Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10242000 - D8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCounty r s_ DATE: OCTOBER 24, 20300 SUBJECT: THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL #10 OF COUNTY FILE #LP952061 TO ALLOW THE OUTDOOR SALE OF CHRISTMAS TREES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED 3212 DANVILLE BOULEVARD IN ALAMO. DALE BRIDGES (APPLICANT/APPELLANT), PETER OSTROSKY (OWNER) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision to deny modifications of Condition of Approval#10 of LP952061 to allow the outdoor sale of Christmas trees. 2. ADOPT the findings contained in Resolution # 15-2000 as the basis for the Board's action. I CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Ontnhpr_24-'2.000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED , OTHER_,- See Addendum for list of speakers VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND � rUNANIMOUS(ABSENT V 1 CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Aruna Bhat (335-1219) ATTESTED_ _ October 24, 2QQO cc: Cale Bridges PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Deter Ostrosky SUPERVISORS 44D COUNTY MINISTRATOR AMBImp H:mp\Board Orders and Resolutionsilpt}520390et.24-OO.doc BY `s DEPUTY 9 ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.8 AND D.9 OCTOBER 24, 2000 This is the time and place heretofore noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the appeal by Dale Bridges (Appellant and Applicant)and Peter Ostrosky(Owner) from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to deny the requested modification of Condition of Approval#10 of LP 95- 2061 to allow the outdoor sale of Christmas trees at 3212 Danville Boulevard,Alamo and the hearing (continued from October 17, 2000)to determine if cause exists to revoke LP 95-2061 at 3212 Danville Boulevard as requested by the Community Development Department, Dale Bridges (Applicant) and Peter Ostrosky(Owner). The permit was granted subject to compliance with the Conditions of Approval. The permit prohibited the sale of Christmas trees without an approved land use permit,and the display of inflatable figures. Pursuant to Subsections 26-2.2022 (1 and 2) of the Ordinance Code the(1) failure to comply with the conditions of the permit; and(2)noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the sale of Christmas trees and the display of inflatable figures, Alamo area. Aruna Bhat, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the items under consideration. Melissa Morton, Public Works Department,advised that Condition 16F has not been met. The following persons presented testimony: Dale Bridges, Applicant/Appellant,Bridges Motors of Alamo, 3212 Danville Boulevard, Alamo; Brian Thiessen 3201 Danville Boulevard, Ste 295, Alamo, representing Dale Bridges; Philip Davies, 102 Sonora Avenue, Danville; Dan Smith, 3210 Danville Boulevard,Alamo; Mary Ann Wright, 1112 26h Street, Oakland,representing the Mary Ann Wright Foundation; Frances Davies, 3210 Danville Boulevard,Alamo; Jerry Silsdorf, 2052 Tampa Avenue, Oakland; Bill Masucci, 102 Kelley Lane, Danville; Jim Riepel, 335 Rio Grande Place, San Ramon; Jessica Smith, 249 W. El Pintado Road,Danville; Bradley J. Horton, 1483 Danville Boulevard, Alamo; Tylor Russell, 4293 Rosewood Court, Concord; Vickie Coker, 2567 Danville,Alamo; William Brocco, 6028 Lakeview Circle, San Ramon; Sundy Brocco, 6028 Lakeview Circle, San Ramon; Pam Gaya, 895 Holly Hill Drive, Walnut Creek; Mitzi Barber, 240 Tangerine Court, San Ramon; Beth Batchelor, 3012 Sandstone Road, Alamo; Carolyn Hastings, 6179 Lakeview circle, San Ramon; Glen Langston, 340 David Drive, Alamo; Stephanie Marsey, 1814 Pleasasnt Hill Road,Pleasant Hill; Ted Mendelson, 169 Larkwood Circle, Danville; Michael Wenthe, 4217 Buckskin Drive, Antioch; Jane Thacker, 2150 Canyon Lakes Drive, San Ramon; Therese Fensterer, 1246 Walker Avenue#311, Walnut Creek. The Chair read comments from the following persons into the record: Judith Brickman, 3437 Tice Creek Drive#1, Walnut Creek; Dean Langston, 253 W. El Pintado, Danville; Lori Hock, 321 Hartz Avenue, Danville; Kristen Kuehner, 7110 Pelican Street, Danville; Wendi Desrosus, 681 Adobe Drive,Danville; Gus Kerry, 380 Diablo Road,Danville; Arelys Park, 5446 Louisiana Drive, Concord; Jack Russell, 128 Canyon Place, San Ramon; Judith P. Dobbins, 1428 Entrada.Verde, Alamo; John Lane, 9404 Olympia Fields Drive, San Ramon; Edward V. Stein, 4 Chaparral Court,Novato. Dale Bridges spoke in rebuttal. The public hearings were closed. On recommendation of Supervisor Gerber,IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the appeal (Item D.8)by Dale Bridges (Appellant and Applicant) and Peter Ostrosky (Owner), from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to deny the requested modification of Condition of Approval #10 of LP 95-2061 to allow the outdoor sale of Christmas trees at 3212 Danville Boulevard,Alamo area, is DENIED; and the findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution#15-2,000 are ADOPTED as the basis for the Board's action; and The Board's intent to decline to revoke LP 95-2061 (Item D.9)is DECLARED, Dale Bridges(Applicant) and Peter Ostrosky(Owner), contingent upon the applicant complying with the following Conditions of Approval by December 31, 2000: 1. Condition No. 1, the striping 2. Condition No. 13,payment of the fees in full 3. Condition No. 16F,the striping of the frontage of the parcel 4. Condition No. 30, receiving a recordable document on the southerly deck; And the Community Development Director is DIRECTED to report to the Board of Supervisors on December 19, 2000, on the status of the applicant's compliance with those conditions. October 24, 2000 Board of supervisors File#LP952061 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The applicant is responsible for payment of fees associated with the processing of this application. BACKGROUND The land use permit to continue a used car dealership was granted for the property subject to certain conditions (attached). The permit prohibited the sale of Christmas trees without an approved land use permit. The applicant sold Christmas trees from the premises in November and December of 1999 without obtaining a land use permit, which was in direct violation of the Conditions of Approval. The County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on April 18,2000 to determine if cause exists to revoke the permit approved under County File #LP952061. On April 17, 2000, the applicant filed an application with the County to amend the use permit to allow the sale of Christmas trees. This application was originally scheduled on July 19, 2000 before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial since the proposal did not include any on-site parking spaces. At the July 19, 2000 meeting, the applicant requested a continuance to September 20, 2000 and indicated to the Commission that he would submit revised plans for review to the County. The applicant submitted revised plans that indicated three onsite parking spaces. The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission heard this item on September 20, 2000 and denied the requested use permit for the Christmas tree sales. The applicant appealed the Commission's decision on October 2, 2000. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant proposes to sell Christmas trees from the premises during the holiday season. During that time the car dealership would be closed and automobiles from the dealership would be stored off-site. The tree sales are proposed to start approximately one week before Thanksgiving each year and expected to conclude the 23rd and 24th of December. Following cleanup, Bridges Motors car dealership will be resumed by the 30th of December. The applicant proposes to install a temporary eight-foot chain link fence along the front and the north side of the property to secure the property. Three parking spaces are proposed on the north side of the property. The access to the parking spaces is proposed via a combined driveway, jointly used by the subject property and the adjacent property to the north. The tree sales area proposal is predominantly on the west side of the property. The applicant proposes a 12-foot tall fiberglass Santa to be placed on the property. October 24, 2000 Board of Supervisors File#LP952061 Page 3 The applicant has indicated that delivery of trees to the site would occur in mid-November and then sporadic deliveries could occur at night. The applicant also proposes delivery to clients' residences that do not wish to take their holiday tree home with them. APPEAL In the appeal letter dated received by Community Development Department,the appellant has raised three concerns: 1. The Commission's dissatisfaction that the applicant had operated the Christmas tree lot last year(November and December 1999)without a permit and their determination that it encouraged marginal development. 2. Concerns regarding Alamo Improvement Association Planning Committee changing their recommendation from supporting the Christmas tree sales application to recommending denial. According to the appellant, the item was improperly put on the agenda and he was also not noticed about the meeting. 3. San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission relied upon incorrect information provided by a neighbor who mistakenly told them that a business had left Alamo because of the Christmas tree operation last year. APPEAL ISSUE DISCUSSION 1. COMMISSION'S DISSATISFACTION WITH THE OPERATION OF THE CHRISTMAS TREE LOT LAST YEAR As mentioned earlier in this report, the applicant operated Christmas tree sales on the subject property without obtaining permits from the County. The Commissioners expressed their concerns regarding the history of non-compliance associated with this project for the past several years. The permit to continue the temporary used car lot permit was approved by the County in December 1996. The applicant was not in compliance with several conditions after repeated notifications from Building Inspection and Community Development Department and the Board of Supervisors revoked the permit in 1998 for non-compliance with the conditions. However, the Board eventually rescinded this decision when the applicant complied with the conditions of approval. The applicant indicated at the September 20, 200 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission meeting that he was not aware of the conditions of approval of the permit for used car dealership that prohibits him from selling Christmas trees from the premises without obtaining a use permit.At the September 20,2000 meeting,the Commissioners' recollected the extensive discussions about the conditions of approval with the applicant at previous hearings on the permit. October 24, 2000 Board of supervisors File#LP962061 Page 4 One of the findings of approval for use permit requires the decision making body to make a finding that the proposed use will not create a nuisance and an enforcement problem within the neighborhood. The Commissioners were very concerned about repeated violations of conditions of approval by the applicant. The Commissioners had no confidence that conditions would be complied by the applicant on Christmas tree sales. Reliance on good faith compliance with conditions was determined not to be sufficient by the Commission. 2. ALAMO IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION MEETING; AGENDA The manner in which the Alamo Improvement Association places items on the agenda is not what is before the Board for decision and staff recommends that the Board note this comment from the appellant. 3. COMMISSION'S RELIANCE ON INCORRECT INFORMATION The appellant contends that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission based their decision based on incorrect testimony presented at the hearing. The Commission denied the request since they were unable to make the required findings for approval of the use permit. As indicated by the appellant, testimony was presented by a neighbor that a business owner had relocated from the vicinity due to the problems with Christmas tree sale conducted by the appellant last year. However, the decision to deny the permit was not based on that testimony as evidenced in the attached resolution from the Commission. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Board uphold the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commisson's decision and deny the appellant's appeal. RESOLUTION NO. 15-2000 BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL - DALE BRIDGES, (Appellant and Applicant) PETER OSTROSKY, (Owner) LAND USE PERMIT, (LP002039) ALAMO AREA WHEREAS, an application for a land use permit to modify Condition of Approval#10 of LP952061 to allow the outdoor sale of Christmas trees was received by the Community Development Department on April 17,2000; and WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(Class 4);was prepared for the project; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on July 19,2000;and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2000, the applicant requested a continuance to September 20, 2000 to modify the proposal and the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission continued the matter to September 20,2000; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2000, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted a public hearing; and WHEREAS, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission DENIES the use permit request of Dale Bridges(Applicant)and Peter Ostrosky(Owner);and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: I. That the proposed conditional land use is detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County since the proposed use is too intensive for the site. The proposed site plan encourages loading and deliveries on the driveway to the north. The proposed truck loading area along the frontage of the property and the proposed on-site parking spaces for customers create safety concerns. 2. That the proposed Christmas tree sales use will create a nuisance and an enforcement problem within the neighborhood. Reliance on good faith compliance with conditions, especially the operational conditions, is not sufficient with this project since there is a history of violations and noncompliance with conditions. Resolution No. 15-2000 File LP002039 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this Resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the planning laws of the State of California; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing DENIAL was given by vote of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in a regular meeting Wednesday, September 20,2000 as follows: The instructions by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to prepare this Resolution were given by motion of the Planning Commission on Wednesday, September 20, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners-Couture,Gibson,Ho,Jeha,Matsunaga,Mulvihill and Neely NOES: Commissioners -None ABSENT: Commissioners -None ABSTAIN: Commissioners-None WHEREAS: in a letter dated received October 2, 2000, following the initial decision on this application by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,the applicant appealed the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's denial of File#LP002039 to the Board of Supervisors. SHERRY NEELY Chairman San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission County of Contra Costa State of California 1, Dennis Barry, Secretary of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on September 20,2000. ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary the San Ramon Valley Regional arming Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California AMB/mp SACurrent Planning\Resolutions\LP002039Bridges.doc rt g� i J e at 7 � � a.. ,y r � r i Q r Or ZI � t 'cr !!' ; k i t .Ig }• wvrrt w+w+s i 197 010 007 197 010 008 197 010 019 Alamo Investment Company Peter Ostrosky Gary&Marilyn Meadors 4 Chapparal Ct 17 Sugarloaf Ter 113 Muir Ln Novato, CA 94949 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 197 010 026 197 010 027 197 010 028 Del Prado Co M L Foster Llc Mary Alice Carelli&Mark&Marcia 3240 Stone Valley Rd 3200 Danville Blvd#A 1344 Fountain Springs Cir Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Danville, CA 94526 197 310 004 197 310 005 197 310 006 Elfried Miller&Debra Miller Constance Johnson&Frank&Laure J Marjorie Britian Lurmann 306 Alamo Square Dr 346 W Scatrail Dr 310 Alamo Square Dr#6 Alamo, CA 94507 Sunset Beach,NC 28468 Alamo, CA 94507 197 310 007 197 310 008 197 310 009 Marion Evinann E Patricia Barney James Jelia .131 Eureka St#225 314 Alamo Square Dr 316 Alamo Sq Grass Valley, CA 95945 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 19731,0010 197310011 197310012 Jnlic Ann Manley John &Veronica Radergard Cesare&Dorothy Ciatti 318 Alamo Sq 320 Alamo Square Dr 322 Alamo Sq Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 197 310 013 197310014 197310015 Lee&Irene Mcgi I I Randall Wiggins G M&Sally Cople 324 Alamo Square Dr 326 Alamo Sq PO Box 427 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 197310016 197310017 197310018 Ronald Franklin Barbara Halin Cherie Beerner 330 Alamo Sq#16 332 Alamo Sq 334 Alamo Square Dr#18 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 197 310 019 197 310 020 197 310 021 Donald&Neysa Defremery Gerald Welch Ying.hang 336 Alamo Square Dr 441 Front St 340 Alamo Square Dr Alamo, CA 94507 Danville, CA 94526 Alamo, CA 94507 1973,10025 197 310 056 197 410 007 L Lynne Ward& Alicia Cavallo Alamo Bridge Homeowners Assn Marjorie Johnson 329 Alamo Sq 1.425 Treat Blvd#B 1470 Danville Blvd#7 Alamo, CA 94507 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Alamo, CA 94507 197 410 008 197 410 009 197 410 010 Dona Folcv Nancy Powers James Paul Walker 1470 Danville Blvd#8 1470 Danville Blvd#9 1470 Danville Blvd#10 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 197410011 197410012 198 10013 Deborah Bariman Richard Boreliz 2 Robe Judi Kretz Jud' 1470 Danville Blvd#11, 1470 Danville Blvd#12 PO Box 5 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Danvill CA 9455 26 198010016 198 010 019 198 010 020 Rabe &J ith Kretz J B&Mardi Potts R udi PO Box 3 11 1981 N Broadway#320 Robert I Xx PO Danvi e, C 945,26 Walnut Creek;'CA 94596 Danville,<CA526z 198 020 019 198 020 059 Dorothy Sarah Campbell Paul&Nancy Miller Dorothy Campbell Dabney&Be Miller 100 Alvern Ct 1520 Las Trampas Rd Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Dale-A.B ` des Brian Thiesen Samantha and Randy Matlack 3212 vide Blvd. PO Box 949 809 Richard Lane A o CA 945037 Alamo CA 94507 Danville CA 94526 Beth Batchelor Preston Taylor r Os osy k 3012 Sandstone Road 315 Alamo Square 17 Su loaf Terrace Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 Ala A 94507 Smooth Feed SheetSTM Use template for 5160@ 187 110 010 187 110 011 187 110 012 'Neil & Gisele Ostrofe Howard & Grace Nelson Thor & Shana Tohnson 1499 Sunnybrook Rd 1489 Sunnybrook Rd 1479 Sunnybrook Rd Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 187 110 013 187 110 024 187 110 025 Stanley & Luverne Lockey Ned Jay & Leslie Ryder Thelma Perata 1469 Sunnybrook Rd 1468 Sunnybrook Rd 1.478 Sunnybrook Rd Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 187 110 026 187 110 027 187 110 037 Bert J Conlin Michael & Lorraine Evans Stephen Lewis 1488 Sunnybrook Rd 1.498 Sunnybrook Rd E B Liana Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 1448 Twelve Oaks Ct Alamo CA 94507 187 110 039 187 1.1.0 045 188 303 008 James & Magdalena Capili Kalyan & Deepa Majumdar James & Susan Smith 911 Trent St 1.449 Twelve Oaks Ct 40 Christopher Ln Concord CA 94518 Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 188 303 010 188 303 013 188 303 014 Sigman & Debra Shapiro David Hesselroth Greg & Catherine Carter 10 Christopher Ln Barbara Hesselroth 30 Christopher Ln Alamo CA- 94507 20 Christopher Ln Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 191 093 045 191 093 046 191 093 048 Albert Rubey Richard Klippel Albert Rubey 2021 Omega Rd 3195 Danville Blvd #3197 2021 Omega Rd San Ramon CA 94583 Alamo CA 94507 San Ramon CA 94583 191 180 013 192 071 039 192;N1 003 RREEF USA FUND ONE INC John & Rose Lineweaver Eliz, ,e-t�b, oltzer 230 Alamo Plz #A PO Box 680 Arthur 0 on Jr. Alamo CA 94507 Alamo CA 94507 PO 12 Al mo CA 94507 192 081 004 1?„2082 001 192 OS 001 Elizabeth Overholtzer Wi 11 n Wing William Wing Wing Albert Will Anderson BeqD wood Ct 1712 Pi e od Ct oj Co4eord7cA 171 ConFfd* PO Box 12 :1 CA 94 1 Alamo CA 94507 192 082 001 192 370 001 192 3 002 William & Ann Wing David & Lenore Harris John & rice Tagg 1712 Pepperwood Ct 3174 Danville Blvd #1 PO Box Concord CA 94521 Alamo CA 94507 Pebbl Beac CA 93953 192 370 003 192 370 004 197016-+0 8 0 r Animal Hospital Alamo John & Beatrice Tagg Pe osky,, 0 r Pet 3176 Danville Blvd #3 PO Box 754 17 Sug oaf Ter Alamo CA 94507 Pebble Beach CA 93953 Alamo A 4507 *AVERS(& Address Labels Laser 5160 Smooth Feed Sheets"m Use template for 51600 Dale A. Bridges Dale A. Bridges Peter Ostrosky 22.9 Las Quibradas Lane Bridges Motors Of Alamo 26 Ostrosky Ct. Alamo, CA 94507 3 212 Danville Blvd. Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Association for the Preservation of Alamo Parks and Recreation Comm. Kevin O'Raur Danville Boulevard Andrew H. Young 735 Camino Amigo Bruce Benzler P.O. Box 1062 Danville, CA 94526 P.O. Box 333 Alamo, CA 94507-9998 Alamo, CA 94507 John Henderson Alamo Improvement Association Don Copland 2445 Southview Drive P.O.Box 271 2350 Heritage Oaks Drive Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Wanda Longnecker Karen McPherson Dr. Robert Campbell 28 Darlene Ct. Representing R7A Marriage, Family Therapist Alamo, CA 94507 1 Danula Farms 2543 Lariat Lane Alamo, CA 94507 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tony Carnemolla Bob & Susie Hill Leona Peterson 2665 Lunada Lane 140 Austin Lane 1473 Paseo Nogales Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Bernadine Zunino Union Bank Mission Trail Oil Company Trust Tabco 200 Pringle Avenue#200 4250 Williams Road Danville Blvd. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 San Jose, CA 95129 Alamo, CA 94507 Lena Yang Gary&Marilyn Meadors Mary Alice Carelli 1904 Scarborough Ct. P.O. Box 424 Mark&Marcia Kahn Modesto, CA 95355 Alamo, CA 94507 1344 Fountain Springs Circle Danville, CA 94526 Del do ompany Hale Wai Investors Robert&Judith Kretz 3240 St e Valley Road West 1470 Danville Blvd. #13 P.O. Box 683 Alamo CA 4507 Alamo, CA 94507 Danville, CA 94526 Company J. Gordon&Edna Bingham Family Trust Grabel Alamo IN estm P-d 1657 N. California Blvd. #202 P.O. Box 544 4 Chappara- --t Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Alamo, CA 94507 Novat A 9 =949 Edward V. Stein, President 1p952061.1ab Alamo Investment Co. Box 557 San Anselmo, CA 94979 *AVERY@ Address Labels Laser 51600 smooth reed Sheetsrm Use temptate for 51600 197 -010 026 1 kCA 7 Mary Al ' ce Carelli DEL P rnCO F'ast Grabel Marr & is n 3240 Sto e Valley Rd W PO 1344 Foun Springs Alamo 4507 Ala4507 Cir Danv' le CA 4526 .t. 198 010 013 198 010 016Zs 198 10 019 Robert Judith Kretz Rob t Judith Kretz J tr�?CA9 PO Box 580 PtO B 683 32e Blvd #175 Danville CA 94526 Danv` CA ,94526 Al 4507 ,y a -198 010 019 198 0 0 1 010 20 N.J B Potts J B Po Rabe & Judith Kretz 3201 Danville, Blvd #175 3201. n " le Blvd #175 32 D ville Blvd Alamo CA 94507 Alam CA 94 07 A amo CA 94507 .198 010 020 Robert & Judith Kretz, 3225 Danville Blvd Alamo CA 94507 t3sm AVSRYe ,address t.abets user 5160 198 190 035 198 190 038 Pliillip Buchanan&K A 5 Lark Properties Lie 322 Lark Ln 295 Barrington Ln Alamos. CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Bridges CALIFORNIA DEALER #2 Motors 3212 Danville Blvd., Alamo, California 94507 o ' jamor ---� -� 7°el:(510)838-1801 Fax: (510)838-1808 Dale A Bridges 3212 Dame Boulevard Alamo, Califormia 94507 29 September 2000 Ms.DO=Gerber,Chair . Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 63_�.Pine stract .. bUrdner,California 94553 y t.' r : h re:Appeal from San Ustrosr Walley Reglonal plitting Commission decision do**Christmas Trca L"UP application 95-2461. SRVRPC having--20 September 2000 Dar Members ofthe Board At the San Ramon Vat*F,agioaal Planning Commission hating on 20 September,that ComniWon vote==d to deny the Christmas'Tree pe=rmit for which 1 Iced applied last Spring, despite the StaffReport that recommended approval. Please consider this my appeai ofthat denial ami you will find ecralose d my check to cover the fling fee for the appeal. Consistently&n4 Cornussion discussion they addrazed their unhappiness that I had not applied for a permit in time hist year and tharafore this permit should be denied because somehow having such a Christmas Tree lot inAlanmo"encouraged marginal development", W. The application had the recommendation of Staff and also of ALA until a couple ofnigh is before the San Ramon Valky Regional Plar7ning Commission hearing when AWs P'reddeat appeared before ore;;the AIA.Planning Co amittee—without letting me know he was.going to do this and without the Item evesm being an the AIA Agenda--and lobbied to get the Planning Committee to change its recommendation. From the tapas of the AIA Board hearing the following night,I understand the ATA PlawCommittee did Az change its recommendation. As a relit,the AIA President appeared befbre the fllll AIA Board the next night,again without telling me ani about it so I had to opportunity to be heard--and placed the matter on the agenda that night(over the oma-ns of some AIA membera)and than vigorously lobbied to have the Board,change its rec vnendstion—whit any advice to nm or opportunity to be heard, 9�st�uce�scptco.�soc 1 Customer Satisfaction Guaranteed "Let's Do Business" New.Used Auto Broker Contra Costs.Board of Supervisors 29 September 2000 We were shocked to learn about this,just the day before the heaft, and to listen to the Board tape when AIA's Presidettxt hi total disregard to any appropriate process said he could do it since ALA.is an uel6md body" and need not be concerned about whether things are properly put on an agenda and whether someone bas a chance to appear be lbra the:Board so long as he as President wanted the xnatter added to the Agendal. As you know,I have invested as great deal of time and effort to mike this Land Use,application attractive for the commmity(similar to the tree sale lot directly across the street at Yardbirds). AIA and the Planning Commission dedded that ifI were granted this permit than it might adversely effect other businesses is Alamo—based on Author incarrsct Information provided them,at the I=minute,by vV naWhbo>r,who mistakedly told thm that a business had loft Alamo bw=se of our Christmas'Biot Lot. He had no valid Worrnation about that but the planning Commission relied in part on that In denying try"licatlion. I ask you to objectively hear this eppllcatlon so that Alamo does not lose a valuable tradition and so that all the work of staff and mys4 in putting this together with Staff`it recommendation of approval not be lost just because of this tainted*t xus. Thank you for your consideration. Yours tcvly f7 Dales A�Brid s c e, all members of Board of Supervisors Community Development DeparCmea t, enc:Appeal fee chc& sa3n �rxtnoa 2 Agenda Item#5 Community Development Contra Costa County SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 - 7:30 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION DALE BRIDGES ( Applicant) - PETER OSTROSKY ( Owner) , County File # LP002039. The applicant is requesting a modification to Condition of Approval #10 of LP952061 to allow the outdoor sale of Christmas trees. The subject property is addressed 3212 Danville Boulevard in Alamo._ (Parcel # 197-010-008) (CT:3440) (Zoning:R-B/S-2)(ZA:R-I5) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approve the request to allow the outdoor sale of Christmas trees. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The site is designated Commercial (CO). B. Zoning: The site is zoned Retail Business (R-BlS-2) C. CE A: Categorical Exemption, Class 4 - Minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including Christmas tree sales. t D. Previous Application: County Dile #LP952061: Aland use permit to continue a used car dealership was approved by the County on May 19, 1999. IV. BACKGROUND The land use permit to continue a used car dealership was granted for the property subject to certain conditions (attached). The permit prohibited the sale of Christmas trees without an approved land use permit. The applicant sold Christmas trees from the premises in November and December of 1999 without obtaining a land use permit which was in direct violation of the conditions of approval. S-2 The County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on April 18, 2000 to determine if cause exists to revoke the permit approved under County File #LP952051. On April 17, 2000, the applicant filed an application with the County to amend the use permit to allow the sale of Christmas trees. At the April 18, 2000 meeting of the Board, the ,Board took testimony from the public and continued the hearing to August 8, 2000 in order to allow for processing and hearing of the Christmas tree sales permit. Since this application was continued. by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to September 20, 2000, the Board has continued its meeting on the revocation to October 17, 2000. V. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION The property is approximately one half of an acre and is located south of Stone Valley Road and east of Danville Boulevard To the east of the property is San Ramon Creek. Other business offices are located to the immediate north of the property. The surrounding area is predominantly retail business and office use. A used car dealership operates out of the facility. VI. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant is proposing to sell Christmas tree from the premises during the holiday season. During that time the car dealership \Fill be closed and automobiles from the dealership will be stored off--site. The tree sales is proposed to start approximately one week before Thanksgiving each year and sales expected to conclude the 23rd and 24'x' of December. Following cleanup, Bridges Motors Used Motors car dealership will be resumed by the 301' of December. The applicant is proposing to install a temporary eight foot chain link fence along the front and the north side of the property to secure the property. Three parking spaces are proposed on the north side of the property. Access to the parking spaces is proposed off the existing driveway on the north side; of the property. The applicant has an access easement for the use of the driveway. The tree sales area is proposed predominantly on the west side of the property. The applicant is proposing a 12' tall fiberglass Santa to be placed on the property. A flocking area is proposed to the south of the parking spaces. The applicant is not proposing to use any chain saws or generators on the site. S-3 The applicant has indicated that delivery of trees to the site would occur in mid- November and then sporadic deliveries could occur at night. The applicant is also proposing delivery to clients" residences who do not wish to take their holiday tree home with them. VII. STAFF ANALYSIS A. PARKING County parking ordinance requires a minimum of one parking space for each two employees for retail and wholesale establishments conducted primarily outside of buildings. In a letter dated August 22, 2000, the applicant has stated that he expects to have several part-time employees. He has also stated that the full-time equivalent is-expected to be in the range of four or five employees. A total of three off-street parking spaces are proposed. This meets the parking requirement of the ordinance. In addition, the applicant is proposing valet parking at the Creekside Community Church, located approximately two blocks south of the proposed Christmas tree lot. The Creekside Community Church has agreed to provide access to their parking lot during the holiday sales season (letter attached). The proposed valet parking could be utilized during peak hours of business. B. TREE DELIVERY Danville Boulevard is a heavily traveled street. In order to avoid potential traffic conflicts,, staff recommends that the tree delivery to the site not take place from 4 P.M.- 6 P.M. Since the nearest residential use is less than 300 feet away, staff also recommends that deliveries not take place prior to 6:30 A.M. or after 9:30 P.M. C. CHRISTMAS TREE SALES The proposed Christmas tree sales is consistent with the Retail Business Zoning and County General Plan designation for the site. D. SIGNS The applicant is proposing a fiberglass Santa to be located along the frontage of the property. This is considered a temporary sign since it would be on the property for less than 90 days. The property is subject to S2 Sign Control Combining District Ordinance. The proposed 12" free standing S-4 Santa sign is consistent with the Sign Control Combining District Ordinance and staff supports the request. However, staff is recommending that the sign be placed 10' from the front property line, since a 101 front setback is required for all structures in R-B Zoning District. VIII. AGENCY COMMENTS A. Office of the Sheriff- General comments regarding lighting and security' were made and it is attached to this report. B. Alamo Improvement Association: In a letter dated May 18, 2000, the Alamo Improvement Association recommended approval of the proposed Christmas tree sales on a temporary basis with-a number of conditions (attached). The Alamo Improvement Association condition requires four on-site parking spaces. The Alamo Improvement Association also is requiring that the applicant meet all current requirements/conditions of the used car lot prior to approval of the Christmas tree lot. The Alamo Improvement Association is also requiring an annual revieNv 'Staff Response: The applicant is providing three on-site parking spaces The County parking ordinance requires the applicant to provide three on-site spaces and the applicant has satisfied the requirement. The applicant has not fully complied with conditions of approval for the used car lot. However, the County has no authority to condition the Christmas tree sales on compliance with the used car permit conditions. Since the County has experienced difficulty with this applicant in the past regarding condition compliance, staff supports the annual reNieNv recommended by Alamo Improvement Association. Staff recommends the project applicant pay appropriate fees to the County to monitor the project. The applicant will be required to apply for condition compliance review on or before the 25"' of November of each year, beginning this year. Staff recommends annual review of the project for the first five years. If at any time, it is determined that the project is not in compliance with the conditions of approval, then revocation process will be commenced. IX. Staff recommends that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approve the use permit for Christmas tree sales. AMB/mp 9/12/00 SACunent Planning\Staff Reports\LP002039(9-20-00).doc FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FOR LAND USE PERMIT LP002039 FINDINGS A. Land Use Permit Findings: 1) That the proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the County; Evidence The applicant is requesting a temporary use of Christmas tree sales that operates only for approximately 40 days out Of the year. The proposed seasonal use will not be detrimental to the health,,- safety and general welfare of the County. 2) That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the County; Evidence As a temporary use serving the public need annually, there is no impact to the orderly development of property. 3) That it shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the County-, Evidence This seasonal industry would be an important part of the local community fabric, serving the community once a year as a tax paying business and providing enjoyment throughout the Christmas holidays annually for local families. 4) That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan; Evidence Christmas tree sale is compatible with the general plan designation of Commercial. x 2 5) That it shall not create a nuisance and or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community, Evidence Conditions of approval are a part of this permit to improve traffic circulation, and limit the time and number of trucks bringing in Christmas trees. Annual monitoring of the project is also required as a condition of approval of this project. 6) That it shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Evidence As a seasonal use there are no impacts to the neighborhood due to conditions imposed and annual monitoring. 7) That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Evidence The facility is located in central Alamo and is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. B. Growth Management Element Performance Standards: 1) Traffic: The project as proposed will not generate more than 100 peak hour trips. Therefore, the applicant is not required to prepare a traffic report pursuant to the 1988 Measure C requirements. Z) Water: The project is within the East Bay Municipal Utility District. No comments were received from the District. 3) Sanitary Sewer: The project is within the Contra Costa Sanitary District. 4) Fire Protection: The project will be required to comply with the District's requirements. 5) Public Protection: The Growth Management Element Standard is 155 square feet of Sheriff facility station area per 1,000 population. This project will not generate population growth. 3 6) Parks & Recreation: This project will not impact the need for parks and recreation. 7) Flood Control & Drainage: The project does not increase the impervious surface area and hence the project would have no impacts on drainage. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General Conditions: 1. Development is approved as shown on revised plans, received by the Community Development Department on August 3, 2000. This permit requires the applicant to provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator regarding condition compliance prior to commencing the use of the property for Christmas tree sales. 2. This application is subject to an initial application fee of $500 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 3. The use permit for the Christmas tree sales shall be subject to an annual review of the conditions for the first five years (2000—2005). The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the annual review. The applicant shall submit the compliance report to the County by November 25th of each year. 4. The applicant shall not use chain saNvs, generators or other noise generating equipment on the site. Signs and Lighting: 5. The 12$ fiberglass Santa is approved '%;rith this permit. It shall be setback by 10' from the front property line. No other outside displays or signs are permitted. 4 6. Exterior lights shall be deflected so that lights shine onto the applicant's property and not toward adjacent properties. Number of Employees: 7. The applicant is limited to a maximum Of six full-time employees. Dust and Litter Program: 8. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion at all times. Following the cessation of sales activity,-all debris shall be removed from the site. Hours and Numbers of Trucks: 9. The applicant is limited to one truck delivery at any one time. 10. _ Tree deliveries to the site shall not occur between 4:00 P.M. – 6:00,_ P.M. and shall not occur after 9:30 P.M. or prior to 6:30 A.M. 11. The hours of business (open to public) shall be from 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. 12. The applicant shall be responsible to control the parking. The access easement to the north of the propert),shall not be used for parking. 13. The applicant shall provide valet parking service at the Creekside Community Church and shall maintain a daily log to determine the usage of the service. 14. — The three off street parking spaces shown on the drawings received by the Community Development Department on August 3, 2000 shall be available to customers and shall be marked as such. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR LAND USE PEMIff 2039-00 Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8, 9, and 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any Ordinance Code exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plan received by the Community Development Department on April 17, 2000. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THESE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO INITIATION OF THE USE SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. General: 15. Prior to initiation of the use contemplated under this permit (Christmas tree sales), the applicant and the property owner shall fully comply with all conditions of approval of the previous entitlement on the site (LP 2061-95), except as modified below. Roadway Improvements: 16. Within 90 days from the approval of this permit, or prior to October 1, 2000 whichever comes first, the applicant shall satisfy all of the following requirements for roadway improvements: The applicant shall construct curb, 2 meter (6-5±fbot) sidewalk (width measured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, border landscaping and irrigation, pavement N-sidening and transitions along the frontage of Danville Boulevard. Applicant shall construct face of curb 3 meters (10±feet) from the ultimate right of Nvay line. The applicant shall submit a preliminary sketch and profile to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, showing the vertical and horizontal alignment of Danville Boulevard to determine the feasibility of salvaging the existing pavement. The preliminary sketch and profile shall extend a minimum of 30 m (100± feet) beyond the limits of the proposed work. If the grade is unacceptable, the applicant shall level, overlay or remove and replace the pavement as necessary. Applicant shall cut existing pavement to a neat line along an existing adequate structural section when widening the pavement. Widening shall commence at that line. 6 The applicant shall core the existing pavement in a minimum of three locations between the existing traveled way and the proposed curb to determine the pavement structural section. If the structural section is inadequate, the applicant shall overlay or remove and replace the pavement as necessary. The applicant shall construct an asphalt concrete path from the southern end of the sidewalk to the existing bike lane on the southern boundary of the frontage, without encroaching into the bike lane. The applicant shall stripe the frontage of the parcel to accommodate parallel parking. Road Dedications: 17. Within 90 days from the approval of this permit, or prior to October 1, 2000 whichever comes first, the applicant or property owner shall convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the right of way necessary for the ultimate width of Danville Boulevard. The area to be dedicated is triangular in shape on the northwest comer of the parcel. The sides of the dedicated area are 1.5± rn (5 feet) along the north property line and 18.3±m(60 feet) along the west property line. Street Lighting: 18. Immediately after approval of the permit or prior to July 31, 2000, whichever comes first, the property owner shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting: a letter of request and a metes and bounds description, and by paying the current LAFCO fees. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation. This process may take approximately 4 to 6 months to complete. Non-compliance with the application process shall be grounds for revocation of the land use permit. Annexation shall be completed by December 1, 2000, or this land use permit(LP 2039-00) shall be subject to immediate revocation. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES): 19. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco Bay- Region 11,or Central Valley- Region IV). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices (BMPs) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate the following long-term BMPs in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage. These BMPs are for this entitlement (LP 2039-00) only. Other BMPs required for previous entitlements (LP 2061-95)shall remain in full effect. Trash bins shall.be sealed to prevent leakage, OR, shall be located within a covered enclosure. Cleaning of the paved area shall be done only with a vacuum-type sweeper. The applicant shall sweep the paved portion of the site at least four times a year utilizing a vacuum-type sweeper. Verification (invoices, etc.) of the sweeping shall be provided quarterly to the County Clean Water Program Administrative Assistant at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553, (925) 313-2238. Have spill clean up materials on-site and readily available for use. No materials, including tree cuttings and tree stands shall be stored or disposed of in the creek area. ADP7SORYNOTES 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. Comply with the Building Inspection Department requirements. B. Comply with the San Ramon VaIlley Fire Protection District requirements. C. 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. AMB/mp 9/12/00 S:current planning/staff reports/LP002039coa PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: September 6, 2000 TO: Aruna Bhat, Principal Planner, Community Development FROM: Jerry Fatly, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Services SUBJECT: PERMIT 2039-00: COMMENTS ON REVISED MAP (Bridges Motors/Danville Blvd./Alamo Area/APN 197-010-008) FILE: LP 2039-00 We have reviewed the revised site plan to expand the allowed use of the Bridges Motors' site to include the sale of Christmas trees. Our comments are based on the site plan dated August 2,2000. Please refer to our comments dated May 9,2000(copy attached)regarding this proposed expansion of use. Community Development may wish to revise the deadline dates set in our previous memo. The Public Works Department recommends that this current application not be considered until the applicant has complied with all the previous condition's of approval for LP 95-2061. If you should have any questions, I can be reached at(925) 313-2276. JC-jf 0-.\GtpData\EngSveVerry120001Scptembcedp2039-GO.doe M. H,Ballenger,Engineering Services M.Morton,Engineering Services D.Bridges,3212 Danville Blvd.,Alamo,CA 94507 Debolt Civil Engineering, 811 San Ramon Valley Blvd.,Danville, CA 94526 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: May 9, 2004 TO: Aruna Bhat, Principal Planner, Community Development FROM: Paul Detjens, Civil Engineer, Current Planning, Engineering Servic c -- SUBJECT: PERMIT 2039-00: 30-DAY Ct' MMENTS and CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, (Bridges Motors/Danville Blvd. /Alamo Area/APN 197-+014-448) FILE: LP 2039-00 We have reviewed the application to expand the allowed uses of the Bridges Motors' site to include the sale of Christmas trees, and provide the following comments and conditions of approval. Our comments are based on the site plan received by the Commurun'Development Department on April 17, 2000. Previous Entitlements: The previous entitlement (LP 952061) was approved with a nurnber of specific conditions of approval, which were to be complied with within six months of approval of the last use permit. The most complex, and expensive of these conditions was the requirement to install frontage improvements on Danville Boulevard. Prior to approval of die permit last May, the applicant requested a deferral of the construction of these improvements until a specific date, July 31, 2000. The Public Works Department considered Mr. Bridges' request, and allowed an extension to that date. The deferral was included in condition of approval 916 for LP 952461: 16. The applicant is grunted an exception from installation off 011fage improvements,provided the property owner executes a deferred improvement agreentenr for thefollowing improvements and associated work If the improvements are not constructed by July 31, 2000, this land use permit (LP 9502061)shall be subject to immediate revocation. Currently,the applicant does not appear to be on schedule for satisfying this condition of approval. The property owner has not yet executed the required deferred improvement agreement, and the applicant has not yet submitted improvement plans for reviexv, nor applied for an encroachment permit for the required work. It is highly unlikely that the applicant will install the required improvements before the scheduled date. Aruna Bhat LP 2039-00 May 9, 2000 Page 2 Another condition of approval for the previous entitlement required the applicant to annex into Lighting District L-100: 25. The Property owner shall apply for annexation to Colr,10!Service Area L-100 Lighting District' by submitting. a letter of request and a metes and bounds description, and by paying the current LAFCOJees. Application for annexation shall occur innnediately after approval of thepernift. S ne applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Propo itio12 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation. This process may take approximately 4 to- 6 months to complete. Non- compliance with the application process shall be grounds for revocation of the land use permit. The application for annexation shall occur by July 31, 1999. Annexation shall occur by February 1, 2000, or this land use permit(LP 95-20611 shall be subject to immediate revocation. The applicant has not yet applied for annexation to the L-100 district as was required by July 31, 1999. In addition, the conditions of approval for the LP 952061 contain other, more minor Public Works requirements,which have yet to be satisfied. Current Application: The current application requests approval to add seasonal Christmas tree sales at the existing used car lot. Clearly,granting of further entitlements on this propem,will require full compliance with previous conditions of approval. The sale of Christmas trees is a shorter duration, but more intense use of the site. The need for the frontage improvements is even more acute with this intense use. The Public Works Department recommends that this current application not be considered until the applicant has complied with all the previous conditions of approval. However, if the project is taken to hearing to consider allowing the sale of Christmas trees,we offer the following conditions of approval to include in your staff report. If you should have any questions, I can be reached at(925)313-2394. PRD-.Icw G:\GrpData\EngSvc\Paui\2000\May\lp2O39-OO.doc cc: R.Ballenger,Engineering Services M.Morton,Engineering Services S.Wright,Engineering Services D.Bridges,3212 Danville Blvd,,Alamo,CA 94507 ✓ � r • 498 � � j "• ` � � ' / �.•"k r ti 497 i P Jil 1 a �Q go fj-665 as t - '1 60 Ir 495 e; s -Its ^cl j, 4 `►,jf AH is, • ' r`t ♦ t95� t 57 N9� 1556 �Eeiof f Mim+i 44917If ICAi�b t5`�7 t�ni RAivCHO SAN RAMON -61 L.S.M. 45 2-17-77 5�gg MD /&-&I u A 4 � #ci M 41 1" 1-10 TRACT 5 60 LQ 5-3-7-9 Ddb i 010 1.061 AC Jt` t oilr AV' IAS cot 179 15 !r � i�2 27 s. � �5671 -.t 1 ��� e 5 t 46 1 .98 1. s 9 t R A ° R W d'•" d Q �t :� �4 J �!! i • � J :r---- y J V* e -1 Lfridges '; '{ , CALIFORNIA DEALER #2 Motors V _ : : 3212 Danville M& Alamo, -CP 94507 i ,i:a �, JJj�Ay{{ (/J� �/�/ Tel:(510) 83 �tply Fax:,tsl D}83}8-1808 Date Bridges 4 3212 Danville Blvd Alamo, California 94507 22 August 2000 Aruna Bhat Contra Costa Community Development Department 651 Fine St - 5 h Floor Martinez, California 94553-0095 re: Land use permit 2039 -- Danville Boulevard improvements (also LUP 95-2061) Bridges Motors - Alamo -- further answers to further questions Dear Aruna You have asked for additional information about a number of items and I would like to go over those here; I understand you are on vacation this week and wanled these answers when you come back next week-- to hopefully facilitate recommending final Stagy approval of this permanent Land Use .Permit application. A. Trash management plans. On a daily basis we clean up any trash in front of the building, along San Ramon Valley Boulevard, and elsewhere on tate parcel and put it in the receptacle on the site shown on our application in the North%rear area marked "Trash Site", as those pians were"Updated 8-2-00". B. Signage for Christmas tree sales. We do not plan any permanent signage. On the signs previously approved there may be superimposed "Bridges Christmas Tree Sales or similar wording. We also plan to have some temporary signs to locate gartands, different tree types, wreaths, etc.. C. Fencing proposal. Fencing will enclose the part of tn:lot where trees are stored, to protect the trees from vandalise and theft. The fencin<e will thus be between the 3 on site parking spaces and the tree lot itself, to make sure parking cars do nt?t ina-dvertently interface with folks walking around looking at trees. 1 Customer Satisfaction Guaranteed "Let's Do Business" New-Used Auto Broker Community Development Department 22 August 2000 D. Tree loadingJunloadine. I assume this means delivery of trees to the site from Christmas Tree land where they are out, bundled and brought to Alamo. This activity should not begin until mid November and then it will be sporadic, usually at night. The suppliers send their tree trucks on as close a schedule as possible but some may arrive mid day. We will make sure that if any arrive during normal business hours our Helpers will be able to assist in traffic control ...just as is done by our neighbor across the street at Yardbirds when trees are delivered there or the daily deliveries of all sorts of things to Yardbirds from fork lifts from the street in front. All deliveries will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. E. Lighting of the site. Lighting will be as per the lighting plans which you approved in early August. There will likely also be seasonal Holiday light sets, not related to this particular property, similar to what Alamo Merchants and Professional Association (AMPA) encourages all businesses in downtown Alamo to display. F. Parking Per our discussion at the 19 July meeting, we have placed 3) parking spots on site, at the size you directed of 9' x 19', as shown on the plans submitted to you in early August, as referred to in paragraph A above. -W G. Valet oarkina detail. Valet parking will be from the area in front of the site, along Danville Boulevard. Cars that want Valet Parking will be driven by Santa's Helpers to the Creekside Community Church, a block or two South. When the customer has completed her(or his) selection, the Helpers will retrieve the vehicle for them. Helpers will be ferried back and forth, if necessary, by Sleighmobiles from the site to the Church parking lot. The agreement from Creekside was in a letter I gave you previously. H. Delivery(kind and fretuencvl. I understand you mean delivery from the site to residents' homes. Periodically we will be providing delivery to those clients who do not wish to take their holiday tree home with them. This will be accomplished by our small delivery truck temporarily parking in the area south of the Valet Parking area, marked"Loading of Trees" on the site map referred to above. The tree(s) will then be loaded on the delivery Sleighmobile and taken to the happy customer's home. I. Noise -generating activities. None of the items complained of in the past are planned; ie there are to be no chain saws, no generators on site, etc. As you may recall, during the past Holiday season there were no complaints of this nature and the neighbors seemed pleased. 2 Bridges �� '' �. � CALIFORNIA [SEALER #2 Motors _ :;: `4,i - 3212 Danville Blvd., Alamo, California 94507 Ofhlr�mo Tel:(510)838-1801 ,Fax: (510)838-1808 � Dale Bridges 3212 Danville Blvd Alamo, California 94507 Aruna Bhat Community Development Department Centra Costa County 651 Fine St- 50'Floor Marintez, California 94553-0095 re: Land use permit 2039 Dear Aruna Following up our discussions since your letter of 16 May, let me set forth here the answers that I believe I have given you orally: a. I estimate the number of trees that will be sold will be 5 00-1000 trees depending each year on the demand during that particular season, delivered over many weeks, and many of which will not be on the lot or will be sold before more are placed on the lot. There will only be a much smaller number of trees actually on the lot at any given time. The hours'of operation of the tree sales lot will be from t asci to 8 pm, 7 days a week, starting approximately one week before Thanksgiving each year and sales will conclude approximately 23 December each year, with clean-up and the site back to its Bridges Motors sale condition by the 30' of December each year. b. Customers will park in the 6 or 7 public parking spaces in front of the lot and we will have overflow parking available at Creekside Community Church. (via valet parking) located just south of us on Danville Blvd. Please let me know if you have any further questions Fours ruly f Dale Bridge ° Customer Satisfaction Guaranteed "Let's Do Business" New-used Auto Broker Community Development Department 22 August 2000 I Number of employees. There will be several part time employees, from the local high schools and junior colleges, who will be earning money during this holiday season and will assist in sales and delivery. But the total full time equivalents are expected to be in the range of 4 or 5. Parking, as you know, per Para F above, would allow for 6 Full Time Equivalents. Actually the part time employees will be parking at Creekside Community Church to make sure there is adequate parking near the site for customers. We look forward to your support on this important Alamo home town Christmas Tree lot project. These requirements are very heavy and we hope that the restrictions are no greater than are being required of any similar Christmas Tree lot application in Contra Costa County. Yo truly 'y Dale Bridges cc: Supervisor Donna Gerber Gene DeBolt Brian D. Thiessen &imtg Cit` &utrca (.tt4} 11 COfftrr of HIP iNjrriff Warren E.Rupf Shed" May 8, 2000 Aruna Bhat 651 Pine St. 4t" Floor N. Wing Martinez Ca. 94553-0095 Clear Ms Bhat REIP002039 Project Description This application is a request to modify an existing land use permit to allow the seasonal sales of Christmas trees on a yearly basis.The site currently is used for automobile sales.The Office of the Sheriff offers these recommendations based on C.P.T.E.D.(Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design). Location Information The site is located in a retail business area. Crime analysis data does not indicate an identified crime pattern. Site Flan Recommendations Lighting: Parking areas and grounds contiguous to buildings to buildings should be provided with high intensity lighting with sufficient wattage to provide adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises during the hours of darkness. All exterior doors' shall be provided with their own light source. > Fencing: Due to the nature of its use, the perimeter fence should be eight feet high. Mr. Bridges told me temporary fencing would be erected during the sales season. 1980 Muir Road • Martinez, California 945.-3-4800 (925) 313-2500 "Conxrnunity Polichig Since 18x0....'" > Numbering: The address numbers should be illuminated during the hours of darkness so that it is easily visible from the street. The numerals should be no less than four to six inches in height and of a color contrasting With the background. > Alarms: Mr. Bridges told me there is a preexisting alarm on the main building. > Traffic and Parking: The proposed curb and sidewalk would greatly improve pedestrian safety. There is minimal parking available on site. There is street parking available. Mr. Bridges stated valet parking would-be offered. Sin rely, (A Sgt.n ra a k Seidman l' Con 161 osta County Office of the Sheriff Adm i rative and Community Services cc: Dale Bridges THU 11:40 FAX 815 855 1UbU WJUU ALA S.../ INPQOVE= AMO WH N For rMe P.o.5Ox 271 • A.NO.cameo 94507 • (925)86r>3606 May 18,2000 BY FAX T0,335-1222 Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,a Floor,N.Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Attu: Aruna Bhat Subjem LP 00 2039. Re-quest is to approve an amendment to LP 95-2061 of 1995 for a used car lot, to allow Christmas tree sales during Christmas season. R-B/S2 zoning: Dear Ms. lBhat: Subject application: was reviewed by the Alamo Improvtmetu Association' 8 Planning Committee on May 14,2000 and by our Board the following evening. Our review determined Alamo residents have both iaterest and concerns about this application. Residents excpressed interest in the seasonal color created by a local Christmas tree lot. Residents feel it compliments our small town atmosphere. However, neighboring businesses and residents expressed concerns regarding ovesflaw parking,traffic safety,debris and signage. Attached are copies of letters supporting both intent in and concerns about the application. Detailed discussion revealed that, during the last holiday season, increased activity did create significant over-flow paring problems for several neighboring businesses as well as developing traffic safety problems along Manville Blvd- Refuse and debris from the business did migrate into neighboring business parking and access along Danville Blvd. Concern was voiced about pollution problems that could develop for Danville Creek (located along the bade of the property) from debris, flocking and fire retardant matetials, used on site. Applicant reviewed the process used by Fire Department in approving the site for such use of materials during each season. Applicant also reviewed attempts to mitigate noise from business by eliminating both chain saws and generators on site during the last holiday season.. Business employs lord high school students during holiday season. Applicant donates a large number of trees to local charities duriug each holiday season. 95/18140 THU 11:40 FAX 925 855 2050 BENEFITS STORE WJ00. MMO IMPOVEAWuC1AU0X May 18,2000 For Yoe t • P .BOX 271 tUMO. CUMNIA 94507 • (92-)866.3606 f The Planning Committee also reviewed past experiences and problems with the applicant's permitting process for the used car lot at this location from 1995 to present. After significant discussion,this application was approved for use on a temporary basis :and subject to annual review with the following mitigating conditions: PAREING 1) Overflow parking to be controlled through the use of a uniformed parking patrol acceptable to owner of adjoining proper}' and paid for by applicant, Parties to coordinate hours needed for parte patrol. 2) Applicant to establish non-competing offsite pang areas for business with similar use and traffic counts. At applicant's sutggestiorn, applicant is to provide valet service as method of access to offsite parking. 3) Four onsite off-street parking spaces to be proc•ided for customer use. 4) One parking space located in street at front of business to be identified and striped for drop off and pick-up use. 5) Tree delivery trucks to park alongside sided including driveway, designated loading space and adjoining spaces "coned" for this temporary use. No double parking of any delivM vehicLe and/or parking in the middle lane of Danville Blvd. 6) Donated tree pick-up to occur outside of conal business hours of 8:00.AM to 8:00 Pn 7) No parking use of access easement located at north end of property. TRAFFIC SAFErY 8) No double parking of customer's vehicles. 9) Refuse and debris in street and parking areas including adjoining business parking .to be swept during business hours. A thorough cleaning to be performed at end of each business day. 10) Pedestrian. access (sidewalks) to be raimi aiued with no merchandise or product located on sidewalk or adjoining cut+and parallel parking areas. (f5/1tf1UU THO 11'41 r'A.b VZ* boo zvau -1)10 , WJvu ALAMONMOVEWS L 1(MOCR11,ON May 18,2000 for NO coxhy lift P 0 BOX 271 M MO, C'MRMM 9M + {94}866.3606 RESIDENTIAL IMPACT 11) Hours of business operation(opsin to public) to be 5.00 AM to 8:00 PM 12) No chain saws or generators on site. 13) .Flocking and fire retardant material and application process to .meet all county and any other agency requirements. 14) Temporary signage of £iberglass :Santa to be located (as shown on the application) along side of the driveway for property, at least 5 £r. back from (:not on) the sidewalk and disguised by 4-5 ft trees placed around the Santa. 15) Applicant shall,meet all current requirements of the present land use permit for use of property as used car lot befor WtOval of this temporary laud use permit (which will be subject to it's own annual review). Sincerely, Roger E Smith Chairman,Panning Committee CC ALA Secretary Applicant Allanncp ChIlt-oprelctic Clinic Family Chiropractic Care Massage Therapy Nutritto Physiotherapeutics DANIELS. SMITH, D.C. Sports Medicine September-6, 2000 Alamo Improvement Association Attn: Syd Wahlen 3195 Danville Blvd. Alamo, California 94507 Subject: Continued violations and neglect issues; new concerns regarding Bridges Motors. Dear Syd: I would like to make you aware of the problems my business operation has because of the violations Dale Bridges continues to repeat. Despite numerous requests,conversations and notifications to Dale from myself, the AIA, Supervisor Donna Gerber and the County over the past several years, Dale continues to make promises and then ignores them. Additionally,with the new sidewalk which was required of Bridges Motors to construct to keep their car lot permit, there are new concerns and potential problems that should be noted. Re: violations and neglect issues: I_ In the past several weeks there have been daily problems with Dale, his employees, customers and construction workers parking in front and in the back of my office. ' here was one occurance of a used car parked on our lot. 2. There have been several times that Dale,his employees,customers and construction workers have blocked the driveway leading to our parking spaces at the back of our building. This blockage is very disruptive to me,my customers and employees. 3. Dale parks his used cars on Danville Blvd and leaves them there for weeks. This is a public road for public parking and not to be used as an extension of his car lot. Will this business operation continue to park cars for sale on Danville Blvd., and who will regulate this issue? 4. The Bridges Motors Christmas tree truck when parked in front of the car lot blocks the views of drivers pulling out of our driveway onto Danville Blvd.. This is dangerous. Is 3210 Danville Blvd.•Alamo,CA94507 • Tel(925)831-0766• Fax(925)831-0996 , Email:alamo.chiro@worldnetatt.net Cid!t?t3t Lk'�Y3�1 Y3y:t3 f 1 ��� C 5. In July,I asked Dale when sidewalk construction would begin and end as I had concerns about the noise and construction. bale promised the job would begin approximately July 20 and would be completed by July 31. Need I mention that he acknowledged this completion date,as per the county's condition of approval deadline date,at the AIA meeting in June. I reduced the schedule of my patients and staffed my office lightly the fast 10 days of July and also scheduled for my carpets to be cleaned August 10 due to the construction. Unfortunately,Dale's promises did not happen and six weeks later my business continues to experience the stress of the delayed completion of construction. Re: Review of playas and effects of new sidewalk: 1. There is poor visibility for north bound traffic cars pulling-out of our driveway onto Danville Blvd. of which the county has been:advised. An 8' long red(no parking) zonae at the north end of the new sidewalk is required to improve visibility for northbound traffic. The sidewalk at the north end is not up to regulation, the way it curves down to create the driveway entrance, and this x%ill need to be corrected. Supervisor Donna Gerber's staff informed me that the county had requested a more detailed plan of the north end of the sidewalk which the county did not receive prior to construction. 2. Currently there is only one designated customer parking space on Bridge's lot. With the new sidewalk,the parking in front of his lot is now public parking. This will also be used by customers and employees of Yardbirds, Starbucks, Chiribini's Coffee, and other businesses. I feel additional designated parking on Bridge's lot should be required. My concern is that Dale's customers and employees will have nowhere else to park but at my business location, and this could be prevented by requiring him to build additional parking for his 'customers and employees. 3. This proposed designated parking could be accessed by entering the 20' wide entrance at the south end of his lot. A)This allows for safe entrance and exit to Danville Blvd, B)This would minimize traffic on the now 8' wide entrance at the north end of the lot,which is already too congested and where cars block access. This is currently where the one designated parking space is accessed. C)This would also reduce his customers from driving to the back of our building and parking in the back on our parking spaces. D)The south bound Danville Bled. trwftiic entering Bridge's Motors will either drive into the car lot to park(if there are spaces available), and or they will need to make a U-turn to then parallel park at the sidewalk(again, if spaces are:available), which is a potential safety issue if adequate on site parking is not provided. 4. Is there a set back requirement for cars parked at the north end of the lot? When cars are parked too close to the driveway,his customers stand in the driveway, which impedes driveway access. If these considerations are not addressed,I believe that the parking and safety issues we've experienced during past Christmas Tree sales periods will become a year round problem. Given the increased publicity to Bridge's Motors,as in articles in the San Ramon Valley Times regarding the Christmas Tree Lot,the full page add which runs monthly in our community newspaper-Alamo Today"and that Dale promotes himself as the"#2 DEALER IN CALIFORNIA"it is clear that only one designated parking space for his car lot is insufficient to handle his business. I should not have to continue spending my time on these issues; however, Dale continues to fail to do what he says he will do, and my customers,my staff and myself have reached a point of total frustration. Why should Dale Bridge's be allowed to flaunt county regulations at the expense of my customers. I would like to know what position the AIA will take on these issues, as it is of great concern to my business, my patients and their safety. Sincerely, Daniel S. Smith, D.C. cc: Dale Bridges, Alamo Investments/CMA Northbay, Peter Ostrosky, Aruna Baht, Heather Ballinger, Supervisor Donna Gerber. f t t it 3 i om It.. Concern, ryy f r mill Ing be�f e' ._� t hdstinas. w � C exparess�rriytconcerhnai 4 nslrnas M� f Trenewrn � s ' }w ' , y amzly,has moor i ria the area from#Alamo Ramon.aAs a single mother,of tv�bridges Ghnstmas Trees has been r " their pacing and most importantly deery'ariii`°set' }yFiifthe tree I g�urchase " ' m C a v t p +A �iht Y hiidren and their friends have enjoyed and looked fon�/ard tc shopping fora xcee s Bridges Chests Trees, they have seen Santa Claus each year had their picturea1en tivith hYm,and enjoyed his uvorkso x y ' ` " '' ' '' F`s p �believe its would be a.disserFvrce to= r surriiunding comrirnity if you did not permit 7v1s Bridges to sell lits Clizi�3 stmas ,. Tees �. If by writing this letter helps in your decision to permit the sell of Christmas Trees at the t ' S 4. Christmas- location at 3212 Danville Blvd. known.as Brides Christmas Trees,I feel I have helped the community keep a valuable, friendly.and family orientated business.'.: Sincer y t� }A � , e c# t y 7 3+':. F#; xX S y5 fill! 'tanot rero Circle �r CA sari Rarnon, r s Xa Y " �v i �eYr.-,I,� y�±g5',fir ,i a ,'r L ' '� 5 YAC ul H* t s 2F a�a '���.HX -.,•alt"!`.; c At, Yt F } I. X tti.X*Y 7 a} i. "ya k. �' t• { A 7Y� a� Y}.�iaYki t` rrK+`"�`a+Cr ��ti��r# `�as��rf'�yK'+t+ u�• k•1�'�.a'�z.,, �a• r,4,E �.t. r it atr ��'`77 iii�t'�t;, S.. ,'� *S• .�L�"'3 t t,i ,.c.q.§'< - r L f`r"�+Ey�'('•e'!� R"'ff4 �. ^^^444iV- -?. �rA T, Air rY (��1�11 v '�Ft.•A .�s ' # rw July 12, 2000 To wham it may concern, I would like to see the Christmas tree lot at Bridges Motors to continue to sell trees at Christmas. I always buy my tree there. Bale Bridges gives generously to the community in many ways, and that is why he ,gets my business. It would be a shame not to see that Christmas spirit in Alamo. Why destroy something that is gond for the community and the children. Sincerely, Jack. Russell CREEKUIE 1350 Danville Boulevard*Alamo,Californaa94507 109 .. Phone:(925)820-9431 Fax:{925) 211-9494 t •M9 t.t 6 yy • COMMUNITY CHURCH July 18, 2000 4� 7 To Whom It May Concern, I understand that through an unfortunate misunderstanding you may have progressed to considering whether or not to award Mr. Dale Bridges with the required permits to continue Christmas tree marketing at his Alamo automobile sales lot. Please be advised that Creekside Community Church is in support of his conducting this business, as well as his auto sales. In the spirit of community and commerce advocacy, we are offering an alternative to the previous parking congestion by providing access to our parking lot for Mr. Bridges' valet services during the short holiday sales season. In closing, we respectfully convey our support of Mr. Bridges business endeavors, as they contribute a valuable service to the Alamo township. Furthermore, Mr. Bridges consistently seeks to promote community events and unity. As you know, these qualities are essential ingredients in the establishment and continuance of a thriving community environment. We trust this communication meets with vour thoughtful understanding and that your decisions in this regard are based upon what is best for the entire community of Alamo. In your service, Pastor Steve Cotelli { J' 9 -. int+t� 'Y F ^cy'•�{sN �;^ CONTRA COSTA COUN'T'S' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Date Fridges APPLICATION NO. LP952061 3212 Danville Blvd. Alamo, CA 94507 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 107-010-oog OWNER: Peter OstroS4 ZONING DISTRICT: R-B/S-2 17 Sugar Loaf Terrace Alamo, +CA94507 APPROVED DATE: 5/19/99 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/31/99 This chatter not having,been appealed within the time prescribed by I.iw, a permit for CONTINUANCE OF A USED CAR DEALERSHIP is hereby GRANTED subject to the att.tched conditions. DENNIS St. BARRY, AICP Directx tit "Cont unity Development hpL;ER'1` H. DRAKE Dep:: -?~ming Administrator Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE (h �TAIZ from the effective date if the use allowed by this Permit in not es%iblished within that time. 11 E. I T l: TIIL Et l E "!'LV DAT .�as no further notili;,i_;,,-';, titi iil be Sent by this office. r FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A LAND USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE AN USED CAR DEALERSHIP, COUNTY FILE ##LP95206I (Bridges - Applicant; Ostrosky- Owner) IN THE ALAMO AREA FINDINGS A. Land Use Permit Approval 1. RRcquired indin - That the proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the County. ndfng-The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health,safety,and general welfare of the County. The proposed use is a retail business located around other retail businesses within a Retail-Business Zoning District. The applicant has stated that no hazardous materials will be used on site. 2. Required Finnting- That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county. Finding- The proposed use is a retail business located around other retail businesses within a Retail-Business Zoning.District. The project conforms with its General Plan designation. The project as designed meets the requirements for its zoning district. The used car dealership will not interfere with the orderly development of the area. 3. Reattired C'inain - That it shall not adierselv affect the preservation of properly values and the protection of the tax base ti,ithin the county. Findin -The project has existed on the subject site for six years and is currently requesting a continuance of the use. The project is considered a permanent use at this time and is subject to full frontage improvements and other requirements associated with permanent uses. The project is a retail business located around other retail businesses. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that it will have an adverse impact on property values or the tai base. A. Required Fin__ dire- That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals asset by the general plan. Finding - An used car dealership with outdoor displays is permitted with a land use permit under the Retail-Business District ordinance and conforms with the Commercial designation under the General Plan. The project is consistent with the General flan floor area ratio required for areas designated Commercial. File#LP9S2061 Data A. Bridges-Appikant;Peter Osirosky-Owner 5. Required Findin - That it shall not create a nuisance andlor enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community. Finding-The project is an existing use that has been on the subject site for six years, and the current application is requesting a continuance Of the existing use. No changes have been requested for the project as it was approved on December 2, 1996, by the Board of Supervisors. An used car dealership is consistent with the retail business uses in the vicinity. Also,issues related to the number of cars displayed on site,signs,and noise are addressed in the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the use would cause a nuisance or enforcement problem. 6. Required Finding- That it shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Finding -The proposed use is consistent with surrounding retail business uses. Due to the length of time that the use has existed on site,the project is being processed as a permanent use subject to full frontage improvements. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the project will result in marginal development in the neighborhood. T Required F`indinv,- That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Findin Special conditiorLs or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. The site is located in a Retail- Business District which allows for retail sales with outdoor displays subject to the approval of a land use permit. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Retail-Business District Ordinance. B Growth Management Performance Findings I Traffic-The proposed project will not exceed the threshold for added traffic volume requiring a special traffic study. 2. 'mater - The East Bay Municipal Utility District has indicated that it is able to serve the proposed project. -2- File#LP9S2061 Dale A. Bridges-Applicant;Peter Ostrasky-Owner 3. Sewage Dis o al-The project is Located within the service district of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The project is an existing use which proposes no changes from its current use. The project must meet the requirements of the Sanitary District. 4. Dire Protection_The site Lies within the jurisdiction of the San Ramon Valley Fire District. Station#32 at 1101 Stone Valley Road,Alamo, is within one and a half miles from the project site. As a result,the project does not need to provide automatic sprinklers. 5. Parks&Rmeatgn-The project is for a retail business and is not a residential development,therefore there is no requirement to provide a park dedication fee for this site. The project will not result in an increase of more than 1000 people to the community. 6. Public Protection -The project will not result in an increase of more than 1000 people to the community. Therefore, the project will not exceed the threshold requiring payment of sheriff services. 7. Flood Control and Drainage-The project is not located within a designated special flood zone. The Public Works Department has included Conditions of Approval for this project which address drainawoc issues. -3- � t File#LP952061 Date 4 Bridges-Applicant,Peter Ostrasky-Owner CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development is approved as shown on plans received by the Community Development Department on May 3, 1999, subject to final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit and subject to the conditions listed below. Development shall not deviate from the approved plans. The maximum number of cars displayed on site shall not exceed 23. In addition to the 23 display spaces, one employee parking space shall be located in the northeast comer of the property and one customer parking space shall be clearly designated and accessible to and from Danville Boulevard. 2. One boat/recreational vehicle space is permitted, located out of view of Danville Boulevard. This space is not in addition to the 23 cars displayed on-site. 3. Display cars shall not be parked along Danville Boulevard. 4. No repair work to automobiles shall be permitted on-site. 5. Non-operational vehicles shall not be stored on-site. 6. No banners, banner signs, inflatable figures,or balloons shall be permitted on-site. 7. The applicant shall continue to comply with the sign program approved by the Zoning Administrator as part of the Conditions of Approval for the permit granted on December 2, 1996, under LP952061. The sign program is approved for one sign on the main building;on the site. There shall be no deviation from the approved sign program. 8. Prior to exercise of this land use permit,the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the .Zoning Administrator for review, approval,and execution. The lighting plan shall. provide for lighting of the property with conventional cutoff lights for parking lots which are not to exceed 20-feet in height. There shall be no lighting of the property by building mounted lighting. 9. Prior to exercise of this land use permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. The landscape plan shall include border landscaping that completely fills the area between the back of the sidewalk and the right of way line, except where driveways are constructed. The border landscaping shall be a minimum of 24-inches high in order to screen the asphalt. The landscape plan shall also include landscaping with one 30-gallon(inininiunr) tree in the triangular area -4- Elk#LP9S2061 Date A.Bridges-Applicant, Peter Mtrosky-owner between the right of way line and parking stall number 1,as shown on the site plan. As part of the landscape plan,the applicant shall maintain the existing landscaping along Danville Boulevard. 10. This application is approved for an used car dealership- Any changes and modifications to the approved use shall require a new land use permit application. The use of the subject lot for Christmas tree sales shall require a new land use permit application. It. All high noise-generating activities,including such things as Power generators, power saws,and loud speakers shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday,and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. 12. The variances granted as a part of the Conditions of Approval for the permit approved on December 2, 1996, under LP952061 shall continue to apply as follows: Employee Parking A. 100%, 8-feet x 16-feet compact parking spaces. B. 28-feet required for parking back-up. 20-fect granted. Customer Parking 28-feet required for back-up. 20-feet granted, 13. Both the applicant and the property owner are hilly responsible for county staff costs which exceed 120% of the initial application fee. Any additional costs due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date, or this land use permit (LP 95-2061) shall be subject to immediate revocation. The applicant can obtain the current status of staff costs on this application from the project planner. Invoice(s) for the additional costs will be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 14. The applicant shall submit a compliance report for review by the Zoning Administrator every 12 months from the permit effective date for the first three years. Thereafter, the applicant shall submit a compliance report every 36 months for review by the Zoning Administrator. The report shall show compliance ,vitli the Conditions of Approval for this permit- The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with staff time required to review the compliance reports and submit all required fees with the compliance reports. ' t File#LP952061 ;bale A. Bridges-Applicant;Peter Ostrosky-Owner PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title 8,Title 9,and Title 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plan submitted to Community Development on May 3, 1999. COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PERMIT.NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THESE CONDITIONS SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. General Requirements: 15. The applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to Public Works and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and these conditions of approval. Conformance with the following conditions of approval will be determined by the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements: 16. The applicant is granted an exception from installation of frontage improvements, provided the property owner executes a deferred improvement agreement for the following improvements and associated work. if the improvements are not constructed by July 31,2000,this land use permit(LP 95-2061) shalt be subject to immediate revocation. A. Construction of curb,2 meter(6.5±foot)side%vatk(width treasured from curb face), necessary longitudinal and transverse drainage, border landscaping and irrigation, pavement widening and transitions along the frontage of Danville Boulevard. Applicant shall construct face of curb 3 meters(10±feet) from the ultimate right of way line. B. The applicant shall submit a preliminary sketch and profile to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division. showing the vertical and horizontal alignment of Danville Boulevard to determine the feasibility of salvaging the existing pavement.The preliminary sketch and profile shall extend a minimum of 30 m(100= feet) beyond the limits of the proposed v.,ork. If the grade is unacceptable, the applicant shall level,overlay or remove and replace the pavement as necessary. C. Applicant shall cut existing pavement to a neat line along an existing adequate structured section when widening the pavement. Widening shall commence at that line. -6- File#LP952061 Dale A. Bridges-ApPlkant;Peter Ostrosky-Owner D. The applicant shall core the existing pavement in a minimum of three locations between the existing traveled way and the proposed curb to determine the pavement structural section. If the structural section is inadequate, the applicant shall overlay or remove and replace the pavement as necessary. E. The applicant shall construct an asphalt concrete path from the southern end of the sidewalk,to the existing bike lane on the southern boundary of the frontage without encroaching into the bike lane. F. The applicant shall stripe the frontage of the parcel to accommodate parallel parking. G. The construction of frontage improvements may be deferred provided that the property owner completes their construction prior to July 31,2000. H. At the time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, the property owner shall submit improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate fees in accordance with the County Ordinance and this deferred improvement agreement. 1. Border landscaping; shall completely fill the area between the back of sidewalk and the right of way line, except where driveways are constructed. One 30 gallon (minimum)tree shall be planted in the triangular area between the right of way line and parking stall number 1,as shown on the site plan. Access to Adjoining Property= Proof of Access/Ac uisition 17. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way,rights of entry, pen-nits and/or easements for the construction of offsite, temporary or permanent, public and private road and drainage improvements. 18. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, that legal access to the property is available over the driveway (both on and off- site)along the north property line of this property. -7- r Me#LP952061 Dale A. Bridges-,4pplicant,Peter Ostrosky-Owner Encroachment Permit and Site Access 19. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Application and Permit Center for construction of driveways and frontage improvements within the right of way of Danville Boulevard. 20. The applicant shall obtain a drainage permit for any work to be performed in San Ramon Creek. 21. The applicant shall restrict access along the Danville Boulevard frontage of this property, with the exception of the driveways shown on the applicant's site plan., including a 9.11m(30- foot)driveway. Parking: 22. The applicant shall provide adequate parking for this permit to minimize this project's need for on-street parking. The adequacy of on-site parking shall be subject to the review of the Zoning Administrator. Road Dedications: 23. The applicant shall convey to the County,by Offer of Dedicatiott, the right of way necessary for the ultimate width of Danville Boulevard.The area to be dedicated is triangular in shape on the northwest corner of the parcel. The sides of the dedicated area are 1.5± in (5 feet) along the north property line and 18.3±m (60 feet) along the west property line. Undergrounding of Utilities: 24. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Street Lighting: 25. The Property owner shall apply for annexation to County Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting: a letter of request and a metes and bounds description,and by paying the current LAFCO fees. Application:for annexation shall occur immediately after approval of the permit. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation. This process may take approximately 4 to 6 months to complete. Non-compliance with the application process shall be grounds for revocation of the land use permit. The application for annexation shall occur by July 31, 1999. Annexation shall -8- File#LP952061 ,Bale A. Bridges-Applicant, Peter ostrosky-owner occur by February 1, 2000, or this land use permit(LP 95-2461) shalt be subject to immediate revocation. Bicycle 1 Pedestrian Facilities: 26. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Tide 24(Handicap Access)and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Drainage Improvements (Collect and Convey): 27. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks,or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 28. The applicant shall be permitted an exception from the collect and convey requirements of the{ordinance Code if the project results in an increase of impervious surface area of less and 140 square meters (1,500 square feet). 4. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 29. Applicant shall prevent storm drainage from draining across the sidewalk(s)and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 30. The property owner and the applicant shall execute an agreement acknowledging the encroachment of the existing southerly deck into the storm drainage easement for San Ramon Creek and agreeing to remove the encroachment to perform maintenance work along the creek following notification by the County. Foundation Design Considerations: 31. The applicant will be required to design the foundation for any new structure or addition to a structure based on a sails and geotechnical report.The soils and geotechnical report snail address potential soils and bank instability resulting from potential erosive creek flows, potential creekbank erosion and instability,and shall submitted to the Building Inspection Department for review.The foundation design may incorporate conservative design analysis rather than rigorous geotechnical analysis if acceptable to the Building Inspection Department, OR IN LIEU OF THIS REQUIREMENT, the applicant shall show the creek structure setback line on the site planrFentative Map in accordance with Section 914-14.012, 9 Fila#LP9S2061 Dale A. Bridges-Applicant,Peter®strosky-Owner "Structures Setback Lines for Unimproved Earth Channels,and observe this setback line as if this were a subdivision. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES): 32. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules, regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) for municipal,construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State Water Resources Control Board,or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay- Region II,or Central Valley-Region IV). Compliance shall include developing longterm best management practices(BMP`s) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants. The project design shall incorporate the following long-term BMP's in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program for the site's storm water drainage. Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, OR,shall be located within a covered enclosure. Cleaning of the paved area shall be done only with a vacuum-type sweeper. The applicant shall sweep the paved portion of the site at least four times a year utilizing a vacuum.-type sweeper. Verification (invoices, etc.) of the sweeping shall be provided to the County Clean Water Program Administrative Assistant at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553, (925) 313-2238. - Neither the applicant nor his employees shall perform any of the following operations on site; change oil or coolant in vehicles; lubricate vehicles; paint vehicles, or, fuel vehicles. If any of these operations are conducted on-site, the Land Use Pem-lit application 85-2061 shall be subject to revocation. if the applicant proposes to wash vehicles on site,the wash area shalt be contained and drain into the sanitary sewer system. Such use of the sanitary sewer shall be approved by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Without such a contained wash area,no vehicles washing will be permitted on site Vehicles placed on the lot for sale shall be routinely inspected for leaks, and drip pans placed under leaking vehicles. Develop a spills management program. Have spill clean up materials on-site and readily available for use. Metric Units. 33. All first check and subsequent submittals and calculation shall be in metric units. Exceptions may be permitted by the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, based upon evidence of substantial hardship. -10- t File#LP9S21161 _ Dale r4 Bridges--Appllc4111;Peter Ostrosky-Owner ADV ISORYN PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHER TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER.TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. Comply with the requirements of the Central.Contra Costa Sanitary District. B. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District for water supply. C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. D. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection. District. E. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit, the Tri Valley Area of Benefit and the,,. Southern Contra Costa Regional Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. F. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant shall be aware of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Management Ordinance(Ordinance No. 96- 11) as they pertain to future construction of any structures on this property. G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. 1-1. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a permit is required, and if it can be obtained. D:1020499\LUP\LP95206 LFN3 LCI 1\ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 00 FEB _g PM 2: 59 BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ,+► 651 Pine Street-4th Floor zr: 4`Y Martinez,CA 94553 Telephone: (925)335-1111 Fax: (925)646-4450 DATE: February 2,2000 TO: Debbie Chamberlain Community Development FROM: Mickie Perez,Chief Property Conservation Division By: Philip Ludolph, Building Inspector 1 SUB.I: 3212 Danville Blvd., Alamo BACKGROUND: This memo is in response to the recent Code Enforcement action against Mr. Dale Bridges of 4 Bridges Motors of Alamo. The property,known as 3212 Danville Blvd. in Alamo is zoned R-B for the use condition of a used car dealership and is currently owned by Mr. Peter Ostrosky of 17 Sugarloaf Terrace in Alamo. As per your request of December 7", 1999, on the 8`h Code Enforcement Section proceeded with action against the owner and. Dale Bridges for the sale of Christmas Trees and display of an inflatable figure in violation of Land Use Permit. ISSUES: Conditions 10& 6 of LP952061 prohibit the sale of Christmas Trees and the display of inflatable figures respectively at 3212 Danville Blvd. in Alamo. In response, action under Sec. 26.2.2022 of CCC Ord.Code was started with the intent of revoking the Land Use Permit. Although Mr.Bridges obtained application forms from the County,he did not lodge an appeal against conditions 10&6 of his LUP or lodge a new application resulting in the issue of citation. Site inspections revealed that most of the permitted use(sale of motor vehicles)had been removed and were replaced by Christmas Trees. The District Supervisors Office also referred complaints to Code Enforcement from neighboring businesses regarding the operations at the property. After discussion within the Code Enforcement Office it was decided to issue a citation under Sec. 82-2.006 of the CCC Ord. Code for the following reasons: • According to Sr. inspectors, previous Codi: Enforcement actions against business/property owners for selling of trees within the County without a Land Use Permit, was one motivation. t t p `p • Also,the good faith agreement between the County and Mr. Bridges had been broken. The basis for this was that the use condition for sale of second hand cars had gone from the property and replaced by Christmas Trees. • Sale of the Christmas Trees and resultant nuisances attributed there to. • Mr. Bridges failure to lodge an appeal against conditions 10&6 or obtain anew LUP, also had motivated this decision. Consequently,Mr. Bridges was asked to appear at the Walnut Creed Court on January 26,2000 to enter a plea. According to the court,Mr.Bridges did not fight the issue and paid the bail of$270.00 on January 24, 2000. A recent inspection revealed that Christmas tree sales had gone from the property and it had returned to the sale of vehicles. It is unlikely that the Christmas tree sales will start up again until the end of October or November 2000, it at all. CON+CIXSI ON: As the LUP(LP952061)effective as of5/31/99 had not reached the 12-month time limit;therefore responsibility for the ensuring that the conditions of the Land Use Permit are complied is with the - { Community Development Office. Community Development has issued a notice dated November 30, 1999 for the revocation of the LUP and itis suggested that the}, follow up on this action. Although, it was considered at the time debatable to issue a citation; yet action was needed for this break of good faith between the County and Mr. Bridges. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Community Development Office seek to revoke the Land Use Permit(LP952061) under Sec. 26.2.2022 of CCC Ord. Code. Community M.Barry,AiCP +community Co#�}1tra Community Development Director Development Costa Department County County Administration wilding 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing a -' Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: (925)335-1210 November 30, 1999 Dale Bridges 3212 Danville Blvd. Alamo,CA 94507 Dear Mr. Bridges: RE: Notice of Violation of Land Use Permit Approval County File#LP952061 3212 Danville Blvd,Alamo The Community Development Department has been advised and has confirmed that you are not in compliance with the approved land use permit. As you know, the Land Use Permit(LP#952061)was approved oil May 19, 1999 (see attached land use permit). Condition #10 of the permit does not allow the sale of Christmas trees and Condition 46 does not permit inflatable figures(e.g., Santa). We request that you discontinue the sale of Christmas Trees and remove the inflatable Santa within five days. Failure to do so, will cause the Department to initiate revocation proceedings for the land use permit. County Code Section 26.2.2022 provides that, "continued violations of the terms. limitations or conditions of the permit after notice of the violation"as one of the causes for the revocation of a land use permit. Pursuant to this section of the code, this letter provides notice that the department has found that the conditions of Land Use Permit LP952061 have been violated. Should you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further.please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely Debbie Chamberlain Principal Planner Att.:Land Use Permit cc: Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Kekie Perez,Building Inspection Department File nffiro Wry im IkAnnriaau-Vrriau-O-AA� m MM -Community r► {�^ Dwnis M.Barry,ACCP V omm u n ity Contra Ll a Community Development Director Development Costa Department ounl_ County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California X553-01095 Phone: 925-335-1210 r March 20,2000 Dale Bridges 3212 Danville Blvd. Alamo CA 94507 Subject: Notice of Board of Supervisors Hearing to Determine If Cause Exists to Revoke Land Use Permit 3212 Danville Blvd, Alamo Project: LP952061 Dear Mr. Bridges: The captioned application was approved by the Sart Ramon Regional Planning Commission on May 19, 1999 and the permit has an effective date of May 31, 1999. The permit was granted subject to compliance with Conditions of Approval. The permit prohibited the sale of Christmas trees without an approved land use permit and the display of inflatable figures. (A copy of the Conditions of Approval is attached..) On November 30, 1999 the Community Development Department (CDD) issued a letter indicating that you were in violation of the conditions of approval. The violation continued following notification. On December 8, 1999 you Nvere issued a citation by the Building Inspection Department for violation of County Code Section 82-2.006. Pursuant to Subsections 26-2.2022 (1 and 2) of the Ordinance Code the (1) failure to comply with the conditions of the permit, and (2) noncompliance with the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the sale of Christmas trees and display of inflatable of figures. This is to advise you that a public hearing is scheduled before the Board of Supervisors on April 18, 2000 at 1:30 P.M. to determine if cause exists to revoke the permit. You are advised to attend said hearing. Please be advised that after taking testimony, pursuant to Section 26-2.2028 of the Ordinance Code, the Board of Supervisors may order: 1) Additional terms, limitations or conditions, Office Hours Monday-Frday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. f^1 ;f n is r•inenri the i of 12rrt A rth Pririavc of RRC.h mnnth t 2) A specified probationary period for correction or implementation of new requirements, 3) A future review at a time specified, 4) A combination of these, or 5) Revocation A staff report will be forwarded to you prior to the hearing. In the event that the Board of Supervisors were to revoke the permit,the existing use(ie., auto sales)would be required to be removed from the site or may be subject to appropriate Code Enforcement action. Should you have any questions,please call me at 335-1213. Sincerely, Debbie Chamberlain Principle Planner DJCImp cc: File k i J/ u '' '$ .• Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costaa FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP n ,!'l!j-3 4 9 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE; May 19, 1998 .. SUBJECT: Request for Reconsideration on the Board's Decision to Revoke County File LP952061, to Establish a Used Sales Lot in the Alamo Area SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(6) f BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Staff would recommend the Board of Supervisors grant the request for reconsideration. FISCAL TMPAa None. The cost of the reconsideration hearing is paid for by the applicant. BACKGROUNDIREASON:FQn RECOMMMAZI The Board of Supervisors on May 5, 1998 revoked Land Use Permit LP.952061 due to non-compliance with the Conditions of Approval as they related to providing evidence that legal access exist over the adjacent property (Condition of Approval #14.B.) and approval of a sign program (Condition of Approval #4.) . The applicant on May 11, 1998 submitted a request for reconsideration. As provided for in County Ordinance Code §26-2.2408, a motion for reconsideration may be filed in writing "alleging pertinent factual or legal matters which were not brought to the attention of the division rendering the decision." The reconsideration requests ` provides new factual evidence in the form of a recorded easement as required by Condition of Approval #14.B. That information was not before the Board of Supervisors when they rendered their decision on May 5, 1998. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE _ c RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECONYENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON Mav ig. 149$ APPROVER A9 RECOMMENDEDX OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X 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:Debbie Chamberlain - 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED_ MaY 19, 1998 CC: Dale Bridges PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND OUNTY AD I ISTRATOR B , DEPUTY Q16 Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 9$,��,/� �i, .- FROM: DENNIS M. BARMY, AICD9 �'�! : Count COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 1 BATE: May 5, 1998 SUBJECT: Closed Nearing to Determine if Cause Exist to Revoke LP952061 issued on December 2, 1996 by the County Board of Supervisors. Subject property is addressed x#3212 Danville Boulevard, in the Alaiuo area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION S) 5 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS OPTION 1 Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors revoke Land Use Permit #LP952©61. OBTION 2 If the Board is not inclined to revoke the land use permit, the conditions could be modified as follows: A. Without the easement granted over the adjacent property, the Board of Supervisors reaffirm that the maximum number of cars to be displayed on site is limited to 17 including one recreational vehicle/boat space, outside of view of Danville Boulevard. Condition of Approval. #1 would then read as follows: The application is approved as modified by the Board of Supervisors on (date of approval) and s�tject to a revised .site plan being submitted to the Co' Development Department within 15 calendar days of zhe approved date indicating the location of the 17 display cars, including one recreational vehicle/boat space outside of view of Danville Boulevard, one customer parking space clearly designated and accessible to and from Danville Boulevary and one employee parking space located in the northeast cor::er of the property. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -�__. 'YES SIGNATURE r l,, RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOM.ENDATION OF BOARD COMM TTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON � ' a _ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER _ See Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERER ON THE ABSENT:_ ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF - - SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Debbie chamberlain - 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED MaY 5> 1998 cc: Dale Bridges PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Building Inspection THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Public WorksCOUNTY P.DMINISTRATOR County Counsel O BY , DEPUTY i 2. B. A revised sign program acceptable to the County Zoning Administrator be submitted within to calendar days. The approved sign program shall be installed within 15 days from the date of the Zoning Administrator's approval. Modify Condition of Approval #4 to read as follows: Within 10 d4ys of this approval, submit a sign program for review and approval of the County Zoning Administrator meeting the requirements of the S.2 sign Combining District. The approved program shall be installed within 15 calendar days of the zoning Administrator's approval. All non- conforming signs shall be removed from the property within 10 days of the approval of this permit. The Indian head sign of any size is not approved. C. The processing fees associated with this application have not been paid. The applicant and/or owner should be required to pay all County processing fees within fifteen (15) days of this approval. Add the following Condition of Approval: Within 15 calendar days of this approval, pay all current processing fees related to this applicaricn. D. Due to the time spent by the Community Development Department and Code Compliance Division of the B4ilding Inspection Department, staff would recommend a compliance report be submitted for review and approval of the County Zoning Administrator within 30 days. Add the following Condition of Approval: , Within 30 calendar days of permit aper='•'a-, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development repartment a report demonstrating compliance with the Conditions of Approval and a $300.00 deposit for staff review, wits tie acknowledgment that additional costs will be billed re applicant if the charges incurred for the review and mon--taring exceed the deposit. If staff has determined that tie applicant is not in compliance with the Condition of Apprv.'=1 the applicant following notice will have 10 calendar € 's to correct the violation. If the violation is not c_ rected within 10 calendar days, the land use permit s a ibe rescheduled before the Board of Supervisors for revoca--ion proceedings. All costs incurred shall be borne by the =Plicant. FISCAL TMPACT None. BACKGROUNDJREAS Jq FOR EECQ FII .NDATIQUE The supporting documentation for this project ::as provided to the Board of Supervisors with the March 24, 1998 Burd Order. Prior to the March 24, 1998 hearing, the applicant retested continuance to April 21, 1998. Prior to granting the con:inuance, the Board requested that the applicant attempt to satisfy- the conditions of Approval that are subject to the revocation proceedings. on April 21, 1998 the applicant presented information what may indicate that he has an easement over the adjacent property. The Board directed the applicant to submit the documentation to staff for review, and subsequently closed the public hearing and continued the matter to May 5, 1998. To date, the applicant has not contacted staff or submitted any information to demonstrate compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Additionally, staff conducted a site visit on April 29, 1998 to determine if the applicant was in compliance with the remaining conditions of approval. Staff could not located the one customer parking space that is to be clearly designated and accessible to and from Danville Boulevard as required by Condition of Approval r #`1. Additionally, six cars were parked at a 45•-degree angle to Danville Boulevard, one with dealership license plates. It is unclear if these were vehicles for sale or customer vehicles. Condition of Approval 19 requires that no display cars be parked along Danville Boulevard. vict" sa�e+;dces.��c ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.15 MAY 5, 1998 On April 21, 1998, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the recommendation of the Community Development Director to determine if cause exists to revoke Lane Use Permit 95-2061 issued on December 2, 1996, Dale Bridges, applicant, Alamo area. Debbie Chamberlain, Community Development Department, presented the staff report and commented that the applicant does have an easement over the adjacent property in order to have the twenty-three cars on site, and she advised of a letter from the applicant on his revised sign program and further advised that she would work with the applicant on the size of the sign. Ms. Chamberlin commented on the staff's recommendations and asked that recommendation 2A be deleted, and she asked that if the Board were to approve the land use permit, that the $7.-,500 in expenses be paid within fifteen days, and that the easement be recorded within ten calendar days. The Board discussed the matter. Brian Thiessen, representing the applicant, requested to speak on the issue of fees that had not been raised until today. On recommendation of Supervisor Gerber, Option 1 is APPROVED and Land Use Permit #LP952061 is REVOKED. - Bridges CALIFORNIA DEALER Motors 3212 Danville Blvd.,Alamo, California 94507 OfAlamo Tel;(510)838.1801 Fax:x (510)838-1808 20 April 1998 Debbie Chamberlain Community Development Department 651 Pine Street - 4th Floor Martinez, California 59553-0095 re. Land Use Permit 95--2061 Sign program Dear Debbie In response to recent telephone conversations, I understand that the sign program I submitted to the County on 15 May 1997 is considered acceptable regarding the 18" x 12 ' sign on the main building itself but my request for signage on the awnings for this LUQ' is not acceptable without a variance. Rather than seeking a variance at this time, please consider this an amendment to my sign program request. Please approve the signage as submitted, absent the signage on the "canopy" . As you know I have recently removed any signage on the "canopy" . Thank you for your cooperation. Since ely, . f j Dale A. Bridges President A jTActeMft" ` 14 'ustomerSatisfaction Guaranteed "Let's Do Business" Nesr-Used.Auto Broker 3Ga(v Offices of BRIAN D.THnSsEN TELEPHONE(510)837-3355 ����� B- IT4icssert FAX(510)8373352 HILLARY JOHNS 3201 DANVTLLE BOULEVARD,SUITE 245 AL.AMO,CA 94507 OFLIOUNSEL r.: THOMAS P.HOGA.N ATTORNEY AND G.P.A. N +,; BILLI Jo A.DYER JACQUEUNE RUSH - W= PARALEGALS rn 7 May 1998 t$ $ r o'�-'' Supervisors 6 1 PineS Street Martinez, California 94553 re; Request for Reconsideration Land Use Permit 2061-95 Dear Members of the Board On 5 May the Board of Supervisors voted to revoke the above Land Use Permit, based upon incorrect information that was relayed to it and the applicant was denied the opportunity to correct that information, even though a specific req::est was made at the hearing. The Board determined it was a Closed session and the applicant was refused the right to correct t:le misinformation. The correct information, not before the Board, shows that the applicant fully met the two conditions set by the Board on 21 April at which time the Board directed the applicant to '"get into compliance" by 5 May. Let me go over those two conditions as will be confirmed by a review of the tapes of the 21 April hearing: a. Sign program. Dale .Bridges was directed to bring his sign program into compliance (he had submitted a sign program which required some revision with the one remaining sign) . At the 21 April hearing Dale submitted his amended sign program request (see Attach. A 20 April letter which was delivered to Staff just prior to the 21 April hearing) . Dale was told Staff would get back to him re whether this was in compliance. No response was received from Staff. The following week I contacted Staff and on 30 April was advised that the matter was still under advisement, it appeared possibly satisfactory but Dale would hear further later. No further response :from .Staff was received. 6A392\I tBdSupAh18 f y i Board of Supervisors 7 May 1998 Page 2 On 4 May, with the hearing just a day away, I again contacted Staff and was advised that although their report was not yet completed it appeared the 18" x 12 ' sign was slightly larger than could be allowed given the apparent size of the building upon which it was placed, but it could be reduced proportionately and would be acceptable and we would get confirmation at the- hearing on 5 May, No Staff written response to Attach. A was received. At the 5 May Board hearing, the Board was only told that the sign proposed was not completed and that Dale was therefore not technically in compliance but that the Staff would accept a sign as proposed, reduced proportionately to reach the 10% coverage limitation. we respectfully submit that Dale did what anyone could do, starting on 21 April, to come into compliance by 5 May. tThis morning, 7 May, I did receive a FAX from Staff advising r that they are working with Dale to get dimensions of the building so Staff can get get this matter completed. ; b. Access to the North. The Condition of Approval (14 .B. ) has been regularly misstated to and by the Board -- for clarity it is attached as Attachment B. you will note that it does not require a recorded easement, only that Dale show that legal access to the property is available over the driveway (both on and off-site) along the north property line of this property„ and to provide such showing to Staff within 30 days of the 2 December hearing . Dale provided that proof which is all that is required under this Condition of Approval even prior to the 2 December hearing -- a copy of that proof of "legal access to the property" is attached as Attachment C -- a writing dated 11 November 1996 signed by the adjacent property owner expressly confirming such access and referring specifically to this Land Use Permit application. That is all that Dale was required to do and it is our position that the applicant is and has been fully in compliance with this Condition as written since December 1996. 6.392%A8dSup.6hI8 ( 4 Board of Supervisors 7 May 1998 Wage 3 Some County Staff have stated that the condition required a recorded easement and that is not true. As we have pointed out before (and hence the Board' s alternative condition) easements can be obtained from a wide variety of sources including among others. by necessity, by implication, by oral agreement, prescriptive, recorded, etc. etc. Each is a legal easement. A year and a half ago we provided the required proof that the Ostrosky property at all times here relevant has had such legal easement. Dale is prepared to litigate that compliance issue, if necessary. Notwithstanding Dale' s full compliance, some County Staff have incorrectly taken the position that the LUP approval condition requires a recorded easement when in fact, as you can see, it does not. When the hearings were scheduled in April, rather than going to the expense of litigating this issue, Dale agreed to approach the adjacent property owner (Fd Stein) to see if he would sign a recordable document confirming the existing easement . He referred it to his attorney and eventually agreed to do so. We submitted. that document, signed and notarized, to the Staff prior to 21 April . At hearing, County Counsel Vic Westman asked for further revisions to that document . Vic also added the requirement that Dale go to the additional expense of obtaining a Property Profile for his office to review to satisfy it that Mr Stein and Mr Ostrosky are, in fact, the owners of the r- o parcels involved -- rather than just accepting Staff and our reports on that. Thus, on 21 April the Board directed Dale, by the next hearing on 5 May, to have the confirmation of easement document revised and approved by Staff. This required multiple reviews and approvals: by Mr Stein and his attorney, by Public Works, by County Counsel, and also required Dale to go to the additional expense of obtaining a Property Profile even though county records showed ownerships . The very next morning by 10 am on 22 April, we had revised the document as we understood County Counsel wanted it done, and FAX'd it to Mr Stein' s attorney for review and approval . As sometimes happens when dealing with counsel (particularly where there was no requirement that Mr Stein execute anything - he was doing this as an accomodation to the Board) , we did not get the approved, signed and notarized document back from Mr Stein until late on 30 .April - - 6A392XLA 3dSup.6h48 t Board of Supervisors 7 May 1995 Page 4 and only then by my driving to his attorney's office and picking it up. The following day, Friday 30 April, 5 days .before the 5 May hearing, Dale Bridges hand delivered copies of the documents, including the Property Profile, to Public Works and to County Counsel and to Community Development for their necessary review and approval. We asked for confirmation of the adequacy of the document, which confirmation had to be received before it could be recorded. On Tuesday morning 5 May I contacted Staff to find out the status and was told that Community Development believed the easement document was probably acceptable but had to obtain confirmation from County Counsel and that we would be advised at hearing if it was acceptable --- but that it looped positive With that frame of understanding that he had done what he could to meet the request of the Board to be "in comcliance" (again, I need to point out that we believe Dale has been --* n full compliance on the easement issue since December 1996) , ::ale went to the Board hearing understanding he had done everythihe could based upon the input we had received. from Staff, a::v were awaiting Staff response on both items. At the Board meeting itself, as part of the staff report, for the first time County Counsel confirmed to us that. the form of Easement Confirmation we had prepared was acceptable z-o them. Dale was more than a bit surprised, then, and dismayed, to have Staff' s negative report saying Dale was "not in compliance", recommending revocation, and failing to detail the above to the Board. The truth was that Dale had done everything he could do to get into compliance but was still waiting, as of that very day, for Staff' s response. Moreover, Staff suddenly sought to impose a new requirement, not once previously raised to the applicant or owner or to the Board (you may confirm this by reviewing the taper of all hearings) ie that the property owner pay $7500 for "a4uitional staff fees" allegedly incurred in processing this matter. We sought to object on several grounds : 6a3921ABesup.6MR Board of Supervisors 7 May 1998 Page 5 * on a procedural basis it is improper to insert a new condition, never raised in Staff Report or in public hearing or anywhere else, as a requirement -- without the opportunity for the applicant to comment, after the Public Nearing is closed. When we sought to address this, and to clarify the factual history as above, the Board refused the applicant an opportunity to address any of these issues. * On a factual basis, I had recently learned (unrelated to these proceedings at all) that Staff was seeking' to assess extra processing fees on the Owner. After the 21 April hearing (where Staff had also not mentioned anything about this) I raised to the Public Works representative this matter of the process to review those supplemental bills, discuss which were valid charges the applicant should pay and try to resolve the matter. I inquired about what procedure Staff has to review a bill that arises and was told that there is no formal procedure but that Staff would be willing to meet with the applicant and verify the charges, and what was appropriately chargeable to an applicant . A reminder. this had not been raised by Staff to the applicant but was a question I raised to Staff after the 21 April hearing in order to try to work on getting that separate issue discussed and resolved. Instead, without any advice whatever and any opportunity to review and verify the fees charged, Staff b^ 5 May sought to tack on this condition as a mandatory part of the LUP review conditions. * Legal basis. I have asked for some confirmation that this applicant is indeed responsible for these additional fees since the ordinance which now requires supplemental fees may indeed have gone into effect after this application was submitted. Staff has indicated it will research that for us and get back to us. Let me be clear on the issue re these supplemental bills.. Clearly there has been some valid staff time chargeable to these proceedings. Dale acknowledges he may be obligated under the Board' s 19 December 1996 Resolution 95/6.3 to reimburse the County some of those costs . But Dale (and indeed any applicant, to meet due process requirements] is entitled to review those charges (after those charges are identified by charging person and what work they represent) , to verify their accuracy as applicable to him rather than general staff time, etc. Once that review is completed Dale understands he is obligated to pay any proper fees . 6A392UABdSup.61M P Board of Supervisors 7 May 1998 Page 6 * General Due process failure. In addition to the due process failures referenced above re the excess fee condition, from the attached newspaper article (Attachment D) it appears that other issues -- not discussed with the applicant or mentioned at hearing -- were also involved in the Board' s decision. Dale had no chance to respond to these false charges which were clearly (from the article) considered by Staff, and presumptively- :the Board) . The article refers to excess cars "parked on the street" and Staff' s investigation and determination that this was an ongoing problem: it was never (thru now) raised by Staff to Dale. As Staff would have found out (and is obvious to those of us whose offices are in Alamo) the area in front of this property is used for parking by people who work at or shop at the very busy Yardbird' s shopping center across the street. Dale' s personal car, with "Dealer' s plates", may have been parked in the public parking area in front on 29 April; no one from Staff even contacted him or inquired to find out if their concerns were valid. After this week' s hearing I have asked Staff to provide me the factual and other confirmation that this applicant on this matter is obligated to pay additional fees as Dale is anxious to review that factual basis and try to work out any issues amicably. The bills have apparently been going to the property owner, Pete Ostrosky, (who we do not represent) not to .Dale Bridges the applicant here. Staff has promised to get me the requested information and I have today received by FAX from Community Development a listing of some time charges, and am advised that Staff will continue to investigate whether this represents all charges claimed, etc. (a glance at the summary shows that some of them go back to August 1995, predating the effective date of the enabling ordinance) and none of which identify what the charge represents. If the Board seeks to impose this new condition under these facts, one of Dale' s alternatives may be to try to pay the bill, clearly marked as being done under protest, and reserve his right to challenge it in the appropriate forum. 6A392\usasup.6M8 Board of Supervisors 7 May 1998 Page 7 I have had several developers in the last several months object to the way these post-processing bills come in, often years (as here) after work was allegedly done, not identifying what work was done, and with no apparent reasonable procedure for review, meeting and conferring. The bills do not identify what work was done but contain at most a coded employee identification number (Public Works) or , initials (Community Development) with no identification of what work was done, but just an identification of time allegedly spent and a dollar translation of that time into a bill . In order to be a valid charge it seems to most Bilks with whom I have spoken that there must be identification not only of who the charging party is but what work was done so the applicant can confirm whether the time was properly chargeable to her/his matter rather than either being general staff work not specifically related to that project or, more troubling, work that should have been charged to some other applicant . With that background, then, we request the Board reconsider its " ¢ decision of 5 May 1998 on this Land Use Perr_f—_ and that it drop the revocation hearing. Since the Board meeting the applicant has recorded the now approved form of Confirmation of Easement (Attachment E) and per Debbie Chamberlain' s FAX of today Staff is working with the applicant to provide us soon a response to th„ applicant' s 23 April letter on his proposed revised signage so that can be resolved as well . Yours truly, Brian D. Thiessen BDT,n cc: All Supervisors Dale Bridges Community Development Department 6A392\UBdSup.i6%18 ` w"4 y'nM'✓ .. . .. 'lo 2 11. One boat/recreational vehicle space is permitted, located out of view of Danville Boulevard. This space is not in addition to the 23 cars displayed on site. OND O S QF PR V-AL E?—,OM M PMUCIWORKS DEPARTMENT. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road and utility improvements will rewire the review and approval of the Public 'Works Department prior to continuance of this use for the effective period ending July 19, 1997: 12. General Requirements: A. This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914(Drainage), and the remainder of Title 9 and Title' of.the County Ordinance. Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed 'in this conditional apprm'ial statement. Drainage, road and utility requirements are based on the plan submitted on November 14, 1995, and shall be subject to the review and approval of Public 'forks. B. Improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division along with review and inspection fees, and security for all improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the conditions of approval for this project. 13. Roadway Improvements (Frontage/On-site/Off-site): The applicant is permitted an exception from construction of frontage improvements and off- site traffic mitigation, at this time, due to the temporary nature of this project. This exception is based on a five year effective period ending July 10, 1998. 14. Access to Adjoining Property: 'roof of Access/Ar uisiti n A. Applicant shall furnish proof to thePublicWorks Department, Engineering Services Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of way, rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of offsite, temporary or permanent, road or drainage improvements. B. Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division,that legal access to the property is available over the driveway(both on and off-site) along the north property line of this property, since panting on the Site Improvement flan is dependent on utilization of that driveway. If the applicant " A FM ... a .. 3 cannot furnish a recorded easement, or otherwise prove legal access, then the increase in parking spaces above 17 is not approved and any use of the property in excess of 17 spaces would then have to be brought back to the Board of Supervisors for reconsideration. If the applicant does not have these adc. ess rights, he shall attempt to obtain joint access rights over this driveway:within 30-days of the approval of this permit. If he is unable to obtain these access rights,.he'shall revise his Site Improvement flan to provide adequate parking, subject .trs.the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. y; encroachment Permit 4 y ` C. Obtain an encroachment pe , p" fire,;Applicafron & 1'c r tit Center for -W' construction of driveways,or other improvements within the right of way of Danville Boulevard. ' Yyy•. D. Obtain a drainage permit for any.woirk- a performed within San Ramon Creek. Restrict Access E. Restrict access along Danville",Bou1. + ,:with the exception of the existing driveways. , ;. , 15. Parking: The applicant shall provide adequate par,larig for 1 permit to minimize this projects need for on-street parking. The adequacy;cifd i=si ey ar .. g shall be subject to the review of the Zoning Administrator, f 1 16. Road Dedication: '- The applicant is permitted ar exception-froin edication of right of way°at this time due to the temporary nature of this permit,which willexpire on July 10, 1}98. 17. Utilities/Uridergrounding: All new utility distribution services shall be installed underground. 1. �° .ZLLCMf/ Svw .,To.f�i. yy.. .. •yam ;`r5r+ _r��e-R' `,J.s•- • . 11 November 1996 re: Land Use Permit 95961 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I an the owner of the parcel immediately to the North of the property owned. by Peter Ostrosky that is the subject of the above Land Use Permit application. I. understand that a question has been raised whether vhc Ostro �,y. p4-cel (wnd the holder of the subject Land Use Permit) has access across the common driveway currently partly on my property and partly on Pete ostrosky's property. Please consider this confirmation that the applicant for the Land Use Permit here does indeed have full vehicle access to serve the Used Car lot facility as requested in the Land Use Permit application. namec?1Jcr� / address: rr telephone: (q—/ � ' — 27 ''3 6A392\a +p Ew ..,y.63 4�We"..'stR_>!.' ..yh:,• "So.'✓�"?�`4'sr�yF,` '0".y^h 3i`i 'Y�a.'° .r'1 •ys ..'t..„�.r�^, }: ¢_.L d +a '3 .dc y:. '�„'!-},.♦ 'hY �.ri �••'••� > T TIMES HE ...'k + .': :: _."{'•:., '4 ,G'-''^ E , imam* o car deal ,er Count ■ Event prom ' loses land pennit candidate for dist JOE GAROFOU attorney,says his Times columnist N Owner of Brides Motors cluding six vehicles parked at a 45- diSCOuraged local degree angle in the street,one with from partioipatin parked too many vehicles dealer plates, Returnmg on the lot,supenissors say 'It's gotten so blown out of pro- By Robert B' portion,`Bridges said after the hear- Tn{s£s KkWiM By Tony Hicks ing,'Vie were shocked." RICHMOND F TUM srw Conditions of the dealer's land• came from as far Bethel Uni MARTINEZ---County supervi- use permit state that he can have no Sierra foothills for sors on Tuesday revoked the land- more than 17 vehicles on the lot,un- grab the title "Bad use permit for Bridges Motors of less his property has a legal ease- the Bay" at an air. glory days Alamo,saying owner Dale Bridges ment from the adjacent landowner. event last week at ignored conditions of the permit for This would allow 23 vehicles on the auditorium. WALLACEre than a year. lot. There were offic EALPHA LACE sells Bethel Count,officials say Bridges reg- Bridges said the county wanted Francisco, Oakland Island hard.It's not surpris- ularly parked too many vehicles on his neighbors'permission in writing, even Rancho Cort .since he works in the his lot,which is on the east side of which he said he obtained, but not Sacramento. But nc last real estate office left on this Danville Boulevard just south of in the required form. police officer from faded Delta resort just east of Oak- Stone Valley Road, He said he finally accomplished County stepped int ley.So when he points out the win- Supervisors also claimed Bridges that hours before the hearing, but the homegrown eve dow of his Caddy at The fixture of was using an adjacent property the board told him it hadn't been Why not? the island,I look. owner's driveway to enter the lot and recorded in time. According to e% I see a trash fire burning in the using the main street far vehicle star- Btidges said the county previously and district attor r griddle of hundreds of acres of age told him not to use the side of his Michael Gressett, nothing.In the middle of The Fu- Supervisor Donna Gerber,whose front canopy for advertising, He Contra Costa Dist tore.The plume rises two stories, district includes Alamo, recom- painted over the sign,even though Gary"Yancey, "sque high above the dozen yellow mended revoking the-permit.The he claims a number of other area local competitors. Dumpster-size bins of a just board unanimously agreed. businesses advertise on the sides of 'Gary was afrai collected from an all-island Gerber said Bridges left them no their buildings. to be a political fun( cleanup.Nearby are dozens of dis- other choice. "I don't want to turn people in," so he contacted {pt carded dryers and refrigerators. 'It's been out of compliance for Bridges said. 'I just want to peace"' and discouraged an There Wallace sees The fixture; more than a year,"Gerber said."`I fully run my car businessbusess in Alamo." ticipating,"said Gr( 556 residences an an inland water- see no indication that giving more The decision jeopardizes Bridges' district attorney w way system,with a marina.tennis time will resolve this matter." plans for other amenities at the site. unseat his boss in t courts and 308-acre lagoon.Most Bridges said he plans to petition The county already approved his tion. of the homes would sell for be- the board to reconsider and hopes plan to install antique light poles on Yancey admits y ; . tween'Ink$,30{},000 and$350,000. to remain open until that petition is the property line. the event at a Mat • Th{nlz" ntwood meets Discovery heard. But the San Raman Valle Plan of the Contra CaE 8ay..Reasuburban.Not real The board granted Bridges a ring Commission denied his ce- Chiefs Assoclatic d. number of extensions,most recently quest to build a deck behind the lot Creek. He said he Bethel Island?Theresa on Apn121.An iisspc"ctor visited the that would hang over San Ramon chiefs that ' "hat office lot Apra 29 and found violations,in- Creek charity event 4w" lisp- CONTRA COSTA Co Recorder's Off ice { STEPHEN L. WEIR, County Recorder When recorded return to: C)OC - S4S—0100-1 -f 7---c>0 Check Number Brian D. Thiessen, Esq. Wednesday, MAY 06, 1998 0,*. � 3201 Danville Blvd - Ste 295 MIC $1 -00:MOD $3.00'REC $7.00 Alamo, California 94507 TCR $2.00; (925) 837-3355 Ttl Pd $13.00 Nbr--0000116117 lrc /R9 CONFIRMATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT ALAMO R VESTMENT COMPANY, a California partnership, owner the real property described.on Exhibit B(commonly referred to as Contra Costa County Assessor's parcel 1.97-010-007-7), located in the community of Alamo, Contra Costa County, California, hereby confirms that the owner of the adjacent parcel described in Exhibit A (commortl`! referenced as Contra Costa County Assessor's Parcel 197--010-007-8}, PETER OSTROSI Y, has a limited joint non-exclusive vehicle access across the 8' driveway on the southern side of my parcel (Ton his parcel, 4' on mine), which easement is of unlimited duration, and zvh.ich is currently used to serve the Used Car lot facility that operates thereon bN, Land Use Permit Dated:��April 1998 Alamo Investment Company A Califorrda Partnership by Edward V. Stein NOTARY jurat � G �y . .1.� ::0"';^ Contra Cotta TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �$DEC-g P� �, ,.-�. County FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR F;l DATE: July 14, 1998 SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION HEARING ON COUNTY FILE #LP952061. DALE BRIDGES. (Applicant) - PETER OSTROSKY (Owner), REVOKED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON MAY 5, 1998 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION S) 6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION crECQMMENDATTONS 1. Rescind the Board of Supervisors decision of May 5, 1998 revoking Land Use Permit #LP952061, and approve ILP952061 with the following modification: A. The processing fees associated with this application have not been paid. The applicant and/or owner should be required to pay all County processing fees within 15 days of this approval. Add the following Condition of Approval, Within 25 calendar days of this approval, pay all current processing fees related to this application. FISCAL TMPACT None. Processing fees for the reconsideration request are paid for by the applicant. BA KC C_._ ND/REASONS FOR REf OMMFNDg IQNS The Board of Supervisors on May 5, 1998 revoked i#LP952061 for non-- compliance with Condition of Approval #4 (requiring the submittal of a sign program) and Condition of Approval 114.B. (demonstrating legal access exist over adjacent property) . Following the Boards decision, the applicant recorded the easement required by Condition CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: K YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE APPROVE � OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON July l4, 1996 _ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED .Yy OTHER Brian Thiessen, Esq., 3201 Danville Blvd., Danville, commented on the application for reconsideration: Following testimony and Board discussion, and those desiring to speak having been heard, V EPW§A(ff 1%(RA CLOSED. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations as set forth above are APPROVED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X3tUNANIMOUS (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:Desbbis Chamberlain 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED July 14. 1998 ccs CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Counsel THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Dale Bridges AND COUNTY AD I STRA OR .,:6 DEPUTY DJC/df bo3:LP952061.REC Page Two of Approval 114.8. and submitted and installed a sign program that complies with the S-2 sign Control Combining District. On May 11, 1998 the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration. The request was subsequently granted by the Hoard of supervisors on May 19, 1998. The submittal and installation of the sign program and recordation of the easement meet the requirements of Condition of Approval 14 and 114.8., respectively. To date, the applicant is in compliance with the Conditions of Approval. It should be noted that this permit expires on duly 10, 1997, at which time it will be necessary for the applicant to reapply. a.s" i FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL POR A LAND USE PERMIT TO CONTINUE AN USED CAR DEALERSHIP, COUNTY FILE #L•P952061 (Bridges - Applicant; Ostrosly- Owner) IN THE ALAMO AREA FINDINGS A. Land Use Permit Approval 1. Required Finding- That the proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety, andgeneral welfare of the County. F�indin -The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety,and general welfare of the County. The proposed use is a retail business located around other retail businesses within a Retail-Business Zoning District. The applicant has stated that no hazardous materials will be used on site. 2. Required Fitzditig- That it shall not adverselj°4f cl the orderly development of property within the county. l±indin -The proposed use is a retail business located around other retail businesses within a Retail-Business Zoning DistricL The project conforms itlt its General flan designation. The project as designed meets the requirements for its zoning district. The used car dealership \\,i►1 not interfere with the orderly development of the area. 3- Required Fitiditrtx - Thai it shall not adi,erseh-q flect the preservation of properly values and the protection of the tax base i+,ifilh, the courtly. Finding -The project has existed on the subject site for six years and is currently requesting a continuance of the use. The pro jecct is considered a permanent use at this time and is subject to full frontage improvements and other requirements associated with permanent uses_ The project is a retail business located around other retail businesses. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that it will have an adverse impact on property values or the tai: base. 4. Re-qu red Findin g- That it shall not adi ersely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan. Finding - An used car dealership with:outdoor displays is permitted with a land use permit under the Detail-Business District ordinance and conforms with the Commercial designation under the General Plati. The project is consistent %vith the General Plan floor area ratio required for areas designated Commercial. Mk#LP952061 Dale A. Bridges-Applicattt;Peter Ostrosky-Owner 5. Required EinditT- That it shall not create a nIdSance andlor enforcement problem within the neighborhood or corrinumity. Finding-The project is an existing use that Etas been on the subject site for six years,and the current application is requesting a continuance of the existing use. No changes have been requested for the project as it was approved on December 2, 1996,by the hoard of Supervisors. An used car dealership is consistent with the retail business uses in the vicinity. Also,issues related to the number of cars displayed on site,signs,and noise are addressed in the Conditions of Approval. Therefore,there is no substantial evidence that the use would cause a nuisance or enforcement problem. 6. Required Finding- That it shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood. Finding -The proposed use is consistent\6tlt surrounding retail business uses. Due to the length of time that the use ltas e1isted on site, the project is being processed as a permanent use subject to full frontage improvernents_ Therefore; there is no substantial evidence that the proiect will result in marginal development in the neighborhood_ T Regedred Find--i ,- That special conditi01 t<„ 11171.q re characteristics of the subject property and its location or surra,,-,n.lirrgs are established. Finding - Special conditions or unique clraractcristics of tate subject property and its location or surroundings are established. The site is Iocated in a Retail- Business District which allows for retail sales with outdoor displays subject to the approval of a land use permit. The proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Retail-Business District Ordinance_ B. Growth Management Performance Finduwt s I. Traffic -The proposed project will not erceei the threshold for added traffic volume requiring a special traffic study- 2- Water -The Cast Bay Municipal Utility District has indicated that it is able to serve the proposed project. -2 File kLP9S2061 Balt A. Bfidges-14fflicarrl;Pe1cr OstraskY-Owner 3. ewageis �g l -The project is located witliin the service district of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. The project is an existing use which proposes no changes from its current use. The project must meet the requirements of the Sanitary District. 4. Fire Protection-The site lies within the jurisdiction of the San Ramon Valley Fire. District. Station 932 at 1101 Stone Valley Road,Alamo, is within one and a half miles from the project site. As a result, the project does not need to provide automatic sprinklers. S. Parks& Recreation-The project is for a retail business and is not a residential development,therefore there is no requirement to provide a park dedication fee for this site. The project will not result in an increase of more than 1000 people to the community. G. Pubtic Protection -The project will not result in an increase of more than 1000 people to the community. Therefore, the proicct will not exceed the threshold requiring payment of sheriff services. 7. blood Cotltrol atld Draina�-The project is t,,�t located within a designated k special flood zone. The Public Works D,eparttttent has included Conditions of Approval for this project which address draif�:7, issues, 3e File#LP9S20G'1 Date A. 8rldgeS-Al plkant;Palo 4StroSky-0WHICr CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Development is approved as shown on plans received by the Community Development Department on May 3, 1999,subject to final review and approval by the County Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit and subject to the conditions listed below. Development shalt not deviate from the approved plans. The ma)cimum number of cars displayed on site shall not exceed 23. In addition to the 23 display spaces, one employee parking space shall be located in the northeast corner of the property and one customer parking space shall be clearly designated and accessible to and.from. Danville Boulevard. 2. One boat/recreational vehicle space is permitted, located out of view of Danville Boulevard. This space is not in addition to the 23 cars displayed ort-site. 3. Display cars shall not be parked along Danville Boulevard. 4. No repair work to automobiles shalt be. permitted oz,-site. 5. Nota-operational vehicles shall not be stored oto-si 6. No banners, banner signs, inflatable figures,or balio,)1143 shall be permitted on-site. 7. The applicant shall continue to comply with the sign program approved by the Zoning Administrator as part of the Conditions of Approv,l for the permit granted on December 2, 1996, under 1,P952061. The sign program is approved for one sign on the main building on the site. There shall be no deviation from(lie approved sign program. 8. Prior to exercise of this land use permit, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan to the. Zoning Administrator for review,approval,and execution. The lighting plan shall provide for lighting of the property with conventional cutoff tights for parking lots which are not to exceed 20-feet in height. There shall kk no lighting of(he property by building mounted lighting. 9. Prior to exercise of this land use Vern-,it,the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator_ Ile landscape plan shall include border landscaping that completely fills the area between the: back of the sidewalk and the right of way line,except where driveways are constructed. The border landscaping-shall be a minimum of 24-inches high in order to screen(lie.asphalt. The landscape plan shall also include landscaping with one 30-gallon(ntinintttnx) tree in the triangular area -4- File#LP9S2061 Ua1c A.Brides-APPlicatti;Peter Ostrosky-(inner between the right of'%vay line and parking stall number 1,as shown on the site plan. As part of the landscape plan,the applicant shall maintain the existing landscaping along Danville Boulevard. 10. This application is approved for an used car dealership. Any changes and modifications to the approved use shall require a new land use permit application. The use of the subject lot for Christmas tree sales shall require a nett,land use permit application. It. All high noise-generating activities, including such things as power generators, power saws,and laud speakers shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. 12. The variances granted as a part of the Conditions of Approval for the permit approved on December 2, 1996, under LP952061 shall continue to apply as follows: UIn�loyee Parking A. 100%, 8-feet x 16-feet compact parking spaces. L. 28-feet required for parking back-up. 20-feet granted. Customer Parkin 28-feet required for back-up. 20-feet granted. 13. Both the applicant attd the property otxfner are bill%- responsible for county staff costs which exceed 120% of the initial applicati011 fee. Any additional costs due must be paid within 60 days of(tie permit effecti%,e date, or this land use permit (LP 95-2061) shall be subject to immediate rec,octtion. The applicant can obtain the current status of staff costs on this application from the project planner. Invoice(s) for the additional costs wilt be mailed to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 14. The applicant shall submit a compliance report for ievIM by the.Zoning Administrator every 12 months from the permit effective date for the first three years. Thereafter, the applicant shall submit a compliance report every 36 nionttts for review by the Zoning Administrator. The report shall sttow compliance x6th ttte Conditions of Approval for this permit_ T1te applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with staff tintc required to review the compliance reports and submit all required fees with the compliance reports. File#LP9S2#61 Dale 4 Bridges-Applicant;Peter Ostrosky-Owrter .P 1l3GIC WORKS CONDITIONS Applicant shall comply with the requirements of Title S,Title 9, and Title 10 of the Ordinance Code. Any exceptions must be stipulated in these Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval are based on the plan submitted to Community Development on May 3, 1999, COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PF,"1IT.NONCOMPLIANCE WITIT THESE CONDITIONS SHALL BE, GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION OF THE PE RMIT. General Requirements: 15. The applicant shall submit improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer to Public Works and pay appropriate fees in accordance\\,ith the County Ordinance and these conditions of approval. Conformance with the follow ing conditions of approval will be determined by the Public Works Department. Roadway Improvements: 16. The applicant is granted ati exception from installatio i ,,f f ontage improvements, provided the property owner executes a deferred iniprovenient anroorzciit for(lie following improvements and associated work. If the improvements are not cotistructed[)\,July 3I,2000,this land use permit(I.,I' 95-2061) sliall be subject to imtnediate revocatioti. A. Construction of curb, 2 meter(6.51 foot)side\\:all; (width nieasured from curb face), necessary longitt.tdinal acid transverse drainn7,-c, border landscaping and irrigation, pavement widetiiilg and transitions along the frontage of Danville Boulevard. Applicant shall construct face of curb 3 meters 00±feet) from the ultimate right of way line. B. The applicant shall submit a prelinlinar}' sketch and prefile to the Public Works Departnient, C-tlgineering Services Division. showing tile- vertical and horizontal alignment of Danville Boulevard to deteniline tltti feasibility of salvaging the existing pavement.The preliminary sketch and profile shall extend a minimum of 30 m(100+ feet) beyond the limits of the proposed xvork: if the grade is unacceptable, the applicant shall level,overlay or remove and replace (lie pavement as necessary. C. Applicant shall cut existing pavement to a neat line along an existing; adequate structured section when widening (lie pavenietat. Widening shall commence at that line_ -6- 111e#LP9S2061 Dale,d.bridges-r(plrlicatd;Peter Qstrosky-owtrer D. The applicant shall core the existing pavement in a minimum of three locations between the existing traveled way and the proposed curb to determine the pavement structural section. If the structural section is inadequate, the applicant shall overlay or remove and replace the pavement as necessary. E. The applicant shall construct an asphalt concrete path from the southern end of the sidewalk to the existing bike lane on the southern boundary of the frontage without encroaching into the bike lane. F. The applicant shall stripe the frontage of the parcel to accommodate parallel parking. G. The construction of frontage improvements play be deferred provided that the property owner completes their construction prior to July 31,2040• H. At tire time the deferred improvement agreement is called up, the property owner shall submit improvement plans, prepared by a registered civil engineer, to the Public Works Department and pay appropriate fees in accor"iarree with the County Ordinance and this deferred improvement agreenXent. 1. Border landscaping shall completely fill the area between the Back of sidewalk and the right of way line, except \,,,here s are constructed. One 30 gallon (minimum) tree shall be planted in(lie triangular area between the right of way line and parking stall number 1, as sllOwll ort the site plats. Access to .Adjoining Vropect�,. Proof of Access/Acquisition 17. Applicant shall furnish necessary rights of way,rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent,public and private road and drainage improvements. 18- Applicant shall furnish proof to the Public ti\corks Department, Cngineering, Services Division, that legal access to the property is available over the driveway (both on and off- site) along the north property line of this proper(),. -7- Fite#LP952061 Date al..Bridges-Applicant;Peter Ostrosky-Owaer Encroachment Permit and Site Access 19. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit front the Application and Permit Center for construction of driveways and frontage improvements within the right of way of Danville Boulevard. 20. The applicant shall obtain a drainage permit for any ,vork to be performed in San Ramon Creek. 21. The applicant shall restrict access along the Danville Boulevard frontage of this property, with the exception of the driveways shown on the applicant'ssite plan„ including a 9.1*n(3o- foot)driveway. Parking: 22. The applicant shall provide adequate parking;for this p rtnit to minimize this project's need for on-strut parking. The adequacy of on-site parking,shall be subject to the review of the- Zoning heZoning Administrator. Road Dedications: 23. The applicant shall convey to the County, by Offer cif 1)<dication, the right of way necessary for the ultimate width of Danville Boulevard.The are:to be dedicated is triangular in shape on the northwest corner of the parcel. The sides of the dedicated area are 1.5A m (5 feet) along the north properly line and 18.3±rn(60 feet) 10114 the west property line_ Undergrou:nding;of Utilities: 24. All new utility distribution facilities shall be installed underground. Street Lighting;: 25. The Property owner shall apply for annexation to county Service Area L-100 Lighting District by submitting,a letter of request and a nieces and bounds description,and by paying; the current LAFCO fees_ Application for annexation shall occur immediately after approval of the permit. The applicant shall be aware that this annexation process must comply with State Proposition 218 requirements, which state that the property owner must hold a special election to approve the annexation_ This process nts.\,take approximately 4 to 6 months to complete. Non-compliance with the application process shall be grounds for revocation of the land use permit.-fife application for annexation shall cxwcur by July 31, 1999. Annexation shall -8- y rrr�#Ln9s2061 Aare A.Bringer-Appriicarrt Peter Ostrosky_<)wrrar occur by February 1, 2000, or this land use permit(LP 95-2061) shall be subject to immediate revocation. Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities: 26. The applicant shall design all public and private pedestrian facilities in accordance with Title 24 (Handicap Access)and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Drainage Improvements (Collect and Convey): 27. The applicant shall collect and convey all storm water entering and/or originating on this property,without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage facility, to an adequate natural watercourse having definable bed and banks,or to an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the storm waters to an adequate natural watercourse, in accordance with Division 914 of the Ordinance Code. 28. The applicant shall be permitted an exception frons the collect and convey requirements of the Ordinance Code if the project results in an increase of impervious surface area of less and 140 square meters '1,500 square feet). §. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: 29. Applicant shall prevent stormm drainage frorn dminin�,across the sidewalk(s)and driveway(s) in a concentrated manner. 30. The property owner and (lie applicant sliall execute an agreement acknowledging the encroachment of the existing southerly deck into the storm drainage easement for Sail Ramon Creek and agreeing to remove the encroaetunent to perform maintenance work along the creek following;notification by the County. Foundation Design Considerations: 31. The applicant will be required to design the foundation for any new structure or addition to a structure based on a soils and geotechnical report_The.soils and geotechnical report shall address potential soils and bank instability resulting from potential erosive creek flows, potential creek-bank erosion and instability,and sliali be submitted to the Building Inspection Department for review.The foundation design mai`incorporate conservative design analysis rather than rigorous geoteclxnical analysis if acceptable to the Building Inspection Department,OR IN LIEU OF THIS REQUIRMEhT, the applicant shall show the creek structure setback line on the site plan/Tentative Adap in accordance with Section 914-14.012, -9- File#LP951061 Dale A, Bridges-Appticaat;Peter QstrvsAy-0wrter "Structures Setback Lines for Unimproved Earth Channels,and observe this setback line as if this were a subdivision. National Pollutant Disclatarg, Elimination System(NPDE,S): 32. The applicant shall be required to comply with all rules,regulations and procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPD1;S) for municipal,construction and industrial activities as promulgated by the California State"Water Resources Control Board,or any of its Regional Water Quality Control Boards(San Francisco Bay- Region II,or Central Valley -Region IV). Compliance shall include developing long-term best management practices(BMP`s) for the reduction or elimination of storm water pollutants.The project design shall incorporate the following long--term BMP`s in accordance with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program' for the site`s storm water drainage. Trash bins shall be sealed to prevent leakage, CIS., shall be located within a covered enclosure. Cleaning of the paved area shall be done oniv %with a vacuum-type sweeper. The >. applicant shall sweep(lie paved portion of the site at least four times a year utilizing a vacuum-type sweeper. Verification (invoices. etc.) of the sweeping shall be provided to the County Clean Water Prograrir Administrative Assistant at 255 glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553, (925) 313-2238. Neither the applicant nor his employees shall perforin any of the following operations on site: change oil or coolant in vehicles; lubricate vehicles; paint vehicles; or, fuel vehicles_ If any of these operations are conducted on-site, (lie Land Use Permit application 85-2061 shall be subject to revocation. If tile applicant proposes to wast{ vehicles on site the wash area sliall be cont i ed an&diaia into the sanity sewers sten . Suclx use of the sanitary sewer shall be approved by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Without such a contained wash area,no vehicles washing will be permitted on site- Vehicles iteVehicles placed on the lot for sale shall be- routinely inspected for leaks, and drip pans placed under leaking vehicles. Develop a spills management program, Have spill clean up materials on-site and readily available for use. Metric Units: 33. All first check arid subsequent submittals and calculation shall be in tiletric units. Exceptions may be permitted by the Public Works Department,Engineering Services Division, based upon evidence of substantial hardship. -l0 Fire#LP9S2061 C1atc A.Bridges-rtPPlicald, Peter 0strosky-owircr PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BUT ARE NOT A PART Or TI-IE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMiN TI-IE APPLICANT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. Comply with the requirements of the Central Centra Costa Sanitary District. B. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay h4unicipal Utility District for water supply. C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. D. Comply with the requirements of the San Ranion Valley Fire Protection District. E. The applicant wilt be required to comply with fire requirements of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit, the Tri Valley Area of Benefit ar d.the Southern Contra Costa Regional Area of Benefit a<s adopted by the Board of Supervisors_ F. The project ties within the 100-year flood boundu-y as designated on the federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant shall be aNzyare of the requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Floodplain Mairagemeat Ordinance(Ordinance No. 96- 11) as they pertain to future construction of an),strictures on this property. G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish and Game. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the- Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,California 94599,of any proposed construction within this development that may affect any fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code. 14. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to determine if a peri-nit is required,and if it can be obtained. Da\020499\LUP\LP9520G 1.FN3 LCIT\ -11- t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROYEDRMiT APPLICANT: Dale Bridges APPLICATION NO. LP952061 3212 Danville Blvd. Alamo, CA 94507 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 107-010-008 OWNER: Peter Ostrosky ZONING DISTRICT: R-B/S-2 17 Sugar Loaf Terrace Alamo, CA94507 APPROVED DATE: 5/19199 EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/31199 This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by law, a permit for CONTINUANCE OF A USED CAR DEALERSHIP is hereby GRANTED subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY, AiCP Director of ComrWinity Development Byz' ROBERT 14. DRAKE DeJILM' Zoning Administrator Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE(l) YEAR from the effective date if the use allowed by this permit in not established within that time. PLEA$-E-1 C ITHE FEE TI�r BATF.,as no further notification ti�-ill be sent by this office.