Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 05232006 - D.2
F • L TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP :•.: ;> Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County County . DATE: MAY 23, 2006 SUBJECT: HEARING ON AN APPEAL BY SUNNY JACOBSON AND SUNNY & ASSOCIATES (APPLICANT AND APPELLANT) OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO REVOKE LAND USE PERMIT #LP032107 AND THE FAILURE OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION TO OVERTURN THE REVOCATION OF THE LAND USE PERMIT TO EXTEND THE LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE AT 79 BELLA VISTA AVENUE, BAY POINT (APN 095-071-010) (COUNTY FILE # LP032107) (DISTRICT V). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION A. FIND that the appellant remains out of compliance with the conditions of approval of land use permit LP032107. B. DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the County Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke LP032107, the extension of a legal non-conforming use. C. DIRECT staff to begin abatement proceedings within 30 days if the six-unit building is not cleared from the site. CONTINUES ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE �-.. RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED O R SPEAKERS: Curtis Madden, Ed St on, Norma Siegfried. Written testimony submitted by: Mark Sullivan. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND _UNANIMOUS (ABSENTAndfTtC CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Maureen Toms—335-7230 ATTESTEDjL�) Age: JOHN CULLEN, C K OF THE BOARD OF cc: LP032107 SUPERVISO AN OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR S. Jacobson, Appellant BW_zA_,—,_UPUTY May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#LP032107 Page 2 II. FISCAL IMPACT To date, the Redevelopment Agency has spent over $4,000 of non-recoverable staff time in processing the revocation. III. BACKGROUND A land use permit for an extension of legal non-conforming use was approved by the County Zoning Administrator on February 23, 2004 and effective on March 5, 2004. A land use permit was required in order for the property owner to obtain a building permit to repair fire damage to the six-unit building on the property. The four-unit and two-unit buildings on the property were not damaged by the 1999 fire. The conditions of approval included several measures intended to be implemented in a timely manner to address blighted conditions and criminal activity present at the site. Implementation of most of the conditions was to be completed no later than June 3, 2004 (90 days after approval). The timely compliance of these conditions was the means by which the required land use permit findings could be made. Due to noncompliance with the conditions of approval,this item was first.brought forward to the Zoning Administrator on June 6, 2005, to determine if cause existed to revoke the land use permit. After several continuances to allow the applicant the opportunity to submit information, the County Zoning Administrator determined there was cause to revoke the permit due to noncompliance with the conditions of approval and revoked the land use permit on October 10, 2005. The applicant has appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision: On March 13, 2006, the East County Regional Planning Commission (ECRPC)considered the appeal. A motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision failed on a vote with two ayes (MacVittie & Stevenson) and two abstentions (Day & Harper). The March 23, 2006 appeal was based on several points. Below is a summary of those points as well as a staff discussion: 1. Appeal Point: During the majority of the time that the subject permit was valid, the property was under receivership, and the permitees were legally precluded from improving the property pursuant to the permit. Sunny & Associates should therefore be allowed an extension of time commensurate with the time that the property was under receivership. Staff Response: The property went into receivership on July 27, 2004, almost eight weeks after the June 3, 2004 date in which most of the conditions of approval were to have been met. The timely compliance with these conditions of approval was the means by which the Zoning Administrator could find the land use permit was not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County, and would not create or continue a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community, findings required by the County Code to approve the permit. Without compliance with the conditions of approval, the property has continued to be an enforcement problem in the County and has been a detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#LP032107 Page 3 The land use permit expired on March 5, 2005. No request for an extension of the land use permit, nor the required fee for an extension, was submitted to the Community Development Department. 2. Appeal Point: Sunny&Associates and their predecessors in interest completed substantial work pursuant to the project, considering the limited time available to them to perform. Staff Response: The new owners claim that they have done substantial work on the property, subject to the land use permit. This includes the installation of a security fence and gate, preparation of landscaping and architectural plans, installation of interior improvements in the six-unit apartment building, clean-up of carports, replacement of exterior siding, installation of a new roof and other exterior improvements. Staff acknowledges that the new owner has installed the security fence and gate; however this was done without a permit and was not pursuant to the conditions of approval, which required review and approval of the fence design prior to the installation. An on-site manager was identified on June 3, 2005, however that individual was only there temporarily. Staff does not consider the partial demolition of the carports, without a demolition permit, to be a clean-up of the property, much less compliant with the conditions of approval. Landscaping and architectural plans were submitted as part of the initial application for the land use permit. The roof was started under a building permit several years ago but was not finalized because the height of the new roof exceeded the maximum allowed by code and the plans. At the time of the reroof, the zoning was multiple-family residential(M-29), which limited the building height to 35 ft. If the installation of siding was done, it was not done as part of the land use permit, as no building permits have been issued on this property since before 2002. The bulk of the conditions of approval should have been complied with by June 3, 2004, long before any of the ownership or receivership issues arose and prior to Mr. Chavez's sudden illness. The site has a history of neglect and work without permits and these conditions have continued under the current ownership. A chronology of events related to this property is provided as Attachment A. 3. Appeal Point: Allowing Sunny&Associates to complete the project is the most expedient way to improve the property to community standards. Staff Response: The damage to the building occurred in 1999, while owned by one of the current property owners (Richard Rodriguez). Both current and previous property owners have already demonstrated their inability to improve the property through the permit process. The ownerindicated at the August 29, 2005 Zoning Administrator hearing that revoking the permit or determining that the permit was not exercised would remove any incentive to improve the property. It should be noted that, as a rental property, the site and the May 23, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#LP032107 Page 4 remaining units on the property are subject to review under the newly adopted rental inspection ordinance. 4. Appeal Point: Revocation of the permit and abatement of the six-unit structure will not further the goals of the County and the community of the improving the aesthetic quality of the parcel and the neighborhood. Such revocation will only prolong the substandard state of the property. Staff Response: The General Plan for the neighborhood is single-family residential, which allows 5 - 7.2 units per acre. The apartment complex is an antiquated, substandard, nonconforming use at 24-units per acre. Revoking the permit and abating the six-unit building bring the density down to 12 units per acre, closer to the General Plan density, and would be consistent with the General Plan, particularly the following policies: • Policy#3-1: Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment, where appropriate, to replace inappropriate uses. • Policy#3-77(a): Upgrade community appearance by encouraging development of new uses to replace antiquated development. • Policy# 6-1.2: Focus rehabilitation assistance and code enforcement efforts in redevelopment project areas and communities with a high concentration of older and/or substandard residential structures. IV. CONCLUSION The Zoning Administrator determined that cause did exist to revoke land use permit #LP032107 and did so on October 10, 2005. In making this decision,the Zoning Administrator noted the strict timing for conditions of approval that were imposed on the permit to address previous problems at the site. The land use permit and timely compliance with the conditions of approval were the opportunity for the owner to demonstrate that property would not continue to be a nuisance in the neighborhood. On appeal, the East County Regional Planning Commission did not overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the land use permit. Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the land use permit and direct staff to begin abatement proceedings if the six-unit building is not abated within 30 days. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\LP032107-tinal.doc Attachment A Timeline of Events Related to the Subject Property and Land Use Permit "W Fire`damage to six-wunifa`partment bLAiJi6g A November 30, 1999: Building permit issued for repair of fire damage 0 bffit;�� r 'd 4�99 'in,icat6--m-, !T - October 9 W` Pl"e-r.�M'*it�,,reco";r:ds, - :,a.-�', 'r, 1.0_ permi ,expLre ZI, November 7, 2000: Another building permit issued for repair' of fire damage June % e • p@l ;mrq July 18, 2002: The subject property deeded from Richard Rodriquez to business partner Benito Chavez ..... ........ "M t 4: d February,'2'8, 20. 7 @R_usepermi , 0.proyqq: March 5, 2004: Land use permit effective Ab:H17 2004 (30 d111114s1 employment of a dedicated on-site manager req wired lbdt,maiJ60er isino 16hger employed.; nfmation mmun men April 4, 2004: ) (30 days after approval): COA#10 (plumbing within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings to be removed). No building permit was issued for this work. May 4, 2004: -Subrrik- m'kihd 6nd�pavi '6 /0 (60 gays,!ft,er app�oval):. COA#9- '� tJg E s)./V n b b, tted.,: su'. 14 NIP �4 ee_W, June 3, 2004: (90 days after approval) COA#6 (remove the existing carports on the site, to include the block walls around the front carports, with demolition permits). Only the walls of the carport were removed, without a demolition permit. -a e r app June 3, 2004: T (90 roval)3' OA#7,�(in'�falwrought.' e C a new iron orpetal.fence:Nong -;Adminstkf6,nce Z' "d ;:,additional isecurib W�on.incil T." f t to&rev`i`�'W 7-W. - bject0l, entrance provi e a, i ional on"' sb however a new 41, b n&6&0,%6view�`r!` the`fe n have: een su r ratorY No plans for: e ce metal fenc a installed:` A. h s been June 3, 2004: (90 days after approval): COA#8 (install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings,with submittal of a lighting plan) No lighting plan has been submitted to date. ,7;7 muz, & otoval)�!: COX.. , 1.1(reduce.the'height f the existing:concrete faced, June 7 _3;'2004:'_ � er.ap air '.Jence along the eastern Otdoerty t 1ht of.9ix.feefo, rJess or apply for a.buildina 11ine;J6;'a,heic TW "building S.rm 1. ..t permit' d .1...... .ppp ica on as .!,y,an. ariance,,to getain'i,,:the,;.fbn'8 W'� Voi� it" been� WN60 gh Submitted td��retain the`;f6nce'a't,%t O'curreht height, or has the applicant provided Unformation aboud6�is work bein July 27, 2664 to March 3, 2005: Receivership period �Se pt6ffiberz,.20 7 6nth fteMaT6roVcb %� (prvide a,Iog documenting and-como aints r6teiv6d'bythesi e manager==;'cI1 666tv . N issued forthe sitblandtheir status, police calls tojhe,Site, due every 6 months) permits s S October 26, 2004: Letter fron: stafftoprevious owner and applicant regarding non-compliance of conditions of approval. ' �:�� '- � o ' "' ' "'' J -Novemb6r,6J0Q4 Cedtifiletter torvious,6wner,and,applicani (fiw6�ar �ignednfor, y. th �,ww: n di H �.,of`.condiii` @POwm- aL -urffi -,pqnc9mp!!a0 "c ....9t own, )" W �Rl J _.er reggr,ing November 12, 2004: Property deeded back to Richard Rodriquez March 3,w2065: ,- _,.Ree6s:e ofithe�rec6iver§h, - _ - '.. A March 5, 2005: Expiration of.the land use permit May 9, 2 T., b6fterfrom,staff tog pjrrentiowner regardingip_6n9ompjjpnce,bf conditions of.approval. June 6, 2005: First Zoning Administrator hearing to consider revocation October 10 2005: 'Land use permit-revoked- theZqn,i,ng yAdministrator October 20, 2005: The applicant appeals the Zoning Administrator's decision 6 66ifthi y egional:.Plaq bffi (con_Eued'at Appea sc e ule AW, �4 f� _� ' -A IN h &before the' ast' if !Jan'-b`al.[y�9. 2005: eifu nind,..Co'om.m Mc� ...... . �rk6est of applid�jqt,) March 13, 2005: Appeal heard by the East County Regional Planning Commission. Motion to deny the appeal failed with a two (yes)-zero (no)-two (abstentions)vote. the failure I, AV March 23, 2006 plicant appeale' �oning:��,kd Me.s,.�ftqisio9kand,. lure ..,.fh.&. .. ......... y � R egio a PpdromnisSionjtLoverturn t,kci si6 e Resolution No. 34—2005 RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE REVOCATION OF LAND USE PERMIT #LP032107, 79 BELLA VISTA AVENUE (APN#095-071-010), IN THE BAY POINT AREA. WHEREAS, on February 24, 2003, the applicant, Mary Bull-Ransom and property owner, Ben Chavez, requested a Land Use Permit to extend the legal non-conforming use of a six-unit apartment building on a site that includes the six-unit apartment building, a four-unit apartment building and a duplex at 79 Bella Vista Avenue,Bay Point(APN#095-071-010); and WHEREAS, on February 23; 2004, the Zoning Administrator approved Land Use Permit #LP032107, subject to conditions of approval with specific performance periods; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2004, the Zoning Administrator subject to the timely compliance with the Conditions of Approval, made the required findings per Section 26-2.2008 of the County Code; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2004 and November 8, 2004, staff provided written notice to the property owner of record (Ben Chavez) and the applicant (Mary Bull-Ransom) that the Land Use Permit in violation of the terms, limitations, or conditions of the permit and that it would be scheduled for the Zoning Administrator Hearing to determine if there was cause to revoke the permit; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2005, staff provided written notice to the new property owner of record (Sunny Jacobson) that the Land Use Permit in violation of the terms, limitations, or conditions of the permit and that it would be scheduled for the Zoning Administrator Hearing to determine if there was cause to revoke the permit; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, the revocation of the Land Use Permit was scheduled for hearing before the County Zoning Administrator on June 6, 2005; June 20, 2006; July 11, 2005; August 25, 2005; and October 10, 2005; at which time an opportunity to provide testimony was given, and after having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter to determine if cause existed to revoke the Land Use Permit; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,the County Zoning Administrator: 1.) DETERMINED Land Use Permit#LP032107 was in violation of the terms, limitations, or conditions of the permit, as identified on pages 4 and 5 of the June 6, 2005 Staff Report; and 2.) REVOKED Land Use Permit#LP032107 The decision of the County Zo i Administrator was given on Monday, October 10, 2005 Y"�� Bert Drake Deputy Zoning Administrator, Contra Costa County, State of California. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RELATED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATON OF LAND USE PERMIT #LP032107 AND SUBSEQUENT APPEAL County Zoning Administrator,June 6, 2005, Agenda Item#6 The item was introduced by Debbie Sittser, Clerk. Robert Drake, Zoning Administrator, confirmed for the record that staff feels that cause exists to revoke the permit due to non-compliance with the conditions of approval and expiration of the land use permit and is recommending the Land Use Permit be revoked. He then asked if the applicant was present. Sunny Dawn Jacobson, current owner of the property (3333 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point, CA 94565, 925-325-8008), stated that Ben Chavez does not own the property anymore and is no longer on title. She said that he had embezzled money from his partnership and since then gotten sick and went into the hospital. She stated she is one of the owners on title. She also stated that there is another partner on title, Johnny Jacovich, that was not mentioned in the staff report. She explained that the property was in a court appointed receivership and that she contacted the permits department to let them know and asked them for an extension. She stated that she explained to the permits department that they had a restraining order and could not go on the property. According to Ms. Jacobson, the staff person was going to see what she could do. She did not follow-up on whether or not an extension was possible. Ms. Jacobson stated that she received the (May 9, 2005) letter a few weeks ago and that the receivership of the property ended about 2-3 months ago. Ms. Jacobson stated that she has contacted Heim Electric to get bids and to see what needed to be done on the property. She was advised that she needed to get permits. She also said that she has been working with code enforcement Roy Roos and Joe Lasado to see what she needed to do to try to get this building in good condition. She stated that there is no new roof pitch, as described in the staff report, and they are not adding anything. She explained that they are just trying to rehabilitate the six units damaged by the fire. As far as the criminal activity, she was aware of the situation and has since put up an electronic fence/gate. She stated there has been no activity around there since. She stated she has plans to have it all leased up. Mr. Drake asked Ms. Jacobson if the property was in receivership and if she had any documentation from the courts. Ms. Jacobson stated that she has a request in with the Recorder's office to get a copy of the grant deed. She also stated that she bought in to the property because the previous owner embezzled money from a partnership. Mr. Drake asked her, in terms of compliance with the Conditions of Approval, what sort of actions did she envision taking to bring the property into compliance. Ms. Jacobson stated that she has not gone through all of the paper work, but she wants to get all the permits and make this a nice looking property to add to the area. 1 (03-19-2002 Sum) Mr. Drake asked if staff was aware of the change of ownership. Maureen Toms, Principal Planner, responded that staff did a search with the Recorders Office on April 7, 2005 and found the new owner, Sunny Jacobson on title. A notice was sent to the new owner, Ms. Jacobson, via certified mail on May 9, 2005, to the same address that the October 26, 2004 and November 8, 2004 letters addressed to Mr. Chavez were sent. County records show title transferred on January 4, 2005. Ms. Jacobson confirmed that the address was the business office that was previously used by Mr. Chavez and that she is now using it. She stated that she was a silent partner on other investments and she bought Mr. Chavez out. She has documents to show receivership, but not with her. Mr. Drake stated he would like to see documents from the courts about the receivership.* (*gap in tape) Ms. Toms stated that the Land Use Permit has expired. At the time of the property transfer, the permit was still valid. The new owner,being a partner with the previous owner, should have been aware of the permit. If not, they should have done their due diligence on the property before investing in it. She also stated that the Sheriff s Department report also shows ongoing problems at the site. Ms. Jacobson stated that she installed the fence to address those issues and also has one tenant that lives on the site. The tenant is given a rent credit to report criminal activity. She said that she picked up a number of properties, many of which have code enforcement issues. She has been working with Code Enforcement on trying to address these issues. Since this property only has one tenant, she has been working on the other properties. Mr. Drake explained that the property was a legal non-conforming use and to continue the use, there were conditions on the site that were to be addressed. Ms. Jacobson complained that there are other violations in the neighborhood that are not being addressed. She felt that she is always getting notices and nothing is being done about the others. She stated she is getting an attorney to address the code enforcement issues. Mr. Drake explained that she needs address what she is going to do relative to the land use permit. Ms. Jacobson was made aware of the Land Use Permit by staff that called because there was a balance due on the file. She said she advised the staff person that the property was in receivership and asked her to make note of it in the file. She said she planned to get an electrical permit later that day. Mr. Drake advised her that she needs to sort out the Land Use Permit first, before addressing building permits. He advised her that she needs to address the plans that were laid out over a year ago with the conditions of approval. He suggested she start with reviewing the staff report. Ms. Jacobson stated she is not ready to give him a plan, but she is a new owner and has plans for the property. Ms. Toms stated that the permit has expired, but to be clear that the permit was not in compliance with the conditions of approval, staff is recommending the permit be revoked. She also stated that the permit only addressed the six-unit building, not the four-plex or duplex on the site. 2 (03-19-2002 Sum) Mr. Drake continued this for two weeks, to June 20, 2005. He asked that Ms. Jacobson address the items of non-compliance and within a week communicate with staff in writing as to how she plans to address these issues. County Zoning Administrator,June 20, 2005, Agenda Item#4 The item was continued to.July 11, 2005 at the applicant's request. County Zoning Administrator,July 11, 2005, Agenda Item #4 The item was introduced by Debbie Sittser, Clerk to the Zoning Administrator Robert Drake, Zoning Administrator, stated that correspondence was received from the owner's legal counsel. He asked if staff had a chance to review the information. Maureen Toms, Principal Planner, stated that she had reviewed the material dated July 7, 2005 (Proposed Timetable for Compliance with Conditions of Approval) and July 8, 2005 (Background of the property), however due to requirements of the Better Government Ordinance; she was unable to include it in a staff report. She also stated that after reviewing the material submitted, she determined the Land Use Permit was not exercised. Martin Lysons, *279 Front Street, Danville, CA 94526 — 925-837-0585), representing Sunny Jacobson and Richard Rodriquez (the current owners of the property) noted for the record that Mr. Chavez is no longer associated with the property. He apologized for not getting the information to staff earlier. Mr. Lysons recapped the information provided in the July 7 and 8, 2005 letters. He stated that there was a complicated history on the property and he had to get together with other legal counsel for the other actions on the property to sort through it. As stated in his letter, the permit was approved in February 2004 and effective in March 2004. Mr. Chavez, the previous property owner, had encumbered the property without the knowledge of his partners. Since the property was then headed into foreclosure, Mr. Chavez had no incentive to improve the property. A company by the name of DCI had the property put into receivership in order to collect the revenue generated from the rents. In addition to Mr. Chavez's unwillingness to work with his partners, he was later unable to work with his partners due to a heart attack. The third party (receiver) also had no incentive to improve it. The property remained under receivership for several months after the new owners purchased the property. They were unable to sign on new tenants during that period or otherwise make improvements to the property. Mr. Lysons stated that a fence has already been installed and is already a deterrent to crime. In terms of other improvements, there have been landscaping plans prepared. He also stated the there has been progress made on the carports. Mr. Lysons noted that the 2004 staff report for the Land Use Permit approval stated that compliance with the conditions of approval will eliminate the problems of the property, particularly the blighted nature of the property. He stated that the Zoning Administrator can either extend the permit, which he stated the can be done. Approval will establish a definite timeline to comply with the conditions. They are willing to bond for the improvements immediately. Compliance with the conditions of approval will address the problems. The other choice for the Zoning Administrator would be denial of the project. This would send the property into turmoil. The improvements would not be put in and nothing done to improve the property to bring it back to a safe, secure and attractive place. Mr. Drake asked if the fence improvements were done with the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, as stated in the Conditions of Approval. 3 (03-19-2002 Sum) Mr. Lysons stated that the fence was not constructed with permits. He stated that the new owners saw the need for a fence as an emergency situation. Mr. Drake asked that since a building permit was not issued, if there something that the owners did that would indicate or could be argued that the permit was exercised. Mr. Lysons stated that work has been done, pursuant to the intent of the permit. Mr. Drake asked if Mr. Lysons was aware of anything in State law that would cause the period in which to exercise a permit to be suspended, due to receivership,health issues, or any other reasons. Mr. Lysons stated that there is nothing in State law that precludes the Zoning Administrator from extending the permit. Mr. Drake stated that he would like to continue this matter in order that staff can respond to material submitted. The matter is continued to August 29, 2006. He suggested that Mr. Lysons provide any information that would argue for any extensions of time beyond that provided by the County Code. County Zoning Administrator, August 29, 2005, Agenda Item#7 The item was introduced by Debi Foley, Clerk to the Zoning Administrator Robert Drake, Zoning Administrator, introduced this item, stating that this item was continued from earlier in the year in order to give the applicant an opportunity to meet with staff. He asked staff if she was presented with any valid permits that would have exercised the permits. Maureen Toms, Principal Planner, stated that the carport was partially removed; however it was done so without a demolition permit. The walls of the carport were removed, but the roof remains. She also stated that the installation of the fence was done, but it was not done with permits, nor were the fence plans reviewed or approved by the Zoning Administrators, per the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Drake asked staff if any of the improvements to the property have been done with active permits issued by the County, or otherwise under the requirements of the Land Use Permit. He also asked if staff viewed the permit as having not been exercised and is now null and void. Ms. Toms stated that the improvements to the property were not done with active permits and they were not done under the requirements of the Land Use Permit. Mr. Drake asked if staffs recommendation was for the Zoning Administrator to. determine that Land Use Permit # LP03-2107, having not been exercised nor extended, has lapsed and is no longer valid, and to revoke the permit to the extent that it could be argued that it has been exercised. Ms. Toms confirmed that was the recommendation. Sunny Jacobson, owner of the property, stated that the receiver of the property had the responsibility to request the extension of the Land Use Permit, since it was a court ordered receivership. She would not have been able to get permits until all the plans were approved. The person overseeing the property, Ben Chavez, had a heart attack and was unable to perform. 4 (03-19-2002 Sum) Mr. Lysons, representing Ms. Jacobson, stated that there was a seven month period in which the property was in receivership. During that time, Ms. Jacobson was not able to get tenants, pull any permits, or do any other improvements. He stated that the previous property owner encumbered the property with a loan, allowed the property go into foreclosure, and had a heart attack. He brought up the Mendocino Case where the applicants were precluded from exercising the permit. He compared this case to the Mendocino Case, because the owner was not able to make improvements. He stated that because she bought the property in good faith, she intends to make those improvements and comply with the permit. He stated that there are two choices; deny the permit or approve an extension of the permit. With denial, the property would then be under-maintained and under-supervised. There would be little or no incentive to keep the property up and it would not be viable property. It will take another permitting process, another owner to bring the property up to standards. He asked for a seven month extension, commensurate with the seven months the property was in receivership. This would give her a good faith chance to bring this up to community standards. She is willing to put up a bond or cash deposit to make sure the conditions of approval are met and the property brought up to community standards. Mr. Drake stated that the item before us is whether cause exists to revoke the permit. He asked staff if there was also consideration to extend the permit. Ms. Toms stated that Mr. Lysons has expressed his desire to extend the permit in the correspondence he provided. Mr. Drake stated that there is a process in which to request an extension, however there has been no formal request submitted. Mr. Lysons stated that there are special circumstances in this case and he is requesting an extension after-the-fact. Mr. Drake asked if any material was submitted that would indicate the permit was lawfully exercised. He asked what work was done after the land use permit was issued that would indicate that the permit was granted, similar to the Mendocino case. Mr. Lysons stated that landscape plans were prepared and the purchase of the property was done after the Land Use Permit was granted. The Mendocino Case found that purchase of the property was enough to show the permit was exercised. Mr. Drake asked staff if the purchase of property after the permit was issued should be considered exercising the permit. Ms. Toms stated that she reviewed the chain of title that showed the property going from Mr. Rodriguez to Mr. Chavez in 2002, and in 2004 it went back from Mr. Chavez to Mr. Rodriguez, the January 4, 2005 recording was apparently add Ms. Jacobson to title. The transfer amount was shown as $5,000. The landscape plan prepared by Ms. Bull-Ransom was done in preparation of obtaining the Land Use Pennit, not exercising the permit. Mr. Drake asked for documents that would show that the permit was exercised and that there should be a toll of the permit, consistent with Mendocino Case. 5 (03-19-2002 Sum) Mr. Lysons stated that he described in his letter that the permit should be tolled, consistent with the previous court case. He stated that he would work with the applicant to provide documentation that the permit had been exercised. Mr. Drake continued the hearing to October 10, 2006. He stated the applicant should provide evidence (i.e., a copy of a contract with an engineer or other documentation)that the permit was exercised, no later than September 12, 2005. County Zoning Administrator, October 10, 2005, Agenda Item#4 The project was introduced by Karen Piona, Clerk to the Zoning Administrator. Robert Drake, the Zoning Administrator, stated that we have had hearings on this matter a couple times in the past. After the last hearing he wanted to provide an opportunity for the applicant to provide additional documentation that the land use permit was exercised. He stated that we have received additional information and that staff has reviewed the material and is continuing to recommend revocation of the permit. Martin Lysons, representing Sunny Jacobson, stated he provided a letter with background information as requested. He stated he wanted to add information to the timeline. The timeline shows March 5, 2004, as the date of the permit. On March 11, 2004, the applicant, Ms. Bull-Ransom submitted plans to the Community Development Department. She also took the plans to the Sanitary District and had the plans stamped. On May 26, 2004, the applicant received a copy of the permit. Mr. Lysons also pointed out that a proposal from American Aggregate and Slurry, dated March 23, 2004, evidenced that the applicant was trying to do some work. He also stated he had a copy of a fax to 646-1249, dated September 11, 2004, stated attention Public Works Department. The fax was sent in response to a past- due notice for an outstanding invoice sent from Contra Costa County. The fax states; "I am notifying you of a problem with a property under an agreement you're your.department. The property is located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue in Bay Point, California. The permits are under the name of Ben Chavez and Ben has had a heart attack and has been hospitalized and will be for a while. He is the one with the idea of what is going on with your office and the property listed above. All I am aware of is that Ben has been in critical care and the property has been in receivership. So if I can have you take note of this in the file that would be appreciated, because at this point no work is going to be allowed to be done until further notice from the courts. So an extension for the work at 79 Bella Vista would be great. Please let me know. Sunny Jacobson, 925-458-8989, any notices can be sent to 3333 Willow Pass Road, Bay Point." Mr. Lysons stated that this fax was not sent to Community Development, but it shows that there was an attempt made. Mr. Lysons stated he did not have additional copies of the fax to submit at this time, but offered to provide a copy later. Mr. Lysons requested the Zoning Administrator extend the permit for seven months, commensurate with the period in which the property was in receivership. The alternative is to raze the structure after considerable work has been done on it and to have a four-unit apartment complex on the property and leaving the property as a non-viable asset. He stated that the best thing for the property and the best thing for the neighborhood would be to grant the additional time. Mr. Drake closed the public hearing. He stated the project has had a long history. Because of that history, staff and the Zoning Administrator determined it was appropriate to, in order to salvage the property, be on a short leash and to require certain improvements and procedures be completed shortly after the permit was approved. All the evidence suggests that few, if any, of those conditions were timely completed, and even though arguably the permit may have been exercised, on the balance of the 6 (03-19-2002 Sum) record is that there is non-compliance with the terms of the permit. It would not be appropriate to lead the permittee to believe that it would be still be appropriate at this late date to be able to qualify for compliance under the terms of the permit. Based on those considerations, the Zoning Administrator accepted staff recommendation and revoked the permit. He also noted that if an appeal is filed in a timely manner, it would be considered by the East County Regional Planning Commission. Ms. Piona read the appeal procedures. East County Regional Planning Commission,March 13, 2006 Maureen Toms, Principal Planner introduced the item. She recapped the staff report.* Chair McVittie opened the public hearing, calling for the applicant. Martin Lysons, representing Sunny Jacobson,provided background on the property. He stated that the Land Use Permit was issued to Ben Chavez, the property owner at the time. Unbeknownst to his partners, Mr. Chavez encumbered the property. He did not perform on the note and the holder of the note sued Mr. Chavez. The property was then placed in a receivership. During this period, there were many intervening circumstances, including Mr. Chavez' heart attack, that precluded work on the property. He was unable to perform on the conditions of approval due to his health and also due to the receivership. Ms. Jacobson made an attempt on September 11, 2004 to notify staff of the situation and asked for an extension of time. He stated that the new owner, Sunny Jacobson was precluded from improving the property due to the receivership. He referred to case law that tolls the time of the permit due to the inability of the owner to improve the property. He asked that an extension of seven months, commensurate with the period in which the property was in receivership,be granted for the permit. He stated that the new owner is willing and able to make the improvements. ** Commissioner Stevenson stated that he was looking at the timeline, and dividing it in to three distinct time areas. Noting the area between March 5, 2004 and June 3, 2004,when Mr. Chavez was the owner of the property, whether he encumbered it or not, he was given some conditions to fulfill at that time, which none of them got done. Then the period of July when Mr. Chavez had his heart attack, then the property went into receivership. Then the period when Ms. Jacobson acquired the property. She acquired the property when it was already in receivership. He asked if she was aware, when she acquired the property when it was in receivership, was she aware she would not be able to improve it. He also asked if the case law example also involved acquisition of property after it was in receivership. Mr. Lysons stated that Ms. Jacobson was aware that she would not be able to make improvements to the property and in anticipation of this, she sent a fax to the County advising them of the situation. He also stated that there was no change in ownership involved in the case law.** Commissioner Harper stated that there is a sign in the window that say the property is in receivership. Commissioner McVittie stated that he appreciated the timeline in the staff report. He noted that the majority of the conditions were to have been met before the property went into receivership and the vast majority of these were not done. So most of the issues the Commission is dealing with are issues that were to be addressed prior to receivership. Mr. Lysons stated that some of the deadlines slipped. Some work was done pursuant to the permit.** 7 (03-]9-2002 Sum) Commissioner McVittie also stated that despite the changed of ownership, most people check out deeds and other records that are available to the public. He asked if this was done. Mr. Lysons responded that this purchase was part of a larger purchase, involving several other properties that also had issues.** Chair Mr. McVittie asked about Mr. Rodriguez, who is currently on title, and if he was a former partner of Mr. Chavez. Mr. Lysons confirmed that was correct. He stated that Ms. Jacobson could provide additional information regarding this.** Sunny Jacobson responded to the question about title history. She also addressed her compliance with some of the conditions, including the carports and fencing. She stated that the carports were modified per.the Sheriff's Department.** Chair McVittie stated that the Sheriff does not make the conditions, Community Development makes the conditions. The conditions are what on the permit. Ms. Jacobson stated there is no longer crime at the site, due to the fence. She stated that she has also prepared a crime log.** Commissioner Stevenson asked Ms. Jacobson when she became involved in the property. Ms. Jacobson stated that she became involved when Mr. Chavez became ill. She stated there are six total properties involved in the transactions with Mr. Chavez. She explained how the various parties exchanged title of these various properties.** Commissioner Stevenson stated that all the work related to partial demolition of the carport and installation of the fence was completed without permits. He asked if there was a reason for that. Ms. Jacobson stated that she was new to this part of the business and wasn't aware of the permitting requirements. Commissioner Stevenson asked about maneuvering in and out of parking spaces due to the fence location. He also noted that every time he goes by the site, the gate is open. Commissioner Harper asked about the status of the property and what needs to be done on the property. He also asked if she was aware of how much it would cost to get the work done. He stated that several of the units were open and windows on the site were broken. Ms. Jacobson stated that she had all the material and plans, and all the right people to do the work. The roof needs work, sheetrock and electrical work needs to be done. Framing is done. She stated that she has the cash to finish the project.** Chair McVittie asked which of the conditions have been met. Ms. Jacobson stated that the fence was put in. She does not want to put in landscaping in at this point.** 8 (03-19-2002 Sum) Commissioner Stevenson asked about Ms. Jacobson's development experience. He also asked if Mr. Rodriguez was involved in the property. Ms. Jacobson stated that she was with Albert Seeno's first grandson for 11 years. She further clarified that this was a personal relationship. She rehabbed a house in Martinez. She stated that Mr. Rodriguez is still on title and provides most of the maintenance. Steve Hoagland, Member of the Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council, stated that this property has been a code enforcement problem for quite some time. He referred to a letter from Ms. Siegfried, MAC member. The MAC requests the permit be revoked.** Mr. Lysons stated that Mr. Chavez did not have incentive to improve the property. The Land Use Permit lapsed only a few days after the end of the receivership. He suggested that the applicant would be willing to bond for the improvements.** Maureen Toms stated that the fax referenced by the applicant was not received by the Community Development Department. No fee was received submitted for an extension. Staff also noted that a demolition permit would have been issued for the carport. She also noted that the fence was not reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, subject to the permit. Catherine Kutsuris noted that land use entitlements run with the land and are transferred with the land. Commissioner Stevenson stated that he read the report carefully. He noted that the area is turning around. There are proposals to construct new single-family housing. He felt that Ms. Jacobson did not have the experience to take on this project and he moved staff recommendations. Commissioner Day stated that he felt that the opportunity for this project has come and gone. Commissioner Harper said that he has gone by the property on two occasions and he thought there was some potential. He was in a quandary due to personnel changes. He thought that Ms. Jacobson was a novice. He stated he had mixed feelings. A contractor could come in and fix up the property. The property is in shabby condition. The carport should come down. Chair McVittie thanked Ms. Jacobson for coming forward. His decision is based on timing. There were so many times where intervention could have been done. Communication with Community Development Department would have been vital. Commissioner Stevenson moved staff recommendation and Chair McVittie seconded. Commissioner Stevenson and Chair McVittie voted yes and Commissioners Harper and Dell abstained. Catherine Kutsuris stated she believed the motion failed, but would need to clarify the status of the appeal, based on the 2-0-2 vote. *this portion of the tape is blank ** the quality of the tape of these sections is very poor and barely audible Summary prepared by Maureen'roms May 17& 18,2006 9 (03-19-2002 Sum) 95071010 95074005 95084012 RODRIGUEZ RICHARD RAMOS JOSE A& SUSANA MOLINAR JESSE LOPEZ& ROSE TRE 3333 WILLOW PASS RD 98 BELLA VISTA AVE 72 BELLA VISTA AVE BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95102015 95071002 95084020 SARABIA JOSE J &ANGELICA VILLEGAS VICTORINO DELGADO JOSEPH A& BONNIE J 3066 24TH ST 464 HANLON WAY 64 BELLA VISTA AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95102020 95071007 95084018 D W GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC SIINO ANTHONY H TRE COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH 22 GLENN ST 153 ENCINAL DR 62 BELLA VISTA AVE VALLEJO CA 94590 PITTSBURG CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95091012 95102012 95081003 VASQUEZ HECTOR& LUZMILA TRE MIJARES CONCEPCION TRE MCCARTHY KEVIN P 52 SEAVIEW DR 8984 AGATE CREEK CT 45 PENSACOLA ST BAY POINT CA 94565 ELK GROVE CA 95758 BAY POINT CA 94565 95071004 95081001 95101002 ZAPIEN MARCIAL LINARES SAM &ANGELA RODRIGUEZ RICHARD JR 99 BELLA VISTA AVE 95 PENSACOLA ST 3333 WILLOW PASS RD BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95084019 95102019 95101007 LEHMAN ROGER JR & SUSAN TRE BASSA GOOLAM HOOSENHAWA VAZQUEZ HECTOR& LUZMELA 66 BELLA VISTA AVE 83 BAYVIEW AVE 52 SEAVIEW DR BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95071008 95101001 95071001 BASSA GOOLAM HOOSEN& HAWA RODRIGUEZ RICHARD VILLEGAS DAMIAN F 2542 SARATOGA AVE 3333 WILLOW PASS RD 444 HANLON WAY CONCORD CA 94519 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95071003 95091011 95074002 WHETHAM NICCI BASSA GOOLAM H & HAWA SIEGFRIED NORMA 144 LOFTOS RD 2542 SARATOGA AVE 92 BELLA VISTA AVE BAY POINT CA 94565 CONCORD CA 94519 BAY POINT CA 94565 95091010 95092017 95082005 GONZALES SERGIO ESQUIVEL SINPO SANOR SOLANO HECTOR& LETICIA 48 BAYVIEW AVE 55 BAYVIEW AVE 94 PENSACOLA ST BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95101006 95082004 95084014 LEWELLYN DIANE JOHNSON JOHN M TRE BARRION ERLINDA S 94 BAYVIEW AVE 74 PENSACOLA ST 52 SEARS ST BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94112 95101003 95102016 95071006 BASSA GOOLAM HOOSEN& HAWA SALAZAR OSCAR A SALAZAR TOMMY R & LOUISE S 2542 SARATOGA AVE 1697 ST GERMAIN PL 91 BELLA VISTA AVE CONCORD CA 94519 CONCORD CA 94521 BAY POINT CA 94565 95101005 95074004 95082002 ALVAREZ DALE&JOSEFINA OZUNA CHRISTINA OCHOA RODOLFO CUEVAS 407 TURRIN DR 96 BELLA VISTA AVE 67 BELLA VISTA AVE PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95101004 95081005 95074001 BASSA GOOLAM HOOSEN& HAWA BOON MICHAEL &JOYCE MADDEN CURTIS K III& KAREN M 2542 SARATOGA AVE 59 BELLA VISTA AVE 74-90 BELLA VISTA AVE CONCORD CA 94519 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95082001 95071005 95101008 MALACHOWSKI M J GUADARRAMA AGUSTIN E VILLEGAS DAMIAN F PO BOX 9315 95 BELLA VISTA AVE 444 HANLON WAY BERKELEY CA 94709 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAYPOINT CA 94565 95074008 95074003 95081002 NIELSEN NORMAN K& DIANE L ZALDANA HUGO LINARES TERESITA A 2437 TICE VALLEY BLVD 94 BELLA VISTA AVE 75 PENSACOLA ST WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95081004 95082003 95102011 CURIEL ADOLFO MACDOUGALL JASON C LEIVA JOSE V 63 BELLA VISTA AVE 44 PENSACOLA ST 390 HANLON WAY BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 SUNNY JACOBSON 3333 WILLOW PASS ROAD BUILDING INSPECTION HSD/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BAY POINT, CA 94565 DELTA DIABLO SANITARY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT 2500 PITTSBURG-ANTIOCH HWY. ANTIOCH, CA 94509 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT CITY OF PITTSBURG BAY POINT M.A.C. P.O. BOX H2O 65 CIVIC AVENUE P.O. BOX 5038 CONCORD, CA 94524 PITTSBURG, CA 94565 BAY POINT, CA 94565 APN SITUS_NB SITUS_STREET_NAM SITI SITUS—ST SITU S SITUS—CI SITUS_ZIF SITUS_ZIF NAME PARCEL_i NOTIF_ST NOTIF_CI-NOTIF_ZIF NOTIF_ZIPCODE_EXT 95071010 79 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3476 Property 0 RODRIGU 3333 WILL BAY POIN' 94565 3159 95074005 98 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN94565 3460 Property 0 RAMOS J(98 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3460 95084012 72 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3460 Property O MOLINAR 72 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3460 95102015 79 BAY VIEW AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3456 Property O SARABIA.3066 24TF SAN FRAI, 94110 4130 95071002 464 HANLON WAY BAY POIN 94565 3435 Property 0 VILLEGAS 464 HANL-BAY POIN 94565 3435 95084020 64 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3460 Property O DELGADO 64 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3460 95102020 81 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3428 Property 0 D W GRAD 22 GLENN VALLEJO 94590 6337 95071007 85 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3458 Property O SIINO ANI 153 ENCIP PITTSBUF 94565 6047 95084018 62 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3460 Property 0 COMMUNI62 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3460 95091012 52 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3429 Property O VASQUEZ 52 SEAVIE BAY POIN 94565 1338 95102012 91 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3428 Property O MIJARES 18984 AGA'ELK GRO\ 95758 5615 95081003 45 PENSACOLA STREET BAY POIN' 94565 3438 Property O MCCARTF 45 PENSA BAY POIN 94565 3438 95071004 99 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3458 Property O ZAPIEN M.99 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3458 95081001 95 PENSACOLA STREET BAY POIN' 94565 3438 Property O LINARES!95 PENSA BAY POIN 94565 3438 95101002 76 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3429 Property O RODRIGU 3333 WILL BAY POIN 94565 3159 95084019 66 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3460 Property O LEHMAN F 66 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3460 95102019 83 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3428 Property O BASSA G(83 BAYVIE BAY POIN 94565 3428 95101007 96 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3429 Property O VAZQUEZ 52 SEAVIE BAY POIN 94565 1338 95071008 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 Property 0 BASSA G(2542 SAR,CONCORI 94519 1639 95101001 68 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3429 Property 0 RODRIGU 3333 WILL BAY POIN 94565 3159 95071001 444 HANLON WAY BAY POIN 94565 3435 Property 0 VILLEGAS 444 HANL-BAY POIN 94565 3435 95071003 484 HANLON WAY BAY POIN 94565 3435 Property O WHETHAA 144 LOFT(BAY POIN 94565 3408 95091011 50 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3429 Property O BASSA G(2542 SAR,CONCOR[ 94519 1639 95074002 92 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3460 Property O SIEGFRIE 92 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3460 95091010 48 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3429 Property 0 GONZALE 48 BAYVIE BAY POIN 94565 3429 95092017 55 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3428 Property O SINPO SA 55 BAYVIE BAY POIN 94565 3428 95082005 94 PENSACOLA STREET BAY POIN' 94565 3438 Property O SOLANO F 94 PENSA BAY POIN 94565 3438 95101006 94 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3429 Property 0 LEWELLYI94 BAYVIE BAY POIN' 94565 3429 95082004 74 PENSACOLA STREET BAY POIN' 94565 3438 Property O JOHNSON 74 PENSA BAY POIN 94565 3438 95084014 58 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3411 Property O BARRION 52 SEARS SAN FRAIN 94112 4028 95101003 80 BAY VIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3475 Property O BASSA G(2542 SAR,CONCORI 94519 1639 95102016 65 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3428 Property O SALAZAR 1697 ST G CONCORI 94521 3294 95071006 91 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3458 Property O SALAZAR 91 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3458 95101005 86 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3429 Property O ALVAREZ 407 TURR PLEASAN' 94523 3234 95074004 96 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3460 Property O OZUNA CI 96 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3460 95082002 67 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3458 Property O OCHOA R,67 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3458 95101004 82 BAYVIEW AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3429 Property 0 BASSA G(2542 SAR,CONCOR[ 94519 1639 95081005 59 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3457 Property O BOON MIC 59 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3457 95074001 74 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3460 Property O MADDEN 174-90 BEL BAY POIN' 94565 3460 95082001 71 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3458 Property O MALACHC PO BOX 9:BERKELE' 94709 315 95071005 95 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN 94565 3458 Property O GUADARF 95 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3458 95101008 HANLON WAY BAY POIN' 94565 Property O VILLEGAS 444 HANL-BAYPOINI 94565 3435 95074008 35 ROBERTS STREET BAY POIN' 94565 3455 Property 0 NIELSEN 12437 TICE WALNUT( 94595 2731 95074003 94 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3477 Property O ZALDANA 94 BELLA BAY POIN' 94565 3477 95081002 75 PENSACOLA STREET BAY POIN' 94565 3438 Property O LINARES-75 PENSA BAY POIN 94565 3438 95081004 63 BELLA VISTA AVENUE BAY POIN' 94565 3457 Property 0 CURIEL At 63 BELLA BAY POIN 94565 3457 95082003 44 PENSACOLA STREET BAY POIN' 94565 3438 Property O MACDOU(44 PENSA BAY POIN 94565 3438 95102011 390 HANLON WAY BAY POIN' 94565 3404 Property O LEIVA JO:390 HANL,BAY POIN 94565 3404 LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, McCOY, McMAHON & ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILLIAM GAGEN,JR. I '+ DANVILLE OFFICE .iREGORY L.MccoY 279 FRONT STREET 'PATRICK J.MCMAHON D F l ;• O P.O.BOX 218 MARK nARLE ARMSTRONG ' ,rr DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526-0218 C MICHAEL J.MARKOWIrz CHARLES A.Koss "i ;, ;;; _ TELEPHONE:(925)837-0585 �. .1IcHARD C.RAINEs '''"'' _ March 23 2006 FAx:(925)838-5985 BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL 9 OBERT M.FANuccI . ALLAN C.MOORE NAPA VALLEY OFFICE ;TEPHEN T.BUEHL THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE 4MANDA BEVINS 1030 MAIN STREET,SUITE 212 .MARTEN LYsONS ST.HELENA,CALIFORNIA 94574 .(ATHERINE S.ZELAZNY TELEPHONE:(707)963-0909 -4IUC S.QUANDT FAx:(707)963-5527 LAUREN E.DODGE ANNETTE M.KNOX Please Reply To: ANNA CLAVERIA BRAN.NAN 'SARAH S.Nuc Danville . JP COUNSEL :.INN K.COOMBS Hand-Delivered on 03/23/06 Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Community Development Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision and East County Regional Planning Commission Failure to Overturn Zoning Administrator Decision County File: LP032107 Dear Catherine: On behalf of my client, Sunny Jacobson and Sunny & Associates, I hereby appeal the Zoning Administrator decision on October 10, 2005 to revoke the above-referenced permit for non-compliance with'its conditions of approval. This letter is also an appeal of the East County Regional Planning Commission's failure to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision. The required $125.00 appeal fee is enclosed with this letter. With reference to my previous letters to staff dated July 8, August 4, and October 20, 2005, the appeal is based on the following: 1. During the majority of the time that the subject permit was valid, the property was under receivership, and the permitees were legally precluded from improving the property pursuant to the permit. Sunny & Associates should therefore be allowed an extension of time commensurate with the time that.the property was under receivership. 2. Sunny & Associates and their predecessors in interest completed substantial work pursuant to the project, considering the limited time available to them to perform the work. F:\CLMEL\37311\Appeal UT 032206.doc Catherine Kutsuris March 23, 2006 06 HHRI 23 PP-1 3. 30 Page 2 3. Allowing Sunny & Associates to complete the project is the most expedient way to improve the property to community.standards. 4. Revocation of the permit and abatement of the six-unit structure will not further the goals of the County and the community of the improving the aesthetic quality of the parcel and the neighborhood. Such revocation will only prolong .the substandard state of the property. Please let me know if you require any further information prior to the appeal hearing. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Martin E. Lysons MEL/ka cc: Sunny D. Jacobson F:\CLMEL\37311\Appeal Ltr032206.doc Agenda Item# Community,Development Contra Costa County EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2006 I. INTRODUCTION: MARY K. BULL-RANSOM (Former Applicant) and BEN CHAVEZ (Former Owner), RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AND SUNNY DAWN JACOBSON(Current Owners/Appellant), County File#LP03-2107: This is An appeal of the Zoning Administrators decision to revoke Land Use Permit # LP03-2107. LP03-2107.allowed the expansion of a legal non-conforming use within an existing 12-unit apartment complex to include a modification to the existing roof pitch, and interior renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two- story,six-unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue,Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH) (ZA: F-18) (CT: 3141.01) (Parcel#095-071-010) II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the East County Regional Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke LP032107, due to non-compliance with the required conditions of approval,and request the Building Inspection Department to begin abatement proceedings on the six-unit apartment building on the property. III. BACKGROUND: A land use permit for an extension of legal non-conforming use was approved by the County Zoning Administrator on February 23,2004 and effective on March 5,2004. The Conditions of Approval included several measures intended to be implemented in a timely manner to address blighted conditions and criminal activity present at the site. The implementation of several of the conditions were to be completed by April 4, 2004 (30 days after approval), May 4,2004(60 days after approval),and June 3,2004(90 days after approval). The timely compliance of these.conditions was the means by which the required Land Use Permit findings could be made: This item was first brought forward to the Zoning Administrator .on June. 6, 2005, to determine if cause existed to revoke the Land Use Permit. 'During the hearing,the question of whether or not the permit was ever exercised came up. The hearing was continued to July 11,2005,continued again to,August 29,2005,and.finally to October 10,2005. The County Zoning Administrator determined there-was cause to revoke the permit due to, non- compliance with the Conditions of Approval and revoked the Land Use Permit on October 10, 2005. The applicant has appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. The owner's representative provided information,about how the owner intends to comply 1 with the Conditions of Approval in a letter dated July 7,2005 and information regarding the status of the receivership, dated July 8, 2005,both of which are attached. According to the information provided,the property was in receivership from July 27,2004 to March 3,2005. During that time,they were unable to make physical improvements to the property,meet the Conditions of Approval, or otherwise exercise the Land Use Permit. On July 18, 2002, the subject property was deeded from Richard Rodriquez to his business partner Benito Chavez. The property was deeded back to Richard Rodriquez,on November 12, 2004 (during the receivership period)-and the current ownership records lists Sunni Jacobson and Richard Rodriguez as owners of the property. As a previous property owner and business partner,Mr.Rodriquez would have been aware of the.Land Use Permit issued ; in 2004. The new owners indicated they would not have purchased the property without the land use permit. However if they had done their due diligence on the property, by researching the status of the Land Use Permit, they again would have been.made aware of the Land Use Permit Conditions of approval and expiration date. Information about the Land Use Permit:is public record and available for review by anyone,including a property owner, regardless of the receivership status. In addition, the November 8, 2004 letter notifying Mr. Chavez that he was in violation of the terms,.limitations,or conditions of the permit(see Attachment 6),sent via certified mail was received and signed for on November •9, 2004 by Sunny Jacobson. Staff received no inquiries about the permit from the new owners until after they received a letter from staff,dated May 9,2005. This contact to staff was made two months after both the March 5, 2005 expiration.of the Land Use Permit and the March 3, 2005 release of the receivership, and almost six months after the new ownership of the property. The new owners claim that they have done substantial work on the property, subject to the Land Use Permit. These include the installation of a security fence and gate,preparation of landscaping and architectural plans, installation of interior improvements in the six-unit apartment building,clean-up of.carports,replacement of exterior siding,installation of a new roof and other exterior improvements. Staff acknowledges that the new owner has installed the security fence and gate;however this was done without a permit and was.not pursuant to the Conditions of Approval,which required review and approval of the fence design prior to the installation. An on-site manager was identified on June 3,2. 005;however that individual was only there temporarily. Landscaping and architectural plans were submitted as part of the initial application for the Land Use Permit. Staff does not consider the partial demolition of the carports, without a demolition permit, to be a clean-up of the property, much less compliant with the Conditions of Approval. The roof was started under a building-permit several years ago but was not finalized because the height,of the new roof exceeded the maximum allowed by code and the plans.At the time of the reroof,the zoning was multiple- family residential (M-29), which'limited the building height.to 35 ft. If the installation of siding was done,it was not done as part of the Land Use Permit,as no building permits have been issued on this property since before 2002. Although the applicant has,argued that partial compliance with the Conditions of Approval constitutes exercising of the Land Use Permit, staff has determined,that cause exists to revoke the permit due to non compliance with the conditions of approval. 'The bulk of the Conditions of Approval should have been complied with by June 3,2004,long before any of the ownership or receivership issues arose 2 and prior to Mr.Chavez's sudden illness.The site has a history of neglect-and work without permits and these conditions have continued under the current ownership. The owner indicated at the August 29,2005 Zoning Administrator hearing that revoking the permit or determining that the permit was not exercised,would remove;any incentive to improvelthe property. It should be noted that as a rental property,the site and the remaining units on the property are subject to review under the newly adopted.rental inspection ordinance. IV. TIMELINE: July 18,2002: the subject property deeded from Richard Rodriquez to Benito Chavez. February 23, 2004: Land use permit approved March 5, 2004: Land Use Permit effective. April 4,2004: (30 days after approval): COA#4 (full.time employment of a dedicated on- site manager required). This was provided June 7, 2004, but manager is no longer employed. April 4,2004: (30 days after approval): COA#10(plumbing within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings to be removed). No building permit was issued for this work. May 4,2004:(60 days after approval): COA#9: (Submit grading and paving plans)No plans have been submitted. June 3,2004: (90 days after approval) COA#6 (remove the existing carports on the site,to include the block walls around the front carports, with demolition permits). Only the walls of the carport were removed, without a demolition permit. June 3,2004: (90 days after approval): COA#7 (install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on-security, subject to review of Zoning Administrator). No plans for the fence have been submitted for review; however anew metal fence has been installed. June 3, 2004: (90 days after approval): COA#8 (install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings,with submittal of a lighting plan) No lighting plan has been submitted to date. June 3,2004: (90 days after approval): C0A#11.(reduce the height of the existing concrete faced fence along the eastern property line to a height of six ft.or less or apply for a building permit and variance to retain the fence). No building permit application has been submitted to.retain the fence at the current height nor has the applicant provided in formation about this work being done. July 27, 2004 to March 3, 2005: Receivership period September 5, 2004 (6 months after approval): COA#5 (provide a log documenting and complaints received by the site manager,county permits issued for the site and their status; police calls to the site, due every 6 months) October 26. 2004: letter from staff to previous owner and applicant November 8, 2004: another letter from staff to previous owner and applicant (however signed for by the current owner) 3 November 12: 2004: property.deeded back to Richard Rodriquez March 3, 2005: release of the receivership March.5, 2005: expiration of the Land Use Permit May 9, 2005: letter from staff to current owner June 6, 2005: First Zoning Administrator hearing to consider revocation October 10, 2005: Land Use Permit revoked by the Zoning Administrator. October 20, 2005: The applicant appeals the Zoning Administrator's decision. January 9,2005: Appeal scheduled before the East County Regional Planning Commission V. CONCLUSION: The Zoning Administrator determined that cause did exist to revoke Land Use Permit #LP032107 and did so on October 10, 2005. -'In making this decision, the Zoning Administrator.noted.the strict timing for conditions of approval that were imposed on the permit to address previous problems at the site. The land use permit and timely compliance with the, conditions of approval;was the opportunity for the owner to demonstrate that property would not continue to be a..nuisance.in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the East County Regional Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the land use permit and request the Building Inspection Department .to begin abatement proceedings on the six-unit apartment building on the property. Mcurrent planning\LURLP032107 bella vista.ievocation3-mt.doc Attachment 1 —Appeal Letter; October 20, 2005 Attachment 2 - Site plan/Photos Attachment 3 —Staff Report, January 26, 2004 Attachment 4—Staff Report, February 23, 2004 Attachment 5 - Land Use Permit Attachment 6 -Non.Compliance Notification Letters Attachment 7- Staff Report, June 6, 2005 Attachment 8 - Proposed Timetable for Completion of Conditions of Approval, July 7, 2005 Attachment 9—Record of History, July 8, 2005 . Attachment 10 - Letter, August 4, 2005 Attachment 11 — Staff Report, August 29, 2005 Attachment 12 - Letter, September 19, 2005 Attachment 13 — Staff Report, October 10, 2005 Attachment 14-Grant Deeds/Parcel Information LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, McCOY, McMAHON & ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILLIAM GAGEN,JR. DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L.McCoy 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J.MCMAHON P.O.BOX 218 MARK L.ARMSTRONG CHARLES A.Koss DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526-02I8 MICHAEL J.MARKOWrTZ . TELEPHONE:(925)837-0585 RICHARD C.RAMPS - October 2U, 2005 FAX:(925)838-5985 BARBARA DuvAL JEWELL ROBERT M.FANUCCI ALLAN C.MOORE NAPA VALLEY OFFICE STEPHEN T.BUEHL THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE AMANDA BEVtNs 1030 MAIN STREET,SUITE 212 MARTIN LYsoNs ST.HELENA,CALIFORNIA 94574 KATHERINE S.ZELAZNY TELEPHONE:(707)963-0909 ERIC S.QUANDT ' FAX:(707)963-5527 LAUREN E.DODGE ANNET-rE M.KNOX ANNA CLAVERIA BRANNAN Please Reply To:. SARAH S.NIX Danville IF COUNSEL LINN K.COOMBS .. . I. Hand-Delivered on 10/20/05 Catherine Kutsuris Deputy Community Development Director ra .Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,North Wing, 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 ' - Re: Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision County File: LP032107 Dear Catherine: On behalf of my client, Sunny Jacobson and Sunny & Associates, this letter is to appeal the zoning administrator decision on October 10, 2005 to revoke the above-referenced permit for non-compliance with its conditions of approval. The required $125.00 appeal fee..is enclosed with this letter. The appeal is based on the following: . 1. The owners of the parcel were legally precluded from improving the property pursuant to the permit. LP032107 ("the Permit") was approved to allow the continued legal, nori- conforming use•of.six apartment units on the property that were damaged by fire in 1999. At that time, the property was owned by The Chavez Group, and Ben Chavez was the managing shareholder in the company and made the day-to-day decisions regarding the company's land holdings. The Permit was.issued on January 26,:2004, allowing Mr. Chavez and his partner to reconstruct the six-unit building under specified conditions of approval. F:\CLMEL\37311\Appeal Ltr 101905.doc Catherine Kutsuris , October 20, 2005 Page 2 As detailed in my letter to Maureen Toms dated July 8, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit A,1 Mr. Chavez subsequently encumbered the property with a Promissory Note. When Mr. Chavez failed to make the requisite payments on the note, the property was placed into a court-ordered receivership. The court-appointed receiver was:given full management capacity over the subject property, including collection of rents, daily maintenance, and all other functions of ordinary property owners and managers, except that the receiver was not allowed to make any capital improvements to the property without prior court approval. The receiver was therefore legally precluded from 'improving the property pursuant to the conditions of approval. The terms of the receivership also precluded the Chavez Group from improving the property or from entering into an agreement with the receiver to improve the property on their behalf. The property was in receivership under these terms from August 10, 2004 to March 3, 2005. No progress could have been made pursuant to the Permit conditions during this period. During the period that the property was in receivership, it was also in foreclosure. Sunny & Associates purchased the property in foreclosure in November, 2004. Despite the change of ownership, the property remained in.receivership until March 3, 2005, and Sunny Jacobson and her associates were also legally precluded from improving.the property until that date. To complicate matters further, Mr. Chavez suffered a' serious heart attack in the summer of 2004 and was unavailable to Sunny Jacobson. or to the County to pass along information pertinent to the Permit. He remains unavailable and unwilling.to help with the process to this day. On May 9, 2005, Ms. Jacobson received a letter from Planner Maureen. O'Shea stating that the land use permit had expired on May 5, 2005 and was subject to revocation for non-compliance with the conditions'of approval. In all, Sunny & Associates.had two . months to meet.the conditions of approval from the time of the termination :of the receivership and the expiration of the permit. This was simply not enough time.to bring the property into compliance. We ask .that the Commission approve a seven-month extension, commensurate with the time that'the property was in receivership. Allowing . this additional time will meet the intent of the original approval of the Permit, which was to allow the Permit applicant one year to comply with the conditions of approval. 2. Substantial work has been completed pursuant to the project considering the limited time available to perform the work. In spite of the limited opportunity to improve the property, substantial work has been done on site to constitute exercise of the permit, including installation of a security fence and gate, preparation and submittal of landscaping and architectural plans, installation of interior improvements in the six-unit apartment building, clean-up of 1 Exhibits to this letter are a part of the record and not included here. FACLMEL\37311 Wppea.1 Ltr 101905.doc Catherine Kutsuris October 20, 2005 Page 3 carports, replacement of exterior siding, installation of a new roof and other exterior improvements. Recent California cases have held that the actions. of the applicant demonstrating good faith intent to commence upon the proposed use, including purchasing the property (which Sunny & Associates did in November, 2004), hiring engineers and architects for the performance of preconstruction work (done by the Chavez Group in early 2004), arranging for the removal of structures (begun by Sunny & Associates prior to the Permit's expiration date), and submitting plans to the County for plan check review (submitted by The Chavez Group's architect in March, 2004). As discussed in further detail in my letter to Robert Drake dated August 4, 2005, attached hereto as Exhibit B, I believe that Sunny & Associates and their predecessors in interest have exercised land use permit number LP032017 based on the work completed to date and the time and expense incurred in completing the work pursuant to the Permit's. conditions of approval. Sunny & Associates should therefore be allowed to. complete the project and improve the property. 3. Allowing Ms. Jacobson and Associates to complete the project is the most expedient way to improve the property.to Community standards. Sunny & Associates has a vested interest in improving this property and turning it into an asset, both to the company and to the neighborhood. Issuance of the Permit was an essential first step in revitalizing the property. Unfortunately, mitigating circumstances prevented the completion of improvements to comply with the Permit's conditions of approval. Allowing Sunny & Associates to complete the project as permitted is therefore necessary to establish a definitive timeline for the improvement of the property. Revocation of the permit at this late date only delays the improvement of this property, and consequently, the neighborhood, indefinitely. The new management of the property is willing and able to post bonds and do whatever is necessary to assure that the required improvements are constructed on the property in the shortest,amount of time practicable. Sunny & Associates did not create the problems on this property, and could not have done anything to solve them while the property was in receivership. As the receivership has now terminated, the new management is prepared to improve this property to community standards in a very short time. I ask that the Commission allow them the opportunity to do so. F:ICLMEL\37311 Wppeal Ltr 101905.doc Catherine Kutsuris October 20, 2005 Page 4. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong A Professional Corporation 71 Martin E. Lysons MEL/ka Enclosures cc: Maureen Toms Bob Drake Sunny D. Jacobson F:\CLMEL\37311\Appeal Ltr 101905.doc Attachment 2 Site plan/Photos .� RON% �► ` ,;•ire. �`��! "..��� ,. � �!a ,� gigg SIs ��*!r rr rrrrrrr�� ,b,. � ••�: `, eft ;��'l'',��i1� a�i����Z. ttrr/►r,�l arm .ra s � ����„ z J+ , �-. : , .';i 1j4�i►mmmr� rat „�� !.� �ar -� I/����� +"�► �►ym�ymmt� err rte'RA i0 tr♦ �`+��r�/��r� ru�itr��' mr� � tmt. . rrrt:�.�._,,,, ,,. ♦� �. :/�r/r/��ri�r r r/��mm ►. am . rra rmr r � ..,� ;. r��rri�rrxrus art► mem , .gym rr�► . ` :� .� .. �1►rrrmmmmm� � � ��� rrrrme�.�. .. • � No I Sam 4F; :;:;��rri f� �'N /a r��1. � � ��ma�I r�► �� �i�� ...., � ?f►�� !!;ri rrt 1�.•=� � .rrmr�'�► atm` arrrNiiiiiir�r�ll�i/r /11/!t ��♦ �y "'r ���'1�► �.� :�; . .,., _ t t �+rte r►�%�:;�`* � �►`�11� .� �j� a1 ,s r�tl "o Cry •,,,, f. r- aJ. YD�ln d* � �.ao a — M _m � mQr• �� , a nNO 1—b �,m o v r- p o.z r s m dt „� n vm v m C m p z o 6`a _ p ro 4,.� t A CD m,7m co u t y Q su m D m to c:m m V �. H AN LON-wee WAY � 4,c'6_ - D V i'. 5. 5. 5a 11�y/u f't u lam/ -71 —,O C � ._ROBERT ST.— — °1. a ,�. �� , w tea . v xr D 1 1= 0 -�` — MONTECELLO ST. r— ` 44 m4 94 sus r' "wi <. .. as s• rl• r. s °�7° w ti '�'�q q q cn i'=lao' D `.! cc y 4cw INGLEWOOD ST. 61�. 41 3 ,I 0.00 ,W �9 ■ a rww�w�w+w� raw _.+....._ ........ .....�.... w....••••i ..r.�.•ww+w � 'w'w�rww�Il■.wr�w'�� � w�w�wi.'w�'� �.+.i..r ;.�w�wr www�.�ww.wi■ rw.�, �.. wr.•��ww ww. urn FOR ice! i N ----. wwr•r�; www w�w {�,.,�,• . �'�� ..wi� �www. w.ruw�. � +wwiwi I as ° y r 1 I 1 u � I -Y I ' , I �a '�� ■ T � O � j • , • I� , � .I'I I i q p _ J N N o � m - Fiji n j;_ r I j >f Vi gioo j �, I �► . — � I Y • I I GI I I f - I > DP033o10 3 D.FCS?!. r III: FEB 2 4 21183 �, E .' \ CONMA C75 Y COMMUNITY OEv_LJPMENT L__—_—_ V Won , • m o � < Legalize Change In Roof Pitch u a-Ch— e-3 cm=LTA m ' - 79 Bella Vista Avenue SMWd-P4 Rd. a"PWA G Ams Bay Point,California 94565 I@,,.,,,,,, - ; I 9 �:=4 ,4 Www £�.�; z ,•�sl f ��.�,�Sh I WV P `�aft°. s I k R8 hr 111. IA f r I r § t � F s 'k r •:.}t'� yn'F , q$F �7—..,1-! ', .`l,`23Gs1{ {�'ys �u / 4t{ ��L ..1,� 4i�, y2-�Y�_ l y Y. t{�^��✓� � it Yz �•�l k >-1�� AI-I 1 M -, Ff a> 33JJ�� c 1 � A ° 4R, !E' 3 b ei )' st , fir: 44 All 414f� t)�r��P�..�,tt t� r1�j'UI ' hn-•�Jiu�,u.�:=�-'� _.. o7rv^�",-'-�' " ', vpKi Wk Proc Y+Y''t�_Ue j y �77 - ' ryT..=ate � �•.:... . :;. ;�, u' � �acr, ;' .•err.^:.: I 'i$::. ::i'�'u�li'. .:SII �,. ,� .:;r •1� � �;.:•�:;;- -j�i�(� i'It�_ yyqa .I:.i i•i�:9�='. {. �V• I3 's a "F' ..�-Via:.:+, sr• ..e :.• ELI 'TW F�ry " � W:,�•;rv' .t�'F'.-ter E •�S.' Z S`i' .;e 1. I 1,�... ':t Ri, 1 k� •, S. :�i�lsif I� 'l 1 yye�t 1> k ` r. s Photos taken by Roy Roos, Building Inspection Dept. 6/2/05 —.79 Bella Vista, Bay Point pp , 11 1 i 4 r 1 �I�t1l UP�fH u Will po. � .�. ' rr •a :. , � �, �k ,'pt ' i .:x r^"§� ' �� ��i�n S its y� �y � ,tea-`r.�„y �` .: ,y ti �1 •ti. �t�; .a a � � ', ��1, �.JF}tr r I� .►�3+ 'S r ti'.'" '* "�i. �i fit � �. t. �+�,.-,. r- n I. Lin �ISI f • ,,' \y �r�,+Jlrin� 4: rix t3� � � � �, i ¢��,yI{{�� yy,� � r '��� "T.� z•tr$' b � G��Xr !' � 1r r t+i � <; r t 71� 4�� � �(I+aJf� � ��' �,�y �a'�ti�k`g4.,.`'4S�Y'a -w.,.rt �'�. a..� �• __....,,.rir �.���.J�� r l�� '.I:. 1 b k � �xY��! ���,��,�'• �jY ` '.',v�i s,a5, � F� 1��� �,++]�Jy�Ir�rj ri:41 �fi' �'t-.� t �3 al(I��d Cyte. r'u^ Mak 'y. olh r• i � �x r �� «t a. II`t�. r I,flr�'' },"�ws r. ` L f v ?,y� � •��� �r t.,.' �r�r,, t1 .fit i dl � � ^'��.��;; �t�t's� II k "'Y.� ��..,a':.•::..ir"..:&.�'::� .:.^''T�R&.'•;,�::>."-� '� .`:�r'. ?,;.dc' t:.�:ie•ti�:':`:...�'i:����1('i�"a.,:,: .::.so�::.k:' 's'Y'i'Rk{I`.m •s, Me :It'�'� ^.�&'.' �-••-...d:Y:u 7•"F ' ..ILr. �<ba:e i.!i:: �1 i:.+�v:„ ,�r� .fY:�y �Le��• E�:,'�a<..e+::9',t•......:. :7�'.,:i'.'�".�:.. !�F 3,_�:r� '3a,�,.`s.. .;-5 ...•e yta;Ir�ars . '' .' ;:;':..."�: s ,:.a'-�: �'ti:5g :z;::�,•^::i�3r!!'�c;:i',���1�s �'3,.. ,.y.. ,y,�:;is'It:r�r �::., Z—' ' 4..,{t,Y kin. :.G;ki Y ;z,•.�i`�' �iAyf... •�,;, a s<� '�'� r+=�a••s� � . •r. s a-�.>.•nr.,�:r.:.:`",.ur.,-. ..:.-K��'��""�tl�%��,�;�,�:..?�� •r' _ :!iu• 1�:y�?.:3:,��k:;�::�,,:'��'6v• ry?:tIN0.' ':�a 7• Lam'+».. :�:.Fs:9t'4`.3%if�'r '�: �, �.:'S�.f�� 1'."x',��7_+ t ''T� ,g !. �rpyr.,� __ l,i•X7. "! ...`d'^swF.l-I�.i'"�:''f r�i .1?aa.�, �:6 � } •5'`��t�� � ,fir r'„4 �'3ti A&.rff,'.''w,:l., i;"r�iY is '�T =P ,,"S�-ry ,.':I ;4�in;�....'r.` �:: .e• `� i�'4FY •'�:. .�7�(F-qrr r �''h 1 •.s �w'� d =� 'v,'aai d:'Kr�`(I:5'`� If^:�'•.� �»="�.;�q�x..,r.� .: :', .iii'. 1 ,P. I rr:vi 1 rr�: t 7" 15: ;.:.` Ssvlit'T.f'�.""..f.,,4• YAIi? : wq Vi1t.xi y. ';i � ���.,1-. �` :�"'9j�.r7 �"C,•k 5 ;.r�.p :1 k ''.' ..,�It _ '€ ..•gyp 3£ZI s.r' -?Rti .` ., S lI. r �f ; ti � t. ..r. �% �i� �.fi d, .� �j y !�%I„+ ���1'rf: �,. r; •r `.. t` i4•+ !t. Ms�z�.ssi' ��r;: a.�d'.� �'I� i��: •'c:.: i�5.. .t ,;.�, iy r•, • � ., u � ~:< � ';� ��:�:' cif:.: ; �:: ��,�. x itis Mi. .y: �:w•. tik�7:'�yrrrr,.,,:.ri:Feka;:�:-V-..: � ... ���.�.�rr'.,p..:�+ "�`�y+:: :+,�F�” �q r �,.�. .,.. .v.•^u':, alit: �„.. :, bra.:-,.gig..:ra:;..�,;::;f^!- .. �,... .,��•< rr,�;ys, �i I' �y:s:..:5��;.:: '�f• i4 S t[[ryry���,,ff ,��- '•�.'. !: k .�)41. virr„ V=" f::Lt?CyT:ri�: § .'1:.n. _ �^�'i:�$I?..ii!:.I::.J ''m� 1 -�} 4� '•f I" tib, ,,AM •i Photos taken by Roy Roos, Building Inspection Dept. 6/22/05 — 79 Bella Vista, Bay Point Attachment 3 Staff Report, January 26, 2004 Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004 I. INTRODUCTION MARY K. BULL- RANSOM (Applicant), BEN CHAVEZ. (Owner), County File numbers #LP 032107 and DP 033010: This is a combination land-use permit and development plan to expand a legal non-conforming use by.repairing a six-unit multi-family residential building, including the conversion of a flat roof to a pitched roof and interior renovations within a 12 unit apartment complex located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH) (ZA: F-18) (CT: 3141.01) (Parcel # 095-071-010) H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of this application,based inability to make required land use permit findings. III. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. General Plan: The subject property is.designated Single-Family High Density(SH) in the Contra Costa County General Plan. B. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Planned-Unit.District(P-1). C. CEQA Status: The proposed project is exempt ftom CEQA per Section 15301, Class 1 (a)• D. Regulatory Programs: 1. Flood Hazard Zone: ,The subject site is located within Flood Zone "C", and is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. (Source: Figure 10-8, Flood Hazard Areas, of the Contra Costa County General.Plan and Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel # 060025 0120B, dated July 16, 1987). 2. Active Fault Zone: The subject site is not located within an active earthquake fault zone.- (Source: Figure 10-2, Mapped Earthquake Faults, of the Contra Costa County General Plan'). 3. Noise Hazards: According to the Noise Element of the General Plan, the site is not within an area experiencing levels of 60 dB or greater. (Source: Figure 11-5D, noise contours, of the Contra Costa County General Plan). E. Previous Applications and Files: 1. Land Use File # 16-65): Land Use approval for a "multiple group.development" (approved on February 15., 1965). The zoning at the time of approval was Multi- Family Residential District(M-R-A). 2. Land Use File#157-69: Approval of a variance to allow one-foot side yard setbacks for covered parking area (approved,on July 21-1969). 3. RF940177: Code enforcement file regarding shed being built without permits and exceeding.required maximum size requirements. Issued February 23, 1994;closed March 3, 1994. 4. RF940084: Code enforcement file regarding substandard living conditions. Issued March 4, 1994, closed January 23, 1995. 5. RF950671: Code enforcement file, no history available. Issued November 14, 1995, closed November 30, 1995. 6. RF960509: Code enforcement file, no history available. Issued October 30, 1996, closed October 31, 1996. 7. RF960551: Code enforcement file regarding sanitation issues regarding garbage being piled up between fences by tenants. Issued November 14, 1996, closed March 3, 1997.. 8.- RF980030: Code enforcement file regarding construction without permits and - substandard living conditions. Issued January 21,,1998, closed November 5, 1998. 9. RF000538: Code enforcement file regarding tenant complaints of heater not working and mold in bathroom. Issued June 26, 2000, closed August 28, 2000. IV. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 21,148 sq. ft. (.49 acre) rectangular shaped parcel, located on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue between Hanlon Way and Pensacola Street in Bay Point. Existing structures on the property include; a two-story, six-unit (793 sq. ft. per unit) apartment building, two-story, four-unit(697 sq. ft. per unit) apartment building and a single-story two-unit(693 sq. ft. per unit) apartment building, for a total of 12 units on the site. Additional improvements on the site include three covered parking areas (four parking 2 spaces for each) and nine additional exterior parking spaces, for a total of 21 parking spaces. The site includes no visible landscaping and the interior paved areas within the site are in need of patching and resurfacing. -Fencing on the property includes; 6 ft. high chain link fencing along the southern property line, wood fencing along the northern property line and a concrete wall along the rear property line. Access to the,site is from Bella Vista Avenue and includes a 20ft. wide driveway with a 23 ft. wide curb cut. The front covered parking structures on each side of the driveway are setback 23 ft. from the sidewalk along Bella Vista Avenue. The parking area includes an open ditch that runs parallel to the north fence line. V. AREA DESCRIPTION The site is located on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue between Hanlon Way and Pensacola Street in Bay Point. The primary land use of the area is single-family residential, with lot sizes ranging from 4,320 sq. ft. (.09 acre) to 23,086 sq. ft. (.53 acre), with the majority containing less than 7,000 sq. ft. (.15 acre). The majority of houses in the area are one-story, single-family residences. The area is fairly flat and most of the parcels contain numerous trees and shrubs. VI. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposed project involves the conversion of a flat roof to a pitched roof and interior renovations to the existing two-story(six-unit) non-conforming apartment building to repair damage in the fire. The roof conversion has already been started along with a portion of the interior remodeling. The initial construction was done without approval of a building permit and the remaining renovation is on hold pending approval of this application. The units are currently unoccupied. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS: A. Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council (MAC)/Project Area Committee (PACT: The application was discussed at the joint MAC and PAC meeting on Wednesday, May 14, 2001 The application was recommended for approval subject to substantial site improvements including removal of the existing front block wall along the carports and replacing it with wrought iron metal fencing, landscaping, improved drainage, and increased security measures to include lighting and new front entry gate. B. Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency: The application was reviewed by Redevelopment Agency Staff. The subject site has been the source of neighborhood blight and nuisance. Staff recommends denial. C. Central Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Comments from the Fire District were received on July 15, 2003 indicating no comments on the application. ,3 D. Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department: Comments were received from the Building Inspection Department on March 13, 2003. A copy of their comments is included as an attachment to the staff report. E. Contra Costa County Sheriff s Office—Administrative and Commercial Services Section: Comments received from the Contra Costa County Sheriff s Office on . December 15, 2003 included a crime analysis report on the site from January 1, 2000 through December 10, 2003. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS On October 29, 2003, a letter was received from Norma Seigfried expressing concerns that the current property use is detrimental to the health and safety of the neighborhood. The letter referenced a history of drugs, loud noise and violence on the property. IX. STAFF DISCUSSION: This project is located within the Bay Point P-1 District and a development plan is required. Specific criteria regarding compliance with this requirement is addressed in the findings and conditions of approval section. A. Appropriateness of use: This is a request to expand a legal-non-conforming use through the issuance of a building permit to repair roof and interior damage caused by a fire at the site on August 30, 1999. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single-story, single-family residential homes on small lots (less than .15 acre). The current use of the site, as a multi-family apartment complex has a density of 24 units per acre, which is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of Single- Family(5-7.2 units per acre authorized) and P-1 Zoning designation of the area. The existing use was originally approved in 1965 as a multiple group development (file# 16-65), which was an authorized use based on the Multi-Family Residential (M-R-A) designation in place at that time. ; The current use has resulted in continuing negative impacts to.the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and has been a source of blight in the neighborhood and code/law enforcement problems. In addition, the increased level of noise and traffic associated with this.use is incompatible with the single-family residential use and nature of the area. B. Zoning Compliance: 1. Land Use Approval: The project site is located within the Bay Point Planned- Unit (P-1) Zoning District. The original land use approval for this site was based on compliance with Multi-Family Residential zoning requirements in place at the time of approval,which allowed multi-family development in the area. As identified in the current Bay Point Land Use Matrix, construction of a 4 , multi-family apartment complex is not a currently authorized land use. 2. Building Setbacks: The site includes three residential structures with building setbacks of 15 ft rear yard, 5 ft. minimum and 21 ft aggregate side yard and 60 ft -.7 inch front yard. -These setbacks meet P-1 development standards. The two front carports are located one (1) ft. from the side property lines and do no meet the minimum three (3)-ft. side yard setback standards. However, a side yard variance for the carports was approved in 1969. 3. Compatibility with Design Guidelines: The existing residential units on the site are inconsistent with Bay Point P-1 Program Design guidelines, which require consistency in respect to the appearance, scale and size of other building in the area, avoidance of noise, light and visual conflicts and orientation of buildings to provide a street.presence and interaction. The exterior appearance of the structures on the site is inconsistent with other structures in the neighborhood due to neglect and lack of proper preventative maintenance. The height and shape of the buildings are inconsistent and out of scale with other units in the area, which includes small one-story buildings with varied rooflines. All of the buildings are sited in the rear of the site, which prevents any interaction with the street front, and hinders visual access onto the site for security purposes. The lack of adequate lighting and security is also inconsistent with the design guidelines and public safety requirements. 3. Parkin: Based on the criteria listed in section 84-26.12 (a) of the Contra Costa County Code and the Bay Point Development Standards, 2.25 parking spaces are required for each unit on the site. The project site includes 12 units, for a total of 27 required parking spaces. 24 of these spaces are required to be off- street, while the other three spaces may include curb parking along the subject property's street frontage. Currently the site provides a total of 21 off-street and three on-street parking spaces. Sufficient space is not available on the site to . allow compliance with County parking requirements. The entire parking area is in-disrepair and needs to be repaved. 4. Landscaping: Currently the project site contains no landscaping, which results in an extremely negative visual appearance from the street, and is inconsistent with the design guidelines and the character of the neighborhood. As part of this application, the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that has been reviewed by staff and found to be consistent with design guideline requirements and the character of the neighborhood. C. Site Security and Safety: The he site has an ongoing history of code enforcement violations and criminal activity. These types of activities are directly related to a lack of adequate on-site security measures and property management and 5 substandard maintenance and repair of buildings within the facility resulting in substandard housing units. The site contains no interior security measures or exterior lighting that would disrupt or discourage the ongoing criminal activities on the site. There does not appear to be any active supervision or monitoring of on-site activities and the.existing walls of the front parking structures and layout of the site hinder any views inside the site that would provide visual evidence of potential problems from the street. Any approval of this application would require substantial security and management improvements..... The site includes an. open ditch along the north fence line, which represents a potential hazard to vehicles accessing the site. This area is not blocked off and the lack of lighting makes it impossible to see at night. Although the MAC and PAC recommended approval subject to significant site improvements to deal with safety and security issues, the applicant has not demonstrated a willingness to comply with these requirements. D. LUP Findings: Based on a review of.all available information, staff has determined the application does not comply with all of the required standards necessary for land use permit approval. X. CONCLUSION Staff recommends denial of this request to expand this non-conforming use due to an inability to make the.required findings. Without approval for the requested renovation the building is inhabitable, and it should be.abated. 6 ,. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (COA) FOR LAND USE PERMIT #LP 032107 A. Land Use Permit Findings: Approval of any land use permit application requires specific findings demonstrating compliance with all of the required findings of Section 26-2.2008 of the Contra Costa County Code. Failure to do so shall result in a denial. L Required Findin: The proposed land use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. [26-2.2008(1)] Finding: The project site has a long history of violence and illegal activities that include murder, prostitution, drugs, violence and numerous other criminal activities. A crime -analysis report by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office documented 27 incidences of criminal activity on the site from January 1, 2000 through December 10, 2003. These types of activities present an on-going danger to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community. In many cases these activities were precipitated by the lack of adequate security on.the site, poor supervision and substandard maintenance. No record has been found of any actions taken by the property owner to reduce'the occurrence of these types of activities on the site.' 2. Required Findin: The proposed use will not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. [26-2.2008 (31)] Findin : The ongoing history of violence and criminal activities on the site, visual blight resulting from lack of landscaping and poor maintenance and repair of structures on the site, as well as the excessive amount of noise and traffic generated by this use are inconsistent with the SH General Plan designation of the area. These types of activities also provide an atmosphere that is not conducive to single-family residential development, and has a negative impact on future development in the area. 3. Required Findin: The proposed land use will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of tax base within the county. [26-2.2008 (3)] Findin : The project site is a significant source of neighborhood blight, which results in negative impacts on property values and potential development within the neighborhood. 4. Required Finding: The proposed use shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. [26-2.2008 (4)] Finding: A multi-family residential apartment complex is inconsistent with the SH General Plan designation of the area. The ongoing negative impacts and added density resulting from this use have-an adverse affect on the policy and.goals of the general plan and residential nature of the neighborhood. The general plan calls for densities ranging 1 from 5.0—7.2 units per acre, while this use is four times dense at 24 units per acre. . 5. Required Finding: The proposed use will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. [26-2.200.8,(5)] Finding: The project site has a long history of code enforcement violations, criminal activity and problems with building and site maintenance, which has resulted in a continuous nuisance problem within.the neighborhood. 6. Required Findings: The proposed use will not encourage marginal development... issues within the neighborhood. Approval of this application will have no impact on development within the neighborhood. [26-2.2008 (6)] Finding: This high-density multi-family residential use of the site is inconsistent with the lower density single-family residential use within themsurrounding neighborhood. 7. Required Findings: That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. [26-2.2008(7)] Finding: There are no established special conditions or unique characteristics of the property and its location or surroundings established. While the initial land use approval was granted in 1965 for a multiple-group development, the approval was based on the land use regulations in place at the.time of approval and do not reflect current land use regulations or requirements. This application is not in compliance with the requirements of this section. B. Development Plan Findings: Approval of any development plan application requires specific findings demonstrating compliance with all of the required findings of Section 84,-66.1406.of the Contra Costa County Code. 1. Required Finding: The applicant in to start construction within two and one- half years from the effective date of zoning change and approval. [84-66-1406 (1)] Finding: Theapplicant has expressed a desire to submit building plans,for the interior renovation as soon as approval for this application is granted. 2. Required Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the County General Plan. [84-66-1406 (2)] Finding: The current SH General Plan.designation for this area allows between 5.0 and 7.2 units per net acre, which would allow a maximum of total of four(4)units per acre on the site. The site has a current density of 24 units per acre. 2 Primary land uses permitted in this designation include detached single-family homes, accessory structures, with secondary uses such as attached single-family-units (duplexes or duets). Multi-family residential units are not authorized in the designation. In addition the site does not meet the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces required for the use. 3. Required FindinP: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability,'and will be in harmony with the character of the-surrounding neighborhood and community. [84-66-1406 (3)] Finding: The project site has a history of code enforcement violations and violent criminal activities that represent an on-going concern to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The existing exterior lighting on the site is insufficient provide adequate onsite security and an open ditch along the north fence line represents an additional safety hazard to vehicles accessing the site. In addition, inadequate maintenance and repair and poor supervision of the site has resulted in substandard living conditions and a visual appearance inconsistent with the design guidelines and the residential nature of the neighborhood. The existing dwelling units are situated in the rear of the site, which provides limited views and interaction with Bella Vista Avenue and the rest of.the neighborhood. The sides.of the front parking structures block any potential interior view from the street, which hinders the ability of the police or others in the area to monitor suspicious activity on the site. Comments received by the Bay Point MAC/PAC indicate that security and visibility on the site is a high priority,with a recommendation that the existing wall be removed and replaced with wrought iron metal fencing-and adequate security lighting is installed. The density of this development is in excess of levels authorized for the General Plan and Zoning designations,of the area and has resulted in traffic and noise levels above those normally associated with single-family residential areas. The number of existing off-street parking spaces on the site is below the minimum County Code requirements, which impacts traffic and the availability of off-street parking in the area. This project does not.constitute astable or desirable residential environment and is not in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. C. Findings for Growth Management Element Performance Standards 1. Traffic- As proposed, the project is not expected to generate less than a 100 peak hour trips per day; thus, a traffic study will not be required per Measure C-1998. No additional living units are proposed as.part of this application. 2. Water- The site lies within the California Cities Water District's service District and is currently served by the district. 3 3. Sanitary Sewer-The site lies within the Delta Diablo Sanitary District's.service area and is currently served by the district. 4. Fire Protection- The site is within the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. The closest fire station is located approximately 1.07 miles to the northwest, on Willow Pass Road. 5. Public Protection- The project will continue to require an increased-demand for police service facilities. 6. Parks and Recreation- The project will not increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities as no additional residential units are being proposed. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: The applicant will be required to collect and.convey ,runoff into facilities with adequate capacity. 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor :. . :J4 Martinez, CA 94553 r� MO.- Telephone: 335-1290 , Fax: 335-1299 FILE LP032107—Expansion of non-conforming use APN #095-071-010 300 feet Property List APN Numbers: 095-071-001 095-674-002 095-081-001 095-082-001 -002 -003 -002 -002 -003 -004 -003 -003 -004 -008 . -004 -004 -005 -009 -005 -005 -006 :ac,� -012 -007 -013 -008 -010 095-084-014 095-101-001• 095102-015 -015 -002 -016 -018 -003 -019 -019 . -004 -020 -020 -005 -006 -007 �- Lf• C cru HIM ,: 11111_ .. `: /�,,� ■■ I��II Ir 1l _. V�1 ■�I �u 1 'Ell 1111 AM �• f ' q ���h',1■IGS n ■■� �'„�ii -�•It■11111111i111� �„ ,: �'�Jif CJI■■111111111111 ��� � � 7I l•�ll■1111111111111 : P�� i-AA lll■�1111111�111� M7 J1111W`�11111111111 � �Irr- 1 on .. 1111►r mom l�► ������ I��� X11 n - '-� � �1■ini■� � - . �!: III V ��� m ��!■■■■�� �: is ■■■■ am SV■\7■■■■t-� , ,. ,T"3 {t�G� .. 111■■111 �� 1111l�IIIIB � ��L 6".i„ ���L� -/H■■■■■\ �`Ir!!i►l�■1.' Li �- �/� • ,x`:711'■■■� s,. �i ���■Inl:--' lin�� .Iry . Wkypm mm �: � .x%�������� •��-�•��, \G�,���� Vin.X11„ FWAMMAIM rt sm IPA mom a • • . ��Vy ���`�•� �'�, � jy�i���linin . II�j. 11► ♦dip■ � - : • �• 1 it �•I�� ' 1111■�� HIM I � �n 1111111\�I•� /�11 ����� X11 ����I ���■ p7�I�I 0� '`�;I�� �i►�1i►�)♦'��� X111111111111111 � ' r - • �J 45 m y c� rnm pm 7] A rpmo a ' .• 9 77_�m _ n v .. �� 1 m v'.. N w .w .:J om 70 a to 1 t =I''?-� r tYd•957P6^I �n cn m D.p� 'q D _ LJla 0�D' �2 ow a + VZ 9: Sc 5w ne. m to C:m _ m m �tf9 qr4 •wa.. ,w, n-V mo °i .�. FlANLON^ WAY yfT4 r w „ 44G5 4f3� G-' rn oal N5, / u�- ROBERT ST- { t� CD i, ca's wjed MONTECELLO ST. -14 9d r BAsWCNIO ST., t �4 t� < oi a d c w�• ` aap tT ` to cn Ir=i00' > a,, ra % v O �« p N. J� W N INGLEWOOD ST. Ln �1 6`l Cly � ',3�'yr.': t•. �` :a) W As �� { � .: nisi■��■ r� '� � �\. Lo �■�� air■�� n Moll `o n - WWI �j ��i � ���■ S EEO Off I a ' I • Y ♦:a" � �G" �D'-�Mi Zs=�^-,,.�"�e e � "�• ?I` �J _ (� D ♦ w�r�ay is. II N m � i A 4T � t a , $ e � o w N - C r I C3 11 Cr • ���' 4�I � +tf a� f 0 � ' � � ~ i� � �a D DPO33oio fi 5 FEB 2 4 2nQ3 CONTTIACOS- \� • .., I MMMUNITY OEVELJPMFNT ------ ------ A ac. � .�.�,.� � •� li' �I;�I��� III Ia -+ n Legalize Change In Roof Pitch e- 'CMLT.K. Y 79 Bella Vista Avenue eq Pow.at 04W r Bay Point,California 94585 ,ossiueeueo r I 1:• N Oro .. •. ,, ' a CD °rel atT 21''x' CD cr n a O M (D O O 4t O n a N CD d a C ? M. m n c C c cn o ; ; X _ _ D a -� cn ,c„ cn c c c o _ _ C7 CD r �_ M to to to 0 s 0 � �cn CD D C 0 0 0 n cu'i� m cn -Z Z cv'n m > 0 m rn ip C3 cn A v 0 > c N cn 9 z N . z —cni - < ,o 0. z z� w ; z m m r z C X D Q x b 0 C= 0z Cl) r-L m Cl) 'a Cl) ca . C tD Ca rCD ML CD rr O C) N= N CD CL n CL C N_ m N CD a tV oCD CD CDCD CD 1�11 w vs CD- ED =5 � Z G N A "000 � Ton v A Z v o v 1?4 v �n C N O N Building inspection Contra Carlos Baltodano Department 1 1`' Director of Building Inspection. Costa County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street, 3rd Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-1295 (925) 646-4108 .. E•_y -`•.,o, FAX (925) 646-1219 ' srAcdSri`r'C March 13, 2003 Contra.Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Bill Rice Subject: File#DP033010 Dear Mr. Rice: The following are Building Inspection comments for file DP033010: 01. Building permits will be required for the new pitched roofs .and interior remodeling of the existing apartment buildings. 02. All work must be done in compliance with 2001 CBC, CEC, CMC and CPC codes as well as current Title 24 Energy Standards. 03. Structural design calculations will be required unless the new construction conforms to the conventional construction requirements found in Chapter 23 of the CBC. 04. Any structural calculations shall be done,by an engineer or architect licensed in the State of California. If you have any questions, please call me at 5-1165. Sincerely, Deborah A. Sandercock, S.E. Senior Structural Engineer October 29, 2003 Community Development 651 Pine Street, 4th FL.,North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Attn: Maureen Toms; We are concerned regarding the property at 79 Bella Vista Ave. We have had two shooting (drive by) and a murder in the past two or three months. This appears to be an ongoing problem between rivals. The element allowed to hang out at this property is detrimental to the neighborhood. We had requested that the carports be torn down, security lights (tamper proof) be installed, the flooding (runoff during rains and other problems that occur on property) be addressed and corrected, landscaping and irrigation as well as maintenance be provided. .I believe you will find that most people living here would prefer it be torn down altogether. I have observed car dismantling taking place there, there are people coming in that spin donuts and race up and down our streets on various types of vehicles. There is VERY loud music there most every evening and often during the day. Drugs appear to be coming from this area with short trips in and out as well as people parking up and down the street as well as in our driveways and walking to 79 as well as a couple of other locations. I have observed Mr. Chavez's partner going in driving commercial trucks and heard that same loud music as well as had the same activities continue. If they intend to rent units they MUST manage and stop the illegal activity taking place. If they do not we will be taking them to court. This is not acceptable. At this point we would like the building to be torn down and if that is not possible, stipulations be enforced and the property be required to have a manager who WILL MANAGE the property by the law and enforce regulations. If they won't be a good neighbor, we would like this building torn down and the P 1 applied to the parcel in full. This property is a detriment to our neighborhood. These owners also had another building across the street with the same problems. It was demolished (abated)by our Code Enforcement Department. WE THANK THEM. Thank You, Norma Siegfried cc. Mr. B. Chevez MAC Members Attachment 4 Staff Report, February 23, 2004 Agenda Item#21 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2004 I. INTRODUCTION: MARY K. BULL-RANSOM (Applicant), BEN CHAVEZ. (Owner), County File#LP 032107: A request to expand a legal non-conforming use within ari existing 12-unit apartment.complex (three buildings) to include a modification to the existing roof pitch, and interior.renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two-story, six-unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, Bay.Point in East.Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH) (ZA: F-18) (CT: 3141.01) (Parcel #095-071=010) II. PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on this application was held on January 26, 2004,.at which time, testimony was heard from the applicant and his representative, as well as a neighbor who spoke in opposition to the application. Testimony was closed, and the hearing was continued to February 23, 2004. Prior to the next public hearing, staff was directed by the Zoning Administrator(ZA) to schedule a site visit and provide addition information regarding Section 82-8.004 of the County-Code(Repair and Rebuilding of Non- Conforming uses),building permit history of the property, when the P-1 zoning of the area was approved and potential conditions of approval should the application be approved. III. SITE VISIT: On February 10, 2004 a site visit was conducted at 79 Bella,Vista Avenue in Bay Point. A copy of the attendance sheet is included as an attachment to.this report. Specific issues addressed during the site visit included: The subject building is on of three existing buildings on the site, and is located on the southeast corner of the site. Fire damage is limited to this building. • Five of the 12 rental units on the site are currently occupied. None of the units in the subject building are occupied. . • An existing concrete faced fence along the eastern property line was measured at'a height of 7 ft. 8 inches, which exceeds the maximum six ft. height authorized by code. A building permit and deviation to the height standards will be required, unless the. height is reduced to six ft or below. • An area between the two rear buildings.was identified as the previous location of a laundry facility. This area has no existing walls and is blocked off from the rest of the site by a wall. The applicant stated the area is to be used for storage purposes only. It was recommended by building inspection/code enforcement that all pipes be removed and capped. • Based on security concerns.and unsafe current,condition of the existing covered carports, the applicant agreed to remove all of the carports, including the front and side block walls. A demolition permit will be required. • To address concerns regarding drainage problem on the site, the applicant was informed that a grading and paving plan would be required to insure that water was drained onto the street. IV. SITE HISTORY: A. Land Use Designation: The earliest building permit on file indicates a Land Use designation for the area in 1954 of Multi-Family Residential High(M-R=H). The earliest zoning maps available indicate that prior to 1991, the land use designation of the area changed to include a General Plan designation of Single-Family Residential High (SH), and Zoning. designation of Multi-Family Residential (M-29). On February 11, 2003, the County Board of Supervisors approved the Bay Point Planned-Unit(P-1.) District Zoning Program, which change the zoning designation of the area to Planned-Unit District(P- 1), to be consistent with the General Plan designation of the area. Based on the current P-1 zoning designation of the area, the construction of a multi- family apartment complex is not an'authorized land use. Any additions and/or changes to the current non-conforming use;requires approval of a land use permit. B. Building Permits: A review of building permits records on file for the project site indicates that.the existing buildings on the site were constructed in November of 1954 (permit#30901). A summary of building permit history for the site is included as an attachment. This review also indicates a continuing history of failure to obtain building permits for new construction on the site, non-completion of building permits,,failure to maintain 2 minimum health'standards, as well as numerous code enforcement violations. These violations include tenant complaints, substandard conditions,permit deficiencies, and repair work without permits. On-November 30, 1999, as'required by the provisions of-Section 82-8.004 of the County Code,building permits were submitted and approved to repair fire damage to subject building (permit# RP 242113) and.to alter the roof pitch(permit# RR 242112) of the building. Building inspection comments on October 9, 2000, indicate that a previous hold on the fire damage repair permit was removed and the permit expired. A second permit to repair fire damage to the unit (permit RF 000538) was applied for on September 8, 2000, however, the permit was never issued. Additional permits to complete the roof(permit# 308799) and repair of fire damage(permit# 308800) were issued on November 7, 2000, however,both of these permits expired on June 6, 2001. V. NON-CONFORMING USE: Under the provisions of Section 82-8.004 of the County Code,the repair of any existing non-conforming use resulting from damage by fire or an act"of god is allowed, as long as the damage does not exceed 50 percent of the fair market value, and the use is not interrupted for a period of more than six months. Based on this criterion, the replacement of the building in question was authorized in 1999 and building permits to repair of the fire- damage and alter the roof pitch were approved. However, these permits were either cancelled or expired, and the work has still not been completed. Since the non-conforming use has been interrupted for more than the required six-month period and permits to complete the repairs in a timely manor have bet cancelled or expired, any request for approval of'a building permit to repair of the fire damaged and alteration of non-conforming use will require.prior approval of a land use permit. VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: As requested by the Zoning Administrator, applicable conditions of approval for this application have been prepared, and attached. The recommended conditions of approval were based on the following findings: • The site currently has no existing landscaping and the site represents a blighted condition on the neighborhood: Landscaping conditions are necessary for on-site security and improve the visual appearance of the site. • The site has a history of health and safety issues including illegal activities on the site, poor maintenance and repair, resident complaints and code violations. Site security 3 conditions are necessary to resolve these issues and protect the health and safety of the neighborhood. • The existing pavement on the site is in disrepair and represents a safetyhazard. Current drainage on the site with a history of water draining onto adjacent properties. Site improvement conditions are necessary to correct these issues and protect the health and welfare of the neighborhood. • Code enforcement conditions are necessary to correct existing code enforcement issues and insure compliance with county code requirements. VII. CONCLUSION: The failure of the applicant to complete the repairs resulting within a timely manor as required by Section 82-8.004 of the County Code has resulted in an interruption of the non- conforming use on the site, and loss of the right to rebuild the unit without approval of a land use permit, and compliance with current land use requirements. Due to the lack of proper on-site management,poor condition of the property and history of criminal activities on the site, staff has determined the required findings for issuance of a land use permit could not be made. Staff recommends the land use permit be denied and the building be demolished Jam' • �A 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL(COA) FOR LAND USE PERMIT#LP032107 1. The proposed development is approved as shown on the plans submitted with the application, received by the Community Development Department on February 26, 2003, subject to.the required modifications listed below and subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of'any new building permit and subject to the conditions listed below. 2. . The proposed.structure shall be similar to that shown on the submitted plans received.by the Community Development Department on June 26,'2003. Prior to issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The roof and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened from view. Landscaping 3. Landscaping on the'site shall be consistent with the landscape plans received by the.Community Development Department on June 26, 2003, as approved by the Zoning Administrator. All landscaping shall include a metered in- ground sprinkler system that may include a drip.system.in the smaller shrub bed areas. Installation of the required landscaping shall be completed within 90-days of the land use permit approval date. SITE SECURITY 4. Within 30 days of land use permit approval,the applicant shall provide evidence of the full time employment of a dedicated on-site manager, employed for the duration of the use. The site manager shall be responsible •for screening potential residents, monitoring site security, resolving resident complaints,keeping the site clean and coordinating with County.officials. 5. A log shall be maintained on the site, documenting and complaints received by the site manager and actions taken to resolve them,a record of all county permits issued for the site and their status, police calls to the site, as well as any issues involving the County Sheriffs office, or other county offices. A copy of this log shall be submitted to the Community Development Department every six-months, for review by the Zoning Administrator, subject to payment of a $ 200 review fee. 6. Within 90 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove the existing carports on the site, to include the block walls around the front carports. Prior to any demolition of the carports the applicant shall obtain approval of a•demolition permit from the County Building Department. 7. Within 90 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on- security. Prior to construction'of the new fence,plans and elevations shall be provided to the.Community Development Department for review of compliance with County Code requirements and security issues. 8.' Within 90 days of land.use permit approval, the applicant shall install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings. A copy of the . lighting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department, for review and approval by the:Zoning Administrator. SITE IMPROVEMENTS 9. Within 60 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall submit grading and paving plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. These plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and include sufficient details.to demonstrate adequate drainage on the site. Paving shall be completed within 30 days of grading permit issuance. CODE COMPLIANCE 10. Within 30 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove all plumbing within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings. This shall include the removal and capping of all.water, sewer and gas lines associated with the former laundry.room. Prior to the conversion of this area into storage space,,the applicant shall obtain approval of a building . permit from the County Building Department. 11. Within 90 days of issuance of the land use permit, the applicant shall reduce the height of the existing concrete faced fence.along the eastern property line to a height of six ft. or less as required by Section 82-4.270 of the County Code. Should the applicant choose to keep`the fence at its current height, a building permit and approval from the Community Development Department . for a deviation to.the height restriction is required. 2 1 ADVISORY NOTES 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 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication,reservation or other extraction required by the approved permit,begins on the date the permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 6602 and delivered to'the Community development Department within 90 days of the approval of the permit. B. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department. A building permit is required. 3 sTf ✓� NAME OP147/Af/7�4 TOit/ .4 e,0(- .,cog.D 0 c go6,cw:/1�..���s�l'66 D2 ,41.E F.J X12 /U,)�''� A/GtG f5,J7— 4 c) . GPS, 7;4,., C. d2ol✓li. c"c sH iFps D Py:. / 3�ZS3 79 Bella Vista,Ben Chavez Summary of Building Permit History File# Description Date Issued Final Comments AD 333375: Garage conversion 11/26/02 Applied status no action taken, listed as Apt.K AL 334241: Misc.bathroom repair 12/24/02 Issued 12/24/02,expired 6/24/03. RR 328432: Final 308799 re-roof 07/24/02 Cancelled RP 328433: Complete 30880 fire repair 07/24/02 Cancelled RR 308799: Re-roof to change pitch 12/07/00 Expired,cancelled 07/24/02(RR 328432) RP308800: Complete 242113•fire repair 12/07/00 Expired,owner advised that the four permits for the fire damage repair are no longer necessary. New plans and trusses needed for change in roof pitch. Cancelled 07/24/02(RP328433) RR308709: Complete 242112 roof repair 12/07/00 Notes indicate that permits RR 242112,242115, 308799 and 308800 are not valid and expired on 6/6/01 RP 304528: Fire repair 08/03/00 Applied never approved. RF 000538: Substandard dwelling 06/26/00 Violation cleared 8/29/00 RP 242113: Fire repair .11/30/99 Hold removed to expire permit RR 242112: Repair roof 11/30/99 No comments or status available RP 228497: Repair dry rot in floor' 8/28/99 No comments or status available RF 980030: Permit deficiencies 01/21/98 No comments or status available RF 960551: Tenant complaints 11/14/96 No comments or status available RF 960509: Drainage problems 10/30/96 No comments or status available RF 950671: Substandard plumbing 11/14/95 No comments or status available RF 940084: Code enf 03/04/94. No comments or status available RP 191437: Kitchen fire repair 02/28/94 No comments or status available RV 949177: Shed larger than 200 sf 02/23/94 No comments or status available AL 174573: New soffit 11/04/91 No comments or status available E 174215: Misc.electrical 10/16/91 No comments or status available ZA 115982: No comments or status available 84787: Termite repair 10/24/80 11/12/81 No comments or status available 14366.:.3 new carports 03/08/71 03/01/72 No comments or status available 30901: Building permit 11/15/54 Original building.permit.for 3 bldg.'s AD: Addition AL:Alteration E: Electrical RF:' Code enf6rcement RP: Old code enforcement RR: Roof repair . RV: Old code enforcement ZA: Old file esti 5 A Us permit Laud CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Mary K. Bull-Ransom APPLICATION NO. LP032107 2563 64th Ave DP033010 Oakland, Ca 94605 . ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 095-071-010 ZONING DISTRICT: P-1 OWNER: Ben Chavez APPROVED DATE: 2/23/2004 3333 Willow Pass Rd Bay Point,Ca 94565 EFFECTIVE DATE: 3/5/2004 This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law,a LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE BY REPAIRINTG A SIX-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, INCLUDING THE CONSERVISION OF A FLAT ROOF TO A PITCHED ROOF in the BAY POINT area is hereby GRANTED, subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Community Development Director By: ROBERT H. DRAKE Deputy Zoning Administrator Unless otherwise provided,THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE (1)YEAR from the effective date if the use allowed by this permit is not established within that time. PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL(COA)FOR LAND USE PERMIT# LP032107 AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FEBRUARY 23, 2004 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The proposed development is approved.as shown on the plans submitted with the application, received by the Community Development Department on February 26, 2003, subject to the required modifications listed below and subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any new building permit and subject to the conditions listed below. . 2. The proposed structure shall be similar to that shown on the submitted plans received by the Community Development Department on June 26, 2003. Prior to issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The roof and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened from view. LANDSCAPING 3. Landscaping on the site shall be consistent with the landscape plans received by the Community Development Department on June 26, 2003, as approved by the Zoning Administrator. All landscaping shall include a metered in- ground sprinkler system that may include a drip system in the smaller shrub bed areas. Installation of the required landscaping shall be-completed within 90-days of the land use permit approval date. SITE SECURITY 4. Within 30 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall provide evidence of the full time employment of a dedicated on-site manager, employed for the duration of the use. The site manager shall be responsible for screening potential residents, monitoring site security, resolving resident complaints,keeping the site clean and coordinating with County officials. 5. A log shall be maintained on the site, documenting and.complaints received by the site manager and actions taken to resolve.them, a record of all county permits issued for the site and their status, police calls to the site, as well as any issues involving the County Sheriffs office, or other county offices. A copy of this log shall be-submitted to the Community Development Department every six-months, for review by the Zoning Administrator, subject to payment of a $ 200 review fee. 6. Within 90 days of land use permit approval,the applicant shall remove the existing carports on the site, to include the block walls around the front carports. Prior to any demolition of the carports the applicant shall obtain approval of.a.demolition permit from the County Building Department. 7. Within 90 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on- security. Prior to construction of the new fence, plans and elevations shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review of compliance with County Code requirements and security issues. 8. Within 90 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings. A copy of the. lighting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department, for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. SITE IMPROVEMENTS 9. Within 60 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall submit grading and paving plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. These plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and include sufficient details to demonstrate adequate drainage on the site..Paving shall be completed within 30 days of grading permit issuance. CODE COMPLIANCE• 10. Within 30 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove all plumbing within-the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings. This shall include the removal and capping of all water,sewer and gas lines associated with the former laundry room. Prior to the.conversion of this area into storage space, the applicant shall obtain approval of a building permit from the County Biiildiing Department. 11. Within 90 days of issuance of the land use permit,the applicant shall reduce the height of the existing concrete faced fence along the eastern property line to a height of six ft. or less as required by Section 82-4.270 of the County Code. Should the applicant choose to keep the fence at its current height, a building permit and approval from the Community Development Department for a deviation to the height restriction is required. 2 12. Prior to requesting a final inspection of the rehabilitated apartment units,the applicant shall either repair the fence on the northeast side of the property with a building permit and have that building permit finaled or, if the existing fence is on the neighbor's property, the applicant shall contact the neighbor and diligently attempt to work with the neighbor to allow the applicant permission to access the fence so that the applicant is granted temporary access and repairs the fence, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 13. Prior to requesting a final inspection, the applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with all of the conditions in this supplemental report that provide for some sort of improvements: building plans, landscaping, fencing, drainage, lighting, the new front fence. Improvements could be removing existing improvements, rear fence, laundry area. No occupancy of the rehabilitated apartment units shall be permitted before the improvements are accepted by the Community Development Department and by the Building Inspection Department. ADVISORY NOTES .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 90-day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication,reservation or other extraction required by the approved permit,begins on the date the permit.was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 6602 and delivered to the Community development Department within 9.0 days of the approval of the permit. B. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department. A building permit is required. GXurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\LP032107 bella vists.COA.rev.doc Rev 5/17/04-dls 3 Attachment b Non Compliance Notification Letters G Contra Dennis AICP om m U n It M. Barry, Y Community Development Director Development COSta Department County County Administration Building......... 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 925 335=1267 " roDxT` l �•r J,� a 77) October 26, 2004 Mary"K. Bull-Ransom 2563 64h Avenue Oakland, CA 94605 SUBJECT: Land Use and Development Plan Permits for Non-conforming Use(File#' LP032107) Dear Ms.Bull-Ransom You are hereby notified Land Use Permit#.L0032107 (Approved on February 23, 2004) for the expansion a legal non-conforming use by repairing a six-unit multi-family residential building at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, in Bay Point is in violation of the terms, limitations,or conditions of the permit. As of the date of this letter,conditions of approval 3 and 6 through 11 have not been completed within the required time limits. Please respond in writing,no later than November 3, 2004,with information addressing specific method insuring timely compliance with the conditions of approval addressed below. This information should include estimated completion dates for each condition. • Landscaping on the site shall be consistent with the landscape plans received by the Community Development Department on.June 26, 2003,as approved by the Zoning Administrator. All landscaping shall include a metered in-ground sprinkler system that may include a drip system in the smaller shrub bed areas. Installation of the required landscaping shall be completed within 90-days of the land use permit approval date. • Within 90 days of land use permit approval,the applicant shall remove the existing carports on the site, including the block walls around the front carports. Prior to any demolition of the carports the applicant shall obtain approval of a demolition permit from the County Building Department. • Within 90 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on-security. Prior to construction of the new fence,plans-and elevations shall be provided to the,Community Development Department for review of compliance with County Code requirements and security issues. • Within 90 days of land use permit approval,the applicant shall install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings. .A copy of the lighting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department, for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month • Within 60 day of land use permit approval,the applicant shall submit grading and paving plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. These plans shall be prepared by a.licensed engineer and include sufficient details to demonstrate adequate drainage on the site. Paving shall be completed within 30 days of grading permit issuance. • Within 30 days of land use permit approval,the applicant shall remove all plumbing within the area of the former.laundry room located between the two rear buildings. This shall include-the removal and capping of all water, sewer and gas lines associated with the former laundry room. Prior to the conversion of this area into storage space, the applicant shall obtain approval of a building permit from the County Building Department. • Within 90 days of issuance of the land use permit, the applicant shall reduce the height of the existing.., concrete faced fence along the eastern property line to a height of six ft. or less as required:by Section 82- 4.270 of the County Code. Should the applicant choose to keep the fence at its current height,a building permit and approval from the Community Development Department for a deviation to the height restriction is required. Should you have any additional questions, or require additional clarification regarding.the information included in this letter,please feel free to contact me at(925)335-1267. Sincerely, William Rice . Planner II CC: File#.LP032107/DP033010 Ben Chavez(Owner) 3333 Willow Pass Road. Bay Point, CA. 94565 H:\Documents\iBella Vista Apts non-compliance.doc 2 Community Contra . Dennis M. Barry,AICD Community Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wiri Martinez,California 94553-0095 ot Phone: (925) 335-1267 " CO-: November 8,2004 Mary K. Bull-Ransom 256364 Ih Avenue Oakland, CA 94.605 SUBJECT: Land Use and Development Plan Permit for Non-conforming Use(File# LP032107) Dear Ms. Bull-Ransom You are hereby.notified that Land Use Permit# LP032107 for the expansion a legal non-conforming use by repairing a six-unit multi-family residential building at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, in Bay Point is in violation of the terms;limitations, or conditions of the permit. This matter will be scheduled for the Zoning Administrator Hearin;on Monday, November 29, 2004, for revocation. The Zoning Administrator's decision may order additional terms, limitations or conditions, a specified probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements, a future review at a time specified, or a co.mbination'of these, or revocation (Article 26- 2.2028). The Zoning Administrator approved#LP032107 on February 23, 2004, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval#3 and 6 through 11 have not been completed within the "required time limits. Since you are not in compliance with the conditions of approval for the permit, cause for revocation of the permit exists (Article 26-2.2022(1)). Should you have any additional questions, or need additional information regarding this process,please contact me at(925) 335-1267. Sincerely, 0) Ailliam.Pic Planner II . CC: File#LP032107 Ben Chavez(Owner) 3333 Willow Pass Road. Bay Point, CA. 945.65 Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.rn Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Q ru ru ru ti --- �' Ln Postage $ Postage $ Ln Q Certified Fee C-3 Certified Fee O Return Reciept Fee Postmark QPO' Return Reciept Fee Here O Here (Endorsement Required) (Endorsement Required) Q Restricted Delivery Fee _ —~— i= Restricted Delivery Fee Lr7 (Endorsement Required) Lr7 (Endorsement Required) M m total Postage&Feesr=1Tota!Postage&Fees --- —— --- - /1 Sent To A j r'C �/� pQ Sent To-• -•-- .\-----( j„J AJ��-------------....--- ............... O Slee t'-N'-?�t_ ..__ �.L__._1►�/ 15QC--_!_-------••--�---------------- Iti Street,lox'No.; 3 l +,�+ , _p fJ 1 yr PO Box No. '�56 6'!� �v�I No- or PO Box No. W Wu T T%%" ----- ---•---- - y City,State,ZIP+4 , f�[ � Clry,Sfafe, :rr rr :rr .r r A-- -n .0 . . 0::: - ::. 7': S �< W .�..Z .....:- .:, 'e.....,y :. — ark ;.: .:: ;,.D. S,y C ■ tb. =a; mr f' 1' m -t :.�;. :.: dei. •:�:m 3'. � Uy H. M. ro.. 00 y I ik m 7. �:: :.C.., y.; .-..:. .w w.. �. 7, .. Q v.. ry w M �+ ro - Q - a. �. W";;';' IS l:ry :0 7 <• CD .C... v,. . o: �.0. yy _ ��IA�: r0 Oa ro CL CA, o p '\ •� 3: r I C3 w ro. .:..:- .n .v 6-' Ln .. ..�.. :... ,.. ... `r W Q Q Q :.. Q C M - - �.; m. CW: CD 17. •'— \: �.i. m. rl. lfin.. _. K.: m. _ y.. .. :... — :V �:•. c. g rp :. Ln m. r7„�-�. N'. rLj L� o m _. ,.,.. .. (D T.: w <' ... . ; y .. .. .. .. r ., .. .. .: ru ,z rb a� a� O.. .v.. T.. .:' CD ;m :$ ,' m:' •o. Q. : - — Ca- ::•.. .::0 N. rp .r m ro. �. o. d CL.. 'QL CV CD y' : , Community Contra Dennis M. Barry,AICP Community Development Director Development . Costa Department County County Administration Building e_.. o 651 Pine Street - 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: 925-335-1267 �u rA,�o�;. May 9, 2005 Sunny Dawn Jacobson Richard Rodriguez 3333 Willow Pass Road Bay Point, CA 94565-3159 Dear Ms. Jacobson and Mr. Rodriguez: You are hereby notified that Land Use Permit#L-P03-2107'for the expansion of a legal non-conforming use by repairing a six-unit multi-family residential building at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, in Bay Point is in violation of the terms, limitations or conditions of the permit. In addition, the Land Use Permit expired on March 5, 2005. This matter will be scheduled for the Zoning Administrator Hearing on Monday,June 6, 2005, for revocation. The Zoning Administrator's decision may order additional terms, limitations or conditions, a specified probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements, a future review at a time specified, or a combination of these, or revocation (Article 2.6-2:2028). The Zoning Administrator approved#LP03-2107 on February 23, 2004, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval#3 and 6 through 11 have not been completed within the required time limits. Since you are not in compliance with.the conditions of approval for the permit, cause for revocation of the permit exists (Article 26-2.2022(1)). Should you have any questions or need additional information-regarding this process, please contact me at 925-335-1267. i rely, een O'Shea Planner Cc: File# LP03-002107 Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Postage M � Certified Fes " ---- Pournark I .. M Return Receipt Fee. --- Here O (Endor ement Required] O nestrtcted Delivery Fee \r O' (Endorsement V1equ!red) ru Total Postage&Fees $ ------------ fr7 Se__ rit T� CcIbSaN >2 I 'Ztraet,Apt.No.: -------• --------,----------- _ C3or� r. 0 oHcx N -3-333...VV-I ass 1 iN State.,,'JY.d --------- -----...... S-c v SECTIONSENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery Is desired. Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. ived by(Pent me). C. D to of Pelivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from Item 17 ❑ If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ o R,cc, kr� RadV-" Ll 3333 `L>J� (low Piss fid, \ 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail ❑Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise 5( ,5 a --3/57 1 1-3insuredMail ❑C.O.D. Q / 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number Z (Transfer hom service labeo.. 7001 0 3 2 0 0003 7 7 3 8 4986- PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt .102595-02-M-1540 Attachment 7 Staff Report, June 6, 2005 Agenda Item#6 Community Development Contra Costa County ::COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2005 I. INTRODUCTION: MARY K. BULL-RANSOM (Applicant) and BEN CHAVEZ , RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AND. SUNNY DAWN JACOBSON (Owners), County File# LP03-2107: This is:a public hearing to consider.whether cause exists.to revoke the land use permit which allowed the,expansion of a legal non-conforming use.within an existing.12-unit apartment complex to include a modification to the existing roof pitch,and interior renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two-story, six-unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue,Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH) (ZA: F-18) (CT: 3141.01)(Parcel#095-071-010) . II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the revocation of Land Use Permit#LP03-2107'due to non-compliance with the required conditions of approval and expiration of the Land Use Permit-on March 5, 2005. III. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. General Plan:The subject property is designated Single-Family High Density(SH),allowing 5- .7.2 units per acre,in the Contra Costa County General Plan. B. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Planned-Unit District(P-1). C: CEOA Status: The proposed project is exempt from.CEQA per Section 15301, Class 1 (a). D. Regul�rY Prog ams:" 1. Flood-Hazard Zone: The subject site is located within Flood Zone"C", and is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. (Source:. Figure 10-8,Flood Hazard Areas,of the Contra Costa County General Plan and Federal Insurance Rate Map.(FIRM)Community Panel#060025 0120B, dated July 16, 1987). .2: Active Fault Zone: The subject site is not located within an active earthquake fault zone. (Source: Figure 10-2,Mapped Earthquake Faults,of the Contra Costa County General Plan). 3. Noise Hazards: According to the Noise Element of the General Plan;the site is not within an area experiencing levels of 60 dB or greater. (Source: Figure 11-5D,noise contours,of the Contra Costa County General Plan). IV. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 21,148 sq.ft. (.49 acre)rectangular shaped parcel,located on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue between Hanlon Way and Pensacola Street in Bay Point. Existing structures on the property include; a two-story, six-unit (793 sq. ft. per unit) apartment building, two-story, four-unit(697 sq: ft. per unit) apartment building and a single-story two-unit(693 sq. ft. per unit) apartment building,for a total of 12 units on the site. The existing density of the site is 24.9 units per acre. Additional improvements on the site include three covered parking areas(four parking spaces for each) and nine additional exterior parking spaces, for a total of 21 parking spaces. The site includes no visible landscaping and the interior paved areas within the site are in need of patching and resurfacing. Fencing on the property includes; 6 ft.high chain link fencing along the southern property line; wood fencing along the northern property line and a concrete wall along the rear. property line. Access to the site is from Bella Vista Avenue'and includes a 20 ft.wide driveway with a 23 ft.wide curb cut. The front covered parkirig structures on each side of the driveway are setback 23 ft.from the sidewalk along Bella Vista Avenue. The parking area includes an open ditch that runs parallel to the north fence line. V. BACKGROUND: A. Extension of Le%zal Non-Conforming Use: Under the provisions of Section 82-8.004 of the County Code,the repair of any existing non-conforming use resulting from damage by fire or an act of God is allowed, as long as the damage does not exceed 50 percent of the fair market value, and the use is not interrupted for a period of more than six.months. .Based on this criterion, the replacement of the building in question was authorized in 1999 and building permits to repair of the fire-damage and alter the roof pitch were approved. However, these permits were either cancelled or expired, and the work has not been completed to date. Since the non-conforming use has been interrupted for more than the required six-month period and permits to complete the repairs in a timely manner have been cancelled or expired,any request for approval of a building permit to repair of the fire damaged and alteration of non-conforming use required prior approval of a land use permit. On January 26,2004,the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider approval of a . Land Use Permit(LP032107)to extend a legal non-conforming use.:Staff recommended denial of this project based on the inability to'make the required land use findings.necessary.for approval. Staff was concerned that extending the non-conforming use would be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County,per Section 26-2.2008 (1)of the County Code; would have a detrimental effect on the property values in the County, per Section 26= 2.2008(3) .of the Code;would adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan, per Section 26-2.2008(4)of the Code;continue to create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the community,per Section 26-2.2008(5)of the County Code. Staff reported that the project site has a long history of violence and illegal activities that include murder,prostitution, drugs,violence and numerous other criminal activities: A crime analysis report by the Contra Costa County Sheriff s Office documented,27 incidences of criminal activity on the site from January 1, 2000 through December 10, 2003. An updated report received May 31,.2005, indicates-additional criminal activity in 2004.and early 2005, including assault, battery malicious mischief, theft, recovery of stolen auto, and malicious mischief. These types of activities present an on-going danger to the health,safety and.welfare of the neighborhood and community. In many cases these activities were precipitated by the lack of adequate security on the site,poor supervision and substandard maintenance. The hearing was continued to allow sufficient time to provide additional information and arrange a site visit by the Zoning Administrator. A site visit Was.conducted on February 10, 2004, where several issues were.discussed including a fence on the property that.exceeded county maximum height requirements, a prior laundry area built without permits, inadequate site security,improper drainage into the street and adjacent properties,unsafe carport roofing, and unsafe parking and driveway surfaces. The applicant agreed to reduce the height of the fence, remove all piping within the area previously used laundry area, remove the carports, 2 repave the parking and drivewaysurfaces,improve drainage on the site,install security lighting, and remove and replace the existing front fence. At the February 23,2004 public hearing,the Zoning Administratofapproved the permit,subject to conditions of approval which required compliance within a specific time limit. The conditions.of approval addressed.the issues brought up by staff and members of the public. Findings for approval of the Land Use Permit were based-on compliance of the Conditions of Approval. To date,.the applicant has not complied with the conditions of approval. In addition,having not been extended,the Land Use Permit expired on May 4, 2005. . B. Land Use Designation: The earliest building permit on file indicates a Land Use designation for the area in 1954 of Multi-Family Residential High(M-R-H). The earliest zoning maps available indicate that prior to 1991,the land use designation of the area changed to include a General Plan designation of Single-Family Residential High (SH), and Zoning designation of Multi- Family Residential(M-29). On February 11,2003,the County Board of Supervisors approved the Bay Point Planned-Unit (P-1) District Zoning Program, which. change the zoning designation of the area.to Planned-Unit District(P-1), to be consistent with the General Plan designation of the area. Based on the current P-1 zoning designation of the area, the construction of a multi-family apartment complex is not an authorized land use. Any additions and/or changes to the existing non-conforming use,required approval of a land use permit. C. Building Permits: A review of building permits records on file for the project site indicates that the existing buildings on the site were constructed in November of 1954(permit#30901). The summary of building permit history for this site indicated a continuinghistory of failure to obtain building permits for new construction on the site,non-completion,.of building permits, failure to maintain minimum health standards,as well as numerous code enforcement violations. These violations included tenant complaints,substandard conditions,permit deficiencies,and repair work without permits. On November 30, 1999,as required by the provisions of Section 82-8.004'of the County Code, building permits were applied for and approved to repair fire damage to subject building(permit # RP 242113) and to alter the roof pitch (permit # RR 242112) of the building. Building inspection comments on October 9,2000,indicate that a previous hold on the fire damage repair permit was removed and the permit expired. A second permit to repair fire damage to the unit (permit#RF 000538)was applied for on September 8, 2000,however, the permit was never issued. Additional permits to complete the roof(permit# 308799)and repair of fire damage (permit#308800)were issued on November 7,2000,however,both of these permits expired on June 6;.2001. VI. REVOCATION: The Conditions of Approval--have not been met and the Land Use Permit has.expired..The Building Inspection Department continues to receive complaints about'the property. The Conditions of Approval were set up to address the required Land Use Permit findings. Since the conditions were 3 not met, cause. exists to revoke the permit and forward a request to the Building.Inspection Department to abate the property. Staff sent letters to the applicant and owner (Mr. Chavez),on October 26. and November 8, 2004 advising them that they were out of compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Another letter was sent to the new owners of record(Mr.Rodrigues and Ms.Jacobson),business partners of Mr.Chavez advising them of non-compliance of the Conditions of Approval. B. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Following is a list of the required Conditions of Approval and a notation of their status: 1. COA#4: Within 30 days of land use permit approval,the applicant shall provide evidence of the full time employment of a dedicated on-site manager,employed.for the duration of the use. The site manager shall be responsible for screening potential residents,monitoring site security,resolving resident complaints,keeping the.site clean and coordinating with County officials. There is a note in the file that identified a manager as of June 3, 2004. However, on May 12, 2005, the current' owner advised staff that there was only one tenant living on-site and no manager. 2. COA#5: 'A log shall be maintained on the site,.documenting and complaints received by the site manager and actions taken to resolve them, a record of all county permits issued for the site and their status, police calls to the site, as well as any issues involving the County Sheriffs office, or other county offices.i A copy of this log shall be submitted to the.Community Development Department every six-months, for review by the Zoning Administrator,subject to payment of a$ 200 review fee. Two reports should have been submitted, to date, however only a blank "incident . log"was submitted on June 3, 2004.- 3. COA#6: Within 90 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove the existing carports on the site,to include the block walls'around the front carports..Prior to any demolition of the carports the applicant shall obtain approval of a demolition permit from the County Building Department. These carports have only partially been removed: 4. COA#7:Within 90 day of land use permit approval,the applicant shall install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on-security. Prior to construction of the new fence,plans and elevations shall.be provided to the Community Development Department for review of compliance with County Code requirements and security issues. No plans for the fence have been submitted for review, however a new metal fence has been installed. 5. COA#8: Within 90 days of land use permit approval;the applicant shall install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and.along the corridor between the two rear buildings. A copy of the lighting plan shall be provided.to the Community Development Department,for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. No.lighting plan has been submitted to date, let alone by June 5, 2004. 6. COA#9:Within 60 days of land use permit approval,the applicant shall submit grading and paving plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. These plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and include sufficient details to demonstrate'adequate drainage on the site. Paving shall be completed Within 30 day's of grading permit issuance. No plans have been submitted to date, let alone by June 5;2004. 7. COA#10: Within 30 days of land use permit approval; the applicant shall remove all plumbing 4 within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings. This shall include the removal and capping of all water,sewer and gas lines associated with the former laundry room. Prior to the conversion of this area into storage space,the applicant shall obtain approval of a building permit from the County Building Department. No building permit was.issued for this work S. COA#11.Within 90 days of issuance of the land use permit,the applicant shall reduce the height of .the existing concrete faced fence along the eastern property line to'a height of six ft. or less as required by Section 82-4.270 of the County Code. Should the applicant choose to keep the fence at its current height,a building permit and approval from the Community Development Department for a deviation to the height restriction is required. No building permit application has been submitted to retain the fence at the current height nor has the applicant provided information about this work being done. 9. COA#12:Repair to Fence Along North Propeity Line—Prior to requesting a final inspection of the apartment building,the applicant shall obtain a building permit,make improvements, and obtain a final building permit to repair the fence along the north property line,subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. If the existing fence is located on the adjoining property, then the applicant shall diligently work with the adjoining property owner to get permission to repair the fence. The applicant shall be required to provide evidence of the applicant's diligence in trying to repair the fence. The applicant has not obtained a building of permit for the improvements to the apartment, nor have they repaired the fence. 10. COA#13: Completion of All Required Improvements Prior to Requesting a Final Inspection or Allowing Occupancy of the Apartment Building—Prior to seeking requesting a final inspection or occupancy permit of the apartment building,the applicant shall provide evidence for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that all above required improvements (building, landscaping/irrigation, removal of carport walls, new front fence, security lighting, grading/paving/drainage, plumbing alterations, rear fence alterations, north sideyard fence alterations) have been completed. The applicant has not obtained a building of permit for the improvements to.the apartment, nor have they provided evidence of compliance with any of the conditions. C. FINDINGS: Following is a list of the required findings for approval of a land use permit,modified due to non-compliance with the Conditions of approval. 1. Required Finding: The proposed land use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the.County. [26-2.2008(1)] The project site has a long history of violence and illegal activities that include murder, prostitution, drugs, violence and numerous other criminal activities. A crime analysis report by the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office documented 27 incidences of criminal activity on the site from January 1,2000 through December 10,2003. These types of activities present an on-going danger to the health,safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community. In many cases these activities were precipitated by the lack of adequate security on the site, poor supervision and substandard maintenance. Compliance with the conditions of approval would have addressed these concerns. Since these conditions of approval have not been met,the land use is detrimental to the health,safety and general welfare of the County. 2. Required Finding: The proposed use will not adversely affect the orderly development ofproperty within the County. [26-2.2008(31)] The ongoing history of violence and criminal activities on the site,visual blight resulting from lack of landscaping and poor maintenance and repair of structures on the site, as well as the excessive amount of noise and traffic generated by this use are inconsistent 5 with the SH.General Plan designation of the area. These types of activities also provide an atmosphere that is not conducive to single-family residential development,and has a negative impact on future development in the area. ..Compliance with the conditions of approval would have addressed these concerns. Since these conditions of approval have not been met, the land use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. 3. Required Finding: The proposed land use will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of tax base within the county. [26-2.2008 (3)] The project site is a significant source of neighborhood blight,which results in negative impacts on property values and potential development within the neighborhood. Compliance with the conditions of approval would have addressed these concerns. Since these conditions of approval have not been met,the land use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. 4. Required Finding: The proposed use shall not adversely affect the policy and goals asset by the general plan.[26-2.2008(4)] A multi-family residential apartment complex is inconsistent with the SH General Plan designation of the area. The ongoing negative impacts and added density resulting from this use have an adverse affect on the policy and goals of the general plan and residential nature of the neighborhood. The general plan calls for densities ranging from 5.0- 7.2 units per acre,while this use is four times dense at 24 units per acre. S. Required Finding: The proposed use will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. [26-2.2008(5)] The project site has a long history of code enforcement violations, criminal activity and problems with building and site maintenance, which has resulted in a continuous nuisance problem within the neighborhood.Compliance with the conditions of approval would have addressed these concerns. Since these conditions of approval have not been met, the land use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County. 6. Required Findings: The proposed use will not encourage marginal development issues within the neighborhood Approval of this application will have no impact on development within the neighborhood [26-2.2008 (6)] This high-density multi-family residential use of the site is inconsistent with the lower density single-family residential use. within the. surrounding neighborhood. 7. Required Findines: That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established [26-2.2008 (7)] There are no established special conditions or unique characteristics of the property and its location or surroundings established. While the initial land use approval was granted in 1965 for a multiple-group development, the approval was based on the land use regulations in place at the time of approval and do not reflect current land use regulations or requirements. VII.CONCLUSION: Due to the.continued poor condition of the property, history of criminal activities.on the site, non- compliance of the Conditions of Approval,and expiration of the Land Use Permit issued May 4,2004; staff has determined that cause exists to revoke the Land Use Permit. Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator revoke the Land use Permit and request the Building Inspection Department to begin abatement proceedings on any and all substandard structures on the property. ���lt 6 FILE Copy Agenda Item#21 Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23. 2004 I. INTRODUCTION: MARY K. BULL- RANSOM(Applicant), BEN CHAVEZ. (Owner), County File#LP 032107: A request to expand a legal non-conforming use within an existing 12-unit apartment complex (three buildings) to include a modification to the existing roof pitch, and interior renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two-story, six-unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH) (ZA: F-18)'(CT: 3141.01) (Parcel # 095-071-010) H. PUBLIC HEARING: A public hearing on this application was held on January 26, 2004, at which time, testimony was heard from the applicant and his representative, as well as a neighbor who spoke in opposition to the application. Testimony was closed, and the hearing was continued to February 23, 2004. Prior to the next public hearing, staff was directed by the Zoning Administrator(ZA)to schedule a site visit and provide addition information regarding Section 82-8.004 of the County Code(Repair and Rebuilding of Non- Conforming uses),building permit history of the property,when the P-1 zoning of the area was approved and potential conditions of approval should the application be approved. III. SITE VISIT: On February 10, 2004 a site visit was conducted at 79 Bella Vista Avenue in Bay Point. A copy of the attendance sheet is included as an attachment to this report. Specific issues. addressed during the site visit included: • The subject building is on of three existing buildings on the site, and is located on the southeast.corner of the site. Fire damage is limited to this building. • Five of the 12 rental units on the site are currently occupied. None of the units in the subject building are occupied. 1 f� • An existing concrete facedn s 1the easte property line was measured at a height of 7 ft. 8 inches, which exceeds the maximum six ft. height authorized by code. A building permit and deviation to the height standards will be required, unless the height is reduced to six ft or below. • An area between the two rear buildings was identified as the previous location of a laundry facility. This area has no existing walls and is blocked off from the rest of the site by a wall. The applicant stated the area is.to be used for storage purposes only. It was recommended by building inspection/code enforcement that all pipes be removed and capped. • Based on security concerns and unsafe,current condition of the existing covered carports, the applicant agreed to remove all of the carports, including the front and side block walls. A demolition permit will be.requdred. • To address concerns regarding drainage problem on the site, the applicant was informed that a grading and paving plan would be required to insure that water was drained onto the street. IV. SITE HISTORY: A. Land Use Designation: The earliest building permit on file indicates a Land Use designation for the area in 1954 of Multi-Family Residential High (M-R-H). The earliest zoning maps available indicate that prior to 1991, the land use designation of the area changed to include a General Plan designation of Single-Family Residential High(SH), and Zoning designation of Multi-Family Residential (M-29). On February 11, 2003, the County Board of Supervisors approved the Bay Point Planned-Unit (P-1) District Zoning Program, which change the zoning designation of the area to Planned-Unit District(P- 1), to be consistent with the General Plan designation of the area. Based on the current P-1 zoning designation of the area, the construction of a multi- family apartment complex is not an authorized land use. Any additions and/or changes to the current non-conforming.use, requires approval of a land use permit. B. Building Permits: A review of building permits records on file for the project site indicates that the existing buildings on the site were constructed in November of 1954 (permit# 30901). A summary of building permit history for the site is included as an attachment. This review also indicates a continuing history of failure to obtain building permits for new construction on the site;non-completion of building permits, failure to maintain 2 minimum health standards, as well as numerous code enforcement violations. These violations include tenant complaints, substandard conditions,permit deficiencies, and repair work without permits. On November 30, 1999, as required by the provisions of Section 82-8.004 of the County Code, building permits were submitted and,approved to repair fire damage to subject building (permit# RP 242113) and to alter the roof pitch (permit# RR 242112) of the building. Building inspection comments on Octoben9, 2000, indicate that a previous hold on the fire damage repair permit was removed and the permit expired. A second permit to repair fire damage to the unit (permit RF 000538) was applied for on September 8, 2000, however,the permit was never issued. Additional permits to complete the roof(permit# 308799) and repair of fire damage (permit# 308800) were issued on November 7, 2000, however, both of these permits expired on June 6, 2001. V. NON-CONFORMING USE: Under the provisions of Section 82-8.004 of the County Code,the repair:of any existing non-conforming use resulting from damage by fire or an act of god is allowed, as long as the damage does not exceed 50 percent of the fair market value, and the use is not interrupted for a period of more than six months. Based on,this criterion, the replacement of the building in question was authorized in 1999 and building permits to repair of the fire- damage and alter the roof pitch were approved. However, these permits were either cancelled or expired, and the work has still not been completed. Since the non-conforming use has been interrupted for more,than the required six-month period and permits to complete the repairs in a timely manor have bet cancelled or expired, any request for approval of a building permit to repair of the fire damaged and alteration of non-conforming use will require prior approval of a land use permit. VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: As requested by the Zoning Administrator, applicable conditions of approval for this application have been prepared, and attached. The recommended conditions of approval were.based on the following findings: • The site currently has no existing landscaping and the site represents a blighted condition on the neighborhood. Landscaping conditions are necessary for on-site security and improve the visual appearance of the site. • The site has a history of health and safety issues including illegal activities on the site, poor maintenance and repair, resident complaints and code violations. Site security 3 conditions are necessary to resolve these issues and protect the health and safety of the neighborhood. O The existing pavement on the site is in disrepair and represents a safety hazard. Current drainage on the site with a history of water draining onto adjacent properties. Site improvement conditions are necessary to correct these issues.and protect the health and welfare of the neighborhood.. Code enforcement conditions are necessary to correct existing code enforcement issues and insure compliance with county code requirements. VII. CONCLUSION: The failure of the.applicant to complete the repairs resulting within a timely manor as required by Section 82-8.004 of the County Code has resulted in an interruption of the non- conforming use on the site, and loss of the right to rebuild the unit without approval of a land use permit, and compliance with current land use requirements. Due to the lack of proper on-site management,poor condition of the property and history of criminal activities on the site, staff has determined the required findings for issuance of a land use permit could not be made. Staff recommends the land use permit be denied and the building be demolished 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (COA)FOR LAND USE PERMIT#LP032107 1. The proposed development is approved as shown on the plans submitted with the application, received by the Community Development Department on February 26, 2003, subject to the.required modifications listed below and subject to final review and'approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any new building permit and subject to the.conditions listed below. .2. The proposed structure shall be similar to that shown on the submitted plans received by the Community Development Department on June 26, 2003. Prior to issuance of a building permit, elevations.and architectural design of the building.shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The roof and exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects as air conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened from view. Landscaping 3. Landscaping on the site shall be consistent with the landscape plans received by the Community Development Department on June'26, 2003, as approved by the Zoning Administrator. All landscaping shall include a metered in- ground sprinkler system that may include a drip system in the smaller shrub bed areas. Installation of the required landscaping shall be completed within 90-days of the land use permit approval date. SITE SECURITY .4. Within 30 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall provide evidence of the full time employment of a dedicated on-site manager, employed for the duration of the use.' The site manager shall be responsible for screening potential residents, monitoring site security,resolving resident complaints, keeping the site clean and coordinating with County officials. 5. A log shall be maintained on the site, documenting and complaints received by the site manager and actions taken to resolve them, a record of all county permits issued for the site and their status, police calls to the site, as well as any issues involving the County Sheriffs office, or other county offices. A copy of this log shall be submitted'to the Community Development Department every six-months, for review by the Zoning Administrator, subject to payment of a $ 200 review fee. 1 . 6. . Within 90.days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove the existing carports on the site,to include the block walls around the front carports. Prior to any demolition of the carports the applicant shall obtain approval,of a demolition permit from the County Building Department. 7. Within 90 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on- security.' Prior to construction of the new fence,plans and elevations shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review of compliance with County Code requirements and security issues. 8. Within 90 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install security lighting on the site to'provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings. A copy of the lighting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department, for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. SITE IMPROVEMENTS 9. Within 60 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall submit grading and paving plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. These plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and 'include sufficient details to demonstrate adequate drainage on the site. Paving shall be completed within 30 days of grading permit issuance. CODE COMPLIANCE 10. Within 30 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove all plumbing within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings. This.shall include the removal and capping of all water, sewer and gas lines associated with the former laundry room. Prior to the conversion of this area into storage space, the applicant shall obtain approval of a building permit from the County Building Department. 11. Within 90 days of issuance of the land use permit, the applicant shall reduce the height of the existing concrete faced fence along the eastern property line to a height of six ft. or less as required by Section 82-4.270 of the County Code. Should the.applicant choose to keep the fence at its current height, a building permit and approval from the Community Development Department for a deviation to the height restriction is required. .2 ADVISORY NOTES 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 90-day period in which you may.protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication,reservation or other extraction required by the approved permit,begins on the date the permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 6602 and delivered to the Community development Department within 90 days of the approval of the permit. B. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department. A building permit is required. 3 S� Tt Vi -C. SP, De EN 2 7 r- � ,���'Mir CPL, 7r nye Cd2U�✓ft �"C�.SHc�/F�5 pffP,�; '� /.3-Z�3L 79 Bella Vista,Ben Chavez Summary of Building Permit History File# Description Date Issued Final Comments AD 333375: Garage.conversion 11/26/02 Applied status no action taken, listed as Apt.K AL 334241: Misc.bathroom repair '12/24/02 Issued 12/24%02, expired 6/24/03 RR 328432: Final 308799 re-roof 07/24/02 Cancelled RP 328433: Complete 30880 fire repair 07/24/02 Cancelled RR 308799: Re-roof to change pitch 12/07/00 Expired,cancelled 07/24/02(RR 328432) RP308800: Complete 242113 fire repair 12/07/00 Expired,owner advised that the four permits for the fire damage repair are no longer necessary. New plans and trusses needed for change in roof pitch. Cancelled 07/24/02(RP328433) RR308799: Complete 242112 roof repair 12/07/00 Notes indicate that permits RR 242112,242115, 308799 and 308800 are not valid and expired on 6/6/01 RP 304528:. Fire repair 08/03/00 Applied never approved. RF 000538: Substandard dwelling 06/26/00 Violation cleared 8/29/00 RP 242113: Fire repair 11/30/99 Hold removed to expire permit RR 242112: Repair roof 11/30/99 No comments or status available RP 228497: Repair dry rot in floor 8/28/99 No comments or status available RF 980030: Permit deficiencies 01/21/98 No comments or status available RF 960551: Tenant complaints 11/14/96 No comments or status available RF 960509: Drainage problems 10/30/96 No comments or status available RF 950671: Substandard plumbing 11/14/95 No comments or status available RF 940084: Code enf 03/04/94 No comments or status available RP 191437: Kitchen.fire repair 02/28/94 No comments or status available RV 949177: Shed larger than 200 sf 02/23/94 No comments or status available AL 174573: New soffit 11/04/91 No comments or status available E 174215: Misc.electrical 10/16/91 No comments or status available ZA 115982: No comments or status available 84787: Termite repair . 10/24/80 11/12/81 No comments or status available 14366: 3 new carports 03/08/71 03/01/72 No comments or status available 309.01: Building permit 11/15/54 Original building permit for 3 bldg.'s AD: Addition AL: Alteration E: Electrical RF: Code enforcement RP: Old code enforcement RR:. Roof repair RV: Old code enforcement ZA: Old file FILE ..COPY Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2004 I. INTRODUCTION MARY K. BULL - RANSOM (Applicant), BEN CHAVEZ.•(Owner); County File numbers # LP 032107 and DP 033010: This is a combination land-use permit and development plan to expand a legal non-conforming use by,repairing a six-unit multi-family residential building, including the conversion of a flat roof to a pitched roof and interior renovations within a 12 unit apartment complex located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH) (ZA: F-18) (CT: 3141.01) (Parcel # 095-071-010) H. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends denial of this application, based inability to make required land use permit findings. III. GENERAL INFORMATION: A. General Plan: The subject property is designated Single-Family High Density (SH) in the Contra Costa County General Plan. B. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Planned-Unit District (P-1).. C. CEQA Status: The proposed project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15301, Class 1 (a) D. Regulato • Pro�gams: 1. Flood Hazard Zone: The subject site is located within Flood Zone "C", and is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. (Source: Figure 10-8, Flood Hazard Areas, of the Contra Costa County General Plan and Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) ..Community Panel # 060025'0120B, dated July 16, 1987). -2. Active Fault Zone: The subject site is not located within an active earthquake fault zone. (Source: Figure 10-2, Mapped Earthquake Faults, of the Contra Costa County General Plan). 3. Noise Hazards: According to e 1 �he General Plan the site ' no . g is t within an area experiencing levels of 60 dB or greater. (Source: Figure 11-51), noise contours, of the Contra Costa County General Plan). E. Previous Applications and Files: 1. Land Use File# 16-65): Land Use approval for a "multiple group development" (approved on February 15, 1965). The zoning at the time of approval was Multi- Family Residential District (M-R-A). 2. Land Use File #157-69: Approval of a.variance to allow one-foot side yard setbacks.for covered parking area (approved on July 21., 1969). 3. RF940177: .Code enforcement file regarding shed being built without permits and exceeding required maximum size requirements. Issued February.23, 1994, closed March 3, 1994. 4. RF940084: Code enforcement file regarding substandard living conditions. Issued March 4, 1994, closed January 23, 1995. 5. RF950671: Code enforcement file, no history available. Issued November 14, 1995, closed November 30, 1995. 6. RF960509: Code enforcement file, no history available. Issued October 30.,.1996, closed October.31, 1996. 7. RF960551: Code enforcement file regarding sanitation issues regarding garbage being piled up between fences by tenants. Issued November 14, 1996, closed March 3,1997: 8. RF980030: Code enforcement file regarding construction without permits,and substandard living conditions. Issued January 21, 1998, closed November 5, 1998. 9. RF000538: Code enforcement file regarding tenant complaints of heater not working and mold in bathroom. Issued June 26, 2000, closed August 28, 2000. IV. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 21,148 sq. ft: (.49 acre) rectangular shaped parcel, located on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue between Hanlon Way and Pensacola Street,in Bay Point. Existing structures on the property include; a two-story, six-unit (793 sq..ft. per unit) . apartment building, two-story, four-unit (697 sq. ft. per unit) apartment building and a single-story two-unit(693 sq. ft. per unit) apartment building, fora total of 12 units on the site. Additional improvements on the site include three covered parking areas (four parking 2 spaces for each) and nine additional exterior parking spaces, for a total of 21 parking spaces. The site includes no visible landscaping and the interior paved areas within the site are in need of patching and resurfacing. Fencing on the property includes; 6 ft. high chain link fencing along the southern property line, wood fencing along the northern property line and a concrete wall along the rear property line. Access to the site is from Bella Vista Avenue and includes a 20ft. wide driveway with a 23 ft. wide curb cut. The front covered parking structures on each side of the driveway are setback 23 ft. from the sidewalk along Bella Vista Avenue. The parking area includes an open ditch that runs parallel to the north fence line. V. AREA DESCRIPTION The site is located on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue between Hanlon,Way and Pensacola Street in Bay Point. The primary land use of the area is single-family residential, with lot sizes ranging from 4,320 sq. ft. (.09 acre) to 23,086 sq. ft. (.53 acre), with the majority containing less than 7,000 sq. ft. (.15 acre). The majority of houses in the area are one-story, single-family residences. The area is fairly flat and most.of the parcels contain numerous trees and shrubs. VI. PROPOSED PROJECT: The proposedproject involves the conversion of a flat roof to a pitched roof and interior renovations to the existing two-story(six-unit) non-conforming apartment,building to repair damage in the fire. The roof conversion has already been started along with a portion of the interior remodeling. The initial construction was.done without approval of a building permit and the remaining renovation is on hold pending approval of this application. The units are currently unoccupied. VII. AGENCY COMMENTS: A. Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council (MAC)/Project Area Committee (PAC): The application was discussed at the joint MAC and PAC meeting on Wednesday, May 14, 2003. The application was recommended for approval subject to substantial site improvements including removal of the existing front block wall along the carports and replacing it with wrought iron metal fencing, landscaping, improved drainage, and increased security measures to include lighting and new front entry gate. B. Contra Costa County Redevelopment A ency: The application was reviewed by Redevelopment.Agency Staff. The subject site has been the source of neighborhood. blight and nuisance. Staff recommends denial. C. Central Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Comments from the Fire District were received on July 15, 2003 indicating no comments on the application. • • • 3 D. Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department:- Comments were received from the Building Inspection Department on March 13, 2003. A copy of their comments is included as an attachment to the staff report. E. Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office—Administrative and Commercial Services Section: Comments received from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office 'on' December 15, 2003 included a crime analysis report on the site from January 1, 2000 through December 10, 2003. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS On October 29, 2003, a letter was received from Norma Seigfried expressing concerns that the current property use is detrimental to the health and safety of the neighborhood. The letter referenced a history of drugs, loud noise and violence on the property. IX. STAFF DISCUSSION: This project is located within the Bay Point P-1 District and a development plan is required. Specific criteria regarding compliance with this requirement is addressed in the findings and conditions of approval section. A. Appropriateness of use: This is a request to expand a legal-non-conforming use through the issuance of a building permit to repair.roof and interior damage caused by a.fire at the site on August 30, 1999. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single-story, single-family residential homes on small lots (less than .15 acre): The current use`of the site, as a multi-family apartment complex has a density of 24 units per acre, which is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of Single- Family (5-7.2 units per acre authorized) and P-I Zoning designation of the area. The existing use was originally approved in 1965 as a multiple group development(file# 16-65), which was an authorized use based on the Multi-Family Residential (M-R-A) designation in place at that time. The current use has resulted in continuing negative impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and has been a source of blight in the neighborhood and code/law. enforcement problems. In addition, the increased level of noise and traffic associated with this use is incompatible with the single-family residential use and nature of the area. B. Zoning Compliance: 1. Land Use Approval: The project site is located within the Bay Point Planned- Unit (P-1) Zoning District. The original land use approval for this site was based on compliance with Multi=Family Residential zoning requirements in place at the time of approval, which allowed multi=family development in the area. As identified in the current Bay Point Land Use Matrix, construction of a 4 multi-family apartment complex is not a currently authorized land use. 2. Building Setbacks: The site includes three residential structures with building setbacks of 15 ft rear yard, 5 ft. minimum and 2.1 ft aggregate side yard and 60 ft - 7 inch front yard. These setbacks meet P-1 development standards. The two front carports are located one (1) ft. from the side property lines.and do no meet the minimum three (3) ft. side yard setback standards. However, a side yard variance for the carports was approved in 1969. 3. Compatibility with Design Guidelines: The existing residential.units on the site are inconsistent with Bay Point P-1.Program Design guidelines, which require consistency in respect to the appearance, scale and size of other;building in the area, avoidance of noise, light and visual conflicts and orientation of buildings to provide a street presence and interaction. The exterior appearance of the structures on the site is inconsistent with other structures in the neighborhood due to neglect and lack of proper preventative maintenance. The height and shape of the buildings are inconsistent and out of scale with.other units in the area, which includes small one-story buildings with varied rooflines. All of the buildings are sited in the rear of the.site, which prevents any interaction with the street front, and hinders visual access onto the .site for security purposes. The lack of adequate lighting and security is also inconsistent with the design guidelines and public safety requirements. 3.. Parking: Based on the criteria listed in section 84-26,12(a) of the Contra Costa County Code and the Bay Point Development Standards, 2'.25 parking spaces are required for each unit on the site. The project site includes 12 units, for a total of 27 required parking spaces. 24 of these spaces are required to be off- street, while the other three spaces may include curb parking along the subject property's street frontage. Currently the site provides a total of 21 off-street and three on-street parking spaces. Sufficient space is not.available on the site to allow compliance with County parking requirements. The entire parking area is in disrepair and needs to be repaved. 4. Landscaping: Currently the project site.contains no landscaping, which results in an.extremely negative visual appearance from the street, and is inconsistent with the design guidelines and the character of the neighborhood. As part of this application, the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that has been reviewed by staff and found to be consistent with design guideline requirements and the character of the neighborhood. C. Site Securitv and Safety: The he site has an ongoing history of code enforcement violations and criminal activity. These types of activities are directly related to a lack of adequate on-site security measures and property management and 5. substandard maintenance and repair of buildings within the facility resulting in substandard housing units. The site contains no interior security measures or exterior lighting that would disrupt or discourage the ongoing criminal activities on the site. There does not appear to be any active supervision or monitoring of on-site activities and the existing walls of the front parking structures and layout of the site hinder any views inside.the site that would provide visual evidence of potential problems from the street. Any approval of this application would require substantial security and management improvements. The site includes an open ditch along the north fence line, which represents a potential hazard to vehicles accessing the site. This area is not blocked off and the lack of lighting makes it impossible to see at night. Although the MAC and PAC recommended approval subject to significant site improvements to deal with safety and security issues, the applicant has not demonstrated a willingness to comply with these requirements. D. LUP Findings: Based on a review of all available information, staff has determined the application does not comply with all of the required standards necessary for land . -use permit approval. X. CONCLUSION Staff recommends denial of this request to expand this non-conforming use due to an inability to make the required findings. Without approval for the requested renovation the building is inhabitable, and it should be abated. 6 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (COA) FOR LAND USE PERMIT # LP 032,107 A. .Land Use Permit Findings: Approval,of any land use permit application requires specific findings demonstrating compliance with all of the required findings of Section 2672.2008 of the Contra Costa County Code. Failure to do so shall result in,a denial. 1. Required Finding: The proposed land use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County: ,[26-2.2008 (1)] Finding: The project site has a long history of violence and illegal activities that include murder, prostitution, drugs; yiolence and.numerous other criminal activities. A crime analysis report by the Contra Costa County Sheriffs Office documented 27 incidences of criminal activity on the site from--January 1, 2000 through December. 10, 2003. These types of activities present an on-going danger to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood-and community. In many cases these activities were precipitated by the lack of adequate security on the site, poor supervision and substandard maintenance. No record'has been found.of any actions taken by the property owner to reduce the occurrence of these types of activities on the site. 2. Required Finding: 'The proposed use will.not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County. [26-2.2008-(31)], . Finding: The ongoing.history of violence and criminal activities on the site, visual blight resulting from lack of landscaping and poor maintenance and repair of structures on the site, as well as the excessive amount of noise and traffic generated by this use are inconsistent with the SH General Plan designation of the area. These types of activities also provide an atinosphere that is not conducive to single-family residential development,.and has a negative,impact on future development in the area. 3. Required Finding: The proposed land use will not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of tax base within the county. [26-2.2008 (3)] Finding: The project site is a significant source of neighborhood blight, which results in. negative.impacts on property values and potential development within the neighborhood. 4. Required Finding: The proposed use shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. 126-2.2008 (4)J Findin A multi-family'residential apartment complex is inconsistent with the SH General Plan designation of the area. The.ongoing negative impacts and added density resulting from this use have an adverse affect on the policy and goals of the general'plan and residential nature of the neighborhood. The general plan calls for.densities ranging - 1 from 5.0 — 7.2 units per acre,'while this use is four times dense at 24 units per acre. 5. Required Finding: The proposed use will not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. [26-2.2008 (5)] Finding: The project site has a long history of code enforcement violations,,criminal activity and problems with building and site maintenance, which has resulted in a continuous nuisance problem within the neighborhood. 6.. Reguired.FindiM: The proposed use will not encourage marginal development issues within the neighborhood. Approval of this application will have no impact on development within the neighborhood. ,[26-2.2008 (6)J Finding: This high-density multi-family residential use of the site is inconsistent with the lower density single-family residential'use within the surrounding neighborhood. 7.• Required Findings: That special conditions or unique characteristics of the'subject property and its location or surroundings are established. [26-2.2008 (7)] Finding: There are no established special conditions or unique characteristics of the property and its location or surroundings established. While the initial land use approval was granted in 1965 for a multiple-group development, the approval was based on the land use regulations in place at the time of approval and do not reflect current land use regulations or requirements. This application is not in compliance.with the requirements of this section. B. Development Plan Findings: Approval of any development plan application requires specific findings demonstrating compliance with all of the required findings of Section 84-66.1406 of the Contra Costa County Code. 1. Required Finding: The applicant intends to start construction within two and.one- half years from the effective date of zoning change and approval. [84-66-1406 (1)] Finding: The applicant.has expressed a desire to submit building plans for the interior . renovation as soon as approval for this application is granted. 2. Required Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the County General Plan. 184-66-1406 (2)] Finding: The current SH General Plan designation for this area allows between 5.0 and 7.2 units per net acre, which would allow a maximum of total of four (4) uni.ts.per acre on.the site. The site has a current density of 24 units per,acre. 2 Primary land uses permitted in this designation include detached single-family homes, accessory structures, with secondary uses such as attached single-family units (duplexes or duets). Multi-family residential units are not authorized in the designation. In additionthe-site-does not meet the minimum number.of required off-street parking spaces required for the use. 3. Required Finding: In the case of residential development, it will constitute a residential environment of sustained desirability and stability, and will be in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and community. 184-66-1406 Finding: The project site has a.history of code enforcement violations and violent criminal activities that represent an on-going concern to the health safety and welfare of the neighborhood. The existing exterior lighting on the site is insufficient provide adequate onsite security and an open ditch along the north fence line represents an additional safety hazard to vehicles accessing the site. In addition, inadequate maintenance and repair and poor supervision of the site has resulted in substandard living conditions and a visual appearance inconsistent with the design guidelines and the residential nature of the neighborhood. The existing dwelling units are situated in the rear of the site, which provides limited views and interaction with Bella Vista Avenue and the rest of the neighborhood. The sides of the front parking.structures block any potential interior view from the street, which hinders the ability of the police or others in the area to monitor suspicious activity on the site. Comments received by the Bay Point MAC/PAC indicate that security and visibility on the site is a high priority, with a recommendation that the existing wall be removed and replaced with wrought iron metal fencing and adequate security lighting is installed. The density of this development is in excess of levels authorized for the General Plan and Zoning designations of the area and has resulted in traffic and noise levels above those normally associated with single-family residential.areas. The number of existing off-street parking spaces on the site is below the minimum County Code requirements, which impacts traffic and the availability of off-street parking in the area. This project does not constitute a stable or desirable residential environment and is not in harmony with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. C. Findings for Growth Management Element Performance Standards 1'. Traffic- As proposed, the project is not expected to generate less than a 100 peak hour trips per day; thus, a traffic study will not be required per Measure C-1998. No additional living units are proposed as part of this application. 2. Water- The site lies within the California Cities Water District's service District and is currently served by the district. 3 3. Sanitary Sewer- The site.lies within the Delta Diablo Sanitary District's service area and is currently served by the district. 4. Fire Protection- The site is within the Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District. The closest fire station is located approximately.1.07 miles to the northwest, on Willow Pass Road. 5. Public Protection- The project will continue to require an increased demand for police service facilities. 6. Parks and Recreation- The project will not increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities as no additional residential units are being proposed. 7. Flood Control & Drainage: The applicant will be'required to collect and convey runoff into facilities with adequate capacity. 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ' 651 Pine Street; N. Wing - 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: 335-1290 Fax: 335-1299 FILE LP032107—Expansion of non-conforming use APN # 095-07 1-010 300 feet Property List APN Numbers:' 095-071-001 095-d?74-002 095-081-001 095-082-001 -002 -003 -002 -002 -003 -004 -003 -003 -004 -008 -004 '004 -005 -009 .. -005 -005 -006 15 -012 -007 -c c/ -013 -008 -010 095-084-01.4 095-101-001 095102-015 -015 -002 -016 -018 -003 -019 -019 -004 -020 -020 -005 -006 -007 ■aa1 �:rC� R1 trpliutrtrrr� 'I MAN 0-0- re iWOMMove �a'a♦ �� W woo IBM OWN OPAN .► ..� �� to .c ;`� � �.. - �,� w'; 4��;�rrrn►'�'n � �curry `� . ��rtt0 p�.. :'► •►�ti=mum rr�► ""RUN, AP .P ,��� �`�: �nr u �� •►-� sly' ■��� ��.r► 1 t •ate . . � -" �US�;I '�� � :..:..�` �'�I+�Nt �' 111 — fit■ .: per: IF �rrrrrrrrr�rrrrr. nrrr�rnrrri a r also Ass +r!!::. 111 :_ �� 1 ut�t• i prnr/ its► J Ski. ■�� -� r ;a -o ;ire`y eta:. , 10 ,01Lai U '1S OOOM379N1 . '� Q p ciz VC Li Rae, m tD . tD (D n ion'. c. n , < .- y I 1 0w � d t0 m Q 001= 1 n n o if) $ �� V O by Ot '�, .N •1S .01HOr:�18 rsIs 01-13031NOW F o L W 'ss-•'" r-- re � o O � w wLL— O �p N 7 -1im S1i �J m 183e0 -- . �..! ALJ 1 7 p r ro a5iir �h JAb r' 4S I LLJ JId M N O-IN'V H r •. Q L.0 NZl7 UO w _.. Q r m p M - O .1 n -: cn '�9e�56-xo tY J Y PO 00� - --— .. Z tllLULu. LU J . m V l.7 W D. ptt ¢ O LLJ JJ 7-0 G ' mm 9u- W _ d W o EDLLI /. O t o 0Ljj'W=.U Mo N - aa / / a!•�'e. z r. _ .. �a<>�n,.�-ar•ma"'f�`d' �^�: + ��9t +.i'�A�'a'l'.:�` �ya;,y•n'"`;I.pa'�.::!:::. ._ t�� :61 i -� � D j �-1 r� 3 �S •O�t n 1 +. 0 _ C � o u m 1 � i �Z u 3 ' tJ <c. � � E i R . t o i 1 rl I I eaerus.lsul gggt�6 BILLJOVILO')UIOd AeGk w'd anUBAV Els!A alia9 U J l � 'IOp.A ON."d Ml 4:41d 10018 ul OBM43 az11e68-1 . Mir LL i OuZ v Z 839 ' . a lo!'cods a5g, -=a�.g lij al IIt � Sq" � 5 0 •. �1 e2 N h M l' Cali I g I I a 9 F 8e I I I I N O r N C� a N N N V CO ce, O O O r- cn D t- .� ¢ it .vv N d CO ca N 0) cQa ts) 1 1 1 . j ° o n U. ula = z N O r N Q Z N Zd y r N v a d f3 Q o N N Q N t7 J Y d O oU io 0'1 Ny Z N 7 p -� N CV) N o mU N N E N U p d w 0 0 Ov2 l.ty2p , N N N LO a 'T O Z 7-p N 00 U. ° ce) cn Ce) Building Inspection ContraCarlos Baltodano Department Director of Building Inspection Costa County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street, 3rd Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-1295 (925) 646-4108 sE ` FAX (925) 646-1219 1`• r' coiiN'� . March 13, 2003 ' Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Bill Rice Subject: File#DP033010 Dear Mr. Rice: The following are Building Inspection comments for file DP033010: O1: Building permits will be required for the new pitched roofs and interior remodeling of the existing apartment buildings. 02. All work must be done in compliance with 2001 CBC, CEC, CMC and CPC codes as well as current Title 24 Energy Standards. 03. Structural design calculations will be required unless the new construction conforms to the conventional construction requirements found in Chapter 23 of the CBC. 04. Any structural calculations shall be done,by an engineer or architect licensed in the State of California. If you have any questions, please call me at 5-1165. Sincerely, Deborah.A. Sandercock, S.E. Senior Structural Engineer October 29, 2003 Community Development 651 Pine Street, 4th FL., North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Attn: Maureen Toms; We are concerned regarding the property at 79 Bella Vista Ave. We have had two shooting (drive by) and a murder in the past two or three months. This appears to be an ongoing problem between rivals. The element allowed to hang out at this property is detrimental to the neighborhood. We had requested that the carports be torn down, security lights (tamper proof) be installed, the flooding (runoff during rains and other problems,that occur on property) be addressed and corrected, landscaping and irrigation as well as maintenance be provided. I believe you will find that most people living here would prefer it be torn down altogether. I have observed car dismantling taking place there, there are people coming in that spin donuts and race up and down our streets on various types of vehicles. There is VERY loud music there most every evening and often during the day. Drugs appear to be coming from this area with short trips in and out as well as people parking up and down the street as well as in our driveways and walking to 79 as well as a couple of other locations. I have observed Mr. Chavez's partner going in driving commercial trucks and heard that same loud music as well as had the same activities continue. If they intend to rent units they MUST manage and stop the illegal activity taking place. If they do not we will be taking them to court. This is not acceptable. At this point we would like the building to be torn down and if that is not possible, stipulations be enforced and the property be required to have a manager who WILL MANAGE the property by the law and enforce regulations. If they won't be a good neighbor, we would like this building torn down and the P I applied to the parcel in full. This property is a detriment to our neighborhood. These owners also had another building across the street with the same problems. It was demolished (abated) by our Code Enforcement Department. WE THANK THEM. Thank You, Norma Siegfried cc. Mr. B. Chevez MAC Members •J'JI"1- I -GCJCJ� 1G•G1f fRUl 1•'�110'JCL ',7fIJ IJY 1-7CJ-`�»-C17'�( GROUP CHA VEZ 3333 Willow Pass Road Bay Point, CA 94565 (925)458-8989 (925)458-0957 fax E-Mail; c svc»:ro u.719l.c m ON-SITE MANAGER AGREEMENT June 3,2004 Ref: 79 BELLA VISTA AVE. BAY POINT, CA 94565 To Whom It May Concern: This agreement is to certify that Mrs. Christy Anna Bales,who is presently re-viding at 79-A Bella Vista Ave., Bay Point, C.4 94565, is the on-site manager for the above referenced property. She is paid a monthly amount of$300 and is fully authorized to make any calls to sherifrs/police as needed. She is also authorized to make any type of decisions in the hest interest of this property in the event our office is closed such as weekends/holidays. She will be resolving resident complaints and monitoring site security at all times, Mrs.Baler will aLco be keeping the property clean is an effort to maintain a healthy environment for all the tenants on this property. She will also be keeping an incident log for the property of all calls and incidents that occur in and or around the above-mentioned property. b Ben Chaves L 1)96 1 dv: Christy#na Bales I}Mte -13 JUtl-r-2034 12 21P FROrI:t_ha.,ez Group 1-925- 45e-09557 Tf]•JJSi2b5 P:2 CHA VEZ afa�p 3333 Willow Pass Road Bay Point, CA 94565 (925)458-8989 (925)458-0957 fax L-mail: ON-SITE MANAGER AGREEMENT June 3,2004 Ref: 79 BELLA VISTA AVE. BAY POINT, CA 94565 To Wholes It May Concern: This agreement is to certify that Mrs. Christy Anna Bales,who is presently residing at 79-A Bella Vista Ave., Bay Point, CA 94565, is the on-site manager for the above referenced property. She is paid a monthly amount of 5300 and is fully authorized to make any calls to sheriff's/police as ueedcd. She is also authorized to make any type of decisions in the hest interest of this prisperty in the event our office is closed such as weekends/holidays. She will be resolving resident complaints and monitoring site security at all times, Mrs.Bales will also be keeping the property clean is an effort to maintain a healthy environment for all the tenants, on this property. She will also be keeping an incident log for the property of all calls and incidents that occur in and or around the above-mentioned property. b Ben Chaves U D Christy Ona Bales Date Attachment 8 Proposed Timetable for Completion of Conditions of Approval, July 7, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF �Z GAGEN, MCCOY, McMAHON & ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILLIAM GAGEN,JIL DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L.McCoy 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J.MCMAHON P.O.BOX 218 MARK L.ARMSTRONG DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526-0218 CHARLES A.KOSS MICHAEL J.MARKOWffL TELEPHONE:(925)837-0585 RICHARD C.RAINEs July 7 2005 FAx:(925)838-5985 BARBARA DWAL JEWELL ROBERT M.FANUCCI NAPA VALLEY OFFICE ALLAN C.MOORS STEPHEN T.$UEHL THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE AMANDA BBv1NS 1030 MAIN STREET,SUITE 212 MARTIN LYSONS ST.HELENA,CALIFORNIA 94574 KATHERINE S.zELAZNY TELEPHONE:(707)963-0909 ERIC S.QUANDT FAx:(707)963-5527 LAUREN E.DODGE ANNETTE M.KNOX Nerve Reply To: ANNA CLAVERIA BRANNAN SARAH S.Nuc Danville OF COUNSEL LwN K.COOMBS Via Facsimile (925) 335-7201 & Hand Delivery Maureen Toms, AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department 2320 Arnold Drive Suite 190 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Proposed timetable for completion of Conditions of Approval Your file: LP032017 Dear Maureen: Pursuant to the direction of the Zoning Administrator, I am enclosing herewith a list of conditions of approval for LP032017, a short summary of the status of each condition, and a proposed timetable for their completion. The list of conditions refers to the time the property was in receivership (July 27, 2004 to March 3, 2005) and unavailable to the current applicant, Sunny Jacobson. It should be noted that, even after the March 3, 2005 termination date, there remained other legal obstacles to the improvement of the property. These have, for the most part,been resolved, and Sunny Jacobson and her associates can dedicate their time and energy to completing this project. I have just received and am now sifting through the documents and information pertaining to the receivership. I will send you a more detailed letter detailing the specific dates and restrictions associated with the receivership by the end of the day. This should give you and the Zoning Administrator a better understanding of the limitations and restrictions faced by the current owners in their efforts to improve the property. F:\clme1\37311\Toms Ltr070705.doc Maureen Toms, AICP July 7, 2005 Page 2 In the meantime, please review the enclosed timetable, and if you have any questions or comments, please call me at any time. I look forward to working with you and your staff to improving this property to make it an asset to the neighborhood. Very truly yours, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon &Armstrong A Professional Corporation Martin E. Lysons MEL:ng Enclosure cc: Robert Drake, Zoning Administrator Sunny Jacobson F:\clmel\37311\Toms Ltr070705.doc PROPOSED TIMETABLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS,OF APPROVAL (COA) FOR LAND USE PERMIT # LP032107 1. The proposed development is approved as shown on the plans submitted with the'application, received by the Community Development Department on February 26, 2003, subject to the required modifications listed below and subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to-the issuance of any new building permit and subject to the-conditions listed below. The current applicant, Sunny Jacobson, has to the best of her ability, undertaken to comply with the Conditions of Approval. As this property was held in receivership from July 27, 2004 to March 3, 2005,..Ms.,. Jacobson. was legally precluded from making improvements to the property. As she and her associate have now cleared title to the property, she may now proceed with the improvement of the property unhindered,by litigation. She is prepared to post bonds for any improvements that need to be done to the property and to propose a timeline for their construction that is acceptable to County staff. 2. The proposed structure shall be similar to that shown on the submitted plans received by the ,Community Development Department on June 26, 2003..Prior to issuance of a building permit, elevations and architectural design of the building. shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The roof and'exterior walls of the building shall be free of such objects. as air. conditioning or utility equipment, television aerials, etc., or screened from view. Building permits were obtained by the applicant to repair the fire-damaged structure, housing six living units. This design was reviewed by the Community Development Department and approved for construction prior to issuance of the building permit. As the property was in receivership, no work could be completed on,the project after July 27, 2004. During the period of receivership, the County continued to address all'correspondence to Ben Chavez, the previous owner of the property. .This correspondence was never forwarded to either Sunny Jacobson or Richard.Rodriguez, the current co-owner on title to this property. When the receivership was lifted, Ms.'Jacobson made inquiries to County staff regarding the status of the permits and asked that timetables set forth in,the permit be stayed to • 1 F:\clme1\37311\Cconditians ofApproval.doc. compensate for the time period between July 27, 2004 and March 3, 2005, when no work could be completed: However, no.stay was granted, and the building permit expired. Significant progress had been made pursuant to the permit before it expired, including installation of a security gate, installation of interior improvements.in the six-unit apartment building, clean-up of carports,. replacement of exterior.siding, installation of a new roof and other exterior improvements. Ms. Jacobson and her associate are prepared to post bonds immediately with the County to insure that the remainder of the work.will be completed in a timely fashion. LANDSCAPING 3. Landscaping on the site shall be consistent with' the landscape plans received by the Community Development Department on June 26, 2003, as , approved -b' the` Zoning' Administrator. All landscaping. 'shall include a metered in- ground sprinkler system that may include a drip system in the smaller shrub bed areas. Installation of the required landscaping shall be completed within 90-days of the land use permit approval date. The landscaping as approved by.the.Zoning Administrator can be installed at any time. Now that the issue of ownership and control of the property is has been decided, the applicant is willing and able.to post.a bond for these improvements and install them in accordance with the County's timetable.. . SITE SECURITY 4. Within 30 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall provide evidence of the full time employment of a. dedicated on-site manager, employed for the duration of the use. The.site manager shall be responsible for screening potential residents, monitoring site security, resolving resident complaints, keeping the site clean and coordinating with County officials. As noted.in the staff report, as ofJune%3,.2004 a manager has been onsite. This manager, Christy Bales, moved while the property was under receivership. During the time of receivership, neither Sunny Jacobson nor. 2 F:\clmel\37311\Cconditions of Approval.doc her co-owner, Richard.Rodriguez could legally access the property, hire a new manager, seek new tenants, or access funds associated with the . property (e.g., rent). These functions were the responsibility of the receiver, Steve Siljestrom. While it is true that there was only one tenant living on site as of May 12, 2005, that tenant performed all the functions of an onsite manager, including coordination of site clean-up and monitoring site security. The result has been that the criminal activity on site has ceased (no reported incidents since termination of the receivership, when Sunny Associates assumed title to the property), and there are no longer unregistered automobiles on the property. In addition, Ms. Jacobson has hired a maintenance manager, Richard Reynoso to tend the weeds and keep the propertyfree of trash and debris. 5. A log shall be maintained on the site, documenting complaints received by the site manager and actions taken to resolve them, a record of all county permits issued for the site and their status, police calls to the site, as well as any issues involving the County Sheriffs office, or other county offices. A copy of this log shall be submitted to the Community 'Development Department every six-months, for -review by the Zoning Administrator, subject to payment of a $200 review fee. The previous owner, Ben Chavez,failed to provide the two reports required to date. It is our understanding that he did submit a blank "incident log" which correctly reflected the fact that no criminal activity had transpired between the approval of land use permit LP032107 and the date the report was submitted. (June 3, 2004). By the time the second report was due, six months later, the property had already gone into receivership. The responsibilityfor compliance with the Conditions of Approval, including COA #5, rested with the receiver, Steve Siljestrom. The previous owner, Ben Chavez, did not notify any of the interested parties of the obligation to provide this report. The current applicant, Sunny'Jacobson, is ready and willing to provide reports at any interval deemed suitable to County staff. If more frequent reports are necessary at first, these willprovided at any interval deemed necessary with theassistance of counsel. 6. Within 90 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove the existing carports on the site, to include the block walls around,the front 3 F:\clmeM7311\Cconditions of Approval.doc carports. Prior to any. demolition of the carports the applicant shall obtain approval of a demolition permit from the County Building Department. As noted in the staff report, these carports have been partially removed. Based on conversations with County staff and the Sheriff's Department during onsite meetings, the previous owner, Ben Chavez, believed that the partial removal of these carports was all that was necessary to enhance the security of the site. We have since been told by County staff that these carports must be completely removed.. We would like to discuss with County staff alternatives to the complete removal of the carports, as many tenants demand cover for their automobiles. If it is not possible to retain these carports or to find a suitable redesign for the carports, the applicant is ready and willing to post a bond for the cost of the removal of the carports, and to apply for.demolition permits to remove the carports within 15 days or any reasonable timeframe prescribed by the Zoning Administrator. 7.. Within 90 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on-site security. Prior to construction of the new fence, plans and elevations shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review of compliance with County Code requirements and security issues. As the staff report indicates, a new metal fence-has been installed. This fence has been an effective deterrent to crime, as no incidents,have been reported since its installation. While the plans for the fence were not submitted for review, the applicant will submit plans for review to County staff and make any changes deemed appropriate. It should be noted, however, that the fence as installed is both aesthetically pleasing and has been:a functional deterrent to crime. 8. Within 90 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and. along the corridor between the two rear buildings. A copy of the lighting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department, for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Within the first 30 days of renewal of this permit, the we will submit to the County a preliminary lighting plan and work with County staff and the Sheriff's Department to provide on-site lighting that is functional, safe, aesthetically pleasing, and unobtrusive. During the period that.the 4 F:\clmeM7311\Cconditions of Approval.doc property was in receivership, no progress could be made on the approvals for the lighting plan. Now that the issue of ownership and responsibility has been resolved, Ms. Jacobson is willing and able to submit the lighting plan, to post a bond for the cost for the installation of the lights, and to install the lights on any timetable deemed appropriate by the County. These will be a further deterrent to crime on the property. SITE IMPROVEMENTS 9. Within 6.0 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall submit grading and paving plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. These plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and include sufficient details to demonstrate adequate drainage on the site. Paving shall be completed within 30 days of grading permit issuance. The previous owner, Ben Chavez, submitted plans after the approval of the land use permit, and the plans were approved by the Zoning Administrator. While the property was in receivership, improvements such as paving could not be completed. Now that these issues have been resolved, the applicant is willing and able to pave the site within 60 days or on a timetable deemed acceptable by County staff. CODE COMPLIANCE 10. Within 30 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove all plumbing within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings. This shall include the removal and capping of all water, sewer and gas lines associated with the former laundry room. Prior to the conversion of this area into storage space, the applicant shall obtain approval of a building permit from the County Building Department. As the property was in receivership, Ms. Jacobson was legally precluded from doing any work on the site. Now that the issues of ownership and responsibility have been resolved, she is willing and.able to complete any work necessary, subject to County approval. However, removal of the plumbing from the laundry room does little to enhance the aesthetic quality 5 F:\clmel\3731 MCconditions of Approval.doc or the security of the site. We ask that the Zoning Administrator reconsider this condition of approval to allow the reestablishment of a laundry room for the,benefit of the tenants. If, after reconsideration, the removal of the laundry facility is deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator, Ms. Jacobson is prepared to post a bond for the cost of this work within two weeks of approval and to perform the work within any appropriate time frame. 11. Within 90 days of issuance of the land use permit, the applicant `shall reduce the height of the existing concrete faced fence along the eastern property line to a height of six ft. or.less as required by Section 82-4.270 of the County Code. Should the applicant choose to keep the fence at its current height, a building permit' and approval from the Community Development Department for a deviation to the height restriction is required. The adjacent property owner constructed this fence, and preliminary indications are that the fence is not on the subject property. We will provide survey data to County staff to'verify the location of this fence. If the fence is on the property, the"applicant will modify the fence height within 90 days as required by-the Zoning Administrator. If it is not on the property, this owner cannot be responsible for its modification. 12. Repair to Fence Along North Propeqy Line. - Prior to requesting a final inspection of the apartment building, the applicant shall obtain a building permit, make improvements, and obtain.a final building permit to repair the fence along the north property line, subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. If the existing fence is located on the adjoining property, then the applicant shall diligently work with the adjoining property owner to get permission-to..-repair the fence. The applicant shall be required to provide evidence of the applicant's diligence in trying to repair the fence. We will make every effort to repair the fence, including, if necessary, seeking permission from and working with the adjoining neighbor. We will contact the neighbor within 15 days. 6 F:\clmeM73111Cconditions of Approval.doc 13: Completion of All Required Improvements Prior to Requesting a Final Infection or Allowing Occupancy of the Apartment Building. - Prior to seeking requesting a final inspection or occupancy permit of the apartment building, the applicant shall provide evidence for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that all above required improvements r (building, landscaping/irrigation, removal of carport walls, new front fence, security lighting, grading/paving/drainage, plumbing alterations, rear fence, alterations, north sideyard fence alterations) have been completed. This Condition of Approval must be satisf ed prior to requesting a final inspection or occupancy permit for the apartment building. We will not request a f nal inspection or occupancy permit until all of the required improvements have been completed. These improvements will be completed within any timeframe deemed appropriate by the Zoning Administrator. As noted above, Ms. Jacobson is prepared to post a bond for the estimated cost of these repairs and improvements in order to insure that they will be completed in a timely manner. In addition to the bond, we will complete the work within the prescribed time limits set forth in the conditions of approval. The subject property is under new management,presenting a new opportunity to make the property an attractive part of the neighborhood. The new owners have had little to do with the property until the termination of the receivership, and are not responsible for its current state. They have the resources and are willing to comply with all conditions of approval if given the opportunity. Approval of this historical use of the property is the most efficient way to bring this property up to community standards while providing low-cost housing, improving the area's aesthetic quality, enhancing neighborhood security. 7 FAclme1\37311\Cconditions of Approval.doc LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, McCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILLIAM GAGEN,JR. DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L McCoy 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J.MCMAHON P.O.BOX 218 MARK L.ARMSTRONG L CHARLES A.Koss DANVILE,CALJFORNIA 94526-0218 MICHAEL J.MARKOWrrz- TELEPHONE:(925)837-0585 RICHARD C.RAINEs July 8, 2005 FAX:(925)838-5985 BARBARA DuvAL JEWELL ROBERT M.FANuca ' ALLAN C.MOORE NAPA VALLEY OFFICE STEPHEN T.BuEHL THE OFFICES AT SOIJTHBRIDGE AMANDA Bum 1030 MAIN STREET,SUITE 212 MARTIN LYsoNs ST.HELENA,CALIFORNIA 94574 KATHERINE S.ZELAzNy - TELEPHONE:(707)963-0909 ERIC S.QUAND7 LAuREN E.DODGE FAX:(707)963-5527 ANNETTE M.KNox Pleeae Reply To: ANNA CLAvERIA BRANNAN SARAH S.Nix Danville OF COUNSEL LNN K.COOMBS Via Facsimile (925) 335-7201 & Hand Delivery Maureen Toms,AICP Principal Planner Community Development Department 2530 Arnold Drive Suite 190 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Sunny&Associates,Property at 79 Bella Vista in Bay Point Your file: LP032017 Dear Maureen: On behalf of my client, Sunny Jacobson, I would like to review for the record the history of the above-referenced parcel. As noted in the staff report, the property consists of. a six-unit apartment building, a four-unit building and a two-unit building for a total of twelve units on the site. The six-unit structure was damaged by fire in 1999. As the structure was a legally non- conforming use on the parcel, permits to repair the fire damage were appIroved. When the managing owner,Ben Chavez, failed to complete the reconstruction pursuant to the permits,they expired. By that time, the use had been interrupted for more than a six-month period, and a land use permit was required in order to reconstruct the six-unit building. The previous manning partner encumbered the property without permission of his partners. On January 26, 2004, the Zoning Administrator approved Land Use Permit 032107, allowing Mr. Chavez and his partner to reconstruct the six-unit building under certain conditions of approval, which are outlined in the staff report. Unbeknownstto his partners, however, Mr. Chavez issued and delivered a Promissory Note (hereinafter, "the Note") in the principal sum of $39,000.00 to DCI Properties, LLC. Although the Promissory Note was issued for Mr. Chavez's F:\clme1\37311\Toms Lir-Receivership-070805.doc Maureen Toms,AICP July 8, 2005 Page 2 personal benefit and not for the benefit of the partnership, Mr. Chavez secured the Note with a Deed of Trust in favor of DCI. The Deed of Trust provided that, in the event of failure to make payments pursuant to the Note, a receiver would be appointed to take possession of and manage six properties owned in part by Chavez, including the subject property. When Mr. Chavez failed to make payments DCI filed a petition to the Superior Court for appointment of receiver, which was granted on July 27, 2004. . .A copy of this petition is attached as Exhibit A. The stated purpose of the receivership was to assign the rents from the properties to DCI instead of allowing Mr. Chavez to collect them. The properties were in foreclosure and scheduled for sale in November of 2004, so DCI initiated this court-ordered receivership in order to insure that DCI would collect the rents until the properties were sold. The property was placed in receivership, and the owners could not improve the property during this time period. The receiver was appointed by court order on August 10, 2004. A copy of the judge's order appointing Steve Siljestrom as receiver and outlining the details and restrictions of the receivership is attached as Exhibit B, and the Order Confirming the Appointment of Receiver is attached as Exhibit C. In essence, the receiver was given full management capacity over the properties, including the.subject property, including collection of rents, daily maintenance, and "all the things, and incur the risks and obligations, ordinarily done or incurred by owners, managers, and operators of businesses and property similar to that possessed by the receiver, except the receiver shall not make any capital improvements to the property without prior court approval." (See Exhibit B, Section 16.c.) Based on this limitation and others outlined in Exhibit B, no one had either the power or.the incentive to construct the improvements required by the conditions of approval. Mr. Chavez was about to lose the property through foreclosure; he had no incentive to improve it. Mr. Siljestrom, sthe receiver, did not have the power to make capital improvements without a court order. He had no incentive to improve the property anyway, since he was managing the property only temporarily and on behalf of a third party (DCI). Sunny Jacobson and her partners did not own the property until after the foreclosure sale in vember, 2004. They were prohibited by the terms of the receivership to contract with Mr. Siljestrom to fulfill the conditions of approval (see Exhibit B, Paragraph 10, "Prohibited Agreements"). Even after the sale, Ms. Jacobson did not have the power to improve the property, as the property remained under the management of Mr. Siljestrom, the receiver, pending resolution of the Note. During the tune the property was under -receivership, therefore; no work could be done pursuant to the conditions of approval. In December of 2004, Ben Chavez and DCI Properties stipulated to terminate the management duties of the receiver. This stipulation was approved by the Superior Court in January of 2005 (See Stipulation attached as Exhibit D). Before the final transfer of management responsibilities could occur,the receiver still had to present to the Court an accounting and final report,had to be FAclmeM7311\Toms Ur-Receivership-070805.doc Maureen Toms, AICP July 8, 2005 Page 3 paid for his services, and had to be discharged.officially.from his duties by the Court. The Court Order discharging the receiver was filed by the Court on March -3, 2005 (See Exhibit E, attached), marking the first date that Sunny Jacobson and her ers in ownership could assume full management responsibility for the subject property. Once the receivership was terminated, Ms. Jacobson and- her partners undertook to improve the property in Lrood faith and wish to complete the improvements subject to County approval. Ms. Jacobson and her partners immediately took steps to bring all six properties into compliance, including the subject property. They installed a security fence across the frontage of the property (albeit without a permit from the County) pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 7. However, all correspondence from the County had been addressed to Ben Chavez (who, besides being antagonistic to the process had suffered a severe heart attack in-the summer of 2004 and was unavailable'as a resource). Understandably, it took time for Ms. Jacobson to wade through the paperwork pertaining to this-and the other properties recovered from the receivership. In addition, there are other legal matters outstanding between Mr. Chavez and the current owners that have essentially terminated any productive working relationship between them. On May 9, 2005, Ms. Jacobson received a letter from Planner Maureen O'Shea stating that the land use permit had expired on May 5, 2005 and was subject to revocation for non-compliance with the conditions of approval. This was the first correspondence addressed directly to Sunny Jacobson. While Ms. Jacobson was aware that the permits had a limited lifespan, she was not aware that the termination date was looming, nor was she aware that the County was considering revocation due to the fact that the conditions of approval had not yet been met. She now has every intention of fulfilling all the conditions of approval immediately, and she has the resources to post bonds fonthe necessary work. We will furnish any reasonable guarantee to the County that the work will be completed within a specified time period. Passing of the expiration date alone is not reason enough to revoke a land use permit once substantial work has been completed pursuant to the permit As you and I have discussed, I do not believe that this land use permit can be automatically terminated based on the fact that the expiration date has passed. The California Court of Appeal has held that "the purpose of statutes or ordinances providing for automatic expiration or revocation of use permits when work has not commenced or a use established is to,prevent reservation of land for future purposes when the permittee.has no.good faith intent to presently commence upon the proposed use."1 Id this case, substantial work has been done on site to constitute exercise.of the permit, including installation of a security fence and gate, preparation of landscaping and .architectural plans, installation of interior improvements in the six-unit apartment building, clean-up of carports, replacement of exterior siding, installation of a new See Community Development Commission of Mendocino County v. City of Fort Bragg, 204 Ca1.App.3d 1124. F:\clmel\37311\Toms Ur-Receivers hip-070805.doc Maureen Toms, AICP July 8, 2005 Page 4 roof and other exterior improvements. 'Absent a finding of nuisance, in my opinion, this permit cannot be automatically expired. While the staff report does cite instances of past nuisances, these have either been abated, or will be abated once the project is allowed to move forward. The permitted use (i.e.', the multi-family structure) cannot be considered a nuisance in itself. Safety concerns concerning.crime and dangerous activities have been completely abated by the installation of a fence and the appointment of an on-site manager. Once the units are occupied, there will be even.fewer opportunities for criminal activity on the site. The lack of landscaping and .poor maintenance and repair of structures on the site are also addressed by the conditions of approval. The improvements are ready to be installed once the permits are issued.• Sunny Jacobson .and her partners are prepared to provide any guarantee necessary, including bonding for the cost of the required improvements, that the work will be completed ,in a timely manner. As the staff report notes, "compliance with the conditions of approval would have addressed these concerns." We are asking for the opportunity to address the concerns in a manner consistent with staff recommendations. In addition to case law, the legislature has favored the protection of low-cost housing. When a multifamily dwelling is destroyed by fire, State law provides that a local agency can prohibit its reconstruction, restoration or rebuilding only under two criteria. The first is that the County must make a finding that the reconstruction, restoration-or rebuilding will be detrimental of injurious to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing 'or working in the neighborhood, or will be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood.3 As noted. above and in the Staff Report, compliance with the conditions of approval will address these concerns. It should also be noted that reinstatement of the land use permit and,enforcement of these conditions of approval is the only way to address these concerns in a timely manner. Allowing Ms.Jacobson and Associates to complete the project is the only way to assure that the property will be improved in a timely manner. Everyone involved with this property, including Ms. Jacobson, her partners, the County, and the neighborhood, hasthe same goal for this permit: to improve this property and turn it into an asset to the neighborhood. The most expeditious way to achieve this goal is to allow the owner to make.improvements already deemed acceptable by the County in approving the original land use permit. Revocation of the permit at this late-date only delays the improvement of this property indefinitely. Reinstating the permit, on the other hand, establishes a definitive timeline for the property to be improved and beautified under strict guidelines established and agreed to by the Zoning Administrator and the community. Based on what I have seen on the property and on the 2 See Staff Report dated June 6,2005,Page 6,Paragraph Nos.3 &5. 3 See Califomia Government Code section 65852.25(b)(1). FAclmel\3731 Moms Ur-Receivership-070805.doc Maureen Toms,AICP July 8, 2005 Page 5 improvement plans, I believe that this is a viable project under new management that deserves a chance to be completed. The current owners of the subject property did not create its problems. While the property was under receivership,they could do little to remedy them: Now.that all ownership issues have been resolved, Sunny Jacobson and her associates are prepared to make this property aesthetically pleasing and viable in a very short time. Please allow them the opportunity to improve this property as prescribed by the Zoning Administrator and reinstate this permit. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.. I look forward to working with you in bringing this project to a successful conclusion. Very truly yours, Gagen,McCoy, McMahon&Armstrong A Professional Corporation Martin E. Lysons MEL-ng Enclosures cc: Robert Drake, Zoning Administrator Sunny Jacobson F:\clmeM7311\ToTmLtr-Receivership-070805.doc _ (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 1 DON L POOL 166468 THE LAW FIRM OF POWELL & POOL 2 7522 North Colonial Avenue, Suite 100ZU _ -L 2- Fresno, California 93711 3 Telephone: (559) 228-8034 Facsimile: . (559)228-6818 K T`` Attorneys for: DCI PROPERTIES, LLC 5: 6 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 9 UNLIMITED CIVIL DIVISION 0 10 0 o *** °o cn = DCI PROPERTIES, LLC, a California ) Case No. C04-01173 UJ I 'd rn 12 Limited Liability Company, ) � EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR a¢ E 13 ) APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER AND Plaintiff, U_ @ ° . ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER O .E 6 14 AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 2 o U V. ) y 15 BENITO CHAVEZ, an individual; and ) Date:. July 27,2004 3¢ Zti 16 DOES T tfirough 100, inclusive; ) Time: 1:30 p.m. N ) Dept: 60 LU U) 17 Defendants. ) Complaint Filed: July 23,2004 18 19 20 Plaintiff DCI PROPERTIES, LLC ("DCI") hereby applies ex parte for the 21 appointment of a Receiver and for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 22 on the following grounds. 23 Ex Parte Notice 24 Notice of the ex parte hearing was given to defendant on Friday, July 23, 25 2004.' (See D. Pool dec.) . 26 The Property 27 The properties that are subject of this action are commonly described as 28 follows: -l. Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Receiver and Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 1 Property#1: 51 Poinsetta Avenue,Bay Point, CA 2 Property#2: 185 Hill Street, Bay Point, CA 3 Property#3: 30 Sara Court, Bay Point, CA 4 Property#4: 60-68 76 Bay View Ave.,Bay.Point, CA 5 Property#5: 79 Bella Vista,Bay Point, CA 6 Property#6: 10-30 Roberts Street,Bay Point,CA 7 The Debt.and Defaults 8 On or about April. 16, 2004, CHAVEZ made, executed and delivered to ` 9 Plaintiff a Promissory Note in the principal.sum of$39,000.00 ('Note's: (See D. Shaw dec. 00 10 at 2.) O � a m 11 To secure the Note, CHAVEZ executed a Deed of Trust in favor of Plaintiff, LU ' 12 recorded April 16, 2004, in the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office (lbid.). The Deed of 0a. <' 13 Trust provides: tL6 ° O •E a 14 Assignment of Rents; Appointment of Receiver; Lender in � o v Possession. As additional security hereunder, and without C; 15 regard to the 1 adequacy of any security for the indebtedness ` .016 hereby secured, Borrower hereby assigns to Lender the rents of z LL w N the Property,provided that Borrower shall,prier to acceleration LO 17 under paragraph 18 hereof or abandonment of the Property, have the right to collect and retain such rents as they become 18 due and payable. 19 20 Upon acceleration under paragraph 18 hereof or abandonment ' of the Property, Lender, in..person, by Agent or by judicially . 21 appointed receiver shall be entitled to enter upon, -take 22 possession of and manage the Property and to collect the rents of the Property including those past due. All rents collected by 23 Lender or the receiver shall be applied first to payment of the costs of management of the Property and collection of rents; 24 including, but not limited to, receiver's fees premiums on 25 receiver's bonds and reasonable attorney's:fees and then to the sums secured by this.Deed of Trust. Lender and the receiver 26 shall be liable to account only for those rents actually-received. 27 On or about May 1, 2004, CHAVEZ failed to make the.monthly payment due 28 under the Note in the amount of $325.00.,CHAVEZ has also failed to make any payments -2- Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Receiver and Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction r I thereafter. As a result, Plaintiff has elected to accelerate the Note, and the entire amount due 2 under the Note is now due. 3 As of July 16, 2004;the outstanding balance was: 4 Principal $39,000.00 Interest 1001.98 5 .Late Charges 58.50 6 Advances to Senior Liens 80,191.12 Interest on Advances 1,018.95 7 Foreclosure Fees &Costs 688.22 8 Total .$121,958.77 9 This amount does not include legal fees or costs incurred. Interest continues to 0 0 10 accrue at the daily rate of$10.83 to entry of judgment (excluding interest on the advances). Or a °' Late charges are also incurred at the rate of$19.50 per month. 1 J CO ti LU M CD On On or about July 13, 2004, Plaintiff caused the Trustee under the Deed of a > 13 Trust to record a Notice of Default. (Id. at 3) U- Ca O o o v 14 Necessity of Ex Parte Relief LLy 15 The Property encumbered by the Deed of Trust consists of multi-family ga� z " 16 housing. The monthly rents received for each address are as follows: UJ N Ln 17 51 Poinsetta Ave. (7 units) $6,090.00 18 185-198 Hill Street (7 units) $6,590.00 19. 30 Sara Court (6 units) $5,100.00 20 60, 76 Bay View Ave. (10 units) $9,900.00 21 79 Bella Vista (5 units) $4,900.00 22 10-30 Roberts St. (3 units) $4,000.00 23 TOTAL MONTHLY RENTS $36,580.00 24 The rental agreements for the foregoing properties are in favor of BEN 25 CHAVEZ or The Chavez Group, as owner. Rents are due on the first of each month.' (See 26 D. Shaw dec.) 27 Unless a receiver is appointed, CHAVEZ will remain in possession of the real 28 property and will be able to manage the real property until completion of the foreclosure sale, -3- Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Receiver and Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 1 which will be held in the first part of November, 2004.'During that time, CHAVEZ and/or 2 his agents will be in possession of the rents derived from the Property.. Notwithstanding the 3 fact that CHAVEZ continues to collect the rents, he has failed to pay the monthly payments 4 due Plaintiff, or the payments due on the first deed of trust against the Property (Ibid.). 5 Unless a receiver is appointed to collect the rents, Plaintiff will lose its rights to receive the 6 rents pending foreclosure. 7 As set forth in the declaration of Don J. Pool, DCI does not presently seek the 8 appointment of a receiver for the property located at 51 Poinsetta Avenue, Bay Point. (See 9 D. Pool dec.) That property is presently in escrow, and it is hoped the sale proceeds will be 0 0 10 sufficient to pay down DCI's second and pay off the holder of the first deed of trust. (lbid.). d m 11 DCI reserves the right to apply to add the 51 Poinsetta Avenue property to the receivership in r CO w12 the event the sale does not close in the immediate future. ac > . 13 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court appoint a 0c v 14 Receiver ex parte to take possession of the real property described in the Deed of Trust, o °c 15 excluding 51 Poinsetta Avenue, and collect the rents pending foreclosure. L yd Z16 16 Dated: July, 2004 THE LAW FIRM OF POWELL &POOL W N 17 18 19 DO Attorney for DCI PROPERTIES, 20 LLC 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Receiver and Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction xrroRt• Y Lilt PA,R rir wwmau r A-rTORney(Narwa.s. ..wear aea addra3a): FOR SE am-Y DOFt'J:POOL(SBN No. 166468) 7riE LAW FIRM OF POW ELL 8 POOL r 7522 N.COLONIAL AVENUE, SUITE 100 FRESNO, CA 93711 TELPRONE NQ:(559)228-8034 FAX MO. (559)228-6816 E•MAIL AMRSW(CCAeA3f1 Z� (,Q CLJ 4� ATroANEYFORMe )-*DCI PROPERTIES, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA.COUNTY OF Contra Costa - srneErAroRes=-725 Cour.Street MAILINc.razess:same [� crryAmo zIP c:oe- Martinez. CA 94553 BAUCH NAME PLANT IFP DCI Properties,LLC DEFENDANT:Benito Chavez,an individual and Does 1 through 100. inclusive EX PARTE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE C.tSEreuWeE> ® AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER-RENTS, ISSUES,AND C04-01173 PROFITS NOTICE OF HEARING Data: v�. t b�1daTime: .aa c..r+ Dept: 2' Room: The address of the court ® is shown above ❑ is(specify): w ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE 1. To defendant(name each):BENITO CHAVEZ 2. THE COURT ORDERS the defendants named in item 1 to appear-in this court at the date,time,and place shown in the box above to give any legal reason a. Why a receiver should not be confirmed to (1) take possession and continue in possession of the property described in Attachment 2a(attach a description of the real and personal prcperty subject to the receivership) (the properh1 j,and (2) manage the property in accordance with this order until further order of this court b. Why you should not be prohibited from controlling or receiving.any income from the property described in Attachment 2a. ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER THE COURT ORDERS,pending the hearing on the Ex Parte Order to Show Cause,the following: 3. Receiver. (Name):Steve Siljestrom is appcinted as receiver to take possession of the property described in Attachment 2a. 4. Receiver's oath and bond.The receiver shalI immediately,and before performing any duties: a. execute and rile a receivers oath•and b. file:he gond required by Code of Civil Procedure section 567(b)in the amount of:S 1 Ij,000.00 5. Receiver's fees.The receiver may charge for the receiver's services no more than(ch9ck all that apply): 146.00 ❑ per month ® per hour ® other(specilSl):50.37 pet mile plus b. (J" percerit of gross monthly rents out-of-pccket expenses c- rl the greater of a or b ,d. ❑ S as a one-time start-up fee Poge,ers fermx;:r.ee r C:,ena use Ex PARTE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND ORDER TO SHOW a :a ye: %�:a a•Si==•'• J�_•�]I C�rCJ :.:1�;•'n.7 .S?9.sultiro).C31.Rve ;r . nc.:cc :�y:��ay,•:cc:t CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER-RENTS, Cour�nrles•"e_.,5o,.,:z ISSUES,AND PROFITS (Raceiversh{p) :Ccz Cu-er=3.-La5:01:1 '�.� PIJUNTIFF(Name): DCI Properties, A seMAMak C04-01173 DCF'---Nr-)ANT(Name): Benito Chavez. et al ' S. ® Management company.The receiver may employ the management company of(name): a. 1Z The receiver may pay the compa not more than (1) ❑ S ] per month ❑ per hour ❑ other(specify): (2) .0 10 percent of gross monthly rents (3) ❑ the greater of(1)or(2) (4) ❑ S as a one-lime start-up fee b. ❑ Management company fees are included in receiver's fees in item 5. 7. Disclosure. The receiver shall immediately disclose to all parties any.financial relationship between the receiver and any company hired to assist in the management of the receivership property. . 8. Plaintiffs os parte bond.:Plaintiff shall immediately fife an applicant's bond under Code of•Civil Procedure section 566(b) . in the amount of: S 5.000.00 9. General duties. After qualifying;the receiver a. shall take possession of and manage the property, b. shall tolled the income from the property. c- shall care for the properly and may incur the expenses necessary for that care,and d. may change the locks on the property.' 10. Prohibited agreements.The receiver shall not enter into an agreement with any party to this action about the administration of the receivership or about any postreceivership matter. 11. Inventory.Within 30 days after qualifying,the receiver shall file an inventory of all property possessed under this order. 12. Expenditures.The receiver shall expend money coming into his or her possession to operate and preserve the property and only for the purposes authorized in this order.Unless the court orders otherwise,the receiver shall to the extent pradcal.hold the balance in interest-bearing accounts in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 569. 13. Leases and rentals.The receiver may without court approval enter into leases for a term not exceeding one year.obtain and evict tenants, and set and modify the amounts and terms of leases. 14. Security deposits.Unless the security deposit has been turned over or paid to the receiver,the receiver shall not refund a deposit to a tenant. 15. Monthly accounting of receiver's Income,expenses.and fees. a. The receiver shall each month.prepare.and serve on the parties, but not file, an accounting of the income and expenses incurred in the administration of the receivership properly,including the receivers fees and expenses. b. The receiver may pay the receiver's own fees and expenses only by the following procedures: (1) By serving on all parties a notice of intent to pay to which no objection is served on the receiver within 19days of the date the notice is served. (2) By serving and firing a request-for interim payment,which the court then approves. (3) By obtaining and filing an agreement among all the parties approving the payment,which the court then approves. (4) By filing the receivers final accounting and report,which the court then approves. c- The receivar shall not reimburse the receiver for the receiver's general office administration expenses or overread Y idhout court-approval.These expenses include,for example,office supplies and employee payrog,benefit;; and taxes. Iii. Management a. Tine receiver shall eperaie the properly and take possession of all accounts relating to the property. b. The receiver may (1) employ agents,employees,clerks, accountants,and property managers to administer the receivership property,and (2) purchase materials, supplies,and services reasonably necessary to administer the receivership property. c. Tre receiver may do all the things, and incur the r'sks and obligations,ordinarily done or incurred by owners, .managers, and operatcrs o:businesses and property similar to that possessed by the receiver, except the receiver shall not make any capital improvements to the property without prior court approval. F_rr.:p:--ccrc•cos_.,tu:a EX PARTE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND ORDER TO SNOW vage 2ars � c--una sr ur'�•�4 CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER-RENTS, GG'_:C;4a.fir.:pry t.-Cit ISSUES, AND PROFITS (Receivership) zc�=axe• - PC:Ar.,rnFF(Name): DCI Properties' G04-01173 DEFENDANT(blamer Benito Chavez-et al 17. Bank accounts.The receiver a. may establish accrunts at any financial institufions insured by an agency of the United States government that are not to this proceeding, b, shall deposit in those accounts funds received in connection with the receivership property,and c. shall deposit in interest-bearing accounts money not expended for receivership purposes. 18. Court instructions.The receiver and the parties may at any time apply to this court for further instructions and orders and for additional powers necessary to enable the receiver to perform the receiver's duties properly. 19. Insurance. a. The receiver shall determine upon taking possession of the property whether there is sufficient insurance coverage.. b. The receiver shall notify the insurer that the receiver is to be named as an additional insured on each insurance policy on the property. c. If the receiver determines that the property does not have sufficient insurance coverage,the receiver shall immediately notify the parties and shall procure sufficient all-risk and liability insurance on the properly(excluding earthquake and flood insurance)_ d. If the receiver does not have sufficient funds to obtain insurance,the receiver shall seek instructions from the court on whether to obtain insurance and how it is to be paid for. 20. Employment of attorneys. a. The receiver may employ unlawful detainer attorneys and eviction services without a court order. . b. ❑ The receiver may employ counsel(name). at the hourly rats of:5 c. [D Except as provided in items 203 and 27d,before employing counsel the receiver shall apply to the court for an order authorizing the receiver to employ counsel... 21. Taxpayer ID numbers.The receiver may use any federal taxpayer identification numbers relating to the propertyfor any lawful purpose. 22. Duty to turn over possession.Upon receipt of a copy of a recorded trustee's deed upon foreciosurs orw6ten notice from plaintiff that defendant has cured the defaults existing under plaintiffs loan documents or that plaintiff has accepted a deed in rreu of foreclosure,the receiver shall.without further order of the court,tum over possessiof of the property to the successful purchaser or defendant or plaintiff respectively. 23. PlaintJfrs notification of termination.Plaintiff shall notify the receiver in writing within 48 hours of any event within plaintiffs knowledge that terminates the receivership. 24. Recelyer's final report and account and discharge. a. Motion required Discharge of the receiver shall require a court order upon noticed motion for approval of the receiver's final report and account and exoneration of the receiver's bond. b. Time.Not later han 60 days after the receivership terminates,the receiver shall file,serve,and obtain a hearing date on a motion for discharge and approval of the final report and account c. Notice.The receiver shall give notice to all persons of whom the receiver is aware who have potential claims against the receivership proper-y. d. Contents ofmc6cn.Tine motion to approve the final report and account and for discharge of the receiver shall ccntin the following: (1) Declaration cr declarations.A declaral3en or dec!arations:(suing what was done during the receivership. () certifyirg tile accuracy c;the final accounting, (iii)stating the basis for the termination oe the receivershlp (such as foreclosure or reinstatement),and (v)stating the basis for an order for the distribution of any surplus or payment of ary deficit (Z) Accounting Summar/.A summary of the receivership accounting.which shall include(i)the total reverues received, (u) the told emenditures identified and enumerated by major categories,(in) the net amount of any surplus or dercit,and(v) evidence e:necessary supporting facts. EX PARTE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND ORDER TO SHOW p'a°' Rc"e � b'r�'an CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER-RENTS, ISSUES,AND PROFITS (Receivership) _. . . �. Ifs PL:ZNTiFF(Name): DCl Properties: oEFENO,aNr pvame): Benito Chavez 04-01173 . 25. Plaintiffs notice to receiver.Plaintiff shall promptly notify the receiver in writing of the names.addresses.and telephone numbers of all parties who appear in the action and their counsel.The parties shall give notice to the receiver of au events'that affect the receivership. 26. Bankruptcy Plaintiff's duty to give notice. If a defendant files a bankruptcy case during the receivership, plaintiff shall give notice of the bankruptcy case to the court,to ag parties,and to the receiver by the dose of the next business day after the day on which plairt5ff receives notice of the bankruptcy filing. 27. Bankruptcy Receiver's duties.If the receiver receives notice that a bankruptcy has been filed and part of the bankruptcy estate includes property that is the subject of this order,the receiver shall have the following dutles: a. Tum over properly if no relief from stay Quill besought The receiver shag Immediately contact the party who obtained,the appointment of the receiver and determine whether that party intends to move in the bankruptcy court for an order for (1)relief from the automatic stay.and(2)relief from the receiver's obligation to tum over the property(11 U.S.C_§543).If the party has no intention to make such a motion.the receiver shall immediately tum over the,propertyto the appropriate entity either to the trustee In bankruptcy if one.has been appointed or,if not,to the debtor in possession-and otherwise . comply with 11 United States Code section 543. b. Remain in possession pending resolution.if the party who obtained the receivership intends to seek relief immediately from both the automatic stay and the receivers obligation'to turn over the property,the receiver may remain in possession and preserve the property pending the ruling on those motions(11 U.S.C.§543(a)).The receivers authority to preserve the properly shall be limited as follows: (1) The receiver may continue to collect rents and other income; (2) The receiver may make only those disbursements necessary to preserve and protect the property. (3) The receiver shall not execute any new leases or other long-term contracts;and (4) The receiver shag do nothing that would effect a material change in the circumstances of the prop". c. Turn over property if no motion for relief is riled within 10 days after notice,of the.bankruptcy. If the party who obtained the receivership fails to fie a motion vAthin 10 court days after his or her receipt of notice of the bankruptcy filing,the receiver shall immediately tum over the property to the appropriate entity either to the trustee in bankruptcy if one has been appointed or,if not,to the debtor in possession and otherwise comply with 11 United States Code section 543. d. Retain bankmpicy counsel.The receiver may petition the court to retain leg21 counsel to assist the receiver with issues arising out of the bankruptcy proceedings that affect the receivership. . 28. 'Failure to turn over property. A receiver who fails to turn over the property in accordapce with this order shall not be paid for time and expenses after the date on which the receiver should have turned the property over. 29. Other ordors. (Additional orders may Include authority of the receiver to do any other acts arising from special circumstances.)Other orders ❑ are specified in Attachment 29 are as follows (specify): a. The receiver is authorized to pay all expenses for the property and-to contract for reasonable and necessary maintenance up to S1,500.00 to be paid out of estate funds without further court order. b. The receiver is authorized to borrow up to$25,000.00 in the event cash flow is insufficient to cover estate 'experses and receiver fees,and to issue receiver's certificates therefore. >:r-a�cr.9a�•x�: EX PARTE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND ORDER TO SHOW °�°°'C15 xzcalcz�,:3e'ev.fcr-a CAUSE AND TENIPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER-RENTS, ISSUES, AND PROFITS (ltacalvorship} scr_'.v-���:x'�r�ec enc 0 PLA114TIFF(Name): DCI Properties, serauaeE� DEFENDANT(Name): Benito Chavez, et al CO4-01173 . ® TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 30. THIS ORDER EXPIRES AT THE DATE AND.TIME OF THE HEARING SHOWN IN THE BOX ON PAGE ONE(UNDER "NOTICE OF HEARINGS UNLESS EXTENDED BYTHE COURT. 31. THE COURT ORDERS DEFENDANT to do the fallowing: a. Turn over property.Immediately tum over possession of the property described in Attachment 2a to the receiver when the appointment becomes effective.including any security deposits,prepaid rent,other rental or lease payments,and funds in property management bank accounts for the property. b. Turn over related items. Immediately turn over to the receiver all keys,books,documents,and records relating to the property and advise the receiver of federal taxpayer identification numbers relating to.the property. c. Insurance. (1) Immediately advise the receiver about the nature and extent of insurance coverage on the property; (2) Immediately name the receiver as an additional insured on each insurance polity on the property;and (3) DO NOT cancel,reduce,or modify the insurance coverage. d. Restraints.Refrain from (1) committing or permitting any waste on the property or any act on the.property in•violation of law or removing,encumbering, or otherwise disposing of any of the Edures on the property: - (2) demanding,collecting,or-in any other way diverting or using any of the rents from the property, (3) interfering in any manner with tate discharge of the receiver's dudes under this order. (4) selling,transferring,disposing, encumbering,or concealing the property without a prior court order,and (5) doing any act that will impair the preservation of the property or plaintiffs interest in the property. e. ❑ Other(specr'fiy): 32. THE COURT ORDERS PLAINTIFF to immediately file a temporary restraining order bond under Code of Civil section 529 in the amount of.$0.00 33. ❑ OTHER ORDERS ❑ are specified in Attachment 33 ❑ are as follows(specify): SERVICE AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE 34. By(date): 7�����LJ PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED to versonally serve an each defendant or counsel and any other appearing parties,and to file proof of service of,the summons and complaint,the memorandum of points and authorities,these orders.and all decla oris and supporting papers. 35. By(de:e): O� DEFENDANT IS ORDERED to personal ly.serve on each plaintiff or course(and any other appearng par�1 s,and to five proof of service of,any opposition to these orders. 36. By(da!e): d 1 PLAINTIFF IS ORDERED to personally serve on each defendant or counsel, and to file proof of service of, any reply!o da:endant's oppcsidon to these orders. 37. Number of pages a ached:2 Date:JUIyQ, 2004 ;=,111:D B. i LINN • Lucca cc r►,s suF=_a�a ccu�7 . pro:uera ut EX PARTE ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER AND ORDER TO SHOW . ,Ixc]rr,ri� CAUSE.AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER-RENTS, :4.•:::;•'�e+v:]n•_:ry 1.:CCS ISSUES, AND PROFITS . .,Z�r-ar:�nL3;r1���lr= (Recelvership) (SPACE Q�nI�FOR FIUPiG� OA1'� 1 DON J.POOL 166468 THE LAV FIRM OF POWELL&POOL ug 2 7522,North Colonial Avenue,Suitt 100 Fresno,California 93711 3 Telephone: (559) 228-803.1 Facsimile: (559) 32S-6SIS 4 Attomeys for: DCI PROPERTIES,LLC 5 6 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 Ile:ND FOR THE COUy'TY OF COiVTR�i COSTA _J c 10 UtiZIMITED CIVIL DIVISION\ 0 C2 a T _ u12 DCI PROPERTIES, LLC,a California ) Case No. C04-01173 :5C. r Limited Liability Company, ) o > 13 ) _ ORDER CONFMWI G EX PARTE Plaintiff, o 14 _ ) APPOLNT2,4EN7 OF RECEIVER c O 15 `' j [CRC 1901] Q BEt'ITO CHAVEZ, an individual;end ) OU-" . 16 ) Date: Au_ st 10, 20041 —+ DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. =''� LU N } Time: 9:00 a.m. T 17 ) Dept: 2 Defendants. 1 1S ) Complaint filed: Juiv 231. 1004 19 ) 20 71 On July 27, 20041, plaintiff DCI PROPERTIES, LLC, a California limited 22 liability company, applied Ex Parte for an order appointing a receiver for the property 23 described in the Complaint in the above-entitled action.-.This Court granted the Application and set a hearing for 9:00 a.m., August 10, 2004, in this Department, to show cause why the 24 25' appointment should not be confirmcd.The appearances were as noted in the record. 26 Having received no objection to confirmation of the ,appointment of the receiver. and yood cause having been shown for the appointment, 2S Ord:Confirming Ea Pyr,.A;-}wnt-::��of"R_rtitcr 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that,the ex parte appointment of receiver Steve ? Siljestrom is confirmed. The Ex Parte Order entered Julys 2"r, 2004, including the injunction therein, shall remain in effect pending fiuther order of this Court. # IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall post a preliminary injunction S bond in the amount of 55,000.00. b SO ORDERED. Dated: August X00:} BARBARA. ZUNIGA S JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COT TRT 9 4 c 10 C11 LU � a �? 0 Q l `o o " -6 14 a r= U r 1 ¢ ZU- 16 uCV CV ti 17 l5 19 20 21 1 '3 2.4' 25 25 27 28 y_ _Ord::Confirrnirg Ex Pan.-A puinur r i of R:tici:�. Dec C9 04 03: 4Zp _-.P-3._ 1 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALYFORNiA,COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, 5 UNLI MTrED JURISDICTION 6 7 DCI PRflPMMS,LLC,a California Limited Case No.:CO"I 173 Liability Company, . 8 STIPULATION TO TERNUNATE Plaintiff, MANAGEMENT DU MS OF 9 RECEIVER; AND ORDER THEREON V. 10 BENITO CHAVE7,ET.AL-, I1 Defendants. 12 r 13 14 The parties to this action,DCI PROPERTIES,LLC,plaintiff(hereinafter"Plainrti:Er),and 15 BENPFO CHAVEZ,defendant(hereinafter"Defendant'),hereby stipulate t1nough counsel as 16 Mows: 17 IS th A. Because e Plaintiff,an or about November 17,2004,conveyed to a third party who is not a party to this Action,all interest,right,and title to the loan hxsb m=ts which the 19 Receivorsiiip was intended to protect,the purpose of the Receivership has concluded. 20 �. 21 Cont iu 3 preclusion of the rightful owner(s)of the Real Properly describedin the Ex Parte Order Appointing Receiver(hereinafter-Properties")of the management and can rcl of the 22 Properties which the Receivership now controls would be contrary to the purpose of the 23 Receivership. 24 ZS C_ That upon the signature of Counsel and the Court of this Stipulation and Order,that 26 the following rights and duties of the Raceiversbip are terminated: 27 I. Possession and control of the Properties; 28 2- Managerneat of the Properties as defined.in Paragraph 16 of the Ex Parte Order Appointing Receiver; • I z -d d20 = 10 v0 02 oara Dec 08 04 03z42p p- 4 1 3. Collection of L-=ome from the Properties; 2 . 4. Care for the Properties and incurring of expenses necessary to care for the 3 Properties; 4 5. Cb;Mgin g of locks at the Properdes; 5 6- Further expenditure of monies to preserve and operate the Properties; 6 7. Leasing of the Properties;and 7 8. Employment of unlawful detainer attorneys acrd eviction services relating*o 8 any of the Properties. 9 IT IS 80 STIPULATED: 10 1 I Dazed: 'Iber ,2004 12 13 =x._ -- Ron Jbbisor, 14 Attorney for D��t, Benito Chavez 15 16 POWEL L&POCIL 17 18 Dated: December&2004 19Bon ey for Iaintif DCI Properties, C 20 IT IS ORDERED 21 22 Dated: .2004 M OF SUPPMOP,COURT 23 24 25 26 ` 77 28 2 E -d d£o: I D O2oars 1 3. Collection of Income from the Properties; 2 4. Care for the Properties and incurring of expenses necessary to care for the 3 Properties; . 4 5. Changing of locks at the Properties; 5 6. Further expenditure of monies to preserve and operate the Properties; 6 7. Leasing of the Properties;and 7 8. Employment of unlawful detainer attomeys and eviction services relating to 8 any of the Properties_ 9 IT IS SO STIPULATED: 10 11 Dated: December!,2004 12 13 By: Ron Johnson, 14 Attorney for Defendant, Benito Chavez 15 16 17 POWELL&POOL Dated: December „2004 19 Don A mey for Plaintiff DCI Properties,L 20 IT IS ORDERED 21 BARBARA ZUNIGA 22 Dated: - J _�t .2004 . 23 JUDGE OF SUPERIOR COURT 24 25 26 27 28 2 (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 1 DON J.POOL 166468 THE LAW FIRM OF POWELL &POOL 2 7522 North Colonial Avenue, Suite 100 Fresno,California 93711 - - .3 Telephone: (559)228-8034 - :-- Facsimile: (559)228-6818. �': - .4 5 Attorneys for. DCI PROPERTIES, LLC 6 T, DMZ 7 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 00 10 UNLIMMI) CIVIL DIVISION a. m 11 *** anti 0 12 DCI PROPERTIES,LLC, a California ) Case No. C04-01173 13 Limited Liability Company, ) U: ° p } ORDER(1)APPROVING RECEIVER'S o •E t 14 ACCOUNTING AND FINAL REPORT; x 0 ° 15 v. ) (2)APPROVING COMPENSATION TO 71- rRECEIVER; (3)DISCHARGING Q ° 16 BENITO CHAVEZ, an individual;' ) RECEIVER FROM DUTIES; AND (4). Z RICHARD RODRIGUEZ an individual; DIRECTING PAYMENT OF r 0 17 and DOES 2 through 100 inclusive, ) REMAINING ESTATE FUNDS ,2.1 18 Defendants. ) Date: Time: 19 ) Dept: 20 Complaint Filed: July 23,2004 21 ) Trial Date: : None Set 22 ) 23 � On Jaw&& 0T 2005, at j2a-m p.m., in the above-entitled court, 24 located at 725 Court Street, Martinez, Califomia 94553, the motion of Receiver STEVEN 25 SEUESTROM (1) to approve the receiver's accounting 26 and final report, (2) to approve compensation to the receiver, (3) discharging receiver from duties; and (4) directing payment 27 28 of remaining estate funds in the above-entitled action, came on regularly for hearing: Appearances were noted.mi the record. 4- Order(1)Approving Receiver's Accounting and Final Report,etc. 1 On proof made to the satisfaction of the court, and good cause appearing 2 therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. That the final report and accounting of receiver Steven Siljestrom be 4 approved and settled; 5 2. That the compensation and reimbursable expenses paid or due to the 6 receiver in this case, in the total amount of$38,902.26, are approved, allowed, and settled-, 7 3. All actions of the receiver performed during the receivership period as 8 necessary and appropriate be and are approved. 9 4. That the receiver'.s bond, no. 16032111 in the amount of$10,000.00, 0 10 written by Liberty Mutual Insurance Company as surety, be exonerated, and the surety be > o m 11 released from liability thereon; V- � (pr . a en 12 5. That the monies presently held by the receiver in the amount of 13 $1,379.78,be applied against the receiver's expenses, and then to his compensation; o v 14 6. Upon payment of such fund, Steven Siljestrom is discharged from all Uy 15 further duties and liabilities and responsibilities as receiver herein. r m z u 16 7. That Steven Siljestrom,receiver,having fully and faithfully discharged N LO 17 his duties to the court and to the parties, be and hereby is discharged, the receivership is 18 terminated, and the receiver is hereby released from, any and all liability in the above- 19 remitted action. 20 Dated: J _, 04 21 BARBARA ZUNIGA 22 XDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 23 24 25 26 27 28 -z- Order(1)Approving Receiver's Accounting and Final Report,etc. LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN,'Me..COY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION W aLIAM GAGEN,JR. DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L.McCoy 279 FRONT STREET PATTUCK J.MCMAHON P.O.Box 218 MARK,L.ARMSTRONG .. CHARLES A.Koss DANVILLE,CALIFORNIA 94526-0218 MICHAEL J.MARKOWITL TEL.EPHONE:(925)837-0585 RicaARD C.RANEsAugust 4 2005 FAx:(925)838-5985 RB BAARA DuvAL JEWELL ROBERT M.FANUCCI N ALLAN C.MOORS APA VALLEY OFFICE STEPHEN T.BUEHL THE OFFICES AT SOUT 4BRIDGE AMANDA BEVws 1030 MAIN STREET,SUITE 212 MARTW LYsoNs ST.HELENA,CALIFORNIA 94574 KAT HER1NE S.ZELAZNv TEL.EPHoNE:(707)963-0909 ER1c S.QUANDT . FAX:(707)963-5527 LAUREN E.DODGE ANNETTE M.KNOK _ _ Please Repiy To: ANNA CLAVERIA BRANNAN - SARAH S.Nuc Danville OF COUNSEL - LINN K.CoOMES - Bob Drake Principal Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, No. Wing, grid Fl. Martinez, CA 94553 Be: Sunny & Associates, Property at 79,Bella Vista Avenue in Bay Point Your file: LP 032017 Dear Bob: As you know; our firm represents Sunny & Associates with regard to the above- referenced land use.permit application. At the Zoning Administrator hearing of July 11, 2005, we presented.'.evidence to the fact that the property was in receivership and unavailable to Sunny & Associates from July 27, 2004 until the receiver was discharged on March 3,.2005. The court documents pertaining to the receivership were provided to you.as attachments to my July 8, 2005 letter. You continued the public hearing and asked usto provide you with additional information,, regarding the following: (1) .the landscaping plan that was approved by the County pursuant to the application; (2) legal support for our position that the receivership should extend the life of the permit; and(3) 'evidence that work has been performed pursuant to the permit. '.Our responses to those requests are.as follows: 1. The landscape plan was submitted to the Countv and approved bv. County staff. Condition of approval for LP 032107 requires landscaping on the site to be "consistent with the landscape plans received by the Community Development Department on 'June 26, 2003; as approved by the Zoning Administrator." . -A copy of this landscape plan, prepared by.Mary Bull-Ransom (the original applicant for the permit), is.enclosed with this letter: F:\CL2v1EL\3731]\Drake Ltr 080505.doc Bob Drake August 4, 2005 Page 2 2.- As the owners of the parcel were legally precluded from improving the property pursuant to the permit, the permit cannot be automatically deemed excpired. The . seminal California case pertaining to the automatic expiration of a discretionary permit is Community Development Commission q County v. City of Fort Bragg.. There, the Court reinstated a conditional use-permit the City found to have expired. The basis of the expiration was a City ordinance that provided for the automatic expiration of use permits when the permittee has not substantially begun construction work necessary for the use. The Court recognized, based on precedent, that "the purpose,of statutes. or ordinances providing for automatic expiration or revocation of use permits when work has not commenced is to prevent the reservation of land for future purposes when the permittee has no good-faith intent to presently commence upon the proposed use."2. It does not allow for automatic termination of a permit when a good faith effort is made to proceed. In Mendocino County, the applicant was legally precluded from expending funds for the building.permit fees under HUD regulations. Similarly, in our case, Sunny & Associates was legally.precluded from entering, leasing, encumbering or improving the property, irrespective of any outstanding land use.permit. The Mendocino County court allowed for the fact that the developer was legally precluded from improving the property by looking to efforts made pursuant to the project that did -not include- actual improvements to the land. The courts recognize that good-faith intent to proceed pursuant to 'a land use permit is not determined by 'actual on-site construction-.alone. Purchase of the property, hiring of architects and 'engineers for the performance of pre- construction work, performing soil borings, drawing up and submitting plans `for,plan check review are all indications of a good-faith intent to proceed pursuant to an approved permit, exclusive of actual-on-site constrdCtion.3 LP 032017 should be considered under the same criteria. 3. Substantial work has been completed pursuant to the project considering. the limited time available to perform the work. In.Mendocino County,the.court held that the actions of the applicant demonstrated good faith intent to.commence upon the proposed use, based on the fact that the applicant had: (1) purchased the property; (2) hired engineers'and architects for the performance of preconstruction work; (3) had soil borings performed; (4) arranged for the.rem'oval of two small structures; and (5) submitted plans to the City for plan check I'eview.4.+Because on- site work was legally precluded, .it was not considered in determining the status of the permit. 1 Community Development Commission of Mendocino County v. City of Fort Bragg(1088) 204 Cal.App.3d 1124. Z Upton v. Gray(1969)269 Ca1.App.2d 352,at page 357. 3 Mendocino County at page 1131. Mendocino County.at page 1130. FACLMEL\37311\Drake Ltr 080505.doc Bob Drake August 4, 2005 Page 3 In this case, Sunny & Associates also purchased the property while the property was still in receivership. The applicant had previously hired engineers and architects for the performance of preconstruction work. The enclosed landscape plans and "change in roof pitch" plans indicate that the plans were commissioned and produced at the applicant's expense. No soil borings were necessary for this project, so this criterion does not apply. Sunny & Associates and their predecessors in interest did arrange for removal of on-site structures (the carports), although they did not remove them completely. And lastly, they submitted landscape plans to the County for plan check review. All of this work was done in good faith in pursuit of legalizing the structures on the site. Although on site construction alone does not invariably show whether a permittee may proceed, it should also be noted that Sunny & Associates did perform on-site work once the receiver was discharged. They had the unregistered vehicles towed away. They cleaned up the site, installed a security gate, installed interior improvements in the six- unit apartment building, cleaned the carports, replaced exterior siding, and installed other exterior improvements. As stated in my previous letter, Sunny & Associates are ready to post bonds for the remainder of the work that needs to be completed to satisfy the conditions of approval. This will assure the County and the community that the project will move forward quickly. Based on the standards set forth by the California appellate courts, I believe that the Sunny & Associates and their predecessors in interest have exercised land use permit number LP032017. I also believe that reinstatement of the permit is the best option for the community, because it is the fastest way to improve the property. Sunny & Associates are new owners of the property. They are ready and waiting to improve it to community standards. I request that the County reinstate the permit for an'additional seven months (the approximate length of time of the receivership) and allow the improvement of the property to begin. Very truly yours, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong A Professional Corporation M n E. Lysons MEL:sdl cc: Maureen Toms, AICP Surety D. Jacobson FACLMELl373I I\Drake Ltr 080505.doc Agenda Item#7 Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 2005 I. INTRODUCTION: MARY K.BULL-RANSOM(Former Applicant)and BEN CHAVEZ(Former Owner),RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AND SUNNY DAWN JACOBSON (Current Owners), County File# LP03-2107: This is a public hearing to consider whether cause exists to revoke the land use permit which allowed the expansion of a legal non-conforming use within an existing 12-unit apartment complex to include a modification to the existing roof pitch,and interior renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two-story, six-unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH)(ZA:.F-18) (CT: 3141.01)(Parcel#095-071-010) II. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator determine that Land Use Permit#LP03-2107,having not been exercised nor extended, has lapsed and is no longer valid. 0.,Y)d- III. BACKGROUND: A land use permit for an extension of legal non-conforming use was approved by the County Zoning Administrator on February 23, 2004 and effective on March 5, 2004. The Conditions of Approval included several measures intended to be implemented in'a timely manner to address blighted conditions and criminal activity present at the site. The implementation of several of the conditions were to be completed by April 4,2004(30 days after approval),May 4,2004(60 days after approval), and June 3,2004(90 days after approval). The timely compliance of these conditions was the means by which the required Land Use Permit findings could be made. . This item was first brought forward to the Zoning Administrator on June 6, 2005, to determine if cause existed to revoke the Land Use Permit. During the hearing,the question of whether or not the permit was ever exercised came up. The hearing was continued to July 11,2005 and continued again to August 29,2005. The owner's representative provided information about how the owner intends to comply with the Conditions of Approval in a letter dated July 7,2005 and information regarding the status of the receivership, dated July 8, 2005,both of which are attached. According to the information provided,the property was in receivership from July 27,2004 to March 3,2005. During that time,they were unable to make physical improvements to the property,meet the Conditions of Approval, or otherwise exercise the Land Use Permit. On July 18, 2002, the subject property was deeded from Richard Rodriquez to his business partner Benito Chavez(see attached Grant Deed). The property was deeded back to Richard Rodriquez,on November 12,2004. As a previous property owner and business partner,Mr.Rodriquez would have been aware of the Land Use Permit issued in 2004. In addition,if the new property owners had done their due diligence on the property,by researching the status of the Land Use Permit,they again would have been made aware of the Land Use Permit,their conditions,and the expiration date of the Land Use Permit. Information about the Land Use Permit is public record and available for review by 1 anyone,including a property owner,regardless of the receivership status. Staff received no inquiries about the permit from the new owners until after they received a letter from staff,dated May.9,2005. This contact to staff was made two months after both the March 5, 2005 expiration of the Land Use Permit and the March 3, 2005 release of the receivership, and almost six months after the new ownership of the property. The new owners claim that they have done substantial work on the property,subject to the Land Use Permit. These include the installation of a security fence and gate, preparation of.landscaping and architectural plans,installation of interior improvements in the six-unit apartment building,clean-up of carports, replacement of exterior siding, installation of a new roof and other exterior improvements. Staff acknowledges that the new owner has installed the security fence and gate, however this was done without.a permit and was not pursuant to the Conditions of Approval,which required review and approval of the fence design prior to the installation. Landscaping and architectural plans were submitted as part of the initial application for the Land Use Permit.Staff does not consider the partial demolition of the carports, without a demolition permit, to be a clean-up of the property, much less compliant with the Conditions of Approval.The roof was started under a building permit several years ago but was not finalized because the height of the new roof exceeded the maximum allowed by code and the plans.At the time of the reroof,the zoning was M-29,which limited the building height to 35 ft. If the installation of siding was done,it was not done as part of the Land Use Permit,as no building permits have been issued on this property since before 2002. IV. CONCLUSION: Due to the non-compliance of the Conditions of Approval and expiration of the Land Use Permit issued March 5, 2004;staff recommends the Zoning Administrator determine the use permit has not been exercised and has expired. Staff further recommends the Zoning Administrator request the Building Inspection Department to begin abatement proceedings on the six-unit apartment building on the property.. DAcurrent planningtLURLP032107 be11a vista.revocation3-mt.doc 2 Attachment 12 Letter, September 19, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, McCOY, McMAHON & ARMSTRONG A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WILLIAM GAGEN,IR DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L.McCoy 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J.MCMAHON MARK L.ARMSTRONG P.O.BOX CHAR Les A.Koss DANVILLP,CALIFORNIA A 94526-0218 MRCHAEL J.MARKowrrz TELEPHONE:(925)837-0585 RICHARD September 19, 2005 FAx:(925)838-5985 BARuvAL JEWELL ROBERT M.FANUCCI ALLAN C.MOORE NAPA VALLEY OFFICE' STBPIEN T.BuEHL THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE AMANDA BEVNS 1030 MAIN STREET,SUITE 212 MARTTN LYS= ST.HELENA,CALIFORNIA 94574 KATHEF NE S.ZELAZNY TELEPHONE:(707)963-0909 ERIC S.QUANDT LAu m E.Douce FAx:(707)963-5527 ANNETTE M.KNox Please Reply To: ANNA CLAVERIA BRAMAN SARAH S.NIK Danville OF COUNSEL Lim K Cmas Bob Drake Acting Zoning Administrator Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, No. Wing, 2nd Fl. Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Sunny &Associates, Propero) at 79 Bella Vista Avenue in Bay Point Processing Timeline for Land Use Permit Your File LP032107 Dear Mr. Drake: At the Zoning Administrator.hearing on August 29, 2005, you asked us to provide you with additional information to show that Sunny & Associates exercised or displayed a good faith intent to exercise the above-referenced land use permit. I have contacted Mary K. Bull-Ransom, the original applicant for this land use permit and the designer for the proposed reconstruction of the fire damaged building. Ms. Bull-Ransom has provided me with some additional information in support of our position that the applicant made a good faith effort to exercise the permit. As you know, land use permit LP032107 was approved on February 23, 2004 with an effective date of March 5, 2004. According to Ms. Ransom, she revised the site plan on March 1, 2004 to make them consistent with the conditions of approval: to show an iron gate, the demolition of the carports, and other proposed improvements to the property. This revised plan was submitted to the County by Mary Bull-Ransom on March 11, 2004. Ms. Ransom advised me that she personally brought the revised plan to the front counter of the Application and Permit Center and met with the counter attendant there. A copy of Ms. Bull-Ransom's information sheet, entitled "Welcome to Contra Costa County Application and Permit Center" and dated March 11, 2004 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. F:\CLMEL\3731 I\Drake Ltr 091305.doc Bob Drake September 19, 2005 Page 2. On September 15, 2005, I reviewed the file for this project at the Redevelopment Agency and found a hand-written "sticky note"that read as follows: 3/11/04 Mary Ransom (510) 568-1.759 re: 095-071-010 DP033010/LP032107 Taken in by DMS Given to WR A copy of the note is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Clearly, something was submitted to the County on March 11, 2004 and given to William Rice (WR, the project plariner at the time of the approval of the original permit). This plan was to be reviewed by William Rice, Planner H, for conformance with the conditions of approval for the permit. Despite several calls to Mr. Rice in April and May of 2004, Ms. Ransom did not receive -any feedback from Mr. Rice on its conformance with the conditions of approval. Ms. Ransom will also state at the next Zoning Administrator hearing that she had to construct the plans from her meeting notes and from memory, because the "Approved Permit" was not sent to her until May 26, 2004. A copy of the fax transmittal of the Permit from William Rice to Mary Bull-Ransom is attached hereto as Exhibit C. It should also be noted that Ms. Ransom was not only working with the County,but also with Delta Diablo Sanitation District for their approval. She received a plan review stamp "Permit Not Required" on March 11, 2004 from the District. This stamped plan is a part of the County's files. Ms. Ransom will state that she did not receive any comments from William Rice regarding the compliance of her revised plan with the conditions of approval, despite numerous telephone calls between March 2004 and September 2004 asking for feedback. Ms. Ransom finally spoke with William Rice on October 21, 2004 and informed Mr. Rice that the property was in receivership, and had been in receivership since July of 2004. Mr. Rice reminded Ms. Bull-Ransom that she needed to apply for a demolition permit in order to remove the carport. Ms. Bull-Ransom then informed Mr. Rice that she could not apply for any permits on the property due to the receivership, and that Ben Chavez, then the owner of the property, had suffered a severe heart attack and was unavailable to Ms. Ransom for direction. According to Ms. Ransom, despite this telephone conversation, Mr. Rice sent Mary K. Bull-Ransom a certified letter notifying her that the land use permit was in.violation of the permit's conditions of approval. A copy of this letter is attached to hereto as Exhibit D. The letter states that the property was still in violation of several conditions of approval, including those conditions requiring landscaping, removal of existing carports, FACLMEL\37311\Drake Ltr 091305.doc Bob Drake September 19, 2005 Page 3 installation of a new wrought iron or metal fence, installation of security lighting, removal of the laundry room from the parcel, and reduction of the height of the existing fence along the property line. In addition, Mr. Rice's letter stated that the applicant had not prepared and submitted grading and paving plans;. with sufficient details to demonstrate adequate drainage on the site. Again, as the property in receivership and Mr. Chavez was nowhere to be found, Ms. Ransom states that she informed Mr. Rice that she was unable to fulfill the terms of the conditions of approval. On November 8, 2004,Mr. Rice sent a second letter to Ms. Bull-Ransom notifying her that the land use permit LP032107 was in violation of the terms, limitations, or conditions of the permit. The letter stated that the matter would be scheduled for a Zoning Administrator hearing on Monday, November 29, 2004. 'At that time, Mr. Chavez was still no where to be'found, and the property was going through a foreclosure sale. Sunny & Associates, directed by Sunny Jacobson, purchased the property in foreclosure in November of 2004. As noted in my July 8, 2005 letter, Sunny &'Associates were still prohibited by the terms of the receivership from either contracting with the receiver to- fulfill the conditions of approval, or fulfilling the requirements of the conditions of approval herself. Ms. Jacobson and her partners could not undertake, to improve the property until -the receivership was finally terminated by the court on March 3, 2005. (Please see Exhibit E of my July 8, 2005 letter to Maureen Toms, AICP.) As noted in my July 8, 2005 to Maureen Toms, once the receivership was terminated, Ms. Jacobson and her partners took steps to improve the property in good faith. They immediately installed a security fence in front of the property pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 7. As noted in 'my previous letter, the May 9, 2005 letter from Maureen O'Shea to Ms. Jacobson stating that the land use permit had expired was the first correspondence addressed directly to Sunny Jacobson as owner of the property. Ms. Jacobson had little or no opportunity to comply with the conditions of approval. The history of this project as presented in my July 8, 2005 letter to Maureen Toms and my August 4, 2005 letter to you and this letter is a long and complicated one. During the time period allotted for the exercise of this permit, the property was subjected to an unauthorized encumbrance by its managing partner, a seven-month receivership, a heart attack suffered by the managing partner, and a foreclosure sale. Ms. Ransom did not receive any correspondence from the project planner until late May in 2004, and this was merely the Approved Permit, not a response to Ms. Ransom's submittal dated March 11, 2004. Within two months of the receipt of the Approved Permit, Ben Chavez suffered a heart attack, and soon thereafter, the property went into receivership. During that seven- month period, no work could be performed to comply with the conditions of approval under the terms of the receivership. When the receivership terminated, the property had a new owner driven to complete the project. But for the receivership, according to Sunny FICLMEL\37311\Dralce Ltr 091305.doc Bob Drake September 19, 2005 Page 4 Jacobson and Mary Ransom, this project's conditions of approval would have been satisfied by now. Sunny & Associates would not have purchased the property if there had not been a discretionary permit associated with the property. Fundamental .fairness would dictate that the time that the property was in receivership should not count against the owner in considering whether the property had been duly and timely exercised. As noted in Community Development Commission of Mendocino County v. City of Fort Bragg,, if a developer is legally precluded from pursuing building and other permits pursuant to conditions of approval, the permit cannot automatically expire if a good faith.effort is . made to proceed. Ms. Ransom and Ms..Jacobson have demonstrated such a .good faith effort. A seven-month extension of the permit, commensurate with the.time the,property was in receivership, is therefore the appropriate course of action in the administration of this project. Please allow Sunny& Associate this additional time. If you have any questions, please do nothesitate to call me. Thank you for. your consideration of this matter. .. Sincerely, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong A Profess nal,Corporation a in E, Lysons MEL/Ica Enclosures cc: Sunny D. Jacobson Mary K: Bull-Ransom i FACLMEL\3731 I\Drake Ltr 091305.doc Sep.' 08 05 11:.50a p, 9 Wei-come To Contra Costa County Application a Permit Center 01 r.r ti f'i i WQ:, �- i DATE TIME Please take a moment to complete the following information so we may better assistJyoti:' Your Name VY1 t� �L� 50V71 I have an appointment with ( Name Time I wish to see ( Name ) File# � T II us about the property//you are here regarding: Parcel # V� vvProperty owner' Name Site Address _ Hr his site within.un incorporated Contra Costa County? (Circle one). Yes If you answered"No",please tell us in which City It is located: Please check all of the following that apply: --- _ _ I want to obtain a Building Permit:Type (i.e.Addition;Elect.Water Heater, Plum.,Re Roof) --. 1 am the (Circle one Owner or Contractor Contractors# -If your permit request is-subj.ect-to a.planning permit(i.e,Small Lot Review,Variance,etc.) _ -- - What is the file#? File# I am looking for Zoning / Planning Information or Submitting a Planning Application for: Type:_Minor or Major Subdivision_Development Plan_Small Lot Review_Lot Line' _Variance or Land Use _Rezoning Application Extension_Pre Ap - Tree Permit _Cert. Of Comp. _Other - I need to see Public Works Department for Information on 1 or to Submit an Application for: Permit: _Road Encroachment -- Floodplain _Flood Control Ench._Drainage Transportation _Road Closure _House Move Information: _Floodplain _Other I would like to see a representative from Redevelopment 'Document Request(i.e. Purchasing a General Plan,Title 8 &9 (Subdivision Ord.) Other r, Sa c VP5 .�3bl v141-d3-2,107. i G 0 w2 i i �� i MAY-26-2004 '09:19 CCC DEUr7.DPMENT DEPT i 927 3351265 P.01/05 r�- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COFAMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Redevelopment Agency 651 Pine Street, North Wing- 5th Floor - . . Martinez, CA 94553 Teiephone: .(9Z5) 335-IZT5 ' ' Fax: (925) 335-1.255 FAX .rRANSMIrrAL bate: Pleese deliver pages, including this cover sheet to: of — -- phon_ and fox T J �o�r� 757 This. rex is being sent from: !\ i - Title: Phone 4: (925) 335 _QLD Fax =`: (925) 335-1265 Addii-ional Comnents: r 1 MAY-26-2004 09-19 CCC DEITLDPMENT DEPT 1 525 3351265 P.e2/05 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTME?�T APPROVED PERMIT APPL:ICANTc M2ry K.Bull-Ransom APPLICATION NO.. LP032101 2563 64th Avc DP033010 Oakland,Ca 94605 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 095-071-010 ZONING DISTRICT: P-1 OWNER, Ben.Chavez APPROVJ ED DATE: 2/23!2004 3333 Willow Pass Rd Bay Point,Ca 94565 EFFECTIVE DATE: 31512004 This matter not havin;been appealed within the time prescribed by law,a LAI�b USE,AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN PERMIT TO EXPAND A LEGAL NON-CONrORMING U5E BY REPAIR-INTG A SIY,-UNIT MULTI-PAMIIMY RESIDENTIAL BUnDING,INCLUDING THE CONSERVISION OF A FLAT ROOF TO A PITCHED ROOF in the BAY POINT area is hereby GRANTED,subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M.BARRY,AICP Commui ity Development Director By: ROBERT H.DRAKE Deputy Zoning Administrator Unless otherwise provided,THIS PERMIT WELL EXPIRE ONE (1)YEAR from the effective date if the use allowed by this permit is not.established within that time. ,LP,ASF NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. i is ...)' i y; MAY-26-2004 09:19 CCC DEVELOPMENT DEPT 1 925 3351265 P.03/05 ` y CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL(CDA)FOR LAND USE PERMIT 4 LP032107 AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FEBRUARY 23, 2004 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The proposed development is approved as shown on the plans submitted with the application,received by tlhe Community Development Department on February 26,3003, subject to the required modificaticn� listed below and subject to final review and approval by flee Zoning Administ;ator prior to the issuance of any new building permit and subiect to the conditions listed below. 2. The proposed structure shall be similar'to that shown on the submitted plans received by the Community Development Department on June 26, 2003. Prior to issuance of a building pemzit,.cicvations and architecturaJ design of the buildiirg shall be subject to rc iew and approval by the Zoning Adhninigtrator. The roof and exterior walls of the building shall be gree of such objects as sir conditioning or utility equipment,television aerials, etc., or screened tom view. LANDSCAPING 3. Landscaping on the site shall be consistent with the landscape plans received by the Community Development Department on June 26-, 2003, as approved by the Molting Administrator. All landscaping shall include a metered in- ground sphnkler system.that may include a drip system in the smaller shrub bed areas. Installation.of the required landscaping shall be completed within 90-days of the land use permit approval date. SITE SECURITY 4. Within 30 days of•land use permit approval, the applicant shall proviac / evidence of the frill time employment of a dedicated on-site manager, employed for flee duration of the use. The site manager shall be responsible for screening potential residcnts,monitoring site security,resolving resident complaints,keeping the site clean and coordinating with Countyofficials. 5. A log shall be maintained on the site, documenting and complaints received by the site manager and actions taken to resolve them, a record of all county j permits issued for the size and thci:status,police calls to the site, as well as -r any issues involving the County Sheriffs office, or other county offices. A copy of this log shall be submitted to the Community Development Department every six-months,for review by the Zotung Administrator,subject to payment of a S 200 review fee. MAY-26-2004 09:19 CCC DEVELOPMENT DEPT 1 925 M51265 P.04:05 Within 90 days of land use pt ymit approval,tie applicant shall remove the existing carports on the site, to include the block walls around the i7ont carports. Prior to any demolition of the carports the applicant shall obtain approval of a demolition permit from th i County Building Department. 7. Within 90 day of land use permit appro lal, the applicant shall install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional ori- , sccurity. Prior to construction of the new fend;plans and elevations shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review of compliance with County Code requirements 2hd secu'r'tyissues. 8. Within 90 days of land use permit appy Ival, the applicant shall install security lighting.on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings. A copy of the lighting plan shall be provided to the Community Development Department, for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. SITE Ay2ROVEMENTS 9. Within 60 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall submit gradin- .3 and paving plans to the Community Development Department for review and ttile L�Si k approval by the Zoning Administrator.I Thssc plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and include sufficient details to dcrnonstrate adequate i'4• =�� drainage on the site. Paving snail be completed within 30 days of grading permit issuance. CODE COMPLIANCE 10. Within 30 days of land use'permit approval, the applicant shall remove al l Plumbing within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings. 'Ellis shall incl tide the removal and capping of all water, sewer and gas lines associated with the former laundry room. Prior to the conversion of this area into Mrage space,the app�Iicant shall obtain approval of a building pennit from the Count),Building Dep tment. I 11. Within 90 days of issuance of the land use permit, the applicant shal) reduce the height of the existing concrete faced fencc along the caster property Iine to a Height of six#t or less as rquired by Section 82-4.270 of the County Code. Should the applicant choose to keep the fencc at its cu"Tent height, a building permit and approval from the Community Development Department for a deviation to the-height restriction is required. I 2 .r, e inn r— MAY-26-2004 09:19 CCC DEVELOP'ENT DEPT 1 925 3351265 P.05-,05 12. _ Prior to requesting a final inspection of dtc rehabilitated apartment units,the applicant shall either repaiY the fence on the northeast side of the property with a building permit and have that building pemlit finaled or, if die existing fence is on the neighbor's property,the applicant shall contact the neighbor and diligently attempt to work with the neighbor to-allow the applicant permission to access the fence so that the applicant is granted temporary acccss.and repairs the fence, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 13. Prior to requesting a final inspectiail, the applicant shall provide evidence of compliance with ail of the conditions in this supplemental report that provide for some sort of improvements: building plans, landscaping,fencing, : drainage; lighting,the new front fence. improvements could be removing existing improvements,rear fence, laundry area. No occupancy of the rehabilitated apartment units shall be permitted before the improvements are accepted by the Community Development Department and by the Building hispeetion Department. ADVISORY NOTES A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS.OR OTHER EX,-,CTI0N'S PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL Or, THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Goveriunent Code 5ectiorr 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-d3y period after the project is approved. The 90-day period u; which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication',ieservitioh or other extraction rcgtured by the approved permit,begins on the date the pennit was.approvzd To be valid, a protest must be is writing pursuant to Government Code Section'6602 and delivered to the Commurn ty development Department within 90 day5 of the approval of the permit. B. The applicant will be retluired to.comply with the requirements of the County Building. hlspectibi-Department, A building permit is required. G:\Current Planning\cwT-plan\StaffReports\LPQ32107 belia vists.COA.rev.doc Rcv 5117104-dls 3 TOTAL P.05 (J7 CEJ� r l� Za o ©o QO N C5 01 tp a • � a °7 O yG ' u� w� • p �y 9 K Z G 9 • � 9�cD'..S„o • _ o OGS��tC� . o J'r 0 ICP Dennis Barry,Community Contra Community Developme nt Director Development Costa Department COUnV County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1267 October 26, 2004 Mary K. Bull-Ransom 2563 64'h Avenue Oakland, CA 94605 SUBJECT: Land Use and Development Plan Permits for-Non-conforming Use(File#' LP032107) Dear Ms. Bull-Ransom You are hereby notified Land Use Permit# LP032107 (Approved on February 23, 2004) for the expansion a legal non-conforming use by repairing a six-unit multi-family residential building at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, in Bay Point is in violation of the terms,limitations, or conditions of the permit. As of the date of this letter, conditions of approval 3 and 6 through I 1 have not been completed within the required time limits. Please respond in writing,no later than November 3,2004, with information addressing specific method insuring timely compliance with the conditions of approval addressed below. This infonnation should include estimated completion dates for each condition. • Landscaping on the site shall be consistent with the landscape plans received by the. Community Development Department on June 26, 2003, as apprDved by the Zoning Administrator. All landscaping shall. include a metered in-ground sprinkler system that may include a drip system in the smaller shrub bed areas. Installation of the required landscaping shall be cdmpleted within 90-days of the land use permit approval date. • Within 90 days of land use permit approval,the applicant shall remove the existing carports on the site, . including the block H alis around the front carports. Prior to any demolition of the carports toe applicant shall obtain approval of a demolition.permit from the County Building Department. • Within 90 day of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install a'new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on-security. Prior to construction of the new fence, plans and elevations.shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review of compliance with ,County Code requirements and security issues. • Within 90 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings. A copy of the lighting pian shall be provided to the Community Development Department, for revim, and approval by the Zoning Administrator. I Office Hours Monday-Friday: 8:00 a.m. -500 p.m. na;,.,, ;� nlr.eerl tkm I vt 'irrt R rth Frir{auc nt aarh month • Within 60 ciav of land use permit approval, the applicant shall submit D ading and paving plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. These plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and include sufficient details to demonstrate adequate drainage on the site. Paving shall be completed within 30 days of grading pernut issuance. • Within 30 days of land use permit approval, the applicant shall remove 0 plumbing within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings. This shall include the removal and capping of all water, sewer and gas lines associated with the former laundry room. Prior to the conversion of this area into storage space, the applicant shall obtain approval of a building permit from the County Building Department. • Within 90 days of issuance of the land use permit,the applicant shall reduce the height of the existing concrete faced fence along the eastern property line to a height of six ft. or less as required by Section 82- 4.270 of the County Code. Should the applicant choose to keep the fence at its current height,a building permit and approval from the Community Development Department for a deviation to the height restriction is required. Should you have any additional questions, or require additional clarification regarding the information included in this letter,please feel free to contact me at(925) 335-1267. Sincerely, l/t/�l.��wu'►r � William R1.�1ce Planner II - CC: File# LP032107/DP033010 Ben Chavez(Owner) 3333 Willow Pass Road. Bay Point, CA. 94565 HADocumcnts4BeIIn Vista Apts non-compliance.doc 2 Agenda Item#4 Community Development, Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2005 I. INTRODUCTION: MARY K. BULL-RANSOM (Former Applicant) and BEN CHAVEZ (Former Owner), RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AND SUNNY DAWN JACOBSON (Current Owners), County File #LP03-2107: This is a public hearing to consider whether cause exists to revoke the land use permit which allowed the expansion of a legal non-conforming use within an existing 12-unit apartment complex to include a modification to the existing roof pitch,and interior renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two-story, six-unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH) (ZA: F-18) (CT: 3141.01) (Parcel #095-071-010) II. RECOMMENDATION:- Staff recommends Land Use Permit#LP 032107 be revoked due to non-compliance with the required conditions of approval, and request the Building Inspection Department to begin abatement proceedings on the six-unit apartment building on the property. III. BACKGROUND: A land use permit for an extension of legal non-conforming use was approved by the County Zoning Administrator on February 23,2004 and effective on March 5,2004. The Conditions of Approval included several measuresintended to be implemented in a timely manner to address blighted conditions and criminal activity present at the site. The implementation of several of the conditions were to be completed by April 4,.2004 (30 days after approval), May 4, 2004(60 days after approval), and June 3,2004(90 days after approval). The timely compliance of these conditions was the means by which the required Land Use Permit findings could be made. This item was first brought forward to the Zoning Administrator on June 6, 2005, to determine if cause existed to revoke the Land Use Permit. During the hearing, the question of whether or not the permit was ever exercised came up. The hearing was continued to July 11, 2005 and continued.again to August 29, 2005. The owner's representative provided information about how the owner intends to comply with the Conditions of Approval in a letter dated July 7, 2005 and information regarding the status of the receivership,dated July 8, 2005, both of which are attached. According to the information provided,the property was in receivership from July 27,2004 to March 3,2005. During that time,they were unable to make physical improvements to the 1 i property, meet the Conditions of Approval, or otherwise exercise the Land Use Permit. On July 18, 2002, the subject property was deeded from Richard Rodriquez to his business partner Benito Chavez. The property was deeded back to Richard Rodriquez,on November 12, 2004 and the current ownership records lists Sunni Jacobson and Richard Rodriguez as owners of the property. As a previous property owner and business partner,Mr. Rodriquez would have been aware of the Land Use Permitl issued in 2004. The new owners indicated they would not have purchased the property without the land use permit. However if they has done their due diligence on the property, 1by researching the status of the Land Use Permit, they again would have been made aware of the Land Use Permit Conditions of approval and expiration date. Information about the Land Use Permit is public record and available for review by anyone, including a property owner; regardless of the receivership status. Staff received no inquiries about the permit from the new owners until after they received a letter from staff, dated May 9, 2005.i This contact to staff was made two months after both the March 5, 2005 expiration of the Land Use Permit and the March 3, 2005 release of the receivership, and almost six months after the new ownership-of the property. The new owners claim that they have done substantial work on the property, subject to the Land Use Permit. These include the installation of a security fence and gate,preparation of landscaping and architectural plans, installati,n of interior improvements in the six-unit apartment building,clean-up of carports,replacement of exterior siding,installation of a new roof and other exterior improvements. Staff acknowledges that the new owner has installed the security fence and gate; however this was done without a permit and was not pursuant to the.Conditions of Approval, which required review and approval of the fence design prior to the installation. An on-site manager was identified on June 3,2005,however that individual was only there temporarily. Landscaping and architectural plans were submitted as part of the initial application for the Land Use Permit. Staff does.not consider the partial demolition of the carports,.without a demolition permit, to be a clean-up of the property,much less compliant with the Conditions of Approval. The roof was started under a-building permit several years ago but was not finalized because the height of the new roof exceeded the maximum allowed by code and the plans. At the time of the reroof, the zoning was M-29, which limited the building height to 35 ft. If the installation of siding was done, it was!not done as part of the Land Use Permit, as no building permits have been issued on this(property since before 2002. Although the applicant has argued that partial compliance with the conditions of approval constitutes exercising of the Land Use Permit,staff has determined that cause exists to revoke the permit. due to non compliance with the conditions of approval. The bulk of the Conditions of Approval should have been complied with by June 3,2004,long before any of the ownership or receivership issues arose and prior to Mr. Chavez's sudden illness. The site has a history. of neglect and work without permits and these conditions have continued under the current ownership. The owner indicated at the August 29,2005 Zoning Administrator hearing that revoking the permit or determining that the permit was not'exercised would remove any incentive to improve the property. It should be noted that as a rental property,the site and the remaining 2 units on the property are subject to review under the newly adopted rental inspection ordinance. IV. TIMELINE: July 18. 2002: the subject property deeded from Richard Rodriquez to Benito Chavez. February 23, 2004: -Land use permit approved March 5, 2004: - Land use permit effective April 4, 2004: (30 days after approval): COA#4 (full time employment of a dedicated on- site manager required). This was provided June 7, 2004, but manager is no longer employed. April 4, 2004: (30 days after approval): COA#10(plumbing within the area of the former laundry room located between the two rear buildings to be removed). No building permit was issued for this work. May 4,2004: (60 days after approval): COA#9: (Submit grading and paving plans)No plans have been submitted. June 3,2004: (90 days after approval) COA#6 (remove the existing carports on the site,to include the block walls around the front carports, with demolition permits) Only the walls were removed, with out a demolition permit. June 3, 2004: (90 days after approval): COA#7 (install a new wrought iron or metal fence along the front entrance to provide additional on-security, subject to review of Zoning Administrator). No plans for the fence have been submitted for review; however a new metal fence has been installed. June 3, 2004: (90 days after approval): COA#8 (install security lighting on the site to provide adequate illumination of the parking areas, front entry and along the corridor between the two rear buildings,with submittal of a lighting plan) No lighting plan has been submitted to date. June 3,2004: (90 days after approval): COA#11. (reduce the height of the existing concrete faced fence along the eastern property line to a height of six ft.or less or apply for a building permit and variance to retain the fence). No building permit application has been submitted to retain the fence at the current height nor has the applicant provided information about this work being done. July 27, 2004 to March 3, 2005: Receivership period September 5, 2004 (6 months after approval): COA#5 (provide a log documenting and complaints received by the site manager, county permits issued for the site and their status, . police calls to the site, due every 6 months) October 26, 2004: letter from staff to previous owner and applicant November 8. 2004:.another letter from staff to previous owner and applicant November 12, 2004: property deeded back to Richard Rodriquez March 3, 2005: release of the receivership March 5, 2005: expiration of the Land Use Permit May 9, 2005: letter from staff to current owner June 6, 2005: First Zoning Administrator hearing to consider revocation 3 i V. CONCLUSION: The bulk of the conditions of approval were to be satisfied by June 2004, before sudden illness, revocation; or change of ownership issues arose. The land use permit and timely compliance with the conditions of approval was the opportunity for the owner to demonstrate that property would not continue to be a nuisance in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator revoke the land use permit and requests the Building Inspection Department to begin abatement proceedings 'on the six-unit apartment building on the property. DAcurrent planning\LUP\LP032107 bella vista.revocation3-mt.doc �n 4 Attachment 14 Grant Deeds/Parcel Information '• � � Illlilllll1111 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: T11111111111IT11111111111111111111111111 Amerjcan Title Company Escrow No. 75661-RE CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder Office Title order No. 00075661 STEPHEN L, WEIR Clerk-Recorder When Recorded Mail Document DOC-r 200�L-0249086-00 and Tax Statement To: poet t- Amer-ic n Trtie-- Ben Chavez Thursday, JUL 18, 2002 08:00 $0 e0 P ' M00 $2.00 REC $6.00NLr- Ttl Pd $261,50 90000951434 Amb/R2/1.-2 GRANT DEED SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s) Documentary transfer tax is.$ 247.50 City Transfer Tax is $ [ ) .computed on full value of.property conveyed, or [ X ) computed on full.value less value of liens or.encumbrances remaining at time of,sale, [ ) Unincorporated Area City of Pittsburg FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION; receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Richard Rodriquez, a single man hereby GRANT(S).to Benito Chavez, Sr., a Married man, as his sole and separate property the,following described real property in the City of Pittsburg, County of Contra Costa, State of California: SEE EXHIBIT ONE ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF DATED: June 24, 2002 yyJJ JJ STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CCONTRI4 Cpsla t.-.Oupjl j Richard Rodriquez ON 75txNE _'Z5, BOO el, before me, MA&(_FLA4 LDPEz personally appeared RcnD'R1 LaUEZ personally known to me (or.proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s)is/are subscribed to the within instrument and . acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the MARICELA LOPEZ person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the Comm.11355679 person(s) acted, executed the instrument. N NOTARY MUC•CAUFORNIA N Coatre Cona County My com.Espen May 7,2006 Witness my hand and official seal. Signature IP MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE FD-213 (Rev 7196) GRANT DEED 2443©SG Escrow No. 7x661-RE Title Order No.00075661 :r EXHIBIT ONE The North 77.78 feet,front and rear measurements of Lot 16, Map of Bella Vista Subdivision,filed-June 3, 1924, Map Book 18, Page 450, Contra Costa County Records. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: That parcel of land described in the Deed from Richard Pillard, et ulx, to Contra Costa County, recorded December 10, 1969, Book 6021, Official Records, Page 146, as follows: A portion of Lot 16 as shown on Map entitled "Belle Vista Subdivision Contra Costa County, California", filed with the Recorder of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, onlJune 3, 1924, in Volume 18 of Maps, Page 450, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of the County Road known as Bella Vista Avenue, at the Northwest corner of said Lot 16 as described in the'Deed to Title Insurance and Trust Company, recorded on January 20, 1966, in Volume 5049 of Official Records, at Page 383; thence from said point of beginning along the North line of said Lot 16, South 890 32' 33" East(the bearing South 890 32' 33".taken for the purpose of this description) 8.00 feet;thence South 00 27' 27" West 77.78 feet to the South line of said parcel (5049 OR 3813) thence North 890 32' 33" West 8.00 feet to the East line of Bella Vista Avenue;thence Northerly along the East line of said Bella Vista Avenue, North 00 27' 27" East 77.78 feet to the point of beginning. i END OF DOCUMENT i IIII III III I III II IIII II�II III III IIII I IIII I III III II RECORDING REQUESTED BY CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder Office STEPHEN L, WEIR, Clerk-Recorder WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO DOC— 435187 -00 Fr day, NOV 12, 2004 16:09:00. 0001 RICHARD RODRIGUEZ JR. suR me non $2.00 00110001 3333 WILLOW PASS RD. REc $6.00 TCF $1.00 0®E BAY POINT CA 94565 Ttl Pd $20,00 Nbr-0002425163 0®001101M® lrc/R9/1-2 Title Order No. A OCV57-01 l-O 10 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE GRANT DEED The undersigned declares that the documentary transfer tax is�Ullq eriUMbE"J and is ❑Computed on the full value of the interest or property conveyed,or is ,Computed on the full value less the value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. The land,tenements realty is located in 19Unincorporated area of: ElCity of: and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged. BENITO CHAVEZ SR. hereby GRANT(S)to RICHARD RODRIGUEZ JR. AN UNMARRIED MAN, AS HIS SOLE AND SEPERATE PROPERTY the following described real property in the County of: CONTRA COSTA ,State of:CALIFORNIA SEE EXHIBIT"A"ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE PART HEREOF Dated:. NOVO4x - 10, -LOOLl STATE OF: 0-4C,FDfLAi i A COUNTY OF: CONTIR..Pr COS-T-A. Iss Svv On KlOuE-w6m- 10, QbO U before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for State, personally appeared 3eN ITo Ch,4yFz SR personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s)is/are subscn to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal Le Comm.EA 13556LA 79 EZNOTARY PUBLIC.CALIFORNIA N COOIrI COW COUaIy My COMM Eaplres May 7,7006 k Signature / (This area for official notary seal) IL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED A80VE EXHIBIT ' A" I The North 77.78 feet, front and rear measurements, of Lot 16, has shown on the Map of Bella Vista Subdivision,'fiied June 3, 1924, in Map Book 18, page 450, Contra Costa County Records. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: That portion thereof conveyed 1n the deed to Contra Costa Counity recorded December 10, 1969, Book 6021, Official Records, page 146, as follows: A portion of Lot 16, as shown on the Map of Belle Vista, filed June 3, 1924, in Map Book 18, at Page 450, of Contra Costa County Records, described as follows: I Beginning at a point on the East line of the County Road known as Bella Vista Avenue, at the Northwest corner of said Lot 16, as described in the,Deed to Title Insurance and Trust Company, a California Corporation, recorded january 20, 1966, in book 5049, at Page 383, of Contra Costa County Official Records; thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING, along the North line said Lot 16, south 89° 32' 33" East (the bearing South 89° 32' 33" taken for the purpose of this description), 8.00 feet; thence South 00 27' 27" West, 77.78 feet to the South line of said Parcel (5049 OR 3831; thence North 890 32' 33" West, 8.00 feet to the East line of-Bei I la Vista Avenue; thence Northerly along the East line of said Bella Vista Avenue, North 00 27' 27" East, 77.78 feet o the point of beginning. APN: 095-071-010 i Exhbrt Oro IRev 8/961 i rarceiuuest Dy c;U-UA 1 A Property Detail Contra Costa, CA GUS KRAMER, ASSESSOR Parcel# (APN): 095-071-010-3 Use Description: Parcel Status: Owner Name: RODRIGUEZ RICHARD JACOBSON SUNNY DAWN Mailing Address: 3333 WILLOW PASS RD BAY POINT CA 94565-3159 Situs Address: 79 BELLA VISTA AVE BAY POINT CA 94565-3476 CO20 Legal Description: BELLA VISTA SUBN POR LOT 16 ASSESSMENT Total Value: $1,300,000 Use Code: 25 Zoning: Land Value: $390,000 Tax Rate Area: 79024 Census Tract: 3141.04/3 Impr Value: $910,000 Year Assd: 2005 Improve Type: Other Value: Property Tax: Price/SgFt: $0.54 % Improved 70'/0 Delinquent Yr Exempt Amt: HO Exempt?: N SALES HISTORY Sale 1 Sale 2 Sale 3 Transfer Recording Date:. 01/04/2005 01/04/2005 Recorded Doc#: 05003319 ' 05003319 Recorded Doc Type: Transfer Amount: $5,000 Sale 1 Seller(Grantor): 1 st Trst Dd Amt: Code1: 2nd Trst Dd Amt: Code2: PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Lot Acres: Year Built: 1950 Fireplace: Lot SgFt: Effective Yr: 1950 A/C: Bldg/Liv Area: 9,241 : Heating: Units: ' 12 Total Rooms: Pool: Buildings: Bedrooms: Stories: Baths (Full): Park Type: Style: Baths (Half): Spaces: Construct: Site Inflnce: Quality: Garage SgFt: Building Class: Timber Preserve: Condition: Ag Preserve: Other Rooms: *"*The information provided here is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) v Complete.:this form and place it:in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Phone: Address: 35- OE-UA V_(5M City: — (Address and phonenumber are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of theBoard in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization.- CHECK rganization:CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # 02, Date: My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ;9 Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comment: for the Board to consi,;Please see reverse for instructions and important information 6 PP9 Ess , WIEY &;D _774(c 7- 6C 1V N©NPE fH177' Wow �157- A)E0 REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: C Phony:: l 0��' `1,J� © l Cl) I Address: %" ��n ►City: (Address and phone number are optional;please note that this card will become a pub record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: ?' �— CHECK ONE: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Dgte: My comments will be: Gener 1 `11 �11� � __ El I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: �rc�l��= �� Phone: Address: �C - City: (Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will becom` a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board it? association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: CHECK ONE: ❑ 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # ✓ -- Date: My comments will be: ❑ General ] For Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place//it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: �i/I��.s �v Phone: _ 99-,5 -5, Address: 7<`_ )e) /J t w- City: (Address and phone number are optional; please note that this card will become a hublic record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) I am speaking for myself or organization: _ CHECK ONE: 13"11-wish to speak on Agenda Item # '� Date: '2 My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For Against �v✓I i ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information 4lR+�w ' aat?aaaa` to 141 — C3 pCi t. o4 — t W4 i W 0 C3 4 0 W it --- '- b It© 4 t� ; Mom Wad U) - IMEL 4i OWO F-JF b a 1t� Z Q w -{ _ :j (flu o i ft Z Z > t3 a 0) r i1dOS3�id a Q X Z lU i d l] NDOoz Q N rnOrn i � I Ck.;3 All C 41 r ;FN L»l N N C � V7 0 a U \C) ,ick acaaaaa ID.41 ifl C1 rl — t 14 r1 j4 0 MGM ... wOQ u► ct CIQ3 Q Z it ink C3 W(80 C4 " MEL IL +x u 44 owo c L� F-JF i m — o- z¢w vi — { Ei? Dwm 0 i' 4 N - O c (D P- w C) -' J_ rn d CCI - �i •r- .«i t �� �14 ^j - z O T D D � n D cn D3 03 p m T m i T O N T rm 0 e �p = 5 OZ ^ H 2 O m -�lee— LN � Ts Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925.335.1900 Far.: 925.335.1913 Memo of Transmittal Date: 521-{J , Via : 15- 72-01 - T a: i KaLrta1 I OrnS— Crib , First Class Mail I Fax: J 7 Ovemight By: Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk C C: 141 2-- L � A'Fe' 'i0.'%�•iN+�'.u�u'�^RF' Y'.iN�,ik1!� .. �• _ f: 'S' I I. I N otes: Ali RECEIVED MAY 213 2006 I,I CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO'.- i C nuws-rd�vt , I iq,4LUp Tom 241 i RECEIVED M AY 2 3 2006 ClERKCOATRACOSTACo.SORB Vt krr'2. ? 'LQ c qA SUNNY JACOMON197187 90.19. 808 GLOUCESTER ST..925.756-7254 j ANTIOCH,CA 64509-5540, cnTr1G _l t�9 Washimoon, Mutual Waahington.Mutual Bank,FA, .. .WWW.Wamuxom Alp. x: 32.22 ? k62 3063A97W;711' y9 Maureen Toms/CD/CCC To Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC@CCC 05/26/2006 11:11 AM cc June McHuen/COB/CCC@CCC bcc Subject Re: Fw:Admin Appeal[ Kathy: Tues is fine. I am out of the office on Tues and Wed., but I am happy to take a look at a draft today if it is available. I also revised the cover letter, per Tom Geiger's suggestion and it is attached. I added "not subject to further appeal to the Board of Supervisors". LP032107 BOS decision nokice.doc Thanks Maureen Toms, AICP Contra Costa County Community Development Department Redevelopment Agency 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 190 Martinez, CA 94553 925-335-7230 925-335-7201 (fax) Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC ' CCC To Maureen Toms/CD/CCC � 05/26/2006 10:08 AM @ cc Subject Re: Fw:Admin AppealD Hi Maureen, The addendum for the Appeal has not been completed nor reviewed for approval and Jane Pennington is out of the office until Tuesday. June McHuen was assigned that item. In Jane's absence, Julie Enea is the contact person for COB matters. I apologize for not being able to help with this matter, I handle the noticing but not the Board Room stuff. Let me know if this is not acceptable and we can talk to Julie. Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 925.335-1902 Maureen Toms/CD/CCC Maureen Toms/CD/CCC To inclair/COB/CCC CCC 05/26/2006 09:35 AM KathyY @ cc Maureen Toms/CD/CCC To Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC@CCC 05/26/2006 09:35 AM cc bcc Subject Fw:Admin Appeal Kathy: Below is the attachment from Toms Geiger and one that I modified for this specific applicant. This should go out today if at all possible, so that the 90 day clock can start. LP032107 BOS'decision notice.doc Maureen Toms, AICP Contra Costa County Community Development Department Redevelopment Agency 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 190 Martinez, CA 94553 925-335-7230 925-335-7201 (fax) -----Forwarded by Maureen Toms/CD/CCC on 05/26/2006 09:34 AM----- Thomas L Geiger/CC/CCC 05/24/2006 02:29 PM To Maureen Toms/CD/CCC@CCC cc Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC@CCC, Dennis Barry/CD/CCC@CCC,Jim Kennedy/CD/CCC@CCC Subject Re: Fw:Admin Appeal Maureen, Attached is a cover letter that can be sent along with the Board's final decision on item D.2, which was an appeal of a permit revocation. The cover letter informs the appellant that she has 90 days to file an action in Superior Court. The County should also return the appellant's$125 check,which she gave to the Clerk of the Board yesterday after the hearing. The cover letter should explain that the check is being returned because yesterday's action was the County's final decision on the matter. I suggest that you review the Board Order and addendum for accuracy after it is prepared by the Clerk of the Board, and that you draft the cover letter. Please give me a call if you have questions. Tom w.1094.6 letter.doe Thomas L. Geiger Deputy County Counsel Contra Costa County (925) 335-1813 tgeig@cc.cccounty.us Maureen Toms/CD/CCC Maureen Toms/CD/CCC 05/24/2006 08:36 AM To Thomas L Geiger/CC/CCC@CCC cc Dennis Barry/CD/CCC@CCC,Catherine Kutsuris/CD/CCC@CCC,Jim Kennedy/CD/CCC@CCC Subject Fw:Admin Appeal Tom: The message below relates to item D2 on yesterday's BOS agenda. The BOS upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke the land use permit. What are the next steps? Maureen Toms, AICP Contra Costa County Community Development Department Redevelopment Agency 2530 Arnold Drive, Suite 190 Martinez, CA 94553 925-335-7230 925-335-7201 (fax) -----Forwarded by Maureen Toms/CD/CCC on 05/24/2006 08:33 AM----- "'�*TTTMw�"� Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC 05/24/2006 08:32 AM To Maureen Toms/CD/CCC@CCC a a. 4 cc s A*-AA."AAAAi4 Subject Admin Appeal Hi Maureen, The COB is in receipt of an Administrative Appeal from Sunny Jacobson, received yesterday. FYI, Ms. Jacobson, mentioned in our conversation while handling the appeal, that she wants this matter to go before a Judge, as in Court of Law. Please advise. Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 925.335-1902 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS BAY POINT AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,May 23, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (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: MARY K.BULL-RANSOM(Former Applicant)and BEN CHAVEZ(Former Owner), RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AND SUNNY DAWN JACOBSON(Current Owners/Appellant), County File#LP03-2107: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke Land Use Permit#LP03-2107 and the failure of the East County Regional Planning Commission to overturn the decision to revoke LP03- 2107, which allowed the expansion of a legal non-conforming use within an existing 12-unit apartment complex to include a modification to the existing roof pitch, and interior renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two-story, six-unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue,Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (Parcel#095-071-010) The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, 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 79 Bella Vista Avenue,Bay Point. If you challenge the project 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, May 23, 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 Maureen Toms, Community Development Department; at(925) 335-7230 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday,May 22, 2006 confirm your participation. Date: May 9, 2006 John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Katherine inclair,Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF: MARY K. BULL-RANSOM (Former Applicant) and BEN CHAVEZ (Former Owner), RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AND SUNNY DAWN JACOBSON (Current Owners/Appellant), County File# LP03-2107: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke Land Use Permit#LP03-2107 and the failure of the East County Regional Planning Commission to overturn the decision to revoke LP03-2107, which allowed the expansion of a legal non- conforming use within an existing 12-unit apartment complex to include a modification to the existing roof pitch, and interior renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two-story, six- unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue,Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (Parcel# 095-071-010) 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: May 10, 2006 Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk 95071010 95074005 95084012 RODRIGUEZ RICHARD RAMOS JOSE A& SUSANA MOLINAR JESSE LOPEZ& ROSE TRE 3333 WILLOW PASS RD 98 BELLA VISTA AVE 72 BELLA VISTA AVE BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95102015 95071002 95084020 SARABIA JOSE J &ANGELICA VILLEGAS VICTORINO DELGADO JOSEPH A& BONNIE J 3066 24TH ST 464 HANLON WAY 64 BELLA VISTA AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95102020 95071007 95084018 D W GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INC SIINO ANTHONY H TRE COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH 22 GLENN ST 153 ENCINAL DR 62 BELLA VISTA AVE VALLEJO CA 94590 PITTSBURG CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95091012 95102012 95081003 VASQUEZ HECTOR& LUZMILA TRE MIJARES CONCEPCION TRE MCCARTHY KEVIN P 52 SEAVIEW DR 8984 AGATE CREEK CT 45 PENSACOLA ST BAY POINT CA 94565 ELK GROVE CA 95758 BAY POINT CA 94565 95071004 95081001 95101002 ZAPIEN MARCIAL LINARES SAM &ANGELA RODRIGUEZ RICHARD JR 99 BELLA VISTA AVE 95 PENSACOLA ST 3333 WILLOW PASS RD BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95084019 95102019 95101007 LEHMAN ROGER JR & SUSAN TRE BASSA GOOLAM HOOSENHAWA VAZQUEZ HECTOR& LUZMELA 66 BELLA VISTA AVE 83 BAYVIEW AVE 52 SEAVIEW DR BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95071008 95101001 95071001 BASSA GOOLAM HOOSEN& HAWA RODRIGUEZ RICHARD VILLEGAS DAMIAN F 2542 SARATOGA AVE 3333 WILLOW PASS RD 444 HANLON WAY CONCORD.CA 94519 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95071003 95091011 95074002 WHETHAM NICCI BASSA GOOLAM H & HAWA SIEGFRIED NORMA 144 LOFTOS RD 2542 SARATOGA AVE 92 BELLA VISTA AVE BAY POINT CA 94565 CONCORD CA 94519 BAY POINT CA 94565 95091010 95092017 95082005 GONZALES SERGIO ESQUIVEL SINPO SANOR SOLANO HECTOR& LETICIA 48 BAYVIEW AVE 55 BAYVIEW AVE 94 PENSACOLA ST BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95101006 95082004 95084014 LEWELLYN DIANE JOHNSON JOHN M TRE BARRION ERLINDA S 94 BAYVIEW AVE 74 PENSACOLA ST 52 SEARS ST BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94112 95101003 95102016 95071006 BASSA GOOLAM HOOSEN& HAWA SALAZAR OSCAR A SALAZAR TOMMY R& LOUISE S 2542 SARATOGA AVE 1697 ST GERMAIN PL 91 BELLA VISTA AVE CONCORD CA 94519 CONCORD CA 94521 BAY POINT CA 94565 . 95101005 95074004 95082002 ALVAREZ DALE&JOSEFINA OZUNA CHRISTINA OCHOA RODOLFO CUEVAS 407 TURRIN DR 96 BELLA VISTA AVE 67 BELLA VISTA AVE PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95101004 95081005 95074001 BASSA GOOLAM HOOSEN& HAWA BOON MICHAEL &JOYCE MADDEN CURTIS K III& KAREN M 2542 SARATOGA AVE 59 BELLA VISTA AVE 74-90 BELLA VISTA AVE CONCORD CA 94519 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95082001 95071005 95101008 MALACHOWSKI M J GUADARRAMA AGUSTIN E VILLEGAS DAMIAN F PO BOX 9315 95 BELLA VISTA AVE 444 HANLON WAY BERKELEY CA 94709 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAYPOINT CA 94565 95074008 95074003 95081002 NIELSEN NORMAN K& DIANE L ZALDANA HUGO LINARES TERESITA A 2437 TICE VALLEY BLVD 94 BELLA VISTA AVE 75 PENSACOLA ST WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 95081004 95082003 95102011 CURIEL ADOLFO MACDOUGALL JASON C LEIVA JOSE V 63 BELLA VISTA AVE 44 PENSACOLA ST 390 HANLON WAY BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 BAY POINT CA 94565 SUNNY JACOBSON 3333 WILLOW PASS ROAD BUILDING INSPECTION HSD/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BAY POINT, CA 94565 DELTA DIABLO SANITARY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSOLIDATED FIRE DISTRICT 2500 PITTSBURG-ANTIOCH HWY. ANTIOCH, CA 94509 CONTRA COSTA WATER DISTRICT CITY OF PITTSBURG BAY POINT M.A.C. P.O. BOX H2O 65 CIVIC AVENUE P.O. BOX 5038 CONCORD, CA 94524 PITTSBURG, CA 94565 BAY POINT, CA 94565 zz "Contra Costa Times Legals" To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us <cctlegals@cctimes.com> cc 05/10/2006 10:59 AM Please respond to bcc cctlegals@cctimes.com Subject Publication Request-Bay Point Permit Revoke THE FOLLOWING e-mail contains pertinent information; please read it carefully in its entirety. PLEASE NOTE:All of our offices will be closed Memorial Day, Monday,May 29, 2006. Good Morning. If you have any questions regarding the legal notice confirmed below, please reference the LEGAL NUMBER provided. Only e-mail to cctlegalsAcctimes.com regarding Contra Costa Times,Concord Transcript, or Contra Costa Sun legal notices. ** LEGAL SCHEDULE CONFIRMATION TYPE: In-Column Liner, Classified Section LEGAL NUMBER: 5657 PO#: 1160 Publication: CCT Run Date(s): 05/13 Legal Acct#: 200 4197 Total Amount: $170.80 FOR YOUR INFORMATION- Revisions/Cancellations: I will need a cancellation request referencing the LEGAL NUMBER—or all changes attached in a final.draft Microsoft Word Document—e-mailed to cctlegals(icctimes.com by no later than 4 PM tomorrow, Thurs., 05/11. Otherwise, the wording of the legal will publish as you e-mailed. Thanks! Anashia Lloyd Legal Advertising Coordinator (925) 943-8019 (925) 943-8359— fax Contra Costa Times ATTN: Legal Dept. P.O. Box 4718 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 cctlegals@cctimes.com Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com 05/09/2006 04:04 PM cc bcc Subject Publication Request-Bay Point Permit Revoke Hi Anashia, Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes:. One day only, Saturday, May 13, 2006 Reference PO#: 1160 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 i 1tW Contra Costa County I 925.335.1902 Ip032107 Bay Point Permit R evoke-052306-Final.doc I I I i - -- ---- cctlegals@cctimes.com To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us 05/09/2006 04:13 PM cc Please respond to bcc cctlegals@cctimes.com Subject Re: Publication Request-Bay Point Permit Revoke The email that you have just sent has been received by the Legals desk at Contra Costa Newspapers/Hills Newspapers. Legal Notices will be processed based on the next available deadline (or requested publication date) . If a quote has been requested, it will be provided once the notice has been processed. If you are requesting general information, we will respond as soon as possible. Thank you. \✓NOTICE OF A PUB 1C. EARING You are hereby notified that on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Antioch City Council Chambers, Third and H Streets, Antioch, California, the East County Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals will consider a LAND USE PERMIT application as described as follows: MARY K. BULL-RANSOM (Former Applicant) and BEN CHAVEZ (Former Owner), RICHARD RODRIGUEZ AND SUNNY DAWN JACOBSON (Current Owners/Appellant), County File # LP03-2107: This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to revoke Land Use Permit # LP03-2107. LP03-2107 allowed the expansion of a legal non-conforming use within an existing 12-unit apartment complex to include a modification to the existing roof pitch, and interior renovations to repair fire damage to an existing two-story, six-unit apartment building located at 79 Bella Vista Avenue, Bay Point in East Contra Costa County. (P-1) (SH) (ZA: F-18) (CT: 3141.01) (Parcel #095- 071-010) If you challenge the project 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. For further details, contact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or Maureen Toms at 925-335-7230. Dennis M. Barry, AICP Community Development Director 'jun Q Y MAY-09-2006 13:55 CCC DEUELOPMENT DEPT 1 925 3351265 P.02 ,;U o m m u n ity Contra Dennis M. Barry, AICP Community Developmepme nt Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)335-1210 Date: AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. I)8TIrIBUTION Please submit your com enLasfoUlows: �Building InspectionHSD,Environmental Health,Concord Project Planner " HSD,Hazardous Materials P/W -Flood Control (Full Size) County File P/W-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Number: C/ 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. I-e--5Redevelopment Area CA Fish & Game,Region US Fish &Wildlife Servi.c Active Fault Zone Fire District oused, Sanitary District c� lood Hazard Area,Panel# Water D. t i t �[City i 60 dBA Noise Control School District Sheriff Office- Admin. cot Comm.Svcs. CA EPA Hazardous Waste Site Alamo Improvement Association _El Sob me , & oning Committee Traffic "Lone -X MAC o� DOIT-De .Director, Communications CEQA Exempt CAC R-7A Alamo Categorical 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 ~^ S:currcnt planning/tcmplatcs/forrns/a-,cnt:y convnent rcqucst Date r Office Hours Monday- Friday:5:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To Maureen Toms/CD/CCC@CCC 04/25/2006 03:37 PM cc Maureen Parkes/CD/CCC@CCC ' bcc w Subject Appeal Hearing This is to confirm our telecon of today setting a hearing for May 23, 2006. 1:00 Appeal East Co Regional Plan Comm to revoke a permit. 30 V P Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 925.335-1902 The Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen p Clerk of the Board Costaand County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1080 Martinez,California 94553-4068 John Gioia,District 1 � .s--•••t=per Gayle B.Uilkema,District Il Mary N.Piepho,District III �_ - _• Mark DeSaulnier, District IV Federal D.Glover, District V �z osrA couzz'� � June;..21 , 2006 Sunny Jacobson 3333 Willow Pass Road Bay Point, CA 94565 Re: Board of Supervisors Decision of May 23,2006 Dear Ms. Jacobson: Enclosed is the final decision of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in the above-referenced matter. This decision is final and is not subject to further appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Therefore your check in the amount of$125 to cover a request for an appeal is being returned to you. This is to notify you that Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 governs the time within which judicial review of the Board's decision must be sought. You have 90 days from the date of this letter to seek judicial review of the Board's decision. Sincerely, John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator 1 J By_ rine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk Encls. The Board of Supervisors Contra John Cullen P Clerk of the Board Costaand County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1080 Martinez, California 94553-4068 l• John Gioia,District I -------- Gayle ��E:6---.Gayle B.Uilkema,District 11 Mary N.Piepho,District III 1 Mark DeSaulnier,District IV _ Federal D.Glover, District V SrA COUr3'� June. .21 , 2006 Sunny Jacobson 3333 Willow Pass Road Bay Point, CA 94565 Re: Board of Supervisors Decision of May 23, 2006 Dear Ms. Jacobson: Enclosed is the final decision of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in the above-referenced matter. This decision is final and is not subject to:further appeal to the Board of Supervisors. Therefore your check in the amount of$125 to cover a request for an appeal is being returned to you. This is to notify you that Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 governs the time within which judicial review of the Board's decision must be sought. You have 90 days from the date of this letter to seek judicial review of the Board's decision. Sincerely, John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator t By_ Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk Encls. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF: SUNNY JACOBSON RE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DECISION OF MAY 23, 2006 And return of$125.00 check. 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: Sunny Jacobson 3333 Willow Pass Road Bay Point, CA 94565 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: June 21, 2006 , b Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk Post-its Fax Note 7671 Date pages 02 To h From Co./Dept. Co. i Phone# Phone# �nv c,/ I Fax# L!h _ Fax# —_ ?�C CLEF-11 I-F THE :NOTE R-T ME 9171 L 4: 14 '-F BOARD OF ,",,UIPERVISC-li-S, N T.1-IF KA-1 TER OF: SUNNY JACOBSO-1\1 RE, BOARD OF OF 2006 And return ofS, 125.0 check. 1. declare under peiiaifyofp,� 'ury-hal 1 ;;;jn novi, in t I pq da all. 60-les llerq1:11 ed havz-beo a citizen ofthe 'l Inited 51 mcs. over ..-,gc *,,-E 41 id 11 lat .1,3"Liv I I].(:pos.-i toci ect. '114all viiia (,ontra Coiia Coiintv Cenint Senjee for Sume-.h Posm) 11:1 lvfarom:z, first class Doslage full, pri:-pivad, ct uoj:r% cik thi, fi.',.irinir ih!-:") oveent'd-ad rilatter to the following: Su nny Jacobson