The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12192000 - D7 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ,. X County DATE: December 19, 2000 SUBJECT: Hearing on Report Concerning Compliance with June 13, 2000 Board Carder Concerning Improvements to Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo area), File #21998206, District III SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. Accept public testimony. B. Accept Report . C. Continue Hearing to January 23, 2001, 1 : 00 p.m. to allow for formulation of a private agreement that would resolve the concerns of the Board. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Decambar 19 , 200 PPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER ;XX SEE THE ATTACKED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION AND VOTE TE OF SUPERVISORS i HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 1 CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES. NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSEN ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drak (92 335-1214] ATTESTED_ December 19 2000 cc: Connor Bak,Tomm onnor PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Rena Rickles SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Robert McA m Aiarno Im vement Associ ' n 14'4i� , DEPUTY San Ra on Valley Fire Protect Dist., Insp. Mentink B Publ* orks Dept, Heather Balle r f U C my Counsel i8206-b.bo DEC. 7.2000 12*15PM MARGOLIN & MATCH NQ.E19 P.5/5 4 In this case, the original subdivider failed to comply with the initial conditions of approval. Mr. McAdam purchased one of the lots, with knowledge that their were issues of"unsatisfied conditions"with this subdivision, The Boardof Supervisors issued a decision (now final)setting out which conditions needy to be in compliance, The County has the authority to impose compliance with the 4 conditions (including the location of the fourth parking place) imposed by the Board as a condition of granting a building permit for Lot 8. (CC §66499,34) 3 Should the County grant a building permit without imposing those conditions, the surrounding neighbors, intend to file a Writ of Mandate preventing the County from doing so. Under the authority of People V. County of Kern, supra, the neighbors have a strong case, j It is our hope that the purchaser of Lot 8 and the developer of Subdivision 7693 can work out a plan whereby the County can issue a building permit under the above-described conditions, i I Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or wish to further discuss this matter. Very truly yours, Frena Rickles Addendum: Please note that all cases finding that that the issuance of a final map, building permits or other permits as ministerial are based upon the assumption that the developer has complied with the tentative map conditions. In this case,the Board specifically found that the developer had not complied with the tentative map condom There is no case that I know of in which a dart has held that a developer(and/or his successors in interest)who has not complied with the tentative map conditions is entitled to any further permit. Cc: Bob Drake, via facsimile and U.S.Mail Supervisors--via facsimile Clapponiy County Counsel,a*orily to Wthhold buddIng permit, 10 MonLatey 13W. :^a[I FY8S1CiSCr.7,CA 94131 Tommy A.Cotixsor tel:415.334.0877 I.Tis:oil,y Bala' fax 415.334.9877 Alto alnitteA to rrakllce itr Nevacn assail: tounnp��acssnscr—ls��,t:cEss Decennber 13, 2000 By Facsimile and IS,Class U.S. A1ail Robert H. Drake Principal Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 pine Street 4't' Floor,North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: Subdivision 76 931T ingset Place Dear Mr. brake: This letter summarizes Mr. Gingrich's proposal for the resolution of all claims by,and contentions of, David Ciapponi and John Yandell; and Thomas Gingrich's contention that the Board of Supervisors exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing its.lune 13,2000 Board Order. Mr. Gingrich incorporates here his November 29,2000 letter to Mr. Drake—a copy of which accompanies this letter as Exhibit A. -Without waiving,and specifically preserving, the arguments set forth in Exhibit A, Mr. Gingrich requests consideration of the following settlement offer. Mr. Gingrich-will: 1)consent to the relocation of an on-street guest parking space from the hammerhead to a portion of laud situated at the northeast comer of lot 5; 2)grant a nonexclusive easement in favor of each lot within the subdivision to this lanai for put-poses of guest parking consistent with the CC&Rs, as amended. 3)grant access to lot 6 for the purpose of regrading the stupe at the boundary between lots 6 and 7; and 4)grant access to lots 5 and 6 for the purpose of grading and paving an area sufficient for five cuff-street parking spaces on lot 5 (see item 5 below) and six off-street parking spaces on lot 6. In exchange for the above, all parties agree to the following: I. At Mr. Ciapponi's expense his engineer,Thomas Ruark,shall prepare a grading and drainage plat?(including but not limited to an appropriate diagram of the area to he graded and specifications regarding slope,elevations and compaction)consistent with the standards of the trade for an area et compassing the slope running downhill from lot 6 to lot 7, and shall stake 10: 1/ C(JYtner tsaK L-t-w 441ozs`S44_IOcarI LLP Robert H. Drake �C)Nlvl R , 1� December 13,2000 Page two the area to be graded. The purpose of the work is to control runoff and to regulate the drainage in the area,and to obliterate any and all remnants of the pre-existing paved road in the area. The actual grading work shall not commence unless and until Mr. Gingrich has approved the plan, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. 2. At no expense to Mr. Gingrich,Mr. McAdams shall cause the grading referenced in paragraph l above to be completed consistent with the applicable plans and specifications and the standards in the trade. For this and all other work called for in this agreement,the party performing the work shall issue the respective property owner(s)a certificate of insurance and an additional named insured endorsement. The party providing the work also warrants to keep the property free and clear of any liens or encumbrances,and to defend and indemnify the owner against any and all claims for personal injury and/or property damage. 3. The parties to this agreement agree that the CC&Rs,as amended,were properly enacted and the sank are binding on all owners of lots within the subdivision. Mr.Ciapponi agrees to remove any and all vehicles from the guest parking spaces at the hammerhead,and to park his personal vehicles in one of the six off street parking spaces located on his lot. Mr. Ciapponi also agrees to remove any and all signs installed by him or at his direction. All such cars and signs shall be removed immediately upon the effective date of this agreement. 4. At no expense to the other parties to this agreement Mr. Gingrich to design and construct a retaining wall along, the frontage of lot 6. Mr. Gingrich shall comply with all applicable ordinances and shall secure all required pennits, if any, for such work. Theparties to this agreement shall not object to this work, At no expense to Mr. Gingrich, Mr. McAdam shall cause an area on lot 6 designated by Mr. Gingrich and sufficient f©r six off-street parking spaces to be graded and paved(or covered with another road surface material of comparable expense). Such work shall be performed consistent with the standards in the trade. 5. At Mr. Ciapponi's expense his engineer,Thomas Ruark, shall prepare a map depicting the portion of lot 5 as designated by Mr. Gingrich on which an off-street parking space shall be located. The area shall be approximately 28 feet wide and not more than 8 feet deep. "l'he orientation of the parking;space shall be determined after consideration of the area needed for and the appropriate location of driveways on lots 5 and 6,the groundwater well located on lot 5 and the slope running downhill fronx lot 5 to lot 4. Such work shall be performed consistent with the standards in the trade. This"on-street"parking; space shall also count as one of the six off-street parking spaces to be constructed on lot 5. 6. At no expense to Mr. Gingrich,Mr. McAdam shall cause an area on lot 5 designated by Mr. Gingrich and sufficient for a driveway to and placement of five additional off- street parkin, spaces to be graded and paved(or covered with another road surface material of comparable expense). Such work shall be performed consistent with the standards in the trade. A+.6 Z>.} r .v.:.ir ONN R BAK LLP Robert H. Drake December 13,2000 Page three 7. At no expense to Mr.!Gingric:h,Mr. McAdam shall cause the portion of lot 5 referenced in paragraph 5 above to be graded and paved consistent with the existing roadway, and shall install curbs consistent with the existing curbs and as designated on the map prepared by Mr. Ruark. All such work shall be performed consistent with the standards in the trade. The work shall not commence until Mr. Gingrich has approved the snap referenced in paragraph 5, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. 8. The parties' anticipate that the extension of the hammerhead to accommodate an additional on-street parking space shall reduce the setback of the existing guesthouse located on lot 5, requiring a variance. At no expense to Mr. Gingrich, Mr.'McAdam shall prepare those documents required by Contra Costa.County to secure a variance. The variance shall apply to the existing structure—whether or not altered for other permissible uses and/or replaced by an otherwise permissible structure so long as such alteration and./or replacement structure does not further reduce the setback--and shalt run with the land. Approval of the same by the Zoning Administrator arid, if required, the Board of Supervisors,is a condition precedent to this agreement. 9. lot 5 is a nonconforming,lot. At no expense to the other parties to this agreement Mr. Gingrich shall prepare and file the documents accessary to secure a lot line adjustment between lots 5 and ti such that list 5 will conform to existing ordinances. The parties to this agreement shalt not object to 1'v'fr. Gingrich's application. Approval of the sane by the Zoning Administrator and, if required, the Board of Supervisors, is a condition precedent to this agreement. 10. The parties to this agreement shall use their best efforts to secures approval from the San Ramon Fire Protection Division for signs. as opposed to and to the exclusion of, painted curbs. At soca expense to Mr, Gingrich, Mr. McAdam shall secure and install approved signs ��,herex and as designated by the. Sari Ranson Fire Protection Division, and shall stripe the on- street parking spaces as recommended by Mr. Ruark and approved by Mr. Gingrich,such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, IL Messrs. Yandell and Ciapponi withdraw the=ir appeal to the Zoning Administrator's approval of Mr. Gingrich's application to relocate an on-street parking space. 12. Messrs_ Yandell and Ciapponi and the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors expressly agre,:that Mr. Giugrich's application was not intended to and did not constitute an application to amend the final map, and Mr. Gingrich's vested rights are in no way altered or abridged by the proceedings following submission of such applications. Upon Mr. Gingrich's satisfaction of his performance as required by this agreement and, if his performance is rendered impossible by the conduct of others or events beyond his control, all parties to this agreement withdraw their request for special notice. CC�1 NER + B kl,', LLP Robert H. Drake December 13, 2000 Page four 13. All parties agree that Mr. McAdam's performance as required by this agreement small be conditions to his building permit for lot 8. Contra Costa County agrees not to require any inspections"under floor"with respect to Mr. McAdam's construction of single-fatuity residence on lot 8. 14. Messrs. Yandell and Ciapponi withdraw their objections to Mr. McAdam's pending application for a building permit on lot 8, and agree to use their best of orts to secure the withdrawal by all other objectors of their prior objections. 15. In order to insure compliance with any such final agreement the parties shall agree to the inclusion of expedited binding arbitration on tentrs designed to resolve speedily any and all disputes regarding;implementation of the agreement and/or performance issues. The parties will select a single arbitrator prior to execution of the agreement. Issues in dispute will be placed before the arbitrator within ten days of any issue arising for which one or both parties seek a ruling Q-typically on the gapers alone but, if requested by the arbitrator,site inspections followed by oral argument may be required. The arbitrator shall determine briefing schedules where necessary.and shall issue rulings within five days of receipt of all papers and/or argument requested by the arbitrator. The American Arbitration Association's rules regarding small construction disputes shall otherwise apply. By copy of this letter to Ms. Rickles and Arcs. Silver we request their respective clients' approval of the above. By copy of this letter to Mr. McAdam we request his approval of the above. Upon our receipt of notice of approval by all parties we will prepare an appropriate agreement for execution by all parties. As indicated above,approval of this agreement by all of the parties is a condition precedent to every aspect of the agreement. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincereiy yours, Tommy A. Conner cc. Diana J. Silver Rena Rickles Robert McAdams E.ft-3 C; A..3-a VtJ A: 3.4-5 t..+Ur1i'VWr1 csaLrc L-L-t- COPY F a. CoN,NT-, � • Bti < LLP 10 1� ra c lC ��Saoe�ixtiqct, 'A 94131 Tommy A.Conner tel:415#334-0877 J. 1'in,nfl,q Bak' lax:415*334-9877 Also admitted tn pratAke 4„Nevada <a? November 29,2000 By Facsimile and I.r'Class U.S. mail Robert H. Drake Principal Planner Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 fine Street 4"' door,North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 Re: Subdivision 76931JVingset Place Dear Mr. Drake: We represent Thomas Gingrich and his family with respect to a number of private disputes between the developer and the purchasers of developed and undeveloped parcels in the subdivision, I have called your office several tunes,and left messages whenever your mailbox was less than full. The purpose of the calls was to develop an understanding of the County's actions to date. and the legal basis for such actions. Given the lacy of a response 1 have elected to write. On November 24, 1991 the Board of Supervisors granted the developer's request for a major subdivision subject to certain, conditions. On January 9, 1996 the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors resolved that the improvements in Subdivision 7693 were completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement with KGB Development Company. On recommendation of the Public Works Director the Board found that the improvements satisfactorily met the guaranteed performance standards, and authorized the Director to refund the balance of the developer's cash deposit. In short,the Board determined that the developer met the conditions of approval. In the following years a number of private disputes arose,most recently with respect to Lot 8. The owners of bots 7 and 9 have strong feelings about the development of Lot 8, and they have demonstrated a willingness to use the permit process to further their goals. They have raised a number of issues regarding the subdivision.and recently appealed the Zoning Administrator's administrative approval of the developer's request to relocate an on-street parking space within the hammerhead turnaround at the top of Wing-set Place. Wingset Place is a private road. LJ*a - L_% vv L 4 i "L-t— st!M.s.16X tot: ,Z a r.a�✓ CONNER • BAK LLP Robert H. bake November 29,20013 Page two We recognize that the Board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity with respect to permit appeals, and believe that the individual supervisors intend to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with their authority. We are confused,however,by the Board's recent actions. We understand that the Planning Department has consistently asserted that the developer is obligated to seek a permit from the County in order to resolve a private dispute with the owners of lots 7 and 9 regarding on-street parkin;at the hammerhead, and that in response to this directive the developer applied for a porn-tit to relocate one on-street parking space. In response to an appeal of the Zoning;Administrator's approval of the developer's application,the Board issued its June 13,2000 order addressing issues neither before it nor within its jurisdiction. The Board may consider the developer's application as consent to the Beard's jurisdiction over the issues raised by the owners of bots 7 and 9. That is not the developer's intent. Rather,the developer filed the initial application to relocate an on-street parking space because the Planning Department repeatedly notified hint that he was required to do so. We respectfully disagree. By copy of this letter to County Counsel we request notice of the Jurisdictional basis for the Board's action. In the event County Counsel cannot articulate a sound jurisdictional basis for the Board's actions the developer requests that the Board of Supervisor's close this file and leave the parties to their private remedies, Please call inc if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Tommy A. Conner cc: Diana J. Silver Deputy County Counsel DEC-12- P-X33 4 e Protection District t Ramon 1500 Bolfinaer C )n Road San Ramon CA '94583 FAX/E-MAIL TRANSMISSION { DATE; 12/12/2004 TO: Bob Drake FROM: Michael Mentink FAX: 335-1222 FAX: (925) 838-6636 PHONE: 335-12.14 PHONE: (925) 838-6686 E--I1 ML: E-MAIL: mmentink@srvfpd.dst.ca.us RE: Winset dace FOR REVIEW PLEASE COMMENT El 'LEASE REPLY' Bob, Per your request here is a letter with the District's position on the dare lane markings at the subject project. �'lease let,me know if you have any questions or 1 can be of additional assistance. a Mike ` } j DEC-12-20M 09'-23 t'. a N RMN VALLEY FIR PROTECTION DISTRICT i Fire Frgventi�r Adrninistrat3c r Bollinger er Cr t"1yt321 4CJC Phone,925-888-6680 Phone:925-838-66W Sett Rtzrrl+r�t1, Ccalifornio g 3 �838-c�r�� Fox.925-888-6629 Fcx:92v December 12, 244t� t • Mr. Robert Drake � Contra Costa.Counk Community revelment Dept. 651 Pine Street 4th Atter, North W ig Martinez, CA 9453 I ' RE: Wingset Pla. e 3 s • D=Mr. Drake, � On Friday, Dec=ber 8, 2000, you left me a telephone message requesting clarification of District requireants for marking the designated fire lanes at the subject project. As you know, the roadday on Wingset Place serves multiple residences and is quite narrow. It would: be extreJiely difficult for fire apparatus to reach the area., negotiate the turnaround and operate safely without the benefit of the full 213 foot clearance required in the code. Additionliy, the fine district has conditioned the project to provide red curbs and signs from the 4kiest stages of the planning process. The enabling lan ,age for this requirement is detailed in Section 942.2..2.1 of the California Fire Cole, the section used by law enforcement agencies to enforce the parking restrictions ifor fire lanes is located in Section 225413.1 of the California Vehicle Cade. The pertinent!language in that section of the'V'ehicle Cade reads as follows: i The desigln4ion shall be indicated (1) by a sign pasted immediately adjacent to, and visible tom, the designated plaice clearly stating in letters not less than one inch in height that the place is a fire lane, (2)by outlining; or painting the place in red and, in ontrasting color, marking the place with the wards "FIRE LANE", which are cl arly visible from a vehicle, or (3) by a red curb or red paint on the edge for the oadway upon which is clearly marred the words "FTRE LANE". According to represientatives of the local law enforcement agencies, the courts interpret this language as r firing red curbs and signs, or red curbs with marls on the camas stating "Fire Lane", It is our understanding that the courts have dismissed citations issued when the,•ab�ve markings are not present and, as a result, the law enforcement agencies will not issue a citation unless all of the required markings are in place. i i { DEC-12-2eW T69-23 1 # E It is the fire distr 's opinion that unless the parking restrictions mandated as a result of approving rradws cif less than 36 feet in width are enforceable by law enforcement agencies, there is o reasonable expectation that the required clearance for emergency fire apparatus will lie available when an emergency occurs, Areas designated as fire lanes must be marked in accordance with the above language and District standards to provide a reasonable assinnee that fire apparatus can reach the scene in an emerger>,cy in a safe and timely manner.1 We ask that the community Development Department and the Board of,Supervisors continue to suppothe District's concerns by requiring the markings as described above. If you have any qu stions or if I can be of futber assistance, please telephone me at (92.5) 838-6686, Thank yu for your continued assistance in this matter. i i Sincerely, I i Michael Mentink, ire. Inspector San Rat Salle Fire Protection District 1500 Bollinger Can, on Road San Ramon, CA 94583 ' mmentinsrvfpd.dst.ca,us 3 i Y i s E i i i t l i f # Y i } TOTAL P.03 F ' FISCAL IMPACT None. Background Board Decision on Neighbors' Appeal On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors conducted a continued public hearing on an appeal of an administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator authorizing the relocation of a "guest" parking space in a cul-de-sac at the terminus of VVingset Place in the Alamo area (Subdivision 7693).. The subdivision developer (Gingrich) had filed the request to overcome an error in the Final Map and related on-street parking provisions. The Zoning Administrator had approved the request to relocate one of four parking spaces to allow access to two lots still held by Gingrich. Two residents within the subdivision (Ciapponi and Yandell) had appealed the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision to the Board. At the appeal hearing, the residents expressed concerns about other subdivision improvements they felt had not been properly implemented. After taking testimony, the Board voted to grant the neighbors' appear Instead of allowing the parking space to be relocated within the cul-de-sac bulb as had been requested by the Zoning Administrator, the Board voted to require that the parking space be relocated onto one of the lots still owned by the developer. The Board also directed that other improvements within the subdivision be completed. October Request At an October meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the appellants, a representative of the Alamo Improvement Association and a builder of one of the remaining vacant lots within the project, Robert McAdam, requpsted that the County investigate the status of the subdivision developer's efforts to comply with the 6/13/00 Board Order. The Board directed staff to investigate this matter and report back to the Board. Communication with Subdivision Developer In a letter dated November 15, 2000 staff requested that the subdivision developer provide staff with a plan for compliance with the 6/13/00 Board Order. 1. The current legal representative of the Subdivision Developer, Tommy Connor of Connor Bak, responded in a letter dated November 29, 2000. That letter indicated that the subdivision developer did not believe he was bound to comply with the specified December 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#.'18206 Page 3 improvements in the Board Order. Review of McAdam Small Lot Review Application The County is presently processing a request for a building permit involving a proposed residence on a small lot, File #DP003042, which was filed by the builder, Robert McAdam. It involves (reconfigured) Lot 8 that lies between the properties of the two appellants, Yandell and Ciapponi. Several neighbors including the appellants have requested that the County conduct a public hearing on the proposed house design. Staff has referred the house plans to the Alamo Improvement Association for opportunity to comment, prior to completing a staff report and scheduling the matter for hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The appellants have urged the County to subject the small lot review filed by Mr. McAdam to compliance with the measures specified in the June 13, 2000 Board Order. Noting that Mr. McAdam is not the Subdivision Developer, and thus in a different legal position relative to compliance with subdivision measures, staff has asked the appellants' legal counsel, Rena Rickles, for a legal authority that would allow the County to impose conditions on Mr. McAdam that do not relate to his small lot review. The documentation provided by Ms. Rickles has not been persuasive. The Alamo Improvement Association has expressed some reluctance to complete its review of the McAdam's small lot review application until it is clear that the 6/13/00 Board Order is being implemented. Staff has indicated to the Association that we have not found any legal authority that would obligate Mr. McAdam's project to the subdivision improvements being sought in the 6/13100 Board Order. Staff has urged the Association to proceed with its review of the McAdam of the small', lot review application in anticipation of staff scheduling a hearing on his request before the Zoning Administrator in the near future. Meeting of Interested Parties On Friday, December 8, 2000, staff met with the interested parties including the attorney for the Subdivision Developer(Tammy Connor), Rena Rickles, Mr. McAdam, and John Henderson of the Alamo Improvement Association. At the meeting, the parties tentatively agreed on principles that would form the basis of a private agreement for addressing the issues in the June 13, 2000 Board Order, and allowing Mr. McAdam to proceed with his project. In summary, those principles include: • Mr. Gingrich consenting to a conveyance of an easement at the end of the December 19, 2044 Board of Supervisors File#2:18206 Page 4 cul-de-sac and extending onto Lot 5 to provide an area to relocate at least one of the guest parking spaces from its current location. Mr. Gingrich would also be consenting to allow access onto Lot 6 to allow completion of the obliteration of the old driveway on his property. • Mr. Ciapponi to allow access onto his property to allow for the obliteration of the old driveway on his property (Lot 7). • Mr. McAdam consenting to perform the driveway obliteration work on Lots 6 (Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi), and to provide for the cul-de-sac parking extension improvements. The design of such improvements would have to avoid any design that would require approval of a variance (e.g., a retaining wall more than 3-feet in height within the required setback area. • The appellants withdrawing their request to the County to have the McAdam's small lot review application heard. An effort would also be made to try to persuade two other parties (Evans and Pacheco) who reside outside of the subdivision to withdraw their request for hearing of the McAdam small lot review application. • Mr. McAdam would request as part of the private agreement that the County condition the issuance of his building permit to the implementation of the off- site improvements he has agreed to perform prior to completion of the residence. • Provision for no-parking markings on Wingset Place sought by the Fire Protection District to the extent feasible. • Upon the completion of the subdivision improvements (driveway obliteration, relocated guest parking on Lot 5), the appellants would withdraw current requests for notice of administrative reviews not normally subject to public notice (e.g., request for lot line adjustment) and that the Board rescind its 6113100 directive to require notice to the appellants and others who reside within the subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions that do not normally require notice. The appellants request the Board to rescind, at this time, the provision of additional on-site parking on Lots 5 and 6 as had been directed in the June 13, 2000 Board Order. As conceived, these principles would serve as the basis for a private',agreement. The attorney for Mr. Gingrich indicated that he would need to check with his client to make certain that he was agreeable with them. Clarification of the Fire Protection District on Marking of Wingset Place At the time of the tentative map application, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District had commented on the narrowness of the proposed street, and on the need to December 99, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#Z18206 Page S restrict parking on either side for safety access purposes. The District had indicated that posting of no-parking signs as well as painted curbs would be required to meet the District standards. Therefore, the measures sought by the District have never been a County requirement (The District is autonomous.). It should be noted that the subdivision permit identified the requirements of the District under Advisory Notes, not Conditions of Approval of the County permit. Apparently, some residents within the subdivision may be more receptive to posting of no-parking signs than allowing the curbs to be painted red. In a letter dated December 12, 2000, the District indicates that enforcement of no- parking restrictions by the Sheriff's Office cannot be effective unless both posting of signs and painting of curbs. Draft Terms for an Agreement Subsequent to the December 8, 2000 meeting, Ms. Rickles and Mr. Connor have submitted their respective versions of a draft agreement. They are still being studied by staff. However, several points should be made: 1. They appear to be structured such that the County would be party (signatory) to an agreement; this was contrary to the discussions in the meeting of 1218 in which staff made clear that this would have to be a private agreement, and that the County would not be a party to it. 2. There are additional items being proposed that were not discussed at the 12/8 meeting, some involving the consent of the County to'proposals that have not been presented to staff in any detail. If these elements are retained, then from staffs perspective, the agreement will be flawed. Discussion Staff hopes that the discussions that occurred at the December 8, 2000 meeting can lead to a satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised in the 6/13/00 Board Order. Still, it is evident that the parties geed more time to formulate an appropriate private agreement. The hearing on this matter should be continued to allow the parties to finalize an agreement that would be workable for all. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.7 December 19, 2000 Agenda This is the date and time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the status of developer's compliance with the Board of Supervisor's June 13, 2000,Board Order which determined certain measures to be taken with respect to Subdivision 7693 as conditions for approving the developer's application to relocate one on-street(guest)parking space.(Wingset Place, Alamo). File#ZI 99-8206. Bob Drake, Principal Planner, Community Development Department,presented the staff report. Also present were Dennis Barry, Community Development Director and Silvano Marchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel. The public hearing was opened and the following people offered comments: Roger Smith, Alamo Improvement Association, 85 High Eagle Road, Alamo; Robert McAdam, 445 Oakshire Place,Alamo; Rena Rickles, Attorney for appellants Yandell and Chiapponi, 1970 Broadway, Ste 200, Oakland. Those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the matter. Supervisor Gerber recommended that the Board accept the report, and continue the hearing to January 16, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. to see if the parties could reach an agreement and that no discretionary permits within the subdivision be allowed because the hearing is coming up. Mr. Barry noted that the Department looked into the provisions of the Parking Ordinance with respect to Mr. Gingrich's ether remaining lot. Staff will be informing Mr. Gingrich's attorney that Mr. Barry's review of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance indicates that the County would be barred from issuing a building permit for Lot 6 as long as existing on-street ("guest")parking continued to block access to the lot. Supervisor Gerber accepted that clarification to her motion, and Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILKEMA, DeSAULNIER and GERBER NOES: NODE ABSENT: SUPERVISOR SEAT V IS VACANT AT THIS TIME ABSTAIN: NONE 193 401 014 193 401 015 193 401 016 Rocky John&Nada Dudum David& Adrienne Yarnold Scott Boliannan 250 Likely Dr * 2 Wing Set PI PO Box 616 Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 193 401 017 193 401 018 193 401 019 Jeffrey&Kathryn Oster Thomas Gingrich Thomas Gingrich 6 Wing Set PI PO Box 504 PO Box 504 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 193 401 022 193 401 023 193 401 024 John&Maureen Yandell Jr. David Ciapponi Paula Mcadatu •1 Wing Set PI PO Box 936 445 Oakshire PI Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Supplemental (Updated).Notice 193-401-005 Mark Armstrong List for File#DP983012 Breshears Eric C&Lynne M Gagen, McCoy,McMahon & Custom Homes by McAdam Dickson Donald &Elma Armstrong 12-13-00 115 Garydale Ct PO Box 218 c:\wpdoc\dp983012.lab Alamo, CA 94507 Danville,CA 94526-0218 Leo B. Siegal 133-401-006 Thomas Gingrich Attorney at Law Philip Rochelle PO Box 504 16 Waugh Road 120 Garydale Ct Alamo, CA 94507 Royal Oaks, CA 95076 Alamo, CA 94507 .Kenneth M. Miller 193-401-015 Public Works Department Morgan, Miller and Blair Ya old David A & Adrienne M INTEROFFICE 1676 North California Blvd.,#200 2 Wing Set Place Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4137 Alamo,CA 94507 Alamo Improvement Association 193-401-017 Inspector Michael Mentink PO Box 271 Oster Jeffrey L. & Kathryn S. San Ramon Valley Fire Prot. Dist. Alamo,CA 94507 6 Wing Set PI 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road Alamo, CA 94507 San Ramon, CA 94583 Rena Rickles Attorney l Law 193-401-022 Robert McAdam 1970 ttoBroadway, Suite 1200 Yandell John Jr. &Maureen Tre Custom Homes by McAdam Oakland, CA 94512 1 Wing Set Place 445 Oakshire Place Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 193-070-038 193-401-023 Heather Ballenger Burkland Daniel P &Janine J Ciapponi David L. Public Works Department 853 Miranda Creek Court PO Box 936 INTEROFFICE Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 193-401-002 Tommy Conner Fogg;James D &Marilyn R Conner Bak, LLP Alamo Improvement Association 104 Garydale Court 10 Monterey Blvd. PO Box 271 Alamo, CA 94507 San Francisca, CA 94107 Alamo, CA 94507 George &Monica Pacheco Earl F. Evans, M.D. 32 Via Alondra 321 Likely Court Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 i Contr, ' Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS � � Count FROM: DENIMS N. BARRY, AICD 33 ty DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 13, 2000 SUBJECT: Sixth Rescheduled Hearing on Ciapponi and Yandell's Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's (Administrative) Approval of a Request to Modify the Location of On-Street Parking within Subdivision 7693, County File #ZI998246 (Wingset Place, Alamo area.) . District III SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) do BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Approve Option A actions listed below. OPTIONS Option A - Deny the Appeal; Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision relocating one parking space to the other side of turnaround.. 1. Deny the Appeal of the Ciapponi's and Yandells. 2. Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision as described in the Community Development Department letter dated October 11, 1999. Option B Grant the Appeal; Reverse the Zoning Administrator's Decision [thus, retaining the original (1995) proposed narking plan with all spaces on one side of the turnaround] . 1. Grant the Appeal of the Ciapponi's and Yandells. 2. Reverse the Zoning Administrator decision. 3. Direct staff to notify the Appellants of any future Zoning Administrator administrative decision on a subsequent request from the Developer to modify the on- street parking plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR � RECOMMENDATI N OF_BOARD ITTET APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARDDN Juna: I.3, 20O APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION 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 SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Bob Drake [(925) 335-12141 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED .r,lne tai 2f)pp Cc: Thomas Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Leo B. Siegel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Rena Rickles ANIS C ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Dept. 'County Counsel B , DEPUTY c:\wpdoc\sub7693g.bo RD\ Continued June 13, 2000 ]rearing of Ciapponi & Yandell Appeal ;7r)tion C - Approve an alternative parking plan that relocates one of the spaces to another position at the end of the turnaround, and allows for a reduced 8 x 17 ft. dimensions. Other dons - A number of other less feasible options are identified in Table I. F-ISCALL-IMPACT None. Under the adopted County fee schedule, the applicant is responsible for all staff time and material costs for the review of this request including all costs of the review of this appeal. BACKGROUND This appeal was originally scheduled for the Board's December 14, 1999 hearing, but was continued on several subsequent dates. PRIDR STAFF REPDRT The background to this matter was reviewed in the original staff report to the Board, dated Deceirber 14, 1999. Due to an error by the subdivision developer (Tom Gingrich) , the final map failed to provide an access to the lot (Lot 6) located at the end of the project road. The only access to this lct is along the frontage where access is clouded by co:-mon on-street parking which was proposed by the Developer and approved by the County at time of the approval of the final map. To try to eliminate the blockage, the subdivision developer requested that the Zoning Administrator approve the relocation of one of the spaces to the opposite side of the turnaround. After consulting with the Fire Protection District, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed change was reasonable and approved it. That administrative decision was then appealed by two of the homeowners within the subdivision (Ciapponi's and Yandells) . REVIEW Oµ ?NIA.RCH 14 BOARD HEARING Public Testimony - The appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval was heard by the Board cn March 14, 2000. At that time, the Board heard testimony from the respective legal counsels for both the subdivision developer (Leo Siegel) and the appellants (Rena Rickles) . At that time, Ms. Rickles indicated that the relocated parking space would interfere with her client's (Ciapponi) access to his lot (reconfigured Lot 7) . She suggested alternative designs that would be acceptable to her clients. Those alternatives were rejected by the Developer at the hearing. Board Direction - After taking testimony, the Board voted to direct staff to meet with the two parties to try to find a solution that was acceptable to all parties. ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES MARCH 23--_ 2000 siTE mB:- N_ Staff has met with the Developer and Appellant at the site on two occasions. The first meeting occurred on March 23, 2000 which failed to identify a design option that was acceptable to both parties. 2 continued oxwe 23, 2000 rearing of Ciapponi & Yandell APP641 ` WIO AL`PERNA"'TVE DESIGNS PROPOSED BY "1'HG APPELLANT Following the first site meeting, the Appellant retained an engineer (Ruark & Associates) who drew up two alternative plans for redesigning the parking/access in front of Lots 5 and 6. These alternatives are described in sketch drawings attached to a letter dated April 14, 2000 from Ms. Rickles. Both alternatives involve a proposed lot line adjustment between the two lots. Alternative A would allow the four parking spaces to remain approximately where they were originally approved and shift the property line approximately 10 feet towards the "guest house" on Lot 5; thus allowing Lot 6 to have its own driveway. Alternative B would adjust the same lot sine but maintain the current setback from the "guest house" on Lot 5. However, it would merge the driveways for Lots 5 and 6 (this would require the establishment of a road easement through Lot 6 to serve Lot 5. It would also relocate the "fourth" parking space onto the front area of Lot 5. it er A,opel 1 ar. Ai na i v -Would Reauine Ap=val gf a Variance Permit to the Mini-num Frontyard Zoniria Standard While the letter from Ms. Rickles indicates that no variances would be required, this is contrary to what staff reviewed with her in the field. Both alternatives would shorten the structure setback that is required to be observed under the R-20 zoning (min. 25- feet) . Currently, the "guest house" is setback approximately 28 feet from the front property line. See -igure I. The shifting of the property line per Alternative A would reduce the setback to approximately 18 feet; the creation of the common parking space easement on Lot 5 per Alternative B would reduce the setback to only 10 feet. The zoning ordinance would not allow either of these reduced setbacks to be established without approval of a variance permit application. A variance permit application must be filed by the owner (Developer) , and recrzires at a minimum that the owners of property within 300 feet of the site be notified of the application. If a neighbor resp gists a hearing then one is scheduled. A variance cannot be approved unless the County makes three ordinance findings (ref. § 26-2.2006 of the Ord. Code) . Developer Reacticin to Appellant Prosaosals The Developer rejected both proposals. He does not want to encumber the lots with additional vehicular easements, nor ?Dear the cost of related improvements (e.g, grading, paving, etc. ) . He has indicated that Alternative B would deprive Lot 5 of one of the few flat areas on that site. He also objects to being subjected to an additional discretionary approval. He has indicated that if the Zoning Administrator decision is sustained, he will be proposing alot line adjustment application between Lots 5 and 6 to the County to allow for direct vehicular access onto Lot 6. The County can administratively approve lot line adjustment applications as long as they are consistent with zoning and building ordinances. Staff has previously agreed to a request from the Appellants to notify them of any decision by the County to approve a lot line adjustment application filed by the Developer, so that they would 3 Continued J%ine 13, 2000 Hearing of C°fapponf A Yandell APPeal have the opportunity to appear that administrative decision to the Board. SEC N (XAY 4) SITE MEE'T'INf2 A second meeting at the site was held on May 4, 2000. That meeting was attended by staff from both Community Development and Public Works Departments and a representative from Supervisor Gerber's, Office. That meeting identified an alternative design for the relocation of the one parking space and allowing for reduced ("compact-car size") parking space (Option C) . At the site, both the Developer and Appellant indicated that they were tentatively supportive of this alternative subject to additional review and investigation by staff. Following that meeting, staff confirmed the feasibility of being able to maneuver a truck and boat trailer onto Lot 7 (Ciapponi) and shared this information with the Appellant and the Developer. The Developer affirmed his support of this design, but that the appellant ultimately rejected the design due to continued concerns about being able to maneuver his vehicles. REVIEW OF PRIMARY OPTIONS Staff has diligently attempted to find a design solution on this appeal issue at two site meetings involving many hours of exploration with the interested parties. A number of alternatives were explored, but none were accepted by bath parties. Regrettably, at this point, prospects appear dim for attaining the solution sought by the Board. In this regard, staff suggests that the Board proceed with a review of a number of design options which have been identified by the Developer, the Appellants and staff, and proceed with a decision on the appeal. Table I contains a matrix reviewing the primary design options for parking and access, and related discussion. It should be noted that many of the options (Options D, E, F, and G) are feasible only with the cooperation of the Developer including some which would require an additional discretionary approval process. Staff has identified these options as assuned to be less feasible. Option B would reverse the Zonir_g Administrator modification, and retain the position of all four parking spaces at the end of the turnaround. Were the Board to approve that option, it would retain the clouded status over the Developer's access to Lot 6, but allow him to refile a new proposal that the County might find acceptable. CONCLUSION After consideration of all seven design options, staff continues to find that the parking plan revision approved by the Zoning Administrator (Option A) as superior. It allows for reasonable turnaround of conventional and emergency vehicles while allowing for access to Lot 6. Staff continues to recommend that the Board sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision.. In addition to Option A, staff feels that Option C (similar to Option A) to also be acceptable. This design also allows for reasonable turnaround movements while allowing the Developer access to Lot 6. However, its unorthodox positioning of a parking space make this design less desirable. 4 Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of Clapponi & Mandell Appeal NEW PRIVATE PARKING RESTRICTIONS EXACTED BY SUBDIVISION LOT OWNERS .an the course of this review, the Developer informed staff that new use restrictions have been enacted by a "super majority„ of the subdivision lot owners. At the end of the May 4, 2000 site visit, the Developer told staff that he and other lot owners within the subdivision (but not Ciapponi or Yandell) had recently voted to enact an amendment to the CC&R's to provide restrictions on the use of the four on-street parking spaces. CC&R's are private restrictions governed and administered by the lot owners within a subdivision, not the County. The Developer indicated that the amendment was intended to foster use of the parking spaces as true "guest" parking, and to restrict use of the spaces by vehicles owned by any of the lot owners within the subdivision. Staff has asked the applicant for a written description of the change, however, none has been provided to date. It is staff's understanding that such action by the subdivision lot owners would be a private matter and not conflict with any County administered law or permit. REVIEW OF (Mon-Appeal) SUBDIVISION PERMIT COMPLIANCE CONCERNS in addition to objecting to the relocation of the parking space approved by the Zoning Administrator, at the March 14 Board hearing, the Appellant also questioned compliance with several conditions of approval of the tentative map permit. These other conditions did not involve the proposed relocation of the on-street parking space. The Board had asked that staff research the project's compliance with those conditions. It should be noted that none of these items were Listed in the appeal letter, and, accord ugly, were not reflected in the legal notice for this project. These conditions are identified below together with the staff analysis on their compliance status. A. Off-Street Parking (CQA Condition of Anprov ? Lanauaae - "Provide for at least six on- site parking spaces per lot to be located outside the private road easement extending from Likely Drive. " Su ry of Awn _ la is ^n ern - Neither Lots 5 nor 6 (both owned by the Developer) provide for six on-site parking spaces. Staff Comment - This condition is intended to address development at time of the ultimate development of the respective lots. Both of the cited lots contain older houses that were present at the time of the subdivision approval.. Still, it should be noted that Lot 6 contains sufficient area for six parking spaces involving paved or concrete surface area outside of the private road area. ' 'A comment from a letter of the Co:amunity Development Department dated 7126199 to the contrary is not correct on this point. 5 Continued>June 19, 2000 Hearing of Cfapponi & YatndezS ,Appeal Lot 5 does not provide for substantial on-site parking spaces however it contains only a small single-story dwelling (approximately 500 square feet) that obviously does not reflect the ultimate buildout of the lot. The existing residence would not normally generate extensive parking demand. When building permits for ultimate residences are proposed on these lots, it would be staff's intent to see that the parking requirement is satisfied. Staff Assessment - Staff disagrees with the Appellant's claim that existing parking for Lots 5 and. 6 is not in compliance with the subdivision approval. Staff believes the current condition of these lots substantially complies with the intent of this on-site parking condition of approval. R€y l arer ant of Existina T e s Prol2osed to Be Removed tC_QA Condition of Annrova' Language - "Comply with the following tree/planting tree/preservation requirements: "B. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, . . . _ The report shall also include a tree replanting program which illustrates the exact location and species of proposed replacement trees. Replacement trees shall be at least 15 gallons in size. Each tree to be removed on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be replaced by two 15 gallon _'=-.:ght resistant trees, native to the area, to be reco.-meded by a certified arborist. Replacement trees on Lots 5, 5, 7, and 8 shall be situated in order to maintain the residents of the proposed lots (sic) . All of the trees along the northeastern property line, except for those located within the proposed cul-de-sac shall be preserved. . . . "C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map, the applicant shall either inform the Zoning- Administrator that the approved tree replacement program has been completed and is ready for verification by staff, or provide assurance that funding exists to implement the tree planting program. Assurance shall be provided through a finanacial mechanism acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. . . . " ,Summary of_ App Tian` Co n - The appellant has indicated that 7 trees were removed on Lot 7 near the old driveway, and that 14 15--gallon drought-resistant trees should have been planted as replacements, and apparently never were. Staff Comments -- A grading plan for the subdivision project was submitted by the applicant at the time of the processing of the final _.ap to the Community Development Department indicating tr_e removal of a number of existing trees including 11 trees on the cited lots in the Condition. That plan identified only one tree that was proposed to be removed from Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . According to the terms of the conditions of approval, a total of twenty-two 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees should have been planted: on these rots; and two planted 6 Continued June 33, 2000 Xearfug of Cfapponf E Yendell Appeal on Lot 7. Staff could find no evidence that the County accepted a tree replacement plan or any financial mechanism for requiring tree replacement improvements. when staff visited the site, staff found no evidence of the planting of any 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees by the Developer on Lot 7. Still, it should be noted that the Developer has planted a number of trees. He has indicated that he has planted a total. of 56 trees of varying species (primarily Chinese Pistache) , nearly all larger (24-inch box) than the size that was required by the County, throughout the subdivision. These include trees planted along the frontage of the lots. none of the trees planted by the Developer appear to have been either drought-tolerant or native to the area. However, the Developer has indicated that approximately six of these trees were planted on (or in the immediate vicinity) of Lot 7. The Developer indicated that a subsequent buyer (prior to Ciapponi) , not the Subdivision Developer, had removed the other six trees on Lot 7. There would have been no County restriction for a subsequent buyer to have removed those trees. Staff A s _ m nt - While some of the details of tree replacement appear to have been overlooked by staff, the Developer ultimately planted many more trees with larger sizes than would have been necessary to comply with the permit conditions. In staff's Judgement, the trees planted by the Developer constitute substantial compliance with the tree replacement improvement requirement. In any case, it is staff's understanding that there would be no legal basis for the County to require compliance with the specifics of the tree replacement condition of approval at this time. C. Obliteration of pre-S ubd;v;s' . 77ri away (COP, AIL7) 7) Condition of Apr vat n� a?e - "Obliterate the existing driveway on Lots 6 and 7. Access to these lots shall be taken off the proposed private road. " Summa=y of A-pnel ant Con ern - There is remaining concrete wall and impervious gravel driveway on Lots 6 and 7 indicating that this condition has not been fully satisfied. The Appellant has indicated that the gravel and hardnacked dirt result in additional runoff which contribute to soil erosion on the side of a hill on his lot. The 7/26/98 letter from the Community Development Department to the Developer indicated that the condition had not been satisfied and that the County would require the Developer to satisfy this requirement including obtaining the permission of the owner of Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . Staff Comments - Prior to the establishment of the subdivision, the site was served by a driveway that extended to Miranda Avenue to the west. The subdivision .that was proposed provided exclusive access to the other side of the property, Likely Drive. This condition was intended to eliminate the driveway as a means of accessing the property once the subdivision road was established. 7 Contfaued>jUna 13, 7000 Hearing of Cfapponf & Yandell Appeal This condition was formulated by the Public Works Department and included in the set of conditions of approval (CLIA #10) which is administered by that department. That Department was responsible for overseeing compliance with that condition of approval.. .indeed the grading plans which were approved by the Department provided for regrading of a portion of that driveway and removal of the concrete surface from that driveway. When staff met in the field with the interested parties, Heather Ballenger, Assistant Public Works Director, was present and examined the condition of the former driveway. notwithstanding the comments of the planner in the Community Development Department, Ms. Ballenger noted that while not all of the original improvements of the driveway had been eliir:inated, sufficient physical modifications had been completed which would effectively preclude its use as a driveway. The concrete surface had been eliminated though sections of the retaining wall and subsurface gravel bed renained in place. In this regard, she indicated that these modifications provided for substantial compliance with the condition of approval. Staff Assessment - The regrading and elimination of surface improvements on portions of the former driveway on Lots 6 and 7 effectively preclude use of the residual driveway elements as a functional access and thus constitutes substantial compliance with the subdivision condition of approval. r L� ' t� 01 to a) a � a) t�1 as,-� • m� �,as � �as � ' Sb.t~ ua"i U H -W m w 1J•ri.1 , O a, O (d-rt 1� to a7 a1 ti Ls # C3 i y G 4 $a f�x O Y O (1) J tis u-H S4 3 04-4 O a-H -t a) O ORS Ri (a N4 `I� X41 It O 0 m �O � �.V. U � O 404 tr �� p.-gkf4 OS•rtUO :1 M 3 u asO ( 1-4 CLO i404�44 Q 7 { _ err rnm U C C cn3t~. t u O Cd sb n 3 . 0 u al a-1 L3 0)U r-! M 4U r•{ () O O to'A 4.1-1 1-1 0 0 .0 4.1� V, S,1-4 k m O d s4 U-H 04.4 m mat 0 m 0 44 ll�-4 rd 10 4+ En 41 a) 01 O-d 11 41 : C) �j ,--t tv ('J r. 04 0 It 0) 4.1 Cn m { ti3 C) �+ U•rt GJ :�44 U (1) S4 .0 K 0 U S s N :J P in O O > RS .14 m 0 l.1 3 0 a) a) SD, S1 tis 44 O s •,(4a (o 0,0 O C) -w Cl i -,q 41 C� J G as rt 10 41 41 O H O >,•,t I 0 0 U S. t) 04 -•1 C) f4 0 r' 0 S tJ M 11 U 0 4i 3A 1 0110 u U (ll •,f-rt •.a Sze m s� a ;y • O 44 m > U 44 v m•4 (V m O� C)� a) c3) 0 a) (I U •ri a) .S RS m m > a)r-{ 1:1 a CJI Si 41 uS0 P � A wu4fU a { i +a tai E rn 41 R1 C3 O (D H C ''O O 0, U m E L a) O. <•r•I S4 54 u U (b0 Wa a)44 p,.) 3 0-H a)4-,1 u o 0 [ 0-'t (C G E-+ m rt m Si cU v C5 u 4 � � S S u t 3 S~ U l H �.'? (U O RS F O RS { Qt i 0, S4 ri tt• + a s � P r-+ Q -� (I w + w 4 da) U1A - 4 a t>ti f i U-r+ U co �4 0) +1 - ml a) �w ll4 E O i O --1 G-� m C4 1.1 U �j ; P7, H am •. 4-4 (5 m >4 Uma 4 U m 13, C) U m i~ y 4 m-14.14 N { U -�j Ly.'C7 U r-i rtS• O O Q O O � �J � ; Wa U o fo10 > tr ; j o � I •� �+ x v c�44 $A a t O 0, Ck Lx t1 N •U' u .c.1 a1 yt U w.--t 04 O� v t t ') 0 0 V� a) �4-14 It k t 4) �4 �4-4 U O w4 O f•4 a`) xs 4 a 0� a 0 a -4 a) 41 � 4 0 0 U N >4•tZlI 40 N -H rC rr.-i U G7 O N-H N•.y 47 K3 d) ib 4) N,11, 0 N 4 4) r: tU41 tU4.; A 44) 0 u u i Vii 4Y �3 41 O a) a W New to OO O 0 M, •,-i U O r-i 4 4-•4 114 a) 1144 (1) U > to U N CS 44 M O (u a) N t (t a) N td t C� td OWN u O 0 (1) N C2, j 0 � 0 i h � u 44 4-4 � 5•r a) N � ! •� f ap1 � a) b ! �4 4 W aj lj 'i7 al � 'LY 41) �w U a) a) 4-1 U.iJ t1S S-4 44 i poolE u SCS-A M3 0 N rJ ' S4 O i•� l l4 7L O O to u N 0) a) (15 4-j -,4 41 I •�+ e; C U N � 04 r a � 0 u � 0 cr 4J a) s4 > S•4 G� i i~10a) t« i UNo41`) 04 aZ0 t0 S-1�i U Q S4 N N }a -L) N N Irl tfS i N a u 4 v i u . a)•,-4 �j u 03 0 C44ECiro4N 4 Ow a) G7 m Q� (1) U 40 ;-) I r-4 C51 1J :•+ 1J r-4•.-i .;-) 1J O.Cy N C1) 0 ),4 F4 N Lj O O ?A (D 4;ft� O a)�-4 O -A a) U a�1--i >1 I 0 aj 4.; 4) o � > u r ro co r`J-4-1 .N U a) N t ~ NU r N > to tz O O J •H m O G 'S ri � O a) O 9 N O O 0 r:. U 44'CS 4J O CD U N s4 4 �J O A •+•i U i•4 I-M -H U 1 G O 0,aJ 9 � i !J a) 4.1 O-P4 40 € .0 U N a) 1J U 04 Zr-1 0, k4 111 .0 O U 1--4 s.) t f1(b r �4 ()4 rfi E G C) M N � ro4a4J Oa# 0 � 0 0 0 �4 a �.•a 0 — ni z_0 as a) t '44 U $4 44 u (1) -L) 0 O O g U j CO O 4-d N N O 44 '4 a•-4 LS O O C O G a O.S� O G N t0 4J (1) 1-4 Lt 4-) U fti }'r-4 dJ U r� 1.) O V-� O 0 ;4 i~ S4 U 4: a) i >~ 0 a) rl O � U -W ,)4 a) ro0)4> 0Q4Mi 4t 0) N•,� a) > C) M U 4 0Q4 4. > O •-1 +t ! N >yNS4 a) N >1NS i UUF4O V4-H. Z r•4 r4 :� (1). r4.1-4 f~ a) -11 40 ;:14 t-i ' +44 r4 J a) O a) .41 � b ✓ 5 :� fl > y ^ r ,--i 4 O (us 4r. > 0, 4at U Z 0 V1' Url0U0:J04� a) � - :� $-4 (d0Q,,.Oi a) 0 }4a ,: a) 0 '4Gt OS:1a) � a) I tt) AJ 6 E 04 E- 4U04 � r 3NN €� Sdi 1 , Uo q N 4 Cl) viw� O 04 O 0 O a) SA >r 0 d s i CJ-H U)41 m() 04 u a to a) N s, rl 0)> +) � U En co • . O :�-+-4 C) U) a i UU•tiU40 :� tri -w P, r. • C4 i CQ U i-4' M Q4 0•,-4 N r i j! Qa 1J 4~ 07 N S-4 y: LQ +' 0N r-i U ••-f 0) Orp4,C W4 a) -W 4-4 fi 4-).=7 U q 4r .H E 41 J N 40 U,-H 4-4 0444 (0 M .H'C O C)t•14 O S4 (d 4a N-,1 "0 U 4--4 N rd +s t a )M Ch a)•rl ;' 04 SK" N 01 N�C � N 40 a) 40 r4 > �-4 41 (0 0 0 O rl U O 9 N S I C O N 0 4-4 v'U 1J•r4 ;..) N O U -j i•t 2' ,_7 z.) ?4 a) a � ts)y) 2 a)44 S�-4 4-4-1 04 4~ O C4 N O 0 a) s 014.4 O sa C) x U Ln ;{J tM 44 0 U aJ•q w r-4 •r4 w Ln !0 - O W O U Cg m (z (B + E -I O �� m a) U -W 0 ,, 43 0rA G A T E i .,A U a) O 0 ? � j xnGt �4 �4 td ? aw c a) P. ° L a w O d U ih.-•t � a� Gi' i • �4 (�4 A 41? m tti 0 w f •n•� � Qi 1 i~ O G ~ G >,.,4 -A b m; G l u •,q O W 4 -w.4 V 011 C) a).14 41 }.t U-- 0 i LW tit 10 fAi z N tl1 i I a�a U G •H «C? U > GGGu C1 j ed U OGOUa +L' i OO UJ 4 114 3t S a) C a sJ i O M ' C) Ua U 3 0 O i ' a) _ �4 41 Lr) t ,J O X� t4 i G a ll 6n Ury a 0• ( o G r sro Q) 41UPG rr^ iG 1i u vim 3 vm•-4 4J0G4JcO4 Go vu f4 JJ 11 d m 4 O a) 'CYDIct 00SAa) a L a e3k a m` -t•asJ4J 4-J +G toy -�! Gul > .� tBUwGO +� t4 OOG �qO a 0 ill O ;. U tLj O'L3 jJ O •rt O m- N•� i •14 U S4 C) O a a) G . CJ C W-rt W a ti G C) m G � it U 0 0 j 17 O }a CS 5 © a-)-r O I-ri L) U C 4 #I va U G O .a O 3 C) •r;^v (2) tI M 044 27-H s-A 0a, a)-14aG m w A N ~ a) Mn 4 0, 0 G V) • O Baa J 1 U G sJ O M M-r, O O S4 -H 4.; E5 a^ G Oa R 4j a U x.) ;,cv e C) a� it.,,A 0 C) at-4 o a aroma G� .sv a f ill >v M Gi S4 U U $� O U U C'1 ttS fl >; IJ 1J� -,-i•ri a O•*-i-� tit P4--I •r;r•s U J U j UGO ll L1J (1) > aNU yJn 1 tl10l4a) OC) aal,c� (1) a-Z� :1O ) OaJ i i tY U a �-4 E� U i rtS W, E+ t=i E� iZ 1J CIO C v Ca S 3 O � G • ra C a O O 41 S4 a O �� O O� w �3 3 C d 4.3 C n 4 Ow—• S a .� p a U0 CD 0 O a) (1) 0)4-44 U bl a UCS S� G U 4.4 i o au s Q a7 � +-) YR ;3 At V7 ri CV•-' t 1-' C73•ri �'t R{ r C: 0 t� ('d 4-4 a G Ciaa3 O sC U 21 > `L"7 S4 a) tz G U 1.5 as � a) V (tb tt MC) L1 a G64 0401 v} U„4'J �1 �f ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5 June 13,2000 Agenda On May 9,2000,the Board of Supervisors continued to this date,the hearing on the Ciapponi's-and'Yandell's Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a request to modify the location of on-street parking within Subdivision 7693,County File#ZI 99-8206(Wingset Place,Alamo area). Robert Brake,Community Development Department,gave the staff report and recommendations.Those present included Dennis Barry,Community Development Director;Silvano Marchesi,Chief Assistant County Counsel;and Heather Ballenger, Public Works,Engineering Services. The Board discussed the matter. The public hearing was opened,and the following people appeared to speak: Rena Rickles,Esq.,Attorney for Appellants, 1970 Broadway,Oakland; Thomas Ruark,Engineer for Appellants,2 Crow Canyon Court,4200, San Ramon; Mark Armstrong,Esq.,Gagon,et al,Attorney for Applicant; Krista Ciapponi,Appellant,5 Wingset Place,Alamo; Rena Rickles,rebuttal; Mark Armstrong,rebuttal. Those desiring to speak having been heard,the public hearing was closed. Following the Board's discussion,Supervisor Gerber moved: That the Board accept Option F,as proposed by the appellant's engineer(See page 11 of the staff report). That staff be directed to notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; That the Board determine bots 5 and b,at this point,do not satisfy the Conditions of Approval for having 6 onsite guest parking spaces; That the Board directs the developer to comply with the Fire inspector's requirements; That the access road should meet the County's standard of posting, no parking, and painting the curb; And that the Board determine that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 was not actually obliterated by County standards. Although the staff indicates that there appears to be substantial compliance with obliteration,it was not accomplished. Supervisor Canciami€la seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to accept it. Zoe ov • a ° 064 n 5`a ter✓ ��` *• X+ ` 1 �� • r` 111 • � � ''� t r Y. OP p l {TSS F d tt t Al fp Rri ¢ Contennis tat.;harry,AICD Community '� �, o m m u n 1 y ol 1 L r Community Development Directo Development Costa Department County County Administration wilding 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 ; y (925) 335-1214 y Phone: November 15, 2000 By Fax & by Mail Thomas Gingrich C/o Mark Armstrong Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, and Armstrong PO Box 218 Danville, CA 94526 Dear Mr. Gingrich: Re. Request for Plan to Comply with June 13, 2000 Board Order Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo) On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal of the Ciapponi's and Yandells and overturned the Zoning Administrator's administrative approval of your request to revise the approved on-street parking spaces within the turnaround of your subdivision development, as described in the attached.fume 13. 2000 Beard Order. Instead, the Board directed that the subdivision developer place one of the four common ("guest")parking spaces onto a reconfigured Lot 5 (Option 1= from Board Order). In taking this action, the Board of Supervisors also deter r ined that the subdivision developer had failed to fully satisfy some of the conditions of the tentative map approval for this project and the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and County for posting of no parking signs and painting of curbs along Wingset Place. We understand that the Clerk of the Board forwarded to -,-oil a copy of the Board Order shortly after the Board's decision. The addendum of that Order describes the items within your subdivision that must still be addressed for your project. These items are listed as follows together with reference to the appropriate Condition of Approval or Advisory Note from the tentative map approval: 1. So as to avoid an existing access blockage to Lot 6 caused by the existing placement of four common"guest"parking spaces\6thin the Wingset Place turnaround, one of the"guest"parking spaces must be relocated onto a reconfigured Lot 5. (refer to COA 91.A.). Office Hours Monday a Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month I 2. Provide six on--site parking spaces for both Lets 6 and 7 (must be concrete or asphalt surfaced); bath lets-contain existing residences(refer to COA##10.H.). 3. Provide compliance with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District relative to posting of signs and painting red curbs with labels on bath sides of t�Iingset Place of"NO STOPPING FIRE LANE—,CVC 22500.1" (refer to Adv;Note "C" and 9/11/91 memorandum of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. 4. Provide for the obliteration of the former driveway on Lots d (Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi) which had served the original residence on the property prior to approval of the subdivision. The Board determined that the driveway modifications, which the subdivision developer has performed to date,do not accomplish substantial obliteration to County standards(refer to C.'OA##I U.). As you are aware, on August 1,2000,the Board of Supervisors rejected your request to have the Board reconsider its June 13 action. Moreover, on October 10,2000, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to report to them on recommended actions to attain compliance from the subdivision developer with their Board Order. When we met in our office on October 27, 2000, 1 showed you a letter from Dena Rickles that had referred to the items on the Board Order. I asked what you had done to comply with those items. You indicated that you had not done ant,thing to comply with any of the items in the letter. The purpose of this letter is to request that you immediatel\r provide this office with a plan including a timetable by which you will comply with-lie items in the Board Order including each of the improvements listed above. Please provide this compliance plana to this office by Wednesdi y, November 22, 2000. Notification of Future Zoning Administator Decisions on Su�,equent Develot�er Requests This office will notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on any subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision. Should you have any questions, please call me at(925) 335-1214. Sincerely. ROBERT U DRAKE Principal Planner r r Att. 6/13/00 Board Order 11/24/92 Subdivision Permit 9/11/91 SRVFPD Letter cc. Members, Board of Supervisors County Administrator Clerk of the Board County Counsel Community Development Department Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Candi Wensley Public Works Department Heather Ballen'-er San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Inspector Mike Mentink 'Phomas Gingrich(direct Mail Address) Rena Rickles File CAwpdociwirgset.3tr RD\ a a VICTOR J.WESTMAN DEPUnES. COUNTY COUNSELPHILLIPS.ALTHOFF JANICE L AMENTA NORAG.BARLOW SILVANC}B.MARCtiE S# B.REBECCA BYRNES ANDREA W.CASSIDY CN I>F ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY / � it MONWA L.COOPER VICKI€L.DAWES OFFICE OFTHE COUNTY,�OUNSEL A,e� MARKEs.ESTIs SHARON L.ANDERSON MICHAEL{7.PARR COUNTY ADMINISTRATIONBUILDINCe / / ;r l �/+ LILUANTFUJI! ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL 65i PI4#as ADMINISTRATION 9th FLOOR 1 DENNIS C.GRAVES JANET L.HOLMES MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-1229 t,r KEViNT.KERR GREGORY(.HARVEY BERNARD L.KNAPP ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL i EDWARD V LANE,JR. BEATRICE LIU MARY ANN MASON GAYLE MUGGLI PAUL R.AMUNiZ OFFICE MANAGER VALERIE J.RANCHE STEVEN R RETTIG DAVID F.SCHMIDT PHONE j925)335-1800 DIANA J.SILVER FAX(925)846-1078 JACQUELINE Y.WOODS November 14, 2000 a Cackles Atto at Law 1970 Bro ay, Ste. 1200 Oakland, CA 12 Re: Subdivision 7693, Wingset Place, Alamo Dear Ms. Rickles: This is in response to your August 15, 2000 letter to the CommunityDevelopment Department(Donna Allen) and your August 22, 2000 letter to this office regarding the above- referenced. subdivision. Following the public comment concerning this matter before the Board of Supervisors on October 10, 2000, this office contacted the Community Development Department to determine the status of the items mentioned in your letters. That department has informed us that the developer has not yet demonstrated compliance with the Board's directives in their June 13, 2000 Order but they continue to attempt to obtain compliance from the developer. We understand that you will be receiving under septi ate cover a copy of a letter from the Community Development Department to the developer which requests him to submit a plan for compliance with the Board's June 13, 2000 Order. Upon review of the June 13,2000 Board Order, we note that a number of the conditions of approval (CMAs) for the Subdivision listed in your letters were not included in the Board's Order. That is, your letters address matters and COAs which were not part 6f the Board's Order. A copy of the Board's Order of June 13, 2000 is attached for your reference. In summary,the Board accepted"Option F"presented in the staff report to the Board, which calls for the fourth common parking space to be reconfigured on Lot 5, owned by the developer. The Board found that COA 1011. was not satisfied in terms of providing six on-site parking spaces per lot for Lots 5 and 6 and that COA 10J, which required obliteration of the driveway on Lots 6 and 7 had not been fully satisfied . In addition, any access road constructed must meet the County's posting, parking and painting standards and the developer must meet the i f Rena Rickles November 14, 2000 Page 2 Fire Inspector's requirements (see-Advisory Note C. to CGAs.) Finally, the Board directed staff to notify appellants and other people living in the subdivision of subsequent developer requests involving the subdivision. Apart from the notice requirement, the Board's June 13, 2000 order requires the developer, not staff,to tape certain action. We are informed that the final reap for this subdivision was filed and recorded in 1995. In order to have a final map filed and recorded, the developer is required to demonstrate that there has been substantial compliance with the conditions of approval at the time of filing the map. The Board's approval of the final map in 1995 indicates that the Board determined that the developer was in substantial compliance with the CMAs. The context for the administrative appeal this year was only the Zoning Administrator's decision approving a request to modify the location of one on-street parking space within the turnaround area as proposed by the developer's engineers, not the COAs. In your letter,you assert that the County has the authority and duty to withhold building permits in the subdivision unless it has ensured that there has been full compliance with all conditions of approval. Upon our review of your assertion, we have not found any authority to support your contention. If you have any such authority,please submit it to this office for our review. Very truly yours, Victor J. Westman County Counsel A4U_ �� By. Diana J. Silver Deputy County Counsel DJS/jh cc. Board of Supervisors Dennis Barry, CDD Bob Drake,CDD 1:\JOAN .AosanaAiick1es.wpd lCP Community Contra Comm it harry, pme Community v�ia¢tx�ertt Director Development Costa Department Count County Administration Building 651 Fine Street -1 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 ifo (925)335-1214 . Phone: S,q coiir�� November 15,2400 Roger F. Smith,Chairman Alamo Improvement Association PO Box 271 Alamo,CA 94507 Dear Mr. " ith:45 Re: Proposed Small Lot Review of Proposed Residence on Lot 8 of Subdivision 7693 #3 Wingset Place,Alamo County File#DP003042 (McAdam) This is in response to your letter of October 20, 2400 wherein you expressed concern about reviewing the merits of this project relative to the Board of Supervisors' action earlier this year where the Board cited the subdivision developer's failure to comply with the requirements of the tentative map approval for the subdivision that resulted in the subject lot. No Linkage of McAdam Small Lot Review with Subdivision Permit Cotnpiiance Concerns Enclosed is a copy of the June 13, 2000 Board Order that the Board of Supervisors on that matter. The Board Order identifies a number of items that the subdivision developer is required to address at this time. Notwithstanding the September 22, 2000 letter from the attorney, Rena Rickles, representing the owners of two adjoining residents(Mandell and Ciapponi), we wish to make clear that the subdivision developer(Gingrich)is not a part) to the subject Small Lot Review project, and there is no reason why the review of this application should be delayed. At the same time, we will be reporting to the Board of Supervisors in the near future with recommendations on appropriate measures to have the subdivision developer comply with those unresolved subdivision permit items that were identified in the 6/13/00 Board Order. We will forward a copy of that report to your organization as soon as it is available. Revised Site flan for Small Lot Review Application Subsequent to the initial referral to your agency,the applicant has submitted a revised development plan that the project planner has deemed complete for processing purposes. Attached is a copy of that revised site plan. We understand that the applicant,Mr. McAdam, is interested in having his application heard as soon as possible. The project planner is proceeding with the staff report and when completed, Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 P.M. nffi(-a is r-le),zari the 1<�t :Irri R rth Fridays of each month will be scheduling this matter for hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The planner will be providing notice of the hearing to all of the owners.of lots within Subdivision 7633. As is our practice,we wish to provide your organization an opportunity to comment on the merits of the project before completing-our staff report. In this regard,staff would request that your organization review and provide any additional comments on this project at your earliest convenience,and no later than Thursday,December 14, 2000. Should you have any questions about the status of the June 13,2000 Board Order to y attention. Any comments on the Small Lot Review application should be directed to the project planner, Candi Wensley, at 335-1236. Sincerely, D ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Att. 6/13/40 Board Order on the Granting of the Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal Revised McAdam Site Plan cc: Members, Board of Supervisors County Administrator Clerk of the Board County Counsel Community Development Department Dennis Barry Catherine ICutsuris Candi Wensley Public Works Department Heather Ballenger San Ramon Valley Eire Protection District Inspector Mike Mentink Robert McAdam Thomas Gingrich Mark Armstrong,GMMA Rena Rickles File C Awpdociwi ngsct2.ltr RD\ Meeting sign-in sheet Name of Meeting: Wf, � - Date:_ j Name Organization Phone Number i t t2-t �R 3 _Jc ` 'cam.Z 0-`t D 4 w4 5 Q v � f 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DEC. 8.ZWO 6: PM MARGOUN & BIATCH NO.867 P.1/3 UNA RIC LES A770RNEY'.JT LAW 1970 BROADWAY,SUITE 1200 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 TEL. (510)4521600*FAX: (510)451-4115 FAX COVERS ET THSFAC5LWLE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET,AND ANY17UCUMEA'n AWCHACCOWANY CONTAX SNFORkfATI4.1 FRO1V THELAS'OMCSSORRE A RICKL.SS WHICH BVTENMED FOR THESOLE USE OF TE NI7IVID AL{S}OR FNTITIBS TO WHICHrTISADDRES9ED. THIS TRAA' WYTET I.ILI. °C)Ic9ATICNMAYCO,VTA:ININFONIIATIO.,V 77-fATISPR.VZEGEDANDIOR COAtFJDENTIAL CSR OT` ER't SEES °T',WOM DI,SCL06U,RE UAr ER LA W, 'IF YOU ARE NOT THE IMENDED s I- ANT''ORAGEJVTRESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELIVER YO T.h'ZS MAT'ESRAL, ANY DIS0SUR4 D7MEMB ATION,L►ISTRIBMON, CY7FYINC OR OTHER USE OF"THIS MATItRIAL OR ITS CONTEN75'I.4PROHIBITED. Dave Csapponi TO, Dave Drake Diana Silver Robert McAdam Tommy Conner DATE: December 8, 2000 FAX NEER: 1-925-314-0521 1-925-335-1222 1-925-646-1073 1-925-831-0244 1.-41.5-334-087 ' FROM Rena Rickles FAX NUMBER: 451.-41.15 RE: Proposed language from today's meeting NUMBER OF PAGES 3 (including cover) COMMENTS: I believe the attached reflec-s the intention of all of the pArties. I will be return to my office on December 18 . Mr. Frederick Hertz will provide emergency back up. His number is 510-951-9119 DEC. 8. 8:52PM rARGOLIN & BIATCH NV.db( � DgAFT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement'') is entered into this day of December 2000 between DAVID CIAPPONI and JOHN YANDBLL (collectively "appellants"), TOM GINGRICH (''applicant" or"Mr. Gingrich"), and ROBERT McADAM. WHEREAS, that on June 13, 2000 the Centra County Board of Supervisors ("Board`)found, by unanimous vete, as part of the hearing on the Ciapponi`s and Yandell's Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval to a request to amend Subdivision 7693, Alamo, to modify the location of on-street paving, that Option F, as proposed by the appellant's engineer as the appropriate location of the fourth, rewired on street parking place, that developer failed to meet certain conditions of approval in the Tentative Map (as fully set out in the"ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5" June 13, 2009 Agenda, Exhibit A to this Agreement)). and that Staff be directed to notify the appellants and others who live in Subdivision 7693 of future zoning administer decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; WHEREAS it is the position of appellants that because of the Board's June 13, 2060 decision,that the County may not issue any permits, including building permits for Subdivision 7693, Alamo, until the applicant has complied with all of the conditions which the Beard found not to be in compliance as set out in Exhibit A; WHEREAS McADAM has applied for a building permit for Lot 8 (subject to small lot discretionary review) on Subdivision 7693,Alamo and has not been able to obtain a vete of approval because Mr. Gingrich has not acted to comply with tate conditions of approval as set out in the Board's June 13, 2000 decision; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the undertakings contained in this Agreement, the parties hereto agree,as follows: 1.Trees. Appellants agree to waive and release any claims they have regarding whether Mr. Gingrich planted drought-resistant trees in compliance with the conditions set out in the tentative map; 2. Fire Cade requirements. The County Planning Staff will ascertain whether signs, as opposed to signs and the painting of red curbs, on the private access road and hammerhead in Subdivision 7693 will satisfy the DEC. 8. 6:52PM MARGOLIN & BIATCH NU.tb f t1. appropriate fire officials, and, if so, said signs will be provided and installed by McADAM under the conditions set forth by the fire inspector; 3. On site parking on Lots 5 and 6< McAdam will pave six (6) on site parking spaces on Lots 5 and 6 in locations directed by Mr. Gingrich, said locations to be reasonably accessible and usable ,arid, said location shall also be approved by the County and appellant, said approval shall not be unreasonable withheld; 4. Driveway on Lots 6 and 7. McADAM will obliterate (California Department of Transportation's definition of"obliterate") remove and regrade to show no visual evidence of the driveway on lots 6 and 7. Mr. Gingrich will provide and allow McADAM access and right of entry to perform this task. Mr. Ciapponi will arrange for Mr. Ruark to engineer dirt moving to alleviate visual impact of the former driveway ,, 5. Creation of the fourth parking space. McADAM will install the fourth mandated parking space in the location specified in Option F of the Board's June 13, 2063 vote. Mr. Gingrich's attorney will arrange for the engineer, Thomas Ruark, to meet with all parties, to provide;construction drawings, including metes and bounds (if necessary) to install that parking space. Mr. Gin rich's attorney, will draft the appropriate conveyance and/or easement documents. County Staff',does not anticipate that any Community Development clearance or permits will be required. 6. Building Permit for Lot 8 for Robert McADAM. County Staff and McADAM agre=e that compliance and completion of items 3-5 above shall be made a condition of any, single story building permit issued by the County for Lot 8. No inspection for said building permit shall be passed "under floor" until this work is completed. All parties to this agreement shall withdraw their request for a public hearing (and cooperate in efforts to have ethers who have requested a public hearing to withdraw their request to do so) as long as the condition set out in this paragraph is included in the building permit. 7. Upon comple#ion, satisfaction of and final approval for the conditions set out in paragraph 6 above and the Board's Juste 13, 2000 decision, appellants will withdraw their request for special notice of subsequent developer requests regarding Lot 8. DEC. 7.2000 12:13PM MRRGOLIN $IRTCH 1`10.919 P.1/5 ArrWATYArLAW 1970 BROADWAY,SUITE 1200 OAKLAND,CAL IPORNIA 94612 TEL: (510)462-1600*FAX: (510)451-4115 FAX COVERS EET THISFACWILE T AASW99 ON COVE'SHEBT,ANDA, YDOCUM"TS CH ACGO.XPA)VY IT CONT":MINI.I-FORMATIONFRt7.11 THE LAWOFFICESOPREVA RTIC LES WHICHI5",1 TENDED FOR THESOLE USBOFTHE rAVIMUAL(S)OREN7YTI. TO W1ffC 1T,5ADDRBZ$L) THIS TRAAaWn E7DVFOR"47YONAYC'UNTA. .IIVFDRtVATIO)V'7H4TSSPRIV"GBDAIVL?/O►R CONFT7 NTIAL OROTJMWI`EEMfPTFROMDISCLOSUREUAWR,LAW'B7YOUARIJVOT THEINTE&VORDRECJPMVTGRACE,Is`IVTREYPONSIB EFOR IED" :,TMYOF TliN AT, 7L44 ANYDOCLOS tZ6,I MMWNATIO)V,DL13TJUBVTI0N,COPYR G OR 07HB'R USE OF THIS ATBRWORIISC NTEN7SISPROHIB,tTED. Roger Smith, AIA T4: Supervisors E Tommy A.Conner Robert Drake Diana Silver, Deputy County Council DATE December 7, 2000 Roger Smith., ATA. 925855-2050 FAX NUMBER: Distxict 1510-374-3429 District 2 1-925335-1076 District 31-925-820-66 7 District 4 1.-925-6461-5767 District 5 1-925`427-8142 Tommy A. Carter 1-415-334-9577 Robert Drake 1-925-335-1222 FROM Rena:Rickles FAX NUMBER: 451.411.5 Authority to Support Board decision to withhold all RE: permits until Subdivision 7633-Wingset Place NUMBER OF PAGES 7 (including cover) COMMENTS: Reply to request from bath Robert Drake and Diana. Silver to provide legal authority to deny further permits on Subdivision 7693 until tentative snap conditions are in compliance. DEC. 7-20W 12:13PM1 MRRGOLIN & BIATCH NO.819 P. ENA RICKLES AnORNEYArLAw IM BROADWAY,SUn 12CO TEL (SIM 452.16CO* %Xi(10)451-4125 ` c December 5, 2000 Diana J. Silver Deputy County Counsel Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, git floor Martinez, DA 94553-1229 Via Facsimile 925-M-1478 and U.S. Til Re. Subdivision 7693-Wingset Place, Alamo, authority to withhold''building permit Dear Ms. Silver: This is in response to your request for authority for the County to withhold a building permit from a purchaser(Robert McAdam) of single lot(Lot 8) on a subdivision (No. 7693) until the developer(Thomas Gingrich) complies with the original conditions unposed upon that subdivision. It is our contention that a clear line of case authority, as well as public policy, dictate that under the facts of this case, Mr. Gingrich, or any of his successors in interest, do not have a right to a building permit, or any discretionary permit, until the subdivision meets the original conditions of approval. Moreover, the County is not barred, either on an estoppel or vested rights theory from withholding the discretionary permits at issue.' Bap.ground. For several years, homeowners in Subdivision 7693 complained to this county's Planning Department that the developer had not complied with several of the original conditions requisite to the granting of a final map. On July 26, 1998, your Planning Department concluded that Conditions 10- N and 10-J had not been Met.2 Subsequently, Mr. Gingrich filed for an amendment to the final map, Staff review of this application found that the site map, drawings, and grading wrap, submitted by the developer to obtain the tentative and final maps erroneously misrepresented the physical space available on the subdivision for driveways and on street parking. Driveways, mandated'on-street guest parking and requisite turning clearances all occupied the same physical space. It i ' Please see my July 31,2000, letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the legal authority for this contention. 2 Letter from Candida Wensley to Thomas Gingrich. 3 At the Board's June 13,2000 hearing, the developer's attorney sued that the misrepresentation was not"intentlonal." DEC. 7.2000 12:14FM MARGOLIN & BIATCH NC.919 P.3/5 2 inconceivable that Staff world have issued the tentative and final maps in the absence of the developer's misrepresentations. Because of the facts developed during the Board's hearing of Mr. Gingrich's ' request for an amendment to his subdivision map regarding parking issues, the j Board of Supervisor's became aware of his misrepresentations which led to the granting of the subdivision's gaps. The Board found that the [developer had not complied with four's of the conditions mandated for tentative map approval. Before taking that vete,your office, in response to Board questions, stated that since the Board was not imposing any new conditions,they had the jurisdiction to find non- compliance with existing conditions as well as to vote on the specific issue presented in Mr. Gingrich's amendment applicaton. The Beard's findings and decision, have not been appealed and are final. Mr. Robert McAdam purchased Lot 8 on Subdivision 7693 in May, 2006 after extensive litigation with the developer. From, at least, early 1998, Mr. Gingrich knew that there were serious questions regarding his compliance with the Conditions of Approval for Subdivision 7693. Both Mr. Gingrich and Mr. McAdam acknowledged that there was an issue of"unsatisfied subdivision conditions" before Mr. McAdam purchased Lot 8.5 Questions presented, Whether the County, under the authority of the Board's decision of August 1, 2000 regarding a developees request for an Amendment to the Final Map, can, by withholding the issuance of discretionary permits, require the developer(and/or his successors in interest)to comply with the original Conditions of Approval for a tentative reap when the basis for the issuance of that reap and the final reap was misrepresentation of facts by the developer? Qlsc 5tatutoi and Cage-Authority "Local agencies are prohibited from issuing any permit or granting any approval necessary to develop property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in violation of ft Map Act or implementing local ordinances, if they find that development of such real property is contrary to the public health or the public safety." ( Longtin's, Califon ia's Land Use, 2 Edition, Volume 11, p. 703, Government Code t"QC"}§66499.34) The effect of the Board of ¢Mr. brake's letter of November 15,2000 to Mr, Gingrich misstates the violation of Condition of Approval 10-H as a failure to provide on-site parking spaces on lots 6 lis 7. The failure to provide onsite parking is on Lots 5&6. b Please see Mediation Agreement sent to you as part of my November 21,2000 letter to you and Robert brake. Clapton: County Counsel,at4horlty to withho4d building permit DEC. 7.2'000 1 '14F'M MMMGOLI#Y & BIATO� NO.819 P.4/5 3 Supervisors decision that Subdivision 7693 did not meet its original conditions, because of the failure to provide sufficient on and off site parking for safe ingress and egress, to properly obliterate roads causing potential flooding and sliding to adjacent properties, and fire access, is to prohibit the 'mance of any permit to further develop this subdivision, This sanction applies even if the violation occurred prior to the purchase by the current owner, even if the current owner did not have actual or constructive notice of the violation. (Ibid.) The approval of the tentative or final map does not conclusively prevent a local agency from refusing to issue building or other discretionary permits. Approval rewires compliance with all local laws and the original conditions. (Creat Westem Say. &Loan Assn. V CRy of Los Angeles(1973) 31 C.A. d 403). While the Great Wast+ern case held that after the granting of a tentative map, a local agency does not have the authority to impose new conditions to issue a final map or further approval except in cases where there has been fraud or misrepresentation. (Ibid. at 413) In this case,the developer factually t misrepresented the physical conditions on his property to obtain his final map. Even if the final map approval were valid,which in this case it is not, when a developer does not have a building permit, he does not have a vested right to proceed, (Avco Community Dev.Inc. v. South Crust Regroaai Commission(1976) 17 Gal. 3d 788,76) The issuance of a building permit, is not a ministerial act and there is no automatic right to it.(People v. County of Kern (1974) 39Cal.App.3d 830) The applicant must comply with the laws in effect at the time of the application. (Hazonalny Dev'mt Inc. v City of Santa Monica (128 Cel.App.3d 31) Public Policy The policy behind the Board's decision in this ease was to send a message that conditions are meant to be enforced, A final map cannot be a shield to protect developers especially where, as here, the developer's misrepresentation of facts induced the issuance of the permit. To allow the developer to evade the consequences of his jin]action] by issuing permits to continue developing the subdivision, makes a mockery of the Board's decision and the entire approval process. The issuance of the building permit for Lot 8 is not a ministerial act(See Haz+on-Iny and Kem, supra) as a general proposition and it is not in this particular case. lot 8, at an average width of 1091, is a"small lot" requiring discretionary review for any building permit. Conclusion Ciapportl. County Counsel,suftrtty to VAhhokt bulfditV pemtlt