Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09091997 - C149 tv, $E . ` •� '1 '�,. Contra V Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �; "�'' , '- County PROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AI CP - INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR STq------ C� DATE: September 9, 1997 SUBJECT: SET ASIDE DECISION OF DECEMBER 17, 1996 WHICH APPROVED A LAND USE . I PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A 728 SQUARE FOOT SECOND RESIDENCE ON A 4.39± ACRE I PARCEL (LP962035) AND READOPT ACTIONS TAKEN WITH CLARIFICATION OF LAND USE PERMIT FINDINGS AS DIRECTED BY SUPERIOR COURT. (#1355 DELTA ROAD IN THE KNIGHTSEN AREA) + SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION i i' RECOMMENDATIONS 1. SET ASIDE the Board's decision of December 17, 1996, which approved LP962035, a land use permit to allow a second residence on subject property, as directed by the peremptory . writ of mandate issued by the Contra Costa Superior Court. 2 . READOPT decision of December 17, 1996, including recommendations 1-4 as set forth in the Addendum, Conditions of Approval and findings in support of decision, as set forth in attached Board Order dated December 17, 1996 (Attachments A and B) , with clarification of Findings #8-14 (land use permit findings) to indicate evidence relied upon by the Board in support of Findings #8-14, as set forth below and as directed by the Contra Costa Superior Court. FISCAL IMPACT None CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _x YES SIGNATURE /"t• RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMM EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON September 9 , 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER David Fischer, Esq., P:O.-Box-1997, Martinez, camented on the matter. Supervisors UilkEma and Gerber withdrew from participation in the discussion of the issue, and did not vote on this matter. vuxz of SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II and 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:Art Beresford Orig: Community Development ,Department ATTESTED September 9 , 1997 cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Mr. & Mrs. George THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. & Mrs. Matteri AN COUNTY 4D�M STRAT R Mr. & Mrs. Tarin Mr. & Mrs. Jack BY DEPUTY AB/df B03 : lp962035.bo 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS On December 17, 1996, the Board of Supervisors denied the appeal of Gilbert & Diane Tarin and Curtis & Sarah Jack from the East County Regional Planning Commission approval, with conditions, of LP962035 (a land use permit to establish a second residence in the Knightsen area) . The Jacks and Tarins filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Contra Costa Superior Court requesting that the decision of the Board of Supervisors be set aside. The Honorable Ellen James, Judge of the Superior Court granted the writ and remanded the matter to the Board on the sole ground that the Court could not determine the evidentiary basis for the Board's Land Use Permit findings #8 to #14, (C.C.C. Ord.Code §26-2 .2008 (1) -(7) ) . The Court ordered the Board to set aside its decision approving the land use permit so that the evidence in support of the land use permit findings could be articulated by the Board. The Court's order stated that no further public hearing was required. For reference, a copy of the December 17, 1996 Board Order is attached with the Conditions of Approval for LP962035 (Attachment A) along with the original findings made by the Board on that date (Attachment B) . In compliance with the Court's order, the seven land use permit findings (#8 - #14) for Land Use Permit #LP962035 are restated here with clarification of the evidence in support of each finding: LAND USE PERMIT FINDINGS 8. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. (C.C.C. Ord. Code § 26- 2 .2008 (1) ) Evidence in Support of Finding #8: General 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) . Specific Evidence: As outlined in the plans accompanying the application, the finish of the proposed second unit is to be T-111 plywood siding, with gable roof and with window trim; all finish materials commonly found on residences in the surrounding area and in the County. One of the applicants, Mrs. Tammy George, testified before the East County Regional Planning Commission on August 5, 1996 that the second residence would be finished to match the existing residences, has a roof overhang and will have a bay window. At the Board hearing on November 19, 1996 Mr. Eric Hasseltine, speaking for the appellants, the Tarins and Jacks, conceded that second residences may be allowed in the A-2 (general agricultural) zoning district. At the August 5, 1996 East County Regional Planning Commission meeting, neighbors Mr. Roy Harris and Ms. Loraine Pastor, stated that they had no objections to the second residence being on the property. At the Board's November 19, 1996 hearing on this matter, Supervisor Torlakson said that he found the proposed finish (painting and siding) would make the second residence a "very nice home." He also suggested that the Board require that the second residence be moved behind (east) of an existing shed on site to render the second residence less visible (the Board adopted this suggestion) . Condition of Approval #8 requires that a landscape plan be 3 submitted for the Zoning Administrator review and approval within 30 days of approval and that required landscaping be installed within 90 days of occupancy of the second residence (See Attachment A) . As stated by the County Health Department, Environmental Health Division in their memo of February 1, 1996, on a previous (but related) land use request (LP952100) on the site, the second residence will have to be properly connected to an on site sewage disposal system approved by the Contra Costa Health Department (See memo attached to Zoning Administrator staff report, June 10, 1996. ) As stated by the County Health Department, Environmental Health Division, in their memo of February 1, 1996 on a previous (but related) land use request (LP952100) on the site, the second residence will have to be connected to a suitable domestic water well meeting construction, water quality and sustained yield standards applicable to new wells (See the memo attached to Zoning Administrator staff report, June 10, 1996. ) As stated by the County Health Department, Environmental Health Division, in their memo of February 1, 1996 on a previous (but related) land use permit request (LP952100) , any abandoned on-site wells and septic systems will have to be destroyed in accordance with Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division regulations (See the memo attached to Zoning Administrator staff report, June 10, 1996. ) In their May 2 , 1996 comments on LP962035, the Contra Costa Fire District stated that fire sprinklers are required with a 5, 000 gallon reserve water tank for fire fighting purposes. Also, an all weather surfaced road, 16 feet wide, must be provided to within 150 feet of the travel distance to all portions of exterior walls of the second residence. In the August 5, 1996 report to the Planning Commission, staff determined that the permit application process cured any problems arising from the prior lack of a permit. In staff's opinion, the Appellants raised subjective concerns which are satisfied, to a reasonable person, when all the Conditions of Approval for the land use permit are met (See Attachment A) . 9. The proposed project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. (C.C.C. Ord. Code § 26- 2.2008 (2) ) . Evidence: General 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) . specific Evidence: Conditions of Approval #1 and #2 require that the proposed second residence be moved east of the existing shed so that it will be screened to the maximum extent possible and that it be finished with materials normally found on residences (T-111 siding, gable roof, bay window) . At the Board' s hearing on November 19, 1996, Mr. Eric Hasseltine, speaking on behalf of the appellants, the Tarins and Jacks, conceded that a second residence may be allowed in the A-2 general agricultural zoning district. The applicant, Mrs. Tammy George, testified at the August 5, 1996 East County Regional Planning Commission hearing that the siding on 4 the second residence will extend to the new foundation to be located under the second residence. Staff concurs that this design will contribute to the orderly development of property. The staff report to the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator for the meeting of June 10, 1996 determined that an Assessor's Code line crosses the Matteri's property as well as other properties in the area and that the site has not been illegally separated into two parcels. The code line separates areas where a different tax rate is applicable. This fact is shown on Book 20, Page 20 of the County Assessor's map. Condition of Approval #2 of LP962035 requires a common residential siding (T-111 siding) a gable style roof and bay window similar to the plans submitted with the application and common to houses in the area (See Attachment A) . Condition of Approval #8 of LP962035 requires the Zoning Administrator to approve the landscape plans and requires the installation of the approved landscaping in a timely manner (See Attachment A) . One of the applicants, Mrs. Tammy George, at the August 5, 1996 East County Regional Planning Commission hearing outlined planned finishes and roof types for the proposed second residence. The foregoing factors convinced the staff, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors that the second residence would not adversely affect the orderly development of property. 10. The proposed project as conditioned will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County. C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2 .2008 (3) . Evidence: General 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) . Specific Evidence: Condition of Approval #1 for LP962035 requires that the proposed second residence be relocated from its present location on the site to a location easterly of the existing shed, south of the Matteri residence, and away from the access road so that the proposed second residence can be provided maximized screening from nearby residential uses (See Attachment A) . At the June 10, 1996 Zoning Administrator hearing, the Zoning Administrator, after fully considering oral and written testimony and the staff report and recommendation which had addressed this issue and found that this finding could be made, determined that the proposed second residence would not adversely affect property values in light of the specific Conditions of Approval to ensure the preservation of property values. The oral report of planning staff to the East County Regional Planning Commission on August 5, 1996 stated that the applicants wished to bring the second unit into compliance with the County Ordinance Code by obtaining a land use permit. The November 19 , 1996 and December 17, 1996 staff reports to the Board of Supervisors described in detail the meeting and staff' s numerous attempts to address and resolve the appellant' s concerns with staff 's recommended approval of the land use permit. (See resulting Conditions of Approval contained in Attachment A regarding size, location, screening from view, finish materials and landscaping) . 5 The Community Development Deputy Director, Mr Dennis Barry, AICP (American Institute of Certified Planners) , at the November 19 , 1996 Board of Supervisors hearing on LP962035 explained staff' s reasoning in not being persuaded by a conclusionary statement in an appraisal prepared for the appellants which stated that approval of a low cost unit would reduce the value of their residences by 5 to 10%. Staff reasoned that in the absence of any supporting evidence or reasoned analysis, it was evident that this conclusionary statement was made based upon the present condition of the proposed second residence on the site and it did not take into account comparable evaluations of properties that had a single family residence with 'a mobilehome on a permanent foundation which had been through a Zoning Administrator. design review and complied with Conditions of Approval as required for LP962035 (See Attachment A) . Staff therefore concluded that appellants' estimated reduction in value was not based upon any facts comparable to the project as it would be approved, subject to stringent conditions to maintain and preserve property values (See Attachment A) . 11. The proposed project will not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the General Plan. (C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2 .2008 (4) . Evidence: General 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) . Specific Evidence: The staff reports to the Zoning Administrator, East County Regional Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors together with recommended conditions of approval demonstrated that the proposed project was consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan ("General Plan") . Having previously reviewed the applicable elements of the County General Plan, staff recommended that the Board of Supervisors find that the proposed project will not adversely affect the policies and goals of the County General Plan. Specifically, the project will not adversely affect the goals and policies of the Housing Element of the General Plan which calls for adequate and affordable housing available to Contra Costa Residences (Goal 2 of the Housing Element of the General Plan, page 6-106. ) Pr6gram 1-6, Page 6-105 of the County General Plan Housing Element encourages the utilization of alternative housing types such as manufactured housing and mobile homes on foundations through zoning ordinance provisions and other available measures. At the November 19, 1996 Board of Supervisors hearing, one of the applicants, Tammy George stated that the site was used as a family owned peach orchard and that she and her husband need a place to live when they help out with orchard operations. One of the policies of the Conservation Element of the County General Plan encourages farm worker and farm family housing in agricultural areas (Policy 8-48, page 8-41 & 8-42 of the General Plan) . The County Zoning Administrator, at the June 10, 1996 hearing, based on staff 's recommendation and testimony, specifically found that the application was consistent with the General Plan and the policies set forth in the General Plan. The staff report for that hearing indicated that the land use designation for the subject property is "agricultural land" . At the Board hearing on November 19, 1996, the Community Development Deputy Director, Dennis Barry, stated that sprinklers in the second residence would be required for the second residence to comply with the General Plan. (Implementation Measure 10as, 6 Page 10-69 of County General Plan, which requires projects in high fire hazard areas to be reviewed by appropriate fire agency to determine if special fire prevention measures are advisable. ) The staff report to the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator for the hearing of June 10, 1996 determined that an Assessor's Code line crosses the Matteri's property and that the site has not been illegally separated into two parcels. This fact is shown on Book 20, Page 20 of the County Assessor's Map. Code lines separate areas with different tax rates. In staff's opinion, approval of this second residence will further the goals of the County General Plan for the reasons stated above and also, by establishing additional diverse housing opportunities within the Knightsen community, consistent with the cited General Plan policies above. 12 . The proposed project will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2 .2008 (5) . Evidence• General 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) . Specific Evidence: The Conditions of Approval for LP962035 require proper finish to the second residence (Condition #2) , a screened location (Condition #1) , and acceptable landscaping (Condition #8) (See Attachment A) . Condition #4 of the Conditions of Approval for LP962035 sets limits on the hours and days where noisy construction activity can take place. This will minimize the possible adverse effects of construction noise during evening or night hours and on weekends or holidays on neighboring residences (See Attachment A) . Condition #6 of the Conditions of Approval for LP962035 requires that a notice be recorded so that any future owner will be notified that a land use permit for a second residence has been approved and there are Conditions of Approval - to be complied with (See Attachment A) . Condition #7 of the Conditions of Approval for LP962035 requires that a new land use permit be filed if there are any additions proposed to the floor area of the second residence (See Attachment A) . At the June 10, 1996 hearing, the Zoning Administrator determined that compliance with the Land Use Permit process, including appropriate inspections, would insure that the proposed second residence would not become an enforcement problem because the normal administrative apparatus will ensure compliance. At the August 5, 1996 East County Regional Planning Commission hearing, neighbors, Mr. Harris and Mrs. Pastor, stated that they were in favor of the second residence. At the August 5 1996 East County Regional Planning Commission hearing one of the applicants, Tammy George, testified that she did not believe that a small second residence painted to match the existing residence, landscaped and maintained would create a nuisance. Both the County Zoning Administrator and the East County Regional Planning Commission determined that the proposal would not create 7 a nuisance and it is staff's opinion based on its investigation of the application and the above factors that the second residence will not create a nuisance. At the Board's November 19, 1996 hearing, Mr. Hasseltine, speaking for the appellants, The Tarins and Jacks, conceded that second residences may be allowed in the A-2 general agricultural zoning district. 13. The proposed project as conditioned will not encourage marginal development. C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008 (6) . Evidence: General 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) . Specific Evidence: Conditions of Approval #1, #2 and #8 for LP962035 require that the second unit be finished in a material normally used to finish residences, that the site be landscaped, and that the second residence be moved away from the access road and be screened from view behind an existing shed (See Attachment A) . At 'the August 5, 1996 East County Regional Planning Commission hearing, testimony was given by the applicant, Mrs. Tammy George, and the owner, Mr. David Matteri, concerning the finish they wanted for the second residence as compared its present condition. The East County Regional Planning Commission agreed with their suggestions by approving LP962035. The Zoning Administrator specifically found that the proposed second residence would not encourage marginal development in the neighborhood. This finding was made in light of the staff report and recommendation, testimony and documents received for the June 10, 1996 Zoning Administrator hearing, and because a second residence is permitted in the A-2 general agricultural zoning district of the County upon issuance of a land use permit. At the August 5, 1996 East County Regional Planning Commission hearing staff stated that the applicant will have to satisfy the Uniform Building Code (Section 106-1994 Uniform Building Code) requirement for a building permit for the second residence. Compliance with these standards will ensure that development within the neighborhood is not marginal. Staff concurs in this determination. After fully considering staff's statements and both oral testimony and written documents, regarding the size, location, finish materials, landscaping and screening from view set forth in the proposed Conditions of Approval (Attachment A) , the East County Regional Planning Commission determined that marginal development would not occur allowing a second residence on the property. 14. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. C.C.C. Ord. Code §26-2.2008 (7) . Evidence: General 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) . Specific Evidence: At the November 19, 1996 Board hearing, one of 8 the applicants, Tammy George, stated that she and her husband needed a place to live to help with the family peach orchard during the summer and other times of the year. Health and Safety Code Section 17021. 6 (Employee Housing) allows for the exemption of agricultural employee housing from the need for a conditional use permit if 12 or fewer agricultural employees and their families are housed on site. Thus, the state has clearly indicated its intent to allow for additional worker housing in agricultural zones. Here, only one additional housing unit is proposed so that the landowners ' daughter and son-in-law can have a place to stay when they help out by working in the family peach orchard. Staff believes this factual situation establishes special conditions of the property and its location. At the November 19, 1996 Board hearing, Supervisor Torlakson expressed his reasons for recommending approval of the Land Use Permit as required by the Conditions of Approval (see Attachment A) , for the second residence, stating that with proper screening, and agreeing with the comments of the. Knightsen Town Advisory Council which recommended approval, and with the approval by the East County Regional Planning Commission, the fact that the second residence was to be finished in T-111 siding, and because a permit had been issued by the County for a septic tank, he would vote for approval of the land use permit. At the Board' s hearing on November 19, 1996, Mr. Eric Hasseltine, speaking on behalf of the applicants, the Tarins and Jacks, conceded that a second residence may be allowed in A-2 zoning district. The staff report for the East County Regional Planning Commission hearing on August 5, 1996 listed documents attached to the report and was reviewed and used by staff in making its recommendation for approval. These included the Zoning Administrator's recommended Conditions of Approval, a letter from the Knightsen Town Advisory Council recommending approval, plot and elevation submissions, the Parcel Map for MS127-77 which allowed a variance to parcel size, and C.C.C. Ord. Code §82-10. 004 "Required Area Reduced by Public Uses" (road dedications reduced the area of the property from 4 . 97 acres to 4 . 39 acres) . Taken together these factors establish special conditions of the property, its location and surroundings to justify approval of a land use permit for a second residence on this property. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: James & Tammy George APPLICATION NO. LP962035 P. O. Box 1173 Brentwood, CA 94513 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 020-200-003 & -034 OWNER: David & Linda Matteri ZONING DISTRICT: A-2 P. O. Box 37 Brentwood, CA 94513 APPROVED DATE: 9/9/97 EFFECTIVE DATE: 9/9/97 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a land use permit for more than one detached dwelling unit on a lot or parcel of land-subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Interim Community Development Director By: PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. Unless otherwise provided this permit will expire one (1) year from the effective date if the use allowed by this permit is not established within that time. 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 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 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, the item 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 J 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. 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)