Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08052003 - D.2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f f ` V Contra 1M: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD ':; Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR -: County 3Y•q Ce..* kTE: August 5, 2003 ;UBJECT: Continued Hearing on an Appeal Bled by David Clapponi of the Zoning Administrator's Administrative Decision to Approve a Revised Guest Parking Plan and Private Parking Plan for Two Lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place) in the Alamo area (County Pile #L.L030006) (district III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Adapt a motion to: A. DENY the appeal of David Ciapponi, and B. SUSTAIN the April 16, 2003 decision of the Zoning Administrator C. Upon Zoning Administrator approval of completed improvements, noticing, and filing of deed instruments required in the April 16, 2003 decision, RESCIND the June 13, 2000 Board directive to require special noticing of any permits obtained by the Subdivision developer, except as otherwise required by law. FISCAL IMPACT : None. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE a _4 RECOMNIIrNDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON,est 5$ 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X *See attached addendm for Board's action* VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None 1 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: Bob Drake [(925)335-12141 ATTESTED .,,- Aust 5, 2003 cc: David Clapponi JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF John Maes,Maes &Associates SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Thomas Gingrich Public Works dept., Eng. Services Div. � t+t, � San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District BY.�_ ' t s` EPUTY County Counsel August 5, 2003 Board of supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision of Revised Parking Plan Wingset Place,Alamo- File#LL030006 Page 2 BACKGROUND This appeal was initially scheduled for the hearing before the Board of Supervisors on June 24, 2003. The background is covered in the staff report prepared for that meeting. After the hearing was noticed, staff received a letter from the appellant, David Ciapponi, indicating that he was unable to attend the June 24, 2003 hearing, and that there was no one who could represent him in his absence at that meeting. Consequently, he asked that the Board continue the hearing to a date that he could attend. While the project proponent objected to the hearing being continued, given the extensive background of this project, staff recommended that the Board continue the hearing. The Board then voted to continue the matter to this date, and indicated that it would try to come to a resolution of the matter at this hearing. The staff review and recommendation is unchanged from the previous staff report. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\LL030006-b.bo.doc RM ADDENDUM TO ITEM I).2 August 5, 2003 The Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by David Ciapponi of the Zoning Administrator's Administrative decision to approve a revised guest parking plan and private parking plan for two lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place) in the Alamo area, County File #LL030006. Bob Drake, Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. Also present was Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development Department. The Chair then opened the public hearing and the following persons presented testimony: David Ciapponi, David Bowie, Attorney for Homeowner Thomas Gingrich, 1700 N. Broadway, Walnut Creek. The Chair then closed the public hearing and returned the matter back to the Board. Supervisor Greenberg moved to approve the staff recommendations to deny the appeal and uphold the April 16, 2003 Zoning Administrator's decision with the amendment that her office is notified of any modifications or changes prior to the Zoning Administrator's consideration and to retain the special notification procedure of notifying lot owners of Subdivision 7693, after the Zoning Administrator's decision is rendered. Supervisor Gioia second the motion and the Board took the following: ■ CLOSED the public hearing; ■ DENIED the appeal filed by David Ciapponi of the Zoning Administrator's Administrative decision to approve a revised guest parking plan and private parking plan for two lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place)in the Alamo area; ■ UPHELD the April 16, 2003 decision of the Zoning Administrator ■ DIRECTED staff to notify the District III Supervisor with any changes or modifications prior to the Zoning Administrator's decision. NOTIFICATION LIST Tt1915 s slagej ssaippV NOI"IFICA TION LIST File##LL03000,6 David L. Ciappom Thomas E. Gingrich 'Appeal by.David Ciapponi P.O. Box 936 P.O. Box 504 � Wingset Place Parking Plan Alamo, CA 94507-0936 Alamo, CA 94507-0504 H:€LL030006.LAB John Maes Heather.Ballenger Deputy Fire Marshall Milo Mentink Maes &Associates Assistant Director Saxe Ramon Valley Fire Prot. Dist. 1910 Olympic Blvd., Suite 314 Engineering Services Div. 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road Walnut Creep,CA 94596 Public Works Department San Ramon, CA 94583 INTEROFFICE @)091.5 iol ajeldwal asp g wisl9i)4S Pa9A 440OWS 56 1560 1561 �1 1562 t __ 1 4 «. ,VC r"ES H ' +<��E • • t 1 tR vim. .•�, .7 i •OAU �l R -20 s i.•` L EA N MON a f rit` 4 jj"� 1 e VELVET r Rit'20 : t�JJ Liv�RKt +Raa--- _ RC _T_ f _ SKY P %TRO%K .... ff• ,•t�.• t t+� O�x F �� ,• +. RAIDER � rtt � �•' G¢�{ 4tZFl� rr 3 s + R 7 i Y 5* .._ r 4�1 w � kp4aQ•Y \ � t 1560: 1561 1562 1563 - 1564 R15 _ _ Ml t 1971 ROLL Tt�ACT 3836 M.B.134129 ` A - 1995 ROLL TRACT 7693 / M .381-29 M5 164 14 AroOAc Atto eY \f�0 , m` ( t j$U�� g� Ott•`0 y f &� 22 Thy{ r � ..»�SSksC3 .. trdY' �V7`� 43 24 >� 546Ac. f ,ccf _ ;,� � ���� � 1S`' •ate'`� - �,'C"6ir�,f�._� ���� 474.79 `� Z5 V —-- _. . � , b9e^Actip �b yL}{7o.i� .548Ac. .692Ac 4 .485 Acit 14 r� CC " �Ia • / o uy X11 \ 1 ,� tet'- 09 2 �O 1� CL- PP 2f . 7 „fir ' � � �' jx ':'1 >,��s4 ”�<� i - ��a,�t rti il •� t. t•.. t+7 i .f c: g'�^F'# 4 r try BARN Cz) nr 1' l ° • t "� lt I ' 1 t C .�• r - ; t t 11.0718 1 UfZ csr i l : p D /MpRC1 Y �fJT 7Q 9Jf I 'C T1 E Cl ORIVE r 0X53. 4 TURddRftUNC1 P,364.90 EXI1Q fz � , t ,� '• /YCRR7'E "DJ O OJ TURA p 3G5' TD : P 3 .44 vz tif1 t ,� m. ^�;� e � �- ate' ��c �. :•� PPR.14.2M 12--i I'3Pn^Ca0(..IN 8 HLATCH W.893 P.4/4 _ fz> rf' � t $Iry tAH i w+r"�t -A I- * g rnE f C] tilt //' -�y••rr,� _ y♦ �- Fes,,• ti\�) z q {�X 1✓f t:a�..,.rr•r" '(Y �wr+' 4 AA._may. i•_',,,y.+ ^"�'•r Cpmi'• � . 41 ho 22 '` ..i..._r• if)'.�y`y' -ti,,,,,+ �) ,:�f ` ...r;,I Y C13 C: 6/13/2000 BOARD ACTION ON PRIOR APPEAL _ - + L).6 Contra `fit r Costa TO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •• Count) 33 t• cr arc `'" FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP n •, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 13, 2000 SUBJECT: sixth Rescheduled Hearing on Ciapponi and Yandell's Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's (Administrative) Approval, of a Request to Modify the Location of On-Street Parking within Subdivision 7699, County File #22998206 (Wingset Place, Alamo area) . District III SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Approve Option A actions listed below. 0PTI0 S Oration A - Deny the Appeal; Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision relocating one parking space to the other side of turnaround. 1. Deny the Appeal of the Ciapponi's and Yandells. 2. Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision as described in the Community Development Department letter dated October 11, 1999. Ontion B - Grant the Appeal; Reverse the Zoning Administrator's Decision [thus, retaining the original (1995) proposed parking plan with all spaces on one side of the turnaround] . 1. Grant the Appeal of the Ciapponi's and Yandells. 2. Reverse the Zoning Administrator decision, 3. Direct staff to notify the Appellants of any future Zoning Administrator administrative decision on a subsequent request from the Developer to modify the on- street parking plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X _ 'YES SIGNAT !f±� — RECOMUMP:MATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR — RECOMMENDATI H OF BOARD C TTEi — APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON June.: 13, 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX SEE THE ATTACIIED 'ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE Or SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - - - - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: ,NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ASSENTS ABSTAINS MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF Contacts Bob Drake [(95) 336-3141 SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. OrigS Community Development Department ATTESTED__ JunP_ j 7n11O ccs Thomas Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Leo B. Siegel THE B ,ARD Or SUPERVISORS Rena Rickles AND C ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Dept. County Counsel BY , DEPUTY c:\wpdoc\sub7693g.bo RD\ t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: DeBolt Civil Engineering APPLICATION NO. SUB 7693 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Danville, CA 94526 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL, NO. 193-070-008 &. 013 OWNER:. Kenneth & Beverly Gingrich ZONING DISTRICT: R-20 P. O. Box 504 - - Alamo, CA 94507 VESTING DATE: September 28, 1991 APPROVAL DATE: November 24, 1992 .EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24, 1992 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a major subdivision, subject to the attached conditions shown as-Exhibit "k". _- - HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department By: Mary Flemi b - Chief, Land 4velopment PLEASE MOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. The Clerk'of the Board will provide you a copy of the Board Order with approves Conditions of Approval. Unless otherwise provided, you have 36 months from the approval date to file the PARCEL MAP. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7693 1. The request to subdivide the 4.99 acre property is approved for a maximum of nine (g) lots subject to the Devised Tentative Map dated received by the Community Development Department on June 22, 1992. A. Prior to filing the final map, an additional revised tentative map shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator providing for at least four (4) guest parking spaces in an expanded hammerhead turnaround together with adjusted boundaries on Lots 6,7 and 8 as indicated on the staff recommendation for a revised tentative map dated July 6, 1992. A 25 foot setback shall be provided along the north boundary of Subdivision 7693 at Lots 1,7, 8 and 9 for primary residential structures. B. Prior to issuance of building permits for primary residential structures on Lots 1, 7, 8, and 9, plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the zoning Administrator providing for a 25-foot, setback from the north boundary. Consideration shall be given to minimize decking, windows and doors on the north side of the buildings for those lots. 2. The zoning variance for average minimum lot width for Lot #1 and Lot #3 is approved as requested; they meet the requirements of Section 26-2.226 of the County Ordinance Code. There shall be no lot size variances approved with this subdivision. Lot #1 - 120 feet required by Zoning Ordinance. -1-12 feet approved. Lot #3 - 120 feet required by Zoning Ordinance. 97 feet approved. Thirty (30) days prior to recording the final map or obtaining a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a hydrology study, substantiating the creek setback line, to Flood Control and the Zoning Administrator, for review and approval. If, adjustment of the creek setback boundary results in a lot with a net square footage (excluding setback, rearyard, sideyard and creek setback areas) of less than 8,000 square feet then that lot shall bei' liminated and the total number of lots in the subdivision shall be reduced. \ a fir-' - i e S. No structures, including fences and swimming pools, shall be allowed to be built beyond the creek structure setback line. 6. Comply with the following tree planting/tree preservation requirements: A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map, submit a grading/tree preservation plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees, including the walnut trees, with a trunk circumference of 30 inches or more, 4% feet above the ground. The trunk size, species and approximately drip line of each qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the tree is proposed to be removed or preserved. The objective of the review in part shall be to minimize the removal of existing mature trees. B. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist, to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator, on the proposed plan recommending measures to protect trees as appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages and preserve walnut trees located on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 (if possible). The arborist's report shall also include a tree replanting program which illustrates the exact location and. species of proposed replacement trees. Replacement trees shall be.at least 15 gallons in size. Each tree to be removed on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be replaced ,by two 15 gallon drought resistant trees, native to the area, to be recommended by a certified arborist. Replace- ment trees on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be'situated in order to maintain the residents of the proposed lots. All of the trees along the northeastern property line, except for those located within the proposed cul-de-sac, shall be preserved. The recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into or otherwise attached to the proposed grading plan. C. Prior to the issuance of a.gLadi.ng_permit or filing a final map,,the applicant shall either inform the Zoning Administrator that the approved tree replacement program has been completed and is ready for verification by staff, or provide assurance that funding exists to implement the tree planting program. Assurance shall be provided through a financial mechanism acceptable to the Zoning Administrator (e.g., bond, letter of credit, or deposit). 7. Should archaeological material be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavations?, earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigations?, if deemed necessary. 8. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements. A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5.00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The restrictions-on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall 2 locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible. C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase of major grading activity. A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the community Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the area noticed. D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. E. The applicant shall make a good-=faith effort to avoid'interference with existing- neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits,the proposed roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment. 9. The recommendations of the Terrasearch, Inc. geotechnical report shall be carefully followed and incorporated into the plan and specifications. 10. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works department: A. In accordance with Section 92-•2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: 1} Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private road. 2) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities. 3 3} Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to a natural watercourse. 4) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of the. Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Pubic Works Department. 5} Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the idrainage system which conveys run-off from public streets. 6) Relinquishing "development rights" over that porion of the site that is within the structure setback area of Miranda Creek. The structure area shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14, "Rights of Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance. 7} Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer, payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all improve- ments required by the Ordinance code or the conditions of approval for this subdivision. 8? Submitting a Final _Map pmpa-r-e-d-b-y -a tegiste-red :t�vi1 �r�gir� x. ar licensed land surveyor. R. Construct a 20-foot paved private roadway to County private road standards, within a 30-foot easement, to serve all parcels in this proposed subdivision. C. Construct a paved cul-de-sac at the end of Likely Drive to County public road standards and convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding right of way. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across driveways. E. Mitigate the impact of the additional storm water run-off from this development on San Ramon Creek by: 1} Removing 1 cubic yard of channel excavation material from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek near Chaney Road for each 50 square feet of new impervious surface area created by the development. All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the developer at his cost. The site selection,land rights, and construction staking will be by the Flood Control District. OR... 4 2) Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of actual excavation and removal of material from San Ramon Creek. The cash payment will be calculated at the rate of $0.10 per square foot of new impervious surface area created the development. The added impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on San Ramon Creek. annually. F. Mitigate the impact of the additional storm water run-off from this development on Miranda Creek by making a cash payment to the County Deficiency Trust Fund. The cash payment will be calculated at the rate of $0.10 per square foot of new impervious surface area created by the development. The added impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on: the Creeks annually. This contribution is in addition to the San Ramon Creek contribution (Fund No. 812100-800). G. Annex the property to Drainage Area 76A, which is a benefit assessment district to collect annual funds to maintain detention basins located within the drainage area. The request should include the metes and bounds of the property. The development must be annexed to Drainage Area 76A prior to the filing of the Final Map. H. Provide for at least six on-site parking spaces-per lot to be located outside the private road easement extending from Likely Drive. At least one (1) of the six spaces for each lot shall be for guest parking contiguous to the access easement. More than one guest parking space shall be provided where appropriate particularly at the hammer- head turnaround. 1. Establish a maintenance agreement to ensure the maintenance of the private road. J. Obliterate the existing driveway on Lots 6 and 7. Access to these lots shall be taken off the proposed private road. ADVISORY NOTES A. The applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, which requires a $2,000 park dedication fee for each lot. S. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. C. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. 5 D. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental Health Division. E. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. F. The applicant will be required to pay a $1,254 review fee for the Department of Fish & Game at the end of the appeal period. G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the department of Fish & Game. The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California 94549, of any proposed construction within the development that may affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Came Code. H. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required.- 1. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. J. The project lies within the 104-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of-the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordin-arrce (Ordinance No. 90-118) as they pertain-to future construction of any structures on this property. CW/aa SUB€X/7693C.CW 5/6/92 5/18/92 - Z.A. Rev. (v) 7/06/92 - Z.A. Rev. (v) 7/10/92 - BT (a) 8/14/92 - BT 9/16/92 - SR (a) 11/24/92 - BOS (c) 6 1n i M . .. �. r 1B Professional Corporation ATTORNEYS Et COUNSELORS AT LAW KENNETH M.MILLER kmillerGmtrc61aw.com November 8, 1999 RECEIVED Board of Supervisors NOV - 9 1999 County of Contra Costa 651 fine Street CLERK WARD OF SUPERVISORS Martinez,CA 94553 CONTRACOSTACo. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION RE: Response to Proposed Relocation of On-Street Parking Wingset Place Turnaround,Subdivision 7693,Alamo County File No. 21998206 Gentlemen: Enclosed is a letter dated July 28, 1999,directed to Mr.Thomas Gingrich from Candida Wensley,Planner, for the County of Contra Costa. That letter succinctly sets forth what we believe to have been the standard necessary for approval of modification of the parking space requirements. By letter dated October 11, 1999,directed to Eugene DeBolt,Robert Drake,Principal Planner acting as Zoning Administrator,approved the attached parking relocation plan. David and Krista Ciapponi (5 Wingset Place,P.0. Box 936,Alamo,California) are the owners of Lot 7 of Tract 7693,and John and Maureen Yandell (1 Wingset Place, Alamo,California). We believe that a change in the parking configuration will result in smaller parking spaces than originally required and a change in location creating significant safety risks. The change in the location of on-street parking may also create fire safety access issues. As the owner of Lot 7,the Ciapporus must back up their driveway which is 12 feet wide and proceed to the portion of Wingset impacted by the change of parking spot number four. While backing up their vision is limited. At that point they turn their vehicle to proceed out of the subdivision. The Ciapponi.s own a boat which is on a trailer maintained on their property. When backing up the hill it would be very difficult,if not impossible, to maneuver between parking spots three and four to make a safe turnaround. There is no lighting on Wingset. During conditions when it is dark, wet,or foggy, the reconfiguration of parking on the hammerhead will further result in maneuvering areas which are not appropriate. In general,the County zoning requirements for parking require locations that insure an efficient and safe traffic flow. t Board of Supervisors November 8, 1999 Page 2 The sizing of the substituted parking spaces is substandard. In general terms parking stall widths are required to be 9 feet. Curb length is from 19 to 23 feet. The proposed parking are all 8 feet wide with parking spots three and four being only 19 feet in length. (See letter dated January 27, 1999 from Bob Drake to San Ramon Valley Eire Protection District and Public Works Department.) A visit to the site will be the best example of how the change will adversely affect both the Yandell and Ciapponi properties. The parking adjacent to Lot 4 and the terrain adjoining the other parking spots will result in the cars utilizing more than the 8 foot width in order to open car doors without hitting the side yards on the adjoining property. We request an opportunity to be heard and present our clients'objections to this relocation of on-street parking. Very truly yours, MO GAN,MIL ER&BLAIR KENNETH M. MILLER -- ` KMMJdj Enclosures Verifications Appea/BOS 110899 I VERIFICATION 2 3 The undersigned declares: 4 That we are the Appellants in this matter,have read the foregoing APPEAL 5 OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION and know the contents thereof; that we are 6 informed and believe that the matters stated therein are true and on that ground 7 allege that the matters stated therein are true. 8 I declare raider penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California 9 that the foregoing is true and correct. (199 10, Executed on November ---9-1 at .Alam California. 12 13 Q YANDEL 14 16 MA REIN YAl DE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2,0 27 MOPGGAN 28 MiLLrk 3c BLAIR !R+(f!'KStQNai F; k k 1 VERIFICATION 2 3 The undersigned declares: 4 That we are the Appellants in this matter, have read the foregoing APPEAL 5 OF ADMIMISTRATTVE DECISION and know the contents thereof; that we ate 6 informed and believe that the matters stated therein are true and on that ground 7 allege that the matters stated therein are true. 8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the lays of the State of California 9 that the foregoing is true and correct. 10 Executed on November ],j�— Alamo, California. 11 12 13 yy y L7 IDCI.A. OIVI 14 16 KItISTA CIAPPONI 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Maw�x 28 MILLER d RUM PROMSMAL 1 COMPAM<Xh Continued OUne 13, 2000 11ssring of Ctapponi & Yandell Appeal option - Approve an alternative parking plan that relocates one of the spaces to another position at the end of the turnaround, and allows for a reduced 8 x 17 ft. dimensions. Ot r On ions _ A number of other less feasible options are identified in Table I. SCA L TMPA T Done. Under the adopted County fee schedule, the applicant is responsible for all staff time and material costs for the review of this request including all costs of the review of this appeal. BACKGROUND This appeal was originally scheduled for the Board's December 14, 1999 hearing, but was continued on several subsequent dates. PRIOR STAFF REPORT The background to this matter was reviewed in the original staff report to the Board, dated December 14, 1999. Due to an error by the subdivision developer (Tom Gingrich) , the final map failed to provide an access to the lot (Lot 6) located at the end of the project road. The only access to this lot is along the frontage where access is clouded by common on-street parking which was proposed by the Developer and approved by the County at time of the approval of the final map. To try to eliminate the blockage, the subdivision developer requested that the Zoning Administrator approve the relocation of one of the spaces to the opposite side of the turnaround. After consulting with the Fire Protection District, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed change was reasonable and approved it. That administrative decision was then appealed by two of the homeowners within the subdivision (Ciapponi's and Yandells) . RF�7TE[n] OF MARCH 14 BO R1� IIEARIAC Public Tes-timony - The appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval was heard by the Board on March 14, 2000. At that time, the Board heard testimony from the respective legal counsels for both the subdivision developer (Leo Siegel) and the appellants (Rena Rickles) . At that time, Ms. Rickles indicated that the relocated parking space would interfere with her client's (Ciapponi) access to his lot (reconfigured Lot 7) . She suggested alternative designs that would be acceptable to her clients. Those alternatives were rejected by the Developer at the hearing. BpAz Direction - After taking testimony, the Board voted to direct staff to meet with the two parties to try to find a solution that was acceptable to all parties. ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES XAR H 23, 2QQQ SITE ET+`T Staff has met with the Developer and Appellant at the site on two occasions. The first meeting occurred on March 23, 2000 which failed to identify a design option that was acceptable to both parties. 2 Continued 7une 13, 2000 Hearing of Clapponf & Yandell APpeal Tufo ALTErWATT F UI IN PROROSED By THE APPg`,t,fiNT Following the first site meeting, the Appellant retained an engineer (Ruark & Associates) who drew up two alternative plans for redesigning the parking/access in front of Lots 5 and 6. These alternatives are described in sketch drawings attached to a letter dated April 14, 2000 from Ms. Rickles. Both alternatives involve a proposed lot line adjustment between the two lots. Alternative A would allow the four parking spaces to remain approximately where they were originally approved and shift the property line approximately 10 feet towards the "guest house" on Lot 5; thus allowing Lot 6 to have its own driveway. Alternative B would adjust the same lot line but maintain the current setback from the "guest house" on Lot 5. However, it would merge the driveways for Lots 5 and 6 (this would require the establishment of a road easement through Lot 6 to serve Lot 5. It would also relocate the "fourth" parking space onto the front area of Lot 5. Pgrmi t to the Mini Thum Fro- yar oni nq S ndard While the letter from Ms. Rickles indicates that no variances would be required, this is contrary to what staff reviewed with her in the field. Both alternatives would shorten the structure setback that is required to be observed under the R-20 zoning (min. 25- feet) . Currently, the "guest house" is setback approximately 28 feet from the front property line. See Figure I. The shifting of the property line per Alternative A would reduce the setback to approximately 18 feet; the creation of the common parking space easement on Lot 5 per Alternative B would reduce the setback to only 10 feet. The zoning ordinance would not allow either of these reduced setbacks to be established without approval of a variance permit application. A variance permit application must be filed by the owner (Developer) , and requires at a minimum that the owners of property within 300 feet of the site be notified of the application. if a neighbor requests a hearing then one is scheduled. A variance cannot be approved unless the County makes three ordinance findings (ref. § 26-2.2006 of the Ord. Code) . e_�velo'Oer Reaction to Ann l n roD.Q The Developer rejected both proposals. He does not want to encumber the lots with additional vehicular easements, nor bear the cost of related improvements (e.g, grading, paving, etc. ) . He has indicated that Alternative B would deprive Lot 5 of one of the few flat areas on that site. He also objects to being subjected to an additional discretionary approval. He has indicated that if the Zoning Administrator decision is sustained, he will be proposing a lot line adjustment application between Lots 5 and 6 to the County to allow for direct vehicular access onto Lot 6. The County can administratively approve lot line adjustment applications as long as they are consistent with zoning and building ordinances. Staff has previously agreed to a request from the Appellants to notify them of any decision by the County to approve a lot line adjustment application filed by the Developer, so that they would 3 continued .Tune 13. 2000 Hearing of Clapponl & Yandell Appeal have the opportunity to appeal that administrative decision to the Board. F p Y 41 SITE V==NC A second meeting at the site was held on May 4, 2000. That meeting was attended by staff from both Community Development and Public Works Departments and a representative from Supervisor Gerber's Office. That meeting identified an alternative design for the relocation of the one parking space and allowing for reduced (,,compact-car size") parking space (Option C) . At the site, both the Developer and Appellant indicated that they were tentatively supportive of this alternative subject to additional review and investigation by staff. Following that meeting, staff confirmed the feasibility of being able to maneuver a truck and boat trailer onto Lot 7 (Ciapponi) and shared this information with the Appellant and the Developer. The Developer affirmed his support of this design, but that the appellant ultimately rejected the design due to continued concerns about being able to maneuver his vehicles. REVIEW OF PRIMARY OPTIONS Staff has diligently attempted to find a design solution on this appeal issue at two site meetings involving many hours of exploration with the interested parties. A number of alternatives were explored, but none were accepted by both parties. Regrettably, at this point, prospects appear dim for attaining the solution sought by the Board. in this regard, staff suggests that the Board proceed with a review of a number of design options which have been identified by the Developer, the Appellants and staff, and proceed with a decision on the appeal. Table 1 contains a matrix reviewing the primary design options for parking and access, and related discussion. It should be noted that many of the options (options D, E, F, and G) are feasible only with the cooperation_ of the Developer including some which would require an additional discretionary approval process. Staff has identified these options as assumed to be less feasible. Option B would reverse the Zoning Administrator modification, and retain the position of all four parking spaces at the end of the turnaround. Were the Board to approve that option, it would retain the clouded status over the Developer's access to Lot 6, but allow him to refile a new proposal that the County might find acceptable. CONC'LU S ICT? After consideration of all seven design options, staff continues to find that the parking plan revision approved by the Zoning Administrator (Option A) as superior. It allows for reasonable turnaround of conventional and emergency vehicles while allowing for access to Lot 6. Staff continues to recommend that the Board sustain the zoning Administrator's decision. In addition to Option A, staff feels that Option C (similar to Option A) to also be acceptable. This design also allows for reasonable turnaround movements while allowing the Developer access to Lot 6. However, its unorthodox positioning of a parking space make this design less desirable, 4 Continued June 13, 2000 Fearing of Ciapponi & randell Appeal NEW PRI'V'ATE PARKING RESTRICTIONS 'ENACTED BY SUBDIVISION LOT OWNERS In the course of this review, the Developer informed staff that new use restrictions have been enacted by a "super majority" of the subdivision lot owners. At the end of the May 4, 2000 site visit, the Developer told staff that he and other lot owners within the subdivision (but not Ciapponi or Yandell) had recently voted to enact an amendment to the CC&R's to provide restrictions on the use of the four on--street parking spaces. CC&R's are private restrictions governed and administered by the lot owners within a subdivision, not the County. The Developer indicated that the amendment was intended to foster use of the parking spaces as true "guest" parking, and to restrict use of the spaces by vehicles owned by any of the lot owners within the subdivision. Staff has asked the applicant for a written description of the change, however, none has been provided to date. It is staff's understanding that such action by the subdivision lot owners would be a private matter and not conflict with any County administered law or permit. REVIEW OF (Non-Appeal) SUBDIVISION PERMIT COMPLIANCE CONCERNS In addition to objecting to the relocation of the parking space approved by the Zoning Administrator, at the March 14 Board hearing, the Appellant also questioned compliance with several conditions of approval of the tentative map permit. These other conditions did not involve the proposed relocation of the on-street parking space. The Board had asked that staff research the project's compliance with those conditions. It should be noted that none of these items were listed in the appeal letter, and, accordingly, were not reflected in the .legal notice for this project. These conditions are identified below together with the staff analysis on their compliance status. A. Off street parking fCQA #10 H ) C ndition of ADDroval Language - "Provide for at least six on- site parking spaces per lot to be located outside the private road easement extending from Likely Drive. " Su mare of Appellant' Concera - Neither Lots 5 nor 6 (both owned by the Developer) provide for six on-site parking spaces. Sl Comment - This condition is intended to address development at time of the ultimate development of the respective lots. Both of the cited lots contain older houses that were present at the time of the subdivision approval. Still, it should be noted that Lot 6 contains sufficient area for six parking spaces involving paved or concrete surface area outside of the private road area. ` to comment from a letter of the community Development Department dated 7/28/98 to the contrary is not correct on this point. 5 Continued Cane 13, 1000 Hearing of Ciapponi & Mandell Appeal Lot 5 does not provide for substantial on-site parking spaces however it contains only a small single--story dwelling (approximately 600 square feet) that obviously does not reflect the ultimate buildout of the lot. The existing residence would not normally generate extensive parking demand. When building permits for ultimate residences are proposed on these lots, it would be staff's intent to see that the parking requirement is satisfied. S aff As amant - Staff disagrees with the Appellant's claim that existing parking for Lots 5 and 6 is not in compliance with the subdivision approval. Staff believes the current condition of these lots substantially complies with the intent of this on-site parking condition of approval. B. 11�p'i a _ _m nt of ExistinTrees- Proposed to Be Ee yed (C©A #6.B.--',-. C`on io . of Auproval Language - „-Comply with the following tree/planting tree/preservation requirements. "B. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, . . . . The report shall also include a tree replanting program which illustrates the exact location and species of proposed replacement trees. Replacement trees shall be at least 15 gallons in size. Each tree to be removed on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be replaced by two 15 gallon drought resistant trees, native to the area, to be reco.meded by a certified arborist. Replacement trees on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be situated in order to maintain the residents of the proposed lots (sic) . All of the trees along the northeastern property line, except for those located within the proposed cul-de-sac shall be preserved. . . . "C. Prior to the issuance of aradia g g permit or filing a final map, the applicant shall either inform the Zoning Administrator that the approved tree replacement program has been completed and is ready for verification by staff, or provide assurance that funding exists to implement the tree planting program. Assurance shall be provided through a finanacial mechanism acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. . . ." Summary of Appel IGI ---Concern - The appellant has indicated that 7 trees were removed on Lot 7 near the old driveway, and that 14 15-gallon drought--resistant trees should have been planted as replacements, and apparently never were. S-taff COMMents - A grading plan for the subdivision Project was submitted by the applicant at the time of the processing of the final map to the Community Development Department indicating the removal of a number of existing trees including 11 trees on the cited lots in the Condition. That plan identified only one tree that was proposed to be removed from Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . According to the terms of the conditions of approval, a total of twenty-two 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees should have been planted on these lots; and two planted 6 continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of clapponl & Mandell ,Appeal on Lot 7. Staff could find no evidence that the County accepted a tree replacement plan or any financial mechanism for requiring tree replacement improvements. When staff visited the site, staff found no evidence of the planting of any 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees by the Developer on Lot 7. Still, it should be noted that the Developer has planted a number of trees. He has indicated that he has planted a total of 56 trees of varying species (primarily Chinese Pistache) , nearly all larger (24-inch box) than the size that was required by the County, throughout the subdivision. These include trees planted along the frontage of the lots. None of the trees planted by the Developer appear to have been either drought-tolerant or native to the area. However, the Developer has indicated that approximately six of these trees were planted on (or in the immediate vicinity) of Lot 7. The Developer indicated that a subsequent buyer (prior to Ciapponi) , not the Subdivision Developer, had removed the other six trees on Lot 7. There would have been no County restriction for a subsequent buyer to have removed those trees. Stgff assessment - While some of the details of tree replacement appear to have been overlooked by staff, the Developer ultimately planted many more trees with larger sizes than would have been necessary to comply with the permit conditions. In staff's judgement, the trees planted by the Developer constitute substantial compliance with the tree replacement improvement requirement. In any case, it is staff's understanding that there would be no legal basis for the County to require compliance with the specifics of the tree replacement condition of approval at this time. C. Oblit r tion of Pr - bdiyisinn Driveway COA lQ, ) Condition of Aunroval Language - "Obliterate the existing driveway on Lots 6 and 7. Access to these lots shall be taken off the proposed private road. " S-w=ary of A -c7 r ons n - There is remaining concrete wall and impervious gravel driveway on Lots 6 and 7 indicating that this condition has not been fully satisfied. The Appellant has indicated that the gravel and hardpacked dirt result in additional runoff which contribute to soil erosion on the side of a hill on his lot. The 7/28/98 letter from the Community Development Department to the Developer indicated that the condition had not been satisfied and that the County would require the Developer to satisfy this requirement including obtaining the permission of the owner of Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . Staff Comm n - Prior to the establishment of the subdivision, the site was served by a driveway that extended to Miranda. Avenue to the west. The subdivision that was proposed provided exclusive access to the other side of the property, Likely Drive. This condition was intended to eliminate the driveway as a means of accessing the property once the subdivision road was established. 7 Continued JUne 33, 2000 Rearing of Ciapponi & Yandoll Appeal This condition was formulated by the Public Works Department and included in the set of conditions of approval (COA 410) which is administered by that department. That Department was responsible for overseeing compliance with that condition of approval. indeed the grading plans which were approved by the Department provided for regrading of a portion of that driveway and removal of the concrete surface from that driveway. When staff met in the field with the interested parties, Heather Ballenger, Assistant Public Works Director, was present and examined the condition of the former driveway. Notwithstanding the comments of the planner in the Community Development Department, Ms. Ballenger noted that while not all of the original improvements of the driveway had been eliminated, sufficient physical modifications had been completed which would effectively preclude its use as a driveway. The concrete surface had been eliminated though sections of the retaining wall and subsurface gravel bed remained in place. in this regard., she indicated that these modifications provided for substantial compliance with the condition of approval. Staff Assessment - The regrading and elimination of surface improvements on portions of the former driveway on Lots 6 and 7 effectively preclude use of the residual driveway elements as a functional access and thus constitutes substantia compliance with the subdivision condition of approval. 8 ,a) is ,Iyn a�)1 0) � 51�� d tm mal,-�-(i 1 tLS r-i y1 (((1�) Mr" >r mow+ v4 N M'cl t d 4J H.il 4 IIS--I rii id �4 1.S-ri•rt .0 d�( O L; 2i•••i 4-1 to a) Q) to O 41 4 O' ^� X G fit m o >b r 9 4 31 -W.�.{ $ f1+ f4••dr-I tU O O cc ra rct I7 CZ :j -W n5 O 0 U i O J-� ;14 u -o O 4 C4 -i•� .Q r KL,-i 4114 O 4 m O 41 C3 e 4 .0 tit C >1 trz G U C1 u M $4• 4 r-t,� -u 0 rts q to 3 G sn 0 -u 4) -U m t))t1 r is a) Cf O O m-H .0 r r••i (1) td rµ't a) tt7 U r r' d= °w r Lia i♦r 4 rtS —1 p4•ri IS tt a) a) D O Ct 41 m r`4 4 O w rd•ri 2i 4-I Ul u O b� i d-HC� & 41 : a) uq r a) (1) 0 040 fo (1) -W m m to to a) O O to D W .0—i-1 O r-14 d 0110 O It N S U O d u (ll S 4 Qf -u o a) W 04 >1 a)44 O 09 41arcso o't d;11 � �JJuuo r� a) z Z$ .0 u O N 4 a5 a) :1 O Jeri O i U 4 0 04 .•1 d 4 t r. d 0 41 0 U O ti3 1.1 4 O'bLj 0, O :-) U aJ •r!-.-i r Q, vl 4 •H : 0 4.4 rd > G' 9 U 4-4 1-i In-4 Q) to O r-� a).-1 (U d O-H a) 4-I t� >~44 ri r O �j a) 4 W Z 4 M -U C3 rd U r a) .0 to U w > (i)-t .0 ¢,M 4 rri 0 P4 � Ci w 44 P4 4 w O 04 N -Li z l M LW M .--I � >, 4 .0 d 4 m C51 4 D r 1J a) H -U•ri i � O U tt I A Oa) c U) a) 0 -lq 4 4 9 N w vdV ^ dl� � G m G w O H O t •,r s.) O a) 0 10 "1fa Ill r. 4-J P4(0 10O N u, 0444 W H z r a) Da) Nas 0 H 44 0 tpo a) O m 4 �4 � (z-r4 � l a 4 •Pi � L•rt a) uJj Q Wdi W W 4-1 r rO JJ t S H 0 O W-HU a34 IJ _ tai � ;� m �•1I cu� � �+ W ao ob'c 0 � m � v 11 v cv 0 u 4-j Id o " .0 tn° rd� ,a ro 4 rt4a�zty40m ;� -Wu ,X0 Q 0 —I,i~ •lq in C7,-u U .0 d 4 71 4 4j t•(-H (V G m O U} it 0444 (0 0) G U•r+ 4.)-I 4.: .. .H -WM li U 04 41 W 0444au 04 r:: � mfr —1 M a)4+ A 0 0)•ri (D 4 r-+ Ia r-i Uma, a) U ;a rl usszIn.ri-H U �Ll 10 U r m.,-1 0 0-r, V UH roUr43 z ,� a 0 1.1 4 0 cv � to aq 41 C444 o w �4 - 0 04 u a ro CIO 9 U) ca 0 4 •ri a)rn ro•ri�.. U m ri 0 0 r-i ro .t p,-- , a 0 u u o ori o ff (u �4 P, GA P4itiA q 44 O (d u) ;j P N z•4 r!i t4 0 04 4) y, 0, 4) 4 04 P, > 0 Sa 0 4 U U) 1 �-4 Sto U) •r4 td N •,4 rA r-1 M 4 4 0 14 . f.- �4 V rA 94 9 0 0 44 P4 L44 �4 4 0 O b' O dl 0 4d a) s" u U m ":I-� ca Id P id 11 .1.1 ttj 11 0 1 TPI �.Cl O.I- P 00 CJ o 0 4-4 >, � rn �a)—W X44 ro u roo � o � vvo4-) to 41 rd 0 0 ru r i P >~ ri P,a �4 44 ri to 11 ci a) z 0 00 :I0 �4 0 0 •H rd �4 0 va rU ll tl 4j u + d (U u v P >4 U N Zj (1) u w a) "� Ga a) M•moi C� P+ >J (d d r{ u •. N S4 u1 U) !4 4J rci U)4 rd V) ill 0 U 44 C) Q) JCU•-i 4 , (1y{)4 4J 11 �4 r.4 O 4-j 0 Tj S U)4 4' `0 M U)4 O 4i (U P, to a a) U rd .0 r-i �.0 .0 4u �•H 4-1 41 04 rn a) 43 o� u0 Imo+ :� �4 11 � u l4 S4 U) 11 0 0 S4 a)44`0 O 0 41 0- (U U P,rLj a)t- :.j 3 m 5 O a) O•1-1 m a)r•-4 (d •ri Cd O r>ri 0 Q) O 0 tU 0 O O Gi U S-:'0 4J 0 Cl s" U) s4 ,7 0 -4 U S4 (ll-n U S4 O) O P, 0) �l 0•-i rd J.) U P, (l1 a) .FJ U w ri " f-1:)') lc f rC 41 41 Q) 04 O -rq 0 0 O M 0 •,-. Cil rd 9'o M al 44 U �-j 44 U N 4-� O P 0O S"y U 0 0 44 X U1 0 W d' �4 4 ri 6 U H 0 01 Pt O Q) Ur •moi r� r� td ri J (d 4 Q) C O 4 a) ,� U) � O 0 U) rd t-1`rp7 a) !4 .0 11 U 0 a-j r-i .0 U P .0 O 4 0 0 S d 0) P4 �A a) of•�ia) (1) M"i a) 0 �4MIX004 C 50--i (d rn >•,Ms Q (n >�to �4 �4 uu �; o 44•-i.< ; '-t r-i :j N-H-H Q ;� (V•-i•moi P,' -( to P,� 44 p U a) a) a) JU td > ✓ 9 rd > 5 --t.--t,P a) rd 1i �:, 0 ✓ P,'d uq0 a) u g 0 a) �jR4ua, `> .0 �J s4 to a a) O t4 W4', W 0 14 0 a)Id, a) LO -W!J u s U 0, s4 P M U P, t (0 M &q Q a) 41'd r a �d m P vi I � 41 M 44 P4 O rl is•ri a) L ) •° tnU torso • �4 >1 � u o rn > 41 �4 N q cs U) m 0 •-i p P a) to a) vU•Hurd :j -14 to +-) 0 -+ P, . - P, rd tj CQu �-(10 td P, 0•Yt m 04 P,� u mto () m ww : m � o O U) A u P, !4 P, O U ,0 H44 U (d b r a) U 14 u 31 tri O 1"-, P,.�"i W S4 a) .:-j 44 it 1)r-i U ,� 0 •-1 .0 1: )4 rd u rl 44 P,44 td rd 14 -1 ro0 M• O Z Lt rd rd U)•+-i ro 54 d U P to i n X! G ll K. fa aJ t1) Q)•ter P, C U) of U) 3 U) rd (I) rd-4 y q 0 0 P,O ri O m 4'd -o 4 0ra) r4,-C m m 54 � 0 U) O ti 41 11`4 .0 N O t4 r1 JJ SCJ a) 1, to 11 U) 0 4F4 44--t P, S..' b•r{ P, rES 34•rl Q)C rd U1 �' td N 0.14 U Ln rd M44 d U a)•-i Al 1-4 •wi .0 V) Cil 0 w 0 U EJ" tri rd (d 4 i .-i rd m�-i u U 11 (-•i M a) P, >1 Q) O 0 O � T.! 4 JJ _:.. .. ° . � �tU �Ra1�iCs7i A04 >1 > 41 O O N T 0 `A •r-I u M 4 4) 1 aJ Ic G V bO I1 0V• rO 04 Q �4 4J O N,Q a. V SC -ij V0 �a{ to O d 0 4J ft N 4 Q) id u 04 N u A 04 41 p 0 O U) ki 4-i 4-i fd pC 0o �1n41 li O �i C A Q) Lt) V cv 4i C7-"i O d U � 4J �i 4J Q) to ra Q) N•,i Il 4.3 O 0 u C '11, }4 t, �l (o t] co 4-J-'-i 4J W O (ll i • Q)44 .ri L1 1J 4.)•ri •H Pa `j to N,t', O O Fi Q) Q) (a E 27 }-r S N r-t•ri �J .SJ .0 R1 rlj to QJ S4 V S�•ii ri �. O Q)44 O O (1) V U l i L o � r4N O� Q) u� N Q) 040 •rte Rid r, to > 4J Ri V 44 �L3 O aJ p Rf O q S4 b O Y i O Q) O 0 V t O" tJ O •r1 O R1-r �4•P U .H V S4 (1) O 04 (1) r 0 G N•rt Q) N Q) tJ ) a N�y r-i N r--i 4 Ln A R1•r1 dJ 4•r{ a 04 R1 0 T RS N :j > it V O O O -,a O !4 M > O u•ri O Q1•r•I V V d) n4 44 V O -1-) O ri'rS•ri•ri'+b Iv N N 044 rC•ri S4 +-1 r-i •ri,f�,--'r-i >-4 ri O Q) Q)x (7+C Rt ~4a :1A It Q)4 aJ V i.,, �W O 'd it-H O O N —1 41 RS " U O GL GL aJ 0' '0 aJ cv ,i � Q) � •ri Q1 O Q) z'.4 O Gi< �+�ay O'�S•rs .0 Q) th yy N P S•+ -' S4 U V P O O V a+ r1 N S4 1.: dJ a)• 1•ri P4 O i RS 04 I i t V Q) V V z o &Q) G 11 (1) rte' Q) U 4-1 0 LJ Q) O f4 Q)4 O Q) G4 Q) r Q) Lk 4 �J O Q) O Q) L4 H V W RS N H C1 H ttl 4J U] O N �4 p q Ul O •4 N i� x N COjtl Q t u b m a 9 a 01 AA° ° � C! � 0' V c� 'ri Q) rd O rJ d � O n A O Owr�-I q N *w 4 0 O (1) Va (U Q)w U *,# U Q) O d) .o p N 4-1 Q) V°U w t" VO-rt Rt O JJ >1 01 V-ri 0. V•.-i � a)•ri � Q)iD O O JJ �x N V 2S RS rig V 1--i m r15 u.,A 41 41 P� CL M U t7 t5 �7 0 �1 ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5 June 13,2000 Agenda On May 9,2000,the Board of Supervisors continued to this date,the hearing on the Ciapponi's and Yandell's Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a request to modify the location of on-street parking within Subdivision 7693,County File#ZI 99-8206(Wingset Place,Alamo area). Robert Drake,Community Development Department,gave the staff report and recommendations.Whose present included Dennis Barry,Community Development Director;Silvano Marchesi,Chief Assistant County Counsel;and Heather Ballenger, Public Works,Engineering Services. The Board discussed the matter. The public hearing was opened,and the fallowing people appeared to speak: Rena Rickles,Esq,,Attorney for Appellants, 1970 Broadway,Oakland; Thomas Ruark,Engineer for Appellants,2 Crow Canyon Court,#200, San Ramon; Mark Armstrong,Esq.,Gagon,et al,Attorney for Applicant; Krista Ciapponi,Appellant,5 Wingset Place,Alamo; Rena Rickles,rebuttal; Mark Armstrong,rebuttal. Those desiring to speak having been heard,the public hearing was closed. Following the Board's discussion,Supervisor Gerber moved: That the Board accept Option F, as proposed by the appellant's engineer(See page I I of the staff report). That staff be directed to notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; That the Board determine Lots 5 and 6,at this point,do not satisfy the Conditions of Approval for having 6 onsite guest parking spaces; That the Board directs the developer to comply with the Fire Inspector's requirements; That the access road should meet the County's standard of posting, no parking, and painting the curb; And that the Board determine that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 was not actually obliterated by County standards, Although the staff indicates that there appears to be substantial compliance with obliteration,it was not accomplished, Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to accept it. 9/18/2001 NOTICES OF VIOLATION FILED AGAINST TWO GINGRICH LOTS � ecort ing Requested By: 1111111 ! Ill Hi I III III 1111111 CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder Office And when Recorded Mail To: STEPHEN L, UEIR, Clerk-Recorder Community Development Director ®OC— x`001-0278964-00 Contra Costa County Tuesday, SEP 18, 20e 1 09-11:13 FRE $0.00 Martinez,CA 9 651 Pine Street 4. 53 Tt 1 Pd $0M 00 Nbr-0000531042 Space Above This Line.For Recor NOTICE OF VIOLATION Of SUBDIVISION LAWS (C.C.C.Ord.C.Section 92-12.408,&Govt.C. Section 66499.36) Pursuant to attached Resolution No. 13-2001 of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,County of Contra Costa, State of California,the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission has determined that the following described real property violates applicable provisions of Division 2(Section 66410 ff.,the Subdivision.Map Act)of the Government Code and the County's Subdivision Ordinance Section 92-2.002 ff,,Title 9,Ord.C.)as follows,and has directed that the Community Development Director to file this notice with the County Recorder based on violations cited in the attached May 2, 2001 Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation letter from the Community Development Director to Thomas E. Gingrich,Tre. REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. Assessor's Parcel Number:193-401-018 (##8 Wingset Place) 2. Legal Description: The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California,County of Contra Costa,unincorporated,described as follows: Lot 5 of Subdivision 7693 DENNIS M.BARRY,AICD Director of Community Devel ent Date 5- p^b I Att, San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2001 May 2,2001 CDD Letter to Thomas E.Gingrich,Tre c:\wpdoc\zi998206-L5.not RD\ Resolution No#13-2001. 278964 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION,OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PERTAINING TO A DETERMINATION THAT SUBDIVISION LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED FOR TWO LOTS WITHIN SUBDIVISION 7693 (Wingset Place)WITHIN THE ALAMO AREA, COUNTY FILE#ZI998206. On November 24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a tentative map application to allow the division of approximately 5 acres into nine lots, subject to conditions. In 1996, following approval by the Board of Supendsors,the final map for Subdivision 7693 was recorded. On November 18, 1998, the Subdivision Developer applied to the Community Development Department to modify the design of on-street "guest"parking spaces to remove a barrier to access to one of the lots still owned by the Subdivision Developer, County File#ZI998206; on October 11, 1999, the Zoning Administrator administratively approved the proposed change. On November 8, 1999,David and Krista Ciapponi, and John and Maureen Yandell appealed the administrative decision of the Zoning Administrator. The appeal was initially scheduled for hearing by the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1999, but was subsequently continued for several hearings including June 13, 2000, at which time the Board reversed the Zoning Administrator decision (overturning the tentative approval of the modified alignment of on-street parking spaces); the Board also determined that the Subdivision Developer had violated subdivision law. Following unsuccessful attempts encouraged by County staff to resolve the violations of subdivision law cited by the Board by means of a private agreement between the Subdivision Developer and subdivision lot owners, on February 27, 2001, the Board directed staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws for the two lots within the subdivision still owned by the Subdivision Developer, Lots 5 and 6; and to process same in accordance with applicable subdivision law. On May 2, 2001, the County issued a letter(attached)to the Subdivision Developer, Thomas E. Gingrich by certified mail of a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Lots 5 and 6; and informing Mr. Gingrich that: Resolution No#13-2001. 278964 0 A hearing had been scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, of the County of Contra Costa to consider the proposed notice action, and • That the applicant had an opportunity prior to the hearing to inform the County on reasons why the proposed Notices of Violation should not be recorded. In a letter dated May 16, 2041 and received by the Community Development Department on May 17, 2001,the applicant's legal counsel provided reasons why the proposed Notices should not be recorded against the Subdivision Developer's properties. After providing for notice as required by law, on June 6, 2001,the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposal by staff to Record Notices of Violation against the title to Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693. The Commission,having fully considered all testimony and evidence presented on this matter. RESOLVED,that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,County of Contra Costa, State of California FINDS that the Subdivision Developer, Thomas E. Gingrich, has violated the Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act as described in the May 2, 2401 Notice from the Community Development Department as pertains to both Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693, and DIRECTS staff to record a notice of violation for the items specified in the May 2, 2041 Notice with the County Recorder. The foregoing determination of the Planning Commission was given by vote of the Planning Commission in a lawfully noticed meeting of the Planning Commission on Wednesday, June 6, 2001. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday, June 6, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners—Gibson, Matsunaga, Couture, Neely,McPherson, and Jeha. NOES: Commissioners—None ABSENT: Commissioners - Mulvihill. ABSTAIN: Commissioners —None NANCY MULVIJIILL, Chair San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California 2 Resolution No#13-2001. 278964 Following the Commission decision, in a letter dated June 13, 2001, the legal counsel for the Subdivision Developer,Tommy A. Conner, submitted a letter of appeal to the Community Development Department on the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. Upon receipt of the appeal, staff determined that the appeal was incomplete insofar as it was missing the required appeal fee of$125 as provided under the adopted County Fee Ordinance Schedule. On June 14, 2001, County staff left a phone message with Mr. Connor indicating that an appeal fee must accompany an appeal. Staff also advised Mr. Conner of the require fee at the June 6, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, when staff read the appeal procedures into the record. However,no appeal fee was timely received prior to the appeal deadline. As a result, in a letter dated June 22, 2001, the Community Development Director informed Mr. Conner that his appeal could not be considered complete and timely. No other appeals having been timely filed, the Planning Commission decision became final. I,Dennis M.Barry, Secretary to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,County of Contra Costa, State of California, certify that the foregoing was duly called and acted upon on Wednesday, June 6, 2001. ATTEST: Dennis M.Barry, AICD, Se retary San Raman Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Centra Costa State of California Attachment May 2, 2001 CDD Letter Serving Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws SAcurr-pin\staff reports\zi998206.res RD\ 3 arry, ICP ComrnuNty Contra comm r t Development pme Community Deveiopmert Dfrector Development Cost Department County Countr County Administration wilding 551 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 May 2,2001 6tWfied Mail Thomas B. Gingrich, Tre PO Box 504 Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Mr. Gingrich: Re: Notice'of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Real Property, (Gov't. Code § 664.99.36 and C.C.C. Ord. C. § 92-12.404 &92-12.406) Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693 (APN 193-401-018 &-019; ##7 &#8 Wingset Place,Alamo) CDPD Pile 4ZI99-8206 It has come to our attention that the above captioned real property for which you are the owner of record appears to have been developed it,violation of the State Subdivision Map Act and the County Subdivision Ordinance,including the subdivision permit granted by the County. Violations On November 24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved Subdivision 7693 (tentative map) subject to conditions. You are the subdivision developer for this project. After the Board of Supervisors approved the final map, it was recorded in 1996. We also understand that you continue to hold title to Lots 5 and 6 within the project. It has come to our intention that the improvements required by the 1992 subdivision approval have not been fully completed. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.36 and County Ordinance Code Section 92-12.404,1 have determined that the failure to complete the required improvements constitutes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act and County Subdivision Ordinance. The particular violations are more specifically described below. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 5*,h Fridays of each month 278964 Violations You are in violation of the following: Contra Costa County Ordinance Code §§ 92-12.404, 92-8002,wllch require conformance to applicable zoning regulations and county ordinances. Specifically, the following ordinances have been violated: RE: Lot 5 (0)ATingset Place, Alamo; Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-018) • No provision for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard areas [C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Family Residential District,R.-20), 84-4.1202 (Single Family Residential,R-6], and 82-16.012 (Off Street Parking Ordinance]. • Failure to provide for required on-street posting and painting of curbs indicating"no parking"required along Wingset Place as specified by the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September 11, 1991 (Item 44) and required by the Board of Supervisors [C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.012(6), 6!13/2000 Board Order on Hearing on Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision]. RE: Lot 6 (#Wingset Place, Alamo, Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-019) • Provision for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard areas [C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Family Residential District, R- 20), 84-4.1202 (Single Family Residential, R-6],and 82-16.012 (Off Street Parking Ordinance]. • Blocked access to required off-street parking spaces (C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 82-16.402 and 82-16.012) caused by placement of four parking spaces within the right-of-way for Wingset Place along the frontage of Lot 6. • Failure to provide for required on-street posting and painting of curbs indicating no parking required along Wingset Place as specified by San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September 11, 1991 (Item#4) and required by the Board of Supervisors [C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.012(6); 6/13/2000 Board Order on Hearing on Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision.] Government Cade Section 66412.6 (a) and (b)does not apply to this determination and notice. 2 278964 Opportunity to Present Evidence on Reasons Why a Notice of Violation Should Not, be recorded At the below listed place, date and time, you will have an opportunity to present evidence to the San Raman Valley Regional Planning Commission why the notice should not be recorded. San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearing San Ramon Valley Minified School District Board Room 699 Old Orchard Drive, Danville, CA Wednesday, June 6, 2001 --7:30 p.m. If,within 15 days of the receipt of this notice.you fail to inform the Contra Costa County Community Development Department of your objection to recording the notice of-violation,the San Ramon'Valley Regional Planning Commission is authorized by Government Code Section 66499.36 to cause the notice of violation to be recorded with the county recorder. Should you have any questions,please call Bob Drake ofmy staff at(925) 3351214. Sincerely, A . DENNIS 1,L BARRY,AICP Community Development ' ector Cc: v"Members, San. Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission 'County Counsel "'Catherine Kutsuris Bob Drake �bmmv Connor, Connor Bak, LLP, Certified.Mall Rena ii-ckles aobert McAdam Heather Ballenger, Public Works Department :inspector Michael Mentink, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Agenda Clerk File DOCUMENT No or W:i-8246-nodtr RD\ 3 ...................... _. _. Recording Requested By: CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder Office And when Recorded Mail To: STEM L, UEN f Clerk-Recorder DOC— 2001-0279524-00 Community Development Director Tuesday, SEP 18, 2001 14:06:21 Contra Costa County FRE $0. 651 Pine Street TtI Pd $0,00 Nbr-0000532130 Martinez,CA 94553 l r c/R9/1-7 Space Above This Line For Recorde NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION LAWS (C.C.C. Ord.C. Section 92-12.408,&Govt.C.Section 66499.36) Pursuant to attached Resolution No. 13-2001 of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,County of Contra Costa,State of California,the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission has determined that the following described real property violates applicable provisions of Division 2(Section 66410 ff.,the Subdivision Map Act)of the Government Code and the County's Subdivision Ordinance Section 92-2.002 ff.,Title 9,Ord.C.)as follows,and has directed that the Community Development Director to file this notice with the County Recorder based on violations cited in the attached May 2, 2001 Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation letter from the Community Development Director to Thomas E. Gingrich,Tre. REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. Assessor's Parcel Number:193-401-019(#7 wing Set Place) 2. Legal Description: The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California,County of Contra Costa,unincorporated,described as follows: Lot 6 of Subdivision 7693 A . DENNIS M.BARRY,AICP Director of Community Developmen Date - 1-7-61 Att. San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2001 May 2,2001 CDD Letter to Thomas E. Gingrich,Tre c.\wpdoc\zi998206-L6.not RD\ Resolution No#13-2001. 2'79524 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLA1SWEW"'— COMMISSION, OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA,STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PERTAINING TO A DETERMINATION THAT SUBDIVISION LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED FOR TWO LOTS WITHIN SUBDIVISION 7693 (Wingset Place) WITHIN THE ALAMO AREA, COUNTY FILE#ZI998206. On November 24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved a tentative map application to allow the division of approximately 5 acres into nine lots, subject to conditions. In 1996, following approval by the Board of Supervisors, the final map for Subdivision 7693 was recorded. On November 18, 1998, the Subdivision Developer applied to the Community Development Department to modify the design of on-street "guest" parking spaces to remove a barrier to access to one of the lots still owned by the Subdivision Developer, County File#ZI998206; on October 11, 1999, the Zoning Administrator administratively approved the proposed change. On November 8, 1999, David and Krista Ciapponi, and John and Maureen Yandell appealed the administrative decision of the Zoning Administrator. The appeal was initially scheduled for hearing by the Board of Supervisors on December 14, 1999, but was subsequently continued for several hearings including June 13, 2000, at which time the Board reversed the Zoning Administrator decision. (overturning the tentative approval of the modified alignment of on-street parking spaces); the Board also determined that the Subdivision Developer had violated subdivision law. Following unsuccessful attempts encouraged by County staff to resolve the violations of subdivision law cited by the Board by means of a private agreement between the Subdivision Developer and subdivision lot owners, on February 27, 2001, the Board directed staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws for the two lots within the subdivision still owned by the Subdivision Developer, Lots 5 and 6; and to process same in accordance with applicable subdivision law. On May 2, 2001,the County issued a letter(attached) to the Subdivision Developer, Thomas E. Gingrich by certified mail of a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Lots 5 and 6; and informing Mr. Gingrich that: Resolution No#13-2001. • A hearing had been scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, of the County of Contra Costa to consider the proposed notice action; and • That the applicant had an opportunity prior to the hearing to inform the County on reasons why the proposed Notices of Violation should not be recorded. In a letter dated May 16, 2001 and received by the Community Development Department on May 17, 2001, the applicant's legal counsel provided reasons why the proposed Notices should not be recorded against the Subdivision Developer's properties. After providing for notice as required by law, on June 6, 2001, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposal by staff to record Notices of Violation against the title to Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693. The Commission,having fully considered all testimony and evidence presented on this matter. RESOLVED,that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California FINDS that the Subdivision Developer, Thomas E. Gingrich, has violated the Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act as described in the May 2, 2001 Notice from the Community Development Department as pertains to both Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693, and DIRECTS staff to record a notice of violation for the items specified in the May 2, 2001 Notice with the County Recorder. The foregoing determination of the Planning Commission was given by vote of the Planning Commission in a lawfully noticed meeting of the Planning Commission on Wednesday,June 6, 2001. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday, June 6, 2001,by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners V-Gibson, Matsunaga, Couture, Neely, McPherson, and Jeha. NOES: Commissioners--None ABSENT: Commissioners -Mulvihill. ABSTAIN: Commissioners—None NANCY MULVIHILL, Chair San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California 2 _. _. 9524 Resolution No#13-2001. Following the Commission decision, in a letter dated June 13, 2001, the legal counsel for the Subdivision Developer, Tommy A. Conner, submitted a letter of appeal to the Community Development Department on the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. Upon receipt of the appeal, staff determined that the appeal was incomplete insofar as it was missing the required appeal fee of$125 as provided under the adopted County Fee Ordinance Schedule. On June 14, 2001,County staff left a phone message with Mr. Connor indicating that an appeal fee must accompany an appeal. Staff also advised Mr. Conner of the require fee at the June 6, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, when staff read the appeal procedures into the record. However, no appeal fee was timely received prior to the appeal deadline. As a result,in a letter dated June 22, 2001, the Community Development Director informed Mr.Conner that his appeal could not be considered complete and timely. No other appeals having been timely filed, the Planning Commission decision became final. 1,Dennis M. Barry, Secretary to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,County of Contra Costa, State of California, certify that the foregoing was duly called and acted upon on Wednesday, June 6, 2001. ATTEST: Dennis M.Barry, AICD, ecretary San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California Attachment May 2, 2001 CDD Letter Serving Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws S.\curr-pin\staff reportsW998206.res RL7\ 3 ennis M. arry,AICP CommunityContra L�ommunity Development Community Development Direcfar Development Costa 279524 Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Moor, North Wing Martinez, California 94556-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 May 2,2001 Certified Mail Thomas B. Gingrich, Tre PO'Rox 504 Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Mr. Gingrich: Re: Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Ileal Property (Govt. Code § 56499.36 and C.C.C. Card. C. § 92-12.404 &92-1.2.406) Lets 5 and 6 of Subdivision. 7693 (A.PN 193-401-018 &-01.9; #7 & #8 Wingset Place,Alamo) CDD Pile#2199-8206 It has come to our attention that the above captioned real property for which you are the owner of record appears to have been developed in violation of the State Subdivision Map Act and the County Subdivision Ordinance, including the subdivision permit granted by the County. Violations On November 24, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved Subdivision 7693 (tentative map) subject to conditions. You are the subdivision developer for this project. After the Board of Supervisors approved the final map,it was recorded in 1996. We also understand that you continue to hold title to Lots 5 and 6 within the project. It has come to our intention that the improvements required by the 1992 subdivision approval have not been fully completed. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.36 and County Ordinance Code Section 92-12.404, I have deteru ned that the failure to complete the required improvements constitutes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act and County Subdivision Ordinance. The particular violations are more specifically described below. Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month Violations 7 9524 You are in violation of.'the following: Contra Costa County Ordinance Code § 92-12.404, 92-8002,which require conformance to applicable zoning regulations and county ordinances. Specifically,the following ordinances have been violated: RE: Lot 5 (48Wingset Place,Alamo;Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-018) • No provision for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard areas [C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Family Residential District,R-24), 84-4.1242 (Single Family Residential, R.-6], and 82-16.012 (Off-Street Parking Ordinance]. • Failure to provide for required on.-street posting and painting of curbs indicating"no parking"required along Wingset Place as specified by the San Ramon galley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September 11, 1991 (Item#4) and required by the Board of Super-'r.sors [C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.012(6), 6/13/2000 Board Order on Bearing on Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision.]. RF: Lot 6 (#Wingset Place,Alamo; Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-019) • ProNrisicon for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard areas [C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Family Residential District,R- 20), 84-4.1202 (Single Family Residential,R-6], and 82-16.012 (Off Street Parking Ordinance]. • Blocked access to required off-street parking spaces (C.C.C. Ord, Cade §§ 82-16.002 and 82-16.012)caused by placement of four parking spaces within the right-of-way for Wingset Place along the frontage of Lot 6. * Failure to provide for required on-street posting and painting of curbs indicating no parking required along Wingset Place as specified by San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September 11, 1991 (Item 04) and required by the Board of Supervisors [C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.012(6); 6/13/2000 Board Order on Dearing on Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision.] Government Code Section.66412.6 (a) and(b)does not apply to this determination and notice. 2 9524 Opportunity to Present Evidence on Reasons Why a Notice of Violation Should Not. be Recorded At the below listed place, date and time, you w` ,have an opportunity to present evidence to the San.Ramon,Valley Regional Planning Commission why the notice should not be recorded. San Ramon Valley Regional Playing Commission.Hearing San R.anaon Valley Unified School District Board Room 699 Old Orchard Drive,Danville,CA Wednesday, Tune 6, 2001 --7:30 p.m. If,within 15 days of the receipt of this notice,you fail to inform the Contra Costa County Community Development Department of your objection to recording the notice of violation, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission is authorized by Goverment Code Section 66499.36 to cause the notice of violation to be recorded with the county recorder. Should you,have any questions,please call.Bob Drake of-my staff at(925) 335-1214. Sincerely, 1�� A �"' DEN-NIS M. BARRY,AICD Community Development ' ector Cc: v`Members, San Ramon'Valley Regional Planning Commission County Counsel vCatherine Kutsuris Bob Drake Tommy Connor, Connor Bak, LLP, Certified Mail Aena Rickles aobert McAdam Feather Ballenger, Public"Works Department c--Inspector Michael Mentink, San.Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Agenda Clerk File W:\zi-8206-nothr :D\ END OF DOCUMENT 3 t 4/16/2003 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION CTT REVISED PARKING PLAN a:nmuni AICP QomfnUnitd/ Contra Comms t eery,y Development Director 'Development Costa Department CouniL County Administration Building 651 Pine Strut 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)335-1214 April 16, 2003 John Maes Maes&Associates 1910 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 314 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear John.: Re: Conditional Approval of Proposed Parking Facilities plan, and Lot Zine Adjustment(File#LL030006) Subdivision 7693,Wingset Place,Alamo (Gingrich) This is in response to your revised submittal of March 20, 2003 proposing to (1) reconfigure Lots 5 and 6 (both owned by Thomas Gingrich); (2)propose reconfiguration of existing"guest"parking currently located within the turnaround area of the cul-de-sac strut serving this project, and fronting along Lot 6; and.(3)proposing private parking facilities to respectively serve Lets 5 and 6. Attached is a chronology that outlines the events that led to this submittal, and staff's review of the findings that are pertinent to this proposal.. It is staff's conclusion that the proposal has merit and is therefore approved, subject to the attached conditions. Upon completion and acceptance of the proposed improvements and deeded instruments by the Zoning Administrator,the plan will provide for: • Private parking facilities to serve Lots 5 and 6 in accord with the requirements of the approved subdivision. • Reconfigured common"guest"parking spaces that are consistent with the design requirements of the San.Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, and the June 13, 2000 Board of Supervisors directive, and which are clearly marked and labeled. • Establishment of unencumbered vehicular access to Lot 6 (presently blocked by existing parking configuration). Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed .he 1 st, 3rd &5th Fridays of each month 2 r d This.letter also acknowledges receipt of your withdrawal of an earlier 1999 lot line adjustment application proposal between Lots 6 and 8 of the subdivision, County File #LL990013. Should you have any questions, please call me at 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner .Att. Exhibit I—Background,Findings and .Approval of Proposed Changes 4/16/2003 Staff.Study Site Plan Cc: Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuns County Counsel Public Warks Dept., Heather Ballenger Sart Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, Deputy Fire Marshall Michael Mentink Tammy A. Conner Thomas Gingrich Owners of Other Lots within Subdivision 7693 File \1fs-cd\users \bdrake\Personal\11030006.ltr.doc RD\ EXHIBIT I BACKGROUND, FII' DLNTGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, COUNTY FILE #LL030006, BETWEEN LOTS 5 AND 6 OF SUBDIVISION 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo), AND A SECOND PROPOSAL FOR COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS WITH THE PERMIT FOR SUBDIVISION 7693 (Gingrich --Applicant & Owner) A. Introduction A. File#LL030006—A request for approval of a lot line adjustment between Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693 located at#7 and#8 Wingset Place in the Alamo area. B. File#SD917693—A request for review of proposed reconfiguration of existing common(guest)parking serving Subdivision.7693 located within the turnaround area, and for provision for private parking facilities for Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693. These actions are also intended to lead to the release of 2001 Notices of Violation that have been recorded against the deeds to Lots 5 and 6. B. Historical Background 1. 1992 Board of Supervisors ApRroval of Tentative Map for Subdivision 7693--On November 24, 1992, the Beard of Supervisors approved the tentative map for nine(9)lots, subject to conditions. Among the conditions of approval are requirements to provide: a) Four guest(common access to the owners of subdivision lots)parking spaces within a proposed turnaround. b) Six parking spaces on each of the approved residential lots. 2. 1995 Board of Supervisors Approval and Recordation of the Final Map for Subdivision 7693 3. Subdivision Developer Proposes Relocation of Guest Parkin Space—After the subdivision is substantially completed,in 1998, ___ Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Provision,for.Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich, Wingset Place,Alamo) the Subdivision Developer proposes to the Community Development Department the relocation of one of the on-street (guest)parking spaces located in the turnaround. (CDD File ##ZI998206) 4. Application Pro osin to Adjust Property Line Between Lots 6 and 8 of Subdivision 7693 Filed by Subdivision Developer; (File #LL990013) - Shortly after filing this application, the subdivision developer asked that staff forestall any decision on the application. 5. Zoning Administrator Approval of Relocation of Guest Parking Space and Appeal of Decision by Residents-In 1999,the Zoning Administrator administratively approves the proposed relocation of the guest parking spaces in the turnaround. 6. Appeal of Administrative Decision.by Two Subdivision Residents -An appeal by two subdivision residents (Ciapponi& Yandell)is filed on the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow the relocation of the guest parking space. 7. June 13 2000 Board of Suvervisors Recision Orantin Residents' Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision-After accepting testimony,the Board grants the appeal of the residents and directs as fellows: • Accept a reconfiguration of the guest parking space providing for placement of one of the spaces entirely on Let 5(so-called"Option F"), • To notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; • Determines that Lots 5 and 6, at this paint, do not satisfy the conditions of approval for having 6 on-site parking spaces; • Directs the developer to comply with the Fire Inspector's requirements; • That the access road shall meet the County's standard of posting"No Parking" and painting the curb; and • Determine that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 was not actually obliterated by County standards. 8. Mlication for Desi gg Review Filed to Develop Residence on Small Lot within Subdivision(Lot 81by builder t McAdarn_File #DP0030421 - — E-2 Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line Adf ust ent and Provision for Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich; Wingset Place,Alamo) a) After taking testimony, on June 20, 2001,the Planning Commission approves the project subject to conditions; b) On July 18, 2041,the Planning Commission denied a request for reconsideration from two neighbors (Ciappom and Yandell). The neighbors then filed an appeal on the Commission's decision. c) .Amer taking testimony, on October 2, 2001, the Board approved the project subject to a requirement that the applicant obliterate a former driveway between Lots 6 (Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi). 9. Board of Supervisors Directs Staff to Initiate Process to Issue Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws On February 27, 2001,the Board directed staff to: �► Serve notice of intention to record a notice of violation of subdivision laws against the Subdivision Developer pertaining to the two lots that he continues to hold,Lots 5 and 6. 10.Planning Commission Authorizes Staff to Post Notices of Violation—On June 6,2001,after conducting a noticed public hearing,the Planning Commission finds that Subdivision Developer has violated the'Subdivision Ordinance and directed staff to record a notice of violation for the following items: Lot 5—No provision for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard areas;and failure to provide for required on-street posting and painting of curbs indicating "no parking"required along Wingset Place. Lot 6--Same as items for Lot 5,but also includes a citation that applicant has blocked access to required off-street parking spaces caused by the placement of the guest parking spaces in the subdivision.. Following this decision.,no appeal having been timely filed, staff` recorded said notices against the deeds to the respective lots on September 18,2001. 11.Provision of Street Markings for Fire Protection Access-The subdivision developer has installed`No Parking" signs and E-3 Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Provision for Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich; Wingset Place,Alamo) painted the curbs red along Wingset Place. In a letter dated October 21, 2001, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District indicates that the District is satisfied that the original fire protection access conditions of the 1992 subdivision permit have been met. 12. Zonm Administrator Determination that Former Driveway Located Between Lots 6 and 7 has been Obliterated—Based on several geotechnical reports prepared following the 6/1312000 Board of Supervisors decision,in a letter dated October 9,2002, the Zoning Administrator determined that the former driveway between Lots 6 (Gingrich)and 7 (Ciapponi)in the subdivision has been obliterated. C. Immediate Background 1. Preliminga submittal of Parking and New Lot Line Adjustment P=osal- On June 17, 2002,the civil engineer,Maes and Associates, for the subdivision developer(Gingrich) submits a proposal to (1)reconfigure proposed guest parking within the Wingset Place turnaround, (2)proposed on-site parking for Lots 5 and 6; and(3)proposed lot line adjustment between Loots 5 and 6 (both owned by Gingrich). 2. Evidence Submittal of Ap rel by Fire Protection District- On October 22,2002,the applicant provides a site plan stamped by the Fire Protection District as meeting the District requirements. This evidence satisfies"the County's"requirements for painted curbs and posting of no parking signs on Wingset Place. 3. Staff Advises Applicant of Needed Changs and Submittals- On February 7, 2003, staff issues a letter to the applicant advising on procedures and changes to the site plan that are needed before staff will approve the proposal. 4. Subdivision Developer Withdraws 1999 Lot Line Adjustment Application—In a letter dated received February 26, 2003,Mr. Gingrich withdraws his 1999 lot line adiustment application,File #LL990013. 5. Applicant Files Revised Plans—The revised plans place one of the existing guest parking spaces entirely within Lot 5,with a parking easement. The previous site plan had shown it located partially on Lot 5 and partially within the Wingset Place right-of- way. E-4 _ ___ Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot.Line Adjustment.and Provision for Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich; Wingset Place,Alums) A Findings 1. Findings for Grantingthe New Pro on sed Lot Line Adjustment a. Number ofR.eon ig�ured Lots-The proposed adjustment does not affect more than four lots,nor would it result in the creation of more lots than presently exist. b. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance—The proposed adjustment complies with the requirements of the Single Family Residential Zoning District,including minimum yard,minimum lot area, minimum lot depth, and minimum average lot width. C. Compliance with Buildinx Ordinance-The.proposed adjustment complies with the wilding Code. d. Conformance with General Plan-The site is designated Single Family Residential--Low Density(1.0 to 2,9 units per net acre). The proposed reconfiguration is consistent with this designation. e. Conclusion on Required Findings--In view of the above, staff concludes that all of the required findings are made for the proposed lot line adjustment. 2. Findings on Pro ososed Provision for Reconfig ged"Guest" - Parkng_and.On-Site Private Parkin a. Lot 6 On-Site,P - The proposed site plan indicates that the existing paved surface on Lot 6 (47 Wingset Place) meets the requirements of(1)the Single Family Residential R-20 district requirement for two on.-site parking spaces located outside of required yards; and(2)the requirement of the subdivision permit to provide for an overall total of at least six on-site parking spaces on the lot. b. Lot 5 On-Site Parking-The revised plan is proposing to provide added paved surface to this lot to allow for six on- site parking spaces and related driveway. The proposed spaces when improved will satisfy(1)the R-24 zoning district requirement for two on-site parking spaces outside of the required yards; and(2)the requirement of the subdivision permit to provide for an overall total of at least E-5 Zwdng Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Provision for Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich, Wingset Place,Alamo) six on-site parking spaces on the lot, exclusive of the proposed relocated common parking space to this lot. C. Reconfiguration of"Guest"Parking Spaces in the Subdivision Turnaround—The proposed site plan would reconfigure the existing four"guest"parking spaces in the turnaround area. One space would be relocated onto Lot 5 consistent with the June 13, 2000 Board directive ("Option F"). To allow for this repositioning of a guest space onto a private lot,the applicant is proposing to: o pave as needed the portion of the space located on Lot 5; and o grant deed a parking access easement of this area of Lot 5 to all of the owners of lots within the subdivision. When completed,one effect of this change will be to allow unobstructed vehicular access to Lot 6 from the turnaround. (Currently, access is blocked by the location of the four "guest"parking spaces.) d. Reconfiguration Meets the Design Requirements of the Fire Protection District—The Fire Protection District had approved an earlier version of the plan that had provided for a portion of a parking space within the turnaround area. The current plan is consistent with the plan approved by the District, except that it provides for better access on Wingset Place by relocating the "fourth"guest parking space entirely outside of the right-of-way. E. Approvals and Related Conditions of Approval The following approvals-are based on the revised site plan dated March 20, 2003 and shall be valid for a period of nine months from the date of this letter. 1. Approval of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment-The proposed lot line adjustment between Lots 5 and 6 as this approved, subject to the following conditions: a) Grant deeds must be recorded to implement the property exchange. A copy of this letter authorizing the lot line adjustment shall be attached to the grant deeds. E-6 __ N Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Provision for'Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich; TFingset Place,Alamo) b) The property being transferred shall be combined with the receiving parcel to farm one parcel for tax assessment purposes. c) A copy of the recorded grant deeds providing evidence of the performance of Item a) and b) shall be forwarded to the Community Development Department within ten months from the date of this letter. 2. Submittal of a Modified Plan to Lengthen Guest Parking Space on Lot 5 and Suitably Marr and Label Reconfi `ed"Guest" Pardig Spaces—Prier to altering the location of the guest parking spaces,the applicant shall submit a revised site,plan to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Adrninistrtor. The plan shall provide for: a) A widened parking"guest parking space"on Lot 5 except that the paved area shall provide for a minimum 9-foot by 18-foot space(current plan shows a parking space with only Moot by 18-foot dimensions). The easement boundaries shall also be adjusted as necessary to encompass the widened parking space. Both easement and parking space shall be placed entirely within the boundaries of Lot 5. Refer to 4/16/2003 staff study site plan. b) A suitable painting plan to mark the outer corners of each of the four reconfigured common"guest" parking spaces, and label each space as "Guest," or other suitable identifier. 3. Submittal of Evidence of Completion of Required Deed Instruments and Parking improvements-At least two weeks prior to the issuance of clearances of the Notices of Violation filed on Lots 5 or 5,the.applicant shall provide evidence to the Community Development Department that the following items have been completed subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. a) The applicant has provided for a paved 9-foot by 18 -foot parking space entirely on Lot 5 as generally shown on the above referenced site plan within the area encompassed by metes-and- bounds description. b) That the approved marking and labeling of guest parking spaces have been.completed. E-7 i OVERSITE DOCUMENT � � ------------------------------ ke �- co OD tt Zw 0 �3 a CL ---- __ ___�.__..._- 0 \ 0,. ads C# 33das Cj t< ,(,4.It 11 cr, y �; -0\4 Al r o � �ft' �y r e.. t: 'f: 5/15/2003 CIAPPONI APPEAL OF 4/16/2003 ZONING- ADMINISTRATOR PARKING PLAN DECISION 5I15I03T N Clerk of the Board " 'g_ 2 4 651 Pine St. 4th Floor IST. Wing . Martinez, CA 94553-0095 To Whom It May Concern: Re: Subdivision 7593 (Wingset Place, Alamo) Request for appeal of the 4/16/03 Conditional approval of Proposed Parking Facilities Plan (Gingrich) E r l le-# 1-t--Q5 vo o 0 Please accept my request for appeal with my deposit of$125. In brief,the current parking plan as approved by the Zoning Administrator is not consistent with that approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on 6/13/00 (Option F). There were many hours spent discussing the safety and aesthetics for this parking and it was clearly engineered, presented and approved at this Board's request (5-0). I respectfully ask the Board to require the Zoning Administrator to relocate the parking to "Option F" as previously approved. In addition, it appears that the on-site parking for lots 5 and 6 does not conform.to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code. The Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking spaces for each approved lot. The Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.1202(a) from two to six spaces. Thus, Section 84-4.1202(b) states each of those spaces must be out of the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure and on a surfaced area 9'xl9'. Each home in the subdivision meets this condition. I don't believe that the current approved parking plan for lots 5 and 6 meet the aforementioned conditions. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Y I?Ur_ David L. Ciapponi cc: Kate Dart Enc (5) =43-n- bb bZJ _ _. t-NH.;tNr Mlil;p!°�1 MY L4 rL I''F+l1tdt 5/21./03 Clerk of the Board 651 Pine St. 4"'Floor N. Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 To Whom It May Concern. Re: Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo) Request for appeal of the 4/16/03 Conditional approval of Proposed Parking Facilities Plain (File# LL030006) Please accept my request for appeal with nay deposit of$125. In brie: the current parking plan as approved by the Zoning Administrator is not consistent with that approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on 6/13/00 (Option F)_ There were many hours spent discussing the safety and aesthetics for this parking anal it was clearly enzin.eered,presented and approved at this Board's request (5-0). i respectfully ask the Beard to require te Zoning Administrator to relocate the parking to "Option F" as previously approved. In addition, it appears that the on-site parking for lots 5 and 6 does not conform to . Section 84-4.1202 of the County Cede. The Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking- spaces for each approved lot. The Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.1202(a) from two to six spaces. Thus, Section 84-4.1242(b) states each of those spaces must be out of the setback car side yard areas of'the principal structure and on a surfaced. area 9x19'. Each home in the subdivision meets this condition I don't believe that the cturrent approved parking plan for lots 5 and 6 meet the aforementioned conditions, Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I verify under penalty of peijtry that the information in this appeal is true and correct. David L. Ciapponi POB 936 Alamo CA., 94507 cc:Date Hart — ' Enc ric � �--.--.. rewriteof5.15.03 submittedletter -� 5/09/2003 Robert H. Drake Contra Costa County CDD 651 fine St. 4"'Floor,?North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Drape: Re: Subdivision 7693 Wingset Place, Alaino Request for April 16, 2003 Approved Plan to Comply with June 13, 2400 Board Order FI,it 0�� This is in response to your letter dated April 16, 2003 apparently approving a parking plan that is not consistent with that approved by the Board of Supervisors. I have enclosed your copy of"Option F" as submitted to the Board of Supervisors on December 19, 2000 for your review. I have also included a reduced copy of the original because the copy is difficult to read. Please amend the current approved parking plan to reflect the "Option F" design and location approved by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Department. In addition, it appears that the on-site parking for lots 5 and 6 does not conforin to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code. The Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking spaces for each approved lot. The Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.1202(a)from two to six spaces. Thus, Section 84-4.1202(b) states those spaces must be out of the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure and on a surfaced area 9'x19'. Each Borne in the subdivision meets this condition. I don't believe that the current approved parking plan for lots 5 and 6 meet the aforementioned conditions. Please do not delay your response to this letter, as it appears that applicant would like to proceed as quickly as possible. Also, it appears that some markings have been made on the street that are not consistent with "Option F". Please advise the applicant as soon as possible to the County's error in its approval before the incorrect improvements are made. Sincerely, David L. Ciappor_r cc: Kate Hart �. "NOV.1 i.200010:04RM MARGOLIN & BIRTCH N:3.5�2 P.2/2 Denr0a KPa M AICD 1 . Community Contra cmMuni15�u�d mem ca«� Development i Department County County Adrnir istration Building 151 Pine Street ,• ' ' .` 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,04111 mia 94553-0095 ;. Phone: (925) 335-1214 November 15,2000 By Fax&by Mail Thomas Gingrich C/o Mark Amtstrong Cragen,McCoy,McMahon, and ArmsVong PO Box 218 Danville, CA. 94526 Dear Mr.Cszugr%ch: Re: Request for Man to Comply with June 1,3,2000 Board Order Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place,Alamo) On J=e 13,2000,the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal of the C lapponi's and Xaudolls and ovarG=ed the ming A:dministrator's 4dmiristrativa approval of your requ-.st to reprise the approved ou=street panting spaces within the tw=roi4xd of your subdivisiondevelopment,as described in the attached Vi=e 13,2000 Board Order. Instead,the Board directed that the subdivision developer place one of the four common 01guast")parking spaces onto a reconfigured Lot 5 (Option F from Board.Order). In taking this action,the Board of Supervisors also determined that the subdivision developer had failed to fully satisfy some of the conditions of the tentative map approval for this project and the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and County fat posting of no parking signs and painting of curbs along Wingset Place. We=4erstand that the Clerk of the Board forwarded to you a.copy of the Board Order shortly afar the Board's decision. The,addendum of that{order 4=ribes the items within your subdivision that must shill be addressed for your project, These items are listed as follows together with reference to the appropriate Condition of Approval or kdvisory Note from the tentative map approval: 1, So as to avoid an existing access b;ockege to Lot.6 caused by the existing placement of four common"est"parking spAces within the Wingset Place turnarouncL one of the"guest"paw spaces must be relocated:onto a rcconfzgured Lot 5: (refer to COA 01,A.), Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a,m.-5:00 P.M Office is closed the 'I st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each month NOV.16.2000 10r05AM MARGOLIN & 3IATCH N0.533 P.1f2 4 2. Provide six onsite parking§pam for both Lots 6 and 7(must be ooncrete or asphalt surfaced);both lots contain,existing residences (refer to CCA,#10,H). 3. Provide compliance with the regu% mentp of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District relative%posting of sib and painting red curbs wittt labels on hath shies of Winsset Place of"NO STOPPING FIRE LANE--C-VrC 22500.1" (refer to Adv.Note"C"and.911.1191 memorandum of the Sass Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, 4. Provide for the oblitemtion of'the former driveway on Lots 6(ftgrich) and 7 (Ciapponi)which had served the original residence on the property prior to approval of the subdivision, The ward detemnined that the driveway modifications,which the subdivision developer has performed to date,do not acv--omplish substantial obliteration to County standards (refer'to COA#10.1.). As you are aware, on.August 1,2000,the Board of Supervisors rejected your request to have the Board reconsider its lune 13 action, Moreover,on October 10,2000,the Board of Supervisors directed staff to report to them on recommended actions to attain compliance from the subdivision developer with their:Beard.Order, When,we met in our office on.October 27,2000,1 showed you a letter from Rena Rickles that had referred to the items on the Board.Order. 1 asked what you had done to comply with those items, You indicated that you had not dome anything to comply-Mth any of the items in the letter. The puupose of this letter is to request that you immediately provide this office with a plan including a timet-Wo by which you will comply with the items in the Board Order including each of'the improvements listed above, Please provide this compliance plan to this office by Wednevdray,November.22, 2090, Notifica 'csxt of Future Zgj LinS-Adm1nistatorke_ci5jons on Subse ue t l"levelo sats This office will notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on any subsequent developer requests regardixig this subdivision. Should you bave any questions,please call me at(925) 335-1.214. Sincerel , ROl 7 H.DRAKE Principal Planner s NOV.16,2 0 10:OGAM MARGOaIN & MATCH NO.533 P.2/2 At 6113/00 Board birder 11/24/92 SUbdivision Pes1%t 9111191 SPIVFPD Letter cc; Members,Board of Supervisors County Mministrator Clerk of the Board County Counsel Community Development Department Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Cant%wensley Public Works Depa=eut Heather Ballerze San Rammn Valley FireProteadon Distriot Inspector Mike Mentink Thom4s Gingicb(direct.Mail,&ddress) Rena P ieldes Pile CAwpdcclwinsSe+.itr RD� fs + A TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,, �; : :�•, �- Contra FRam; DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP , ;. Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR V-U County GATE: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Hearing on Report Concerning Compliance with Jane 13, 2000 Beard Order Concerning Improvements to Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo area), File#ZI998266, District III SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. Accept public testimony. B accept Report . C. Continue 'I:iearing January 3, 2001, 1: 00 p.m. to allow fo formulation of a private agreeme'117- that would resolve th concerns of the Board. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X "YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECF-,'1777TION OF BOARD COMMI t 1 EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOWE.NDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS I5 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: Bob Drake j{325}335-121.4j ATTESTED cc: Connor Bak,Tammy Connor PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Rena Rickles SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Robert McAdam Alamo Improvement Association � DEPUTY San Ramon Valtey Fire Protection dist, Insp. Utentink BY--- --� Public Works dept, Heather Ballenger County Counsel – .:-:. V%1.tziE206-b.ba a FISCAL IMPACT Mone. Background Beard Decision on Neighbors' Appeal On Jane 13, 2000, the Burd of Supervisors conducted a continued public hearing on an appeal-of an administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator authorizing the relocation of a "guest" parking space in a cul-de-sac.at the terminus of Wingset Place in the Alamo area (Subdivision 7693). The subdivision developer-(Gingrich) had filed the request to overcome an error in the Final Map and related on-street parking provisions.- .The Zoning Administrator had approved the request to relocate one of four parking spaces to allow access to two lots still held by Gingrich. Two residents within the subdivision (Ciapponi and Yandell) had appealed the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision to the Board. At the appeal hearing, the residents expressed concerns about other subdivision improvements they felt had not been properly implemented- After mplemented.After taking testimony, the Board voted to grant the neighbors' appeal. Instead of allowing the parking space to be relocated within the cul-de-sac bulb as had been requested by the Zoning Administrator, the Board voted.to require that the parking space be relocated unto one of the lots still owned by the developer. The Board also directed that other improvements within the subdivision be completed. October Request At an (October meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the appellants,.a representative of the Alamo Improvement Association and a builder of one of the remaining vacant lots within the project, Robert McAdam, requested that the County investigate the status of the subdivision developer's efforts to comply with the 6113100 Board Order. The Board directed staff to investigate this matter and report back to the Board. Communication with Subdivision Developer In a letter dated November 15, 2000 staff requested that the subdivision developer }provide staff with a plan for compliance with the 6113100 Board Order. The current legal representative of the Subdivision Developer, Tommy Connor of Connor Bak, responded in a letter dated November 29,2000. That letter indicated that the subdivision developer did not believe he was bound to comply with the specified December 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#2113206 Page 3 improvements in the Beard Order. Review of McAdam Srmall Lot Review Application . The County is presently processing a request for a bui€ding permit involving a proposed residence on a small lot, File #DP003042, which was fled by the builder, Robert McAdam. It involves (reconfigured) Lot 8 that ties between the properties of the two appellants, Yandell and Ciapponi. -Several neighbors including the appellants have requested that the County conduct a public hearing on the proposed house design. Staff has.referred the house plans to the Alamo improvement.Association for opportunity to comment, prior to completing a staff report and scheduling the matter for hearing. before the Zoning Administrator. The appellants have urged the County to subject the small lot review fled by Mr. McAdam to compliance with the measures specified in the June 13, 2000 Board Order. Noting that Mr. McAdam is not the Subdivision Developer, and thus in a different legal position relative-4G-compliance with subdivision measures, staff has asked the appellants' legal counsel, Rena Rickles, for a legal aufh`Zrity that would allow the County to impose conditions on Mr. McAdam that do not relate to his small lot review. The documentation provided by Ms. Rickles has not beer, persuasive. The Alamo Improvement Association has expressed some reluctance to complete its review of the McAdam's small lot review application until it is clear that the 6/13/00 Board Order is being implemented. Staff has indicated to the Association that we have not found any legal authority that would obligate Mr. McAdam's project to the subdivision improvements being sought in the 6113/00 Board Order. Staff.has urged the Association to proceed with its review of the McAdam of the small lot review application in anticipation of staff scheduling a hearing on his request before the Zoning Administrator in the-near future. Meeting of Interested Parties On Friday, December 8, 2000, staff met with the interested parties including the attorney for the Subdivision Developer.(Tammy Connor), Rena Rickles, Mr. McAdam, and .John Henderson of the Alamo Improvement Association. At the meeting, the parties tentatively agreed on principles that would form,the basis of a private agreement for addressing the issues in the June 13, 2000 Board Order, and allowing Mr. McAdam to proceed with his project. In summary, these principles include: • Mr. Gingrich consenting to a conveyance of an easement at the end of the December 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors Fife#zi8206 Page 4 cul-de-sac and extending onto tat 5 to provide an area to relocate at feast one of the guest parking spaces from its current location. Mr. Gingrich would also be consenting to allow access onto Lot 6 to allow completion of the obliteration of the old driveway on his property. Mr. Ciapponi to allow access onto his propert}, to allow for the obliteration of the old driveway on his property(Lot 7). • Mr. McAdam consenting to perform the driveway obliteration work on Lots 6 (Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi), and to provide for the ctrl-de-sac parking extension improvements. The design of such improvements would have to avoid any design that would require approval of a variance (e.g., a retaining wall more than 3-feet in height within"the required setback area. • The appellants withdrawing their request to the County to have the McAdam's small lot review application heard. An effort would also be made to cry to persuade two other parties (Evans and Pacheco) who reside outside of the subdivision to withdraw their request for hearing of the McAdam small lot review application. • Mr. McAdam would request aspart of the private agreement that the County, condition the issuance of his building permit to the implementation f t`te off- site improvements he has agreed to perform prior to completion of the residence. • Provision for no-parking markings on Win®set Place sought by the 'Fire Protection District to the extent feasible. • Upon the completion of the subdivision improvements (driveway obliteration, relocated guest parking on Lot 5), the appellants would withdraw current requests for notice of administrative reviews, not normally subject to public notice (e-g., request for lot line adjustment; and that the Board rescind its 6/13/00 directive to require notice to the appellants and others who reside within the subdivision of future.zoning administrator decisions that do not normally require notice. • The appellants request the Board to rescind. at this time, the provision of additional on-site parking on Lots 5 and 6 as had been directed in the June 13, 2000 Board Order. As conceived, these principles would serve as the basis for a private agreement. The attorney for Mr. Gingrich indicated that he would need to, check with his client to make certain that he was agreeable with them. Clarification of the Fire Protection District on Marking of Wingset Place At the time of the tentative map application, the San Damon Valley Fire Protection District had commented on the narrowness of the proposed street, and on the need to December 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors Fife#Zf8206 Page 5 . restrict parking on either side for safety access purposes. The District had indicated that posting of no-parking signs-as well as painted curbs would be required to meet the District standards. Therefore, the measures sought by the District have never been a County requirement (The District is autonomous.). It should be noted that the subdivision permit identified the requirements of the District under Advisory Notes, not Conditions of Approval of the County permit. Apparently, some residents within the subdivision may be more receptive to posting of no-parking signs than allowing the curbs to be painted red. In a letter dated December 12, 2000, the District indicates that enforcement of no- parking restrictions by the Sheriffs Office.cannot be effective unless both posting of signs and painting of curbs. Draft Terms for an Agreement Subsequent to the December 8, 2000 meeting, tills. Ric les and Mr. Connor have submitted their respective vel sions. of a draft agI eemen.. They are still being studied by staff. However, several points should be made: �. They appear to be structured such that the �.;,unty would be party (signatory) to an agreement; this was contrary to the discussions in the meeting of 12/8 in which staff made clear that this would h,=\,.-= to be a private agreement, and that the County would not be a party to it. 2. There are additional items being proposed that were not discussed at the 1218 meeting, some involving the consent of the County to proposals that have not been presented to staff in any detail. If these elements are retained, then from staff's perspective, the agreement will be flawed. Discussion Staff tropes that the discussions that occurred at the December 8, 2000 meeting can lead to a satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised in the 6113/00 Board Order. Still, it is evident that the parties need more time to formulate an appropriate private agreement.. The hearing on this matter should be continued to allow the parties to finalize an agreement that would be workable for all. a VICTOR J.WESTMAN D• CMES: COUNTY COUNSEL � *ti . PHUIPS.Al JANICE L Ai. Y NORA Q.SAt SELVANO B.MARCRESIt e.Rly CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �' w CH IFF ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL f VC&ELOR OFFICE-OFTHE COUNTYLOUNSEL. SHARON L.ANDERSON :e`e Xr MtCKAEL0.1 CXHJN Y AD�vtINtSTRAi70lt BUfC UtttiG I .. s " L1iilA i.r.6 ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL 65i PNE��TREE,Sth FLOOR t.` %•`f- `' d• DEuNtsaG: �"f.y` JA1V�T'LNt�t MARTINEZ,CALIFORMA'94553-1229 ''-<r' KEVINT:roi:€ GREGORY G.HARVEY -- ` �'`i EDWARD Y ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL EDWSEATRiCE V. t MARY ANN K GAYLE MUGGLI. PAUL R.MU6 VALEROFFICE MANAGER STEVE P. 57'�lEN P•Rf DAVID E SCf- PHONE(925)935-1800 D aA.I.SN FAX(925)646-1078 November I4,2000 a Rickles Atte at Lauf 1970 Bro way, Ste. 1200 Oakland,CA ' I2 Re: Subdivision 7693, Wingset Place, Alamo Dear Ms. Rickles: This is in response to your August 15, 2000 letter t,,the Community Development Department (Donna Allen) and your August 22, 2000 len« t,i this office regarding the abcve- referenced subdivision- Following tl e public cotiit�Tent :"rning this matter before the Board of Supervisors on October 10, 2000, this office coi:ta,tta t`t ir.munity Development Department to deternTine the status of the items mention,-, in '01.1r•letters. That department has informed us that the developer has not yet demonstrate., coijiplimce with the Board's directives in their rune 13,2000 Order but they continue to attempt 10 obi.mi comp'iance from the developer. We understand that you will be receiving under-et arate cover a copy of a letter from- Lhe Community DevelopnTertt Depa_rt.ment to the developer:�hiclt requests hIm.to submit a plan for compiiance with the Board's June 13,2000 Order. Upon review of the,June 13, 200'0 Board Order,we note th at a number of the conditions of approval (COAs) for the Subdivision listed in your letters ivere not included in the Board's Order. That is, your letters address matters and COAs which-,vere not part of the Board's Order. A copy of the Board's Order of June 13, 2000 is attached for your reference. In summary, the Board accepted"Option F" prtsented in the staff report to the Board, which calls for the fourth common parking space to be rt:,,nftured on Lot 5, owned by the developer. The Board found that COA IOH. was not satisfte�in terms of providing six on-site parking spaces per lot•for Lots 5 and 6 and that COA 103.%k-hich required obliteration of the driveway on Lots 6 and 7 had not been fully satisfied . In addition, any access road constructed must meet the County's posting, parking and painting standards and the developer must meet the t r Rena Rickles November 14, 2000 Page 2 Fire inspector's requirements(see Advisory Note C.to COAs.) Finally,the Board directed staff to notify appellants and other people living in the subdivision of subsequent developer requests involving the subdivision. Apart from the notice requirement,the Board's June 13, 2000 order requires the developer, not staff, to take certain action. We are informed that the final map for this subdivision utas filed and recorded in 1995. In order to have a final map filed and recorded-.the developer is required to demonstrate that there has been substantial compliance with the conditions of approval at the time of filing the map: The Bo-ard's approval of the final trap in 1995 indicates that the Board determined that the developer was in substantial compliance with the COAs. The context for the administrative appeal this year•Nvas only the Zoning Administrator's decision. approving a request to modify the location of one on-street pazking space within the turnaround area as proposed by the developer's engiiYeers,not the COAs. T your letter, you ass-,,q that the County ham Clic at}t:ii�r:t}'and duty to withhold bulld.ng pf--milts in thesubdivision unlles.lt has ensured that there` full compliance with all condltlons of approv.''-.l. Upon our revle\v of jrour-asS� tit'c i:3t%f:not fC+111d any authority to support your contention. If you have any such authority-ple-ase submit it to this office for our rey i elf%_ Very truly yours. Victor J. V'estnl.3 1 County Counsel I L By: Diana J.Silver Deputy Count}'Counsel DJS1j h cc: Board of Supervisors Dennis Barry,CDD Bob Drake, CDD t:V OAN N�D:313�L'SC�FICS..W�1 61 z V- 1 57a V amort: I _ /r , .��`. .S`, .,Ley• - <4j iN oF' M- ex lea p , 1 I} 4 "OUS ViA 6712-.e%At aw• :w y ZONING DISTRICTS 84-12.4134 84 Uses—Requiring land use permit` Article 84-12.12.Off-Street Parking In a R.-15 district the Wowing uses we pe rmi on the issuance of a land use pertain All the 84-12. Off-street pnrkhZg---S designs for the R-6 district in Section 84-4.404, requftvme rts. 1559:pri r code§8145(b)=Ord. 1269:Ord. 117 parking provisions f the R-15 district shall be the as those for 6 district(Section Article 8412.6.Lots 844.1202).( .72-44§ 1, 72:Ord.71-59§§4,5, 1971: Ord. 1569. 'or cod 8145(j):Ord. 1269:©rd. 84-12.602 Lot Atr & 11.79). Aro single sarily dwelling or other permitted d in the R-15 trict shall be erg or p on a lot Article 8 .14. . Use enol Variance Permits smaller than thousand square feet` are&(turd. 15159,prior §8145(c):Ord.1269: .1179). 84-12.1402 d use Variance pereorit:-- Granting. 8412.604 t---"Width. Land use is for the enumerated in Lot width pro `sions forr the R-15 'ct shall be the Section 84- .404,and variance to modify the same as those for R-12 district( "on 8410.6134). provis- Sections 84-4.402(5)and 2.602-84,- (Ord. .602---84,-(Ord.1569:prior c §8145(d). 1269:Ord.1179). 12.120 may be granted in accordance Chapters 25-2 82-6.(flyds.77-51 §7:prior cede§8145(k). 84-12.606 Ikptlt. Ords. 1179 56[382§45I). Lot dearth provi for the 5 district shall be the same as those for tI -12 distri (Section 84-10.606). 0.1569.prior cede 8145(e .9rd.1269:Ord.1179). Chapter 84-14 Article g4 B Height R-20 SINGLMAMMY RESEDEl IAL D # Cr 84.12.802 B t lfaatra Building height for the R-15 district shall Sections: be the same as those for R-6 district(Seaton 84 Article 8414.2.Gaw ral 4.802).(turd„1569:prior $8145(#).OrtL 1269.Ovi 8414.202 General provisions. 1179). a Article 84-14.4 uses �10.York "14AO2 Ute-Allovre& 84.14AD4 Use*-4t equiring land use 84.12.1442 YaPMMIL Sitio yard for the -15 district"be the same as thosefar 11-12 ` ` (Section 94-10.1002). Arti ie 84144 Lob (Or&1569:prior $8145 Ord.12 Gtd.1179). 8414.642 Lotr�, 84-14.604 Lot-Wil "12.10114 ' ar r c 84I4A6 Lot---depth. Setback( yard)pro . the R-15 district shall be teas those for the -6 district(Section Article 84-14.8.Building Height 114-4.1t?Cl4}. Ord. prioroode 145(h):Ord.1269: W14.842 Building hdght---l4la rfun. t7rd.1179 Article 8414.14.Yards 8412.1 Yard—Re= "14AM Yard- M& Rear provisions for the R-15 shall be the 8414.1404 Yard-�-Setbs►X same a for this R-6 district{ 84.41006). 8414.1006 Yard—Rear. (Ord. 569:Prior code§8145(17:Ord. 269-.OnL 1179). 446 $414.202 Article 84.14.12.. 2Ef=Street Parking than twepty-four hours per day, while the parents or 84-14.1202 Oft'-street parking—Space guardians are away; requirements. (9) Aviaries, which shall be am over twelve feet high nor exceeding one square foot'(not over 1600) in Article 84-14.14.Animal Structures area for each fifty square feet of net lasd area per lot,and 8414.1402 1 Animal structure—General unless otherwise provided herein, shalt be set batik at provisions» least twenty-five feet from the front property line or any' street lire and at least ten feet from any side or rear Article 84••14.16.Land Use'and Variance Permits property line, and shall be maintained in a sanitary 84-14.1612 Land use andariaruce permit manner as determined by the county health department. Granting. (Chas:86-43§4,78-83§2,77-51§8,68-25§2,2033, 20341768§2:prior code§8146(a):0.1269,1179§ Article 84-14.2.General 8,382§4V). 8414.2122 General provisions. 84.14,404 Uses—Requiriug"land use permit. All land within an R-20 single family residential In the R-20 district the following arses are permitted district may be used for any of the fallowing uses,under can the issuance of a landuse permit: the following regulations set forth in this chapter.(Ord. U Same as in she R-6 district(Section 844.404) 1768:Ord. 1569:prior evade§.5146(part): Ord. 1269: except for the deletion of 'rneenhouses, over three Ord.1179). hundred square feet"; (2) Horse riding academies and horse riding Article"14A.Uses instruction, if the requirements listed in Section 94- 14.402(5)are met.(Orris. 86-43 §5, 1768, 1569:prior 8414.402 Uses—Allowed. code§ 146(b):Ord. 1269:Ord.1170). 'The following uses are allowed is the R-20 district: (1) A detached sin&fauruily dwellirug on each lot: Article 84-14.6.Loft and the accessory structu s and uses normally auxiliary to it: 84.14.602 Lot—Area. (2) Crop and trek.farming,and horticulture; No single-family dwelling or other strucu=permitted (3) A temporary stand for the sale of agricultural in the R-20 district shall be arected or placed on a lot less products grown on the prentim.with two and one-half thea two thousand square feet in arra.(Ord. 1768: antes per stand,set back at least thirty-five feet bathe €11-d.1569:prior code§8146(c):Ord.1269:Ord.1179). front property Bout, and operated not mom than three months in any calendar year. 8414.604 Lot—Width (4) Snall ung;mcluding the raising of poultry No single- oily dwelling or other apermitted and rabbits or outer grain-fed rodents,primarily for home in the R-20 district shall be erected or placed on a lot less consumption Win; furan one hundred twenty fee in wimp width. (o rd. (5) Keeping livestocken lotsI rty dxxtsandormore 1768:Ord. 1569:prior code§8146(d).Ord.1269:Ord. square feat in arta(with at least forty thousand square 1179). feet for each tom►head of l ves nock)and all contigatm and in one fors ownership; "14,606 1f,_Mp& (6) Publicly owrued parks and playgr+oundr, No single tkmily dwelling or outer structure penndtt ed (7) A residential cam facility for the elderly, in the R-20 di strict shall be erg or placed on a lot less operated by a person with all requavd stage and local than one hundred twenty fed deep. (W; 1768: Or& any approvals or licertses,where not more than six 1569:prioroode§8146(e):OvL 1269:Ord.1179). persons reside or receive cam,net including the licensee ormembers ofthe liclensWsfa llyorpersonsemployed Article 34-141L B as facility stalk (8) A family day care home where care,,protection 84-14.802 Building hiefgahtr—Mm. and supervision of twelve or fewer children in the Building height provisions for the R-20 district shall provider's own home are provided for periods of less be the same as those for the R-6 district(Section 84 447 84-14.1042 4.802),(Ord.1769:Ord. 1569:pngr code§8146(f).Ord. any property line.(Ord. 1768: Ord. 1569:prior code§ . 1269;Ord. 1179). 8146(k):Ord. 1269:Ord. 1179). Article 84»14,1.0.Yards Article 84-14.16.Land Use and Variance Permits 84-14.1002 Yard"-Side. 84-14.1602 land use and variance permit--- The m shalt be an aggregate side yard width of at least Granting. thirty-five,feet leo side yard shall be less than fifteen .Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in feet wide.These udni na may be reduced to three feet for err 94-14.404,and variance permits to modify the an accessory building or sere if it is set back at karst provisions in Sections 84-14.402(g) and 84-14402--- sixty-five feet fmnn the firsrn property line.(Ord. 1169: 84-14.1402, may be granted in accordance with Chap- Ord. 15691.prior code§8146(g):Ord.1269.Ord.1179). tors 26-2 and 82-6.(Ards.77-51§9,1768§4:prior code §8146(1),Ords. 1179'§8(382§4V]). 84-14.1044 Yard—Setback. Thanes shall be a setback.. (front yard") of at least twenty-five feet for any structure in the R-20 district:on Chapter 84-16 corner lots the p6mipal front o of the lot shall have a setback of at least twenty-five feet and the otter setback R-40 1NGLF.-FANMY RESIDENTIAL shall beat lent twenty feat (Ord.1769:Ord.1569:prion DISTRICT code$8146(h)a Ord 1269:Ord. 1179). Seems: 84-14.1006 Yard-4b= Article 8416.2.General Roar yard provisions for the R-20 district shall be the 84.16.202 General provisions. some as Il se for the R-6 district(Sten 8".1006). (Ord.1769:Ord.1569 prior code§8146(1):Ord.1269. Article 84-16.4.Uses Ord. 1179). 84-16.4112 Uses.—Pearmitte& 7R-6disuiet 84-16.404 Usm—Requlrbtg land use Article 8414.12.t71yrlrinrg permit. 84.14.1= Off-asset papaee Article 84.1+6.6.Lots requlremeut84-1&602 Let�Ar�. C =sweet par g provisioe_R 20 district 84-1.6.+604 Lot '�'ldth. shalt be:the same as tttaee fardistrict(Section 84-1fi«i Late84-4.2212).(0r(L 71-59§§4, Ord.1"768.Otd: 1569.prior code 6 8146(, :Orci. 1179). Article 84.1+6JL l8 H 8416.802 B��t—It�tzem. Article 84.14 .4.A Ar dtle 84-16.10.Yards 84.14.1402 Arvin a1 8416.1002 Tani—side. prrvislons. 8416.1004 Yard—Setback. Chicken�rabbit ht*hm arndsimile accessory 84.16.1006 Yard--Rear. stnictutrs provided for the howing of the animals shall be set back not less than sixty feet frown the: front Article 8416.12.Off-Street Parking property litre or any sftd line,and ahall be not less than 84.16.1202 Off4ftvd parking—Space foaty feat from any !lids or tear ptopeirty line; barns, requirements. stables and other buildings or owures used to shelter livestock shall be sa back not loos than one wed feet Article 84-16.14.Anhml Strnctums f vut the frout property line or airy street line,and shall 8416.1402 Anil not be less than fifty fit ftom any sidle or rear property provisions. liw,- fe noed past, paddocks, or other anclosed livestock areas shall not bolocated neara than ten feet to 448 t / 844.+502 Article 844.6.Lots article 844.12.Off-street Parkin 844.602 Lott-Area. S�#�aipm Off t parking requirements. No single-family dwelling or otter structure permitted districts every dwelling unit shall have at in the Rib district shall be erected or placed on a lot least two off-strut automobile storage spaces on the smaller than six thousand square feet in arca:(Ord.1569: same lot; except that there shad be at least one, such prior code§8142(c):Ords. 1269,1179). space where the lot was legally created before September 9, 1971,or was part of a tentative or parcel map filed 844.604 Lot—Width. before September 9, 1971, and upon which a final. No single-family dwelling or other structure permitted subdivision or parcel map was subsequently approved in the R-6 district shall be erectedor placed on a lot less and recorded. than sixty feet in average width.(Ord_1569:prior code§ (b) Such spaces shall have a 'cornered or open 8142(4):Ords. 1269, 1.179): surfaced area of at least nine by nineteen feet,and shall be entirely outside the setback or sided yard areas of the 84.4.606 Lot—Depth. principal structure. (Orris. 77-107, 71-59 §§ 4 and $: No singits-family dwelling or other stere permitted prior code§81420):Ords: 1179§3, 1039,1028,928). in the R-6 district shall be erected or placed on a lot less than ninety feet in depth. (Ord.. 1569:' prior code § Article 844:14.Land Use and Variance Permits 8142(e):Ords. 1269, 1179). 844.1402 Land use and variance permit -- Article 84-4.&Building Height Grant ng- Land use permits for the special uses enumerated in 84-4.f3t32 Building ht Section 844.404, and variance pewits to modify the No single-family dwelling or other structure permitted provisions in Sections 8"402(5)and 84-4.602 through in the R-6 district shall exceed two and ones-half stories U4.1202,may be granted in accorb=with Carters or thirty-five fact in height+ (Ord. 1569: prior code-§ 26-2 and 82.6.(Ord.'7'7-51 §3 prior code§ 9142(k): 8142(f):Ords. 1269,1179). Ords.1179§3,1039,1028,382§4(A)). Arty 84-4.10.Yards Chapter 84.6 84.4.1002 Yard-�-Side. There shall be an aggregate side yard width of at least R-7 SINGLE-FAMILY RESMENTIAL 13ISTRICr firms feet.No side yard sbali belessthan five fent wide. Thew minima may be reduced tD three feet for an Sections: accessory building or structm if it is setback at least Article 94-6.2.Gyral fsfly feet from the fitmt property lbr-(Ord. 1569:prior 846.202 General provlsiioas. code§81426 :Ords.1269,1179). Article 846.4.tWs 844.1004 Yard—Setback k 84-C*2 There shall be a sedock(front yard)of at least U-6.404 13 land we feet for any stracture in the 11-6.district.On ear lots pen& the prucipal ftmp shall have a seek of at least "maty few and the other setback gall be at kart fifteen Article 84.66.Lots fee+. (Ord. 1569: prior code.§ 8142(h): Ords. 1269, 846602 Int--Area. 1179). 84-6.604 Lot V idth. 84-6606 Let>Depth,. 844.1006 Yana—b=. There shall be a runt yard for any principal Structure Artide 84-6.8.Be g Ott of at least fifteen fent. There shall be a ream yard for 84-6.802 Building height Maxiamun- ae rxssory structures of at least three feet. (Ord. 1569: prior code§8142(i):Ords. 1269, 1179). mow. 4 441 ....................... ............ Y cw* 41 CL 0 cl� WV Zr i. ID'D z mi 0- , �n 7 cl� < V) T , vi rri try zn I 0cu at LJ U < O�L,Z ix ll� L'I L's lwg t M Wt-wr. �— yu Z t- 0 w L, < cl 0 <�c n LJ Lj kr w w U) Y Lj 1: L) En z re 1-- nz W w < Lj LD tn n z uj ID o "O"Wom D o J -,W W 9 I =I -j m Z:l q ❑=,> ck: -j-j CL LU cr 0. I.............................. P-. Z,07� CL Uj zz > LLJ 0 Cl) CD t,,D .................... ............. I W.. NX v ix A' 3W aia --n!T31L 40� IV 36 Al ........... ui 0 ce. CL LLJ CD Z CL (D Z UJ LLJ LLJ LLI ui M CD ................. .............-- ....... ................ 5 CL v Lj '3f 4k Cy Co rV cL LL .6 W LIj L, L3 NN � 3 �J �+ 1S .. N,� �z� .e i._ NCu��s3v j � Y 1 Wg cc0. pew z 0 Z. t'2ZI ol)Loa X X Xl�l A fysll, uj 04 U3 Clq CL UJ ui z r.L CD L LLJ LLJ UJ Z C0 CM) LLJ X uj Cl) D LU W L ui CL t• ..,tet r6 .. �..' q�� '�.. ... ig 9 -c$p• kx - tin.,... ... � �� � 4 ) i n,Y .r �� • 1: 2 � �•w f � ' fY ���l�""' f� i 4 S The Board of Supervisor , Contra ��© en ard +costaand County Administration Building County Administrator 651 fine Street,Room 106 County (925)335-1080 Martinez,California.44553-40688 John Glols,District I Gayle B.U'likema,District II Mille Greenberg,District III ; Mark D eSaulaler,District IV Federal D.Glover, District V July 29,2003 Mr. David Ciappol i P.O.Box 936 Alamo,Ca 94507-0936 RE: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Administrative decision Pursuant to Section 14-4.046 of the County Ordinance Code,notice is given that August S,2003 at 10:30 a.m.,at 651 Pine Street,Room 147,Martinez,California has been set as the time and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal of the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision to approve a revised guest parking plan and private parking plan for two lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place)in the Alamo area,County File#LL030006. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at or prior to,the public hearing. Sincerely, John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator B LeDanielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk CC: County Counsel County Administrator Catherine Kutsuris,Community Development Bob Drake,Community Development BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Adminstrative Appeal ) Re: David Ciapponi ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States,over age 18, and that today I deposited Mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled matter to the following: See attached list. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: July 29, 2003 Deputy Clerk �.r 195-401'014 193 401 015 193 401 016 Rocky John&Nada Dudum David Alan&Adrienne Yarnold Scott Bohannan 250 Likely Dr 2 Wing Set PI PO Box 616 Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo,CA 94507 193 401 017 193 401 018 193 401 019 Jeffrey&Kathryn Tre Oster Thomas Tre Gingrich Thomas e Gingrich 6 Wing Set PI PO Box 504 PO B 504 "� Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo,CA 94507 Al o,CA 94507 "` 193 401 022 193 401 023 193 401 024 John&Maureen Tre Yandell Jr. David Ciapponi Custom Homes By Mcadarn Inc I Vying Set PI PO Box 935 445 Oakshire PI Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo,CA 94507 Tommy A. Conner Law Offices of Tome y A. Conner Heather Ballenger 10�A40nterey.Blvd. Public Works Dept. San Francisco, Ca 94.131 INTEROFFICE Coni Counsel -Atte: Thomas Geiger, Michael Mentink Deputy.County Counsel Deputy Fire Marshall John Maes San,Ramon galley Fire Protection District saes & i�' lollinger Canyon Road Associates San Ramon,Ca 945$3 191 C71ynpic Boulevards S Walnut Creek, Ca 94596 JUN 2 6 W03 4.. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Adminstrative Appeal } Re. David Ciapponi ) I declare under penalty ofpe&ry that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled matter to the following: DAVID CIAPPONI P.O. BOX 936 ALAMO, CA 94507 I declare under penalty of penury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: July 29, 2003 >< Deputy Clerk ru a.� Pnstaga 14 R3 �47iF$t.4 ru s Sent David Cutpponi ----------- P.O. Box 936 ---- Alamo, Ca 94507 Bob Crake To: Danielle€felly/COB/CCCQCCC 06f24l20©3 10:32 PM cc: tgeig@cc.co.contra-costa.ca.us Subject: Request for Renot€ce and Expanded Notice of Continued 8/5 Hearing on Wingset Place Appeal ~� (Ciapponi) Danielle, I just got finished with a letter advising the appellant, Mr. Ciapponi,that the Board continued the hearing on his appeal today to August 5. 1 am sending you a copy of the letter. Response to Claim that Hearing Notice was Not Complete In addition, 1 also responded to a challenge from Mr. Ciapponi on the propriety of the notice for the hearing. He claims that the a previous Board action required additional parties to be noticed of the hearing. My letter shows that that is not the case. Still, unless you see a problem, I think it might be prudent to provide a follow-up mail-out notice to other parties (lot owners within the same subdivision). I will forward these addresses of the parties who I think should receive a notice of the continued hearing. Bob X5-1214 COMPLETE # ON ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sigr*,ture item 4 if Restricted delivery is desired. X ) � 0 Agent a Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Recei by,, ri d Nary !C. Date of Delivery 0 Attach this card to the back of the rm#lpiece; M M .---� ' or on the front if space permits. D. is dei#very addresg tlifferer}t�im#tei�##� �1 fs�s t. Article Addressed to. If YES,enter d4ery address below: X10.. a JUL 3 � .a David Ciapponi P.D. Box 936 s. Se type Alamo, Ca 94507 RI-Certified Mail ❑Express Mail 11 Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ insured Mali ®C.O.D. 4. Restricted Oel#very?Ptra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Plumber 7002 1 o o D 0004 916 6 2101 f7ransfer tram service tabet) N PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 702595-02-til-toffs >A COMPLETE r SECTION • r plate items 1,2,and S.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. `Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse Ci Addressee so that we can return the card to you. #3, iv (P' dame) C, 4te af lery • Attach this card to the back of the mailp#ece, it or on the front if space permits. 0-1 #}. Is d ddress dlffez*3nf tem 1? ©Yes 1. Artie#e Addressed to. ent ,delieery address No David L. Ciapponi 2 P.O. Box 936 Alamo, Ca 94507-0936 €3. SelV!ce Ty £'t Certified Mai. ❑Express Mai# Q Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mall ❑C.O.O. 4. Restricted Dei#very?(Extra Fee) ❑yes 2. Artilale Number 7002 1000 0004 916 6 2002 (i r from service!aft PS Form 3811,August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt tc2585 tt2-wt?X30 ..................... s k 3UN.12.2003 12<25PM COMh1 MITY DBIEL£PMENT NO.374 P.1/3 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPA RIME T Current Planning Division 551 Pine Street, N.Wing • 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 lap one: 9;5r 335w ®za: (925)335-1222 FAX TRANSMITTAL Date: June 12, 2003 TO: Jahn Maes COMPANY: Mae&Associates FAX NO,- 947-0142 PHONE NO,�9474733 Total pages: 3 Yv19 $A E: —A&--Request to Reschedrule 6/24 Hearinj on Omani Aneal of_?Ming Administrator Decision—Win.gset Place john. Attaelied is a getter from ye gt Mni indicating_th€�t he has a schedule canfiicc wiib the rs124 l�oa�-1 hearing date, here 's pc.Mc,clse who gin res nt hf He i§U_kingthe,.Board resinhedule the head ag on hiss►peal tc a,date that he ca=&% !be Clerle,a ` hal indicate taut if this a ecnt3od,it yrs°oldsheIle t J �22, Au ,,s# 5 or must 12 curt nt mmiaLs on the d sched lc . The h arin on 6124 bar, been Twoues 'ons 1'aryou. i. e ensu at all, agreeable to a reschedt�lin csfYhe 6124 hear% 2. If the answer is ves.which of the above dates would wu find acceptablel l=leaapdpond at vaur earliest opportunity JUN.12.2003 12:25PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NO.374 P.2/3 2 FROM: Bob Brake — PHONE NO. 335-1214 Cc: Danielle belly.Qg k of the Bpard LAETu x.12. 3.@:1L,: aPtl3>15--oC !i!LHIT`! DEVELOPMENT FRA41�JR� AKMY NO.3�4 P.3/3 �t 6/11/03 Clerk of the Board -651 41"Floor N. Wing Martinez,SCA 9¢553-00" 13y FacEW1e;(925)335-1913 To Whom It May Concern ate; Subdividon 7693 (Winset Place,Ahmo) Req ue4 for new hewing date on the 4/16/03 Conditio4al Appy of Proposed Parking Facilities Platt(bile#L. 3LD06) Plewa accept try requeA for a new item before the Bow of Supervisors for the above matter t=dginally scheduled for 6/24/03 at 11..00 am.S will be out of town Tune 18,2003 tiftugh July 8,2003 and leave zaobody to represent me, y schedule bu me ocr=tly available 7/15,7/22,7/29 gad any Tuesday in Aupst*11pnk you for your consideration in twS sera Sincercly, David L.Cia ni cc.Robat Drake,Fax:(M) 06/11-/2003 10:11 X15-786-7629 PRAGER.MCCARTHY & SE PAGE 02 6111103 Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Ste 4"�Floor N. Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 By simile: (925)335-1913 To Whom,It May Concern: Re:Subdivision 7693(Wingset Place,Alamo) Request for neer nearing date on the 4/16/03 Conditional Approval of Proposed Parking Facilities Plan(File#LL430006) Please accept my request for a new bearing before th~e Board of Supervisors for the alcove matter originally scheduled for 6124/03 at 11:00 a.mr I will be out of town June 18,2003 through July 8, 2003 mid have nobody to mpresent me. Poly schedule has me currently available 7/15,7122, 723 and any Tuesday in August.ThwA you for your consideration in this matter, Sincerely, David L.Ciapponi cc: Robert Drake,Fax:(925)335-1222 r 'If Cr PRAGM-MOCARTHY SE PAGE 01-1 INVESTMENT BANEERS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET NAME. DATE: FIRM: FAX No: t PAGE S'INCLUDR.SHEET.. s` Mmid l..Ciappnrii (415)95.5.5155 Dsvld Potter W,5)403.1904 man*01ho Cliraator ju mur—aarn } Liirsctor ve cvm Jam 12.Gusm,Jr. (416855-8186 Ai nafitreria 131tyt^l quint (415)955.73155 Vice PmSldent(Ja Ck) LajMgjfteftt00Mben1.n Aest Vice Pmaidont n 0 Andrew J.i tamp (tib)qw-13181 { lay Leung (415)403.4939 4 , Vice presids"t 23 i �Opengl*ms Anat. rayenrat atr.com `,cart Mayr ch {415}968.4150 { `'ice Pmi " 13�..�+....l� ..�. ....r. aurts�h autn€� tenet i(m 804hia (41$)9664189 tts Etast. s s dew 04 t)� It N (k� - (zt(5 K.,-!r g<- r 4 � } I NOUM This fMtMile transmission contains timely and possibly owfidentiai information. if you have received this :rart8sis8tcrs s,error.Please cell(415) -t31 .cr }77? rciate y =r essstance, C1tss ritime Plaza,Shite 10W J Saes Franclsco,Cid 94111-3420 Tel,$00-77,7-M2 Fax 415-700-7629 .iUN.24.2 3 3:1GPM (`-`"MUNIT`! DEVELOPMENT NO.531 P.1/5 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEYELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ;. Current Planning Dlvlslon W Pirie Street, N. Fitt- 2nd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: (925) 335-1210 Fax: (925) 335-1222 I PAX TRANSMITTAL Date;— C't - -- l , Page I of ° CORNY; RkX NO. PHOIN"E NO. ze4�- - � 9r f t r i s t 1 FRO PHONE NO L225) 335-12 �� .x4.24,2003 9a16PM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 40531 P.3/5 2 When the Zoning Administrator rendered a decision on the proposed modifications to pig an April 16,2403,a colute y copy of that decision was mailed to the appellants and other owners of lots within Subdivision 7693. You are the only party within the s0division who timely Bled 40 appeal of that decision. To,our understand,the notice for today's hearing was issued as required by law,and consistent with the June 13,2€144 Board Order on dais matter. We find no provision in he Dunne 13,2440 Board Order to notify parties of a hearing of aro appeal of a Zoning Administrator decision on this matter beyond that required by law. Wherefore,we find uo facts to support your claim that-die notice for the appeal hewing was not properly issued. Should you have any questions,please call me at(925)335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H.DRAKE Principal Planner Aft, Addendum to lune 13,2000 Board Order on Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision.on Modifications to Wingset Place Parking Cc. Members,Board.of Supervisors Clerk of the Board County Counsel Catherine auris Heather Bahenger,Public Worms Dept. Deputy Fire Marshal Michael Mentink,San Ramon Valley Pile Protection Dist. Solan,Maes, Maes and Associates Kate fit,Reed Smith Crosby Heafey File \1f's-cd\users$\bdralre\Penonal\I1030 -b.ltr.doe RD\ JLH.24.2003 9:1EPM COMM Y DEVELOPMENT MO.531 P.2r5 13amils M. AICP Community Contra. Comte �,5►OPMOrd oirsda4 Development Costa Depart �n OurLY County Administration St il4ing t kine Street 4th Flocw,North Wing Martinez,Caiomia 9455"095 Phone: (925)335-1214 June 24,200 David Ciapponi PO Box 936 Alamo,CA 9450-1-0936 Dear Mr.Ciapponi. Ade: Continuance of Board of$Upervisor's Hearing on Appeal of "ming Administrator's Administrative Decision on Modifications to Guest and Private Parking Provisions SubdiAsiou 7693 OVIngset Place,Alamo) County File##LL030006 In response to your request,this is to advise you that at the hearing of the Board of Supervisors today,the Bond contiuved time teeming on your appeal of tic.ening Administrator's decision to the Bar's meeting of Tuesday,August 5,2003 at 10:30 a.m. r At the same time,the Board h4s indicated that it intends to conduct the hearing on your appeal and to render a final decision on the matter at that time. Therefore,the Board encourages you or your representative to attend that hearing, Rewonse_to Ouesfigning of roper!Notice ofAAyncal I-Iearina Your letter of June 24,2043 also questioned the propriety of the notice that was issued for this project, citing the Jane 13,2000 Board Carder an this natter. The addendum to that Board Order is attached. It descrilbes the various actions that the Board directed concerning subdivision conditions. TbAt included a direction to st4tTto notify the appellants(Ciapponi and Mandell)and otherss who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests. Ogee Hours cr4ay-Friday!9.00 a.m.e 5100 p-m Office is closed the 1 st,3rd&5th Fridays of each month s j tfitif 1.LryY.G�'YJJ ` 7`l r"f it t t il(if f[.�7` I DEVELOPMENT ••*e v M f v vV+v�u I v ar e'f,r"':!'NO.53 r�rn*P.44/J .r. ,•• David Ciapponi 5 w4sect Place Alamo, Ca 94507 June 24,2003" VIA FAtCSMME(925)335-1098 Hono-able Mcm-bm of the Roard of Slipervisors contm Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA June 24,2003 Agenda item No. D.4;Parking for Subdivision 7593(Wingset Place,Alaimo) Dewr Honarable Members oft1he Board: I respecdWly request that this matter be cantiaued to July 22, 2003 as suggested by Mr. Drake in his supplemental staff report dated Jame 24,2003. 1 have bad a manly vacation plamed for some time and accordingly wn unable to appear. T apologize for this convenience. Also, proper Mace for this matter was not provided to the neighbors in accordance with the ,lune 13, 20010 Board Order and accordingly,the mAtter should be continued so that any interested pvdes may appw to Gommt Thank you for your consideration. Very fly yours, avid Ciappcani cc: Danis M.Barry, Director of Community DeVekrprnent Bob Drake,Planner Jour:Sweeten,Clerk of the l3oarrtl I)Avid Ciapponi,Appellant ** TATPL PAGF.01 tJ3V.?4.2003 31-17PM C"Ull` DEVELOPhENT NO.531 P.5/5 i pq�q�}r�q.� rp�{�q{�p� iiW��BifA Smt��TO June 13,31000 A.gendn ` s 2000,the BOArd of Snpmvisms=L a"'d#a th's nate, .0 boating on$e d YczadeUs A4�- l*ve APPfW of ItZ.oniag'Amtratoeg Wraysl '° s#to s�xtadi�Y to co afan fie#v� v Su as 7693,C=tY Pie 99-f Q6("Vbjsst Place,As�ttR aTCa}. ;':+• Ra l f apn flegatran, ve the staff report rdCh%mityD �I datia -hose pment included Dcmi6 BaUY.CRtm=r4tYD;vctagmmtt DirrZPV,rS��,�.`, o�M hhz4. O Agd t Cozy m=et lmd E040T Bsltmges gimtdtA fts- •� �f„�Bata-d�sc�t8aeci t�'Y�{attt',"E ahe pt&b e bei was apart A and the fonowing geoplc sp . d to'Peak. s,19''fl BrOmdwitys Oaklmd, Th=03 Rump FA&=f0v APPellantc,2 CaaW C=Y=CaUT,,# , S=R= M=Y-Ar=t=g,Esq.,Crrgoa,at A Aftorogy for AppBc=t; x Ifss to�iappa•:.Appt ons, WU4%3t Plue,.Al=, Re= yark A==;F,rebuttal. Minpe da iiin;to spe4 baviAg bees beard,the Publiq Itaa�ng was closed. Fs>liawa�? t l c�d'a siiacussiga,SuPacvisnr Get sr rzaTed- Tlsat the Board aa'Gept Op;on 1?,as proposed by the appel MVS etagiagef[Set PW ¢i of fife staPPmmtl. That nall be directed to not tv the epPdl=ts and others 'Who L it this subvLvisi= of fns dig Ld=k' or &cWow ou Atse4u1mv d4-eloper requests reccdiAg tbig MIb&Vi ; Tact Che Board slag-LotK 5 Dad d,et W&VOiAt,do aunt Satz2fy tba C=ditiona of ATxPx0V4 N having o 0=1 gust ptsrldssa s 4m--I Thmt t1m Susi diZWE the dev4gpar tta e=ply with the l<uy 7nsgector's r��uiret�t�t"a; f ' 4 That tt sa=as roast shOtald ea to Cnunty'a Mrd=d of POCED& no gtXEZa, =4 PLtn g*8 Pula; s .fid dict gm Baud dstam�gG that t3,te d6vimmy berwean sots 5 and 7 was uor, eetuany abliterated by COnnty stsn cd& 4*,kaugh the XjjT in4 atw that tlme appears to be stxismtIal o4•,zlplin2ec w#h abliwneon.it wu not==plL-had, 9npxvisor Canda=La s=ndsd%ho fnotisn=d rd:a Beard voted==i=udy to •accept it. M.A. Maes & AS5OC11teS Civil Engineering; Land Survevine: Land Planning 1910 Olympic Blvd.,Suite 314 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 Voice: 925-947-0733 Facsimile: 925-947-0:42 Dispatch: 800-325-0795 June 17, 2003 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Mark DeSaulnier, Chairperson Re: Board Hearing of June 24, 2003 Ciapponi's Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Administration Decision Dear Mark: This letter is at the request of the Subdivision property owners in favor of my plan for proposed parking improvements, and to deny Mr. Ciapponi's appeal and request to reschedule said Board Hearing. The following undersigned property owners are in favor of the proposed parking plan pr e CMaek & Associates: ock durn 14ada Dudum Date 250 Likely Drive Ala=7 4 avid arnold AdrienneYa nbld 5ate 2 Wing Set Place Alamo, CA Scott Bohannan Diane Bohannan Date 4 Wing Set Place Alamo, 4507 > Jef e iter K4thryn O`ter bate 6 Wi4;§et Place Alamo, CA 94507 June 17, 2003 Board of Supervisors page 2 guss'sta'arby Jaice arby Da e 3 Wing Set Place Alamo, CA 94507- Gingrich 4507-Gingrich �; Date 7 Wing Set Pl e Alamo, C ;tet -117/Irl�r t m Gkgnc 6/ Date 8 Wing Set Place Alamo, CA 94507 Please accept this petition as a requisite for the majority of property owners accepting the proposed plan and denying the appeal by Mr. Ciapponi. If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please call. Respectfully, John B. Maes, P.E. _ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTED OF } Administrative Appeal ) By David Ciapponi } CF#LL030006 ) ) ) ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited with Contra Costa County Central Service for Certified mailing in the United States Postal Service, a copy of the hearing notice, in the above matter to the following: David Ciapponi P.O. Box 936 Alamo, Ca 94507-0936 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.,Martinez,CA. Date. June 9,2003 anielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk ru R rru � .,.,�i;fl^Feb '__.✓ ..�._.... C { 5e !f u ire i t-t3ra EnGOrSa,an: eU,:::fdJ David w-------- dL.. QVpon of P.©. BOX 936 .Alamo, Ca 94507 ------------- - 0936 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Administrative Appeal } By David Ciapponi ) CF#LL030006 } } } } I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18, and that today I deposited with Contra Costa County Central Service for interoffice mailing, a copy of the hearing notice, in the above matter to the following: Heather Ballenger Assistant Director Engineering Services Division Public Works Department I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.,Martinez,CA. Date: June 9,2003 .Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF } Administrative Appeal ) By David Ciapponi ) CF 4LL030006 } } I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing in the United States Postal Service, a copy of the hearing notice, in the above matter to the following: Deputy Fire Marshall Mike Mentink San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road San Ramon, Ca 94583 John Maes Maes&Associates 1910 Olympic Blvd.,Suite 314 Walnut Creek,Ca 94596 Thomas E. Gingrich P.O.Box 504 Alamo, Ca 94507-0504 David L. Ciapponi P.O.Box 936 Alamo,Ca 94507-0936 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.,Martinez,CA. Date: lune 9,2003 t && anielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk The Board of SupervLoorsJohn Sweeten Clerk of the Board County Administration Building Cosh and County Administrator 651 Pine Street,Room 106 (925)335-19W Martinez,California 94553-1293 CtlJ"^►# nl 1 John Glols,1st District t.,11 1 L�f Gayle B,Ullkerria,2nd District CECERM 3rd!District i1= Mark DeSaufnler,4th District Federal Glover,5th District rit•. June 9, 2003 r" n Mr. David Ciapponi P.O. Box 936 Alamo, Ca 94507-0936 RE: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Administrative decision Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County Ordinance Code,notice is given that June 24,2003 at 11.00 a.m.,at 651 Pine Street,Room 107, Martinez,California has been set as the time and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal of the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision to approve a revised guest parking plan and private parking plan for two lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place)in the Alamo area, County File#LL030006. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at or prior to,the public hearing. Sincerely, John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By la�& Kn it,� Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk cc: County Counsel County Administrator Catherine Kutsuris,Community Development Bob Drake,Community Development The Beard of Supery.VQ#ors (��lt�'� John Sweeten ctad<of the Board est and County Administration Building County Administrator 651 Fine Street,Rooth 106 (925)335.1900 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County.9t f"'tt1/ John Gioia,7st District t �( Gayle 8.Uiikema,2nd District INGIEVEBM F 3rd District VACANT Mark De$auinier,4th District Federal Glover,5th District w =. June 9, 2003 =' Mr. David Ci:appom P.O. Box 936 Alamo, Ca 94507-0936 RB: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Administrative decision Pursuant to Section 14-4.006 of the County Ordinance Code,notice is given that June 24,2003 at 11:00 a.m.,at 651 Pine Street,Room 107,Martinez, California has been set as the time and place for hearing by the Board of Supervisors of your appeal of the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision to approve a revised guest parking plan and private parking plan for two lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place)in the Alamo area, County.Pile#LL030006. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County, at or prior to,the public hearing. Sincerely, John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator ByIAAai& K Danielle Kelly,Deputy Clerk cc: County Counsel County Administrator Catherine Kutsuris,Community Development Bob Drake,Community Development D e m m u n it o ntr� Comte t Barry,aicP mmuniyy Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street • r 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Pyne: (925) 335-1214 May 21, 2003 N 2003 David L. Ciapponi P.O. Box 936 Alamo,CA 94507-0936 Dear Mr. Ciapponi: Re: Acknowledgement of Receipt of Appeal of 4/16/2403 Administrative Decision By the Zoning Administrator to Approve a Revised Parking Plan Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place,.Alamo), County File#LL030006 This is to acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Appeal you filed with this office on May 15,2003 concerning the above captioned decision of the Zoning Administrator. The Board.of Supervisors will bear your appeal. This office will notify you,by letter,when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the Beard of Supervisors. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please call me at 335-1214,or the Clerk of the Board, at 335-1900. Sincerely, t7BERT R. DRAKE Principal Planner Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Offlcp is rins�?rt the 1st_ 3rd & Sth l=ridays of each month _ _. _ 5/15/03 A �c J 1 �� Clerk of the Board Q ''', ii 2 4 651 Pine St. . 4'h Floor N. Vying Martinez, CA 94553-0095 To Whom It May Concern: Re: Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo) Request for appeal of the 4/16/03 Conditional approval of Proposed Parking Facilities Plan(Gingrich) /P i IP,* 11 b_03 000(0) Please accept my request for appeal with my deposit of$125. In brief,the current parking plan as approved by the Zoning Administrator is not consistent with that approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on 6/13/00(Option F). There were many hours spent discussing the safety and aesthetics for this parking and it was clearly engineered,presented and approved at this Board's request (5-0). I respectfully ask the Board to require the Zoning Administrator to relocate the parking to "Option F"as previously approved. In addition,it appears that the on-site parking for lots 5 and 6 does not conform to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code. The Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking spaces for each approved lot.The Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.1202(a) from two to six spaces. Thus, Section 84-4.1202(b)states each of those spaces must he out of the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure and on a surfaced area 9'x19'. Each home in the subdivision meets this7condition. I don't believe that the current approved parking plan for lots 5 and 6 meet the aforementioned conditions. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, David L. Ciapponi cc: Date Hart Enc(5) 5/09/2003 n Robert H. Drake Contra Costa County CDD 651 Pine St. 0 Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Dear Mr. Drake: Re: Subdivision 76193 Wingset Place, Alamo Request for April 16, 2403 Approved Plan to Comply with June 13,2000 Board Order Fat This is in response to your letter dated April 16, 2043 apparently approving a parking plan that is not consistent with that approved by the Board of Supervisors. I have enclosed your copy of"Option F"as submitted to the Board of Supervisors on December 19, 2000 for your review. I have,also included a reduced copy of the original because the copy is difficult to react. Please amend the curlent approved parking plan to reflect the "Option F" design:and location approved by the Board of Supervisors and Planning Department. In addition, it appears that the on-site parking for lots 5 and 6 does not conform to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code. The Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 clearly state that there shall be six off-street parking spaces for each approved lot. The Conditions of Approval amend Section 84-4.1202(x) from two to six spaces. Thus, Section 84-4.1202(b) states those spaces must be out of the setback or side yard areas of the principal structure and on a surfaced area.9'x19'. Each home in the subdivision meets this condition. I don't believe that the current approved parking plan for lots 5 and 6 meet the aforementioned conditions. Please do not delay your response to this letter, as it appears that applicant would like to proceed as quickly as possible. Also,it appears that some markings have been made on the street that are not consistent with"Option F". Please advise the applicant as soon as possible to the County's error in its approval before the incorrect improvements are made. Sincerely, David I. Ciappon� cc: Kate Hart Dennis M.Barry,AICP community Contra, Community Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing `` Martinez,California 94553-01095 Phone: -(925) 335-1214 April 16, 2003 Jahn Maes Maes&Associates 1910 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 314 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear John: Re: Conditional Approval of Proposed Parking Facilities Pian, and Lot Line Adjustment(File#LL030006) Subdivision 7693,Wingset Place,Alamo (Gingrich) This is in response to your revised submittal of March 20,20303 proposing to (1) reconfigure Lots 5 aad 6 (both owned by Thomas Gingrich); (2)propose reconfiguration of existing"guest"parking currently located within the turnaround area of the cul-de-sac street serving this project,and fronting along Lot 6; and(3)proposing private parking facilities to respectively serve Lots 5 and 6. Attached is a chronology that outlines the events that led to this submittal., and staff's review of the findings that are pertinent to this proposal. it is staff's conclusion that the proposal has merit and is therefore approved, subject to the attached conditions. Upon completion and acceptance of the proposed improvements and deeded instruments by the Zoning Administrator,the plan will provide for: • Private parking facilities to serve Lots 5 and 6 in accoid'with the req ui einents of the approved subdivision. • Reconfigured common"guest"parking spaces that are consistent with the design requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District,and the June 13, 20100 Board of Supervisors directive, and which are clearly marked and labeled. • Establishment of unencumbered vehicular,access to Lot 6 (presently blocked by existing parking configuration). Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. f1a;; in n1nn,-.4 4-k, i n+ ' rrA 0. Cih of.rk -4-k 2 This letter also acknowledges receipt cif your withdrawal of an earlier 1999 lot line adjustment application proposal between bots 6 and 8 of the subdivision, County File #LL990013. Should you have any questions,please call me at 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H.DRAKE Principal Planner Att. Exhibit I-Background,Findings and Approval of Proposed Changes 4/16/2003 Staff Study Site Plan Cc: Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris County Counsel Public Works Dept;,-Heather Ballenger San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, Deputy Fire Marshall Michael Mentink Tommy A. Canner Thomas Gingrich Owners of Other Lots within Subdivision 7593 File \\fs-cd\users$\bdrake\Personal\11030006.ltr.doe RD\ EXHIBIT I BACKGROUND, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, COUNTY FILE #LL030006, BETWEEN LOTS 5 .AND 6 OF SUBDIVISION 7693 (Wings+et Place, Alamo), AND A SECOND PROPOSAL FOR,. COMPLIANCE WITH PARKING AND ACCESS REQUI EM[ENTS WITH THE PERMIT FOR SUBDIVISION 7693 (Ging ich--Applicant & Owner) A. Introduction A. File 4LL030006—A request for approval of a lot line adjustment between Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693 located at#7 and.#8 Wingset Place in the.Alamo area. B. File#SD917693--A request for review of proposed reconfiguration of existing common(guest)parking serving Subdivision 7693 located within the turnaround area,and for provision for private parking facilities for Lets 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693. These actions are also intended to lead to the release of 2001 Notices of Violation that have been recorded against the deeds to Lots 5 and 6. B. Historical Background 1. 1992 Board of Supervisors Apval of Tentative Map for Subdivision 7693—On November 24, 1992,the Board of Supervisors approved the tentative map for:nine(9)lots,subject to conditions. Among the conditions of approval are requirements to provide: a) Four guest(common access to the owners of subdivision lots)parking spaces within a proposed turnaround. b) Six parking spaces on each of the approved residential lots. 2. 1995 Board of Supervisors Approval and Recordation of the Final May for Subdivision 7693 3. Subdivision Develner Proposes Relocation of Guest Parkin. Space—After the subdivision is substantially completed,in 1998, - Zoning Administrator.Review of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment rind Provision for Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich; Wingset Place,Alamo} the Subdivision Developer proposes to the Community Development Department the relocation of one of the on-street (guest)parking spaces located in the turnaround. (CDD File #ZI998206) 4. Application Proposing to Adjust Proverty kine Between Lots 6 and 8 of Subdivision 7693 Filed b�Subdivis on Developer; (File #LL990013)-Shortly after filing this application the subdivision developer asked that staff forestall any decision on -the application. 5. Zoning Administrator Approval of Relocation of Guest Parkin Space and Appeal of Decision by Residents--In 1999,the Zoning Administrator administratively approves the proposed relocation of the guest parking spaces in the turnaround. 6. Appeal of Administrative Decision by Two Subdivision Residents-An appeal by two subdivision residents (Ciapponi& Irandell) is filed on the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow the relocation of the guest parking space. 7. June 13 2000 Board of Supervisors Decision Granting Residents' Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision--After accepting testimony,the Board grants the appeal of the residents and directs as follows: • Accept a reconfiguration of the guest parking space providing for placement of one of the spaces entirely on Lot 5 (so-called"Option F"); + To notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future ming administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; • Determines that Lots 5 and 6, at this point, do not satisfy the conditions of approval for having 6 on-site parking spaces; • Directs the developer to comply with the Fire Inspector's requirements; • That the access road shall meet-&e County's standard of -5= posting"No Parking"and painting the curb; and • Determine that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 was not actually obliterated by County standards. 8. Application for Design Review Filed to Develop Residence on Small Lot within Subdivision{Lot 8)by builder(McAdam;File #DP00302) E-2 Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot.Tune Adjustment and Provision for Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich, KlIngset.Place,Alamo) a) After taking testimony,on June 20, 2001,the Planning Commission approves the project subject to conditions; b) On July 18, 2001,the Planning Commission denied a request for reconsideration from two neighbors (Ciapponi and YandQ). The neighbors then filed an appeal on the Commission's decision. c) After taking testimony,on October 2,2001,the Board approved the project subject to a requirement that the applicant obliterate a former driveway between Lots 6(Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi)- 9. Board of Su-oervisors Directs Staff to Initiate Process to Issue 1 otice of Violation of Subdivision Laws-.On February 27, 2001,the Board directed staff to: . Serve notice of intention to record a notice of violation of subdivision laws against the Subdivision Developer pertaining to the two lots that he continues to hold,Lots 5 and 6. 10. Planning Commission Authorizes Staff to Post Notices of Violation--On June 6,2001,after conducting a noticed public R hearing,the Planning Commission finds that Subdivision Developer has violated the Subdivision Ordinance and directed staff to record a notice of violation for the following items: Lot 5 –No provision for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard areas; and failure to provide for required on-street pasting and painting of curbs indicating "no parking"required along Wingset Place. Lot 6–Same as items for Lot 5,but also includes a citation that applicant has bladed access to required off-street parking spaces caused by the plide' ent'of the guest parking spaces in the subdivision. Following this decision,no appeal having been timely filed, staff" recorded said notices against the deeds to the respective lots on September 18,2001. 11.Prevision of Street Marlin— for Fire Protection.Access--The subdivision developer has installed"No Paling" signs and E-3 Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Provision for Parking =" Subdivision 7693(Gingrich; fflingset Place,Alamo) painted the curbs red along Wingset Place. In a letter dated October 21,2001,the Sar,Ramon Valley Fire Protection District indicates that the District is satisfied that the original fire protection access conditions of the 1992 subdivision permit have been met. 12.Zoning Administrator Determination that Former Driveway Located:Between Lots 6 and 7 has been.Obliterated—Based on several geotechnical reports prepared following the 6/13/2000 Board of Supervisors decision,in a letter dated October 9,2002, the Zoning Administrator determined that the former driveway between Lots 6 (Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi)in the subdivision has been obliterated. C. Immediate Background 1. Preliminn Submittal of Parking and New Lot Line Adjustment Proposal- On June 17,2002,the civil engineer,Maes and Associates,for the subdivision developer(Gingrich)submits a proposal to(1)reconfigure proposed guest parking within the Wingset Place turnaround; (2)proposed on-site parking for Lots 5 and 6; and(3)proposed lot line adjustment between Lots 5 and 6(both owned by Gingrich). 2. Evidence Submittal of Approval by Fire Protection.District-On October 22,2002,the applicant provides a site plan stamped by the Fire Protection District as meeting the District requirements. This evidence satisfies"the County's"requirements for painted curbs and posting of no parking signs on Wingset Place. 3. Staff Advises AMlicant of Needed.Changes and Submittals -. On February 7,2003, staff issues a letter to the applicant advising on procedures and changes to.the site plan that are needed before staff wiil approve the proposal. 4. Subdivision Developer Withdraws 1999 Lot Line Adj�zstment AMlication-In a letter dated receivedebrwry 26,2St.03, Gingrich withdraws his 1999 lot line adjustment application,File #LL990013. 5. AnMcant Files Revised Plans—The revised plans place one of the existing guest parking spaces entirely within Lot 5,with a parking easement. The previous site plan had shown it located partially on Lot 5 and partially within the Wingset Place right-of- way. E-4 .......... ....................................................... ............._...................................................................................................................................................................................._.... Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Provision for Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich; Wingset Place,Alamo) D. Findings 1. Findings for Granting the New Proposed Lot Line Adjustment a. Number of R.eonfi tired Lots-The propeied adjustment does not affect more than four lots,nor would it result in the creation of more lots than presently exist. b. Co phance with Zoning Ordinance--The proposed adjustment complies with the requirements of the Single Family Residential Zoning District'including minimum yard,minimum lot area,minimum lot depth, and minimum average lot width. C. Compliance with Building Ordinance-The proposed adjustment complies with the Building Code. d. Conformance with.General Plan--The site is designated Single Family Residential-Low Density(1.0 to 2.9 units per net acre). The proposed reconfiguration is consistent with this designation. e. Conclusion on RMuired Findings-In view of the above, staff concludes that all of the required findings are made.for the proposed lot line adjustment. 2. Find ings on proposed Provision for Reconfigured"Guest" Parking and On-Site Private Parkin a.. Lot 6 On-Site T'arkin -The proposed site plan indicates that the existing paved surface on Lot 6 (#7 Wingset Place) meets the requirements of(1)the Single Family Residential R.-20 district requirement for two on-site parldng spaces located outside of required yards; and(2)the requirement of the subdivision permit to provide for an overall total of at least six on-site parking spaces n the rot. b. Lot 5 On-Site Parldng- The revised plan is proposing to provide added paved surface to this lot to allow for six on- site parking spaces and related driveway. The proposed spaces when improved will satisfy(1)the R-20 zoning district requirement for two an-site patg spaces outside of the required yards; and(2)the requirement of the subdivision permit to provide for an overall total of at least E-5 Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and Provision for Parking Subdivision 7693(Gingrich; Vingset Place,Alamo) six on-site parking spaces on the lot, exclusive of the proposed relocated common parking space to this lot. C. Reconfiguration of"Guest"Parking_Spaces in the Subdivision Turnaround--The proposed site plan would reconfigure the existing four"guest"parking spaces in the turnaround area. One space would be relocated onto Lot 5 consistent with the June 13, 2000 Board directive C'Option F'). To allow for this repositioning of a guest space onto a private lot, the applicant is proposing to; o pave as needed the portion of the space located on Lot 5; and a grant deed a parking access easement of this area of Lot 5 to all of the owners of lots within the subdivision. When completed,one effect of this change will be to allow unobstructed vehicular access to Lot 6 from the turnaround. (Currently, access is blocked by the location of the four "guest"parking spaces.) d. Reconfi anon Meets the Design R uirements of the Fire Protection District—The Fire Protection District had approved an earlier version of the plan that had provided for a portion of a parking space within the turnaround.area. Pr The current plan is consistent with the plan approved by the District, except that it provides for better access on Wingset Place by relocating the"fourth" guest parking space entirely outside of the right-of-way. E. Approvals and Related Conditions of Approval The following approvals are based on the revised site plan dated March 20; 2003 and shall be valid for a period of nine months from:the date of this letter. l. Anx royal of Proposed Lot Line Adjus ent-Tae proceed lot line adjustment between Lots 5 and 6 as this approved, subject to the following conditions: a) Grant deeds must be recorded to implement the property exchange. A copy of this letter authorizing the lot line adjustment shall be attached to the grant deeds. E-6 Zoning Administrator Review of Proposed Lot Line adjustment and Provision for Parking Subdivision,7G93(Gingrich, Vingset Place,Alamo) b) The property being transferred shall be combined with the receiving parcel to form one parcel for tax assessment purposes. c) A copy of the recorded grant deeds providing evidence of the performance of Items a) and b) shall be forwarded to the Community Development.Department within ten months from the date of this letter. 2. Submittal of a Modified Plan to Lengthen guest Parking Space on Lot 5 and Suitably Mark and Kabel Reconfigured"Guest" Parking Spaces---Prior to altering the location of the guest parking.spaces,the applicant shall,submit a revised site.plan to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrtor. The plan shall provide for: a) A widened parking"guest parking space"on Lot 5 except that the paved..area shall provide for a minimum 9-foot by 18-foot space(current plan shows a parking space with only 8-foot by 18-foot dimensions). The easement boundaries shall also be adjusted as necessary to encompass the widened parking space. Both easement and, parking space shall be placed entirely within the boundaries of Lot 5. Refer to 411612003 staff study site plan. b) A suitable painting plan to mark the outer corners of each of the Four reconfigured common"guest" parking spaces,and label each space as"Guest," or other suitable identifier. 3. Submittal of Evidence of Completion of Required Deed Instruments and Parking Improvements -At least two weeks. prior to the issuance of clearances of the Notices of Violation filed on Lots 5 or 6,the applicant shall provide.evidence.to the Community Development Department that the following items have been completed subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. - - a) The applicant has provided for a paved 9-foot by 18 -foot pang space entirely on Lot 5 as generally shown on the above referenced site plan within the area encompassed by metes-and- bounds description. b) That the approved marking and labeling of guest parking spaces have been completed. E-7 "NOV.16.2000 10:04AM MPPGOLIN & BIATCH M.532 P.2/2 Community Centra omnis ft De,AMP CnmmunFty t3svoiapAt DlmctoC Development Costa Department County Ow*Adrnitistra€ion wilding 661 mine street 4th Floor,North wing Marthm,CNif rMia W63-M96 Phone: (925)335-1214 November 15,2000 By Fax&by Mail Thom"cnngr.ich C/o Mark Armstrong Gagen,McCoy,McMahon,andAmastrong P4 Box 218 Uauv'ille,CA 94526 Dear lir.Bch: Re: Request for Plan to Comply With June 1.3,2000 Board Order Subdim lon 7693('Wingsat Place,Alamo) On June 13,2000,the Board of Supervisors,granted the appeal of the Ciapponi's and Yandells and overf=ed the Zoning A411inist*or's 4drAinistrative aPproval of your repast to revise the approved ozu.,street parking spaces within the to n=und Qf your subdivision devoloprgent, as desadbed,in the attachod J=e 13,2000 Board Order. Tn tea4,the Board directed that the subdivision.developer place one of the four o6mmon (`guest")parking spaces onto a,reconfigqred Lot 5 (Option F from Board Order). In Wdug this action,the Board.of Supervisors also determiaecl that the subdivision devel6por bad fail to felly satisfy sonic of the conditions of the tentative trap approval for this project and the requirements ofthe San.Ramon Valley Fire PTOtection Distriet and County for posting of no parldng signs and:painting of curbs along Wmgset:Place. We w1derstand that the Clerk of the Board forwarded to you a copy of the Board{order ftrtly after the Board's decision, Tho azidendum of that Carder describes the items within your subdivision that must still be addressed for your prop t. These items are u lasted as fellows together with reference to the appropriate Conlon ofApprovg or Advisory Note from the tentative map approval.: 1. So as to avoid an existing aces blockage to Lot,6 cawed by the existing placernent of°four common `guest"parking spaces vvithin the Wingset Place turnaround,one of the"guest"parking spac6s must be relocated onto a. reconfigured Lot 5. (refer to COA#1,A.), Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.•5.00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 s#, 3rd&6th Fridays of each month fiiov.i6.2ooe io*o5AM MPPGOLIN & BIATCH NO.533 P.1.'2 9 2. Provide six on-site parking kpam for both Lots l and 7 (must be oonorete or asphalt surfaced);both lets contain existing residences(refer to CUA#10,14.). 3. Provide compliance with the rN*ementa of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District relative to posting of signs and painting red curbs with labels on bath sides of Wingset Place of"No STOPPING FIRE LANE—CVC 22500.1- (refer to.Adv.Vote"C"and 9111'91 memorandum of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. 4, Provide for the obliteration of the for=driveway on Lots S (Gingrich) and 7 PaPponi)which had served the original,residence.on the property prier to approval of the subdivision. The Board determined that the driveway modifications,Bch the subdivision developer has performed to date,do not accomplish substantial obliteraAon to County standards (refer lo COA#10.1.). As you are aware, on August 1,2040,the Beard of Supervisorsrefected your request to have the Board recons der its Jenne 13 action. Moreover,on October 10,2000,the Board of Supervisors direoW staff to report to them on recommended actions to attain compliance from the subdivision developer with their Board Order, When we met ua onyx office on October 27,2000,I showed you a letter fmin Re=Rickles that bad referred to the items on the Board Order. I asked what you had done to comply with(hose items. You ir4cated that you had not done anything to comply with any of the items ht the letter. The piupose of this letter is to request that you immediately provide this office with a Plan including a timetablo by which you will imply with the Mems in the Board Order inoluding each ofthe improvements listed above. Please provide this compliance plan to this off=by Wedhisday►.November 22,2000, l A-10 'o c tare Zoning AdminigW "o n bbsmuent l)ev This office will notify the appellants and,others who live in this subdivision of fire zoning administrator decisions on any subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision. Should you lave any questions,please call me at(925)335-1214. Sine P OBRT H.DRAKE Principal Pla=er r . " V'.16- 0 10 s 06AM Mil GOLIN & F3IATCH NO.533 P.2,/2 A% 6/13/00 Board Order 11/24/92 Subdivision Pit 9/11/91 SR.VFPD Letter cc; Members.Board of Supervisors County Asst -tor Clerk of tbA Board -� County Counsel Community Development Department Denis Barry Catbedw Kutauris CandiWensley Public Works Department Heather Ballenger San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Inspector Mike Mentink Tbomu G ngich(direct Mpg Address) Iia Theles Pile C:twp r-\winsswtr w AD' �ENDUM TO ITEM D.5 111 ` June 1.3, 2000 Agenda On May 9, 2000, the Beard of Supervisors continued to this date:the Nearing on the Ciapponi's and"Yandell's Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a request to modify the location of on-street parking within Subdivision 7693,County File##ZI 99-5206 (Wingset Place, Alamo area). Robert Drake, Community Development Department, gave the staff report and recommendations. 'Diose present included Dennis Barry, Community Develolmnent Director; Silvano lvMarchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel; and Heather Ballenger, Public Works, Engineering Services. The Board discussed the matter. The pubiie Bearing was opened, and the following people appeared to speak: Rena Rickles, Esq., Attorney for Appellants, 1970 Broadway, Oakland; Thomas ltuark,Engineer for Appellants,2 Crow Canyon Court,##200, San Raman; Mark Artnstrong, Esq., Gagon, et al,Attorney for Applicant; Krista Ciapponi, Appellant, 5 Wingset Place;Alamo; Rena Rickles,rebuttal.; Mark Armstrong, rebuttal. Those desiring to speak having been heaid,the public hearing was closed.. Following the Board's discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved. That the Board accept Option F, as proposed by the appellant's engineer(see page 11 of the staff report). That staff be directed. to notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; That the Board determine Lots 5 and 6, at this point, do not satisfy the Conditions of Approval for having 6 onsite guest parking spaces; That the Board directs the developer to comply with the Fixe Inspector's That the access road should meet the County's standard of posting, no parking, and painting the curb; And that the Board determine that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 was not actually obliterated. by County standards. Although the staff indicates that there appears to be substantial compliance with obliteration, it was not accomplished. Supervisor Canniamilla seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to accept it. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . Contr- FRf7lltt: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD Casty COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Count DATE: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Dearing on Report Concerning Compliance with JAPe 13, 2000 Board Order Concerning Improvements to Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo area), File#ZI998206, District III SPECIFIC REQUEST{S} OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. Accept public testimony. B. Accept Report. C_ Continue Hearing to January 23 2001, 1:00 P.m. to allow fo formulation of a private agreement that would resolve th concerns of the Board. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT. X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE( ). ACTION OF BOARD ON 4 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS (ASSENT�� CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: _ ENTETED OWTHE MINUTES TES OF THE WARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact Bob Drake [(925)335-1214] ATTESTED cc: Connor Bak,Tommy Connor PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Rena Rickles SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Robert McAdam Alamo Improvement Association BY - =DEPUTY San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist., Insp. Mentink -- Public Works Dept, Heather Ballenger County Counsel FISCAL IMPACT None. Background - Board Decision on N-ei-ghbors' Appliall On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors conducted a continued public hearing on an appeal-of an administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator authorizing the relocation of a "guest" parking space in a cul-de-sac.at the terminus of VVingset Place in the Alamo area (Subdivision 7693). The subdivision developer (Gingrich) had filed the request to overcome an error in the Final Map and related on-street parking provisions. 'The Zoning Administrator had approved the request to relocate one of four parking spaces to allow access to two lots still held by Gingrich. Two residents within the subdivision (Ciapponi and Yandell) had-appealed the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision to the Board. At the appeal hearing, the residents expressed concerns about other's u bd ivi.sion improvements they felt had not been properly implemented. _ After taking testimony, the Board voted to grant the neighbors' appeal. Instead of allowing the parking space to be relocated within the ctrl-de-sac bulb as had been requested by the Zoning Administrator, the Board voted to require that the parking space be relocated onto one of the lots still owned by the developer. The Board also directed that other improvements within the subdivision be completed. October Request At an October meeting of the Board of Supervisors,the appellants,-a representative of the Alamo improvement Association and a builder of one of the remaining vacant lots within the project, Robert McAdam, requested that the County investigate the status of the subdivision developer's efforts to comply with the 6113100 Board Order. The Board directed staff to investigate this matter and report back'o the Board. Communication with Subdivision Developer In a letter dated November 15, 2000 staff requested that the subdivision developer provide staff with a plan for compliance with the 6113100 Board Order. The current legal representative of the Subdivision Developer, Tommy Connor of Connor Bak, responded in a letter dated November 29,2000. That letter indicated that the subdivision developer did not believe he was bound to comply with the specified f f ° December 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors Fite#218206 Page 3 improvements in the Board Order. Review of McAdam Small Lot Review Application. The County is presently processing a request for a building permit involving a proposed residence on a small lot, Pile#DP003042, which was filed by the builder, Robert McAdam. It involves (reconfigured) Lot 8 that lies between the properties of the two appellants, Yandell and Ciapponi. Several neighbors including the appellants have requested that the County conduct a public hearing on the proposed house design. Staff has,referred the house plans to the Alamo Improvement Association for opportunity to comment, prior to completing a staff report and scheduling the matter for hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The appellants have urged the County to subject the small lot review filed by Mr. McAdam to compliance with the measures specified in the June 13, 2000 Board Order. Noting that Mr. McAdam is not the Subdivision Developer, and thus in a different legal position relative4e compliance with subdivision measures, staff has asked the appellants' legal counsel, Rena Rickles, for a legal aurity that would allow the County to impose conditions on Mr. McAdam that do.not relate to his small lot review. The documentation provided by Ms. Rickles has not been persuasive. The Alamo Improvement Association has expressed some reluctance to complete its review of the McAdam's small lot review application until it is clear that the 6113100 Board Order is being implemented. Staff has indicated to the Association that we have not found any legal authority that would obligate Mr. McAdam's project to the subdivision improvements being sought in the 6113100 Board Order. Staff has urged the Association to proceed with its review of the McAdam of the small lot review application in anticipation of staff scheduling a hearing on his request before the Zoning Administrator in the-near future_ Meeting of Interested Parties On Friday, december 8, 2000, staff met with the interested parties including the attorney for the Subdivision Developer.(Tommy Connor), Rena Rickles, Mr. McAdam, and Sohn Henderson of the Alamo Improvement Association. At the meeting, the parties tentatively agreed on principles that would form.the basis of a private agreement for addressing the issues in the ,lune 13, 2000 Board Order, and allowing Mr. McAdam to proceed with his project In summary, those .principles include. Mr. Gingrich consenting to a conveyance of an easement at the end of the r 4 December 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#2!'8206 Page 4 cul-de-sec and extending onto Lot 5 to provide an area to relocate at least one of the guest parking spaces from its current location. Mir. Gingrich would also be consenting to allow access onto Lot 6 to allow completion of the obliteration of the old driveway on his property. • Mr. Ciapponi to allow access onto his property to allow for the obliteration of the old driveway on his property(Lot 7). • Mr. McAdam consenting to perform the driveway obliteration work on Lots 6 (Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi), and to provide for the cul-de-sac parking extension improvements. The design of such improvements would have to avoid any design that would require approval of a variance (e.g., a retaining wall more than 3-feet in height within the required setback area_ • The appellants withdrawing their request to the County to have the McAdam's small lot review application heard. An effort would also be made to try to persuade two other parties (Evans and Pacheco) who reside outside of the subdivision to withdraw their request for hearing of the McAdam small lot review application. * Mr. McAdam would request as part of the private agreement that the County condition the issuance of his building permit to the implementatio f tfie.off.- site improvements he has agreed to perform prior to completion of the residence. Provision for no-parking markings on Winaset Place sought by the Fire Protection District to the extent feasible. Upon the completion of the subdivision improvements (driveway obliteration, relocated guest parking on Lot 5), the appellants would withdraw current requests for notice of administrative review,,. not normally subject to public notice (e.g-, request for lot line adjustment)and that the Board rescind its 6113/00 directive to require notice to the appellants and others who reside within the subdivision of future.zoning administrator decisions that do not normally require notice. * The appellants request the Board to rescind. at this time, the provision of additional on-site parking on Lets 5 and 6 a4 had been directed in the June 13, 2000 Board Order. As conceived, these principles would serve as the basis for a private agreement. The attorney for Mr. Gingrich indicated that he would creed to check with his client to make certain that he was agreeable with them. Clarification of the Fire Protection District on Marking of Wingset Place At the time of the tentative map application, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District had commented on the narrowness of the proposed street, and on the need to December 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#218206 Page 5 . restrict parking on either side for safety access purposes. The District had indicated that pbsfing of no-parking signs-as well as painted curbs would be required to meet the District standards. Therefore, the measures sought by the ltrict have never been a County requirement ('he District is autonomous.). It should be noted that the subdivision permit identified the requirements of the District under Advisory !dotes, not Conditions of Approval of the County permit. Apparently, some residents within the subdivision may be more receptive to pasting of no-parking signs than allowing the curbs to be painted red. In a letter dated December 12, 2000, the District indicates that enforcement of no- parking restrictions by the Sheriff's Office cannot be effective unless both posting of signs and painting of curbs. Draft Terms for an Agreement Subsequent to the December 8, 2000 meeting, Ms. F,i,:l\-les and Mr. Connor have submitted their respective versionsof a draft agreemen.. They are still being studied by staff. However, several points should be made: 1. They appear to be structured such that the County would be party (signatory) to an agreement; this was contrary to the discussions in the meeting of 1218 in which staff made clear that this would have to be a private agreement, and that the County would not be a party to it. 2. There are additional items being proposed t"tut were not discussed at the 1218 meeting, some involving the consent of the County to proposals that have not been presented to staff in any detail. If these elements are retained, then from staffs perspective, the agreement will be flawed. - Discussion Staff hopes that the discussions that occurred at the December 8, 2000 meeting can lead to a satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised in the 8113100 Board Order. Stili, it is evident that the parties need more time to formulate an appropriate private agreement, The hearing on this matter should be continued to allow the parties to finalize an agreement that would be workable for all. f t:C3UACiY COUNSEL Y d SWVANO,B.MARCHES: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ����'�/ ANDREAW CH IEF ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL l{� MOKA OFFICE OFTHE COUt��"1t`+ OUi aEL. . ,f MANIMS.et SHARON L.ANDERSON t, cJ« �• ° 4t_V.w.#Y.%h�,F !NISTfkk�C,Na SUUX t•a ! .. :t j t� LILIJANT.n ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL 651 PINE�STREE',9th FLOC? i"'''r'"j •T �C G MARTINEZ�CALOFittA 9453-1229 e``'rr :.-. KCMTJXF JAWtLHO GREGORY C HARVEY - EF �,` `i,. GERNA DL ASSISTANT COUNTY 00UNSEL ' EDWAROV.t • SEATFI{CE tel 'a #tARY tW& GAYLE MUGGLI. PALIL R.mu6 YALMIE J.P. OFFICE MANAGER STEveN P.Ri DAM t. 01Af4AJ,S(W PHONE(925)335-1800 JAC C UEUNE FAX(925)646-1078 November 14,2000 a Rickles Altoat L�iw 1970 Bra way, Ste. 1200 Oakland,.CA' 4 I2 Re; Subdivision 7693, Wingset Place, Alamo Mbar Ms.Rickles: _ This is in response to your August 15, 2000 letrer t��i1i�M Community Development Department (Donna Allen) and your August 22, 2000 letter t,, this office regarding the above- referenced subdivision. Follo%ving the public coni.-ient co,:'11 +.ng this matter before the Board of Supervisors oti October 10, 2000, this office contacted ti;.Community Development Department to determine the status of the items That department has informed us that the developer has not yet demonstrated co u—,0liXice with the Board's directives in their June 13,2000 Order but they continue to attempt its obtain compliance from the developer. We understand that you will be receiving under ger orate cover a copy of letter froth_ the Community Development Department to the developer xvhicli requests him to submit a plan for compliance with.the.Board's June 13,2000 Order. Upon review of the June 13, 2000 Board Order,Nve nett that a number of the conditions of approval (COAs) for the Subdivision listen in your letter.Nvere not included in the Board's Order. That is,your letters address matters and CJAs tvhi h;Fere not part ofthe Board's Order. A copy of the Board's Order of June 13,2000 is attached t1r 1°��Iireferene` In summary, the Board accepted"Option l+"prL-_,-ented in the staff report to the Board., which calls for the fourth common parking space to be reconfigured on Lot 5,owned by the developer. The Board found that COA 10H. was not satisfied in tem-is of providing six on-site parking spaces per lot for Lots 5 and 6 and that COA 103.which required obliteration of the driveway on sots 6 and 7 had not been fully satisfied . In addition,any access road constructed must meet the County's posting, parking and painting standards and the developer must meet the Rena Rickles November 14,2000 Page 2 Fire Inspector's requirements(se`e-Advisory Note C. to COAs.) Finally,the Board directed staff to notify appellants and other people living in the subdivision of subsequent developer requests involving the subdivision. Apart from the notice requirement,the Board's Pune 13, 2000 order requires the developer, not staff, to take certain action. We are informed that the final map for this subdivision was filed and recorded in 1995. In order to have a final map filed and recorded,.the developer is required to demonstrate that there has been substantial compliance with the conditions of approval at the time of filing the map. The Board's approval of the final map in 1995 indicates that the Board determined.that the loper wa developer in substantial compliance with the COAs. The context for the administrative appeal this),e�,r was only the Zoning Adrninistra.af'c decision approving a request to modify the location of one 011-street parking space withitI the turnaround area as proposed by the developer's engineer:,not the COAs. In your letter, you assert that the County has the ;it:tlionty and duty to withhold building permits in the subdivision unless-it has ensured that there l : Len frill compliance with all conditions of approval. Upon our review of your assertion. Nt'e have not found any authority to support your contention. If you have ai:y such authority-please submit it to this office for our review- Very truly voL-S. Victor J. ti't_tiTi.3Ii County Counsel By: Dian J.Suver Deputy CounrY Counsel DJSfj h cc: Board of Supervisors Dennis Barry,CDD Bob Drake, CDD t:JOANNkEAiana\zickta...pa CeCY1 t n(� Dennis m aa"y,NCC_ `3 0 Contra Community Developme Development Cita Department Count County Administration Building F: 651 bine Strut 4th Floor,North Wing ` Martinez,California 94553-0095 (925)335-1214 Phone: November 15, 2000 By Fax & by Mail Thomas Cririgrich C/o Mark Armstrong Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, and Armstrong PO Box 218 Danville, CA 91526 Dear Mr. Gingrich- Re: Request for Platt to Comply with June 1.3, 2€304 Board Order Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo) On lune 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted ilt4-.;'heal of the Ciapporti's and Yandells and overturned the-Zoning Administrators:t la;;i.ti:trative approval of your request to revise the approved on-street parking spaces\V thin the turnaround of your subdivision dcvelopment, as described in the attached lune 13,2000 Board Order. Instead, the Board directed that the subdivision developer to],c one of the four common ("guest') parking spaces unto a reconfigured Lot;(0pzi4,: l=front Board Order). In taking this actiort, the Board of Supervisors also deien-culled that the subdivision developer had failed to fully satisfy some of the condlilonS of the tentative neap approval for this project and the requirements of the San Panton,valley Fire Protection District and County for posting of no parking signs and painting L-)f curbs along Wingset Place. We understand that the Clerk of the Board forwarded 10 V IU a copy oTf e Board Carder shortly after the Board's decision. The addendum of that Order describes the items within your subdivision that must stili be addressed&)T VOUr project. These items are listed as follows together with reference to the appropriate Condition of Approval or Advisory Note from the tentative map approval: I. So.as to avoid an existing access blockage to Lot t?caused by the existing placement of four common"guest" parking spaces%\itltin the Wingset Place turnaround,one of the"guest" parking spaces must be relocated onto a reconfigured Lot 5. (refer to COA 9l.A.). 2. Provide six on-site parking spaces for both Lots G and 7(must be concrete or asphalt surfaced);both lots contain existing residences(refer to COA.WIOIL). 3. Provide compliance with the requirements.of the Sari Ramon Valley Fire Protection District reladve to posting of signs and painting red curbs with labels on both sides of Wingset Place of"NO STOPPING FIRE LANE—,CVC 22500.1" (refer to Adv:Note"C'and 9111191 memorandum of the San Ramon Valley Fire _ Protection District. 4. Provide for the obliteration of the former driveway oti Lots 6 (Gingrich)and 7 (Ciapponi) which had served the original residence on the property prior to approval of the subdivision. The Board determined that the driveway modifications, which the subdivision developer Inas performed to date,do not accomplish substantial obliteration to County standards (refer to COA 410.J.). As you are aware, on August 1, 2000, the Board of Supervisors rejected your request to have the Board reconsider its June 13 action. Moreoti-er. on October 10, 2000; the Board of Supervisors directed staff to report to theist on reconunei,-n,, - actions to attain compliance from the subdivision developer with their Pio rel Order. When we met in our office on October 27, 2000, 1 shox\,ca you a letter from Rena Rickles that had refereed to the items on the Board Order. l apt t,'{i:it you had don-e-to comply with those iteitts. You indicated that }jou had not done to comply with any of the items in the letter. The purpose of ibis letter is to rLquest that you in�i77edi:atel�`,provide this office with a plaid including a timetable by which you Nvill comply wiili ilio items in.the Board Order including each Of the iinprovements lisied above. Plzasc r�r��ti'ide this compliance plan to this office by 1-fle 1lresday, Aroilenrber 2.2, 2000. Notification of Future Zonina Administatar Decisions tiyi Siil)s�guent DeyCloj?er Requests This office will notify the appellants and others who li%.e in this subdivision of future toning adininistrator decisions on any subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision. Should you have any questions,please call me at(925) -111542 14. Sincerel ', ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. 6113104 Board Order 11/24/92 Subdivision Permit 9/11/91 SR.VFPD Letter cc: Members, Board of Supervisors County Administrator -a Clerk of the Board County Counsel Cornmnity Development Department Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Candi Wenslev Public Works Department Heather Ballenger San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Inspector Mile Mentink Thomas Gingrich (direct Mail Address) Rena Rickles File C:1tivPdoc\w"st7-set.ltr RM y N0.89t3 F.4/4 ~-- 12=1 t Itq & HIATOi f�PR.1A. ` /c)4 P T it its ' r 30.0' ' �. it 17p 0 . � ea � -CD � Y ���.. ` .S ..i,.. it- . J�•�,�..,�;T" r--... LK»1tr' 3MS;e .,.�, .:� .rte ,� � .�-��,• . , Uro Ctrs - til., ,�• 3 t7 s O-W y, OW -�