HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12171996 - D4 Off, .
1 Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o ri;;A '
_ a County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON •., :�~
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT °�sr---- -- ,�
DATE: December 17 , 1996
SUBJECT: Decision on Appeal of Gilbert & Diane Tarin and Curtis & Sarah Jack,
County File #LP962035, of the East County Regional Planning Commission
Approval of a Land Use Permit to Establish a 728 square foot Second
Residence on a 4.39± acre Parcel. Site address is #1355 Delta Road in
the Knightsen Area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ADOPT a Class IIIA Categorical Exemption for this project.
2 . DENY the appeal of Gilbert & Diane Tarin and Curtis & Sarah
Jack, and uphold the decision of the East County Regional
Planning Commission approving the project subject to
conditions as amended by the Board (Attachment A) .
3 . ADOPT attached findings as the basis of the Board's action
(Attachment B) .
4 . DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice
of Exemption with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE`- �
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON T1Pc-Qmher 17, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER _
See Addendum for Board action.
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 335-1212
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED December 17, 1996
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works - Engineering Svcs. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mr. & Mrs. George COUTY ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. & Mrs. Matteri
Mr. & Mrs. Tarin BY DEPUTY
Mr. & Mrs. Jack
2 .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On November 19 , 1996 the Board of Supervisors heard this appeal.
After testimony was taken the Board closed the hearing and voted
4-0, one Supervisor absent, to declare their intent to deny the
appeal of the Tarin's and Jack's and to approve the land use
permit, modifying the conditons to require that the proposed
second residence be moved to the east of the 20' x 20' existing
shed on the site. The motion was made by Supervisor Torlakson.
There was no discussion as to the exact location of the second
residence.
During discussion on Supervisor Torlakson's motion, concerns were
voiced by the owner of the site (Mr. Matteri) over the effect that
the change in location of the second residence would have on the
water well on site and the existing septic tank put in for the
second unit.
The Supervisors then requested staff to meet the parties involved
and to come back with recommendations to vote on a suitable site
for the second unit that would be better screened and less
apparent to the neighbors.
On November 26, 1996 staff, the applicants and owners and a
representative of the appellants met at Supervisor Torlakson's
office with staff of Supervisor Torlakson.
A number of options were discussed at the meeting. The primary
objections of the applicants/owners were that the movement of the
second residence would require the removal of orchard trees and
their belief that the existing septic tank and drain field would
have to be moved if the second unit was located too far away from
it. The applicants/owners would prefer to leave the second
residence where it is presently located and add additional
landscaping around it.
The appellants' primary concern is that if the second residence is
approved that it be screened from their view by being located
behind the existing Matteri residence and shed.
According to the Environmental Health Division, County Health
Department sewage lines connecting a residences to a septic tank
should have a slope of at least 1/4 inch fall in one foot
horizontal distance. Under this scenario the second unit could
only be located about 40 to 50 feet from the existing septic tank.
The Environmental Health Division has also informed staff that a
slope as small as one-eighth inch fall in a horizontal foot can
be allowed for septic tank connections. If this were the case,
the second residence could be moved approximately 80 to 85 feet
from the existing septic tank on the property. Anything beyond
about 80 to 85 feet would require the removal and replacement of
the existing septic tank on the site or the building of a sewage
pump station and the laying of a sewer line to connect to the
existing septic tank. This would be a greater expense to the
applicant.
As mentioned above, the staff met with the applicant and a
representatives of the appellants in late November. No definite
agreement was reached as to the possible location of the second
unit. However, given the Board's direction, there are four
locations for the second residence for the Board to consider.
These are marked on the attached staff's sketches showing the plot
plan for this site as submitted by the applicant and enlarged by
County staff.
3 .
l
First Option A would be to relocate the second residence from its
existing location to an area to the east of the shed with the
south end of the second residence approximately coinciding with
the south side of the shed. This places the south end of the
proposed second residence approximately 80 to 90 feet from the
existing septic tank on the site. This alternative probably would
require that the septic tank be moved or that a sewage pump
station be built as part of the construction of the second
residence. This would be the most effective option to screen the
proposed second residence from view from the north/south access
road that runs along the western side of the Matteri property.
Supervisor Torlakson in his motion made no mention of the
orientation of the second residence when it was moved as to
whether the existing orientation would be retained or not. Staff
is of the opinion that by rotating it so that the long axis of the
second residence runs north/south rather than east/west minimizes
the view of the second residence from the Tarin's property. This
also minimizes the view of the second residence from the
north/south access road. Staff would recommend that the Condition
of Approval #1 be modified to reflect that the approval is for a
second residence with its southern end immediately to the east of
the southern end of the existing shed on the site. Also, some
consideration may be granted to revising Condition of Approval #8
to require that landscaping be placed primarily along the westerly
and southerly side of the second unit where needed.
Option B would be to take Supervisor Torlakson's motion and place
the second residence east of the shed. This was described when
Mr. Barry asked Supervisor Torlakson where he meant for the shed
to generally be located. Once again no discussion of the
orientation of the shed was made. However, if the this option
were taken, which is shown as Option B on the attached staff
study, the proposed second residence would be located to the east
of the 20' x 20' shed and would be centered on that shed. That
would create a situation where the second residence would protrude
approximately 16 feet south of the south side of the 20' x 20'
shed located at the eastern end of the parking lot. This makes
the second unit slightly more visible from the north/south access
road. It moves the proposed residence to a location where a one-
eighth per one foot fall in the sewage line should, assuming the
plot plan submitted by the applicant is accurate, allow for a
connection to the existing septic tank without additional pump
station. If a one-quarter inch per foot fall is required, then
either a sewage pump station would have to be built as part of
the .second residence or the removal and moving of the septic tank
would be required.
The third alternative, Option C, would be to locate the proposed
second residence so that it is easterly of the existing shed but
located generally southeasterly of the shed. This would move it
well within the range of the allowing the connection of the second
residence to the septic tank without any need for the moving of
the septic tank or the construction of a sewage pump station at
the south end of the proposed second residence. This assumes that
the plot plan submitted the applicant is generally accurate.
This option creates a situation where the second unit is
relatively visible from the north/south access road. As one
drives up and down the access road you can look to the east and
see the shed located generally behind the parking lot. The
requirements of this option is that proper landscaping be placed
around the second residence so that over time the landscaping
would screen the second residence from the north/south access road
on the site. In this case, staff would recommend that heavy
landscaping be placed to the west and to the south of the second
residence.
4 .
A fourth option, Option D, would be to leave the second residence
where it is presently located lowering it slightly as it is placed
on a permanent foundation. The applicant/owner has indicated that
they are willing to put heavy landscaping to the west and to the
south of the second residence and, in this case,to the north.
This is the most visible location of the second residence relative
to the north/south access road and it also creates a broad
frontage of the second residence toward the southerly Tarin
property.
As mentioned above, no agreement was reached as to the exact
location of the second residence. The applicant/owner would like
to leave it where it is presently located and perhaps add
additional landscaping which over time would screen the second
residence. The appellant has stated that, if the second residence
is allowed, they would like to see the second residence located
to the east of the shed and the Matteri residence and out of view
from the private road serving the subject properties.
Based upon the above, staff recommends that the Board choose one
of the options listed above, deny the appeal and approve LP962035
subject to revised Conditions of Approval . In all cases except
Option D, the Conditions of Approval that would have to be
revised, are Condition #1 and perhaps Condition #8 .
The Board can revise Conditoin #8 to require landscaping in the
approved landscape plan to be planted within 90 days of the
occupancy of the second residence and set a minimum plant size of
15 gallons for trees and 5 gallons for bushes.
As a note, the applicant submitted a letter requesting
reconsideration and December 2 , 1996 to the Clerk of the Board.
The request was deemed premature as the Board had declared their
intent on LP962035 but not made a final decision.
AB/aa
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.4
DECEMBER 17, 1996
On November 19, 1996, the Board of Supervisors declared its
intent to deny the appeal of Gilbert and Diane Tarin and Curtis
and Sara Jack from the decision of the East County Regional
Planning Commission relative to LP 96-2035 to establish a 728
square foot second residence on a parcel in the Knightsen area
and directed the Community Development Department staff to
prepare the appropriate findings and documentation for Board
consideration.
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the staff
recommendations contained in the report from the Director of
Community Development dated December 17, 1996 .
Supervisor Canciamilla moved the adoption of the staff
recommendation 1, denial of the appeal, adoption of the findings,
and direction to the Community Development Department to file a
Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk, and he requested
further clarification on the proposed options contained in the
staff report for location of the second residence.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, clarified
the proposed options .
Supervisor Canciamilla expressed a preference for Option A
for the placement of the second unit with modification, and he
suggested amended language for Condition No. 8 of the Conditions
of Approval .
The Board discussed the matter.
Mr. Barry clarified that the motion was that the placement
would be reviewed with an eye toward maximizing the screening
with the shed but placing it as close as needed in order to meet
the 1/8 inch per foot fall in the septic line to minimize cost
implications .
Supervisor Canciamilla concurred and commented that if there
is an abnormal cost or something out of the ordinary, the issue
would come back to the Board but barring that, he felt that the
Zoning Administrator and the Community Development Department
staff would be able to deal with it .
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2 with
conditions as amended by the Board today (Attachment A) , 3 with
findings (Attachment B) , and 4 are APPROVED.
r
r v1
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2035-96 AS APPROVED BY THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DECEMBER 17. 1996
1. This application is approved with the requirement that the second residence is to be located
to the east of the existing shed and residence on the site to maximize the shielding effect on
the visibility of the structure to the west. The placement of the second residence shall be
done to maximize the screening the shed and residence will provide, but placing it only as
close to the septic leach field as needed in order to meet the 1/8"-inch per linear foot fall for
the septic line, to minimize the cost implications. If there is an abnormal cost involved or
staff cannot otherwise resolve the placement issue, final location of the second residence
should be scheduled for Board review and decision.
2. The proposed structure(s) shall be similar to that shown on submitted plans received April
22, 1996 by the Community Development Department. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, elevations and architectural design of the building shall be subject to the final review
and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The roofs and exterior walls of the
buildings shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television
aerials, etc., or screened from view.
3. 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 profes-
sional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has
had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitiga-
tion(s), if deemed necessary.
4. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise, dust and
litter control requirements:
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators,
shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and
shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. The restrictions on allowed
working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning
Administrator.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all
internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete
pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site
and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the
project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include
a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility.
The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be
kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and
implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals
2
responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehi-
cles, erosion control, and the 24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly iden-
tified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major grading
and construction activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the Community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names
and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable
ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not
be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been
posted.
E. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between
the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM.
F. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of
construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site.
5. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$1,000.00 which was paid with the
application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed
120% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit
effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs
through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current
costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be to you
shortly after permit issuance.
6. Proof of recordation of the following disclosure of deed restrictions shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building 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 (LP962035) is available
from the current owner or from the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department."
7. Any future construction activity which involves addition of floor space (other than proposed
remodel) to either the primary residence or completed secondary unit, shall require
application and approval of a land use permit.
i
3
8. A landscape plan around the unit shall be submitted within 30-days of approval for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall be installed within 90 days of
occupancy. Said plan shall focus the primary landscaping on the western and southerly sides
of the unit and that the purpose of the landscaping shall be to conceal it from view from the
road. In the event the shed is removed, the Zoning Administrator may require additional
screening.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE
PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH
DEVELOPMENT.
A. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department and the
Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to
requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project.
B. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which must be
stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary District or, if the
site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health Department and the Fire District
representative.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department - Environmental Health
Division.
D. Comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance and other ordinances which may require
the collection of fees at the time this application was deemed complete by the Community
Development Department, including but not limited to child care fees, bridge/thoroughfare
fee ordinance for the East County Area of Benefit, and the Eastern Contra Costa Subregional
Transportation Mitigation Fee Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
AB/aa
LPIV/2035-96C.AB
5/28/96
6/10/96 - Z.A. Rev.(v)
12/17/96 - B/S (a)
2/6/97
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF LAND USE PERMIT 962035
In approving the application of Land Use Permit LP962035 filed by James & Tammy George
(Applicants) - David & Linda Matteri (Owners) and denying the appeal by Gilbert & Diane Tarin
and Curtis & Sara Jack (Appellants) to establish a second residential unit at 41355 Delta Road in
the Knightsen area and affirming the action of the East County Regional Planning Commission
application LP962035, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds as follows:
A. THE RECORD: In making the above decisions, the Board of Supervisors has considered the
County General Plan, the County's Zoning Ordinance, all documents and exhibits presented
to all of the bodies holding hearings on this application, all testimony given at all public
hearings held on the application, the exemption status of the project under CEQA, and
including the staff report to the East County Regional Planning Commission.
B. BACKGROUND:
1. Finding: On April 22, 1996 James & Tammi George, the applicants, and Davis &
Linda Matteri (Owners), submitted a Land Use Permit application to establish a
second residence on the property located at #1355 Delta Road, Knightsen area, State
of California, in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
2
Evidence: Community Development Department ("CDD") file LP962035.
2. Finding: The property is located in an A-2 (General Agriculture) zoning district.
Under the A-2 zoning ordinance, second residences, County Ordinance Code
Chapter 84-38, are allowed if a land use permit is issued.
Evidence: CDD file LP962035; Co. Ord. Code, Section 84-38.404 (incorporating
Section 82-36.409).
3. Findin : The property is designated in the County General Plan as Agricultural Land.
Evidence: CDD file LP962035; County General Plan (Land Use Element, p. 3-18,
referencing Land Use Element Map).
4. Findin-: The application was scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Administrator on
June 10, 1996 and notice of the hearing was duly given. The staff recommended
approval of the request to establish a second residence. On June 10, 1996 the Zoning
Administrator approved the project based on the evidence provided by the
applicant's site plan of the primary residence and location of the proposed second
unit.
The Zoning Administrator outlined reasons for approval of LP962035, with the
3
addition of the requirement for site landscaping and the required Findings for a Land
Use permit.
Evidence: CDD file LP962035 (including submitted letters and verbal testimony).
5. Finding: On June 18, 1996 neighbors (Mr. & Mrs. Tarin and Mr. & Mrs. Jack)
appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the East County Regional Planning
Commission A hearing was scheduled and duly noticed for August 5, 1996.
After considering the written record and public testimony, the East County Regional
Planning Commission denied the appeal, upheld the decision of the County Zoning
Administrator, and approved the project subject to conditions and making findings
for approval as outlined in Section 26-2.2008 of Article 26-2.30 of the County
Zoning Ordinance.
Evidence: CDD file LP962035 (including submitted letter of appeal and verbal
testimony).
6. Finding: On August 15, 1996 the neighbors(Mr. &Mrs. Tarin and Mr. & Mrs. Jack)
appealed the East County Regional Planning Commission's approval of LP962035
to the Board of Supervisors. A hearing was scheduled and duly noticed for
November 19, 1996. At the close of the public hearing, the Board of Supervisors
4
declared its intent to deny the appeal of the Tarin's and Jack's, approved LP962035
for a second residence located to the east of the existing 20' x 20' shed on the site and
directed staff to further discuss the matter with the parties involved and to bring the
matter back to the Board with a report about where the second residence could be
located and findings to support the Board's decision.
C. CEQA FINDING
7. Finding: The project is a Class 3-A categorically exempt project and is, therefore,
exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
Evidence: CDD file LP962035, State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303; Clerk of the
Board File - Appeal of Gilbert & Diane Tarin and Curtis & Sara Jack (LP962035).
D. LAND USE PERMIT FINDINGS
8. Findings: The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the County.
Evidence: CDD File LP962035; Clerk of the Board file - appeal of Gilbert & Diane
Tarin and Curtis & Sara Jack (including written and oral testimony and exhibits
presented at hearings; C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008(1).
5
9. Finding: The proposed project as condition will not adversely affect the orderly
development of property within the County.
Evidence: CDD File LP962035; Clerk of the Board file - appeal of Gilbert & Diane
Tarin and Curtis & Sara Jack (including written and oral testimony and exhibits
presented at hearings; C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008(2).
10. Finding: The proposed project as conditioned will not adversely affect the
preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County.
Evidence: CDD File LP962035; Clerk of the Board file - appeal of Gilbert & Diane
Tarin and Curtis & Sara Jack (including written and oral testimony and exhibits
presented at hearings; C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008(3).
11. Finding: The proposed project will not adversely affect the policy and goals as set
by the General Plan.
Evidence: CDD File LP962035; Clerk of the Board file - appeal of Gilbert & Diane
Tarin and Curtis & Sara Jack (including written and oral testimony and exhibits
presented at hearings; C.C.C. Ord. Code § 26-2.2008.
W
6
12. Findin : The proposed project will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem
within the neighborhood or community.
Evidence: CDD File LP962035; Clerk of the Board file - appeal of Gilbert & Diane
Tarin and Curtis & Sara Jack (including written and oral testimony and exhibits
presented at hearings; C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008(5).
13. Finding: The proposed project as conditioned will not encourage marginal
development.
Evidence: CDD File LP962035; Clerk of the Board file - appeal of Gilbert & Diane
Tarin and Curtis & Sara Jack (including written and oral testimony and exhibits
presented at hearings; C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008(6).
14. Finding: That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and
its location or surroundings are established.
Evidence: CDD File LP962035; Clerk of the Board file - appeal of Gilbert & Diane
Tarin and Curtis & Sara Jack (including written and oral testimony and exhibits
presented at hearings; C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008(7).
7
AB/aa
LTRl/Matteri.AB
DELTA ROAD
Wti �
t f
a
�' �7,i a r
i~
436.03' ---�--
- - .—. — �.. — ._.. _ � _... _
Existing
Septic Tapk�
c\
Existing
1-fell o,�ndN A
X30 ooirll
Exai;tin
g �
hed
VI � _ .
annow, mmomanownnowma 'momn, goi �7 20 A.P.N. 020
annom,—�•
A.P N. 020
---o/
� PROPOSED NEIN
I s i ----�pe:52, SVTIC TA ,,�K
zo F'RO'M HOMSE
2nd Residenc ?
� � SE
D LTA ROA,D
PtK -
A
_ 436.03' ----
At
Existing
-Septic Tark
71
I ,CD 43
Existing
Well
Exp sti n
g oN
I I - ed opt j3
20x 20 A.P.N. 020
A.._RN. 020
ROPOSEID NEW
E TI C TAN K
sz� �
Z i i ?
10* ROM NousE
2nd Residencd SF
I -
30(
„, DELTAROA
r e/t' Wj4.f tl ,
bi[}' 17.. ”"' ow
Ht `t
y
436.03' ---�--
�
Existing
® � gATIP
Septic Tapka-114
y +
i ?r
I I g
y i €
N
Existing
Well
I
Existing
* -- $hed
.%
-� got ,y x 20 A.P.N. 020
A.F'N 020
PROPOSE NEW
,!� I a• ----� 52, �E TA !K
I ? o tz0 KousE
2nd Resid ncd
� SF
�, -
30(
` I I