The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 09242002 - D4 s BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ��.. � w f - , Contra -. FRO M: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE September 24, 2002 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY LYNN LOPEZ AND STEPHEN PHILLIPSOF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION' DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING A TREE PERMIT WHICH AUTHORIZES THE REMOVAL OF TREES AND REQUIRES THE REPLANTING OF TREES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON KING DRIVE AND OAK BRANCH WAY IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA, COUNTY FILE#TP020008 (SUP. DIST. II)' SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 CONSIDER the recommendation of the County Planning Commission (Resolution # 24 -2002). CONTINUEa GN ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUREI:4� L , Ejjj24 RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY A[}MINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S); ACTION of BOARD ON 24,2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X SIE AZTA,MM ADt1I1 TM FOR BOARD'S ACrION- VOTE OF SUPERVISORS i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES.II,MV, &' WOES: IIT ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: ,t.ashun Cross(335-9229) ATTESTED Sept tuber 24, 2002 cc County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Public Works-Engineering Services,Heather Ballenger SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Building Inspection-Code Enforcement Silverhawk&Company, Inc. € Lynn Lopez,Appellant gY ,DEPUTY Stephen Phillips,Appellant" September 24,2402 Board of Supervisors Fite#TP020008 Page 2. DENY the appeal and approve the project based on the revised tree removal diagrams and subject to the proposed 'permit conditions as modified by the County Planning Commission: 3. ADOPT the attached findings as the basis for this decision. FISCAL IMPPCT None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated to pay supplemental:'fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100% of the..initial:fee payment,` BACKGROUND The subject saes are six legal lots created by the 1990 approval of a subdivision. In June of 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved revisions to the placement and design of homes.As part of that decision, the Board required that the tree removal would not exceed the total removal which would have been required under the 1990 plan. Consistent with this approval, the applicant is now requesting the removal of trees on each of, the six individual lots. The house footprints have been staked and taped in the field (although some of the staking and tape have now been displaced by construction or weather),and trees proposed for removal are marked. Community Development Department staff conducted a field review of each tree proposed for removal on March 7, 2002: In:staff s analysis, it was found that the proposed removal exceeded the estimated number of trees removed (if the original '1 990 plans were implemented) by 7 trees (115 trees were estimated for removal based on the 1990 plans). The applicant submitted a revised tree removal list, saving 10 trees and bringing the total removal to 112, below the 115 estimated for the original approval. The arborist prepared a tree replacement plan which recommends the planting of 90 trees on lots 1-6,and staff is recommending a planting of another 10 trees. ;An earlier tree permit for lots 10&11 requires the planting of 22 trees based on the trees removed. The arborist finds that the planting of 39 trees is appropriate for the most visible portion of lot' 10 including the planting of 13 larger 24" box redwoods, which can be counted as the cost equivalent of (26) 15-gallon trees. This would "borrow" at least 17 trees from the required replacement trees for this application: Staff is in agreement with the arborist that planting more trees in areas of the site where there is already substantial planting will further crowd existing trees to their detriment. Many of the trees on the site are in poor condition due to overcrowding, and removal of smaller trees would improve the health of more significant.,trees.' With the total planting of 126 trees on the hillside (139 counting the 24" box trees as two trees), there is a requirement for the applicant to plant 77 additional trees (216 total). Staff is recommending that the balance of the trees, or cost equivalent, be provided for current improvements in the area. This may include along the south September 24,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP020008' Page 3 side of Olympic Boulevard where the developer has undergrounded storm drain improvements- and a trail is currently planned. Condition 9A would allow for additional trees to be planted if found necessary after grading has been completed. Off-site tree planting would be coordinated with the applicant through the Public Works }epartment. Two meetings were hosted by Super September 24,2002 Board of Supervisors Fite#TP020008 Page 4 properties below,from Olympic;Boulevard, and from other vantage points. The County's peer reviewing arborist agreed that this 'access is better than the access taken from below. Approximately half'of the 112 trees proposed for removal are located in the area of the proposed driveway,which is screened from view by trees lower on the hill. The recommended approval is based on the fact that reasonable development of the properties would require the alteration or removal of trees, and that the development could not be reasonably accommodated on other areas of the site. Staff and the County's peer reviewing arborist have looked at other options that would remove fewer trees, and there are no suggested changes to the plans. The applicant views the trees as a resource that adds value to the property,and has placed the houses accordingly.' Appeal Point: The appeal letter states that the application should be denied because the conditions of approval for plans submitted April 17, 2001 required that tree removal must be less than or equal to the tree removal under the original;approval. The appeal letter also states that house parts and driveways can be adjusted to reduce tree loss. Response: There is.a clear discrepancy between the tree estimates provided at the time of the original approval in the early 1990's, the proposal approved by the Board of Supervisors in June of 2001 and the current tree removal request. The original pians and the plans submitted for approval in 2001 included the placement of only the larger trees surrounding the house pads and key trees on each site, and did not include driveway tree removal and smaller trees even though these same trees would have required removal under the earlier plans. During the review of the 2001 plans,:.there was also not a full arborist inventory of the trees on the lots, and the 'house footprints were not field staked to allow for staff to verify the accuracy of the submitted information. The primary issue reviewed by the Board of Supervisors at that time was to assure maximum screening of the proposed homes.The plans reviewed and approved by the Board were the end product of redesigns required by the applicant. A full lot by lot analysis of the tree removal and house placement is provided in the Planning Commission staff reports. Appeal Point: The tree permit does not contain a master tree removal plan and a full re- vegetation plan, as required. Response:The tree permit application included the first comprehensive tree removal plan and diagrams prepared for the project. The project arborist tagged all trees not tagged in the earlier inventory. The original tree permit numbering system was between 0-200 and the newly tagged trees begin with 700. In response to the appeal, the applicant has submitted a revegetation plan which shows the areas where replacement trees can be provided. This plan was not sent out with the tree removal notice, but would have been required prier to the removal of any of the trees, along with banding and protective fencing. In addition to the replanting of trees, the applicant will provide any necessary slope and erosion control, which will include hydroseeding and the planting of shrubs and groondcover. Total tree replacement proposed by the arborist'includes the replanting, of 117 trees on the sites, in areas where there is not already'a heavy tree cover. Additional trees would be September 24,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP020008 Page 5 required to be provided for off-site planting. The applicant stated at the County Planning Commission meeting that he is willing to work with the County and neighbors on the replacement=planting plan while the houses are in their framing stages. At this point; adjustments can be made to the location of new trees to maximize screening. Areal point. The appeal letter states that the application should be denied because°a number of the lamer trees may qualify for Heritage"Status. Response: Based on the inventory of trees, staff has identified trees which meet the basic criteria of the County's Heritage Tree Ordinance. Specifically that the tree be at least 22.9" in diameter, and in gaud or fair condition. Within the 4.87acre area that was surveyed, a total of 31 trees were identified as possible candidates for heritage status.Ther;are an additional'6.3 acres of open space that are not affected by the development and which likely contain additional heritage quality trees. A more detailed, tree specific evaluation would be required before recommendations could be made for any given tree. Since all trees appear on the inventory documents, all trees not shown for removal are protected under the County's Tree Preservation Ordinance and the additional step of having a heritage tree designation is not necessary. Four of the 31 larger trees are proposed for removal, all of which are located in the house footprints. A'more detailed discussion and list concerning heritage sued trees can be found in the County'Planning Commission staff report. A letter from the arborist commenting on the health and structure of the four trees proposed for removal is also included in the County Planning Commission staff report. On lot two, one 27"white oak tree is proposed for removal There'is a more significant black oak tree that will be preserved in the front yard,and there are no other home placement options that would not impact additional heritage size trees. On lot 6,one of the larger trees is a multi-trunk bay tree that represents a high failure risk. The other two trees on this lot proposed' for removal are oak trees, both on steep terrain, and generally in good condition and form. One of the trees represents a moderate failure hazard due to its lean down the hill. If access to the homes is taken from below,other significant trees would be impacted. No other alternatives (other than no development) were identified that would not impact any of the larger trees, Appeal Point: The'appeal letter states that the application should be denied because the increased number of trees proposed for removal may cause drainage problems, sail instability and landslides. Response: Erosion control will be required during grading as part of issuance of each grading permit, and also for each of the building permits for the homes.This same issue was raised'by the appellants before the Board during the review of the tree permit for lots 10 and 11. The County Geological consultant has noted that while vegetation has some benefit in holding the upper few feet of soil, a landslide may start to slide from below the root zone further down. As September 24,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP020008 Page 6 shown on the landslide map in the Planning Commission staff report,the project was approved with the knowledge that there are several slide areas on the property that need addressing. As discussed at numerous hearings for this project,the applicant is required to secure grading permits for roadway improvements and for each individual 'lot. The applicant is required to have his Geotechnical Engineer make recommendations for slide repairs, road design, retaining wall design and foundation design. These recommendations are then peer reviewed by the County Geotechnical Consultant, with inspections performed by the County Building> Division (Grading Inspection). Building permit plans and site-specific geotechnical reports are required by the Building Division before a building permit to build can be issued. The site in its current state poses a danger to property owners below. °Saving trees without performing necessary slide repair and engineering cut and fill slopes will not prevent slides,and the proposed tree removal will not create or aggravate slide conditions since tree removal will be followed by engineered fill, house foundations, erosion control and revegetation. These measures will improve the long-term stability of the area, and reduce slide risks to property owners below. If slide repair activities require the removal of more trees than those permitted under this permit,the applicant would be required to applyfor an additional tree removal permit and neighboring property'owners would be noticed. Tree removal would not significantly impact drainage on the hillside. The applicant has installed an extensive drainage system for the subdivision which includes improvements down to Olympic Boulevard. This system was designed with adequate capacityto handle the run-off from the project area. These improvements will benefit the neighborhood, since drainage facilities on the upper end of King Drive were inadequate prior to the installation of the new lines. RESOLUTION NO. 24-2002 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL— Lynn Lopez and Stephen Phillips. (Appellants)' Morgan Capital Investments, (Owners) Silverhawk and Company,Inc. (Applicant) Tree Permit File#TP020008 Walnut Creek area f WHEREAS, a request was received on February 7, 2002 by Slverhawk and Company (Applicant), for a Tree Removal Permit to allow for the removal of trees and to allow for work' within the root done of trees to construct six single family residences; WHEREAS,on April 4,2002,a notice of tentative approval was sent to interested parties and property owners within 300 feet of the proposed tree removal. On April 18, 2042 an appeal of the decision was submitted; WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, after notice was issued as required by law, the County Planning Commission,acting as the Board of Appeals,continued the hearing of the item to June 9, 2002 to allow for an additional community meeting, WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, the County PlanningCommission, acting as the Board of Appeals,continued the hearing of the item to July 23,2002 to allow for a beer review ofthe arborist report; WHEREAS, on July 23, 2002, the County Planning Commission, acting as Board o Appeals,conducted a Dearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's administrative approval decision; WHEREAS, after taking testimony at the July 23, 2002 hearing, the Commission fully reviewed,considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission voted to DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION of the Zoning Administrator by vote of the County Planning Commission at a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 23, 2€102 with the following revised language to condition 10: 10A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 120 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees,;and installation of landscaping and hillside erosion control improvements, and arborist review of Page 2, additional screening between trees #974 and#19 on Lot 6; subject to prior review and approvalof the Zoning Administrator; 10B. All building materials and paint'utilized on lots 3, 5 and 6(including those utilized in the construction of all structures including but not limited to auxiliary buildings, and fencing)shall have light reflectivity index of 50%or loss. The owner of record shall record the following deed notification prior to issuance of building permits: "'The property you are purchasing is restricted in that building materials(including but not limited to paint,window and door` trim,roofing, and siding)must have light reflectivity indexes of 50%or less;" and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday,July 23, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners- Clark,Terrell, Gaddis, Hanecak,and Battaglia NOES: Commissioners- None ABSENT: Commissioners Mehlrnen and Wong ABSTAIN: Commissioners- None WHEREAS,in a letter received July 26,2002,following the decision on this application by the County Planning Commission, neighboring property owners appealed the County Planning Commission's approval of File#TP020008 to the Board of Supervisors. Hyman Wong, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: t DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California ADDENDUM AD TO ITEM D. September 24, 202 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by Lynn Lopez and Stephen Phillips, of the County Planning Commission's decision denying the appeal and approving a tree permit which authorizes the removal of trees and requires the replanting of trees for the construction of six single family residences on Ding Drive and Oak Branch Way in the Walnut Creek area, County File#TP024008. Dennis Barry,Director, Community Development Department and Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director,Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. She asked the Board consider the following modifications to the conditions of approval: ■ Tree 47, add to the condition `Prior to any site work, the applicant must submit for`the review and approval o,f'the,Zoning Administrator remedial measures that would maximize the longterm preservation of Tree#47 on Lot]. This information must be prepared by a certified Arborist. ■ Condition #9, add to the condition, to require that replacement tree planting must,follow` strict adherence to aboricultural planting and maintenance standards. ■ Condition #3 regarding the Construction Period Restrictions, add to the condition, "Throughoutthe construction of the site, the applicant shall ensure that the arborist is given full access to the site at all times: The Chair then opened the public hearing and the following persons presented'testimony: Dr. Stephen Phillips,(Appellant),;.124 El Dorado Road, Walnut Creek; Lynn Lopez,(Appellant), 134 El Dorado Road,Walnut Creek; Arthur Marchetti, 161 El.Dorado Road,Walnut Creek, Edward E. Soares, Saranap'Home Owners Association,2757 West Newell Avenue,Walnut Creek, Jeffrey Batt, (Applicant), Silverhawk and Company, 1 Blackfield Drive,AMB 404,Tiburon, Charles Stepp,2451 Olympic Blvd.,Walnut Creek Then Chair closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for discussion, Supervisor Uilkema moved the staff recommendations with the modifications of the three conditions discussed by staff and Supervisor Uilkema today. Dennis Barry then clarified if the maker of the motion had intended to include an additional condition that would require the distribution of education materials for the care and maintenance September 24, 2002 D4 Page 2 for the trees to buyers of the property. Supervisor Uilkema advised she wanted to include that. The following is included with the modifications: ■ The requirement that the applicant or the owner of the property provide educational materials on the care and maintenance of the resource o,f the oak woodland to any Buyer of the property. The Board of Supervisors then took the following action: ■ CLOSED the public hearing; ■ DENIED the appeal by Lynn Lopez and Stephen Phillips; ■ APPROVED the recommendation of the County Planning Commission in Resolution' #24-2002 to include the modifications made by the Board of Supervisors today to the Conditions of approval ; ■ APPROVED the project based on the revised tree removal diagrams and subject to the proposed permit conditions as modified by the County Planning Commission. ...... ...... . ....... .... ............. ..... ... ........... ... ........... ... ........... ... ... ........... .......... .......... .......... ...................... ...... ............... .... ........ .... ........ ..... ... ............... ............... ... 1 i Fill i lzii i .... ...... ....... .......... .......... .... ..........� El 1 D ........ ... ... ..... .......... .......... .... iiiEi .......... .......... ...... .... i FEE ili El i 1 i ........ ... .......... ........... ii2iiijil i ll2iiiii ............ izi illil .. . ...... ............ .............. ..... ...... 11MI.......... !MMIN!11j; 111i �yyjij ................ ................. ............. ........... .......... .......... .......... ....... ... ... .... ............ ............ ............. ............ ......... ............ ............ .......... ........... ............ ........... ................. ........ ................ ............ ........... .............. ........... ... .......... ... ........ ...... ...... ....... ........ ........................ .............. .... ....... ..... lEililiEliizi ..... ....... ............ .............. ........ .......... ............ ......... . ... ....... .......... ............. ........ ... ilia . . ... ... ........... . ..... .. . . ........ . . . .. . . ........ . . . .. .. ............... .. .... .. ... .......... ... ... ............ .... ....... .. ... .......... .... .... ............... . ..... ............ .... ... .. ............... ............... ... ....... ... ...... . ... .... ... . .... .. ... .... .... .. ... .... ...... ...... .............. TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / Contra Ora FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD _ S' Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County +rA":cit' DATE: September 24, 20€ 2 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL. BY LYNN LOPEZ AND STEPHEN PHILLIPS OF THE COUNTY P'LANNI'NG COMMISSION'S :DECISION DENYINGAN APPEAL AND APPROVING A TREE PERMIT WHICH AUTHORIZES THE REMOVAL OF TREES' AND REQUIRES THE REPLANTING OF TREES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIX SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON KING DRIVE AND OAK BRANCH WAY IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA, COUNTY FILE #TP'020008 (SUP. DIST. II) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND:JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSIDER the recommendation of the County Planning Commission (Resolution #`24 -2002). CONTINUED 0 ATTACHMENT: X! YES' SIGNATURE ' RECOMMENDATION OF`COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COhIIIUIrt'TT` E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF SOAFt ON'; APPRC?VE5 AS RECOIIIIMENQED OTHER� VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS{ABSENT CORRECT COPY of AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT:, —ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: L.ashun Cross(335-1229) ATTESTED cc: County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi ;JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF, THE BOARD �F Public Works-Engineering Services, Heather Ballenger SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR eullding Inspection-Code Enforcement Silverhawic&Company,Inc. Lynn Lopez,Appellant BY DEPUTY Stephen Phillips,Appellant September 24, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP020008 Page 2 2. DENY the appeal and approve the project based on the revised tree removal diagrams y and subject to the proposed permit conditions as modified by the County Planning Commission', 3. ADOPT the attached findings as the basis for this decision. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material casts which exceed 100% of the initial fee payment. BACKGROUND The subject sites are six legal lots created by the 1990 approval of a subdivision. In June of 2001,the Board of Supervisors approved revisions to the placement and design of homes-As part of that decision, the Board required that the tree removal would not exceed the total removal which would have been required under the 1990 plan. Consistent with this approval, the applicant is now requesting the removal of trees on each of: the six individual lots. The house footprints have been staked and taped in the field (although some of the staking and tape have now been displaced by construction or weather), and trees` proposed for removal are marked.Community Development Department staff conducted a field review of each tree proposed for removal on March 7, 2002. in staff s analysis, it was found that the proposed removal exceeded the estimated number of trees removed (if the original 1990 plans were implemented) by 7 trees (115 trees were estimated for removal based on the 1990 plans). The applicant submitted a revised tree removal list,saving 10 trees and bringing the total removal to 112,below the 115 estimated for the original approval. The arborist prepared a tree replacement plan which recommends the planting of 90 trees on lots 1-6, and staff is recommending a planting of another 10 trees. An earliertree permit for lots'10&11 requires the planting of 22 trees based on the trees removed.' The arborist finds that the planting of 39 trees is appropriate for the most visible portion of lot 10, including the planting of 13 larger 24" box redwoods, which can be counted as the cost equivalent of (26) 15-gallon trees. This would "borrow" at least 17 trees from the required replacement trees for this application. Staff is in agreement with the arborist that planting more trees in areas of the site where there is already substantial planting will further crowd existing trees to their detriment. Many of the trees on the site are in poor conditiondue to overcrowding, and removal of smaller trees would improve the health of more significant trees. With the total planting of 126 trees on the hillside (139 counting the 24" box trees as two trees), there is a requirement for the applicant to plant 77 additional trees (216 total). Staff is recommending that the balance of the trees, or cost equivalent, be provided for current improvements in the area. This may include along the south September 24, 2002 Board of Supervisors Pile#TP020008 Page 3 side of Olympic Boulevard where the developer has undergrounded storm drain improvements and'a trail is currently planned. Condition 9A would allow for additional trees to be planted if found necessary after grading has been completed'. Off--site tree planting would be coordinated with the applicant through the Public Works Department. Two meetings were hosted' by Supervisor Uilkema's office prior to the Planning Commission' hearing. The meetings included the appellants, staff' and representatives of the City of Lafayette. Ata meeting on June 27, 2002 a decision was made to have an arborist selected by the County conduct a peer review of the information submitted. The City of Lafayette also submitted a letter expressing concerns with the application. At the Planning Commission hearing on June 18, 2002, the Commission reviewed the application and took testimony. Several speakers suggested that the Commission request the applicant to prepare a photo-simulation of the hill with the houses, showing the removed trees, consistent with the recommendation of the City of Lafayette. Several Commissioners commented that based on theirwalking of the site,the homes would be partially visible through the remaining trees with the most visible houses being on lots 3, 5 and 6. The Commission added language to conditions 10A and 178. Condtion 18Awould require additional planting on the side of the proposed residence on lot 6 (the east side)to further screen it from Tice Valley Road, if needed. Condition 17B requires that the homes on lots 3,5 ,and 6 have a light reflectivity index of less than 50% to assure that they will blend with the Mill. ANALYSIS OF THE APPEAL On duly 26, 2002,an appeal to the Planning Commission was received, raising similar issues to the'appeal letter submitted to the County Planning Commission. Staff offers the following responses to the issues raised in the appeal letter: Appeal Point: The Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator decisions did not meet the criteria listed in County Code Section 816-6.8010. Response: Section 816-6.8010 outlines the criteria for the issuance or denial of'a tree permit. The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission found that the removal is similar to the tree removal permitted under the original 1990 approval (although the total number of trees proposed for removal was never fully disclosed during the processing of the earlier application). This application was approved before the County adopted the tree preservation ordinance,and the!applicant has the right to build on the six lots.' The current application would require the removal of 112 trees, while it is estimated that the implementation of the original 1990 plan would have required the removal of 115 trees. A primary difference between the original proposal and the current proposal is that access to lots 5 and 6 will be taken from behind the houses instead of from below (the Board of Supervisors approved an:adjustment to the scenic easement to allow for the change'in ' driveway location). If access is taken from below, a comparable number of trees would require removal but the homes, driveway and retaining walls would be much more visible from September 24, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP020008 Page 4 properties below, from Olympic Boulevard,and from other vantage;;points. The County's peer reviewing arborist agreed that this access is better:than the access taken from below; Approximately half of the 112 trees proposed for removal'.are located in the area of the proposed driveway,which is screened from view by trees lower on the hill. The recommended approval is based on the fact that reasonable development of the properties would require the alteration or removal of trees, and that the development could :not be reasonably accommodated on other areas of the site. Staff and the County's peer reviewing arborist have looked at other options that would remove fewer trees, and there are no suggested changes to the plans. The applicant views the trees as a resource that adds value to the property,and has placed the houses accordingly. Appeal Point. The appeal letter states that the application ,should be denied because,the conditions of approval for plans:submitted April 17, 2001 required that tree removal must be less than or equal to the tree removal ander the original approval. The appeal letter also states that house pads and driveways can be adjusted to reduce tree loss. Response: There is a clear discrepancy between the tree estimates;provided at the time of the original approval in the early 1990's, .the proposal approved by the Board of Supervisors in June of 2001 and the current tree removal request The original plans and the plans submitted for approval in 2001 included the placement of only the larger trees surrounding the house pads and key trees on each site, and did not include driveway tree removal and smaller trees even though these same trees would have required removal underthe earlier plans. During the review of the 2001 plans, there was also not a full arborist inventory of the trees on the lots, and the house footprints were not field staked to allow for staff to verify the accuracy of the submitted information. The primary issue reviewed by the Board of Supervisors at that time was to assure maximum screening of the proposed homes. The plans reviewed and approved by the Board were the end product of redesigns required by the applicant. A full lot by lot analysis of the tree removal and house placement is provided in the Planning Commission staff reports. Appeal Point: The tree permit does not contain a master tree removal plan and a full re- vegetation plan, as required. Response: The tree permit application included the first comprehensive tree removal plan and diagram prepared for the project. The project arborist tagged all trees not tagged in the earlier inventory. The original tree permit numbering system was ;between 0-200 and the newly tagged trees begin with 700. In response to the appeal, ;the applicant has submitted a revegetation plan which shows the areas where replacement trees can be provided. This plan was not sent out with the tree removal notice, but would have been required prior to the removal of any of the trees, along with bondingand protective fencing. In addition to the replanting of trees, the applicant will provide any necessary slope and erosion control, which will include hydroseeding and the planting of shrubs and groundcover. Total tree replacement proposed by the arborist includes the replanting of 117 trees on the sites, in areas where there is not already a heavy tree cover. Additional trees would be September 24,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP020008 Y Page 5 required to be provided for off-site planting. The applicant stated at the County Planning Commission meeting that he is willing to work with the County and neighbors on the replacement planting plan while the houses are in their framing stages. At this point, adjustments can be made to the location of new trees to maximize.screening. Appeal Point: The appeal letterstates that the application should be denied because a number of the larger trees may qualify for Heritage Status. Response; Based on the inventory of trees, staff;has identified trees which meet the basic criteria of the County's Heritage Tree Ordinance. Specifically that the treebe at least 22.9 in diameter, and in good or fair condition.' Within the 4.870cre area that was surveyed, a total of 31 trees were identified as possible candidates for heritage status.There are an additional 6.3 acres of open space that;,are not affected by the development and which likely contain additional heritage quality trees. A more detailed,tree specific evaluation would be required before recommendations could be made for any given tree. Since all trees appear an the inventory documents, all trees not shown for removal are protected'under the County's Tree Preservation Ordinance and the additional step of having a heritage tree designation is not necessary. Four of the 31 larger trees are proposed for removal,all of which are located in the house footprints. A more detailed discussion and list concerning heritage sized trees;can be found in the County Planning Commission staff report. A letter from the arborist commenting on the health and structure of the four trees proposed for removal is also included in the County Planning Commission staff report. On lot two, one 27"white oak tree is proposed for removal. There is a more significant black oak tree that will be preserved in the front yard,and there are no other home placement options that would not impact additional heritage size trees. On lot 6, one of the larger trees is'a multi-trunk bay tree that represents a high failure risk. The other two trees; on this lot proposed for removal are oak trees, both on steep terrain, and generally in good condition`and form. One of the trees represents a moderate failure`hazard. due to its lean dawn the hill. If access to the homes is taken from below,other significant trees would be impacted. No ether alternatives (other than no development) were identified that would not impact any of the larger trees. Appeal Point: The appeal letter states that the application should be denied because the increased number of frees proposed for removal may cause drainage problems,soil instability and landslides; Response; Erasion control will be required during grading as part of issuance of'each°grading permit, and also for each of the building permits for the homes.This same issue was raised by the appellants before the Board during the review of the tree permit for lots 10 and 11. The County Geological consultant has noted that while vegetation has some benefit in holding the upper few feet of soil,'a landslide may start to slide from below the root zone further dawn. As ..................................................................................-..........- ............ ............ .......................................... ............ .......... ........ ........... September 24,2002 Board of Supervisors File#TP020008 Page 6 shown on the landslide map in the Planning Commission staff report,the project was approved with the knowledge that there are several slide areas on the property that need addressing. As discussed at numerous hearings for this project,the applicant is required to secure grading permits for roadway improvements and for each individual lot. The applicant is required to have his Geotechnical Engineer make recommendations for slide repairs, road design, retaining wall design and foundation design. These recommendations are then peer reviewed by the County Geotechnical Consultant, with inspectionsperformed by the County Building Division (Grading Inspection). Building permit plans and site-specific geotechnical reports are required by the Building Division before a building permit to build can be issued. The site in its current state poses a danger to property owners below. Saving trees without performing necessary slide repair and engineering cut and fill slopes will not prevent slides,and the proposed tree removal will not create or aggravate slide conditions since tree removal will be followed by engineered fill, house foundations, erosion control and revegetation. These measures will improve the long-term stability of the area, and reduce slide risks to property owners below. If slide repair activities require the removal of more trees than those permitted underthis permit,the applicant would be required to apply for an additional tree removal permit and neighboring property owners would be noticed. Tree removal would not significantly impact drainage on the hillside. The applicant has installed an extensive drainage system forthe subdivision which includes improvements down to Olympic Boulevard. This system was designed with adequate capacity to handle the run-off from the project area. These improvements will benefit the neighborhood, since drainage facilities on the upper end of King Drive were inadequate prior to the installation of the new lines. RESOLUTION NO. 24-2002 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL— Lynn Lopez and Stephen Phillips. (Appellants) Morgan Capital Investments,(Owners) Silverhawk and Company,Inc. (Applicant) Tree Permit rile#TP020008 Walnut Creek area r WHEREAS, a request was received on February 7, 2002 by Silverhawk and Company (Applicant), for a 'free Removal Permit to allow for the removal of trees and to allow for work within the root zone of trees to construct six single family residences; WHEREAS,on April 4,2002,a notice of tentative approval was sent to interested parties and property owners within 300 feet of proposed tree removal. On April 18, 2002 an appeal of the decision was submitted; WHEREAS, on June 18, 2002, after notice was issued as required by law, the County Planning Commission,acting as the Board of Appeals,continued the hearing of the item to June 9, 2002 to allow for an additional community meeting; WHEREAS, on July 9, 2002, the County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals,continued the hearing of the item to July 23,2002 to allow for a peer review of the arborist report; WHEREAS, on July 23, 2002, the County Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, conducted a hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Administrator'sadministrative approval, decision, WHEREAS, after taping testimony at the July 23, 2042 hearing, the Commission fully reviewed,considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission voted to DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE DECISION of the Zoning Administrator by vote of the County Planning Commission at a regular meeting on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 with the;following revised language to condition 10: 10A. Extent of.Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 120 trees, nummum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees,and installation of landscaping and hillside erosion control improvements, and arborist' review of Page 2 additional screening between trees #974 and #19 on Lot 6; subject to prior review ,. and approval of the Zoning Administrator; I OB. All building materials and paint utilized on lots 3, 5 and 6(including those utilized in the construction of all structures including but not limited to auxiliary buildings, and fencing) shall have light reflectivity index of 50%or less. The owner of record shall record the following deed notification prior to issuance of building permits: "The property you are purchasing is restricted in that building materials (including but not limited to paint, window and door trim,roofing,and siding)must have light reflectivity indexes of 50%or less,"and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in. accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 by the following.:vote: AYES,: Commissioners Clark, Terrell, Gaddis,Hanecak, and Battaglia NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners - Mehlmen and Wong ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None WHEREAS,in a letter received July 26,2002,following the decision on this application by the County Planning Commission, neighboring property owners appealed the County Planning Commission's approval of File#TP020008 to the Board of Supervisors. Hyman Wong, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY,Secretary County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TREE PERMIT NO. TP020008 (Jeff Raft, Applicant,Morgan Capital Inv,'Owners)AS APPROVED'BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUDY 23; 2002. Criteria for Review of the Tree Permit' A. Required Factors for Granting Permit. The Zoning.Administrator is satisfied that the fallowing factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as marked: X 1. The arborist report indicates that the subject tree is in poor health and cannot be saved. (See County Planning Commission staff report and inventory). 2. The tree is a public`nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means. X 3. Several of the trees in danger of falling and cannot be saved by some other means. (see County Planning Commission staff report and inventory). 4:' The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as a building foundation,walls, patios,decks,roofs,retaining walls, etc. 5. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be fire hazard. _„_ 6. The proposed tree species or the form of the tree dries not merit saving. X 7. Reasonable development of the properties would require the alteration or removal of trees and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on other ureas of the site(see attached tree narrative and inventory). 8. The tree is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and property. These species characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived,weak wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow rooted and subject to toppling. 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required., and the Director is satisfied that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the sustainability of the resource: 10. None of the above factors apply. B. Required Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied thatthe following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for denying (or modifying) a tree permit application have been satisfied as marked: 1. The applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal of a healthy tree that can be avoided by reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to project approval (for non-discretionary permits). 2. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy tree will cause problems with drainage, erosion control, land suitability,windscreen, visual screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as part of the proposed removal of the tree. 3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. 4. The value of the tree to the neighborhood in of visual effect,wind screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship to the owner. S. If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other reasonable alternatives including an alternate route, use of retaining walls, use of pier and grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements. _ 6. Any other reasonable and relevant factors specified by the Community Development Director. X 7. None of the above factors apply. -2- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. The applicationfor Tree Removal is approved based on the following documents: A. Revised report and tree location plans for the project byReliable lTree Experts,a certified arborist, dated May 20, 2002. B. Report by Tree Decisions dated July 18,2002 All grading, site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees proposed for removal, altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number corresponding to the arborist report discussion, and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. All trees to be removed shall be tagged with red or orange ribbons. This permit shall be valid for aperiod of 90 days and maybe renewed for additional periods by the Director of Community Development upon request by the applicant. Construction Period Restrictions 2. Site Preparation - Prior to the start of any-'clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity ofthe trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff' Construction plans shall stipulate on their face where temporary fencing intended far trees to be protected is to be placed, and that the required fencing shall be installedprior-to the commencement of arty construction' activity. 3. Construction Period Restrictions-No grading,compaction,'stockpiling,trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature' tree other than the trees approved'for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be saved, an arborist is required to be present during grading operations that may impact the trees.' The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods'required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expenses shall be borne by the developer and owner unless otherwise provided by the development conditions of approval. } -3- 4. Prohibition of Parking No parking or staring ;vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. 5. Construction Tree Damage-The development property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. 6. Supervision of Work by an Arborist-All work that encroaches within the drip-line of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Arborist Expense 7, Arborist Expense-The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner. Payment of Any Required Supplemental Fees $. Pavment of AnyDue Supplemental.AMlication Fees-This application is subject to an initial application fee deposit of$550.00 which was paid with the application submittal,plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceeds the initial fee deposit. Any additional fee due must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit,commencement of tree alteration work, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working daysfor file preparation. The applicant or owner may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner.A bill will be mailedto the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event that additional fees are due: Restitution.for Removed Trees and Construction in the root zone of existing trees 9. Trees to be Removed-This approval allows for the removal of up to 112 trees to allow for the construction of six single family residences and driveway access to each residence. The applicant is encouraged to preserve trees that are outside ofthe area ofimprovements even if r-.removal,if possible. approved fo Pursuant to the requirements of Section$16-6..1204 of the Tree Protection and,Preservation {ordinance, to compensate for the loss of the trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security(e.g.,bond,cash deposit)to allow for the planting of replacement trees. The security shall be based on: 6 n -4- A. Extent of Possible Restitution huroyements - The planting of up to 221 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, and installation of landscaping and hillside erosion control improvements, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building permit for the houses; B. Determination of SecurityAmont-The security amount is based on the planting of one tree for each 6 inches of diameter of trees to be removed, at an approximate; planted cost of$200.00 per tree(22lx200.00-=$44,200.00). The total bond would include an additional 20°lo for inflation costs, for a total of$53,054.00. C. Acceptance of a Security-The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. nitial'Der�osit for'Processin of Security- The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff'for processing a tree protection security (Code S-0608). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of installation of approved landscaping improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that the landscaping is not in healthy condition, and.the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable care of the replacement trees,then the Zoning,Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. 10. Trees to be Altered_This approval allows for work within the root zone of 37 trees to allow for the construction'of six single family residences and driveway improvements. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 8166.1204 of the Tree protection and Preservation Ordinance,to I compensate'for the potential damage to the trees,the applicant shall provide the County with a security(e.g.,band,cash deposit)to allow for the planting of replacement trees. The security shall be based on: A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 120' trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees,and installation of landscaping; and hillside erosion control improvements, and arborist review of additional screening between trees#974 and#19 on Lot 6; subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; B. Determination of Security Amount-The security amount is based on the planting of one tree for each 6 inches of diameter of trees to be removed, at an,approximate -5- planted cost of$200.00 per tree(120 x$200.00=$24,000.00). The total bond would include an additional 20% for inflation costs, for a total of$28,880.00. C. Acceptance of a Security-The security shall be subject to the review and approval of r the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security- The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff'for processing a tree protection security(Code S-0600.; The Applicant shall pay an initial feedeposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of installation of approved; landscaping improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that the landscaping is not in healthy condition, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable care of the replacement trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or,part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. Deed Restrictions 17. The owner of record shall record the following deed notification prior to the issuance of a building permit: A. "The property you are purchasing contains trees that are protected by Contra Costa County's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Any modification or removal of trees on this property requires a Tree Permit through the Community Development Department. Removal of trees without the benefit of a permit may include the assessment of substantial penalties based on the appraised value of the trees removed."° B. All building materials and paint utilized on lots 3, 5 and 6 (including those utilized in the construction of all structures including but not limited to auxilary buildings, and fencing) shall have light reflectivity index of 50% or less. The owner of record shall record the following deed notification prior to issuance of building permits: "The property you are purchasing is restricted in that building materials(including but not limited to paint,windoT and door trim, roofing,,and siding)must have light reflectivity indexes of 50% or less." Designation of Trees to be Preserved 18. Site plans for the development of the site shall include a delineation of all trees to be preserved on the property. Pursuant to Section 816.6.6004 of the County Code, any tree -6- so designated becomes a protected tree and can not be altered or removed unless a tree permit is first obtained from.the Community DevelopmentDepartment. ADVISORY NOTES' THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY ANIS OTHER.PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNI'T'Y TO PROTEST FEES,DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTION'S PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications,reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90)day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required by this approved permit,begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Commum ty Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. GACumnt PWming wT-phnMee Petrriit M020008 KD 61ot tree p=y it:cpc.doc 713ti702 2v U-p -7- ti F Contra;Costa'Cauriiy Community Development Dept. ' r 651 Pine Street, 2""Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 945�3 July 26, 2002 : RE: County Fil e k,TPfla0008 King Drive S,ubdivis on,Lot 1-6 Appeal to th0oard of Supervisors The decision by th¢Planning Commission to uphold the Zoning.Administrator's Approval of the tree permit is beim appealed. This decision is beim appealed To the Board of Supervisors. A'check forthe$125.00 filing fee is also enclosed. This decision is being appealed as the decisions do not meet the criteria of County Cade Section 816. E 1 O,per the'section Criteria for Review of the Tree Permit, Items BI;B2 B4;E5; and B6. The tree permit sh uld be denied per B?, B4 and B6 for the following reason: Conditions cfApp ,oval added by Board of Supervisors on Tune 19, 2001, States "Tree rerno,val must be less than or equal to the tree removal under the Original approval.�1,The original approval was for'a I trees not 1212 requested in The tree permit application. Attached is a summary of the proposed tree removal History. The tree permit also does not contain a master tree removal plan and Full revegetation p an, as required. Many of the Oak trees qualify for Heritage 'free Status. The iereased number of trees proposed for removal, may cause Drainage problems, soil instability and landslides. House pads and driveways Can be adjusted to reduce the number of tree loss. We appreciate the Pubic Notice being sent to the entire neighborhood, and also request thatthe meting with the Board of Supervisors be scheduled sometime after August, so as not te'interfere with summer vacation plans.If you have any questions You may call mea email me l mnlopezcis@msn.com Sin, eiy, '4 Lynn Io tepl`' n ' ips and conte ed nei ors ...,' g �.i ,k a ........... '99 140 908 189 140016 238 011001 a:First Walnut Creek Mutual Creek-Mutual No Eight Walnut Lance&Elise Coletto PO Box 2070 Pb Box 2070 200 King DT Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut CreelL CA 94595 Walnut Creek,CA 94595 238 Oil 010 239 011011 2':�S 011012 Robert&Rochelle Holbrook Paul James Doris Jean Ainsvmrth 111 El Dorado Rd 121 El Dorado Rd 131 El Dorado Rd Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 238 011 013 238 Oil 014 238 Oil 015 Jennifer Halt Eric Schueler&-Kelly Adler-Schueler Arthur Marchetti 141 El Dorado Rd 151 El Dorado Rd 161 El Dorado Rd W alnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creel-, CA 94595 Walnut Creek. CA 94595 238 011016 238 Oil 017 238 Oil 018 Marena Rhone Raymond&Mary Petersen John&Shelley Powers 171 El Dorado Rd 181 El Dorado Rd 220 King Dr Walnut C-r5ek,CA 94595 Walnut Creel, CA 94595 Walnut CreeL- CA 94595 8 Oil 019 236012003 238 012 004 Robert&E Williams Teresa Lachenbruch M loan Stewart 210 King Dr 73E Los Palos Dr 150 El Dorado Rd Walnut Creek.:CA 94595 Lafayette, CA 94549 IYalnutCreek,CA 94595 238 012 005 239 0121 006 2":�8 012 009 Randv&Mary Susan Bauder Thomas&Pamela Ecrosby Jr, Stephen&Karen Phillips 160 El Dorado Rd 170 El Dorado Rd 120 El Dorado Rd Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creel-, CA 94595 238 012 010 236 012 017 238 012 018 Larry,& Joan Johnson Gregory&-Lynn Lopez Melinda Moreno 110 El Dorado Rd 130 El Dorado Rd 140 El Dorado Rd Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut CreeL CA 94395 238 021 018 2':18 021019 2258 0210210 Lawrence&Lois Ruff Jr. Kenneth&Martha Wainola Steve&Linda Pappas 201 King Dr 211 King Dr 221 King Dr Walnui Creek,CA 94593 Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creel-,CA 94595 238 021021 238 040 005 238 040 006 Robert Dick Harrison Curds&-Cynthia Holzn.-s Corrine Beatrice Busbee 231 King Dr 5 Corte Del.Contento 11 Corte Del Contento Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creek.CA 94595 Walnut Creel-,CA 94595 2':18 040 007 238 040 006 238 040 009 Conrad Peloquin Stephen&Kathleen Am Fox Andrew Jahn&Vi:ginia Macintosh 17 Corte Del Contento 16 Corte Del Contento 251 King Dr Vhdnut Creek. CA 94595 Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Walnut Creek.CA 94595 ......... ... 238 040 010 238 050 002 189 012 033 Daniel Conway&Susan Crosby Dolores Williams Bennett Realtors Wells 255 King Dr 2685 W Newell Ave 1451 Leimert Blvd Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Oakland,CA 94602 Ed Revilla P.E. Morgan Capital Inv. Silverhav& company, Inc 2520 Stanwell Dr. Ste 140 3 Harbor Drive 9 303 l Blackf eld Drive, PMB 404 Concord, Ca 94520 Sausalito, Ca 94965 Tiburon, Ca 94920 Susan Mc Shannock 35 Mitchell Blvd, #9 b✓G vE. r San Rafael, Ca 949031 ' '�� -,tip t f 4 ( ;Lf i' ,r it + 11401-1 CA —L CA- CrQel- CA Of q `c Cry q4� �7 3Z VI, t4t � AJC Agenda Item# "" Community Development Department Contra:Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2002 — 7:00 PM. I. INTRODUCTION SILVERHWALK AND COMPANY, INC. (Applicant), MORGAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS (Owner) — County File #TP 020008 — An appeal filed by StephenPhillips and Lyra-i Lopez of a conditional approval of a tree permit by the Zoning Administrator to remove a total of 122 trees and to allow for work within the root zone of 37 trees for the construction of six single family residences on King Drive and Oak .Branch Way in the Walnut Creek area (P-1) (ZA: Q-14) (CT: 3420) (APN #'s 238-040-011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016), 1I. BACKGROUND This item was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on June 18, 2002, Two continuances were requested by staff in order to allow for meetings with neighbors, Supervisor Uilkema's staff and representatives of the City of Lafayette. At a meeting on June 27, 2002 a decision was made to have an arborist selected by the County to conduct a peer review of the information submitted. A copy of the arborist's report is attached for reference. The City of Lafayette also submitted a letter, which is attached. The arborist reviewed the 4 potential trees proposed for removal, and a letter is attached for review. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission utilize the existing information and recommendations in the June 18, 2002 staff report, and taking the additional information into consideration. While the total tree removal number is large,the total number of trees larger than 6" in diameter and in good or fair health is 49. This represents about 6% of the total number of trees on the site. The following chart is offered as an additional means of understanding the total resource: ............ ....................... .............. ................... ....... .......... ......... ............... ............. S-2 King Drive Tree Removal Chart Number of trees Percentage of total resource: Estimated total number of trees on the site based on 829 Estimated 100% density within the 4.87 acres where trees were inventoried 360 trees,14.87 acres=74 trees per acre. Totalsite:11.2 acres x 74 trees/acre=829) Total Number of Trees Inventoried on approximately 4.87 360 43.4% acres of the site Total number of trees proposed for removal 112 13.5% Total number of trees less than 6"in diameter proposed for -21 2.5% removal Total number of trees in poor health pro2osed for removal -42 5% Total number of trees 6"in diameter or larger 49 5.9% prpposed for removal in good or fair health Total number of potential heritage status trees 4 .48% proposed for removal (see rborist's analysis of health) Attachments: July 18, 2002 report by Dennis Yniguez Letter dated June 11, 2002 from the City of Lafayette Letter dated June 27, 2002 from the Project Arborist June 18, 2002 Staff Report Tp020008.sr2 7-18-02 MPI EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON AN OAK WOODLAND ADJACENT TO KING DRIVE RE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OFAPPEALS SILVERHAWK AND COMPANY (APPLICANT) FOR MICHAEL LAUGHLIN, PLANNER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 651 PINE STREET FOURTH FLOOR,NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553.0095 BY DENNIS YNIGUEZ, CONSULTING ARBORIST TREE DECISIONS, BERKELEY,CALIFORNIA treedec@aol.com JULY 18,2002 APPRAISAL OF TREE VALUE DENNIS YI!IGUEZ TREEDIAGNOSIS OF TREE HEALTH CONSULTING ARBORISTA 1 ; SELECTION OF APPROPRIATE SPECIES I ' EVALUATION OF INSURANCE CLAIMS ! 1428 SPRUCE ST.,BERKELEY,'CA 94709 PREPARATION OF ARBORIST REPORTS T1 CA E RESOLUTION?OF TREE-RELATED DISPUTES TES:(510)649-92.o 1°FAX:(5I0)649-8292 Contents Executive Summary 1 Background and Assignment 1 Observations and Discussion 2 Recommendationsfor Tree Preservation 5 Remedial Measures 6 Overview of Significant Tree Removals 6 Conclusion 7 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions 8 Appendix. Street Area Map ICINo DRIVE DEVELOPMENT I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed roadway access routes and building:,footprint locations are appropriate to preserve the woodland and to screen new construction. BACKGROUND AND ASSIGNMENT Meetings and Site Visits On June 2, 2002, 1 was contacted by Mr. Michael Laughlin, a planner from the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, who requested that I undertake an independent review of a proposed residential site in a wooded area adjacent to King Drive and flak Branch way in the Walnut Creek area. I met on the same day with Mr. Laughlin at the Planning Department in Martinez, and he provided voluminous records, including Board of Appeals records, site maps, correspondence, and the reportsof two certified arborists who had evaluated the site.. I was asked to review the materials, visit the site, and independently evaluate how the natural woodland would be affected by the proposed development. After reviewed the materials, I realized that I needed to visit the site with someone who was already familiar with individual trees and the site history. Several tree invento- ries were completed during the past decade,and building sites and access roads had been substantially modified. On June 6 2002, l met with Mr. Jim Mussells, a certified arborist who had already pre- pared a report for the site while retained by the developer, Silverhawk and Company, Inc. Ms. Cy Carlberg, a consulting arborist from Sierra Madre, California, served as a field technician for measurements and record keeping. We walked the site, discussed its history, and evaluated the proposed locations for homes and access roads. On June 11, 1 met with Mr. Laughlin at the site, again discussing the site history and proposed locations for homes. He asked me to prepare a brief report of my observations and impressions that would highlight the probable effects of development on the wood- land. Site History and Condition Before my involvement in this project, various professionals had mapped, tagged, meas- ured, and evaluated the woodland trees. Trees had been identified by one of two types of DENNIS YNIOUE2 TREE DECISION'S JULY 18,2002 KING DRIVE DEVELOPMENT 2 tags, during two or three inventories. Older round aluminum tags, as well as thin oblong aluminum tags, had already been distorted by radial trunk growth. Another series of numbered round aluminum tags had been most recently affixed by Mr. lvlussells. Stakes and flagging had been used to identify specific footprints of proposed home loca- tions. Some stakes had been removed, other' stakes had been superseded by new building' footprints, and some of the flagging and footprint tape appeared to have been tampered' with or altered by weather. Under these circumstances, I did my best to make sense of the tagging system, to cross-check tree locations on site maps, and to identify specific trees that are the subject of this report. OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION The development site is an attractive mixed oak-bay woodland that is outside the Lafay- ette city limits, but:within the city's Sphere of Influence. Permission to develop the site was granted by Contra Costa County in 1990, before the enactment in 1993 of a coun- tywide ordinance for tree.preservation. The general public is understandably concerned about the preservation of mature trees, as well as the preservation of a woodland appear- ance for scenic enjoyment. Road Construction Effects on Trees and Visibility of Homes I reviewed separate proposals for entry roads below or above proposed building sites, and concluded that the entry roads uphill and behind proposed homes on lots S and 6 make more sense. More significant trees are preserved, the need to construct high and unat- tractive retaining walls is reduced or eliminated, and most importantly, the proposed homes will be more effectively' screened by established trees downhill of the building sites. The following specific observations apply to individual lots: Lot Number 1 On the access road for this lot only two trees are proposed for removal, along with some very selective thinning and pruning. The few trees:that have branches or trunks extend- ing over the access, road are suppressed understory trees of a small diameter and crown size. Tree No. 123 extends over the corner of the footprint and into the building area, and must be removed. Trees Nos. 999 and 1000 will remain to contribute to screening. Trees Nos. 998 and 122 will be removed to accommodate the home. Even with the removal of tree No. 1222, trees No. 996 and 997 will provide excellent screening. As the bay laurels DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 18,2002 KING DRIVE DEVELOPMENT 3 and live oaks flourish, screening near the deciduous black oaks will become more effec- tive during the months when deciduous trees are out of leaf. Four 15-gallon trees can be planted on the exposed northwestern side of the home. Proper irrigation is essential to accelerate growth that will provide screening between an existing neighbor and the new home. Lot Number 2 1 was informed that the original tree inventory prepared;,by the project engineer was not: entirely accurate. A subsequent tree inventory revealedthat lot 2 has more trees than were originally identified. This discovery led to a decision to reconsider the original pro- posed location for construction of a residence. Of the two proposed locations, the most recent location makes more sense. More trees will be preserved and the remaining trees, including evergreen live'oaks and bay trees,' will effectively screen the home from Olympic Boulevard and the distant valley. Two significant oaks, a black oak (tree No. 66) and a valley oak (tree No 67), will be affected by construction of a home at the newly proposed location. Of these two trees, the black oak is the clear favorite for retention. It has a'graceful branching architecture and would be a welcome esthetic tree to grace the entry driveway to the home. The val- ley oak is also a desirable species,but the branching pattern of this tree is not extraordi- nary. The proposed location for home construction is nestled between these two signifi- cant trees, and a group of established bays and oaks that will provide effective screening. Unfortunately, 1 do not see any way to accommodate the proposed footprint and drive- way access without removing tree No. 67, the valley oak. Lot Number 3 This lot is at the end of'Oak Branch Way, and the proposed footprint was slightly'shifted from the original proposal. Plans specify a "hammerhead" turnaround near tree No. 93 an attractive valley oak that will be conserved as'a focal entrance tree. Only three trees are proposed for removal: Nos. 809, 818, and 919. Trees Nos. 818 and 919 will be re- moved because they are beneath the canopy of tree No. 817, which is an attractive live oak that should be encouraged to flourish without additional competition from'`under- story,trees. DENNIs YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 18,2002 KING DRIVE DEVELOPMENT 4 Please refer to the discussion in,this report under the subheading Recommendations for Tree Preservation to understand precautions for working within the root zone of tree No. 817. Lot Number 4 The original building plan would have required the removal of more trees for construc- tion of a residence on this lot. The revisedplan requires the removal of a single, non- native Aleppo pine, about 6 inches in diameter. This is not a significant impact. Please'refer to the discussion in this report under the subheading Recommendations for Tree Preservation to understand precautions for working within the root zones of tree Nos. 78 and 80. Lots Number 5 and$ Original plans for a driveway access and home would have required deep hillside cuts and the construction of 12-foot retaining walls. This would have been much more visible from nearby and distant viewing locations than the alternate proposal for uphill access. The newly proposed uphill access will require the removal of 57 trees, but the overall effect on the woodland resource is less significant. In the area where trees are to be re� moved, an engineered fill will support the driveway. The woodland grove below lots 5 and 6 includes many larger and more attractive trees that will now be preserved. This grove will continue to provide effective screening for downhill residents and other viewers. Lots Number 10 and I1 A large-scale slide mitigation project is underway to protect the slope on lots 10 and 11. It is essential that new trees and understory plantings be installed on this hillside to serve as a deterrent against future soil erosion and consequent slope instability. Mr. Mussels, a certified arborist retained by Silverhawk and Company, suggested that 39 trees be planted on this slope, including a row of;24-inch boxed coast redwoods. Red- woods may seem out of place adjacent to this oak-bay woodland, and can grow to heights` well over 100 feet. However, under these circumstances, the trees can provide a'very rapid evergreen screen between the slide repair area and downslope viewing locations. Within two decades, the native oaks planted below the redwoods will have matured enough to provide more effective screening on their own. At that time, the redwoods could be removed and replaced with native trees. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 18,2002 KINo DRIVE DEVELOPMENT 5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREE 'RESERVATION The Conditions for Approval that were issued to Silverhawk and Company on June 19, 2001, include tree"`preservation recommendations listed as paragraphs J through V in that document. These recommendations are sensible and should be incorporated into future constructionoperations: Proposed construction will occur partially within the driplines of several desirable trees. Therefore, orange polyethylene mesh fencing, 4 feet in height,should be secured to steel stakes.'adjacent to access areas. Parking or storing of vehicles,' trailers, equipment, ma chinery, or construction'materials should not be permitted within areas delineated by protective fences, nor should dumping of oil or other chemicals. Trees form roots according to soil composition and water availability. Soil compacted by heavy construction equipment can be difficult to restore to a healthy condition. Damag. ing the soil in this way can lead to a chronic decline in tree vigor and the early demise of otherwise healthy trees. Oaks are greatly susceptible to root infections caused by chronically saturated soil. Two_. common root diseases in this area of California are Phytophthora and Armillaria. Both',, of these fungal diseases: can progressively, weaken a root system,`» resulting in dead branches, loss of stability, and premature death of the tree. Therefore it is important to include proper irrigation regimens in landscaping,plans to insure that native oaks do not become chronically saturated during otherwise dry months. To avoid subsequent tree problems caused by saturated soils, it is essential to incorporate compatible landscaping into the overall plan. Otherwise, artificial summer irrigation could create soil conditions that are ideal for the proliferation of root diseases. Landscapers and homeowners must choose appropriate species for planting adjacent to and beneath native California oaks..Competitive or invasive plant types should not be used. An excellent booklet, Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks, is;published by and available from the California Oak Foundation'(1212'Broadway, Suite 81.0, Oakland, CA 94612, telephone (510) 763-0282). Compatible plantings can complement and enhance the natural beauty of the site. if compatible plants are not included' in development plans, a subsequently over-irrigated landscape could subvert preservation measures undertaken during the construction proc- ess. DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 18,2002 KiNo DRIVE DEVELOPMENT 6 REMEDIAL MEASURES My walkthrough of the site revealed several areas where greater care must be taken to preserve native trees. Specifically, several trees alongside Oak BranchWay (Nos. 62, 66, and 854) have had dirt piled up against their trunks during road construction. In addi- tion, tree No. 854 was apparently struck by earth-moving equipment and needs to be ex amined further to see whether bark removal or treatment is necessary. Also, tree No. 47 is a beautiful live oak that overhangs an entry driveways off of Oak Branch Way.'Although its root zone has been compromised by construction of a roadway ` and adjacent`'retaining wall, significant efforts should be made to ensure proper winter drainage away from this tree. OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT TREE REMOVALS Under the proposed plans, many trees have been selected for removal. I have considered the effects of implementation of alternate access and building sites, and concluded' that the current proposal is a realistic approach to preservation of the best trees and groves on this wooded site. Almost all of the significant trees that may qualify for heritage status will be preserved. The following chart summarizes the overall impact on significant'trees' and provides a reassuring perspective. DISPOSITION OF SIGNIFICANT'TREES Lot No. Tree No. Tree Variety' Tree Diameter Comments 1 47 Live Oak 33" "' beady impacted by main road con- truction, drainage required' 1 113 Bay 36" Not impacted 1 865 Live Oak 28" Not impacted 1 868 Bay 41" Not impacted 2 67* White Oak 27 Proposed,for removal 2 49 Live Oak 24" Not impacted 2 857 White Oak 28" Not impacted 2 850 Buckeye 28" Not impacted 2 849 White Oak 28" Not impactedr 2'' 63 Black Oak 30" Not impacted'' 2 832 Live Oak 29" of impacted 3 823 White Oak 28" Not impacted 3 90 Live Oak 42" Not impacted 3 821. White Oak 28" Not impacted 3 817 Live Oak 46" Work in root zone DENNIS YNIGUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY'18,:.2002 KING DRIVE DEVELOPMENT 7 3 104 White Oak 24" Not impacted 3 802 Bay 28" Not impacted 3 72,.. White Oak 30)) Not impacted 4 78 Live Oak 29" Work in root zone 4 80 Live Oak 36" Work in root zone 4 781> Live Oak " 26 of impacted 5'' 937 White Oak 36 of impacted 5' 44 White Oak 24" Not impacted 5 45 Black Oak 34 of impacted 5 43 Black Oak 26" Not impacted 5 944 Bay 27" Not impacted 6 958* Bay 36" Proposed for removal 6 29* White Oak 24" Proposed for removal 6 27* White Oak 34" Proposed for removal 6 11 White Oak 26" Not impacted' 6 9 Buckeye 1 27" of impacted * Trees designated for removal The site is heavily',wooded, with competition among marry trees. Removal of some of the suppressed and poorly or moderately developed trees, as proposed, will allow remaining desirable trees in preferred locations to grow with increased vigor. CONCLUSION I recommend that the developer remove earth from the trunks of trees that are adjacent to Oak Branch Way, and provide drainage for a mature and beautiful live oak'. Trees must be protected'before, during, and after the building'of roads and structures. If such protection treasures are implemented, the number, species, and locations of trees pro posed for removal will not cause excessive damage;to the natural environment. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Yniguez Registered Consulting Arborist DENNIs YNiauEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY 18,2002 ICING DRIVE DEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND LIMITING CONDITIONS Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable.All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent man- agement. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, stat- utes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consult- ant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others: The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitrations, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such ser- vices. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the'`con- sultant, and the consultant's feeis not contingent upon the reporting'of a specified ap- praisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural re- ports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Dennis Yniguez or Tree Decisions as to the suffi- ciency or accuracy of said information Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only the examined items and their con- dition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. DENNIS YNIOUEZ TREE DECISIONS JULY ls,2002 CA 41, �� r��:ice+ 2 '�: '�"v„+�^' tj'ly„ jT ',l � �_; ,� .,,,,-^.^"......... ♦Vi.�t.: * 0p < ... 96t 41, s IE SO was ..� .v r .., ST N CITY COUNCIL ,... Don Tatz)n,Mayor Carol Federighi,'Vice Mayor 02 JUIN! 17 �`s l Brandt Andersson LAFAMT1 t Erling Horn TTLIm iso—picdxroxduD no Ivor Samson.. t June 11 2002 VIA FACSIMILE AND SURFACE MAIL Chairperson Wong and Members of the Planning Commission Contra Costa County ' 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Subject Appeal of the Conditional Tree Permit for Silverhawk and Company,Inc. Ding Drive, Walnut Creek-County File#TP020008 Dear Chairperson Wong: The Lafayette City Council is extremely concerned about the County's approval of a permit to remove 122 trees in the King Drive subdivision, which lies within Lafayette's Sphere of Influence. We understand that the matter has been appealed to the Planning Commission, and we respectfully request that you uphold this appeal. We also ask that the applicant be required to file an application to amend the subdivision's conditions of approval: The removal of over 100 trees was not anticipated,nor requested, when the revisions to the Ding Drive subdivision were approved in 2001. The applicant at that time had indicated that only 28 trees would'be removed from house sites. The six lots are located in a heavily treed hillside that is visible from the eastern areas of Lafayette. This tree removal permit cannot be reviewed in isolation, but must be considered in the full context of the proposed subdivision. Would the 1990 subdivision or the 2001 amendments have been approved if the County had full knowledge of the extent of tree removal?Had this information been provided, would fewer lots have been approved?Because we believe not all the information has been provided to make a sound decision on the removal of the trees,we request that.the subdivision's approval be amended to include the following ( conditions: I ` POST OFFICE BOX 1968 t 3675 MT.DIABLO BLVD.,SUITE 210,LAFAYETTE,CA 94549.1968 TELEPHONE:(925)284-1968 FAX:(925)284-3169 http//:www.ei.lafayette.ca.us ■ An arborist report shall be required to identify all trees that might be considered Heritage Trees-trees of age and size that are significant and to include a detailed tree removal plan. ■ A visual assessment(photomontage or computer simulation) shall be prepared to show the visibility of the proposed two-story houses if the trees were removed and to show how houses could be adequately screened from public view. A soil stability report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer to address the stability of the hillsides if a large number of trees were removed We recognize and respect that the project lies within the County's jurisdiction. However, please be aware that this project has been a source of concern to the City since it was first proposed through last year(see attached letter). It is unlikely that the City would have granted such a permit in this environmentaiiy sensitive area. Please contact me or Niroop Srivatsa, our Planning and Building Services Manager, if you should have any further questions in this matter. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, Ikon Tatzin Mayor Cc Supervisor Gayle Uilkema' Lafayette City Council 001 P02 00 100 00:00 r t CITY coUN61L Mi .. . Ivor Samson,Mayor, " bon 7&lint,Vita Mayor onrol FaWghl tel„g Ham n m - saxao Jay SIMUBS January 16, 2001 Gayle Uilkema, Supervisor District IT Contra Casts County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, C 94553 h Subject: Modifications to Tract 7267,King Drive area; Dear Supervisor U lkema, TheLafayette afa}vette City Council heard this matter at a meeting on January 8, 2001 at the request of several King Drive area citizens. Since the area is within the Layette Sphere of Influence and the development is of concern to area residents, we Felt it to be appropriate to comment on this matter. We have reviewed the information that your staff------ has taff ---has submitted to us, and have heard from the project applicant,Mr. Batt, as well as four concerned citizens: Mr.Tames, Mr.Marchetti,Mr. Phillips, and Ms, Lopez. Because of the major visual impacts this project may have on the On.of Lafayette as well as the other concerns set forth, we are relying on the Contra Costa County Beard of Supenr cors to thoroughly scrutinize and appropriately condition this proposed project which is within our Sphere. of Influence. We recognize and respect that this is in the County's jurisdiction.However-, please be aware that it is highly unlikely that the Cite of Lafayette would have approved such a development in this environmentally sensitive area. Presumably, since the original plat was approved in 1990 and could be built, changes should only be allowed if they improve the project. We have reviewed the current house plans and do have concerns as to whether the substantially increased house sizes can be accomplished without having significant visual impacts and cause the lass of valuable' native trees: Soil stability is also of great concern given the steepness of the slopes and the evidence of numerous slides shown,on the tentative map we have received.The City of Lafayette recommends that the following matters be accomplished or addrmssed before any approval is granted: 1. Story poles be provided for each house representing the height,width and mass. Interested parties, including the City of Lafayette, should be advised when,the pules are to be placed.. POST OFFICE SOX 1968 3675?4T.DLOL O BLVD.,StrX:M z1b,LASAyrI I3:,CA 94S49_1961 _.w TELEPHONE:(9U)284-1961 FkX:(915)IS4.3169 ... .. .... _, -. e. ._..L 4..:#..•.mow.... ...a.:.w ,. 001 P03 00 '00 00:00 2. Since this is presumably a de ruwvo hearing and you are therefore not restricted to " the conditions imposed in 1990,it is recommended that the request of the East Bay Regional Park District contained in their. October 19, 2000 letter,be honored =•r regarding placing the 01}mpic Blvd. ditch into a pipe and then providing a walkwaylbikeway in its place. 3. The tree loss analysis only addresses the house sites blit it does not seem to address the trees lost to the roads and driveways,turnarounds and utilities.it also does not seem to assess the effect of work under the drip lines of trees to be retained.While this may be treated elsewhere, there should be s full exploration of rhis subject. 4. Soil stability should be given the fullest possible engineering analysis and peer review. The issues raised in the letter dared August 21, 2000, from Martin Lysons representing nine concerned neighbors should be fully resolved.; Please inform,me:of the Board's hearing date on this appeal so that a member of the Council might be able to attend. Please contact me or our Planning Services Manager, Michael enn,if you have further questions on this matter. Thank You very much for you.,considermt on of our concerns. Very truly Yours, Ivor Sa som Mayor cc. Cite Manager,Planning Services Manager, Michael Laughlin, Clerk of the Board Mr,James.Mr.Marchetti,Mr.Phillips, and Ms.Lopez,* Mr. Batt, File,PDC RELIABLE TREE EXPERTS 2960 CHAPIVIA4 STREET, OAKLAND, GA 94601-2803 OAKLAND 510/531-1000 LAFAYETTE °25/284-4522 June 27, 2002 �. Mike Laughlin Community Development Dept 651 Pine Street, ; 2nd; Fl,.:, North Wing Martinez,, CA 94553-009 RE: KING ESTATES - 4 HERITAGE TREES, LOTS 1 -6. Dear Mr. Laughlin I have . re-inspected the four heritage trees slated for removal. Following is an expandedcondition report for the . four trees . A 27" White Oak, Tree No. 67, located on Lot '' 2 is in generally good condition. The roots are presumed to be good, although the uphill side of the tree is buried by soil creep, , which can eventually lead to crown rot. The treehas: a slight structural weakness: near the` ground where they, trunk bends . Some :lin�us have mistletoe 4��d ti�ere is substantial ;poison oak growing into the tree. The limb structure is typical of a younger white oak and is general- ly in goad condition. Although I do not have knowledge of the factor's that go into house placement on . any given lot, I would not ` recommend, all ether factnrs being equal, that the large black oak to the east of this tree be removed instead of Tree No. 67 . The black oak highly prized by many people, FIhJE FF,L1NING o T RII VPNIG RE1,110VAL a LAND CLEARING , STUMP REMOVAL page two ltr ,to Mike Laughlin 6/27/02 has and excellent limb structure and an aesthetically pleasing canopy. The white oaks undeveloped canopy is rather rangy in comparison. ' On Lot 6, there are three heritage trees slated for removal. Tree No. 958 is a triple-trunked bay, with the trunks Joining at the ground. The trunk sizes are 11 " , 10" and 13" . This is a classically weak situation that has resulted in a "fair" condition evaluation because the tree leans heavily down the hill. Even though the roots and canopy appear to be healthy, the tree will be subject to a moderately high failure risk in the future. Trees Nos . 29 and 27 are closely located to each other. They are both growing on steep terrain. Both trees are 24" in diameter and are moderately old trees The uphill side of each tree has a build--up of soil resulting from loose soil migrating down the hill. The roots are presumed to be goad,, although the ,:soil build-up sometimes leads to moot fungus. The trees both exhibit moderate large deadwood typical of older white oaks. No major structural defects'° of these trees was seen, although Tree No. 29 leans rather heavily down the hill. It constitutes a ''moderate failure hazard. White oaks are root sensitive to development. Should the house be mored, deyelopement should be at least` 15 '-20 ' away from theme mature oaks Aesthetically, these two trees do not exhibit as much branching as many :.people desire. They have grown in a forest where there are adjacent trees competing for sun - light. This has resulted in a fairly sparse habit for these ;trees. Due to their age and fragility, if an attempt page three ltr to Mike Laughlin 6/27/02 is make- to save them by movixj the house, care must be taken to insure that the trees are not adversely affected by the construction.. Sincerely, I'm Mussells WCIM Cert. Arborist #0324 RELIABLE TREE EXPERTS JM/tj cc: Jeffrey Batt Susan McShannock Ed Revilla Agenda Item# Comi-nunity Development Department Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2002 - 7:00 PM. I. INTRODUCTION SILVERHAwK AND COMPANY, INC. (Applicant), MORGAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS (Owner) County File #TP 020008 -- An appeal filed by Stephen Phillips and Lynn Lopez of a conditional approval of a tree pen-nit by the Zoning Administrator;to remove a total of 122 trees and to allow for work within the root zone of 37 trees for the construction of six single familyresidences on King Drive and°Oak Branch Way in the Walnut Creek area (P-1) (ZA: Q-I4) (CT: 3420) (APN #r's 238-044-011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the ;',County Panning Commission :uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval with revised conditions and required restitution. III.: SUMMARY OF REVIEW The subject sites are six legal lots created by subdivision approval and rezoned to P-1. The Board of Supervisors approved the placement and design of homes in June of 2001. Hearings were also held before the Zoning Administrator and Planning Conunission. Consistent with this approval, the applicant is now requesting the removal of trees on each of the b individual lots. The house footprints have been staked and taped in the field, and trees proposed for removal are marked with red ribbons. Community Development Department staff conducted a field review of each tree proposed for removal on March 7, 2002. After reviewing the arborist report and conducting a site visit, notices were mailed to adjacent property owners on April 4, 2002. The notice indicated S-2 the Zoning Administrator's tentative approval to allow,the removal of 122 trees and to work within the dripline of 37 trees. An appeal was submitted on April 18, 2002. The appeal points are discussed in detail, below. A condition placed on the house approval required that that the proposed removal would not exceed the total removal required for the original approval. In staff's analysis, it was found that the proposed removal exceeded the estimated number of trees removed if the original plans were implemented by 7 trees (115 trees were estimated for removal by removal in the analysis below). The applicant submitted a revised tree removal list, saving 10 trees and bringing the total removal to 112, below the 115 estimated for the original approval. The arborist prepared a tree replacement plan which recommends the planting of 90 trees on lots 1-6 and staff is recommending'a planting of another 10 trees. An earlier tree permit for lots 10&11 requires the planting of 22 trees based on the trees removed. The arborist finds that the planting of 39 trees is appropriate for the most visible portion of lot 10, including the planting'of 13 larger 24" box redwoods, which can be counted as the cost equivalent of (26) 15-gallon trees. This would "borrow" at least 17 trees from the required replacement trees for this application. Staff is in agreement with the arborist that planting more trees in areas of the site where there is already substantial planting will further crowd existing trees to their detriment. Many of the trees on the site are in poor condition due to overcrowding, and removal of smaller trees would improve the health of more significant trees. With the total planting of 126 trees on the hillside. (139 counting the 24" box trees as two trees), there is a requirement for the applicant to plant 77 additional trees (216 total). Staff is recommending that the balance of the trees, or cost equivalent, be provided for current improvements in the area. This may include along the south side of Olympic Boulevard where the developer has undergrounded storm drain improvements. A' revision to condition 9A is recommended that would allow for additional trees to be planted if found necessary after grading has been completed. Off-site tree planting' would be coordinated with the applicant through the Public Works Department. IV. APPEAL The appeal letter mentioned several issues that are discussed below. S-3 Appeal Point: The appeal letter states that the application should be denied because the conditions of approval for plans submitted April 17, 2001 required that tree removal must be less than or equal to the treeremoval under the original approval. Response: There is a clear discrepancy between the tree estimates provided at the time of the original approval in the early 1990'x, the proposal approved by the Board of Supervisors in June of 2001 and the current tree removal request. The original plans and the plans submitted for approval in 2001 included the placement of only the larger trees surrounding the house pads and key trees on each site, and did not include driveway tree removal' and smaller trees. During the review of the 2001 plans, there was also not an arborist inventory and the house footprints were not field staked to allow for staff to verify the accuracy of the submitted information. Now that;,accurate information has been provided, the proposal can be better analyzed: As discussed below, the comparison reveals that the implementation of the original`plan'would have required the removal of approximately 115 trees. The applicant has submitted a revised tree removal list that would lower the tree removal by 10 trees (to 112) which is below the 115 trees estimated for the original approval. Staff offers the following lot by lot description of the proposed tree removal and the opportunities for tree replacement: Lot 1 Square footage Tree removal' (2001 2009 Tree removal - estimate) revised list Original plan"d" 3,488 (2 car gar.) _ 4 (not including 10 for house 4 bedrooms driveway) 2 for drivewa Plan approved by the 3,896(3 car gar.)` 2 (not including 9 for house Beard of Supervisors 4 bedrooms driveway, working in the (2 for driveway) root zone of 4 trees The March 26, 2002 tree removal list proposed the removal of twenty trees on this lot, 16 of which are classified as in poor condition;by the arborist. The revised tree list proposes removal of eleven trees, two along the driveway. Seven of these trees are in poor condition. The original application included the removal of 3 small bay trees and'4 small buckeye trees. These trees are now just being requested to be trimmed to allow for driveway access to the house. The trimming of these trees along the driveway will improve light access to oaks and larger bay trees in the area , (trees 110, 111, 981,890`.and 896), likely improving their health. S-4 Due to heavy tree cover on the lower part of the lot, existingtrees on the property will almost completely screen the house fi om view. Four replacement trees are proposed on the west side of the home to screen and block views to the deck area of the residence below. There are more than 67 other trees on the property that will remain. Construction of the house and the road would require working in the root zone of 15 trees. The total sum diameter of trees requested for removal: 169" The total sure diameter of trees where work will occur in the root zone: 121" In a review of the location of the house with the original approval (see attached diagram) ;the estimated tree removal associated with this design would have been 1Q-12 trees for the house. The same number of trees would be required to be removed or trimmed along the driveway to clear an access path. In addition to tree removal>;being higher, the footprint would have impacted the more significant trees below the house. The only way to impact,fewer trees is to build the 'house on the more level pad area. This would save trees 122, 123, 987; 988 and 998. The inventory of these trees is as follows: Tree # Tree Type Size Condition 122 White Oak 15" Poor 123 White Oak 14" Fair 987 White Oak9" Fair 988 Ba 2V Fair 998 White Oak 11" Poor` Staff did not find at the time of the field review that the three trees in fair condition were significant enough to warrant redesigning the house. In order to maintain a useable flat yard area, the applicant would prefer not to adjust the house location or redesign the house. Since the site is so heavily vegetated, the only recommended location to put replacement trees is a cluster of 4 trees to the west of the house. This will provide screening for the benefit of the existing neighbors S-5 Lot 2 Square footage Tree removal (2001 2002 Tree removal estimate' Original plan"b" 3,065 (3 car gar.) 5-7 10-12 5 bedrooms Plan approved by the 4,010(3 car gar.) 3(working in the root 12 Board of Supervisors 1 5 bedrooms I zone of 5 trees Twelve trees are proposed for removal, 9 of which are classified as in good condition and the remaining 3 are in fair or poor condition. As with lot 1,the property contains a large number of trees, including 6 large trees below the house to screen the rear of the house from view. The house is proposed to be placed in the area of the lot with the fewest number of trees, so there"`are no other reasonable options for the alternate siting of the house without a higher tree removal number. There is an area further to the east with fewer trees, but the lot depth is too narrow to accommodate a house. A black oak, tree #66, will be preserved in the front yard of the house. Tree removal is now higher since all of the trees were not shown on the earlier,`plans. The house originally approved for the site in 1990 was sited fixrther to the east, and would have caused the removal of about 10-12 trees. Construction of the house would require working in the root zone of 7 trees. The total'sum diameter of trees requested for removal: 143" The total'sum diameter of trees where work will occur in the root zone: 131 No replacement trees are recommended by the arborist since the site is heavily vegetated, with trees competing for light. Lot 3 Square footage Tree removal (2001 2002 Tree removal estimate Original- Ian"d" 3,488 2 cargar.) 3 3-4 Plan approved by the 3,897(3 car gar,) 0 (2 work in root zone, 3 Board of Supervisors 5 bedrooms does not include driveway) Three trees are proposed for removal for the siting of the house on lot 3. The removal of these trees will improve the health of the 46" oak tree below the house (tree 817). An additional 8" Buckeye tree is requested for removal since it is in conflict with the roadway. The roadway location has shifted; ff from the approved plan to save at least 3 additional trees. S-6 Construction of the house and roadway will require working in the root zones of 9 trees. There are at least 58 trees on the site that will remain. The site for the home is the most logical spot, with the feast impact to the trees on site. The total sum diameter of trees requested for removal: 27" The total sum diameter of trees where work will occur in the root zone: 208" The original plan was essentially the same house plan, only with a two-car garage and slightly smaller house footprint. With the original plan, there was a proposed retaining wall to create a large rear yard area and swimming pool which would have likely required the removal of at least one additional tree (#97). There is an opportunity to plant 16 new trees on the uphill side of the driveway. These trees will provide screening between the house and Rossmoor at the top of the hill Lot 4 Square footage Tree removal (2001 2002 Tree removal estimate Original plan "a" 2,683,(2 car gar.) Unable to verify(5±) 5 3 bedrooms C Plan approved by the (3-car gar.) 7 {working in the root 0 Board of Supervisors 4 bedrooms zone of approximately 1,0 trees Only one non-native 5" pine tree was proposedfor removal for the siting of the house on lot 4. In the revised submittal, the arborist felt that the tree could remain. Staff finds that keeping the tree would be difficult, since it is at the front corner of the garage, in the driveway and potentially blocking the proposed entrance. In addition, the grade change in the root zone could be dramatic, causing the tree to die. The house is ideally sited to preserve all of the;significant;.trees on the site, including trees in the area of the driveway approach. These trees also will provide visual screening of the residence from below. Construction of the house and driveway will require working in the root zones of.l l trees. The total sum diameter of trees requested for removal: 5" The total sum diameter of trees where work will occur in the root zone: 211" S-7 The footprint of the original home was slightly larger, and not as carefully sited (since all trees were not mapped) and would have required the removal of at least 5 trees. Due to adequate existing tree coverage on the lot, the arborist is not recommending the planting of any new trees, since new trees could diminish the health of the existing trees by crowding. Cats 5 & 6 Lot's Square footage Tree removal (2001 2002 Tree removal estimate Original plan:, (3" 2,596(2 car gar.) 7 32 stories) 4 bedrooms Plan"c" ; Plan approved by the 3,748(3 car gar.) 4 -(working in the root 57 (5 for house, 52 Board of Supervisors 4 bedrooms zoite of approximately 10 for driveway) trees Lot.6 Square footage Tree removal: (2001 2002 Tree removal estimate Original pian"a" 2,683 (3 car gar.) 9 '' 42'' 3 bedrooms Plan approved by the 3,612(3 car gar.) 10-13 (for driveway and 29:. Board of Supervisors 4 bedrooms garage), 4 in root zone` Five trees are proposed for removal for the siting of the house on lot 5. The removal of 52 trees is required for the grading of the approved access road to lots 5 and 6. Of these 57 trees, 32 are in poor condition or dead; 19 are in fair condition and '6 are in good condition. Construction of the house and roadway will require working in the root zones of 3 trees. The total sum'diameter of trees requestedfor removal: 647" The total sum diameter of trees where work will occur in the root zone: 57" Seventeen trees are proposed for removal for the siting of the house on lot 6.. The removal of 12 trees is required for the grading of the driveway and uphill retaining wall. Of these 29 trees, 11 are in poor condition; 9 are in fair condition and 9 are in good condition. Construction of the house and roadway will require working in the root zones of one tree (#13). The total sum diameter of trees requested for removal: 342" The total sum diameter of trees where work will occur in the root zone; 19" S-8 The original approval, with the driveway extending up the hill;;from below on KingDrive, would require that a majority of the site be graded, with the additional removal of approximately 13 trees on the lower third of lot 5. With the current proposal, these trees would provide screening for the houses above. Additional trees are proposed to be added to this cluster to augment the existing planting and fill in a "gap" in the current vegetation. The original design included a driveway to access the site from below, which cut across lots 5 and 6. Tree removal increases on lot 5 and decreases on lot 6 compared with the current proposal. Affith the proposed access from behind the houses, tree removal is 12 trees greater than the original plan. The only way to reduce tree removal on lots 5 and 6 would be to create double retaining walls, each about 12 feet in height, on the uphill side of the road. This would prevent the necessary cut up'"the hill to create the driveway. The area between the walls and the,edges could be planted to soften the appearance of the retaining walls. This alternative would be visually less attractive, would be very costly to implement, and is not recommended by staff. Replanting of the graded area is a better long-term solution for the site visually and for longe-term maintenance. meal Point The condition of approval 7E requires a master tree removal plan including a full re-vegetation: plan. This was also part of the 1990 approval. Response: In response to the appeal, the applicant has subnutted a revegetation plan which shows the areas where replacement trees can be provided. This plan was not sent out with the tree removal notice, but would have been required prior to the removal of any of the trees, along with bonding and protective fencing. In addition to the replanting of trees, the applicant will provide any necessary slope and erosion control, which will include hydroseeding and the planting of shrubs and groundcover. Total tree replacement proposed by the arborist includes the replanting of 117 trees on the sites, in areas where there is not already'a heavy tree cover, Additional trees would be required to be provided for off-site planting. A copy of the 2001 house approval is attached at the end of this report for reference. S-9 Appeal Point.` The appeal letter states that the application should be dirtied because a number of the larger trees may qualify f©r HeritageStatus. Response: Based on the inventory of trees, staff has identified trees which meet the basic criteria of the County's Heritage Free Ordinance. Specifically that the tree be at least 22.9" in diameter, and in good or fair'condition. A more detailed, tree specific evaluation would be required before recommendations could be made for any given tree. Since all trees appear on the inventory documents,;,all trees not shown for removal`are protected under the County's Tree Preservation Ordinance and the additional step of having a heritage tree designation is not necessary. Staff provides the following inventory of the larger trees on the site: Tree Number T Tree Variety .Tree Diameter Lod 47 Live Oak 313" 113'` Day 36„ 865: Live Oak 2'8" 868 Day 41" Lot:2 67*` White Oak 27 49 Live Oak 24" 857 white Oak 28" 850' Buckeye 28„ 849 white Oak 28" 63 Black Oak 30" 832 Live Oak 29" Lot 3 823 white Oak 28" 90 Live Oak 42" 821 white Oak 28" 817 Live Oak 46„ 104 White Oak " 2491 802 BE 28" 72 white Oak 30" Lot 4 78'" Live Oak 29" 80 Live Oak 36" 781, Live Oak 26,> Lot'S 937' White Oak 36" 44 White Oak 24" 45 Black Oak 34" 43 Black Oak 26" 444 Bay 27„ Lot 6 958* Ba 36" 29*'' White Oak 24" 27* White Oak 34" I 1 white Oak 26" 9 Buckeye 27„ *Proposed for removal S-10 There are 4 larger trees that are proposed for removal on this list, all of which are located in the house footprints. 'free #67 is in the proposed driveway of the house for lot 2. A large Black Oak tree (#66) is proposed to remain as a focal point for the front yard. Moving the house to the east (in an effort to save tree 67) would require the removal of tree 63 or possibly 850, both on this list (as well as tree 66 which is just below the size requirement but still is ;a significant tree). As previously discussed, given the heavily wooded nature and narrow configuration of lot 2, placing a borne in any other location than the location proposed would be problematic. There are three large trees proposed for removal on lot 6. In the discussion above, there is a discussion about the two grading and access options for the lot. The original grading plan with the driveway taken from King Drive, would have required removal of the three large trees listed, plus tree number 11. Given the steep nature of the site and preference to retain trees on the lower portion of the site for screening, there are no other viable options to further limit tree removal Appeal'Point: .The appeal letter states that the application should be denied because the increased number of trees proposed for removal may cause soil instability and landslides. Response: Erosion control will be required during 'grading as part of issuance of the :grading permit, and also for the building permit. As discussed by the Planning Commission during the review of the tree permit for lots 10 and 11, the.County Geological consultant has noted that while vegetation has some benefit in holding the upper few feet of soil, a landslide may start to slide from below the root zone further dowry. As shown on the attached map, the project was approved with the knowledge that there are, several slide areas on the property; As discussed at numerous hearings for this project, the applicant is required to secure grading permits for roadway improvements and for each individual lot. The applicant is required to have his Geotechnical Engineer make recommendations for slide repairs, road design, retaining wall design and foundation design. These recommendations are then peer reviewed by the County Geotechnical Consultant, with inspections performed by the County Building Division (Grading 'Inspection). Building permit plans and site- specific geotechnical reports are required by the Building Divisionbefore a building permit to build can be issued. s-1 r , The site in its current state poses a danger to property owners below. Saving trees without performing necessary slide repair and engineering cut and fill slopes will not prevent slides, and the proposed tree removal will not create or aggravate slide conditions since tree removal will be followed by engineered fill, house foundations, erosion control and revegetation. These measures will improve the long-term stability of the area, and reduce slide risks to property owners below, V. CONCLUSION Based on the information in this staff report, it is recommended that the County'Planning Commission uphold the Zoning;Administrator's approval decision for'County File #TP020008 with revised conditions and required restitution. Tp02OOO8.sr 6-4-02 rnpl 02 Centra Costa.County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor, North Wind Martinez, CA 94553 April 18, 2002 RE: County File 4 TP020008 Lots 1-6 Kind Drive Subdivision in Walnut Creek.area Appeal to Planning Commission We are requesting an appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administrator and the approval of the tree permit. A check for$125.00 accompanies This Lettter of Appeal. The Tree Permit should be denied, as it does not f o low the guidelines eset forth by Contra Costa County. The Zoning Administrator's decisions do not meet the criteria of County Code Section 816.80'10, per the section Criteria for Review of the Tree Permit, Items B1;B2;B4;B5;B6. The Tree Permit should be denied, per B2, B4 and B6 for the following reason: Conditions of approval of plans submitted April 17, 2001 in condition A states that "...Tree removal must be less than or equal to the tree removal under the original approval." The original approvalwas for 31 trees not the 122 now requested. The Board' of Supervisors approved this condition on June 19, 2001. Attached is the summary of the proposed tree removal history. The Tree Permit should be denied, per B2 and B4. The Condition of approval E requires'a master tree removal plan including a full re-vegetation:plan. This was also part of the 1990 approval. The present tree removal request lacks inclusion of this requirement. The Tree Permit should be denied per B4,because a number of the larger trees may qualify for Heritage Status. The Tree Permit should be denied per B2, as the increased number of trees proposed for removal, may cause soil instability and landslides; Sincerely, I Stephen Phillips 'L n open'and .............. ...........- ............... ................... ........... Summary of tree removal plan history Subdivision tract 7267 Plans Lots Original 1990 July 23,2000 Planpresented Aug.28,2000 June 19,2001 April 4,2002 Plan modified plan toZA.&PL modifiedplan B of Supervisors Tentative approval ----------------—--——----—------—--------—----------—--—---—---——--——----------—--—------- Lot 1 4 9 2 2 2 20 Lot 2 5 3 3 3 3 12 Lot 3 4 4 0 0 3 Lot 4 1 7 7 7 Lot 5 7 2 4 4 4 57 Lot 6 10 7 12 13 12 29 --------------------------------—------—---- Total 31 26 28 29 28 122 Trees ' 'MI �,37VA 30111 c a + 0 0 m � � o w a LL- L= m z a mai Lo Y ::.:. ul vo O-R 2 i 4 T 04 s p12'ti. rd ffi' r O � a- � a? Y +. � A� '`-•�i s�r�ro.rrr'k �'z'ot ynxt.ew -� S[':Nt A's ' On ~ til WUf.. 1tt.22.9iN Qty ' r a a �.t Y bk 60 `vr�F '•r �ti>�p` S x.4tbC s25 � Y \ ti } n`Bt r � I t 7 i 2 d Ul TO tj FY It ��: .rr `�`'.'.�P .�>�f✓j'ft,�'�':n sae�� ta.i' w. M .mv�vlgPH- • • a ® tR ® • � fid;>$+� � r� { .,,: '6, F dh tAILO WV11t 4b dal ♦.1 pR� Ae9;�e ^e. - , gQ�q�Pf�PJ]�pJr . ja�r p ��,+��d��be.�[{�/�Jg{, �.5a.�i,6✓ � r F/. � R a.ef1'J,f �� ., i M— Eli .''Rl 4 P960 CHAPIAAN STREET, OAKLAND, CA 94601-2803 OAKLAND 5101531-1000 LAFAYETTE 925 284.4522 May 20, 2002 71. Mike Laughlin County Administrative Building 651 Pirie Street,,4''Floor, North Wind Martinez, CA 94553-6095 RE: King Estates, Lots I`-6 Dear I& Laughlin: I am re-subn-iitting my tree survey for Lots 1-6. The only changes are to save certain trees that had been listed for removal. On Lot 1, trees No. 979, 982, 983, 985 and 986 can be saved if trimmed back. In addition, trees No.'898, 897 and 895 can be retained. Tree No. 894 has died. On Lot 2, Tree No. 831 can be saved if'trimmed back. On Lost 4, Tree No. 773 can be trizmned back rather than removed. These changes reduce the total number of trees to remove by eleven. Nine of the trees are in poor condition. One is in fair condition and the pine is in good condition. Sincerely, Jim Mussells cc: Jeffrey Batt Susan McSha ock Ed Revilla Pi 1„. PRUNING T''RfMWNG * REMOVAL. * LAND CLEARING * STUMP REMOVAL TREE SURVEY,KING ESTATES LOT No. Name Size in Inches Condition Trees to be removed:' V,180, Bay 5 Poor &-987• White Oak 9 Fair v588° Bay 20 Fair w121• White Oak 21 Poor + 89* White Oak17 Fair v,990• White Oak 15 Poor x^#''991• White Oak 15 Poor v422'= White Oak 15 Poor v'`998White Oak 1 l Poor 0. 889• Bay 7 Poor 123* White Oak 14 Fair Trees to save° c79 Bay 6 Trim back *'s.-582;, Bay 6 Trim back v�83 Bay 5 Trim back +.1985 Buckeye 4 Trina back 0 v486- Buckeye 3 Trim back bg 9 Buckeye 7 Trim back X97 Buckeye 3 Trim back 895 Bay 6 Trim back 47 Live Oak 33 Fair 978 Bay 7 Fair 110 Live Oak 6 Good 981' Bay 10 Fair 113 Live Oak 17 Fair 984' Bay 7 Poor 116 White Oak 12 Poor w118 Buckeye 16 Fair , 119 White Oak 12 Fair 120 White Oak 9 Fair 130 White Oak 14 Fair 992 Live Oak 6 Good 131 White Oak 19 Poor 129 White Oak 12 Fair(trim back) 124 White Oak 8 Fair 125 White Oak 7 Good 126 White Oak 14 Good .9R, IMPAaW tri ' . 1 ` c c&L&t t.- DES c�c € S 'T' S LOT 1, Trees to save [cont'd] No. Name Size in Inches Condition 993 Bay 10 Good 994 Live Oak 15 Good 995 White Oak 8 Fair V996 Live Oak 12 Fair V*997 Black Oak 10 Fair ./'"999 White Oak 9 Fair &,,'l000 Live Oak 16 Fair(Trim back) 900 White Oak 15 Fair(Posy. trim back) 10/ 9 White Oak I l Good I7 Bay 10 Fair 115 White Oak 14 Poor 114 White Oak 17 Good 113 Bay 36 Good145 112 White Oak 16 Fair 896 Buckeye, 17 Poor 893 BY 9 Poor 892 Maple 16. Poon 891 White Oak 12 Poor 890 Bay 15 Fair 888` Live Oak 13 Poor 887 White Oak 12 Poor 886 White Oak 13 Fair 885 Bay 10 Poor 884 Live Oak 7 Poor 883 White Oak 13 Fair 882 Bay 6 Poor 881' Live Oak 16, Good 880 White Oak 13 Fair 879 Bay 5' Poor 878 Bay 14 Poor 877 Buckeye 12 Fair 876 White Oak 13 Poor 875 White Oak 14 Fair 874 Bay 6 Poor 873 Bay I1 Poor 872 Bay 9 Fair 154 Buckeye 9 Good 871 Buckeye 4 Fain 870 Live Oak 6 Good; 869 Bay 11 Fair 144 White Oak 18` Good (watch roots) 143' White Oak 19 Good LOT 1, Trees to save [cont'd]' No. Name Size in Inches Condition 142 Bay 10'' Fair 867 White Oak 15 Fain 866 White Oak 11 Fair 141 Buckeye 8 Good 140 Bay 9, Good 139 Live Oak 14 Good 865 Live Oak 28 Fair t-N 868 Bay 41 Fair 3 m a f ;n t - ��`: .'rye r`•�"' '�" �-r^' ~ Yir` �r y �r''�. + �n t t Ute zff Od t� x I 14 1° +rn' 1 LOT 2 No. Name Sig I Inebes Condition Trees to be removed: 67 White Oak 27 Good 839 Bay 12 Goad 838 Live Oak 4 Good 837 Line Oak: 9 Goad 836 Live Oak 5 Good 835 Bay 3 Good 834 Black Oak 3 Good 65 White Oak 14 Good 833 Live Oak 3 Goad 831 Buckeye 5 Fair 69Buckeye: 8 Paan 68 White Oak 10 Fair Trees to save: 865 Buckeye 11 Fair 864 Bay 5 Poor 49 Live Oak. 24 Good AS 157 Buckeye; 7 Good 863, Bay 6 Fair 50 Live Oak 20 Good 862 Bay Fair 861 Bay 5 Poor 860 Bay 9 Fair 859 Black Oak 5 Fair' 858 Live Oak 5 Good 857 White Oak 28' Fair A6 856 Bray 14 Fair' 855 Buckeye 13 Poor 53 Bay 14 Goad 54 White Oak 15 Poor 854 Black.Oak 16 Good 853 Live Oak 13 Fair V62 Bay 38 Poor 852 White Oak 13 Fair ,„.1351 Live Oak 12 Goad t--<5'0 Buckeye 28 . Fail, 5 849 White Oak 28 Good p1 848 Bay 10 Fain 4A47 Live Oak 15 Fair V'1846 ' hite Oak 13 Good x-845 Bay 14 Fair Cl � .. ........... ..................... U 4 611�e U U 2 1 In:24 t)I U t j j b�j U ss RELIABLE TREE EXPERT PAGE 07 LOT 2, Trees to be saved [cont'd) Size_Inlaches Condition —No- SA—Me Fair 844 White Oak 14 843 White Oak 16 Good V," 842 White Oak 10 Poor 941 White Oak- 9 Poor 20 Good 840 Buckeve Good 160 Bay 6 5 - Oak 30 Black Fair 64 Live Oak 16 Good -n bacl,- 66 Black Oak 21 Good(trii several 4" limbs OK) 70 Live Oak 17 Good od 71 Buckeye 10 GO 832 Live Oak 29 Good 9,S -back 830 White Oak 14 Good (minor trim 829 White Oak- 17 Good 828 Live Oak 9 Good ve Oak 18 Good M Li 134 Live Oak 7 Fair I'S White Oak 10 Poor Good 827 Live Oak 17 826 BlackOak 15 Good(minor trim-back) 19 Fair 625 Buckeye R06—t 200E Ae4Z ITAQke STAN S A5 Tote Y r � t � • l R lit? L ria 4; M; s � 44 Alt 04 a r ' Mn C r` f a � Af 10 ,. tity oc 51 T I ' f i. a' ^� IL �'. ly t 00 16:24 REL.I„BLE TEPEE EXPERT PAGE 09 LOT No. Name Size,In Intbesooditiioo rt Trees to be renrsoved. 919 White,Oak 15 Poor 1!818 Buckeye 4 Good;, 09 Buckeye;, 8 Crowd(in road) Trees to save: 87` Live Oats 21 Good(watch roots) 88 Bav 18 Goad 824 White Oak 17 Good 823 VWlute Oak 28 Fair A97 90 Live Oak 42 Good 146 822 White Oak 17 Good' 821 White Oak 28 Fair 14 92Buckeye 9 Fair ,a 93 White Oak 20 Good(trim back.for parking& house?) 94 White Oak 16 Good 95 White Oak- 14 good 96 White Oak 19 Fain 97 Visite Oak 16 Fair 820 White Oak 14 Good 817 Lire Oak 46 Good('trim back.) 9S 816 White Oak 15 Fair 109 White Oak 9 Fair 108 White Oak 18 Good'(trim back for house) 107 'White Oak 14 Fair 106 White Oak 10 Fair 815 Buckeye 7 Good 814 White Oak 11 Good(rninor pruning) 1.04 White Oak 24 Fair IA45 103 White Oak 18 Poor' 99 Live Oak 18 Fair 98 Live Oak 21 (hod 813 'White Oak 17 Good 812 Buckeye } Fair(trim for road) 811 Buckeye 20 Fair(trim for road) 810 Buckeye 19 Fair(trim for road) 91 White Oak 18 Goad 89 White Oak 13 Fair 808 White Oak 12 Poor` .......... ........ ........................... -ees to be sawd [contd] LOT 3, Ti No. Mme Size In Inches Condition 807 White Oak 6 Fair 806 White Oak 16 Good 804 �Vhite Oak 9 Poor 7 3 V*Ute Oak 14 Good 8031 )AUte Oak 6 Poor -ood 802 Bay 28 G 9 Good 801 B ay 'White Oak 10 Fair 900 Oak 799 N hi is Poor 798 White Oak 9 Fair 797 AUte Oak 19 Good 796 Live Oak Fair 795 Buckeye 17 Good 794 NNUte Oak Fair 793 �'Vhite Oak- 10 Poor 792 Wbite Oak 15 Fair 791 White Oak- 16 Fair 90 Live Oak- Good 799 B wy 15 Good 788 Buck-eye 9 Fair 787 Buckeye 10 Poor -�ite Oak 786 Wl 22 Fair 785 Buckeye 10 Poor Poor 784 Black Oak 22 0 NATI 7" -lite Oak- Fair -At TUS AEF,11 mS StA 7 v 05 w r Fit up m m 4 f iri f ,1x1 •i � ? p �L ~^y �"-1 �1 '� 61 ��s�� I � •, h, rf 3{ LOT / ! / t ✓ jJf l�' r • � , ' ' ► A LOT 4 No. Name Size In Inches Condition Trees to be removed.' Mone Tres to save: V )f 773' Pine 5 Trim back 76 Black Oak 18 Good (trim back for house-OK) 75 White Oak 14 Nair 74 White Oak 18 Goad(may need minor trim back-watch roots) 485 White Oak 18 Good 86 Live Oak 15 Goad 83 White Oak 14 Fair *82 White Oak 13 Good 81 Live Oak 22 Good V' 80 Lave Oak 36 Goad (prune back or elevate for house-OK) A'S 783 Live Oak 10 Fair 782 White Oak 16 Fair 781 Live Oak 26Good IA5 780 Live Oak 13 Fair 779 White Oak' 15' Coad 778 White Oak` l l Fair 777 White Oak 13 Good i/ 7s Live Oaf 29' Good(prune back for house OK;6"+4„+4" +minor)tt5 776 Live Oak 20r Good 775 White Oak 11 Poor 774 White Oak 18 good 77 White Oak 18 Good (heavy prune hack; tree will live)1evCo �raar #? 6bRtd►t .,. } o � f F. w' Sys � t f y r i. 4s f r • r F �r w f #• P' h �r + I p. - r rF: .s a6 � ansa sr, Cox , . BFWNB q \ .7 G C r v� 45.s 6g r .r e, 1 6 —00 e Lp LOT S No. Name Size Ln hdixes Cond'itic�nitign Trees to be removed; 907 Live Oak 16 Poor 908 Live Oak 13 Poor 909 Bay 6 Poor 910 Bair 9 Poor 912 Bay 15 Fair 913 Buckeye 20 Pour 914 Bay 14 Fair 915 Bay 4 r Poor 917 Bay 9 Poor 916 Buckeye' 3 Poor 918 Bay 7 Poon 919 Buckeye 4 Poet 920 Bay 14 `` Fair 921 Bay 12 Poor' V922 Waite Oak 14 Fair 1/923 White Oak 10 Poor 92- Bay 14 Fair' 9214 Buckeye 10 Poor 931 Buckeye, 36 Dead& dangerous 932 Buckeye; 8 Poor V'' 934 Bay 11 Good Yr 929 Black Oak 16 Goad 41 Black Oa~ 18 Good 928 White Oak 38 Poon 27 VArhite Oak 7 Fair V926 White Oak 11 Fair Ve945 Ba, 6 Poor 950 Buckeyeg Fair 9.51 Bay 6 Poor' 953 Live Oak 3 Fair 1454 Live Oak 10 Fait V955 White Oak 12 Good 946 White Oak. 12 Fair(raise for clear'ce) V947 White Oak 16 Good 948 Bay 15 rair 949 White Oak 12 Fair 952 Buckeye 24 Poor, V+§56 White Oak 12 Fair V754 White Oak 17 Good V753 White Oak- 8 Poor 9 ............... LOT 5, Trees to be removed: [contd] No. Name Size In Inches Condition 772 Bay Poor 14 Fair 771 Bav 770 Buckeye 24 Poor 769 Bay 15 Fair 768 Bay 4 Poor 767 B ay 6 Poor 766 Bay 7 Poor 765 Bay 6 Poor 764 Bav 6 Poor 7 633 Bay -3 Poor 762 Bay 9 Poor e 12 Poor 761 Buckey 760 Buckeve 10 Fair 759 White Oak 8 Fair 758 Bay 6 Fair V*7 5 7 Buck-eve 7 Poor 756 Buckeye 6 Poor Trees to save: 911 Bav 21 Fair 92 31 BaNT 12 Poor 930 B ay 12 Poor 90") Buckeve 16 Poor V4 9 315 Buckeye 6 Poor 936 Bav 14 Fair White Oak 36 937 Fair VA5, 938 Live Oak- 14 Fair 939 Live Oak 17 Good Oak- 10 940 Black Poor 941 Bay 14 Fair 44 White Oak 24 Good V46- 942 White Oak 8 Poor 943 Wlite Oak 8 Poor 34 45 Black Oak Good 46 Black Oak- 20 Good Oak Good V/ 42 Black 16 43 Black Oak 26 Fair tAA -ninor Lrh-n 944 B ay, 2 7 Good (i back) 31 7 White Oak 19 Good .38 White Oak 15 Good I-Rees REmodeD 6R ttAPAcrpo 10 PLAM m 2d , x i «�+3A jin l.# r, P a1 I f2i ry lt4 P° ,,�mi, # f cosy - } mm sf a y 4 P tx s� �.L n `�,,� :�+ ` ~ ` �v�� ~ +�►;,.�.+r.,kt ��-✓""rte _�'° ",� � � � i "Lf 'saki j LOT 6 No. Name Size in Incites Condition Trees to be removed: 957 White Oak 15 Fair V1 958 Bay 28 Fair • . 959 Bay 16 Poor 35 Bay 12 Poor 34 White Oak 13 Fair 33' Black Oak 7 Poor 960 Bay 4 Poor' cf` 961 Black Oak 6 Poor 32 Black Oak 14 Poor 962 White Oak 15 Poor 29 White Oak 24 Fair A.S. 31 Black Oak 14 Poor 27 White Oak 24 Fair 1#, , / 30 Live Oak 13 Good 963 White Oak 4 Poor 965 Bay 9 Good ' 966 Buckeye 8 Good 96'17 White Oak 15 Poor 20 White Oak 12 Good e. 17 White Oak 10 Fair 969 White Oak 3 Poor Ve 16 White Oak- 15 Farr 9644 Buckeye 4 Good 21 White Oak 6 Fair yr 22 White Oak 12 Gaol , - 23 white Oak 10 Good 968 Black Oak 5 Fair' 26 White Oak 12 Good � ✓ 976 Bay 12 , Good Trees to;.savre. 19 White Oak 13 Fair 15 White Oak 20 Goad 14 White Oak 6 Fair 12 White Oak 12 Fair I'3 White flak 19 Fair 18 White Oak 9 Fair 11 White Oak 27 Good AA . 970 Buckeye 11 Goad 2V971 Buckeye 4 Poor 972 Buckeye 4 Poor w LOT 6, Trees to be saved teont'd] No. Name Size In Inches Condition keye Poor 973 Buc 4 7 4 Buckeye Good uc 5 B keye Fair /6 Buckeye 4 Fair Z7 Buckeye 6 Fair White Oak 16 Good V8 9 Buckeye 32 Fair 10 White Oak 17 Good I White Oak 16 Good -eye 8 Good 2 Buc.� Buckeye 6 Fair V975 Buckeye 7 Fair j/24 White Oak 12 Fair 5 White Oak 12 Fair 1T�ef�r> gfF�AovaD j5p tm pkTep tSY 4*-1 INAL PLAf4 R.5, Tb;s ibLS 4691TA&%S 12 ur-� 41 Wi JA ..- s f� t NMI AW F +!Vol �p � AF.Tff r; F .-' Of PIT 9 w 10 OWN gam. �"*R ht 10 Y .5 t► is Nil .......... .......... .............. .......................... RELIABLE TREE EXPERTS 2960 CHAF'MAN STREET, OAKLAND, ,CA 94601-250# , OAKLAND 540/531-1000 LAFA'Y'ETTE $25/284-4522 May 23, 2002 Mike Laughlin County Administrative Building 651'Pine Street,,e Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-6095 RE: King Estates 'Free Replacement Dear Mr. Laughlin: Following,are proposed tree planting plans for Lots 1-6, 10 and 11. In my view,Lots 2,4'and 11 will not sustain plantings of additional trees on a long term basis. Much of the development site has numerous trees crowding each other. Natural selection has resulted in many trees ofpoor health and development. If anything, I would have proposed the removal of dying and poorly fanned trees on several of the lots. This would 'result in increased' vigor for adjoining trees and their better development. The plantings that I am proposing do act to provide desirable screens between the Ding Estate development and adjoining properties. On Lots 10 and 11,if desired,brush and small native seedling trees could be removed so as to allow planting room for additional nursery stock. Another option might be to thin out undesirable brash as greasewood, poison oak and low vigor natives, thus "releasing"' the getter natives. Watering would speed their growth; On the tree planting plans, a"one"within a circle indicates a 15-gallon tree. A"two'within a circle indicates a 24" box tree. 'A table indicating total proposed plantings for each lot follows (see attachment). Sincerely, Jinn Mussells WCISA'Cert. Arborist#324 cc: J'ef- ey'Batt Susan McShanock,' Ed Revlla ;: I FN G PR U,1�41S N1G TRIMMING ° REMOVAL LAND CLEARING STUMP REMOVAL KING ESTATES TREE REPLACEMENT Lot No. Location No. Trees Size Species 1 Western edge 4 15 gal. Natives 2 No plantings reconunended 3 Southern edge 16 15 gal.'' Natives 4 No plantings reconunended 5 Southern edge 40 ' t' iY 15 gal. Natives 6 Northern edge 14 15 gal. Natives Southern edge, 19 15 gal.'; Natives 10 Northern edge 23 15 gal. Natives Northern edge 13 24" box Redwoods 11 No plantings recommended TOTAL15 gal. 116 t'2(+ TOTAL 2.4„ box 13 r' gra m ` r G> .. '*SI i v� � .<Y'n: :ate»' ,Y�� f;�s' F...`.r ��p�pp Y' �'�k� � • ;� � '�tl.a.�, c.AYi :�. 2 4-ol -72 PC 2 P Cly tw7 '`Y �� e �'r• b'L. aeww o„"r _£LR�k �.y.. �'. �� tE . . •_._-�-�._�...�. ,msµ.. � _< �t= ;�' 7" Eli_ sx t M Nzi ,P•W . -14 r Q�. }. ` v CA k � rn t � F s 1 '• - f � ;..,,,,, `�,z.'. .�''� �+" ��.+'" � may^.✓., t� y�x # f a �i�'j� �� '33�'�� tt�y �_��ea• t aft •;, 8 t , - /Al v Y s � z S h yw j 5'�w.7 C-4 v C L rt. 60b �. at 80 '� t}" t�.:p # �y�y 'fir �'' �~ j ♦ y` 1 1�✓ ,s}ft �.a�' Jft• ,pt •. :f :# ,,. fry S` L-.t..�q^jg '� yt X F�� <i, f ... ,< ` }T t ft J.r 1§'�£�fr ,•r., ��- '� ��'` !�S~7'l�t�F. 54 .:� t us. Jf •}1*.'.x� � .1� 0 l .fie'-.' ��..k�� ,..,r"' 300 "-,""....-,.r.....,r`' l � t �} ,��y, 6-��f Awe x ..«`' ..7z.�}'��.•.' rr `� --"'+"'..,..-a .,...,.:..r�'", ....';,-..-» :,o''a. ,..ug.( .�.,.::t.,...,..,.__,.....,...,......„.•_.... .�yrs..... r - 4pxA ' - .1? 12 mow.'".°" S 75.7. r ^�- ¢✓ � ,"`. }.q..,}. w,.�..:.nw•gn �,�.„ a.>r,,^+r'�t t,-f_.: 'Y' �"'^� :a..s.,>. _ tl I��S�'� 1 3�,�y 5,,,9 :. '7\t l `573`56 35"E r.lj -7- �p �, " SLLVERHAWK AND COMPANY INC. (Applicant),MORGAN CAPITAL VESTMENTS (Owners),County Files #DP893003 and#SD897367 to allow a revision to condition 7 allowing for the plans submitted.April 17, 2001 to be used instead of the original development plans. FINDINGS: 1. The proposed development plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district and compatible with other usesin the vicinity,both inside and outside the district. The proposal is for six homes in an existing residential neighborhood, and the property is already subdivided for residential development. The April 17, 2001 plans are designed with the site topography, and are screened from view by existing vegetation. The plans reflect the changes recommended by the County Planning Commission. 2. The modifications to the conditions of approval and the request for encroachment into the scenic easement are Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CE+QA) section 15305, Class:5 allows for minor changes,in land use limitations where there are no changes in land use or density. In this case the land use and density have not changed since the original approval. The exemption would be appropriate for the incremental increase between the original' 1990 approval with a Negative Declaration and the slight increase for the larger homes. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This approval is based upon the tentative map submitted with the application dated received February 2,`1990. 2. In Subdivision 7267, the building setbacks shall not be less than 10 feet, all subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prig to issuance of a building permit. 3. At least 60 days prier to recording a Final Map, issuance of a Building Inspection Department permits, or installation of improvements or utilities, submit a geotechnical review report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement and grading plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report and be signed by the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer prior to checking by County. Grading ;will be limited to that which was shown on the tentative map or on subsequently approved plans. Any need for additional grading that would result in loss of trees must be approved by the County Planning Commission. Non- compliance will be the cause for°a "stop work" order. 4. Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved report and the reports of Herzog and Associates, Inc. dated June 7, 1989 and September 18, 1989, by title, author (firm), and date, 'calling attentionto recornmendaticns, and noting that the reports are on file for public review in the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, submit an as raded report of the engineering geologist and geotehnical engineer showing ocetion of volluviurn and landsi e deposits encountered during grading for improvements and utilities; final plan and grades for subsurface drainage including disposal and cleanout points; any buttress fill or shear key with its keyway location; retaining walls; and other rock and soil improvements installed during grading,as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil'engineer. 6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during ailing, trenching or other on—site excavation(s),on(s), earthworl w thir 3(? yards o these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for Califomia Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropnate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 7. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading permit for work on any lot,the proposed grading,location and design of the proposed residential building to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Final design and placement of the homes is subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator consistent with the plans submitted April 17,2001, subject to the following requirements: A. Accurate, to scale site,plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, accurately placing all trees. Tree removal must be less than car a Rat to the tree removal ander the original approval, B. Minor.adjustments to the house design on lot 6 may be required to further reduce tree lass to below 12 trees. An accurate,,to scale site plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. C Final color and materials snail be submitted. for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.Colors and materials shall be muted Note: grid text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 - 3 - earth tone colors to blend with the setting,vegetation and sails. Any exterior calor or material changes shad be reviewed by the County Community Development Department prior to the exterior change. D. Replacement tree and vegetationplanting shall be placed to obscure views.of the structures from surrounding vantage points. E. A master tree removal permit shall be obtained for tree removal on :the lots prior the issuance of any building permits for construction on the lots. The application shall include a full revegetation plan which must be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Planting for each lot must be completed prior to occupancy)of the house on that tot. F. Peer review by Contra Costa County shall be conducted an the site specific sails reports rewired in Condition 14G of the original approval. The cast for the review shall be paid by the applicant. G. During excavation for and preparation of the foundations of the residential structures, a Geotechnical Engineer or technician< supervised by a Geotechnical Engineer shall be present to supervise i►ny foundation related excavation or drilling. The Geotechnical Engineer shall document and make recommendations for any foundation design changes based on actual soil conditions. 5 erods,eaped.- 3M :M Qr Effl be appf the and leeafien. D. goi4diag height,: , stepped 8. A'scenic, easement shall berovided across Lots I through' 5 as indicated on the Tentative Map and extendel across the easterly portions of Lots 1 and 2 to Ding ]hive siibje& to the review and approval by the .honing Administrator prior to filing the final map. This is to restrict buildings. and structures from those areas ' Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board 4 Sup ery cors on June 1.9, 2001 - 4 - andto indicate that no further lot division shall occur, Any fencing within the scenic easement shall be of open wire type. A driveway encroachment is permitted into the scenic easement for lots 5 and b. The recordin of the encroachment document through the Public 'works Department shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit for either lot. 9. Development rights of areas to be established as a scenic easement shall be deeded to the County. This shall be done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map.. 10. Prior to filing a Final Subdivision Map, street names shall be sub'ect to the review and a proval of the Co �unity Tyeeloprnent Department. Al residences shall provide for an address visible from the street, which may require illumination. 11. Conditions for approval as related to read and drainage requirements: A. In accordance with ''Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the CountySubdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions there from must be specifcally listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of King Drive. Constructing King-Drive as a 20 foot paved road to County private road standards and providing associated drain age;improvements along the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The 20 foot paved section shall be extended offsite to connect to the existing paved section of King Drive. If'the applicant desires County',acceptanceof the road for maintenance, shall oanstruct these improvetnehts to County public road standards; (including width, grade and section standards) subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Street lighting may also be,required before the County would accept: the road for maintenance, 2) Conveying all storm water entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Compliance with this requirement includes the installation of approximately1,800 feet of Line A of the Drainage Area 15A Plan'(from Panoramic Way westward along Olympic Boulevard) or alternative drainage improvements subject to the approval cif the blood ControI7istrict. 3) Submitting a Final Map prepared'by a registered civil- engineer or licensed land surveyor. 4) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees,'and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the Conditions of approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage;and striping'plans'for review by the County Traffic Nate: Bold'text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001; Engineer, B. Construct the onsite roadways, as shown on the Site Plan, to County private road standards within 25-foot easements, to include pedestrian walkways as may be feasible, Plans shall be submitted in this regard for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator with the Final Map. C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available froom the County maintained portion of King Drive. D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition,of all necessary rights of entry,permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent,rend and drainage improvements. E. Prior to issuance of building permits, file the Final Map for Subdivision 7267, 12. Hours of construction shall be restricted from 7:00'A.M. to 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday. No construction'will occur on Saturdays, Sundays,Federal or State holidays unlessprevously approved by the Zoning Administrator. Should this condition be violated,the Zoning Administrator may cause construction work to cease and desist until he/she is satisfied that compliance will be established. 13 Prier to filing the final map and/or grafting plan, a tree inventory plan for areas in the vicinity of building sites,driveways and the proposed access road, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning A.drninistrator to deternmine heritage trees and other trees for preservation and these trees to be identified for removal. An enlarged reap of the proposed access road and the six building sites shall be submitted showing tree locations,the type and size and tree dripline, and means of. The project design may require adjustment to preserve "Heritage Trees.:" 14. Comply with the recommended requirements of the City of Lafayette included in their letter dated January 23, 1990 and February 21, 1990, listed below and subject to review, determination and/or approval by the County Zoning Administrator. A. The final subdivision-map shall not be approved until precise grading plans have been prepared and approved by the oning Administrator. B. A grading permit will be required for all grading including the earthwork necessary to develop all dwellings and driveways on each lot. An erosion-- control plan shall be prepared by the developer and reviewed an&approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to the submission to the County Grading Inspection Section.. All grading operations, all trenching for utilities and the excavation and construction of all foundation footings and piers and all paving shall be continuously monitored by a County-selected inspector at the developer's expense to insure compliance with all approved grading plants and tree protection measures, No grading, trenching, drilling or paving shall be Dote: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Beard of Supervisors on.dune 19,2001 - 6 - commenced without at least 72 hours prior notice to the County Zoning Administrator`, C. The property owner agrees to enter into and record an agreement holding the County and other public agencies Tess in the event of flood or erosion damage, including damages to properties due to flooding or earth movement. D. All streets in the subdivision shall be private. A roadway,and drainage maintenance agreement shall be recorded against each lot in the subdivision, obligating each lot for a proportionate share of the maintenance of the street and any joint private drainage facilities with consent of a majority of the members of the property owners E. The developer shall post with the County a$5,000 cash deposit,refundable if not used,prior to start of construction. This deposit may be utilized as needed by the County to cover the cost of cleanup, pavement repair, etc., if the developer fails to adequately perform these tasks. F. The builder of each house shall provide roof drainage with downspouts and conduits to convey water to approved storm drainage facilities or existing drainage ways. These conduits must be approved by the County before a Building Perin t is issued, G. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each new house, a detailed soils report including subsurface investigation and laboratory analysis shall be prepared specifically for the house design under consideration including driveways and pools. The recommendations of the soils report shall be implemented in the house design and foundation plans.The soils engineer shall sign the foundation plan and.review the grading, drainage and irrigation plans'to verify that they are consistent with the soils report. H. Grading operations shall be scheduled only between April 1.5 and October 1 to avoid the Pall and minter rains. Gradin may continue past October 1, only if the erosion control measures have been installed and certified as operational by the Project Engineer and the Centra Costa County Grading Inspector:' I. During the gradingg operation, the a plicant shall control the generation of dust by fully sprinlding the site as determined to be needed by the County Grading In in accordance with the County Grading Ordinance. J. Trees required to be saved shall be protected during construction by wooden fencing constructed with 4 x 4"posts and a 2"by 8"horizontal rail, 3-1/2' minimum height placed around each tree at the drip line except for the minimum necessary work to put in the required roadway improvements or where grading is to be permitted under one-third(1/3) of the drip line'if on only one side of a tree. K. To reduce soil compaction from equipment, a mulch of 1-2 inch sized wood chips should be placed under each drip lines at a depth of 4-inches on the soil where no excavation is to occur for those trees affected by grading or construction. Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the;Board of Supervisors on June 19, 2001 _ 7 _ L. Low, hanging limbs of saved trees sha11 be pruned prior tograding, etc., t avoid tearing limbs by heavy equipment. M. Danngrading, roots over 2-inches in diameter shall be cut off cleanly with a handsaw at the line of excavation. Any exposed roots shall be kept moist. A certified Arborist shalt be present on site for all excavations within the rout zones of trees larger than six marches in diameter: they shall make on site recommendations to the grading contractor and document observations and remediation taken and the documentation shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator.' N. Do not allow raising of the grade around the tree trunks. This causes rotting of the trunk and serious damage/death to the tree. U. Finished grades shall slope away from trunks to avoid water concentrated at their bases. P. Little or no irrigation within 8-10 ft.,of trunks. Q. Only drip irrigation and droughttolerant plants shall be permitted under drip lime. R. If large diameter roots (4 ") are encountered within the zone of excavation, an alternative footing shat be used which bridges the roots with pilings and grade beams. S. Trenches or footings shall be located no closer than l0-ft., from the base of the;tree trunks T. A test trench shall be dug;to check on the occurrence of roots at the distance where foundation will be. Roots over 3" in diameter shall not be disturbed. U. When trenching for utilities,tunneling;.shall be done under large diameter roots to prevent their cutting. NOTA: Trees other than oaks may valerate more disturbances;and moisture than do oaks. After advance approval by the Zoning Administrator, granted for non-oaks, variations of these conditions may be approved.: V. No trees shall be removed until grading permits have been issued for the houses on the respective lots. W. Copies of the entire set of the conditions of approval shall be submitted by the subdivider to each lot buyer prior to the close of escrow. X. All runoff'from the subdivision shall be collected on-site and conveyed in a closed conduit to King;:Drive. Note: Bold tent indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001 - 8 _ Y. Existing drainage facilities in King Drive and El Dorado Road shad be upgraded to handle flow from the subdivision. Improvements shallconsist of a closed storm drain between the subdivision and Olympic Boulevard, unless alternative improvements are approved by the County Public Works Dept. At least 64--days prior to.filing the final my.nal issuance of Gradingpermit,;subdivision improvement plans anc��inal Map'sh�ll be referred to the City of Lafayette far opportunity to comment!., The city shall be provided with reproducible copies of the improvement planan s d final map. ADVISORY NOTES A, The applicant will be required to cooly with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance For the Countywide Area ofBenefit as adopted by the Beard of Supervisors.Currently the fee for the Central region of the County is $2,300 for each added single family residence. B. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 67 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors, C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection District. Mote: Bald text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001