HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10051993 - H.6 ( ¢ H. 6
j Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS r,; _ = Costa
o:
County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT '
DATE: October 5, 1993 g OOQx
SUBJECT: Symat Hillside Homes (Edward Patmont) - Minor Subdivision 206-90 -
Request Approval of a Revised Tentative Map to Divide 1.83 Acres into
Three (3) Lots, in the Walnut Creek area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Choose Option "A" or "B" listed below:
Option A
1. Deny the subdivision on previous findings made by the Planning
Commission in Resolution No. 63-1992 . See Exhibit A.
Option B
1. Grant the applicant's request and approve MS 206-90 with
modified conditions of approval including those proposed
by the applicant, in a letter dated received on August 16,
1993 by the Community Development Department, as shown in
Exhibit B, in addition to staff's recommended conditions of
approval shown in Exhibit C for MS 206-90.
2 . . Adopt the following findings:
A. The application is consistent with the County General
Plan and meets the intent and purpose of the County
Zoning Ordinance.
B. That the development of the new residence will be limited
to the provisions outlined in the modified conditions
proposed by the applicant, in addition to staff's
recommended conditions of approval for MS 206-90 as shown
in Exhibit C.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE-,- .
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 5 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x
See Addendum for Board action
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: II , III , V NOES: I , IV ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Rose Marie Pietras - 646-2091
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED October 5 , 1993
cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
D CO Y ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
2 .
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 5, 1993 the Board of Supervisors granted the request of
Symat Hillside Homes (Ed Patmont) to reconsider the Board's
November 24 , 1992 denial of his application for Minor Subdivision
206-90 in the Walnut Creek area. At this time, the Board suggested
that Mr. Patmont meet with the neighbors who objected to this minor
subdivision and furnish them with new information prior to the
Board's meeting. Since that time, the applicant has met with the
neighbors to attempt to resolve their differences. At this
meeting, the applicant provided a model of a new house design for
review.
The applicant has submitted a revised Tentative Map, site plans and
floor plans/sections and elevations, dated received by the
Community Development Department on September 22 , 1993 . On the
revised site plan, Parcel A's gross land area totals 22 , 450 sq.
ft. , net land area totals 14 , 700 sq. ft. The new house model
located on Parcel A consists of a single story, split level home
above a garage. This model is smaller than the previous one that
totaled 2 , 505 sq. ft. with a living area of 1, 905 sq. ft. The new
house totals 2 , 200 sq. ft. , it includes a main level - 1, 490 sq.
ft. , entry - 190 sq. ft. , and three-car garage - 520 sq. ft. The
building height is 25 feet from below the turret to the finished
grade. As currently proposed the deck does not encroach into the
setback as did the previous deck. The retaining walls have a
minimum height of four feet. As shown on the revised site plan,
all existing oak trees have been retained. It is staff's
recommendation that the new house model maintain consistency with
all the conditions of approval for MS 206-90 shown in Exhibit C.
Therefore, the building height shall be 25 feet including roof
shapes to finish grade, as conditioned in #5.B.
In addition to the original conditions of approval for MS 206-90,
as shown in Exhibit C, the applicant has submitted a set of
modified conditions prepared by Eugene F. DeBolt of DeBolt Civil
Engineering as shown in Exhibit B. The modified conditions have
addressed past issues that were matters of concern and reasons for
denial of this subdivision by the Planning Commission outlined in
Resolution No. 63-1992 . See Exhibit A. At that time, the
Commission found the site not suited for residential development
due to the physical constraints on the property and major concerns
relative to the potential of traffic problems along Sequoia Lane.
The modified conditions as set forth in DeBolt Civil Engineering
Report recommended the following design criteria as agreed upon by
the applicant, to address these concerns. That the house size
shall be limited to a main level of living space above a garage;
that the driveway shall be within a 100 feet of Sequoia Lane to
help minimize the impact of the more curved upper portion of
Sequoia Lane; that the retaining walls shall be terraced and offset
along the driveway; and two additional guest parking spaces shall
be added on Sequoia Avenue near the entrance of Sequoia Lane. The
report also claims that the additional lot will result in
approximately 10 - 12 trips a day, which in the opinion of the
report, can be safely accommodated by Sequoia Avenue and Sequoia
{ Lane.
Staff recommends that one correction be made to #2 of the modified
conditions to read as follows:
#2 . The house would be limited as shown in submitted
plans stamped received on September 22 , 1993 by the
Community Development Department.
s
As stated before, the applicant has agreed to the modified set of
conditions with all corrections recommended by staff, as set forth
in Exhibit B, a letter dated received on August 16, 1993 by the
Community Development Department from the applicant that includes
the DeBolt Civil Engineering Report. He has also agreed to these
modified conditions in a letter dated received September 22 , 1993
by the Community Development Department from Allan C. Moore, the
applicant's legal counsel.
RMP/aa
BDVIX/206. 90.RP
I
ADDENDUM TO ITEM H. 6
OCTOBER 5, 1993
This is the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors for hearing on the recommendation of the
Contra Costa County Planning commission on the request by Symat
Hillside Homes (applicant and owner) for approval of a revised
tentative map to divide 1 . 83 acres into three lots in the Walnut
Creek area .
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented
the staff report describing the proposed site and the history of
the Minor Subdivision and commented on additional conditions the
applicant is proposing and the new site plan and architectural
rendering to reduce the potential for impact of the project
including limiting the size of the structure, the layout, there
are now no variance requested for the deck on the side of the
home, the location of the driveway, and an additional parking
space on Sequoia Avenue . Mr . Barry commented on the two options
for action before the Board.
Mitch Avalon, Public Works Department, commented on the
parking area and the retaining wall along the back as spelled out
in a memo dated October 4 , 1993 .
The public hearing was opened and the following persons
presented testimony:
Allen Moore, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon and Armstrong, 217 Front
Street, Danville, representing Symat Hillside Homes and Edward
Patmont;
Elise Fornaci, 24 Sequoia Lane, Walnut Creek, in support of
the proposal;
Gene DeBolt, no speaker card, spoke in support;
John Pereira, 245 Sequoia Avenue, Walnut Creek, in
opposition;
Jim Kwiat, 236 Sequoia Avenue, Walnut Creek, in opposition;
Susan Pereira, 245 Sequoia Avenue, Walnut Creek, in
opposition;
E . K. Vickers, 1710 Lilac Drive, Walnut Creek, in opposition;
Mr . Moore spoke in rebuttal .
The public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Powers commented that Mr. Patmont has done a lot
to correct the situation and suggested the addition of a
condition strengthening the condition on the drainage and
correcting the slides on the property, and he moved to grant the
reconsideration.
Supervisor McPeak seconded the motion.
Supervisor Torlakson clarified that the motion included
looking at the drainage and soil stability issues were addressed
as carefully as possible .
Supervisor Powers concurred.
The vote on the motion was as follows :
AYES : Supervisors Powers and McPea k
NOES : Supervisors Smith, Bishop and Torlakson
ABSENT : None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion failed.
Supervisor Bishop moved to deny the subdivision based on
previous findings made by the Planning Commission.
I
i
Victor Westman, County Counsel, suggested that the Board
indicate their intent to deny the subdivision and direct staff to
prepare findings to support a denial .
Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion.
Following Board discussion of the matter, IT IS BY THE BOARD
ORDERED that intent is DECLARED to deny the request of Symat
Hillside Homes (applicant and owner) for approval of a revised
tentative map to divide 1 . 83 acres into three lots (MS 206-90) and
Community Development Department staff is DIRECTED to prepare the
appropriate documentation for Board consideration.
Cc: Community Development Department
County Counsel
HAND DELIVERED
BOARD of SUPERVISORS RECEIVED
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
651 PINE ST. OCT 4193
MARTINEZ , CA. 94553
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
r I am writing you in protest to any more building of
homes on the steep hillside ori Sequoia Lane, reference
file # MS.. 206- 90, Symat Hillside Homes. This site is
unsuitable for a home of any size, regardless of
decorative visuals made by the developer!
How many times does this community have-to be
harassed by this developer? We objected to his plans in
1988 and we object to this new plan today!
I refer you to a letter written to:
Ms. Candida Wensley
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
By: Marge Kimmerer
Associate Planner
City of Walnut Creek
on October 12, 1993, copy enclosed; This letter refers
to the fact that Mr. Patmonts claim to 5 lots is in error,
and that these certificates are not valid. I know that Mr.
Patmont has threatened litigation in this matter, but it
seems clear that the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
should stand up to these petty threats and put an end to
these repeated attempts to build more homes than was
originally agreed upon in 1987.
Since this area of Contra Costa County is in very close
proximity to the City of Walnut Creek's boundaries , I
think that the ruling by Superior Court Judge Edward
Merrill [ which limits development to one dwelling per 10
acres " is a reasonable accommodation of local and
regional interests in housing, open space, and wildlife
resources."
from "Walnut Creek in a Nutshell", #48, Sept/Oct 1993. is
an important ruling and should not be ignored just
cc: BOARD !-AE%!;ERS (Prcv;dod)
because this community is in the county and not in the
City of Walnut Creek.
The community on Sequoia Ave. and surrounding
areas are often unable to attend these meetings, as I am,
( I teach high school in Pleasanton) and cannot take a
day off from work! We look to the Board of Supervisors
to protect our interests, not those of Symat Hillside
Homes, who has no interest in this neighborhood other
than to make as much money as possible from it!
Please stop this harassment! Deny minor subdivision
# 206-90 once and for all!!
Sincerely,
� � G I
Mike Gordon
207 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, Ca.
OCT- 1-93 FRI 14:46 CITY OF WC CDD FAX NO, 5102563500 P, 01
1 r '
RECEIVED
i
OCT - ! 1993
Vl
Inut CLFRK BOARD OF SUP ERVi ORS
CONTRA COSTA CO.
City Of
Octcber 1, 1993
Board of scT rw3.surS
ammo Costa County
651 Pine St'Met
K rLinez, CA 94533
SUBJ=: ommmty File SSS 206-90
bymat Hillside limes
Dear Members of the' Board:
Attached is a lettar dated October 12, 1992 that we 907t r6gardirq this
prq oral. A similar lettex was amt to the Cm=jnity Develcp>a-nt
Deparbnent on April 9, 1992. We would like to submit these = mmts
again for your oonsideratim as we believe they are still relevant.
We do not believe that the Board of Supexars should take action on
this pz� at this time. Since new infcmation has been submitted by
the applic nt for consideration, this infoormation should be xeviamd by
the Planning Carr nimsion at a public hearing prior to the Board taking
any ac 4on.
it is not clear fit they dc=rtentation what the out=m was of ueetiM
with the rw1*kt0rz, as required by the Board of Supercar . Both the
staff report and the applicant's letter mention a meeting, but there is
nat indication whather unresolved issues have been addressed.
Vim' tmly yours,
Marge Kima erer
Associate Planner
tan c�� �rl7N L 1. . .
• � r
4
r
v,
1
Inut
pity O f
October 12, 1992
rAS. Candida Wensley
Omet zdl;y Dev+eloR*zTt Departam,t
Contra Cha County
651 Pine street
Martinez, CA 94553-009
S JBJ=: f5V2 a Hills, MS 206-90
Dear Candida:
The City of Walnut Creek does riot support Minor subdivision 206-90 which
creates an oUwr lot on this steep hUlsic3e.
Thi.4 project has a histwy *Aich dates back to Octob= 1987. At that
tim the applicant filed a request to combine this site with the
adjacent property for the Omwtr�n of an 1.8-lot subdivision. That
proposal was abandoned and the applicant aeoepted the four Qxisting ]cots
of re000rtl far this site, and a smaller subdivision payout for the o =
parcel.
The applicant has indicated that this request is oorrsistent with the
Certificates of Ompl rloe that wise issued to him cn J'time 24, 1988 for
five lots. In the application fer M.S. 85-88, filed 9-648, it makes
reference to revocation of these certificates as they were issued in
error. Therefore, there are no entitlements for five lots on this site.
There was significant public controversy over this development and
neighbors are wTectinq the applicant to earply with the conditions of
approval for both projects, including the scenic easement. 7b encroach
into that scenic easement now wruld be seen as a violation of a previous
agreement.
The applicant had the cpparbinity to process a major subdivision over
three years ago, and decided not to do it at that time to minimize the
controversy. It is date to make requests now to increase the
density with a minor subdivision application. This ca13d be seen as an
atteupt to circumvent the major subdivision process and increase the
density without the full review of a subdivision application.
P.O. Box 8039 a 1666 North Main Street d Walnut Creek. California 94596 + (510} 943-5800
Ms. Candida Wensley Page 2
Sequoia Hills, M.S. 206-90
9,is application should be reviewed aTaxnst the mandatory denial
fimli tgs in section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Acl« We believe that
tindirxjs a and d OmTd be made and would provide the basis for denial of
this application.
very UVIY YW
l sociat2 PlrarvVW
0
'doc 503 Ep192 J
SYMAT HILLSIDE HOMES
(Edward Patmont: Applicant)
COUNTY FILE #MS 206-90:
A request for approval of a revised tentative map to divide
1.83 acres into three (3) lots.
Walnut Creek area.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
OCTOBER 5, 1993 - 2: 15 P.M.
• �E,..s E...L
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
0!
o: -°liken
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON _ s County
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
00 .._
DATE: October 5, 1993
srA•coun`['1 �
SUBJECT: Symat Hillside Homes (Edward Patmont) - Minor Subdivision 206-90 -
Request Approval of a Revised Tentative Map to Divide 1.83 Acres into
Three (3) Lots, in the Walnut Creek area
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Choose Option "A1l or "B" listed below:
Option A
1. Deny the subdivision on previous findings made by the Planning
Commission in Resolution No. 63-1992. See Exhibit A.
Option B
1. Grant the applicant's request and approve MS 206-90 with
modified conditions of approval including those proposed
by the applicant, in a letter dated received on August 16,
1993 by the Community Development Department, as shown in
Exhibit B, in addition to staff's recommended conditions of
approval shown in Exhibit C for MS 206-90.
2. Adopt the following findings:
A. The application is consistent with the County General
Plan and meets the intent and purpose of the County
Zoning Ordinance.
B. That the development of the new residence will be limited
to the provisions outlined in the modified conditions
proposed by the applicant, in addition to staff's
recommended conditions of approval for MS 206-90 as'shown
in Exhibit C.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE'bl�12n
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Rose Marie Pietras - 646-2091
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED
cc: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
2.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. _
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 5, 1993 the Board of Supervisors granted the request of
Symat Hillside Homes (Ed Patmont) to reconsider the Board's
November 24, 1992 denial of his application for Minor Subdivision
206-90 in the walnut Creek area. At this time, the Board suggested
that Mr. Patmont meet with the neighbors who objected to this minor
subdivision and furnish them with new information prior to the
Board's meeting. Since that time, the applicant has met with the
neighbors to attempt to resolve their differences. At this
meeting, the applicant provided a model of a new house design for
review.
The applicant has submitted a revised Tentative Map, site plans and
floor plans/sections and elevations, dated received by the
Community Development Department on September 22, 1993. On the
revised site plan, Parcel A's gross land area totals 22,450 sq.
ft. , net land area totals 14,700 sq. ft. The new house model
located on Parcel A consists of a single story, split level home
above a garage. This model is smaller than the previous one that
totaled 2,505 sq. ft. with a living area of 1,905 sq. ft. The new
house totals 2,200 sq. ft. , it includes a main level - 1,490 sq.
ft. , entry - 190 sq. ft. , and three-car garage - 520 sq. ft. The
building height is 25 feet from below the turret to the finished
grade. As currently proposed the deck does not encroach into the
setback as did the previous deck. The retaining walls have a
minimum height of four feet. As shown on the revised site plan,
all existing oak trees have been retained. It is staff's
recommendation that the new house model maintain consistency with
all the conditions of approval for MS 206-90 shown in Exhibit C.
Therefore, the building height shall be 25 feet including roof
shapes to finish grade, as conditioned in #5.B.
In addition to the original conditions of approval for MS 206-90,
as shown in Exhibit C, the applicant has submitted a set of
modified conditions prepared by Eugene F. DeBolt of DeBolt Civil
Engineering as shown in Exhibit B. The modified conditions have
addressed past issues that were matters of concern and reasons for
denial of this subdivision by the Planning Commission outlined in
Resolution No. 63-1992. See Exhibit A. At that time, the
Commission found the site not suited for residential development
due to the physical constraints on the property and major concerns
relative to the potential of traffic problems along Sequoia Lane.
The modified conditions as set forth in DeBolt Civil Engineering
Report recommended the following design criteria as agreed upon by
the applicant, to address these concerns. That the house size
shall be limited to a main level of living space above a garage;
that the driveway shall be within a 100 feet of Sequoia Lane to
help minimize the impact of the more curved upper portion of
Sequoia Lane; that the retaining walls shall be terraced and offset
along the driveway; and two additional guest parking spaces shall
be added on Sequoia Avenue near the entrance of Sequoia Lane. The
report also claims that the additional lot will result in
approximately 10 - 12 trips a day, which in the opinion of the
report, can be safely accommodated by Sequoia Avenue and Sequoia
Lane.
Staff recommends that one correction be made to #2 of the modified
conditions to read as follows:
#2. The house would be limited as shown in submitted
plans stamped received on September 22, 1993 by the
Community Development Department.
As stated before, the applicant has agreed to the modified set of
conditions with all corrections recommended by staff, as set forth
in Exhibit B, a letter dated received on August 16, 1993 by the
Community Development Department from the applicant that includes
the DeBolt Civil Engineering Report. He has also agreed to these
modified conditions in a letter dated received September 22, 1993"
by the Community Development Department from Allan C. Moore, the
applicant's legal counsel.
RMP/aa
BDVII/206.90.RP
Symat Hillside Homes DeBolt Civil Engineering John & Susan Pereira
Edward Patmont 811 San Ramon Vly Blvd. 245 Sequoia Avenue
184 Rudgear Drive Danville, CA 94526 , Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dorothy & David Roberts Marge Kimmerer
141 Sequoia Avenue City of Walnut Creek
Walnut Creek, CA 94595 P.O. Box 8039
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
PARCEL NO. OWNER NAME/ADDRESS
----------- ------------------------------
184-321-003 James J. Simmons
Susan Basalto Simmons
241 Sequoia Avenue
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
184-321-14 James Larry and Linda Shields
15 Grandview Place
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
184-321-15 James and Cloe Morse
19 Grandview Place
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-321-29 Stanley B & Deborah Weinstein
25 Grandview Place
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-321-032 Michael R. Gordon
207 Sequoia Avenue
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
184-321-35 Bert and Glenda Bouler
31 Grandview Place
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
184-321-037 Jonathan C. & Elise M. Fornaci
24 Sequoia Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
184-321-042 Walnut Creek Hillside Homes
C/O Alborz Development Corp.
1009 D Shary Cir.
Concord, Ca 94518
184-321-026 John J. Bennice
265 Sequoia Avenue
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-321-045 Nancy Alsop
2511 Washington Ave.
Redwood City, CA 94061
184-333-02 Nicholas and Nancy Bevilacqua
80 Arlene Lane
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-333-03 Walta and William Everette
2087 Magnolia Way
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-333-09 Jeanne and J.E . Immergluck
2083 Magnolia Way
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
1
2085 Magnolia Way. :
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-333-15 Nina -and William Francis
35 Grandview Place -
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-333-22 Richard and Marilyn Davin
2075 Magnolia Way
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-333-21 Elaine Yang
2079 Magnolia Way
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-321-032 Michael R. & Bonnie Sue Gordon
207 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-290-044 Louise Anna Molley
171 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
184-290-051 John McTavernier
181 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-290-030 Frank L. & Barbara J. Victor
190 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-290-031 John P. Welch
113 W. 71th St.
Antioch CA 94509
184-290-032 James E. Milne
170 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
184-301-021 Betty Rose
230 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-303-012 Dorothy Welty
280 Q Ave. Carmel
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
184-303-016 P.J. Guillory
200 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-303-019 Tim & Deborah Gregory
208 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
184-303-020 Emil & Carmen Perez
206 Sequoia Ave.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
SEQUOIA90
PARC'FT.2 .T,RT
"[S�tSi:ti�'"iSt{i3fZlsFse%%s�i`-�t`��.r`}'— - ..c.x�s.c.c.��stGcs�use.tr'•vcy'+�uau.v ✓... ..w�.u';a�Cl �:�i45:.;c:ax::�ul�.;::c.._;��'_
EXHIBIT A
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL - Symat Hillside Homes
(Applicant & Owner) - Walnut
Walnut Creek Area. (S.D. III) Resolution No. 63-1992
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1990, the applicant, Symat Hillside Homes
filed an application (MS 206-90) , with the Community Development
Department, requesting approval to divide 1.83 acres into three (3)
lots, said property being located in the Walnut Creek area; and
WHEREAS, the property is zoned Single Family Residential District
(R-10) ; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 1992, the Board of Supervisors declared its
intent to approve MS 206-90 and referred the matter back to the
County Planning Commission for a de novo hearing; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 1992, a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance was posted; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 1992, the County Planning Commission
conducted a de novo hearing on MS 206-90; and
WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, con-
sidered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this
matter; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission
DENIED MS 206-90, for the following reasons:
1. The site is not suited for residential development due to
physical constraints on the property.
2. Major concerns relative to potential of traffic safety
problems along Sequoia Lane; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing order was given by the
Board of Appeals at a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 13, 1992,
as follows:
AYES: Commissioners - Woo, Gaddis, Clark, Frakes, Sakai.
NOES: Commissioners - Accornero, Terrell.
ABSENT: Commissioners - None.
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None.
Swat Hillside Homes:Homes: -2- Resolution No.63-1992
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant, SYMAT HILLSIDE HOMES has
appealed the decision of the Board of Appeals to the County Board
of Supervisors for public hearing and determination.
Marvin J. Terrell
Chairman of the Planning Commission,
Cont4El
s County - State of Calif.
ATTEST: vey . gdon, Secretary of
the Plan g Commission - Contra
Costa Cou , State of California.
EXHIBIT B
T'. COSTA
AUG 16 PH 3: 47
DEVELOPIIE�iT DEPT
FF
'14 MRGROUP INCORPORATED
August 11, 1993
Mr. Dennis Barry
Contra Costa County
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor
Martinez, Ca 94553-0095
Re: Minor Subdivision: MS206-90
Sequoia Lane
Walnut Creek Area
Dear Mr. Barry,
On January 5, 1993, Lhe Board of Supervisor`s granted my request
for reconsideration of this minor subdivision. Pat Rosenberg in
Supervisor Bishop' s office indicated that this matter could be
heard at either the September 14 or September 21, 1993, Board
meetings . I Respectfully ask that this matter be scheduled for
September 21, 1993, so that a final determination can be made on
my request for the one additional lot. At that time I will
formally submit new information concerning the Certificate of
Compliance for this lot issued by the Community Development
Department.
Pursuant to the Board' s request, I have met with the adjacent
neighbors in order to resolve differences . Additionally, i will
attempt to meet with them one more time prior to the public
hearing. Furthermore, I have constructed a site model of the
proposed house that I will present at the public hearing.
At the time the Board denied this subdivision it cited two fac-
tors as the basis of its denial as follows :
1 . The site is not suitable for residential development due
to the physical constraints on the property.
2 . Concerns relating to the potential of traffic safety
problems along Sequoia Lane.
e%i'%a"ca..,�tf.�;5tf��4�;�.,G "Sl.WkSiS:-c.�_ ;-;i'._ _ _"-�;X%CG�6�'c.seces.ses.+r., x:�++�n,•-.l•- - •'+'::a�i"a::::,�cvSrS[Cd�:a5a5:i,�.,�.�;.br.�ssw.
Attached please find a report prepared by DeBolt Civil
Engineering. Such report concludes that " . . . .we feel
comfortable that the house can be constructed on Lot 113 which
will be an asset to the immediate neighborhood and the community
as a whole. " The report is based on a house with stringent
design criteria for its development. I am prepared to abide by
all such design criteria.
This report is hereby submitted as expert testimony that this
site is in fact suitable for residential development and that
traffic safety problems on Sequoia Lane can be mitigated.
The history of this application has been long and painful. The
additional lot requested was in fact a legally subdivided lot as
far back as 1920 . There are existing properties on all three
sides-with similar slopes and densities . It appears to me that
there are no justifiable reasons for denial of this one homesite.
I designed and .constructed an entire roadway and utility
infrastructure system after obtaining an actual building permit
for this lot. As a matter of basic equity and fairplay, I hereby
request that my right to construct this home be reinstated. I am
committed to making this house an attractive addition to the
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Hillsid omes Group
Edward Pat n
President
Copy -�o � Mr. ��wh Maas
BARRY193 .LTR
. J'.,'!..l��S,4'.CLi�.LLGih" _.:diir1...._..tLft:i,:',.....51��..__ .r.r_,::t:4'GiSiiSf��_..r:.ei�'S%v��1i..' 4LGG'....._..._.;..rtStSr.;[k:.i:i• .+�
,ftShSuC.e:<:.c'rt::_..:i:YSf3:%e%✓�'' b[SfiT3oei_:..�r'6LiG`.dG:tSci2$2i:i... S'Sd.._..,_ . .__
DeBolt Civil Engineering
811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Danville, California 94526
July 27, 1993 510 / 837-3780
Job No. 93141
Mr. Ed Patmont
Hillside Homes Group, Inc.
184 Rudgear Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Ed:
At your request, we have reviewed the site and the past documentation
regarding MS 206-90 on Sequoia Lane in the Walnut Creek area of Contra
Costa County. The building site in question is Lot 113 of the Dewing Park
Subdivision. The lot is a steep hillside served by a grooved concrete
driveway constructed about five years ago. The driveway appears to be in
good condition.
A foundation investigation was performed in 1988 on the entire site by Alan
Kropp & Associates. Geotechnical Consultants. This report was updated and
related to the specific site on Lot 113 by letter dated May 27, 1992.
It is our understanding that the planned home for this site has been
modified to reflect the following design criteria:
1.) The new house would be a single story split level house
above a garage.
2.) The house would be limited to a maximum of 1,800 square
feet, exclusive of the garage.
3.) The driveway for the new house would be within 100 feet of
Sequoia Avenue measured along the centerline of Sequoia
Lane.
4.) Walls placed along the driveway would be terraced and offset
so as to have a maximum height of four feet.
5.)- In addition to the parking provided in the driveway for the
house, two additional guest parking spaces will be
constructed on Sequoia Avenue near the entrance of Sequoia
Lane.
,yr___ _ ...��_ "cisSCisr.'/rcrGcieicu5:c.<.:,•rir�"fiCitifdsi".r 'e.r�:r:<.r'ssrSrL.;..::�.,.._....rr...c ..._ .....rsr;Y.e'<t:r._.n.,.....:r.(.d+:itwc:.e.r.r.:...r,._.v.e.... _.......es:.c:c:r:r...r.
July 27, 1993 Mr.- Ed Patmont
Job No. 93141 Hillside Homes Group, Inc.
Page 2
Based on the above design criteria, we feel comfortable that the house can
be constructed on Lot 113 which will be an asset to the immediate
neighborhood and to the community as a whole. In addition to enhancing
the appearance of the area, this in-fill unit would also provide an offsite
storm drain improvement which would benefit the entire area.
The approximate ten to twelve trip ends generated by this additional house
can be safely accommodated by Sequoia Lane and Sequoia Avenue. The
proximity of the driveway to Sequoia Avenue also minimizes the impact on
the more curved portions of Sequoia Lane.
We look forward to answering any questions you may have.
DE BOLT CIVIL- ENGINEERING
E gene F. DeBolt
EFD:sjp
•-;r��- �YC d..5eceekSd'e.iS+tdcl.:rrS::+:e%iitisie%c::ii:-:; �<i3i:uStr_;i::is[Sr:ii2:iLl lain''s::e5ti2iiiei�".,�.:✓...Fi..[.e.+Li3_.,.i;e:id...e......ww+.:s:t%uc:se��•�'•r.mc....,.,szv...c._.c___ ..._,_.....-
EXHIBIT C
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 206-90
1. The request to subdivide the 1.83 acre parcel is approved for three parcels subject to
the revised Tentative Map dated received by the Community Development Department
on May 1, 1992. The following conditions of approval require compliance prior to the
filing of the Parcel Map unless otherwise indicated.
2., At least 60 days prior to filing the parcel map the applicant shall submit a revised
Tentative Map which relocates the proposed driveway for Parcel 'A' northwest of the
proposed access shown on the May 1, 1992 tentative map.
3. All of the existing trees, including the Oak Tree indicated to be removed, on the May
1, 1992 Tentative Map, shall be preserved. '
At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a parcel map, a
grading/tree preservation plan-shall be submitted for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The plan will clearly show grading and the relationship of the
grading to the existing trees. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a
qualified arborist on the proposed grading plan, recommending measures to protect
trees as appropriate during the construction and post-construction stages. The
recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated into or otherwise
attached to the proposed grading plan.
4. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a parcel map, the
applicant shall submit a revised plot plan and house plans for proposed Parcel 'A' for
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The revised plot plan shall either
eliminate or reduce the size of the proposed deck,so that is does not encroach into the
setback, sideyard or rearyard areas.
5. At least 30 days prior to obtaining building permits, a revised site plan for Parcel 'A'
shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan
shall include building elevations for the proposed home from all elevations. The
following requirements shall apply.
A. Grading shall be minimized. If unavoidable, retaining walls up to three feet in
height shall be used as much as possible.
B. The proposed home on Parcel 'A' shall be limited to 25' and the home
(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-ongrade structure design may be appropriate.
6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading,trenching or other on-site
excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology
(SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity
to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate m:tigation(s), if deemed
necessary.
X.:-r;..'c.c::.,..c ..-. .. ...•.t•....-:.i,ri.:...,_.l-:::.C.±.:.td+SwU.iA�L:,:�,._.z,i; .'___ --
2.
7. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements:
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power
generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The
restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval
by the Zoning Administrator.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all
internal combustion engines with mufflers which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post
the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The
notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number
and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall
be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of
persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area
of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and.litter
control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued
with each phase of major grading activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the
names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the
area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or
applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction
work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing
neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed
roads serving this development shall be constructed to provide access to each
lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth
moving equipment.
8. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will
require the review-and approval of the Public Works Department:
3.
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this
conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the
following requirements:
1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of Sequoia Avenue.
An exception to this requirement is granted provided a deferred
improvement agreement is executed requiring the owner(s) of the
property involved in Subdivision MS 206-90 to:
a) Construct curb,four-foot six-inch sidewalk(width measured from
curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, and
necessary pavement widening along the frontage. The face of
the curb shall be 16 feet from the centerline of the road.
b) Underground all utility distribution facilities along the Sequoia
Avenue frontage.
c) At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up,
submit improvement plans, if required, to the Public Works
Department, Engineering Services Division, for review; pay the
inspection fee, plan review fee and applicable lighting fees.
2) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private
road, subject to review and approval of the Consolidated Fire District.
3) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject
property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and banks or to
an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the
storm waters to a natural watercourse.
Satisfaction of this requirement shall include constructing that portion
of Line 6 of Drainage Area 15A which lies between the subject property
and Park Avenue, and continuing eastward along Park Avenue to
discharge into the creek located east of the Park Avenue cul-de-sac.
4) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the
Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of
the Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Public
Works Department.
5) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
-
` -
w°
/
. 4'
8) Submitting improvement plans prepared by m registered civil engineer,
payment of noviaxx and inspection fees, and security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of
approval for this subdivision. Thoma plans shall include any necessary
.
traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Public Works
Department, Rood Engineering Division.
7) Submitting o Parcel K4op prepared by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
`
B. Convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, additional right of way on
Sequoia Avenue as required for the planned future width of 52 feet, and as
needed for m|mpa easements.
C. Relinquish abutter's right of access along Sequoia Avenue with the exception
of Sequoia Lane'
D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in o
concentrated manner, from draining across the driveways.
E. Construct a 20-f»ot paned private roadway to County private road standards,
within 30-foot easement, for that portion of the road which will service more
than one parcel in this proposed subdivision.
F. Provide for adequate might distance at the private rood intersection with
Sequoia Avenue based on a design speed of 30 miles per hour in accordance
with CALTRAyJS standards.
G. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,
of the acquisition of all necessary right of entry, permits and/or easements for
the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage
/rnpr0vernonto'
H. Establish a maintenance agreement to insure future nnaintanemoa of the private
road'
;
|' Provide for a minimum of six on-site parking spaces, located outside the private
road easement, for Parcel C' subject to review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. Applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance.
B. Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District.
-
.1.........
:.:.c-.t.t.C.r.•:t.c._.:..:.✓:.Gt:c:r:.::c:GC..:'.Lt.4<;L:..L.t.t.C'.LCi..•✓.i.....1�'.r.e:t'.. -.:..:::.C.:.:.C..e... ...r,...e.c.r.r.r.wcJ_............e.r.r.e.c.�...._....._........sJc.. .....c.�....._....•.u.�..e^e.'..^�.......e.....^..... r.r.e....._
l
5.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Consolidated Fire Protection District. (as follows):
D. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental
Health Division.
E. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits
are required prior to the construction of most structures.
F. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game.
The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,
California 94599, of any proposed construction within the development that may
affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
G. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of
Engineers to determine if a permit is required.
H. The applicant will be required to pay a $1,250 review fee for the Department of Fish
and Game at the end of the appeal period.
1. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the South Walnut Creek Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
J. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 15A as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
K. Certain improvements required by the Conditions of Approval for this development or
the County Subdivision Ordinance Code may be eligible for credit or reimbursement
against said fee. The developer should contact the Public Works Department to
personally determine the extent of any credit or reimbursement for which he might be
eligible.
CW/sj/aa
MSXXI/206-90C.CW
10/5/92
i
.ATIVE PARCEL MAP
FM.S.:206-90
T,ON OF LOTS 11 X, 113 t 114 _
�
PARK MAP FILED JULY. 24, 1913
E; A, „�,,A,,, K 10 OF MAPS, PAGE 242,
IA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS,
OF CALIFORNIA.
If
!R: SYMAT HILLSIDE HOMES
2800 PLEASANT HILL ROAD
SUITE 3A g
PLEASANT HILL CA 94523 i
PHONE: (510)930-7111
cr
NEER:
MORAN ENGINEERING
463 KENTUCKY AVENUE
c _ _ BERKELEY CA 94707
ITECTS: EDWARD PATMONT
C"s I 184 RUDGEAR DRIVE
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
(510)946-0583
MNG ZONE: R-10
'ION USE: TWO HOUSES O
--+ . . SED US
-----� E: RESIDENTIAL
----— _wTUFe ww '
.ErtN�oN �)F LOTS: THREE �q
�� r-r----------�-----��= STING: TWO (THREE PREVIOUS Q
:T"iNt , --JPOSED: THKEE N > '
_AGE: 60700 S.F.t 1.85 ACRES ~
_VIES: WATER — EBMUD
SEWER — C.C.C.S.D. T_ Z
GAS do ELEC. - P.G.&E.
T{SlgUgA
LOT N .�` TELE. — PAC. BELL
(:1,171 S.F.) / -ZrcJ--RAL NOTES: 1� MMM M=m K rim
Wrawnc�s�t►afxs rat axsa
2� fu arc nm on t mm rt tl mm
WHAT A K rEipm
k�i�t _ 7a D�I11P oviom am fimLK t7011DON
rrotxn ro sE;Z rrm assn
"NAN'
V1
tit
41ALMIT
I
aAt�+ I V y O
-NEW UNDiR&"Dwp S
S60001A
ori ��t�.►
Y
L1<IfTN4 I � W V
Ti.*'
[tYISTINV >LI ^,, T� I, v 1 tot)
STOAMMAIN
POPE I `"►
4 VIGINITT MAP'
� � fcxa,E
DATE ��M
Davw►Jx
� � 2
REVISIONS BY
I EXls-rlw(A HOUSE SANCHEE
IS SeQuolk LANE
•
j
ANN"N� 1�'TO CAJU.ACOFPORAIED
IT' EdwardPatmord
vrosdent
ArchRlQOaKbOM
Watvt Caek U W596
• 510.946.0583
FAX 510.94697" -
CR�DN j o4stlu� �.Is
�j L-NES TYPjc.AL,
zoo p.PPRoX• I C/1
I
NOTE- LAWPSCAf,
Iq5 PILL, ♦.PPFo^!60
t PLAN w1/ "T0.IR'
AGANT Lo;
'I FOR SALE Q� ,
G xCD
E
GE V/V tl
PEN
S .^��$�� `�.�,� �,'��;s: � •�:� � GRAPHIC Se.ALt; 1
. •;mow.. .�'` a. R"'�l-- ~.�, ——
0•U /16/93
I
SCSIs
� l Or•Mn�p ;
C rJobSEC,tUoIA
t Sn•tls
h
REVISIONS BY '
i
iL
11
DININ �
I
ExISTINq - - -
oA
INS Q
e
a
i Gaav acctwaRu®
Edward Patrtgrt
PMSKI.M
. I .. .. ArcneeaDe>,ebper
I
tN Rudpaa•Dri�
WshA C e k CA 94596
510.946.0583
.
MAIN17 - FAX 510.946.9-4
0-4
� EpGE, pf ' N1
Q
/►bov6
E.xisTlNel K r�1. a' >
004
CRAWL- 0
PA
WA
a
::I Q 10i
�----- w0
O v
�w
Ota
X03
SEGUOIA • : Date
Il Scale I/8 sir-Da
Drawn 6 P
�b SEQuaA
'
Sheet
GAR;
• t I OI 2 Sheet$
'� w$s. wm.w a an waw oarww. I ^ ,
LAW OFFICES OF
GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAIHON...&;.,NRMSTBONG
WILLIAM E. GAGEN. JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPOR�ATI�O IJ DANVILLE OFFICE
Ty
GREGORY L. MCCOY
279 FRONT STREET
PATRICK J. MCMAHON .(`���!� �+1 I P. O. BOX 218
MARK L. ARMSTRONG �3 "1-i C 2 ( �j I2•D5N�✓ILL E. CALIFORNIA 94526-0218
LINN K. COOMBS - TELEPHONE: (SIO) 837-0585
STEPHEN W. THOMAS
FAX: (510) 838-5985
CHARLES A. KOSS
MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ
NAPA OFFICE
MICHAEL W. CARTER
RICHARD C. RAIN ES 1001 SECOND STREET, SUITE 31S
VICTOR J. CONTI NAPA, CALIFORNIA 94559-3017
BARBARA
September 22, 1993 TELEPHONE: (707) 224-8396
ROBERT M.. FANANUC CUVAL JEI FAX: (707) 224-5817
ALLAN C. MOORE
CAROLS A. LAW PLEASE REPLY TO:
ALEXANDER L. SCHMID
PATRICIA E. CURTIN -
MICHAEL P. CANDELA Danville
CHARLES A. KLINGE
Tom Torlakson, Chair
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Board Reconsideration. Hearing October 5, 1993
Minor Subdivision MS 206-90
Sequoia Lane/Walnut Creek Area
Dear Chair Torlakson:
Our offices represent Ed Patmont of the Hillside Homes Group with
regard to one single family home. Mr. Patmont has been attempting
for a long time to construct such home in the Walnut Creek area.
We will come before you on October 5, 1993 requesting your approval
in this regard. A brief history of this matter is set forth below.
Mr. Patmont owns a small development company, specializing in
building quality homes on hillsides in "in-fill" areas here in
Contra Costa County. In 1987, Mr. Patmont purchased certain
property consisting of five' (5) residential lots (Lots 111, 112,
113 , 114, and 115) off Sequoia Lane above Parkmead School in the
Walnut Creek area.
On June 28, 1988, the County issued a Certificate of Compliance for
each lot, confirming that each lot was a valid lot under the
Subdivision Map Act and applicable County Codes. After obtaining
the 5 Certificates of Compliance, Mr. Patmont prepared
architectural and engineering plans for five homes. Utilities were
engineered, including both a sewer and water main. A roadway was
designed and constructed for all five homes. Mr. Patmont obtained
needed financing and a construction loan. Finally, Mr. Patmont
obtained building and grading permits, and, in October, 1988,
commenced construction.
After construction commenced, however, the Community Development
Department evidently decided that the Certificates of Compliance
were improperly issued. Karl Wandry, Deputy Director of Community
Development at this time, indicated that staff had been in error
in issuing 5 certificates, and that only 3 should have been issued.
a
Chair Tom Torlakson
September 22, 1993
Page 2
(We have reviewed this matter, and the 5 certificates were properly
issued. The Lot on which the house is proposed has been valid
since the late 1920s. ) .
The County thus "Red Tagged" the job, issuing a stop-work order.
Such order created extreme financial hardship on Mr. Patmont's
company, which needed to timely finish the' work and sell the homes
in order to maintain its loan and investment.
Mr. Wandry indicated to Mr. Patmont that because of the confusion
surrounding issuance of the Certificates of Compliance if Mr.
Patmont would execute an agreement waiving the right to a fifth
lot, the County would authorize the remaining 4 lots. Mr. Patmont
did not want to sign such agreement. However, with investors and
a construction loan, and a partially-completed project, he had no
other choice but to sign. The agreement provided that Lots 112 and
113 would be "merged", thus allowing for 4 total Lots.
Prior to executing such agreement, however, Mr. Patmont agreed with
Mr. Wandry that he would come in separately for the fifth Lot
through a Minor Subdivision. That would give the County assurance
that the fifth lot was "legal" when it was approved.
Thus, Mr. Patmont filed application for MS 206-90, requesting the
additional 1 Lot. The application generally provides for 3 of the
5 lots (totaling 1.83 acres) to be slightly re-configured, allowing
for creation of 1 single new lot on the northern end of the
property near the corner of Sequoia Avenue and Sequoia Lane.
The public hearing history on this matter is quite lengthy, and
thus is separately set forth on the attached "Exhibit 1".
The application was reviewed several times by staff and the zoning
administrator, and the location of the home on such Lot was changed
numerous times. It appears at the public hearings that at times
there was confusion regarding which location was being considered.
The summary of all such history is that after numerous hearings and
the Board's initial expression of an intent to approve MS 206-90,
the Board narrowly denied MS 206-90. The Board, however,
recognized with all such history, the confusion about which site
was being approved, and the previous problems regarding the
Certificates of Compliance, that a reconsideration hearing was in
order. As stated, that hearing is set for October 5, 1993 .
New Home Design
The staff did state several concerns regarding the new Lot during
the early planning process. To address such concerns, Mr. Patmont
specifically designed a home on the new Lot, after input from
engineers and other consultants. The new design provides for a
Chair Tom Torlakson
September 22, 1993
Page 3
small home (less than 1800 sq.ft. ) on a large lot (14,700 sq. ft.
net, and 22,450 sq.ft. gross) . The house will be a single story,
split level house above a garage. Walls along the driveway will
be terraced and offset, so as to have a minimum height of four
feet. (See plat map attached as Exhibit "20)
Eugene F. DeBolt of Debolt Civil Engineering reviewed the Lot and
home design criteria as set forth above. His report dated July 27,
1993 (hereinafter "DeBolt Civil Engineering Report", attached
hereto as Exhibit 11311) confirmed that a home built to such
criteria will be an asset to the immediate neighborhood and to the
community as a whole.
Mr. Patmont is willing to have the design criteria listed in the
DeBolt Civil Engineering Report to be placed in the Conditions of
Approval for MS 206-90, so that the County will be assured that the
home will ultimately be constructed to such specifications.
Project and New Home Design Addresses Staff Concerns
The staff did set forth certain concerns regarding the extra Lot
early in the process. As shown below, the new Lot as proposed with
the new home design addresses all such concerns.
(i) The site is not suitable for residential development due
to physical constraints on the property
Staff originally felt that the site might not accommodate an
additional Lot. However, the proposed Lot will be over 22,450
sq.ft. gross. The zoning of this property (and surrounding
properties) is R-10, i.e. , each parcel must be at least 10, 000
sq.ft.. The subject Lot is thus significantly above the minimum
requirements.
Staff cited the General Plan hillside policy 10-28, which states
that density shall decrease as slope increases. This project
completely complies with such policy, in that the subject Lot is
significantly above the minimum zoning requirements for the
property. The referenced policy requires that "generally,
residential density shall decrease as slope increases. . . " Here,
there is only one home, on a large lot. Under such circumstances,
there is no inconsistency with General Plan policy 10-28 .
Staff further cited the possible loss of oak trees through
development. Under early site plans, it appeared that one oak tree
could be lost. Under the new design, such tree will be spared:
not one oak tree will be lost as a result of the construction of
this 1 additional home.
Chair Tom Torlakson
September 22, 1993.
Page 4
Staff also early on indicated that the original foundation
investigation for the site, which had been performed by Kropp &
Associates in 1988, was outdated. Such report was specifically
updated, and related to the specific, proposed site by letter dated
May 27, 1992, addressing staffs concern.
(ii) Traffic Concerns
Staff further cited traffic concerns with regard to utilization of
Sequoia Lane as an access road.
As shown by the referenced DeBolt Civil Engineering report, the
additional Lot will result in only approximately 10-12 trips a day,
which can be safely accommodated by Sequoia Avenue and Sequoia
Lane. Staff indicates further in this regard that Sequoia Lane is
a windy road; however the driveway to the proposed home is less
than 100 ft. off Sequoia Avenue, thus the new homeowners will not
utilize the upper, more curvy remainder of Sequoia Lane.
-----------------------
We thus feel strongly that all earlier stated concerns have been
addressed as part of the new design, which again can be "locked in"
through Project Conditions of Approval. In light of the history
of this matter and the fact that all project impacts have been
addressed, we respectfully request that the Board approve MS 206-
90 at the upcoming hearing.
Please do not hesitate to contact me, or Mr. Patmont at 946-0583,
with any questions.
ran
yours,. Moore
Exhibits (2)
cc: Board of Supervisors
Dennis Barry
Community Development Department
Edward Patmont
Hillside Homes Group, Inc.
Eugene F. DeBolt
DeBolt Civil Engineering
i:\v912\c1ient\25836\esp1.1tr
Chair Tom Torlakson
September 22, 1993
Page 5
EXHIBIT 1
On September 9, 1991, the Zoning Administrator denied MS 206-90.
On November 12 , 1991, the Planning ..Commission denied the
application.
On January 21, 1992, the Board of Supervisors considered both maps,
and referred to matter back to the Commission to determine whether
or not there is an acceptable extra building site.
On February 25, 1992 , the Planning Commission split on a 2-2 vote
with regard to the validity of one extra building site.
On March 3 , 1992, the Board reviewed this application and directed
County Counsel to provide a legal review of the history of the site
(with specific regard to the certificate issues set forth above) .
By memorandum dated March 16, 1992 , County Counsel confirmed that
Mr. Patmont's signed agreement with the County did not preclude
him from coming back in for the fifth lot, per Mr. PatmontIs
agreement with Mr. Wandry.
On March 17 , 1992, after receiving County Counsel's memorandum,
the Board declared its intent to approve MS 206-90, and referred
the matter to the Planning Commission for a de novo hearing.
On October 13 , 1992, the County Planning Commission denied MS 206-
90, and the Board, on November 24, 1992 , on a 3-2 vote, denied the
Minor Subdivision.
On October 21, 1992 , the applicant appealed the County Planning
Commission's denial.
On January 19 , 1993, the'Board approved the applicant's request for
reconsideration of this matter.
DeBolt Civil Engineering
811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Danville, California 94526
510 / 837-3780
July 27, 1993 A
Job No. 93141
EXHIBIT
J
Mr. Ed Patmont
Hillside Homes Group, Inc.
184 Rudgear Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Ed:
At your request, we have reviewed the site and the past documentation
regarding MS 206-90 on Sequoia Lane in the Walnut Creek area of Contra
Costa County. The building site in question is Lot 113 of the Dewing Park
Subdivision. The lot is a steep hillside served by a grooved concrete
driveway constructed about five years ago. The driveway appears to be in
good condition.
A foundation investigation was performed in 1988 on the entire site by Alan
Kropp & Associates, Geotechnical Consultants. This report was updated and
related to the specific site on Lot 113 by letter dated May 27, 1992.
It is our understanding that the planned home for this site has been
modified to reflect the following design criteria:
1.) The new house would be a single story split level house
above a garage.
2.) The house would be limited to a maximum of 1,800 square
feet, exclusive of the garage.
3.) The driveway for the new house would be within 100 feet of
Sequoia Avenue measured along the centerline of Sequoia
Lane.
4.) Walls placed along the driveway would be terraced and offset
so as to have a maximum height of four feet.
5.) In addition to the parking provided in the driveway for the
house, two additional guest parking spaces will be
constructed on Sequoia Avenue near the entrance of Sequoia
Lane.
1 C
r
t
July 27, 1993 Mr. Ed Patmont
Job No. 93141 Hillside Homes Group, Inc.
Page 2
Based on the above design criteria, we feel comfortable that the house can
be constructed on Lot 113 . which will be an asset to the immediate
neighborhood and to the community as a whole. In addition to enhancing
the appearance of the area, this in-fill unit would also provide an offsite
storm drain improvement which would benefit the entire area.
The approximate ten to twelve trip ends generated by this additional house
can be safely accommodated by Sequoia Lane and Sequoia Avenue. The
proximity of the driveway to Sequoia Avenue also minimizes the impact on
the more curved portions of Sequoia Lane.
We look forward to answering any questions you may have.
DE BOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING
E gene F. DeBolt
EFD:sjp