|
|
|
|
Project Title: |
3565 Willow Road Variance |
|
|
|
|
County File Number: |
CDVR24-01060 |
|
|
|
|
Appellant: |
George Navarro |
|
|
|
|
Applicant/Owner: |
George Navarro (Applicant & Owner) |
|
|
|
|
Zoning/General Plan: |
F-1 Water Recreational District, -FH Flood Hazard Combining District / RLM Residential Low Medium Density |
|
|
|
|
Site Address/Location: |
3565 Willow Road in the Bethel Island area of unincorporated Contra Costa County (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 029-100-014) |
|
|
|
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
Exempt, CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(4) |
|
|
|
|
Project Planner: |
Allison Seoane, Project Planner (925) 655-2871 |
|
|
Allison.Seoane@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
|
|
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny (See section II for full recommendation) |
|
|
|
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny a Variance and Small Lot Design Review to allow a 750 square-foot detached garage (where 500 square feet is the maximum size allowed for an accessory building) that is 15 feet, 5 inches in total height (where 15 feet is the maximum height allowed).
II. RECOMMENDATION
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the County Planning Commission:
A. DENY the appeal.
B. FIND that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines.
C. UPHOLD the Zoning Administrator’s denial of County File #CDVR24-01060, based on the attached findings.
D. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: RLM - Residential Low Medium Density.
B. Zoning: F-1 Water Recreational District, -FH Flood Hazard Combining 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: There are no previous planning applications.
IV. BACKGROUND
A. CECF24-00403 Code Enforcement Case: Code Enforcement Case CECF24-00403 for an oversized detached garage constructed without permits was initiated on May 21, 2024. A Notice to Comply was sent to the property owner on May 24, 2024, and a Notice of Intent was sent on October 17, 2024.
B. Zoning Administrator Decision on the CDVR24-01060 Variance: A Variance application was accepted by the Department of Conservation and Development on December 19, 2024. CDD staff sent a Notice of Intent to Recommend Denial of Variance Review Application to the applicant on January 29, 2025, which included a deadline of February 10, 2025 to request a public hearing before the Zoning Administrator (ZA) on the application. On February 8, 2025, staff received a hearing request from George Navarro, the applicant and property owner.
On May 5, 2025, the CDVR24-01060 Variance application was heard by the ZA. After considering the testimony provided at the public hearing from the owner as well as the one letter submitted by a neighboring property owner, the ZA denied the Variance.
C. Appeal of the Zoning Administrator Decision: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision was filed on May 14, 2025, within the 10-day appeal period by George Navarro, the applicant and property owner.
V. SITE AREA/DESCRIPTION
The subject property is in a 9,250 square-foot trapezoid lot on the north side of Willow Road and southwest of Piper Slough and Franks Tract. The lot is developed with a two-story single-family residence with a dock to the rear of the property. The lot is similar to other properties in the vicinity along Willow Road. A detached garage has been built on the lot between the residence and Willow Road, as shown on the photos as Attachment D.
VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of a Variance to allow the 750 square-foot detached garage (where 500 square feet is the maximum size allowed for an accessory building) with a height of 15 feet, 5 inches (where 15 feet is the maximum height allowed). The detached garage was constructed without obtaining prior planning or building approval. Approval of the Variance will allow the applicant to obtain a building permit for the as-built accessory building. The application includes Small Lot Design Review because the subject property is of substandard average lot width.
VII. APPEAL
An appeal letter from George Navarro, the applicant and property owner 3565 Willow Road, was received on May 14, 2025. The appeal letter is included as Attachment B. This appeal is based on five appeal points, each of which are summarized below and followed by a staff response.
A. Summary of Appeal Point #1: In response to Variance finding #1, the appellant provides a list of ten property addresses on Willow Road in Bethel Island where the appellant claims there are permitted accessory buildings larger than 500 square feet in size, and taller than 15 feet in height.
Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the County records of the addresses provided.
Several of the properties listed contain attached garages, not oversized detached accessory buildings. The attached garages are not subject to accessory building height and size requirements. These properties are 3593, 3611, and 4139 Willow Road.
One property, at 4115 Willow Road, has two legally permitted accessory buildings that did not exceed 500 square feet in size or 15 feet in height. These accessory buildings are permitted under County Files CDSL20-00021, BIR20-4831, and BICR20-4830.
Some of the properties listed have no records to confirm that the County approved the detached accessory buildings or to confirm that the buildings exceed 500 square feet in size and/or 15 feet in height. These properties are 3607, 3753, 4061, and 4067 Willow Road.
Two properties do contain previously approved oversized detached buildings. The property at 4235 Willow Road was approved for a 780 square-foot, 17-foot, 5-inch-tall accessory building in 1990 under County File BICG165434, and the property at 3507 Willow Road was approved for a 624 square-foot detached garage that does not exceed 15 feet in height in 1986 under County File BI122578. These two permits were issued before accessory buildings were restricted in size and height by the 1996 accessory building zoning ordinance. With the change in the County Ordinance Code, these accessory buildings would not be approved in present times.
From the preceding discussion, it is generally not characteristic of the neighborhood have oversized detached accessory buildings.
B. Summary of Appeal Point #2: In response to Variance finding #2, the appellant claims that “the property’s unique vulnerability stems from its lack of protection against the strong 4 to 5-foot waves generated by north winds. Unlike neighboring properties on the same side of the island, which benefit from natural of artificial barriers against Frank’s Tract and Piper Slough wave damage, this property remains exposed.”
Staff Response: As shown on the site plan in Attachment E, the location of the accessory building is shielded from the water as it is inland of the existing single-family residence on the subject property. Moreover, placement of the subject garage is not topographically challenged as the subject property is relatively flat, thereby providing ample space for boat storage by means of an attached garage rather than a detached garage. As shown on the site plan, there is enough space for a 750 square-foot, 15-foot 5-inch-tall attached garage that would not be subject to the requirements of the County Ordinance Code for accessory buildings.
C. Summary of Appeal Point #3: In response to Variance finding #3, the appellant claims that “the accessory building at 750 square feet is less than the square footage of the house at 1,733 square feet, making it subordinate to the single-family residence.”
Staff Response: Although the detached garage is smaller than the house, it is not sufficiently considered subordinate because the size of the currently built detached garage is more akin to a dwelling unit than an accessory building. As discussed in the ZT89-1 staff report for the 1996 accessory building zoning ordinance, the majority of accessory buildings are designed and built as small scale structures for uses such as garages and storage buildings, and larger accessory buildings appear to be more appropriate for secondary residential uses. Thus, for the zoning ordinance, staff recommended a maximum size of 500 square feet on parcels under 20,000 square feet, which would be the size of a two-car garage, and a maximum size of 600 square feet on parcels over 20,000 square feet, which would be the size of a three-car garage. Staff also recommended a height limit of 15 feet allowing for a single-story structure with a pitched roof.
D. Summary of Appeal Point #4: The appellant requests approval of the Small Lot Design Review as part of the appeal.
Staff Response: In order to approval a Small Lot Design Review application, findings related to location, size, height, and design must be made. As discussed in the Small Lot Design Review Findings in Attachment A, the location of the subject accessory building in the front yard beyond the required setback is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. However, the 750 square-foot size and the 15-foot 5-inch height of the subject accessory building exceeds the size and height limitations for accessory buildings, as discussed in the preceding staff responses. Thus, neither the size nor height of the accessory building are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The design of the subject accessory building is dissimilar from other accessory buildings in the neighborhood in its size and height, and therefore, the design is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
E. Summary of Appeal Point #5: The appellant lists other entities who he claims support the Variance, including the Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Council (BIMAC), neighbors at 3563 Willow Road and 3569 Willow Road, the Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District (BIMID), the Contra Costa Environmental Health (CCEH), and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection Department (CCCFPD).
Staff Response: The appellant is correct that the BIMAC voted in support of the Variance. In addition, a letter of support was received by the property owner at 3569 Willow Road; however, there has been no correspondence received from the property owner at 3563 Willow Road. Even with the recommendation of approval from the BIMAC, and 3569 Willow Road neighbor stating they have no issue with the building, staff is unable to make the necessary findings to support the variance as these positive comments do not substantiate that the property exhibits a physical constraint that requires the subject accessory building to be oversized. The comments do not present any verifiable evidence to support the Variance and Small Lot Design Review findings necessary to recommend approval. With respect to the other agencies listed by the appellant, their comments only pertain to requirements of their divisions, and the lack of impact to these agencies is not an inherent proof of support.
VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject property is located along the north side of Willow Road where lots in the F-1 Water Recreational District are less than 20,000 square feet and accessory buildings are subject to the size limitations of County Ordinance Code Section 82-4.212(1) of 500 square feet. Accessory buildings are also limited to a height of 15 feet pursuant to County Code Section 82-4.212(2). In this neighborhood, many homes contain attached garages constructed in compliance with the restriction in the County Code. While there is one property within the vicinity that contain a permitted oversized accessory building, that structure was constructed prior to the current size and height requirements for accessory buildings. There is no other precedence in the vicinity for permitting an accessory building to be larger than 500 square feet in size and taller than 15 feet in height. Consequently, approval of the requested Variance would be considered a grant of special privilege.
The subject property as well as the surrounding lots on the north side of Willow Road are predominantly flat, with an elevation of 0 feet that rises to 10 feet near Piper Slough. There does not appear to be any special circumstance applicable to the subject property due to its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that support relief from the zoning regulations for accessory buildings. The lack of physical constraints on the property does not show that the applicable zoning regulations would deprive the subject property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the F-1 District.
The F-1 District allows a detached single-family dwelling and auxiliary accessory structures. The detached garage could be consistent with the residential uses allowed in the F-1 District provided it meets the accessory building regulations in County Ordinance Code Section 82-4.212 that restricts the size of the accessory building on a parcel less than 20,000 square feet, to a maximum size of 500 square feet and a maximum height of 15 feet. The intent of the size and height limitations is to maintain a certain scale for an accessory building to be considered as subordinate to the single-family residence. Therefore, approval of a Variance to allow the previously constructed oversized accessory building would not meet the intent and purpose of the F-1 District.
IX. CONCLUSION
The subject property is predominantly flat lot in the F-1 Water Recreational District that can accommodate an accessory building that does not require a Variance to the size and height restrictions of County Ordinance Code Section 82-4.212. Staff is unable to make the required findings for recommending approval of the Variance and the Small Lot Design Review to allow an accessory building that is 750 square-foot (where 500 square feet is the maximum allowed) and 15 feet, 5 inches in total height (where 15 feet is the maximum height allowed). Therefore, staff recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Zoning Administrator’s denial of Variance CDVR24-01060 to not allow the 750 square-foot detached garage (where 500 square feet is the maximum size allowed for an accessory building) that is 15 feet, 5 inches in total height (where 15 feet is the maximum height allowed) based on the findings, which are included as Attachment A