HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11191996 - D22 D. 22
Contra
O: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _ _ _ � Costa
`
County r
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON '�y, v`o
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
�SrA COUK�
DATE: November 19, 1996
SUBJECT: 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 RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We ADOPT. a Class IIIA the 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 (Attachment A) .
3 . ADOPT the findings contained in Resolution 21-1996 as the
basis of the Board 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 COMMIT EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON November -19 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x
SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III 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 L
cc: County Counsel PHft BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Public Works - Engineering Svcs. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mr. & Mrs. George COU ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. & Mrs. Matteri
Mr. & Mrs. Tarin BY , DEPUTY
Mr. & Mrs. Jack
2 .
2 .
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The applicant is requesting approval to establish a 728 square
foot second residence on a parcel with approximately 4 . 39 acres
of net area. Additional background is contained in the staff
report to the East County Regional Planning Commission, dated
August 5, 1996 .
On June 10, 1996 the County Zoning Administrator held a hearing
on LP962035, taking public testimony from the applicants and the
opponents of the proposal. After considering the written record,
and the public testimony, the County Zoning Administrator approved
LP962035 subject to revised conditions and made findings as
outlined in Section 26-2 . 2008 of the County Zoning Ordinance.
On June 18, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. Tarin and Mr. & Mrs. Jack appealed the
decision of the County Zoning Administrator.
At its August 5, 1996 hearing, the East County Regional Planning
Commission took public testimony from the applicant, proponents
and opponents regarding the proposal . Issues addressed at the
hearing concerned the appearance of the second residence, its
visibility to neighboring properties, loss of value to neighboring
residence, whether the Zoning Administrator made the correct
findings, traffic, creation of marginal development and possible
ways of redesigning the second residence to enhance its appearance
and screening.
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 (Attachment B) .
On August 15, 1996 Mr. & Mrs. Tarin and Mr. & Mrs . Jack appealed
the decision of the East County Regional Planning Commission to
approve LP962035 subject to conditions.
The letter of appeal is attached. The grounds for the appeal are
as follows:
1 . The subject parcel does not contain the required five
acres. The subject parcel started out as 4 . 97 acres,
and was reduced to 4 . 39 acres because areas were
dedicated to the County for road purposes. A-2 zoning
requires 5 acres, and the so-called 1180% rule" of
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 82-10 . 004
can only be applied if the parcel had 5 acres to begin
with. County staff has asserted that a lot size
variance was granted for the subject parcel when minor
subdivision MS 127-77 was granted, however, appellants
paid a $16 research fee to have staff look for the
variance, but none was found.
2 . As a part of the pending application, the applicants
have failed to request a variance from Contra Costa
County Ordinance Code Section 84-38 . 608 (regarding lot
size) .
3 . The applicant' s proposed project would lower the
property values in our subdivision and surrounding
area. Therefore, finding number 3 required by County
Ordinance Code Section 26-2 . 2008 (regarding the
preservation of property values and the tax base)
cannot be made.
3 .
4 . The applicant's proposed project is unsightly and,
therefore, encourages marginal development within the
neighborhood. Accordingly, finding number 6 required
by. County Ordinance Code Section 26-2 . 2008 (regarding
the discouraging of marginal development in the
neighborhood) cannot be made. For this reason, the
applicant's project must be denied in total, however,
if the project is to be approved, the applicants must
be required to move the proposed second unit directly
to the east side of the existing principal residence,
so that the existing residence acts as a visual barrier
when the project is viewed from the north-south private
road. At the hearing held by the East County Regional
Planning Commission, the owner of the parcel to the
east said she favored a mobilehome on the subject
property and, therefore, placing a modular home to the
east of the existing residence will not bother that
adjoining owner. If the project is approved, a modular
home instead of a mobilehome must be placed on the
parcel , because modular homes are less unsightly than
mobilehome.
5 . The applicant's proposed project would add more traffic
to the private road which serves the subject parcel as
well as three others. Traffic from the applicant' s U-
pick operation uses the road as well . An additional
residence will add even more traffic, which will be
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare.
Therefore, finding number 1 required by the County
Ordinance Code Section 26-2 . 2008 (regarding health and
safety) cannot be made. Also, there is no agreement
among the users of the road which would address the
issue of improvements needed if more traffic is added.
For this reason, the applicant's project must be denied
in total, however, if the project is to be approved the
applicants must be required to repave and . widen the
north-south private road adjacent to the subject
parcel .
6 . The conditions of approval imposed upon the project
contain no enforcement provisions and, therefore,
finding number 5 required by County Ordinance Code
Section 26-2 . 2008 (regarding enforcement problems)
cannot be made. For this reason, the applicant's
project must be denied in total, however, if the
project is to be approved, the Use Permit should be
reviewed every year to guarantee compliance with the
conditions. (For example, the applicant could simply
plant the landscaping required by the conditions of
approval , then let that landscaping die. )
7 . The mobilehome, if approved, could easily become a
rental unit occupied by someone who is not a family
member related to the occupants of the principal
residence. For this reason, the applicant's project
must be denied in total , however, if the project is to
be approved a condition must be added to require that
the mobilehome be removed in the event it is no longer
occupied by a family member (within the third degree of
consanguinity) of the family occupying the principal
residence on the lot.
4 .
8 . The parcel is substandard. In Paragraph VI . (a) found
on page S-3 of the staff report prepared for the
hearing at the East County Regional Planning
Commission, staff stated that a prior variance had been
granted to allow the construction of the first dwelling
on the subject property. In justifying the granting of
a variance to construct a second dwelling on the
substandard parcel (which was the result of County
dedications) , the Zoning Administrator cited Section
85-10 . 004 of the Contra Costa County Code, which
permits the granting of a variance for property reduced
in size as a result of County dedications .
Subparagraph (b) of Section 82-10-002 , states that
"Land use to satisfy the area. . . requirements for one
dwelling unit cannot satisfy those requirements for
another unit. " In other words, a second unit cannot be
placed upon the subject parcel because the first unit
uses up the required lot area, etc. For example, order
to be allowed a second unit, the subject parcel would
need to be at least 10 acres in size.
9 . The Zoning Administrator made a specific contrary
finding. Section 26-2 . 2008 of the Contra Costa County
Code requires that a variance shall not be allowed if
it adversely affects the orderly development of
property within the County. The Zoning Administrator
found that "the second unit is not placed in such a way
that it will not be a detriment to uses on the property
or in the area. " Hence, the Zoning Administrator
agreed that one element of the mandatory 7-element test
of Section 26-2 . 2008 was not met.
10 . The Zoning Administrator and the East County Regional
Planning Commission made insufficient findings. For
example, subparagraph (7) of Section 26-2 . 2008 of the
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code precludes the
issuance of a Conditional Land Use Permit unless it has
been shown that unique or special circumstances exist
to grant the Conditional Land Use Permit. Both the
Zoning Administrator and the East County Regional
Planning Commission had no evidence before them, and
made no findings whatsoever, as to any unique or
special circumstances .
11. The proposed project would violate subparagraph ( 1) of
Section 84-68 . 1602 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance
Code, which only allows a "permanent mobilehome" , on an
agriculturally zoned lot, if it is the "principal
residence on the lot. " Here, the permanent mobilehome
will be a secondary residence on the lot.
12 . Even if a "permanent mobilehome" can be occupied as a
second unit on an agriculturally zoned parcel , the
applicant has failed to show that the subject
mobilehome is certified under the National Mobile Home
Construction and Safety Act of 1974 as required by
subparagraph (3 ) of Section 84-68 . 1602 of the Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code.
13 . Even if a "permanent mobilehome" can be occupied as a
second unit on an agriculturally zoned parcel , the
proposed project does not meet the standards of
subparagraph (.5) of Section 84-68 . 1602 of the Contra
Costa County Ordinance Code, which requires "exterior
material customarily used in conventional single-
5 .
family residential structures in the surrounding area. "
The applicant proposes to cover the entire mobilehome
using T-1-11 type plywood siding. The houses in the
subdivision (including the appellant's homes) are not
covered entirely by similar siding. For this reason,
the applicant's project must be denied in total,
however, if the project is to be approved, the
applicants must be required to break up the "plain
wall" appearance in a manner similar to other homes in
the subdivision. (For example, the use of brick or
rock facade work may accomplish this. )
14 . Approval of the applicant' s project would create a
nuisance.
15 . The applicant began construction of the project without
first obtaining the required permits.
16 . The plans submitted by the applicant fail to disclose
whether the proposed 'skirting will violate subparagraph
(6) of Section 84-68 . 1602 of the Contra Costa County
Ordinance Code which prohibits "conventional" skirting.
17 . An Assessor's "Code Line" splits the applicant' s parcel
into two Assessor parcels. It should be noted that the
applicant' s parcel is not two separate legal lots, as
the applicant's plot plan improperly leads one to
believe. The applicant's two Assessor parcels, added
together, comprise only one legal lot for zoning
purposes.
18 . The Zoning Administrator and the East County Regional
Planning Commission failed to base the findings upon
the evidence presented.
The undersigned appellants reserve the right to raise additional
issues at the County Board of Supervisors hearing or in subsequent
written filings.
ANALYSIS OF APPEAL POINTS
In Response to Item #1: The appellants feel that because the site
does not contain a net area of at least 5 acres the 80% rule
outlined in Section 82-10 . 004 should not apply.
The parcels owned by the applicant's parents (Mr. & Mrs. Matteri,
as well as the Tarins and Jacks) were created when the Parcel Map
for MS 127-77 was recorded. MS 127-77 was filed over two existing
10 acre parcels covering an area of 20 acres . Because of
requirements of the County that additional road width be dedicated
along Delta Road and the access road to the Jack and Tarin parcels
be offered for dedication, the net parcel sizes were reduced to
below 5 acres in area.
The application file for MS 127-77 has been microfilmed and
portions of the file kept and portions discarded. The application
form, notice of determination form and permit show that the
creation of parcels with less than 5 acres were considered.
Copies of the application form, permit and notice of determination
are attached. The microfilm file does not contain any copies of
the notice of hearing nor the staff report.
6.
It appears to staff that the creation of parcels under 5 acres in
area was considered in the approval of MS 127-77 and the use
allowed in the A-2 zone can be considered, including those uses
allowed by land use permit.
In Response To Item #2 : When the appeal was heard, the notice
that went out clearly stated the net area of the Matteris
property. Thus, neighbors were informed of the fact that the
parcels were substandard in size.
In Response to Item #3 : The appellants are concerned over loss
of value on their properties. The appellants have submitted an
appraisal concerning the effect on their house values . A copy of
the appraisal is included in the staff report to the East County
Regional Planning Commission.
After consideration of this point, the East County Regional
Planning Commission was able to make the finding that the approval
of LP962035 would not effect the property values or the tax base
in a significant way. Had the Commission agreed with the
appellant, the Commission would have made a decision to deny
approval of LP962035 .
In Response to Item #4 : The appellant' s concern with the
appearance of the proposed second residence, especially concerning
where it is to be located. The second residence is to be placed
upon a foundation. This point was brought up at the East County
Regional Planning Commission hearing. However, the Commission
found that they could make the finding that this project would not
encourage marginal development. It seems here that the primary
concern here is not the fact of a second residence but rather its
location and appearance.
In Response to Item #5 : Here the appellants are concerned with
traffic. The appellants want the project denied because of
traffic increase unless the access road is paved. (Paving width
not indicated but usual width is 16 to 20 feet for a private
road. ) As mentioned by the appellants there is no road
maintenance agreement on the privately maintained road. Whether
there is to be a road maintenance agreement is up to the property
owners that use the road.
The East County Regional Planning Commission considered this item
and found that they could make the findings that LP962035 would
not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
the County. It needs to be noted that second residences are
allowed, subject to land use permit approval in A-2 (General
Agriculture zones) . Also, the County ordinance allowed for second
units (under 1 , 000 square feet of area) in residential zones on
parcels or lots with more than 6, 000 square feet of building area.
Thus, the County's allowance for second residential units is
clearly shown. LP962035 is in some ways like a second unit in a
residential zone when one considers the size of the proposed
second unit (728 sq. ft. ) .
In Response to Item #6 : The appellants are concerned over
enforcement. In other words, what happens if the owner of the
property does not live up to the conditions of approval of
LP962035 .
If the owner does not live up to the conditions ( i . e. , lets the
landscaping die) , the permit is subject to revocation. This acts
as the enforcement mechanism for the project.
In Response to Item #7 : The appellants are concerned that the
second residence could be rented out some one who is not a family
member.
7 .
The conditions of approval for LP962035 do not limit who can
occupy the second residence. The A-2 zoning district allows for
more than one residence on a site, any of which could be rented
to non-family members. The A-3 section of the Zoning Ordinance
does allow for land use permits for additional residences to be
occupied by family members within the third degree of
consanguinity.
If the Board wants to limit occupancy of the second unit they can
consider an additional condition to either require one of the
residences to be owner occupied or that the second (or both)
residences be occupied by members of the family within the third
degree of consanguinity of the property owner.
In Response to Item #8 : In this point the appellants state that
the Zoning Administrator cited a section of the ordinance (Section
82-10 . 004) that allows the use of a site in a manner generally
allowed in the A-2 zoning district, including uses allowed by Land
Use Permit in error. The appellant states that there should be
a requirement that before a second residence could be placed on
a site, that site should have at least twice the minimum parcel
size allowed in the A-2 zoning district (i . e. , 10-acres) . The
appellant cites Section 82-10. 002 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance (copy
of Chapter 82-10 - Lots is attached) .
Chapter 82-10 deals with the creation of lots, Section 82-
10. 002 (b) with division and consolidation.
If the meaning of Section 82-10 . 002 (b) was to require that a
property was to have twice the size of that, then this would be
in conflict with the section of the ordinance (82-38 . 404) , that
allows more than one detached dwelling on a lot or parcel of land
without reference to parcel size. Also, it should be noted that
in a residential zone a property need not be at least twice the
minimum size allowed by a .zoning district to establish a second
unit on a property.
In Response to Item #9 : In this section the appellants reference
the Zoning Administrator's finding having to do with the location
of the second residence. The concern references Paragraph IV-B
second page of the staff report to the East County Regional
Planning Commission (Appeal Hearing) .
The sentence of concern reads "The second unit is not placed in
such a way that it will not be detrimental to uses on the property
or in the area. "
Obviously the Zoning Administrator's approved LP962035 . If she
had not made the above finding in a positive way then she would
have denied LP962035 or required that the second residence be
moved elsewhere on the Matteri's property. The second "not" in the
above sentence is a typographical error in the staff report to the
East County Regional Planning Commission.
In Response to Item #10 : This references Subparagraph (7) of
Section 26-2 . 2008 which reads:
(7) That special conditions or unique characteristics
of the subject property and its location or
surroundings are established.
In both the case of the Zoning Administrator and the East County
Regional Planning Commission findings were made to approve
LP962035 . As above, if either the Zoning Administrator or the
East County Regional Planning Commission had found that they could
not make findings as outlined in Section 26-2 . 2008 including
8 .
subparagraph (7) , then they would have denied the project. They
did not, both the Zoning Administrator and the East County
Regional Planning Commission approved LP962035 . The staff had
recommended that findings be made as outlined in Section 26-2 . 2008
of the County Zoning Ordinance.
In Response to Item #11: This concern of the appellants reference
Section 84-68 . 1602 of the County Zoning Ordinance which references
the T-1 section of the ordinance. This section allows a
"permanent mobilehome" on an agriculturally zoned property as a
primary residence.
However, this application is filed under Section 84-38 . 404 of the
Zoning Ordinance (Uses allowed by LUP in the A-2 agricultural
zone) . Here the Zoning Ordinance allows for a second residence
subject to approval of the project at a public hearing. The exact
design of the second residence is up to the hearing body making
the decision on the project after taking testimony.
In Response to Item #12 : Here the appellants are concerned that
the mobilehome has not been shown to comply with the 1974
Mobilehome Construction Act. However, it needs to be noted that
the applicant is required to get a building permit to legally
establish a second residence on the site. Thus, the second
residence will have to conform to all applicable building code
requirements.
In Response to Item #13 : This is a concern over the design and
type of exterior finish of the second residence. The siding
proposed for the second unit's T-1-11 type of grooved plywood.
The concern here is that the appellants would like a better finish
using such additional facade materials of brick or rock.
When reviewed on appeal by the East County Regional Planning
commission \these concerns were brought out. The East County
Regional Planning Commission chose to approve the project as
submitted.
In Response to Item #14 : This concerns the appellant's ascertain
that the project would create a nuisance.
Both the Zoning Administrator and the East County Regional
Planning Commission in making their findings found that the
proposed project would not create a nuisance subject to compliance
with conditions of approval.
In Response to Item #15 : The appellant states that the applicant
started the project without first obtaining required permits.
While this may perhaps be true, the applicant is allowed to file
for a Land Use Permit for a second residence on a parcel in the
A-2 zone. The decision making body will have to make a decision
whether or not to approve or deny the project.
In Response to Item #16: This point concerns the type of skirting
to be placed around the foundation of the second residence.
The conditions (Condition #2) as approved by the East County
Regional Planning Commission require that the Zoning Administrator
make a final review and approval of building plans before issuance
of building permits . With this review, and with requirements of
the Building Inspection Department, proper foundations will be
required. Any covering of the foundation will have to be approved
by the Zoning Administrator.
a
9 .
In Response to Item #17 : The appellants state that an Assessor's
Code line splits the applicant's parcel . The appellants state
that it needs to be noted that the code line does not separate the
parcel into two separate legal lots.
This is the case. Sometime after the parcel map for MS 127-77 was
recorded, a code line crossing the site and several other
properties was established. The code line does not legally
separate the properties and is so noted on Planning Department
records.
In Response to Item #18: Item #18 in the appellant's letter is an
statement that the Zoning Administrator and East County Regional
Planning Commission did not base their findings on the evidence
presented.
However, after taking all given testimony, both the Zoning
Administrator and the East County Regional Planning Commission
made findings that they could approve LP962035 subject to the
conditions of approval .
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALTERNATIVE TO EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
There are few options that exist. One option would be to accept
the appeal and deny LP962035 . Another alternative would be to
deny the appeal in part and require an alternative location for
the second residence perhaps with additoinal landscaping screening
and/or a different design or finish. Also, perhaps control on who
can live in the second unit can also be considered as an
additional condition of approval .
AB/aa
BD1/2035-95 .AB
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 22
NOVEMBER 19, 1996
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by Gil and Diane
Tarin and Curtis and Sarah Jack from the East County Regional
Planning Commission' s decision to deny their appeal and uphold
the Zoning Administrator' s decision of approval with revised
conditions, County File LP 96-2035, in the Knightsen area.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report and recommendations on the appeal . Mr. Barry
recommended that the Board adopt a Class IIIA (the categorical
exemption for this project) , declare its intent to deny the
appeal of Gilbert and Diane Tarin and Curtis and Sarah Jack and
uphold the decision of the East County Regional Planning
Commission approving the request by James and Tammy George
(applicant) and David and Linda Matteri (owners) to establish a
second residence containing approximately 728 square feet of area
subject to the conditions in attachment A and direct staff to
prepare findings for consideration by the Board of Supervisors
incorporating findings contained in Resolution 21-1996 as part of
the basis for that action and that after the findings have been
adopted by the Board, that the Board direct the Director of
Community Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the
County Clerk.
The following persons presented testimony:
Eric Hasseltine, 3182 Old Tunnel Road, #E, Lafayette,
representing the appellants;
Tammy L. George, P.O. Box 1173 , Brentwood, applicant;
David Matteri, 1355 Delta Road, Knightsen, owner.
Mr. Hasseltine spoke in rebuttal .
Supervisor Torlakson commented on the difficulty of this
matter and advised that the Board needs to refer to the second
unit ordinance and the mobile home ordinance and the A-2
ordinance as it relates to mobile homes to the Community
Development Department for review and development of some
consistent standards or guidelines . Supervisor Torlakson also
requested clarification on the issues of property values and the
requirement for sprinklers .
Mr. Barry clarified those issues .
Supervisor Torlakson spoke in support of allowing the second
residence and he recommended that the mobile home be moved around
to the back of the shed.
Mr. Barry requested clarification from Supervisor Torlakson
on the proposed location.
Supervisor Torlakson confirmed the location and advised that
Environmental Health has said that they could hook up to the
existing septic field.
Mr. Barry clarified his earlier request that the Board
declare its intent and direct staff to prepare final findings and
direct staff to meet with the applicant to discuss the location
of the mobile home in accordance with Supervisor Torlakson' s
motion.
Supervisor Torlakson concurred.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is
CLOSED; and intent is DECLARED by the Board of Supervisors 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 staff is
DIRECTED to meet with the applicant relative to the location of
the mobile home; and the Community Development Department staff
is DIRECTED to prepare the appropriate findings and documentation
for Board consideration.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC
HEARING BVFORE THE
PROOF OF PUBLICATION CONTRA
OCOSTA COUNTY
(2015.5 C.C.P.) ONP&NNINOMAR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA KNIGHTSEN AREA
NOTICE Is here*given d-t
County of Contra Costa on Tuesday. November 19.
19% at 4: p.m. In B0OM
I am a citizen of the United States and a tr107 ation of 1he Building County AdM. WS-
con-ter of
Ident of the County aforesaid;.[ am over Pine and Escobar Streem
rets colt-
the age of eighteen years, and n6t a party.t6 tni Costa county Board of
or Interested to,the above-entitled matter. Supervisors will old a public
hearing consider the fob'
I am the Prfnclpal Legal Clerk of the Ledger WMg plannIng matters on
the r000mrMndations Of Me
Dispatch and Brentwood News. Newspaipers Eaat=�� Plan-1
of general circulation, printed and published ning
Anb-
a;�eal
/ Gilbert
at 1650 Cavallo Road In the City of Antioch. Diane arin flants),
Curtis and 8=mh Jack(Ap-:
County of Contra Costa, 94509. 1 sion of
gants),from the decit
East County ROGIOnal
Planning C4mmlsalon's d-l-
And which newspapers have been adjudged
slon on,,the application Of
James, and T George
newspapers of general circulation by the Su- U 4
1Matter,
=andsm and
perior Court of the County of Contra Costa. It (Owners)to OP-
voye a request to establish 8
28 a
State of California, under the date of March "28sq=e 1-1=,Pd=.
26t 1870. Case Number 746370. 4.3+
The noticelocation of It* sublec-t
, of which the annexed Is a printed The
lend is within the unincorporated territory of the
copy (set In type not smaller than nonpareil), of Contra costs,State=of
ffornla, generally Identified
has been pubtils-hed In each regular and en- below to more precise de-
tire
be examined In
tire Issue of said newspapers and not In any the Office o the Director Of
Commu Development,
supplement thereof on the following dates, CounMmlinistration Build-
to-wit: Ing,Martinez,California).
The eke fronts for appro)d-
.........V-0.k�eJ" mately 436 feet On the South
........!!!� ..................... side of Delta Road 8PPfO)d-
Pately 875 feet west of Itte
all In the year of 1996. Intersection of Delta Road
and Curlew Conney-sublet
I certify *(or declare) under penalty of perjury r2r-7-V1 ..l&Pd_.t#W135"SDa1S-
ta Road k in the tqilghtsaji Arv;
that the foregoing Is true and correct. unty .File IF I
Executed at Antioch, California. "or to the heating Com-
munity DOW ant De-
ant staff will be
On this ... day of ..�!� 4/ 1. 1.09m
............... =b on Tuesday,No-
-•1996
o.-.1996 vornber 19,1996,in Room
108,Administration Build-'
Ing,$51 Pine Street,Marti-
nez, from 2:30 p.m. to 3
p.m.to meet with I
.............................. targeted patties In:7.1 to;
answer questions; (2)
-�ignature Imilliew the hearing
proce-
dun usedthe Board;
Ledger Dispatch and Brentwood News (3) rify the Issues being
coneldeved the Board;
P.O. Box 2299 and(41 provi an oppor-
tunity.0 identify. resolve.
Antioch, CA 94531-2299 of narrow a di 8 .
(510) 757-2525 which remain In dtepute.it
you wish to attend thio
10"9.with staff,=1 3351 23 by 3 p.m.on
Monday, November 18,
1996,to confine your par•
trolpatlon.
If you challenge oft matter In
----------
Court,you may be"led to
Vtng Had
*=Issues you
ED raised at
EIV the
In tgbW heating descAbed
notics; or in written
R
correspondence delivered to
the
pubR%Mor Prior to.
the
NOV 719911)
Data:October 29,1986
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of
the Board of Sutra
upeAand
F CM Admiralst M'�
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS D 8
CONTRA COSTA CO. Publish:., M7590
November
N mb 1886
• .0: 0O w zr mnr O — 2CA
o�..
N Oz OCA o'
-�, C) m COQ z c_n
n wz pp
_ Z F 0 O! i'.a
Q0 z CHI ^'7 r 0
m = =n OCO Z rte+ ro z .o...:.....:;
0 � N SDmz� N � -I
CD CD Cn
�� D nnn
Ev cD n c ZO x n n r3 .0
iztri
0 3 m m y y
z
( 0 CD
�C C/) o o r.>ZCMMw o Cp ...f
b P. r-.mM mm n z
m m r O
C 3 C 0 n r-M �' O C D
_ (D o �~+ (CD D Z M C D^�p r
O m n ~' Mme Z xcnn (n
m 07 m 4 m O{ ,-.1 = m
N O tea, (a,cs v9 m0HI
v �^ 1�D <
� � o0 cn mN � pC7
cnm
:C -0w 0 CA)_ wOm
w r+ nn w-wi ,4 U)
y W r O 1 -n� ' c 7oO � Zm < Vo < p
M S.". OZ M v CD
0031
N rt C w Z
T <
C a m r.v m m
N ry m z -Zi
(� ID
Z m
�Q
(D o D O
N r� r
v
p p O m
C
r Un
mz to
GC
C U)
0:33 O
m
ZC Z
nc D >02 C
C) X m� r W n
z z U) m
m C 00� v� 9 n p m. . ..0 O
m v m0 m C -1 D Z
3 D ao m O c� 79Co p z O
z r !! C O z
-1
Z Z m H O zz O OZ
D v Wm Z
v o m O
z p 0 toil
n m O m m
G� HI
(Dmy X em O i
7' W •0 + �
O O C7
v mCl)e O
1 .wh n0° RC1 1
IT ON
ID Z
4
O Dr 3 ` 7CnC �� 1
m
ai
mom
m z
33
DUl
a
z
n w �