Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12191989 - T.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Harvey E. Bragdon, Contra Director of Community Development Costa MATE'. November 16, 1989 Cesar"ty SUBJECT: Reconsideration Request and Adoption of Findings of SUB 6933, in 'the Diablo Area :TsPEC1FIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION REQUEST This is a request to reconsider the 'Conditions of Approval that the Board of Supervisors stated their intent to approve on July 26, 1988. The Conditions of Approval are attached (Exhibit C) . RECOMMENDATION Adopt findings for SUB 6933 and approve SUB 6933 with amended Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) . BACKGROUND On December 16, 1987 the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approved the request to divide the 106 acre property into 5 parcels. The decision was appealed by Christopher P. Valle-Riestra on behalf of Save Mt. Diablo, the Sierra Club, the Mount Diablo Audubon Society, the Preserve Ridgeland Committee, and the People for Open Space. An appeal was also submitted by Sanford M. Skaggs, attorney representing the owner, Robert D. Stratmore, appealing the Conditions of Approval. The Board of Supervisors heard the appeal on July 12 and July 26, 1988 and stated their intent to approve the Subdivision with conditions amended to require siting of the homes according to County Ridgeline Policy. Prior to the adoption of findings, the applicant's attorney requested a reconsideration of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Skaggs letter outlining the requested changes in the conditions of approval is attached as Exhibit B. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends modifications to the conditions to allow a 2 acre building site with the location subject to Zoning Administrator review and approval at the time of building permit issuance. If the house design is similar to the one depicted in Exhibit D featuring a low profile with roof terraces and sod roofing, a location at or near the ridgeline or on the Danville side of the slope may be considered for approval of the Zoning Administrator. If a conventional .y designated home is proposed then the placement of the homey*., ,,,,sev&zt of the ridgetop. Notification of the design restrictions must be recorded as a deed notification. The Final Map may be filed prior to the expiration of the Agricultural Preservation Contract. CND. OTINUE ..ON ATTACFI42 T: YES SIGNATURE' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM 10 RD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER - SIGNATURE(SI: ACTION OF BOARD ON December 19, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER _ This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the reconsideration of the Board of Supervisors decision on the request (Subdivision 6933 ) by DeBolt Civil Engineering (applicant) and Robert D. Stratmore (owner) to divide 106+ acres into five lots in an Agricultural Preserve District (A-4) in the Diablo area. 1. Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the matter before the Board today, giving a brief history of the project and approvals. She advised of the staff recommendation that the Board approve the findings and the modified conditions of approval. The public hearing was opened and the following persons appeared to speak: Sanford Skaggs, P.O. Box V, Walnut Creek, representing Robert D. Stratmore, applicant, commented' on requested modifications to the conditions of approval including cancellation of the Williamson Act, multiple hearings before the Zoning Administrator, and expansion of the two acre building site to three acres. He presented a requested condition number two to substitute for staff' s condition. Chris Valle-Riestra, 257 Vernon Street #321, Oakland, representing Save Mt. Diablo, spoke in opposition to the request. Mr. Skaggs spoke in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Schroder commented on Mr. Stratmore's desire to do something unique with the five lots, and he recommended the approval of the recommendation before the Board with the wording presented by Mr. Skaggs. Supervisor Schroder moved approval of the findings for the Subdivision 6933 and approval of Subdivision 6933 with the amended conditions. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the findings (Exhibit A Attached) for Subdivision 6933 are ADOPTED; and Subdivision 6933 is APPROVED with conditions as amended (Exhibit A Attached) . Supervisor Schroder requested that the Community Development Department prepare a proposal for a review for building permits that are requested on property exceeding a certain elevation. He requested that this matter be presented for Board consideration after the first of the year. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Community Development Department is REQUESTED to prepare a proposal for a review for building permits that are requested on property exceeding a certain elevation, and to present this matter for Board consideration after January 1990. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I AND CORRECT COPY.OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:" NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED .. December 19, 1989 County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Public Works-Tom DudZiak SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Assessor San Ramon Fire Protection Dist. , ford Skaggs BY ) ,DEPUTY Mss[ i _ 2. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 6933 1. This approval is based upon the Tentative Map received October 29, 1987. 2. With the Final Map a scenic easement shall be dedicated to the County for the entire site. The easement shall generally preclude any buildings from being erected except as follows: - a three-acre area on each lot for a residence and accessory buildings (hereafter "building site") . The building site for each lot need not be shown on the final map but shall be described in the written approval of the Zoning Administrator, issued pursuant to condition 6 below, and shown on a record of survey map filed before issuance of any building permit for such lot; - barns, stables, and other accessory building necessary or convenient to an agricultural function or a recreational function associated with the residential use of the lot and landscaping which may be sited anywhere on the lot with the approval of the Zoning Administrator. The precise location of each building site shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any building permit during the process described in condition 6 below. C.C. & R's shall identify these development restrictions and shall require that the property owner be responsible for maintaining property outside of the residential site in natural grasslands, (i .e. , feeding lot prohibited) . 3. Comply with the requirements of the County Health Services Department con- cerning water supply and sanitary facilities, prior to filing the Final Map. 4. Prior to recording the final map or issuance of Building Inspection De- partment permits, submit a preliminary engineering geology and soil report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.402, in- cluding design-level conclusions and recommendations, for review and ap- proval of the Planning Geologist, allowing 60 days for review. The report shall be based on subsurface exploration and present recommendations nec- essary for long-term stability for structures, on site sewage fields, roads, and erosion control . Cite the above report on the final map and record acknowledgement of the report and these conditions of approval con- currently with the Final Map. 5. Subdivision grading plans and improvement plans shall implement approved recommendations of the preliminary soil report. 6. Prior to issuance of a buil ding permit, a site plan for the lot shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The site plan shall show the boundaries of the building site allowed under condition 3 above. The purpose of the review is to assure that the struc- tures will be visually compatible with the surrounding area. The following design guidelines shall be enforced: 2 A. The site plan shall avoid, so far as practicable, undue interference with major and important views of Mt. Diablo and its foothills from the populated areas to the west and south of the subject property. This objective shall be balanced against the rights of the lot owner to construct a residence which takes advantage of the views to be ob- tained from the site . and the site plan shall provide a reasonable accomodation of the competing interests, if any. B. Residences and any accessory buildings shall be designed as low pro- file, structures which generally shall not exceed 25 feet in height above the existing grade. C. Structures shall use earthtone colors or other dark hues. D. Additional landscaping may be required in order to assure adequate screening of buildings from the valley floor. 7. 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. B. The following exceptions to Title 9 are permitted for this subdivi- sion: 1) Chapter 96-10, "Underground Utilities" . 2) Section 914-2.006, "Surface Water Flowing from Subdivision", provided the applicant maintains the existing drainage pattern and does not dispose concentrated storm waters onto adjacent properties. C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available from Diablo Road. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across driveways. E. Construct a 20-foot paved private roadway to County private road standards, within a 25 foot easement, to serve all parcels in this proposed subdivision. This roadway shall be extended off-site to Alameda Diablo. 8. If archaeologic materials are uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation, earthwork within 30 meters of these materials shall be stopped until an archaeologist certified by the Society for California Ar- chaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary. 3 9. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall refer the project to the East Bay Regional Park District to provide the District an opportunity to recommend trail easement connections across the . site. Any disagreement over trail connections shall be decided by the Zoning Administrator. 10. Further subdivision of the property shall be prohibited. Any proposed al- teration in the general configuration of the subdivision shall be referred to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for review and ap- proval . 11. With the filing of this Final Map, the developer shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator from the County Health Services Department and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District that there is adequate water . supply for this development including fire protection. 12. The C.C. & R. 's shall include provision for access and maintenance of fire protection equipment through the site, and also provision for a 30 foot wide fire break adjacent to State Park Lands along this north boundary of proposed Lot 1. The following statement is not a condition of approval ; however, the applicant should be aware of these requirements prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map or attempting to secure building permits. A. Development shall be subject to the ordinance requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. B. Developer promises to cooperate with Diablo Community Services District for maintenance and repair of roads within the district. BT/aa SUBII/6933C.BT 11/13/87 11/30/87 12/16/87 7/25/88-df 12/20/89-a CogZ ITEM T . 4 - SUBDIVISION 6933 APPLICANT' S SUGGESTED CONDITION NO. 2 2 . With the Final Map a scenic easement shall be dedicated to the County for the entire site. The easement shall generally preclude any buildings from being erected except as follows : - a three-acre area on each lot for a residence and accessory buildings (hereafter "building site" ) . The building site for each lot need not be shown on the final map but shall be described in the written approval of the zoning administrator , issued pursuant to condition 6 below, and shown on a record of survey map filed before issuance of any building permit for such lot; barns , stables and other accessory buildings necessary or convenient to an agricultural function or a recreational function associated with the residential use of the lot and landscaping which may be sited anywhere on the lot with the approval of the Zoning Administrator . The precise location of each building site shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of any building permit during the process described in condition 6 below. C.C. & R. ' s shall identify these development restrictions and shall require that the property owner be responsible for maintaining property outside of the building site in natural grasslands , ( i . e . , commercial feeding lot prohibited) or as otherwise permitted by these conditions of approval . 0122X t RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, i a INCORPORATING APPROVAL AND FINDINGS PERTAINING TO SUBDIVISION 6933 IN THE DIABLO WHEREAS , DeBolt Civil Engineering (Applicant) and Robert Stratmore (Owner) filed a Tentative Map Application for a Subdivision (Subdivision No . 6933) to divide approximately 106 acres into 6 lots, and this Application was received by the Community Development Department on March 6, 1987 and subsequently amended to a proposal for 5 lots; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and the State and County CEQA Guidelines, an initial study of environmental significance was prepared on April 6, 1987, which initial study determined that development of this property pursuant to this Subdivision Application would not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS,. a public hearing was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for June 17 , 1987; and WHEREAS, on December 16, 1987, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approved the Application (Subdivision No. 6933) with certain conditions; and 1 WHEREAS, on December 22,, 1987 , a variety of organizations appealed the Regional Planning Commission ' s decision to the County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, on December 28, 1987, the Applicant also appealed the imposition of certain conditions of approval to the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 1988, the Board of Supervisors continued its hearing on these appeals to June 21 , 1988 , at which time this Board continued the hearing to July 12 , 1988; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 1988 , this Board closed the public hearing and directed Community Development Staff to report to the Board on various alternatives for action on the Application; and WHEREAS, on August 5, 1988, the Applicant, through Sanford M. Skaggs, the Applicant ' s attorney, requested that the Board reconsider its decision to impose certain conditions of approval upon Subdivision 6933; and WHEREAS, the Board moved to receive the letter requesting reconsideration, refer the letter to the Community Development Department and Supervisor Schroder, develop 2 findings for approval of the Application, and after those findings are prepared, then begin the appeal period for the approval of the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, Community Development Staff have prepared conditions of approval and findings pursuant to the direction provided by the Board; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after having considered all of the evidence and testimony in the record made available to the Board with respect to the Subdivision Application (Subdivision 6933) , including those documents in evidence previously referenced and incorporated herein, the Board hereby has accepted the environmental documentation as adequate and in compliance with CEQA, has denied the appeals , and approved the Subdivision (Subdivision 6933) , subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A. In connection therewith, this Board hereby adopts the following findings : A. Findings Required Under The Contra Costa County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9, Contra Costa County Code) . This Board hereby finds that: 1 . Compliance With Subdivision Requirements . The proposed Subdivision (Subdivision 6933) meets and satisfies 3 all of the requirements and conditions imposed by Title 9 , Section 94-2 . 806 of the County Code, as more fully set forth in the findings incorporated herein and as mandated by condition of approval number 7(A) requiring compliance with provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance. 2 . Consistency With The General Plan. The proposed Subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. There are no applicable specific plans governing the property. The General Plan designates the property as agricultural preserve, and the Staff Report states that the proposed Subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan' s open space element provides for very low density residential development of open space areas . This Subdivision will provide development of an agricultural-residential-open space character furthering the goals of keeping large areas in agricultural use, and furthering other open space and aesthetic goals of the General Plan. 3 . Construction Requirements . To the extent that County construction requirements apply to this Subdivision, they are contained in Condition of Approval number 4 . This Subdivision complies with County drainage, road improvement, traffic and utility requirements, as may be applicable. 4 4 . Zoning Consistency. The property is zoned for A-4 agricultural preserve zoning. In the listing of specific uses authorized for A-4 districts, Section 84-42 . 204 of the County Code states that A-4 zones are intended to provide areas for agricultural and other compatible uses . Because of the size of these lots, the Subdivision will preserve open space and will promote agricultural or open space use of the majority of the site. 5 . Consistency With The Williamson Act . The proposed Subdivision is consistent with the Williamson Act . The Subdivision will preserve open space on the subject property, as stated above. The Williamson Act, Government Code 51200 , et seq. , sets forth various different goals for the Act, including preservation of agricultural work force and economy, and preservation of lands and open space. This Subdivision will not obstruct the goals of maintaining property in commercial agricultural production, as such agricultural use is not currently in effect or economically viable on this property. This Subdivision also will preserve open space due to the size of the parcels , and the very low density nature of development which could be allowed in the future, thus furthering the open space goals of the Williamson Act . 5 B. Findings Required Under The Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 , Et Seg. ) . This Board hereby finds that : 1 . Compliance With Subdivision Requirements . The evidence presented to this Board does not require denial of the Subdivision pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, and supports approval of the Subdivision, as set forth below. 2 . Consistency With General Plan. As more fully described in Paragraph A(2) above, the Subdivision and the design or improvement of the Subdivision are consistent with the General Plan, including the land use designation for agricultural preserve. 3 . Site Physically Suited For Type Of Development. This Board finds that the Subdivision would allow for the construction of one residence and accessory or related improvements on each parcel and agricultural and open space uses on the remainder of each parcel , and that the site is physically suited for such very low density residential development . 4 . Site Physically Suited For Proposed Density of Development . The Board finds that the density allowed by 6 • this Subdivision is an additional five residences and accessory or related improvements on the property as a whole. This very low density residential development is appropriate for this site and will further the use of the majority of the property for agricultural and open space use. 5 . Environmental Damage Or Injury To Fish Or Wildlife Or Their Habitat . The design of the Subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat . As part of the environmental determination evidenced in the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration prepared for the Minor Subdivision, the Community Development Department, pursuant to CEQA, determined that the Subdivision does not have the potential to have a significant impact on the quality of the environment, or a significant impact on habitat of a fish or wildlife species . 6 . Public Health Problems . The design of the Subdivision is not likely to cause serious health problems . The Minor Subdivision will only allow the construction of five residences and accessory -or related improvements ;on the entire 106-acre property. Any public health problems that could be created by such construction on a 106-acre site will be ameliorated by the property owners ' compliance with the drainage, road improvement, traffic, and utility requirements 7 contained in the Conditions of Approval as well as compliance with applicable grading and building code requirements . 7 . Conflicts With Existing Access Easements . There is no evidence in the public record before the Board on this Subdivision Application that its design will conflict with public easements for access through or use of the property. 8 . Regional Housing Needs . Pursuant to Section 66412 .3 of the Subdivision Map Act, this Board has considered the effect of this action on the housing needs of the region. In doing so, this Board has attempted to balance the regional housing needs against the public service needs of the residents of the County, as well as against the available fiscal and environmental resources . The Subdivision will provide five additional units of housing and accessory or related improvements . The Subdivision will not have a negative effect on regional housing needs, and will provide housing. 9 . Passive Heating And Cooling. In accordance with Section 66473 . 1 of the Subdivision Map Act, the design of the Subdivision will provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the Subdivision. 8 C. Findings In Support Of The Negative Declaration On The Subdivision (Subdivision 6933) (Compliance Of California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 , Et Seq. ) . This Board hereby finds that : The Initial Study and the Negative Declaration for the Subdivision properly evaluated the potential for environmental impacts resulting from the Minor Subdivision Application for the creation of five parcels on the 106-acre site. The initial study evaluated the impacts of a 6-lot subdivision, and the impacts of a 5-lot subdivision are reduced, due to the reduced number of units . The identified possible inconsistency with zoning was cured by the reduction from 6 to 5 parcels . Based upon the entire record before this Board, the Subdivision will not degrade the quality of the environment or curtail diversity in the environment , will not achieve short term environmental goals at the expense of long term goals , will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, and will not have direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings resulting from the Subdivision' s environmental impacts . The Initial Study contains conclusions to this effect, and the record as a whole contains evidence supporting these conclusions . 9 EXHIBIT 0 McCUTCHEN, DOYLE, BROWN 6t ENERSEN COUNSELORS AT LAW SAN FRANCISCO 1655 OLYMPIC BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR WALNUT CREEK OFFICE SAN JOSE TELEX 340111117 MACPAG SFO POST OFFICE BOX V COSTA MESA FACSIMILE GI. 11 AND IIt WASHINGTON.D.C. WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA O43O6 (418)030-2350 SHANGHAI TELEPHONE (415) 037-6000 TAIPEI November 27, 1989 Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chairman CO n and Members of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County " Z 651 Pine Street N C'7 Martinez , CA 94553 co rn Subdivision 6933 u Our File No . 72198 . 001 "3 Dear Supervisors : 'n N This is a five lot subdivision - each lot is at least 20 acres . At your meeting of July 26 , 1988 you orally announced your decision approving the subdivision subject to certain conditions some of which had been redrafted by your staff after the close of the public hearing held at a prior meeting . We had no opportunity to review or comment on the revised conditions which were not delivered to us in advance of the meeting as required by Government Code section 66452 . 3 . We did not receive a copy of the board order setting forth the conditions until early November although the order was dated July 26 . On August 5, 1988 we wrote to you asking for reconsideration; a copy of our letter is attached. In that letter we pointed out our dilemma - we did not have a copy of the conditions - yet arguably our time to request reconsideration was running. On August 16, 1988 , your Board referred our request for reconsideration to the Community Development Department and Supervisor Schroder , directed that . findings be prepared and ordered that the appeal period would start after the findings were prepared. We understand that the findings will be before you at your meeting on December 5 or December 12, 1989 . Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors November 27 , 1989 Page 2 We hereby renew our request for reconsideration for the reasons set forth below and ask that reconsideration take place at the time scheduled for adoption of the findings . This matter has dragged on for some time and further delay would not advance the interests of anyone. Summary. We request reconsideration ( 1 ) of the conditions (COA 1 and 3) requiring termination of the agricultural preserve contract, (2) of the conditions (COA 2, 6 and 7) requiring multiple hearings for approval of each of the five homes permitted on the five lots , and (3) of the size of the portion of each lot which may be used for residential and accessory buildings (COA 2 . ) In general , we believe that the conditions as drafted create a bureaucratic nightmare which will be next to impossible to administer while creating abstract restrictions which will frustrate creative design of the homes to be built on these five lots . A more flexible procedure would provide an incentive to the owners and their architects to find design solutions which address the concerns of the community while allowing the owners of the lots to exercise their right to build. Cancellation of agricultural preserve contract . The Planning Commission required that the applicant submit a petition for cancellation of the land conservation contract , prior to final map. The contract was effective the last day of February 1975 . You adopted this recommendation as condition of approval ( "COV ) No . 3 . At the recommendation of your staff you also included COA 1 which requires termination of the contract and recites that the contract is presently scheduled to terminate on June 30 , 1992 . The actual termination date is the last day of February. Our client believes the contract terminates in 1991 ; we are presently verifying the date or_ which notice of non-renewal was served. There is no reason that the agricultural conservation contract must be terminated before the final map. is recorded. The map is consistent with the terms of the contract and with the A-4 zoning which is applied to lands under contract . The zoning and the contract both provide that the County may treat subdivisions as a notice of non-renewal causing the contract to terminate 10 years after subdivision. Neither mentions cancellation as a condition to subdivision. We request that COA 1 read as recommended by the Planning Commission ( i . e. , by deleting the last three sentences included in the COA' s attached to your order of Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors November 27, 1989 Page 3 July 26, 1988) . This would eliminate the requirement that the contract be terminated before final map. We also request that COA 3 be deleted in its entirety. This is the condition which requires the landowner to petition for cancellation thus giving the Board an opportunity to cancel if it determines that is appropriate . We believe that there is no reason to postpone the decision and to require yet another round of hearings . Given the short time remaining under the contract and the fact that the subdivision is not inconsistent with either the contract or the zoning, there is simply no good reason for requiring cancellation of the contract . Procedures for Review of Plans for Homes . The several conditions relating to review of the location and design of the homes to be constructed on the property are redundant , confusing, inflexible and unworkable . We concede that a review process is needed to insure that the homes as constructed on the property will be visually compatible with the surrounding area and will avoid, so far as practicable, undue interference with major and important views of Mount Diablo and its foothills from the populated areas to the west and south of the subject property. However , these objectives should be balanced against the rights of the lot owner to construct a residence which takes advantage of the views to be obtained from the site and the approved site plans should provide a reasonable accommodation of the competing interests . Nevertheless , the procedure provided by the conditions of approval is clumsy and unworkable. As now formulated, the conditions of approval require review in addition to the land use permit hearings required by the existing zoning. Together , the conditions and the existing zoning will require a minimum of eleven hearings before the Zoning Administrator to obtain approval to build five homes plus possible appeals to the Planning Commission and Board. Counting the several hearings which have already been held, in order to build five homes on this land, the owners will have had a minimum of fifteen hearings with a possibility of twenty-five if the matters are appealed or even more if there are Continuances . We submit that this is absurd and that the same public benefit can be obtained by a simpler process oroviding for one hearing per home, with, of course, the right of appeal . Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors November 27, 1989 Page 4 We suggest that prior to issuance of the building permit, a site plan and architectural plan should be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for review and approval by land use permit , as now required by the zoning. This site plan should show the boundaries of a building site allowed under COA 2 . In this way the building site can be defined taking into account the design of the home. As now drafted, COA 2 requires that the building site be designated before the final map is approved and thus before a home has been designed. This rigid and artificial approach gains nothing for the public and hampers the lot owner, discouraging creative architectural solutions which might be identified once the design process commences . As now drafted, COA 6A provides that the structure shall be sited "subject to County ridgeline policy. " We have been unable to find such a policy. We propose that COA 6A be redrafted to identify the important factors which should be considered by the Zoning Administrator , including those factors which are important to the lot owner . Any decision regarding the design and siting of homes on these lots must take into account all of the interests of the public including the owner of the property. The Zoning Administrator should be encouraged to balance these factors and provide a reasonable accommodation of any competing interests . This can best be done when the plans for the home and related structures are available . These lots will be expensive and it is to be expected that significant amounts of money will be spent on the architectural and site design and that some innovative and stunning homes will result which will be a credit to the community. Size of Building Site . COA 2 requires the dedication of a scenic easement encumbering the entire 20+ acres of each lot except for a two acre building site . The easement precludes the erection of buildings except within the two acre building site and except for accessory structures serving an agricultural function. We believe that the required dedication of the scenic easement is unconstitutional under the Nollan decision of the U. S . Supreme Court . However , our client is willing to accept the condition if ( a) the size of the building site is increased to three acres ( the actual size of the buildings is, of course, subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator - this is merely the area within which the residential improvements must be sited . ) ; and (b) the second exception allows construction anywhere on the lot , with approval of the Zoning Administrator , of accessory buildings necessary or convenient to an agricultural function or a Honorable Tom Torlakson, Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors November 27, 1989 Page 5 recreational function associated with the residential use of the lot and landscaping. Clarification of Height Limit . COA 6B should also be amended to substitute a height limit for the current limitation to single story which is difficult to define and administer . The height limit should allow some flexibility in case the design presented to the Zoning Administrator has an element which nominally exceeds the specified height and the Zoning Administrator feels it is a good design. We suggest that the condition read that " . . . buildings shall be designed as low profile structures which generally shall not exceed 25 feet in height above the existing grade . " With the changes suggested we believe that the Zoning Administrator will have the power and responsibility to review plans and approve only those which will be compatible with development in surrounding areas and will be required to take into account the sometimes competing objectives of the community at large and the owner . We believe that a single hearing process (Zoning Administrator with a possibility of appeal) is more efficient and fair than the multiple hearings now required by the conditions of approval . Neither the public nor the owner benefits from a multiplicity of hearings . We, of course, will be present when this matter is scheduled for your consideration and will then be available to answer any questions which you may have. Thank you for your consideration of our presentation. Very truly yours , a4no M. S,kg4 y� gg s a SMS :ks/0 5659Y Encl . cc : Karl Wandry w/encl . Community Development Dept . VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 6933 1. This approval is based upon the Tentative Map received October 29, 1987. The Final Map shall not be recorded prior to the termination of the Agri- cultural Preserve Contract. The contract is presently scheduled to termi- nate on June 30, 1992. However, an earlier expiration may occur if the cancellation petition required under Condition #3 is approved. 2. With the Final Map a scenic easement shall be dedicated to the County for the entire site. The easement shall generally preclude any buildings from being erected except as follows: - a two-acre area designated on each lot for a residence and accessory buildings; - barn, stable or other accessory structure serving an agricultural function which may be sited elsewhere on the lot with the approval of the Zoning Administrator. The two-acre building site shall be setback from the ridgetop location. The precise location of each building site shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to the filing of a Final Map. The approved building sites shall be identified on the Final Map. C.C. & R's shall identify these development restrictions and shall require that the property owner be responsible for maintaining property outside of the residential site in natural grasslands, (i .e. , feeding lot prohibited) . 3. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit a petition for can- cellation of the land conservation contract to the Community Development Department. The petition shall include the required application fee. 4. Comply with the requirements of the County Health Services Department con- cerning water supply and sanitary facilities, prior to filing the Final Map. 5. Prior to recording the final map or issuance of Building Inspection Depart- ment permits, submit a preliminary engineering geology and soil report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.402, includ- ing design-level conclusions and recommendations, for review and approval of the Planning Geologist, allowing 60 days for review. The report shall be based on subsurface exploration and present recommendations necessary for long-term stability for structures, on site sewage fields, roads, and erosion control . Cite the above report on the final map and record ac- knowledgement of the report and these conditions of approval concurrently with the Final Map. 6. Subdivision grading plans and improvement plans shall implement approved recommendations of the preliminary soil report. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The intent of the review 2 is to assure that the structures will be visually compatible with the sur- rounding area. The following design guidelines shall be enforced: A. Structures shall be sited on subject to county ridgeline policy. B. Residences and any accessory buildings shall be designed as low pro- file, single-story structures. C. Structures shall use earthtone colors or other dark hues. D. Additional landscaping may be required in order to assure adequate screening of buildings from the valley floor. 8. 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. B. The following exceptions to Title 9 are permitted for this subdivi- sion: 1) Chapter 96-10, "Underground Utilities". 2) Section 914-2.006, "Surface Water Flowing from Subdivision", pro- vided the applicant maintains the existing drainage pattern and does not dispose concentrated storm waters onto adjacent proper- ties. C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available from Diablo Road. D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across driveways. E. Construct a 20-foot paved private roadway to County private road stan- dards, within a 25 foot easement, to serve all parcels in this pro- posed subdivision. This roadway shall be extended off-site to Alameda Diablo. 9. If archaeologic materials are uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation, earthwork within 30 meters of these materials shall be stopped until an archaeologist certified by the .Society for California Ar- chaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary. 10. Prior to filing the final map, the applicant shall refer the project to the East Bay Regional Park District to provide the District an opportunity to 3 recommend trail easement- connections across the site. Any disagreement over trail connections shall be decided by the Zoning Administrator. 11. Further subdivision of the property shall be prohibited. Any proposed al- teration in the general configuration of the subdivision shall be referred to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for review and approv- al . 12. With the filing of this Final Map, the developer shall provide evidence to the Zoning Administrator from the County Health Services Department and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District that there is adequate water sup- ply for this development including fire protection. 13. The C.C. & R. 's shall include provision for access and maintenance of fire protection equipment through the site, and also provision for a 30 foot wide fire break adjacent to State Park Lands along this north boundary of proposed Lot 1. The following statement is not a condition of approval ; however, the applicant should be aware of these requirements prior to filing the Final Subdivision Map or attempting to secure building permits. A. Development shall be subject to the ordinance requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. B. Developer promises to cooperate with Diablo Community Services District for maintenance and repair of roads within the district. BT/aa 11/13/87 11/30/87 12/16/87 7/25/88-df SUBII/6933C.BT >IPA .iii - ;-' r • .- S�.i.� ��, � � • � '. 'AW �1^"� :s.�Com' N .+� `� �••'=�')•. � .. ���y�-"•.(y^yam .r t r.♦•IL - - � `- *�R'i .�r~• `' �R � ��ter. T '� � �,�' •�' _ ,.� Ar 4 44 ', -� �, •!• ` --., �' .y w � _ _ - fir•. ..!' �► :• t 'f' •� :yam • 4 ' - ,: _ '�` � �• � � � * • III +� !, • .� '','', • lot, Y IA �. jar .�u,x� • �, �, '+. ,rte' � � ��-/.`, i .+ .�.9+. .`!+l IA + �� �7~�`y��� ■•(:3 - T' '%l fs W� .rte•. �\+X�3 t`_ � �: ` - r ��, � � � ^� r �j.s'.r�soX`�• "r,;fs -+!,Ki6" -�, 4.� � _ � r•� ;" `'.fir . y,�•. � r .tom�f) _r',� -b s oy-, -� .-i r r.h.. s.t.-b�' '� * `�.r S s, .. l �i-� �l-f•_r�.�5,�, y Y )• ` t-' }-��- moi.)� � . +` ".L ` ' ` 1 nr{F�� i. �a•.;s r J f fg3.`t�. S� � - - t' ` 3 �L'? V r�.�';• 4,3. �r`�{tilts ++Z n,� -ii:,, >'� � 'a R'� _-�� . :'�"r',. ,� . •! • �r _ . - j ss r+ 1 "`9 •Oi�c r��.. .:yZy~-d3t•�jT'4�v _ ,ti r 1C•, ,. L =� ir-- f •Q ,,� � • a- „r '� JS� -�-b ��y � L j�'•. v 't b ,.a14.•� 'T � s N 7•';�f• '� • r61 >L' �� .l ` i .�t1 .. .la>• %tF:r-S., ..s- ati_,, <:[!�' .n' i'-,�) .i .t tib. ti. a• �+�^y � rl r.;, .t• 1 ' ,� _ � '�" •K ,! ' art'." •1 ` i�tr} > � s�s L �s y - L t`i'e'\f'"' t'-•. s�`��� •_ 1,fr �( - - 1 Y!C: �lYV'�^.l,j{r~^ �C✓�,y rh "f 7 *v'.�w - .. '* :� . . 3,� s'���,4,-f�,ua� `,'«+tyjy,a,'rP f +I.:' .?.'X?';' is, ( .;'71 �• � r � .