The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12202005 - C134 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, ACCP - Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County co DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2005 SUBJECT: DENY THE REQUEST OF LOUIS SCHOFIELD TO RECONSIDER THE JULY 1912005 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DENY AN APPEAL AND TO DENY A MODIFICATION TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (WALL) HEIGHT OF NINE-FEET; ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 SADDLEBACK PLACE IN THE UNINCORPORATED DANVILLE AREA. (COUNTY FILE # DPO13049) (DISTRICT III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION A. DENY the request of Louis Schofield to reconsider the Board of Supervisor's July 19, 2005 denial of appeal and denial of a modification to the final development plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE �� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER E(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON /4;Lj(-- 05 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OIHER VOyE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND VP UNANIMOUS(ABSENThT14 CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: David Brockbank(925)335-1237 ATTESTED /,-.g-I -^�.&10,f" JOHN SWEETEN, ICLERR OF THE BOARD OF Original: Community Development Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: Camp&Camp Associates,Applicant/Appellant Dennis Baca, Property Owner John Schofiled,Attorney BY � �� , DEPUTY John Wambff,Attorney Saddleback at Blackhawk HOA December 20, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#DP013049 Page 2 11. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs in review of this request for a reconsideration hearing. The owner's legal representative, Mr. Schofield requested a reduction in fees owed for the project in a letter dated November 18, 2005. A response letter was sent by the Community Development Department on November 28, 2005 which explained that pursuant to the fee Ordinance enacted by the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Schofield's client is responsible for all costs incurred by this application to amend the final development plan. Ill. BACKGROUND On July 19, 2005, the County Board of Supervisors heard an appeal of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's (SRVRPC)decision to deny a request for an amendment to the Final Development Plan in order to allow an existing eight foot, six inch wall to remain at its current height. The SRVRPC, acting as the Board of Appeals, granted the appeal of the Saddleback at Blackhawk Homeowners' Association, thereby overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the amendment to the final development plan. The Board of Supervisors accepted public testimony from the applicant/appellant as well as representatives for the Saddleback at Blackhawk's Homeowners'Association,who were in opposition to the project., The Board unanimously denied the appeal and upheld the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision. IV. RECONSIDERATION DISCUSSION This is a request to reconsider the Board of Supervisor's July 19, 2005 denial of the appeal and the project. Staff has included a citation of County Code Section 26-2.2408 Appeal Reconsideration which is as follows: A motion of reconsideration maybe filed in writing by an appellant within the time allowed to appeal alleging pertinent factual or legal matters which were not brought to the attention of the division rendering the decision. Such motion shall be decided by the division at its next meeting on the basis of the information presented in writing. If the motion is denied, the time to appeal shall be extended only the number of days required fo hear and decide the motion. If the motion is granted, persons recording their appearance at the initial hearing shall be given mailed notice of the time of the new hearing. Mr. Schofield's letter dated July 28, 2005 requesting the Board of Supervisor's to reconsider its decision to deny the appeal is based on three specific points. This letter has been attached to this report and marked Exhibit `A December 20, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#DP013049 Page 3 Reconsideration Point#I: The evidence does not support the decision finding that the height of the wall is fo be measured from the street level grade. Reconsideration Point#2: The evidence does not support a finding that the wall is greater than six feet in height above the finished grade that is below the original grade of the wall. Staff Response: These reconsideration points are statements of opinion that reflect Mr. Schofeild's interpretation of evidence that can be found in the record or that was discussed at the July 19, 2005 Board of Supervisors hearing. Pursuant to the County Code section above,these statements do not constitute pertinent factual or legal matters, which were not brought to the attention of the division rendering the decision on the project. Reconsideration Point#3: The evidence presented by County staff to the Board of Supervisors after the close of the public hearing was in error and was contrary to findings of County staff in the following particulars. Staff Response: This reconsideration point references statements made by County staff at the July 19, 2005 Board of Supervisors hearing and quotes excerpts from previous staff reports that were attached to the July 19, 2005 Board Order for this project. Again, pursuant to the reconsideration appeal language above, these statements and excerpts do not constitute pertinent factual or legal matters, which were not brought to the attention of the division rendering the decision on the project. .CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the request for a reconsideration hearing. I EXHIBIT A John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors July 28, 2005 Page 2 A. Ms. Bhat stated that the measurement of the wall was done by the Code Compliance inspector who measured the wall at 8' 6" from the base of the footing for the wall to the top of the wall. The evidence is that the Code Compliance inspection took place during the course of the work when the original wall was refaced and raised. The Code Compliance inspector did not inspect nor measure the wall after the finish grade of the wall was established at a height of 5'.10" to 6'0" from finished grade to the top of the wall. B. Ms. Bhat repeatedly stated that the Community Development Department's Staff had not measured the wall. The Staff's own findings demonstrate that Staff, and in particular David Brockbank, measured the wall on at least two separate occasions and determined that the height of the wall ranged on one visit from 5'10" to 6'0" and on another visit from 5'10" to 6'0". The Board is directed to the following documents in evidence: (1) County Zoning Administrator, December 9, 2002, at S-2: "Staff returned to the owner's property for a second site visit to inspect the wall on May 28, 2002. After viewing the proposed plans that were approved by th DRB in 1986.87, staff measured the height in front of and behind the wall from finished grade. The inside height was 3 feet six inches. The outside height was five feet 10 inches to 6 six feet. Therefore the maximum height of the retaining portion of the wall is two and 1/2 feet. And thus, the total height of the wall is presently six feet." (2) Board of Appeals, May 12, 2004, at page S-3: V. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR "Staff returned to the owner's property for a second site visit to inspect the wall on May 28, 2002. After viewing the proposed plans that were approved. by the DRB from 1985 to 1987, staff measured the height in front of and behind the wall from finished grade. The inside height was 3 feet 6 inches. The outside height was five feet 10 inches to 6 six feet. Therefore, the maximum height of the retaining portion of the wall was two John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors July 28, 2005 Page 3 and 1/2 feet, and the visible height of the wall was six feet. These measurements complied with the structure definition in the County's Zoning Code (Section 82.4.270). ...On December 9, 2002, this project was brought back to the Zoning Administrator. ...Ultimately the Zoning Administrator approved the project, findingthe proposed amendment consistent with the Planned Unit District (P-1)." (3) Board of Appeals, May-12, 2004, at page S-4: .Staff Response ...The subject wall is over six feet when the footing is included in the overall height. But the height of the wall, which fronts the street, is six feet while the backside of the wall measures three feet six inches of hillside, thus meeting code requirements." (4) Board of Appeals, May 12, 2004, at page S-5: Staff Response "...Staff never witnessed anine-foot plus wall." C. Ms. Bhat repeatedly stated that the original grade from which the measurement of the wall was to be taken was from the street level. This is in error and contrary to the Staff Analysis (County Zoning Administrator, December 9, 2002 at page S-2) and County Code, Article 82.4.214. "Building height" means the vertical distance measured from grade to the top of structure directly above with exceptions noted elsewhere in the code. Height may be measured from finished grade when such grade is below natural grade. Height shall be measured from natural grade when finished grade is higher than natural grade." Thus, the evidence presented by Ms. Bhat and adopted by the Board in its decision is to incorrectly measure the height of the wall from the level of the street to the top of the wall. The evidence presented demonstrates the NATURAL GRADE to be above the finished grade, thus a proper application of the Code would be to measure the wall from the finished grade...which is clearly within the six foot height limitation and would not be inconsistent with the P-1district standards. There is no evidence that John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors July 28, 2005 Page 4 the street was ever the natural grade for the site at 36 Saddleback Place. The applicant's engineered drawings clearly show the original grade, both graphically and by topographic height readings. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Very my your Louis F. Schofield" LFS:I c cc: Camp & Camp Associates . Dennis Baca AP SCHOFIELD AssoCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION THE PLAZA AT SAIV RAMON TELEPHONE: 925-327-0008 San Joaquin Valley office'- 000 ffice:000 CROW CANYON PLACE,SUITE 270 FACSIMILE: 95-327-0009 1500 J Street,P.O.Box I637 SAN RAMON,CALIFORNIA 94583 WEB:u+war.sch4law.com Modesto,California 95353 209-572-1130 Far.209-572-1134 Reply to: San Ramon July 28, 2005 s J!k V v Lam:-'' s � VIA U.S MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY -- John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, 1St Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: County File No.: DPO13049 Applicant: Camp & Camp Associates Owner: Dennis Baca Dear Mr. Sweeten: This office is the attorney for the owner of the property, Dennis E. Baca, and for the Applicant, Camp and Camp Associates. This matter was heard by the Board of Supervisors as item D-6 on July 19, 2005. On behalf of the owner a.nd the Applicant, request is made that the Board of Supervisors reconsider its decision denying the appeal for the following reasons: 1. The evidence does not support a decision finding that the height of the wall is to be measured from the street's grade. 2. The evidence does not support a finding that the wall is greater than six feet in height above the finished grade that is below the original grade of the wall. 3. The evidence presented by Aruna Bhat, Community Development Department, to the Board after the close of the public hearing was in error and was contrary to the findings of the Staff of the Community Development Department in the following particulars: