HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03142006 - D.5 (2) D.5
03-14-2006
ADDENDUM
Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on an appeal by
Anthony J. Siino III, of the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a Development Plan for a
new 1,920 square foot single-family residence located at 5082 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante area; Marilyn
Dromgoole (Applicant&Owner)(County File#DP053020).
The Chair opened the hearing and invited comment. The following person presented testimony:
Chales Boettger, resident of El Sobrante;
Lisa Mazzocut, resident of El Sobrante.
The Chair closed the public hearing. And returned the matter to the Board.
The Board took the following actions:
CLOSED the public hearing; FOUND the project Categorically Exempt, Class 3-New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures, for compliance purposes with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA); GRANTED the appeal of Anthony J. Siino, III to modify the findings and conditions of approval
for the project; MODIFIED Condition of Approval No. 3 as agreed to by the applicant and appellant to
move the structure 10 feet to the west and situated 3 feet from the south property line, and specified
placement of windows; ADOPTED the findings of County Planning Commission Resolution No. 8-2006 as
the basis for the Board approval; and DIRECTED staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County
Clerk. (Ayes: 1, H,V, IV;Noes: None ; Abstain: None; Absent: III)
e.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the West County Times,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published
at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek,
County of Contra Costa, 94598.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of
August 29, 1978. Case Number 188884.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof-on the follovvinq dates, to-wit:
March 4,
all in the year of 2006
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoin is true and correct.
Exec ed at Walnut Creek, Californi .
Ont is da �R7�rch, 2006
.......... ...
Signature
West County Times
P 0 Box 100
Pinole, CA 94564
(510) 262-2740
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that
published)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC
HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
EL SOBRANTE AREA
NOTICE is hereby given
that on Tuesday, March
14,2006 at 1:00 pain.in the
County Administration
Building, Room 107, 651
Pine Street, (Corner of
Pine and Escobar
Streets), Martinez, Cali-
fornia, the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervi-
sors will hold a public
hearing to consider the
following planning mat-
ter:
MARII_YN DROMr:OOLE
(Applicant&Owner)
ANTHONY J.SIINO,III(Ap-
pellant),County File#DP
053020. Hearing on an ap-
peal of the County Plan-
ning Commission s deci-
sion to grant design re-
view approval for a pro-
posed 1,920 square foot
single-family residence.
(APN: 426-173-014)
The location of the sub-
IeGt property is within the
unincorporated territory
of the County of Contra
Costa,State of California,
generally identified below
(a more precise descrip-
tion may be examined in
the Office of the Director
of Community Develop-
ment,County Administra-
tion Building, Martinez,
California):
The location of the sub-
ject site Is 5082 Hilltop
Drive, in the EI Sobrante
area.
If you challenge this mat-
ter in court, you may be
limited to raising only
those issues you or
someone else raised at
the public hearing descri-
bed in this notice, or in
written correspondence
delivered to the County
at,or prior to,the public
hearing.
Prior to the hearing,Com-
munity Development De-
partment staff will be
available on
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
at 12:30 p.m.in Room 108,
Administration Building.
651 Pine Street,Martinez,
to meet with any interest-
ed parties in order to(1)
answer questions; (2)re-
view the hearing proce-
dures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues be-
ing considered by the
Board;and(4)provide an
opportunity to identify,
resolve, or narrow any
differences which remain
in dispute. If you wish to
attend this meeting with
staff,please call Will Nel-
son,Community Develop-
ment Department, at
(925) 335-1208 by 3:00
p.m. on Monday, March
13, 2006 to confirm your
participation.
Date: March 1,2006
John Cullen,Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By _
Katherine Sinclair,
Deputy Clerk
Legal WCT 5841
Publish March 4,2006
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP - Contra
7: :�, Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County
DATE: MARCH 14, 2006
SUBJECT: HEARING ON APPEAL BY ANTHONY J. SIINO, III OF THE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR A NEW
1,920 SQUARE-FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT, IN THE
EL SOBRANTE AREA. COUNTY FILE #DP053020 (MARILYN DROMGOOLE-APPLICANT
& OWNER) (DISTRICT 1).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. OPEN the public hearing, receive testimony and CLOSE the hearing.
B. FIND for purposes of compliance with the requirements- of the California Environmental
Quality Act that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 3-New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
:RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BO ON , APPROVED OTHER
V07OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
ATTESTED 6����Z A�P�_
Contact:Will Nelson(925)335-1208
JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Ong: Community Development Department SUPERVISORS D COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: Marilyn Dromgoole(Applicant)
Anthony J. Siino(Appellant)
File
BY
DEPUTY
Board of Supervisors
March 14, 2006
File#DP053020
Page 2
C. UPHOLD the County Planning Commission's decision and approve the proposed
development plan with the attached conditions.
D. DENY the appeal of Anthony J. Siino, III to modify the findings and conditions of approval for
the project.
E. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 8-2006 as the
basis for the Board approval.
F. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
II. FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs associated with processing
this application.
III. BACKGROUND
On March 23, 2005 an application for "small lot' design review was filed for a proposed 1,920
square foot single-family residence on a substandard lot. During the public review and comment
period, five letters were received requesting a hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The
primary concern was the effect that the proposed building would have on neighborhood privacy.
The Zoning Administrator opened the hearing on this application on July 25, 2005. Testimony
was taken from interested parties and the hearing was closed and continued to August 15, 2005
to allow time for consideration of the testimony. Condition of Approval #3 as recommended by
Staff required the applicant to relocate the residence so that the fagade was no more than 60 feet
from the west (front) property line (minimum 27 feet west of its proposed location) and so that it
was no more than five feet from the south side property line (minimum 3.5 feet south of its
proposed location). The EI Sobrante Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee had also
recommended that the building be relocated to the south and west, though no specific distances
were recommended. Staff found that the fagades of most of the homes in the neighborhood are
located 20-30 feet from the front property line. Staff determined that in order to make the required
design review finding that the building is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of its location,
it was necessary to relocate the building as far west as practical (an existing garage prevents
moving the building any further west without some redesign). The purpose of recommending that
the building be moved south was to increase its distance from neighboring backyards. On August
15, 2005 the Zoning Administrator approved the project as recommended by Staff.
On August 24, 2005 the applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the County
Planning Commission, requesting that Condition of Approval #3 be eliminated. The hearing'
before the Commission took place on November 22, 2005. The Commission voted five to one
with one absentee to support the appeal and modify the Zoning Administrator's approval by
deleting Condition of Approval #3. On November 30, 2005 the Commission's decision was
appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
Board of Supervisors
March 14, 2006
File#DP053020
Page 3
IV. APPEAL DISCUSSION
The main argument of the appeal letter is that the findings and conditions of approval adopted by
the Zoning Administrator addressed the concerns of the neighborhood and should be reinstated.
Staff has paraphrased the letter in the following appeal points:
A. The Commission disregarded the Small Lot Design Review findings made by the Zoning
Administrator;
Response: The Commission conducted a de novo hearing, meaning that it was a full
hearing on the entire project and that the Commission could consider all matters afresh.
The Commission adopted the same findings as the Zoning Administrator regarding the
height, size and design of the building. Regarding the location of the building, the
Commission found that: (1) the location originally proposed by the applicant (87 feet back
from the front property line) was compatible with the neighborhood because while most
residences in the area are located close to the front property line, precedent exists for
locating the building towards the rear of the lot, and (2) there is essentially no difference
between the two building locations — 60 feet back from Hilltop Drive vs. 87 feet back —
because both locations are too far back to affect the streetscape and the streetscape is
satisfactorily unified by the existing garage.
B. The proposed location of the building at the back of the lot is inconsistent with the layout of
the neighborhood.
Response: The Commission determined that in the subject neighborhood it is atypical, but
not unprecedented, to locate a residence at the back of the lot.
C. Positioning the building at the rear of the lot impacts the surrounding neighbors in a negative
way, specifically by affecting the enjoyment of their backyards.
Response: The Commission indicated that protection of privacy and views is not the
purpose or intent of the "small lot" design review process and therefore such impacts to
neighboring properties should not be considered in the decision and that nevertheless, the
applicant had attempted to reduce privacy impacts by designing the building with few
windows on its rear elevation.
D. The proposed structure is an above average sized home on a below average sized lot.
Response: Staff found that on 20 lots in the immediate vicinity of the subject lot, building
sizes range from 742 square feet to 2,478 square feet, with an average square footage of
1,448. Staff also found that the 40-foot width of the subject lot is unusually narrow for the
neighborhood. Therefore, the appellant's statement is factually correct. However, the
appellant's stated goal is to have Condition of Approval #3 reinstated. This condition
addresses the location of the building, not its size. Both the Commission and the Zoning
Administrator adopted a finding that the size of the building was compatible with the
neighborhood because it falls within the range of house sizes in the immediate vicinity.
Board of Supervisors
March 14, 2006
Pile#DP053020
Page 4
E. The tree situated between the existing garage and proposed structure is not of significant or
historic value.
Response: The tree is not code-protected and it has been trimmed to a point where it is not
visually significant. In order to comply with Condition of Approval #3 the applicant would
have to remove the tree. The appellant raises this point so that the tree is not viewed as an
obstacle when considering whether to reinstate said condition of approval. Staff agrees that
preservation of this tree should not be a determining factor in the decision.
V. CONCLUSION
The County Planning Commission found that the original location of the building proposed by the
applicant was compatible with the neighborhood because other homes in the vicinity are located
at the back of their lots and because the streetscape would not be affected by moving the building
forward. The Commission therefore found it appropriate to eliminate Condition of Approval #3.
No information has been presented to show that the Commission made an error in judgment or
that its findings were incorrect. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny
the appeal and uphold the Commission's decision to approve the project without Condition of
Approval#3.
GACurrent Plan n i ng\curr-pla n\Board\Board Orders\DP053020 Board Order.doc
Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 8-2006
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS OF THE
REQUESTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY MARILYN DROMGOOLE
(APPLICANT & OWNER) (COUNTY FILE #DP053020) . N THE EL SOBRANTE AREA
OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, a request was received on December 10, 2004 by Marilyn Dromgoole for
small lot design review to construct a 1,920 square foot two-story single-family residence in the
El Sobrante; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, requests for a public hearing were
received from neighbors Patricia Rayford, Ross & Debbie Cordero, Stephen & Barbara
Benevento, Wesley Bell and Karl Saarni on February 20, 2005, February 21, 2005 and February
22, 2005; and
WHEREAS, a request was received on March 23, 2005 by Marilyn Dromgoole for
approval of a development plan to construct the aforementioned 1,920 square foot single-family
residence; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was
scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on July 25, 2005, subsequently continued to
August 15, 2005, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2005, after the Zoning Administrator having fully reviewed,
considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, APPROVED
the applicant's request as recommended by Staff, and
WHEREAS, in a letter dated August 24, 2005, the applicant filed an appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's decision to the County Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was
scheduled before the Commission on November 22, 2005, whereat all persons interested therein
might appear and be heard; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission finds
the application is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (Class 3); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission makes the
following findings with regard to conformance with Contra Costa County Ordinance Code
Section 82-10.002(c):
1. Small Lot Design Review Findings
A. Location — The proposed building would be located approximately 85 feet from
the front property line. Most homes in the neighborhood appear to be located
approximately 20-30 feet from the front property line. However, precedent exists
in the neighborhood for locating a home in the rear portion of the lot. Because
most homes are located closer to the street, a fairly uniform streetscape exists in
the neighborhood. Constructing the building in its proposed location would not
have the detrimental aesthetic effect of leaving a gap in the streetscape because
the existing garage fills a sufficient portion of the gap. Based on the precedent set
by several other homes being located in the rear portion of lots and the role of the
existing garage in unifying the streetscape, the location of the proposed residence
is determined to be compatible with the neighborhood.
B. Height—The proposed building would be two stories and approximately 24 feet 9
inches tall. Two-story homes of similar height are found at 807, 808 and 811
Marin Road and at 5012, 5022, 5145 and 5149 Hilltop Drive. Based on the
existence of several homes of similar height in the immediate vicinity of the
subject site, the height of the building is determined to be compatible with the
neighborhood.
C. Design — The neighborhood is eclectic and does not exhibit a unifying
architectural character or theme. The architecture of the proposed building could
broadly be classified as Modern, meaning it falls into one of a number of styles
that were popular in suburban neighborhoods from the 1930s to present. Due to
the eclectic nature of the neighborhood and the fact that the proposed architecture
would not cause the building to be conspicuous, the building would be compatible
with the neighborhood in terms of its design.
D. Size — On 20 lots in the immediate vicinity of the subject lot building sizes range
from 742 to 2478 square feet, with an average square footage of 1,448. At 1,920
square feet, the proposed building is consistent with the sizes of other homes in
the area.
WHEREAS, in a letter dated November 30, 2005, the appellant, Anthony J. Siino, III
filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign
and attest the certified copy of this resolution and.deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors,
all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California.
2
The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by
motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 22, 2005, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Clark, Murray, Wong, Terrell, Snyder
NOES: Commissioner Battaglia
ABSENT: Commissioner Gaddis
ABSTAIN: None
Donald Snyder,
Chair of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary
County Planning Commission,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
3
Conditions of Approval
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP053020 (Marilvn Dromoole —
Applicant & Owner) AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ON NOVEMBER 22, 2005
1. This permit is to allow the construction of a 1,920 square foot single-family
residence on a lot that is substandard in average width and is approved as
shown on the site plan received by the Community Development Department
on March 23, 2005, subject to the conditions herein.
2. Payment of Any Supplemental Processing Fees That May Be Due - This
application is subject to an initial application fee of$563.00 which was paid
with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application
review expenses exceed 100% 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. The applicant may obtain current costs
by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill
will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance.
3. The Fesidenee shall be r-elaeated sauthwester-15,se that it maintains a setbaek'&f
no o than five feet f:-efn the south p peft.,_line a-Rd a setback of ne more-
than
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall contribute a park
dedication fee in an amount in accordance with the in-lieu fee of the Park
Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 920-4). The current fee is $2,000.00, but is
subject to change.
ADVISORY NOTES
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS OF 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 protest fees, dedications, reservations,
and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is
limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved.
The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or 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.
B. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department.
2
Current Appeal Letter
REF.
DEC 5 ?OGS DEC 0 _9 ZOIi0
Ii I Anthony J. Suno III
CLEM 50-AU a; 18 Bishop Pine Lane
t°
� "9 °A -ct` El Sobrante, CA 94803
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 2°a Floor-North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
November 30, 2005
Dear Board of Supervisors,
I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission regarding the proposed
development plan, county file#DP053020, filed by Marilyn Dromgoole for the property
located at#5082 Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante, CA (parcel#462-173-014). The Planning
Commission completely disregarded the findings of the Small Lot Design Review
performed by the Community Development Department staff. Small Lot Design Review is
mandated by the County code and I urge you to reinstate the findings.
The proposed structure is to be built on a sub-standard lot that is only 40 feet wide. County
ordinance requires that development plans for sub-standard lots that are less than 70 feet in
width go through Small Lot Design Review. The design review looks at location, height,
design, size, and compatibility with the neighborhood. During the review the Contra Costa
County Community Development Department found that the location of the proposed
structure was "a departure from what is typically found in the neighborhood, as most
homes appear to be located approximately 20-30 feet from the right-of-way." I've
included an aerial map (photo A) showing the neighborhood of adjacent homes and streets
outlined in yellow. The proposed structure is highlighted in red. It is clear from the photo
that these findings were correct. A home positioned at the very back of the lot is out of
sync with the layout of the neighborhood.
The proposed structure would be located approximately 85 feet from the right-of-way with
minimum setbacks at the very rear of the lot. The positioning of the structure at the rear of
the lot impacts the surrounding neighbors in a negative way. The neighborhood is laid out
with backyards adjoining such that a large contiguous green space is created by the
backyards (see photo A). This green space allows the residents to enjoy their backyards
without having a large two story structure towering over adjacent back yards. At the
hearing with Zoning Administrator Bob Drake, Mr. Drake asked the Dromgooles to erect
story polls to clearly demonstrate to the neighborhood the size and impact of the structure.
Regrettably, the Dromgooles refused this request. I've also attached a photo (photo B)
showing how the proposed structure will look on the sub-standard lot. As you can see, a
25 foot building in the proposed location will dwarf adjacent homes and back yards.
The proposed structure is an above average sized home on a below average sized lot. I
urge you to reinstate condition of approval #3 in the staff report that requires the structure
to be moved southwesterly so that it maintains a setback of no more than five feet from the
south property line and a setback of no more than 60 feet from the west property line. I
firmly believe that this condition addresses the concerns of the neighborhood, the findings
of the design review, and repositions the structure to be more in sync with the surrounding
neighborhood.
In previous hearings much time was spent debating the value of the tree situated between
the existing garage and the proposed structure. For a picture of the tree see Photo B.
According to the Community Development staff report the tree is not"Code-protected".
The tree isnot of significant or historic value. The Dromgooles currently keep the tree
trimmed quite small. It also appears that if the tree doesn't remain small it would quickly
interfere with the proposed structure. The value of this tree is clearly limited.
In sum, I do no think this project makes a lot of sense. It doesn't make sense to build a
home and not integrate it with a garage. The desire to preserve the existing 50 year old
garage does not make much sense. The desire to preserve a tree of inconsequential value
that will grow too close to the proposed structure does not make a lot of sense. In the end I
guess the county has no choice but to evaluate the projects as they are presented by the
applicants, even if they don't make a much sense. Ideally, I'd like to see the Dromgooles
go back to square one and design a home that blends harmoniously with the surrounding
neighborhood. If that is not the case, then the next best thing would be for the proposed
structure to be built in a location that is compatible with the neighborhood.
The EI Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee suggested that the
proposed structure be moved closer to the south and west property lines (closer to the
street). The staff at the Community Development Department found that the proposed
location for the structure was incompatible with the neighborhood and set conditions of
approval that it be moved closer to the south and west. The Zoning Administrator Bob
Drake presided over a hearing and determined that the structure be moved closer to the
south and the west. I would urge the Board of Supervisors to uphold these determinations
that are mandated by County code and reinstate the third condition of approval in the
Community Development Staff report.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Siino III
r
•a.
:t{•.x :r� .x. ''� r'�- %t`"�� .nom
,� '..•.Y:'r,1 1.Y �k.G ,.7T:.� ,�nih
,
r Y...• its:.._ : t:%'
'�"�cJ.`.M1k:iw'"". ':T,t ^� �'4"•Lt �} ji �,ys';r_'t,, "'.ai".;�'�;;';'fr',r �::x�.
D
'd
1.
L
Iw
4
*:. 'i1:�. _ :�t.:X4.{j.>�,_L.:�'•:it'r F•itlr I.rrr`,ih�,::, -%•.j•;^• �y,
„
G..,u'}��: a!1� �c;t 'y, ,:stf'�. ,: :r:,.t+-.,� {�,.xa. - •+'�'�,f�,'-w,�`':d :i�`. _ :�+ ;;�' ;,�' s.
<,'V: it �'a`• �'Y
„
,,. .,,...; 7.: ...:...,,.,.t,G..'::'•.�..•..4,.c'`, :4::,C?.VR ::t' - `'i•:t=,r..::` r+.:,`.s 'y:.'
.. , i...... ....,i ..n Y.• G.ev..:,.:/_•tiL••.A'?J• ,,jt .E'k'}�.y_'rl''�+'�."sS.:r.er'>tY.;•
.,+.k'9.;u. [w., ....d�n+ ,.,n z.,.„h,,:,. ', .;:w ': "�•.?,»-':,111..x•' -
- .-.xf ..e:,rr. fc�'. '"+['il xti:•. &1;. ;.0 ,r:�'T.:'.� •'�v;'"'� - 5S
%:}'.' .tt�., :,'-ir `:�.:r.:�.r.r+:itax'�s": '!:� : tfrf':�.+.' .�,!. �k -;"R-•:: '.,;;. ,•L:, pi} t
,
ri::rE' :. ,°`off,,. .jk:t-t',' �''::r.' .q;...:" �� �Cii•;h•..tk�l e,as; � '7`•:, :r1f !.iV Y"' `�..� 'ai'}+:: >�
k
fin,s,,.., ,i•:
a
4•;.. ,: �.F:g.xCe: `;G,._ ... ..,-• yyis. ,'•. h•,Medr,,� `'.$='r. ''h'.�;:.; .t�� .i!i
`
:]S" r •.., `. ,1.. �! !:A� r;:'• _i.A;: ,,z,'"'. S'`'i +4;`i''�� rf+x,I'::'!,{�„v' 'r':�i,yY.;�i+f.. 'r
riAli'. ..'N,`��tP,,�`•' .r;.r ,.;{' �:�,'.: .xS. -'i'1..',r.+,.F':''i"' �l, i
;�':-, !`eb•Y. ,.7�^: 3'HvK,T.' :5"'t,':: .1,:..n �>.i":'. �{i'.L.i y,.,�.'..
"'c. ;. _..:. ��:is:':� ''.i`�:., :t.:;i•x� (� 1,
Lk'i n .:v, 4 a•
f
r
�;:1�-Fr.,,. ;... '. ,, ...t'b f...e�l',ke. .�: •-a ri''lR�. �Y :iF:''. ]� ..-?�'T.!. �'t'•:i..�i�.4:1� �P.; Mot"'.
,
,.yyy���.�,,a .:.•t .,i.:``.,,� •:,..) - .S. . ..a��..�.0... ,�,Y,�._r.,'.C....> ,/s�` .1:•.w:�`: ,i., +:s ••].,.:.:..;:>.`�;�+:•k'a:•...
Y..It,x,'"l.. 9 ..,�:.,,..l!1_ :w,..:,.. C .,. .....,-. �): ::F•:i.L:+..7.. :..?±•:, •• ::�Ai�:i
..,,.,Y`t �,,,., ,.....: x,a .'t-,:> •.,• y. .[•:'r�,r+••. •'. -'s :- ...: [ ,>V �: -rt:,�r..:, ..n ,.r'-:'r='= '�.�>';:.:,�•�f"'y:�` -''4�,,. - ti,
I:;Y•,...:p. ..I.. ,..;;�L:^..::r..s .5..:, -iL:!:4 'II,,, ..r 't,.•s..:ru.. k„.X:.. {7r .n°a`';:,
1. 'rfw .r! ..;f�., •�,f' „I{J`F,:':` .�":F: -.\. _
t,
1. •l::,. `)
j::.
_ l:,_ ::.. .�.. „+•. s ,:.: .r ,., :,,,:'�, .: --:, - z4.. ':akx, .,,e •.I•a:''V;:f,:,. ;.fi,.;1�•', �9,' �:i�i
n'6� ,4 J � S �.-, �':#':�j •'r•b'At g ,•+�r'4::','• ':16i.'':,lr�. I''.,J,...,f y,••:i.
.d.,...,�:.•..- �' -' .. r,{., :•. .. .. >_ .. ..:. ,::.?�i�?.+•. .,,:.' .,.:':: �in., ,.f.-.'..., 'r���5'way}_;;:... `l: -.jr,%y':
a tit'.4
�.+R ...... t1 /•• ,,�' rte;}
�Y iN) + ♦ �.. ..J!I Jr,.�.t.�. ��>.:s,:. {::� �l'. :':_t'j•,' !j/I.^�•- ''.f� ::�;>;,�,,.
.r:...., :rF „Jw. .... .,+. :: ':,•''f�.`:'. .s• '. ...5. :`iK> -•.,.�' C. .,r� ,t:�.'�•`'' rTl..::i:;:., 'rf:L•.: .nz.
T`.
L.,,tt'�:�.'�'z^'rL.:'Il :.:x,- -.s,.. ,•tr: .xF:�.:� �.t;
.,n 5i '"i:='"•v+.':. •F.,.. �Ir:.,.,,.,: J;:r.
." .v :, ;.,?, :'�... ;..,.. }i•.,.. -..:t,,,. .- � '•!�` t..r�+, +.5:.. _ .,.,ate`<g, .iF+ �';'ry=:f+.1...q,.,
�t 'tom^.
'L `'Try„„'. - •�. •r¢;�' -y',,,:: •.:�:,�,
.�'..rs ':+„!V J:„ �.':i, :`i., ;k. .y:: v .x: •';.BLit”-:::. 'II•>. ,r ..�, t. c'�, ''pp+
.'7:k �s:af;s�''.; :}x.; f+ .s: � iilil:�or'• "x}. ;s.. � ,5;. ,,y �• F::,'p�`r
t:
t
:
I,y�^�a
;F .�.�1 t',r.J '� ' .} � ,r�,�•>II^! In .•��, «�m'r►:... �h.j'�4,.Zr'i`.fLs✓,,;:'�,�3e :,.:v,�i
•.:�Y:n S )I.' ..�..,.' +.:4i} clot
;�,: :L� ::i.l.l•Rr' sir
t{L.
tit;•
y;Iti�
4.
S k•\.
1 A
•i.
:
X?r*. 'r-.�,.: .3':-s'iAs �� '•{#_.`ei.,:,� , �vv:. ,�q�q�.:'or
-t:+b:. �;fie:_ :�y:: � _ .,��'a s: •i-�;3'=";:.:_;t,
_ ';.srt :r"?`'e:���yy -�s, qf':•.'.'kt,t.:" �"ii;: rne±triY•
�.. � .. ...� a,ll � x ,_>r•.t. .. c 1."7�,P=x'r.,.i
: ... ,. P ...,.:.
t '- 54i�. .•:c:.�t i Ei;i9;i [=f;:=ry9,':_ ��.,! ...�.. i
,
... ,.4:: 4',.r'',.. .BSc•.1..::.:tit!:<__::.;�:.:.-..'{-. :S,s, Y>,ik`�+'"S`tif ,,.,a..
z,.
::r;
- ;fir _ ._t,'� �"•", fi
:?tii�:.:y,Ly,yrR-G-••., _ _ �zfr.':_� v
d :ry r-tra'rs'�t'z��as��` _ �>;�3';...t �r''-:i',�•�,.,�>,'':�4:s��'�J"�'L�,�''='rs�r tw' M,;„-.-t!t
�.f.•. '"�.1::%''�;":.tj::':;'i.:s1"�7M1'•r�� :i' - .r_ie+'�;-' 'tiec:�a::i=•->�s+i�,�„'s? s',C."e� 'CS
w...,..,:!.ar,,, �'.-::5.• " '7 air+:', ";w%,a:r;' '.') i:,,
„�.��-• '':.:f�.4vv. :r'.��;,..:.-. :...� iit' Y..}:r. jµ4`:4.1: ��± •`%=:..�_.,. Ar:';��' �1F.
"+' �ry2V,ly:ri.. ;.�.., '"if•',i)ry.r: i.•-ti!::tc�: ..tu'f3?i,<C.
' u
.0
�L. •' .:Y;l"{:-,Ji.".;u3i•.h..:':'::,''
4' .;s¢s ,:.:r '� :il,�x:..•:a '?S:L•,.tx:,a. 't.. ti'i,�:.,,'.r-.: - _ .rf•.,>
'-�.. i:j,n;. .,a't.x:l.,;t.:i:•.:o-':•.` )x J� ..f,,drl.�•,.�.
r~:r .3�!`-`'� ;:�•'..,. :'rt L• rte:;; ..�.:;., �'',ti_«.:"` Y, .,orf.,n rsA.....' :;.!!.�.
Ire,; Om
....,._:;.:-'s'n+ :, '.: ._,.,:..:,».. >- -%' - -'•;�7:� _ - �-k±:
�;;��:.-l: •� '3 �;?: ��-,��.'' ,�;.:�:. •-iso,. ..�, �;;% ::� _ r-
_}:.,;.,.,;.
y•.., ."h.0. �", �4`2n++.
TIR
OHM
t-'!f,aJ'
f of .1,, „4• `t+uq:,�"'•' F_: ';.',� s ':,l ;':'
' `;';iii...w y.;;.: �yl .}i`';•; {ia;e
t :'k'�` .:r:,.3r�, :.k+• ,!. ,..h: :v:e`'+"�� -:'..!?M.r
tfP:.'+.J'W -)` { :'`i�^ _^—?.'rt i; -:.:�>:�.: '.'1'.. _:t,�.�1�1 ,'.F.a, •)6.�'�. t,,,..•1:;,•.:t'S..11: '•l >t'I'41F`:Yc.:�_y�^y':tx✓,.�:;k:
,
r
r<. iIC�.qg'- u�"a:t�e�x,..s•:1. :a.!. ';1 "-'k iiry�:: �r
,
y, '�'Y;vs: :!�E:1!Y`e{:. .,+�:>t ..Yt'i;:;p,. i�x�- ..-?Fi:..--�• !?".R': .I:y::.�`.l
rv..
,
�! 3
_ :3'c �.['.:d% :fs.�y ;ii: ,:� 'JD ,.4.>, k:=:.2:,.,,.._ ..§�• 5•�':r ',{•rt��?�xLr:l7:'�., asy ..
V,f��'' .,T".%`9•.. _
}, 1
0
�,, • � -• � it
�, "�.� of, •:�'lm 'l��
o
Appeal Letter
to
County Planning Commission
APPEAL TO COUN) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECI; I OF 15 AUG 2005
(Hand-delivered)
TO: Planning Commission
Community Development Department
Application and Permit Center
FROM: Marilyn Dromgoole, 5070 Hilltop Drive,El-So brante`94`803 /5110`222-3935
RE: County File#DP053020; APN 426-173-014
Dear Sir or Madam:
First and foremost, I would like to clarify(again) incorrect information as it appears on
the Community Development decision documents:
1. The property address is 5082 Hilltop Drive (NOT 5070 Hilltop Drive), and
2. The APR number is 426-173-014 (NOT 462-173-013).
This is to appeal a decision of the Zoning Administrator relative to the above referenced
property; specifically, Condition#3, pg. COA-2, which states:
"The residence shall be relocated southwesterly so that it maintains a
setback of no more than 5 feet from the south property line and a
setback of no more than 60 feet from the west property line."
The reasons for this appeal are as follows:
No reasons have been given for the conditions; they appear to be arbitrary.
They DO, however, improperly address the concerns of our neighbors: (1) moving
the proposed structure away from the north property line to reduce shading of the
neighbor's yard on the north (5092 Hilltop); and (2) moving the property closer to the
westerly property line to enhance the neighbor's view to the east(18 Bishop Pine Ct.).
The suggested relocation (60, rather than 85 feet from the west property line/street)
places the front of the structure only 3 feet from the existing garage, and would
require removal of a huge willow tree. Who wants to sit on their front porch and
look at the back of their garage? The suggested setback would also move the
structure from a flat area to a slope, which would require excavation.
The suggested setback on the south—only 5 feet from the property line—is the
absolute minimum allowable (per Community Development Department Regulations,
Item III C) and is very impractical—we wouldn't even have room to hang window
boxes. This setback would seem even narrower when a fence is constructed on the
property line. We originally requested 10 feet setback,but we would be willing to
reduce it to 8 feet as a goodwill gesture to our neighbor to the north.
Thank you for considering this appeal.
Marilyn Dromgoole
End: $125 filing fee
Staff Reports
Zoning Administrator
July 25, 2005
August 15, 2005
County Planning Commission
November 22, 2005
Agenda Item #
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRAT0R
MONDAY, JULY 25. 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
MARILYN DROMGOOLE (Applicant & Owner), County File #DP053020:
Applicant requests design review approval to allow construction of a new 1,920 square
foot single-family residence on a substandard lot. The subject property is located at
#5070 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (R-6) (ZA: M-7) (CT: 3630.00) (Parcel
#462-173-014).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #DP053020
with the attached conditions of approval,based on the attached findings.
HL GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: Single-Family Residential High Density(SH).
B. Zoning: R-6, Single-Family Residential High Density.
C. CEQA Status: Categorical Exemption — Class 3 New Construction or Conversion
of Small Structures, Section 15303(a).
D. Previous Applications: ZI041064213, an application for "small lot" design review,
for which a public hearing was requested by five neighbors.
E. Regulatory Programs: None.
IV. AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments were received from several agencies. All comments are attached.
A. West Countv Wastewater District: Indicated that it will serve the project upon
compliance with certain conditions.
B. East Bav MUD: Indicated that it will serve the project upon compliance with
certain conditions and payment of fees.
C. El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee: Submitted the
following comment:
"The El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee does not
object to the home proposed, but would prefer to see (1) some architectural
features added to soften the stark rectangular box and (2) the structure moved
closer to the south and west property lines. "
No comments were received from the Consolidated Fire District.
V. AREA/SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located in a tract known as Santa Rita Acres Unit 4, the subdivision
map for which was filed on October 18, 1939. The development pattern of this
subdivision is relatively ordered, with most lots being long rectangles 50+ feet in
width. The topography consists of small, gentle hills. The neighborhood is
architecturally eclectic, with numerous different styles and designs. One- and two-
story homes can be found.
The site itself is a 40-foot by 150-foot rectangle (which is unusually narrow for the
neighborhood). It is developed with a driveway and a garage that currently provides
parking for the residence on the lot adjacent to the south. The site contains several.
trees, none of which are Code-protected.
VI. PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant proposes construction of a new two-story 1,920 square foot single-
family residence.
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
A. Appropriateness of Proposed Land Use: The subject parcel is a legally created lot
that is zonedfor single-family residential development. Therefore the property
owner has the right to construct one single-family residence.
B. Site Plan: Because of the lot's 40-foot frontage along Hilltop Drive, side yard
setbacks of minimum three feet with an eight-foot aggregate are required. The
proposed building meets the minimum side setback requirements. The minimum
front setback of 20 feet and the minimum rear setback of 15 feet would also be
met. The existing garage meets minimum setback requirements as well. The
proposed site plan is compliant with the zoning standards in every respect.
The El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee (ESVPZAC)
has suggested that the proposed residence be moved closer to the south (side) and
west (front)property lines. The project is conditioned to require this relocation.
SR-2
C. Proposed Building: The proposal is for a new single-family residence measuring
40 feet long by 24 feet wide. The first story also includes a covered porch with a
depth of 6 feet and a width of 24 feet. The square footage would total 1,920 plus
the 144 square foot porch. Aside from the projection of the porch, the building
would be devoid of architectural depth; it would be box-shaped. The building
would be clad in wood or faux wood siding and accented with shutters.
D. Design Review: The purpose of this development application is to determine if the
proposed building is compatible with the neighborhood based on the following
criteria:
• Hei t: The proposed building would be two stories and approximately 24 feet
9 inches feet tall. Two-story homes of similar height can be found at 807, 808
and 811 Marin Road and at 5012, 5022, 5145 and 5149 Hilltop Drive. Based
on the existence of several homes of similar height in the immediate vicinity of
the subject site, Staff has determined that the height of the building is
compatible with the neighborhood.
• Size: Staff surveyed 20 lots in the immediate vicinity of the subject parcel and
discovered building sizes ranging from 742 to 2478 square feet, with an
average square footage of 1,448. At 1,920 square feet, the proposed building is
consistent with the sizes of other homes in the area.
• Design: The neighborhood is quite eclectic and does not exhibit a unifying
architectural character or theme. The architecture of the proposed building
could broadly be classified as Modern, meaning it falls into one of a number of
styles that were popular in suburban neighborhoods from the 1930s to present.
Staff has determined that due to the eclectic nature of the neighborhood and the
fact that the proposed architecture would not cause the building to be
conspicuous, the building would be compatible with the neighborhood in terms
of its design.
The ESVPZC has suggested that architectural features be added to the building
in order to reduce its boxy appearance. Staff s determination is that this should
not be required because the neighborhood is so eclectic that even a box-like
building can be considered compatible.
• Location: The proposed building would be located approximately 85 feet from
the front property line. This is a departure from what is typically found in the
neighborhood, as most homes appear to be located approximately 20-30 feet
from the right-of-way. Staff has determined that the proposed location is
incompatible with the neighborhood. The project is conditioned to require
relocation of the building so that it is more compatible with the locations of
other nearby residences.
SR-3
E. Neighbor's Letters: Five letters of opposition were received in response to the
proposed project. Staff has attempted to summarize the concerns stated in each of
these letters. Because the concerns are similar throughout the letters, Staff has
provided one response to all of the letters. The full text of each letter is attached.
1. Patricia Raeford. 5066 Hilltop Drive: Raised concerns regarding the height of
the building and its effect on neighborhood privacy.
2. Ross & Debbie Cordero, 5108 Hilltop Drive: Raised concerns regarding the
height of the building and its effect on neighborhood privacy.
I Stephen & Barbara Benevento, 5100 Hilltop Drive: Raised concerns regarding
parking and the height of the building and its effect on neighborhood privacy.
4. Wesley Bell, 5092 Hilltop Drive: Raised concerns regarding the height of the
building and its effect on neighborhood privacy.
5. Karl Saarni, 775 Kelvin Road: Raised concerns regarding the height and size
of the building, neighborhood privacy, off-street parking and the "over-
urbanizing" of El Sobrante in general.
Staff response: The sole purpose of the design review process is to determine
whether the proposed construction is compatible with the neighborhood in terms
of its size, height, design and location. The purpose is not to evaluate the effects of
development on views or privacy. "Size, " "height, " "design" and "location" are
objective, quantifiable terms that describe appearance and can be used as
measures of neighborhood compatibility. "Views" and "privacy" are extremely
subjective terms that are very difficult to quantify and do not necessarily address
the aesthetic compatibility of a building with its surroundings.
The zoning for the area entitles each property to a two story residence as long as
the design is determined to be consistent with other development in the
neighborhood. There are several two-story homes of similar height in the
immediate vicinity of the subject property. The height of the proposed building and
the effects that it may.have on neighboring properties would not be precedent
setting.
In regards to parking, the subject property is required provide one off-street
parking space (County Code Section 84-4.1202). The required parking space is
provided in the existing garage. The fact that this garage currently provides
parking for the residence on the lot adjacent to the south is inconsequential to this
development application because the subject property is legally created and
entirely separate from the lot to the south. Further development of the'subject
property cannot be precluded simply because the lot to the south may not be able
to fulfill its parking requirements if it is unable utilize the existing garage. The
SR-4
ultimate outcome may be that the lot to the south is determined to be in violation of
the parking requirements of the County Code.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The purpose of the design review process is to determine if a building's design is
substantially similar or substantially different than other buildings in the surrounding
neighborhood. The proposed building would be consistent with other homes in the
neighborhood in terms of its height, location, size and design. In light of the fact that
the proposed building meets all applicable zoning standards, staff recommends
approval of County File #DP053020 based on the attached findings and subject to the
attached conditions of approval.
SR-5
Agenda Item#
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
MARILYN DROMGOOLE (Applicant & Owner), County File #DP053020:
Applicant requests design review approval to allow construction of a new 1,920 square
foot single-family residence on a substandard lot. The subject property is located at
#5070 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (R-6) (ZA: M-7) (CT: 3630.00) (Parcel
#462-173-014).
R. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #DP053020
based on the attached finding and subject to the attached conditions of approval.
M. REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Since a new single-family residence is proposed, this project is subject to Section 920-
4.004 of the County Code,which reads as follows:
"As a condition of approval of any permit to build a principal residential structure,
including, but not limited to, a multiple-family structure or trailer (mobile home)
park, an owner shall pay a fee for neighborhood and community park or
recreational purposes in accordance with the same standards as if a final map or
parcel map were required."
The conditions of approval attached to the July 25, 2005 staff report for this project
did not include a condition requiring the park dedication fee. Therefore, Condition of
Approval #4 has been added to require payment of this fee.
Agenda Item #
Community Development Contra Costa County
BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY,NOVEMBER 22, 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
MARILYN DROMGOOLE (Applicant, Owner & Appellant), County File #DP053020:
The applicant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's decision to grant design review
approval of a 1,920 square foot single-family residence with a condition of approval that
requires a modification to the site plan so that the residence is constructed closer to the
south and west property lines. The subject property is located at #5082 Hilltop Drive, in .
the El Sobrante area. (R-6) (ZA: M-7) (CT: 3630.00) (APN 426-173-014).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals deny the appeal and sustain the Zoning
Administrator's approval of County File #DP053020, based on the attached findings and
subject to the attached conditions of approval.
III. BACKGROUND
The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing on this application on July 25, 2005
and took testimony from interested parties. The Zoning Administrator closed the hearing
and continued it until August 15, 2005 to allow time to consider the testimony received.
At the August 15, 2005 hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved the project as
recommended by Staff, with an added condition of approval requiring payment of the
mandatory park dedication fee for neve residences.
On August 24, 2005 the applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. The
applicant objects to Condition of Approval #3, which requires the residence to be located
closer to the south and west property lines.
IV. REVIEW OF APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSE
The appellant's letter received August 24, 2005 (attached) raised three "appeal points."
1. "No reasons have been given for the conditions: they appear to be arbitrary. They
DO, however, improperly address the concerns of our neighbors: (1) moving the
proposed structure away from the north property line to reduce shading of the
neighbor's vard on the north (5092 Hilltop), and (2) moving the property closer to the
SR-1
westerly property line to enhance the neighbor's view to the east (18 Bishop Pine
Ct.) „
Staff Response: The reason for conditioning the project to require the relocation of
the residence is stated in the attached "Findings for Design Compatibility," which
were also attached to the staff reports to the Zoning Administrator dated July 25,
2005 and August 15, 2005. Most homes in the neighborhood appear to be set back
approximately 20-30 feet from the right-of-way, while in its original location the
proposed residence would have been set back approximately 85-feet from the right of
way. It is evident from both aerial photography and street-level observation that the
neighborhood has a development pattern where the homes are located relatively close
to the.street. Locating the residence approximately 85 feet from the front property line
would be contrary to, and incompatible with, the established development pattern.
With regard to the statement that the relocation improperly addresses the concerns of
the neighbors, Staff notes that none of the five neighbors who in response to the
"small lot" design review notification requested a public hearing on this project
decided to appeal the Zoning Administrator's approval. Therefore, it would appear
that the approval as conditioned has adequately addressed the neighbors' concerns.
2. "The suggested relocation (60, rather than 85 feet from the west property line/street)
places the front of the structure only 3 feet from the existing garage, and would
ree uire removal of a huge willow tree. Who wants to sit on their front porch and look
at the back of their garage? The suggested setback would also move the structure
from a flat area to a slope, which would require excavation."
Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator determined that for the residence to be
considered compatible with the neighborhood, it must be relocated closer to the street.
While Staff understands the applicant's concerns with removing the tree, the
relationship between the garage and the house and the earthwork that would be
required in order to relocate the residence, Staff cannot find that those issues
outweigh the larger issue of neighborhood compatibility and warrant a modification
of the Zoning Administrator's decision. Staff does find i.t unfortunate that the tree
(which is indicated as two elm trees on the site plan and in either case is not protected
under County Code Section 816-6) would have to be removed. In order to avert this,
the applicant could redesign the residence so that tree removal is unnecessary. An
option would be to design the residence so that it fits next to, and possibly even
incorporates the garage.
3. "The suggested setback on the south — only five feet from the property line — is the
absolute minimum allowable (per Community Development Department Regulations,
Item III C) and is very impractical — we wouldn't even be able to hang window
boxes. We originally requested 10 feet setback, but would be willing to reduce it to 8
feet as a goodwill gesture to our neighbor to the north."
SR-2
Staff Response: As conditioned, the proposed residence is required to maintain a
setback of no greater than five feet from the south property line. Five feet is normally
the minimum side setback required in the R-6 zoning district. However, because the
subject parcel is only 40 feet wide, a minimum side setback of three feet is allowed
per County Code Section 82-14.004.
Staff cannot agree with the applicant's opinion that the five-foot.side setback is
impractical, as thousands of homes throughout the County maintain this setback with
.no negative effects. Since the applicant is concerned that compliance with the setback
requirement would preclude the hanging of window boxes, Staff calls attention to
County Code Section 82-14.002, which states"'...ornamental features which do not
obstruct the light and ventilation on any adjoining parcel of land shall not constitute
obstruction nor violate required yard regulations." Window boxes are considered to
be normal ornamental features of the type described in the Code. Therefore, hanging
them within the required setback area would be permitted.
The applicant's willingness to compromise on the side setback issue is appreciated.
However, Staff sees no need for the applicant to be concerned, as the five-foot side
setback has proven itself to be sufficient throughout the County and it would not
preclude the hanging of window boxes or other ornamentation.
V. CONCLUSION
As conditioned by the Zoning Administrator, the proposed project is compatible with the
neighborhood. The applicant has not explained how the project could still be considered
compatible if the residence were allowed to remain in its original location. Therefore,
Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals deny the appeal and uphold the decision to
approve County File #DP053020 subject to the attached findings and conditions of
approval.
SR-3
Pertinent Correspondence
EL SOBRANTE VALLEY PLANNING
AND ZONING ADVISORY CON dtTjP,. Ph 2: 2.3
P. O. Box 20136
El Sobrante, CA 94820-0136
June 9,2005
Will Nelson
Contra Costa County
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA 94533-0095
File 4 DP 05-3020
5082 Hilltop Dr.
El Sobrante, CA
Dear Will Nelson:
I contacted residents of property adjoining the above referenced project which proposes
construction of a single family dwelling on a substandard(40 ft wide) lot.
The owner of 5092 Hilltop Dr said he would prefer to have the proposed structure moved
away from his south property line as far as possible to reduce the shading of his property
from the sun. The owner of 18 Bishop Pine Ct, which is contiguous to the rear property
line of 5982 Hilltop, said he would prefer to see a single story structure and moved
toward the front of the property.
Based on my discussion with you it is my understanding that the side yard requirements
for a 40 ft lot are a total of 8 ft with a minimum of 3 ft on a side.
The El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee.does not object to the
home proposed, but would prefer to see (1) some architectural features added to soften
the stark rectangular box and (2) the structure moved closer to the south and west
property lines.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
eor�e�i Sc t
Member ESVPAZAC
Cc: Marilyn Drumgoogle
02/20/05
Patricia Rayford
5066 Hilltop Dr.
EL Sobrante, Ca 94803-1616
Application and Permit Center, Community Development Counter
651 Pine Street, 2nd floor,North Wing
Martinez, Ca. 94553
RE:Notice of intent to issue a building permit.
Reference file#ZI 04-10642B
Dear Recipients,
I am the owner of the property located at 5066 Hilltop Dr; also know to the County
Assessor as parcel number 426-173-027-1.
I have much concern viewing the scope of the proposed project adjacent to my property.
This project does not seem to fit the neighborhood characteristics due to the size and
elevation of the proposed building. I also feel that because of the elevation of this project,
it will inhibit my right to reasonable privacy de-valuing my property.
I do look forward in having these matters of concern addressed in a proper forum, and
will wait with anticipatio or the date of the public hearing.
Patricia Rayford j
C2005
5-1 05DFED -2_�,, PM, 11: 36
co
�������(.Q1/{..�� "i/4/�'dc/��, L'l { Com" u�;��i'"1��.e:.✓' "L,.�'i
6z ,l el!l�j
1W 2c;�D
5100 Hilltop Drive Q5 PEP 22 Pi i 1= 3 E
El Sobrante, California�94803
February 21,2005
Application and Permit Center
Community Development Counter
651 Pine Street 2nd Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553
Dear Sir:
We are writing to request a public hearing to protest the construction of a
new single family residence at 5092 Hilltop Drive, El Sobrante. The file number is
#ZI 04-10642B. The proposed structure will be a two story structure which will
tower over the neighboring homes. We are two doors down from this address and
am concerned about the lack of privacy this house will create. The residents will be
able to look into our back yards, not to mention our windows and know what our
personal activities are. The lot is too small for such a large house,the owner could
build a smaller dwelling to conform to the zoning requirements. Another concern is
parking : parking is a problem on our street and where are the residents' cars
suppose to be parked? These are some of our concerns and in a public hearing we
would be able to discuss them.
Sincerely,
Stephen and Barbara Benevento
"ESLEY L. BELL
5092 Hilltop Drive
EI Sobrante, Ca. 94803-1616
February 21,2005
Application and Permit Center
Community Development Center -
651 Pine Street,2d Floor, North Wing
Martinez, Ca. 94553 tv
Attn: File#ZI 04-10642B
RE: PROPERTY AT 5082 HILLTOP DR., EL SOBRANTE, CA. 94803 - L
This letter is to request a hearing on the proposed building project(ZI 04-10642B)at the above addfess.
My concerns include the height and privacy that a building this size presents and the future impact it-will
have on the nei_hborhood.
4nc j
ell
r ROM ::i ones Lang LaSalle/Kar.1 Sarni FAX NO. :510 2234053 Feb. 22 2005 02:22PM P2
Karl Bearni
775 Kelvin road
EI Bobrante,Ca 94803
February 22, 2005
Sent by Facsimile
Application and.Permit Center
Community Development Counter
651 Pine Street
2'd Floor,North `Hing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: File#Z,I 04-10642B, Permit Request for 5082 Hilltop Dr,El Sobmnte
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have reviewed.Ms Dromgoole's Permit Application Notice and request a hearing to
clarify the applicant's provision for off-street garage parking and the increased traffic
burden, which will result with erecting a two story, 1,600 SF house. At present,there is
a garage in front of•the proposed site, which serves the existing home, 5070 Hilltop Dr.
While this garage may be construed at a future time to serve the proposed house,when
that occurs,the existing house would be without a garage. It is a concern due to the
likelihood of an average of three cars per household, which would mean six vehicles
parked in front part of the panel on a very busy, over-burdened thoroughfare,Hilltop
Drive.
A second concern pertains to the size of the applicant's proposed stricture: two stories at
1600 + SF. There are already three permanent structures on this parcel. This proposed
fourth structure would: A. Inject occupancy in an area where the adjoining properties
currently have a peaceful garden or natural setting and thereby would diminish the;
special rural character we enjoy in El Sobrante; and B. With, its height, greatly reduce the
privacy of the adjoining properties. Moreover, the high ridgeline would be prominently
visible to all adioining properties. These issues could be significantly mitigated if the size
of the house were reduced to a 900 SF single story building.
My overall concem is the unrestricted in-fill developinent that has come to hurt El
Sobrante,rather than enhance it. Ovcr-Urbanizing is not what El Sobrante's character is
or has ever been. The blocks of parcels with full-sized single family homes in the back
yards with inadequate parking or with na mw driveway easements past bedroom
windows is poor design and layout criteria at best.
Karl Sarrru
510/669-1084
Anthony J. Siino III
I 18 Bishop Pine Lane
I iMOD El Sobrante, CA 94803
).._
510-758-4856
Zoning Administrator
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
2"6 Floor-North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Zoning Administrator,
I am responding with comments in writing to the Notice of a Public Hearing regarding
the development plan, county file#DP053020, filed.by Marilyn Dromgoole for the
property located at#5070 Hilltop Drive in El Sobrante, CA (parcel#462-173-014). I
have lived at 18 Bishop Pine Lane for over twenty have owned the property for the past
six years. I am well acquainted with the character of the neighborhood. I have strong
objections to the size, height, design, and location of the proposed structure as they are
not compatible with the surrounding homes in the neighborhood.
The proposed house is disproportionate in scale to the substandard lot located at 5070
Hilltop Drive. A two story structure is not consistent with other homes in the
neighborhood. Almost every house on that side of Hilltop Drive and the surrounding
area are single story homes. The proposed two story house, oddly situated at the rear
northeast corner of the lot, will tower over the existing houses on both'sides as well as the
backyards at 18 Bishop Pine Lane, 12 Bishop Pine Lane, and 5092 Hilltop Drive. I
believe that the one thing that would satisfy all neighbors' concerns would be if this
house were reduced in scale to a single story home and moved to the front of the lot.
Ideally, the plans of the home should be integrated with the existing garage or the garage
should be torn down and a new structure with an integrated garage built in its place at the
front of the lot.
The proposed plans call for the house to be positioned as far back and to the left of the lot
as possible with minimum setbacks as mandated by code. At minimum I urge you to
defer to the suggestions made by the El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory
Committee. They suggest that the structure be moved closer to the south and west
property lines (forward and right). In this neighborhood all of the homes are positioned
at the front of the lot facing the street. If the proposed structure were built at the rear of
the lot, the surrounding neighbors would be robbed of the privacy to which they are
accustomed. There is currently no impediment to building the house at the front of the
lot. There are no trees of significance on the lot. The tree depicted on the plans is a small
four foot tree that could easily be transplanted if necessary. The positioning of the
proposed structure only favors Ms. Dromgoole's privacy, as the position is the furthest
distance possible from her existing home. The privacy issues for the adjacent back yards
are considerable.
In addition, a non-standard position of the proposed structure at the rear of the lot will
block my home's bay view and detract from its design. This will definitely decrease the
value of my property when I choose to sell. Immediately, our quality of life will be
diminished. My home has extensive windows and doors on its west side that lead onto a
large deck. My fiancee and I are currently designing our remodel to emphasize and
feature the views that the home has had for the last forty years.
In summary, the proposed structure for 5070 Hilltop drive is too large for the lot, the
structure does not blend in well with the neighborhood and adjacent homes, the position
of the structure favors the builder and rather than the surrounding neighbors, and the
structure will remove part of my bay view and lower the value of my property. Ideally
the proposed structure should be a single story home integrated with the garage
positioned at the front of the property similar to the other homes in the neighborhood. I
urge you to do all you can to satisfy the concerns of the neighbors and only allow a
structure that fits in well with the surrounding homes.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Siino III
A;
1 i 7/23/2005
Zoning Administrator
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
2nd Floor - North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Notice of Public Hearing # DP053020
Dear Zoning Administrator:
We are responding with comments in writing to the Notice of a Public Hearing regarding the
development plan, county file #DP053020, filed by Marilyn Dromgoole for the property located
at #5070 Hilltop Drive in EI Sobrante, CA (parcel #462-173-014).
We are concerned with the proposed location of the house on the lot. The plans call for the
house to be positioned as close to our property as possible with minimum setbacks. We urge
you to defer to the suggestions made by the EI Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning
Advisory Committee. They suggest that the structure be moved closer to the south and
west property lines.
We also recommend that the house be reduced in scale to a single story home. A two-story
house will tower over the existing houses on both sides as well as 18 Bishop Pine Lane and 12
Bishop Pine Lane. If the proposed structure is built as planned at the rear of the lot, the
surrounding neighbors including ourselves will be robbed of the privacy to which we are
accustomed. The privacy issues for the adjacent properties are significant and we ask that you
take our concerns under advisement.
Sincerely,
Charles & Margaret Boettger
12 Bishop Pine Lane
EI Sobrante, CA 94803
�a«i
r�
L @Ob _
i
July 24, 2005 �. . ....
cu,,,,., —
Deen Dell
23 Bishop Pine Lane
EI Sobrante, CA 94803
Zoning Administrator
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street
2nd Floor - North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Dear Zoning Administrator,
I am responding with comments-concerning the Notice of a Public Hearing regarding the
development plan, county file #DP053020,filed by Marilyn Dromgoole for the property located
at #5070 Hilltop Drive in EI Sobrante, CA (parcel #462-173-014).
My wife and I have lived at 23 Bishop Pine Lane for the past 6 years.The main reason we decided
to purchase this house was because we felt that it had a certain amount of privacy.We did not
think that any new homes would be built in this older developed area, so we felt comfortable
that this would not change.We feel that there are already too many existing homes in this area
and adding another would just invade the surrounding homeowners privacy.
Sincerely,
Deen Dell
i"
PROM :Jones Lang LaSa11e!Kar1 Saarni FAX NO. :510 2234053 Aug. 14 2005 03:14PM P2
Karl Saarni
775 Kelvin Road
EI Sobrente, Ca 94803 IM 14 2005 --� �
August 14, 2005
Sent bt, Facsln�Ile
Bob Drake
Senior Planner
Community Development
651 Pine Street
2°d Floor,North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553
Re:File#L104-106428,Permit Request for 5082 Hilltop Dr,.El Sobrante
Dear Mr. Drake:
1 want to thank you for your time listening to my(and my neighbors')concerns about Mr_ and
Mrs. Dromgoole's Permit Application to build a two-story. 2,000 square-font single family
dwelling. Tomorrow,August 15,you will present a decision on details to be included as
conditions of an approval of the Permit Application. At the July 25th hearing,there were a few
issues that were not resolved to the neighbors'satisfaction.
The closing of the hearing without any rebuttal to the applicant's assertions that his development
presented minimal or no impact to neighbors' privacy, view and property values has left us with
no satisfaction that our concerns were effectively addressed. We were particularly distressed
when you allowed Mr.Dromgoole to make his own decision to refuse to construct a storybook
mock-up to the structure's dimension.While my estimated overlay drawing on the picture I
submitted at the hearing was rough, it was not out of scale: the structure will he huge compared to
the substandard narrowness of the lot and other homes on the street. A storylmok mock-up would
have illustrated to the world the true size of the structure and would have given you,as a Planner,
a better idea of what our concerns were. A storybook structure would have cost Mr. Dromgoole
very little time or money. 1 believe lie refused this opportunity to show the community the visual
impact of his building,because he knew the sizc would have a very negative impact on
everybody involved and would have resalted in moving the building westward,toward Hilhop
Road and incorporating the obsolete garage into its design.
T will.be out of town on a business trip next week, otherwise i would personally present this letter.
Tf the your decision is to permit the building to be placed where staff recommended it,without
moving it further toward the street,there will be grounds for an appeal on the approval decision: a
thorough examination of the neighborhood's concerns will have been incomplete.
V Truly Yours,
Karl Saarni
510/669-1084
Anthony J. Siino III
18 Bishop Pine Lane
El Sobrante, CA 94803
Planning Commission
Contra Costa County Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 2„d Floor-North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
November 22, 2005
Dear Planning Commission,
I am responding with comments in writing to the Notice of a Public Hearing regarding the appeal
of the development plan, county file#DP053020, filed by Marilyn Dromgoole for the property
located at#5
MHilltop Drive in El Sobrante, CA (parcel#462-173-014).
I strongly object to this appeal. In the instructions for filing an appeal with the Community
Development Department it indicates that the applicant should include the stated reasons for the
appeal. Ms. Dromgoole's stated reason was that there was no explanation for the conditional
setbacks. The reason is plainly stated in the Senior Planner's "Findings for Design
Compatibility". It was clear at the last hearing presided by Zoning Commissioner Bob Drake
that Ms. Dromgoole had not read the seven page report prepared by the County.
In the report it states that the location of the proposed structure is not compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. In my neighborhood homes are typically built with a 20-30 feet
setback from the curb. The backyards of all the homes in the neighborhood butt up against each
other. The result is that an owner can enjoy their backyard without having a 25 foot tall structure
just five feet from their back fence.
The proposed structure was to be built in the very rear left corner of the lot with only five and 15
foot set backs. The result would be a two story home towering over the back yards of 18 Bishop
Pine Lane, 12 Bishop Pine Lane, 5092 Hilltop Dr., and 775 Kelvin Rd. There are no other
homes in the neighborhood built at the very rear of the lot. This structure would not be
compatible with the surrounding properties.
The El Sobrante Valley Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee recommended that the
structure be built closer to the south(side) and west (front)property lines. The Community
Development Department found the location incompatible with the neighborhood and suggested
the similar modifications to the position of the structure. Even Mr. Dromgoole attended the first
hearing and accepted the conditions in the planner's report. Finally Bob Drake approved the
plan.
In sum I urge you to deny this request. The structure's original location was found to be
incompatible with the neighborhood. I believe the Community Development Department
correctly repositioned this structure to better fit with the design of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Anthony J. Siino III
qui 1 11 1 lul IIL VUI ILI d
Y Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building �..:5`: ..
651 Pine Street INS:. pp,
4th _
f-ip . 3
4th Floor, North Wing Pr I
6
Martinez,California 94553-0095tal,Zji
Rhone: (925)335-1210 9 i ': �rDate: Z.-. ,a
coVN
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST
We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review.
DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows:
_Building Inspection
HSD, Environmental Health, Concord I Project Planner
_HSD, Hazardous Materials
P/W -Flood Control (Full Size) County File
_P/W -Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number:
Date Forwarded
P/W Traffic (Reduced) Prior To:k-LQ"-4
P/W Special,Districts (Reduced)
_ Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs
_Redevelopment Agency apply to this application:
_Historical Resources Information System
CA Native Amer.Her. Comm. �Jr) Redevelopment Area
CA Fish & Game,Region
_US Fish & Wildlife Service �)o Active Fault Zone
_Fire District �v n 4 o 1,'c(Xr-,�
a Sanitary District Wc-,,f Cc C Flood Hazard Area,Panel n C x.30
Water District c==3-� k (-�
_ Cite /`SI) 60 dBA Noise Control
_ School District
_Sheriff Office -Admin. & Comm.Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Sit---
Alamo
ireAlamo Improvement Association
El Sob anttPlg. & Zo 'ng Committee Traffic Zone
DOIT- Den. Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
Community Organizations
Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send
co ies of your.response to the Applicant& Owner.
No comments on this application.
Our Comments are attached
Comments:
Si ature
FIR: PRO 1= - CG
_`, = Agency
S:currenl planninz/tempiates/forms/agency comment request Date
Ofiiie Hour) �vM1viuo� "" � o.nn a.m. ✓:00 -.m.
Office is closed the 1st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
Notification List
(Alf
426173007 426172005 426161006
BRUNER RONALD J SUITER SELYA E HORINOUCHI GARY T&GLORIA H C
5038 HILLTOP DR 5065 HILLTOP DR 779 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426161018 426173014 426173027
KLUG MARY R TRE DROMGOOLE ARMOND J&MARILYN, RAYFORD PATRICIA J
4832 MORWOOD DR 5082 HILLTOP DR 5066 HILLTOP DR
RICHMOND CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426161017 426230012 426161019
DALEY JAMES RENARD DENIS L LAROUCHE ANDRE&MARY T
PO BOX 411 661 DONNA MAE CT I 1 BISHOP PINE LN
MANCHESTER MA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
1944 94803 94803
426172001 426171010 426161023
LAUMANN THOMAS&YVONNE TRE BULLER PATRICIA N TRE DELL DEEN P&NICOLE
810 MARIN RD 2401 LACANADA CT 23 BISHOP PINE LN
EL SOBRANTE CA PINOLE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94564 94803
426161022 426172006 426172007
SIINO ANTHONY J III MORERA AUGUSTO&LYDIA DACOSTA JORGE&MARISE
18 BISHOP PINE LN 5063 HILLTOP DR 5049 HILLTOP DR
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426173016 426171013 426171009
BENEVENTO BARBARA ATRE DUGAN GENE A&RAMONA J HECK JAMES W&MELANIE A
5100 HILLTOP DR 5145 HILLTOP DR 5141 HILLTOP DR
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426172014 426171014 426172004
KHAN MABUIKE K MAYS SHEILA E WALKER ROBERT L&LILIE TRE
804 MARIN RD 5147 HILLTOP DR 2533 GROVEVIEW DR
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA RICHMOND CA
94803 94803 94806
426173008 426172013 426161020
HOPPER JAMES A RUSSELL CANDIE EST OF SMITH JAMES G&GREGORITA
5048 HILLTOP DR 5089 HILLTOP DR 17 BISHOP PINE LN
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426172002 426161008 426161021
BUSH SHIRLEY A SAARNI KARL& SHELLEY S BOETTGER CHARLES M&
808 MARIN RD 775 KELVIN'RD MARGARET
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA 12 BISHOP PINE LN
94803 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA
94803
426173011 426173010 426171011
WESTLIE JACOB&MELISSA ALBINANA RICHARD J &ROSALBA DIXON ROBERT D &KIMBERLY A
5060 HILLTOP DR 5054 HILLTOP DR 807 MARIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426182014 426171012 426230009
SMITH JAMES RANCE RHONDA R ANDREWS KENNETH L&BONITA D
814 MARIN RD 811 MARIN RD 664 DONNA MAE CT
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426161011 426230005 426172008
BUGG R T&CLEMMIE R MOSSESTAD DONALD&RAMONA KUMAR MANJHILA
723 KELVIN RD TRE 5045 HILLTOP DR
EL SOBRANTE CA 616 DONNA MAE CT EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803
94803
426230011 426173018 426181014
MARTINEZ JAIME A ENGLAND FERREL&OPAL TRE TAYLOR TRACY LEE
665 DONNA MAE CT 5733 OLINDA RD 815 MARIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426173015 426173017 426161005
MACK-BELL SUSAN ROYBAL JOSEPH O&BETTY M BROSSAR,D DANNY&IRENE
5092 HILLTOP DR 5108 HILLTOP DR 781 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426230010 426173019 426173009
HUSBY-GERRY MICHELLE DIANNE KRAL RICHARD I TRE FREEMAN KATHLEN E TRE
670 DONNA MAE CT 5128 HILLTOP DR 5050 HILLTOP DR
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426173020 426161007 426161012
MALLO CHERIE L GRECH GEORGE A TRE GILMORE LARRY
5132 HILLTOP DR 777 KELVINRD 711 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426173013 426172017 426162002
DROMGOOLE ARMOND J&MARILYN ANDREWS CALVIN O&KACY L BOYEN MARCIA L
5070 HILLTOP DR 55 ASPEN CT 760 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426162001
HAYES VERL C&JULIA E TRE
708 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA
94803
Community Contra Dennis Barry, AlCP
L Community Development Director
Development Costa
l Department County
County Administration Building ESE.-L.
�1
651 Pine Street •;�: _ .• � ,
4th Floor,North Win
Martinez,California 94553-0095
Phone: (925)335-1210 9•� - `'� Date: Z-� o .
AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST
We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review.
DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows:
Building Inspection
HSD,Environmental Health, Concord Project Planner lei
HSD,Hazardous Materials
P/W -Flood Control (Full Size) County File
P/W -Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: DPO5 '�020
Date.Forwarded
P/W Traffic (Reduced) Prior To:
P/W Special Districts (Reduced)
Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs
Redevelopment Agency apply to this application:
Historical Resources Information System
CA Native Amer. Her. Comm. GUS Redevelopment Area
CA Fish & Game,Region
_US Fish & Wildlife Service ko Active Fault Zone
�( Fire District 6on4&1,'4t�J
x Sanitary District lvc1>t Co C Flood Hazard Area,Panel# a 3 0
�4 Water District cf";;kW D
—City /Jy 60 dBA Noise Control
School District
Sheriff Office-Admin. & Comm. Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Sit.,--
Alamo
iteAlamo Improvement Association
El SZIn, Pl . & Zo 'ng Committee Traffic Zone
MA0V,DCbI .lA.
DOIT- Dep. Director, Communications CEQA Exempt
-ategorical Exemption Section
Community Organizations
Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send
copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner.
No comments on this application.
Our Comments are attached
Comments:
Signature
Agency
Sxurrent plan ninJlemplates/torms/agency comment request Date
Office 'Hours "V.o day Friday: 11:00 a.;. - �5-'00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
Exhibits and Maps
Y— ,, 3G•a,1 ��-t flf r,-w�. �fi nt t'� r� '.�"$f y�� ��`� �� � ---��._ , tit t �
N`
ire^ ,.q °mak��t~ ��� i+: �{� -5,.�.yyl�'�'''z f�- �'�r •g-n �d a g ���Y' �� n� tF�
lam
�..o
-
tr{�i��t{`i�x
Ak♦<<1, ..�'rt •, �„r.� ��'s..-,r- .y #,�� >,,,ill� "t,[IPJ� ts5'' §`tJ'rr .ar - , ` ""xji
f1
�5 11�'S ♦ 1 A ti �{ ���:'A.tt,� ; a `�� ��ra��� QW.A
1 `
I
t�rr x
I � w'1.' ti } tL "Mal
two ti• +� m� ti r 1
iII - ° �1¢ 3 a We i x
5�� � t V�` �� .r`•, � �r�r a• sq �� '�� I I al � ' �r i s�t'a"}� '�t �`� � (� '�
PEA�,
-2133
p iy! �i r}_3 s;�;ot-,�.r'. -1 ' i IR
a r; l�
Alf"
ir
k
:c• ��R hr r
TWO
.
r'fy,,W7xY(��j;II �F^G NS
IPA
<usPEW
xf
1go ESM IN MON r�:.. t" `Ftwn
p * �
a r
" 15 MY
WA
.Waiw
INN IRS
._
7`Y
till i N toot
LLL' CSS
i
W MEN
FA �� � ,4
E
01111
qx i1
d r } �R� c #
1+� � �La�,� - � Y� �" � til} ������ �� ��t � "� w ��• t �1 1{�(
Ilk
lj
i It
• co
cu 0 E
' E
' • : •
f J: 1 VQ �I ` _.��i�� , S r I".t �� I '-•a!J x '` I
i f 111 _�` �` ti- • l d ^Tt-I ..-...z�'r:.
77 ,
I .r
r
r
�. # ,
o
Ln rn
pp Se- LO
Lf) t6 <
3:7
Saw) 10-
Nit;,
o
'o LO
o ; N
00
C C"
�
77d
LO
--04
0
co
o
CP
C.)
0
NJ
ci�ac'
C611 cl)
is
IrA tn
04
06
N�
CII)
C'A
Cl-co
CNS
G)
—In
RL
CD
Qi
C3
CD
cc)
U) 0
C) C)
6
0 C-4
CY).
cl-
01 k
CIO.,
CD
O
th
7Z–
co
06
cr)
cl,
cl\ Aa N\
cn
in P
lo� '50
01
0
�v
CD
0
1313
wk - I
wo\v
.z/I G-.I. .o-,bi J
ct,1
.Z/I I-,5 I .t/I b-,5 U
1 �
Ha-RA da Hay da xd do Ha do
09 00E 091
m
X 1-�-
ff
in — Q
aoa 1 =11am - O
m m X
U-
4 O
in a o� ` .9.s 11`dH n Q
ry O
N
Q
LU
in
z � 4
a 111 Z o
2 Oil
0�IL
X
Z 4 In
y C)
C fn U)
x<
Ha"RHA da. 15 14A Ha im Ha da Xd do Ha da
09 gob 00Z S91 005 S91
Fes--
A-,01 Onrz
.b-,6 n�
1.1-
U—
NIV �A Ha"IHA Ila-M Ila SIA Ha-INA O
991(Z) 9�0E(z) ooF(ZJ 091 091 n/
pp..
m m ~
dj '� r
• �_� �. � � � " � � iii
i
ir °w
N l
Is O m
ks) n ``-
0
m O
q N
N 1 VI
v I n/
z •n•vd Q � _
� I
san-t�ls Q Q
'P Az 1 m r
" 4
N
91� - l5-RA 9r.09 l5�A0Z0S 1
V
9-31 .9— .L/I Z-,OI X/I O-,5
.0-.9 .L/1 1-,9e:
.0,06 .0-19
,A� g
�mumimii7iiiNimui I�-�I I
1
c i
G j O
N � U
p d O
t) p
cJ o D -0
CD
p v
N s CV 31
.•- -N O .� G tU
oho °� N
"
cn O T >
to
Col-
.01 O
N .
N .✓
p c O
Y �+
00
o o
Z
L,
v
N �
cv C N
tcS , v O
CD �]
G m
N CoCD
coQ
�s c (D N
'CODN Q Q U
13)
c �
a v
Q r o t7, E (D c
W7 N @ o E o 0
W co
o NZ � � .�
L : L
ja a -a p
NW � s E v 3
.0 a,;_ p tl? N cn
co
- CL
�! 0
N N N_
U ns a co V
Qa Q
2
a
0
_ r(
..........
til
.re
e p
� o �
� r �
N
a .
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
EL SOBRANTE AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,March 14,2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the.County Administration
Building,Room 107, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
MARILYN DROMGOOLE(Applicant&Owner)—ANTHONY J. SIIN0; III
(Appellant), County File#DP 053020. Hearing on an appeal of the County Planning
Commission's decision to grant design review approval for a proposed 1,920 square
foot single-family residence. (APN: 426-173-014)
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa,
State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office
of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building,Martinez, California):
The location of the subject site is 5082 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area.
If you challenge this matter in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at, or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing,Community Development Department staff will be available on
Tuesday,March 14, 2006 at 12:30 p.m. in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez,
to meet with any interested parties in order to (1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures
used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to
identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting
with staff,please call Will Nelson, Community Development Department, at(925)335-1208 by 3:00 p.m.
on Monday, March 13, 2006 to confirm your participation.
Date: March 1, 2006
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By..
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk
Siino Appeal-031446
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
IN THE MATTER OF Marilyn Dromgoole (Applicant & Owner)—Anthony Siino, III
(Appellant) County File#DP 053020
Notice of hearing for Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 1:00 am, was mailed this day, Thursday,
March 02, 2006.
I declare under penalty-of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled
matter to the following:
Please See Attached List
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez,
California.
Dated: March 2, 2006
N.
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
L �5 ITVc) 9d�- 1 alit
36-Da
426173007 426172005 426161006
BRUNER RONALD J SUITER SELYA E HORINOUCHI GARY T&GLORIA H C
5038 HILLTOP DR 5065 HILLTOP DR 779 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA . EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426161018 426173014 426173027
KLUG MARY R TRE DROMGOOLE ARMOND J&MARILYN RAYFORD PATRICIA J
4832 MORWOOD DR 5082 HILLTOP DR 5066 HILLTOP DR
RICHMOND CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426161017 426230012 426161019
DALEY JAMES RENARD DENIS L LAROUCHE ANDRE&MARY T
PO BOX 411 661 DONNA MAE CT I 1 BISHOP PINE LN
MANCHESTER MA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
1944 94803 94803
426172001 426171010 426161023
LAUMANN THOMAS&YVONNE TRE BULLER PATRICIA N TRE DELL DEEN P&NICOLE
810 MARIN RD 2401 LACANADA CT 23 BISHOP PINE LN
EL SOBRANTE CA PINOLE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94564 94803
426161022 426172006 426172007
SIINO ANTHONY J III MORERA AUGUSTO&LYDIA DACOSTA JORGE&MARISE
18 BISHOP PINE LII 5063 HILLTOP DR 5049 HILLTOP DR
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426173016 426171013 426171009
BENEVENTO BARBARA ATRE DUGAN GENE A&RAMONA J HECK JAMES W&MELANIE A
5100 HILLTOP DR 5145 HILLTOP DR 5141 HILLTOP DR
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426172014 426171014 426172004
KHAN MABUIKE K MAYS SHEILA E WALKER ROBERT L&LILIE TRE
804 MARIN RD 5147 HILLTOP DR 2533 GROVEVIEW DR
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA RICHMOND CA
94803 94803 94806
426173008 426172013 426161020
HOPPER JAMES A RUSSELL CANDIE EST OF SMITH JAMES G&GREGORITA
5048 HILLTOP DR 5089 HILLTOP DR 17 BISHOP PINE LN
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426172002 426161008 426161021
BUSH SHIRLEY A SAARNI KARL&SHELLEY S BOETTGER CHARLES M&
808 MARIN RD 775 KELVIN RD MARGARET
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA 12 BISHOP PINE LN
94803 94803 EL SOBRANTE CA
94803
426173011 426173010 426171011
WESTLIE JACOB&MELISSA ALBINANA RICHARD J&ROSALBA DIXON ROBERT D&KIMBERLY A
5060 HILLTOP DR 5054 HILLTOP DR 807 MARIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426182014 426171012 426230009
SMITH JAMES RANCE RHONDA R ANDREWS KENNETH L&BONITA D
814 MARIN RD 811 MARIN RD 664 DONNA MAE CT
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426161011 426230005 426172008
BUGG R T&CLEMMIE R MOSSESTAD DONALD &RAMONA KUMAR MANJHILA
723 KELVIN RD TRE, 5045 HILLTOP DR
EL SOBRANTE CA 616 DONNA MAE CT EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 EL SOBRANTE CA 94803
94803
426230011 426173018 426181014
MARTINEZ JAIME A ENGLAND FERREL&OPAL TRE TAYLOR TRACY LEE
665 DONNA MAE CT 5733 OLINDA RD 815 MARIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426173015 426173017 426161005
MACK-BELL SUSAN ROYBAL JOSEPH O&BETTY M BROSSARD DANNY&IRENE
5092 HILLTOP DR 5108 HILLTOP DR 781 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426230010 426173019 426173009
HUSBY-GERRY MICHELLE DIANNE KRAL RICHARD I TRE FREEMAN KATHLEN E TRE
670 DONNA MAE CT 5128 HILLTOP DR 5050 HILLTOP DR
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426173020 426161007 426161012
MALLO CHERIE L GRECH GEORGE A TRE GILMORE LARRY
5132 HILLTOP DR 777 KELVIN RD 711 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426173013 426172017 426162002
DROMGOOLE ARMOND J&MARILYN ANDREWS CALVIN O&KACY L BOYEN MARCIA L
5070 HILLTOP DR 55 ASPEN CT 760 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA EL SOBRANTE CA
94803 94803 94803
426162001
HAYES VERL C&JULIA E TRE
708 KELVIN RD
EL SOBRANTE CA
94803
EI Sobrante Planning &Zoning East Bay Municipal Utility District
EI Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council Committee Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service
3769-B San Pablo Dam Road Planning
EI Sobrante, CA 94803 El Box 20136 375- 11 th Street MS 701
EI Sobrante, CA 94820-0136 Oakland, CA 94607-4240
West Contra Costa Sanitary District CCC FIRE DISTRICT
2910 Hilltop Drive
Richmond, CA 94806 INTEROFFICE
"Toni Carranza" To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us
<tarranza@cctimes.com>
cc
03/01/2006 10:04 AM
bcc
Subject [BULK] Re: Publication Request
This is to confirm the Public Hearing listed below.
CC Clerk of the Board
West County Times Legal 5841/Order 1749202
P.O. 1136
Publish: Mar. 4, 2006
Cost $70.20
KSinc(cDcob.cccount y�us wrote:
Hi Toni,
Please publish the attached Hearing Notice in the West
County Times .
Reference P.O. # 1136
One day only, Saturday March 4, 2006
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the
number listed below.
Thank you.
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
925 . 335 . 1902
(See attached file: Siino Appeal-031406.doc)
Y"7TY71"""" Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To wctlegals@cctimes.com
1P 4
a
12/01/2005 02:29 PM cc
a. 4 bcc
w
kyr,a a L� aA 41Jw
Subject Publication Request
Hi Toni,
Please publish the attached Hearing Notice in the West County Times .
Reference P.O. # 1136
One day only, Saturday March 4, 2006
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below.
Thank you.
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
925.335.1902
Siino Appeal-031406.doc
MARILYN DROMGOOLE (Applicant & Owner) — ANTHONY J. SI.INO, III
(Appellant), County File #DP053020: Hearing on an appeal of the County
Planning Commission's decision to grant design review approval of a proposed
1,920 square foot single-family residence. The subject property is located at
#5082 Hilltop Drive, in the El Sobrante area. (R-6) (ZA: M-7) (CT: 3630.00)
(APN: 426-173-014).
I
i
w /
prn
Q
Maureen Parkes/CD/CCC To Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC@CCC
02/27/2006 02:04 PM cc
bcc
Subject Item to Schedule
Kathy: Is there room on the March 14th agenda for a twenty minute item?Anthony Siino is the appellant.
MARILYN DROMGOOLE(Applicant&Owner), County File#DP053020, 5082 Hilltop Drive, in the EI Sobrante area.
Thanks,
Maureen