County Counsel, suggested that the Board add to the motion that it is not satisfied that there is enough evidence before it to make the other seven findings required for a Land Use Permit as specified in County Ordinance Code Section 26-2. 2008. Supervisors Powers and Bishop amended the motion to include Mr. Westman' s suggestion. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2 as amended, and 3 are APPROVED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Arthur Beresford - 646-2031 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED January 26 , 1993 cc: John Rolf Hattam PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public WorkzCOUN Y ADMINISTRATOR Building Inspection Dept. CL BY , DEPUTY '4- �'ob p n't A P P E A L - LAND USE PERMIT #2060-92 .. JOHN ROLF FIATTAM (APPLICANTAWNER/APPELLANT) THE APPELLANT REQUESTS APPROVAL TO CONTINUE THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE EXISTING 6W-SQ. FT., SECOND RESIDENCE ON SITE AFTER PRIMARY- RESIDENCE IS COMPLETED. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS PARCEL B OF MS 56-$4, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF A PRIVATE DRIVE*OFF THE SOUTH SIDE CF SUNSET DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 125-FT., . EAST OF HIGHGATE ROAD, KENSINGTON AREA. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 26 JANUARY 1993 - 2:00 P.M. J Costa C TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C of FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Cwnty DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '•, T o DATE: December 22, 1992 SUBJECT: Appeal - LUP #2030-92, filed by John Rolf Hattam (Applicant c owner) Kensington Area (S.D.I.) - Parcel #S72-060-027 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the County Planning Commission's decision to deny the request for a second residence on the site. 2. Adopt the findings of the County Planning Commission as the reasons for this denial. 3. Find the environmental documentation for the project complete and adequate. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS A building permit to build a new primary residence on the site has been issued. The property owner, Mr. Hattam, has filed LUP 2030-92 to allow for the continued use of the existing 600 sq. ft. residence on the site as a second residence when the new primary residence is occupied. On October 26, 1992 the County Zoning Administrator held a noticed, public hearing on this request. The applicant spoke along with several neighbors who opposed the project. The Kensington Municipal Advisory Council recommended denial of the proposal. After taking testimony where it was clear that no matter what the Zoning Administrator's decision was, it would be appealed, the Zoning Administrator referred LUP 2030-92 to the County Planning Commission for.hearing and decision. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATIIREQ•�^�-- _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER " I SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Arthur Beresford - 646-2031 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: John Rolf Hattam PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY f 2. On November 24, 1992 the County Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on this request. After taking testimony, the County Planning Commission denied Mr. Hattam's request due to substandard access to the site, steep terrain and the fact a creek crosses the site near the location of the proposed second residence. The applicant appealed the County Planning Commission's denial to the Board of Supervisors for hearing and determination. AB/aa BDVI/2030-92.AB I I I I APPEAL - John Rolf Hattam #2030-92 - Notification List. Page #1 John Rolf Hattam Kensington Municipal Advisory Jasper & Josephine Stallon Council 160 Arlington Avenue 37 Kingston Road c/o Edythe Campbell, Secretary g Kensington, California 94707 96 Lawson Road Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Edythe Campbell (KMAC) Mr. Robert Hansen Allan Bernstein 24 Kerr Avenue 50 Arlington Avehue Kensington, Calif. 94707Kensington, 96 Lawson Road Kensington, Calif. 94707 Californa 94707 John R. Gosvenor (KMAC) Gordon & Sandra Linebaugh Charles & Dorothy Benson 4 Francisco Way 24 Sunset Drive 147 Arlington Drive Kensington, Calif. 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Cayle Michelle Witten Roth F. Giles William Buehring 1421 Pine Tree Court 23 Sunset Court 1 Merchant Court La Habra, California 90631 Kensington, Calif.. 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Charles Grant John Elkins Ernest• & Tilly Windesheim 26 Sunset Drive 27 Sunset Drive. 188 Arlington Avenue Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, Calif. 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Neal Smither Edward & Martha Elliot Willem F. Hardyzer 32 Sunset Drive 159 Arlington Drive 31 Sunset Drive Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, Calif. 94707 Kensington, California 94707 i Roy A. Pasqualetti Eugenia Ng Kenneth & Hazel Warren 38 Sunset Drive 47 Kingston Road 28 Sunset Drive Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, Calif. 94707 Kensington, California 94707 i Ernest & Bettine Kuh Mark & June Selsor Robert & Greta Holterman 50 Sunset Drive 45 Kingston Road 41 Kingston Road ! Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Thomas & Margerite Jukes Ned & Shirlee Clyde Eldon Ream 170 Arlington Avenue 184 Arlington Avenue 176 Arlington Avenue Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, California i i Sam & Shelley Witten Ellen Ann Venton Richard & Grace Gentry 30 Sunset Drive 33 Sunset Drive 17 Sunset Court Kensing , California 94707 Kensington, California 94707 Kensington, California 94707 I I APPEAL - John Rolf Hattam #2030-92 - Notification List.. Page #2 Betty Hirschfield 29 Sunset Drive Kensington, Calif. 94707 Stephen & Susie Smith 1010 - 12th Street #1 Sparks, Nevada 89431 Louise Tatra 163 Arlington Drive Kensington, Calif. 94707 John & Elaine Harper 180 Arlington Avenue Kensington, Calif. 94707 Thomas & Joanne Gates 25 .Sunset Drive Kensington, Calif. 94707 i f M r s i i i I! I BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA A P P E A L - John Rolf Hattam, Applicant/Owner/Appellant #2030-92, Kensington Area. (S. D. I) Resolution. No. 75-1992 WHEREAS, on May 11, 1992, JOHN ROLF HATTAM (Applicant/Owner) , filed an application #2030-92, with the Community Development Department, requesting approval to retain as a second residence the existing 600-sq. ft. , residence; and WHEREAS, the property is located at 32-A Sunset Drive in the Kensington area; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned Single Family Residential Dis- trict (R-6) ; and WHEREAS, the request is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, after due notification, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator for Monday, October 26, 1992, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, after taking testimony from the applicant and others I who spoke in opposition to his request, the Zoning Administrator referred the application to the County Planning Commission for hearing and determination; and WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission held a hearing on this j matter on November 24, 1992, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, after taking testimony from the applicant and others in opposition, the County Planning Commission DENIED the request; and i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that on Tuesday, November 24, 1992, the County Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Appeals and after having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter DENIED the request of JOHN ROLF HATTAM to continue the use of the existing 600 i sq. ft. , residence as a second residence on the site once the new primary residence is occupied; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommenda- tion are: i i i Resolution No. 75-1992 1. The development of the site for two single family residences is inappropriate because of the constraints from a combination of steep slopes, _ a creek traversing the site and vegetation on the site. 2. The access to the site is too narrow for emergency fire access. The fire district requested a 20-ft. , wide clear roadway while the site is served by a 16-ft. , wide access easement. 3 . Development of the site so that there are two residences is over development of the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing order was given by the Board of Appeals in a regular meeting on Tuesday November 24. .1992, as follows: AYES: Commissioners - Terrell, Gaddis, Accornero, Frakes, Clark, Woo.. NOES: Commissioners - H. Quintus Sakai. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. Marvin J. Terrell Chairman of the Planning Commission Contra Costa County, State of. Calf. December 22, 1992 ATTEST: C' Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the Planning Commission, Contra Costa County, State of California. i i I JOHN ROLF HATTAM ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS RENOVATION CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS November 25, 1992 Community Development Department Contra Costa County County Administration Building, North Wing P.O. Box 951 651 Pine. Street Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: File #2030-92 Gentlemen: I wish to appeal the denial of the Planning Comission as determined on November 24, 1992 of the referenced item. With the exception of one member of the Planning Commission, the determination was prejudiced, irrational and disregarded pertinent facts that I presented. Please inform me how I can obtain a copy of the minutes of the hearing. Si cerely / qhn Rol F� ttam RH:cs i I 4� G 1 9 3 9 A D D I S O N S T R E E T 8 4 1 5 9 3 3 I B E R K E L E Y 9 47 0 4 C A L I F O R N I A E. Community Contra Harvey Director of of ommu n Community Development Development Costa Department County Administration Building. 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 646-2031 ;` %_ f December 9, 1992 Phone: � meq_...:•., r_ �o¢ John Rolf Hattam 37 Kingston Road Kensington, CA 94707 Dear Mr. Hattam: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated November 25, 1992 for application #2030-92, which was denied by the County Planning Commission on November 24, 1992. Your appeal will be heard by the Board of Supervisors. You will be notified by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the Board. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. Also, please note that in order to proceed promptly with the scheduling of this appeal, you should submit a list of names and addresses for the applicant and owner of the application and all properties within 300 feet of the property along with stamps and mailing labels for each individual property owner, no later than December 30, 1992. Please direct the labels, stamps and list to: Community Development Department, Attention:Art Beresford, 651 Pine Street, North Wing-4th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553-0095. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Art Beresford at 646-2031. Sincerely yours, III � i 1 Mary Fleming Chief of Land Development i :df _ L2:2030-92.bos i cc: File I Leonard Vecchi Public Works Attn: Mitch Avalon Harvey oE.f Bragdon Community Contra Development Director of Community Development Costa Department County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing s c Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: 646-2031 / o:. < T� --Usti co November 25, 1992 John Rolph Hattam 37 Kingston Road Kensington, CA 94707 Dear Mr. Hattam: This letter is to notify you that your application for a second unit (LUP #2030-92) was denied by the County Planning Commission at the meeting of Tuesday, November 24, 1992. Under provisions of the Zoning Code, you may appeal this decision by submitting a letter stating the reasons for the appeal. This letter and a filing fee of $110.00 must be received in.the Community Development Department before 5:00 P.M. on Friday; December 4, 1992. Upon receipt of such an appeal our office will then schedule a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors. If no appeal is received prior to the above stated time, then the action of the County Planning Commission becomes final. Sinc r I BYRON TURNER Chief of Land Development BT/aa cc: 2030-92 ✓ . Mary Fleming Pubilc Works i II I I I CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Notice of Exemption Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - North Wing, McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Telephone: (51.0) 646-2031 -Contact Person: Art Beresford Project.Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: JOHN R. HATTAM (Applicant & Owner), County File # 2030-92: The applicant requests approval to continue the residential use of the existing 600 square foot residence on site after new primary residence is completed. Subject property is described as follows: Parcel B of MS 56-84 located at the southern terminus of a private drive off the south side of Sunset Derive, approximately 125 feet east of Highgatd Road in the,Kensington area. Site address is #32A Sunset Drive. (R-") (ZA: M-7) (CT.3910.00) (Parcel #572-160-027) This project is exempt from CEQA as a: Ministerial Project (Sec. 15268) Other Statutory Exemption, Section Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269(a)) General Ruleof Applicability(Section 15061(b)(3)) Emergency Project (Sec. 15269(b) or (c)) XX Categorical Exemption, Class 3 Section .15303a for the following reason(s): - This request is to allow the continued residential use of an existing 600 sq. ft. cabin after the occupancy of a new residence on the 23,121 sq. ft. site I Date: By: Community Development Department Representative i AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21 152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the f iling date. i Signature Title Applicant's Name and Address . Department of Fish and Game Fee - Exempt i John R. Hattam 37 Kingston Road Kensington, CA 94707 County Clerk Fee $25 Due Receipt # Y KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL November 20, 1992 TO: COUNTY PLANNING COMMISION Attention: M. Terrell, Chair FILE NUMBER: 2030-92 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 32A SUNSET DRIVE APPLICANT: JOHN ROLF HATTAM, 37 Kingston Road, Kensington, 94707 The KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL has its regualarly scheduled monthly meeting on the last Tuesday of each month. The date for the Land Use Hearing for the above subject permit occurs at the same time as our November meeting which is to hear two cases, so we will be unable to send anyone to your hearing. On June 30 , 1992 , the KMAC considered the Hattam application and offered the following recommendation: KMAC recommends the application be denied. .Vote: 5-0. COMMENTS , CONCERNS: 1 ) Access to the subject property is by a 16 ft . easement, with actual physical clearance only 12 to 14 feet. The narrowest point is on a curve, with one corner of the adjoining house forming one edge of the easement. The other side drops off sharply at this point. This easement and access is a poor situation for even one house, let alone a second unit . The easement means the structures are deep into the lot, and quite a distance from Sunset Drive. Sunset Drive is a main ingress-egress route for Kensington, and is already overburdened by traffic. Sunset is a narrow-twisting street, with poor connections at both ends . Permitting a second unit and its attendant traffic and blind access is dangerous . I 2 ) This application is nearly - identical to a prior application denied by the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in 1988-89 . None of the concerns voiced at that i time have been addressed in this recent application. In this situation, where the proposed unit is already in existance, there is very little opportunity for mitigation measures . 3 ) During the 1988-89 consideration, the Kensington Fire District stated the access was too narrow for emergency fire access and requested a 20 ft. clear roadway. The Fire Chief indicated concern about water i supply. He stated that a fire hydrant should be within 300 ft . There are hydrants on the Arlington and on Highgate, both further from the subject property than the 300 ft recommended. I i i 4 ) In 1989 , the Zoning Adminstrator, after hearing testimony and visiting the site, concluded that a) the development of the site with a second unit was inappropriate because of the constraints from a combination of steep slopes, a creek traversing the site and vegetation on the site; b) the access to the site is too narrow for emergency fire access; and c) development of the site so that there are two residences is an over development of the site. Nothing has changed since that conclusion was reached, and KMAC concurs that the application must be denied. Report submitted by John R. Grosvenor for KMAC i i I I i i t i i I i I JOHN ROLF HATTAM ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS RENOVATION CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS April 30, 1992 Mr. Harvey Bragdon isI ' Community Development Department Admin. Building, North Wing EMAY Pine & Escobar Streets - P.O. Box 951 Martinez, California 94553 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APPLICATION&PERNII T CEN*fFR Dear Mr. Bragdon: We hereby apply to establish a residential second unit on our property at 32A Sunset Drive in Kensington under Contra Costa County .Ordinance 87-67. The manner in which the second unit will be established is simply to officially recognize two existing single family residences. The second unit we seek to establish meets all the definition criteria under Article 82-24.4 of either a "detached second unit" or a "legal non-conforming second unit." It also complies with the definition of a second unit in accord with Para. 82-24.410 as quoted below: I (1 ) It provides complete, independent living facilities for one or more persons residing together as a single household unit; (2) It consists of permanent provisions for living, sleep- ing, water and sanitation facilities, eating, and separate food preparation facilities, including but not limited to a stove or hot plate, oven, refrigerator, and sink. j (3) It remains clearly subordinate in size, appearance and I location to the existing principal residence. I The information requested in Article 82-24.6 items (1 ) through (8) I is referenced on the attached drawing. The following responses are submitted to reply to Article 82-24.10, Land Use Permits. (1 ) This second unit is intended for rent or lease or occu- pancy by one or more persons. I (2) This lot contains a net building site area of 23,121 square feet. I i 1 9 3 9 A D D I S O N S T R E E T 8 4 1 . 5 9 3 3 �7 B E R K E L E Y 9 4 7 0 4 C A L I F O R N I AGJ >��/� j I ' r r 2 (3) This second unit contains one kitchen, one bath, one living room and one bedroom. (4) This second unit has 600 square feet and the lot coverage of both units is 12%. (5 and 6) Not applicable. (7) This second unit will use all public utilities. (8) This second unit complies with all height, setback, lot size, lot depth and other zoning requirements generally applicable to residential construction in the pertinent zoning district. (9) The second unit will be shingled with cedar shingles and painted the same trim color as the main house. (10) The second unit has a separate entrance not visible from the street. (11 ) The second unit will not result in excessive neighbor- hood noise, traffic, or parking problems. (.12) The second unit will not overburden public services, utilities or facilities. (13) This second unit will not present a threat to public health, safety or welfare. This lot has seven parking spaces and can accommodate a total of nine automobiles .as defined by Par. 82-24.1006. In summary this second unit complies with all Building and Zoning ordinances and no variances are required and we respectfully seek approval of this request. Si cerely, L � �Ak Denise and :John,Rol f Ha aA I Agenda Item # Z Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION JOHN ROLF HATTAM (Applicant & Owner), County File #2030-92: The applicant requests approval to continue the residential use of the existing 600 square foot second residence on the site after a new primary residence is completed. Subject property is Parcel B of Minor Subdivision 56-84 and is located at the southern terminus of a private drive off of the south side of Sunset Drive, approximately 125 feet east of Highgate Road in the Kensington area. Site address is #32A Sunset Drive. (R-6) (ZA: M-7) (CT 3910) (Parcel #572-060-027) This application was originally scheduled for the October 26, 1992 Zoning Administra- tor hearing. At that hearing, the Zoning Administrator referred the application to the County Planning Commission as both the applicant and neighbors indicted that they would appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision no matter what it .was. Il. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that this application be denied per findings made by the Board of Supervisors on a previous and similar application for a second residence on this property. Ill. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The site is designated Single Family Residential-High Density on the 1991 County General Plan. This proposal is consistent with the General Plan. B. Zoning: Single Family Residential District (R-6). C. CEQA Status: As a request for a second unit, this application is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Previous Applications: I 1 . Minor Subdivision 56-84 - application approved January 28, 1985, subdivided a larger parcel into the subject parcel and a parcel fronting on Sunset Drive. The parcel map for MS 56-84 was recorded July 25, ' 1985. i I I 2 2. Minor Subdivision 16-86-to divide the subject property of 23,000± sq. ft. into three parcels conforming to the General Plan and the R-6 zoning district. The application was approved by the Zoning Administrator October 20, 1986 for three parcels. Neighbors appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. The County Planning Commission approved the application for two parcels on January 27, 1987. The applicant then appealed the County Planning Commission decision to the Board of Supervisors. The Board declared their intent to deny the minor subdivision application on April 7, 1987. On April 17, 1987 the applicant requested reconsideration. On May 19, 1987 the Board of Supervisors took the matter under submission, together with recom- mended findings and set June 16, 1987 for decision. On June 16, 1987 the Board of Supervisors denied the request for reconsideration and thereby denied the minor subdivision application. The Board's findings are as follows: a) The applicant has not produced any new information that was not already part of the application record at the time of the previous record at the time of the previous Board hearings. a b) Any additional lots on this site would not satisfy the require- ments of Section 66474 of the Government Code for the following reasons: 1) The lots would be too small to allow residential develop- ment consistent with recently constructed residences in the area. 2) It would increase traffic at a hazardous intersection with Sunset Road. c) The requested variance to allow a retaining wall in excess of code requirements would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with surrounding properties as required by Section 26-2.2008 of the Ordinance Code. 3. Land Use Permit 2070-88 - a request to construct a new residence on the subject property and utilize an existing smaller structure as a second residence. Application denied by the Zoning Administrator October 17, 1988, appealed by the applicant. The Planning Commission denied appeal on January 10, 1989. Planning Commission decision appealed and application was denied by the Board of Supervisors on June 6, 1989. The Board's findings were as follows: I I i I I ' 3 a, G a) The development of the site for two single family residences is inappropriate because of the constraints from a combination of steep slopes, a creek traversing the site and vegetation on the site. b) The access to the site is too narrow for emergency fire access. The fire district requested a 20-ft. wide clear roadway while the site is served by a 16-ft. wide access easement. c) Development of the site so that there are two residences is over development of the site. 4. Building Permit #156494 issued August 7, 1989 for a larger new residence on the property subject to removal of the kitchen facilities in the remaining existing smaller building. Land Use Permit 2030-92 was filed May 5, 1992, to request the continued utilization of the existing smaller building as a second residence on the property. IV. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS The attached conditions of approval include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Subdivision Ordinance Code require- ments as they pertain to this development. The subject property is located in the Kensington in an area of extremely inadequate drainage facilities. This area is identified as the Blakemont area of Kensington and is being analyzed for soil stability problems resulting from drainage problems. The Public Works Department recommends that the applicant be required to comply with the Collect and Convey requirements in accordance with the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). V. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division: 1 . Prior to. development of this site, the developer shall provide the site with EBMUD's water. 2. Prior to development of this site, the developer shall provide written documentation from the sewer system operator, Stege Sanitary District, that sewer service is available. 3. Prior to occupation of the structure, the developer shall destroy any abandoned on-site wells or septic systems in accordance with Health r Department regulations. i i I 4 B. East Bay Municipal Utility District: The existing house has water service. The new house will require additional water service. This additional water service may require a main extension through the 16 foot easement through Parcel A to serve the new housing unit. Applicant should contact the EBMUD new business office and apply for water service estimate to determine whether a main extension is needed, and to determine the cost and condition of water service. C. Stege Sanitary District: Install clean-out with back flow protection device per District ordinances. D. Kensington Municipal Advisory Council: See attached letter. The Council has recommended denial of this application. E. Archaeological Inventory: Due to the nature of the project, an adverse effect on archaeological resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recom- mended at this time. In all cases if archaeological resources are encountered during the project, work in the immediate vicinity of the find should be halted until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the situation. F. Kensington Fire District: No comments. G. Building Inspection Department: No comments. H. Comprehensive Planning: No comments. VI. DISCUSSION The larger residence on the site is still under construction. Building Inspection Department has indicated that no work has been completed for some time. This request is to allow the use of the existing smaller residence as a second residence. The existing residence has an area of approximately 600 sq. ft. The area of the property is approximately 23,000 sq. ft., which is approximately four times the size of the parcel minimum in the R-6 zoning. The access to the site is rather constrained because of the 16-foot wide access easement. The applicant has improved the access to this site by providing a paved driveway. There is space to park approximately four cars on the site without tandem parking. Approximately eight automobiles could be parked on the site; there is room for a turn around, although it may be difficult for larger vehicles. A previous, similar application, for a second residence, LUP 2070-88, was denied by the Board of Supervisors June 6, 1989. The reasons for the denial was that the Board felt the development of this site with two single family residences was inappropriate because of constraints of a combination of steep slopes, a creek traversing the site, and vegetation on the site. Secondly, the access to this site was too narrow for safe 5 emergency fire access. At that time, the fire district had requested a 24-foot wide clear roadway while the site was serviced by a 16-foot wide access easement. The Board also felt that development of two residences on this site was an over- development of the area. The staff at that time had recommended approval of the project. The conditions on the site today are similar in nature in the sense that the access is still the same and the general terrain and vegetation on the site is the same. The changes are, that a larger primary residence, requested in 1988, has been started and exists on the site. The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to continue the use of the smaller secondary unit as a residential structure. If this application were to be denied, then the existing second residence would have to be converted to an accessory, non-residential building. The Kensington Improvement Association and a neighbor have also requested that the application be denied (see attached letter). VII. CONCLUSION Because of the previous history of decision on this site, staff is recommending denial of the project and recommending that the applicant be directed to convert the existing smaller residence into a non-residential or accessory structure or to remove it from the site. Should the County Planning Commission decide that there is merit to this project and that it should be approved, conditions of approval are attached. AB/aa LUPXXXV/2030-92.A 10/13/92 11/12/92 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2030-92 1 . The site shall be developed generally as shown on the plot and elevation plans submitted with the application and dated received May 11, 1992. 2. Applicant shall comply with the Residential Second Unit Ordinance - Chapter 82-24 as follows: A. The second residential unit shall provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. B. The second unit must consist of permanent provisions for food preparation, eating, sleeping, water, and sanitation. C. The second unit shall remain clearly subordinate in size, appearance and location to the principal residence. D. No more than one dwelling unit on the property may be rented or leased to or occupied by persons other than the property owners. E. Three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on site.. Location of the parking must be shown on the plans for building permit. 3. Proof of recordation of the following disclosure of deed restrictions must be submitted to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the effective date of this permit: "You are purchasing a property with a permit for a residential second unit. This permit carries with it certain conditions that must be met by the owner of the property. The permit is available from the current owner or from the Contra. Costa County Community Development Department." 4. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 5. Any future construction activity which involves addition of floor space to the new primary residence or to the existing second residence may require application of approval of a new land use permit. 6. The driveway shall be paved to a width of 12 feet from the site to Sunset Drive. 7. . The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works.Department: 2. A. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, this development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Conformance with Division 914 includes the following requirements: 1) Conveying all storm waters entering originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. B. Unless exceptions are specifically granted, comply with the requirements of Division 1006 (Road Dedication and Setbacks) of the County Ordinance Code. Compliance with the Ordinance includes the following: 1) Install all new utility distribution services underground. An exception to this requirement is recommended for the existing unit. 2) Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, for construction of driveways, or other improvements within the right of way of Sunset Drive. 3) Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that "legal access" from the property is available to Sunset Drive. ADVISORY NOTES A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Kensington Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. This fee will be based on the Multi-Family rate. B. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.o. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish & Game Code. C. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required and if it can be obtained. D. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. E. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District. F. Comply with the requirements of the Stege Sanitary District. 3. G. Comply with the requirements of the Kensington Fire Protection District. AB/aa LUPXXXV/2030-92C.AB 10/6/92 KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL July 4, _ 1992 TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR / Attention: Art Beresford, Planner FILE NUMBER: 2030-92 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 32A SUNSET DRIVE APPLICANT: JOHN ROLF HATTAM, 37 Kingston Road, Kensington, 94707 The KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL considered the above referenced application on June 30, 1992 and offered the following recommendation: KMAC recommends the application be denied. Vote: 5-0. COMMENTS, CONCERNS: 1) The application does not meet the specifications of Section 82-24 .410 in that the proposed second unit already exists, thus cannot be termed a "new additional dwelling unit" as ordinance language requires. 2) The application does not meet the specifications of Section 82-24.410 in that the proposed second unit already exists, thus cannot meet the requirement that it be "subordinate. . .to the existing principal residence" . 3) The application does not conform to any of the requirements of Section 82-24.606. All three possible types of second units listed in this section specify changes to an existing Primary residence. The house under construction is clearly intended as the primary residence, thus the existing structure fails to meet- the test inherent in this section. 4) Section 82-24. 1002 sets standards which must be met before approval of any second unit. The standards include (12) the second unit does not-overburden public services, utilities or facilities, and (13) Development of the second unit does not present a threat to public health, safety or welfare. KMAC believes the proposed second unit would, indeed, overburden public services and facilities and would present a threat to, public safety and welfare. a) Access is by a 16 ft. easement, with actual physical clearance only 12 to 14 feet. The narrowest measurement is on a curve, with one corner of the adjoining house forming one edge of the easement. The other side drops off sharply at this point. This easement and access is a poor situation for even one house, let alone a second unit. The easement means the, structures are deep into the lot, and quite a distance from Sunset Drive. A very slight problem (another vehicle, careless parking, a fallen tree) could prevent an emergency vehicle from responding. Even if the 2 narrow easement were clear, it is problematical whether emergency turn-around space would allow more than one fire truck to get in or out at the same time. It could be that an emergency vehicle and its men would be at risk to escape should a fire occur. Such situations did occur in the recent Oakland fire with better access than is present here. During the 1988-89 consideration of the earlier nearly identical second unit application, the Kensington Fire District stated the access was too narrow for emergency fire access and requested a 20 ft. clear roadway. The National Fire Code Section 3 .2 . 2 requires fire lanes to be at least 20 ft. in width with the road edge closest to the structure at least 10 ft. from the structure. The easement is 16 ft. and is 0 ft. from the corner of the structure at 32 Sunset Drive. The National Fire Code Section 3-1. 5. 2 requires that turns in privately owned means of access shall be constructed with a minimum radius of 25 ft. at the inside curb line and a radius of 50 ft. at the outside curb line. Although definitive plans for the interior courtyard were not presented to KMAC, it appears doubtful that this criteria can be met. The National Fire Code Section 3-1. 5 states that turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width. It appears that Sunset Drive does not meet that criteria, when read along with National Fire Code Section 3-1.6 requires that roadways shall be not less than 30 ft. wide if parallel parking is allowed on one side. The new house; and the existing proposed second unit are surrounded by tall trees, including many eucalyptus. These structures sit somewhat lower than the surrounding homes, in a kind of a bowl. This presents the possibility of a fire becoming a fire tower endangering nearby homeowners. While it is possible to fight any fire, it would be clearly detrimental to the safety of the community as a whole, as well as the surrounding structures, to permit a new hazard of this nature. While the lot size would appear to be very large, it should be noted that .it has sto-ep slopes, steep drop-offs, and the terrain is generally difficult except in the area occupied by the structures. The proposed second unit appears to be served by a gas line exposed to the surface of the ground in places. The shake roof is probably 40-50 years old, creating another element of the hazard. During the 1988-89 proceedings the Fire Chief indicated concern about water supply. He stated that a fire hydrant should . be within 300 ft. There are hydrants on The Arlington and on Highgate, both further from the subject property than the 300 ft. recommended. Sunset Avenue is a main ingress-egress route for 3 Kensington, and is already overburdened by traffic. Sunset is a narrow-twisting street, with poor connections at both ends. The Sunset-Arlington Avenue connection is a very poor traffic situation at best. The narrow easement is the only access to the subject property and is also legal access for the Smithers house at 32 Sunset Drive. Adding traffic to this easement is dangerous. The easement exit to Sunset Drive is blind, presenting still another hazard. This poor situation should not be exacerbated by allowing the additional traffic a second unit would create. Permitting a second unit and its attendant traffic would certainly adversely affect the enjoyment of property rights at the house at 32 Sunset Drive. A corner of this house defines one side of the easement and any increase of traffic would be intrusive to the occupant. 5) The side property line showing the proposed second unit is 5 ft. 7 in. from the property line appears to be in error. The adjacent property owner, Mr. Grant, displayed a survey prepared in 1965 by Theodore Tronoff, Civil Engineer/Surveyor #12104, which shows the proposed second unit to be just 4 .29 ft. from the property line. Mr. Grant stated he repeatedly pointed this out to County planners during the 1988-89 proceedings. Mr. Grant states the setback is insufficient for quiet enjoyment of his property, particularly since a stairway comes within 1 ft. of his property. The dispute regarding the property line should be resolved, and the true dimension determined officially by the Planning Department prior to any staff recommendation on this application. 6) A number of neighbors appeared at the KMAC hearing and expressed their unanimous opposition to the application. Letters were received from Charles Grant, Marguerite and Thomas Jukes, Ernest and Bettine Kuh, Alice Pasqualetti, Sam and Shelley Witten, copies of which are attached. Also attached is a letter from Supervisor Tom Powers dated October 4 , 1989 commenting on the construction following denial of the earlier second unit application. 7) This application is neariy identical to a prior application denied by the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in 1988-89. None of the concerns voiced at that time have been addressed in this most recent application. In this situation, where the proposed unit is already built, there has been no opportunity for mitigation measures. As has been noted, the current application is nearly identical to the. earlier application, and it appears the applicant has made no attempt to alleviate earlier expressed points of concern. . 8) In 1989 the Zoning Administrator, after hearing testimony and visiting the . site, concluded that 1) The development of the site into two single family residences is inappropriate because of the constraints resulting from a combination of steep slopes, a creek traversing the site and vegetation on the site; 2) The access I 4 to the site is too narrow for emergency fire access. The Fire District requested a 20 ' wide clear roadway while the site is served by a 16 ' wide access easement, and 3) Development of the site so that there are two residences is an over development of the site. Nothing has changed since that conclusion was reached, and KMAC concurs that the application must be denied. Report submitted by: Edythe Campbell, Secretary KMAC Exhibits: A) Letter dated June 30, 1992 from Thomas Jukes, et al. B) Letter dated June 30, 1992 from Sam and Shelley Witten C) Letter dated June 30, 1992 from Chuck Grant D) Letter dated October 4, 1989 from. Supervisor Tom Powers E) Staff report prepared for January 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting by Zoning Administrator JOHN ROLF HATTAM ARCHITECT ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS . RENOVATION CONSTRUCTION ECONOMICS ti.. September 17, 1992 Mr. Art Beresford Community Development Department N Administration Building, North Wing Pine & Escobar Streets P.O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Beresford: In this submittal , I am responding to the missile sent to you by the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council dated July 4, 1992. A copy of their communication is enclosed herein with paragraph num- bers added for reference to this letter. 1 ) The application does satisfy the definition of a second unit in Para. 82-24.410. The large house has a permit for construction and use. The small house does not now have such a permit, therefore, it would become "one new additional dwelling unit" as defined. 2) There can be no possible question that if approved, the second unit would be "clearly subordinate in size, appearance and location to the existing principal residence" as required by -Section 82-24.410. 3) The application most certainly complies with Para. (3) of Section 82-24.606. We now have one approved principal dwelling. We wish to create a second dwelling unit in a detached structure. The fact that the structure now exists is irrelevant. 4) (a) When 32A Sunset was subdivided from 32 Sunset (MS 56-84) one of the conditions of approval was that the driveway be paved to a width of at least 8 feet. We will be providing a paved roadway of 13'6". The "drop off" .referred to no :longer exists. Kensington is replete with sites identical to this one with two or more homes at the end of a long driveway. The proposed "slight problems" referred to by the authors can occur on any non-through street. The perfect world that they seek does not exist. 1 9 3 9 A D D I S O N S T R E E T 8 4 1 . 5 9 3 3 B E R K E L E Y 9 4 7 0 4 C A L I F O R N I A Page 2 (b) The fire code does not mandate a 20 foot uniform roadway when there are only 2 residences. See Section 10.207(x). (c} Few houses with long driveways in Kensington meet these dimensional criteria. The driveway at 32A Sunset, however, will meet the 50 feet radius. (d) My most modest request should not be burdened with any long established width problem of Sunset Drive. I seek only the usage that many sites on Sunset Drive already enjoy. (e) Our site is less intensely wooded than my neighbors. The authors of this diatribe continue to forget that we are not conjecturing on the construction of 2 unbuilt houses. THESE HOUSES NOW EXIST. IN MANY AREAS OF KENSINGTON 4 FULL SIZE HOUSES OCCUR ON A SITE THE SIZE OF .THIS ONE, ARE WE TO START THINNING OUT HOUSES? (f) Another error on the part of the authors. The gas line is almost 4 feet underground. They refer to a water line that will be terminated. (g) The two buildings (.one existing and- one proposed) were approved for a building permit without a fire hydrant requirement. (h) The County Staff has already studied this issue in depth. In their CEQA Review to the Zoning Adminis- trator on 10-20-86 they stated: "A number of letters have been received from neighbor- ing property owners who are concerned about this project. Some letters have suggested that the project would create significant environmental impacts (e.g. , traffic, dis- turbance of biota, archaeology, etc. ) and have requested that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Staff has reviewed the project for the possibility of creating significant environmental impacts in an initial environmental study. That study concluded that only negligible impacts would result from the project. On August 14, 1986 a Notice of Preparation was mailed to. nearby property owners, advising them that a 'Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance had been posted on the project and indicating that any written comments on this determination must be submitted by August 25, 1986. J Page 3 Only one written response on the Negative Declaration was received within the review period (attached). The letter was received from Michael Jacobowitz, attorney for Dr. Steyaert and Ms. Larson. The staff response to each of the points raised in the letter follows: A. Removal of _Trees: Some trees would have to be removed. The removal of these trees would not constitute any major environmental impact. In fact, the zoning code within Kensington encourages the removal and trimming of trees to maximize views. B. Great Horned Owl Sighting: Another property owner identified a Great Horned Owl near the .subject property. This raptor is not listed by the State Fish and Game Department as an endangered or threatened species. Therefore, this project will have no significant effect on that species. C. Population Density; The project would add two addition- al residential building sites. This additional develop- ment would have a negligible environmental impact on the neighborhood." 5) A survey by Randles Engineering Company dated October 25, 1985 s indicates the corner of the building in question are 5.76 and ' 4.98 feet from the property line. . Even Mr. Grant, stickler for the letter of the law that he is, might agree to round off 4,98 to 5 feet the required distance. Mr. Grant's idea of "quiet enjoyment of his property" apparently is quite one-sided as he shows no concern for the noise created from people using his swimming pool and disruption from his roaming dogs as they affect his neighbors. The stair in question is permitted .by the building code (UBC 3306 m). 6) These adjacent property owners have never seen a local building project that they liked. They are naysayers by profession. They are typical of middle class elitists who obtain their own foothold and then impede any effort by 'neighbors to effectively use property rights. They also do not mind taking liberties -in the use of their property. The Jukes duo have cut trees and dumped the cuttings on my property. The Kuh couple have a size- able deck built close to my property line and part of their house is built on a slope almost 1 :1 . Pasqualetti has a house with virtually no front setback and the entire house straddles a major drainage creek--prohibited by today' s codes. Grant, evidencing supreme hypocrisy, has a home reached only by a seven or eight foot wide path with vertical clearance of hardly eight feet and over 300 feet long that snakes its way back to his house. An ambulance would have trouble reaching the house with no possibility of a firetruck getting through. By the way, when I first sought to purchase my property, Page 4 Brother Grant had also made an offer to purchase it but his offer was not accepted. It is also important to bear in mind that these five immediate neighbors do not represent typical neighborhood reaction. In an earlier application for two and three houses, on the same parcel , twenty or more families in the 300 foot radius mailing list stated that they had no objection to either proposal . 7) The Zoning Administrator seems to vacilate considerably regard- ing development of this property. On October 20, 1986 the staff recommended and the Zoning Administration approved three separate homes for the parcel . In fact, the staff stated in i'ts conclusion: "The project is consistent with past planning decisions made for the Kensington area. " It was only after political pressure exerted on Supervisor Powers by his support- ers (my neighbors) that the Administrator's views were altered. Interestingly enough in 1988, when staff recommended approval of these same two residences, the Kensington Improvement Club had no objections to the idea. To further support this very reasonable request for a second unit I would like to remind the staff that within the immediate neighborhood a title search reveals at least seven two unit residences, four of which are on sites smaller than mine. These locations are: 23 Highgate Court 2 Norwood 77 Norwood 1 Sunset Dr, 4 Sunset Dr. 16 Sunset Dr. 23 Sunset Court In addition it is important to note that the County has in recent years, approved second units in Kensington for: 1 . A second unit in a garage 267 Berkeley Park Blvd. 2. A second unit within a residence 61 Franciscan Way 3.. A second unit addition requiring 484 Beloit Avenue variance to reduce the side yard by. 2 feet, the .front yard by 14'- and to omit a required parking space, 4. A second unit within a residence 44 Kingston Rd. 5. A second unit within a residence #2062-91 Summing up Mr. Beresford, this application for a second unit fully complies with the intent of.Ordinance No. 87-67 (attached) of the Board of Supervisors to encorage the creation of second dwelling units. In fact it goes welr beyond the ordinance in providing more parking, greater lot size, more privacy with no intrusion on existing environment than virtually any past or future such application will offer. Since it is now more than five months sipce this ap_pl 'cat'on was submitted I will appreciate any expedency that can be exert sed to br' it to completion. Since /Jo.hn R f Ha a /� RH:cs