HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06081993 - H.8 H.8
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 8, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop; Heftak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
Subject: Hearing on Administrative Appeal By Thomas Stewart and Danny
Russell on Minor Subdivision 32-91, Walnut Creek Area.
This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing
on an Administrative Appeal of Thomas E. Stewart and Danny M. Russell from
the decision of the Community Development Department in reference to the
proposed development by Mr. And Mrs. Bruce Lindorf on Scotts Lane in Walnut
Creek, Design Review MS 32-91.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff
report on the appeal. Mr. Barry commented on the approval of Minor Subdivision
32-91 on appeal by the Board of Supervisors and the direction to the Zoning
Administrator to conduct a design review at the time building permits were sought
and to appropriately condition the permits He advised that the Zoning
Administrator had concluded their review and he commented on the sight lines,
pad elevations, height of structures and a condition that the house could be no
more than 30-32 feet. Mr. Barry presented the staff recommendation that the
Board uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision and deny the appeal of Thomas
Stewart and Danny Russell or alternatively that the Board modify the Zoning
Administrator's decision and add a condition that some additional trees be
required along the southwest property line, 15 gallons in size and preferably
Redwoods which would further reduce the visual effect of the 32 foot height limit.
The following persons presented testimony:
Edward Schaffer, 3260 Blume Drive, Suite 200, Richmond, representing the
applicant;
Steve Passerine, 1030 Scotts Lane, Walnut Creek;
Mary Ann Passerine, 1030 Scotts Lane, Walnut Creek;
Jerry Holcombe, 1036 Scotts Lane, Walnut Creek;
Carol Taglio, 1040 Scotts Lane, Walnut Creek;
Anthony Dattalo, 15 Christmas Tree Court, Walnut Creek;
Dan Russell, 16 Christmas Tree court, Walnut Creek;
Tom Stewart, 16 Christmas Tree Court, Walnut Creek;
Mr. Schaffer spoke in rebuttal.
1
June 8, 1993
H.8
Page 2
Board members considered the testimony presented. Supervisor Bishop advised that
she would Iike to defer decision for a week to provide for another site visit to the subject
property.
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED
that the hearing on the'appeal of Tom Stewart and Danny Russell is CLOSED and
decision DEFERRED to June 15, 1993, at 2 p.m.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy
ofan action taken and entered on the minutes ofthe
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
AT'rESTED June 8.1993
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
and County Administrator
By v
Deputy Clerk
Cc: CAO
Public Works Dept.
' v
�
/�
~-
May 9, 1993
Steve Passerine
1038 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, Ca, 94596
Mary Fleming `
Community Development
Second Floor
651 Pine St .
Martinez , Ca. 94553
Re: M. S. 32-91--Design Review
Dear Ms. Fleming,
/
My wife and I were ready to accept the Design Review
criteria put forth by the Community Development Department.
We submitted our comments as we were given the right to do by
the Board of Supervisors within the designated period for
public comment.: We had assumed that the Lindorfs were also
bound by these 'dates.
I was surprised, however that the Lindorfs were allowed
to enter additional comments into the file after this
deadline. '
I was appalled by the Lindorf letter of 2-1-93 given
it' s tenor, tone and the accusations made. I cannot allow it
to go unanswered. I also feel that it, and the additional
"support" lette,ps might have unduly influenced the Design
Review process."
�
I therefor}e wish to -appeal the decisions made vis-a-vis
'\ the designs of the homes proposed for M. S. 32-91 .
From the onset of this proposal the neighbors have had
numerous concerhs. The central issue is, and has always
been, that thie development be required to be compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
The original recommendations put forth by the County
Staff recognized the intrusive nature of the planned homes,
when it recommepded that the homes be limited to a maximum of
25 feet high.
This aspect of the decision was appealed by Lindorfs and
remains, today, the central point of controversy.
I still feel that the 25 foot height limitation is fair,
considering the/ overall average height and mass of homes in
the pre-existing neighborhood.
-
" . � �
'
Given that the grades for the homepads on Parcels "A" ,
"B" , and "D" have been elevated from three to ten feet, the
clam by Mr . Lindorf that the visual impact will be
mitigated, is only in his eye and his estimation. He '
originally advised the neighbors that the finished grades
would be lower than the existing grades.
At this point, I must take issue with the contention
that we "spearheaded" the "attack" on his project. Quite the
. contrary ! We have, and are only exercising our rights to
comment. Neighbors who wrote were NOT pressured, cajoled, or
coerced into voicing their opinions or writing letters. They
were only kept informed, and quite frankly, appreciative of
our efforts.
Most people do not believe they have a voice in
community concerns such as this. We pointed out that their
opinion matters--especiplly if they are within the "300 foot
neighborhood" as defined by the County. Their letters were .
their own, not forced, only to be read into the record as
their opinion and right.
The neighbors directly bordering this subdivision have
all raised objections related to the height, mass, and loss
of privacy. I venture to say that if the County itself
conducted a private poll among the "300 foot neighbors" of
the subdivision, an overwhelming majority would object to the
heights and designs proposed by the Lindorfs. The letters in
support of height limitations came to you from homeowners
within the 300 foot limit. It should be noted that not one of
the "Lindorf support letters" came from neighbors within this
zone. Some were miles away.
I must take issue with the Lindorf statement that I Tade
repeated attempts to buy the property. This is pure
fabrication.
I must also take issue with the assertion that I
originally opposed ANY development on this parcel from "the
very beginning" . This is also, a distortion of truth and
fact.
Concerning the alleged conspiracy theory, the Lindorfs
themselves have said "We could build six houses. . . (you' re so
lucky we' re only building four) . It is our understanding
that the differences in code requirements between a four home
and a five home subdivision are so substantial that it is
unlikely they could be met here.
As for the alleged assertion of bribery of the ,Planning
Commfssion, the record speaks for itself . The allegation is
totally unfounded and quite outrageous. Equally offensive is
the statement. that Lindorf might be a member of the communist.
party, that' s his statement not mine.
�
Ms. Fleming, the Lindorfs have made so many twisted
allegations we have no choice but to appeal . Perhaps the
only way to effectively eliminate further impass would be
mediation. The Lindorfs wish to get on with their lives as
do we all . I do believe that it has to be spelled out
however that it' s not an individuals right change an existing
environment without the expectation of resistance, especially
when that change is perceived as being as negative as what is
proposed here.
I also find it somewhat curious that, given all the work
performed so far as respects infrastructure improvements, no
bond has been posted to assure compliance with conditions of
approval .
Once again, we respectfully request that the County
limit the height on all the homes to 25 feet (including
architectural details and central roof peaks) as originally
recommended by the Staff , and as proposed by the adjacent
neighbors.
Si n C e rel
Steve Passerine
\ / . ^
Mary Ann Passerine
'
-
f'
April 21 , 1993
- Anthony Zattalo
- 15 Christmas Court
Walnut Creek, Calif.
Mary Fleming
Community Development Zep1t.
RL: Your letter to Bruce Lindorf dated 4-8-93
Design Review MS 32-91
Paragraph ( 1 ) of the letter states that central
roof peaks may reach a height of 32 feet. In photos
previously sent to you, it was shown the before and
after of the grading level of lots .3 and C. The grade
level is from three to four feet higher than when the
lots were in the natural state.
In essence this gives the houses on the rear lots
a height of at least 35 feet relative to the properties
of Dattalo and Russell/Stewart,nearly equivelent to
a three story - structure. The homes on the rear
parcels will loom even higher than proposed .
Also a variance has been requested to construct a
six foot fence atop the recently installed retaining
wall. This will present a nine to ten foot ]Berlin Wall
running the length of the adjacent propery of mine
and of Russell/Stewart. It weems to me that with
more thoughtful planning and council on the part of
the developer and Design Review, a more aesthetic and
pleasing development would have resulted .
I am still concerned with the potential for drainage
problems with this development. No mention was made
of the drainage ditch designed to carry off the excess
water. It has been discussed that the ditch will be
an earthen ditch. This is not acceptable, since
earthen ditches re1quire periodic maintenance which
no one ever does, and is subject to erosion with the
passage of time. Why not a concrete lined ditch which
will be permanent with minimal maintenance. The
Department should insist on this. Most of the new
subdivisions I have seen have the concrete ditches.
Nothing less is acceptable.
Sincerely,
-- ----------------------------
L�n tJ VVI:V4 1 11 R'A V—T!J 1 VV
ttAY 2 ~'S� fE:i( THE t'TG".LIfVE P.1
JUDITH G. CUNHA
Ltcenacd Land Surveyor
8576 Kiwb&Way
Concord, CA 94,518
Post-it'"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 #or pages )'
To From
Co. Co.
May 20, 1993 Dept. Phone#
Fax k / /j ,�7 c� Fax#
Debbie Drennan j 7 b G
Contra. Costa County Community Development
651 Pine: Street'
Martinez. CA 94553
Re: MS 32-91 Design Review Appeal
Ms. Drennan:
This is written in response to complaints involved in the above
referenced appeal.
Assertions that pad elevations for Parcels "A", "B" & "D" have
been graded higher than plan are completely false.
Based on a field survey performed by me on May 18, 1993, 1 have
determined the following: the pad elevation of Parcel '.'A" is in
substantial conformance with the grading plan; the pad elevation
at the building ,site for Parcel "B" is 0.5' ± lower than the
original ground, and is lower than the pad elevation on the
grading plan; the pad elevation of Parcel "D" is 3.5' t lower than
the pad elevation shown on the grading plan.
Please contact 'me should you have any questions as to the
foregoing.
Sinperel
Judith G. Cunha, P.L.S.
cc: Bruce Lindorf
9114
No.LS 5133
* Ez p.r2-�r-glb
CAL
---- ----- -- - -
o�
CV
lCt
N
4..
i
4
� _
.,
� �. �
—�- �'
Q I N
I'o,
I � N ._
� o �.4
' ) � �
o
a
{ � .
II n
�� � .,
�r
�� I
w w ��
O
M
�,
�' ON,
� �.�.
�� � �
o.
o� J
T'�- �
N �
' W -�.
I � �
Y
+�
1
-sem. � I 4 ,�
-�-- �
<C ' `
�� � �� � , H
-�� V� � � `tom
� �� � ��
�'-� �
� ca tii � o�
cL--�
� v � n
�i Q � ��
The Board of SupervisorsContra CrPhll'eachelo
CW of rd
fi County Administration Building '} ([�� �yiinn and
��Str� o��OQ C•/ett County Administrator
651 Pine St., Room 106 (415)6"-2371
Martinez, California 94553 County
Tom Powers,1st District
F .
Nancy C.Panden,2nd District
Robert I.Schroder.3rd District f
Sunne"ht McPuk 4th District
<r
Tom Todakaon,5th District
May 27, 1993 :"�' �`;?:°`f
Mr. Thomas E. Stewart
Mr. Danny M. Russell CORRECTED NOTICE
16 Christmas Tree 'Court
Walnut Creek, CA :" 94596
Dear Messrs . Stewart and Russell :
Pursuant to Section 14-4 . 006 of the County Ordinance Code,
notice is given that June 8, 1993 at 2 : 00 p.m. at 651 Pine
Street , Room 107, ;Martinez, California has been set as the time
and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal
from the decision 'of the Community Development Department in
reference to the proposed development by the Lindorfs on Scotts
Lane in Walnut Creek, Design Review MS 32-91 .
If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the County, at or prior to, the
public hearing.
Very truly yours,
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Adm' istrator
By
Deputy Clerk
CC : County Counsel
County Administrator
Director of Community Development
tchelor
The Board of Supervisors Contra CehklBBneBoard
and
County Administration Building Costa county Administrator
Co(415)646-2371
,. 651 Pine St., Room 106 County
Martinez, California 94553
Tom Powers.1st District
c
Nancy C.Fanden,2nd District
Robert 1.Schroder,3rd District
Sunne Wright McPeak 4th District
Tom Tortakson,5th District , n
May 20, 1993
Mr. Thomas E. Stewart
Mr. Danny M. Russell
16 Christmas Tree . Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Messrs . Stewart and Russell :
Pursuant to Section 14-4 . 006 of the County Ordinance Code,
notice is given that June 8, 1993 at 2 : 00 p.m. at 651 Pine
Street, Room 107, 'Martinez, California has been set as the time
and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal
from the decision !'of the Community Development Department in
reference to the proposed development by the Lindorfs on Scotts
Lane in Walnut Creek, Design Review MS 32-91 .
Very truly yours,
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By CL0�0,
Deputy Clerk
CC: County Counsel
County Administrator
Director of Building Inspection
�' . MANUEL HERNANDEZ
61 Mc Connell Lane
: r Walnut Creek CA 94596
x?�y
JEAN BARRY
1021 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
"s- THORVALD HESSELLUND
109 Mc Connell Lane
Walnut Creek CA 94596
7
7
• _
.�, ,/•r. ,ter.^ •'y, is;:' Cid — '' .�.I�: a! 'r' -
�`. `"
wl .!i. - '�'•t:.>:.. y�.f -`�:.=� _ .�.• mar..- a.,r'•+`Y•..!:::•:� - •Y'.'- . .
y
'.n" .fit• _ '3t»�.. .[... �.�_�.: _
t d. — vr� �.ii..rf: ur• mai'= .•i,��^ .ti"�.:::.��:� z•'r•.�'�r-r.. .'+. _
y.�..,,.. fir. ,t+:::_.,• .:s. '�: _%_ti-:
is
;.y
a.:
c.
MERILYN DIPIERO
1070 Scots Lane
"-
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
V�
K'S �
: HARRY SLOAN
=4 1030 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
•4T::
EDWARD LEWIS
if 1049 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek CA 94596
i.
I
b _
t'^
`_ i
'.i. -r.
- 1'I..�. •,iFQC it •.11CA.. .—
�µ
■
JOHN TAGLIO
1040 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
S.
STEVEN PASSERINE
1038 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
CHRISTOPHER HOFF
1090 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
=,:'S. - 'Jia'».M •�d-:::��- .i�`,.�-"=tryA'3.'•_...% ,
.'%�:�~ .yew'» �Y'Y•,1'i - i.1>'•�...
.SLA..•, - +i�.',Vit.•.
- -..='.. '."1...r-r-: r,..--+.r.. .- '`<,v. :-.".." s:#'.i �:*: ^:r;, "5.' .,5. �,1�' w�.' •a.f1,`:r"r..=,!';�'• _
.,ry..-<, ,,...iy, _ �1:. 5�'s1. .� :�.7p� .ire �a�:.;- w - Vii.-s•'.'�"�-vr:,�.+v;�•�x
..- � - wj a},. yyr-..»•fie.+ .
1
WAYNE SMITH
7 Steding Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
JERRY HOLCOMBE
1036 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
.i
t
FRANCES THOMAS
1080 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
1
LLOYD CHASEY
15 Steding Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
D. FARRELL
4 Steding Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
4= '
r".
RAYMOND
CERAG'OL"
23 Steding
Court
kalnut Creek, CA 94596
1
Bruce Lindori
1050 Scots Lane
Valnut Creek, CA 94590
I
JACK UNVERFURTH
1065 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
PHILIP DEATSCH
1033 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
I
WE
V
ADOLPH BRIONES
7 Christmas Tree Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
SANDRA SPROWL
4145 Walnut Boulevard
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
GILBERT STRIEPEKE
1020 Scots Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
ti
A.C. Dattalo
15 Christmas Tree Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
PETER KOTIMANUSVANIj
421 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
TIM MC MAHON
Ann and Mike Scott
457 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
WILLIAM CARSTENS
469 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Ri
t
HENRY FOULK
51 McConnell Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
JACK DAVIS
65 Mc Connell Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
K
.. �._. ... � �+:.i.� :.::..:. � TL\ - 1'!�"-- ,ice ♦".:":
'�t'•` '��•:.�. .�Sh. �y�AJ•W�.+v•T,'.•+ .!�`+ :F.:.,:..�!:►,A_ 1:x`._1
.'r
- Y.. �.-]'it a�f t,.i:.:.�,r. ".�iw✓a'� •.lam a.1 ����� -
�'....:...�...:,........';':�...�.: .17•."< t - :i:�'F�� - ALJ, =:1s-.i:t.� �✓ - -
!.}�f •.y:;:+f, '.y� .t.a._�i.:`� ..S ,:�ii�+P''d�r�k h.: ti�`.�:.r.( .•t.� -
'ti•.:.T`� � y ori: .vim^i. v !'s.+.'�•:i.st�� f: ..�. :est. �•'r`.' '. -..
�.'7.•. .'f,;(:�r..- :hv rel: '-,y•^
•�. ... moi:->:� +V. .a
- �� •y,.: �Ha.'� .-t..`.'�� inti-:•.:-7.► .,•:.. itis.
`�' N:�'if.'• .j ,tel'
1'
-
�";: KT '..., ^•!r�;i� '.i:t-�.::_:' res. +S
I
�t
MORRIS COLLEN
4155 Walnut Boulevard
Walnut Creek, CA94596
o
JOHN MARITZ
8 Christmas Tree Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
TOM STEWART
16 Christmas Tree Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
r
is . ,,;_:. +�':..:.�•:" '''t''itr=—"'.r.� t ":ti's-t.'�:T
I
RUSSELL MORGAN
451 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
ANTHONY BIEBL
463 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
DAVID OLSON
475 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
I
i
r
i
MANUEL LIPl
481 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
r
JEFF NEWCOMB
411 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
IRENE HANEY
458 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
1
. o
DANIEL FLArM
476 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
r
GREGORY GARDNER
452 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
MASAHARU MATAYOSHI
470 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
WAYNE WHITE
40 Kevin Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Joel Pitney
51 Kevin Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
LINDA CASTLETON
410 Greenview Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
G. Y
-Lj
1
TIM HASLAM
20 Kevin Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
ANN MARIE HOLZHUETER
30 Kevin Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
ALEXANDER BABIN
50 Kevin Court
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
• Clerk of the Board
Inter-Office Memo
TO: Community Development Dept . DATE : May 20, 1993
Attn: Mary Fleming
FROM: Clerk of the Board
Ann Cervelli, Deputy Clerk
SUBJECT: Administrative Appeal By Tom Steward/Danny Russell
Relative to MS 32-91
We are in receipt of an administrative appeal filed by
Thomas E. Stewart and Danny M. Russell appealing the decision of
the Community Development Department in reference to the proposed
development by the Lindorfs on Scotts Lane in Walnut Creek,
Design Review MS 32-91 .
The attached appeal has been scheduled for June 8, 1993 at
2 : 00 p.m. before the Board of Supervisors. Material relative to
this appeal to be presented to the Board of Supervisors should
reach this office by June 1, 1993 . You should submit the
original and 11 copies .
CC : County Counsel
County Administrator
attachment
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: May 20, 1993
To: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board
Attn: Ann Cervelli
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Silvano B. Marchesi, Ass't County Counsel .
)l
l
Re: Lindorf (MS 32-91)
This responds to your memo of 5 May 1993. You furnished us with copies of letters
from Messrs. Stewart and Russell and from Edward Shaffer to Mary Fleming, dated 29 April
1993 and 3 May 1993, respectively.
We have been advised that the Community Development Department has determined
that the letter from Messrs. Stewart and Russell are appropriately considered to be an
administrative appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator. We also have been
advised that, although the deadline for an administrative appeal under Section 14-4.004 of the
County Ordinance Code was 29 April 1993, Community Development Department staff
indicated to the appellants that they had until 30 April 1993 to file such an appeal. Their
letter was received by that department on 30 April 1993. Those representations could be
enough to estop the County from rejecting the appeal on the basis of tardiness.
We have not been provided with other materials describing in detail the procedural
context of the appeal, but, based on the above letters and information related above, we
recommend that you schedule the matter for hearing as an administrative appeal.
cc: Harvey E. Bragdon, Dir. of Community Development
Attn: Mary Fleming & Debbie Drennan
RECEIVE
April 29, 1993
16 Christmas Tree Court MAY _ 3 1993
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
MM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
Ms. Mary Flemming
CCC - Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Ms. Flemming,
We are appealing the decision of the Community Development
Department in reference to the proposed development by the
Lindorfs on Scotts Lane in' Walnut Creek,. Design Review MS 32-91 .
We live at 16 Christmas Tree Court, in Walnut.'Creek, and our
property, along with the Dottalo property next door, abuts the
Lindorf's proposed development on the downhill side towards
McConnell Lane.
We continue to be very concerned about the height of the
structures the Lindorfs want to build. The neighborhood has
previously appealed the Lindorf's plans to -the planning
commission and to the Board of Supervisors requesting that a 25
foot limit be placed on the height of the proposed houses. As
you recall, the Board of Supervisors placed a condition on its
approval of the tentative map "allowing neighborhood review of
proposed home designs and Zoning Administrator review and
approval of home designs and structure height and direct staff to
prepare findings consistent with their decision. "
The latest decision from the Community Planning Department will
allow a height of 30 feet with 'minor architectural details and
ROOF PEARS which may reach 32 feet. Unfortunately, three feet is
not a substantial or reasonable reduction from the original 35
foot height the Lindorfs had originally proposed.
Our property(s) lies directly downhill from the Lindorf property.
The 'finished grade' upon which the Lindorf's house will be built
on is at least eight to ten feet above the ground level of our
homes. That, in effect, means that the proposed houses will
tower not 32 feet :but at least 40 to 45 feet above our
properties. This will cause an enormous visual impact and we
request that the Board of Supervisors limit the height of the
building and ALL appurtenant structures, "including architectural
features and central roof peaks" to 25 feet.
Since grading the property, the Lindorfs have raised the height
of their property along the fence line approximately three feet
above the previously gently sloping hillside. The effect of such
an increase appears to have raised the parallel grade upon which
the house will be constructed. We are very concerned regarding
additive effect of this grading and the visual impact upon our
view.
A number of additional and troubling issues have occurred since
the granting of the minor subdivision on October 26, 1992.
Subsequent discussions with the Lindorfs and their
representatives have been less than satisfactory. We plan to
address some of these issues in a further communication to the
Community Development Department and the Board of Supervisors.
We raise these issues not to obscure the focus' of our appeal, but
rather to emphasize our repeated &ttempts to negotiate in good
faith and an apparent unwillingnesq of the LIndorfs to do
likewise. Repeated deviations from purported understandings have
resulted in substantial suspicion regarding motivations and
assurances.
We believe that the height of 32 feet, as described in the
modification to Design Review - .MS 32-91 commlinication of March
30, 1993, does not address the central issue -of visual impact and
fails to consider the additional impact of grading that has
resulted in raising the grade upon which the structure will be
constructed. We therefore respectfully request that the County
limit the height of the structure to 25 feet as. was originally
proposed by the adjacent property owners.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas E. Stewart
Danny M. Russell
Copies To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
05-03-1993 10:44 1S10aP?1714 NORRIS & NORRIS P.02/03
NORRIS NORRIS
RICMARO C.NORRIS HILLTOP ODIC[ PARK TCLCPHONC
M.J[rr1#[T MICKLA$ 9100 lLUMC DMV[, suITE i00 I510)all-RICO
DOUOLAN C.STRAU9
Cr EPSTEIN RICXXOIiD, CwL1FOR141A 94904.1061
COLIN J.COrrry rACSIMILE
JO*mUA 2.6EN$CR 19101112-5902
EDWARD L•SNA►rRR �,.�•��""
DAVID S.SMITH .—RECEIVED
MITHECERIVED
RNARON M.IVCRiEN '�" G �(1..
MATTHEW J.WEBS
JUSTIN D.SCHWARTZ
HOCL M.CHAIN-CAVOMMAN May 3, 1993
f�41�Y
CLERKBOAR0 OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO- —
via laoiimile
No. Mary Fleming
Zoning Administrator
contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 pine Street
Second Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553
Be; Mpign g1yiev for M8 82:91 (Lirdorfl
Dear Ms. Fleming:
t
On March 30, 1993, you signed and distributed a letter
approving home designs for MS 32-91. Your review followed
conditions adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Your letter was
sent to the applicant and owners neighboring the project site who
had reviewed and commented on the submitted plans.
There may be some uncertainty as to the applicable time
limit and procedure for appealing your decision. County Code
Section 26-2,3406 ordinarily allows only ten days to appeal
decisions. No appeal was filed with the County by March 9.
However, we understand your Department takes the position
that design review constitutes an administrative action and thus
is subject to the appeal procedures specified under Chapter 14•-4.
Section 14-4 .004 sets the following requirements for an appeal:
The appellant shall, within thirty days of
the action appealed from, file with the clerk
of the board a verified written notice of
appeal concisely stating the facts of the
case and the grounds for his appeal including
his special interest and injury.
1aa1�ooscoaitira�es
05-03-1993 10:45 15102221714 NORRIS & NORRIS P.03/03
Ms. Mary Fleming, Zoning Administrator
May 3, 1993
Page 2
As stated above, your letter approving the home designs was
distributed on March 30. Under Section 14-4 .004, the deadline
for the Clerk of the Board to receive a verified appeal was the
Clore of business on April 29. The Clerk did not receive any
appeal satisfying the requirements of Bection 14-4. 004.
Therefore, whether the 10-day or 30-day appeal procedure
applies in this case, the County should consider your approval
final and any appeals time-barred. The Lindorfs now are free to
begin construction.
Very truly yours,
NORRIS & NORRIS, P.C.
BY EDWARD L. SHAFFER
ELS:kkjw
cc:/Board of Supervisors
Dennis Barry, Deputy Director of Community Development
Victor Westman, County Counsel
Bruce Lindorf
cc rneAll�__3
Clflp
boa uoasyoot��64b3