To: Board of Supervisors
From: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation and Development
Report Title: Appeal of the County Planning Commission's Decision to Deny the Construction of a New Single-Family Residence at 2754 Limerick Road in the Unincorporated Tara Hills Area.
?Recommendation of the County Administrator ? Recommendation of Board Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. OPEN the public hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision to deny a tree permit and variances to allow the construction of a new, single-family residence located at 2754 Limerick Road in the unincorporated Tara Hills area; RECEIVE testimony; and CLOSE the public hearing.
2. GRANT the appeal by Carl Adams.
3. DETERMINE that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) and (e) [new construction of small structures].
4. APPROVE the tree permit to allow the removal of four code-protected trees for the purpose of constructing the new, single-family residence.
5. APPROVE variances to allow a 0-foot front setback for the construction of a driveway platform structure and a 15-foot front setback for the construction of a three-car carport on the driveway platform.
6. APPROVE the attached findings in support of the project.
7. APPROVE the project conditions of approval.
8. APPROVE the project, County File #CDVR23-01026.
9. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. The applicant is responsible for all staff time and material cost associated with the processing of the application.
BACKGROUND:
This hearing is to address the appeal filed by Carl Adams of the County Planning Commission's (CPC) May 28, 2025, decision to deny the variances and tree permit that were initially approved by the County Zoning Administrator at a public hearing on May 6, 2024. The Zoning Administrator's decision was appealed by a neighbor, Ronald Collins, in a timely manner on May 15, 2024. The appeal was initially heard by the County Planning Commission (CPC) at a public meeting on December 11, 2024.
Neither the applicant, Carl Adams, nor a representative, was present at the hearing on December 11, 2024. At the hearing, Commission Chair Van Buskirk opened the public hearing and accepted testimony from the appellant, Ronald Collins. After receiving Mr. Collins' testimony, the Commissioners voted to continue the matter as an open hearing to give the applicant and staff time to respond to the Commissioners' four questions concerning the following:
* Unpermitted fill/illegal dumping on the subject property in the past;
* Unpermitted trenching related to drainage issues on the property;
* The reason for the proposed removal of two trees not located in the construction zone; and
* The possible relocation of the proposed residence to avoid tree removal for the carport.
The matter was heard again by the CPC as a continued hearing item on May 28, 2025, during which staff presented responses to the four questions posed by the CPC at their meeting on December 11, 2024. During the public hearing, testimony was received from Zachary Knox of Knox and Ross Law Group on behalf of the applicant, and from the appellant, Ronald Collins. The Chair then brought the matter back to the CPC for deliberation at which time additional questions were asked of Carl Adams (applicant), and Zachary Knox. After receiving testimony, the CPC voted to grant the appeal and deny the variances and tree permit based on the inability to make the required variance findings. The CPC supported its decision to grant the appeal and deny the project with the following findings:
1. Approval of the variances were a grant of special privilege that is not reflected or needed anywhere else in the neighborhood. The purchase of the subject property with development limitations does not entitle the applicant to those variances necessary to develop the property. The applicant has also not demonstrated that the access provided by the variance is the only reasonable means of access to the property; and
2. Reasonable development of the subject property may not necessitate removal of all the trees designated for removal. A reasonable redesign of the residence could possibly avoid the removal of at least one healthy tree, but the applicant has not considered or analyzed redesign alternatives despite requests from the commission.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Site Description: The subject property is located within the community of Tara Hills in the unincorporated San Pablo area of Contra Costa County. The approximately 0.5-acre vacant lot fronting Dolan Way and located approximately 145 feet east of Limerick Road is bounded by Tara Hills Elementary School to the east and residential properties to the south, west, and north. The trapezoid-shaped lot is steeply sloped with an elevation of approximately 160 feet above sea level from the southeast corner of the property at the Dolan Way frontage sloping downwards to an elevation of approximately 120 feet at the northwest corner of the property. The lot is steepest in the southern area, adjacent to Dolan Way, where slopes are 26% or more in grade. Although the property has a Limerick Road street address, the property does not front on Limerick Road. However, based on the subdivision map for Tract 2668 (recorded 1959) and the legal property description of the subject property, the subject property may have access to Limerick Road via an easement. The subdivision map for Tract 2668 describes this as a 48-foot easement for "public ingress and egress" for a "future improvement club" on the subject property; however, the legal property description for the subject property describes it as a 30-foot access easement. The easement is located adjacent to Dolan Way and terminates at the western property boundary of the subject property. This area is also very steep with slopes approximately 26% or more in grade as shown on the attached Slope Percentage map. Portions of the easement are developed with existing retaining walls and residential improvements including a carport.
General Plan:
On November 5, 2024, the County Board of Supervisors adopted a new County General Plan (Envision 2045) placing the subject property within the Residential Low-Medium density (RLM) General Plan designation. When the application was deemed "complete" for processing in November 2023, the subject property was located within the Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) General Plan (2005-2020) land use designation. Therefore, the SH land use designation is still applicable. Primary and secondary land uses permitted in the SH designation include detached single-family homes and accessory buildings and structures considered to be compatible with high density homes, including accessory dwelling units. The SH land use designation allows between 5.0 and 7.2 single-family units per net acre. The project proposes one single-family residence and one accessory dwelling unit on the 0.5-acre property for a total of two units. Thus, there is no change in the residential density that is allowed by the SH General Plan land use designation.
Zoning:
The subject property is located within an R-6, Single-Family Residential (R-6) zoning district which is intended to promote the orderly development of high-density residential neighborhoods. The uses permitted in the R-6 district include a detached single-family dwelling on each lot and the accessory structures (e.g. carports) and uses normally auxiliary to it, including accessory dwelling units. The development standards of the R-6 district require a minimum front setback of 20 feet, a minimum secondary front setback of 15 feet, a side yard width of five feet wide, a minimum aggregate side yard width of 15 feet, and a minimum 15-foot rear yard.
The County's Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance (County Code Chapter 816-6) is intended to provide for the protection of trees on private property through restitution for tree removal while allowing for reasonable enjoyment of private property rights and development.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of a variance for a 0-foot front setback (where 20 feet is required) for the construction of a driveway platform structure extending from the Dolan Way frontage for access to a proposed single-family residence and junior accessory dwelling unit to be constructed on a vacant lot. The applicant also requests approval of a 15-foot front setback (where 20 feet is required) for a three-car carport that would be constructed on the driveway platform to provide off-street parking for the residence and junior accessory dwelling unit.
In addition, the applicant requests approval of a tree permit to remove two (2) coast live oak trees approximately 40 inches in combined diameter to allow for construction of the proposed driveway platform and carport, and removal of one (1) coast live oak tree approximately 7.5 inches in diameter and one (1) red willow tree approximately 10 inches in diameter located approximately 26 feet to the east of the proposed residence due to poor health, structure, and form (Arborist Report, November 14, 2022).
APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S MAY 28, 2025, DECISION
On June 4, 2025, Carl Adams filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission's denial of County File #CDVR23-01026. The main points of the appeal are summarized below, followed by staff responses.
APPEAL OF CARL ADAMS
1) The Commission applied incorrect legal standard for "special privilege" by demonstrating predetermined bias against variance applications by stating that "all variances constitute a special privilege".
Staff Response: The County Planning Commission concluded that granting variances to allow a 0-foot setback for an elevated driveway platform structure and a 15-foot setback for a carport would be a grant of special privilege because elevated driveway structures for accessing properties are not common in the vicinity or in the respective land use district in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Although an elevated driveway structure used as a means for accessing property is not common in the vicinity, staff considers that it is not uncommon for properties within the respective R-6 zoning district to be granted variances for reduced setbacks when they have similarly steep topography that limits the potential for development. Driveway access is common as the primary means of access to properties. In addition, off-street parking is required pursuant to the R-6 zoning district standards. Thus, staff considers that based on the attached findings, neither variance requested is a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties.
2) The Commission misapplied "special circumstances" requirements by requiring geotechnical, biological, and stormwater reports as prerequisites for variance approval, rather than basing their decision on demonstrated property conditions (topography, shape, size) and thereby creating new, unwritten standards for variance applications.
Staff Response: The Commission requested geotechnical studies and storm water calculations to help better understand the conditions of the site. As supported in the attached variance findings the special reports requested by the Commission are not required at the entitlement stage for a variance application and are not on the application checklist for deeming an application complete. However, special reports are periodically requested as part of an application review if it is deemed that there is a need. The applicant submitted a geotechnical report and an arborist report for this project given the special conditions the subject property which is steeply sloped and has trees that may be affected by the construction.
3) The Commission ignored substantial evidence in support of all required findings including no special privilege, special circumstances due to topography, and meeting the intent and purpose of the R-6 Zoning district, and the Zoning Administrator properly found all three statutory criteria satisfied the findings.
Staff Response: The attached variance findings include evidence in support of granting the variances. The subject parcel faces development and access limitations due to the parcel's slope and topography. Additionally, the status of the parcel's access rights to Limerick Road, as opposed to Dolan Way, are uncertain. As described in the attached variance findings, the variances do not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on properties in the vicinity because the variance allows for the construction of a driveway and facilitates access to the parcel and the proposed residence; driveway access from a public right-of-way is common to most if not all properties in the vicinity. The attached findings also describe that the parcel's steep slope along Dolan Way constitutes a special circumstance that would prevent access to the subject parcel and would thus deprive the parcel of rights enjoyed by other residential properties in the vicinity. Finally, the attached findings describe that the variance is necessary to provide driveway access from Dolan Way to allow the construction of a new single-family residence, a use that meets the intent and purpose of the R-6 zoning district.
4) The project provides needed housing units to address regional housing shortages and denial of the project goes against state law requiring local agencies to facilitate housing development and in meeting the County's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Staff Response: The subject property was identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Element Land Inventory as having the capacity for 3 above-moderate-income residential units. Staff considers that the required Housing Sites Inventory findings exist in support of the project for two units on the subject property. Therefore, staff has recommended approval of the project considering that there is a surplus of above-moderate income units on other sites within the County, and there would be no net loss in the Housing Element Sites Inventory as required by State housing law.
5) None of the neighbor concerns over privacy/views, tree removal, drainage/runoff, and construction impacts override variance criteria.
Staff Response: In their appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision, the neighbor indicated a concern about the negative impact of the project on their rights to privacy, views, as well as concerns about the project's potential impacts on their property due to drainage, runoff, and construction (e.g., noise). In addition, the neighbor indicated a concern about removing healthy trees. Staff agrees with the Appellant (Carl Adams) that pursuant to County code section 26-2.2006, variance approval is contingent on the decision-making body finding that three conditions exist prior to approval of the variance application. None of the three conditions require a finding that the project would not result in privacy, view, drainage, runoff, or construction impacts, or whether or not the factors exist for code-protected tree removal pursuant to County code section 816-6.8010. Staff considers that the three required findings for variance approval and the factors for tree removal exist as discussed in the attached findings section of this report.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project to construct a new single-family residence on a vacant lot is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan including the intent and purpose of the previous SH, Single-Family Residential-High Density land use designation in which the subject property was located when the application was deemed complete. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the standards of the R-6 Single-Family Residential Zoning District which allows for the granting of variances. Based on the information available for this application, staff does not agree with the County Planning Commission's findings that the special circumstance of steep topography along the subject property at the Dolan Way frontage has not been established as well as their finding that granting the requested variances for reduced front setbacks for construction of a driveway platform and carport constitutes 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. Given the topographical constraints of the property, the requested tree removal is also reasonable in order to allow the property owner an opportunity to develop and maintain the site similar to other residential properties in unincorporated areas of the County. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant the appeal by Carl Adams and approve County file #CDVR23-01026, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
None. This project is a proposal to construct a new single-family residence with variances to the front setback and a tree permit.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
In the event that the Board of Supervisors denies the appeal and does not approve the project, the applicant will not obtain the required variance permit or tree permit needed to allow the construction of the proposed driveway platform and carport. The applicant and owner, Carl Adams, would be unable to move forward with the project to construct a new single-family residence and junior accessory dwelling unit as proposed.