HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12022005 - D.5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
A
.' Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP � Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT•DIRECTOR y .,
n cu
County
U.
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2005
SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING OF AN APPEAL BY MARIE & ROMEO PARKER OF THE
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE/SMALL LOT
DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE ATOP AN EXISTING
RETAINING WALL AT 6267 BERNHARD AVENUE IN THE EAST RICHMOND
HEIGHTS AREA, COUNTY FILE #VR031089 (JOHN FULLER & SANDRA HULING -
APPLICANTS & OWNERS) (DISTRICT 1).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. ACCEPT oral report from staff regarding a meeting of applicants and appellants scheduled
following the December 13, 2005, Board of Supervisors hearing.
B. ADOPT a categorical exemption (Section 15303, Class 3(e)) determination for purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMME DATIO OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OT ER—
V
R
VO E OF SUPERVISORS '] I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
V� UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) 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 Swartz(925)335-1371 ATTESTED `0'/0'10/0-�c
JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Orig: Community Development Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: John Fuller and Sandra Huling (Applicants and Owners)
Marie and Romeo Parker(Appellants)
BY Q!/t
DEPUTY
December 20, 2005
Board of Supervisors
File#VR031089
Page 2
C. DENY the appeal of Marie and Romeo Parker.
D. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission APPROVAL of the project, generally as
conditioned by the County Planning Commission.
E. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 33-2005 as the
basis for the Board approval.
F. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Exemption for the project with the County Clerk.
Il. FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs in the review of this appeal.
III. BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2005, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing regarding the appeal of a
County Planning Commission decision to grant a variance to allow a proposed fence to be erected
atop an existing retaining wall. Staff recommended that the Board deny the appeal, and sustain
the Planning Commission's approval of the application, incorporating the Planning Commission's
findings and conditions of approval.
Prior to the December 13, 2005 Board of Supervisors hearing, staff conducted a pre-hearing
meeting involving the applicants and the appellants. At this meeting the applicants presented a
proposed agreement regarding the trimming of the trees, indicating that they viewed the proposed
agreement as a starting point for negotiations.
On December 13, 2005, the Board of Supervisors accepted testimony from the applicants and
appellants. Testimony focused upon the extent and timing of trimming of the existing trees along
their shared property line. The applicants conveyed a willingness to negotiate a compromise with
the appellants regarding the trees. The appellants reiterated their desire to have all three trees
trimmed to the property line, and at a more rapid rate than the project arborist (whose report only
addressed the Coast Live Oak tree) indicated that this degree of trimming could be conducted
without compromising the health of the tree.
The Board of Supervisors .continued the hearing to December 20, 2005 in order to provide the
applicants and appellants an opportunity to meet with staff to attempt to negotiate an agreement.
Following the hearing, staff scheduled a meeting with the applicants and the appellants (for a date
after preparation of this report). Staff will give an oral report on the meeting at the continued Board
of Supervisors hearing.
GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board OrdersWR031089_continued.doc
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5
December 20, 2005
OPENED the hearing on an appeal by Marie &Romeo Parker of the County Planning Commission's
approval of a variance/small lot design review/tree permit application for a proposed fence atop an
existing retaining wall at 6267 Bernard Avenue, in the East Richmond Heights area. (John Fuller&
Sandra Huling- applicants &owners) (County File#VR031089)
Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, asked if under the Better Government
Ordinance (BGO)the Board was agreeable to accept new information presented to staff that was not
received in sufficient time to present the results to the Board beforehand.
Supervisor Gioia moved to waive the BGO allowing the information be accepted; the motion was
seconded by Supervisor Piepho. The vote to allow the information be included for consideration was
unanimous with all Board members present.
Catherine Kursuris asked the Board adopt a motion to accept the revised conditions which are as
follows and which reflect the agreement between both parties.
The following person presented testimony:
John Fuller, applicant, thanked the Board.
ACCEPTED oral report from staff regarding a meeting of applicants and appellants scheduled
following the December 13, 2005, Board of Supervisors hearing.
ADOPTED a categorical exemption (Section 15303, Class 3(e) determination for purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
DENY the appeal of Marie and Romeo Parker.
SUSTAINED the County Planning Commission APPROVAL of the project, generally as conditioned
by the County Planning Commission.
ADOPTED the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 33-2005 as the
basis for the Board approval.
DIRECTED staff to file a Notice of Exemption for the project with the County Clerk.
The Chair CLOSED the public hearing.
Supervisor Gioia thanked Catherine Kutsuris for her efforts and thanked both parties for accepting the
compromise, moved staff recommendations.
Supervisor Piepho seconded the motion; the Board voted unanimously.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM h
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place/it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: yah ✓l r1 i l��y^ Phone:
Address: 6 267- '&� n htvrd h>r e City: CA `1 t1gO5�
I am speaking for myself kl�_ or organization:
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # S Date:
My comments will be: ❑ General 5irFor ❑ Against
❑ 1 wish to speak on the subject of:
❑ 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
=aeCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street N. Win 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (925) 335.1210 Fax: (925) 335-1222
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Community Development Director
By: Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director
e;66 DATE: December 20, 2005
SUBJECT: Request to Accept New Material under the 24 Hour Exception Provision
of the Better Government Ordinance
County Code Section 25-2.206 (Better Government Ordinance) requires that "all such staff
material must be distributed to the policy body and be made available to the public 96 hours before
the scheduled meeting." In this case where the direction came from the Board at the previous
meeting, the Better Government Ordinance requires material be furnished 24 hours prior to the
start of the meeting. The Code further allows the policy body, by a three-fourths vote, to waive
these limits "when, in its judgment, it is essential to do so, providing that the County
Administrator, appropriate Department Head, or staff member furnishes to the Board of
Supervisors or other policy body a written explanation as to why the material could not be provided
to the Board or other policy body and the general public within the above time limits."
At the December 13,2005 hearing on this appeal,the Board continued the public hearing to allow
staff to meet with both parties in an attempt to reach an agreement. An agreement between both
parties was reached, but was not achieved in sufficient time to allow revised conditions to be
prepared and distributed in the time frames specified in the Better Government Ordinance.
We ask that the Board adopt a motion to accept the revised conditions which are attached and
which reflect the agreement between both parties.
DMB/CK/mp
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE
#VR031089
FINDINGS
A. Small Lot Findings.
1. Location: The location of the proposed fence (on top of the existing retaining
wall) is consistent with the neighborhood. Numerous retaining walls
and fences exist with 0-foot setbacks; when necessary, fences have
been sited directly on top of retaining walls.
2. Size: The proposed project's size is compatible with the neighborhood.
Similar sized retaining walls, fences, and fence/retaining wall
combinations are present in the neighborhood.
3. Height: The height of the proposed structure is consistent with the
neighborhood in that retaining walls are commonplace and are
constructed as tall as is necessary. Six-foot tall fences are also
common; some are located on top of retaining walls.
4. Design: The proposed design is consistent with the neighborhood. Both
concrete retaining walls and wooden fences are present throughout the
neighborhood.
B. Tree Permit Findings:
Required Findings for Granting a Tree Permit. The Board of Supervisors is
satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010
for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as marked:
1. The arborist report indicates that the subject trees are in poor health and
cannot be saved.
2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or
streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means.
3. The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other
means.
4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as a
building foundation, walls, patios, decks, roofs, retaining walls, etc.
5. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined
to be a fire hazard.
6. The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving.
X 7. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or
removal of the tree and this development could not be reasonably
accommodated on another area of the lot.
8. The tree is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health
of the tree or the safety of people and property. These species
characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived, weak wooded and
subject to limb breakage, shallow rooted and subject to toppling.
9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required, the Director is
satisfied that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the
sustainability of the resource.
10. None of the above factors apply.
Required Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Board of Supervisors is
satisfied that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010
for denying (or modifying) a tree permit application have been satisfied as marked:
1. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal of a healthy
tree that can be avoided by reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to
project approval (for non-discretionary permits).
2. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy tree will
cause problems with drainage, erosion control, land suitability, windscreen,
visual screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as
part of the proposed removal of the tree.
3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each
tree is dependent upon the others for survival.
4. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in terms of visual effect, wind
screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship
to the owner.
5. If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other
reasonable alternatives including an alternate route, use of retaining walls,
use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or relocating site
improvements.
6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the Community
Development Director.
2
X 7. None of the above factors apply.
C. Variance Findings:
1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and the
respective land use in which the subject property is located.
Fences and retaining walls are both permitted within the R-6 zoning district
(subject to setback and height limitations), and are generally intended to stabilize
grade differences and to provide for privacy between properties, respectively.
Authorizing a variance to allow the proposed fence/retaining wall would not
constitute a grant of special privilege.
2. That because of special circumstance applicable to the subject property because of
its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the
respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property the rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use
district.
The proposal is to construct a 6-foot fence on top of an existing retaining wall
with a height of 5-feet at the tallest point. The structure would generally be
shorter than 11 feet (its maximum height).
The applicant is proposing to construct a fence atop an existing retaining wall.
The subject site slopes downward significantly from Bernhard Avenue. The
existing retaining wall steps down with the grade and generally appears to be of
roughly the minimum height that would be required to stabilize the grade
difference between the subject site and the Parker property. The existing retaining
walls on the subject site, which may have been constructed prior to the County
requiring building permits for such structures, have 0-foot front, side, and rear
setbacks.
Locating fences intended to provide a privacy barrier between properties along
shared property lines is generally considered desirable. Siting the proposed fence
on top of the existing retaining wall would offer a degree of privacy comparable to
that provided by a 6-foot tall fence in a flat area. A variance was granted in 1978
(County File #1129-78) to permit the (now-existing) garage to have a 0-foot side
yard setback, as is proposed for the fence. Like the existing retaining wall (that
the fence is proposed to be constructed upon), the fence would begin behind the
existing garage, approximately 30 feet from the front property line, and would
have a 0-foot rear yard setback.
3
Special circumstances exist on the subject site due to the site's topography and the
location of the existing retaining wall. No other location exists on the subject site
where a 6-foot tall fence could be located to provide a degree of privacy similar to
that which a 6-foot tall fence would afford on a flat lot. Strict application of the
respective zoning regulations would deprive the subject property the rights
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the R-6 zoning district.
3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the
respective land use district in which the property is located.
The variance would not result in structures inconsistent with the R-6 zoning
district and therefore meets the intent and purpose of the R-6 zoning district.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This approval pertains to both the existing concrete retaining wall
and the proposed wooden fence. This approval is based upon the
application submitted to the Community Development Department
on September 17, 2003; and the revised site plan and elevation plans
submitted October 31, 2003; and Exhibit `A,' received on December
13, 2005; and is subject to the following conditions of approval.
2. Variance approval is granted to allow for a variance that meets the
requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as
follows:
• I1 foot height granted.
• 6-foot height maximum permitted by Ordinance.
• 0 foot front setback granted.
• 20-foot minimum front setback required by Ordinance.
• 0-foot side yard setback granted.
• 3-foot minimum side setback required by Ordinance.
• 5-foot aggregate side yard setback granted.
• 8-foot side setback required by Ordinance.
• 0-foot rear yard setback granted.
• 15-foot rear yard setback required by Ordinance.
3. This permit only approves work within the driplines of trees as
shown on the approved site plan (dated October 31, 2003).
4
4. Applicant shall obtain a building permit for the proposed fence from
the Building Inspection Department.
5. At no point shall the total height of the retaining wall/fence
combination exceed 11-feet. At no point shall the height of the top
of the fence exceed 7-feet above higher adjacent grade.
6. The applicant shall trim the Coast Live Oak, the Monterey Pine and
the Douglas Fir as detailed in Exhibit A. The tree trimming shall be
completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicants
shall notify the owners of 6265 Bernhard Avenue at least ten days
prior to the tree trimming.
7. No parking or storing of vehicles, equipment, machinery,
construction materials, or construction trailers shall be permitted
within the driplines of any trees on site. No dumping of oils or
chemicals shall be permitted within the driplines of any trees on site.
Applicant shall make a good faith effort to minimize impacts to the
trees as a result of foot traffic relative to construction of the fence.
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 AND OTHER
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.
A. Applicant shall obtain a building permit and comply with all Building Code
regulations. All work must be done in compliance with 2001 CBC, CEC, CMC,
and CPC codes as well as current Title 24 Energy Standards and Contra Costa
County Ordinances. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Building
Inspection Department.
B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Building Inspection Department,
Fire Protection District and Health Services Department. It is advisable to check
with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with
the project.
C. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS,
RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE
APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT.
5
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.
The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or
imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this
approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a
protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and
delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the
approval date of this permit.
6
`'t JCir �PP frl� , T ';�•+ ,'r��,vi•`-r���S,� .} qa� 3 f Az �I
4 ♦ �►� L 3f ! t'+L f e�@ >7T Li b�ULFi�Y�� � >
�, n ,mss• v
>Jj�1 .2 - f 4�6 r rt r Y 4�$ �F l�Y}M1> H#T ��•
� ._fit r \ 't ' . t ! • ;yY rtik•7` ��r�•/a! y� -
."i t j rfi F� fR
� � f •t•Jtpy,'yj t , lj� i� q.
a l G
i:� r r •y
u
# ��S'C�Ij I eLr rrt f.
••
fit 'tl� • 4\ '\'.'\ 1 l ] \ 6�'4...4 {. °�
•
16
71
1,9
Oel
CC�• 1 T. ''> �r sy�e
'� cf Y � �L�..� 0: •� rf f. f�i f4J>i-+•y
a. .1jM a�,r r�i ..T �•� ` f
} R
v 4•
...'. r �6• 'r•. t Cyd . .;r.tiZ. /' .>� �, '�
�� .y T• j• a•�1rC ll L 9
14
14
�.V • • • ♦S� • s��21 r ` la�; '? i .'y i't 'i a � f +i Jti`A✓ ,1
r ?•. j.�,•1 �. ;� h 1 '!p r Yl'� -.*u4 i 1 '1�. _ '�. 1a f n
t - l � v^ r!'+..�• .t. fj ..a > y. +f'f' � 1}�t> er: �" .'L.
Yr "! •� . � • l��.r>Tib � < r.. a �1' I.� R St c4 � ..
�t'v ,,, ..•e � ''� ,y ,� tl.. i:tip F•t� '��' Y i.:
� + « ",�'.r �•' , � 'F!'t( y`�� t y . .fir_
yv. q.•., 5;:• � ark ' � .s.. .•Y� A���Y `<s'.,« . .<.t!"�1.�,,d�.
'ii,:j b •�- ` �;'cel► ' ,� gid•! r
}�' . a,1 t1.ee♦� �'S1R• ' 7r. :7� 'ie• ar?MF
At
• �\• �• xy e`'•. a �1,\. �~ : ~ '�� �♦ �•]� �'a�
�l_
Id
{� 1
.`!f ,� _ Y ., a r Z -t �.a. v 'T 1t c ••T� t' SS
�/ ..+� t R u• - It -r�r a�•✓��ir�fz � t
t l•' f
2r .' ! .♦-.. ♦ .i t •.tib ';�4 >L '•R a `y;' ti.� t\ Si. t �' �;�:
4r�tf � -':v r .�� Y 'iA"NJlrs'f �h t. �• '�•r�� M y.
- Tl'. f.r t., -,A 1'(t t-- .�I tzt"�'l.�a. \.; `x r!:...P. •... �;.
e - . � rl • rte- 1 '-+Y '���- '+t ��1'r :t.' t`
•A 1.. � A \ T ;.}\rye[ I� . t �� •ate
.eR• .ice i �i� t' i x '# .•y .!•,,. � � tw
41 V•a
. •. �• Y . 1.\a •t ti 7'. t o'.
'Ok
q_''."� ' 1 R r ♦s A' .. ~° ��.:Tn:ll i;a. �+,I� � .'��t. \ - x.
'ft J'.
91
ilk.. � i . �.
6 A �ry
• .�• xT r `� ,. R 11
1 7
Ap
t I.
a¢ i
w
`YVw
Zv
op� LZ
:�"� _ �i � .'� F � �•. 1���� �jr� : X31 .V
i
`�• e�bC;a �-�, 1 ♦ ,y kr y; r{ �r. ee »"" F t
pYr sy ♦ `.k.� Y l ./.-?
I^
s w
A . ♦ 1
0 1
ti R •.
10
},'7e iib rte.. 1 �iAt�p}�d ,4a$ __`ppiy`*•3`ti .a ',
k -vtf'•3 F� Tk.: � *{ f }♦
�i .
'��'� a a u;,{� �,yy f 1:•tv v4w �f�6�`- �••;1�{- ,,,•4 c e •a
�V� +•s .+C pti\ k.tr a r , '` - y'h �xa .A
g'INA"'��"t AY�in rli`i" a` '�"{�� ' 'j•Stir All
IN,
ie3„ 'S% r-" `•a .+. �„—:'�" -�' - �- '41 ` g M p aXta9a LA 1
_
f....,... ,"•t Nl[k` W.p31 p'reC�,i•1�if f'",Z"6 .
V' kri `�q'tl
p n/ .0 r `efr
s � 10� 'i "� '•'ud�f d2� ���i].*3 .s"Q�f"S ! r3e av
`_3`' qtr � '�•�`••' '€'• .L� �� ° C ;�
]q 4 2 � •p `Yn��(ai it a��i Pf y'\tc y ff t/' ft J
yl i°' w ].r �i. 'J X44 �,�Vi,, i,r41.'4'�� ,�Aa 9t t.Vra/�/et/!#�f .•..
•� t} +a.'. 1 � fir. .r.:.��r.� J a' r v .' a{ .1{3rd ,i
. saat yit .. .,2'f� •_..�T l..is •` � -_
1}� �#y � . 4•! t_;y{$/ ��t.*tom • ��
' • N1 Lei ' • • �� : 11
°CoU"i{ j ), �!e �ZRv.3'�'i08a7 i
_
,J.dhn'F.uller.and' Sandra;Hul.ing IIA Ucants;and .'Owners}
imarWand'Romeo,P,arker ..' {Appellants}
Hearing=on an.Appea'l of the County Planning Cornmissiori'sApprova! _
of a \%anancelSmal!`Lot Design,Review Involving`Work within' the
D.r�pl'�nes=of .T.hree:Trees,for a 'Proposed Fence.Atop an Existing
Retalnrng"`:Vllall
. ,rn;the 'Richmond rarea
.. a .. •
Board.of$Super msors, '
'Crntra Costa-,County
DecLimber 13,`2005
� x t_
j
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .....
'1FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP -„ Contra
._
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Costa
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2005
SUBJECT: HEARING OF AN APPEAL BY MARIE & 'ROMEO PARKER ,OF THE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A VARIANCEISMALL LOT DESIGN
REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED FENCE ATOP AN EXISTING RETAINING
WALL AT 6267 BERNHARD AVENUE IN THE EAST RICHMOND HEIGHTS AREA,
COUNTY FILE #VR031089 (JOHN FULLER & SANDRA HULING - APPLICANTS &
OWNERS) (DISTRICT 1).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. ADOPT a categorical exemption (Section 15303, Class 3(e)) determination for purposes of
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
B. DENY the appeal of Marie and Romeo Parker.
C. SUSTAIN the County Planning Commission APPROVAL of the project, as conditioned by the
County Planning Commission.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) 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 S,yvartz(925)335-1371 ATTESTED
Ong: Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: John Fuller and Sandra Huling(Applicants and Owners) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Marie and Romeo Parker(Appellants)
BY
DEPUTY
December 13, 2005
Board of Supervisors
File#VR031089
/"`1qe 3
1�( be trimmed because they are concerned about fire danger related to the Coast Live Oak's
canopy's proximity to their house; the appellants are also concerned that the trees are obstructing
views observable from their property of Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, and that the shade cast by
the trees is hindering their ability to grow a lawn. .
The.project was denied in its entirety by the Zoning Administrator, and was subsequently appealed
by the applicants. During the appeal (to the County Planning Commission) process, the applicants
hired an arborist to investigate the possibility of trimming the Coast Live,Oak tree (the tree that is
situated the closest to the appellants' residence), and to make recommendations as to how that
trimming could be conducted so as to cause the least harm to the tree. The applicants had not
sought to disturb or alter the trees in any way relative to their original request, but commissioned
the project arborist in response to the appellants' concerns.
The County Planning Commission granted the applicants' appeal; approving the variance; and
adding conditions of approval requiring that the tree closest to the appellants' residence be
trimmed (in a°manner consistent with the project arborists' recommendations in order to minimize
impacts to the tree'shealth), and providing for a'bonding program to ensure that the trimming does
in fact occur. The appellants were -not satisfied with the extent to which the tree-trimming
conditions of approval addressed their concerns. They therefore appealed the CountyPlanning
Commission's approval of the project on the grounds that they wish for conditions of approval to be
incorporated that require the trimming of all three trees along the shared property bine and to
require 'that'the trimming be conducted in a shorter period of time. The appellants have not
provided an arborist report of their own.
01
V. PLANNING COMMISSION EVALUATIONS AND ACTION
In granting the appeal, the Commission was able to make the findings required in order to approve
a variance,-the required Tree'Protection and Preservation Ordinance findings to allow work within
the driplines of the three code-protected'trees, and the findings in order to grant small lot design
review approval determining that the proposal would be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, and would not excessively impact neighboring properties. 'In the Commission's
motion to approve the project, conditions were added that required the Coast Live Oaktree to be
trimmed (in accordance with.the recommendations of the arborist report) such that no portion of
the tree extended beyond the property line shared by the applicants and the appellants, and
providing for a bonding program to ensure that this trimming occurs. The Commissioners stated
that the proposed location for the fence would be the only one that could accomplish its purpose of
creating privacy at the subject site, and that siting the fence atop the retaining wall would minimize
effects to the code-protected trees. Commissioners Terrell and Mehlman voted against the motion
because of the inclusion of the requirement to trim the tree.
VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AMENDED/ADDED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COA#1: Language was added referring to the Arborist report as one of the bases for the approval.
COA #6: Requires that all portions of the Coast Live Oak tree (near the residences) along the
northwest side property line be trimmed such that no portion of the tree extend beyond the property
line (onto the Parker property). This condition must be fulfilled prior to issuance of a building
O; permit.
{-
COUNTY PLANNING sCOMMISSION
RE;SOLUTIFON, .3.3-20.05
RESOLUTION NO. 33-2005
01
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
REQUESTED VARIANCE/SMALL LOT DESIGN REVIEW BY JOHN
FULLER & SANDRA RULING (APPLICANTS & OWNERS), IN THE EAST
RICHMOND HEIGHTS AREA OF SAID COUNTY. (COUNTY FILE
#VR031089)
WHEREAS, a request was received on September 17, 2003 by John Fuller &
Sandra Hulmg (Applicants/Owners), to grant variances to allow a 0-foot front yard
(where a minimum of 20-feet is required), and a side yard of 0-feet(where a minimum
of 3-feet is required), and an aggregate side yard of 5-feet(where a minimum of 8-feet
is required), and a 0-foot rear yard (where a minimum of 15-feet is required), and a
height of 11-feet(where a maximum of 6-feet is permitted)to construct a fence atop an
existing retaining wall, and involving work within the driplines of 3 code-protected
trees, on a substandard sized lot in the East Richmond Heights area of the County; and
Following issuance of public notices on the variance and small lot design review
application,the County received a timely request from an adjacent property owner that
a public hearing be conducted on the requested variance and.small lot design review;
and
Whereas, on July 26, 2004, after issuance of a notice as required by law, the
Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing on the application whereat all persons
interested may speak; and
Whereas, at the July 26, 2004 hearing, after taking public testimony,the Zoning
Administrator determined that the required findings could not be made and DENIED
the project; and
Whereas, in a letter dated August 2, 2004, the applicant/owner, Ms. Sandra
Huling filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the request; and
Whereas, on November 9, 2004, after notice was issued as required bylaw,the
Contra Costa County Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, conducted a
hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision; and
Page 3
0 Locatingfences intended to provide a privacy barrier between properties along
shared property lines is generally considered desirable. Siting the proposed
fence on top of the existing retaining wall would offer a degree of privacy
comparable to that provided by a 6-foot tall fence in a flat area. A variance
was granted in 1978 (County File #1129-78) to permit the (now-existing)
garage to have a 0-foot side yard setback, as is proposed for the fence. Like
the existing retaining wall (that the fence is proposed to be constructed upon),
the fence would begin behind the existing garage, approximately 30 feet from
the front property line, and would have a 0-foot rear yard setback.
Special circumstances exist on the subject site due to the site's topography and
the location of the existing retaining wall. No other location exists on the
subject site where a 6-foot tall fence could be located to provide a degree of
privacy similar to that which a 6-foot tall fence would afford on aflat lot. Strict
application of the respective zoning regulations would deprive the subject
property the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the R-
6 zoning district.
3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of
0 the respective land use district in which the property is located.
The variance would not result in structures inconsistent with the R-6 zoning
district and therefore meets the intent and purpose of the R-6 zoning district.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Commission makes the finding with
respect to the small lot design review request that the proposed project, as conditioned,
provides relative compatibility in terms of size, height, design, and location, with
minimal impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
Location: The location of the proposed fence (on top of the existing retaining
wall) is consistent with the neighborhood. Numerous retaining walls and
fences exist with 0-foot setbacks; when necessary, fences have been sited
directly on top of retaining walls.
Size: The proposed project's size is compatible with the neighborhood. Similar
sized retaining walls,fences, and fence/retaining wall combinations are present
in the neighborhood.
0
Height: The height of the proposed structure is consistent with the
Page 5
o
The instructions by the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution
were given by motion of the County Planning Commission of the County of Contra
Costa, State of California on Tuesday, November 9, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Clark, Snyder, Battaglia, Wong
NOES: Commissioners - Mehhnan, Terrell
ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
ATTEST:
O' Cc3,/-DENNIS M. BARRY,AICP, Secretary
Contra Costa County Planning
Commission, County of Contra Costa,
State of California
6:\Current Planning\curr-pion\Board\Resolutions\VR031089.doc
DM5/mp
0
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE
_ #VR031089, AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 9, 2004
FINDINGS
A. Small Lot Findings:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit on a substandard lot, the Zoning
Administrator must review the dwelling's compatibility with and impact on
the surrounding neighborhood in terms of the following:
• Location: The location of the proposed fence (on top of the existing
retaining wall) is consistent with the neighborhood. Numerous
retaining walls and fences exist with 0-foot setbacks; when necessary,
fences have been sited directly on top of retaining walls. '
• Size: The proposed project's size is compatible with the
neighborhood. Similar sized retaining walls, fences, and
Q' fence/retaining wall combinations are present in the neighborhood.
• Height: The height of the proposed structure is consistent with the
neighborhood in that retaining walls are commonplace and are
constructed as tall as is necessary. 6-foot tall fences are also common;
some are located on top of retaining walls.
• Design: The proposed design is consistent with the neighborhood.
Both concrete retaining walls and wooden fences are present
throughout the neighborhood.
Required Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Zoning
Administrator is satisfied that the following factors as provided by
County Code Section 816-6.8010 for denying (or modifying) a tree.
permit application have been satisfied as marked:
1. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal
of a healthy tree that can be avoided by reasonable redesign of the
site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits).
2. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy
tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control, land
suitability, windscreen, visual screening, and/or privacy and said
problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed removal of
the tree.
3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in
which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival.
4. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in terms of visual
effect, wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is
Q) greater than the hardship to the owner.
5. If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are
other reasonable alternatives including an alternate route, use of
retaining walls, use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or
relocating site improvements.
6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the
Community Development Director.
X 7. None of the above factors apply.
_ existing garage, approximately 30 feet from the front property line, and
�\ would have a 0-foot rear yard setback.
Special circumstances exist on the subject site due to the site's
to and the location of the existing retaining wall. No other
location exists on the subject site where a 6-foot tall fence could be
located to provide a degree of privacy similar to that which a 6-foot tall
fence would afford on a flat lot. Strict application of the respective
zoning regulations would deprive the subjectproperty the rights enjoyed
by other properties in the vicinity and within the R-6 zoning district.
3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and
purpose of the respective land use district in which the property is
located.
The variance would not result in structures inconsistent with the R-6
zoning district and therefore meets .the intent and purpose of the R-6
zoning district.
01
5
5. At no point shall the total height of the retaining wall/fence
O` combination exceed 11-feet. At no point shall the height of
the top of the fence exceed 7-feet above higher adjacent
grade.
6. Trimming of all portions the code-protected Coast Live Oak
tree that extend beyond the northwest (side) property line is
required and is approved in accordance with the arborist
report received by the Community Development Department
on July 22, 2004 (dated November 29, 2003),
7. Required Security to Assure the Completion of
Approved/Required Trimming of Oak Tree
A. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall
submit an addendum to the arborist report (to be prepared
by a certified arborist, landscape architect or landscape
contractor) to the Community Development Department
for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The addendum shall contain a schedule for the trimming
of the Coast Live Oak tree near the northwest (side)
property line of the subject site such that no portion of
the tree extends beyond the northwest (side) property
line, in accordance with the arborist report, intended to
ensure that the trimmingis conducted so as to minimize
deleterious impacts to the health of the tree. The
addendum shall include an estimate addressing the cost
of the approved trimming of the code-protected Coast
Live Oak tree in accordance with the arborist report and
addendum. Trimming shall be conducted in accordance
with the recommendations of the arborist report and
addendum.
B. Prior to issuance Of buildingpermit, the applicant shall
submit a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) that is
acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. The bond shall
include the amount of the approved cost estimate (per
COA 97A),_plus a 20% inflation surcharge. Prior to
issuance of a building permit, the first pruning shall be
Qcompleted, as recommended by the project arborist; a
letter from the project arborist shall be submitted to the
O 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 AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT.
A. Applicant shall obtain a building permit and comply with all Building
Code regulations. All work must be done in compliance with 2001 CBC,
CEC, CMC, and CPC codes as well as current Title 24 Energy Standards
and Contra Costa County Ordinances. Applicant shall comply with all
requirements of the Building Inspection Department.
B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Building Inspection
Department, Fire Protection District and Health Services Department. It
is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a
building permit or proceeding with the project.
C. 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.
The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any
fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction
required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was
approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community
Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this
permit.
Q
9
LETTER OF APPEAL .
`f
r : ti
III
! t
f f
i
� I
I ,
I
� I
MARIE PARKER 2458
6265 BERNHARD AVE(510) 234-0724
RICHMOND,CA 84805 J �j I1-3511210
Date �/ /D —C' Ll 1210
Pay to the
order of
i
/f
Bankof America
:0 >1au n ava �f�/" ti1 9 77 4
31OD{�Iltop Mall Rd.
San Pa610 CA � n
516_&348640 % ! i
^
COUNTY `ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
STAFF REPORT
JULY 26, 2004
Agenda Item#
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY, JULY 26, 2004
I. INTRODUCTION:
JOHN FULLER&SANDRA HULING(Applicants&Owners),County File# VR031089:
The applicant requests design review approval to construct a fence with a height of 6-feet on
top of an existing retaining wall with a height of 5-feet at the highest point on a substandard
lot with variances to allow for (1) a total combined maximum height of I1-feet (6-feet
maximum permitted)for the fence/retaining wall,(2)a 0-foot side yard setback(minimum 3-
feet required), (3) a 5-foot aggregate side yard setback (minimum 8-feet required), (4) a 0-
foot front yard setback (minimum 20-feet required), and (5) a 0-foot rear yard setback
(minimum 15-feet required),for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility. The
total combined height of the proposed fence/retaining wall will range from 7-feet to 11-feet.
This project involves work within the driplines of three code-protected trees. The subject
site is addressed 6267 Bernhard Avenue,in the Richmond area. (APN: 418-190-009), (CT:
3620.00), (ZA: K-06), (R-6), (DMS).
II. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County
File#VR031089 with the attached findings and conditions of approval.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION:
A. GENERAL PLAN: The General Plan designation for the subject property is Single
Family Residential-High Density(SH),which allows a density of 5.0 to 7.2 units per
net acre.
B. ZONING: The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (R-6).
C. CEOA STATUS: The project is Categorically exempt under Section 15303, Class
3(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act: "Accessory (appurtenant)
structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences."
of the subject site (owned by the East Bay Regional Park District and located in the City of
Richmond). A concrete retaining wall exists on the Parker property; its orientation is
perpendicular relative to the existing concrete retaining wall on the subject site; these two
existing concrete retaining walls are not structurally attached,per the applicant. The concrete
retaining wall on the subject site is sited within the driplines of 3 trees (a Monterey Pine, a
Douglas Fir, and a Coast Live Oak),which are classified as code-protected trees per County
Code Chapter 816-6.6004.
V. BACKGROUND OF CREATION OF LOTS:
The subject site was created in 1911 as Lot 7 of the East Richmond Heights, Tract No. 2
Subdivision.
VI. BACKGROUND OF APPLICATION:
The applicant filed for a variance with the Community Development Department on
September 17, 2003.
County staff distributed a Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative Decision relative to
the above-referenced requests on November 4, 2003.
On November 10,2003,a letter was received by the Community Development Department
requesting a public hearing relative to County File #VR031089; the letter was from the
Romeo and Marie Parker,of 6265 Bernhard Avenue(the property adjacent to the subject site,
along whose shared property line the fence addition is proposed). County staff rnet with the
Parkers on November 13,2004,to discuss the proposed project. Following this meeting,the
Parkers submitted a second letter reiterating their request for a public hearing relative to this
prof ect.
After spending several months attempting to reach an agreement with the Parkers, the
applicant submitted a letter(dated May 1,2004)stating that they had been unable to reach an
agreement and requesting that the matter be scheduled for public hearing.
VII. AGENCY COMMENTS: The following comments have been received:
A. BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT: A memo dated October 20, 2003,
conveyed the following requirements of the Building Inspection Department:
1). A building permit will be required for the new fence.
2). All work must be done in compliance with 2001 CBC.
3).The existing retaining wall will need to be evaluated to determine if it is adequate
to support the additional loads from the new fence.
S-3
fence/retaining wall and have not expressed concern regarding the construction proving
deleterious to the health of the trees. Although a portion of the trees' canopies extend
onto the Parkers'property, the trunks are located entirely on the subject site. Removal
of the trees (or trimming beyond 25%of the trees'canopy bulk)was not proposed by the
applicant as part of VR031089. As discussed previously, the trees along theproperty line
are code protected per the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. These trees,
whose trunk circumferences exceed 20-inches, are part of a grouping of more than three
trees that extends into the `foothill woodland"to the northeast(a woodedparcel owned
by the East Bay Regional Park District(part of Wildcat Canyon regional Park)).
The applicants have expressed their desire to preserve the trees; in an attempt to
accommodate the Parkers' concerns the applicants hired an arborist to trim the trees
along the property line (within the constraints of the Tree Protection and Preservation
Ordinance criteria for trimming a code protected tree without the need for a treepermit).
The Community Development Department agrees with the applicants' interest in
preserving the trees and does not find it appropriate to require removal oj-pruning of
code protected trees relative to County File#VR031089;construction of a fence on top of
an existing retaining wall underneath the canopy of trees does not necessitate alterations
to or removal of any tree on the subject site. In order to minimize impacts to the trees as
a result of construction, staff has recommended a condition of approval stipulating that
limiting activity within the driplines of the trees (see COA #5).
IX. . STAFF DISCUSSION:
OA. General Plan/Zoning Compliance: Staff is able to make positive variance findings to
recommend approval of variances to the height and setback requirements of the R-6
zoning district. The proposed fence/retaining wall combination is also consistent
with the subject site's SH (Single-Family High Density Residential) General Plan
designation.
B. NeigbborhoodCoMpatibility: Staff has found that the proposed project is consistent
with the neighborhood in terms of its size, height, design, and location.
C. Environmental Issues: This project is exempt from CEQA. The proposed location
for the fence (on top of an existing retaining wall) minimizes impacts to the code-
protected trees on the site.
X. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File
#VR031089 with the attached findings and conditions of approval.
Q' s-s
O:Y.YiJN.YYfNM)IORYYRn1sYc
i
i
i
u1� ZA p
uo mn'i u n ny UU( 41 d
Community Development Director
Devebpment 'Costa
Department
County
County Administration Building
�"51 Pine Street F•-
Oih Floor,North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-0095
R
Phone: 925)333.1210 'r< .:• Date:emu
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST
We request your comments reoar ' the attached application currently under review.
DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows:
_HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner_ GV,
_$SD,Hazardous Materials
_PIS'-Flood Control (Full Size) County File� p�
_P/W-EIlpeering SECS (Full Size} Number:
Date Forwarded
P/W.TraMci (Reduced) Prior To: O-S
_PM1 Special Districts.(Reduced)
_Comprehensive Planning 'Vilehave found the following special programs
_Redevelopment Agency apply to this application:
Historical Resources Information.System
CA Native Amer.Her. Comm. �Redevelopment Area
_CA Fish& Game,Region
_US Fish &YFrildlife 5 ez rice ��Active Fault Zone
=Fire District
(`✓) Sanitary District Flood Hazard Area,Panel#
—Water District
_City 60 dBA Noise Control
—School District
_Sheriff Office-Admin & Comm. Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site
_Alaimo Improvement Association
El Sobrante Pig. & Zoning Committee _Traffic Zone
_MAC
_DOLT -Dep.Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical Exemption Section
Community Organizations
Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send
copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner.
-"lo comments on this application.
Our Comments are attached
'Comments: /
S•Qnature 1
0111
Agency
fb�Za/a.3
S:current planningltemplates/forms/aaeney comment request Dale
Office Hours Monday- Fridav 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.
7715ir.
x�.
}
cr.,ta tinllnt. i'tacrtl.in ;. ItL lar.tme)
Itf County htiniintrt ° 1ti°cn iini d►nll
i lit 1; liscub.
Martfilezo t.11i161,11B
ttill, Ncl.
j Asses4nrls Pa6&C �No. �'11 t l�iti-l3l}Sb
i Lind 11:c Pistr t.: :
i iiffcct>vc i}atct i�tiytr�
AS At1'1'11URIZEI? BY THE ZUNING''AUMINISTRA'I'OR, _�a variallee pc rnlil he p.111100 Lo:
,
:I I lut l
U1 l Cr and 'Ml ry Riddle ..
t,2t17
Bel lard Aveniie
Iticlmlond, GV94,805
FOR THE FOLLOWING: iequest� hpploval to c`Ivttui.atr �1°le a ki iiiia.11avv a 10 t'csot
a �Z,3rasc addition to tl �til;to ti,unsl}' :zc:sattL•ntr �,, foul �.itiuyaitl antl Ztl Coot sel.b;tcl.
retluzred}. Granted with the following conaitionso
r
1. Development sh it he `as shown cnl t o Illans +1lhmitictl iatth 'tile applient iotl
and dated October ' .' 19780 by the Planning Delvartmelit.
Building permits must be obtained and a surl�ev .Iriovi�led.
3. The ,walls of the garage shall meet ,xoquiremeas':for tiie building code (one
} ' ;hour fire walls)
t
d
��
3.t)CATED 'QN: A tescrilitive ;parcel fronting on Den axd Avenue.; 220 feet south of Nome
ve
A nu`e and $00,.feet ',east of;Arlington boulevard, in the hartlieast Riclutlond.area:
( y' r '.
r
t
Unlcss',atherw�,se -pxo`rided, THIS PERMIT 1VILL IERPIRF ONE .PEAR .from tate effective date
if' tile;variante allowed Ily xh>s :permit is :net establislsed within that time.
NO'1l.: 4 .builtting pewit Is required from the Building inspection Department for all
•constructacn ..
P Anthony 1% '1; . kesus
llirec or of `1 fanning
�4
areey'F Rad tl
} cting Z ling c inistrator
nig
cc:
cc j „lilai.ldillg Inspection Department
'COLJNTY .PLANNING COMMISSION
-STAFF -REPORT
.NOVEMBER 9; X0.04
f
Agenda Item#
Community Development Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2004
I. INTRODUCTION:
JOHN FULLER&SANDRA HULING(_Applicants&Owners),County File# VR031089:
An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's denial of a design review request for a proposed
fence with a height of 6-feet on top of an existing retaining wall with a height of 5-feet at the
highest point on a substandard lot for purposes of determining compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood,with variances to allow for(1)a total combined maximum height
of 11-feet (6-feet maximum permitted) for the fence/retaining wall, (2) a 0-foot side yard
setback(minimum 3-feet required),(3)a 5-foot aggregate side yard setback(minimum 8-feet
required), (4) a 0-foot front yard setback (minimum 20-feet required), and (5) a 0-foot rear
yard setback (minimum 15-feet required). The total combined height of the proposed
fence/retaining wall would range from 7-feet to 11-feet. This project involves work within
the driplines of three code-protected trees. The subject site is addressed 6267 Bernhard
Avenue, in the Richmond area. (APN: 418-190-009), (CT: 3620.00), (ZA: K-06), (R-6),
(DMS).
•
U. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal
and uphold the Zoning Administrator's denial of County File#VR031089.
M. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This is an appeal by the applicant of the Zoning Administrator's
denial of a request for design review approval to construct a fence on top of an existing
retaining wall with variances to permit the fence/retaining wall to exceed the maximum
height permitted by the ordinance and to encroach into required setbacks. The proposed
development is under the driplines of 3 code-protected trees. The basis of the Zoning
Administrators' denial is that the aggregate effects of the proposed structure,in conjunction
with the presence of trees in its area, would constitute a granting of special privilege and
would cause an excessive impact to the property immediately to the northwest of the subject
site.
IV. AREA&SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a rectangular lot(40-foot wide by 110-
foot deep)that fronts on Bernhard Avenue in the East Richmond Heights neighborhood. The
majority of the area is zoned R-6, a single-family residential district. There are nearby
pockets of A-2 (general agricultural) zoning and R-B (retail business) zoning; Wildcat
Canyon Regional Park (located in the City of Richmond) is immediately to the northeast.
O
top of an existing retaining wall,disturbance of the soil in the trees' driplines relative to this
project would be limited to that disturbance caused by the construction activity.
O
VI. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING: The project was heard by the Zoning
Administrator on July 26, 2004.
During the hearing the applicants conveyed their desire to establish a fence on top of the
existing retaining wall to allow increased privacy in their backyard, explaining that the
neighbors to the northwest had poured a concrete deck very near to the shared property line
that looked down over their yard. The applicant explained that, in accordance with the
advice of Steve Batchelder,the consulting arborist,he had trimmed the Oak tree on the site
back to the extend that would avoid serious deleterious effects to the tree's health. The
applicant expressed a willingness to continue to trim the tree back over time, offering to
commit to do so in writing, but said that he did not feel that it was appropriate to further
impact the canopy of the tree at this time (as is recommended in a report the consulting
arborist dated November 29, 2003). The applicant asserted that they have a right not to be
compelled to inflict harm upon the tree relative to their request to construct the proposed
fence.
Speaking at the Zoning Administrator hearing,Marie Parker,the neighbor to the northwest of
the subject site, communicated her frustration that the Oak tree on the subject site had
branches that projected over the property line and shaded portions ofher backyard. She cited
her desire to landscape her yard,but explained that the"trees kill everything underneath it."
She conveyed her desire for the Oak tree to be "cut back so they [the branches] don't
Oprotrude over into [her]yard." Mrs.Parker provided a photograph of the unobstructed views
of the hills on the opposite side of Wildcat Canyon taken in the 1970's, prior to the trees
having grown to their current size. She conceded that she would not take issue with the
proposed fence/retaining wall combination if the (Oak) tree was trimmed back such that
branches from the tree did not extend over the property line.
The Zoning Administrator denied the project on the basis that the height and location of the
proposed fence/retaining wall combination would amount to a granting of special privilege
and that the screening provided by the tree,when considered in combination with that which
would be provided by the proposed structure, would impact the Parkers' property
excessively.
VII. APPEAL:
Sandra Huling, 6267 Bernhard Avenue,Richmond:
• Appeal point: "[The Zoning Administrator]just stated that it was denied because it
would constitute special privilege,but did not give any actual reasoning why [they]
overturned the staff recommendation."
Staff Response:
OS-3
nn.w.v....anvam i ox crc..rt.�„m.
'I 1
I
C
V11e 60
- iii
i;
�I
�F
I1
f)
1G�
it
IIS
1VIAPS., :SITE PLAN,
ELEVATIONS, PHOTOGRAPHS
AND
'ARBORIST :REPORT
General Pian Ma
Nr
ALS .
n
os
c
« r
Z0 Ma
l
RFs x
1 `
OEN�NAIM
PIE N �� L
v. Vo
n^ 9 ti i iV. I
OVA
Ilk
Vag . ad
\ 14
b a '
m ' O m
?"
g N •,O
NONE_
O O J.1S 09
J a�
c
f z t y
0
_ 0 Y.Y a •a O " Z
w V b m Sa
z CO h�r�' T Q1m �
cCJ
c O �
U H Na
a o aotI
Lli CL III
u apa' P
bM /z\ o
N
Q 1 ...... .. ... .. �. ���
d
R m�
Q�
z
k
t
Y.
DRAFT
O 1534 Rose Street, Crockett, CA 94525
WC ISA Certified Arborist #228
Calif. Contractor Lie. (C-27) 533675
Phone (510) 787-3075, Fax (510) 787-3065
Umail sboatree®aomcast.net
Date: November 29, 2003
John Fuller
6267 Bernhard Ave.
Richmond, CA
Subject: Pruning and care of Coast Live Oak tree (Quercus agrifolia).
INTRODUCTION
Arborist made a site inspection of the tree on November 19, 2003. At that time arborist
spoke with Mr. Fuller and his neighbor regarding the condition of the tree and the effects
of different types of pruning.
Assignment: Provide comments pertaining pruning the Coast Live Oak tree to provide
additional light for neighbor lawn.
SUMMARY �S
The current fence being constructed under the tree crown will have no impact upon the
tree as it is being constructed on and supported by an existing retaining wall.
OThe subject Coast Live Oak tree has been pruned a significant amount to reduce the
incursion of the tree branches into the property of the residence to the north. Though
the tree can be eventually cut back to the property line, this procedure will require a
number of years to protect the tree health and structural safety.
The growth of turf grass in the adjacent yard will be difficult as this evergreen tree is
located on the south side of the area where the lawn is desired by the neighbors. If
additional light is desired in this area, It is recommended that the pruning not be to
hedge the tree back but to thin the tree and allow more light to pass through the tree.
This type of pruning will also enhance the aesthetic qualities of the tree. Such pruning
should also address to improvement of the structural stem attachments of the tree to
reduce the likelihood of branch failure.
SITE OBSERVATIONS
Tree Species and Condition -The subject tree is a Coast Live Oak (Quercus lobata)that
is growing on the Fuller property close to the adjacent neighbor to the north. The tree
appears to be in excellent health.
The tree structure is marginally problematic due to the inherently weak stem
attachments in the primary scaffolding. The weak stem attachments are known as
included bark and codominant stems. Descriptions can be found in terms and definitions
Provided with this report.
O
Fuller Oak Tree DRAFT 12/212003
6267 Bemhard Ave. Richmond 2 of 3
The tree has a lean to the south. away from the north property line. The tree is also
more heavily weighted to the south side, partly due to the recent pruning on the north
side. The pruning removed a number of branches that extended out over the property
line.
Site Conditions —The site is quite favorable with the tree growing on a well drained slope
along the retaining wall. A fence is being constructed on top of an existing retaining wall
that runs under the canopy of the tree. The fence is attached to the wall and will not
impact the tree.
Grass in Neighbor Yard Area—There is very little grass growing in the neighbor yard
where a lawn is desired. The area closest to the tree has the least amount of grass,
likely due to the deeper shade. The area out from the tree where a limited amount of
grass is still growing appears to get more sunlight. Soil compaction may be another
reason why the grass is doing so poorly.
DISCUSSION
Because the area where the lawn is desired is pTthe nortIde of the tree, here is little
chance that grass will grow in the area adjacent to the tree.) the tree back will
only promote a thick mass of leaves that will not permit light to pass through.
Then:also appear to be additional reasons for the lack of growth in the lawn as shown in
the poor performance in areas where there is sufficient sunlight. Additional reasons for
the poor performance could be soil compaction, poor soil, improper watering or fertility
problems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations cover pruning and rare of the tree.
Pruning Recommendations - It is recommended that the tree be thinned rather than
headed back as this will allow a greater amount of
light to pass through the tree from the south. If the
tree crown is reduced on the north side to eliminate
all branches reaching over the property line, it is
recommended that the necessary pruning be r
accomplished over the next 5-6 years. A significant
amount of branch removal has already occurred.
Further pruning should be in accordance with
Pruning Standards, published by the International
Society of Arboriculture; provided with this report.
Photo shows the subject Coast Live Oak tree.
There is a slight lean to the south, away frgm the
fence posts. There is-se/ concem that too
much additional pruning at the present time will
have a detrimental effect on tree health and
structure.
Steve Rmcheldc%Consdting Arhorist Phone(510)787-3075
1534 Rose St.Crockett,CA 94525 Fax(510)787-3075
Fuller Oak Tree DRAFT 122/2003
6267 Bernhard Ave. Richmond 3 of 3
Mulch— It will be helpful to mulch the tree with some good quality compost and place
mulch under the tree annually. This will benefit the tree health to mitigate the effects of
opruning.
Be Careful Watering the Lawn—Care should be taken to not apply excess water if a
lawn is installed in the adjacent yard. The effects of excess moisture application so
close to the base of the tree could promote root disease. Information on watering and
native oak trees has been provided in the Cooperative Extension University of California
publication entitled Oaks on Home Grounds.
Please call if you have any questions.
Steve Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
WCISA Certified Arborist 9228
0
Stcvc Datchelda.Consulting Arbarixt ® Phnnc(510)787-3075
1534 Rosc St.Cmckott CA 94525 _ Fax(5 10)787-3065
O
mm^^ Aerial Photo
Y
- �� �` a� ' \� '�". � JAG Gr•a � • � i F�„y -.� t i �j x.
rFCNy +'}e � > � "� R rA r f�� ��^� �� 2'pye•
� by �` i '` < �'a•`As'T At` r( rA P�iIS\f T� ��r�.
h
n* ,r..•° 'Gtr ?. �.. z ,y, i '"G,�.' � 7�••jjam� � r o�z� ..J
O
A N
J
n ) Y
y Y
Fill 17
t{i'
r 1A My tl,.
VON,,
C ..
( .4 It
d 5 y -4•g eA .a t.n
{:JAS b k h
,n'�t
tit
if
/ L
YS4
w - (
"te't'--w1 ro§e+..,� '..:,�.fir• S r ..
+ y ! b
'y`
Ir
it ' 'f '_
F-I O
44 JV
S =t E
cd
r
��•'a t A� rte. �' fn .
L Y��,yi'�i..�S4r yT€b a r�Y.,T���(`Tt�4��w( �iei�'� . , ♦ • • . • • . . '
1 �'GuZ� §41y' k t I• .�'( .
V i i ', -vf' ♦ ' 14
-.S� rq�, —s^. I.r .. �V 'ILPi.A�N�f tm7, s a.a• P '• y 4 stir!��ilvt.�rJ,.
141
Y''Si�" 14:
_.xx�r Stu ' `� ;fT•Hys.K ^� '.�
f 1 •. � •r F: �. °d �1
nv
kn
I v
< pI�YY ,.``x, �•��k i�' .w '1(':.'����„Z'.�ei L •� .,. ,,p /���,*l �i Yuri"a
1 :•s
7 � '.0.,y •.� 9 1• a �_ f � .
+(b Y
{ . x Air IV
kip
iter {,
ON
662
y Y !(p•T�
L f�
{. a
1 -
1 i ;
,�. e i•x ti lz' ?�..'
ch;, M �'u ;. { S ee, v r—=—i .(.,......�.--r '"• __ s PM♦ �,,"
xy-t
tilt•� O-�� s � f ty ✓'�� " _ ( �'� Sp',�`,."L ' T
ti �hbi�'7 t" a 1 33sN"' '
qw
Ra�ii k t�
s.• t' .,. 1 'i ,l w� t.
d
I
� k v' � R;` h f"kY ' � ts•p
iA
` - +' �+ �,✓ +'fid .+`( n'' � .. j :AIM ,
72
it
It
17
> ,K
�vs
'f l
I
4 k
a
M1I
`1y ' �;o �`�-. i 3k'.£� _ qy �i9: ,t^+ � J...."�(� i�•i:x �r'4•...�z3fK�'� 1�� t
'�i �, •rx '� °,+x ^, � s.'' a he"'" ' 4f$^� !t' tai{i� ` t{'I vi ,
l ry
' NEAR FRONTS OF SUBJECT
SITE AND PARKER PROPERTY,
' k FACING BERNHARD AVENUE
y..
i t
� �-
f � ` r'"'�r,,. ♦_/r'F'� .L R 4 — �.,xi��-a:.. Baan. 11
.w
r
r
r t
•
Yty-�VMSS 4� wt, , i rlff � '`. } , •y.G�qY (:lj 4 : i # �,
p + t;Y 1 4r1 �Y } •.3 FY .` iT'•' G �� �j.1 b t
` to � r� �... � ' zsa..,ti i,�.¢� w„M1., � ,� � .4�` ?y.`,.y""r'�rs'�.�•s;+�.�"Y n! �;,�` ,♦
r'r
G. � � �tv. .�, dµ2c�' /��.y, ,�. °t'�i,"p�� ' 'N' �-."'.y-'•.m.� Thi
� j'Qt,�� � .�-•^ �(f�.hy�t L � ..wr• p -r ��`e 1 ,,,.. .:�.�:p i
,} .•Xn" I ,Twt, 3t'ISB • ..L �*Ctf �{I'�! 1+ J �. J ,.Z,po-• vy� •' ` 'etSi�( ..-�.?�', i
•{ � 3 r�• r Q f ♦ � ..5 �t ^l a.f �`+� �'4;.� i�+i"i' ��. �, ,!A S 1i'����I
At
415*
NIX
.. r y.,. +yf vin" r•f�"� r
art 1
F
f, L
6 '
•�� yf + {.r I .ASH' ♦ -'• _ 1
SO17*
Y��a,M + irsRv`.Y• wYr �a � •y bA �� �^ T' �- d Y k(1 w �... �^JI
41
+1ft �L f L'^'J".•- } •f .,�.YM�L . . rY-•:�4' �"�''� i
s, rss ,w
•-i���N�1,.�R' •� of :+: .. %t.r
.K 1
E�( 4
� t
r y
t+•
n r
I.y �
.�` ,�,�cr��r�►��h �. �, �..�.v��'" �-. 'may -
♦ l
Mill
.f ✓ `Y{2� a �g,,((
t Wz r
kl
SP
,
ref e�'t/L� iil'V�'.teal 'Y7�(av}\'
- vim .@i, J. a• p.t m. 1' ♦s 'a � �.
00,
'♦ ,dpi "'I'L ! i. aY �+ i'{
jS Ps
•ii Til 1_ l'• C� ljJO
y�„1
w"�`.�L3. ;}•` .a "., 4 1s _y.fi `Z1'�• IAMI
]. I rt ,y�.'a� 1 Fq t 4 � �. ) rt T, ,M7.�7'M � Y• 1.
Ica
7fw9 ! i �"-F�(� m this � • .\ �• �.
? „� i.,> V!•� .<t, ♦`?•.'s .:b.y „'`' 5..:\ rte- �d+'
.;. J 1 �r t V L • , +�J �! - -•moi a:.
3 lid'• „fit a4. Y _1^'i r x"
Y S ri 5
• 1 a fs
If
.. d• a JV• i ,
4.�.E.�a •J� a� a ',� ,
• � •w. ��"irrT�.'tci «,i. �; +���i; _ ^�.r •tom T) ',
•• •� +SSS�"'rt � .'Y J'� �.
IT
s �r�
7r ;
'x
i
,.i.gYa t u .d'•"'.�r4"' -.tom_ ° a f '.v�e.'i53vr'
,. s _ ++,� rY�° k..\ ,.•d.'tr rr t -�,Y�.yj:
I. '�fy �',�• 1 i'� V ." 1 "� � � y i 3.A.p .. t I
=.-g v.�y,
b �', f L, P'1.�ds�,+- T t "i'� . .• �s )A a, aft 'l • ^ ��qyi
1 r ♦. ti f y ra+i ��j� !Y` -f.sl+s�.s f � ' t,.,. f f'- Y•ti
� �;� r s r .oy,Y �t� Y�'t. �': �,'.' �� �!t# ,�•ya.{''��a'�;¢�y^' � -r.. �' .
,.sE.'- .,-.. �. 'Y•�' +4"tart = +1 @+ii
1 y ;9
ria•., C .. '! u.i 4R h a'r't:. a • x�
l l•+ �•� , � �Npp —,�^" Yr Eav t `""Itiht,•r1 q�� .� r�
4
r�
t •� Z ° • 1 y w ♦ d � „F �fl�� xT\ ' �` >t� 't41 +\., � ..
I• v .r14 ., :f y�� i� yf,�, a i_.�r y`.f�,r � �.f`��j� t f`t y��lpr,� t � �,bi� �c
a i - .y � 3,.+f»;Y_` r - �'i} � '4 ��yygg♦TY !&�.L r�k�{��`�a�' i\� y♦ ``�„ � 5'«-. • ., at.''
✓'" � u• ap t+F:. 4.�`I'+tlr���� r.n¢c _ � 'l ' +•. u.'a y{, '�f � �
i -. ;.t•,c✓ ��ra.�? pp�bti �� �' `�,,j�Yy�`�,iitl• v a�,7r♦'��(at p'Y.r -:Y '�•t' � "Cs.:TAM V�f l.t, {i` yat< � �
..�. y •r � _ � �ti `�c.' ;� t..u jY A'Yy s� »• ,� 4� ay ,� ,:i•t Y..
,�, i M1 `(%��,��6��[,ks•kr,. 51• ;" .\+y�y � a%r taf-'a �'+ t. kali 'r z �, �. 3 j'�Y.�R,'r'R�'
yF.:' F '7' `1 � "Li4��k�� • a�s�f=. .�xt r,,.iF �• ��'� Ity. ` g�"-,y�.5 � tt'�,•�•. ,
w fir. •a, rs, re! Fi �; .•. ,t. F411
A n� :µt f �' .�1\ r W Y rR♦ Y• t. '� s
01 41
f 4 :.li.a • .i \ Y � �}w.j4 �..r.. _ y 'r � �' ���TTTI• .
1
�sl � � 1 I �� � '(i�t ick �� @�_ �+z �f•
.� �. "� +.,',Wray. - •1•! S 3 T
LLLLL
,...q+.Y � •Y4 +'�"f1 t �`` do s _ r _
Al I
v* �� � �� t >•� �
C X
fn
x
M1 • �.. ' ii � 1'„ -�lt���"S}t t� ,! � .. 5 ^guy _ t � 4
tp < i 7.(N't'.y � .`1`.iw�� +.j�f( ,� Yom,. \ Y`�.p{ r •,.'�°�{'�� Y�.
�� +� r ' ����� ++ 4 � d`x x fix, t t x• :t �«. , •
`I�". �v'+il yy.}`...,SY� 'M1SS� + ',y�,wh �r�'hl. � " •�.�� ."f
�,V�.µyM1 t ~'Mf'4 fi �i�� W 9' x"'.4a/'' Y 1 } .��♦F����K t �.
rx' .;+i," }v A 1'N 4 ,�f'. •} .. '`"v r . y� t + •V � t
r y x 1
f "fie .,r1 sy ka.w•."F _;n ^"¢+ ..-•4^"'"'"P'�� � {y����
Txia:st
im0.w," �'}`p�3:#J� 4'x 4bip"S,IG t, #'�.. \V _ � ���� •{i..
3 G
Y, '• f All,
Rfi 1_ 3 1. - tai Ora Al
w+�,as..34£ " �. "* >yrHN+YYLr.Lpii�at2lr' �,\. ���:>�{ • �' )5��a '¢t-].'.
.w
_f:• `, rf �5 ft'
r' I t 47
VNIE
2F"rt V `'xrs3 ' of{it Y�.
.,•s
�7 �•�.\-�ys ., i�r�� - 4_` `Y�`". ,1 Cr7
d t Xr
3, t� ' � x f'4 1 `;,q • ;. \�' -• \� � 'l�rYr(���fC ( i..." _ �� .y.v`i �:,�f:.
w r f
OF
t9')4... `'•+..„,,,_ frl�,S,r� 1 .. / ��i'�`�""`t_ a� t ..Ras � ��—.,�•.M�S',+.5 (t�.h�, r!• '
"137r*E'��`+'� u.,.�.•#-3 .',�- n'�' al. _: „ r� ' rt'''4�� y�yf, y� � � �'.,'�"i-y t y
.` f� ��` _.A!'F f�t El, t,�r�,�..{ ,�� � .- �•�GSY"`.�yr. "_'__a-a ,
.r f '/l,`iag`,i��r tty•iF' r .tl^':",,� f�,�'+P'�"•7 '$}4.qF�' � � � j t a.,,
ice"- S rY� t ,, � h♦ ��P' ...
' na
f .t a R
�' •,,(� fj.I�Ct 4 .f{ �•`t{hghi •. � ^•µ��^ l n P'i t'`''
lozw
el
JF
� t
M
�eU f ap..... . :f4t .•...
yr`,l S ' 4 gyve F✓�r{�.'�. _ t •
e � Y•r3'
��yyyy I C.
\l � nom..-- t,••�tFti
�� � r t \ 14�i'•n t
! t
•�f :ri
!' itL•,—
s
—C fi a 2
s�
c
S (�j
VI
f � �
-� tn
O CJ
tR
CD
J
k
t.
Y
� O
l o
H A'
ri
T S
h PTLnpFn r►�
LZ Alb �
S1cPecua/k
�3r NF�itrz;� AvW Aj ,_
03 OCT 31 AM #0. 53 n
x
d >�It
•n I
*..rfrre:� �mg
ti
b�
f
' C
14
-
v�
i ny,
'rM � G'sHei3f"-�t'VdG
d ` N
m c 44
n
4
+' a
}
j
�°oa 5f' t.'✓C Oak
a !
Nfs
j K
Fir
4 IZ;
4q 'd1'
0
F fto PERT y
*� LTrtIF � �
e
a �
NOTIFICATION LIST
r
521041010 521041018 521041019
MUENCHOW JOHN&MARILYN MARES MICHAEL J LUNDY KENNETH EÐEL MAE
6310 KENSINGTON AVE 6262 BERNHARD AVE 6260 BERNHARD AVE
RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
94805 94805 94805
0' 418190005 418190031 521041001
DRUMMOND-MULLARKEY JANE CANALES ANDRES MILES CHARLIE F B&PAULETTA M
6283 BERNHARD AVE 700 21ST ST 6259 HIGHLAND AVE
RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
94805 94801 94805
521041014 521041004 418190010
WILSON-BROWN FELICITY BRINK BILLIE H&PAMELA J PARKER ROMEO R&MARIE A
6277 TAFT AVE 6254 BERNHARD AVE 6265 BERNHARD AVE
RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
94805 94805 948.05
418190037 521012007 521012020
ZARIFA GLORIA ADAMS DOUGLAS&MARGO VICENTE PAUL L
5700 MC FARLANE RD 6226 BERNHARD AVE 6253 HIGHLAND AVE
SEBASTOPOL CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
95472 94805 94805
418190033 418190011 521041007
TORRES LOUIS M&JULIE L TRE BOUCHER PATRICIA OBRIEN DEBORAH C
6277 BERNHARD AVE 6259 BERNHARD AVE 6268 BERNHARD AVE
RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
94805 94805 94805
521041012 418190027 521012008
IFIL V&JOANNE H MEHTA MULLARKEY THOMAS D&JANE D DURAN MAX I&LORENCE R TRE
1204 SAN MIGUEL AVE 6283 BERNHARD AVE 6234 BERNHARD AVE
SANTA BARBARA CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
93109 94805 94805
521012009 418190003 521041016
DARLING WALLACE&MARILYN LAND ACQUISITION WILSON-SMITH GAIL TRE
TRE PO BOX 5381 6265 HIGHLAND AVE
6680 ALHAMBRA AVE#418 OAKLAND CA RICHMOND CA
MARTINEZ CA 94605 94805
94553
418190009 418190012 521041008
HULING SANDRA LEE BOUCHER PATRICIA GARLAND RALPH D&JOAN C
6267 BERNHARD AVE 6259 BERNHARD AVE 6278 BERNHARD AVE
RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
94805 94805 94805
418190007 521041002 418190008
WEBB AUDREY H DILLON ADELE L TRE CHAIT STEVEN J
6273 BERNHARD AVE 1617 NOME AVE 6269 BERNHARD AVE
RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
94805 94805 94805
418190038 418190015 521041017
HAMMER MARTIN F FLATTERY DAVID S BOOKER PAMELA DENISE
0 6237 BERNHARD AVE 6225 BERNHARD AVE 6263 HIGHLAND AVE
RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA RICHMOND CA
94805 94805 94805