Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11281995 - D6 D. to _ Contra JAV TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �, COSta 011 County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON _ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT oa, y_Y-# `;•�ti4° A cOUH DATE: November 28, 1995 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF JON BERNARDO (APPLICANT & OWNER) , COUNTY FILE #MS11-94 FROM THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS, DECISION TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 11-94 ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE ALAMO AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate and Sustain the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed project prior to considering any approval. 2 . Direct staff: A. to prepare a scope of work for the EIR based on the environmental concerns expressed by the Commission; B. to issue a Notice of Preparation; C. to indicate to the Applicant that he will be required to pay for the costs of preparation of the EIR; and D. to initiate EIR consultation selection process and hire a consultant following receipt of fees from the Applicant. 3 . Refer the review of the EIR and project review back to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for project decision. Direct staff, at the appropriate time, to reschedule and re-notice the project for hearing before the Commission. 4. Deny the Appeal of the Applicant, Jon Bernar o. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON November 28, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER See addendum for speaker's list and Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS:A x 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:EDY ZWIERZYCKI Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED November 28, 1995 CC: Bernardo Construction PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Mr. & Mrs. Broome THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Department AN OUNT DMINISTRATOR J BY , DEPUTY EZ/df MS11-94.bo Page Two BOARD OPTIONS Option A - Grant Applicant's Appeal (Allow 4 Parcels) 1. Accept the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project. 2 . Approve MS940011 subject to the conditions required by the Zoning Administrator except the Conditions #1 and #26 are modified to allow for 4 lots and to eliminate the added restriction on maximum structure height. Condition #1 shall be modified to read only as follows: "Development shall be as generally shown on the revised site plan dated received by the Community Development Department on September 7, 1995. " Condition #26 shall be modified to delete the 25 foot height requirement and read as follow: "Homes shall be limited to step-on-grade construction. " 3 . Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 4. Grant the Appeal of Jon Bernardo. 5. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. Option B - Approve Project Per Zoning Administrator Approval (3 Parcels Only) 1. Accept the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2 . Approve MS940011 in accord with the Zoning Administrator approval. 3 . Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 4. Deny the Appeal of Jon Bernardo. Option C - Refer The Application For The Review Of The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Find the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be adequate and refer the review of the application to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for hearing and project decision. FISCAL IMPACT None. Applicant would be required to pay expenses for the preparation of an EIR. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION In September 1994, the applicant filed an application requesting approval to subdivide a 3 acre parcel into 4 lots, with variances to lot widths of 113 feet on Parcel C and 106 feet on Parcel D (120-foot minimum required) . A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and posted from May until June 1995. The applicant has submitted a letter stating that he accepts the mitigation measures. Page Three ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW The project was heard by the County Zoning Administrator on July 31, 1995 and August 14, 1995. During this time, the applicant submitted a revised vesting tentative map showing the reconfiguration of Lots C and D required to comply with minimum lot width requirements and eliminate the need for variance permits. The Zoning Administrator approved the revised vesting tentative map to subdivide the 3-acre parcel into 3 lots (A, C, and D) with revised conditions of approval. SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The applicant, Jon Bernardo, and adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Broome, appealed (two different appeals) the Zoning Administrator's decision to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (SRVRPC) The Commission heard the appeals on September 20, 1995. Jon Bernardo appealed the revised conditions that eliminate Lot B and limit the height of residences to 25 feet. Mr. and Mrs. Broome appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision requesting that certain conditions be amended to require additional environmental safeguards. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Broome requested that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared before allowing the applicant to begin construction work at the subject property. The appellants' concerns and staff's responses are provided in the Board of Appeals Staff Report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (9-20-95) . After taking testimony, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared prior to making a decision on the project. The concerns that the Commission wished to have addressed in the EIR are summarized in Commission Resolution No. 31-1995. APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On October 2, 1995, following the Commission's action, the applicant, Jon Bernardo, appealed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to require preparation of an EIR because he has been unable to determine the Commission's reason for requiring an EIR. BACKGROUND OF BOARD APPEAL To the Community Development Department staff initially scheduled the applicant's appeal to the Board of Supervisor's for October 17, 1995. This item has been re-scheduled twice. The first time was at the Applicant's request. The second time was at staff's recommendation because of a time conflict with other items on the Board agenda. STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny Jon Bernardo's appeal because the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals, at their October 20, 1995 hearing, directed that staff prepare an EIR that addresses appropriate issues, including soil stability, drainage, cumulative access for the entire area, and biotic issues, and if that action does not stand on appeal, that the matter be referred back to the Commission for consideration of the land use issue (refer to Commission Resolution No. 31-1995) . REVISED CONDITION OF APPROVAL To the child carejee was inadvertently typed as $00 per lot/unit in Condition #9. This condition has been corrected to $400 per lot. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6 NOVEMBER 28, 1995 On November 14, 1995, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the appeal of Jon Bernardo (applicant and owner) from the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals decision to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)for Minor Subdivision 11-94 in the Alamo area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeal. The following persons presented testimony: Jon Bernardo, 28 Merrill Circle, Moraga; John B. Maes, 1910 Olympic Boulevard Suite 110, Walnut Creek; John Henderson, 2445 Southview Drive, Alamo, representing the Alamo Improvement Association; Anne Broome, 20 Camino Monte Sol, Alamo; Sue Bottoms, 2418 Heritage Oaks Drive, Alamo; Don Copland, 2350 Heritage Oaks Drive, Alamo; Jeanne Morris, 2640 Miranda Avenue, Alamo; Mark Watson, 2710 Miranda Avenue, Alamo; Sherre Bernardo, 28 Merrill Circle, Moraga; Jon Bernardo spoke in rebuttal. The public hearing was closed and the matter was before the Board. Supervisor Bishop spoke on issues including soil stability, height restrictions, shoe horning development and General Plan policies, and she moved approval of the staff recommendation to require an EIR. BOARD OF APPEALS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 31-1995 APPEAL - MINOR SUBDIVISION BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION (Applicant, Owner & Appellant) , ALAMO AREA WHEREAS, on September 8, 1994 a request for approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide 3 acres into 4 lots was filed by Bernardo Construction (Applicant & Owner) (MS940011) , in the Alamo area; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State & County CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on May 15, 1995 for this project; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, public hearings were scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on July 31, 1995 and continued until August 14, 1995, whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, the County Zoning Administrator approved the minor subdivision of 3 parcels into 3 lots (Lots A, C & D) with revised conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 1995 the decision of the County Zoning Administrator was appealed to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission by Mr. & Mrs. Broome and other adjacent property owners requesting preparation of an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 1995 the decision of the County Zoning Administrator was appealed to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission by Jon Bernardo, Bernardo Construction (applicant & owner) ; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof had been lawfully given, an appeal hearing was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals on September 20, 1995, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and 2 RESOLUTION NO. 31-1995 WHEREAS, the San Ramon .Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals having evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals directed that it is inappropriate to take action on the land use issue at this point in time because there is not enough CEQA documentation and for staff to prepare an EIR focused on the appropriate issues, including soil stability, drainage, cumulative access for the entire area, and biotic issues such as trees, primarily, and that if that action does not stand on appeal, that the matter be referred back to the Commission for consideration of the land use issue; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing was given by vote of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals in a regular meeting Wednesday, September 20, 1995 as follows: AYES: Commissioners - Gibson, Naidorf, Harvey, Lucia, Neely, Pancoast, Matsunaga NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - None ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals was appealed by the applicant on October 2, 1995. ATTEST: Secretary of theSan Ramon Valley Regional P nning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California EZ/df MS11-94 .res APPEAL JON BERNARDO,BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION (APPLICANT& OWNER) COUNTY FILE#MS940011 A request to subdivide three acres into four parcel,with variances in the Alamo area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County November 28, 1995- 2:00 p.m. f T, Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o' Costa �^ County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON ,•,' DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: November 28, 1995 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF JON BERNARDO (APPLICANT & OWNER), COUNTY FILE /MSII-94 FROM THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 11-94 ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. SUBJECT PROPERTY 18 LOCATED Ili THE ALAMO AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not adequate and Sustain the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the proposed project prior to considering any approval. 2. Direct staff: A. to prepare a scope of work for the EIR based on the environmental concerns expressed by the Commission; B. to issue a Notice of Preparation; C. to indicate to the Applicant that he will be required to pay for the costs of preparation of the EIR; and D. to initiate EIR consultation selection process and hire a consultant following receipt of fees from the Applicant. 3. Refer the review-of the EIR and project review back to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for project decision. Direct staff, at the appropriate time, to reschedule and re-notice the project for hearing before the Commission. 4. Deny the Appeal of the Applicant, Jon Bernar o. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: I YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT . 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:EDY ZWIERZYCKI Orig: .Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Bernardo Construction PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Mr. & Mrs. Broome THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Department AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY ' , DEPUTY EZ/df MS11-94.bo 4 ,T Page Two BOARD OPTIONS Option A - Grant Applicant's Appeal (Allow 4 Parcels) 1. Accept the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project. 2. Approve MS940011 subject to the conditions required by the Zoning Administrator except the Conditions 11 and 126 are modified to allow for 4 lots and to eliminate the added restriction on maximum structure height. Condition 11 shall be modified to read only as follows: "Development shall be as generally shown on the revised site plan dated received by the Community Development Department on September 7, 1995." Condition 126 shall be modified to delete the 25 foot height requirement and read as follow: "Homes shall be limited to step-on-grade construction." 3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 4. Grant the Appeal of Jon Bernardo. 5. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 02tion B - Approve Project Per Zoning Administrator Approval (3 Parcels Only) 1. Accept the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Approve MS940011 in accord with the Zoning Administrator approval. 3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 4. Deny the Appeal of Jon Bernardo. Option C - Refer The Application For The Review Of The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Find the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be adequate and refer the review of the application to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for hearing and project decision. FISCAL IMPACT None. Applicant would be required to pay expenses for the preparation of an EIR. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION In September 1994, the applicant filed an application requesting approval to subdivide a 3 acre parcel into 4 lots, with variances to lot widths of 113 feet on Parcel C and 106 feet on Parcel D (120-foot minimum required) . A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and posted from May until June 1995. The applicant has submitted a letter stating that he accepts the mitigation measures. r z Page Three BONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW The project was heard by the County Zoning Administrator on July 31,. 1995 and August 14, 1995. During this time, the applicant submitted a revised vesting tentative map showing the reconfiguration of Lots C and D required to comply with minimum lot width requirements and eliminate the need for variance permits. The Zoning Administrator approved the revised vesting tentative map to subdivide the 3-acre parcel into 3 lots (A, C, and D) with revised conditions of approval. SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The applicant, Jon Bernardo, and adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Broome, appealed (two different appeals) the Zoning Administrator's decision to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (SRVRPC) . The Commission heard the appeals on September 20, 1995. Jon Bernardo appealed the revised conditions that eliminate Lot B and limit the height of residences to 25 feet. Mr. and Mrs. Broome appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision requesting that certain conditions be amended to require additional environmental safeguards. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Broome requested that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared before allowing the applicant to begin construction work at the subject property. The appellants' concerns and staff's responses are provided in the Board of Appeals Staff Report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (9-20-95) . After taking testimony, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared prior to making a decision on the project. The concerns that the Commission wished to have addressed in the EIR are summarized in Commission Resolution No. 31-1995. APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On October 2, 1995, following the Commission's action, the applicant, Jon Bernardo, appealed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to require preparation of an EIR because he has been unable to determine the Commission's reason for requiring an EIR. BACKGROUND OF BOARD APPEAL To the Community Development Department staff initially scheduled the applicant's appeal to the Board of Supervisor's for October 17, 1995. This item has been re-scheduled twice. The' first time was at the Applicant's request. The second time was at staff's recommendation because of a time conflict with other items on the Board agenda. STAFF'S RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL ` Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny Jon Bernardo's appeal because the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals, at their October 20, 1995 hearing, directed that staff prepare an EIR that addresses appropriate issues, including soil stability, drainage, cumulative access for the entire area, and biotic issues, and if that action does not stand on appeal, that the matter be referred back to the Commission for consideration of the land use issue (refer to Commission Resolution No. 31-1995) . REVISED CONDITION OF APPROVAL To the child care fee was inadvertently typed as $00 per lot/unit in Condition 19. This condition has been corrected to $400 per lot. r � ' BOARD OF APPEALS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 31-1995 APPEAL - MINOR SUBDIVISION BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION (Applicant, Owner & Appellant) , ALAMO AREA WHEREAS, on September 8, 1994 a request for approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide 3 acres into 4 lots was filed by Bernardo Construction (Applicant & Owner) (MS940011) , in the Alamo area; and WHEREAS, for purposes of compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State & County CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on May 15, 1995 for this project; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, public hearings were scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on July 31, 1995 and continued until August 14, 1995, whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, the County Zoning Administrator approved the minor subdivision of 3 parcels into 3 lots (Lots A, C & D) with revised conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 1995 the decision of the County Zoning Administrator was appealed to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission by Mr. & Mrs. Broome and other adjacent property owners requesting preparation of an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on August 23, 1995 the decision of the County Zoning Administrator was appealed to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. by Jon Bernardo, Bernardo Construction (applicant & owner) ; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof had been lawfully given, an appeal hearing was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals on September 20, 1995, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and 2 RESOLUTION NO. 31-1995 WHEREAS, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals having evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. Board of Appeals directed that it is inappropriate to take action on the land use issue at this point in .time because there is not enough CEQA documentation and for staff to prepare an EIR focused on the appropriate issues, including soil . stability, drainage, cumulative access for the entire area, and biotic issues such as trees, primarily, and that if that action does not stand on appeal, that the matter be referred back to the Commission for consideration of the land use issue; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing was given by vote of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals in a regular meeting Wednesday, September 20, 1995 as follows: AYES: Commissioners - Gibson, Naidorf, Harvey, Lucia, Neely, Pancoast, Matsunaga NOES: Commissioners - None ABSENT: Commissioners - None ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals was appealed by the applicant on October 2, 1995. ATTEST: Secretary of the San Ramon Valley Regional P1 nning . Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California EZ/df MS11-94 .res f - Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS c : Costa County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CO UN's DATE: November 14, 1995 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF JON BERNARDO (APPLICANT i OWNER), COUNTY FILE IKSIL-94 FROM THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION TO GRANT MR. i MRS. BROOKE'S APPEAL TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 11-94 ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE ALAMO AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATTONS Accept staff's request and reschedule the hearing to November 28, 1995. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION ,In September 1994, the applicant requested approval to subdivide a 3 acre parcel into 4 lots, with variances to lot widths of 113 feet on Parcel C and 106 feet on Parcel D (120-foot minimum required) . A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and posted from May until June 1995. The applicant has submitted a letter stating that he accepts the mitigation measures. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW The project was heard by the County Zoning Administrator on July 31, 1995 and August 14,. 1995. During this time, the applicant submitted a revised vesting tentative map showing the reconfiguration of Lots C and D required to comply with minimum lot width requirements and eliminate the need for variance pe it The Zoning Administrator approved the revised vesting tentativ map to subdivide the 3-acre parcel into 3 lots (A, C, and D) it revised conditions of approval. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: $_ YE8 SIGNATURE _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION 10 D 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:EDY ZWIERZYCKI Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Bernardo Construction PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Mr. & Mrs. Broome THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Department AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY EZ/df MS11-94.bo 1 � Page Two SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The applicant, Jon Bernardo, and adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Broome, appealed (two different appeals) the Zoning Administrator's decision to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (SRVRPC). The Commission heard the appeals on September 20, 1995. Jon Bernardo appealed the revised conditions that eliminate Lot B and limit the height of residences to 25 feet. Mr. and Mrs. Broome appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision requesting that certain conditions be amended to require additional environmental safeguards. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Broome requested that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared before allowing the applicant to begin construction work at the subject property. The appellants' concerns and staff's responses are provided in the Board of Appeals Staff Report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (9-20-95) . After taking testimony, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared prior to making a decision on the project. APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO THE BOARD OP SUPERVISORS Following the Commission's action, the applicant, Jon Bernardo, appealed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to require preparation of an ETR. The Community Development Department staff initially scheduled the applicant's appeal to the Board of Supervisor's for October 17, 1995 per Section 66452.5 of the Subdivision Map Act which requires that a hearing be held within 30 days after the date of filing the appeal. APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE HEARING In the attached letter dated October 10, 1995, the applicant, Jon Bernardo, requested that his appeal to the Board of Supervisor's be heard after October 17, 1995. The Applicant has indicated verbally to staff that rescheduling of the hearing to November 14, 1995 is acceptable. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE HEARING Dennis Barry, Deputy Director of the Community Development Department requested that staff reschedule the hearing, yet again, to the November 28, 1995 hearing because the Gun Control Ordinance is expected to dominate the November 14, 1995 hearing. The applicant has indicated verbally to staff that rescheduling the hearing to November 28, 1995 is acceptable. '- � _ ,•oma • Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON v_ i3 County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT n sT� uK Jy4° DATE: October 17, 1995 SUBJECT: HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF JON BERNARDO (APPLICANT i OWNER), COUNTY FILE IKSII-94 FROM THE BAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION TO GRANT MR. i MRS. BROOKE'S APPEAL TO REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR KINOR SUBDIVISION 11-94 ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1995. SUBJECT PROPERTY I8 LOCATED IN THE ALAMO AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOKKENDATION(S) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION IMCOMMENDATTONS Accept the Applicant's request and reschedule the hearing to November 14, 1995. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION In September 1994, the applicant requested approval to subdivide a 3 acre parcel into 4 lots, with variances to lot widths of 113 feet on Parcel C and 106 feet on Parcel D (120-foot minimum required) . A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and posted from May until June 1995. The applicant has submitted a letter stating that he accepts the mitigation measures. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REVIEW The project was heard by the County Zoning Administrator on July 31, 1995 and August 14, 1995. During this time, the applicant submitted a revised vesting tentative map showing the reconfiguration of Lots C and D required to comply with minimum lot width requirements and eliminate the need for variance permits. The Zoning Administrator approved the revised vesting tentative map to subdivide the 3-acre parcel into 3 lots (A, C, and D) with revised conditions of approval. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _x YES SIGNATURE g , RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE _ APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(8) : ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUVERVI80RS 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:EDY ZWIERZYCKI Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Bernardo Construction PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Mr. & Mrs. Broome THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public Works Department AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY E?;df MS11.-94.be x t Page Two SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The applicant, Jon Bernardo, and adjacent property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Broome, appealed (two different appeals) the Zoning Administrator's decision to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (SRVRPC). The Commission heard the appeals on September 20, 1995. . Jon Bernardo appealed the revised conditions that eliminate Lot B and limit the height of residences to 25 feet. Mr. and Mrs. Broome appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision requesting that certain conditions be amended to require additional environmental safeguards. In addition, Mr. and Mrs. Broome requested that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared before allowing the applicant to begin construction work at the subject property. The appellants' concerns and staff's responses are provided in the Board of Appeals Staff Report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (9-20-95) . After taking testimony, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared prior to making a decision on the project. APPLICANT'S APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Following the Commission's action, the applicant, Jon Bernardo, appealed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to require preparation of an EIR. The Community Development Department staff initially scheduled the applicant's appeal to the Board of Supervisor's for October 17, 1995 per Section 66452.5 of the Subdivision Map Act which requires that a hearing be held within 30 days after the date of filing the appeal. APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE HEARING In the attached letter dated October 10, 1995, the applicant, Jon Bernardo, requested that his appeal to the Board of Supervisor's be heard after October 17, 1995. The Applicant has indicated verbally to staff that rescheduling of the hearing to November 14, 1995 is acceptable. b.51-b601 CONSTRUCT!VE !DtH5 912 P02 OCT 10 '95 16:10 Constructive Ideas, Inc. 35 Years of Quality Construction October 10, 1995 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St. 11106 Martinez, Ca. 94553 RE: An appeal of San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision made September 20th regarding MS 11-94. Board of Supervisors, Notification has been sent to me that my appeal will be heard before the Board of Supervisors at the October 17th meeting. In order to property prepare, we are requesting that this appeal date be extended to the next available meeting after October 17th. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Jon R. Bernardo 28 Merrill Circle • Moraga, CA 94556 • (510) 631-6623 • Fax (510) 631-0933 General Contracting & Engineering • Contractors License # 703457 t 1 - d rsi..- • S :...��ws�f3�':y .t . ....:✓._ �.t,. _ ._r�. _' = .=Constructive`Ideas,, enc. .: 35-Years of Quality Construction - CONT FA COSTA 95 OCT -2 PM 4' 09 October 2, 1995vNi 1-1- County of Contra Costa . - BEVELW E fT fl T ' l . .Community -Development.Department_--� North Wing, 4th'Floor - - _ n b 651 PI ne Street --Martinez, Ca: 94553 Re: A-written:�Notice-of-Appeal.-tothe''County=Board of Supervisors -regarding the- --denial of our:tentative map'Cond.ltlons-of Approval for-MS'11-94-•by the San:Ramon Valley :Planning' .Ccwhmisslon -;and-the .acceptance -of- Mr. &. .Mrs.—appeal-for an Environment Impact-Report%"�- . - - - - - IWOULD LIKE .TO APPEAL":TO:THE BOARD-OF'SUPERVISORS: - ITEM #1 . The•_decislon 'by=-the. San.'Ramon:,Valley Planning Commisslon -to accept .Ann Broome's appeal -for mah.EMoniMINOR--SUB-11=94. ITEM #2,. (Condition #1) ?he Aecislon tiy_•the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission to deny :my-appeal .of.the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the vesting tentative map to subdivide 3 acres into 4 lots. ITEM #3- (Condition #26) The decision by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission to deny my appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a 35' height limit per R-20 zoning. REASON FOR APPEAL: ITEM #1 The commission has accepted Ann Broome's EIR appeal; however, I have been unable to receive any response from the Commission, regarding the reason for their findings. The following will address Ann Broom's concerns from her appeal .-_letter. Claim (Broome) "Building sites are unstable." Rebuttal (Bernardo) The Co.Co. County Planning Department hired outside soils engineer Darwin Myers to get his professional opinion, and to review the Bernardos' soil engineers' report. The July 6th letter reads: "The outlook for long- term stability of a well designed and properly constructed project on the site is good." This was from the review of a site visit with both soils engineers, at which time all four lots A, B, C & D were considered. Claim (Broome) "Bernardo told me he was going to build two houses and confirmed this with a number of neighbors." Rebuttal (Bernardo) This is a falsehood manufactured by Ann Broome. I never told her or her neighbors that I was only going to build 2 homes! 28 Merrill Circle • Moraga, CA 94556 • (510) 631-6623 • Fax (510) 631-0933 General Contractine R Fneineerine • Contractors License = 703457 Page 2 Claim (Broome) "A previous plan drawn up by Maes & Associates shows only two lots." Rebuttal -(Bernardo) The plan that Ann Broome Is referring to.was not drawn for the Bernardos. -.It was drawn for the previous owner for tax purposes. Claim (Broome) "Bernardo did .not-notify. the neighbors of his plan to build." .on 4 lots. Rebuttal (Bernardo) -The neighbors'-were:atthe AIA meeting; there was no reason to notify them: - - Claim (Broome) ".Bernardo went around AIA to County." Rebuttal (Bernardo) AIA's findings''-were unacceptable, therefore the only alternative was to take the matter to the County. Claim (Broome) "Bernardo didn't do weed abatement." Rebuttal (Bernardo) After becoming aware of the uncut weeds at the July 31st --. zoning hearing, the weeds were cut down within three days. Ann Broomes uncut Weeds, bordering the Broome property and Lot D were also cut down as a cou rtesy. Claim (Broome) "The applicants civil engineer suggested to Darwin Myers that he restrict his opinions to geology and geotechnical issues." -Rebuttal (Bernardo) John Maes was absolutely correct in suggesting that Darwin Myers remain within his areaof expertise. There were recommendations from two QUALIFIED professionals; one in the field of fish and game management and one a Certified Arborist. It is only 'appropriate that each individual's recommendations remain within their professional limits. Finally, to comment on the planning staff's September 20th Board of Appeals letter:"IF the Commission determines there is evidence that the project may result in a significant environmental impact, staff recommends that the commission directs staff to prepare an environmental impact report." Where is the evidence of significant environmental Impact? Surely NOT from the surrounding homeowner's complaints. NOT from the. professionals who have reported on the site. NOT from the initial study done by planner Debbie Chamberlain. Debbie gave this project a NEGATIVE DECLARATION! The reason for this appeal should be very clear. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD REQUIRE AN EIR. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT! Page 3 - -ITEM #2 (CONDITION #1) REASON FOR APPEAL: To subdivide 3 acres:Into 4 lots. _ This condition is :being appealed -for the-.following reasons:- A`4 lot subdivision had been applied -for. .because the. current County. General Pian`_and Zoning' Ordinance allows_ 1- .3_dwelling .units per--acre. There are 3-acres-which could possibiy supportAhe-development of 6 to 8 units. - -The Tentative.Map has.proposed only 4 lots -which ALL-have MORE area than-what Is required­for-=R -,20 zoning.---Additionally, John-Maes; my.-engineer-and-'I• have - spent numerous•hourscreating atentative map which_Is.conducive:and:receptive- to the natural features of the property. We:are sensitive to the environment and.. have allowed -for;no removal of existing trees nor any .disturbance-to the existing.- creek. - The only disturbance to the creek will be at the Camino Monte Sol creek crossing. This work would need-to be done even If this property -were not being developed. An Arborists Report concludes there Is one tree at the driveway entrance to Lot B that will sustain very little impact and will be able to continue to grow healthy with a small amount of mitigation measures during grading. The rest of the trees on the site will NOT BE IMPACTED IN ANY MANNER. There IS a permit from the Department of Fish and Game to improve this property as proposed on the Tentative Map (including 4 lots). The easements & improvements HAVE been EXCEPTED by Public Works as proposed (including 4 lots). The Central Sanitary District HAS given their approval for sewer connection to 4 LOTS. San Ramon Fire District HAS APPROVED a 4 LOT configuration for fire _and safety. Geotechnical Engineer, Gary Underdahl has performed tests on all 4 building sites and HAS APPROVED ALL sites for construction with his recommendations. Finally, Darwin Myers, an Engineering Geologist hired by Contra Costa County has reviewed our Geologists' reports on the 4 lot plan and stated in his report dated July 6, 1995 that "The outlook for long term stability of a well designed properly constructed project on this site is good." With respect to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commissions decision to deny my appeal, there is NO foundation. NO supporting documentation or testimony from ANY licensed Individual or professional who is against our plan for 4 lots. NOTHING has been done that is illegal, environmentally or publicly unsafe, or anything that would cause a public nuisance. The open space in Alamo that is zoned R - 20 IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. If there were not a creek or slope to the terrain, a plan could be designed for MORE than 4 lots. The 4 lots should be allowed while following the general plan and the R - 20 zoning. Please do NOT overlook all the professional support for these 4 LOTS. Furthermore, please DO overlook the smoke screen of cracked patio slabs, Page 4 - neighbors'-three miles away who have slide problems, adjoining neighbors who live in two story;houses on top of hills.who don't want to have a two story home.below them and;people :upstream and downstream from my .property who have flooding _ problems..,-These Improvements WILL NOT impact their existing problems. -ITEM #3 '. (CONDITION-#26) REASON FOR APPEAL: Denial of the 35' height limit. Jhis condition.is being appealed for the following reasons: . There Is no basis for the-25' -height restriction. Recent approval of subdivision 7746 and approval of _- -subdivision"2_-89 both on Camino Monte Sol -have no height restrictions. Many-of -the existing'homes around me are located on.top.of hills where extensive grading .was done...-All are above my proposed_lots. The large sections of under pinning, .the diverse use .of .different materials, create a skyline ruined by the lack of architectural control. Hopefully this will not create a reduction In property values for my 4 lots! Lot A backs up to a 2 story home as well as 2 two story homes that back up to Lot D and Mrs. Broome. Seventy percent of the Whitecliff homes are two story and according to Mr. Harry Nelson, the Nelsen subdivision across the street on Camino Monte Sol will be two story homes. In an neighborhood of many 2 story homes, there is NO VALID reason to restrict my homes to 25'. First; two soils engineers (professionals in their fields) do NOT find it necessary to have a 25' restriction. Second; surrounding houses which are located at a much HIGHER elevation than ,mine (some are 2 STORY) should NOT dictate my homes height. Third; adjoining subdivisions to my 3 acres have NO height restrictions. What ever happened to being conducive with the surrounding neighborhood! IN CONCLUSION Upon finally getting to the San Ramon Valley Planning,Commission I present my appeal and Ann Broom presents her appeal. I present my REBUTTAL and the next thing I know, Commissioner Victoria Naidorf asks for an EIR. After much confused conversation with most commissioners looking lost and not speaking, a vote is taken and the commission decides to require Bernardo to supply them with an EIR. Commissioner Naidorf says that she doesn't have enough information to make a ruling. After one year-and hours of hard work by many, including but not limited to (1) FOUR planners at the Community Development Department; (2) the Department of Public Works; (3) the Planning Departments outside Geologist; (4) my Geotechnical Engineer; (5) my Civil Engineer; (6) my Consulting Arborist; (7) my Archaeological Consultant; (8) the Flood Control District; (9) the Department of Fish & Game; (10) the San Ramon Valley Fire Prevention District; (11) the Central Sanitation District; and (12) FEMA; how can anyone possibly say that "there is not enough information to grant MY appeal!" Page 5 After ONE YEAR and all of the above respected professionals input, it is absolutely NOT ACCEPTABLE to think that at this time in the process, there would be a need to spend an additional $50,000 on an EIR and hold up the approval for another 8 to 10 months! THIS IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ACTION!!! After receiving a letter on September 26th that said "Your appeal has been- denied" from Dennis Berry, Deputy Director of Community Development, I went -to the Co. Co. Co. Planning Department_looking for answers.. My question was "What Is next? What happened?" * The answer was "WE ARE-NOT SURE, we need to talk to our legal counsel!" I ask .planning, "can someone tell-me If Ann Brooms appeal was accepted?" No one could find any answers. I was.advised that a letter would be sent out soon explaining the Commissions actions. On September 28th, 8 days after the September 20th meeting, I get a SECOND letter from Dennis Barry explaining the "San Ramon Valley Planning Commission is denying your appeal and granting Mr. & Mrs. Brooms appeal. The commission is requiring an EIR to be prepared by the county." Today is October 1st. Tomorrow Is my deadline to appeal. I still can not get an answer as to the grounds for the denial or why Mrs. Broomes appeal was accepted! I.have a right as a landowner and a citizen. I want to build my home in Alamo and to develop my 3 acres per the R - 20 zoning and the general plan. I only ask that I be given the same rights that were afforded my adjoining neighbors. At some stage in the planning and approval process I hope that the interpretation of the general plan and the R - 20 zoning is clarified for planning officials and developers alike. Adjoining neighbors feelings should not rule over the standards which have been adopted by the County for processing subdivisions. My final hope is that the professional level of competence provided by the Board of Supervisors will see my project as a valued, well planned addition to the Alamo Community. I have been in the construction industry for over 35 years and I have built over 500 homes and I assure you that my home and the others that I build on this subdivision will only enhance the surrounding value. Respectfully submitted, Jo R. Bernardo 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION 11-94 (pet:'817 4/95..Zoning Adtriitistrater Approval) 1. Development shall be as generally shown on the revised site plan dated received by the Community Development Department on September 7, 1995 subject to the following modifications. Prior to filing the final parcel map submit a revised tentative map for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator for three parcels only. Parcel B shall be eliminated. The lot line between Parcels A and C shall be the eastern creek structure setback line. The applicant shall demonstrate that all of the parcels are designed to comply with all minimum parcel dimension requirements of the R-20 district. 2. This approval is based upon the exhibits received by the Community Development Department listed as follows: A. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Underdahl and dated received December 20, 1994 by the Community Development Department. 3. The approval is for a three(3)year period which may be extended for an additional three (3) years. An extension request must be submitted prior to expiration of the initial approval and must be accompanied by the appropriate filing, fee. An extension request is subject to revie"v and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the applicant (including the subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnif},, and hold harmless Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the Count),) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, vola, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 5. 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 profes- sional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitig,a- tion(s), if deemed necessary. 2 6. If any significant cultural materials such as artifacts, human burials, or the like are encountered during construction operations, such operations shall cease within 10 feet of the find, the Community Development Department shall be notified within 24-hours and a qualified archaeologist contacted and retained for further recommendations. Significant cultural materials include, but are not limited to, aboriginal human remains, chipped stone, groundstone, shell and bone artifacts, concentrations of fire cracked rock, ash, charcoal, shell, bone, and historic features such as privies or building foundations. 7. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. 8. Appropriate mitigation of the cultural resources may include monitoring of further construction and/or systematic excavation of the resources. Anv artifacts or samples collected as part of the initial discovery, monitoring or mitigation phases shall be properly conserved, catalogued, analyzed, evaluated and curated along with associated documentation in a professional manner consistent -vyith current archaeological standards. 9. The developer shall pay a fee of S-69 $400 per lot/tmit toward child care facility needs in the area as established by the Board of Supervisors. 10. At least 45 days prior to issuance of a gradin_ permit, the applicant shall submit a preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Zoning .Administrator and Planning_ Geologist. Improvement, grading. and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for liquefaction, seismic settlement and other types of seismically-induced ground failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investiaation. 11. Applicant shall record a statement to nm with deeds to property acknowledging the approved report by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to approved recommendations, and noting that the report is available from the seller. ' 12. At least 60 days prior to issuance of grading permit submit for review and approval of the County Consulting Geologist an as-graded report prepared by a.geotechnical engineer addressing construction of one or more keyways within the suspect slide area and provide specific foundation recommendations for each lot and more clearly define what situations require beam foundations. Additionally, the report shall include an evaluation of the stabilitN, of the driveway for proposed Parcel B in the event that the project is approved as proposed. If stability cannot be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Consulting Geologist and the Public Works Department, Parcel B shall be deleted. 13. At least 60 days prior to issuance of a gradin;.,_ permit, applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval of the Community Development Department. Grading for homesite areas shall be permitted to the extent necessary to ensure geotechnically sale building sites. 14. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing of a Parcel Map, a grading/tree preservation plan or issuance:of a buildinb permit shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees with a trunk circumference of i-6 2.0 inches or more, 4'/, feet above the ground. The trunk size, species and approximate drip line of each qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the trees proposed to be removed or preserved. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist on the proposed development 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 building plan. Prior to building, applicant shall provide fencing or other appropriate barriers at least five (5) feet outside of the drip line of all trees to be retained on the site in order to give grading contractors proper visual notification to keep equipment out of the area surrounding these trees. (During grading operations a qualified a,bo, arborist shall be on site to approve any needed exceptions to these requirements.) 15. To assure protection and/or reasonable replacement of existing trees to be preserved which are in proximity to project improvements, the applicant shall post a bond (or other surety) for the required Nvork with the Community Development Department. The term of the bond shall extend at least 24 months beyond the completion of construction. Prior to posting the bond. a licensed arborist shall assess the value of the trees and reasonable compensatory terms in the event that a tree to be preserved is destroyed or otherwise damaged by construction- related activity. The tree bonding program shall be subject to the revieNv and approval of the Zoning Administrator. :The objective of the review shall be to.minimize the loss or long-term damage to existing trees. 16. No trees shall be removed prior to approval of the grading/tree preservation plan without the prior approval of the Zoning Administrator. 17. The developer and applicant shall adhere to the following tree preservation standards required by Section S 16-6.1202 of the County Code. A. Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on a site with trees to be preserved, the applicant shall install fencing at the drip line or other area as determined by an arborist report of all trees adiacent to or in the area to be altered. Prior to grading, or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. 1 I 4 B. No grading, compaction, stockpilinu, trenching, paving or chance in ground elevation shall be permitted .vithin the drip line unless indicated on the grading plans approved by the County and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved Within the drip line, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods requiring for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant. C. No parking or storing vehicles, equipment,-machinery, or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. 18. If no trees are located within 40 feet of the proposed development, the construction plans shall be so noted. 19. O$er'io Consiruct Fence alclml,1k'estern Property Line of Parcel:A At least --'T6 60 days prior to finaiii-ation ofthe building permit, the applicant to filing`a parcel map. the applicant shall provide e\idence for the review and Iapprova of.the Zoning Administrator ns1). that he has offered to the owners of the Moining,parcels to the west APN 19:-030-008 and -007(respectively, X260 Miranda Place Pulliam, and 42640 Miranda Avenue- Morris) to install a 6-foot tall wooden fence along,the western property line for Lot A pro►Oc4l that the owners of those properties agree.to pay 50%of the fence costs for their respective sections of the property line. The applicant shall provide to the Zoning Administrator any written response.from the applicant. Iftlie feice:iniprovements are agreed to, it will be the applicant's responsibility to construct the fence at least 30. .days prior to filing a. parcel map. The applicant shall provide evidence of pe Con3plefion of he fence improvements by providing photographs of the fence taken 6m`several locations for the.rev ie�w.and app1'Ov al of the Zoning Adtill ill strator. 20. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following constnrction. noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. Iroise generating construction activities, including such thinks as power generators, shall be limited to the hours of 8:00A.1\1.. 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. 5 B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion enuines 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 individuals responsible for noise and litter control. tree protection. construction traffic and vehi- cles. erosion control, and the 24-11rnn-emergency number, shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be re-issued with each phase of major gradin_` and con- struction 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 Zonin` 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 servini,this development shall be constructed to provide access to each [lot] [portion of the development site]. This shall include provision for an on-site area in ,vhich to park earth moving equipment. F. Transporting. of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to week days between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PN1. 21. Prior to filing the parcel map, the applicant shall be required to comply with all rules. regulations and procedures to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay - Region 11 or Central Valley - Region �'). 6 22. Prior to filing the frria-i parcel map, the applicant shall provide evidence that the subject property has been annexed into the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. 23. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of fundinu to maintain the augment police services by voting to approve a special tax for the parcels created by this subdivision approval unless the Board of Supervisors detennines to relieve minor subdivisions of this obli_ation by March 28, 1996, in which case this condition shall not apply. The tax shall be the per parcel annual amount (with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors. The election to provide for the tax shall be completed prior to.the filing of the parcel map. The property owner shall be responsible for paying the cost of holding the election, payable at the time that the election is requested by the owner. 24. All dwelling units shall have 11OUse numhers that are visible from the street which may require illumination. 25. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit, in flood zone areas applicant shall verify that all finished floor elevations are above the 100-year flood elevation. 26. Homes shall be limited to step-on-Trade construction and 25 feet in height measured parallel from erade. Nsclosiire`Staterrtent to Prospective Buyer-At least 30 clays prior to filing a parcel i iap, the applicant,shall review a proposed disclosure statement for the revieand approval of the Zoning:'Adininistrator. The statement shall be used. to inform prospective .buyers.of the approved lots,of the restrictions on the:above structure height (C/A 026.), parking (C/A #29;E ) any.required disclosure on elementary=school capacity limitations (C/A ;-'M, and documentation of protection of existing trees(C/A 7 and X14)to.be addressed Burin, re7iexN, of construction plans. The.disclosure.statement shall also provide a copy of the County Tree Protection..Otdinalice to,prospective buyers. 27. At least 60 days prior to the filing of a parcel map, the applicant shall complete the following to dedicate a scenic easement.on Lot D: App licant'<shail submit—:a:revisedsite la .for approval by,the Zoning Administrator that shotes a 20-foot-wide.scenic easement on'Lot D. the boundaryof which closely cotnctdet'W th the elevation of 425.feet. The boundary shall be identified bv'metes and bounds :description and certification from a licensed civil engineer that the descnpttonreflects the location of the easement. The revised site plan shall provide for a:mtnimum 4=foot tall open-wire.fence to nun along.the downhill boundaiv of the scenic :easement: The:;purpose'of the vire_fence shall be to make it easy for tndivtduals to easily nisi a,ize the approxUnate location of the easement in the field. 7 At>least `30 days prior to`filiii 'a„parcel map, tlie applicant shall notifi the Zoning Ad ministrator'that Thewire fence has been installed, x6th a statement from a licensed surveyor>or.engineer that th'e fence-is:;located;;appro mately al©ng the easement boundary;and maybe inspected for compliance 28. Errand A:Grant Deed of Development Rights shall be conveyed to the CountN for the area designated within the scenic easement. This grant deed shall specie thatgrading construction of fences, and any type of development shall be prohibited within the scenic easement. 29. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road and utility improvements will require the review and approval of the Public Works Department.- 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: A. General Requirements: This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage) of the Subdivision Ordinance. The following requirements must conform with Division 914: 1) Drainage, road and utility improvements shall require the review and approval for the Public Works Department. This development shall comply with the requirements of(Title 9) and Title 10) of the County Ordinance Code. Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. 2) The drainage. road and utility improvements outlined below shall require the review and approval of the Public Works Department and area based on the vesting tentative map dated received November 29. 1994. 3) Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, EngineeringT. Services Division, along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements. required by the Ordinance Code for the conditions of approval of this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary traffic signage and striping plans for review. by the Transportation Engineering Division. 4) The Improvement plans shall be incorporate the recommendations'`for the proposed roadway improvements as specified in the approved geotechnicalreports.: The iniprovement plans shall be signed by a registered Geotechnical En—aineer certiA,ing that the improve men s'plans are in conformance with the approved reports. Should the studies not analyze the portion of the proposed 8 private.Toadxvay from Miranda Place to the site, the applicant shall submit additional ;:information to substantiate the proposed :private roadway improvements. 5) ReN7ewof Potential :Tree impacts Prior to approval of the proposed subdivision itlipro\.,enient plans the applicant sliali submit three copiesof:the proposed .improvement plans "for the revie\v and approval of.the Zoning Administrator. 1n .:accord with the Tree' Preservation and Protection Ordinance, the plans shall i�lentify.tlie trunkJocations of any existing mature trees with,a. trunk 6,rc tmference of 20.inches or.more, 4'l feet:above the ground;withiti:3Q feet.ofproposed improvements(if>�,radin�,. Each'dualifying tree shall be*Jdentified with a nuti ber (e #3, #S, etc.). :.The plans shall also indicate the species, tree drip line and trunk circumference of all qualifyinU trees and whether individual trees are proposed to be removed, aItered;(grade .under dripline;trimmed branches),:.or preserved. The plans shall incorporate the reconimendations of the arborist:report (described below). Arborist Report - The plans shall be accompanied by two copies of a report from a licensed arborist. The report shall provide an appraisal of the existing health of the trees, an evaluate of whether the trees proposed to be preserved in.proximity to proposed development can in fact be presen!ed, and the measures necessary to assure their preservation. Tree protection measures shall address the construction and post-construction etages of the ,project. The report shall indicate if the.proposed measures are nw-sufficient to assure the preservation and long-term sur!iyal of the tree. The report shall also include an appraisal of the cash value of trees to be saved on a per tree basis to aid in developing an appropriate security mechanism in the event the trees are nevertheless damned during, development. Also reference bond protection measures in Condition of Approval :;15. The objective of the Zoning Administrator review shall be so minimize the loss or.long.-term damage to existin_-trees in accord Nvith the provision of the Tree Ordinance. V B. Access to Adjoining Property Proof of Access/ACQuisitlOn 1) Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessan- rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of otl=site, temporary or permanent, road or drainage improvements. 9 2) Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available fi-om Miranda Place. Encroachment Permit 3) Obtain an encroachment permit from the Application R Permit Center for construction of driveways, or other improvements within the right of way of Miranda Place. C. Site Distance: Grading, trimming of vegetation, pavement widening and realignment of the proposed access shall be performed to provide adequate sight distance for a design speed of 49 kilometers per hour (30 mph) in accordance with CALTRA\S standards at the intersection of Camino Monte Sol with Miranda Place. D. Private Road: ]) Applicant shall construct a 4.9 meter (16-foot) paved private roadway with 0.6 meter(2-foot) compacted shoulders k\*thin a 7.6 meter (25-foot) easement for those portions of the private road that are 204o or less in grade. For those portions of the private road that are greater than 20%, the applicant shall constntct la 6.1 meter (20-foot) paved private roadway With a 06 _f{2oot) compacted shoulders within a 7.6 meter (25-foot) easement.. The 6.1 meter (20-foot)paved width and 7.6 meter- (25-foot) easement shall.be extended 46 meter (150-feet) Nvest of the point where the grade will exceed 20°,o. No portion of the private road shall be allowed to exceed a 22°'o grade. The road shall be reconstructed from Miranda Place alone the entire lenuth of this suhdivision, due to its poor condition. The private roadway shall be paved frith asphalt concrete to at least a 4.9 meter (16-foot) width, widened up to a 6.1 meter (20-f6o1) \N-idth where required in these conditions of approval and/or by the fire district,-except where additional widenirig is required for on- street parking: 2) Special pavement surfacing, such as`rooved concrete or open graded asphalt, may be required on road <grades steeper than 16%. 3) Provide for adequate sight distance along Camino Monte Sol for at least 41 kilometers per hour (25-mph) design speed. 10 E. Parking. 1) At least 60 days prior to filing a parcel map, the applicant shall provide a plan showin_six off-street parking spaces for each parcel subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, or five off-street parking spaces per unit with at least two additional on-street (common) parking spaces for even, two residences located no more than 46 meters (150-feet) from each parcel, subject to the review of both the Zoning Administrator and a Public Works engineer. All parking spaces shall be located outside ofthe creek structure setback area. The additional common parkin`_ spaces should be located in parking bays accessible by all of the residential units. 2) At least 60 days prior to filing a parcel map, proof of recordation of the followinu disclosure of deed restrictions shall be submitted to the Community Development Department: You are purchasing a property which shall provide six off- street parking spaces per unit or five off-street parking spaces per Unit with at least two additional on-street (common) parking spaces located no more than 46 meters (150-feet) fi-om each parcel and outside of the creek structure setback area. The applicant shall also provide to prospective buyers written notice regarding the parking space requirements. A copy of these conditions and the approved parking design plan shall also be provided to those prospective buffers. F. Utilities/l'ndergrounding: All new utility diStrIbUTI011 facilities shall be installed underuround The applicant will not be required to underground existing overhead utilities G. Maintenance of Facilities: 1) Applicant shall establish covenants, conditions and restrictions for the development that clarifies all creek improvements and storm drainage facilities within the development will be maintained by the homeowners within the development. 2) Applicant shall develop and enter into a maintenance a<_reement that will insure that the proposed private road will be maintained. and that each properlt' that uses the proposed private road Nyill share in its maintenance. 11 H. Drainage Improvements. Collect and Convey 1) Division 914 of the Ordinance Code requires that all storm waters entering or originating within the subject property shall be conveyed, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a natural watercourse . 2) Storm drainage facilities required by Division 914 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with specifications outlined in Division 914 and in compliance with design standards of the Public Works Department. 1. Miscellaneous Drainage Reqnirements: 1) The applicant shall install within drainage easements those portions of the drainage system which convey concentrated flows. 2) The applicant shall analyze the culvert at the Miranda Creek crossing of Camino Monte Sol to determine if the culvert capacity is adequate to handle a design storm floe of Q25 with sufficient freeboard or a Q50 \vithout freeboard WIt}tout overtopping the road. If the culvert is not adequate the applicant shall mitigate by providing adequate capacity to prevent the above design storm.flog\s from overtopping the Camino Monte Sol roadway, The applicant shall also analyze the design storm to determine if a backwater condition exists with the existing culvert or with proposed miti`_ation. if it is found that a backwater condition does exist, the applicant shall ensure that the water surface elevation does not impact upstream strictures. The applicant shall mitigate any upstream impacts on structures due to the backwater condition at the culvert crossing subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 3) Any work to improve the capacity of the culvert may be eligible for credit or reimbursement against the Miranda Creek Mitigation Fee. The applicant should contact the Public Works Department to personally determine the extent of any credit or reimbursement for which they might be eligible. Ain' credit or reimbursements shall be determined prior to filing the final map or as approved by the Flood Control District. 13 4) The applicant shall show that the reach of Miranda Creek through this property is adequate to convey the design storm without overtopping the creek bank. If the creek is not adequate to convey the design storm, the applicant shall improve the creek to contain the design storm within its banks, subject to the review of Public Works and the review and approval of the Zoning administrator. The applicant shall also be required to show that the velocities in the creek, based on the design storm are not higher than those specified by a licensed soil engineer in the soil report. The calculations shall be based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Tractive Force Method. or an alternative method approved by Public Works. If they are, the applicant shall be required to install additional draina�se mitigation. such as grade control structures- to minimize the erosive impact of this portion of Miranda Creek, subject to the review of Public Works and the reviex\ and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 5) To reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off fi-om this development on Miranda Creek, 0.76 cubic meters (one cubic yard) of channel excavation material will be removed from the inadequate portion of Miranda Creek for each 4.6 square meters (50 square feet) of new impervious surface area created by the development. All excavated material shall be disposed of off- site by the developer at his cost. The site selection. land rights and construction staking will be by the Flood Control District. Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payrn in lieu of actual excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash payment will be calculated at the rate of$0.10 per 0.09 square meters (50.10 per square foot) of new imperious surface area created by the development. The added impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the Flood Control Districts standard impervious surtace area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on the creek annually. 6) To reduce the impact of additional storni water run-offfrom this development on San Ramon Creek- one cubic yard of channel excavation material will be removed frorn the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek for each 4.6 square meters (50 square feet) of new impervious area created by the development. All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the developer at his cost. The site section, land rights and construction staking_ will be by the Flood Control District. 1 ' Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of actual excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash payment will. be calculated at the rate of$0.10 per 0.09 square meters (50.10 per square foot) of new inrpervious surface area created by the development. The added impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on the creek annually. J. Creek Structure Setbacks.- Applicant shall relinquish "development rights" over that portion of the site that is within the structure setback area of Miranda Creek. The structure setback area shall be determined by using_ the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14. "Rights of Way and Setbacks', of the Subdivision Ordinance. "Development rig,hts' shall be conveyed to the County by grant deed. K. Metrication Requirements. All neva improvement plans, parcel maps, and final maps submitted after January_ 1. 1996 shall be in metric units. .3 This application is Subject to an initial application fee of 56,000 which was paid with the application submittal. plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 120% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working_ days for file preparation. YOU may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill \vi11 be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 31. Disclosure of Elementar-v School Cat)acity - Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit a draft notice for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The notice shall indicate that the nearby elementary school, Alamo Elementary School, is at or near- capacity and elementary school children in this subdivision may be required to enroll in a school outside the neighborhood. A copy of the approved notice shall be provided to prospective buyers. The Zoning Administrator may waive this requirement based on information from the District that the Alamo Elementar}, School has adequate capacity. 14 ADVISORY NOTES PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ,ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT APART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF iNFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. (Refer to Attachment A.) B. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Vallee Fire Protection District. (Refer to Attachment B.) C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. D. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish R Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish R Game, P.O. Boz 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed construction within the development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. E. This project may be subject to the requirements of' the United States Arniv Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required. F. The applicant will be required'to comply with the requirements of the.Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. G. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal EmerLency Agency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management Ordinance (Ordinance No. 87-6.5) as they pertain to fixture construction of any structures on this property. H. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharue Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal, construction And industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board or an_v of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay-Regional I] or Central Valley-Region V). I. The applicant shall be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for Drainage Area 76 as adopted by the Board of Super isol's 15 J. This project is subject to the development fees in effect under County Ordinance as of December 5, 1994, the date the vesting tentative map application was accepted as complete by the Community Development Department. These fees are in addition to any other development fees which may be specified in the conditions of approval. The fees include but are not limited to the following=: Park Dedication $2,000.00 per residence. Child Care $400.00 per residence. An estimate of the fee chard=es for each approved lot may be obtained by contacting the Building_ Inspection Department at 646-4992. K. The applicant is advised that the tax for the police services district is currently set by the Board of Supervisors at 5200 per parcel annually (with appropriate future Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments). The annual fee is subject to modification by the Board of Supervisors in the future. The current fee for holding the election is 5800 and is also subject to modification in the fixture. The applicable tax and fee amounts will be those established by the Board at the time of voting. L. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary District or, if the site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health Department. 1\1. Some of the roadways that are used to access the subject property are.private roads that may have a vehicle weight limit. You should be aware of those .weight limits and \'our responsibility for road repairs w-hen you brim_construction equipment and materials onto your site. CK/DJC/ELZ/aa MS l s/I 1-94C.ELZ 7/19/95 8/14/95 - ZA (RD) Agenda Item #4 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20. 1995 - 7:30 P.M. BOARD OF APPEALS I. INTRODUCTION BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION (Applicant & Owner), County File #MS940011: This is an appeal by the applicant of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny the approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide 3 acres into 4 lots. In addition, this is an appeal by adjacent property owners Burton and Anne Broome for a reconsideration of the condition to approve the subdivision of 3 lots (Parcels A, C, and D). Subject property fronts approximately 600 feet on the south side of Camino Monte Sol, in the Alamo area, (R-20) (ZA: Q-15) (CT 3461.02) (Parcel #193-030-009). II. RECOMMENDATION A. Staff recommends the Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision, deny the appeals. B. Alternatively, if the Commission determines there is evidence that the project may result in a significant environmental impact, staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. III. BACKGROUND The application request to approve a vesting tentative map to subdivide a 3 acre parcel into 4 lots was filed in September, 1994. The attached Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and posted on May 3, 1995 until June 5, 1995. The applicant submitted the attached letter dated May 1, 1995 stating that he accepted the mitigation measures (summarized in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program table) as proposed. On July 31, 1995, the application request was heard before the Zoning Administrator whereby public testimony was collected and the hearing continued to August 14, 1995 to give the applicant the opportunity to resolve issues concerning infrastructure. During this latter hearing the Zoning Administrator decided to approve a vesting tentative map to subdivide a 3 acre parcel into 3 lots IA, C, and D) with revised conditions of approval Attached is a copy of a revised site plan that the applicant submitted to the Community Development Department during the Zoning Administrator hearing. The map available to staff prior to the July 31. 1995 hearing was subject to the establishment of variances to Lots C and D of 113-foot and 106-foot lot widths (120 foot minimum lot width required), respectively. However, Lots C and D have been reconfigured on the revised map, dated received September 7, 1995 by the Community Development Department, to comply with minimum lot width requirements. 2 IV. THE APPLICANT'S CONCERNS, REASONS FOR THE APPEAL. AND STAFF'S RESPONSE A. A summary of the applicant's concerns and reasons for the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision, and staff's response, are provided below. The appeal letter dated August 23, 1995 is attached to this staff report. 1. CONCERNS ABOUT CONDITION OF APPROVAL #1 The applicant is appealing revised Condition of Approval #1 (attached to the July 31, 1995 staff report) that eliminates Lot B, because the applicant's request is consistent with the current County General Plan and the R-20 Zoning Ordinance, an arborist report (or letter) verifies that the proposed lot configurations present no threat to existing trees, and agencies outside of the County as well as other County departments approve of the proposed project. a. Consistency with County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance 1. Applicant's Reason: The applicant states that the current County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance allows between 1 and 3 dwelling units per acre, or between 6 and 8 units per 3 acres, and the 4 proposed lots consistently exceed the minimum area requirement under the respective zoning district. 2. Staff Response: According to staff's calculations the number of dwelling units allowed on a 3 acre parcel ranges between 3 and 9 units rather than 6 to 8 units. However, according to Section 3.7 of the County General Plan, "unique environmental characteristics may justify a reduced number of units or intensity of use than is normally allowed under the General Plan designation." In addition, General Plan Policy 10-28 states that "generally residential density shall decrease as slope increases, especially above 15 percent." Since portions of the subject property are greater than 15 percent, reducing the number of units or intensity of use at this subject property is justified. b. Arborist Report 1. Applicant's Reason: The applicant has had an arborist report prepared verifying that proposed lot configurations and proposed lot improvements present no threat to any of the existing trees. 2. Staff Response:. , v An arborist report that meets the conditions of approval is not available in the Community Development Department files. The attached letter prepared by Lafayette Tree and Landscape dated July 31, 1995 is available, but staff is unable to find a statement verifying that the proposed lot configurations and lot improvements present no threat to any of the existing trees, or any language to that effect. c. Other Agencies and Departments Approve of the Project 1. Applicant's Reason: The applicant received a permit from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to improve the subject property, including the Lot B driveway adjacent to the creek, as proposed on the tentative map. Also, Central Sanitary District has given their approval to connect the proposed project to the sewer system and the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District has approved a 4 lot configuration for fire and safety. 2. Staff Response: According to the County General Plan Policy 8-89, "setback areas of at least 100 feet shall be provided along natural creeks and streams in areas planned for urbanization." The driveway proposal to Lot B is inconsistent with this policy since it would be located within the setback area. Furthermore, the recommend- ations of the Community Development Department staff will not always be based on recommendations or approval from other agencies, such as the DFG, or from other departments/districts within the County, since the considerations of staff members outside the Community Development Department will not necessarily reflect those from within the department. d. Underdahl Geotechnical Report 1. Applicant's Reason: Geotechnical Engineer, Gary Underdahl, has performed tests on all four building sites and has approved all sites for construction with some recommendations. 2. Staff Response: The basis for Mr. Underdahl's approval of the four building sites on the four proposed lots provided in a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report, dated December 20, 1994, is limited to on- site geology. Staff's reasons for recommending deletion of the Lot B homesite are discussed in Section VIILB of the attached 4 July 31, 1995 staff report. In addition to the issue concerning access to Lot B, only 5,000 out of 33,500 square feet of Lot B is usable. Typically, uses permitted on half-acre lots include swimming pools, tennis courts, gazebos, and large expansive decks. These uses would not be appropriate on this lot, and if constructed could endanger the oak woodland. e. County Consulting Geologist's Statement 1. Applicant's Reason: Darwin Myers, the County Consulting Geologist, stated in his letter dated July 6, 1995 (Attachment L of the July 31, 1995 Staff Report) that "the outlook for long-term stability of a well designed properly constructed project on this site is good." 2. Staff Response: The question of slope stability and/or stability of structures on Lot B did not influence Staff's recommendation to delete Lot B. Refer to the staff response above. 2. CONCERNS ABOUT CONDITION OF APPROVAL #26 The applicant is appealing revised Condition of Approval #26 (attached to the July 31, 1995 staff report) which limits the height of homes constructed at the subject property to 25 feet measured from parallel grade. The applicant claims that such restrictions have not been placed on other subdivisions and homes in the neighborhood. a. Height Restrictions 1. Applicant's Reason: No height restrictions were placed on Major Subdivision #7746 and Minor Subdivision 2-89, which are also located on Camino Monte Sol. . Furthermore, the existing home that backs up to proposed Lot A is double story, in addition to the two existing residences that back up to Lot D. Whether neighbors look down from 60 feet above, at the roof of a 25 foot house or a 35 foot house should not make any difference. 2. Staff Response: Condition of Approval #26 (Height condition) does not limit the applicant's ability to construct a two story structure as long as it is a minimum of 25 feet. b. Nearby Subdivision 5 1. Applicant's Reason: Residences to be built in accordance with nearby Major Subdivision #7744 was approved even though no buildings should be built according to the ridge line ordinance. 2. Staff Response: Decisions made concerning surrounding subdivisions are not pertinent to this project. Besides, the applicant for Subdivision #7744 is required to comply with building height restrictions and other conditions to minimize the visibility of structures from off site. V. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S CONCERNS, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, REASONS FOR THESE AMENDMENTS, AND STAFF'S RESPONSE A. A summary of the adjacent property owners' concerns about the Zoning Administrator's decision, proposed amendments to the conditions of approval, reasons for such amendments, and staff's response, are provided below. The adjacent property owners' appeal letter dated August 22, 1995 is also attached to this staff report. 1. Adjacent Property Owners' Concern about General Welfare. Risks to Life and Property, and Environmental Damage Adjacent property owners Mr. and Mrs. Broome are appealing for the reconsider- ation of the Zoning Administrator's decision to approve the subdivision of the subject parcel into 3 parcels, and to adopt additional safeguards to protect against landslides, maintain the environmental integrity of the area, mitigate fire dangers, and avoid a reduction in property values to the subdivision. As part of these safeguards, the applicant requests that (1) the proposed subdivision be reviewed to ensure compliance with the 1991 County General Plan policies, and (2) and Environmental Impact Report be prepared to address geological, environmental, and drainage issues. Staff has reviewed the proposed subdivision to ensure compliance with the 1991 County General Plan policies and staff completed an environmental review and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The environmental document and resulting mitigation monitoring program are attached. Furthermore, Darwin Myers indicates in his February 7, 1995 review of the Underdahl Preliminary Geotechnical Report dated December 20, 1994, which addresses geology and drainage, that the Underdahl report is adequate for processing of the tentative map. However, the Planning Commission may request staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report where there is evidence that the project may result in a significant environmental impact. Refer to section II.B. Mr. and Mrs. Broome and other adjacent property owners supporting their appeal, also request that the aforementioned safeguards consist of amendments to the existing conditions of approval pertaining to the easement (Condition E #27), structure height (Condition #26), fire access road, and number of lots permitted (Condition #1). a. Easement Amendment 1. Appellants' Request: A minimum 50-foot easement should be required in place of the 20-foot easement required at the eastern end on the proposed subdivision in Condition #27. 2. Reasons for the Request: The appellants are concerned that any encroachment on this hillside will weaken the soil substructure and cause a landslide that could destroy their home. These concerns are based on statements included in Darwin Myers' Geotechnical Review Report dated February 7, 1995 (Attachment K of the July 31, 1995 staff report) concerning the relatively steep marginally stable hillside on the eastern side of the subject property (Lots C and D), and the existence of a colluvium/slide debris on the northern portion of the subject property that could slide toward the creek, if mobilized. The appellants' concerns and reasons for requesting a 50-foot easement are also based on observations and claims of landslide activity surrounding their home; inconsistent statements provided in Mr. Myers' July 6, 1995 letter (Attachment L of the July 31, 1995 staff report); and the applicant's unreliable track record. 3. Staff Response: Staff's recommendations are limited to the materials available in the County files, including statements provided by the County Consulting Geologist, Darwin Myers. In the report dated February 7, 1995, Mr. Myers stated that there was a potential for landslide activity to occur on Lots C and D, but then he provided additional comments in his July 6, 1995 letter concerning slope stability that lead staff to conclude that long-term structure stability was possible provided that the applicant met all the conditions of approval pertaining to site grading, drainage, and foundation design which is sensitive to the hazard of deep soil creep/sliding. Building permits will not be issued until such conditions are met. b. Structure Height Amendment 1. Appellants' Request: 7 The 25-foot height restriction on the new homes provided in Condition x'26 should be qualified to indicate that no residence shall exceed one story. 2. Reasons for the Request: The appellants are concerned that 2-story residences at the subject property will have a negative impact on surrounding neighbors. The majority of the residences surrounding the subject property are one story, and those that are 2 stories, are not located on a hillside or crowded around a creek covered with numerous oak trees. 3. Staff Response: Staff considered the 25-foot height restriction to be a fair compromise in a zoning district that normally allows residences to be constructed at a maximum height of 35 feet. As noted in Section VII.G.2 of the July 31, 1995 staff report, staff does not consider the proposed project to have any more of a visual impact on the surrounding community than any other subdivision proposed in an R-20 zoning district and designated Single-Family Residential-Low Density. Furthermore, the only building envelope proposed on a hillside or slope at the subject property is on Lot D. This building envelope is proposed at the lower end of the slope located on the eastern side of the subject property, approximately 25 feet below the appellants' residence. Furthermore, staff considers the spacing between the approved 3 lot subdivision to be appropriate particularly since these lots meet required area (20,000 square foot minimum) and width requirements (120-foot minimum). c. Fire Access Roadway Width 1. Appellants' Request: The developer should be required to comply with the recommen- dations of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District that fire access roadways have an obstructed width of 20 feet. 2. Appellants' Reason: The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District specified that "fire access roadways must have a minimum obstructed width of 20 feet," yet, the Community Development Department (CDD) is allowing a 16-foot width up to a maximum grade of 20%. 3. Staff Response: 8 Please note that the 16-foot width condition for a grade of up to 20% is a Public Works (not a CDD) condition. Furthermore, according to the revised vesting tentative map dated received September 7, 1995, fire access routes (Camino Monte Sol and driveways to proposed building envelopes) are a minimum of 20 feet. The reason staff did not specifically address the turn around and other requirements is because the applicant will be unable to obtain a building permit until plans have been stamped by the fire district. Subsequent to project approval, the applicant provides the map to the fire district for review. At that time, the fire district may ask that certain amendments be made to the vesting tentative map for district compliance. d. Lots Permitted Amendment 1. Appellants' Request: The appellant requests that the language in Condition #1 be revised so that the 3 acre parcel is subdivided into a maximum of 2 lots. 2. Appellants' Reason: - The CDD did not address issues outlined in the Darwin Myers February 7, 1995 report, such as the recommendation to combine Lots C and D or the adverse impact of the construction of the Lot B driveway on the 36-inch diameter oak, and geologic resource value and visual impacts to the land adjacent to the creek. 3. Staff Response: Staff does not understand why the appellant is requesting staff to consider the driveway and oak tree on Lot B since Lot B was deleted. The staff response in Section V.A.1.a(3) outlines the reasons staff did not adopt Darwin Myers' original recommendation to combine Lots C and D. VI. ADDITIONAL LETTERS Please note that the Community Development Department received additional letters from the applicant, Jon Bernardo, dated received July 30, 1995 and July 31, 1995, and a letter from Burton Broome, dated received August 9, 1995. Also, concerned neighbors (the Bottoms' and the Rubanyi's) sent letters dated July 28, 1995 and July 31, 1995 in opposition to the project. All letters are attached. 9 VII. CONCLUSION The Zoning Administrator's decision was based on the best available information in the files. Staff does not consider the points presented by the appellants to be significant enough to alter the Zoning Administrator's decision, nor to amend the conditions of approval as discussed in Section V of this report. However, if the Commission determines there is evidence that the project may result in a significant environmental impact, staff recommends that the Commission direct staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. N1: ms94-11.elz ELZ/ntz CMstructive Ideas, Inc.,—) 35 Ye,yVVt' 0ity Construction G� b AM10: 19 = ti43 t August 23, 1995 95 -County of Contra Costa 5V NOW l ILI ( Community Development Department C.. -North Wing, 4th Floor - �_ 651-Pine Street -Martinez -Ca. -94553 _ �r -Attention: County Zoning Administrator_ Re: --W.1-1tten Notice of Appeal to-the County-Zoning_Admintstrator's.-decision and MS •1.1-14'oonditions of approval.-. This appeal is made in reference.to-the Tentative -Map...an i `the conditions of -`approval for MS 11-94. -The following comments rel ate':dlrectly.to:the.conditions by number._ ?,:.Item #1 --:-I .would.-like-to appeal this condition for the following-ir_easons LI;-have applied for -a"4 lot subdiVisionn-because the•'current County-General`•P.lan. and_Zoning Ordinance : allows me 1 -- •3 dwelling units per acre: I have a total of_3"acres which could possibly support.the development of 6 - 8 units: My Tentative Map has proposed only 4 lots which all have more area than what is required for R-20 zoning. Additionally, John Maes, my engineer and I have spent numerous hours creating a tentative map which is conducive and receptive to the natural features of the property. We are sensitive to the environment and have allowed for no removal of existing trees nor any disturbance to the existing creek, except to improve the .roadway. I presently have an arborist report verifying that our lot configurations and proposed improvements present no threat to any of the existing trees. I have applied and received a permit from the Department of Fish and Game to improve my property as proposed on the - Tentative Map. The easements & Improvements have been excepted by Public Works as proposed. The Central Sanitary District Department has given their approval for sewer connection to 4 lots. San Ramon Fire District has approved .a 4 lot configuration for fire and . safety. Geotechnical Engineer, Gary Underdahi has performed tests on all 4 building sites and has approved all sites for construction with his recommendations. Finally, Darwin Myers, an Engineering Geologist hired by Contra Costa County has -reviewed our Geologists reports on the 4 lot plan and stated in his report dated July 6, 1995 that "The outlook for long term stability of a well designed property constructed project on this site is good." With respect to the Zoning Administrator's decision on this condition, there is no foundation, no supporting documentation or testimony from any licensed Individual. or professional to state that what we are doing is illegal, environmentally or publicly unsafe, or a private or public nuisance. The County's soils consultant has even retracted his Initial negative statements in his report to the County. His new comments as mentioned above are very positive and supportive of this project. 28 Merrill Circle • Moraga, CA 94556 • (510) 631-6623 • Fax (510) 631-0933 General Contracting & Engineering • Contractors License # 70457 eflNTRa CU 95 AUG 24 AM 10. 19 :. - LU�j�►il J� page 2 6�ilEtENT � Pi• Item #26. yI would like to appeal this condition for the following reasons: -There is no basis for the.-25' height restriction._ Recent approval of subdivision 7746 and 2-89, both on Camino Monte.Sol, have NO height restrictions. These subdivisions have a.-much ..higher .elevation and may be -seen from adjoining --property owners. In addition; approval of subdivision 7744 places homes In a ridge line where NO building .should be built according to ridge line ordinance. Furthermore, theexisting home that backs up to proposed Lot A Is two story as _well.as..the 2--existing homesAhat backup to Lot D. Whether neighbors look down from sixty .feet above; at the roof of a 25' house.or a 35' house makes NO difference. -. . -In conclusion, I ' personally 'feel that I have compiled-' with-'all . the County's ordinances, departmental rules andregulations, and with a personal and sensitive respect to the environment. The property was, purchased, R-20-Toned, with the Intent to exercise our right using LESS than R-20 zoning regulations and planning to build only 4 homes. ...The Contra Costa County Zoning Administrators decision to allow only 3 lots Infringes on my property rights as well as adversely affecting Its value. As a result of all the support and approval of 4 lots from all of the above mentioned experts and professionals, I respectfully request my legal right to develop my property as proposed on my Tentative Map which is In accordance with existing County guidelines. Respectfully submitted, J Bernardo 20 Camino Monte Sol Alamo, CA 94507-1422 August 22, 1995 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th F1 . , North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Attention: Ms. Edy Zwierzycki Ladies/Gentlemen: Vesting Tentative Map MSII-94 (Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area, Contra Costa County APN 193-030-009 We hereby appeal for a reconsideration of the vesting tentative map approved by the Zoning Administrator to subdivide three lots on Subdivision MS11-94 (Bernardo) . Enclosed is a check in the amount of $125 to cover the cost of the appeal , together with stamped envelopes addressed to each of the property owners within 300 feet of the subdivision. We do not believe that the mitigation monitoring program proposed by the Community Development Department and accepted by the Zoning Administrator is sufficient to ensure the orderly development of this property. We believe that additional safeguards are required to protect against landslides, maintain the environmental integrity of the area, mitigate fire dangers and avoid a reduction in property values adjacent to the subdivision. Please note that this subdivision is not a development proposed to be appended to the perimeter of an existing development. Rather, it is the construction of homes right in the center of existing developed property, and unless we obtain the additional safeguards sought in this appeal we believe that the new development will conflict seriously with the existing homes. We have never opposed development in general and, in fact, we do not oppose the development of this subdivision. If this development proceeds as approved by the Zoning Administrator, however, we believe that it will injure the environment, conflict with the general welfare, increase the risks to life and property, and drive property values down. It is for these reasons that we appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. And, as you will see from the enclosed petition we are supported in this appeal by most of the neighbors within 300 feet of the subdivision. Specifically, we request that the following amendments be made to the approved vesting tentative map requirements: 1) A minimum 50-foot easement should be required at the easterly end of the proposed subdivision in order to reduce the risk of landslides. Contra Costa County Community Development Department August 22, 1995 Page 2 2) The 25-foot height restriction included in the original declaration should be qualified to indicate that no home should exceed one story. 3) The proposed subdivision should. be reviewed to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the 1991 Contra Costa General Plan. 4) The developer should be required to comply with the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley fire Protection District that fire access roadways have a minimum, unobstructed width of 20 feet. 5) No more than two homes should be permitted to be constructed on the subdivision. 6) No work should be permitted on the property until an Environmental Impact Report is prepared. Each of these requests is more fully explained in the attachment to this letter. We will be pleased to discuss any of the issues raised in this appeal with you when appropriate. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Burton E. Broome Anne C. Broome Enclosures: Statement in support of appeal Petition from local property owners Check for $125.00 Stamped envelopes addressed to property owners within 300 feet of subdivision We the undersigned support the appeal for the vesting tentative map decreed by the Contra Costa Community on Subdivision MS 11-94(Bernardo)filed by Anne and Burton Broome of 20 Camino Monte Sol,Alamo,California,94507: William&Marian Pulliam Richard and Sandra Ralph 2622 Miranda Avenue 250 Miranda Piaace Alamo,Ca 94507 Alamo,Ca. 94507 Thomas and Jeanne Morris Mark and Katrina Watson 2640 Miranda Avenue 2710 Miranda Avenue Alamo,Ca. 94507 Alamo,Ca. 94507 Mark and Karen Scarlett Ingrid and Maria Jansen 2720 Miranda Avenue 25 Camino Monte Sol Alamo,Ca. 94507 Alamo,Ca. 94507 bor and Edith Rubanyi Timothy and Susan Bottoms 26 Heritage Oaks Drive 2418 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, Ca. 94507 Alamo, Ca. 94507 Steven and Sharon Polcyn Jr. Carl and Bodil Ahroon 2394 Heritage Oaks Drive 2410 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, Ca. 94507 Alamo, Ca. 94507 P and Bo6tooday 2402 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, Ca 94507 We the undersigned support the appeal for the vesting tentative map decreed by the Contra Costa Community on Subdivision MS 11-94(Bernardo)filed by Anne and Burton Broome of 20 Camino Monte Sol,Alamo,California,94507: kL William& an Flulliam Richard and Sandra Ralph 2622 Miranda Avenue 250 Miranda Plaace Alamo,Ca. 94507 Alamo,U 94507 I11 fU-A--- J _W Thomas and J oms Mark and Katrina Watson 2640 Miranda Avenue 2710 Miranda Avenue Alamo,Ca 94507 Alamo,Ca. 94507 Mark an en Scarlett Ingrid and Maria Jansen C/ 2720 Miranda Avenue 25 Camino Monte Sol Alamo, Ca. 94507 Alamo,Ca. 94507 Gabor and Edith Rubanyi Timothy and Susan Bottoms 2426 Heritage Oaks Drive 2418 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo,Ca. 94507 Alamo, Ca. 94507 Steven and Sharon Polcyn Jr. Carl and Bodil Ahroon 2394 Heritage Oaks Drive 2410 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, Ca. 94507 Alamo, Ca. 94507 Pat and Bob Gooday 2402 Heritage Oaks Drive / Hr. George C. mood g ts_! 230 Miranda P1. Alamo, Ca. 94507 •Alamo, CA 94507-1454 .2 L4 D r Vesting Tentative Map MS11-94 (Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area, Contra Costa County APN 193-030-009 1. A 20-foot scenic easement at the eastern end of the proposed subdivision is not adequate. A minimum 50-foot easement should be required. The scenic easement in question is directly below our property and on the steepest slope of the hill on which the subdivision is to be developed. The vesting tentative map originally prepared by°Maes & Associates and attached to the Darwin Myers report of February 7, 1995 indicated that the proposed building site on Lot D was right on this steep slope described by Darwin Myers as located on "a relatively steep, marginally stable hillside." Also according to the Darwin Myers report, "Available evidence indicates that the northern portion of these lots is a bedrock hollow that is filled with colluvium/slide debris. Should this material become mobilized, it could slide toward the creek channel ." We are extremely concerned that any encroachment on this hillside will weaken the soil substructure and cause a landslide that could destroy our home. It is for this reason that we believe that the minimum scenic easement below our property line should be 50 feet. Although the Darwin Myers report of February 7, 1995 indicates that slopes over 26% shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading, it appears that Lot D' in the original Bernardo Construction application ignores this requirement. (We have not seen a revised application for three lots, so all of the comments in this appeal refer to the original application.) The Darwin Myers report refers to slopes ranging from 25% to 45% and indicates the need for considerable grading to develop this lot, whereas the staff report refers incorrectly to slopes ranging from 15% to 26%. In fact the Darwin Myers report indicates that Lots A, C and D are in areas where natural slopes are greater than 26% for at least some of the building site. We are especially concerned about the possibility of land movement on the steep slope at the eastern end of the proposed subdivision, an issue which we do not think has been adequately addressed. This subject was raised in the Darwin Myers report, but there are other factors affecting this issue. (1) Since moving into our home seven years ago, there has been at least one minor slide on the. Jansen property which ran over a portion of our driveway. (2) The concrete terrace behind our house, facing Lot D, already shows signs of strain in that some of the slabs have separated. It appears that the former owner of our house laid telephone poles along the base of the terrace to prevent further soil erosion and slippage. (3) There is a hillside house a few miles away that we understand has already slipped on its foundation and has had to be reinforced. While this occurrence happened some distance away, it does indicate a certain amount of soil instability in the area. (4) We also understand that there has been slide activity on a portion of the hill behind our home. The Darwin Myers letter of July 6, 1995 indicated that site grading, drainage and foundation design "will need to be sensitive to the hazard of deep soil creep/sliding," and that "the development must be designed to improve slope stability." Darwin Myers then opines that "the outlook for long-term stability of a well designed and properly constructed project on the site is good." Frankly, I do not consider the applicant's track record on matters. relating to this property to be very promising of future performance. First, when he acquired the property there was a sign on Camino Monte Sol that advertised it as the home of two future one and one- half acre estate lots, a plan he confirmed orally in discussions with a number of the surrounding neighbors. In fact, a previous plan drawn up by Maes & Associates, the applicant's civil engineer (copy enclosed), showed only two lots. Without further notification to the people he had misled, the number of lots was expanded to four in his submission to the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA). When the AIA asked for a revised proposal for fewer lots, he simply went around it to the county. He also neglected the very important subject of weed abatement required to protect the surrounding homes from the extremely hazardous fire danger until his neglect and the reports by neighbors to the San Ramon Fire District were mentioned at the July 31 hearing. The weed abatement occurred the following day, halfway through the most dangerous fire season. It also concerns us that the applicant's civil engineer took it upon himself to suggest to the environmental research and engineering geology organization hired by the county that it restrict its opinions to geological and geotechnical issues (see Darwin Myers letter of July 6) . We do not consider the civil engineer's comments to be helpful nor in the best interest of open discussion. 2. The 25-foot height restriction on the new homes should be qualified to indicate that no home should exceed one story. The Contra Costa Community Development Department staff report takes note of the recommendations of the Alamo Improvement Association that: Residence sites should be located further from the creek structure setback line Homes should be one-story or split level, and The highest residence should be sited much further down the hillside. The staff report seems to accept the first recommendation, but it does not address the third, and it simply rejects the second in spite of the fact that virtually all surrounding homes on the hillside are one-story. We believe that the visual impact of these structures on the hill should be given more careful consideration and that the AIA recommendations be adopted. 2 Most of the houses adjacent to the property are one-story, although, as the- staff report indicates, there are two-story houses in the surrounding areas. Those two-story houses, however, are not on a hillside and do not destroy the integrity of the landscape. And, ;they are not crammed into a location traversed by a creek across two of the parcels, covered with numerous oak trees and on highly expansive soil types. It should be noted that this subdivision is in the middle of an already developed area. It is not on the periphery of another area, but right in the center, and the surrounding properties are virtually all one story. Certainly the adjacent properties on the hillside, to the north and east of the subdivision, are one story. Two story buildings, especially two story buildings on a hillside, will conflict with the ambience of the existing developed properties and mar the tranquility of the entire areas. 3. The proposed subdivision does not appear to comply with the provisions of the 1991 Contra Costa General Plan. The staff report distributed at the July 31 hearing incorrectly stated that the lots adjacent to the property range in size from 0.5 acres to 1.5 acres. Our property, which abuts the eastern end of the proposed _ subdivision is 4.85 acres. The Nelson property on the north and the Jansen property on the northeast both exceed .1.5 acres, although we do not know their exact size. The General Plan requires that residential density shall decrease as slope increases especially above ?15%. The Bernardo application proposes the exact opposite. of this requirement. As indicated earlier, Mr. Bernardo led us to „believe that he intended to put two estate lots on the subdivision. In fact at that point the only map we had seen was the Maes & Associates map showing two lots. Had we known that the original two lot plan would be changed without notice to a four lot proposal. we most certainly would have requested a rezoning of the subdivision to lower density. It is still incredible to us that anyone would wish .to squeeze three or four lots into such a dangerous, restricted area. 4. The developer should be required to comply with the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District that fire .access roadways have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District specified that "fire access roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet . . .” Yet, the Community Development Department is allowing( a 16 foot width up to a maximum grade of 20%. If 16 foot width is considered inadequate now, there it was inadequate when the previous road standards were in effect. Certainly, we would not expect our insurancecompany to charge lower rates because the road complies with outdated standards. Noncompliance with existing standards seems foolhardy, if not dangerous, when presented with this singular opportunity. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District also suggested the need for a 3 turnaround at or near the proposed building site, an issue which does not appear to have been addressed by the Community Development Department, except for advisory Note B which simply refers the applicant to the Fire Protection District letter. Also, while the Fire Protection District specifies "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1" signs on both sides of Camino Monte Sol , the Community Development report requires two additional on-street parking spaces for each house, within 150 feet of each parcel . Taken together, we consider this three unit proposal an excessive increase in fire danger to the lives of the residents on Camino Monte Sol . As to the increased fire hazard, it appears that the Community Development Department is dealing with each proposed development on Camino Monte Sol separately. As far as we know, the Nelson property, directly across from the Bernardo property, has been subdivided from one lot into three. The Jansen property, to the east of Nelson, has been subdivided from one into two, and another property further east (Steffan), which would require an extension of Camino Monte Sol , has asked for a subdivision into three lots. With three lots for Bernardo, that is an increase of nine new homes, from three on Camino Monte Sol now to 12 if the Bernardo application is approved. That is a lot of traffic for such a steep narrow incline. 5. No more than two homes should be permitted to be constructed on the subdivision. The Darwin Myers report of February 7, 1995 indicated that construction of the driveway on Lot B requires work in the creek channel to stabilize its banks and placing fill in the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak. In Darwin Myers opinion, this alignment would adversely impact the 36-inch diameter oak, would have visual impacts and could reduce the biologic resource value of the land adjacent to the creek. None of these concerns appears to have been addressed by the Contra Costa Community Development Department. The Darwin Myers report also recommends that Lots C and D be combined. It is very difficult to evaluate the Zoning Administrator's approved vesting tentative map because the only maps we have seen are four two or four lots, and the approved subdivision is for three lots. None of the Community Development Department recommendations, however, appear to address the crowded, unsafe, environmentally damaging conditions that would occur if more than two buildings were constructed on the subdivision. We believe that the applicant's original stated intention to subdivide into no more than two lots should be enforced. 6. No work should be permitted on the property until an Environmental Impact Report is prepared. There seems to be enough significant geologic, drainage and environmental issues related to this property to require an Environmental Impact Report before any work is begun. A letter included in the Community Development Department file from one adjacent property homeowner indicates that he lost between ten and twelve feet of land behind his property this year. It is 4 clear that the land on this property is not stable, soil erosion is a distinct danger and drainage in the Miranda Creek has become a critical problem. Yet, the suggestion for an EIR has been ignored. The Darwin Myers report of February 7 indicated that in their opinion the applicant has not demonstrated consistency with the General Plan Policies pertaining to slope stability, and that the potential geologic impacts . could be a basis for requiring preparation of an EIR. "As noted previously, the building sites on proposed Lots C and D are on a relatively steep, marginally stable hillside." They are also "within the photointerpretive slide mapped by Nilsen." These comments have not been addressed in the.staff report. 8/22/95 5 41 TREE LANDSCAPE >510264Sa09� P.01 . :LA;FAYET,T.E 'REEAI:AND� CA�P SNC . H. &TH.R_AETH CONTRACTORS *,C17 -4633b0 330 KAREINCE DRIVE WAYWM.CALL VWA 94549 TELWHONE(310)294-7816 or 2113.3883 FAX(510)284-5309 `po:a0X 1116 . ' July 31, 1993 Heinz Rth ' Constructive Ideas,Inc. Mr. Ion Bernardo We Wit` 28 Merile Circle Moraga,CA 94556 RE;Lot B @ Canino Monte Sol Alamo CA Dear Mr.Bernardo; I have visited the site and observed the topography and the 36 inch eta Idata This Valley Oak is in good heft,having a full canopy of hedlthy foliage twd annual growth that is normal for the species. It has not had any priming or dead wood removed. It's drip line area has been tilled on a rogular basis for fire protection of the grassy area. The proposed road access along the bank under the drip line should be kept to a 12 foot width. The sloped ramp should have an aeration system of perforatod drainage pipes and loose gravel. These should be spaced every 4 to 5 feet on centers,venting to both sides of the ramp. The level portion of the roadway should also be fitted with an aeration system of cast iron grates under the drip he area. Normally,the soil grade should not be changed since that would remove many of the root haus which operate at the soli surface in cooperation with the beneficial myoorhizal fungi. Since the soil grade must be changed for the road,the new soil for grading should have these tnycorhizal fungi added to the new soils and below the road base. This in conjunction with the aeration system and proper pruning should allow this tree to continue to thrive. The subsurface should be farWized with 1,000 gallons of water and 28 IN.of a 22-14-14 fertilizer before grading begins. The above procedures should be done by qualified personnel hailiar with the tocbr6ques grid terminology mentioned. Yours Very Truly, Thomas Raeth Consulting Arborist enc: map with Lot B Agenda Item # Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, AUGUST 14 , 1995 - 1,: 30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION (Applicant & Owner), County File 4MS940011: The applicant requests approval to subdivide three acres into four parcels. Variances are requested for an average width of 113 feet on Parcel C and 106 feet on Parcel D (120 feet required). Subject property fronts approximately 600 feet on the south side of Camino Monte Sol, in the Alamo area (R-20) (ZA: Q-15) (CT 3461.02) (Parcel #193-030-009). II. RECOMMENDATION On July 31, 1995 public testimony was collected and the hearing was continued to the August 14, 1995 hearing before the Zoning Administrator to give the applicant the opportunity to resolve issues concerning infrastructure. Attached is a copy of a revised site plan that the applicant submitted to the Community Development Department on July 26, 1995. The proposed lots on this latest site plan comply with the minimum zoning standards in the respective zoning district. ELZ/aa MSXXVII/11-94.elz 8/2/95 07/Zt)/V0 14: 11 14M51b VV VAZ MALS & ASSUC. �beG�beG 4, 9 SCALE. 1' = 100' N Z �Q N h �p 305,3 s J� LOT A AREA=43131 SF -J JU ti-Vcu� 0,2 be W z S 04•33Pso•v � LOT 8 AREA-33611 SF v Nz N 04011,160, Q s 04.33150�y " U Ies.9s LOT C h 54,50 AREA-30871 SF ,� h LOT DEPTH (AREA/TH DEPTH) S 04.33.30ry m g 19'64 A 305.32 137.30 z w B 275.09 122.18 N 31*43'30'E 1 LOT D n 17.41 66 v AREA-26838 SF aC 254.50 121.30 h D 223.50 120.08 �l EXHIBIT A NEW LOT CONFIGURATION MAS & ASSOCIATES MS tt — 94 CML ENOINEERINO . LAND SUR'VEYINC • LAND PLANNING 1910 0104L se.. „o, •bwA cp..k " M6% (eio)%7-4733 94053EX1 OCTOBER 19, 1994 07/�d�y� 14:11 'a51d V4f 0142 MftS & ASSU(;• WJ bbLibb[ ti�093 e9 Of SCALE: 1& 100, N ' Z w` 4, a 2a 2 F 305.3 x F+ LOT A AREA-43131 SF ti 3s• &cv C,7 w � z s o4.3s'so•v � LOT 8 9 . 2 AREA=33611 SF �+ N 131.448•v Q S 04•3303o'V V IP3.93 LOT C t� z 54,50 AREA-30871 SFS LOT DEPTH (AREA/TH DEPTH) !U S 04.35,50'V u9.e4 A 305.32 137.30 . z N 31.45'30'E f LOT D h B 275,09 122.18 17.41 ev AREA-26838 SF ER C 254,50 121.30 H D 223.50 120.08 ff !Je '31 EXHIBIT A NEW LOT CONMURATION MAe d . ASSQCl/►T�s MS tt - e� CML ENGINEERING . LAND SURVEYiNC • LAND PLANNING 1910 orl,o+c •►.e. T1s. Ito, oov&A CM"k m ww (aio)"7-0733 94053CX1 OCT08CR 19, 19� Agenda Item # �? Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, JULY 31� 1 A95 - 1---AQ P_M. I. INTRODUCTION BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION (Applicant & Owner), County File 4MS940011: The applicant requests approval to subdivide three acres into four parcels. Variances are requested for an average lot width of 113 feet on Parcel C and 106 feet on Parcel D (120 feet required). Subject property fronts approximately 600 feet on the south side of Camino Monte Sol at the southeast intersection of Miranda Place and Camino Monte Sol, in the Alamo area. (R-20) (ZA: Q-15) (CT.3461.02.) (Parcel #193-030-009). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator accept the environmental documentation as prepared for this project as adequate, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program and approve the subdivision for three lots with the attached Conditions of Approval. III. GENERAL I 'FORMATION A. General Plan: The subject parcel is designated for Single Family Residential-Low Density in the Contra Costa County General Plan, adopted in 1991. B. Zoning: The subject parcel is in the R-20 single family residential district. C. CEOA Status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted for the project on May 3, 1995. It was posted for 30 days to allow distribution to State agencies. IV. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is roughly a rectangular site. A creek traverses the property in a north/south direction between proposed Parcels A and B. An oak woodland is located on Parcels B and C, with additional oaks scattered throughout the site. The site slopes in an easterly direction from Miranda Avenue. V. AREA DESCRIPTION Lots adjacent to the subject property range in size from 0.5 acres to 1.5 acres. Some lots witlun the surrounding area range up to 5 acres. A major subdivision was approved in 1992 west of Miranda Place. 2 VL PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 3 acres into four parcels. Variances are requested as described in Section I. of this report. The applicant is proposing building sites of approxi- mately 3,000 square feet on slopes ranging from 15%to 26%. VII. AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District: The subject property is within the District's sphere of influence. Annexation into the District will be required. Refer to Advisory Note A and Attachment A. Staff Response: This requirement has been incorporated into Condition of Approval #22. B. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District: See attached. Staff Response: The District's requirements have been incorporated into Advisory Note B. Also refer to Attachment B. C. Building Inspection Department: A grading permit and soil investigation will be required. Staff Response: This requirement has been incorporated into Conditions of Approval #10, #11, #12, and #13, and Advisory Note C. D. East Bay Municipal Utility District: A water main extension to serve the proposed development at the project sponsor's expense will be required. In addition, the house line for#2600 Miranda Place is located in the proposed development and may need to be relocated. The project sponsor should contact'EBMUD's New Business Office to initiate a water service estimate to determine conditions and cost of water service. Staff Response: No response necessary. E. Historical Resources Information Center: The subject property has the possibility of containing unrecorded archaeological site(s). A study is recommended. Staff Response: A study was prepared on December;29, 1994.by Suzanne Baker. The study found no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites. F. Alamo Improvement Association (AIL: AIA recommends denial without prejudice and for the applicant to study a two or three lot configuration. Additionally, residence sites should be located further from the creek structure setback line, one story or split level and siting of the highest residence much fu'r'ther down the hillside. Refer to Attachment C. 1 .1 JUIJ-21-1995 03:45 :ONTFA COSTA-CDU 510 646 2091 R.0-/Cr- COPY20 Camino Monte Sol- - Alamo, CA 94507-1422 , 1 rt MH: 0( June 14, 1995 f•►' It- :.` Ms. Edy Zwierzycki Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Dear Ms. Zwierzycki: Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance MSII-94 (Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area, Contra Costa County APN 193-030-009 Thank you for taking the time to visit this property on which Bernardo Construction has applied for approval to subdivide three acres into four parcels. As you know, I am concerned regarding the possibility of mud slides, flooding, damage to the creek on the property and destruction of the oak trees. I am particularly concerned because it appears that of the twelve parcels abutting the property, only about half received the notice of negative declaration of environmental significance. Having reviewed the Bernardo file at the Community Development office, I am now concerned that not all of the issues raised in the review of the geologic report have been addressed. * Although the Darwin Myers report of February 7, 1995 indicates that slopes over 26% shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading, it appears that Lot D ignores this requirement. The Darwin Myers report refers to slopes ranging from 25% to 45% and indicates the need for considerable grading to develop this 'i lot, whereas the staff report refers incorrectly to slopes ranging from 15`yo to 26%. In fact the Darwin Myers report indicates that Lots A, C and D are in areas where natural slopes are greater than 26% for at least some of the building site. * The Darwin Myers report indicates that in their opinion the applicant has not demonstrated consistency with the General Plan Policies pertaining to slope stability, and that the potential geologic impacts could be a basis for requiring preparation of an EIR. "As noted previously, the building sites on proposed Lots C and D are on a 2 relatively steep, marginally stable hillside." They are also "within the photointerpretive slide mapped by Nilsen." These comments have not been addressed in the staff report. * The staff report indicates that the applicant has submitted a Stream Alteration Permit from the Department of Fish and Game, but there was no copy of the permit in the file I examined. The Darwin Myers report indicated that construction of the driveway on Lot 6 requires work in JUN-21-1995 03:45 CONTRA COSTA-CDD 510 646 2091 P.03iO3 f Ms. Edy Zwierzycki Contra Costa Community Development Department Page 2 June, 14, 1995 the creek channel to stabilize its banks and placing fill in the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak. In Darwin Myers opinion, this alignment would adversely impact the 36-inch diameter oak, would have visual impacts and could reduce the biologic resource value of the land adjacent to the creek. None of these concerns appears to have been addressed. * The staff report takes note of the recommendations of the Alamo Improvement Association that: Residence sites should be located further from the creek structure setback line - Homes should be one-story or split level , and - The highest residence should be sited much further down the hillside. The staff report seems to accept the first ,recommendation, but it does not address the third, and it simply rejects the second in spite of the fact that all surrounding homes on the hillside are one-story. I believe that the visual impact of these structures on the hill should be given more careful. consideration and that the AIA recommendations be adopted. Although it is clear from the staff report that the staff had access to the Alamo Improvement Association letter, I did not see a copy of the petition signed by 10 of the 12 adjacent property owners which had been enclosed with the AIA letter. An 11th property owner had sent a separate letter expressing concerns similar to those of the other homeowners and the AIA. I appreciate your seeing that the copy I provided you finds its way into the record. As you know, this kind of situation is new to me. There have been numerous developments around Livorna Road and Miranda Avenue, but this is the first one I have seen that is so intrusive on the environment. It seems incongruous to me that a contractor can move in and overbuild on unstable ground, sell off the houses, and simply leave the likely damage to the new and adjacent homeowners. This construction appears to be proceeding in spite of all the concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners and the Alamo Improvement Association. It even seems that the Darwin Myers report is being ignored. Thank you again for your willingness to address my concerns and those of my neighbors and the Alamo Improvement Association. I also appreciate your ensuring that the other adjacent properties receive the appropriate notices and sufficient time to respond. Yours very truly, Ynne C. Broome 3 Staff Reponse: Please see Site Plan Analysis discussion, Section VIII. of this staff report, and Condition#26. G. Surrounding Property Owners: Following the posting of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, several property owners abutting the proposed subdivision submitted the attached letters (Attachments D through J). 1. Anne Broome, 20 Camino Monte Sol (Attachment D): Having reviewed File MS 11-94 at the Community Development Department, including a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Report dated February 7, 1995 prepared by Darwin Myers Associates (Attachment K), and a draft staff report prepared by Community Development Department staff, Broome provided the following concerns with respect to statements contained in the Myers report: a. Slopes over 26%shall be considered unsuitable for types of develop- ment which require extensive grading, but Lot D ignores this requirement. b. Slopes ranging between 25 and 45% Aril] require considerable grading to develop, whereas the staff report (draft) refers to slopes ranging from 15 to 26% at the subject property. C. Lots A, C and D are in areas where natural slopes are greater than 26% for at least some of the building sites. d. The applicant has not demonstrated consistency with the General Plan policies concerning slope stability. e. The building sites on proposed Lots C and D are on a relatively steep, marginally stable hillside. They are also within the photo interpreta- tive slide mapped by Nilsen. Staff Response: On June 7, 1995 Darwin Myers met with staff, the applicant, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer to review; field conditions as a group, to examine alternative building sites, and discuss concerns and possible approaches to ameliorate those concerns. Staff noted that conclusions provided by Myers during this field visit were more flexible than those documented in his initial geotechnical report dated February 7, 1995 (Attachment K). Therefore, staff requested that Ayers address the concerns outlined in Broome's letter. Myers explains his conclusions in a letter dated July 6, 1995 (Attachment L): 4 * General Plan policies, by their very nature, do not have objective criteria to accurately determine compliance, and they are subject to interpretation. For example, Policy 10-29 states that "slopes over 26% shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance." The topographic map indicates that the building sites on proposed Lots C and D exceed 26%,but the applicant has not submitted a grading plan for individual building sites. Furthermore, the applicant and his civil engineer are convinced that all the proposed lots could be developed without extensive grading. (Also refer to attached Conditions#10 through#13.) * With respect to slope stability, we pointed out that the building sites on Lots C and D are within an area mantled by surficial deposits .(either slopewash deposits or slide deposits). The boreholes logged by Underdahl Geotechnical indicate that the depth to rock is relatively shallow. Clearly, site grading, drainage, and foundation design will need to be sensitive to the hazard of deep soil creep/sliding. The development must be designed to improve slope stability. In our opinion, the outlook for long-term stability of a well designed and properly constructed project on the site is good. (Also refer to the site plan analysis concerning Scenic Easement in Section VIII.) Additional Concerns (Ms. Broome): File MS'11-94 lacked a Stream Alteration Permit (Department of Fish R Game)and the February 7 Geotechnical Report indicates that the construction of a driveway for Lot B requires work in the creek channel to stabilize its banks and the placement of fill in the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak tree. Myers states in his February 7th report, that this alignment would adversely impact the 36-inch diameter oak and could reduce the biological resource value of the land adjacent to the creek. Staff Response: The Stream Alteration Permit is Attachment M and Public Works conditions on Creek Structure Setback, attached, also addresses stabilization of the creek bank, in the event that the proposed project is approved. However, staff recommends under Section VIII.B. that the lot for which this Stream Alteration Permit applies, be eliminated. Nonetheless, in the letter dated July 6, 1995 (Attachment L), Myers responds to Broome's concerns about the creek bank:and oak tree by stating that the road is feasible and with adequate precautions, the disturbance to the oak could be minimized. 5 (Also refer to Conditions#14 through #18.) 2. Mark and Katrina Watson, 2710 Miranda Avenue (Attachment E): The Watsons have more general concerns pertaining to the steepness of the hillside; grading and irrigation together increasing run-off and landslide potential; the impact of such a landslide on the creek and flooding potential, the building of structures on the dripline of trees;the negative visual impact of the project; and the unfair intrusion of a new two-story structure(on Lot A) on Miranda Avenue homes just 15 feet from their backyards. Staff Response: The Staff Response for G.1. above addresses the majority of these concerns, in addition to Conditions#10 through #18 and Public Works conditions. Staff found no evidence in the files, including geotechnical reports prepared by Underdahl Geotechnical and Darwin Myers Associates, indicating that irrigation in the area will reduce land stability. Visual Impact Staff does not consider the proposed project to have any more of a visual impact on the surrounding community than any other subdivision proposed in an area zoned R-20 and designated Single Family Residential-Low Density (1990 County General Plan). Per the discussion in Section V. of this staff report, lots adjacent to the subject property range in size from 0.5 to 1.5 acres. Staff considers the proposal to subdivide the 3 acre property into parcels ranging from 27,642 to 41,934 square feet. or 0.63 to 0.96 acres to be consistent with the respective zoning district/General Plan designation, and of moderate density when compared with surrounding developments. Lot "A" Structure With regard to concerns about Lot A, staff has required that the applicant comply with Condition #26 to limit the height of the structure within the proposed building envelopes to 25 feet parallel from grade, which is 10 feet lower than the 35 foot maximum height allowed in the respective zoning district. Also, staff does not consider the placement of a structure 15 feet from the Miranda Avenue property to be an unfair intrusion since nine mature pine trees, ranking between 12 and 15 inches in diameter, are located along the property line common to Lot A and the Miranda,Avenue property. These trees partially screen the vie%v of the Miranda Avenue property rearyard. 6 However, to ensure that the rearyard is not visible from the applicant's sideyard, the applicant will be required to comply with Condition #19, to install a 6-foot wooden fence along the western property line for Lot A, prior to the finalization of the building permit. 3. Bill Pulliam, 2622 Miranda Avenue (Attachment F): Pulliam's concerns covered the density of development;.the marginal stability of the land;necessary road improvements near the creek; and the potential for irrigation to reduce land stability. Staff Response: The Staff Responses for G.1. and G.2. above address the majority of these concerns, in addition to Conditions#10 through #13, and Public Works conditions. 4. Thomas and Jeanne Morris, 2640 Miranda Avenue (Attachment G.): Mr. and Mrs. Morris are concerned about the density of the proposed project and its impact on Alamo's rural atmosphere; the distance of the Lot "A" structure to the rearyard of abutting Miranda Avenue property owners; and the landslide potential associated with Lot D. Staff Response: The Staff Responses for G.1. and G.2. above address the majority of these concerns, in addition to Conditions 410 through 413, 419, and #26. 5. Tim and Sue Bottoms, 2418 Heritage!!,Oaks Drive (Attachment H): Mr. and Mrs. Bottoms are concerned about the project's impact on landslides, flooding, wildlife, and the view they currently enjoy. Staff Response: The Staff Response for G.1. and G.2. above address some of these concerns, in addition to Conditions #10 through #13. Flooding As discussed in Section IX., the area in the vicinity of Miranda Creek is located in a FEMA 100-year Floodplain''and a FEMA Floodway. The applicant will be required to comply with Condition 425 to verify that all finished floor elevations are above the 100-year flood elevation, prior to obtaining a building permit, in addition to related Public Works conditions. f 7 Wildlife During the preparation of the mitigated negative declaration, staff determined that the proposed project would have an insignificant impact on wildlife based on information contained in the Natural Diversity Database and County Maps of Plant and Animal Life. 6. Richard Ralph, 250 Miranda Place (Attachment 11)/Mark and Karen Scarlett, 2720 Miranda Avenue (Attachment .n: Refer to the respective Attachments. Staff Response: The Staff Response for G.2. above addresses the concerns of Mr. Ralph and Mr. &Mrs. Scarlett. VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Appropriateness of Use: Subdivision of a property into parcels ranging in size from 27,642 square feet to 41,934 square feet is appropriate for consideration of a parcel in the R-20 single family residential zoning district. B. Site Plan Analysis: The subject property slopes to the southeast and is approximately 3 acre in size. A creek traverses the property in a north/south direction across Parcels A and B, and an oak woodland is located on Parcels B and C. Oak Trees Numerous oak and other trees are scattered throughout the site. A 36-inch oak exists near the proposed driveway for Parcel B. Refer to Conditions 914 through 418. Soils and Grading Building sites of 3,000 square feet are proposed for each parcel. The soils on the subject property consist mainly of colluvium and alluvium. Both soil types are highly expansive. There is evidence of soil creep/erosion in the creek, and evidence of active soil movement on Lots A, B, and C towards the creek. The preliminary soils report prepared for the site is adequate for processing the vesting tentative map. The soils report requires further site specific geotechnical reports for construction of homes. Due to the expansive nature of the soil, as recommended by the soils report, staff would concur that only pier and beam foundation be permitted. Grading will be necessary for the home construction. Limiting the foundations of the proposed homes to pier and beam will minimize the amount of grading necessary. The applicant will be required to submit a grading plan for review and approval of the Communihv Development Department, prior to the issuance of grading permits. 8 Lot B Proposed Parcel B is severely encumbered by the location of the creek structure setback area, active soil creep and the oak woodland. Of the approximately 33,500 square feet of lot area, only 5,000 square feet is usable. Additionally, the access for Parcel B is contained entirely within the creek 1 structure setback area, but the Department of Fish& Game granted the applicant Stream Alteration Permit 228-95 (Attachment M)to construct a driveway no more than 10 feet from the top of bank. Typically,uses of half-acre lots include swimming pools,tennis courts, gazebos, and large expansive decks. These uses would not be appropriate, and if constructed could endanger the oak woodland. Staff would recommend that Parcels B and C be combined, the homesite on Parcel B be deleted, and the creek be contained entirely on Parcel A. This will ensure adequate usable outdoor area is available and preservation of the oak woodland. Parking According to Public Works,the building sites are constrained due to steep terrain and configuration of the lots. As a result, the applicant should be required to provide adequate parking for this subdivision to minimize the potential for over-flow parking in the Camino Monte Sol roadway unless adequate additional road width is provided to allow for on-street parking. As required by Condition 429.E., the applicant should be required to provide at least six parking spaces per unit, or as an alternative, provide five parking spaces per unit with at least an additional two common parking spaces for every two residences located no more than 46 meters (150 feet) from each parcel. The additional parking spaces should be located in parking bays, accessible by all of the residential units and located outside of the creek structure setback area. Scenic Easement Several residents surrounding the subject property expressed concern about slope stability on Lots C and D. The staff response in Section VII.G.1. addresses this concern by quoting geologist Darwin Myers: "...the outlook for long-term stability of a well designed and properly constructed,project on the site is good." However, he also suggests that the applicant submit a revised site plan for approval by the Zoning Administrator that shows a scenic easement on Lot D, the boundary of which closely coincides with an elevation of 425 feet. Refer to Conditions 427 and 428. C. Design Criteria: The slopes for the proposed building sites range from 22% to 26% (excluding Parcel B). Homes appropriate for construction on slopes such as these would be step-on-grade construction with the height of the structure measured parallel to grade to ensure the homes do not cantilever over the slope. 9 Homes within the surrounding area are primarily single story with the exception of the Post property which is a mixture of single and two story homes. It would not be appropriate to limit the height of the homes to single story, because staff would find no visual impacts. However, it would be appropriate to limit the structure height to 25 feet measured parallel from grade to ensure relative compatibility with the surrounding area, refer to Condition 926. D. Variances: The applicant's request to subdivide four parcels includes variances to the average lot width for Parcels C and D. Staff's recommendation includes the elimination of Parcel B, and that Parcels Band C be combined to form one parcel. The.elimination of Parcel B provides adequate acreage to subdivide the 3 acre site into three parcels without creating any variances. IX. ROAD AND DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS The attached conditions of approval based on the November 29, 1994 Vesting Tentative Map include road and drainage requirements. The applicant should be fully aware of the County Subdivision Ordinance Code requirements as they pertain to this development. These conditions were based on the following issues raised: Issues A. Road Standards. The Camino Monte Sol roadway is approximately 3 meters (10- feet)wide. The slope of this roadway is relatively flat from Miranda Place to Miranda Creek and steepens to approximately 22% at the easterly end of this property. The Camino Monte Sol road easement is only 6.1 meters (20-feet)wide along the frontage of this property. Easterly of this site Camino Monte Sol steepens to.about a 25% grade. One three lot subdivision has tentative map approval north of this proposed subdivision and another is under consideration to the east of this property. Both of the other subdivisions have requirements for improvements of Camino Monte Sol. The road standards which were in effect when this application was accepted as complete required a minimum of a 4.9 meter(16-foot) road within a 7.6 meter (25- foot)access easement with a maximum grade of 20%. Public Works agrees that the applicant has vested rights allowing for the old standard where reasonable. However, the easement should be widened to a 30-foot width with this project to allow for future road improvements with cumulative development. Public Works recommends that the applicant be required to limit the road grade to a maximum of 22%. The applicant should consider working with the adjacent property owners to provide a feasible profile grade for this portion of the roadway. However, where the grade exceeds 20% the applicant should be required to: 10 * Widen the roadway to a 6.1 meter (20-foot) width with 0.6 meter (2-foot) shoulder backing on each side. The 6.1 meter(20-foot) width should extend at least 46 meters(150-feet)west of the point where the grade exceeds 20%. Vehicles driven down the steep hill tend to gain speed, therefore, the widened roadway should be extended at least 46 meters (150-feet) west of the point where-the road falls below a 20%grade. * Mitigate the steeper grade further by utilizing grooved concrete or open- graded asphalt concrete for the portions with a grade in excess of 16%. B. Miranda Creek Culvert Under Camino Monte Sol: Miranda Creek crosses beneath Camino Monte Sol in a culvert. This portion of Miranda Creek is in a FEMA flood hazard area and is also located within a FEMA floodway. Property owners upstream have complained about flooding due to the inadequacy of the creek. Property owners downstream have also complained about impacts on Miranda Creek from increased development. The applicant should be required to show that the Miranda Creek culvert under Camino Monte Sol is adequate to convey the Q25 design storm with freeboard or the Q50 design storm without freeboard, without overtopping the road. He should also be required to show whether or not there is a backwater which may flood upstream structures, due to the presence of the culvert orwith proposed mitigation. If the backwater at the culvert crossing affects upstream structures, the applicant should be required to mitigate the impact on those structures. C. Miranda Creek Impacts from Additional Development: Development in the Drainage Area 76 watershed has resulted in increased storm water run-off and downstream problems have been identified, especially in the reach downstream of Miranda Avenue. Problems which have been identified are: * The Miranda Creek culvert under Miranda Avenue is inadequate. * Upstream of Miranda Avenue, Miranda Creek may not contain the design storm. * Downstream of Miranda Avenue the culverts under Erselia Trail are adequate. A subdivision on the north side of Bunce Meadows Drive, between Miranda Avenue and Erselia Trail, has been conditioned to assure creek capacity through that property. The creek improvements have not been assured. Portions of Miranda Creek downstream of Miranda Avenue are inadequate. There are known drainage problems at the curve in Miranda Creek west of the Stratmore ditch. I 1 11 The Public Works Department is still developing drainage mitigation alternatives for the portion of Miranda Creek downstream of Miranda Avenue. It will be important that the applicant determine if the portion of Miranda Creek along the frontage of this property is adequate to convey the design storm without backing storm water up and flooding existing upstream structures. D. Drainage Area Fee Ordinance and Drainage Policies in this Area: 1. Under Drainage Area 76, the applicant will be required to pay a drainage fee based on approximately $0.70 per 0.09 square meter (per square foot) of impervious surface. These funds are designed for drainage mitigation downstream of Miranda Avenue. Flood Control has proposed to build the Miranda Creek bypass, or alternative mitigation, with these funds. 2. The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has looked at this study area and determined that additional Miranda Creek drainage improvements are needed. The County has been requiring develop- ers in this area to reduce the impact of additional storm water run-off from Miranda Creek by excavating 0.76 cubic meters (one cubic yard) or channel material from inadequate portions of Miranda Creek for each 4.6 square meters (50 square feet) of new impervious surface created by the develop- ment. The site selection and construction and construction staking would be performed by the Flood Control District. Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of actual excavation and removal of material from the creek. The cash payment will be calculated at the rate of$0.10 per 0.09 square meter (per square foot) of new impervious surface area created by the development. The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on the creek. The cash payment will be kept in a separate trust fund for work in the Miranda Creek drainage area. While the Drainage Area 76 Fee Ordinance is proposed to mitigate impacts on the lower portion of Miranda Creek, other drainage impacts exist along this Creek. Public Works recommends that the applicant be required to provide this Creek mitigation for the portion of Miranda Creek upstream of Miranda Avenue. 3. The applicant is also conditioned to excavate 0.76 cubic meters (one cubic yard) of channel material from inadequate portions of San Ramon Creek for each 4.6 square meters(50 square feet) of new impervious surface created by the development. Or, as stated above, upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu at the rate of$0.10 per 0.09 square meter (per square foot)of new impervious surface area created by the development. 12 E. Area Wide Watershed Mitigation: Developments in the Drainage Area 76 area have widened portions of the downstream drainage channels and have installed detention basins to reduce the downstream drainage impact. Money from the Miranda Creek Trust Fund has been recently used to place a parallel culvert under Erselia Trail, and Flood Control is considering implementation of a project to install a bypass pipe of other alternative creek mitigation along a portion of the creek. ELZ/aa MSXXVII/I I-94.ELZ 7/20/95 r. rh` o 8 o ggif CL 13 All Ce $er r (�• o W a e ,,,t'i•'r �7i.rc we � ..\•. .,:.i:.:.��` 4-1 0 e � �'�\ '. e by _ '� r �y �_ •`.s _ "torr Is Cd ro r- \56 Spa =—_.---�'' \563 \^•\`•• 1 24 1119 ------ \,,562. `os-d e ItVDG AIR ae i IV C Vh ;f P• jh 7 r 4`' 6J 1 Y 0 AK 354 352 S a _., o 4954 ,� t` T• � �� `Y ,> Oa ,Drr `t � e ,� t• „„ , �o, I e,;' � `• ,o c>• ` ,s, °oy� � h �+"' :�` OHO y,e +�. ♦ ' � ',1, � 9. :.� t "•?,- _ >^, C, .t �` `h M1 � .- s ��•, f, . '' \ ROUND 46 Oz R -20 al( p �•i' L'YOPw Us / N.YON , A- 2 i 9 • /. — z I I < VELV T I >• ' R•20 11VO11M� � RD POS"' O 19 / As 1 O -P + .T9. 7EP I oma' / 0 4b Re ' y .J.R 15 r7 O 1 � 46 ,,. ` N t }4► c 8 N Ut � ti O GA 1 b Kti �fl 1 a 1 ZVI f N CJ O CC uj y 0 c co o= c o- ATTACHMENT A Ms ' Central Contra Coy' nitary District ALO l�Fh,T i' DFpT ROC£RJ.DOL1A Cenerol Monoger September 26, 1994 Chief Engineer KEA70N L ALN Counsel for the District (510)9.38-1136 JOYCE E.MURPHY Secretory oflhe District Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553-0095 ATTENTION: CATHERINE KUTSURIS Ladies and Gentlemen: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MS 11-94, FOUR-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION MIRANDA PLACE & CAMINO MONTE SOL, ALAMO APN: 193-030-009 WS: 34N THOMAS BROS. LOC: 7841 The above-referenced project has been reviewed by this office. 1 . SEWER SERVICE AVAILABILITY AND GENERAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS 1.1 The project site is within the CCCSD sphere of influence, but annexation is necessary before sewer service can be provided. Annexation will require the approval of both the CCCSD Board of Directors and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). This issue must be addressed during the CEQA process. 1.2 The plans submitted for District review indicate that the proposed project will be served by gravity, which is consistent with the District's policy requiring gravity sewers in preference to pumped systems. 1 .3 The plans also indicate that the project is in compliance with the District's policy that public sewers be located in streets rather than in off-street locations to the extent possible. Each parcel (residential or commercial lot, townhouse unit, condominium building, or apartment complex, as appropriate) shall be served by an 8-inch public sewer, as a minimum. Contra Costa County Community Development Department Page 2 September 26, 1994 1.4 Easements. An exclusive public sewer easement must be established over the alignment of each public sewer in an off-street or private street location to provide access for future maintenance. The following criteria are used to determine the public sewer easement width: • The sewer easement width shall be 15 feet where the public sewer is less than 12 inches in diameter and the depth is 9 feet or less. • The sewer easement width shall be 20 feet where the public sewer is 12 inches and larger in diameter or the depth is greater than 9 feet. • If new public sewers are being installed across properties where existing improvements will remain in place adjacent to the new public sewers, sewer easement width may be reduced at the discretion of the District, but in no case can the width be less than 10 feet. In addition, all-weather access for the District's maintenance vehicles to all manholes and rodding inlets in off-street locations is required. All-weather access typically consists of a 10-foot wide cross section with a surface course of turf-block, 2 inches of asphalt concrete, or other equivalent all- weather surface acceptable to the District, over 6 inches of aggregate base. The use of sanitary sewer easement surfaces shall be limited to paving, shrubbery, gardens, and other landscaping, excluding trees. Parallel surface drainage ways and permanent structures including, but not limited to, buildings, swimming pools, decks, and retaining walls are not permitted within the easement area. 2. SOURCE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS The District has reviewed this project for source control requirements. Base wastewater flow from this project appears to be domestic wastewater such as from residential, office, or church sources. Specific source control requirements are normally not applicable to domestic wastewater. However, materials such as gasoline, oil, sand, paint, pesticide residues, or other toxic substances are prohibited from being introduced into the District's sewer system. 3. SEWER CAPACITY The District has completed a capacity study for the existing sewer system downstream of the proposed project. This study determined that the existing main sewer is adequate for the additional wastewater which will be generated by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department Page 3 September 26, 1994 proposed project based upon current conditions. District facilities do not have adequate flow carrying capacity under the District's current design criteria for ultimate conditions. Improvements to correct the deficiencies are in the District's Capital Improvement Plan. Improvements to the District's existing facilities that are required as a result of new development will be funded from applicable District fees and charges. The developer will be required to pay these fees and charges at the time of connection to the sewer system. 4. PRIVATE SEWERS The proposed project includes side sewers. A side sewer is defined as a private sewer which is owned and maintained by the property owner and which connects the plumbing system of the building to the main sewer. The side sewer begins at the point of connection to the building plumbing system 2 feet outside the foundation line or building wall and terminates at the point of connection to the main sewer. District policy requires that the developer be responsible for installation of the side sewer,and the property owner be responsible for operation and maintenance of the side sewer. District review of the design and inspection of the work on the side sewer shall in no way constitute our acceptance of any responsibility for maintenance or damage to property due to construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of the side sewer. The design intent of the typical side sewer details included in the District's current "Standard Specification" document is to reduce the amount of rainfall and groundwater that will infiltrate the sewer, thereby avoiding unnecessary pumping and treatment costs. The typical side sewer details are not intended to meet the geotechnical, structural, or drainage requirements of special situations. 5. HILLSIDE AND CREEK AREA SEWER POLICY The District has a Hillside and Creek Area Sewer Policy which addresses the design and installation of sewers in hillsides or unstable areas. The requirements of this policy must be followed when construction plans are prepared. For your convenience, a copy of the policy is enclosed. The Sanitary District must review and approve any construction plans involving work on the public sewer system prior to the developer's applying for a building permit. The , Contra Costa County Community Development Department Page 4 September 26, 1994 District's Permit Section will receive and process the construction plans. Also, contact the District's Permit Section regarding fees applicable to this project. Sincerely, Russell B. Leavitt, AICP Planning Assistant RBL:ns Enclosure c:. Bernardo Construction & Development 28 Merrill Circle South Moraga, CA 94556 Maes & Associates 1910 Olympic Blvd., #110 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 1 ,I ATTACHMENT B SAN RAMON VALLEY FIRE: PROTECTION DISTRICT ' :;p1:' cos j PROJECT NAME Bernardo Subdivision 4. FP # 94208 4 p ADDRESS Camino Monte Sol @ MirA9.30"A. X-REF# MS 11-94 OCCUPANCY CLASS R-3 DEV46 jS9`�� P;1,TIONSingle Family Dwelling rMENr����pp CONSTRUCTION TYPE VN DESCRIP*O& Wood Frame CHECK ONE: NEW CONST TENANT IMP PLANNING APPLICATIONS ADDN AFES FIRE ALARM OTHER Minor Sub BLDG/PLAN AGENCY Contra Costa County Planning . APN# 193-030-009 AGENCY # MS 11-94 APPLICABLE CODES/ORDINANCES 1991 UFC, SRVFPD Ord. #14 ADD'L INFO: BLDG AREA FLR AREA 4 parcels # OF FLRS SPECIAL FEES WATER ACCESS ACCESS 'GATES LOCK BOX OTHER REVIEWED BY: Michael Mentink #148 DATE: Sept . 27 , 1994 FIRE DISTRICT COMMENTS: Catherine Kutsuris Community Development Dept . County of Contra Costa OIt appears that lot B may require a turnaround at or near the proposed building site. 2 . Fire hydrant (s) are required. All hydrants must be EBMUD standard steamer type (1-41/2 " and 1-21/2 " outlet) . (UFC, 1991, Sec. 10 .401, S .R.V. F. P.D. Ord. #14) ,s-i, 3 NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identify the fire hydrant locations by installing reflective "blue dot" markers adjacent to the hydrant 6 inches off center from the middle of the street . (UFC, 1991, Sec. 10 . 105 (c) ) ,5-2, 4 . _ Fire apparatus roadways must extend to within 150 ft . of the most remote first floor exterior wall of any building. (UFC, 1991, Sec . 10 .203 ) ,,_,, 5 . Fire apparatus roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches . Streets under 36 feet shall be posted with signs and red curbs painted with labels on one side and under 28 feet on both sides of the street as follows : "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500 . 111 . (UFC, 1991 , Sec . 10 . 204 (a) ) (,_;) 6 . Fire apparatus roadways must be capable of supporting the imposed weight of fire apparatus and must be provided with an all weather driving surface . Onlyap ved surfaces are considered to be all weather driving surfaces . (UFC, 1991 , Sec . 10 . 204 (b) ) ,:..;, (over) Page 2 (FP 94208) 15 . Plans are acceptable contingent upon compliance with the above liste comments . 16. Only one set of plans were received and will be retained at this offic for. reference. Applicant will only receive this comment sheet . (C-88) 17 . Nothing in this review is intended to authorize or approve of an aspects of the design or installation which do not strictly comply wits all applicable codes and standards; i .e. , additional comments may b added during subsequent drawing review or field inspection. Please cal if there are any questions. (C-93) Michael Mentink, Fire Inspector San Ramon Valley Fire Protection_ District 838-6686 Plan Review Fee: $ 45.00 THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF THIS FEE TO THE SAN RAMON VALLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT. PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS. f ......... ATTACHMENT C ALAMO' MQ0V>aKNT A&>OCIAnON vo",R4 c P.O. eOx M • WHO.cWOMA 94507 • (510)83DJ%M 4 IyOY/S November 11, 1994P.6v Contra Costa County ENrDepl Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine St. , 4th Floor, N. Wing Martinez, Ca 94553-0095 Attn: Ms. Catherine Kutsuris Re: File No. MS 1194 . Application for Subdivision of a 3..0 Acre Lot Into Four Parcels. Applicant and Owner: Bernardo Construction and Development Dear Ms . Kutsuris: The Alamo Improvement Association held a second open hearing on subject project on November 9 . As for the October meeting, this meeting was attended by several concerned neighbors, who gave us their input, which was all strongly in opposition to the sub- division into four lots . A petition was presented in opposition (copy attached) which was signed by 10 of the 12 adjoining neighbors. A letter in .-)pp )sit-ion from an 11th neighbor was presented at our Oct:,ber meeting. The Applicant and his engineer have diligently tried to answer the questions and do the work we requested in October, including soil borings at each of the proposed residence sites. Although all four of the proposed lots are well above 20, 000 sq ft in area, and generally meet the 120 ft average width require- ment for R-20 zoning, AIA concludes that the very steep topo- graphy on proposed lots 3 and 4 , and the creek setbacks affecting access and residence locations on lots 1 and 2 make the proposed pattern of subdivision, or any other 4-lot subdivision, impracti- cal and unacceptable. Therefore, AIA recommends denial without prejudice, with permis- sion to the applicant to study lot configurations with two (pref- erable) or three lots , and resubmit 'an application meeting these conditions: residence sites further away from the creek setback line , minimum pad elevation of 370 ft., one stc:ry or split level maximum, and siting of the highest residence much further down the hillside. Almost all nearby houses are one story . Sin ercly, Henderson Chsirman , AIA Planning Committee cc: Rob Fates , AIA Secretary , AIA I - 1 ATTACHMENT D 20 Camino Monte Sol' Alamo, CA 94507-1422 0 f June 14, 1995 t Ms. Edy Zwierzycki -! t . ., , _ ,! LLrT Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Dear Ms. Zwierzycki: Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance MSII-94 (Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area, Contra Costa County APN 193-030-009 Thank you for taking the time to visit this property on which Bernardo Construction has applied for approval to subdivide three acres into four parcels. As you know, I am concerned regarding the possibility of mud slides, flooding, damage to the creek on the property and destruction of the oak trees. I am particularly concerned because it appears that of the twelve parcels abutting the property, only about half received the notice of negative declaration of environmental significance. Having reviewed the Bernardo file at the Community Development office, I am now concerned that not all of the issues raised in the review of the geologic report have been addressed. * Although the Darwin Myers report of February 7, 1995 indicates that slopes over 26% shall be considered unsuitable for types of development. which require extensive grading, it appears that Lot D ignores this requirement. The Darwin Myers report refers to slopes ranging from 25% to 45% and indicates the need for considerable grading to develop this lot, whereas the staff report refers incorrectly to slopes ranging from 15% to 26%. In fact the Darwin Myers report indicates that Lots A, C and D are in areas where natural slopes are greater than 26%.for, at least some of the building site. * The Darwin Myers report indicates that in their opinion the applicant has not demonstrated consistency with the General Plan Policies pertaining to slope stability, and that the potential geologic impacts could be a basis for requiring preparation of an EIR. "As noted previously, the building sites on proposed Lots C and D are on a relatively steep, marginally stable hillside." They are also "within the photo interpretive slide mapped by Nilsen." These comments have not been addressed in the staff report. * The staff. report indicates that the applicant has submitted a Stream Alteration Permit from the Department of Fish and Game, but there was no copy of the permit in the file I examined. The Darwin Myers report indicated that construction of the driveway on Lot 8 requires work in 1 1' Ms. Edy Zwierzycki Contra Costa Community Development Department Page 2 June 14, 1995 the creek channel to stabilize its banks and placing fillin the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak. In Darwin Myers opinion, this alignment would adversely impact the 36-inch diameter oak, would have visual impacts and could reduce the biologic resource value of the land adjacent to the creek. None of these concerns appears to have been addressed. * The staff report takes note of the recommendations of the Alamo Improvement Association that: Residence sites should be located further from the creek structure setback line - Homes should be one-story or split level , and The highest residence should be sited much further down the hillside. The staff report seems to accept the first recommendation, but it does not address the third, and it simply rejects the second in spite of the fact that all surrounding homes on the hillside are one-story. I believe that the visual impact of these structures on the hill should be given more careful consideration and that the AIA recommendations be adopted. Although it is clear from the staff report that the staff had access to the Alamo Improvement Association letter, I did not see a copy of the petition signed by 10 of the 12 adjacent property owners which had been enclosed with the AIA letter. An 11th property owner had sent a separate letter expressing concerns similar to those of the other homeowners and the AIA. I appreciate your seeing that the copy I provided you finds its way into the record. As you know, this kind of situation is new to me. There have been numerous developments around Livorna Road and Miranda•Avenue, but this is the first one I have seen that is so intrusive on the environment. It seems incongruous to me that a contractor can move in and overbuild on unstable ground, sell off the houses, and simply leave the likely damage to the new and adjacent homeowners. This construction appears to be proceeding in spite of all the concerns expressed by the adjacent property owners and the Alamo Improvement Association. It even seems that the Darwin Myers report is being ignored. Thank you again for your willingness to address my concerns and those of my neighbors and the Alamo Improvement Association. I also appreciate your ensuring that the other adjacent properties receive the appropriate notices and sufficient time to respond. Yours very truly, Anne C. Broor,c ATTACHMENT E r:; ' 23 [„J 22 PH 2. Edy Zwierzycki, Senior Planner June 1, 1995 Contra Costa County :;; Community Development Dept. •E(_ . f.,+ DEPT 651 Pine st. 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Catherine: We would like to go on record as being against"the proposed development 1 11-94 on Camino Monte Sol in Alamo. We have anumber of reasons for opposing the development. We feel that this property deserves a conservative plan because of the creek, the trees, and the steep unstable hillside. We do not feel that four homes is a conservative development here. Here are the areas of our concerns * The steepness of the hillside. * The new development, grading and irrigation will increase run-off and the possibility of slide. * A small slide in the area could block the creek and cause flooding in the area * The increased run-off will cause further erosion problems in the cree: We lost between ten and twelve feet of land behind our property this year. * The oak trees make this area beautiful and the buildings impinge on t' driplines of the trees. * We believe these four homes .make a significant negative visual impact the area. * We believe the structure on lot "A" intrudes unfairly on the homes on Miranda Ave. just South of Camino Monte Sol. The new home would have a side view of the back side of the Miranda homes, and the new two st home would be just fifteen feet from their back yards. We believe, with the sensitivity of he 'natural area and the obstacles provided by nature such as the creek, the steep hillside and the trees, this development should be reduced in size and reconfigured. Thank you for your help in this matter, Sincerely, ' Mark and Katrina Watson 2710 Miranda Ave. Alamo Ca. 94507 930-9281 1 1 ATTACHMENT F 2622 Miranda Avenue 5 JUN 23 PH 2: 48 Alamo, CA 94507 (510) 934-2948 y Vi'li'l Vlt;1 DEVELOi='t�ENT DEPT June 22, 1995 Ms. Edy Zwierzycki CONTRA COSTA COMMUNITY DEV. DEPT. 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th.Floor Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Subject: "Negative Declaration Of Environmental Significance" MS 11-94(Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area, Contra Costa County APN 193-030-009 Dear Ms. Zwierzycki: I would like to apologize for being late with my response to the "California Environmental Quality Act Declaration". My copy was either not delivered, or lost in the mail system. However, upon reviewing your department's determination and review of the Darwin Myers Associates report, dated February 7, 1995, 1 feel there are several areas which were over-looked, or not viewed in sufficient depth to ensure all areas are satisfied. 1. Darwin Myers Associates report states "in general residential density shall decrease as slope increases especially above 15%". . Your department appears to approve of Bernardo's request for lot variances, which in effect increases the density. How was this acceptance arrived at, and on what basis? 2. Darwin Myers Associates report states "slopes of over 150/o and/or generally unstable land shall be evaluated with regard to safety hazards prior to project approval". . Your department makes no mention of how this was accomplished nor on what this determination was based?? 3. Darwin Myers Associates report states "slopes over 26% shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading". -2- Your department again makes no mention of how this was .accomplished. Further, the slope on lots C and D is probably in excess of 46 degrees, and will require EXTENSIVE GRADING. 4. Darwin Myers Associates report states "lots C and D are within an area of thick soils that may be an old slide area.....area is marginally stable....may be sensitive to grading and development.....Irrigation of yard area.....may reduce stability.....these factors in combination may induce sliding". Your department makes no mention of how these problems were overcome nor on what this determination was based. There are several other areas which I do not feelhave been adequately reviewed: a) Driveway to Lot B requires work in creek channel to stabilize banks. What about the Lot A creek bank? b) Adverse impact on a 36" diameter oak tree, and the other Tor 8 oak trees. c) The Alamo Improvement Association's recommendations were not discussed. d) Camino Monte Sol Road, especially where it crosses the creek, is in very poor condition and will require major repairs. The creek' has undermined the culvert sections causing them to separate. My concerns are supported by my neighbors, and should be addressed at your department's earliest convenience. The "Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance" should be voided until all parties feel the Darwin Myers Associates report concerns have been satisfied. Very truly yours, Bill Pulliam cc: Alamo Improvement Association f 1 . ATTACHMENT G Ms. Edy Zwierzycki ContraCosta County,Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street,4 th Floor,North Wing Martinez, California 94553 Subject:The County's review of Geologic Report and Comments on Vesting Tentative Map MS 11-94(Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property,Alamo area,Contra Costa County DMA Project#300104.95 Dear Ms.Zwierzycki: "After receiving a copy of your report concerning the above properties and after reviewing your opinion,we would like to make you aware of our opinions and concerns regarding this issue.We are concerned property owners whose home is adjacent to the proposed development. Our greatest concern is the number of homes that you are considering to allow on that property.The Alamo Improvement Association has already recommended that you allow only two,not four homes to be built.There are two good and obvious reasons. First, on Lot A the home would have to be built up against the fence line of the property owners on Miranda Avenue to be a safe distance from the creekside from which other home owners have experianced earth slippage.Those home owners are Mr. Mark Watson and Mr. Richard Ralph. On that same issue, the developer wants to build a two story home which would intrude on our private, fenced back yards (Morris and Puliam). To allow a builder to cram a home on this narrow strip of land would be contrary to Alamo's rural atmosphere. Second,on Lot D,the surrounding area of this lot has historical soil slippage problems; Mrs. Ann Broome has brought this to the county's and AIA's attention, but you seem to have disregarded this information. Mr. Bemardo is an outsider looking to make a quick buck and is not taking the surrounding area into consideration. We all have recommended that he build two homes but dollar signs have prevailed. We all know what he paid for the land and that with two homes he can make a considerable profit. Four homes is greed and consideration for himself only. We hope your consideration is for the best interestt of Alamo and not a greedy contractor. Ms. Zwierzycki,we're steadfast on this issue. We, as a neighborhood, feel tricked by the contractors from White Cliff homes with their earth moving and building and we don't want that to happen again. Please notify us of the next hearing on this subject for we will be certain to attand as well as the rest of the neighborhood. In fairness to everyone involved the hearing should not be held until September for many are taking Summer vacations. Looking foreward to a response in the near future. Thank you for your attention. A<<'--;, Thomas & Jeanne Morris 2640 Miranda Avenue Alamo, California 94507 �r o `— ATTACHMENT H 2418 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, CA; 94507 Mrs. Edie Zwierzycki Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Dear Mrs. Zwierzycki, It was just brought ,to our attention that thele was a negative declaration of environmental significance issued for lots #MS11-94 Bernardo on the Camino Monte Sol Property. We are very alarmed and strongly disagree. The property will not hold four houses. without disturbing the slope of the land.. It will cause land slides. Also it is in the middle of a flood plane, and the existing creek should not be disturbed. In addition the wild life in the area would be impacted. Lastly we did not buy our house to look at someone's roof and chimney. Two story houses will destroy the views that we now have. We thought the Alamo Improvement Agency had filed their report with you. We along with many other neighbors have fought this afore mentioned development. If it has to be developed, we feel no more than two homes should be built, and `these should be one story each. We thank you for your attention to this matter. . Resfu1(/YTim Sue Bottoms _ �? ATTACHMENT I June 24, 1995 ,�. r,y Edy Zwierzyckl = 3 Community Development Dept. Representative. mJ_ a 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Bdg. V 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Dear Edy: I am writing to express my disapproval of the request by Bernardo Construction to subdivide the property at the intersection of Miranda Place and Camino Monte Sol, in the Alamo area. The Underdahl Report leaves little question as to the problems that are immediate as well as long term. It seems that an approval of this application would not be in the best interests of the immediate community as well as the future homeowners. There has been talk of reducing the number of building sites on the property to two or three. This seems more practical if the building sites are located on the stable portions of the property. I strongly believe the right-of-way on my property was intended to provide access for the existing homes, and not to be used as a thoroughfare for future land development. Even with the building of two homes it is going to affect our small community, especially those of us on Camino Monte Sol. I am sure if the application is granted the other land owners that are above the Bernardo property are going to immediately apply for the same rights. It seems this will mushroom into a full scale land development. I strongly urge you to limit the number of building sites to two. This will at least somewhat control .the future develpment along Caruino Monte Sol. Sincerely, Richard B. Ralph 250 Miranda Place Alamo, CA 94507 ATTACHMENT J r ' IN 2 7 PH 3: 32 June 23, 1995 va Edy ZWIERZYCKI, Senior Plannert CLPT Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St. 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA. 94553 Dear Senior Planner, As resident's of Miranda Ave. in Alamo, (and having endured the rhetoric offered by the developer's of the Alamo Country project which has left "tract" homes where there once was rolling hills and grazing land), we must object to the proposed Camino Monte Sol development being considered by your office. Part of the beauty of our neighborhood is the undeveloped land that invites the wildlife and birds to the area where they make their homes. However the wave of development seen in the Alamo area in recent years, especially in east Alamo, speaks.to the desires of big bush= and U mmy which see our neighborhood's as 'opportunities", and„the continuing development as "progress". This, is especially true of the Camino Monte Sol project which, as we understand the plan now being offered, will place four single family homes against the, hillside behind 2710 and 2640 Miranda Ave. Alamo. If you or a representative from your office has seen the proposed area, you'll know that to complete the project as planned, oak trees will have to be sacrificed, grading to the land will impact the drainage to the creek, privacy will be forfeited, and a very small, pristine part of Alamo, which now offers solitude among shade trees and a creek, will vanish. By writing this letter, we offer a small voice of reason and suggest that the proposed plan be reduced in size and/or reworked. In light of what our neighborhood has already undergone with the addition of the new development mentioned above, do we really need four more homes in an area already saturated in growth? Thank you for considering the opinion of those most affected by this plan as you and the county make your decision, Sincerely yours, Ma and Karen Scarlett 720 Miranda Ave. Alamo, CA. 1 1 , ATTACHMENT K DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH ■ ENGINEERING GEOLOGY February 7, 1995 Catherine Kutsuris, Senior Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4th Floor,NorthWing Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Review of Geologic Report and Comments on Vesting Tentative Map MS 11-94(Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area,Contra Costa County DMA Project 4300104.95 Dear Catherine: At your request,we have reviewed the geologic report and associated tentative map submitted by the applicant for the captioned project. The plan is dated 11 November 1994,and the geotechnical report was prepared by Underdahl Geotechnical Engineering and is titled as follows: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigaion APN 193-030-009 Camino Monte Sol Alamo, CA Undedahl Project#9450794076 TG CC 78 A 1 (report dated 20 December 1994) Scope The scope of our review included review of pertinent U.$. Geological Survey maps(Nilsen, 1975; Brabb. 1976;Dibblee, 1980 and Graymer,Jones&Brabb, 1994);the mapping of Crane(1988);a field reconnaissance of the site,performed February 3rd;and a review of the geologic-related materials in the project file. We also interpreted 1973 aerial photographs(scale: V= using a mirror stereoscope equipped with 3X binoculars. General Plan Policies There are several Safety Element Policies which are relevant to this application. Some of these are paraphrased below. 10-22 Slope stability shall be primary consideration in the ability of land to be developed. 10-23 Slope stability shall be given careful scrutiny in the design of developments. 10-24 Slope of over 15%and/or generally unstable land shall be evaluated with regard to safety hazards prior to project approval. 10-28 In general, residential density shall decrease as slope increases,especially above 15%. 10-29 Slopes over 26%shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading. Background The site is in the outcrop belt of weakly consolidated sedimentary rocks of Pliocene age. The mapping of Nilsen(1975)indicates that the swale in the northeast portion of the site is a photointerpretive landslide. Figure 1 shows our interpretation of site conditions. Specific comments on the featuresobserved may be summarized as follows: * The building sites on proposed Lots C and D are within the photointerpretive slide mapped by Nilsen. This feature may be a dormant slide or a colluvial filled bedrock hollow. In either case,there is a risk that these surficial deposits could be mobilized and flow westerly,toward the creek. * There is a steep,eroding slope that is experiencing soil creep in the west portion of proposed Lot C and the adjacent portion of Lot B. This slope was created in pre-historic time by the stream bank erosion. • A slide scarp(probably a debris low chute)approximately 100 feet long,3 feet deep and 15 feet wide is present in the northern portion of Lot C. The modern stream channel is trapezonal-shaped and approximately 5 feet deep. From top-of- bank to top-0f--bank the channel width is approximately 20 feet. The banks possess a 1:1 (H:V)gradients and are sloughing. The channel is cut ino an old stream terrace, remnants of which are intermittently present at an elevation of +355+. The development concept proposes grading of the creek banks to produce slopes of 2.5:1 (H:V). The building sites on proposed Lots A, C and D are'in areas where natural slopes are greater than 26%for at least some of the building site. The driveway to the residence on proposed Lot B requires placing;fill within the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak trimming its branches,and constructing a driveway adjacent to a creek bank. Underdahl Report The investigation included the logging of nine borings,laboratory testing and engineering analysis. It also included a review of published information on geologic conditions. The report provides recommendation for site grading,drainage and foundation design. 2 The subsurface data provides information on the depth to bedrock for each of the proposed building sites t. Proposed Parcel Depth to Bedrock Lot A 10 to 15.5 ft Lot B 3.5 to 5.5 ft. Lot C 4 to 5.5 & Lot D 14 to 15.5 ft. Development Concept The tentative map does not show how the proposed lots would be developed Consequently,the compatibility of the project with General Pian Policy 10-29 cannot be judged Evaluation 1. Immediate Access Camino Monte Sol is narrow,poorly maintained,and lacks a curb or guard rail where the roadway crosses the creek. The culvert consists of ttivo structural elements that have separated. Provision for upgrading and maintenance of Camino Monte Sol should be considered with this application. 2. Driveway to Building Site on Parcel B This driveway is adjacent to an eroding creek bank. Construction of this driveway requires work in the creek channel to stabilize its banks and placing fill in the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak. In our opinion,this alignment would adversely impact the 36-inch diameter oak,would have visual impacts and could reduce the biologic resource value of the land adjacent to the creek. It would require a permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. 3. Lots C and D The driveways and potential building sites are within an area of thick soils that may be an old slide area. Although this area is marginally stable at present, it may be sensitive to grading and development. Moreover,irrigation of yard areas on the proposed lots may reduce the stability of the soils in this bedrock hollow. These factors, in combination with unusually heavy rains and possible strong earthquake shaking,may induce sliding. 4. Parcel D Within the building site area the existing slopes range from 25 to 45 percent,and existing elevations range from+403 to 422 feet(19 feet of relief). This implies considerable grading to develop this lot. tThe building sites have been changed slightly since the geotechnical report was prepared. The currently proposed sites are shown on the Vesting Tentative Map. 3 Recommendations 1. General In our opinion,the applicant has not demonstrated consistency with the General Plan Policies pertaining to slope stability,and these potential geologic impacts could be a basis for requiring preparation of an EIR- There may also be biologic or visual quality effects. As noted previously,the building sites on proposed Lots C and D are on a relatively steep,marginally stable hillside. Available evidence that the northern portion of these lots is a bedrock hollow that is filled with colluvium/slide debris. Should this material become mobilized,it could slide toward the creek channel. The debris flow chute on Lot C is evidence of reactivate of a small portion of this suspected slide. We recommend that consideration be given to combining Lots C and D. Moreover,access to Lot B presents impacts that could best be addressed by relocating the driveway to elevation+385 feet,passing just east of the dripline of the clump of oaks. 2. Geotechnical Report In our opinion,the geotechnical report is adequate for the processing of the tentative map. However, it should be updated prior to issuance of grading and building permits. It should comment on,and be parepaared in concert with,grading plans for the project. Consideration should be given to constructing one or more keyways within the suspected slide area. The geotechnical report should also provide specific foundation recommendations for each lot or more clearly define what situations require pier and grade beam foundations. 3. Road Provisions are needed for safety improvements to Camino Monte Sol,and consideration should be given to reconstructing the road. It has an inadequate section and will have relatively high maintenance requirements in its existing condition. We trust that this provides the information that you require at this time. If you have any further questions, please call. Sincerely, DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES Darwin Myers, CEG66 Principal cc: Gar},Underdahl Underdahl Geotechnical Engineering 40 Castle Hill Court Walnut Creek, CA 4 Y a b � AM•:..�_� \-\\lam\�ws �tj tl ::::::•:•<• �\ \o tM ci � wr»t�` jj ...Y' ����. ♦`,♦\ \ � Yeo ; S. CL � e � jov �o a , G .�-- �—••••r cis si8� i �' c� �' ♦ O r,1 008 +. : I` �- IZ r LIZ KI-t IF W • r ` 4 � � .�•r to E f sa. CC •� �'ti 3r t �oo E � O = ti V jz v C t•- - ATTACHMENT L. Q DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES JUL 1 0M ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 6 July 1995 Edy Zwierzycki,Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,2nd Floor,North Wing Martinez CA 9453 Subject: Additional Comments on Vesting Tentative Map MS 11-94(Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area,Contra Costa County DMA Project 300104.95 Dear Edy: On 7 February 1995,we issued a review letter on the captioned property. Subsequently, the staff received a letter from a neighboring property owner(Anne Broome, 20 Camino Monte Sol). On 7 June 1995,we participated in a site visit that included you, the applicant, his civil engineer and geotechnical engineer. The purpose of that site visit was to review field conditions as a group, examine alternative building sites, and discuss concerns and possible approaches to amelioration of those concerns. Because of our subsequent involvement with this project, it was determined that we should provide additional comments. Anne Broome The letter from Anne Broome paraphrases and summarizes our 7 February memorandum. We have attached her letter and numbered the comments in the left`hand margin. The following are intended as additional clarifying remarks. 1. Our letter cited General Plan policies pertaining to hillside development. General Plan policies, by their very nature, do not have objective criteria to accurately determine compliance, and they are subject to interpretation. For example, policy 10-29 states that "slopes over 26% shall be considered .unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading or other land disturbance". The topographic map indicates that the building sites on proposed lots C and D exceed 26%, but the applicant has not submitted a grading plan for individual building sites. Furthermore, the applicant and his civil engineer are convinced that all the proposed lots could be developed without extensive grading. Ms. Broome might very well consider any grading extensive. Ultimately, it is the Board of Supervisors who determine compliance v.-ith the general plan. We merely raised the question of general plan compliance in our 7 February memorandum. 1305 PINE STREET CA . :J7, ■ _ �1J._ 2. With regard to stability, we pointed out that the building sites on lots C and D are within an area mantled by surficial deposits (either slopewash deposits or slide deposits). The boreholes logged by Underdahl Geotechnical indicate that the depth to rock is relatively shallow. Clearly site grading,drainage and foundation design will need to be sensitive to the hazard of deep soil creep/sliding. The development must be designed to improve slope stability. In our opinion, the outlook for long-term stability of a well designed and properly constructed project on the site is good. Scenic Easement During our 7 June site visit, I suggest that a scenic easement could be required for lands considered too steep or too environmentally sensitive to develop. The requirement for a scenic easement could be made a condition of approval of the pending application. For example, the CONS could require that the applicant submit a revised plan for approval by the Zoning Administrator that shows a scenic easement on lot D, the boundary of which closely coincides with elevation+425 feet. The COA could require that the applicant build a see-through fence on the scenic easement line prior to issuance of construction permits on the lot. It should also require the applicant to prepare a statement to be recorded with the deed that would prohibit grading, construction of fences, or development within the scenic easement. The wording of this statement should be subject to review by the Zoning Administrator If the terrace area adjacent to Miranda Creek on the northern portion of proposed parcel C is deemed by staff to be environmentally sensitive, it too could be included in a scenic easement. The easement should/could also include the oversteepened, wooded slope that extends onto the westernmost portion of lot D. Lot B In our 7 February letter, we expressed opposition to the driveway access to lot B because it requires grading in the dripline of a large oak. In the field, the applicant's civil engineer, indicated that my opinions should be restricted to geologic and geotechnical issues, not biologic resource-related issues. We are not experts in biotic resources, but the construction of a driveway will require construction of a ramp which provides a transition in elevation between the grade of the stream terrace and the grade of Camino Monte Sol. County staff and the Zoning Administrator are aware that grading would be required for this driveway. From a purely engineering perspective the road is feasible, and with adequate precautions,the disturbance to the oak could be minimized. Ultimately, the staff and Zoning Administrator % ill determine if the proposed driveway is acceptable, and if the required grading is extensive. 1 .!'s ASSOC' We trust that this letter provides the information that you require at this time. If you have any questions or comments, please call. Sincerely, DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES Darwin Myers,CEG 6 Principal cc: John Maes 3001042.95 f ATTACHMENT M AGREEMENT REGARDING PROPOSED STREAM ALTERATION NOTIFICATION NO. 228-95 This agreement, entered into between the State of California, Dep2rtment of Fish and Game, hereinafter called the Department, and John Bernardo of 28 Merrill Circle South Moraga, CA 94556, Bernardo Construction, State of California, hereinafter called the operator, is as follows: Whereas, pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6 of California Fish and Game Code, the operator, on the 31 day of March, 1995, notified the Department that he intends to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of, or use material from the streambed of, the following water: Miranda Creek, in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, S7 TIS R1W. Whereas, the Department (represented by Nicole Kozicki has made an inspection of the subject area on the 5 day of April, 1995, and) has determined that such operations may substantially adversely affect existing fish and wildlife resources including: riparian vegetation, water quality, birds and mammals. Therefore, the Department hereby proposes measures to protect fish and wildlife during the operator's work. The operator hereby agrees to accept the following recommendations as part of his work: 1. All work in or near the stream shall be confined to the period between April 15 and October 1. 2. Existing culvert under Camino Monte Sol will be removed and replaced. The culvert shall only be extended on the east side of Camino Monte Sol by approximately 12 feet. On the east side a head wall shall be constructed with rip rap aprons. The aprons shall be backfilled with soil above the average high water mark and seeded using local native grasses. NO GROUT shall be used on any of the rip rap. At no time shall any work be done to the pond area on the west side of the road. 3. . Prior to the driveway construction, which the north edge shall be no closer then 10 feet from the ton of the bank, a construction fence shall be installed around the drip line of the Oak tree south/west of the crossing. 4. Disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not exceed the minimum necessary to complete operations. 5. Restoration shall include the revegetation of stripped or_ea osed areas,_ using local native species. All exposed areas including backfilled rip rap shall be seeded. 6 trees shall be planted on the south/west side of the creek between the top of bank and the e.dge of the driveway. Trees shall include at least 3 Coast live Oak 5 gallon size and red willow. All revegetati.on shall be complete by October 15. 6. No equipment will be operated__in live stream channels. 7. When any dam (any artificial obstruction) isbeing_construqted maintained, or placed in operation, sufficient water shall at all times be allowed to pass downstream to maintain fishlife below the dam. 8. Any temporary dam (any artificial obstruction) constructed shall only be built from material such as clean gravel which will cause little or no siltation. 9. When Work in a flowing stream is unavoidable, the entire streamflow shall be diverted around the work area by a barrier, temporary culvert and/or a new channel capable of permitting upstream and downstream fish movement. Cofferdams will be installed both upstream and downstream of the work site. Water being diverted will reenter the creek below the downstream dam. Construction of the barrier and/or the new channel shall normally begin in the downstream area and continue in an upstream direction, and the flow shall be diverted only when construction of the diversion is completed. Channel bank or barrier construction shall be adequate to prevent seepage into or from the work area. Channel banks or barriers shall not be made of earth or other substances subject to erosion unless first enclosed by sheet piling, rock riprap, or other protective material. The enclosure and supportive material shall be removed when the work is completed and the removal shall normally proceed from downstream in an upstream direction. 10. No debris, soil silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, cement or concrete or washings thereof, oil or petroleum products or. other organic or earthen material from any construction, or associated activity of whatever nature shall be allowed to enter into or placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into, waters of the State. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris shall be removed from the work area. No rubbish shall be deposited within 150 feet of the high water mark of any stream.. 11. The operator will notify the Department of the date of commencement of operations and the date of completion of operations at least five days prior to such completion. 12. Any changes in plans must have prior Department approval . 13. All contractors, subcontractors, and laborers, are liable for the requirements of this agreement.. The operator, as designated by the signature on this agreement, shall be responsible for the.execution of all elements of this agreement. A copy of this agreement must be provided to contractors and subcontractors and must be in their possession at the work site. If the operator's work changes from that stated in the notification specified above, this agreement is no longer valid and a new notification shall be submitted to the Department of Fish and Game. Failure to comply with. the provisions of this agreement and with other pertinent Code Section, including but not limited to Fish and Game Code Section 5650, 5652 and. 5965 , 2 r n;a result in prosecution. Nothing in this agreement authorizes the operator to trespass on any land or property, nor does it relieve the operator of responsibility for compliance with applicable federal, state, or local laws or ordinances. THIS AGREEMENT IS NOT•INTENDED AS AN APPROVAL OF A PROJECT OR OF SPECIFIC PROJECT FEATURES BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. INDEPENDENT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS APPROPRIATE ON THOSE PROJECTS WHERE LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL PERMITS OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ARE REQUIRED. This agreement becomes effective on t e date when signed by the operator and EXPIRES 11, 1996. Operat Title r��� Tit a Fish & Game Warden #343 Organization _MW Depart. of Fish & Game, SS/tta4444te of CA Date d �- /S_ /9 /�S Date -7 3 V l-� California Environmental Quality Act NOTICE OF Completion of Environmental Impact Report Negative.Declaration of Environmental Significance CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street North Wing - 4th Floor- Martinez, California 94553-0095 Telephone: (510) 646-2091 Contact Person EDY ZWIERZYCKI Project Description and Location: BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION (Applicant & Owner), County File #MS94001 1: The applicant requests approval of a vesting tentative map to subdivide three acres into four parcels. Variances are requested for an average lot width of 113 feet on Parcel C and 106 feet on Parcel D 0 20 feet required). Subject property fronts approximately 600 feet on the south side of Camino Monte Sol at the southeast intersection of Miranda Place and Camino Monte Sol, in the Alamo area. (R-20) (ZA:O-15) (CT 3461.02) (Parcel #193-030-009) THIS IS A NOTICE OF STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE ABOVE PROJECT. YOU WILL BE FURTHER NOTIFIED OF THE PROJECT'S HEARING DATE WHERE YOU CAN COMMENT ON THIS DETERMINATION AND'THE PROJECT IF YOU WISH. The Environmental Impact Report or Justification for Negative Declaration is available for review at the address below: Contra Costa County Community Development Department 4th Floor, North Wing, Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Review Period for Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration: 1 �� thru -T,,,-,e jL G AP 9 R 12/89 By L,_.it 3 c1c Com unity �Eeveloprrwent epartment Representative .` •` #'AIrk � .. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (INITIAL STUDY) I. Background 1. Name of Proponent: �JGnc.r�lO CO'1!A'L tJ;' 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: I Ge-ec `_)OL4k MaaS�, CA ti�+SsCa 3. Date Checklist Submitted: 4. Name of Proposal: & 9400 r r 5. Special Circumstances: t (h I1. Environmental Impacts Quad Sheet L&s IYtnnpe-s Parcel # l 5 3 - 010 — 00 9 Date of Site Visit QCko�oGr l${ 1' CC14 Note: Panel numbers indicated below refer to 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map sheets located in the Community Development Department offices at 651 Pine Street 2nd floor, North Wing, Martinez, California 94553. S I 1 . Earth. Could the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? Project Description/Site Visit Geology Report Dated: b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over-covering of the soil? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 1.a. S = Significant I = Insignificant Environmental Checklist - Page 1 of 12 10\ , 4 S I C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 1.a. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? — k Project Description/Site Visit Same as 1.a. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 1.a. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — Project Description/Site Visit Same as 1 .a. g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards.such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? — Project Description/Site Visit Same as 1.a. U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay System No. 2. Air. Could the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? — X Project Description/Site Visit S =Significant I = Insignificant Environmental Checklist - Page 2 of 12 S \ ' b. The creation uf objectionable odors? BAAQMD Letter dated: L (to Project Description/Site Visit Same as 2. . C ��r���� o� ��m[�amen1, ����re' �vtem�����' or C. any change inclimate, either locally mxregionally? Project Description/Site Visit 3. Water. Could the proposals result in: 8. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, ineither marine or fresh waters? Project Description/Site Visit b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount ofsurfaoe.runoff? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 3.a. C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? F.E.K4.A. Flood Map - Pone| # Flood Zone C, d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water � body? --- --- Pr ' ctDeocdphon/S\teVisit Same as 3.a. e. Discharge into surface vvmtens' or in any alteration o« surface water quality, including but not limited to ~J ternVoretura, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Project Description/Site Visit Same aa3.o. - S = SignifiC8nt | =InSign|fic8nt Environmental Checklist PB*ge 3 of 12 ol ~. S I f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — Project Description/Site Visit Same as 3.a. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of X an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 3.a. h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? — X Project Description/Site Visit Same as 3.a. i. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? F.E.M.A. Flood Map - Panel#315 (Flood ZoneAe4J C Ir r w 3G. 4. Plant Life. Could the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Project Description/Site Visit b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? }� Project Description/Site Visit Same as 4.a. U.S.G.S. #5 S = Significant I =Insignificant Environmental Checklist Page 4 of 12 S I C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? �( Project Description/Site Visit Same as 4.a. U.S.G.S. #5 d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? — Project Description/Site Visit Same as 4.a. 5. Animal Life. Could the proposal result in: a. Change in diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? — X Project Description/Site Visit U.S.G.S. #5 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? — Project Description/Site Visit Same as 5.a. U.S.G.S. #5 C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of _ animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? — Project Description/Site Visit Same as 5.a. S = Significant I =Insignificant Environmental Checklist Page 5 of 12 S 6. Noise. Could the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Project Description/Site Visit b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay No._ Project Description/Site Visit Same as 6.a. �?'wn SS d hrG nax. ever- 7. Light and Glare. Could the proposal produce new light or glare? _ Project Description/Site Visit 8. Land Use. Could the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present x or planned land use of an area? — General Plan Land Use Designation: ��5c 9. Natural Resources. Could the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ X 10: Risk of Upset. Could the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? X Project Description/Site Visit b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 10.a. S = Significant i =Insignificant Environmental Checklist - Page 6 of 12 S 1 1. Population. Could the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Project Description/Site Visit 12. Housing. Could the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? �( Project Description/Site Visit 13. Transportation/Circulation. Could the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? �( Project Description/Site Visit b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new v parking? — !� Project Description/Site Visit Same as 13.a. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation v systems? _ l� Qro�uJ �x�'fa;d, Suc U 5•-E d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ �( Qro}C-CA S:4C V.7"4 e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 13.a. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? r S = Significant I =Insignificant Environmental Checklist - Page 7 of 12 S- 14. Public Services. Could the proposal have an effect upon, or result in need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? Fire District Memo Dated., b. Police protection? _ Project Description/Site Visit C. Schools? _ Project Description/Site Visit Same as 14.b. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X Project Description/Site Visit Same as 14.U. \, e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ X Project Description/Site Visit Same as 14.b. f. Other governmental services? Project Description/Site Visit 15. Energy. Could the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Project Description/Site Visit b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, v or require the development of new sources of energy? 1` Project Description/Site Visit Same as 1 5.a. S = Significant I = Insignificant Environmental Checklist Page 8 of 12 S 1 16. Utilities. Could the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Project Description/Site Visit 17. Human Health. Could the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Project Description/Site Visit b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 17.a. 18. Aesthetics. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? yeflay Pie. 19. Recreation. Could the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or X quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Project Description/Site Visit 20. Cultural Resources. a. Could the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X Sonoma State Notification dated: 5:1we,'110ce O2Ri 1 S�4 t AP rd ti 3 -030 - Do9 Ic C CJr u"^%,ov deN, S =Significant I =Insignificant Environmental Checklist - Page 9 of 12 S b. Could the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ X Project Description/Site Visit Some as 20-6. U. zo' G.S. Q-.ejOvr�la ►ao. (4 C. Does the proposal have t e potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X Project Description/Site Visit Same as 20.a. . d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? _ Project Description/Site Visit Same as 20.a. e. Will the proposal result in destruction of or adverse physical effects to significant paleontological — resources? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 20.a. 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Project Description/Site Visit S =Significant [ =Insignificant Environmental Checklist - Page 10 of 12 S b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) �( Project Description/Site Visit Same as 21.a. C. Does the project have potential impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource_is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of these impacts on the v environment is significant.) _ n Project Description/Site Visit Same as 21.a. d. Does the project have environmental effects which could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either — directly or indirectly? Project Description/Site Visit Same as 21 .a. S = Significant I =Insignificant Environmental Checklist - Page 11 of 12 S I III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. Based on the foregoing review, the project will not result in any potentially significant environmental impacts. IV. Determination. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. T Date Signature Reviewed By: :CW c1shhei,. S = Significant I =Insignificant Environmental Checklist - Page 12 of 12 ADDITIONAL NOTES ON INITIAL STUDY 1. Earth. According to the U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay system, one landslide is located on the project site. In addition, the Overlay system identifies a moderate to high liquefaction potential for the western portion of the site. The site specific geotechnical investigation found the risk from a landslide to be low because of the slope gradient and the firmness of the soil and rock. Similarly, the report found the risk due to liquefaction potential as low because of the cohesion of the clay, the shallow depth of low and the lack of a water level in the soil. The report found that the existing soil is highly expansive and recommended that on-site soil be replaced with non-expansive soils to a depth of 3-feet below subgrade or that on-site soils be saturated prior to the placement of the concrete. SOURCES: U.S.G.S. Quad Overlay System No. 2 and 3 "Preliminary Report Geotechnical Investigation: Proposed Residential Subdivision APN 193-030-009, Camino Monte Sol, Alamo CA", Undehdal Geotechnical Engineering, December 20, 1994. The County Consulting Geologist found the submitted geotechincal report adequate for processing the tentative map. However, it will be required to be updated prior to the issuance of a grading permit and building permit. The updated report should comment on and be prepared concurrently.with grading plans for the project. Consideration should be given to constructing one or more keyways within the suspected slide area. The report should also provide specific foundation recommendations for each lot or more clearly define what situations require pier and beam foundations. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. At least 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit submit for review and approval of the County Consulting Geologist an as-graded report prepared by a geotechnical engineer addressing construction of one or more keyways within the suspected slide area and provide specific foundation recommendations for each lot and more clearly define which situations require pier and beam foundations. Additionally, the report shall include an evaluation of the stability of the driveway for proposed parcel B. If adequate stability cannot be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Consulting Geologist and the County Public Works Department, Parcel B shall be deleted. 2. At least 60 days prior to issuance of a grading permit, that applicant shall submit grading plans for review and approval of the Community Development Department. Grading for homesite areas shall be permitted to the extent necessary to ensure geotechnically safe building sites. 3C. ALTERATION OF COURSE OF FLOOD WATERS A creek bisects the property running in a north-south direction through a portion of lots A and B. No building sites are located within the creek structure setback area. The majority of the driveway for proposed lot B and a small portion of the driveway for proposed lot A are located within the setback area. As part of the project description, the applicant has submitted a Stream Alteration Permit from the Department of Fish and Game. The permit requires that the north edge of the driveway may not be closer than 10-feet from top of bank. No mitigation is necessary. 3E. WATER QUALITY A creek bisects that property running in a north-south direction through a portion of lots A and B. Construction of improvements (e.g. utilities, driveways and residences) could result in the discharge of soils or other contaminants to the creek. MITIGATION MEASURE Prior to filing the map, the applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for municipal construction as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards. 1. FLOODING A creek bisects the property running in a north-south direction through a portion of lots A and B. The vesting tentative map indicates no structures are located within the flood zone area. The applicant should be required to verify the adequacy of the location of the flood zone area prior to filing the parcel map. MITIGATION MEASURE At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall verify that all finished floor elevations are above the 100-year flood elevation. 16. UTILITIES The project is located within the Sphere of Influence of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, and annexation will be requried. The District's September 26, 1994 letter states that service can be provided. MITIGATION MEASURE Prior to filing the parcel map, submit verification from the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, that the subject site has been annexed into the District. t � n P•K Z7-a w K :7NQt-- -3 O m r•N•(D :3' m r-o(D t11 :r m K n (D a'd W O < (D m w 7r w (D r,7 R (D mr AGK Darr (Dmm H.m a m m P- R n �o n R P. ,0, : 0 (cD En � x �a(o 14 5(n m r O O x -- a a3. m O R O Pt M MX'D n R m .'. EO �� K r•aMwwD Z.'. Or rr :3,a :7m G ] n n,0 (D w m p < apb M GNmrr RD RW(D0 M MO o a 1 a :rZ3ro : m w P-10 9 tT(D "J w (D Cu to n r(D a m x a R m K (D h,�wtO � 0wm0P.a0 . . . . ; . r7 a0 CDD m r-C� <O .' ml :r . R n 5 m t0 N a ((D (D a n �. . (D KR K m M n an) r 00Nm (DfDCT 91 r ;.;•�... W. H a.E Mr '(Dd r? R K :7, m O r- r m m LO (D m C) o w LQ N ro n n tD a m D m H.w R CT(A w K'D m O w a w ,n R 1-' �-(D x S K (D'D K w 0 0 w (D R K R G 10 7'(D r-D (D K G K a 'D (D 0 R O R w w <'D w c 5 rr a w O w 010 w w r+ a n O m a tQ'D O (D rr (D r Cl(D K a n c m r-0 t7,'o CT r K rr E3 c O <'D 9 K (D K r R r-r 0 H.y (D R c m D H.O P.G O a 3 23 P.N O (D 0 0 0 C H v (� n R ] 0 < 7 ?' r•< r M CO r m r a< R M R O B a n K m R <LO (D = 3 tr 3 ::7, D'to'D a LQ M R w R r-(D N-(D (D C 0 w-K (D (D R (D m (D w (D cc (D gnKRaR a M a 0 m G (D P-nrmn H 5 «3 y r•(D M(D row GaRa`< '< w - z7 ama• R a7raOw nnro0c0r'D totstO �•R 10 n aamnwlD (owaa GD y ° W (D (D K R M a'D ?r O (D n w 0 R b w r R (D m^< r•a Mab ru) ] r w r-Q SI) " M(D G"D R K (D wn rE n n O Rr ' 0 �3 0 > rmE3 � t7RmN- r0 (D 0n < (or�•mw0P 0) 0waK'< H. �': c � H l< a �•0 (o � n r OORommw W.010KGMa•< � rm n y' R nR9b (DMa ErM0Or0rK0OGrmr•(DCo m Kna !H : (D d00 m•< R (D2) OO tr00 R (DG (Dwmr•`< n R (DtomoO 3 z z Z PL) (D m K n K rr m K LO tr R w was D - K M w E K 5 K < ] R z. � x MR ar•rr O 7r N•0 ?tr- art O R N a0 MK F+•Gto w P-CD . 0 O rT R (D N N ? (aD m R m r O rt m p R7 ren K G w ? n O faD E rrD G�? Or C z tT(D O c G < w r 0 H < G N'N•m O w-N•(D a R w N- H C� a c R m R 5 w rt D P.�' m 0 w M(D K (D a w a w 0 0 (D a H.r �.'.Lo.. H-m rr K P-(D r rY ? E'D 5 O ? c :1(D K (D n w hi K G r : :C . c CCi7 2.3 r O rG7m RE (Daa(D wwMaOm ::3-Rart matO R o � a K N w '•< m a K a E N• ?0 10 m :':m:' H•(D m w C R r? n (D R r(D (D D O•r 0 (D M O G (D m Z z O c Cr E3 :31O ,o M,:r m < aH.O c K a' n--C) LO a s (D (D G c 0 (D R m n rt O R N• ] w K :sr- tan z R R R R P.R (D Cr rr a' < (D m ^< 9 O 0 H i ((D ((D N (1) C m 0~ a z a is.' 10 < n 10 v O c n 10 a ro. K r K O C G :'D: ::; a R 0 E3 R n to �-a G lD N- 5 O r* c <:Z R a R R K l0 - .y. . R < 4�, m z. LQ r•S7 b K m K R wmr- aG O r 1'•w K (D LO n R m (D O R N.'. m0r? M t2::' 3M�o :.�. r•w a ' R w m .ftl 44 0.G~y�.' 4.-1 G t7:�: m 00) ntnH Ma m Mm <'0 r•b n ar( G n'D r•> . rt r•O O 10 tS aF-I a:r P,rr m O O 0 r•(D rt 0 0 0 a m m ] :31m K O (D 0 0 K m K n ] m m r-7 K n rt rt (D rt m 0 04 r- 0 G rt rt 0 K rt n r-Nm rt a K (D " X K M 1 (D 0.r- ran wr• m a ? ar•rt r- m mr•aw (DK r 2) 91 rto0am 00) (DrtK0Z (D : : :•d: 0 rr 0 N 0 N,G t0 0 0 X r•K G H.G a 0 x rt rt r•n O u- S 0`G tT 0 K K 7 t0 n (D n K : .•=3. . :r 00Mm cu m0mrt0rtt7 wmmwr0rtC7' w m a m n m 0 (D m m m:3•r- 0 m - r-rn�-r••- : : Z rr rt M rt M K `.7 1 m R 0 0 , (D -3 W E a O w m w a rt rm m m m a:� r m (D m (D r• m W. K rt,O t•! K a 0 0 n n K 0 0 n mb �(n rm m 0 G m m rt rt G rt rt m 0 H.H.rt G rr K rt r w G w (D r•a H.m rr m 0 O G < 3 m rr m r•3 tTr•0 0 b w(D O N > rt rr raE K > rt 0 C m rr 0 n K O a n a? 7 m a 0 a S t7. m m a m w r•n Ha a w wm m K < < w r•(D y KKK rt Owcr �rtwoK 0mmm :3 f): : 0 (D'< 0 m K rr 0 m m•o a m ro 0 K m I a a m V w to 4 M a P. a 0 K K G m n K 0mG0 rrO < a r•wrr0 m0ra0tom0 r•r-rr E O p m ro E ] r-10 m rr rr z rt - r-10 tr K m fir- Kb r•a o m or p- a m 0 m m r m rt m rr M O r-r rr r- 0 K m r• 5 K *A toaK ? r•MMr 0"n H rt K G rt. ' ' '�'• b to• r•n w �l K 0 11-0) Zr rr•< P. rt K � Ami 1-rt w 7rtm ] rt ..0-4 O H rr 0 0 tS rt ':3 m K K :r m K K < r:3� rr rt tO m :r rt rt a O G m O G rmmwK ? m :rm Cz G ... .. a rt m w m rt m t0 p t0 7 m rt a r ol 0 -V r• 7•F-- 0.m •am m o 2)LQ atn w rtn < H m w a H 00 Mrr0 C7rrK rrrj Z ?0 (D ?• rK r? 0 "(D :3-0 2 r•:7,m 0 : z w G K m m m �-m G m m ro m (D t0 m m rtrrr• < rtr•0 m On G n k K ry w a s m a K rt G n rt m S Z r 0 w m rt w r-10 rt tTr•Cs 0 m K w w w a w a'0 a? nb F 0a'0 rr rt 10 (D 0 0 < r (- ;U (D H-r) t0 r-r-ter 3. H. O rr r- 0 (D m r• tD rD m M rr O m 0 0 < r- ` rt G rt 0 w rt m a a r•0 K0 K m a m £ w ....H . 0 t7 cu a G 0-aa " 0 0 0 0 3 rte- r-a C u. rt m rt a z o Ir• H.H. rt rlr rr (D tom r„ marlrwa rr rower . ."y.:. �r n a K m r r m r K m r-0 G m ( �'• m rt 7 0 0 ? O to Mo maw ? o: r•9a o0a E �rr100W � �a �. C7 m rt N K a w K K rt G 10 r• H.w rt F-' `< h-' rt to rr 0 W.rr LO rr K ? m m m 0 m 9 3 0 a 0 K rt m`< m m a r•••'< K w G G O G n G t7 '. .�: . K G K (D (D K F 5 rt (D rD W. r•a t7 () Cr < K ro a a t0 r•En a m C nar•m � Mw r• G rtan&< r_ U) z rt m m G r• F-1 rt m a 0 m rt H.m K (D rr rr rt O r••< 1 K K (D 10 rt (D ,O t7K K 0 0 r• as m m G m ww aG rr rt w r3 r• m n r m ? `< G tT rY K Z3 rt w �< < O a ((D ((D O O rG•Iri C G H..: Cr a (D p W.0 F• r r . rr O z 0 m a(r1• H. 3 ((D E rrr 'C) m E E �•3;Z.:. 0 O rt G N i K n rt N X 0 m w'v7 aH-V a ° R 'O r• w m r- C7 r• w 0 r F-'G 0 w 0 r . K w a] K W _ n K rlt N _._. r 0 rt W (nD 0 rr 0 rr Erl , . . M w ro 0 w 11 11 a r•o m th o w r•o Z L� LO''< rt m m m .ft to, rl'H 0",nstructive Ideas, Inc "� ."'-Z� tj "Al 35 Years of Quality Construction July 30', 1995 Res Review and comnent of County Staff Is recommendations and Conditions of approval for Minor subdivision MS 11-94 County Staff's Reccsismidatior>,e s Item I. 12MODUCTICN-Variances are requested etc. . . Objection: Variances are not requested for the four lot subdivision: Please see attached revised lot configuration as requested by and submitted to the Alamo, Irprovement Association. -All lots conform to the minimum lot width for R-20 zoning. Item ii. REOavb3dL1ATICN-Recamendation to approve the subdivision for three lots etc. . . Objection: Do not agree with the reduction in subdivision los from four -to three.., All four lots conform to the legal zoning regulations. Item VI. PROPOSED PRO=-Variances are requested etc. . . Objection: See objection for Item I. Item VII.G.1. StaffIa Response #2-staff recomTer4a under Section VIII.B that the lot for which this stream Alteration permit applies, be eliminated. Objection: Except for the reconstruction of the creek crossing culvert, no work is proposed within the creek channel. Minor grading isroposed for Parcel B driveway under the supervision of a tree pathologist. Owner wishes -to retain Parcel B as part of the subdivision. Item VII.G.2. Lot "A" Structure-Staff has required a maximum heiht of the structure within the proposed building envelopes to 25 Feet. Objection: 35 foot maximum height allowed in the respective zoning district of R-20. . Owner wishes to maintain this 35 foot height requirement. 28 Merrill Circle • Moraga, CA 94556 • (510) 631-6623 • Fax (310) 631-0933 General Contracting & Engineering • Contractors License # 703457 Ytem; ViIi.B. . BT*'F.-,AN�LYSIS(Lot;,B)_-Proposed Paroel M!'6tc. . : Objection: Staff.should -defer`Ita.Comments regarding usable area with respect to site development of swimming pools,d tennis courts, gazebos, and-large-expansive decks to the future: eu}anittai of a building site plan. The County has a tree ordinance to .protect the future dev=bttree.s in and around a tree woodland.. owner wishes not to distand retain parcels B & C as separate lots. Item VIII.C. Design Criteria-7he slopes for the proposed building sites range from 22V-20(excluding Parcel B) , etc. . . objection: The slopes for the* proposed building sites are: Parcel A(ISV) , Parcel B(15V) , Parcel C(20t) , and Parcel D(20t) . CCNDI=CHS OF APPROVAL FOR M WR 6tTB MSIR 3.1-94 Condition 01: submit a revised Tentative map for review. . . for three lots. objection: owner respectfully requests four lots with no variances as shown on attached exhibit. All lots are legally conforming to the current zoning requirements. Condition 09. Developer shall pay a fee of $400.00 per lot/unit toward child care facility needs. . . • objection: Most child care facilities are -created with tr nate entities and respective costs are borne and paid for by he applicant. owner wishes to be exempt from child care fee. condition #19. . . .applicant shall install a 6-foot tall wooden fence. . . Objection: owner wishes the adjoining neighbor to collectively pay for one half of the carman fence. Condition #23. The owner of the property shall participate in the provision of funding to maintain. . . .by voting to approve a special tax. . . Objection: , Owner respectfully requests the Board of Supervisors to relieve this minor subdivision of this obligation. Condition #26. Homes shall be limited to step-on-grade construction and 25 feet in height. . . Objection: Owner request equal and legal right to construct hones to current zoning requirements with maximum height of 35 feet for R-20 zoning. Condition #27. Ap licant shall submit a reviled site plan for approval. . .that shows a 20 foot wide scenic easement on Lot D. Objection: owner wishes to show scenic easement on Parcel Map as the easterly portion of lot D from elevation 425 to the easterly property line. Metes and bounds to be illustrated on said Parcel Map. Condition #28. Grant Deed of Development Rights shall be conveyed to the County. . . Objection: County may not need nor want the rights for future developffent in this area. A scenic easement•maintains its own prohibitions and restrictions as defined on the Parcel Map under the "owners Statement." A grant deed is not necessary for this condition. Condition ##29.D.1 Private Road-,applicant shall construct a 16 foot paved private roadway . . . .within a 30 foot easement for . . . . Objection: Owner wishes to accept the minimum road width requirements and the granting of additional right of way for said roadway, but wishes not to grant the additional easement width of 10 feet. Owner needs only to grant an additional 2 feet for a 20 foot roadway. Oondition #29.E.1. Parking-. . . .applicant shall provide a plan . showing six off-street parking spaces for. . . . Objection: Clarification-Owner agrees to six spaces if the garage stall spaces are counted, otherwise, owner requests standard requirement of two off-street spaces. Condition #29.F. utilities/Under grounding-All utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground Objection: Clarification-Owner agrees to underground new services to new residences, but feels that undergroundin existing overhead power lines and utilities serving neighboring residences up hill would be unreasonable. Condition=#29:x.4. . . .The applicant shall also be required to ..show that"the 'velocities•inthe creek. . .are not higher.,.. . . . .by a licensed soil engineer in the soil report. Obj ecticaii: "4' --Ther soils"engineer has- not'-'determined-this criteria. , No work is proposed in the creek except for the culvert:where the -road crosses the creek. . The owner..wishes not to alter 'the present condition .of the creek bank except where the culvert-repair work and .roadway widening is proposed. Condition #29.0.5&6. -. (5)Miranda Creek "Upon written request, the applicant"MAY make a •cash payment in lieu of. . .ata. rate of 0.10 per 'square toot of new impervious 'surface area. .(6)San Ramon Creek upon written requestthe applicant.maymake paecash payment in f ieu of actual excavation....-.at a 'rate-.,of 0.10 per st quarefoot of new impervious surface area created by the Objectiorii Owner wishes to exempt -the existing private road Camino Monte sol from the rate calculation, since it is only an upgrade to the roadway. The rate should only be applied to the new residential lots and their respective ,iui=vements. If should have any questions regarding these comrents.and objections on your behalf please feel free to call me.- Very truly yours, i L 41 _ . . . �. SCALL- 16 X16 0 100' H we "As� n 305.32 LOT A Of AREA-43131 SF 4 W S 04 O Q 96.22 z LOT AREA-33611 SF W 2 ►-� " 1 1344 Q S 04.35'Sa'V ti V 123,93 m LOT C ki c0 254.50 AREA-30871 SF S h LOT DEPTH WIDTH cs 0 1 S 049, 01v (AREA/DEPTH) 7. co �O" A 305.32 137.30 z N 31.45.301E LOT D n B 275.09 122.18 17.41 B6� X01 AREA-26838 SF ao C 254.50 121.30 1 �m ti .. D 223.50 120.08 !f�S EXHIBIT A NEW LOT CONFIGURATION MASS Q. ASSOCIAT"s MS 11 - 94 CML ENMNEERINC • LAND SURYMG • LAND PLANNING 1110 o"wk Not su, im wra cpwk Co. S&w (310)64�-a33 94053EX1 OCTOBER 19, M CF TREE & LANDSCAPE 510264530r9,.. . P. 01 s• LAFAYETTEC:TREE .&..LAND'SC"E�INC . H. &TH, RAETH - CONTRACTORS # C.27-46335.0.:. . 330 FLORBNC�DRIYE LIPAYME.CALIFORNIA 94549 TELEPHONE(3 10)284.7816 or 283-38A3 P.O.BOX 1116 FAX(S 10)284•. "' Heinz RWth July 31, 1995 Pnddent Constructive Ideas,Inc. Mr. Jon Bernardo Thomu Vim progdeea 28 Merile Circle Moraga,CA 94556 RE;Lot B @ Camino Monte Sol ,Alamo CA " Dear Mr.Bernardo; I have visited the site and observed the topography and the 36 inch Queroas lobata This Valley Oak is in good health,having a full canopy of healthy foliage and annual growth that is normal for the species. It has not had any pruning or dead wood removed. It's drip line area has been tilled on a regular basis for fire protection of the grassy area. The proposed road access along the bank under the drip line should be kept to a 12 foot width. The sloped ramp should have an aeration system of perforated drainage pipes and loose gravel. These should be spaced every 4 to 5 feet on centers,venting to both sides of the ramp. The level portion of the roadway should also be fitted with an aeration system of cast iron grates under the drip line area, Normally,the soil grade should not be changed since that would remove many of the root hairs which operate at the soil surface in cooperation with the beneficial myoorhizal fungi" Since the soil grade must be changed for the road,the new soil for grading should have these mycorhizal fungi added to the new soils and below the road base. This in conjunction with the aeration system and proper pruning should allow this tree to continue to thrive. The subsurface should be fertilized with 1,000 gallons of water and 281bs. of a 22-14-14 fertilim before grading begins. The above procedures should be done by qualified personnel familiar with the techniques and terminology mentioned. Yours Very Truly � Thomas Raeth Consulting Arborist enc: map with Lot B r-nstructive Ideas, Inc 35 Years of Quality Construction . 71) DATE: July 31, 1995 TO: COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: Minor Subdivision 11-94 . A. LIST of ELEVEN homeowner complaints by surrounding neighbors B. ANSWERS from Jon Bernardo, Developer and Agent for Owner C. SUPPORT by noted professionals and experts, NUMBER ONE A. "the development would add to existing flooding up stream and down stream" "driveway to lot B requires work in the creek channel" "grading and Irrigation will Increase runoff and possible slides" "Increased runoff will Increase further erosion problems In the creek" B. ANSWER: The development WILL IMPROVE up stream flooding with the rebuilding of the existing 54 Inch culvert under Camino Monte Sol. The development will add an insignificant amount of water flow to the downstream area. Money provided by the drainage ordinance fee will make it possible to add downstream improvements and to compensate for any minor flow addition. The driveway for lot B will NOT require grading in the creek channel. . Grading and irrigation will NOT increase runoff and possible slides.due to the design of new drainage facilities. Keyway installation WILL ONLY IMPROVE the present stability of the sloped lots. Proper channeling of surface water WILL ELIMINATE existing erosion problems in the creek. C. SUPPORT: See the calculations by Maes & Associates and the conditions of approval #G5 and #G6. Refer to Darwin Myers report "in our opinion, the outlook for long term stability of a well designed and properly constructed project on the site is good." 28 Merrill Circle • Moraga, CA 94556 • (510) 631-6623 • Fax (510) 631-0933 General Contracting & Engineering 0 Contractors License # 703457 Y 11 NUMBER TWO A. "would spoil the rural setting around the neighborhood" "even the building of 2 homes will effect our small community" B. ANSWER: Four homes have been designed In a staggered positioning on the three acres In order to keep the rural setting. C. SUPPORT: See pictures of Heritage Oaks Drive. This is a congested subdivision street with homes much closer. together than our planned development. Also, see photographs of Miranda Avenue and Miranda Place. 92 homes, mostly 2 story, present LESS than a rural setting. The approval of a three lot subdivision adjoining this project on the east side of Camino Monte Sol has already changed this rural setting. The above encompass the east, west and the north boundary of this proposed project, leaving only the south boundary which belongs to-Mrs. Broom. NUMBER THREE A. "two story homes would be obtrusive and should be limited to 25' high" most surrounding homes are only 1 story" B. ANSWER: Most surrounding homes are NOT one story (see photographs #1, #12, #13, #14 & #15). A 25 foot height limit should NOT be Imposed. C. SUPPORT: Using a county guideline (of a 300 foot area from all exterior corners of the project) the area encompassed would have MORE TWO STORY homes than single story homes. (See photographs #1, #12, #13, #14 & #15). As per R-20 zoning, a 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT IS ALLOWED. NUMBER FOUR A. "project would interfere and impact the wildlife-that live in the area" B. ANSWER: Creek area and hillside sites have been evaluated by the Department of Fish and Game and the project HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY as proposed, subject to recommended conditions. C. SUPPORT: See Fish and Game Report #228-95 NUMBER FIVE A. "neighbors feel TRICKED by the contractors of Whitecliff Homes subdivision and do NOT want that to happen again" ownerJdeveloper wants to exercise their rights to sub-divide this R-20 zoned land to include only four homesites on the THREE acres. with the expert advice and counsel of: O Mr. Dennis Barry, Deputy Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department August _9, 1995 Page 2 The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District also suggested the need for a turnaround at or near the proposed building site, an issue which does not appear to have been addressed by the Community Development Department, except for advisory Note B which simply refers the applicant to the Fire Protection District letter. Also, while the Fire Protection District specifies "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1" signs on both sides of Camino Monte Sol , the Community Development report requires two additional on-street parking spaces for each house, within 150 feet of each parcel . Taken together, I consider this four unit proposal an excessive increase in fire danger to the lives of the residents on Camino Monte Sol . I am also concerned about the possibility of land movement on the steep slope at the eastern end of the proposed subdivision, an issue which I do not think has been adequately addressed. This subject was raised in the Darwin Myers report; but you should be aware of other factors affecting this issue. (1). Since moving into my home seven years ago, there has been at least one minor slide on the Jensen property which ran over a portion of the driveway into my house. (2) The concrete terrace.behind my house already shows signs of strain in that some .of the slabs .have separated. (3 There is a hillside house about a mile away, in the Sugarl-oaf area, that I understand has already slipped on its foundation and has had to be reinforced. While this occurrence happened a mile away, it does not improve my comfort.level concerning the soil stability in the area. The Darwin Myers letter of July 6, 1995 indicated that site grading, drainage Mand foundation design "will need to be sensitive to the hazard of deep soil creep/sliding," and that "the development must be designed to -improve slope stability." Darwin Myers then opines that "the outlook for long-term stability -of a well designed and properly constructed project on the site is good." Frankly, I do not consider the applicant's track record on matters relating to this property to be very promising of future performance. First, when he acquired the property there was a sign on Camino Monte Sol that advertised it as the home of two future estate lots, a plan he confirmed orally in discussions with my wife. Without further notification to the people' he had misled, the number of lots was expanded to four in .his submission to the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) . When the AIA asked for a revised proposal for fewer lots, he simply went around it to the county. He also neglected the very important subject of weed abatement until his neglect and the reports by neighbors to the San Ramon Fire District were mentioned at the July 31 hearing. The weed abatement occurred on August l,' halfway through the most dangerous fire season. It also concerns me that the applicant's civil engineer took it upon himself to suggest to the environmental research and engineering geology organization hired Mr. Dennis Barry, Deputy Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department August 9, 1995 Page 3 by the county that it restrict its opinions to geological and geotechnical issues (see Darwin Myers letter of July 6) . I do not consider the civil engineer's comments to be helpful nor in the best interest of open discussion. In my opinion, there are enough significant geologic, drainage and environmental issues related to this property to require an Environmental Impact Report before any work is begun. Actually, I was surprised to learn from the letter .of one adjacent property homeowner that he lost between ten and twelve feet of land behind his property this year. It is clear to me that the land on this property is not stable, soil erosion is a distinct danger and drainage in the Miranda Creek has become a critical problem. Yet, the suggestion for an EIR has been ignored. It does not appear to me that the proposed subdivision complies with the 1991 Contra Costa General Plan provision for Single Family Residential -Low Density. The staff report distributed at the July 31 hearing incorrectly stated that the lots adjacent to the property range in size from 0.5 acres to 1.5 acres. My property, which abuts the eastern end of the proposed subdivision is 4.85 acres. The Nelson property on the north and the Jensen property on the northeast both exceed 1.5 acres, although I do not know their exact size. The General Plan requires that residential density shall decrease as slope increases especially above 15%. The Bernardo application proposes the exact opposite of this requirement. Most of the houses adjacent to the property are one-story, although, as the staff report indicates, there are two-story houses in the surrounding areas. Those two-story houses, however, are not on a hillside and do not destroy the integrity of the landscape. And, they are not crammed into a location traversed by a creek across two of the parcels, covered with numerous oak trees and on highly expansive soil types. I do not see how this proposed development could be considered low density in accordance with the General Plan. Please understand that we do not oppose development in general , as long as it is carried out in a logical , orderly manner with due consideration to the health, safety and welfare of others in the area and to the environment. We have never opposed another application in our area, and there has been much development activity. But, we do oppose excessive development that injures the environment, conflicts. with the general welfare and drives property values down. I hope that these comments, taken together with those of my wife and our neighbors, will convince you of the inadvisability of permitting this plan to Mr. Dennis Barry, Deputy Director Contra Costa County Communi-ty Development Department August 9, 1995 Page 4.. take effect. A one or two parcel subdivision with one-story homes would at least be compatible with the General Plan and conform to the local ambience. Sincerely, Burton. E. Broome cc: Gayle Bishop, Supervisor, District Three Steve Wright, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Services, Public Works Department Michael Mentink, Fire Inspector, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District w NI Gabor M and Edith Rubanyi 2426 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, CA 94507 11 c County Zoning Administrator JUL311995 Contra Costa County Development Department "'"•1TRA COSTA COUNTY 651 Pine Street ADMINISTRATOR MEETAUG Martinez, CA July 28, 1995 Dear Sir/Nladame, We have received a notice of a Public Hearing on a minor subdivision application by Bernardo Construction to be held on July 31, 1995. Since we'll be out of town during this time and therefore can not be present in person on the hearing, we would like to submit this written opposition against the planned subdivision to be developed in our backyard. As we have already voiced it on a previous public hearing in Alamo, we have the following reasons to oppose the development: (1) The development includes one of the last open areas in this part of town in the vicinity of the creek, which is a refuge for wildlife(animal and plant). The planned development would pose a serious threat to this wildlife. (2) The building of homes near the creek would increase the threat of serious flood of the creek in case of heavy rain as in the last rainy season. (3) Construction will significantly increase the erosion of the slope, which represents the foundation of our home. (4) The chimneys of some of the planned new homes would be at the level of our living areas which may present a serious health hazard. (5) Finally we believe that the building of several homes in this small area will decrease our property value due to the ruined view, increased noise, health hazards and environmental destruction. Based on the above we totally oppose the approval of the planned subdivision. Sincerely Ga�or M Rubanyi, MD Edith Rubanyi Ec LA >> D jUL 3 11 995 " ".JTRA COSTA COUNTY '�lSS ADMINISTRATOR MEET XG Timothy R. & Susan R. Bottoms 2418 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, CA 94507 July 31 , 1995 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA Attention: County Zoning Administrator G, Subject: County File #MS94001 1 JUL 3 11995 `TRA COSTA COUNTY Dear Sir/Madame 'fiN3 AW1,I41STRATOR MEE 10 In respect . to the above mentioned file, and Bernardo Construction's approval for a variance on average lot width, we strenuously object to this application for the following reasons: 1 . The proposed variance would create a greater density of homes in an area which has seen development reasonably contained. This density would only benefit the developer, allowing it to pack more homes into a limited space, and disadvantage the area for existing homeowners. 2. The proposed variance would create inconsistency with the existing neighborhood. In our case, our "frontage" (width) is approximately 138 feet. Allowing exceptions to the minimum lot width of 120 feet will create an inconsistent appeal and disadvantage existing homeowners in terms of appeal, sale ability, and ultimately market value. 3. The proposed development may create a hazard to a number of neighbors. Given the unique piece of property to be developed, and the existing slope, any "cut and fill" may negatively impact drainage into the exisisting creek, thus heightening the potential for flooding. In addition, the development may undermine the stability of the existing soil condition related to the slope in at least three, if not more existing homes. V In addition to strenuously opposing this variance, we also continue to oppose the subdivision itself as we believe it could have a negative environmental impact (despite the existing Negative Declaration, a copy of which we have not seen), will potentially obstruct .our views, and could provide pollutants from chimneys which rise to our existing home level. We appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns and hope the county will recognize the legitimate concerns of its citizens in opposing suburban sprawl. Alamo is a unique neighborhood. Let's leave it that way. Sincerely, Timothy . Botto C"-, l Susan R. Bottoms JUL 3zj 395 RA COSTA COUNTY ,1914IN!StRATQR MEEL:G 171-e �j s 1� J ,�- Ald / i. �. 4 � ����� �� ���� ����� Q� �%� G�� f°�QPv �� . 6�� �� n . hM" r ✓ e 440 �Q . • * �_+� �Gam` A411, �-� All Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County We the undersigned support the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to require an environmental impact report on the Camino Monte Sol Property MS11-94 (Bernardo) and oppose the appeal of that decision submitted to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors by Mr. Bernardo for the following reasons: 1. The property is far too steep for the development proposed. by Mr. Bernardo, 2. The soil on the property is unstable and there is evidence of landslide, 3. There is evidence of severe erosion to the property along the stream at the base of the development, 4. The development would excessively increase the danger of fire to the property and the surrounding homeowners, and 5. The safeguards proposed by the Community Development Department are insufficient to protect life and property from the increased perils. Ulf((tt) Will am & Marian Pulliam Richar & S6ndra.. Ralp[V" - 2622 Miranda Avenue 250 Miranda Place Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Thomas & Jeanne Morris Mark & Katrina Watson 2640 Miranda Avenue 2710 Miranda Avenue Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Mark & KAren carlett gri Maria Jansen 2720 Mir venue 25 Camino Monte Sol Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Gabor & Edith Rubanyi Timothy & Susan Bottoms 2426 Heritage Oaks Drive 2418 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, CA 9.4507 Alamo, CA 94507 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County We the undersigned support the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to require an environmental impact report on the Camino Monte Sol Property MS11-94 (Bernardo) and oppose the appeal of that decision submitted to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors by Mr. Bernardo for the following reasons: 1. The property is far too steep for the development proposed by Mr. Bernardo, 2. The soil on the property is unstable and there is evidence of landslide, 3. There is evidence of severe erosion to the property along the stream at the base of the development, 4. The development would excessively increase the danger of fire to the property and the surrounding homeowners, and 5. The safeguards proposed by the Community Development Department are insufficient to protect life and property from the increased perils. Steven, Jr. & Sharon olcyn Carl & Bodil Ahroon 2394 Heritage Oaks Drive 2410 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 i Pat & Bob ooday Georcfe C. Wood 2402 Heritage Oaks Drive 230 Miranda Place Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507-1454 Be any augur a Michael & Colleen Black 2716 Miriarfida Aven e 2434 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 urt & Anne Broome 20 Camino Monte Sol Alamo, CA 94507 Board of Supervisors ! Contra Costa County We the undersigned support the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to require an environmental impact report on the Camino Monte Sol Property MS11-94 (Bernardo) and oppose the appeal of that decision submitted to the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors by Mr. Bernardo for the following reasons: 1 . The property is far too steep for the development proposed by Mr. Bernardo, 2. The soil on the property is unstable and there is evidence of landslide, 3. There is evidence of severe erosion to the property along the stream at the base of the development, 4. The development would excessively increase the danger of fire to the property and the surrounding homeowners, and 5. The safeguards proposed by the Community Development Department are insufficient to protect life and property from the increased perils. Robert & Debra Feld Tony & Anna Lee 2425 Heritage Oaks Drive 2386 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Mr�v arr mi y Gar David & Shelley Sonnenbek 365 iranda Lane 375 Miranda Lane Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 W Davcan & ith Wilkins 34 Miranda Lane Alamo, CA 94507 20 Camino Monte Sol Alamo, CA 94507-1422 November 20, 1995 Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Vesting Tentative Map MS11-94 (Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area, Contra Costa County APN 193-030-009 This letter is written in support of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision to require an Environmental Impact Report on the captioned property and in opposition to the appeal of that decision by Mr. Jon R. Bernardo. Our concerns regarding the proposed development are described in Exhibit I to this letter. Our arguments against the assertions made by Mr. Bernardo in his letter of October 2, 1995 to the Community Development Department are set out in Exhibit II. We have previously expressed our concerns to the Community Development Department. Specifically, we do not believe that the mitigation monitoring program proposed by the Community Development Department and accepted by the Zoning Administrator is sufficient to ensure the orderly development of this property. We believe that additional safeguards are required to protect against landslides, maintain the environmental integrity of the area, mitigate fire dangers and avoid a reduction in property values adjacent to the subdivision. Please note that this subdivision is not a development proposed to be appended to the perimeter of an existing development. Rather, it is the construction of homes right in the center of existing developed property, and unless we obtain the additional safeguards sought in this appeal we believe that the new development will conflict seriously with the existing homes. We have never opposed development in Alamo or anywhere else and, in fact, we do not oppose the development of this subdivision, provided A meets the requirements of an Environmental Impact Report. If this development proceeds as approved by the Zoning Administrator, however, we believe that it will injure the environment, conflict with the general welfare, increase the risks to life and property, and drive property values down. It is for these reasons that we appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision. And, as you will see from the petition filed with the Board for consideration at its November 28, 1995 hearing, we are supported in this appeal by all but one (who plans to benefit economically from the development) of the neighbors within 300 feet of the subdivision. Specifically, we request that the following amendments be made to the approved vesting tentative map requirements: 1) A minimum 100-foot easement should be required at the easterly end of the proposed subdivision in order to reduce the risk of landslides, provided that the Environmental Impact report even indicates that building is appropriate. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County November 20, 1995 Page 2 2) The 25-foot height restriction included in the original declaration should be qualified to indicate that no home should exceed one story. 3) The proposed subdivision should be reviewed to ensure its compliance with the provisions of the 1991 Contra Costa General Plan. 4) The developer should be required to comply with the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District that fire access roadways have a minimum, unobstructed width of 20 feet. 5) No more than two homes should be permitted to be constructed on the subdivision. 6) No work should be permitted. on the property until an Environmental Impact Report is prepared. Each of these requests is more fully explained in Exhibit I to this letter. We will be pleased to discuss any of the issues raised in this appeal with you when appropriate. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Burton E. Broome Anne C. Broome Enclosures: Exhibit I - Concerns regarding subdivision Exhbiit II - Response to Mr. Bernardo's assertions 1 Vesting Tentative Map EXHIBIT I MS11-94 (Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area, Contra Costa County APN 193-030-009 Mitigation Procedures Proposed to Ensure Safe Development of Property 1. A 20-foot scenic easement at the eastern end of the proposed subdivision is not adequate. A minimum 100-foot easement should be required. The scenic easement in question is directly below our property and on the steepest slope of the hill on which the subdivision is to be developed. The vesting tentative map originally prepared by Maes & Associates and attached to the Darwin Myers report of February 7, 1995 indicated that the proposed building site on Lot D was right on this steep slope described by Darwin Myers as located on "a relatively steep, marginally stable hillside." Also according to the Darwin Myers report, "Available evidence indicates that the northern portion of these lots is a bedrock hollow that is filled with colluvium/slide debris. Should this material become mobilized, it could slide toward the creek channel . " We are extremely concerned that any encroachment on this hillside will weaken the soil substructure and cause a landslide that could destroy our home. It is for this reason that we believe that the minimum scenic easement below our property line should be 100 feet. Although the Darwin Myers report of February 7, 1995 indicates that slopes over 26% shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading, it appears that Lot D in the original Bernardo Construction application ignores this requirement. (We have not seen a revised application for three lots, so all of the comments in this appeal refer to the original application.) The Darwin Myers report refers to slopes ranging from 25% to 45% and indicates the need for considerable grading to develop this lot, whereas the staff report refers incorrectly to slopes ranging from 15% to 26%. In fact the Darwin Myers report indicates that Lots A, C and D are in areas where natural slopes are greater than 26% for at least some of the building site. We are especially concerned about the possibility of land movement on the steep slope at the eastern end of the proposed subdivision, an issue which we do not think has been adequately addressed. This subject was raised in the Darwin Myers report, but there are other factors affecting this issue. (1) Since moving into our home seven years ago, there has been at least one minor slide on the Jansen property which ran over a portion of our driveway. (2) The concrete terrace behind our house, facing Lot D, already shows signs of strain in that some of the slabs have separated. It appears that the former owner of our house laid telephone poles along the base of the terrace to prevent further soil erosion and slippage. V EXHIBIT I (Continued) (3) There is a hillside house a few miles away that we understand has already slipped on its foundation and has had to be reinforced. While this occurrence happened some distance away, it does indicate a certain amount of soil instability in the area. (4) We also understand that there has been slide activity on a portion of the hill behind our home. The Darwin Myers letter of July 6, 1995 indicated that site grading, drainage and foundation design "will need to be sensitive to the hazard of deep soil creep/sliding," and that "the development must be designed to improve slope stability." Darwin Myers then opines that "the outlook for long-term stability of a well designed and properly constructed project on the site is good. Frankly, I do not consider the applicant's track record on matters relating to this property to be very promising of future performance. First, when he acquired the property there was a sign on Camino Monte Sol that advertised it as the home of two future one and one- half acre estate lots, a plan he confirmed orally in discussions with a number of the surrounding neighbors. In fact, a previous plan drawn up by Maes & Associates, the applicant's civil engineer, showed only two lots. Without further notification to the people he had misled, the number of lots was expanded to four in his submission to the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) . When the AIA asked for a revised proposal for fewer lots, he simply went around it to the county. He also neglected the very important subject of weed abatement required to protect the surrounding homes from the extremely hazardous fire danger. His neglect was reported by neighbors to the San Ramon Fire District who notified him twice of his weed abatement obligations. After ignoring both notices, the weed abatement had to be performed by the county. It also concerns us that the applicant's civil engineer took it upon himself to suggest to the environmental research and engineering geology organization hired by the county that it restrict its opinions to geological and geotechnical issues (see Darwin Myers letter of July 6) . We do not consider the civil engineer's comments to be helpful nor in the best interest of open discussion. 2. The 25-foot height restriction on the new homes should be qualified to indicate that no home should exceed one story. The Contra Costa Community Development Department staff report takes note of the recommendations of the Alamo Improvement Association that: Residence sites should be located further from the creek structure setback line Homes should be one-story or split level , and - The highest residence should be sited much further down the hillside. 2 r, EXHIBIT I (Continued) The staff report seems to accept the first recommendation, but it does not address the third, and it simply rejects the second in spite of the fact that virtually all surrounding homes on the hillside are one-story. We believe that the visual impact of these structures on the hill should be given more careful consideration and that the AIA recommendations be adopted. Most of the houses adjacent to the property are one-story, although, as the staff report indicates, there are two-story houses in the surrounding areas. Those two-story houses, however, are not on a hillside and do not destroy the integrity of the landscape. And, they are not crammed into a location traversed by a creek across two of the parcels, covered with numerous oak trees and on highly expansive soil types. It should be noted that this subdivision is in the middle of an already developed area. It is not on the periphery of another area, but right in the center, and the surrounding properties are virtually all one story. Certainly the adjacent properties on the hillside, to the north and east of the subdivision, are one story. Two story buildings, especially two story buildings on a hillside, will conflict with the ambience of the existing developed properties and mar the tranquility of the entire areas. 3. The proposed subdivision does not appear to comply with the provisions of the 1991 Contra Costa,General Plan. The staff report distributed at the July 31 hearing. incorrectly stated that the lots adjacent to the property range in size from 0.5 acres to 1.5 acres. Our property, which abuts the eastern end of the proposed subdivision is 4.85 acres. The Nelson property on the north and the Jansen property on the northeast both exceed 1.5 acres, although we do not know their exact size. The General Plan requires that residential density shall decrease as slope increases especially above 15%. The Bernardo application proposes the exact opposite of this requirement. As indicated earlier, Mr. Bernardo led us to believe that he intended to put two estate lots on the subdivision. In fact at that point the only map we had seen was the Maes & Associates map showing two lots. Had we known that the original two lot plan would be changed without notice to a four lot proposal we most certainly would have requested a rezoning of the subdivision to lower density. It is still incredible to us that anyone would wish to squeeze three or four lots into such a dangerous, 'restricted area. 4. The developer should be required to comply with the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District that fire access roadways have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet. 3 c{ EXHIBIT I (Continued) The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District specified that "fire access roadways must have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet . . . " Yet, the Community Development Department is allowing a 16 foot width up to a maximum grade of 20%. If 16 foot width is considered inadequate now,, then it was inadequate when the previous road standards were in effect. Certainly, we would not expect our insurance company to charge lower rates because .the road complies with outdated standards. Noncompliance with existing standards seems foolhardy, if not dangerous, when presented with this singular opportunity. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District also suggested the need for a turnaround at or near the. proposed building site, an issue which does not appear to have been addressed by the Community Development Department, except for advisory Note B which simply refers the applicant to the Fire Protection District letter. Also, while the Fire Protection District specifies "NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500.1" signs on both sides of Camino Monte Sol , the Community Development report requires two additional on-street parking spaces for each house, within 150 feet of each parcel . Taken together, we consider this three unit proposal an excessive increase in fire danger to the lives of the residents on Camino Monte Sol . As to the increased fire hazard, it appears that the Community Development Department is dealing with each proposed development on Camino Monte Sol separately. As far as we know, the Nelson property, directly across from the Bernardo property, has been subdivided from one lot into three. The Jansen property, to the east of Nelson, has been subdivided from one into two, and another property further east (Steffan), which would require an extension of Camino Monte Sol , has asked for a subdivision into three lots. With three lots for Bernardo, that is an increase of nine new homes, from three on Camino Monte Sol now to 12 if the Bernardo application is approved. That is a lot of traffic for such a steep narrow incline. 5. No more than two homes should be permitted to be constructed on the subdivision. The Darwin Myers report of February 7, 1995 indicated that construction of the driveway on Lot B requires work in the creek channel to stabilize its banks and placing fill in the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak. In Darwin Myers opinion, this alignment would adversely impact the 36-inch diameter oak, would have visual impacts and could reduce the biologic resource value of the land adjacent to the creek. None of these concerns appears to have been addressed by the Contra. Costa Community Development Department. .4 EXHIBIT I (Continued) The Darwin Myers report also recommends that Lots C and D be combined. It is very difficult to evaluate the Zoning Administrator's approved vesting tentative map because the. only maps we have seen are for two or four lots, and the approved subdivision is for three lots. None of the Community Development Department recommendations, however, appear to address the crowded, unsafe, environmentally damaging conditions that would occur if more than two buildings were constructed on the subdivision. We believe that the applicant's original stated intention to subdivide into no more than two lots should be enforced. 6. No work should be permitted on the property until an Environmental Impact Report is prepared. There seems to be enough significant geologic, drainage and environmental issues related to this property to require an Environmental Impact Report before any work is begun. A letter included in the Community Development Department file from one adjacent property homeowner indicates that he lost between ten and twelve feet of land behind his property this year. It is clear that the land on this property is not stable, soil erosion is a distinct danger and drainage in the Miranda Creek has become a critical problem. Yet, the suggestion for an EIR has been ignored. The Darwin Myers report of February 7 indicated that in their opinion the applicant has not demonstrated consistency with the General Plan Policies pertaining to slope stability, and that the potential geologic impacts could be a basis for requiring preparation of an EIR. "As noted previously, the building sites on proposed Lots C and D are on a relatively steep, marginally stable hillside." They are also "within the photointerpretive slide mapped by Nilsen. " These comments have not been addressed in the staff report. November 20, 1995 5 Vesting Tentative Map EXHIBIT II MS11-94 (Bernardo) Camino Monte Sol Property Alamo Area, Contra Costa County APN 193-030-009 Response to Bernardo Appeal Dated October 2, 1995 The following comments are intended to clarify and respond to the claims asserted by Mr. Jon R. Bernardo of Constructive Ideas, Inc. in his letter of appeal dated October 2, 1995 to the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. ITEM #1. Mr. Bernardo states that the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission has accepted Anne Broome's appeal for an Environmental Impact Report. Response: As to the appellant, it should be noted that the letter of appeal was signed by Burton E. Broome and Anne C. Broome and supported by the signatures of 14 homeowners within 300 feet of the subdivision. To imply that the appeal came from one individual is, in our opinion, misleading. All but one of the homeowners adjoining the property have opposed the proposed subdivision from the start. The one homeowner who has not objected plans to benefit economically from the proposed development. A petition signed by 10 of the 12 immediately adjacent property owners was filed by the Alamo Improvement Association with its November 11, 1994 letter to the Community Development Department. Separate letters from a number of adjacent homeowners were also filed and are part of the record on this issue. Mr. Bernardo indicates that he is unable to receive a response from the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission regarding the reasons for its finding. The reasons were stated very clearly in the February 7, 1995 letter from Darwin Myers to the Community Development Department. Under the heading "General Recommendations, " Darwin Myers stated: "In our opinion, the applicant has not demonstrated consistency with the General Plan Policies pertaining to slope stability, and these potential geologic impacts could be a basis for requiring preparation of an EIR. They may also be biologic or visual quality effects. As noted previously, the building sites on proposed Lots C and D are on a relatively steep, marginally stable hillside. . . " Virtually every letter written by adjacent homeowners has raised environmental issues, and the letters dated June 19, 1995 from Anne C. Broome, August 9, 1995 from Burton E. Broome, and August 22, 1995 from Anne C. and Burton E. Broome commented specifically on the need for an EIR and/or the Community Development Department's lack of response to this issue. In fact, in its comments to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission dated September 20, 1995 the Community Development Department finally conceded that an Environmental Impact Report may be necessary. Mr. Bernardo also refers to this comment in his October 2, 1995 letter. In our view, the need for an EIR is patently obvious based on even the most superficial reading of the reports and letters of comment in the Community Development Department's files. 1 EXHIBIT II (Continued) Now we would like to respond to Mr. Bernardo's other assertions. Assertion: Mr. Bernardo alleges that the building sites are not unstable. In his submission, Mr. Bernardo cites one comment included in the Darwin Myers letter of July 6, 1995, a comment that was also cited in the Broome letters of August 9 and August 22, 1995. This quotation is not, therefore, a new issue. Of more significance is the absence in Mr. Bernard's October 22 letter of any other citations from the Darwin Myers letter, such as: ". . .the building sites on Lots C and D are within an area mantled by surficial deposits (either slopewash deposits or slide deposits) . The bore holes logged by Underdahl Geotechnical indicate that the depth to rock is relatively shallow. Clearly site grading, drainage and foundation design will need to be sensitive to the hazard of deep soil creep/sliding. . . " " . . .The COA could require that the applicant build a see-through fence on the scenic easement line prior to the issuance of construction permits on the lot (Lot D) . It should also required that the applicant prepare a statement to be recorded with the deed that would prohibit grading, construction of fences, or development with the scenic easement. . . " "If the terrace area adjacent to Miranda Creek on the northern portion of the proposed parcel C is deemed by staff to be environmental sensitive, it too could be included in a scenic easement. The easement should/could also include the oversteeped wooded slope that extends into the westernmost portion of Lot D. " Nor does Mr. Bernardo quote from the Darwin Myers February 7, 1995 report, which states in part: "The site is in an outcrop belt of weakly consolidated sedimentary rocks of Pliocene age. The mapping of Nilsen (1979) indicates that the Swale in the , northeast portion of the site is a photointerpretative landslide : . . . "*The building sites on proposed Lots C and D are within the photointerpretive slide mapped by Nilsen. This feature may be a dormant slide or a colluvial filled bedrock hollow. In either case, there is a risk that these surficial deposits could be mobilized and flow westerly, toward the creek. " "*There is a steep, eroding slope that is experiencing soil creep in the west portion of proposed Lot C and the adjacent portion of Lot B. This slope was created in pre-historic time by the stream bank erosion. " "*A slide scarp (probably a debris low chute) approximately 100 feet long, 3 feet deep and 15 feet wide is present in the northern portion of Lot C. The modern stream channel is trapezonal -shaped and approximately 5 feet deep. From top-of-bank to top-of-bank the channel width is approximately 20 feet. The banks possess a 1 : 1 (H:V) gradients and are sloughing. The channel is cut into an old stream terrace, remnants of which are intermittently present at an elevation of +355+/-. 2 u EXHIBIT II (Continued) The development concept proposes grading of the creek banks to produce slopes of 2:5:1 (H:V) ." "*The building sites on proposed Lots A, C and D are in areas where natural slopes are greater than 26% for at least some of the building site. The driveway to the residence on proposed Lot B requires placing fill within the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak, trimming its branches, and constructing a driveway adjacent to a creek bank." "Driveway to Building Site on Parcel B This driveway. is adjacent to an eroding creek bank. Construction of this driveway requires work in the creek channel to stabilize its banks and placing fill in the dripline of a 36-inch diameter oak. In our opinion, this alignment would adversely impact the 36-inch diameter oak, would have visual impacts and could reduce the biologic resource value of the land adjacent to the creek. It would require a permit from the California Department of Fish and Game." "Lots C and D The driveways and potential building sites are within an area of thick soils that may be an old slide area. Although this area is marginally stable at present, it may be sensitive to grading and development. Moreover, irrigation of yard areas on the proposed lots may reduce the stability of the soils in this bedrock hollow. These factors, in combination with unusually heavy rains and possible strong earthquake shaking, may induce sliding." "Parcel D Within the building site area the existing slopes range from 25 to 45 percent, and existing elevations range from +403 to 422 feet (19 feet of relief) . This implies considerable grading to develop this lot. " The existence of earth slippage and possible landslides was brought to the attention of the Community Development Department in letters from Thomas and Jeanne Morris, Timothy and Susan Bottoms, Mark and Karen Scarlett, Bill Pulliam, Mark and Katrina Watson, and Gabor and Edith Rubanyi , owners of property adjacent to the proposed subdivision. In fact, Mr. Watson indicated in his letter that he lost between 10 and 12 feet of land behind his property this year. For these reasons and for others stated in item 1 of our appeal of August 22, 1995 it is our view that there is substantial evidence that the proposed building sites are on dangerously unstable land. Assertion: Mr. Bernardo states that Mrs. Broome's comment that he told her that there were two houses to be built on the property is "a falsehood manufactured by Anne Broome". 3 1 EXHIBIT II (Continued) It is unfortunate that Mr. Bernardo has decided to reduce our differences of opinion to the level of accusations. If he does not remember stating that two houses would be built he should say so. Certainly, he cannot dispute the fact that a sign appeared on the property 'just after he bought it stating something along the lines of "future location of two estate home developments" . This sign was brought to Mr. Bernardo's attention at the Alamo Improvement Association meeting and he did not deny its existence. . Assertion: Mr. Bernardo indicates that the plan drawn by Maes and Associates for two lots on the property was not drawn for him. We have never stated nor have we in any way implied that the plan was drawn for Mr. Bernardo but we merely cited its existence as a factor reinforcing our reliance on Mr. Bernardo's indication that the property would contain no more than two homes. After all , it was drawn by the applicant's civil engineer and we had no knowledge that such a plan could, as Mr. Bernardo states, affect taxes on the property. Assertion: Mr. Bernardo indicates that he did not notify the neighboring property owners of his plan to build four lots because the neighbors were at the AIA meeting and there was no reason to notify them. The first indication to our knowledge that Mr. Bernardo gave of his intention to build four lots was at the AIA meeting. It may be that the adjacent homeowners did not attend that meeting because they were under the impression that no more than two lots would be built. In our view, Mr. Bernardo made every effort to lead the adjacent property owners into believing that only two homes would be built and then, without prior notification, simply filed for a four unit subdivision. Assertion: Mr. Bernardo denies that he went around the AIA to the county for approval of his four unit subdivision. The Alamo Improvement Association asked Mr. Bernardo for a revised proposal , and he neither submitted such a proposal nor advised AIA why its actions were unacceptable. He. simply ignored the request and applied to the Community Development Department. As far as we can tell from Mr. Bernardo's comments, he does not deny doing this. Assertion: Mr. Bernardo indicates that after becoming aware of the uncut weeds at the July 21 zoning hearing, the weeds were cut down within three days. In fact, Mr. Bernardo did not cut these weeds. The weeds were arranged to be cut by the County after it received a number of complaints regarding Mr. Bernardo's failure to act. It is our understanding that Mr. Bernardo was notified of the need to perform the abatement with no response from him, after which the County issued a work order and billed Mr. Bernardo for the cost. Assertion: Mr. Bernardo alleges that John Maes was correct in suggesting that Darwin Myers restrict its opinions to geology and geotechnical issues. 4 1 EXHIBIT II (Continued) Mr. Maes was hired by Mr. Bernardo to perform civil engineering duties and has clearly acted as an advocate for Mr. Bernardo's position throughout the various hearings and investigations. We do not believe it is proper for a contractor's . advocate to suggest that experienced and knowledgeable consultants hired by the county restrict their opinions to matters to which the advocate believes it should be limited. The county is responsible for the investigation of the property's condition and it alone should set the standards it requires of its consultants. It is clear to us that Darwin Myers has a point of view and should be allowed to express its opinion appropriately. ITEM #2: Mr.. Bernardo indicates that, in his opinion, the decision by the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission to deny his appeal for the Zoning Administration decision should be reversed. In his appeal Mr. Bernardo refers to the Contra Costa County General Plan and alleges that his proposal complies with that plan. For the reasons stated in our submission to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission and accompanying this submission we believe Mr. Bernardo's proposal does not comply with the General Plan. The Darwin Myers report of February 7 indicated that in its opinion the applicant has not demonstrated consistency with the General Plan Policies pertaining to slope stability and that potential geologic impact could be a basis for requiring preparation of an EIR. "As noted previously the building sites on proposed Lots C and D are on a relatively steep, marginally stable hillside." Although the Darwin Myers report indicates that slopes over 26% shall be considered unsuitable for types of development which require extensive grading, it appears that Lot D in the original Bernardo application ignores this requirement. The Darwin Myers report refers to slopes ranging from 25% to 45% and indicates the need for considerable grading to develop Lot D, where the staff report refers incorrectly to slopes ranging from 15% to 26%. In fact the Darwin Myers report indicates that Lots A, C and D are in areas where natural slopes are greater than 26% for at least some of the building sites. Mr. Bernardo also refers to the permit issued by the Department of Fish and Game to improve the property bordering Miranda Creek. This permit was issued before many of the documents filed in this submission were prepared and was, we believe, issued without knowledge of the substantial additional exposure to erosion that will be caused by the development of this property. ITEM #3: Mr. Bernardo is appealing the decision by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to deny his appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a 35 foot height limit. 5 1 EXHIBIT II (Continued) The Zoning Administrator issued a permit to build to a 25 foot height limit. In our view, the Zoning Administrator ignored the AIA recommendation that homes on this property should be one story or split level , and that the highest residence should be sited much further down the hillside. As noted in previous submissions; most of the houses adjacent to the property are one story, although as the staff report indicates, there are two story houses in the surrounding area. Those two story hoses, however, are not on a hillside and do not destroy the integrity of the landscape. And, they are not crammed into a location traversed by a creek across two of the parcels covered with numerous oak trees and on highly expansive soil types. Additionally, we believe that the visual . impact of these structures on the hill should be given more careful consideration and that the AIA recommendations in this regard be adopted. November 20, 1995 t 6 November 7, 1995 TO: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SUBJECT: JON R. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION APPEAL RE: PROPERTY APPROX. 600 FEET ON SOUTH SIDE OF CAMINO MONTE SOL IN ALAMO, CALIF. My name is Bill Pulliam, I reside at 2622 Miranda Avenue, Alamo, and my property is adjacent to the subject property. I have attended several meetings regarding the proposed property development by Bernardo Construction of the Camino Monte Sol land. However, satisfactory solutions have not been consummated. except for the last meeting of September 20, 1995. At this meeting, chaired by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, the decision was rendered that an environmental impact study be performed "prior" to any decision regarding the Camino Monte Sol property. This decision was based on testimony from concerned neighbors; land stability; proximity of creek, and two proposed low .level lots; multi-story homes vice surrounding existing single-story homes; number of proposed homes of four vice two, and interpretation of road width and slope. The land stability, slope, excessive grading, and potential home sites, etc. are documented in the Darwin Myers and Associates written report, dated February 7, 1995. This report was prepared for the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. However, "four" months later, June 7, 1995, after an on-site visit with Jon Bernardo, Darwin Myers and Associates stated "there were no problems??". This inconsistency makes one question this fine's credibility - "how does unstable land become STABLE in four months time??? 1 have not seen nor been apprised of any changes which would alter the September 20, 1995 decision by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission that an "environmental impact study be performed PRIOR to any decision made concerning the Camino Monte Sol property". Myself, and adjoining property owners feel very strongly the Sept mber 20, 1995 decision should be upheld without compromise. Bill P l=am