HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10242000 - D9 /T!
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP �� Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2000
SUBJECT: THIS IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER IF CAUSE EXISTS TO
REVOKE COUNTY FILE #LP952061 APPROVED BY THE SAN RAMON VALLEY
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 19, 1999. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED 3212 DANVILLE BOULEVARD IN THE ALAMO AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors REVOKE County File #LP952061 for
noncompliance with the Conditions of Approval.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff estimates the cost for processing the revocation to be $1,000.
*�-L� A.L4=
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON or•t b��24, 20no APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x
See Addendum for List of speakers and Board action
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
x UNANIMOUS(ABSENT y ) 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
cc: Cale Bridges October 24 2000
Peter®strosky PHIL. BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
County Counsel SUPERVISOF10 AND COU0NTY ADMINISTRATOR
Building Inspection
B
AMB/mp ty
AALP952061 act.24-OO.doc
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
5-2061 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 26" 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#15-2000 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
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
On May 19, 1999,the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approved a new land
use permit to permanently establish a used car dealership on the subject property located at
3212 Danville Boulevard in Alamo. The Conditions of Approval expressly prohibited the sale of
Christmas trees without approval of a new land use permit. A copy of the current permit is
included with this Board Order. 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. 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 permit for Christmas tree sales. Since this application was continued by the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to September 20, 2000,the Board continued its
meeting on the revocation to October 17, 2000 and then again to October 24, 2000. The San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denied the use permit request for the tree lot.
On October 2, 2000, the applicant appealed the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission. The appeal hearing is also scheduled before the Board today.
CAUSES FOR REVOCATION
The ordinance authorizes the County to revoke a permit for any of the following reasons.
1. Continued violation of the terms, limitations or conditions of the permit after notice of the
violation.
2. Violation of requirements of this code relating to the premises or activities authorized.
3. Failure to abate a nuisance after notice.
4. Any suspension or revocation of a license required for the conduct of the business on
the premises covered by the permit.
5. Any act or failure to act resulting in the conviction of a permittee, operator, or employee
of a violation of Federal or State law, or County ordinance in connection with the
operation of the permitted use.
REASONS FOR REVOCATION
Section 262.2026 of the Ordinance Code places the burden of proving any charges relating to
determination of whether cause exists to revoke a permit on the County. The applicant has
had a history of previous violations and delays in responding to requests from the County to
October 24, 2000
Board of Supervisors
File#LP952061
Page 3
comply with the Conditions of Approval.
The applicant has not complied with the following conditions of approval as of the time of
preparation of this report.
1. Condition of Approval#13 that requires the applicant(Dale Bridges)to pay costs which
exceed 120%of the initial application fee.This amount which is approximately$12,000
has not been paid.
2. Condition of Approval#1613 requires that the frontage improvements be completed by
July 31, 2000. The improvement plans were submitted by the applicant to Public Works
Department for review about 3 weeks prior to the completion date stipulated in condition
#1613, despite County staff informing Mr. Bridges that the review period for improvement
plans normally takes 2-3 months, Public Works prioritized the applicants review and
approved Mr. Bridges' improvement plans on July 24, 2000, except for the north end of
the sidewalk.
Currently, the applicant has installed a majority of the improvements required by the
land use permit. The applicant still needs to install the asphalt cement ramp on the
south end of his frontage, paint the parallel parking street markings, install the portion of
the driveway ramp on the north side of his frontage so that the curb is depressed within
the private access easement and paint 30 feet of the curb, on the north side of his
frontage, red. (this will limit the number of parking spaces along his frontage to three).
3. Condition of Approval #21 requires restricting access to the property from Danville
Boulevard, with the exception of the two access points shown on the site plan. This
condition needs to be satisfied by relinquishing abutter's rights of access. The applicant
submitted a plat map and description for review and Public Works returned them to him
on July 31, 2000 for corrections. The applicant has yet to return a signed and corrected
relinquishment.
4. Condition of Approval #23 requires an offer of dedication along Danville Boulevard. A
plat map and description has been submitted and Public Works returned them to him on
July 31, 2000 for corrections. The applicant has yet to return a signed and corrected
offer of dedication.
5. Condition of Approval #30 requires the property owner and applicant to execute a
Statement of Obligation, stating that they will remove a deck that encroaches on a
drainage easement, following notification by the County, to allow maintenance work to
be performed along the creek. A written statement has not yet been submitted.
6. There are three Public Works invoices (#905356 for$704.07,#905803 for$352.52, and
#906994 for $8827.18) for application review fees that need to be paid. This fee is in
addition to the approximately $12,000 owed by Mr. Bridges,
October 24, 2000
Board of Supervisors
File#LP952061
Page 4
7. The applicant obtained the Zoning Administrator's approval for the lighting and
landscape plan as required by conditions of approval #8 and #9. However, the
landscaping is not consistent with the approved plans. Staff has observed two separate
planter boxes each measuring approximately 40°x 7' and 15'x 6' along the frontage of
the property. The landscape plan approved by the Zoning Administrator did not show
any raised brick planter boxes. The drawings indicated 4' landscape along the entire
frontage except the driveway area as was required by condition of approval #9.
However, the planter boxes are not continuous along the property frontage.The planter
boxes are raised by 18"-20"from grade. Staff recommends that the Board require that
Dale Bridges remove the planter boxes since it is not consistent with the approved
plans.
8. The lot has not been striped for 23 display cars. The applicant is paving the lot currently.
The improvements are not consistent with Condition of Approval#1 due to the additional
area taken up by the planter boxes along the frontage.
Sec. 28-2.2028 of the County Zoning Ordinance states that the agency hearing the revocation
may order additional terms, limitations or conditions, a specified probationary period for
correction or implementation of new requirements, a future review at a time specified, or a
combination of these, or revocation.
At the time of preparation of this report, Dale Bridges did not have any automobiles for sale on
the property due to the construction activities on site.
s I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPRQYED
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: 5119/99
EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/31/99
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 Community Development
By
ROBERT H. DRAKE
Deputy Zoning Administrator
Unless otherwise provided, THIS PERMIT WILL EXPIRE ONE(1) YEAR from the effective date if the use
allowed by this permit in not established within that time.
PLEAS`N TH„E EFFECTIVE DATE- as no further notification will be sent by this office.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A LAND USE
PERMIT TO CONTINUE AN USED CAR DEALERSHIP, COUNTY FILE
#LP952061 (Bridges - Applicant; Ostrosky - Owner) IN THE ALAMO AREA
FINDINGS
A. Land Use Permit Approval
1. Required Da& - That the proposed conditional land use shall not be
detrimental to the health safety, and general welfare of the County.
Finding-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. Begulad Fin&=- That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of
property within the county.
Einding-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. Required EimLing- That it shall not adversely affect the preservation of property
values and the protection of the tax base within the county.
fin"-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 tax base.
4. Required Einding- That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by
the general plan.
Einding-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 Plan floor area ratio required for areas designated Commercial.
File NLP95206I
Dale A. Bridges-Applicant;Peter Ostrosky-Owner
5. RfgUimdF
inding- That it shall not create a nuisance andlor enforcement
problem within the neighborhood or community.
Findin -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 FindLng- 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 fall frontage improvements. Therefore,
there is no substantial evidence that the project will result in marginal
development in the neighborhood.
7. Rgguired Finding- That special conditions or unique characteristics of the
subject property and its location or surroundings are established
Eim&n- Special conditions 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
lraf&-The proposed project will not exceed the threshold for added traffic
volume requiring a special traffic study,
2. W4ter- The East Bay Municipal Utility District has indicated that it is able to
serve the proposed project.
-2-
Fite#LP952061
Dale A. Bridges-Applicant;Peter Ostrosky-Owner
3. Sewage Disposal -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. Firc 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.
S. PW ks& Rec[Qafion-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 Ewtection-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 drainage issues.
-3-
File#LP9S2061
Dale A. Bridges-Applicant;Peter Ostrosky-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(minimum)tree in the triangular area
-4-
4;/
Fite#LP9S2061
Dale A. Bridges-Applicant;Peter Ostrosky-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.
IL 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:
EMPWyee Puking-
A. 100%, 8-feet x 16-feet compact parking spaces.
B. 28-feet required for parking back-up.
20-feet granted.
Colamer Parkiny-
28-feet required for back-up.
20-feet granted.
13. Both the applicant and the property owner are fully 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 with 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.
-5-
File#LP952061
Dale A. Bridges-Applicant,Peter Ostrosky-Owner
B WORKS COND TIOi S
Applicant shalt 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. T'he 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 trrmit(LP
95-2061)shall be subject to immediate revocation.
A. Construction of curb,2 meter(6.5±foot)sidewalk(width measured 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 work. 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-Applicant, Peter 0stresky-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/Af4uisition
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 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-
FMe#LP952061
Date A Bridges-Applicant, Peter Ostrosky-Owner
Enmagbment Pmait wd Site Accesa
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 9.1::Lm(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 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± m (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
Dale A- Bridges-Applicant, Peter Ostrosky-Owner
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 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).
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 soils and geotechnical report. The soils and geotechnical report shall
address potential soils and bank instability resulting from potential erosive creek flows,
potential creekbank erosion and instability,and shall be 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 plan/Tentative Map in accordance with Section 914-14.012,
-9-
17-
!File#LP952061
Dale A. Bridges-Applicant, Peter Ostrosky-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
H, 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, 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 Permit
application 85-2061 shall be subject to revocation. if the applicant proposes to wash
vehicles on site,the wash area shall 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.
to-
File#LP952061
Dale A. Bridges-Applicant,Peter Ostrosky-Owner
PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED 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 BridgelMoroughfare
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 Came, 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.
H. 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.10204991LUPtLP952061.FN3
LCHI
-11-
Bridges CALIFORNIA DEALER #2
Motors
3212 Danville Blvd., Alamo, California 94507
o' Tel:(SID)838-1801 Fax: (SID)838-1808
May 30, 2000
Contra Costa County
Community Development
Aruna Bhat,Principal Planner
651 Pine Street, 0 Floor,North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-0152
SUBJ: County File 4LP002039
Dear Aruna Bhat,
Listed below are the responses for the first compliance report for your review.
1. The use of the site has complied completely with the approved plan for 23 display
spaces with one employee space, which is located in the northeast corner in the
back, and one customer space, which is marked as required.
2. Of the 23 display spaces, one has only occasionally been used for a
boat/recreational vehicle,located to the rear of the lot away from Danville Blvd,
3. Display cars have not been parked along Danville Blvd.
4. No repair work to automobiles has been done on site.
5. No non-operational vehicles have been stored on the site.
6. No banners,banner signs, inflatable figures or balloons have been displayed on
site.
7. There has only been one sign on the main building on the site and we have
consistently been in compliance with the sign program.
Customer Satisfaction Guaranteed "Let's Do Business" New-Used Auto Broker
Page 2 of 3
8. A lighting plan has been designed consistent with the criteria of the Conditions of
Approval and which will also be consistent with the landscaping and sidewalk
proposal that is being submitted concurrent with the work that is expected to be
done in July 2000.
9. The landscape plan is being submitted also consistent with the final proposal for
the sidewalk improvements all of which are to be completed by July 2000,
consistent with the provisions of this Condition of Approval. Existing
landscaping along Danville Blvd. has also been maintained.
10. The lot has consistently served as a used car lot. An application has been
submitted for a modified land use permit that will allow seasonal Christmas Tree
Sales—tentatively scheduled for San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission hearing on 19 July 2000.
11. There have been no high noise generating activities on this site,
12. The variances included have been complied with.
13. Reasonable costs have been paid as required to the best of my knowledge,
14. Compliance Report submitted herewith.
15. Improvement plans are being finalized for the frontage improvements and will be
submitted to Public Works in June.
M All frontage improvement work will be completed by 31 July 2000 consistent
with the approval conditions. Core samples of the existing pavement have been
conducted and the results have been submitted to the Public Works Department,
17,Necessary rights of way, etc will be accomplished as put of the off site work that
involves Danville Blvd. and drainage and road improvements.
18. The existing easement is documented by the preliminary title report dated 9 May
2000, and the Easement was recorded 6 May 1998, Instrument No. 98-100117 a
copy of which description is attached hereto on Exhibit A as Parcel 2.
19. An encroachment permit will be obtained by the contractor performing the
frontage improvements in July 2000,
20, There is no work to be done in San Ramon Creek so no drainage permit is
required.
Page 3 of 3
2 1. Access will be restricted from Danville Blvd. as provided in the Conditions of
Approval.
22. The project is in compliance with this Condition of Approval.
23, As indicated in Item 17,the applicant is working with the property owner to make
sure this is in compliance by the end of July 2000.
24. All new utility distribution will be installed underground.
25. The County Service Area L•-100 application was not submitted on time and has
been awaiting title report clarification which has now been received and the
application will be submitted as required.
26.No public or private pedestrian facilities are involved other than the pending
sidewalk and it will be designed consistent with the Condition.
27/28. There is no increase of impervious surface are so these conditions to not apply.
29.No storm drainage crosses any proposed sidewalk or driveway in a concentrated
manner.
30. The applicant will execute an agreement acknowledging the encroachment when
submitted to him by Contra Costa County,
31. There are no new structures proposed so this condition is not applicable.
32. The applicant will comply with the rules set forth in this Condition of Approval,
ie
Trash bins do not receive anything that would leak
Cleaning of the paved area has been done by vacuum sweeper
None of the forbidden activities are conducted here
• A spills management program(and spill,cleanup material are
available)is being followed,
• Etc.
33, Metric units will be followed as presently envisioned.
Thank you for your time concerning the above Compliance Report,
S'
Dale A. Bridge
President
omrT1U n ltil Dennis M.$ , me
�"j�����, Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,California 94553-0095
Phone: June 30, 2000 r
Dale Bridges
Bridges Motors of Alamo
3212 Danville Boulevard
Alamo, CA 94507
Subject: County File #LP002039
Dear Mr. Bridges:
We have reviewed the compliance report submitted by you and have determined
that there is no evidence of compliance with the following conditions:
a. Condition of approval #8 and #9 —no lighting plan or landscape plan has
been submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
b. Condition of approval #14 — a $500 initial fee deposit to cover the
Community Development Department staff cost for condition compliance
review.
C. Condition of approval. #15 - requires the applicant to submit improvement
plans to Public Works Department. The improvement plans have not been
submitted to Public Works Department as of today.
d. Condition of approval #1.6 requires the frontage improvements to be
constructed by July 31, 2000. Once you submit improvement plans to the
Public Works Department, it will take staff 2-3 months to review the
information. Since you have still not submitted the improvement plans, it is
very unlikely that improvements will be constructed by July 31, 2000.
Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
Several other Public Works Department conditions have not been complied with.
Please contact Brian Balbas of the Public Works Department at (925) 335-2284 for
conditions #15 through. #33.
I have not received any information from you for the incomplete letter dated May
161 2000(attached). I will schedule the matter before the July 19, 2000, San Ramon
Regional Planning Commission. Please submit the additional information
by July 6, 2000, to demonstrate compliance with conditions of approval. If you
have any questions regarding this letter, please call me.
Sincerely,
Cx
Aruna Bhat
Principal Planner
Cc: Brian Balbas
Paul Detjens
10/12/2000 18;14 1 PAGE 02
October 12, 2000 Page one of six
Supervisor Donna Gerber
309 Diablo Road
Danville, Ca. 94526
Subjects Continued violations and neglect issues; new concerns regarding Bridges
Motors construction project; Christmas Tree Sates and traffic/parking problems,
Bear Supervisor Gerber,
I would like to mare you aware of the problems my business operation has because of
repeated violations by Dale Bridges. Despite numerous requests,conversations and
notifications to Dale from the Alamo Improvement Association,your office,the county
and myself over the past several years, Hale continues to make promises and then ignore
them. My primary concern is that my business operation, which is next door to Bridges
Motors,to not have a continuos parking and traffic problem which has existed in the past
few months and over the past several years during the Bridges Motors Christmas Free
saxes.The increased traffic and parking violations also becomes a safety hazard for my
customers.
A current example of such a violation by Dale is his failure to comply with Condition
of Approval#16. This clearly states the completion of construction deadline as July 31,
2000. Despite this date being clearly and unambiguously stated the construction
continues to date causing noise, dust,safety hazards and inconvenience.
Condition of Approval 016 issues
1) Public Works Conditions; "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) shall be subject to immediate revocation.
2) At the Alamo Improvement Association meeting in May 2000, Dale Bridges
acknowledged that he was aware of the construction deadline date. He promised that
the construction requirements to meet the County's conditions would be completed
by the deadline of July 31,2000
3) The recommendation for completion of construction by July 31, 2000 was issued on
May 31, 1999.
1011212000 18.14 1 PAGE 03
Page two of six
4) An additional completion date of construction by October 1, 2000 was issued in
relation to the revocation hearing, which was scheduled for October 17,2000.
5) Site letter from A. Bhat from the Community Development,.Department dated June
30, 2000 (d.). "Condition of approval# 16 requires the frontage improvements to be
constructed by July 31,2000. Cance you submit improvement plans to the Public
Works Department, it will take staff 2-3 months to review the information. Since you
have still not submitted the improvement plans, it is very unlikely that improvements
will be constructed by July 31,2000"......A. Bhat Principle Planner.
6) Dale Bridges submitted his first improvement plans to public works on July 10,2000.
He submitted his second set of plans on July 20,2000,The County approved the
plans except for a required detailed set of plans focused on the north end of the new
sidewalk construction.The final plans were not received prior to the construction of
the sidewalk. So the construction of the sidewalk was done without full compliance
with the County's request,
7) The final plans were received,which included the north end of the sidewalk details,
on August 21, 2000.
8) Construction started towards the end of July and is still ongoing.
9) Mr. Bridges constructed a new sidewalk in front of Bridges Motors. According to
county staff,"Mr. Bridges did not submit detailed plans of'the north end ofthe
sidewalk as requested from the county staff prior to construction. He will be required
to jackhammer out sine feet of the new sidewalk,reconstruct and widen the north end
of the sidewalk and reduce the curve slope". On 10-11-00 the cement sidewalk was
taken out by jackhammer over an 8 hour period.
Driveway easement issue:
1) There is an ongoing problem of Bridges Motors customers, employees,and
construction workers parking in the front and back of my office space and in the
driveway easement(see photo's). This denies our staff and clients from accessing our
back parking areas and reduces our private parking in the front.
2) It was not the intent in the easement agreement signed over from Alamo Investment
Co.to Peter 4strosky to have the driveway become a parking lot, a turn around space
for Dale's used Carrs,or for parallel parking to the driveway as it has now become.
3) Bridges Motors should not park cars that will encourage them to back into the
driveway easement at the north east end of their property. As was observed by Saxe
Ramon Valley Planning Commissioner,Mr. Scott Couture at the 9-20-00 meeting.
He sited that a gas meter is located at the southeast area of my office and cars backing
out could hit and break the gas line(see photos). As this building has been hit four
times in the past 10 months this issue becomes a real concern.
4) In addition to using the driveway easement as a parking lot Dale uses the driveway to
store debris like plywood(see photo's).
10/12/2000 18:14 1 PAGE
Page five of six
Private parking vs.public frontage road parking issue;
1) Steve Kerseve from Public Works had inspected the parking at my office and at
Bridges Motors in March 2000 and communicated to me that our front road parking is
in fact private parking and that Bridges Motors is in fact public parking. Exhibit"A".
2) Dale stated in the SRVPC meeting on 9-20-00 that he allowed people to park in front
of his business;please see the letter he wrote to my staff in April 2000. Exhibit"B".
Note- The County identifies this frontage road parking as public.
3) Dale's attorney stated at the same SRVPC meeting that it was not a problem for
anyone to park in front of our office. Note: The County identifies this as private
parking.
4) Dale Bridges has been told on numerous occasions over the past several years that the
parking in front and back of the Alamo Investment Co. offices is on private property.
5) The driveway easement is being used as a parking lot for Dale Bridges and his
customers. (see photos)
Christmas Tree Sale's issue;
I) San Ramon Valley Planning Commission voted 7-0 not to allow the Christmas sales
use permit at Bridges Motors location.
2) There are three letters from local small businesses and two from employees(see
exhibit Q complaining of continued parking problems over the past five years as a
result of B.M. Christmas Tree lot.The parking problems are getting greater each year
as the tree lot increases its sales.
3) What if Bridges Motors decides to sell Christmas Tree's on this location even though
the SRVPC voted 7-0 denying a permit for sales of trees?What if an appeal for tree
lot use is in process as November/December approaches? In the"Alamo Today"
newspaper, October edition,Bridges Motors is advertising Christmas Tree sales.
4) Dale Bridges promised at the SRVPC on September 20, 2000 that he would
completely cover his 12' Santa Claus. This still has not been completed.
5) Karen McPherson had reported to the county last December to report debris in the
creek and on the creek bank as a result of litter from Bridges Motors and as reported
by Daniel S Smith, D.C.. The person who inspected the premises is not working for
the County anymore and no documentation was done according to flood control
department.
PAGE 05
10/12/2000 18:14 1
Page six of six
With all the changes which have occurred on the Bridges Motors lot this past several
months an ongoing traffic/parking problem has now been created. I believe that the
parking and safety issues we have experienced during past Christmas Tree sales periods
and with the recent construction project that this will become a year round problem if the
stated issues are not fully addressed.
I should not have to continue spending my time on these issues,or anyone else,
However,Dale continues to fail to do what he says he will do. My customers,my staff
and myself have reached a point of total frustration. Why should Dale Bridges be allowed
to flaunt county regulations at the expense of my customers.
Sincerely)
4
Daniel S. Smith,D.C.
cc ...Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors;John Gioia/District 1, Gayle Uilkema/
District 2,Donna Gerber/District 3,Mark DeSaulnier/District 4,Joseph Canciamilla/
District 5, Alamo Improvement Association;Attn.: Syd Whalen, San Ramon Valley
Planning Committee;Attn.: Mike Gibson,Contra Costa County Community
Development Dept.;Attn.: Aruna Bhat,Alamo Investment Co.; Attn.: Paula Kellaher,
CMA/Northbay; Carolyn Aiello.
4 • w}
Bridges '` t� �. , ��� CALIFORNIA DEALT R #2
M,tors = ` '�' 32.12 Danville Blvd., Alamo, California 94507
- -4-OfA ` Tel.{510}838-1801 Fax: (510)838-1808
.r ,._ ..�
Dale A. Bridges
3212 Danville Boulevard
Alamo, California 94507
11 October 2000
Ms Donna Gerber,Chair
Contra Costa County Beard of Supervisors
309 Diablo Road
Danville, California 94526
re: Your letter of 4 October 2000 concerning LUP 95-2061
Use Permit revocation hearing 17 October
Dear Donna
As you know, we will be meeting on Monday 16 October at 11 a.m. concerning the pending 17
October revocation hearing regarding LUP 95-2061. 1 appreciate your taking time to become
fully acquainted with the facts since I know your office has been receiving substantial
misinformation from those who continue to seek to remove Bridges Motors from Alamo in favor
of another business whose opponent has been so angrily, and inaccurately, critical of our business.
I would like to bring you up to date on the substantial improvements that have been put in during
the last several months, incompliance with the conditions ofthe Land Use Permit. As I will
explain to you when we meet, the funding for these major improvements(which have cost me
over $110,000 to date)were to come from the distribution of my deceased father's trust --which
distribution was scheduled to take place after 24 April 2000. That is why, you may recall, we had
agreed as a condition of the Land Use Permit, to have them completed by 31 July--believing that
the 3 112 months would be adequate to get the improvement work done.
9A524\L.t\Bdsup\W.1 Io 1
Customer Satisfaction Guaranteed "Let's Do Business" dew-used Auto Braker
Supervisor Donna Gerber 11 October 2000
Instead,to my shock and dismay, the Trustees of my father's Trust (Beverly Bridges and
Dennis Garrison) refused to distribute as they were required to do and I was required to retain
San Francisco counsel to file a lawsuit to have those Trustees removed for their misfeasance. We
were able to have those hearings expedited due to the pressure to get the improvements done as
part of this land use permit, and in June the Court did in fact suspend those Trustees for what it
described as"gross dereliction in their duties to divide up these trusts." The court then appointed
new interim Trustees.
I then had to apply to the new interim Trustees for an early distribution in order to fund
the improvements;that approval came in mid July and in late July the initial distribution was made
that should have been received in April --�3 plus months late. I immediately then undertook what
should have been begun in April. As you understand, this is a major financial undertaking to
upgrade that small site.. Costs to date have exceeded$110,000 including landscaping, cement
work and waste water recovery system, pavement, drainage, sidewalk, resurfacing part of
Danville Blvd, lighting, painting, brick work, plumbing, electrical, legal and engineering expenses.
The failure to properly perform by the former Trustees of my father's Trust has not only
cost me additional expense in getting the work done(at prices higher than would have been
available in April and May)but has also cost me substantial lost business. Of interest to you
because of the calls I am sure your office has been getting, their actions caused substantial delay
to the actual construction work into the busiest time of the construction year-- causing further
delays in actually getting the work done. Had I been able to start in April and May as had been
arranged, the contractors were lined up to do the work and have it done quickly by June. Due to
the delay in starting, those contractors took on other work and my project was thus further
delayed.
As you will note from going by the project, most of the work has been completed. The
only things that remain are some final landscaping and pavement work(to be'done by Monday
when we meet), and four light poles to be installed along the creek(which have been on back
order for weeks), plus installation of the approved sign for the business when everything else is
done. As you can see, despite some rather overwhelming and unexpected obstacles over which I
had no control, I have pursued the requirements of the land use permit and am in substantial
compliance. Although the work was to have been done by 31 July, the reason it was not
completed was wholly beyond my control and was instead due to the"gross dereliction [by the
Trustees of my father's estate] in their duties to divide up these trusts."
Our family has been in the automobile business in California for over 40 years;we are
Dealer#2 out of 39,000 dealers in this State and we are proud of our excellent reputation. The
opposition seeks to ignore that important record and history of quality community participation.
9a524\U\Bdsup\DG.110 2
Supervisor Donna Gerber 11 October 2000
Some of the opponents to our project have also misinformed members of the community, and thus
perhaps you, to suggest that these improvements somehow reduce the space available on the lot
for vehicles and thus there should be some reduction in the number of vehicles allowed under the
Land Use Permit. In fact that is not so. There is no lesser space after the improvements than was
present at the time the LUP conditions of approval were given --there has been no change in that
in the last 10 years--and the site space easily accommodates the approved 23 vehicles plus one
customer parking and one employee parking on site, as required under the LUP.
I need to also mention that the LUP issue has been inappropriately mixed by the handful of
opponents with the issue of the Holiday Tree sales issue and I am asking that these be dealt with
as separate items, as I understand is the appropriate legal process.
As to the Holiday Trees issue,you are aware that the San Ramon Valley Planning
Commission on 20 September--largely with inaccurate input from the same veteran opponents of
any use by me of this site-- rejected the positive Staff recommendation of approval of the Holiday
Tree sales.
In response to the question raised in your letter of last week, unfortunately, and with great
anguish, I have had to cancel the large trees that were ordered for citizens of Alamo, Danville,
Diablo, Blackhawk and surrounding cities and county areas due to the decision by the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission on 20 September recommending to the Board of
Supervisors denial of the holiday trees use permit for this parcel.
In addition to the immense financial loss this has caused me, and the thousands of
customers that have been developed over the years, a very sad part about this whole process is
that the real losers in this opposition action by a handful of Alamo opponents, are
* the children from this area who over the last 4 years have come to value their
visit with Santa and Mrs Claus in the workshop on the property, each receiving a free small
holiday tree, and
* the local high school boys and girls fxom San Ramon High, Monte Vista High
and Cal High who will not have the seasonal job that they have had for the last four years.
* the valley churches and Mother Wright who have received Christmas trees over
these years at no cost
9A524\ x\Basup\DG.1io 3
Supervisor Donna Gerber 11 October 2000
In your letter you also asked if I had an alternate site. As you may know, the Staff has
indicated that my outside Christmas Tree sales in the County requires a public hearing and land
use permit. And that such process will take a minimum of months. Thus it is not possible to
find another location under those guidelines. I am going to be very closely following the holiday
tree sales in this part of Contra Costa County as I have not heard of Any public hearings and thus
it appears there will be no outside tree sales in this area of the County this year, unless my
application is being unfairly singled out for some reason.
"Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to meeting with you next week
Yours truly
kx
?
Dale A. Brides
cc: all members of.Board of Supervisors
Community Development Department
Brian D. Thiessen, Esq.
9A524\Lt\BdSupOO.110 4