|
RECONSIDERATION REQUEST |
|
Project Title: |
Variances & Design Review for New Single-Family Residence |
|
County File(s): |
CDVR22-01062 |
|
Appellants: |
Chris Palacio and Ryan DeGooyer |
|
Applicants & Owners |
Ryan Bosworth & Tommy Tran |
|
Zoning General Plan: |
R-6 Single-Family Residential District (R-6) Single-Family Residential-High Density (SH) |
|
Site Address/Location: |
58 Canyon Lake Drive, Port Costa (APN: 368-145-024) |
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
Categorically Exempt: CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e), regarding new construction of small structures including one single-family residence in a residential zone and accessory structures |
|
Project Planner: |
Syd Sotoodeh, Senior Planner (925) 655-2877 or syd.sotoodeh@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny Reconsideration Request |
I. BACKGROUND
A public hearing before the County Planning Commission was held on August 12, 2026, on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s May 18, 2026, decision to approve variances to allow: a 3-foot side yard (where 5 feet is required) and an 8-foot side yard aggregate (where 15 feet is required) for the construction of a new, 2-1/2 story, single-family residence with 2,903 square feet of living area, 284 square feet of covered porch and balcony area, and a 427-square-foot garage; a 0-foot side yard (where 3 feet is required) for the construction of a new approximately 400-square-foot deck; and a 9-foot by 16-foot parking space size (where 9 feet by 19 feet is required) for one of two off-street parking spaces in the garage, and a small lot design review for the construction of proposed residential improvements including an 87-square-foot wading pool on a substandard lot. At the hearing, the County Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the variance permit and small lot design review with a modification to Condition of Approval (COA) #9.A. to replace a reference to “Cesar Chavez Day” with “Farmworker’s Day.” The appellants, Chris Pallacio and Ryan DeGooyer, subsequently requested and were provided with Public Records related to the subject application and a culvert that traverses the subject property.
II. RECONSIDERATION REQUEST
Pursuant to County Code Section 26-2.2408, on August 24, 2026, the appellants Chris Palacio and Ryan DeGooyer filed a motion for reconsideration of the County Planning Commission’s decision to deny their appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve the variances and small lot design review for the project. The request is to reconsider granting approval based on material that the appellants discovered after the hearing concerning stamped engineering documents that the County relied upon to establish the location and dimensions of a drainage culvert for Bull Valley Creek that traverses the subject property, to determine the required drainage easement and 1:1 footing protection, and to support staff’s recommendation of approval.
The appellants’ request centers around a memorandum prepared by a licensed engineer, Matthew Tropp, Ashley & Vance, for the applicant, titled “Existing Backyard Culvert Surcharge” (dated April 29, 2021). In their request, the appellants state their belief that the factual basis for the exterior culvert dimensions has not been established as they do not believe that dimensions of the culvert shown on this memorandum and submitted to the County were added or verified by the licensed engineer. The appellants cite multiple versions of the memorandum found in County records and submitted for different applications, each with different annotations and dimensions. The appellants further state their belief that the applicant Ryan Bosworth made the alterations to the memorandum, while the original date and engineer’s stamp remained unchanged on the document. For the County Planning Commission’s consideration, the appellants listed the different versions and changes to the memorandum and attached copies of the different memorandum versions to their request for reconsideration (Attachment 1 of this report).
In addition, the appellants indicated that they contacted the project surveyor hired by the applicants, Greg St. John, and state that the surveyor told them that “he did not independently measure the exterior dimensions of the culvert.”
Based on this information, the appellants are requesting that the County Planning Commission grant the motion for reconsideration of the County Planning Commission’s decision and set the matter for public hearing.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
County Code Section 26-2.2408 (Appeal-Reconsideration) allows an appellant to file a motion for reconsideration if pertinent factual or legal matters have been identified after a decision has been made and which were not brought to the attention of the County Planning Commission prior to making their decision. The appellant has indicated their belief that a document prepared for the applicant by a licensed engineer was subsequently altered by the applicant, Ryan Bosworth, and then submitted to County staff multiple times as “new” information. Also, the appellant indicated their belief that the licensed surveyor hired by the applicant did not independently verify the exterior measurements of the culvert.
In their request for reconsideration, the appellants indicate that the Commission was asked to resolve a disputed culvert issue based on the County’s findings and the independent findings of a licensed professional. In addition, the appellants indicate that the current approval relies upon a five-foot exterior culvert dimension which has not been adequately demonstrated. As part of the subject application CDVR22-01062, the applicant did not request an exception to any County Title 9 requirements related to drainage, drainage easements, or stormwater control. Since no exceptions were requested, staff did not include findings related to the culvert or drainage easement, and no exceptions were granted.
Regardless of the information provided by the applicant for processing the subject application or for any prior applications submitted to the Community Development Division (CDD) or to County Public Works, the applicant is required to comply with the conditions of approval of County File CDVR22-01062. Pursuant to those conditions, the applicant is required to verify through a field survey and approved underground location assessment the culvert’s physical location on the subject property (condition #14) and to submit verification by a licensed structural engineer that the construction and location of the foundation of the residence will not compromise the structural integrity of the drainage culvert or culvert wall (condition #15). This verification is required prior to issuance of a building permit. In addition, the applicant is required to dedicate a private storm drain easement in favor of the immediate upstream property owner (to the west) over the culvert that traverses the subject property (condition #16). The appellants have not provided any new pertinent factual or legal matters indicating that the County Planning Commission’s decision to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File CDVR22-01062 would alter these requirements. Additionally, the appellants have not provided any new pertinent factual information indicating that the culvert is in a different location on the subject property or that the dimensions of the culvert are different from the dimensions identified by the applicant.
Therefore, since none of the appellants’ statements for consideration and action constitute new pertinent factual or legal matters, staff is recommending that the County Planning Commission DENY the request for a reconsideration hearing and uphold the County Planning Commission’s decision made on May 18, 2026, for County File CDVR22-01062.
Attachments:
1. Motion for Reconsideration
2. Findings and Conditions of Approval of CDVR22-01062