None. The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to recover additional costs associated with the application process.
This hearing is to consider an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s February 10, 2021 decision to deny an appeal and approve the project.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Site Description: The subject property, assessor's parcel number 368-145-024, is located at 58 Canyon Lake Drive in Port Costa. The property is a 3,300-square-foot rectangular lot with a 33-foot average width. The property is located between Canyon Lake Drive on the south and Prospect Avenue on the north, and thus has two frontages. The main entrance of the residence faces Canyon Lake Drive. The project site is relatively flat; however, the subject property begins to rise steeply towards Prospect Avenue. One man-made watercourse runs within the boundaries of the subject property through an approximately 4-foot-wide underground drainage culvert for Bull Valley Creek in a generally southwest to northeast direction between the sloped area of the lot and the northern extent of the existing home.
The existing single-family residence was constructed in 1939 and is a 639-square-foot, one-story, two-bedroom, and one-bathroom bungalow with an overall height of approximately 14 feet. The residence and deck were damaged by a fire in June of 2019 and are currently uninhabitable. The property contains one mature tree and limited other landscaping. None of the trees are code-protected or will be encroached upon by the proposed development.
General Plan:
Land Use Designation: The project site is located within a Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) General Plan land use designation. The proposed fire damage repair, new accessory structures, and addition of living area to the existing single-family residence are consistent with the uses allowed within this designation. This designation allows between 5.0 and 7.2 single-family units per net acre and the proposed residential improvements will not change the density of residential development for this site.
Specific Geographic Area Policies: General Plan Policies for the Port Costa Area generally pertain to multiple-family residential and commercial development, establishment of a recreational area, and preservation of the open space surrounding the town, and thus do not apply to improvements such as those proposed as part of this project.
Zoning:
R-6 Zoning District Standards: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-6) Zoning District. The intent of the R-6 Zoning District is to provide for the orderly development of high density, single-family residential uses, accessory structures, and uses normally auxiliary to them. The project involves constructing repairs and additions upon an existing residence, which is consistent with uses allowed in the R-6 district.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of variances to setback requirements, a small lot design review, and an exception to storm drain easement requirements, to allow fire damage repairs and living space additions for an existing residence, replacement of a retaining wall, and off-street parking accommodations.
The project consists of the following elements:
- Variance to allow a 1-foot, 10-inch side yard (where 5 feet is required) along the western property boundary; an 8-foot, 9-inch side yard (where 10 feet is required) along the eastern property boundary; and a 10-foot, 7-inch side yard aggregate (where 15 feet is required) all to allow the construction of 1st and 2nd story additions to an existing single-family residence and a new wooden deck;
- Variance to allow a 0-foot side yard (where 3-feet is required) and a 17-foot, 6-inch setback (where 20-feet is required) to allow the construction of a retaining wall over 3-feet in height;
- Variance to allow a 0-foot side yard (where 5 feet is required) to allow two, tandem off-street parking spaces in an existing driveway;
- Exception for a 2-foot, 6-inch width (where 3 feet is required) from the outside culvert wall to the building footprint pursuant to the requirements of storm drain easements of Section 914-14.004;
- Small Lot Design Review approval to allow a new 90 square-foot, above-ground wading pool and all the improvements described above on a substandard parcel.
The proposed, approximately 185 square-foot addition on the lower level and the new, approximately 957 square-foot 2nd story addition, would provide for larger living areas, additional bedrooms, and access to the new wading pool and wooden deck at the rear of the home. A new concrete retaining wall approximately 6 feet in height is proposed to replace the existing wood retaining wall located north of the residence. The property has an existing driveway that runs between the residence and the eastern property line, but there is inadequate space for a garage. Therefore, two tandem off-street parking spaces, as allowed pursuant to Section 82-16.404(d) of the County Ordinance, are proposed for accommodation within the existing driveway.
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND DECISION OF
FEBRUARY 10, 2021
The matter was initially heard and approved by the County Zoning Administrator on July 6, 2020. One letter of appeal was received on July 16, 2020, and the appeal was heard by the County Planning Commission (CPC) during a hearing on February 10, 2021. During the public hearing, testimony was accepted from the applicant, appellants (Chris Palacio and Ryan DeGooyer), and members of the public. After taking testimony and a presentation of project analysis by County staff, the CPC denied the appeal and approved the project with modifications, including a new variance to allow a 17-foot, 6-inch front setback (where 20 feet is required) for a retaining wall, a new exception for a 2-foot, 6 -inch width (where 3 feet is required) from the culvert wall to the building footprint, and an additional condition of approval requiring the dedication of a private storm drain easement (COA #14).
APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION’S FEBRUARY 10, 2021 DECISION
On February 19, 2021, an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s approval of County File #CDVR19-01051 was filed by Ryan DeGooyer. The main points of the appeal are summarized below, followed by staff responses.
APPEAL OF RYAN DEGOOYER
- The County misapplied its setback requirements and the applicant was allowed to swap front and back yard setbacks without requesting a 15-foot front yard variance for the residential structure.
The setback lines established by Divisions 82 and 84 shall apply wherever any boundary line of a lot or parcel of land is common with the boundary line of any state highway, public road, or street.
When a parcel abuts a public road on two parcel boundary lines, staff identifies the parcel as having two frontages. For example, a corner parcel that abuts two public roads has two frontages. Similarly, a parcel that is between two roads—as the subject property is situated—also has two frontages, Therefore, County Code Section 84-4.1006 regarding rear yard setbacks is not applicable to the subject property. The R-6 zoning district requires a principal frontage of at least 20 feet and requires a secondary frontage of at least 15 feet for a corner lot. The County has previously applied the same primary and secondary front yard setback requirement for any parcel with two frontages.
In addition, the principal frontage is not associated with the “front door” of a structure. The County has, historically, allowed applicants the opportunity to set the configuration that best suits the project or needs of properties with two frontages. Thus, in order to reduce structural encroachment into the drainage easement area for the existing culvert, the applicant revised the design prior to the CPC hearing to shift the residence southward approximately 10 feet resulting in the proposed setbacks. As proposed, the 15-foot secondary front yard setback at Canyon Lake Drive and the 20-foot primary front yard setback at Prospect Avenue for the residential structure is consistent with the R-6 zoning district standards. Because the proposed 15-foot front setback for the residential structure is consistent with the R-6 zoning district, a variance is not required.
- The applicant’s drawings incorrectly depict the size and location of the culvert resulting in a miscalculation of the required easement.
Staff Response: According to the appellant and their surveyor, Foresite Engineering Surveys and Utility Studies, the dimensions of the culvert below the appellant’s property “could be” approximately 5 feet wide with structure walls approximately 18 to 24 inches thick. However, the hand drawn diagram included with the appellant’s letter appears to indicate that the “Conc. & Brick” culvert is approximately 52 inches (4 feet, 4-inches) in width by 48 inches (4 feet) in height. In January of 2020, the applicant obtained a topographic survey of the subject property prepared by St. John Land Consulting indicating the location of a 4-foot-wide culvert across the subject property. This topographic survey was not submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) prior to the July 6, 2020, Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing, nor was the culvert shown on the architectural drawings and site plans submitted prior to that hearing. Additionally, there were inconsistencies between the revised plans submitted for the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission and the January of 2020 topographic survey. Therefore, the applicant submitted revised plans on March 5, 2021 that are based on the topographic survey of St. John Land Consulting, and that indicate the proposed residential improvements will not encroach on the culvert.
Because the two culvert surveys performed thus far do not agree, staff recommends that the project be conditioned to require a field survey prior to obtaining a building permit, either by “pot-holing” the culvert’s physical location or by another underground location assessment (COA #12). The pot-holing method is administered by starting with a small hole approximately 8 to 12 inches in diameter, and then using a vacuum excavator to dig down until the utility is located. This will allow for visual confirmation of the culvert location and size, while avoiding the use of shovels or a backhoe that could potentially cause damage.
The appellant is also concerned that the proposed residential addition would be built on top of the drainage easement and close to the wall of the culvert, which may “cave in the culvert and result in flooding damage to [their] home.” However, as shown in the appellant’s Topographic Survey of their property and the “closed conduit” mapping overlay included in their letter, several existing structures have been built on top of the culvert, including the appellant’s garage. It is unknown when these accessory structures were built on top of the culvert, and staff is unaware of any documentation indicating that they have caused the culvert to cave in or have caused additional flooding in the area. Nevertheless, staff recommends that the project be conditioned to require a report from a licensed structural engineer be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit verifying that the new residence foundation would not compromise the existing culvert (COA #13).
Finally, the appellant expresses concern that the proposed drainage easement and exception request is solely advantageous to the applicant and detrimental to the safety of the community. Generally speaking, the intent of a private drainage easement is to ensure that the drainage (e.g., culvert) is accessible in the event that it requires maintenance or replacement. Thus, the proposed drainage easement would be for the benefit of the appellant, whose property is located east of the subject property, and the surrounding community that benefits from the working culvert. Staff has recommended several conditions of approval to provide assurance that the proposed improvements or identified easement width would not compromise the culvert structure or cause additional flooding, including a required compliance review (COA #6), a field survey to determine the exact dimensions and location of the culvert (COA #12), and a report from a licensed structural engineer verifying that the new residence foundation would not compromise the existing culvert (COA #13). Additionally, because the subject property lies within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone A, the applicant must calculate and establish the base flood elevation (B.F.E.) of the parcel and obtain, if required, a floodplain permit from the Public Works Department prior to building permit issuance (COA #11).
- The appellant requests a neutral third party to map the culvert.
Staff Response: Staff has recommended incorporation of COA #12, which requires the applicant to obtain a field survey (e.g., “pot-holing” or other approved underground location assessment), that can identify the precise location and dimensions of the culvert. This condition should resolve any remaining uncertainty of the culvert location and/or location because it allows for visual assessment of the actual infrastructure on the project site, rather than approximations based on plans or inspection of other portions of the culvert.
- The appellant requests the Board of Supervisors give the planner, appellant, and applicant time to work together to determine a true and accurate location and width of the culvert.
Staff Response: The applicant has indicated to County staff that they do not wish to meet with or further discuss this matter with the appellant after obtaining a licensed surveyor. Therefore, staff has proceeded with the application review and appeal process based on the information provided by both parties.
The dispute over the size and location of the culvert is best resolved by an onsite investigation, which includes excavation and visual inspection of the existing culvert. Therefore, staff recommends two new conditions of approval which would require that a field survey (e.g., “pot-holing” or other approved underground location survey) be administered to determine the exact dimensions and location of the culvert, and that a report from a licensed structural engineer be submitted to verify that the new residence foundation would not compromise the existing culvert (COA #11 and #12).
- The home is too large for the lot.
Staff Response: As discussed in the Small Lot Design Review findings prepared by staff, the 1,142-square-foot addition will increase the size of the existing 639 square-foot residence to 1,781 square feet. Based on available information, nearby residences in the Port Costa area generally range in size from approximately 662 square feet to 5,141 square feet, with many located on similarly substandard lots. Therefore, the residence will remain compatible with other residences in the vicinity regarding size.
In the event that the Board of Supervisors grants the appeal, the applicant will not obtain the required Variance, Design Review, and Exception entitlements needed to allow the proposed additions and repair work for the fire-damaged residence. The applicant and owners, Ryan Bosworth and Tommy Tran, would be unable to move forward with the project as proposed.
Speakers: Ryan Bosworth and Tommy Tran, Applicants/owners