Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11161999 - D8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Y Yak ° Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARKY, AICD ,r, - y Cosh COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County y4 DATE: November 16, 1999 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY JOHN W. FORD, ET AL., OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO SUSTAIN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF A SECOND UNIT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED 3704 RANCHO ESTATES COURT, IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Uphold the County Planning Commission's decision to sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval of LP982032 and deny the appeal. FISCAL IMPACT Nene: The cost of the appeal is borne by the Applicant. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Subdivision 7296 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 1969, for 13 lots. The adobe house, which is the subject of application, is located on lot 2. The single story adobe was constructed during the period following World War ll, Circa 1945 . The primary CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION CIF BOARD ON November 16 , 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX The public hearing was OPENED; no appearing to speak; the Board CONTINUED the matter to December 7, 1999, at 1:00 p.m. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY XX UNANIMOUS{ABSENT #III } OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES AYES: NOES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: Darwin Myers (925) 335-1211 ATTESTED 1QyeM e 1 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) Public works Department PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUP RVISORS AN COUNTY ADM S ATOR H:LP982032 Appeal Board Order BY DEPUTY 2 residence on the property, which was constructed during 1993-94, fronts on Rancho Estates Court, with the adobe in the rear yard. The structure was used as a work shed. Subsequently, the Thompson's restored the adobe to its original condition and utilized the structure as a rental unit. On April 30, 1998, an application for a land use permit for a second unit was filed by the Thompsons. The applicant did not request any exceptions to the provisions of the prevailing R-40 zoning district or to the ordinance code sections governing second units (Zoning {ordinance Article 82-24.1002). The application was heard by the Zoning Administrator on August 31, 1998 and was continued to September 14, 1998 for a decision. After evaluating the testimony and other evidence presented, the Zoning Administrator approved the project, subject to conditions of approval, requiring landscaping to soften the view of the structure from rancho Estates Court. The Zoning Administrator's approval was appealed by John W Ford, 3701 North Gate Woods Court, a neighboring property owner whose parcel is adjacent to the rear of the project site. The processing of the appeal was delayed for nearly 1 year at the request of the applicant, during which time the applicant attempted to reach a compromise with the appellant. The effort proved to be unsuccessful. The appeal went to a public hearing before the County Planning Commission on July 13, 1999. After having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all of the testimony and evidence submitted, the County Planning Commission sustained the Zoning Administrator's approval, and denied the appeal. LETTER OF APPEAL On July 23, 1999 the Community Development Department received an appeal signed by 12 neighboring property owners, appealing the decision of the County Planning Commission (a copy of the letter is attached), APPEAL POINTS The appellant's letter identifies 18 appeal points, which are discussed below and are followed by a staff response. Appeal Point #1: The appellant's identify their street addresses and identify themselves as neighboring property owners. Staff Analysis: Comment acknowledged. Appeal Point #2: The proposed location of the second residential unit is in a former house located on the property when the main house, currently used as a single-family home, was constructed. At the time the new home was constructed, the old structure was thereafter utilized as a workshop. Staff Analysis: The use of the adobe after construction of the primary residence can not be documented from County records alone. According to the applicant, the adobe was restored in anticipation of a residential use. See response to Appeal Point #4. Appeal Point#3: Prior to the time when the structure was used as a workshop, the structure had been used for several decades as a residence. The residential use was clearly abandoned when it was 3 >!' converted to workshop use. In fact, when the building permit for the new single-family residence was issued, the County required that the kitchen be removed from the old residence so that it could not be used for residential purposes. Staff Analysis: The appellant is correct. At the time that the building permit was issued for the primary residence and the kitchen removed from the adobe structure, the use of the "adobe" as a residence had ceased. Appeal Point #4: After it had been used as a workshop for some period of time, the owner began unlawfully using the structure for residential purposes. The owner, contrary to the requirement which had been imposed when the new single-family residence was constructed on the lot, re-installed a kitchen in the structure. He then rented out the structure for residential use. _Staff Analysis: in a March 4, 9998 letter, the Community Development Department advised the Thompsons that a land use permit was required for the adobe to be utilized as a second unit. Apparently applicant had assumed that the adobe was a legal non-conforming use; and had undertaken restoration work and used the adobe as a residence. The March 4t" letter indicated that residential use of the adobe would require approval of a land use permit for a second unit. if approved, this land use permit will legalize the residential use. Appeal Point #5: When the County became aware of this illegal use, it required the owner to eliminate the unlawful use. First, the owner, as evidenced by County Pile Z179932B, requested that the use of the structure for residential purposes be allowed as a "legal non-conforming use". The Community Development Department rejected this argument, and instead concluded that the structure's use for residential purposes had been abandoned when the kitchen was removed and the structure was converted to non-habitable use as a workshop. This determination by the County was never contested or appealed by the property owner. Staff Analysis: When advised by the Community Development Department that a land use permit was required for a residential use of the adobe, the applicant submitted a formal request for approval of a second unit. Appeal Point#6: Following the County's determination that residential use of the structure was not legal, the owner decided to see again if he could convert the use into residential by falling under the County's ordinance allowing residential second units in certain structures under certain conditions. This attempt has been in complete defiance of the County's previous determination that residential use of this structure was illegal. Thus, any permitted use under the second unit provisions would have to be satisfied if the second unit were constructed today. Staff Analysis: The March 4, 9998 letter was only intended to advise the Thompson's that there were provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the establishment of a residential use in the adobe. In effect, the County outlined the process to be followed if the property owner wished to pursue a residential use of the adobe. Specifically, approval of a land use permit for a second unit was required. The ordinance code, commencing with Article 82- 24.2, outlines the maximum allowable size of the second unit, parking requirements and other restrictions. The application/site plan indicates that the project is in compliance with these requirements. The filing of the application does not represent "defiance"of County regulations, 4k, : but in fact is the correct process to establish the use legally. Appeal Point#7: It is with this background that the undersigned appellants submit that approval of the application was in error and should be reversed. Staff Analysis: The approval of the request for a second unit is a discretionary decision. The Zoning Administrator and the County Planning Commission reviewed the evidence presented, along with the testimony, and independently each reached the conclusion that the facts supported granting of the land use permit, subject to conditions of approval. Appeal Point#8: The workshop structure is located in extremely close proximity to th(r homes of the undersigned on the adjacent lot. Staff Analysis: The applicant has not requested any variances to the setback requirements of the R-40 Zoning District. These standards require a 20-foot side yard and 25-foot front yard (minimum) and a 15-foot rear yard setback (minimum). The site pl'-''n submitted with the application shows the setbacks of the adobe from the nearest property:boundaries to conform with these standards. It should also be recognized that the adobe is a one-story structure that is approximately 20 feet high. in the R-40 district buildings are allowetc! to be 2% stories or 35 feet in height (maximum). Thus, the siting (and building height) is it. compliance with the applicable standards. Appeal Point#9: The standards for permitting a residential second unit have not'been satisfied in the requested application. Staff Analys+s: The applicant does not provide any information identifying which standards have not been met. The County Planning Commission unanimously voted to sustain the approval of the Zoning Administrator. In rendering their decision, they sustained the findings made by the Zoning Administrator. Appeal Point#10: Under the County ordinance, the structure sought to be used exceeds the square footage permitted. Even accepting the applicants assertion that the unit may encompass up to 1,000 square feet, the structure in fact exceeds such maximum. Staff Analysis: The statement of the appellants is not supported by factual data Conversely, the application is accompanied by a floor plan for the adobe, based on measurements of the interior of the walls of the residence, which yields a useable/total floor area of 942 square feet. Appeal Point#11: Under the County ordinance, the structure sought to be used exceeds the square footage permitted. When applying the correct maximum area for a detached second dwelling unit in an accessory building, the structure exceeds the 600 square foot maximum. Staff Analysis: A second unit is not an accessory building as defined by Section 8244.292 of the Ordinance Code. According to the Ordinance Code, Section 82-24. 9002(4), second units are not allowed to exceed a total floor area of 1,000 square feet, and they are required to meet the residential setback requirements. 5 Appeal Point#12: Under the County ordinance, the parking requirements for the unit have not been satisfied: Staff Analysis: Section 82-24.1006 requires three off-street parking spaces for use in connection with the second unit. In this case, the primary residence has a three-car garage. These three parking spaces that are intended to serve parking needs of the primary and second unit. This meets the requirements of the Ordinance Code. Appeal Point #13: Under the County ordinance, the workshop structure is architecturally incompatible with the primary residence on the lot and with the surrounding neighborhood. The workshop structure is an old-style ranch house, which is now surrounded by large, modern, two-story and single-story homes with great attention to architectural detailing and landscaping. Staff Analysis: The Planning Commission considered the architectural compatibility issue and found the adobe to be unobtrusive. In the field, staff of the Community Development Department recognized a broad range of architectural styles, materials, textures, and colors in the residences within the site vicinity. Consequently, the predominant architectural style of the North Gate area spans a broad range that includes single-story older dwellings, as well as large, two-story modern dwellings. Appeal Point#14: The proposed use also fails to comply with the North Gate Specific Plan (NESP), which was enacted after construction of the structure, but which is applicable to residential units created after adoption of the NGSP. In fact, the North Gate Specific Plan says that it is expressly applicable to Use Permits requested after enactment of the Plan. Staff Analysis: The appellants have asserted that the North Gate Specific Plan (NGSP) applies to the adobe because of the proposed use change from workshop to a residential unit. Assuming the NGSP does apply, the adobe structure can be allowed under the NGSP and the following findings shall be made on this point. The NGSP allows as a conditional permitted use second family dwelling units. Second units are permitted with the approval of the Zoning Administrator subject to certain conditions. The Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the adobe structure on September 14, 9998. The NGSP contains development regulations and other requirements for the construction of 'new' homes. The structure is not new. The structure has existed on the property for approximately 50 years. Only the use of the structure changed over time. As a result, the structure is not required to abide by the regulations and other requirements for new homes. Moreover, it is staff's position that the structure does substantially comply with most of the regulations and requirements in the NGSP. For example, new home'designs are required to blend in with the semi-rural character of the area; exterior building materials of wood, wood shingles and brick are preferred; exterior color should be in earth colors; and bright colors should be avoided (NGSP, page 18). The exterior of the adobe is painted in earth tones and was constructed with traditional ranch house techniques (such as adobe brick and various woods). The adobe structure blends in with the semi-rural character of the area and is one of A k. 5 the few remaining example of the rural architecture that once prevailed in the area. The NGSP requires "new"homes that are built on North Gate and Castle Rock Roads to face these roads (NGSP, page 98). This requirement only applies to `new'homes. It is noted that the adobe structure does not face North Gate Road. The appellants have asserted that the adobe structure is not consistent with the NGSP because the landscaping on the site is not consistent with the requirements of the Plan (See, appeal Point#95). Subdivision 7296 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 9989, which predates the adoption of the specific plan. The landscaping and fencing were created at the time when the main house, which was vested with the approval of SD7296 was constructed which was exempt from the NGSP. The NGSP acknowledges that some uses, which presently exist or may be constructed in the planning area may be inconsistent with the NGSP. In this instance, the NGSP allows exceptions to some of the development requirements, subject to certain findings. The applicant is required to show undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations and the following findings are required to be made: due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations contained in the NGSP deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located. The County has the authority to impose any of the conditions to minimize the impact of the development as proposed (NGSP, page 30). The 50-year old adobe structure is surrounded by large custom homes. It would result in an undue hardship if the architectural compatibility or otherwise allowable residential use of this structure were dictated by buildings constructed a generation later. Other properties in the area have a variety of architectural styles and it was determined, by the Planning Commission's decision that the structure's architectural style is compatible with the area. The fencing and landscaping on the subject lot was installed in 9994 as part of the construction of the main house. The fence was erected to allow privacy in the backyard. Landscaping was planted along the existing fence line, consistent with the other lots located from the site to Oak Grove Road. Moreover, as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to plant additional landscaping in front of the structure. The main house on the subject lot was required to face Rancho Estates Court. The driveway to the main house was not allowed to face or access North Gate Road. This driveway is shared by the adobe structure. It would result in an undue hardship to require the removal of the existing fence and landscaping so that the adobe structure can face North Gate Road.. It would also result in an undue hardship to require the construction of another driveway to serve the adobe structure to allow the structure to face North Gate Road. It would result in an undue hardship to prevent the applicant from utilizing the adobe structure as a second unit. Second units are a permitted use in the area and other properties in the area have the opportunity to apply for second units. The structure was originally constructed as a residential unit and the applicant remodeled the unit back to its original state. 7 The structure's setting, orientation and style were established long before the NGSP constructed in the area. The structure allows a unique opportunity to preserve the original architecture and rural setting of the area Appeal Point#15: The utilization of the workshop structure for residential use fails to follow many of the requirements of the NGSP including, but not limited to, its landscaping which includes no vegetation in the landscaping strip adjacent to North Gate Road, no horse trail adjacent to North Gate Road Gate Road, and a 5-foot solid board wood fence along the North Gate Road frontage. Staff Analysis: See response to Appeal Point #14. Appeal Point#15: Since the requested second residential use is proposed to be located in a structure previously abandoned for residential use, there is no justification for allowing the proposed residential use to evade the requirements for all other residential uses which are created after the enactment of the NGSP. Staff Anal sis: See response to Appeal Point #14. Appeal Point#17: The NGSP does anticipate exceptions to the requirements. However, the NGSP on page 30 requires that the applicant "demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations" and that the County shall be required to make a finding that "due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations contained in the North Gate Area Specific Plan deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located." No such hardship has been or can be shown here. Staff Analysis: See response to Appeal Point#14. Appeal Point#15: The requested permit is not justified by the facts presented in the application under either the Residential Second Unit requirements nor the provisions of the North Gate Specific Plan. Staff Analysis: The appellants have provided their opinion on the appropriateness of granting the land use permit. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors decision will be based on the evidence presented, testimony and pertinent facts. CONCUSIONS The issues and concerns of the appellants were considered by the Planning Commission in reaching its decision. No new information has been submitted by the appellants that would be a basis for overturning the decision of the Planning Commission. OPTION: If the Beard finds merit in upholding the appeal, then direct staff to prepare findings for Board adoption and final Board action on the appeal. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO 25-99 APPEAL—LAND USE PERMIT LP982032 RANDALL &EMILY THOMPSON (Applicants and Owners) JOHN W. FORD; ANDREW W. BISCHEL; LORIE C. BISCHEL, PATRICIA L. DALLACROCE; STUART J. LERNER; KAREN M. LERNER, GLENDOWNER F. KENNY, JR.; PATRICIA ANN KENNY; DOUGLAS L, FASTABEND; KATHERYN A. FASTABENID; BARRY FERN; LAUREL FERN (Appellants) WALNUT CREEK AREA WHEREAS, a request was made by Randall & Emily Thompson (Applicants and Owners) for approval of a land use permit to allow a second twit, and WHEREAS, the project was determined to be categorically exempt from CEQA; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Zoning Administrator on August 3l, 1998 and continued to September lel, 1998 where all persons interested might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, the project was approved by the Zoning Administrator at a continued public hearing on September 14, 1998 subject to modified Conditions of Approval requiring landscaping to soften the structures appearance to Rancho Estates Court; and the approval was appealed by John W. Ford to the County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, public hearing on the appeal was held before the County Planning Commission on July 13, 1999, at which time the applicant's representatives and appellant were able to offer testimony; WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Community Development staff recommended that the County Planning Commission: + Accept public testimony and close the public hearing; Deny the appeal; • Sustain the project approval granted by the Zoning Administrator; and WHEREAS, the Comity Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT :RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission sustains the i decision of the Zoning Administrator. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission sustains tlte Conditions of Approval that were imposed on the project by the Zoning Administrator. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the County Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this Resolution and deliver the sarne to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the planning laws of the State of California; and The instructions by the County Planning Commission to prepare this Resolution were given by motion of the Planning Commission on July 13 1999 by the following vote: AWES: Commissioners-- Clark Kimber, Gaddis, Hanecak. Terrell, Pavlinec NOES: Conunissioners— None ABSENT: Commissioners —Wong ABSTAIN: Commissioners-- None JOANN PAVLINEC Chair County Planning Commission County of Contra. Costa State of California On July 23,1999, the Community Development Department received an appeal of the County Planning Commission's action on this project from the following residents of the project area: John W. Ford, Andrew W. Bischel; Lorie C. Bischel; Patricia L. Dallacroce; Stuart J. Lerner, Karen M. Lerner. Glendowner F. Denny, Jr.; Patricia Ann Kenny-, Douglas L. Fastahend Kathern A. Fastabend Barry Fern; Laurel Fern, I, Dennis M. Barry. Secretary of the County Planning Commission certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on July 13, 1999. ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the Cotntty Planning Commission Contra Costa County State of California DM/sc H:982032.RESt3LL-FION g 71 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2032-98 PER JULY 13 1999 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL Findings A. Land Use Permit Findin&s: 1. The proposed conditional land use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 3. The proposed use will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the policy and goals set by the General Plan. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 5. The proposed use will not create a rlriisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 6. The proposed use will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 7. There are special. conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or SUITOundings are established. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. (Reference Section 26-2.2006 of the Ordinance Code). �r �6 2 B. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings' 1. Traffic: The project as proposed will generate one P.M. peak hour trip. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. Additionally, the project will be required to contribute fees to the County for the local Area of Benefit and transportation improvements in accord with ordinance requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Water: The site is currently serviced by Contra Costa Water District and lies within the District's service area. The District is capable of serving the project. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The site is within Central Contra Costa. Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection; The site lies within 1.5 miles of the fire station at the corner- of Cheyenne and Walnut Avenue. 5. Public Protection, The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. The project will generate a population of approximately three (3 persons per household X 1 unit), which is far below the standard of the Growth Management Element Standard. Additionally, the Sheriff's Office had no comment on this application. 6. Parks & Recreation: The applicant will be required to contribute the standard park dedication fee for the second unit. Presently the park fee. is $2,000.00 per dwelling unit. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: The project will be required to collect and convey all run-off to an adequate natural or rnaninade drainage facility. No portion of the project site lies within an area subject to the 100-year floodplain hazard as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Map. (Reference the Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan) _. r �+ 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development is approved as shown oil plans submitted witil the application, received by the Community Development Departrnent oil April 30, 1998 , subject to final review and approval by the County ZoningAdministrator prior to the issuance of a building permit and subject to the conditions listed below. 2. The second unit and principal'residence exteriors shall be of similar style and design. Prior to issuance of building permits for the second unit, applicant shall submit color samples for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 3. Applicant small comply with the Residential. Second Unit Ordinance - Chapter 82-24 as follows: A. The second residential unit shall provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. B. The second unit shall consist of permanent provisions for food preparation, eating, sleeping, water, and sanitatiorr. C. The second unit shall remain clearly subordinate in size, appearance and location to the principal residence. D. No more than one dwelling unit oil the property may be rented, leased or occupied by persons other than tine property owners. E. Three {3} off-street parking spaces shall be provided on site. Location of the parking must be shown oil the plans for building permit. F. The second unit may not exceed 1,000 square feet in size. 4. 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: _ _. _.__. 4 "You are purchasing a property with a permitfor a residential second unit. This permit carries with it certain conditions that must be rnet by the owner of the property. The permit (LP 982032) is available f-om the current owner or from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department." 5. Prior to exercise of this.land use permit, the applicant shall pay the $2,000.00 park dedication fee. 6. 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. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. if the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 7. Prior to exercise of this land use permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed residential second unit has been connected to Central Contra Costa Sanitary District for sewage disposal services and to the Contra Costa Water District for water supply requirements. 5 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. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National. Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal, construction and industrial. activities as promulgated by the California State 'Water Resources Control Board or any of its Regional Water- Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-Regional II or Central Valley-Region V). B. 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 pennit or proceeding with the project. C. 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. D. Notice of 90-day opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions pertaining to the approval of this permit. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a. 90-day period after the project is approved. E. Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Central County Area of Benefit (multi-family rate) as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. __....... ......... ... ...__. .. _._. .__...... ........ ..... . ........ ........ n Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 13. 1999 - 7:00 P.M. BOARD OF APPEALS I. INTRODUCTION RANDALL & EMILY THOMPSON (Ap lisp ants & Owner , County File ##LP982032: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to conditionally approve a request for a land use permit to establish a residential second unit in an existing structure. Subject property fronts 117 feet on the southwestern side of Rancho Estates Court, approximately 120 feet south of Arbolado Drive, in the Walnut Creek area. Site is addressed#3704 .Rancho Estates Court. (R-40) (ZA: M-16) (CT 3553.02) (Parcel #138-050-009). II. RECOMMENDATION A. Deny the appeal. B. Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the project subject to conditions as attached. III. HEAPING HISTORY The project had a hearing before the Zoning Administrator on August 31, 1998. At that hearing the applicant spoke in support of the request, and two neighboring property owners spoke in opposition (Paul J. Robershotte, 3705 Rancho Estates Court; and Stuart J. Lerner, 3712 Rancho Estates Court). At the hearing a petition signed by 10 neighboring property owners was submitted, that expressed opposition to the project. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing, and continued the project to the September 14, 1998 hearing for a decision. The continuance allowed the Zoning Administrator to fiuther consider the issues raised by neighboring property owners. On September 14, 1998 after viewing the site in the field, the Zoning Administrator indicated that the proposed residence as conditioned would be compatible with the neighborhood, and approved the project. (The staff report from August 31, 1998 is attached, along with the Conditions of Approval for the project and the petition signed by the neighbors.) a S-2 IV. APPEAL The appeal was filed by John J. Ford, 3701 North Gate Woods Court, a neighboring property owner whose parcel is adjacent to the rear of the project site. The appeal was filed on September 23, 1998. At that time the applicant requested a delay in scheduling the appeal for hearing to allow the opportunity for the appellant's concerns to be addressed. In that scenario, the appellant would withdraw the appeal when the plan was revised to accommodate objections. After 6 months with no movement the applicant requested that the appeal be taken to a public hearing. The appeal letter and associated correspondence is presented in Exhibit A. Exhibit B includes the correspondence and documents submitted by the applicant and applicant's attorney, Patricia Curtin (Gage, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong) documenting the applicant's efforts to work constructively with the appellant and legal opinions on the merits of the appeal. V. APPEAL IN.TS & ANALYST The appeal letter lists 10 appeal points but no supporting documentation was provided. The appeal points and staff analysis are as follows: A. Appeal Point#1: I own property and reside at#3701 North Gate Woods Court, Walnut Creek, California, which property is immediately adjacent to the subject property. Response. Comment noted. Figure 1 (top) shows the location of the appellant's parcel in relation to the site. This figure is a key to views for photographs. Figure 1 (bottom) is looking northeast from the North Gate R- oad/North Gate Woods Court intersection. In the muddle ground of the photograph is North Gate Woods Court (which goes from the right to left across the photograph). The lawn area on the far side of North Gate Woods Court is on the appellant's property. The wood fence beyond the lawn is the property line with the applicant. Figure 2 (top) is a telephoto from the same viewpoint. In the foreground is the appellant's property. The red-roofed structure behind the fence is the second unit that is the subject of the application. �f S-3 Figure 2 (bottom) is a view of the appellant's property from North Gate Woods court. Mote the pillars to the left of the residence. Figure 3 (top) is a view from the pillars to the applicant's property. The building just beyond the fence is the second unit that is the subject of the application. Figure 3 (bottom) is a view of the Adobe (i.e., second unit) from the rear yard of the applicant's parcel. B. Appeal Point#2: The proposed location of the second residential unit is in a former house located on the property when the main house, currently used as a single family home, was constructed. At that time the new home was constructed, the old structure was thereafter utilized as a workshop. e pDnsee: The one-story Adobe was constructed as a residence just after World War 11. When the primary residence on the parcel was constructed.in 1990, the property owner did not have entitlement to use the Adobe as a second unit without issuance of a land use permit. if LP982032 is approved, the Adobe can.be used as a second unit. C. Appal Point #3: The workshop structure is located in extremely close proximity to my home on the adjacent lot. Respgnse: The Adobe is setback 34.5 feet from the property line with the appellant's parcel. The applicant's property is zoned R-40, and the Adobe complies with all setback requirements of the R-40 district. Though the structure in question exists,conceivably, the second unit ordinance would allow a second unit to be laced as close as 15 feet from the appellant's property. D. Appeal .Point #4: The standards, both factually and legally, for permitting a second residential unit have not been satisfied in the requested application. Response: The appellant has not identified any specific deficiency of the "factual and legal standards" that led to the action on this project by the Zoning Administrator. No exceptions were granted to the steps routinely followed in the processing of this land use permit application. E. .Appeal Point 45: The workshop structure is architecturally incompatible with surrounding homes. The workshop structure is an oldstyle ranch house, which is now surrounded by large, modern two-story and single story homes with great attention to architectural detailing and landscaping. S-4 Response: The property is zoned R-40, and there are no architectural standards in the R-40 district. The residence has an architecture and character representative of the North Gate area prior to the residences constructed during the past 15 years±. There remain a number of farm houses in the North Gate Specific Plan area, and these 1940's and 1950's structures are small and rather simple architecturally by today's standards. F. Anneal Point 96: The proposed use also fails to comply with the North Gate Specific Plan(NGSP), which was enacted after construction of the structure, but which is applicable to residential units created after adoption of the NGSP. The utilization of the workshop structure fails to follow many of the requirements of the NGSP, including, but not limited to, its failure to front North Gate Road, no horse trail adjacent to North Gate Road, and a 6-foot solid board fence along the North Gate Road frontage. Response: The North Gate Specific Plan does not speak to the issue of second units. The appeal point makes several specific points which will now be addressed. The North Gate Specific Plan requires residences adjacent to the road to be one-story and to face the road. The Adobe is one story and faces North Gate Road. The use of 6-foot high solid wood fencing along North Gate Road is not be consistent with the Specific Plan, but as the appellant notes, the Rancho Paraiso Subdivision preceded adoption of the Specific Plan. The Site Plan submitted by the applicant indicates the primary residence faces north, toward Rancho Estates Court, the Adobe faces west, and is setback approximately 90-feet from North Gate Road. With regard to the issue of the solid wood fence, its removal would result in loss of the applicant's rear yard privacy. The conditions of approval of the second unit do not address the issue of the solid wood fence. The trail along the North Gate Road frontage of the applicant and appellant's parcels is an asphaltic concrete path (see Figure 1 bottom), of the type installed within projects processed after adoption of the North Gate Specific Plan. Consequently the trail does not appear to be an issue. G. Appeal Point#7: Since the requested second residential use is proposed to be located in a structure previously abandoned for residential use, there is no J-5 justification for allowing the proposed residential use to evade the require- ments for all other residential uses which are created after the enactment of the NGSP. Response: The project has not evaded County requirements. The applicant was required to apply for a land use permit, and the Adobe meets the setback, building height, parking standards and floor area requirements of the Ordinance Code for second units. The Zoning Administrator considered the second unit not to be in conflict with the Specific Plan requirements. H. AWeal Point#8: In accordance with the NGSP, the goal of community design was to preserve the semi-rural character of the specific plan area. Specifically, a decision which would allow two residential units when single family homes must be constructed on one acre parcels is contrary to the intent of the Plan and threatens the intended semi-rural character of the area. Response: In granting the approval the Zoning Administrator made the necessary findings, and that determination requires the exercise of judgment. One of the findings regards special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property. In this case, the Adobe was considered an 50+ year old residence that is a reflection of the historic character of the North Gate area, prior to the relatively recent construction boom. Moreover, it has been restored to its original condition, and it complies with the Ordinance Code standards for second units. The Zoning Administrator must also find that the application would not adversely affect the policies and goals of the General Plan; will not create nuisance or enforcement problems; will not encourage marginal development; and other findings, as outlined in the September 14, 1998 Findings and Conditions of Approval, which are attached. The County Ordinance Code does not specifically reference Specific Plans, but the record indicates that the Zoning Administrator considered the North Gate Specific Plan in reaching the decision. 1. Appeal Point 99: The NGSP does anticipate exceptions to the requirements. However, the NGSP on page 30 requires that the applicant"demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations" and that the County shall be required to make a finding that"due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations contained in the North Gate Area Specific Plan deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located." S-6 No such hardship can be shown here and, in fact, the surrounding properties do not have two residential units located on their properties. Response: The applicant has not requested any exceptions to the North Gate Specific Plan. The issue to be resolved by the Board. of Appeals is to determine how the Specific Plan applies to second units, particularly how it relates to treatment of the North Gate Road frontage of the site. I Anneal Point#10: The requested permit is not justified by the facts presented in the application and no demonstration of undue hardship was presented. Response: The appellant has made a statement of opinion, not fact. No exceptions are required to County Ordinance Code provisions regulating second units, and there is no requirement of"hardship" for second units. VI. OPTIONS Should the Planning Commission wish to find a compromise, the focus of that effort could be on the North Gate Road frontage of the applicant's parcel. Currently there is a 6-foot high fence located just behind the road right of way. The following condition, if required by the Board of Appeals, would improve views of the site from North Gate Road without unduling interfering with the rear yard privacy of the applicant. A. Submit a landscape plan for the North Gate Road frontage of the site, for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall show a 6- foot high solid wood fence setback 15-feet from the road right of way. Between the road and fence the plan shall provide for a mix of ground cover, shrubs, evergreen trees and landscape mounds. The intent of these plantings is to screen views of the site (and fence) and enhance views of the site from the scenic corridor. The landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect, and the plan shall be certified as compliant with the Water Conservation Ordinance. ... ......... ......_.. __. .. _.. _. ._ .. _...... ......................................... .. . s` ':Ian•`�{� a�r J-7 Option If Code Findings Cannot be Made Should the Commission determine that one or more land use 'permit ordinance findings cannot be made for this project, than the Commission should specify the findings which cannot be made and adopt a motion to grant the neighbor's appeal and deny the project. DM/aa LPXII2432-98. M 613199 r. �r Agenda Item # Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY AUGUST 31 1998 - 1:30 P.M. L INTRODUCTION RANDALL & EMILY THOMPSON (AMlicants & Owners), County File #LP982032; The applicants request approval to establish a residential second unit in an existing structure. Subject property fronts 117-feet on the southwestern side of Rancho Estates Court, approximately 120-feet south of Arobolado Drive, in the Walnut Creek area. Site is addressed #3704 Rancho Estates Court. (R-40) (ZA: M- 16) (CT 3553.02) (Parcel #138-050-009). 11. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the second unit with conditions. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: Single Family Residential-Very Low Density. B. Zo_ nina: R-40 - 40,000 square foot minimum parcel size. C. CEQA Status: The project is exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Site Description: The subject property has two defined building sites with an uphill slope along the western and southern boundaries. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division: Payment of Area of Benefit fee required. B. Building Inspection Department: Structure to be evaluated by a registered civil or structural engineer to seismic safety. C. Central, Contra Costa Sanitaty District: Sewer service is planned. S-2 D. Comments were requested of the following advisory groups or agency and were not received: Roundhill Property Owners Association. E. The following agencies had no comments: County Health Services Department - Environmental Health Division, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting to establish a residential second unit of 924 square feet. VI. STAFF ANALYSISMISCUSSION A. Appropriateness of Use: The addition of a residential second unit is an appropriate land use in the R-40 zoning district. B. Site Plan Analysis: The applicant's proposal to convert an existing structure to a 924 square foot residential second unit consisting of 2 bedrooms, living room, kitchen, and bath is in keeping with the character of the existing residence and the surrounding area.. The existing structure is an adobe house built following World War II and has been restored to its original condition. The location of the second unit along the site of the property will not block views to neighbors. The proposed unit is setback approximately 80-feet from Rancho Estates Court and has limited visibility to the Court. The structure meets the requirements of the second unit ordinance as outlined in Section 82- 24.1002 of the County Code. The subject property is 40,075 square feet and meets the minimum average lot width requirements of the R-40 zoning district and all the design requirements of the second unit ordinance. C. General Plan/Zoning Compliance: The proposed project is consistent with the Single Family Residential-Very Low Density General Plan designation and the R-40 zoning district. D. County File 4Z17932B: Prior to filing the application, the applicant requested the department determine if a land use permit was needed to occupy the existing adobe structure as a residential second unit. Based on staff's review of the information provided, the structure was converted to a non-habitable space, and the legal non-conforming status expired at that time. Subsequently, the property owner converted the unit to a habitable',structure, therefore, requiring the second unit application. DJC/aa LPXV 2032-98.DJC 8/12./98 ._. ............. .. ...._. _. ......... ..... ........ ..._..... ....... ........ .__ . Otero Household Miller Household Carter Household 3716 Rancho Estates Court 3719 Rancho Estates Court 3715 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Elzien Household Glendovvner F.Kenny, Jr. Douglas L. Fastabend 3728 Rancho Estates Court Patricia Ann Kenny Katheryn A. Fastabend Walnut Creek,CA 94598 3728 Rancho Estates Court 3723 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Patricia L.Dallacroce William McMahon&Karen Gordon Peter&Claudia Polidori 3701 North Gate Woods Court 3629 Shukla Ct. 3625 Slrukla Ct. Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Carmine Villani Scott Pipo&Gloria Pickhover Robert&Donna Mullarkey 3621 Shukla Ct. 3745 Waterford Ln. Family Rev Mullarkey, Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 3749 Waterford Ln. Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Alberto&Ana Virginia Guzrnan Stuart Lerner&Family Revoca Lerna Barry&Laurel Ferns 3702 Rancho Estates Ct. 371.2 Rancho Estates Ct. 3475 Sutcliffe Ct. Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Bruce&Iola Bordelon John Ford James&Mary Ellen Pappas 3705 Rancho Estates Ct. 3701 Northgate Wood Ct. 3690 Oak Creek Ct, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Nevin Andersen Thomas&Kathryn Loughran Randall Thompson 2735 Corte Marie 3994 Canyon Way 3704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Martinez,CA 94553 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Andrew W. Bischel 3708 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek,CA 94598 John J. Ford 3701 North Gate Woods Court Walnut Creels,California 94596 925.934.2030 voice 925.935.9613 fax Via Hand Delivery ..n July 21, 1999 i Mr. Dennis M. Darry,AICP Community Development Director f Community Development Department :': , fj Contra.Costa County 651 Pine Street 4"Floor,forth Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re: Land Use Permit Application Randall &Emily Thompson(Applicant and Owner),County File 4 LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: This letter will serve as our formal appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned are property owners whose property rights and the value of their property is adversely affected. In support of this appeal, the undersigned assertall of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application, the objections raised in the hearing before the Planning Commission Board of Appeals, and the objections set forth in this filing. In support thereof,we assert the following: I. John J. Ford and Patricia L. Dallacroce own property and reside at 3701 North Gate Woods Court, Walnut Creek, California, which property is immediately adjacent to the subject property. Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C. Bischel own property and reside at 3708 Rancho Estates Court, Walnut Creek, California, which property is immediately adjacent to the subject property- 2. roperty2. The proposed location of the second residential unit is in a former house located on the property when the main house, currently used as a single family home, was constructed. At the time the new home was constructed, the old structure was thereafter utilized as a workshop. 3. Prior to the time when the structure was used as a workshop, the structure had been used for several decades as a residence. The residential use was clearly abandoned when it was converted to workshop use. In fact, when the building permit for the new single family residence f Mr. Dennis M. Darry, AICD July 21, 1999 Page 2 was issued, the County required that the kitchen be removed from the old residence so that it could not be used for residential purposes. 4. After it had been used as a workshop for some period of time, the owner began unlawfully using the structure for residential purposes. The owner, contrary to the requirement which had been imposed when the new single family residence was constructed on the lot, re- installed a kitchen in the structure. He then rented out the structure for residential use. 5. When the County became aware of this illegal use, it required the owner to eliminate the unlawful use. First,the owner,as evidenced by County File Z179932I3, requested that use of the structure for residential purposes be allowed as a"legal non-conforming use". The Community Development Department rejected this argument, and instead concluded that the structure's use for residential purposes had been abandoned when the kitchen was removed and the structure was converted to non-habitable use as a workshop. This determination by the County was never contested nor appealed by the property owner. 6. Following the County's determination that residential use of the structure was not legal,the owner decided to see again if he could convert the use into residential by falling under the County's ordinance permitting residential second units in certain structures under certain conditions. This attempt has been in complete defiance of the County's previous determination that residential use of this structure was illegal. Thus,any permitted use under the second unit provisions would have to be satisfied as if the second unit were constructed today. 7. It is with this background that the undersigned submit that the determination below in approving the Application was in error and should be reversed. 8. The workshop structure is located in extremely close proximity to the homes of the undersigned on the adjacent lot. 9. The standards for permitting a residential second unit have not been satisfied in the requested Application. 10. Under the County ordinance, the structure sought to be used exceeds the square footage permitted. Even accepting the applicants assertion that the unit may encompass up to 1,000 square feet, the structure in fact exceeds such maximum. 11. Under the County ordinance, the structure sought to be used exceeds the square footage permitted. When applying the correct maximum area for a detached second dwelling unit in an accessory building,the structure exceeds the 600 square foot maximum. 12. Under the County ordinance,the parking requirements for the unit have not been satisfied. 13. Under the County ordinance, the workshop structure is architecturally incompatible Mr. Dennis M. Darty, AICP July 21, 1999 Page 2 with the primary residence on the lot and with the surrounding neighborhood. The workshop structure is an old style ranch house, which is now surrounded by large, modern, two story and single story homes with great attention to architectural detailing and landscaping. 14. The proposed use also fails to comply with the North Gate Specific Plan(NGSP), which was enacted after construction of the structure,but which is applicable to residential units created after adoption of the NGSP. In fact, the North Gate Specific Plan says that it is expressly applicable to Use Permits requested after enactment of the Plan. 15. The utilization of the workshop structure for residential use fails to follow many of the requirements of the NGSP, including,but not limited to, its landscaping which includes no vegetation in the landscaping strip adjacent to North Gate Road, no horse trail adjacent to North Gate Road, and a six foot solid board wood fence along the North Gate Road frontage. 16. Since the requested second residential use is proposed to be located in a structure previously abandoned for residential use,there is no justification for allowing the proposed residential use to evade the requirements for all other residential uses which are created after the enactment of the NGSP. 17. The NGSP does anticipate exceptions to the requirements. However, the NGSP on page 30 requires that the applicant"demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations"and that the County shall be required to make a finding that"due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,topography, location or surroundings,the strict application of the regulations contained in the North Gate Area Specific Plan deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located". No such hardship has been or can be shown here. 18. The requested permit is not justified by the facts presented in the Application under either the Residential Second Unit requirements nor the provisions of the North Gate Specific Plan. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. C�d4rewTW. Eischel *. Fbrd Lorie C. Bischel Patricia L. Dallacroce 3708 Rancho Estates Court 3701 North Gate Woods Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 r F.A9 Community �.1���# Dennis M.Barry,AiCP Development community Development Director Department L Costa County Administration Building County "y 551 Pine Street t• - � a„ 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 :. PhDA35-1214 4 John J. Ford 3701 North Gate Woods Ct. Walnut geek, CA. 94598 Dear Mr. Ford: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated July 21, 1999 for application#LP982032 which was approved by the County Planning Conunission on July 13, 1999. R"uestcd Payment of 25 PQSting Fee In the event that the County ultimately approves this project, an approval may be subject to legal challenge. The legal exposure can be reduced by the timely posting of a Notice of Exemption (from the California Environmental Quality Act). The Notice is posted by the Cominunity Development Department following a final project approval decision. Posting of a Notice of Exemption will allow for a 35-day statute of limitations period for filing a legal challenge against the project. If no Notice of Exemption is posted, then the statute of limitations for filing of legal challenges against the approval extends 180-days from the project approval date. In order to be in a position to post a Notice of Exemption at the earliest possible date, we request payment of a $25 posting fee to coves- the charge of the County Clerk's office. Checks for the $25 fee should be made payable to the County of Contra Costa and submitted to the Community Development Department with the other requested materials. Your appeal will be heard by the Board of Supervisors, You will be notified by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the Board. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:oo p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd&5th Fridays of each month If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 335-1214. Sincerely yo s, r Robert H. rake Principal Planner RHD/df L5:.bos cc: File/aa Public Works Attn: Heather Ballenger Randall Thompson REQUEST fO RECEIPT Planner: #.mac c s` ©ate: T, 1" Payer: J 0 V,v, , t t 0( T�rj ((cc c v o c-,e. `Application Nbr: 10 `z Concurrent App Nbr(List All) Prefix Code Purpose of Deposit (S-Code) Amount CLERK'S POSTING FEE(F&G) ADMIN FEE (F &G) --041W` CASHiCHECK TOTAL: $ � ✓ PLEASE ATTACH COPY OF APPLICATION FORM JOHN J. FORD 91-119 1287 PATRICIA L, DALLACROCE 12210) {510} +334-2034 �} 701 NORTH GATE WOODS CT DATE---�������- --I WA UT CREE A 84558 PAY r�OLLARs WELLS FARGGO BA ;t +4- 2 10 119 0; 12183 7 01033 1 18��� oe ! �@ o 0PC)fi Co4- July 21, 1999 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Darry, AICP Community Development Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4'�Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re: JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Land Use Permit Application Randall & Emily Thompson(Applicant and Owner), County File# LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: This letter will serve as our formal joinder in support of the appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned is a property owner who lives in the neighborhood of the subject property and whose property rights and the value of his property is adversely affected. In support of this joinder,the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application, the objections raised in the hearing before the g Commission Board of Appeals,and the objections set forth in the appeal file s by John J. Ford, Patricia.L. Dallacroce,Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie gA3%ehel. Respectfully submitted, 7l1 o Estates Court Walnu reek, CA 94598 July 21, 1999 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Darry, AICP Community Development Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Sheet 4'Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re: JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Land Use Permit Application Randall &Emily Thompson(Applicant and Owner), County File# LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: This letter will serve as our formal joinder in support of the appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned is a property owner who lives in the neighborhood of the subject property and whose property rights and the value of his property is adversely affected. In support of this joinder,the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application,the objections raised in the hearing before the Planning Commission Board of Appeals,and the objections set forth in the appeal filed this date by John J. Ford,Patricia L. Dallacroce,Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C. Bischel. Respectfully submitted, � f Douglas L. astabend Katheryn A. Fastabend 3723 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 July 21, 1999 Via bland Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Darry, AICP Community Development Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 41h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: JOINDER IN SUPPORT"OF APPEAL Land Use Permit Application Randall &Emily Thompson(Applicant and Owner), County File#LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: This letter will serve as our formal joinder in support of the appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned is a property owner who lives in the neighborhood of the subject property and whose property rights and the value of his property is adversely affected. In support of this joinder,the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application,the objections raised in the hearing before the Planning Cornmission Board of Appeals, and the objections set forth in the appeal filed this date by John J. Ford, Patricia L. Dallacroce,Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C. Bischel. Respectfully submitted, Glendower F. Kenny,Jr. Patricia Ann Kenny Trustees of the Kenny RevocableTrust 3728 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 July 21, 1999 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Darry, AICP Community Development Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4'Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Land Use Permit Application Randall & Emily Thompson(Applicant and Owner), County File# LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: This letter will serve as our formal joinder in support of the appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned is a property owner who lives in the neighborhood of the subject property and whose property rights and the value of his property is adversely affected. In support of this joinder,the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application,the objections raised in the hearing before the Planning Commission Board of Appeals,and the objections set forth in the appeal filed this date by John J. Ford, Patricia L. Dallacroce, Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C. Bischel. Respectfully submitted, r Stuart erner Kare . Lerner Trustees of the Lerner Family Revocable Trust 3712 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 4x Re:Public hearing-County File#LP982032 Randall&Emily Thompson To whom it may concern: As neighbors to the above mentioned property,we have been advised and/or informed of the current owners request to establish a residential second unit in an existing structure on the property. We individually and collectively wish to state our opposition to said request for the following reasons: l. Rancho Estates Court is a collection of 13 single family residences,the majority of which were custom designed for each family. All the current owners of the properties are the original purchasers. There are no rentals on this street,nor are there any appurtenant structures,such as smother-in-law quarters,to any home on this street with the exception of the old adobe home on the Thompson's property, This home was left unrated by the original developer so that the purchaser of the lot could use this home for an in-law unit. It was not intended to be an income property for the purchaser of the lot. We do not feel that it is in keeping with the neighborhood to allow a multi-use situation to exist on a street of custom designed million dollar homes, 2. We understand and were advised when we purchased the lots on Rancho Estates Court that North Gate was a joint planning effort between Walnut Creek and Contra Costa County with the intent to limit density while preserving the agricultural nature of this unique area.We object to it becoming a rooming house for people who are neither property owners nor related to property owners in this development. It is not in keeping with nor does it comply with,in our opinion,the intent and purpose of the North Gate Specific Plan. 3. To the best of our knowledge no rental units have been allowed in any of the surrounding developments(i.e.Rancho Paraiso.) We do not believe an exception should be made for the Thompsons at the expense of the rest of the neighbors. -Phis adobe home does not conform to the architectural standards of the neighborhood,nor does it conform to the North Gate Specific Plan which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet for each single family home. It was left standing strictly as a convenience for the homeowner to use as an in-law quarters. It has neither a garage nor a separate entrance for access. We are concerned about the potential impact on traffic,parking, sanitation and certainly,not least,the impact on the market value of our homes. We do not feel that approval of this request is in the best interests of the neighbors and strongly urge you to decline this request. nw 372 PA AX-A0 S�AV- C CT_ `fi 35 �&`qL/ 37tL lc'Rn�c�o sr'Arerr' G7' `f3'�-��9�� 2ZLF2 C1 eEkjes 0+ 9th- f r i � 7 2 3 / o s 1�a Docs ` ✓ '— 9c 3 VCA r ,/ , Agenda Item Community Development Centra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SAY. JULY 13, 1999 - 7:00 P M BOARD OF APPEALS I. INTRQDIICTIQN RANDALL L er , County File #LP982032. An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to conditionally approve a request for a land use permit to establish a residential second unit in an existing structure. Subject property fronts 117 feet on the southwestern side of Rancho Estates Court, approximately 120 feet south ofArbolado Drive, in the Walnut Creek area. Site is addressed#3704 Rancho Estates Court. (R-40) (ZA; M-16) (CT 3553.02) (Parcel #138-050-009). II. RECOMMENDAIMN A. Deny the appeal. B. Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the project subject to conditions as attached. III. HEARING HISTOR The project had a hearing before the Zoning Administrator on August 31, 1998. At that hearing the applicant spoke in support of the request, and two neighboring property owners spoke in opposition (Paul J. Robershotte, 3705 Rancho Estates Court; and Stuart J. Lerner, 3712 Rancho Estates Court). At the hearing a petition signed by 10 neighboring property owners was submitted, that expressed opposition to the project. The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing, and continued the project to the September 14, 1998 hearing for a decision. The continuance allowed the Zoning Administrator to further consider the issues raised by neighboring property owners. On September 1.4, 1998 after viewing the site in the field, the Zoning Administrator indicated that the proposed residence as conditioned would be compatible with the neighborhood, and approved the project. (The staff report from August 31, 1998 is attached, along with the Conditions of Approval for the project and the petition signed by the neighbors.) ya'A S-2 Ill. APPEAL The appeal was filed by Jahn J. Ford, 3701 North Gate Woods Court, a neighboring property owner whose parcel is adjacent to the rear of the project site. The appeal was filed on September 23, 1998. At that time the applicant requested a delay in scheduling the appeal for hearing to allow the opportunity for the appellant's concerns to be addressed. In that scenario, the appellant would withdraw the appeal when the plan was revised to accommodate objections. After 6 months with no movement the applicant requested that the appeal be taken to a public hearing. The appeal letter and associated correspondence is presented in Exhibit A. Exhibit B includes the correspondence and documents submitted by the applicant and applicant's attorney, Patricia Curtin (Gage, McCoy, McMahan chi Armstrong) documenting the applicant's efforts to work constructively with the appellant and legal opinions on the merits of the appeal. V. APPEAL PMTS & ANALYSIS The appeal letter lists 10 appeal points but no supporting documentation was provided. The appeal points and staff analysis are as follows: A. ,appeal Point#l: I own property and reside at#3701 North Carate Woods Court, Walnut Creek, California, which property is immediately adjacent to the subject property. R-eap!Qnse: Comment noted. Figure 1 (top) shows the location of the appellant's parcel in relation to the site. This figure is a key to views for photographs. Figure 1 (bottom) is looking northeast from the North gate R- oad/North Grate Woods Court intersection. In the middle ground of the photograph is North Gate Woods Court (which goes from the right to left across the photograph). The lawn area on the far side of North Gate Woods Court is on the appellant's property. The wood fence beyond the lawn is the property line with the applicant. Figure 2 (top) is a telephoto from the same viewpoint. In the foreground is the appellant's property. The red-roofed structure behind the fence is the second unit that is the subject of the application. S-3 Figure 2 (bottom) is a view of the appellant's property from North Gate Woods court. Note the pillars to the left of the residence. Figure 3 (top) is a view from the pillars to the applicant's property. The building just beyond the fence is the second unit that is the subject of the application. Figure 3 (bottom) is a view of the Adobe (i.e., second unit) from the rear yard of the applicant's parcel. B. AVpeal Point#2: The proposed location of the second residential unit is in a former house located on the property when the main house, currently used as a single family home, was constructed At that time the new home was constructed, the old structure was thereafter utilized as a workshop. Response: The one-story Adobe was constructed as a residence just after World War 11. When the primary residence on the parcel was constructed in 1994, the property owner did not have entitlement to use the Adobe as a second unit without issuance of a land use permit. If LP982032 is approved, the Adobe can be used as a second unit. C. Appeal Point #3: The workshop structure is located in extremely close proximity to my home on the adjacent lot. Responssc: The Adobe is setback 34.5 feet from the property line with the appellant's parcel. The applicant's property is zoned R-40, and the Adobe complies with all setback requirements of the R-40 district. Though the structure in question exists conceivably, the second unit' ordinance would allow a second unit to be placed as close as 15 feet from the appellant's property. D. Anneal Point #4: The standards, both factually and legally, for permitting a second residential unit have not been satisfied in the requested application. Response: The appellant has not identified any specific'deficiency of the "factual and legal standards" that led to the action on this project by the Zoning Administrator. No exceptions were granted to the steps routinely followed in the processing of this land use permit application. E. A4"e Point#5: The workshop structure is architecturally incompatible with surrounding homes. The workshop structure is an old style ranch house, which is now surrounded by large, modern two-story and single story homes with great attention to architectural detailing and landscaping. S-4 The property is zoned R-40, and there are no architectural standards in the R-40 district. The residence has an architecture and character representative of the North Gate area prior to the residences constructed during the past 15 years±. There remain a number of farm houses in the North Gate Specific Plan area and these 1940's and 1950's structures are small and rather simple architecturally by today's standards. F. A c Point#b. The proposed use also fails to comply with the North Gate Specific.Plan(NGSP), which was enacted after construction of the structure, but which is applicable to residential units created after adoption of the NGSP. The utilization of the workshop structure fails to follow many of the requirements of the NESP, including, but not limited to, its failure to front North Gate Road, no horse trail adjacent to North Gate Road, and a 6-foot solid board fence along the North Gate Road frontage. Reponse: The North Gate Specific Plan does not speak to the issue of second units. The appeal point makes several specific points which will now be addressed. The North Gate Specific Plan requires residences adjacent to the road to be one-story and to face the road. The Adobe is one story and faces North date Road. The use of 6-foot high solid wood fencing along North Crate Road is not be consistent with the Specific Plan, but as the appellant notes, the Rancho Paraiso Subdivision preceded adoption of the Specific Plan. The Site Plan submitted by the applicant indicates the primary residence faces north, toward Rancho Estates Court; the Adobe faces west, and is setback approximately 90-feet from North Gate Road. With regard to the issue of the solid wood fence, its removal would result in loss of the applicant's rear yard privacy. The conditions of approval of the second unit do not address the issue of the solid wood fence. The trail along the North Gate Road frontage of the applicant and appellant's parcels is an asphaltic concrete path (see Figure 1 bottom), of the type installed within projects processed after adoption of the North Gate Specific Plan. Consequently the trail does not appear to be an issue. G. An _Point,#7. Since the requested second residential use is proposed to be located in a structure previously abandoned for residential use, there is no S'5 justification for allowing the proposed residential use to evade the require- ments for all other residential uses which are created after the enactment of the NGSP. sponse: The project has not evaded County requirements. The applicant was required to apply for a land use permit, and the Adobe meets the setback, building height, parking standards and floor area requirements of the Ordinance Code for second units. The Zoning Administrator considered the second unit not to be in conflict with the Specific Plan requirements. H. A=eal Point#8: In accordance with the NGSP, the goal of community design was to preserve the semi-rural character of the specific plan area. Specifically, a decision which would allow two residential units when single family homes must be constructed on one acre parcels is contrary to the intent of the Plan and threatens the intended semi-Waal character of the area. Reser nse: In granting the approval the Zoning Administrator made the necessary findings, and that determination requires the exercise of judgment. One of the findings regards special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property. In this case, the Adobe was considered an 50+ year old residence that is a reflection of the historic character of the North Gate area, prior to the relatively recent construction boom. Moreover, it has been restored to its original condition, and it complies with the Ordinance Code standards for second units. The Zoning Administrator must also find that the application would not adversely affect the policies and goals of the General Plan, will not create nuisance or enforcement problems, will not encourage marginal development; and other findings, as outlined in the September 14, 1998 :Findings and Conditions of Approval, which are attached. The County Ordinance Code does not specifically reference Specific Plans, but the record indicates that the Zoning Administrator considered the North Cate Specific Plan in reaching the decision. I. Ap ep al Poing#9: The NGSP does anticipate exceptions to the requirements. However, the NGSP on page 30 requires that the applicant"demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations" and that the County shall be required to make a finding that"due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations contained in the North. Gate Area Specific Plan deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located." l..�.wa el S-6 No such hardship can be shown here and, in fact, the surrounding properties do not have two residential units located on their properties. $espons : The applicant has not requested any exceptions to the North Gate Specific Plan. The issue to be resolved by the Board. of Appeals is to determine haw the Specific Plan applies to second units, particularly how it relates to treatment of the North Gate Road frontage of the site. J. Appel Point#10: The requested permit is not justified by the facts presented in the application and no demonstration of undue hardship was presented. Respme: The appellant has made a statement of opinion, not fact. No exceptions are required to County Ordinance Code previsions regulating second units, and there is no requirement of"hardship" for second units. VI. OPTIONS Should the Planning Commission wish to find a compromise, the focus of that effort could be on the North Gate Road frontage of the applicant's parcel. Currently there is a 6-foot high fence located just behind the road right of way. The following condition, if required by the Board of Appeals, would improve views of the site from North Gate Read without unduling interfering with the rear yard privacy of the applicant. A. Submit a landscape plan for the North Gate Road frontage of the site, for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall show a 6- foot high solid wood fence setback 15-feet from the road right of way. Between the road and fence the plan shall provide for a mix of ground cover, shrubs, evergreen trees and landscape mounds. The intent of these plantings is to screen views of the site (and fence) and enhance views of the site from the scenic corridor. The landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect, and the plan shall be certified as compliant with the Water Conservation Ordinance. S-7 Opflon If Caden in s Cmat U Made Should the Commission determine that one or more land use permit ordinance Findings cannot be made for this project, than the Commission should specify the findings which cannot be made and adopt a motion to grant the neighbor's appeal and deny the project. DM/aa LPX.II2032-98. M 6/3/99 >r FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT 2032-98 PER JULY 13 19}9 COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL ' Findings A. Land Use Permit Findings: 1. The proposed conditional land use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 3. The proposed use will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the policy and goals set by the General Plan. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 5. The proposed use will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem. within the neighborhood or community. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 6. The proposed use will not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. 7. There are special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Evidence: Staff Report S-2. (Reference Section 26-2.2006 of the Ordinance Code). 2 B. Growth Management Element Performance Standards Findings 1. Traffic: The project as proposed will generate one P.M. 'peak hour trip. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. Additionally, the project will be required to contribute fees to the County for the local Area of Benefit and transportation improvements in accord with ordinance requirements prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Water: The site is currently serviced by Contra Costa Water District and lies within the District's service area. The District is capable of serving the project. 3. Sanitary Sewer: The site is within. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection; The site lies within 1.5 miles of the fire station at the corner of Cheyenne and Walnut Avenue. 5. Public Protection; The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. The project will generate a population of approximately three (3 persons per household X 1 unit), which is far below the standard of the Growth Management Element Standard. Additionally, the Sheriff's Office had no comment on this application. 6. Parks & Recreation: The applicant will be required to contribute the standard park dedication fee for the second unit. Presently the park fee is $2,000.00 per dwelling unit. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: The project will be required to collect and convey all run-off to an adequate natural. or nnanniade drainage facility. No portion of the project site lies within an area subject to the 100ryear floodplain hazard as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Map. (Reference the Growth Management Element, Chapter 4, of the General Plan) fT+ J CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development is approved as shown. on plans submitted with. the application, received by the Community Development Department oil April 30, 1998 , subject to final review and approval by the County Zonings Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit and subject to the conditions listed below. 2. The second unit and principal residence exteriors shall be of similar style and design. Prior to issuance of building; permits for the second unit, applicant shall submit color samples for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, 3. Applicant shall comply with the Residential Second Emit Ordinance - Chapter 82-24 as follows: A. The second residential.unit shall provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. B, The second unit shall consist of permanent provisions for food preparation, eating, sleeping, water, and sanitation. C. The second unit shall remain clearly subordinate its size, appearance and location to the principal residence. D. No more than one dwelling unit on the property may be rented, leased or occupied by persons other than the property owners. E. Three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on site. Location of the parking must be shown oil the plans for building;permit. F. The second unit may not exceed 1,000 square feet in size. 4. 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: ;/y J T "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(LP 982032) is available from the current owner or from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department." 5. Prior to exercise of this land use permit, the applicant shall pay the $2,000.00 park dedication fee. b. 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 casts through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation.. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional. fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 7. Prior to exercise of this land use permit, the applicant shall provide evidence that the proposed residential second unit has been connected to Central.Contra Costa Sanitary District for sewage disposal services and to the Contra Costa Water- District for water supply requirements. 5 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. The applicant shall. be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board or any of its Regional. Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-Regional II or Central Valley-Region V). B. 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. C. 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. D. Notice of 90-day opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions pertaining to the approval of this permit. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et sen., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval.. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. E. Applicant shall cornply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Central County Area of Benefit (multi-farrrily nate) as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item.# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY AUGUST 31 1998 - 1:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION RANDALL & EMILY THOMPSON (Applicants & Owners , County File #LP982032; The applicants request approval to establish a residential second unit in an existing structure. Subject property fronts 117-feet on the southwestern side of Rancho Estates Court, approximately 120-feet south of Arobolado Drive, in the Walnut Creek area. Site is addressed 93704 Rancho Estates Court. (R-40) (ZA: M- 16) (CT 3553.02) (Parcel 4138-050-009). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the second unit with conditions. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: Single Family Residential-Very Low Density. B. Zonin : R-40 - 40,000 square foot minimum parcel size. C. C:EQA Status: The project is exempt under- Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act. D. Site Description: The subject property has two defined building sites with an uphill slope along the western and southern boundaries. IV. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Public Works Department - Engineering Services Division: Payment of Area of Benefit fee required. B. Building Inspection Department: Stricture to be evaluated by a registered civil or structural engineer to seismic safety. C. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District: Sewer service is Manned. ' . r S-2 D. Comments were requested of the following; advisory groups or agency and were not received: Roundhill Property Owners Association. E. The following agencies had no comments: County Health Services Department - Environmental Health Division, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is requesting to establish a residential second unit of 924 square feet. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION A. Appropriateness of Use: The addition of a residential second unit is an appropriate land use in the R-40 zoning district. B. Site Plan Analysis: The applicant's proposal to convert an existing structure to a 924 square foot residential second unit consisting of 2 bedrooms, living room, kitchen, and bath is in keeping with the character of the existing residence and the surrounding; area. The existing structure is an adobe house built following World War II and has been restored to its original condition. The location of the second unit along the site of the property will not block views to neighbors. The proposed unit is setback approximately 80-feet from Rancho Estates Court and has limited visibility to the Court. The structure meets the requirements of the second unit ordinance as outlined in Section 82- 24.1002 of the County Code. The subject property is 40,075 square feet and meets the minimum average lot width requirements of the R-40 zoning district and all the design requirements of the second unit ordinance. C. General Plan/Zoning Compliance: The proposed project is consistent with the Single Family Residential-Very Low Density General Platt designation and the R-40 zoning district. D. County File 4Z17932B: Prior to filing the application, the applicant requested. the department determine if a land use permit was needed to occupy the existing adobe structure as a residential second unit. Based on staffs review of the information provided, the structure was converted to a non-habitable space, and the legal non-confor:rn.in,g status expired at that time. Subsequently, the property owner converted the unit to a habitablestructure, therefore, requiring; the second unit application. DJC/aa r.,Pxr/ 2432-98.DJC 8/12/98 11 ........._...__.. . ...... ...._.... ..._..... ........ . .. _..... ......... ............. ......._._................. ......... ................_..._..........-__... .............. ......... 1.11 n Community Contra l Jnr*C.Barry, e itster3rn G3rrxriurrrty D(ivetc+pmerrt Director Development Costa Department Cour�J County Administration Building `1 551 Pine Street 4th Floor, North ding Martinez,California 94553-0095 ++ Phone: 335-1210 March 4, 1998 Randall Thompson 3704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Dear Mr. Thompson: RE: Request for Determination, 3704 Rancho :Estates Court I have received your letter of February 18, 1998 regarding the above reference. You have requested that the County determine whether or not a land use permit is required to occupy, by lease or rental, an existing small abode house located on the subject property. The information that you have provided to substantiate your request includes three affidavits by Williarm Hembree, Mary Grace Davidson, and Barbara Regier, and additionally a letter from Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Furthermore, you have provided building permit records to demonstrate when the new primary residence was constructed on the property in 1993 and electrical permits for the adobe house in 1994. In determining whether or not the adobe structure would be subject to aland use permit for a second unit under the County Ordinance Code, I have reviewed Section 82-8.406, "Non- con.forming Uses" and County Code Section 82-24.2 "Residential Second Units". While it may be evident from the information provided that the adobe structure predates zoning, it appears from your February 18, 1998 letter that you have expanded or have improved the structure beyond its original construction. Section 82-8.006, "Non-conforming Uses" is defined as follows: "An existing; non-confonming use may be extended or enlarged if its owner first obtains a land use permit." C Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:917 a.m.-5:99 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd&5th Fridays of each month 2. The records on file with the County Community Development indicates that a request to expand or enlarge a non-conforming use has not been applied for. The County residential second unit was adopted in July, 1988 to superseded the state statutes regulating the construction of second units. At the time of the adoption by the State, a second unit could not exceed 640 square feet in size and could not be rented or leased. With the adoption of the County Second Unit Ordinance in July, 1988 the Ordinance provided that a unit could be a maximum of 1,000 square feet in size and rented or leased. Furthermore, Section 82-24.408 "Legal Non-conforming Second Unit" means "a second unit which presently constitutes a non-conforming second unit at which, at its time of construction, did not comply with applicable zoning district regulations effecting that property". Your request to rent or lease the existing adobe structure on your property is considered expanding or extending a legal non-confortning use, and would fall under this section of the code. To determine whether or not the adobe is legal non-conforming, we would need to know if the adobe structure has been used as a living structure and that use was not interrupted for a period of six months or more. However, I would conclude from the building permit for the electrical connection to the adobe structure issued by the Building; Inspection Department on December 29, 1994, that the adobe structure was not used as a habitable structure. Based on records fi-om the Building, Inspection Department, it appears that the electrical pen-nit was issued for an uncondition workshop space and not for use as habitable space. Therefore, any legal non-conforming status has expired. In order to establish a second unit legally on the subject property, a land',use permit must be applied for and approved by Contra Costa County. The filing fee for such a use is $1,000.00 plus time and materials when you cost exceeds 120%. 1 have enclosed an application form and applicable information for your use. Please review the backside of the application for the submittal requirements, including one set of stamped (NOT METERED) self-addressed envelopes for the property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. Should you have any questions or need additional infon-nation, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN Senior Planner DJC/aa LT2/Adobe.DJC cc: Z1987932B lz-1.4 a� Randall & Emily Thompson 3744 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Office phone number(514) 935-5566 February 18, 1998 co Ms. Debbie Chamberlain r,.. , Community Development Department County Administration Building , 651 Pine St. , 4th Floor, North Wing X Martinez, CA 94553-11095 ��, t� ��► RE: Request for Determination, 3704 Rancho Estates Court, Walnut Creek, Assessors Parcel Number: 138-050-009. Dear Ms . Chamberlain: I am submitting this Letter pursuant to our discussions late last year in order to request a determination that ',a use permit is not required for the occupancy, by lease or rental, of the existing small adobe house located on my property at 3704 Rancho Estates Court, Walnut Creek. Dan Curtin suggested that I work with you on this matter and I apologize that it has, been so long since you and I met, but it took me awhile to obtain the notarized statements and background information that I am forwarding herewith. As you may recall from our conversation, the adobe house was constructed in the period immediately following World War II and has existed at the site for approximately fifty years. The structure has been meticulously restored by me to its original condition and it is an excellent example of historical California architecture common to the period and the vicinity. I respectfully request that the county determine that no use permit should be required for occupancy of this existing structure in consideration of the materials submitted herewith and for the reasons set forth below. 1. My wife and I constructed our residence on the subject parcel, zoned R-40, between October, 1993 and July, 1994 . My records do not indicate any requirement by the county regarding the adobe structure. In fact, in the following year of 1995, I applied for and received a permit for the connection of electricity to the adobe structure and received a final inspection clearance on the electrical service connections on approximately June 14 , 1995 . 1 have at your request enclosed copies of the all records presently obtainable by me from the county building inspection department relating to my property. 2 . The structure has been in existence for many years. At your suggestion, I tried to obtain information regarding the structure from the Assessor' s Office but was unable to obtain information from that source. Therefore, I am submitting with this letter notarized statements from three local residents or neighbors who are familiar with the history of the small adobe house and can testify to its long-standing existence at the site. additionally, I enclose a letter from Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) in which a project engineer confirms that PG&E records show electrical service to the site at least back to the year 1950. Please nate that the former address of the adobe residence was 500 North Gate Road. Please retain these original notarized documents regarding the property in my file in case I require their use later. Thank you. 3 . The small adobe house is well constructed and meets the requirements for a second dwelling unit under the current applicable county ordinance number 82-24.1002, to wit : a. The subject lot is nearly one acre in size and therefore contains a net building site area substantially exceeding the required 5, 000 square feet. B. The total floor area of the small adobe house is approximately 960 square feet and thus meets the requirements regarding the maximum total floor area of a second unit . Nevertheless, it is a completely functional home with a kitchen, two bedrooms, a living room/dining area and a full 1 bath. C. The one story second unit satisfies height, set back and lot size requirements in that it is one story and is set back approximately 21 feet from the nearest property line. The combined "footprints" of bath the main house and the small adobe house are substantially below the maximum structural lot coverage of forty percent . Please note that the rendering of the adobe house in the enclosed site plan is not to scale (.it is not as large as it appears on the drawing) as the site plan is submitted to show you the location of the structure on the lot and to indicate the setbacks from the nearest property lines. D. The unit has a separate entrance not visible from the street front area and has access to ample on- site parking. In fact, the structure is barely noticeable from the street and can be, if required, further obscured from view through the use of landscape plants native to the area. E. The small adobe house is reasonably architecturally compatible with the semi--rural equestrian character of the. neighborhood (in fact the immediate neighborhood embraces a wide variety of architectural styles in its many custom home designs) as well as with the primaryresidence on my lot in that it is similar in color and materials to the primary structure on the parcel. 4 . The structure represents traditional construction techniques unique to the area which have historical significance. I have painstakingly restored the structure to its original condition including careful replacement of glass in existing casement' windows that were common to the period, restoration of an old growth redwood entry door, preservation of existing period the work and restoration of other original features of this structure. In summary, I believe that the county should not require a use permit for the occupancy or rental of this small adobe house ,primarily because the county has not to my knowledge ever imposed requirements relating to or limiting the occupancy of the house f& or requiring its demolition.. I do not believe that any requirements were made at the time of subdivision of the parcels creating my lot, nor at the time that permits were 'issued for construction of my personal residence in 1993 or at the time a permit was granted (and final inspection approved) in 1995 for the connection of electrical service to the adobe structure itself . I am hopeful that it is determined that no, use permit will be required for the rental or occupancy of the unit for additional reasons relating to it' s historical significance, it' s compatibility with the area, it' s conformance with the currently applicable statutes regarding second dwelling units', it' s long term existence at the site, and last but not least, , it' s irreplaceable status as a historically significant structure on the slopes of Mount Diablo. I appreciate any assistance that you might give me with respect to avoiding the requirement for obtaining a use permit given the facts and circumstances of this particular structure. If you require any further information or data regarding the structure, I would be happy to provide it to you. .Please don' t hesitate to call me at the above phone number or to contact me at the above address at your earliest convenience regarding this matter. I have enclosed a check made out to Contra Costa County in the amount of $140 to cover fees applicable to this request for determination letter. Again, thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, Randall L. Thompson EAT: ph encls . __ Cit Of Walnut Creek ------------ tra QSL Applicant Property y; ' °• 5 ANCMC C-3 T As s CT f ,s ` Appellant Property •��+ .M1 '�r'l,N" � ��: :•i1M yam... ! SHA Dolv.YPIROCK, r > rbx$ {y { Figure 1 l Key To Views & Graphic Scale: Photograph A sap) 250' e 0 � _ � � .ww.oawo.0 � T'M•'�� � ��° ., _ ,� � �� �. ' ...! �t t h J i ��._ +. � " } - y �:: i �� , f' f "t d� ;�+# llbwd -4'W 59>�i� H. ; .._d. ;_`. �. � � �� :' .., �, d o .t�.::�;;.;.�:;;,, fxd i - � ra 55 `3 q b Tkt } f s �if3 '�'_ '... ..- ...� -..... ..._ � -y_ 1 eery � �' � � ,4' �, � �. 4? �� a.- P • - .r .�� �y ". P � �, s•> { q 0 0 { 0 R O b ' s �.., `�$ r# �:.. r.. `:t•- c ..�r .• ... _.;�."..-.0c"._:.._. �.. _,t's.� +44t is`'t 7^ � -.. .: :..mow { .�'. �' ��G 4 k3 y r 5 /.� � S�� �f5 f �ff /� l4 i i :.G: � nfr 71 t+.c4" \4 5 f a .j f y j} • • ' � <r �y 9, F hs f� I�rr►. k E� { s ,F _ ..__...-p._....-w---- h ` s PlIN r � co all INA �t ._.... _ - = , Ilk 1 r n 1 � { f } i i J I 1 t �• I TCC) 0 - I � irN j All �j „ +hr 4 j J M nt 5 [t u � I � 1 K� i { I i 1 1 a Ff 4 _ t VT it I 'L t3 1 .. t i i ' d I � _- O f �► 1 - ` t IATJ�S cam {; W,&Ua�Ceog,, � s 14 E r tt MIAI _'G2 MaU w �'. A All 0't i , 414 Ilk + t J q EXHIBIT A Appeal Letter & Related Correspondence d iliilRfk COSTA Jahn.J. Pard 3701 North Gate Woods Court 98 SE? 24 AM 9: 20 Walnut Creek,California 94598 925-934-2030 Phone ts;r�st°a-<�� �. �_.,. ' ;nit-'NI �,iPT, 925-93.5-961.3 Fax 1 September 23 1998 Dennis M. Darty,AICP Community Development Director Community Development Department Centra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553 Re: Land Use Permit Application Randall&Emily Tompson(Applicant and fawner),County File#LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court,Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: The undersigned hereby appeals the decision of the Community Development Director and the Bounty Zoning Administrator of September 14, 1998 under the above referenced application number when it grantee!the Land Use Permit requested by the applicants, The undersigned is a property owner whose property rights and the value of his property is adverse affected. In support of this appeal,the undersigned assert as follows: 1. 1 own property and reside at 3701 North Gate Woods Court,Walnut Creels, California,which property is immediately adjacent to the subject property. 2. The proposed location of the second residential unit is in a former house located on the property when the main house,currently used as'a single family home,was constructed. At the time the new home was constructed,the old structure was thereafter utilized as a workshop. 3. The workshop structure is located in extremely close proximity to my home on the adjacent lot. 4. The standards,both factually and legally,for permitting a second residential unit have not been satisfied in the requested Application. 5. The workshop structure is architecturally incompatible with surrounding homes. The workshop structure is an old style ranch house, which is now surrounded by large,modern two story and single story homes with,great attention to architectural detailing and landscaping. �3 V 6. The proposed use also fails to comply with the North Gate Specific Plan (NGSP),which was enacted after construction of the structure,but which is applicable to residential units created after adoption of the NESP. The utilization of the workshop structure.fails to follow many of the requirements of the NGSP,including,but not limited to,its failure to front North Gate Road,no horse trail adjacent to North Gate Road,and a six foot solid board fence along the North Gate Road frontage. 7. Since the requested second residential use is proposed to be located in a structure previously abandoned for residential use,there is no justification for allowing the proposed residential use to evade the requirements for all other residential uses which are created atter the enactment of the NGSP. 8. In accordance with the NGSP,the goal of community design was to preserve the semi-rural character of the specific plan area. Specifically,a decision which would allow two residential units when single family homes must be constructed on one acre parcels is contrary to the intent of the Plan and threatens the intended semi-rural character of the area. 9. The NGSP sloes anticipate exceptions to the requirements. However,the NGSP on page 30 requires that the applicant"demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations"and that the County shall be required to make a finding that `due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property,including size,shape,topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the regulations contained in the North Gate Area Specific Plan deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located.." No such hardship can be shown here and,in fact,the surrounding properties do not have two residential units located on their properties. 10. The requested permit is not justified by the facts presented in the Application and no demonstration of undue hardship was presented. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal,..., Jo J. 1~o. 1+�y x!01 Nort e Woods Court Walnut Creek,CA 94598 community ,., Contra comm M.����,,Acme ,��' Community Development Dinactor Df'.VE?lC3�3tT#ent r""^ t Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street `a 4th Floor,North Wing fi Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 335-1210 cwt September 28, 1998 Randall & Emily Thompson 3704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Lear Mr. & Mrs. Thompson: This letter serves as notification that your application LP982032 has been appealed (see attached letter). You will be notified of the date in which your application will heard. Please note that in order to proceed promptly with the scheduling of this appeal, you should submit 9 full sized maps for the Board of Appeals no later than October 12, 19}8. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Darwin Myers at 335-1210 or 370-9330. Sincerely yours, Robert Brake Senior Planner Attachment Rd/df L 5:lp982032.map Office!-lours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st,3rd&5th Fridays of each month Community Contra ,�,,, Comm it , pme Community Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street „y u 4th door,North Wing "•`` Martinez,California 84553-7095 Phone: 335-1210 n . September 28, 1998 John J. Ford 3701 North trate goods Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Dear Mr. Ford: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated September 23, 1998 for application #LP982032, which was approved by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 1998. Your appeal will be beard by the County Planning Commission Board of Appeals. This office will notify you, by letter, when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the County Planning Commission. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call .Darwin Myers at 335-12 10 or 370-9330. Sincerely yours, Robert H. Drake Senior Planner RHD/df L5:LP982032.apl cc: File/aa Public Works Attn: Heather Ballenger Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:0o a.m.-5:0o p.m. Office is closed the 1 st,3rd&5th Fridays of each month Community Oe+nnis M.Barry,AICD Community Contra „r..r Crxrxmm4 Development CirecOr Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Ping street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 335-1210 September 28, 1998 Randall&Emily Thompson 3704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Dear Mr. &. Mrs. Thompson: This letter serves as notification that your application LP982032 has been appealed (see attached letter). You will be notified of the date in which your application will heard. Please note that in order to proceed promptly with the scheduling of this appeal, you should submit 9 full sized maps for the Board of Appeals no later than Uctabgr 12. 1998, If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Darwin Myers at 335-1210 or 370-9330. Sincerely yours, 7' 'A� /" Robert Drake Senior Planner Attachment Rd/df L5:1p982032.map Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st,3rd&5th Fridays of each month Community �,r Contra � Commis carry,apex Community Dev+aiapment Clifecior aevekopment Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Moor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 335-1210 September 28, 1998 John J. Ford 3701 North Gate Woods Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Dear Mr. Ford: This tetter acknowledges receipt of your tetter of appeal dated September 23, 1998 for application #LP982032, which was approved by the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 1998. Your appeal will be heard by the County Planning Commission Board of Appeals. This office will notify you, by letter, when the appeal has been scheduled for bearing before the County Planning Commission. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Darwin Myers at 335-1210 or 370-9330. Sincerely yours, Robert H. Drake Senior Planner RHD/df L5:LP982032.apl cc: File/aa Public Works Attn: Heather Ballenger Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the ist,3rd&5th Fridays of each month {i3:", EXHIBIT B Response Of Applicant To Appeal __. _... .. _. r / LAW OFFICES OF rc� ' (tAGLN, MCCOY, MCMAMON 8c ARMSTRONG W LLtA?I,i1-.i SQIIE,,-LPI+. + A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE PATRI'i�jjYll(1 MCMAt " ?„ �` q 'x'79 FRONT a0 STREET PATRICK J. MCMA ON 1#14 ti.r - ts. b. EO2iB MARX iitt,,�,,,,, G LiNN X ,i �M65 �i� DANVILLE, CALM FC7RNIA 9452+8-{72iB { TELEPHONE: (925) 637-0585 STEPHEN W TH9MA.9 i-�1"9.l. ,�� ty•. FAX: 1925) 838-S9815C HARLfet,,lp�l gVCxiS�$� MICHkL.fMA RXOWiTZ. NAPA VALLEY OFFICE MICHAELL W W. CARTER A ril y 9 1999 THE OFFICES AT SOUTHHR10.. RICHARD C. RA<NES p 1 1.7 7 7 VICTOR J. CONTI ! 1030 MAIN STREET, SUITE 212 BARPJARA DUVAL JEWELL ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574 ROBERT M. F'ANUCCI TELEPHONE: (707) 963-0909 ALLAN C. MOORE FAX: (707) 963-5527 PATRICIA E. CURTIN STEPHEN T EiUEHL PLEASE REPLY TO: ALEXANDER L SCHMID AMANDA JUDGE Danville AL1 P. HAMIDI Mand-Delivered Bob Drake Community Development Dept, Centra Costa County 651 Pine Street,No. Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: LP982032ISecond Unit Applicant: Randall and Emily Thompson Appellant: John Ford Dear Mr. Drake: I have been retained by Randall and Emily Thompson to assist them in securing approval of the existing second unit on their property at 3704 Rancho Estates Court in Walnut Creek. I spoke with you several days ago to bring you current on the extensive negotiations my clients have had with Mr. John Ford, the appellant in this matter. I also briefly explained why Mr. Ford should not be permitted to pursue his appeal. Mr. Ford intentionally failed to make his comments on the second unit known to the County before the Zoning Administrator approved the unit. This failure to comment deprived the Zoning Administrator and the Thompson of the opportunity to hear and address Mr. Ford's concerns. This letter further explains our position on these two items. L Summary of Relevant Facts After two public hearings,on September 14, 1998,the Zoning Administrator approved the Thompson's request to establish a second unit on their property. The second unit has existed on the property for about 50 years. In approving the unit,the Zoning Administrator determined that the second unit was consistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations, would not require any variances and would not block views of the neighbors. On September 23, 1998, Mr. Ford sent a letter to the Community Development Department requesting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. An appeal hearing has not yet been scheduled. U . Bob Drake April 19, 1999 Page 2 Prior to submitting the appeal letter, Mr. Ford did not express his objections on the second unit to the County. We are not aware that Mr.Ford submitted written objections to the County prior to or at the Zoning Administrator hearing. In addition,he did not provide testimony at the Zoning Administrator hearing nor did he sign the petition that was circulated amongst the neighbors objecting to the second unit. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to Mr. Ford as indicated by the mailing list in the County file. H. NWgtlations h Mr. Ford Since the appeal letter was submitted,the Thompsons have repeatedly and diligently attempted to address Mr. Ford's issues expressed in his letter. The Thompson's not only spoke to Mr. Ford on numerous occasions but also wrote letters. The letters prepared by the Thompsons are attached and are dated October 12 and 30, and November 23, 1999. No written correspondence was prepared by Mr. Ford. As shown in the letters, the Thompsons offered to provide landscaping to further block Mr. Ford's view of the second unit and invited Mr. Ford to make further suggestions to ensure that the structure was practically unnoticeable from his property. Specifically,the Thompsons offered to install additional landscaping and/or a lattice fence between the properties. Mr. Ford made numerous promises to work out a compromise with the Thompsons but Mr. Ford never followed through. This seems to indicate that Mr. Ford is really not concerned with the second unit nor serious about the appeal. We believe he tiled the appeal merely as a delay tactic to prevent the Thompsons from securing approval of the unit. Our believe is substantiated by the fact he never timely expressed his objections even though he had an opportunity to do so and was aware of the 'Thompson''s application. III. I pro.Per Appeal Mr.Ford raises two main issues in his appeal:(1) the second unit is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations and(2)the second unit is inconsistent with the North Cate Specific flan(NGSP). As already stated, Mr.Ford never expressed his concerns to the County before or at the Zoning Administrator's hearing. Moreover, no person raised the issue that the second unit was inconsistent with the NGSP. (As confirmed by County staff, the NGSP does not apply to this matter.) Based on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and due to the inherent unfairness of this appeal, Mr. Ford should not be allowed to pursue the appeal. At at a minimum,he should not be allowed to raise for the first time on appeal the issues relating the NGSP. Bob Drake April 19, 1999 Page 3 The exhaustion doctrine requires an objector who challenges an administrative decision to raise,at each stage of the administrative process, all legal and/or factual issues. If an objector fails to do so, that person is precluded from raising the issue at a later proceeding. The court in Morgan v Comrnunit Redevelgpment Aencu (1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 243, 259, stated that the "(fjailure to raise an issue in protest at a public hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to have that issue determined by the council or the court." Also see,Sea&Sage Audubon Society,Inc v PlanningCommission(1983)34 Cal.3d 412. The exhaustion doctrine exists to allow the administrative body the opportunity to receive and respond to legal or factual issues before that agency's action is challenged. The doctrine is similar to the general rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Park Area Neiihbars v.Town ofFairfax(1994)29 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1447. The exhaustion doctrine is not a matter of discretion;rather it is a jurisdictional prerequisite to further review. California Aviation Council vCounty ofAmador(1988)20 Cal.App.3d 337, 340. The Zoning Administrator is vested with the authority to make final decisions on this permit. Mr. Ford was provided every opportunity to raise his objections before the Zoning Administrator. He was mailed notice of the hearing and elected not to raise his objections at or before that time. It would be inconsistent with the exhaustion doctrine and inherently unfair to allow Mr.Ford for the first time to raise his issues on appeal. Such precedent would invite persons to intentionally bypass a final decision making body and wait to raise their concerns with the appellate body. Moreover,it would be unjust to permit the Thompsons to go through the Zoning Administrator hearing only to be surprised,by way of an appeal, to find out that an individual was intentionally holding out on his comments that should have came out at the Zoning Administrator proceeding.Mr.Ford should have followed the proper procedures and expressed his concerns before a decision was made by the Zoning Administrator. If Mr. Ford is permitted to pursue his appeal, he should be informed that he will be required to pay actual staff time and materials generated by the appeal. This obligation is the responsibility of the appellant as explained in the brochure entitled`Application Decisions and the Appeal Procedure." I would like to meet with you to discuss the issues raised in this letter. We would like to have these issues resolved as soon as possible. As a result, I invite you to meet with me at your earliest convenience so we can finalize this matter. Bob Drake ,April 19, 1999 Page 4 I will call you in the next few days to schedule a meeting. (--Verytrul yours, Patricia E. Curtin PEC/ka Enclosures cc: Catherine K.utsuris .Darwin Myers Randall and Emily Thompson F:\CLPEC\31453\DmkeO4O84tr.wpd Randall Thompson 3 704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 October 12, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. John J. Ford 3701 North Gate Woods Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Re: Land Use Permit Application,County File# LP983032 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ford: I have received your letter of September 23, 1998, in which you appealed the decision of the County Zoning Administrator to approve my application for a legal second dwelling unit in the small adobe house located on my property. It was the first time that I had been made aware of your concerns regarding the structure,and I would like to meet with you to discuss ways in which your concerns might be addressed. In view of our proximity to one another, I would very much like to be a good neighbor to you. The adobe house was built about 50 years ago and certainly predates most of the buildings in our area. I have spent a lot of time and money restoring it to its original condition and there are no county requirements that require its demolition. When I bought my property,I ascertained that the property would meet the requirements of the county ordinance for a second dwelling unit and I do not believe its use as such will have much of an impact upon you. I do appreciate your concerns that the structure is visible from your home and I would like to meet with you to discuss plantings that I could make which should totally obscure your view of the structure in a relatively short period of time. I understand that you are concerned about the application of the North Gate Specific Plan ("NGSP")to my property. Please understand that the entire Rancho Estates Court subdivision was essentially exempted from the design standards of the NGSP because the subdivision was approved prior to enactment of the NGSP and was"vested"at the time of the construction of my home. As a result, my home does not face North Cate Road,and the solid fence was erected to obscure views into the back yard. I am sorry if the NGSP requirements have caused you inconvenience, but if the issue is the appearance of my fence along North Gate Road,I want you to know that I am willing to discuss with you landscaping solutions that will improve the appearance of that area as well. I had attempted earlier plantings in that area,but they were destroyed by vandals. I figure that with the new development in the area, any new plantings should be safe and again, I would welcome your input on what you would like to see there. Obviously, the larger concern to you is the adobe structure. I am not a large corporate developer, and simply want to be left alone in my property, to be a good neighbor and to continue living quietly in our neighborhood. State legislation and the county ordinances encourage the Mr. and Mrs. John J. Ford October 12, 1998 Page 2 establishment of second dwelling units and the ordinance allowing such unitsis specifically applicable to properties such as ours with R-40 zoning. Please note that second family dwelling units are permitted by the NESP (p. 17) and that the small size of the adobe is actually required by the ordinances as it is not allowed to exceed 1000 square feet. Its closest point to your property line is 34 feet, which greatly exceeds the applicable set back requirement. It is built of native materials and is painted in earthtone colors and I am willing to take whatever reasonable landscaping steps that you require to fin Cher soften or obscure its appearance. I understand your concerns and really wish to work with you to address them. Some properly placed,quick growing Sycamore trees and other landscaping should',make the existence and occupancy of the adobe virtually unnoticable from your home and yard. I apologize that I was not aware that anything on my property was a problem for you. Please call me at my office (925-935-5566) if we can meet and discuss ways that we might address your concerns without resorting to the county appeals process. If I do not hear from you,I will call you next week to attempt to schedule such a meeting with you. I will work hard to be a good neighbor to you and to address the issues you have raised. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Very truly yours, Randall Thompson Randall Thompson 3704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 October 30, 1998 Mr. John J. Ford 3701 North trate Woods Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Re: Passible Landscaping Solutions in re: Land Use Permit Application, County File # LP982032 Dear Jahn: Thank you for coming over last Saturday to discuss potential landscaping that could obscure the view from your home of my adobe structure. I know you were going to discuss the matter with your wife and in the meantime, I have come up with a couple of ideas for your consideration. Enclosed is a rough computer generated image of one possibility. In the raised area under the pine trees, about 3 feet on my side inside of the fence, I could build an eight foot high lattice fence that I believe would immediately shield the adobe from your view whip looking good from both sides. If you wished, I could plant ivy that would soon cover the structure like a"living wall." I think that this solution might be a good one. Additionally, I would plant quick growing trees, possibly as indicated on the attached site plan. I have been looking into types of evergreens that would have broad canopies yet retain their leaves. In short order,the placement of these trees, especially in conjunction with the lattice wall if you desire,should make the adobe virtually invisible from your property. Obviously, I am hoping that we can agree on steps that will allow you to withdraw your appeal,which I have ascertained can be done by a simple letter from you to the county.T"o proceed before the planning commission would cost me a great deal of time and money, and I honestly believe that the impact on you of the small adobe should be virtually nonexistent if we take the steps we have discussed. The person now occupying the property is obviously very quiet, as I am not sure that you were even aware that he has been there,and I would not tolerate anything but a very low profile presence. ) John J. Ford October 30, 1998 Page 2 We loom forward to your decision or further input on this issue. Please feel free to bring Patty over for a look at the property,as 1 would like to meet her anyway. My home phone(which you should retain for emergencies; it is unlisted) is 933-4717,but the best place to leave messages(due to teenagers) is at my office at 935-5566. Please call me as soon as we can go over my ideas and thanks for considering them. Very truly yours, Randall Thompson RLT:ph Encl. kf x f r t r i t € 1 . { ... �y C0007 Z j r i S ....: ... F _._. __ f r iii �, rf t �f r A ar► x � ��'7 � per• �,:r �-s. � i s�t ' Via Fax: 925-935-9613 11/23/98 Dear John and Patty: I am sorry to bother you about the adobe matter,but my wife Emily and I have been working on this issue for so long that we are really anxious to conclude it and get on with our lives. We are very hopeful that you will withdraw your appeal and wish to cite some advantages to doing so for you to consider,perhaps over the long Thanksgiving weekend: I. Approval of my application will allow the continued low-key occupancy of the structure. A structure that is kept warm,occupied and regularly used is much more likely to be well maintained and improved than is an empty one. 2. Upon receiving final approval of my application,I intend to expend energy and money on landscaping around the unit itself. I have refrained from planting things until I am assured that the permit process is completed. 3. If you withdraw your appeal, I will proceed with landscaping solutions to obscure the structure from your view,as we had discussed. Continued maintenance of my large pine trees and the addition of other blocking plants and/ora lattice fence or a"living fence"on my side of our property line should substantially enhance the westerly view from your home. I welcome your input or proposals on the best combination of steps to ensure that the structure is practically unnoticable from your property. 4. Withdrawing the appeal will avoid further contentious proceedings involving the county bureaucracy. Quite frankly,our application is virtually certain to eventually prevail, as the structure and our lot comply with the requirements of the county ordinance for second dwelling units. The Northgate Specific flan is inapplicable to this issue, and even if it did apply,the requisite hardship that you earlier cited could easily be shown if imposition of the plan on my application would deny me the right to a second dwelling unit that would be enjoyed by other parcels zoned R-40. The professionals at the county worked long and hard in reviewing my application for conformity with the ordinance requirements and in approving it. It would be wonderful to conclude this matter by looking at the merits of the case rather than laboriously overcoming each hurdle again, a process that would disappoint us but which we would be compelled to pursue. 5. Finally,your withdrawal of the application would be an act in good faith toward your neighbor. If this structure and its occupancy are not unduly evident from your home,you can drop your appeal and avoid a position in which you might be unreasonably restricting your neighbors' use of their own property. I don't know how you feel about such matters politically, but I can tell you that we would like to resolve your concerns in a friendly manner and to be your friends and neighbors for a long time. Emily and I do not foresee ever moving away,and we get a lot of p. �f 2 ^ s comfort from having a friend or relative reside in that home,particularly when we are away at our mountain home in the Sierra. Remember, any nuisance emanating from that home would first and foremost affect us,as it is in our backyard,and logically would never be allowed by the main house occupantno matter who they were. Please consider resolving this matter with us at your earliest convenience. Again,our lives are to a certain extent"on hold"as the result of that appeal. We would like to get on with the improvements and landscaping that we want to make and do not want to expend energy and expense on further county proceedings. We have a lot in common with you and give you our personal assurances that you would not be inconvenienced by withdrawing your appeal. Withdrawal would be in the form of a simple letter from you to the county,which I would be happy to prepare for you. Please contact us as soon as the two of you have had the opportunity to discuss this. Thanks for your consideration of our position. We will be leaving on Wednesday to be up at our cabin over Thanksgiving,but maybe when we get back,we can all get together for some holiday cheer and get to know each other! Thanks again. r Randy and E ily Thompson (,.v)935-5566;(h)933-4717 . ~3nf` __ EXHIBIT B Response Of Applicant To Appeal Randall Thompson 3704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creels, CA 94598 October 12, 1998 Mr.and Mrs. John J. Ford 3701 North Gate Woods Court Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Re: Land Use Permit Application,County File# LP983032 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Ford: I have received your letter of September 23, 1998, in which you appealed the decision of the County Zoning Administrator to approve my application for a legal seconddwelling unit in the small adobe house located on my property. It was the first time that I had been made aware of your concerns regarding the structure,and I would like to meet with you to discuss ways in which your concerns might be addressed. In view of our proximity to one another, I would very much like to be a good neighbor to you. The adobe house was built about 50 years ago and certainly predates most of the buildings in our area. I have spent a lot of time and money restoring it to its original condition and there are no county requirements that require its demolition. When I bought my property,I ascertained that the property would meet the requirements of the county ordinance for a second dwelling unit and I do not believe its use as such will have much of an impact upon you. I do appreciate your concerns that the structure is visible from your home and 1 would like to meet with you to discuss plantings that I could make which should totally obscure your view of the structure in a relatively short period of time. I understand that you are concerned about the application of the North Gate Specific Plan ("NGSP")to my property. Please understand that the entire Rancho Estates Court subdivision was essentially exempted from the design standards of the NGSP because the subdivision was approved prior to enactment of the NGSP and was"vested" at the time of the construction of my home. As a result,my home does not face North Gate Road, and the solid fence was erected to obscure views into the back yard. I am sorry if the NGSP requirements have caused you inconvenience,but if the issue is the appearance of my fence along North Gate Road, I want you to know that I am willing to discuss with you landscaping solutions that will improve the appearance of that area as well. I had attempted earlier plantings in that area,but they were destroyed by vandals. I figure that with the new development in the area,any new plantings should be safe and again, I would welcome your input on what you would like;to see there. Obviously, the larger concern to you is the adobe structure. I am not a!large corporate developer, and simply want to be left alone in my property, to be a good neighbor and to continue living quietly in our neighborhood. State legislation and the county ordinances encourage the Mr. and Mrs. John J. Ford October 12, 1998 Page 2 establishment of second dwelling units and the ordinance allowing such units is specifically applicable to properties such as ours with R-40 zoning. Please note that second family dwelling units are permitted by the NGSP (p. 17) and that the small size of the adobe is actually required by the ordinances as it is not allowed to exceed 1000 square feet. Its closest point to your property line is 34 feet,which greatly exceeds the applicable set back requirement. It is built of native materials and is painted in earthtone colors and I am willing to take whatever reasonable landscaping steps that you require to further soften or obscure its appearance. I understand your concerns and really wish to work with you to address them. Some properly placed,quick growing Sycamore trees and other landscaping should make the existence and occupancy of the adobe virtually unnoticable from your home and yard. I',apologize that I was not aware that anything on my property was a problem for you. Please call me at my office (925-935-5566) if we can meet and discuss ways that we might address your concems without resorting to the county appeals process. If I do not hear from you, I will call you next week to attempt to schedule such a meeting with you. I will work hard to be a good neighbor to you and to address the issues you have raised. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Very truly yours, Randall Thompson Randall Thompson 3704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 October 30, 1998 Mr.John J.Ford 3701 Forth Gate Woods Court Walnut Creek,CA 94598 Re: Possible Landscaping Solutions in re: Land Use Permit Application,County File#LP982032 Dear John: Thank you for coming over last Saturday to discuss potential landscaping that could obscure the view from your home of my adobe structure. I know you were going to discuss the matter with your wife and in the meantime, I have come up with a couple of ideas for your consideration. Enclosed is a rough computer generated image of one possibility. In the raised area under the pine trees, about 3 feet on my side inside of the fence, I could build an eight foot high lattice fence that I believe would immediately shield the adobe from your view whilelooking good from both sides. If you wished, I could plant ivy that would soon cover the structure like a"living wall." I think that this solution might be a good one. Additionally,I would plant quick growing trees, possibly as indicated on the attached site pian. I have been looking into types of evergreens that would have broad canopies yet retain their leaves. In short order, the placement of these trees, especially in conjunction with the lattice wall if you desire, should make,the adobe virtually invisible from your property. Obviously, I am hoping that we can agree on steps that will allow you to withdraw your appeal, which I have ascertained can be done by a simple letter from you to the county. To proceed before the planning commission would cost me a great deal of time and money, and I honestly believe that the impact on you of the small adobe should be virtually nonexistent if we take the steps we have discussed. The person now occupying the property is obviously very quiet, as I am not sure that you were even aware that he has been there,and I would not tolerate anything but a very low profile presence. Jahn J. Ford October 30, 1998 Page 2 We look forward to your decision or further input on this issue. Please feel free to bring Patty over for a look at the property,as 1 would like to meet her anyway. My home phone(which you should retain for emergencies; it is unlisted) is 933-4717,but the best place to leave messages (due to teenagers)is at my office at 935-5566. Please call me as soon as we can go over my ideas and thanks for considering them. Very truly yours, Randall.Thompson RLT.ph Encl. LAW OFFICES OF r p fly C AGEN, McCC71y, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG WILLIAtdt,ti, Cep tS W� JA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE. G R>; jQ,yi Mi t:MGCGSY ry } 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J. Ak�.,G-?i ,r. aJ P. Box 216 MARK O G a.• O7 DANVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94526-07218 LINN K ��M f35 t'1�'k":�. TELEPHONE: (925) 837'-0588 STEPHEN W. THyC�;.ft A.$; i"j-�:'O.t', .l, �..-• FAX: (925) 836-5965 CHAR,L S.WY;,g{i:CS.SS` �.y\ MICH7 MICHAEL MARNAPA VALLEY OFFICE L W W. CARTER 8R RICHARD C. BRINES •� y j] (y A ril 19 THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE VICTOR J. CONTt , 1999 1030 MAIN STREET, SUITE 212 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL $T. HELENA. CALIFORNIA 94574 ROBERT M. FAN UGCI TELEPHONE; (707} €a3-D'909 ALLAN C. MOORE FAX: (707) 0853-5527 PATRICIA E. CURTIN STEPHEN T 9UEHL PLEASE: REPLY TO: ALEXANDER L SCHMID AMANDA JUDGE Danville ALI P. HAM10f Hand-Delivered Bob Drake Community Development Dept. Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street,No. Wing,2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: LP982032/Second Unit Applicant: Randall and Emily Thompson Appellant: John Ford Dear Mr. Drake: I have been retained by Randall and Emily Thompson to assist them in securing approval of the existing second unit on their property at 3704 Rancho Estates Court in Walnut Creek. I spoke with you several days ago to bring you current on the extensive negotiations my clients have had with Mr. John Ford, the appellant in this matter. I also briefly explained why Mr. Ford should not be permitted to pursue his appeal. Mr. Ford intentionally failed to make his comments on the second unit known to the County before the Zoning Administrator approved the unit. This failure to comment deprived the Zoning Administrator and the Thompsons of the opportunity to hear and address Mr. Ford's concerns. This letter further explains our position on these two items. Y. Summary of Relevant Facts After two public hearings,on September 14, 1998,the Zoning Administrator approved the Thompson's request to establish a second unit on their property. The second unit has existed on the property for about 50 years. In approving the unit,the Zoning Administrator determined that the second unit was consistent with the general Plan and zoning regulations, would not require any variances and would not block views of the neighbors. On September 23, 1998, Mr. Ford sent a letter to the Community Development Department requesting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. An appeal hearing has not yet been scheduled. Cry Bob Drake April 19, 1999 Page 2 Prior to submitting the appeal letter, Mr. Ford did not express his objections on the second unit to the County. We are not aware that Mr. Ford submitted written objections to the County prior to or at the.Zoning Administrator hearing. in addition,he did not provide testimony at the Zoning Administrator hearing nor did he sign the petition that was circulated amongst the neighbors objecting to the second unit. Notice of the public hearing was mailed to Mr. Ford as indicated by the mailing list in the County file. II. Negotiations with Mr. Ford Since the appeal letter was submitted,the Thompsons have repeatedly and diligently attempted to address Mr. Ford's issues expressed in his letter. The Thompson's not only spoke to Mr.Ford on numerous occasions but also wrote letters. The letters prepared by the Thompsons are attached and are dated October 12 and 30, and November 23, 1999. No written correspondence was prepared by Mr. Ford. As shown in the letters, the Thompsons offered to provide landscaping to further block Mr. Ford's view of the second unit and invited Mr. Ford to make further suggestions to ensure that the structure was practically unnoticeable from his property. Specifically,the Thompsons offered to install additional landscaping and/or a lattice fence between the properties. Mr. Ford made numerous promises to work out a compromise with the Thompsons but Mr. Ford never followed through. This seems to indicate that Mr. Ford is really not concerned with the second unit nor serious about the appeal. We believe he filed the appeal merely as a delay tactic to prevent the Thompsons from securing approval of the unit. Our believe is substantiated by the fact he never timely expressed his objections even though he had an opportunity to do so and was aware of the Thompson's application. III. Improper Appeal Mr.Ford raises two main issues in his appeal.(1) the second unit is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning regulations and(2)the second unit is inconsistent with the North Gate Specific Plan(NGSP). As already stated, Mr.Ford never expressed his concerns to the County before or at the Zoning Administrator's hearing. Moreover, no person raised the issue that the second unit was inconsistent with the NGSP. (As confirmed by County staff, the NGSP does not apply to this matter.) Based on the doctrine'of exhaustion of administrative remedies and due to the inherent unfairness of this appeal, Mr. Ford should not be allowed to pursue the appeal. At at a minimum,he should not be allowed to raise for the first time on appeal the issues relating the NGSP. Bob Drake April 19, 1999 Page 3 The exhaustion doctrine requires an objector who challenges an administrative decision to raise, at each stage of the administrative process, all legal and/or factual issues. If an objector fails to do so, that person is precluded from raising',the issue at a later proceeding. The court in Morgan v_. Community Redevelopment Agency (1991) 231 Cal. App.3d 243, 259, stated that the "(flailure to raise an issue in protest at a public hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to have that issue determined by the council or the court." Also see,Sea&Sage Audubon Society.Inc.v. Planning Commission(1983)34 CaUd 412. The exhaustion doctrine exists to allow the administrative body the opportunity to receive and respond to legal or factual issues before that agency's action is challenged. The doctrine is similar to the general rule that issues not raised in the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax(1994)29 Cal.AppAth 1442, 1447. The exhaustion doctrine is not a matter of discretion;rather it is a jurisdictional prerequisite to farther review. California Aviation Council v. County ofAmador(1988)20 Cal.App.3d 337, 340. The Zoning Administrator is vested with the authority to make final decisions on this permit. Mr. Ford was provided every opportunity to raise his objections before the Zoning Administrator. He was mailed notice of the hearing and elected not to raise his objections at or before that time. It would be inconsistent with the exhaustion doctrine and inherently unfair to allow Mr.Ford for the first time to raise his issues on appeal. Such precedent would invite persons to intentionally bypass a final decision making body and wait to raise their concerns with the appellate body. Moreover, it would be unjust to permit the Thompsons to go through the Zoning Administrator hearing only to be surprised,by way of an appeal, to find out that an individual was intentionally holding out on his comments that should have come out at the Zoning Administrator proceeding.Mr.Ford should have followed the proper procedures and expressed his concerns before a decision was made by the Zoning Administrator. If Mr. Ford is permitted to pursue his appeal, he should be informed that he will be required to pay actual staff time and materials generated by the appeal. This obligation is the responsibility of the appellant as explained in the brochure entitled"Application Decisions and the Appeal Procedure." I would like to meet with you to discuss the issues raised in this later. We would like to have these issues resolved as soon as possible. As a result, I invite you to meet with me at your earliest convenience so we can finalize this matter. .. r bre Bob Drake April 19, 1999 Page 4 I will call you in the next few days to schedule a meeting. -Very truly yours, Patricia E. Curtin PEC1ka Enclosures cc: Catherine Kutsuris Darwin Myers Randall and Emily Thompson. F.ICLPBC731453\DmkeO40$-ttr.wpd i t # y t i S S : Y Y f i J _ X J(lfr; tF, { - 411 a �• . . Jf ( s X 1 w ��h'•�,. � „'7:30. ,i8ra�s. ,\.'t='' _ .e4'g S� -i Y' ° _ Via Fax: 925-935-9613 11/23/98 Dear John and Patty. I am sorry to bother you about the adobe matter, but my wife Emily and I have been working on this issue for so long that we are really anxious to conclude it and get on with our lives. We are very hopeful that you will withdraw your appeal and wish to cite some advantages to doing so for you to consider,perhaps over the long Thanksgiving weekend.' 1. Approval of my application will allow the continued low-key occupancy of the structure. A structure that is kept warm,occupied and regularly used is much more likely to be well maintained and improved than is an empty one. 2. Upon receiving final approval of my application,I intend to expend energy and money on landscaping around the unit itself. I have refrained from planting things until I am assured that the permit process is completed. 3. If you withdraw your appeal, I will proceed with landscaping solutions to obscure the structure from your view,as we had discussed. Continued maintenance of my large pine trees and the addition of other blocking plants and/or a lattice fence or a"living fence"on my side of our property line should substantially enhance the westerly view from your home. I welcome your input or proposals on the best combination of steps to ensure that the structure is practically unnoticable from your property. 4. Withdrawing the appeal will avoid further contentious proceedings involving the county bureaucracy. Quite frankly, our application is virtually',certain to eventually prevail, as the structure and our lot comply with the requirements of the county ordinance for second dwelling units. The Northgate Specific Plan is inapplicable to this issue, and even if it did apply,the requisitehardship that you earlier cited could easily be shown if imposition of the plan on my application would deny me the right to a second dwelling unit that would be enjoyed by other parcels zoned R-40. The professionals at the county worked long and hard in reviewing my application for conformity with the ordinance requirements and in approving it. It would be wonderful to conclude this matter by looking at the merits of the case rather than laboriously overcoming each hurdle again, a process that would disappoint us but which we would be compelled to pursue. 5. Finally,your withdrawal of the application would be an act in good faith toward your neighbor. If this structure and its occupancy are not unduly evident from your home,you can drop your appeal and avoid a position in which you might be unreasonably restricting your neighbors' use of their own property. I don't know how you feel about such matters politically, but I can tell you that we would like to resolve your concerns in a friendly manner and to be your friends and neighbors for a long time. Emily and I do not foresee ever moving away,and we get a lot of 7M1 , comfort from having a friend or relative reside in that home,particularly when we are away at our mountain home in the Sierra. Remember,any nuisance emanating from that home would first and foremost affect us,as it is in our backyard,and logically would never be allowed by the main house occupant no matter who they were. Please consider resolving this matter with us at your earliest convenience. Again,our lives are to a certain extent"on hold"as the result of that appeal. We would like to get on with the improvements and landscaping that we want to make and do not want to expend energy and expense on further county proceedings. We have a lot in common with you and give you our personal assurances that you would not be inconvenienced by withdrawing your appeal. Withdrawal would be in the form of a simple letter from you to.the county,which 1 would be happy to prepare for you. Please contact us as soon as the two of you have had the opportunity to discuss this. Thanks for your consideration of our position. We will be leaving on Wednesday to be up at our cabin over Thanksgiving,but maybe when we get back,we can all get together for some holiday cheer and get to know each other! Thanks again. RandySand�Eiily Thompson (w)935-5566; (h)933-4717 Community Contra [Dennis M.Barry,atop Development Community Development Director Department Costa County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th door, North Wing . Martinez, California 94553-0095 Pho a:5-1214 John J. Ford 3701 North Gate Woods Ct. Walnut geek, CA 94598 Dear Mr. Ford: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated July 21, 1999 for application #LP982032 which was approved by the County Planning Coirunission on July 13, 1999. Requ ed Pa�anent of 25 PDsting Fee In the event that the County ultimately approves this project, an approval may be subject to legal challenge. The legal exposure can be reduced by the timely posting of a Notice of Exemption (from. the California .Environmental Quality Act). The Notice is posted by the Community Development Department following a final project approval decision. Posting of Notice of Exemption will allow for a 35-day statute of limitations period for filing a legal challenge against the project. If no Notice of Exemption is posted, then the statute of limitations for filing of legal challenges against the approval extends 180-days from the project approval date. 1n order to be in a position to past a Notice of Exemption at the earliest possible date, we request payment of a $25 posting fee to cover the charge of the County Clerk's office. Checks for the $25 fee should be made payable to the County of Contra Costa and submitted to the Community Developinent Department with the other requested materials. Your appeal will be heard by the Board of Supervisors. You will be notified by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the Board. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:0o p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each month If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 335-1214. Sincerely yo sy r.' r Robert H. rake Principal Planner RHD/df L5:.bos cc: File/aa Public Works Attn: Heather Ballenger Randall Thompson REQUEST TO RECEIPT Planner. U4,1 '0 S Payer; 3 Qrt v7 Date.w%'� Application Nbr _ Concurrent App Nbr(List Ail) { Prefix Cede ' Purpase of Deposit (S-Code) Amount ------------ ------------ CLERK"S POSTING FEE(F&G) 219" ADMIN FEE(F&G) CASH/CHECK TOTAL: $ e PLEASE ATTACH COPY OF APPLICATION FORM PATRICIA L.DAL ACROCE 1221 s 1287 (510) 9342030 701 NORTH WO 94 5 CT' MATE L�"r C ° WA REE A-94598 PAY , O 6R F 1oLr� s W 19LLS FARG{0 B 't ~ A: 221011911: 1267 0033 1� 1yr 60 �- - 5 s fy o aPP )iCO4- , Jahn J. Ford 3701 North Gate Woods Court Walnut Creek,California 94598 925.934.2030 voice 925.935.9613 fax Via Hand Delivery tia July 21, 1999 - ry _ Mr. Dennis M. Darry,AICP Community Development Director x�- Community Development Department Contra Costa County .' 651 Pine Street 4`h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Land Use Permit Application Randall &Emily Thompson(Applicant and Owner), County File# LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: This letter will serve as our formal appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned are property owners whose property rights and the value of their property is adversely affected. In support of this appeal, the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application, the objections raised in the hearing before the Planning Commission Board of Appeals, and the objections set forth in this filing. In support thereof, we assert the following: 1. John J. Ford and Patricia L. Dallacroce own property and reside at 3701 North Gate Woods Court, Walnut Creek, California,which property is immediately adjacent to the subject property. Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C. Bischel own property and reside at 3708 Rancho Estates Court, Walnut Creek, California, which property is immediately adjacent to the subject property. 2. The proposed location of the second residential unit is in a former house located on the property when the main house, currently used as a single family home, was(constructed. At the time the new home was constructed, the old structure was thereafter utilized as a workshop. 3. Prior to the time when the structure was used as a workshop, the structure had been used for several decades as a residence. The residential use was clearly abandoned when it was converted to workshop use. In fact, when the building permit for the new single family residence _.... ...._._.. . .. ....... ...._..................... ......... ......... _. . ........... ........._... ......... ......... .. . ......... ................. . _ ............................... 'srs Mr. Dennis M. Darry, AICD July 21, 1999 Page 2 was issued,the County required that the kitchen be removed from the old residence so that it could not be used for residential purposes. 4. After it had been used as a workshop for some period of time, the owner began unlawfully using the structure for residential purposes. The owner, contrary to the requirement which had been imposed when the new single family residence was constructed on the lot,re- installed a kitchen in the structure. He then rented out the structure for residential use. 5. When the County became aware of this illegal use,it required the owner to eliminate the unlawful use. First,the owner,as evidenced by County Pile Z179932B, requested that use of the structure for residential purposes be allowed as a"legal non-conforming use". The Community Development Department rejected this argument, and instead concluded that the structure's use for residential purposes had been abandoned when the kitchen was removed and the structure was converted to non-habitable use as a workshop. This determination by the County was never contested nor appealed by the property owner. 6. Following the County's determination that residential use of the structure was not legal,the owner decided to see again if he could convert the use into residential by falling under the County's ordinance permitting residential second units in certain structures under certain conditions. This attempt has been in complete defiance of the County's previous determination that residential use of this structure was illegal. Thus,any permitted use under the second unit provisions would have to be satisfied as if the second unit were constructed today. 7. It is with this background that the undersigned submit that the determination below in approving the Application was in error and should be reversed. 8. The workshop structure is located in extremely close proximity to the homes of the undersigned on the adjacent lot. 9. The standards for permitting a residential second unit have not been satisfied in the requested Application. 10. Under the County ordinance, the structure sought to be used exceeds the square footage permitted. Even accepting the applicants assertion that the unit may encompass up to 1,000 square feet, the structure in fact exceeds such maximum. 11. Under the County ordinance,the structure sought to be used exceeds the square footage permitted. When applying the correct maximum area for a detached second dwelling unit in an accessory building, the structure exceeds the 600 square foot maximum. 12. Under the County ordinance, the parking requirements for the unit have not been satisfied. 13. Under the County ordinance, the workshop structure is architecturally incompatible _. _. Mr. Dennis M. Barry,AICP July 21, 1999 Page 2 with the primary residence on the lot and with the surrounding neighborhood. The workshop structure is an old style ranch house, which is now surrounded by large,modem,two story and single story homes with great attention to architectural detailing and landscaping. 14. The proposed use also fails to comply with the North Crate Specific Plan(NGSP), which was enacted after construction of the structure, but which is applicable to residential units created after adoption of the NESP. In fact, the North Gate Specific Plan says that it is expressly applicable to Use Permits requested after enactment of the Plan. 15. The utilization of the workshop structure for residential use fails to follow many of the requirements of the NGSP, including,but not limited to,its landscaping which includes no vegetation in the landscaping strip adjacent to North Gate Road,no horse trail'adjacent to North Gate Road, and a six foot solid board wood fence along the North Gate Road frontage. 16. Since the requested second residential use is proposed to be located in a structure previously abandoned for residential use,there is no justification for allowing the proposed residential use to evade the requirements for all other residential uses which are created after the enactment of the NGSP. 17. The NGSP does anticipate exceptions to the requirements. However, the NGSP on page 30 requires that the applicant"demonstrate undue hardship as a result of the application of the regulations"and that the County shall be required to make a finding that"due to the circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings,the strict application of the regulations contained in the North Crate Area Specific Plan deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is located". No such hardship has been or can be shown here. 18. The requested permit is not justified by the facts presented in the Application under either the Residential Second Unit requirements nor the provisions of the North Gate Specific Plan. Thank you for your consideration of this appeal. drew 2Bischel *JFf /* Lurie C. Bischel Patricia L. Dallacroce 3708 Rancho Estates Court 3701 North Gate Woods Court Walnut Creep, CA 94598 Walnut Creek, CA 94598' �tt July 21, 1999 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Darty, AICD Community Development Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 0 Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Land Use Permit Application Randall &Emily Thompson(Applicant and Owner), County File 4 LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Dairy: This letter will serve as our formal joinder in support of the appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned is a property owner who lives in the neighborhood of the subject property and whose property rights and the value of his property is adversely affected. In support of this joinder,the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application, the objections raised in the hearing before the g Commission Board of Appeals,and the objections set forth in the appeal file is by John.J. Ford, Patricia L. Dallacroce, Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C chel. Respectfully submitted, WKS' Fog 3711 o Estates Court Walnu reek, CA 94598 �4 July 21, 1999 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Darry, AICP Community Development Director Community Development Department Contra.Costa County 651 Pine Street 4'Floor,North ging Martinez, CA 94553 Re: JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Land Use Permit Application Randall&Emily Thompson(Applicant and.Owner), County File#LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: This letter will serve as our formal joinder in support of the appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned is a property owner who lives in the neighborhood of the subject property and whose property rights and the value of his property is adversely affected. In support of this joinder, the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application,the objections raised in the hearing before the Planning Commission Board of Appeals, and the objections set forth in the appeal filed this elate by John J. Ford, Patricia L. Dallacroce,Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C. Bischel. Respectfully submitted, Douglas L. Aistabend Katheryn A. Fastabend 3723 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 July 21, 1999 'iia Hand Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Darry, AICP Community Development Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4'Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re: JOINDER.IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Land Use Permit Application Randall & Emily Thompson(Applicant and Owner), County File#LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darry: This letter will serve as our formal joinder in support of the appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned is a property owner who lives in the neighborhood of the subject property and whose property rights and the value of his property is adversely affected. In support of this joinder,the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application,the objections raised in the hearing before the Planning Commission Board of Appeals, and the objections set forth in the appeal filed this date by John J. Ford,Patricia L. Dallacroce,Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C. Bischel. Respectfully submitted, Glendower F. Kenny,Jr. Patricia Ann Kenny Trustees of the Kenny Revocable Trust 3728 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 July 21, 1999 Via Hand Delivery Mr. Dennis M. Darcy,AICP Community Development Director Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 4t4'Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re: JOINDER IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Land Use Permit Application Randall&Emily Thompson(Applicant and{owner), County File# LP982032 3704 Rancho Estate Court, Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Darty: This letter will serve as our formal joinder in support of the appeal from the approval by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission Board of Appeals granting the Land Use Permit Application referenced above. The undersigned is a property owner who lives in the neighborhood of the subject property and whose property rights and the value of his property is adversely;affected. In support of this joinder,the undersigned assert all of the objections presented in previous written objections to the subject application, the objections raised in the hearing before the Planning Commission Board of Appeals,and the objections set forth in the appeal filed this date by John J. Ford, Patricia L. Dallacroce, Andrew W. Bischel and Lorie C. Bischel. Respectfully submitted, ) 2�� Stuarterner KaretiM. Lerner Trustees of the Lerner Family Revocable Trust 3712 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek, CA 94598 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... C i 7 Y O Ff WALNUT CREEK October 15, 1999 Mr. Darwin Myers Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553-0095 SUBJECT: Proposed Second Family Residential Unit (File LP 98-2032) 3704 Rancho Estates Court Walnut Creek Dear Mr. Myers, The City of Walnut Creek has been contacted regarding this application and its applicability to the North Gate Specific Plana We believe the project,as proposed,is consistent with the Specific Plan, provided that it meets all requirements of the County's Second Family Dwelling Unit Ordinance. The Rancho Estates subdivision was approved prior to adoption of the North Gate Specific Plan. At the time the Specific Plan was adopted in 1991, it was understood that all subdivision and design review approvals were"grandfathered" in but that any future activity in the subdivision was subject to the provisions of the Specific Plan. It is our understanding that the adobe home located at 3704 Rancho Estates Court was allowed to remain in the subdivision,but that it was not to be used as habitable space without obtaining the proper permits. The Specific Plan conditionally permits Second Family Dwelling units',provided that they meet the Ordinance requirements of the County. If the adobe.house on this site meets those requirements, then it should be approved. Please call me at(925) 9435834 if you would like to discuss this further. Very truly yours, Margaret Kimmerer Senior Planner 1666 North Main Street Walnut Creek California 94596 (925)943-5$34