|
|
|
|
Project Title: |
Small Lot Design Review Development Plan for a New Single-Family Residence |
|
|
|
|
County File: |
#CDDP25-03021 |
|
|
|
|
Appellant: |
Major Gill |
|
|
|
|
Applicant: Owners: |
Sabino Urrutia, Elevation Design + Consulting Kulwant & Major Gill |
|
|
|
|
Zoning/General Plan: |
A-2 General Agricultural District / AL Agricultural Lands (AL) |
|
|
|
|
Site Address/Location: |
5980 Camino Tassajara Road, Danville (APN: 206-200-002) |
|
|
|
|
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Status: |
Categorical Exemption, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) New Construction - One Single-Family Residence |
|
|
|
|
Project Planner: |
Adrian Veliz, Senior Planner, (925) 655-2879 |
|
|
adrian.veliz@dcd.cccounty.us |
|
|
|
|
Staff Recommendation: |
Deny the Appeal (See Section II for full recommendation) |
|
|
|
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s June 1, 2026, denial of a Small Lot Design Review Development Plan for a proposed 32’ 6” tall two-story single-family residence and attached garage having an approximate gross floor area of 13,832 square feet on an agricultural-zoned parcel of substandard area. The project includes driveway, and septic tank improvements, as well as +12,000 square-feet of vegetated dispersal areas for managing stormwater roof runoff from the project. The project would be accessible from Camino Tassajara, a public right-of-way abutting the eastern boundary of the project site, via a proposed 20-foot-wide driveway. The project includes a request for an Exception to Division 914 (Collect and Convey) of the County Ordinance to allow on-site stormwater treatment where collection and conveyance to an adequate storm drain system or adequate natural watercourse is required.
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD) staff recommend 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) of the CEQA Guidelines.
C. DENY the appeal of Major Gill.
D. Deny the Small Lot Design Review Development Plan, County File CDDP21-03021,
E. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
III. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan: AL Agricultural Lands Designation.
B. Zoning: A-2 General Agricultural District
C. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) New Construction, Class 3 exemption for the construction of a single-family residence within a residential district.
IV. BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2025, the CDD received an application for a Small Lot Design Review (CDSL25-00044) for the proposed residence. On June 18, 2025, the Community Development Division (CDD) staff mailed a Notice of Opportunity to Request a Public Hearing to property owners within 300 feet of the project site boundaries. CDD staff received comments from three respondents, two of which included a request for a public hearing on the matter. Due to the public hearing requests, the project proponent subsequently submitted this Small Lot Design Review Development Plan application on August 12, 2025, to allow for the continued processing of the proposed project.
The Development Plan was subsequently added to the Zoning Administrator’s agenda for the public hearing held on March 16, 2026. During the meeting, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) opened the public hearing and heard testimony from the applicant in support of the project. Additionally, three neighboring property owners appeared, indicating concerns with the scale of the proposed home, its appearance, site drainage concerns, and concerns over the availability of ground water to serve the project. After discussion, the ZA raised aesthetic concerns relating to the project compatibility with the rural character of the Tassajara Valley and determined that revisions to the proposed residential design were necessary to establish neighborhood compatibility. The ZA continued the item as an open public hearing to the hearing scheduled for April 20, 2026, to allow additional time for the project proponent to consider potential project revisions. On April 8, 2026, a revised plan was submitted for CDD staff review. At the continued public hearing held on April 20, 2026, the ZA advised that the item would be continued again to allow sufficient time for CDD staff review of the revised submittal.
The project was next agendized for the ZA’s consideration at the public hearing held on June 1, 2026. The ZA acknowledged that the revised project included a modified roofline and landscape screening would improve the project aesthetics. Nevertheless, the ZA noted that no substantive discussions with the concerned neighbors had occurred and the square footage of the home was not reduced as had been previously requested. For these reasons, the Zoning Administrator denied the Development Plan application based on a finding that the size of the home is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. On June 1, 2026, CDD staff received a valid written appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision.
V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION
The subject property consists of approximately 1.95 acres of agricultural-zoned land addressed 5980 Camino Tassajara in the Danville area of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The subject property has an approximately 204-foot-wide frontage along the western side of Camino Tassajara, a public right-of-way providing vehicular access to the site. The subject property is relatively flat near the frontage (i.e. easterly portions of the site) as compared to the open space hillsides which begin to take rise near the rear (western) property boundaries and beyond. The site lacks buildings or structural improvements and predominantly consists of short-mown grasslands completely devoid of trees/shrubs.
The project vicinity consists of lands also located within agricultural zoning districts (e.g. A-2, A-20, A-40, A-80). The project site is abutted to the west by several hundred acres of open space hillside lands within an Agricultural Preserve (A-80) zoning district and to the east by the Camino Tassajara public right of way. Tassajara creek is located approximately ¼ mile east of the project site The north/south stretch of Camino Tassajara in the project vicinity generally follows the course of Tassajara Creek, within a relatively flat valley between prominent open space hillsides. The vast majority of open space hillside lands in the surrounding area consists of larger (80+ acres) within A-80 zoning districts which has a minimum parcel size of 80-acres. There are also numerous smaller parcels between 1-to-15 acres in area within General Agricultural (A-2) district, in which the minimum parcel size is 5-acres. The smaller A-2 zoned parcels are generally concentrated along Camino Tassajara Road between Bruce Drive and Highland Avenue, and many have been improved with single-family residences consistent with permitted land uses within A-2 districts.
Established land uses on adjoining agricultural lands include a variety of established agricultural, public, commercial, and residential land uses. The subject property is one of five contiguous “substandard lots” (i.e. A-2 zoned parcels less than 5 acres in area) located along the western side of Camino Tassajara between Highland Road and Johnston Road. Development on the nearby substandard lots includes a San Ramon Valley Fire District training facility, a residence/dog training facility addressed 5990 Camino Tassajara, a detached single-family residence addressed 5890 Camino Tassajara, and a residence/swimming school addressed 5800 Camino Tassajara. Nearby development along the eastern side of Camino Tassajara is essentially limited to two equestrian facilities (addressed 5901 and 5959 Camino Tassajara), each of which includes an existing residence on the premises.
VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is seeking approval of a Small Lot Design Review Development plan for a proposed 32’ 6” tall two-story single-family residence and attached garage having an approximate gross floor area of 13,832 square feet on an agricultural-zoned parcel of substandard area. The project includes driveway, and septic tank improvements, as well as +12,000 square-feet of vegetated dispersal areas for managing stormwater roof runoff from the project. The project would be accessible from Camino Tassajara, a public right-of-way abutting the eastern boundary of the project site, via a proposed 20-foot-wide driveway. The project includes a request for an Exception to Division 914 (Collect and Convey) of the County Ordinance to allow on-site stormwater treatment where collection and conveyance to an adequate storm drain system or adequate natural watercourse is required. Lastly, the project includes landscape screening in the form of uniformly spaced trees planted around the entirety of the subject property.
VII. APPEAL
An appeal letter from the project proponent was received by CDD staff on June 1, 2026. The appeal letter (included with this report in Exhibit 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: The denial is based on the personal opinion of the Zoning Administrator (ZA) and is not supported by any identified code provision.
Staff Response: The ZA denied the project pursuant to County Ordinance Code Section 82-10.002(c), which authorizes the ZA to exercise discretion in determining neighborhood compatibility in terms of height, size, location and design. In denying the application on June 1, 2026, the ZA stated that he does not believe the proposed residence is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size. Although such discretionary determinations inherently involve a certain degree of subjectivity, the ZA has nonetheless exercised his discretion in a manner consistent with the criteria specified under said ordinance.
B. Summary of Appeal Point #2: The denial was not based on an objective standard and offered no guidance as to an acceptable home size. Therefore, it amounts to an arbitrary administrative decision.
Staff Response: The appellant correctly notes that a small lot design review ordinance does not entail any square-footage or floor area ratio restrictions for residential development on substandard lots. However, the Zoning Administrator specifically mentioned concerns with the size of the proposed residence during the initial public hearing held on March 16, 2026. In spite of the ZA’s stated concerns, the appellant did not reduce the size of the residence in revised project plans. The consensus among those opposed to the project suggest that only homes 3,000 square feet or less should be considered compatible in the surrounding rural area. The project proposes +11,000 square feet of living space. Given that the project was denied on the basis of size - and the significant disconnect in opinions amongst neighbors regarding appropriate home sizes for the area - it is understandable that the project proponent would welcome additional guidance from the ZA in determining how large is “too large”. Nevertheless, the decision that was placed before the ZA was an up or down determination on the project, as proposed by the applicant. In denying the project on the basis of incompatible size, the ZA decision was consistent with the criteria specified in the small lot design review ordinance (County Ordinance Section 82-10.002[c]). It is not incumbent upon the ZA to redesign a project or otherwise direct an applicant on how a project should be revised upon rendering such a decision to deny a project.
C. Summary of Appeal Point #3: The ZA’s findings are contradicted by existing large residential and agricultural buildings in the vicinity. The appellant contends that existing large homes in the area, including a nearby home addressed 1046 Country Lane having nearly identical building mass on a similarly sized small lot (2.5 acres) were inappropriately excluded from the ZA consideration in determining neighborhood compatibility. The appellant also notes that large agricultural buildings comparable in size to that proposed with this project exist on nearby commercial equestrian centers and that the size of these buildings should also be considered as contributors to the established rural character in the Tassajara Valley.
Staff Response: In rendering the decision on June 1, 2026, the Zoning Administrator acknowledged that the County has previously approved homes as large as 30,000 square feet in area on substandard lots. It was specified that in this case, the neighborhood opposition weighed heavily into the decision and is what differentiates this project from other large homes that the County has previously found to be compatible under the Small Lot Design Review process.
D. Summary of Appeal Point #4: The denial was improperly influenced by prejudicial opposition testimony. The appellant contends that neighbors opposed to the project mischaracterized the surrounding neighborhood as a community of modestly sized homes, a characterization the appellant states are belied by the primarily commercial land uses established on adjoining lands. The appellant also states that inaccurate characterizations of him and his willingness to engage in discussions with the neighbors improperly influenced the ZA decision.
Staff Response: The ZA consideration of neighborhood compatibility was specifically limited to comparison of existing residences in the area, excluding non-residential improvements. This has consistently been the standard of review for prior small lot design reviews for which a public hearing was requested. Personal characterizations of the project proponent did not appear to figure prominently in the verbal/written comments submitted by neighboring property owners. The primary concerns expressed by the neighbors related to the size, appearance, and associated water usage entailed by the project. The appellant does not provide anything beyond their stated opinion which demonstrates that any such characterization improperly affected the decision on the project.
E. Summary of Appeal Point #5: The project meets all review criteria (size, location, height, design) specified in the Small Lot Ordinance.
Staff Response: The small lot ordinance (County Ordinance Section 82-10.002[c]) authorizes the Zoning Administrator to determine neighborhood compatibility for the proposed project in terms of size, location, height, and design. The proposed project would meet all development standards for residential construction within the A-2 zoning district in which it is located. Nevertheless, in evaluating the comments received from surrounding neighbors, and comparing the size of the project to other existing residences in the vicinity, it has been determined that the project is substantially larger than virtually all other existing homes in the vicinity. Therefore, the project has been found to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, pursuant to the small lot ordinance.
VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Small Lot Design Review: Pursuant to County Ordinance Section 82-10.002(c), the Zoning Administrator may determine neighborhood compatibility in terms of location, size, height, and design for projects proposed on lots of substandard area or average width (i.e. “small lots”). The neighborhood compatibility for the proposed project, as determined June 1, 2026, by the County Zoning Administrator, is discussed below:
1. Location. The project involves the construction of a new two-story single-family residence meeting all development standards for the A-2 district in which the project is located. The building pad is oriented toward a rear (northwestern) corner of the subject property. Similarly, existing homes on parcels in the immediate vicinity tend to be oriented towards the rear of their respective lots, typically providing much more than the minimum 25-foot front setback required in A-2. The project site is abutted to the rear by a large parcel consisting of roughly 250 acres of unimproved rolling hillsides within an exclusive agricultural (A-80) zoning district. The project site and adjoining parcels west of Camino Tassajara are essentially surrounded to the north, west, and south by the open space hillsides comprising nearby hilltops having peak elevations ranging between one to two hundred feet higher than that of the building pad.
In denying the project on June 1, 2026, the Zoning Administrator raised no concerns specific to the location of the homesite on the subject property. Considering that the project complies with all development standards applicable to residential development within the A-2 district, and the fact that the project is surrounded by landscape screening around the entire project perimeter, the project is at an appropriate location upon the subject property.
2. Size. The project includes a two-story, seven-bedroom residence consisting of 11,354 square feet of conditioned living area split about evenly between two-stories. Additionally, the residence includes an attached six-car garage and a 932-square-foot rear covered patio, resulting in a gross floor area of 13,832 square feet within an 8,264-square-foot building footprint. The Contra Costa County Ordinance does not place an upper limit on lot coverage, floor area ratio, or area for single-family residences in A-2 (or within residential zoning districts), and several examples of large custom-built estates exist in the project vicinity, including A-2 zoned lands located along Camino Tassajara between Finey Road and Highland Road. County Assessor’s data indicates that the largest existing homes within one mile of the project site include ten (10) two-story homes within A-2 district that range between 6,021 to 8,690 square feet in living area.
The most comparable nearby existing large home is a property addressed 1046 Country Lane (APN 204-070-032), located approximately 0.85 miles north of the project, County Assessor’s data indicates that the existing residence on this 2.25-acre (substandard) parcel consists of 7,971 square feet of living area. Including approximately 2,381 square feet of attached first-floor garage and storage areas, this home has a building footprint of 8,529 square feet, exceeding that of the current project. At 34’9” in height, this existing residence is consistent with the project in terms of height/footprint yet is still significantly smaller in terms of square-footage. There are multiple examples of additional two-story homes on Bruce Drive having apparently similar bulk/height as the Major residence, but in all cases the proposed project significantly exceeds even the largest of these nearby existing residences in terms of conditioned living area (in square feet). One additional example of a large-scale residence in the area is the residence addressed 8650 Camino Tassajara, which is outside of the immediate project vicinity but within the Tassajara Valley area and consists of 29,291 square feet in living area. In denying the project, the Zoning Administrator acknowledged the existence of the larger home within Tassajara Valley, but did not find this fact alone to be sufficient to establish neighborhood compatibility. Based on the fact that the project would result in a home size that substantially exceeds that of virtually all existing homes within the Tassajara Valley area, the project is found to be incompatible with existing residential development existing in the immediate vicinity in terms of size.
3. Height. Pursuant to County Ordinance section 84-38.802, building height within the A-2 district is limited to a maximum of 2.5 stories and 35 feet. The residence consists of a two-story home with a building height of 32 feet - 6 inches, in conformance with the maximum permissible building height for the A-2 district. There are numerous examples of homes having both one-story and two-story designs in rural residential areas within the Tassajara Valley. Within a quarter-mile of the project, there is about an even ratio of single-story ranch style homes to multi-story homes. Further north of the project site on Bruce Drive, large two-story residences are even more prevalent, if not predominant on similarly zoned parcels. Furthermore, there are several instances of multi-story homes on parcels adjacent to and visible from Camino Tassajara right-of-way in the project vicinity, including multiple such homes at the intersections of Camino Tassajara and Johnston Road, and at Bruce Drive. Therefore, the introduction of a multi-story home at the project site would not be unusual in the context of the Camino Tassajara viewing corridor or within the adjacent rural residential areas located within identical zoning district.
4. Design. The residence is a custom design featuring a grand entry foyer with high ceilings, flanked on either side by two-story northern and southern wings extending towards the property frontage. The northern and southern wings converge with the entry to form a large “U” shaped interior courtyard at the front of the home and garage. The exterior of the home would incorporate a combination of stucco, wood paneling, and decorative stonework. The project includes an open-faced gable over the front entryway, meant to resemble the character of the surrounding rural area, with a pitched hip roof covering most of the two-story residence. The two-story design of the home is substantially compatible with other larger estate-style homes in the vicinity, including existing two-story and three-story homes exceeding 30 feet in height prominently visible along the Camino Tassajara right-of-way north of the project.
The project vicinity consists of agricultural lands which are host to a variety of established agricultural, public, commercial, and residential land uses. Development on the nearby properties includes a San Ramon Valley Fire District training facility, a residence/dog training facility addressed 5990 Camino Tassajara, a detached single-family residence addressed 5890 Camino Tassajara, and a residence/swimming school addressed 5800 Camino Tassajara. Nearby development along the eastern side of Camino Tassajara is essentially limited to two equestrian facilities (addressed 5901 and 5959 Camino Tassajara), each of which includes an existing residence on the premises.
Aesthetically, development along Camino Tassajara adjacent to the site reflects an area where land uses are visibly transitioning from primarily agricultural to rural residential in nature. Existing buildings in the area include single-story ranch-style residences, multi-story residences, warehouse-type buildings with roll-up doors, barns, horse arenas, clubhouse, paddocks, stables, etc. The residence would differ in appearance from those existing on adjoining parcels, however, that is generally already the case in viewing existing improvements on nearby properties. Additionally, since surrounding topography essentially isolates views of the project site to those available from adjacent properties, the homes design will not significantly detract from the existing visual character for the greater Tassajara Valley area. Further, with the implementation of landscape screening surrounding the entirety of the development, the project would have minimal potential for the design to conflict with the surrounding rural character. Since the surrounding area is not a residential neighborhood, but rather an agricultural area utilized for varying nonresidential and residential land uses, the effect of varying architecture is considered minimal in this circumstance, especially considering the large parcel sizes involved and the high degree of separation between buildings on adjoining lands. In cumulative consideration of the above, the design of the residence is determined to be appropriate for the subject property, and substantially compatible with the surrounding agricultural area.
B. Neighborhood Outreach: At the public hearing held on March 16, 2026, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) encouraged the project proponent to reach out to discuss the project with their neighbors, noting that several of them appeared in opposition to the project based on the proposed size and design. During the public hearing held on June 1, 2026, the ZA expressed disappointment that the project proponent had neither reduced the square-footage of the project nor conducted neighborhood outreach despite receiving encouragement to do both. The project was ultimately denied based on the ZA determination that the size of the proposed home was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, however the ZA also cited the lack of neighborhood outreach as a factor in this decision.
After appealing the ZA decision, for which the lack of neighborhood outreach was specifically cited as a factor, the appellant emailed four neighboring property owners on June 5, 2026, requesting a video conference meeting with the neighbors. The appellants provided a time window for which they could accommodate such a meeting for each date between June 6th through June 14th 2026. After not receiving a response to this email, the appellant again emailed their concerned neighbors on June 19, 2026, to reiterate their meeting request. The appellant provided additional availability for the following week (June 22 to June 27, 2026). In response to the June 19th email, neighboring property owners Bauman and Oas respectively declined the meeting request and instead suggested that a substantial reduction of the proposed home size would be necessary as a precondition to further discussions. The appellant did not attempt additional neighborhood outreach after the June 19th email given the lack of engagement from the neighboring property owners.
IX. CONCLUSION
The proposed residence has been found incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size. The project proponent has not revised the project to reduce the square-footage subsequent to the Zoning Administrator’s denial of the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator decision to deny the Small Lot Design Review Development Plan.
X. EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Findings For Denial
Exhibit 2: Letter of Appeal received on June 1, 2026
Exhibit 3: Maps
Exhibit 4: Plans
Exhibit 5: Correspondence between Appellant and Neighbors
Exhibit 6: Staff Report for June 1, 2026, Zoning Administrator Meeting
Exhibit 7: PowerPoint Presentation