HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-056 Lopez Variance
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 5, 1987
TO:
Planning Commission
SUBJECT:
,nor ~
tf
PA 87-056 Lopez Variance, 7632 Canterbury Court,
Appeal of Zoning Administrator's action of
August 11, 1987.
FROM:
Planning Staff
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT:
An application request to vary from the required
minimum rear yard setback for an existing room
addition and patio cover and to vary from the
Zoning Ordinance regulations requiring a minimum
6-foot setback between accessory structures and
other structures on site,
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER:
Henry Lopez
1861 Helsinki
Livermore, CA
Way
94550
LOCATION:
7632 Canterbury Court
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
941-176-67
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Single Family Residential
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
R-l-B-E, Single Family Residential Combining
District
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING:
Single Family Residential - R-l-B-E District
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-26.6 of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 20-foot
rearyard setback, Section 8-26.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a 10-foot
rearyard setback provided that the portion of the rear yard which is less than
20 feet in depth is compensated by open areas within the same or adjacent
yards on the same site, which exceeds or is equal to the building coverage.
Section 8-60.26 of the Zoning Ordinance requires detached accessory
buildings in an R District to maintain a minimum six-foot setback from any
other building on the lot and not to exceed 15 feet in height.
Section 8-93.0 of the Zoning Ordinance indicates that the strict terms of
the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings
of fact upon each of these three requirements.
a) That there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under
the identical zoning classification.
b) That the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone.
c) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons
or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare.
ITEM NO. ~ ' tf
COPIES TO: Applicant/Owner
File PA 87-056
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Categorically Exempt, Class 5 (a)
NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the August 11, 1987, hearing was published
in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public
buildings.
BACKGROUND:
On November 10, 1986, a realtor contacted the City Building Department to
request a special inspection on an existing room addition which was
constructed at 7632 Canterbury Court without building permits,
On November 13, 1986, the City Building Inspector inspected the property,
and on January 22, 1987, the site was inspected jointly by the City Building
Inspector and the City Zoning Investigator. It was determined during the
inspection that several Building Code and Zoning Ordinance violations existed.
Building Code violations, in addition to not obtaining a building permit,
related to foundation construction, rafter span, electrical wiring, allowable
window area, fireplace hearth and framing. Two zoning violations were noted:
1) the room addition and attached patio cover are located within the required
rearyard setback area (8.5-foot rear setback exists at the north corner where
a minimum 10-foot rearyard setback is permitted with compensating yards, and
10.5-foot setback exists at the south corner); 2) an existing accessory
structure on the site does not maintain the 6-foot minimum required setback
between the accessory structure and other structures on the site (at one point
the setback between the accessory structure and the main structure is 5-feet,
l-inch rather than the 6-foot minimum setback required).
On May 12, 1982, the Applicant obtained a building permit for an
accessory structure at 7632 Canterbury Court. The approved plans indicated
the required 6-foot minimum setback between the accessory structure and the
main structure. The accessory building received final building inspection on
May 10, 1984, apparently with the 5-foot, l-inch setback, rather than the 6-
foot setback required.
The Applicant received written notification of the Building Code
violations and Zoning Ordinance violations from the Zoning Investigator on
February 2, 1987. Rather than remove the structures, the Applicant
subsequently applied for a Variance.
On August 11, 1987, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to
consider the Variance application. After receiving testimony from Staff and
the Applicant, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 7 - 87
1) approving the Variance for reduced setback between the accessory structure
and the main structure on the site, and 2) denying the Variance request to
reduce the rearyard setback from the required 10 foot minimum setback to an
8.5 foot setback, The Applicant subsequently appealed the Zoning
Administrator's action.
ANALYSIS:
The Applicant is requesting approval of a Variance from the required
minimum rearyard setback for the existing room addition and patio cover, and a
Variance from the 6-foot minimum setback required between accessory structures
and other structures on the site.
The City Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 20-foot rearyard setback in
the R-l-B-E District, however, the Ordinance does provide an exception by
allowing rearyard setbacks to be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet provided the
area encroaching into the setback area is compensated by adjacent side- or
rearyard areas which exceed the minimum area required under the Zoning
Ordinance. No Variance is required when utilizing the compensating yards
provision of the Zoning Ordinance.
The existing room addition and attached patio cover do not maintain the
minimum 10-foot setback required to utilize the compensating yards provision
of the Zoning Ordinance.
-2-
The Applicant's lot contains sideyards which exceed the m~n~mum setback
required (9-foot minimum sideyard setback is required), thereby providing
compensating yards to accommodate a room addition and patio cover which
encroaches within approximately 520~ square feet of the required rearyard
setback area. The Applicant's room addition and patio encroach within
approximately 440~ square feet of the required rearyard setback area.
Although the Applicant's addition and patio cover comply with the area
requirement of the compensating yard provision of the Ordinance, the addition
does not comply with the minimum lO-foot setback requirement established by
the Ordinance.
The existing room addition and patio cover setback ranges from 8.5 feet
to 10.5 feet to the building wall or patio cover support post with a 3-foot
wide eave overhang thereby reducing the setback to 5.5 feet to 7.5 feet. The
City's Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum 2-foot eave overhang into required
setback areas.
In order for the Applicant to maintain the existing room addition,
structural improvements must be made to bring the building into compliance
with the Building Code, and a Variance must be granted for the reduced
setbacks.
Prior to granting a Variance, three affirmative findings of fact must be
made relating to 1) that a unique physical situation exists, 2) that the
Variance would only grant parity with similar properties, and 3) that the
Variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The Applicant states
that special circumstances do exist as the room addition has existed for 25
years and he thought building permits for the structure had been obtained.
Additionally, the Applicant states that there are special circumstances in
that the County was aware of the addition when they approved the plans and
inspected the accessory structure built between 1982 and 1984. With regard to
the Building Code violations, the Applicant has indicated the violations will
be corrected if the Variance is granted. At the August 11, 1987, hearing the
Zoning Adminsitrator made the following findings:
1) There are no special circumstances relating to the location, size,
topography, or any other physical features of the property which would warrant
granting the Variance request, to allow the reduced rearyard setback for the
room addition and patio cover in that the property is commensurate with other
property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification, However,
special circumstances do exist to warrant granting the Variance request for
reduced setback between the accessory structure and the main structure, in
that the Applicant obtained building permits from the County and received
final inspection approval for the accessory structure. Additionally, the
existing setback is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in that it
provides a 4-foot unobstructed ground to sky setback.
2) The granting of the Variance request for the reduced rearyard setback on
the room addition and patio cover will constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties in the vicinity
and zone in that all property in the City must comply with the setback
regulations for the Zoning District in which it is located. The Zoning
Ordinance includes a provision to accommodate reduced rearyard setbacks to a
minimum of 10 feet if the property contains compensating yards. The lot at
7632 Canterbury Court possesses compensating yards to accommodate a room
addition and patio cover, provided the 10-foot miniumum setback is maintained.
The granting of the Variance for the reduced setback between the
accessory structure and the main structure will not constitute a special
privilege in that the existing setback is consistent with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance permits eaves or other architectural
features to project into setback areas a distance of 2 feet. The unobstructed
setback from ground to sky could be 4 feet between accessory structures and
other structures. The existing main structure has a l-foot projecting eave
resulting in a 4-foot unobstructed setback consistent with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3) The granting of both Variance requests will not be detrimental to persons
or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare; however, the room
addition as constructed contains several City Building Code violations and may
be detrimental to the public safety and welfare.
-3-
Staff concurs with the Zoning Administrator findings and recommends
denial of the Applicant's Variance request for reduced rearyard setback for
the room addition and patio cover in that all three findings of fact cannot be
made. Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's Variance request to permit
a reduced setback between the accessory structure and main structure on the
site.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
Take testimony from Applicant and public.
Question Staff, Applicant and public.
Close public hearing and deliberate.
Adopt Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's action
approving Variance request for reduced setback between
accessory structure and main structure, and denying Variance
request for reduced rearyard setback for room addition, or
give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter.
ACTION:
Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator adopt the attached
Resolution related to PA 87-056 Lopez Variance.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A:
Resolution Upholding the Zoning Administrator's Action
Approving Variance for Accessory Structure Setback and
Denying Variance for Room Addition and Patio Cover Setback
Background Attachments:
1) Location Map
2) Applicant's Statement
3) Site Plan
4) Letter from Zoning Investigator to Mr. Lopez dated
February 2, 1987.
5) Zoning Administrator's Resolution No.7 - 87
6) Zoning Administrator Meeting Minutes August 11, 1987
7) Appeal Letter from Mr. Lopez dated received August 21, 1987
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION
UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ACTION 1) APPROVING THE VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
AND THE EXISTING MAIN STRUCTURE AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT,
AND 2) DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION AND PATIO COVER
CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT,
PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE
WHEREAS, Henry Lopez filed a Variance application to allow a
reduced rearyard setback for an existing room addition and patio cover
built without permits, and reduced setback between an existing accessory
structure and main structure on the site at 7632 Canterbury Court; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found
to be categorically exempt; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said
application on August 11, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the
Variance request for reduced rearyard setback for the room addition and
patio cover, and recommending approval of the Variance request to reduce
the setback between the accessory structure and the main structure on the
site at 7632 Canterbury Court; and
WHEREAS, on August 11, 1987, after hearing and considering all
said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth the
Zoning Administrator approved the Variance for reduced setback between the
existing accessory structure and main structure, and denied the Variance
for reduced rearyard setback for the room addition and patio cover;
WHEREAS, on August 19, 1987, Henry Lopez appealed the Zoning
Administrator's August 11, 1987, action; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on said
appeal on October 5, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Analysis was submitted recommending the Planning
Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's action approving the Variance
for reduced setback between the accessory structure, and denying the
Variance for reduced setback for the room addition and patio cover;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all
reports, recommendations and testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning
Commission does hereby find that:
A) There are no special circumstances relating to the location, size,
topography, or any other physical features of the property which would
warrant granting the Variance request, to allow the reduced rearyard
setback for the room addition or patio cover in that the property is
commensurate with other property in the vicinity under the identical
-1-
A
'PA91.. 05~ L.o',a. VA
zoning classification. However, special circumstances do exist to
warrant granting the Variance request for reduced setback between the
accessory structure and the main structure, in that the Applicant
obtained building permits from the County and received final
inspection approval for the accessory structure. Additionally, the
existing setback is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in
that it provides a 4-foot unobstructed ground to sky setback,
B. The granting of the Variance request for the reduced rearyard setback
on the room addition and patio cover will constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties
in the vicinity and zone in that all property in the City must comply
with the setback regulations for the Zoning District in which it is
located. The Zoning Ordinance includes a provision to accommodate
reduced rearyard setbacks to a minimum of 10 feet if the property
contains compensating yards. The lot at 7632 Canterbury Court
possesses compensating yards to accommodate a room addition and patio
cover, provided the 10-foot miniumum setback is maintained. The
granting of the Variance for the reduced setback between the accessory
structure and the main structure will not constitute a special
privilege in that the existing setback is consistent with the intent
of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance permits eaves or other
architectural features to project into setback areas a distance of 2
feet. The unobstructed setback from ground to sky could be 4 feet
between accessory structures and other structures. The existing main
structure has a l-foot projecting eave resulting in a 4-foot
unobstructed setback consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
C, The granting of both Variance requests will not be detrimental to
persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare;
however, the room addition as constructed contains several City
Building Code violations and may be detrimental to the public safety
and welfare.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby
uphold the Zoning Administrator's action 1) approving the Applicant's
request to reduce the setback between the existing accessory structure and
main structure from the required 6-foot setback to the existing 5-foot, 1-
inch setback; and 2) denying the Applicant's Variance request to reduce the
required 10-foot minimum rearyard setback for compensating yards to 8,5
feet,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
Planning Commission Chairperson
Planning Director
-2-
'/
_. .-,-~
SEE SHEET 2B
: ! t~ ~
.z
!~
r
:.~~~;:::J
.J'... -= I
~-7=...l
""":r=- I
.<~~
= I
>m
l
;
- ,
;
! r:::l
~ I
....
VI
r'l
r'l
. VI
i :r:
J r'l
! ,."
-;
()
""
o
.......,.
'. "0"
:J.' ~
~I ~!
: ;\
~1.~lI'r
.....-.
_1oC."
~~
..
:~
-'
~@ ~. "l.~~i
!:1 ...: ;~
N ' :.., . -l Ii
n -- ~ "
~ ~ .:1 .
1'.........11I10 rOil
...._...M
l_o.a.CMw~ .~~~........... "~~.. ..
A PART OF THE
ZONING MAP
THE CITY OF
DUI?_q~,__..._ '
n
I ~
...
~ g
. CD
,..
5!
~ CITY OF
DUBLIN
PAt~)"'''':""'''''
.',"II~ OCT 2 1986 c.,,,n'..,.
-
~ SANTlNA. -.:;:::
;J,; THOMPSON lHC.-
-....... .-..-
~A TT ACHMENT }"~"_
.~,,~~ u.p... vA
,_.~
~'i9"-'
:)~., i" {
~ ....-'t
RtCt\V~D
l\?R 1 4i987 . .
DUBUN r\.ANN1NG
@
11 ~ 0 &6
April 13. 1987
Planning Department
6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D
Dublin, Ca 94568
Gentlemen:
I am applying for a variance for a room addition which was
constructed approXimately 25 years ago and is 8' 6" from the rear
propery line where 10" is required.
This room was constructed by Conde Construction Company, who
at the time indicated to me that they were a licenced contractor and
had obtained the necessary permits.
I originally hired them because I was having a problem with
standing water in the rear yard and under the house. They advised
me that my problem could be corrected with a leaching line from the
rear yard to the front yard on both sides of the house. I agreed to
have them do the work and observed what I believed to be a very
professional job. They dug a trench around the house about 3 feet
deep and filled it with large rock and placed a three inch pipe in the
center. covered it with more gravel. black tar paper. and brought the
ground to the existing condition prior to their digging. The leaching
line worked beautifully eliminating the problem of standing water in
the rear yard and under the house.
I was so impressed with their work that I agreed to let them add
a family room to my residence. Their work continued to be .
professionally performed in an excellent manner. I watched as they
prepared the foundation for the family room. They dug a 16" trench
around the perimeter of the room and placed about 5" of sand on
the top raising the center of the room. They placed steel all around
the perimeter and placed a steel neting across the center and poured
cement over the whole area, creating a slab floor. The remainder of.
their work was finished with the type of work expected from a
licensed contractor. At no time did I realize that they did not have a
permit for the work.
ATTACHMENT Z
~~...O~ tI>_z. vIII
~
r1;~
~WJ
f.Th
~:!f!
On April 16. 1982 I applied to the County Building Department
for and received a building permit for an accessory building. During
the permit process I was advised that my plot plans (which showed
the addition to the residence) did not agree with the county plans
and had probably been built without a permit. This was the first
indication that I had that Conde Construction had failed to obtain a
permit. I inquired of the county as to what steps I should take to
correct the problem and received a shrug which indicated to me that
the county wasn't too interested in my problem. The addition is
noted in my county approved plans which I have submitted with my
application for a variance.
It took me about one year to complete the accessory building
which was inspected numerous times by the County Building.
Inspector, who at no time objected or made any further mention of
the room addition. although they were well aware of its elhistance.
There are no potential costs to the City of Dublin in granting this
variance and the benefit to the City elists in having a residence
which has been well maintained, (neat, clean, and attractive) and a
potential for increased taxes. '
This variance, if granted, would allow for this residence to grant
parity with other residences in similiar situations which elisted prior.
to Dublin becoming a City. The addition has been in elistance for
over 24 years and has not been detrimental to the neighborhood nor
to any neighbors.
I request that members of the Planning Department give this
request for a variance favorable consideration.
Sincerely yours,
H6z~
.
I
I
I
I
,
!"
~
.
.
~ "'~
:
.
.
l
;
RECEIVED
APR 23 1987
DUBLIN PLANNiNG
.....
~
~
"0
.....
..
~
~
o
W
01
..
W
\tI
:t
tlt
<:..
f If ~~"OSb
.. I I I I
!A
~c,.. ~ P"':: aT
Nx!' Af.lieS #~.ve~ 1.
7~3::1 C..,,vrE.eev.ey
,Z)~8t./.u C'"
ATT A,CHMENl-:3-"
~ fA 87'OS~ Le.pe'&. "A
7'"
/, '
~~;'.::;;/J.; '-::. {,~;.:~:~~{~,'::(~'~'2~:'::_~~~'>>a-;~' :.;....~ ~::;:\i ~:<. ii ~.~~.~:: ~'~~;_:~~;~.':'::~';:..~~~:':f~';';.\ti~~,::.~~:.>:::S.'(!~i~~~i:{:::'5~~:~;J~~:':i~~'~~~:~.'f/~i:i..:.i~~-.':.~~",.; ~ >:'. ~_~::~l~' "J1~' .::
CITY OFFICES
6500 DUBLIN BLVD,
ADMINISTRATION
829-4600
BUILDING INSPECTION
829-0822
CITY COUNCIL
829-4600
CODE ENFORCEMENT
829-0822
ENGINEERING
829-4927
FINANCE
829-6226
PLANNING
829-4916
POLICE
829-0566
PUBLIC WORKS
829.4927
RECREATION
829,4932
t.1/~? /t~
'. (, I
6/ fit 7
CITY OF DUBLIN
P.O. Box 2340 DUBLIN. CALIFORNIA 94568
February 2, 1987
Mr. & Mrs. Henry Lopez
1861 Helsinki Way
Livermore, CA 94550
RE: 7632 Canterbury Court in an R-1-B-E, Single Family Residence
District
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lopez:
This will confirm our conversation with. Mrs~ Lopez regarding the
illegal room addition and patio cover at the rear of the dwelling at
the above address. '
On January 22, 1987, a joint inspection was made -by Building
Inspector, Robert Wh ite, and Zoning Investigator, Juanita Stagner.
Measurements and inspections at this time determined that the 13' x
23' room addition and the 13' x 19' attached patio cover, both built
without an approved building permit, are entirely within the 20-foot
required rear yard area. The room addition at one point is only 8
foot 6 inches from the rear lot line where 10 feet is required.
Section 8-26.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance permits a portion of the
requlred rear yard to be used by a building if it can be shown that
there is area in adjacent yards to compensate for the area used by the
building. Even if the compensating area can be shown, a portion of
the building would be required to .be removed because of the
encroachment into the 10-foot required rear yard area. A Building
Permit would also be required with all deficiencies corrected.
The room addition and attached covered patio contain numerous Building
Code violations, some of which are listed below:
1. Structure exceeds allowable window area (16% of area allowable)
and windows to be double paned.
2. Conventional footing (per Mrs. Lopez), should be pier and grade
beam.
3. Rafters - 2 x 8, 4 foot on center - overspaned.
4. COX plywood on overhang should be exterior grade.
5. Fireplace hearth does not meet code requirement (16" from
firebox) .
6. Wood paneling on walls (outlets need extension rings),
7. Exterior outlets not on GFIC.
8. Patio cover requires permit (exceeds 120 foot of roof area).
9. Exposed Romex wiring.
10. Other items," framing eleL:L-eb::._cCULJd.,bg,. '\.;i~ .......,...frrlminn
members are ~xpo$ed.
ArT ACHMENT . 4
-~ ?A87-oS~ Lol'U vl4
'. .
Mr. & Mrs. Henry Lopez
February 2, 1987
Page 2
Because of potential cost of making building code corrections, it may
be to your advantage to obtain cost estimates to determine the cost of
the building code corrections, or you may want to consider directly
removing the patio cover and addition.
A Variance application may be submitted to the Planning Department to
retain the buildings. Approval of the Variance is based on whether
there are special circumstances which deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by property in the vicinity, that approval would.
not be a grant of special privilege, and that approval would not be
detrimental to pfoperty in the vicinity. All of these findings must
be met. If the Variance application were approved, and not appealed,
again, a Building Permit would be required with all corrections made
and a portion of the building removed to conform to setbacks..
Further, oat the time of inspection, measurements show that the
accessory building (workshop and storage building) at one point is
only 5 feet 1 inch from the main building. Section 8-60.26 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires that no detached accessory bUlldlng shall be
located within six feet of any' other building on the same lot. The
building will eT51eflhiave to be moved to the 6-foot requirement or a
Variance application submitted to the Planning Department in proper
form with subsequent approval. . H~sJ; I ~ ~ 7
Therefore, this is official notification that the roO;; addition and
patio cover are required to be removed by March 4, 1987, or
compensating area computation determined and Building Permit
application submitted by February 23, 1987; or a Variance application
to retain the addition and patio cover submitted to the Planning
Department in proper form by February 23, 1987. A complete application
submittal, as determined by the Planning Staff by March 13, 1987.
If you plan to retain the storage shed in its present location (5 feet
1 inch from main building) you are required to submit a Variance '_..: .'
app 1 ication in proper form to the Planning Department by FebruarY-23,-'i,:'~
1987. A complete application submittal, as determined by the Planning -
Staff by March l~ 1987.
/IL'-7J ell 161 (7
Your cooperation is appreciated. If you have any questions, call the
Building Inspection Department, 829-0822, between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00
a.m. Monday through Thursday.
)' Yours tr.ulY, ~
'.L.<~J!:'6:- , ~.J:iL
I JUANITA STAGNER
ZONING INVESTIGATOR
JS:cf
Attachment(s)
cc: Z-87-7..
Building Official
Planning Director
~
T
.
f
.\~;:;~~~{fli{~':~:;~~.:~WI~;".
, ,~...
',.-',
RESOLUTION NO. 7 - 87
A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
.---------------------------------------.----------------------------------
APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REDUCED SETBACK BETWEEN THE EXISTING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING MAIN STRUCTURE AT
7632 CANTERBURY COURT, AND DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR
REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION AND PATIO COVER .
CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT BUILDING PERMITS AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT,
PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE
WHEREAS, Henry Lopez filed a Variance application to allow a
reduced rearyard setback for an existing room addition and patio cover
built without permits, and reduced setback between an existing accessory
structure and main structure on the site at.7632 Canterbury Court; and
WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been ,found
to be categorically exempt; and
. WHEREAS , the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said
application on August 11, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the
Variance request for reduced rearyard setback for the room addition and
patio cover, and recommending approval of the Variance request to reduce
the setback between the accessory structure and the main structure on the
site at 7632 Canterbury Court; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning
Administrator does hereby find that:
A) There are no special circumstances relating to the location, size,
topography, or any other physical features of the property which would
warrant granting the Variance request, to allow the reduced rearyard
setback for the room addition or patio cover_in that the property is
commensurate with other property in the vicinity under the identical
zoning classification. However, special circumstances do exist to
warrant granting the Variance request for reduced setback between the
accessory structure and the main structure, in that the Applicant
obtained building permits from the County and received final
inspection approval for the accessory structure. Additionally, the
existing setback is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance in
that it provides a 4-foot unobstructed ground to sky setback.
B. The granting of the Variance request for the reduced rearyard setback
on the room addition and patio cover will constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other properties
in the vicinity and zone in that all property in the City must comply
with the setback regulations for the Zoning District in which it is
located. The Zoning Ordinance includes a provision to accommodate
reduced rearyard setbacks to a minimum of 10 feet if the property
contains compensating yards. The lot at 7632 Canterbury Court
possesses compensating yards to accommodate a room addition and patio
cover, provided the 10-foot miniumum setback is mairitained. The
granting of the Variance for the reduced setback between the accessory
structure and the main structure will not constitute a special
privilege in that the existing setback is consistent with the intent
-1- AUA~H~!~t!
"~~'
'.',.I~:_J.
J{i&;r~~~;'0~" .. . . ",.i.
. '<,of the~':Zoniri(Or~i~ll~c~,',N,.,~) ,~n1.ng;~:dinance "p.eF~~~<se~y,e,~J..C?r;.',e~.l)tf,iJ~::',
, architectural features;to'project ,into setback areas ~~distanceJof ~2 :1::,'
feet., :,Theunobstructed 'setback !from"'ground' to "sky':c~i.iid :be"f4'(feet1,~~,;~,;,.,;' .
. "f.. ... -'._" ' . ". -.~..., .:,~ _'. :____,_ __w,"~ ._ !.'/,r.;.... '''';Al.'t.;j,:...~'~..:.!J.''.''_~~'''1~._.:F..r
between acce,ssory ,structures" ~n~, ~.t~e.r,~structure~ :1{i:~e~ex~,s!=i~(m8;~n>';i<' .
., ,', structure has, a l-fo~tprojec,ting ea",eresulting 'in a t~;f.()o~~~~;ii"i~,~~;;~.
. \,"',' .unobstructeds~tback consistentwi~h,~he' intent of the :Zoning 'lrZ:::':;.;;:f;::.'>,
',:!}:::", ?:~d,.i~~~.~~:;;.0/::?~:~~~:~~i/~i:i:~::.;:t.f:,r:'ri./t~:-)f:/;j6j~>.,'>':<'u,,;i/:::;t:i,~j,:~('~~~&~y1f.{~}~~fti?;;,::
The granting '''of both Va:ria~ce req~e~ts will not be-dei:ri;n;~'t-;li'';to',~;,,~<;
. persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public.welfare-(';f;;:{'.,
however-, the room additionasconstructe'd contains several City"",: ,...,:,:,
Building Code violations and may be detrimental to the public'safety -
and welfare.' " .' .', . " - .' ";:. ' .
. ' -
'.....,;
.. -'" .......;,......
,. ~..' . ~. .
.' '.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Zoning Administrator does hereby
1) approve the Applicant's request to reduce the setback between ;the '
existing accessory structure 'and main structure from the required 6-foot
setback to the existing 5-foot, I-inch setback; and 2) deny the Applicant's
Variance 'request to reduce the required 10-foot minimum rearyard setback
for compensating yards to 8.5 feet.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of August; 1987.
.-1f1~oll~c--
Associate Planner
-2-
,',., ;..
:,' ;.:,. ;~: ~.:...;~:;~~;;'~Y;~f,;:;>:';'~;,.il;;'.~\:~~:\;" >;;., .~'.' ,:.<:\l\;~~'i'\;,;;"
. . ~'..~ .~. '. '
"~-":"!;Jj;:"::
.'~' _.;:'..'..<L:-~_~ '..:.;:;:.it:":'i;..~~t::::_:':'L:::; ~;i.$l~'1ifjj;;wa...]'ff)J:':' .::~i':: '.:':;::"~,f'~~, .;,>~,:t ;~"~:}" ~;~~~..
Zoning Administrator Meeting - August 11, 1987
A meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on August 11, 1987,
in the Conference Room, City of Dublin Office, 6500 Dublin Boulevard. The meeting
was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by Laurence Tong, Zoning Administrator.
* * * *
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Laurence Tong, Zoning Administrator, and Maureen 0' Halloran, Associate
Planner.
* * * *
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT:
PA 87-056 Lopez Variance, 7632 Canterbury Court
Mr. Tong,
procedures
Report.
Zoning Administrator, explained the Zoning Administrator Public Hearing
and appeal process, opened the public hearing and called for the Staff
Ms. O'Ha110ran advised that the applicant was requesting approval of a Variance to
vary from the required minimum rear yard setback for an existing room addition and
patio cover and to vary from the Zoning Ordinance regulations requiring a minimum
6-foot setback between accessory structures and other structures on site. She
noted that the room addition and patio cover were constructed without building
permits. She further stated that in addition to the zoning violations, several
building code violations existed. She indicated that the accessory structure had
received County zoning approval and obtained building permits requiring a six-foot
setback between the accessory structure and main structure on the site; however,
the structure was built and the building permit finaled with a five-foot, one-inch
(5' I") setback from the main structure.
Ms. O'Halloran advised that in order for the applicant to retain the structures,
the applicant must comply with the building code requirements and obtain a Variance
for the zoning violations. She indicated that the three mandatory findings could
not be made to warrant granting the Variance for the room addition and patio cover
in that there are no special circumstances related to physical features of the lot.
She noted the property contained adequate sideyard areas to apply the compensating
yards provision requiring a minimum 10-foot rearyard setback. She further stated
that although granting the Variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare,
the room addition and patio cover contained several building code violations which
may be detrimental to the public safety and welfare.
Ms. O'Halloran stated special circumstances exist to warrant granting the Variance
for the accessory structure in that the applicant had obtained building permits and
final inspection approval from the County for the accessory structure and that it
met the intent of the ordinance providing a minimum four-foot unobstructed setback.
She further stated that granting the Variance would not be detrimental to the
public welfare.
Regular Meeting
ZAM-l
August 11, 1987
A fT ACHMENT b
1'It.o~, t..?tz. VA
~
.:'~:i '~,:"f;lx;.,~#~~(>i:~" ".;~ .~if'/:Jjl;~:af~::-}:i~~~~'.:,,_
" ,,"-'_.~ ,...,<""... ............;....__..~.,~.~......;.;..~;,.:, ,.., '. ..,' ..,;.~"';,.......~;.<--...-...;....;.~ ,"'-
She indicated Staff was recommending approval of the Variance to allow for reduced
setback for the accessory structure and denial of the Variance for reduced rearyard
setbacks for the room addition and patio cover.
Mr. Lopez, the property owner, stated the room addition had been built 25 years
ago, and he believed the contractor had obtained building permits. It was not
until he recently wanted to sell the house that he discovered there were not
permits.
Mr. Lopez stated the accessory structure was built with permits and received
inspection approval including the foundation. He further stated the County was
aware of the room addition and had informed him that building permits were not
obtained for the room addition. Mr. Lopez indicated that the County did not verify
whether permits existed, and it was indicated that he shouldn't worry about it.
Mr. Lopez stated he felt that when the City of Dublin incorporated, they accepted
everything in the City the way it was. He agreed that buildings should be built to
code.
Mr. Lopez stated he would remove the existing fiberglass cover on the patio cover
if that would bring it up to code. He stated the accessory building was built with
permits and he felt he didn't need a Variance. Mr. Lopez indicated he never
received any complaints from the neighbors concerning the structures, and none of
the neighbors objected, as no one was present at the Zoning Administrator meeting
in progress.
Mr. Lopez indicated that the building code violations will be corrected according
to code.
In response to Mr. Tong's inquiry concerning removal of the fiberglass covering on
the patio cover, Ms. O'Halloran indicated the patio cover is considered part of the
main structure for purposes of zoning setbacks whenever the patio cover is attached
to the house, regardless of whether it is open latticework or fiberglass covering.
She further stated that if the cover is detached from the house, a six-foot setback
from all existing structures is required. Ms. O'Halloran further stated that eaves
are allowed to overhang within the setback a maximum of two feet.
Mr. Lopez stated that he did not have a problem with reducing the eave overhang,
but he did not want to remove the building foundation due to the cost involved.
Mr. Tong indicated the Applicant would have to contact the Building Official
concerning any building code violations.
Mr. Tong asked for additional comments from the Applicant and Staff. The Applicant
stated the building addition would be brought up to code.
Ms. O'Halloran clarified for the record that the permit was issued on May 12, 1982,
as stated in the Staff report, and that an extension was granted for the building
permit.
Regular Meeting
ZAM-2
August 11, 1987
'._. . __ . '~:'~;_.~...."....;,~ ._~~_ ~,. ,~'~:::~;~=::::;,~i":;zjJ2.a.::;..:...~,~~,.,:~::'.~'.~."':_'~::; ~_ . 'J.....: '0:.. _._
_;i<.....;.;i~~:....~~_;.:~~~'.~./~l.:..:~_,,-",~'._. ';'J;.~',~""
Mr. Tong closed the Public Hearing and stated that the findings could be made to
warrant granting the Variance for the reduced setback on the accessory structure;
however, the findings cannot be made for the room addition and patio cover. Mr.
Tong stated that the length of time the building has existed does not constitute a.
special circumstance.
Mr. Tong took action to approve the Variance for the accessory structure setback
and denied the Variance for the room addition and patio cover setback based on the
finding stated in the Resolution of Approval.
Mr. Tong stated that the structure would need to comply with building code
requirements and the 10-foot minimum rearyard setback and indicated a two-foot eave
overhang into the required setback was permitted.
Mr. Lopez stated he did not agree with the findings and that it would be impossible
to move the building back two feet. Mr. Lopez inquired as to the status of
structures when the City took over for the County and stated a similar situation
existed on his court which was allowed.
Mr. Tong stated that when the City took over from the County it did not
automatically grant Variances for items not up to code. He further stated that the
other situation on the court mentioned by Mr. Lopez had been denied by the City and
was currently under litigation.
Mr. Tong indicated that State law requires a disclosure statement prior to sale of
property.
Mr. Lopez stated granting the Variance for the accessory structure doesn't matter
since the building had been built with permits and was inspected and approved as it
currently exists.
Mr. Tong restated the Zoning Administrator's action.
* * * *
ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 a.m.
* * * *
Respectfully submitted,
4~//4~
Maureen O'Halloran .
Associate Planner
Regular Meeting
ZAM-3
August 11, 1987
~>'
, 'd;.,'
....>(JI'
e
a',l---r
'6- ;){-o7
AUGUST 19, 1987
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 2340
DUBLIN, CA 94568
RE: PA 87-056 LOPEZ VARIANCE, 7632 CANTERBURY COURT
RECEIV.ED
AUG 211987
DUBLIN PLANNING.
DEAR SIR:
THE RESULTS OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, LAURENCE L.
, TONG, AND THE PLANNING STAFF ON 8-11-87, NOT TO ALLOW THE
, REDUCED REARYARD SETBACK ARE BEING APPEALED, AS I BELIEVE THE
THREE REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED UNDER SECTIONS 8-26.6, 8-26.1 AND
8-60.26 HAVE BEEN MET. '
1. THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING SIZE, SHAPE,
TOPOGRAPHY, LOCATION OR SURROUNDINGS, APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY UNDER THE IDENTICAL ZONING
CLASSIFICATION.
THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IS TO ALLOW A ROOM ADDITION
WHICH IS 18 INCHES TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON ONE CORNER
OF THE BUILDING TO THE PROPERTY LINE. ALL OTHER ZONING
REQUIREMENTS ARE IN CONFORMANCE. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
EXIST AS POINTED OUT IN MY ORIGINAL LETTER TO THE PLANNING
DEPARTMENT DATED 4-13-87, IN THAT THE BUILDING WAS BUILT
/
APPROXIMATELY 25 YEARS AGO AND AT THE TIME OF THE
CONSTRUCTION I BELIEVED THAT IT WAS DONE WITH PROPER PERMITS,
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS REQUIRED IN ITEM # 1 ABOVE HAVE ALSO
EXISTED SINCE 12-11-81 (EXHIBIT #1 ENCLOSED) WHEN A RECIEPT,
WAS ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DIVISION, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $40.00 FOR PERMIT PROCESSING FEE (NO 2211), 7632
CANTERBURY COURT, DUBLIN (487-R-81) FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
WITH THIS APPLICATION THE COUNTY BUILDING DEPARTMENT WAS
SUPPLIED WITH A PLOT PLAN SHOWING THE EXISTING ROOM
ADDITION AT 7632 CANTERBURY COURT. THE COUNTY (CITY OF DUBLIN
WAS NOT IN EXISTANCE AT THE TIME) GAVE A TACIT APPROVAL OF
THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION BOTH VERBALLY (AS INDICATED IN
MY LETTER TO THE PLANNING DEPT. 4-13-87) AND IN WRITING BY
STAMPING AN APPROVAL ON THE BUI LDING PLANS, WHICH SHOWED
THE EXISTING ROOM ADDITION. '
'~ ../'!'
ATTACHMENT 7
1c87"'09t Lb1>t:Z V~f'A,pe--1 L~
....... '" '" ,,,,K!!~.t,.~;~'t..'-",--..; ;-:-' >s.\'~-:\'.~
.
'~ . '~
~
~ .
THIS APPROVAL CONTINUED, DURING CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS BY S OR 6 DIFFERENT COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTORS,
BETWEEN 1982 AND 1984. THE REASON FOR THE NUMEROUS
INSPECTIONS WAS THAT THE ACCESSORY BUILDING WAS NOT
COMPLETED WITHIN THE LIFE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND AN
EXTENSION WAS OBTAINED (EXHIBIT #2). THE TACID APPROVAL
HAS CARRIED OVER TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN AS THE PLANS SHOWING
, THI S ROOM ADDITION HAVE' BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DUBLIN
BLDG DEPT FOLLOWING A TRANSFER OF THE RECORDS WHEN DUBLIN
BECAME A CITY.
2. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WILL NOT CONSTITUE A
GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATIONS
UPON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE VICINITY AND ZONE.
THE GRANTING OF VARIANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SPECIAL'
PRIVELEGE IN THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS REARYARD
SEBACKS TO BE REDUCED TO A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET PROVIDED THE
AREA ENCROACHING INTO THE SETBACK AREA IS COMPENSATED BY
ADJACENT SIDE-OR REARYARD AREAS WHICH EXCEED THE MINIMUM
AREA REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. NO VARIANCE IS
REQUIRED WHEN UTILIZING THE COMPENSATING YARDS PROVISION OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN MET AS
INDICATED BY THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE PLANNING STAFF WHICH
STATES THAT THE APPLICANT'S LOT CONTAINS SIDEYARDS WHICH
EXCEED THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIRED, THEREBY PROVIDING
COMPENSATING YARDS TO ACCOMMODATE A ROOM ADDITION AND
PATIO COVER WITH A REDUCED SQUARE FOOTAGE, FROM THAT WHICH
IS EXISTING. THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR THE IBM NEEDED ON THE
NORTH CORNER OF THE ROOM ADDITION.
3. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL
TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOOD OR TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE,
THE FINDINGS OF THE PLANNING STAFF REPORT IS THAT THE
GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO
PERSONS OR PROPERTYIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO THE PUBLIC
WELFARE. THE STAFF DID POINT OUT THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL
CITY BUILDING CODE VIOLATION WHICH I STATED AT THE PUBLIC
HEARING ON 8-11-87 I WOULD CORRECT IF THE VARIANCE WAS
GRANTED. THE BUILDING HAS EXISTED FOR APPROXIMATELY 2S
YEARS AND AT NO TIME HAS ANY NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED.
~...( ..
r
@
'.,~~.
NO ONE APPEARED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING IN OPPOSITIO~1 TO
GRANTING THE VARIANCE. ADDITONALL Y THE BUI LDING
ENHANCES THE RESIDENCE AND THE NEIBORHOOD, WHICH SHOULD
BE OF CONCERN TO THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
REFERENCE IS MADE THROUGHOUT THE LETTER DATED 8-12-87 ABOUT A
VARIENCE FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AT NO TIME DID I APPLY FOR
A VARIANCE FOR THAT STRUCTURE AS IT WAS PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED
WITH A PERMIT AND SEVERAL INSPECTIONS BY THE COUNTY. I
MENTIONED THIS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR.
I FEEL THAT THE CITY OF DUBLIN ACCEPTED, THE AREA FROM THE COUNTY,
THAT WAS TO BECOME THE CITY OF DUBLIN, AND ALTHOUGH I AM NOT
FAMILIAR WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR CONTRACT
THAT WAS SIGNED BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND DUBLIN REPRESENTATIVES,
I FEEL THAT IN GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, THE CITY IS CORRECTING A
WRONG WHICH EXISTED SINCE DUBLIN BECAME INCORPORATED.
SINCERELY,
#..~
H. LOPEZ
..
,r-(
-:12-
~HIB~f
0\
t -(',Y~
...'.':i.',":
COUNTY OF ALAi\IED,i\
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
:1H9 Elmhurst Sin',,' -1/;1\0\\011'11. Ci\ !I-l~.o.ol-J:s'l-,
141;; I HH I-ll-Hll
6421
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
May 1 2, 1 983
Henry Lopez
1861 Hel si nld Way
Livermore, Ca 94550
PERMIT NO. 4293 - 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, DUBLIN
This is in answer to your recent letter requesting an extension.
Your request for an extension of the subject permit is hereby
granted. The permit now expires on May 012, 1984. Please be
advised that only one extension may be allowed. If the work is
not completed by May 12, 1984 a new permit will be required.
1~E:7L-~~
VICTOR L. TAUGHER
BUILDING OFFICIAL
bw
cc: Inspector Lacey
'"
.r
r n.'-
t:.'. .~ J~ II.-;)' J
...,..,
G
'(:~ . .
,
-j:f.?~;f
."f ~\I
'iif
,r
,-,~'-~-~~:~:ff}~~!~ ':
". ;:'c.'~l,::'~
'~ ~"I. c-.'~~;~. .~-.~::-~,~"~<'\-:{~;t!t~J~;: .'. .',
f;~. ;: '\-?'f." -' ;. J.....;.:- -"~..A'i<: ,-i~
."Et ,< ~J'; REC.O. si '-'40' \~.~:::?; ,.~
.;:WHEN ptp'~fL y V ALlD~~ED IN THE SPACE ~BOVE THIS IS YO~R R~~E1PT;1 i" -'R
....Ji.
:-:,;.:'-i
~ :. .'.,
fORM 266-37 6M
'4 ~ Q.
c ~ \
\\. ~ n 1\ \~?l1
(\\)~ "'. ~~
O\)Y.\.\~ f- '
"".. ~ '.', '.' ",' ',1 "':,,,:~'..;J.';:," 'r/I '~r:')~";;~"'f,'-.;":/I;t"'f;;'11"" ", ,.':...,,"~ '),'1" d..... ." -
;;::~;:,/:f'~;!I~~r:j~~4~~:~1i~~~g'~lt:~:~~~~~1;'ti~~1jt". .. tjrff~~": ,1. :a~~*~~ ;:1',;' '#'/}f:l}:J:/~~,J.~f;~:~ :Y~1:;-:~~~"::~~~'
p 1"1"\"1":'::/' 'j,+-'1.I.:.,z~ I"'.}""~;I:' iJ' )!II/"~~.(. 'f:..}~fl "fA ~f:' 1...~.;' .;.;:'11 .,'F. ~,""'I"'.;f" .),;
,..:'i~~' ;~-!..}_."'.:.:,.,~:tr.~~{,,....,~1~/'I:,\;t~if'f."~,Jo~.:..,:,i,';;J.1., ,~-;,"..~)..(~ ;'J,.,,,,/', " tt;..;t~~.;.:~;. ,II'" c,}..i."/< '.t' "7-;.
. . fl........,........ ..-7)~ i.' ~' \0' +t~-f/.,..~'v'.r~ J l.;;~....~tf."..'l.....'l ",../ .
! ,"' 7). r:/.~~'. ~~';.~ '...., .~~/:.~~tj,).i:..\'r.':..,tr.;f/v1.'~~r/, t"i,~ J../1~~),~~..j;I.f"'J}I.J:~ ~~" 2 ~~:"'''v'''.' <{-..!);-j."'1i~}-f.f1:::/; ';" .
". !,:," '/~"'n ':::'''J'I.~;t."'.r.';J,~.~' .1.}1/~~"I.;::-:(f :S/i.1;~')l:;~h~' ::'F~~': /=>~"'~f:"f.!...r~ ./. 'J<~;;"'''t;, ~",,'~~'. ~'!~:~7: ~~.I ~~. ',"" ~I:'.l ~ ". ,. . ,/~ I
'"r '. ,.,..... 'I'~." ~ ..'......".'\.. "'1"....\ 'I').'''''' ,>1, "" ", . ..... ~. ~~; "l. r )~.r,. :..;. .;",,- . ~ ,)<, t.J1'" ''1.~ " ~" ,.'..'~ '''r ';,' .,,: I ' ','.-;t1."". ;. .g.' .4.,~' ." 'f' . .
. .... . '. l."',"~ :r....t!J>/:'~.'.i,'~/.'..,:lti f"'I"l'!i#"r,,/~,..;'f'("""''''J'''''''':'''l;-1:,.l':~::: "'"J:."~.;'ll""J',.r../,~~_,.t.......",: .:~ 'F
'~J'.," "I' ~ '",~,,'~.'Ir'~ 1ri.~>.../,.,'J, .t...11'."~" ',. l:....,.,......~ .tt~~.I'.,'l.iI.J. """~ .;;r""'l'I'T~t"e" I"' ....'!,.~ ....
: : ,..~. ,. .t., ;. ;/ J,",. ~ ;, : r,.'.'"': I .:,~: /...:'i'ft:.p ~' ''':/''~t:' '~~l~~:~' '(.~'X;'1"j..::' ,~'1 ,~t~:.~,4 ....-;:-;'(~k,: ~'''~I;~/f I)" ;t';:i:~-}:;~~'/:l, jr; ':.;. ~:,f/': .:,;. ';,~ ~{!I,..'~:.:,I:~ ; ':1:' ~ .- I
.. \ ,; . .....~ " "'. ,', I ./. 'j. J '. 'f ~.'.t oJ- ., }i'~ ~ ~r,V ...,..,~ ,j.,.~" ~ '.1'"," '~"'.}"ir:.r)f. ~~'f'li;'~ 1',........111..,.;:1" ~j. J ~,~;!~. 'lj~1 r ,,I'" ~ ,. . I.. .' >"; .
.,>...:,:':2."gCLi]~~~~t)(J;~;~',:1j~c;)r{:;,~61!i;Ip~~~~{~;~:lE;':},;~.:.;'. ~ ' ....'...
~. ~ ~J.,:"",. ;....'.~~".,t..; ~'.~J~~r~':"'l--t;~~~li;~"'iJr.' ",.LIt'! }f '~".f,~.~(ol; ~~"~H",\..f.'+'.~ ..1;t)~..lf''''''''''''l-J''''''l'''''4.-'' , , ~..,. 'J"..""'..;.r.t,/!'."'...<J.....t~rt~"'.....,;.~~ "~"''''''MI'''r?1. ,.. .<,.,j..I...~'. '. ...r' ;......
,.._.'"'.................~Jow"'" i_. :JL4;fj ....__.....~ d#....~...~..~~~lloi ,.~.'"'_,.~/_..-_....:......:..lo.Jl'.........~'4<_.;A........w......ioJ.....-_.........,-~-:.,_..,... '. .""
.~{
~H I B~' -:tl 2-
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
@"
','
;1,;;-
'Ii'
:I!lfl Elmhurst Sln',d . "i1~.\\i1I'r1. C^ !I4.i.O-I:I!I-,
(41;; llllll-li4 711
6421.
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
May 1 2, 1 983
Henry Lopez
1861 Helsinki
Livermore, Ca
Way
94550
PERMIT NO. 4293 - 7632 CANTERBURY COURT, DUBLIN
This is in answer to your recent letter requesting an extension.
Your request for an extension of the subject permit is hereby
granted. The permit now expires on May'12, 1984. Please be
advised that only one extension may be allowed. If the work is
not completed by May 12, 1984 a new permit will be required.
I~~L:~
VICTOR L. TAUGHER
BUILDING OFFICIAL
bw
c c : Ins p e c tor Lac ey
..,
,..:.....
. ,
" '.. ~,; '..:. :'::.:;:\.~ ..~-::::;
~ . ' ~ , . \~.
. ~'~\' ~:~ i;,. "~'.}}:_~.' ;~ ,_.~ .:;~:~~;~.~~ ':'~~, ~....~.'~:. \.~~~~ ~1. ~,;~~ ~~,~;~\ ',' ~~,;,
."'....'. ..
- ',:'
,..,.,