HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09011998 - C144 . ,. ., on a
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Y �►... County
Y I-
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: September 1, 1995
SUBJECT: A Request for a Third One-Year Extension of the ',Filing Period of the
Final Development Plan, County File #DP943013 allowing for a Second
Residence at #1995 Lackland Drive in the Alamo/Danville area (John &
Charleen Weber - Owners)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
R CQMMENDATION
Approve the third one-year (of potentially five) one-year
extensions of the filing period to commence construction specified
in the final development plan to extend to May 2, 1999 .
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS F R RECOMMEkMATIONS
In 1952, the County approved the rezoning of a 101-acre parcel at
the end of Lackland Drive to the Planned Unit (P-1) District. That
approval also included the tentative approval of 'a subdivision
application and final development plan allowing up to 21 lots on
the site. However, the subdivision and final development plan
application were allowed to lapse, while the P-1 rezoning remained
in effect .
In 1994, the current owner applied to the County for a new Final
Development Plan, County File #DP943013, to allow the development
of a second residence on the property. While no primary residence
on the property had been developed, a primary residence was
authorized under the P-1 ordinance without the requirement for
approval of a Final Development Plan. However, the P-1 ordinance
only allows .the establishment of a second residence with approval
of a Final Development Plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION 'OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
S IGNATURE (S) : y/'
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 1, 199$ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED __X— OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES : NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact : Bob Drake (335-1214)
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED.__.September 1, 1998
CC: Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
John & Charleen Weber THE FRARD OF SUPERVISORS
Alamo Improvement Association AND Y ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
B DEPUTY
On April 29, 1995, the second residence FDP application, was heard
by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. The
residence was proposed to be located along one of the ridgelines of
the property. One of the concerns at the time of that review was
to make sure that the residence would not adversely affect the
views of this site from surrounding properties . Ultimately, the
project was approved by the Planning Commission. Modifications to
the design of the house were provided and conditions of approval
added to assure the protection of visual qualities of the site.
Under the P-1 Ordinance, the period for acting on an approved Final
.Development Plan (FDP) extends twelve months from' the approval
date, but the period for commencing residential development may be
extended by extension requests from the applicant . In this case,
the permit allowed for an initial filing period extending to May 2,
1996 to begin the project . The Ordinance allows for up to five
one-year extensions on a Final Development Plan.
Previous Authorized ExtanqiQns far--File #DP24301.-A
Following receipt of timely requests from the applicant, on June 3 ,
1996, the Board of Supervisors authorized the first two (of five
possible) one-year extensions for this final development plan that
extended the filing period to May 2, 1998 .
Current t tem t Extension on 17r-g
In a letter dated April 28, 1998 from his legalcounsel, the
applicant is requesting a third one-year extension of the filing
period for the development plan.
PRIDMEY RESIDENCE
In 1996, the applicant obtained a grading permit and tree permit,
and begun grading for the primary residence. The; applicant has
also begun grading for water storage tanks for this development
which are not consistent with the plans that were approved by the
County. Staff has advised the applicant that if he wishes to
pursue a larger water tank design, he will need to apply for a
modification of the final development plan, and that such a
modification request would be heard by the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission.
DISCU S SIO
The delay in this matter coming to the attention of the Board
occurred through no fault of the applicant. The applicant has been
moving to act on the entitlement. Recently, the applicant
submitted grading plans for the proposed second residence site.
The applicant has also done an effective job in addressing the
concerns of various private groups about development on this site,
including the White Gate Homeowners Association. Accordingly,
staff believes that there is good cause for the Board to grant the
requested extension.
If granted, then the applicant would have a maximum of two
additional one-year extensions of the filing period in which to
establish the approved second residence.
C: \wpdoc\943013-b.rpt
RD\
-2-
LAW OFFICES OF
GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAH0N" & ARNT 1-S'P,0NG
WILLIAM E. GAGsEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE
GREGORY L. MCCOY b 279 FRONT STREET
PATRICK J. MCMAHON
MARK L. ARMSTRONG � Fyf23 �y+ r f p. BOX 2I8
✓✓ f1 r' �+ CjANVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94526-0218
LINN K. COOMBS TELEPHONE: (925) 637-OBBS
STEPHEN W. THOMAS '..i FAX: (925) $3$-8965
CHARLES A. KOSS -
MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ NAPA VALLEY OFFICE
MICHAEL W. CARTER '
RICHARD C. RAINES
THE OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE
�{ ^ -1 �y[gyp
J. A rl l 28 199$ 1030 MAIN STREET, SUITE 218
BARBVICTOR A DUVA p Y ST. HELENA. CALIFORNIA 94574
BARBARA bUVAL JEWELL
TELEPHONE: (707) 963-0909
ALLAN C. MOORS R7 M. FANUCCI FAX: (7'07) 963-5527
ALLA
PATRIC$^ X. CURTIN PLEASE REPLY TO:
STEPHEN T. BUEHL _
ALEXANDER L. SCHMID
AMANDA J U DG E
ALI P. HAMIDI
Danville
Dennis Barry, Director
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Fl . , 9. Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Final Development Plan No. 3013-94
DeBolt Civil Engineering, Applicant
John and Charlene Weber, Owners
1995 Lackland Drive
Dear Dennis :
On June .3 , 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved two one-.year
extensions of the filing period to commence construction of a
second residence at 1995 Lackland Drive, as authorized by Final
Development Plan No. 3013-94 . Copies of the Board Order for the
extensions and the Approved Permit are enclosed.
Since the last extension was granted, development of the property
has commenced. Since last Summer, a grading permit and building
permit for the primary residence has been pulled. Grading has been
substantially completed for that primary residence. The foundation
has been poured. The water tank has been installed. Framing for
the home is being commenced.
For obvious reasons, the Webers did not intend to commence
construction of the second residence on the property until the
primary residence was at least substantially undertaken. The
primary residence is being constructed as a custom' home for the
Webers to occupy. Such a construction schedule is appropriate and
reasonable under the circumstances, in particular given the long
and rainy winter this year.
Please include this request on a Board of Supervisors , agenda in
the near future. If you have any questions or require any
additional information to recommend approval for this request for
a one-year extension, then please let me know. Enclosed is a check
Dennis Barry
April 28 , 1998
Page 2
in the amount of $165 .00 to cover the extension request fees. We
have been informed by Donna Allen that is the correct amount for
this particular request . Thank you for your assistance .
V ry ruly yours,
ark L. Armstrong
MLA:kh
Enclosures
cc w/encs . : John and Charlene Weber
Gene DeBolt
F:\CLMA\37787\8arry.ltr
MI
{j AS
OEM,
yVAN ? +
MIZ
.��,j �,.." '�s, '�r,�`"1: ��"-~�., �►
owIMAJ
• k �! s �, MIf j(,t
"
. �►
-,,,E`�
++I��MiY4 �_. )))f fX ea`4�.f f.:,4 i .�Y'"'* '•.,.�,��Y�"`r� .� � ��,��5.�=" .
� 7r
J ,
f.�lil i �-9 �`'-.a� 1 ii "r�As.y..I �.. t� • f 7�-r"' {�
t! ��'rqj�,ryi "glow
""
-S44
4P 1 ti
MWI AN
2
L:; .•)p# ��M � ,j-°" *,- �"'j.,� i.- i t"'*'1+<, gip,„t "::._
< ��'4,S =? �'� �t(. ! fr� � �'+.�. ,tilt � ••* �'``A � «��,i^ � a �'-..� oMts t /
t,`i:^,`.rt.. � t� ��t "`r7'�+✓��'�'[j�f ,,,x' ...7 _.,.`""° �` if RR-����M�IV�"...fi
F °
R
f t I
�aetd silt p f
♦ � ../}`/y`t`\, f,�+'' Opti i �,\ "^"
.✓• ......«...s'«, t ��' r ��i. ! y 1 `.,,,.• � �'• +may V.
177 �
xx�x I .........
till
hb tSS11 olzlm ti
�►
r r 1415fl���1��3
v v.-
c.
F I L E U'VP
{ ✓ .• centra
• "�,ri Casts
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County
FROIS: HARVEY S. BRACIION
DXRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATS: May 10, 1997
SUBJECT: Request for .a Two-'Year Extension of the Filing Period of the Final
Development Plan, County File #DP943013 allowing for a Second Residence
at 01:4915 Lacklaend Drive in the Danville area {John & Cbaaurleen Weber
O�arr}
SPSCITIC RR a !«) OR ATYON{S)–1—B-1-CKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
u r�cne�+_ss�nma��T�3ua;
Approve the first two (of potentially five) one-year extensions of
the filing period to commence construction specified in the final
development plain to extend to May 2, 1998.
ETS A IMPACT
None.
BAOMOIDMIREArSONS POR_R�.coxaEhmnloms
In 1982, the County approved, the rezoning of a 101-acre parcel at
the enol of Lackland Drive to the Planned Unit (P-I) district. That
approval also included the tentative approval of a subdivision
application and final development plan allowing up to 21 lots on
the site. However, the subdivision and final development plan
application were allowed to lapse, while the P-1 rezoning remained
in effect.
In 1994, the current owner applied to the County for a new Final
Development Plan, County Pile #DP543013, to allow the development
of a second residence on the property. while no primary residence
on the property had been developed, a primary residence was
authorized under the P-1 ordinance without the requirement for
approval of a Final Development Flan. However, the P-1 ordinance
only allows the establishment of a second residence with approval
of a. Final Development Plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACRIOMIT: X_ Y3$ SIGNATURE_j .2�n
_ RXCiS Fxov Oil COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _._,. RRCO 3AATION OF BOARD C015ITTZE
M _ APPROVS _. OTMR
SIMATURX(S) a
ACTION OF BOARD ON june 3. 1597 APPROVED AS RISCOMMUDID OTHEGR
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I RERNSY CERTIFY TEAT THIS IS A
UNKNISIOUS {ABSMRT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
1k?t'1CS t NOXS s ACTION 'T'AKM AND St'Pl"ISR'RL1 ON TRE
AB8ZVTs _ ___ ABSTAII+N x unmTso or TRR BOARD or
SUPERVISORS ON TEX DATE SHOWN.
contacts Bob Drake #335-1219?
Origa Community Development Department ATTSSTRD .lune 3a 1997
cc: Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong PHIL BATCRBLOR, CLMM OF
John & Charleen Weber TRS BOARD of SUPIRVISOR3
County Counsel AM COUM ADXINISTRATOR
BY._i , DEPUTY
.............
on April 29, 1995, the second residence FDP application, was heard
by the San Ramon valley Regional Planning Commission. The
residence was proposed to be located along one of the ridgelines of
the property. one of the concerns at the tiTm of that review was
to make sure that the residence would not adversely affect the
views of this site from surrounding properties. Ultimately, the
project was approved by the Planning Commission, Modifications to
the design of the house were provided and conditions of approval
added to assure the protection of visual qualities of the site.
Under the P-1 ordinance, the period for acting on an approved Final
Development Plan (FDP) extends twelve months from the approval
date, but the period for commencing residential development may be
extended by extension requests from the applicant. in this case,
the permit allowed for an initial filing period extending to May 2,
1996 to begin the project. The Ordinance allows for up to five
one-year extensions on a Vinal Development Plan.
prpyjaull gxtmmign gpouest rgr File *D 241913
Prior to the expiration period indicated on the initial permit, the
applicant filed for a one-year extension of the ordinance.
However, instead of forwarding the request to the Board of
Supervisors for review as specified in the P-1 Ordinance, the
request was administratively approved by the Community Development
Department. The approval indicated that the filing period was
extended to May 2, 1997.
More recently, the error in the processing of the FDP extension
request came to the attention of staff, at which time staff advised
the applicant that the matter would have to be considered by the
Board. There is no evidence of any fault on the part of the
applicant f or failing to be attentive to the status of these
permits.
airran r Permit Extenision ft-gueat
Development of the second residence on the property has not yet
commenced, but the applicant is still interested in pursuing this
entitlement. in a letter dated April 30, 1997, the applicant's
legal counsel is requesting correction to the processing of the
initial one-year extension request, and concurrently seeking a
second one-year extension.
The applicant has provided evidence that they are beginning to
develop the property. Staff recommends that the request be
granted.
SZC= Rai 02 =MRMM4T ACTT014S ASA:OCXAM WJJR -EVEL02MENT, !QP
PRIMARY R38.1DJ=
In 1996, the applicant had applied for a grading permit and tree
permit for the proposed primary residence. The owners of nearby
properties were notified of the proposed development and a request
for hearing was filed by the White Gate Homeowners Association.
Hearings were held before the Zoning Administrator. On March 17,
1997, the Zoning Administrator approved the tree permit and
recomnended that the Building Inspection Department issue a grading
permit subject to conditions. Subsequently, a grading permit was
issued by the Building Inspection Department.
No appeal was filed on either the grading permit or the tree
permit. it is ataf f I a understanding that the applicant has been
discussing with the Whitagate Homowner's Association that
Association's concerns with the project.
C:\wpdoc\dp943013.rpt
RD\
.2-
CMHMUI� w4a. t.
ry
Wh#fe Gate,E#'vrrtemr-m* Cvr oratlors �
P 0. Box 795
Alamo, CA 94507
octobor 31, 1897
Mr. JONI Weber
OSO Short Lane
Danv'Ite.'aA 3
Fear John,
I am writing In regard to the attaehed bill that we rived from David Kelley&
Associates for his survey of our oak trees and the surrounding environment. (I
understand that a copy of his report ks sent directly to you. If that Is not the case
Pteace tet me know and I'D fax you a oopy.)When we made our original arrangements
wits``, Mr. Kelley, you had Indicated that you would be willing to split the expenses with
us as long as they did not exceed his estimate.( Copies of his estimate and your letter
attAohod)
As your can see he spent a tittle more time than he had originally planned. Would you
be willing to split this larger amount with us? if so please forward a chola payable to
David Kelley&Aawlates to m9 for hat4 of-the amount of the gill and PH forwatd It
along with our payment. If not please sand a ohook to me payable to David Kelley
for 8518,82 whioh represents four hours of his time and one half of the expenses.
'elease feel free to call me on 831-8002 If you would like to discuss this matter.
John, I hops the work ori your property is going well. Your people are to be
commended for the way the job hes beery croonduvted. To date we have received no
complaints.
Rogerds,
Post4t"Fax Not* 7071
To yam,
CO ft7�t Cb' d#+C p
17"5
sit,
Dennis M.Barry,AICP
Community Contra interim Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department ��l.d
County Administration Building
nty
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 945530095
Phone:
r6sr�`c.L�:f c c
November 6, 1997
Mr. Mark Armstrong
Gagen., McCoy, McMahon, & Armstrong
279 Front Street
P. O. Box 218
Danville, CA 94526-0218
RE: DP 943013, LP 942034—Weber
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
This letter confirms telephone conversations with you and with Mr. Gene DeBolt
regarding the submission of grading plans related to the location of a water tank on the
Weber property. The primary residence is currently under construction. As part of that
construction, grading and undergrounding of five 10,000 gallon water tanks were
completed prior to submission of the grading plans to Building Inspection on Thursday,
October 30, 1997. The matter was referred to Bob Drake, Senior Planner, for his review;
due to Bob's vacation, the matter has been turned over to me.
To accommodate plans for a second residence on the site, in 1994, a Planned Unit
designation was utilized resulting in a Final Development Plan. The Conditions of
Approval adopted with that Final Development Plan apply to the second residence on the
site. However, those Conditions of Approval specifically address grading and location of
one 20,000 gallon water tank on the entire site. Under Conditions of Approval#8, #9,
and#10, only one 20,000 gallon water tank was approved and a development plan for the
water tank and maintenance access road was to be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits for the water tank,
grading, and access road.
DP943413-Weber, pg. 2
Additionally, under the County's Grading Ordinance, Section 716-4.1424, "all changes in
the plans, grades, or extent of work shall be submitted to the building official for written
approval and incorporation into the permit. . . before any change in the approved work is
begun.. . failure to obtain prior approval for any change in the work shall be cause for the
building official to order suspension of all work until approval is obtained. . . . ." Also,
County Ordinance Section 26-2.2806, Late Filing, sets the fee to be charged when work is
begun"without first applying for and obtaining all required permits. . .and pay a fee of one
and one-half times the normal fee. . . ." Copies of the applicable section of the Grading
Ordinance and Section 26-2.2806 are attached for your information.
Both you and Mr. DeBolt explained that to accommodate the San Ramon Fire District's
requirement for 30,000 gallons of water storage, grading was completed and five 10,000
gallon water storage tanks were undergrounded. Both you and Mr. DeBolt'stated that if
additional fees and a hearing were required you could understand, but were requesting
that no hold he placed on the construction of the primary residence pending the hearing
on the development plan for the water tank(s).
Based upon our review of the development plans submitted for grading and',
undergrounding of the five water storage tarik.s and the requirements of the Conditions of
Approval, as noted above, the modifications already undertaken represent a'substantial
modification to the development plan. While we will attempt to expedite our review and
schedule the necessary hearing before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission as required by Condition#10, we will have to notice interestedparties and
provide a 30 day response period.
The fee for a review of a substantial modification to a Final Development Plan is$3,000
plus time and materials over 1201/o. Additionally, since the grading for the water tanks
and the undergrounding of the water tanks themselves were undertaken and completed
without first filing for and obtaining all required permits, as required by Condition of
Approval#8 and County Code Section 26-2.2806, the fee for late filing of the
development Permit Application is an additional $1,500(50°/o of the normal'filing fee).
Also required to process this substantial modification to the Final Development Plan are
12 copies of the development plan for the water tanks and envelopes for noticing adjacent
property owners and properties within the surrounding 300 ft. of the site.
Upon receipt of the above fees and materials, Community Development will approve
further inspections related to the construction of the primary residence, thereby allowing it
to proceed while the review and hearing process are being completed for the
DP943013-Weber,pg. 3
modifications to the Conditions of Approval adapted with the approval for the second
residence.
If there are any additional modifications to the Conditions of Approval adopted with the
approval for the second residence, you may want to request these as part of the same
modification review and hearing process to avoid any delays in the future.
If you have any questions or to proceed on this matter, please contact me at
335-1223.
Sincerely,
6
Louise Aiello
Principal Planner
cc: Dennis M.Barry, Community Development Director
Mr. &Mrs. John Weber
Mr. Gene DeBolt,DeBolt Civil Engineering
lafdp943013.doe
t
716-4.1420-715-4.1430 8UILDiNG REGULATIONS
requires entry onto adjacent property for any applicant shall file the surety's written consent
reason, the permit applicant shall obtain the to any extension of time before approval is
written consent of the adjacent property owner effective. (Ord.69-59 § I (part), 1969).
or his authorized representative, and shall file a
copy of the consent with the budding official 716-4.1428 Transfer.,(a) Any transfer of a
before a permit for such work may be issued. permit from the permittee to another person
(Ord.69.59 § I (part), 1969), shall be ineffective and void unless approved by
the building official.
716-4.1420 Job plans. When an application (b) The transferee shall agree to comply with
is approved and a permit issued,one set of plans the requirements and conditions of the original
and accompanying documents shall be clearly permit and to any modification thereof that
marked as reviewed and shall be returned to the may be required because of changes in the
applicant. This set shall be kept available for condition of the site or change in plans since the
.reference at the jab site during grading and permit was issued. The transferee shall furnish
construction. The applicant may furnish the required sureties before the transfer of the
additional sets of plans and documents for permit will be approved. (Ord. 69-59 § l (part),
notation as reviewed for return to the applicant 1963).
t for his use. (Ord. 69-59 § I (part), 1969).
716-4.1430 Suspension and revocation. (a)
716-4.1422 Posting required. The permit Grounds. A permit may be either suspended or
shall be posted securely in a conspicuous revoked if the building official finds that:
location on the site. (Ord. 69=59 § 1 (part), (1) Conditions at the site vary appreciably
1969). from those shown and stated in the application
and development plans;
716-4.1424 Amendment. (a)'All changes in (2) Grading or construction does not
the plans, grades, or extent of work shall be conform to the approved plans, grades or other
submitted to the building official for written conditions of the permit,'
approval and incorporation into the' permit, (3) Cessation of work before completion has
accompanied by any necemzy fees, before any left the site in a condition hazardous to the
change in the approved'work is begun. The public or to the adjacent properties,' and the
building official may amend the permit to permittee has not complied with. reasonable
approve altered plans, or may deny approval of requirements for completion of the work within
the change& the time specified in the ;permit or an approved
(b) Failure to obtain prior approval for any extension of time,
change in the work shall be cause for the (4) The permittee does not .comply with
building official to order suspension of all work reasonable requirements to safeguard the
until approval is obtained, and may result in workmen, the public, or other persons acting in
revocation of the permit if he deems the changes a lawful manner, during ,grading or construction
wall increase the hazard to adjoining properties operations;
or public roads, or otherwise be detrimental to (5) In transporting materials or in the
public welfare.(Ord. 69.59 § 1 (part), 1969). operation of equipment the applicant causes
materials or litter to encroach, obstruct, or be
716.4:1426 Tune extension. Before the deposited on pavement or in.drainage channels
expiradon of a permit, the applicant may apply within the public right-of-way, or causes
for an extension of time in which to complete unauthorized obstruction or diversion of
the work.One extension of time may be granted drainage channels within the site area;or
by the building official if in his judgment the (6) Failure to have a qualified inspector
Public welfare is not impaired. The extension working under the soil engineer on the site
shall be for a period the building official deems during grading or construction when required.
.appropriate, but not longer than one year. (b) Procedure. The building official shall
Denial of an extension shall not preclude the suspend or revoke a permit by making a written
Permittee from applying for a new permit for finding and order;and he may seize the permit
the balance of the work, subject to conditions and/or make appropriate notations on it of the
the building official deems appropriate. The suspension or revocation. Upon the written
254
3 2.281 a ADMINIS RATION
Article 26-2.26 26-2.2844 Environmental impact reports.
Conditional Zoning Cal Environmental impact reports;prepared by
county staff shall be charged at cost against
2602 Conditional zoning — Authority. money deposited in advance by the applicant.
planning commission's recommendation, Environmental impact reports prepared by con-
of supervisors may impose conditions sultants engaged by the county will be charged
zoning reclassification of property. (Ord. against money deposited in advance by the
1 (part), 1971: prior code applicant and shall include an additional non-
2(a)). refundable twenty-five percent of the con-
sultant's fee for community development
26.2.2604 Conditional zoning -- department casts in support thereof. If the cast
Gnrnditions. These conditions shall be those only exceeds the applicant's deposit, the applicant
which the board determines, after considering shall pay the excess costs to the county upon
t
the commission's recommendations, to be initial hearing on the proposed action. if the
necessary to avoid circumstances inimical to the cost is less than the deposit, any excess shall be
�. public health, safety or general welfare, or to refundedto the applicant.
Anlfill public needs reasonably expected to result {b) The director of community develop-
from the allowable uses and/err development; ment may waive part or all of the fee for a �
and the conditions shall be reasonably so planned unit district final development plan
r, designed, and reasonably related to the EIR if he finds, in accordance with.the state
' necessities of each case considering all the CEQA guidelines, that the preliminary develop-
relevant facts. ment plan EIR is appropriate for final develop-
Further, these conditions shall relate to ment plan consideration. (Cuda. 86-95 § 4,
special problems of the property if rezoned, 74-2 § 3).
such as water supply, sewers, utilities, drainage,
grading- or topography, access, pedestrian or 26-2.2806 Late filing. Whenever the direc. t
vehicular traffic, or proposed physical for of community development determines
developments affecting nearby properties. (Ord. that a person has begun an illegal land use
71.18 § 1 (part), 1971: prior code § without first applying for and obtaining all
2204.72(b))• required permits or entitlements, he shall apply "��--
,. as soon as practicable and pay a tee of one and
26-2.2605 Conditional zoning -- cine-half times the normal fee, but he remains
Operativeness. The .ordinance reclassifying the subject to other penalties and enforcement
Property shall not be operative until the procedures.(Ord. 86-95 § 5}.
conditions have been satisfied, or assurance
Provided by way of contract (with adequate 26-2.2805 Refunds. If an application, filing,
surety), as found and declared by board or appeal is withdrawn before any required
resolution. (Ord. 71.18 § 1 (part), 2971: prior notice is given but after processing work has
{ code § 2204.72(c)). begun, the director of community develop-
Article 26-2.28 mens shall authorize a partial or complete
refund of required fees which exceed the cost
.- Fees of the work performed. Once any required
, notice is given, no. refund may be granted.
26-2.2802 Fees Requited. Each person who {C3rds. 86-9516,74-2 § 3).
' applies for, requests, receives, or nteals a land
h '` use permit or other entitlement por service 26-2.2810 Public service activities.The direc-
��" furnished by the community development for of communis development m wive e
y p may a3 th
department shall at the time of such application, fees required .by this article for applications
request, receipt, or appeal
<; pay the applicable filed by community interest, nonprofit groups
fee or fees established by the board of super- receiving substantial financial support from
visors.(Ords.86-95 § 3,74-2 3). public entities for public service activities which
Moats Casts County S.67)
Centra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD s
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNI'T'Y DEVELOPMENT .
DATE: September 1, 1998
SUBJECT: A Request for a Third One-Year Extension of the Filing Period of the
Final Development Plan, County File #DP943013 allowing for a Second
Residence at #1995 Lackland Drive in the Alamo/Danville area (John &
Charleen Weber - Owners)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
MMENt
IONS
Approve the third one-year (of potentially five) one-year
extensions of the filing period to commence construction specified
in the final development plan to extend. to May 2, 1999.
None,
BACZG=aMfREASONS FOR RECQMMENDA'T'IONS
In 1982, the County approved the rezoning of a 101-acre parcel at
the end of Lackland Drive to the Planned Unit (P-1) District. That
approval also included the tentative approval of a subdivision
application and final development plan allowing up to 21 lots on
the site. However, the subdivision and final development plan
application were allowed to lapse, while the P-1 rezoning remained
in effect.
In 1594, the current owner applied to the County .for a new Final
Development Plan, County File #DP943013, to allow the development
of a second residence on the property. While no primary residence
on the property had been developed, a primary residence was
authorized under the P-1 ordinance without the requirement for
approval of a Final Development Plan. However, the P-1 ordinance
only allows .the establishment of a second residence with approval
of a Final Development Plan.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X-._ YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION'OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR „_,.,,. RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
-_ APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)-
ACTION OF BOARD OT APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VO'T'E OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION 'T'AKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: _. _ ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drake (335-1214)
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
Cc: Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
John & Charleen Weber THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Alamo Improvement Association AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Counsel
BY DEPUTY
On April 29, 1995, the second residence FDP application, was heard
by the San Ramon valley Regional Planning Commission. The
residence was proposed to be located along one of the ridgelines of
the property. One of the concerns at the time of that review was
to make sure that the residence would not adversely affect the
views of this site from surrounding properties. Ultimately, the
project was approved by the Planning Commission. Modifications to
the design of the house were provided and conditions of approval
added to assure the protection of visual qualities of the site.
Under the P-1 Ordinance, the period for acting on an approved Final
Development Plan (FDP) extends twelve months from the approval
date, but the period for commencing residential development may be
extended by extension requests from the: applicant. In this case,
the permit allowed for an initial filing period extending to may 2,
1996 to begin the project. The Ordinance allows for tip to five
one-year extensions on a Final Development Plan.
prem ous_ Aut ori. d ExLe Izi ons for File D2243_QU
Following receipt of timely requests from the applicant, on June 3,
1996, the Hoard of Supervisors authorized the first two (of five
possible) one-year extensions for this final development plan that
extended the filing period to May 2, 1998.
In a letter dated April 28, 1998 from his legal counsel., the
applicant is requesting a third one-year extension of the filing
period for the development plan.
2RIMAMZIDR-
In 1996, the applicant obtained a grading permit and tree permit,
and begun grading for the primary residence. The applicant has
also begun grading for water storage tanks for this development
which are not consistent with the plans that were approved by the
County. Staff has advised the applicant that if he wishes to
pursue a larger water tank design, he will .need to apply for a
modification of the final development plan, and that such a
modification request would be heard by the San Ramon valley
Regional Planning Commission.
DISCUSSIQN
The delay in this matter coming to the attention of the Board
occurred through no fault of the applicant. The applicant has been
moving to act on the entitlement. recently, the applicant
submitted grading plans for the proposed second residence site.
The applicant has also done an effective job in addressing the
concerns of various private groups about development on this site,
including the White Gate Homeowners Association. Accordingly,
staff believes that there is good cause for the Hoard to grant the
requested extension.
If granted, then the applicant would have a maximum of two
additional one-year extensions of the filing period in which to
establish the approved second. residence.
C:\wpdoc\943613-b.rpt
RD\
-2-