The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10052004 - D2 TO: BOA"OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier i Contra Costa DATE: October 5,2004 County SUBJECT: Recommendations of the Contra Costa Countywide Youth Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACKNOWLEDGE the recommendations of the Contra Costa Countywide Youth Commission to foster and support the involvement of the County's Youth Population ages 13-19 in public policy and government,and REFER.the recommendations to the Family and Human Services Committee for review and recommendation. BACKGROUND: I founded the County's Youth Commission to foster and support the involvement of the County's Youth Population ages 13-19 in public policy and government. By their committed participation and discussions,the members of the County Youth Commission bring a unique perspective to the proceedings of the Board of Supervisors. Because of the great commitment of these Commissioners,who are appointed by all members of the Board, it is only CONTVS tUE€f ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER I NA ACTION OF BOARD CIN , 2 6 0 4 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER-- SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT t,T rt AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SIYERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Contact: Supervisor Mark DeSaulater(425)646-5763 cc: Countywide Youth Commission Program Director Family and Human Services Committee Staff BY `.s� � � � "* � $ ':-�EPUTY fitting that their recommendations be given proper consideration. While some of the recommendations may not be possible to adopt in their current form,it may be possible to achieve the goals of the recommendations in a manageable way. l am recommending that the recommendations be referred to the Family and human Services Committee to examine how this can be achieved. Their recommendations follow: 1. That the Board of Supervisors adopt a policy requiring all committees,commissions and advisory bodies that deal with issues directly affecting youth and their families to conduct their meetings between the hours of 5:00p.m.and 1€1.00 p.m. 2. That the Board of Supervisors adopt a policy allowing public comment on items before the Board and its advisory bodies via electronic comniunications,postal mail,and if viable, phone messages. 3. That the Board of Supervisors place an electronic comment farm on their Web sites utilizing a system similar to the one used by members of Congress. 4. That the Board of Supervisors adopt a policy of actively seeking youth input through the Countywide Youth Commission and other means before implementing any major youth- related policy changes. The CYC position in support of the issues follows: "Adopting these recommendations will help bring youth and their,farnilies into the decision making process and will remove one of the barriers to youth empowerment. Nighttime meetings will allow students parents and full time workers to attend and voice their opinions about issues at hand, as currently occurs with local school board and city council meetings. This, in turn, will lead to better decisions that have greater community support because people feel as if an effort was being made to include them in the decision making process. Allowing electronic and postal mail to be used will give a voice to those who cannot attend meetings, as will telephone messages, if viable. Actively seeking youth input is another way of encouraging better decision-making with regards to youth issues. By bringing those who will be directly affected into the process, the Board will get a new perspective on the issues, one which is potentially invaluable. Adapting these recommendations will improve the process and results of government when dealing with youth issues. " ADDENDUM TO D.2 OCTOBER 5, 2004 On this day the Board ACKNOWLEDGED recommendations of the Countywide 'Youth Commission to foster the involvement of the County's youth population in public policy and government and considered referring the recommendations to the Family and Human Services Committee for further review. Ryan Guptill, Secretary of the Countywide Youth Commission, accompanied.by Mack Baretto, the outgoing Chair of the Policy Committee, and Adam Chow, Countywide Youth Commission Program Director made the presentation. Supervisor DeSaulnier asked the Board of Supervisors to acknowledge the following recommendations of the Youth Commission. • That the Board of Supervisors adopt a policy requiring all committees, commissions and advisory bodies that deal with issues directly affecting youth and their families to conduct their meetings between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. • That the Board of Supervisors s adopt a policy allowing public comment on items before the Board and its advisory bodies via electronic communications,postal mail, and if viable,phone messages. • That the Board of Supervisors place an electronic comment form on their Web sites utilizing a system similar to the one used by members of Congress. • That the Board of Supervisors adopt a policy of actively seeking youth input through the Countywide Youth Commission and other means before implementing any major youth related changes. Supervisor DeSaulnier requested the Board to give consideration to the Youth Commission's recommendations because of their great commitment, and commented that it may not be possible to adopt the recommendations in their current form, but it may be possible to achieve the goals in a manageable way. He suggested that the Family and Human Services Committee study the recommendations and report back to the Board. After conclusion of further discussions, the Board took the following actions: 1. ACKNOWLEDGED the Youth Commission and its recommendations. 2. REFERRED the recommendations to the Family and Human Services Committee for further study and for recommendations, if any, back to the Board. Supervisor DeSaulnier made a motion to approve this, and Supervisor Glover seconded the motion. Motion passed. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: Continued Hearing and Consideration of Adoption of Findings on Appeal by Jeffrey Batt (Applicant), Lafayette King Drive Associates, LLC (Owner), of the County Planning Commission Denial of a Variance Application to allow a Residence Taller than Permitted by the Single Family Residential Zoning District, at #270 King Drive in the Walnut Creek/Saranap area. County File #VR041066 (Sup. Dist. 11) (Building Permit#311062) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: 1 DENY the request for Variance application, County File #VR041066, to allow a residence greater than 35 feet in height (existing), and SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission's denial of the application. 2. DENY the appeal of Jeffrey Batt. CONTINUED ON, ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON #, 'a s.. 'r s'f k'j" A ;QMME*DfD VQTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND J UNANIMOUS(ABSENT1101& ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND A'f-E—S. NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN- SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake [(925)335-12141 ATTESTED r ). cc: Community Development Dept. (orig.) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK & THE bOARD OF Jeffrey Batt SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Building Inspection Dept. County Counsel Saranap Homeowners Association BY DEPUTY Exhibit A Findings on Appeal of County Planning Commission Menial of Variance Application File#VR041066 Board Finding -- The applicant has not produced sufficient evidence for the Board to find that special circumstances apply to the site associated with any of its physical characteristics (size, shape, topography, location or surroundings) that would deprive it of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity that are zoned R-10 due to strict application of the zoning regulations. During the review of the variance application, the applicant stated that the soil remediation work constitutes a special circumstance. (see p. A-2) However, the applicant presented no satisfactory evidence to show that the physical characteristics of the property (including the modified topographic conditions that resulted from the soil remediation work) created a situation where strict application of the Building Height Limit would deprive this site of rights enjoyed by other R-10 zoned properties in the area. This site has physical characteristics (e.g., slope, location, surroundings, lot size, lot shape) that are similar to other nearby hillside properties zoned R-10 and that comply with the .Building Height Limit of 35-feet. The applicant is constructing another residence on the adjoining hillside property to the east (Lot 10 of hillside Terrace Tract) that has similar terrain, location and surroundings to the subject site; this other residence complies with the 35-foot :building Height Limit. In 1980, the County granted a variance permit (File 41120- 79) for the abutting hillside property to the west of the site, ##260 King Drive to allow a three story residence (maximum 2 1/2 stories normally required), and other variances to the minimum yard requirements, however no variance was granted to the Building Height Limit of 35- feet for this site. After the soil remediation work was completed at the subject site, the applicant began construction of a A-7 Exhihit A Findings on Appeal of County Planning Commission Denial of Variance Application Pile#V 041066 residence with a design that was adjusted to fit the altered terrain. The building code does not authorize the applicant to modify the design specifications of the building permit without approval, nor to violate the provisions of the zoning code without obtaining a variance. When the applicant decided to pursue a modified residential design, he should have first obtained County approval of an amendment to his building permit that reflected the modified design specifications before starting to build the modified design. Evidence - Staff report presented to the County Planning Commission for its July 13, 2004 hearing, but labeled June 13, 2004; testimony at the July 13, 2004 County Planning Commission hearing; individual observations of members of the County planning Commission; September 21, 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors; September 20, 2004 letter from David J. Bowie, from Bowie & Bruegmann, LLP, including supporting exhibits; Testimony presented at the September 21, 2004 Board of Supervisors hearing. C. Finding that is Required to be Made Under the Ordinance Bore—Granting a variance.Permit— any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Board Finding-- The applicant has not produced sufficient evidence for the Beard to find that the granting of the requested variance to the Building Height Limit would meet the intent or purpose of the R-10 zoning district. A purpose of the R-10 district is to assure the provision of light and air within the community, including regulation of building height. [Government Code Section 65850 (c)] The proposed residential design would conflict with this purpose. The added 9-foot AWs Exhibit A Findings on Appeal of County Planning Commission Denial of Variance Application File#V'RO41066 height of the proposed residence above the Building Height Limit would diminish the privacy of nearby downhill properties to a greater extent and winter sunlight of those properties than would a residence that complied with the zoning code Building Height Limit. Another purpose of the R-10 district is to provide for development that protects the health and safety of residents. (C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-2.002) The applicant has not established that the existing design of the residence would be safe for its occupants or nearby residents. In testimony to the County Planning Commission, the applicant indicated that a structural engineer has not reviewed the altered design, mass, or volume of the building. Evidence - Staff report presented to the County Planning Commission for its July 13, 2004 hearing,but labeled June 13, 2004; testimony at the July 13, 2004 County Planning Commission hearing, September 21, 2004 staff report to the Board of Supervisors; testimony at the September 21, 2004 Board of Supervisors hearing; September 20, 2004 letter from David J. Bowie, from Bowie & Bruegmann, LLP, including supporting exhibits; individual observations of a member of the Board of Supervisors. CONCLUSION - Based on the above findings and the findings made by the County Planning Commission, the Board upholds the County Planning Commission's denial of the variance application. G.\Current P1anning\carr-p1anA3oard\Board OrdersWR04-1066Jhd.doc RIS\ 9-29-2044 A-9