Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08122003 - D.3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ' County DATE: August 12, 2003 SUBJECT: HEARING OF AN APPEAL BY DEBO SODIPO OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENCE IN THE ALAMO AREA, COUNTY FILE #VR011056 (DEBO SODIPO APPLICANT & APPELLANT, SERGIO & BODIL CARVACHO- OWNERS) (DISTRICT Ill). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. UPHOLD the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's DENIAL of the requested variances as stated in Resolution No. 16-2002. 2. DENY the appeal of Debo Sodipo. 3. ADOPT the findings of the Regional Planning Commission contained in Resolution No. 16- 2002 as the basis for the Board denial. � r CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: --2L YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION Cal`BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON. +. t_1 , 2( j APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER See attached addench n for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Nome } 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: Catherine Kutsuris(925)335-1210 ATTESTED August 12, 2003 Orig:Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Debo Sodipo(Applicant and Appellant) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Sergio Carvacho(Owner) ' rf Alamo improvement Association Roundhill Estates North Homeowners'Assoc. DEPUTY File August 12, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#VR011056 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and materiel costs in review of this appeal. BACKGROUND On August 7, 2001, a request was received for variances for a proposed residence to allow a building height of 51 feet 6 inches where maximum 35 feet are allowed, a building height of 4 stories where maximum 2.5 stories are allowed and a retaining wall that exceeds 3 feet in height and extends into a required setback area. The application was publicly noticed and Paul Barker of 522 Oakshire Place, Alamo, requested a public hearing. The project was supported by the local homeowners' association (Roundhill Estates North HOA) but opposed by the Alamo Improvement Association. The Zoning Administrator initially heard the application on January 28, 2002 and continued the hearing to February 11, 2002. On February 11, 2002 the Zoning Administrator approved the application as recommended by staff, which allowed a building height of 44 feet and 3 stories and the requested retaining wall height in excess of 3 feet within a required setback area. On February 19, 2042 Paul Barker appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the San Ramon Valley'Regional Planning Commission. The Commission heard the appeal on April 17, 2002 and voted 5-1 to grant the appeal and deny the project. On April 26, 2002 the applicant submitted an appeal of the Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION In granting the appeal, the Commission found that the variances constitute a grant of special privilege and that the intent of the ordinance was not being met. Commissioners Gibson, Couture and Matsunaga spoke in favor of granting the appeal. Commissioner Gibson stated that the design was insensitive to the site and that up to one story could be removed while retaining the basic design concept. He suggested that a front setback variance should be explored in an effort to reduce building height by nestling it further into the slope. He also stated that he was not necessarily opposed to variances for this project, but that the variances requested were excessive. Commissioner Couture stated that the design is consistent with homes that are already in the neighborhood but that a smaller variance could be achieved through design changes. He did not believe that, by denying the variances, the property owner would be deprived of rights enjoyed by other property owners in the area. Commissioner Matsunaga stated that the design was massive but typical for the neighborhood. He agreed that the degree of variance was too great and could be reduced through design changes or relocation of the building on the lot. Commissioner Neely spoke in favor of upholding the Zoning Administrator's approval. She stated that the request did not amount to a grant of special privilege because the design conforms to August 12, 2003 Board of Supervisors File##VR011056 Page 3 what has already been built in the neighborhood. She stated that the physical characteristics of the lot constitute special circumstances and that the intent of the ordinance is being met. APPEAL DISCUSSION 1. AppealPoin#: "The owners are reasonably entitled to a building with a frontage along Oakshire Place as currently proposed, as opposed to moving the building to a location adjacent to Biltmore Drive as suggested by a member of the Planning Commission. in addition, relocation of the building to the suggested location would either require the relocation of an existing concrete ditch that the County is against moving or the construction of a vast expanse of elevated parking areas to accommodate guest parking off a very narrow road." Staff Response: Flood Control District staff explained that the ditch could be relocated if it could be adequately engineered. However, in its report to the Planning Commission, they explainedthat the ditch was already realigned once, and that if it were to be rerouted again, it would empty back at the point that was previously abandoned. The applicant has proposed guest parking for eight cars. Although this parking is not required, its inclusion has merit because both Oakshire and Biltmore are single-lane streets along the frontages of the property. In the event that the homeowner entertained guests, several could park on-site instead of having their cars dispersed throughout other parts of the neighborhood. The current design therefore has the potential to be more self-sufficient in terms of parking than most other homes in the neighborhood that don't provide as much parking. 2. Appeal Point: "Several neighbors, including the most vocal opponents of the project (Mr. and Mrs. Paul Barker) have buildings in which portions of their building perimeter are at least 43 feet tall despite the lack of easement and drainage structure constraints imposed by the County.,' Staff Response: Some houses in the neighborhood exceed the current height limitations because they were constructed prior to 1996 when a more restrictive method for measuring building heights was adopted. The home to which the appellant refers is located at 522 Oakshire, five lots south of the subject lot. The appellant presented evidence to the Commission and to staff showing that the home at 522 Oakshire appears to be in excess of 40 feet in height as measured by the current method. That home is also similar in design to the proposed' residence, with a relatively flat and tail down-slope elevation. 3. Appeal Point: "Lowering the roofline of the building to be fairly level with Biltmore Drive sidewalk elevation would result in a very small and undesirable house (without views) given the very narrow footprint. The owners purchased the lot as a view lot. This deprives them the ability to enjoy the views they anticipated when the property was purchased." Staff Response: Neighbors and Commissioners argued that the height of the house could be lowered further or that the location of the house could be changed so that it was shorter and/or less visible. One of these suggestions was to move the house to the lower portion of August 12; 2003 Board of Supervisors File#VR011056 Page 4 the property along Biltmore. Relocation to the Biltmore frontage would undoubtedly allow for a home that was less visible. It would also require realignment of the drainage ditch because the home could not be constructed above it. The appellant has stated that moving the home to a lower portion of the property would negatively impact the property owner's enjoyment of the lot because views would be severely degraded. It is true that as the home is moved lower, the views are reduced. The Commission did not find that the potential impact to views deprived the property owner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district. There are no view protection ordinances in the County. There are other lots in the neighborhood that have compromised views. 4. Appeal Point: "The lot was created before the County formulated a new method for calculating building heights. The current formula imposes an unduly restrictive burden on the building owner while trying to meet the stated intent of County personnel to maintain natural drainage patterns on the lot." Staff Response: The previous method for measuring building heights was more relaxed and allowed for taller buildings to be built on hillsides. This lot was established prior to the change in methodology. The Commission understood that this lot is constrained by many physical obstacles and that the proposed development is subject to different regulations than those that were in place when many of the neighboring lots were originally developed. However, the Commission could not make the finding that the property owner was being deprived of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity because it believed the variances were excessive. The Commission recognized that variances may very well be necessary in order to develop this lot. By granting the requested variances, the Commission felt that it would be granting a special privilege to the property and that such variances did not meet the intent of the zoning. ALTERNATIVE ACTION In the event that the Board finds merit in the appeal and wishes to approve the project, then it could consider adopting the findings and conditions of approval included with the staff report to the Commission, and should take the following actions: 1. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, ADOPT the finding that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 3 — New Construction, CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a); and 2. UPHOLD the appeal of Debo Sodipo and approved the project with the conditions as approved by the Zoning Administrator; and 3. ADOPT the findings made by the Zoning Administrator on February 11, 2002 as the basis for the Beard approval; and August 12, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#VR011056 Page 5 4. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission found that approval of the requested variances would constitute a grant of special privilege and would not meet the intent of the Zoning district. The Commission was not opposed to the idea of variances for this property, but found that the requested variances were too excessive and that the house could be redesigned and/or possibly relocated in order to lessen the severity of the requested variances. Based on those findings, the Commission denied the application. Since that decision, the applicant has not submitted design revisions that take the Commission's findings into account. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as stated in its resolution No. 16-2002 and deny the appeal submitted by Debo Sodipo. GACurrent Planninglcurr-plan\Board\Board Orders\VR011056.doc ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3 A€-rust 12, 2003 The Board of Supervisors considered th, appeal by Debo Sodipo from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Com.-.'t i ssion denial of a variance application for a proposed residence in the Alamo area, County Fi ;_: #VRC: 1056. Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director, C-'- imunity Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. The Chair opened the public hearing ani 'lie following persons presented testimony: Debo Sodipo, Carona Engineers, Inc. 560 14" Street, Suite 100, Oakland; Al Moore, (on behalf of Appellants), 2',N1 Front Street,Danville; Sergio Carvacho, 190 Tera Cina Avenuc, Sa i Ramon; Bo Carvacho, 190 Tera Cina Avenue, S;:: Ramon; Ellen Barker, 522 Oakshire Place, Alan: Paul Barker, 522 Oakshire Place, Alamc:, Eric &Nicole DeBlasi, 504 Oakshire P',:ce, Alamo. The Chair then closed the public hearinL acid returned the matter to the Board for further discussion. After hearing the testimony by Mr. Sodipo advising he is willing to work on the design of the building, Supervisor Gree:,berg moved to refer this matter to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to cond"ct a liublic hearing and allow the applicants to submit design revisions. Supervisor Greenberg :Jso requested that her office receive all information pertaining to this application. Supervis:; Glover second the motion. The Board of Supervisors took the following action: a REFERRED to the San Ramon "Y`�d ley Regional Planning Commission for their recommendation of the design r:,visions by Debo Sodipo constructing a residence at#500 Oakshire Place in the A'..,,ilo area and that the applicant work with the neighbors to accommodate their- :concerns; ■ DIRECTED the Community Devciopnrxent Department to provide the District III Supervisor with all information ,Lrtaning to this application. r' � i:;: {: H•: p., �� '�,� .� t�.�''� A,L ��► .BC� Q�3I�a� '`THS�'��. t�i�'t+�ALE�' �tI�1�.� ,�*L�� � ��' s�C� €� ��CSF,�.���� �a: ? amxs�r��. ���ust 1�,2�f13 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra o FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY,AICR Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR '�"` County DATE: August 12, 2003 ` SUBJECT: HEARING OF AN APPEAL BY DEBO SODIPO OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENCE IN THE ALAMO AREA, COUNTY FILE #VRO11056 (DEBO SODIPO-APPLICANT & APPELLANT, SERGIO & BODIL CARVACHO- OWNERS) (DISTRICT 111). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. UPHOLD the San. Raman Valley Regional Planning Commission's DENIAL of the requested variances as stated in Resolution No. 16-2002. 2. DENY the appeal of Debo Sodipo. 3. ADOPT the findings of the Regional Planning Commission Contained in Resolution No. 16- 2002 as the basis for the Board denial. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMEMCJATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER - - SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 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: Catherine Kutsuris(925)335-1210 ATTESTED Orig:Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Debo Sodipo{Applicant and Appellant) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Sergio Carvacho(Owner) Alamo Improvement Association BY Roundhi€l Estates North Homeowners'Assoc. DEPUTY File August 12, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#VR011056 Page 3 what has already been built in the neighborhood. She stated that the physical characteristics of the lot constitute special circumstances and that the intent of the ordinance is being met. APPEAL DISCUSSION 1. Appeal Point: "The owners are reasonably entitled to a building with a frontage along Oakshire Place as currently proposed, as opposed to moving the building to a location adjacent to Biltmore Drive as suggested by a member of the Planning Commission. In addition, relocation of the building to the suggested location would either require the relocation of an existing concrete ditch that the County is against moving or the construction of a vast expanse of elevated parking areas to accommodate guest parking off a very narrow road.,, Staff Response: Flood Control District staff explained that the ditch could be relocated if it could be adequately engineered. However, in its report to the Planning Commission, they explained that the ditch was already realigned once, and that if it were to be rerouted again, it would empty back at the point that was previously abandoned. The applicant has proposed guest parking for eight cars. Although this parking is not required, its inclusion has merit because both Oakshire and Biltmore are single-lane streets along the frontages of the property. In the event that the homeowner entertained guests, several could park on-site instead of having their cars dispersed throughout other parts of the neighborhood. The current design therefore has the potential to be more self-sufficient in terms of parking than most other homes in the neighborhood that don't provide as much parking. 2. AD-P eal Point: "Several neighbors, including the most vocal opponents of the project (Mr. and Mrs. Paul Barger) have buildings in which portions of their building perimeter are at least 43 feet tall despite the lack of easement and drainage structure constraints imposed by the County." Staff Response: Some houses in the neighborhood exceed the current height limitations because they were constructed prior to 1996 when a more restrictive method for measuring building heights was adopted. The home to which the appellant refers is located at 522 Oakshire, five lets south of the subject lot. The appellant presented evidence to the Commission and to staff showing that the home at 522 Oakshire appears to be in excess of 40 feet in height as measured by the current method. That home is also similar in design to the proposed residence, with a relatively flat and tall down-slope elevation. 3. Appeal Poiret: "Lowering the roofline of the building to be fairly level with Biltmore Drive sidewalk elevation would result in a very small and undesirable house (without views) given the very narrow footprint. The owners purchased the lot as a view lot. This deprives them the ability to enjoy the views they anticipated when the property was purchased.,, Staff Response: Neighbors and Commissioners argued that the height of the house could be lowered further or that the location of the house could be changed so that it was shorter and/or less visible. One of these suggestions was to move the house to the lower portion of August 12, 2003 Board of Supervisors File#VR011056 Page 5 4. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission found that approval of the requested variances would constitute a grant of special privilege and would not meet the intent of the zoning district. The Commission was not opposed to the idea of variances for this property, but found that the requested variances were too excessive and that the house could be redesigned and/or possibly relocated in order to lessen the severity of the requested variances. Based on those findings, the Commission denied the application. Since that decision, the applicant has not submitted design revisions that take the Commission's findings into account. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors uphold the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as stated in its resolution No. 16-2002 and deny the appeal submitted by debo Sodipo. O:\Current Planning\curr-pian\Board\Board Orders\VR011056.doc RESOLUTION No . 16-2002 OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 16-2002 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN R.AMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA., INCORPORATING FINDINGS OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES SUBMITTED BY DEBO SODIPO (APPLICANT), SERGIO AND BODIL CARVACHO (OWNERS) (COUNTY FILE#VR011056) IN THE ALAMO AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request was received on August 7, 2001 by Debo Sodipo (Applicant), for variances to allow a building height of 51 feet 6 inches where maximum 35 feet are allowed, a building height of 4 stories where maximum 2.5 stories are allowed and a retaining wall that exceeds 3 feet in height and extends into a required setback area in the Alamo area; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a request for a public hearing was received from Paul Barker on August 28, 2001; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on January 28, 2002, whereat all persons interested herein might appear and be heard and was subsequently continued to February 11, 2002; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2002, after the Zoning Administrator having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, APPROVED a modified version of the applicant's request; and WHEREAS, in a letter dated February 19, 2002, Paul Barker filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Commission on April 17, 2002, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; WHEREAS, on Tuesday, April 17, 2002, the Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission could not make the following ordinance findings that are required for granting a variance permit. 1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. 2. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Page 2 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 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday, April 17, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Gibson, Couture,Mulvihill, Matsunaga,McPherson NOES: Neely ABSENT: Jeha ABSTAIN: None WHEREAS, in a letter dated April 26, 2002, the applicant Debo Sodipo filed an appeal of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors, KAREN NICPHERSON, Chair of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California ATTEST: DElti'l��IS M. BARRY, AICP, Secretary San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California APPEAL LETTER -r; a r` Q " C A t2 0 fV A Cafeas Engineers,Inc. 02 AP 2.o N 4: 38 Structural Engineers 1730 Franklin street Suite 301 Aril 26,2002, Oakland p California 94612 51(1.444,8311 The Board of Supervisors 510.444.8711 (fax) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY www.carona:com 651 Pine Street,2 d door Email mail@carona.com North Wing A California Corporation Martinez, California Subject. Residential Development at Lot#25,Qakshire Place at Biltmore Drive, Roundhill Estates North,Alamo,California.--County file#VRO11056 Appeal of San Ramon Valley Regional planning Commission Decision Dear Supervisors: The purpose of this letter is to appeal the decision made by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday April 17, 2002 regarding the subject project. The Planning Commission denied the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator (Mr. Bob Drake) to grant conditional approval given the unusual constraints posed by the proposed project, BACKGROUND The owners of the vacant lot in .Alamo (Sergio and Bo Carvacho) propose to construct all approximate 3,500 square foot single family residence. The steep slopes, drainage easement, and existing drainage channels severely limit the potential buildable areas on the lot. As a result, the proposed design requires three variances outlined as folio,'s: o Construction of a building with a maximum height of 44 feet where 35 feet is the maximum height allowed(only 12% of the Building perimeter would exceed 40 feet in height and only 0,006% the perimeter would be 44 feet tall. o Construction of 3 story building where 2 %stories is permitted. o Construction of retaining wail that slightly exceeds 3 feet in height(within the front setback)where a maximum 3 feet height is permitted. BASIS OF APPEAL The basis of our appeal is summarized as follows, I. The owners are reasonably entitled to a building with a frontage along C3altshire Place as currently proposed as opposed to moving the building to a location just adjacent to Biltmore drive as suggested by a member of the Planning Commission. In addition, relocation of the building to the suggested location would either require the relocation of an existing concrete ditch that the county is against moving or the construction of a vast expanse of elevated parking areas to accommodate guest parking off a very narrow road_ The Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County April 26,2002 Page 2 2. Several neighbors, including the most vocal opponents of the project (Mr and Mrs Paul Barker)have buildings in which portions of their building perimeter are at least 43 feet tall despite the lack of easement and drainage structure constraints imposed by the County 3. Lowering the roof line of the building to be fairly level with the Biltmore Street sidewalk elevation would result in a very small and undesirable house (without views) given the very narrow footprint. The owners purchased the lot as a view lot. This deprives them the ability to enjoy the views they anticipated when the property was purchased. 4. The lot was created before the county formulated s new method for calculating building heights. The current formula imposes an unduly restrictive burden on the building owner while trying to meet the stated intent of county personnel to maintain natural drainage patterns on the lot. We would be glad to make a presentation at your earliest convenience regarding the merits of this project and the need to overrule the decision of the Planning Commission. Please call me if you have any questions Sincerely CARONA ENGINEERS,INC. Structural Engineers Nebo Sodipo, SE Principal � $ $ $ � � � �� � � � $ � � � � $. � $ : $ ` $ $ § $ � $ � � � , , ■ $ » � $ $ ' � B t $ . ! $ � � » $ , $ . � t ' ` ' . $ $ � $ ` § $ $ � � $ $ ° . $ � �§ � § § & � a Agenda Item# 31, Community Development Contra Costa County BOARD OF APPEALS SAN RA.MON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING CON HSSION WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2002 —7:50 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION DEBO SODIPQ (Applicant) -- SERGIO & BODIL CARVACHO (Owners) - PAUL BARKER (Appellant), County File #VR011056: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of variancesto allow: (1) a building height of 44 feet where maximum 35 feet is allowed;. (2) a building height of 3 stories where maximum 21/2 stories is allowed; and (3) a height of 6 feet for a retaining wall that extends into a required setback area where maximum 3 feet in height is allowed. The Zoning Administrator also approved the removal. of 9 oak trees and major pruning of a 10th oak tree. Work is also proposed within the drip lines of trees along the southern property line for the purpose of establishing a sewer line to service the residence. The subject property is located at #500 Oakshire Place, in the Alamo area (Zoning: R-15; Zoning Atlas: Q-16; Census Tract: 3461.02;Assessor Parcel#193-680-018). U. RECOMM-r-NDxTION Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval of County File #VR011056 subject to the attached findings and modified conditions of approval. III. BACKGRO=INFORMATION, This application was received on August 7, 2001. The Zoning Administrator heard the application on January 28, 2002. The public hearing was closed and the item was continued to the hearing of February 11, 2002 at which point the Zoning Administrator approved the application as recommended by Staff. IV. SITE PLAN ANALYSIS Sewer line: The plans approved by the Zoning Administrator show a sewer line encroaching within the drip line of an oak tree. Staff has been advised by the applicant that this line is inaccurate and was drawn onto the plans by the contractor. To establish the sewer line, work may be necessary within the drip line of several trees. To avoid any ambiguity and to provide fiarther clarification, Staff has included additional language in the project description and amended the conditions of approval. S-2 V. REVIEW OF.APPEAL ANIS STAFF RESPONSE On February 19, 2002, Paul Barker of 522 Oakshire Place appealed the Zoning Administrator's approval. Mr. Barker has submitted three opposition letters and stated that the points raised in all of them should be considered as appeal points. r Summary of Appeal_Point: "The conditions of approval are fatally flawed in their attempt to try to reduce the height of the structure...There is no way to reduce the height of the structure as recommended by Staff. It is akin to Lr,3,ing to-put a quart in a pint bottle. No matter which way you t,-3, it cannot be done." Staff Response:Staff spoke with the appellant and clarified this point. The appellant was under the impression that the building height was measured to the eaves and that lowering the roof pitch would not affect the building height. Die height is actually measured to the roof ridge, meaning that a lesser roof pitch will lower the height of the building. • Summary of Appeal Point: "The ample sized lot allows for placement of a house without the need for va-riances." Staff Response: The original Staff Report discussed, at length, the constraints of the lot that do not allov,; the placement of the home on its southern portion. Di..e two primary constraints are that the southern portion of the lot sits 30-40 feet below Biltmore Drive and is split by a concrete drainage ditch. Because the bottom of the lot is so for beneath Biltmore, a variance would be required to raise the home near street level. 11e house would have to be built close to street level so that the access bridge would not have too steep of a grade. 777e bridge would stili be required to cross the drainage ditch. Ultimately the only difference would be that the Bonne was situated in a peculiar position at the bottom of a raviize instead of on the hillside along with the other homes in the neighborhood. The appellant will argue that the ditch is not an obstacle and can be moved or piped to allow for the home to be constructed adjacent to Biltmore. Neither of these solutions is practical. The Flood Control .District has stated that they would not allow a home to be built over the ditch, which means the ditch would have to be moved. The two options for moving the ditch would be busying it under Biltmore or rerouting it into the deepest part of the lot. Paul Detfens of the Blood Control District stated that moving the ditch under Biltmore is impractical from a service standpoint because it would be located too far below street level. The remaining option is moving the ditch south and downward. This is impractical and illogical. At one time, the concrete ditch along Biltmore emptied into a drain that was on the subject property. The drain then emptied into a natural drainage course (swale? tha-I S-3 flowed approximately 30 feet down the lowest part of the property and onto the adjacent property), As shown on the drainage plan dated April 24, 1989, the drain was abandoned, and the ditch was extended to a new drain that is on the adjacent property owned by the Roundhill .Estates .Forth Homeowners Association. Staff assumes that the drainage system was extended 80 feet down slope because the original configuration was inadequate. The appellant suggests that the applicant realign the entire concrete ditch so that it again empties at the paint of discharge that has already been abandoned. Staff fails to see the logic in "this. The other problem with this suggestion is that the abandoned drainage line still crosses the property. The abandoned line would have to be excavated and removed in order to put the new line through. Staff finds it inconceivable that in order to build a house on a legally created lot that is part of a fairly recent subdivision, a property owner would be required to remove 35 feet o,f`.abandoned drainage line and reconstruct over 200 feet of drainage infrastructure. It is obvious to Staff that when this lot was created the intention was for the home to be built at the top of the lot along Oakshire. If the Biltmore side had been meant for development, then that side would not have been constrained by an easement and a concrete drainage ditch. Also, the lot would not have been assigned an Oakshire address if development were meant for the Biltmore side. Sum.��.an, of Areal Point. Staff was negligent in the m ci by vN1�icl it reviewed the application and prepared findings and conditions of approval. Staff found it unnecessary to attend the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) hearings and chose . to completely ignore the AIA's "strong denial" of the variances. The "supposed impartiality" of the process has been undermined because Staff found it necessary to meet only with the applicant. Staff`Response: It is customary for Count), Staff not to attend hearings of the .AIA.. Staff did not ignore the AL4 s recommendation. In fact, the AIA's recommendation was one of several factors that led Staff to work with the applicant to shorten the building. It is important to remember that the AIA's recommendation was based on a proposed building height of 51 feet 6 inches, not 44 feet as recommended by Staff. 11e appellant implies that Staff conferred only with the applicant throughout the processing of the application. Staff spoke with the appellant, the appellant's wife and a representative of the A f1 (among others) prior to formulating the findings and conditions of approval. Staff also considered the approval of the project given by the local homeowners association. Additionally, anyone interested in a proposed project is free to contact Staff to discuss the issues related to the project. • Summary of Appeal Point: The extremely tall and narrow design is inappropriate for the neighborhood. S-4 Staff,Response: .The narrow design is unique in the neighborhood. However, the neighborhood is eclectic and the site constraints justify a narrow design. Phe height is compatible with the neighborhood. Many of the homes in the neighborhood were built when building height was measured in a much more forgiving fashion that allowed for tall down slope facades, The appellant's own house would require a variance to the height limitation if it were to be built today..The proposed building, as approved, would meet the height limitations under the old standards. The appellant argues incompatibility because the method by which height is measured has changed. Physically, the heights are similar, the height ordinance was changed in order to discourage the proposed type of Borne and encourage stepped designs that are more compatible with the contours of the hillside. In this case the Zoning Adrninistrator found that a stepped(spread out) design is actually a worse solution because it will disturb more of the extremely steep hillside and more of the trees. rhe applicant has also maintained that a stepped design, while possible, is much less desirable structurally than what is proposed. +� SummanLof.A.ppeal Point: Lithe effort.has been made to harmoniously integrate the home into the site. ,Staff.response: Steps have been taken to harmoniously integrate the building into tl�e site. The rzar7o V footpr•irzt is advantageous because it will requir8 less gradin than a footprint that steps.up or down the hillside, thereby lessening the impacts to the slope and trees. Exterior decks have been added to the levels that will provide more usable space without increasing the size of the building footprint(this does not refer .to the pool deck). The applicant also proposes ample guest parking along Oakshire. Oakshire and Biltmore are too narrow along the prc?pert)�frontages to allow parking in the street, meaning cars would be parked throughout the neighborhood in the event that the property owner planned to entertain several guests. The applicant has stated that the proposed guest driveway has capacity for eight cars, meaning that the proposed residence is much more self-sTl &int than the immediate neighbors. The conditions of approval also require that the color scheme for the residence be limited to earth tones in an effort to blend the residence into the natural environment. • Summary of Appeal Point: There is a natural seasonal drainage swale that also conducts water from drain inlets in Oakshire Place year round that has not been addressed in this design. This needs to be re'V ewed by the California. Mate Regional Water (duality Control Board and the Cons of Engineers, and mitigation mmeas�.es taken,before a permit may be issued. Staff ,Response: These statements are misleading. he changes to the drainage infrastructure are discussed above. 1-he applicant proposes no work within the natural drainage course. The applicant is required to direct the runaff f-orn the House into the existing concrete ditch so it can be conveyed into the natural S-S drainage course further down slope. ?he argument cannot be made that by developing the property the applicant is negatively affecting the drainage course, as the affects of build-out of the entire subdivision were analyzed in the environmental impact report that was prepared when the land was subdivided. If this project is subject to review and approval by other agencies, that does not preclude the Community -Development Department from approving- and issuing a variance permit. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary approvals as needed. _ Summaryof Appeal Point: The proposed bridge is unattractive inappropriate and ideally should be removed. Staff Response: The bridge is an appropriate solution to the problem of accessing the home from Biltmore .Drive. No specific suggestions were provided on how the design might be improved. The Zoning .Administrator approved the project with a condition of approval that requires the applicant to match the architectural detailing on the bridge to the architectural detailing on the house. • Summary of Appeal Point: The 20-foot high retaining wall supporting the proposed swimming pool only serves to exacerbate the appearance of an overly tall structure, causing the overall mass to be in excess of 70 feet tall. The retaining wall should be terraced and,hshly planted in order break down its mass acid screen its appearance. Staff Response: One of the conditions of approval is that the retaining wall be terraced and landscaped. Staff added this condition after a telephone conversation with the appellant shortly before the Zoning Administrator hearing. The StaffReport had already been distributed so the condition was read into the record prior to commencement of the public hearing. The Zoning AdMinistrator approved the project with the added condition of approval. • Summary of Appeal Point: The structure's combined height of over 70 feet will be visible from miles away (at the public hearing on January 28 the appellant clanSed this to mean visible from downtown Alamo). ,Staff Response: Almost every home on the hillside in question is visible from miles away. The proposed structure could not exceed 70 feet in height, as 44 feet (house) plus 20 feet (pool retaining wall) equals 64 feet (the retaining wall also varies in height and is 20 feet tall in only one spot). However, the appearance would not be 64 feet tall, as 4 feet of the home would be obstructed by the retaining wall,far a total of 60 feet. The building would only appear this tall from one angle. In fact, only 35% of the buildings perimeter would exceed the 35-foot height limit, Only 12% of the building's perimeter would exceed 40 feet and .006% would be 44 feet tall. S-6 Staff visited the project site, which is marked with the location of the building and stood at the spot that would be the corner of the house on its tallest side. From. that vantage point, Staff(being 6 feet tall) could not see over Bilt7nore .Chive and into downtown Alamo. This means that the entire retaining wall plus two feet of the house would not be visible in downtown Alamo, contrary to what the appellant asserts. In the worst instance the overall height visible fir-orn Alamo would be: 60 ('visible height of house and pool retaining wall) -2 (amount of house obstructed by Biltmore .Drive) -20 (amount of retaining wall obstructed by Biltmore Drive) = 38 feet. • Summary of Appeal Point: The.house is not stepped back, and thus does not allow any shadow lines. Staff Response: It is true that the house is not stepped back however, each level of the house has an exterior deck that will cast shadow lines, Stepping the house back enough to create shadow lines would severely impact the amount of usable interior floor-area, as the house is only 29 feet wide. +� umamary of Appeal Point: The house is not set intoe hillside vim retaining walls in order to lessen the height impacts. ,Staff Response: Tl-,e house maintains the.minimum required fi,ont yard setback of 2G fret at one comen Rotating the building closer to Oakshir-e Place would allow it to be set further into the hillside. FTrliile the height of the house may be lowere4 this alternative could impact more trees than the current proposal. The building itse( would apparently require removal of 5 trees instead c?f 7 trees. One of the 5 trees is a 30" oak that is the site's tallest tr-ee. The building would also come extremely close to the drip lines and root zones of two other trees, and may negatively impact them. Construction. of the pool deck, which currently requires removal of one 14" oak, would require removal of at least one 30" oak tree and possible two 3G" oaks. Therefore it is highly conceivable that by rotating the house towards 0akshire, the resultant design would require the removal of the same number of trees, except that at least two and possibly three 30" oaks would require removal whereas the current proposal requires removal of one 30" oak and significant cutting of a second"oak. Staff has also considered whether the pool is a luxury that would unnecessari4) impact the trees and if findings could be made to callow tree removal for its construction through a conventional tree permit. Staff viewed aerial photographs of" the neighborhood and counted 18 pools and structures on several other lots that may be pools but could not be verified from the photographs. As pools are found throughout the neighborhood (including on sloped lots), Strzff could justify tree removal for purposes of constructing a pool. S-7 • Summary of Appeal Point: Staff does not acknowledge the Alamo Improvement Association's "strong condemnation" of the project except by including the AIA's letter in amongst malty other pieces of information attached to the Staff Report. Staff Response. This statement is factually incorrect. A summary of the 'L4's comments appears on page 2 of the original Staff Report. Both the summary and full text of the correspondence were available to the Zoning Administrator at the time of decision.,Staff spoke with Roger Smith of the AIA on several occasions and was fully aware of the.AL4's position at the time the findings and conditions of approval were prepared. The Zoning Administrator is required to evaluate three specific findings when deciding to recommend approval or denial of a variance application. Tlie AIA may not make its recommendations based on the same findings, Since the parameters•for the reviews may differ, it is unreasonable to assume that the two recommendations should necessarily.be in agreement. * Sununary of Appeal Point: Over 33% of the oak trees on the site will be removed. Two of these are Heritage Oaks. The proposed replacement ratio of 2:1 is grossly inadequate. StaffResponse: These statements are factually incorrect. The proposal is to remove 4 9 of 30 trees, which .is exactly. 30%. Not a single tree on the subject site is a Heritage teak By practice, the County uses a formula of adding the diameters of the trees to be removed and dividing that total by 6.5 to determine the appropriate number of trees required for replacement. This formula is flexible depending on individual site conditions. In this case, the formula specifies 22 trees as appropriate replacement. Staff determined this to be unnecessary because the majority of the site is devoid of trees and the applicant has proposed relatively:heaving planting on a portion of the property that currently has no trees. The Zoning Administrator concurred with Staff and did not support the view that a largely barren lot should be covered in trees because 9 are being removed. Staffs recommended condition of approval will yield a tree density that is nearly one-third greater than what currently exists. * Summary of Appeal Point: The Staff Report cites support by neighbors that have appeared before the AIA and Zoning Administrator in opposition of the variances. "Staff was completely unaware of how strongly the AU and neighbors were against this design, simply because Staff was not diligent in its efforts to ascertain the true facts of the case, and thus, made recommendations that were unsupported by the facts."S Staff Response; It is true that the Staff Report cites support by neighbors who are now in opposition to the project. Staff believed several neighbors were in support based on a signed petition dated.July 30, 2001 and submitted with the application. Staff was unaware of the opposition at the time the Staff Report` was written and �-8 distributed. To S'taff's knowledge, opposition by these who had previously supported the project did not surface until the public Bearing on Janua7y 28, 2002 IT"ritten reversal of previous support was not received until February 7, 2002. It may be true that some neighbors who previously supported the project voiced their.opposition at the .AL4 meetings. Correspondence received from tine AIA does not mention neighbors who supported or opposed the project. It is the neighbor's responsibility to inform Staff that their opinion of the project has been reverser. Nq. NEIGHBOR'S LETTERS Three letters have been received that were submitted after the original Staff Report was written and distributed. • Richard G hitehurst, 512 Oakshire Place:Mr. Whitehurst states that he would like to 44v gorously protest" approval of the application and states that he had been r isled as to the visible height of the proposed building. • Sei Sugiyama, 400 Oakshire Place: Mr. Sugivama states that he is withdrawing his name from the petition he signed in support of the application and that he was led to believe that "the building would be only three to four feet above the county height restriction..." • Peter, Wolh-.an, 4akshire Place: IVIr. Vkrellman feels that the findings "completely negate the concerns of the neighborhood and the .reasons that the local AIA board had rejected this prof ect." These letters were received prior to the Zoning Administrator making a decision on the project. The Zoning Administrator considered all of the testimony at the public hearing, letters from neighbor's and the AIA's comments and made the decision to approve the application. VII, CONCLUSION No issues have been raised that warrant a reversal of the Zoning A in.-stre.or's decision to approve the project. The facts of this application are that a legally subdivided lot exists, which contains several obstacles to development and teat to overcome these obstacles in a practical manner variances are appropriate. Staff recommends that the Board of,Appeals uphold the .Zoning Administrator's approval of County File.#VRO11056, subject to the attached findings and modified conditions of approval. FINDINGS AND .CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR. COUNTY FILE #VR011056 AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FEBRUARY 11,_2002., WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RECOMMENDED BY STAFF (ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS APPEAR UNDERLINED). Variance Findings: 1. That any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. • Approval of the requested height variance would amount to a grant of special privilege as the requested height is in excess of what is necessary for development. Due to the difficult conditions on the subject property and the desire of the County to protect as many trees as possible and provide a uniform street frontage along Oakshire Place, a variance to allow a building height of 44 feet would be appropriate to facilitate development and would not constitute a grant of special privileges. A variance to allow a building height of 4 stories would amount to a grant of special privilege as no other homes the neighborhood have 4 stories and 4 stories is unnecessary. The physical constraints associated with the property make an unconventional design necessary. In order- to provide vehicular access and living space comparable to other homes in the neighborhood, the innovative 3-Ldo,y design incorporating the vehicular badge is justifiable and does not amount to a grant of special privileges. The severe slope requires a retaining wall to support the driveway along Oakshire Place. Granting a variance to allow the wall to exceed 3 feet in height does not amount to a grant of special privileges, since no other feasible design solution exists to construct this necessary element of the horse. 2. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property because of its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district, • The subject property is a double-frontage lot characterized by extremely severe slopes. Development area is limited by the presence of a 10 foot wide storm drain easement crossing the northern end of the property, a concrete drainage swale running the length of the property along the western side and the depth below street level of the southern portion of the property. .The overall slope of the site is approximately 41%, and the most appropriate construction area has a slope of approximately 57% and is covered by a grove of oak trees. The severe slopes, limited building area and desire to save trees combine to make an unconventional design necessary. The applicant has purposed a design that incorporates a minimal building footprint that saves oak trees. The trade-off is that the building is taller than it would 1 be if spread across the hillside. An exception is justilable to the height limitatiomfor the down-slope portions of the proposed building in order to facilitate construction and protect as many trees as possible. The applicant proposes a building of four stories in height. The top three floors are justifiable, as they constitute primary living space and a garage. The fourth floor, a changing room, is unnecessary and can be eliminated in an effort to reduce the overall height of the building. The applicant proposes a variance to allow a retaining wall of greater than 3,feet in height that extends into a required setback area. Die retaining wall is necessary to support the proposed driveway along Oakshire Place. The steep slope warrants exception to the Leight limitation for retaining walls. Additionally, the majority, of the retaining wall would be hidden from view by the house and existing and;proposed vegetation. 3. That any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective laid use district in which the subject property is located. * The intent of the zoning ordinance is to provide a framework for orderly development. 171 this case, development may impossible while staying within the limitations of the R-15 zoning district and maintaining a relatively small building footprint. Variances are: necessary to facilitate development and protect vegetation _on this extremely di�cult parcel. The proposed horse would meet all setback requirements and would not obstruct any neighboring views. Authorization of height variances will not threaten orderly development in the neighborhood or undermine the intent of the zoning district. PROSECT FINDNGS: Staff has determined that the site chosen for construction is the most appropriate and most feasible considering the constraints of the site. Approvol of variances as specified by Staff will not amount to a grant of special privileges, as natural and man-made obstacles uniquely compromise the subject property. Special circumstances exist, most notably, an extremely steep slope and a grove of oak trees that should be disturbed as little as possible. Construction of a long, tall and narrow structure, similar to what is proposed, is the most appropriate way to develop the propert:,; while managing the slope and minimizing disturbance to the trees. Approval of the variances would facilitate orderly development in the neighborhood, as the house would be allowed to conform to the neighborhood's existing development pattern. Approval of the variances would in no way conflict with the intent and purpose of the zoning district. CONI?ITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR COUlt7"Y FILE 4VRO11056 1. Development is approved as genarally shown on plans submitted -'vith the application.., received by the Co=unty Development Depaar .went on August 7, 2001, subject to final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator. The applicant must prepare revised plans indicating: (l) An acceptable modification to the driveway and retaining wall design over the storm drain easement, as required by the Public Works Department; (2) A detail of the tie-in from the foundation drain line and new Swale to the existing B-58 ditch; and (3) Elevations and floor bans indicating all ehlepieT modifications necessary to comply with the limitations of this variance approval. Revised plans must be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator no fewer. than 30 days prior to issuance of building permits. (4) The sewer line along the southern proerty line shall be drawn to conform to the requirements of condition of approval 422. 2. — This application is subject to an initial application fee of$1,550, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prier to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for .file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be.sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 3. Variance approval is granted to allow for variances that meet the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: • 35-foot height limit permitted by Ordinance. 44 foot height limit granted. • 2Vh story height limit permitted by Ordinance. 3 stories granted. • Moot height limit for retaining walls that extend into required setback areas permitted by Ordinance. b feet in height granted, with a maximum wall height of 3 feet in required setback areas along Oakshire Place. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the amount of$2,000. 3 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a color board of exterior colors for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. Siding and roofing material colors shall be limited to black and shades of gray, green., yellow, brown, tan and beige. Trim and ornamentation may be of other colors as approved by the Zoning Administrator. 6. ___ Construction plans shall note that the County Public Works Department is deferring to the County Building Inspection Department the inspection of the tie- in from the foundation drain line to the B-58 ditch. 7. Architectural detailing on the bridge shall match the style of the architectural- detailing rchitecturaldeta ling on the residence. 8. The retaining wall supporting the swimming pool shall be terraced and landscaped. Landscaping shall be designed to screen the retaining wall from view as much as is reasonably possibly. Tree numbers in the following conditionscorrespondto the site plan contained in the report titled "Tree Assessment at Carvacho Property"prepared by Barnes Lascot and dated July 2.5, 2001, wMch is on file with the Cornu:unity Development Department. 9. _ Approval is given to remove trees 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19. Construction site pians shall:indicate;the trees to-be removed and the trees to be preserved. All other numbered trees are protected and shah be preserved. 10. Prior to issuance of building permits, trees 1, 3, 4, 53 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 20 and 22 shall be-maintenance pruned prior to construction to include crown cleaning and thinning of branches over 1 inch in diameter using Intemation.al Society of Arboriculture pruning standards. The extent of the pruning shall be stated on +laic face of the construction plans. 11. Prior to issuance of building pemuts, tree 1 shall be clearance pruned to remove one low 7"branch to the northeast to provide 12' vehicle clearance over driveway using International Society of Arboriculture pruning standards. The extent of the pruning shat be stated on the face of the construction pians. 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, tree 10 shall be clearance pruned to remove one low 10" branch to the northwest to provide 12' vehicular clearance over the driveway, and. one 18" diameter spar/trunk towards the proposed house to the south using International Society of Arboriculture pruning standards. The extent of the pruning shall be stated on the face of the construction plans. 13. ,All preserved trees shall have tree protection fencing installed prior to any construction. Fencing shall remain in place throughout the construction process to minimize damage to root systems. Tree protection fencing shall consist of 4-foot high orange plastic fencing set on metal stakes placed at 6-foot centers. No 4 equipment, storage, dumping, grading or excavation is permitted within the designated tree protection fencing without the prior written approval of the consulting arborist. If excavation must occur within the tree protection fencing, the consulting arborist shall. detennine where tunneling, hand work and root pruning is required. These stipulations shall be stated on the face of construction plans. The location of the fencing shall be included on construction site plans. 14. The Community Development Department shall be informed in writing of any work authorized withinthe tree protection fencing bythe consulting arborist. 15. Prior to issuance of building permits, all preserved trees shall be inspected by the consulting.arborist to detem:iine if the tree protection fencing has been properly installed. Building permits will not be issueduntil a consulting arborist has certified proper installation in writing to the Community Development Department. 16.-- Protected trees shall be inspected by the consulting arborist three (3) months after, completion of the building's foundation. All recommendations of the arborist shall be followed. Proof of the inspection and implementation of recommendations shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to building permits being finaled. 17. Prior to obtaining occupancy for the residence, the applicant shall install landscaping as shown on the landscaping plan:prepared by Blue Sky Landscaping, Inc., received December 17, 2001 by the Community Development Department. 18. Applicant shall install 18 oak trees (minimum 15-gallons each) in order to mitigate the loss of those trees removed for construction. All oak trees indicated on the approved landscaping plan shall count towards this total. All oak trees shall be installed prior to final inspection of the residence. The oak trees shall be inspected as 'part of the inspections specified in the aforementioned tree assessment prepared by James Lascot. These trees shall be installed concurrently with the approved.landscaping plan. 19,— Pursuant to the conclusions of the arborist report, proposed improvements within the root zone of trees noted on the site plan to be preserved have been determined to be feasible and still allow for tree preservation provided that the recommendations of the arborist are followed. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity may nevertheless damage these trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) prior to issuance of building permits, to allow for replacement of trees intended for preservation that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on: 5 A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to twenty-one (21) trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; B. Determination of Security Amount - The security shall provide for alll of the following costs. 1. Preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by s licensed landscape architect or arborist; 2. A.labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required, prepared by a licensed landscape contractor; and 3. An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Acceptance of a Security-The security shalll be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial.Deposit for Processing of Security-The County ordiiiaace requires that.t1ie applicant corer all time and m.aterial,co is of staff for processing a .,. . . . tree protection security(Code 5-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The County shall retain the security up to 24 months following the completion of the residence. In. the event that the Zoning Admiristrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning .Administrator determines that the .applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. The property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to.any tree daring the construction. process. 20. Reports and documents submitted by the consulting arborist may be sub-,mit4ed by the Community Development Department to another arborist for peer review. A11. arborist expense shall be borne by the property owner. 21. Prior to issuance of building pe,-wits, the applicant shall provide a peryx it compliance report to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The report shall provide evidence of the measures taken by the applicant to satisfy all relevant conditions of approval (i.e, documentation, plans, photographs, etc.). Site inspections by Col—,ny staff may 6 also be required. Compliance with those conditions administered by the Public Works Department need not be included as part of this application. The permit compliance review is subject to staff time and materials charges, with an initial deposit of $1,000, which shall be paid at the time of submittal of the compliance report. Checks maybe made payable to the County of Contra Costa. 22. The proposed sewer_ line shall be rerouted in order to avoid removal of, or damEa to protected trees. The line mapass withinn the drip linesof protected trees contingent upon a licensed arborist's certification that the alignment will not be detrimental to the health or`long-term survival of the protected trees. This certification must be subnnitted to the.Community Development De-oartmentprior to issuance of building permits and must specii which trees will be affected. Protected trees are described in condition of. roval #9 above. Should it be determined that tree removal is necessary or work -within the drip line will be detrimental to the health or lona-term survival of any protected tree,the applicant shall apply for a Tree Pern-dt in accordance with the Countv Tree Preservation Ordinance, ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISOR' NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR. THE PURPOSE OF ENFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTITER. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY., OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS 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 Goverment Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Applicant must comply with the requirements ofthe Building Inspection.Department, 7 C. Additional requirements and fees may be imposed by the County Building Inspection Department, County Public Works Department,_East Bay Municipal Utilities District and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. It is advisable to check with these departments and agencies prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding,with the project. D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. E. This project may be subject to the requirements of the San.Francisco Bay Regional grater Quality Control Board, Region ITI. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Board to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and.Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Fox 47, Yount-,rille, California 94599, of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and va'ildlife resources,per the Fish and Game Code. G. Tb ds project is subject to the requirements of the San Ramon. galley Fire Protection Distric+. Check udth the District prior to requesting a building permit or proceeding with the proj ect. V' STAFF REPORT FOR COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARINGS JANUARY 28 , 2002 FEBRUARY 11 , 2002 Agenda Item#10 Community Development Contra Costa County= COUNTY ZONING ADN EMSTRATOR TMONDAY,JANUARY 28, 2002 - 1:3O P.M. I. D\7FR ODUCTION DEBO SODIP0 (Applicant) -- SERGIO & BODIL CA.RVACHO (Owners), County File #V-R011056: A request for variances to allow: a building height of 51 feet 6 inches where maximum 35 feet is allowed; a height of 4 stories where maximum 21/2 stones is allowed; a height of 6 feet for a retaining wall that extends into a required setback area where maximum 3 feet in height is allowed. The applicant also requests approval to remove 9 oak trees and conduct major pruning of a 10th oak tree. The subject propert,'is located at#500 Oakshire Place, in the Aiamo area. (Zoning: R-15; Zoning.Atlas: Q�-16; Census Tract: 3461.02;parcel#193-680-018). R. REC03NB=A.TI0N Staff recornmendc, approval of VR.011056 subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval, including limiting the building to 44 feet and 3 stories in height. Ill.. GENERAL IN'FOPNIATION A. General Plan: Single-Family Residential Low Density(SL). B. Zoning: R-15, Single-Family Residential Loin Density. C. CEQA Status: Class 5 Categorical Exemption under Section 15305(a). D. Previous Applications:Done. E. Rg�platory Programs: The subject parcel lies btvond the boundaries of all regulatory program.areas. IV. AGENCY CON2.VIENTS Building Inspection: +� The project shay_ meet the requirements of the 1998 California Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Title 24 Energy (including the 2001 amendments) Code. S-2 o A licensed civil/structural eng;neer or architect is rewired to desip i and provide engineering calculatsons for the building per the 1998 California Building Code, a A soils report prepared by a geotechnical engineer is required. • The height of the building is limited to 40 feet per CBC Table 5-B for Type V- N construction and that the "height of building" per CBC Sec. 209 is defined differently than "average height" on sheet A5 `Staff spoke with Senior Structural Engineer Fred Fung regarding the limitation on building height. Mr. Fung noted that the proposed home may exceed the 40-foot height limitation if fire spriJ.�. - ers are incorporated). + The maximum number of stories is limited to 3 per CBC Table 5-B. The maximum number of stories may be increased to 4 with fire sprinklers. Public Works (Enzineering S-,,-vices): Department had no comments or concerns. Public 'Works (Flood Control): Stated that the proposed driveway off Oakshire Place could not be built as planned because the proposed retaining wall may not encroach upon the storm..drain easement on the property's northern end. Historical R.es6 rces In.r'` imation System: Studd #2293, covering 100% of the project area, identified no historical resources. Further study for historical resources is not recommended. San Ramon VaL1ey Fire District: Plans must be submitted for re.-iew prior to the issuance of building permits. Central SanitM District: No col:ments received. East Bay Municipal Utilit�l District: Ad),ised applicant to contact BB-=I to request a water service estimate to determine the cost and conditions for providing additional water service to the property. RoundhiL Estates North Prope _Owners' Association: Approved. the project with 7 conditions (see attachment). The proposed building meets the conditions of approval. The Association also approved the proposed landscaping plan with 7 conditions, all of which are beLag met. Alamo lmprovernent Association: The AIA denied the application on the basis that the proposed height of the home is 47%c greater than what is allow=ed by Ordinance, that the home occupies a prominent location and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the feasibility of alternative designs and equal use. S-3 V. AREA/SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located on a steep hillside at the intersection of Oakshire Place and Biltmore .thrive in the Roundhill Country Club. Large lots and severe topography characterize the neighborhood. The subject parcel comprises .75 acres and is roughly rectangular. Several factors combine to make development of the site exceptionally difficult. Construction areas are limited by a 10-foot storm drain easement ruining across the north end of the property and a concrete drainage swale. (B-58 ditch),running parallel to Biltmore Dr. for almost the entire length of the property. From Oakshire Place to the base of the property the hillside drops 96 feet,with an overall slope of about 41 Flo. The slope tends to lessen as the elevation drops and is steepest -at the proposed construction site. A grave of 30 Blue and Coast oak trees, some as large as 30 inches in diameter and 50 feet in height, covers the eastem half of the property. The density of the grove is greatest at the proposed construction site(see:Exhibit A). NIL PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant proposes a four-story, 3,6109 square foot residence that requires the approval of three variances, two for the height of the residence and one for the height of a retaining wall located within a required setback. Additionally, the proposal includes the rcnzovin isal of rune oak trees. Significant landsca ro used along Biltmore Drive to lessen the visual impact.of the home. . VIL STAFF ANALYSIS/DIS CUS SION A. Site flan: The site chosen for the proposed home is the most feasible, given the parcel's many obstacles. The locations of the storm drain easement and drainage swale combined with severe topographical constraints prohibit development on the extreme northern and western sides of the property. The southern end of the property has a much lesser slope and fewer trees and appears to be a more appropriate place to build. The difficulty with the site's southern end is that the home would basically be located at the bottom of a ravine, with the foundation set 30-40 feet below Biltmore Drive. A, bridge would still be required for vehicular access and height variances would almost certainly be required in order to construct a practical entry at (or close to) street level. Locating the home by itself at the bottom of a ravine would be contradictory to the development pattern along Oakshire, where homes tend to be loLated close to street level and face the street(see Exhibit B). S" The proposed site plan calls for the home to be placed on the northeastern edge of the property, adjacent to Oaksh .re Place. The home. will be set back 20 feet in the front, th6-1 minimum allowed under the R-15 zoning. The building footprint is long and narrow and does not run parallel to Oakshire Place. The narrow footprint is advantageous because it will require less grading than a footprint that steps dorm the hillside, thereby lessening the impacts of development. The rotation away from Oakshire causes the down-slope side of the home to be taller than it would be if the footprint ran parallel to the street and was set further into.the hillside. The trade-off is that the design saves one of tine site's 30-inch oak trees from total removal. The home will be accessed from Cakshire &tough a driveway, the main purpose of which is the provision of west parking. Oripi ally the applicant proposed for the driveway and retairing wall to be built over a storm drain easement that has been dedicated to, but not accepted by, the County. Pubhc Works stated that the driveway, but not the retaining mall, could be built over the easement. The applicant has proposed to bridge the easement in order to support the driveway while leaving access to the easement open. At a meeting on December 5, 2001, Paul Detjens of the Public 'Works Department stated that this solution is acceptable. Primary access to the site will be tahrough a turnout off Biltmore Drive that accesses a bridge across the drainage Swale and leads directly into the garage. The:cridge is necessary to arToid dist rbing the drainage sv- 7ale. B. Proposed Residence: The proposed residence is a tall and narrow four-story binding consisting of two floors of living area, a garage level_, and a changing room under the garage. A proposed swimming pool sits adjacent to the garage and is supported by a retaining «all that reaches a height of ?0 feet. The residence consists of 3,609 square feet C. Variances: The applicant is requesting three variances: (1) a building height of 51 feet 6 inches where the zoning ordinance ] mics height to 35 feet; (2) a building height of 4 stories where the zoning ordinnance limits height to 2112 stories; and(3) a height in excess of 3 feet for a retaining wall "Located in a required setback area alone O ahshire Place. The need for all three variances is tied directly to the severity of the slope, it is extremely di.ffic.rlt to develop the site in a practical manner without exceedinzg the limitations of the zoning ordinance. The question is how much should developm.errt be allowed to exceed the limitations. The proposed height is in excess of what is necessary for development, Staff recommends changes in the roof slope, the elimination of the changing room and the shorterdng of the remaining three floors in order to trim excess height from the building, Staff recognizes that it is desirable to retain the single story appearance S•5 of the home from Oakshire Place, as opposed to looking down upon the roof. The building could be lowered about 7 feet while retaining the single-story appearance. Staff views the height of the retaining wall is a less significant issue, as the wall is necessary to construct the Oakshire driveway and the residence and vegetation will hide couch of its down-slope height. The project will be conditioned to limit the wall to 3 feet in height in required setback areas. D. Tree Removal: The applicant proposes the removal of nine oak trees and the removal of 50% of the canopy of a tenth oak. The oaks are on the upper portion of the lot and ,grow within, or extremely close to, the proposed building footprint and driveway, area.. A tree assessment prepared by James Lascot of Arborlogic states that removal of the nine oak trees and major pruning of the tenth Js necessary to facilitate construction. lir. Lascot recommends deep root fertilizing for all trees suffering root loss due to construction and the installation of protective fencing. The applicant Will be required to plant 23 oak trees to mitigate the loss of mature oaks. E. Landscaping: The subject site sits at the entrance to the Roundhill Estates North neighborhood and concern over the down-slope bulk of the building has prompted the applicant to prepare a landscaping plan designed to minimize the building's visual impact. The plan is based on a planting scheme prepared for a nearby home b, the consulting landscape architect. According to the landscape architect, the nearby plantir+g has erfc�rmed etre ely well and similar zcsnIts could be expected at the subject site, as the conditions are nearly identical. The Roundhill Estates North.Property Owners' Association approved the plan. A photomontage was prepared to illustrate the potential masking effect of the proposed landscaping. A five-year forecast based on the performance of the neighboring landscaping revealed that in such time the home could be significantly hidden from those approaching the neighborhood along Biltmore Drive. F. Neighbor's Letters: Several pieces of correspondence have been received related to the proposed project (see attachment letters). Opponents: • Jeffrey and Jennifer Loomis, 405 Oak-shire Place: Mr, And N rs. Loomis expressed concern over the height of the proposed structure and the removal of 9 oak trrets. • Paul Barker, 522 Oakshire Place: Mr. Barker had numerous objections and comments regarding the proposal: (1) little effort has been made to harmoniously integrate the home into the site; (2) the extremely tall and narrow design is inappropriate for the neighborhood and violates the spirit and intent of height limitations; (3) the home should be shorter with larger levels S-5 and should be stepped up the hillside in order to lessen the height; (4)1 the 20- foot high retaining gall supporting the proposed swimmingpool only serves to exacerbate the appearance of an overly tall structure; (5) the house should be located on the southern portion of the property in order to save the oak trees; {6) the proposed bridge is unattractive inappropriate and ideally should be removed; and (7) the presence of the drainage swale requires that the project be revievoed and approved by the Regional Nater Quality Control Board and the Army Corps of Engineers. • Gabriel and Kathleen Vegh, 404 Oakshire Place: Stated their full agreement with the objections raised by NLr. Paul Barker and "strongly object" to construction in excess of the standards for the zoning district. • Eric DeBlasi and. Nicolle Kahn, 504 Oakslhire Place: Stated their opposition to al?three variances requested. Staff Response: Many of the concerns raised by neighbors are addressed elsei,�.,here in this report. Zn response to the concern.regarding required approvals from the Army Corps of Eng'ine.ers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board: Sze applicant is responsible for contacting these agencies and obtcaffibig required permits and approvals. In response to the opinion that the bridge is unattractive and inappropriate and should incorporate more architectural detailing: T'lz.e bridge is an appropriate solution to the problem of accessing the home from Bib-more Drive. The suggestionto provide snore architectural detailing is quite broad and no speczic suggestions Were provided on how the design might be improved. Staff has recommended a condition of approval that requires the applicant to snatch the architectural detailing on the bridge to the architectural detailing on the house. Pro op nems: • A document signed by It residents living in the vicinity of the project site sta+dng their agreement wit�7 the approval of the project by the Roul~?dhiil Estates Forth Homeowners' Association. • Thomas Kimbrell, Kimbrell Architects: A copy of a letter from Mr, KLirnbre'.l to Charlie Nlitchell of the Roundhill Estates l' ortln Property Owners' Association states his opinion that the design is innovative appropriate for the S_% site. NTx. Yisnbrell also states that a few feet could be removed from the design by lowering the home below Oakshire Place. V. CONCLUSION Development on the subject property is compromised by a number of.natural and man- made obstacles. The applicant has designed a narrow building, that has a relatively small footprint. The reduced footprint will allow for less grading and less tree disturbance than would be required for a home that is stepped-doom the hillside. The trade-off is that the building will be much taller on its down-slope side than is normal for residential buildings. However, the height of the design is in excess of what is required to meet development goals and will be lessened through conditions of approval. The applicant will also be required to install landscaping to mitigate the loss of nature oak trees and lessen the visual .impact of the building from Biltmore Drive. Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve variance application # RO11056, subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. CORRESPONDENCE FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES AND CONCERNED CITIZENS i;a <> Building Inspection ���� Carlos Baltodano Director of Building Inspection Department Coag. County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street,3rd Floor,North Wing Ma r+ Waiitornia 94553-1?95 (925)845-2300 Pax:(925,64.6.1219 a� November 15-3-2001 Will.Nelson Comrnunit-y Development Department Re.: Co,,mty Bile dumber N'R011056 Lot#25 Oakshire Place Dear Will, The Building r.,n.spection comments are as folio ws: l. This project small meet the requirements of the 1998 California Buil ffing, Mechanical,Plumbing,Electrical and Title 24 Energy(including the 2001 amendments) Codes. ?, A licensed California civil/structu.al engi eer or architect is required to design and provide engineering calculations for the buildings Per the 1998 California Buil.ding Code. 3. A sons report prepared by a geotechnical engineer is required.. 4. Please note that the height of building is limited to 40 feet per CBC Table 5-B for Type V-N construction and that "height of building"per CBC Sec. 209 is defhied differently than."a-,7erage height"on sheet A5. 5. Please note that the maximum number of stories is limited to 3 per CBC Table 5-B. The maximum number of stories may be increased to 4 with fire sprin1ders. Please review carefully the definition of story per CBC Sec. 220 and note that even unused under-2oor space must sometimes be counted as a story. If you have any questions,please feel free to call me at (925) 335-1136, Sincerely, Fr d lung Seniortructural Engi eer Community 1 l C t Dennis Mi. Garry, I3 W Community Developmen'Girec; Development Costa Department -Coun' TV , County Administration Building _ Nh. I 551 Pine Street °'' nth Floor,North Win Martinez,Cafifcmia 84553-0095 Phone: (9?-5)335-I2IO AGENCY COWMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently udder recie-,V. DISTRIBUTION Pleasesubntit your comments as f-0ill€lvs: �iBaildLrig Inspection , -r- HSD,117nvironrnental Health, Concord Project Planner tom! _HSD,Hazardous Materials PAY-Flood Control (Full Size) County F'il TPAN'-Engineering Svcs (Full Size) Namber: �^- Date F'orN yarded E`} V') r o PA�V Traffic(Reduced) Prior To: _PAY Special Districts (Reduced) p Coniprellensi e Planning ��'e have It�und the following special progran..s Redevelopment A.ge=3, apply- to this application: Historical Resources Information SSTstern _CA Native Anger. Her. Corar . Fede-vclopment Area _CA Fish &: Came,Region 1 _US Fish & Wildlife SryiceActin c F<tuit done Sanitary District �-��i'�t- `��t�` �-Flood Hazard Area, Pane: # Water District Cita - -- L 60, dl,A -Noise Cov.trol _School District Sheriff Office- Admia. cC Comm. Svcs. CA EFA Hazardous iVaste Site A:larno Imiprovement Association El Sobrante Mg.& Zoning Committee Traffic Zone _MAC DOIT -Dep.Director, Communications CEQA Exempt CAC R-IA Alamo Categorical Exemption Section Cone unite rg 7 ons Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required bylaw or ordinance, Pleases copies of your response to the Applicant & Ov,ner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Comments: LJ m—, 1c�-aJ :1�-X- Sianatur. � A�encs- stnrrmt ptanning"ireulj= D--te r PI.C. box 711 AIM01 r-kbIP0QNIA 9607 (0,25)S5&5626 October 25, 2001 BY 17.A-X TO 335-1222 Community Development Dept. 6>i Pine St., 4"'Floor, N. Nkrina Martinez, CA W." .tin. Will_Nelson Rc: VR 01.-1056 Site: 500 Oa.kshire Place Request to review a height variance of 51 ft-. 6 in. {where 35 ft, marimum is allowed)for construction of a residence. Request to review a structural variance for a residence of .four stories (where 2 'li stories maximum is allowed), Request to review a height variance of up to 7 ft. for construction of two retai=t -walls with setback area(whcrc. 3 A. maximum is meowed). Request to review tree p rrrut for rertaoval of nine oak trees farcun,,;truation ofretidL'nCe. R-15 zoning. Dear lair.Nelson: Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvemcrat Association's Planr na Committee on October 10'�. Presentation was assisted by the applicant's landscape architect, st uctural engineer, attorney and included a computer generated site profile. In addition, the Round.Hi11 North Horne Owner's association was represented by a Board of Director member and a member of the Architectural Committee—both speaking in favor tithe application, Round Hill forth has approved design. Tl,ere was a site visit on September'29, 2001 made by.Comsni.ttee members, ` he lot lsas unusual and difEcult topography. p Iicant has meed to eliminate theressira_room on the lower floor reducing the number of floors to three. ; After significant discussion by all parrties involved, concern remains about the siccant height ofthc reMdence and whether altern.afive architectural designs could be used for a residence on the property located at alteraaative sites or having a,dTferent orientationldesi�n that is not as prominent, Application recommended for denial due to size of the variance requested height of 51.6 ft. is 47/A mere than allowed)and its prom -inent location visibility, failure to demonstrate unfeasibility of alte a 've residen 'al d,5i�:n } and equal use, Sin,ere R. �cr °. 'Y ,f an f I' nnin�Comsnittce c - Al, Secretary Reba Scdipo,Darona Engineerui- Sergio &Bodi Carvacho ROL?'47. HUL ESDUES NORYHPROPERITYG 47VERS'ASSOCL-177-0N �a e-4-11 ea- A-ry 2r--- P. r— - P. 0.Box 1270 Pleasanton,Cil, 94566 (925)x#55-6362 (425)455-3893 F&x cc-711M<Lhotn-+:)Co.ina.net cul 2ti, 2001 S gio carvacho 354$e,.fOCS'er}DiT.ve San Ramon,CA 94583 a� RE:Lot5* Architectural Pian Submission Dear lvli.Carracho: Per our conversation this atemoon,please use this letter as written documentation of our conversatiom Tnp arc,�teciural co=ttee reviewed your architeattmal plans and noted the follovd%items upon spprovaL your proposed plan is for 4 tree store,plus a goal level below,which gives the horn the a0earance of a tail(7S-feet plus) structure. However;the base of trig stru.;turs-AC be buried mto the site's valley,hiding,the lower levels fmom most any viewl h light of the aforementioned,rod=e Board believes there is clear reason to accept the design due to th-e e%tremely difficult nature of -lie lot and the nnattare of your innovative desk. herefore,your arch:t ctm-al ply are: Approved s :bJect to conditions noted below Denied pendua_�your s,aibmi.ssion o€additiorrial infonratici as noted 1. All construction.=,asst follow the plans,which were submitted. 2. All work mnst be in compliance witdi the archlyectural deii::es of tie Association. 3. All relevant pmnxits are obtained fro&the appropriate agencies, 4. Ail constriction must be in acoordance,%ith County regilatio is and rules. 5. Tae maintenauoe of the landscape(if any),MU be the responsibility of the horaeoa ,and must be disclosed an v;L tine,:o a buyer of yoiz vii:. 6. Drainage is not to be altered ou the lot or cause any writer intrusion to adjoining neighbors or common area. 7. Nuer hereby gees to indemnifi,defend and hold the association-its af£ucers,its proper n=aaement firm,and its memmrs harmless from and against.anp lWmhty m=ng eut of said modification car alteration,and from and aganist anti dama- the building involved,(2)the erxe ri r and roof of the bcniljdirug involved=and(3 j toe Bound upon v<blch the involved building st ds,aril out of said mndificatian aro alteration. Should you have fir�her questions,please contact me and i v``M assist you in any Nizy Z cam. Regards; AFib---�''� a=aki've0�- CII;Managam BY DIRECTION OF TEM BOARD OF TDMr-'TORS cc:Board of Directors -�Wnu PAGE 01 r /vc(- ROUNI)MLL EESxA.�".�5`NOPt "HPROPFRT'Y+1 R'?WRS'ASSOCL4TION C/o 6"MC444 &ft PW#14 'err. - P. 03= 1270 = 12' 0 Pl nton, CA 94566 (925) 455-6362 (925) 455-3893 Fax r ccpm@hotGCCsC0.M.net January 1&,2001 Se4o&Bo dil Cars -ho 354 Bcilflmvcr Drive Sari Ramon,CA 94583 RE.loot 15 Doar Mr.a.~uVor Ms.Carrscho: The architectural cmmmit tars reviewed ym r tare plans,which we: x Awed subj=to cce-Ations mated below Dmicd dere to re�mm=ed Denied priding your submission ofaddittor=l irSmmatiofi as tumid Cog txttcc�: i. All ccastruction must follow the plans,which were submitted. Z. All work must be in compliance with the architecture)guidclinm of*,c Association.. 3_ All relevasrt permits are obtitined from the appvpriate apncics. 4. All c t-uotion must,be In accordance with Comity regulatlons arn3 rules. 5. `Clic maintenm=of the landscape(if arty)will be the responsibility ofthe homzcmncr,and must be disclosed in writing to a buyer ofyaur lei 6. Owner hcrrby ams to indamnify,dei-rid and hold the assoriaticm,Its officars,its pmpe ty-tnarrqei mlt arm,and its m=b=harmless froto and agrianst SU iiabilityr arising out of said modificallon or alterWon,and frorn and apivat any lomat to the su=ural integrity of(1)The building involved.CZ)ft exterior and roof of the building involved,and(3)the vvund upm whidi the involved building stands,arising out of said mcditadca cc aIwratloqL Pioase sign the caclosed ambitxtural compliance form and mt=along with your mmtr� jon deposit of S5,000(If applimblt), price.°to the start of tz mt=im n Mink�tra CID Mangy BY DIRECTION OF THE BOARD SOF L IRMTORS cr BowdofDk-.== .... .... .... 'ruly Contra Costa County L) .L 30,2Q01 Building Permit Dpt. The Roundhill Estates North Property Owners Association has approved proposed plans to build .a three story homep-Izs-p.a`poo- 1 Level below at 500 Oakshire Pl . (Lot 25) . We agree with The Assoc i ation ' approval: Lot 26-Ronet Bennett-505 ,ftkshire Place -------- ---- Lot 28-Harvey and Rochelle D -504 Oakshire Place ---------------------------------- Lot 27-Richard and Lorraine Whitehurst-512 Oaksh:'.re Place Lot 21-john and Tony Terz--" c-10 Iriverriary Lane ____ j - - ----------------____/---------------- Lot 153-Jerry u Biltmore Drive Lot 100 3 and Sandra Shre. ury-507 oaksh.-re Place Lot 11-Michael and Barbara Donohue-15 Inverrary Lane P --------------- ----------—----------------- Lot 1 0-James and Ramfine Creston--42'-�L,, `�11- rNr Lot 101 - �k d /Aiyo Sugiyama-40D Oakshire Place ' PAUL BARKER 5+.�3 Cie;P1.3cce....,,>............................... p}.....,<.... .... ....< _ . ... ... ...... . CA �.+n -laszo, A9+50i ��� G7 ,..:� � �? �• �� August 28,2001 Mr.Will Nelson Project Planner Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Re: 500 Oakshire Place,Alamo. Variance request County File#VRO 11056 Dear b4r.Nelson, I am writing to express my objections to the variance application.by Sergio Carvvacho(Owner)of the lot at 500 Oakshire Place where a new 3,609 sfreside ce is proposed. I am a neighbor ofthis property and I expressed my concerns to the A ebiteatural Revim,Committee for Round hill. Estates North ULTUN)when this project was first proposed. I feel strongly that this proposed residence is entirely LM' ITABLE for the site. `!'tie subject site is very steely and covered with numserms Oak trees(predominantlyVa.11ey Oaks) on the upper portion of-the lot(where the proposed resider ce is sited). 'Ibis is a lot that regWres very conscientious design attention to mitigate gate the impact the residence will have on this property and the community. However,I feel that there has been little imagination used during design to try and harmoniously integrate the proposed residence to the topographer and minimize cutting of the native Oak trees. In fact,this residmice's main design theme was obtained from a plan book that w=as predicated on the residence Ding constructed on a FLAT lot. I strongly object to the proposed four levels of this house. I feel this extremely tali. (and narrow) house stem..s directly from the fiat a modified"plan book'house was used rather than using a custom design,as this difficult lot requires. The denp looks as if itwoWd be better suited for the Qaklmd Hills where tall and barrow houses,briih on narrow lots,predominate. It is clearly inappropriate for MEN in particular(-I-I acre average lot sizes)and Altana in general,where 0.5 acre lots predominate. This type of design should be discouraged. Obviously,a f6ur level, 5 l'-61'tall house is unacceptable. The solution is to design fewer levels for the residence,making each level larger,but stili maintaining the overall footprint,(If the same size home is desired). M requires eduction of large retaining walls(within the body of the resideom)to allow the house to be built"into"the lot and still maintain.the 35'height liaut and not cut down every more Oak trees, 'This solution, although e sensive,is the standard solution that allows construction of homes on steep lots without ending up F=-ONE FEET tall! The house is apparently stacked four floors high without the benefit of stepping the house up the slope and this is a main cause of this extremely tall house. This is clearly a vioMon of both the spirit and intent of the 35 foot height limit. The proposed house is also perched upon.a 20'high concrete retaining wall that supports a syjmming pool. This huge proposed retasniag wall(the tallest and most visible in all of RHS is inconsistent,Adth the need to harmoniously integrate this home to the site. Every attent„pt should be made to try and int—ate the house into the site and natural environment rather than"scabbing" the home an the face ofthe site. In addition,the huge retaining wall gives the impression that the house is effectively 72'-6"high as the retaining wall is a 20 foot high monolithic wall of concrete. This extremely tall retaining wall only serves to exacerbate and accentuate the problem of an overly tall residence. Z such a high retaining wall is necessary,toe mall should be terraced(S' ma mum wall heights,preferably)and lushly landscaped to minimize the visual impact. (A single 20'high wall is usually less esive to construct than a series of smaller 5'walls. "het, the 20'high wall is extremely hard to effectively landscape and screen). Furthermore,the house is sited on the upper partum of the lot where the majority ofthe Oak trees are located. Apparently this was to maximize views from the residence,but at the expense of the numerous native Oak trees,the environment,and the community. This is a relatively large lot (0.76 acres)-xh:ich,on the lower portions ofthe lot,is covered with non-native grasses. 'WEy the proposed residence was sited where the most Oak trees would be cut,and th e house the most visible to the community,seems simple selfishness and highlights the lack of desip consideration give to the proposed residence. One othw item.that I disagree with is the design solution for the bridge that is proposed to r-,e second level ofthe home. I feel that the industrial design(it looks Adie a standard.CAI.TRAIiS design)is inappropriate for this highly visible site. A more harmonious design solution is rewired (i.e.more architectural detailing). Better yet,the complete removal ofthis bridge would be welcome via aredesign of the residence. Additionally,there is anatural seasonal drainage swale that also conducts est-from drain inlets in Oa shire Place year round that has not been addressed in this design. This needs to be re sewed "ov the Cin-ia.Stat efiegionai Water Quality Board and the Corps of:ngia, s,and mtiga-dQ measures tak=en,befrae a pit may:oe issuel I believe that the current design is severely substandard and does.not meet County or State r� „3Rxans and dons not iustifv.the m=tinff of variance. (My understanding of the«riance process is that variances,should only be granted When an applicant can show that there is no way ofineeting the design regulations lige to"special conditions". And that m ere cast considerations arenot sufficient reasons to be deemed a"special condition"that merits a variance). There are no conditicm unique to this applicant that justit,a variance. Indeed,there are numeruz methods of building homes on steep and difficult lots(almost all lots in RHEINT are in that oategoy)that meet the County Design Standards vdthout the meed for such dramatic variances, Instead,great'care in.desi.gn is ne-,yded prior to applying to the Community Development De-oartment for.appnwsl of - riance. I feel the applicant should redesign the house to minimi the height of structure and the cuter down and encroachment upom the drip lia.e ofthe numerous Oak:trees rather than be given a variance of such significant magnitude. For the above.reasa ams I st___object to the vrotrased variance and it should be DEV ED. I would like to comment at a hearing vyhm this application is reviewNi Please contact me at(926) 798-9059 to discuss this anatter. Sinome y, f�f f Paul Barker 522 Oaksbire Place jj Al=q,CA 94507 ••L1 i .A a 02 FEB -- :1. 33 February 3,2002 Mr.Bob Drake County Zoning Administrator County Administratrcm Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr.Drake: I wish to file a complaint regarding the negligent manner in which.the Community Deivrelopment Department reviewed and made recommendations for the,variances requested.(VR.011056)by the owners of 500 Oakshire Place,Alamo, Sergio and Bodil Carvacho. L;porr r=ipt of the CMmty's original noffwa ion•of imine-mriauce requests iu August,2001,I cDntacted NIr.Will Belson and explained my nuuz us comms and stag t)pposition to the massive vanapces=nested by the owners of 500 Oakshire Plat. I was told that I&Nelson also had grave canon about the vaziances and that I should wrkee hire aad express my carne fnmraIly Aqd rwuest a Hearing. I ate him a.very detailed letter sea ng my reams for opposing tlx romances and ojly nx ested a Hearing. I was told that the next step was to waft what the.AIA.had to recommend and based on that rectrnmierlc don,a Heanng in front of the Zoning Admmztratrn would be held I-was-therefore shocked.and appalled uponrecenW notification in late Jamiary 2002,that the County isrtended to approve the maxim=requests subject to some conditions of approval. It is at this stage that causes my complaint. For at no time did Mr.Well Nelson ever mention fit a Findings and a Rw=m,=dation would be made by the Stag(i.e. I&Nelson)prim to the I�earir�This serious omWon has pre'rudiced my&,h§attemptinooppose the variance as I was unable to give further, detsfled evidence and rebuttal to else Cr►ututi, ensuring a fair and unbiased decisin prior to the issuance of flsdingE and Recommendations. Upon receipt of the Findings(approximately I weep price to the hearing date),I thin ccutacted Mr.Nelson agam and asked why the Coun-yr c=pletely ignored both the AIA's strong denial of the variances and many ofthe issues I raised m my letter and those of the neighb rs. I was astounded to lemon Nle.Nelson bad riot deemed it necessary to aid the two meetings and Dire site visit by Ihe AIA,in which both sided were able to p:eseut their case. art should be noted the applicants had nearly 3 hours of testirnmy and those opposing had to limit their came ats to 3 minutes,clue to the manypeople opposing the variances). MOST SHOCKING WAS THAT TIM ONLY W—STING THAT MRIgLSCONN ATINDED WAS WITH THE APPLICAN''T. I feel this seriously undeanines the supposed impartiality of the process whereby one party is able to place their°`spiry"without the need to address the facts. It is in this absurd coutert that Mr.Nelson made his Endings and Recommendations. As you may recall,I challenged many of his Findings,exposing the inaccuracies and many completely erroneous statements and Findings at the Hearing. However,sren though I am confident that you Will disregard I&Nelsoes Findings and Recommendations,I feel that this lack of impartiality a ■ + a s • c a s v a s � a a a a r a a a a a a s February 3,2002 should not reoccur and that the process should be fair and equitable to both sides.I feel strongly that the system is being corrupted by the biased methodology that is used in preparing Findings and malan,g Recommendations. Surely,in the interests ofmaldng,an unbiased decision,a thorough review of the facts and meetings with all sides should be made prior to the issuance of Findings and Recommendations. This would avoid tree unnecessarily long and conteadous Bearings that are necessary for efecdve County administratiou. I would be pleased to discuss my complaint with you personally. I wvuldrewmMead that the Stag fallow set, standardized,guidelines,wsuring fair and impartial findings and k-,commendation.&hay phone number is 925.788.9059. sincerely, _ t �f Paul Barker 52-7 Ogkshire-Place,Alamo • Paul Barker s 522 Qakshirt Place Alamo,CA 94507 3 02FE6 19 PM 3' 17 February 17,2002 HAND DELWERED Mr.Bob Brake County Zoning Administrator County Administration Building b51 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 D=IN&`10rake: I am uniting to object to your decision to allow the owners of 500 Oakshire Place to build the extremely talll and unsuitable structure(it c rant be called a home)at 500 Oakshire place in Alamo. I wish to anneal this decision. 1 understand this will entail filing a formal.complaint, which will lead to a review by the Earn.Raman galley Plammi g Commissicm. The reasons for my complaint and appeal have been well known since my letter to you and Mr.Will NelSorn.'However,for brevity,please fund a list of issues that 1 feel should be used to DENY any of the three Nrariances requestedd by the m niers of the property. 1) 'The height of the horse is in gross excess of the all",able county regulations (51,-6„vs. 35'). The actual.mass of the house is over SEVENTY FEET(70)tall due to the 20'tall vertical retaining wall at the rear of the house(this vies=is the most prominent view=of the entire house and could easily be seen lS away). The house is.not stepped back(thus does not allow any sew lines)nor is the house set into the etremely steep site via retaining walls(as almost all 'tither housed built on steep lots in RIS are,so as to lessen the height impacts and comply with the County height restrictions). The proposed structure is unlike any other house inn Round Bill Estates North,contrary to the assertions of the Staff report 2) The many native Oak trees will be out or drastically trimmed to make way for this eyesore. Over 33%of the trees will be removed. Two of them are Heritage Oaks for which the County has suggested a fair replacement is two 15-gallon Oaks. This is grossly inadequate? These many trees will be cut simply because the owners of the property want the house to be placed on the most prominent,steep and treed area of the property. The ample sized lot allows placement of a house without the need for any yarinnem 3) The County has made a number of Conditions of Approval while granting the variances. As I pointed out at the Zoning Hearing,the Conditions ff Approval are fatailX flawed in their attempt to try and reduce the height of the structure. This hes bem entirely overlooked in your decision to grant the variances.There is no way to reduce the height of the structure as recommended.by Staff- It is akin,to trying to put a quart in a pint bottle. No matter which way you try,it cannot be done. lnexplicably,you have ignored this glaring error. 4) The Staff Recom nndations were seriously flawed,incomple-te and in plain factual error. As I pointed out in my letter to you recently,this Rw because the methodology used by your Staf was flawed and biased.. Additionally,the Staff report sites support by the neighbors, even though some.of the very same neighbors.have appeared in front of the AIA and the ironing Febmary 17, 2002 Page? Administrator is strong opposition of the variances and have uniformly stated they were seriously misled by the applicants of the true height and scope of the structure.Additional neighbors have written letters and faxes objecting to the structure.Also missing from the report is the acknowledgement by the Staff(other than simply placing the letter in among the many other pieces of information)of the strong condemnation by the AIA which rejected the house outright, stating the applicant failed to show reason why the house could not be built on other,less obtrusive,areas of the property or otherwise show reason Why a four star)%seventy foot tall structure would be appropriate on this site.. Staff was completely unaware of how strongly the AIA and neighbors were against this design,,simply because the Staff was not diligent in its efforts to ascertain the true facts of the case,and thus,made Recommendations which were unsupported by the facts.Furthermore,members of the RHEN Ar4itectural Review Committee also spoke out against this project. In light of the above items,plus the many others I raised in my letters to you and lair.Will lvelson (which father detail my objections,and which I hereby incorporate in this appeal letter),are sufficient to DENY and proposed variance by the owners of 500 Oakshire Place. Please advise,in wr tin ,when my appeal will be heard and which procedures€U be used to easae a fair and unbiased review of your decision. Sincerely, - s P Barber 522' palshire Place, Alamo wvr't„r1.L6au1 S&.i,t-c �E:J i�,iJ t dCi:1 August 29,2{31)1 AUG 2 100, Mz Full.Nelson C:CilVit`'���`tliT'{�4r•"!�}�ttr�.,;V' c!o Co3ttra Costa County CflSt muntty Devaloprnent Dzpt. 651 NO Street e Floor,Forth wing Martinez,CA 94552 RE: Debo Sod1po&Sergio Cwvacho (File 4VRO11055) Dear Mr.Nelsoa, This letter is in response to your con=unication dated 8122'01. We are writins to lohrm you that we do not feel that your department should grant the appDcantlounar a vmlver for the height Limitation or the retrs.oval oftba(9)Blue ?alt trees. We trail;our home in 1995 and had to obey all or&anoas for height,color,lan iscape 80100tim, etc. We fel it only fair that all horatowners comply with the set forth 4rdtslrestrictions. Thank You for our consid a6m. Sincer4y, Jeffrey D.Loomis J 'fer L. orris 405 OaWdre Flar,--W mo Lot 9152 Pvand F1ill Forth Gabriel and Kathleen Vegh 404 O KSHIPE PLA GE AL.-.MOS CA 94507 925 837 8095 FAX 925 8.37 7648 ij'Lr. *'ill?'t�"el5t�n Projer-t Planner Conn: un ty D--vc1Dprzrt s'".cp .rI cnt 651 Tine Street 4 'Floor, North Winn IAanirncZ,Ck 94553 Via fax: 925 3�5 1222 Deas M..r.Nelsotl, This letter is to urge The County mina Ad-ininlstator to deny the application for varianco for the construction of a"budding as presenter on 5GO Oak-shire Plac:, Alamo, CA, "N'e v in null agreement with Mr.Paul Bark-er's assessment of the issues and conclusions as stated in his letter dated Augusft 8, 2001 Eo Mr. Nelson and stronslv_obii�ct it} a;,low constz cdon of a structure ov r zoning lirnats on the site. %Wz would like to cot-nT ient at a public htaxisig, Please advise, f I t Attn: Mr. Will Nelson Community Development Dept. i ; ;` Eit County Administrative Bldg, G5 I Pine 5t., 4¢" Floor, North Wine Martinez, CA 54553-0055 Fax (32.5) 335- 1222 From: Eric M. De Blasi and Nicole Khan 5074 Oakshire Place Alamo, CA 54507 Fax (4 13) 250-4254 Re: Variance Ke juests Date: September 14, 20701 Mr. Nelson, T}7ts Tette; is written in respoc�se to a (atter, v��hirh we received entified " Notice of Intent tc render administrative decision that is dated August 22, 207071 . Please be advised that we are opposed to all three of the variances rerjuestee and hereby reouest a public hearing. Sincerely, Eric De Blasi, Nicole Khan FROM PRXITER ELI-CiRIC RRi^ NO. 625 637 739-7 Sep`-., 04 213,01. 03-*16"m ERIC DEBL,A.SI & NiCOLLE KHAN . ....................,.,.,.,,,>..,,,........,. tif}QC}aksLitc t�r. .....,.......... Alamo i=.:,,94507 Phone, (r,",)-26 -015 M. INI51s0r., This letter(s written in responsc to a letter entitled'Notix of intent to rcndar adrriristsative ducisic�" dated 9/22/41.Plcasc be advised that at this tirna,we are,apposed to ail three of the vaziances rcquested and b.„reby request a public hea�in�, Sincerely. Bric7et3'zsi,? iecile Kar:, __.._........................................................... a s a � • s a "„t'''na;�%3mi"T„�j,:(oi;;y;(,"',4�t;^tti'�;��iCi' +��,,r,�'i�.�,.;�f��"�"-�"'i'�°4i.i;;;�t'1""`�'7 '"`'.•:�',zN• ^1?;`.” .� ^,.a^.p.:. ;.rv:t�i""' �r• ••r.-r I,`,�.w,•�:;`Nx �"`x`7:i;•Lkv t e t�`.: 4;. t�v w ,»t.+,.<r s. � r.....� fl' enr.'w" .7,, w ,i.r, t...,S! ��` :3'� .*0•",',W�yN 3` .,t w� '-' t,y � +7aN�A��C �I�u: ,4-Ti';.;., i�'��•p�w,�'�� hfx •, .k. :1e.:.S o ,.�.`a,� -•$ Y 7�: �,. ;i^+ a8� .H�' �lly°;CF. y�• .:4�,.iym1 ,!'w'„,•r .� t ;: v �1,���:'.7,M1,'��."j7t"7�s13 ��'�'.'7 Y�. .•',t'::ice.a,y,,,a _, .�.},f 7•:�, t'�3 �k�ai� '�' �}� �a � }}�{ '.Fa;r�.�+ .,fi Y u:o �., �''i�t, ���.'� ..,r wy�°"°d'-•�+°v a:�,� ,ay�xG • •• ..;�'•,r, ..:"?':-R°. :•��s�i;V ,t � � Yin" +• i, 4y, { S t � ;L�:{^�+; � ,.. t,µrc ,RH ,�,..,�'t� �iwS`h�" $a '���A�^6r"SF•R d ,� n . rZ 0'57� w��{�`'� ,ti Y,.'$":i�.. :�:I'�, ,`a e9,+.{.L � 3:'n � v%Yi...t d7 r5; �. '0+• li' GILL INELSON Fax: 925t335-1222 CCC PLANNING DEPT, Froin. PETER 3, WOLLMAN Gate: 1128102 Re. SERGIO CARVACHO Residence Pages, 1 M �.;tlrgnt C11 or Revs Cl please Comment Picssa Reply Recycle FacCe • 1 µ� Ifam"W,horridawner in.Round Hill Estates North and have offended many of the RHEN Assoc, `,.krid,'"tinhing/tipproval meetings for the subject residence,your file#vro11056, 1 have ' jtast ceivad your findings for approval of the construction plans,subject•to minor changes tta tfi—,':"roof slaps,elimination of the changing roam,and shorting of the rernalning 3 floors". t your findings c omplately negate the concerns of the neighborhood and the Yeasons that the local AIA herd had rejected this project, t must point outthat the height of this house Is severely out of compliance with RH N's sawn architectural gu Idelines which state that a house should not be higher that 35'feet from the lowest print at ground level along the foundation line to the highest point on the rldgellne of the roof, The owner's architect was givers a copy-of these guldelines and chase to design the house with such extreme elevations due to the desire of the owner to have a view from each window. This is not reason enough to keep the structure so elevated when It will stand out as one of most promine-nt structures,as you drive up Biltmore Drive.The County should not support this bullding helght,particularly after the AIA has summarily rejected It Additionally,your findings do not seem to Indicate that RHEN and AIA boards will need to review and approve these changes prior to the County approving the plans; Also,I must point out that it is not up Mr.KImbrell to speak for RHE,N's Architectural Board,he cannot approve any new designs for this house,it Is the board that will do so. Sincerely, a . r s r • r • a a . r , a • n : a a , a a ' i Mr. Bob brake �} s 9 February 5, 20302 Conty Zoning Administrator County Administration Building 02 FEB —7 PM 1` 5 4 651 Pine Street 4t" Floor, forth Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. brake: This is in reference 1-o variances requested (VR 011056) by the owners (Mr, And Mrs Serio Carvacho) of the property located at 500 ©akshire Place, Alamo. We were not able to attend the variance requests but,subsequently,were informed.that several owners have already signed a petition approving the height variance. We reside at 400 OakshiI Place and were one of the owners that gave the Garvac�o`s our approval. However, we were informed by the Carvacho's that the building will be only three to four feet above the county height restriction, and the Home Owners Association has already approved their construction design. If we have known that the construction of the building will exceed the county height restriction by over ten feet we would not have signed the petition request. This letter is to notify you that we officially withdraw our petition approval of the Carvacho`s height variance. would be pleased to discuss this letter with you (or your staff) personally. Myoffica phone number is(925) 370-3290. Sincerely, �1 Sei 5uglyarna 4U0 Qckshire Place,Alamo ,TvichardG. Whitehurst 512 oas .t're Place r v A .mQ, CA 94507 02 FEB -7 PH 54 February 5, 2002 Mr, Bob Crake County ening Administrator County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 0 Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA. 94555 Gear Mr. Crake: I am writing this letter to vigorously protest your granting an approval of a building permit for the property at 500 0ekshire Placa, Alamo. I am a neighbor two houses away at 512 Oakshire Place. When the owners approached me for my approval, I was completely misled as to visible height of the property from below. A view line of 20' of retaining wall with a 50' shear house rising straight up, I find completely unacceptable and does not warrant an e,caption from the 35' freight limit... The house could be. built below, blend into the hill, not necessitate the removing of all the original oaks and not require a variance. When we built our house nearby eight years ago, my original plans were turned down because design review felt it did not blend into the hillside. At great expense and the cast of a full year, we had to completely redo our plans. There is no reason for a variance being given to 500 Oakshire Place. Sincerely, 4ichard G. Whitehurst 512 Oakshire Place Alamo, CA. 94507 Bcc: Paul Barker P.Q. Box 405 Alamo, CA. 94507 C A R n h A Care nal:.11 sneers,Inc. Structural Engineers 560 14th Stra€t Suite 100 Oakland �Jul 126, 2001 Califarnla 94612 $10.444.1311 The Permit Coordinator 510.444.8711 (fax) Application and Permit Center www.carona.com CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Email, mail carons.com Community Development Department A California Corporation 651 Pine Street,2dFloor North Wing Martinez,Calihmia Subject: Residential Development at Lot 926,Oakshire Place at Biltmore Drive, Roundhill Estates North,Al The Pew,12oordinator Contra Costa County AA& Community Development Departraent c A R o N � .July 26, 2001 Page 7 SUINMARY Given reasons we have established related to the unusual topography of dais site,the apparent conformance vi th building height limits,the lack of economic iiability of altering the natural slopes, overwhe' ring public support for this project from neighbors and the Hameovner's Association, -.re believe that the project should:be approved `as is'. We urge you to please reconsider vour position rebarding the number of stories in the sncture. Thank NIDD for your cooperation.. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have additional.questions. sincerely CARL MA,YNGIl4'EERS,INC. Structural Engineers Debo Sodipo, SE .T'rzrzcipa? uv J4IjU j1rU:.i4U Mr-KL IU UAt"dAL+1'U Nr�l7� t F ti+iii tis' Com. PQOP rpt` PAX hO. 9.25 455% 3993 !tx ?J 2MSas.'19W Pt Kimbroll Architects Kk Pod-W Fax NcN M71 May 70, 2000 t . , +.fck4 Mr. C`�her% Wtchali, Cll) Fri M qor �� awe k''i� — Raumd H11 l[VtOtwo 461th FOA, Im. _., _.._ .....,� Of* C4Mrt"dcthl1p Clrt P?4tqW1-jY P'. ,sox t2n M"urt '4, Ch 14MO RE: Ftrsiirntnery !*sign Fitris*Requirrmtn't t Let 26. !tom H6!11ttrins Fic+*th FOA,, koc., KOW PM04*NO. AM DW Charlie, I lt#5m rt90, tins hr UY,,2B, (r+ ►k+td'tfi olkt on A rll 19,2000), l have a{1tMd+Ili WIN surd %Mkon with to dssirir an tsvarsl=ctrsksmrt Lot 25 It s MY 606wit she, pothwe of t* trawl dM02.tR Rt itis Math. H Is itsssntlsll it stmt v.W%PW bel wltlt drsirtsgs tt tt"Woad S heavy tr" VMwth, The pretoosed shtrs it f+t s thw-stmri PIA t t tso1 Wow wMzh PiAs t4 *me the Vpp*AW=of s grit (51-#aW plus)•trtaC't*.Jrt. Ho t'Lho batt of it* ittruc, 011 be I vU pec ieft ' Sft°t Y11*y. hWirl the,kO&W 4h*It t-,m me W any Y(t w. The VFNIM �N* ex*irw!list they.firs sfsrnptn;to MN Md to tt"t wmrspmy, w.ee"**)006"*%Wng bW on its slhE.T>*y mune tap V& : very lnrqrs nr design thst bdt mm to r*tarop K # Imor 1"I OR of 911hom Oth tie home's tOMIS" is sr�t�ktie t#�t1s+r. The oo l haw stout dire archto%tre is tFMt tho front elws*m (Oxkshht;It :ac ptRIn tui r r�*ww mwr�!wigs t�dgK%4 b#tv�rroye h app ars". Wh%t"#rltitt"if* hifg ti of the StrUcturs eznMds fh#Ott041he'ti 31 fOtA Maximi n,l'bilieve them Is ciur mascin tcs scrwt Lx dulprr dwi to the a4vr*dl'1'gzt noure of stat Lot and the milt`!0th• lnnoylovs dw vm N the Baird W dGilftd,s frw W COW be shty#d bit by reqi1timl ihtot the front 1kvtrspn is Jv*,# rd aeWvr 084hks s l it snd the homt shot nW try t OW00 164t#do net 1Nnk*1 bow pJis *1 Mumvi, hropwMt. Add?tbnaty, was tht atr000t is spprsYW.Ow *Wt*MshvE submi the meqt'M rrWttt mlci amd OWM prst asod ao VM so So ngiJrss4 6s�tutixnl�txla>r. T t� m rn t t i K I rn D r r 1 A i A A% r c h l t ; :: t IM#Vvy#srt FWad 4onverd, Cts► 94921 (+M) VI-16M , FAX (0:1) 1tr6450C + C".ikMNITY C-'e PROP t"ICCifi"►t PAX ND. d55 ? h1ia 6hh4,f qW. i'2 b��iyFt��L �'`.S f�'�..3. 1•�.�iET�'s'i 3 c� � �Y e� �C�Ci �i v� l 1. Iwo fC.;.!'tillW m+droll, CID Mn w f a�wr fee**r tfgst4i rt lM#1tt�d t utrt r�tat m# a► OPP41cant end tis ford. t Ixi D ttd tMdr d �*V* =n fur ertoa► # ap llct Alam asst tm jf t ew be*1 any krtlw rntiat mm. vat Vuly ymm Klmbm€Amhl , �t�z R Ca"its Owppajw zoo 0,:� !t MJri Fri '4i +i Lee {# Deslippe Construction 624 West 12th St.b Anf oDh,CA 94509 Lloenae#449179 Phone Cell(925}519-,291:+Far;(92")�f 6299 7- Z?ez- AkIg Y�4 4 mow"' ��L.�.r'",�w;.�,.4�•"�-'�%".�.J � ����"' ,�+L,tt.. '' "� t w + lyl�iiq�✓'Z �� ,,��,/{j,, ,/J� I ............. ............................................................................................. .. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ..................................... ........... .................. ................................... ........ . ............................ ........................ ................................. ............... .............. ........ ............... ....... ..................... ...................... ........... .... ................................ .......... ..... ..... .... .... . .............. ...... ............ ....................................... ........... . .. ............... ....... ............... .................... ... ....... . ...................... .... . .... .. ..... ..... ......... ............................. ........ ............. ...... .. .................. . . .. . ................ .. ......... ................ .. . ..... . . ..................... ... .. .... . ....... .................. .... .. ................ .................. .. ........ .................... . . ............. ................ .. ... . .................. ..... . ... ....... ......................... .............. ............ ............ . ... .............................. ..... ...... ........ . ............MAPS,.......... ...... ............. .. .. ..... .......... .................... .......... ............. .............. ..................... ......................... .... ...... ..... ..... ........... ............. ... ....... ................ .................. ........................ .. ................ .................................. ..................... .. ................ ....................... . . . ... ............. ..... ... ............ . .............. ... ......................... . .. .............. . ... .......... .......................................... ..... ......... . .......... ................... ... ................ ....... ... 1-k , - °., �`'✓' %" i fiat "..�'- ,nn(,it Vi u LAWi'•�4i�V$�n•*1� '�f,�.'ki + lC C - (i n �t '�5s' �{Q J S� � to C tfSk ' Of IL Ics k sw e` �E t� z asp r ti 'tC "'i CC" 4+ r! f eri r: a8:"'.+.•vr ,ya' cta. Y�@ ' ° 1`•`JJ'f i� Z'-6 of �t �{, lk- � . �.,. � �""�'•`✓• u' �' w 44 tai !• l:.}��,,, ��� t a 'may,. es <', � �'i t� ''.,yrs•f� r•� � ��k" to NA"JH'71�"1"• ..r ,,.rf fk r im L.�, w, .r n qty��•i�� r , w V TILE ._i pit I Ar Z4, .__mom L7 �+ \\ `7'11 'r•'`,�7�'' '""" f !j L t i,�� � !�rY •!. �� "`~`"'.,�,._`- �� it APN 193-880-00p-1 / APN 193-880-010-9 APN 193-680-011-7 HILLSIDE HOMES GROUP INC JAMES E.CRESTON ALLEN &BRANDE L.TIMMONS 184 RUDGEAR DR 2572 ROLLING HILLS CT 15 INVERRARY LN WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94507 APN 193-680-012-5 / APN 193-680-013-3 " APN 193-680-014-1 ✓~ RENE M.&NICOLE A.FERLAND TERENCE L.CHEN JOHN &TONY TERZIC 25 INVERRARY LN 20 INVERRARY LN 3705 TERSTENA PL#112 ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94507 SANTA CLARA CA 95051 .'"rr / APN 193-880-015-8 APN.#93-680-0#8-2 APN 193-680-019-0 EST N.PROP OWN A.ROUNDHILL SERGIO L&BODIL E.CARVACHO RONNIE L.&JANET W.BENNETT P O BOX 1270 500 OAKSHIRE PL 506 OAKSHIRE PL PLEASANTON CA 94566 ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94507 APN 193-680-020.8 -- APN 193-680-021-6 ,/ APN 193-680-022-4 ✓ RICHARD G.&L.D.TRE WHITEHURST NICOLE KHAN RICHARD &AMY LACK 512 OAKSHIRE PL 504 OAKSHIRE PL 517 OAKSHIRE PL ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94507 APN 193-680-024-0 , APN 193680-025-7 APN 193-680-032-3 " ROBERT J.&CHRISTINE MITCHELL PAUL R.&ELLEN S.BARKER MARGARET HONG 518 OAKSHIRE PL 522 OAKSHIRE PL 14588 DEER SPRING CT ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94507 SARATOGA CA 95070 APN 193-660-033-1 / APN 193-680-034-9 .�" APN 193-680-035-6 DANIEL C.BALOUGH SEE &AKIYO SUGLYAMA CHRIS &USHA PEREIRA 507 OAKSHIRE PL 400 OAKSHIRE PL 402 OAKSHIRE PL ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA.94507 APN 193-680-036-4 / APN 193-680-037-2 /r APN 193-680-038-0 ,r GABRIEL B.&KATHLEEN G.VEGH JEFFREY D.&JENNIFER L.LOOMIS JERRY D.&JUDITH ANN HOLMES 404 OAKSHIRE PL 405 OAKSHIRE PL 2541 BILTMORE DR ALAMO CA 94507 ALAMO CA 94607 ALAMO CA 94507 APN 193-680-039-8 / APN 193-680-040.6 ALAMO IMPROV-ENIENT EST N.PROP OWN A.ROUNDHILL EST N.PROP OWN A.ROUNDHILL ASSOCIATION P O BOX 3428 P O BOX 1270 P.Q. BOX 271. DANVILLE CA 94526 PLEASANTON CA 94566 ALAMO,CA 94507 AGENDA DATE: August 12, 2003 ITEM NO.: D.3 X Attachment from Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong on file with Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.