Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07282015 - D.3RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. OPEN the public hearing and take testimony. 2. CLOSE the public hearing. 3. DENY the appeal by Neetu and Prashanth Machaiah and UPHOLD the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve County File #TP14-0036, a tree permit to allow work within the dripline of one (1) Coastal Live Oak tree and one (1) Valley Oak tree for the construction of a new single-family residence. 4. ADOPT the attached conditions of approval for County File #TP14-0036 and ADOPT the findings contained in the conditions of approval. 5. FIND that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a), which provides that the construction of a single-family residence is exempt from CEQA review. 6. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 07/28/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Contact: Sean Tully, (925) 674-7800 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: July 28, 2015 David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: , Deputy cc: D. 3 To:Board of Supervisors From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department Date:July 28, 2015 Contra Costa County Subject:Hearing on an Appeal of the County Planning Commission's Decision to Approve a Tree Permit, in the Unincorporated Walnut Creek Area FISCAL IMPACT: None. The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit, and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to recover any and all additional costs associated with the application process. BACKGROUND: This hearing concerns an appeal filed by Neetu and Prashanth Machaiah on the County Planning Commission's decision to approve a tree permit to allow work within the dripline of two Oak trees for the construction of a new 2,963 square foot single-family residence. GENERAL INFORMATION Environs: The subject property is located within a residential neighborhood in the unincorporated area of Walnut Creek. The subject property is surrounded by residential lots ranging in size from 0.23 acres to 0.50 acres in area, most of which have been developed with residential dwellings and associated accessory structures. The intersection of Highways 680 and 24 is located approximately one quarter-mile north of the property, the Walnut Creek city limit is approximately 350 feet north of the property along Dewing Lane, and the Lafayette city limit is approximately two-thirds of a mile west of the site. Site Description: The subject property is an unaddressed vacant lot located along the southern boundary of the property identified as 21 Blade Way. The lot is rectangular-shaped and measures 0.26-acres (11,325 square feet) in area. The site is relatively flat with a few mature trees located along the northern and southern boundaries. The site is approximately 95 feet south of Blade Way, and is accessed via a 16-foot wide access easement over the 21 Blade Way property. General Plan: The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential, Medium Density (SM) General Plan Land Use designation. The proposed tree alteration will allow for the construction of a single-family residence and the establishment of a residential use on the subject property. The primary land uses allowed within the SM designation are detached single-family homes and accessory structures. Based on the above, the proposed project falls within the category of permitted land uses, and thus is consistent with the SM designation. The subject property is also located within the County General Plan’s Saranap specific geographical area. The adopted policies for the Saranap area indicate that the undeveloped hillside south of Olympic Boulevard and west of Tice Valley Boulevard is designated for Single-Family Residential, Medium Density development along the base of the hill along Olympic, and the remainder of the site is designated as Agricultural Land and Open Space to reflect steep unbuildable slopes. The subject property is located northeast of the region described above, and thus will not conflict with these adopted policies. Zoning : The subject property is located within a Single-Family Residential (R-10) zoning district. The proposed single-family residence associated with the proposed tree alteration is a permitted use within the R-10 zoning district, as stated in Section 84-8.402 (Uses-Permitted) of the County Ordinance. The County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance requires that a tree permit be obtained prior to any trenching, grading, or filling within the dripline of any protected tree or cutting down, destroying, trimming by topping or removal of any protected tree (Section 816-6.8002 – Permit Requirement). The applicants have filed a tree permit application, and therefore if approval is granted, the project would be in compliance with the County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of working within the dripline of one (1) Coastal Live Oak tree and one (1) Valley Oak tree located on the subject property to allow for the construction of a new residence. Neither of the trees are proposed for removal. The proposed residence will be 2,963 square feet in area, and will be a single-story structure with an attached garage. As part of the project the applicant will need to connect the proposed residence with utility mains located within Blade Way via underground trenches that will run within the 16-foot wide access easement. The proposed utility trenches require work within the dripline of the two trees mentioned above, which requires the granting of a tree permit. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The construction of the proposed single-family residence and installation of associated utilities is exempt under Government Code Section 15303(a), which identifies the construction of one single-family residence as being exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). PENDING CIVIL LITIGATION BETWEEN APPLICANT AND APPELLANT There is a pending civil case in the State Superior Court between the applicant and the appellants. The civil case is related to a dispute regarding the existence and location of an access easement to the subject property over the appellant’s adjacent property located at 1321 Dewing Lane. The civil case is not germane to the tree permit being reviewed, and can be reviewed separately. However, it should be noted that the outcome of the civil matter could impact the required structure setbacks for the proposed residence along the subject property’s eastern property line. The applicant has proposed to locate the residence 16-feet 6-inches from the subject property’s eastern boundary, which will allow for accommodation of the required structure setbacks for the residence regardless of the outcome of the pending litigation. Therefore, the proposed residence will meet the minimum yard setback requirements along the eastern property line for both a secondary front yard (minimum 15 feet required) in the event that the easement is found to exist, or for a side yard (minimum 10 feet required) if it is determined by the court that the easement does not exist. EFFECT OF EASEMENT DISPUTE ON TREE PERMIT APPLICATION The request to allow work within the dripline of code-protected trees on the subject property is separate from the easement dispute, and can be reviewed independently. This is partly due to the fact that the applicant has recorded a new access easement to the subject property across 21 Blade Way, which is not in dispute. Utilities for the proposed residence will be located within the 16-foot wide easement from Blade Way, and require trenching within the dripline of two existing trees located on the subject property. Due to their size, species, and location on an undeveloped lot, the trees are deemed as code protected trees under the County’s Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Section 816-6) and approval of a tree permit is required. Since the existing underground utility mains are located within Blade Way, use of the access easement to the subject property for the underground utility laterals is the most direct and unobtrusive path with respect to the surrounding property owners, and would require approval of a tree permit to work within the dripline of the subject trees regardless of the existence of the disputed access easement on the appellants’ property at 1321 Dewing Lane. Therefore, the outcome of the easement dispute will have no effect on the tree permit request. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND DECISION OF JANUARY 13, 2015 An appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision to approve County File #TP14-0036 was heard before the County Planning Commission on January 13, 2015. Staff recommended the appeal be denied, and the Commission approve the project with added conditions of approval (COAs #6 and #7) related to Fire District approval, as recommended by staff. The Commission opened the hearing; testimony was received from the applicant and an attorney, Mr. Bruce Zelis, who represented the interests of the appellants. The applicant advised the Commission as to their desire to retain the trees despite the need to work within their driplines and his belief that the civil matter regarding the easement is not germane to the proposed tree permit. Mr. Zelis advised the Commission that he wished to discuss the easement dispute in further detail and clarify certain items mentioned in the staff report. The Commission advised that the tree permit was the matter before the hearing body, and that the easement dispute would not be discussed. The public hearing was subsequently closed, and the Commission denied the appeal and approved the project with the added conditions of approval recommended by staff. APPEAL OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION’S JANUARY 13, 2015 DECISION On January 22, 2015, the Community Development Division received a letter from Neetu and Prashanth Machaiah appealing the Commission’s January 13, 2015 decision. Below is a summary of the appeal points raised in the letter, along with staff responses. Summary of Appeal Point: Mr. Kilian only provided a letter from the fire department that allows access from Blade Way and not from Dewing Lane, This is very important, as we believe the building will not be compliant due to the conditions of the required turnaround radius and width as mentioned by one of the members of the Planning Commission, let alone the requirements of the Fire Department. Neither the project nor issuance of building permits should be granted because the easement from Dewing Lane is greater than 150 feet in length and is not 16 feet in width as required. 1. Staff Response: In their letter dated December 11, 2014, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District provided minimum standards for the proposed project including standards specifically related to fire vehicle access. The applicant intends to comply with these requirements, and has shown that the property will be accessed from Blade Way via a recorded 16-foot wide access. In addition, the County Planning Commission approved the project with added conditions of approval (COA #6 and #7) which will require that the applicant provide the County with evidence of the Fire District’s approval of the Blade Way access design prior to issuance of a building permit, and that the approved access be physically inspected prior to the commencement of construction. Staff has also spoken with a Fire Inspector of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District who has confirmed that only one of the recorded accesses for the project site needs to meet their standards. Therefore, the applicant will not be required to provide a second emergency vehicle turnaround or 16-foot width for the Dewing Lane access which is located on the Machaiah's property. Summary of Appeal Point: There are trees that are not depicted on the plans submitted by Mr. Kilian.1. Staff Response: The applicant provided an updated site plan on April 29, 2015, which provides a more comprehensive detail of all trees located along the subject property’s boundaries. The plan includes the location, diameter, species, and approximate dripline extent for all of the trees in the area of proposed work. As shown, the proposed project will not encroach within the dripline of trees beyond the two (2) Oak trees previously identified for the project. CONCLUSION The Appellants’ concerns regarding the Fire District standards were addressed prior to the County Planning Commission’s approval by means of staff’s recommendation for additional conditions requiring evidence of Fire District Approval. With regard to the depiction of trees located at the site, the applicant has provided a revised site plan confirming that there are no additional trees that will be impacted by the proposed project. Due to the fact that the items discussed in the Appellants’ letter have been addressed and the required findings for approval of the requested tree permit can be made; staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal of Neetu and Prashanth Machaiah, and uphold the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve County File #TP14-0036. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: In the event that the proposed project is not approved, the applicant will not be granted the approval needed to extend necessary utilities from the Blade Way right-of-way to the location of the proposed residence. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: The application is a request to work within the dripline of two trees for the construction of a single-family residence. The work under the protected trees and the construction of the new residence will have no impact. CLERK'S ADDENDUM Appellant Prashanth Machaiah addressed the Board (handout attached). Supervisor Piepho recognized the Appellant Prashanth Machaiah addressed the Board (handout attached). Supervisor Piepho recognized the great effort by Supervisor Andersen to resolve this issue. CLOSED the public hearing; DENIED the appeal by Neetu and Prashanth Machaiah and UPHELD the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve County File #TP14-0036, a tree permit to allow work within the dripline of one (1) Coastal Live Oak tree and one (1) Valley Oak tree for the construction of a new single-family residence; ADOPTED the conditions of approval as revised today to add an additional bullet point to COA #2 to say “Revised site plan was received on April 29, 2015.” and ADOPTED the findings contained in the conditions of approval; FOUND that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and DIRECTED the Department of Conservation and Development to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. ATTACHMENTS Appeal of CPC Decision CPC Resolution #10-2015 Conditions of Approval CPC Staff Report Appeal of ZA Decision Arborist Report Maps Site Plan w/ Additional Trees Original Project Plans Power Point Slides