HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04102007 - SD.5 TO' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS °4•.
fi Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR • County
�pti,t^coo r
DATE: April 10, 2007
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing and Decision 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 recommended findings 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 C— —
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
J/APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):SL49L
ACTION OF BOARD �Def APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
2 �re5 zri ���i V� c-� tke..
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
_,UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
AYES: NOES: ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON THE DATE SHOWN
i
Contact: Rose Marie Pietras (925)335-1216 ATTESTED
Orig: Community Development Department JOHN CULLEN, C RK 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
7BYZ- DEPUTY
April 10, 2007 _
Board of Supervisors
Continued Hearing of 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. RECAP OF MARCH 13, 2007 STAFF REPORT AND BOARD HEARING ON APPEAL
A. County Planning Commission Hearing and Decision
In January.2006, the County Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing on a
variance permit to allow a retaining wall (existing) up to five-feet in height within required side
and rear yards (zero-foot setbacks) and for Design Review under the Small Lot Occupancy
Ordinance. The retaining wall supports a new driveway for a residence that is presently
being remodeled on a lot that is substandard with respect to zoning area and width
requirements. The project involves a late filing of a development permit application for a
retaining wall that has largely been completed without first obtaining necessary County
permits.
After the wall came to the attention of County staff, the Building Inspection Department had
notified the owners, Roger and Eda Chung, that the wall violated County Code, and that they
= would need to either remove the wall or try to obtain the necessary permits from the County
to allow it to remain.
After completing the hearing, the County Planning Commission unanimously voted to
approve the project, subject to conditions that require that the wall meet acceptable design
standards and that if deemed necessary may require (drainage) improvements to avoid
damage to neighboring property.
B. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval by Neighbors
Owners of a neighboring, downslope property, John and Carol Veirs, filed an appeal of the
County Planning Commission action. The Veirs allege that the retaining wall damages their
property, particularly with respect to damage from altered runoff patterns that have resulted
from the wall construction.
C. March 13, 2007 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Veirs' Appeal
On March 13, 2007, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on the Veirs'
appeal of the County Planning Commission decision. The staff report for the March 13
hearing recommended that the Board sustain the Planning Commission approval for the
project, subject to conditions. The report also described:
• The actions that the Applicant would be required to take before the retaining wall
could be considered lawful;
• Staff-recommended modifications to Planning Commission requirements; and
• Consequences for the project if the Applicant is not able to obtain a Final Building
Permit:
After accepting testimony, the Board initially closed the hearing, and then voted to reopen
and continue the hearing to this date, and to place the item on the Board's consent agenda.
April 10, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Continued Hearing of Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File #VR04-1134
Page 3
The Board voted to declare its intent to sustain the Planning Commission approval of the
development permit, including additional modifications from the recommendations in the staff
report. The modifications directed by the Board for its final consideration include:
• That elements of the staff report be incorporated into the permit to clarify for the
record the requirements that the Applicant would be required to complete before the
wall might be considered lawful;
• Requiring the Applicant to obtain a site survey from a licensed surveyor
demonstrating that the wall is entirely located on the Applicant's property prior to
obtaining a final building permit; and
• Possible requirement to remove or alter the retaining wall if the Applicant is not
successful in securing a final building permit from the County.
IV. MODIFICATIONS TO RECOMMENDED PERMIT
The conditions of approval have been modified as directed by the Board, including the addition of
elements from the March 13, 2007 staff report as additional findings for this project. In addition, the
findings of the County Planning Commission with respect to variance and Small Lot Design Review
evaluations have also been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval document.
A. Modification to Require Applicant Submittal of Drainage Plan for County Approval
The permit condition (Condition #7) for off-site drainage improvements on the Appellants'
(Veirs) property has been modified. The modified condition requires the Applicant to submit
a drainage plan for the review and approval of the County Building Official and Zoning
Administrator prior to obtaining a building permit. The modified condition continues to require
that the Applicant provide evidence to the County of written permission to enter the property
and construct any required improvements on the Appellants' property.
If written permission is not granted to enter and construct required improvements, then the
condition provides that the Applicant may apply to amend this development permit and
remove this condition of approval.
B. Clarification as to Which Professionals are Authorized to Issue a Land Survey.
One of the concerns that were raised in the hearing before the Board concerned which
professionals are authorized to prepare land surveys. The Appellant had challenged whether
the survey that was submitted was valid insofar as it had been issued by a registered civil
engineer, not under the stamp of a licensed land surveyor.
Following the Board's hearing, additional information on this topic has been obtained. The
Professional Land Surveyors' Act authorizes licensed land surveyors to issue land surveys.
In addition, Section 6731 of the Business and Professions Code provides that civil engineers
registered prior to January 1, 1982 are authorized to practice all land surveying as defined in
the Professional Land Surveyors' Act (commencing with Section 8700).
At the last hearing, the Board of Supervisors directed that staff modify the conditions of
approval to mandate that the Applicant provide the Building Inspection Department a site
April 10, 2007
Board of Supervisors
Continued Hearing of Appeal of Franke/Chung
Variance Application for Retaining Wall
File#VR04-1134
Page 4-
survey of the retaining wall prior to issuance of a final building permit to demonstrate that it is
located entirely on the Applicant's property. In response the modified conditions for the
proposed variance permit include Condition #10 that requires the Applicant provide this
survey. Furthermore, consistent with State law, this condition provides that the survey may
be issued by-either a licensed land surveyor, or by a registered civil engineer who was
registered prior to 1982.
G:\Current Plan ning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\vr041134 Board Order 3-29-2007.doc
RMP\RD\
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DESIGN
REVIEW APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED RETAINING
WALL/FENCE WITH VARIANCES, COUNTY FILE #VR041134
(Franke — AppIicant; Chung — Owner) OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OFCONTRA COSTA COUNTYAS S A PPROVE11) B)7
T-14E COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION V 14'000
Manning Commission approval am idendfied in marked .Modifications to
the 3/13/2007 staff recommendation to the Board of Supervisors are identified
in marked text.
FindinLys
A. Findings for approval under the Small Lot Occupancy Design
Review Ordinance [CCC Ord. Code, 82-10.002(c)]
Proiect Finding- This Board finds that the proposed retaining wall will
be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of-
Height— The height of the proposed retaining wall fence
combination, as conditioned will be compatible with the heizht of
nearby development including the ,garage building on the
adjoining Veirs property. The height of the wall/fence combination
cannot exceed the height of the eave on that garage, or six feet
from finished grade, whichever is less.
Size— The proposed retaining wall is 133 linear feet in length. The
wall has a maximum height o, ave feet. A fence on top of a wall
thatmeetsthe height limits o{this approval will be compatible in
size with other nearbv structures in the area.
Design — The surrounding neiZhborhood consists of eclectic
residential designs, including retaininz walls. The design of this
wall is compatible with other walls in the neighborhood.
Location — The location of the walo'ence is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.
B. Findings for Granting a Variance to Allow a Retaining Wall (CCC
Ord. Code, � 26-2.2006)
1) Required Finding— That ani) variance permit authorized shall not
constitute arg ant of special privilege inconsistent with the Since
Familv Residential, R-6 zoning district.
Project Finding— This Board finds that 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 propertyto enjoy the same
privilege enjoyed by those other properties.
2) Required Finding— That because ospecial circumstances
applicable to the subiectProperty because of its size, shape,
topography location or surroundinZs, the strict application of the
respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the sub1ect
p7-operty ofrights enjoved bi) otherproperties in the vicinity and
with the R-6 zoning district.
Project Finding—This Board finds that 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 arage with the Palm Avenue. Only by
granting the requested variances to allow for a retaining wall, can a
functional driveway be constructed.
3. Required Finding— That am) variance authorized shall
substantially meet the intent andpuipose of the respective land use
district in which the subject roperty is located.
Project Finding— This Board finds that the Single Family
Residential zoning provides that each site shall provide for on-site
parking outside of front and side vard areas. Granting this variance
to allow for a functional drivewav allows for that code requirement
to be satisfied.
C. Other Findings of the Board of Supervisors
1. The construction of the retaining wall by the Applicant without
first obtaining necessary permits from the County created the land
use compatibility problems with regards to:
• Whether or not the wall is located entirely on the
Applicant's property, or may encroach on a neighbor's
property;
• Whether or not the wall meets acceptable engineering
standards; and
• Whether or not the construction of the wall has altered
runoff patterns in the area that could result in damages to
neighboring property including the garage on the
Appellants' (Veirs') property.
2. Requirements of the Applicant to Complete Before the Retaining
Wall May Be Considered Lawful Include the Following
• Take the necessary steps to impfove 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' property to perform any required improvements;
(COA #7)
• Obtain an opinion letter from a licensed engineer validating
that the retaining wall meets required en ineering
standards-, (COA #8)
• Obtain a building,permit;
• Make any other improvements required by the code;
• Prior to obtaining a final building permit, provide a site
survey of the wall that has been issued by either a licensed
land surveyor, or alternatively, a registered civil engineer
who was registered prior to 3anuary_l, 1982, that verifies
that the entire wall lies on the Applicant's property; (COA
#10) and
• Obtain a final building permit from the Building Inspection
Department following inspection of the wall.
3. Inclusion of Staff Recommended Modifications to the Conditions
of Approval Required by County Planning,Commission
This approval by the Board of Supervisors provides for
modification to three conditions that were required by the County
Commission's approval at staff s recommendation.
a.) Period for Administrative Extension of the Period for
Exercising the 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 lonuer than the period
authorized by the Ordinance Code. This condition has been
modified to be consistent with the provisions of the
J
Ordinance Code so that the applicant would have a
maximum two-year period in which to exercise this permit.
b.) 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, Condition #7.a. has been modified to include that
additional language.
c.) 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.. Conseauently. Condition #9 has been modified to
read that
The combined height of the retaining wall
and fence shall not exceed the heiZht of
the roof eave of the existing image 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 he has no objection to this
modification.
4
4. Consequences if the 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.
0 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 may have to obtain legal access from the
Veirs to allow for necessary drainage improvements on
their property-, if access is denied, then the applicant may
not be able to meet the variance permit requirements.
If at the building permit stage, the applicant is unable to meet
either the requirements of the variance permit, or the building
code, or both, and a final building_permit does not issue, then the
County will require the Applicant to either:
• Remove the wall in its entirety; or
0 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.
1
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 maybe 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.
Still, it is possible that the Applicant may be successful in meeting
all County requirements except that drainage improvements on
neighboring property (as may required by Condition #7) are not
possible because the owner of that property has elected to deny the
Applicant'leyal access to make those improvements. In this
The Planning Commission decision provided 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. Therefore,this approval provides for modification of the requirement of 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.
5
instance, the .Applicant would retain the right to apply to the
County for an amendment to this development permit to seek
elimination of the requirement to make anv drainage improvements
to the affected property of the owner. If such an application were
timely filed, then the County would allow the wall to remain in
place while.the County processed the application seeking an
amendment to the development pen-nit.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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. Consistent with provisions in the Ordinance Code, the period for
exercising this Design Review/Variance 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
•x►• 50 foot front setback required by zoning ordinance
6
,t.e 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 ( ta(e 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
http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp
California Holidays bttp://w-,Aw.edd.ca.Lrov/eddstliol.htm.
7
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.
C. —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=houremergency-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.
d. The applicant shall make good faith effort to avoid interference
with existing neighborhood traffic flows.
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. — FFrar–tepee-of a buildingpeffnit, the applieantskall:take-th
neeessafy steps to impy-eve the be between the 5
gar-age viizthe iic.'b 7 subjeet to the review and eFnmei+il the in
-
by Bug hiss Tl
tion o...,,-t,• final d al and appy-eva
f
v� zip..
inelude e v idenee 6 �regquirec�right 4 efitfy fF6if the ghl-.l.,H+9
8
ew�r The requireda, ��to „+s ..hall be eempletedpr-ier- to
Submittal of Drainage Plan Required for County Approval - Before a
building permit is issued, the Applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the
County Building Official and Zoning Administrator for review and
Uproval. The plan shall specify how runoff from the subject property to
#1251 Palm Avenue (property to the south owned by Veirs; APN 375-
203-003) will be conveyed from #1251 Palm Avenue to Palm Avenue, and
shall include a description of proposed conveyance devices. The applicant
shall comply with the approved drainage plan. Before submitting the
drainage plan, the applicant shall obtain written permission from the
owner of#1251 Palm Avenue to enter the property at #1251 Palm Avenue
and construct drainage improvements on #1251 Palm Avenue. The
written permission must be submitted to the County Building Official and
Zoning Administrator along with the drainage plan. If written permission
for entry and construction of drainage improvements on #1251 Palm
Avenue is not granted, the Applicant may-jpply. ° to amend this
development permit and remove this condition. t
f
8.__ Submittal of Report from Engineer that Wall Meets Required Engineering
Standards - 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
County Building Official. 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 cave 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. Community Development and Building
Inspection Department staff shall measure the height of the roof cave 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.
10. Site Survey Required - Prior to issuance of a final building permit, the
Applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Department a site
9
survey that has been issued by either a licensed land surveyor, or a
registered civil engineer who was registered prior to January1. 1992,` that
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County Building Official that the
entire retaining wall is contained on the Applicant's property.
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.
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.
Business and Professions Code. 6731.
10
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.
G7 Site carve.,need Dri,,-to :ssuanee of., final bu !ding p ,.ffiit :th
Bt�ildinb
that the r-etainifi—,vall ib
GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\vr041134 10 13 003-23-2007 coa -bd
RMP/RD
11
k O T NO, 2 TAX CODE AREA
T,da
o
Qj o
l�
zw
O
Lo
L t-\ AVENUE 2 7
7.1
^`= �i+�l
lf)
z13) 203
CD 0.9
06
ol
O
cp
�P
2:02:)o
z EZ
i
1962 ROLL
ASSESSOR'S MAP
BOOK 3 75. PAC--
i,
CONTRA COSTA
I FN„ BE
7
Pi rte
pe
FV-elosV� ; CL.-
uc v e y
f r te. F or v,-f,
J,�. .c
'AA 0- Le-de m l}11t-vR e
ose
j riZlti t3l`Q�+ettCt\� �i rti2
AC t -Nz-,i 'C' JCSC S f L-Y\!�� �a 5
�, Cry
-
CORNER RECORD Document Number
City of �`� ii 4;ti Z- County of �. t� - r,t`�-�rr- California
Brief Legai Description
CORNER TYPE N. COORDINATES (Optional)
Government Comer ❑ Control ❑ E.
-}-
Meander ❑ Property
Zone NAD27❑ NAD83❑— C11NAD83 Epoch
Rancho ❑ Other ❑ Elev.
Vert.Datum: NGVD29 ❑ NAVD88 ❑
Date of Survey t-f r4-C tA. i I-00 7 Meas.Units: Metric ❑ Imperial ❑
Corner- Left as found ❑ Found and tagged ❑ Established ❑ Reestablished Rebuilt ❑
Identification and type of corner found: Evidence used to identify or procedure used to establish or reestablish the corner:
F O U N D ijt tl'tom t;�,M E:K � ?',R- 9 '1 LS � l
A description of the physical condition of the monument as found and as set or reset: J 112VLCV1 AIff_-J- 64
LS 7-3
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT �►ND
8
This Corner Record was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with
o .4
the Land Surveyor's Act on
(`'� �' C 7 2.007 N0.7388 A
Signed �P.L.S rR.C.E. No.
� �e
COUNTY SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT OF CA��F�P�
This Corner Record was received
and examined and filed
Signed_ P.L.S or R.C.E. No.
Title
County Surveyor's Comment
Borpels 1297 Page 7 of 2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: (925) 335-1210 Fax: (925) 335-1222
TO: Jane Pennington, Chief Clerk
Clerk of the Board
FROM: Bob Drake
Principal Planner
DATE: April 10, 2007
SUBJECT: Removal of Marked Text from
Findings and Conditions Approved by the Board
Board Decision to Approve Variance Permit File #VR04-1134
(Milton E. Franke—Applicant;
Roger & Eda Chung — Owners)
#1255 Palm Avenue, Martinez/Mountain View area
Item#SD.5 on 4/10/2007 Agenda
On April 10, 2007, the Board of Supervisors conducted a continued hearing on an appeal of the County
Planning Commission decision on the above matter. After taking testimony,the Board closed the hearing
and approved the staff recommendation which included modified Findings and Conditions of Approval
identified in marked text(that identified deleted and added text).
Attached is a modified set of findings and conditions that removes and otherwise integrates the edits that
were identified in the version attached to the April 10,2007 staff report. This modified version is intended
for your use in the issuance of the Final Board Order for this item.
Should you have any questions,please call me at X5-1214, or the project planner,Rose Marie Pietras, at
X5-1216.
Att. Findings and Conditions of Approval approved by the Board
with removed edit markings
cc: Rose Marie Pietras
File
D:\Personal\vr04-l l 34.mem.doc
RD\
FINDINGS AND 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
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ON
APRIL 10, 2007
Findings
A. Findings for approval under the Small Lot Occupancy Design
Review Ordinance [CCC Ord. Code, § 82-10.002(c)]
Project Findinz--This Board finds that the proposed retaining wall will
be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of:
Heigh — 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 Veirs property. The height of the wall/fence combination
cannot exceed the height of the eave on that garage, or six feet
from finished grade, whichever is less.
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 Granting a Variance to Allow a Retaining Wall (CCC
Ord. Code, § 26-2.2006)
1) Required Finding— That any variance permit authorized shall not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Single
Family Residential, R-6 zoning district.
Project Finding—This Board finds that 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 propertyto 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 R-6 zoning district.
Project Finding—This Board finds that 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.
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—This Board finds that 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.
C. Other Findings of the Board of Supervisors
1. The construction of the retaining wall by the Applicant without
first obtaining necessary permits from the County created the land
use compatibility problems with regards to:
• Whether or not the wall is located entirely on the
Applicant's property, or may encroach on a neighbor's_
property;
2
• Whether,or not the wall meets acceptable en ineering
standards; and
• Whether or not the construction of the wall has altered
runoff patterns in the area that could result in damages to
neighboring prpperty including the garage on the
Appellants' (Veirs')property.,
2. Requirements of the Applicant to Complete Before the Retaining
Wall May Be Considered Lawful Include the Following
• 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' property 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;
• Prior to obtaining a final building permit, provide a site
survey of the wall that has been issued by either a licensed
land surveyor, or alternatively, a registered civil engineer
who was registered prior to January 1, 1982, that verifies
that the entire wall lies on the Applicant's property; (COA
#10) and
• Obtain a final building permit from the Building Inspection
Department following inspection of the walla
3. Inclusion of Staff Recommended Modifications to the Conditions
of Approval Required by County Planning Commission
This approval by the Board of Supervisors provides for
modification to three conditions that were required by the County
Commission's approval at staff's recommendation.
a.) Period for Administrative Extension of the Period for
Exercising the 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. This condition has been
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.
3
b.) 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, Condition#7.a. has been modified to include that
additional language.
c.) 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. Consequently, Condition#9 has been 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 he has no objection to this
modification.
4. Consequences if the Applicant is Not Able to Obtain a Final
BuildingP_ ermit
4
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 may have to obtain legal access from the
Veirs to allow for necessary drainage improvements on
their property; if access is denied, then the applicant may
not be able to meet the variance permit requirements.
If at the building permit stage, the applicant is unable to meet
either the requirements of the variance permit, or the building
code, or both, and a final building permit does not issue, then the
County will require the Applicant 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.
i
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.
Still, it is possible that the Applicant may be successful in meeting
all County requirements except that drainage improvements on
neighboring property(as may be required by Condition#7) are not
possible because the owner of that property has elected to deny the
Applicant legal access to make those improvements. In this
instance, the Applicant would retain the right to apply to the
County for an amendment to this development permit to seek
elimination of the requirement to make any drainage improvements
The Planning Commission decision provided 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. Therefore,this approval provides for modification of the requirement of 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.
5
to the affected property of the owner. If such an application were
timely filed, then the County would allow the wall to remain in
place while the County processed the application seeking an
amendment to the development permit.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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. Consistent with provisions in the Ordinance Code, the period for
exercising this Design Review/Variance 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
6
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
htip://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.aW
California Holidays
htip://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm.
7
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.
C. 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.
d. The applicant shall make good faith effort to avoid interference
with existing neighborhood traffic flows.
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. Submittal of Drainage Plan Required for County Approval - Before a
building permit is issued, the Applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the
County Building Official and Zoning Administrator for review and
approval. The plan shall specify how runoff from the subject property to
#1251 Palm Avenue (property to the south owned by Veirs; APN 375-
203-003)will be conveyed from 91251 Palm Avenue to Palm Avenue, and
shall include a description of proposed conveyance devices. The applicant
8
shall comply with the approved drainage plan. Before submitting the
drainage plan, the applicant shall obtain written permission from the
owner of#1251 Palm Avenue to enter the property at #1251 Palm Avenue
and construct drainage improvements on #1251 Palm Avenue. The
written permission must be submitted to the County Building Official and
Zoning Administrator along with the drainage plan. If written permission
for entry and construction of drainage improvements on #1251 Palm
Avenue is not granted, the Applicant may apply to amend this
development permit and remove this condition.
8.-- Submittal of Report from Engineer that Wall Meets Required Engineering
Standards - 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
County Building Official. 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'
(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.
10. Site Survey Required -Prior to issuance of a final building permit, the
Applicant shall provide to the Building Inspection Department a site
survey that has been issued by either a licensed land surveyor, or a
registered civil engineer who was registered prior to January 1, 1982,2 that
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County Building Official that the
entire retaining wall is contained on the Applicant's property.
2 Business and Professions Code, §6731.
9
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.
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.
G:\Current Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\vr041134 4-10-2007 coa-e
RMP/RD
10
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (3 Minute Limit) I wish to speak o Agenda Item #: 57)•c�
Complete this form and place it in the upright box near the Date:
speaker's podium, and wait to be called by the Chair.
My comments will be: ❑ General
Personal information is optional. This speaker's card will be
incorporated into the public record of this meeting. ❑ For
C S n ,
El Against
Name: Y 4J
11 >l ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of-
Address: t t V
City: a
Phone:
I am speaking for: ❑ Myself
Organization: C(,I� dI 1: �N ❑ I do not want to speak but would like to
\r Q L leave comments for the Board to consider
" � (use the back of this forna)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,March 13,2007 at 1:00 p.m.in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
A hearing on an appeal filed by John and Carol Veirs of the County Planning
Commission decision to grant an application filed by Roger and Eda Chung for(1)a
design review for a retaining wall on a substandard parcel for purposes of determining
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood,and(2) a variance permit for 2
retaining wall up to five feet in height with a zero-foot setback from both the side and rear
property lines(min. three foot setback required from rear and side property lines), located
at#1255 Palm Avenue, in the Martinez area. (County File#VR04-1134) (APN 375-203-
002) (R-6)
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development,County Administration Building,Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is 1255 Palm Avenue,Martinez.
If you challenge the project in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at, or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,March 13,
2007, at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108,Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez,to meet with any
interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
Rose Marie Pietras, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1216 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday,
March 12, 2007 to confirm your participation.
Date: February 28, 2007
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator ` , ,�
ByQ2���(,, �
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk
i
N � �
C� C14
tT
r uj
o o vi C2
OW Q \ Q i
CL CL 0 W N
00 0 fro 0
w O _
r U. WOC
4 N 043 0
�a •� aIce)
fs0 ell
0���ren o o MEL
Ova
fi
mm0
�? wta
� 0
W � -
agivosalld �� F
i 0 o _
H z
tw!
H u
.1'JR
IV
s7.
r
v 3+
Qv
4 M u]
®
rrte� .-+ � Q WO
U ,.
0O � '*. NUD
�'� s
C!T
Of
OggUi
Www
I-- G
i� 0
JillO N v C2 4`4
o W tU a?
. Q
2 o G I
(L 1r) W 4
N (] iii ID
FA 0
t
00 O W 0
i0 �t Cl
S" O r W04 to �.
vLLI
Sa31lPlt1 o a < W t�9
F
MIL
L
-t OLIO _
Fit-
MM-1 0
9Sd1O ISHIA °' t.Y T w 0 --
Q312lOS32id LO >d b tB
C\ 9- Rt
ib
fitM �.
it -A
a F:. 7#0
oo L,-v
o o a i'r
d umv
C
=si i
C7�
NCC
a
C
EL
.:� 4C�
C
LJ
i
b 0 i
t
Yk
-e > $
eyo �.Y O
b�sQ31Mn o o y G
y
i -
t
5p,�l�aS� ��► r= Q�� � �°
tis c t'
T
s'
t
N .
�p
u�d
a-
o n 0,
�•y
ma
o
r- NCIA
:9
.-
is 0 pts
Eta
tto Ci
b N o ,t � _
�sQ3 n o dao 4c1 •�
55' 1
oaaos c'` a
irk
'sr !
`tt
t'
0
V �v
p tsk {)
C O U� Q gC43 Q r
to00
x o .
U.
r
Na
� cry o vao
i
hh q "pp o
4N (.3:
S
o
►,a
fl�l <+
t! Z
tom!
J 1 �
{A i
Yy
t�
w+i
♦J
V'
cn
irl k
�oa�v
=A.
is
Ul
N v
UA t?
r-
N 0,
o iX.
oar
d 1� NOVAG1
O r
l V°• ' l
co
a�
),stlti `� V-0o w
svoosv"
tom!
r
Rt 0
all
N
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC
HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given
that on Tuesday,March
13,2007 at 1:00 p.m.in the
County Administration
Building,651 Pine Street,
Room 107(Corner of Pine
and Escobar Streets),
Martinez,California,the
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors will
hold a public hearing to
consider the following
planning matter:
A hearing on an appeal
filed by John and Carol
Veirs of the County Plan-
ning Commission deci-
sion to grant an applica-
tion filed by Roger and
Eda Chung for(1)a de-
sign review for a retain-
ing wall on a substandard
parcel for purposes of de-
termining compatibility
with the surroundingg
neighborhood,and(2)a
variance permit for a re-
taining wall up to five
feet in height with a zero-
foot setback from both
the side and rear proper-
ty lines(min.three foot
setback required from
rear and side property
lines),located at#1255
Palm Avenue,in the Mar-
tinez area. (County File
#VR04-1134)(APN 375-
203-002)(R-6)
The location of the sub-
ject property is within the -
unincorporated territory
of the County of Contra
Costa County.State of
California,generally iden-
tified below(a more pre-
cise description may be
examined in the Office of
the Director of Communi-
ty Development,County
Administration Building,
Martinez,California):
The location of the sub-
ject site is 1255 Palm Ave-
nue,Martinez.
If you challenge the proj-
ect in court,you may be
limited to raising only
those issues you or
someone else raised at
the public hearing descri-
bed in this notice,or in
written correspondence
delivered to the County
at,or prior to,the public
hearing.
Prior to the hearing,Com-
munity Development De-
partment
onT esday
March 13,2007,at 12:30
p.m.,in Room JOS,Admin-
istration Building 651
Pine Street,Martinez ,to
meet with an interested
parties in order to(1)an-
swerquestions;(2)re-
view the hearing proce-
dures used by the Board;
(3)clarify the issues be-
ing considered by the
Board;and(4)provide an
opportunity to identify,
resolve,or narrow any
differences which remain
in dispute. If you wish to
attend this meeting with
staff,please call Rose
Marie Pietras,Community
Development Depart-
ment,at(925)335-1216 by
3:ar p.m.on Monday,
March 12,2007 to confirm
your participation.
Date: February 28,2007
John Cullen,Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy
Clerk
LegalCCT#2265904
Publish March 3,2007
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Contra Costa
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled
matter.
I am the Principal Legal Clerk of the Contra Costa Times,
a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published
at 2640 Shadelands Drive in the City of Walnut Creek,
County of Contra Costa, 94598.
And which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of
general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of
Contra Costa, State of California, under the date of
October 22, 1934. Case Number 19764.
The notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in
each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not
in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to-wit:
March 3,
all in the year of 2007
1 certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Walnut Creek, California.
On this 6 day of March, 2007
.................................................
Signature 1�
Contra Costa TimesJ,
P O Box 4147
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
(925) 935-2525
Proof of Publication of:
(attached is a copy of the legal advertisement that
published)
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON PLANNING MATTERS
MARTINEZ AREA
NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday,March 13,2007 at 1:00 p.m.in the County Administration
Building, 651 Pine Street,Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning
matter:
A hearing on an appeal filed by John and Carol Veirs of the County Planning
Commission decision to grant an application filed by Roger and Eda Chung for(1)a
design review for a retaining wall on a substandard parcel for purposes of determining
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood,and(2)a variance permit for-
retaining wall up to five feet in height with a zero-foot setback from both the side and rear
property lines(nun. three foot setback required from rear and side property lines),located
at#1255 Palm Avenue, in the Martinez area. (County File#VR04-1134) (APN 375-203-
002) (R-6)
The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa
County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in
the Office of the Director of Community Development,County Administration Building,Martinez,
California):
The location of the subject site is 1255 Palm Avenue,Martinez.
If you challenge the project in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County
at, or prior to,the public hearing.
Prior to the hearing,Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday,March 13,
2007, at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108, Administration Building,651 Pine Street,Martinez,to meet with any
interested parties in order to(1)answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board;
(3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or
narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff,please call
Rose Marie Pietras, Community Development Department, at(925) 335-1216 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday,
March 12, 2007 to confirm your participation.
Date: February 28,2007
John Cullen, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Katherine Sinclair,Deputy Clerk
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
IN THE MATTER OF
A hearing on an appeal filed by John and Carol Veirs of the County Planning
Commission decision to grant an application filed by Roger and Eda Chung for(1) a
design review for a retaining wall on a substandard parcel for purposes of determining
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and(2)a variance permit for
retaining wall up to five feet in height with a zero-foot setback from both the side and
rear property lines (min.three foot setback required from rear and side property lines),
located at#1255 Palm Avenue, in the Martinez area. (County File#VR04-1134) (APN
375-203-002) (R-6)
Notice of hearing for Tuesday March 13, 2006 at 1:00 pm, was mailed this day, Thursday,
March 1, 2007.
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a
citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled
matter to the following:
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED LIST
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez,
California.
Dated: march 1, 2007
Katherine Sinclair, Deputy Clerk
Mailing/Distribution Labels for a �� MALL
AL
Staff Report for BOS Hearing on
Appeal of Chung Variance Permit
File #VR04-1134
D:\Personal\vr04-1134 bos dist staff
Roger and Eda Chung Milton E. Franke James R. Morgan-
1255 Palm Avenue Law Offices of Hanson&Franke, LLP Law Offices of James R. Morgan
Martinez, CA 94553 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 265 . 1511 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Walnut Creek, CA 94598.
INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE
Kevin Dumford C C COUNTY FIRE
Building Inspection Dept. PROTECTION DISTRICT
Martinez CONSOLIDATED
I
rs
AkMAV-09-008-L uoll:)na;sul,p luawa6ae4:)ap suaS @09 LS @AIGAV I!aege6 al zasmin
womAjane-mA w► a!l!na;el za;lnsuo:) v salad a sall3e;sananb!13
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 LUIE 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
09L5 Taan;ea3 laad�(se3 JO; waded paa3y @09LS 31`dldW31®band as0
c ® ®A�3/�t/�
slagel laad�(se3
laa4S uolpnalsul eaS a
Aa3AV-09-008-1 uolpnj;sul,p }uauaa6jey�ap suaS 0091S OAa3AV l!aege6 al zosinn
W03' �ane-MMM apina}el zallnsuo:) v jalad a salpel sa4anbq
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 9.4553
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 O 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
Y ®0915®A213A�S Yajnlea3 laad�(se3 jo} jaded p9a3T ®0915 31`dldW31®�(jany ash
hays uol;:)njlsul eas v slagel laad Ase3
A>d3AV-09-009-1 uolpna;sul,p ;uawa6jey3 ap sues 00965 OAMAV;laege6 al zaslll;n
wo��(- MAe-Mm'7A alpa;el za;lnsuo:) Y v salad a selpe}sa;4anb!;3
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
p0965 a
o ® vain;ea3 lead�Cse3 Jo} waded paa3q 00915 31V'IdW310/GaAd asfl
® A2J3Ad� 0 i;aa S uopnilsul eas sIagellas (se
3v ,
MILTON FRANKE JOHN VEIRS CHESTER NELSON
1850 MT. DIABLO BLVD. #630 841 MARIE AVE. 1238 PALM AVE.
WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 MARTINEZ, CA 94553
JERRY ENGLAND SAUL DE VALLE JAMES R. MORGAN
1275 PALM AVE. 1255 PALM AVE. 1511 TREAT BLVD.
MARTINEZ, CA 94553 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 WALNUT CREEK, CA 94598
TIMBERLIN RUNNION
1275 PALM AVE.
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
x Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com
11/02/2005 1 1:00 AM cc Maureen Parkes/CD/CCC,
4 bcc
Subject Publication Request-Franke/Chung
Hi Anashia,
Please publish the attached legal notice in the CCTimes: Franke/Chung
One day only, Saturday March 3, 2007
Reference PO#: 2044
Please confirm receipt of request.
Should you have any questions, please call me at the number listed below.
Thank you,
Kathy Sinclair
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County 1a.
Qd d
925.335.1902
[mad,"
Franke-Chung-031307.doc
cctlegals@cctimes.com To KSinc@cob.cccounty.us
02/27/2007 06:37 PM cc
Please respond to bcc
cctlegals@cctimes.com
Subject [BULK] Re: Publication Request-Franke/Chung
The email that you have just sent has been received by the Legals Desk for
Contra Costa Times, Concord Transcript and
Contra Costa Sun. A representative will reply with pricing within the formal
e-mail confirmation as soon as the notice
is processed. Our hours are Monday-Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM. If you have further
questions, please call (925) 943-8019.
When sending a request, please:
* Make sure you have included your name, direct phone number, company name,
main phone number (excluding toll-free
numbers) , mailing address, and the Newspaper Name & date(s) in which you'd
like the notice to publish.
Thank you.
Contra Costa Times
Concord Transcript
Contra Costa Sun
Legal Advertising
(925) 943-8019
(925) 943-8359 - fax
cctlegals@cctimes.com