|
|
|
|
Project Title: |
100 Valley Oaks Drive Variance |
|
|
|
|
County File: |
CDVR25-01004 |
|
|
|
|
Applicant/Owner: |
Kimberley Sowers (Applicant) / Michael and Cheryl Ladouceur (Owner) |
|
|
|
|
Zoning/General Plan: |
R-20 Single-Family Residential District / RL Residential Low Density |
|
|
|
|
Site Address/Location: |
100 Valley Oaks Drive in the Alamo area of unincorporated Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 197-301-002) |
|
|
|
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
Exempt; CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) |
|
|
|
|
Project Planner: |
Maria Lara-Lemus, Project Planner, (925) 655-2904 |
|
|
Maria.Lara-Lemus@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
|
|
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny (See Section II for Full Recommendation) |
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant requests approval of a Variance Permit to allow an approximately seven-foot three-inch secondary front yard setback (where 20 feet is the minimum required) for an existing unpermitted 300 square-foot accessory structure.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the County Zoning Administrator DENY County File CDVR25-01004 based on staff not being able to make the necessary findings for approval of a Variance, as required by Section 26-2.2006 of the County Code.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: RL Residential Low Density.
B. Zoning: R-20 Single-Family Residential District
C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(4), Review for Exemption, exemption for projects that will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency.
D. Previous Applications:
CDSD69-03780: This subdivision of 17 acres of land into 27 lots was approved by the County Planning Commission on January 26, 1971. Parcel 2 of CDSD69-03780 is the project site. The CDSD69-03780 Final Map established a drainage easement along the northern third of Parcel 2 and a 12.5-foot wide access and utility easement along the southern boundary of the parcel.
IV. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION
The 26,040 square-foot project site is a corner parcel, located at the southwest corner of Stone Valley Road and Valley Oaks Drive. As shown in Attachment B, the 12.5-foot wide access easement runs along the southern boundary of the parcel. This easement provides access onto the parcel as well as to Parcels 1, and 12 of the CDSD69-03780 subdivision. A tributary of San Ramon Creek runs adjacent to the northern boundary of the parcel, and the drainage easement encumbers the northern third of the parcel. In addition, the portions of the northern and eastern areas of the parcel are within the AE flood zone, which is a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area.
The lot is developed with a two-story single-family residence in the western half of the parcel and a pool and the subject accessory structure in the eastern half of the parcel. The development pattern and size of the lot are similar to other properties in the vicinity along Valley Oaks Drive. The accessory structure has been built on the eastern portion of the lot within the AE Special Flood Hazard Area.
V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of a Variance Permit to allow a secondary front yard setback of approximately seven feet three inches (where 20 feet is the minimum required) for an existing unpermitted 300 square-foot accessory structure, as shown in Attachment D. The accessory structure was constructed without obtaining the required Elevation Certificate and Floodplain Permit, or the required planning and building approvals. Approval of the variance would allow the applicant to proceed with obtaining an Elevation Certificate and Floodplain Permit and subsequently, a building permit, for the as-built accessory structure.
VI. AGENCY COMMENTS
An Agency Comment Request packet was sent on January 14, 2025, to a number of public agencies, including the Environmental Health Division of Contra Costa Health, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council. Agency comments received by staff are included in Attachment E. Following are summaries of the comments received.
A. Contra Costa County Flood Control District: On January 16, 2025, The Engineering Services Division of the Public Works Department, on behalf of the Flood Control District, submitted an email stating that the accessory structure lies within a FEMA designated Regulatory Floodway and that no construction can occur within the floodway unless the applicant can verify that the encroachment into the floodway will not cause a rise in the FEMA-determined Base Flood Elevation. Verification requires an Elevation Certificate prepared by a licensed surveyor and supporting documentation as to how the base flood elevation was determined relative to the building site. This documentation will be the basis for a Floodplain Permit that will also be required.
B. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San): On January 28, 2025, Central San submitted a letter stating that the sewer line connecting the sink in the accessory structure needs to be shown on the plans and a Central San permit is required. Central San also states that the applicant is required to submit full-size improvement plans and pay all applicable fees, prior to building permit issuance.
C. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD): On January 28, 2025, EBMUD submitted a memorandum stating that if additional water service is needed (e.g., domestic service, private fire service, and/or public fire hydrants), the project sponsor should contact EBMUD's New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine the costs and conditions of providing additional water service to the development. EBMUD also states that it owns a water distribution pipeline within the access and utility easement along the southern boundary of the parcel and that any construction activity within the easement needs to be coordinated with EBMUD.
D. Environmental Health Division of Contra Costa Health: On January 31, 2025, the Environmental Health Division submitted a letter stating that a permit is required for any well or soil boring, abandoned wells and septic tanks must be destroyed under a permit from the Division, and if the parcel is not served by sanitary sewer, a septic system is required that complies with current standards.
E. Alamo Municipal Advisory Council (MAC): On September 3, 2025, staff of the District 2 Supervisor’s Office submitted a letter stating that at its meeting on September 2, 2025, the Alamo MAC recommended approval of the Variance.
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
An Agency Comment Request packet was also sent on January 14, 2025, to the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA). The AIA comments received by staff are included in Attachment F. Following is a summary of the comments received.
On February 26, 2025, the AIA submitted a letter recommending approval of the variance, stating that similar accessory structures are common in Alamo, that the physical limitations of the property limit the owner’s ability to use and enjoy their property, and that the structure without any side walls does not obstruct views and meets the intent and purpose of the land use district but if the structure were to be enclosed, it would be different.
VIII. REQUEST FOR HEARING
A Notice of Intent to Recommend Denial of Variance Review Application was sent to the applicant on September 26, 2025, that included an October 6, 2025, deadline to request a public hearing. On September 26, 2025, a request for a public hearing was received from Kimberly Sowers of 100 Valley Oaks Drive, who is the applicant and previous owner of the parcel. The hearing request is included in Attachment G. Following are summaries of the comments received along with staff responses:
A. Comment #1: “This is a shade structure that cannot be accommodated at any other location in the yard.”
Staff Response: The 26,040 square-foot parcel is located within the R-20 Single-Family Residential District, where the standard minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. The parcel includes a 12.5-foot wide access and utility easement along the southern boundary of the parcel and a drainage easement on the northern third of the parcel. In addition to the access and drainage easements, portions of the northern and eastern areas of the parcel are within the AE FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area. These constraints do not render the lot undevelopable as the existing single-family residence was constructed on the western half of the parcel outside of the access and drainage easements, and the AE flood zone.
Despite the constraints imposed by the drainage easement and the AE Special Flood Hazard Area encumbering the northern and eastern areas of the parcel, suitable developable areas remain around the pool to fully accommodate the 300 square foot accessory structure without encroaching into the drainage easement or the AE flood zone.
The accessory structure is the subject of current Code Enforcement Case CECF22-00144 that was initiated on June 8, 2022 for construction of the structure without approvals or permits. Thus, the need for a variance was not created by the size, shape or topography of the parcel or by the existing easements or the AE Special Flood Hazard Area. Instead, the current hardship is directly attributable to the unpermitted construction of the accessory structure in its current location by the applicant.
B. Comment #2: “This is not a habitable structure, not an impediment to the surrounding neighbors.”
Staff Response : The setbacks established for the R-20 District, including the secondary front yard setback requirements, are intended to facilitate orderly low-density residential development on lots of at least 20,000 square feet in size. These setbacks are applicable to all properties within the subject zoning district. Allowing the accessory structure to be located at a reduced secondary front yard setback along Valley Oaks Drive would be contrary to all other properties along Valley Oaks Drive, as these properties meet the yard setback requirements along the roadway. Accordingly, allowing the accessory structure in its current location disrupts the uniformity of the neighborhood in relation to the roadway, as shown in Attachment C. Thus, the current location of the accessory structure is an uncommon location for a residential amenity and is inconsistent and incompatible with its surroundings.
IX. STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject parcel is located in the R-20 Single-Family Residential District wherein a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet is required, and a minimum secondary front yard setback of 20 feet is required. The lot has three frontages including a primary frontage along the access and utility easement along the southern boundary of the parcel and two secondary frontages along Valley Oak Drive and Stone Valley Road. The 26,040 square-foot lot is currently developed with an existing 2,686 square-foot single-family residence, an approximately 450 square-foot pool, and a 300 square-foot accessory structure. The accessory structure was built in the AE Special Flood Hazard Area without first obtaining the required Elevation Certificate, Floodplain Permit, and building permit. The location of the accessory structure is set back from the Valley Oak Drive secondary frontage a distance of 7 feet 3-inches and is well within the required 20-foot secondary front yard setback. The accessory structure was built without first obtaining the required Variance Permit. In this neighborhood, accessory structures have been constructed in compliance with the yard setback restrictions in the County Code. There appears to be no precedent in the vicinity for permitting an accessory building at a reduced secondary frontage setback and within the AE flood zone. Consequently, approval of the requested variance would be considered a grant of special privilege.
The drainage easement and the AE Special Flood Hazard Area are special circumstances applicable to the parcel that would allow for placing an accessory structure somewhere on the parcel outside of the drainage easement and AE flood zone. However, rather than placing the accessory structure in an area where a finding can be made to support the variance, the applicant chose to build the structure within the AE flood zone, and thereby negated any special circumstance that could have applied to the location of the accessory structure.
The intent and purpose of the R-20 District is to facilitate orderly development and maintenance of a low-density single-family residential neighborhood, including single-family residences and accessory structures. The setbacks established for the R-20 District, including the secondary front yard setback, are intended to facilitate low-density residential development, maintain a this residential character in the neighborhood, and to provide open space for air and light. These setbacks are applicable to all properties within the subject zoning district. Allowing the accessory structure to be located at a reduced secondary front yard setback along Valley Oaks Drive would be contrary to all other properties along Valley Oaks Drive, as these properties meet the yard setback requirements along the roadway. Accordingly, allowing the accessory structure in its current location disrupts the uniformity of the placement of buildings and structures in this neighborhood in relation to the roadway. The current location of the accessory structure is an uncommon location for a residential amenity and as such does not meet the intent and purpose of the R-20 District.
X. CONCLUSION
The 26,040 square foot project site, located in the R-20 Single-Family Residential District, can accommodate a 300 square-foot accessory structure outside of the drainage easement and the AE Special Flood Hazard Area. In fact, the drainage easement and AE flood zone are special circumstances that would support placing the accessory structure in another part of the parcel even if a yard setback variance is required. It is a grant of special privilege to allow this accessory structure within the AE flood zone. Moreover, allowing the accessory structure in its current location is unprecedented in the Valley Oaks Drive neighborhood and does not meet the intent and purpose of the R-20 District. Thus, staff is unable to make the required findings for recommending approval of the Variance to allow a seven-foot three-inch secondary-front-yard setback (where 20 feet is the minimum required) for an existing unpermitted 300 square-foot accessory structure. Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator deny the Variance because the findings required by the County Ordinance Code Section 26-2.2006 cannot be made.