HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10151996 - D4 e
DA
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Date: October 15, 1996 Matter of Recoid
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the report presented by
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, on Dame Construction
Company's compliance with the Conditions of Approval for Bettencourt Ranch
in the Tassajara area.
The following people presented testimony:
Bob Jensen, 200 South Ridge Court, Danville;
Kathryn Straub, 3834 Sheffield Circle, Danville;
Sheila Savage, 4484 Fleetwood Road, Danville;
Julia Durmis, 807 Buckingham, Danville;
Richard Case, 1159 Cheshire Circle, Danville;
Nancy Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville.
All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the
matter.
Supervisor Bishop advised that she would contact the Community
Development Department regarding the filing of the Final Map and the
Conditions being met.
The Board continued to discuss the issue, and no action was taken
THIS MATTER IS FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION WAS TAKEN
t �f�.•6� __L •Off, �• ��
•-' '� Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSCOUnt�
s
11
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON , ,��r •c3~,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT s a coax•
DATE: October 9, 1996
SUBJECT: Report on Response to Public Comments at the Board of Supervisors
Hearing of October 8, 1996 Concerning Compliance with Conditions of
Approval for Bettencourt Ranch, in the Tassajara area. (File #DP953004)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accept Report .
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On October 8, 1996, Nancy Mulvihill, a resident of Bettencourt
Ranch offered comments to the Board of Supervisors during the
Public Comment period at the Board' s hearing. She expressed
concern that the Community Development Department had cleared a
building permit for trail and bridge-related improvements
associated with a recreation facility development within the
project. She indicated that she felt that such action is contrary
to the May 21, 1996 Board of Supervisors approval of a modified
Development Plan filed by the developer, Dame Construction Company.
She indicated that such action should not be taken until the
developer has completed the cul-de-sac improvements at the end of
Fleetwood Road and planted hydroseed in the open areas of the north
portion of the site.
Supervisor Bishop responded by indicating that she felt that
clearance of the permit was appropriate because the provision of
recreation improvements this winter might be precluded. due to
regulations of the Department of Fish & Game that limit work in
creekbeds after October 15 . Further, not allowing the work within
CONTINUED ON ATTACE24ENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVIR
I HEREBY CE Y THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE RRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NQE ACT TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drke (335-1214)
Orig: Community development Depart t TTESTED
CC: Nancy Mulvihill
Robert Jensen PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Dame Constructio o. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Couns AND U1dTY ADMINISTRATOR
Building spection Dept .
Publi orks Dept . BY DEPUTY
-2-
the creekbed to proceed would result in forestalling development of
recreation facilities for Bettencourt Ranch residents, but would
not penalize the developer.
At the same time, the Board directed staff to agendize this matter
for the Board' s October 15, 1996 hearing.
Detention Basin Area Recreation Plans
The applicant has submitted plans for the required recreational
facility next to the Detention Basin. The County has received
comments from the association including a request that the County
authorize clearance of the necessary building permits for
improvements within the creekbed. After determining that the work
was authorized by the zoning and permit, on October 8, 1996, the
Community Development Department did advise the Building Inspection
Department that building permits for the proposed trail and bridge
related improvements could be issued.
Schedule for Completion of Fleetwood Road Cul-de-Sac Improvements
Attached is a schedule dated October 8, 1996 prepared by staff that
barring unforeseen circumstances would allow the completion of cul-
de-sac improvements including slide repairs by mid-November of
this year. It is based on recent conversations with a
representative of Dame Construction Company.
Bonding to Assure Timely Completion of Improvements
Ms . Mulvihill suggested that the County require the developer to
bond for the required cul-de-sac and related slide repair
improvements at this time to provide assurance that the work would
be completed before the rainy season commences .
The applicant will be required to post a bond for this work if the
work is not completed prior to approval of Final Map 7279 by the
Board of Supervisors . However, due to the limited time frame in
which work can be undertaken prior to the upcoming rainy season,
there is not much point in requiring a bond to assure that the
developer completes the improvements before the rainy season.
There is only the one opportunity for the developer to do the work.
There would not be sufficient time for the County to hire another
firm to do the work before the onset of the rainy season.
Hillside Hydroseedincg
In granting Dame a modification of the Final Development Plan, the
Board of Supervisors conditioned the approval on the applicant
completing the hydroseeding of the open area of the north side of
the Bettencourt Ridge by October 15, 1996 . The project approval
was conditioned to specify that failure to complete the
hydroseeding by the specified timeframe would result in the
withholding of building permits . The hydroseeding was required to
be done with grass seeds so to restore as near as practical the
grassy appearance of the slopes prior to the grading of the site
that occurred in 1990-91 .
After receiving landscape plans from the applicant, staff advised
the applicant on September 16, 1996 that the plans were deficient
in several respects including failure to provide the specificity
pertaining to hydroseeding indicated in the project approval . On
October 7, 1996, staff has also advised the applicant of the
requirement to complete the hydroseeding by October 15, 1996 or
face the penalties indicated in the approved development permit .
In a letter from Robert Jensen dated October 7, 1996, a resident of
Blackhawk, Mr. Jensen expresses concern about compliance with the
requirement to hydroseed within the specified timeframe.
-3-
Building Permit Restriction
The Community Development Department ' s administrative
interpretation of the referenced conditions is that development
permit requirement to withhold issuance of building permits was
intended to apply to only residential development within the last
phase of the project, SUB 7279 . It was not intended to interfere
with the completion of project amenities that have no direct
economic benefit to the applicant . Accordingly, it would not be
reasonable to construe that the restriction on issuance of building
permits applies to the recreational facilities because there is no
nexus .
Until cul-de-sac, slide repair, recreation facility, and
hydroseeding improvements are completed, no residential building
permits for SUB 7279 will be issued.
Appeal of Administrative Decision
An appeal of the October 8, 1996 administrative decision of the
Community Development Department to clear a building permit for
project recreation improvements may be filed with the office of the
Clerk of the Board by no later than Thursday, November 7, 1996 . To
be acceptable, the appeal must be verified by the signature of the
interested party under penalty of perjury that it is true and
correct, and accompanied by a fee of $125 . The notice of appeal
must clearly state the grounds for the appeal (ref. Chapter 14-4 of
the County Ordinance) . Such an appeal would then be scheduled for
hearing by the Board of Supervisors .
C: \wpdoc\betten3 .bo
RD\
ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION
OF END OF FLEETWOOD ROAD LANDSLIDE REPAIRS'
Bettencourt Ranch
October 8, 1996
EVENT ANTICIPATED COMPLETION
Execution of Geotechnical Peer Review Wednesday, October 9, 1996
Contract by Contractor(Rogers/Pacific)
Submittal of Peer Review Report of Friday, October 11, 1996
Geotechnical Documents
Issuance of Grading Permit Monday, October 14, 1996
Completion of Grading and Slide Repair Approximately within 30 days of issuance of
Improvements grading permit according to Dame
(November 14, 1996)
1.Assumes that there are no unexpected circumstances that would impede the work schedule.
MATSUNAGA & ASSOC. 51083877b7
y
a
October 7, 1996
To: Dennis Barry, Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
From: Robert T. Jensen
Subject: Issuance of Building Permits to Dame Construction
We are aware that Dame Construction Company �s attempting to
acquire building permits for the Bettencourt Ranch common area
improvement areas near the detention basis. If the h.ydroseeding is
not completed by October 15, 1996, an issuance of building permits ;
must be withheld under the terms set forth in the Conditions of
Approval, Bettencourt Ranch FDF Modification, File #DP953004.
Please advise us on any decision made related to this matter.
Sincerely, S
Robert T. Jensen
200 South Ridge Court
Danville, CA 94506
t
CC. Board of Supervisors
�l
RVcF_NED
Sheila Savage 5 10 Oct. 15, 1996
4484 Fleetwood Road
Danville, CA 94506 or.SU
CLERKCONTFtA COSTA
Contra Costa County
Board Of Supervisors;
I would like written clarification and response from the County
for the following:
What are the ordinances for bonding or not bonding construction
of roads in developments? In other words, what specific criteria
was used to enforce a bond on the streets in Bettencourt Ranch
and what requirements did Dame' or the roads have to meet
before bonds could be released?
If Fleetwood Road had been extended to 48 more homes would
the construction for the extension of Fleetwood Road have to be
bonded. If so, what type of bond and how does the construction
of a cul-de-sac differ from the extension?
What power does the County have to withhold the final map for
Dame' if the completion of Fleetwood Road is not bonded. See
current conditions of approval.
What can the Board do to enforce repairs to the landslide and
the completion of Fleetwood Road?
Please respond within 10 days of receipt of this letter.
Sin a ely,
Sheila Savage
Community Contra Harvey E. Bragdon
Director of Community Development
Development Costa
Department County .
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095 '' r
(510) 335-1214 .- . �-
Phone:
CP �/^
October 14, 1996 ° '•-
r�A poi K� 1 19Ul'�
`\ Svp�RV►SoRs
FlK x�U�F g(A G�
C��S�nA CC
Michael Rupprecht
Dame Construction,Company
P.O. Box 1007
San Ramon, CA 94583
Dear Mr. Rupprecht:
Re: Review of Submittals for Compliance with File#DP953004
Bettencourt Ranch
This is a follow-up to submittals filed to date by Dame in an effort to qualify for grading permits
and approval of a final map for SUB 7279 (Shadow Creek Manor) and completing the
Bettencourt Ranch project. It is-also intended as a follow-up to our meeting on September 16,
1996 with Supervisor Bishop, representatives of Bettencourt Ranch HOA and Fleetwood Road
residents, and Building Inspection and Public Works Departments.
I. Installation of Cul-de-Sac Bulb at End of Fleetwood Road
Due to the timeframe specified in the Board of Supervisors May 21, 1996 approval of the
modification, staff and Dame agreed to pursue the completion of the cul-de-sac
improvements at an the earliest feasible date. Improvement plans for road and drainage
work have been approved by the Public Works Department.
Building Inspection Department had begun the review of your application for a grading
permit. At the request of the Building Inspection Department, you agreed to revise and
resubmit plans to provide for the repair of a landslide and mudflow in the vicinity of Lot
108 (Mulvihill), in addition to other repair work identified in the June 1996 Youngdahl
geotechnical report.' You also agreed to have Youngdahl provide a letter and revised
grading plans clarifying the following points in accord with the Board approval:
'It should be noted that Dame submitted revised grading plans and a letter/report from
Youngdahl & Associates dated 9/19/96 to Community Development and Building Inspection
Departments on September 23, 1996.
• That Youngdahl will supervise the screening of the stockpile(CIA #3.A.);
• That there will be a statement indicating how the"deleterious material' in the
stockpile will be eliminated (e.g., to which landfill will it be hauled) (CIA #3.A.);
and
• That Youngdahl will confirm that the recommended debris flow repair measures
for landslides#5 and#6 that were identified in the Rogers/Pacific letter of July 28,
1995 are included in the proposed repair work (GA #3..A.).
: We have requested Rogers/Pacific to provide peer review consultant services for this
work and other necessary remaining geotechnical work within Bettencourt.
Landscape Improvements
We also wish to advise you that prior to acceptance of Final Map 7279, we are reviewing
the appropriateness of providing landscape/irrigation improvements at the end of the
Fleetwood Road cul-de-sac.
II. Fencing/Landscape Improvements at the End of Fleetwood Road
Based on discussions at the 9/16/96 meeting, this is to advise you of the following
decisions of the Acting Zoning Administrator.
A. Camino Tassajara(simulated) Wrought Iron Frontage Fence
1. The design of the proposed fence shall be modified to match the design of
the Shadow Creek frontage fence(tubular steel with concrete pilasters at
80-foot intervals). See attached display.
2. The fence shall conform and attach to the gated access planned by the
HOA at the Mansfield Drive entrance.
3. In accord with the request of the HOA representatives, the fence alignment
on the west side of Mansfield Drive will be re-aligned from the north side
of the creekbed to extend along the Mansfield Drive and Camino Tassajara
frontages for a total length of approximately 300 feet(the equivalent length
of fence which would have applied if the fence had been sited in the
5/21/96 approval location). The fence shall be located just inside of the
HOA property line(not within County-maintained property). It is
acknowledged that the western end of the fence shall be left open.
4. The extreme eastern end of the fence shall be provided a gated access.
-2-
5. Detention Basin Segment-Based on comments from the Flood Control
staff and HOA representatives at the July 18 meeting with Supervisor
Bishop, the following shall be provided on the revised site plans.
A. Sheet S-1 of the plans shall be modified to indicate:
1) The size of the double gates along Camino Tassajara; the
plans shall show that the gates are designed to be lockable
with a padlock.
2) The proposed gates shall replace the current chain link
double swing gates. The applicant's contractor shall
carefully salvage the chain link gates and deliver them to the
County Public Works Corporation Yard in Martinez. Dave
Reza is the contact person regarding the disposal location of
the gates.
3) The existing wire strand fence along the Camino Tassajara
- frontage may be removed to accommodate the new wrought
iron fencing. However, the remaining portion of the wire
strand fence along the southerly and westerly portion of the
depressed portion of the basin must remain to serve as a
secondary barrier against unauthorized ingress to the basin.
The plans shall show the limits of the existing fence to be
removed.
4) At the July meeting, both Flood Control staff and HOA
representatives indicated concern about a wrap treatment
for the eastern end of the fence. In view of this concern, the
fence should be designed as generally shown on Exhibit I.
It is intended to link to a masonry fence that will be required
for the adjoining subdivision(Carrigan).
5) Prior to commencing construction of the fence:
Obtain an encroachment permit from John Capozzo
(646-1623) of the Applicant and Permit Center
(allow 21 days for processing).
The contractor shall coordinate with the Grounds
Maintenance Division of the General Services
Department for on-site inspection prior to
-3-
commencement of work. The contact person is Bob
Tamori (646-4150).
B. Tot Lot Equipment- As agreed by Dame, the tot lot equipment shall be revised to
provide for the identical equipment(as was provided for the Bettencourt
community center.
C. Relocation of Eastern Footbridge and Path- The eastern footbridge and path shall
be relocated to the west outside the flood control district property.
D. Fence Around Detention Basin- The proposed split rail fence around the detention
basin is denied. Following the 9/16/96 meeting,you indicated a willingness to
provide a six-foot tall simulated wrought iron fence with flat top and a 3-foot tall
fence to otherwise match the six-foot fence as had been requested by the HOA. It
would be our intent to approve that fence design.
E. Footbridge Design-The HOA indicated a preference for metal bridges in lieu of
the proposed wood bridges. Dame indicated that their only concern was in the
availability of metal bridges. If metal bridges are not available, it might impede
Dame's ability to qualify for building permits. The HOA representative indicated
that the HOA might consider supporting a modification of the requirement to
complete the recreation improvements prior to the issuance of building permits in
SUB 7279.
F. Supervision b, Licensed Landscape Architect _.
The plans shall be revised to provide for the following wet stamp certification by a
licensed landscape architect:
• the landscape/irrigation plans have been designed in accord with the
requirements of the County Water Conservation in New Developments
Ordinance(Chapter 82-26) including annual water budgeting reporting
requirements; any necessary changes to comply with the ordinance
requirements shall also be incorporated into the revised plans; and
• that the proposed landscaping is to be conducted under the supervision of a
licensed landscape architect including, selection of materials, preparation of
soil, and installation of plants and irrigation improvements.
G. Compliance with American Disabilities Act Requirements - The Zoning
Administrator indicated that the project would be required to comply with the
applicable requirements of the American Disabilities Act.
-4-
H. Review of Modified Plans by Bettencourt Ranch HOA- There were a number of
issues of concern to the HOA that Dame indicated it was willing to explore further
including:
. design of the interior fence adjacent to the detention basin;
• orientation-of the required tot lot equipment;
• location of handrails adjacent to footpaths;
• design of retaining walls;
• composition of the footpaths.
Further, the plans need to be revised to specifically indicate final grading and
drainage pursuant to C/A#5 of File#DP953004.
Before approval of the landscape plans is considered, the Bettencourt Ranch HOA
shall be provided an opportunity to review and comment on revised plans that
address the above items.
I. Estimate of Overall Improvement Costs - The revised plans shall be accompanied
by an estimate of the improvement costs(labor& materials)by a licensed
landscape architect or landscape contrator.
III. Review of Common Area Landscape Plans for Final Map 7279 (Shadow Creek
Manor)
A. Required Plan Modifications- General
The plans shall be revised to provide required(wet stamp) certification by a
licensed landscape architect of the following as required by C/A#10:
1. compliance with all aspects of the Water Conservation Ordinance, not
merely plant selection;
2. that the proposed landscaping shall be conducted under the supervision of
the landscape architect including selection of materials preparation of soil,
and installation of plants and irrigation improvements;
3. the plans have been designed to effect a restoration of the pre-graded (pre-
1990) appearance of the common area with suitable grasses;
4. the spacing on the two redwood tree screens shall be shortened to
approximately 10-feet on centers; if the applicant (or other party)wishes to
pursue wider spacing of the redwood trees, it will require application to
modify the Final Development Plan;
5. per C/A#10.B.l.b) of FDP DP953004, the plans shall be revised to
provide for substantial barriers to provide effective protection of the
-5-
(redwood tree screen) improvements while construction activity is
occurring (e.g., concrete barriers).
6. per C/A N.H. of FDP 3034-88, the portion of the redwood screen that
was to be placed next to the Blackhawk property formerly owned by
Hermann, shall be relocated on the that property. The applicant shall
provide proof of access to make these off-site improvements.
.Alternatively, if the applicant is able to obtain the written consent of the
owner, the row of trees may be placed instead along the Bettencourt Ranch
property line; and
7. the size of the shrubs shall be increased from 1-gallon to 5-gallons.
Also, before the following modifications shall also be incorporated into revised
plans for Zoning Administrator review and approval based on written comments
from the Shadow Creek Residents Association, Robert Jensen, and East Bay
Municipal Utility District, except as noted. (It should be noted that a copy of the
plans were supplied to the Country Club at Blackhawk Improvement Association,
however no comments were received within the time specified in the approval by
the Board of Supervisors).
B. Review of Shadow Creek&EBMUD Comments
Except as specified below, all of the recommendations of the Shadow Creek
Residents Association(7/8/96) and East Bay Municipal Utility District(7/15/96)
shall-be incorporated into the revised set of landscape plans.-
1. Redwood Tree Screen- The requested substitution of another species of
trees for the two redwood tree screens is not approved insofar as it would
be contrary to the 1988 agreement between the Braddock&Logan
(developer of Bettencourt at the time) and adjoining Blackhawk residents,
Herman&Zalewski, and to the 1989 project approval conditions of
approval (FDP#8-H).
2. Add Landscaping to Green Meadow Entrance - The plans shall be revised
to provide landscape improvements along either side of the Green Meadow
Drive entrance. Landscape design shall be comparable to nearby Bourne
Lane landscape improvements, except that plant materials shall be selected
and placed to comply with the Sight Obstruction at Intersection Ordinance
(attached). The protected code triangular area shall be identified on the
landscape plans. The plan shall also indicate that landscape frontage
improvements on the north side of Green Meadow Drive shall be installed
at the developer's expense prior to occupancy of the residence on Lot 1.
-6-
3. _ Infill with Additional Shrubs-The revised plans shall provide for
continuous shrub plantings along the bare areas along Bourne Lane shown
on attached Exhibit II.
4. Street Trees along Frontasze of Lots-The Shadow Creek letter requested
that the plans be revised to provide for street trees along the frontage of
lots. This is not appropriate insofar as it was not made a condition of
approval. Landscape treatment of selected hillside lots is required at time
of issuance of building permits.
5. Design of EVA to accommodate Pedestrians-The Shadow Creek letter
requested that the emergency vehicle access be improved to provide for
pedestrian access. There is no requirement in the C/A for such an
improvement. This request is not approved.
C. Review of Jensen Comments
The following is in response to the 7/23/96 comments of Robert Jensen
(Blackhawk resident).
1. Redwood Tree Screens - As discussed above, the proposed(15-foot)
spacing of redwood trees is not approved. The plans must be modified to
comply.with the 10-foot spacing indicated in the project approval. By the
same token, Mr. Jensen's request for 7-8 foot spacing is also not approved
due to inconsistency with the project approval.
2. Requested Tree Screen in Front of(Hillside)Lots 45, 46, and 48 - The
request to have the common area landscape plans provide for tree screens
along the road frontages of these lots is denied. At the same time, it should
be recognized that C/A#10.D. requires landscape screening and other
design measures prior to issuance of building permits for these hillside lots
to protect the views of existing residents to the north.
3. Requested Change in Tree Size-The request to have 24,gallon box trees is
denied because it would not be consistent with the project approval that
specifies minimum 15-gallon size trees as adequate.
4. Requested Change in Tree Species -The request to have a change in tree
species from those identified on the plan is denied.
D. Completion of Hydroseeding
-7-
The Board of Supervisors approval specified that if the hydroseeding of SUB 7279
were not completed by October 15, 1996, that the County would withhold
issuance of building permits. From our recent discussions, it does not appear that
you are likely to complete the hydroseeding by the 10/15/96 deadline. Assuming
that revised landscape plans for SUB 7279 area are received and approved, would
you be willing to project a date when you believe the hydroseeding will be
completed? If at all feasible, we would prefer that such improvement occur prior
to the onset of the rainy season this year.
IV. Provision of As-Built Landscape Plans to the Respective HOAs
Following completion of the landscape/irrigation plans, the developer shall provide a copy
of the as-built plans (labelled as-built on their face)to the Community Development
Department. The developer shall also provide evidence that a copy of the as-built
landscape/irrigation plans shall have been provided to both of the respective Bettencourt
Ranch and Shadow Creek HOAs.
V. Review of Other Submittal Items
A. Revised Grading Plans for SUB 7279 -The applicant has submitted revised
grading plans to the Building Inspection Department with an application for a
grading permit. Those plans provide for flat pad grading of Lots 44-47. Flat pad
grading of Lots 45-47 is contrary to the site plans reviewed for the last
modification of the final development plan. After reviewing the matter with the
Director of the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, this is
to advise you that the Acting Zoning Administrator has determined that the plans
are not consistent with the project approval. By copy of this letter, we are
requesting that the Building Inspection Department deny this grading permit
application.
If you wish to have the County consider revised grading of these hillside lots, the
County will require that you apply for and obtain approval of a new application for
a modified final development plan.
B. Evidence of Acceptance of Annexation of SUB 7279 to Shadow Creek
Condition#3.B. requires that Dame offer to Shadow Creek HOA that SUB 7279
be annexed into Shadow Creek;-and that if accepted that the County obtain a copy
of the HOA's acceptance. This is a reminder that we will need to obtain a copy of
the acceptance before the final map can be recorded.
-8-
� y
C. Contingengy Funding in Shadow Creek Manor CC&R's
Your letter of June 27, 1996 to Michael Hughes of Berding and Weil (Shadow
Creek legal counsel) indicates that there is no requirement for a landscape
contingency account to be included in-the CC&R's. This is not correct. Please
refer to Condition#13. We would appreciate it if you would clarify this matter
with the HOA and provide a copy of this correspondence to us. Moreover, before
a map is recorded, we will require evidence that there is such a contingency
account in the CC&R's.
VI. Appeal Process
The administrative decisions described in this letter may be appealed by any interested
party directly to the Board of Supervisors. By copy of this letter we are providing notice
to potentially interested parties. To file an appeal of an administrative decision, an appeal
must be received no later than Wednesday,November 13, 1996, verified by the signature
of the interested party under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct, and accompanied
by a fee of$125 to the Clerk of the Board at 651 Pine Street, First Floor, Martinez. The
notice must clearly state the grounds for the appeal. Please refer to Chapter 14-4 of the
County Ordinance for the code specifications for filing an appeal.
Should you have any questions, please call Bob Drake.of my staff at (510) 335-1214.
Sincerely,
DENNIS M. BARRY
Deputy Director
Enc. Display of Required Wrought Iron Fence Design along Camino Tassajara Frontage
Exhibit I-Eastern End of Cam. Tass. Fence Design
Water Conservation in New Developments Ordinance
Sight Obstructions at Intersection Ordinance
Exhibit H-Identification of Bare Areas to be Planted with Shrubs along Bourne Lane
cc: Board of Supervisors, Districts I, II, III, IV, & V
Clerk of the Board
Bettencourt Ranch HOA, c/o Richard Case
Shadow Creek Residents Association
c/o BCAM
Bob Hora
-9-
Bob Jensen
Nancy& Tom Mulvihill
Public Works Dept.
Mitch Avalon
Skip Epperly
County Flood Control District, Bob Agnew
Building Inspection Dept.,Ron Killough
County Counsel
File#DP953004
cAwpdce\953004-81tr
RD\
-10-
i in
r
In
' n LN D b ) ut `iVI
� N Z J q t)
' kA
r
A� '. } Mf
_ c�
Com' 3 a� zLl 2 � � m v►��� A� � � rn a � '' ?� � � a
VD r �1
n
rn
1
` LU
Q
QCrY
1/9
Or
LU
LU W Z
-t
ACCESS ROAD GATES=
DRAWN ;
G
END (N) 6' HT. W.I. FENCE ,4><:
CHECKED
_ DATE <.
SCALE
JOB N0. r<f,
SHEET rF:
Nor
ri
OF <p SHEETzol
A��
0 wi j
",O�j ,
xv�1
71*
NWN
77.
.rte �♦ `� \ NONNI WIN
NVIN
���� e H��� "`t�"i�5,�� '�2 .n✓"y ar.k �S' ^ttf''e.:,
ON,
~`��
���;z`
� OIN
Nkg
L ♦ L Lk
'kN NMI
MOR
a � aT y I ANG»