Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08082006 - D.3 D.3 08/08/06 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 8,2006 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, Piepho and Gioia NOES: None ABSENT: DeSaulnier, Glover ABSTAIN: None CONTINUED to September 12, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. the hearing on the administrative appeal filed by William and Marie Parsons of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve an addition to the existing single-family residence on the property located at 1485 Emmons Canyon Road, Alamo area. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON T DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED oho Cu[teo, k of the Board of Supervisors and County KdriunistTator By Deputy TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS " Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Y. r Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR y.�UN . County DATE: August 8, 2006 SUBJECT: CONTINUED HEARING REGARDING THE APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AT 1485 EMMONS CANYON ROAD IN THE ALAMO AREA. WILLIAM AND MARIE PARSONS (APPELLANTS) KAREN AND LAWRENCE LESER (OWNERS) (APN 193-660-011) (COUNTY FILE #ZI06-11413) (DISTRICT III) I SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION UPHOLD the issuance of the building permit which was based on the Community Development Department's decision that the construction of the master bedroom closet and bathroom is consistent with the Planned Unit District, and DENY the appellant's appeal. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: I X YES SIGNATURE d C RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE _IOTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED —OTHER— VOTE OTHER_VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Aruna Bhat(335-1219) ATTESTED Community Development JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Community Development Department(CDD) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Carlos Baltadano, Building Inspection Director William and Marie Parsons,Appellants Larry and Karen Leser,Owners County Counsel BY DEPUTY Bryan Ranch Homeowner's Association i August 8, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#: Z106-11413 Page 2 II. FISCAL IMPACT The appellants (William and Marie-Jeane Parsons) have paid the initial appeal fee of $125.00. The property owners (Lawrence and Karen Leser)will be required to pay for staff time in excess of$125.00 associated with the processing of this appeal. III. BACKGROUND/REASONS IFOR RECOMMENDATIONS This item was heard by the Board of Supervisors on July 25, 2006. The Board took testimony from speakers and continued the item to August 8, 2006 in order to allow for a meeting with the parties involved including the homeowners association. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for August 7, 2006. Staff will update the Board regarding the outcome of the meeting. The appellants are appealing the addition of a 270 square foot master bedroom closet and bathroom at 1485 Emmons Canyon Road in Alamo. The subject property is located within the Bryan Ranch Development located in Alamo. The development plan for Bryan Ranch was approved as a Planned Unit District in 1978 and filed on June 5, 1979. Ih September of 2005, the Lesers requested approval of a master bedroom closet and bathroom addition. The addition was approved on September 28, 2005 by the Community Development Department and a building permit was issued by the Building Inspection Department on April 4, 2006 and the appeal was filed on May 2, 2006 by William and Marie-Jeane Parsons. The single family home is located on an approximately 0.35 acre lot and was constructed in 1981. It is situated in an lestablished neighborhood surrounded by other single family residences. The proposed addition is on the west side of the existing residence surrounded by existing trees. IV. APPEAL DECISION Listed below is a summary of the appellant's statements (letter attached) and staff's responses. A. Appeal Point: We never agreed to the extension of the existing wall by 4 feet. Our neighbors asked for our approval to build out to the eaves' edge, i.e. between one and two feet. They explained they did not want to change the roof design, nothing would go beyond the edge, and the wall would be cantilevered on the existing foundation. Karen had talked about movi n� g the bedroom or bathroom into the spare bedroom. Every time we talked about the remodeling, they were consistent with these representations. Response: The current zoning designation for the subject property is a Planned Unit Development (P-1) in the approved Bryan Ranch subdivision (SD5026). The addition was approved with aIminimum sideyard setback of 5 feet with a 25 foot minimum between buildings shown on the site plan and a 15-foot rear yard setback requirement. The issues presented by the appellant are civil matters and not matters in which the County intervenes. I J August 8, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#: Z106-11413 Page 3 B. Appeal Point: The approval letter dated March 23, 2005 refers to the 8 months timing. If construction is not started�within 8 months,the approval is automatically revoked by the Architectural Committee and a new approval has to be applied for. Thus the approval was revoked automatically on November 23, 2005. A revoked approval can't be extended. Despite this the Leser's asked for an extension in January 2006 and they received it. We were never notified. Response:The approval letter being referenced relates to the Architectural Committee. The approval granted by the Architectural Committee is strictly between the homeowner and their homeowner's association (HOA). The HOA is not affiliated with the County, but is a concerned +neighborhood group and the County considers their recommendations. However, the County follows the rules and regulations set forth by the County Zoning Ordinance and the Conditions of Approval for the specific subdivision or project. Concerns regarding the processes of the HOA should be addressed to the HOA. C. Appeal Point: I informed Mr. Bloomquist that the condition of approval no. 2 was not met since we had never been informed of the 4 feet and had not seen the plan. He also indicated that Larry Leser called him and said that it was four feet and that probably my husband had seen early plans when they asked him to sign the neighbor's form in March 2005, and that the plans were changed thereafter. Mr. Bloomquist indicated that since I had seen the plans at Bate's offices, the condition was now met. The fact of the 4 feet impacting on our frights was not relevant. Response: Please ref Ir to the response of Appeal Point B. ,D. Appeal Point: The real issue is: who decides who gets to build on more than their share of the 25 feet empty space requirement? Were we not in a P-1, the decision would have been fully that of the County, and we would have been notified by the County. Because we are in a P-1, the County is looking at the approval of the architectural committee. This one is only looking at the aesthetic and not addressing the issues raised here. It became extinct at the end of November. Response: The purpose of a P-1 zoning district is to provide a cohesive design where flexible regulations can be applied. Condition of approval #2 of the development plan County File #3011-77 states that "the guide to be used to establish setbacks, yard and height dimensional requirements and other provisions for development and use on each lot shall be the single family residential district R-15". In order to provide a better design within the development, the master developer Smith Company requested flexible setbacks. Through a letter dated November 16, 1979, the Community Development Department granted 5�feet minimum sideyard setback with a 25 foot distance between buildings. The appellant has raised a concern that the neighbor's addition may take away her rights to build an addition on her side of the property. If an addition is proposed by Mrs. Parsons, the County would apply the R=15 standards as a guide since the IP-1 zoning district is flexible. The County's approval of the addition located at 1485 Emmons Canyon Road by no means takes Mrs. Parson's rights to construct an addition on her property. The County does not base its approval exclusively on that of the Homeowners I August 8, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#: Z106-11413 Page 4 Association (in this case the Architectural Committee), but respects and appreciates its efforts and comments. E. Appeal Point: R-15 lots require a minimum sideyard often feet and an aggregate of 25 feet while in the R-20, the minimum sideyard is 15 feet with an aggregate of 35 feet. These requirements are in line with what we were told when we bought our house from the Smith Company 23 years ago. We understand from some of our neighbors who added on recently that they were told by their architect of a total minimum space between 25 feet are required between houses. A fair middle is 12.5 feet each. They do not have that distance from their building to the lot line. So we already have to keep a bigger portion of our land un-built than what they have. By giving them an additional 4 feet of building space, we are losing the same build-able space on our lot. We are not interested in having them that close to our lot line or in decreasing the value of our lot, for their benefit. There is no reason to do it. It is not fair that the first one gets to do this. Response: Please refe I to the response of Appeal Point D. F. Appeal Point: Such issues can impact a lot of people who are in planned unit development. Architectural committees are not extensions of the County of Zoning decisions. They are volunteers not professional. Exceptions are made under pressure. The county may feel that the Architectural committee considered the full impact of the issue. Clearly that is not the case here. Response: The County's clearance was based on the applicable conditions of approval. Issues related to the operations of the HOA should be directed to the HOA. V. CONCLUSION The clearance of the building permit which allowed a five foot sideyard is consistent with decisions dating back to the initial construction of the community. The clearance of this building permit does not limit the appellants' ability to file for a building permit on their property which would provide for less than 25 feet between buildings. The approved permit provides that the R-15 zoning standards are the guide to development. The issuance of this building permit complies with the Planned Unit District requirements. 1 i William and Marie-Jeanne Parsons 1493 Emmons Canyon Drive Alamo, CA 94507 (925) 743 9636 lapinski2@earthlink.net Mr. Carlos Baltadano cc: Ms. Catherine Kutsuris Building Inspection Department Planning Department Contra Costa County Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street 651 Pine Street North Wing, 3rd Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1295 Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: 1485 Emmons Canyon Drive, Alamo CA 94507 Appeal of Building Permit No. 374508 issued April 4, 2006 Parcel No. 193-660-011 Dear Mr. Baltadano: We are the next-door neighbor of Larry and Karen Leser, the owners of 1485 Emmons Canyon Drive. Wel bought our house in 1983 from the Smith Company. The Leser's bought theirs in 2001. We had cordial relations with them, taking care of their dog during their numerous vacations, watching out for their mother and spending Christmas with thi m. We considered them as friends. Thus we had no reason to ever think that they would ever misrepresent what they were planning on building. There is maybe 8 or 9 feet distance between their house and our fence. When the Smith built the houses, they positioned the houses so as to leave more room on one side for potential addition, and very little room on the other side. We are appealing the issuance of the building permit for the remodeling of their master bedroom and bath,l We are in Bryan Ranch a P-1. Bryan Ranch has four distinct areas: Bryan Ranch itself with lots of 1/3 acres and more and where original houses were mostly in the 2500 to 3200 sgft range, Bryan Terraces at the end of Stone Valley Road with smaller lots maybe 6000 sgft and higher density houses go from 2100 to 2800 sgft, Country Oak Lane with 7 estate size lots ranging from 3 to 22 acres and larger houses and the latter part, Bryan Meadows which is accessed through Green Valley Road and has both estate lots and 1/3 acres plus lots. 1 i The reasons for our request afire as follows: 1. We never agreed to the extension of the existing wall by 4 feet. Our neighbors asked for our approval to build out to the eaves' edge, i.e. between one and two feet. They explained they did not want to change the roof design, nothing would go beyond the edge, and the wall would be cantilevered on the existing foundation. Karen had talked about moving the bedroom or bathroom into the spare bedroom. Every time we talked about the remodeling, they were consistent with these representations. 2. In the Summertime Karen rant the doorbell and indicated that Mr. Bloomquist (Architectural Committee) wanted us to be informed of the 25 ft limitation and she jeiterated that the wall would only go to the eaves' edge. I asked to see the plans and she confirmed she knew I had never seen them. Somehow she said she was in a hurry and would bring them. She never did. She asked me to sign a neighbor's approval form, as if the approval process was still going on. I signed the form on the basis of her representation, still not seeing the plans. 3. It is only when the ir contractor was taking some measurements that I found out about the extension was to be 4 feet instead of to the eaves' edge. That was onl April 18, 2006 4. That same day, I called Karen Leser to check whether they were building out 4 feet rather than the eaves edge. She still confirmed it was to the eaves' edge. I sent her an email confirming our conversation. 5. Her husband called me about 10 to 15 minutes later and stated that it was also his understanding that it would be to eaves' edge until that morning when he learned it was out 4 feet. He said there was never any intent to deceive us. I questioned how he could not have known. Later in the same conversation he stated that the contractor had indicated that it was not economically feasible to move the wall only 16". It begs to question then why their plans f rn March 2005 clearly showed 4 feet and he did not know it. I suggested that he move the addition towards the center of the lot, to which he replied they were already going to the eave's edge in that direction. The "economically not feasible" only applies in one direction. 6. Larry Leser asked me whether we would have agreed to the four feet had we been told. I told him absolutely not, as the space on their side of the house is already(very narrow, and that there is no reason for us to give up the option of building on 4 feet of our lot. We had agreed to the 18" not the 4 feet and feel that it was reasonable. 7. I contacted Mr. Bloomquist at the architectural committee to find out what had been approved. He asked me to go see the approval documents at Bates and Associates, the Management firm. He stated that I may not be able to get a copy of the plans but the rest would be OK. He also asked me to check that the plans did show the 4 feet extension of the wall. 2 8. I went to Bates and (Associates and looked at the plans which clearly stated 4 feet and when I requested copies of the documents, they informed me that they needed a request in writing and an approval from the Board of Directors, as there is a new law governing this. I mentioned that Mr. Bloomquist had said that I could get a copy of the documents. I wrote up the request and left) 9. The association's legal counsel indicated to the board that I should not have access to the plans ((that I was supposed to have seen originally) for privacy reasons. But I could get a copy of the documents, 10. The approval letter dated March 23, 2005 refers to the 8 months timing, If construction is not started within 8 months, the approval is automatically revoked and a new approval has to be applied for. Thus the approval was revoked automatically on November 23, 2005. We were never contacted for any new approval paperwork. A revoked approval can't be extended. 11. Despite this the Lellser's asked for an extension in January 2006 and they received it, We were never notified. Others in the association receive their revocation letter clearly stating that they have to reapply. 12. The approval from the Architectural Committee clearly states that it is for aesthetic purposes only and that County and State Code requirements apply. They do not pass judgment on that part. 13. I informed Mr. Bioomquist that the condition of approval no. 2 was not met since we had never been informed of the 4 feet and had not seen the plans. He also indicated that Larry Leser called him and said that it was four feet and that probably my husband had seen early plans when they asked him to sign the neighbor's form in March 2005, and that the plans were changed thereafter. Mr. Bioomquist indicated that since I had seen the plans at Bates's offices, the condition was now met. The fact of the 4 feet impacting on our rights is not relevant. I 14. This would thus imply that he is passing judgment only on the aesthetic of the approval, He does not seem to realize the issue of how one homeowner is negatively impacted by the other, or does not view it as being his concern. I 15. The real issue.is: who decides who gets to build on more than their share of the 25 feet empty space requirement? Were we not in a P1, the decision would have been fully that of the County, and we would have been notified by the County. Because we are in a P-1, the county is looking at the approval of the architectural committee, This one is only looking at the 3 I aesthetic and not addressing the issues raised here. It became extinct at the end of November. 16. It turns out nobody ver informed us of the 4 feet addition, so that we never were in a position to say yeah or nay. Everybody relied on the representation of our neighbors and the revocation of the approval was not known or taken in consideration, 17. Had we been informed that they were planning on building within 5 feet of property line, we would never have agreed to it. 18. There is very little space on their side of the house towards our house. 19. The lots in our area are 1/3rd of an acre, with open space on both sides of the street, in a 'secluded rural living" environment as described by Harold Smith & CO. There is another part of Bryan Ranch, Bryan Terraces, where the lots are substantially smaller and the houses much closer to one another on one side particularly, This is not our case Our .lot is 120ft wide, our neighbor's 118ft feet wide. There is thus ample space to have a nice wide house without have to get right next to the neighbor. The depth is 130ft third of an acre, there is sufficient space on the lot for everyone to have breathing space. 20. R15 and R20 lots call for the 10/15feet/total 25 feet, which is in line with what we were told when we bought our house from the Smith Company 23 years ago. We understand from some of our neighbors who added on recently that they were told by their architect of a total minimum space between I 21, 25 Feet are required between houses. A fair middle is 12.5 feet each. They do not have that distance from their building to the lot line. So we already have to keep a bigger portion of our land unbuild than what they have, By giving them an additional 4 feet of building space, we are loosing the same buildable space on our lot. We are not interested in having them that close to our lot line or in decreasing the value of our lot, for their benefit. There is no reason to do it. It is not fair that the first come gets to do this. 1 22. The plans they provided to the Architectural Committee are different from what we were told. Larry Leser has indicated to Mr. Bloomquist that they probably made changes after they got my husband to sign on the neighbor's approval form and when they submitted the plans. The procedures are flowed in that the neighbors are not required to sign on the plans submitted and the architectural committee never addressed the issue with us directlyf Since the Leser moved in they have had ongoing remodeling and additions going on. First they transformed the workshop into a second unit with full kitchen and bathroom and other redecorating. This was to be expected as 4 I their mother in law lives with them. Less than a year later they started on a kitchen/family room remodel that lasted forever. To date they,are still not in compliance with the roof requirement of Bryan Ranch that specifically prohibit composition roof. Tony LaRussa was fined $25,000 for his composition roof, bii t for them an exception is being made, 23, The approval they received was subject to notifying us of the 25 feet and the 4 feet. They always represented the eave's edge that is less than 2 feet. J 24. The approval was automatically revoked after 8 months if construction had not started per the conditions of the CC&Rs. This means their approval expired in November 2005. A new approval package should have been submitted, including review forms. This was not done, 25, They requested and were granted an extension in January 2006 . We were never contacted. One can't extend something that has expired. The Bryan Ranch Architectural Committee is not consistent in its approval process and is not following the CC&Rs. I This shows a loophole in the approval process. The only way to avoid substitution of plans is to ask the neighbors to sign on the actual plans. The issues impacting property values should be clearly dealt with the respective parties directly. Such issues can impact a lot of people who are in planned unit development, Architectural committees are not extension of the County or Zoning decisions. They are volunteers not professional, Exceptions are made under pressure. The county may feel that the Architect u� ral committee considered the full impact of the issue. Clearly this is not the case here, This issue demonstrates why it is important that when one decision affects the rights of other than the applicant, the neighbors need to be notified of the issue directly by the deciding party. Nobody can anticipate the extent to which one will go to deceive. In all of this, we also have lost the trust in our neighbors and the respect we had for them. I very much would appreciate your revocation of this building permit, Let's learn from this and maybe avoid this issue for others. Many thanks for your consideration. v William and Marie Jeanne Parsons 5 BRYAN RANCH I HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCWIDN Architectural Committee Project Review Request Project No. 14.05 Owner; Lawrence & Karen Leser Applicant: Same Phone: 837-8194 Property Address; 1485 Emmons Canyon Dr. Tract. $016 Lot: 79 The ApplicantlOwner hereby appli Is for approval to make improvements to Owner's property as described below or in attached plans and specifications. By making this Request, I acknowledge that the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and Architectural Rules are binding on the Applicant/Owner, and agree that the subject property and all improvements added thereto shall be maintained in full compliance with the CC&R's and Rules. Dated: March 9,2005 Signature Otr File Owners Signature Addition to the master bedroom and bath per attached plans by Michael Martin Architect, Sheets 1-7 dated 6/30/04. The Architectural Committee reviewed the information submitted and based on that review and consideration of the Bryan Ranch CC&R's and the Architectural Rules reached the following decision on 3-23-05 ( ) Approved ( } Not Approved (X) Approved subject to the following conditions; 1. Wall-to-wall spacing between the addition and the neighboring home cannot be less than 23 feet per Architectural Rule 1, 2. Please advise your neighbor that if the 4 foot addition to the side of your home reduces wall-to- wall spacing between homes to 25 feet,they will never be able to add on to that side of their home. 3. Exterior paint should match the existing. Project timing: Per CC&R Section 3.04 D & E,work must start within 8 months of the.approval date, or the approval shall be deemed revoked. Within 8 months after start of construction,work must be completed. The Architectural Committee is to be notified when work is complete. Any/all approvals made by the Architectural Committee are for aesthetic purposes only. County and State Code requirements apply. Date: �v / `D By: _ ) For'th'e tom' it i Fila: 1485 Emmons Cmyon 6r_P 14.05 Rev: Juno 18.2003 Q ' y. . • y. C5 , r Q is �� fJ � C? 1 1 a Q 7 � r M,' •- Wz CD CD 71, CD QD C x 1� 2Lr l ��z7.1 �� �� ��La • rT K 4 z JJJ r 1 Vi `�4 p eP t x t w t .�,'+. ...&a2' L• .�_._-Yc.'._.. 1`r-..�..,.}.$ .ir..,......i'+,�. �a.n,:r.A.:-_.3a....' _ � .,.. .�.^ v_.- _. -_. I a�pmgy[' dd 5�}�•• j •4 :. t. j. k �, a• \ �4 lv y l s � 4 PI AL > fat. �g+"il `{ � � •t s"• �`fii> y rWIlic C�i�. . AiW R 4Y px\ i�j1f .0lfig �t✓F1 i"lfh f1j 111 I I I d wuaamV.wallon,III CC-f 1 Nlonsnnl Fli!!--Chnitmnn 1 A lbert R.Compaglle unty Administration Building, North Wing C�ul�ty Martinez— Vice Chnumw- ,-.A. BOX 951 Donald E.Anderson Martinez, California 94553 hn oraga Elton Brombaeher Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Richmond WII1181n L.Milano Phone: 372-2091 F"Osburg Carolyn D.Phillips Rodeo Andrew H. Young Alamo November 16, 1979 Mr. Randall L. Smith, President Harold W. Smith Company 2076 Mt. Diablo Boulevard Walnut Creek, California) 94596 Dear Mr. Smith: The setback and sideyard dimensions as outlined in your letter of November 13, -� 1979 are in accordance with the Planned Unit District conditions for Whitegate. The same dimensional standards should be applied to the Bryan Ranch Planned Unit Development. These minimum standards are as follows: (1) Setback - 15 feet for dwelling and 17 .5 feet for the garage . (2) Sideyards - 5 feet and 20 feet with 25 feet between buildings - plot plans for building permits' to show the 25 feet between buildings .. (3) Rearyard - 15 feet minimum. A copy of this letter will be at the front counter so that thezewill be no unnecessary delay in the issuance of permits. Sincerely yours, Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Norman L. Halverson Special Projects Planner NLH/mb cc: File No . Subdivision 5026 File No . 1787-RZ (Cond. 117) Pile No. 3011-77 (Gond. 42) Al Ranger I I. rII v•yA6 �4 C L , „ � HAROYTH COMPANY r.) a :, i I y ii �> l�; I, . f',A �l -4r.4T .,. _ Nov 14 '79 E9 937-8700 @ November 13, 1979 Mr. Norm Halverson Contra Costa Planning Department P.O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Norm: This letter is to confirm our conversation of this morning with regard to the side yards and set back) in subdivision 5026, which is part of the Bryan Ranch Planned Unit Development. You will recall that in WhJte Gate Planned Unit Development adjoining the Bryan Ranch, we adopted a policy which basically allowed the R-15 Zoning side yard and set backs to +apply with the following exceptions: 1. Side yards could be 5 and 20' instead of the conventional 10 and 15' as long as we maintained 25' between buildings. The location and distance from the adjoining building was indicated on the plot plan at the time of permit application. 2. Building set back was allowed "to be 15' for the dwelling and 1712 for the garage, instead of the conventional 20' allowed for R-15 zoning. We would like to extend this policy into the Bryan Ranch because it gives us more flexibility to comfortably site the homes on some of our more un- usually shaped lots, and in addition, on sloping streets, you will recall that we have run 4 ;1 slopes between buildings and that allowed us to shift all the homes to the upper property lines to keep from building over the slopes. We used this exception toIthe R-15 guidelines on approximately 30% of the homes in White Gate with staff approval on a case by case basis and would appreciate very much the ability to do this in subdivision 5026. T would be happy to come to your office to discuss this matter if you feel it necessary. Regards, HAROLD-W. SMITH COMP �I - I Randall L.Smith President O CENTURY HOMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ,1 2076 Mt. Diablo Boulevard w.lno r^r-„b. r,lfi�rn:n gegoti I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - Subdivision 5026 EX1I111I7' "A" 1 . This ;Ippr=1I 1s hnseI u1pwn TcnIul..iVC, N1np dnte'd recnived by tl1c Planning D .pnrtment Mvi.rch 2.1 , 1975, as amended 1)y the condl.ti.0 ns listed below and the Conditions ul, Che Final Ocvclopment flan 3011-77. 2. The subdivision shall conform to the provisions in Title 9 of the County Ordinance Code. Any variance therefrom must be specificlally applied for and shall not be allowed unless listed on the Planning Commission ' s condi- tional approval statement. 3. The existing curbed section of Green Valley Road from Stone Valley. Road to No. 1881 Green Valley Road shall be widened to a minimum of 32 feet of pavement (two 12-foot lanes plus an 8-foot parking lane) . No -reconstruction of existing pavement will be necessary as the vertical and horizontal align- ment of the existing pavement is satisfactory for widening . 4.. From No. 1881 to No. 1935 Green Valle}, Road (the southerly boundary of Subdivision 5026) the existing pavement shall be widened to 24 feet. llorizontal and possibly vertical realignment of the road will be necessary at the curve at No. 1927 Green Valley Road to provide adequate sight di StanCe . With this exception, the existing pavement has satisfactory vertical and horizontal alignment; widening only will be necessary. S . From No. 1935 Green Valley Road to the bend in the existing road approximately 1 ,700 feet northerly), the road shall be widened to 28 feet with dikes in a 60-foot right-of-way. There are two vertical curves in this section which shall be reconstructed to provide adequate sight distance, based on collector road standards. 6. Northerly of the bend in the existing road (1 ,700 feet northerly of the boundary of Subdivision 5026) to Lot 290, Green Va11cy Road shall be con- structed as a curbed 28-foot street with curbs or asphalt concrete. dike in a 60-foot right-of-flay. 7 . From Lot 290 to the+northerly boundary of Subdivision 5026, Green Valley Road shall be constructed to arterial standards (curbed 40-foot street with side- walks) , with appropriate transitions from the 28-foot wide section. 8 . A hardsurfaced pedestrian path shall be provided from No , 1881 Green Vallcy Road to connect to the now sidewolks at L.ot. 290. Alternatively, the pedestrian path ma) be routecl across the dam for the retention basin to connect to Stone Valley Road and omitted along Grccn Valley Road south of the basin. 9, 'Che improvements to (;rccn Vall.cy Ro,id shall be done concurrently, lvith that phase of the dcvcl.opmcnt that will be served by the road. 10. In accord,incc with Ithe provisions in Section 94-4 .414 of the Ordinance Codc, the owners of all existing easements within areas to be conveyed to Contra Costa County for road purposes shall consent to the dedication or deeding of the right-of-way. f 1 n y f Conditions for Ahprov,ii - Suhdivi.si.on 5026 ],,Igo 2 11. All utility transmission, distribution, cold service facilities shall be installed underground. (Ordinance Code Chapter 96-10) 12. The minimum grade for ,curbs on all streets shall be 1". (Ordinance Code Section 98-6. 004) 13. Traffic control signs , stop signs , centerline striping and pavement markings at all stop signs will be required. These details shall be shown on the improvement plans. The subdivider's engineer will be advised by the Public Works Department of the various signs, striping and pavement markings required when the improvement plans are sub- mitted for review. 14. Street lights shall be installed on all public streets within the sub- division and the entire subdivision shall be annexed to County Service Area L-42 for the maintenance and operation of the street lights, not including Green Valley Road. (Ordinance Code Chapter 96-6) , 15. Sidewalks shall be constructed on all public streets except on cuts-de-sac and as noted on Green Valley Road in Condition #8 above. 16. No mailboxes will be perui.tted within the sidewalk, path or trail areas. The placement of mailboxes within the right-of-way shall conform to cur- rent standards of. the Public Works Department. The subdivider is advised to contact the Postal Service and find a satisfactory arrangement for mail delivery (e. g. , request, in writing, delivery to individual or grouped mailboxes behind the sidewalks) . 17. Storm drainage conveyed in a concentrated manner on private drives shall not be allowed to drain across the sidewalk into the public streets. The drainage shall be conveyed to a storm drain, or if drained to the street shall be discharged through the curbs by means of County standard sidewalk crossdrains. 18. At least one 3-inch diameter, non-ferrous drain shall be installed for each lot other than those designated "H" on the tentative map through the curbs and underlie he sidewalks to provide for future roof drain, etc. connections from the individual lots. Locations will be determined on the basis of gradings and road improvement plans. Exceptions are to be allowed where lots do not drain to streets. 19. Any section of the storm drainage system which conveys storm water to which the publ.i.c St.1'ects ❑ndl MAner' s Cabin Way contribute flow sila.11 be installed in a dedicated drainage easement. 20. Although the storm drainage system is shown. in some detail , commnet on the system will be made when the improvement plans are submitted for review. 21. The area shown on the tentative map for the detention basin is acceptable. The final. limits shall be dctenni.ned on the basis of engineering design by the Public Works Department, Land Development Division. Any reduction i.n the area shall be permitted only with the concurrence of the. Public Works I Conditions for Approval - Subdivision :,026 Pagc 3 Department: Any excess area shall be shown as one additional lot on the Final Map over and above the number shown by the tentative map. This lot would have potential for further development. 22. All flow diversions shall be developed as shown on the tentative map. In addition, the following shall be provided: A. An adequate facility shall be provided at the end of Bandito Way to allow the Q100 flow to escape from the street into the deten- tion basin without the flooding of homes. B. Raise Stone Valley Road grade south of Black Derringer Drive suf- ficiently to ensure that the required diversions along Black Derringer will flow into the basin, not southerly on Stone Valley Road. C. Install an adequate diversion facility at the cast end of Black Derringer Drive to divert all the Q100 flow from the southerly drainage area into the northerly drainage area to the satisf action of the Public Works Department. D. Construct all diversion facilities adequate to pass the Q10O flow. (Pipe flow for Q10 and surface flow for the remainder. ) L. The watershed areas lying easterly of Lots 80/100 (Black Derringer Drive) shall have their flow diverted to the creek area lying between Black Derringer Drive and Buffalo Range Road. The Q10 flow shall be carried in a culvert. The remaining waters from the Q100 flow may flow overland. 23. The subdivider shall provide the Flood Control District with a right of entry to dispose of excess basin excavation in the area south of Lots 84 and 85 . 24. If the Flood Control District constructs a regional detention basin on the site shown on the map, the subdivider shall participate in the cost of the detention basin, in an amount equal to 14.440 of the final construction and engineering costs. This amount will not exceed $139,380. 00 regardless of the actual cost. Inladdition, the developer shall deed to the Flood Control District 2.5 acres of land lying within the detention basin area and encompas- sing the control structure. If purchase of land Ind construction of a detention basin is not underway or committed by the Flood Control District within three years of this approval or at the timeoh fi�Li.ng of the Final Map for the Crcen Valley Road phase of the subdivision, iwhichever coeurs first, the subdivider shall. : A. Construct a flood water detention basin of sufficient size to result in no increase lin the flow rate (Q100 maximum) in Green Valley Creek downstream of the subdivision as a result of the development. 1 (:uud i L i uns fur App ruv (I - Suhdi.v i 3.i on A26 Ii. Dedicate a drain•igc cnsc:ment. Ie, the. County oncompass.ing vile hnsin and appurtenant structures. C. Form an appropriate entity (such as a County Service Arca) for maintenance of thebasin and guarantee its financial ability, to provide the necessary funds (such as establishing a tax rate ceiling) . 25. Should the construction of Subdivision 5026 be subsequent to the con- struction or completion of adjacent dead-end subdivision streets , the subdivider of Subdivision 5026 shall provide for adequate temporary protection of the road connections and for advance signing of the construction area. 26. The building pads on Lots 24S and 2.16 shall he raised to iainimurn elevation 590.0 in order to provide protection from the PMP (Probable Maximum Precipitation) storm. 27. A minimum distance of 1140 feet shall be maintained between the southerly lot lines of Lots 246, 247, 248 and the northerly top of slope line for Lots 59, 60, 61 and 62. In addition, a 25-foot wide temporary construe tion easement shall be provided southerly of said top of slope line to prevent the construction of structures, etc. , that might be damaged as a result of excavation operations for the impervious core for the deten- tion basin dam. The temporary construction easement shall remain in effect until the. construction of the core is completed or until June, 1980, which- ever is sooner. 28. A road right-of-wny shall be shown on the Final Map to provi(1e for access from Wild Stallion Rolad to Green Valley Road. The road may be private or dedicated to the public. The right-of-way width shall be 40 feet. (See condition X141. ) 29. A 16-foot wide paved emergency access road shall be constructed within the 40-foot right-of-way between lt'i•ld Stallion Road and Green Valley Road. (See condition 1141. ) 30. Sewage disposal serving this subdivision shall be provided by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Lach individual living unit shall be served by a separate+ se(ser connection. The sewers located within the boundaries of this subdivision shall become an integral part of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary D:istri.ct 's sewerngc collection system. 31. Water supply shall be by the Cast Iiny hhmicipal Utility District. iiach individual living (.mit shat ] be served by a separate water connection. Such water distri.butliOil system loc.nted within the. huundnrics (1I' th.is subdivision shall become an integral part of the hast Bay Phinicipai Utility District' s overall water distribution system. 32. Comply with the requiroments of the Danville Fire District . 'fhe size ,111(1 design Of the Water +supply and location of fire hydrants will be determined by the Danville Fire District' s review of the final plans . I Cunditiuns Cor Approval — Subdi.vislon 5020 1':1b2c 5 33. The developer shall comply with the San Ramon Unificd School District 's policy as it relates to i contribution of funds for the development of school facilities within the District. (The San Ramon Valley Unified School District "Developer' s Policy". ) 34. Phasing; of devel.opmentJis approved for three units subject to review and modification by the Planning Director. 35. Prior to filing the Fugal Subdivision Map, plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for house numbering and approval of street names. 36. Prior to filing the Qal Subdivision Map for the first phase, a riding and hiking trail casement across the westerly portion of the development located at approximately the 500 -foot elevation contour as shown on the Tentative Map, shall be offered for dedication to the East Bay Regional Park District, 37. Prior to filing the Final Map for the first phase and in furtherance of Condition 422 of the Preliminary Development Plan (1787-RZ) for expansion of Mt. Diablo State Park , the area of Emmons Canyon at the northeast portion of the development, the westerly boundary of which lies on the southwest side of Pine Ridge at about. the 1 ,000-foot elevation contour project southeast and encompassing an area of not less than 60 acres, shall be offered for dedication to the State Department of Parks and Recreation. 38. Final delineation of the expansion of Mt. Diablo State Park to include the Emmons Canyon area and the provision of riding and hiking trails for the East Bay Regional Park District, shall be shown on the Final Subdivision Map. These proposals will satisfy 25% of the requirement for par! land dedication within the development of 500 square feet of land area per dwelling unit. Park dedication fees will be 75% of the amount normally applicable. 39. if during the construction, grading; or excavation, any items of potential historical or scient>Ific interest are discovered, the County Planning Department shall be notified. The Planning Director shall have the authority to issue an order appealable to the Planning Commission, to stop work in the area of any find pending verification of the discovery and the development of methods for the protection and treatment of areas of significant interest. 40. Mincr Cabin Way shnli] be County maintained and shall he constructed n" a continuation of Stonc Valley Road to the "T" intersection at the two cul-de-Sac sections +of Miner Cabin Way. The radial connection to the cul-de-sac bulb at Stone Valley Road shall be eliminated. 41. The CC&Rs shall include the following: (a) Maintenance bylthe homeowners of the access road from Wild Stallion Road to Green Valley Road. Conditions for Approval - .,ibdivision 5026 Page 6 b The gate constructedbybY the developer across the emergency access, shall be maintained in good condition by the homeowners. (c) The properties on the west side of Green Valley Road shall be maintained with ground cover. (d) Speed bumps or other obstructions, shall not be installed on the private roads within the subdivision. 42. The developer shall comply with the agreement reached with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District as outlined in the letter to Mr . Allen J. Petersdorf, Superintendent dated March 17, 1978 and signed by Harold W. Smith, President. BT:dh 2/14/78 2/17/78 3/17/78 3/22/78 I SL.RAMON VALLEY AREA .PLANNING COt SSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BRYAN AND MURPHY ASSOCIATES (Applicants) - HAROLD SMITH (Owner), County File 13011-77: A request for approval of a Final Development Pian to create 309 residential units on 621.4 acres in a Planned Unit District (P-1).Subject property,is located at the northerly terminus of Stone Valley Road and is crossed by the upper portion of Green Valley Road, in the Alamo/Danville area. (CT 3462). On February 22. 1978 having been fixed as the time for hearing on this item, the meeting was declared open by the Chairman. Staff presented the staff report, described the project and explained the location. Staff recommended approval with.conditions. The .fol lowing persons appeared to represent and in favor of the application and in opposition: (This was heard lin conjunction with Subdivision 5026 and the hearings recorded in detail on that application.) . HAROLD SMITH, 20716 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Walnut Creek, CA presented the application. STEPHEN L. LEA YELL, 1808 Piedras Circle, Danville, CA, representative of the Board of Directors of Whitie Gate Homeowners Association, appeared in support. PAUL GAZARIAN, 3211 Stone Valley Road, Danville, CA appeared in support. ' 'D7ANE RAE, 1107 Icurt Street, Martinez, CA, representing Amigos de Diablo, appeared in support. JANA OLSON, 11500 Skyline Blvd., Oakland, Ca, representing East Bay Regional Park District, appeared requesting trails. ROY OSMUNDSON, Fire Marshal, Danville, CA appeared in opposition because of the private streets. BARBARA MEISTRELL; 206 Austin, Alamo, CA, representing Alamo Improvement Association, appeared requesting a continuance that they might study this further. RON CRANE, R-7 C�mmunity Services District, recommended Park fees, rather than credit .for land dedication. DR. J. L. HIRSCH, 300 Diablo Road, Danville, CA, R-7 Service Advisory Committee commented on the lack of communication between their organization and staff. GEORGE McCULLEY,I 1890 Green Valley Road, Danville, CA, speaking for residents on Green Valley Blind, ex1pressed many concerns of those residents and made recommendations. EMMETT BURNS, Oak Glen Court, Danville, CA, expressed concern on soils conditions, slides, etc. (Continued page 2) Upon the MOTION of Commissioner KENNETT SECONDED by Commissioner OLANDER the application was approved subject to staff conditions (Exhibit "A" attached) by the followin+g vote on March 22, 1978 AYES: Commissioners - KENNETT, OLANDER, BEST, MEAKIN, BUROW, WRIGHT, YOUNG NOES: Commissioners - NONE Anthony A. Dehaesus AAssis r o Pla ping ABSENT: Commissioners - NONE ABSTAIN: Commissioners - NONE APPLICANT: Bryan and Murphy Associates, ATTEST: 1233 Alpine Rd., Walnut Creek, CA 94596 E.� ragdod OWNER HaroldlSmith, 2076 Mt. Diablo Blvd., nt irector j �'ryWalnut-.Creek,:_CA ..94596 Current Planning r „APPL'I -TION:NO: ll '3011-.77 I Bryan.and Murphy Associates - # 3011-77 Page 2 BILL WIGGINTON, President, ENCEO, INC. , 2150 Shattuck Ave. , Suite 600, Berkeley, CA, Soils Engineers for the project, reported on the soils conditions and building sites. BURTON H. MARLIAVE, Soils Geologist, reported on stability of building sites. Upon the Motion of Commissioner KENNETT, Seconded by Commissioner BEST, the hearing on the E.I.R. was closed but allow written comments to be received by 5:00 o 'clock on March lst, for responses by the staff on March 8th; secondly, continue the hearing on the subdivision and developmerit plan to March 22, .by the following vote on February 22, 1978. AYES: Commissioners - KENNETT, BEST, OLANDER, MEAKIN, WRIGHT, YOUNG NOES: Commissioners - NONE ABSENT: Commissioners - BUROW On March 8, 1978, having been fixed as the time for responses to any written comments on the E. I.R. , the meeting was declared open by the Chairman. Staff reported no written responses were submitted on the E.I.R. ; Alamo Improvement Association indicated they had no further comments to make on the E.I.R. Staff recom- mended they certify the Environmental Impact Report together with the responses that were prepared and given to them at the last meeting, as being adequate. There were no comments. Upon the Motion of Commissioner OLANDER, Seconded by Commissioner BEST, they found the Environmental Impact Report adequate on March 8, 1978 by the following vote. I AYES: Commissioners - OLANDER, BEST, WRIGHT, YOUNG NOES: Commissioners - NONE ABSENT: Commissioners - BUROW, KENNETT, MEAKIN On March 22, 1978, having been fixed as the time for the continued hearing on this item, the meeting was declared open Jby the Chairman. Staff presented the staff report, and recommended approval with conditions. HAROLD SMITH stated he had mel with Alamo Improvement Association. The conditions were acceptable. GEORGE McCULLEY, 1890 Green Valley Road, Danville, CA, representing the homeowners on Green Valley Road Blind, was in favor of the development with certain conditions. BILL GREISE, East Bay Regional Park District, agreed with the deletion of the 8' trail. HANK CARSTENSEN, Danville File District, stated they were essentially in agreement with the changes and conditions. Bryan and Murphy Associates - # 3011-77 Page 3 RON CRANE, Chairman of R-7 Citizens Advisory Committee, advised they would compromise from 100% park dedication fees to 75%. It was found that the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. Findings on the Environmental Impact Report are on file with Subdivision 5026 1 ( (tubi ItlN li 1%i,I"I, � rXIIIB;. IA I . Thi :: evil is hascd uTon Final Ouvelopment flan dntcd received I:v r, the PJnLning Department, .lanuary Py 1978. Ihis Plan is apprDVO lv i give direction for the First phase of the project and it may Inn that Additional unite will he added when the ultimate area of the Flcwd Control detention basin I is known anal ulti.maic water service limit is determined. Any revision of the Plan would. have to be reviewed under the provisions of the Planned Unit District (P-1) and a revised final Development Plan may be I'Laquired . 12. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading permit for work on any lot, the proposed grading , location and design of the proposed residential buildings and accessory structures to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the County Planning Director. TheQ.�u e to, be used to establish setback, ,yard and height dimensional requirements and other provisions for development and use on each lot shall be the Sdngle Family Residential District_1105. The cluster area designated for "patio homes" on Lots 184 through 234 shall provide four off-street parking spaces and setbacks may be variable. 3. A minimum setback of 7S feet shall be maintained along the west side of Green Valley Road for all buildings and structures on Lots 301 through .309. A setback of less than 75 feet can only be established by the approval of the Planning Director after conshoring off-street parking. 4. Development rights for Iareas to be established as common open space shall be deeded to the County. This shall be done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map for th'e common area related to each phase of development, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. .S. Covenants, Conditions l$ Restrictions, Articles of Incorporation and .',v-Laws for mandatory homeowners ' associations shall be submitted with the first phase of the Final Subdivision Map, subject to review by the Planning Director. These documents shall provide for establishment, ownership and maintenance of the common open space, private streets, and equestrian activities and facilities. 6. Prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map, a riding and hiking trail casement ac- cross the westerly portion of the development at approximately the 800)-foot cicvo- contour shown on theTentative Map, shall be offered for dedication to the East. Bay Regional Park District. The existing riding and hiking trail easement across the southeast ,corner of the development may be reverted to private use and maintenance by the homeowners ' association. 7. Prior to filing first phase of the Final Subdivision Map and in furtherance of Condition 1122 of. the Preliminary Development Plan (1747-RZ) for expansion of Mt. Diablo State Park, the area of Emmons Canyon at the northeast portion or the development, the lwesterly boundary of which lies on the SUnthweSt side of Pine Ridge athout. the I '000-foot elevation contour project southeast ;end encompassing A areal of nut less than 60 acres, shall be ofEcred for Dedica- tion to the State lllpartment of Parks and Rccrcat.ion. 8. Final delineation of the expulsion of Mt. Diablo State Park to include the Emmons Canyon area and the provision of riding and hiking tra.ils: for the East hay Rcgi.onAl Park District , shall be shown on the Final Subdivi- sion Map. These proposals will satisfy thcrrcquircment for park lanai dedication within the dcvclopmont of 500 square feet of land area per dwelling unit. No additional lana area For park 1?in'ho c•s or in-lime fres shall be require. hT:dil