The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06151999 - D6 Contra lop Costa TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IMA County FROM: DENTNLIS M. BARRY, AICP DIRECTOR OF COMMUNIT-Y DEVELOPMENT DATE. June 15, 1999 SUBJECTz Hearing on June 15, 1999 on an Appeal from an Applicant of County Planning Commission Denial of a Land Use Permit Application for a Detached Residential Second Unit at #715 El Centro Road in the El Sobrante area (Rudy Martinez, Applicant & Owner; County File #LP9720883 _§_pzC3:pfdRE_QUEST(S) OF, RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMIY' Adopt a notion approving Option A actions listed below to Deny the ,Appeal of Rudy Martinez and Sustain, the Commission Denial, of the land use -permit application. CSC Optin- (Deny the Project and Appeal) 1 . Deny the appeal of Rudy Martinez . 2 . Deny Land Use Permit Application File #LP972088 . 3 . Adopt the findings contained in Commission Resolution #12-1999 as the basis for the Board' s Action. 4 . Direct the DLrector of Building Inspection to resume appropriate code enforcement actions on the site. (Declare intent to Approve the Project, :out Continue the hearing to allow for preparation of findings) 1 . Declare the Board' s Intent to grant the Appeal of Rudy Martinez, and Approve the project subject to conditions . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X __ YES SIGNATURE ACTION OF BOARD ON — June 15 , 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER The public hearing was OPENIED;Rudy Martinez, Applicant,P.O. Box 107,Pinole,presented testimony on the inatter; the hearing was CLOSED; and the Board APPROVED Option A. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT #4 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. Contact: Bob Drake H925) 335-12141 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED June 15 . 132_9__ CC: Rudy Martinez PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF El Sob-rante Valley Plan ging & THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Zoning Advisory Committee TY ADMINISTRATOR Building Tnspection Department County Counsel B -T DEPUTY C:\wpdoc\l).)972088 .bo. RD\ Appeal of Rudy Martinez (A & 01 Land Use Pe=It for Residential Second Unit County File #LP9720888 31 Sobrante area 2 . direct staff to prepare findings for Board consideration. 3 . Continue the matter at least three weeks to allow for preparation of findings . KCAL. MP T, None . The applicant is responsible for all app-lication review costs, whether or not the project is approved. I T, EL I V T, ING & ZOX.16 G The EI_ Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee has indicated it is opposed to the project . BA C AGI Ne-L hbQr' .. . ] a, pnf Qpa=y The genesis for this application began as a complaint from a neighbor regarding a second dwelling which had been constructed within the rearyard of a single family residential property in the El Sobrante area. The complaint prompted the Building inspection Department to undertake a zoning investigation. (File #RF9710.2.3) w h I c-1-1. C 0 r .f4 re=ed that the second dwelling was in violation of the County Ordinance. The Building Inspection Department advised the owner, Mr. Martinez, that either the illegal use would have to be eliminated or the app.1-1cant could try to legalize the use by obtaining a land use permit as a residential second unit under the Residential Second Unit Ordinance. On Decer..,ber 9, 1997 , the owner elected to file a land use permit application with the Community Development Department to try to legalize the dwelling. Shortly after the application was filed, staff determined that it was not complete and staff advised the applicant of the specific information that would be required in order to process the application. Several months passed and there was no indicatIon that the applicant would be providing the requested information. The matter was then scheduled for hearing before the Zoning Administrator with a recommendation of denial -:'_'or apparent lack of interest. At the hearing, the applicant indicated that he was interested in pursuing the matter and would follow-up ' th the additional information. w L� The matter was subsequently put over several times . Finally, sufficient information was provided to allow a review of the application, however, staff determined that the project did not meet the standards of the second unit ordinance, and recommended denial of the application. At the February 22, 1999 Zoning Administrator hearing, the applicant was not present when the application was called, and the Zoning Administrator denied the application for reasons expressed in the staff report, as well as apparent lack of interest on the part of the applicant . The applicant appealed the Zoning Adr-riinistrator decision. 'Ir'h e a'o-oli-cant indicated that he had appeared at the February 22 -2- Appeal of Rudy Martinez (A & 0) Land Use PeXaTdt for Residential Second Unit County File #LP972088, El Sobrante area hearing, but after waiting an. hour for his application to be heard, Left the hearing without notifying staff . ColInt Qxi Review The PanningCommission heard the applicant ' s appeal on April 13, 1999 . The applicant was not present, but was represented by another individual . The applicant ' s representative indicated that he could not attend the hearing due to a family health situation that called him out of the area. The representative indicated that the applicant was asking the Commission to continue the hearing on the appeal to a date which he could be present . The Cow-mission closed the hearing, and unanimously voted to deny the appeal and sustain the denial decision of the Zoning AdmInL.strator. AP "Ina lietter dated April 23, 1999, the applicant appealed the denial decision of the Planning Commission. DSS;UEa!M The background for the opposition to this project is contained in the staff reports to the Zoning Administrator and the County Planning Co-,mrission. The Residential Second Unit Ordinance allows residential second units that meet certain design qualities and standards . It is not clear that the structure meets fundamental building code requirements (e.g. , foundation design) . Variances to structure setback requirements of the Second Unit ordinance would have to be granted to allow placement of the dwelling closer to the side and rear property lines than is normally permitted. The applicant has not made any serious effort into showing how this project would prove an asset for the property or for the neighborhood. The 'Commission was concerned that allowing this dwelling to be legalized could constitute a poor precedent for the neighborhood. Both the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission denied the project ject in part because they were not able to make Ordinance Code findings that are required before a land use permit or variance can be approved. There is no new information in the applicant' s appeal relative to the issues that were considered by the Commission. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Board sustain the Commissio_n' s denial and deny the project . in the event that the Board does deny the application, the matter should be referred back to the Building inspection Department with direction to resume appropriate code enforcement action. These actions are listed under Option A above. Min-I.mally, code compliance and enforcement will require -removal of existing kitchen facilities within the second dwelling so that independent living is no longer feasible. However, unless there is evidence that a prior building permit has been issued for the structure, removal of the entire structure m. ay also be required. The cost of code compliance is borne exclusively by the owner. -3- A;Veal of Rudy hArtinez A & 0) Land Use Permit for Residential Second Unit County File #LP972088, ZZ Sabra nte area in the event that the Board finds merit in the project and is able to make all required .and use permit and variance findings, the staff report to the County Planning Commission contains a set of conditions of approval which could be used as the basis for approval of a project . In this event, the Board should declare its intent to approve the project and continue the matter at least three weeks to allow staff to prepare findings for Board consideration and adoption. This approach can be accommodated by the Board approving Option B, listed above. -4- r;^ ## i j{ • 'Building Inspection Department C1 Franidin Lew cao, Y' ileus of Sct Ung# PROPERTY CONSERVATION DIVISION Uosta NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION PROGRAM County „ . . 651 pine Street,4th 1y s.,t 3 S 14 Martinez,Callfomla 94553-0152 99 APR Z8 A # D(510)335.1111 � NPP (510): -1137 FAX (510)W-4450 April. 1, 1997 Rudy Martinez R. Cie Sox 107 Pinole CA 94554 SITE: 715 El Centro Road, El Sobrante CA APN: 425-012-025 REF: RF970103 Dear Property Owner, Our department has researched the parcel mentioned above and failed to find any evidenced of permits obtained for the second unit. From my field inspection, there is sufficient proof to require our department to pursue this complaint It is necessary for us to inspect the structure thoroughly to evaluated what stews need to be taken froze this point on. If .indeed there is a second unit, a Land Use Permit would be required along with Building Permits to verify safety of construction. If the above violation exists, it is necessary for you to apply for the required permits and/or approvals within (30) days Please contact the Property Conservation Division of the Building Inspection Department at 33.5-1171. within (30) days so we may clear this report.. We are open Monday through Friday except the first, third and fifth Friday of each month. Thank you for your cooperatio Steve Knight Building Inspector I SRK.dcf Sent By: STAPLES $652; 1 510 223 1174; NOV-18-98 12:35PM; gaga 1 November 16 , 1998 Robert Brake Senior Planner County Adm. F1.(Rcr- 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-009 RE, File 4LIP972088 715 El Centro Rd El Sobrante , CA 94803 Dear Mr. Drake In response to your letter of October 15 , 1998 . Attached are the requirements for the above project. The floor plan of the primary residence includiner, the existing second unit, design modifications for parking and compliance with tenancy occu.pancyy. a will comply with any requirements necessary for the building ordinance, However, F would like to state, since the second unit is existing the only building re,uui,rement necessary is the changing of the enterance to the second unit. Thank you and your staff for yoor assistance in this matter and the continuance until December 7. 1998 Sincerely, Martinez i Seat By: STAPLES, #652g 1 510 223 1174; NOV-16"98 12:35PM; Page 3/4 77770'Ile, m 0� oma* �4. irG ��d 4 IQ �S CA L E ` 715 EL CENTRO Serf By: STAPLES #652`s 1 510 223 11 /4; Nov-!t—98 e 2 a�i`..3Hm; eage 4f4 November 18, 1998 RE: Fi,e #LP972088-Tenarcy requirement Dear Mrd Drake! This is to notify you f will be ttovino into the secone vnit at 715 El Centra Rd . , R1 Sobrante , on completion of this project. Sincerely, -f- Rudy Randy Martinez fly .a t RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS 82-24.20282-24.41 0 4 Chapter 82-24 uses, and the multiple-1amilyresidential districts. (M-6, M-9, M-12, Pei-17, and M29). (Ord. 87-67 RESIDENTIAL SECOND UNITS Article 82-24.2 GenerAl Article 82-24.4 Sections: Definitions 82-24.202 Purpose. 8224.204 Applicable districts. 82.-24.402 Generally. Unless otherwise Article 8224.4 Definitions specifically provided, or rewired by the con- Sections: text, the following terms have the following 82-24.402 Generally. indicated meanings in this chapter. (Ord. 87-67 8224.404 Attached second unit. §3). 8224.406 Detached second unit. 82-24.408 Legal nonconforming second 82-24.404 Attached second unit. "Attached unit. second unit" means a dwelling unit which is 8224.410 Second unit. attached to the primary residence by any means, Article 82.-24.6 Applications including a common wall, roof or floor. (Ord. Sections: 87-67 § 3). 82-24.602 Applications--required. 8224.604 Applications—Contents. 82-24.4.06 Detached second unit. "De- 82-24.606 Applications--Types of second tached second unit" means a dwelling :snit limit. which is not attached to the primary residence 82-24.608 Applications- Processing. by any means,.including a common wall, roof or Article 82-24.10 Land Use Permits floor. (Ord. 87-67 § 3). Sections: 8224.113132 Land use permits,-Standards. 82-24.408 legal nonconforming second 8224.1004 Unit tenancy. unit. "Legal nonconforming second unlit" means 82-24.1006 Parking. a second unit which presently constitutes a non- 82-24.1008 Nonconforming units. conforming second unit,but which, at the time 82-24.1010 Variances. of its construction, did',comply with the appli- Artic€e 82-24.12 Other Requirements cable zoning district regulations affecting that Sections: property. (Ord. 87-67 § 3). 8224.1202 Building permits. 82-24.1204 Disclosure of deed restrictions. 82-24.410 Second unlit. "Second unit" 82°-24.1206 Monitoring of perm it activity. means no more than one -new additional dwelling unit, attached or detached as an acces- Article 82-24.2 sory building, located on any one lot or parcel, {general which satisfies all of the following conditions: (1) It provides complete, independent living 82-24.202 Purpose. The purpose of this facilities for one or more persons residing chapter is to authorize second units and to together as a single household unit:- establish a procedure for reviewing and approv- (2) It consists of permanent provisions fou ing their development in order to erasure and living sleeping, water and sanitation facilities, maintain healthy and safe residential living eating, and separate food preparation facilities, environments, (Ord. 87-67 § 3). including bort not limited to a stove or hot plate. oven, refrigerator and sin. . 82-24.204 Applicable districts. The provi- (3) It remains clearly subordinate in size, sions of this chapter are applicable to the single- appearance and location to the existing principal family residential' districts (R,-6, R-7, R-10, residence. (Ord. 87.67 § 3). r-12, R-15, R-20, 8-413, R-65, and R-100). duplex (D-1), planned unit (P-1) for residential 31 {Contra Coss County 7-88) 8224.602-8224.1002 ZONING Article 82-24.6 (2) Addition of a separate unit to the exist- i Applications ing primary residence; (3) Creation of a detached structure on the 82-24.602 Applications—Required. A sec- lot or parcel in addition to the existing primary sand unit proposed for approval shall require residence.(Ord.87-67 3). submission of an application to the community development department.(Ord.87-67 § 3). 8224.608 Applications--Processing. ,Ail apo plications for second units shall be processed 82 24.604 Applications—Contents. An ap- in accordance with the, provisions of Chapter plication for a permit approving a second emit 26-2, except for Article 26-221. All such must be made in writing and contain the follow- applications shall be expeditiously reviewed ing information. and shall receive priority permit processing (1) Name(s) and address(es) of applicant(s), relative to other. community development de- property owner(s), and all adjoining property partment permit processing activities, (Ord. owners; 87-67 § 3). (2) Address and assessor's parcel number for the property; Article 8224.10 (3) size, indicating dimensions and square Land Use Permits footage of the primary residence and the proposed second unit; 82-24.1€702 Land use permits—Standards. (4) A legible scale drawing,showing: The planning agency division hearing the matter, (A) A north arrow to indicate parcel orienta- either initially or on appeal, shall make the tion„ findings established in Article 262.20, along (B) Lot dimensions and labels for all with the following, before granting a land. use property Braes, permit for a second unit: ( ) siting of the primary residence and the (l) The second unit is intended for rent or reposed second unit, lease or occupancy by one or more persons. (D) "door plan configuration of therir, y (2) The lot contains � net building site area residence and the pr6posed second unit, of at least six thousand snare feet. h other existing improvements, includ- (3) The second unit ma.y include one kitchen, ing driveways and parking areas, living room, and dining foorn,and no :more than (P) exterior design, including architectural two bathrooms and two bedrooms. features of the primary residence and the (4) In single-family residential districts, the proposed second unit; total floor area of the second _unit may not (S) Location of and distances to existing exceed one thousand square feet or cause the improvements on adjacent parcels; maximum structural lot coverage to exceed. (6) Location and description of water and forty percent,whichever is less. sanitary services for. both the primary residence (5) In multiple-fancily residential districts, and the proposed second unit, the total floor area of the second unit may not (7) Property owner's consent to physicaexceed one thousand square feet car cause the inspection of the premises; maximum structural lot coverage to exceed (8) A written legal description of the twenty-five percent in the '1-6 through 41-17 property. (Ord. 87-$7 § 3), districts, or thirty-five percent in the MI-29 district,whichever is less. 82.24.606 Applications Types of second (6) In planned unit (P-l) districts, where snit. The application shall set forth the manner no fixed standards are specified, the zo€ai_ng in which the second knit will be established, as adrnLnistrator shall have the authority to estab- follows: fish reasonable standards for ftoor area, yards, (l) 'Conversion of an attic, basement, garage building height, distance between buildings, and or other portion of the existing primary resi- tot coverage, dence; (7) if a private sewa-e disposal sysrern, water system or both ase proposed to be used, it (conga. Costa county 7-88) 31 Ob . P RESIDENTIAL SECOND ITS 82-24.1004---.82-24.1206 must be approved by the health officer and meet all nonconforming unlit a second knit may be construct- applicable county regulations before a second unit ed only if the nonconformity is not expanded and may be established. the second unit meets all cuntnt applicable zoning (a) The s=nd unit satisfies height, setback,lot district standards. (Ord. 87-67 § 3). size, lot width. lot depth and other zoning require- ments- equire-meets- rally applicable to residential construction 92-24.1410 V"nem-Variance permits to in the pertinent zoning district, and all applicable modify. f= and charges shall be paid. (1) Pertinent applicable zonipg distri 26®2.2004--26-2.2014 )MINISTRATION ) 2£i-2.24134 Variance, conditional use and (2) That because of special circumstances special permits — Notice requirements. (a) Mail applicable to the subject property because of its -- Addresses. Except as provided by Article size, shape, topography, location of 26-2.21, the planning department shall schedule surroundings, the strict application of the a hearing before the appropriate division, and respective zoning regulations is found to deprave mail 'notice thereof pursuant to Government the subject property of rights enjoyed by other. Code- Section 65945. The mail Notice shall be properties in the vicinity and within the giver., by postage prepaid first-class United identical land use district, States mail, to all owners of real property within (3) That any variance authorized shall three hundred feet of the subject land, using substantially meet the intent and.purpose of the addresses from the last equalized assessment respective land use district-in which the subject b property is located.failure to so find shall result roll, or from such other records(as the assessor's or tax collector's) as contain more recent ad- in a denial. (Ord. 19 : prior e dresses in the opinion of the planning director. turd. 9 (b) Contents. T'ne notices, state the time, date and place of the hearing,the general nature 2. .21348 'variance, conditional use an of the application,and the street address,if any, special permits -- Conditional use permit of the property involved or its legal or boundary standards. Ars application for a conditional use description if it has no street address. permit is an application to establish a Substantial compliance with these provisions for conditional land use within a land use distract- notice is sufficient, and a technical failure to which does not alloy establishment by right,but ® c� comply shall not affect the validity of any does allow the granting of a land use permit action taken pursuant to the procedures set after a public hearing. The division of the forth in this article. planning agency hearing the matter either (c) Revocations. Notice of hearings on initially or on appeal, shall find the following y Irevocations shall be given in the same manner as before granting the permit: -- n applications. (Ords. 84-87 § 1, 78-54 § 2, (1) That the proposed conditional land use 975: prior code § 2243.15: Cards. 917 § 5.1, shall not be detrimental to the health,safety and 856 § 1)382 § 7. see Gov.C. § 65901). general welfare of the county; Ak (2) That it shall not adversely affect the 26-2.2046 Variance, conditional' use and orderly development of property within the special permits -a Variance permit standards. An county; application for a variance permit is an (3) That it shall not adversely affect the application to modify building regulations as they preservation of property values and the Pertain to lot area, lot uild g coverage, average protection of the tax base within the county; ._ lot width, lot depth, side yard, rear yard, (4) That it shall riot adversely affect the setback, auto parking space, building or Policy and goals as set by the general plats; - structure height, or any other regulation (5) That it shall not create a nuisance and/or pertaining to the size, dimension, shape or enforcement problem within the.neighborhood design of a lot, parcel, building or structure, or or community; _. the placement of a building or structure on a lot (S) That it shall not encourage marginal or parcel. The division of the planning agency development within the neighborhood; hearing. the matter either initially or on appeal (7) That special conditions or unique shall find the following conditions the, must characteristics of the subject property and its exist prior to approval of an application: location or surroundings are established. re (1) That any variance authorized shall not to so find shall result in a denial. (Ord. 1975: constitute a grant of special privilege Prior code § 2 04. : rd. inconsistent with, the limitations on other Properties in the vicinity and the respective land 26-2.2010 Variance, conditional use and use district in which the subject property is special permits Special permit standards. A I ocated; application for a special permit shall be primarily governed by the code provision; (Contra Costa Coney 6-86) 28 1 i t4CWD ADMIN PAGE 02 f 0'882ST COUNTY Ow"ASTS"W"ATSR BISTRICT ' 2910;~tiptop WV6 Richmond,CA 94806-19714 A Public Agency TeWphone(510)222-9700 Fax(51€)222-3277 January 14, 1998 CCC Community Development Dept. County Adminstration Building 651 Fins Street, 4th Fluor North Wing Martinez, Ca 94553-0096 Attn: Bob Drake, Project Planner County File No.VR 97-1055 715 El Centro Road, if Sobrenta (APP 42"12-025) Dear Mr. Drake: Wastewater facilities udder the jurisdiction of the West County Wastewater District are as follows I, Not available for this development. please ra-direct Inquiry to appropriate agency. —X-2, Available for the proposed development subject to the fallowing conditions: a) Property must be annexed to Sanitary District. (Fee estimate prepared upon submission) (see comment below) b) Float Plan requires District Approval, C) Tentative map must be submitted for Board approval, Upon - submission, a sewer capacity study will be conducted to determine projects Impact upon system. (Fee = $ - — - -N d) Tentative development plans showing building square footage and daily water consumption (if available) for each building roust be submitted for review and approval. (Fee e) Improvement plans require District approval.. (see comment) BOARD Pliiefv eERS Leonard L Sattagiie Alfred M.Grantelia William S,Oliver Georga H.Schmidt Theodore R.Wooten BOARD ATTORNEY Alfred A.Cabral NSTR1CT MANAGER Michael C.Abramson :""f-14�r C11 W�WD ADMIN PAGE 03 S >' CCC Comm, Dev. inept., Planning Dept. f, January 14, 1998 Page Attn: Robert Drake, Project Planner APN 425-012-025 f) Sewer mains and appurtenances must be constructed to nearest available existing District facility. (Cost borne by developer) _X_ g) Appropriate permit and connection fees to be paid prier to start of construction. (For 2"d dwelling unit) (Fee estimate prepared upon submission of plans) h) Easement required. (See comments below) _X_ i) WCWD approval is required prior to finalizing permit or prior to granting certificate of occupancy. Existing sewer lateral shall be capped off at property line per attached detail. WCWD shall inspect cap-off at time of demolition. OtherComments: NONE Very truly yours, PAUL D. WINNICKI DISTRICT ENGINEER "Y' n)< Ajay K. Kataria Senior Engineering Technician PC W/AKK:iim-b cc; Rudy Martinez, PO Box 107, Pinola, CA 94564 ..�.a .b +C-.s ;:d;�. `: `".`•p '��` meg'aS°: � � �� . t CONM COSTA COUNTY PL� 4 q0unt " .� - + ..,. .• . ,�£� d �`ted ,.°� Adminis aA Pins & Zs�obar 8trest# .. r . .- ��'•,� 40 3 tEt`d Ur Di$teict -R-6 " .k A VARIANCE PEP41T i5 HEREBY CRAii b TO, • � + tugonns A. Farthing ` . .' 91 raata California FOR THE FOIT,13WING% • TO ICLtKtXAT 11D9 YA1D rM A CAM1T the fo being dit xt �tr -s ,� r a � , la ThA p*rsdt is appcwftd as per tha plot j1#x *ubaittod with tU F e - o wR Asa, �h� q•. �.: vt�,4 p-fir � ;��: " e � is a a ,� + X � � ¢ �: ._� dip.. 1 "% $ M• afhw e6' < r J r'`*`np�ti k y� .H �b..: �<. 4•x�`wr.' i+ OttsSt iy eta kitAffidrffi* ftia ' cc the SiMt� sS+iue �` s! '�^ . K } l Centro R*&d, &pproxingtoly MI md?rtk of 41r1u*sa amici s0kranto Area EFFECTIVE DAft 5100 r u. X*aday, 9$ 14 '� ` '; ' �,� T yew 1��` '• e s "� .yt+`'� uulesa other`wite providedf"this -permit will ?expire .o'na-yeas"fry ' effective data if the varia.dcas'a�tcs� 3�•Q.hthis permit;is not �:tabli.alt�� wi,thin that time. . a }5.�yy,s�. fe HEATION t S'` 'd.6Ui"ri�AS G da6aATIOie a + �`•• i a4a+, �.. birAct r 4? �RL1L8 - `.K s a*. o$.. '°' l�.+t YE ,x '��A+ m' 6 �y,�¢dV��"��i>*rj - ..,i, •• •� `'�e_� +S a `y� 1.:°p A•'4 �s�.,tr�C.i ,.��° a� '°� +6h °t'a. .;w�, ` s < i +� ,,�%.y$+• d-a .- �. p„y�,*N �y�"��• ��ppe� iQ.. '��'°�/ i ;yP ^i p '. ' . +A - • `act ! J a R�L A.{ n aY - C.r:`df'rta� q d •v AA,-hkrt Anthod$y. . I1CffEatRtBli �e .¢t' ' a :4Y .dY Syr coi !'ild-#4d643 At"CiAtt Planner $ r . t ;` N� Eare of pro n a � �, r eitotzs of exlItin nd }�rcy sed Irrkprz�verwet s, a.�otions' $ exls#in t�5dcrp�e �'.�t d 3 n on subject` pfope-r�r. � R r, R a y .,. �.. properties. t_ Names of�cd;olninproms ty m vneric, ctlr:�` `�t�4knerei ext;emo �e fsty* o a • a s � .,•S Jt.tom`. } p/r r ;•�"� �k^ } bks f'yw- } �;a'� (t :��,� ':a�t �v .t Y �, :r y 6 9"Sy �'tb`.}r��••}}{"�,` f® .;t r 3 � ' � .� _l�' jF: � !Y +fid � � } r s'y •�"}#N JC�•F�.� $'fit i �' `•,A � •Y•� �¢'�!,� � Y -; r f AZZ, a'{ .Yap S ,d'.t• t♦ / y�/ tp s. iYA�Qf �7•ViY� ! :arts• y+, l ii�.e .2y /•# �+�<.• �F �1Y }. 'q;♦ , C �j �� U. ��•4n t rS' iC4' •r,ySfi ,}q � F,� � � Y Rte`: a r�, , • T �� { iL'lf Jr 'V°B> M1�L+S� � _ §'Si�v.� �. i W'�'J�'Fa�'1��. -t..��, a •� 6 i�K 7 ��+ � +"'+sem. �; �� ,�' t�Lti..+ '�• � i 'f '�t'`�� `3 $.>„ y�.••r � L "fa. ..f µ.r" ;t•. � !"q'_ qp, ,fig �p + y . ? 4`C #_ q�ov9�. 4 r , a.� e c $ ,.. rtd sa y;S.§...,t• js• S?'k a p�•ppb� s i a h a�3S a R:�N ilk'�ta�g r� d 'c£eGs .ti L_ r L S far a`kT ` tl•- Tom- ` ��' y; �'t ;i"!• rb�;ef k- ,•_f�. 'f 'z rA �,•' :a ti Y,# t'r �. .r.'a' 36 e` 4� £ ;�' i 1 � a q, !y r. 4.. Y ':.•f. i�,> �a i" tai ry za �r+� 4tt.y�c4y. 'moi ee. r �* f� k9� `.V 1�j'�S�lNs33•� �� x�pr+ �• z7� a4 f: ,Y s fi +iXy ;'�. V_ •t `c �i. pL x tt i. Ei� &�iK Sew A 1 0C. � rl �* 4 s„S 4�.1�.G,.j"Fry J s .�+w. - .a< a' re ,'r a�,#jG .K �` � � .^��,,.,, -�•' t;�ati d§ic 5•a`' k r t�°L ��i R��a.x, y�"� ��;I � Y;l°.r.`4y�'�ia � i �. .ice "` i y+ a-' � "� a P .r.:C� Y � y .,,� i.y a� r... a� ,�.a ��•+��F Plf 3 m w t, to �j, nix kl4a. r.+'f f+ s''�t S` �•te..yl 5 C v Y +� y+�. y.b'i f b•..a a 4i .. '+div J1� YYy Mlil qy.'`'i�"`�� f}^dr +pPGp�'4 r.c}yy }., y'`._ s'S�� '��` <.7 „�� w t• .f. e t'.4 } '}�K"y��,�'�• ;,.�} t y�y ro a --� '� g'� y��,+y)�glF.,,�, �1?. !, �sy ♦, xy��. �, ��j', L.s •1�`�sP°jC?x5 L1lu;�`rti�H�`.x..-..w:.t.�a":*,.>�.1�'a... .'i .., St .,. �:."i 9�`_. ,L'Y'"Ly.,:`�d:,.&r� rJ"-s`�i'�.�' .�t`5�`� i rEH.S.xsc. � t�.c.. :�.f�. •r.'. FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF COUNTY FILE #LP972088 (Rudy Martinez - Applicant/Owner) El Sobrante area A. Growth Management Performance Standards 1. Ir IffiQ- (Refer to Detailed Policies and Standards in the Growth Management Element of the General Plan.) I Water - The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, the County may consult with the appropriate water agency. The County, based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether(1) capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or(2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or(2) above, will lapse according to their teras if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate water quanity and quality availability. I Sanitary Sewer - The County pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, the County may consult with the appropriate sewer agency. The County, based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether(1) capacity exists within the sewer system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or(2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or(2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate sewage collection and wastewater treatement capacity availability. Insufficient, evidence to determine that the project satisfies required finding, Fng-2 Required Fmilings Pile#,LP972088 4. Fire Protection -Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. (Refer to Figure 4-2, pg. 4-9, in the General Plan). Automatic fire sprinkler systems may be used to satisfy this standard. 5. Public Protection - A Sherif facility standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. b. Parks and recreation -Neighborhood parks: 3 acres required per 1,000 population. 7. FI d ntrol and D -Require major new development to finance the full casts of drainage improveemnts necessary to accommodate peak flows due to the project. Limit development within the 100 year flood plain until a flood management plan has been adopted and implementation is assured. For mainland areas along rivers and bays, it must be demonstrated that adequate protection exists through levee protection or change of elevation prior to development. Development shall not be allowed in flood prone areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency until a risk assessment and other technical studies have been performed. (Ref; the G=rowth<Vanagement Element ofthe General Plan) B. sand Use Permit 1. That the proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the county. V 2. That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property withinn the county. V 3. That it shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. 4. That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. V 5. That it shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. V - Insufficient evidence to determine that the project satisfies required finding. I"ng-3 Required Findings File##LP972088 V b. That is shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. 7. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. (Ref. §26-2.2008 of'the County Code) C. Variance 1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. That because of special circumstances 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 of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. (lief. §26-2.2006 of'the County 'ode) cAwpdoc1 p972088.frd RD\ V - Insufficient evidence to determine that the project satisfies required finding. 02/15!1999 09:00, 4107587897 LOYND -Au- 1 6 7521- 761 r7 EL SOBRAN TE VALLEY Y' PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE P.O. BOX 20136 EL SORRA NT E, CA 94820 February 15, 1999 Bob Drake, Senior Planner CCC Community Development Dept. 651 fine St.,4�" floor,NORTH Martinez, CA 94553 Re LP 97 20888 715 El Centro Rd., El Sobrante Mr. Rudy Martinez, the applicant and owner, met with the ESVP&ZINC on Thursday, Feb. 11 to review his request to legalize a detached residential second unit,his requests for variances for a four ft. sideyard and for a 7 foot rearyard,his requests for parking in the ftont and si eyard setback areas and to allow 2 parking spaces in a tandem alignment. The El Sobrante Valley planning &Zoning advisory Committee urges that the illegal, detached second unit be brought into conformance with the county zoning ordinance. We do not support the granting of any new variances for the property at 715 El Centro Rd., El Sobrante. Please send us a copy of the Zoning administrator's decision on this matter. Thanks, Sincerely, I Eleanor Loynd, Vice chair Copy to, Rudy Martinez 1j�v 7� FES 7 EL SOBRANTE VALLEY f f PLANNING & ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE P.O. BOX 20136 LL SOBRANTL, CA 94820 February 15, 1999 Bob Drake, Senior Planner CCC Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St., 4h floor,NORTH Martinez, CA 94553 Re: LP 97 20888 715 El Centro Rd., El Sobrante Mr. Rudy Martinez, the applicant and owner, met with the ESVP&ZAC on Thursday, Feb. 11 to review his request to legalize a detached residential second unit, his requests for variances for a four ft. sideyard and for a 7 foot rearyard, his requests for parking in the front and sideyard setback areas and to allow 2 parking spaces in a tandem alignment. The El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee urges that the illegal, detached second unit be brought into conformance with the county zoning ordinance. We do not support the granting of any new variances for the property at 715 El Centro Rd., El Sobrante. Please send us a copy of the Zoning Administrator's decision on this matter. Thanks. Sincerely, Eleanor Loynd, Vice 8hair Copy to; Rudy Martinez 425 013 024 414 202 015 425 021 001 Sara Kalir & Silvai Kalir Rolling Hills Memorial Park Rol H' ermorial Park 711 Santa Maria Rd 4100 Hilltop lir 4100 lir El Sobrante, CA 94803-1713 Richmond, CA 94803-1720 Richmond, A 94803-1720 414 202 095 425 013 018 425 013 019 Rolling Hills Memorial Park Alan Simmons Chester Hendrix 455 - 24th St 753 Santa Maria Rd 747 Santa Maria Rd Richmond, CA 94804-1650 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1713 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1713 425 013 022 425 011 007 425 013-025 Norman Nelson Lewis & Christina Currington Mario &.Nelcy Villagran 725 Santa Maria Rd 401 Suisun Ave 701 Santa Maria Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1713 Rodeo, CA 94572-1516 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1713 425011006 425 021 004 425 021 015 Aceta sham Alhambra Rd Edward&Francis&R.Brow Edward & Francoi 747 Al�taFtl�7se Parette William & Delphine Peacock Ll Sobrante,CA 94803-1701 4020 Granda Rd 40.6 Grandada Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1708 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1708 425 021 002 425 01 1 01 425 012 009 Grant Giddings & Pamela Canales Gra ° Gdings & Pamela Canales Gene Addington: 4006 Granada Rd 4006 ada Rd 112 Sequoia Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1708 El brante, CA 94803-1708 Hercules, CA 94547-1120 425 012 002 425 012 003 425 01 1 008 Ada Ranelli Potter Alfred & Linda Abrao Sanni Sylvia Onermraa 7110 Alhambra Read 716 Alhambra Rd 733 Allia-cobra Rd El Sobrante, CA 94833-1702 El Sobrante, CA 94803-i 702 I i Sot. .an*e, CA 94803-1702 425 012 006 425 012 001 425 011 0 i 1 Thomas & fancy McCready Evelyn Warren William Whiteley 742 A?han.bra Rd 700 Alhambra Rd 711 Alhambra Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1702 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1702 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1701 425 012 004 425 012 005 42501 1 010 Henry & Allie Luckey filar tin Sugarman David & Melissa Sheppard 726 Alhambra Rd 734 Alhambra Rd 715 Alhambra Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1702 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1732 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1701 42501 , 009 425 012 007 425 013 006 Allred & Linda Abrao Ri�-)roberto & Arleen Serrato Charles Simmons & Simmons 729 Alhambra Rd 748 Alhambra Rd 4880 San Pablo Dam Rd #t3 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1701 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1702 El Sobrante, CA 94803-3222 425 022 012 425 011 005\ 425 013 020 Brian Bennett Dwayne Barties & Graciett Serpa Thomas Vanni 693 Santa Maria Rd 626 Lois Ln 741 Santa Maria Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1711 El Sobrante, CA 94803-3489 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1713 425 013 021 425 022 008 425 022 009 Ernestine Brown Stanley & Celeste Cooler Thomas & Janice Ehnis 733 Santa Maria Rd 686 El Centro Rd 692 El Centro Rd El Sobrante, CA 94.803-1713 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1704 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1704 425 012 008 425 012 023 425 013 009 Aubry& Edna Brinlee Lupe Jaramillo Jane Hutzell 754 Alhambra Rd 733 El Centro Rd 772 El Centra Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1702 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1705 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1706 425 012 022 425 012 021 425 013 008 Robert&Lela Byassee Vilay& Kongdeuan Luargrath Gregory & Kathy Ruiz 741 El Centro Rd 747 El Centro Rd 754 El Centro Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1705 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1705 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1736 425 013 007 425 012 019 425 013 004 Ronald & Geraldine Burrow Kathleen Braun Charles & Maryann Burton 748 El Centro Rd 761 El Centro Rd 726 El Centro Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1706 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1705 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1706 425 012 026 425 021 007 425 022 0 i 0 Raymond & Barbara Ortez Albert Salido Jr. Lester&. Genevieve Davidson 711 El Centro Rd 685 El Centro Rd 698 El Centro Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1705 El Sobrante, CA 948031703 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1704 425 021 016 425 012 020 425 013 025 Julio Ramirez J P. Dias & Karen Gregan Keith Griffin &. Charise Griffin 4010 Granada Rd 753 El Centro Rd 4000 Ridgewood Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1708 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803-1705 Willits, CA 95490-9789 425 021 006 425 013 002 425 012 009 Willard & Mane Leggett Robert Nishita Gene Addington 693 El Centro Rd 702 El Centro Rd 112 Sequoia Rd El Sobrante, CA 94803-1703 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803-1706 Hercules, CA 94547-1120 425 012 024 425 013 005 435 021 003 Jessie Ruiz Linda Tejada Henry & Barbara Chill 725 E1 Centro Rd 734 E1 Centro ltd 699 El Centro Rd E1 Sobrante, CA 94803-1705 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1706 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1703 425 013 003 425 013 001 425 012 027 Marilee Couick Carol Akins Jose Martinez Jr 716 El Centro Rd 700 El Centro ltd 703 El Centro Rd E1 Sobrante, CA 94803-1706 E1 Sobrante, CA 94803-1706 El Sobrante, CA 94803-1705 Richard Boles El Sobrante MAC El Sobrante Valley Planning and 2784 Hamilton Dr. 3550 San Pablo Dam Road Zoning Advisory Committee Pinole CA 94565 Suite E533 PO Box 20136 El Sobrante, CA 94803 El Sobrante CA 94820 Rudy Martinez PO Box 107 Pinole CA 94564 CALIFORNIIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Notice of Exemption Centra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4th door-North Wing,McBrien Administration Building Martinez,CA 94553-0055 Telephone: (925)335-1214 Contact Person: Robert Drake Project Description,Common Name(if any)and Location: I UDY MART111NEZ (Applicant& Owner),County File LP972€88-A request for land use permit approval to establish(legalize) a detached residential second unit within an existing structure with variances to allow a four-foot sideyard(minimum 5 feet required); to allow a 7-foot rearyard(minimum 15 feet required; to allow required parking within tine front and side-yard setback areas; and to allow more than two parking spaces in tandem alignment. The subject site is located 14715 El Centro Road in the El Sobrante area. (APN 425-012-025)(ZA: 1I-6)(R-6)(CT 3630.00) This project is exempt from CEQA as a: _ Ministerial Project(Sec. 15268) Other Statutory Exemption,,Section Declared Emergency(See. 15269(a)) _ General Rule of Applicability(Section 15061_(b)(3)) Emergency Project(Sec. 15269(b)or(c)) XX_ Categorical Exemption,Class 3 section 15303 for the fb"owing reason(s): Conversion of a small structure. The project does not involve the conversion of structures to allow more than three new dwellings on a single parcel. Date: Bv: Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING 1 declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code t Section 21152(c). Said notice will:remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. E i Signature e _.r..�.fl e County Clerk Fee$25 Due Receipt#104702 710 Alhambra Rd 9 MAY 25 PM 3# 45 El Sobrante, CA 94803 May 22, 1999 Phil Batchelor, „€ rV Clerk of the Board of Supervisors , Arid County Administrator County Admini tratio 'wilding 6501 Dine Street, Hoorn 106 Martinez CA 945.53 Re: Land use permit 715 El Centro,El Sobrante, CA Dear Mr. Batchelor, I am a long time resident of this area. I do not approve of any more overbuilding in this area. Trac is already impossible for the residents,and allowing more cars and congestionwillnot alleviate the situation. The noise level is already unacceptable without more building and crowding more people in what was originally a rural area. I am unable to attend the meeting on June 15, 1999,but would like you to know of my strong objections to allowing more building and cars into our area.. Our streets are badly maintained and more tragic would compromise thea beyond their capacity. As it is, it is virtually impossible to turn out of this area at IJilltop (the pTly exit for this area). The county can ill afford to have more traffic in this area. Tease do not approve the land use permit in this case. I would appreciate it if you could express my views to Mr. Robert Drake of the Community Development Department. Thank You, Ada Potter Cc: Robert Drake t 693 �� ria c:,,--vaa�vcaj SI,S-,hankZ,.C Ll f.94803 5-27-1999 Dear Sir Once again I would like to have the opportunity to protest the deterioration of my neighborhood by Mr. Martinez, who has on other occasions shown disdain for the zoning laws. Sincere lir IUD CO It � C RESOLUTION NO. I2-1999 BEFORE THE COUNTY PLANNING CO-.`v MISSION, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL -Rudy Martinez 1 (Applicant& Owner), Land Use Permit/ File#LP972088 - In the l El Sobrante Area f On December 9, 1997, Rudy Martinez (Applicant & Owner) filed an application for a land use permit application with the Application and Permit Center(County File 4LP972088)to allow (legalize) the establishment of a detached residential second unit within an area of the County zoned Single Family Residential, R-6. The application was prompted in response to a zoning investigation which determined that a detached dwelling had been established illegally on the property; and the owner was advised to either remove the dwelling or try to get it authorized by obtaining a land use permit; On October 26, 1998, after issuance of a legal notice, this matter was first scheduled for hearing before the Zoning Administrator on September 14, 1998, at which time staff was recommending due to apparent rack of interest on the part of the applicant, at which time the Natter was continued to October 26, 1998 to allow for renotice of the application and submittal of additional information by the applicant; After notice was issued as rewired by law, the Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing on this application on October 26, 1998, at which time the matter was continued to December 7, 1998 at the request of the applicant; shortly prior to the December 7, 1999 meeting, the applicant. provided additional information for staff review, and the matter was continued to January 25, 1999, to allow for review of the additional information; at the January 25, 1999 meeting, the applicant requested more time to review the staff report, and the Zoning Administrator continued the matter to February 22, 1999; at the February 22, 1999 hearing, the applicant was not present when the item was called, and the Zoning Administrator denied the application due to (1) apparent lacy of interest on the part of the applicant, and (2) failure to make all required land use permit and variance findings as required by the Ordinance Code; On March 4, 1999, the applicant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision; On April 13, 1999, after notice was issued as required by law, the County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, conducted a hearing on the applicant's appeal; The County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter. Resolution No.12-1999 Appeal of Rudy Martinez(Applicant cue Owner) El Sobrante area Couno Planning Commission County File#LP972088 RESOLVED, that the County planning Commission determines that there is insufficient evidence in the record to make the following required findings for this project pertaining to approval of a land use permit application as provided in Section 26-2.2006 of the Ordinance Code: I. That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county. 2. That it shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county. 3. That it shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. 4. That it shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. 5. That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Further, the Commission also determines that there is insufficient information in the record to support required findings for granting related variances to structure sideyard and rearyard setback requirements as provided in Section 26-2.2006 of the Ordinance Code; 1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. That because of special circumstances 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 of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. 3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Page 2 Resolu&n No. 12-1999 Appeal of Rudy Martinez(Applicant&Owner) County Planning Commission County File##LP972088 Further, based on the failure to be able to make all endings rewired by law, the County Manning Commission unanimously voted to DENY the appeal, and DENY the land use permit application. The decision of the County Planning Commission was given by motion of the County Planning Commission on April 13, 1999 by the following vote. APES: Commissioners - Clark, Hanecak, Craddis, Kimber, 'Terrell, Wong, Pavlinec NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - None ABSTA LN: Commissioners -?clone In a letter dated April 23, 1999, the applicant appealed the County Planning Commission denial to the Board of Supervisors. JOAN-IN PAVLINEC Chairwoman of the County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of-California, I, Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the County Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on April 13, 1999. ATTEST: ® J, Ir Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Secretary Ahe County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of Caifornia. C Awpdoc1J p9720 88.res \ Page 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PERMIT #LP972088 (Rudy Martinez - Applicant & Owner) IN THE EL SO BRAN'TE AREA.. l. Development is approved as shown on plans submitted with the application, received by the Community Development Department on December 9, 1997, and as subsequently revised on site plans and flour plans dated received November 18, 1998, subject to final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit and subject to the conditions listed below. 2. Approval is granted to allow for variance to setback standards that meet the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: 5-foot minimum sideyard setback required by zoning ordinance. 4-foot approved. 15-feet minimum required by zoning ordinance. 7-feet approved. In 1963, the County granted a variance for a carport on the north side of the property with a zero-foot setback, County File #406-63. No other variances are granted to the parking requirements of the second residential unit ordinance. 3. Exterior Appearance of Sec nd Unit - The second unit and principal residence exteriors shall be of similar style and design. Prior to issuance of building permits for the second unit, applicant shall submit color samples for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 4. Parking Requirements - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator providing for two parking spaces in tandem alignment each with minimum dimension dimensions of 9 feet by 19 feet within the southern sideyard of the lot, Each space shall be placed to maintain a minimum 20 feet from the front property line and minimum. of 10 feet from the side property line. Each space and the driveway leading to it shall also be paved or on concrete surface. The plans shall provide for suitable rade Pale##LP972088 Rudy Martinez-App&aratlOwner° adjustments for the driveway from the street to the parking spaces, The approved parking shall be installed prior to obtaining a final inspection of the second dwelling unit. 5. Removal of Debris - Existing debris shall be removed from the site. After the debris has been removed, and at least 20 Iays prior to requesting ax building permi4 the applicant shall write the Zoning Administrator in the Community Development Department to advise that existing debris has been removed, and that the site may be inspected for verification purposes. No building permit shall issue until the Zoning administrator is satisfied that existing debris has been satisfactorily removed. 6. Relocation of'xis in Door - 'The construction plans shall provide for the elimination of the existing door facing El Centro Road, and relocation of the door to the side or rear of the structure so as to comply with the requirements of the Residential Second Unit Ordinance. 7. Pa3mmmA of Park Dedication FQe - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the in-lieu parr dedication fee. Currently, the fee is $2000 per new dwelling. 8. Residential Second Unit Ordinance Standards - Applicant shall comply with the Residential Second Unit Ordinance - Chapter 82-24 as follows: A. The second residential unit shall provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. E. The second unit shall consist of permanent provisions for food preparation, eating, sleeping, water, and sanitation.. C. The second unit shall remain clearly subordinate in sire, appearance and location to the principal residence. -2- File#LP972088 Conditions ofApproval D. No more than one dwelling unit on the property may be rented, leased or occupied by persons other than the property owners. E. Three (3) off-street parking spaces shall be provided on site. Location of the parking must be shown can this plans for building permit. F. The second unit mag,not exceed 1,000 square feet in size. 9. li ecordation of Deed Disclosure - Proof of recordation of the following disclosure of deed restrictions shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit: "You are purchasing a property with a permit for a residential second unite This pennit carries with it certain conditions that must be met by the owner of the property. The permit (County band Use Permit Pile #LP 72088) is available from the current owner or from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department." 10. Pa ent of Any Suataleiraental lees that are Due - This application is subject to an initial application fee of$1500 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120/0 of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 11. Compliance with Building Cade Re aired - The applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the Zoning Administrator of the Community Development Department that the structure is in -3- Pale#LP972088 compliance with the budding code laws administered by the County Building Inspection Department as a residential second unit. Until such evidence is received and accepted, this land use permit shall not have been exercised. .. ...L ii::i:'•: .:.. .. OW phpPallcat �prid eft; t � .:: ............ ...... � v t 4 i • :;.........:... ......:;:;.'.. ,..;:i.,,....:..,.....::r.;::.;•.;,:.,,;a..:.;;.:i:.,:,:::.....;�:.:.,;.+.•::;::.. a::"' . •:i .'.%':::i%' pmt� p � q A DV7SORY O7TES THE FOLLOWING INTORMATIONT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITION OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS CSP THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. 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 pretest 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 pretest the amount of any fee or the 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. -4- a , File#LP'97.2088 Conditions dfApproval B. Comply with the requirements of the West County Wastewater District. C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. J:1g�-cups\cdsdpool\bob\lp972088.coa RD\ i .....� 7r ........ ............ 477 4476 4479 f'4bO G 6 1481 may" / Fn RICHWOND i '<tvrt rf SCHOOL WAY i- * cK JU !iF-A C: €L SOBRANsE SCHOOL YtAFlQf ' t pAi3X CEry � rf � a t a:9! g r G 0 S J j t VS � g`a "1 p fA 'EtT{..E E4FvTt :;GftUR^6i OF � B J• ! �Y K—ALL 8 )ESUS CHRfST fCHMON" JEWISH OFf , MMUMT-Y CENJER, ;LATTER Y SA S ( t o t +ytA S Ilk t 6 t � i { yt { 2 •� W, 7 M. �• `fib M-1 s i 4N 9-29 i ) • 4 Y Pal yH 1478 1 April. 23 , 1999 ry w Robert Drake � •, Senior Planner , County Adm.Bld - . 651 Nine Street Martinez CA 94553 0095 ;: Uq ;RE: rile #LP 972088 715 El Centro Rd . El Sobrante , CA 94803 Dear Mr . Drake , I wish to appeal the denial by the 'Zoning Administrator for a land use permit . Unfortunately I was unable to attend the last hearing on 4-13-99 due to a family emergency . I believe i have done what was required for the permit by submitting maps , drawings of proposed parkins{ , moving of existing entrance door , and pictures of the house in front to show con- formity of design , color and. style. This building was previously inspected by the county and no health or safty violations were found . Again, I r-rou'.d like to inform the board this second unit was in existence when I purchased this proberty. I will gladly submit required copies of the drawings , maps , and property description also the envelops requires° for notification , Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter . Sincerely, V Rudy MaYtinez Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County Board of Appeals COUNTY PLANNING CONTNUSSION =sriav, ,-, rp_il 13. 1999 - 7:t t3 p. n. 1. INTRODUCTIO RJUDY 414MR1INEZ {Applicant& towner County File #LP972088 - An appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision to deny a request for land use permit approval to establish (legalize) a detached residential second unit within an existing structure with variances to allow a four-foot sideyard (minimum 5 feet required); to allow a 7-forst rearyard (minimum 15 feet required; to allow required parking within the front and sideyard setback areas; and to allow more than two parking spaces in a tandem alignment. The subject site is located at#715 El Centro Road in the El Sobrante area. (APN 425-01.2- 025) (ZA: FI-6) (R-6) (CT 3630.00) II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW A property owner established a second dwelling without obtaining proper permits. A complaint was filed, and the applicant advised to either eliminate the code compliance problem, or try to legalize the use. The applicant filed this application in order to try to legalize the use. The local community planning group, County staff and the Zoning Administrator feel that the dwelling design does not benefit the neighborhood. On February 22, 1999, the Zoning Administrator denied the application after the applicant left early from the bearing. The applicant has appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. III. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: A. Sustain the denial decision of the Zoning Administrator; and Ba Deny the applicant's appeal. F'iLe LP972088 IV. BACKCIROI.N—D This review process began as a result of a complaint having been fled against the property because the owner had established a detached residential second unit without first obtaining a land use permit as required by ordinance (the neighborhood is zoned for single family residential use). Moreover, the existing dwelling in the rear of the property appears to have been constructed without a building permit. Ater investigating the matter, staff advised the owner that he would either have to eliminate the noncompliance, or try to legalize the use by filing for and obtaining a residential second unit. The owner elected to try to pursue the latter course. On December 9, 1997, the applicant filed a land use permit- application for a residential second unit with the Community Development Department. Shortly thereafter, staff issued a letter to the applicant advising him that the application was incomplete. The other relevant background for the review of the project is covered in the January 25, 1999 star report to the Zoning Administrator. Subsequently, the applicant submitted sufficient information for staff to accept the application as complete. Can January 25, 1999, the matter was scheduled for Dearing before the Zoning Administrator. Staff had opposed the project because of several variances requested and because the dwelling would detract from the neighborhood. At the request of the applicant, the matter was continued to February 22, 1999. At that hearing, the applicant indicated to staff that he had attended the hearing, but after an hour into the hearing, his item had not yet come up on the agenda.; he then re-read the agenda and interpreted it (incorrectly) that his item had been continued to Larch 8. V. EL, SOBRANTE VALLEY PLANNING& ZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE PO IT'IO In a letter dated February 15, 1999, the El Sobrante Valley Committee indicated its opposition to the project d=oe to the variances requested. V1. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION When the Zoning Administrator did get to this item on the February 22nd agenda, the applicant had left; his absence was interpreted as an apparent lack of interest in the application by the Zoning Administrator, and the application was denied. S-2 Appeal of Martinez Residential Second Unit County Manning Commission Tuesday,April 13,1999 VII. APPLICANT'S APPEAL., In a letter dated March 4, 1999, the applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision (attached). The appeal does not specify the reasons why he feels the decision was not appropriate. VIII. DISCUSSION The applicant has not offered any new information as to why the application should be approved. The reasons previously discussed in the staff report to the Zoning Administrator are still germane to this appeal. Accordingly, the project and appeal should be denied. Upon a final denial of the project, the matter would be referred back to the Building Inspection Department, Property Conservation Division for appropriate code enforcement action (which may require removal of the entire structure). Imo. PC} SIBLE ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In the event that the Planning Commission is able to crake all required land use permit and variance findings for this project, and finds merit in the project, then the Commission could approve the project subject to the attached conditions of approval. The Commission could also attach conditions aimed at improving the overall appearance of the property. These conditions could include substantial improvements to the landscaping in the front and sideyards and/or require the applicant to repaint the principal residence and second residential unit to a matching color scheme. c:Awpdoc1972088-f.rpt RD S_3 Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County ZONING AI)MIMSTRATOR M-Qnday,February 22, 1999 - 1:30 p.m. I. rNTR DUCTIO'�i RUBY MARTINEZ (Applicant& CwnerJ, County-File#LP972088 - A request for land use permit approval to establish(legalize) a detached residential second unit within an existing structure with variances to allow a four-foot sideyard (:minimum 5 feet required); to allow a 7-foot rearyard (minimum 15 feet required; to allow required parking within the front and sideyard setback areas, and to allow more than two parking spaces m a tandem alignment. The subject site is located at 4715 El Centro Road in the El Sobrante area.. (API's 425-012-025) (ZA: H-6) (R-6) (CT 3630.00) Il, SUMMARY OF-REVIEW The application: is in response to a determination that an existing use does not comply with the zoning. As an attempt to remedy the situation, the applicant has filed this application seeking to legalize the existing use. Shortly after the application was filed, staff issued a letter to the applicant advising him that additional information would be required before the application could be accepted as complete. The applicant eventually submitted sufficient information to allow the application review to proceed. The second unit would not be visually compatible with the surrounding area or with the primary residence. Some of the required findings for the land use permit and requested variances cannot be made. This items was last heard by the Zoning Administrator on January 25, and.continued to this date to give the applicant more time to review the staff recommendation. III. R.ECOMMEATIO Deny the application because some of the required ordinance findings cannot be made, and the project will not meet the Residential Second Unit Ordinance requirement of being architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. File#LP972088 IV. E, L'�RSq��3B 7 � 'ATE GALLEY PLA IS &ZONDiG VI�C�RY��I'O�ffT EE Attached is a letter dated February 15, 1999 from the El Sobrante Valley Committee urging Haat the second unit be brought into conformance with the zoning ordinance, and that no variances be granted. c:\wpdoc\972088-c.rpt RD\ SJ2 Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County ZONING ADlflMSTRATO Monday anugy 25,999 - 1:30 p� I. INTRODUCTI®I� RUDDY MARTEZZ (Applicant& Cwner), County File#I.,P972088 - A request for land use permit approval to establish (legalize) a detached residential second unit within an existing structure with variances to allow a four-foot sideyard (minimum 5 feet required); to allow a 7-foot rearyard (minimum 15 feet required; to allow required parking within the front and sideyard setback areas; and to allow more than two parking spaces in a tandem alignment. The subject site is located at #715 El Centro Road in the El Sobrante area. (APIA 425-012-025) (ZA: H-6) (R-6) (CT 3630.00) II. S SIA&Y DF RRA The application is in response to a determination that an existing use does not comply with the zoning. As an attempt to remedy the situation, the applicant has filed this application seeking to legalize the existing use. Shortly after the application was filed, staff issued a letter to the applicant advising him that additional information would be required before the application could be accepted as complete. The applicant eventually submitted sufficient information to allow the application review to proceed. The second unit would not be visually compatible with the surrounding area or with the primary residence. Some of the required findings for the land use permit and requested variances cannot be made. III. REC �IN[DATIOI�I Deny the application because some of the required ordinance findings cannot be made, and the project will not meet the Residential Second Unit {ordinance requirement of being architecturally compatible with the neighborhood. M&#LP972088 IV. ENERAL LINTORM-11 A'TION A. general flan Desi nation - Single Family Residential -High Density. B. Zoying - Single Family Residential, R-6. C. Environs - The site lies within an older tract that was established in the 1930's,- many 930'x;many of the houses appear to have built about that time. Lot sizes on the block of this site are typically 7000: square feet in size. The upkeep of the residences in the area vary. Some are run-=down; the house next door (#725 El Centro Road) appears to be well-maintained. D. Site Description ions - The site contains an older single story(principal) resilience towards the front of the site and a detached structure in the rear which has been converted to a dwelling unit. The principal residence contains two bedrooms. When staff visited the site, there was some debris lying in the rear yard area. E. Zoning Investigation - The genesis of this application began with a complaint from the neighborhood about the dwelling in the rear(File#RF9/0103). County staff investigated the matter and determined that it had not been legally established. The applicant was advised that the dwelling would either have to be removed, or the applicant could try to obtain the approval of a land use permit for a residential second unit for the use. The applicant elected to try to pursue the latter course. In the event that the applicant is unsuccessful in obtaining the requested land use permit, then the matter will be referred to the Building Inspection Department for appropriate enforcement action. Presumably this will minimally require that the circumstances that permit independent living in the detached structure be eliminated. Compliance with other code requirements (building code) may also be required. F. Prior—Mariano Entitlemen - In 1963, the County granted Variance Permit#406- 63 authorizing a zero-foot setback for a carport on the north side of the lot. G. CEQA Status - The project is categorically exempt from the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act Glass 3 - Conversion of a small structure). The project does not involve the conversion of structures to allow more than three new dwellings on a single parcel. V. RELEVANT BACKCTRQJ.,."�D S-2 Rudy M'ar�dnez(A &0) El Sobraante area Monday,January 2S,1999 Zoning Aalrninistraator Hearing Two years ago, the County initiated a zoning investigation on this property in response to a complaint about noncompliance with the zoning requirements. Staff'determined that a residence had been established in the rear yard without a land use permit as required by ordinance. It appears that the structure may previously have served as a garage for the residence, and converted to a residence. Staff gave the owner a choice: (1) eliminate the residential second unit; or(2)try to obtain a land use permit to legalize it. The applicant chase the latter course, and filed this application with the Community Development Department on December 9, 1997. Shortly thereafter, staff sent a letter to the applicant advising him that his application was not complete and advised him of the additional information which would be required before it could be accepted as complete(see attached letter dated December 19, 1997, and modified March 3, 1998). Further, staff indictated that when the information was provided, staxff would rider the project back to potentially interested parties (e.g., El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Committee)for comments prior to considering any approval Staff was having difficulty communicating with the applicant. Finally; on September 14, 1998, staff recommended that the Zoning Administrator deny the application for apparent lack of interest. On October 1, 1998 staff met with the applicant. At that time, staff advised the applicant that any approval of the project would have to satisfy certain code requirements including: design modifications for parking and location of residential entrance. i compliance with tenancy occupancy requirements; and 0 compliance with building ordinance requirements. In a letter dated November 18, 1998, the applicant responded with additional project information. VI. PROJECT DESCRIFTIQI, The applicant appears to have established a detached dwelling unit in the rearyard of the property without obtaining any required planning or building permits. Following receipt of a complaint, the applicant is attempting to try to legalize the structure by first obtaining a land use permit. If successful in obtaining a land use permit, the structure would still not be legal until the applicant also obtains and complies with a building permit. S-3 Fide#LP972088 The second dwelling is approximately 500 square feet in area. It consists of a bedroom, living room/kitchen, and bathroom. The unit has a pitched roof and front parch. Parking is proposed along the southern sideyard to supplement existing carport parking. The applicant has indicated that he is not presently living in either dwelling units, but he has indicated that he intends to occupy one of the dwellings if the permit is granted. VII. AU-NI CY-ZURQ!R--S CO ITS A. West County Wastewater Distri - The applicant will need to comply with the requirements of the Wastewater District. B. El Sobrante Yallev P annin-Zoe Coanmittee m A copy of the revised site plans were forwarded to the Committee on:November 30, 1998, and the Committee was requested to provide any comments by January 4, 1999. At,the time of the preparation of this staff report, staff had received no comments from the Committee. However, a Committee representative indicated that the Committee would be considering the application at its meeting on January 14. VIII. DIS CUSSIQN- A. Compliance with ZoningiRosidential Second Unit Star€dards The residential second unit ordinance is intended to provide additional housing opportunities while maintaining the single family residential character of the area. The proposed residence does not satisfy several residential second unit standards. Other standards; others may be found to be satisfied. Some of the key standards are listed below together with whether or not the ordinance allows any variance to be obtained. Criteria Standard Project Subject to 9 'variance Entrance to Must not be visible from the The proposed 2nd unit has The standard Second Unit street. a door that is visible from may not be the street. varied. S-4 RudY Martinez(A c&0);E1 Sobrante area Monday,January 25,1999 Zoning,4dministraator Hearing Criteria Standard Project Subject Variance Architecture Must be architecturally The existing unit is not The standard compatible with overall architecturally compatible may not be neighborhood character and with the neighborhood or varied. , the primary residence in the primary residence. E terms of scale, colors, materials and design for trrim, windows, roof, roof ° pitch and ether exterior physical features. � Rearyard The second unit is required The project is proposing a A variance to ], to maintain a minimum 15 7 foot rearyard the rearyard foot rearyard, setback standard may be granted. Sideyard The second unit is required Due to a washroom A variance to maintain a minimum 5 projection, the project is may be foot setback, proposing a 4 foot granted to sideyard. this standard. Parking A minimum of three spaces The site plan is proposing These are required on-site, additional parking that is standards Parking in a tandem suggestive of a tandem may be configuration may be configuration. varied, permitted on site when (1) no other physically viable parking options exist; (2) parking will not intrude into i any of the required front or side yard setback areas; and (3) no more than two vehicles may be parked in tandem. S-5 File#.LP972088 Criteria Standard Project Subject to Variance Tenancy No more than one dwelling The applicant has indicated The standard unit on the parcel may be that he presently does not may not be rented, leased or occupied occupy one of the varied. by person other than the dwellings but that he will if While the s property owner. a land use permit is applicant is P granted. not presently z complying with this �'•, standard, the $` applicant has indicated that he intends to comply if the is Determination of compliance with some of the second unit standards contains a degree of subjectivity. Still, it is staff's conclusion that the proposed unit is not architecturally compatible with the neighborhood or with the primary dwelling in terms of exterior materials, roof design, etc. While other standards may be varied., the ordinance does not allow this standard to be varied. Stam also does not see any reason why it would be reasonable to grant the requested rearyard or sideyard variances. E. Site Flan Qonsiderations If the project is approved., then the entrance door should be relocated to a side of the house that does not face the street. Existing debris should be removed. The applicant should also be aware that, independent of any planning permit for the second unit, bringing the structure into compliance with the building code may be costly. C. Review of Required Findings In order for this project to be approved, the Zoning Administrator must be able to mare land use permit and variance findings, and determine that general plan growth management element performance standards are met. The growth element standards for this project can be made: Those findings are attached. Unless all of S96 Rudy Mrartinez(A &0) El Sobrante area Monday,January 2S, 1999 ZoningAdministrator hearing these findings can be made and the project found in compliance with the Residential Second Unit Ordinance, then the project trust be denied. The County Ordinance places the burden of demonstrating that all required findings can be made on the applicant. In staff's judgement, some of the land use permit and variance fundings cannot be made; some of the Residential Second Unit Ordinance standards will not be met. ,accordingly, staff is recommending denial of the application. If the application is denied, thea the;matter will be referred back to the Building Inspection Department for appropriate code enforcement action. Imo. ALTERNATIVE ACTT N In the event that the Zoning administrator is able to snake all of the required Endings and finds that the project has merit, a set of conditions of approval are attached on which the Zoning administrator could base an approval. c:\wpdce,972088-d.rpt RIS\ S-7 t - s� I T, 8-SANTA SAN A L Awshk �, C pOR T t tl d.a�405 T%lw 1. H1 LLOR DR! 24 a 4476 301 300 r sac A co Ea S7__ �a4•iaY ttV5.YP7i .__ _ molao 502 2.99 *T61 50 P. 414 474 .� &46 X22 AM � - t 32150 V 297 .475 ! ` ` (�)465 505 2)6� ta�.a4 Z! t 47°� '' � �� 1 -319 ��' � `? `� �, 21 "75 3 011 # I 4 (07 • Stl�}{e 1508 f 469 4:1t 46 9 467 �5 A-7i�o 57 15 ° b'� � 3z,-1klo 10 291 4660 1 1l z ; CJ 67) 8 qq a aab GRANADA ROAD FaxcT cj III Seat BY: STAPLES #652; 510 223 1174; Nov-18-98 12:35PM; 2 E L C E � 41 1Z e co Cl 19A, u' d Q a � Q d elii 4!i uj S CL 9: RUDY MARTINEZ CALE.w$ Q4-_ 715 El ]�ENTRO L _. D . � � �. �� ,, '� � t :� �� - �� .�k� . s 5 a �� 4 ,t �� :� ��1 'i �i .`,4 }fit ; t i � ,.S �� t� �� dee 1, °i 1 1 � � t �,,."'" � � r} Yt 4, f Jv i '� .� i --- � Ci �� '��„�� ;' `�� . � � � � � { �� ♦` � ,•, � .,.'t � � � e �� ,� � � � � t :, ♦ .y !� � i �� ice. �' (�,�_a `e � �� ,�,... � � �' s i 41„6- 4 '�S# �Y`s!,„ } ✓ Y �s P� f i