Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10022001 - C.60 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP y' Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR � -cT County DATE: October 2, 2001 SUBJECT: Proposed Driveway Improvements within Scenic Easement for Proposed Residential Development at#191 Alamo Ranch Road, in the Alamo area. County File #ZI008583 (District III) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Authorize proposed driveway improvements pertaining to the development of a residence within a portion of a scenic easement. FISCAL IMPACT : None; all staff processing costs are the responsibility of the applicant. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON nc,_t nhnt r0? , 2 001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x x OTHER_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND xx UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) 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: Bob Drake (925)335-1214 ATTESTED October 02 , 2001 cc: Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF David Bianchini, c/o CDD SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Building Inspection Department, Property Conservation Div. Alamo Improvement Association BY ,DEPUTY Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing: September 25, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#Z1008583 Page 2 BACKGROUND This matter concerns a proposal to allow driveway improvements within a scenic easement covering a portion of Alamo Ridge that is one of the major ridgelines above Interstate 680 and Stone Valley Road in the Alamo area. The property consists of approximately nine acres, the western half of which was placed in a scenic easement at the time that the lot was created. The driveway improvements are intended to serve as access to a proposed residential site to a ridgetop site overlooking Alamo. The residence itself is on a portion of the site that is not within the scenic easement. The driveway improvements are partially installed and were discovered by staff in mid-development. General Information A. General Plan Designation — The site is designated Single Family Residential — Very Low Density (0.2 — 1.0 unit per net acre). The site also occupies a segment of Alamo Ridge, which the Open Space Element designates as a scenic ridgeline. B. Zoning: Single Family Residential — R-100. C. Environs: The site lies approximately one-quarter mile east of Interstate 680. The site is immediately north of the Alamo Springs development. The site is located at the extreme south end of a steep cul-de-sac bulb serving the Alamo Ranch project. D. Site Description —The 9-acre site occupies a section of the ridgetop of Alamo Ridge, and the northern face below the ridgetop. The western portion of the site (the portion most visible from 1-680 has been placed within a scenic easement at the time that the subdivision was approved that resulted in the subject property. The site is presently vacant; the only development consists of driveway and related retaining wall improvements. The site is studded with oak trees, most of which lie within the swale area on the eastern portion of the site. Discovery of Development Activity Last year, Building Inspection Department staff discovered that development activity was occurring on the property in violation of the Building code. The Department cited the owner, Mr. Bianchini, in a Notice to Comply that was issued on April 3, 2000. The violations pertained to grading activity and construction of a related retaining wall without permits. Subsequently, it was determined that the activity also involved violations of the Zoning Ordinance relative to the size and placement of the retaining wall, and alterations to code-protected trees. Staff also determined that the current owners had inherited a property transfer which was contrary to subdivision law, and needed to be remedied before any permits could be granted or issued. Submittal of Variance and Tree Permit Applications and Project Description On June 22, 2000, Mr. Bianchini filed (1) a variance permit application (File #VR001059) to allow a retaining wall up to six feet in height within the required structure setback areas (maximum 3-feet in height permitted); and (2) a tree permit application (File#TP000016)to allow driveway improvement alterations within the driplines of several code-protected trees. The request also included a request to Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing: September 25, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#Z1008583 Page 3 allow driveway improvements within the scenic easement portion of the site (County File#Z1008583). The entitlement actions are part of an overall project of the applicant to develop a two-story residence with 4200 square feet of habitable floor area, plus an additional wing of nearly 3000 square feet for garage and storage area. No development is proposed within the more visible(western portion)of the site which can be seen from Interstate 680. The house site itself is outside of the scenic easement, on top of the ridge. It otherwise is in compliance with all zoning development criteria. The driveway access is proposed within a relatively less visible draw area, which cannot be seen from 1-680. The project also involves a small amount of grading (approximately 2000 cubic yards), mostly in the vicinity of the house site. The application was accompanied by a report from a consulting arborist on the project's impact to existing trees, including recommendations to lessen the impact. Agency Comments Shortly after the development permit applications were filed,the Community Development Department referred them to various potentially interested agencies for comment. A. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District — No comments. B. East Bay Municipal Utility District—The District indicates that the site lies within an area that currently has water service. C. Alamo Improvement Association — The only concern of the Association pertains to an existing drainage problem within the Alamo Ranch subdivision at#120 Alamo Ranch Road. To avoid adding runoff to that situation,the Association recommended that the runoff from the development of the Bianchini property be diverted to the northeast (vicinity of Robbins Court/Zand Lane). The Association also wishes the applicant to develop appropriate erosion control measures and to agree to periodically maintain them. The applicant has agreed to all of the recommendations of the Alamo Improvement Association. D. Town of Danville — The Town did not respond to the County referral. Notification of the Owners of Adjoining Properties The County Ordinance allows variance and tree permit applications to be decided without necessarily holding a public hearing. However, a public notice is required to inform the owners of the adjoining properties of the project and entitlement action, and to provide them with an opportunity to request a public hearing. On April 7, 2001, the Community Development Department issued a Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative Decision on the project to the owners of property within 300 feet of the site. No responses were received (nor has staff received any inquiries on this project from any neighbors from the date that this matter first came to staff's attention). Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing: September 25, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#Z1008583 Page 4 - Correction to Subdivision Law Violations by Previous Owners As mentioned above, the actions of the previous property owners resulted in a violation of subdivision laws that was inherited by the applicant, Mr. Bianchini, and his neighbor at the time, Mr. Sage. For a short while, staff had scheduled hearings before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to consider filing Notices of Violation of Subdivision Laws against both the Bianchini property(#191 Alamo Ranch Road,APN 197-190-034, File#ZI008657)and Sage property(APN 197- 190-033 & -040; File #Z1008656). However, before a decision was rendered or made necessary by the Commissions, the matter was remedied by two actions of the interested parties: • Filing of a lot line adjustment application (File #LL000010) proposing to eliminate a parcel (property line) that had been illegally established contrary to a previous lot line adjustment application that had been proposed and approved by the County; and • Recordation of a new grant deed by Mr. Sage,the adjoining property owner, combining two real properties into one parcel on August 23, 2000. These actions remove the legal cloud that had existed on Mr. Bianchini's property. County Approval of Variance and Tree Permits On September 20, 2001, the Zoning Administrator determined that all of the applicable ordinance findings could be made and conditionally approved the variance permit and tree permit applications. The permits were made contingent on the applicant restricting the exterior colors of the proposed residence and on the drainage diversion measures proposed by the Alamo Improvement Association and agreed to by the applicant(COA#3). The permit was also made contingent on ultimate approval of the proposed driveway improvements within the scenic easement by the Board of Supervisors. The appeal period on the permit extends until October 1, 2001. No additional notice of the project is required, so unless the applicant was to appeal the variance permit, no other appeals are expected. DISCUSSION ON DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN SCENIC EASEMENT The scenic easement was primarily intended to protect the more visible western portion of the site. The driveway improvements marginally encroach within the scenic easement area. More importantly, the driveway improvements are sited in a relatively secluded draw that will not result in any major scenic impacts. The variance permit also imposes restrictions that will mitigate other aspects of the project that might otherwise result in a less aesthetic view of this scenic ridgeline property. Condition #4 restricts the colors of the residential exterior to less than 50% light reflectance. The applicant is also required to take actions to protect trees as the site develops including posting of temporary fencing around the trees prior to the commencement of construction, and posting of a tree protection bond. Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing: September 25, 2001 Board of Supervisors File#Z1008583 Page 5 In view of these actions, staff believes it would be reasonable to grant the proposed encroachment within the scenic easement area. CONSEQUENCES OF A NEGATIVE BOARD ACTION Should the Board determine that it would not be appropriate to approve the driveway improvements, then the applicant would be prevented from using the planned driveway alignment. The result may mean that the applicant would have to redesign the project. Such redesign would likely result in more disturbance of a heavily wooded and steep ravine, that would in turn result in significantly greater grading and tree impacts that would mar the scenic character of this site. It would also mean that the County would require the applicant to remove existing improvements within the scenic easement area. W:\zi008583.bo RD\ .F ��•'S':.. ,7':�;'' �l-4�" ����.:i;�::::,: h 4,.,`:yr.,i �t 1p.x.1.,..� '{f�� i E .. '.i11'1i'';r ..••l.. •t .W `�.l!'i:,:�::, .,:,4,`.tt.�' J ",',l ':'.; t . "c'q`1��11`?l:.n':,:•:' ,I:.;:.C;:alpr.t4114\:p,�5`:I:,,VI�.,r :all ..P1�,`a :" \1.� ,. ■ ;�''i?�1px:l�ii nli y.�:;::r.:'i1�. ,'1 �� ,::q., t\. ' :M:?;�';':.:, :...r..ir:::.❑...' ��:t � ..lir.." .4..,4� 4,1.i• '• :rJ.x_; r ..r•,.....-:.-.1.........r..... .....1-.•..I.�J .. .-.—..: :..._..... .....n 1N,ul::' �.'':�`.c �ti L; M� ,I al. � ..........:. .:::.-..v .:_....r::..:..:.... Wto 4 y 4 �7 •1A 1 _ .....:: _.. ,S -r : / ._.:....: .......-mac..._. •.. _.�._.._-�:...-_. .. i s C r .........-.-. . 4 s �y • ......_.:.. :moi: -. _ .. ..:..,-. :. .�:�• m / �is moi:.__, � - - �� c ���'.:�:"'.�-?"' !.. ♦♦: i o _ �«_• f ,,,-fit -t- .�,.L licki = %ero �y_� / / � %i_— ��•��—ice�::!�'" �:��:���_*.:r' � _ iZ.^ �1 VI oil r:• ,rMON _ x 1561 QfrJ 1562 1563 � ea AVE z A q µE N T ' cT" OORRi / � 1 VALLEY _...- SEOxE 1 rI • � 1 l t/ R-20 ., � .i• \ fi ._� dam(, V R65 ' ., -- R-40 .. I' / '7 1 ;`�Ili °f �.�• �, I \!' f' 't. V`; R-4Q 91 T o 9-1.A6- .: . M•17 - �" _ t •\' ,� x ,' ., irk%+". 4. -S, VoI MAO NCH 45E in i s; sCHOOL �-.. \ r , 1559 1560) ` 1561 $IBJ t562 :r� 1563 "Y DEVELOPMENT 79-134 2369 i2 •-74 3ly-34 -2-53O R-ir-AM _,,,_ ,ac.` o Soo L6'E i • � N 1 / CO z; s N a) a Sf, AU Y ~ vio M.9!. LN N V Q CIl of h v M 64 Ci _ J• T WW2 \\ '�nd d13�Ntl� A Q QOM Nd �" Q z1p mM {*M W Q N a�Vb N n erg N a 17e m Cl) m t i:N Q •�_�Y h Q C�r-1-—� h ,✓ +� e Cr-F-r"r)U V s T r $ 07!`- �S � — N :i( G a• `, � amu^ �1+1`\\ ka . M _< j,'w �y" �\��p�/{• �"r m ��` 'rte r 'J�v�l 1 /r�'_ `may j 3 �}? J i _.♦x'eA w .e o~ h-�A p°1 � �y v �r i / -� ,C r-� �ar6�. ( �a ' <'' k O'S!. Nip W J10 C f O Q 7 G c � oma• TO mo 54t'4B .,...,..„ 54W444�F. IIS IIIA 0 V-..�.: / �.�F-� i//•/' /l I.li �jlllll:l:l.l' ��i l�'I�! ��� ,.// .9 - - =111-� w w :iI X, _ --- �=� LLJ CL CO I� ► IIS i --- -- ,, ''1�,1 �I Illi 11�11,�\• -'�����% //� – �—-------.�0��/, 4y. 2�w .e ` 111 •�. ���/�j / j - - � —_ N .......... ... .. .. ....�,:y,`,.�;:fig.;.".. � � .... .. Icy v v v v v v v vy 7 s B ®© ®®e® ®®®e e BIANCHINI RESIDENCE PRELIMINARY TREE MAP MARCH 17,2000 J05EF1111CN[IL COIi5ULTIIIa ARDCIRL5T J IIALT[ COUIIT.FL[ASANT ItII.L(.q 945-73 925E76.5232 CONTOUR INTERVAL:2' GRADING CONTOUR INTERVAL:1 M 1 ...................EXISTING PROPOSED 0 25 50 100 150 NSCALE,1"=50' 32 // 1 / \ \\\ 332 331 sifM 333 .� ��-�;39n- 330 �a 1� 1 j r ZE Lp o � t E x l � I i — Q ' - ---------- Zg F q h ? -------- B a ------------------� a fag � � $ Ldp � 6^ .� k§• e _ t \ } -- -------------- ----------- -------------------- W ------------ ---------- rte. , a o i i s -i23 I a 4� I i p� �A x a �5d1d °v7 a a�dwin y. 1N3WdOl3A30 A1INnv%Noo AJNF1(D VISOO VULNLO F s? i GLUE. OOZ T AON ; P � k X14 � e g zz k� /va A b .. . F ¢q �6 .g 56 a t3. ...a .... • a Y ... §:.. .. ¢dd¢1 .4 ggs rte_ L_ y qkq � neC p:pe 55 e FLI J! Fn s � i e_ I — e ^j 1 � I --.j. .......... ................ .............. L0916 Y.)'OVYVIV I 9ZS06 VIN O-A"V CJVOH HDNVLJ ONVIV L6L NNI < 30NMIS3�A INIHONV19 cloom INV17111M ID-- io r 41 �cd . 7� 0\ LL ------------- .4 r. J: - - - - �_ .. [0998 VD'Owv"Iv EaB OCu 1SZc) .I.. -.1. •. •--• 'ay 9Z81'fiVINi1Ri1'IV�'a-1'IInNV(I ..� 2S•,P-�., UVON HUNViJ ONVIV 16L enZa ns'a:v�anv uavFi toc 30N301S321 INIHONb 18 a UOOM V�IdI'11iM r I •' • ji,l III 10 I I _C_ _,y. _r t� h • O P� J �• � �.I�i I � � � I, I LL } • I I. I I —_.-�_ Z. _ I i} r ` I 9 I I qq - - I - I l I,•qy _ I I I pS - C-11 :r5 ' Nz l • - -e ?j> I I ) r.. y. .._....+:_v_r........... ........s!._..�n.._."-= -.._�,._. ..,..,... .._...,..:.. ..•......-,. ... ,_ .. ... ... _. , ._%'k�:'- obi+.....__�'f.o-._...s+::e::nR��.:i-..).i:l;�.''.in_......� EEZH-1IV,-)a ".r:.••'..•r`.•:. 11 . ..�. 9L4l,'i's"'r,',AV ZIi,nN LUC �OVOiI HONV2J OWVIV L(il r ),- ip Z1f1S•JIiNJ,1V L1LV11 lU£3ON30IS38 INIHONVIB DOOM vivillim ZI A. +'IFIL. i yy o w Q w I�;r I:;• :�: Lu w �•;'�'��.'� � ME r' r OVOHHONVL10WVIV WL "siS66.vtriamt�vJ''rntnr+r(7: II�r.'1 ' COEa S•ar.3Av=MVH too 30NMIS38 INIHONVIS QOOM'L)ISI I IIM'ili�l l t I � :t r - r 1 1 - r , dl 4' A 1. •t I'f .Ir '� •:t .f.i :.a: I d t - I „t 4r I I E, I 23 .I. e. - �z — O 4 i — w I Q x 1 .. .. � �. :!f k51� _ �:`�J � ;.fir!':` `•:'�3 'I... .. �. ... CL .. R. 'i i t•ii. _ u i/ / / Inn t.. �'lj'l cr 41 Iy I�•.`I.: / \ .'I 1. `"" \ .. - -' � :;I if ,lli III. lil I� " II I : v/ I, u1 i� j:. - l- w : t. _ - W o 1; r a : : m -- LLJ / • n. -- f - _ —. _ a CD . ..........:....: .Ak �li I ,ti i ;'.il•I'1 0^ �`.:; Z W o. Olou N 5I , O L•� 10,416 §sa §: 3°:.p 901,198,8" §. ��•e „p 9�;,p.•.3 W:r off : 'fie .. 3sd � . „ ". . :,rg���gla `4n2Re6 °A'<Y arra' ` a abd3S oi° d� s€a o y�." 'F=.$�s�gaW M' r i6: Y _y3 °a ga4 -ss 9g� "ss gg„ c 4 . 9agar y' z t e,7 a,s$„ xbs b°' aFc qF. s 2 ,F.�_'If F;. a;^a W = �p4� W � ) gnPip , _ S � 1 g r : a L a 5 sg d Mfl- y.�F 1g: gaff 8" =4 „ § $§ a •."vane:, si zg�.. 3 - a �y'g�' W _ ^ . „ "t .W s b i a �o' °$ ` a a a 3 i= gg g c " 3" 5A .a" 'a " ` a;'Ya�Wgg e1aW § [p `�k' yuxo .r_5� _ 3f zY 01.2 1 �Q:, §`o: 2 Fr jj='J '_ '" des ? a „ =s�W"° s$r�yg H-EZ,; Oso• .g s o yy Qna MIN-, -, I,s$ fie^ s a a $` r 3 k € ' g =ao c <¢ s=2 r 'rfi° ' -ag g e a a q $'z,.^ §_ 3iF� gF a i &= s:€ "'W=' hya5..^g"'es Y'� �4 pp g 6 ^ " ^oL�i� "9: ;.p `� .f3( Arai adgibd� �x=:F-h :'3„jah, 'aa Y;; o a�$ae EgaxS. uYi E` .Y q'. .f'p a" i•."= :9a3 y BFee g o� $y v 5g°�. ;_;°.. $epie �a 9?'trmea a•n $ g h S;wa� f:c;p efl�=; y: s a ag• I, �a 'Eap.:; a� b a n ?a =! 3 :^ pn -;a "a a. <•. Y§.=' u,. b 3 = p a :1�: sos:rile:�.a8a [' g ° day x g = `aa� :g 3g �" Q - ep.g Ml Z Q J , go. ■ abg B t y s ge a § Y "Ya g. V.- ; asa+ °� tl4 ag:=rW Y e^sag g ri W 1.6 ➢1 "^e zq r,. ;: ���'` � cFa i p§ � `�se5?$ e9 ; € ` � �. �gg ga .a s,. 3 =;fie.eja a ay�o8g ar=rn°= 3 s Z � 3' �� � � � �� "� i✓ g�°= � S•s =� a 8g.i ay„ b�> s� es � �_ � �< a �.�_-�- �. Q ysb �FtW 5 t :9 ° e. }8 g= : #: q yg r S„�4 e g abs°:a- .$4a rrgy�;7i Via.. e ? g a e rage ra4 !a`ep• a= do ry Y:o § q=npa3s y 6 €b: a g7 Z �o3Fj`- ek $ E �23gg§}oW3�a"-m Y a dF Va c 5 g `Y a r�yFy = P { l ; :s° eg ° wy° Fe : $`�a!'a "3�s Z E 'atlq 73oR • °. 4a ,. �,- . y^i :}. :u HIP 4 S SM z ”: � s ° C. e2: = °'i'ea a it Q :a F °E se 8 b a =gb • as ! pe;e g .. ale e a a ! u'q. a g• Fti g $o r =3a•§g'.. .b:.s' e• SWa ; gg5s Ada a° rFrg°s = '^syr §ZBx '% `�g:a aca€"'$ r • ga Ur ' § " 9- y ` ; � r1`9$ eg 9"s=•.. �;°6 3 g� 8.$ �3g 4,$S-Al s$32 ru Abi. Z gGo:? r;2a0t fiar c� int~ `�• \ �'4i�� L : , I wr ! ,�;� �; t,,.,,.,=.'tl.. R,°'':� '�•' Wim, „ - � r ;t i : ._ i -,r'.-_rsd`•r .I_�,. "� '•av�'y7. '�":�iet�a+' .. 1 ,yF • T , 1 r , Z , .y ! r '-.'UI 111 111.11 Ill 1 `JV I Ill CL Community Development Directo Development i Costa Department County Count Administration Building yF ,- P? 651 Pine Street �,i �„ 3 H;1 S: 5 2 4th Floor, North Win E �i ! 9 - -,. Martinez, California 94553-0095. Phon�§25)335-1210 '\ _�,�Y' j�r OiST Date: Z DO AGENCY COMMENT REQUESTNrr("'^'] eWe re uest your comments re(gardin the attached a lication tunder review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: Building Inspection _HSD,Environmental Health Project Planner HSD,Hazardous Materials _P/W-Flood Control (Full Size) County File Number: 00 —P/W -Engineering Svcs (Full Size) – Date Forwarded Prior.To: , 6Lt L,-A 2f�o _P/W Traffic(Reduced) P/W Special Districts (Reduced) We have found the following special programs Comprehensive Planning apply to this application: _Redevelopment Agency Historical Resources Information System Redevelopment Area Fish & Game,RegiofFire-District' fie ' Active Fault Zone Sanitary District 6t vl '- Water District U �i Flood Hazard Area, Panel# Sl� City _School District (c-2 60 dBA Noise Control _Sheriff's Office-Admin. & Comm. Svcs. Alamo Improvement Association Within 2,000 ft. Of Hazardous Waste Site _El Sobrante Plg. &Zoning Committee MAC Traffic Zone Gen. Svcs.-Dep. Director, Communications Community Organizations CEQA: Categorical Eaemtion Section Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required b law or ordinance. Please send 4 y copies of your response to the Applicant & Owner. _cNo comments on this application. —Our Comments are attached Comments: gnature S2�F�a Agency >L -Z7-0 d J:\groups\cdodpool\rorms\commentreq Date Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd &5th Fridays of each month RE- ....EW OF AGENCY PLANNING APPLICATION EBMUD .HI- ,IS NOT A.PROPOSAL TO..PROVID.Ew , WATER`:=SERVICE w� :.._.>.. ----........ -..............._.........�.......,..-..._..x,..._...;_._..._...ter...-__--_.�__.... ._...,....�......�... ,......_..A . _. .�._.t. _•� _._---•t—� _ 'm'n information,is t to revi i and i to b d for (� r The technical data supplied herein is based on preliminary arysubject revision a s e use planning �te�bDl�Y. C i DATE 12/14/00 EBMUD MAP(S) 1560B494 EBMUD FILE S-6786 AGENCY County Administration Building AGENCY FILE 121 TENTATIVE MAP 651 Pine Street VROO1059 ❑ DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4'Floor, North Wing ❑ REZONING/GPA Martinez, Ca 94553-0095 ❑ OTHER APPLICANT Dave Bianchini OWNER 339 Borica Place Same as applicant Danville, Ca 94526 E. .. .. ........ .. ,Tx...:...<.. .. ... ...t... ... ._........,'e...:.....,.............. ... ... ...... fie; DEVELOP.MEN .DATA�•'���:'��1 - .. ... ..: .. ... Y ............... .. ... ... ....... .. F: ::�� LOCATION: 191 Alamo Ranch Road. (-Application of variance to construct retaining wall). FTOTAL ACREAGE 9± NO. OF UNITS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT 1 ❑Single Family ❑Multi-Family ❑Commercial O Industrial ❑Other Residential Fire Station .,.a...,..._:.x,....: a .[..:.. ...,.... .. .. ... .. .. .. ., ':�:'v:"::,'1•s �&t. s;.5.'",...�:'.�'::'- --f...:. "?3•'wtxTef` ti_ .... ., ...n..:... .. .........,. .. wS!.�.. 1..::. :.. ..:{.... y.:�.�`.:.'.. .':�''�.�•:'�.�•: .:=°��::' £..::. ... ........ r .. :. ..... .. ..: .:.. Y/�e:.. ...... ..... . .. .. .... ....... ...... ..C.. i s..:....,..... ........ .. . ,. ;�� 'WATER SERVICE:DATA=' ""' PROPERTY ELEVATION RANGE OF STREETS ELEVATION RANGE OF PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED r In EBMUD ❑Requires Annexation 530'-560' 650'-690' El (_ X ALL, _PART) ❑ ( ALL, PART) ❑ Water service would require of development may be sensed from of development would be served by construction of major facilities EXISTING MAIN(S) MAIN EXTENSION(S) ❑ RESERVOIR LOCATION LOCATION OF ❑ PUMPING PLANT OF MAIN(S) Alamo Ranch Poad EXIST. MAIN(S) ❑ TRANSMISSION MAIN ❑ Other PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION PRESSURE ZONE SERVICE ELEVATION Danville RANGE RANGE (F3A) 250'-450' .. .. .T.r! .. ... ....... •..... .. .. y ....... ..n ...... ........ .._. �, .... ...�. ;••..: COMMENTS::•': ,. ,..,:,:.�a::,,f: Property currently has water service. If additional water service is required, the applicant should contact EBMUD's New Business Office to request a water service estimate to determine the cost and conditions for providing additional water service to the property. FOR INFORMATION REGARDING: THIS REVIEW -CHARGES ft OTHER REQUIREMENTS.FOR SERVICE-. Contact The EBMUD New Business Office (510)287-1008 Contact The EBMUD Water Service Planning Section (510)287-1084 O Water Service Planning O County IM New Business Office O Applicant �Zj�'1 ►/¢-/� 21Kz_ ❑ Owner MARIE A.VALMOR159, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER WATER SERVICE PLANNING SECTION 12/27/00 WED 11:59 FAX 925 855 2050 BENEFITS STORE Ls7.1uu-r Aukmo MQOV" A(MOC-iATI-ON--� ea rmeCountry l r:g A.O.fiOX 271 • ALAMO. QUEOWA 94507 • (925)86&3606 December 20, 2000 BY FAX TO 335-1222 Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St., 4a'Floor, N. Wing Martinez, CA 94533-0095 Attn: Bob Drake Subject: TP 00-0016, 'VR 00-1059, ZI 00-8583 Site: 191 Alamo Ranch Rd Request to allow variance in height of an already constructed retaining wall to a height of up to six feet (where 3 ft. is allowed). Request to allow an already constructed retaining wall to remain within a scenic easement. Request for a tree permit to allow grading and other existing alterations within the drip-lines of several mature trees. R-100 zoning. Dear Ms. Moreira: Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Committee on December 13, and by our Board the following night. Applications presented for review to approve existing conditions and improvements for the lot. Several committee members inspected property on Saturday, December 9t'. The applicant must widen the existing file access road to 16 ft -20 ft. to allow for fire equipment requirements. Applicant has already done so, however retaining walls used for this purpose need to be improved in accordance with engineering recommendations. The fire access road was originally constructed through a portion of the scenic easement approximately 20 years ago. The site inspection revealed no other convenient access route to the building site. Dunn;the original construction of the fire access road, file was placed around the trunks of tree large oak trees located at the edge of the roadway. The arborist's report recommends removal of this fill. The applicant has already done this, however there is now permanent solution recommended by the arborist to prevent fill from shifting back around the tree trunks, consisting of either gradual stable slope of nearby undisturbed soil, or a small retaining wall. The applicant's drainage engineer was not present at the meeting to explain project's solution to collect and convey water from this property. This is of great importance because of already existing water collection and conveyance problems of the Alamo Ranch subdivision. After review of the above., the scenic easement access permit is recommended for approval because there is no other practical access to the property's building site and because the applicant intends to utilize the existing 20 year-old fire access road for this purpose. 12/27/00 EYED 12:00 FAX 925 855 2050 BENEFITS STORE 10008 ALAMO MPOVEWNT AMOCIMON ' for r„e C 11hy livig A.O.BOX m AI MO. CA EOANIA 94507 • (925) 866-3606 The tree permit for e)dsting grading within the dripline of 3 mature oak trees (arborist's report tree# 327, 4328 and #333 is recommended for approval because this was done during the original construction of the 20 year-old fire access road. Conditions for approval include that fill removal around the base of trees be maintained at their original grade (prior to the original road construction) by the property owner. Applicant is encouraged to use the arborist's recommended permanent solution to protect trees from the potential problem of fill continuing to shift around the base of these trees. Owner must abide by recommendations'of the arborists report (including those for tree#333), that no permanent structures or other attractions be built or placed under the tree(s). The application for a variance for construction of an 8 ft. retaining wall (where 3 ft. is allowed) is continued to our January agenda with a request for complete engineering information on the retaining wall and drainage for the lot. Applicant has been asked to have their engineer attend January meeting. Sincerely, Roger.F. Smith, Chairman Planning Committee Cc: AIA Secretary Dave and Karen Bianchiri 02/22/01 THU 17:14 FAX 925 b55 ZU*u nnivnrlta alvnz , o DVNW AMOC A110N ecr.rxw.-camtly WV8 P.O-BOX 271 • AL M0, CAIHOPSIA 945M • (925) 866-3606 February 20, 2001 BY FAX TO 335-1222 Community Development Dept. 651 Pine St., a Floor, N. Wing Martinez, CA 94533-0095 Attn Bob Drake Subject: 191 Alamo Ranch Rd Site: Request to allow variance in height of an already constructed retaining wall to a height of six feet(where 3 ft is allowed). Draining issues resulting from roadway construction and proposed residential construction need clarification. Continued from January. R-100 zoning. Dear Mr. Drake: Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Committee on February 14th, and by our Board the following night. Engineering concerns for the retaining wall were addressed by Sal Italiano of SPI Consulting. The size and structure of the pre-stressed concrete columns already installed should be more than adequate for load level. Recommend installation of "dead man anchor" for every two columns to provide stability. Drainage concerns for roadway and site development were addressed by Jim Diggens of DeBolt Engineering. There were on-site meetings at both Hidden Valley Road and Robbins Court drainage point locations prior to our meeting. The Robbins Court location was judged more than adequate for the additional drainage. Recommend water diversion to Robbins Court of the site development water run-off(approximately 50% already drains to Robbins Court) through a drainage system to be installed. This diversion is expected to mitigate any effect of covering the present hard pack roadway with an impervious surface and it's drainage to the Hidden Valley Road drainage point. Erosion concerns for both the site development area and large drainpipes located at outside of roadway will be resolved through installation of surface flow dissipaters to spread out storm water flow. This will involve replacing the existing riprap currently located below the drainpipes installed in the roadway. Applicant has agreed to install the dissipaters and to periodically inspect both the site development and roadway drainage areas to make sure the dissipaters are preventing erosion. .LAMO IMP OCIArfloN - FCC fxle Cay P.O.BOX 271 • AUM0. CALIFOPMA 94507 • (925) 866-3606 Application is recommended for approval as presented with the inclusion of the engineering recommendations noted in this letter and the installation and periodic inspcction of safe flow dissipaters. Si -er y, ' 1 gerIRmith, rman winiommittee cc: AIA Secretary Dave and Karen Bianchini .y From the desk of David E. Bianchini Sr. 339 Borica Place Danville CA 94526 (925) 831-1149 Fax 838-4447 February 22, 2001 Community Development Department 651 Pine St. 2nd Floor North Wing Martinez CA 94553 0095 attn. Bob Drake , Principal Planner I accept the recommendations that were noted in the AIA letter of 2/20/01. The main issues are, sending all down spouts and surface drainage towards Robbins Courts. Currently 50% of this water goes to Hidden valley lane, therefore there will be a reduction of flow to the Hidden valley Lane. For the AIA committee I produced a drainage plan and calculations of flows showing were the water will eventually fall to off site. I have included 2 copies of those drainage plans and calculations for county review. If you or anybody at public works has any questions about the drawings, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, David E. Bianchini PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: March 21, 2001 TO: Bob Drake, Project Planner, Community Development FROM: Jerry Fahy, Associate Civil Engineer, Engineering Services SUBJECT: PERMIT VR 1059-00 STAFF REPORT & DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS (Bianchini /Alamo Ranch Road/Alamo/AP# 197-190-034) FILE: VR 1059-00 We have reviewed the Variance Application for the Bianchini Residence, located at 191 Alamo Ranch Road, in the Alamo area, and offer the following comments: Background This application is for the approval of a variance regarding retaining wall height as part of the development of this parcel for a single family residence. The subject property was created as Lot 6 of Subdivision 5156. Retaining Wall We have no comments and no Conditions of Approval regarding the height of the retaining wall. Drainage This area has had a history of drainage problems. The nexus does not exist to condition a Variance to meet the collect and convey requirements of Division 914 of the County Ordinance Code. However, Public Works has been asked to render an opinion regarding the drainage of this parcel. Greg Staffelbach with the County Building Inspection Department, field reviewed the site on March 14, 2001, and made recommendations regarding the proposed drainage improvements. We are in agreement with Mr. Staffelbach, and would recommend that the drainage system for this parcel be connected with the existing system in Alamo Ranch Road. The drainage concerns of the Alamo Improvement Association (AIA) have been reviewed and could be addressed if the applicant tied all drainage to the existing system in Alamo Ranch Road. Public Works could review the drainage improvement plans and the hydrology/hydraulic calculations provided the applicant submits the drainage improvement plans, calculations, including a drainage review fee, to the County Public Works Department for review. The erosion concerns of the AIA will partially be addressed by removing surface water from the hillside and placing it in a storm drain system. The mitigation measures discussed in the AIA's letter dated February 20, 2001 could still be implemented. NPDES Requirements: The applicant should be aware of the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) for municipal, construction and industrial activities. Provisions should be made for storage of hazardous materials as well as equipment maintenance to prevent discharges into the storm drain system. Miscellaneous Drainage Requirements: Applicant shall mitigate the impact of additional stormwater runoff from this development on San Ramon Creek by either of the following methods: Remove 1 cubic yard of channel excavation material from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek near Livorna Road for each 50 square feet of new impervious surface area created by the development. All excavated material shall be disposed of offsite by the applicant at his own cost. The site selection, land rights, and construction staking will be by the Flood Control District. OR, upon written request by the applicant Provide for a cash payment in lieu of actual excavation and removal of material from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek near Livorna Road. The cash payment will be calculated at a rate of$0.10 per square foot of new impervious surface area created by the development. The added impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the Flood Control District's standard impervious surface area ordinance. The Flood Control District will use these funds to work on San Ramon Creek annually. Area of Benefit: Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the South Contra Costa Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee, the Tri-Valley Area of Benefit, and the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to issuance of building permits. JF:jf G:\GrpData\En gSvc`Jerr\2001\March\vr 1059-00 cc: H.Ballenger,Engineering Services M.Morton,Engineering Services J.Dimaggio,Engineering Services . CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �w- °.n BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N. Wing — 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Telephone: 646-1111 Fax: 646- DATE April 19, 2001 TO Bob Drake, Principal Planner, CDD FROM Greg Staffelbach, Grading Inspector II, BID #y SUBJ Amendment to March 14 IOM Regarding the Bianchini Project at 191 Alamo Ranch Road, Alamo, CDD File VR001059, APN 197-190-034 Dear Bob, We have just concluded our meeting with Dave Bianchini and representatives of Public Works and the AIA regarding the drainage issues for Mr. Bianchini's building project in Alamo. During that meeting I was presented with engineering documentation of the increase in surface water flow to Zand Lane that is being proposed. The additional amount is very small in comparison to what already goes to that location. Mr. Bianchini has proposed an energy dissipation system, designed by his civil engineer and approved by his soils engineer, which is expected to return the collected flow to sheet flow well inside his property. After much thought and discussion I am willing to accept this design concept. The engineers design and the installation will not only be certified by them, but will be reviewed by this department prior to approval. Mr. Bianchini understands that maintenance of the system is very important and a key element in maintaining the integrity of the hillsides and the prevention of damage to any properties down slope. I hope you find this satisfactory. Should you need anything more in regards to the drainage issues please give me a call. My number is 335-1168. CC: Jerry Fahy, Public Works Dave Bianchini ' (IIIIII��III1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII RECORDING REQUESTED SY: III IN William R. Sage CONTRA COSTA Cc Recorder Office r, y , . STEPHEN L, WEIR, Clerk-Recorder DOC— 2100-0180764-00 Acet 9- North American Title WREN RECORDED MA11 TO: W, AUG 23, 2000 08:00:00 William R. Sage / Bob Drake SUR $10.00 MIC $1.00 MOD $5.00 c/o Community Development Dept. REC $9.00 TCF $4.00 Contra Costa County Tt 1 Pd $29.00 Nbr-0000081249 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA. 9455; amt _ lma/R2/1-5 MAll TAX STATEMENTS TO: DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX: William and Lise Sage Computed nn full value of property conveyed, Or 160 Alamo Ranch Rd. computed on full value less liens and encumbrances Alamo,Ca. 94507 remaining at time of sale. THE UNDERSIGNED DECLARANT APN :197 190 040 and 197-190-033 ------------------- GRRNT DEED ON,July 23,2000 for a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, William Sage And Lise Sage, Husband and Wife as Community property hereby GRANT(S) to William R Sage and Lise Sage, Husband and Wife as Community property the real property in the unincorporated area of ALAMO, County of Contra Costa, State of California, described as: SEE ' EXHIBIT A'ATTACHED HERETOO State of California L County of C(ill -�057� ) S.S. on before me, the undersigned notary public, personallyappeared 1 L L{%moi•ten 1Nl111�?►'✓� R S William R. Sa -- -Pe =1]y known r+--ine-, or --- proved to me on the basis of satis Llse age factory evidence to be the person(C) whose name% is a r subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hels��hel execur_ed the same in CW1K 1128950 his/herrt_h_rr�auth zed capacity(ies) , and OiRTRA PAYNE La �ygyp .Ck l=ORNI.K "Q that by his/her/ ham.' signature�5�� on theCOSTACOUN-ri' / E�ee6 ME:.8.2001 instrument the person(5-1' or the entity _ upon behalf of which the person CsJ' acted, / executed the instrument. i WITNESS my hand and official seal Signature This Deed is made pursuant to the requirement of the Contra Costa County Community Development department for lot line adjustment compliance CDD File # LL00010 18®'764 EXHIBIT "A" (Unincorporated Area) Parcel One: Those portions of Lots 6 and 7 as shown on the Map of Subdivision 5156, filed August 17, 1979, in Map Book 228, Page 27, Contra Costa County Records, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 7, said point being the common Northerly corner of Lot 7 and 6, as shown on the above referred to Map, thence North 59 degrees 45' 44" East, along the Northwesterly line of Lot 6, above referred to, a distance of 154.28 feet, thence along a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of 55.00 feet, through a central angle of 86 degrees 21' 36", an arc distance of 82.90 feet, thence along a tangent line South 18 degrees 50' 45" West, a distance of 49.24 feet to an angle point, thence South 32 degrees 32' 52" West, a distance of 159.16 feet an angle point, thence South 81 degrees 51' 47' West, a distance of 596.84 feet to the Southwesterly line of Lot 7, as shown on said Map, thence along said Southwesterly line of said Lot, North 47 degrees 48' 23" West, a distance of 157.10 feet to the most Westerly corner of said Lot 7, thence along the Northwesterly line of Lot 7, as shown on said Map, North 19 degrees 28' 13" East, a distance of 465.18 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Lot, thence North 63 degrees 34' 37" East, a distance of 17.56 feet to a corner of said Lot 7, thence along the Northeasterly line of said Lot South 73 degrees 19' 13" East, a distance of 280.01 feet to the beginning of a curve, tangent, concave Southerly having a radius of 300.00 feet, through a central angle of 59 degrees 26' 64", an arc distance of 311.22 feet to the point of beginning. Said land being shown on that certain Record of Survey Map recorded March 9, 1982 in Book 70, Record of Survey's at Page 19, Contra Costa County Records. Parcel Two: A non-exclusive easement as an appurtenance to Parcel One above, and any Subdivision or Subdivisions thereof, for use as a roadway for vehicles of all kinds, pedestrians and animals, for water, gas, oil and sewer pipe lines, and for telephone, television services, electric light and power lines, over, under and upon those areas designated as Alamo Ranch Road Equestrian Trail & Private Road", 25' Private Roadway Easement", "24' Private Roadway Ease. & Equestrian Trail" on the Map of Subdivision 5156. Excepting therefrom that portion lying within Lot 3 of said Subdivision. i8o%4 Parcel Three: Portion of Lot 7 as said Lot is shown on that Map recorded August 17, 1979, in Map Book 228, Page 27, Contra Costa County Records, further described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of said Lot 7; thence from said point of beginning along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 7 North 47 degrees 48' 23" West 512.31 feet; thence leaving said Southwesterly line North 81 degrees 51' 47" East leaving said Southwesterly line North 81 degrees 51' 47" East 486.42 feet to a point in the Southeasterly line of said Lot 7; thence along said Southeasterly line South 13 degrees 52' 16" West 425.33 feet to the point of beginning. Assessor's Parcel Number: 197-190-040 and 197-190-033 Dennis M.Barry. AICP Commonity CC-itra Community Developmenl Director DevelopmentCOSta :.8©'764. Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street. 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone: ( )925 335-1214_~ ' May 2,2000 Dasa 'pini William R. Sage �qe :ace" 160 Alamo Ranch Road ianeCA=94526 Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Messieurs Bianchini and Sage: Re: Approval of Lot Line Adjustment Lots 6 and 7, Subdivision 5156 (APN 197-190-033, -034,-040) Alamo Ranch Road, Alamo CDD File#LL000010 We have reviewed your request of February 14, 2000 for lot line adjustment regarding Lots 6 and 7 of Subdivision 5156, identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 197-190-033, -034, and -040). The proposal is to transfer the area of Assessor's Parcel Number 197-190-033, which is a portion of Lot 6, and merge it to Lot 7. In reviewing this application. it is noted that the property had been previously transferred without first having been subject to an approved lot line adjustment application. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with the zoning and building ordinances,therefore it can be and is administratively approved by this department subject to the following conditions. 1. This approval is valid for a period of six months from the date of this letter. 2. Pursuant to Section 66412 of the Government Code, this approval shall be implemented by recording a grant deed(by Mr. Sage) that provides for the merger of APN 197-190- 033 (Portion of Lot 6) and APN 197-190-040 into one consolidated parcel. A c�ogvvoof this approval letter shall be attached to the grant deed. The consolidated parcel shall be assesse purposes. 3. Provide the Community Development Department with a copy of the recorded documents. Office Hours Mondav-Frday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. J80764 764 Hearing on Notice of Intent to File a Notice of Violation of the Subdivision Ordinance In letters dated April 17, 2000, we notified both of you that the current division of the property into three assessor parcel numbers constitutes a violation of the subdivision laws, and that a hearing on this matter was scheduled before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission for Wednesday, May 17, 2000, at which time you could provide testimony on this matter. This is to advise you that if you provide us with evidence that the requested documents have been recorded, we are prepared to determine that the violation of the subdivision laws has been cured, and we will notify you in writing. Moreover, if staff receives evidence that the specified documents are recorded by Tuesday, May 16, 2000, we will cancel the Commission hearing on the two notices, and the County will not go forward with recordation of the Notice of Violations for these properties. _. ., Should you have any questions, please call me at (925)335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner cc: File cAwpdoc=001 0-Mir RD\ END OF DOCUMENT -2- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Dave Bianchini APPLICATION NO. VR001059 TP000016 339 Borica Place Danville,CA 94526 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 197-190-034 ZONING DISTRICT: R-100 OWNER: Same as Applicant APPROVED DATE: September 20, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2001 Unless this matter is appealed by the effective date, a permit for(1) variance to allow a six-foot tall retaining wall within the required frontyard area; and (2) a tree permit to allow grading and other alterations within the driplines of several mature, code-protected trees for a proposed driveway to serve a new residence in the Alamo area is hereby GRANTED, subject to the attached conditions. DENNIS M. BARRY,AICP Community Development Director By:i;G' , 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 is not established within that time. PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. Findings and Conditions of Approval for Related Applications . for the Proposed Bianchini Residence in the Alamo area: Variance Permit File #VR001059 & Tree Permit File #TP001016 Findings A. Findings for Granting a Variance Permit 1). Required Finding -Any variance authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Project Finding -The requested variances would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and the R-100 land use district. Development of properties in the area is likely to entail taller retaining walls to accommodate development on steep terrain. 2) Required Finding - Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property due to its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the respective zoning regulations is found to deprive the subject property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the identical land use district. Project Finding—This site has steep terrain. The applicant has picked the only feasible building site on the property. It necessitates a variance to normal retaining wall height restrictions to allow for a driveway that will meet County and Fire District standards. 3) Required Findinna -Any variance authorized shall substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use district in which the subject property is located. Failure to so find shall result in a denial. Project Finding -The requested variance is to allow a taller retaining wall than would normally be permitted on a property within the County. The site is zoned Single Family Residential. The site is entitled to development of a single family residence. Unless this variance was granted, the applicant may be precluded from developing a residence that would be safe. Therefore, the granting of he variance substantially meets the intent and purpose of the Single Family Residential district by allowing the applicant an opportunity to build a single family residence. To avoid aggravation of an existing downstream drainage problem in the vicinity of#120 Alamo Ranch Road, the applicant has agreed to a community (Alamo Improvement Association) suggestion to divert runoff from the project site to another drainage system (to the northeast of the site, Robbins Court/Zand Lane). B. Finding for Granting a Tree Permit Ordinance Finding for Granting a Tree Permit - Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. Project Finding—The project affects native and introduced trees on the property and immediately adjoining the property. The proposed residence has been placed in the only reasonable location where development could be considered. The driveway has been sited in the only feasible location that would connect the access road (Alamo Ranch Road) with the proposed residence. Most of the driveway follows an older fire trail alignment, so that the terrain had already been impacted to some extent by heavy vehicles. The applicant has provided an arborist report on the improvements recommending measures to minimize the impact of development within the dripline of code-protected trees. Conditions of Approval General 1. Development is approved as shown on plans submitted with the application, received by the Community Development Department on March 28, 2000, and as revised in site plans dated November 1, 2000, 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 be in accord with the findings and recommendations of the following reports: • March 17, 2000 Preliminary Tree Survey and Preservation Report by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist • July 11, 2000 Supplemental Report by Joseph McNeil, Consulting Arborist 2 2. Approval is granted to allow for a variance to retaining wall height that meet the requirements of Section 26-2.2006 of the County Ordinance Code as follows: Required by zoning ordinance. Maximum three feet in height within required yard areas. Approved. — Up to six feet in height within the required structure setback area. 3. Diversion of Runoff from the Project Site and Maintenace of Erosion Control Improvements — The applicant shall divert storm water runoff generated from the proposed residence to the Robbins Court/Zand Lane drainage system. Further, the applicant shall install surface flow dissipaters to resolve erosion concerns by spreading out the storm water flow. The applicant shall also periodically inspect both the site development and roadway drainage areas to make sure the flow dissipaters are preventing erosion. 4. Control of Exterior Residential Light Reflectance — Construction plans for the exterior roof and wall surfaces of the residence shall provide for a maximum light reflectance of 50%. 5. Limitation on Construction Hours - Construction activity shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal and state holidays. 6. Removal of Construction Equipment and Materials — At least two weeks prior to requesting a final inspection of the proposed residence, the applicant shall remove all construction equipment and materials being stored on the property, and provide a written statement to the Zoning Administrator that the construction equipment and materials have been removed from the site for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Tree Protection Measurees Contingency Restitution Should Altered Trees Be Damaged 8. Trees to be Preserved but Altered - Pursuant to the conclusions of the arborist report, proposed improvements within the root zone of trees noted on the site plan to be preserved have been determined 3 to be feasible and still allow for preservation provided that the recommendations of the arborist are followed. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816-6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity nevertheless damages these trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit) to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based on: A. Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 52 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; B. Determination of Security Amount - The security shall provide for all of the following costs: • preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist; • a labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required prepared by a licensed landscape contractor; and • an additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. C. Acceptance of a Security - The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. D. Initial Deposit for Processing of Security - The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security (Code S-060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of$100 at time of submittal of a security. The County shall retain the tree protection security up to 24 months following the completion of the tree alteration improvements. In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable 4 restitution of the damaged trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. At least 18 months following the completion of work within the dripline of trees, the applicant's arborist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction activity, and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of the trees and, if appropriate, any recommendations including further methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. Construction Period Restrictions 9. Site Preparation - Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripline of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. 10. Construction Period Restrictions - No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature tree other than the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the dripline of a tree to be saved, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion of grading and construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval. 11. Prohibition of Parking - No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. 5 12. Construction Tree Damage - The development's property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. 13. Supervision of Work by an Arborist - All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted under the supervision of a certified arborist. Arborist Expense 14. Arborist Expense - The expenses associated with all required arborist services shall be borne by the developer and/or property owner. 15. Variance Permit is Contingent on Board of Supervisors Authorization of Authorizing Proposed Driveway Improvements Within Scenic Easement Portion of Site — This approval of a variance permit is contingent on Board of Supervisors authorization of the applicant's request (File #ZI008583) to place driveway improvements within the scenic easement portion of the property. No grading or building permits shall be issued unless they are consistent with an authorization action by the Board of Supervisors to allow driveway improvements within the area of the scenic easement portion of the lot. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. 6 A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Area of Benefit: Comply with the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance requirements for the South Contra Costa Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee, the Tri-Valley Area of Benefit, and the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These fees must be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department, including obtaining any required building permits. D. Comply with the requirements of the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. w:\vr001059.coa RD\ 7