HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06272000 - C119-C121 1111 III 111 1111 II II 1111 ILII I I Illl III I IIN I III IN II
WHEN RECORDED, RE'T'URN CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder Office
TO CLERK, BOARD OF STEPHEN L. WEIR, Clerk-Recorder
Vr�r�R 5 DOC— 2000-0137618-00
`UPEE* S-, T, JUN 29, 2000 11:30:14
FRE $,0.00
File; 000-990310.1.1 Tt 1 Pd $0.09 Nbr-0000030077
lra/R9/1-2
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of Accepting and Giving RESOLUTION OF ACCEPTANCE
Notice of Completion of Contract wig and NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Swank Construction, Inc. ((C.O. §3086, 3093
Budget Line Item No. 4403-4416 RESOLUTION N . 200013.28
The Board of Supervisors RESOLVES THAT:
The County of Contra Costa on Au st 17, 1999, contracted with Swank Construction, Inc.
for Security Improvements at A. F'. Bray Courts Building, 1020 Ward Street, Martinez,
California, Budget Line Item No. 4403-4416, Authorization No. 0928-WH416B, with
Fideliand Deposit Company of Maryland as surety, for work to be performed on the
grounys of the County; and
The Director of General Services reports that said work has been inspected and complies with
the approved plans and specifications, and recommends its acceptance as complete as of June
27, 2000;
Therefore, said work is accepted as recommended above, and the Clerk shall file with the
County Recorder a copy of this Resolution and Notice as a Notice of Completion for said
contract. .
Time extension to the date of acceptance is granted as the work was delayed due to
unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the
Contractor.
PASSED BY THE BOARD on June 27, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UjIxEMA, DE;SAULNIER, CANCL*1ILLA AND GERBER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
x.rI 999r0009903r9Ao031 89b.doc
RESOT tJTION NO. : 2(}00/328 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATION and VERIFICATION
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution and acceptance duly
adopted and entered on the minutes of this Board's meeting on the above date. I declare
under penalty of per ury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: JUNE 27 2000 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the
at Martinez, California. Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Originator: General Services Department .. Architectural Division
cc: General Services Department
Architectural Division
Accounting
Pile 000-9903IA.5
County Administrator's Office (Via A.D.)
Auditor-Controller {Via A.D.}
Contractor (Via A.D.)
Surety (Via A.D.)
Consulting Engineer (Via A.D.)
County Recorder
Superior Court (Via A.D.)
DII.tb
H:\1999\0409903\9A003 189b.doc
Page 2 of 2
. Contra
Costa
��s
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD' 'o""
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: June 27 , 2000
SUBJECT: Correction to Record on August 17, 1999 Board of Supervisors Approval
of Development Plan for Proposed Residence on Small Lot at #6459
Kensington Avenue, East Richmond Heights area. (Herberth Barragan -
Applicant & Owner) (District I)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
EECQM SNDA IG2NS
Adopt a Motion to:
A. Determine that the Conditions of Approval which were attached
to the Final Board Carder dated August 17 , 1999 do not
accurately reflect the Board action of that date.
d .
Contra
' Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS cit County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP s /
DIRECTOR. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: June 27, 2000
SUBJECT: Correction to Record on August 17, 1999 Board of Supervisors Approval
of Development Plan for Proposed Residence on Small Lot at #6459
Kensington Avenue, East Richmond Heights area. (Herberth Sarragan -
Applicant & Owner) (District Y)
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMZXMTION(S) & BACRG}ROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt a Motion to:
A. Determine that the Conditions of Approval which were attached
to the Final Board Order dated August 17, 1999 do not
accurately reflect the Board action of that date.
B. Adopt the modified conditions as the correct conditions of
approval for this project, and Direct staff to prepare a
revised Board Order substituting the correct conditions of
approval.
FISCAL I PACT
None.
sACKQROUN
pri or Board I earinas
Last year, the Board of Supervisors heard appeals filed on two
related small lot review single family residential projects in the
East Richmond Heights area. Residents on adjoining properties had
appealed the County Planning Commission approval to the Board.
After taking testimony, the Board voted to sustain the approvals of
both projects, but modified the conditions of approval to provide
for a more compatible design.
CONTINUED ON ATTACK: x YES SIGNATURE
RECOMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMMATION OF BOARD CONMITTffiE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGiNATURR(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON Jung 27, 2040 APPROVED AS RECONMBNDED XX 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
ASSENT: ABSTAIN: xIMITRS OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drape [(995) 335-12143
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED Jung 2?,-X000
cc: Herberth Barragan PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERIC or
Ed Shaffer, Norris & Norris THE BOARD of SUPERVISoRS
Mariano Douale & Lisa Roberts, et al A AND DMT7C AIBdINISTRATOR
County Counsel
, DEPUTY'
ce\wpdoc\953004--d.bo
' RD\ t"i �:
/A0
The
The Board approved the first project (File #DP983005, #1540 Laurel
Avenue) on July 27, 1999. The Board approved the second project
(File #DP983004, #5459 Kensington Avenue) on August 17, 1999 .
Prior to acting on the latter project, the Board received a letter
from the legal counsel for the Applicant (Ed Shaffer of Norris &
Norris) dated August 17, 1999 listing a number of changes which the
Applicant was agreeable to incorporating into a modified project.
Also at the hearing were the appellants (Coppla, Dovale) who voiced
no opposition to the proposed modifications .
Following the Board hearing, staff advised the Clerk of the Board
on modified conditions to attach to Development Permit #DP983004,
and a final Board Order was issued with those conditions of
approval attached.
`Tc7enti fi r.ati on of Errors in the Record of the Board Decision on Qn
File #DP983004
Subsequent to the Board hearing, in a letter dated November 16,
1999, the legal counsel for the applicant noted several errors in
the final Board Order on Development Permit #DP983004, and asked
that the record be corrected. The letter notes that the conditions
attached to the Board Order failed to include such requirements as:
i the elimination of a chimney;
• an additional structure setback adjacent to the
Douale/Roberts residence;
• change in the roof design; and
0 reduction in the gross floor area of the residence.
Staff confirmed that the conditions of approval had not reflected
all of the changes which the Board had directed be made to the
conditions of approval .
Based on that determination, staff prepared a proposed modified set
of conditions of approval, reviewed them with the applicant, and
obtained their concurrence as to their content. Those modified
conditions of approval are attached.
To correct the record on this matter, staff recommends that the
Board adopt a motion directing staff to implement the recommended
actions .
1 Contra
' y Costa
n' .rrA�6f1R
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ° Count}
99 OCT wO AN 1O: 44
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD
DIRECTOR. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE; August 17, 1999
SUBJECT- Continued Hearing on An Appeal 'Filed by Helen & Cecil Coppla, Mariano
Dousle and Liza Roberts, et al, of County Planning Commission Approval
of a Development Plan Application (File #DP983004) for Single Family
Residence on a Substandard Lot in the East Richmond Heights area
(Heberth Barragan - Applicant & Owner)
SPECIFIC REQT7EST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACECGRomm AND JUSTIFICATION
xtECOMMEMATIOO
Adopt a motion approving Option A actions listed in the may 25,
1999 staff report to the Board declaring intent to deny the
appeals, and continue the matter to allow for preparation of
findings, except that the action is limited to File #DP983004,
PSr('';j' IMPAC
None.
BACK GRA
This matter concerns a continued hearing on an appeal of 'a County
Planning Commission decision to approve a development plan
application (County File #DP983004) to allow construction of a two-
story residence on a vacant parcel fronting on the east side of
Kensington Avenue in the East Richmond Heights area.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. _X— YES SIGNATURE
RECOIUNDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON August 17, 1999-- -- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
M UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - " " - - _ TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES. ACTION TAXElN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drake H925) 335-12141
Orige Community Development Department ATTESTED Auguit 17, 7444
CC: Heberth Barragan PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Edward Shaffer TEE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mariano Douale & Lisa Roberts, et al AND COTNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
BY DEPUTY
c:\wpdoc\983004-c.bo
RD\
Continued August 17, 1999 Hearing ap
Appea2 of Fite #DP983004
9arragan (App21castt to OWMOr)
.Bast Ricbmond Heights area
This matter was initially heard by the Board on May 25, 1999. At
that time, the appeal was also being jointly considered with a
similar appeal of a Commission approval for development of a two-
story residence, proposed by the same applicant on an adjoining
lot, but fronting on Laurel Avenue, County File #DP983005. After
taking testimony, Supervisor Gioia expressed concern about the
compatibility of the proposed residences relative to the existing
neighborhood, and suggested that the applicant reduce the volume
and mass of the proposed residences, and work with the neighbors.
The Hoard then continued the hearing to July 27, 1999.
prayi oUs I;Qard DP .w^il nQTL tsn RPS meted Anneal
At the last Board hearing on ,July 27, 1999, staff reported that the
applicant and appellant were able to resolve design issues for the
proposed residence on Laurel Avenue (File #DP983005) , and the Board
approved that project with revised conditions.
Staff also reported that the interested parties were still
reviewing design issues for the property on Kensington Avenue (File
#DP983004) . At their request, the Board continued this matter to
this date to allow additional time for the parties to try and
resolve this matter.
Subsequent to the July 27 hearing, staff has not received any new
information about the project.
T BION
In the absence of any evidence of a resolution of design issues by
the interested project for this site, staff continues to recommend
that the Commission decision authorizing approval of a two-story
residence be sustained and that the appeal be denied.
-2-
ADDENDUM TO T'E`EM D.7
August 17, 1999 Agenda
On July 27, 1999,the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the
appeal of Helen and Cecil Coppla,et al,from the decision of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission on the application ofHeberth Barragan(Applicant and Owner),for
a small lot review for a two-story single fancily residence.(#DP 98-3004)East Richmond
Heights/Kensington area.
The appeal on#DP 98-3005 was previously denied,and a modified approval was granted
on that application on July 27,1999(See Board Order D.5 on that date).
Supervisor Gioia advised the Board that an agreement had been reached on#DP 98-3004
to dismiss the appeal and approve as modified the Conditions of Approval for the project
at 6459 Kensington Avenue.A letter dated August 17, 1999,from Ed Shaffer, attorney
for the applicant,identifies eight changes to the plans previously approved by the
Planning Commission.Supervisor Gioia moved that the Board deny the appeal,and
approve the project with the modified Conditions of Approval.
Supervisor Uilkema seconded the motion.
Supervisor Canciamilla inquired if Dennis Barry,Community Development Department
Director had the opportunity to review the agreement.
Dennis Barry responded he had,and requested concurrence from the Board that the
modified Conditions discussed today,are in addition to the Conditions previously
imposed by the Planning Commission.
Supervisor Gioia stated they were additiQnal Conditions of Approval.
Supervisor Canciamilla opened the public hearing,and M.Dovale and Cecil Coppla
informed the Board they waived their rights to speak.
The public hearing was closed,and the Board took the following action:
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED;the
appeals of Helen and Cecil Coppla,et al,from the decision of the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission on#DP 98-3004 are DENIED;the decision of the Contra Costa
County Planning Commission,with the amended Conditions of Approval is
SUSTAINED.
EINDINQ5 ITIONSP T 3004-98
AUG-USTJI,L912-BOARD OF SURE&US ES APPROVAL
CD DITI+CIRT_ _QF APPROVAL
1. The proposed front elevation shall be similar to that shown on submitted plans
received April 1, 1998 by the Community Development Department. Prior to
the issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the
building shall be subject to the final review and approval by the County
Zoning Administrator. The architectural details of the front elevation for
DP983003, DP983004 and DP983005 shall vary in terms of size, shape,
placement of windows, floors, and trim. An effort shall be made to vary
textures, building materials and colors to achieve a custom appearance of the
front elevation.
2. The County Building Inspection Department requirements for a licensed land
survey and their building code regulations must be satisfied.
3. The roof gutter shall be collected in a closed conduit and conveyed to storm
drainage facilities in the Laurel Avenue right-of-way.
4. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$306.00 which was
paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the
application review expenses exceed 120% 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.
5. The upper rearyard deck shall be limited to a maximum depth of 3-feet.
6. Construction Ecriod Re,striction, -All construction activities shall be limited
to the hours of 7:00 a.m. - 5.00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be
prohibited on state and federal holidays.
7. Reyiscd Developmcni Plans - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall submit revised development plans to the Community
Development Department for review and approval of the .Zoning
Administrator. The plans shall consist of site plan, floor plan, building
elevations. The revised plans shall provide for a single car garage with
automated sectional garage door. The width of the garage shall be at least 12-
2
feet, but not exceed 16-feet.
8. Wood Facade - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
provide that one of the residences fronting on Kensington Avenue (either
46453 or 46459 Kensington Avenue) will provide for a facade with wood
siding.
9. ModiLed hof Dcsi= - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit site plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator
to:
A. Pivot the roof from its current orientation running parallel to the street,
so that the roof peak parallels the two side property lines.
B. Move the entire house back four feet into the lot (reducing the rear
setback from 19 feet to the minimum I5-feet required rearyard
setback).
C. Eliminate the chimney.
D. Modify the front entry way by eliminating the exterior stairs and
adjusting architectural features (windows, columns) to soften the
appearance of front and left elevations as generally shown on the
revised site plan dated July 16, 1999 (except for the additional 4-foot
setback).
Al2VISCOTE.
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,
ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR. THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE
APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE NET
IN ORDER.TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department
and the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these
departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project.
B. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which
must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary
3
District or, if the site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health
Department.
C. The project is subject to payment of park dedication fees at the time that building
permits are issued.
DM/aa
DPFvl/3004-98.DM
8/17/98
10/5/98b
1/1/99 - (revised) rd
1/12/99 - CPC (a)
3/15/99
3/23/99 - CPC (a)
c:\wpdoc13004-98c.dm
8/23/99 - BUS (rd)
', v - - ,19
1V'( RRIS RICHARD E. NORRIS REPLY
X 1850 MT. 01ABL0 BLVD., SUITE 530
DOUGLAS C. STRAUS � WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596
CY EPSTEIN TELEPHONE: (925) 934-at$I
CCLIN J. COFFEY FAX: (9225) 93.4_3665
SHARONEDWARD M.SHAFFEREN
EDWARD L. I-IAP
MICHAEL 9, PETERSON 32260 BLUME DRIVE. SUITE 400
��y PAULA RAGA RICHMOND,CALIFORNIA 94608
1V11p M.
MICHAEL AA N SWEET TELEPHONE: (510) 222-2100
FAX. (510) 2.22-5992
August �7, ����
VIA FACSIMILE AND AND D.ELIV—E ..
Mr. John Gioia, County Supervisor
County of Contra Costa
Fie: Appeal of DP 98-3004 (Barragan House)
Proposed Design Changes
Honorable Supervisor Gioia:
On July 27th the Board of Supervisors held a continued hearing-on the proposal by
Herberth Barragan to build two houses in East Richmond Heights. The Planning Commission's
decision to approve both small-lot infill permits was appealed. The Board approved one of the
houses, but continued the hearing on the second house (DP98-3004) to August 17`x. You
directed the applicant to consider ways to achieve three goals: (1)reduce the apparent volume
and mass of the house as viewed from Kensington Avenue; (2) foster an interesting and varied
streetscape along the block face; and (3) soften the house's effect on its neighbors.
Design Changes for 6459 Kensington Avenue
This house has been designed with substantial detailing. The plan as approved by the
Planning Commission reduced the garage width to only one car, leaving more of the fagade
available for architectural relief. Mr. Barragan believes that its design will provide an
outstanding addition to the quality of the neighborhood. Please note that the structure already is
set back substantially (20 feet to the garage and 43 feet to the main body of the house).
In response to your suggestions,Mr. Barragan now agrees to the following additional
design changes from the plan approved by the Planning Commission(see also attached memo
from architect Alan English and new rendering of front and right side elevations):
1. Eliminate one bedroom, leaving only three bedrooms in the house.
2. Push back the second floor front facade on the right side approximately six feet
past the first floor living roam, and add another roof segment. This creates a total
of six different wall planes facing Kensington Avenue at varying depths, and
allows for a multitude of roof lines to provide depth and detailing.
3. Reduce the total area of the house to 1,900 square feet from its size of
approximately 2,000 square feet as originally proposed.
8017+002/156007-1
Mr. John Gioia
August 17, 1999
Page 2
4. Reverse the footprint of the house, placing the recessed entry and front yard next
to the neighbors at 1540 Laurel Avenue and the garage on the opposite side. This
change will add another 8-14 feet of open-space next to the neighbors and increase
light and view clearances for their side windows. ('The one-car garage of this
house and the garage at 6453 Kensington still will be 28 feet apart.)
5. Move the entire house back an extra five feet. This will provide three benefits:
a. The neighbors at 1540 Laurel Avenue will have more light and better
views from their living room side window,plus more privacy by
increasing separation from the new house.
b. It will create a staggered streetscape along the three houses at 6453 and
6459 Kensington and 1540 Laurel, increasing the variety of the block.
C. It reduces the apparent size of the house (especially since the lot slopes
down slightly away from the street).
6. Give the house a different looking hipped roof, compared with the gable roof on
the new house next door at 6453 Kensington Avenue
7. Flatten the peak by using a hipped roof, reducing the height of the house by more
than one foot.
8. Eliminate the chimney, removing a feature visible to the neighbors.
Thank you for your assistance facilitating discussions with neighbors and negotiating
compromise designs for Mr. Barragan's houses. We trust you will find the current plan for
6459 Kensington Avenue acceptable for approval today. I will be available at the 1:00 p.m.
Board hearing today to answer any questions.
Very truly yours,
NORRIS &NORRIS, .C.
By Edward L. Shaffer
ELS:gcc
encl.
cc: Herberth Barragan, applicant
Alan English, architect
a engiish aia a rchizecz
Me o y .
.*y
------------------------------------------------------------
da'��i ��� �~fir/5+✓
4rriJw Ed
project;:: Kensington
from: Al English AIA 925 e20-2242
mailed { } Hand Delivered { C }
Comments
It is not easy to create elot of variations to a house, walla and
roof linea when it site on a small lot. Depending on who you talk
too its a very subjective matter on whet is a box or how you
deel with it.
I have introduced another roof level over the living room which
also creates another well plane. from the front we will have six
(5) well planes,
1 . front of the garage,
a. front of the entry roof,
S. front of the master bedroom,
4. bey projection (minor but visible),
5. front of the living room,
S. front of the front bedroom over the living room.
All these well planes creatas roof variations as well.
I would bet you there is no other house in this whale
neighborhood that has that many well planes and in addition set
beck as far as this house does.
page t�.rvo
Also, the house to the left is going to be stucco C this house to
be woad) and it has a gable roof, not hipped as this one so they
are ncm identical.
I am avoiding putting in windows on the second floor sides to
protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbors. This`'dres add to
Mhe boxy appearance but its only visible to the one neighbor and
no different then many homes in the area.
I trust that this modification is acceptable. If there is still
concern I will need to identify what the concern is so I can
address it specifically. At this paint this house is far superior
then SS percent of the houses in a mile radius.
{
x -+
i
XN i
�-4# a
1
r
s"r
+inn*
4 �����` ill► ���; �1��
0
FAx TRANSMISSION
CONTRA COSTA CO.COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
65 1 PINE STREET
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
(925) 335-1214
FAX: (925) 335-1222
To: Ed Shaffer Date: May 3, 2000
Fax#: (925) 934-44!.&l—5( "5' Pages: 11, including this cover sheet.
From. Robert H. Drake
Subject: Draft Corrections to the Conditions of Approval & Comments on Proposed Plans
for Proposed Residence at 6453 Kensington Ave., E. Richmond Heights
Barrigan
County File#DP983004
cc. Felly Barragan, Barragan Builders [FAX: (510)96.5-0532]
COMMENTS:
Ed,
Thank you for your letter of November 16, 1999 noting the need for modification of the permit
which was prepared. I found it very helpful,
If you concur with these changes, then I am prepared to ask the Clerk of the Board to issue a
corrected Board Order based on these conditions.
Attached is a draft correction (marked text and clean versions) of the conditions of approval
which we would like you to review. You will note that it tracks reasonably closely with the
suggestions you offered.
Comments on Revised Site Plans
The Barragans have also provided us with a set of plans to review. The plans are generally
consistent with the Board's August 17, 1999 decision. Still,I have several concerns:
A. Chimnev has been Redesigned/Relocated hot Eliminated- A chimney has been relocated
to the west side of the residence, rather than eliminated as had been proposed and
approved. The chimney would either have to be removed, or you would need to apply for
an amendment to the development plan.
B. oreirtdows Facing-Neighbors -The right side building elevation next to the adjoining
resident at#1540 Laurel Avenue contains a total of three windows, two more windows
(including one on the second floor), than the design which you had presented to the Board
of Supervisors as the design that was accepted by all parties. That design was also the
one approved by the Beard of Supervisors. The 8/15199 comments of the Barragans
architect indicated that the removal of windows from this side of the residence was done
to assure protect the privacy of the neighbors.
C. Floor Plan May Allow One Room to be Easily Converted to a Fourth Bedroom -The
second floor contains three rooms that are labelled as bedrooms and a fourth room that is
labelled as a "Sitting/Office." Notwithstanding its label, the room appears to be designed
such that it might be converted without too much trouble into a fourth bedroom. Your
proposal, and the Board approval, specified that there was to be no more than three
bedrooms. We would like to explore with the Barragans hove the plans might be adjusted
such that the physical design of the floor plan would discourage such a conversion.
D. Automatic Sectional rag, oor-l did not find provision for an automatic sectional
garage door opener as required.
E. Identification of Total Floor Area on Revised .Site Plans -The proposal to and approval
by the Board on 8-17-99 indicated that the revised site plan would be reduced to
approximately 1,900 square feet in total floor area. The proposed floor area should be
shown on a revised set of plans.
T arra separately faxing a copy of this document to the Barragans.
Thank you again for your assistance.
Bob
2
NORRIRICHARD E. NORRIS REPLY T0. ISO MT. DlAB LO 6LVD., SUITE 530
S {gyp G AS C. STRA S
CY EPSTEIN i°>/°��.. WALNUT CREEK. CALIFORNIA 94596
COLIN J. COFFEYA.
SHARON M. IVERSEN EDWARD L. SNAPPER ,•ld::�.�� TELEPHONE: (925) 934-8181934-8181'°I"-••! FAX: (925) 934-3665
DANIEL D. PURNELL
ZMICHAEL 9. CETEISC)N32E-,O SLUMS DFRI1'E.SUITE 4C3C>P A L. E3,4CA
''((����/('��7p�]�'7p NOLL M. CAUC�HMAN 17 H C RICHMOND,CALIFORNIA 948OG
LV`,..111RI MICHAEL A. SWEET t t �' +�iJ TELEPHONE: (510) 222-2100)
FAX: (510) 2222-5992.
9
November 16, 1999
h
at
Mr. Dennis Barry
Director of Community Development
ment
Contra Costa County (
651 Pine Street d P,
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ' ,
Re. County File No. DP983004 (Barragan) "" v
Corrections to Conditions
Dear Dennis:
On August 17, 1999 the Board of Supervisors denied an appeal and upheld Planning
Commission approval of DP983004 for one house at 6459 Kensington Avenue in East
Richmond Heights, subject to additional conditions negotiated by the applicant and the neighbors
(with the assistance of Supervisor Gioia). You may recall that on July 27`h the Board approved
DP983005, a companion application for a house at 1530 Laurel Avenue, also with additional
negotiated conditions. (A third application, DP983003 for a house at 6453 Kensington Avenue,
was approved by the Planning Commission and not appealed.)
On October 6th we received from the County two sets of Board Actions with Conditions
of Approval for DP983004 and DP983005. Enclosed for your convenience is the entire Board
Action packet for DP983004 (the Kensington house), including the Conditions of Approval as
drafted by the County, my August 17, 1999 letter to the Board listing the negotiated conditions
(which were accepted by the Board in their entirety as part of the final approval), and a memo
dated August 15, 1999 with renderings dated August 16, 1999 prepared by architect Al English
describing the revised house design (also incorporated into the final approval).
Unfortunately, the conditions prepared for DP983004 (the Kensington house) mistakenly
copied some conditions from DP983005 (the Laurel house) and omitted some of the newly
negotiated conditions. Following are the several inaccuracies and omissions I have identified,
together with my suggested corrections.
801740021168074-1
Mr. Dennis Barry
Director of Community Development
November 16, 1999
Page 2
Conditions 2,4, 6 and 8 are accurate as is.
Condition I should call for the front elevation to be similar to that shown on the
illustration by Al English dated August 15, 1999,not the April 1, 1998 original
submission.
Condition 3 should call for channeling roof gutter drainage to Kensington Avenue rather
than Laurel Avenue.
Condition 5 should be deleted. The restriction on upper level rear decks applied only to
the Laurel Avenue house, not either Kensington house.
Condition 9A should be deleted, because it applied only to the Laurel house.
Condition 9B should be replaced(see below) to accurately reflect the actual new
condition regarding additional setback.
Condition 9D should be replaced(see below)to accurately reflect the actual new
conditions regarding exterior appearances.
S suggest deleting Condition 9 in its entirety and modifying Condition 7 to reflect all the
additional negotiated conditions. This would be similar to the format of your conditions for the
Laurel house). Following is my recommended new Condition 7:
7. Revised Development Plans— Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall submit revised development plans to the Community Development
Department for the review and anprovsl of the Zoning Administrator. The plans
shall consist of site plan, floor plan and building elevations. The revised plans
shall provide the following:
A. A single car garage with automated sectional garage door. The width of
the garage shall be at least 12 feet but not exceed 16 feet.
B. Eliminate one bedroom, leaving only three bedrooms.
C. Push back the second floor front facade on the right side approximately six
feet past the first floor living room and add another roof segment(as
described in the attached English 8-15-99 memo & design).
Mr. Dennis Barry
Director of Community Development
November 16, 1999
Page 3
D. .Reduce the total area of the house to approximately 1,900 square feet.
E. {orient the footprint of the house to place the recessed entry and front yard
next to the house at 1540 Laurel Avenue and the garage next to the
applicant's other house at 6453 Kensington Avenue.
F. Move the house back an extra 5 feet (for a total front setback of 25 feet).
G. Change the roof to hipped rather than gable.
H. Eliminate the chimney.
Please have these conditions revised and distributed to the interested parties who received
the original set. I would be glad to review the draft revised conditions before they are sent out.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
aNORRIS &NO S.P.C.
By Edward L. Shaffer ��,
ELS.gcc
encl.
cc: Robert brake, Senior Planner
Mr. Sr Mrs. Barragan
Michael Hughey
FINDINQS ALD CQhMITIONS OF ARPROVALFOR DE—VELQPMEha 3QQ4-UPE
AUGIISI 17, 1999 RVI 0 V
COMITIONS OF AP ROVAh
1. Development shall be based on the development plans submitted with the
application as modified The proposed fiont ele that
shown Mh z&tedby the revised plans reeeiv�:MWAROW -dap=
ttached to the 8-15-99'memo from Al
English. Prior to the issuance of a buildMi.""rmit, el a ' ' architec
design of the building shall be subject the final,,,,',, 'ew, val e
County Zoning Administrator. The arcectura, -retails of anon
for DP983003, DP983004 and DP983 y vary in terms , shape,
placement of windows, doors, and .Fort shall be made to vary
textures,building materials and colon a stow appearance of the
front elevation.
2. The County wilding Inspect' `t ° requir nts for a licensed land
survey and their building e re t satisfied.
�. 3. The roof gutter shcollet in a cl conduit and conveyed to storm
drainage facilitie sawn tri Avenue right-of-way.
4. This applic subjec application fee of$306.00 which was
'd wi licatid al, plus time and material costs if the
ratio eases exceed 12010 of the initial fee. Any additional fee
t be p 0 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of
whiC curs first. The fees include costs through permit
live ng days for file preparation. You may obtain current
costs b the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will
be sent t ly after permit issuance.
5.
tin
Imo Restrictions - All construction activities shall be limited
t,E `� hours of 7;00 a.m. - 5;00 p.m., Monday through. Friday, and shall be
"bited on state and federal holidays.
6. Revised Development Plans - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall submit revised development plans to the Community
Development Department for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The plans shall consist of site plan, floor plan, building
elevations. The revised plans shall provide for.-athe following:
c�
2
A. A single car garage with automated sectional garage door. The width
of the garage shall be at least 12-feet, but not exceed 16-feet.
B. Elimination of one bedroom, leaving only three bedrooms.
AiP
C. Recede the second floor front facade on the right side approximatly six
feet past the first floor living room and acid another roof segment (as
described in the attached 8-15-99 Al English memo and design).
D. Reduce the total floor area of the house to approximately 1,900 square
u
feet.
E. Orient the footprint of the house to places`the recessed entry and front
yard next to.the house at 1540 Laurel Avenue and th 'garage text to me
applicant's other house at 6453 Kensington Avenue,
�;r
F. Eliminate the chimney.
Aro
G.
Provide a. ZS�foct front setback fico the: tl Ague
hVI
- „.y ..
right-cif wa
8. Wood Fac or tobuilding permit, the applicant shall
rovide of the fronting on Kensington Avenue {either
53 o singto venue} will provide for a facade with wood
:appe==ce of front7mid left elevations as genmafly shown on
t e y ieed site pl= dftd R*v 16. 1999 f except for tim additional ±±2t
ADVISORY NQIE
i
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTA UTED Tt "':ION
APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF T CON "'TONS
ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR � SE OF INF THE
APPLICANT OF ADDI'T'IONAL ORDINANCE RES THAT MUST BE Nom''
IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPME
A. Additional requirements may be impose Fire D Health Department
and the Building Inspection Dep advis to check with these
departments prier to requesting ro ding with the project.
B. The Building Inspection D ent requ' sets of building plans which
must be stamped by the uni evelop t Department and by the Sanitary
District or, if the site of w' a S District, by the County Health
Department.
C. t is s ymen park dedication fees at the time that building
pe ued.
DM/aa
98.DM
811
1 8b
- (revised) r
- CPC
3 (a)
c:�srpdock =496-1\wpdoc130C14-98d.dm
&231995-3-00- BQS (rd)
el C/ , 7
FInINGS AND CONDITIONSE APPR VA FOR D VE ENT 044-98
PER A 73 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVISOR P R VA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Development shall be based on the development plans submitted with the
application as modified by the revised plans attached to the 8-15-99 memo
from Al English. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, elevations and
architectural design of the building shall be subject to the final review and
approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The architectural details of the
front elevation for DP983003, DP983004 and DP983005 shall vary in terms
of size, shape, placement of windows, doors, and trim.. An effort shall be
made to vary textures, building materials and colors to achieve a custom
appearance of the front elevation.
2. The County Building Inspection Department requirements for a licensed land
survey and their building code regulations must be satisfied.
3. The roof gutter shall be collected in a closed conduit and conveyed to storm
drainage facilities in the Kensington Avenue right-of-way.
4. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$306.00 which was
paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the
application review expenses exceed 120% 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.
5. C ation Period Rgstrictions - All construction activities shall be limited
to the hours of 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and shall be
prohibited on state and federal holidays.
6. Revised Development Flans - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall submit revised development plans to the Community
Development Department for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator. The plans shall consist of site plan, floor plan, building
elevations. The revised plans shall provide the following:
A. A single car garage with automated sectional garage door. The width
of the garage shall be at least 12-feet, but not exceed 16-feet.
? '
B. Elimination of one bedroom, leaving only three bedrooms.
C. Recede the second floor front facade on the right side approximatly six
feet past the first flour living room and add another roof segment (as
described in the attached 8-15-99 Al English memo and design).
D. Reduce the total floor area of the house to approximately 1,900 square
feet.
E. Orient the footprint of the house to place the recessed entry and front
yard next to the house at 1540 Laurel Avenue and the garage next to the
applicant's other house at 6453 Kensington Avenue.
F. Eliminate the chimney.
G. Provide a minimum 25-foot front setback from the Laurel Avenue
right-of-way.
8. Wood Facade - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
provide that one of the residences fronting on Kensington Avenue (either
#5453 or #6459 Kensington Avenue) will provide for a facade with wood
siding.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE
APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET
IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT.
A. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health Department
and the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check with these
departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the project.
B. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which
must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary
District or, if the site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health
- 7
3
Department.
C. The project is subject to payment of park dedication fees at the time that building
permits are issued.
DMJaa
/3004-98.DM
8/17/98
10/5/98b
1/1/99 - (revised) rd
1/12/99 - CPC (a)
3/15/99
3/23/99 - CPC (a)
c:\wpdocl3004-98d.dm
5-3-00 Pa8 (rd)
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 27, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILKEMA, DESAULNTER., CANCTAMTLIA AND GOER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
SUBJECT: Appropriation Limits for County, County Special Districts, and County Service
Areas for 2000/2001
WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the Government Code requires that each year the
governing body of each local jurisdiction shall establish an appropriations limit for each
jurisdiction for the following fiscal year pursuant to Article XIII-B; and
WHEREAS, according to Article X111-13 (Section 8 subd.e(2)j the change in the cost of
living shall be either the percentage change in California per capita personal income from
the preceding year, or the percentage change in the local assessment roll from the
preceding year for the jurisdiction due to the addition of local non-residential new
construction and;
WHEREAS, the percentage change due to the addition of local non-residential new
construction is available for the County, County Special Districts and County Service Areas,
therefore, the County Auditor-Controller has calculated the Appropriation Limits using the
change factors most advantageous as permitted by Article XIII-B of the California
Constitution,
WHEREAS, the County Auditor-Controller has prepared the attached report and
accompanying schedule, designated Exhibit A, regarding the proposed County General,
County Special District, and County Service Area appropriation limits for fiscal year
200012001;
THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RESOLVED THAT the attached Exhibit A percentage changes over the prior year are
selected and appropriation limits established for the County General, County Special
Districts, and County Service Areas for the fiscal year 2000/2001.
1 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: _ _JUNE 27, 2000
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
of Su ° isors and Caen Administrator
Orig. Dept.: County Auditor-Controller
cc: County Administrator By Deputy
County Assessor
County Fire Districts
County Public Works
County Sheriff
e
Exhibit A
2000-2001
County General
and
Special District Appropriation Limits
A B C
2000-2001
1999-2000 Change 2000-2001
District Fund Limit Factor Limit
County General/Library 1003 3,241,268,701 1.1059 3,584,519,056
Bethel Island Fire 2003 4,573,382 1.0961 5,012,884
East Diablo Fire 2013 5,641,404 1.1171 6,302,012
Oakley Fire Protection District 2017 1,333,960 1.0898 1,453,750
Contra Costa Fire 2020 152,679,069 1.1331 173,000,653
Crockett-Carquinez Fire 2028 27,175,687 1.0453 28,406,746
Co Service Area L-100 2401 2,363,348 1,0508 2,483,406
Co Service Area M-1 2470 212,922 1.0453 222,567
Co Service Area M-29 2475 1,789,420 1.4408 2,578,196
1) Co Service Area M-8 2478 283,491 1.0453 296,333
Co Service Area M-16 2488 31,024 1.0453 32,429
Co Service Area M-17 2489 243,217 1.0453 254,235
Co Servicc Area M-20 2492 52,423 1.0453 54,798
Co Sevice Area RD-4 2494 23,591 1,1558 27,266
Flood Control Zone 1 2521 690,941 1.1560 798,728
Flood Control Zone 7 2527 8,949,160 1.2634 11,306,369
Flood Control Drainage A-13 2552 441,801 1.0457 461,991
Flood Control Drainage A-10 2554 574,978 1.0857 624,254
Storm Drainage Z-16 2583 498,843 1.1151 556,260
Co Service Area P-5 2655 655,036 1.0453 684,709
Co Service Area R-4 2751 300,554 1,0453 314,169
2) Co Service Area R-7A 2758 526,300 1.0453 550,141
(A) (B) (C)
I) Override approved 96/97 thru 99/00 has expired. Amount shown is the District's limit
without a votor approved override.
2) Override approved 98/99 thru 01/02
Prop4-1 11 WorkUp98thru--.x1s
ExhibitA00-01 1 of 1 6/15/00 4:24 PM