HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10121999 - SD16 TO: BOARD OF SUPER .3ORS
r fPI Contra
P tl "ae"t�y, c4J s�
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIREC1-OR County
F W DENNIS M. BARRY, �i
DATE, October 12, 1 999
SUBJECT: An Appeal by the Diablo Municipal Advisory 'Council of an Administrative Decision by
Staff to Issue a Resider rai l Building Permit (#R2380401 in he -;D' o area.
SPECIFIC T(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt a motion approving Option A actions listed below to deny,, the appeal, of the
Diablo Municipal Advisory Council and uphold the administrative decision by the
County to issue a building permit or a new residence at 1726 ':ub House lead, in
tyle i b'so area.
BOARD OPTQNS
p igon A
1. Deny the appeal of the Diable Municipal Advisory Cenci (DMAC).
. Uphc d the adrni istretive decision tc issue ui din -peit=cr anew
,es<dence at 1726 Club House Road, in the D ed'c area.
f. r.
AW1
..,.s,
,.
CONTINUED ON ATTAC °ME f- YES SIGNATURE 4
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINIS fRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM.NIT'TEa
-- - APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER-
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM
VOTE OF SUPEKVISORS HEREBY CERTIFY THAT'I H S IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT a� �� OF AN ACTION TAKENAND ENTERED CI3 THE MINUTES
AYES.-NOES; OF THE BOARD OF SUPERV SUPS ON THE DATE SHOWN
A8S N . ABSTXft
Contact: Jennifer Peterson 925-335-9206
cc: wQ,-4 Dept. CDD ATTESTED Q c 4 o b C b 12 , 1999
Janes Minor&Shelly mend PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Dsab o Municipal Advisory Council SUPERVISORS ASIC C UNTY AI MIMST ATOR
,M- D.ab°o Property Owners Assoc a'!on
q 41
�IDiabloywC7t�'i?":'�� ni$y:se'V;CES r'✓iStrf.,4 s
aukd.ng Inspection Depa Intent Byi DEPUTY
Public Works cepa ttent3 Eng. Services
County counsei L)
jp/rnp
H::np/board orders/ 230040
Ar,Dea� 8238040
Board of Sjpervisors
October t 2, 1 999
Page 2
3. Find that the appellant has presented no evidence that the permit was
issued contrary to the Ordinance C'ode.
Option B
Continue the hearing to an appropriate date and refer the rrlatter to County
Counsel for a report on the legal ramifications of issuing a stop work order.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND
On August 24, 1999 the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors received an appeal letter
from the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council (DM AC). The appeal concerns the
administrative decision by the Community Development Department to issue a
building permit to construct a new single family home at 1726 Club douse load,
permit#8236949. 'he issuance of this building permit is a result of an administrative
review for a building permit, and the discretionary review of a tree germ:+, which had
authorized the removal of several trees.
HISTORY OF REVIEW OF BUILQ:N%1_3 PERMIT
On May 3, 1999 James R. Minor, owner and applicant, applied for a tree permit
(County File #TP9910010) for the removal and alteration; of trees for the construction
of a new residence at 1 726 Club House road. The application was reviewed and
tentatively approved f0ay 26, 1999. No appeal was t r^eiv filed; and the tree perm-It
approval becamefinal May 36, 1999.
Upon the conditions of approval o; the tree permit being yet, the applicant :hen
submitted plans to the Community Deve oornent Department for the administrative
review of a nes; single family residence at the site. Staff determined that the
construction plans corr=.plied with all applicable zoning standards and the tree permit.
An administrative decision to approve the issuance of a building per€n't was made;
and the Building inspection Department on July 26, 1999 issued the b:�isdir..g permit.'
QMAC APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEI"I ION TO ISSUE A RESIDENT!:.AL
BUII DING PERMIT
Ire a letter dated August 23, 1999, the DMAC has appeased the administrative
decision of the Community Development Department to issue the residential building
per-Mit. f he D AC does not feel that the new residence correctly under constriction
meets the front yard structure setback zoning requirements as adopted April 29, 1999
and effective May 26, 1999.
Ap'pea€ 8238040
Board of super€stirs
October 1 2, 1 999
Page 3
ZONIN ,S CE NO. 99-12
On April 120, 1999 the contra Costa County Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance
No. 99-12, This of dinantie amended Section 2-4,244 of the County Ordinance Code
to provide that for lots less than 40,000 square feet in size on private roads, the
measurement of primary and secondary front yard setbacks shall be taken from the
easement lines of the private road abutting such: lot or, if there is no recorded
easerneht, thea, from the abutting edge of such private road established by use. This
latter provision as added at the last hearing, ° the recommendation of County
Course;.
Diablo is a unique community in that all roads are private roads and therefore all lots
m Diablo now measure setback requirements from the edge of recorded easerr;ents,
If no recorded easement exists, required setbacks are measured from.: the property
lines.
THE IT
Cub douse Road is the r€vate road fronting the subject site. Cub douse Road is
recorded as a 40-foot right of way and the existing paved road is approxir ately 12-
feet
2®feet wide, however the actual paved road fronting on the site is paved approximateiy
to 7-feet outside of the 40-foot right of way and 'into the it . t yard of the site. The
paved road essentially clips the corner of the site, with half the road lying outside of
the right of way. The result of the road bed being within the property( linos of the
subject site, is that when the front setback requirements were measured, the garage
of the new residence is 25-feet from the front property line and edge of the road right
of way, and 20-feet 6-inches away from the edge of the paved road bed.
Staff has researched the creation of the subdivision and their roadways. The
subdivision map of the area was recorded in 1924 according to County Assessor's
Maps.
BASIS F APPEAL.
The DMAC has appealed the administrative issuance of a building permit because
they believe the new residence does riot comply with the County Code. The DMAC
beeves that where a road encroaches on to a private iot, the stru cure setback
should tie measured from the edge of the encroaching road. Because the DMAC
feels that the new Ordinance Code has not been followed; they were requesting a
stop work order to be issued which would cause the work on the residence to cease
until pleas are prepared and accepted by the County which they believe world
comply with the new Ordinance, as they interpret it.
DISCUSSION
The legal basis for the County's stopping construction for a project that has been
permitted is Section 72-6,0"!4 of the County Ordinance lode. Under this code
section the County wilding Official may order the worm stopped whenever any
appeal 8238040
Board of Supervisors
October 12, 1999
Page 4
building work is being done contrary to any iaw or regulation;gulatL
ion (including, but not
limited to zoning, health, s it tion, and/or flood control) relating to or affecting the
work. In the Case of the work at 1726 Club House Road, none of the -criteria of
Section 72-6.014 of the County Code are imet to ustify the issuance of a stop work
order.
No evidence has been submitted by the DMAC that any law or reovation relating to
or affecting the work at the site has been violated. At the time the plans were
subrnitted to the County, staff determined that the construction plans comDUed with
ion nstandards incl ding the revised structure setback standard, By granting
ai ; g
the appeal of the DMAC, the Board would be requiring the issuance of a stop work
order on the residence. The DMAC has incorrectly interpreted the new County Code,
Section 82-4,244. The measurement of setback requirements are taken from the edge
of the road only when there is no recorded easement; however there is a road right
of way in this instance.
ALTERNATUE ACTJON
Should the Board determine that there may be evidence that a buiO&ng permit was
issued contrary to the provisions of the County C/cide Section 82-4.2-44, then the
Board should consider continuing the matter to a:::ow -,or a report from he County
Counsel's office on an appropr!ate action relative to continued work on the residence,
ADDENDUM d SD.16
October 12, 1999 Benda
This is the date and time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the
administrative appeal filed by the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council(Appellants), frothe
decisior:of the C o mu ity Development Dep ar tent;corker ing Building Perrnit#R 2 3 8040 as
requested by James and Shelly Pond Minor(Applicants), at 1726 Club House Road,Diablo.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director presented the staff report and
recommendations.
The hearing was opened and the following people presented comments:
James Minor, Applicant, 356 Red Maple Drive,Danville;
James Adams, Appellant,Diablo Municipal advisory Colancil,P.O. Box 35,
Diablo,
Peggy Mandley, Appella-qt,Diablo Municipal Advisory Council, P.O. Box 35,
Diablo.
Those desiring to speak having been heard,the Board discussed the issues including Ordinance
99-12 relative to the measurement of str*acture setbacks from easernzent limes on private roads.
Supervisor Gerber moved staff s Recon e ndation- Option A,to deny the appeal and uphold the
administrative decision. She requested that staff draft an amendment to Ordinance 9-12 to
clarify the easement language in the future, and explore with theo .lr;um- ty Services District
("CSD"),the property owner and other appropriate parties, the option ofrnoving the road,
Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion.
Supervisor Gerber asked Mr. :Barry for any comments. Mr. Bary stated that staff could work
w=th County Counsel and bring to t'_-ae Board potential language modifications for the Ordinance.
He suggested that Supervisor Gerber might not want that as part of the her motion unless she
wants to put it on this agenda as an urgency item.
Victor Westman, County Counsel, advised the Board that staff considered themselves charged to
draft an ordinance to bring back to the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible. lir. Barry
agreed with lir. " estman. County Counsel thea commented that the roads in Diablo were put in
long,before the CSD existed, so the District ban be asked to comment,but may not provide much
in t<~ e way of assistance.
Supervisor Gerber asked Mr. Barry what the procedure would be for having staff work witn the
CSD, the property ower xid f-he Diablo TM,,micipal Advisory Council ("DMAC") on the road
issue.
Den-nis Bad advised that tie staff wou:d make inquiries of CSD, as they made t1he most,recent
improvements, The property owner would need to give their concurrence to obliterate the portion
of tic pavement that is on their property. Staff could ask CSD is they would be w-illing to assist
financially, and staff could also discuss it with DMAC.
Supervisor Gerber asked r, Minor if he was willing to discuss the potential resolutions.
Mir. Minor stated that he would take the request under advisement.
Supervisor Gerber then stated there was a prior motion and sero-nd, and she called for the vote.
.e Board then took the following action:
APPROVED Option A of staff's recommendations; DENIED the appeal and UPHELD the
administrative decision. by the County to issue a building permit for a new residence at
1726 Club House Road,Diablo.
Recordt-d at the mquest Of;
Coa,,m Cosm County
Public Works Dopsxtrent
&nsiacezirz setvices nmsiolll
Rtarn to:
Public Works Dcpart�=nt
Rboords section
A--ta; Diablo
projed: MS 22-90
ATN, '.95-220--016k/PzrCe1B)
(A-0.8.FM)
QUITCLAIM DEED OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
For a valuable consideratiom,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, County of Contra Costa,a
political subdivision of the State of Caffir=, a,hereby remises,releasesandforever quitclaims to
William T.Rei and Virginia C.Re4 as Trustee of the Ref Trust(owner),dated July 22,1986,
all of its right,title and interest in the real property;specifically"Development Rights" as defined
in the Deed to the County of Contra Costa, recorded February 8, 1995, in Series No. 95020039,
Contra Costa Co-wnty Records,State of Callif-ornia;over Pam- el"B,"of Subdivision MS 22-90 filed
Februazzy p, 1995,in Book 166 of Maps,Page 8,Contra Costa Co ratty Records,State of California.
No transfer tax due; this is a Quitclaim of Development Rights, only.
County of Contra Costa, State of California
By:
C� Board o uper-yrisors
Attest: Phil Batebe-loo,Clerk of"Iffic-Board of Supervisors and County Administrator
By:
KF=w
.... ,«✓v e �.;,,a;,,,ry•: e .so..,e < v,--ro+ ..�.... «.. ,—.e...,—.<-:,a .v.raw ......_.. �...,.._..a._. . .
8 '
DIABLO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL,
P.O. Box 3
Diablo, CA 94528
r. Bob Drake
ornmur ty Development Department
Pax: 925-335-1222
9 August 1999
Dear Bob,
1726 Club House Roads Diablo" Bldg erlt R 238440
I am attaching a copy of a sermon of the site playa for the constructaon.at 1726 Club House
Road,which was reviewed by DMAC on August 6, 1998. We subsequently wrote to the-'Nlinors
on a number of issues,but front setback was not a concern since the dimension of 25 ft frozn the
edge of the road is clearly shown. No fur her information has been submitted by the Minors to
DMAC since that time.
On Thursday Raly 29, 1999, DMACs attention was drawn to the apparent closeness of
the foundation to Club House Road. l visited the site and, with the assistance of the builder, Cl ff"
Beck,measured the setback at 20'-6". Thus, (allowing for 6" roof overhang) the construction is
some 5 ft closer to the roadway than omitted.
As you know, the 25 ft setback from the edge of private roads was established by the
Board of Supervisors in February 1999 and became effective in 'ay. I am:informed that this
building permit was applied for in June 1999. The permit,which 1 inspected on site, shows that h
was"reviewed by engineering" on 7/22.
During the past week, I have taken up the matter with.Building haspectors Gerry Post and
Steve Poyat, but f was informed today that the surveyor's measurements locating the property
boundary have been confirmed as acute and thus, they do not consider&ere is a problem.This
does not, of course, address the fact that the building is not set back the required 25 rt from Che
edge of the roadway.
In view of the unnecessary cost that the owner would incur if substarz&l completed
construction must be removed at a later date,l suggest that the building pm-.nit error should be
corrected without delay.
James S. Adams
Chair, D AC
cc; Kathy Chiverton, Supervisor Gerber"s Office: Fax 925-820-6627
Mr. and Mrs. Minor, PO Box 726, Diablo
DIABLO IMUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 35
DIABLO, ALIF IA 9 94528
RECEIVED
Application& Permit Center AUG 24 19_09
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County ERK BOARD OF SUPERV;SORS
GONT,RACOS TAcc.
51 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095
Clerk of the Board's office
August 23, 1999
Building Permit#R238040
1726 ub House Road,Diablo, CA.
Diablo Municipal Advisory Council wishes to appeal the administrative decision by Community
Development to issue a building permit allowing the setback on the above property to be
measured from ars easement line in the road fronting this property. We feel that this should be
Measured from:the edge of this private road,which has been in use as it now is, for over 40
years. D AC has spent three years attempting to solve this problem, as all Diabio reds are
private, and the 25 foot setback frorn the edge of the road, rather than frorn the property line, is a
vital tool for the preservation of our historic community
It Is now realized.that Ordinance N. 99-12, Section 11 (d) states: for lets less than 40,000 square
feet, the front setback can be measured from the edge of a recorded easement line. If there is no
recorded easement line, they must be measured from:the edge of the road. The easement
allowance was not anticipated by DMAC as a way to lessen.the 25-fest setback, which we feel
was well understood by Community Development to be essential for approved building permits.
The letter oaf the law has been observed, but the spirit of the lav, has once again been
circumvented. Diablo Municipal Advisory Council requests a bearing by the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors.
Peggy Mandley
D ,blo Municipal Advisory Council
�,�6-. e-3 -
FINT MINGS AND CONDITIONS OF .APPROVAL FOR TREE PERMIT NO.
TP990010 (James Miner, Applicant & Owner)
riter°la for Review oaf theTree Permit
A. Required Factors for Granting Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the
following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6,8010 for granting a tree
permit have beer satisfied as marked;
I, The arborist report indicates that the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be
saved.
2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets
and sidewalks that car-not be mitigated by some other ni ns.
11. The tree is in danger of falling and can-not be saved by some other means.
® 4. The tree is d&naging existing private improvements on the lot such as a building
foundation, walls, patios, decks,roofs,retaining walls, etc.
® 5. The tree is a, species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be a
fire hazard.
® 6. The proposed tree species or the form of the tree does not merit saving.
7, seasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal
of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on
another area of the lot.
8. The true is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the
tree or the safety of people and property. These species characteristics include but
are not limited to short-lived, urea:-wooded and subject to limb breakage, shallow
rooted and subject to toppling,
9. Where the arborist or forester report has been. required, and the Director is
satisfied that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the sustainability
of the resource.
® 10. done of the above factors apply.
B. Required Factors for Denying a Tree Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied
that the following factors as provided by County Code Section 816-5.3010 for denying
(or modifying) a tree permit application have been satisfied as marked:
1 he applicant seeks permission for the alteration or removal of a healthy tree that
can be avoided by reasonable redesign of the site plan prior to project approval
(for Trona-discretionary perm,its).
2. It is reasonably likely that alteration or removal of a healthy gree void cause
problems with drainage, erosion control, land suitability, windscreen,visual
screening, and/or privacy and said problems cannot be mitigated as pat of the
proposed removal of the tree.
3. The tree to be removed is a member of a group of trees in which each tree is
dependent upon the others for survival,
4. The value of the tree to fine neighborhood in teres of visual effect, wind
screening, privacy and neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship to the
owner.
If the permit involves trenching or grading and there are other reasonable
alternatives including an alternate roue, use of retaining Mails,use of pier and
grade beam foundations and/or relocating site improvements.
5, any other reasonable and relevant actors specified by the Community
Development Director.
x 7. None of the above factors apply.
-2-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ae e The application for Tree Removal is approved based on the following documents:
0 Tree survey snap;
0 Deport or.the Project by E.L, Dobbs, a certified arborist, dated April 29, 1999.
Except as otherwise specified,development shall be in accord with the recommendations of
the arborist report. All grading, site and development plans shall clearly indicate trees
proposed for removal, altered or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree
information on grading and development plans shall indicate the number, size, species,
assigned tree number corresponding to the arborist report discussion, acid location of the
dripl.ine of all trees on the property.
This permit shall be valid for a period of 6 rnonths and may be renewed for additional
periods by the Director of Community Development upon request by the applicant.
2. &auired, tod atiorL for Aper v d€ree�erriova5 -Tlie folloyrin measures are intended to
($ provide restitution for the trees that have been approved for removal.
e yj 3
A. Tree 2.estitation Plan /Irri la -Prior to issuance of grading permit or
building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree planting and irrigation plan
prepared by a licensed arborist or landscape architect for the review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall provide for the planting of at least 16
trees,minitnum 15-gallons in size. (Also,mote below requirement that plans include
a provision or other tree plantings for purposes of contingency restitution in the
event that trees to be saved are nonetheless damaged.) The plan shall be
accompanied by an estimate prepared by a licensed landscape architect or arborist of
the materials and labor casts to complete the improvements on the plan..
B. e prior to
issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit, a
security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) teat is acceptable to the Zoning Administrator.
The fond shall include the amount of the approved cost estimate, plus a 20%
inflation surcharge. Until evidence is submitted that the applicant has satisfactorily
installed the required improvements, the County may hold the security for up to a
year following the exercise of this permit.
C. Initial Peel 9e osit for Processing a Security-The County ordinance requires that the
applicant pay fees for all th-ne and material casts of staff for processing a landscape
itnproverner t security (Code S--060B). At time of submittal. of the security, the
applicant shall pay an initial deposit of$10 .
-3-
Prior to seeking finalization of the building or gradi g per mit,the applicant's arborist shall
verify if the replacement trees have been properly planted and when verified notify the
Community Development Department in writing.
Contingency Restitution Should Altered Trees Be Damaged
3. Trees to be Ireserved but Altered - Pursuant to the conclusions of the arborist report,
proposed improvements within the root zone of trees noted on the sate plan to be preserved
have been determined to be feasible and still allow for preservation provided that the
recommendations of the arborist are followed.
Pursuant,,to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation
Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages these
trees, the ap plicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to
allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are signifrcazitly damaged by
construction~activity. The security shall be based.on:
A. _ExteDt gf ossible RestituldoIrr overneuts - The planting of up to 10 gees,
minimum um I5-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent
tel planning contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning
B. Dete mira ion f ecur°t A . o unt - The security shall provide for all of the
following casts;
0 preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect
or arborist,
0 a labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and
related irrigation improvements that may be required prepared by a licensed
landscape contractor; and.
0 an additional 20%of'Che total of the above amounts to address im-lation casts.
C. Ac�ance of a security- The security shall be subject to the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
D. Initial Deposit for Processfn ofecuri'v - The County ordinance requires that the
applicant corer all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection
security (Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100.
The security shall be retained by the County up to 24 months following the completion of
the Lee alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Adm. inistrator determines that
trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning
-4-
Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable
restitution of the damaged trees, then the,honing Administrator may require that all or part
of the security be used to provide;for mitigation of the damaged trees.
At least 18 months fallowing the completion of work within the dripline of trees, the
applicant's amorist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction
activity, and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of the trees and, if
appropriate, any recomm, endations including further methods required for tree protection to
the Community Development Department.
Construction Period restrictions
4. iterenaxatirr m prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading,
compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the
Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond ffie dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area
to be altered and remain in glace for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of
the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the
location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. Construction plans shall stipulate
on their face where to porary fencing intended to trees to be pr=otected is to be placed, and
that the required fencing shale'be installedprior to the cornr4encement of`any construction
activi,ly.
5. Construction period restrictions -No grading, compaction, stockpiling,trenching,paving
or change in ground elevation shall be perrnnitted within the dripline of any existing mature
tree other thann the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the irnprovernent plans
approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. if
grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be sa=ved., an arborist may
be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to
require protective meas gyres to protect the roots. upon the completion of grading and
construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required
for tree protection if any are-required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer
and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval.
6. Prohibition of Parking - No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or
construction materials, construction trailers and. no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be
permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved.
%. Construction Free Damage-The development's property owner or developer shall notify the
Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the
construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an
arborist designated by the Director of Community Development.
-5-
Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a
result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and
of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably
appropriate for the particular situation.
8. Supervision of W rk by an Arborist-All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree
to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist.
Arborist Expense
9. Arborist Expense-The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne
by the developer andJor property owner.
Payment of Any Required Supplemental Fees
a ' v ent o Ar€ ue �€rapler e ta= �p licatio Fees - This application is subject to an
initial application fee deposit of$550 which was paid with the application submittal, plus
time and material costs if the application review expenses exceeds the initial fee deposit.
Any additional fee due.must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, commencement
of tree alterationn work, or 60 days of the effective date of this permit whichever occurs
first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working clays for file
preparation. The applicant or owner may obtain current casts by contacting the project
planner. A bill will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance in the event
that additional fees are dare.
-6-
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMLNTITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICANT: James ?direr APPLICATION NO. TP990010
356 Red Maple Drive
Danville, CA 94506
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 195-220-016
OWNER: Same ZONING DISTRICT: R-20
APPROVED DATE: May 20, 1999
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1999
This period not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, a permit fba :
A Tree Permit to remove 15 trees including one valley oak, and alter conditions within the
dr°ipline on 3 existing fruit trees is hereby GRANTED, subject to the attached conditions.
DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
Director
Community Development Department
t I
l;e bae Charnberfafn, Deputy Zoning Adrnill strator
Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE 6 months from the effective date if the use
allowed by this permit is not established within that time.
PSS -NQTE THE EFFE MY-E.,DA-11.as no fUrther no'dffeation will be sent by this office.
ALEXANDER
ASSOCIATES, INC.
SURVEYNG --PLANNING-- ENGINEERNG
: August 3, 1999
Contra Costa County
Building Department
551 Pine Street
Third Floor,, Northwing
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Minor Residence
1725 Clubhouse Drive
Diablo, CA
A.FN. 195-220-012
Setback Verification
Attn. Jerry- Building Inspector
Hear Sir;
On June 23, 1999 a field crag from our office staked the foundation for the
above described property. The Building was staked in the Location as
shown upon the approved Site Plan.
DARRYU ?"I
arryl Alexa der PLS 507 ALEXANDER �b
License expires 6-30-2003
.y
EKP. 6-30-03 7111-
No.5071 /Y
CA"V
147 Old Bernal Ave. Suite 10, Pleasanton, CA 94566 (925) 462-2255 Fax 462-8092
mm i� Contra Core t Devey prn
�ucr.�;;.F�#ty�7eve�a�;nent t}!ecta;
Development C
oZsta
Department un
ty
County Adrr:inistration B:.r idin-a s�
5 Pine Street
4th Roo,, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-00195
Phone: (925) 335-1214
!kugust 12, 1999
Jim Adams
Diablo Municipal Advisory Council
PO Box 35
Diablo, CA 94528
Bear Mir
Rea Compliance with Fr ontyar-d Setback.Requirement
Construction of New Residence (Building Permit#8238040) at
1726 Clubhouse Road, Diablo (APN 195-220-016)
This is in response to your fax transmittal of August 9, 1999, and our meeting in the field of
August 11, 1999 with regards to your concern that the above residential building permit may not
be in compliance with the fr ontyard structure setback.zoning requirement.
Background
This parcel is Parcel B of Minor Subdivision 22-90, for which a Parcel flap was recorded on
February 7, 1995. The site is zoned Single Family residential, m20. prior to issuance of a
building permit, the County processed a tree permit application (File #TP99001 0) to allow the
removal of several trees, and alteration to outer trees on the property. That application was
tentatively approved by the County on May 20, 1999 subject to conditions. NTo appeal having .
been timely filed, the tree permit approval became final.
Clubhouse load along the frontage of this property has a right-of-way width of 40-feet; however
the paved roadbed is only approximately p 0-feet wide.
Review of Construction Pians and Certification from Licensed Surveyor
Following the granting of the tree permit, on July 26, 1999, the Building Inspection Deartment
issued a building permit for the residence. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the
Community Development Department determined that the residence was designed in compliance
with the zoning standards. The foundation for the residence was poured at the time we visited the
site.
Office Hours Monday- Friday:3:00 a.rn.a 5:00 p.m..
M=ice s closed the 1st, 3rd&5th Fridays of each r;ronth
In our last letter, we outlined your option to appeal the administrative decision by staff to issue a
building permit for this site directly to the Board of Supervisors. We wish to reiterate Haat based
on the evidence we have received to date, staff would not be inclined to support an appeal of this
decision.
Should you have any questions, please call me at (925) 335-1214,
Sincerely,
ROBERT H. DRAKE
Principal Planner
Att. Ordinance No. 99-12 (Private toads)
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
Clerk of the Board
James l&nor& Shelly Pond
Peggy Manley
Dermis Barry
d
Catherine Kutsuris
Jenna,fer Peterson
Building Inspection Dept. - Steve Pouliot
County Counsel
File 4TP990010
cAwpdc6990010-b.1tr
RL1
-2-
To. Peggy Mani,ey
Fax p 837-2662 FA(SIMILE
Rei 1726 Clubhouse Road
Date: August 19, 1999
Pages: 2, including this cover sheet.
i `his is a follow-up to ;may FAX earlier today. Ater our discussion, I further inveslligated the
Private load ordinance which :e Board of Suoeniisors ado-oted earlier this year, and, which
you n-entioned, 7 is ~vestgatio;� has shed new light on he ratter wh;cls will be further
3
investigating in the nem few days,
i
1 obtained the finai version of the Private ;load Ordinance which I am attaching, , note t, at
i the last clause of the amended ordinance reads as follows:
i
I `such setbacks shall be measured from the edge of the easement Ir`ne of the prliate
road abutting such lot or, if there is no recorded easement, there from the abutting
edge of such prr✓ate road esrablished by use."
`s was not aware that this language was included in the final version� ofthe ordinance, The
previous (February Board Order) docu entation on the ordinance, on which I was using my
assessment, did not include any language about measuring setback from the edge of a private
road.
I will further investigate the situation at Clubhouse load in iight of the new information, and
! let you know whether there are grounds to require a stop-work order on the pro ems.
Thank you for your inquiry. Should you Dave any questions, please call ,. e at 335-1214.
cc: Supervisor Gerber's Office - Kathy Chiverton
,Pim Addams
i
Games Minor and Shefly Pond
Dennis Barry
1
Jennifer Peterson
{i
1
Ps om the desk o`...
Bou Drake
Prindpal Planner
Communlly Development Department
651 Pine Street,tNo th wing,4th Roo,
Martinez,CA.94553-OOS5
(S25)335-124 4
Fax:(325)335-1222
JW. Diabfo Proyerty Owners" Association
P.O. BOX 215
9452
SES f
September 9, 41 999 �
i
Contra costa county Board of Supervisors
615 Pias Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Board of Supervisors:
Over the past couple of years, Supervisors Donna Gerber and the Diablo
Municipal Advisory Council, With the support of the Diablo community, have
worked diligently to have the bonding setback of 25 feet begin from the edge of
the road, not the middle of the road. Since 1989, when the county setback rule
was relaxed, new homes in Diablo have been built chaser to the street. The
charm of Diablo has been compromised and will further deteriorate as long as
this continues. With the recently approved ordinance, N.99-12, we Diablons
thought e small, but important, .step was taken in preserving our community.
unity.
The `ioophoie" used to justify the approval of a lesser setback at 1726 Clubhouse
Reed by the CCC Community Development Department is dearly not with the
spirit and intent of the recently passed ordinance. It is for this reason that the Mt.
Diablo Property Owners' Associationwhole-heartediy supports the Diablo
Municipal Advisory Council in appealing the decision of the Community
unity
Development Committee not to require the 25 foot setback from the edge of the
road at 1726 Clubhouse Road (Record # 8238040).
Please consider the intent of the ordinance and the desire of the community at
large when ruling on this appeal.
Sincerely;
i
Nancy Wander
President, Mt. Diablo Property Owners' Association
Cc Jim Adams, DMA
DennisBarry,
Community Contra Cll 'unity Development Director
DevelopmentDepartment Coun.L
ty
County Administration Buiidin ..:' :
Pine Steeat ;
4th Roor, North Wing �
Martinez, California 94553-01095 o ;anx w
.pjzA-CO 7a...
NOTICE OF TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF A
QUEST TO REMOVE 15 EXISTING TREES INCLUDING
VALLEY OAK AND ALTER 3XISTni- FLT TREES
AT 1326 CLUB HOUSE , IN THE DIABLO AREA
il-e 99 (James Minors-oilcan "caner - The County,has received a
request to for a tree permit to remove 15 trees including one valley oak, and alter conditions
within the dripline on 3 existing fruit trees at 1.726 Club House Road in the Diablo area. (APN
195-220-016)
0 The applicant has filed the request for tree removal and alteration in order to construct a
single family home. The site was once an orchard and has now been seeded by birds. The
trees to be rer.�oved are primarily fruit trees, Arizona cypress trees, and. one 9" valley oak.
Two olive trees will be saved through removal and. replanting.
A certified arborist .has inspected the tree and determined that the tree removals/alterations are
reasonable. The background information for this request including site plan and arborist report
may be inspected in the Community Development Department office during normal working
hours
Pursuant to Section 816-6.8010 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, this is to
notify you of the County's Tentative Approval of the request to permit the tree removals and
alterations subject to conditions.
Right to Appeal Tentative Approval
.Any person may appeal the decision to approve this request by filing a letter of appeal wida the
Community Development Department. To be valid, an appeal letter must:
Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m,
Office is ciosed the i st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each month
1. be received in the Conm unity Development Department office by no later than 5:00 p.m.,
try 29, 1999
Z. the letter of appeal must identify the above-listed file number and state the specific reasons
why the decision does not meet the criteria and factors for granting the tree removal pernmit
as stated in the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 816-6); a copy of the
ordinance may be obtained from the application and permit Center at #651 .pine street,
Martinez; and
3. be accompanied by an appeal fee sof$125.
Any appeal of this decision will be heard by the San Kamen Valley regional Planning
Commission.
Any questions on this decision should be directed to Jennifer Peterson of the Community
Develop hent Department office at 335-1206.
-2-
(privateRoads)
'"he Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows(omitting the parenthetical
footnotes ftom the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance
Code): [Gov. C. § 25120]
CILQLl �ARy This ordinance amends Section 824.244 of the County Ordinance
Code to provide that for lots less than 40,000 square feet in size on private roads,the
measurement of primary and secondary front yard setbacks shall be taken from the easement
lines of such private roads. This amendment would be enacted Countywide. (§25129].
Section. 2-4.244 of the County Ordinance Code is amended to read:
2-4.244 Lot Definition, dimensions, area,private road structure setbacks. (a)
Defined. "Lot"rhes a piece,parcel,tact, or division of land, including one delineated or
described as a single integral unit on a subdivision map, and two or more considered as one
pursuant to Section 2-10.002(c).
) Lawful Lot. To qualify as a building site, a lot shall have the minimum dimensions
required therefor by Divisions 82 and 84 for the district where it is situated.
(c) Right-of-Way Excluded. No part.,nor all,of a lot within a public road, street,
highway,ri ht�ofway, or easement, for vehicles or pedestrians, existing or proposed,shall be
used to satisfy minimum area,yard, dimensional or coverage requirements. -
"`� " (d) For lots less than.40,000 square feet in size on private roads,for purposes of
measuring pri ary and secondary front yard setbacks, such setbacks shall be measured from the 7
edge of the easement line of the private road abutting such lot or,if there is no recorded
easement,then., from the abetting edge of such private road established by use. (Orris. 99-12
. 79-69 § 1, 71-99 § 3, 1469: prior code § 8102(o). Ords. 939, 932 § 2, 382 § 2[141: see §
92-4.046, 92-4.062).
EffEMYED-AM This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage,
and within 15 days after passage shall be published once with the narnes of supervisors vote
for and against it in the CONS COSTA MISS ,a newspaper published in this County.
2.5123 & 25124]
PASSED on April 20, 1999 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Ville-:, Gerber, DeSaulnier, Canciwailla
NOES. N-CI-E
SENT:NoNmp
ABS`ANM No_NE
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR,,, Clerk of the
Board and Gouty Administrator
*oar-dffihair
Deputy
DEFINITIONS 82-4.278-82-4.402
32
the handling, sorting, shipment, transshipment, measured toward tae rear of the lot to the
storage, mixing, and grading of building nearest line sof any building on it. if any setback
materials, including sand, gravel, and cement is established by Divisions 82 and 84 for a lot,
but not including hot tar, asphalt, or other simi- the area between the setback liege and the
lar bitumens. A "transit-mix plant" includes boundary line that deters, ines the position of
buildings, structures, bins, chutes, bunkers, silos, the setback line shall constitute the front yard
hoists, elevators, hoppers or conveyors designed, sof the lot. (Ords. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569,
intended for and used in the preparation of 1469: prior code § 8102(v): Ord& 1269, 1264,
concrete ready-mix for shipment in trucks and. 1224,939,933, 382).
transit-mixers from the premises. (Ords. 1781,
1760, €759, 1569, 1469: prior code § 8102(y): 82-4.286 Yard, rear. "Rear yard" meads an
Ordsa 1269, 1264, 1224,939, 933, 382). open area extending across the rear of a lot,
measured from the rear line toward the front to
82.4.278 Use, accesssory. `accessory use" the nearest line of any building on the lot.
€ eans a use incidental and accessory to the (Ards. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569, 1469 prior
principal use of a lot, or a use accessory to the code 8102(w). Ords. 1269, 1264, 1224, 939"
principal use of a building located on the same 933,382).
lot. (Ords. 1781, 1760, 1753, 1569, 1469. prior
corse § 8102(e)e Ords. 1269, 1264, 1224, 939, 82-4.288 Yard, side; "Side yard" means an
933, 382). open area between each line of a lot and the
nearest line of any building on the lot and
82-4.280 Use, nonconforming. "Noncon- extending from the front line to the rear line of
forming use" means a use of land, building the lot. (Ords. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569, 1469:
or structure on land that does not conform to prior code § 8102(x): Ords. 1269, 1264, 1224,
Divisions 82 and 84 for the district in which it 939, 3.33, 382).
is situate. (Ords. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569,
1469: prior code § 8102(p)- Ords. 1269, 1264, Article 824.4
1224, 9=39, 933, 382). :Map Symbo s
.yam,
82-4.282 Yard. "'Ford" means ans�pen 82-4.402 Synonymous symbols and phrases.
space other than a court, on the sane lot wits: (a) "Single family residential district" is
the building, which open space is occupied from synonymous with "single farnily residential
the groLind upward to the sky, except as district-6y" and map symbol "1,Z1" is
otherwise provided. in Divisions 82 and 84. In synonymous with "R-6."
determining the dimensions of a yard as (b) "Single family residential district-" is
provided in Divisions 82 and 84, the "'line of the synonymous with "mangle family residential
building" means a Une drawn parallel to time district-7," and map symbol "R-I-A" is
wrest lot line through the point of a building synonymous with "R-7."
which is the nearest building to the lot line, (c) "Residential suburban distract" is
without regard to parts of"" Fu=Mg synonymous with. `single family residential
designated in Divisions 82 and 84 as parts not to district-10," and reals symbol "R- "� is
be considered in measuring yard dimensions. synonynmous with "R41 o."
(Ords. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569, 1469: prior (d) "Single family residential district-B"' is
code § 8102(u), Ords. 1269, 1264, 1224, 939, synonymous with "single family residential
.933, 382). distract-15," and map symbol "R-1_13,x" is
synonymous with, -R_1 S.-
82m4.284 Yard, front. "Front yard" means (e) "Suburban district" is synonymous with
an open area extending across the front of a lot, "single family residential district-40," and map
symbol "S"is synonymous with "1t-402'
"Small farms district" is synonymous
with "light agricultural distract," and reap
symbol "S-F" is synonymous with 'A-I.-
(g)
-(g) "Ge.neral agricultural district" is
synonymous with "agricultural district," and
299 (Contra Costa County I0-85)
Communis � n£ Dennis M.Berry,AECP
COMMUnity Development Dire:to
Development Costa
Department
Countym..
651 Rne Street ` #
4t, Floor, N-orth Wing
AUG 3
Mart'Mez, Caiiforr:ia 94553-0095
August 27, 1999
James Minor& Shelly Pond
356 Rod aple rive
Danville, CA 94506
Dear Mr. Minor& Ms. Pond,
This letter is to inform you that the Community Development Department has received a letter,
dated received August 24, 1999, from.the Diablo Municipal Advisory Council appealing the
issancc of the building permit for your,residence(permit#x.238€340). The Contra Costa County
Board of Sumervisors will boar the appeal. The Clerk of the Board will' notify you of the date and
time of dao public hearing.
At this time staff docs not require any additional information or time from you, if you have any .
questions regarding this matter please feel #"roc to contact myself or my associate Robert Drape.
Sincerely,
1
Jennifer Peterson
Planner
(92 15) 335-12€J6
Att: DMAC appeal letter
CC: Dennis Barry, Director, AICP
Robert Drake, Plan-ner
arbara Grant, Clerk of the Board
He TP99001 0
Office ,'Hours Monday Friday:3:003 ax. ,-,. 5:1-0 p.;-n.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each -nontih
DIABLOMUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 35
IAB O4 CALIFORNIA, 94528
RECEIVED
Application& permit Lenten AUG 4 1999
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County CLERK SOAP o s ps
CONTRA COSTA Co.
65 11 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez, Ca. 94553-0095
Clerk olrthe Board's office
August 23, 1999
Building Permit#8238€140
1726 Club House Road,Diablo, CA.
Diablo Municipal advisory Council wishes to appeal the administrative decision by Community
Development to issue a building permit allowing the setback on the above property to be
measured from, an easement line in the road fronting this property, We feel that this should be
measured from the edge of this private road, which has been in use as it now is, fon over 40
years. DMAC has spent three years attempting to salve this problems, as all Diablo roads are
private, and the 25 foot setback from the edge of the road, rather than from the property line, is a
vita.., tool for the preservation of our historic community
1! =s now realized that Ordinance N. 99-12, Section 11 (d) states: for lots less than:40,000 square
feet, the font setback can be measured fa`om the edge of recorded easement line. If there is no
rei,orded easement line, they roust be measured from the edge of the road. The easement
allowance was riot anticipated by DMAC as a way to lessen the 25-foot setback, which we eel
was well understood by Co- mmun.ity Development to be essential for approved, building permits.
The letter of the law has been observed, but the spirit of the law has once again been
circumvented. Diablo Municipal Advisory Council requests a hearing by the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors.
Pt,ggy Mandley
D,,,blo Municipal advisory Council
DIABLO MUNICIPAL ADVISOR' COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 3
DIA LOg CALIFORNIA, 94528
R RECEIVED
IV
pplieation . Permit Center =EE
Corr#r�tr�nity l�evelr�pr�er�t Deparar�entr tra r�sta � OF
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, N-Torth Wing
Martinez, Ca. 94553®0095
Clerk of the Board's office
August 23, 1999
Building Permit 4R238040
1726 Club House Read,Diablo, CA.
Diablo Municipal advisory Council wishes to appeal the administrative decision by Community
Development to issue a building permit allowin the setback on the above property to be
measured frorn an easement line in the read fronting this property. We feel that this should be
measured from the edge of this private road, which has been in use as it now is, for over 40
gears. DMAC has spent three years attempting to solve this problem, as all Diablo roads are
private, and the 25 f6bot setback from the edge of the road, rather than from the property line, is a
vital trial for the preservation of our historiccomm-un€ty
It is now realized that Ordinance N. 99-12, Section 11 (d) states: for lets less than 4€1,000 square
feet, the front setback can:be measured from the edge of a recorded easement lire. If there is no
recorded easement line, they must be measured ftom the erre of the road. The easement
allowance was not anticipated by D1 AC as a way to lesser the 25-foot setback, which we feel
was vaell € nderstood by Community Development to be essential for approved building permits.
The letter of the later has been observed, but the spirit of the lava has once again been
circumvented. Diablo -Municipal advisory Council requests a hearing by the Contra Costa
County Board of Supervisors.
Peggy ardle
Diablo Municipal Advisory Council
fi� 0 ;�-m
Community �?=nrfls M.Barry,AICD
Community ilevele.o?rent Director
Development
Department uosta
County
County Ad€inistra.tior Building
eet
ffi F�oor, north.Wing � a
Martinez,California 4553-0095
Phone: (925) 335_.121
August 12, 1933
Jim.darns
Diablo Municipal Advisory Council
PO Box 35
Diablo, CA 94525
bear lir.
Re: Compliance with Frontyard Setback Requirement
Construction of New Residence (Building Permit#R238040) at
1726 Clubhouse Road, Diablo (APN 195-220-016)
This is in response to your fax transmittal of August 9, 1399, and our meeting in the field of
August 11, 1999 with regards to your concern that the above residential building permit may not
be in comp:lana;with the frontyard stnuoture setback zoning requirement.
Background
This parcel is Parcel B of Minor Subdivision 22-90, for which a Parcel Map was recorded on
February 7, 1995. The site is zeroed Single Family Residentian, R--20. Prior to issuance of a
building permit, the County processed a tree permit application(File 4TP,990010) to allow the
removal of several trees, and alteration to other trees on the property. Thal, application was
tentatively approved by the County on May 20, 1939 subject to co€i,*dition& No appeal having .
been timely fled, the tree permit approval became final.
C'lubhouse Road along the frontage of this property has a right-of-way width of 40-feet, however
the paved roadbed is on:y approximately I0-feet wide.
Review of Construction Flans and Certification from Licensed Surveyor
Following the granting ofthte tree permit, on July 26, 1999, the Building Inspection Department
issued a building permit for the residence. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the
Community Development Department determined that the residence was designed in compliance
with the zoning standards. The foundation for the residence was pored at the time we visited the
site.
Office Hours Monday e friday:8:00 a.rn.-5:00 p.r:.
Office is closed the I st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each ,north
You have indicated that you feel the residence does not meet the frontyard structure setback
zoning requirement (minimum 25 feet) insofar as here is less than 21 feet of distance between the
foundation for the house and the edge of the street.
As we discussed in the field, the front setback is measured ftom the edge sof right-of-way/front
property lire to the structure line. The construction pians on which this building permit was issued
provides for a 25-foot structure setback from the front property zine in accord with the zoning
requirement. Attached is a certification from a licensed surveyor that the foundation has been
Placed in accord with the approved site pians.
I also note that the survey reap associated with the tree permit application also identifies a 25-foot
setback from the front property line. Though a different site pian, it seems to be consistent with
the boundary fine portrayal on the building permit site plan.
Possible Basis for Misunderstanding on Permitted Siting of Residence
As we discussed, there may be at least,three reasons why here is a misunderstanding on the
setback requirements pertaining to this site.
The construction plans indicate that this property is somewhat unusual, Normally, the
roadbed for a public or private road is wholly contained within its right-of-way
boundaries. However, in this instance, a portion: of the Clubhouse Road roadbed,
including curb extends onto the front portion of the subject property to a depth of
approximately 5-7 :feet. used: on the Assessor's Map and applicant's construction plans,
there does not appear to be any related access easement encroaching onto the fee portion
of the Minors' property.
We are not sore why the road improvements encroach onto this property. It is our
understanding that Clubhouse Road is privately maintained.
The survey plan which you reference shows a(proposed!) 8-foot wall where the existing
curblire is located. That wall was subsequently omitted frorn the building permit site pla ;
in its place is reference to the existing curb (TC y Top of Curb) reflecting the edge of the .
road improvements closest to the residence.
0 The Ordinance Code requires that development observe the structure setback.(defined as
"yard"i from the property ime,a not the sageO
"&,e roadbed. (lief. Section 82-4.282 of
the Ordinance Code) Except for survey stakes, there is often lits€e visible evidence in the
field of where a font property line (gar other boundary line of record) is located.
`in this case, the front property line also defines the edge of the Clubhouse Road right-of-
way.
-2-
Given these circumstances, we can understand how someone examining the site in the field might
initially feel that the project does not meet the setback requirement. However, in light of all the
information we,have reviewed including the evidence you provided, we are unable to substantiate
the alleged violation of the zoning structure setback requirement for this project. The project
complies with the required 25-foot frontyard structure setback. Neither have we been presented
with evidence that would cause us to require that the applicant modify their construction plans, or
cause perrnitted work to cease or desist.
Inapplicability of Recent Modification to Zoning Code to This Site
As you are aware, on February 9, 1999, the Board of Supervisors enacted changes to the
structure setback requirements along lot frontages. The ordinance modifications apply to
properties where a portion of the frontage of the site is encumbered by an access easement (such
as exists for properties fronting on Alameda Diablo). However, those ordinance changes do not
affect this property insofar as we have no evidence of record that the front portion of this site is
encumbered by any read easement or other vehicular right-of-way.
Potential Recourse
When we reviewed this matter with you, you asked that we advise you of any recourse you night
have to pursue your concerns with the placement of this residence on the property. Under
Chapter 14-4 of the Ordinance Code, you have the right to appeal the administrative decision by
the County to issue a building permit for this protect directly to the Board of Supervisors.
However, to be valid, the appeal would have to be filed with the Clerk of the Board's office, 651
Pine Street, Martinez(335-1900) no later than. 5:00 p.an., Wednesday, August 25, 1999. The
appeal must be in writing and include the appeal fee. To file an administrative appeal, submit in
person or by mail, a written notice of appeal, verified by your signature under penalty ofpe�pry
that its tz ue and correct, and a fee of$125. The appeal must clearly state the grounds for the
appeal.
Please note that based on our review, staff would not support the granting of an appeal based or,
the concerns expressed to date.
You should also be aware that filing of the appeal action will not, by itself, cause the County to
require work on the project to stop.-
Clearance
top:Clearance of Deed Restriction applied to the Site
It should be noted that the assessor's parcel leap shows that the northern portion of'he site lies
witlyin a "Restricted Deve:opment area." This notation reflects an interim development deed
rLstriction which was placed on the property by the County at the time of the processing of the
'30 days from the date that the building permit was issued.
-3-
subdivisions. Joseph DiMaggio of the Public Works Department has advised that the deed
restriction was intended to bar development of this portion of the site until the owner had
provided acceptable drainage improvement assurances.
Acceptable provision for drainage of this parcel has been made to the Public Works Department.
In; view of these provisions, the PublicWorks Department determined that here is no longer any
need for the deed restriction. Enclosed is a copy of Board Carder approving the quitclaim of the
deed restriction, and a copy of the recorded quitclaims.
Restricted Access to Construction Plans
You have asked to obtains a copy of the construction plans for this project. These plans were
apparently prepared by an architect, and are therefore restricted by copyright laws (Section 19591
of the Health and Safety Code). The Building Inspection Department indicates that the County is
prohibited from providing collies of these documents to the public unless the written consent of
the architect and property owner is first obtained. Listed below are the owners and architect.
Prc)nerty Omer p`rQjocl chitect
Jaynes minor& Shelly Pond Antoine Meo
356 Red Maple give 4155 Blackhawk Plana Circle, 415E
Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506
(925) 6,48-2500
Please direct any inquiry for obtaining copies of the construction plans to Emily Purvis of the
Building Inspection Department at 335-1177. Enclosed are forms to assist in the process for
obtaining these documents.
Of course, you are able to view the plans and make your own tracings of playas in the Building
Inspection:Department office. Again, I suggest that you contact Ms. Purvis to make
arrangements if you wish to view the documents.
If you would like to discuss this further or have any further questions, please call me at(925) 335-
1214.
Sincerely,
ROBERT H. DRAKE
Principal Planner
-4-
Ott. 813/99 Surveyor Certification for Fecundation Placement
Assessor's Map
82.4.282 oft e C.C.C. Ordinance Cade
Beard Order Approving Quitclaim of Deed Restriction on Parcel B
cc: ?embers of the Berard of Supervisors
Clerk of the Beard
James l' nor and Shelly Pend
Dennis Barry
CatherineKutsaris
Jennifer Petersen
Building Inspection.Dept.
Steve Pouliot
Jerry Post
En-ly Purvis
Public Works Dept. - Joseph Dil a gio
County Counsel
File 4TP99 010
c:\wpdac\R238040Atr
RD,\
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTS COUNTY,TY, Cts€ .FORMA
AFFID"IT OF MAILING
Ili THE MATTED.OF �
CO�ITTEE
f
Re:ADMIN TSTRATIVE APPEAL,
of"Building Permit#R 238040
1726 Club House Road, Diablo, CA }
James Minor and Shelly Potid )
I declare under pellalty of ped that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have
been, a citizen ofthe United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited mail with Contra
Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United states Postal Service in Martinez,
California, Certified?fail and First class postage fally prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice in the
above matter to the followir z:
DIABLO MAC
I .O. BOX 268 161-1 251 '.A
DI BLO CA 94528
Rmx'- ..9 {€Sx
I declare under penalty of perjury that the fore oi�°�g is t,
California. s ;
Dated: se'Ptember 16, 1999
' Y ..........
3. h
° s ,
arhara S. Cir t
............
afficdavit mail-appeal y
a
}
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFOR_NTIA
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
RN THE MATTER OF �
DIABLO MUNI 1CIPAL ADVISORY)
COMMITTEE �
I
Re.ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
of Building Permit#R 238040 �
1726 Clues House Road, Diablo, CA �
T aes Minor and Shelly Pond
}
I declare under penalty of petiurythat I amnow, and at all ties herein mentioned have
been, a citizen oft e L;nited States, over age 18; and that today I deposited mail with Contra
Cost,County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez,
California, first class postage fally prepaid, a copy of the bearing notice in the above matter to
the following:
DIABLO CO€. TNTRY CLUB DIABLO COUNTRY CLUB WILIAM &VIRGA
P.O. BOX 777 CLUB HOUSE ROAD REI
DIABLO CA. 94528 DIABLO CA 94528 P,O, BOX 55
DIABLO CA 94528
MICHELE ALIOT® JAMES & SHELLEY POND II-OR. T ACA 3&CO�iSUELO
VA
2520 PACIFIC AVEN UTE 356 RELY MAPLE DRIVE :
P.O, Box 347
SACT FRANCISCO CA 94115 DANVILL,E CA 94506 Diablo CA 94528
I deciare under t)enalty of per ury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez,
California.
Dated: Septerner 16, 1999 A4,
}
Tb
arbara S. m�nt, eputy Clerl
afflldBYFl
x, andlar 2 r 2ec .so:v,css
o .,.. 9V ac c,
` _ `�.,., J�.v -.S
CX S a-C3l
: ...Oa
n a.
01
as- d J ) a✓"�
de;'
c r.air L.. cc
P y
160 253 742
Ds ABLO MAS cr `�
F o o. BOX 263
DIA L O CA 9 4 5 2
g� "'" „.. c�v.Av ?>>. � r ,..:?:.:�� f:j $y t�� .a- ,�..:�u:83 ;✓:.;�> �.t.t�Ju6 w
^( i_. huh ,}''I' �•�%� / ...,f , •�',�:asvwmva.a.«.maaamxc�vs_vc -.
2tu �+'ni'.',.'u.,y^ '4;::. .'�' Re�h,',`�•-:i
t%
i;
c
t
n
4:
f
c
f
ci
E:
i'
i?
is