HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03132007 - D.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ' r Count
coffin
DATE: March 13, 2007
SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal of a County Planning Commission Decision to Grant Design
Review Approval of a Retaining Wall for a Driveway on a Substandard Lot with
Variances to Minimum Yard Standards, at #1255 Palm Avenue in the
Martinez/Mountain View area. (Milton E. Franke — Applicant; Roger and Eda Chung
Owners); County File #VR04-1134 (Code Compliance Investigation File #RF04-01046).
(Sup. Dist. II)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. After accepting any public testimony, CLOSE the hearing.
B. For purposes of determining the project's compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, FIND that the project is Categorically Exempt; Class 3: (New construction of a small
structure).
C. DENY the appeal of James D. Morgan filed on behalf of John and Carol Veirs.
D. SUSTAIN the conditional approval of the County Planning Commission for the proposed
retaining wall and possible fence combination, subject to additional modified conditions.
E. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution 6-2007 as the basis
for the Board's decision.
F. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ONA112112149YED AS REeemmemB&DOTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
YES: NOES: ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Rose Marie Pietras (925)335-1216 ATTESTED
Orig: Community Development Department JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: Milton E. Franke, Law Offices of Milton E. Franke SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Roger and Eda Chung
James R. Morgan, Law Offices of James R. Morgan
Building Inspection Department
B PUTY
March 13, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134
Page 2
II. FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant is responsible for application processing costs.
III. PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant requests design review approval for a retaining wall supporting a new driveway for a
residence that is presently being remodeled on a substandard lot. The site is zoned Single Family
Residential, R-6. The review is required pursuant to the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance because
the subject property is substandard with respect to the zoning district's lot area and lot width
requirement (less than 6000 square feet in lot area; less than 60 feet in average lot width)', and
because the County received a request from a neighbor to allow for a hearing on the project. The
purpose of the small lot review is to determine the project's compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood.
After the application was filed, staff was informed that the applicant also proposes to add a fence
element to the top of the wall. In addition, the height of the proposed wall ranges up to five feet and
requires that variances be granted to allow zero-foot side and rear yards. Within required yards
(structure setback areas) of a site, the zoning code limits the height of a retaining wall structure to
three feet; and the height of a retaining wall/fence combination to six feet. Before variances may be
granted, the County must make specified code findings.
There are three key items about the project to note:
• The property has two frontages: one on Palm Avenue, and one on Oak Street.
• The applicant has already received design review approval to remodel the existing residence
on the property, and to build a garage, and has obtained building permits for those
improvements. The County provided notice of an earlier permit application (File #Z103-
10029B) to neighbors of that aspect of the site improvements. That application did not
include a retaining wall. The County received no request for a hearing from that project
notice, and building permits were issued. The improvements from the earlier permit are
underway. The new detached garage has doors at opposite ends of the building, which is
intended to allow for access from both frontages.
• The proposed retaining wall has already been constructed, and was initiated by the owner in
violation of the zoning and building code. The wall was built to support the driveway that
connects the new garage with the Palm Avenue frontage. The applicant indicated to staff
that the design of the wall is intended to avoid a soil embankment that might erode and
damage the adjoining properties.
The reason why this matter is before the County is that a complaint was filed with the County
alleging a code violation on the construction of the retaining wall. After investigating the matter, staff
verified that a violation occurred and advised the owner that either the wall would have to be
removed or that they could try to obtain necessary permits from the County to allow it to remain.
The owners elected to pursue the latter course, and filed this design review application.
The lot was created decades before the County adopted zoning regulations that restrict lot dimensions. Nearl y all of
the lots in the neighborhood are substandard in size and width.
March 13, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134
Page 3
IV. BACKGROUND
A. Initial Application and Zoning Administrator Decision
1. Code Enforcement Investigation and Filing of Development Permit Application
On August 19, 2004, the County Code Enforcement officer cited the property owner with
a code violation for concrete forms and five foot retaining wall in the required side and
rear yards, and for violation of the building code. The Code Enforcement officer
determined that the existing wall of five feet violates Zoning Ordinance Section 82-4.270
(definition of "structure"). The Code Enforcement officer explained to the applicant that a
variance (to fence/wall height) application is required to be obtained from the County
before the wall may be allowed.
On November 29, 2004, the applicant (originally Mr. Miguel Espinosa) applied on behalf
of the owner for a design review with variances. (Later in the process, an attorney, Milton
Franke, representing the owners, replaced Mr. Espinosa as the applicant of record.)
2. Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative Decision on the Proposed Wall and Request
for Hearing from Neighboring Owner
On December 16, 2004, the Community Development Department issued a Notice of
Intent to Render an Administrative Decision on the project to the owners of property
within 300 feet of the site.
Following the issuance of the notice, the County received two letters, one of which
requested a public hearing on the proposed retaining walls. On December 20, 2004 a
letter was received from Mr. and Mrs. John & Carol Veirs, owners of 1251 Palm Avenue,
the adjoining property to the south requesting that the County conduct a public hearing
on the application. They expressed concern on the proximity of the wall to their garage,
claiming that the retaining wall infringes upon their garage. They also claim that the
serviceability of the garage and drainage has been impacted causing damage and
devaluation to their property.
3. Efforts to Get Applicant's Cooperation to Allow for a Public Hearing
On January 6, 2004, the Community Development Department issued a letter to the
applicant (Espinosa) informing him that a hearing would be required, and advising him
that an additional fee deposit was required.
After receiving no response from the applicant, on April 22, 2005, the County sent him a
second letter. Again, the applicant failed to respond. At this time, staff assumed that the
applicant had lost interest in pursuing the matter, and scheduled a hearing before the
Zoning Administrator with a recommendation of denial due to apparent lack of interest on
the part of the applicant.
March 13, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134
Page 4
4. Initial Public Hearings Before the Zoning Administrator
On June 5, 2006, the Zoning Administrator conducted a hearing on the application.
During the public hearing, the applicant informed the County of his intentions to proceed
with his small lot review/variance request and agreed to pay the additional $1,000.00 fee
deposit.
The neighbors also were present at the first public hearing. They testified that the
retaining wall encroaches on their property. The neighbors submitted a letter with photos
at the public hearing. The photos showed clumps of cement which oozed from beneath
the contractor's forms and dried in a v-shaped drainage trough.
After public testimony was taken, the Zoning Administrator continued this item five times
to allow staff time to review and respond to the neighbor's letter and the applicant's
attorney.
5. Initial Review by Staff
After reviewing a letter from Mr. Milton E. Franke, legal counsel of Mr. Chung, received
on June 21, 2005, and a letter from the neighbor dated July 6, 2005, staff determined that
the property owner (Mr. Chung) and his neighbor (Mr. Veirs) have disagreed on a number
of issues dating back to 1985. The issues ranged from a disagreement over location of
the property line, water damage and the build-up of the driveway creating a slope with
un-engineered fill without a grading permit. Both correspondences were received during
the continuance period of the public hearing.
6. Decision by the Zoning Administrator
Staff determined that the retaining wall was justified, and would avoid damage to the
neighboring property. Staff recommended that the required findings be made and that
the application be approved.
However, after conducting a field visit to the site, the Zoning Administrator viewed the
matter differently. The Zoning Administrator felt that there was no justification for a wall
of this size or design; that the applicant had elected to add more fill to the property than
was warranted. She determined that there was no justification for the necessary
variances to allow the wall and on October 10, 2005 denied the application.
B. Applicant's Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Decision to Deny Application
On October 18, 2005, the Community Development Department received an appeal letter from
the new applicant, Mr. Milton E. Franke. The applicant indicated that they felt that the required
findings for granting a design review and variance approval could be made for this project.
C. County Planning Commission Hearing on Applicant's Appeal
The County Planning Commission was initially scheduled to hear the applicant's appeal on
December 13, 2005. However, at the applicant's request, the Commission rescheduled the
hearing to January 24, 2006.
March 13, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File #VR04-1134
Page 5
On January 24, 2006 the Commission accepted public testimony, then closed the hearing.
The Commission determined that the required ordinance findings could be made provided that
the project was conditioned to:
• Take the necessary steps to improve the drainage between the retaining wall and the
neighbors' (Veirs) garage over which the Veirs had expressed concern;
• Obtain a letter from a registered civil engineer that the retaining wall meets required
engineering standards; and
• Any fence to be built on top of the retaining wall shall be limited in height. The
combined height of the retaining wall and fence shall not extend to above the existing
height of the eave of the adjoining garage on the Veirs property.
The Commission also indicated that if no letter is provided from a registered civil engineer that
meets required engineering standards, then the wall should not be allowed to remain.
Based on these considerations, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to make the
required ordinance findings; grant the appeal of the applicant; and approve the project.
V. NEIGHBOR'S APPEAL OF COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
In a letter dated February 2, 2006, an attorney for the Veirs, James R. Morgan, filed an appeal of the
County Planning Commission decision. The appeal contends that:
• There was never a need for a retaining wall because the properties of the Veirs and Chungs
were approximately at level grade; that the wall was introduced only because the applicants
elected to add fill dirt to the rear of their property;
• The Commissioners never had an opportunity to witness the topography before it was altered
by the applicants;
• The applicants should be required to seek a variance and be granted a variance before fill is
added to the site or a wall is built; the applicant should not be rewarded for having violated
the law before going through the lawful procedures;
• The wall has not been professionally engineered and is an eyesore;
• The wall design causes flooding problems to the Veirs' garage;
• Years before the wall had been built (1985), the Veirs informed the Chungs that they were
concerned that the use of the property was creating a drainage problem for the Veirs;
• The driveway and garage that have been recently placed on the property is an alteration
from the previous site layout;
• There are no special circumstances to justify the change in the natural topography; and
• The denial decision of the Zoning Administrator should be sustained.
It should be noted that the applicant did not choose to appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission.
March 13, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File #VR04-1134
Page 6
VI. DISCUSSION
A. Zoning Regulation Parameters
The zoning ordinance allows retaining walls within required yard areas, but they cannot exceed
three feet in height. Combined retaining wall/fence structures cannot exceed six feet in height.
Normally, the R-6 zoning district requires a minimum 15-foot rear yard; a minimum 15-foot
aggregate side yard; and a minimum 5-foot side yard. However, there are two provisions in
the code that relax these standards.
• Insofar as the lot was created prior to the enactment of zoning regulations, and the front
width of the lot is less than 51 feet (50 feet), the ordinance allows a reduced aggregate
side yard standard for this property of a minimum of 10 feet. (Ord. C. § 82-12.004)
• An accessory structure that is located at least fifty (50) feet from the front property line
is allowed to observe a reduced side and rear yard setback of a minimum of three feet.
(R-6 zoning district)
Both of these relaxed parameters apply to this project and site. However, the project still
requires a variance because of the height of the wall and its location relative to the property
lines.
The points raised in the neighbors' appeal are similar to ones that were presented to both the
Zoning Administrator and the County Planning Commission. Provided that the wall can be
designed to meet engineering standards and provisions are made to safely handle any
drainage from the wall/driveway, the Commission determined that the ordinance code findings
could be made.
If the Board should sustain the Commission approval, before the wall may be considered
lawful, the applicant would still be required to:
• Take the necessary steps to improve the drainage between the retaining wall and the
garage on the neighbors' (Veirs) yard; the applicant will have to obtain legal access
onto the Veirs to perform any required improvements; (COA#7)
• Obtain an opinion letter from a licensed engineer validating that the retaining wall
meets required engineering standards; (COA#8)
• Obtain a building permit;
• Make any other improvements required by the code; and
• Obtain a final building permit from the Building Inspection Department following
inspection of the wall.
Survey Showing that Wall Does Not Encroach on Neighboring Properties
Following issuance of the Notice to Comply concerning the retaining wall, the applicant
continued to work on the driveway and the subject retaining wall.
Recently, the applicant has provided staff with a Location Survey prepared by a Registered
Civil Engineer showing the location of the existing wall relative to the property boundaries. The
March 13, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File #VR04-1134
Page 7
Location Survey shows that the subject retaining wall is entirely contained on the subject
property and does not encroach onto a neighbor's property.
B. Staff-Recommended Modifications to Conditions of Approval
There are three conditions of approval from the Commission's decision that should be
modified. The language from the Commission's decision and the staff-recommended
modifications are identified in marked text in the Conditions of Approval.
1. Period for Administrative Extension of Period for Exercising Development Permit -
Condition #2 provides for possible extension of the period for exercising this development
permit. As approved by the Commission, it could be interpreted as extending longer than
the period authorized by the Ordinance Code. Staff recommends that this condition be
modified to be consistent with the provisions of the Ordinance Code so that the applicant
would have a maximum two-year period in which to exercise this permit.
2. Clarification of Holiday Dates in Which Construction Activity Is Prohibited - The County
has made a long-standing practice of conditioning development permits to prohibit
construction activity on certain dates, including all State and Federal Holidays. The
Commission approval provides for that restriction.
However, the County practice has recently changed to more explicitly indicate what those
holidays are and the webpages where the exact calendar dates of those holidays may be
found. To be consistent with recent County practice, staff recommends that Condition
#7.a. be modified to include that additional language.
3. Clarification of Permitted Height for Retaining/Wall Fence Combination — The site plans
and application submitted for this project only describes a retaining wall. A retaining wall
is what was identified in the legal notice for the hearing before the Zoning Administrator
and the Planning Commission. At the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant
indicated that they were also proposing a fence on top of the retaining wall. The Planning
Commission approval allows for a combination fence/retaining wall that does not exceed
the height of the eave on the adjoining garage. However a structure of that height might
exceed the zoning height limit for a retaining wall/fence combination (max. 6-feet).
Following the hearing, the applicant has clarified that the proposed fence/retaining wall
will not exceed six feet in height. Staff is recommending that Condition #9 be modified to
read that
The combined height of the retaining wall and fence shall not
exceed the height of the roof eave of the existing garage on the
neighbors' (Veirs) property, or six feet in height from the base of
the wall(finished grade), whichever is lower.
The applicant indicated that they had no objection to this modification.
March 13, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134
Page 8
C. Consequences if Applicant is Not Able to Obtain a Final Building Permit
Two items may interfere with the applicant's ability to obtain a final building permit.
• The applicant is required to provide the County with a report from a licensed
engineer that the wall meets engineering standards, and have that report accepted
by the Building Inspection Department; and
• The applicant will have to obtain legal access from the Veirs to allow for appropriate
drainage improvements on their property; if access is denied, then the applicant may
not be able to meet the variance permit requirements.
If either of these items cannot be met and a final building permit does not issue, then the
applicant may be required to eliminate or modify the wall so as to otherwise comply with
Zoning, Building and Grading Code requirements.'
Should the Board grant the variance permit subject to the recommended conditions, and at
the building permit stage, the applicant is unable to meet either the requirements of the
variance permit, or the building code, or both, then the applicant will be required to either:
• Remove the wall in its entirety; or
• Reduce the height of the wall, such that it does not exceed three feet in height at all
points along the length of the wall.
In removing or reducing the height of the wall, the applicant must still comply with applicable
building and grading code requirements. One effect of this alteration to the wall may be to
prevent vehicular access to the garage located in the rear of the property from Palm Avenue.
Access to this drive-through garage would still be available from the other street frontage,
Oak Street.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\vr041134 Board Order 2-25-2007.doc
RMP\RD\
'The Planning Commission decision provides that if an acceptable engineering report recommending design
standards for the wall cannot be produced, the wall must be removed in its entirety. However, a wall up to three feet in
height is allowed by the zoning ordinance without a variance permit; further, the Building Code does not require a
building permit for a retaining wall three feet or less in height. Staff would have no authority(no variance exercised)to
require the removal of a retaining wall that is three feet or less in height provided that the design of the improvements
otherwise complies with the applicable grading and building code. Accordingly, staff is recommending modifications to
the Planning Commission condition to allow for this method of effecting code compliance in the event that the
proposed wall height fails to meet the variance permit and/or code requirements.
ADDENDUM
March 13, 2007 D.3 Hearing on the appeal regarding the retaining wall
Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, presented the staff report.
Chair Piepho called for comment. The following people spoke:
John Veirs, appellant, resident of Martinez;
Milton Franke, representing Roger and Eda Chung, owners;
James R. Morgan,representing John and Carol Veirs.
Chair Piepho closed the hearing and returned the matter to the Board. By unanimous vote of the
Supervisors present, Supervisor Glover absent, the Board:
CONTINUED the open hearing to April 10, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. on an appeal filed by John and Carol Veirs
of a decision by the County Planning Commission to grant a small lot design review variance permit for a
retaining wall within required side and rear yards, located at #1255 Palm Avenue, Martinez area;
DECLARED its intent to uphold the Planning Commission approval of the development permit, with
modifications to certain findings and conditions of approval from the Commission's decision (in reference
to construction on holidays, extension of the development permit, and a clarification on final wall/fence
height).
a U �./I1J.1.7�J�JJ.LJ
JJ7i
rl
of '
AIR
lit
Ip
Li
I1t-. • \ it '� .} ��
M"
I,-
,AegenSite
• ;� N '
Parcels
MEN �� - �
MDGM
�� •�I/IIID
It
SII r �� 11.
.. , S` e / "'! 'I'■ "■,.■■1_111
MJL
.44
OWN
Legend
Zoning
• I �� ■ice �■ ■�■� ■■■ ■iii■
.� �� ���� �_ ■�1 ■■ 111■ ■■
� ���►>Ili >��■11 ■ i ■C C� ?■► �r� 1
R-6M M-17
0-1
► ���� ill ■ ..I,
I� �� ►► 111■ �`r ��� ����
= � ���� C���I� ��� Off■ ■
I I
M—W)
: .� �'� �i �• p� � �1111 II � � ■11115
.. ► � �� �� �� ■� .— —11: moi■ ��i
�I II ��� ���� �� VIII■■
�I SII �i�� � .__�_� ...■
►� �i� Vii.. •_..������
I� Ill ■ � 11111111111
I ��� ■■
—
�■
ML(Multiple Family Residential-Low)
MH(Multiple Family Residential-High)
IIIIIIII
LI
GO(C.
■ � HI(Heavy Industry)
Q
11 1 It i . .. Adw
' � 3
� i3-d7
COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. 6-2007
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY
OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON THE APPEAL OF A
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR A
DESIGN REVIEW FOR A 5-FOOT RETAINING WALL ON A SUBSTANDARD
LOT, WITH VARIANCES TO THE SIDE AND REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS.
MILTON E. FRANKE, INC. (APPLICANT), ROGER AND EDA CHUNG
(OWNER), (County File #VR041134) AT 1255 PALM AVENUE IN THE
MARTINEZ AREA.
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2003, Miguel Espinoza applied for a Small Lot Design
Review application to remodel an existing residence and to build a detached garage at
#1255 Palm Avenue in the Martinez area. Notice of the application, including copies of the
site plan and building elevations were issued to the owners of the properties within 300-
feet of the site to provide them an opportunity to request a public hearing on the matter;
and after issuance of the notice of the project, no timely requests for hearing were received.
On September 2, 2003, the Zoning Administrator approved the application; and
subsequently, the applicant obtained building permits for those improvements and began
construction; and
WHEREAS, following receipt of a complaint from the public of a code violation
on the subject property, the Building Inspection Department investigated the matter, and
verified that a retaining wall in the southwest corner of the property was being built in
violation of zoning and building code. On August 19, 2004, the Building Inspection
Department advised the owners (Roger and Eda Chung) of the violations and that the
matter would have to be resolved by either removal of the retaining wall or alternatively,
trying to allow it to become legal by obtaining the requisite zoning and building permits; at
which time the owners decided that they wished to try to allow the wall to become lawful
by trying to obtain the necessary permits; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2004, Miguel Espinosa (Applicant) and Roger and
Eda Chung (Owners) filed an application with the Community Development Department
for a request for design review approval to allow a retaining wall up to five feet in height
supporting a proposed driveway on a substandard lot for purposes of determining the
wall's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and with variances to allow zero
foot side and rear yards for the wall (minimum three-foot setback required), County File
#VR04-1134; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, the project was
determined to be Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (e) Class 3 —Accessory
(appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pool and fences;
and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2004 a Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative
Decision was issued to inform the neighbors of the nearby properties that the County was
Resolution No. 6-2007
Appeal of County Planning Commission Conditional Approval of a
Small Lot Design Review/Variance for a Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134,Franke(A); Chungs(0)
processing this application and to provide the public with the opportunity to request a
public hearing. In response to the notice, the County received one timely filed request for
public hearing of this application. In order to proceed with the public hearing requested by
the neighbor, the County informed the applicant of the request for a public hearing and to
submit a $1,000.00 fee to proceed with the process. No response was received from the
applicant by correspondence or by phone call; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was
scheduled before the Zoning Administrator on Monday, June 6, 2005, where all persons
interested therein might appear and be heard, with a recommendation of denial due to
apparent lack of interest on the part of the applicant; and whereas, during the public
hearing the property owner appeared and informed the County of his intensions to proceed
with his variance request and agreed to pay the additional fee for processing of the
application. In addition, the neighbor also testified in regards to the retaining wall
encroaching onto his property; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator after taking public testimony continued the
public hearing five times, July 25, August 29, September 12, September 26, and October
10, 2005) in order to give more time to work out the differences between the neighbors and
the applicant and to make a field visit; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the County received a correspondence from the
property owner's legal representative, Milton E. Franke, with a copy of the General
Authorization / Representation executed by Mr. Chung retaining Milton E. Franke as the
Applicant replacing Miguel Espinosa; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2005, the Zoning Administrator determined that she
was not able to make the required ordinance findings for granting a variance including that
there were any special circumstances associated with the property that warranted the
granting of a variance, that approval of the wall could constitute a grant of special privilege
and denied the application for design review with variances for a retaining wall; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2005, on behalf of the owners, Milton E. Franke filed
a letter of appeal with the Community Development Department. That appeal contended
that the Zoning Administrator overlooked reasons why the required findings for granting
the application could be made; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the appeal of the applicant was scheduled before
the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 13, 2005, and notice was
lawfully given of the hearing where all persons interested therein might appear and be
heard; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2005 a written request was received by the
Community Development Department from the applicant, Milton E. Franke for a
continuance to the January 24, 2006 hearing date due to a previous commitment; and
R-2
Resolution No. 6-2007
Appeal of County Planning Commission Conditional Approval of a
Small Lot Design Review/Variance for a Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134,Franke(A); Chungs(0)
WHEREAS, the hearing on the appeal was continued to the January 24, 2006
Planning Commission hearing, at which time the Commission took public testimony and
closed the public hearing;
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, January 24, 2006, the County Planning Commission
having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted
in this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Planning Commission:
1. Adopts a Categorical Exempt Determination — Section 15303(e) Class 3 for the
purposes of determining the project's compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
2. Grants the appeal of the applicant;
3. Approves the design review/variance application for the proposed 5-foot retaining
wall on the side and rear yard property lines with variances for a zero-foot side and
rear yard, subject to conditions, including:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall take the necessary
steps to improve the drainage between the retaining wall and garage on the
neighbors' (Veirs') yard, subject to the review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
b. The applicant shall provide the County with an opinion letter from a
licensed engineer validating that the retaining wall meets required
engineering standards. Absent that, the wall shall be removed.
c. Any fence to be built on top of the retaining wall shall be limited in height.
The combined height of the retaining wall and fence shall be limited to the
height of the eave on the existing garage on the neighbor's (Viers')
property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that County Planning Commission makes all of the
findings required by the Ordinance Code to allow approval of this wall as follows:
A. FINDINGS for approval under the Small Lot Occupancy Design Review -
The proposed wall will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
in terms of
Hecht — The height of the proposed retaining wall fence
combination, as conditioned will be compatible with the height of
nearby development including the garage building on the adjoining
R-3
Resolution No. 6-2007
Appeal of County Planning Commission Conditional Approval of a
Small Lot Design Review/Variance for a Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134,Franke(A); Chungs(0)
Veirs property. The height of the wall/fence combination cannot
exceed the height of the eave on that garage.
Size— The proposed retaining wall is 133 linear feet in length. The
wall has a maximum height of five feet. A fence on top of a wall that
meets the height limits of this approval will be compatible in size
with other nearby structures in the area.
Design — The surrounding neighborhood consists of eclectic
residential designs, including retaining walls. The design of this
wall is compatible with other walls in the neighborhood.
Location — The location of the wall/fence is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
B. FINDINGS for approval of the Requested Variances to Minimum Side and
Rear Yard
1) Required Finding — That any variance authorized shall not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land
use district in which the subject property is located.
Project Finding— This neighborhood originated near the start of the
last century when cars were a novelty. Still many properties that
have the same Single Family Residential R-6 zoning have functional
garages that allow for cars to be parked off of the street. Granting
the variance for the proposed wall would allow this property to
enjoy the same privilege enjoyed by those other properties.
2) Required Finding — That because of special circumstances
applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the
respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject
property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
with the identical land use district.
Project Finding - The small size and sloping terrain limit how a
functional garage might be sited on this property. Strict compliance
to the zoning standards for this site would deprive it of the ability to
construct a functional driveway to connect the approved garage with
the Palm Avenue. Only by granting the requested variances to allow
for a retaining wall, can a functional driveway be constructed.
R-4
Resolution No. 6-2007
Appeal of County Planning Commission Conditional Approval of a
Small Lot Design Review/Variance for a Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134,Franke(A); Chungs(0)
3) Required Finding— That any variance authorized shall substantially
meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in
which the subject property is located.
Project Finding - The Single Family Residential zoning provides
that each site shall provide for on-site parking outside of front and
side yard areas. Granting this variance to allow for a functional
driveway allows for that code requirement to be satisfied.
The instructions by the County Planning Commission to prepare this resolution
were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 24, 2006
by the following vote:
AYES: Murray, Battaglia, Clark, Gaddis, Terrell, Wong, and Snyder
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Whereas, following the January 24, 2006 decision of the County Planning
Commission to grant the small lot design review and variance permit application for a
retaining wall, on February 3, 2006, James R. Morgan, on behalf of John and Carol Veirs,
filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision.
DON SYNDER,
Chairman of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST: ac��
Sa Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Secretary
County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa
State of California
GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Resolutions\vr04l l34.res.doc 2-25-2007.doc
RMP\RD\
R-5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
OF A PROPOSED RETAINING WALL/FENCE WITH VARIANCES,
COUNTY FILE #VR041134 (Franke— Applicant; Chung — Owner) AS
APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON
JANUARY 24, 2006
Planning Commission changes and Staff Recommended modifications to the
Planning Commission approval are identified in marked text.
General
1. The approval is subject to the plans submitted with the application and
dated received November 29, 2004 by the Community Development
Department and subject to the following Conditions of Approval.
2. The o it, alifor- o year-and may be renewed f r additional-
.
ddit ,. „l-
Y-e"est by the appfieant.-.Consistent with provisions in the Ordinance
Code, the period for exercising._this Design ReviewNariance Permit
extends one year from the date of approval. Prior to the expiration of
the permit, the applicant has the right to request a one-year extension
for exercising this permit in accord with Ordinance Code Section 26-
2.2014. Any extension request must be in writing and accompanied by
the appropriate processing fee.
3. Approval is granted to allow variances to setbacks that meet the
requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as
follows:
This variance request for a(existing) 5-foot tall retaining wall is
granted.
The R-6 Single Family Residential Zoning District requires the
following variances for the establishment of the retaining walls and
retaining wall/fence combinations:
• 3 feet high allowed by zoning ordinance; six-foot high maximum
allowed for a wall/fence combination;
5 feet high retaining wall approved, with provision for a possible
fence to be built on top of the wall as otherwise restricted by this
permit.
• 3 foot setback required by zoning ordinance
0 foot rear yard setback approved
■ 50 foot front setback required by zoning ordinance
■ 0 foot front setback approved
4. The County Building Inspection Department requirements for a
licensed survey and their building code regulations must be satisfied.
Restriction on Construction Activity
5. At least 30 days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator that a proper provision for keeping construction vehicles
on the site and off the roadways has been planned to prevent impacts
to Palm Drive.
6. The following restrictions shall be printed on the construction plans of
the project.
a. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of
7:30 A. M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall
be prohibited on federal and state holidays on the calendar
dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal
government as listed below:
New Year's Day (State and Federal)
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and
Federal
Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and
Federal
Lincoln's Birthday (State)
Cesar Chavez Day(State)
Memorial Day(State and Federal)
Independence Day State and Federal)
Labor Day(State and Federal)
Columbus Day(State and Federal)
Veterans Day(State and Federal)
Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal)
Day after Thanksgiving(State)
Christmas Day(State and Federal)
For specific details on the actual day the state and federal
holidays occur,please visit the following websites:
Federal Holidays
htlp://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
a- California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm.
2
1}b. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and
subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with
mufflers which are in good condition and shall locate
stationary noise-generating equipment such as air
compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from
existing residences as possible.
Ec. At least one week prior to commencement of any grading,
the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of
property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary project
site notice that construction work will commence. The
notice shall include a list of contact persons with name,
title,phone number and area of responsibility. The person
responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The
list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of
persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective
action in their responsibility. The names of individuals
responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection,
construction traffic and vehicles, erosion control, and the
24-hour emergency number, shall be expressly identified in
the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of
major grading and construction activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to
the Community Development Department. The notice shall
be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the
property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area
noticed.
4d. The applicant shall make good faith effort to avoid
interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows.
e e. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be
limited to weekends between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and
4:00 P.M. and prohibited on Federal and State holidays
f. The site shall be maintained in and orderly fashion.
Following the cessation of construction activity, all
construction debris shall be removed from the site.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall take the
necessary steps to improve the drainage between the retaining wall and
garage on the neighbors' Weirs') yard, subject to the review and comment
by the Building Inspection Department and final review and approval of
3
the Zoning Administrator. The proposed drainage improvements shall
include evidence of any required right-of-entry from the nei hg boring
owner. The required drainage improvements shall be completed prior to
issuance of a final building permit.
8. The applicant shall provide the County with a report from a licensed
engineer demonstrating that the retaining wall meets required engineering
standards. The report shall meet the requirements of the Building
Inspection Department. The wall shall meet these standards, and it is the
applicant's obligation to show that these standards have been met.
If a report meeting these standards is not provided, or if the wall is not
built to these standards, then the retaining wall shall either be (1) removed
or 2) reduced in height so as not to exceed three feet in height at any point
and so as otherwise to effect compliance with zoning, building and
grading code requirements.
9. Any fence to be built on top of the retaining wall shall be limited in height.
Construction plans for a building_permit shall fully describe the design of
the fence. The combined height of the retaining wall and fence shall not
exceed the height of the roof eave of the existing garage on the neighbors'
bors'
(Veirs')property, or six feet in height from the base of the wall (finished
grade), whichever is lower. Community Development and Building
Inspection Department staff shall measure the height of the roof eave in
relation to existing walls of the neighbor's garage, so that it will be
determined with certainty the absolute height limit for the fence.
ADVISORY NOTES
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE
PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE
APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH
DEVELOPMENT.
A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES,
DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER
EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS
PERMIT.
4
This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government
Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees,
dedications,reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project
approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the
project is approved.
The ninety(90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or
the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by
this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be
valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section
66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90
days of the approval date of this permit.
B. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Fire District, the Health
Department and the Building Inspection Department. It is advisable to check
with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding
with the project.
C. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans
which must be stamped by the Community Development and by the Sanitary
District or, if the site is not within the Sanitary District,by the County Health
Department.
D. Site Survey Required-Prior to issuance of a final building_permit, the
Building Inspection Department will require a site survey to demonstrate that
the retaining wall improvements are contained entirely on the applicant's
property.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\vr041134 10-13-06 coa-b
RMP/RD
5
APPEAL LETTER
FROM JAMES R. MORGAN
ma r
` I
-------------
COST
Or'D FE11, -6 PM 2: 50 Law Offices of F
L I I
JAMES R. MORGAN
1511 Treat Blvd., Ste. 600
Walnut Creek, California 94598
(925) 947-0200
February 2, 2006
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Of
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF APPLICATION
Re: 1255 Palm Ave., Martinez, CA 94553
County Variance Application File: #VR041134
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from the January 24, 2006 approval by the County Planning
Commission of the Variance Application made by Milton E. Franke, Inc. on behalf of the owners
of the premises commonly known as 1255 Palm Avenue, Martinez, California (hereinafter
referred to as the "subject property"). This appeal is made on behalf of John Veirs and Carol
Veirs who own the adjoining property at 1251 Palm Avenue, Martinez, California (hereinafter
referred to as the "Appellant's property"). By granting the application, the Contra Costa County
Planning Commission expressly rejected the recommendations of their own Staff and the Zoning
Administrator, who unanimously recommended that the variance request be denied.
The Appellants agree with the conclusions of the County Zoning Administrator by
denying the variance on September 26, 2005, and further agree with the written
recommendations of December 13, 2005, by the Staff for the County Planning Commission,
which unqualifiedly concur with the Zoning Administrator. A copy of the report and
recommendations of the Staff as prepared for the COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, is
attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and is incorporated herein by this reference.
H. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Appellants, Mr. And Mrs. Veirs, have owned the adjacent property at 1251 Palm
Avenue for nearly 30 years. They have photographs that depict the actual historical
topographical variances between the subject property, 1255 Palm Avenue, and their property.
These photographs clearly and unquestionably depict the original minor topographical variations
that naturally existed between the two properties.
The elevation difference between the two properties was insignificant and required no
retaining structures. The only wall that existed historically between the two properties was a
short cement wall, which remains today and does not exceed a height of 1' 7". This wall was
located near the property line starting at the front of the garage of the Appellants' property at
1251 Palm Avenue and extending toward Palm Avenue. A photograph accurately depicting this
historical variation is attached hereto as Exhibit "2" and is incorporated herein by this reference.
In said photograph, the garage of Appellant's property is pictured with the boundary with the
subject property on the right.
Between the back of the garage of the Appellants' property and the rear of the property
line there was never a need for any retaining wall. Clearly depicted in the photograph which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and incorporated herein by this reference is the light shining
through the slats in the wooden fence. The light appears to be coming from approximately six to
twelve inches off the ground. There was never a need for any retaining wall since the natural
-2-
contour of the adjoining properties provided no significant changes in topography. As concluded
by the Zoning Administrator and the County Planning Commissioner Staff, this photograph is
compelling.
The controlled and permitted development and improvement of land throughout the
county depends upon each property owner playing by the rules. In the present case, it would
require the current owners of the subject property at 1255 Palm Avenue to first seek a variance
and second to seek a building permit before constructing a 5' cement retaining wall, encroaching
upon the Appellant's property before grading their property, before making significant
movements of soil upon the property and before initiating a construction project that cements
over dramatically changed elevations and creates a new elevated driveway. A collection of
photographs depicting the pre-variance, un-permitted changes imposed by the owners of the
subject property are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "4" `A' through (4-1 through 4-5),
and are incorporated herein by this reference. In the present case, the owners of the subject
property at 1255 Palm Avenue did not pursue a variance, building permit or grading permit ahead
of time. Instead, they wrongfully moved dirt about the property, built-up the soil accumulation in
the area adjacent to the Appellants' property and cemented over the area at an elevated height.
To approve their variance is to endorse and encourage self-serving construction that brazenly
ignores applicable protocol, rules and regulations.
To allow any property owner to act with such a maverick disregard to the applicable laws,
ordinances and regulations in this county is a dangerous precedent to set. The sequence of
events, requirement for requested variations to be approved in advance and the requirement that
appropriate building permits be obtained first is mandatory, not optional. Approval of this
-3-
variance would necessarily undermine the integrity of the entire planning, zoning and permitting
process.
It is apparent upon review of the photographs submitted herewith, both before and after,
(Exhibits "2", "3", and "4") that the owners of the subject property at 1255 Palm Avenue have
admittedly moved large quantities of dirt without a variance and without a grading permit and
have substantially altered the historical topographical slope between these two (2) properties.
The Staff for the Planning Commission as well as the Zoning Administrator recognized this in
their conclusion that this after the fact application for a variance be denied (see Exhibit"1"
hereof).
It must be emphasized that any member of the Planning Commission who looked at the
property did so after the current property owners had altered the topography, constructed a new
elevated driveway and cemented over their alterations. Not surprisingly, the owners of the
subject property have failed to submit a single picture depicting what the topography was like
before their significant alterations were made. It is apparent that the current 5' retaining wall
which spans the length of the property reflects a much different topography than is clearly
depicted in the pictures attached hereto as Exhibit(s) "2" and "3."
To uphold the ruling of the Planning Commission is to condemn the process that requires
a variance be sought first and a permit be sought second before grading and building can begin.
Such actions wrongfully deprives the Appellants of their use of the property. The unauthorized
construction has clogged the drainage, perpetually flooding the garage and makes it impossible to
maintain the side of the garage with only a 10" gap between the newly installed 5 ft. tall cement
retaining wall and the side of Appellants' garage. The cement wall was admittedly not
-4-
professionally engineered, not permitted, and is over 3 ft. tall. The cement wall has created an
eyesore, lacks engineering, lacks any grading plan, there is mystery as to what is under the
concrete and the wall leaks onto cement clogged trenches and floods the Appellants' garage.
It is inequitable and unjust to allow the decision of the Planning Commission to remain.
The findings of the Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission Staff ought to be
affirmed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PRIOR SIGNIFICANT
TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE
1. There was never a need for any retaining wall along the common
boundary between 1255 Palm Avenue and 1251 Palm Avenue.
It is clearly visible from the photographs in Exhibit(s) "2" and "Y' that
historically there was virtually no topographical difference between the subject property and the
Appellants' property. The clear daylight shining through the slats belies the inference that a
significant variation ever existed Exhibit "3." For decades a simple slat wooden fence served as
the boundary between the two (2) properties. Said fence stood 6 ft. tall and had no retaining wall
qualities. Had the owners of the subject property not intentionally altered the topography, the
preexisting wooden slat fence would have continued to function just fine.
Additionally, the topography at the front portion of the property between
the Appellants' garage and the street was similarly without significant variation. This is depicted
in Exhibit "2."
There was a single letter exchanged between the owners of the Appellant
-5-
property and the owners of the subject property in 1985. Mr. and Mrs. Veirs put Peter Chung,
the owner of the subject property, on notice that dirt and railroad ties thrown up against the
Appellants' garage were creating a drainage problem. This was a single exchange
correspondence. It was not a series of disputes. The railroad ties were loosely placed against the
Appellants' garage to prevent a dog who resided at the subject property from escaping under a
fence. It has been wrongfully suggested that these randomly placed, unsecured railroad ties
somehow constituted a need for a retaining wall. Such an inference is patently untrue and goes
against the pictorial evidence of the historical topography.
2. The Recently Constructed Garage Was Never There Before And
There Was No Historical Driveway Adjacent To Appellants' Property.
On or about November 13, 2003, the owners of the subject property
obtained a Building Permit to construct a 500 sq. ft. garage in the rear of 1255 Palm Avenue.
This was the first time a garage had ever been constructed at that location. The new garage is
accessible from the rear of the property, not from Palm Avenue. As can be seen from
photographs submitted by the owners of the subject property, the original garage was, and
remains, underneath the residence. (See Exhibit "4," 4-1). Access to this original garage was
from Palm Avenue and confirms the relative topographical similarities between the subject
property and the Appellants' property. What appears to have been lost in the analysis by the
Planning Commission is the fact that there was no preexisting driveway between the residence at
1255 Palm Avenue and the garage at 1251 Palm Avenue. This sloped and elevated new
construction project was recently created by the owners of the subject property without the
benefit of a variance, building permit or grading permit. It is this recent un-permitted activity
-6-
that changed the topography and unilaterally created what is now represented to be a"need" for a
retaining wall. Comparing the before photographs (Exhibits "2" and "3") to the after
photographs, (Exhibit "4," 4-1 through 4-5) provides a clear picture as to how the topography has
been altered.
At the hearing before the Planning Commission on January 24, 2006, Mr.
Saul DeValle, who currently occupies 1255 Palm Avenue, admitted that he had to excavate the
property to build the new garage, that he had to move soil around in the back of the property to
construct the new driveway and retaining wall. He admitted that he did the soil movement,
driveway and retaining wall construction without an engineer, variance or building permit. He
did not deny creating the soil buildup adjacent to the Appellants' property which is now
contended to be the basis for a retaining wall. No excuse is given for not having obtained an
appropriate building permit for a cement wall that is 5' tall nor a grading permit for earth
movement, driveway and retaining wall construction. Once again, applicable and appropriate
rules, regulations and ordinances were ignored by the owners of the subject property.
B. THE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF DECEMBER 13,
2005 (EXHIBIT "1") SUPPORTS THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION.
1. The Zoning Administrator And Planning Commission Staff Agree
That It Would Constitute A "Special Privilege" To Grant The Application Insofar As
There Was No Evidence Of Any Preexisting Special Topographical Natural Differences
Between The Two (2) Properties [Exhibits "A," 11B3," Subsection (2)].
It cannot be overemphasized that no member of the County Planning Commission
ever got to actually see the natural topography between the two (2) properties. It was the
-7-
Applicant and owner of the subject property who admittedly changed the topography by
excavating and moving dirt and then covered those changes in cement prior to applying for a
variance or building permit. Under no circumstances should any property owner be rewarded for
grading and constructing anything without first applying for and receiving the required variance
and building permit. Such indifference to the well-established and intended rules and regulations
of Contra Costa County should not be allowed. To rule otherwise would be to freely license all
county property owners to build first and to seek the appropriately required variances and permits
later, if at all, only as an afterthought.
2. There Are No Special Circumstances To Justify The Change Imposed
To The Natural Topography.
The Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission Staff agreed,
based upon compelling photographic evidence, that there was no natural difference between the
topography of the two (2) adjoining properties. It is apparent to anyone observing the original
photograph of the slat wood fence (Exhibit"2") comparing it to the photographs of the altered
topography (Exhibit "4") that the new "driveway was artificially raised" and that "there is no
natural difference in grade between the two (2) adjoining properties based upon the field visit,
testimony and photographs submitted at the September 26, 2005 public hearing." [Exhibit "l,"
p.3," Subsection (1)].
Any need for a retaining wall was created by the unauthorized soil
movement and construction wrongfully imposed upon the adjoining area by the owners of the
subject property.
The photograph depicted in Exhibit "3" clearly shows that a simple
-8-
wooden slat fence is all that is needed to mark the boundary between the two (2) adjoining
properties. There was no need for a retaining wall and the new elevated driveway did not exist.
Historically, 1255 Palm Avenue has had its garage underneath the residence itself(Exhibit "4,"
4-1). Any such "special circumstances" were created solely by the intentional unauthorized acts
of the owners of 1255 Palm Avenue in willful defiance of applicable rules, ordinances,
regulations, variance requirements and permit requirements. To allow the owners of the subject
property to prevail and impose detriment upon the Appellants, as adjoining land owners, would
be unconscionable.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Zoning Administrator and Staff of the Planning Commission reasonably concluded
that the application of the owners of 1255 Palm Avenue ought to be denied (Exhibit "A"). The
historical photographs clearly demonstrate that there was no significant topographical difference
between the two (2) parcels, no driveway, no retaining wall and no need for any retaining wall
until significant amounts of dirt were excavated and moved pursuant to a"project" which neither
had a variance, appropriate building permits, appropriate grading permits or the benefit of
engineering. Now, the owners of the subject property seek to have the county authorize and
ratify their inappropriate acts. Such a ruling would create a dangerous precedent for residents of
Contra Costa County who would be encouraged to commence construction and move volumes of
earth first and argue that their efforts has now created a"special circumstance" entitling them to
approvals and permits that they otherwise would not have obtained. This "project" seeks to
make a mockery of the Contra Costa County rules and regulations for making such
improvements and alterations.
-9-
The Appellants are entitled to have their adjoining property line restored to its
natural contour as depicted in Exhibits "2" and "Y without the need for a 5 ft. cement retaining
wall. This is particularly true since the change in topography has resulted in perpetual garage
flooding, the inability to maintain the retaining wall side of their garage, clogged the drainage
trench and has imposed an unsightly eyesore upon their property. The request for variance, upon
reconsideration, ought to be denied. The findings of the Zoning Administrator and the
recommendations of the Staff of the Planning Commission ought to be upheld.
Respectfully submitted,
J,AM4S R. MORGAN,
n half of the Appellants, Joan Veirs and Carol Veirs.
tk.e,6wners of 1251 Palm Avenue, Martinez, California
-10-
STAFF REPORTS
• BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING AND
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FOR
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION-
--DECEMBER 13, 2005 and
--JANUARY 24, 2006
• COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-
SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
-- JULY 259 2005
-- JUNE 69 2005
Agenda Item
Contra Costa County Community Development
BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
MILTON E. FRANKS INC. (Applicant)—CHUNG (Owner&Appellant), County
File#VR041134: An appeal of the County Zoning Administrator's denial of an
application for a design review approval for an existing 5' retaining wall on the side
and rear yard property lines with variances for a 0' side yard(3' required) and a 0'
rear yard (3' required) and with less than the 50' required front setback on a
substandard lot. The subject property is located at 1255 Palm Avenue in the Martinez
area. (R-6) (ZA: F-12) (CT: 3190) (APN: 375-203-002)
H. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the County Planning Commission deny the appeal and sustain
the Zoning Administrator's denial of the design review with variances.
III. SUMMARY OF REVIEW
On November 29, 2004, the applicant submitted a design review with variances to
allow 0' side and rear yard setbacks for an existing 5' retaining wall (3' required)
with less than 50' required front yard setback on a substandard lot. A public hearing
before the County Zoning Administrator was scheduled on June 6, 2005 and
continued four times to allow staff time to review and respond to the neighbor's
letter and applicant's attorney. Staff's recommendation was for approval based on
the opinion that the applicant's property was at a higher slope than the neighbor's
property. Staff determined that the retaining wall was necessary to sustain the terrain
from impacting the neighbor's land.
W. CODE ENFORCMENT INVESTIGATION AND FILING OF APPLICATION
On August 19, 2004, the County code enforcement officer cited the property owner
with a code violation for concrete forms and five foot retaining wall in the setback.
The code enforcement officer determined that the existing wall of five feet was in
violation of the County Zoning Ordinance Section 82-4.270 Structure - allows a
maximum height of three feet for retaining walls. The property owner felt that the
retaining wall was built to this higher configuration to avoid erosion from the slope
onto the neighbor's yard. The code enforcement officer explained to the applicant
that a variance (to fence/wall height) application would need to be filed with the
Community Development Department. On November 29, 2004, the applicant
(Miguel Espinosa) applied on behalf of the owner for a design review with variances.
The original applicant was Miguel Espinosa. On August 31, 2005, staff received a
correspondence from Mr. Espinosa, requesting a withdrawal as applicant. Since
then, the property owner, Mr. Chung, appointed Mr. Franke as applicant.
V. ZONING ADMMSTRATOR
This application was initially scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on
June 6, 2005 and, as mentioned previously, was continued four times to allow staff to
review correspondence from the property owner's legal counsel and the neighbor.
Staff determined from the correspondence received at the time of the continuance
that the property owner (Mr. Chung) and his neighbor(Mr. Veirs) have disagreed
with a number of issues since 1985, i.e., boundary lines, water damage, builds up of
the driveway creating a superficial slope with unengineered fill without a grading
permit. The correspondence was received after the application was scheduled for
hearing.
The Zoning Administrator made a field visit, at which time determined that the
driveway was created by a build up of superficial fill that caused the necessity for the
5' retaining wall. By this observation, the Zoning Administrator denied the
application.
VI. .APPEAL
On October 18, 2005, the Community Development Department received an appeal
letter from the applicant, Mr. Milton E. Franke. The basis of the appeal is that the
letter of denial did not cite any general or specific reasons or facts, or address
generally or specifically the three conditions set forth in the County Code Section
26-2.2006; and the facts and circumstances do allow the Zoning Administrator to
make a determination that said findings can be made and do support a granting of the
application.
VII. REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS
The following is staffs response to the concerns raised in the appellant's letter of
appeal.
A. Appellant's Statement
(1) Failure of the hearing officer to make general or specific findings upon
which the applicant can base an appeal, thereby depriving the applicant
of the basic right to know what particular facts or circumstances are
allegedly insufficient to support a granting of the application. This is a
2
fundamental element of an application that has been denied. Otherwise,
an applicant has no idea what issues are sufficient or insufficient upon
which to base an appeal and prepare for the appeal hearing. Thus, this
matter should be sent back to the hearing officer for a new hearing with
directions to the hearing officer to issue general and specific findings
which support the ultimate decision.
Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator denied the project for the
following reasons: The Zoning Administrator determined that the
driveway was artificially raised by superficial fill, i.e. there is no natural
difference in grade between the two properties based on field visit,
testimony and photographs#'s 1, 2, and 7 submitted at the September 26,
2005 public hearing. During the public hearing, the Zoning
Administrator reviewed a colored photo (#7) which clearly showed the
rear of the neighbor's garage with a slat wood fence separating the two
properties. From the photo, the Zoning Administrator determined that
there were no significant topographical differences between the subject
property and 1251 Palm Drive. The Zoning Administrator determined
that the dirt must have been imported since there was a clear view
through the slat wood fence of the subject property's backyard seen in
photo #7.
(2) The facts and circumstances do allow the Zoning Administrator to make a
determination that all the terms and conditions in Count), Code Section
26-2.2006 have been met and that the application should have been
granted.
Staff Response: The Zoning Administrator determined that findings
could not be made for approval and found it to be a special privilege
found no special topographical natural differences between the two
properties.
VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Both the applicant/appellant and neighbor have submitted letters to county staff.
These documents were included with the September 26, 2005 staff report, which is
attached to this report for the Commission's review.
IX. CONCLUSIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals take the following actions:
1. Find that the project is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act Section 15303; and
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval.
3
n
. ' � g�"WR
A.1`0 rffirc.,_ < 'II $ p rsR?k� r 't` i -•x W `�
zS t«f.- � T� 1 1}JG( f �� �• - * .�'� d.
;e r° a4
rK ++ ax !&'r • o-
y iT -w3 + df
a _t.
>, ks
!
tw
T
�"yyv �
t rcy S�{
# 10
. Xtn� c .w
-
30
.cA a
IT4
IT
,t �4>•et`,�.�' -mi t i +���y��� ✓r �,._ '" M' .'. *,r. a _., �„t�'7I� �f. �-
r - - - `s"": �x iIEE i�'.k� �`3+� r '��' '. � � Y �"f -•,f ws`�r �'�
Y
x` � �. €i'„,e t.t�, .x�'t �r4+,}''•z. 4 �+�j ��r�� A
R
rl
4 IW
of T 1 't�.� �'�i }a� ', � � ���A .�' 'at`. FS T's.�44�"� �•Y`,. �-a Yiy�.r` �_ ry
� •t � R'y �,a.� �s �a e mw �'�'� u „ ,'+Kis `�` s ���'�' � �"y' %# i' � � � th
.,! a<� { kt�'K q j�r"'"JW`j*H•q� y s },r, F' s,c C 3 iw"'tlh
:4K lr d' 1. ,
` ,kk!' v y„ j'�,q,RSC„t e{t '' C`
-�. �`h'"it 7tife t .��' ' ..� ai'3' s.7• , yi.( - ,�1`
%4I.T
§ikr,-4, ,,`tib.�'4.7. d 7 ;eq. til,F 5x-.
tg
14
11
.i - A. �..,ah rk '�Y�: .�j��r4,} " '9 ,�. � r 1 ,.�.r�'�1w x�fi�N't' 4`""54 �i ��;-•
#. I
ru
trt�i r"py,r�l. hu .,r � �•,; Aye, y r
LA•,
. %.7. rS s' .�5 ��1"apT''sl�`KS t � �{ y,, -t✓!y' �?.
4. �A NppjrT� �
�_� btu" ',t �`�` ck'>tyl � 1 Y ul t xa•{` fey';�; „ i � .� -'tk ,{a
i i i e 1A,
fell
ae
a tz
K 1,
A (^ h - �" .( � •i �,;��# ti A' .r'j�ig _'3Y �t,� >—'a' y ' �� ^Y"
a; h t � Y 'r � ��:ai' `� �` •+F> _" ''� aid E ,
pc �. t .. •a ax" � e,. �� fir. w��i'G
Law Offices of S r �+
MILTON E. FRANKE, Inc. W %41,
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 630 - F
Walnut Creek, California 9459 ,
(925) 933-9289
January 19, 2006
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
Of
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF APPLICATION
Re: 1255 Palm Ave. Martinez, CA 94553
County Variance Application File: #VR041134
Hearing Date: January 24, 2006 @ 7:00 p.m.
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 13, 2003, the applicant was granted a Building Permit to construct
a 500 sq. ft. garage on the subject property. (See Exhibit A). No grading or fill plan was
required for the issuance of the permit. During the course of construction it was necessary
to level the area where the garage was to be placed as the backyard was of varying
heights and levels. No fill was brought onto the property from off-site for this project.
During the course of construction the building inspector advised that because of
the need to level the area it appeared to him that a variance would be required to allow for
the size of the retaining wall required to support the project. An application was filed.
The next door neighbors, the Veirs, filed an objection. The matter then proceeded
to be reviewed by staff and a report was provided to the applicant and the Veirs, dated
September 12, 2005 (See Exhibit B). The staff report found that the topography of the
area justified granting the application and recommended the granting of the application.
Counsel for the Veirs requested additional time to respond to the September 12,
2005 report. He thereafter submitted a response which included photographs of the
Veirs' property and the subject property. From one photo. identified as No. 7 (see
Exhibit C) the "Zoning Administrator determined that there were no significant
t0p02.1-ap111cal differences between the subject property and 1251 Palm Drive" (Vein
property) and "that the dirt must have been imported since there \vasa clear V1C\e'
the slat wood fence ol'thc subject property s backyard seen in photo
Thr applicant appeals the /.onI11L' Adllllnlstralor s I I'd na;.
+ l
II. DISCUSSION
A. A SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCE EXISTED PRIOR TO
THE CONSTRUCTIION OF THE GARAGE
(1) When facing the subject properties from Palm Ave., it is quite evident that
there is a significant topographical slope from right to left and, and as stated in Staff's
report in support of the Application, Exhibit B, at page 1 of the Findings and Conditions
of Approval, "the retaining wall at variance would not be a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties" as "neighboring properties with
similar topography with driveways built on them are supported by retaining walls." See
Exhibit D, photo #A-1. In fact, there has always been a retaining wall between the two
properties (see Exhibit D photo #A-2 and photo #A-3). Further, the Veirs, since 1985
have complained about erosion and the need of a retaining wall to prevent "any dirt from
sliding naturally" onto their property. See Exhibit E, letter April 8, 1985, from Veirs to
Applicant.
(2) The building of the garage did not require the importation of fill material and
no fill material was brought onto the site. Rather, the topography of the subject property
required a leveling of the site in some areas in order to accommodate the garage
foundation (for which no fill or grading requirements were imposed at the time of the
issuance of the building permit). See Exhibit D, photos A-4 and A-5. Photo A-4
provides a broad view of the backyard area of the subject property where the garage was
built. The corner of the garage next to the lounge chairs in photo A-4 is depicted in photo
A-5. The bottom of the board being held at the corner in A-5, represents the approximate
height of the backyard at that point at the time construction commenced, i.e., that area of
the backyard had to be lowered to accommodate the project. The area of the garage door
shown in Exhibit D, photo A-4 had to be built up approximately 14 inches, As can be
seen in photo A-4, from the corner of the garage in photo A-5, to where Saul DeValleI is
standing there is a substantial topographical difference. This is further highlighted in
ti;iul I)eVallC anti his (amity occulty 1215 Palm Ave.
Exhibit D, photo A-6 and photo A-7, which indicate a rear entry2 to the subject property
has always been substantially higher than the Veirs' lot next door.3 Thus, the Zoning
administrator's conclusion that there is no substantial topographical difference between
the subject property and the Veirs property lacks merit, otherwise the first floor level of
1225 Palm Ave. would be level with, or substantially level with, the first floor;of the
Veirs house. Obviously, such is not the case.
B. THE STAFF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 (EXHIBIT B) SUPPORTS
THE GRANING OF THE APPLICATION
(1) GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILETGE: Exhibit B, at page 1 of the
Findings and Conditions of Approval discusses the required findings necessary to support
approval of the application. The required finding that the variance does not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other property owners in the
vicinity has been discussed in A.(1) above. See photo A-1.
(2) SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY: The staff report, Exhibit B, at page 1 of the Findings and Conditions of
Approval, snakes the required finding that because of special circumstances applicable to
the subject property regarding its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the
strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject
property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land
use district. The report finds that:
The driveway necessitates a retaining wall because the terrain is above his
neighbor's property.
As can be seen from Exhibit D, photo A-4, the garage door shown is to be utilized
so that vehicles can enter and exit the garage from Palm Ave. Accordingly, in the
leveling of the backyard it was required to level the area as shown, otherwise it would not
be possible to utilize and access the garage from Palm Ave. It is suggested that this
The entt"ince had prey OUSly been a wooden stainvay. It was replaced by the concrete stairs depicted.
Photo A-7 clearly indicates a substantial topographical dit(erence between the subject property and 1251
Palm Ave. otherwise the rear entry to the livinu, structure on the subject property's first (lour would not be
;1111lost 1()the roUl 11I1e ()utile garage located on 1251 Palm Ave.
problem could have been alleviated by the Building Permit process if at the time of the
i
issuance of the building permit, elevations and a grading plan was also required,
however, it probably appeared to be a simple project when reviewed and no thought was
given to this issue. The applicant is now placed in the position that an element of the
project necessary to make it work, i.e., the coordinating of the driveway from Palm Ave.
to the garage, was not addressed when the building permit was issued, even though the
applicant believed all elements necessary to complete the project and enjoy the use of it
were complied with. To suggest that the full burden of this problem fall on the shoulders
of the applicant is not equitable given the circumstances.
(3) THE VARIANCE WILL MEET THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE
LAND USE DISTRICT IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
The staff report, Exhibit B at page 1 of the Findings and Conditions, finds that the
variances for the retaining wail would maintain the sloped terrain above the neighbor's
property and, therefore, substantially meets the intent and purpose of the respective land
use district in which the subject property is located.
It is interesting to note that the report submitted by staff, Exhibit B, finds that
there is a substantial topography issue involved in the matter and that because of the
topography problem, the required conditions have been met.
C. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RELIED UPON INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO SIGNICANT
TOPOGRAPHY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES
The Zoning Administrator alleged1y4 concludes from a single photograph of
questionable reliability, Exhibit B, that in fact there was no significant topographical
The Applicant takes exception to the statement found on page 2, V. of the Board of Appeals statement
dated December 13,2005,wherein it is stated that"tile Zoning Administer made a field visit, at which time
Determined that the driveway was created by a build up of superficial fill that caused the necessity for the
5' retaining wail. By this observation,the Zoning Administrator denied the application." At'the conclusion
of the hearing the Zoning Administrator asked if there had been any fill brought onto the property.
Applicant's representative stated he had no knowledge. No evidence was presented in that re,ard by either
party. The Applicant's representative then asked if the Zoning Administrator would like to view the
property with the parties respective representatives. She stated if that were to be done, then she would have
to keep that matter open to receive further evidence and she did not think that was necessary. It now
appears that she made a visit to the property and made unilateral conclusions based upon photo +,7 i3ased
upon such conduct by the Zoning Administrator, the Applicant has been denied his right to submit evidence
on an essential element of this matter, i.e.. the use of fill material and the 10p021-aphy of the subject p;opert-
prior to eonstRuction ofthe 2ar3_Ie.
4
difference and that to grant the application would constitute a special privilege not
I
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. This finding is not consistent with Exhibit D,
photo A-1, wherein the uphill property to the right(viewing from Palm Ave.) in fact has a
retaining wall.
However, such a determination is highly questionable given the nature upon
which such a conclusion is made. See Exhibit B. To the applicant's knowledge; the
Zoning Administrator has no surveying experience nor photo interpretation experience to
allow her to make a giant leap that this photo unequivocally establishes that there is no
significant topographic difference between 1255 Palm Ave. and 1251 Palm Ave.
QUERY: Was her determination for the entire subject property or for a distance of one
foot from the fence line onto 1225 Palm, or for a distance of two feet from the fence line,
etc. etc. Was the topography level for the entire backyard? Was the topography
undulating, with high areas and low areas?5 It is impossible to determine the topography
of 1225 Palm Ave. from this photo, Exhibit C. Consequently, the Zoning
Administrator's reliance thereon is improper and the initial findings of staff as shown in
Exhibit B for the granting of the application should be sustained.
III. CONCLUSION
A staff report, Exhibit B, found that all of the requisite criteria were present to
support the applicant's request for a variance. The Zoning Administrator, however,
relying upon a single photo and no other evidence to support her conclusion, then
concluded that the project obviously required the importation of dirt since there was a
clear view through the slat wood fence of the subject property's backyard as seen in
Exhibit B. Applicant takes exception with this conclusion and submits that the
photograph relied upon by the Zoning Administrator cannot and does not provide a "clear
view" of the subject property's backyard and that reliance upon said photograph is an
abuse of'discretion.
Cunu;nv to the Zonis—, Administrators finding, based upon Eehibit 13 that thea wa; nu Wpo-raphical
issues necessitating a retaining wall. the Veirs complained in 1955 that soil was erudin_� unto their propert�
and that a retaining -all was rcyuired
Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator's findings should be set aide and the
Applicant's application should be granted as set forth in the staff report date September
12, 2004.
Dated: January 19, 2006 LAW OFFI ES OFMILTON FRAN C.
By: ton E. Franke, A orney fo Applicant
EXHIBIT A
ORIGINAL-FILE > BUILDING PERMIT < BUELDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Contra Costa County
651 Fine SL,3rd Floor,North Wing
Martinez,CA 94553-1295
PH: (925)6464108/FAX(925)6464219
INSPECTION SCHEDULING: (925)6464108
Parcel#..-.......: 375-2034002 Job Address: 1255 PALM AVE MZ
Building Combo Today's Dale: 11-13-2003
Permit#......-.-: 344051 g Date Applied: 09/0212003
Type of Permit: CG GARAGEICA.RPORT
Date Issued-• 11/132003
Applicant's Name: TOP QUALITY DECKS CONST Telephone: 925458-9240
Owner's Name: CHUNG;ROGER AND EDA Contractor. TOP QUALITY DECKS CONST
Owner's Address: 5035 CLAYTON RD Address: 76 DELTA DR
CONCORD CA BAY POINT,CA
94521-3006 94565
Zoning:
R-6 Lot No.: No.Stories: 0 No.of Units: 0
Work Description: NEW DETACHED GARAGE
Valuation Calculation Information:
F
Occupancy Type actor Sq Feet Valuation
Private Garages/Shed Wood Frame 28.18 500 $14,090.00
$14,090.00*
Totals. - .
Permit Fee Details:
Item# Description Account Code Tot Fee Paid Prv- Pmts Cur. Pmts
_ __ -------- --
100 Building Permit 3420!9090 224.75 224-75 224.75 .00
110 Plan Check Fee 3420/9090 146.09 146.09 146.09 .00
-00
142 Elec A,3dition - 3420!9090 62.25 62.25 62-25
170 Community Devel 3420;•9110 173.24 173.24 173.24 .00 0
220 Earthquake - 8303/0800 1.41 1.41 1.41
00 .000 30.
350 Flood Zone - #F 3415,'9090 30.00 30.0Total Due $0.00
Total Fees: $637.74 Total Paid: $637.74
Licensed Contractors Declaration:
I hereby affirm.under penali) of perjury that I am :icensed under provisions of Chapter 9(Commencing with Sec. 7000)of Division 3 of the
Business and Professions Code,and my license is in fLll force and effect.
License Class: ?? Licensett Contractor
Owner-Builder Declaration:
I hereby affirm under penally of perjury that I am -)xempt from the Contractors License Lave for the following reason (Sec. 7031.6 of the
Business and Professions Code states Any city or county which requires a
permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repa'r any structure, prior to its Issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a
signed statement than he or she Is licensed pursuant tc.the provisions
of the Contractors License Low(Chapter 9 commencing with Sec.7000 of Division 3 of the Business end Professions Code)or that he or she Is
exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption.
Any violation of Sec. 7031.6 by any applicant for a .3ermit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars
($500).
I,as owner of the property,or my employees w.th wages as their sole compensation,will do the work,cid the structure is not intended
or offered for sale. (Sec.7044 Business and Profession;Code:
The Contractors License Law does nct cpply to the c,wner of a property who builds or improves thereon, crit' ..ho does such work himself or
`:e7e"or through his or her own employees,provided that such
imcrc;'ements are not intended or offered for sole. If however,the building or improvement is salt r•"•' one year of completion,the owner-
builder v.!i have the burden of proving t^at he o,she did not build
or improve fc,the purpose of sale.) - P (Sec. 7044, Business and
I, as ov✓ner of the property, am exc'- vely controct.ng project
Professions Code,states that the Contrcc'=License Law does rc'
an o\•ner of prcpetiy who huilds or imprc:•es thereon, and v:' o cc- — =entractor(s) licensed pursuant io the
Contract C,z Low).
I c— under Sec. c_&P.C.for this reason: --
Date: _ _Applicant:
\�r,rktr.( �nnuln�atinn lh•clar:ttimt:
m under penaltyof perjury one ct the fallowing declaraiior,,:
and wiil maintian o r�eriificate of ccnsenl to self-insure for ': c: r 'comm.= Cs provided for by Sec. 3700 of the Labor
for tiie performance of the work for which if lis permit is issued.
l have and v:!;! maintain workers'compensation Insurance, us required by Sec. 370r1 of :he Labor Code. for the performance of the
�r whit'i this permit is Issued. My workers'(-ornQensatlon carrier
--._^ cy number are'.
- - I'llhcy E=xpires
entity that in the periormat�cF- of the vor< for which this permit is issued. I small nvt employ orperson in or; mann`r `'o as to
—e subject lo the workers Compo nation laws :1 California,and
-:---e that if I should become subject io the workers'compensotion provisions of the Labor and I shall lorthwrl
' ode. l
- ..1 Wiese pro r'r:o i'•
Datt Applicant: _ _ -
\1 \p,..N(:: Fallun to secureµ'nrkcn'clunpensatiun t os•er1ge IS ulllssaful•and sIjjll suhject an cntplmer tit cnminal put.th'es and civil fineti of up(plant
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION
INSPECTION RECORD CARD
(See reverse side of this card for permit-specific information)
NOTICE AND WARNING: Do not cover any work until it has been inspected and approved.This card must
be posted on the job site, and in a manner as to be visible from the street. The card and the approved plans
must be available for each inspection, or the inspection will not be made.
Inspections may be scheduled by phone 6 a.m. to midnight, Monday through Saturday. Call 646-4108 and follow
instructions. Requests for same-day inspections are not accepted on calls received after 6:30 AM.
Permit fees are set to provide for a limited number of inspections. A reinspection fee will be charged when
a return trip is necessary due to the following: 1) Work not ready for the inspection called for; 2) Deficiencies
found in the previous inspection still not corrected, or new deficiencies were created; 3) Lack of access to
the work to be inspected; 4) Lack of approved plans or this card on the job site.
Inspector's Ins Inspector's
Ins
Insp p es Initials.'Codes
--
Codes initials Date
INSULATION
FOUNDATION 107 ❑ Underfloor Insul
❑ Survey Cert. Recd 110 ❑ Framing Insul
El-tet Backs _ 117 ❑ Ceiling Insul
406 ❑ Ufer Ground -
T—L
101 ❑ Piers PLUMBING
102 Q -J`orms -'
301 ❑ Ground Plumbing
103 ❑ Slab Foundation - 302 ❑ Water Service
125 ❑ Slab Garage 303 ❑ Shower Pan Test
604 ❑ Drive Way 304 ❑ Rough Plumbing
305 ❑ Under FI.Plumbing —
GRADING PERMIT INSP. 306 ❑ Water Heater
600 ❑ Pre-Const. Insp. 309 ❑ Gas Test T
601 ❑ Rough Grading 310 ❑ T-Bar Plumbing
602 ❑ SUB/MS in Prog.
605 ❑ Finish Grad. / CONCRETE _
608 ❑ Gen Bldg Site/In Frog EaT�Lg
lace/Rebar/FoundafionMOBILE HOMES POOLS/SPA
701 ❑ RAH Setup 201 ❑ Site Check[Pregunite
703 ❑ VH Accessory Insp 202 ❑ Bonding-Cavity/Deck
707 ❑ MH Permanent FD 203 ❑ Pre Final -
720 ❑ MH Final 204 ❑ Ftnal-Pool
STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL
104 ❑ c:.=ar Nailing-Int
501 ❑ Fumacc Compt
126 ❑ S`=ar Naiiing-Ext 502 ❑ Combustion Air
106 ❑ U^d=-4'o11.
503 ❑ Rough Sheet Metal
10? ❑ R:�-- Nail 504 ❑ Fire Damper
109 ❑ F`=_:_, - 506 ❑ Commercial Hood
111 TO =..-••: 507 ❑ Condenser (A/C)
127 ❑ Dry'.-e" 508 ❑ T-Bar-Mech ---
114 ❑ Ex!La--'
115 ❑ ^
�! /T-Bar
- - -- — AGENCY APPROVALS
118 ❑ V,- — — —
❑ Fire Dist UTL Final
123 ❑ Pcr- _ _. __- — -- -- ❑ Pub Works UTLFinal -_-- -_.__--
124 ❑
- - ❑ Planning/CDDUTL----_- -__Final _
❑ San Dill UTL_ Final -
❑ Env H--:'i UTL Final
=LECT=.:CDL CI Haz "'-:' U1L_ final
401 -, 7
407 ❑ CC_., __,...nd
FINAL INSPECTIONS
403 ❑ En'r,;^
I 1;'r• ❑ BUILDING
404 ❑ Rcr:^!r I ' ct g.:;i Plumbmq _.
40 E] Bonr�:,,.1
:07 U Re:ilo- :wr�lyf.11),:y c.Jil . .�:sn,Cn _
408 ❑ 1-1 ar Flr.r;i r >ri Gradinq/Dianne l�-
t
SITE PLAN
77' -
3' -
20'
76, , s•
GARAGE PROY, _
:2
i
I
i
I
i
i �
' i
100. i
zZi
EXISTING HOUSE
10, /
1255 Palm Ave .
SITE PLAN
77'
44 aAAX
� ys
I GARAGE PROY.
22' �14 5l14 I ���_ 3 2• —
i 1 r'� Soo
I I I— .- --2 5• - - -�
l+ i
i
i
j 0 5
l � 7 � -
1
oma•;
i
EXISTING HOUSE
it
1255 Palm Ave.
EXHIBIT D
i
9�
}
El
� d
i:.
,.
!!„ � I _
�� '�� ,�
_ � ._
� � � w - - - _
r � ��
_Y..
_. �'
.i
N�;, '
�' �� �� ��
`� � �, {:
- � �� �
@ - � � _ irir�_.
:�'
`: � ._
Y
' y
��>:
t .��.
z.
S a,. �.;
A. - .. ' �
„�
� .
�� ���_::
E
��.
;-�. -
�
\\�\�
. 6 ... «
. ;% ,«
� �`�
EXHIBIT E
J�` )C�'Cli f S
b
A
�- IG
LAC
Ir\
• r
Ttv C,c
L r
y
<
YI
Li
�� �;
•;�.r+:1��3�f,•:,/'^�71��/fi, �+�/% 'Y 1�"- .f//f��f '�i]�st r%r ... r !:
.. -
. .�.'Vl�.l?►_ . _ .-./1..1!1 P.,r-.... 6.1j�V �� f( - �ZGS I
oe
II
AA S Lk L"Se CL Lti� 1 t✓ �.T
l
1 ,- lA�•t �l.i C�
a.
� --
J
.+� �""��� ��.N't�� flr/.�.���1�'�� %jam.••%/Yfi f. t„ ,r
�,,•,i';, � t �> 1 Mfr .�rr �'r '�`��r
.{� ,fir"•
N-G v C,
Cs;., �ti��E�► dCt I�
UA
n p
vvc
h
z 1 fi� IK li t'1 S Ilk
Do OAN 19 AMID 3 I—
Se--ier Ply.v►v,er
C�ri.►�K; t� �e�elo��►�,,e.�t �e�f .
�?5 I ►�i►� e �t, Y ��` Plow A/c,
Jl/ c�i he z 4-6 5- 3
12 I aSs 1.,, Aue.
�C�r'�1 vie Z
Vol�fiY`O
�}rt c. rl Q� �,o�.uf p S L4 kc�t I
7 de-kueve� fo �Ucti -C)Y-, Sulc 7� aoe)5. -"I-'I
v►�a.rc Ldeur (l S ko�::
w all b ' �re��o e. s tak es t4 e- q- I e u e/ /o Lr.)e r joe-d , 1
E lo- �.e-zA 1'0�w o _7 a
w s ►-re r k 6et{,r 11 tt-&-t t"k_r_ Jcx.0 L l� OL t
a SS 1 OJ w\ waS L-I vtic st /ems et,u t k o LLr �a O I
a-c-eA est rkcbU L rom 0 T 'l. �ev�e .` S
ee VZ�'� Q[",
r�
! k-p- t�a r4 ,�kot o i �s-e_ cL t-tax--lE-d r
t�'-e v lcl�-,c-d czt ja3i iia`►�►� Aue.wr ► t �Lde a OLLr
�� �E �,g e ►ti ��� c LL�d k5 4?
M
LL
BQyo -c es t� kou-sc-
ro t lte c e,f a u I�al vn /� e ,pp �-I l 04
tke_Sc- yrap�erf eS due, �I'ftle �►e ► �;I�t cli 4trew-,e
U i ilcc ev ` I
(jLA 01. VE'.1.1
a s i
E-,-1ICire�ecl C.o �c� a �I�okC d�� ucre� Lo �oser : r;e °cru
opt 3LJ� 71
IUr;C�iv�e�( CEt�.evtrt re'E4; ►�i �gxcl� Stall ; ►�.
c'c e
w% 7 it Ckrt �'rc►�� r-od uwl� �t �c
,i � c ecr�c,s i H� v. Q;p
S 4t �rl„viC.�r vet c t'c cev d evt.a f t� � J
CVY� ��,/J L°T UV' ryi nGtl (t3C II
dr
C�w�et�� Ic b ;; kiQ.L he(d
rc��r�e. � keenee `C1t e, rvea � �
II �� Q vi � �S 0.Y'Q y-�, Th
t S N C�L cL f ce 't c:siU CS C;V'e i ►n CLI e vv e )
$ lo�;ut cittr<Cl,tr� tL` �evtee , �� I�„ 4:;,c�e. Ce►�.ic,.�t V' 8 �
ii Jo.
�-=C'� C'-
J l u E c:aG�y ti�%tt 5
0LLr / J
�f t�' ���`Cc l �Y'fi:t 5'�'l,(t t.,,b't �
�I t� i
) L y-
1
C °''�
J
1a �c ����.kt,�C�.�---�� ��t ��r�;�r���f�( �-i e.
r ' '
'Sul on,tfeA
is S
PaA en /due. . c n -& e dc:uDv%
ll ode oar revx+oLl , 7-k
t1,rc,L,
Vta l s 6ao-L
Z`1.ece S V�;r� �� E-Ele hey �� Cir ere+lee ►-� tkL rG e�-ti�5
p W
I
1 � �
j
I
1
,�oe' •ra"6 CI
a [
,
E elivi
yO k-L'
L- -Vl C:.4c-Y' C"Vle C� Lnus
L C u- eIL
act t�,vVL'YA 6c I
ff-C t I
k e- bctt-z%YN r u-3,
yx
r
J"wj waw
■ V N
_ 1 �
Alt
Aio
io
a3
Y
s
.., y« « � � •'fir� t �Y .�► +lt,r�,:
s � �
t
��: Cao n S ,�of�'►-
i tl` 1JIN 4
trjN
LLC, r
E
f 1\o S fila r r e• /40J e,&C S
f
Sem 'to rci 0,
CL wt►.�,�„;t y Vie.,elo ►,.�,,t �e�,f
R
I lei n e. Sf
f
a55 Oalrn Avc, A4 Tz
E
File *� Vna Y-113 Y-
YN e �ka�e 5 .��o�: H «ie�ter � �cr c e. i rt't� D u-r �OL VICI
oCIC 0.1
SC u— CG v� S e E h ►�G�C IG :(e / U i L�
rr
rcic�e_ , 'tie cL,s ,L, c. e-6zeer.
E tLe_ rife,;h;Kt� .LUC l� C.�c� tl.e_ �c�E r� � /(��F/+'
V j5
nGf
i
Aoc.
t' ""m'` � �• Via"
:a
+d�
A.
.f
ik�e . v
tl�:a c��-�.. , ��-6�r /e�lcs `Cl-..��az� 4. �� sea• b�twee•„� `�� �r��irc��
tItie-kr 0-v\-CL
Q �,o � , Tk a attac I-e-A .10 s ►� s w l.c t ,{
Sltio��c, ?&' VlOk )Ike_ I 0. l'.rrv.;� �` s i3skec, .
1
r
f
t
J
1
4
1
fi`
a..
��
`a ,
s t.
r
;��
,� "a
d
a: dd
7 yk' �� c
- _,s�Jr. 1i t
i ,-F;. �
� �
�.
r ,�. _
) '�. � � �.-
v.&3>F��.',� �k°.,�^ "� Wit. ` �; 1 �' au3
r A 2- d T�v,T .�Ei x3 „ Y- _4tryf�`�S:.. �"1
j` � �*r 7 � f gig;
T r r
w t .. �* �
i � �1h Y Fk��
�v"ti� � � $ f� _
� pp r
$�� R � ay"a Fig'. i* e?�..8 � r,�a 34•" �
N
r
ay,, � - .
g} }
G� �
_ ':r'_,
• r
�;,
i
- h
_ j
y�•
..4:;
A"`
F.
$i.
�'
y.
c�`� ��.
t
b Y1y.
Yl
rZ
Y� H
Z �.
1
t,
,h
F lk 5� �34ti.
i
3
� c
� <ti.
j � ,,.�� h � fky-
'� '
_ �. r �' rt-
'i' r i� a >-'
�s �
t }
,, �A �+
{ �
` y [ `
"r� C �- 1
. � t
�� _ ..
_ - - r .
�R,.�..
`�`,
?'
_ 1
'I
i{-
{, t�"
_ 3�_
�f
k ��;
• s��; �
_,. >;,
d�� L 'JYa'y,',"+S:z 1cr i.:" -�.."'Y�h:` r - 't -�
+.�+.�°y �/.
. f $ S J t A`�c ��, �3
:; y�;�"" `.—��--,--r,..oma-'�.s .t:,s_� -- ,k
• r i ..-t �
w�
fix_ �- 3 .✓ �s. �' <;. ,1:
1. � 7 � K ��' �Y"v M ti-I.I w � �< # ::
- _ 3 '3- � -. culs L. �� �
� ��I� r yr I.t �y y � �,. � -. r .,+. �` 7.6 4�" /'�£ k,h>},y'�}
8 �
t- � �b _ ... y5 F' 4 ':i� _.,�.,....x:._�.. ��._.�. `"tom_ '�1.
yy��yy y 1
f /e`
)
4 'kar
g -
� t
E
�v
xr
F h
a�
a
F
R Ta tS-
• ZIN f.a. M
as
i
t -v
.s
r ,v
}
w ' ;
U It, i
er
t..
F
.-
. .
< � 9
)�§
;;e{
y»m w.
: £q
t
�
, y
2 Ike
: ��
.��`
� . -
�
\ T71;
2
.��Yf� �'.•�_ w{ - � X11�.
sem-
-
r
y. R
Y
-,.I*oii,
,r
LO a l Q 1^ Ul �ik
41
r�.
Agenda Item # � 4-
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
MONDAY. SEPTEMBER 112005
I• INTRODUCTION
MILTON FRANKS (Applicant) — CHUNG (Owner), County File#V'R041134:
The applicant requests a design review approval to build a 5' retaining wall on the
side and rear yard property lines with variances for a 0' side yard (3' required)
and a 0' rear yard (3' required) and with less than 50' required front setback on a
substandard lot. The subject property is located at 1255 Palm Avenue in the
Martinez area.
(R-6) (ZA: F-12) (CT: 3190) (APN: 375-203-002)
This application was continued from the August 29, 2005 public hearing to allow
staff time to review and respond to the neighbor's letter and applicant's attorney.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with attached conditions.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Single Family Residential —
Hi eh.
B. Zoning: R-6— 1 du/per 6,000 sq. ft.
C. CEQA: Categorical Exemption — Section 15303 (e) Class ; —Accessory
(appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming
pools, fences.
D. Previous Applications: ZI0029B — Small Lot Review
E. Regulatory Programs:
1. Redevelopment Area: The subject site is not within a redevelopment
area.
2. Active Fault Area: The subject site is not in an active fault area.
I
3. Flood Hazard Area: The subject site is in flood zone C, of minimal
flooding.
IV. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at 1255 Palm Drive, in the Martinez area. The site
consists of a single-family residence under construction. From staff's observation
during a field visit, the residence is almost complete.
The surrounding area consists of a densely populated neighborhood developed
many_years ago to house the many employees of the Shell Refinery.
V. AGENCY COMMENTS
1. Contra Costa County Fire Protection District: Memorandum dated
December 27, 2004. No comments.
2. Building Inspection Department: Memorandum dated January 3, 2004.
Design of retaining wall to comply with 2001 CBC. Engineer/architect to
submit design and stamped drawings of wall. Survey stakes required.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Neighbor's Response
On December 16, 2004 a notice of intent to render an administrative
decision was mailed to the neighbors within a 300-foot radius. On
December 20, 2004 a letter was received from Mr. R. Mrs. John & Carol
Veirs residing at 1251 Palm Avenue. They expressed their concerns in
regards to the 0' side vard variance, claiming that the retaining wall would
infringe upon their garage. They claim that the service ability of the garage
and drainage would be impacted causing damage and devaluation of their
property.
B. Request for Public Hearinc,
The Community Development Department forwarded two correspondence
to the applicant dated January 6, and April 22, 2005 informing the applicant
that a Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative Decision was issued on
December 16, 2004. The purpose of the notice was to inform the neighbors
of nearby properties that the County is processing this application and to
provide the public with the opportunity to request a public hearing. In
response to that notice, the County received one timely filed request for
public hearing of this application.
2
No response was received from the applicant by correspondence or by a
phone call. Therefore, due to lack of interest, staff initially recommended
denial and scheduled it on the June 6, 2005 Zoning Administrator public
hearing. During the public hearing the property owner informed the County
of his intentions to proceed with his variance request and agreed to pay the
additional $1,000.00 fee.
The neighbor also testified in regards to the retaining wall variance. His
greatest concern is that the retaining wall encroaches on his property.
C. Response to Neighbor's Letter
On July 6, 2005 a letter with photos from the neighbors of the subject
Property, Mr. &Mrs. John and Carol Veirs, was received by the Community
Development Department. The neighbors have expressed their concerns
regarding the location of the existing retaining wall that is the subject of this
variance application.
Neighbor's Concern
The neighbor included two photos that showed clumps of cement which
oozed from beneath the contractor's forms and dried in our v-shaped trough.
Staffs Response
This application is for variances to the side and rear of the property for an
existing retaining. Required findings for the variances do not include poor
quality workmanship in the construction of the retaining wall. Staff's
analysis includes special circumstances associated with the retaining wall's
location and height that is at variance. In this case the topography of the
subject property is higher than the neighbor's property, henceforth requiring
the need to stabilize the small slope from eroding onto the neighbor's
property by the construction of the retaining wall.
Neighbor's Concern
In our phone conversation with you (Rose Marie Pietras, project plariner)
three weeks ago you asked why we hadn't taken action prior to the
construction of the cement wall. It was explained that our house is a rental
and during that time we were going through an eviction. Our attorney
requested that we stay away from the property. Even a drive by would not
have exposed the wall due to our tenants cars parked in the driveway, three
cars and a fourth on the street at the end of the driveway.
Staff s Response
Staff's variance findings must take into consideration the special
circumstances associated with the property. The above statement has no
relationship to the required findings for a variance.
Neighbor's Concern
The project planner also inquired as to why we had not contacted the owner.
The notice of approval for variance listed Miguel Espinoza as applicant and
Roger Chung as owner, but Saul DeValle who is residing at 1255 Palm
Avenue with his family told us he was the contractor and owner. If
recollection is correct there was another man working at this house who
stated he was the owner.
At the public hearing of June 6, 2005 Saul DeValle was the only spokesman
representing the property at 1255 Palm Avenue.
Until we received a letter from Mr. Frank, Mr. Chung's attorney, and began
going through our files we hadn't remembered writing to Roger Chung back
in 1985. At that time he was a realtor for Las Trampas Realtors, Inc. Mr.
Allen, who was the office manager for Las Trampas Realtors, Inc., owned
the property at 1255 Palm Avenue;
Staffs Response
Mr. Chung is the owner of record.
Neighbor's Concern
It appears the owner/contractor is preparing to complete the front portion of
the wall and driveway. The re-bar has been completed and the weeds and
dirt to the side of the forms along our driveway have been removed.
Staffs Response
The maximum height limit of a retaining wall located along the property
line is 3 feet. If a discovery is made that the above mentioned retaining wall
is higher than 3 feet along the property line or within the required setback,
staff will request a revised plan to include the above mentioned retaining
wall. Additional findings shall be made by staff.
D. Response to Propertv Owner's Attornev's Letter
A letter was submitted by the property owners attorney, Mr. Milton E.
Frank, Inc., received on June 22, 2005 by the Community Development
4
Department. Mr. Frank informed staff of his involvement with the case and
perceived status of the matter.
Attorney's Concern
According to Mr. Frank, he was advised that a survey may be required in
order to move the matter along given the nature of the objections filed by
the Veirs. Mr. Frank enclosed a letter to Mr. and Mr. Veirs regarding the
issues which allegedly support their opposition to the granting of the
variance.
Their position seems to involve a question of whether or not the sought after
improvement is properly located as to boundary lines as well as the
proposed improvement will have adverse effects on their property. The
Veirs made the same arguments over twenty(20) years ago in writing to Mr.
Chung. See letter of April 8, 1985 to Mr. Chung and Mr. Chung's response
dated June 10, 1985.
The Veirs letter complains of dirt thrown against the garage wall and that a
retaining wall is needed. A retaining wall has already been built and the
alleged piled up dirt and wood debris is no longer there. They complain that
the side of the garage is being used to complete Mr. Chung's fence line, but
yet do nothing. The present wall is set back ten (10") inches from the side
of the garage. They further complain in 1985 of water draining onto their
Property and that it is a health hazard. Twenty years later they proffer the
same complaint.
The purpose of the letter was to advise staff of the issues resulting from the
Veir's objection so that a dialogue may be opened with your office as to a
procedure for identifying your outstanding concerns and perhaps developing
a procedure whereby the variance application can be continued to be
considered a vis-a-vis dealing with the Veirs to reach a stipulated settlement
or obtain a Quiet Title Judgment as to Mr. Chung*s right to a Prescriptive
Easement, if in fact there is a lot line boundary question.
Staff s Response
Evidence has been provided by Mr. Chung's attorney. Mr. Milton Frank,
that Mr. 8-, Mrs. Veirs have been in conflict over a property line issue since
1985. This is a civil matter that has no bearing on the variance application
under present review. The Building Inspection Department requires a
property survey be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The dispute between Mr. Chung and his neighbors should be resolved by a
property survey prepared by a licensed land surveyor.
5
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
Appropriateness of Use: The existing 5' retaining wall is located along the south
and west side of the property that gently slopes downward toward the property to
the south, Mr. & Mrs. Vein's backyard. The purpose of the retaining wall is to
prevent erosion of the slope onto the neighbor's property.
The neighbor has claimed that the retaining wall is on his property. To remove
the retaining wall to accommodate the neighbor wishes would require mass
grading to reduce the slope presently being retained by the wall. The existing 5'
retaining wall is a code violation, built without building permits. The Building
Inspection Department requires a land survey prior to the issuance of a building
permit for the retaining wall. The property line will be verified at that time. If the
retaining wall is on the neighbor's property, the matter becomes a civil dispute
between Mr. Veirs and Mr. Chung.
Site Plan Analysis: The applicant may plan to build a 6' fence on top of the
existing 5' retaining wall. In staff's opinion existing 5' retaining wall and
additional fence shall not exceed 6' in height. A structure higher than 6' would be
visually obtrusive on the neighbor's property.. creating mass and bulk.
6
Agenda Item# /,x
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMMSTRATOR
MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
MIGUEL ESPINOSA (Applicant)— CHUNG (Owner), County File#VR041134:
The applicant requests a design review approval to build a 5' retaining wall on the
side and rear _yard property lines with variances for a 0' side vard (3' required)
and a 0' rear yard (3' required) on a substandard lot. The subject property is
located at 1255 Palm Avenue in the Martinez area.
(R-6) (ZA: F-12) (CT: 3190) (APN: 375-203-002)
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval with attached conditions.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: The General Plan designation is Single Family Residential —
High.
B. Zoning: R-6— 1 du/per 6,000 sq. ft.
C. CEQA: Categorical Exemption — Section 15303 (e) Class 3 —Accessory
(appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming
pools, fences.
D. Previous Applications:
E. Regulatory Programs:
1. Redevelopment Area: The subject site is not within a redevelopment
area.
2. Active Fault Area: The subject site is not in an active fault area.
3. Flood Hazard Area: The subject site is in flood zone C, of minimal
flooding.
IV. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at 1255 Palm Drive, in the Martinez area. The site
consists of a single-family residence under construction. From staff's observation
during a field visit, the residence is almost complete.
The surrounding area consists of a densely populated neighborhood developed
many years ago to house the many employees of the Shell Refinery. ,
V. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Neighbor's Response
On December 16, 2004 a notice of intent to render an administrative decision
was mailed to the neighbors within a 300-foot radius. On December 20, 2004
a letter was received from Mr. & Mrs. John & Carol Veirs residing at 1251
Palm Avenue. They expressed their concerns in regards to the 0' side yard
variance, claiming that the retaining wall would infringe upon their garage.
They claim that the service ability of the garage and drainage would be
impacted causing damage and devaluation of their property.
B. Request for Public Hearing
The Community Development Department forwarded two correspondence to
the applicant dated January 6, and April 22, 2005 informing the applicant that
a Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative Decision was issued on
December 16, 2004. The purpose of the notice was to inform the neighbors of
nearby properties that the County is processing this application and to provide
the public with the opportunity to request a public hearing. In response to that
notice, the County received one timely filed request for public hearing of this
application.
No response was received from the applicant by correspondence or by a phone
call. Therefore, due to lack of interest, staff initially recommended denial and
scheduled it on the June 6, 2005 Zoning Administrator public hearing. During
the public hearing the property owner informed the County of his intentions to
proceed with his variance request and agreed to pay the additional $1,000.00
fee.
The neighbor also testified in regards to the retaining wall variance. His
greatest concern is that the retaining wall encroaches on his property.
Agenda Item 41
Community Development Contra Costa County
COUNTY ZONING ADMIlNISTRATOR
MONDAY. NNE 6 2005
I. INTRODUCTION
MIGUEL ESPINOSA (Applicant) ROGER & EDACHUNG (Owner) County File
#VR041134: The applicant requests a design review approval to build a 5'
retaining wall on the side and rear yard property lines with variances for a 0' side
yard (3' required) and a 0' rear yard (3' required) on a substandard lot. The
subject property is located at 1255 Palm Drive in the Martinez area.
(R-6) (ZA: F-12) (CT: 3190) (APN: 375-203-002)
II. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial due to lack of interest.
III. BACKGROUND
A. Neighbor's Response
On December 16, 2004 a notice of intent to render an administrative decision was
mailed to the neighbors within a 300-foot radius. On December 20, 2004 a letter
was received from Mr. &Mrs. John & Carol Veirs residing at 1251 Palm Avenue.
They expressed their concerns in regards to the 0' side vard variance, claiming
that the retaining wall would infringe upon their garage. Thee claim that the
service ability of the garage and drainage would be impacted causing damage and
devaluation of their property. `
B. Request for Public Hearing
The Community Development Department forwarded two correspondences to the
applicant dated January 6, and April 22, 2005 informing the applicant that a
Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative Decision was issued on December
16, 2004. The purpose of the notice was to inform the neighbors of nearby
properties that the County is processing this application and to provide the public
«vlth the opportunity to request a public hearing. In response to that notice, the
County received one timely filed request for public hearing of this application.
So far no response has been received from the applicant by correspondence or by
a phone call. Therefore, due to lack of interest, staff is recommending denial of
this variance application. `
ADDITIONAL
CORRESPONDENCE
.` ply
Yy,Yr1 l,,.N.�y �. Y V fC�C�►vl Q vt\ V-r y�� � i���. ���...�...`..�._._._._ f
► i tir e Stree-t } U '� i JUL x;'05651
P rrt i vi e z
VR 0
-A rP j i ca+i L v\ 6 r
��2ci�rrS , �iefra5 � D v0.r*%av`ce-
e- 11 0-*j e_ CtV1 J, o l e-cl n e-L': r3 katc 5 -u 4 vv a-y e i u c v
betf•e r i a e-c` A ()Lir' Tl est
Ccv►Cerv, S, �ItiofoS ShoLo prior 'to
i t�te. COV15trut'1cr, o� tke- O-e^vnevlt l,A-:all tkeve btood c-
a St
.aSt t vJo yokoto s -"ke.
""�I� � ,L pp ' 0--j II
u—Nw -L Do-z -�revr, -vAeCtL- '_/ ,Q- &;vLtrCAVS -farn&s 0- ..d
C1 Y% eQ 1 n our V- Sl�cye4'1 c-erv�evel 'tYc,�L eu-e &"x l,' ✓teJ .
-YX 0. rJ►kakte: covAverbcAibvx WitL, dC,u- tkret weeJ_s o y
y,eLA.. e�sf�ed ul� u;e I1c q 't luke,, act,or Pr;Or i-u t( e.
C.c sfruC4Ivv\ c t"ke. Qe-WAe", -t wall, 17twe � exF 14i"cj tkaf
-I
DLL- Mouse i a Nev�'�a� a �� ��riwc� tkart �ivv►e We erg
oivle5 t�nv-0u�k a, evict;c,
i vi 5to� Qu3Gy rtcw, rt e �roYo2cly Eve► c-
0 Ly-
_0LlY)cf �a� ex�ose� �J t�x, lto per tena��; Cc�Y �
kd
d r,vc.LOa� p, tkree QcLrs cs.v<d e-
5tPeC( Ct tlle_ e, d oT e dri veu ori ,
Jfou- czigno k�rE-8 c, S to wc hCJ r`iA Cov�`tr.e�ed
t ltie o u;v,e r , The. N cf i C r C-� A r r r c v a.l *C t- Va r a-,e e Ste a
c Lei SPchso, as ec: Roder C u-wc� egg cus;hev
�av-t SaLL1 rrJ)e Valle. uo1xo i s res'Aat 3SS i'Oalw, AueKke
Lk,5 he_ was tltie Cov,'(raOf(J-
Lo 7�- recc �lee�;C, 1 ,6 CcrreC.+ tltiere_ wc.; aV\otker- w,c,v.
Wock\' ,) GL-� rlD ,se WYLu StG�CO 11E Ljc,�, tIrlP- GLj..mev,
tL. ����?G i-fEc ri�►� o�' SLLvxl� 6 �GuT llz
wa=y 'd,P- cov,I L� S ��c ke,5 vkcL . ('e`o FZSe rf-Voertl
Ltyi l U; e- recc-,v cd c, /e{-fer 4rc.,-, A,lr. Fra,,ke ,
.�.�r , 6,1 i v,C 5 Cl+-�G f h E C; A 6 e8a ,, 6 C,i V-C.'L � 0 LL.r T t le i
w e 11_ I 't d t' i - 12C)c Q.r CkL, Jv,c 6a-c-L +►-,
YIC`� r h'�w�Zm ��`e iti, ri � ��g 1`,
/9 '6.3- , Art t�A t�W c he was C, 1 (`e.C:Ite %- -to r o as T►-CL110as
2 er,(torS 2CL,,,A kAr, Ake, wkc Loc-,s tke_ owice- hACL"a3e-r
4o r Tra w, jna s Re,>_( wr s ) T nc, ) c w,-,eJ t(,e. h j-c Yoe A y
aAx)cv►,.ce cast fo G-6w-k� WtiL� we. J"f
C`e CC q vl i12 e- AAr. 6L wA) CLS la:yt er k K o w V,G
laS CO �Qt 1 v, �O u(-U L l.L i t Y, .
Dur vKo st reeeco veer v` f c�P fear s
(6'e, c;u r,er / U'Ay aeto r i s V--evari�,fy 'I o Co rnr Iete
-1t rOv,`\ �U1 tiOv, oT Ir�te IIliJa�ll oz v%- cid ivCu,ccq , Tke- I-e- ibcAr
ria`s 10ee v, CtsvI v, Je.E-e.j t3v,d ti-Le weecL S eLv1d d c t fo 'fie.
de OR f-kc 4rw,, aov,c1 Cour rivrway `� X 7 �i t
�c�ve �oee►1 revnOv.e� , 1 1
IJ
JUL 6 2005
1�
i
f
rc
'
3
T•
. l
�I
I -n �Iccc�
�,�5U-re � i -`�,r �fV ��ev�� c��e�dr;�a11C) deft-eas :�.� e VI JIP-1 �t to
-- I '-5 i' A A korner° �� �cxrc��c�� avi� CxAJixc� at tkat roiKt,
19M top 0T OC,% OS a-N-.t1 1 5 Q '1", O-e- 1e,1't c`� laC (JAI h 6I G
5�-r�k�e e e. tKat- cup veal aviJ atfac-kej ` � ay-aqe
plota ?�xc,�L e -ve-5 ire he Lu tL dow"k
Spout cxttac.l...eA -to �eCncE'_ � 1�" uu1��� cev�e�� V - 5hcare�
t,rc)Lk 'rckn Izvl��i4 o-i af•VeWOL) ehc ,VAC cit rear corheT
-�1owe-r W to Si -� nv Our CLr"vEU301 LOCI-S
-
—.We.s 1.-y,,I ( Not S how>h - To -�(oWer toed
_..._. -. wa.3 9.iaewalk Qv- d two Ste-f5 ap to -t)4,.e. 6ac.k9e�v-4
d f7-O�ert� n e xt door %
".•.-Ys- "=:' .- 1 1 ._tt t1ai:. 1 R��t .L(�jk ie'C � 4L�Q,"� 'lt.i
14
1
Y J
rr
.. f
! - '• Y X
! U a M! t •. R
a-'!0
f
i
�,! � � t '^mac 2 � � •� s _.
�_�,t�r,A� It � �� � .`y`h�r�y\'` I• y • � 1 7 n��t:y�_
Fi
eonit Jr I '+
1! tocaras M' -,OuLyL8
level
I
L
L k '
i
F a
Y
F .J
't
r
� oho *7 fo.kevi 0��ter 0v 04 OLx - teykO- AS V&Q�fed)
OL C Odi 6w's 'a ax OL e o-v s W-C,� i Yl S�e Tp� �kC- TcriC�,
A
_ J(►� i �� C�c�tirr OLULa Sem �rcLL k r k� eylee 60av-
, y 5
S a e r oto e loc���iqc r� lI e y-t 1 .g T h e dark civ-er'
-'rravn
free ►�of . �; A .
oto 40 8 Ts n r-e ':Lr S r►-,y I e- tc r o dA pti�l t 4
_ to /ky, ,. C°.I LLvxc t1i�Ut 1k\-, e eheloaea c.�i` , kis
J�tter � �Ar , Clxuvi` wo-5 at C11-4 17 66k oe
C, +rec�+-OV- WI-tk d-ct,.� 1 ravw%�o`S r2ealtL,rs, Mme.
T�� s to ti.o-Eo 8 leo w S t1Ne Loc,+-e-r 8a.vvta�- u Q V,
Qr-Yn f�OLkY�;Y%) aAoo at , T' e- So I e (cite c;Lv,I low e-r fe`vct e'Y
flee gall QOtLLJS LUCrC. re I�.ee-f Cltke- to d� rot . We
h �
t-e-r&; t e 8 -t�,c s CLt 0UL�r 0 UD V-1 exfe.n se
"+ rs
r
v '
_ a �
J+llA�r3J
w,.r
WIT
w �
�t
n.6ra��r .r`�_�:ri'�� '. '..�, �r — �r�'I'�!i�F '�'�r•� .�v�'�� 11�r�y,° -i rm�st{'� ti —��_.�
a} '"#� dr�= P • F�a�., man .�.r�'^7ty��,,n„ � --
ry
f1i. Y
x 7 he � I rz� eco`5 top y�oct 4c f C; vlcj 1 7 �r C e i te-,A
!i
-- - -- - -- � etG .i y, u�3c>_1� e.�n� � o r '1�� nQ_L (2 e--"t S' I e
\
n 61 1 C) i �,y� r
b U.-1 6e-en (- l_ DY-1 to
On LL. 'l CA. U--C, S /C,V<1
h n.cn ec)L-re LA 6 U-t TG 1 Yin C,
m eL,-.s LLVC- !� cwt L;- eSC ec,L C)raycf -
��
CL Yl3 3 a-r e e VVI y1 t Y,(A E 1 ,
— _ 3
`I
-----
IL
�n4,Z1 h 7 �ufi
WOW
x
y1
�GIV= 5 C'e�`0.� v� i hC� WCL �� C.d �'�� i n k Oyl q
� ) 1
Unac`(-L ��^ �� �e� e C3-)C, G t-ctc vhi h ujC.,
)) r J
_ J UsT �` to l '/,�` wr>` I i Lo czt 61ot �et
�jczc� 1`�ere
/
tc mcc,Sur e. b of W;� e5 �3ci rtt s I eke S' o,r Mort ,
--- !D.ikD Y\ C-, Y_ I-lace _a- V �'ev\ce ova fo'n C) 1 S
!
J f1 {
1 _L.
Law Offices of
MILTON E. FRANKS, Inc.
1850 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 630
Walnut Creek, California 94596
(925) 933-9289
,lune 21, 2005
John Veirs
Carol Veirs
1251 Palm Ave.
Martinez, CA 94553
John Veirs
Carol Veirs
841 Marine Ave.
Martinez. CA 94553
Re: 1255 Palm Ave. Martinez, CA 94553
County Variance Application File: 9VR041134
Your Letter of Objection of December 20, 2004
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Veirs:
Our office has been retained by Roger Chung, owner of 1255 Palm Ave..
Martinez. CA 94553 (hereinafter the "House") regarding your objections to the variance
application sought regarding zero lot line setback for the retaining wall.
It appears from the meeting held by the County on .lune 6. 2005. that issues
concerning location of property boundaries have been advanced in support of' your
opposition to the granting of the variance and that a survey. which can he quite costly.
may he required in order for the County to continue considering the application and make
a final decision. Accordingly. I am writing to you to see if this matter can he solved by
agreement rather than the need to take court action to clear the boundary issue.
The County Agenda of .lune 6, 2005, indicates that you expressed concerns "in
regards to the 0' side vard variance. claiming that the retaining wall would infringe upon
the garage and that the service ability of the garage and drainage would be impacted
causing damaue and devaluation of your property". By letter of'April 8. 1985. VOL) made
the same complaints to Ro�gyer Chung. He responded by letter of.lune 10. 1985. advising
you of the issue of the garage set bacl, and the propene line. Apparently. you tool: no
further action.
The lacy of'real property allows an owner of real property to acquire a right oi'the
use of' another's real property. In This case it is called a Prescriptive Easement. The
elements necessary to establish a Prescriptive Easement are as follows:
Page 2
June 21, 2005
John Veirs/Carol Veirs
1. There has to be an adverse use for not less than five (5) years.
2. The use has to be open and notorious.
3. The use has to be continuous and uninterrupted.
4. The use has to be hostile to the true owners' use of their property.
5. The use has to be exclusive.
6. The use must be under a claim of right.
Based upon your letter and Mr. Chung's response, both being written in 1985, the
above-required elements necessary to establish a Prescriptive Easement have been well
met. Your letter states that the side of your garage is being utilized to complete the fence
iine. That there is damage to your garage by reason of the lack of a retaining wall and,
that water runoff is causing a health hazard. Lastly, you state that there is a major
problem and if there is continued damage to your property, you will take legal action.
The issues set forth in your letter make a prima facie case that Mr. Chung has a
right to maintain the present improvements and fence line in the present location by
having established a Prescriptive Easement over you're alleged' property. I strongly
suggest you consult and attorney in this regard.
It light of your letter of April 8, 1985, which I am making available to the County
under separate cover. it would seem that your present position regarding the variance is
most difficult to sustain in that it appears that some twenty (20) years have. passed and
YOU have taken no action to alleviate. correct and/or solve .the major problem''
referenced in the letter.. but.vet now proffer such as reasons why the variance should not
be (_,ranted. The law does not allow one to "sleep" on their rights and then subsequently
"awaken" after some twenty (20) years to rectify such rights.
Mr. Chun(, desires to have his variance approved. It appears that in order to do
so. resolution of your objections satisfactory to the County to allow them to make a
decision must take place. This can be done in either of two ways: (1) You and Mr.
Chung agree in writing that the present fence line is a proper location for the fence and.
that if there is an encroachment upon your property, Mr. Chung's use is by Prescriptive
Easement appurtenant to Mr. Chung's property which is a perpetual right in fee. and you
withdraw vour objection to the variance being granted. (2) If such an agreement cannot
he reached. Mr. Chung will file a Quiet Title action in Superior Court to establish his
Prescriptive Easement right. after which the County can act on' the variance application.
At that time. it would seem that the County would he inclined to issue the variance Liven
that more than twenty (20) years have passed since the matters vou again complain of
werr first made.
This letter does not admit. and is not to he consu-ued as an admission that Mr. Chum_',., icncc and proper%
line encroaclics upon your property. Any such references or implications to that effect is set forth purel\
f(tr the pUrposc of settlement discussion an may not he used against any parte as provided in the Evidence
Codc of California.
Page 3
June 21, 2005
John Veirs/Carol Veirs
It is hoped that after you have had a chance to review this letter and obtain
counsel as to your legal position, this matter can be settled without the need of hiring
surveyors and resorting to court action.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. If I have not
heard from you or vour representative by July 8. 2005. 1 have been instructed to initiate
the Quiet Title action as continued delay is setting to be quite costly in many ways.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Sincerely.
Lay. Offs s 6f Tilton E. r, ' Inc.
Milton E. Franke jsq.
MEF;jh
Cc: R. Chun(: M. Espinosa. Rose Marie Pietras
Encls.
� J / Vill jZrzrt j
I— i c c c ��iL t�l.� Iti.- ; ►ti .
X14- 55 3
J d-
G.t Au � i��c� C Z
UJ,-) Lu� 1d t to �`eq est' G- BOLL I,`c
6ti �c, n-� si
C` t��c. r etc, Y\ i c�
u�c- l l
I ec� � Qc,�rc:yz . L '
LA-.-"L) ( � h ot(� �Z . cLcceota�o fe r- 3Q- Ul tc_.
cc n 5 0 ) J
to J
LASS TID-AMIDAcS
QCaItOM, If C. 5035 CLAYTON ROAD, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94521 • (415) 685-1510
June 10, 1985
John Veirs
841 Marie Ave.
Martinez CA
Dear Mr Vers,
I am in receipt of your letter to mr. Allen and must now do that
which I hoped would not be necessary. I must now put you on notice
your Garage has been constructed with an illegal set-back from the
Property line. While my clients have no desire to be difficult about
this matter, they certainly do not need to be threatened with legal
action for damage to your property that would not exist if your
garage were properly located
Please understand that although my clients have no desire to
pursue this any further than you make necessary, I must now, unfortunately,
advise any future owners of this existing condition as a requisite of
full disclosure. I cannot assure you some future owner will be
as amenable.
Thank. you for informing me of a problem with soapy water, I will take
steps to alleviate this condition.
Yours Sincerely,
Roqer Chung
PLAN ELEVATION
14
X21 y,h' SQI
5 11
ISI /
✓ IS le""
x
zlI{
LJ
-I�.` S�Psong str-�g-l-.E �
.E. r4L.S 6X6 16" 16'X
-66" I N TD PAT I D %W. ,
r ( SIAb
LSF VAti'�E� - IZ"
0 -to
I:
I2 Intl KEBar
�a.M kv rIcrnCC.
J
�
�AR�T114�Z
?e-t4k V)I R. ��IMiN� 1�a11
IaM.�d-
Oct 14 06 09: 41a Hanson-Franke [925 944-963 0 p. 2
}
t
I � �
I
i
,
I
I
1
I
\ � i
I
.:i
'� 1
PLAN MAP
0
' 1
� I
_ I
D I
N n T
r
L I FA
—i
t—
li D
I y z
N s
G
o
0
e 'v
--
r- N
V
V
S
NOTIFICATION LIST
375191001 375191004 375191005
REAL PROPERTY DIVISION WARD JAMES L & STACEY C BEHRENS DERRICK W
255 GLACIER DR 2421 BIRCH ST 15 DICKSON LN
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375191006 375191007 375191008
STARR FRANCIS P GONZALES DENNIS M &LAURA J RUSHING RICHARD S &DIANNE
2429 BIRCH ST 1221 OAK ST 2480 MARTINEZ AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375191009 375191010 375191011
LAW LAURA M HILL TRACY WHALEN DAVID L & SHARON
2460 MARTINEZ AVE 2430 MARTINEZ AVE 2412 MARTINEZ AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375201007 375201008 375201009
EYE CAMERON H & CONNIE TRE TOUPIN TIMOTHY & PAMELA PEREIRA RACHELE
1341 CHESTNUT ST 21 FRANCESCA LN 1321 CHESTNUT ST
MARTINEZ CA 94553 ALAMO CA 94507 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375201010 375201011 375201021
SWICEGOOD PROPERTIES L P SWICEGOOD PROPERTIES L P HADZOR ROBERT
1420 LYDIA LN 1420 LYDIA LN 701 MAIN ST
CLAYTON CA 94517 CLAYTON CA 94517 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375202001 375202002 375202003
DUNDON PROUTY KAUR RAVINDER P WILSON RANDY & NAOMI
1372 CHESTNUT ST 1321 PALM AVE 1301 PALM AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375202004 375202005 375202006
RICE LOUISE H TRE BALDERRAMA HOPE POSSE LUIS & MARIA TRE
1341 OAK ST 1331 OAK ST 1321 OAK ST
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375202007 375202008 375202009
HOWES GARRY V & NORMA L HOWES GARRY V & NORMA LYNCH BRIAN M
1311 OAK ST 1311 OAK ST 2415 MARTINEZ AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375202010 375202011 375202012
SWOPE DOUGLAS L & HARRIETT ROBELLO-PAPETTI JENNIFER M BRAUN SUSAN A
TRE 1314 CHESTNUT ST PO BOX 1433
606 ALPINE CT MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
MARTINEZ CA 94553
375202013 375202014 375202015
ROCHIN LUTE MIRANDA LINDA D COLBERT DARRELL G &BRENDA S
1330 CHESTNUT ST 1340 CHESTNUT ST 1350 CHESTNUT ST
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375203001 375203002 375203003
RUNNION TIMBERLIN LAS TRAMPAS REALTY VEIRS JOHN WILLIAM& CAROL S
BERNARDETTE 21 CORONADO CT 841 MARIE AVE
1275 PALM AVE WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 MARTINEZ CA 94553
MARTINEZ CA 94553
375203004 375203005 375203006
BANTA VICKIE J WARBURTON GERALD E TRE DUNCAN ROBERT A&JUDY TRE
1231 PALM AVE 1227 PALM AVE 2565 ORANGE ST
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375203007 375203008 375203009
MCCABE HENRY C & TASHA BLACKSHER ADRIENNE BEU CATHERINE
2547 MARTINEZ AVE 2525 MARTINEZ AVE 2515 MARTINEZ AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375203010 375211012 375211013
SWANSON ROBERT J & CHRISTINA LAW DAVID M PENFIELD MARK DAVID
M 360 N CIVIC DR#307 2611 ROSE ST
1310 OAK ST WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 MARTINEZ CA 94553
MARTINEZ CA 94553
375211014 375213001 375213002
ODELLO ANTONIO JR MARTINSEN TARENA J KATSULERES KATHLEENA
1310 PALM AVE 2630 ROSE ST 1265 VINE AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375213003 375213004 375213005
MAYBERRY JACK & DAWN MAYBERRY JACK & DAWN GUEVARA DANIEL
1255 VINE AVE 1255 VINE AVE 1241 VINE AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375213006 375213007 375213009
YOUNG DONALD A& KIMBERLY A FREDERICKS JAMES D & LORI C PATCHIN-BRYANT MARYALICE TRE
1231 VINE AVE 1211 VINE AVE 1124 FERRY ST
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375213010 375213011 375213012
PRICE ARTHUR V EST OF WESTERMAN ERIK R MCVAY GREER
3402 SENTINEL DR 1230 PALM AVE 1236 PALM AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375213013 375213014 375213015
NELSON CHESTER & GERALDINE GALLETTI JOHN 0 JR HUIE BENNIE R & STELLA D
TRE 1246 PALM AVE 1250 PALM AVE
1238 PALM AVE MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
MARTINEZ CA 94553
375213016 375213017 375214009
PARIS TIMOTHY A & NOEL TURMAN ELMER L TRE PEREZ RAUL J & MOLLY G TRE
2600 ROSE ST 767 RUTH DR 1220 VINE AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 MARTINEZ CA 94553
jam nee rnnun9 www.avery.com �
UsAVERY® 5960T"^
We Aver�r�TEMPLATE 5960T- � 1-800-GO-AVERY
375214010 375214011 375214012
APARICIO HENRY J & LAURA L STAMOS JOHN TRE REGESTER WAYNE & SVITLANA
1226 VINE AVE 1240 VINE AVE 1244 VINE AVE
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375214013 375271008 375271009
BENJAMSON JASON VALENTE RICHARD L &ILA B TRE PEREIRA EMMA TRE
1254 VINE AVE 46 BARBER LN PO BOX 2091
MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375271010 375271011 375271012
TAMBELLINI KATHERINE M PEREIRA EMMA TRE GOETZ PAUL JEFFREY& JANET LEE
189 QUEENS BEACH RD PO BOX 2091 2421 MORELLO HEIGHTS CIR
ROGUE RIVER OR 97537 MARTINEZ CA 94553 MARTINEZ CA 94553
375272001
MARTINEZ UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
921 SUSANA ST
MARTINEZ CA 94553
wi0965 C)lQE3ANf AH3AV-OD-008-1 wi0969 31VldlN31®fu9AV 9s0
woY/Jane-MMM 6uilulAd aaJ3 wef