|
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 the Appeal (See Section II for Full Recommendation) |
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
This is a hearing on an 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, 3,187-square-foot single-family residence with an attached 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. The project also includes a request for approval of small lot design review for the purpose of determining neighborhood compatibility of the proposed improvements including an 87-square-foot wading pool on a substandard lot.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommends that the County Planning Commission:
A. OPEN the public hearing, RECEIVE testimony, and CLOSE the public hearing.
B. FIND that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15303(a) and Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines.
C. DENY the appeal by Chris Palacio and Ryan DeGooyer and UPHOLD the County Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File #CDVR22-01062.
D. ADOPT the attached findings and conditions of approval
E. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to file a CEQA Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
III. BACKGROUND
An application for the approval of variances to allow a 1-foot, 10-inch side yard along the western property boundary (where 5 feet is required) and a 10-foot, 7-inch side yard aggregate (where 15 feet is required) for the construction of a new, two-story, 1,781-square-foot single-family residence with 355 square feet of covered balcony/porch area on the subject property was submitted to the Department of Conservation and Development on November 2, 2022. The matter was initially heard by the County Zoning Administrator on April 17, 2023, during which testimony was accepted from the applicant and members of the public. After accepting testimony and discussing the matter with the interested parties, the Zoning Administrator continued the item as an open public hearing to allow the applicant time to assess the precise measurements of an existing drainage culvert on the subject property, to work with County Public Works to confirm that the drainage easement is properly sized, and to redesign the new home to have a minimum 3-foot side yard and a minimum 8-foot aggregate side yard as would be allowed if the property qualified for “sliding scale” side yards (County Code section 82-14.004), and to have one off-street parking space located outside of the setbacks as required in the R-6 zoning district for the subject property.
The applicant submitted revised drawings on March 12, 2026. The matter was heard by the County Zoning Administrator at a continued public hearing on May 18, 2026, during which testimony was accepted from the applicant and members of the public. Based on the accepted testimony, revised project plans, and revised findings for the variances requested and for small lot design review criteria, the County Zoning Administrator approved 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.” This modification has been incorporated into the attached conditions of approval as directed by the County Zoning Administrator.
Staff received one letter from Chris Palacio and Ryan Degooyer on May 27, 2026, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s decision.
IV. AREA/SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located within the unincorporated Port Costa area of Contra Costa County. The Port Costa Historic District is primarily residential with a small retail-business district surrounded by agricultural and open space uses. Parcels in the area are generally rectangular lots formed as part of Port Costa in 1883, and many are substandard with respect to the 6,000-square-foot minimum lot size and 60-foot minimum average width for the R-6 residential zoning district. The residential neighborhood generally consists of one- and two-story, single-family residences which, based on available information, range from 662 to 2,529 square feet of total livable area with the largest home in the area reaching approximately 6,000 square feet. Architecturally, homes in the area represent a diverse pattern of bungalow, craftsman, stick, Queen Anne, Folk Victorian, and cottage styles.
The subject 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 is therefore considered to have two frontages. The front of the residence faces Canyon Lake Drive, and the rear of the residence faces Prospect Avenue. Approximately 75 feet of the subject property extending north from Canyon Like Drive is relatively flat; however, the subject property then rises steeply towards Prospect Avenue. An approximately 100-year-old, underground drainage culvert constructed as a watercourse for Bull Valley Creek traverses the subject property in a generally southwest to northeast direction. In addition, a new concrete retaining wall approximately 17.5 feet south of the Prospect Drive frontage and approximately 6.25 feet to 7.75 feet north of the culvert has been partially constructed. The lot was formerly developed with a single-family residence constructed in 1939. The former residence and deck were damaged by a fire in June of 2019. Construction of residential improvements to the previously existing home began in January of 2022, during which the home was found to lack any foundation. Thus, the residence was effectively demolished. The property contains one 10-inch dogwood tree which is to remain and will not be encroached upon or altered by the proposed development.
V. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of variances for the construction of a new single-family residence and deck. The project consists of the following elements:
• Variance to allow a 3-foot side yard (where 5 feet is required) along the western property boundary and an 8-foot side yard aggregate (where 15 feet is required) to allow 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 at the lower level;
• Variance to allow a 0-foot side yard (where 3 feet is required) to allow the construction of a new approximately 400-square-foot deck;
• Variance to allow one of two proposed off-street parking spaces in the garage to be 9 feet by 16 feet (where 9 feet by 19 feet is required); and
The applicant also requests Small Lot Design Review approval to allow construction of the residential improvements listed above and an approximately 87-square-foot above ground wading pool surrounded by the deck on a substandard parcel.
The proposed residence would have a sloping roof with an overall height of approximately 34’-3-1/8”. In addition to windows, three skylights are proposed to provide more interior light to the home. As described to staff by the project architect, the design of the home is “contemporary Folk Victorian” featuring simple intersecting gables, lap siding, balcony spindles and rail, and vertical proportions similar to late 19th-century homes. The architectural design and exterior color palette substantially maintains a design previously approved by County File #CDVR19-01051 and would therefore comply with design guidelines for the Port Costa Historic District.
Prior to the Zoning Administrator’s May 18, 2026, approval and as a condition of approval of County File #CDVR19-01051, the applicant hired a surveyor and plotted the approximate location of Bull Valley Creek. The applicant submitted a copy of a letter by Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc. (dated April 29, 2021, included with this report as Attachment 6). Based on the survey letter, the culvert from the outer edge of exterior wall to exterior wall is 5 feet wide. Revised plans received on March 12, 2026, shifted the footprint of the residence 1’-2”towards the east. Therefore, based on the revised plans, the nearest wall of the proposed residence is approximately 3.5 feet south of the nearest wall of the culvert and outside of a proposed 11-foot-wide easement over the culvert.
VI. APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S MAY 18, 2026 DECISION
An appeal letter from Chris Palacio and Ryan DeGooyer, residents of 54 Canyon Lake Drive, Port Costa, was received by CDD staff on May 27, 2026. The appeal letter (included with this report as Attachment 2) cites several appeal points as the basis for this appeal. The appeal points are summarized below followed by a staff response to each.
A. Summary of Appeal Point #1 - CEQA Categorical Exemption: The project relies on categorical exemptions under CEQA guidelines Sections 15301 and 15303, however, exceptions exist under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) due to a combination of conditions that are not typical of standard single-family residential development including: a narrow 33-foot lot with dual frontage, a subsurface Bull Valley drainage culvert traversing the site, the location of the property in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area, Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fire risk conditions, and a materially expanded 2.5-story, 3,100-square-foot residence with associated variances.
Staff Response: If approved, the project would result in the construction of one new single-family residence and new accessory structures. Given that the project is for a new residence with new accessory structures, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities does not apply.
After reviewing the project and the site conditions, staff determined that the project which requires discretionary approval for the variances requested is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, specifically paragraph (a) which exempts the construction of one single-family residence in a residential zone, and paragraph (e) which exempts the new construction of small accessory structures including but not limited to decks and pools. CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 Exceptions requires Lead Agencies to determine if an exemption is invalid if certain conditions exist for a project that would normally qualify for exemption. Section 15300.2 paragraph (c) Significant Effect requires Lead Agencies to consider if there is a “reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” None of the conditions cited by the appellants, alone or combined, are unusual circumstances. Residential properties throughout the County with similar conditions (alone or combined) and where discretionary approval has been granted, have been deemed to be exempt from CEQA for construction of new residences. The construction of one new residence on a lot located in a residential zoning district that replaces an existing residence, would be constructed according to current building and fire codes, and would comply with current flood control measures if required, would not have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Likewise, the granting of variances to allow the construction of a new residence or of residential improvements on a substandard lot is not an unusual circumstance in the County. Nor is the presence of drainage improvements or creeks on the property as many properties throughout the County have similar circumstances. The project is designed to meet the drainage easement requirements under County Code Title 9. Thus, staff considers that the exception in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(c) does not apply.
B. Summary of Appeal Point #2 - Potential Historical or Archeological Resource Not Resolved: The project site contains a subsurface drainage culvert associated with Bull Valley Creek which may date to the late 19th century and there is potential for unrecorded archeological resources in the project area. The record should show that the County made an adequate threshold inquiry into whether the structure has historical, engineering, or archeological significance before relying on a categorical exemption.
Staff Response: After multiple project and available record reviews for the subject application and for a prior Variance application for an addition to the previous residence (County File CDVR19-1051), staff of the County Public Works Department indicated that an approximately 100-year-old underground cobbled box drainage culvert constructed as a watercourse for Bull Valley Creek traverses the subject property in a generally southwest to northeast direction. In compliance with the Conditions of Approval of County File CDVR19-01051, the applicant hired an engineer and had a “potholing” study conducted to confirm the location and size of the culvert (included with this report as Attachment 5). Based on that study, the culvert has been shown on the project plans to be 5 feet wide from outside edge to outside edge. Public Works staff indicated that the proposed residential building, deck, and above-ground wading pool would comply with an 11-foot easement setback requirement. In addition, a letter by the project engineer (included with this report as Attachment 6) states that the project as designed is not anticipated to affect the integrity of the culvert. If the appeal is denied, as approved by the Zoning Administrator, the applicant will be required to dedicate a private storm drain easement that is 11 feet in width over the 5-foot-wide culvert prior to final inspection of the residence (COA #16). Also, given that future development of the site would include ground disturbance which has the potential for uncovering previously unknown cultural resources, conditions have been included to ensure that in the event cultural, archeological, or historical resources are discovered, the proper actions are taken including notifying the CDD and/or other authorities of any discoveries (COA #10 through #13). Staff therefore considers that the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historical resource that is or may be on the site and that the exception in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(f) Historical Resources does not apply.
C. Summary of Appeal Point #3 - Variance Findings: The variance findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Variance approval requires findings that the strict application of zoning standards creates a hardship due to unique site conditions and that the requested deviation is the minimum necessary. A variance may not be used to accommodate a preferred project size, floor area, or design. The progressive increase in project scale over time further raises unresolved questions as to whether the requested variances reflect unavoidable hardship or design optimization.
Staff Response: Whether or not the project scale has been increased over time was not considered by staff given that neither the R-6 zoning district nor the required variance findings specifically limit the expansion of buildings, building footprints, height, or lot coverage. The requested variances are for reduced side yard dimensions not height or scale, and staff believes the findings exist to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to grant the variances as discussed in the Findings attached to this report.
D. Summary of Appeal Point #4 - Small Lot Design Review: The record does not clearly demonstrate that site-specific impacts including significantly reduced lateral separation from adjacent properties, increased vertical and horizontal massing relative to lot width, and intensified proximity and enclosure effects at the parcel scale were adequately analyzed in determining compatibility under the Small Lot Design Review standards. Also, compatibility must be evaluated in relation to the parcel’s constraints, not only general neighborhood character.
Staff Response: The findings for small lot design review include criteria for determining a project’s compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood in terms of location, size, height, and design. Staff acknowledges that the revised design of the residence increases the total amount of interior living area, adds a half-story, and incorporates a two-car garage where one was not previously proposed. The length of the home from front to back has not changed and the width of the home has been increased by approximately 2’-4” for an approximately 133-square-foot larger footprint and approximately 4% more lot coverage. To account for the two-car garage at the lower level, the overall height has increased approximately 3’-5-1/8” more than previously proposed. Thus, the vertical and horizontal massing of the redesigned home has not been significantly increased relative to the previously proposed design or lot width.
The design does not significantly reduce “the lateral separation from adjacent properties” and in fact increases separation from the property to the west. The applicant shifted the residence to conform to a minimum 3-foot side yard and a 5-foot side yard for an 8-foot side yard aggregate as requested by the Zoning Administrator at the public hearing on April 17, 2023. The intent was for the location of the home to have a minimum 3-foot side yard and a minimum 8-foot aggregate side yard as would be allowed if the property qualified for “sliding scale” side yards (County Code section 82-14.004). The property may qualify for sliding scale side yards if it can be determined through a cumbersome chain of title review that it was established in its current configuration before zoning was adopted in the Port Costa area. Staff does not understand what the appellant means by “intensified proximity and enclosure effects at the parcel scale.” Neither of these criteria are required by the small lot design review findings. The findings do not require a project to be evaluated in terms of its relation to a parcel’s constraints, however, the reduced side yard setback and side yard aggregate was considered in the Location findings as approved by the Zoning Administrator. Staff believes the findings exist to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to grant approval of the small lot design review as discussed in the Findings attached to this report.
E. Summary of Appeal Point #5 - Project Consistency/Completeness of Record: The administrative record does not clearly demonstrate that all prior analytical components for a project that has evolved over time, including the prior staff report and underlying evaluation materials, were fully updated or expressly superseded by a single integrated final analysis.
Staff Response: As described in the Background section of this report, the project was redesigned as recommended by the County Zoning Administrator at a public hearing on April 17, 2023. The applicant incorporated all of the recommendations for minimum side yards and off-street parking in revised plans, and design changes were described in the staff report for the continued hearing held on May 18, 2026. In addition, the project findings for the variances requested and the small lot design review criteria were updated for the continued hearing based on the project revisions. Prior staff reports are typically attached to staff reports for “continued” hearings as a reference. Staff did not update their analysis of General Plan or Zoning consistency for the continued hearing as the project remains consistent with the intent and purpose of the SH, Single-Family Residential-High Density General Plan land use designation and will remain consistent with the R-6 zoning district upon the granting of variances. Nonetheless, staff analysis of the revised project’s consistency with the General Plan and with the R-6 Zoning district standards has been included in this report.
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. General Plan: The subject application was deemed “complete” for processing prior to the November 5, 2024, Contra Costa County Envision 2045 General Plan General Plan adoption date. Therefore, the previous County General Plan 2005- 2020 is applicable to the proposed project.
The project site is located within an SH, Single-Family Residential-High Density General Plan land use designation. The proposed single-family residence and new accessory structures 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. The General Plan Specific Geographic Area 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.
B. Zoning: 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 improvements upon an existing residence, which is consistent with uses allowed in the R-6 district.
The standards of the R-6 zoning district require lots to have a specific area (size), average width, and depth. Buildings are limited to maximum heights, and buildings and accessory structures are required to have certain setbacks/yard distances from property lines. Residential uses are required to provide a certain number of off-street parking spaces. Standards for the R-6 Zoning District are summarized in the table below.
|
Minimum lot area: |
6,000 sq. ft. |
|
Minimum average width of lot: |
60 feet |
|
Maximum building height: |
2-1/2 stories and 35 feet |
|
Minimum front setback (corner lots or double frontage lots): |
20 feet principal / 15 feet for other setback |
|
Minimum side yard / aggregate: |
5 feet minimum / 15 feet aggregate |
|
Minimum rear yard: |
15 feet / n/a for corner/double frontage lots |
|
Minimum side & rear yards for accessory structures: |
3 feet if set back a minimum 50 feet from front property line |
The subject property is 3,300 square feet in area with a 33-foot average width. Thus, any development on the property requires a small lot design review to determine compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residence that is 2-1/2 stories and up to 34’-3-1/8” in height would comply with the maximum height allowed in the R-6 zoning district. The subject property lies between two roads and has two frontages. Therefore, the rear yard requirement for the R-6 zoning district does not apply. The locations of the proposed residence and deck are consistent with the front setback requirements for the R-6 zoning district. Also, the proposed above-ground wading pool complies with the minimum setback and side yards allowed in the R-6 zoning district.
The applicant has requested side yard variances to allow for construction of the residence and the deck. A previously approved variance for residential improvements on the subject property (County File #CDVR19-01051) granted similarly substandard minimum and aggregate side yard dimensions (1’-10” side yard and 8’-9” side yard aggregate). The revised plans show the footprint of the proposed home has been shifted to have a 3-foot side yard (where 5 feet is required) along the western property boundary and an 8-foot side yard aggregate (where 15 feet is required). By shifting the home further to the east, the proposed deck would have an approximately 0-foot side yard (where 3 feet is required for an accessory structure) along the eastern property boundary in order to connect to a side door landing and ramp/walkway towards Canyon Lake Drive.
One off-street parking space is required, and the project proposes two to be provided in the proposed garage. The applicant has requested a variance to allow one of the two parking spaces to be 9 feet wide by 16 feet long (where the minimum length is 19 feet).
Staff considers that the findings exist to allow the variances for substandard side yards and side yard aggregate due to the substandard size and width of the subject property, the existence of an approximately 100-year-old culvert spanning a portion of the flat, developable area of the property, and the steep topography in the northern section near Prospect Avenue. Staff also considers that the findings exist to allow the variance for a substandard off-street parking space length as the project would provide at least one off-street parking space that is consistent with the R-6 off-street parking requirements. Therefore, the proposed project and variances substantially meet the intent and purpose of the R-6 zoning district. Further discussion of the variances can be found in the attached Findings section of this report.
In order to ensure that the maximum vertical height of the residence would not exceed 35 feet as measured from natural (existing) or finished grade, whichever is lower, staff has recommended as a condition of approval a requirement that the applicant provide evidence, prepared by a licensed surveyor, prior to a roof deck nail inspection to ensure that the residence complies with the maximum 35-foot height limit.
VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS
A. Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Engineering Division: The revised plans received on March 12, 2026, were routed to staff of the Public Works Department, Engineering Division on April 24, 2026. In correspondence received on April 27, 2026 (included with this report as Attachment 4), staff of the County Public Works Department indicated that based on existing records, a 4-foot-wide box culvert runs beneath the property, however, the revised submittal confirms that the culvert is 5 feet wide from outside edge to outside edge. Public Works staff further indicated that the applicant has proposed an 11-foot-wide drainage easement over this culvert and recommended a Condition of Approval (COA #16) requiring a private storm drain easement 11 feet in width to be dedicated over the 5-foot-wide Bull Valley Creek culvert traversing the subject property prior to final inspection. Public Works staff also indicated that the proposed building and above-ground wading pool would comply with the easement setback requirement. Please refer to the attached correspondence for the details of their comments.
IX. CONCLUSION
The proposed development is consistent with the SH, Single-Family Residential High-Density General Plan land use designation and complies with the intent and purpose of the R-6, Single-Family Residential Zoning District pursuant to the findings which exist for the variances requested and for small lot design review criteria. Since the project does not change the residential use of the site and has been determined to be consistent with the historical nature of the site and Port Costa area, it is an appropriate use for the property. Therefore, staff recommends that the County Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File #CDVR22-01062, based on the attached findings and subject to the attached conditions of approval.
Attachments:
1. Findings and Conditions of Approval
2. Letter of Appeal received on May 27, 2026
3. Maps (Parcel Map, General Plan, Zoning, Aerial Photograph)
4. Agency Comments
5. Pothole Exhibit, dated 3/26/2021
6. Culvert Letter, dated 4/29/2021
7. Project Plans, 3/12/2026
8. PowerPoint Presentation