HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081998 - C23 Contra
Costa
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . f
County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD ,
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT c
DATE: December 8, 1998
SUBJECT: Second Reading of Ordinance 98-24 (introduced May 19, 1998) rezoning
land in the Alamo area. (County File #RZ963044, Bob Raymond. -
Applicant)
SPECIFIC REQUEST S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION — —
RFkC0.MMFj �'T`T_IONS
Adopt Ordinance 98-24 rezoning land in the Alamo area from General
Agricultural, A-2, to Single Family Residential, R-j65 .
FISCAL T INS.
None.
BAC / QN FOR RECOMMENDMIONS
On May 19, 1998, the Board of Supervisors conducted a hearing on
the recommendation of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission recommending denial of a request to rezone 2 .9 acres
from General Agricultural, A-2, to Single Family Residential, R-65.
The rezoning application was filed pursuant to a tentative approval
of a minor subdivision on the site. That subdivision authorized
the establishment of two parcels on the site, contingent on a
rezoning of the site to the R-65 district.
After taking testimony, the Board closed the hearing and
unanimously voted to declare its intent to approve the requested
rezoning to Single Family Residential, R-65 based on the applicant
and the County reaching agreement on suitable deed restrictions and
notifications for future development . The background to the Board
action is described in a Board Order dated May 19, 1998 .
Following the meeting, Community Development and '' Public Works
Department staff met with the applicant which resulted in. proposal
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE Jug•..« , /� -&YZ-\
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON 9 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
VO'T'E 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: Bob Drake [ (925) 335-12141
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED , 2 '> 159 f
CC: Bob & Joanne Raymond PINI, BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
GMMA, Mark Armstrong THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Public Works Dept. , Eng. Services AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Alamo Imp. Assoc.
County Counsel BYl`1;ez rd� -- DEPUTY
C:\wpdoc\963044-d.bo
RD\
August 19, 1998
Acceptable Materials, a) Exterior walls- Brick,Stone, Stucco or Wood,b) Roofing-
State,Concrete,Clay or Composition
Color, Warm earth tone colors including creams, rusts, buffs, rose beige, ocher, and
terga cotta are preferred. Trim colors should complement the body colors.
Prohibited Materials& Features, Aluminum siding,Reflective glass windows, flat
roof's.
O Height Restrictions:
The maximum height shall be 32'-0" and shall be measured vertically from the average
elevation of the finished grade on the existing flat area.ground covered by the
structure to the top most part of the roof.
El Foundation:
1. PARCEL A, Retaining walls outside the building envelope shall have a maximum
height of 4'-0"as measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. Retaining
walls used as part of the foundation of the garage orresidence shall have 6'-0"maximum
retained earth with additional height for"freeboard"per soils report by Diablo Soils
Engineers dated December 22, 1997.
2. PARCEL B ;Retaining walls outside the building envelope shall have a maximum height
of 4'-0"as measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. Retaining walls
used as part of the foundation of the garage or residence shall be have 8'-0"maxtnum
retained earth with additional height for"freeboard"per soils report by Diablo Soils
Engineers dated December 22, 1997.
"Freeboard'is the extension of the retaining wall in height above retained earth for the
possible impact and weight of earth sliding into the wall.
Landscape:
Every effort should be taken by the design team to preserve the existing trees. However, to
provide for a reasonable building area of Parcel B, given the number of trees on that lot, it may be
necessary to remove trees numbered 387, 388 acrd 390 (tree numbering and description is noted
in the Preliminary Tree Survey by Joleph McNeil, dated March 10,1998 & as noted in the Peer
Review of Arborist Report for Subdivision 104-89 prepared by Nelda Matheny, Consulting
Arborist at HortScience, Inc. and dated July 30, 1998)and for safety reasons it may be necessary
to remove trees numbered 379 and 401. The retention of tree 390 will depenil on intrinsic
features of the tree itself, i.e., mechanical stability. Such retention may restrains the site planning
design slightly. Before the removal of these trees a permit must be retained from the County of
Contra Costa. All other requirements and precautions for tree removal/modification and/or
construction near existing trees should follow guidelines from Contra Costa County and the above
Preliminary Tree Survey and Peer Review.
Exhibit D►'
Page 2 of 2
■
„. ■Nfli11CU�IUT$I�QC:SU#`u9•".{5
x t,n+kcs
OU
jA
HORT ;sfl nfbtt .<,r .a.
:SS.r .....
July 30, 1998
_
Bob Crake
Community Development
Contra Costa County
881 Pine St.
Martinez,CA 94553-0095
Subject: Peer Review of Arborist Report for Subdivision 104-89
Dear Mr. Drake;
= At your request I have performed a peer review of the Preliminary Tree Survey of Parcels
"A"and"B",Subdivision 104-89 prepared by Joseph McNeil(3110/98). In addition 1
reviewed his supplemental letter discussing tree tolerance and construction(6/5!98),and
the Architectural Design Guidelines prepared by Eric Alan Mare(5/24/98). 1 visited the
site and inspected the trees on July 27,
In general,I concur with Mr.McNeirs observations,evaluations and opinions with regard
to tree condition. Like him, I am concerned about the structural stability of sural of the
trees once homes are constructed beneath there,especially#379,388 and 401 (see
attached photos 1.3). 1 am inclined to remove those trees because of their potential to
fail and cause damage once the properties are developed. i also agree that the stability
of tree#390 cannot be addressed adequately until a mot crown excavation and
inspection is performed.
I understand that the Architectural Design Guidelines were created to guide future
owners in designing their home. The conceptual site plane for each parcel indicate a
possible design. This makes evaluating impacts to trees difficult. It is/clear that
excavation and construction will take place very close to trews. Exact distances and
depths,which are critical to determining effects on trees,Is not known at this time.
Therefore,my evaluation can only be"conceptual"as well.
Based on the conceptual plans,the homes would be placed on pads that were graded
many years ago. It appears that some additional excavation into the existing slopes'
could occur(for example by trees#382-392). Mr.McNeil discussed the effects that
previous grading had on tree roots. I am less able to predict what root development has
occurred subsequent to that disturbance. I think,given the condition of the trees around
the pads,that there has been considerable root exploration into the graded areas.
Therefore, I do not think we can discount excavation into the pail near trees as having
little effect on them, especially for trees#390 and 4001.
1 am concerned about the level of impact that the conceptual plan would create for trees
#4001 on Parcel A(Photo 4)and#390 on Parcel B(Photo 5). Unless it can be
established that there are no tree roots in the area of construction, l recommend
designing for a minimum 10'radius protection zone. I am particularly concerned about
how the bridge will be tied into the bank,and what root interference would occur for tree
#3901.
■P.3.$Esx 754
P:easanlon..CA 94586
Phone:5.^484 0211
FAX:510 484 5.0%
~ Drake,Pear Review, Subdivision 104-89 HortScience, Inc.
July 30, 1999 Page 2
While it is a pleasing idea to tuck the homes in under the tree on these pads,;there are
some risks associated with doing so. First,pruning will be required to fit the structures
under the canopies. Second,there will be continual maintenance issues with having
large tree canopies overhanging the roof. clearance of branches,litter,and management
of potential hazards from branch failures. Fire-safe guidelines warn against having trees
overhang homes. Future homeowners must be made aware of these maintenance
responsibilities and risks.
In summary, I concur with Mr.McNeil's reports,with an added caution about the intensity
of impacts that are suggested as"conceptual". While it is possible to construct homes on
these pacts,there Wil be Impacts to the surrounding trees. The intensity of the impacts is
directly related to the disruption to the roots and crowns necessary to fit the structures
into the space. These impacts can be minimized with appropriate design and
construction techniques,and by maintaining undisturbed space where tree roots are
present. I offer the following recommendations:
1. Remove trees 4#379 and 401.
2. Perform a root crown excavation and inspection on tree#390 to evaluate its
structural stability and suitability for retention.
3. Avoid additional excavation into the east slope on Parcel"l3".
4. determine location of roots of trees#400 and#390 and adjust design
appropriately.
5. Evaluate effects of bridge construction on#390.
f, Where tree canopies will overhang structures and other use areas, perform a
thorough inspection for potential tree hazards and determine appropriate
abatement treatments(e.g.pruning,cabling,perhaps removal).
7. Provide guidelines for future homeowners on how to properly maintain the oaks
and landscape around them.
Sincerely,
Nelda Matheny
Consulting Arborist
Photos attached
Selected Photographs HortScience, Inc.
Subdivision 14489 July 27, 1998
Las T"rampas Rd., Alamo
#388;
#383
4.
Photo 2(above): Most of the trees on the east slope
on Parcel B are have multiple trunks. Maks with this
farm have a higher tendency for trunk failure because
Photo 1: 'Tree#378 is extensively de- of weak attachments and decay at the base. Fie-
cayed and structurally unsound. It moval of one or more of these trees may be neces-
should be removed, sary,pending the outcome of a thorough hazard eval-
uation.
I� x
Photo 3(left): Tree#401 has poor structure and
should be removed and replaced. The trunk was
stubbed off many years ago,and heavy,weakly at-
tached regrowth resulted. This tree could be re-
tained temporarily for screening, but requires pruning
to reduce weight to the south. A replacement tree
should be planted.
i.
3
Photo 4: Approximate location of driveway Photo 5: Approximate location of bridge and drive-
and garage next to#400, Parcel A. Unless way next to#390,Parcel 8 Tree needs further in-
it can be established there are no roots in spection to evaluate structural stability. Also exam-
the area,tree protection zone should be in- ine impacts to roots from bridge construction. In-
creased to minimum 10'radius from trunk. crease tree protection zone to minimum 10'if roots
present.
to provide a multi.-faceted deed restriction/deed ', disclosure to
provide constructive notice to future buyers of the proposed
parcels of site conditions and development restrictions.
The proposed deed instrument provides for:
• notification of creek structure setback concerns;
& soils report by geotechnical engineers, and peer review by the
County Geologist;
• residential design restrictions including review by the Zoning
Administrator and discretion to require a public hearing prior '
to issuance of a building permit, if deemed warranted; and
• notification of compliance with Tree Ordinance process
requirements for any proposed alterations to trees .
The proposed deed instrument will provide the means to advise
applicants of site conditions that limit development of the site
and impose appropriate design restrictions and review procedures to
assure that only residential development that fits the site is
permitted.
The applicant has indicated in a cover letter to staff that if the
rezoning to R-65 is approved, that they will record the deed
instrument concurrent with the recordation of the parcel map for
the approved subdivision.
(Re-Zoning Land in 5;e—
Al.—
The
heAlamThe Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SE ' Page R-14 of the Countys 1978 Zoning Map(Ord,No.78-93)is
amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s)attached
hereto and incorporated herein(see also Community Development Department File No.
RZ963044 .)
FROM: Land Use District A-2 General Aprictilh,re
TO: Land Use District R-65 t Single Family Residential
}
and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly,
Pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec.84.2.003.
i P-1
r
y
SECTt�3N 17 'F QAM This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage,
and wi Xi 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of supervisors
voting for and against it in the Coni ra f,_M `T;yes
published in this County. ----- -----.a'newspaper
PASSED on- - ��by the following vote:
I. d A Absen
2. G.B unkema {X) { ) { )
3. D.Gerber ( ) { ) { ) { )
4. M.DeSaulnier { } { ) { } ( }
5. J.Canciamilla W ( ) { )
{ )
ATTEST: Phil Batchelor,County Administrator „
and Cleric of the Board of supervisors
By� + �'�� rman of the Board
Dep` (SEAT,)
RZ963044 Raymond bRT?INAIC"� rn 98-24
Contra
tiCosta
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS :- County
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: May 19, 1998
SUBJECT: Rescheduled May 19, 1998 Hearing on the Recommendation of the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission regarding a proposal to
rezone approximately 2.9 acres from General Agricultural, A-2, to
Single Family Residential, R-65, in the Alamo area. County File
#RZ963044 (Raymond - Applicant & Owner)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
R COMMF:LMATIONS
Approve Option A below.
42PTIONS
Qpt
ryon A - (R-100 zoning as recommended by the SRVRPC)
1. Adopt a Negative Declaration on this proposal for
purposes of compliance with the California Environmental
` Quality Act.
2. Rezone the approximate 2.9 acre site from General
Agricultural, A-2, to Single Family Residential, R-100.
3. Introduce the ordinance giving effect to the rezoning
decision, waive reading and set elate for adoption of
same.
Ori ;an - (R-65 zoning as requested by the Applicant)
Take same actions as specified in option A except allow for
the rezoning to the Single Family Residential, R-65 district
instead of the recommended R-100 district as specified in item
#2.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -XYES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARI) COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) -
ACTION OF BOARD ON —Aa-Y-11, 1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER X___
See Addendum for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I 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: Bob Drake H925) 335-12143
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 19. 1998
CC: Robert & Joanne Raymond PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong TU BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Alamo Improvement Association CO ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Dept. - Eng. Services Div. a
County Counsel BYDEPUTY
c:\wpdoc\563044-b.bo 4wn
RD\
Rescheduled May 19, 1998 Hearing on
Proposed Raymond Rezoning Request
to R-65 District; Alamo area
File #82963044
8ACXGRQ=
This matter was first scheduled for hearing before the Board on
August 5, 1997. The background of the rezoning and related
subdivision application (which was contingently approved on appeal
by the Board of Supervisors in June 1991) is reviewed in the staff
report to the Board dated July 21, 1997.
When this rezoning application was considered by the San Ramona
Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Commission unanimously
voted to recommend rezoning to the Single Family Residential
District, R-100 zoning district, rather than the requested R-65
zoning district. A rezoning of this 3-acre site to the R-140
district would allow for zoning conformity with the general plan
designation (Single Family Residential - Very Low Density) , but
would prevent the applicant from satisfying a requirement of the
tentative map that the site be rezoned to the R-65 zoning district.
Only a rezoning to the R-65 district would allow the applicant to
qualify for a parcel map.
The Commission action was based on concerns expressed by the Alamo
Improvement Association relative to feasibility of development
relative to reduced structure setbacks from the creek flowing
through the site and other terrain characteristics. The Public
Works Department also had some concerns relative to reduced
creekbank setbacks which had been authorized for this site.
At the request of the applicant, this item was rescheduled numerous
tithes to allow the applicant an opportunity to try to address
concerns raised at the Commission hearing and by the Public Works
Department.
RECENT PROJECT AC?VITY
Qeotgchnical Report
Following the Commission action, the applicant has provided a
geotechnical report on the project by Diablo Soil Engineers dated
December 22, 1997. The report addresses the feasibility of the
project with regards to seismic shock and associated structural
damage or landsliding, slope stability, creekbank protection, and
design. The primary conclusion of the report is that the site is
suitable for the proposed use, and it paints out that development
of the site may be costly if properly done, and hazardous if not
properly done.
The report concludes that foundation movements, creek scour, and
adverse seismic response can be controlled with residential design
providing for very deep, pier-supported grade beams.
Bear Review of !aAntechnical RAnort by County Ggoloaigt Consultant
The County Geologist Consultant, Darwin Myers, has conducted a peer
review of the report and determined that it is adequate for the
purposes of the rezoning and approval of the parcel map. He has
recommended additional investigation at the time that
grading/building permits are issued. In a letter dated January 5,
1998, Mr. Myers highlights some of the key findings in the DSE
report.
-2-
Rescheduled May 19, 1998 Hearing on
Proposed Raymond Retoning Request
to R--65 District, Alamo area
File #82963044
Executed Deed Disclosure Statement
The recommendations of the DSE geotechnical report and the County's
Geologist have been incorporated into an executed deed notification:
which staff understands the applicant intends to record against the
subdivision. The notice also discloses the review requirements of
various agencies.
After reviewing the DSE geotechnical report and the proposed deed
disclosure, the Public Works Department has indicated that its
concerns with the proposed subdivision have been resolved.
The staff recommendation at the time of the Planning Commission
hearing was to support the requested rezoning to R-65 so that the
approved minor subdivision project could be finalled. However, in
accord with Department practice, the staff recommendation was
modified as a vehicle for reflecting the Commission's
recommendation on the project. Listed above are two options: one
following the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the other
.__
reflecting the prior Board action on the tentative map approval and
the current request of the applicant.
Cormat! o �r_�11 ly RecordatiDead nisClogurp
Should the Board be inclined to allow for the requested R-65
rezoning, then the Board should first confirm with the applicant
that the subdivision disclosure will be recorded against the deeds
to both properties concurrent with any approval of the parcel map
for County File #MS 104-89.
fox Dev-lopment
Subsequent to the 1991 approval of the tentative map, the County
adopted the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. That
ordinance would require that a tree permit be obtained for any
ministerial action (building or grading permit, or subdivision
improvements) on either of the proposed subdivision parcels if it
involves the removal, or alteration (trenching, filling or grading
within the dripline) of any tree with a circumference of 20-inches
or greater.
Both parcels contain a number of trees with a variety of sizes and
species, including several monarch oak trees. It should be noted
that the DSE geotechnical report indicated that some trees would
have to be removed without being specific about which trees or
stage of project development. The proposed deed disclosure
prepared by the applicant provides notice of the tree permit
requirements. Tree permits allow for public notice and opportunity
for appeal hearings.
_l..
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.7
MAY 39, 2998
On April 21, 1998, the Board of Supervisors continued to
this date the hearing on the recommendation of the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission regarding a proposal to
rezone approximately 2.9 acres from General Agricultural, A-2, to
Single Family Residential , R-65, in the Alamo area, County File
RZ 96-3044, Robert and Joanne Raymond, applicants and owners.
Supervisor Gerber presented a brief history of the item and
moved to open the hearing and indicate intent to recommend the
approval of the rezoning if agreement can be reached with the
applicant on issues including trees, grading, building square
footage and a hold harmless agreement.
Mark Armstrong, Gagen, McCoy, McMahon and Armstrong,
representing Robert and Joanne Raymond, suggested that the Board
introduce the ordinance, giving effect to the rezoning, and set
the date for adoption thirty days from now allowing time for the
parties to finish the items mentioned.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, advised that
the Board take public testimony that is offered on the matter.
Mr. Armstrong advised that he did not wish to provide
testimony at this time.
The Chair called for public testimony and there being no
testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Supervisor Gerber moved to introduce the ordinance, giving
effect to the rezoning, and she indicated that if agreement were
reached with the applicant on certain design issues, to return
for adoption of the same in thirty days.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the above
matter is CLOSED;INTEN'T IS DECLARED to approve Option B of the
staff recommendation on the request of Robert and Joanne Raymond
(Applicants and owners) to rezone 2.9 acres from General
Agricultural (A-2) to Single Family Residential (R-65) (County
File RZ 3044-96) Alamo area; and Ordinance No. 98-24, giving
effect to the rezoning, is INTRODUCED, reading is WAIVED, and
June 16, 1998, is SET for adoption of same.
LAW OFFICES OF
GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTp0NG
WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE
GREGORY L, MCCOY
PATRICK J. MCMAWON
279 FRONT STREET
MARK L. ARMSTRONG P. 0. BOX 218
UNN K. COOMBS
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 04526-0248
STEPHEN W. THOMAS
TELEPHONE: (925) 637-0585
CHARLES A. KGISS
FAX: 1925) 838-508S
MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ
NAPA VALLEY OFFICE.
MICHAEL W. CARTER 1998 16
November ,
RICHARD C. RAINES THE OFFICES AT SOUTHgRiDCsE
VICTOR J. CONTI :1030 MAIN STREET, SUITE 212
BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574
ROBERT M. FANUCCI :TELEPHONE: (707) 963-0809
ALLAN C. MOORE : FAX: (707) 86.3-5527
PATRICIA E. CURTIN
STEPHEN T. BUEHL PLEASE REDLY TO:
ALEXANDER L. SCHMID Danville
AMANDA JUDGE :.
AL1 P. HAMI04
By hand delivery
Bob Drake
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Executed Disclosure Statement
Bob and Joanne Raymond
1710 Las Trampas Road
Dear Bob:
Enclosed please find a copy of the executed, notarized Disclosure Statement, along with
Exhibits A-D and Attachment 1 to Exhibit C. I understand the documents as revised are
acceptable to you.
This letter reconfirms that once the Board of Supervisors rezones the site to Single Family
Residential, R-65 district, the Raymonds will record the Disclosure Statement against
Parcels A and B concurrent with their recordation of the Parcel Map of Subdivision MS
104-89.
1 understand that you are presently making arrangements to schedule the second reading and
adoption of the rezoning by the Board of Supervisors on its consent calendar,consistent with
Bob Drake
November 1b, 1998
Page 2
your letter dated October 14, 1998. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any
questions, please feel free to give Bob Raymond or me a call.
fVvely yo rs,
Mark L. Armstrong
ML,Alsvg
Enclosures
cc: Bob and Joanne Raymond (wlencls.)
F:ICLMLA129391\Drake I 11698.1 tr
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNM DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
651 Pine Street, N. Wing - 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Telephone: 335-1210 Fax: 335-1222
TO: Board of Supervisors
' s
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICD
Director of Comm ' Development
DATE: December 31, 1998
SUBJECT: Proposed Deed Notification/Restriction
Minor Subdivision File #104-89 and Rezoning File ##RZ963044
Las Trampas Road, Alamo area (Raymond - Applicant)
This is a follow-up to the May 21, 1998 Board action in which the Board declared its intent
to rezone a 3-acre site in Alamo from A-2 to R-65, thus enablinga two- parcel minor
subdivision previously approved to be consummated and recorded. The proposed building
sites lie between a creek and base of a hill. Staff and the applicant have developed an
expanded deed disclosure to alert potential buyers to required development standards and
procedures, If the Board rezones the site to R-65, the applicant has agreed to record the
deed disclosure with the parcel map.
Back Emd
The applicant for a 3-acre site on Las Trampas Road in the Alamo area is endeavoring to
meet the requirements of a subdivision permit that was conditionally granted in 1991. One
of the last requirements to be satisfied for that approval is to rezone the property from A-2
to R-65. On May 21, 1998, the Board of Supervisors declared its intent to approve the
-2-
rezoning to R-65 but subject to appropriate deed disclosures and restrictions being
incorporated into the project. The Board took this action after reviewing information
provided by the applicant including a soils investigation report, conceptual development plan
of the project, and arborist report. The County Geologist reviewed the soils report from the
applicant and determined that it was adequate. The Public Works Department had also
indicated that it was satisfied that the project could be developed in an acceptable manner.
Pyj�Qls Concerns Registered on Project
As the review on this project has progressed, a number of concerns have been raised at
various times relative to the suitability of the division of this land. These have included:'
• proximity of development to the creekbed relative to potential creekbank erosion
hazard;
i compatible development within site restraints (creekbed, hillside area); and
• impact on existing trees.
Mfg app ican
Following the Board meeting, staff met with the applicant and Supervisor Gerber's Office.
A number of ideas were suggested to try to provide appropriate safeguards and review
procedures to assure that only appropriate development may be established on the two
parcels.
a A second report by an independent arborist(Hortscience, 7/30/98) was commissioned
by staff"to study the project to determine the likely impacts to existing trees.
i Design restraints on future residential development.
Repo-d by Indent Arborist
Attached is the report from the arborist retained the County which indicates that
development is feasible with relatively minor impacts to existing trees.
Revised and Ex ►aaded Deed.Disclosure
..3_
The applicant has submitted an expanded deed disclosure instrument which contains the
following notices to potential buyers:
r The recommendations of both the applicant's soils report and County peer review to
addressing existing soil conditions and assuring adequate protection from creekflows.
r Conceptual development plan indicating the level of development potential
that could be considered.
The recommendations from the arborist concerning minimizing impacts to existing
trees (the disclosure also references the report from the County arborist).
• Other design restrictions to control the appearance of residential development
(restricting the size and design of residential structures).
• Authorizing the Zoning Administrator the discretion to require a noticed public
hearing on proposed development.
• Alerting buyers to the requirements of the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Staff has reviewed the modified deed disclosure instrument and feels that it would
adequately address the issues which have been raised to date.
The applicant has indicated that if the Board rezones the property to R-65, the applicant will
record the deed disclosure with the parcel map.
Att. Executed Deed Disclosure and 3/16198 cover letter
7130198 Hortscience Report on project
cc: Joanne and Robert Raymond
CMMA, Mark Armstrong
Public Works Department, Eng. Services
County Counsel
File
c:lwpdoclraymond.bo
RDS
LAW OFFICES OF
GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG
WILLIAM E. GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE
GREGORY L. MCCOY
PATRICK J. MCMAMON
2'79 FRONT STREET
MARK L. ARMSTRONG
P. O. SOX 2f8
LIMN K. COOMBS
DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94526-021$
STEPHEN W. THOMAS
TELEPHONE: (925) .637-05415
CHARLES A. KOSS
FAX: 59251 938-5995
MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ
MICHAEL W. CARTER November 16, 1790 j�(�Q NAPA VALLEY OFFICE
RICHARD C. RAfN€S THE OFFICES AT SO UTYIBRlDG£
VICTOR J. CONTI .4030 MAIN STREET, SUITE 212
BARBARA DUVAL JEWELL ST. HELENA, CALIFORNIA 94574
ROBERT M. FANUCCI TELEPHONE: (707) 9453-0909
ALLAN C. MOORE FAX: (707} 963-5527
PATRICIA E. CURTIN
STEPHEN T. SUEHL PLEASE REPLY TO:
ALEXANDER L. SCHMID Danville
AMANDA JUDGE
ALI P. HAMIDI
By hand delivery
Bob Drake
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0095
Re: Executed Disclosure Statement
Bob and Joanne Raymond
1710 Las Trampas Road
Dear Bob:
Enclosed please find a copy of the executed, notarized Disclosure Statement, along with
Exhibits A-D and Attachment 1 to Exhibit C. I understand the documents as revised are
acceptable to you.
This letter reconfirms that once the Board of Supervisors rezones the site to Single Family
Residential, R-65 district, the Raymonds will record the Disclosure Statement against
Parcels A and B concurrent with their recordation of the Parcel Map of Subdivision MS
104-89.
1 understand that you are presently making arrangements to schedule the second reading and
adoption of the rezoning by the Board of Supervisors on its consent calendar,consistent with
Bob Drake
November 16, 1998
Page 2
your letter dated October 14, 1998. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any
questions, please feel free to give Bob Raymond or me a call.
fVvely yo s,
Mark L. Armstrong
MLA/svg
Enclosures
cc: Bob and Joanne Raymond(w/encls.)
FACLMLAU93911prakei 11698.Itr
Recorded at the request of:
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Public Works Department
Engineering Services Division
When Recorded Mail to:
Public Works Department
Records Section
Area: Alamo
Road: Las Trampas
County Road No.: NIA
Project: MS 104-89
Assessor's No.: 198-220-007
SPACE ABOVE TMS LME FOR RECORDER'S USE
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT REGARDING
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
. CREED STABILITY,EROSION,TREE PROTECTION,
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS,REQUIREMENTS AND
ISSUES FOR FUTURE OWNERS OF THE TWO LOTS IN
PARCEL MAP SUBDIVISION MS 144-89
A. Geotechnical Conditions.
This document is referred to herein as the"Disclosure Of Site Development Limitations And
Requirements Statement." Future owners and potential buyers of each of the two lots on this
property should be aware that a Preliminary Geotechnical Report for MS 104-89 has been
prepared by the firm of Diablo Soil Engineers, File No. 4408 dated December 22, 1997,by
Herb R. Volin, principal, and Michael C. Carey, CEG 1352. A written review of that
Preliminary Geotechnical Report has been prepared for the Contra Costa County Community
Development Department by the County Geologist, Darwin Myers Associates, by Darwin
Myers, CEG 946. That County review is dated January 5, 1998. Both the Preliminary
Geotechnical Report and the review by Darwin Myers are available for inspection or to copy
at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department.
F:\CLMLA\29391\disc1-stmt1.c1n 1
Future owners and potential buyers should read the entire Preliminary Geotechnical Report
and County review of that report for information on the site and its potential future
development. As a convenience, recommendations from the Preliminary Geotechnical
Report and the County review by Darwin Myers are attached as Exhibit"A"and Exhibit"B"
respectively, for the review and consideration of potential buyers and future owners of each
of the two lots. Additional geotechnical review may be required by County officials prior
to issuance of building permits or grading permits. County requirements relating to
construction of structures on each of these two lots,some of which were originally imposed
through the tentative subdivision map process and provided for in this Disclosure Of Site
Development Limitations And Requirements Statement,may further limit what can be done
to develop a residence and related improvements on each of the two lots.
B. Creek Banc, v&ology and. Creek Crossing Conditions,
A creek runs along Las Trampas Road through each lot on the property. Potential buyers and
future owners of each of the two lots are further advised that in approving the two lot
subdivision of this property, Contra Costa County granted an exception to its normal
requirements for"Structures Setback Lines for Unimproved Earth Channels." That exception
will allow structures on each of the lots closer to the creek than normally permitted.
Structures on each of these two lots may be located no closer than twenty feet from the
centerline of the creek. The Preliminary Geotechnical Report informs potential buyers and
future owners of each of the two lots of the potential geotechnical problems that must be
addressed and the mitigation that should be considered and applied in building any such
structures.
Potential buyers and future owners of each of the two lots are further advised that the creek
banks are subject to instability and erosion. Storm water velocities in this creek have been
F ACLMLA1293911discl-stmtl.ctn 2
calculated to vary from six to fourteen feet per second. On an ongoing basis, property
owners of each of the two lots will be required to undertake routine creek and slope
maintenance, including revegetation and soil work. In addition, it may be necessary in the
future to install rip-rap, gabions and/or retaining walls in some locations along a creek bank
to mitigate instability or erosion. Current regulations require permits for such improvements
from Contra Costa County, the California Department of Fish and Game and possibly the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The issuance of any such permit may be discretionary.
Permitting agencies may require that riparian vegetation be retained in making such
improvements or its loss mitigated through revegetation or other riparian enhancements.
Permitting agencies may attempt to minimize the extent of creek improvements, including
creek crossings for access from Las Trampas Road to the areas of the lots;that are usable for
residential purposes.
Potential buyers and future owners are further advised that for each lot a',creek crossing for
driveway access from Las Trampas Road will be required (the crossing for Parcel "A" is
already in existence). Any new crossing will require the approval of Contra Costa County,
the California Department of Fish and Game and possibly the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.
For a new crossing, it would likely be difficult to receive the necessary agency approvals to
construct and use a culvert instead of a bridge.
C. Oak Tree Protection.
Potential buyers and future owners of each of the two lots are further advised,under Chapter
816-6 of the Contra Costa County Code in effect on the date of execution of this Disclosure
Of Site Development Limitations And Requirements Statement, that any grading, trenching
or filling within the dripline of protected oak trees,or the removal of any such tree, requires
a tree permit from Contra Costa County prior to or concurrent with issuance of a grading
FACLMLA129391\disct-stmti.cln 3
permit and/or building permit. A tree permit requires a discretionary'action with public
notice of a tentative decision by the County and opportunity for the public to appeal.
Application of that chapter under the circumstances here will likely require further review
of the specific proposed residence and related improvements and grading by a qualified
arborist before the granting of such a permit. Among other requirements,the applicant will
need to show on its site development plan the location of the trunks and driplines of all trees,
identifying the species and trunk circumferences, and whether the trees are proposed to be
removed or altered. The arborist may need to inspect and monitor construction activities.
Reports have already been prepared by two arborists in which a preliminary tree survey was
completed, a conceptual residence development plan for each lot was'evaluated and tree
protection recommendations were provided. Avoidance or mitigation of impacts on most
protected trees will likely be required by the County, as condition of approval of tree
protection permit(s) and/or other Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator review
necessary for development of a residence and related improvements and grading on each lot.
The first arborist report prepared is comprised of the Preliminary Tree Survey Parcels "A"
and"B" Subdivision 104-89 Contra Costa County Las Trampas Road,Alamo,CA,prepared
by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist and dated March 10, 1998 and his letter dated June
5, 1998 regarding tree tolerance and construction, Subdivision 104-89, "A" and"B", Contra
Costa County. The second arborist report is the Peer Review of Arborist Report for .
Subdivision 104-89 prepared by Nelda Matheny, Consulting Arborist at HortScience, Inc.
and dated July 30, 1998. In addition,Joseph McNeil prepared a supplemental report dated
August 12, 1998 following review of the report by Nelda Matheny, in which he confirmed
he is in agreement with her report and recommendations. These documents and attachments
are available for inspection or to copy at the Contra Costa County Community Development
Department and should be reviewed in their entirety. As a convenience to potential buyers
FACLMLA129391tdisc1-stmt1.crn 4
and future owners,a summary of the oak tree protection recommendations in those reports
for the development and maintenance of a residence and related improvements and grading
on each of the lots is attached as Exhibit "C". Additional recommendations or conditions
may be required in a subsequent arborist report(s)of a specific development proposal(s) for
each lot. Potential buyers and future owners of each of the two lots are advised that the
Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator will likely require the preservation and
protection of a substantial majority of the trees on each of the lots as part of any residence
and related development. Tree protection measures may involve additional development and
construction expense. For example, the arborists advise that any residence and related
improvements and grading be designed with a knowledge of where roots of some trees are
actually located in order to employ careful, tailored building techniques to allow for the
placement of slabs,footings,trenches,paved surfaces and the bridge overcrossing abutments
on Parcel "B"with minimal disturbance to protected oak trees. The arborsts advise that the
design of such improvements should be undertaken only after a comprehensive inspection
of nearby trees,which may include some excavation by hand. Failure to first conduct such
tree inspections may result in subsequent additional design cost and project delays.
D. Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator Development Pian Review.
In addition and as required in the subdivision approval, at least thirty days prior to issuance
of building permits,the Zoning Administrator must review and approve development plans
for each building site. Through the Zoning Administrator review, homes and other large
structures shall be designed and placed to minimize the visual impact from adjoining
properties or roadways. All structures shall have non-flammable roofs and fire retardant or
non-flammable siding. All out-buildings shall have adequate spacing from residences. Prior
to issuance of building permits for a swimming pool, tennis court, sport court, etc., the site
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator.
FACLMLA\293911disc!-stmt l.ctn 5
This Zoning Administrator review is set forth in conditions oftentative subdivision approval.
The purpose of stating the tentative map condition requirements in this Disclosure Of Site
Development Limitations And Requirements Statement is to apply these review requirements
to all successors-in-interest to the ownership of each of the two lots and so that such review
will be part ofthe above-described development of either lot and undertaken prior to issuance
of grading or building permits for such development. Any changes to the site development
plan requirements and restrictions set forth herein requires Zoning Administrator review and
approval. The Zoning Administrator may elect to conduct a noticed public hearing before
rendering a decision on a proposed site development plan and/or changes in site development
plan requirements or restrictions. Any future owner is encouraged to contact the Community
Development Department prior to preparation of any site development plan to address tree
protection requirements and County concerns and objectives in review of site plans.
Potential buyers and future owners are further advised that the Contra Costa County Zoning
Administrator will also likely require, as part of its above-described review,compliance with
the Architectural Design Guidelines for Parcel A and Parcel B of MS 104-89 Contra Costa
County, CA prepared by Eric A. Hare dated August 18, 1998. The Architectural Design
Guidelines, as well as Conceptual Design Plan prepared by Eric A. Hare;of a residence and
related improvements on each lot dated August 19, 1998, are available for inspection or to
copy at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. As a convenience
to potential buyers and future owners of each of the two lots, a Summary of Design
Guidelines is attached as Exhibit"D".
The following are site development requirements and restrictions', that the Zoning
Administration expects to be followed. The maximum height of a residence is 32 feet. The
garage shall be of a size to accommodate no more than three cars. The maximum size of a
FACLMLAU9391\aisci-stmtt.cln 6
residence on Parcel A is 4540 square feet. The maximum size of a residence on Parcel B is
4400 square feet. The maximum size for a residence may not be allowed by the Zoning
Administrator if the proposed design is not compatible with the physical constraints of the
parcel.
One of the two existing driveway locations on Parcel A should be used to minimize impacts.
Access to Parcel B from the adjoining property(APRT No. 198-220-002)will only be allowed
if an easement for such access has been previously provided by the owner of that property
and recorded. Any retaining walls on Parcel B should not exceed eight feet in height. Any
retaining walls on Parcel A should not exceed six feet in height.
The light reflectivity of the color palette and materials used should not exceed fifty percent
light reflectivity, as confirmed by a letter from a licensed architect or other professional or
materials supplier acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. Through architectural design and
building materials selection, two-story massing of the sides of residences viewed from Las
Trampas Road should be minimized. For example, a one-story element with a minimum of
three feet of depth in front of the second-story element should be provided on those sides.
Materials such as brick,stone or wood should be used as wainscoting and horizontal banding.
No more than two healthy trees on Parcel B should be removed. Solid fencing should be
limited to three feet in height,except for rear yard and the side yards adjoining the residence.
Existing vegetation along Las Trampas Road should be maintained or suitable new
landscaping provided as a comparable screen. The site development plans should allow for
relatively, flat usable yard areas at least consistent with such areas provided for in the above-
referenced Conceptual Design Plan proposed by Eric A. Hare for each lot.
E.ICLMLA129391\discl-stmtl.c1n 7
E. Enforcement byContra Costa County Against Future!Q-Wners of Each Lot,
This Disclosure Of Site Development Limitations And Requirements Statement shall not be
modified by subsequent recorded document unless approved by the Board of Supervisors of
Contra Costa. County. Contra Costa County may enforce the provisions, limitations,
restrictions and requirements of this statement.
By execution of this Disclosure Of Site Development Limitations And Requirements
Statement and on behalf of their successors-in-interest to each of the two lots, the present
owners of the subject property acknowledge and accept the limitations, restrictions,
requirements and disclosures contained herein, and the recordation hereof by the Contra
Costa County Public Works Department.
Executed this day ofd• -;199$
o ert T. RaymoM
Executed this /6 day of , 1998
anne C. Raymond
FACLMLA129391 idiscl-stmtl.ctn 8
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
On \ \ 1` , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for
said State, personally appeared Robert T. Raymond and Joanne C. Raymond, personally
known to me(or proved on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the persons whose names
are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same
in their authorized capacities, and that by their signatures on the instrument the persons, or
the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. C)('1""—' h
atary
T• KATY DUGGER
U Comm.#1148254 /�
{ w► OT'ARY'PUBLIC•CAItFORNIOP
COMM OSTA COUNTY 0
Cwttm,Exp:July 2d,2001 '&
FACLMLA\29391\disci-stmt1.cln 9
;, t r r a3 r
rA
yt m 5 - _ �? i y <.,X4 c - t $S}<?t �.. r t r ? r
a r f 'a .t M r X , - t y t .Fz }t J,,.J• ryas q r<yC,11 ,pxz. t ✓,.
r x S v k } .y t>,kX;i' Y;fv :�,. f k -7.. 1. r - \k{x�'}fir tai ti .r.�at •.x z}f�. ,y�xy x S zF ;+;,.X 5rx k'` }
.,? : R .L rX s'h! �; >>> ''l t t Y;k r< :53 r 'f "A $s '3Y a'+7sa S rr :: yt•J..t,?TJ!'h' ii.r'"fw.x y4 a r }a' �'s•f`c- r,
^ r - 6.. .-.+ , F r .G's<+ g}� cda Y y ..?/ rk s a Mh, u,�� n t� ..Yy-� r, <t'3. r<y5 r ' 'r yi•<'� Y : Sc:
J r r`o:..Y '�. 2t ar}' 'K'�{,t' a 'yo ;".. ) '�, r x+'f•I .s v}�'<>r ry34,$ k t^ev,fF,. ,�' .., .. ty P �, .. a, ',rM
.f• i j a S.1 < 6 }X - f Y !'r Z�•�? v k �,n2. t�j'.
.a' �".z'f y6Jx to' t }, �y �{t}1.Yf rt +�i7:R < .,r'f'' „F,�i' a > ay ..:ry.t•.. titsCat4
r }:r a a.. r x,Yy } 1�L 'c .,t?'rr� t} xC,• t xu' Y> X�
f f
5 Ctk `+ rxM !` w i 4•r�'". X 'ay �3 J� ^cJ +R`"
,��•,� 3�
x `G t,<5 y. .�}b.. �3 a i w�}s c <. as•Y�`yS 1...3 .; } < r F^�Y',. r�., •• ,+y �;., ,+r-`,rvh}•,W-
c �ks''rt. 3??"y..".' d r .:rt:..s„y� i.��z kkx.• /1t<}Y C <l t 4 # :af.°''.�••xt�rii,5j .s�rb... t :}. tsY 1c %',. ! ''sAz+.+�. ,$•fr �++y2-:
{L a Tj ,,++Mn$t-� t a�y fj��r f £°. n, t,�t,-.w.. it •�' ',,��, `t+j ,•f''`t` k x Dr ys. r
:..� ,y .,3` / - < z,,yy } ,,R :f ,, �•3c• y ) ,�'a.Y 3! +fi b s'a'r �,.;,•#, .;'. ''3; +'�' .+ ,' 2'* <: rir' " �..;f ..
.......yt j :t... sf,4 .t > t `} }.'.. i%2.+�rr- hXYX,�.rr { <>, Y.t r ySk y`a ,cC•'•.tr. 2 t Sf'.}Kr r - > `�.:
+twos wo:::mr••, {tt,J t{ Yn t<�`•t r•..t .. i r.. lS.tr to Y-, K i 'y' ;''y.Y �x.• Yc J ' '^"✓'fir 4^ ass}�.a:.tsk y �'
a</`, /b }C z6`wrn..,•.t }} 3 r �<..r } y,:r ::>:y. 5k t Ja ,�( c if "S``'.t >y, w "<�`S.l,,J':f ^, k ;', y
3 C..`'f .'.. Y•yS5 j.'qp` ..:rl.rf h•ra t 3F.-X .fr'"`f>.:? to,%.. ;�Y•ij{f0$ ¢.; t Y %�f{(y�o� b x y ( _,. r s
3 - v+ \i 5{�}f. C} } !.S. C� + 1 4m '*Y:a ys,'q. ..: tyJ! C' �I "���'�ryq'S�.5 }+'Y}4.•—
} ..a a S -.sY s {' . s fzFY,>µ: J v .' �+r.'.< ar ?. ,9 ,f y,. Y<: �:ix t,.:Yy. f ^w,> S�
SY w Yy Y' t� ky' r4� <x#<F fb wits .Rqs eJ t}S> a<13 { :. } L b t Y
t a z.• t 4- 'U.f6 +aro% ,, ' r :;?..,.i...k :{3, .w ,x„ ..e }F't�. { #^+' y. F5 f' u 5 y a a�,-
.*<x.�4 r s tF ys.}Xxa� affi '1,1'111M}firry} / .� xy as s. a tib�y,
>. (..Y 7 - ti F v a 'Y c ..$*..w}r#}*Cz .a,}+r f<S' =x a k' h 'c° 3• ja r xa' yaY,.
,'r ,fa'}k$_. .yI i H <•',y�tzo- �hf!v � }`'y� 1+.c, � �s�Y. j fs>. •}�. 3 yy}�'�finy,.�t..
4J s.6 Sk zv-i,
t"{+ .+i`'�w.c fy+<� frt ,.,�.!<rf' tz7•�'Fy,.# S
<,,k th Sr�} a My `'t ..'
¢-. 7` rr",a y v & ` n„_Xi f a`r ,. a h ar r..• 'a `<Q-`�
111
11.
ll
a }•�,.y.. s$J� }Y7"f �f• .Yf 4 ✓ ,<-.,s }•.La' ,,y t* 4'_'r'a' $' j t ,a-<.
} t *> a f i \,c`•<}' `( /za 5 r 'r 1`"r„%s}x,G, 3 a G a.{.».�:,*� < .. t aw rr -
�. _•, r Y•''�^S,r" '��� ab',.. r v }'•x�r'i4?<�c M
< y,t'#�xZak�• - � ,.}� {2 f• .:�L'ts�::
Y r C r fsa•t < ro r Y r—yd wa �ry .rik
..,r f �' 9.hA7,..5 ..•'' , M ,fi4 ?rx,,. �t,tx'e ...xi1. syv�. C }�q�2 ;'/� 3' :.� <$F:u'fe'<. �rJ . ..X }.: ^.�'.{-. f:.t',,Y• .. •+F.}.Y '£ <.. 8 -',Y`.'%•an%;;"Z .;.Y`l .t.: 'ia , ... r,
F�'„ ..v.:.� •..'r.`a,. .,�c..X%<ax;•:,- r. ti' P ;:3.y 33x.,i.:,..,..`3,. �: y... r- c� ,y^.,v,�:.,.';:5.}{•:,ya;N.9 9Pr ;.
..,i( :a Y .. z.}T ,,..i:x.a; ;.+.:x�'r k" ♦ wv..;. tN. � ; fr�v:.c.s �,. `^-@.,,:'}',_" % ry.`.. •�`"i}?ati.:TY`S '�,`>'"Y?3 s fn"'i.''x' ' .riY .''S<'$ f':;
J 3 k;r r :- < t r u f<`'S' a 4. y ,fi'Lsa. �•.
< 2- S} . 2 f,`4YX`+'+�+•$.' ar121' . �.. o,W3 "i. �C t, x�, d +i S fX•`¢' xts £ s f aU .,y,r a4• - %"?r(�.v'�x}
.; -. �' - a... X•N b ,* m":"i 3+�. A-r /S,�"� - '�w�' ^Y6 av�r'Y'�lt�>:
`><;*,'� a} ,a'*«,i k} .iris ax•'<-k'{1.1,,''.'r,<2':'i':,, L. .; j-t.:.,a , Sr< .'.+ ? •-'G`4 n a<.,.`rzn2.:
•, }. .,. .°i {r. X'.K' gW-.. ] •.t.} `a x ,y3s , . ry ;n < 'r•!". F'A� Ea' } 1 -a.:: tky:
y ) y. y }S r.. .fie-h �, .� _.� d i' 'Sy ,;, '+R�S.,,Y' yir .}.. 3q j`'k-,.� Y' y v�.
'ssV ;• Pr' /. anxr. `s1 �"w"rt`} 3t,,�f ,'Y�X •%,.a '�45�•.y`�it'. tP; »• ` *Jrx'r'r�', t Y �' y",�y,p'•.i�X�N,f'�
t s a .. rt i t f x�•^ Z ,ur < •'{. 3+-<1 2 %t?tS xs. f r ). r k x
X o:.t ziZ r � a `y :v 3.y �''Y.ti�a h} s:@+ .r'M qtr f$ .if.yG•.. . 4{ ga: y'rY�a 2x1 +"4 vci!}$ f S.
):-"-,t,- t - 4Y. 1 '1': 5 r 4 z ti.`. ., rk +,x '^ t ,.,Y}ay Opt r JF ✓> S <-J. vas : � k
K r rr 5 t
;m
S ,
f
t ice' 1. j ,� S ;
.t 2 v ,1: rf .,l; ..�.'. t.. ,}•:Y t,.x - 1, '' wy
r
r
f,N i i s.
t
r F' i ft' h
L t
}
r
l}\ ll
L
r� I .�,��:l , : wt /
r.
r f {
r r 7 f. ;.
1 11
{.. ., r1. 3%
,� r. .tib r ix '� S_ s r
k
d
e a�
_ r
r
1 y
'� t: 5 "".y S ''S, !' t 4z..x ''+"x< <: s ° <i } ''=5 rfw f
r
r f
r - t' .�•_
s t �- .er 1 4
}
5 ,"TAGS r
r a
r a
•.
U
t`
x.x-
_.
r
HI "
. 4' a
{
Diablo Soil Engineers' Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Dated December 22, 1997
L
D. RECOhEMNDATIONS
1. General
The following are recommendations for the proper design,completion and maintenance of the project
which should be discussed with an experienced soil engineer if there are any questions about their
implementation. This is because the recommendations are partly general and partly specific to certain items
of concern that have been identified above. We also recommend that a soil engineer be retained to
a. Review the grading, foundation, and drainage plans,
b. Update this report if necessary because of changes or delays, ,
C. Inspect the work in order to determine construction adequacy and to make field changes as necessary,
and
d. Prepare a Final Soil Engineer's report that indicates whether construction was done according to
generally accepted engineering practices and which may provide additional recommendations for
future maintenance and improvements. '
We ask that we be given the privilege of providing these additional engineering serviceVso that there
will be no question about implementing the intent of our recommendations. The recommendations are based
on our findings and conclusions that we developed during the preparation of this report
2. Development and Building Location
It is anticipated that two ordinary frame houses, driveways and other concrete flatwork,underground
utilities, and other normal improvements will be located on the lots without undue:cutting and filling. We
expect that retaining walls will be installed at the base of each out slope and that the steep drainageway on
Parcel A near our Test Hole #4 will be avoided. Houses on bath parcels may be built over-the creekbank .
because deep foundations will make them independent of the upper soil, but it will probably be cheaper tb
set back from the creek in order to minimize the depth and expense of special foundations.
We expect that engineered drawings will be prepared generally_according to the recommendations
and design criteria in this report. If significant variations to our assumptions are to be made, we suggest:
further consultation with a soil engineer. We offer to review the preliminary design drawings, to meet with
owners, builders, officials and others prior to construction; and to observe and test sail-related aspects of
construction as the work is being done. We should be notified at least two days in advance of a need for
us in the field so that we can properly schedule ourselves.
3. Site Preparation
Debris and roots should be cleared from the locations of structural cuts, fills, and building areas.
Depressions left after.removing trees and other buried objects should be filled with soil densifed to 90%
relative compaction (ASTM Test D 1557c). Existing grades to be filled should then be thoroughly scarified
and recompacted in order to prepare for further filling. Elsewhere, existing foundations may need to be
removed if they are unsuitable and cannot be left in place because of conflicts or esthetics. Obsolete concrete
Exhibit A
Page l of 6
Diablo Soil Engineers, Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Dated December 22, :1997
t.
may be used tis creek riprap, or broken into chunks smaller than 6" and incorporated into fill(if any), but
it will probably be most efficient to remove it from the site.
If further permanent cuts are made into the updope, they will need to be supported with retaining
walls, although temporary sheep cuts may be made if worker safety is not compromise& Tops of all cuts
should be rounded to conform to the undisturbed*4)soil surface. Permanent cuts in soil and all fills should
be no steeper than 2 horizontal: 1 vertical,and preferably 3 : 1 or flatter wherever praofrtcal. Cuts into sorted
bedrock may be made as steeply as 0.5 : 1 if, in our opinion, the slopes will remain stable. All unpaved
finish grades should slope at least 2%a in such a manner that surface water can drain away efficiently,but
without running over bare slopes or collecting.against obstructions.
'Any fills should-ttteaa•beraised in 8-inoHarers that are moisture-conditioned-between optimum and
2°lo above optimum moisture content and then densified to,90%relative compaction.(ASTM Test D1557c),
also as determined by the soil engineer. If fill material contains sock or rubble; no rocks lager than six
inches should be allowed. If fill material must be imported to the site, it should be selected so that it is at
least as clean, at least as strong, and no more expansive than the on-site soils.- Consult with a soil engineer
to verify the suitability of soil to be imported.
Depending on the season that the grading is to be done, it may be necessary to install silt fences or
hay-bale dams, and to keep construction grades trimmed so that runoff and mud will be prope3'ty controlled.
Placement of seed,fertilizer and mulch or jute mesh may be needed on finished bare-ground if grading occurs
after native weed seeds have naturally dispersed in the summer.
It must be the grading equipment operators' responsibility to select equipment and procedures that
will accomplish the grading as described above. They must organize their work in such a manner that one
of our field representatives can inspect and test each element of the grading, especially the fill preparations,
layered filling and furish grading. We should be notified at least two days before any need for us in the field
so that we can properly schedule ourselves for consultation, coordination, grading observations, and soil
testing.
4. Drainage
Particular attention must be given to both surface and subsurface drainage at this site. No
concentrated water should be allowed to run over any prepared slope. Slope runoff should be channeled away
from improvements, and slopewash debris storage areas should be provided wherever accumulations can be
anticipated. Rough and finish grading should be planned to prevent any ponding of water on.the surface,
except that a safe sediment pond may be necessary if grading is done during the winter to control muddy
runoff.
Unpaved yards should slope at least 2% away from the foundations or they should drain to catch
basins that are piped to safe disposal in the creek. Roof runoff should also be directed away from
foundations. Do not allow downspouts to deposit runoff where it can saturate foundation soil. Recognize
that crawl spaces beneath framed floors can collect seepage if the rough interior grades are lower than the
fiiiish grades around the outside. If it appears that the ground under the houses might get wet from capillary
moisture migration, the ground surface can be covered with plastic sheeting to act as a membrane to keep
the moisture underneath and dry air above.
Exhibit A
Page 2 of 6
Diablo Soil Engineers' Prelimti
Diablo Soil Engineers' Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Dated December 22, 1"7
Creek Crossing
It will probably be-necessary to install a creek-crossing to provide access for Parcel B. We anticipate
culvert ug the creels with a pipe at least 36"in diameter. The pipe shod be placed in an excavated channel
to alloy'a sang fit for the pipe. We recommend installation of either a 36" corrugated steel pipe or a
reinforced concrete pipe,each with flared-and sections at each end. The FESs should have outoff aproru4 and
ripmp or concrete endwalls may be needed to prevent local erosion and scour. Bacld R and pavement should
then be placed as recommended elsewhere in this report
Or, a bridge may be installed. If so, we anticipate a light steel-framed bridge or a flat-car bed on
pier-supported. abutments. The abutments would be L-shaped with backfill on top of the footings, and the
piers should penetrate at least 5' below creekbottonr-leveis.'
8. Trenching
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires that trenches 4' deep or more either be
shored or that the trench walls be sloped back in order to improve worker safety. If temporary sloping is
done, it should vary with soil type, from 112 horizontal : 1 vertical for very stable sails like hard clay, to 2
: 1 or flatter for loose or sensitive soils. When doubt concerning trench stability .wises, the4underground
contractor should seek an opinion from a soil engineer, or he should shore his trenches.
Some utility lines are normally placed on sand-bedded trench bottoms which inadvertently can serve
as underground moisture conduits. Underground service laterals should be backfilled under building
perimeters with plugs of impermeable clayey soil if-seepage from yards into lower crawl spaces can be
anticipated. Also, trenches can become weak planes in tension at the tops of slopes,"or they can remove
buttressing support at bottoms of slopes. Consultation with a soil engineer is recommended if such problems
can be foreseen.
Trench backfill should proceed in accordance with our suggestions for earthwork compaction,or they
should follow normal utility or governmental specifications for backfilling and street subgrade preparation.
Flooding or "jetting" of trench backfill is not recommended for any clayey backfill soil, but it may be
acceptable for permeable,non-cohesive material.
{
9. Concrete Slabs on Grade
Framed wood flooring is preferable for the living areas of buildings, but concrete floor slabs on grade
are anticipated for the garages and patios. Where slabs are to be used, the following is recommended:
Reinforced concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of 4" of crushed CalTrans Class 2
aggregate base rock that should be placed over subgrades which have been stripped of all dark brown topsoil.
When it is necessary to rebuild pads after subexcavating to remove unsuitable soil, they should be filled to
the desired subgrade level with native or imported soil that has a liquid limit of no more than 45%.
Slab fills should be densifled to 90% relative compaction (ASTM D1557), and then all subgrades,
whether filled or not,should be proof-rolled to 90%relative compaction.The aggregate base rock should also
be compacted to 90%, and then the subgrades should be pre-swelled by sprinkling or flooding for a few days
Exhibit A
Page 4 of 6
' Diablo Soil Engineers' Prerninary Geotechnical Report
Dated''December 22, 1997
t
prior to placement of vapor barriers or concrete,particularly wherever a slab is stfuctarally connected to the
foundation.
Concrete stabs should be at least V thick and reinforced, *preferably witlr bar reinforcement. Wire
mesh may be acceptable to the structural engineer, but only if it is carefully centered in the slabs. Crarage
slabs and exterior slabs such as for carports and patios should be separated from foundations. Weakened-
plane coatracdon joints should be provided in exposed non-structural slabs at MY to 1T intervals. Reinforcing
should be continuous through contraction joints.
10. Pavement
The customary driveway section is 4" reinforced concrete as described above, or 2" of plant-mixed
asphalts (A thicker "engineered" R Value design can be done upon request.) Either pavement should be
placed over at least 4" of CalTratis Class 2 Aggregate Base rock.
Install pavements according to standard construction practices such as those in Sections 16, 19, 26
and 39 of the latest CalTrans Standard Specifications, except that subgrades may be compacted'to 90%
relative compaction (ASTM D1557) at or 2'% above optimism moisture. Soft or wet areas should be aver
excavated to firm soil. If the exposed sail is dry and cracked, the dry soil should be exeavate'd to the depth
of the cracks to expose firm and moist soil.
Then place filter fabric, rock, tacking and pavement immediately to keep the soil from drying and
becoming subject to swell heave the following winter. Base rock should be CalTrans Class 2 aggregate;
asphalt should be plant-mixed Type B. Base rock should also be compacted to 90°10 and tacked. Asphalt
on slopes should be reinforced with Petromat fabric, and all asphalt should be sealed'after paving.
11. Retaining Walls
New walls of different types may be installed if they are self-draining to prevent hydrostatic
pressures. Impervious walls should be back-drained. Flexible exterior crib walls may be installed for fills,
or 3'high past-and-plank walls may be built with 112" gaps between the boards for self-drainage. Recognize
that ordinary wood walls will not last forever; they often tip and need ro be replaced after a few years.
Any foundation that is also a retaining wall should be built, drained, and densely backfilled before
the framing to assure that the wall is already deflected from the soil load. Furthermore, any wall/foundation
on a slope should be designed and built with adequate provisions to prevent downslope drift.
12. Planting
Landscaping may be done in an ordinary manner if irrigation is kept to a minimum and drainage
facilities are adequate. Native trees may be encouraged to grow on the property in order to knit the surface
soil together with roots. However, do not plant shallow-rooted trees so close to structures or pavement that
root heave can occur. Use of automatic timer-operated sprinkler systems is not recommended unless water
application is carefully adjusted for actual seasonal need.
Exhibit A
Page 5 of 6
Diablo Soil Engineers' Prex,&inary Geotechnical Report
Dated December 22, 1997
L
Erosion of the silty soil is foreseen to be a problem if the ground surface-is left bare or if runoff
becomes concentrated. Bare ground should be seeded unless grading is done between the end of the winter
rains and the end of summer when volunteer seeding occurs. Otherwise, it will be prudent to seed and
maintain bare ground surfaces until good growth is established.
It will be important to use landscaping that is largely self-maintaining and which does not require
abnormal watering relative to the natural surroundings unless runoff-collection• facilities are excellent.
Consultation with a landscape architect is recommended to assure installation of effective irrigation, site
drainage, and relatively maintenance-free and seW-sustaining plant materials.
13. Swimming Pools
Pools and associated decks are not anticipated. If pools are to be considered;we will provide specific
advice upon request.
14. Maintenance
Annual flushing with a garden hose of all underdrains, catch basins and downs iut piping is
recommended. If any pipes become clogged, they should be cleared so that hydrostatic water pressures do
not lessen the shear strength of the soils. . Ground surfaces must be maintained to promote good drainage
away from foundations, and to prevent erosion and saturation of foundation soil.
Slopewash debris should always be removed from behind retaining walls if any ever collects after
heavy storms. Doing so will restore the mud-storage capability of the walls. Creek'scour, if any, should
be repaired by installing boulder or broken-concrete riprap and deeply rooted plants>like blackberries.
Maintenance should also include timely sealing of separations in concrete slabs on grade to keep
excess water out of the spit. Monitor irrigation systems to keep them from overwaterii€g. Maintain .
landscaping around exterior walls to keep the soil from becoming overly wet or dry..
E. LIMITATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Engineer
The recommendations presented herein are based on the soil conditions revealed by our test borings
and laboratory procedures according to state-of-the-art methods. Samples were evaluated for the existing
conditions and proposed construction according to ordinary soil-engineering standards of practice,but we did
not do an investigation for hazardous materials.
Underground conditions can be expected to vary between exploration points,therefore,if any unusual
conditions are encountered during construction, or if the actual construction will differ from that planned at
the present time, we should be noted for supplemental recommendations. The conclusions and
recommendations for this report should not be assumed to apply to properties beyond the project area.
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 6
;<
Y.,ff .:f SLi a'n� ✓��,.✓>� a
F
r F
}
t
\� n
\ J \
you
tons toot,
"TISMA MAT
--mom 24M
F �
K y }
h
F
y<�
l
ti
3
Y 'a
4wa IBM,l
i
MW TWO
L
{
Y� {
L"AMVtj
Darwin Myers' Letter to Bob Drake dated January 5, 1998 1
Regarding Preliminary Review of Geotechnical Report
The primary conclusion of the report is that the site is suitable for the proposed use, and i
-it points out that development of the site may be costly if property done and hazardous if
not properly done, it then goes on to provide conclusions and recommendations to guide
prudent development of the site. Primary products of the investigation original geologic
maps of each lot (scale 1"=40') and cross-sections (scale V=20') that present the
consultant's observations and interpretations. The following is intended to highlight and
summarize key findings of the DSE investigation.
Geology of Building,.Sites. The potential building sites are underlain by
Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits, which range up to 22 feet thick near the modern
stream channel.
• Slope Stability. With regard to Parcel A, field observations confirm the slide
originally mapped by the CDMG (Majmundar, 1996). It is well away from the
potential building site. This slide is not regarded by DSE as an obstacle to
development of a residence in the area of the old corral. DSE does map a debris
chute on the slope above the old corral (see DSE Figure 2a).',Generales'
recommendations are provided to prevent possible future instability of this area
from impacting the residence on Parcel A.
With regard to Parcel B, DSE confirmed the existence of the slide mapped by the
CDMG (Majmundar, 1996). Although this slide overlooks the building site on
Parcel B, DSE found no evidence of recent activity, considers it to be a shallow
slide (depth to bedrock less than 10 feet), and general recommendations are
provided to prevent the slide area from impacting the future residence.
Liquefaction Potential. The borehole Ings confirm that the alluvial fan deposits
that und'erl'ie the site are not well sorted, consisting of sand, silt and clay that in
.general is too clayey to liquefy. The water table was at a depth of more than 10
feet below the surface at the time of the subsurface investigation.
One sample of relatively loose sand was collected by DSI: at a depth of 16 feet in
Boring V. Engineering analysis of this sample indicated that it would liquefy
under conditions of strong ground shaking (0.5 g's), provided it was saturated.
However, at the time of the field work the water table in this boring was recorded
at 22 feet, so the susceptibility of this particular sand body to liquefaction would
be a function of the elevation of the water table at the time of the earthquake. it
is the interpretation of DSE that sand deposits possessing liquefaction potential are
relatively thin, discontinuous lenses encapsulated by non-liquefiable material.
Moreover, the upper 10 to 12 feet of alluvium was found to be clayey and not
subject to liquefaction in any scenario. To keep risks of liquefaction-related
damage to an acceptable minimum, piers for the foundation are to penetrate
bedrock or very dense soil. In discussing design values for piers (DSE
EE Hlu1T
;. Page I of 3
Darwin Myers' Letter to Bob Drake dated January 5. 1998
Regarding Preliminary Review of Geotechnical Report
L
repdrt,page 14), it is recommended that piers near the stream channel be at least 5
feet deeper than the flow line of the creels. A sample calculation presented with
this discussion is for a 20 foot deep pier. '(A 24-foot deep pier would extend
approximately 4 feet beyond the liquefiable sand lens penetrated in Boring#7.)
+ CSM_k_bank Protection. DSE does not require'streambank protection. She report
states that creekbanks are susceptible to erosion during times of High discharge,
Rip-rap, gabions or retaining walls are identified as structural means of protecting
banks if erosion is objectionable. DSE does not prgvide any recommendation for
a setback from the top of the creek bank. (In their,view, a residence supported on
a deep pier and grade beans foundation would'perform satisfactorily from an
engineering perspective at the top.of the bank or even if it were partially
suspended over the creek.) �! .
_esi n. Specific criteria are provided for site preparation, grading, drainage,
creek crossings, trenching, concrete slabs on grade, pavement, retaining walls,
swimming pools and maintenance.
• Plan Review and Monitoring. DSE indicates the need for review of�rnprovement
plans and the need for monitoring of earthwork and foundation laying.
Evaluation
In our-.opinion, the report of Diablo Soil Engineers is adequate for the processing of the
pending rezoning application. It is a well researched report,and provides evidence of the
existence of building sites with adequate access on both lots. It should be recognized that
applications for building permits are subject to review by the Grading Division of the
Building Inspection Department, and they may require additional geotechnical studies
prior to issuance of building permits.
Recommendations
1. Topographic_Man
In our opinion, the existing topographic map is not an adequate base for
preparation of improvement plans on individual lots. When submitting applications
for grading or building permits, the developer of these lots should submit a
detailed topographic map which accurately shows the top-of-creek-bank, flow line
of the creek, slope gradient within hillside areas north of the building site. It
should also show the landslides and debris chute and areas of shallow sloughing
mapped by DSE, along with the scenic easement and the restricted development
area along the creek.
2. Site Plan/Foundation Plan Review
Applications for grading and/or building permits shall be accompanied by
evidence of review by the project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist.
For Parcel A, the geotechnical engineer shall specifically comment on: a) locations
Page 2 of 3
Darwin Myers' Letter to Bob Drake dated January 5, 1998
Regarding Preliminary Review of Geotechnical Report
of the building envelope with respect to the debris chute; b) adequacy of measures
to protect the residence from debris flows; c) location of the building envelope
with respect to the top of the creek bank;d) foundation plans for the residence,
and e) design of any planned retaining walls.
For Parcel B, the geotechnical'engineer shall specifically comment on: a) the
location of the building envelope with regard to the slide mapped by DSE; b)
proposed vehicular access to the building site; c) location of the building envelope
with respect to the top of the creek bank; d) foundation plans for the residence;
and design of any planned retaining walls.
3. A statement should be recorded with the deed to both parcelswhich references the
DSE geotechnical report.
We trust that these comments provide the information that you require at this time. If you
have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES
Darwin Myers, CEG 946
Principal
<'= Page 3 of 3
y
1 /
L ,,}�,
} S
J y 'C+ �C }rk .t 1 y <� t T+., k§ r y 4Y-sf
r tg>` h .2 t3 err 3r .+,! 1 L w?Y<k:wf t^ 1 T+_"1,,,? Y S 3'
>3y t. y e.3 \ k i' ay4•< k'h24 n,.3 r} ,..r+� t{''k`•'''�<�„t,i, t•, �i`y t fin- ,�Ys q. "C kir it,�yf, :
`'<. ,,,,,. k frft.t Y t ✓n. r 7 r! 7NON",
w >'S �r f y` ? kz3 e. A e r a* ..'..:��',:,yy,•�s•, ti
1 M
r..:.ybi a., •a >L• S�•}et#a�srrt• i'..,T^rSfs} ` '•"•'wi n.? .f• rPr j.•f tir`rt i{ry. ,.?{K`k"'i f / rt3,w {{
�•ye ryi
—, a. ye .^F j. f, y.�,z.4ut, {�( -3„.,Vit.>>icy w;�r +• ? f. ,,}. '.jy4 >3�4• } q.'rN,•'. tef4t,;r i`Yw'q
oil
o�4i r:,T t -7., > yv
a- wary �x�' ye�•2, <. .r o'k,"•y x>f .i „xwa� �.��,a(.` •^ ;• Yi,�,,;tys ;.
..4 4 k ansiew4'3``s:r,r.,£`3Ky`sa h, r .`, �^}?.ih").w' y ? '+d' .. +"` F tf=`ars4s v ' t' !y a •'�`"''' u
;,,'a"3a aw sx w 'c k• y ,y y ..3' ^f' ^ �v^<-�i ? - .a..o. `A-•t &'£�•✓ 4?
t ,aay'r^n 'i.'t"+h'?.o•a„ d,�12`4rk� b }ty .. n�
�1j
y fr
low, }
a i a p
Y } wr aetRk- y3 n { ZnL {rt
sw OM w h h fi .. r� ti �t 7F T Sy pf*y y ' 'y
Q� I t t k
'• . e$7 {k v^,,..r ,��.i y w riy � � rf r y '• r a } _.
s x k t-P h kk�y'3f++,to pp }t°'�' .r; T '1}'L.. ,y.� r+*. {�y 9' ^t:yxr ��,"�`
-.> y wit -'r '�y1'a3"y'ye •••I¢n 'vd.,tj '``<"}'2 a�r 'k' ,fix`" rgfY��..w"Jr'"y�'3%, 3r.•:} ` 'F ^ ^,fir ,`fa.ty riy.ra?s•.a'a°•,;`pgt ,�<G, 73,...
sk i y aux; :t'5 �.�. a""'• .+F y::P'I .'6} .r ¢iY,.. f.. y c;.,Lt,;n;.• '.tura..,.,3:aL. .s., {^.,;f, ,v.'. d y`4 4.^�, i b.;'l{Y
•, y /3x - r •y •� Y,s 9• 4 .f•' •Y L #' �y" ,.>•2 4 Y w S. of ,ot
t r�. t �..to}...,..,a' •' ys�'INNIIII
y. zt� S. 6i„; 3•Tf + t;'�t `�+` a •Y ,:w.�hk 'y�� S' ;yt3f+,7 '..suf_'2 ',EiF
t a ¢^.` .i'4 r i{�,+,'+�-y a ` `..0 isy •�. ,-Z ' i Sk1 3 tw.�.r ^, ::} S.-..'z 33 . yo. ',F ik xy� 2a.!£,w,F.. t fit::'y >ru r,.Y.:.; .rc > fi /i4R � $�?te-. r. k 1 ;p+,�^'niy orf{ t
t r, a3 i a S n 4: ifYI ♦f�,,00,I, r.,NY 2 f-f 9 e�y, >.£'s, <t.a t < .£.+Cf,v 1:h} s 7 3f t L ,”
t' r` ' :!^�.... f •^ ✓`•G a Yi'rr? 35. d^"^'}' 3 f� r Y' fi `}n
y .. t d. h5 r" 4 r'.. ..sx St i`x,-:- ti rf.-. �J.' r.
y y ,�,y`• ;f^+• t 1 y ,� a' •r`c ,} r "• Ar ^c r✓ r ~ t, y' l•
r:. a 3#''rhe "tsri' 'wy. �,, ., { TY y s e t'fi •# '4 'n,'' afgb e3. 1y`^.3vy*,,a4:.
'w` 4'-z t h _ri£7 'fi+Y. i� .} ^� t fi #2� "^ Very r4 k;y.: f,. rx h. .a ,y{,'.fx.. ` e r K s
r •k.,� rfiG9a ryiw'ie,'+ `hii., - ✓t. {f� `.r� w \ fi'fia±, �.•, Y',r' ,..L•�, i9ki.7,,'te A,+ -i:.
s -Y' d> �•x� fic >.x t _ ^{t.<y yl .py ai;35 r„` i ,'•i,. Srfi `i' ,n"�sr'�ail -:y+y'•tv ys •°v i'�a �r, a f2a^`�:,r`d';
y r Y, 'E t ; ♦ .ittb 't > `rr'yt�aS �2i}%� yyy.. y .r }:,,2#<�. ,y3 F! �;..:-':
tY ..; ri"�fi .r w.. l 5 -yt{.r`arrr aaT-y�`n.. ,,r ,,h •tt< t _ 'S Sw N n:s a' r e kL: r7 .yS...� f .rr <:'
7 v w a f rhi / }>< a r ,?r 1 ,,. a r%�y w+i>�,r'#yc�rf+`e.I. f r ' shy ,e .ea iMIAMT K%
`�.�, x-�4., aF "F t:_ '. �a 41 f h r ty .,,!Y n k _r ;
E
.a t d 1t �: Yt1. 'Y �/ >2%
r
k+A �. f �, yr �. t J; h ,.
.."
t
> ,
,t•- k ;1 1 t �,: r t F t�1 L t
e OwlIt
h1. ,ik 5a y _'r-Y
MqX
N A
t
'. y: :
4
iiiiiiii�_,�',.�,:�;.-.�i.��:""��,::,-:�,�".-,�;,�'_,`.! -,�l�:-.�?.w
..t -"� f,
i
rOp Y ':. ' -I t
Y
y t: 01: % T E
4 , h
r t
s
..;� y. �!
t r
:. ., ::
._. .. •i _. •. - _
y
.� 1'�' '4+y_.Zh'? `Yx K �, } ar tr+`R tt ,_.t >�tt't r> eSy > .7' .�sr :. 4
7 r
r S / t
flow YNONAWO M"'Ok��"I� %ffl�, -,,�",::�:�z:--"'':r,::,:,.�.,::��.,,,.._:. ::" - .. .,
1 J ; isr'�
k
�' 4
,
..
};
M...'�......_ ., , ,�_ ,,�,,w�:�:,�--.�:� U- '�._�i�_.�._:_"..�4_i.�. % .%,,�,.�'. _: .,�
t!
r
i U .
v
SUMMARY OF ARBORISTS' RECOMMENDATIONS
1. By careful design all but a few of the oak trees on each of the lotsmay be preserved
and impacts to them mitigated. Trees Nos. 379,387, 388, 394 and 401 as identified in the
Preliminary Tree Survey by Joseph McNeil may need to be removed following further
inspection at the time of tree permit and development plan review.
2. Construction design and building techniques should be preceded by using one or
more of the several techniques available to locate roots of some trees so as to allow
placement of slabs, footings, trenches, paved surfaces, and the bridge to Parcel "B" with
minimal disturbance to adjoining oak trees. Building techniques may include hand, high
speed air nozzle, hydraulic, digging of trenches and excavations, specially compacted
subgrade, special driveway sections using geo-textile, and alternate building footprints.
Arborist supervision of some of these building techniques may be required. Use of these
building techniques may result in higher construction costs.
3. Certain pier holes should be dug by hand through the upper 16 to 18 inches of soil
under the supervision of an arborist and moved as appropriate if major roots are discovered.
4. Existing fill soil around tree trunks should be removed and new fill against tree trunks
avoided.
5. A tree root crown excavation and inspection should be performed;on Trees No. 390
and 396 to evaluate their structural stability and suitability for retention. Only Tree No. 390
will affect the building. Specifically determine the location of roots of Tree Nos. 400 and
FACLMLAi2939Rsummacy of srrborists'recomm.081298 1
Exhibit C
Page 1 of 2
390 and adjust design appropriately. Evaluate effects of bridge construction on Tree No.
390.
6. Avoid additional excavation of the slope on Parcel "B" more than as shown on the
Conceptual Design Plan prepared by Eric A. Hare and dated August 19, 1998 and as
described in the Foundation section of the Sum-r=ofDesign Guidelines dated August 19,
1998.
7. Where tree canopies will overhang structures and other use areas,perform a thorough
inspection for potential tree hazards and determine appropriate abatement treatments (e.g.,
pruning, cabling and, only if necessary, removal).
8. The guidelines included in Attachment 1 are suggested for future homeowners on
how to properly maintain the oak trees and landscaping around them.
FACLMLAt2MBsummary of arborists'recomm,081298 2
Exhibit C
Page 2 of 2
JOSEPH cM EL OH LTA Q AMPORIST
GUIDELINES FOR LIVING AMONG NATIVE OAK TREES IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
PRUNING
The temptation to owners of oak trees is often to"sculpt"them,removing interior foliage to
highlight the form of main scaffold limbs. At the same time the trees are often thinned heavily,
to let in light,or ostensibly to let in air. Such pruning can be very damaging. in young trees it
can lead to unstable limb configurations. In older trees it may simply constitute serious injury.
Leaves produce food for the tree. The amount they produce is dependent on many factors,
including total leaf surface area of the tree. Pruning always reduces total leaf surface area.
The large leaves and long shoots which arise near heavy pruning sites are simply one of the
responses of the tree to wounding.
Such pruning is especially damaging to oaks which'have undergone the trauma of nearby
construction. No matter how careful the construction,there will be some root injury. Pruning
of the canopy should be limited to what is necessary for building clearance and safety
considerations. If possible, 5 years should elapse between construction and further pruning.
When pruning.,cut limbs to their attachment; leave no stubs,but do not cut close(flush)to the
parent stem. Remove no more than 10%to 20%of the foliage. Use no wounddressings,or
"paint".
PRUNING FOR SAFETY:
When limbs are determined by a qualified arborist to be hazardous,some type of abatement
should occur. This may include pruning,and such abatement should be the first priority. It
may be unnecessary and excessive to remove entire limbs,or prune thein heavily,when they
are determined to be a risk. Often very light pruning,which does not alter the appearance of
the limb, is sufficient.
Limbs should not grow close to chimneys, although there may more interference with draft,
than actual danger of igniting live branches. A usual guideline is to maintain 10 feet of side
clearance, and 20 feet vertical clearance, if possible.
PRUNING FOR LIGHT: i
Pruning to achieve more fight under an oak tree requires removal of a large percentage of limbs
and foliage to create the necessary openings. If an oak tree is healthy it will quickly close
those openings and the benefit will be lost. If it does not, it is a sign that the heavy pruning
may have contributed to decline of the tree. it is much more effective to remove a few tower
limbs,"raising"the foliar canopy to allow light to come in under, than to attempt to thin
he4tvily to let light through.
As per Item 7,1lotiScience,Inc.Icier inview,7-30-98
,t9Gudswr sf 10`1
� . ..r...� ➢� a .q
Certified Arborist a WC010Z
C;atilbritia State Contractors[Acense N 482248(Tree Care C-61 0-44,UndscapingC=27) Attachment I
American Society of UHisulting Arborists,#299 to Exhibit C
Page 1 of 6
GuWdines for Living Among Nattive Oax t tees Page 2
Pruning to let fight or air to the interior of the tree is based on a misunderstanding of tree
physiology and is generally counterproductive and damaging. There is plenty of air within the
tree,and leaves in the shade are physiologically adapted for shade efficiency.
LANDSCAPING
The root zone of a tree may extend twice the dripline,but are quite shallow. Avoid placing fill
soil in this zone if possible.
+ Certainly avoid it within the dripline.
+ Avoid trenches for cgntinuous footings of retaining walls
+ Avoid trenching for irrigation or lights within the dripline. Trenchadr ialty to the tree if
trenches must be created.
+ Avoid lowering the grade within the dripline.
• Use plants that are tolerant of drought conditions. The native oaks are intolerant of the
continuous moist soil condition required by some plants,such as azaleas,rhododendrons,
or turf. (See attached list, from HvrtScript,March 1995)
+ Use plants as accents rather than continuous cover
+ Irrigate with drip irrigation or low-volume spray,and only as necessary to establish and
maintain the plants.
• Surrounding drainage should not collect under oaks
+ Avoid extensive compaction of soil within the dripline.
+ Avoid extensive pavement with relatively impermeable materials such as concrete or
asphalt.
• Mulch
+ Mulch
• Mulch. The value of a good organic mulch cannot be overemphasized. It insulates the
soil,keeping it cool,allows better moisture penetration,aids in retention of tha moisture,
encourages biological activity that contributes to a healthy soil,fosters better gas exchange
with the atmosphere,provides mineral nutrients to the soil as it decays,and discourages
weeds from growing.
The"chips" from a tree service, the by-product of their work as they grind up tree parts, is
the best material. Shredded or chipped bark products are relatively inert,and while they
may insulate and discourage weed growth,they do little else.
Mulch should be at least 4 inches thick,or better, up to 6 inches over as-much of the root
zone as is practical. The mulch is placed on the top of the soil,,and is not worked into it.
Place accent plants within the mulched area.
FE RTILIZING
'Dis is usually not necessary if the area is kept mulched, but if the leaves are stripped from the
surface, use fertilir-ers high in nitrogen, such as ammonium sulfate, ammoniuin nitrate, or urea.
"Complete" fertilizers are more expensive, and unnecessary. Broadcast the ,material over the
surface, by hand, wager in. Expensive injections of fertilizer into the trunk are damaging to the
tree. injections into the sail are usually unnecessary.
IRRIGATION
While oak trees do not like continually moist soil during the warm season, they do stiffer from
droughi. unless They are near creeks, where the water table may be high year around, even if
the creek is seasonal. It is helpful for most oaks in landscape settings to irrigate once or twice
after the cessation of rain, in early summer. This might be 4-6 weeks after the last rain, and
again in another 4-6 weeks. An irrigation toward the fall,�perhaps a month or so before rain is
Attachment i
Joseph M Hied to Exhibit C
Page 2 of 6
Guidelines for t,iving Among ls&ave oaK .tees Page 3
expected,but while leaves are still on the tree,might also be useful,especially if rainfall the
previous year has been sparse.
lWgation should be at a slow rate,with a sogker hose. Allow water to run for 4-8 hours,until
the upper 3 feet of soil are moistened. This should be done uniformly over as much of the root
zone under the canopy of the tree as is accessible,but not within 6-10 feet of the trunk.
INSECTS
The most commonly treated insect on california oaks is the California oakmoth,although the
FruitTree Leafroller is also very common. In most years,on most healthy oaks,the pest is
simply a nuisance, and not a real threat to the tree.
If a tree is in declining health,or if caterpillar damage in the spring(late February to mid
April) is beginning to look very heavy,(many leaves reduced to skeletons of veins)treatment
may be in order. Treatment will be to spray the tree,while caterpillars are present, with an
insecticide. It is useful to treat earlier,when injury is minimal,rather than later, if treatment is
indicated. There are materials available which are toxic only to the caterpillars,not to other
insects,birds, mammals, etc.
Sometimes a very sparse foliar canopy will be the result of pit scale insects. As with other
pests,this should be identified and treated only by professionals.
The"apples"that form on twigs of some oaks are the response of the tree to the presence of
very tiny(gnat sized, non human stinging)wasps. The larvae develop in the galls,and emerge
as adults,to mate and lay eggs,creating more galls. There are more than 50 species of these
wasps on California oaks,causing many kinds'of growths on leaves and twigs. Their life
cycles are poorly understood,- for the most part they cause little actual injury to the tree,and
they generally are not treated.
DISEASES
The most serious diseases on native oaks are the result of poor cultural care. That is, fill soil,
compaction,poor drainage,excessive and frequent irrigation,and/or irrigation onto the trunk
of the tree. These diseases are progressive and irreversible. They cannot be directly treated.
Once they have advanced to the degree that symptoms are noticeable in the foliar canopy, it is
relatively late in their progression. Good cultural care will discourage such disease in the first
place.
Leaf and twig diseases are manifest by the death of individual twigs or branches. Some of
these can be treated with sonic degree of effectiveness, and sonic are variable, fluctuating in
occurrence from year to year, depending on spring rainfall. These should be evaluated and
treated, where indicated, by a professional.
CAVITIES
Cavities 111ay signal structural weakness. Cavities are no longer filled with foreign material,
such as concrete or plastic foam, and are no longer drained, if they collect rain water. These
practices are daivaging to the tree and provide no actual benefit.
CONTRACTORS
ORS
Work with arborists certified by the International Society of Arboriculture. The ISA can be
reached at (213)355-9411, in Savoy, Illinois. Certified arborists can also be located directly at
http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/n-isa
ACCaChCttCtlt 1
loscph McNol to Exhibit C
Page 3 of 6
A List of California Native Plants Suitablefor Use Under Central Valley Oaks
How To Use This Lir.
Sketch the area to be planted,including the oak(s)trunk and dripline,other plants and structures.Indicate areas which rc-
ceive full sun,partial shade, full shade or.morning sun only.Choose plants from the list appropriate to the sun exposure in
the area to be planted.Develop a planting design utilizing these species.
)
At ain iI atne
Common name Comments
S.EiL�lB.�.
Adenostoma fasciculaturn chamise A low growing form is available.
Arctostaphylos manzanita manzanita
Artemisia tridentata basin sagebrush Needs dead branches removed with age.
Ceanothus'Concha'and 'Dark star' Dense,dark flowered varieties.
Ceanothus curreatus buckbrush White flowers.
Ceanothus megacarpus bigpod buckbrush Tree type ceanolhus Which is one of the earliest
to bloom.
Dendromecon rigida ssp.harfordii bush poppy Showy yellow flowers.
Encelia californica encelia Showy,yellow,daisy-type flowers.
Ephedra species Moreton tea
Eriogonum ar6omscens Santa Cruz is.buckwheat
Fallugia paradoxa Apache plume Ornamental fruits.
F'ores;iera neo-mexicana desert alive Blue fruits are ornamental.
Fremontodendron species and cultivars fremontia Large shrubs with golden,saucer shaped flowers.
Dwarf,orange forms available.
Heterornetes arbutifolia wyon Showy red berries around Christmas time Attachment 1
to Exhibit C
Page 4 of 6
HoriScrlpt,March 199S,#tl
.IL tln.Name Common name Comments
SHRtl (cont.)
lsontertr arbores bladderpod Yellow flowers year-round.Some object to
the odor of the leaves.
IAOnus albifrons silver flush lupine Short-lived but self seeds.
Mahonla nevinii San Fernando barberry Spiny leaves,good barrier plant.
Pickeringla momana chaparral pea Purple{lowers in spring.
Quercus durata leather oak
Rhus ovata sugarhush
Rhus trilobata syuawbush
Romneya coulteri Matilija poppy Large"fried egg"€lowers,spreads by under
ground runners
Salvia teucophylla coastal white sage Summer dormant without irrigation..
Simmondsia chinensis jojoba
SMALL TH�,>a c
Aesculus crdifornica California buckeye Summer dormant.
Prunus ljonii Santa Catalina cherry
GROUND COVERS
Baccharis p lularis var.rilularis dwarf coyote bush `Pigeon Point'is the best cultivar for valley.
Eriogonum fasciculatutn California buckwheat
Salvia sonomensis creeping,sage Short-lived,water monthly,needs good drainage.
Zauschneria csfifarnica California fuchsia Many cultivars available,ted,pink and white.
7auschneria cava island California fuchsia Fine,silver-gray foliage.
PER ;NN1A IS
Achilles millefolium yarrow Mow after bloom to remove flowers stalks.
Dudleya sp. live-forever Can be used as sparse ground cover,may freeze
back in cold winters.
Keckiella cordifolia heart-leaved pcnstemon Summer dormant.
Salvia'Darn's Choice' hybrid sage Evergreen perennial with purple-blue flowers.
Yiguiera deltoidea ssp.parishii desert sunflower Killed to ground in cold winters.
GRASSES AND ACCENT ENT P .ANT,
Agave deserts desert century plant Accent plant.—
Nolina sp. nolina Accent plant.
Stipa pulchra purple needle grass Water monthly. Summer dormant.
Yucca whilrplei yucca Succulent-icaved acccnt plant.
ANNUALS
Clarkia sp. Showy pink blooms.monthly watering,mow
after seed set.
l schscholzia callfumic•a California poppy Resceds in disturbed areas,mow after seed set.
Lupiraus sp. lupine Lupinus densiflorus and L.,succulentus are reliable
year after year.Mow after seed set.
Nemophilo sp. baby blue eyes
tiiif AAs
Allium sp. wild onion Many sires and colors.
Brodiaea sp. Tritrleia and L?ichelostemina also. Summer dorma nt-
Calochortus sp. mariposa lily
Chlorogahun pomeridianum soap plant 3-4 ft.flower spikes open in afternoon.
Attachment 1
to Exhibit C
Page 5 of 6
w
Horiscripl, Marcft 1995,#11
U— t n Name Common name Comments
Protect from Afternoon
Arctostaphylos densUlora Sononta matuanita Cultivars'iia rmony'.'liowar l McMinn'and*Sentinel'
Arctoslarhylas rudis shagbark matnzatnita
Carpenieria cahfbmica bush anemone Summer deciduous it not irrigated.
Ceanothus'Ray Hartman' hybrid ceanothus
Cercis occideniatts redbuds
Cercoearlrus betuloides ssp.blanchene mountain mahogany
Comarvstaphylos diversif lia summer holly Ornamental red fruits.
Eriogonum urrtbrllatton var.pa!vrtnthtan sulfur huckwheat Lfscful as louse grtmog diver or suhshrub.
Garryaelliplie:a coast silklatssci Ornanientatl"twiscls"in wintrt.
Garrye fremontii Fremont silktasscl Ornantctual tassels in winter.
Maluonia pinnata California holly grape Monthly watering.
Pnmw Ilic;folla hollylcaf cherry
Rhamnus californica California coffecberry
Rhamnus crocea redberry
Ribes rnalvacewn chaparral currant Summer dormant,winter flowering.
Ribes sReciosutrt fuchsia-ftwrd gooseberry Summer dormant.
Rosa callfornica wild rose Invasive if irrigated.
Sympharicari os rivularis common snowberry White fruits on winter deciduous branches.
SMALL.TREES
Eyonothamnus floribundus var.asplertifolius Catalina ironwood Fern-tike,divided leaves.
Umbellularia califomica Califomia bay laurel
YI
Arristolochia califomica Dutchman's pipe Winter deciduous,water monthly.
Vids caWornka California wild grape Deciduous,autumn red color forms available.
Vids girdiana desert grape
GRASSES AND ACCENT PLANTS
Lymus glaucus blue wile!rye Monthly watering.
Muhknbergia rigens deergrass A large brass up to 6' tail. Monthly watering.
Festuca califomica California fescue Monthly watering.
GROUND COVERS
Ceanothus'Joyce Coulter' hybrid ccanothus Medium blue flowers,good bloomers.
Ceanothus rnarit&nus maritime ccanothus Low shrub.
Whipplea modesta yerba tie selva Monthly watering.
PERENNIALS
Diplucus ounaraincus sticky monkeyflowers Pinch to encourage new,bushy growth.Water monthly.
GROUND COVER
Ribes viburnifnIhim evergreen currant Best shrub fordry shade.
PERENNIAL
Heuchera ina inur giant alum root
Monardella sp, deer mint,pennyroyal
salvia spathacea hummingbird sage large maroort and rt:d flowers,water monthly.
Si.ryrinchimit bellurn blue eyed grass Summer dormant without summer water
,C,;fL,�flt5
Arctostaphylas pajaroensis pajaro manzanita Best rnanzanita for our arca.
Mahonica aytrifidium oregon grape Monthly watering.
Attachment 1
FI)ITOR.. hi%c•t N,ihr-j,trurticutture Advtsur,UCCE,16a2 Nuvm(ll MO.,Suite 1500,No%uw,CA 44947 C
tt o
tExhibit K - t b t
t,.,{',,,,,,,,, ,,,,.IrJ t,... Page 6 of 6
S, <`fYr L_ n ✓fi x°i 2 K.x}F J st 3 ✓} a . s •'� as> S < f <,''.✓ ys 3 y.'
.< T F> r ✓ }, +3✓�y >' `s<.,t„�3a t,�F s,.,,,.. { ,.r4.<,`•3” <<J fy >.-f } t < 1 s
:., :,.. .�. '; r < .yr# su: r r✓'c. .�>^ >.. hf t4 y F^,i!t r✓` .drYn},.E.}: �• s
FL S� T[ 3 2 y 4r s a 'nN<;+ yt [ t
4 y ) f nv 4..y 3::. �.
3�Ys% 'fis .� i` ;. <n >✓ [3 •�r E x > ' } { sAs� igt#[ $Yc s z f y r3
r. ✓ .ck4,1�°r.- ay ''3G. Y�,4 r 'v G,4 ; 1%;y . ✓ti'.j. .. F ♦[fn .f^'�fT n b`t< y k i' 3:,, ;}�G.{ $
ytiiQy` N .x r.cyy� . ' $ .s ^. F < " � y $.'l, r s ° '£'�wr's 3 2 S '�< n
_ .3a'. ti }r .t v a:5' s'�''M;Ks�<'�'.,:+-, Y ?f•✓`:v.�t "k' <.y,:}��F' r<.t;,<.,y*{y. %<�'v✓ �,of�T'
�+ Y. •- ,may tyc' _
,* 'ki L;,�9kG[ //L.. ✓ � Y aF,°`� ,f
.S.<}- .,yt ytF,yr✓A,J { ✓l' :> Y
<>• 7 S>$t y4•t+ ,s`.. C k'• T '"`F<`
49${;: ' E.r :*> y 4 Lr 3.s i.rZ y' ;�..W ya xr+ n h ° «✓R ,k<, y
JUS. }'"+r•yr{�✓Y ✓<;
h E
-xF >�;,fy�4
rn< aJ },/s Yr
�(�•
,.,.1..._4 {{�`XR y i k
Z
n £+ yy S >', J,<t 'w���5.:,. ; C. �.:.,r :. .....k ,�>•�.. ,'� ..•,'•.§,L�y+'w<•x �.�p�.L'.n..-.>.,<ds. f :tr
.::'�?`<' J•SVN •$�` {� _�i ✓ '9•S ?•';': .,�ta (j x'nCy J Z S ( y n,
?}T-'p "t `4 yt.. S„^yl 's y,''< 4'°2k`+��£ fyJr'� v. .tT, k�`jh<nt...✓ Y' ` ,s.ya<<y,*t
v. P'�.: ✓..S 's. : .gt ^3ry}L:.} '4 ? .u,y}ys <f<A;.�,t'.yR-`'J `(.�. ,s '-. y,: ''�+.x uz i \,x g'tf.4i ✓" f;.,�[, E�Jc <
.,J i'K ?' ,(}:(F4{h+ i" r -}xi�y Yg`�YyR} 4{ ",Y r',y."T{k @ ,'' ..{S, v" 5' .< t`4�'S 4� <; y'h S ,y '�. {,
t .f .,3 ..Fxgg...:{Y`Y�S 3's.:'}f< ....'.. f;.v s,<y..`rj >',,, >:T y+C- n,r Y F rrni ,u{.?{.y.< 4r 4 '=iw•",y�k[x 15
}✓ "i.,sem$}[•L'�91 'tt:. w <. 77 ,,}�.y&Sr y `. ,.y Y'' Y�[y,tt2. ,£�' yv{' : r es ✓1,`�..E n*at-.�+�1�✓� ✓'•:}� r 3
't. ,{ fa,:< 3 y,. -0,y sk•y.{ y,.,q ks RS'+"✓' 3xv+Fifi,.{. f Jey> ,:e�`_' .'1 72_.111'�+� '*C ': +£, c , ,,E.. •f
Mit l J.✓�:"• :J J':.t}. tf4<x�� ?a`.+!±�- na : F' 5 :Q�::�57• E�+,',°t��y.E"l•: h :dS✓ .ei:`t�Srr%.yr<'v, -'Y "r✓ *'.3:' �..f�r s4 .'�`: ,s' l yt�.<.>;�?:�:
Y L•S .d- `E-'? yJ .:4,`,#4^F y R +S2SXJ'>,.._. '�.°`l,+J.` ;✓.[� { �' '�.i l rnl>\ro y4�>h:C F"x E``i l ) f
.y< ,x S{ a > :>. "•<Y� ,�` nrG-' +•'[... x'z Q-. ::..fR,y} '.''., .+ :.+::c7F a}K:r<e <'s rs`k''-yxi 3�
:y `�"i,er<Jfy.'s55' 5�>�`' 'x > yam,' ,� ,yr. p u< T` � 5{ A r3?':"; <'.. .y•'�iC' ;,F[> y£ n,_: y...,`w✓r�JtkR� >,(l�it!'e: if sff 5✓.{,..
.-,• F'.._ x4-< [i�rs t 3''. .37r .2..p,t 1��' .ur >,}.J-.>. '�s�," 2'{c p<yT,,. _.yk �y'Mv 7 ;r,I n: '..,i-.., ,.,,;,n k
gamwo. y ''+. u,`ryq>{' J£•` xF`'a.7 ,..,�+�'"6.• e' i t ." x I—-- '�< } k> J''fi t' S:. F .,� 1 ✓. ) >/.,:.k''X z:i.y �tkv - }..f
' 'rt T > '"'� ;,,,? ;,�.8°} ,3 v f z �t3 t� 7`' +r' a F`. .k ,xiR i }. z y % a 1,..-.1."1.N1.-.....< X`
.. '` d ✓✓v}WTD 4✓ :.i > a<3Ytx• ♦ k }n
y k} .e F y} ,+z r✓i 1 { r ,� ..r 4 t -LF!'` s n ^'k: a :t S ,✓{ ><
_ ^} ,, t `?-} `:�, ,'Z' r ` ,�•L tf Wiz. n ' '++.-
_, h <S. f". , +� )Y.y;+y, 1 7 C dz=1fy} },Y,�.✓ fit _. ,,- .l.�.f ! ': Lt L t
Amm
.' n J'',2' < 3 5.�.
/< f
{xm ks f
i k S t.y ;} t
t > f a
r. .. '- .:
}
.:1 t
-WOMAN
j y }Ti y !h" i
r y, f t. ....p
' '^ } ?:. 1. ) !' `'"k, •f {
! J
1.
n L l
✓ 'a }- 3
t-
S - ;:. - Y
y R
.E / - G \ 4.
✓:
1� :\
t
S.. y., }F t4
a }r
5
now onto"✓ y
4 } 'J .,
C:J }F t_,7
3 r
F .. :fl ::-
F} L
' i i }aF e � aj,r,} {[ }Ln ✓[y,.9•l. st f ,_ n} {- r Y �y✓..e4'Fa'°�t kRt'^5}- <f'� y.�i t ✓.3' �"
y
>} ) -y <r .. <! ! t ti ? i ! ,xez:Y',M1}yh`4'`fZ•. '' .c
IG
f f l• ys f J J
y 1 x
�� : . �-,-. "
x
..
_:: : -
. '._::
f.< { ✓
t
✓ '
{
"i
s.
I 91
.11
_ �: : .. ' .. r. . .. . zy.
JOSEYH MdEL
August 12, 1998 i\R Bob Raymond
3434 Tice Creek Drive, 45
Walnut Creek,CA 94595-3797
SUBJECT: Tree tolerance and construction,subdivision 104-89,"A"and"B",Contra Costa County,
response to peer review by Nelda Matheny,and review of Architectural Desi t Quidelines,by Eric Hare.
On March 10 of this year I provided a preliminary tree survey for the site. This survey included
identification of trees on site, individual observations of their health,structure,and any other qualities
relating to the capacity to contribute to an improved environment,and very general suggestions for
preserving trees on construction sites.
On Pune 5,after review of conceptual drawings I provided a supplemental report commenting on the
effects of the buildings,as conceived,on individual trees. I now have reviewed the entire text of the
Architectural Design Guidelines,including scale drawings,and the peer review report from Nelda
Matheny dated July 30.
Ms. Matheny and I are in fundamental agreement on the entire project. She has expanded on some points
on which i did not. The purpose of this letter is to affirm the agreement.
Her inclination is to remove trees#388. My report of June 5 indicates that trees#387 and#388 would
probably have to be removed. Her assumption is that so many roots of#388 would be severed that the
tree could not safely be preserved. I suspect that she is absolutely correct,but my recommendation was to
observe the number of roots actually cut before the tree(s)are removed,on the slight chance that one or
both could be saved. The Guidelines assume a removal permit for both tree,to be exercised in the event
of excessive root loss.
Ms. Matheny raises the question of attachment of the individual trunks of this tree,as did 1. 1 inspected
the tree sufficiently that I am satisfied that risk of individual trunk failure(as opposed to the entire tree
tipping over)can be abated by appropriate pruning and cabling.
She also would remove tree number 401,as would 1. (As indicated on June 5) There seems little chance
of development on Parcel A,at least on the graded area,without exposure of occupants to the high
potential of this tree for failure.
The third tree suggested for removal by Ms. Matheny is#379. As drawn,the house is about 25 feet from
the tree. if failure of limbs occur,as they will eventually,they are unlikely to cause more than superficial
damage to the house,but could be very dangerous for people in the arbor aiea. My report of March 10
described this tree as no threat to proposed construction(which at that time I assumed to be further from
the tree),but I suggested against recreational use ofthe.area. I should have made it clear that no high-
occupancy use(patios, gardens,spa)should occur near the tree.
In the current concept the tree should probably be removed. If the building footprint is altered or moved,
or the use of the area near the tree is very transient,you might want to consider preserving it,only because
the trunk has interesting architectural features. There is a high probability,however,that the tree will fail
sometime in corning years,and those features will be destroyed. Therefore it is not, in my opinion,worth
changing the plans solely to preserve this tree. It is not a tree with high intrinsic potential to be preserved.
I concur that tree 9390 should be excavated,before plans are finalized.Considering past fill against the
trunk,and poor drainage of that fill, the suitability of this tree to be retained is questionable and must be
v
Certified Arborist#WCO102,.
California State Contractors License#482248(Tree Care G-61 D-49,Landscaping C-27)
American Society of Consulting Arborists,9299
Bob Raymond Page 2
Reconciliation of Matheny and McNeil Reports
Subdivision 104-89,Contra Costa County
determined. If it is to be retained we have both indicated that design of the bridge and entry area must
reflect the requirements of the tree. I indicated that excavation around this tree should be maintained, if
the tree is kept. Ms. Matheny has suggested that this excavation be a minimum of 10 foot radius from the
trunk. I agree.
Construction of the road to the property above has caused considerable fill soil to incidentally be allowed
to slough downhill against the trunks of trees along the uphill side of the"conceptual"house on Parcel B.
These trees should be excavated,as called for in my original report,to confirm their suitability for
retention,and reduce their further exposure to risk of decay.
Ms.Matheny indicated that each of these trees should be inspected for mechanical stability. Excavation is
the first step in that process. 1 have already inspected the above-ground portions of each tree and made
recommendations to remove some which are dead or nearly dead. 1 am satisfied that any mechanical risks
of the remaining trees in this group can be satisfactorily addressed by pruning,with the exception of#388
which,if retained,would require the installation of cables between trunks.
I have discovered a typographical error in my.lune 5 supplement,concerning tree#400. 1 suggested,on
page two,that no pavement of the driveway or garage approach should be closer than 2 feet. 1n reality,
this should have read 12 feet,the current distance to the driveway in use,and the approximate distance to
the flat graded terrace. Ms.Matheny suggests an absolute minimum of 10 feet around the tree,clear of
disturbance,with which I agree,although 12 feet is better,if it can be incorporated into the design.
In her last paragraph she makes 7 suggestions. The 3`d is to"Avoid additional excavation into the east
slope on Parcel B. I have contacted her to clarify whether this is additional excavation beyond that
currently existing,or beyond what is shown in the current concept. She confirms that her thought is not to
excavate beyond what is shown on the conceptual drawing,a position with which I agree.
We share a concern that the actual construction would have to be carefully constrained to avoid intrusion
further than that on the drawing. Specifically,there may be clearance between the house and any retaining
wall that is constructed,unless the wall is the foundation. Further clearance may have to be provided for
forms for the wall,depending on it's design.The total of these incursions should not exceed that on the
conceptual drawing_ The alternative,"laying back"the hill to a 2:1 slope,as is commonly done,would
not be consistent with preserving the trees.
The 6Eh suggestion is to provide appropriate abatement for hazards resulting as the trees are placed under
tree canopies. I thoroughly agree,but have made,as noted above,preliminary inspections. I am satisfied
that risks of fire or mechanical stability due to above-ground portions of the trees can be addressed.
Further determination will await excavations as previously suggested. Final management details of each
tree should be determined and provided after such excavation has occurred,trees have been certified as
fundamentally sound below ground,and an actual las opposed to conceptual)plan has been finalized.
There is no doubt in my mind that the trees can be managed,as described above,near structures. Details
of that management are dependent on further information,and are not appropriate at this time.
The 7`h,and last, item in Ms. Matheny's list is to provide guidelines for future homeowners on how to
properly maintain the oak trees on the site. I have provided such guidelines and they are attached. All
other items in the list have been addressed above.
Sincerely,
.Joseph McNeil
Certified Arborist#WC0102
American Society of Consulting Arborists
Contractors Lic. #482248(Tree service C-61 D-49, Landscaping C-27)
Joseph McNeil August 12, 1998
Archi*tectural
Gui* deli* n,es
for
PROPOSED RE-ZONING
FROM
A-2 TO R5
MS 104 -- 89
LAS TRAMPAS ROAD, ALAMO
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA
Prepared for:
Bob & Joanne Raymond
3434 Tice Creek Dr.
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Prepared by:
Eric A. flare
,august 18, 1998
BUILDING DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Em A. HIRI
` 2662 Batt U!A int
Wuw�t(usf. (.194596
h:1514)9318685 F11-f"10)9328681
t1�litto 8116 E im
August 19, 1998
ARC141TECTURAL DESIGN
GUIDELINES
for
Parcel A and Parcel B
of IVIS 104 - $9
Contra Costa County, CA
1 . Gaols of the Guidelines
Proposed Parcel A and Parcel B(Subdivision 104-89)located on Las Trampas Road, Alamo, Contra Costa County,CA. Parcel A is
69,570 sT with approximately 6.000 s.f of flat area and Parcel B with 69,630 s.£ of site and approximately 6,000 s.f of flat area.
Great care has been taken by Bob and Joanne Raymond in the planning and documentation of these two parcels to ensure the safety of
the existing trees and future residential building structures. The aesthetic harmony between the existing creek and natural wooded
landscape is of the utmost importance and the potential homes for Parcel A and Parcel B should be creatively conceived,
environmentally sensitive and demonstrate architectural integrity.
For this purpose, we are proposing some brief guidelines to place some restraint on any future residential structures to be built on these
sites. These guidelines have been created in conjunction with the following documents:
Site plan by Debolt Civil Engineers,dated 3/2/98, for grade lines,flat area and tree locations.
Soils Report by Diablo Soils Engineers,dated 12122/98,for safety and design restraints of the foundation designs for any future project.
Preliminary Tree Survey by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist. dated 3/10/98, for design restraints and potential impacts of the trees
as a result of construction of homes and driveways, as well as; Peer Review of Arborist Report for Subdivision 104-89 prepared by
'Zelda Matheny, Consulting Arborist at HortScience, Inc. and dated July 30, 1998, letter by Joe McNeil dated August 12, 1998; letter
dated lune 6, 1998;Guidelines for Living Among Oak Trees in the-San Francisco Bay Area.
A summary of the guidelines are listed in a later section of this document.
1(ti) Purpose of(;W(lc lines
The Architectural Design Guidelines have been created to provide future property; owners, designers/civil engineers, home builders and
contractors%%ith a set of parameters for the preparation of their drawings and specifications. Adherence to these Guidelines%. ill assure
the homeov.ners that Parcel A and Parcel Q will be known for its uncompromising standards and integrity.
It is very important that every purchaser for these two parcels and their design team thoroughly react the Desi=gn Guidelines and
understand its requirements. All design submittals will be carefully checked to ensure that all requirements of the Guidelines are met or
exceeded
The<eoals of the Guidelines are to establish a model of excellence in site planning and architectural design for the future development of
these t�ko parcels.
€
August €9, 1998
2. Site Plcrr7i7 nz
The sitting.; of a house is a critical and important design decision. The site plan concept developed for each homeowner should retlect
functional needs and also be sensitive to the propertVs unique characteristics and inherent design opportunities.
Both home sites will be seen from many different angles and views. It is therefore important that the three-dimensional character of
each home be carefully studied.
These guidelines shall consider each site independently,and give extensive consideration to the individual impact of each plan upon the
creek, trees, and the appearance from Las Trampas Road. Care must be taken to locate each structure to use the natural amenities of
the land whenever possible,to screen them from Las Trampas Road
2(u}Selbciek.v
The setback requirements for home sites have been established mostly by the natural restraint and parameters of these sites, based on
the creel:,trees and hillside. The design team should carefully consider the natural characteristics of the site and work within the review
process to achieve the long-term aesthetic goals of the community.
PARCEL A
Front Yard CCC Approved 20' from centerline of creek
Side Yard As per Contra Costa County setback requirements for R-65
Rear Yard Scenic Easement Line(See later section for maximum retaining wall height)
PARCEL B
Front Yard CCC Approved 20' from centerline of creek
Side'yard As per Contra Costa County setback requirements for R-65
Rear Yard Scenic Easement Line(See later section for maximum retaining wall height)
I Architecture
It is not the intent of these guidelines to dictate specific architectural styles that must be used within these t%vo parcels, but rather to
give property owners and their architects or designers a set of guidelines that will make thr�entire community a more attractive place to
live. These guidelines are created to encourage a community of individual outstanding sarchitectural statements that, when viewed
together,produce a pleasant living environment.
The following- elements are to be avoided: Harsh contrasts of color and/or materials, illogical or inappropriate combinations of'scale,
poorly executed details and extreme interpretations of the components of each style.
361) Desi' n Feutures
I Maximum Square Footage of Livings Area.
PARCEL A, 4v00 S F.
PARCEL 13; 4000 S.F.
2. The main roof pitches should be consistent with the architectural style of the home. Flat roofs will;not be allowed regardless of
the architectural style. Roof forms should be well organized and demonstrate;the same character on all sides of the residence.
August 19, 1998
3. Masonry or stone facing used as a veneer material or horizontal wood on the front of a residence should return around a comer to
a logical point of termination such as an inside corner. Ending the veneer at an outside comer which would expose the edge of the
material is not acceptable. It would be preferable to carry the material completely around the residence.
3(h) Acceplabk Materials
1 . Exterior walls may incorporate any of the following: brick,stucco,stone,or wood.
2. Acceptable roofing materials are: state, concrete, clay or composition . All root'materials must be rated Class B fire retardant or
better.
3. Non-masonry siding should be constructed from natural woods such as redwood and cedar.
d. Warm earth tone colors including creams, rusts, buffs, rose beige, ocher, and terra cotta are preferred. Trim colors should
complement the body colors. Visible elements such as,gutters,trellises and downspouts should match the color of the architectural
element they are attached to, or be of a complementary color. ._
Stark white.bright pastels or bright intense colors in lnrte
expanses will not be allowed.Calors selected should be appropriate to the proposed architectural style.
3(e) Prohibited Materials
I. Aluminum siding;
2. Reflective Mass windows,
3(q) Height Resirictions
I. The maximum height shall be thirty feet 32'.
a. Lots A& B shall be measured vertically from the average elevation of the finished grade on the existing flat area ground covered
by the structure to the top most part of the roof.
3(e) GtirzaiZ s
A three-car garage is recommended when the residence contains three bedrooms or more
4. Foundation
d 41) R tctining K alfv
Ali effort should be made in tiegrading design to tttinimize the use of retaining�valls. hov etier the follo%vinu criteria must
be filet.
1. PARCEL A ; Retaining, walls outside the building envelope shall have a matiimurn height of 4.-(l.'as measured froitl
the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. Retaining walls used as part of the foundation of the garage or
ress-detice shall leave 6*-t?'' maximum retained earth with additional height for"freeboard"per soils report by Diablo
Soils Engineers dated December 22. 1997.
2. PARCEL B ; Retaining walls outside tl}e building envelope shall have a matiimum height of4*-0"*as measured from
the bottom of the footing,to the top of the Lyall. Retaining walls used as part of the foundation of the garage or
3
August 19, 1998
residence shall be have 8'-0"maximum retained earth with additional height for"freeboard-per soils report by Diablo
Soils Engineers dated December 22, 1997.
.'Freeboard"is the extension of the retaining wall in height above retained earth for the possible impact and weight of earth
sliding into the wall.
4(h) General l owed dation
I. Projects on both parcels must be built on pier and grades beam designed per requirements as stated in the soils report
by Diablo Soils Engineers dated Deceinber 22, 1997.
5. -LandsMpe
5(Q) h1ri lits i Tree P!'(!tectfim
Every effort should be taken by the design team to preserve the existing trees, However, to provide for a reasonable building area of
Parcel B,given the number of trees on that lot, it may be necessary to remove trees numbered 387. 388 and 390{tree numbering and
description is noted in the Preliminary Tree Survey by Joleph McNeil,dated March 10,1998&- as noted in the Peer Review of Arborist
Report for Subdivision 104.89 prepared by Nelda Matheny, Consulting Arborist at HortScience, Inc. and dated July 30, 1998}and for
safety reasons it may be necessary to remove trees numbered 379 and 401. Before the removal of these trees a permit must be retained
from the County of Contra Costa. All other requirements and precautions for tree removal/modification and/or construction near
existing trees should follow guidelines from Contra Costa County and the above Preliminary Tree Survey and Peer Review.
Care must be exercised during construction, and afterwards, with all requirements listed the above documents. The Committee may
require that a temporary fence be erected at the drip line of an existing tree during construction if it is located precariously close to any
home construction or lot grading.
G. Hal-dscype
Hardscape refers to all components of a home sites other than the home itself, planted landscape areas and shade structures, All
hardscape elements (i.e. patios, walks, mow bands, etc.). should be carefully; planned in conjunction with the site plan and landscape
plan to work functionally and tie in aesthetically with the home architecture and landscape design, as well as follow all requirement and
guidelines listed in the above documents.
4
August 19, 1998
Summary of Desi n Guidelines
D Follow all requirements as stated in the following documents:
Site elan by DeBolt Civil Engineers, dated 3/2/98, for grade lines, flat area and
tree locations.
Soils Report by Diablo Soils Engineers, dated 12/22/98, for safety and design
restraints of the foundation designs for any future project.
Preliminary Tree Survey by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist, dated 3/10/98,
for design restraints and potential impacts of the trees as a result of construction
of homes and driveways, as well as; Peer Review of Arborist Report for
Subdivision 104-89 prepared by Nelda Matheny, Consulting Arborist at
HortScience, Inc., dated July 30, 1998; letter by Joe McNeil dated August 12,
1998; letter dated June 6, 1998; Gujideiines for Living Among Oak Trees in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
Maximum Square Footage of Living Area:
PARCEL A; 4500 S.F.
PARCEL B; 4000 S.F.
0 Setback Requirements:
PARCEL A
Front Yard CCC Approved 20' from centerline of creek
Side Yard As per Contra Costa County setback requirements for R-65
Rear Yard Scenic Easement Line(See later section for maximum retaining
wall height)
PARCEL B
Front Yard CCC Approved 20' from centerline of creek
Side Yard As per Contra Costa County setback requirements for R-65
Rear Yard Scenic Easement Line(See later section for maximum=
retaining
wall height)
U Architecture:
Exhibit D'
Page 1 of 2