Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 09122006 - D.4
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Ott. .P Costa County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR _(j,60 ouny DATE: (September 12, 2006 SUBJECT: (Determination on a Request to Allow a Portion of a Proposed Residence to (Encroach within a Deed Restricted area at#2411 Diablo Lakes Lane(Parcel "A" of Minor Subdivision 102-87) in the Diablo area. County File #ZI06-11474 (Paul Lopez/Lone Oak Properties, Inc. —Applicant & Owner) (Sup. Dist. III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. RECOMMENDATION A. iAfter accepting any public comments, CLOSE the hearing. B. IFIND that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from the review requirements ii of the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 3; new residence). � I CONTINUED;;ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER I SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED C OTHER )C APPROVED as presented, with the added clarification to Condition of Approval No. 1: that compliance with the conditions herein also meet the requirements of Condition No. 10 in the tentative map. I VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND _UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: I NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN I - Contact: BobiDrake [(925)335-1214 ATTESTED L24 'led, g:ze2'd JOHN CUL E CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: Community Development Dept. (Orig.) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Lone Oak Properties, Inc. Bingham McCutchen BY , , DEPUTY Diablo MAC S11C'a'"y%"e_A -Pei - 2" 5T cl ed r; 74me."j f_'t co-^A;Vcoos5 -a,?pe-n ed. C�i O 4o September 12, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z106-11474 (Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) Page 2 C. ADOPT the recommended findings that the proposed residential design is consistent with the General Plan and that the project provides for the visual protections for the site envisioned by the original subdivision approval. D. AUTHORIZE the residence to be sited within the deed restricted area and outside the building and house envelopes depicted on the 1991 Parcel Map for County #MS 102-87 for this site, subject to conditions. E. APPROVE the removal of three oak trees and construction activities that may affect other trees, subject to conditions. F. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant is responsible for all staff processing costs. III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a residence in an area that is north of the Diablo Country Club, and adjacent to Mount Diablo State Park. It involves a property that was subjected to a number of development requirements at the time of its creation by the Board in 1989 due to its scenic location. The applicant is requesting that the County authorize development for a residence that partially extends into an area of the property where the development rights have been conveyed to the County. The project is also proposing the removal of three mature oak trees to accommodate the proposed development. IV. BACKGROUND A. Environs The Diablo Lakes area is located at the north end of the community of Diablo. The Diablo Lakes area topographically consists of a box canyon that opens to the community of Diablo to the south. Mount Diablo State Park borders on the north and east sides of this area. This area is largely rural in character with parcel sizes ranging from 5 - 20 acres, though the area is served by community water (EBMUD) and sewer (CCCSD) systems. Most of the parcels have been developed with two- story "executive" style residences; however, the two parcels located immediately to the north remain undeveloped at this time. East Bay Regional Park District maintains a pedestrian and equestrian trail through this area that runs from Alamo at the west end to the State Park on the east end. The trail is located to the north of the site but does not cross the subject property. i September 12� 2006 Board of Supervisors File#ZI06-11474 (Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) Page 3 I B. Site Description I The subject property is an undeveloped, 5-acre, diamond-shaped parcel with south- land east-facing hillsides. The slopes have a gradient of approximately 5:1 !(Horizontal : Vertical). More than 100 mature oak trees are unevenly distributed on the site, with the highest concentration located on the northeastern portion of the site. A recently-constructed private road provides access to the subject site and the adjoining parcel to the north. C. iGeneral Plan and Zoning I The General Plan designates this site and immediate environs Agricultural Lands (5- !acre min. parcel size). The Open Space Element designates scenic ridgelines along Fossil Ridge, located immediately north of the Diablo Lakes community within the (State Park, however, no scenic ridges are designated within the Diablo Lakes area including this site. The site is zoned General Agricultural, A-2. This zoning normally allows buildings up Ito 35 feet or 2 1/2 stories in height, whichever is greater. Detached buildings that are 1 accessory to a residence (e.g., garage) are subject to more restrictive height and size restrictions. The district requires minimum 25-foot front yard and 20-foot side 1 yards. D. 11989 Tentative Map (Subdivision) Approval and Related Restrictions on Development I When the subdivision that led to the creation of this parcel was being processed, it !encountered opposition from members of the public who were concerned about the ultimate visual effects of allowing the subdivision. At that time, the area around the subject property was largely undeveloped. The group, Save Mt. Diablo, testified in opposition to the three-parcel subdivision at the time of the time of the processing of the tentative map. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved the project, but imposed restrictions on the subdivision that effectively limit the location of any development to a small portion of each site. The Board approval required that the subdivider grant deed development rights across the entire subdivision except for a building site on each of the three parcels. The Deed of Development Rights provides the County ""the right to approve or disapprove any construction, development or improvement within the areas marked"... and allows the County to condition approval of construction as it deems appropriate. Furthermore, within each building site, a house site was also delineated in the Board's approval. The approval also limits the height of any building to a maximum of 18-feet above natural grade. 1 The restrictions on the subdivision were based on preliminary house designs that I I September 12, 2006 Board of Supervisors File #ZI06-11474 (Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) Page 4 were submitted by the subdivider. The building and house envelopes required by the Board approval provide for a relatively "tight fit." The required building site on Parcel A is located among a cluster of oak trees in the northwest and most-elevated part of the parcel. The building site is also located on the portion of the site that has an east-facing slope, and avoids the "nose" of the ridge that adjoins the south-facing slope. E. Parcel Map Approval Later in 1989, the subdivider was able to demonstrate compliance with the subdivision ordinance and with the Board approval of the tentative map. Among the actions taken by the subdivider was to show a building and house envelope on each parcel on the Parcel Map, and to grant deed development rights for the balance of the property to the County. The Board of Supervisors approved the Parcel Map, and it was subsequently recorded. V. PROPOSED. DEVELOPMENT Following the recordation of the subdivision, the current applicants acquired the subject site, Parcel A; they wish to develop a residence for their personal use. A. Design Concep A primary consideration for the applicant in the design of this house has been to accommodate the physical needs of their daughter who is wheel-chair bound. Because of its orientation along the axis of the hillside slope, the development envelopes for this site do not lend themselves to the special design needs of the family (i.e., a flat platform) to allow mobility for the daughter both inside and outside of the house. B. Design of House and Grading The applicants have submitted a preliminary design for a two-story residence for the site. The house would have a total habitable floor area of approximately 7220 square feet with most of the habitable floor area located on one floor of which approximately 1,376 feet would be within the area subject to County approval under the Deed of Development Rights. The design also provides for an attached three-car garage that is connected to the residence by a breezeway. The designs indicate that it is intended to comply with the special height restriction imposed in the approval of the tentative map (18-feet from natural grade). Most of the site (house and usable yard)will be on an approximate flat pad. To allow for a two-story design and adhere to the special height restriction for this subdivision, September 12, 2006 Board of Supervisors File #ZI06-11474 (Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) Page 5 the area of the house is located in an area where the natural terrain has been excavated. The fill material is used to create a padded yard area. Approximately 1500 cubic yards of dirt is proposed to be moved and will involve-no import or export of earth material. The padded yard area will be supported by retaining walls with a cribwall design 'up to five feet in height. The base of the yard area will be supported by two tiered walls. C. Effects on Existinq Blue Oak Trees The project is proposing to remove three mature oak trees to accommodate the residence. Other mature oak trees adjoining the building site are proposed to be preserved, but some will be affected by the construction activity. The applicant is proposing to remove three oak trees ranging in trunk size from 18- inches to 28-inches'in diameter. One of the trees to be removed consists of a multi- trunk tree. While the applicant is proposing to remove these three trees, the project has taken other steps to protect other trees on the property. • Several mature oak trees adjacent to the residence will be preserved; • Utility lines are proposed to be located outside of the driplines (and therefore away from the root zones) of trees to remain; • Approximately 100 other oak trees on the site are to be preserved; • The applicant has provided a report from an arborist that recommends measures to minimize damage during the construction period to trees to be preserved that are near the building site. VI. DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS REQUIRED FROM COUNTY Two aspects of the project require discretionary approval from the County. A. Encroachment into Portion of Property Placed in Deed Restricted area and Outside Development Envelopes Defined on Parcel Map it Most of the building site is proposed to be located within the development envelopes shown on the Parcel Map. However, the residence would extend southward (laterally) onto the "nose" ridge of the site, and within the area in which construction 'i is subject to approval of the County pursuant to the Deed of Development Rights. The house and accessoryimprovements would also extend outside of the respective house and building envelope delineated on the Parcel Map. j�. September 12, 2006 Board of Supervisors File #Z106-11474 (Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) Page 6 The applicant desires to improve a total of 9,849 square feet of area for which County approval is required under the Deed of Development Rights. 1,376 square feet of the area would be occupied by a portion of the residence and the balance would be a "backyard" typical of the area including landscaping and a pool. It should be noted that the Deed of Development Rights does not prohibit development of the area. Instead, the Deed gives to the County the power to approve or disapprove or conditionally approve development or improvement of the area. To compensate for the encroachment, the applicant has offered to grant deed development rights (convey a Grant Deed of Development Rights) for the lower and eastern portion of the existing building envelope consisting of 10,377 square feet in area. B. Project Impact on Trees The above-referenced trees that will be affected by the project qualify as "code- protected" under the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. For this property, code-protected trees include any tree with a trunk circumference,:of.at least 20- inches (6 '/2 inches in diameter), or a multi-stemmed tree with an aggregate trunk circumference of at least 40-inches (or13 inches in aggregate trunk diameter) The County decision on whether to allow these impacts is discretionary. VII. PETITION SUPPORTING PROJECT SIGNED BY NEIGHBORS AND DIABLO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL The applicant indicated that he discussed the project with the Diablo Municipal Council (MAC) on August 3, and has gained their support for his project. He has also submitted a petition dated August 3 supporting the project that has been signed by project neighbors and a Board member of the Diablo MAC. That Board member attests that the proposal was approved by the DMAC on August 3, 2006 by a vote of 5 for approval and 0 against. VIII. DISCUSSION Due to the special needs of the applicant's family, flexibility in the development envelope for this project would be appropriate. Most of the residence is sited within the Parcel Map development envelopes. The extension of the residence onto the"nose" portion of the site will make it marginally more visible from vantage points to the south of the site. However, tke side elevations of the residence indicate that it will retain a low-profile, single-story appearance. �I September12, 2006 Board of Supervisors File#Z106-11474 (Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) Page 7 While three trees are proposed to be removed, several other large oak trees near the residence are proposed to be retained. The Tree Protection Ordinance allows for removal of protected trees when it is determined that development would not be reasonable on another portion of the parcel. Those conditions would apply in this circumstance. Still, some additional measures are warranted. A. Planting of Additional Oak Trees Ordinance Code Section 816-6.8012 of the Tree Protection Ordinance provides that the County may include a requirement to replace any or all trees n a comparable ratio of either size or quantity. It has also been the County practice to require that projects in open space area replace native trees that are approved for removal. To compensate for the three trees to be removed, the applicant should be required to plant several trees of a species that are indigenous to the Bay Area. Some of these trees should be placed near the residence so as to assist in softening its view in the long-run from off-site views. A security shall be retained by the County to guarantee a reasonable survival rate for these trees. Other recommended conditions include development requirements mandated by the Tree Protection Ordinance. B. Blend Design of Breezeway Connection Between Garage and Residence The preliminary plans of the applicant provide for a 900± square foot garage which appears to be connected to the proposed residence by a covered breezeway. The Zoning Code limits the size (maximum height and floor area) of buildings that are accessory to a residence.' If one or both of these standards are exceeded for a detached accessory building, .then the code does not allow the building unless a variance permit is granted. Where residential designs are proposed that have short breezeway connections (20 feet or less), and where the residence, accessory wing and connecting breezeway have an.integrated design so as to appear architecturally as one building, the County has allowed the whole of the structure to qualify as one building, and not residence with a separate accessory building. To avoid any ambiguity in the project's compliance with the intent of this provision of the Ordinance Code, the design linkage (breezeway) between the residence and the three- .car garage should be strengthened so that it appears from off-site as one building. Section 82-4:212 of the Ordinance Code provides that a (detached) accessory building on a parcel larger than 20,000 square feet inarea is limited to 600 square feet, and to 15 feet in height (from natural grade). The garage component of the project exceeds the maximum floor area of this provision of the code; its compliance with the height limit is not clear. Technically, the breezeway roof connection provides that the garage is part of the same building as the residence, and therefore not detached. Still, the design linkage should be strengthened so as to assure unambiguous compliance with the intent of this ordinance restriction. September 12, 2006 Board of-Supervisors File#ZI06-11474 (Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) Page 8 C. Verification of Compliance with Special Height Limit as Project Designs and Construction are Completed Special requirements should be imposed on the project to assure that it complies with the special building height restrictions imposed during the approval of the subdivision that created the site. D. Recommended Restriction on Permitted Time for Construction Activities Policy #11-8 of the General Plan Noise Element provides that construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise-sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and morning periods. In accord with this policy and with the County's practice of conditioning development permits, staff is recommending that approval of this project be subject to restrictions on .permitted times for construction activity. GACurrent Plan ning\curr-plan\Board\Board Orders\Z106-11474.bo.doc R D\ it it I !I ' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN DEED RESTRICTED AREA FOR PARCEL "A" OF MS 102-87 (#241.1. Diablo Lakes Lane, Diablo), COUNTY FILE #ZI06-11474 (Paul Lopez/Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) FINDINGS A. Consistency with General Plan The proposed plans allow for a placement of a residence that would be partially within a Deed Restricted Area established at the time of the subdivision. However, the architectural and grading plans still provide for a low-profile development which will be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, and very similar to what was envisioned for the site at the time of the subdivision approval. The final house design will allow for grading, but its maximum height shall not be allowed to exceed 18-feet as measured from the natural grade. Based on these factors, the project will be consistent with the General Plan including the Agricultural Lands designation and slope protection policies. B. Tree Alterations Reasonable development of the property requires the proposed tree alterations and removals, and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. This approval is generally based on the following exhibits submitted to the Community Development Department as part of the proposal, subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading or building permits: A. Proposed Change in Building Envelope and Grading Plan prepared by RMR Design Group (Two sheets). B. Preliminary Architectural Plans by Gomy and Associates dated 5-1-2006 (Sheets A-01 through -08) C. Letters i. 6/20/2006 letter from Joan Enea-Lopez and Paul Lopez Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc.Residence County File#7.106-11474 ii. 6/20/2006 letter from Bingham McCutchen iii.' 6/13/2006 letter from Gorny& Associates with sample colors for . the exterior of building walls and roof and retaining wall iv. 6/13/2006 letter from RMR Design Group v. 5/25/2006 Tree Survey and Arborist Report prepared by Rob Rossen, Certified Arborist 2. Building Height Restriction - In accord with the subdivision approval that produced this lot, the height of the proposed residence shall not exceed 18 feet from natural (existing) grade. 3. Applicant Obligations for Payment of Processing Fees - This application is subject to an initial application fee deposit of$1500, which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the staff application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial deposit. Any additional fee must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fee includes costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be to.the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 4. Grant Deed of Development Rights for Eastern Portion of Building Envelope as Proposed by the Applicant—At least four weeks prior to seeking a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit the following exhibits for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator pertaining to conveyance of a grant deed of development rights to the County for approximately 10,377 square feet of the existing Building Envelope as depicted in the exhibit from RMR Design Group: • A draft Grant Deed of Development Rights from the owner to the County; • The following documents prepared and wet-stamped by a licensed surveyor: o A survey of the area where the owner's development rights are to be conveyed to the County, including a metes-and-bounds description of the area; and o A legal description of the area. Prior to 'issuance of a grading or building permit, the approved instruments shall be executed and notarized; accepted by the Board of Supervisors; and recorded. The applicant shall provide evidence that the grant deed has been recorded`. 5. Final Review of Architectural Plans 2 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence County File#ZI06-11474 At least three weeks prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant.shall submit construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall include: A. Special Roof/Grading Plan to Document Compliance with the Building Height Restriction—To aid staff in verifying compliance with the building height restriction, the applicant shall provide a special exhibit to be included in the building permit construction plans. The exhibit is described as follows: A grading plan prepared by a licensed engineer showing existing and proposed topographic contours in minimum 2-foot intervals, and retaining walls and their respective heights from finished grade. The roof plan for the proposed buildings shall be superimposed on this grading plan. The plan shall include the following information at representative points along the roof ridgelines: • Elevation of Natural Grade below Roof Ridgeline point; • Elevation of Roof Ridgeline point; and • Height of Structure (ft.) as Measured from Natural Grade Elevation. In addition, the General.Notes on the plan shall provide the following direction: Survey Data to Verify Compliance with Zoning Height Limits—At locations of the building envelope where measurements to natural grade are critical such as where the proposed height of a portion of the building is almost as high, the same height, or greater than the maximum height allowable by the County development permit for this site, the `natural grade' will be surveyed and recorded by a licensed Land Surveyor (at the applicant's expense). The locations and heights should be referenced to,afxed monument or a recognized elevation datura: such as the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NG VD 1929). When the building is ready for framing inspection, the Land Surveyor shall survey the same points and measure the finished building heights. This measurement can then be compared to the surveyed elevation points of natural grade and construction plans for purposes of verifying y compliance with the development permit height limits. 3 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence County File#ZI06-11474 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the licensed engineer shall provide a letter to the Community Development Department indicating that the proposed grading permit grading plans are in accord with the approved Roof/Grading Plan. B. Strengthening of Design Linkage Between Garage and Residence—The building design connection between the garage and residence shall be strengthened to add to its appearance as one integral building. This shall be provided through roof design, and either converting the proposed covered breezeway to an enclosed conditioned space (windows acceptable), or to add a wall to one side of the corridor, and application of other extension of architectural themes from the residence or garage. Prior to completing construction plans, the applicant is encouraged to meet with staff to discuss how compliance with this requirement might be accomplished. C. Tree Planting and Landscape/Irrigation Plan—The applicant shall provide a tree planting and landscape/irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall provide for the planting of at least six (6)minimum 24-inch box, specimen trees, and thirty(30) minimum 5- gallon trees of a species that is indigenous to the Bay Area. At least two specimen-sized trees shall be planted on both the east and south sides of the building site and placed so as to soften the view of the residence from off-site vantage points. Tree planting will be in accordance with generally recognized industry practices, as set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture's publication Principles and Practice of Planting Trees and Shrubs, or American Nursery and Landscape Association current planting standards. At least two weeks prior to requesting a final inspection of the residence, the applicant shall notify the Community Development,Department in writing that the improvements in the Tree/Landscape/Irrigation Plan have been completed, and may be inspected. D. Letter from Arborist—The grading and building permit plans shall be accompanied by a letter from the arborist indicating that he is satisfied that the construction plans have been designed in accord with recommendations of the above referenced arborist report and contain notes I' on protection of trees to remain that are required by this development permit. it 6. Condition of Approval Compliance I� 4 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence County File#ZI06-11474 Prior to issuance of a grading or building pen-nit, the applicant shall provide a permit compliance report to the Community Development Department. The report shall identify all conditions of approval and document measures taken by the applicant to satisfy those conditions. h� The compliance review is subject to staff time and material charges, with an I; initial deposit of$1500, which shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. Prior to request for final inspection of the building permit, and prior to requesting release of the required tree protection securities, the applicant shall provide evidence that they have paid any processing fees owed to the County. 7. Notes on�Grading and Building Permit Construction Plans The Grading and Building Permit Construction Plans shall include the following: A. Tree Protection All grading, site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees proposed for removal, altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number corresponding to the arborist report discussion, and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. In addition, the General Notes shall include the following: i. All of the recommendations for protection of trees to remain from the 5/25/2006 arborist report. ii. Site Preparation - Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected-and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. Ili. Construction Period Restrictions - No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature tree other than the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any 5 Findings and Conditions ojApproval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc.Residence County File#ZI06-11474 required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be saved, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. it All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval. �j iv. Prohibition of Parking - No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line I� of any tree to be saved. I' v. Construction Tree Damage - The development's property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. vi. Supervision of Work and Maintenance of Site Inspection Log_by an Arborist - All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. The arborist shall maintain a log of site visits and findings, including one that is retained at the site with the building permit plans during the construction operation. B. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor ;I and/or developer shall comply with the following construction activity restrictions: it �I All construction activities 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 on the calendar dates that these holidays I� are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: !I II New Year's Day (State and Federal) b N 6 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence County File#ZI06-11474 Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal) Lincoln's Birthday (State) Cesar Chavez Day (State) Memorial Day(State and Federal) Independence Day (State and Federal) Labor Day(State and Federal) Columbus Day(State and Federal) Veterans Day(State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day(State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving (State) Christmas Day(State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2006.asp California Holidays http://Nvww.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm Procedure to Consider Modified Restrictions on Construction Activities - The applicant may request that the County vary the permitted construction times from the above requirement. Any such request shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall be accompanied by a written statement providing reasons why the request should be granted. Construction activity outside of the permitted times shall not be allowed without the prior written i! approval of the Zoning Administrator. CI1 Survey of Altered Building Site—Prior to the clearing of land or the commencement of grading, a licensed surveyor shall survey the boundary of the `Building Envelope"as altered by the Board of Supervisors, and mark all angle points of the perimeter Building Envelope boundary in the field. Tree Protection Securities 8. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide two securities that are subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator consisting of either a cash deposit or certificate of deposit as follows: A. Required Security to Assure the Completion of Tree Planting Improvements - The applicant shall submit a security in an amount of the approved cost estimate, plus a 20% inflation surcharge for the required tree planting. The applicant shall guarantee that five of the required six 7 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc.Residence 4 County File#ZI06-11474 specimen native trees will survive in good condition, as determined by a county-designated arborist or landscape specialist, five years after h planting. If four (4) of the specimen trees do not survive after five years, j the applicant shall purchase and plant two additional 24-inch box trees on the same site for each specimen tree that does not survive, save one, and guarantee survival of the additional trees for five years. B. Required Security for Trees to be Preserved but Altered - Pursuant to the conclusions of the arborist report, proposed improvements within the root zone of trees noted on the site plan to be preserved have been determined to be feasible and still allow for preservation provided that the recommendations of the arborist are followed. I P Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the. possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages these trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacement j of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by r construction activity. The security shall be based on: i. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 40 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; ii. Determination of Security Amount - The security shall provide for j all of the following costs: • Preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist; • A labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required prepared by a licensed landscape contractor; and • An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. u The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of the tree alteration improvements (i.e., issuance of final II building permit). In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines II that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant may not have been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. 8 I+ Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc.Residence County File#ZI06-11474 i At least 18 months following the completion of work within the dripline II of trees, the applicant's arborist shall inspect the trees for any significant.. damage from construction activity, and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of the trees and, if appropriate, any recommendations including further methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. Compliance with Construction Material Debris Management Ordinance r 9. Recycling of Construction Material Debris - Pursuant to the Construction and J;I Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance (Chapter 418-14), this project is subject to the following requirements: The ordinance requires that at least 50% of jobsite debris generated by projects be recycled, reused or otherwise diverted from disposal in a landfill, by providing receipts and/or gate-tags from all facilities and service providers used for recycling, reuse and disposal of jobsite debris. Information about this regulatory program is also available at the following website: www.cccrecycie.org/debris. Questions on compliance with this program may be directed to the Resource Recovery Specialist of the Community Development Department at (925) 335-1231 (Lorna Thomson). A. Debris Recovery Plan - At least one week prior to seeking issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a completed Debris Recovery Plan demonstrating how the Applicant intends to recycle, reuse, or salvage building materials and other debris generated from the construction of new buildings for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, following an opportunity for review and comment by the Resource Recovery Specialist. B. Debris Recovery Report - At least one week prior to requesting a final inspection on a residential building permit, the applicant shall submit a completed Debris Recovery Report documenting actual debris recovery efforts (including quantities of recovered and landfilled materials that occurred throughout the project's duration for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator following an opportunity for review and i comment by the Resource Recovery Specialist.. N Failure to comply with this ordinance mai' result in the delay of the buildingpermit(s), hold on the final inspection and/or monetary fine. li .i 9 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence County File#Z706-11474 I, ADVISORY NOTES i THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. I A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project r approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. li The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount'of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by the approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within the 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department. C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. D!' Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District and East Bay Municipal Utility District. P GXurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\dp06-11474.coa.doc RD\ �i i' I' i III. 10 l� I� it I 1989 Subdivision Documents Describing Development Restrictions that Apply to Site N I! TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ? '` FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon ti Contra Director of Community Develq,,pip'i.t Costa INM: January 31, 1989cam St1BJECT: Marathon Partners appeal of San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denial of Minor Subdivision 102-87. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION On additional review of the Planning Commission's action, the recommended findings from the transmittal to the..Board dated January 4, 1989, have been modified to reflect the issues which the Commission felt had not been satisfactorily resolved. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Make the findings listed below which, pursuant to Government Code Section 66474, require that the tentative map for MS 102-87 be denied. 2. Deny the appeal of Marathon Partners and sustain the denial decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. FINDINGS 1. Approval of this minor subdivision would create parcels in the area in excess of the 15 lot limitation established by a prior minor subdivision approval, MS 128-74. 2. Due to its proximity to State Park land, the project would be visually incompatible with the natural open space arRa of Mt. Diablo State Park. BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION Acting as the Board of Appeals, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission considered this matter on September 21, October 5 and October 19, 1988. The Commission reviewed the appeal of Save Mt'. Diablo on the Zoning Administrator's approval of MS 102-87 for three parcels. Attached is the October 19 staff report which reviews the background associated with this property including development limitations established with an earlier subdivision approval. That prior action limited the number of lots .that could be created in the area. The current minor subdivision would create lots in excess of the prior limitation (15 lots) for the area. It was staff's position that the circumstances that led to the development limitations had altered and that the .prior restrictions were no longer appropriate. Consequently, staff supported the project. After concluding the hearing, the Commission voted to grant Save Mt. Diablo's appeal and deny the project (see attached Resolution) on a 4-3 vote. The Commission felt that the circumstances that caused the County to limit development in this area had not substantially changed and .that the previously established li development limits should be enforced. APPEAL OF COMMISSION'S DENIAL The new applicant, Marathon Partners, appealed the Commission's denial decision in a letter dated October 26, 1988. This was followed by one more detailed letter from their legal counsel, Thiessen, Gagen and McCoy, in a letter dated December 19, 1988 (also attached) . Also attached is a letter dated January 20, 1989, from legal counsel for Diablo Community Services District, Richard J. Breitweiser, supporting the appeal of Marathon Partners. MNTINUED ON ATTAC MENT: YES SIGNATURE• RZ0MQU2MkTIaI OF COUKEY &DlRMISTRA OR _ REcbAmEkqgLTzW OFCO!'II+IITTEE APPROVE OTHER 1107 SIGNATURE(S): . ACTION OF BOARD ON February 7,-1-99q APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER � The Board of Supervisors on January 24, 1989 continued to this date the hearing on the appeal by Marathon Partners from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals granting the appeal of Save Mt. Diablo and denying Minor Subdivision 102-87. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeal, a description of the project site, and the proposed project for 21 units. She commented on the Planning Commission's concern about modifying a condition that had been placed on an earlier minor subdivision restricting the number of units to fifteen and that based on that concern and the proximity to Mt. Diablo State Park, the Planning Commission denied the project. She commented an the staff recommendation to adopt the findings of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, deny the appeal and sustain the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, commenting that if the Board did find merit to the project, that there is a set of conditions attached as Exhibit A to the October 19, 1988 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission staff report that staff would recommend be considered if the Board were inclined to approve the project. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak: Brian Thiessen, Box 218, Danville, representing the applicant/appellant, Marathon Partners, referred to a letter dated January 16, 1989 sent to the Board through Supervisor Schroder and commented on issues including the two findings before the Board that were used to deny the project, the number of units and the proximity to the state park. Joe McCole, Marathon Partners, presented photographs of the area indicating the various proposed sites. Richard Breitwiser, 736 Ferry Street, Martinez, representing Diablo Community Services District, spoke in support of the project. Chris Valle Riestra, 257 Vernon Street, #321, Oakland, representing Save Mt. Diablo spoke in opposition to the project on issues including the views of people using the trails near the site, visibility of roof lines from the other side of the ridge, and a trail easement for East Bay Regional Park. Lee Ditzler, 2410 Diablo Lakes Lane, Diablo, commented on the prior documents restricting development on the land in the area, and stated that he was presenting copies of the documents to the Board of Supervisors (no copy presented to the Clerk for the record) . Brian Thiessen spoke in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder commented on the Planning Commission reason, for denial of the project, not wishing to change conditions attached to prior approval of a project on this site. He commented on the changing times and on the request by the group, the Diablo Community Services District, who had requested the original restriction to approve this request. Supervisor Schroder recommended approval of the project with the conditions in the October 19, 1988 staff recommendations, giving to the Zoning Administrator an opportunity to review the proposed sites prior to the issuance of a building permit and he moved to grant the appeal of Marathon Partners based on those comments and conditions. The Board discussed the matter. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the appeal of. Marathon partners is GRANTED; and MS 102-87 is approved with amended conditions (Exhibit A attached) . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: II, III, IV, NOES. I ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KINUTES OF THE BOARD OF - ' SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. :c: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED February 7, 1989 Marathon Partners PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Thomas Nokes THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Save Mt. Diablo AN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Diablo Community Services Dist. East Bay Regional Park Dist. BY ° , DEPUTY Thiessen, Gagen & McCoy Steven Thomas Fublic 47orks-Tom Dudziak 7--sSess0r ZHD:plp CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 102-87 1. This application is approved for three parcels as .generally shown on the revised tentative map dated received October 11, 1988. 2. If archaeologic materials are uncovered during grading, earthwork shall be stopped until a certified archaeologist has had an : opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find. . 3. Dwelling units shall connect to East Bay Municipal Utility District ser- vices lines for domestic water supply, and to Central Sanitary District service lines for sewage disposal . 4. Construction plans shall provide for a lighted street address that shall be easily visible from the access road. 5. The existing East Bay Regional Park District trail easement through Parcel B shall be re-routed subject to prior review and approval of .the Zoning Administrator. The trail shall be shifted away from the building site (either north or south) . The proposed realignment shown on the October 11 plan is acceptable. Prior to recording the parcel map, the applicant shall submit evidence that the necessary title instruments have been exchanged and recorded with the Park District. 6. A copy of the CC&R's for the project shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. The documents shall require the owner of Parcel C to maintain the approved visual mitigation in good condition at all times. 7. Prior to filing . the parcel map, provide a letter from Diablo Community Services District indicating that the road restoration payment condition described in the August 4, 1988 letter from Richard Breitweiser, attorney for the District, has been satisfied. B. Prior to filing a parcel map, the applicants shall submit a revised tenta- tive map. The revised map shall specify the precise location and dimen- sions of the building and house site envelopes shown on the tentative map. The boundaries shall comply with the A-2 Zoning setback requirements. The area outside the building sites shall be placed in a scenic easement which shall prohibit alteration of natural conditions except for construction of a driveway and necessary water service and storage equipment. 9. Placement of residential structures shall be limited to 'the house site en- velopes. Accessory structures and improvements are limited to the building site envelope (stables, garages, tennis courts) . 10. At least four weeks prior to obtaining building permits, a site plan for each parcel shall first be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall include building elevations for all proposed structures, existing terrain .and. proposed grading. The following requirements shall apply: M i it i ,i s7,%7��lq�r7 G,, 2 . A. Grading shall be minimized. If unavoidable, retaining walls up to three feet in height should be used as much as. possible. B. Removal of any tree shall be subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Tree removal or alteration shall be re- stricted to the purpose of allowing for driveway, fire buffer and view corridors. Trees proposed to be removed and saved (including identi- fication of trunk sizes) shall be shown on the site plans. A tree protection program prepared by a landscape architect shall be submit- ted to serve the construction and post-construction phases of the project.- C. Structures shall be designed in a footprint that preserves mature oak trees. Buildings (including roof shapes) shall be designed and built to be visually compatible with the hillside area. A combination of staggered exterior wall lines and stepped-on-grade structure design may be appropriate. D. Residential structures shall be limited to a maximum height of 18 feet above natural grade. Any deck should blend into the design of the . structure. All support structures shall be screened and landscaped. Proposed exterior colors shall be earthtone or other .natural local colors. i E. A landscape/irrigation plan for each parcel shall be' submitted showing any proposed. planting.. The plans shall generally utilize California i native species . and conform to the County policy on water conservation requirements, and shall be installed prior to occupancy. F. Wood and open-wire fencing along the perimeter of each parcel shall be permitted while chain link or other metal fencing shall be discour- aged. G. Intensive exterior lighting (e.g: , to light tennis courts) is prohib- ited. H. Architectural design shall be reviewed by Zoning Administrator to assure• that the maximum. visual mitigation is provided. 11. Comply with drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements as follows: 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. Undergrounding of all utility• distribution facilities. wAAwHoxza . 0f< Pm SDH o Pa � P: HWWpU) :E: g :3: � Co 0a °Q � 0 W 0 � _Q w %Iw ° Pz ° off I Z +y+ to 0000 rnq x3aUU) CV Lf) 0 r O H r] E CL 0 0 o U) O T� Q a U V d Q Hz3x4 ° xz14 1LL rO -IOOHn E-+ FCOcly O }' z :DU ) rN N P a Z a U) w 0 EC.. � a a . 7-:2 LL A rn >, PZ WOE°., [' a o w �C WO aE WH H 0 U� U w rNia P, � ,�WUwwo r w� ® Q Q W pzw� - Hxo.w0 u -14 V♦ .J (n a! 7 LL Q 0 3 H O W p O W O O N'J v n -E-4�y nz0z00in co O LL U U V H U z +ac Ho32UzH z aQ .�� cc Q > z a O w a x H 4F- Q ✓ y J J a � Z ri � lu 0 z H l ®n a H W m = z wLL azV , wo °zso z Z . 6u Z ro pF z aQ - wn <2`7wa � wz x ° o CL O a } a. o `u o E04 �� U a o ° WW:>4L ZwwHwa U) a�Q O W 3 >+ HxP U E-+ xxH0 u] }Cc OJ O WH z xH � AE+ OA [n W Q) LL It IL z Hz H U PUw z x 4A • -AD W M a H !�a � :zU HO zW0 `^ >CW0x H f aQ U) U ORUXW coU W .< 3 CTZcrI w w o w -nz � • AFCo >+ U) U) H � auw nx - Wq0 �7dCH HH WH P+ HH H Hmz0 0FlE+ aH C HH HzEAWp u) Z Wa Nrz4H O'0 n 04a H H u1 H U) O A zPIZP, U) Uo 44 � y E-+ zz z H 0 U W HPIaPI 00 W zti• w HW UW t93 U (nz E+ RSE+ On PIHU n U [Q [v W Pn5 H z H "C u)= o x x x P -A q FC.z z 1, >+ O W E 0H0 gWwtn , E-+ H WUl >4P+ p 'zHq EH 0w �W aE PUgU. +a nE HH axW ti a UE+ ,.a rnn � G Pin �7 >+ awCxJA [` 30 HU U NHH 0Oan H Hz Ua AHFCan ° CW1UO � Uw QnW -p E A o Z w a H Pl E W z _ H U 3 Pa >+ W �E.- raj a A H -z a C x n � nwP+ a W0 -U ,-1 H H p H E`I EH ['� oaH � N � U, o . Ul P. !!�� W;. A U. - W H PI H z xgg1. U) zE�` '� wwHO w � H W Fi P' aZ P H o p ate ' >+ -W End;FAI W OH.0u) wE-1 �: HgPI 'DUH X. C4P' C E A p,, x W W W a Ul. A 1.4 a P W A'U) F, >+ 0.,. z W E EW+ xE+ U' 2 E-1 r�, H ,.aA � Ur HO zaylz H cn aPZ P FC w �M �1 H rj) H � E� •cn [n PI U) 0 Fl z a W ,� � W ztn ° W FC �7S AoOW .a1i PI ,� PI U)z4n . � Op Z x 'I o ow0Hx >iz zUUizm4U) H E- zaa ^^ >, z -� HWHH W, PI � +IWE HWE-+ ,� 3 W U) E+ WPIo F1 Q w A E+ E, Ua E-+ A gUAE, n; :% a Z a _ P, � E+ 0 z U0_' c zP10 ,� UGgU) UA rIPIPI ILI o O WAPa° a oma. -zzoE WEU zu `GHz . � Pl a -H W AO W WPISwAPai3 � olzlviHa W � . wEA P � V w° � A z � � O � � O 1-1 E+ nz +DulwA nP ° Wiz ° 7+ u) a -< H u, ;> a W H PHWII WU z -f4 PIOP+ 1.1 z o 1� cnAU' W zE `In UPa+ W ° w xHZu) :FC "4Ei s a o Pl z HZ `Wz� E+ 0 � wUU >+ W .� UHF.lu) H � zn nH x FL U1HUU' 11 !� zzU ? AP c) r-) �, W x � F1 --- Pl RCcn z m f4 Z �' f) Ew+ W WAHW U) H.WPUWFC UIW 0 - U) 0E+ EA n UP, A PIHJH � W.HVUOA ,�CU) U . AW FCU W P W WO U) A u) W �4 .P (n U) � U i-I .Pl z z - H P; PI a P U �I O U) W >4 Z W O = = HU >+ 0 W [nplu) C [� � `� 0 - HU n 3 >+ HxH4 H H C) n E+ E PI G P+ +7 H O W H x E+ z U) FCnE- ZZ HP' 9U) tnPl U) ClA, a W P� - -� W HFCW 0 A HU) PIA WW1nAq H WPIW H W P7 .4 K4 Ei ]C 4 W W, +-1;50U) 400 (j0 �1;4i U) 71 .w U) O H 1-+ x E1 FC W pC 4 w u.z u) U H H P$ U a H p H A 0.l E-1 4 0 (A - � CA U o r U,� p . QREEN VAL�F PARCEL MAP �oA� e SUBDIVISION MS .102- 87 s" PARCEL "A" OF 121 PM 15 ��o > �p CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 0 PRW and Associates "'rK Planners•Engineers-Landscape Architects 400 TAYLOR BLVD. SUITE 325 sr `l PLEASANT HILL, CALIFORNIA 94523 (415) 686-6300. jd SCALE 1" = 100APRIL 1989 IZ Z.Ih � II 1 13 J • Id SE• Y r I° 5,. yJ 3�g.� 250118 cit v C BAS/S OF BEAR//t/�S ;1 J Z5° Za' o 05„�I �(aI�iS� `10 w TAKEN AS Al /°20'00' Al BETA14rEN ( L N 139 3.5 E Z�1��' � 53 U N 9. THE MONUMENTS FOUND ON TL/E . WEST LINE OF P,4,PCEL.C ' OF (q' `�8��:. p5'�� VIA a rh C 00 p185' o hh / la a.tel uj h . DO' ,µl 51 SCEN/C E.4SEMEN7' -- . •1: ^� 15�?' O5 RES7k/CTElJ DO,^ a - ,OEI•'ELOPMENT AREA A) N 5 20"it//,OE Eelepo 4 PEC.PEAT/ONAL SEE DE.TA/L 'B' �.' RA; PEF/52WR/G+3 P� a r—. / - 1 p W SCEA'C EASEMENT �5 / - \ pAR O ,PEST RIC7 0 p OQ E. (�3� � AREA ` 504 ACRES(TOTAL) ,lToO OEl�EL O,PMENT AREA h 5 00 AREA = /a. N Wh �I' SCE,V/C EA` N / ZQ1'38 w�1 ,�h / �Es7�icr r SEE DETAIL 'C' N Z� J� .3 Q 84RCEL p 3 cT 215 p (31 5 SEE DETA/L N SEE L . AREA = 5.13 ACRES(TOTAL) 5 Q' ht'v ^b EX/ST 50'55E f� n,e1;.Z7F 210 - (Z18.80') - ACCESS 0 UT/L/FK E941T ;• p ,yJl 5 \1 PER /2/ OM /5 00 dj e O00 ��0 0p , ' ('�1/°5/'�8"E 60967' h c4:• SEE DETAIL 'E' -----L 25663 7Z77A1 — 3 4 (545�� Z02.OB' Z 5065 /9 I �/J ,, l��, �/ _(, /°ZO' „W .31850 ) 3 / 8A F 6EARIAI-0- ------ SEE DETA/L�F�-' A K FD.i L,..¢ TAy f,Q /",. UJ D/A,BZ-O L _ o rA� J C _; / "<; RCE. /0546 RCE /0586 N0,2' s •� / , N O/.5' BAS/S OFBEAR/N!�•6 -E O/3' `1P T4,� I /'LRe T400" WJ 0 .... ... ✓:; 26630 2CE 630.-(0 •, .I I , L_ 8 0.07' IVO/Z'-� DE7,4/L E OE7,4/L F' -'TA/L ''C OETA/L ',0 /V.T,5. N.T5. NTS NTS ! 2z TIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COLT'.iTY, CUlFORiiIA Adopted this Order or. September 12, 19a9 by the following vote: AYE'S: r_nz-i,. r -_Lc^n Supervisors Pavers, Canden, Schroder, b,,.. .. .. T. —: HORS: Noi:e AM'RNp: None iABSTAIN: hone b'Ui-ATECr: Authorizing Acceptance of Instrument. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the following 01 instrument is hereby ACCEPTED: Cv u .LN,�T�3?l19F►�TO� ER..N GRAN'L'QR APE -INA Grant Deed MS 102-e7 Steph,ns & Diablo W of Development Company, :C Rights Sharing Plan s and Trust ; z yc� . I hereby eartly that tale Is•wee nM oomml Copy Of to tMn Mari nna enfsred on the frtntk%of Cte Board of suporvtsort on U's data mown. ATTESTED- SEP 12 1989 PHIL BATCHU09.C181k Of fha Ltard of SupwniMi six?County yJyACmtnbtrttor r• 9 h origi�}ator: - Public Works (£S) Ce: Naccorder (via Title Co.) then PW Record© thn Clrk of Bc ird Director of Community Development I fjU:t2.t9 Fwoordmi at t e request 'fob ..CfrIIRA MM CU-;IM SEP 2 s 1989 Public Works DEpa,-bnent Eiyir—ring Services Division RECORCEJ T GEQU.Sn Or i PLablic Works Dep2lxttrant _Tkrnrds Sea im SEP 2 ; 19r=r Area: Diablo laoad: Dizlxa Ir.);ea Lane aTrty o*ckorK r M. CGw�:y n,:—z-A No.: R/h CONTRAC0$TA COUNTY RECORDS rivjeYt: Stsbdiv0ion MS 102-87 l_WUR � Asse sores No.: 194-080-031 p,._ , COUNTY RECURDFft � GRA.•rT Qd' P coa Tc rmat mmiitaen nunber 8 of Subdivision Yr. 102-87, the STEMaIS S Ca ITANY PROM,� St hRM;G PIP-14 PND MST, (owner) r-,� Stan s to the Oxuity of,Qmtra Oos*a, a cimernev ntal euz ivisior. of the State of California, Grant[-, dnd its ywern'antal smces&or r,. m rs, the future "develg3nant rights," as dzfi,'sed herein bellow over a portion n of that rea7 property }mown as Par. Aa A, 8, arra C of Subdivision MS 102-87 situated in the Cmrmty of Contra Costa, State of California, and more particularly t3r-,sr-Y:J:z-,I its r-iibi,t A. "Daveloasent rights" are defined to means and refer to the right to approve or disapvrrave of any prcpmai oDn-tr-,tc'-J=, dev:lorment or nprovenent within the areas marked "restricted develcgu2nt area." nie "deve),:Y n, rights" are and shall be a form of nee ptive easement which shall run with the said ptTrty and Shall bind the ;.4 csrrent vnwr arra any future Lmnexs of all or airy portion of laid property In the went of a dusappro-ralof prvposW oonsttacti.on by the Grantee or iGs ssyssor, said prr?. a,i cons-Ln:.^tior shall not be performed. Grantee or its.suctes-.or may ocndition itc ear.ul of asrf prCrr� construction LWn prihr or mtb"imt performance of Bch ox4itims as Grmtee may dem appropriate. Pmy owner or ocrsero of all or any portion of said property dr--iring to dare lop any irrmovcrosP-0. �"ariuirinrx the approval of Grantee or its »aes_sor herein shall -A*mt to r` va�m entity a .written psnpcsal describing the ruture, ektent, and location of such rY�rwrtmx*. Grarmcn- or its stxcessor shall have :sixty (60) days frcan receipt of such plop it in d ids to grant its apt=raval or disapproval: Iailurp by Grantee or its 6 ak=ssor to reqxmd _n said time period shall be equivalent to the approval of m= 1 Proposal. AFID 5TA'I7 OF CALMMIA ) SS O"ZIY OF (X),'7:11A/MGrA ) Get chis _[ day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned, a tk,Cary fi>)�i it in aW for ccsid and State, per anaIly appoared DCWAID STMOZ, knoti:n ra m (or p+rs.•cd- to m: on _ b: is of Gatisfactary evide m) to be the person hme nomm im m= xc;crifx-D to thQ within in.trrmv,nr RTr1 ,�}-� ,��;� �•, ' t*..: ho c rr.,.itad the mire. I Notary pUb2Tc in a 'Lbr the County , of contra Coati; StabD . f 011irornila My ccmnis sign expire}Jj�V/k/k,L t�e:tr�ioze7.r6 r q 1 ti • ;i „ EXHIBIT "ti" ES-Subdivision HS 102-B7 All that , real property situated in the County of Contra L-UKLa, State. of California, described as follows. f That portion of Parcels A, B, and C designated as r-REsTRicTBQ CEvnor-MT .§► A" as a own on Subdivision MS 102-87 as recorded on P �� , , in Book ._iz•= of Il P,xxc$I Maps, pages .��5on file at the County Recorder's offic;. III AG.10207711% TG BA:drg U6%2a/89 . I: Cr c C� Q7 C� I ,i �I I �� r. a ;� 4 4 ,{ '; i i, I I, I Letters from Applicant Describing the. Project I� Joan Enea-Lopez Paul Lopez .2568 Rolling Hills Court, Alamo, CA 94507 . (925) 837-5124 June 20, 2006 i. Dennis Barry, Director Community Development Department County of Contra Costa 6 ;1 Pine Street 2"d floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re:.. APPLICATIONS for (1) Approval of Development Pursuant to Grant Deed of Development Rights; (2) Approval of Site Plan, Conceptual Architectural Elevation Design, Grading plans, and for Removal of Trees (NIS 102-87 Lot A: APN # 194-240-001). Dear Mr. Barry: By this letter we transmit our applications for the above approvals pertaining our property at 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane, referred to as Parcel A of MS 102-87. Primarily. we seek .County approval to develop a small portion(9,849 s.f.) of the area restricted by the terms of the Grant Deed of Development Rights recorded in the Contra Costa County Records on September 25, 1989 as Document 89 193200. In exchange for the use of the area, we proposed to convey to the County the development rights to.an additional 10,377.s.f. of Lot A, a net increase of total restricted development area by more than 500 square feet. Incidentally, we also seek approval of our site plan as required by condition 10 of MS 102-87, including proposed grading and conceptual architectural elevations. The new total development restricted area will be larger than the area that is currently restricted. Following the exchange, the expanded . .restricted development area will comprise 183, 915 square feet or 82.3 % of our property. The development rights were conveyed to the County by the Grant Deed identified above. Those clevelopment rights "are defined to mean and refer to the right to approve or disapprove of any proposed construction, development or improvement within the areas marked "restricted development area" on the map. This application seeks the County's approval of development of a small portion of the restricted development area' constituting less than 5.3% of the.total restricted'development area. ,I • The following summary identifies the essential elements of our request: . A. To permit the development of a 9,849 square foot portion the deed restricted area. In this area we propose to use 1,376 square foot for.our new home and to use 8,473 square feet for landscaping, a pool, handicapped ramps, and retaining walls. As planned, the home and the grounds will be wheelchair accessible. B. In exchange,.we propose to convey to the County the development rights to an additional area totaling 10,377 square feet. C. To permit removal of three Oak trees that are all located inside the house site envelope shown on the map. D. To locate the fire suppression tanks on Parcel B as they will serve both Parcel A and Parcel B of MS 102-87. As you can see from the attached exhibits, our request is quite reasonable and is based on a unique combination of factors both personal and practical. Our home as proposed meets the rather unique set of conditions of approval of MS 102-87. In the seven months before the submission and before embarking on the site planning process we met with county staff, Save Mt. Diablo, and"our future neighbors to discuss site planning issues. The enclosed materials demonstrate our efforts to accommodate the various requests we received during these discussions. To put the current building restrictions in perspective, please note, the overall size of the lot A is 5.13 acres consisting of 223,462.square feet of land. The use of 183,387 square feet.or 82% of the total lot area is restricted by the Deed of Development Rights, which requires County approval of any construction, development or improvement. The remaining area in which development is allowed, subject to County site plan and design approval is 40,075 square feet, only 1.7.93% of the total site. (See RMR Map). Any building within the,development area is further.limited by the conditions of approval for MS 102-87, particularly by an 18' height limitation for all structures. Our analysis for the site plan was further complicated by the topography of the site and our need for a single level, wheel chair accessible home. When combined, the conditions of approval and our criteria create serious constraints on the home site and design. We ask for County permission to use an area of approximately 9, 849 square feet as shown on the RMR Designs map. As can be seen from the attached Google Map, the area we seek to use is barren land without any trees or other plants. Our reasons for requesting permission to construct within the restricted development area are as follows: . f 1. The most important reason is for our daughter. Victoria, 18 years old; is II disabled and in a wheelchair. Victoria had a debilitating stroke prior to her ,I I' birth causing physical and mental damage that limited her development. At this time, she.cannot walk or talk. Should you require any additional information, we will gladly provide a letter from her physician outlining her current conditions and prognosis. She is fully dependent upon others for her survival. 2: We wish to build a one-story. single level house and yard so that she will have access to the entire house and surrounding outside areas. The area that we are asking to use will allow us to create a barrier free home and'a relatively barrier free flat yard. Due to the extent of her.disabilities, we shall . have her in our care for the balance of her life. 3. In addition to designing and building our home to be readily accessible for Victoria:'in the future we anticipate having full time care assisting with her. needs. The home as designed will have space for live-in care, when the need P arises. 4' 4. Furthermore, the area we wish to use is an open gentle slope (southwest to southeast) that is naturally clear of any trees, shrubs, and only grows annual grasses. .(See Google Map) The landscape area will provide our residence with a visual buffer to the south while providing a yard area suitable for a pool and deck with ample natural southern exposure to sunlight.. .5. We are also asking permission to remove three mature oak trees.that are located within the house site area designated for our home. The removal of these three trees will allow us to have a home that meets the building envelope restrictions and height restrictions. More importantly, by removing the trees. our home will have driveway accessibility for the school district bus accessibility for transportation for Victoria to her school. 6. By allowing us to use this small portion of the restricted development area, we can accomplish the following: a. : Build a home with a living area that is accessible b. Create'a flat yard area c. Provide a drought tolerant landscape area that will also serve.as a firebreak around the home d. Accommodate the'grading and cut/fill requirements to..be balanced on site. e. In addition, within our landscaping scheme, we plan top lant several 24" box specimen trees. Many of these trees will be Olive 1 rees, fruit trees, and Chinese pistachio trees (or similar types of shade trees) providing both color and contrast to the predominant Blue Oak groves preserved within the'restricted area. f. Planted trees to provide a visual buffer of the structure from the southwest adjacent home, to comply with the conditions of approval #10 (d). i 0(T landscaping also will provide shade for the home during the summer months, reducing utility requirements. h. Lastly, we will install a swimming pool to provide exercise opportunities for our daughter and to serve as another water source for fire protection, should the need arise. The placement of the pool in the restricted development area will provide a pool site with the greatest exposure to, !; sunlight. We understand that the original development restrictions were placed on MS 102-87 over seventeen years ago, and at that time were intended to preserve as much of the pristine vistas to the west looking from Mt. Diablo State Park. At that time there was nothing built in the surrounding neighborhood. But as can be clearly seen from the Google Earth map, our home is quite modest. Our proposal will have minimal visual impacts compared to the existing impacts of the neighboring properties. As can be seen from the Google maps attached, the homes surrounded our lot are all developed with two story homes with 35' height limits, two story ancillary buildings with 35' height limits, and extensive landscaping built on the surrounding ridgelines. All these homes.are built on lots with more prominent visibility from Mt. Diablo State Park. We urge you to consider our proposal and to act favorably as quickly as is practicable, as time is of the essence for us to finalize our plans. Clearly. we can't continue and complete our plans until we know where we can site the house on our property. Lastly, to accommodate the county staff review process and as you requested, we do waive the 60 day deadline for staff review established in the Grant Deed of Development Rights. However, we hope and respectfully request that you process our application as promptly as possible.. Please copy all correspondence about this application to our attorney, Sanford Skaggs, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Y.O. Box V,'1333 No. California Boulevard, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, CA 94596; (925) 975-5310, fax 975-5194 and email. s.skaggs�binghain.com. Should you have any questions about this letter or attached materials, please contact us at your earliest opportunity. Re ect ully Submitted: Paul Lopez Joan Enea-Lopez �I Enclosures �I ell \ X76 w -vt A J" 4+ t 4 3 } These are the neighbors to be noticed regarding our plans and application to develop in the restricted area. 1. 2420 Diablo Lakes Lane: Schmidt- 5 acres, main house approximately 5,000 square feet, two story height 35' feet, 2 guest homes, pool, spa, green house and sport court and approximately 100' x 50' solar panels. \ 2. 2410 Diablo Lakes Lane: Ditzler- 5 acres, approximately 5.000 square foot main house. approximately 2,000 square foot garage and work shop, \ ,k �O wir+ y I. . 3. 2406 Diablo Lakes Lane: Wallunas: 5 acres of land approximately 9,000 square foot two story residence approximately 35' feet tall,approximately 1,000 square foot guest house and garage, pool,,spa and 4. 2401 Diablo Lakes Lane: Klein. 5 acres of land approximately 5, 000 square foot two story residence, detached garage, pool and spa. 5. 2401 Via Diablo: Suriyakuinar. 20 acres of land with approximately 10,000 square foot two story main residence, a two story 2,000 detached guest house and recreational room, pool. spa, and extensive entry monument landscaping. I 6. 2411 Via Diablo:Frahm. 40 acres of land with a main residence of at least 11,000 square feet, detached two story guest house, tennis court, pool, spa, large fenced orchard, a golf tee box and putting green, and significant entry monument, access road that is fully landscaped. 7. 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane: Lopez/Enea-Lopez residence maximum house allowed to meet 18' height limit approximately 7,000 square feet. landscaping and pool. Mew aS • x..?? �:rim •�i: x._.:.{� :r. •tom. P 'A;•�I' �''1.7!MayP yY+k4f:'�is.f 6 - BINGHAM McCUTCHEN Sanford K Skaggs Direct Phone: (925) 975-5310 Direct Fax: (925) 975-5194 s.skaggs@bingham.com. Our File No.: 0000315703 j June 20, 2006 Bingham Mccutchen LLP Dennis M. Barry, AICP Suite 210 Community Development Director . 1333 North California Blvd. Contra Costa County PO BoxV Community Development Department Walnut Creek, CA 651 Pine Street 94596-1270 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 925.937.8000 925.975.5390 fox Re: Applications for (1) Approval of Development Pursuant to Grant Deed of bingham.com Development Rights; (2) Approval of Site Plan, of Architectural Design and for Boston Removal of Trees Hartford (MS 102-87 Lot A: APN # 194-240-001). London Los Angeles Dear Mr. Barry: New York Orange County As you Will recall, my clients seek approval from the County to improve a San Francisco smallportion of the restricted development area created by a Deed of Silicon Valley Development Rights. The portion they seek to improve consists is 9,849 Tokyo' Walnut Creek square feet of a total of. 183,387 that is within the restricted development Washington area. The total lot is more than 5 acres..Within the 9,849 square feet they propose to construct use 1,376 square foot for a portion of their new home and to use the balance of 8,473 square feet for landscaping, a pool and hardscape, including retaining walls. In exchange they are willing to deed the development rights to an additional 10,377 square feet. Incidentally, they also seek approval of their site plan and design pursuant to the conditions of approval of MS 102-87, and permission to cut down three of more than 100 oak trees on the lot. Enclosed please find the following: -1. Application - General Form 2. Letter dated June 19, 2006 from my clients Paul Lopez and Joan Enea-Lopez. J Dennis M. Barry, AICP June 20, 2006 Page 2 3. Letter dated June 13, 2006 from Robert M. Rourke of RMR Design Group. .4. . . Letter dated June 13, 2006 from Joseph F. Gorny of Gorny & Associates Architecture Bingham Mc.Cutchen «P 5. Mailing list of owners within 300 ft. and stamped envelopes binghom.com 6. Site Plan, prepared by Gorny & Associates, Job No: 05-261, dated May 1, 2006.. (3.full size and 12 11" x 17" copies) 7. Preliminary Site and Grading Plan, two pages, entitled Diablo Lakes, prepared by RMR, dated May 31, 2006. (3 full size and 12 11" x 17" copies) 8. Three copies Tree Survey and Arborist Report, prepared by.Rob Rosson, dated May 25, 2006... 9. Check in the amount of $1,500, drawn on my clients' account. Trees: The trees have been measured in the field. The locations and extent of the canopies of the trees are shown accurately on the RMR site plan. The request is to remove three of the more than 100 oak trees on the lot. See Arborist Report, section 2.6. Retaining Walls. The plan includes retaining walls, which are.necessary to create the level site required to meet my clients' objectives and to avoid off-haul, which we believe would not well received by the community. Although they will slightly exceed three feet, the plans include landscaping on the benches between the walls, which will soften the appearance. Pool: The pool shape is conceptual only. It is likely that the final plan will be something more interesting than a rectangle, but it will. be in the approximate location shown. House Design. This also is conceptual as we have discussed. As you requested, we have provided detail showing how the design will comply with.the eighteen foot height limit. I believe that the enclosed mate ria Is.addresses all of the relevant issues -we have previously discussed. I know that you and your:staff will inform us if there is anything missing. Thank you for your assistance.to date. I II am hopeful that you will,be able to move this along expeditiously even II i. Dennis M. Barry, RICP June 20, 2006 Page 3. 3 a though my clients have courteously waived the time period established in the Deed of Development Rights. Very truly yours, Bingham McCutchen LLP bingham.comanfofM. k ggs . Enclosures 34178843_1 b t VJR Design Group PlIanners, Engineers, Landscape Architects Robert M. Rourke, P.E., AICP June 13, 2006 Mr. Robert Drake Contra Costa County Planning Dept., 651. Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: "DIABLO LAKES, Parcel `A', MS 102-87 Preliminary Site Plan Dear Mr. Drake, Attached is a copy of a Preliminary Site Plan for the proposed Lopez residence on Parcel `A' of MS .102-87. This plan indicates, on Sheet 1, the proposed limits and sizes.of development within the restricted development area. Sheet 2 then shows a more detailed Site Grading Plan,indicating how the proposed house and related improvements will be sited on the lot, and the portions that will be. within the restricted development area. The proposed home design has been defined by several constraints; some site specific, and some specific to the Lopez family's personal circumstances. The home has generally been designed to stay within the primary House Site Envelope while minimizing the removal of existing oak trees. Certain of the oaks which are being removed are not in good condition and are natural candidates for removal according to the arborist. Configuring the house based on. these constraints generally requires that the house belong and linear,roughly paralleling the contour. The third major constraint is the Lopez family's disabled daughter Victoria. She has been fully disabled since birth, requires 24 hour cart, and is confined to a wheel chair. This reality requires a home design which is essentially flat and level,granting the highest level of mobility for her to be moved around to various rooms in the home. The confluence of these variables has essentially determined,the home's design . concept. This extends as well to the,motor court design which is designed to allow a wheel chair accessible van to pick her up and drop her off at the front door to the home. The lite design has also been influenced by the desire to maximize the Lopez' daughter's ability to be moved around outside and onto the site. This has influenced the construction of the level yard area on the easterly side of the house. A review of the Site Grading Plan will reveal the inclusion of wheel chair ramps to move her from the upper to the lower yard and ultimately out onto the site, and on down the driveway, should any of her care givers desire to do so. 88024LTR.100 1130 BURNETT AVENUE, SUITE A, CONCORD, CALIFORNIA 94520-5610 (925) 686-.6300 • FAX 686-0707 h Mr. Robert Drake June 13, 2006 Paget The summation of these impacts necessitates the use of a small portion of the restricted development area,-as shown on Sheet 1. The proposed site grading design also results in an on-site grading balance,yielding 1500 cubic yards of cut and 1500 cubic yards of fill. The cut generated by the house design requirements discussed above is balanced by the fill generated by the flat yard design on the east side of the house. Retaining walls not exceeding 5 feet in height are utilized on the access from the existing hammerhead turnaround to the motor court entry area. These minimize the amount of cut being generated on the westerly side of the site. Retaining walls required to create the fill balancing area on the easterly side of the house are also.limited to 5 feet.in height. There is a 4 foot wide terrace between the two tiered wall on the easterly side of the yard area. This will be utilized for the installation of screen plantings, and can also be utilized for swale areas related to implementation of Regional WaterQuality Control Board NPDES-C.3 stormwater management requirements. Utility supply corridors are indicated on the plan. These are shown from their connection point to existing stub-outs at the edges of the existing driveway, to their point of entry into the house itself. A review of these will indicate that they have been routed between the outside limits of the drip lines of existing trees,assuring that trenching for these utility accesses will not damage those trees which are being saved. We hope this brief discussion helps to clarify the reasons behind the proposed design and related request for modification of envelope areas. Please feel free to call if you have any questions or desire additional information regarding this submittal. Sincerely, RMR Design Group Robert M. Rourke, P.E., AICP President q I ' it 88024LTR.100 i GORNY & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE 420 Sycamore Valley Road West Danville, CA 94526 (925) 743-0183 FAX (925) 743-0184 June 13, 2oo6 Dennis Barry Director of Community Development Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Barry, I have been working with Paul and Joan Lopez on their project. at 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane for the past several months. I. have done several pre-design concepts for the site. Designing within the restrictions imposed by the Conditions of Approval for the subdivision regarding the 18' height limit, restricted building site envelope and even more restricted house site envelope,.along with the Owners' re.q-uirement for a. fully accessible home have proven to be quite a challenge. I feel that the footprint illustrated in our preliminary submittal its the most efficient layout given these constraints. Even though the drawings we are submitting reflect a particular style, the house shown is only a concept, since most of our time has been spentlitting the home to its site and providing the Owners with a relatively level yard. Assuming that the County approves the house within the restricted development area, which will allow us to design a home that meets the clients' needs, I feel that all other requirements of the map restrictions and Conditions of Approval have been met. Please feel free to contact me at 925.743:o183. Respectfully, Jos phF. or y Ar h,itect L. GORNY & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE 420 Sycamore Valley Road West, Danville. CA 94526 (925) 743-0183 FAX (925) 743-0184 May 17, 2006 COLORS FOR: Lone Star Properties, Inc. Attn: Paul Lopez 1251 Stone Valley Road Alamo, CA 94507 Re: 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane, Diablo, CA ROOF: PAC-CLAD ALUMINUM (Standing Seam) Medium Bronze - GUTTERS: To match Roof 1 OVERHANG/BEAMS: Stained Wood I Sherwin Williams - K SFr~ Charwood SW 3542 NY N. :rs�.•;c�"i rre'7�:S N: 'r,�.. • .84 , l;'7v:''nL�gf' t. -t��:Ic.:FYI v. W dybT 1` 0, �: Y^ 'r V A "NF " P,-` WINDOWS: Blomberg Window Systems ' M.41 . rya' ' �4 .: r.:;�. Thermo-Setting Acrylic { b :7C...rt ::s 4`.: .•.� rC:1i2•.Ld`'i :�i t '�.Ks• '" S•"-.:arrLL�;1:,�.�"1` .:ir•'r Black Walnut CEMENT PLASTER: Interior Color . 338 Mocha. Expo Stucco Products STONE: Eldorado r Manzanita Cliffstone SITE WALLS: . Keystone ,i Brown II r . ColoriBoard - Diablo Lakes I i n k 8/3/2006 Petition Signed by Neighbors and Diablo MAC Representative Supporting Proposed Residence "Skaggs,Sandy" To "Drake; Robert H."<bdrak@cd.cccounty.us> <s.skaggs@bingham.com> cc "Barry, Dennis M.AICP"<dbarr@cd.cccounty.us> 08/23/2006 02:47 PM • bcc Subject Lopez--9/12 Bd. meeting I am enclosing the attached letter in support of the application for your file and reference in the staff report.' I am told that all of the potentially affected neighbors signed the letter, as did the president of MAC evidencing its approval at its August 3 meeting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bingham McCutchen LLP Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding any federal tax penalties. Any legal advice expressed in this message is being delivered to you solely for your use in connection with the matters addressed herein and may not be relied upon by any other person or entity or used for any other purpose without our prior written consent. The information in this e-mail (including attachments, if any) is considered confidential and is intended only for the recipient (s) listed above. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify me immediately by reply email, delete this email, and do not disclose its contents to anyone. Thank you. Scanned—P& June 1, 2006 Dennis Barry Director Community Development Department County of Contra Costa 651 Pine Street 2nd floor North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 RE: Support for 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane, Lopez and Enea-Lopez Residence Submission(MS 102-87 Parcel A: APN# 194-240-001). Dear Mr. Barry: This letter will serve as notice to the County of the support for our residential proposal for our lot at 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane from the undersigned neighbors on Diablo Lakes Lane and Via Diablo who all live adjacent to our lot and who comprise the 300' mailing list. We, the undersigned, had an opportunity to meet with Paul and Joni to go over their house plans, including a review of the Gorey Architectural plans dated May 1, 2006 and the RMR Design Plans dated May 31, 2006. At our meeting we reviewed and agreed to support the approval by the County of their plans as submitted, including the following matters that are all part of their request for approval from the County. 1 The proposed Gorny house plan. We are OK with the conceptual design, including the proposed colors and materials. We realize that the exact elevation and materials may change slightly prior to commencement of construction,but we support any home elevation that is built within the building foot print. 2 We support the building footprint and landscape footprints as shown on the Gomy plan at pages Al and A2 and the RMR plans. 3 We also support the approval of their request for the house within restricted development area and the use of limited development within restricted development areas of their lot. 4 We support the removal of the Blue Oak three trees (#1,2 and 4) that are all located within the house building envelope for their lot. 5 We support the location of the fire suppression water tanks on Parcel B as shown on the RMR Designs plan dated May 31, 2006. 6 We support the grading plan as shown on the RMR Designs plan. 7 We support the use of the retaining walls as drawn that allows for a balanced site and that limits the removal of'any surplus soils with minimal off hauling truck trips on Diablo Lakes Lane. In summary,we, the undersigned neighbors,enthusiastically support their application and we ask that the County grant approvals of their requests as quickly as is possible so that they might start their home and join our neighborhood. Page two of two Dennis Barry Director Community Development Department County of Contra Costa RE: Diablo Lakes Lane, Lopez and Enea-Lopez Residence Submission. (MS 102-87 Lot A: APN # 194-240-001). Should you have any questions about this letter or attached materials, please contact us at your earliest opportunity. Res ec ull Su itted: Joan Enea-Lopez ` 2568 Rolling H Court, Alamo, CA 94507 (925) 837-5124 Owners: 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane (Parcel A of MS 102-87) Owners: 2415 Diablo Lakes Lane(Parcel B of MS 102-87) Lee and Elizabeth Ditzler Wallunas Family Trust 2410 Diablo L4kes Lane 2406 Diablo Lakes Lane Date: G�/e�/&6= Date: v (:3 f Louis and Ann Klein Les Schmidt-+3 o 4 C27 WY--i F'�)c-y 2405 Diablo Lakes Lane 2420 Diablo Lakes Lane Date: G' -D/0 4 D (o rl ,�Cdca 0-4, gt-"A- Frahm Trust Kumara and Rushika Suriyak ar 2411 Via)Dia to 2401 Via Diablo Date: Date: fl��C�f �/Y Parties Who Were Mailed Notice of this Hearing 194080030 194080032 .194080033 KLEIN LOUIS A &DEBRA ANN SCHMIDT LES TRE DITZLER LEE C&ELIZABETH TRE PO BOX 708 2420 DIABLO LAKES LN 2410 DIABLO LAKES LN DIABLO CA DIABLO CA DIABLO CA 94528 94528 94528 194080034 194080035 194080036 WALLUNAS DONALD II TRE FRAHM ROBERT GEORGEII TRE FRAHM ROBERT GEORGEII TRE PO BOX 574 PO BOX 664 PO BOX 664 DIABLO CA DIABLO CA DIABLO CA 94528 94528 .94528 194080037 194240001 194240002 SURIYAKUMAR KUMARA K& LONE OAK PROPERTIESINC LONE OAK PROPERTIESINC RUSHIKA 1251 STONE VALLEY RD 1251 STONE VALLEY RD PO BOX 825 ALAMO CA ALAMO CA DIABLO CA 94507 94507 94528 194240003 FRAHM ROBERT GEORGEII PO BOX 664 DIABLO CA 94528 I II East Bay Regional Park District Save Mt. Diablo Diablo Municipal Advisory Council PO Box 5381 1901 Olympic Boulevard, #220 PO Box 35 Oakland, CA 94605-0381 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Diablo, CA 94528 Sandford M. Skaggs Bingham McCutchen Lone Oak Properties, Inc. PO Box V 2658 Rolling Hills Court Walnut Creek, CA 94596-1270 Alamo, CA 94507 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS MARTINEZ AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday September 12, 2006, at 1:30 pm, in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: j PAUL LOPEZ/LONE OAK PROPERTIES (Applicant & 'Owner); County File #ZI06- 11424 — A request to allow a portion of a proposed two-story residence and accessory iiimprovements to encroach into a portion of a 5-acre parcel where the development rights have been grant deeded to the County, and outside of both the building site and house site i; envelopes shown on the Parcel Map (County File #MS 102-87) that created the subject property; and to allow the removal of three Blue Oak trees with trunk diameters up to 28 inches, other impacts to mature oak trees that are proposed to be preserved. The project is also proposing water storage tanks to be placed on an adjoining property to. the north (Parcel B of MS 102-87). The subject site (where the residence would be placed) is located at #2411 Diablo Lakes Lane, in the Diablo area (Parcel A of MS 102-87; APN 194-240- 001). The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the.County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): The location of the subject site is 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane,Diablo, CA For the purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), Community Development staff is proposing that the Board determine that this proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA(Class 3,new residence). 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 at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to, the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 1:00 pm, in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to: (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify,resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Bob Drake at 925-335-1210, Community Development Department, by 3:00 pm on Monday, September 11, 2.006 to confirm your participation. Date: August 29, 2006 By Jane Pennington Date(s) of Publication(s) I September 05, 2006 'I �NI-aps ,, ,, �,. .�rirr���a--zz—�.��� � a• L,� �Z�.11�1�^�!!��i.^+.'�'�_— �1l SSS SZIt��^ rLegend Figure Site Quad Map Proposed Lopez Residence III P.1m \ 2411 • • • • Area Feet ` i� • • 4 4 �+ 11 • . • 1,30G I' PO 01 g r 1 1OLr 051 in EWA PPA i !. <�,��� � r 1, - ,,, 1 ` // :rte ,� '• � - / Legend Figure II General Plan / Urban Limit Line 0 Site C3 urban Limit Line Proposed, Lopez Residence - PS(Public/Semi-Public) 2411 Diablo Lakes .Lane, Diablo Area - PR (Parks and Recreation) County File # Z106-11424 OS(Open Space) Feet - AL(Agricultural Lands) 0 650. 1,300 SV(Single Family Residential-Very Low) SL(Single Family Residential- Low) n SM(Single Family Residential-Medium) ss J •\ N � y � J •\ O O i SO4rh O -- \\ do caba"O.Ranchero'Dr \ / \ i _ m �C V -- �° Q \\ C 0 Legend Figure III Zoning / Urban Limit Line Site M Urban Limit Line Proposed Lopez Residence R-15, Single Family Residential 2411 Diablo Lakes Lane, Diablo Area 'R-20, Single Family ResidentialCounty File # Z106-11424 R-40, Single Family Residential Feet F-R, Forestry Recreational 0 650 1,300 A-2, General Agriculture A-4, Agricultural Preserve P-1, Planned Unit F-R • J y. ca O ' P-1 -4 Oo Ubod@ ULL P-1 A-2 rh are O d3�6 9a d o.• o: CitQ(O.Ranchero.Dr hoods M ISL A-2 U E' �•• ��1 C[ .•`�\ ��`�,k� �� � ca �a,.,,. : k� a� 1.�'#� r,/T 3r����, aC � , 5/�` .?r ��'•.�a.. `� • "r�s�,t:�_. � �. 2A1_g c_____:.=-` � �r� /•f If�Jl1jt�, (tt.��g+/ � ,yrj \,, r1��,h •• • � �f •�� `����� !. �-.--M1��..,,.T' � '� \�f f'�f n ��ff� ? t' H. f��, r� tU' �'l�l � S,'�.r-r".� �� Sys 'y;,"31F-., -;.�..^,. '�2A2� Il���' f���� ,� � � ir,'j ti d .Y 1, '�xF- • '�� 'y�; i k... � .;jr ..y�G w�ti�CSI � "p'r -J�� �n�� \ :`,�.�,.. ♦♦ �e,� �! ','. ,��`t���:5(+�:�� ���Q,, ,fJ MA vj Ail �4�`•",�s��C1t+C�cv-f .v� ,\ ��1 ^`��� ;<, ,, N �.`�.��;a;� �ct1�-`-�.'�� .\ � ''��y;r� {,�� 'i'� A :° ✓v7,r"t c ' /y � `C 1. s t 711 xt,F�. `S �;���,,,»g1,,arr1t��.� \�r'� ��, .moi S;. :, '� \ �v:r:Y �' � ;���, �' �� �.. _ �.�..�✓r'.� '/d6�.?w, y r. �\� '-' 4 ,w� l\ `..£f.!f�S�` -+w-��,�,;, - °S'`, o ? , •; � `', l r;?J� '�y js r��ii :t.t� '�, ��+��3 zllya�' . `c.— .�>�� f/ 'sxr�`-.��-•�� a?'•r r � rf �� II st\t� Yw*\i � ' t� � v ,� �Gff 'e% // yet ,mac -'fries.%': s -.r2',.'.`.,,r�� :."".+'' �'•+s,.V .:w13'' ` - + 1 r!- ''t`�(( J °V r.4 OaR7��i ,$'.' �` •♦ ",I' 8Z rr it ,t L _ � -�.s�F"4'R���3/-x� y; +%;:� 1 �/ i+ �'� \ , �•,cs\,1�►1t11 fJ�l.� tt u - �' ".9� a% - � a )�' �F. r ^�.�" _ -� •;�� 2g8 vv,��V '�. gal '' '"�. t��t�ry.y ������,I �.a'�!� �f I� 1 _ ( �.?✓ I �!� I !J 2385 "� � ��ta' ' 1f i����i,3',��y, a`.a -�ry�.�,..;i .�s � �J� gel"'}�,Y�s ir��;�Y� t '�' _ �- '�,�"`�- _ ,y .`f rf � i �. 't; 36 � 2f� 1 `ras � �T��•.,;-..� � � ,\ r,i",C 1 • ^� ' � ti �. e ,r .D v .y" / — qtr rt\`Il t____ _ �`r � �e�l�J7A *�id��.,y�y-•`mss-,�0.� 'C`�: \:O v��,\ '��' �r, r � � � -'`I', _ +yTJ �+7 / A �0 Z \ •� + C .< ' ,L� �� i`�, ;c r f fvC/ ,` "`5/+7 try <. .�,����'_ •a;y..-. y�\,���� ' �.t"f J� j� 'I r � ` _I j f� > �\ ., �� r+°jy. � ��`„i�•ac•4r��^-�`��� 01C��;..�2 5A,� � t A V r �M ♦r~ tr?? �'7 i.c. ;;j.F rub " ate ® 1,1®0 �qa � �®� p� � �! 09 'Re ne 9 ?109WIP, V' eek /� '1111 • y ` •Nr. '�'i.. llll::}}.YY\1 k�„f(Y tw ::- f n\,Yj' ,L2 ♦-'.ry,.. 1 .l :3.,�v- .+X.ip. `;s� }eIYC •4,�''� ''�µ+/ :+`N, '-.,. K4 r.'ig .K,..-- '+yam• �Wrj.�}.�:�, '„'�,) � ";•` /.` Q �r F;}.. .1 ; -� "`w..h• JJn tyJ.. - � .• t�n�,�,��y`. ., tFy�„ ....r '�.r ,.c.-. .=•, yr ,Q. '",.'• 2G ;A• t. ...:..�-• `'''�- �e ?.„�r2•v:j �'.tS, +�� ',•_,,�,,,,�. "�',>y«.,- t,..�':;;�,�, - "�i; ��a�:: '�:f,' :L„��.','j��51 r t t' •� � �"�`;s,:�.. �7 •�b'�S4 s t r'�. \ ai, ' •'. �.',x.-1} 1T"Y '.� r�Q:• 'rt 1 '' 'f'�e..�+.x��.. �'1.:i.tY '}+�=.c, � M1`'r, ":j-�i3f'�• ,�i` ,.. O• Y ' � ted 8 'tea:. <1 >.,t. -..`;�ti.1:,,t t.. .k:.f. '^i i.yam,_}{ •v\• ti_, ,��,,��,,;. 7A I -r w� '�'9a.".:a ''`�.�. ;,+!Y.;,. \ •� '� Y '�.4..r,+�}„' ",Q,,'•...�' o :�p4• �a, ttSs�'-,��, .� ?1., t- I •',. q :k � :• 810' i:- �., a, `. � '. •P. x"i' t .i .t•�'.'a.., �t ,r �,,:.= ..�;. gyp'} `\ 'lt, "t :t.,c - �y'SL�' `�`l:":�•u-�l� ,r,}a: a. i't ��.Y "?q=y", �.•,r �'S .t .,'1, "i.!'�r �.� -.�:c�: .Y � `�'-.y •�.- •a.l...(;. �,y. C't'c 1.' "`.' - - ���++ - =1 vim;+ •'•t� ��( •"♦w� `",,. .�• ,� f'y ^nil '`'. .:/. ..,� . � ` �� 9 � ' ;,,, •'- 'r:k t :•.� y<,,. .9 r` c,�f1 .s.. •4� 1. .:t''rj :t�a7,.`' 't'. `�. :t.4 l,yw"L:����^��C „t•' '.:5, - f { s `'�j•-. '�L.:.^�2• 'i -t>t. 1` ..�:s�.' b`(.a,', •1"W�.' .. `•, _ ���: '"•X' ""' _�'- •1, ` � "., .;ra'%..::",.'...""'— •.`mob. ^,;�` 1.0 NOW .r+^ 2,1.;x` ♦ :� ••1; L _ _ "f- .`*•Af:,J:' r�.6'_ 70 h,�`. ::1 u' f_1 �. •S'i'c .:^ _ - .. •`i! ''�'�°i •SK + ,*� 4 t :rvs •!"twJ'- .typ�I- %,ndrxi;FY.�I...P •�.� - :'Y;,,ry} �,�.,,Z,: .�, - _, '; Vis` fib• _, �� -. 0.1 0", f'd%J' :,>!.,� :.p,.. ,• lc.,..;`,r � � r� < `u(yy' ,�• - w ,_ P .V`,~�'t. •'fes I'�:. l r, .. V � C o , q � A 3a�3 ow ... e � t N s _ !A r ti N m ° .`N .. / to P. 0 \tj�� co`� /sem,�`�� ���°\ \ I� • a � �• y� p a � ass gn w n p a Ho m D m N " 4 r . s' ..•.., '�' zo e.so .l .1 m �n e 50. .-0 ..NT . .•. . I , x a � 1 O ':: •��• � � = 100 4 m: f: : i .:mow.7-� 34 j3i i I C N p \ - r N CA N .. 0 � n o O H r a a m D a .IA A l� i / ��t 70. .. I .....•. --. (Tl O i A N ;90 I"= 100, n :Ai y N + YN! 240J 11loo1 240 1 10 �. Iij 1 1 + 2401 1 I 11 i 2395 1 t t � ri 2411 •\ . ,• / � 24b t 2 ��t tip it j t it J i '110 1:9 , t 2•�Y iI i J � j + ii � • ii ! • 11 � , 2Y?5 o. �• ' � � t t t ;ems U8 U U4: U:3 UMU Uif5 Ub` C p . i SETH ADAMS I DIRECTOR OF LAND PROGRAMS � . SAVE MOUNT DIABLO I FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET S'apc isur "'Man! Pl phe Seth Adams Jt1DC�-isc), I011n Gioia Cath 'rine Kutsuris FAX NLMBI R. DATE' F 82i I-662% Scure;ilbcr 8,2000 FAX 5111 :>74-3429 FA.XI 3=_ :222) TOTAL NIC, 07.PACES INCLUDING Conte Costa Counnl&Colmmunin 2 Dewe oomcnt .PIIONE Nl- IDI:R. SENDEV'S RE•FFRF..NCr N JMBFR. RF.: YOUR RLFERE.NCE NUMBER.: Item D4,?,oDez,on the Tucsdav hoard of Supep.nsors Agenda ❑URGCN ❑T:OR RLVILW ❑!'L•EASF. CONITMENT REPLY ❑ PLLASL- RECYCLE I� NO;1-.S I'm sora I can't be at d-ie board meeting or, Tuesday; attached are SMD's comments on Item D4 on tiie agencia Setif Ad,ms ------------ ---------------- Seth AdanA Di:.or Land Programs,Save Mount Diablo 1901 Olvm i.:Bivd..Suite 220, Wainut Crccl:,CA 94596 w 925 947-353:•,pax 925 947-0642 E-mail:sad msrZz%savemountdiablo.ore www.savemountdiablo.org I I . I ' 1 I. 3e� 00 06 04 : C3p SMD S25-947-0642 OF k— _ _.; �;`•••'ms's-�1 :,;�;.;,n, 'iSP- '4�;�iil,vi�,::--, •�,aY':. •w - .. '�•-.--3.,, I,�..' ?.. r-n�_��'• - Y` � ^ya": y.^_. Win_ c v a ri ri 01 Direcrmrs cpfcinbc, 8, 2006 ron[ra Costa County Boald o:Supervisors Ar::rt:: Bomvell + ounw Admtc Bld47. NIlr:, :t!: i' cc! 1 fine St., ;`d Floor,Notl'n Wing irr I'resirlrnu Martinez,CA 94553-1295 .)::,.:;,; I rpllc: ;.,•,,,;,;•,. Ze: DA HISAPING to consider authorizing pkicen:ent of a portion tit a proposed residence located al 4: ; i D!abio 'akes Lane(Parcel A of MS ID2-87)in the Diablo arca within an area where the dcvcin:,mcn( r!-'IttI have nccn grant deeded to the County,including the removal of three mature onk trees. (Paul Lopcz,Lonc: Oak Properties,Inc. - Applicant and Owner)(Catherine Kuisuns,Cotnrnuniry Developn-tent Dcn:.rimcnt; (File nZ106-1 1474)(District 1I11 Dncc Frcirci,,_ 7e,rnslie �hntnnan Gioia, Members of fife Boars. Cian_rl I t:ijiidi:l Hein give Mount Diablo(SMD) was involved in the 1989 subdivision which created this S-acre parcel. C)' f,riin;:,consideration during that application was the proximity o`all the new lots to M:. Diablo Sint'_ Pari:, :I Ili! l! r,c'. tnd resultant visual impacts. i j As.a result, area:outstc_of carefully designated wilding envelop s--crosct. it!s;c� �v tic applicant—were to be placed within scenic casements. a'1 01 Ki \lnrri�,ut J: . t' [:r'tiel i application before you is.to amend a this parcel's building envelope, nt; offers to deed restrict a i0 '77. quare foot area in exchange for adding 9.849 square feet to the existlnh envelope. The remainder of tht ,ar;,;,\',altcr; wouid contatue to be covered by the relatively weak 1989 scenic casement. Det7icano-.: or n rcro:s ric:velonment rights of a 10.337 area within a 5 acre lot has little value. c v inct several times with the Lopez family. We appreciate the consultation and the special needs thc•, :a! firi,wn efciencc. but note that this is nonetheless a 6 fir 7 bedroom, 7,220 square foot residence with a 900 square . .curirr Uirecrm Oot garage. ! i.ir tori L-u,rrl Prq,rrrn, hVe are not opposed to the Lopez proposal and appreciate their efforts.in mcctin-with SMD and C)c! 111it's..cic trighiuors,however w�c indicated to them that in our opinion,the development rights of the entire arca of the builriing envcinne should be deed restncteci and dedicated to the county. As a resu:t,we t Finance Wanw,,vi Lvould urge the board to continue to increase protections around Mt. Diablo by amending the first �aragraph of Condition of Approval#4: r.cri rl Erenr'c 4 i iraC;Deed of Development Rights"rot Ftasteffi Pprt4aii„r n., !a:..,. Sw,el.,pe yore rnpl,c�:u �! 5;arrnrrrr Curnrlinru»r icsa ,sr for Weeks prior to se:-king grariing or h!,ilrirnr;hermit,the appli•_ant.shall .uhmit the foliowing exhibits for the review and approval ofthc Zoning Administrator pertaining to conveyance of a gr-ant d_ed offdevciopmen! ;;unto (u (he County tormc entire;r'ca of thr parcel outside nfncc amended huddimZ cnvcionc ':/pili' -Irirlrr.�c - • '-, 'kii'iftiFN-EYii't:i - s de -'-ud •:', r'+`hc-Flt u {remainder Jt:.Ontf:tlU:i •,()I _ilynipic Biv�!....__(-' unchanged( - ) r he result would be to Erant the tlexiblilry the applicants wish for in order-to meet all of their goats. will'_ (021.0 047-1 04 •nhancing protections for the sensitive area in the vicinity of Mt. Diabip State Pari:. •i:•l,tiirr• ^ L•any i: vol- for our conslderatlon of SMD's comments. cin c'nr -rrunir�ri,iu.r,-_ � - ' Lii�ams :rr:rir r rc'�lo:of Land Programs nu,nrc/r �! r— CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor s:,, ..:,. .-.. ._ Martinez CA 94553 'Telephone: (925) 335-1210 Fax: (925) 335-1222 TO: Jane Pennington, Chief Clerk Clerk of the Board FROM: Bob Drake Principal Pldnn DATE: September 12, 2006 SUBJECT: Revised Conditions of Approval on Proposed Lopez Residence Per Board of Supervisors September 12, 2006 Approval Diablo area CDD File #ZI06-11474,-Agenda Item #D.4. On September 12, 2006, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing on the design of a . proposed residence in the Diablo area. After taking testimony, the Board approved the project generally as recommended by staff, but with a modification. Attached are conditions of approval that have been revised in accordance with the direction, of the Board of Supervisors' decision of September 12, 2006. Should you.have any questions, please call me at X5-1214. Att. Modified COA Cc: File D:\Personal\zi06-11474.inem.doc RD\ FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED AUTHORIZATION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN DEED RESTRICTED AREA FOR' PARCEL "A" OF MS 102-87 (#2411 Diablo Lakes Lane, Diablo), COUNTY FILE #ZI06-11474 (Paul Lopez/Lone Oak Properties, Inc.) PER SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL. FINDINGS A. Consistency with General Plan The proposed plans allow-for a placement of a residence that would be partially within a Deed Restricted Area established at the time of the subdivision. However, the architectural and grading plans still provide for a low-profile development which will be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood, and very similar to what was envisioned for the site at the time of the subdivision approval. The final house design will allow for grading, but its maximum height shall not be allowed to exceed 18-feet as measured from the natural grade. Based on these factors, the project will be consistent with the General Plan including the Agricultural Lands designation and slope protection policies. B. Tree Alterations Reasonable development of the property requires the proposed tree alterations and removals, and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot., CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. This approval is generally based on the following exhibits submitted to the Community Development Department as part of the proposal, subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading or building permits: A. Proposed Change in Building Envelope and Grading Plan prepared by RMR Design Group (Two sheets). B. Preliminary Architectural Plans by Gorny and Associates dated -1-2006 (Sheets A-01 through -08) C. Letters Findings and Conditions ofApproval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence CountiFile#ZI06-11474 i.. 6/20/2006 letter from Joan Enea-Lopez and Paul Lopez ii. 6/20/2006 letter from Bingham McCutchen iii. 6/13/2006 letter from Gorny & Associates with sample colors for the exterior of building walls and roof and retaining wall iv. 6/13/2006 letter from RMR Design Group V. 5/25/2006 Tree Survey and Arborist Report prepared by Rob Rossen. Certified Arborist Compliance with this approval satisfies Condition #10 of the Tentative Map approval. for Minor Subdivision, File #MS 102-87, which created this site. 2. Building Heitht Restriction - In accord with the subdivision approval that produced this lot. the height of the proposed residence shall not exceed 18 feet from natural (existing) grade. 3. Applicant bbligations for Pavment of Processing Fees- This application is subject to an initial application fee deposit of$1500, which was'paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the staff application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial deposit. Any additional fee must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fee includes costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 4. Grant Deed of Development Rights for Eastern Portion of Building Envelope as Proposed by the Applicant—At least four weeks prior to seeking a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit the following exhibits for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator pertaining to conveyance of a grant deed of development rights to the County for approximately 10,377 square feet of the existing Building Envelope as depicted in the exhibit from RMR Design Group: • A draft Grant Deed of Development Rights from the owner to the County; • The following documents prepared and wet-stamped by a licensed surveyor: o A survey of the area where the owner's development rights are to be conveyed to the County, including a metes-and-bounds description of the area; and o A legal description of the area. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the approved instruments shall be executed and notarized; accepted by the Board of Supervisors; and recorded. The applicant shall provide evidence that the grant deed has been recorded. Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence Counts, File#7.106-11474 5. Final Review of Architectural Plans At/east three weeks prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall include: A. Special Roof/Grading Plan to Document Compliance with the Building Height Restriction—To aid staff in verifying compliance with the building height restriction, the applicant shall provide a special exhibit to be included in the building permit construction plans. The exhibit is described as follows: A grading plan prepared by a licensed engineer showing existing and proposed topographic contours in minimum 2-foot intervals, and retaining walls and their respective heights from finished grade. The roof plan for the proposed buildin()s shall be superimposed on this grading plan. The plan shall include the following information at representative points along the roof ridgelines: • Elevation of Natural Grade below Roof Ridgeline point; • Elevation of Roof Ridgeline point; and • Height of Structure (ft.) as Measured from Natural Grade Elevation. In addition, the General Notes on the plan shall provide the following direction: Survey Data to Veri&Compliance ii ith Zoning Height Limits—At locations of the building envelope 1v,here measurements to natural grade are Critical such as tivhere the proposed height of a portion of the building is almost as high. the same height, or greater than the maximum height alloiiwble by the C'ounn°development perinit,for this site. the `natural grade' tivill be surveyed and recorded by a licensed Land Surveyor (at the applicant's expense). The locations and heights should be referenced to a fiixed monument or a recognized elevation datum such cis the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGI"D 1929). When the building is readv,for.framing inspection. the Land Surveyor shall survey the same points and measure the finished building heights. This measurement can then be compared to the surveyed elevation points of natural grade Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence County File#Z106-11474 and constn.iction plans for pinposes cif vein&ing compliance 1t,ith the development permit height lintils. Prior to issuance of agrading permit. the licensed engineer shall provide a letter to the Community Development Department indicating that the proposed grading permit grading plans are in accord with the approved Roof/Grading Plan. B. Strengthenin.Q of Design Linkage Between Garage and Residence—The building design connection between the garage and residence shall be strengthened to add to its appearance as one integral building. This shall be provided through roof design. and either converting the proposed covered breezeway to an enclosed conditioned space (windows acceptable), or to add a wall to one side of the corridor, and application of other extension of architectural themes from the residence or garage. Prior to completing construction plans, the applicant is encouraged to meet.. with staff to discuss how compliance with this requirement might be accomplished. C. Tree Planting and Landscape/Irrigation Plan—The applicant shall provide a tree planting and landscape/irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan shall provide for the planting of at least six (6) minimum 24-inch box, specimen trees, and thirty (30) minimum 5- gallon trees of a species that is indigenous to the Bay Area. At least two specimen-sized trees.shall be planted on both the east and south sides of the building site and placed so as to soften the view of the residence from off-site vantage points. Tree planting will be in accordance with generally recognized industry practices, as set forth by the International Society of Arboriculture's publication Principles and Practice of Planting Trees and %-Ilbs, or American Nursery and Landscape Association current planting standards. At least two weeks prior to requesting a final inspection of the residence, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Department in writing that the improvements in the Tree/Landscape/Irrigation Plan have been completed, and may be inspected. D. Letter from Arborist—The grading and building permit plans shall be accompanied by a letter from the arborist indicating that he is satisfied that the construction plans have been designed in accord with recommendations of the above referenced arborist report and contain notes on protection of trees to remain that are required by this development permit. 4 Findings and Conditions of.4pproval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Iuc. Residence Count' File#Z106-11474 6. Condition of Approval Compliance Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. the.applicant shall provide a permit compliance report to the Community Development Department. The report shall identify all conditions of approval and document measures taken by the applicant to satisfy those conditions. The compliance review is subject to staff time and material charges, with an initial deposit of$1500, which shall be paid at time of submittal of the compliance report. Prior to request for final inspection of the building permit, and prior to requesting release of the required tree protection securities, the applicant shall provide evidence that they have paid any processing fees owed to the County. 7. Notes on Grading and Building Permit Construction Plans The Grading and Building Permit Construction Plans shall include the following: A. Tree Protection All grading, site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees proposed for removal, altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number corresponding to the arborist report discussion, and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. In addition, the General Notes shall include the following: i. All of the recommendations for protection of trees to remain from the 5/25/2006 arborist report. ii. Site Preparation = Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. iii. Construction Period Restrictions -No grading, compaction, stockpiling trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature tree other 5 Fundings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence County File#ZI06-11474 than the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be saved, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. .Upon the completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval. iv. Prohibition of Parking- No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. v. Construction Tree Damage - The development's property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. vi. Supervision of Work and Maintenance of Site Inspection Log by an Arborist - All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. The arborist shall maintain a log of site visits and findings, including one that is retained at the site with the building pen-nit plans during the construction operation. B. Construction Period Development Activity Restrictions — Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction activity restrictions: All construction activities 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 on the calendar dates that these holidays are observed by the state or federal government as listed below: 6 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties/nc. Residence Counn,'File#Z106-11474 New Year's Day (State and Federal) Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. (State and Federal) Washington's Birthday/Presidents' Day (State and Federal) Lincoln's Birthday (State) Cesar Chavez Day (State) Memorial Day (State and Federal) Independence Day (State and Federal) Labor Day (State and Federal) Columbus Day (State and Federal) Veterans Day (State and Federal) Thanksgiving Day (State and Federal) Day after Thanksgiving (State) Christmas Day (State and Federal) For specific details on the actual day the state and federal holidays occur, please visit the following websites: Federal Holidays http://,vww.opin.g*ov/fedhol./2006.asp California Holidays http://www.edd.ca.eov/eddsthol.litiii Procedure to Consider Modified Restrictions on Construction Activities - The applicant may request that the County vary the permitted construction times from the above requirement. Any such request shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and shall be accompanied by a written statement providing reasons why the request should be granted. Construction activity outside of the permitted times shall not be allowed without the prior written approval of the Zoning Administrator. C. Survey, of Altered Building Site—Prior to the clearing of land or the commencement of grading, a licensed surveyor shall survey the boundary of the "Building Envelope" as altered by the Board of Supervisors, and mark all angle points of the perimeter Building Envelope boundary in the field. Tree Protection Securities . 8. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide two securities that are subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator consisting, of either a cash deposit or certificate of deposit as follows: A. Required Security to Assure the Completion of Tree Planting Improvements - The applicant shall submit a security in an amount of the 7 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties Ine. Residence Count►? File#7-106-11474 approved cost estimate. plus a 20% inflation surcharge for the required tree planting. The applicant shall guarantee that five of the required six specimen native trees will survive in good condition. as determined by a county-designated arborist or landscape specialist, five years after planting. If four (4) of the specimen trees do not survive after five years, the applicant shall purchase and plant two additional 24-inch box trees on the same site for each specimen tree that does not survive, save one., and guarantee survival of the additional trees for five years. B. Required Security for Trees to be Preserved but Altered - Pursuant to the conclusions of the arborist report, proposed improvements within the root zone of trees noted on the.site plan to be preserved have been determined to be feasible and still allow for preservation provided that the recommendations of the arborist are followed. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages these trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on: i. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 40 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; ii. Determination of Securitv Amount - The security shall provide for all of the following costs: • Preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist: • A labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required prepared by a licensed landscape contractor; and • An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of the tree alteration improvements (i.e.. issuance of final building permit). In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged-by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant may not have been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged 8 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposed Lone Oak Properties brc. Residence Count, File#ZI06-11474 trees. then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. At least 18 months follo►ving the completion of work within the driplitte of trees, the applicant's arborist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction activity, and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of. the trees and. if appropriate, any recommendations including further methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. Compliance with Construction Material Debris Management Ordinance 9. Recvcling of Construction Material Debris - Pursuant to the Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance (Chapter 418-14), this project is subject to the following requirements. The ordinance requires that at least 50% of jobsite debris generated by projects be recycled, reused or otherwise diverted from disposal in a landf II, by providing receipts and/or gate-tags from all facilities and service providers used for recycling, reuse and disposal of jobsite debris. Information about this regulatory program is also available at the following website: www.cccrecvcle.or/debris. Questions on compliance with this program may be directed to the Resource Recovery Specialist of the Community Development Department at (925) 335-1231 (Lorna Thomson). A. Debris Recovery Plan - At least one week prior to seeking issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit two (2) copies of a completed Debris Recovery Plan demonstrating how the Applicant intends to recycle, reuse, or salvage building materials and other debris generated from the construction of new buildings for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, following an opportunity for review and comment by the Resource Recovery Specialist. B. Debris Recovery Report - At least one week prior to requesting a final inspection on a residential building permit, the applicant shall submit a completed Debris Recovery Report documenting actual debris recovery efforts (including quantities of recovered and landfilled materials that occurred throughout the project's duration for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator following an opportunity for review and comment by the Resource Recovery Specialist.. Failure to comply lvith this ordinance ma'v result in the delay of the building perinit(s•), hold on the,final inspection and/or monelarv,fine. 9 Findings and Conditions of Approval Proposer!Lone Oak Properties Inc. Residence County File#Z106-11474 ADVISORY NOTES . THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO ' PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by the approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant.to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within the 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the County Building Inspection Department. C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. D: Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District and East Bay Municipal Utility District. GXurrent Plannin-\curr-plan\Staff Reports\dp06-1 1474 bos.coa.doc RD\ Rev. 9-12-2006 - rd 10 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS MARTINEZ AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday September 12,2006,'at 1:30'pm, in the.County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Room 107 (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets), Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: PAUL LOPEZ/LONE OAK PROPERTIES (Applicant & Owner); County File #Z106- 11424 — A request to allow a portion of a proposed two-story residence and accessory improvements to encroach into a portion of a 5-acre parcel where the development rights have been grant deeded to the County, and outside of both the building site and house site envelopes shown oil the Parcel Map (County File #MS 102-87) that created the subject property, and to allow the removal of three Blue Oak trees with trunk diameters up to,28 inches, other impacts to mature oak trees that are proposed to be preserved. 'file project is also proposing water storage tanks to be placed on an adjoining property to the north (Parcel B of MS 102-87). The subject site (where the residence would be placed) is located at #2411 Diablo Lakes Lane, in the Diablo area (Parcel A of MS 102-87; APN 194-240- 001). Tlie location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below (a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): Tile location of the subject site is 2411 Diablo-Lakes Lane, Diablo, CA For the purposes of.compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), Community Development staff is proposing that the Board determine that this proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA (Class 3, new residence). 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 at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at,dr prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 at 1:00 pm, in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to: (1) answer questions; (2) review the hearing procedures used by the Board-, (3).clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and (4) provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. if you wish to.attend this meeting with staff, please call Bob Drake at 925-335-1210, Community Development Department, by 3:00 pm on Monday, September H, 2006 to confine your participation. Date: August 29,2006 John Cullen, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By ` Jane ennin n, ief Cler BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRACOSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING 1N TME MATTER OF: PAUL LOPEZ/LONE OAK PROPERTIES (Applicant& Owner); County File#ZI06-11424—A request to allow a portion of a proposed two-story residence and accessory improvements to encroach into a portion of a 5-acre parcel where the development rights have been grant deeded to the County, and outside of both the building site and house site envelopes shown on the Parcel Map (County File #MS 102-87) that created the subject property; and to allow the removal of three Blue Oak trees with trunk diameters up to 28 inches, other impacts to mature oak trees that are proposed to be preserved. The project is also proposing water storage tanks to be placed on an adjoining property to the north (Parcel B of MS 102-87). The subject site (where the residence would be placed) is located at#2411 Diablo Lakes Lane, in the Diablo area(Parcel A of MS 102-87; APN 194-240-001). 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 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 Y matter to the following: PLEASE SEE ATTA CHED LIST 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is.true and.correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: August 29, 2006 Celicia Nelson, De uty Clerk 194080035 194080030 194240001 KLEIN LORIS A & DEBRA ANN LONE OAK PROPER' FRAHM ROBERT GEORGL'iI TRE 64 Pc) BOX 7053 1251 STONE VALLEY RD BOX DI CA CA D[ABI.O CA ALAMO CA 94528 94507 94528 194080032 194080033 SCHMIDT LES TRE DITZLER LEE C& ELIZABETH TRE 2410 DIABLO LAKES LN Lone Oak Properties, Inc. 2420 DIABLO LAKES LN 2658 Rolling Hills Court DIABLO CA DIABLO CA Alamo, CA 94507 94528 9428 194080036 194080037 FRAHM ROBERT G.EORGEII TRE SURIYAKUMAR KUMARA K& PO BOX 664 RUSHIKA Sandford M..Skaggs DIABLO CA PO BOX 825 Bingham McCutchen 94528 DIABLO CA PO Box V 94528 Walnut Creek,CA 94596-1270 194080034 Save Mt. Diablo WALLUNAS DONALD II TRE East Bay Regional Park District 1901 Olympic Boulevard, #220 PO BOX 574 PO Box 5381 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 DIABLO CA Oakland, CA 94605-0381 94528 194240002 194240003 . PRAHNI ROBERT GEORGEII Diablo Municipal Advisory Council LONE OAK PROPERTIESINC PO BOX 664 PO'Box 35 1251 STONE VALL1iY RD ALAMO CA DIABLO CA Diablo, CA 94528 94507 94528 II, I il. Kathy Sinclair/COB/CCC To cctlegals@cctimes.com 11/02/200510:60AM cc Maureen Parkes/CD/CCC, bcc .tet-+,t Subject Publication Request- ul Lopez Hi Anashia, Please publish the attached legal noti e in the CCTimes: One day only, Saturday, Septem r 2, 2006 Reference PO#: 2007 Please confirm receipt of quest. Should you have any estions, please call me at the number listed below. Thank you, Kathy Sinclair Clerk of the oard of Supervisors Contra C to County 925.33 .1902 J 09 6 PAUL LOPEZ LONE OAK Diablo.doc ft