Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12122000 - D.4 Opp 10 q 41, • 0# Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 06 C+o u City FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AI CP DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SOU DATE. December 12 ., 2000 SUBJECT: Appeal of San Ramon Valley Regional. Planning Commission's Denial of an Application to Modify Residential Design Restrictions Pertaining to a Hillside Lot within the Shadow Creek Manor (Bettencourt Ranch) project, in the. Danville/Blackhawk area, County File #DP993043 (District III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Grant the Appeal and Approve the. Project . 1) Approve the project subject to the attached conditions, including provision for additional residential design modifications to lessen the visual mass of the proposed project . 2) Adopt the attached findings (attached to Conditions of Approval) . . FISCAL IMPACT None. Applicant is responsible for all project -review costs . BACKGROUND The background to this appeal is presented in three staff reports to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission dated March 22, April 19, and June 21, 20000 CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE, .01 RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE. OTHER SIGNATURE (S) * ACTION OF BOARD ON pprpmbpr 12 , 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION AND VOTE VOTE OF SUPERVISORS, I. HEREBY. CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A xx UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF. AN AYES* NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF 0 0 SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN* Sun Seat V i($211ciyy� at this time Cont-aUV'Mol) Drake [ -af ft.#-.0-1214 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED December 12 , 2000 cc: Richard -Cosca Michael Rupprecht PHIL. BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Shadow Creek Manor HOA, c/o CDD THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Counsel AND DUTY ADMINISTRATOR Robert Jensen BY t.0111AI A DEPUTY BY C : \wpdoc\dp993043-b.bo RD\ Appeal of San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Denial of Proposed Modifications to Hillside Development Restrictions In 1989, the County approved the Bettencourt Ranch project providing for single family residential and open space uses on both sides of a hill on the eastern edge of the Town of Danville, and next to the Blackhawk project . In approving the project, the County attached conditions to development of hillside properties to try and limit adverse visual impacts . Those restrictions applied to one of the lots located on an upper tier of roadway (now known as ]Bourne Lane) . That lot occupied the "nose" of a descending ridge with a slope approximating 30-50% . Development of the lot required that it be pad graded at the lowest portion of the site, and furthest removed from the access Toad, and that it be limited to a single-story profile. The lot was acquired by the applicants from the subdivision developer. Last summer, they approached staff with a residential design that was not consistent with the development restrictions, and staff advised them that the proposed design could not be authorized unless an amendment to the Final Development Plan restrictions were approved. On November 9, 1999, the applicants filed an application to amend the Final Development Plan restrictions . The application was accompanied by a residential design for the. site that allowed for a two-story design close to the road, but positioned so that it appeared as a single-story design from the front of the street . HEARING BY COMMISSION The matter was initially scheduled for hearing before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on March 22, 2000 . At that time, staff indicated that existing restrictions were onerous and would not result in a quality product . At the hearing, the applicant acknowledged that he had been informed of the design restrictions that apply to this site at the time he acquired it . At the initial hearing, the Commission was concerned that potentially interested parties may not have received notice of the project . Some of the nearby houses in the Bettencourt Ranch project had been recently sold by the subdivision developer, and a resident (Bob Jensen) within the Blackhawk development who had participated in previous County reviews of hillside development involving this project had expressed an interest in attending the Commission hearing. Consequently, the Commission elected to continue the hearing and directed staff to broaden the public notice for the continued hearing. At the continued April 19 hearing, the Commission took testimony, then indicated that it had concerns with the visual bulk of the proposed residential design. The Commission indicated that it did not necessarily object to elimination of the pad grading, single- story profile, and house placement restrictions, however, the Commission indicated that the proposed location for development was more visually sensitive. Consequently, the Commission was only willing to consider development if it could be shown that the project could satisfy appropriate design limitations . County File #DP993043 Cosca & Bonette (A & 0) DanvillelBlackhawk area The Commission requested that the applicant submit to the County a "schematic-level" modified plan that provided for the following changes . 0 reduce visual mass when viewed from downhill ; • observe a 26-foot height limit, measured parallel to grade; this standard was applied by the County in 1996 to three other lots with sloping grade (Lots 44 - 46) when the County approved an amendment to the Final Development Plan to allow relocation of three lots from the valley floor to the hillside area across the road from the subject property; and 0 eliminate any visible understory (crawlspace) to the extent possible. At the Commission' s request, the applicant agreed to provide this information to staff by June 5, 2000 so that staff and the Commission could review the revised plans prior to the continued hearing date on June 21 . Prior to the June 21 Commission hearing., staff contacted the applicant . At that time, the applicant indicated that they would not be providing the schematic drawing sought by the Commission. The applicant indicated that their initial plans substantially conformed to those parameters, and that it would be too costly for them to prepare. The staff report for the June 21 hearing indicated that substantial modifications to the design of the proposed residence would be necessary to reduce it to the 26-foot height limit which the Commission wished to see observed. Staff indicated that it was still supportive of the proposed residential design, but that if the Commission felt that the standards it wished to see imposed on the project were not being met, then the project should be denied. At the night of the hearing, the applicant presented sketch drawings of a modified residential design that were presented to the Commission. SHADOW CREEK RESIDENT' S ASSOCIATION COMMENTS This project lies within the residential development served by the Shadow Creek Resident' s Association HOA. The Association has indicated that it approved the plans originally submitted to the County. At the same time, the Association notes that any revised plans will require that Association' s approval . COMMISSION DECISION After reviewing the matter, the Commission determined that it could not support the proposed project . On a vote of 5-1 (Neely dissenting; Mulvihill absent) , the Commission denied the application. The Commission felt that the drawings did not go far enough toward the parameters that the Commission was trying to define at the April meeting. The Commission indicated that they were particularly trying to provide for a stepwise form that adhered closer to natural grade, and not have tall portions of the mass beneath the lowest floor. The Commission also wished to see judicious grading of the hill to provide a flat pad for the structure itself to sit on, so it would have a level base, and that Appeal of San Ramon Valley Appeal Regional Planning Commission Denial of Proposed Modifications to Hillside Development Restrictions the house stay within the 26-foot height limit with reasonable architectural roof pitches. Finally, in order to minimize the visual impact on neighbors looking across the valley, the Commission wished to eliminate the second story deck deck. Instead, the Commission suggested that equivalent usable rearyard area could be created by a graded flat yard, supported by a retaining wall that is stepped below the existing lower deck. APPEAL BY APPLICANT On June 28, 2000, the applicant filed an appeal of the Commission' s action with the Community Development Department . The applicant feels that their design would yield a superior product . They note that the original design was supported by the local (Shadow Creek) homeowners association. It was also supported by staff, including the County Geologist . DISCUSSION Subsequent to filing an appeal, the applicant has submitted a revised residential development plan dated September 1, 2000 . The revision: • reduces the visual bulk of the residence by reducing the height of the crawlspace beneath the lowest story. • Eliminates one of the decks that had been proposed on the rear of the structure. Reduces the height of the residence to 28-feet above finished grade. The Commission had been proposing that a 26-foot height standard be maintained. The previous design provided for a house design up to 32 feet above finished grade. The revised plans substantially reduce the visual mass of the proposed structure, though they do not go nearly as far as the Commission would like to have seen accomplished. The Commission would prefer to see: 1 . the second story deck eliminated rather than the first story deck; 2 . a flatter grade for the house to sit on; and 3 . adherence to the 26-foot height limit that has been applied to other sloping lots . Attached are conditions of approval that would accomplish that purpose. Rather than sustain the Commission denial, it would be appropriate to have these design modifications incorporated into the project prior to issuance of a building permit . It is unlikely that either the revised 9/1/00 plans submitted by the applicant, or plan modifications suggested by the Commission and staff would be rejected by the Shadow Creek Resident' s Association. ("'oWunty File #DP993043 WO Cosca & Bonette (A & 0) DanvillelBlackhawk area ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS A. Should the Board determine that the revised development plan is not appropriate and are not willing to require additional design revisions as part of an approval action, then the Board can: • Sustain the denial action of the Commission (reflected in Option A) . In this instance, the County could only issue a building permit for a new residence if it met all of the existing design criteria for this lot (single-story profile; placed at the bottom of the site; or the applicant could file a new application to try to amend the final development plan with a new design. The County could not accept such an application unless the Zoning Administrator had determined that the circumstances had materially changed. • Refer the matter to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for further review pending final Board of Supervisors action. B. Approve the project without the additional modifications sought by the Commission (identified in marked text in the attached conditions of approval . CONSEQUENCES OF SUSTAINING THE COMMISSION DENIAL DECISION Should the Board elect to sustain the Commission denial decision, then the County would be barred from accepting a new application for modification to the existing development restrictions for one calendar year unless the applicant were able to show the Community Development Director that • material change in the circumstances upon which the denial was based; and • the Director accepts the new filing on these grounds (Ref . §26-2 .2003 of Ord. Code) . The Ordinance Code defines a materially changed circumstance as (A) the proposed use is significantly different from that originally applied for; and/or (B) the lot involved has been diminished or enlarged with the result that the proposed use would be more compatible to the revised lot than the situation originally applied for; and/or (C) there has been a change in zoning classification which significantly affects this land. If the applicant is unable to meet these criteria, then the only means in which the applicant could develop the property within the next calendar year would be by adhering to the existing (1991) development restrictions . ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.4 December 12, 2000 Agenda This is the date and time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the appeal by Richard Cosca(Appellant), from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional PI ming "A*L Commission on the application by Richard Cosca(Applicant and Owner) and Bill Bonette (Owner), on their request to amend the Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify the residential requirements pertaining to a hillside residential lot located within the fifth phase of the Bettencourt Ranch project, (#DP99-3043) (aka Shadow Creek Manor). The site is located at#520 Bourne Lane(Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279), in the Danville area. Those present included Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director,,Robert Drake,Principal Planner, Community Development, and Silvano Marchesi, Assistant Chief County Counsel. Mr. Drake presented the staff report, and advised the Board of the applicant's revised site plans. The Board discussed the matter. Thepublic hearing was opened and Michael Rupprecht, Attorney for the Applicant, 18 Crow Canyon Court, Ste 160, San Ramon,requested that the previously revised Conditions be of modified to include a small deck off the kitchen. No others desiring to speak, the Board continued their discussion. Supervisor Gerber requested Mr. Drake explain the current proposed modifications to the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Drake reiterated the changes and advised the Board that the language in item 1 C be amended to read that "... the Shadow Creek Resident's Association "has" had an opportunity to review and comment on the revised development plans";that the Board find the Negative Declaration prepared for this project to be adequate for the purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), and adopt same; and the department post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. Following further Board discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved to adopt the staffs Ind recommendations, including the smaller & story deck,provided that the deck revision is acceptable to both staff and appellant, and the building plans were referred to the San Ramon Regional Valley Planning Commission. The applicant then stated that he would like to withdraw the requested 2nd story deck. Supervisor Gerber acknowledged the withdrawal. Supervisor Gerber then restated the motion, to accept the staff s recommendations as amended and stated today,with the Findings and Conditions of Approval as attached. Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA,UILKEMA,DeSAULNIER and GERBER NOES: NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISOR SEAT V IS VACANT ABSTAIN: NONE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP993043 (Cosca - Applicant; Bonette & Cosca - Owners) AMENDING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 48 OF THE FIFTH PHASE OF THE BETTENCOURT RANCH PROJECT (aka Shadow Creek Manor) IN THE DANVILLE/TASSAJARA AREA (Ref. File#3034-88 &#DP953004) FINDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OF A PLANNED UNIT (P-1) DISTRICT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Rewired Finding-The proposed modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district. Project Finding -Most of the development within the Bettencourt Ranch project has been done on building pads. The relatively steep topography of this site warrants development techniques that would not require major grading of the affected lot. B. Required Finding-The proposed modification is compatible with uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. Project Finding -Due to recently approved residential lots across the street from this project,the view of the hillside will provide aview-impacted condition. The relocation and altered design parameters proposed under this project will not adversely affect the view from surrounding areas. Added restrictions are incorporated into this approval which will assure its visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Ref. §84-66.1804(b)of the Ordinance Code CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. Development shall be in general accord with the revised development plans dated September 1, 2000. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit revised development plans (site plan, grading plan,residential elevations, floor plans,but omitting other construction detail)for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The revised development plans shall provide for the following changes: A. Modified residential profile such that the residential structure (except for chimney) does not exceed 26-feet in height as measured from finished grade. B. Elimination of the second-story deck, while allowing for restoration of the first- story deck. File#DP993043 Cosca—Applicant;Bonette& Cosca—Owners C. Prior to submittal to the Community Development Department, the applicant shall provide evidence that the Shadow Creek Resident's Association has had an opportunity to review and comment on the revised development plans. 2. Except as listed below, development activity shall be in accord with the applicable restrictions contained in the original Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan,File #3034-88, and as amended in File#DP953004. The following restrictions applicable to this site are eliminated. A. Pad grading at the 912-foot elevation. B. A single-story profile. 1) Level sideyards. 2) Structure setback requirement as would otherwise apply to the proposed driveway/bridge. 3. The following existing development restrictions continue to apply to any development of this site: A. Control of Reflectivity of Exterior Residential Materials -The construction plans shall specify the colors to be used for exterior walls and roofing'of all residential structures. A.licensed architect shall verify in writing that the proposed colors will not exceed 50% light reflectance. B. Control of Exterior Lighting-Any exterior lighting shall be designed and operated so as to shine on the applicant's property only and not shine on any surrounding properties. The printed notes on the construction plans for any proposed development shall so stipulate. C. Supplemental Tree Planting- At least 7 days prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit proposed landscape/irrigation plans prpepared by a licensed architect with proposed construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall identify the location of tree planting on the adjacent commons areas and proposed landscape/irrigation improvements on the site. The plans shall provide for on-site tree plantings to screen the view of proposed development from views to the north, to supplement landscape screening within the common areas. The plans shall also provide for a row of trees along the frontage of the lot. Proposed trees shall be provide for trees with a minimum size of 15-gallons. 2 File#DP993043 Conditions of Approval At least 15 days prior to requesting final inspection of the building permit, the landscape architect shall provide a report to the Zoning Administrator that the approved landscape/irrigation improvements have been correctly installed. 4. Added Development Restrictions A. Extension of Exterior Architectural Detail Around Side and Rear of Structure- Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide for modified rear and side elevations, that provide for additional architectural detail comparable to that proposed for the front elevation of the residence. B. Deed Disclosure- At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide a draft deed disclosure for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosure shall provide for the following restrictions as pertains to this site: • Following initial residential development of this site in accord with the approved site plans,no grading activity requiring a grading permit shall be conducted unless the applicant first obtains an amendment to the Final Development Plan. • Saunas and hot tubs are permitted in accord with County Ordinance provisions,however a swimming pool is not allowed. Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide evidence that the approved deed disclosure has been properly recorded against the deed to the property. 5. Processing Fee for Review of Site Plan Materials -In accord with the adopted fee schedule, at time of initial submittal of materials for issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall be subject to applicable Time and Material charges, including an initial deposit of$500 (checks may be made payable to "Contra Costa County"). 6. Fees for Processing of Development Permit Application -This application is subject to an initial application fee of$3000 that was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial fee. Any additional fee due must paid by the applicant within 60 days of the effective date of this permit, or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days*for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. -3- File#DP993043 Cosca—Applicant;Bonette& Cosca—Owners 7. Geotechnical Report- At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of: A. A colored cut/fill map; accurate cross-sections that extend from the roadway to a point downslope from the project [showingexi sting grade and proposed grade; estimated the volume of earthwork (cubic yards) and whether it would require any proposed import or export; and details of the foundation design elements (i.e., piers, subdrains, retaining wall, grade beams]. B. A preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for the review of the County Planning Geologist, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for expansive soils, mass wasting processes, soil erosion and seismically-induced ground failure by redognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. C. Processing Fee -The review by the Planning Geologist is subject to Time and Materials Charges including a$750 initial deposit at time of submittal of plans. 8. Sewage Disposal and Drainage-At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of a drainage and sewage connection plan indicating how water from impervious surfaces are to be collected and conveyed to storm drainage facilities, and how sewage disposal from development of this site will connect with Central Sanitary District sewage lines, within SD7279. The plan shall be subject to the review of the County Planning Geologist, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify the boundaries of all affected properties. The site plan shall indicate that development rights of the common area have been conveyed to the County. The site plan shall also show the location of the proposed trenching in relationship to nearby existing mature oak trees and recently planted landscape improvements (e.g., trees, shrubs, and irrigation improvements). For any nearby mature oak tree, the site plan shall accurately identify the location of the trunk, it's approximate circumference at 41/2 feet above the ground; and its dripline. The site plan shall also indicate whether any construction equipment is proposed to be parked or stored within the dripline of any mature oak tree. The plan shall indicate any alteration to existing improvements proposed by the infrastructure improvements and shall provide for appropriate mechanisms to assure their -4- File#DP993043 Conditions of Approval maintenance and protection following the completion of construction (e.g., security bond) for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant is advised that the County holds the development rights for the common area. Any proposed infrastructure improvements (e.g., drainage, sewer)that extends into the common area will require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Moreover, if the applicant proposes to trench within the dripline of a mature oak tree, a tree permit will be required. On these matters, the applicant is advised to work with the project planner in the Community Development Department. ADVISORYNOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section-66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. c Awpdoc\dp9930430-e.coa RD\ Rev. 12/12/00 _5_ RESOLUTION NO. 10-2000 BEFORE THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL -Richard Cosca&Bill Bonette, (Applicants & Owners) - County File#DP993043 Amendment to Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan-In the Danville/ Blackhawk area of said County / In 1991, the County approved the Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan and Tentative Map applications subject to conditions, and rezoned the property to the Planned Unit (P-1)District; said project allowed for the development of 469 single family residential lots and open space area occupying both sides of a hill on the outskirts of the Town of Danville; in approving said project, the County imposed special development restrictions on one of the residential lots (at that time identified as Lot 424); that lot is was located on moderately steep terrain(30 - 50% grade); to minimize the visibility of development of the site, the County required that the residential pad be developed near the lowest point of the lot (and furthest from the access road), and that the design of the residence on the property provide for a single-story profile; In 1996, the County approved an amendment to the Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan that authorized the relocation of three lots from the lower portion of the site to the upper tier of Bourne Lane, across the.street from the above described lot; in so doing the County imposed additional conditions on hillside lots facing towards the Blackhawk development; In 1996, when the Final Map was recorded covering this area of the Bettencourt Ranch project, the subject property was renumbered as Lot 49 of Final Subdivision Map 7279; On November 9, 1999, Richard Cosca and Bill Bonette, filed an application with the Community Development Department to amend the Bettencourt Ranch(now known as Shadow Creek Manor)Final Development Plan to eliminate some of the development restrictions that apply to this lot; this application was filed after the applicants had explored with staff other possible means of developing on the property without obtaining an approval of an amendment to the final development plan; On March 2, 2000, after conducting an initial study on the project to determine whether the proposed modifications would result in any significant environmental impacts, and staff concluded there would be none, the County posted a Notice of Intent to Adopt a proposed Resolution No. 10-2000 DP993043 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and noticed same as required by law; On March 22, 2000, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was conducted on the proposed amendment before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission; after taking testimony,the Commission continued the matter to allow for an expanded public notice of the application; On April 19, 2000, after notice was again issued as required by law, including expanded notice of parties as requested by the Commission,the Planning Commission conducted a second hearing on the project; after taking testimony, the Commission determined that the proposed development plans would have to be modified before the proposed modifications could be supported, and requested the applicant to make those modifications and bring them back to the Commission for review, and continued the hearing to June 21, 2000; On June 21, 2000, the Planning Commission again accepted testimony, then closed the hearing; The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter. RESOLVED, that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission DENIES the request to amend the Bettencourt Ranch'Final Development Plan for the following reasons: 1. While the Commission may be willing to accept the elimination of the specified pad grading and single story profile development restrictions which apply to this site, the proposed development location is visually sensitive insofar as it projects outward from the side of the hill; thus every effort should be made to reduce the visual bulk of a residential design to the minimum. 2. The design proposed by the applicant is too visually bulky; the same structure height standard that was applied to three of the relocated lots in 1996 (maximum 26 feet in height,rather than the standard 35 feet in height) should apply to development of this lot; moreover, some of the visual bulk could be reduced by elimination of elevated rearyard decks and elimination of visible understory area; 3. The applicant did not timely submit a modified design to staff as the Commission had requested so that such plan could be reviewed by staff prior to the Commission hearing. A sketch of a revised residential design was not made available until the night of the hearing. Page 2 Resolution No. 10-2000 4. The Commission was not satisfied that the proposed residence would be compatible with development either within the Bettencourt Ranch(aka, Shadow Creek Manor project) or outside the project; nor that the proposal was satisfying the purposes of the Planned Unit District. The decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission was given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on June 21, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Gibson, Couture,Matsunaga,Ho, and Jeha. NOES: Commissioners -Neely ABSENT: Commissioners -Mulvihill ABSTAIN: Commissioners -None Further, on June 28, 2000, in a letter dated June 26, 2000,'the applicants appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors. Sherry Neely Chair of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California. 1, Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on June 21, 2000. ATTEST: r.--�YL Dennis M. Barry, AICP, Secretary" of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California. C Awpdoc\DP 993 043.res RD\ Page 3 Supplemental Notification List 230-830-020 220-830-020 File DP993043 (Cosca) Lp Barra OCCUPANT c:\wpdoc\dp993043.lab 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd. 37 Wakefield Court 10/4/00 San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506 220-830-022 220-830-022 220-840-012 LP Barra OCCUPANT LP Barra 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd. 38 Wakefield Court 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd. San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506 San Ramon, CA 94583 220-840-012 220-840-010 220-840-010 OCCUPANT Lp Barra OCCUPANT 520 Bourne Lane 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd. 505 Bourne Lane Danville, CA 94506 San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506 220-840-005 220-840-005 220-830-028 LP Barra OCCUPANT LP Barra 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd. 555 Bourne Lane 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd. San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506 San Ramon, CA 94583 220-830-028 220-830-003 220-830-003 OCCUPANT LP Barra OCCUPANT 735 Bourne Court 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd. 616 Bourne Court Danville, CA 94506 San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506 William Bonette Richard Cosca Richard Cosca 28 Millstone Terrace 3701 Mt. Diablo Blvd. 401 Liverpool San Rafael, CA 94903 Lafayette, CA 94549 Danville, CA 94506 Michael Rupprecht Shadow Creek Resident's Association 18 Crow Canyon Court, Suite 180 c/o Common Interest Mngmt. Serv. San Ramon, CA 94583 315 Diablo Road, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 Smooth Feed Shee.tSTM Use template' r 5160W Building Inspection HSD, Environmental Health San Ramon Vly Fire District 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road INTEROFFICE INTEROFFICE San Ramon, CA 94583 CCC Sanitary District EBMUD Water District Town of Danville (Consolidated) p0 Box 24055 510 La Gonda Way 2010 Geary Road Oakland, CA 94623-1055 Danville, CA 94526 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Darwin Myers Shadow Creek HOA Blackhawk HOA County Geologist C/0 Robert Hora 4125 Blackhawk Plaza INTEROFFICE 80 Spring Water Court Ctr #230 Danville, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Robert T. Jensen -� 200 South Ridge Court Danville, CA 94506 K-A %AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 5160 Smooth Feed SheqtSTM Use template for 51600 220 060 029 220 060 042 220 737 001 Common Area-Tract 7278 Lp Barra Sudarshan&Gladys Malhotra 1975 San Ramon Valley Blvd 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd 64 Spring Water Ct San Ramon, CA 94583 San Ramon,,CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506 220 737 002 220 737 003 220 737 004 George&Catherine Fairburn David&Mindy Olson Luis&Teresita Tiongson 68 Spring Water Ct 72 Spring Water Ct 76 Spring Water Ct Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 737 005 220 737 006 220 830 001 Robert Dora&Luanne Peters Walter&Nelli Pusch Randolph&Lisa Wilkins 80 Spring Water Ct 84 Spring Water Ct 600 Bourne Ct Danvilk, CA 94506 Danville, CA 94506 Danville,CA 94506 220 830 002 220 830 003 220 830 015 David&Purtle Leise June LP Barra Michael&Crystal Lynch 608 Bourne Ct 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd 615 Bourne Ct Danville.,CA 94506 San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville,CA 94506 220 830 019 220 830 020 220 830 021 Roberta&Gabriel Aaron Levin Lp Barra Lp Barra 31 Wakefield Dr 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd Moraga, CA 94556 San Ramon, CA 94583 San Ramon,CA 94583 220 830 022 220 830 028 220 840 005 LP Barra Lp Barra Lp Barra 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd San Ramon, CA 94583 San Ramon.,CA 94583 San Ramon,CA 94583 220 840 006 220 840 007 220 840 008 - Gilbert Kiefer&Sherri Robertson Donald L&Dorothy Farrand Edward&Nelia Solis 54.5 Bourne Ln Farrand 525 Bourne Ln Danville, CA 94506 535 Bourne Ln Danville., CA 94506 Danville,, CA 94506 220 840 009 220 840 010 220 840 011 Steven&Virginia Benetti LP Barra Brian&Oprail Phillips 162 Merano St 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd 500 Bourne Ln Danville, CA 94526 San Ramon, CA 94583 Danville, CA 94506 220 840 012 220 840 013 Lp Barra Lp Barra 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd 2070 San Ramon Valley Blvd San Ramon, CA 94583 San Ramon., CA 94583 n VERY8 Address Labels Laser 5160'D I ti June 26, 2000 Bob Drake Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street North Wing 4" Floor Martinez, CA-94553 RE: Planning commission denial of amendment of final development plan for Lot 48 Tract 7279 File #OP993043 My partner, Bill Bonette and I submitted plans to the county to build a house on this lot in September of 1999. In November 1999 our request was denied and we were put off until April 2000 to appeal the decision. We have now appeared before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission three times. At the first meeting in April the commission was not familiar enough with the project and lot to make a decision. At the second meeting in May the commission suggested that the pad elevation height restriction of 912' and the single story profile be eliminated and. a new restriction of a structure height not exceed 26' parallel to slope and to soften the exterior elevation. On June 21 we appeared before the commission with a revised sketch of the home demonstrating a height that is 26-1 to parallel grade and new elevations that dress up the exterior elevations. The commission voted 5 to 1 to deny our request. This is after we had our plans altered to comply with the committee's recommendations. The community development is staffed by professionals who are experienced in the planning process. They have reviewed our plans and the geotechnical reports and have recommended approval of the submitted plan. The commission has totally disregarded Mr. Drake's recommended approval. The committee totally disregarded the recommendations of the geologist. The committee meetings have not addressed the real problem: what can be built on the lot. They do not look to their expert, the planner, for advice. j- 1 June 26, 2000 Bob Drake Page Two The lot is difficult to build on and we surely will not build a house that is a detriment to the neighborhood. The house we built on the adjacent lot is the most expensive and well-designed home in the subdivision. The proposed house would compare favorably in design and quality. We are attempting to please a very difficult committee. We feel it is time to request the Board of Supervisors review our appeal and make a reasonable decision based upon the topography, the recommend- ations of the geologist and the recommended approval of the Community Development Department. Sincerely, .( O' s Dick Cosca Enclosures r. SUPPLEMENT Amendment of Final Development Plan Lot 48 Tract 7279 The subject lot was purchased to build a custom designed single family residence. When we reviewed the restrictions,we noted the single story profile and believed that designation to mean a single story elevation from the street side and due to the nature of the lot a two story back elevation. We could not figure out how to comply with the pad elevation of 912' so thought the figure to be arbitrary based on an acceptable design. We have had a very attractive home designed for lot 48 and also have completed a home on the only other lot on the same side of the road. We felt that if we kept the same attractive architectural design in mind that the plan would be approved. We submitted our plan to the Shadow Creek Homeowners Association and received their approval. We then submitted the entire package to the County Building Department and were denied approval. The reasons for denial were that the house was not a single story design and that the house was not at 912 ft. pad elevation. We believe that it will be impossible to comply with the stated restrictions and are requesting a change to those restrictions. When the subdivision was approved in 1988 and 1989, lots 47 & 48 were the only lots on that section of Bourne Road. There were no lots on the other side of the street. Since that initial approval and the defining of restrictions, three lots were approved across from these lots and in particular lot 48. These homes, when built will be 2 story in height and far exceed any ridge line view interruption that could have been the reason for the single story profile requirement of lot 48. The problems encountered when attempting to design a single story home for lot 48 are as follows: 1. STREET ELEVATION 942' or 30' above required pad elevation. 2. DRIVEWAY: Will slope from 936' at the far right comer of the lot to 912' or 24 feet in 94 feet= 26%slope which is excessive. The driveway will have to be retained on the uphill side and supported with pipe piles on the downhill side since it will be constructed on a steep side-to-side slope. 3. RETAINING WALLS: 24'high on hillside of driveway turn around and to side of garage. The retaining walls will create a drainage situation that will require extensive engineering. -2- 4. CUT & FILL: To create a pad at 912' elevation, we will have approximately 20' of cut and 10' of fill. The Engeo Soils report of 4-17-89 states: "It is anticipated that significant variations in material properties will occur in the areas of cut and fill daylighting. It appears from the laboratory analysis that there is a potential for a significant differential in swell characteristics between cut and fill areas. Such situations can be detrimental to building performance." 5. SITE DRAINAGE: The entire structure and garage will have to be extensively drained to handle the anticipated run-off from the severe slope of the lot from the street to the pad. The only discharge available will be to the street below. 6. SEWER: The proposed elevation of 912' will require sewer pumps for all appropriate rooms. 7. FLAT REAR YARDS: The requirement is for a 10' X 30' flat rear yard. We will be unable to comply because the house will be 8' higher than the elevation line 10' from the rear of the house and there is not enough remaining property to create a pad. SUMMARY: The house that could be placed on the lot at the 912' elevation would be saddled with the aforementioned 7 problems. It would be totally nonconforming with the subdivision and offer the potential for future drainage problems in its lifetime. The soil is unstable and we would be required to further undermine that stability. The driveway would have excessive slope. We would not encounter any of the aforementioned problems if the house that has been designed for the lot were approved. The lot is rimmed with planted trees and bordered by a grove of oak trees. With the addition of 3 homes on the upper side of Bourne Road across from lot 48, those houses will be 20 to 40 feet higher in elevation than our proposed house design and no one house will stand out. It would appear that the proposed house would be an attractive addition to the subdivision. —X10 08:40A Common I• '%-Piar"as-t Mgm--tSvcs 925 743 3084 P . 01 Shadow 'reek Resident's Association C/O Common Interest Management Services 315 DIWAo Ruad,S"Ife 221 Danville.CA 941.526 July 29, L999 Bill Tionnctte Honnette Construction RC: Request for Architcctural Or Landscape Appruvid Lot 48,Phasc 1,52.0 Boume Lane, Danville.CA Dear rI i 11, Thank you Fursubmi(fing your plans to the homeowners association for review. Tice T)esig.-on Rcvicw Committee lia!) reviewed and approved YOUT plans to btiild y4utir new !tonne with the following cxception: ❖ The cnniposition shingle roof is not approved. The roof must he concrete: tile. Please remenibcr flia( Ihis approval docs not mean to imply approval has been given atom any Comity emity, which may need to be satisfied. This would be your responsibility to iiivestigate and satisfy. 0 Please feel frcc to call OUT o!CC.at(92-5) 743-3080 if you have any questions. Regurds, Mary Weib I Project Mail Phone 925-743-3080 Fax 925-743-3084 September 11, 2000 Bob Drake Community Development 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 RE: Lot 48 Shadow Creek Manor Dear Mr. Drake: We are submitting a revised floor plan and elevation to comply with the recommendations of the regional planning commission. We are hopeful that the Board of Supervisors will see the merit in the revised house plan. Enclosed are 6 copies of the original plan and 6 copies of the revised plan. The revision is to lower the house approximately 3 feet. The architect has demonstrated that the house now is less than 26 feet in height parallel to grade. We have eliminated the lower rear deck and added a small deck and wood trim to the left elevation to break up the height of the structure. Hopefully these changes will allow us to finally obtain approval. Sincerely, Richard Cosca cc: Michael Ruprecht Agenda Item#2 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,March 22, 2000 -7:30 n.m. I. INTRODUCTION RICHARD COSCA (Applicant), BILL BONETTE&RICHARD COSCA (Owners),File #DP993043 - A request for approval of an amendment to the Shadow Creek Manor(aka Bettencourt Ranch)Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify development restrictions as applies to a hillside residential lot (Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279)The site is located at#520 Bourne Lane in the Danville area. (P-1) (ZA: U-19)(CT 3551.03) (Parcel#220-840-012) H. SUMMARY OF REVIEW In an effort to soften the view of this site from off-site perspectives, the original approval for this project required that development of this site provide for pad grading far below the street elevation, and limit development to a single-story profile. The applicant feels that these restrictions are onerous. Instead, he is proposing a pier-and-beam foundation, two-story design which is located adjacent to the street frontage. III. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. B. Approve the proposed modifications with restrictions. C. Adopt the proposed Findings. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan Designation - Single Family Residential -Low Density. B. Zonin -Planned Unit (P-1)District. In 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved a Final Development Plan (FDP; File#3034-88) for the Bettencourt Ranch Project which encompasses this neighborhood and residential development to the south on the opposite side of the hill. In 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the Bettencourt Ranch (File#DP953004). File#DP993043 The area where this site is located has been transferred to the Shadow Creek Homeowners Association for management of common facilities, and has been renamed "Shadow Creek Manor". C. Environs -The Shadow Creek Manor project lies between three other developments. To the south, on the other side of the hill, is the Bettencourt Ranch project. To the east is the Shadow Creek residential project. To the north is the Blackhawk residential project. The Shadow Creek Manor project has been largely constructed. The roads have been constructed. Virtually all of the residential lots have been built. The primary road serving Shadow Creek Manor is Bourne Lane which is U- shaped in configuration. One segment of Bourne Lane serves residential lots in the draw portion of the project; another segment serves several hillside residential lots on an upper tier that face northward towards Blackhawk. The site is surrounded by common open space area where the development rights have been conveyed to the County. Immediately downhill of the site are a couple of mature oak trees. Landscape improvements (shrubs, etc.) abutting the property have been installed on the open space portion, immediately adjacent to the common property line with the site. D. Site Description -The site is one of two lots that lies on the downslope side of the upper tier section of Bourne Lane. The site lies on the nose of a ridge adjacent to a repaired landslide. The slope on the site ranges from approximately 30 - 50%. The site consists of approximately 15,000 square feet of area. E. ADUlicable Development Restrictions - Attached are excerpts of the development permits containing restrictions that apply to this site. 1. Original Project Approval - At the time of the original subdivision approval (1989), this project was identified as Lot 424 of(Tentative Map) Subdivision 7188. At that time the Town of Danville had expressed concerns that the perched location of the nose ridgeline, might result in residential development that would not be visually compatible with the area. At the request of the Town, the County required the following specific restrictions to apply to development of this site: S-2 Cosca San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Wednesday,March 22,2000 • the project provide for a building pad at approximately the 912-foot contour level, or approximately 30 feet below the project site (COA #5.J.21); and • the design of the residence provides for a"single-story profile" (COA #18). The project was also made subject to other development restrictions that apply generally to lots exceeding 10,000 square feet in area(COA#15), including the requirement for a flat 10 x 30-foot rearyard, and a minimum 3-foot clear level sideyard. Finally, the approval also prohibits export of earth material from the site without prior approval of the Zoning Administrator(COA#4.C.). 2. 1996 Amendment to Bettencourt Ranch FDP (#DP9530041-In 1996, the County authorized the relocation of three lots from the lower portion of the site to the upper tier of Bourne Lane, across the street from this site. In so doing, the County imposed additional conditions of approval on development of hillside lots including the subject site. At that time, the area of the subject property was identified as Lot 48 of SUB 7279, one of the (phased) final maps for the Bettencourt Ranch project. (See attached excerpt of conditions of approval.) F. Referral to Planning Commission -The Zoning Administrator is authorized to render a decision on this type of application. However, in this instance, the ZA has elected to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearing and decision pursuant to Section 26-2.2106 of the Ordinance Code. V. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The applicant is proposing to eliminate several site specific restrictions that apply to this site: - establishing a building pad at the 912-foot contour line. - limiting design to a single-story profile. -requiring a flat 10 x 30-foot rearyard. The applicant indicated that they were aware of these restrictions at the time they purchased the lot but felt that they could be modified prior to development. Their reasons S-3 File#DP993043 for the requested changes to the development restrictions are explained in an attached document provided by the applicant. Briefly, the applicant believes that the following problems would arise if the existing restrictions were to remain in place. • To create a pad cut at the 912-foot evelation, approximately 30 feet below the street elevation, development would require a retaining wall exceeding 20-feet in height, far above the general standard for the project(max. 4 feet). • Were the project grading to balance on site with both cut and fill pad material, significant variations may result due to different swell characteristics, which would be detrimental to building performance. • A driveway would have to be constructed at a relatively steep gradient, maybe steeper than the County Ordinance would permit (25%)in order to build a garage at a level that is 30 feet below the street elevation. • By building a residence 30 feet below grade, all rooms would have to be sewered pumped raise sewage to the street elevation. • Due to the existing topographical grade, providing for a flat rearyard, as is required on other lots, is impractical. In lieu of a residential design built in accord with existing design restrictions, the applicant is proposing a two-story, three bedroom, pier-and-beam foundation residence with two-decks on the rear elevation. The exterior elevation would be similar to other residential designs in the area. The main floor and garage would be at approximately street elevation. VI. AGENCY/GROUP COMMENTS A. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District- Attached are the District's comments. The District has not indicated any significant concerns with the proposed modifications. B. County Planning Geologist -The County Planning Geologist conducted a peer review of the geotechnical reports on the development of this site provided by the applicant. These comments are contained in a letter dated December 29, 1999. Briefly, the County Geologist concludes that the proposed modifications are manageable from a geotechnical standpoint. However, he is recommending that additional investigation be conducted to provide specific standards and criteria to guide site grading, drainage and foundation design, prior to issuance of a building or grading permit. S-4 Cosca San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Wednesday,March 22,2000 C. EBMUD -In a transmittal dated December 1, 1999,the District indicates that the site lies within the District's service area. The transmittal does not indicate any problems in providing water service to the site. D. Town of Danville -A copy of this application was forwarded to the Town of Danville for comments. However,no comments have been provided. E. Referrals to Nearby HOAs - Copies of the project were also referred to the Blackhawk and Shadow Creek HOAs. However, staff has received no response from either group. The applicant has indicated that he has reviewed his plans with the Shadow Creek HOA, and he indicated that they did not oppose the project. VII. DISCUSSION A. Other Applicable Restrictions Though not specifically cited, the applicant's proposal would also necessitate elimination of two other FDP design restrictions as apply to this site. • to eliminate the requirement for a level sideyard. • to allow for construction of a driveway bridge structure within the required (20-foot)frontyard area. B. Required Findings for Granting Proposed Modifications Under provisions of the P-1 Ordinance, an amendment to a Final Development Plan can only be approved if the County is able to make the following findings: The proposed modifications are consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district. The proposed modifications are compatible with the uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. C. Merit of Proposal The existing development restrictions make development of this site impractical. The steepness of the terrain will make development of pad grading 30 feet below the street elevation very difficult. S-5 �O Cosca San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Wednesday,March 22,2000 0 Any infrastructure improvement within the HOA common area will require not only evidence of acceptance by the HOA but also by the Board of Supervisors (to allow for development within a deed-restricted area). 0 If any infrastructure improvement results in either the removal of a mature oak tree, or trenching within the dripline of a mature oak tree, the applicant will have to first obtain a tree permit from the County. A tree permit is not only a discretionary permit,but one which requires public notice. VM. ALTERNATIVES A. Deny the PrODosed Modifications to Existing Restrictions -If the Commission is unable to make the required findings for allowing a modification to the FDP, then the Commission could deny the project. In this instance,no development could occur unless the applicant could demonstrate that all development standards are met including required building pad elevation and single-story design. B. Reauire an Alternative Residential De -The Commission may determine that the required findings cannot be made unless certain modifications to the project were made. For instance, the Commission could require that a modified design be provided that allows for a pier-and-beam design,but in more of a step-down design, as suggested by the attached Staff Study, dated March 18, 2000. IX. CEQA STATUS Pursuant to the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, staff prepared an initial study on the proposed modifications which concluded that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. On Thursday, a Negative Declaration determination was posted with the County Clerk and circulated as required by law providing interested parties until Wednesday, March 22, 2000, 5:00 p.m. to comment on the project. As of the date of the preparation of this staff report, no comments have been received on the proposed CEQA determination. cAwpdoc\dp993043.rpt RD\ S-7 c Ir tk AS Y24 -��l (/I�"�+y iY't"./ <�,t��� 4 ���1"''.��4,�E� 7,�-P� R �!'�'•,..�w. �.�`�}z►;;;moi j-, JarAir�2 PF SO CA WIFA �. _ �'� � � i� :... ,,,fir. �,..-......_ • 'I l,r � +���T, �4 ,�.. `:,yds, � � • • /% ./� � ;ta •ate � r rJ r • ••• • FAV • �J OUR OFt • } • >. „�{ � rte' t, � � �- '`� f w � � 4 `+�� '/..�'J{.,Y jj_a yrl, 11' �„<♦-r< t��'�'!t'♦f '��Y•.�. �' �' ,w�i�, ~,a?" � - �i�u^„�e.3.+.ti"„�:'�.,,,t�!..r'`>J.�`',s�;_y,}t �:`.`t'+�, !� �”'�"tt.'+.,4, t A�t'S i4{�.erg ••s� �„4 .+:<�`� �'!a� � +r��s^ {., '.7 �,'t+✓.a rye�N,,'•*c':,./,�'� i r. .�1,....M�' �t R`.,`'�'";,%..'_ -] '::��Y{l• "`'•` ''�.J'a ���.sg tt� ���.'�;F '�� ,. .ti`.��� ,.3..�,..�.- f•tf z; .�;•�>y++ ,��,;.�,.��.y'' .. r. t�� �''' \� �-r. ems«_..�;Y',<v;'� w.r' .i� VAIN 1 e�{„_,+`7.iR'A ';.'�' r '{ .., • .v"+'";•;;ft v s '+',,y.11 k_.y f,. i•t•1, - ..�.L'..4" .t[� r� `�. � M.. '.J • r- rW t y. „7',.^' F•',�.i,�'i+. �:"`7'-''',2 f� t.r l°r._ '�i s;{ .I.•..�t� :s �f`` `f fi�T•'v '�%.� ' 'le �''- �rt J A /. i. �`,t_ Y g ,.� 4.. •.'a' (.113 9 �� �:�� !n. .�i' y'�d�4� 7�''{ t, y,�. �� !' a+ -1 :Y Jer � i• �r(i;�r :'� �Y � .� "� ^,��.,t Y � {,.l-�V ..+1ii+� ta.�,�.O� �i- .1 i +.� 1 - •;,��, i +, _ �,,�-- '.I i:Ln. ��'��1 d'i - >,p" ". `. t y"o1 ►+v��1 ti.,",�`4 i.S i i "• y'�rn• 4� ,.,,i,w� f v '!•-,..<�'t x 4. ! -a' y tv.. - a.�' 1z .Ti: ♦ � .`. ) 4 7�.-� j +r f ..^���'+ z � � z� .t ..tY "3"'" aY'.,!�� .i i �e.�"�Ie.'''`Y� eti .gr.}; •` � •, r ,�„a.,.y. .iT�4 {y, yy ♦.. s -S •v �. -rfaa 'tY'�g"�.,,. •S�/ wY�..,/K,:�V��+ r��< �# �.r� K'} t+ 1 ,`,'!TM', '.`. { <,'�*t.1�b' '~t,r �. t ,1`•�.. aec,' _ .;..a�• {�'7ry id"' •...�,y, # � �+l M �, • i'?' :• ' �'�''E K}� �{ at F'. E v-•+�,p'�' ,. .4, _ -t Y,A " �'� f •'~:t,,.'J„: .... 4. n, i/s.`�I•�, „✓� � .:W i/ R',�.:•Nj'1Y1.��.s'��r�'Y. 1 ((ti ► 'fF �♦ ,"�'(� �.fV".r .'il• "'r .r t. 1�. •�tx y, Y�l f "h T__ Y ��J-y,�(J�6(”` �. •4, +•� K `.' ,•'S �4'M� _ '�',�,` .�.ry }� � f�i +�. :i. � n.•u�� "-i•y�: d',-"�•i.,'moi I at S' _ 'r(�L�� ! t.;���� E,'�?".�'{ {' 4: •�Ro`%�'£,;+ . !�'" r y � k .. `•-.,r �. .r t.'Y,r' it-I°,<s t \ rl•` /• •'crS': ` � 4(; ♦,• ♦+l<t .r � 9 �J c r )K} 3^ >i.'7a. 1�►.." jj+w >df3 i -'ti '"f.,n: tt ^„�'.•v' ., .. ;•v*.�'c�1.�rV• -?•r' �+'�^l rr���+ �a ti�BA�,�` a Y���a t t`� �}ty_;?�t\�`��T {'sk'�y� {�a�,w •r, (' t+�'" DOW 1 �'C'� ���^��'Zj3�« .'>h�'4yc `�r ,'�� A '�� t�awvi".�.�"-.�s`�"�,,'�"7 �.:�� '►�srv.,�„ .:'�- ;� iS. sv`,g4¢t.s{" :{. f; 'n,: ..;, l P ,.a•.•''. `'Zrr,{.e�*.'' __ L v -'-`� ,*;",.C.�7'1}'' � .a ti.,a • ifrff ,'.> r••�. �,+r, At <S, ..ZR,`�-.,, ��.' a'.�•-s17a«'qjt �' ?� tc� �•yyt�' •� t`,.uv. �, '`�'#`"\"�E�...?'�.•,,.�, .o`�.`'{, ,a.1'� ::f.7�.�,s�^t"•-+"r�1/,fit,✓,rte..� ''jj�� •{ It.+ ��� y'' f ++S M,;+�s�'�c�y�J+� V �y�r ^#��`��tZ'f�fd /' .r lu Av .Sd R W AW a AW r330\3, Z ~.t 3301 a� to �s G sov f , 4w W so *12 O+ «w aar p .w 4p 40 M PE g OAKS DR v � r 34 rwt cT a ) N sr"Wo voof it sr am" WOUWAM ads R CT 3345 a xv eoo of !JJ 10� (� �► �t 9J6 1d 3350 937 �, 105 �� 3 v •�,pR��F� NORTHO oc f" z 9�S v aT C� L I AL pff .1 M w 64 ?25 73 a W sN0 E < 7JJ J26S 7t 0 Q � ��Q' 3366 Y V 146 �� �',, C 7w f 'yIlk '�t► + �► >>D b c 0� ti , J*a a 4v it HONEY U►KE CTGOLS ti�►KE CT o 2� 23 3o SUH STREAM CT WA CREEK GT 1 N .>� a Of CRE CT SK4ww CREEK OR 1� sHADow, „mow^+ ,�,•., Y c !f sem• - - - .. s` L�la A L^�I �.'r.`� �VY•'�,•� , ^ „r'1iR'�YI..•+ice- ��' y a a1'Sfd, z°dip,-. WCN • Uj 21 CD � U crte9 ut+r,..ct.et.tos cn O O r in w � •. z r p W Q h M Z ;►'6St per V ltJ � W 6t b 40 ag w 76,86 45 Z 6,`r •t<ll S� 38S W I 'V�n srb� a R K t w S ”/O �.d t en W �� l/fid�-►t 8o sos 5g ��..�, i; R•108 3 l• Ho LL 63.15 At'►�'gp•Sp� R.24? 105 6 �•lts 0�. `a'S� V_ 1d.5 � � 1p1• �a• Z N o x.90 'lti� X co ^ w � � �� ' �.� a•1yroi ��nc+ � �•l t�`�� 7 to 11e *�...,� �-� � o � X21•�rz ti ^ ti CD (� W co e� W by r ern ti ♦ `' o 3 o R• ♦♦ h� h • � gyp, ~ ~ 1.24CDI � 911� �) N '�r ♦♦ P to s� ♦ >3 m �• ph g•,✓j n • h B �1 h O n 7 N -^ �' �.• c e �w�•��•P SS N��4)3 � O ro A0 QY4i �S•I ���� Lt7 �o � `j� C �z ass O � ter.�x ���'`. 'rB ' ,'i Bs r'3d � 7 i, a i ry•�+�•J'-I r♦'r..� -- � - p. R A � ~ - � t.yR .:�'. y .'•N i � �, � �.'fir '.E,, .5 J' •a\ t �• - 1-'.� .. p��' , �. - 3•S�.x+:. .,r.-+A.'�- a`.:�9�:a` -�•' 151.> �.�t': y, '�. .+y '.s �YCj - •t` a �.�. .•1 .r: � c I • .. ;4.'�"''�`'Y•Y t`�„fd•'' '4 tet.. iQ''d'�2'r7yi�••'� "a:.ii , - i b,.. s t`�''z .. �l•Z. Z AFF M L•Jr {• C ) '.y •'Br t :.,w �. � 1' ,'�. ,+ hr. •d -,'•reL,rj, rr,L•^''js .J�r` B:-k+_�-rX. �.• t ,`. r. .�.. - :t +.t.. ;?`'1•aA :5, t e () 'r.'..r� Al .{a. F;'"l!': .^i..`� ^' •,.4:; yy 14,+ -'1. ';l": !' ;1 yR�„a. _.'�..<.:..,..,.,:-. ,k;��'.t r ,:�,n <; .'. .•y... ±{rF t.:,r °',�r• 4ra,q� .r!!R`E.�-I'.i J;',.,.. ,' y;'l..r �i....... .i.,.(,6a,: ...,e •. :". ,y �'' t+-,�• ,fes -,i.� ?t: .�, v' x - QC / ,.. S.. ..,•-,ro-. ...., ....I r ,- .$.. s:n .:i�..,'._'::. , f.;F .. ...t. .., s,,::.. � 8?r '>ty'ti '�- •rt°S.�' �E 1 �:_::;. ,.: r}r.t',.'1.,....,... � '..,..trr,'. ,. ,. ... :.-,�. _-8,.• fin- +f;.- �. 'f`:! �n - .w - �1' r - 't. ..,,.�r'i ... � ., iv i"`• - � tee. :.r, .�.'S y,. ter' �n”. ... ,. est... yy , , M �C3 w!:I*- t R • /' t �„� ''I ,� 1,,,•'ir"'— ! � 4�, .� �""'wea.iFl i ll•. i ow Ar �r R� • • i � �r t j r /` , � '71 jo �, ♦ . rr + r a ps pr Tow 44 MeN Ak- ca M4ft I r'♦fi I � r +,,� s .� -!J �;',` t�l -•mow'j��1 ON� �, ��-�1...`'�.,a,,�►-off► _.. �t q p f WIN FAN vp �� E�'p. ,} �,,\`_�t���� ,y ,,�� � a � � +Ise ;•7C��"' V"N i. { t�}�►��' S,�Y�?�rp�rJ� I twNs' 9 4Z 1711 MW It CIA r .�` .. 1 / )Popp&I .Iw'_"�.r!"' y�.�,"ZZ y ,r.'F -^�.,'` 'y.ic_f `•M .'.fix � -r! gigs. s •.. •s.•,��'�r F .ty� �,. x i � �y,� ,. b 4. �+.• war ._ ! . •. ,F { ''�,�s w„+yi'. :.i t { t k x � '_X ..' y*r.Ye`1•y.'X f.•.. V . ,!, IV/ „�„JCA!! _�+..,'.^.°••. 32 f Me 06.00 Ilse SO dff 4� 1 " ♦�! a �• � 1 4 �. > -It fly r�� � .,,,,.'..... ..rr.�'r" • . .. 14 13 /12 11 10 a- 31 3$ ? 33 3 26 r" WOW 2s 16 R +�• �$ 17 21 X1. 193 1° �00• ��`"!�'`�� to V IS its of' 20 kSWIM . 4c 24 EVAE VIAKELsioll C7.22'fSubdill �► 6R i.. r 7279 's- .. •. ...• s' fir/ Pmom r ' t - ! '• 04 So '-ter s .-�.�_ ��..�..j ����,��.,�, .;<<��, '4. „- RCS. � `�► j '�� 3, �: 1 Ado j7.22 aw < •.,,yt ��, .�. n i`t �- k r tiles �} 11 119 IV is.. � �'. .k .,*<.ty�;rya.• — +� •• ••♦ ��• t�-gra� '�* �..��, •-�' r i � ^'�7" ~�iY,. ,t Cy a pa _.s,..Y. ;.t�; - ,.:.; _ 'v. 4, s;y t TF^'.. '. ••� �•• • •• .w ..rt-:... "+:: *•••7S«.,a..._ a i �c ^t,, f.r�� � ..�' � .. •-e,,.f 'K�. ►�.#{: �. ,•,• •�!♦ •�•• '.�;'.";�"t:�. t"..�,' 'ice';, >. ��2��ri$ ;.�'y, '' .1��f�t���.Y., r.r:, `.� t_-3 •�•• •• �� '`� "`•S i,�.' - ��'�iiti11< �' ��'°'�`. ;�S"�',h � :f � �•'y.+ �. �';,,. -,F' ? ••�i y•i. rry�,.,���.s..wy ti� ; !^1F' a`,- ". '�'�" ,.y4.rj., a� t ';' IOPW42 .T'v t �;,.•q.:a '4, ,�ir'rY s �� 1r�'44�t ",�• w ,;"w .,� �tr�`f. `.a1'i� .,�,♦ ;ir -��. r >'wE t �_,� • i y �jr t t'°M , �. � ���y�'<j� h�,,,IZ ,�,"h'?:p.�;'t, ' �:rr't � .�' r ��4 .lar•.i4,i ti y�-�1"' '�^rK�«a.k�`' £K:Xw"`i!.. ..,° No lop NO M—Wimu— go 04 �r40MW i AA,MI%il 161 ." Vill MAb ����„�,�..+�',.�s��-ter,;tv ,r.;�►fir►..I � -04M40 !_4000—M OW .,, I, `.Jim.— •�4w -'sem'.-�,._ -�'"�Ir• � /`,�'�' ,' ,t i�''''t1. 'welt I'/7.`.+t�` ,� ..11/`1�� f j t` h 1� e-`, �r �•,, ��:},�t ` ` t +"n'M,�r"�,' '~ '�"' `''>.+ at+• _ :`,+,- 1 , ;` yy w�r"J*f` 1`d� .i,i-•V'� ``� ,!�cy`vi•a?,y \ A�Poo"! on 1 ' `� Jy{(' 1� i �`.. ��'�`• 'fir 3 i,`� �a �i �, �`► .rte„_ "•4 • ""'"�' --� '• 1 + r .:• � t," ,`•Y" { t � 1 NMI , \ �f4 Ol 'fb� tom► M.,r. � .... -.` �_ �� i � ♦ a t\ No t aI Sm s IL lk V4 i ` i�' f�► ,�'.v'�►'.r, `\\\ \\�� . ,. o+ ., � • �•1R� ,rte•� to LO _ ,fit;•..,.y .�,.�� �, �,. t `j , ��• � ` �, -. L^A w� \ ti�. ��!�^ ' < :` • �. �,`,! �'` III :. �. ..,� Vill PAO t� 19 IJA ..► �► sic IF two of '`14 t 'r `, �'�► �^ Vit•Moo, .4 _ J SUPPLEMENT Amendment of Final Development Plan Lot 48 Tract 7279 The subject lot was purchased to build a custom designed single family residence. When we reviewed the restrictions,we noted the single story profile and believed that designation to mean a single story elevation from the street side and due to the nature of the lot a two story back elevation. We could not figure out how to comply with the pad elevation of 912' so thought the figure to be arbitrary based on an acceptable design. We have had a very attractive home designed for lot 48 and also have completed a home on the only other lot on the same side of the road. We felt that if we kept the same attractive architectural design in mind that the plan would be approved. We submitted our plan to the Shadow Creek Homeowners Association and received their approval. We then submitted the entire package to the County Building Department and were denied approval. The reasons for denial were that the house was not a single story design and that the house was not at 912 ft. pad elevation. We believe that it will be impossible to comply with the stated restrictions and are requesting a change to those restrictions. When the subdivision was approved in 1988 and 1989, lots 47 & 48 were the only lots on that section of Bourne Road. There were no lots on the other side of the street. Since that initial approval and the defining of restrictions, three lots were approved across from these lots and in particular lot 48. These homes, when built will be 2 story in height and far exceed any ridge line view interruption that could have been the reason for the single story profile requirement of lot 48. The problems encountered when attempting to design a single story home for lot 48 are as follows: 1. STREET ELEVATION 942' or 30' above required pad elevation. 2. DRIVEWAY: Will slope from 936' at the far right corner of the lot to 912' or 24 feet in 94 feet=26%slope which is excessive. The driveway will have to be retained on the uphill side and supported with pipe piles on the downhill side since it will be constructed on a steep side-to-side slope. 3. RETAINING WALLS: 24' high on hillside of driveway turn around and to side of garage. The retaining walls will create a drainage situation that will require extensive engineering. 10 -2- 4. CUT& FILL: To create a pad at 912' elevation, we will have approximately 20'of cut and 10' of fill. The Engeo Soils report of 4-17-89 states: "It is anticipated that significant variations in material properties will occur in the areas of cut and fill daylighting. It appears from the laboratory analysis that there is a potential for a significant differential in swell characteristics between cut and fill areas. Such situations can be detrimental to building performance." 5. SITE DRAINAGE: The entire structure and garage will have to be extensively drained to handle the anticipated run-off from the severe slope of the lot from the street to the pad. The only discharge available will be to the street below. 6. SEWER: The proposed elevation of 912' will require sewer pumps for all appropriate rooms. 7. FLAT REAR YARDS: The requirement is for a 10' X 30' flat rear yard. We will be unable to comply because the house will be 8' higher than the elevation line 10' from the rear of the house and there is not enough remaining property to create a pad. SUMMARY: The house that could be placed on the lot at the 912' elevation would be saddled with the aforementioned 7 problems. It would be totally nonconforming with the subdivision and offer the potential for future drainage problems in its lifetime. The soil is unstable and we would be required to further undermine that stability. The driveway would have excessive slope. We would not encounter any of the aforementioned problems if the house that has been designed for the lot were approved. The lot is rimmed with planted trees and bordered by a grove of oak trees. With the addition of 3 homes on the upper side of Bourne Road across from lot 48, those houses will be 20 to 40 feet higher in elevation than our proposed house design and no one house will stand out. It would appear that the proposed house would be an attractive addition to the subdivision. ENCLOSURES TO APPLICATION 1. Site plan 2. Plot plan of single story house at 912' pad elevation 3. Side elevation showing cut and fill required for pad at 912' elevation 4. Side elevation of single story house at 912' pad elevation 5. Photo displays: #1. Showing lot 48 at street elevation and of lot 45 and house on lot across the street. #2. Showing severe slope of lot 48. D. Showing lot 48 approximate pad elevation of 912' from different points of view. #4. Completed house on lot 47. House proposed for lot 48 with lower roof elevation. 0 � L �p 'IlESiR1C1ED DEyElAPYENf Mfg' 000010 0000, looe y ED OEVmomff A" HMO PARS PAM A W" Tw SEE SHEET 1 IrA COSTA COIL �s � 0 ' MQS'Oa'NE ,fig lots L 105 Iry Tr �-0--- ��NE��u88� AND t1ti . pp I 1 R M M �T I . ti r 1 1 i . t • i r � •y 1 fr • � � r r � 1. f� ti► r � 1 1 i • t • • 7l LL..{G A � a w X11+ i { { 1xi . i f i i 1j{ � 1 ` i i i i ,1 t i V AP"* v { � t r r. , 4 m Ila ED OEYEIIP OPYEIIT AltEd' 46 1001, as �� I 48 / y qA% RESiRlCIm OEYELOPYQR 1�EK NMI* PAA PARCII A � TM s� sRLT at 2105 fry cosh ca . 0 ' No3'oe•3fE a� P v ENCLOSURES TO APPLICATION 1. Site plan 2. Plot of single story house at 912'pad elevation 3. Side elevation showing cut and fill required for pad at 912'elevation 4. Side elevation of single story house at 912'pad elevation 5. Photo displays: #1. Showing lot 48 at street elevation and of tot 45 and house on lot across the street #2. Showing severe slope of lot 48 #3. Showing lot 48 approximate pad elevation of 912' from different points of view #4. Completed house on lot 47. house proposed for lot 48 with lower roof elevation. 6. Geotechnical report on subdivision- RE: cut and fill lots 7. Building plan,plot plan, elevations for proposed house that has been approved by Shadow Creek HOA 4 LLE C"T A N RAMON V- -A, - PROTEC .++.... 1y_. 4FV - Nu PROJECTNAME COSCA RESIDENCE�: : *RAlti _ � :. s,{ rf Y�: • F'I"##= 99323 _Mft 9 b _ .. . .q. Ytvt:.#.1\`w M .. <. a •"H s._dt 4 - -'" .. 4 T D LE ub t -� ,:9 ''7279 ADDRESS 520 BOURNEC ., .x R di CONTACT. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING PHONE. 4 ,F OCCUPANCY CLASS R-3 DESCRIPTION SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING } CONSTRUCTION TYPE VN DESCRIPTION WOOD FRAW - CHECK ONE: n NEW CONST ❑ TENANT m ❑ PLANNING APPLICATIONS n ADDN ❑ AFES FIRE ALARM DEV OTHER PLAN BLDG/PLAN AGENCY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APN# 220-840-012 AGENCY# DP 99-3043 APPLICABLE CODES/ORDINANCES 1998 CFC, SRVFPD ORD. #17 ADD'L INFO: BLDG AREA FLR AREA #OF FLRS SPECIAL FEES WATER ACCESS EBMUD ACCESS GATES LOCK BOX OTHER REVIEWED BY: MICHAEL MENTINK DATE DECEMBER 3, 1999 I I FIRE DISTRICT COMA4E"NTS: I. Composition roof is acceptable. 2. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Provide a weed abatement program before, during and after construction. Maintain grass or brush clearance of 100 ft (30.48 m) from combustible construction and 30 feet (9.144 m) from street and property lines. (CFC, 19981, Sec. 1103.2.4, S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #17)(s12) 3. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, submit (2) full sets of building plans to the San Ramon Valley- Fire Protection District for review and approval. (CBC, 1998, Sec. 106, S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #1' Pw1S) 4. Approved numbers or addresses shall be laced on all neve and existing buildings in such a position as to be pp �' plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Individual suite numbers shall be permanently posted on the mainentrance doors of tenant spaces. (CFC, 1998,. Sec. 901.4.4) If rear outside doors to tenant spaces are installed, they shall include the installation of numerical address numbers corresponding to front addressing. (CFC 1998, Sec. 901.4.4)(M-21) 5. Residential Automatic Fire Extinguishing Sprinkler Systems are required in residential.occupancies of 51000 sq. ft. or more(464.5 sq. m.). (S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. #I 7)(p-35) 6. Upon completion of work and prior to occupancy,, contact your area inspector of the San Ramon V_. alley Fire Protection District at 838-6680 to schedule a final inspection, 48 HOURS NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR.,ALL INSPECrIONS�c- s� t r . i 7.- Plans � ` are acceptable contingent upon compliance with the above-listed comments.' 8. Nothing in this review:is intended to authorize or approve of an as �s of the deli ri or installation which Pp y g . c do no♦a?t_t strictly compl 'with all applicable codes and standardsSan Ramon Valley Fire Protection District is n6t responsible"for inadvertent errors or omissions pertaining to this review and/or subsequent field inspection(s)i.e.,additional comments may be added during subsequent drawing review or field inspection. Please call if there are any questions.(c-10' 6) Michael Mentink, Fire Inspector San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District 838-6686 Plan Review Fee: S 62,00 . l 62. DARWIN M YERS AssocIATES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH E ENGINEERING GEOLOGY December 29, 1999 Mr. Bob Drake, Senior Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 2nd Floor N. Wing Martinez.,CA 94553 Subject: Geologic Review Services Contract DP993043 /Lot 48 of SD7279/Lot 424 of DP3034-88 520 Bourne Court/Cosca Parcel Danville/Tassajara Area,Contra Costa County DMA Project#3081.99 Dear Bob: The project proponent has requested a change in the approved development plan as it pertains to development of the captioned parcel. At least in part,the project proponent has cited geologic factors as justification for the request. However,the applicant has not submitted a geologic/geotechnical report. You requested that we review the information submitted and available geologic data. Based on this review,we were to provide a professional opinion on the val proposed development plan request. Approach We reviewed the information submitted by the project proponent,made a site visit, reviewed pertinent published geologic mapping and reviewed two pertinent soil reports. Specifically,we reviewed information in the geotechnical report for Subdivision 7279.This report was prepared by Engeo Inc.' and was reviewed by Todd Nelson,CEG,for Contra Costa County. Additionally, we reviewed a geotechnical report prepared by Youngdahl &Associatesfor a nearby lot. Investigation Participants The geologic research for this review as performed by Darwin Myers,assisted by Troy McKee. Mr. KcKee is a graduate student at San Francisco State,and his work on this project was performed in partial fulfillment of a engineering geology course requirement. He gathered data, made telephone calls and provided me with the data gathered and some notes providing observations,,comments,opinions. I analyzed the data and prepared this review letter. Consequently, I have sole responsibility of the analysis and recommendations. 'Engeo Inc.,"Geotechnical Exploration,Bettencourt Ranch,Contra Costa County,California." Engeo Job# N9-2620-E I (report dated April 17, 1989). 'Youngdahl&Associates,Inc.,"Geotechnical Engineering Study for Shadow Creek Manor Lot 45,Bourne Lane,Danville,California." Y&A Job#99131 (report dated June 1999). 1308 PINE STREET 0 MARTINEZ, CA 94553 0 925/370-9330 Page 2 Background In 1996 the California Division of Mines&Geology(CDMG)published maps delineating landslide hazards in parts of the Diablo and Dublin Quadrangles(Open File Report 86-7). This report included a series of four maps that showed bedrock geology, landslide features, landslide susceptibility and relative debris flow susceptibility.Two of the maps from that set are presented in the accompanying Figures I and 2.These maps have been enlarged from the published scale of 1"=21000'to 1"=1,000'. Figure I indicates that landslide deposits of various types occur in nearly every drainage swale in the project vicinity. The site,however,appears to be just outside the slide areas. Using the density of landslide deposits,steepness of slope,engineering properties of the bedrock and otherfactors,the CDMG prepared a relative slope stability map that has four categories from Area I (most stable)to Area 4(least stable). Figure 2 places the site in relative slope stability"Area 3". As the explanation for Figure 2 indicates,this area is described as"generally susceptible area"(i.e., it is marginally stable and likely to be sensitive to grading). In 1989 Engeo prepared a landslide map of the site and made recommendations pertaining to site grading,drainage and foundation design. Their report also referenced a previous geotechnical investigation of the site performed by Hallenbeck&Associates(1997, 1998). The Engeo landslide map was issued at a scale of 1"=200'. Figure 3 presents the northeast portion of the map at a scale of 1"=250'. The site that is the subject of DP993043 is shaded and labeled. The map indicates that the property is on a bedrock nose that is flanked on the northwest and southeast by landslides that are designated#3 and#4,respectively. Table I presents a summary of these landslides,along with details of other slides in the vicinity of the site. Evaluation In summary, landslides were given consideration in the design of the subdivision and remedial earthwork for the subdivision. The building site on the subject parcel was approved by the County because it is outside of the slide area. The conditions of approval of the Final Development Plan imposed specific grading-related standards on the subject parcel,some of which were not'based on geotechnical factors. Specifically,COA#21 of DP3034-88 required that"the pad elevation for Lot 424 shall be 100 feet vertically below the ridgeline(to about 912- foot elevation)." This condition of approval appears to have been intended to prevent the residence on the lot from being silhouette on the skyline,and to retain the ridgecrest as open space that is visible from vantage points within the development. Because the lot is relatively narrow(approximately 150 feet of frontage on Fleetwood Road), and because the lot has a natural slope of 30 to 50 percent,the applicant has indicated it will be Hallenbeck&Associates, 1987. "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation,Bettencourt Ranch Property, Danville,California." Prepared for Braddock and Logan Associates. Hallenbeck&Associates, 1981. "Soil investigation Along East Property Line,Bettencourt Ranch Adjacent to Shadow Creek." DARWIN MYERs AssocIATES Page 3 Table I SUMMARY OF LANDSLIDE CONDITIONS ::: ':ti:'.':::::'. r z cns 1J �K�••:: t TI m �C imu e { PP:..:`::...::.:::::.::.:::: :::.:... tin::::::. :fec `fPca; .osc d =' Slid"" �:tSt t atr ia•.` `e t' ���rmie raft reatm �.�erfo :o �f5 a P ................. ........ ... I IEF 400 100 5-15 -- Most of slide material will Provide a debris bench at toe be cut out. of slope.Remove remaining unstable soil,Install subdrain along side. 2 IEF;AS(lower 700 200 20 -- Filling at the toe will add Remove all active slide portion) stability. debris.Provide keyways and subdrains. 3 COLL;IEF 800 150 15 -- Filling at the toe will add Remove all slide material stability. Filling at the and colluvium.Provide head of slide will reduce keyways and subdrains. stability. 4 IS 300 200 20-25 Test boring 32H Filling on the slide could Provide a keyway along reduce stability. property line and remove all slide material 5 ISF 160 200 30 Test boring 36H Filling on the slide will Provide a keyway at toe of reduce stability. proposed fill.Remove all slide material below roadway and provide debris bench on uphill side of roadway. 6 IEF;AEF 400 200 15-20 Boring 35H Filling on the slide will Provide a keyway at toe of reduce stability. proposed fill.Remove all slide material below roadway and provide debris bench on uphill side of roadwa . Note: IEF =Inactive Earth Flow AEF =Active Earth Flow ISF =Inactive Slump Flow AS =Active Slide COLL =Colluvium Source: Engeo(1989). extremely difficult to construct a driveway on the hillside that complies with County standards and which meets the expectations of the San Ramon FPD. It should also be recognized that the COA#21 references a pad elevation. Given that steepness of the natural slope(30 to 50 percent),the lot is poorly suited to construction of a pad. Moreover, COA#16 and#18 impose standard are that are applicable to Lot 424 and which assume/demand a padded lot. These COA's are presented below: 16. Unless otherwise specified below, lots under 10,000 square feet in area shall be governed by the R-6 zoning district with respect to allowed use, structure height, number of stories and minimum setback requirements. Each lot shall provide for a minimum two off-street parking spaces. The minimum front yard setback shall be 20 feet from the face to curb or, if there is a sidewalk, then from the back of the sidewalk.for a side-entry garage, the minimum front yard setback shall be 6 feet from behind the sidewalk or I0 feet from the face of curb, whichever provides the greater setback No two-story 000-- DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES Page 4 elements facing the curb shall be allowed in locations where less than the standard front yard setback is authorized. Maximum 4-foot tall criblock or other decorative retaining wall shall be required for any sideyard slope 5feet tall or taller in vertical height. A minimum 3-foot clear, level sideyard shall be provided The minimum reasonable pad depth shall be 80 feet so as to provide for a functional rear yard. A minimum 10 foot by 20-foot, level, clear, rectangular rearyard shall be provided This rectangular area shall not be supported by retaining walls. 18. Lots 233, 234, 263 through 265, 432 through 436 and 419 through 422 shall be restricted to single-story houses. Lots 424 shall be restricted to single-story profile. Special landscape treatment(e.g., 24"box trees)shall be provided on Lots 136, 263, 264 and 265. In our opinion Lot 424 is best suited for a custom designed hillside residence that conforms closely with the natural terrain;which collects runoff from impervious surfaces in a closed conduit that discharges into storm drainage facilities;and which has a thorough foundation investigation and appropriately conservative design recommendations. Recommendations I. General We have reviewed the Site Plan and supporting plans prepared by Avila Enterprises,the architects for the project. The approach to development appears appropriate from a geologic/geotechnical perspective. If the rear elevation appears too massive to meet aesthetic expectations of the County,perhaps a photos imulation could be required to better evaluate the effect of the project on views of the skyline ridge. Establishment of drought-tolerant vegetation behind the rear and sides of the structure would eventually soften views of the site. Construction of a"pad"should be avoided. 2. Geotechnical Report We recommend that the project be conditioned on submittal of a geotechnical report that provides specific standards and criteria to guide site grading,drainage and foundation design. The recommended CCA should read as follows: At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, submit a preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommenda- tions of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for expansive soils, mass wasting processes, soil erosion and seismically-induced ground DARWIN MYERs AssocIATES Page 5 failure by recognized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. 3. Drainage According to the CDMG mapping,the slopes on the site are generally susceptible to landsliding. The slopes on the site are also highly erodible(see Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, 1977). For these reasons, it is our opinion that long-*term stability of the lot will be adversely affected by construction of the proposed residence unless runoff from developed portions of the lot is collected in a closed conduit and conveyed to storm drainage facilities. We are opposed to the discharge of runoff from developed portions of the site onto the natural slopes. Therefore,we recommend the following COA: At least 45 days prior to issuance of construction permits, submit a drainage plan indicating how water from impervious surfaces is to be collected and conveyed to storm drainage facilities within SD7279. The plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Geologist. 4. Grading and Foundation Plan To date we have no seen foundation or grading plans for this project. We recommend that these plans be prepared by the applicant's consulting team,based on the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. The plans should include a colored cut/fill map; accurate cross-sections that extends from the roadway to a point downslope from the project(showing existing grade and proposed grade; estimated the volume of earthwork(cubic yards); and details of the foundation design elements(i.e., piers, subdrains,retaining walls,grade beams). - We anticipate that the project will generate surplus material that must be removed from the site (e.g., stripping cannot be used in engineered fill; placement of fill on steep slopes is difficult;and expansive soils and bedrock may not perform satisfactorily over the long term in a 2:1 slope). What is the volume of this material and where will it be taken? These are project details that could be incorporated into a condition of approval. We trust this letter provides the evaluation and comment MwzNnested. Please call if you have any questions. D 0- Sincerely, 1. W DAR N i2 MYERS DARWIN MYERS ASSOCIATES 3 No. 946 CERTIFIED (P, ENGINEERING o GEOLOGIST Darwin Myers,CEG 946 CQ� PrincipalA'�...� cc: Ron Killough,Building Inspection Department Richard Cosca 3081 Itr(1).wpd DARWIN MYERs ASSOCIATES l� oil 'f "wool J64 JO 00 � r ` . ..'... I ..W.r+' - 1, \�}may/) •�•4 ••/•� � �� I j •� _. .r•• 4/ y C ` 40 two ZI low 1 ♦ ` ♦ J �' / •� • M AS 40 v ba oe w u .� p at y !a1 i I g T i .�.A i.+ii r d V t i ,, • s yY w 1w_ ~ 04 Y $►oG ..,4 .�iV wpw.•. 440 10 _�" �. g ,� a •�� also 4A 0 a go JL .w+°w�� • �• ,iT ✓+T mo60'"O d •a�►,g•�� •u '4•Z el M•�!�♦•ti'. M� •te��+�..o •�i o wo• • • 0 o �qv�imu• +! •;y T� • �! r wb.► •' 4e•♦r 1i� •t►7 www �G +EyV�?+• • y G ,.i► r 4+ u w • •G• • w • 60 w♦+ s r ,A d+t r* . p av4 e4 M O'� y t l� F •� f •Ow•% .•� .rt G M M. d•a r it 41 p G C p p.. M •'`C .p % •r+ + 0 p .4 g O +�~,. �.y. y O q g mit -444 40 •"'O.•aw u o` •moo "' sem• yw'� j -t*164 '•!Sv�q pi► •+vt~i+wo 41 0 a •'7 ♦, d y1t y N*yu� 4 � 40 40. A t v • •r �•%frp • • •.+0 +• yr o A Fs• tJ.� iD ♦►Aw Oa+O • t0�'7 40 14 0 y+w C S r p •a t'• 1 40 •A I t M r' M • . O +�g Q g r. r A y► w a•O _''�t pi► p, r+5'M w v �. ,~N d' y s •.+► t�',t iQ q +a ,•� w �✓ d' p.tr a ,p* i a•+� per+a• V � v 4�.+♦i� �.•� 0 C w 40 1 • O�y� y y.4A d4�, � ���w�G M�+ Z.•r 4�.Q c 'r+d�j •M�• +1 � ��y 'd tk 'Opt ti i44 S, :,,.- ..... ... � `-•.--�+�.' v. sa �"�'�- t' � + ,.•,• ..•'� '` f Cil VIA �� � t`•_l� t, � "`.....�Mme.► � \ '• ♦ ♦!,,.'� ..- .• ., �. 111/{1: I !\. r . ' • 'I!'` ''" ,•y» 'err ((((1 a`' «t •' i a // /+`' �f` !, '! /r,► V. TZ -4 A- I I /r�`/f',♦�!'!/f ;'1 j�1� � `�: ./"�.�f";•'z^- `� j ,�l ,; f �♦;''•`t r` /''tr'•• se• �•._ � „ t r� V i •!'�j/// �,1 (• i �♦ � 4 ,w ..,..,. ♦ };f �7 ♦/r/'' !!,1,�/+"I r.,i•,,,r.+,..,. •- ,,.•" ) � {�i ��/� •r !.t Y`f 1 S wil.Z �R_ '• 1, J !/} : t�{•_ i ••�. S - sow �i• jol- ooe Aj �"•lLs: 00 0 77 0 40 IL ""' \ •�''`a�,� •^'d' � ..: � .� *. � .� t ,rte� ` !t� t 10, ' i � ii. ", y' { fit` !' k •:.. i -� • .i•t i• .j:1: '„r•."`-•••••..., •,_J .i' +�� ri` t 1 � '~• 4•��.�, �"'1 i.'.:Wit. 4i ,i ►• 14 io CD co ul CD Iz WW t i © J coul ul '''; Z Z '- '• ,�t � a f j ul CD al ul CO CD OCD>' to Z `.. �_ ,�.C♦a �„. -r/- ,• 1 � , Z 0Ul ...... Z Yom,. O�j, :i �' �+" i' •-i► 'r"Y1 lwr,.T� `"r•Y► � .� ` ,`t•�,i••�Z 11' `� ,�t' � w �a` ` 1 S ��• to N U1 .-..'"-r.• ,, ,. 13• D. .tt " CSF AGENCY PLANNING APPLICATION � ';# REVIEW EBMUD .............. ....,..Y............,..., r. `':rr$`?i59t•�, .v§�t„r"cF. 1•::r, } ..,Y..y..y.., ..;... r ;:rJ"rF F'''frr{.F.tw:, ,r, F :♦.. ..,� •.,�•.�<;••'`: F �<,%3lf.�r�'`.,f}y.,:�{�?•,G�•#d,K.r7..y .•r �5�c:{, a'�$<;1t• ��f!'`rlf;:k�:`':'•.f:''•.s{r• _ ''irr• 'Fi'• ¢:<r ♦.3 ��'X+.S"rr•Sr�•=r.. ,{;::�?f#i}•, s� 3t:{•�£•t/.r rF�f• .}}rF }Sfu S }`•sl: .tu..G{'r.',r'<r,:f::Tfri,�.[. r. tF.. 4Yf�S .•f. + r- • .. •..,, .,y'.; •,'•• .t+' .. .{ •. ., .f.,r..}.§.::.r.$ .r. :••f3}y..L....rr.r...:..5.::$i;ii:::$':r:}:.....,#•'�/.-�y�:r..}...}n....3a }� >>�' }: }$ •:{ $}sC`•.,a3-• ',}d�sb.,.}'�tas?<::s-}:s}.+r,S}$r.'ne'�fY:�':riFks:r:X..?^.� •:9r•:,: %:i� dY+vx�• }t#. Cpfw:y} .. .dA �:bYH. -}}} : }} .. r. .<• .. < r:. t.::..'. ^5�_:...::�;:::-..ir.f5..',,tr r::n.rGGr9..S.:�dSo-.ff.'.3f;rb♦:....3F..{•..:........,r'r'"ft¢?�,:s,Gr;♦'..,:..w:..-...:.:.'5�S nr>..r..,.}r.,:+r♦:c�:..;,.r:.4.,.:. .Tr}:h'e technical.data ata.•r'<J.supplied upplied herein is based on preliminary info{r�Y:r: a , subject ubject.•.t[t•:-o-{ .t revision evision r•�v..r♦.and .rc••.....:v...♦r:is>.♦}rfr.F+„drGdt•Jto r♦x,:b G3Je..G•used sedS4rrf,a•of,#.r.rd..rnr'r..�>`.,s:rr•.r4Y3r.;.r-r,...<l.s>a....3tr:r.F::<.r•$}r-ns,rar•f{::r.n.Srx. r.•Ffi:.rf.,FG Y•.r.?Gi +tn:kG.-.r a�..•rg a.+••.{'fp+...5,.,L.,'•�3.:•..P.S..0.n{•3:,.r.:S:{'i:•.•r+..pY.sF'::.:#::::o s:}:..,h.:.;.�•e}...{}:''-l.•..fis Or:ddt. r:N'.r.✓'L;,::.$3s;•.a2rL'•,S•t:.#Y...}.i. '.,r.s.Y:..r.S:r..G.Yi......r:..r.5.t::.•.,..?...G::G.r.:....-..-},dS:.:,!.`r<s.{,r'-:rr....•f..•.-;.'r•:r';:•.•>{....,.t' ;;#.'.,Fr•3..:}.5G.'::3.}:rr:.i..:rr::.'fi,•.:•::.:.:}:::-:::.:,:{:,:..}:.�::}•-:}{.:5::�!::}x}Y:.},�•}rtr.3f:.Y<F.:•.r.t,:s}..}.}ti.}rs.},.#,F..;}::{:r.,}{::•.rG•},:'.i:'.:.rScfq.f :x3G'r3s•:s;:.{ :.:.f.fr..33♦,0 4.F :rd# ,{a:; 4 i : .r5 `�tF:i.i..:%•.i:rr.la..:.:r.rr f.r:-r..,F{.•,r,�r:..-:Jlr ,SF,r `r �f,.+,ld.F♦,, .♦r.:�r:f.f>rqq:.r'.t<•.. .:. •• i ...:/.,tr'{'{r., 5$ DATE 12101/99 EBMUD MAPS 1593 B478 EBMUD FILE 5-6462 AGENCY Contra Costa County Community Dev. AGENCY FILE -TENTATIVE MAP Attn: Bob Drake _X DEVELOPMENT PLAN 651 Pine St., 4t”FI. North Wing DP993043 - REZONING/GPA Martinez, CA 94553 - OTHER APPLICANT OWNER Richard Cosca Richard Cosca&Bill Bonette 3701 Mt Diablo Blvd 3701 Mt Diablo Blvd Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 - '....,...... r ......, }� .r.r.....}::.XGA}i}}F:W•.}}SYL}i:•?}}:}ir}i}Y}'+•5}}}}?}}}}}::.}:S•}}i:5}r: ....r.....-. :: .. ...F r�::xr::rvG�::::::::r:;::•:r:r::.:r. ���F� .:..n.♦r , .. , ♦ r $. 'f'.fsx�.r x.,,.r>...r}..».,...v..........r«..... x:•Y.v.:,rr:+-rti<t:.}'t::s:,:::1... ..................... ... ,... :..:...x r ....... ., 33'rrr v, .rkrx::.w ... .. ... ..:..hY r �.'} .. .. ..{.... •ryi.•..n+ �v , , ,...,..n...,ft•.:+ s:rsir•�..$.. 3::rr r}:FSF:-. r r.r sL3 rr. -..:::•r::-::...::.•. ..... sr s: ....,r... .. : r♦<r:rr,{.fry.'. � ',�,} r f .. ,t u..#.r. t ,.. :...............}r. r.:3.:R....,..£..r.... .f. � iS• :�{ 2, i�u �' ..•.��:. '�sYxS3.n�r�n}.. r d x, : rt. •'t• , , .. r f...d'.d.....5#. .r, .5 r d.., .. ..:......n.•........,.....r.... ,.... r rrhd r#Js..r♦♦. ,r� l Fr r ,g},; r.fi.'4F....... s .r. .....,...:r.n..>.............:,......n.........,:::::.....�1.:' J:.:t•}}:{,}}}" nv:. r rl, N', .�.r ,� .r.r................ ....rrr =r:::::::::..::::r:.::•::. , h r £ + .{.. : ::,... w,r { ,:, ..rr:.n.,r r r.•♦.r :...:.,,.. .r•s.::.:{:.s:{.1.:}:.X:.:F �" .d •f, } .. .r r r.: f• r r�♦ r... ::..:..... : .:•:r:.-,:•:;+r.:•:,r+.....:rt:-:;..}•;<.}:{.......r.:.... : » >. ff n..�'„`: s. ..:. i♦ r ..r r F•... .. ................ .. ... ... f,::5:r:iff3 ...}....,:...x.F..,<x..F.:,fi 4 .. 5 r ., f ..............<...vr}`v......r......:.....J....r.r:..:......:.r......r... s... :.,: �r.>.. r. .. rf �.:,. Yp G rt:.., t, r :v r il� ..v.tJ .. , ..,. .....:•:J:S{•.5::.. r ....>,...r....,rn.,-..•r..x:x.r.r,.«..»r.<....,...,.}.:....>.....:......r.,..{. .....:.v:::::x^rrr.:.::::r,. .: .. .. h ..♦. .. t .t+ hY ..,. ........,. ...: .. ».................•..s.:.. .r:rv:r:<x rv:::s�;. y �[. .x. .r•r. ... ,.. , ,.........:....rr,...n.....nr.r......r>,rx r...rr.,r.............r.::x-:.•r.....rx...x::n�:x::.n•:. { F. :h fir }'� #' .. .f. :.r .��•��.,.4 ,.}. �=.« ,�dr .. .. .. :. , .. .. , ..d: r#s<}.} }`#'�� :, ,. S:.*#: J. r :ts ,}> i <::♦:x v.•.vrt.n...S<.,.::?-5::}::...,}..:.v:r-,::..::::::::y:• .. 3s F s:i .0 #�' ,d s.. :r r > �f���. ... r; ✓fi x , ,.. .... .. }. .r........x::r3::}:p:{9?}}i:::::}:.i} .r' rr .f r •'.,,.<r.♦ .. .. Fr r. r: f:...,...:x:...,:f.,:.::................._:.........<.:....r..,..:.......,:rr:<::?X:}?;;:•}}::::......:...:..?:v:,:{ci;s':�i} !•::G:::<{.: -.. r,. r. �?x•.r rrr r .. ....rF3 F:r. .G.,....3n. .. G>.. .�.r��sr .f : .. r. ...... .{. ......:..........r....>...:>.........,...::,....:r.,...:....................:...n.:r::::::::.<.?:Yff . :.•rr.... r rrr..a............ .„ d`.rnr. `�.� s r r.r h3 r .x .,...:.<v. #J..r....{.:........................................,.................,..,......... .....;...:....::...:.: nt zt•. {, ..x........ G.f....r .. pyStC•F...s.'r.=�. .. .:.l:.F r..r... r..}r v...:v:,..r..;...::•::».:v:J.. ...C�. +r�r�} x vr.R.r .>..�.v f }s.$£.. .... r .....x.r .. .t .. ..................n........ .. .. ,. ..:}:.r...v'i.n .. .. r .. rFR: ... .0-.Y.tv. .. l..... ... ..v:::•:::::::::,:::s•.: :•:d:}•t• Y t�F' ..>.}.r .�{ .. ...{.> ..,v,,,<,<,}}.r�.. .:.r..f..Tr.r.xr.....x,s....-.r...........................r.....s.....rr.x.........r. S:Fi}$i::i:i=v.}i.:...G.•3::i .. » n..wr.... .�v}'. Kn.. .:. .r.r.:..rr:33sJ, ..............,..,...........::,............«r......;{.......r..•v:.v5:+v:..fsY �> �F..:./•r...:.n.... ......n..{ ,.... ,.. ♦ ........r.< .. .. s. ..}.rJ .s4.. ..R..?;. .f��. .. .hv.<..}...., :..fr : k rr>:r^ir.k.. : V�. .. �.,... .....r....•$+..,.r....r.n........nn.....:. F ,,f.... t $....♦...r. r. +�t� 1 rr:'3}Y...r.: .. .... ..r:�...n...n... r .....r.s♦.r ..., t.v .r : x .. .:hc..tr.#}.... .............. ........r... ... .....,..<.....1.... ... .........:...G..........s...••-r••.:r.r'.�.............,..$..:...iY....}........F:T........4.,.. ... ..... ..r".... LOCATION 520 Bourne Court, Danville, CA 94506 TOTAL ACREAGE 18,200 sq ft NO.OF UNITS PE OF DEVELOPMENT 1 KSingle Family _ Multi-Family _Commercial _ Industrial Other .� Residential Residential ........... ...,...:....n...-rr...... .... .,...f..,. r....{... Y>r:..r� <rr.,r:S.:.r..,.}t. �.u.r.:i{u...;,{:.r•.:�:r< .................. ............ ...... .... ... .......,.v..r r§ .r...:. t...,.,,..x r.., �:,.:{.{.., {rrd::....< •G:»?:3§3:r3:Yirs:�5:}§}iii ii§:i`:}?`k:ss3f::::�::i'::::•:::::-:.:::::::.::}:::::::::..:,.>:::n.::::.�:::::::urir:';i:{::>''::r::::t{::::;` ..... .. ....:...:..s. ...t......, .:..s,.rF.•�/, f. .,,...rr..r r ....t....s,.......... r fr.�.. .»f...,..}3.r..3.... .rr.. ....... r r ...... ...r.£.3 r.n, .. ....,...€ ...{ ,r.r<.......s.rr - ...r r .,........... : :.:....}., s4. Y.... .",k �,S:F>.r.r.:....} ..�• ..,t....... ., .................. r....r.......r. ...... :•.. ... r r.: .r..........J. ...... .r..<..F.r.x , ...r «. s/.......,.r.......3n...:<...............>.........r...,......,...........:.............:..,.:.::::;.:=t_::;.;•;:•}:::;::....-.,,:.,:..........::..;".{;:..{.:.::.;::.??>:;:.;:.:::<:::;,.:.:;:;.}`:.{:;:<.-:> , ......r...<r ........ ., r}$:.,..:...:...x ,•:........t•.,..,....... .. r.S.....r...rr:r..r:...:.:.....:......r:....r:..,<. .. .. ......>......7.r..... .........,.{ n.r.r rf't.... �.....r...,...,, .r.. ..,:..:.:.>..n.:: ..,,.:................... .,. .. .........,... ...dr.....r..r ...sr.R , r......:.r.•s..ir.. r. •:.,r.. ... .. ,. 's ...............,.............. - r..-l...k.£xr...z:3:x rr.xr..G ...:.,, {,:..;.,,.v:•:::..:{:::. .............rc ............. •:.:,,. .. .......:;}..:::::::::::.::.�::.r:..::.,::�..,:i x}{£cF iri3iif?;;iy,.;:?`iii;;f:ii:ii:`Sii::•,:^>::£ ...r. ...........,.}:....,.r., .............. ........,.. :..r4.........r.+..r..rrr.....r ... ... ..�u`. ... .................:.... .. ..........,......,.. ..r........:.....s....>r....r..:....r..,:: .» t{ r.r,r...xr::r.r...>x.-<t.xr..r<:<..rrr...x r......>...F.;r:.•::r:::�c:.::::.:::::::::::::;::� :::r# ':: .......,..... ............ .. ...:..:...c .:.r............... .......».n,.....,}.r .. ., ...,fir. .. : ..r.n.......: x:x::::.,•:.,:.:.r:..,r•..:.....:...........r..,:.::•<:;:n•.::::v:•}}i:::::f:G:::::.:{3:::}}:.}�}:i:::_:i�?:.:v:-::,:...:r{.::.�:f-:::::::::::�:.:::«:-::n•.vv:v:.:::::.............:...,,..:f-.:ice .. ....................{ .....,... - - -.....,.nr..}..e}..rr..:.<....r..$.r:..r .I...rv...>. ........ fr....,s-... $$ ..,.n...........r....}.F.....................r..{,..{t{:t..},.....,r.....{........t...::.r...............�-:>::.�r::-:,..r..<.......,..::>,.f...,..r...«.r..:.>............ rr»......>....>.<......... ::::•Ax::><{.5.4:::::::<::r:�--:r{:<::.v:::.v::::.rx.v...:r.•{.:y...Sr.......r..a......>.r..................x.....,.r.... > ...:-r. r...,.. :. ..... ...r.r.:. PROPERTY ELEVATION RANGE OF STREETS ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED X In EBMUD —Requires 865'-923' 880'-940' Annexation Water service would require construction X (X ALL,_PART)of development would be served —(_ALL,_PART)of development would be served by — of major facilities from EXISTING MAIN(S) MAIN EXTENSION(S) — RESERVOIR LOCATION OF LOCATION OF _ PUMPING PLANT MAIN(S) Bourne Court EXIST.MAIN(S) — TRANSMISSION MAIN Other PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION RANGE Blackhawk F8A 750'—950' ... .v........v.., r.:.G...v::rY::r" .r.,rx :::::S:ist{?S:isfi:�?:is Isis it(:C}r::il::: :?L::ii:i'i'S::::::S.F::::3 3{i':r:i:iiii;'�i:��;•ii::§�:::�f43::F:::'vt4:?�:::::;:!i:ii:::tG.: ............................. ,..........r.r.. : .. ,:...s.:r..}.. ..xnr:::::-::.:.:: :rN 4•X::::r {� r$........ ..: ... .. n 4... ,..« .. .. S. }...} ..t....... i' .. r>r}:r}r:...r....r.., :, r!:•_{ ...i}:. .IF,» ... S ..........,.....$. r rn ....1... ...: .•.: ..x...$n...x.lr n rh. ,. .,. G- ..n{.. :.h•,.r F F3. , ,..{v, vt.a{.{ti ....,.v.r.X•'s r JA' ..r.. :3+..v v.......{ .. :,::M.. 4trF::'.: i:rf}3: ....... .. . .. .?#�t}S sem.. < ..t.t..,. .r.�r 35�:P , ,.-. .....r 2' {::,r::n:...•:.::::::::::::::::::.}.:z}}}:.?}r.:x?}}}:. ... .. .. .. .:r ,......Ss.. K+ r .r r.:s,r.is n.t.., r .. .......,• .. .r.. ..,.,...f........ ... r,r ....,...•Y„.„..:{ .,+.,.,. .. .r3..x x s f .. ....G ..h....r...,...... ,+:. :r},•..}....,.rr.r., ''d`:i:::Sy:;':;-#:G:cr:.•:=;tca �s ........ ..r:r.,r..< r ..r r. ..... ....t�.....'}..�.... .r,...r.r.» > r...r...{..r } .r}.., ,,...,.r f.. si.r..:..:t r r...,.K r r..t........, ,t..Y' ...,.-..+......:r::?S�y:c:x•y� ..,?Sx :5>::{:::: 4"... .... .. f` ...:.r...:.r,.r... r ..... ..{............ ....... .. :.}.r .Yr... .. t., ..xrr.r.'S.... ......{.,`4y'G .....r:.<:..:...rr}.<:......r..r....<.x..,,rrr. rn n. :r..........t..........:..:-:::..:::::::nom::::..:•:.:.3: n ...s....n:v...♦}r .� ... ..r. ...... x. ..,r...'T ::.v:::::r:x:n,v:v,"•:::?'S:'•'::XF r ... .. .. F:ex.... ..........#. , r.er..# <.r....r.....r.............. �c ....... :3;:•f,.-s?, ... .....s2'r}£. »...r., .. ,G..v. .}.#.nr3x 3}rF ., ✓. .. .. .. }.'Y X ..d r r.. t..y+. ...� -.......r?.,. f ., r. 'GtF,'3..{,... 35 .........r..,r'}.......:r..+a,....r..,..r r .. .........♦.:.n.r.:. .v r... .. .•Y $ Y .:r:.n.x...f. :r r .. ..`u..... .t4. .:f^r.... ..:..... {,{r....,. -....�,..r. r. ....}.r..nr.n..r..<V .. td ,t...k... } r....>....:....:........F.<.,....r....rr......:............... tr- .n.....-�.. , ..r.�'rr.<}...a'r ........_......n..',h.. .,$r.rt..x :r r ............ .. r.. .. rrr.,... , r:... ........r..., ..... ..,....:r..,...:.............= F:si$s::Ss'«iriis>}i?:;•}iY:::':::??ii}:�;>:.>?i:i:.�:i::::::r::}: ...:..rs.v.i,,. .. ... ...,-.>«r.{.. , ............:.r,7:.•...........n., .. .::....<.n...<... +:?J�?`•:,:�i`.:::�:zi3':.r;:;:i::::..<....:.f.:::::r.._. .fa•f 5....F..G"..r rn n......... n ....».............. . ... .., .....:t..:...::.:.rv!•..:<.F ........... .:...{..»r...r.............n....:....,....... ...:...♦.....::...J.....,...:...........}:.fr.r.e...x.... .....,......,... .:}{}3:{3533:iS}`i:::}};:ii?;;'�fi:f3f§3f}i}ii::i:};iS;t,ffii S}F�rFi ..F.......r..., .. ... .}` r r. .,........,.....:..1. :? :.:.. <. .... ..> ..+Fi .............: .fr::....,...r.. ..r...... Y.r. .rn....... .....rr:v.. ................................,a..:..:.<:::.,•..r:::..r....- .>.}•..Y{it ,•.:..:::•::......n..r::.�,..r.. The applicant should contact the District's New Business Office for costs and conditions of water service. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING: THIS REVIEW CHARGES&OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE Contact:EBMUD Water Service Planning Section(510)287-1091 Contact:EBMUD New Busine 10)287-1008 A. X Water Service Planning X OitylTewn/County X New Business Office X Applicant JOSE L RIOS, SENIOR CI IL ENGfNEER X GF X Owner WATEI SE CE PLANNING SECTION UE3-249.0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Dame Construction Co. APPLICATION NO. DP953004 P. 0. Box 1007 San Ramon, CA 94583 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 220-060-029 OWNER: Bettencourt Ranch Res. Assn. ZONING DISTRICT: P-1 c/o, Community Assn. Consulting 6375 Clark Ave. Dublin, CA 94568 APPROVED DATE: 5/21/96 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/21/96 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a final development plan modification, subject to the attached conditions. HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department By: Dennis Barry,, Deputy Director PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. The Clerk of the Board will provide you a copy of the Board Order with approved Conditions of Approval. Unless otherwise provided, you have until June 18, 1998 (5 years after the recording date of the most recently recorded phased final Map for Bettencourt Ranch, Subdivision 7280) to file a Final Map for Subdivision 7279. - ore de T.- BOARD .-BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . 8a ey E. Bragdon •• Director of Community Development Costa DATE= December 27t 1988 c SiJB;r=: Rearing on Rezoning Application #2816-R2, to rezone approximately 3. acres of land located at #3641 and #3977 Camino Tassajara, approximately one. quarter mile east of Blackhawk Road, in the Da;►vi: area, from Agricultural Preserve (A-4) to Planned Unit District (P-. • filed by Braddock and Logan Associates (Applicant) and Gerald k Bettencourt (owner). BCIFIC R� T(S) OR RZMtQ'i�MATIa S(S BAOMROUND "D JUSTIFICATION RECO IONS 1. Certify use of the Camino Tassajara General Plan Amendment Environmental -Impact Report as adequate for purposes of • satisfying the California Environmental Quality-Act findings. in accord with attached Resolution No. 76-1988 adopted by the San Ramon valley Regional Planning Commission. 2. Approve Rezoning Application 42816-RZ, from A-4 to P-1 with conditions as recommended by the San Ramon valley Regional Planning Commission along with Final Development Plan 3034-88 and Tentative Subdivision #7188. 3. Adopt the findings of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning commission as set forth in its Resolution No. 76-1988 as the determinations for these actions. 4. Introduce the ordinance giving %effect to the rezoning, waive reading and set date for adoption of same. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR -RECOMMENDATIONS The subject project was reviewed by the San Ramon valley Regional Planning Commission on November 21 November 16, and Dec , 1988. The Commission is recommending as number of chap site plan requested by the Town of Danville. COttTII U E3 ON ATTACE N ENT: YES SIGHA - RECOMMENDATION NDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RBCOK!"iMX , OF C)HKITT APPROVE OTHER SIGATURB(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON January 17, 1198 9 APPROVED AS R.ECOMrrlF.ZME D y,_. This being the time heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the above matter, Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development, presented -the..staff report on the request before the Board. He commented on a letter that was sent to the Board by the applicant dated January 11, 1989, requesting that three conditions be modified, and he commented that staff was recommending that the modifications be granted. Supervisor Schroder requested clarification on the condition relative to noticing. Mr. Bragdon clarified the condition on notification, suggesting that the condition be modified to include that owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary be notified plus all the homeowners, associations in the area. r Supervisor Schroder suggested that that would satisfy the spirit ' of the Planning Commission's recommendation of notice to owners of property within a one mile radius. F � ' Irk- � • r r . .:Toe Raphael,_ Braddock and Logan, P.O. Box 313? man Leandro, f=♦�_• comme*hted-oft;the history of the_project before the Boikd a,�.thi-ked S ipc�visot'�9ARSU ;;�Cotuity staff, and the staf f of� ..h. T ref:. . cam:. Danville for their efforts on the plan now before the-Bbart%.%.:+fr, ='A k4 iael' agreed with Mr. Bragdon0 s suggestion for' the condittorr relative to notification and commented on the other 'ter.�w'.:♦�-.,jh--P7-r•1.• .. requested mbdifibations'r•*of•+•c.o++ndi~tfons: •-He expressed satisfaction %ififi . ...•.�,�+. the• . outeame--of-the proposal. ar'�a Pavtf=' rail ;" �i`Joseih�`frane;'Contra Costa =thanked-the '-•'. -• - ra.. ... deve1.ope'r for-W'tour••of th6 -site=and the explanation of the-project. He=coi�aented on-the request for a focused Environmental Impact Report • EIR}:�- is ng-.tea .tra f f l q--problems-and,-the-•~reasons-far such a -pgUest:~•`"Hie'commexited on issues including traffic in the area and the .,density of the project. He suggested the Board take a leadership role ==4rr--4-6ducl'ng -density. He inquired as to the compatibility of the project with the adjacent ranchettes, and the need for a regional planning committee=rather-than'approving project-after-project. SuPsrvisor, Schroder-•advised-the Board and Mr. Speroni that the City-of-Livermore,:Pleasanton;-Dublin, San Ramon, the, Town of Danville, Alameda County and Contra Costa County have been meeting in a tri-valley forum relative to the study of the circulation system in the'tri�valley- area related to development and general plans. ..a.1• • r ... r -e•'J3iu-Slickenstaf f, 2311 Crow Canyon Place, San Ramon, representing Tassajara Now and Tomorrow (TNT), spoke in opposition to approval of the project and commented on issues including -traffic, the number of proposed units----impacts•of- the-project on-the Town of Danville, degradation of' the-scenic quality of the area, sliding in the area, and he suggested sending a signal to the Planning Commission and the citizens of the County that the Board is looking for a new direction with-developments-and-•a little-more of the sensitivity to the concerns of -the-citizens in the local c6mmunity as well as in the County. = Joe Raphael_.spoke _in rebuttal on issues including the number of the proposed units, scenic hills and sliding in the area. The��gublic=-hearing 4ias closed. - - • Supe**rvisor Schroder thanked the staff, Mr-. Jensen and Mr. Raphael ,� +•,,�,.� ... . for their'cooperation in working on this project with the Town of Now. Danvf-11eHe spoke-on the amount of regional-mitigation fees as well ----- :�+as Ate:±an-site_im rouements....._He commented.on his understanding -that Town of Danvil3e_was satisf ied..with'•tlie f inal detezraination-of -- what should take place on this parcel of property: Supervisor Schroder moved approval of the rezoning, the final development plan, r..., and the tentative subdivision map as recommended by the staff. - L `�"_'`:` '� ' ~-•- Supervisor McPeak.commented q1i`th`-iiotiori that the ---_+ _ recommendations and approaches advocated by TNT are ones that, were taken into account here and were intended to be expanded upon throughout the County. She commented on the long history of joint planning in which the Board has addressed the kinds of issues that were raised by TNT. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2 with amended conditions, and 3 are APPROVED, and as to recommendation recommendation 4, Ordinance No; 89-8, giving effect to the rezoning, is INTRODUCED, reading waved, and January 24, 1989 is set for adoption of same. VOTE OF SUPER SOPS I MUMY CER I FY 7UAT S I S A _ UNANIMOUS (ABSENT j TRUE AND coRRRF T copy OF AN AYES: NOES: ACT ON TAK;F.rt AND E2MEREvD Chi � ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINWE.S► OF THE HOARD OF County C•.un s e 1 SUPERV'IS'ORS Celt 2'SE DATE SECYWH. f 10' San -.a.mon Valley Fire Prot. Dist. '7r% cc: Community Development Dept. ATTESTED January 17, 1989 Braddock G Logan PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Blackhawk Corporation THE- BOARD OF SUPFRvTcnuc ._` Town of D a n v i 1 1 o 4.' ' EXHIBIT 8 t s *CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 28 6-tZ ._-FINAL DEVELOP- " 4#4ENT PLAN 3034-88 AND VESTING JENTATIVE- St18D I V I S-ION•71 EI E�N.COURT- #�At k�, : .: • jj] GENERAL CONDITIONS A`` :: 1. Development shall be �asec� on tie sol l owing submitted exhibits except as modified by the conditions=.bel+ow:Final Development: FPTan7Ve stinQ Tentative 50division Map Revised Conceptutl:: i~andscaQe•P1 ari dated" received •11/9/88 8ettencaurt Ranch:..hro-cht _ Revised Front Entr •�"Exhi bi t - Weste•rn+ Entrance, received 12/7/88 Y Zoning Plat -- 7/29/88 Hermans/Zalewski `(8l.ackhawk Homeowners) Development Agreement Preliminary Detention Lake and Entry Plan Open space Vista--Poa.nt Plan' Horth East Road,=Prf•14;ninary Profile, Sheets 1 and 2 Tassajara Estate/gettencourt Ranch Merged Exhibit 2. A maximum of 469 lots shal•17-be• permitted subject to further review pursuant to conditions 4 and 5. Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision 7188 is contingent on Final approval of Rezoning #2816-RZ and Final Development Plan 3034-88 by the Board-of-Supervisors. 3. A phasing program for the development may be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning;AdainiStrator.­ I n the event that the -Tassaj ara-Estates-'-(U j-dur) property comes under common ownership with the 8ettencourt Ranch Property, w an Amended Final Development ,. Plan application for the.Tassajar•a Estates Property -shall •be submitted for approval of the San Ramon Val176y- Regional= Planning Commission, The revised Plan shall provide for. a coordinated site plan addressing trail systems, .grading', circulation an;L.access l•imi tati ons.• 4. At least thirty (30) days prior to issuance of grading permits or* f.i l i ng of a Final Map, revised grading and site pl ans 'shal l be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. At least six sets of plans shall be submitted for-referral by the County Community Development Department to the Town of*Danvi l i e, California Fish and Game Department, Public Works Department, county Planning Geologist and other appropriate public agencies. A, No grading shall be permitted along the centerline (crest) of the major unnamed ridgel ine. Any proposal to regrade the crest will �P 1 t 4 r require approval of a revised final development plan application by }''�'Y�'r "♦'11t'1� r ?rt'� QnSRI- tl�f��.`"`MIXg..�ro��ss1Qn•...,.;,., r_!ti:. �C�-•.. • .•,_ �t•• .r Y. ..„j• ♦ ""r.l.nw.• :.� t• �'�i..I • ••.. +..r�r•w�r.�►•+....• •` .•�w....•w..:..�.........,���. �.-......... -w.r`�..+•r...�r�.iii./4+.,.•«.•�...r.--....,.ww f w'..T•�.'. � �;� ..'yr �.�r.«.+. •` ; - `'+�• �►► • !S-.ti• Z_. ViF� 4 V i�:. .:,,,1,. r �.�-�jw!~`•j,.r!'t`w J.•i RI^N 1.V ! Riir.�..T•�+w•• 'i h •"' -- �r •M'e•r\ilt� _ �._._. ..,.... __._r-Rc- n-" �. e�17 .-s -e-- •crr--•�r e s ervati on or elimination. A program shall be submitted to protect j} ,.:trees to be saved whose dri pl i ne is in an area for grading, Any . =- ._-.-- .--~=rmcry d=-trees shall be replaced in kind. Com, �tl o+ .impar :`or..�exR.ort.:of .fi l'1 material is permitted without prior approval` of t`he ZoM ng --Admi ni strator. D. The'3`rev sea site 'plans sh'al l be in accord with the modifications Iisted i n tondi�-ti-on =No -Z.. -below. The Zoning Administrator may reduce t4p._number of .permitted lots in the review of the site plan. E. In~%the :-event-that -drainage- terraces are required to control erosion of graded hillsides, the terraces should not exceed 5 feet in width and should utilize earth tones. F. Any slopes i n. excess of 25 feet in height should be bowed as to avoid a flat appearance. G. The- applicant shall 'coordinate its grading plan with that of the adjoining 'Tassa j ara Estates project. Proposed grading pads, slopes and'retai ne-r wal 1 s :on both properti es shat l be i dent i f i ed. Emergency vehicular access with adequate road grades, a 24-foot turf-blocked right-of-way and bollard connection shall be provided. Final plans "Shall -be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator, who shall submit-the final grading plan to Danville and San Ramon Fire District for--review-and comment prior to his decision. H. • -he -northeast road shall be *constructed consistent with the - .Preliminary Prof i-1 a -by,Ferguson and Wol 1 man dated July 20, 1988. The sidewalk shall be relocated as part of the trail system. The downhill criblock wall .shall not -exceed 11 .feet in height i.n any location. The .- W%V-uphi 1 l cri bl ock:gyral l -shall not exceed 15 feet in height in any Tocati on: -- SO i t-wal l s .if appropri ate to reduce vi sual impact shat 1 be - - used: The cxibloct wall shall -be landscaped. Excavation and final 1ocation;:of-the ..roadways-and -cri:block walls shat1 be such as to minimize -encroachment -into the drip line of the existing surrounding trees. A licensed arborist shall review the final roadway design and .-make recommendati ons to the Zoning Administrator prior to his approval • of the final -design. Native trees shall be provided and maintained as .. part of-the final 1 andscape plan on the downhill side of the road where necessary between Lots 422 and 423. Any proposal to modify the approved design for the northeast road shall be considered with an amended final devel opment plan application to be heard and considered by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. 2 .� e(/'jr ,,//M• r •■ • • ---- . .•''`".' .-. •«a y'.'Yi '• •1 f• •Kel`- �..`1i '+` %•w • ou.t v i f" +c Tj in i a .4+«: `• �, ear- near t "e wes e.r-n-. tr n ce� i nc�,�u.�d i n to.t )at sh al be -- rac•Yr =den`s •n''i 'c'i*n- accord : .ith�,�he~'�`vi=sed..Fr.ont Entry Ex h* - «'•�ro'oe`s:terrt_Entrap : c, .ive.4 l:lf 1188.... .-: _ - -.•.. ... r - 6 • .4 �qit 92 sbalisbe~.s.iAe-l.oade:d •- •._.. _ ''�°`�=-tee=southwest cor�ie~r 'of•.�of g3` shall."- hall be adjusted to eliminate the .7 _ soufthwestt corner angle (soften downhill grading) and reconfigure lots 93-96 accordingly., 3 fizz 8:i= .-r`The- cul-de. sac• near- 1•ot•- 101 shat 1 be ad j usted 15 f eet to the • • res .:: The dr.:�veways:- fvr_I ot:s* 104 and 105* and 187 and 108 shall -be- combl*ned:= The: P..G. .and E: access road and toe of slope next ,. ^:,to .1ot. 104- shall bet-adjusted to- the. east to soften the grade at t -the• southeast-corner- of lot. 9. A turnaround shall be provided in the vicinity of lots 1.13 and _ i14,"'The' an!9 le of. the slope above lot 115 shall be softened to 135 degrees.. The cul-de-sac adjoining lot 123 shall be shifted _. oto the west. 18i,`•-•.A .28-foot-1andscape-strip;- to be owned and maintained by the • Homeowner's-•-Association, shall be provided along the frontage of lots 1, 21, 43, 44, 569 579 67, 68, 80, 93, 116. 11-79 118.1 1281 129, _13011_ 1311 137,. J38, - 139;-.140, -308, 309 and 3q0. 11: Lots-167 and 168 shai l •be adjusted to provide softer grading. 12. The cut pad elevation of lots 233 and 234 shall be lowered to 900 t feet AMSL-(cut an additional 22-24 feet). 13. Lots 244 and 245 shall be reconfigured so that both lots front on the access road. The slope above the area of the former lot 244 shall be softened -and rounded. Lot.246 may remain a flag lot. 14. A -cul--de-sac ,street shall be provided to serve lots 248-253 and - • replace -the flag lot arrangement. 15. Adjust Lots 255-261 as required to impose the minimum pad width standard on •l-ot -262. 16.- • •The .grade on the -southwest side of lots 267 and 268 •steal 1 be 1 + softened. 17:-:•. Lots 290-296 shout d be adjusted and reconfigured as possible to _;,.:y•"soften .the slope north of lot 296. • 18. Pedestrian path connections shall be provided n-orth of lots 297 and 323. 19. A mi nimum rear 1 of •wi dth of 55 feet shat 1 be provided f_ or 1 ots 309 through 340 without exception. 20. The grading behind lot 355 shall be softened and the 1 of adjusted if possible. ,...._.. 2.1 a-_.he`s-: d)--elevation'°:for­'­-lot--424 shall , be, at. least _.100. fee . . we.r,ti coal 1 y"'below, thie r'i-dgel i ne '(to about 912 foot elevation I . 22. The minimum lot width for lot 448 shall be 60 feet. 5 •. 0 4P • fi f • ' �+ (� .t i .�.I ,:r. r V V e t Li► l .�.�`t ++ v:C tr �• ., e. t t ... .. w V J . �•w i aaec p ♦ .�• 9 Urban g � e•bomndaxyi.feo,rganj-Zatiph;shaB be consummated poior•. to. -t Adp: 1• i hall- be annexed tb• the. East - • recordat<3,on•of the; �`i rt '. „M_ , i T . he- property- s nn . Bay Mu �cj10 1pA It � ty � st c�ct.;�atid,£entrai;�:C*ntra: Costa Sani tary-Di stri c•t. ♦ :. +,_ ..yam• C%!•r OPEN SPACE ... . . ._. .. . . 10. Development rights to the open space areas shall be deeded in separate documentscto.the-,County asca;:sceni c='easement with the recording of Final Subdi vi s on-.daps •y:• •. 11. At 1 east- 3a;days. pri ori•to: ii ssuance of grading permits, a continuing open space j.naintenance.• programsha1:1 be prepared by--a quaff ii fed natural ist and submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The approved program shall be referenced in the w CC & R's. Access to the common open space-and- a weed abatement program shall be established in _ consul tati on.:wi th the. San: Ramon. Val 1 ey Fi re Protecti on Di stri ct. TRANSPORTATION. SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 12. A Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program, in compliance with • County policies, shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to filing a subdivision map. An on-going program- shat) be established to notify residents of transit opportunities in the area, and. encourage and facilitate carpooling among residents. PACIFIC GAS-AND ELECTRIC PROPERTY 13. Prior to f i 1 i ng. a grading permit, the applicant shall offer to construct a 14-foot--.tall- berm across the front of P.G. &- E. 's site. 14. The app3 i cant shat 1 of fe;r•. access to P:G, & E. f or i is s i to f rom the i nte- rior roadway as shown on the tentative'- map, s z _ RESIDENTIAL DESIGN RESTRICTIONS" 15. lots over 10,000 square feet i n- area shall comply with 'the R-10 zoning district for-allowed use-;".. structure height, number of--stories, and minimum setback requirements. Each lot shall provide for a minimum two off-street parking spaces. A 20-foot setback shall be observed from the face of curb .or,' if there is a sidewalk, then from the back of the sidewalk. No two-story elements facing the curb shall be allowed in locations where less than the standard front yard setback is authorized. The secondary front setback shall be a minimum of 15 feet. A minimum 3-foot clear, level sideyard shall be provided. The minimum reasonable pad depth shall be 80 feet so as to provide for a functional rear yard. A minimum. 34 feet by 10 feet, clear, l eve l , 8 `` . 'i- +r ' • * •r i ::rgctangK1ar.r8.at%Y.ard. sha 1,1,,b ;prpv Wed. -Th,i s rectangular area shall not be to pirlex E reitai nrn _ walls _ _ - . . Mhless- o• erwi se sped i ed• bei ow, ots tinder •10,000 square feet i n! area shall be governed by the R-8 zoning district with respect to allowed use, .,.,structure height, number of stories and minimum setback requirements, Each lot shall provide_for a minimum two off-street parking spaces. i. .. TKb,-4 IM-Mum .frobot yard•:s t`back'•.`snal l be-20-'feet from the face to curb or I.1 `"there. i s. a s1 dewal k, then from the back of the sidewalk. 'For a 'side-entry -garage, the minimum front yard setback shall be 6 feet from behind. the sidewalk or 10 feet from the face of curb, -whichever provides the g'rreater:*setback. No two-story elements facing the curb shall be Al/luweit i h. 1 acati ons where 1 e,ss. than the standard f ront yard setback i s Maxiiriufti 4-foot fil 1- t lock or other decorative retaining wall shat i be required for any si+deyard slope 5 feet tall or taller in vertical height. A minimum 3-foot clear, level sideyard shall be prove t:ed. The minimum reasonable pad depth shall be 80 feet so as to provide for a funct.i•onal, rear yard. A minimum 10-foot by 20-foot, level ,. cl ear, recta-ngul ar. rearyard shall be provided, This rectangular area shall not be supported by. retaining walls. 17. The. Zonj ng Administrator shall review and approve the individual site plans,•• 11andscapi ng,- design and architecture. Special consideration shall be given to rear elevations facing south and east in order to mitigate visual impacts -(the architectural design shall be similar to a front • elevation under such circumstances). Special arch.i tecturall.l an.dscape treatment and review of lot 136' is re u'r pryed- td issuance of a building permit. The residence on this lot should serve as. a design element,for the project and contribute to the community oidenti ty.r Perimeter fence ng shall be limited to open, wrought_ iron fptici-tig'. • In"addition to review of the standard construction drawings, a perspective of the proposed development shall be provided as viewed from the access road',near lot 93. Except for Lot 157, a minimum 15-foot (rear or si deyard, as appropriate) ate p ) setback shall be observed for all residential structures along the perimeter of the Bettencourt Ranch property. If lot 157 is retained, a 10 foot minimum setback from the Tassajara Estates property shall be observed. SPECIAL LOT CONSIDERATIONS 18. Lots 233, 234, 263 through 265, 432 through 436 and 419 through 422 shall .be restricted to single-story houses. Lots 424 shall be restricted to single-storrofile. Special landscaQe treatment e.g. , 4" box trees • } shalT be provided on lots 136, 263, 264 and 265. 9 DEC -g P?I 3� 37 December 5. 2a0U Mr. Drake, Contra Costa County Planning 6�1 Pine, N.Wing 4th Fl. Martinez, Ca. 94553 Dear Mr. Drake: We are writing regarding the request for changes on Lot. #48, Bourne Lane, Danville, Ca. 94506. When we, the residents of Bourne Lane tried to get consideration for a variance an the unnatural green wall that is growing along Bourne lane in the form of costal redwood trees planted ,every ten feet, we were given to understand that there was no change. Apparently the political clout of Blackhawk residents prevails, as it is our understanding this row of trees was a sop to them by the developer and was never approved or even considered by the standards of landscaping requirements for the development. We will, in time, be behind a green wall that not only will block our view, but will provide the blackhawk people with an unnatural bit of landscaping, as well. It would seem unfair to grant variance for Mr. Burnet and his partner Mr. Costa unless there be some compromise for the rest of the residents on Bourne lane, such as the removal of about every other tree and replacement with some low growth that will give not only variety but acceptable esthetic sense. Also, because of the narrow street, there should NEWER be parking allowed on the street on more than one side...and with lot # 48 right on the curve, we ask that the "nn parking" restriction be maintained on that northeasterly side of the street. Unfortunately we will be out of town on the date of this hearing but please let this letter convey to you our concerns. Sinc ly, Donald and Dorothy Farrand X35 Bourne Lane Danville, Ca. 94506 EDIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO COUNTY FILE #DP953004, AMENDMENT TO BETTENCOURT RANCH FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (#3034- 88) AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP #7188 (Dame Construction Company - Applicant; Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association and Dame Construction Company - O wners) (Note: "MM" denotes mitigation measure from the Mitigated Negative Declaration.) 1. The Applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of Subdivision 7188 and Final Development Plan (FDP) #3034-88 as appropriate for this development, and as modified by these additional conditions of approval. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions listed below must be satisfied or otherwise assured prior to acceptance of Final Map 7279 (phase of Subdivision 7188). Submittal of Renart Dwnmenting Cawfiance Prior to Him a Final Mw - Prior to approval of Final Map 7279, the applicant shall provide to the Community Development, Public Works and Building Inspection Departments a written report identifying all conditions that are applicable towards qualifying for approval of Final Map 7279 in this approval and from the 1989 approval of Final Development Plan File #3044-88 and Vesting Tentative Map 7188. The report shall document what the applicant has provided to the County to qualify for approval of Final Map 7279. 2. Development shall be generally based on the following exhibits submitted with the application: Amended Final Development Plan Bettencourt Ranch/Shadow Creek, dated January 1995; 0 Grading Plan, Subdivision 7279, Bettencourt Ranch. 3. Modifications to Road Connections Serving SUB 7279 - The request to re-align Fleetwood Road and related improvements is denied. Instead, no extension of Fleetwood Road beyond the existing road improvements shall be allowed except that the Applicant shall construct a cul-de-sac and provide adequate right of way at the existing terminus nus of Fleetwood Road to County private road-standards. Exclusive vehicle access serving Final Map 7279 shall be from Green Meadow Drive. In lieu of extending Fleetwood Road pursuant to the 1989 vesting tentative map, the applicant shall provide for the following modifications to be'satisfied prior to acceptance Final Map 7279: 40 Exhibit A Findings Beltencoun Ranch FDP Modification Fife#DP953004 requirement of the project approval (C/A #8.H. of FDP 3034-88). The letter shall state that it is the obligation of the Shadow Creek Residents Association to maintain this landscape screen. The letter shall state that the trees are intended to screen the view of the residences from other properties in the area including Blackhawk Country Club. The letter shall also state that the trees may ultimately interfere with views from the residences of those lots within Final Map 7279. The applicant shall provide a copy of the approved letter to prospective buyers of Lots 37 through 48 prior to sale of lots. 12. Indemnification - Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the Applicant (including subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 13. HOA Tree Maintenance Ohlbantion and Re-view of CC - The Shadow Creek #6.0, Residents Association shall be responsible for maintaining landscaping improvements approved by the Zoning Administrator which are intended to provide screening of development on hillside Lots 37 - 48 of Final Map 7279. Prior to approval of Final Map 7279, the applicant shall'submit a copy of the CC&R's that are proposed to apply to Final Map 7279. The CC&R's shallprovide for a statement that it is*the obligation of the HOA to preserve and maintain the approved common area landscape improvements for purposes of screening the development from the views of off-site properties pursuant to the County approval of this subdivision.' The CC&R's shall also provide for a special account for the- re* enc required continy q funding for maintenance of the screening improvements. Hillside Lots Onts 31 - 4R) within Final Mn 7279 N .1 L 14. Relocation of Three Lots -- The proposed relocation of Lots 44, 45 and 46 to hillside area from the valley floor area is approved as generally shown on the site and grading plans submitted with the application. -9- Exhibit A Findings Bettencouit Ranch FDP Modification File#DP953004 15. 1 nwer-iniz of Buildinor Pad on I.Dt 44 - Prior to approval of Final Map 7279, the %..p 4W applicant shall submit grading plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The grading plans shall provide for the lowering of the existing graded pad on Lot 44 by approximately 20 feet not to exceed 948 feet above mean sea level {AMSL). The plans shall provide for the removal of an existing 42-inch oak tree on the site. Prior to submittal to the Zoning Administrator, the Building Inspection Department shall have an opportunity to review and comment on the plans. The approved grading plans shall either be completed or contractually assured of completion prior to approval of Final Map 7279. 16. Design Contm] of Hillside- Lots (Lots 37 - - Prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 37 - 48, the applicant shall provide documentation to comply with the following conditions for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. A. General Deve.JODment Restrictions - Except as otherwise provided below,, development shall be guided by the development standards of the R-10 zoning district, subject to final review and approval by the Zoning Administrator at time of issuance-of building permits. (Reference C/A #15 from Approved Final Development Plan File #3044-88.) B. Control of Refflectivity, of Exterior Residential Materials - The construction plans shall specify the colors to be used.for exterior walls and roofing of all residential structures. A licensed architect shall verify in writing that the proposed colors will not exceed 50% light reflectance. C. C-ontrol ref Exterior Ligh Any exterior lighting shall be designed and operated so as to shine on the applicant's property only and not shine on any surrounding properties. D. Supplemental Tree Planting ImI)rove-ments for Lots 44 - 48 - At least 7 days prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 44 - 48, the applicant shall submit proposed landscape/irrigation plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect for each of the lots along with proposed construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall identify the location of tree plantings on the adjacent commons area and proposed landscape/irrigation improvements on the site. The plans shall provide for on-site tree plantings to screen the view of proposed development from views to the north, to supplement landscape screening within the common area. Proposed trees shall provide for trees., minimum 15-gallon sizes, -10- Exhibit A Findings Bettencouit Ranch FDP Modification File#DP953004 At least 15 days prior to finalization of a building permit on each affected lot, the landscape architect shall provide a report to the Zoning Administrator attesting that the approved landscape/irrigation improvements have been correctly installed. Imts 45 &_ 49 - Proposed landscape plans shall provide for a row of trees along the frontage of both lots. E. Supplemental Design Restrictions for Lots 44, 45 and 46 1) Structure H - The maximum height of the structure(s) shall not exceed 26 feet measured parallel to finished grade. 2) jets 4 _& 46 - Fxc 'L tion to Setback Rea ire hent - An exception to the standard structure and parking setback may be allowed on Lots 45 and 46 (lots with sloping building sites). The required off-street parking may be placed within the front setback area provided that it is housed within a garage. F. ReQuired Padtied Grade for Lot 48 - Reference is made to C/A #5.J.21. of File A #DP3034-88 (1989 Approved Final Development Plan for Bettencourt, Ranch), requiring the pad elevation on this lot to be about the 912 foot elevation. At the time of the prior approval, the lot was identified as Lot 424 on Vesting Tentative Map 7188. G. Notification of Prospective Buyers - Prior to sale of any of the referenced hillside lots, the applicant shall notify the prospective buyers in writing of the applicable design review restrictions pertaining to on-site and common area. . landscape screening and other visual mitigations provided in this condition. Contribution for Hillside Demelopment Review 17. Prior to approval of Final Map 7279, the applicant shall fund the County in an amount to be determined by the Zoning Administrator, not to exceed $20,000 for the following work products: A. Review hillside TradingPermit Process - A review and revision of the County grading permit process as relates to hillside or special view areas. The 40 4.5 W WR I GHT PHONE NO. 510 583 1822 Mar. 22 20160 Robert T. Jensen 200 South Ridge Court Danville, CA 94506 VIA,FAQS,,IMTT.F March 22, 2000 Mr. Robert Drake Senior Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Marinez, CA 9455.3' Dear Mr. Drake: �I�BENCE: VUX. Q.QP 9-93043 I was distressed to find that there was a major item coming up at this evening's plan g commission meeting concerning an amendment to the development plan of Shadow Creek Manor(aka Bettencourt Ranch),Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279. Although I do not live within the 300-foot area,you know I have been an interested party for over seven years. The item under consideration does not comply with the conditions of approval. As you know, these conditions were agreed to as a compromise to approval of the three illegal lots. I I finally rectived copies of the documentation late yesterday, and cert y have not had time to review the proposed changes, nor discuss them with the Blackbawk homeowners that will be affected. If complete denial of the request cannot be made,I request that a continuance be granted due to insufficient notice to the affected parties. R Jensen RTJ:jrw cc: SupeMsor Donna Gerber Kathy Chiverton Nancy Mulvihill Shadow Creek Homeowners Association 00 APP C/O Common Interest Management Services t pl, 38 315 Diablo Road,Suite 221 Danville,CA 94526 Phone(925)743-3080,Fax(925)743-3084 April 11,2000 Contra Costa County Community Development Robert H.Drake,Principal Planner 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wig Martinez,CA 94553-0095 William Bonette&Richard Cosca 28 Millstone Terrace San Rafael,CA 94903 Re: Public Hearing 520 Bourne Lane Danville(Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279) Gentlemen: The Shadow Creek Homeowners Association has become aware of the Public Hearing being held on April 19,2000 at which time a requested amendment to the plan for the above location will be considered. Changes to any approved plans will need to be reconsidered by the Association. July 29, 1999 plans were approved by the Association for 520 Bourne Lane with the exception of the composition shingle roof material. It was noted,, at that time, that the roof must be concrete tile. Any changes to the July 1999 approval must be reviewed through the Associations architectural process. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call the Associations office. Regards, Ed Cossart Managing Agent Shadow Creek Homeowners Association Agenda Item#2 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 19. 2000-7:30 I. INTRODUCTION RICHARD COSCA (Aonlicant), BILL BONETTE &RICHARD COSCA (Owners),File #DP993043 - A request for approval of an amendment to the Shadow Creek Manor(aka Bettencourt Ranch)Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify development restrictions as applies to a hillside residential lot (Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279)The site is located at#520 Bourne Lane in the Danville area. (P-1) (2A: U-19)(CT 3551.03) (Parcel#220-840-012) H. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. B. Approve the proposed modifications with restrictions. C. Adopt the proposed Findings. III. BACKGROUND This item was initially heard at the last Conumssion hearing(3/22/00). At that time the Commission raised several concerns relative to the proposed design modifications; documentation of approval from the Shadow Creek HOA; and feasibility of design details. The Commission continued the hearing to this date and requested the following: 0 the notice of the continued hearing should be amended to allow for notification of: - a property owner who was involved at the last major revision to the Final Development Plan (Jensen); - Shadow Creek HOA,Blackhawk HOA, and the Town of Danville; File#DP993043 _owners and occupants of nearby recently built and occupied residences. (The Commission had requested that staff send notices to the owners and occupants of specific properties in proximity to the site. 0 that the applicant be requested to provide: -evidence of project approval from the Shadow Creek HOA; and - documentation on the feasibility of extending a drainage line and possibly a sewer line to the bottom of the hill that would serve the proposed residence. IV. DISCUSSION A. Sup-lemental Notification Following the last hearing, a new notice of the continued hearing was issued that included all of the parties requested by the Commission. B. Additional Information From AD_licant Attached is a letter dated April 7, 2000 from the applicant responding to the Commission's request for additional information. It includes a letter dated July 29, 1999 from the Shadow Creek Resident's Association conditionally approving a residential design. C. Other The staff recommendation remains as presented in the last (3/22/00) staff report. The Commission may also consider alternative actions which were identified in that staff report. cAwpdoc1993043-b.rpt RD\ S-2 O Each office is independently owned and operated. CIO 0 3 Ape�c.. 7, Loco este .Bob, /0�a.��c¢.. l/ 3701 Mt. Diablo Boulevard• Lafayette, California 94549• (925) 284-9500 Apr--04-00 08.-. 40A Common Interest, MgmtSvcs 925 743 3084 P101 Shadow Creek Resident's Association (A)Common interest Management Service& 315 Diablo Road,suite 221 Danville.CA 94526 July 21), 1 91) Bill 11orinctte Bontictte ConstrLICtioll RC: Reqtiest fn.r Architcctural or Landscape Appruvid Lot 48, Phaqc 1, 520 Bourne Lane, Danville,CA Dear 11ilt, Thank you For bubmitting your plans to the homeo%Nmcrs association fur review, The Desigen Rcview Committee flab reviewed and approved your plans to btdId your new home with the following cxCeption: ❖ The composition shingle roof is not approved. The roof must he concTcLe tile. %e Please remenibcr ilia this approval docs not mean to imply approval has been givcn ftom any COWAY entity,which may ticed to be satisfied. This woulet he your responsibility to investigate and satisfy. Please feel free to call OUT CIECC at(920-S)743-3080 if you have any questions. Regards* Mary Wcib I M Project Mal Phone 925-743-3080 FAx 925-743-3084 . J .f , ,.,... �'►� � '+_'`moi I"�'`w.. �� qR IVA lCk !fc AN ''rye►''f'-- .r.. _ +....i� ri�~ „r , � ^�• '� ice"�� � l � �` I'�1 K 0 / IVA , ' f1 c AV vLl HIM it � �� � � •fit �.`�,, � _. .. lb + 4 Via IL Vp We As %SAL LN 40 IN Ntz ILI Ul M •V..t\ �, � � � �-fes � �� ,j�t i"� +,.,..o .���.-, ,""' 'rid `d � � ��E, t�4'� � �) ,t t .;- �. -. +; ._.,,.. .1 '��"v/�►-•• � �'`„ti'''-''•'♦'/. ♦� �,.. •� •bra• ..♦ � �M • tt� t � � „1 �. t. +.. •La,� ��,►Y\.�,r� ',oma. ,�� i r ,i •,E`r► •pM '. '��,�,,,i �.,+..,'`... •.\ L �I/�"'" \� ',. . -..,, -•"�'•,..,,- "}�,.,;;,u' w•,;;,,,,,.,.,...rte- I&M ,j! • +� • �« • -"'�'" ���s� ` .y�... `fir"„ .' ►''� ` J Mill `• . t • - --.3" k � � ..,sem~ •ter- AR I IL lot.,r i►. ..... �'�► wr+►~''�~.,,..r�ter-/'r,�AO. _ ~�!Y,,•�� ���4 ��f�} �� ��) �. If �• �!�'r' ,,.,--.fir"�.,—�' `�''+� �� Rigor— ao l i • + a (j)—4 \� _... to CO co to to �••t�� � •�fes• �it��•i t. .,,,,_ �� ....___,._ _ ...._.., '�`~ N Z �� � ., •, • , j� / i \ Z ca ' ` t �� �► co J , • , t to. t , • •� `�1w v lop Wr Woo lk t �' ♦ � I \ 1, •" �.✓ rel.. w. •`\ lb IL w rm / f •, 1 i"f R 7 t j/ � � /tR� .1(t `41 , � � � y�j' 1� �z:1(,� i t 1 ',,l., ,.i tt lb A It wow 00 06 IY � � '1 •/,�•!�, � � � � r •t�•�.� ,� �, �. � � t �fps t'� � ''jam � r+�/f/ y`w � , ;,; ; '+ l �•� ,� /� 1�1//�y `+ �! ♦ !t l'R ♦.,•' ,, / i i s Y' /�•�+ �i "".'•n,'.'• � i s l '//+//� r plop_ _.- � u Put At •— % A. �9,, . •,, r. ,� ,, /• Agenda Item#2 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesda,June 21, 2000 -7:30 p.m. I. INTRODUCTION RICHARDCOSCA (ADDlicant). BILL BONETTE &RICHARD COSCA (,Owners).File #DP993043 - A request for approval of an amendment to the Shadow Creek Manor(aka Bettencourt Ranch)Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify development restrictions as applies to a hillside residential lot (Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279)The site is located at#520 Bourne Lane in the Danville area. (P-1) (ZA: U-19)(CT 3551.03) (Parcel#220-840-012) II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW In an effort to soften the view of this site from off-site perspectives,the original approval for this project required that development of this site provide for pad grading far below the street elevation, and limit development to a single-story profile. The applicant feels that these restrictions are onerous. Instead, he is proposing a pier-and-beam foundation, two-story design which is located adjacent to the street frontage. At the last hearing (April 19), the Commission expressed concern that the proposed design would result in a design with excessive visual bulk, and requested that the applicant come back with revised site plans that would provide for compliance with a height standard not to exceed 26-feet in height, measured parallel to grade. The applicant has elected not to do further design work at this time, but they have indicated they are willing to accept a restriction to limit development to a 26-foot height limit. Staff has done an initial review of superimposing a 26-foot height limit on the existing residential design. It is not clear to staff that superimposing such a restriction on the existing residential design would result in a better product. Instead, it may result in a residential design that would be out-of-character with the surrounding area. Consequently,rather than approve that option as suggested by the applicant,the project should be denied. If a 26-foot height limit is to be required, then a modified house plan that fits that"envelope" should be provided prior to considering any approval. III. RECOMMENDATION File#DP993043 A. Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. B. Approve the proposed modifications with restrictions, including an additional condition of approval establishing an added structure height restriction of 26 feet, measured parallel to grade. C. Adopt the proposed Findings. IV. BACKGROUND The Commission heard this matter on April 19. After taking testimony, the Commission expressed concern about the visual bulk of the proposed residential design, and requested that the applicant come back with a modified design that did not exceed a structure height standard of 26 feet, measured parallel to finished grade. V. STAFF COMMUNICATION WITH APPLICANT At the time of the April hearing, the applicant had agreed to provide staff with modified site plans to review by Monday, June 5. Not having heard from the applicant by that date, staff called the applicant who indicated that on further review he felt that their residential design could meet the proposed 26 foot height limit proposed by the Commission with some modifications to the roof design. The applicant indicated that instead of preparing revised plans as the Commission had requested, that the Commission instead consider adding a condition of approval which would require a modification of the house plan to meet a 26-foot height standard. At staff's request, the applicant agreed to provide staff with a suggested condition of approval for this purpose. VI. DISCUSSION At the time of writing of this staff report, the applicant has not provided staff with any new plan documents or written material. Attached are staff studies that identify the approximate design limitation that would affect the existing residence. It is apparent that the design change would be significant. Staff does not believe that adding a condition of approval to require a modified house design will necessarily result in a more attractive product. If the applicant is unwilling to provide a revised plan pursuant to the standards requested by the Commission, then this S-2 Cosca San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Wednesday,June 21,2000 project should either be approved as staff has recommended, or the project should be denied. A denial would allow the applicant to try to build under the existing restrictions, or re-file a new development plan application with at a later date with a modified house plan that the County might find acceptable. Pursuant to the request of the applicant, staff has drafted a condition to limit the height of the residence and require revise plans, as suggested by the applicant in the event that the Commission accepts the applicant's proposal. .......... tM -5- rM ........... i .......... R . I ,di. ... P, x J-5 17 MO `--'-�:..... ... ..... C i--0 ........... 1% M da ad i . ......... .. ................... -X................. 51, ............................................... .................................. ..................................... ....... ih $0.k ............. .......... ........ ........ U fi hid Me dw 2!iM M I h ................ .... ...... ........... cAwpdoc\dp993043.rpt RD\ S-3 Dennis M. Barry,AICP Communi tyCo nity Development Director Development Department Co n L [F= BAR - � ZUUO County Administration Building - 651 Pine Street - = , 4th Floor, North Wing •.� . WEIR, COUNTY CLERK Martinez,California 94553-009501 NTRA COSTA COUNTY Jii111 (925) 335-12 ��. •��° DEPUT T arch 2, 2000 14 Phone. SrA-cou NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW AND INTENT TO ADOPT A PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File #DP993043 Pursuant to the State of California Public resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: RICHARD COSCA (Applicant).BILL BENETTE &RICHARD COSCA (Owners).File #DP993043 - A request to amend the Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify residential design requirements pertaining to a hillside residential lot located within the fifth phase of the Bettencourt Ranch project {aka Shadow Creek Manor}. The site is located at#520 Bourne Court (Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279)in the Danville area. (APN 220-840-012) (CT 3551.03) (ZA: U-19) (P-1) The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts. A copy of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, during normal business hours. Public Comment Period -The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents begins on March 2, 20100 and extends to 5:00 P.M., March 22, 2000. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Bob Drake Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, North Wing,4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the Contra Costa County San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Office Hours Monday-Frday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st. 3rd A nth Frown,of Parch meth Wednesday, March 22, 2000. The hearing is anticipated to be held at the Board Room of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District, 699 Old Orchard Drive,Danville, CA. It is expected that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission will also conduct a hearing on the application at that same meeting. Interested parties may call the project planner to confirm the hearing date and time. Bob Drake Principal Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) Odp993043-noi RD\ t� �f 52V �2Pc AV 400 / '00" 000- r- 405 1000, tom'` 1000, 10010 AN el 2%22- .000 rl VOL qw it ,_,.-'�S"'"'" \�, SIVA. rnr 440 -4 62 S124 "yr • 20 4 �> Jia�►� 1 / f \ \. `�� 1A J M rte/ too s 10 tol_ c � w t 1 i� t 71 r ,? '=.r'�•, � `,� is L �t t 1 i i� t t h f tT 71 IC- 1 a X-T w oo Np-�E,S 3 -99 X 14 r2 mmmmmwwwmbl� TOR D, BY rpNTRp'� pRp,�VN r/ h f T-7Y t•• r� ,,/�j,,�s'�'�� ;�l n,;}��tt� L�f•�,a d.=�`'1J5. 1 Sao E15 _ is r 10 �1 r t „ ID9_'-o Isis' ell �♦ s liltsIn 1% RI*lav lot It 4WD 'Pot it elow rr st air i rsolos Is J 0 jj _. Is all SiM na • dam' � `- , \A, 1MM�1tts�rlr��' _� r Y N♦ f rz P c 4 0 0 b J W t�} J tt /�Jfr i r -� 4 � - o r�fy wv" 2 FA 't 111 ��••'^'.. • � � tt�. h� V Z LOi TL ai/w „77 ,t, ! tirt t tl v 0 � d i W t1 -o Nf'7 1H <J�a'Fd'�CyW y ��o� fll lJ i N i 0 OL V. 3 > a� x .fit.. 7 Il Lij t r� V t . t { V Z t} `Y jH (• '',yl�fT�1 eo 7+ Loco lid ;� s Jo T Ll.} -uj .. . 7• ��,���f r� _ {`�1�•h,j k` ��. `F., R'4 "r••i� '+lin �r ,.�\ I d d � � 4 1 1 ' 3 1 1 J i i A r _ M ------------------ .. _ ....... _.. i' �: ��: f //?l?.f/?/•l.'{''.'.<::'':%'frrf:,•Yr:•,'•:rt;:d:?%?fy:•r,•'.•?rr?�.. .. -f nrr>?�'�"rr•:r}f fr4.�%%{%:� G Q .r.r......w:+.•. :$ rr:::rr.•:n/I f?v:?rr?.; YYY •r r :..rffff:r;...'r.,r..::::::::::::::::::::::::?•:fi:�fYi;:i;;f•;f:;:f;•'{ :::i::fff::f:iff:rffffr iY}O:•r}:•r+r �� :::.: � y'."^.ti ::f:;ff:ffjlj•��i:::f�;:;i::::::.:i:i:{•�'fTf::}i::. 3 q> a�`.:�a���ti�lS,N}.�'?Y`^a �r�>GG"r SKya• -' a:rn J { z; `: i .� :i {`;.. ,rd',t�y£. ,kyr*���.yc• .w ky-A:ir.3:•...... ..� rf�Qc k? .xs t �wf` �,;w + ,k;... y Y"f:::.- f'•.;F..; Y-dx. fiJ, A�\" �•tti tAM'Y��+Y N+�{.}i J .: a :,•jLf�, J p�3J�+'t ...N v( �a r x ,c•� �.•st• <a '{�` r 4,,� r ",s �{J�'. Y'•v� �yait' a-�?'JA. i4 {A yY } 4 1,44�>'�yt> r• r ••� -.,af, � { a : } - s a ;.- >? �i \J y"��. r.Y k'..� w•.�- J:_ �y>f,: ,y: '�c. .... kft•/'x``' 't > 8C k.�: X Air •- Ri: £.{w a 11P W,. > k +d '�Y4s i�t`4% A•,�aX, '±`�• ^+2Y-� �'� .... 4 y �J„k'>`i.�r".�y�•,' .J�•'Y! ',� a a � .".?►.!`.'s""`N>ILA/'%Yf•�� x '�Pr`•L§ 9 Y -.tJ� '� �� > !as '.y .:rC..`yyy'N �f•;e:^ Y Yti :N y r� _.Yn^ 3 '{. 'J^�l ,'k+y yY '`' .�'.\ry- J k�f,� A'�' .��'q... 'I•.4 � •y{ :2 ;>aJ 3 4++y_'•50Y' Kk ''>YDSr'x+��' ds,,,fi/w•tyy:''.,ryl !3i� `� �*y ¢y?y�c^d"�'. y'�: IIS,�a ��`:.01.• �f�f Y%r�t ✓J' Y� a �'• � � tia? ,J k `• y"`�,Y. 23.E}'yN`bC�` .. }z� :E r..tr?.r f t.•rf.;��;r.• f:f:::•w ,q$( +: jf.Y.?.•p�VY�:f��+f r'/f fir'r!/.l;q.. /$':•r'/r,:•$:iri..•j..?r$ff? 4.:± 3'� ? /r�4 f:rf,.•rrx:•%if:� f r.rf Sir f• } 'Arh : - •• r•••rr:•a:•..•.:•r:•Y:?d:'?fffr:Or:4rY:drr:•r:^:•r:^:•r:?:d:{d;.}}r:•r:•: ..;•ir:?4:ffffffi:..............r ...�....... .......... t::: 1 . t td. ,^ ` �y>�� `ldE 4 d. kJ/�yt ^R(n '•y+A� '.i . K.•t n '. '''f'+r'i•`'• .'^ •:,�:'r'�,.s. ':�r 4` ^oar ��,x',t}"S.R �• :{ � .. ',. .•'} a ,k�x. >to x �,d`..rk {�Ia<�i r ._ : ^ .: : ,�• X/ 3•ra �M?i' d� .. h�'�� r� Ate,¢•M'1{ ♦ {w., /r}� y2,�,4�'Y� -.'( A? > �: S.. ' .S r` '� '4 txf,at. �''P✓i• ) i i"'T'4%v!j 4'r ty,�. . ,:. 'C`�?rt •sy�a'%?{.a �t -: ?v N:- '..+d i� r+esyy.>{":4 .C+.:�if�✓+°J'q��i •::%f':.. ... Y 9 9.fAY ^� J o!L r<,y.4+}q• - {• .yt 't}d.*+{Y e,�„"''e' a{r ��`f`• + Y�ao•, t. pp 4 ? `'" 3f�,>•� �r�.�-`a+d°�*..+ Y?'a ��° L �; t, ?y.Y „'}Y.,µH tI'I. f �,dN� J'^ ✓�. a r {a �M. y^ Ai. >"Y 4 x { hS� rkJ: tom... .,k.-. 40, 1 +s Yt, f.4 .tpf � Y.t.• '4'}yn:, 'tt J' a`R+ A » .f^... V N.h 4 y'}•^4 h f�}4br.i �f> ♦w Y'T+,R-A .5 3 r "fes' J W •SIT' '}L .a}• -.S" ': :.,, ;: .Zi..' vbu :,ar,L ':�, � :. ,y ...:` �t ../• 3u; �fi-: ? rRb '}c?'y ..,y,: ..f `y>",f`.?.T>�.„r+"{��I f�wkr:,a91I}x: ,r .t+,�'^, „.f� c�e� •.5 t ,C J+�s'%'+ :b -r,> '�' r `Y''' � .:� :,� a1r>:�y±� '��/$` � .. `h '..rJjb i•>i:+ > :"'K.i�`. :•RS a f :.�X x / I m.�• aw. s: r PETITION IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF BILL BONETTE & RICHARD COSCA FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO SHADOW CREEK MANOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ELIMINATE PAD GRADING 1300' AND MODIFY DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS AS APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL LOT 48 OF SUBDIVISION 727 COUNTY FILE #DP993043 Number Name Address 1. l�S� (,�f(k''�s (eO �,.��.�. (�-- �7�it �,CF�� 2. 3. �������"�-Q lJ4 4. &Jtoe C-E- s. p�.�l' 500 �me L�t�e 6. 7. 9. 71 b87 Dennis M.Barry,AICP Community Contra Community Development Director Development C o Si'L a Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street ...... __., 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: • Srq couK`� FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM DATE:,. �� � 0 PAGE 1 OF V, -0 "",660�5 TO: l�- v�G ��-��oy ATTENTION: FAXNO. PHONE NO. FROM: BOB DRAKE PHONE NO. (925) 335-1214 C r COMMENTS: V'-%, Z nZ�, PLEASE CONTACT ME IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS. Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st,3rd& 5th Fridays of each month . 11 , < 1, 4 *; :. fir` ~test *^ ' t} i .� tit t Y Y` �• t •µ , �s: t- { w G "� '�.. i, T 4r!` r, ?•. v, •�4'. '1tR,x�}i 1`t'i�7�` 1?l�';; N' YJ \ �• ;�Lt Iati•.{.Y�i.` Atti r-�{• � j[� +,Fk` f, � i„ A" .J "�f" s {` +.r_ .*v:, _ea ,_t.f_, .�1tt•:•?;�'t `ti i : .i, y " ''`r�, .+'7•k' y : y��{ s �{ !t t a c:!� r� >ar`�.ti'. ** ` a r G;;'��� ? rTW*, ^ka sti : �, Y?. t 1j + e.E�� x .tt... %, 't'" ..fi- 1"3r,.Y. ''S' Z. .s'; ,. ;a d ` �:fit"''u?',f'+.- f` 1j.� ,cft t,a•'.l""yt',ry�t�', t��n. �{`�`St. nJ, y V,I ":`.'(•' ,y - r, ` w. .'�!••+ 'f' t le'r M• r ..tt4•+�K t.S'r-i.',r' ,.l'�yy .ti "1 F[.'�Z .• 'y., q 1�.,/I a: ,s4+! T i ,+,1„? f, ` ., J]j't} Z' - 1 t. y. .lttil n'it .:-_ ;!"v •! -i S.. t•4.-i L.- •+�' ir...� 'r t ;i i ! ` j '�j1', �.1' t }�.t 9. `I,. ••�.'. d fs ..t ry_ \.M.,Aw�. ,^,, :,: <.� .F:Y. '� 1h,f,t {,I 'T,,+.e •Yv ''Ir !1117 f/ `fit r .. - �:- r , `a :1'rr, c G rr- s, 1 .t Y) t- i t i' i t a .. _ .K• L _ t J'' kyr ,t .Y � .-! d r S f`:}, �: } �',�•. .:� y ,<t• art,..j.- -�Y1. _r�� r• h' t i a� ..:-J^: -a;it �, e - 't t- .'ft• 'i� .a•,. i 1'. v .'f h '{ Sf. .1!•_*r.'t~ .1�' ,��,.• �4 :!.'s ,;d.•..:. �y 1, „v,' rj��7f4�a♦� �t04,- t,`-r':_ 1 s",•P b.. •tf'. .. 't,♦ t'A` 4.Y SI'.af"fi -ati. '1t r.,tr .t T. .74. .-!l".1..t'' 7l .l.' . ti. {.,i .. - y,. -.,,. y t'a tt:' '-«F r'` f'l.tl:r,'.'�. Jb•C•t •rt+'!e'�it .r_.."'Js+. -Y. y. `a,.. i';i• �, ..3A; .,,.,'`jl„. '.r •t ,,�tt't_. ;''#,'�� -'�- •T.': + .�. ;L t o '!� t r' �y x.x. .ru ti t' "�! J r•i r. t-t 3 d i j• +' 3 l- ,M r y 'a'�` t t s. K r J S 1 s :, y 6, :< F s x• r a..i,��..rd+ q l,s' ! '�' ;_ `:V.'' ha 1.,`L' "'P �, vt v. �C/.: y'' ,s 4 f.�_ ": ►f'.:� } w,.' Y:, �1'..r:J,w.s :1 i' t,�t. 1., ,1 7Y. 'ist a♦.s ',', �.�" )" r•-.. r ''y ,'! i.>' ,.. •i<t' .4. $,• t A a' 7 s , ,fl..� n\' iY, } tT } Jt •TJ_ ..^ #. r 'v !' 't: .'!• i l :'til !' S e:t l..i '•l. w-.L- •'tt1M- YS .� •T+.rr ;f: iy' -r w:k, t- V. is !. 'a' 1 F� t rvtL�{{ '�• ,.,,%' fP +'� �'�.: v: V to - .•t.-'. ♦N• } .1 '. 7x„' a!'•'�'.:'I �. f,^ .Y• Y '� 1'. {� �f-t-'.1 �e-.'4.t` L ^"`T.f. a1' Q 4 J `.. '1�- Y' »X 'Z"• a' tf .at ! ,1"', 7 kkl,,., -Y. .P"•i �t+!. �+..`.t a \'.. �: "1,�: Y' t J ',I" C.' n '.1 *' , ` f. t 4 ,j �• n I. i i°' Tr: A x 5 �•. i 1i T. 't r, t. •r 7•d±` !-'�c- a tRr 5 a;: r,.. F-t. :;t r S:R.•'Sj�• ,. -+n^ v' •�,, !•t4. 'i" .tis.r; t'w'• -.i' +f l.rr +f: . :!-. �•'` ,'t.. :i:, ,rc .,?tr' t , •,i1`i 'i"•<`�- -f f •�'�, 1: ft:'.�,. r}', y, •1' - .h`"� ,.' .f�'r. t ay- ; tl. •ti �r-., y r n•l4,a .r+ ♦: i" 4 <: 1 '-f st {'. ,�,�f'.T'w S "•1^ .Y? 1{�,n ',,,' '�,. tr l.• .�•fiii. ,i ..r -,-.x ?n i « t--i ..si ...� .e' .4s. i �.._. 4' .,j�•}r" ., -.�. t'"}.+` 'Jti�• +i a 4: y .'r Z�..x. '.-Y'` `.'! �. wl Ji �e{-.t >,.l: .y�• Z' �!i. k , Y.. .:, ,, r; M.. ,t` >E r . -1. :r :i �, r 11 4s ti ,. i' v'•' to »-0 :V•,',r �`t `' �.`" 'Y••�'y •:.,♦ :1 of ,�' .,t r't'- 7! T •!i t s �7, r� S 'i:- .t SA ~��' ,+1 'x kt.. `! t . x ;': s� a. ,- a r.- ... Yc, t. �r: 4 t y _ t �' , r { *,•, L: t� Y�� S f- y+: y j.. R� r tI. a 11 �' I. / 'sC .nP:. rye J. ., YJ t•• l t. .N, t. M Y i t ?r 0.t n} ♦ ,µ a I. s R. ,i <�e. h r' r s'i. _ 4. r.- {,J, .�' r 'J t' :r ti.i .a 4 d :i+ t ,,.f,. t. s w 2' r t• z i' r A.- -F .*• � J a Y- "Y ! ice`' 7 { i ,r f }� • '''. •.�'• k. •f rn".Z ...... F . �, ` .i �s. iI 'r' 1 ri ,i• nt' ,_I ".k';L�L1,:,,,--.:1 v i . I 't t S R A - ­ . . . - _.,. . IPPEALJ'. �. �� . 1Y.x� �� , I 1. ­ ­ � I'' �,­ >,. . . I -,, t.. r z ,�f ,, I 1 . �., - - f T __' . h.'- -�. 1;1r 3 .1 � '\ ..,� �.. I .1 I : Y,4.. . ,,.*, . I I � "_,,�,,� .}. -r. I. .. . .. �. I . .. � . . i''', •y . t.. r.•._ , .v '. 1, -. . . 'V'/.. t, .t. f ,�,.,,,,., - - - I .. � , . . ..•y. 'i ­ ,.1 u,,, t' `.,-, '. . t .,,.,-.-1%4 _,, . I � " .. . I. 1� . , . . .- I 4Y .- ':<` r -<t s.- . : t - I I � , . ':! -, � . . , . - � - - ...- ,-. .i l -: �* : . :.,�: - r " . 'I"If . . . , c �_ .} _� ._ r +R`. - �� - I I I— - - _ . I , I I � �, . . � , -, . . � -. .tY I `! .:, ;:.„a I . " I , � I I . .1 .. � , , �;- . � �,., ..:,� ,,'' ,. ..., . - � . �,_ ., .. , .1 _. I �t ' - � .1 . 1.��, . . -,,,,, ,," tel' ', .. - " . . _ , .� .. . 1- 1.� - ,�,.,.�...,, .1: - .. *. ,. - � - . � - - -,". .� :� " ,'sI...- . . � , . I I I .. ,:-i�,". .."� , - ; * 1 _ I ,.. _� 11 � , I ,.' �". 1.,. .�­­ . . � � ...� -- - ., . . . , , I � . , ." , �,_, . .s.. . ­., ,� � , ;.� ,.,� 1. ,� ..; I. , . I . � . - ­ � . - I . �� , I I., Ilk .� ­I .I . � I . � . I ` � . �� � .. I :t t �111" A ,.,�w- ,.,- . : ,.. . . I . . ... 'I''. �, � � . I I . � , . .. K,rh��,�, -i . 1:� -, . . � - . � I 1. I . I . I . I I . �. - - � :_-��, �, I.. ;- . � ,�,­,,� .- � �111 . I :, � , .. "... .- - � ��. - . 1_.I . . . - � , , I a ,.;- Z .I I I .1 �. . � I I . I,-., . .-.� I. I � � - �..,ti A��S'}�''�-, I �' ", I �, � . 11 .. I­� -* . I . - . - ..t- #;-.�-.,,��I -");%.!`� .1 I, . .I - -1 I � , � I . � .,� ;C�,� . �, . . ' � � . I . ,. . iI I I - . . yi . � . . . . . � , -,.. . j .i . I �I ­ I .. T,,:I:,f...- i *­I I . . . . . I I". " . . . I , �_�. -, .I . � �. � � I .: ,. . . f - � I I � . � . I - -�, -� I . . .-. � ­. - I I . . � . ,., � . .I � . I . I � . �,'-, . I I I I . . I I . � I - � ,I 1. .� � . . � � I - . I I - � .. . I � ­ I I .�,. .,.."I".�.} rfI I I ,. II . . .. I �. . � . . I � �.. I I -, ,_­ .f. I .. . . . � . . . I. . I * I, "I`, �I.. I., I . "I. . . . . . . I - . . I ,.� � . ;�": I ..:��,. I I . � . 'x 4 f �I I - I , I , . I . . I .� . I i .. I I . I ' -.-, �._� . . I . I : .�I . , .. I . ,� I I .; ,:,",�..�..'� . . I �: .. . "I . , - � . . z �._ �_,,'.. t I . I I .. - I �I I. I � � . I � . I � �­!-- , . ,, . � I . . - .. __. �� ".1, . I . , .�. .�, �, I � . I � I I I I . I 11 17�, � . I I I I � 1 .11, . .... I 1. - . - , . .. . . I . , �. . , I I . I � 1. � ,... ,.,,,.-1,,q . .. 1. - . . .�1. . I I. �. I . -� . � � . . � .�I .�,. _� . . . . . - � I . . � . ,� I - � ­ . .1 � I .. . I I I .- � I . . . I - ­ . . . �. ...I .1 I . 1. . .� ­ . . � . - � I . . . I . . I I 11 . I . . . . - � . -. .. 1. - � � � � I I . 1. . . I I - � . � - � � ..�,�­� . I I � . . . .- I .1 ..I ... - ..''.. 11 .- . � � I - . I � I � . I � I 1� ': . I . I . 1. .1 . . .I :*". ­.I I - I . . I �. I.. . � ... . I .,v� - I ]. I I....1 . �RICHARD COS- � CA. � 1. � t ; .. .1. - .1� . I .BILL B ONETTL ;; .. __ ._. . I � � . . , .(APPLICANT AND OWNIEML%. . �. .; . � . I ,-:.,� ,..- ....-1- - I- � I . . - I . - I I �...,�*.,l-, �� _ I � I . - . .� .­'. 1. . I . . . - � - . . � I . . .. . � � . . . I . . � . � . . . . . .. I I � � . . . . - . . . � - . . � 1. . - � , I ;�p I � . . . . . . I . - . � . . . . I I � I I . . . I . . . - � . . - . County File # DP993043 . ,-. �. . . �. . I � . . I I I . . . I . . . . I . , . � .,_ . . .1 I I I I I �_ -1 I, �. � �..� ''I .. . . . . . � � . I - . . ._.� . � � I 4 . 0. - Appeal of San Ramon V1 . . , "I - I Valley-Region� -al Plannipg Commission denial of a f request to amend residential d' - I ' * 1. ..esi n- .restrictions of a Fina . . _ x - . . � � �� �11­,. I . � .- �_ -g l D- . . evelopment I - , - I ..- . - t �. , . 11 ,�., I . . �: 4- I—: � . I- � I I - � �.K j 411,��:*­ 1 . n x t .. � - . . .1 , ­ ­ . � I . . . - I I ? -, .-- �_Pla - . � . ­�­_,:_ . ; .1 I . .. ,.. I � . . I::_ . . 1 I .. � . 11 . I -, I � . � _.: - . � I , � I ; '" I I- �­-. - - � -1 I . I _ . 1. 1. �11_.,_%4�1­141,­ . ­ - - ­. . . . I . I I ,k`- - -,�,,� -1,* , � � . I � 11 ;�,,`�.�.­,.I O., ,­�. . I ­,,,-7� I. 11 � -I .- . . I .. 1-1 . I . . I � I � . . ,r­­:�', _ . I �. - ­ '' I I . � -1. . . - .. �,­ . . I . 1-W", --_. ,­­;1-4�j, . .`!��" .-, -I' , , " I .,I.:� � . I I ,.�� ..- - .c 1� � . I �,. I .� I . . -.1 - A - - - . : - - ­ . - � . . I . .. ­ . . .. * - 1, - .. ''I.. . .,­ I � I I . . �. �� I . . ­ I .. ._e1i".,,�,,**�-,;_,__ - ".- -, I . ". ­ - I -,1�1 ._ . ,. . . * . - . �,t,V­ ��,_-,,,�,`�,��: � I I I ., �. ­ � . 1 . I - . .. � .. .%.%;__- ,.______*_ . ; -� , .. 1.J�I .1 - 1 . . � ". 1. ._ ., � � � � � . I I.I�i.�'!-.:...,-,--,�-,�"'.' 'i-."', - .. I- ­ , I � - I . o­. - � , I-�, " - . -1 � . -_ � � . .��,.,;,�, -I I � . - ',- ,.: - -�.-­'' ; I . .Iz. _.1.,. -:,.,: I .1 _. I - . . . �_ _ ­ . -1 � ­ � . ..i�_!�_:,!�,_�,_,"__,, �. ­,­.., �:, I'_ . , � I I, *-1 * - ,�. . I � � . .- 1 . , ''. . 1 ­ � . .­,.,�'.1-,:'. 1,_5r- - -, - . I � .1 � - - , , - - . - * - ­ , I . - ,."t'.`�-_ *­�. :, .-,.. I I - ' ' ­ - .�: - '' ,� � . . - I - - . . . - I ,:.i, - � '' I .I ­ . - -I�_..!:._V__N - ., � _.. �,,,_._ �-: ,!� ­ - ­­� .�,­. '. I � 1 - � I I .. . - I _ I ___ 7 -�.: -�- . ., � � . -1 1. . 1-.:, -,1:i,:S_1111,;k . . .- ;.:.r. :,.�, � . . � 1, - ­ ­ ., � �� , I _,�.�,.*,.,,,�-�P� ,:­ - ,, ,.. .-�7.- � . � - � _­ _­ � .. '" ' - I , . . _ _1 .;., ,,: ,-' - I- _''.;� ,, , -_�., ,,,. �� ��_,__, I - . - . . _ ­..�-_!��; ­_ .� ­ -- _-1-1. t. e - 1. . s .:•Y'•r fes•" Si•{a'..g.ri't"t't4 T 5,. __ - _ - i• . - _ n,h;t . z.tS + �t:,a t - h i ;' ". ' �,~ Y: }.'t' - t ';. ''_'+Ir r , yl' t ,;r. ,; r f {'. 1,2--'M+�`•�„w.j is tl.` '1. 't•�;;n _ 'meq '} :,.Si $ .�F,: ,. Ya ` R I. t? ':"`Kr,, .s.+y.;. r 7..= .rat > r ,' ., . ! ;.: ,jn the ,; Dan • I �- ville 'assa r . '; 4,%,.�I_ V".,. :;, a a area. x , . , -;- , ,:; }i . ; -1-r ` J ,.� .,,�!1,�z t.' '.' '. ­� ­ - I , ., -� _ _ -, .4L-.; ,-, ,.r,,!;;.. is . t_ ,s.f-, - - z . . _., - .1 ,_4 - �: ,, - ill--1, � � : -- _ I � - - __ '' .. 1 - z T -- .. f ;:. i y]*� r i'r)•" ­ _. - _ iy..�.*av: .,1: ":. .,,a' .1� 5' ! t 4 �' _ . ; ,: - a l * . . �,.I , K•i.i. } n,}«�Ty'_,., a i,l_-.,t - '.I_-.! ..r",3 '1, s'I' .1: Y„• <__ .,.* , :!� x , % . S- Z x kX r.n !/•. !i i 1i. .7 •T.�-i '!'s ,:t'' 7`:.32"ww.i':•-!,. ..y_. ...-3 �.. ♦♦ '�. .:�1' -r ,y.- -y,j. _ ),.9r !} �... -F 4ii +kms. :^7r' .9`_.. a'.t �.."tea .i. t:a., �S� )j' {i'~ -_ :a __ ­I"S ✓?,t;.•'' _;.:' 1 Y ,ter '+.i 1.. _v- - - S. w' w 3 ll .•' r ,. p drin, :f"i. " i_ '+2': 'E`t .'f',... 2„',: e..-_ _ P-,. ,& J w �iR!' s 11, .t4.so T •. ,. 1 t i. 'tr 'C fi t, tet""- - L Y S"� _ f r•r•„ i% y. [. Vis' R' a_ » ,:r T , • _41 ,.Y. .� -6 -,i- J, " _., 3- .,,-.� ...1^;r, c ? :.. �f,•:r1 .-:-- «t'f `!"e'' •,{. rf'. ,Y- -•; -x - •i::'! ,,.- . .. -. :r., t .••a•. •+,r:.r. .. +.-:x P•°•.-.s<.... F_ 't''x ? �'tl r.�.! ,.�f �. -, �f: ..1.: ,. -_ y •�Y.•_� I .•k.:Yt�„ '^�.,. .t r. xa:.1.- :[ f A __A'a. d'. .-.t: •.i^ .�.A. )- «„h. _ �c• T„ s> ^y ,1'. .11wDr;>`•t., �.•- --,+ •!t: t +.A tx i '...•� f 'w__• i. r, 4 v^#' 7F t :'tx ti z It-f,­= kt'. ..r ., -tom :f. ,i` !t ,t'. ,.1 •ys "%' t• •.t.o .'!Y, it 9� :.r. ••"f',.•. _.y£`' .:,.•.t, +.: i. i,}- {"C' ,.r'1 - ,.L:• ...yE:. -i• l^; - .i�"k y ­1*1 i' '•'T tM -/' 're :� 'r;''- tY- � .ice , i, 1. s• {� , r. e.. 'y ,--. ~-� 's tr 'a'�' ist' r.yY'i z,•, w� s t, •+ - e- ., ..' �ti T r -' -�`{'..,i/�s_ '� t a ��y •t w rw- ,,,:...' I. ,:.a 'y ,, •v_ t_ .-� r.?•7` sS":t. =t,; � '.... .$ \ :°1`,z ?. _ < t " r� := +r y' ,+:. zi z.tr `.Y~;�7i;:3!'.r>-?t��•' <�1' .:+.•= .•7FZ,rt�...•t'v;.,.:+7ti. s.!.:.,,..-.y}r_ _ t'.'4:.� - • -t n. _ - `•:r ,a'•.',- ,,.:r,�.rr, x.!•.+ r� ,yR, :,' : ♦ t l f..�. -i ♦i 1 A.�-.i+ `�' - S- -'S - .L: D '4 _r r .i s i 3. -•ti`J'-x- - } ,-.rt ^,,A '4 Z�1 tir.V _,tom., i. _S _ v 4 •t :4 . . :;..si' ,f'�f •-t.7r -.w•.9•i* }.- Sltge�' ,y 4.. \ 'k-..t 1 mt �l _Rr- _. it - .a. ,� .. f y ! .a, 3 wq:,'••1. .-a"'r4.i-i __.-I`. .-;� .;+. '` - `r,"` .; - .r--•7-. ;\ ;-rte.r,f :c, i.r"- oa�. Li � (�//•��^�^'■N�■1�yyt�•• iA■ a xy,'t. '.., _ r.'rw:.." �r_. h �..- -�.• ,r^"�;' _ �,[„ r:.`'3!J• t.,,'.3='a - �+L ." ry7�vvias ..... 6..>' r.. cLZ. VL •.��V��, •i 'r:L:t �."4;.t �'•' •.1'-.-trryw >?1 I �✓ .,'t^,, .e-Fl,i-t,Y s, 'Y**,-1�+ �ll.i P }, Y•n7` ;y,• _•. .r..:t't-!t'i;'L'aY sT 2.rJ,1 \ -i2' ,y'`,tw_,� t W- .�.'.tt.•f'r nt.'-a_. - i �M.`f, .<4., t_•}t,,. f t ..,y. y�Y .r : `'T .L '� ,M,,.• Ya�';�•'•R-r,�".... ,,;. ..-•,>« ,*r+Y ,?rU�ii-ti r. _ #�1.,�l.4c.:ta.,+t. -S>f .•t f,.. .st .xi�`=i ..r.' aK '"s... 3". ;, '- '` 4 r W. :.•C;'Ss E'.4;.:.,}-:'r..4 .r•.: raS`.lfR+.-.r. t 5,:' '- +`1+,"_ ,!i: ♦ --'r• , -r '�' y'y.f 1,"�2)�.'.yaC-y,u' ,* ,:t..''t w4 -- ,F:.`.'`'-1 .,r-t'• y .�•_ .3+i's,'. '-i��y .."r."S fit._`. 4"+.-4,-. . s. ,t.+ z, )'+:,ik►`•:�s, . its" r - .t'i Y'p. f!+ .Z -i'Q•JY f�Si,_ C+:. f¢. -.#. G,. 4 Ri-`',' _K.;�� i ti. t,4 w r •ly1-+ Y ' .} sTv 'Co'Sta'Colltl �f, ,' fi`►cR:'.ts�'a cr. Yu,. am,,•=+� tt1 r 1r y,y. �_3t= z rt 7 y�.• a w ;.t F;{: .ate F'2°` r",.y v,.,y't+4-''y`... .. `,4; _a, r,r<`-..a 7~ t e r:�y[ ,o.', i +af y , i, r i, Y+'�' z +:;C" "Y }�.`�3• - 'irttS.#�'!e' i ; j,.'a" .'a�:;a'1 ,sti.'�°`y:i �r is 4`, ; ,T'°.�9, . ►`" '` - t �,} yr „Z,K y N�"t =t7t . i2` ...�i -1 .f; ._.�, i4 Y 't`f s T" .''til•£,'j` -t ..�}ac'»-'* r.r;f„r Y�`�.i r. .,r."L'`R`is-.ki({ . ,-01,1�.;,,-,", tib_ lµ 3 x b: t:. '••.. r FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP993043 (Cosea - Applicant; Bonette & Cosea - Owners) AMENDING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR.LOT 48 OF THE FIFTH PHASE OF THE BETTENCOURT RANCH PROJECT (aka Shadow Creek Manor)IN THE DANVILLE/TASSAJARA AREA (Ref. File#3034-88 & #DP953004) . FINDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OF A PLANNED UNIT (P-1) DISTRICT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Required F - The proposed modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district. Project Finding- Most of the development within the Bettencourt Ranch.project has been done on building pads. The relatively steep topography of this site warrants development techniques that would not require major grading of the affected lot. B. Required Finding-The proposed modification is.compatible with uses in the vicinity,, both inside and outside the district. Project Finding- Due to recently approved residential lots across the street from this project, the view of the hillside will provide a view-impacted condition. The relocation and altered design parameters proposed under this project will not adversely affect the view from surrounding areas. Added restrictions are incorporated into this approval which will assure its visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Ref. §84-66-1804(b) of the Ordinance Code CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General t. Development shall be in general accord with the revised development plans dated September 1, 2000. . At least 30 daysprior to issuance of a building permk the applicant shall submit revised development plans (site plan, grading Plan, residential elevations, floorplans, but omittin other construction detail) for the review and,qpprov of the Zoning Administrator. The revised development - lans shall,provide for the following changes. A. Modified e/sidentlial profile such that the residential structure (except for chimney)1exceed26-feet in he'l ht as measured from finished grade. B. de the hillside beneath thein a Judicious manner to..provide for a! pad for the house, while not allowin,tall portions of the mass beneath the love story of the residence., C y�i e 555 Bourne Lane Danville, CA 94506 Dec. 4, 2000 Dear Mr. Drake: 7 I am writing in regard to the request for changes n the remaining lot on Bourne Lane, Danville, Ca 94506 by Mr. Burnet and his partner Mr. C9.e, 1 I did leave a telephone message for you,but did not receive a response. We residents on Bourne Lane object to any variances that might be made for this lot. Our reasons are that the county as far as we had money to determine would not let us have a variance or be helpful about the costal redwood trees that were planted 10 feet apart to create an unnatural barrier so that Blackhawk `s view would not be spoiled. Not only is this barrier an eyesore because of it denseness but also because the line of growth will completely smother us as to view, air, and sunlight. These trees will grow into immense width and height quickly because of their individual watering system. Our suggestion would be to eliminate every other tree with a lower growing natural bush such as oleander which would still have height but not into the sky to smother us. The other problem with that lot would be it's closeness to the street. Parking on the street now is a problem with the house across the street. The curvature,of the street does not allow for on street parking. One can not see around the parked cars and the street is not wide enough for corrective action. It definitely is a safety hazard. We shall be out of town on the meeting date. We hope that this letter will effectively convey our objections. Kristine and Richard Christensen V-\1 925- 964 -9406 FROM JANET WRIGHT PHONE NO. 510 583 1822 Dec. 11 2000 03:16PM P2 Robert T. Jensen 200 South Ridge Court Danville, CA 94506 VIA FACSIMUi.E.-. 925-335--1222 December 11, 2000 Mr. Robert Drake Senior Planner Community Development Department County Acbninistration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Drake: REE.IRIE E: COKM F)LE-#DP993043 I regret that I will not be able to attend the meeting to discuss the appeal by Richard Cosca and Bill Borette. As you can see,the two developers purchased the lot with full disclosure. I am cerWn the price was adjusted to accommodate f-or these conditions of approval. It appears that once the lot was purchased, they hoped to modify the condifiosn of approval to imize their investment,with no consideration of the view the Blackhawk homeowners are exposed to. I was surprised to see that this has been escalated to the Supervisor level since at the original meeting with the Community Development Department,the project was rejected and the builders,Richard Cosca and Bill Borette,were directed to meet with interested Blackhawk homeowners and present aplan that would meet the requirements of the Blackhawk homeowners. Since this meeting,I have not been contacted. In Lact, another meeting was held on April 19 where ftu-ther discussion took place about more amended plans. I was never informed of this meeting_ The Blackhawk,homeowners concur with the findings of the Conununity Development Department which state: 1) the second story deck be eliminated; 2) a flatter grade be developed for the house to sit on; and FROM JANET WRIGHT PHONE NO. 510 583 1822 Dec. 11 2000 03:16PM P3 3) adherence to the 26-foot height limit. In summary, these conditions of approval, which were set by the County Supervisors after many extended meetings, were developed based on illegal lots that were placed on the hillside. As a footnote, one of the conditions of approval was that "the plans shall provide for onsite tree plantings to screen the view from the north...minimum 15-gallon sizes." It is amazing to see the open defiance of the homeowners in this area as they continually top the redwood trees to'maintain their views of our home sites and the Diablo mountains. I have written to the Community Development Department, and although the homeowners admit the tree topping has been done, I have been told there is nothing that can be done about it. It is very disheartening to know that the conditions of approval that have been set can be continually be modified and changed. Thank you for your kind attention. S. . Jensen RTJ-.,j'rw cc: Supervisor Doi=Gerber Ms. Kathy Chi verton Dennis M.Barry,AICP Community Contra CommunityDevelopment p # Directar DevelopmentCosta Department County County Administration Building =. 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing " Martinez,California 94553-0095 jos, - _ � �� Phone.i 335-1210 ,:' : ` CERCD O July 25, 2000 JUL 2 6 2000 Richard A. Cosca CLERK BOA D OF SUPERVISORS 3701 Mt. Diablo Blvd. CONTRA COSTA CO, Lafayette,CA 94549 Dear Mr. Cosca: This letter acknowledges receipt of your letter of appeal dated June 26, 2000 for application #DP9930439 which the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denied on June 21, 2000. Requested Payment of$50 Posting Fee In the event that the County ultimately approves this project,an approval may be subject to legal challenge. The legal exposure can be reduced by the timely posting of a Notice of Exemption (from the California Environmental Quality Act). The Notice is posted by the Community Development Department following a final project approval decision. Posting of a Notice of Exemption will allow for a 35-day statute of limitations period for filing a legal challenge against the project. If no Notice of Exemption is posted,then the statute of limitations for filing of legal challenges against the approval extends 180-days from the project approval date. In order to be in a position to post a Notice of Exemption at the earliest possible date,we request payment of a$50 posting fee to cover the charge of the County Clerk's office. Checks for the$50 fee should be made payable to the County of Contra Costa and submitted to the Community Development Department with the other requested materials. The appeal will be heard by the Board of Supervisors. You will be notified by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors when the appeal has been scheduled for hearing before the Board. You should be aware that you or your representative should be present at the hearing. Please provide us six additional sets of full-size stapled and folded development plans. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please call at 335-1214. Sincerely yours, Robert Dr�e � = Principal Planner cc: File RHD/TS S:DP993043.A.ppeal Office Hours Monday- Frday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd&5th Fridays of each month 4 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL W. RuPPRECHT 18 CROW CANYON COURT, SUITE 160 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 VA 925 837- 867 � ��Am� . fir R E FAX: (925) 837-6104 DEC 0 8 toQ December 7, 2000 CLE -. n .. RK BOAR ���.,.:.:i. CONTRA CONTRA COSTA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 651 Pine Street Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: File No: DP993043 (Cosca) —Shadow Creek Manor Amendment of Final Development Plan Lot 48, Tract 7279 Tuesday, .December 12, 2000, Agenda Ladies and Gentlemen: We have been informed by the Planning Department that the appeal for the amendment of the final development plan for the above-referenced lot is set for December 12, 2000. The subject lot was purchased to build a custom-designed single family residence. I was involved in public hearings in the early nineties concerning this tract. The conditions of approval provided a designation for a single story profile for this lot which was understood at the time to be a single story elevation design as viewed from the street. However, the lot was also approved for a pad elevation of 912 feet. I have no recollection as to what the reasoning was behind that pad elevation and do not believe that elevation was determined with any consideration to the natural condition of the site. My present client submitted a plan to the Shadow Creek Homeowners Association and received approval (see Exhibit A attached hereto). When this subdivision was originally approved in approximately 1989, lots 47 and 48 were the only lots that were approved in that section of Bourne Road. There were no other lots on the other side of the street. The project was sold to another developer and three additional lots were approved across the street from lot 48. Those were designed to be built as two-story homes and in fact one is already completed and one is under construction. Those homes far exceed any ridge line view interruption. My client appeared before the San Ramon Planning Commission on March 22, 2000. The staff recommended approval of the modifications with restrictions. The matter went back to the San Ramon Planning Commission on April 19, 2000 with a recommendation from the staff approving the proposed modifications with restrictions. My client went back to the San Ramon Planning Commission once again on June 21, 2000, with the staff once again approving the proposed modifications with restrictions. Copies of those staff reports are attached as Exhibits B, C and D, respectively. The Planning Commission ultimately denied the application and this appeal ensued. Prior to bringing the matter to the Planning Commission, the County had engaged the services of Darwin Myers Associates to review the geologic setting of the site. That report is also attached hereto as Exhibit E. Darwin Myers' report states, "In our opinion, lot 424 (which is lot 48) is best suited for a custom design hillside residence that conforms closely with the natural terrain and which collected run-off from impervious surfaces in a closed conduit . 0 " *" The report goes on in its recommendations to state, "The approach to development appears appropriate from a geologic/geotechnical perspective. Construction of a 'pad' should be avoided." Therefore, it is clear that the County's independent geotechnical firm agreed with the design proposed by the applicant in this instance. I have enclosed a map of the area that depicts the Bettencourt Ranch, Shadow Creek and Blackhawk in its relative locations to lot 48. That map is enclosed herewith as Exhibit F. My client requests that the approval of the staff in its staff report of June 21, 2000 attached as Exhibit D be approved which would eliminate the following: 1. Pad grading at the 912' level; 2. A single story profile; 3. Level side yards; 4. Structure setback requirements as would otherwise apply to the proposed driveway/bridge. The reasoning of the staff and the applicant are supported in examining the problems encountered when attempting to design a single-story home on lot 48 with a pad elevation at 912 feet: 1. The street evaluation is 942 feet or 30 feet above the required pad elevation of the original conditions of approval of 912 feet. 2. Driveway: The driveway will slope from 936 feet at the far right comer of the lot to 912 feet or 247 x 94' equaling a 26% slope which is clearly excessive. The driveway will have to be retained on the uphill side and supported with pipe piles on the downhill side since it will be constructed on a steep side-to-side slope. 3. Retaining Walls: 24 feet high on the hillside of the driveway turn around and %.0 to the side of the garage. The retaining walls will create a drainage situation that will require extensive engineering and be unsightly and non-conforming to the neighborhood, c s 4. Cut and Fill. To create a pad at a 912 foot elevation, the applicant will be required to have approximately 20 feet of cut and 10 feet of fill. 5. Site Drainage. The entire structure and garage will need to be extensively drained to handle the anticipated runoff from the severe slope of the lot from the street to the pad if the 912 foot pad elevation is not changed. The only discharge available will be to the street below. The house on the lot immediately next door is of a similar design without the restrictions imposed on lot 48. There is simply no reason to treat the two lots differently. 6. Sewer: The proposed elevation of 912 feet will require sewer pumps for all appropriate rooms. 7. Flat Rear Yards: The requirement is for a 10' x 30' flat rear yard. While this may apply to other areas of the development that are on flatter land, the applicant would be unable to comply because the house will be 8 feet higher than the elevation line 10 feet from the rear of the house, and there is not enough remaining property to create a pad. 8. Summary: Any house designed that could be placed on lot 48 at the 912 foot elevation will be saddled with the aforementioned seven problems. It is clear that the conditions of approval was inappropriate at the time it was made. Any house attempting to comply with the 912 foot elevation would be designed in a totally non-conforming way with the balance of the subdivision and with the adjacent homes. The house would have the potential for future drainage problems for its lifetime. The driveway would only be usable to certain types of vehicles. The aforementioned problems will not be encountered if the house is designed as the applicant has submitted and as the staff has recommended. The lot is rimmed with planted trees and bordered by a grove of oak trees. with the addition of three homes on the upper side of Bourne Road across from lot 48, those houses will be 20 to 40 feet higher in elevation than the applicant's proposed house, and none of those houses stand out visually. I have enclosed a rendering of the exterior elevation of the front of the home which conforms to the other custom homes on Bourne Road and will be a compliment to the neighborhood. r � Your attention to this matter is much appreciated. truly y urs, ichael W. Rupprecht MWR:pcl cc: Dick Cosca(w/o enc.) Bob Drake, Planning Director(w/enc.) [coscalboard.ltr] "fpr--04-00 08: 40A Common IntorQst MgmtSvcs 925 743 3084 P . 01 Shadow Creek Resident's Association C/t)Common lnternt management Serviceb 315 Diablo Ruad.Swig 221 Danville.CA 945.96 July 29, 14Y)9 TIM rionncttc F3onnette C,unstruc:tiuci Kc. Request for ,%rchitcctural or Landscape Appruvid Lnr 4$, Phasc 1,52.0 Baume Line,Dauville,CA !)ear 11111, Thank you Fur sub»fitting your glans to the harneo%m•rs association fur review. The Desion Review C om=L t•hub Zi reviewed and apprnved your plans to build your new lionie with the following exception: •*e The cnrnposition shingle roof is not approved. The roof inustt he concrete Lile. Please remtrnbcr tha( flus approval duct not mean to imply approval has been Sivcn tram any C'uuilty rsltity,whiclZ maty rie;cd to be satisfied. This would he your rc:spuusibility to investigate and satisfy. Please feel fret to call OUT UIECC at(921 5)74.1-3080 if you hive any questions. Regards. Mary Wc;irl Projmt M .r, ,•.y,, `. ,"•' _ay4.� s�•:1.+a Y f✓..I'ui'• .t� �'`.✓ ..:t. •*' 'i •+''. •-"''.� / J` -t. .. �� •. r`4 • +T- Y Z 'moi t _ a. `ii. �.. _ ;..y t `:'.]�N=q Ct�: tea. ... 'R- ... Phone 925-743-3080 Fax 925-743-3084 t - Agenda Items#2 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday. March 22.2000-7:30 n.m. I. INTRODUCTION RICHARD COSCA (Applicant). BILL BONETTE&_RICHARD COSCA (Ownersl.File #DP993043 - A request for approval of an amendment to the Shadow Creek Manor(aka Bettencourt Ranch)Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify development restrictions as applies to a hillside residential lot (Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279)The site is located at#520 Bourne Lane in the Danville area. (P-1) (ZA: U-19)(CT 3551.03) (Parcel #220-840-012) II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW In an effort to soften the view of this site from off-site perspectives,the original approval for this project required that development of this site provide for pad grading far below the street elevation, and limit development to a single-story profile. The applicant feels that these restrictions are onerous. Instead, he is proposing a pier-and-beam foundation, two-story design which is located adjacent to the street frontage. M. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. B. Approve the proposed modifications with restrictions. C. Adopt the proposed Findings. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan Desi anation - Single Family Residential -Low Density. B. Zonin - Planned Unit (P-1)District. In 1989. the Board of Supervisors approved a Final Development Plan (FDP; File#3034-85) for the Bettencourt Ranch Project which encompasses this neighborhood and residential development to the south on the opposite side of the hill. In 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to the Bettencourt Ranch (File#DP953004). File AR1PIP993043 The area-where this site is located has been transferred to the Shadow Creek Homeowners.Association for management of common facilities, and has been renamed"Shadow Creek Manor'. C. Environs -The Shadow Creek Manor project lies between three other developments. To the south,on the other side of the hill, is the Bettencourt Ranch project. To the east is the Shadow Creek residential project. To the north is the Blackhawk residential project. The Shadow Creek Manor project has been largely constructed. The roads have been constructed. Virtually all of the residential lots have been built. The primary road serving Shadow Creek Manor is Bourne Lane which is U- shaped in configuration. One segment of Bourne Lane serves residential lots in the draw portion of the project; another segment serves several hillside residential lots on an upper tier that face northward towards Blackhawk. The site is surrounded by common open space area where the development rights have been conveyed to the County. Immediately downhill of the site are a couple of mature oak trees. Landscape improvements(shrubs,etc.) abutting the property have been installed on the open space portion, immediately adjacent to the common property line with the site. D. Site Description -The site is one of two lots that lies on the downslope side of the upper tier section of Bourne Lane. The site lies on the nose of a ridge adjacent to a repaired landslide. The slope on the site ranges from approximately 30- 50%. The site consists of approximately 15,000 square feet of area. E. Applicable Development Restrictions -Attached are excerpts of the development permits containing restrictions that apply to this site. 1. Ori einal Project Apprgval -At the time of the original subdivision approval (1989), this project was identified as Lot 424 of(Tentative Map) Subdivision 7188. At that time the Town of Danville had expressed concerns that the perched location of the nose fidgeline, might result in residential development that would not be visually compatible with the area. At the request of the Town, the County required the following specific restrictions to apply to development of this site: S-2 Cosca San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Wednesday,March 22,2000 • theJro`ect provide for a building pad at approximately the 912-foot P contour level,or approximately 30 feet below the project site(COA #5.J.21); and • the design of the residence provides for a"single-story profile" (COA #18). The project was also made subject to other development restrictions that apply generally to lots exceeding 10,000 square feet in area(COA#15), including the requirement for a flat 10 x 30-foot rearyard, and a minimum 3-foot clear level sideyard. Finally, the approval also prohibits export of earth material from the site without prior approval of the Zoning Administrator(COA#4.C.). 2. 1996 Amendment to Bettencourt Ranch FDP (#DP9530 - In 1996, the County authorized the relocation of three lots from the lower portion of the site to the upper tier of Bourne Lane, across the street from this site. In so doing, the County imposed additional conditions of approval on development of hillside lots including the subject site. At that time, the area of the subject property was identified as Lot 48 of SUB 7279, one of the (phased) final maps for the Bettencourt Ranch project. (See attached excerpt of conditions of approval.) F. Referral to Planning Commission -The Zoning Administrator is authorized to render a decision on this type of application. However, in this instance, the ZA has elected to refer the matter to the Planning Commission for hearing and decision pursuant to Section 26-2.2106 of the Ordinance Code. V. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS The applicant is proposing to eliminate several site specific restrictions that apply to this site: -establishing a building pad at the 912-foot contour line. - limiting design to a single-story profile. -requiring a flat 10 x 30-foot rearyard. The applicant indicated that they were aware of these restrictions at the time they purchased the lot but felt that they could be modified prior to development. Their reasons S-3 ` T File#DP993043 for the requested changes to the development restrictions are explained in an attached document.provided by.the applicant Briefly,the applicant believes that the following problems would arise if the existing restrictions were to remain in place. • To create a pad cut at the 912-foot evelation, approximately 30 feet below the street elevation,development would require a retaining wall exceeding 20-feet in height,far above the general standard for the project (max.4 feet). • Were the project grading to balance on site with both cut and fill pad material, significant variations may result due to different swell characteristics,which would be detrimental to building performance. • A driveway would have to be constructed at a relatively steep gradient, maybe steeper than the County Ordinance would permit (25%) in order to build a garage at a level that is 30 feet below the street elevation. • By building a residence 30 feet below grade, all rooms would have to be sewered pumped raise sewage to the street elevation. • Due to the existing topographical grade, providing for a flat rearyard, as is required on other lots, is impractical. In lieu of a residential design built in accord with existing design restrictions, the applicant is proposing a two-story, three bedroom,pier-and-beam foundation residence with two-decks on the rear elevation. The exterior elevation would be similar to other residential designs in the area. The main floor and garage would be at approximately street elevation. VI. AGENCY/GROUP COMMENTS A. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District - Attached are the District's comments. The District has not indicated any significant concerns with the proposed modifications. B. County Planninp,Geologist-The County Planning Geologist conducted a peer review of the geotechnical reports on the development of this site provided by the applicant. These comments are contained in a letter dated December 29, 1999. Briefly, the County Geologist concludes that the proposed modifications are manageable from a geotechnical standpoint. However, he is recommending that additional investigation be conducted to provide specific standards and criteria to guide site grading, drainage and foundation design, prior to issuance of a building orgrading permit. S-4 Cosca San Ramon VaUey.Regional Planning commission Wednesday,Murch 22,2400 C. EBMUD -In a transmittal dated December 1, 1999,the District indicates that the site lies within the District's service area. The tray smittal does not indicate any problems in providing water service to the site. D. Town of Danville-A copy of this application was forwarded to the Town of Danville for comments. However,no comments have been provided. E. Referrals to Nearby HOAs-+copies of the project were also referred to the Blackhawk and Shadow Creek HOAs, However,staff has received no response from either group. The applicant has indicated that he has reviewed his plans with the Shadow Creek HOA, and he indicated that they did not oppose the project. VII. DISCUSSION A. Cather Ap_licable Restrictions Though not specifically cited, the applicant's proposal would also necessitate elimination of two other FDP design restrictions as apply to this site. • to eliminate the requirement for a level sideyard. • to allow for construction of a driveway bridge structure within the required (20-foot) frontyard area. B. Required Findines for Crantine Proposed Modifications Under provisions of the P-1 Ordinance, an amendment to a Final Development Plan can only be approved if the County is able to make the following findings: The proposed modifications are consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-I district. The proposed modifications are compatible with the uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. C. Merit of Proposal The existing development restrictions make development of this site impractical. The steepness of the terrain will make development of pad grading 30 feet below the street elevation very difficult. S-5 File#DP993043 The original motive for imposing this padding and single-story restriction were based on the assumption that it would result in a more attractive product. However, given the extensive grading and extreme designs that would be necessary, it is not clear that development under that scenario would be any more visually compatible with the neighborhood from that which the applicant is proposing. D. Additional Restrictions which should be Imposed with any Project Approval Except for a level sideyard and the proposed driveway bridge, this project should be required to meet all development standards associated with the previous approvals (i.e., landscape improvements, restriction on exterior colors, lighting, etc.) Any approval of this project should also require the following development restrictions. • That side and rear elevations provide equivalent architectural detail to that proposed for the front elevation. The measures recommended by the Countv Planning Geologist. • Any proposed grading beyond that shown for the proposed residence that requires a grading permit first obtain an amendment to the FDP. • A hottub (sauna) is allowed; however no swimming pool is allowed. With these provisions, staff feels that the required findings for allowing an FDP modification could be made. E. Related Infrastructure Improvements That Extend to Street Below (Downhill of Project) Drainage of the site will have to be conveyed downhill from the site, through the HOA-maintained open space, to the street below. It is also possible that sewage lines may have to routed in this manner. The applicant should be aware of one and possible two discretionary actions which will be required for either of these impro\,ements. S-6 Cosca San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Wednesday, March 22, 2000 • Any infrastructure improvement within the HOA common area will require not only evidence of acceptance by the HOA but also by the Board of Supervisors (to allow for development within a deed-restricted area). • If any infrastructure improvement results in either the removal of a mature oak tree, or trenching within the dripline of a mature oak tree, the applicant will have to first obtain a tree permit from the County. A tree permit is not only a discretionary permit, but one which requires public notice. VIII. ALTERNATIVES A. Dene the Proposed Modifications to Existing Restrictions - If the Commission is unable to make the required findinars for allowing a modification to the FDP, then the Commission could deny the project. In this instance, no development could occur unless the applicant could demonstrate that all development standards are met including required building pad elevation and single-stony design. B. Require an Alternative Residential Desi e n - The Commission may determine that the required findinays cannot be made unless Certain modifications to the project were made. For instance, the Commission could require that a modified desi an be provided that allows for a pier-and-beam design. but in more of a step-down design. as suaaested by the attached Staff Studv. dated March 18, 2000. IX. CEQA STATUS Pursuant to the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, staff prepared an initial study on the proposed modifications which concluded that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. On Thursday, a Negative Declaration determination was posted with the County Clerk and circulated as required by law providing interested parties until Wednesday, March 22, 2000, 5:00 p.m. to comment on the project. As of the date of the preparation of this staff report, no comments have been received on the proposed CEQA determination. c:\wpdoc\dp993043.rpt R D\ S-7 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP993043 (Costa - Applicant; Bonette & Coscam Owners)-AMENDING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 48 OF THE k"Will PHASE OF THE BETTENCOURT RANCH PROJECT (aka Shadow Creek Manor)IN THE DANVIELLE/TASSAJARA AREA (Ref.File#3034-88 &#DP953004) FINDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OF A PLANNED UNIT (P-1) DISTRICT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Required Finding-The proposed modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district. Project Finding-Most of the development within the Bettencourt Ranch project has been done on building pads. The relatively steep topography of this site warrants development techniques that would not require major grading of the affected lot. B. Required Finding-The proposed modification is compatible with uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. Project i t Findine -Due to recently approved residential lots across the street from this , project, the view of the hillside will provide a view-impacted condition. The relocation and altered design parameters proposed under this project will not adversely affect the view from surrounding areas. Added restrictions are incorporated into this approval which will assure its visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Ref. §84-66.1804(b)of the Ordinance Code CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. Development shall be in general accord with the development plans dated November 9, 1999. 2. Except as listed below, development activity shall be in accord with the applicable restrictions contained in the original Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan, File #3034-88, and as amended in File#DP953004. The following restrictions applicable to this site are eliminated. A. Pad grading at the 912-foot elevation. B. A single-story profile. File#DP993043 Cosca-Applicant;Bonette&Cosca-Owners Co Level sideyards. -D. Structure setback requirement as would otherwise apply to the proposed driveway/bridge. 3. The following existing development restrictions continue to apply to any development of this site: A. Control of Reflectivity.,of Exterior Residential-Materials -The construction plans shall specify the colors to be used for exterior walls and roofing of all residential structures. A licensied architect shall verify in writing that the proposed colors will not exceed 50% light reflectance. B. Control of Exterior Lighting- Any exterior lighting.shall be designed and lighting operated so as to shine on the applicant's property only and not shine on any surrounding properties. The printed notes on the construction plans for any proposed development shall so stipulate. C. Supplemental Tree PI - At least 7 days prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit proposed landscape/irrigation plans prpepared by a licensed architect with proposed construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall identify the location of tree planting on the adjacent commons areas and proposed landscape/irrigation improvements on the site. The plans shall provide for on-site tree plantings to screen the view of proposed development from views to the north, to supplement landscape screening within the common areas. The plans shall also provide for a row of trees along cy the frontage of the lot. Proposed trees shall be provide for trees Cn with a minimum size of 15-gallons. At least 15 days prior to requesting final inspection of the building permit, the landscape architect shall provide a report to the Zoning Administrator that the approved landscape/irrigation improvements have been correctly installed. 4. Added Development Restrict s A. Extension of Exterior Architectural Detail Around Side and Rear of Structure - Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide for modified rear and side elevations, that provide for additional architectural detail comparable to that proposed for the front elevation of the residence. -2- 1 File#DF993043 Condi ons o,f Approval B. Deed Disclosure-At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant.shall.provide a draft deed disclosure.for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosure shall provide for the following restrictions as pertains to this site: i Following initial residential development of this site in accord with the approved site plans, no grading activity requiring a grading permit shall be conducted unless the applicant first obtains an amendment to the Final Development Plan. �► Saunas and hot tubs are permitted in accord with County Ordinance provisions, however a swimming pool is not allowed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applciant shall provide evidence that the approved deed disclosure has been properly recorded against the deed to the property. 5. Processing Fee for Review of Site PlanMaterials -!In accord with the adopted fee schedule, at time of initial submittal of materials for issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall be subject to applicable Time and Material charges, including an initial deposit of$500(checks may be made payable to "Contra Costa County"). 6. Fees for Processing of Development Permit Application -This application is subject to an initial application fee of$3000 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial fee. Any additional fee due must paid by the applicant within 60 days of the effective date of this permit, or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 7. ...Geotechnical Report -At least 45 days prior to issuance of a,grading permit or building. permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of A. A colored cut/fill map; accurate cross-sections that extend from the roadway to a point downslope from the project [showing existing grade and proposed grade; estimated the volume of earthwork (cubic yards)and whether it would require any proposed import or export; and details of the foundation desing elements (i.e., piers, subdrains, retaining wall, grade beams]. -3- s w File#DP993043 Cosca-Applicant;Bonette&Cosca-owners B. Arelimin geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of p �Y g gy Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for'the review of the County Planning Geologist,st, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Im rovemetn, grading, and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of P the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for expansive soils, mass wasting processes, soil erosion and seismically-induced ground failure by recongnized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. C. Processin Fee -The review by the Planning Geologist is subject to Time and Materials Charges including a$750 initial deposit at time of submittal of plans. 8. Sewa a Dis osal and Drainage -At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of a drainage and sewage connectionP lan indicating how water from impervious surfaces are to be collected and conveyed to storm drainage facilities, and how sewage disposal from development of this site will connect with Central Sanitary District sewage lines,within SD7279. The plan shall be subject to the review of the County Planning Geologist, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. TheP lan shall identify the boundaries of all affected properties. The site plan shall indicate that development rights of the common area have been conveyed to the County. The site plan shall also show the location of the proposed trenching in relationship to nearby existing mature oak trees and recently planted landscape improvements (e.g., trees, shrubs, and irriQation improvements). For any nearby mature oak tree, the site plan shall accurately identify the location of the trunk, it's approximate circumference at 412 feet above the ground; and its dripline. The site plan shall also indicate whether any construction equipment is proposed to be parked or stored within the dripline of any mature oak tree. The plan shall indicate any alteration to existing improvements proposed by the infrastructure improvements and shall provide for appropriate mechanisms to assure their maintenance and protection following the completion of construction (e.g., security bond) for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant is advised that the County holds the development rights for the common area. Any proposed infrastructure improvements (e.g., drainage, sewer) that extends into the common area will require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Moreover, if the applicant proposes to trench within the dripline of a mature oak tree, a tree permit will be required. On these matters, the applicant is advised to work with the project planner in the Community Development Department. -4- t . •art r 1 • it+�a~o4 •� r • a ...ice `; \� �`� ��V tt�i• V' SOO Of5 1 s y •' •:ti z WIN Zk .ra ` 14 5 oo \\1 di ; t -VA , t ' „:z s .. .�. • Ar AL a ;�;�r � a41 �q1 axp r �r�Yrd. s 1,1 ?p ,p.�.Q�t;Wed. -This rectangular area shat l not be p�►r•tae by rea n ipial _= ♦ .- . s M.0, � •i• r •36_ bn*I ess• CbTerwi se specified-below, '1 ots bnd6"r' -�o,a0o square feet i n' ares, .. shall be governed by the R-6 zoning district with respect to allowed use, structure height, number of stories and minimum setback requirements. Each lot shall provide.for a minimum two off-street parking spaces* . r=teT, h- ••ti i to-f#—a W.• . •• ,-� '}. mum .front,Y.ar.d'�setb'a_-cV:"-* .. hOl be-� 0`-feet from the face to curb or Vt ♦ i • 1' `�peke. i s a sU1 al k,' •then from the back of the sidewalk. For a 'side-entiry -garage, the minimum front yard setback shall be 6 feet from behi nod. the sidewalk or 10 feet from the face of curb, -whichever provides the' greater: "setback'. No two--story elements facing the curb shall be .a.1.1Awed i h 1 o*cati+ins There 1 es_s. than the standard front yard setback i s -Am91kJ., ze d..+_• MaxiiiiU-M 4-foot tall` cribl ock or other decorative retaining wall sbal 1 be required for any sideyard slope 5 feet tall or taller in vertical height. A minimum 3-foot clear, level sideyard shall be provi- ed. The minimum reasonable pad depth shall be 80 feet so as to provide for a functional, rear yard. A minimum 10-foot by 20-foot, level ,. clear, rectangular. rearyard shall be provided. This rectangular area shall not be supported by .retaining walls.. 17. The Zoning Administrator shall review and approve the individual site plans.` 1 andscapi ng, design and architecture. Special consideration shall be given to rear elevations facing south and east in order to mitigate visual impacts .(the architectural design shall be similar to a front elevation under such circumstances) . Special arch.i tecturalPandscape treatment and review of lot 136 is req u'gyred . pr�i•o•r- to issuance of a building permit. The residence on this lot should serve as .a design elementfor the project and contribute to the community identity.• Perimeter fencing shall be limited to open, wrought iron .fencing. � In:..addition to review of the standard 9 construction drawings, a perspective of the proposed development shall be provided as viewed from the access', road.near lot 93. Except for Lot 157, a minimum 15-foot (rear or si deyard, as appropriate) setback shat b } . 1 e observed for all residential al structures along the • perimeter of the Eettencourt Ranch property. If lot 157 is retained, a 1p foot minimum setback from the Tassajara Estates property shall be observed. SPECIAL LOT CONSIDERATIONS 18. Lots 233, 2341 263 through 265, 432 through 436 and 419 through 422 shall all .be restricted to single-story houses. Lots 424 shall be restricted to single-story rof i I e. Special landscape treatment e.g• , 4" box trees shallFhall be provided on lots 136, 263, 264 and 265. 9 r • � � • � i i r i EMM JU !t"'O�� � :, ,,...�►�.�M+�t�s+� ,C��t S�'r r� ., :i,�' r.' :i �V'1'.+Irr►llwrlo+ _ ,�*`"� ::.�� �, .:.r J.. . -M'r1i! ...r"!t!1 >'yV w t �y,.,,; .:'tr w•��/�l'�.r. �t.'`�?.? � ��i�s.��,n ' . 7 T `MriV i � �21�1! safltf iFOilrrl'M09 wed ttltopeiOM !Of -.Ann" r fj Iis26 ' !V11 z .13 lop JQ Ile ! + � • i Y � w { f r • Y • le �� � �� � J w V Q �► ! ��rr�' h to 44 6.0 " '`� • r CD a t Agenda Item#2 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VAI.I BY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, A nl 19,. 2000-7:30 n.m. 1. INTRODUCTION RICHARD COSCA(ADDlicant), BR.,L BONETTE&RICHARD COSCA(Owners).File #DP993043 -A request for approval of an amendment to the Shadow Creek Manor(aka Bettencourt Ranch)Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify development restrictions as applies to a hillside residential lot(Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279)The site is located at#520 Bourne Lane in the Danville area. (P-1) (ZA: U-19)(CT 3551.03) (Parcel #220-840-012) H. RECOMMENDATION A. Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. B. Approve the proposed modifications with restrictions. C. Adopt the proposed Findings. 111. BACKGROUND This item was initially heard at the last Commission hearing(3/22/00). At that time the Commission raised several concerns relative to the proposed design modifications; documentation of approval from the Shadow Creek HOA; and feasibility of design details. The Commission continued the hearing to this date and requested the following: 0 the notice of the continued hearing should be amended to allow for notification of: - a property owner who was involved at the last major revision to the Final Development Plan (Jensen); - Shadow Creek HOA, Blackhawk HOA, and the Town of Danville-, r File#DP993043 -owners and occupants of nearby recently built and occupied residences. (The Commission had requested that staff send notices to the owners and occupants of specific properties in proximity to the site. • that the applicant be requested to provide: - evidence of project approval from the Shadow Creek HOA; and -documentation on the feasibility of extending a drainage line and possibly a sewer line to the bottom of the hill that would serve the proposed residence. Iv. DISCUSSION A. Supplemental Notification Following the last hearing, a new notice of the continued hearing was issued that included all of the parties requested by the Commission. B. Additional Information From Applicant Attached is a letter dated April 7, 2000 from the applicant responding to the Commission's request for additional information. It includes a letter dated July 29, 1999 from the Shadow Creek Resident's Association conditionally approving a residential design. C. Other The staff recommendation remains as presented.in the last(3/22/00) staff report. The Commission may also consider alternative actions which were identified in that staff report. c Awpdoc\99 3 043-b.rp t RDS S-2 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP993043 (Costa- Applicant; Bonette & Cosca- Ow Lers) AMENDING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 48 OF THE F! PHASE OF THE B wrtw4uOURT RANCH PROJECT (aka Shadow Creek Manor)IN TIS DANVILLE/TASSAJARA AREA (Ref. File#3034-88 &#DP953004) FINDINGS FOR MODIFICATION OF A PLANNED UNIT (P-1) DISTRICT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Required Finding-The proposed modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district. Project Fin -Most of the development within the Bettencourt Ranch project has been done on building pads. The relatively steep topography of this site warrants development techniques that would not require major grading of the affected lot. B. Required F -The proposed modification is compatible with uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. Project Fin -Due to recently approved residential lots across the street from this project,the view of the hillside will provide a view-impacted condition. The relocation and altered design parameters proposed under this project will not adversely affect the view from surrounding areas. Added restrictions are incorporated into this approval which will assure its visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Ref. §84-66.1804(b) of the Ordinance Code CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General I Development shall be in general accord with the development plans dated November 9, 1999. 2. Except as listed below, development activity shall be in accord with the applicable restrictions contained in the original Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan,File #3034-88, and as amended in File#DP953004. The following restrictions applicable to this site are eliminated. A. Pad grading at the 912-foot elevation. B. A single-story profile. File#DP993043 Cosca-Applicant;Bonette&Cosca-Owners C. Level sideyards. D. Structure setback requirement as would otherwise apply to the proposed driveway/bridge. 3. The following existing development restrictions continue to apply to any development of this site: A. Control of Reflectivity of Exterior ResidentialMaterials_-The construction plans shall specify the colors to be used for exterior walls and roofing of all residential %..0 structures. A licensied architect shall verify in writing that the proposed colors will not exceed 50% light reflectance. B. Control of Exterior Lighting- Any exterior lighting shall be designed and operated so as to shine on the applicant's property only and not shine on any surrounding properties. The printed notes on the construction plans for any proposed development shall so stipulate. C. Supplemental Tree PI -At least 7 days prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall submit proposed landscape/irrigation plans prpepared by a licensed architect with proposed construction plans for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall identify the location of tree planting on the adjacent commons areas and proposed landscape/irrigation improvements on the site. The plans shall provide for on-site tree plantings to screen the view of proposed development from views to the north.,to supplement landscape screening within the common areas. The plans shall also provide for a row of trees along the frontage of the lot. Proposed trees shall be provide for trees with a minimum size of 15-gallons. At least 15 days prior to requesting final inspection of the building permit,the landscape architect shall provide a report to the Zoning Administrator that the approved landscape/irrigation improvements have been correctly installed. 4. Added Development Restrictions A. Extension of Exterior Architectural Detail Around Side and Rear of Structure - Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide for modified rear and side elevations, that provide for additional architectural detail comparable to that proposed for the front elevation of the residence. -2- File#DP993043 Conditions of Approval B. Deed Disclosure - At least 30 days prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a draft deed disclosure for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosure shall provide for the following restrictions as pertains to this site: Following initial residential development of this site in accord with the approved site plans, no grading activity requiring a grading permit shall be conducted unless the applicant first obtains an amendment to the Final Development Plan. Saunas and hot tubs are permitted in accord with County Ordinance provisions, however a swimming pool is not allowed. %-, K Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applciant shall provide evidence that the approved deed disclosure has been properly recorded against the deed to the property. 5. Processing-Fee for Review of Site Plan Materials - In accord with the adopted fee schedule, at time of initial submittal of materials for issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall be subject to applicable Time and Material charges, including an initial deposit of$500 (checks may be made payable to "Contra Costa County"}. 6. Fees for Processing of Develoi)ment Permit AVDlication -This application is subject to an initial application fee of$3000 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial fee. Any additional fee due must paid by the applicant within 60 days of the effective date of this pen-nit, or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 7. Geotechnical Re -At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of A. A colored cut/fill map; accurate cross-sections that extend from the roadway to a point downslope from the project [showing existing grade and proposed grade; estimated the volume of earthwork (cubic yards) and whether it would require any proposed import or export; and details of the foundation desing elements (i.e.., ppiers, subdrains, retaining wall, grade beams]. 4::> -3- File#DP993043 (Tosca-Applicant;Bonette&Cosca-Owners B. A preliminary geology, soil, and foundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision ordinance.Section 94-4.420 for the review of the County Planning Geologist, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Improvernetn,grading, and building plans shall carry out-the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for expansive soils,mass wasting processes,soil erosion and seismically-induced ground failure by recongnized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered ring subsurface investigation. C. Processing The review by the Planning Geologist is subject to Time and Materials Charges including a$750 initial deposit at time of submittal of plans. S. Sewage Disposal and Drain -At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of a drainage and sewage connection plan indicating how water from impervious surfaces are to be collected and conveyed to storm drainage facilities, and how sewage disposal from development of this site will connect with Central Sanitary District sewage lines,within SD7279. The plan shall be subject to the review of the County Planning Geologist, and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify the boundaries of all affected properties. The site plan shall indicate that development rights of the common area have been conveyed to the County. The site plan shall also show the location of the proposed trenching in relationship to nearby existing mature oak trees and recently planted landscape improvements (e.g., trees, shrubs, and irrigation improvements). For any nearby mature oak tree, the site plan shall accurately identify the location of the trunk, it's approximate circumference at 4 1/2 feet above the ground; and its dripline. The site plan shall also indicate whether any construction equipment is proposed to be parked or stored within the dripline of any mature oak tree. The plan shall indicate any alteration to existing improvements proposed by the infrastructure improvements and shall provide for appropriate mechanisms to assure their maintenance and protection following the completion of construction(e.g., security bond) for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant is advised that the County holds the development rights for the common area. Any proposed infrastructure improvements (e.g.,drainage, sewer) that extends into the common area will require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Moreover, if the applicant proposes to trench within the dripline of a mature oak tree,a tree permit will be required. On these matters,the applicant is advised to work with the project planner in the Community Development Department. -4- oilr) Eackofteis do d -Y ownsdad op 10 LOAae. -�em d.&sQ40- 0 SM-.c� �oac�.�r IkAl- t n e-�aQa_. �2. �o.urz �cerc¢.ce G�-wo�cle�u. cc��v�c.SZ— e Ak--, IaLt4e� 40 C, C",ek imx 19 auk I A-e�d xtv I A* 1 aa-.A� U 3701 Mt. Diablo Boulevard • Lafayette, California 94549• (925) 284-9500 Apr--04-00. 08-640A Cc3vv on in-ter-famst 925 743 3084 P101 Shadow Creek Resident's Association CIO Common Interest Management Scrviccb 315 Olaf to Road.Sake 221 Danville.CA 94526 July 29. t',P.)') Bill Tiorinctte Flonnette ConsLructiotl KC.- Reqtiest for Architcctural or Landscape Approval T,nt 48,Phasc 1,5'.10 Boume Larle, Danville,CA Dear Bill, Thank you lur bubittitling yo tir plans to the homco%vners assuciatiou fur review. The Desigen Rcvicw C'ommittec tial reviewed and approved your plans to build your new 11onle with tile following exception: -o:- The composition shingle roof is not approved. The roof must he cone-rete file. Please rernembtr that tilts approval docs not mean to imply approval h-,I.s t�een g.ivcn ftom any County entity,which nuy need to be&,%ji.sfietd. This would be your responsibility to investigate and satisfy. Please feel frcc to call OUT OIECC at(91.6f-'S) 743-3080 if you liavc any questions. Rcgards,, b I Mary Wei Projcct Ma Phone 925-743-3080 Fax 925-743-3084 t�� 1 *�_ � r l t •I •;.0.r'-'Z , i rr .,,, ti't.t�� X11• t.� r f f'ri 1 41'. \� ilii t .0 41 r1 !• i ;.its1 PIP 'Od VY u P_ logo APF ♦ 7 .d r f_ r Or or.IVS on I Ir ffAVI OF, � •��m ��. lw ♦ / ,r,,� r .: �•. AW.4 \ •Y \� i'l 4 1 ,'i� +•• .i • .` a 1+••;fir-•j.L..`' Z ••. _ o or r . a �, �' l�� \ ,� a. +;�,fi S �.1 �"I{'1 i�f. aha s• � '�•rt`r.�r•w/- Il VNIII LO ti 'L. :' s a � � t1 \ � � � �`� � • lir � "i_ z►4� t�. f r, s .. 1� 1 ►�+w�• ••ti.a It I•j` �`1 `, � �'�l� `��.1e��t��.,t Ian`•tli7'L5t�'�it+i1j'(�1 =..+.•.4 1 Y-sa�'�1�,�R—.7?/.�r•�,•���t1 tC•r,.�•i�..T�r,1(r'r��••��!4��l' J�I,•'i tit11 t_t1'•��`;I1 a•ja.L ir t�` •i�Y•.'ta• gyp_w+w•�•�\'`'�♦���f*"i�Y.•.' zn­ ![Vo. ! 4'•� +♦- ti,�;"1r�^�1'1�+ ►�•. �r`♦.`'�.• .•• �t��:�"-fi.7r.. �y.�1•``r+r��•`.ifir •r►.,'.-.\- are��ilo1��tN+'r. "i-... +. \ 1t,i .h •1� ! �;, •( l`i t JL �• 1 err i ,.r+�•�` �1 � �,.• ..!. 11 � � ����� ,i� -�•►\ a;� � �• `� j `♦III�M/ri�j��I► ♦+�• t ,'�•••►s. _ti���� _ • '`..` � �� 410 �� •• r•r � � .. .rte/. IIIIIIIIIIIq Lj WI WU Ilk db 1 � / (! • � 1 � J • ry`��--+�ice•'.,"�.�. bobb.,szow s' I AP M§A, NOR S.. 7L%k% �. m� '•fit'�� ��� � + "�"` a~ � � � ��.., j ItR �� • � Imo' {] 1 r Y.rel•► !. { `f4 Jj f� 6 l ftp t Agenda Item#2 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VA11EY IREGION,,&,L PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday. June 21, 2000- 7.3 Wednesday. L INTRODUCTION RICHARD COSCA {#Applicant . BILL BONETTE&RICHARD COSCA (Owners File #DP993043 -A request for approval of an amendment to the Shadow Creek Manor(aka Bettencourt Ranch)Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify development restrictions as applies to a hillside residential lot(Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279)The site is located at#520 Bourne Lane in the Danville area. (P-1) (ZA; U-19)(CT 3551.03) (Parcel#220-840-012) El. SUNUVLARY OF REVIEW In an effort to soften the view of this site from off-site perspectives,the original approval for.t .Ms project required that development of this site pro v-1de­fo—rpa&-grading-f arbelow the street elevation, and limit development to a single-story profile. The applicant feels that these restrictions are onerous. Instead.) he is proposing a pier-and beam foundation, two-story design which is located adjacent to the street frontage. At the last hearing(April 19). the Commission expressed concern that the proposed design would result in a design with excessive visual bulk, and requested that the applicant come back with revised site plans that would provide for compliance with a height standard not to exceed 26-feet in height,measured parallel to grade. The applicant has elected not to do further design work at this time,but they have indicated they are willing to accept a restriction to limit development to a 26-foot height limit. Staff has done an initial review of superimposing a 26-foot height limit on the existing residential design. It is not clear to staff that superimposing such a restriction on the existing residential design would result in a better product. Instead, it may result in a residential design that would be out-of-character with the surrounding area. Consequently, rather than approve that option as suggested by the applicant,the project should be denied. If a 26-foot height limit is to be required, then a modified house plan that fits that"envelope" should be provided prior to considering any approval. HL RECGN-BMNDATION FUe#DP993043 A. Adopt the proposed Negative Declaration for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. B. Approve the proposed modifications with restrictions,including an additional condition of approval establishing an added structure height restriction of 26 feet, measured parallel to grade. C. Adopt the proposed Findings. IV. 'BACKGRO The Commission heard this matter on April 19. After taking testimony,the Commission expressed concern about the visual bulk of the proposed residential design, and requested that the applicant come back with a modified design that did not exceed a structure height standard of 26 feet, measured parallel to finished grade. V. STAFF CO ATION WITH APPLICANT At the time of the April hearing,the applicant had agreed to provide staff with modified site plans to review by Monday,June 5. Not having heard from the applicant by that date, staff called the applicant who indicated that on further review he felt that their residential design could meet the proposed 26 foot height limit proposed by the Commission with some modifications to the roof design. The applicant indicated that instead of preparing revised plans as the Commission had requested,that the Commission instead consider adding a condition of approval which would require a modification of the house plan to meet a 26-foot height standard. At staffs request,the applicant agreed to provide staff with a suggested condition of approval for this purpose. VI. DISCUSSION At the time of writing of this staff report,the applicant has not provided staff with any new plan documents or written material. Attached are staff studies that identify the approximate design limitation that would affect the existing residence. It is apparent that the design change would be-significant. Staff does not believe that adding a condition of approval to require a modified house design will necessarily result in a more attractive product. If the applicant is unwilling to provide a revised plan pursuant to the standards requested by the Commission,then this S-2 M # Cosea- San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Wednesday,June 21,2000 project should either be approved as staff has recommended, or the project should be denied. A denial would allow the applicant to try to build under the existing restrictions, or re-file a new development plan application with at a later date with a modified house plan that the County might find acceptable. Pursuant to the request of the applicant, staff has drafted a condition to limit the height of the residence and require revise plans, as suggested by the applicant in the event that the Commission accepts the applicant's proposal. X Z771- r• a _ •,.yam .. _- JV a t ..... "' .r.-e"a' .. ..•r y.....-. :.+�-:1R�Ih +fi5+r'-."yid i *kaa'XX. �i[+.M!Mn::>1!-`..'fl('Z" '4fY.y9'uV.._.tvr•e.w�_ii•lrli.x kT i6xf- Mal"" glum - .y,f7 "a. t ' c Awpd oc1dp99 3 043.rpt S-3 FINDSGS ANIS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP993043PP(Cosca - Alicant; Bonette & Cosca - Owners) ANOKNDING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LOT 48 OF THE FIF---__-PHASE OF BETTENC OURT RANCH PROJECT (aka Shadow Creek Manor)IN TBE A WO A DANVELLEITASSAJARAtl LN 0',M (Ref.File#3034-88 &#DP953004) FINDINGS FOR MOD CATION OF A PLANNED UNIT (P-1)DISTRICT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. R 12"r,'"nding-The proposed modification is consistent with the intent and purpose Muirea Finding, of the P-1 district. Prosect Fin -Most of the development within the Bettencourt Ranch project has been done on building pads. The relatively steep topography of this site warrants development techniques that would not require major grading of the affected lot. B. Reauired Fin -The proposed modification is compatible with uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. Project Finding-Due to recently approved residential lots across the street from this project,the view of the hillside will provide a view-impacted condition. The relocation and altered design parameters--proposed under this project will not adversely affect the view from surrounding areas. Added restrictions are incorporated into this approval which will assure its visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Ref. §84-66.1804(b)of the Ordinance Code CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1 Development shall be in general accord with the development plans dated November 9, 1999. 2. Except as listed below, development activity shall be in accord with the applicable restrictions contained in the original Bettencourt Ranch Final Development Plan,File #3034-88, and as amended in File#DP953004. The following restrictions applicable to this site are eliminated. A. Pad grading at the 912-foot elevation. B. A single-story profile. . I Fide#DM93043 Cosca-Apphcant;:Bonette&..Cosca-Owners C. Level sideyards. D. Structure setback requirement as would otherwise apply,to the-.proposed.. driveway/bridge. 3. The following existing development restrictions continue to apply to any;development of this site: A. Control of Reflectivitv of Exterior residential Materials-The construction plans shall specify the colors to be used for exterior walls and roofing of all residential structures. A licensied architect shall verify in writing that the proposed colors will not exceed 50%light reflectance. B. Control of Exterior Lig -An exterior lighting shall be designed and g y operated so as to shine on the applicant's property only and not shine on any surrounding properties. The printed notes on the construction plans for any proposed development shall so stipulate. C. Supplemental Tree Planting-At least 7 days prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall submit proposed landscapetirrigation plans prpepared by a licensed a�ehitect with proposed construction glares for the review approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plans shall identify the location of tree PP g planting on the adjacent commons areas and proposed landscape/irrigation improvements on the site. The plans shall provide for on-site tree plantings to screen the view of proposed development from views to the north,to supplement landscape screening within the common areas. The plans shall also provide for a row of trees along the frontage of the lot. Proposed trees shall be provide for trees with a minimum size of 15-gallons. At least 15 days prior to requesting final inspection of the building permit,the landscape architect shall provide a report to the Zoning Administrator that the approved landscape/irrigation improvements have been correctly installed. 4. Added Development restrictions A. Extension of Exterior Architectural Detail Around Side and Rear of Structure- Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant shall provide for modified rear and side elevations,that provide for additional architectural detail comparable to that proposed for the front elevation of the residence. -2- File#DP993043- Conditions of Approval B. Deed Disclosure-At least 30 days.prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a draft deed disclosure for the review and.approval of the Zoning Administrator. The disclosure_shall provide for the following restrictions as pertains to this site: 1 • Following initial residential development of this site in accord with the approved site plans,no grading activity requiring a grading permit shall be conducted unless the applicant first obtains an amendment to the Final Development Plan. 0 Saunas and hot tubs are permitted.in accord with County Ordinance provisions, however a swimming pool is not allowed. Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applciant shall provide evidence that the approved deed disclosure has been properly recorded against the deed to the property. 5. Processing Fee for Review of Site Plan Materials -In accord with the adopted fee schedule, at time of initial submittal of materials for issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall be subject to applicable Time and Material charges,including an initial deposit of$500 (checks may a ma a payable to-'Contra Gosta-County-"Y.-- - - 6. Fees for Processing of Development Permit - Application-This application is subject to an initial application fee of$3000 which was paid with the application submittal,plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed the initial fee. Any additional fee due must paid by the applicant within 60 days of the effective date of this permit, or prior to use of the permit, whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 7. Geotechnical Report-At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of A. A colored cut/fill map; accurate cross-sections that extend from the roadway to a point downslope from the project [showing existing grade and proposed grade; estimated the volume of earthwork(cubic yards)and whether it would require any y import mport or export; and details of the foundation desing elements (i.e., piers, subdrains, retaining wall, grade beams]. -3- File#D.P993043 Cosca-Applicant;Bonette&Cosca-Owners B. A preliminary geology,soil,and-°foundation reportmeeting the.requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 94-4.420 for_the review'-of the County Planning Geologist,and the review.and-,approval of the Zoning-Administrator. Improvemetn, grading,and building plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for .. expansive soils,mass wasting processes, soil erosion and seismically-induced ground failure by recongnized methods appropriate to soil conditions discovered during subsurface investigation. C. Processing.Fee-The review by the Planning Geologist is subject to Time and Materials Charges including a$750 initial deposit at time of submittal of plans. 8. Sewage Disposal and Drainage-At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, the applicant shall submit two copies of a drainage and sewage connection plan indicating how water from impervious surfaces are to be collected and conveyed to storm drainage facilities, and how sewage disposal from development of this site will connect with Central Sanitary District sewage lines,within SD7279. The plan shall be subject to the review of the County Planning Geologist,and the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identi-fy tWie—boundaries of all affected properties;The site glen I4 indicate that development rights of the common area have been conveyed to the County. The site plan shall also show the location of the proposed trenching in relationship to nearby existing mature oak trees and recently planted landscape improvements(e.g., trees, shrubs, and irrigation improvements). For any nearby mature oak tree,the site plan shall accurately identify the location of the trunk,it's approximate circumference at 4112 feet above the ground; and its dripline. The site plan shall also indicate whether any construction equipment is proposed to be parked or stored within the dripline of any mature oak tree. The plan shall indicate any alteration to existing improvements proposed by the infrastructure improvements and shall provide for appropriate mechanisms to assure their maintenance and protection following the completion of construction (e.g., security bond) for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The applicant is advised that the County holds the development rights for the common area. Any proposed infrastructure improvements (e.g.,drainage, sewer)that extends into the common area will require approval of the Board of Supervisors. Moreover, if the applicant proposes to trench within the dripline of a mature oak tree, a tree permit will be required. On these matters,the applicant is advised to work with the project planner in the Community.Development Department. -4- File#DP993043 Conditions of Approval AD VISOR Y NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER.PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS,OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF TINS PER M, This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90)day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication,reservation,or other exaction required bythisap-p"*r o- ved pe'-nm't,-begi*ns on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District,East Bay Municipal Utility District, and San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. cAwpdoc1dp993043.coa RD\ -5- a 00 .,, - � •� t�,z Via? �,� � ... ___....._.... _ �„� 400© O • Z •• ' ------------- ifti '•\ to 40 co Awa l . "w+....._ ' ' • •' •�• t jf 1.11 Ole lk 40 Vk 4r Ilk M Qin•• ;� •, {_ i {� +• •'� 'r.. V _ a t I � baa � •' ' -♦ (� "Sr ,,,�,r •�,� � , 1.', / j I �- �! � •`�'�►• �E. �j, /,• • rot , f/ w. �"+ a• • f r �.l `�, a ; ..'."', f) t w•. f i` i 1•s'.i tI CIO IL t�kl.../ a ♦/ Al K 64 .._. -Wet- Hit Hi � •.t •�..•-•,,� •,,•: •, ' J .i:' ;fir Is r JI qtr • ,�� �•f;Jit% ' � � •� t � � '�+ ` �. � `-•',�'��"�•- • - a • ! p. ,,,,•j r Agenda Item#2 Community Development Contra Costa County_ SAN RAMON VREGIONALPLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,June 21.2000 7:30 v.m I. INTRODUCTION RICHARD COSCA (Applicant), BILL BONETTE&RICHARD COSCA(Owners),File #DP993043 -A request for approval of an amendment to the Shadow Creek Manor(aka Bettencourt Ranch)Final Development Plan to eliminate pad grading and modify development restrictions as applies to a hillside residential lot(Lot 48 of Subdivision 7279)The site is located at#520 Bourne Lane in the Danville area. (P-1) (ZA: U-19)(CT 3551.03) (Parcel#220-840-012) II. SUN04ARY OF REVIEW In an effort to soften the view of this site from off-site perspectives,the original approval for this project require tat eve opment of this site-provide or pa grading-far w the street elevation, and limit development to a single-story profile. The applicant feels that these restrictions are onerous. Instead,he is proposing a pier-and-beam foundation, two-story design which is located adjacent to the street frontage. At the last hearing(April 19),the Commission expressed concern that the proposed design would result in a design with excessive visual bulk,and requested that the applicant come back with revised site plans that would provide for compliance with a height standard not to exceed 26-feet in height,measured parallel to grade. The applicant has elected not to do further design work at this time,but they have indicated they are willing to accept a restriction to limit development to a 26-foot height limit. Staff has done an initial review of superimposing a 26-foot height limit on the existing residential design. It is not clear to staff that superimposing such a restriction on the existing residential design would result in a better product. Instead,it may result in a residential design that would be out-of-character with the surrounding area. Consequently, rather than approve that option as suggested by the applicant, the project should be denied. If a 26-foot height limit is to be required, then a modified house plan that fits that"envelope" should be provided prior to considering any approval. III. RECONIM ENDATION } • h r .r .■rw■o"No► i • tl s • i 0. doorm4. 1 f,, q� P- 7% �= '��'TTj��' : � �wi■� III l U �q M/ 47 71-7 T*T) 0 ri , •� , r.r 1 • Pit O T E S M** PLAN DI j ' DRAWNY t mmumm FD E G Nk-371 1 M -11-E V. J,\vll-,AVERNONVILA Arcwtect 4 5 11 ohneirt Ptark, A. 949#e 850 Collimp.;rce Blvd, R 5- - rrl-2499 s�•. s ' i .1 i 1 1 n roam 1 Y eiirVj% • 1 �yOM V A • 1 ` 1 1` 1 4 03/21/2000 TUE 16:07 FAX 1@030/056 DARWIN M YERs Also CIATE$ EW#03NUMAL RESEARCH 0 MMURMUG"01,00'Y December 29,, 1999 Mr. Bob Drake, Senior Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street,2nd Floor N_Wing Martincz,CA 94553 Subject. Geologic Review Services Contract DP993043 /Lot 48 of SD7279/Lot 424 of DP3034-88 520 Bourne Court I Cosca Parcel Danville TasSaiara Area,Contra Costa County DMA Project#3081,99 Dear Bob: The project proponent has requested a change in the approved development plan as it pertains to development of the captioned parcel. At least in part,the project proponent has cited geologic factors as justification for the request. However,the applicant has not submitted a geologic/geotechnical report. You requested that we review the information submitted and available geologic data. Based on this review,we were to provide a professional opinion on the proposed development plan request. Approach We reviewed the information submitted by the project proponent,made a site visit,reviewed pertinent published geologic mapping and reviewed two pertinent soil reports. Specifically,we reviewed information in the geotechnical report for Subdivision 7179.This report was prepared by Engeo Inc.' and was reviewed by Todd Nelson,CEG,for Contra Costa County. Additionally, we reviewed a geotechnical report prcpared by Youngdahl&Associatee for a nearby lot Investigation Participants 111c:gCologic research for this review as performed by Darwin Myers,assisted by Troy McKee- Mr. KcKee is a graduate student at San Francisco State,and his work on this project was performed in partial fulfillment of a engineering geology course requirement. 14e gathered data, made telephone calls and provided me with the data gathered and some notes providing' observations,comments,opinions. I analyzed the data and prepared this review letter. Consequently,I have sole responsibility of the analysis and recommendations. 1 Engeo Inc.,#AGcotcdmical Exploration,Bettenwurt Rancb,Contra Costa County,Cat'llronliOL" r3ageo Job 0 N9-2C20-BI (report elated April 17,1989). 'Youngdahl&Associates,I 11c..."Geote4ho 1cW Engineering Study for Shadow Crcck Manor Lot 45,Bourne Lane,Danville,California." Y&A Job#99131 (report dated June 1999). 1308 PINIE STREET E MARTINEZ, C*A 94553 N 925/370-9330 03/21/2000 TUE 16:07 FAX 12)031/056 Page 2 Background In 1996 the California Division of Mines&Cteology(CD11r G)published maps delineating landslide hazards in parts of the Diablo and Dublin Quadrangles(Opep File Report 86-7). This report included a series of four maps that showed bedrock geology, landslide landslide susceptibility and relative debris flow susceptibility.Two of the maps fl-Orn that set are presented in the accompanying Figures I and 2.These maps have been enlarged from the publishod scale Molls Of 111=2,000'to 1 It 12000'. Figure I indicates that landslide deposits of v ^ types occur in nearly every drainage swale in the project vicinity. The site,however,appears to be just outside the slide areas. Using the density of landslide deposits,steepness of slope,engineering properties of the bedrock and otherfactors,the CDMG preparod a relative slope stability map that has four categories from Area I (most stable)to Area 4(least stable). Figure 2 places the site in relative slope stability"Area 3". As the explanation for Figure 2 indicates,this area is described as"generally susceptible area!'(i.e., it is marginally stable and likely to be sensitive to grading). W In 1989 Engeo prepared a landslide map of the site and made recommendations pertaining to site grading,drainage and foundation design. Their report also referenced a previous geotechnical investigation of the site performed by Hallenbeck&Associates(1997, 1998)? The Engeo landslide map was issued at a scale of 1"=200'. Figure 3 presents the northeast portion of the map at a scale of 1"=250'. The site that is the subject of DP993043 is shaded and labeled. The map indicates that the property is on a bedrock nose that is flanked on the northwest and southeast by landslides that are designated#3 and*4, respectively- Table I presents a summary of these landslides,along with details of other slides in the vicinity of the site. Evaluation In summary, landslides were given consideration in the design of the subdivision and remedial earthwork for the subdivision. no building site on the subject parcel was approved by the County because it is outside of the slide area. The conditions of approval of the Final Development Plan imposed specific grading-related standards on the subject parcel, some of which were not based on geotechnical factors. Specifically,CC A#21 of DP3034-99 required that"'the pad elevation for Lot 424 shall be 100 feet vertically below the ridgeline(to about 912- foot elevation)." This condition of approval appears to have been intended to prevent the residence on the lot from being silhouette ette on the skyline,and to retain the ridgecrest as open space that is visible from vantage points within the development. Because the lot is relatively narrow(approximately 150 feet of frontage on Fleetwood Road),and because the lot has a natural slope of 30 to 50 percent,the applicant has 'Indicated it will be HalIcnbeck&Associates. 1987. "Geotechnical jensincering investigation,nettencourt Ranch Property, Danville,California." Prepared for Braddock and Logan Associates. Hallenbeck&Associates,1991. "Soil Investigation Along East Property Linz,Bwencourt Ranch Adjaccat to Shadow Creek. DARWIN MYERs AMCIATES a.uts 10 U7 r'AX 0032/056 r 1 ;L 'age 3 Table X SUhEMLARY OF LANDSLIDE CONDMONS i•S•+•S•i-{. }a,n{+.ai++•"••t-�}tt}+N -.01 .0; SYv{}rb `r{S+A.ACwreS#•{Sa}aD+.#. •'vS+ ,••-----•Fv-•1 •4.4-.1 n.-• �,• M�MA�► wwwrlv..�1.•Y#4.Srr•l------ ww++►+ry •vwvar►dvw•aw.x•rar••.rwrh -av•A•••••}••.a•h{•a••}h.S•S a•vv# 7 ' • M MY11 MMJWOM.MMW/�.:.fee /YVrMAP--WIP rMN.•b•4r04,44 Ar M•Ati•�. r.h.}a!S ra••a rr Sa..,var..}i"-{ .moi} ♦+�„i ' kY•44OQOM•#4r�@►{ #+abQ•*W0-0{•"}`�r'S..y..t.'}{>#r r r....�•yC `- .+.i-'"{..-a}.p_,5,,. w�h.•}.•.•..y► ,qy. i�� •P .D+w.vwww.w•wr• v.r4+,►.!�....}.era y.• •roti•r' va'vlr{ra i `.'s'�rwti.wh.whl4 1t.rv• ••.wvCw•dr• "Oj(-rv{r}v r•r.r+G V•�wrr.r.rri }r- v�•t r r•i• •i•-M igny+ti . r•!01••? SM. <: #w..4r.t•r}Gw•'+.nGr •SMOv.wr 11•,yam# r r •+D6'.0• tirMt?MrM+�40ti•# I IEF 400 100 -is Most o f slide matC'aW will Pro�vidc n debris b�at toe bac cut out. of slam-RO nor MI P,I ming unstable tog,ins�l sabdrasn along silt~ 2 IEF;AS(lower 700 200 20 -- Filling at the toc will add Remove all active slide portion) stability. debris.Provide kcyways and subdrrains. 3 COLL;IEF S00 150 15 — Filling at the tax will add R=ovc all slick mtmial stability. Filling of the and cotluvit m.Provide head ofslidc will reduce kcywsys and subdraim. stability. 4 IS 300 200 20-25 Test boring 32H Filling on the slide could Provide a keyway along reduce stability. property tine and remove all slide material 5 ISF 160 200 30 Tcst boning 36H Filling on the slide will Provide a keyway ac toe of reduce stability. proposed fill.Remove all slide material below roadway and pmvidc debris bench an Dili side of roadway. 6 IEF;AEF 400 200 15-20 Boring 35H FillinS on the slide will Provide a keyway at toe of reduce stability. proposed fill.Remove all slide material below roadway and provide debris bench on u hill side of croadwa at ; I E F =Inactive Earth Flour AEI` =Active Eatth Flow ISF =Inactive Slump Flow AS =Active Slide CALL =Colluvium - Source: Engeo('1989). extremely difficult to construct a driveway on the hillside that complie.�with County s�ndax�ds .and which meets the expectations of the San Ramon FPD. It should also be recognized that the COO#21 references a pad elevation. Given that steepness of the natural slope(30 to 50 percent),the lot is poorly suited to construction of a paid. Moreover,COA#16 and##18 impose standard are that are applicable to Lot 424 and Which assume/demand a padded Ion. These COA's are presented below; 16 Unless otherwise specked below, lots under IOs 000 squat-e feet to area shall be governed by the.R-6 zoning district with respect to allowed use,structure height, number of storms and rninimurri setback requirements. Each lot shall provide for a minimum i'wo ►-streetpar'king spaces. The minimuan,,,front yard setback shall be 20feel from the face to curb or, if there is a sidewalk then from the back ofAe sidewalk for a side-entry garage, the minimum fret yard setback shall be 6 feet froth behind the sidewalk or 10feet from theface of curb, whichever provides the greater setback No two-story RWIN MYERs ASsociATEs la;U0 YA1 4033/056 Page 4 elements facing the ct&b sharp be allowed in locations where less than the standard frontyard setback is authorized A&dmum 4-foot tall criblock or other decorative retah7ing wall shall be required for any sideyard slope 5feet tall or taller in vertical heigrht. A minimum 3-foot clear; level sideyard shall be provided The minimum reasonable pad depth shall be 80feet so as to providefor a functional rear yard A m inimum.I0-foot by 20-fool, level, clear,rectangular rearyard shall be provided. This rectangular area shall not be supported'by retaining walls. 18 Lots 233, 2341 263 through 265, 432 through 436 and 419 through 422 shall be restricted to single-story houses. LoU 424 shall be restricted to single-story profile. Special landscape treatment(e.g., 24"box frees)shall be provided on Lots 1361 2631 264 and 265. In our opinion Lot 424 is best suited for a custom designed hillside residence that conforms closely with the natural terrain;which collects runoff from impervious surfaces in a closed conduit that discharges into storm drainage facilities;and which has a thorough foundation investigation and appropriately conservative design recommendations. 14=ommencs ations 7. General We have reviewed the Site Plan and supporting plans prepared by Avila Enterprises,the architects for thePro"ect. The approach to development appears appropriate from a ) geologic/geotechnical perspective. If the rem elevation appears too massive to meet aesthetic expectations of the County,perhaps a photosimuMon could be required to better evaluate the effect of the project on views of the skyline ridge.Establishment of drought-tolerant vegetation behind the rear and sides of the structure would eventually soften views of the site. Construction of a"pad"should be avoided. 2. CTeotechnical lieu ort We recommend that the project be conditioned on submittal of a geotechnical report that provides specific standards and criteria to guide site grading,drainage and foundation design. The recommended COA should read as follows: At least 45 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, submit a preliminmy geology,soil, andfoundation report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance Section 9'4-4,420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvemew,grading, and building pla ns shall carry out the recommenda- tions of the approved report. This report shall include evaluation of the potential for expansive soils, mass wmilngprocessev. soil erosion and seismically-induced ground WIN MYERs ASSOCIATES 03/21/2000 TUE 16:08 FAX 034/056 Page 5 failure by recognized methods approprWe to soil conditions&woverid during subsurface investigation. 3. lirainage According to the CDMG mapping,the slopes on the site me generally susceptible to landsliding. The slopes on the site are also highly erodible(see Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, 1977). For these reasons,it is our opinion that long-term stability of the lot will be advemoly affected by conOwtion of the proposed residence unless runoff from developed portions of the lot is collected in a closed conduit and conveyed to storm drainage facilities. We are opposed to the discharge of runoff from developed portions of the site onto the natural slopes. Therefore,we recommend the following COA: I At least 45 days prior to issuance of construction permits, submit a drainage plan iV indicating how water impervious surfaces a to be collected and conveyed to Vorm drainage favi fities within SD7279. Vie plan shall'be subject to review and approval of the.Planning Geologist- 4. Grading and Foundation Plan To date we have no seen foundation or grading plans for this project. We recommend that these plans be prepared by the applicant's consulting team,based on the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer, The plans should include a colored cut/fIll map;accurate cross-sections that extends from the roadway to a point downslope from the project(showing existing grade Juld proposed grade; estimated the volume of earthwbrk(cubic yards)-9 and details of the foundation design elements(Le.,piers,subdrains,retaining walls,grade beams). We anticipate that the project will generate surplus material that must be removed from tho site (e.g.,stripping cannot be used in engineered fill;placement of fill on steep slopes is difficult;and expaiisive soils and bedrock may not perform.satisfactorily over the long term in a 2:1 slope)_ What is the volume of this material and where will it be taken? These are project details that could be incorporated into a condition of approval. We trust this letter provides the evaldation and comment csted, Please call if you have any questions. XJ ik D Y Sincerely, i W-DAMaN Alf A u u u Tub IU:08 FAX 16035/056 t En coo 4of 4F •, . _ 1 . ♦ • 1•N \ y f E•, r • � ,�; •' -♦ •+► AL U2 00 s ' r'♦ + I co . � � � �-. � + • �• 16 as e { �1 ,/ .. Lo r • � +/rte- �ti,� (� � r .�. 1 ! ti .s+tom• �'• ..+'+•• f f +.. qA t til vp .�i 00,r ASL a 46 V4 go 1p * j I i q %a aI L �• •�► Y tl �• At i W! •■ ;r; Y i si+■ Q 10 ■ '.K`w '$ •y. ' a. r, l Le MW 400 W. 40 ..l S' •441• ' i �� 3 !+►iV r i i r■ �! i ' 4 C y S ,rMPG a G ■ Ia " i 4A Z *+"dw a u+ ■C ��+4i A 20 D ,..!► Z r 'O ~ !w 1/ • � ri ii ■ Z .moi ._ij ri w P,+ Y V_ r i•-6 C Lr M r+� as-wo 4 0 40 rd .,, ■v �, •.V •• y ',O y Q ■!o am mr to An an a 'go wb • n : ■w$eS w b • moi. ■ tswu �,r=sk o.10 41 k42 24 ar- -�! ♦ +r ayi it d "� . �••�a ~i Y w ■ it 4 • m s C ri i Nd 4 +� Y i+i�O y ! ■+�i r * i 0 4P M •� r r. Y• w■w /w .I!! r� rQ -M S p C i o■ • .�.Yri '■ ■ Z V ,■� Z ■ C wi a�'ll'i ��y ■ ■ �C^Y�• � �.•iw � all • V$� �•M P Ir �+ 40 Y If �• N» y r I # r■ i +•ni�a +�3-�.•i-f i• �•■11.1 var ci-r 1UUU 10:09 FAX 16036/056 a ,� • 4 . - ,a� % on ! _ or 16 Coo efol jp cm in a s •+ .. :j �...i a i r t rr _ a le jj s,'► IR r'• ~ a f e Obdbw a or 41 OWNIIh dO -. am• f � f r� �- � t�• �-may + r r •� '_ if _ a If � r IQ It 'I lot age 14-bl""aZzlef z3va an 9 a in so moo JP. Pb . = a i r1w As a i 3 q _ r w�1iyIP d Its Ekr� r!! 10.5.24p 43 V4 .g .. i- v .�■ 4 r vat s: M k61� 1:;.Its all l illwqpd a ,r,� pf `, Q`y��■ godM �a� ~ri * ■ ; Y Ml� Y■ �j�� a. ■ 4 U Y 'w �. • IN An aM •i aIww w.0 i !■i>wY Yr eFxv b 4..-44 22 x i we �a�' i■�I Y -d 1112 41 x 41 04 vu a AS a 1A am we 46 IN If 1•. ai a~■ r 'v i i Y Y '�b'�Y ;� ■ ram!!��1+1!� "d Q w V■�A ft All V C. �• iil ■i ■• S■s� 0 of i'4 q� sail i� ■ ~ a 41 -.aho a "+..a� ria + �ily�, �w•Ad ■ �i ' .,priisi�. �•,�i 46 AN 3At 41 4 $ i ~i i i �7 .�a al ait '■q -4 ■ +" MR■w i ■.r"d,w ■alr+�i Y +�r• .l w�*ad; AN X11 i i•/ Y i Ls r i Sal .� -4 i 9t jo .05 it w ^ ro SII 4 a Una rip an i4' OPP A JO 11v lb4b S q a ,r, 4 ,rAli, 4D .. r ow Is Ir cn er LU w LU 40 uj ac NL th th 9) CIO W us to IN r.� � t�r • F f �� r i II s ~ i ! • a r + Y+ / I .�f �// /yam � r, r��► �•.. r..., ...i -• ,a�y�.`,'�•up.'7•..., h '."Sh ` ,�v .r�� ,it'L�r1 `;r�i r..� "+� �L.'.� - .:. N, :t. Y;•, a .i-',jy`rs'.h1Cr'.;rty`c; ".•�+,.• i t .rr., •w'"'a. r �';!. '4'•'1� :4 ..F J l!• t; .� n,. .. ..nm.:'.tr'- �:� •4Rr..•. �O +� .�.rJ.. r-.!:}�T4 L,�'�EE1y'' .,�x�-r -( .� -f,•,. :�..*�, r» � tom• ,;,�`,,n. K+ti �',' �► .�4..rte .r~»ti"�J1�3�4�tyw, .?; ►b,t..Z.r r: ..vy .� ' "�• '�"t ��.3ti;sy �'� r:.'O `'+=. �{"� w 'fr/�-j r �': ..�j �, -.w .X+Rf. : '+. �-.l'�� ��� ` i i �Yi .,' � +'�`'t #.• 'moi: b. .�� .. .r4+L�» h':.r �. ,' � `-'�,".`1�j_ :;•`'.t,..,� .... ,� .�.�rr;''"'`. M v. 3 Y .�r .. ♦ - .,;_.: t .. :. ��._ far r,,jr •. i .. y.� �..,� ,w r-rt r+ �»!i{1�" t. -�' -va �„� � ,�' L. '•i.o. 'r'"S.'�''•�Ac i K k 4 �� � r"r,, } � �..N s� ,;t�'�;.�,*` . ATO 33ar ENB�tttli 'Y,� �s qtr ` •�s ;3� w a+a. v+ Ore ci Somme"Oust at *Now �ro�ses�+rr + 3346 aw aw 40c�e(c +� Jim { At tts � y 3 no rAll = 3t 3 1 � M � � 1 «► t� �► � ty r t C4401) �y '7 r &jO#jEV LAKE CT GOAD CT .. R� • � CREEK GT . WA ss�cEAK.�' t fou {,+�;= .t.ti.�rMr ti;.j' .,+ T•'''; "' r•t ''+,T',_b,Ir t•`;::�y t«; .��y'�,,��,, ,,�, ,M�► CREEK GT�'�,.aNAOC?W CREEKDOW _ . •.. •XXL ��,� �..-• ~ i:tz �-0_s ��a'4r�•.+-•`-,�+. �f�Aij•• - � v J; "•� "'�.� ;ur�'�•-•••'-'��•'�„ �.. ''f iI� 't -N �` rte•' "`Ty fit- •`; N t s s OSES G + �• aw 114►tr*a .�o2�suc+�swr.es��rt .•trwMswwy►s +7►T (�Q ws x art w v t.r E e $bit lt7"f—t�bDti.�'Tf t:?"w,rai5 Tw (,,,�• saY4 62ia* 1r0aa61ra+.00 -Ma. *01624 o0* wo +011 i22Ms c" ro �h t� • ,S �! 3 GOD LL } LL toi 101 10iol !� i✓i.� �i■�ii}iiii `` - � �f s.�'��4� t•�+R' �1 I o i +� f i x' 1 t V f r s • - -a: ctarglax r , r �.rd. shad 1 b •prpvided. -Thi s rectangular area shal I not b rxa by.:mita in wa. s: ._ .+ s '. Liu 1 Q less c�erwz se s eci f i ed bel ow� Ybts p 10,000 square feet i n ares. shall be governed by the R-6 zoning district with respect to allowed use, structure height, number of stories and minimum setback requirements. Each r.. . 1 of "shall provide.for a minimum two off-street parking spaces. 0. �;'h nsmtum .frontr,yard se'bliack..sbal 1+ be-207feet from the face to curb or %.i rt 6 e. is a si dewal k, then from the back of the sidewalk. For a `side--eht'ry -garage, the minimum front yard setback shall be 6 feet from behind. the sidewalk or 10 feet from the face of curb, -whichever provides the gr*bater-setback'. No two-story el ements facing the curb shat 1 be .al.lawed iii. lo'catigns where less. than the standard front yard setback is • ���rized:._ _.... Maxiiriu-ni 4-foot tali" eeiblock or other decorative retaining wail shall be required for any sideyard slope 5 feet tall or taller in vertical height. A minimum 3-foot clear, level sideyard shall be provi t ed. The minimum reasonable pad depth shall be 80 feet .so as to provide for a functional, rear yard. A minimum lO-foot by 20-foot, level ,. cl ear, rectaingul ar. rearyard shall be provided. This rectangular area shall not be supported by. :retai ni ng walls. 17. Th•e. Zone ng Administrator shall review and approve the individual site plans,` Tandscapi ng,' design and architecture. Special cons i derati en shall be given to rear elevations facing south and east in order to mitigate visual impacts .(the architectural design shall be similar to a front elevation under such circumstances) . Special arch itecturalflan.dscape treatment and review of lot 136 is required- pri-dr- to- issuance of a building permit. The residence on thi's lot should serve as, a design element for the project and contribute to the community muni t YidentitY _ Perimeter fencing shall be limited to open, wrought iron fend.ng. In •addstion to review of the standard constructs on drawings, a perspective of the proposed develo ment shall be provided as viewed p j from the access road.near lot 93. i Except for Lot 157, a minimum 15-foot (rear or sideyard, as appropriate) b } se . t ack shall be observed for all residential al structures along the • perimeter of the 8ettencourt Ranch property. If lot 1.57 is retained, a 10 foot minimum setback from the Tassaj ara Estates property shall be observed. SPECIAL LOT CONSIDERATIONS 18. Lots 233, 234, 263 through 265, 432 through 436 and 419 through 422 shall .be restricted to single-story houses. Lots 424 shall be restricted to single-star rof 1 e. Sped al 1 andscaoe treatment (e.g. , 4" box trees s a be provided on oftlots 136, 263, 264 and 265. 9 IL ''('• •;,,,,�:;,,,, ..+fi''IO�/�'!`�`bT i'' r't mss", _ `.,,•s�Y tom!,+..�:."'° '.",..``��,1� ��1�2��.,,��i•�.t�'�r�,r" _!`�-..!'�''"�+i-'�♦,� ••t. '` ...wus: _ ^-..ep a..r 4y ���1.C` % -Y• tF j1 ��.a:�+,�,+� •,N''.i��--,�,,.••,,,- _ 1. •fLw�++:�r�'='L_ a��+�3�� �,.. � l�•�t]�',��,•�t/ ,�P `^''�:•-•J 1 _ .4.Yom'.a`.y"\•.�._ -�'�'!'V�,,�_� w��~- �..,.;,� �`••.� r >��•f {`\y�J f J 1�r� t[t '..,,'.�``•. ��`\",1rr '1•+trw. 11�•:`1y,-+'1.�. +! .�•�j�.. _�., I M�, 4'tj �ayV��J�l.' _... 1 �i r r .`+Y !'� '�•+.,.r•-1.r'�,.� ^�..,��� ���y� +^t��aw.,,� �� j t" �� '•�`�Y� r� 4�-� �.``�•` < '?' r."•`. a►..�..,�'•►� "►-' ,"`.r � ���,i�"���+,TCA tEri »^+ r I t /jiff jJF I•'/-..�""_''`',"''•r'�f ♦"� ��•'�'F�.'-•w.,�^1 r �....,,t �,�..,'�..:..�" 1� a wC�.i�._ •.,�,�"'-t`�,!"4r•� f+1• .a+^"" ,.. - � "�•.•:'- I"���' i,f'ti• f'.�sp5�..�.."„r►�`..�•.�.i,.�,,,,•�, \ .ra t!.r-."\'Sw;� — rt s✓A�'.r�nr,�r�.e$ J.fl�..��� / ,,r/f �'„r..✓" _ •.rte. .��''..�.`���"` #'yr+� s�s '+"` ..:"�"�.1�.i Y �' � "''r"��►�.-.aa��►�i„�_—:— ��' ��j+'+/1r+�'s•< f � �_"' /. .� .�' ` ': `'�"'`1. '` �'- "'^.,,'„ 1�y �.... �� ,I �U:'.T.•�,.►f f.� ~'� I/r"`'"'`%'ti✓ /�^._...,\\�'��;� �� �(�((,�r N Fw r�� a +�C'ti`y!l} �_� ti `4•�/�Ir !1. �.r+►�Mli+o_+�' j \.,` r�/r ! w �_ �►i / t` ti�Y J.i a r;ypy'� ♦ z'}�►Q ` y � �.' ` /��` ��`J •-^�!.. r liV ,jfltll• .1�7-t � / I'j_,�/�r'��/I�''r'� .1J ��t S► A� :! •���a\��. � ,wwwrr��•r'�''�'�n J ��:� ��\•�y,�'+!�`► ..�� ,� �.1<�'r !t�► / {1 Rt���I' r/,� * j 4 iwy ,`0,• �."'�i• ,`,�'�rf 1��+�,+•,�. ``V. r,.,-��a ,,..,t;•y� v .'tea,, J�r � �� j ! �f ��� I��I,�� i�� 4�j�•'_ •r'�'�,�:� Rf � //y/�. i +► „}�` �'1/�t'y"-'�`-�.•: ..��r+.f�,+�r►1�.�i.-� .. �.. ,S. r. .�`'Y9: '�+M.. bi1��:�� i✓ /' I S� � 7 �S !•��• i 1p. � /�'�'*,L� !� -'K'�` �.�,�,1��_�"' f�..�.,,� Ir, t it r."✓f t ` �S .� 1A ,j y/ ` + ♦ rte � r� i,•'i� � "'.-.�M'!aSll� `►s,� i,`: �sG`"`..;,•1�'"�-.•�'� � �', ff l( �,/� r' ` �L f. � y 1:,7 !!4�.a�' ./T ,s,i't� rad, � ryt; rr., ,,;•:.:! y !! 'T �Y � `11r I � - � .i�t" �,,,/l-Fr.'' 1,"�r� P.Z,y, R� fl.,t b fT-ti+ +�t �,� -�+• f •�Suw ? - }w .f!• - ,.'F ' F/.y , t ��..r:`'',+I,f t '..ra j�•r„ �tCG.;�.f{�`r#.may~"' ., � Qy to ':-1'�' ��� �,� � � �-'�:-,' ;;�•.s '�". s".lt 1 r � wed/ "cy �� \ ,,� ' dry'' � • , � �r'� +, f � � � •,.s'.!awzrit►'� W -` i r RAP '�►. ..,.. 'moi •. __�, ,a LIT S r dr .rte � / . '�' �; •• dv WAN T \ • • � tri ..•--'�-.'-". . �� .,� .a"t �• ':moi " rr, f ,•V T ��f� � v •• �!�^t;. 1""' �rA • Zol tom: �C 1`� •c: r t'. v,w z '9N l�-•..-W�� �.`r ".rJr 'ir ✓�a� '^iF<rr��^•i�1'w�� ...Sf`i I i- r' S � ��'A.f JvA r . a�aJ, 1 �� { +rf f ., fr V,� [.' •gf4.f'i .a� G �.•" t Y+11..K. t/' '�p t ��. �t��r�'1:� � '1'."•�-„•'t�.lf�S'a. .-a 4�, :-•.Z.'.`y'�a,a++.Q.--:cam'i f 'S ^r -”t�, •�j �a � � -tea \ 1.i. �!' �' r•T,1•r1/.• fa e.Y �,•+-"� ♦'..'.s+� ��s-"�-�.� �,��Z..' i.,..�;..+�... ( ��J!''L'n�_+ !! 'Ir �.err 4 • '�Lz�'r"'"'°Cv-,'�-'.a ,.,` R t,' y�:..+i ;.r'�,'•,,r'J-'�, +' j/f t..,,;j.�'{ -�.✓` �> 1 �, �- .'1}.. ..�-'SJ►�-.{.-_ v. . :�' 1.►V 1 i *" �- -_rc jr 1�. �), �'a 3;�► •ls. T., ''� ,��� � ,}<1',' /�'��'• +r .. i.a�' .r�,�'a-. �,1". '+' +� ` .,lt� ,! ��y �5/ ♦�tee. �,,�+►.�,,*�+•.;,r�,t.�✓.if�=r,R ��'_+�5� ^ ?i,r��'�'•►^�vy� Q.�,r.:�;JTw'-r•.FT+",Y4r��� �..`'� Y��st��i.f-, �-•`.�r•�. ,a,4,?�;y i�t�•f �,ti'��t•.� '-df'+.�,.Yd„1,�y2r�.,\� Y „!u -�t,f'•Sk, r t ✓�w��a+ P. •a�K'r- t"" t ,f'..r: �',i�.;.�15'.t•t, �rt• ayll.>,--,.,73',(��]� .1 •�tr -+e.,,t�•' `.=�t-.-a,. <�i,,, '4•'�'J'''4',"'l'.•� `�11 t. { (�;'��v�f F�.CI'$4t4'T•.v *•�•ti�'�w+�,7�,. ',yy�y:A f „+ � ,�+• �`� ♦ -��1 ,•<"- ±^ Y.'•mow_''` '+�,,,.. a+f-,r'•f�'f+i•rf r�•,� tf F .;`i� r �f.,•'^•.`iZr'.7• "�` tl,� •<YF ^^�'..!'"♦� -� '►a'�-'y•9�,,.t....cr"•:� t• ` „f•�r'G4,ryF+ .�^,�l'r ',►#I K w� yic.s'_ `�.i►' •.N,�..r�..1, �''� '�-`. t.� ,..:,y.. {.:.., h .• �1 /; '�`• +,. '.t'•r..,,a j,.- w,� _... A c ' �+�,,"� ��'��f,+�C^:�"-.Ly• .,:�.ht Yt��l ��{•1'ri', y'�"�' v�'�'_"��r t':e;e�^l %i „ •,,, "r'�:����f�"a j y(1 � .✓ f r�' y� ��'� `!J G2+`,_+,.;1":� F.,,_.. `i� '1��yt+,�r •i'{7� !-�l-Z .t` ,'a1.� ;r 1 �'fr`} ♦,!•••��.� _\j•)'�" �-,.,, �." ''��" :.r.'-:��-,r..�-.b+'r.r, ti,./. ��,�r ,1�,��nw... .�` ��� tc ', , - r L✓�"'' LY,+`.`"- 'jY�'�' i .` �� P rr_ %t ♦�f• }_,.2..r�, �� �.�-•, .� .'-'�.'F j . `�, �C+r' �� �i`_y :..�.�. f•� / �:.-l{z�.�^'^T T ".,� .�� � t.�• 1 �`J` {� rv. � "t' :�• ( .i'r:Y•� ►' ,.•y. f ice":. t � � �•n^t ',;,, Q• �. E � '�. -�ti` w _* 1 w� i'i�..�•. . r .I', �P[ t i'-d R'' ` J.'' ' :ms's".;:r,i-+J►'i_�..t ,Er""!,r +,\. cr `'4 • i`% �Tl-',I'"6 .� // :F,•s4 i<„ lS 4`.+ �' ti' 1:, �t..l {t{� i r F�.� �(�Y� ,>i�!',r t« +,J 'f�,. ."'.*+.`''•Z,c r:ri•;s`.,,,,,.`t. Y.��r, ,- "�',r����'r ., � y�,r i•t,i favi +�•`�r�'*�`-I � t ,yf b+► 3r/ 'r-1V. ': -..-'..r._ Y l"+'��'� '!• t, e, - ✓fid--'a'. �a��!{�1 � ++� ♦ Z „�cJr�,.i�� �' 9r•r,.+•r"'t•-�z {if,i •,t4. ..n'k� f+ y�'_ ,. ♦ �... 1.',.' r/F' �r_ }."h .. : - �_ -3� rj; f.•r,.j-1+fir .�•�61..��`� �,1 �,�,.tJ. 4,�i�y t .!•.�_'` `, �•..'t�f�{�. .•.t r.t t�} �r','yl���t,' � .�,�.�.�,r"•^Y/T`�.,�f, •,.`may:. t_ r;y• 1i •� � t f., r,eY y,�, w' - ,� -:`)��•,�.- '?0'r"j �y y t ..,sr-,�..:.. r. .�1 �. 1j t".'�'R ,.►''���:r�. %ti,'i' � �• •. - -• :,_�'%I 1'/f,�Li►•r�.,� .•t - � fpY,,.y��-+ -•r•�C'r'�_ 'Y. .moi •ir♦;» '�,:..✓;.r,• 'Fa,.'�y"E� z•` f�.�,�'►e'��a�t i1Pti• `t•�' L<.� y,, � � �.7'� .:�� ;;/��r.,,,b�,'^....�•r'a'�• �.-�•• • �'T*Cy' � 'Ff �, i.� a�� �j�.-��f^-r t \•'C .<.�i Sit,,,Y► '• J ��a-f,-,s fr.R'"•,`i.t--. �• �' �✓ ...�` w�'. f"' f�,. !t ', i Z�'' '~r,j 4 .r.•�.l*` t`i• �"' 7 t,)f '`�►"•-_�{r4, I a;•' ��'t L< i, +�ti.,t./�t.++t�,J�•y3,':1'-''..X!74.!',` , r ar. ,i ,+ a'-',�l• ,y;.�Y�y`. Yom,-r r`���y.�{ )�r}1�Vic' �.� .�� �, t'•�•�. -�4�y}••.T tet'•'. L. ��`c��-.;;:�;<