The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05101994 - H.7 H. 7 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 10, 1994 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Appeal By John and Doris Olsson On Land Use Permit #1070-90, Vic Quilici, Applicant, Crockett Area. This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on appeal by John and Doris Olsson from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals granting a request by Vic Quilici to establish a zero (0) foot setback and a zero (0) foot sideyard for the reconstruction of an existing garage (LUP #1070- 90) in the Crockett area. The Chair advised the Board of an agreement between the appellant and the proponent to continue this matter to June 14, 1994 . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above item is CONTINUED to June 14, 1994 at 2 : 00 p.m. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: () PHIL SOCALOR:OR,Clerk of the Board Superv7 and Co dminlatretor cc : Community Development Department B ° Y .Deouty Candice E . Stoddard Vic Quilici County Counsel John and Doris Olsson LAW OFFICE OF Candice E. Stoddard 1111 CIVIC DRIVE,SUITE 380 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596 FAX(510)933-3801 (510)942-5100 RECEIVED April 28, 1994 BOARD OF Phil Batchelor Clerk of the Board of Su ,pervisors and County Administrator 651 Pine Street, Floor 11 Martinez, CA 94553 Re : APPEAL Appellants and My Clients : John and Doris Olsson Application: Vic Quilici County File # LUP #1070-90 Parcel # : 354-164-003 Address : 1515 Flora Street, Crocket Dear Mr. Batchelor: Please be advised that I represent John and Doris Olsson in appealing the ruling of the Planning Commission regarding the above application. I received notice that the hearing before the Board of Supervisors is set to be heard on May 10, 1994 at 2 : 00 p.m. I am writing to request a continuance of this hearing due to the health of my clients . Doris Olsson has not been able to attend the previous hearings as she suffered a stroke . John Olsson has previously attended. He just recently had to undergo emergency surgery, and is currently it the hospital at Kaiser Permenente in Walnut Creek. I am informed that he is scheduled for further surgery on May 4, 1994 . Consequently, it will not be possible for him to attend the hearing set for May 10, 1994 . i feel it is essential that my client be present to answer any questions put forth by the Board of Supervisors to fully understand the position of the Olsson's regarding the Quilici application for a variance. Mr. Olsson, also, feels he must be present at this hearing. i> Phil Batchelor April 28, 1994 Page 2 For the above reasons, I respectfully request that the hearing set for May 10, 1994 be continued to a date on or after June 14, 1994 to allow Mr. Olsson a reasonable time to recuperate from his surgeries and be present at the hearing in an attempt to protect his property rights. Thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation with this request . Very truly yours, CANDICE E. STO IAR CES/tadm CC : Dennis Berry, Director of Current Planning Clients May 2, 1994 RECEIVED Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors MAY - 9 1994 651 Pine Street Martinez , Ca. CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL Application: Vic Quilici County File #: 1070-90 Bldg. Permit#: 161846 Parcel #: 354-164-003 Address : 1525 Flora Street, Crockett Dear Board of Supervisors, This is a request that you approve the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission on April 5, 1994 and . the Community Development Staff ' s original recommendation on July 26, 1994 allowing us to complete the remodeling of our garage as originaly planned and approved. BASIS FOR THIS REQUEST: Attached you will find a copy of the original plan submitted to the Contra Costa Development Department which was approved and a building permit issued, along with two (2 ) revised plans (requested by the building department) also approved. As you can see, all plans submitted and approved had a pitched roof, we have been in compliance with the County regulations and approval system at all times. The construction was commenced after a permit was issued on March 20 , 1990 for the reconstruction of an existing garage which included a pitched roof and doors .- We have completed the roof, it has been inspected and approved according to Contra Costa Building Code by a Building Inspector, shingling was our next step. Composition shingles were purchased and ready to be installed, before a stop work order was issued. Structural members including those attached to the foundation were not removed/replaced, new structural members were added next to the old, which double studded framing of garage for extra strength and support (pictures are enclosed to support this statement) . The Community Development Staff 's report to the County Zoning Administrator on July 26, 1994 stated the following. Staff finds the project area consist of small lots on a sloping terrain resulting in structures built at or near property lines on virtually every parcel. Therefore staff concludes that denial of this project would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by nearly all property owners in the vicinity. Staff suggests that the impact of the reconstruction of the garage with a new 4 :12 pitch roof will be negigible on the neighborhood. In response to Mr. & Mrs . Olsson ' s concern of being deprived of privacy plus light, they stated it is unlikely that privacy or light will be effected other than marginally The Community Development Department ' s Initial Study of Environmental Significance states this project will not result in a change in land use, density or the creation of any new parcel . To require us to tear down the new construction completed and reconstruct the roof without pitch for drainage would not only decrease the beauty and the longevity of the roof, it would have a detrimental financial impact on us, as several thousands of dollars have been spent from our savings for material used on this project in reliance upon the Building Permit that was issued. Respectfully Submitted Vic and and Betty Q ilii 71 (5) r1 O VO z-A VIII ICA *S11 (A4 dq* QCI 03 to j� _ w � � � try � +► ` , I�X T t 1!~ vo �/r1 • TAN > nom_ K l' nom-'' Ir- lp i r APPEAL - Land Use Permit #1070-90 APPLICANT/OWNER: Vic Quilici APPELLANT: John & Doris Olsson. The applicant/owner requests approval of a land use permit #1070-90, requesting approval to establish a zero (0) foot setback and a zero (0) foot sideyard for the reconstruction of an existing garage. The property is addressed #1525 Flora Street, Crockett Area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 10 May 1994 - 2:00 P.M. Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _ Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON -;a ` a County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 21 April 1994 SUBJECT: APPEAL of County Planning Commission APPROVAL of Land Use Permit Application #1070-90 - Vic Quilici (Applicant) - By: John & Doris Olsson (Appellants) - Crockett Area. (S.D. II) SPECIFICIREQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S)-& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Accept the environmental documentation prepared for this pro- ject as being complete and adequate.. 2. DENY the appeal of Mr. & Mrs. John Olsson. 3. Approve Land Use Permit #1070-90, as recommended by the Planning Commission at the April 5, 1994 meeting. 4. Approve the conditions of approval as recommended by the Comm- ission at the April 5, 1994 meeting. 5. Approve the findings contained in the resolution of the County Planning Commission as the basis for your Board's action. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: The background for this project is reviewed in the April 5, 1994 Staff Report to the County Planning Commission. The Commission reviewed the issues of appeal raised by Mr. & Mrs. Olsson in regards to pedestrian safety, diminishing property values and encroachment of views. The Commission after taking testimony voted to approved the application with the elimination of the flat roof requi ement imposed by the County Zoning Administrator. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURL _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATIOWOF\#qXRD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE *OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT.. TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF.AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: VIC QUILICI (y N. NS. .JOHN OLSSON PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CANDICE E, STODDARD, ATTORNEY AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CHARLES F. SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY BY Deputy OTIFICATION LIST - APPEAL - VIC QUILICI - LUP . 01070-90 - CROCKETT AREA - (PAGE #1� 'R. VIC QUILICI DAVID RIKE LARRY & PAULA HARVEY 525 FLORA STREET P. 0. BOX 11 904 - 5TH AVENUE .ROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 iOHN & DORIS OLSSON ALBERT A. & FRANCA PONTI CHIARINA PARINI .535 FLORA STREET 1002 - FIFTH AVENUE 914 - 5TH AVENUE 'ROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 :ANDICE E. STODDARD, ATTORNEY MICHAEL J. COLOMBO JOHN W. & ROBERTA BREMER .111 CIVIC DRIVE, SUITE #380 372 PACER COURT 924 - 5TH AVENUE /ALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA 94591 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 :HARLES F. SULLIVAN, ATTORNEY NORMAN J. & ALBERT A. PONTI INEZ R. SANTUCCI .930 CONTRA COSTA BOULEVARD 1002 - FIFTH AVENUE 934 - 5TH AVENUE LEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 ZICHARD & KATHERINE HUNT PAOLINA FERRARIO & MARY J. GARY B. & CAROLYN F. YEE 1416 FRANCIS STREET REGALIA 1006 SEASCAPE -ROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 1514. FRANCIS .STREET RODEO, CALIFORNIA 94572 CROCKETT., CALIFORNIA 94525 ZOBBIE & ANSEL MOORE BOMBY & MARY GIGLI, ET AL JAMES R. DUTRA 1035 - 5TH AVENUE 1527 LILLIAN STREET 1524 LILLIAN STREET -ROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 RICHARD BOYD KURT A. & KARLA S. ZADNIK OWNER 1435 LILLIAN STREET 923 - SIXTH AVENUE 1534 LILLIAN STREET CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CARQUINEZ FIRE DEPARTMENT LAURENCE R. & RITA DE TOMASI RUDOLPH P. & JENNIE D. LINDSTRC 746 LORING AVENUE 1016 - SIXTH AVENUE 1919 VISTA DEL RIO CROCKETTE, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 ALAN & JUDITH BUTT LENNY L. & SHERI L. DETOMASI EDWARD D. & WANDA M. TROST 1415 LILLIAN STREET rA 1535 LILLIAN STREET 3560 PACHECO BOULEVARD CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 LOUISE MAGNAGHI GILBY ANNIE NURSEMENT & GREG TORBET MANUEL NURSEMENT 913 - 7TH AVENUE 1024 - FIFTH AVENUE 1515 FLORA STREET CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 NOTIFICATION LIST - APPEAL - VIC QUILICI - LUP #1070-90 - CROCKETT AREA - (PAGE #2) THOMAS B. & BEATRICE M. LEAL ARTHUR F. & DOROTHY BERTANI JOHN C. WHITNEY P. 0. BOX 296 1425 FLORA STREET 1907 MERCHANT STREET CROCKETT.. CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 PAUL J. & DEANNA L. MORRISON - 6TH AVENUE ROBERT W. & NANCY M. JACKSON ROBERT J. & HELEN J. FANUCCHI 911 911 - TT, CALIFORNIA 94525 1424 LILLIAN STREET 1605 POMONA STREET CROCK , CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT MARIA DA RE WILLIAM E. & ANNA M. BROWN KENNETH LOUIS SIMONTACCHI 904 - SIXTH AVENUE 1434 LILLIAN STREET 824 - 6TH AVENUE CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT.. CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT. CALIFORNIA 94525 CHARLES WIND HENRY J. & BEGONIA L. TRIGLIA EDWARD L. & BETTY K. BROGLIO 914 - SIXTH AVENUE P. 0. BOX 157 620 RUISSEAU FRANCAIS AVENUE CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 HALF MOON BAY, CALIF. 94019 LESLIE DE TOMASI & LAWRENCE R. MERLIN SCHROER & RITA M. DE TOMASI WILLIAM R. & SANDRA B. GRAY 1624 FLORA STREET 924 - 6TH AVENUE 1523 POMONA STREET CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 JOSEPH & STELLA NOE MARY B. MOUTINHO, ET AL CARL F. & GLORIA MULLEN 934 - 6TH AVENUE 837 - 7TH AVENUE CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 515 LORING AVENUE CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 ELEANOR BASSETTI, TRE. MICHAEL M. & STACEY SILVA MOSS JAMES DAVID HALL 1616 LILLIAN STREET 521 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE 827 - 7TH AVENUE CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA 94806 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 TERESA GUERRIERI CHARLOTTE M. CLERICI 1634 LILLIAN STREET 1514 FLORA STREET CROCKETT. CALIFORNIA 94525 CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 EVA DE TOMASI & TERESA GUERRIERI SHEL GIVENS & DIANE J. WAGNER BOX 486 17307'SOLANO AVENUE CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94707 JOHN R. & LINDA G. FOOS MAXINE BERTOLDI, TRE 1435 FLORA STREET 1141 TUOLUMNE ROAD CROCKETT, CALIFORNIA 94525 MILLBRAE, CALIFORNIA 94030 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL - Vic Quilici (Applicant/Owner) Land Use Permit #1070-90 - Appellants: John & Doris .Olsson - Crockett Area. (S.D. II)/ WHEREAS, an application by VIC QUILICI (Applicant/Owner), LUP #1070-90, requesting approval to establish a zero (0) foot setback and a zero (0) foot sideyard for the reconstruction of an existing garage, was received by the Community Development Department on June 29, 1990; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, an initial study was conducted and resulted in a finding that this project is categorically exempt, Class 5A; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator for public hearing on July 12, 1993, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 1993, the County Zoning Administrator CONTINUED the public hearing to July 26, 1993, at the request of the applicant; and WHEREAS, on Monday, July 26, 1993, the County Zoning Administrator APPROVED the subject application with conditions and for a flat roof; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 1993, the applicant/owner, Vic Quilici APPEALED the decision of the Zoning Administrator as related to the condition that "The roof of the garage shall be flat"; and WHEREAS, the applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision was scheduled before the County Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Appeals, for Tuesday, April 5, 1994; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, April 5, 1994, the applicant's representative appeared and explained the reasons for this appeal and others appeared and spoke in opposition to the action of the Zoning Administrator on July 26, 1993, and after having fully reviewed, considered and evaluating all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Appeals GRANTED the applicant's appeal upholding the decision of the Zoning Administrator and the conditions imposed by him; but, deleted the requirement that "The roof of the garage shall be flat"; and -2- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1 . The project area consists of small lots on sloping terrain resulting in structures built at or near property lines on virtually every parcel. 2. Denial of this project would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by nearly all property owners in the vicinity. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing order was given by the County Planning Commission sitting as the Board of Appeals in a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 5, 1994, as follows: AYES: Commissioners-Terrell, Wong, Accornero, Woo, Gaddis, Straus, Clark. NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on Friday, April 15, 1994, the applicant's neighbor, John & Doris Olsson, appealed the decision to your Board for public hearing and determination. RICHARD CLARK Chairman of the Planning Commission Contra Costa County, State of Calif- An, 21 April 1994 ATTEST: n - ecretary of the s n, Contra Costa County - State of alifornia CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE 1070-90 Approval is granted to allow the variance as indicated below; it meets the intent of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code which outlines the requirements for a variance permit: 20 ft. setback and 5 ft. sideyard required. 0 ft. setback and 0 ft. sideyard granted. 1. Development shall be as shown on plans submitted with the application on June 29, 1990. 2. The new and existing exterior finish shall be of similar style and design. 3. The County Building Inspection Department requirement for a land survey and their building code regulations must be satisfied. TB/aa VARVII/1070-90C.TB 3/18/93 7/26/93 - Z.A. Rev. (v) 4/05/94 - P/C Rev. (v) LAW OFFICE OF Candice E. Stoddard 1111 CIVIC DRIVE,SUITE 380 WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596 FAX(5 10)933-3801 (510)942-5100 Cil April 14 , 1994 —� %_0 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pane Street Martinez, CA Re: NOTICE OF APPEAL Application: Vic Quilici County File # 1070=90 Parcel # : 354-164-003 Address : 1515 Flora Street, Crocket My Clients : John and Doris Olsson Dear Board of Supervisors : Please be advised that I represent John and Doris Olsson in appealing the ruling of the Planning Commission granting the application of Vic Quilici for a variance for the construction of a garage . This variance was granted without the condition imposed by the Zoning Administrator that the garage roof remain flat . My clients own the property immediately adjacent to the garage in question, and are the neighbors most significantly impacted by the application, and the decision of the Planning Commission. The application seeks a variance from the requirements for a 20 ft . setback and 5 ft . sideyard requirement for the construction of this garage. The variance requests a 0 ft . setback and 0 ft . sideyard. The Contra Costa Planning Commission went against the staff recommendation, which was consistent with the decision of the Zoning Administrator, to require that the garage roof style remain flat . The Olsson' s are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission for the following reasons : 1 . During the course of the renovation of this garage, more than 500 of the value of the. garage was removed, whereby it lost its non-conforming status. The Quilici' s should be required to relocate this garage to a location which is in compliance with proper setback requirements . Such a site is available on their JI ..J Board of Supervisors April 14 , 1994 Page 2 property. 2 . The garage in question was constructed in the 19301s . The garage was constructed with a flat roof, and has always had a flat roof . The flat roof came just below the upstairs bedroom of the Olsson residence, and was constructed with a flat style so as not to block the upstairs bedroom window. The proposed pitched roof would block the upper bedroom window of the Olsson residence, thereby impairing the light and air to their bedroom. There is only a three foot separation between their home and the garage which is evident from the photographs which have previously been provided. 3 . The Olssons are 72 years of age, and Mrs . Olsson has essentially lived at this residence all of her life . She has had serious health issues of late, and this construction has caused severe emotional distress for her. If this garage is allowed to be completed with a pitched roof, rather than the flat roof it has always had, the quality of Mrs . Olsson' s remaining years will be seriously affected. 4 . County Ordinance 92-44 requires the County Zoning Administrator to determine whether location, size, height, or design of a structure is compatible with its neighborhood. The intent is to provide compatibility with, and minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The only way to minimize the impact on the surrounding neighborhood, which in this case is the neighbor 3 feet from the proposed structure, is to at the very least not allow the structure to be more impactful than it was before . 5 . To grant the variance, and not include the condition that the roof remain flat, will impact the Olssons further. To block the bedroom window will no doubt decrease the value of their. property. 6 . The pitched roof which has been partially constructed, has raised the height of the garage an additional three feet . If the Board overrules the Planning Commission, grants the variance, and requires the roof remain flat, it is respectfully requested that the condition state the flat roof not be any higher than it was previously, so as not to block any portion of the Olsson' s bedroom window. 7 . Certain misrepresentations were made to the Planning Commission by applicant and applicant' s representative . One was that the Olsson' s would not be impacted by the construction of a pitched roof because they were moving. This is simply untrue . Additionally, it was represented that all garages in this Board of Supervisors April 14 , 1994 Page 3 neighborhood have pitched roofs, thereby making the pitched roof style more compatible with the neighborhood. This again is untrue. There are many garages in the neighborhood which are flat . Photographs proving this will be provided. It is the Olsson' s request that this garage be removed and rebuilt at a site on the Quilici' s property which complies with proper setback requirements . The garage is an eye sore, constitutes a safety and fire hazard because of the close proximity to the Olsson' s home, invades their privacy, blocks out light and air, and is in violation of current building, zoning and fire codes . It is respectfully requested that the variance be denied. If it is not denied, it is requested that the conditions state that the roof remain flat, no higher than it was previously. It is also requested that the applicant be required to repair the retaining wall facing the Olsson' s property as it is deteriorated, and that the applicant be required to repair and paint or replace the siding facing the Olsson residence, as it is also deteriorated, and an eyesore . Enclosed please find the appropriate filing fee, and stamped envelopes addressed to each property owner within 300 feet of the property. If any further information is required, please do not hesitate to contact me . Very truly yours, CANDICE E. STODD , D CES/tadm CC : Clients CALIFOENIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Notice of Exemption Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor - North Wing, McBrien Administration Building Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Telephone: (510) 646-2031 Contact Person: Tony Bruno Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: VIC QUILICI (Applicant & Owner), County File #1070-90: The applicant requests approval to establish a 0 foot setback and a 0 foot sideyard for the reconstruction of an existing garage. Subject property is addressed #1525 Flora Street in the Crockett area. (R-6) (ZA:D-9) (CT 3570.0) (Parcel #354-164-003) This project is exempt from CEOA as a: Ministerial Project (Sec. 15268) Other Statutory Exemption, Section Declared Emergency (Sec. 15269(a)) General Rule of Applicability(Section 15061(b)(3)) Emergency Project (Sec. 1526ft) or (c)) XX Categorical Exemption, Class 5a Section 15305 for the following reason(s): This project consists of a minor alteration of a land use limitation in an area of less than 20% slope. This project will not result in a change in land use, density, or the cre 'on of any new parcel. It is a minor variance to set-back, sideyard, or rearyard regulations. Date: By: C munity evelopmen p ment Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21 152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Applicant's Name and Address Department of Fish and Game Fee - Exempt Vic Quilici County Clerk Fee $25 Due Receipt 1525 Flora Street Crockett, CA 94525 n Contra Costa County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Administration Building, North Wing, Pine& Escobar Streets, Martinez, California 94553-0095 _ •.oma, INITIAL STUDY ` OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE File # Prepared B '" Date P Y Reviewed By Date z3 /7 RECOMMENDATIONS: Categorical Exemption (Class-5-4 The recommendation is based on the following: 7� ��-d J��f l CN s'"/,STS � .� �.vo✓1 �tEa�T�m.� 6�;® L�.vo ZIA,/T�4r lei �N '4V Leg' /�11�1(fGtG 1142 14.f&17' IW lit/ ZfX--4 //X-F, OR � At'rd�y 00'�- At/ /trt!✓ Ae6 4 % /r -If Jif-, ,74ae ,�.o y� ; ,-Ie ,46A4,y,�1.4-e /g GG.Orrr v j, U.S.G.S. Quad Sheet Zoning Atlas Sheet - Assessor Parcel Number 354 f - G�3 Census Tract _ �5r D- y Zoning District General Plan Project Description: 12 A/ n Agenda Item #3 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. BOARD OF APPEALS I. INTRODUCTION VIC QUILICI (Applicant & Owner), County File #1070-90: The applicant requests approval to establish a 0 ft. setback and a 0 ft. sideyard for the reconstruction of an existing garage. Subject property is addressed #1525 Flora Street in the Crockett area. (R-6) (ZA: D-9) (CT 3570.0) (Parcel #354-164-003) The project was initially heard by the County Zoning Administrator on July 12, 1993 and continued on that date to July 26, 1993. On July 26, 1993 the County Zoning Administrator approved this project for setback and sideyard standards; however, restructuring the roof of the garage to being flat as originally built. Since that time, the applicant has appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision, copy of that appeal letter is attached. II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission uphold the County Zoning Administrator's decision by approving this request for variance to setback and sideyard standards. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan Designation: The subject property is designated Single Family Residential-High Density on the 1991 County General Plan. The project is consistent with the standards of that General Plan designation. B. Zoning: The subject property is located in a single family residential district (R- 6). This project is consistent with the regulation of that zoning classification. C. CEQA Status: The initial study has resulted in a finding that this project is categorically exempt - Class 5A. This project consists of a minor alteration in land use in an area with less than a 20% slope. It will not result in a change in land use, density, or in the creation of a new parcel. IV. DISCUSSION A. Area and Site Description: The subject property is Lot #3 Block 13 of the "Town of Valona", a 287 lot subdivision recorded on April 15, 1887. The lots within that subdivision are generally 50 ft. x 100 it. rectangular shaped parcels on a sloping terrain facing Carquinez Straits to the north. The subject property is in keeping with the surrounding area, that is--it is a vintage home generally well maintained with little or no setback or landscaping. B. Proiect Description: The applicant has had a detached 19 ft. x 18.5 ft. detached two car garage, located on the front and west property lines. That garage was built prior to the establishment of zoning regulations. During the course of a renovation of the garage, more than 50% of the value of it was removed, thus losing the non-conforming status. The applicant wishes to rebuild the garage and replace the formerly flat roof with a 4:12 pitched roof. The result will be a roof beam being about 3 ft. higher then the flat roof. That increased roof beam height is the cause for concern in this project. C. Project Background: About three months prior to the submittal of this application, the applicant had gained Building Permit #161846. That permit was issued on March 20, 1990 for garage renovation which included a pitch roof and doors. A "Stop Work" was issued by the Building Inspection Department on April 6, 1990, then lifted four days later. Another "Stop Work" was issued on April 26, 1990, this time at the request of this Department's Zoning Investigation Section. It was Zoning Investigation staff opinion that the addition of a pitch roof constituted the expansion of a non-conforming use which required the issuance of a Land Use Permit. Since that time, the garage renovation has been halted. During the processing of this application, which was submitted on June 29, 1990, staff learned that during the work phase of the renovation of the garage, several structural members including those attached to the foundation had been replaced. It is now staff's opinion that that extensive of a renovation on a structure results in a loss of the non-conforming status. Therefore, since non- conforming status is no longer at issue, then a variance to setback and sideyard standard for an existing garage is the proper course of action in this matter. D. Staff Findings: Staff finds the project area consists of small lots on a sloping terrain resulting in structures built at or near property lines on virtually every parcel. Therefore, staff concludes that denial of this project would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by nearly all property owners in the vicinity. E. Small Lot Ordinance Review: County Ordinance 92-44 requires the County Zoning Administrator to determine whether location, size, height, or design of a home is compatible with its neighborhood. The intent is to provide compati- bility with, and minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. F. Conditions of Approval: Staff has included conditions of approval that the Zoning Administrator had attached to the approval of this project on July 26, 1993. 3 G. Staff Response to Olsson Letter: Mr. & Mrs. Olsson, neighbors to the right side of the applicant, have expressed opposition to the renovation of the garage. As stated in their letter received on March 15, 1993 "mainly because present building codes and fire codes are not in compliance...". The County Building Inspection Department has and will continue to monitor the progress of construction on the garage in order to insure that the building and fire codes are satisfied. I. Attachments: Staff has attached the following documents to assist the Zoning Administrator in understanding the several opinions of staff during the processing of this project: 1 . Application. 2. Assessor's Map. 3. Staff photo of site - March 15, 1993. 4. Applicant's 5 page letter of November 27, 1990. 5. Staff memorandum reflecting Zoning Investigation Section Opinion of this project - December 24, 1990. 6. Staff letter to applicant offering a refund of variance fee - October 9, 1990. 7. Zoning Investigation Section reversal of staff refund offer. 8. Zoning Investigation Section cease and desists notice. 9. Staff letter explaining need for Land Use Permit. 10. Letter from neighbor in support of project. 11 . Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Olster (the main opponent to this project) in opposition to this project. 12. Jacoby & Meyers letter of August 5, 1993 representing the applicant, appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator to restrict the garage roof to being flat. TB/aa VARVII/1070-90.TB 6/23/93 7/26/94 - ZA(v) 3/23/94 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE 1070-90 Approval is granted to allow the variance as indicated below; it meets the intent of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code which outlines the requirements for a variance permit: 20 ft. setback and 5 ft. sideyard required. 0 ft. setback and 0 ft. sideyard granted. 1 . Development shall be as shown on plans submitted with the application on June 29, 1990. The roof of the garage shall be flat. 2. The new and existing exterior finish shall be of similar style and design. 3. The County Building Inspection Department requirement for a land survey and their building code regulations must be satisfied. TB/aa VARVII/1070-90C.TB 3/18/93 7/26/93 - Z.A. Rev. (v) -737/ JACOBY MEYERS LAW OFFICES .7 BAY AREA OFFICES August 5, 1993 Our File# ❑ 185 Post St,#300 - San Francisco,CA 94108 - -- (415)433-4533 ❑ Pleasant Hill Plaza Contra Costa County Community Development Department 1930Contra Costa Bl County Administration Department Pleasant Hill,CA 94523 (510)689-1500 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing ❑ 197 87th St Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Daly City,CA 94015 (415)991-2922 RE: Written Notice of Appeal ❑ 1048 EI Camino Real Vic Quilici (Applicant and Owner) Redwood City,CA 94063 Decision of the County Zoning Administrator (415)368-1146 July 26, 1993 711100 San Pablo Ave,#200A County File No. 1070-90 EI Cerrito,CA 94530 (510)235-9095 Dear Community Development Department: 7 3805 Broadway Oaklan(510) 7-7201 611 I represent Mr. Quilici in appealing(51o)sa7-72o1 Jackson adverse decision of the County Zoning Administrator ton he ❑ Hayward,CA 94544 Mr. Quilici's application for a variance permit. Mr. (510)537-5747 Quilici seeks a variance to complete the reconstruction of an existing garage. :138930 Blacow Rd,Ste.C Fremont,CA 94536 (510)794-5784 The construction was commenced after a permit ❑ 3550 Stevens Creek Bl was issued on March 20, 1990 for a garage reconstruction San Jose,CA 95117 which included a pitch roof and doors. The work was (408)246-7411 stopped by a "Stop Work" issued when the Zoning CALIFORNIA REGIONAL investigation staff said it was their opinion that the ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES change to a pitch roof constituted an expansion of a non- 13 Westside Towers East 1155 conforming use and required a land use permit. During West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles,CA 90064 the Processing of Mr. Quilicils application for a (310)478-5900 variance, the staff learned that during the work phase of the renovation of the garage several structural members, including those attached to the foundation, had been replaced. It was the staff's opinion that renovation resulted in a loss of the non-conforming status. The staff recommended that a variance to setback and sideyard standard for an existing garage was the proper course of action in this matter. The County Zoning Administrator went against the staff recommendation and denied Mr. Quilici's application for a variance permit. The value of Mr. Quilici's property has been adversely affected and the decision does not comply with the general plan. The project area consists of small lots on a sloping terrain resulting in structures built owl For general information:310/418-5900.Prinled on recycled paper. at or near property lines on virtually every parcel. Denial of this project would deprive Mr. Quilici of rights enjoyed by nearly all property owners in. the vicinity. Required standards were not satisfied by the evidence presented at the hearing. County Ordinance 92- 44 requires the County Zoning Administrator to determine whether location, size, height or design of a home is compatible with the neighborhood in a small lot ordinance review. The intent is to provide compatibility with, and minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The impact of the reconstruction of the garage with a 4:12 pitch roof will be negligible on the neighborhood and indeed will visually enhance the neighborhood. I have not received any specified findings from the County Zoning Administrator and I request that such findings, if any exist, be forwarded to me. I believe that the variance would be granted if Mr. Quilici was to tear down the new construction and reconstruct the roof without pitch for drainage. Not only would this seriously decrease the beauty and the longevity of the roof, but it would require Mr. Quilici to tear down the work already completed in reliance upon the Building Permit that was issued and later revoked. This is inherently unreasonable for both reasons. I have enclosed the appropriate appeal fee and stamped envelopes addressed to each property owner within 300 feet of the project. Please contact me with any questions, or if further information is needed. Also, if there are any specified findings from this action, please provide me with copies. I thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, CHARLES F. SULLIVAN - - - --- - - ,503 �•} 150- 1505 1506 70 f i ' r'-�-+-Y JOHN SvVETT is i ALEXANDER POMONA P^MCNA 'i �'� I - HIGH SCHOOL ta� PARK 1 3T • 3 4 t CARQUINEZ i a SCHOOL ` vi zk .zR A S T R- B FRAN i S %3 t 569 4 'N ROSE ST ' 3 i 'QOtA� 3 Aq ' 4 568 ORWE � t i 4t t 3 i 1 1 � i �O 567 -= `, - a { A•2 rG �8� a 8„f A A fill �3w GUERRERRI ADDITION M.B. - fro 'SAX CODE AREA BAY ADDITION M.8.15— 307-309 ,,15�: �''�..� ." ` VALONA M.13.E - 117 RANCHO CANADA DEL HAM BRE �o ° FLORA cr, ' �� ST ac \ 50 50 50 50 :50 5 $� \ ; ! v,� ►bid 31A0�i A qbt #904 D2 �qo OS ° r �✓ y i 14 01 m4 03 z1/9114 413 2 �� W SF SA 50 5o 50 M-�2 '' was 201120 r4 03 Lij Aa 50 7 8 s 6 e - � to � tl� A n189°ao',v Io�r.2?y 5y.7B q C Iwo 8 `13 t �t7 +►940` /AO6? 2 �r 59 5Q 18 5 50 547 60 co 'A 4 S69^3/"L ? R9.57ti'BB15?' LILLIAN ST lip ya Z Q to wb ,w 7 F / q'Sa'W 589'39E {ll 0`4 _. 50 3Q ',7E, AiC v & 166 0- Cn 50 so 50 s� U- E,,. ,J 7 . 1�1G" `` , LL � .+vg` � 9\�l DI /O 1�' . `meg-' �- f foo -�. 1c r, c 'a 4 5 q6Q �Sp2 50 C16i h � 0 �0 5� �o so so # ' sv 3 so R r t C / [ vacations FRANCIS ST o �s �5359/409 /6, (s� 9-20-89 � L C ..a.Y I � i t f o ill • � oa' � I i �i I - I � Pry I . i 1 C r L�1�A ST: __.... - --...-------- ... -- ---- ---- / Agenda Item #5 Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, JULY 26, 1993 - 9:30 A.M. I. INTRODUCTION VIC QUILICI (Applicant & Owner), County File #1070-90: The applicant requests approval to establish a 0 ft. setback and a 0 ft. sideyard for the reconstruction of an existing garage. Subject property is addressed #1525 Flora Street in the'Crockett area. (R-6) (ZA: D-9) (CT 3570.0) (Parcel #354-164-003) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the County Zoning Administrator approve this request for variance to setback and sideyard standards. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan Designation: The subject property is designated Single Family Residential-High Density on the 1991 County General Plan. The project is consistent with the standards of that General Plan designation. B. Zoning: The subject property is located in a single family residential district (R- 6). This project is consistent with the regulation of that zoning classification. C. CEQA Status: The initial study has resulted in a finding that this project is categorically exempt - Class 5A. This project consists of a minor alteration in land use in an area with less than a 20% slope. It will not result in a change in land use, density, or in the creation of a new parcel. IV. DISCUSSION A. Area and Site Description: The subject property is Lot #3 Block 13 of the "Town of Valona", a 287 lot subdivision recorded on April 15, 1887. The lots within that subdivision are generally 50 ft. x 100 ft. rectangular shaped parcels on a sloping terrain facing Carquinez Straits to the north. The subject property is in keeping with the surrounding area, that is--it is a vintage home generally well maintained with little or no setback or landscaping. 8. Project Description: The applicant has had a detached 19 ft. x 18.5 ft. detached two car garage, located on the front and west property lines. That garage was built prior to the establishment of zoning regulations. During the course of a renovation of the garage, more than 50% of the value of it was ^ 2 removed, thus losing the non-conforming status. The applicant wishes to rebuild the garage and oao)eum the formerly flat roof with m 4:12 pitched roof. The result will be roof beam being about 3ft. higher then the flat roof. That increased roof beam height imthe cause for concern inthis project. ' D. About three months prior to the submittal of this application, the applicant had gained Building Permit #161846. That permit was issued on March 20, 1990 for garage renovation which included opitch roof and doors. A "Stop Work". was issued by the Building Inspection Department on April 6' 1990, than lifted four days later. Another "Stop Work" was issued on April 26' 1990, this time at the request of this Department's Zoning Investigation Section. |1was Zoning Investigation staff opinion that the addition of pitch roof constituted the expansion of non-conforming use which required the issuance ofa Land Use Permit. Since that time, the garage renovation has been halted. []uhn0 the processing of this application, which was submitted on June 29' 1990, staff learned that during the work phase of the renovation of the garage, several structural members including those attached tothe foundation had been rep|aced' lti$ now staff's opinion that that extensive of renovation on a structure results in a loss of the non-conforming status. Therefore, since non- conforming status is no longer at issue, then a variance to setback on'oonfmrrningstatusisno |onga, at\asua' thmnavmrianoetometback andmidayard standard for mnexisting garage isthe proper course ofaction inthis matter. E. Staff finds the project area consists mfsmall lots on as|oping terrain resulting in structures built mtor nao, property lines onvirtually every parcel. Therefore, staff concludes that denial of this project would deprive the applicant ofrights enjoyed bynearly all property owners inthe vicinity. F. Small Lot Ordinance Revie : County Ordinance 92-44requires the County Zoning Administrator to determine whether location, size, height, or design of ahome \scompatible with its neighborhood. The intent ietoprovide compati- bility with, and minimize impacts onthe surrounding neighborhood. Staff suggests that the impact of the reconstruction of the garage with a new 4:12 pitch roof will be negligible mnthe neighborhood. G. Staff has attached suggested conditions of approval should the Zoning Administrator decide to approve this project. H. Staff Response to Ol.sson Letter: Mr. & Mrs. Olsson, neighbors tothe right side of the applicant, have expressed opposition to the renovation of the garage. As stated in their letter received on March 15, 1993 "mainly because present building codes and fire codes are not incompliance...... The County Building Inspection Department has and will continue to monitor the progress of ' construction on the garage in order t0insure that the building and fire COd83 they enforce come in full compliance of code regulations. The Olsson letter further states, "...construction on an alpine roof. This was many feet above 3 the original roof and deprives us of our privacy plus light". It is staff's opinion that the roof in question at a 4:12 pitch does not constitute an "alpine roof". It is unlikely that privacy or light will be effected other than marginally. . I. Attachments: Staff has attached the following documents to assist the Zoning Administrator in understanding the several opinions of staff during the processing of this project: 1. Application. 2. Assessor's Map. 3. Staff photo of site - March 15, 1993. 4. Applicant's 5 page letter of November 27, 1990. 5. Staff memorandum reflecting Zoning Investigation Section Opinion of this project - December 24, 1990. 6. Staff letter to applicant offering a refund of variance fee - October 9, 1990. 7. Zoning Investigation Section reversal of staff refund offer. 8. Zoning Investigation Section cease and desists notice. 9. Staff letter explaining need for Land Use Permit. 10. Letter from neighbor in support of project. 11 . Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Olster (the main opponent to this project) in opposition to this project. TB/aa VARVII/1070-90.TB 6/23/93 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE 1070-90 Approval is granted to allow the variance as indicated below; it meets the intent of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code which outlines the requirements for a variance permit: 20 ft. setback and 5 ft. sideyard required. 0 ft. setback and 0 ft. sideyard granted. 1. Development shall be as shown on plans submitted with the application on June 29, 1990. 2. The new and existing exterior finish shall be of similar style and design. 3. The County Building Inspection Department requirement for a land survey and their building code regulations must be satisfied. TB/aa VARVII/1070-90C.TB 3/18/93 HEARING C FILE NO. APPLICATIOWFOR A APPLICANT OWNER Name Name Address Address City.State Phone X/-7 zip Phone -7d2- 2-34,c- Zip Total Parcel Area Water Supply Source Z-5- 4-'fza4,�C;;7-- Number of Parcels Requested Agency Regulating Sewers -zz.-5:z- NATURE OF REQUEST-Give Reasons Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature to Office Use Only 4 Application Description (72 Property Description Z= 71 Ordinance Ref. Comments Area Assessor's No. Date Filed Fire District Zoning District Filing Fee /ice CensusTract Receipt No. Atlas Page By Sphere of Influence G4,e-.P Contra Costo-,ntyCommunity Deveiopment Department Sup. Dist. ,-'- INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE AP1 R 5/85 'Ik �d oC11 NZ � -_{ C-)"0000 e � NA all 09 to \ y p5 N t V �� / ti �+'�09 o N J c « o g . � py U� :..� b: '� /\�.•��J�� sem- � �/^� V.. m � d �uo'V,�t�fst�.r•,:, R.. `�oso" e �.N�� ,',r�°i.. �':�:. %� D �'�.7'':- �V ,•N h�q /^� ^!may. lw— � 4. Q /•; ...� '�,.=i rp _ s. l ww g\`f=1F"L'oM' "� _iz. ,/Si � �_t •� (/v��,'�i �"i.': !� .. F�p N iv `M ti if !/r� . � .. is d - ! O .bG< �c•.J� .� 'sf•si..,..ft o� if'P➢ t Lf t9 .A'l _•�- Cl) cr rG..f1 s cisv y CD ;�, ALL• fr �� tr �� ~ J e9 � Ntf ' O ;� z�o� b•/yam _. {� -710 ys t 1 t 1ju . i THIS PHOTOGWH WAS TAXEN Oh Ms. Nancy Faden Supervisor Contra Costa County 805 LasJuntas Martinez, California 94553 November 27, 1990 Dear Nancy: As a taxpayer I am concerned about the time and energy being spent in inappropriate harrassment of my family regarding my garage. I have, in my possession plans for remodeling of my garage, approved by the Contra Costa County building department. I ,have been accused of enlarging the garage after the plans were approved. This is not true, the square footage is as was appr.oved. There was a change in the roof line because of drainage. This change was also approved by the county. I have also been accused of demolishing "the original structure. This is not true, while remodeled, original timbers also remain. I would be happy to show these to you. I challenge the need for a land use . permit for a structure that has been a garage for 60 years. There are nine houses on our block between 5h and 6th street. Each house has at least two cars, not counting cars from the apartments nestled behind five of these houses. Because of this congestion, it is impossible for me to park near my home. I would appreciate any assistance you can provide to me to end this harrassment and allow me to complete the remodeling of this much needed structure. Attached are copies of the approved original plans, the approval for all changes, a summary of facts by date and all correspondence received from the Community Development Department. Sincerely, �? ��'� :Z BettyQuilici 1525 Flora Street Crockett, California 94525 3/20/90 Applied/received building permit to remodel garage. 4/9/90 Stop work order left on front door. 5/10/90 My son went to building department and was told we must submit revised plans to include foundation work (when removing old roof, he discovered large crack in back foundation, he chiped a section to see if it was safe or needed to be replaced) and raising walls on roof 12 inches for fire wall on neighbors side, to include sheet metal for fire protection. 4/28/90 Received letter from building department stating they had issued a stop work order on 5/9/90 and it was necessary we contact their office within 10 days to clear up the complaint and prevent initiation of legal action. 4/30/90 I called building department and spoke to Gary West. I assured him all work had stoped on the garage. My son had been called to work in San Francisco to repair buildings with earthquake damage and had not had time to draw the revised plans. Gary West was very understanding and stated we had 14 days to submit revised plans. 5/14/90 Stop work order placed on front door, stating need for revised plans. 5/14/90 Revised plans were submitted and approved. My son and Gary crossed paths. 6/4/90 Soon called for inspection of nails on roof and was told there was another stop work order placed on job. When he questioned he was told the planning department had placed the order (No stop work order was placed on front door, we were unaware of this order. 6/5/90 Son went to Planning Department and spoke to Donna Hall, she stated a neighbor (Mrs Olsson) had complained therefore we had to apply for a variance. When he questioned this she stated had he not touched the foundation he would have been ok. 6/28/90 Jim Hall. came to the house and stated the need for a variance. He assisted in filling out the variance application. He assured us it was only a formality and should be no problem. Again we were given another deadline, eventhough all work had stopped. 'Z 6/29/90 Filed application for variance, paid $110.00 , provided 58 stamped addressed envelopes and 13 copies of plans as required (with the assistance of Charles Cody) . note: Both Mr Cody and Ms. Hall were very helpful 7/12/90 Received letter from planning department, Tony Bruno confirming receipt of application for variance giveing assigned county' file # 1070-90 . 8/2/90 Received letter from Tony Bruno stating the plans submitted was not satisfactory for further review of project. A new plot plan would be required. 8/5/90 Called Tony Bruno -asked how to do plot plan to meet his requirements . He gave instructions. 8/7/90 Plot Plan sent to Tony Bruno 8/30/90 ' I called Tony Bruno, asked for update and questioned why letters had not been mailed to neighbors. He stated the Plot Plan was not clear, after discussing unclear areas to his satisfaction he agreed to send letters to neighbors within the next week. 9/28/90 Called Tony Bruno to ask if he had sent letters out (neighbors questioned why they had not received letters) he stated he was too busy, he had 50% more variances this year than last. I reminded him of his promise to get them out on 8/30 and stressed the importance of getting the garage completed before the rains start. He stated he would make every effort to get them out by first of following week. note: time frames can be imposed on me yet they do not have to follow any. I ask you is this fair? 10/3/90 I called Tony Bruno for status, he was not in. My husband and I decided it a good idea to go to the planning department and speak to Mr. Bruno's supervisor. We were directed to Carl Wandrey. We met with Mr Wandrey, after going over all the issues and looking at the approved plans, he stated he did not understand why a variance was needed. We explained the reasons given to us ie: because we touched the fooundation and a neighbor complained. He stated oncperson complaining should not cause this. He told us he would have to talk to Tony Bruno to see if he had anything to add. He assured us we would hear from him by friday 3 10/5/90 ' When I didn 't hear from Carl Wandrey by 4 :30pm, I. called his office and was told he was in a meeting. When I explained my concern to his secretary she put me on hold, when she returned she stated Tony Bruno had been instructed to call me. He had left for the day but she would remind him to call me. 10/8/90 After not hearing from Tony Bruno I called him at 3 :30pm. He stated he had sent letter, stating we did not need variance permit and could continue working on garage. If anyone had any questions they were to call him. 10/9/90 Received letter from Tony Bruno stating the Planning Departments findings were that the garage in question is a pre-existing structure; ,' that a review of the project had resulted in a finding that a variance was not required. A full refund would be sent upon our signing and returning the enclosed demand for $110 .00. note: you can imagine the relief we felt. 10/10/90 I. called building department and spoke to Gary West, I told him we were given the. ok to proceed and ask if the building permit was still valid, he stated it was . 10/20 & 21 (Weekend) Started work on garage. 10/23/90 My husband received call at work from Jim Hall stating we were in violation and must apply for a land use permit. My husband called me and I called Mr. Hall . I questioned why we needed a land use permit. He stated we had demolished the garage and had enlarged it. I stated we had done neither. I told him I was confused, he then stated "your not confused you are mad as hell, because I am and I let Carl Wandrey know it". He stated he had been on vacation and when he returned he found Tony Bruno's letter stating a variance was not required, it made him mad as hell, he stated it was his decision that a land use permit was reqired. When I asked him to explain what a land use permit was, he stated he had mailed a letter with explanagtion, but had spelled our name wrong and would be sending another, I then asked him to send the application with it note: why the phone call to my husband at work, why not a stop work order on the front door? We were always in compliance with the stop work orders. 10/25/90 Received letter from Jim Hall (dated January 1, 1980 ) . - 4 11/03/90 Received 2nd letter with land use application from Jim Hall. 11/22/90 Received 3rd letter stating as of 11/16/90 application had not been received as directed. Application had to be submitted no later than 11/30/90 . 11/26/90 I placed a call to your office and voiced my concerns to Barbara, she suggested I send all information to you for investigation. I look forward to hearing from you. If you are unable to reach me at my home number 787-2366 please feel free to call me at work, my number there is 707-648-6666 . Thank you in advance for your assistance. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVKLOPMENT DEPARTMKNT TO: Supervisor N. C. Fanden DATE: December 24, 1990 FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Director BY: Karl L. Wandry, Deputy Director SUBJECT: Betty Quilici, 1525 Flora St. , Crockett The zoning enforcement action which commenced in this matter was a result of a stop work order on the construction. of the garage at the referenced site. Additionally, a complaint was received from a citizen regarding the construc- tion. The construction being performed went beyond the original building permit which was issued. As a result of our zoning investigation, it was found the structure had been razed by the owner during a complete remodel and as such appeared to be in excess of 50 percent of its reasonable market value at the time of destruction or damage (Section 82-8.004 of the Ordinance Code) . Additionally, the non- . conforming structure was enlarged or extended upward without a land use permit as required by Section 82-8.006. The. structure had previously been a flat top structure and the remodel included a pitched roof and parapet wall on the property line which both extended the height of the .structure. Initially, Zoning Investigation only required a variance for the extensive remodel and enlargement and extension of the structure which sits on the property line and within the front setback. Upon my staff reviewing the information provided with the application, it was determined that instead of a variance, a . land use permit was necessary for the extension and enlargement of the structure. If the owner of the structure desires, the structure may be returned to its original bulk, size, and height and no variance or land use permit will be necessary. I am having Mr. Bruno confer with the Building Inspection Department to deter- mine if the returning of the structure to its original bulk, size, and. height can be done under the present building codes without fire or structural require- ments dictating additional height on the structure. Requirements may be placed on the structure which will enlarge or extend it because of the extensive remodel which was done to it. I will keep you informed as to our progress in this matter. KW/aa LTRV/Quilici.KW cc: T. Bruno J. Ball � „y4 rry Community Contra Harvey ofE.Community n Development I Gt Director of Community Development Department OSa County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing e'- Martinez, fiMartinez, California 94553.0095 'f ` Phone: 646-2031 October 5,1990 Vic Quilici 1525 Flora Street Crockett, CA 94525 Dear Mr. Quilici: This is in reference to your submittal of Permit 11070-90, a request to establish a 0 ft. setback and sideyard for the reconstruction of an existing garage. Our review of this project has resulted in a finding that a variance on your project is not required. ' We find that the garage in question is a pre-existing structure. A building permit will be required for your project which may be issued in one day. In reference to the variance fee, a full refund will be s t to you upon your signing and returning the enclosed Demand. Sinc ly, T BRUNO Planner TB/aa LTRXXXI/1070-90.TB cc: 1070-90 VENDOR NO. A/C DEMAND 174=4 [::7, LJ on the Treasury of the COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA Made By: STATE OF CALIFORNIA DATE 10/5190 Quilici Vic NAME (LAST) (FIRST) - IMPORTANT 1525 Flora Street See Instructions on Reverse Side ADDRESS Crockett, CA 94525 CITY, .(ATE ZIP CODE For the sum of One Hundred Ten and no/100------------------------ Dollars $ 110.00 As itemized below: DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 10/5/90 Full refund for VAriance #1070-90 Receipt #G509033 $110.00 The undersigned under the penalty of perjury states: That the above claim and the items as therein set out are true and correct that no part thereof has been heretofore paid, and that the amount therein is justly due, and that the same is presented within one year .after the last item thereof has accrued. Signed VENDOR NO. Received, Accepted , and Expenditure Authorized DEPARTMENT HEAD OR CHIEF DEPUTY r—ru—W.—W i INVOICE DATEI 09.I C R-I-P T161 ACCOUNTI ENCUMBRANCE -NO.JP/C ♦IPAYMENT AMOUNT TAXA&I 11 AMOUNT TASK OPTION J ACTIVITY JBPEC. F1.43.1 DISCOUNT "j7 ENCUMBRANCES NO. JP/C I PAYMENT AMOUNT . .......... TAXAOLC AMOUNT TASK OPTION ACTIVITY ISVE�- E_Lq2-J DISCOUNT w3iZ!. _A791 FUND one. ACCOUNT ENCUMBRANCE NO.JP/C I# PAYMENT AMOUNT, AMOUNT TAW OPTION ACTIVITY SPEC. FLOS DISCOUNT CHarvey E. Bragdon Community Contra Development Director of Community Development Department Director County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553.0095 �.. Phone: 646-2031 ,-�::• -�> 49 October 5,1990 Vic Quilici 1525 Flora Street Crockett, CA 94525 Dear Mr. Quilici: This is in reference to your submittal of Permit #1070-90, a request to establish a 0 ft. setback and sideyard for the reconstruction of an existing garage. Our review of this project has resulted in a finding that a variance .on your project is not required. We find that the garage in question is a pre-existing structure. A building permit ,will be. required for your project which may be issued in one day. In reference to the variance fee, a fullrefund will be sent to you upon your signing and returning the. enclosed Demand. Sinc ly, T BRUNO Planner TB/aa LTRXXXI/1070-90.TB cc: 1070-90 KA R ; Ao c -rebs ivy E v; io-s rel_o`✓ o v- T-A,-s w 4-rT_ -4P_ Y - P-b A VA-P_i4�v� ---E or— tc,T �} ccst 11+0v —%7 r..J kA�: + � Ver A,,,\,NCG #ms s? Community Contra Harvey E. Bragdon Director of Community Development Development Costa Department County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 '_ _ �0 415-646-2091 January 1, 19 Phone: ;.' �,.�'•It Victor C. and Betty R. Qui l l ici 1525 Flora Street Crockett, CA 94525 RE: NOTICE OF VIOLATION - CEASE AND DESIST NOTICE LOCATION: 1525 Flora Street, Crockett ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 354-164-003 ZONING DISTRICT: R-6 Single-Family Residential District USE PERMIT: None Dear Mr, and Mrs. Quillici : On October 5, 1990 Mr. Bruno of the Community Development Department, Current Planning Section advised you that it was not necessary for you to apply fora Variance for the reconstruction of the nonconforming garage which had existed on your property. The information that is available to itte is that this structure, which had existed within the required side yard had been.,demolished and rebuilt larger than that garage structure which existed at the site. To Conform to the Code and in accordance with Contra Costa County Code Sections 82- 8.002, 82-8.004, 82-8.006 and those regulations governing land uses within the R-6 Single-Family Residential District in Chapter 84-4, of Title 12 of the Contra Costa County Code YOU ARE ORDERED TO CEASE AND DESIST WITH ALL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ON THE GARAGE STRUCTURE AND ALL OTHER STRUCTURES WHICH MAY BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE REQUIRED YARDS AT THE ABOVE LOCATION OR ANY AND ALL INTENDED STRUCTURES AT THE SITE_ You must obtain a Land Use Permit for the garage prior to continuing with any building or construction. You must obtain planning approval for any and all construction of buildings and structures on the site. A review of this matter, to confirm your voluntary compliance will be made on or about November 5, 1990. It is necessary that you contact me to clear this alleged violation. Sincerely, Jim Nall Zoning Investigator cc: Building Inspection Department Current Planning Central Permit Counter E. Harvey nCommunity Contra Director of Community Development Development Costa Department COU County Administration Building nty 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 945530095 Phone: 646-2031 •�--f sTq`coii�`� February 7, 1991 Victor & Betty Quilici 1525 Flora Street Crockett, CA 94525 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Quilici: This is an effort to explain this Department's position in regard to ' the construction of the garage at your site. On June 29, 1990 you submitted an application to establish a 0 ft. sideyard to reconstruct an existing garage. A full refund of the application fee was returned to you upon our learning that the garage was a legal non-conforming structure. We then learned that you planned to extend upward the overall size of the garage. County Code Section 82-8.006 reads as follows: "An existing non-conforming use may be extended or enlarged if the owner first obtains a land use permit." As you can see, the Code is clear--if you intend to raise the garage height a land use permit is required. However, if you plan to rebuild the garage as it was,, you may continue under your previously obtained building permit. r` Sinc ely, To UNO Planner TB/aa LTRVIII/1070-90.TB cc: 1070-90 Supervisor N. C. Fanden t �: - ,�. 1. f r /� W �r f �� ;mac-�r�--•�- .�� , � �... ,. -Z7772,65 ,z5LzW r J 3� ;� } 1�� --'�-�---S 6�' R ' � .� .. . . _. v � ' .. � `� •' 4 t y _ - - - .. � �.,y - � , .. ,� .. ... .. ' 1 �s .. k �� ` \ � Y \ — � ` •t �- ., � . a _ ' .. � .. �..+ � .4 _ ... .� '� . �� + .. . � . _ �.� ,. � t _ - � � T ... ' .. � t �� . •