HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10022001 - D.2 i
,�...
"'O: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
f Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY AICP Costa
/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ��` ' ..�T' County
A • pS;
DATE: October. 2.,: , _ 2001
SUBJECT: HEARING OF APPEAL BY DAVID CIAPPONI AND JOHN YANDELL OF SAN
RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON
SUBSTANDARD LOT IN THE ALAMO AREA, COUNTY FILE #DP003042
(ROBERT MCADAM-APPLICANT'& OWNER)
SPECIFIC REQUEST (S) OR RECOMMENDATION (S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPT a motion approving the actions listed below:
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ..-X YES SIGNATURE� A
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 2, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER.0
See attached addendum for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
XX UNANIMOUS(ABSENT none ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
ATTESTED October 2, 2001
JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File#DP003042
Page 2
1. For purposes of compliance with the California environmental quality Act, adopt a
Categorically Exempt determination (Class 3.a., Construction of a Small
Structure).
2. J)anX the appeal of David Ciapponi and John Yandell.
3. -Adopt the findings contained in Resolution #17-2001 adopted by the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission.
4. Sustain the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission approval of
Coco nu�ty File #DP003042.
5. _Approve the revised plan, dated received by the Community Development
Department on August 1, 2001.
6. Direct staff to post a Notice of Exemption determination with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs in review of this appeal.
BACKGROUND FOR ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION WHICH CREATED THIS LOT
The Board of Supervisors originally approved the subdivision, in which the subject small lot is
located, in November of 1992. Following the approval and the recordation of the subdivision map,
a number of issues, including location of guest parking spaces, obliteration of an abandoned
driveway, etc., surfaced, which ultimately prompted hearings before the Board of Supervisors on
these issues. Below is a chronology of the Board and staff's actions, regarding these issues.
On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision
allowing the relocation of one of the guest parking spaces within the subdivision and directed that
the space be provided on Lot 5 (one of two lots owned by the subdivision developer) in a location
proposed by Ciapponi/Yandell. The Board also determines that the subdivision project does not
comply with other requirements of the County's subdivision permit. (Ref Exhibit I document)
On December 19, 2000 staff reported to the Board on efforts to attain compliance with those items
cited by the Board in its 6/13/00 Board Order. (Ref Exhibit II document) Staff reported that the
subdivision developer has not complied with those items. The report described a meeting among
the interested parties, including a representative of the Alamo Improvement Association, in the
County offices that occurred on December 8, 2000. Staff indicated that staff would attempt to
meet again with the interested parties to try to attain compliance with the 6/13/00 Board Order by
formulation of a private agreement.
On February 1, 2001 staff met with the interested parties, legal counsel for the Subdivision
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File#DP003042
Page 3
developer (Tommy Conner), David Ciapponi, and the applicant for #DP003042 (Robert Mc Adam).
A suggested framework for a possible private agreement involving the above three private parties
was formulated.
On February 7, 2001 the legal counsel for the subdivision developer issued a letter containing a
draft private agreement. (Ref. Exhibit III document). On this same day Robert McAdam
provided a letter agreeing to the proposed agreement. (Ref. Exhibit III document) However
neither CiapponiNandell, nor the subdivision developer have agreed to the terms in the
agreement.
On February 27, 2001 staff reported to the Board that the interested parties have not been willing
to enter into a private agreement. In turn, the Board directed staff to serve notice of intention to
record a notice of violation of subdivision laws against the subdivision developer pertaining to the
two lots that he continues to hold. The Board directed staff to condition any building or
development permit of Lot 8 (the property involved in #DP003042) to provide for the off-site
improvements, which were agreed to by McAdam in his 2/7/01 letter. (Ref Exhibit IV document)
On May 2, 2001 staff issued a Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision
Laws to the.,subdivision developer for lots 5 and 6. (Ref Exhibit V document)
On May 16,2001 Tommy A. Conner, the legal counsel for the subdivision developer, submits a
letter responding to the Notice of Violation. (Ref. Exhibit VI document)
On June 6, 2001 the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission adopted a motion finding
that the subdivision developer has violated the Subdivision Ordinance as described in the May 2,
2001 Notice from the Community Development Director as it pertains to both Lots 5 and 6 of
Subdivision 7693.
On June 13, 2001 Tommy A. Conner submitted a letter appealing the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission's decision. (Ref. Exhibit XII documents) However, the appeal letter did
not include the required $125.00 appeal fee. After receiving the appeal letter without the fee, the
Community Development Director's secretary, left a phone message for Mr. Conner informing him
that in order for the appeal to be valid, it was required to be accompanied by the fee. However no
fee was ever submitted and therefore the County concluded that the appeal was not a complete
and timely appeal. (Ref. Exhibit XII documents)
BACKGROUND FOR THIS SPECIFIC SMALL LOT REVIEW
On July 18, 2000, the applicant filed an application for small lot review for a proposed one-story
residence on a lot, which has a substandard average lot width. The lot is located in a nine-lot
subdivision, which was approved in 1992 by the Board of Supervisors.
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission initially heard the project on June 6, 2001.
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File#DP003042
Page 4
(Ref. Exhibit VII documents). At this hearing the Commission took testimony from all interested
parties and then closed the hearing and continued it to June 20, 2001 in order to obtain additional
information from staff regarding a nexus between recommended conditions 4 and 5 and the
project itself. Conditions 4 and 5 pertain to obliterating an abandoned driveway on Mr. Ciapponi's
property ( lot 7), as well as creating an additional community guest parking space and requiring fire
department approval of signage for the parking.
At the June 20, 2001 hearing the Commission focused their discussion on conditions 4 and 5 and
whether or not they thought these conditions should be applied to the project. After a lengthy
discussion, the Commission concluded that conditions 4 and 5 should be removed and a
landscape condition should be added. With these revisions to the conditions, the residential
design was approved. (Ref. Exhibit VIII documents)
On June 26, 2001, David Ciapponi and John Yandell (two adjacent neighbors) submitted a letter to
the County requesting that the San Ramon Regional Valley Regional Planning Commission
reconsider the project. This request was heard and denied at the July 18, 2001 San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission hearing. (Ref. Exhibit IX documents)
REVIEW BY THE ALAMO IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (AIA)
In a December 14, 2000 letter, the AIA states that although they are not in opposition to the design
or location of the proposed residence they do recommend " denial based upon the failure of the
developer to meet the conditions and requirements of the 1991 development permit.
CONDITIONS #4 AND #5 RECOMMENDED IN JUNE 6, 2001 STAFF REPORT TO SAN-RAMON
VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
As stated in the background of this document, on February 7, 2001 Mr. McAdam submitted a letter
in which he states his agreement with a draft private agreement prepared by Tommy Connor (the
attorney for the original subdivision developer). This document includes a requirement that Mr.
McAdam construct an additional guest parking space on lot 5, obliterate the abandoned driveway
on Mr. Ciapponi's property (lot 7) and add signage at the hammerhead of the private road, which
meets San Ramon Valley Fire Department's standards. It is this private agreement along with the
Board's direction regarding this agreement, which caused staff to include conditions 4 and 5 into
the June 6, 2001 staff report for the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
At the June 6, 2001 Commission meeting, there was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not
Mr. Mc Adam was still in agreement with conditions 4 and 5. In order to clarify Mr. McAdam's
position regarding these conditions of approval, staff requested a statement in writing. (Ref.
Exhibit VIII documents) Mr. Mc Adam's correspondence states that, he no longer believes
condition 4 and 5 should be applied to this project for reasons discussed in his letter.
APPEAL BY TWO ADJACENT NIGHBORS.(David Ciapponi and John Yandell)
On July 20, 2001, the County received an appeal (Ref. Exhibit X document) of the decision from
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File#DP003042
Page 5
two neighbors who each live adjacent to the subject property. The main reason for their appeal is
that conditions 4 and 5 should have been applied to the project.
In hearings before the Commission, the appellants were very adamant that these conditions
should be applied to the project. However, after learning that Mr. McAdam was no longer in
agreement with these conditions and after discussions regarding the appropriateness of the
conditions, the Commission elected to remove the conditions.
In his original appeal of the project, (Ref. Exhibit VII) Mr. Yandell sites a number of reasons why
he is opposed to the design of the home. Below is a discussion of those reasons as well as staff's
response.
DISCUSSION
Appeal Point- The size of the home seems large for substandard lot.
Staff Response- The home is smaller than three of the other homes in the subdivision. Staff
believes this fact, coupled with the fact that the lot is considered a small lot only because of the
average lot width calculation and not because of lack of square footage, warrants the approval of
the proposed residence.
Appeal Point- There are safety issues concerning the relationship of the driveway to the current
fence that separates the Yandell's lot from the subject property. There is no curb or landscaping
to mitigate this danger.
Staff Response- The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission added a condition of
approval, which requires a landscaping strip to be planted along Mr. Yandell's property line.
Appeal Point- Yandell is concerned about drainage issues.
Staff Response- Drainage issues are not part of a small lot review. The building inspection
department will review the proposed drainage when the building plans are submitted to that
department. The purpose of the small lot review is solely to determine whether or not a proposed
residence is consistent with the neighborhood in terms of its location, size, height and design.
Appeal Point- Yandell wants construction of home to be carried out during normal business hours.
Staff Response- There are conditions of approval for this project, which require the applicant to do
construction between the hours of 7:30 am and 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday.
REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOLLOWING THE JULY 18. 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
I�
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File#DP003042
Page 6
On August 1 2001, the applicant submitted a revised house plan and site plan (Ref Exhibit XI),
which includes the landscaping, strip which is required by a condition of approval added by the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. In order to accommodate this landscaping
strip, the location of the home was adjusted so that it is four feet closer to the southeastern
property line than it was when the plan was approved at the June 20, 2001 SRVRPC meeting.
The home still meets the required side-yards for the R-20 zoning district. Additionally, the
applicant changed the design of some of the windows. Staff does not believe either of these
changes are significant, and therefore concludes this revised plan is consistent with the small lot
ordinance and recommends it be approved.
CONCLUSION
Much of the controversy surrounding this project is not related to the design of the home but rather
to the whether or not the applicant should be required to fulfill conditions 4 and 5, found in the
June 6, 2001 staff report. Having reviewed the small lot ordinance and the proposed house
plans, staff believes that the findings required in the ordinance may be made. As for whether or
not conditions 4 and 5 should be applied to the project, staff made its recommendations based
upon direction from the Board of Supervisors.
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTION
Should the Board determine that conditions 4 and 5 should be reinstated into the conditions of
approval for'this project they could approve the project with these conditions or should the,Board
determine that not all required ordinance findings can be made, than the Board could deny the
development plan application.
Attached Exhibits
1- 6/13/00 Board Order Reversing ZA Decision on Relocation of Guest Parking; 12/14/99
Report to Board.
II- 12/19/00 Report to Board on Compliance with 6/13/00 Board Order
III- 2/13/01 report to Board on Draft Private Agreement proposal
IV- 2/27/01 Board Order directing staff to issue a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of
Violation of Subdivision Laws to Subdivision Developer
V- 5/2/01 Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation
VI- 5/16/01 Response to Notice of Intention from Subdivision Developer (Tommy Connor)
VII- 6/6/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearing
VIII- 6/20/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
IX- 7/18/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
Regarding Reconsideration Request
X- 7/20/01 Appeal of Commission Decision by David Ciapponi and John Yandell
Xl- 8/1/01 Revised house plans submitted 8/1/01 and original plans approved by the San
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File #DP003042
Page 7
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on 7/18/01
XII- 6/13/01 Appeal Letter from Tommy A. Conner and 6/22/01 Response to Appeal Letter
from Community Development Department
XIII- Notification List
Contact: Candi Wensley (925)335-1236)
Community Development Department
cc: Custom Homes by McAdam
David Ciapponi
John Yandell
Thomas Conner
Rena Rickles
Tom Gingrich
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2
October 2, 2001
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by David Ciapponi and John
Yandell from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, approving
as stated in' Resolution 17-2001, the developmental plan application for a single family residence
on substandard lot in Alamo area, County File#DP003042, Robert McAdam, (applicant and
owner).
Dennis Barry, Director of the Community Development Department and Candi Wensley from
Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations.
The Board discussed the matter, the public hearing was opened, and the following people
presented testimony:
Rena Rickles, on behalf of the Appellants, Ciapponi &Yandell, 1970 Broadway, Suite
200, Oakland;
Robert McAdam, Applicant and Owner.
The public hearing was closed and the Board continued their discussions.
Supervisor.Gerber moved to approve the revised plan and the project with conditions #4 & #5
reinstated into the conditions of approval for this project, except there will be no private
agreement between these individuals, and there will be no requirements to construct drainage
improvements, and for staff to post a Notice of Exemption determination with the County Clerk.
Supervisor Gioia second the motion and the Board took the following action:
1. CLOSED the public hearing;
2. DENIED the appeal by David Ciapponi and John Yandell
3. ADOPTED the finding contained in Resolution 17-2001 adopted by the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission;
4. APPROVED the revised plan as received by the Community Development Department
on August 1, 2001;
5. DIRECTED staff to post a Notice of Exemption of determination with the County Clerk.
APPEAL
ROBERT MCADAM (Applicant & Owner)
DAVID CIAPPONI
JOHN YANDELL (Appellants)
County File #DP003042
Appeal of San Ramon Valley Region4 Plan gComm* sion ova f
Development Plan Application for Sin F mily si nce on a Sub andard
Lot in the Alamo Area.
in the Alamo area.
Board of Supervisors j
Contra Costa County
September 25, 2001
1:00 P.M.
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File#bP003042
Page 3
developer (Tommy Conner), David Ciapponi, and the applicant for #DP003042 (Robert Mc Adam).
A suggested framework for a possible private agreement involving the above three private parties
was formulated.
On February 7, 2001 the legal counsel for the subdivision developer issued a letter containing a
draft private agreement. (Ref. Exhibit III document). On this same day Robert McAdam
provided a letter agreeing to the proposed agreement. (Ref. Exhibit III document) However
neither CiapponiNandell, nor the subdivision developer have agreed to the terms in the
agreement.
On February 27, 2001 staff reported to the Board that the interested parties have not been willing
to enter into a private agreement. In turn, the Board directed staff to serve notice of intention to
record a notice of violation of subdivision laws against the subdivision developer pertaining to the
two lots that he continues to hold. The Board directed staff to condition any building or
development permit of Lot 8 (the property involved in #DP003042) to provide for the off-site
improvements, which were agreed to by McAdam in his 2/7/01 letter. (Ref Exhibit IV document)
On May 2, 2001 staff issued a Notice of Intention to Record Notices of Violation of Subdivision
Laws to the subdivision developer for lots 5 and 6. (Ref Exhibit V document)
On May 16, 2001 Tommy A. Conner, the legal counsel for the subdivision developer, submits a
letter responding to the Notice of Violation. (Ref. Exhibit VI document)
On June 6, 2001 the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission adopted a motion finding
that the subdivision developer has violated the Subdivision Ordinance as described in the May 2,
2001 Notice from the Community Development Director as it pertains to both Lots 5 and 6 of
Subdivision 7693.
On June 13, 2001 Tommy A. Conner submitted a letter appealing the San Ramon Valley Regional
Planning Commission's decision. (Ref. Exhibit XII documents) However, the appeal letter did
not include the required $125.00 appeal fee. After receiving the appeal letter without the fee, the
Community Development Director's secretary, left a phone message for Mr. Conner informing him
that in order for the appeal to be valid, it was required to be accompanied by the fee. However no
fee was ever submitted and therefore the County concluded that the appeal was not a complete
and timely appeal. (Ref. Exhibit XII documents)
BACKGROUND FOR THIS SPECIFIC SMALL LOT REVIEW
On July 18, 2000, the applicant filed an application for small lot review for a proposed one-story
residence on a lot, which has a substandard average lot width. The lot is located in a nine-lot
subdivision, which was approved in 1992 by the Board of Supervisors.
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission initially heard the project on June 6, 2001.
i
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File #DP003042
Page 4
j (Ref. Exhibit VII documents). At this hearing the Commission took testimony from all interested
parties and then closed the hearing and continued it to June 20, 2001 in order to obtain additional
information from staff regarding a nexus between recommended conditions 4 and 5 and the
I project itself. Conditions 4 and 5 pertain to obliterating an abandoned driveway on Mr. Ciapponi's
property ( lot 7), as well as creating an additional community guest parking space and requiring fire
department approval of signage for the parking.
At the June 20, 2001 hearing the Commission focused their discussion on conditions 4 and 5 and
whether or not they thought these conditions should be applied to the project. After a lengthy
discussion, the Commission concluded that conditions 4 and 5 should be removed and a
landscape condition should be added. With these revisions to the conditions, the residential
design was approved. (Ref. Exhibit VIII documents)
On June 26, 2001, David Ciapponi and John Yandell (two adjacent neighbors) submitted a letter to
the County requesting that the San Ramon Regional Valley Regional Planning Commission
reconsider the project. This request was heard and denied at the July 18, 2001 San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission hearing. (Ref. Exhibit IX documents)
.REVIEW BY THE ALAMO IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION (AIA)
In a December 14, 2000 letter, the AIA states that although they are not in opposition to the design
or location of the proposed residence they do recommend " denial based upon the failure of the
developer to meet the conditions and requirements of the 1991 development permit.
CONDITIONS #4 AND #5 RECOMMENDED IN JUNE 6. 2001 STAFF REPORT TO SAN RAMON
VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
As stated in the background of this document, on February 7, 2001 Mr. McAdam submitted a letter
in which he states his agreement with a draft private agreement prepared by Tommy Connor (the
attorney for the original subdivision developer). This document includes a requirement that Mr.
McAdam construct an additional guest parking space on lot 5, obliterate the abandoned driveway
on Mr. Ciapponi's property (lot 7) and add signage at the hammerhead of the private road, which
meets San Ramon Valley Fire Department's standards. It is this private agreement along with the
Board's direction regarding this agreement, which caused staff to include conditions 4 and 5 into
the June 6, 2001 staff report for the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission.
At the June 6, 2001 Commission meeting, there was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not
Mr. Mc Adam was still in agreement with conditions 4 and 5. In order to clarify Mr. McAdam's
position regarding these conditions of approval, staff requested a statement in writing. (Ref.
Exhibit VIII documents) Mr. Mc Adam's correspondence states that, he no longer believes
condition 4 and 5 should be applied to this project for reasons discussed in his letter.
APPEAL BY TWO ADJACENT NIGHBORS (David Ciapponi and John Yandell)
On July 20, 2001, the County received an appeal (Ref. Exhibit X document) of the decision from
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File#DP003042
Page 5
two neighbors who each live adjacent to the subject property. The main reason for their appeal is
that conditions 4 and 5 should have been applied to the project.
In hearings before the Commission, the appellants were very adamant that these conditions
should be applied to the project. However, after learning that Mr. McAdam was no longer in
agreement with these conditions and after discussions regarding the appropriateness of the
conditions, the Commission elected to remove the conditions.
In his original appeal of the project, (Ref. Exhibit VII) Mr. Yandell sites a number of reasons why
he is opposed to the design of the home. Below is a discussion of those reasons as well as staff's
response.
DISCUSSION
Appeal Point- The size of the home seems large for substandard lot.
Staff Response- The home is smaller than three of the other homes in the subdivision. Staff
believes this fact, coupled with the fact that the lot is considered a small lot only because of the
average lot width calculation and not because of lack of square footage, warrants the approval of
the proposed residence.
Appeal Point- There are safety issues concerning the relationship of the driveway to the current
fence that separates the Yandell's lot from the subject property. There is no curb or landscaping
to mitigate this danger.
Staff Response- The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission added a condition of
approval, which requires a landscaping strip to be planted along Mr. Yandell's property line.
Appeal Point- Yandell is concerned about drainage issues.
Staff Response- Drainage issues are not part of a small lot review. The building inspection
department will review the proposed drainage when the building plans are submitted to that
department. The purpose of the small lot review is solely to determine whether or not a proposed
residence is consistent with:the neighborhood in terms of its location, size, height and design.
Appeal Point- Yandell wants construction of home to be carried out during normal business hours.
Staff Response- There are conditions of approval for this project, which require the applicant to do
construction between the hours of 7:30 am and 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday.
REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOLLOWING THE JULY 18, 2001
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
i
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File #DP003042
Page 6
On August 1 2001, the applicant submitted a revised house plan and site plan (Ref Exhibit XI),
which includes the landscaping, strip which is required by a condition of approval added by the
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. In order to accommodate this landscaping
strip, the location of the home was adjusted so that it is four feet closer to the southeastern
property line than it was when the plan was approved at the June 20, 2001 SRVRPC meeting.
The home still meets the required side-yards for the R-20 zoning district. Additionally, the
applicant changed the design of some of the windows. Staff does not believe either of these
changes are significant, and therefore concludes this revised plan is consistent with the small lot
ordinance and recommends it be approved.
CONCLUSION
Much of the controversy surrounding this project is not related to the design of the home but rather
to the whether or not the applicant should be required to fulfill conditions 4 and 5, found in the
June 6, 2001 staff report. Having reviewed the small lot ordinance and the proposed house
plans, staff believes that the findings required in the ordinance may be made. As for whether or
not conditions 4 and 5 should be applied to the project, staff made its recommendations based
upon direction from the Board of Supervisors.
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTION
Should the Board determine that conditions 4 and 5 should be reinstated into the conditions of
approval for this project they could approve the project with these conditions or should the Board
determine that not all required ordinance findings can be made, than the Board could deny the
development plan application.
Attached Exhibits
1- 6/13/00 Board Order Reversing ZA Decision on Relocation of Guest Parking; 12/14/99
Report to Board.
II- 12/19/00 Report to Board on Compliance with 6/13/00 Board Order
III- 2/13/01 report to Board on Draft Private Agreement proposal
IV- 2/27/01 Board Order directing staff to issue a Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of
Violation of Subdivision Laws to Subdivision Developer
V- 5/2/01 Notice of Intention to Record a Notice of Violation
VI- 5/16/01 Response to Notice of Intention from Subdivision Developer (Tommy Connor)
VII- 6/6/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearing
VIII- 6/20/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
IX- .7/18/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
Regarding Reconsideration Request
X- 7/20/01 Appeal of Commission Decision by David Ciapponi and John Yandell
XI- 8/1/01 Revised house plans submitted 8/1/01 and original plans approved by the San
Date of Board of Supervisors Hearing
Board of Supervisors
File #DP003042
Page 7
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on 7/18/01
XII- 6/13/01 Appeal Letter from Tommy A. Conner and 6/22/01 Response to Appeal Letter
from Community Development Department
XII1- Notification List
Contact: Candi Wensley (925)335-1236)
Community Development Department
cc: Custom Homes by McAdam
David Ciapponi
John Yandell
Thomas Conner
Rena Rickles
Tom Gingrich
RESOLUTION#17-2001
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION CONCERNING REVIEW OF A REQUEST FILED BY ROBERT
MCADAM FOR SMALL LOT REVIEW (DP003042 IN THE ALAMO AREA)TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A SMALL LOT, THE
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION REGARDING THAT REVIEW, AS WELL AS A
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION BY DAVID CIAPPONI AND JOHN
YANDELL, OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION ON THIS SMALL LOT, AND THE
COMMISSION'S ACTION REGARDING THIS REQUEST.
On November 20, 1999 the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
heard and denied File#DP983013, a request by Robert McAdam (Applicant and Owner)
for design review of a two-story single family home at#3 Wingset Place, for purposes of
determining neighborhood compatibility on a substandard lot. The application was
denied because the Commission concluded that the proposed residence was not consistent
with other homes in the area and no appeal having been timely filed, the Commission's
decision became final; and
On July 18, 2000 a request was received by Robert McAdam (Applicant and
Owner) to construct a single-family home, with a revised single-story design, on a
substandard lot at#3 Wingset Place, in the Alamo area of the County; and
Following issuance of public notices on the small lot application, the County
received requests from adjoining neighbors (David Ciapponi and John Yandell) that a
hearing be conducted on the small lot review; and
On August 2, 2000, pursuant to authority provided under Section 82-10.002 of the
Ordinance Code, staff advised the applicant that the proposed residence will require a
public hearing and that the applicant will need to apply for a development plan; and
On August 28, 2000, the applicant filed a new public hearing development permit
application (File#DP003042) with the County; and
Following receipt of the new development permit, pursuant to Section 26-2.1206
of the County Ordinance Code, the Zoning Administrator elected to refer the
development permit on the small lot review for the proposed residence to the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission; and
Insofar as the project involves the development of only one residence, staff
determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (Class 3); and
i
I
Staff prepared a report on the proposed request for small lot review of the
proposed residence and circulated it to interested agencies, organizations, and
individuals; and
After notice was lawfully given, the proposed development plan was scheduled
for hearing before the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on Wednesday,
June 6, 2001, at which time a hearing was conducted and all interested parties were
provided an opportunity to testify, and the Commission closed the hearing and continued
it to June 20, 2001 in order to obtain additional information from staff regarding a nexus
between the recommended conditions of approval for the project and the project itself;
and
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed
considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence in this matter;
RESOLVED, that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission:
APPROVES the application for small lot review of the proposed residence and
eliminates staff recommended conditions #4 and 5, pertaining to obliterating an
abandoned driveway on lot 7 as well as creating an additional community guest parking
space and requiring fire department approval of signage for the parking, and adds a
condition which reads as follows: Prior to obtaining a building permit the applicant.
shall submit a landscape/irrigation plan,prepared by a certified landscape architect,
for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. This plan shall provide for a
four-foot wide landscape strip, to include both shrubs and trees, along the property
line shared with Yandell property (parcel#193-401-024). The purpose of this
landscaping is to provide for screening of the proposed home and a safety buffer for
the Yandell property; and
Further, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission concludes that:
1. Findings for Compatibility with the Surrounding Neighborhood can be
made. The proposed development satisfies all the findings which are
required by the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance for compatibility with the
surrounding area in terms of the proposed residence location, size, height,
and design as follows:
A. Location -The proposed residence is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood in terms of location. The house has
setbacks similar to those of other lots within the subdivision.
B. Size—The proposed residence is one- story with approximately
4,361 square feet (not including the garage). Other homes in the
subdivision have similar square footage.
B. Height—The proposed residence is a one-story residence, which is
compatible with other homes in the area which are a mixture of
one and two-story.
C. Design —The architectural style of this home is consistent with the
other new homes within the Wingset Subdivision, all of which
have been built in the last ten years and have stucco exteriors.
2. Conditions #4 and#5, pertaining to road improvements within the
subdivision and fire department approval, shall be removed because the
majority of the Commission believes Mr. Gingrich (the subdivision
developer) should construct the improvements discussed in conditions #4
and#5, rather than the applicant.
The decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission to
approve the request for small lot review for the proposed residence was given by
motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission by the
following vote on June 20, 2001:
AYES: Commissioners- Matsunaga, McPherson,Mulvihill,
Gibson, and Neely
NOES: Commissioner- None
ABSENT: Commissioners- Jeha and Couture
ABSTAIN: Commissioners- None
Whereas, following the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission's decision, adjacent neighbors (David Ciapponi and John Yandell)
on June 26, 2001 submitted a request for reconsideration of County File
#DP003042 project; and
On July 18, 2001, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission,
conducted a hearing and all interested parties were provided an opportunity to
testify regarding the request for reconsideration; and
The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully
reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence in this matter
RESOLVED, that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission made a
motion to approve the request for reconsideration and that motion failed to obtain
a majority vote, rendering a denial of the request for reconsideration:
i
iThe vote on the motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission on the request for reconsideration of file#DP003042, that was made
on July 18, 2001, was as follows:
AYES: Commissioners- Gibson, Jeha, Mulvihill
NOES: Commissioners- Couture, Matsunaga, McPherson
i
ABSENT: Commissioners- Neely
I
ABSTAIN: Commissioners- None
Whereas, in a letter dated July 20, 2001, following the initial decision on
this application by the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, Mr.
David Ciapponi and Mr. John Yandell appealed the Commission's approval of
File#DP003042 (3 Wingset Place)to the Board of Supervisors.
Nancy Mulvihill,
Chair of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
A
DENNIS M. BARRY, Secre ry
San Ramon Valley Region Planning Commission, County
Of Contra Costa, State of California
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN
#DP003042(Custom Homes by McAdam-Applicant &Owner) IN THE ALAMO AREA
AS APPROVED BY THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION ON JUNE 20, 2001
Revisions are indicated with underlined text. Deleted conditions are marked with
strikethrough text.
Conditions of Approval
1. Development is approved as shown on plans stamped received by
the Community Development Department on October 17, 2000.
2. This application was subject to an initial application fee of$500.00
which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and
material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of
the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days
of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever
occurs first. The fees include cost through permit issuance plus
five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain
current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant
owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly
after permit issuance.
3. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30
A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be
prohibited on state and federal holidays.
4. Review —and Gemaletion of Off Site _Lmpr-overs eats within
Subdivisie„ At least ibv—rceksprior--c��eqccsccg any
inspection
inspection), the applieant shall provide
eaAdelee to the Community Development Depaitfnent fer the
„rl . .,l of the Zomig A�lminist,-.,t.,,- that the all of the
ii.riv ry uria up�iv-r'ctiry b
€ellew ing—off site—imprevements have beet.—_PTe_ve>:1--by the
Zoning Administfater and fully implemented-
Revie-w of Plans—moo eommeneefaent of the
bel.,... dere,-ibe .,tom the applicant shall p isle
v�.ry vv ua...1c—rrva. ,
it plans fer-the r-eview and appr-eval of the
Zoning, '
1) Releeation of One Gemmen Guest Par-ld
e.,te Tet 5 /(`_:,,.,, eh\ /Def. Condition #1 !.f-2/7/01
Eennef BalLLP lettef\ The pliG.,fin
.
�-
��
�,
�� �
�� ��
� �
,� _.
a
. ^`�" �=
., «�%:�
"=�„�
�� �w�y�,��, �
y
,.�«"""'ems
�' ."".. ,
� �°,�M.
3
rightsthe plan impr-evements shall eemmenee.
The appheant shall provide evidenee that.
Owflefs.
L'yi enee of -'ef fi ;g tog T ; ,l.;l;t..
eyi enee tl,.,t he has issued to both of the
liability insufanee an a general
hFait" not le tl $ nnn nnn„epEo .
pfepefty owner-(s) as additional nafned
..efty Fee and ele"r- of , liens of
eneumbr- neer n.-1 to defend and indemn;fci
the_c.wnerlol ab" not and all el";ms fes„
per-senal injury and/or-pfepei4y damage
arising from or related to the work
performed.
plans to r-elaeate ene of the on street "guest par-ldng spaee
G. Completion of Plans to Oblitefate the F-eFmer-DAv
b
e plan
Fefe—wed '.. Condition #A.2. above. The impfevements
shall he eempleted eensistentwith the a pheable .,laps an 1
plans i.Tu�acs
been s tisfaeterily a nlete.l
i
4
g ,
building then this per-Fait willnot requir-e plaeement of a held en
pem
inspeefiens.
5. Employ Best Effet4s to Seeufe n p e-fyal of rho Fife D,-ete..r:..,,
Distrjet The appheant shall use his best effef4s in asseeia
the San Ramon Valley Fife Pr-oteetien Distfiet for- signage, as
opposed te-and-to the exelusien-ef, pai�ted e-urbs (Ref. Qon4itieff
#9 of 7/7/01 Cenne,.Bak LLP D T erre,.)
6. Prior to obtaining a building_permit the applicant shall submit a
landsca ep lirrigation plan, prepared by a certified landscape
architect, for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
This plan shall provide for a four-foot wide landscape strip, to
include both shrubs and trees, along the property line shared with
the Yandell property (parcel #193-401-024) The purpose of this
landscaping is to provide for screening of the proposed home and a
safety buffer for the Yandell property,
ADVISORY NOTES
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 Sanitary District.
B. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection
District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department,
Environmental Health Division.
D. ' Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department.
Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication $2,000 per residence.
5
(If appropriate-Child Care) $ 400 per residence.
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by
contacting the Building Inspection Department at 335-1192.
E. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES,
DEDICATION, 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, reservation, 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.
i
1
1
Exhibit I
June 13, 2000 Board Order Granting
Resident' s Appeal,
And related document
1
Cont
'< Cost
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSn_ °7j ` .oa; COUI
2; ku;!! 33
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP V �o•. Jy
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEENT s}A c6!VS
r+�
DATE: June 13, 2000
SUBJECT: Sixth Rescheduled Hearing on Ciapponi and Yandell's Appeal of tl
Zoning Administrator's (Administrative) Approval of a Request to Modi:
the Location of On-Street Parking within Subdivision 7693, County Fi:
#ZI998206 (Wingset Place, Alamo area) . District III
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Option A actions listed 'e-low.
OPTIONS
Option P. - Deny the Appeal; S-.stair_ the Zoning Administrator's
decision relocating one pa_-.;_ng space to the other side of
turnaround.
1. Deny the Appeal of the Ciapponi's and Yandells.
2. Sustain the Zoning Ad-:=n_s=rator's decision as described
in the Community Deve -ert Department letter dated
October 11, 1999.
OT)tion B - Grant the = :Deal; Reverse the Zoning
Administrator's Decision [t _ retaining the original (1995)
proposed parking plan \•:its _.__ spaces on one side of the
turnaround] .
1. Grant the Appeal of t-e C_apponi's and Yandells.
2. Reverse the Zoning 1c:._==_=trator decision.
3. D_`rec_- staff to not___ .he Appellants of any future
Zoning Admi-nistrator s_-:'nistrative decision on a
subsequent request iron Developer to modify the on-
street parking plan..
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATTJRqu,4�
RECOMIC—E DATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C II11=
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON June. 13. 2000 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHERXX
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDE'::l FOR BOARD ACT10N
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - - - - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Bob Drake [ (925) 335-12141
Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED T„na 11 7n0n
cc: Thomas Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK 0:
Leo B. Siegel THE B ARD OF SUPERVISOR;
Rena Rickles AND C YD
Public Works Dept.
County Counsel BY DEPUT
c: \wpdoc\sub7693g.bo '
RD\
i
i
Continued June 13, 1000 Hearing of
Ciapponi Yandell Appeal
i Option C - Approve an alternative parking plan that relocates
one of the spaces to another position at the end of the
turnaround, and allows for a reduced 8 x 17 ft. -dimensions.
Other Options - A number of other less feasible options are
identified in Table I.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. Under the adopted County fee schedule, the applicant is
responsible for all staff time and material costs for the review of
this request including all costs of the review of this appeal.
EACKGROUND
This appeal was originally schec__ed for the Board's December 14,
1999 hearing, but was continued on several subsecnient dates.
PRIOR STAFF REPORT
The background to this matte S•:a ret'iewed in the original staff
II report tc the Board, dated Dece-_e_- 14, 1999. Due to an error by
the subdivision developer (Tom G_n_rich) , the f_nal map failed to
provide an access to the lot (-ct o) located at the end of the
project road. The only access t= =^_s lot is along the frontage
w'nere access is clouded by co:7:7: on-street parking which was
i proposed by the Developer and ap :t-ed by the County at time of the
approval of the final map. To to eliminate the blockage, the
subdivision developer requestea :",at the Zonlna Administrator
approve the relocation of one of ---=- spaces to the opposite side of
the turnaround.
After consulting with the Fire ==::lection District, the Zoning
Administrator determined that =n= 7roposed change was reasonable
and approved _t. That a"-:::in_st_-at_ decision was then appealed by
two of .'-e homeowviers ..-thin _= subdivision (CianUoP_i' s and
Yandells) .
REVIEW OF KzRQu 14 BOAP0 Hr'sRIN�-
Public Testimony - The aDDea_ _= the Zoning Administrator's
approval was heard by the Boarc ''•arch 14, 2000. At that time,
the Board heard testimony from t__= respective legal counsels for
both the subdivision developer- -- eo Siegel) and the appellants
(Rena Rickles) At that time, c. Rickles indicated that the
relocated parking space wou_d -nterfere with her client's
(Ciapponi) access to his lot (recznfigured Lot 7) . She suggested
alternative designs that would acceptable to her clients.
Those alternatives were rejeczeG the Developer at the hearing.
Board Direction - After taking =est_mony, the Board voted to direct
staff to meet with the two parte= to try to find a solution that
was acceptable to all parties.
ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES
MARCH 23. '2000 SITE MvETIN3
Staff has met with the Developer and Appellant at the site on two
occasions. The first meeting oc=erred on March 23, 2000 which
failed to identify a design opt_=n that was acceptable to both
parties.
Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of
Ciapponi Yandell Appeal
71NIO ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS PROPOSED BY THE APPELLANT
Following the first .site meeting, the Appellant retained an
engineer (Ruark & Associates) who drew up two alternative plans. for
redesigning the parking/access in front of Lots 5 and 6. These
alternatives are described in sketch drawings attached to a letter
dated April 14, 2000 from Ms. Pickles. Both alternatives involve
a proposed lot line adjustment between the two lots.
Alternative A would allow the four parking spaces to remain
approximately where they were originally approved and shift
the property line approximately 10 feet towards the "`guest
house" on Lot 5; thus allowing Lot 6 to have its own driveway.
.Alternative B would adjust to same lot line but maintain the
current setback from the "g-.:est house" on Lot 5. However, it.
would merge the driveways for Lots 5 and 6 (this would require
the establishment of a road- easement through Lot 6 to serve
Lot 5. It would also reloca=e the "fourth" parking space onto
the front area of Lot 5.
Either A-ppellant Alternative 1-.o-.:_a Require Aparoval of a Variance
Perm4 t to the Minimum Frontva_a = =ing Standard
While the letter from Ms. Rickles 'indicates that no variances would
be required, this is contrary =c .:hat staff reviewed with her in
the field. Both alternatives shorten the structure setback
that is required to be observed- -_nder the R-20 zoning (min. 25-
feet) .
Currently, the "guest house" i= =e='oack approximately 28 feet from
the front property line. Se _c-ure I. The shifting of the
property line per Alternati•:e I. -.:ould reduce the setback to
approximately 13 feet; the c_ea=_=- of the common parking space
easement on Lot 5 per Alterna=i•:e 3 would reduce the setback to
only 10 feet. The zoning ordi-anc :•:ould not alloy* either of these
reduced setbacks to be establis ed -::ithout a_p_Droval of a variance
permit application.
A variance permit applicati=n -.est be filed by the owner
(Developer) , and requires at a -._-_- m that the owners of property
within 300 feet of the site be n_=_=ied of the application. If a
neighbor requests a hearing tn one is scheduled. A variance
cannot be approved unless the Co-_-_ makes three ordinance findinos
(ref. § 26-2.2006 of the Ord. Cc -'. .
Develoaer Reaction to Agpellar= ==000sals
The Developer rejected both propcsa=s. He does not want to encumber
the lots with additional vehic•__ar easements, nor bear the cost of
related improvements (e.g, c=ad_ng, paving, etc. ) . He has
indicated that Alternative B o:c _d- deprive Lot 5 of one of the few
flat areas on that site. He a'_so objects to being subjected to an
additional discretionary approval.
He has indicated that if the Zcning Administrator decision is
sustained, he will be proposir.= a lot line adjustment application
between Lots 5 and 6 to the Ce-_-zv to allow for direct vehicular
access onto Lot 6. The Count•.• can administratively approve lot
line adjustment applications as _:ng as they are consistent with
zoning and building ordinances.
Staff has previously agreed to a request from the Appellants to
notify them of any decision b•.• County to approve a lot line
adjustment application filed ::y ::-e Developer, so that they would
i
i
i
i
i
I
Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of
I
Ciapponi Yandell Appeal
I
have the opportunity to appeal that administrative decision to the
Board.
I
SECOND (MAY 4) SITE MEETING
A second meeting at the site was held on May 4, 2000. That meeting
was attended by staff from both Community Development and Public
Works Departments and a representative from Supervisor Gerber's
Office. That meeting identified an alternative design for the
I relocation of the one par-king space and allowing for reduced
("compact-car size") parking space (Option C) . At the site, both
the Developer and Appellant ind_cated that they were tentatively
supportive of this alternative subject to additional review and
I investigation by staff.
Following that meeting, staff CCn=firmed the feasibility of being
able to maneuver a truck and boat trailer onto Lot 7 (Ciapponi) and
shared this information_ with the ==ellant and the Developer. The
Developer affirmed his support cf this design, but that the
appellant ultimately rejected the design due to continued concerns
about being able to maneuver ._is vehicles.
REVIEW OF PRIMIARY OPTIONS
Staff has diligently attempted find a design solution on this
appeal_ issue at t*ro site :-gee=_ngs involving many hours of
exploration with the _ zerested _ .es. L_ nu.wer of alternatives
were explored, but none ,are accepted by both parties.
Regrettably, at this point, __ e_ts appear p _ � dim forl attaining the
solution sought by the Board. ___ _ _s recard, staff suggests that
the Board Droceed with a revie-%. a s aber of design_ options which
have been identified by the De:e=__ -_ , the Appellants and staff,
and proceed with a decision on appeal.
t
Table I contains a matrix: re-:_e-.;:-_ she primary design nations mor
parkJng and access, and relater. __scussion. it should be noted
that many of the ont_ons (Opt=ons ' , F, and G) are feasible only
with the cooperation of the De-:e_ er including some which would
rec.-Lire an additicnal di sere=:____= approval process. Staff has
identified these options as ass-_--.=_v to be less feasible.
Option B would reverse the Zon_n= _=dnistrator modification_, and
retain the position of al! fog_ :_=:zinc spaces at the end of the
turnaround. ['dere the Board to a�:r: e that option, It would retain
the clouded status over the Deve_=.Der's access to Lot 6, but allow
him to refile a new proposal t _-= _ __ County might find acceptable.
CONCLUSION
After consideration of all seven design options, staff continues to
find that the parking plat: _=. _sior_ approved by the Zoning
Administrator (Option A) as s-_:per_or. It a'-lows for reasonable
turnaround of conventional and rgency vehicles while allowing
for access to Lot 6. Staff cc-=_-_es to recommend that the Board
sustain the Zoning AdministratCr•s decision.
In addition to Option A, staff feels that Option C (similar to
Option A) to also be accepta--_e. This design also allows for
reasonable turnaround movemen=s :: __e allowing the Developer access
to Lot 6. However, its uncrthodcx positioning of a parking space
make this design less desirable.
Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of
Ciapponi Yandell Appeal
NEW PRIVATE PARKING RESTRICTIONS ENACTED BY SUBDIVISION LOT OWNERS
In the course of this review, the Developer informed staff that new
use restrictions have been enacted by a "super majority" of the
subdivision lot owners. At the end of the May 4, 2000 site visit,
the Developer told staff that he and other lot owners within the
subdivision (but not Ciapponi or Yandell) had recently voted to
enact an amendment to the CC&R's to provide restrictions on the use
of the four on-street parking spaces. CC&R's are private
restrictions governed and ad- in-s=eyed by the lot owners within a
subdivision, not the County.
The Developer indicated that the a_nendment was intended to foster
use of the parking spaces as true "guest" parking, and to restrict
use of the spaces by vehicles owned by any of the lot owners within
the subdivision.
Staff has asked the applicant for a written description of the
chance, however, none has been -_--ovided to date.
It is staff's understanding 7--h-at =_:h action by the subdivision lot
owners would be a private matte_ =nd not conflict with any County
administered law or permit.
REVIEW OF (Non-Appeal) SUBDIVISION PERMIT COMPLIANCE CONCERNS
in addition to objecting to _� _Vocation of the parking space
approved by the Zoning Ad;,_-_ gator, at the March 14 Board
hearing, the Appellant also g-_= -oned compliance with several
conditions of approval of t = _ ve map permit. These other
conditions did not involve the _ =sed relocation of the on-street
parking space.
The Board had asked that staff ==Bea=ch the project's compliance
with those conditions.
It should be noted that note _f _nese items were listed in the
appeal letter, and, according ::e_e not reflected in the legal
notice for this project.
These conditions are identifief 'celow together with the staff
analysis on their compliance s
A. Off-Street Parking (CoA
Condition of Approval L•anc�:age - "Provide for at least six on-
site parking spaces per lo= _-- be located outside the private
road easement extending fro- =-kely Drive. "
Summary of Aunellan.t' s rc=ern - Neither Lots 5 nor 6 (both
owned by the Developer) _ __-:-de for sir, on-site parking
spaces. .
Staff Comment - This =ion is intended to address
development at time o= _ = ultimate development of the
respective lots. Both of cited lots contain older houses
that were present at the _-.= of the subdivision approval.
Still, it should be noted t-= Lot 6 contains sufficient area
for six parking spaces _n•:o.:-ng paved or concrete surface
area outside of the priv_a e __ad area.
A comment from a letter of tn_ r__--unity Development Department dated
7/28/98 to the contrary is not co_:ec: =his point.
I
I '
I
Continued June 13, 2000 Searing of
Ciapponi & Yandell Appeal
Lot 5 does not provide for substantial on-site parking spaces
however it contains only a small single-story dwelling
(approximately 600 smsare feet) that obviously does not
reflect the ultimate bu'Id-)ut of the lot. The existing
residence would not normally generate extensive parking
demand.
I
When building permits for u:_imate residences are proposed on
these lots, it would be staff's intent to see that the parking
reauirement is satisfied.
Staff Assessment - Staff disagrees with the Appellant's claim
that existing parking for _cls 5 and 6 is not in compliance
with the subdivision apprc,al. Staff believes the current
condition of these lots sub=_=antiaily complies with the intent
j of this or.-site parkinc co_d-_tion of approval.
B. Replacement of Existing m.-eeG Proposed to Be Removed (COA
x6.B. )
Condition of Appro-a- 1,anquage - "Comply with the
following tree/pIa,t1-: :ree/preservation requirements:
I
"B. The plan shall h= =accompanied by a report from a
qualified azrbor_s_ for the review and approval of
the Zoning Ad::.__=s:irator, . . . . The report shall
also include a :ree replanting program which
illustrates the exact location and species of
proposed replace-.en: trees. Replacement trees
shall be at leas: _= gallons in size. Each tree to
be removed on Le_s 6, 7, and 8 shall- be replaced
by two 15 gallcn f____,ght resistant trees, native to
the area, to be re_=eded by a certified arborist.
Replacement trees Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be
situ=ted =n or.-der _ maintain the residents of the
propcsed lots ,-__ All of the trees along the
port--eastern _ _-__- line, except for those
located ,,ithi� _:e proposed cul-de-sac shall be
preserved. . . .
"C. Prior to the iss-_an:e of a grading permit or filing
a final map, t.__ =_-_icant shall either inform the
Zoning Admin_s:ra__r that th e approved tree
replacement prosra= as been completed and is ready
for veri-fication staff, or provide assurance
that funding ex_s_s :o implement the tree planting
program. ASS'S-_an:a shall be provided through a
finanacial mec-an_sm acceptable to the Zonina
Administrator. . .
Sum-iary of Pppelle-- :oncerr - The appellant has
indicated that 7 trees -..ere removed on Lot 7 near the old
driveway, and that 1= _:-_-allon drought-resistant trees
should have been pla:=___� as replacements, and apparently
never were.
Staff Co:*gnents - .. -_ad_ng plan for the subdivision
project was submitted b :'e applicant at the time of the
processing of the fina_ -.an to the Community Development
Department indicating __.e removal of a number of existing
trees including 11 _fees on the cited lots in the
Condition. That plan _de=ified only one tree that was
proposed to be remove_E f:c-i Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . According
to the terms of the c___--tions of approval, a total of
twenty-two 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees
should have been plan:ef oa these lots; and two planted
Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of
Ciapponi & Yandell Appeal
on Lot 7 . Staff could find no evidence that. the County
accepted a tree replacement plan or any financial
mechanism for requiring tree replacement improvements.
When staff visited the site, staff found no evidence of
the planting of any 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native
trees by the Developer on Lot 7 .
Still, it should be noted that the Developer has planted
a number of trees. He '-as indicated that he has planted
a total of 56 trees of %-arying species (primarily Chinese
Pistache) , nearly all larger (24-inch box) than the size
that was required by the County, throughout the
subdivision. These _::elude trees planted along the
frontage of the lots. None of the trees planted by the
Developer appear to have been either drought-tolerant or
native to the area. He-.ce,-er, the Developer has indicated
that approximately six cf these trees were planted on (or
in the immediate vicin_zv) of Lot 7 .
The Developer indicated t`at a subsequent buyer (prior to
Ciapponi) , not the Sub__-.-_sion Developer, had removed the
other six trees on t There would have been no
County restriction for a s-absequent buyer to have re.-noved
those trees.
Staff Assessment - ..__..a some of the details of tree
replacement appear to been overlooked by staff, the
Developer ultimately many more trees with larger
sizes than would have necessary to comply with the
permit conditions. staff's judgement, the trees
planted by the =-oper constitute substantial
CCIT1D11anCe with t__c =fee replacement improvement
requirement. Ir_ an•.- ta_eit is staff's understanding
that there would be legal basis for the County to
require compliance _-= the specifics of the tree
replacement conditio- _: approval at this time.
C. Obliteration of Pre-Subd- -- S= Drivewav (COA #10,J)
Condition of Agorova- —'=ae - "Obliterate the existing
drivewav on Lots 6 ane - . Access to these lots shall be
taken off the propose_ =_nate road. ,'
Su-mmary of uvel a-- �ncern - There is remaining
concrete wall and imoefvlous gravel driveway on Lots 6
and 7 indicating that --'.s condition has not been fully
satisfied. The Appel'_ant has indicated that the gravel
and hardpacked dirt in additional runoff which
contribute to soil ero__= on the side of a hill on his
lot. The 7/28/98 letzef from the Community Development
Department to the Deve_c7:�er indicated that the condition
had not been satisfied a__d that the County would require
the Developer to sat'_= this requirement including
obtaining the permi =_:Dn of the owner of Lot 7
(Ciapponi) .
Staff Comments - P_-icr to the establishment of the
subdivision, the s_--e served by a driveway that
extended to Miranda =e n'_e to the west. The subdivision
that was proposed prc:_dei exclusive access to the other
side of the property, =_ :21v Drive. This condition was
intended to eliminate the driveway as a means of
accessing the proper--_- ince the subdivision road was
established.
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of
Ciapponi Yandell Appeal
j This condition was formulated by the Public Works
I Department and included in the set of conditions of
i approval (COA #10) ,-hich is administered by that
IJ department. That Departmer_t was responsible for
1 overseeing compliance ::ith that condition of approval.
Indeed the grading p=ans which were approved by the
Department provided fc= regrading of a portion of that
driveway and removal cf the concrete surface from that
driveway.
I
When staff met in the field with the interested parties,
Feather Ballenger, Assistant Public Works Director, was
present and examined the condition of the former
drivec•"ay. Notwithstanding the comments of the planner in
the Community Development Department, Ms. Ballenger noted
that while not all of =he original improvements of the
driveway had been eliminated, sufficient physical
modifications had been completed which would effectively
preclude its use as a The concrete surface had
I been eliminated thouo - sections of the retaining wall and
subsurface gravel bed =__e.-:wined in place. In this regard,
she indicated that _ _se modifications provided for
substantial compliance -..:--th the condition of approval.
Staff Assessment - regrading and elimination of
surface improvements portions of the former driveway
on Lots 6 and 7 effec:=:-ely preclude use of the residual
driveway elements a= = functional access and thus
constitutes suhstar:-'a- comoliance with the subdivision
condition of aoprovIa l.
a) 0) 0) (1) a) L a) O4 (3)ri m r-I >1 a) C >, a)
C G C.� m o O L CI-- fa �4far A co L C '
JJ•.�•� L O O C (r,•r4 L m a) a) In a) C L'o
X G � �4 Ex o to O > b E a ►�
L N O a) L a) iJ-r4 �4 3 a•r1 O 04.14 ri a) O O fa
rofaNA ro aLmOOm 04041 044 ULO
C a r4•r1 A r-4 04 r-4 ).4 C O i4 fa O L W
L a) 0 1-4 m a \—4 a o )4 a �4 4 a) ji
c ALfaC >, to co u 0, Lm3:411
r-I,C L O fa C •^ 3 C m O L
(1) L m Cn U fa a)r a) O O ro L-1 r 4
a) k >1a) C v ur-Ir-q14fa
4J 44 a a 0 w u 11 04 fa fa aJ a)
9 O C E O n L fa >, f-4 �ri b a
w ray•r4 fa D w m L a) t, ri O•r( a
a) O
Fj Ls a) L ri C) vG aCroa) Lmfa
U) > C C a O 7 1 I a O•r4 a C
m U) 0 0 0 0) O aJ -r;•r♦ O r-4..k O aro Oro
0 a)rl� �4 U•14 3 a) a w U a) s_4 L Q a) U C
M aL a m c o o > fa •r4 fa
m q a �4 a) C L. 3 0041 a) a >, a)w 0
L O L •rii cL 3 CLL O
G a) fa ro L LJ C H �4 a) a) a o >,•r4
O.G U 1-( a) a •- a) S4 4 C O C L m
U O CO L s4 O u = a O L U a) r(•r4
•r1 a m )-i •ri • o w ro > C a U
w L m•14 a) to O— a)r-( 0) a) o-''4 1 a)
rC7 w ro C w •r' > a a) S4 a).0 �4 M IJ V
Fr (o U C'1 > a)r-I L` a 0) 14
41 H -IU)r-I a -.-4 Q 3 W )-I fa ri fa a
Q w O
044
L
E"4 L C
E-( L m L a a•H _
aQ 0) ° 04-14 s4 s -
'z O L w L u C
G4 O U O-H a)4•w•I L C 3
44 ~ �-HrocFGr .D
CL aro o _
H fa U r. a)A >
H Q q a) Oro !4 C C 4 O - -
W r� O a U)L4 r-I 5 L
HA 1.4 .x ro -
p a) Q) �4 CO Q) a U 7-4 - \
E+ � u > 44a aoaa c3 `
H a)•r U to a 3 }4 0) _
OJ U.4
O O a)o O = rl C _
U LLro roL O `4
O � mo > 0a) ro0) U
w a -iC O r-1 mac..-rI U) a_ �
LL4 ro aJ r - - - >,
L •11. L N > L — J
p Ct 04 _L Q4
H Cf] Q)w Q G a)•H a) C -
U. ron+ a) u r CL J
N U L L.'v U .-I m•r4 C C .- _
04 H (n-•r4 ro u E 3 Z 3 -
O 31 o
L 14
U C
M r0to T.
W as
H 0
[� C' •,q C C
a p G
14 w u
u o a
m 44 0
04
u rG `
G m N
O ?
L L Q)
m•r1 I- C
U m r-(
OO r4
,--1a
Q) 040 -
0� O-1 c
R
0
.,i
O
I
I -
I
I
I
j °� 0) r, �•1Nia� � lv
i H H•ri U o H 0 'i
-1Q) X� a 0,,04 oA aa, OA
Aw0roN
ro a)ro a m 41 b i � ro
.0HO aa) aa)
a, a�L �° a 0 44
a �4
U N H C. ro U) •rl ro N r�
1J r N G N N al N,C 0
q r-q G,C NJJA NLA
NN 0)rC 44 G H iJ G H +J
N N4w0) OO a) OO a)
j F4H J-3 °.lq xa xa d
-° M �-° -4 Q(10 fd g a b
I41 L rd L.)
0, U) U•ri O N O N
° Ao J�
Q O Q O
Ei H H
w w
I ro =
o a) _ N
44 ro Lj '0.N
O:J..) ro N O 10 r4 a, G C '-4 L
G U)r--I L G N G O O N = Z G O
L9 N N roL L -r'O 3 N L H C 3 N
I GGA -Li pNQ GG > a G > G N
H aG w trroL N o CY = _ - > H Grp
E rO N L Ct,. N Q N L"
ro H - U N H N N H L L7 .0 ro
U) N G U w N N ) N-ri
N a, (D U r L --1 o)L L L .�-r _ J N N
4J O rO Lj O G-H C G _ = L N u
0 H H U: L o O H N w 0 O N U
I al R 0 N O N 3 - J N r ro
U) N L C^ _ >
U) mu-,-I L N a) G L� > L u G C > _ _ cL
O i r 0 C > -+ O N o G N O U O - O L O o
U U) H .a G N 0 -H U H N-n -H U Z. _ N C
L 0 :.J r-i L a ro C C H 0-
; _ _ U)
L1 r L L N R 0 •ri O O
N ri ro G ro �Q N w U H L 0
N a 0 0 C U C7 O w a) N O- - - ,--I �
>, E A ro U + O N a -- _ ro
rC ZS N H L L U L L r1 L U r O 0 H
G C H a) G N G 0 N C O - U 4j a N
ro M ro N a ro N ro•r1 N > N r - _ r x 0 a
C > O r, ro c7 >, U) H N U) >. - U U H 0
w-H x G r•i r- G N-H-rr Q 7 C - - = •-i ro a r-i
w G U N N N L ro > > aa ro > > -
ro H G G > a ro U r 0 C) u a c - - C Q4
L G H ro N ac N O H NX. N o - _ = a (D Q)
Cf) L L E Q < i W U 0, E-4 CO U 3 ro Ln E iC .
L T. L
G N L
10 C p
U O N N L
r r C m a L G rn L,
Q4 O c m-ri co
0 U) O O N H > Z -
L 10-ri o1 L of N RL
7 H N L7 G G V) > L L -
N G ro m N -H 0 G-r; H G T o
uQ)-HuroG x LnLO ria = -
rn ,,~ ro co U �4 rO ro a C -
0 a L L LO ro G G N Lo
0 N r U ••rr a G • H H N a_
Ja w U r -�`O O ri N U
a0Ga.c NHNLw (tL-
`
C -ri E L) L H ro U r-I w 0.w _
L1 •ri '0 0 D-H 0 C H ro rd U?-r!
S4 N CT N-r-ia C U)
m N ro r > H4-) r C
A aG °O G N E.1-, U) 0) x C .. 0
L'[j L•ri 1J N 0 U ro -
q i
H4-H I�v ro - -
N J.J 7 p1 L N N w H w -t a C O
i ro 0 G N L o?w 0 = _ <
r6 H-H N O ro U) G ro cN G-r; >
U Lr) r o)W O u N-H L ri -ri L- 7-
0
0 G C - 0 U 0 co ro ro -
r-♦ H ro r r I ro— N L U
N O G r1 -- N a >,A N 0 0 <
tz a
Lu —Ln fx to io A L P�r = -
0
V
0
y y C Q) N 0 (D
�1•ri d o A 1J :J E m
0 H G a) a) I
P4 0 Colo o•� roA A
U2 4J m U E y C A 1-i p iE
U)-H m a �>x E ro
1J N C m g y C.4•,-1 SG
4) v� '4 a 0)0 AQ 0 0 '4
m q u o -4 0 m 4i4 41
y a) a)x p u I-
d wPJ,b �4 umm0) ro
m °,° 01 � a°i� G
u > oCCmw
o
,--II A U O.0 u a a'
.,i 1J 0 7
O a) r0 :J•ri :J U
:J a) U 3 C
x a) a)
a) -n u
E A . 4
A O O y
�4 a)
w
>1
W
Si U'Ell b >
) ji
0 �4La) E= m
mC
a) c o L 3 c o .0 a1
�4 0 0 liLnAj 11 oa W
•ri c 3 a) Ln U N L) O•r.
� m > u m a a) 11 u C : m
:J a).0 u U 1•4 C-1 m C 07
a) y•r-I A 1J 0 c 1J m A X� 0 - L -+
a m w f. ro s u
ro I'm Lo4 o 0 Q) a a) m E O a
y r-I•,1 J 1J L) m O co �i U ✓. r. O C
4J C la C C C > 1J U) U H•r1 a)
0 a) y 0 0 a) u a � a v 0 _ v 3 E 0•i m vr-q m tyn. 3 - c
to a) 1J a) U a) a C - m C
C U > :J m U + C O
O O 0 o C U (0 O u 1J O 0 r - �+
U .H U >4 () O a a) C Cf C U)— C` .: a) 41 r
1J U a U) U)--I L-I Ln r-1 m•ri JJ=•- a a
amEca) m m a > r 00
0 0 �-I 0) > 0 J•ri 0 Q)•, u
W U C0 -L) O a) oa
N o u '7•ri S4 a r1 >
•r1 O a) a).14 a C m C w C ^ r aJ•�
� 0 4ms4a0Cm 0 U) A1J
1) u c 1J O m (C.•-1 0 0 ?-I •ri 1J m
C 0 as li aa) -Lj CN _ a) 10
a) m•ri a) 0 a) m -1,4 o a a m m C - J-- a)
m >, to )-r �4 C 4 U U l4 0 O U m r. :.: 1J
C a)•ri•--I a O•ri"1 m a r-� •ri r-i U
(a > > C Cr;A a) Ori C• z a)
U C O C7' a) E V a U a) > -i a a) U LJ'r-)
a) O fA () C O 0) a a)'C' a) C a.c 7 G o a)
W U a �-i E- U 14 m rn E� Cl E, (o
OC C �'
C 1J X
O
U m C m J
r-I 0 M a
r-I E C
a) E O = c
1J a 0 1J.c
�i
O a m � >acm •^ �
4 w O 0Ln A 0w� E
1J la 14
a) C 1J ti a)w r
V L O �] N U)•1; aI aJ` J
a) O a) 1J.^
A 0) uo a Cu C;
cma) o m
0 a s4 a) a >1r;
LO C C C m -i d
a) 0) 41 �Q o -W >
lJ L71-ri rn m m 3 m v
m cw a) a E u t73
u•-i C U•ri a a)•-. - Z)lD
0.,e0 1J aaeNu0 r >
r1 I4 U r-I S4 a) m c
a) m a) C a) m f4 CL 0
xaasM. 0 a
0
u
o C14 C7 `
i
1
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5
June 13, 2000 Agenda
I
On May 9,2000,the Board of Supervisors continued to this date,the hearing on the
Ciapponi's and Yandell's Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval
of a request to modify the location of on-street parking within Subdivision 7693,County
File 9ZI 99-8206(Wingset Place,Alamo area).
Robert Drake,Community Development Department,gave the staff report and
recommendations.Those present included Dennis Barry,Community Development
i Director;Silvano Marchesi,Chief Assistant County Counsel;and Heather Ballenger,
Public Works,Engineering Services.
The Board discussed the matter.
The public hearing was opened,and the folio«ing people appeared to speak:
jRena Rickles,Esq.,Attorney for Appellants, 1970 Broadway,Oakland;
j Thomas Ruark,Engineer for Appellants.2 Crow Canyon Court,#200,
San Ramon;
Mark Armstrong,Esq., Gagon,et al.Attorney for Applicant;
Krista Ciapponi,Appellant, ; `%'ir gser Place,Alamo,-
Rena
lamo;Rena Rickles,rebuttal;
Mark Armstrong,rebuttal..
Those desiring to speak haying been heard. e public hea.irg was closed.
Following the Board's discussion,Supers i_e-G—,rber rnoved:
I
That the Board accept Option F. as :-oposed by the appellant's engineer(see page
11 of the staff report).
I
That staff be directed to notify t^e appellants and others who live in this
subdivision of future zoning admini t-ator decisions on subsequent developer
requests regarding this subdivision:
That the Board determine Lots 5 and 6. at this point,do not satisfy the Conditions
of Approval for having 6 onsite guest parking spaces;
That the Board directs the develop,-- to comply with the Fire Inspector's
requirements;
That the access road should meet the County's standard of posting, no parking,
and painting the curb;
And that the Board determine that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 was not
actually obliterated by County standards. Although the staff indicates that there
appcars to be substantial compliance wi;; obliteration,it was not accomplished.
Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to
accept it.
t � ' ,i• C
T0: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1. __nom 40 C
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ��• J��
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT cSrA coiiK�
DATE: December 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Hearing on the Ciapponis' and Yandells' Appeal of the Z<
Administrator's (Administrative) Approval of a Request to Modify
Location of On-Street Parking within Subdivision 7693, County
#ZI998206 (Wingset Place, Alamo area) . District III.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve Option A actions listed below.
OPTIONS
Option A - Deny the Appeal; Sustain the Zoning Administrator's
Decision.
1. Deny the Appeal of the Ciapponis and Yandells.
2. Sustain the Zoning :_Ministratorls decision as described
in the Community 'e elopment Department letter dated
October 11, 1999.
Option B - Grant =_.= Appeal; Reverse the Zoning
Administrator's Decision.
1_ Grant the Appeal c'- = Ciapponis and Yandells.
2. Reverse the decisi= ;- :he Zoning Administrator allo:.inq
the relocation of c_._ carking space.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X =: SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINIS77 :0R _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD C014•4_
APPROVE OTHER.
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHEi
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS If
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON 7
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOW1
Contact: Bob Drake [ (925) 335-121=1
Orig: Community Development Departmen: ATTESTED
cc: Thomas Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERF
Leo B. Siegel THE BOARD OF SUPERVI:
Morgan, Miller, and Blair AND COUNTY ADMINISTR7
DeBolt Civil Engineering
Michael Mentink, San Ramon %a__e• BY DEI
Fire Protection District
Public Works Dept.
County Counsel
c:\wpdoc\sub7693.bo
RD\
� t
i
Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of
Zoning Administrator Approval of
Modification of On-Street Parking Plan
Subdivision 7693, Alamo area
Option C - Request the Applicant to Explore an Alternative
i Parking Alignment Configuration.
i 1. If the subdivision developer (Gingrich) is receptive,
request him to provide an alternative parking plan that
provides for relocation of some of the four required
spaces so as to allow (a) no parking on one side of the
i cul-de-sac bulb, and (b) driveway access to Lots 5 and 6,
as, or similar to, the Staff Study shown in Figure III.
2. Continue the hearing a sufficient time to allow staff and
the appellants an opportunity to review and comment on
the plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECO!, \,'_710NS
Subdivision 7693 was approve" the County in 1993 for nine lots
fronting on a private road (:;:::_ Set Place) turnaround.
Review of Tentative Map Anti- - -=-Jon
Following a 1992 decision of t.== San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission to approve the map for a reduced number of
lots, the applicant appealed t.__ _ommission's decision to the Board
of Superviscrs. After tak_`;_ =estimony, the Board granted the
applicant's appeal; eliminate- - changes to the project which the
San Ramon Valley Regional =_:-Hing Commission had made; and
I restored the project to t-_ = lots which had been proposed, as
described in a Board Order d=-__ 111/24/92 .
In app=ovIng the project, z-_ =oard required that the applicant
provide four on-street parkin.= =^aces within the turnaround area.
The Board authorized the Zcn=-_ idm nistrator to review and approve
the design of these parkins s_=..s (COA #'1.A. )
Submittals for Final Map
Following approval of the te:=-=sive map, the applicant submitted
detailed plans and exhibits tc .- =lify for approval of a final map.
One of the exhibits submitte- .cas an on-street parking plan which
provided four on-street, parallel parking spaces within the
turnaround area at the end of t. wing Set Place cul-de-sac (Figure
I) . The width of the propose'_ cul-de-sac is 9.5-feet wider than
the minium width standard we-_-d require (20-feet) to accommodate
the parking spaces. The Zon-n= administrator approved this plan.
It should be noted that the z=ccosed parking spaces were aligned
along the frontage of Lot (=7 king Set Place) effectively
blocking access to that lot_ It should be noted that Lot 6
contains the older residence w_._c', was on the property at the time
of the filing of the subdivi=_;- application.
Final Map Approval and Record-_iL
After staff determined that t =-e was substantial compliance with
the ordinance code and Conditi^-s of approval for the tentative map
approval, the Board of Super:_scrs approved the Final Map on July
18, 1995 and it was subsecue-t-_: recorded.
-2-
Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of
Zoning Administrator Approval of
Modification of On-Street Parking Plan
Subdivision 7693, Alamo area
Current Status of Subdivision DDS m�? ent
The subdivision is largely built out. New residences have been
constructed on six of the nine lots. It is staff's understanding
that the subdivision developer (Gingrich) controls the remaining
three lots (Lots 5, 6, and 8) , all located next to the turnaround
at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Applicant's Request tn Modify Location of Approved On-Street
Parking Configuration
Last year, the subdivision developer informed staff that residents
within the subdivision were using the on-street parking spaces in
a manner that was interfering with his ability to access his
residence on Lot 6. In this regard, he filed a request with the
Community Development Department to allow the relocation of one of
the parking spaces so as to permit access from the existing
driveway. See Figure II.
Zoning Administrator Decision
After receiving this request, the Community Development Department
referred it to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and
the Public Works Department for comment. The District initially
issued a letter expressing concerns about the feasibility of the
reconfiguration. However, in a subsequent conversation with staff,
Inspector Mentink of the District indicated that he was satisfied
that the proposed modification :lld be acceptable to the District.
No response to the referral received from the Public Works
Department.
After reviewing the ordinance considering the position of the
Fire Protection District, the --::ring Administrator determined that
the proposed relocation not result in any significant
hazards; was consistent with o-::'-nance standards; and would fulfil
the intent of the tentative -. approval. Consequently, in a
letter dated October 11, 1999, Community Development Department
approved the proposed
APPEAL BY NETCHBORS (C IAPDQN7` YANDELLS)
In a letter dated November S, _::°, two of the residents within the
subdivision, Ciapponis (#5 Winc Set Place) and Yandells (41 Wing
Set Place) filed an appeal of t^e Zoning Administrator's decision
to modify the on-street parkinc configuration. The appeal letter
was issued by Kenneth M. Millet of Morgan, Miller and Blair, legal
counsel for the appellants. appeal claims that the relocated
parking configuration will no-- permit reasonable manueverability
for the remaining residents wi "_n the subdivision and is deficient
with respect to parking desig. standards.
DISCUSSION
Listed below is a summary of t::e appeal points and staff's response
to each of those points.
Comment Summary: The change __. the location of the parking will
result in smaller parking spaces and signficant safety risks
including fire access.
-3-
t
Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of
Zoning Administrator Approval of
Modification of On-Street Parking Plan
Subdivision 7693, Alamo area
Staff Res_pQnse: As mentioned above, following issuance of the
Fire Protection District's letter of February 10, 1999
opposing the proposed relocation, staff contacted Inspector
Men tink of the District. Inspector Mentink indicated that
based on additional review of the proposal, he was satisfied
that the proposed relocation would not result in significant
safety hazards and would be acceptable to the District.
The average length of the parking spaces under the 'original
parking space configuration was approximately 24-feet (95 feet
4 spaces) . The recently approved pas king space allowed one
of those spaces to be relocated to the west side of the cul-
de-sac. It was also reduced to 19 feet in length. Insofar as
this relocated space is no longer in a tandem alignment, staff
idetermined that the reduced length is reasonable.
Comment Summary: The Ciapponis maintain a boat and accessory
trailer on their property. The relocated parking space will
interfere with the ability of the Ciapponis to safely manuever the
boat from their property out Of the subdivision.
Staff ResspcnS The cc_--:int is acknowledged. There is no
ordinance standard to _e _=e that private road cul-de-sacs be
I des i fined to accom1nod1_=_ neuvering of boats. Further, in
staff's view, the . ==::ed parking space should not
significant) affect . `apponis abi7itV t0 maneuver a
typical boat traile_ e_ c- from their property.
Comment Summary: The sizing c= che parking spaces is substandard.
Sta'17 Resocnse: See s==_ response above. The only parking
space which was reloc=-_' is the space located toward the
South arm of the tllri?c._ -- That parking space was allowed
to be 19-feet in lend_`. -__ S-feet in width due to (1) it is
not in a tandem align:;e=: =h other parking spaces that might
require additional roor .-aneuver into and from; and (2) it
is at the end of a cul-G_=-s_=c road. It should be noted that
the County typically parking where there are 8-foot
wide shoulders next to =ravel lanes for County-maintained
roads and where authc_i= by the local fire protection
district.
The length of another par=:i space across the street from the
relocated space was a_s: approved at 19-feet (next to the
driveway for Lot 6) . . is space is located at the end of
tandem alignment of pv_a_lel spaces on this side of the
street. The relocation_ c= the previous space provided more
room to maneuver in this s-)ace, which allowed its dimensions
to be reduced without significant sacrifice as to its
functionality-
-4-
Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of
Zoning Administrator Approval of
Modification of On-Street Parking Plan
Subdivision 7693, Alamo area
CO C�LUSION
In view of the above discussion, staff sees no reason to alter the
recent modification to the parking plan authorized by the Community
Development Department. Accordingly, the decision of the Zoning
Administrator should be sustained and the appeal denied pursuant to
. actions listed under Option A.
It should also be noted that Mr. Ciapponi indicated to staff in a
conversation that he is interested in trying to acquire one or more
of the remaining lots owned by the subdivision developer.
ALTERNATIVES
In the event that the Board is not satisfied with the staff
conclusion and recommendation, there are potentially two
alternatives which could be considered.
Grant the Appeal - If the Board feels that the concerns of the
appellants have merit, then the Eoard could grant their appeal. In
so doing it would reverse t-e parking space relocation plan
modification approved in O_ ober and restore the previous
arrangement that was in effect a: time of the approval of the final
map. Again, that plan provided for parking spaces along the entire
frontage of Lot 6, thus blocking access to the existing residence.
That condition would be re-e-s:nblished by the granting of `he
appeal. This action can be a�:omolished by approval of Option B
above.
I nQui re as to the Developer' s Receptiveness for
Developing-an AllrernarAyf, --pace Recorficruration - It may be
possible to provide access to - while providing for relocation
of some of the parking space= f--o-1 their current location. This
may entail use of portions cf =ne existing lots retained by the
subdivision developer for 90-d=_-ee parking bays. In a site plan
entitled Figure III, these par:•:.-_ bays are shown on Lot 6. Due to
existing slope in this area, _===fining walls would be necessary,
and potentially the granting of s variance permit application were
the walls to exceed maximum zo_ height standards. Any retaining
walls taller than 3-feet in -a_cht within the required zoning
structure setback area would r=-:ire approval of a variance.
This design option would require :he cooperation of the interesl.ed
parties. The subdivision de•z-1coer would have to be willing to
allow for a parking access ease ent for all residents within the
subdivision on a portion of La_ G. The costs of the improvements
(e.g. , retaining walls, pavinc, engineering costs, etc. ) might be
borne by the subdivision de-:e-aper or residents within the
subdivision who are willing too=tribute.
If the interested parties are xilling to bear these costs, then
this alternative will not be fusible. As a first measure, the
Board could inquire as to whet-=_r the subdivision developer would
be entertain this alternative, or a variation thereof. The Board
might begin to explore this :.==--native by approving Option C
above, while recognizing tha-- = is would require an additional
hearing prior to final Board a==_cn.
156`J, o0 1561 PI`J 1562 -- 1563 ----- -'-'-- 1564 - ----
1 E ROAO
• \ C r•
cc
OM
R ^/ >
/
r j1 LfHM fA
NAMON . .
o /Jy
A■2
_ 4 �-
W CT Oti —
W 7
a T VELVEr
- J ` R•20
INORNA
RO
DQ
Vy
i
P
R■ l • Of J y /
Off,
�S
9
�s
1` O
Cr
ID
` o
I561 R15 I562 1563 1564 .1,�.ti_....
29
ROLL � -76,c-13 36t r 29 L
ig7t ,[
I 6 ROLL -�.RAC-� 2g-4,F�a7 ��
I p,- 199 u) IY}S lla�
• yC�
L
V ! eg ��W;
o
tea' , h;
ev
1,4
W "aj R_?A
4008
' Ise8
Nam p- ` a
• ����Yr3 �9' tri.' �L-��
/ ,� j.G �• L- r i9 111(f���µ\{_l� O` �h///Y��_'''A •r c� �b*..,` _
' f l 513 '"'77• �� ddd�xxx �� ? `
c*
���
� � 1 b
` N6gaO0 OS' H 7 Ohcc
• f d f 00—, `�'"
20.94 6Ac. '
J4,pp 3� h0 1108 S� r�
23
I#
1-7
O f
o.
a:��'y6 ✓7�� \ � �1 !� ' "min`g /
�4
711`7
al-
m ?_ 70,69
/
�i
ter.
f
k.
BARN
'/' /s////��'•
Z I+07.18
TURA OUNI
END /MPROVETWO
P 368.30..
TD X08 9905.5ZT'
3184.0 19RIVE
FEx
�o ' ; =0451 TURAIAROUAD
1 ' P 364.90
101 �CONC/�ETE
2
P 3G4 11.
J P 3G4.41( 15W
Elp�N(.1 � `
gE��N T� -\Dt003 7u
�g.3Q En J N P 365
TD 3G 5.
URi,1��pU
3 I
iv
\L
ID
Ile-
V1 J�
- .t` �3•` _ � ___ _ __— �- 3•='._.- r�i�._—.�..tib- .— .�
Mp
- - :.tet..{��- �.�'•-1_:moi" __ _ _i�`':. _ �s�
'+' -__ -_ -=k ~'- ,y'_ _ .�•_;, _.;'�....:_ _ — —_ - —
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS G
n1 :.
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON � S
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �'en
` 40
DATE: November 3, 1992 ' �oiiKti
SUBJECT: APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMI
DECISION TO APPROVE AN EIGHT LOT SUBDIVISION (COUNTY FILE 17693
THE ALAMO AREA.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Sustain the approval of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission by taking actions listed under Option A below or sustain
the approval of the County Zoning Administrator by taking actions
listed under Option .B below.
Option A: Supporting the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission APPROVAL of an eight lot subdivision.
1. Approve Subdivision #7693 for eight lots subject to the
attached resolution and the conditions as approved by the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission including all of the
shaded conditions and the rest of the conditions which are not
striken.
2. Accept the environmental documentation as adequate.
Option B: Granting the 1,oplicant's appeal approving the
subdivision.
1. Grant the appeal filed. by Thomas Gingrich and approve
Subdivision X7693 for nine lots, subject to the conditions
approved by the Zoning �,d=inistrator on July 6, 1992. The
conditions approved by the Z-oning Administrator .include all of
the striken conditions and all of unshaded conditions on the
attached conditions of ap oval.
2. Accept the environmental documentation as adequa e
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: % YES SIGNATURE
'RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTF.ATOR RECOMM TDATZ N OF ARD CO:1.1:
APPROVE OTHER
\ SIGNATURE(S) :
\ACTION OF BOARD ON Novemoer Z4—. 1-57=- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHEF
\Addendum for Board action
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS I
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT II TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOW
Contact:Candida Wensley 646-2024 A7--ESTED November 24, 1992
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLER
Public Works Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVI
Thomas Gingrich COUIr MINISTR
DeBolt Civil Engineering DE
B a
CW/df
i
Page Two
FISCAL IMPACT
I
None
BACKGROUND/REA SONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
This project was heard and approved by the Zoning Administrator on
MAY 18, 1992 for eight lots rather than the nine lots requested
(originally proposed for to lots) . The Zoning Administrator had
concerns that the configuration of lot 8 and the steepness of the
driveway made the lot difficult to access and made for an
inadequate parking situation.
On May 22, 1992, the owner requested reconsideration because the
proposal was for nine lots and should have been either approved or
denied rather than reduced to eight lots.
On June 8, 1992 the Zoning Administrator granted the applicant's
request for a reconsideration hearing and set the,reconsideration
hearing date for July 6, 1992, based upon assurances that revised
plans would be submitted dealing With concerns on Lot /8.
A revised tentative map was received which attempted to address the
concerns regarding the steep access and configuration of lot /8.
At the hearing of July 6, 1992, it was indicated that in addition
to the revised map, modified conditions would be applied for the
adjustment of boundaries of lots /7 and #8 and the hammerhead
turnaround and to increase building setback adjacent to existing
residences along the north boundary of the project.
On July 16, 1992, several -neighbors appealed the approval of
Subdivision 7693. The main reason for the appeal is that the
neighbor's believe the. application should be approved for 8 lots
rather than nine. The staff report of May 18, 1992 is also
attached, which discusses and evaluates the tentative map for
Subdivision 7693.
On September 16, 1992, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission granted the appeal of a number of neighbors, and
approved Subdivision 7693 for eight lots with a number of revised
conditions.
On September 17, 1992, the cwner of the property appealed the
Planning Commission's decision.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM H.1
NOVEMBER 24, 1992
On November 3, 1992, the Board of Supervisors deferred to this date the decision
on the appeal by Thomas Gingrich (appellant) from the decision of the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission Board of Appeals on the appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approval of a vesting tentative map to divide 4.88 +or—acres of land
into 9 lots, DeBolt Civil Engineering (applicant) and Beverly Gingrich(owner)
(Subdivision 7693) in the Alamo area.
Supervisor Schroder commented on a visit he had made to the site and
observances on the location of the trail site,the proposed cul de sac,and a narrower road
going into this parcel of property, and he moved approval of Option B.
Supervisor Powers seconded the motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Option B is APPROVED.
1
x.x:.vvv.�n}}•.v...:y.:iT'ni:v:q;xn.v:;::x:.:.}:v}w:n+..v.:�.::::.:w:.:�.+v.�.w::.vy.�:.:..:::.y:.:.v.w::....::::.:�::....�.v..}}.:v:.vnTT}}y<.:y
}TTT:•
CONDF'Yt2aNS>aF APFROV�ilf FbR'-SUBbYST�N 7593 {DeBOUT :CrV2<I:<ENGINg£12.
RLY
�idG°>°>> °Appiieant�-- G...... GRI �I::;:<:>:::. . . . ?
................:..P.er.
dNA SS
ION
PPP:FtQVAL
mt, t,a a ��•.�, � nn nrnnartu i �t•onrn••„a
3—h.e i-eefaest te—subdivide. the
fer-a maximum ef nine (9) lets
tive zap--datereeeived by the
ment-en June 22 , 1992 .
A. . Prier- -te f ilAng the.. f iR
-entative--map—shall-b
by the Zening
an 1 8—as—ind eated—e e Staff rend at-e ter- a
div i l i a n---;1699 t Lets , '7 8 and 9 f e ice--
residential struetures..
B. Prier to issuanee—e
residential _y , -�
�i:r-act�s•�.a--$ice—n'.. � , 8, and 9, Plans
..
shall be given te
eking, windews and en the ner-th, -side er'
..
buildings—Perthese lets—.
t.
:gin<>: > T ta: <> ve
Ma ..}, ee -:ed:»: : ;>::>tip> Cnmmr =::D,e ';e::.n ,:n_e >::De :ar; e ;t::on
99
en _:..:;:::> ; . <::<::. : e
e.
p.
su3am. d... flxi:e' xu:iekt. zct:> r: sra .:::_; ZQn :ng;< dm . s
........... .......:...
_fMill
�;cat:�o�s ;
::::...........
- � ...w.mw:.N.v.�..y.....::.:.,w:.....w...}}w.vyyw.y+..n•^:4}. - hY:?^"
�:::: .:...:.. :.:-'::::�~.:.::.:':.:nom:•:_::�:.:':-:::i::}:-..::•:�::::•_.::..:-.. •:i;:-:::...:.:::::.:.'::.::-:':: :....:.:?.:�
:...:::... .....:..........-:
3.::'::>.:
4}:iv}:-:::v-vv.�:::•:}}:{>,Jiv}}}:-}::::"f.J::-}:;!C}:i4}};;�:4:{�}:v}}}}}:4:?:::�:.:::..:.:::::?:�..... _ -
et .:......:..... ..
:i> e:_tfl:-: r1:<�3e» stxal::>:: :on nt ;., �rrlh
- :::`-.•:-•}.: -..v.-....--.-..v.:..:..............v..a;:x.-.nnx.:v -..:.-.. ....�.:�:Sc:.Cci�.'aat.1:.........w..�.x.n......w..,...�..x-�v..w.:...a....,.v n�-.r....ti...rit.:.n
• ::?M-:,x.m;.}.v.•nwyH.lw}v9C}v-.u},v,---...4Cyy u..yi:..}}}T:"^}K.?-...v:::-}JJy`:^:^:;:^'}T:4%y..Tv....}v..}}.�...yy:nv\}.t•,a}.,C�."!�w�y}ww.i.;l.HT�:}}:y:-xx;.}:r}Y.fp\ry'v�.}}�:n....v:IwV.:v.v
....
>.. e...e..
men:.:_:.:;::: :.::;.:'t P:.:::: }}::..:::: ::: 1'
�e -W�:2c�:�::::: :
i
2.
.. ..::.::.
: :: :.:. u... t...:n,,.:..a. ............xt .. :s.:. ;.:::n.::::<:,:.::::.::.::::...::._.:.:._.:::.
!p.:::.�:P.:<.;:::.:::::�-.�.:.:-:::.�.::<.::<i.;;
• ,::.r,;:-:H.cv::;,;,.,w.,;.-..:..::::•::,:,.:•-....;,,.r-•-<ox;•--::..,w.,,.�:::.;....,.k,,.,..w.,.-.�:.:�:a..-•a��e^�:�;;='-^��^:r.-:••.,>.w:.;_<:>;:�.�r...,-e:;.:r:.v,>r--:.•,x;.,,,,;,,r;-:.;::...
.::rte:evocable:>«d:�fe:�-:::>�f<`� =�+ed�� .... ............................::..�.:�::::.::.::.�:._::.�.................................
Y3s:ed:::: ;<: o =>> e:=>:: oi . .
e ..........
�
...............
>:.>:>:.;;:<.;:;.::i.;;:<.:;isi<
I
nn e
a...... a: .. .... d.emor�tr>a :.::::<t eat:.;;;:: t.;:.:;;. : a............ :x
<s: : :::: .e s.t . .
a :Z °: .aces::;:>: er:>= bt<<shah: .::: .:..:
:..: :...:..:...:. -.._:::,::....:..:.:: :--.:..:...:...:._...:.:.::... ..
r�f._;ths requ3�ed s�k spaces.'. ha .::: eoca ...c :.fl�:- � e.y
. ..
sa:<>::s:e.e:>::::>:A . y;� o <.►«:>::: fl.tes:»;::>:�a;o,.::«:::> ; >:;<:» :an:<::_ Zaaan::.>_::; Ta
ire
a: :<:s
- -::`:�:Esc` ��;>':;:: �;;::;:� -----------------------------=------------------------�--...............----...:...--•--�-=---------------------..........-----...--:..--�---- -------
:.::.....:::..:. .. .:.:..
.......=:
:»:::>::>;>:<>At:<::: as ::>:<;3 =:::::::fig.: :::::...:r-mor><::< o:<:; ssuan ::... :f:.:...:....:.. ........... :.::.: ::..; ....:.-:..-:::::..:.......
.:.::: .:....:..:::.: :.....---::..:::.:.......::::........ .....:.:: .rx......::::::..._...:.::......:..............:::.:-.::...::....................................z3....-�...................:.
t : cturs:::or�.:.:.. ....:::.::::::......:::...,.:.:.:::__:......:...:..:.:.::..
.....
;:...::::,:,;:<::::�:.;:::.::-;.:'.;:::.:;::--;-;::.:.:::<.: .;:.;:;.>.->:.: :.;:.:;.::.:::.:::
ans::;>sha :;::;3rrcZ ,e:>:<:: te.
}HT1 :»::»:: . .:, ;:: :::. •: >:>::. ::::. .. ., >: i1::
: ::::::. u.� .3 I1 .::::: Y'3 ........................fl:D�.:.::�.-..:.:..::::: �.::::::..:_...::_-:.:::._::
n 3:a onsty:��:tz.o�:.::aid::=:=an:.;:::suse;. .��.:.�::::�.--na�a�3��.:::s.....-.....:...::::.........
....... . ...
,wn.......::.v:.:v:.v..................n........._..:::::�:v:n'.-nv.vvnvi-iiiii:i:iiv:�--•�----.____._.................:yi, ......._. ......:....
n-..-r::::.v::.:::::::::-:::.v:.v-._n.,.,.:.......:v.::-:::::•::v::::::.v:�v:.w:::::..�,....r._._..:....::::::.:-..::::-..vv:--.x._��-v:"'\\'dii""C::.i%Ci:p:...�:.:.Y.^:p}}::-iii:^iW'^ii:-ii!�:'..n -
•
......................
-
;.>:;::.<::..:��:-:::�.::xes�.
:><searatZ
text.:::..�:::and.._��:G �: .,:the„�orth<.::::.:•-.-:._.�::::.::P::::::::-::]'.-.::.:::::.
e>::-;;.:. �.;:i.;ar ::><:::. :t� :>_:><t : :»::_:: za.....
.:::::.::. ' ...:......._:.:.-::.:.:::.:. x::: :.::::.:fie �.:::.
•...................
1
3 .
:..:...:::. ...:_.,.:.... . :.._ x.
atZons.:r «;s:truct
;::>:::: r: :osed<::>< andsca: : rr. >>::: - .p
a:d::»::>:;ee ....:................... ............................................::..ure
e..... ht:s:;;.;s it: :> :; r:
exz n residences on :;adlG.ZnM ::lo. < on
ue :< tr�::> n m xe : cin.. :::::.:....fid.:::.: :: :.on
3a:.. .... .......r....:..........xn. W.
g...
:.:.. ....... .. .....v..... .. .
>:><nor:;ths:ire::>:<o:f-:::> e<:»bu<zd> n. s 3ots:
:.g..:��:::,:.,,,__.....:...::..::...:::...:.:...._....::.
...............................................
3. The zoning variance for average minimum lot width for Lott
and Lot .13 is approved as requested;. they meet the require-
ments of Section 26-2 .226 of the County Ordinance Code. There
shall be no lot size variances approved with this subdivision.
Lot 11 - 120 feet required by Zoning Ordinance.
112 feet approved.
Lot f3 - 120 feet required by Zoning Ordinance.
97 feet approved.
4 . Thirty (30) days prior to recording the final map or obtaining
a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a hydrology
study, substantiating the creek setback line, to Flood Control
and the Zoning Administrator, for review and approval.
5 . If, adjustment of the creek setbac}: boundary results in a lot
with a net square footage (excluding setback, rearyard,
sideyard and creek setback areas) of less than 6 , 000 square
feet then that lot shall .be eliminated and the total number of
lots in the subdivision shall be reduced.
6 . No structures, including fences and swimming pools, shall be
allowed to be built beyond the creek structure setback 'line.
7 . Comply with the following tree planting/tree preservation
requirements:
A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or
filing a final map, submit a grading/tree preservation
plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees,
including the walnut trees, with a trunk circumference of
30 inches or more, 4;, feet above, the ground. The trunk
size, species and approximately drip line of each
qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and
whether the tree is proposed to be removed or preserved.
The objective of the review in part shall be to minimize
the removal of existing mature trees.
i
4 .
B. The plan shall be accompanied by a .report from a quali-
fied arborist, to be reviewed and approved by the Zoning
Administrator; on .the proposed plan recommending measures
to protect trees as appropriate during the construction
and post-construction stages and preserve walnut trees
located on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 (if possible) .
The arborist's report shall also include a tree replant-
ing program which illustrates the exact location and
species of proposed replacement trees. Replacement trees
shall be at least 15 gallons in size. Each tree to be
removed on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be replaced by two
15 gallon drought resistant trees, native to the area, to
be recommended by a certified arborist. Replacement
trees on Lots 5, 6; 7 , and 8 shall be situated in order
to maintain the residents of the proposed lots. All of
the trees along the northeastern property line, except
for those located within the proposed cul-de-sac, shall
be preserved. The recommended measures from the arborist
shall be integrated into or otherwise attached to the
proposed grading plan.
C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or filing a
final map, the applicant shall either inform the Zoning
I Administrator that the approved tree replacement program
has been completed and is ready for verification by
staff, or provide assurance that funding exists to
implement the tree planting program. Assurance shall be
provided through a financial mechanism acceptable to the
Zoning Administrator (e.g. , bond, letter of credit, or
deposit) .
8 . Should archaeological material be uncovered during grading,
trenching or other on-site excavation(s) , earthwork within 30
yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional
archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California
Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeol-
ogy (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance
of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s) , if deemed
necessary.
9. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter .
control requirements:
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such
things as power generators, shall be limited to the hours
of 7 :30 A.M. to 5: 00 P.M. , Monday through Friday, and
shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The
restrictions on allowed working days may modified on
prior written approval by the Zoning Administrator.
i
5.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and
subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines
with mufflers which are in good condition and shall
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air
compressors and concrete pumpers as far away from
existing residences .as possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the
applicant shall post the site and mail to the owners of
property within 300 feet .of the exterior boundary of the
project site notice that construction work will commence.
The notice shall include a list of contact persons with
name, title, phone number and area of responsibility.
The person responsible for maintaining the list shall be
included. The list shall be kept current at all times
and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate
and implement corrective action in their area of respon-
sibility. The names of the individual responsible for
noise and litter control shall be expressly identified in
the notice. The notice shall be reissued with each phase
of major grading activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to
the community Development Department. The notice shall
be accompanied by a list of the names and addresses of
the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the
area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for
the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Any
violation of the approved program or applicable ordi-
nances shall require an irnediate work stoppage.
Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until,
if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been
posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid
interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed roads
serving this development shall be constructed to provide
access to each lot. This shall include provision for an
on-site area in which to park earth moving equipment.
'10. The recommendations of the Terrasearch, Inc. geotechnical
report shall be carefully followed and incorporated into the
plan and specifications. .
11. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and
utility improvements will require the review and approval. of
the Public Works Department:
1 ,
I
6.
A. In accordance with Section 92-2. 006 of the County
Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the
provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) .
Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in
this conditional approval statement. Conformance with
the Ordinance includes the following requirements:
1) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the
proposed private road.
2) Undergrounding of..all utility distribution facili-
ties.
3) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating
within the subject property, without diversion and
within an adequate storm drainage facility, to a
natural watercourse having definable bed and banks
or to an existing adequate public storm drainage
facility which conveys the storm waters to a natu- -
ral watercourse.
4) Designing and constructing storm drainage facili-
ties required by the Ordinance in compliance with
specifications outlined in Division 914 of the
Ordinance and in compliance with design standards
of the Pubic Works Departrent.
5) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement,
any portion of the drainage system which conveys
run-off from public streets.
6) Relinquishing "development rights" over that porion
of the site that is within the structure setback
area of Miranda Creek. The structure area shall be
determined by using the criteria outlined in Chap-
ter 914-14 , "Rights of Way and Setbacks" , of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
.7) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a regis-
tered civil engineer, payment of review and
inspection fees, and security for all improvements
required by the Ordinance code or the conditions of
approval for this subdivision.
8) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered
civil engineer or licensed land surveyor.
B.
private read -standards, within ate$--€oet easement, to
i
7 .
roved::>::3€2:<. footro.atT::<:>stial3:' die..:>'> ave.. ::..o::: rve::::.a.�:l`
:: .:s:
c;< s: > t <suk .> =vis>`:
.,..,:
bac<:: rm nus:::<<s3 :: e:::raad
.::.....,:.:.,,.iA:y:nvn>v.v ......Y:.....: ........:......Y..
.:
he:»>a : zc:a .:.`.. <`;;: :::,,t>; 'e> auum::>::rl
.:Pd..::aha:.-.:.:.,.........:«::.::::<::<.:.}:.;:::::::.:.
W. c v ::>: oun .; -w su ::::rre: :.: e;:: z s uah a W exted:
feeb ><>><:Sued..:...::>.........: .........:.:._... Vit: A> e
:. ca.........If.:.,tie.»<�:
R3
-teen-struet a-paved-estl-de-sae at t-,e-Pnd of Eia_ly ^rive
by Gff-e-r of Bedieaion,the earrespending right e€-way
C. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and
conveyed in a concentrated manner, from draining across
driveways.
D. Mitigate the impact of the additional storm water run-off
from this development on San Ramon Creek by:
1) Removing 1 cubic yard of channel excavation materi-
al from the inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek
near Chaney Road for each 50 square feet of new
impervious surface area created by the development.
All excavated material shall be disposed of off-
site by the developer at his cost. The site selec-
tion, land rights, and construction staking will be
by the Flood Control District. OR. . .
2) Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash
payment in lieu of actual excavation and removal of
material from San Ramon Creek. The cash payment
will be calculated at the rate of $0. 10 per square
foot of new impervious surface area created the
development. The added impervious surface area
created by the development will be based on the
Flood Control District's standard impervious sur-
face area ordinance. The Flood Control District
will use these funds to work on San Ramon Creek
annually.
E. Mitigate the impact of the additional storm water run-off
from this development on Miranda Creek by making a cash
payment to the County Deficiency Trust Fund. The cash
payment will be calculated at the 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
8.
District's standard impervious surface area ordinance.
The Flood Control District will use these funds to work
on the Creeks annually. This contribution is in addition
to the San Ramon Creek contribution (Fund No. 412100-
80.0) .
F. Annex the property to Drainage . Area 76A, which is a
benefit assessment district to collect annual funds to
maintain detention basins located within the drainage
area. The request should include the. metes .and bounds of
the property. The development must be annexed to
Drainage Area 76A prior to the filing of the Final Map.
Tri--Premia`i d e f e r at least Ste` e r,-site
fer eaeh let shall be-£e -
aeeess e:ase*n ..+ s. _ than ewe-gaest paiG}"zingspae.,�—slnal
be previded where appr-eprialte
h ea d—t =ELi�� _ � ..
G. Establish a maintenance agreement 'to ensure the mainte-
nance of the private road.
H. Obliterate the e};isting driveway on Lots 6 and 7 . Access
to these lots shall be taken off the proposed private
road.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee
Ordinance, which requires a $2,000 park dedication fee for
each lot.
B. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District.
D. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Depart-
ment, -Environmental Health Division.
E. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection
Department. Building permits are required prior to the
construction of most structures.
F. The applicant will be required to pay a $1,250 review fee for
the Department of Fish & Game at the end of the appeal period.
9 .
G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the
Department of Fish & Game. The applicant should notify the
Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville, California
94599, of any proposed construction within the development
that may affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish
and Game Code.
H. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the
United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant should
notify the appropriate district of the Corps of Engineers to
determine if a permit is required.
I. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements
of the Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of
Benefit as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
J. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as
designated on the Federal Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The
applicant should be aware of the requirements of the Federal
Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-118) as they pertain to future
construction of any structures on this property.
>-: :o .` :pY.aject s....u,°b sett r.:>::'P a:Fo. tanned - o.
ns:Zsterit:;;:<::>;: :o ::;:..:<. onf;igL atn.::::.;; hrou:: oi <::.:>te.
:...: ..:. ..... v.....
• /J� <::<:::>::Car:e:fu<� ':»>moans:3:d:erat<�:�ar:�::::>shau:..:d::<:::be::>o�zren>:-::t:c:::C'.e:th�<n��:n :::>:::t::e
�curr�nt-�ocats�fln of the::;>lot lies:1n th_..::.v:�.:c3°pity;>�f;I,;o�s.
•-:::::.�.:^�::::::::-:w:.:;.:�:::.:_:::::4:�!:-i:.. ...........:.i:i.::.ri}::?iC<.......:.--:.:�.....::v w::::.._:..:::_:.::-..::.+.::.::.—`:.:•c.:v....x:::iM::=.i--_-;:n}i:rvC}:!'!:r.::,:y..ivi?ii:::::-:�.:::}:.:...i:4i}:x:::.v::::..,
:vrs::;>:o�.
fi'J:;':;c-:;`._':_>:;:i':s:;:;:-;:::i'::::::�>:::;::::::::::::S;::ii;'>;:�:i:::.::;::;::t>:::::;.:::>::::;:::::::`::�:�i;a;>:..:::::ii::.i:�;:.:-:::: :-:-::c-::-;::..::,..:..r:::-::::::i::'::�:::::::::;'.::;:;-=;r':5i_'::;::ii:r>:......:::.::.��->::.>::-::a;:•:-::a:::<.:...;.:;:;
;:::_::..:.. ::>riade:<:::�::�;>>the°< a:•:..:�::: > •::::::<:��:; :
MIA.
..................
.:::... ....:...........:......:::..:..... s:......-...........-
CW/aa
SUBIX/7693C.CW
5/6/92
5/18/92 - Z.A. Rev. (v) '
7/06/92 - Z.A. Rev. (v)
7/10/92 - BT (a)
8/14/92 - BT
9116/92 - SR (a)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPROVED PERMIT
APPLICANT: DeBolt Civil Engineering APPLICATION NO. SUB 7693
811 San.Ramon Valley Boulevard
Danville, CA 94526 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 193-070-008 & 013
OWNER: Kenneth & Beverly Gingrich ZONING DISTRICT: R-20
P. 0. Box 504
Alamo, CA 94507 VESTING DATE: September 28, 1991
APPROVAL DATE: November 24, 1992
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24, 1992
This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a major subdivision, subject
the attached conditions shown as Exhibit "A".
HARVEI' E. BRAGDON, Director
CommunitN Development Department
By: l
Mar}' Flemi g - Chief, Land evelopment
PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE, and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notificati,
will be sent by this office. The Clerk of the Board will provide you a copy of the Board Order with approv
Conditions of Approval. Unless otherwise provided, you have 36 months from the approval date to file t
PARCEL MAP.
X
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 7693
1. The request to subdivide the 4.99 acre property is approved for a maximum of nine (9)
lots subject to the Revised Tentative Map dated received by the Community
Development Department on June 22, 1992.
A. Prior to filing the final map, an additional revised tentative map shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator providing for at
least four (4) guest parking spaces in an expanded hammerhead turnaround
together with adjusted boundaries on Lots 6,7 and 8 as indicated on the staff
recommendation for a revised tentative map dated July 6, 1992. A 25 foot
setback shall be provided along the north boundary of Subdivision 7693 at Lots
1 ,7, 8 and 9 for primary residential structures.
5�� Prior to issuance of building permits for primary residential structures on Lots
1 7 8 and 9plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning
Administrator providing for a 25-foot, setback from the north boundary.
'
Consideration shall be given to minimize decking, windows and doors on the
A 4V1-
north side of the buildings for those lots.
2. The zoning variance for average minimum lot �vldth for Lot #1 and Lot #3 is approved
as requested; they meet the requirements of Section 26-2.226 of the County
Ordinance Code. There shall be no lot size %,ari,=nces approved with this subdivision.
Lot #1 - 120 feet required by Zoning 0,,dmance.
1 12 feet approved..
Lot #3 - 120 feet required by Zoning C-�:inance.
97 feet approved.
Thirty (30) days prior to recording the final map or obtaining a grading permit, the
applicant shall submit a hydrology study, su^stantiating the creek setback line, to
P 9
Flood Control and the Zoning Administrator, to. review and approval.
If, adjustment of the creek setback boundary r=_ults in a lot with a net square footage
(excluding setback, rearyard, sideyard and creek setback areas) of less than 8,000
square feet then that lot shall beieliminated and the total number of lots in the
subdivision shall be reduced.
Rz j ;35�
r
5. No structures, including fences and swimming pools, shall be allowed to be built
beyond the creek structure setback line.
6.. Comply with the following tree planting/tree preservation requirements:
A. At least 30 days prior to issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map,
submit a grading/tree preservation plan shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall identify all trees, including
the walnut trees, with a trunk circumference of 30 inches or more, 4'/2 feet
above the ground. The trunk size, species and approximately drip line of each
qualifying tree shall be identified on the plan, and whether the tree is proposed
to be removed or preserved.
The objective of the review in part shall be to minimize the removal of existing
mature trees.
B. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist, to be
reviewed and -approved by the Zoning Administrator, on the proposed plan
recommending measures to protect trees as appropriate during the construction
and post-construction stages and preserve walnut trees located on Lots 1 , 2,
3, 4, and 9 (if possible).
I The arborist's report shall. also include a tree replanting program which
illustrates the exact location and. species of proposed replacement trees.
Replacement trees shall be.at least 15 gallons in size. Each tree to be removed
on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be replaced by two 15 gallon drought resistant
trees, native to the area, to be recommended by a certified-arborist. Replace-
ment trees on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be situated in order to maintain the
residents of the proposed lots. All of the trees along the northeastern property
p line, except for those located within the proposed cul-de-sac, shall be
preserved. The recommended measures from the arborist shall be integrated
into or otherwise attached to the proposed grading plan.
C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map, the applicant shall
I either inform the Zoning Administrator that the approved tree replacement
program has been completed and is re'sd�, for verification by staff, or provide
assurance that funding exists to ln :Diement the tree planting program.
Assurance shall be provided through a ;financial mechanism acceptable to the
Zoning Administrator (e.g., bond, letter of credit, or deposit).
7. Should archaeological material be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site
excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a
professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology
(SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity
to evaluate the significance of the find and sueoest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed
necessary.
8. Comply with the following construction, noise, dust and litter control requirements:
A. Noise generating construction activities, including such things as power
generators, shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday, and shall be prohibited on State and Federal holidays. The
restrictions on allowed working days may be modified on prior written approval
by the Zoning Administrator.
B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all
internal combustion engines with mufflers vrhich are in good condition and shall
2
locate stationary noise-generating equipment such as air compressors and
concrete pumpers as far away from existing residences as possible.
C. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post
the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior
boundary of the project site notice that construction work will commence. The
notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number
and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall
be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of
persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area
of responsibility. The names of the individual responsible for noise and litter
control shall be expressly identified in the notice. The notice shall be reissued
with each phase of major grading activity.
A copy of the notice shall be concurrently transmitted to the community
Development Department. The notice shall be accompanied by a list of the
names and addresses of the property owners noticed, and a map identifying the
area noticed.
D. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Any violation of the approved program or
applicable ordinances shall require an immediate work stoppage. Construction
v✓ork shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate
construction bond has been posted.
E. The applicant shall make a good-faith e;;:ort to avoid interference with existing
neighborhood traffic flows. Prior to issu- nce of building permits, the proposed
roads serving this development shall bez constructed to provide access to each
lot. This shall include provision for an on-site area in which to park earth
moving equipment.
9. The recommendations of the Terrasearch, Inc. geotechnical report shall be carefully
followed and incorporated into the plan and s_-cifications.
10. The following requirements pertaining to drainage, road, and utility improvements will
require the review and approval of the Public Works Department:
A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this
subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance
(Title 9). Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this
conditional approval statement. ConformaInce with the Ordinance includes the
following requirements:
1 ) Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of the proposed private
road.
2) Undergrounding of all utility distribution facilities.
3
;
3) Conveying all storm waters entering or originating within the subject
property, without diversion and within an adequate storm drainage
facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed. and. banks or to
an existing adequate public storm drainage facility which conveys the
storm waters to a natural watercourse.
4) Designing and constructing storm drainage facilities required by the
Ordinance in compliance with specifications outlined in Division 914 of
the.Ordinance and in compliance with design standards of the Pubic
Works Department.
5) Installing, within a dedicated drainage easement, any portion of the
drainage system which conveys run-off from public streets.
6) Relinquishing "development rights" over that porion of the site that is
within the structure setback area of Miranda Creek. The structure area
shall be determined by using the criteria outlined in Chapter 914-14,
i "Rights of Way and Setbacks", of the Subdivision Ordinance.
7) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, andsecurity for all improve-'
ments required by the Ordinance code or the conditions of approval f r
this subdivision.
8) Submitting a Final Map prep�:red by a registered civil engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
E. Construct a 20-foot paved private roadway to County private road standards,
within a 30-foot easement, to serve all parcels in this proposed subdivision.
C. Construct a paved cul-de-sac at the end of Likely Drive to County public road
standards and convey to the County, by Offer of Dedication, the corresponding
right of way.
D. Prevent storm drainage, originating on the property and conveyed in a
concentrated manner, from draining across driveways.
E. Mitigate the impact of the additional storm water run-off from this development
on San Ramon Creek by:
1} Removing 1 cubic yard of channel excavation material from the
inadequate portion of San Ramon Creek near Chaney Road for each 5C
square feet of new impervious surface area created by the development.
All excavated material shall be disposed of off-site by the developer al
his cost. The site selection, land rights, and construction staking will bE
by the Flood Control District. OR...
4
2) Upon written request, the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of
actual excavation and removal of material from San Ramon Creek. The
cash payment will be calculated at the rate of $0.10 per square foot of
new impervious surface area created 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.
F. Mitigate the impact of the additional storm water run-off from this development
on Miranda Creek by making a cash payment to the County Deficiency Trust
Fund. The cash payment will be calculated at the 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 the Creeks annually. This
contribution is in addition to the San Ramon Creek contribution (Fund No.
812100-800).
G. Annex the property to Drainage Area 76A, which is a benefit assessment
district to collect annual funds to maintain detention basins located within the
drainage area. The request should include the metes and bounds of the
property. The development must be annexed to Drainage Area 76A prior to the
filing of the Final Map.
` H. rovide for at least six on-site parking sraces per lot to be located outside the
\ rivate road easement extending from _ikely Drive. At least one (1) of the six
\ paces for each lot shall be for guns: parking contiguous to the access
easement. More than one guest perking space shall be provided where
appropriate particularly at the hammer- Dead turnaround.
I. Establish a maintenance agreement to _nsure the maintenance of the private
road.
J. Obliterate the existing driveway on Lots v and 7. Access to these lots shall be
taken off the proposed private road.
ADVISORY N0 i S
A. The applicant shall comply with the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance, which requires a
$2,000 park dedication fee for each lot.
B. Comply with the requirements of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
5
D. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department, Environmental
i
Health Division.
E: Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits .
are required prior to the construction of most structures.
F. The applicant will be required to pay a $1,250 review fee for the Department of Fish
& Game at the end of the appeal period.
G. This project may be subject to the requirements of the Department of Fish & Game.
The applicant should notify the Department of Fish & Game, P.O. Box 47, Yountville,
California 94599, of any proposed construction within the development that may
affect and fish and wildlife resources, per the Fish and Game Code.
H. This project may also be subject to the requirements of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers. The applicant should notify the appropriate district of the Corps of
Engineers to determine if a permit is required.-
1. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Alamo Area of Benefit as adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
J. The project lies within the 100-year flood boundary as designated on the Federal
Emergency Flood Rate Maps. The applicant should be aware of.the requirements of
the Federal Flood Insurance Program and the County Flood Plain Management
Ordinance (Ordinance No. 90-118) as they perialn to future construction of any
structures on this property.
CW/aa
SUBIX/7693C.Cw
5/6/92
5/18/92 - Z.A. Rev. (v)
7/06/92 - Z.A. Rev. (v)
7/10/92 - BT (a)
8/14/92 - BT
9/16/92 - SR (a)
11/24/92 - BO (c)
6
1�
SAN TRAMON vALLIEY FIRE PROTECJ-10N '®ISco
r.
PROJECT NAME Kenneth &Beverly Gingrich # • 3 -
FP
ADDRESS 2910Miranda Ave. , Alamo,":
OCCUPANCY CLASS . ' I2--3 '`� �= ��' ' DESCRIPTION• Sind!;. 1y? hae 1 ng
rr :,
'`-'.'�:Y`. .c:x.. ;::::.:.:, :s;rr.�u. cl,-• .. ter-.l'�:.'l.. --- — -• - 'I. (�`): ..
� DESCRIPTION wood Frame
CONSTRUCTION '-TYPE '-
.V-:ti.:.=�
CHECK ONE: .NEW CONST TENANT IMPX PLANNING APPLICATIO]
-r� - ADDN = - APES ': FIRE ALARM OTHER
-'BLDG/PLAN•AGENCY "Contra"Costa County ' APNtt --193-070-008-013
-:- AGENCY TR 7693
:- APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES UFC UBC CBC SRVFPD Ord.
ADD'L:-INFO: BLDGAREA` '- ; :, FLR AREA - tr OF FLRS
'' SPECIAL FEES S'.ATER ACCESS
EBI
:x.._. -- OTHER
- i;.;:•= ACCESS .GATES LOCH BOX
RI;VaIEi;'ED BY '=:'.'Don Newman DAT 9/11/91
�-FIRE DISTRICT COt�iMENTS: -
-Rose Marie Pietras
Community Development Dept.
County of.-Contra Costa _
1. Fire` hydrant(s ) are required. ALi =ants must -be--EBtlUD-
standard steamer type ( 1-41:" and 1 outlet ) . ( UFC, 1988
Sec. 10 . 301c, S . P._V.F.P. D. Ord . -'13 )
2. NOTE ON FIELD PLAN: Identify the f_-? h,,drant locations
by installing reflective "blue dot" -==.vers adjacent to
the—Hydrant 6 inches off center fre-. middle of the street.
(UFC, 1988 , Sec . 10 . 301 (d) )
3_ Fire apparatus roadways must extend within 150 ft. of
the most remote first floor exterior 11 of any building .
'(UFC, 1988 , Sec. 10. 207b)
4 . Fire apparatus roadways must have a r- nimum unobstructed
width of 20 feet_ Streets under 36 feet shall be posted j
with signs and red curbs painted wit`' labels on one side 1
and under 28 feet on both sides of the street as follows :
"NO STOPPING FIRE LANE - CVC 22500. 1" . (UFC, 1988 , Sec.
10. 207c)
5_ Fire apparatus roadways must be cap.:_- of supporting the
imposed weight of fire apparatus and -_,st be provided with
an all weather driving surface. Only "ed surfaces are
considered to be all weather driving surfaces . (UFC, 1988 ,
Sec. 10 . 207f )
6 . The maximum grade for a fire apparatus roadway is 20% .
a. Grooved concrete or rough asphalt o%er 15% grade .
(S.R.V.F.P.D. Ord. f13 , Sec. 10 . 207j)
(over )
1YSD 7693/Gingrich
f `;'= 'Page 2)
,9. .•il.si .
Plans are acceptable contingent upon compliance with the
.above listed comments.
Don L.= Newman Fire Inspector
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
838-6687
Plan Review Fee: $30.00 THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. PAYMENT
OF THIS FEE TO THE SAN RA.MON VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT.
`�:` PAYMENT SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS. .
I
I
i
t
y .
40.
M
IB
r
Professional Corporation
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
KENNETH M.A4rLLER
kmiller@mmblaw.com
November 8, 1999
RECEIVED
Board of Supervisors NOV - 9 1999
County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Martinez, CA 94553 CONTRACosTACO.
APPEAL OF ADvM\qSTRATI-\TE DECISION
RE: Response to Proposed Relocation of On-Street Parking
Wingset Place Turnaround, Subdivision 7693, Alamo
County File No. Z1998206
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a letter dated July 28, 1999, directed to Mr. Thomas Gingrich from
Candida jti'ensley, Planner, for the County of Contra Costa. That letter succinctly sets
forth what we believe to have been the standard necessary for approval of modification
of the parking space requirements. By letter dated October 11, 1999, directed to Eugene
DeBolt,Robert Drake, Principal Planner acting as Zoning Administrator, approved the
attached parking relocation plan.
David and Krista Ciapponi (5 Wingset Place, P. 0. Box 936, Alamo, California)
are the owners of Lot 7 of Tract 7693, and John and Iviaureen Yandell (1 Wingset Place,
Alamo, California). We believe that a change in the parking configuration will result in
smaller parking spaces than originally required and a change in location creating
significant safety risks. The change in the location of on-street parking may also create
fire safety access issues.
As the owner of Lot 7, the Ciapponis must back up their driveway which is 12
feet wide and proceed to the portion of Win-set impacted by the change of parking spot
number four. V%Thile backing up their vision is limited. At that point they turn their
vehicle to proceed out of the subdivision. The Ciapponis own a boat which is on a
trailer maintained on their property. When backing up the hill it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, to maneuver between parking spots three and four to make a
safe turnaround. There is no lighting on Wingset. During conditions when it is dark,
wet, or foggy, the reconfiguration of parking on the hammerhead will further result in
maneuvering areas which are not appropriate. In general, the County zoning
requirements for parking require locations that insure an efficient and safe traffic flow.
0
( '�1L1 i � �✓a
mr
Board of Supervisors
November 8, 1999
Page 2
The sizing of the substituted parking spaces is substandard. In general terms
parking stall widths are required to be 9 feet. Curb length is from 19 to 23 feet. The
proposed parking are all 8 feet wide with parking spots three and four being only 19
feet in length. (See letter dated January 27, 1999 from Bob Drake to San Ramon Valley
Fire Protection District and Public Works Department.)
A visit to the site will be the best example of how the change will adversely affect
both the Yandell and Ciapponi properties. The parking adjacent to Lot 4 and the terrain
adjoining the other parking spots will result in the cars utilizing more than the 8 foot
width in order to open car doors without hitting the side yards on the adjoining
property.
We request an opportunity to be heard and present our clients' objections to this
relocation of on-street parking.
Very truly Fours,
MORGAN '_N ffL ER 8: BLAIR
Z
KEITETH 2INs. 1viILLER
I:NOM/d'
Enclosures
Verifications
Appel/60S 110699
Nov 08 '99 05:13Pr RGAN
1 VERIFI -AT ON
2
3 The undersigned declares:
4 That we are the Appellants in this matter, have read the foregoing APPEAL
5 OF ADIvLNISTRATIVE DECISION and know the contents thereof; that we are
6 informed and believe that the matters stated therein are true and on that ground
7 allege that the matters stated therein are true.
8 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
9 that the foregoing is true and correct. I99 9
10
Executed on November � , at Alamo, California.
12
LD
�.Olfi?� Y-,N- EL
14 I �
15 l
16
M.-, ,R-�E=N Y.M\TDE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 .
27
MORGAN 78
MILLER
Q BLAIR
PR0f W0N41- 1
COKFOKAT40"
1 VERIFICATION
2
3 The undersigned declares:
4 That we are the Appellants in this matter, have read the foregoing APPEAL
5 OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION and }mow the contents thereof; that we are
6 informed and believe that the matters stated therein are true and on that ground
7 allege that the matters stated therein are true.
8 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
9 that the foregoing is true and correct.
10 Executed on November�� ' 'a't Alamo, California.
11
12
13
D. 71D CIA ON
14 _
' 15
16 �~
KRIS CIAPPONI
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
MORGAN 28
MILLER
A,BLAIR
r¢vtrssart,u_ 1
COGYMATnon
AICP
Community Dennis Barry,
Contra Community Development Director
Development Costa
,Department _..
County «:
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street NOV - 9 1999
4th Floor, North Wing -L
Martinez,California 94553-0095 Yui.� =h.
OLERr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
335-1210 �- corira>+cosYAco.
Phone: k - =_
July 28, 1998
' hornas ri ich
P. O. Box 504
Alamo, CA 94507
Dear Mr. Gingrich:
After numerous site visits and discussions between deDartments, the County has concluded
that Conditions of Approval 10.H. and 10.J. of SUb 7,•693 have not been met.
Condition 10.H. requires that at least sig: on-site parking spaces per lot be provided. (See
attached conditions.) Based on a number of site vi-sits, staff concludes that Lot 6 does not
have the six parking spaces required. Condition 10.J. requires that the original drivewa}, on
Lots 6 and 7 be obliterated. Gravel and the original retaining Lyall for the old driveway are
still present on Lot 7. Both the gravel and the retaining wall need to be removed in order to
meet this condition. In order for you to meet this condition you will need to obtain
permission from Mr. Ciappoini to do this work on his property. If permission is not granted,
the County will conclude that Condition 10.J. has been met_
The County understands that currently you have no legal access to Lot 6. In order to remedy
this situation, you are proposing t, At T-_cordt_d inap. There ai Pro vt_i:�i:i _' . •.
Article 7 of the Government Code for amending and correcting maps. (See at,aciica.)
However, none of the provisions in the cc-de apply to the modifications you are requesting.
Because there is no ordinance adopted by&e County that allows for administrative approval
of amendments, the only way to modify your map under the Subdivision Map Act is to apply
for modification of the final map and schedule it for public hearing before the Zoning
Administrator. Prior to hearing the project be referred to the Alamo Improvement
Association for comment.
Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1st, 3rd & 51h Fridays of each month
2.
Please be aware that the County cannot even consider relocation of the four guest parking
jspaces at the top of the hammerhead, without the agreement of all the parties involved in the
private road agreement. Finally, before the project goes back to hearing regarding the
easement question, the conditions of approval must be met.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me.
Sincerely,
CANDID.Al ` TNSLEY 6 �r uo
Planner Vn t
CW/aa
LT2/Lot.CNV
IL
the document shall transmit�Aopy of the document, including all r'Arding information, to the
county surveyor, who shall maintain an index, by geographic location, of the documents.
ision The county surveyor may charge a fee not to exceed the fee charged for recording the
runty ' document, for purposes of financing the costs of maintaining the index of the documents.
The requirements of this subdivision shall not apply to any county which requires a
document filed pursuant to this section to be transmitted to the county surveyor and
requires that official to maintain an index of those documents.
:Ord [Amended, Chapter 350, Statutes of 199 1]
-f the 66467. Final or parcel map may be filed even though not re-
sting quired
jeing This chapter shall not prevent filing in the office of the county recorder of a.final or
i the parcel map of a subdivision for which a final or parcel map is not required, provided.such
map meets the requirements of this division and any local ordinance.
:ntity
:tion 66468. Filing by recorder determines the validity-.of map
f the ; The filing for record of a final or -parcel map by the county recorder shall
:Sion f automatically and finally determine the validity of such map and when recorded shall.
10 bf I impart constructive no*tice-thereof.
time I
-elief - 1 66468.1 . County recorder shall complete cross-references when
1 separate documents are recorded with final or parcel
maps
Whenever separate documents are to be recorded concurrently with the final or
re. parcel map pursuant to Section 66435.1 or 66445,.the county recorder shall complete the
1 cross-reference to such concurrently recorded separate documents.
h to [Added, Chapter 87, Statutes of 1982]
urt I 66468.2. Assignment of clerk's duties
city The board of supervisors may, by resolution, authorize any county officer to:
the (a) Perform the duties required of the clerk of the board of supervisors under
efor, i this article.
:lerk (b) Approve the security for payment of taxes required pursuant to subdivision
ody. (b) of Section 66464 if that county officer also performs the otherduties required of the
jular clerk of the board of supervisors under that subdivision.
ifter, [Amended, Chapter 1001, Statutes of 19901
cider
leen
or;or Article 7. Correction and Amendment of Maps
flew 66469. Amendments permi..sible with certificate of correction
or amending snap
!l be After a final.map or parcel, is filed in the office of the county recorder,"it may be
sion amended by a certificate of correction or an amending map 'for any of the following
•t for purposes:
:her: (a) To correct an error in any.gqurse or distance shown thereon;
its (b) To show'any course or distance that was omitted therefrom.
(c) To correct an error in the description of the real property shown on the map. .
2 of (d) - To indicate monum' eats set-after the -death, disability, retirement frorr
practice,-or replacement of the engineer or suweyor charged with responsibilities fog
tion. setting monuments. _
are (e) To show the proper location or character of any mono_ which has beer
• changed in location or character originally was shovm at the wrong to ation or incorrectl!
s of as to its character.
the (f) To correct any additional information filed or recorded pursuant to Sectio,
sion 66434.2, if the correction does not impose any additional burden on the present fee owne
the
l of the ro ps not alter any right, title, orwest in the real properti e,'lei
-one recocdeL . ?
.J
g) To correct any other type of map error or omission as approved by
county surveyor or city engineer, which does not affect any property right. Such er
It and omissions may include, but are not limited to, lot numbers, acreage, street nan
and identification of adjacent record maps.
As used in this section, "error" does not include changes in courses or distar
from which an error is not ascertainable from the data shown on the final or parcel map.
' 1 tAmended, Chapter 894, Statutes of 1996]
66470. Preparation and requirements for amending map
certificate of correction; county surveyor to maint
1 s, index
The amending map or certificate of correction shall be prepared and signed t
1 ! registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor. An amending map shall conform to
' requirements of Section 66434, if a final map, or subdivisions (a) to (d), inclusive, an,
7 to (i), inclusive, of Section 66445, if a parcel map. The amending map or certificat
correction shall set forth in detail the corrections made and show the names of the pre:
3 f fee owners of the property affected by the correction or omission. Upon recordation
certificate of correction, the county recorder shall within 60 days of recording transrr
certified copy to the county surveyor or county engineer who shall maintain an Inde
i �
recorded certificates of correction.
The county recorder may charge a fee, in addition to the fee-charged for recon
' the certificate of correction, which shall be transmitted to the. county surveyor or
county engineer, as compensation for the cost of maintaining an index of recor
certificates of correction. The amount of this additional fee shall not exceed the fee wi
i is charged for recording the certificate of core ection.
f If the property affected by a map is to:aced within a city, the county recorder sl
upon request of the city engineer, provide cedes of recorded eertificates of correctie
the city engineer.
[Amended, Chapter c; Statutes of 19931
f,s
66471. Examination of amending map or certificate
i correction by county surveyor or city engineer
(a) if the subdivision is in unincoT- rated territory, the county surveyors
examine the amending map or certificate of correction and if the only changes made
those set forth in Section 66469, he or she shall certify to this fact on the amending r
i l or certificate .of correction_ If the subdivision is in the city, such examination
certification shall be by the city.surveyor ord'of engineer.
(b) As to a certificate of correction, the county surv.eyor,.city surveyor, or
engineer shall have 20 working days in which to examine the certircaa > of eorrectior.
compliance with '--at ccs-66469 arid-66470, endorse a staterc�er�t ��t t'c of his or
examination and certification, and present it to the county recorder for recordation. In
event the sub mitted-certificate of correction fails to comply with Sections 66469
66470, the county suiveyor,,city surveyor, or 6ty engineer shall return it within the s<
20 working days to the person who presented it, together with a written statement of
changes necessary to make it conform to the requirements.of Sections 66469 to 66,
The licensed land surveyor or:`registered_civil engineer submitting the certificate
correction may then make the changes in compliance with Sections 66469 and 66470
Y resubmit the certificate-of correction to the county surveyor, city surveyor, or
engineer for royal. The coon surveyor, G� surveyor, or city en ineer shall have
9 PP tY Y , Y ty 9
'
working days after resubmission and approval, of the certificate of correction to prese
-to the county recorder for recordation. .
(Amended, Chapter 63=, Statutes of 199
�d ;•� ' 66472 t' _ g of amending map o c �'icate of correction
The amending map or certificate of correction certified by the county surveyor, city
the surveyor, or city engineer shall be filed or recorded in the office of the county recorder in
rdrs which the original map was filed. Upon such filing or recordation, the county recorder shall
}es, - index the names of the fee owners and the appropriate tract designation shown on the
amending map or certificate of correction in the general index and map index respectively.
ces Thereupon, the original map shall be deemed to have been conclusively so corrected, and
thereafter shall impart constructive notice of all such corrections in the same manner as
i though set forth upon the odginal-map.
tnd ; [Amended, Chapter 634, Statutes of 1992]
ain 66472.1. Amending of final maps
In addition to the amendments authorized by Section 66469, after a final map or
-the ` parcel map is filed in the office of the county recorder, such a recorded final map may be
i modified by a certificate of correction or an amending map, if authorized by local
i M ordinance, if the local agency finds that there are changes in circumstances which make
of any or all of the conditions of such a map no longer appropriate or necessary and that the
;ent modifications do not impose any additional burden on the present fee owner of the
M a property, and if cr.a modifications do not ester any right, title, or intemst::: t'P.e real property
'ft a reflected on'the recorded map, and the local agency finds that the map as modified
< of conforms to the provisions of Section 66474. Any such modification shall be set for public
hearing as provided for in Section 66451.3 of this division. The legislative body shall
ling confine the hearing to consideration of and action on the proposed modification.
the [Added, Chapter 1184, Statutes of 1981]
Jed
rich
Mall, Chapter 4. Requirements.
I to
Article 1 . Genera[
66473. Disapproval of final map for failure to meet require.
�f ments or conditions
f� local agency shall disapprove a map for failure tomeet or perform any of the
aa.11 requirements or conditions imposed by this division or.local ordinance enacted pursuan,
.are thereto; provided that a final map shall be disapproved only for failure to meet or perfor
zap requirements or conditions which were applicable to the subdivision at the time of approves
and of the tentative map; and provided further that such disapproval shall be accompanied b)
a findingadentifying the requirements or conditions which have not been met or performed
='rtY -Such local ordinance shall include, but need not be limited to, a procedure for waiver of.the
dor orcvic . s of this sect;on when the failure of the mai is t`,e res+:i of a .technical an(
her inadV U.L It errur which,- in the determination -of the aif_-,,�,y,.does not materiall,
the affect the validity of the map.
and [Amended, Chapter 21, Statutes of 1976] :
me
the 66473.1. Design of .subdivision to provide for future passive o
70. . natural heating or cooling opportunities
of .The design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required pursuant t
znd Section 66426 shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating c
=zty cooling opportunities in the subdivision.
_10 Examples of"passive or natural heating opportunities in subdivision design, incluc
it it design of lot.size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure in an east-we
alignment for southern exposure. _ =
Examples of passive or natural cooling opportunities in subdivision design inc
luc
design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure to take advantac_
of shade or prevailing breezes.
. J
10/28/99 'TU 15:24 FAX 313 2333 CCC PUBLIC WORKS t',D2i®003
communitY •.{ Contra Dennis K Ba*ry,AIC P
Development C°mmttrvcy 0e"al0pmerx dircclo,
::Department Costa REDElt F�D
County Administration Suilding County
651 Pine Street - NQV - 91999
4th Floor,North Wing - ,F
Martinez,Callfornla 94653-0095
(925 335-1ZI4 CLERK CoNTRACO TACO.OF ISORS
Phone: �..
January 27, 1999
TO: Inspector Mike Mintink, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
Joseph Dimaggio, Public Works Department, Contra Costa County
Dear Gentlemen:
Re_ proposed Modification of On-Street Pnrking SpAcss
Subdivision 7693, Wingset Place, A]smo
County File#ZI998206
The captioned subdivision application was approved by the County several years ago, subject to a
requirement to provide four on-street parking spaces. Follov,.4ng the tentative map approvzl, the
applicant proposed four parallel par1�ng spaces at the end of a cul-de-sac turnaround.
The spaces were approved by this Department and the find :.ap allowed to record.
It is now apparent to all that the four spam block access to :ne of the lots within the subdivision.
Recently,the applicant has proposed that one of the parking spew be.relocated to other side of
the street.' The request is subject to the review and approv?2 of the Zoning Administmtor.
It appears that the relocation may interfere with necesszry rirn round area. However, before
proceeding with this request; we would like to have your respective agencys' comments relative
to the appropriateness of the proposed relocation. If there is any additional information which
you would find helpful, please tell me what it would be. ti'r'e wb ild appreciate it if you could
respond by February 8, 1999_
Extra Width for Space
The County parldng ordinance specifies that parking spaces are 9 feet in width-, not 8 feet as
indicated on the applicant's proposal. Please consider the c5-e,_-_s of 9-foot wide stalls rather than
9-foot wide stalls in your rcvicw.
Public Works may charge their time to the file number lister a_ove.
Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a_rri-i00 p.m.
Otf'ice is st, 3rd b 51h Fridays of ea,:h rnonlh
Should you have any questions, please cats me at(925)355-1214.
14
Sincerely,
ROBERT H DRAKE
i Principal Planner
1 Am Site pian.
cc; Gene DeBolt, DeBoh Civil Engincedrtg
I Fie
II
f c;twpdocUi998206.ltr
Vzx
I
i
1
I
I
I
I
1
i
OCT 2e '99 15 : 24 925 313 2333 PRGS-oe4
` CormmunityContra Dennis M.Barry,AICP
Community Development Director
development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building
E SE
651 Pine Street .. L
�.
4th Floor, North Wing ' '
Martinez, California 94553-0095 NOV ' 9 1999
Phone: ','
(925) 335-1214 ��.�� `�". CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CONTRA
October
•rT�TI
coir
October 11, 1999
Eugene DeBolt
DeBolt Civil Engineering
811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Dam ille, CA 94526
Dear Mr. DeBolt:
Re: Response to Proposed Relocation of On-Street Parting
Wing Set Place Turnaround, SUB 7693, Alamo
Count. File #ZI998206
Tlus is a follow-up to your modified submittal following our initial letter of February 25, 1999 in
response to your proposal to relocate one of tite four on-str�:: parking spaces within the
turnaround of V?Iing Set Place. Presently, the four spaces are situated in a manner that would
block access to one of the lots "Iithin your subdivision. You- request is intended to assure access
to Lot 6.
The approval of the tentative map for SubdiVrision 7693 aLl holized the Zoning Administrator to
review and approve the design of the required four on-street parking spaces to be placed "within
the turnaround area of this subdivision. The existing parking spaces are not delineated on the
Final Map for this subdivision, therefore a modification Nvould not require an amendment to the
Final Map for this project.
As you will recall, in our initial letter, we noted that the Fire Protection District had expressed
concerns with the proposed reconfiguration, which had contributed to our decision to reject the
proposal..
Subsequent to that date, you provided staff with additional documentation supporting the
proposed dimensions of the relocated parking space. We also %were informed by Inspector
Mentink of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District that on further review, the District had
withdrawn its prior objection to the proposal. The District is now satisfied that the proposed
relocation of the parking space would not significantly affect the ability of District vehicles to
maneuver within the subdivision- nor create significant safer!risks in the area.
Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a-m_-5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
I
Based on these factors, in my capacity as Deputy Zoning Administrator, this is to inform you that
the attached parking relocation plan is approved. Your November 18, 1998 letter indicates that
you are prepared to reflet the change on the improvement plan as an as-built modification. Please
make the change to the improvement plan and submit copies of it to this Department, the Fire
Protection District, and the Public Works Department.
We also encourage you to notify the owners and residents within the subdivision of this change
when it is implemented.
Opportunity for Appeal of Administrative Decision by Interested Parties
The attorney for one of the residents within the subdivision (Ciapponi) is interested in the County
review of this proposal and asked to be informed of this decision in the event that they wished to
file an appeal. By copy of this letter, we are informing that pan),of this decision.
�
' it This adrrurustrattve decision may be appealed by any interested p:.m directly y 5 to the Board of
Supervisors. To be valid, the notice of appeal must be-
• In writing, and concisely specify the facts of the case and the grounds for the appeal
j including the appellant's special interest and injury;
• Verified by signature under penalty of perjury that it i5 ti-.:: and correct, and
• Accompanied by a fee of 5125 and filed with the Clerk ei the Board, 651 Pine Street,
Martinez by November 10, 1999.
(Ref. Ord. Code Chapter 14-4 of Title 1)
Should you have any questions, please call me at (925) 335-1 , 4-
Sincerely--
ROBERT H. DRAKE
Principal Planner
Att. Approved On-Street Parking Relocation Plan
-2-
CC' Tom Gingrich
Kenneth M. Miller, Morgan, Miller & Blair
Clerk of the Board
Inspector Mentink, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
Public Works Department, Engineering Services Div.
File .
c_\wpdoc\998206-c.1tr
RD\
-3-
DeBO1t Civil Engineering
November 18, 1998 811 San Ramon Valley Boulevard
Job No. 90210 Danville, California 94526
Tel: 925/837-3780
Fax: 925/837-4378
Mr. Bob Drake
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine Street, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Bob:
Enclosed is a copy of the possible parking re-configuration for the
hammerhead at Subdivision 7693 in Alamo. Since the number of spaces is
remaining constant and the location of only one space is being moved a
minor amount, we do not feel a public hearing is necessary in order to
accomplish this modification. If the concept is acceptable, vve v'ould
propose to reflect the change on the improvement plan .as an as-built
modification.
Also, enclosed is a copy of Lot 8 at the same subdivision showing a
calculation for the. average width which indicates that the lot conforms to
the 120 foot minimum.
Please call us if you have any questions.
DE BOLT CIVIL ENGINEERING
Eugene'F. DeBolt
EFD:sk
Enclosures
cc: Tom Gingrich w/encl.
cc: Leo Siegal w/encl.
LC !sd 3 l ;IUN 85
t�G ��co�FtG u
o t
BARN
+ t
c -
Z`;
1"URN
WD IMPRC?L
7D Sa(t.
FEN 25) 3t840 � 5RIV
7c v ! 07.53. TUR A//,
.2 Q, RTS
92 1d AIP
r o_1�
` IZP 3G4
-
Ep
6 IN
7Q 3� EFU Z.
s
SAN RAMON VALLEY
FIRE PROTECTION DISf i6f
99 FEB 17 06
Adminislralion 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road Fire Prevention
Phone:510-838-6600 Phone:510-838-6680
San Ramon, California 94583:...:.
Fax: 510-838-6629 �- Fax:510-838-6696
February 10, 1999
Mr. Robert Drake, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine St.
4"i floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553-1214
Subject: Proposed modification of on-street parking spaces
Subdivision 7693, Wingset Place, Alamo
Dear Bob,
I have reviewed the proposed revision to the on-street park-ling configurations at the
subject location outlined in your letter to me dated Jailua� 27, 1999. The proposal to
relocate one parking place to the opposite side of the road noes, in fact, create an
obstruction to the required emergency vehicle turnaround at this location. The proposal is
therefore unacceptable to this agency.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this propo_sal. If You have any questions or
if I can be of further assistance please telephone me at (925) S38-6686.
Sincerely,
Michael Mentink, Fire Inspector
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
��.'^~ati o�-!ri ti7r .�� -. _. — V'.af..-.��w:�•pT'. - �4�.1..\-;,•i.v.:.i.: •_��
..- - "�Cl - •.i�-,.�::+;_ .. .. � .;i��-t`"-'�' vy_-.•cam.-,'_ti:;?.-'.' j
�� '•:�� -_ ;�'. �:..ti•.tom''. N., � J
1 1 BARN
l� `V ,
{o` Q m ��'� � � � D -` � �' f�,�.-• ' i � � ' � 1407.18 A
TURN
1. I 4 /MPR0
ROUN.
,••0 PND VE'MEI
arO8 so,
X 8 990
5,5Z T
3t84.0 DRIVE
1 mo } l FEIN j •,
-0453. TURNAROUND
3 1. P:364.90
h'CRETE
i \_ Of 3� TUPrVar�
• �� P 3C-4-,l I
P3Cr4-_41(j5
7.
X
�'� SRN ��� •� \ i •i
��Q•5-5.BE 0DiLOOQ7 7L
p Eli N .j ` '; P 3<05
VI.:L' F� i ;, 'i TD 3C,5
OJ OA-1-1
` T J '' P
3 I ;
ID
ooe
t•:
` - -�-:1-�=-�•;ems ter.''. - - -- -- - -_- t���= -- - _- " •'.+.*w-
_ � �;`-_ - - -rte:;'_:-3,� _' -_ Y-. :�=:• .i� •o�r,?i
N RAMON VAL_ '
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Ada lnstrotlon 1500 Bollinger Canyon Road Fire Prevention
Phone:925-838-6600Phone:925-838-668(
Fax:925-838- 629 San Ramon, California 94583 Fax:925.838-6691
December 13, 1999
Mr. Robert Drake
Contra Costa County
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine.Street
4th floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
Subject: Proposed Modifications of on-street parking spaces
Subdivision 7693, Wmgset Place, Alamo
Dear Bob,
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation during.%?bich I advised you that the proposed
modification to the parking configuration at the subject location L acceptable to the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District. As you know, our discussion was the result of a request by the
developer to reconfigure the on-street parking to provide drive%:Y access to an existing lot.
In my original letter to you dated February 10, 1999, 1 indicated a concern about the potential
impact of the proposed change to the District's ability.to tum a fire apparatus in the area.
Subsequently, I visited the site with Mr. Gingrich and Mr. SieL_ll and they demonstrated to me
how the parking could be laid out to assure adequate provision= or turnaround. In the course of
that meeting, Mr. Siegal represented that there vta.s no other means to provide
driveway access to the lot in question. 1 determined that,give•rWe situation,their proposal met
the intent of the regulation.
During the visit I also noted that the 20-foot wide roadway acres Naas not prodded with red
curbs identifying it as a fire lane as originally requiredmi our r'Vrurnng comments on September
11, 1991. I agreed to allow the revision contingent upon the p�.7ar'g of the curbs. It should be
noted lack of adequate markings identifying the roadway as a .e lane may constitute a greater
hazard than the issue of the turnaround- Mr_ Siegal was to pro, e me with a letter documenting
the conversation but I never received it.
I hope this letter provides clarification of the events that led m;to change my original opinion. If
you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Michael Mentink, Fire Inspector
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
P
SUBDIVISION 7693 GINGRICH
County Mandated Improvements
These conditions of approval have never been met by subdivision developer
GINGRICH. No future development, nor any amendments or changes to parking plans,
or the final map should be made until these conditions are met.
1. Parking location and driveway cuts exist on grading plan.and tentative map.
2. 6 onsite-parking places are required on lots 5 & 6 per County letter dated 7128/98.
(Condition of approval 10.1-1).
3. Remove concrete retaining wall & obliterate impervious gravel driveway on lots 6 & 7
to eliminate drainage problems on lot 7, per County letter dated 7/28/98. (Condition
of approval 10.,!).
4. Seven trees removed on lot 7 near old driveway. Conditions of approval required (2)
15-gallon drought resistant trees to replace each removed (total 14).
((,'ood.ition of Ap.pr_oval_6_13)
5. Lot 5 & 8 are substandard lots. Developer is trying tc) circumvent AIA's
recommendation that approved a smaller house the n was presented by applicant
McAdams or a single story home fitting appropristel,*'v,ithin the character of the
existing subdivision. Lot line adjustment should nn. be allowed to circumvent AIA's
recommendation and original Conditions of Approv'21.
NO (390 P.1/4
APR.14.2000 12:121`1`1 "OLIN & BIATCH .,
RENA RICKLES
A7rORNEYAr LAW
1970 erZOwwAY SUTE 1200
OAKLAND,CA 94612
TEL•(510)452-1600 • FAX(510)451.4115
Posta'Fax Note 7671
Doto 3 aQaee► �
TO Fro(n
April 13, 2000 ColDq1L CO.
L pie r Pnone
Mr. Robert Drake Fa"x6 .. �_ ' Fax
Contra Costa County
Commune y Development Department
651 Pine Street-, 4t' Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
VIA FACSIMILE
Re: Engineering Drawings for Proposed Alternatives to Hammerhead Parking,
Subdivision 7693, Wingset Place, Alamo
Dear Mr. Drake:
Enclosed please-find .engineeringdravAnas shvviir-ig-the-feasibil�;y-af---
driveway access off of the hammerhead, Mssrs. Ciapponi and Yandell have spent
their own money to hire an engineer to design a %',In-win solution. These
alternatives provide safe, accessible, attractiv--t a ematives to the proposal now.
under appeal.
The factual underpinnings of these propose.is are as follows-
1) Mr. Ciappoini (Lot 7), for safety and liability considerations will be moving
his gate to his property line. The safe)},and liability concern are that,
because of the 15% slope, the driver of a car backing out of the driveway
cannot see short objects (cars, children, dogs) until it rests on the level
staging area.
2) With the gate at Lot 7 on the proper) f line, there will be insufficient room
for any vehicle, especialy a fire vehicle, to fit between the three cars on
one side of the hammerhead and a fourth h car on the opposite side of
the hammerhead.
3) The driveway now used for Lot 6 is on Lot 5. Therefore, Lot 5 and 6
already share a driveway.
4) Both of our proposals take into consideration slope, turning
requirements, and Conditions of approval.
5) Our proposals suggest a lot line adjustment that eliminates the need for a
Variance for Lot 5.
6) One of our proposals allows Lots 5 and 6 to have their own driveway.
NO.890 P.2/4
APR.14.2000 12-" I?-PMiRGOLIN & BIRTCH
I
r
l
I
1 It is our belief that either of our proposed engineering solutions will provide a
l superior solution to.the one before you. They allow safe fire access, ample
automobile access and egress, common-sense lot lines and a much more attractrve
I hammerhead configuration.
Very truly yours,
1
Rena Rickles
CC: Attachemnts
4 by facsimile)
Supervisor Donna Gerber 925-820-6627
Leo Siegel, Attorney at Law 831-768--9114
Heather Ballinger 925-313-2333
s�
013-
?0
3
573.632 �
60
All ,
0 �I A _-
"-o REMAIN)
L� pr�' X72.3.:1
Q, ��SEX• aC1=;'T``; � �. D�� '`��J /'�
I a-._._.-fir ___._. .-• / ...--'
yrs-��- /'• f I..1y. �':ZT Z�!� �'--'"` . �t W� '.--�`"�- ,,.�.,�""`��"r�cT,f/
C..
kfPP,-Ovfc- DF
�PP��� ��ss -rv�2��►2o�r��
in
BARN
1
� • � 1 _ ;� 1. - .
c
- `s�-- 14-07.18 T
�' • 2' END 1141
1 o z m= cry p ac
3f8403 f
0453..x^.- i
FIEN
Cr o
04
Ep
s�
VF E 'Pr2ovA�
P#'c� -B&CK-S CD E a F
u
'PF
R
'-9Q3 IZD
P D /MPRCJYE
T73539 9905
31840
_90
i0 t �SST 2
P
TD
4.
t
� '� i i `t y t tt •� � t'�
lm � til t �.�. ' Q � +•; lLl
_ Y'r� ��,y..t,� ''`CJ�t .}^- 'LI�: ..:P�{3t"'..,.::`: 3 _ _C•P-y,��' "tl':ti__•.r• - _
-�f:-` _ -��•' __ - f:.:.pt:d fir:`~ '�, _ -tel-_ -:.. ._
,e
L°C. 055 �IV>t- �Q�4 r• .
lk
j
� s
OT
BARN �L
i Lb �--
CIA
TURN t
END tMPR4VJ
7D 99(15
3 84 031 DRI VC
lC i .t 1 i
=0453. TURAIAh
10
A
T1
, 1 ,• �, � P ,3C-4: 1
• ! .. P 3G %41
` _IO _
= :gr tis `�7t-_ _•� - - $��.'�:=._ mac::=_.`,=:.-'
" - I—j=-i�,� � � �.��.• ��_—'.:'man --��: _ .=•�' _-..`•�..
TN IL RTATC34
PPR.14.20W
i2=ice. '
oma
,
PAS N6 ./*
� ' L�► jk't"tV� � r::
9 Ita
1
ro
fl tJs31
Cj
U)
�� �-
m ,'
NACU-
cl
-�}n}+• r ` 'acv
q �• � Oy .
WR.14.2O00 12:1 MARGOLIN & $IATCH 1fiJJ»890 P.4/4
F . Q � co
EGQ F(GUt�C� LuT b f
c�Ntf`�o� sS XYZ tLS
L(T
x
![ X3510 P 1 c
-- !_�/Y^ " '"— " ' f .��! / r ._ _,Etc, ~• _ ,�21TP
`t
Ll
C)
O
*`2 trr
p� � N_} `'yam --. _ - �.�„g'�-�,�;�:•..�,x-
��° � I: � Ear•�E�"7 trt� "F' x.,,,,.*
a n i P OU�Sc r,43.f�
z m 7 N r
--�-7
C) A
2
z co
i
q CO
i
Exhibit II
December 19, 2000 Report to the
Board of Supervisors on Subdivision
Developer' s Compliance with
6/13/00 Board Order
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP "'
r Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR «�x County
DATE: December 19, 2000
SUBJECT: Hearing on Report Concerning Compliance with June 13, 2000 Board Order
Concerning Improvements to Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place, Alamo area),
File #Z1998206, District III
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Accept public testimony.
B_ Accept Report .
C. Continue Hearing to January 23 , 2001. 1: 00 p.m. to allow fo:
formulation . of a private agreenle,1E that would resolve the
concerns of the Board.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE 1
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
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
cc: Connor Bak,Tommy Connor PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Rena Rickles SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Robert McAdam
.Alamo Improvement Association ,DEPUTY
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist., Insp. Mentink BY
Public Works Dept, Heather Ballenger
County Counsel
WAzi8206-b.bo
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Background
Board Decision on Neighbors' Appeal
On June 13, 2000, the Board of-Supervisors conducted a continued public hearing on
an appeal of an administrative decision by the Zoning Administrator authorizing the
relocation of a "guest" parking space in a cul-de-sac at.the terminus of Wingset Place in
the Alamo area (Subdivision 7693). The subdivision developer (Gingrich) had filed the
request to overcome an error in the Final Map and related on-street parking provisions.
The Zoning Administrator had approved the request to relocate.one of four parking
spaces to allow access to two lots still held by Gingrich.
Two residents within the subdivision (Ciapponi and Yandell) had appealed the Zoning
Administrator's administrative decision to the Board. At the appeal hearing, the
residents expressed concerns about other subdivision improvements they felt had not
been properly implemented.
After taking testimony, the Board voted to grant the neiahbors' appeal. Instead of
allowing the parking space to be relocated within the cul-de-sac bulb as had been
requested by the Zoning Administrator, the Board voted to require that the parking
space be relocated onto one of the lots still owned bthe developer. The Board also
directed that other improvements within the subdivision be completed.
October Request
At an October meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the appellants, a representative of
the Alamo Improvement Association and a builder of one of the remaining vacant lots
within the project, Robert McAdam, requested that the County investigate the status of
the subdivision developer's efforts to comply with the 6!13100 Board Order. The Board
directed staff to investigate this matter and report back to the Board.
Communication with Subdivision Developer
In a letter dated November 15, 2000 staff requested that the subdivision developer
provide staff with a plan for compliance with the 6113/00 Board Order.
The current legal representative of the Subdivision Developer, Tommy Connor of
Connor Bak, responded in a letter dated November 29, 2000. That letter indicated that
the subdivision developer did not believe he was bound to comply with the specified
December 19, 2000
Board of Supervisors
File#Z/8206
Page 3
improvements in the Board Order.
Review of McAdam Small Lot Review.Application.
The County is presently processing a request for a building permit involving a proposed
residence on a small lot, File #DP003042, which was filed by the builder, Robert
McAdam. It involves (reconfigured) Lot.8 that lies between the properties of the two
appellants, Yandell and Ciapponi. Several neighbors including the appellants have
requested that the County conduct a public hearing on the proposed house design.
Staff has.referred the house plans to the Alamo improvement.Association for
opportunity to comment, prior to completing a staff report and scheduling the matter for
hearing before the Zoning Administrator.
The appellants have urged the County to subject the small lot review filed by Mr.
McAdam to compliance with the measures specified in the June 13, 2000 Board Order.
Noting that Mr. McAdam is not the Subdivision Developer, and thus in a different legal
position relative to compliance with subdivision measures, staff has asked the
appellants' legal counsel, Rena Rickles, for a legal authority that would allow the
County to impose conditions on Mr. McAdam that do not relate to his small lot review.
The documentation provided by Ms. Rickles has not been persuasive.
The Alamo Improvement Association has expressed some reluctance to complete its
review of the McAdam's small lot review application until it is clear that the 6/13/00
Board Order is being implemented. Staff has indicated to the Association that we have
not found any legal authority that would obligate Mr. McAdam's project to the
subdivision improvements being sought in the 6/13/00 Board Order. Staff has urged
the Association to proceed with its review of the McAdam of the small lot review
application in anticipation of staff scheduling a hearing on his request before the Zoning
Administrator in the near future.
Meeting of Interested Parties
On Friday, December 8, 2000, staff met with the interested parties including the
attorney for the Subdivision Developer (Tommy Connor), Rena Rickles, Mr. McAdam,
and John Henderson of the Alamo Improvement Association. At the meeting, the
parties tentatively agreed on principles that would form the basis of a private agreement
for addressing the issues in the June 13, 2000 Board Order, and allowing Mr. McAdam
to proceed with his project. In summary, those principles include:
Mr. Gingrich consenting to a conveyance of an easement at the end of the
December 19, 2000
Board of Supervisors
File#Z18206
Page 4
cul-de-sac and extending onto Lot 5 to provide an area to relocate at least
one of the guest parking spaces from its current location_ Mr. Gingrich would
also be consenting to allow access onto Lot 6 to allow completion of the
obliteration of the old driveway on his property.
• Mr. Ciapponi to allow access onto his property to allow for the obliteration of
the old driveway on his property (Lot 7).
• Mr. McAdam consenting to perform the driveway obliteration work on Lots 6
(Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi), and to provide for the cul-de-sac parking
extension improvements. The design of such improvements would have to
avoid any design that would require approval of.a variance (e.g., a retaining
wall more than 3-feet in height within the required setback area.
• The appellants withdrawing their request to the County to have the McAdam's
small lot review application heard. An effort would also be made to try to
persuade two other parties (Evans and Pacheco) who reside outside of the
subdivision to withdraw their request for hearing of the McAdam small lot
review application.
• Mr. McAdam would request as part of the private agreement that the County
condition the issuance of his building permit to the implementation of the off-
site improvements he has agreed to perform prior to completion of the
residence,
• Provision for no-parking markings on kMngset Place sought by the Fire
Protection District to the extent feasible.
Upon the completion of the subdivision improvements (driveway obliteration,
relocated guest parking on Lot 5), the appellants would withdraw current
requests for notice of administrative reviews not normally subject to public
notice (e.g., request for lot line adjustment) and that the Board rescind its
6/13/00 directive to require notice to the appellants and others who reside
within the subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions that do not
normally require notice.
• The appellants request the Board to rescind. at this time, the provision of
additional on-site parking on Lots 5 and 6 as had been directed in the June
13, 2000 Board Order.
As conceived, these principles would serve as the basis for a private agreement. The
attorney for Mr. Gingrich indicated that he would need to check with his client to make
certain that he was agreeable with them.
i
I
Clarification of the Fire Protection District on Marking of Wingset Place
At the time of the tentative map application, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection
District had commented on the narrowness of the proposed street, and on the need to
December 19, 2000
Board of Supervisors
File#Z18206
Page 5
restrict parking on either side for safety access purposes. The District had indicated
that posting of no-parking signs as well as painted curbs would be required to meet the
District standards. Therefore, the measures sought by the District have never been a
County requirement (The District is autonomous.).
It should be noted that the subdivision permit identified the requirements of the District
under Advisory Notes, not Conditions of Approval of the County permit.
Apparently, some residents within the subdivision may be more receptive to posting of
no-parking signs than allowing the curbs to be painted red.
In a letter dated December 12, 2000, the District indicates that enforcement of no-
parking restrictions by the Sheriff's Office cannot be ef!ective unless both posting of
signs and painting of curbs.
Draft Terms for an Agreement
Subsequent to the December 8, 2000 meeting, Ms. r; ;les and Mr. Connor have
submitted their respective versions of a draft agreen;:'_. They are still being studied by
staff. However, several points should be made:
1_ They appear to be structured such that the County would be party (signatory)
to an agreement; this was contrary to the d slussions in the meeting of 12/8
in which staff made clear that this would h1 e to be a private agreement, and
that the County would not be a party to it.
2. There are additional items being proposed t�;st were not discussed at the
12/8 meeting, some involving the consent of the County to proposals that
have not been presented to staff in any detail.
If these elements are retained, then from staffs perspective, the agreement will be
flawed_
Discussion
Staff hopes that the discussions that occurred at the December 8, 2000 meeting can
lead to a satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised in the 6/13/00 Board Order.
Still, it is evident that the parties need more time to formulate an appropriate private
agreement. The hearing on this matter should be continued to allow the parties to
finalize an agreement that would be workable for all.
VICTOR J.WESTMAN DEPUTIES:
PHILLIP S.ALn
COUNTY COUNSEL JANICE L AME
Y i NORA G.EARL
B.
SILVANO B.MARCHESI p(Ihfl� ANDREA W.0
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �/ ANDREA w.ca
CH IEF ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL �s MONIKA LOAW
OFFICE OFTHE COUNTY.COUNSEL• . Pl MARE S.ESTI
MAa1cE S.ESTI
SHARON L.ANDERSON r, ,tij• MICHAEL 0.FA
COLINTY.ADMIMSTRAT 8UILDING ! .. LILLUINT.FWIi
ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL 65i PINE STREET,9th FLOOR 1 .9 DENNtSC.GfU
" JANET L HOLA
GREGORY C.HARVEY MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-1229KEVIN T.KERR
BERNARD LKI
ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL EDWARD V.IABEATRICE Uu
MARY ANN MA
GAYLE MUGGLI PAUL R.MUNG
VALERIE J.RAI
OFFICE MANAGER STEVEN P.REI
DAVID F.SCH&
DIANA J.SILVE
PHONE(925)335-1800 JACQUELINE,
FAX(925)646-1078
November 14, 2000
a Rickles
Atto ev at Law
1970 Brol way, Ste. 1200
Oakland, CA 46\
Re: Subdivision 7693, Wingset Place, Alamo
Dear Ms. Rickles_
This is in response to your August 15, 2000 letter t tif: Conlnlunity Development
Department (Donna Allen) and your August 22, 2000 let::;to flits office regarding the above-
referenced subdivision. Following the public conlilleilt this platter before the Board
of Supervisors on October 10, 2000, this office cofltacted :i:: ofllnlunity Development
Department to determine the status of the items nleiltion: \,sur letters. That department has
informed us that the developer has not yet demonstrated c0ili it-nice"'illl t11e Board's directives
in their June 13, 2000 Order but they continue to attetllp t,, �'�t,3ffi coinpliaflce from the
developer. We understand that you xvill be receiving undo`<:T-Irate cover a copy of a letter from
the Community Development Department to the developer vA,1,h requests him to submit a plan
for compliance with the Board's June 13,2000 Order.
Upon review of the June 13, 2000 Board Order.eve note that a number of the conditions
of approval (COAs) for the Subdivision listed in your letters i�-ere not included in the Board's
Order. That is, your letters address matters and COAs «which were not part of the Board's Order.
A copy of the Board's Order of June 13, 2000 is attached for your reference.
In summary, the Board accepted "Option F" presented in the staff report to the Board,
which calls for the fourth common parking space to be re,onfn ured on Lot 5, owned by the
developer. The Board found that COA IOH. was not satisfied in terms of providing six on-site
parking spaces per lot for Lots 5 and 6 and that COA 103.x�'hich required obliteration of the
driveway on Lots 6 and 7 had not been fully satisfied . In addition, any access road constructed
must meet the County's posting, parking and painting standards and the developer must meet the
i
Rena Rickles
November 14, 2000
Page 2
Fire Inspector's requirements(see Advisory Note C. to COAs.) Finally, the Board directed staff
to notify appellants and other people living in the subdivision of subsequent developer requests
involving the subdivision. Apart from the notice requirement, the Board's June 13, 2000 order
requires the developer, not staff, to take.certain action.
We are informed that the final map for this subdivision was filed and recorded in 1995.
In order to have a final map filed and recorded,the developer is required to demonstrate that
there has been substantial compliance with the conditions of approval at the time of filing the
map. The Board's approval of the final map in 1995 indicates that the Board determined that the
developer was in substantial compliance with the COAs.
The context for the administrative appeal this ye-u.was only the Zoning Administrator's
decision approving a request to modify the location of olio oil-street parking space within the
turnaround area as proposed by the developer's engineers. not the COAs.
In your letter, you assert that the County has tij, .,uzhority and duty to withhold buildin4
penults II7 the subdivision unless It has ensured that tller,il:=s been full compliance \\pith all
conditions of approval. Upon our revie\v of your assen6kon. \\-c have not found any authority to
support )'our contention_ if you have,-.I`1y such authorily. l�ie:ise submit it to this office for our
revie\v.
Very tlZll% -'o-'—
Victor
o '-Victor J. Wesnu;ul
County Counsel
I
If
By: Diana J.SilVer
Deputy Count,'Counsel
DJS/j h
cc: Board of Supervisors
Dennis Barry, CDD
Bob Drake, CDD
LUOAN N\Diana\ricklcs.wpd
Dennis M.Barry,AICP
Community 0 Contra 0 Community Oevelopmen
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building < --
651 Pine Street s�
4th Floor,North Win :
9 •�f _
Martinez California 94553-0095
925) 335-1214
Phone:. r+
cnn
November 15,2000
By Fax & by Mail
Thomas Gingrich
C/o Mark Armstrong
Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, and Armstrong
PO Box 218
Danville, CA 94526
Dear W. Gingrich:
V,e-: Request for Plan to Comply with
June 13, 2000 Board Order
Subdivision 7693 («'ingset Place, Manic))
On.lune 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted of the Ciapponi's and
Yandells and overturned the Zoning Administrator's a•' t1�uative approval of your
request to revise the approved on.-street parking spaccs 11 .11in the turnaround of your
subdivision development, as described in the attacllei !u;'c 13. 2000 Board Order.
Instead, the Board directed that the subdivision one of the four common
("guest") parking spaces onto a reconfigured Lot 5 t011_ '.. 1 from Board Order).
In taking this action, the Board of Supervisors also d;-te that t11e subdivision
developer had failed to fully satisfy some of the condiihMs of the tentative map approval
for this project and the requirements of the San Ramon v-111ey Fire Protection District
and County for posting of no parking signs and paintin�-Y of curbs along Wingset Place.
We understand that the Clerk of the Board for,varded to!.'t'- a copy of the Board Order
shortly after the Board's decision. The addendum of 1113-, Order describes the items
within your subdivision that must still be addressed for No:Ir project. These items are
listed as follows together with reference to the appropriate Condition of Approval or
Advisory Note from the tentative map approval--
I
pproval:1_ So as to avoid an existing access blockage to Lot r caused by the existing
placement of four common"guest" parking spaces%\-Itllin the "Alingset Place
turnaround, one of the"guest" parking spaces 111us1 be relocated onto a
reconfigured Lot 5- (refer to COA 41.A.).
2. Provide six on-site parking spaces for both Lots 6 and 7 (must be concrete or
asphalt surfaced); both lots contain existing residences(refer to COA.#10.H.).
3. Provide compliance with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District relative to posting of signs and painting red curbs with labels
on both sides of Wingset Place of"NO STOPP[NG FIRE LANE—.CVC 22500.1"
(refer to Adv. Note"C"and 9/11/91 memorandum of the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District.
4. Provide for the obliteration of the former driveNvay ort Lots 6 (Gingrich) and 7
(Ciapponi) which had served the original residence ort the property prior to
approval of the subdivision. The Board deternli.ned that the driveway
modifications, which the subdivision developer has performed to date, do not
accornplish substantial obliteration to County standards (refer to COA it 10.J.).
As you are aware, on August 1, 2000, the Board of Supervisors rejected your request to
Have the Board reconsider its June 13 action. Moreo«r- 011 October 10, 2000, the Board
of Supervisors directed staff to report to them on recoin111zi1dCd actions to attain
compliance from the subdivision developer xvith Order.
When eve nlet 111 our office oil October 27, 2000, 1 shoe c,' N-01.1 a letter from Rena Rickles
that had referred to the Items oil the Board Order. 1 `,lint )'ou had done to comply
with ihosc 1te111S. You indicated that �,ou had not to comply Nvith any of
the 11eI11S 111 the letter.
The purpose of this lettel- IS to request that you 1111111ed 1'roN71de this office ,vit11 a
plan including a timetable by which you will comply vJ!"i 111� items in the Board Order
including each of the t111provetllents listed abo\'e. Ple::s: t'rk'\ide this compliance plan to
this office by lVednesdaY, November 22, 2000.
Notification of Future Zoning Adnlinistator Decisions o--1 S'Ubse(luerlt Developer
Requests
This office will notify the appellants and others who lige in tills subdivision of future
zoning administrator decisions on any subsequent dei°ei��r er requests regarding this
subdivision.
Should you Have any questions,please call me at(925) 32-5-12 14.
Sincerel
A
ROBERT H. DRAKE
Principal Planner
I
Att. 6/13/00 Board Order
11/24/92 Subdivision Permit
9/11/91 SRVFPD Letter
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
County Administrator
Clerk of the Board
County Counsel
Community Development Department
Dennis Barry
Catherine Kutsuris
Candi Wenslev
Public Works Department
Heather Ballenger
San Ramon Valley l=ire Protection District
Inspector Mile Mentink
Thomas Gingrich (direct Mail Address)
Rena Rickles
File
C:\wpdoc\\N in,sct.Itr
RM
APR.14.2000 12.13PM WRGOUM & BIATCH "0.0% P.4Z4 -
_ r
(C)q - ra 6
�R P 3500- -
IL
500 :
ff
t
00 rW
C
c�
o -
Ex
AP
U.eKL-J__*5 1V Lt5 1... flet' odK `�--.r s.»�t�oi i r-'---•w-
' -VV
/qJ
COPY7
COI',TNTI:R • BmI, LI•-P n
l0�loutc [sled.
San Fraciss co.CA 94131
Tommy A.Conner tel:415.334.0477
�.I-imotliy Bal:' {ax:415-334-9877
• Alao admitted to rcacticc if,Ne-Ja
otuail: toinntt{�cou��er-lialx.eom
November 29,2000
Bs? Facsimile and
1u Class U.S. A1ail
Robert H. Drake
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4"' Floor, North Wing
Martinez. California 94553-0095
Re: Subdivision 7693,17 ingset Mvice
Dear Mr. Drake_
We rep resent'l-homas Gin-rich and llis family it� ect to a number of private
disputes between the developer and the purchasers of devc c'cd 3I'd undeveloped parcels in the
subdivision. i have called vour office several times. and 1,-;--, ri:jj:.ces whenever your mailbox
was less than full. The purpose of the calls was to develop :r: uz-1-erstanding of the County's
actions to date. and the legal basis for such actions. Gitci: t:;c 1,,k of a response I have elected
to write.
On November 24. 1991 the Board of Supervisors gr::, t,d the developers request for a
major subdivision subject to certain conditions. Oil Janua-'. 1996 the Contra Costa Board of
Supervisors resolved that the improvements ill Subdivision 709, ,vere completed as provided in
the Subdivision Agreement with KGB Development Comp-211N_ Oil recommendation of the
Public Works Director the Board found that the improvements satisfactorily met the guaranteed
performance standards, and authorized the Director to refund the balance of the developer's cash
deposit. In short, the Board determined that the developer nlZi the conditions of approval.
In the following years a number of private disputes:erose, most recently with respect to
Lot 8. The owners of Lots 7 and 9 have strong feelings ath�tn the development of Lot 8, and they
have demonstrated a willingness to use the permit process to further their goals. Thcy have
raised a number of issues regarding the subdivision. and recent],.appealed the Zoning-
Administrator's
oningAdministrator's administrative approval of the developers:cqucst to relocate an on-street
parking space within the hammerhead turnaround at the top o' NVingset Place. Wingset Place is
a private road_
EXHIBIT A
lJ(�L-13-VV 1V JL!J Irl no-!f- 43dK LLY Lnz, to C:5 I ' f'�V/
CONNER • Btu,, LLP Robert H. Drake
November 29, 2000
Page two
We recognize that the Board acts in a quasi-judicial capacity with respect to permit
appeals, and believe that the individual supervisors intend to conduct themselves in a manner
consistent with their authority. We are confused,however,by the Hoard's recent actions. We
understand that the Planning Department has consistently asserted that the developer is obligated
to seek a permit from the County in order to resolve a private dispute with the owners of lots 7
and 9 regarding on-street parking at the hammerhead, and that in response to this directive the
developer applied for a permit to relocate one on-street parking space. In response to all appeal
of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the developer's application,the Board issued its June
13,2000 order addressing issues neither before it nor within its jurisdiction.
The Board may consider the developer's application as consent to the Board's
jurisdiction over the issues raised by the ow7ters of Lots 7 and 9. That is not the developer's
intent. Rather, the developer filed the initial application to relocate an on-street parking space
because the Planning Department repeatedly notified liinl that he was required to do so. We-
respectfully disagree. By cop;- of this letter to County Counszl we request notice of the
jurisdictional basis for the Board's action. In the event Couul'•Counsel cannot articulate a sound
jurisdictional basis for the Board's actions the developer rcgL1csts that the Board of Supervisor's
close this file and leave the parties to their private remedies.
Please Cell Inc if N!
otl lltl\'L clll\ gUC5i10115.
Sincerely yours.
Tomnny A. Conner
cc: Diana J. Siler
Deputy County Counsel
Meeting sign-in sheet
Name of Meeting: t-C, Dace: .
Name Organization Phone Number
2
3a-
MCA-
7
�O �' I`j;
10
11
12
13
14
15
IG
I7
18
19 '
f22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. 29
30
31
32
Cr-12-�2000 09=23
VALLEY
AN RAMON V A
IR PROTECTION DISTRICT
m niWratlon 1 Soo Bollinger Canyon Road
Fire Prev
Ad
� g Phone:925-83
Phone:925-838-6600 l San Ramon, Califomla 443 Fax:925-83
Fax:925-838-6629 '
i
December 12, 2040
Mr. Robert Drake
Contra Costa Coun�
Community Develo meet Dept.
651 Pine Street `I
4th floor, North Wing
Martinez., CA 94553
RE: Wingset Pla' e
Dear Mr. Drake,
On Friday, December 8, 2000, you left me a telephone message requesting clarification
of District require eats for marking the designated fire lanes at the subject project. As
you know, the road ay on Wingset Place serves multiple residences and is quite narrow.
It would be extre ely difficult for fire apparatus to reach the area, negotiate the
turnaround and operate safely without the benefit of the full 20 foot clearance required in
the code. Additionalily, the fire district has conditioned the project to provide red curbs
and signs from thearliest stages of the planning process
i
The enabling Ianage for this requirement is detailed in Section 902.2.2.1 of the
California Fire Co e, the section used by law enforcement agencies to enforce -the
parking restrictions for fire lanes is located in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle
Code. The pertinentilanguage in that section of the Vehicle Code reads as follows:
The desi nasion shall be indicated 1 b a sign posted immediately adjacent to,
8 ( ) Y
and visible m the designated place clearl,° stating in letters not less than one
inch in heig t that the place is a fire lane, (2) by outlining or painting the place in
red and, in contrasting color, marking the plrct Nvith the words. "FIRE LANE",
which are clarly visible from a vehicle, or (3) by a red curb or red paint on the
edge for t] adway upon which is clearly marked the words "FIRE LANE".
According to represlentatives of the local law enforcement agencies, the courts interpret
this language as requiring red curbs and signs, or red curbs with markings on the curbs
stating Fire Lane ii It is our understanding that the courts have dismissed citations
issued when the above markings are not present and, as a result, the law enforcement
agencies will riot issue a citation unless all of the required markings are in place.
i
r
DEC-12-2000 e9:2
r.ez
1
l
it is the fire distri 's opinion that unless the parking restrictions mandated as a result of
approving coadwa -s of less than 36 feet in width are enforceable by law enforcement
agencies; there is o reasonable expectation that the required clearance. for emergency
fire apparatus will a available when an emergency occurs. Areas designated as fire lanes .
must be marked in accordance with the above language and District standards to provide
a reasonable assu nee that fire apparatus can reach the scene in an emergency in a safe
and timely manner
We ask that the community Development Department and the Hoard of,Supervisors
continue to suppothe District's concerns by requiring the markings as described above.
If you have any qu stions or if I can be of further assistance, please telephone me at.(925)
838-6686. Thank y u for your continued assistance in this matter.
i
Sincerely.,
I
i
Michael Mentinl� ire Inspector
San Ramon Valle Fire Protection District
1500 Bollinger Can. on Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
mmentink@srvfpd.6t.c,a.us
. i
i
j
i
. i
r
Exhibit III
February 13, 2001 Report to the
Board of Supervisors on
,Draft Private Agreement
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
` Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP i Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR -------- County
DATE: February 13, 2001
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing on Staff Report Concerning Subdivision Developer's
Compliance with June 13., 2000 Board Order for Subdivision 769.3.(Wingset Place)
in the Alamo area, File#Z199.8206, (District III).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS — Accept testimony and continue hearing to February 27,
2001 at 10 a.m. to allow for additional time for the
subdivision developer to provide a response to the Board
action.
FISCAL IMPACT - None;the subdivision developer is responsible for all staff
costs.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
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 1(925)335-1214) ATTESTED
cc:Tom Gingrich PHIL 6ATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Tommy Connor, Connor Bak SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR .
Rena Rickles
Robert McAdam ,DEPUTY
Insp. Mentink, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. BY
Alamo Improvement Association
County Counsel
Heather Ballenger, Public Works Dept.
W:\z18206.bo
RD\
February 13, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#Z19908206
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This matter pertains to completion and modification of a subdivision project within the Alamo
community, Subdivision 7693. On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal of
two residents within the subdivision(Ciapponi 'and Yandell), thereby reversing the Zoning
Administrator's.administrative decision allowing the relocation.of one of four guest parking spaces
situated within the turnaround area of the project street. Furthermore, the Board required that the
Subdivision Developer (Gingrich) demonstrate compliance with several conditions of approval that
were attached to the County subdivision permit.
On December 19, 2000, the Board accepted a report from the Community Development Director
concerning the status of the Subdivision Developer's efforts to comply with the 6/13/00 Board
Order. Staff reported that the best prospects for attaining compliance with the Board Order
appeared to involve a private agreement between the Subdi%,ision Developer (Gingrich), a builder
(Robert McaAdam), and potentially the appellants of the earlier Zoning Administrator decision
(Ciapponi and Yandell). After taking testimony, the Board continued the hearing to January 16,
2001 to allow the interested parties additional time to respon to the Board Order.
At the January 16, 2001 meeting, staff reported that the int ted parties were unable to meet
due to a schedule conflict. However, staff also reported the- -Ie attorney for the Subdivision
Developer had issued a revised draft proposal (dated 1/12; ' ). airned at providing compliance with
most of the concerns raised by the Board in its 6/13/00 Boar.: Order. At staff's recommendation,
the Board continued the matter to this hearing to allow for interested parties to meet to allow
for additional time to complete a response that would address the prior Board action.
FBRUARY 1 . 2001 MEETING
On February 1 , 2001 , staff met with the interested parties (Connor, McAdam and Ciapponi).
Modifications to the 1/12/01 private agreement draft were d;_cussed. The attorney for the
Subdivision Developer indicated that he would prepare and circulate a new draft.for the interested
parties to review early in the week of February 5, 2001.
DISCUSSION
It isnot expected that a revised agreement will be prepared and agreed to among the interested
parties prior to the report distribution deadline for this Board meeting. If a new draft agreemenfis
issued and/or consummated prior to the Board's meeting, staff will be prepared to review it at the
Board hearing in terms of how close it comes to satisfying the June 13, 2000 Board Order. It
should be noted that the interested parties informed staff that the proposed.agreement will not
completely satisfy all of the conditions which the Board specified in its prior Board Order action.
In the event that an agreement is consummated that is satisfactory to all of the primary interested
parties, staff may suggest related actions for the Board to consider. The Board should allow for
testimony, then continue this item to allow for a revised response from the Subdivision Developer,
and staff review of it.
Feb-07-01 09: 54 Canner Bak LLP 4153349877 P.
'CONNI (ER - BAK LLP 10 Montocey Blvd.
San Francisco,Cr1 94131
Tommy& Cannot tel:415-334-0877
J. Timothy BA- fax:415.334.9877
' Al.o.nutted to practice in Named.
February 7, 2001
By Facsimile and
I" Class U.S. Mail
Robert H. Drake
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Re: Subdivision 7693/Wingset Place
Dear Mr. Drake:
Mr. Gingrich respectfully submits the follo«inc pr p os,-d letter agreement regarding the
referenced subdivision. As we have discussed, Mr. Ginj:r.ch contends that the County does not
have jurisdiction over the private disputes at issue. Without Waiving, and specifically preserving,
his arguments on this point, Mr. Gingrich requests cons',[ion of the following proposed
resolution of all such disputes.
The parties agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. Mr. Gingrich or his agent shall prepare a snap depicting a portion of lot 5 for
installation of an off-street parking space. The area shall be approximately 8 feet wide and not
more than 20 feet deep. At no expense to Mr. Gingrich,\111r. McAdams shall cause the area on
lot 5 designated by Mr. Gingrich to be graded and paved consistent with the existing roadway,
and shall install curbs consistent with the existing curbs a,-Id ac designated on the map prepared
by or on behalf of Mr. Gingrich. All such work.shall be p:formed consistent with the standards
in the trade.
2. In the event the placement of the parking space referenced in¶ l decreases the
setback for the existing structure on lot 5 such that a vanmce is required, the work referenced
above shall not proceed unless and until the Contra Cost:.County Planning Department or, if
necessary, the Board of Supervisors, grants the necessar Variance. If a variance is required,
issuance of the same is a condition precedent to Mr. Gim�nch's obligations under this agreement.
Feb-07-01 09 : 55 onnev Bak LLP 4153349877 P
Robert Drake
CONKER-BAK LLP February2001
Page 2
3. At Mr. Ciapponi's expense his engineer,Thomas Ruark, shall prepare a grading
and drainage plan(including but not limited to an appropriate diagram of the area to be graded).
The purpose of the work is to control runoff and to regulate the drainage in the area, and to
obliterate any and all remnants of the pre-existing paved road in the area. The actual grading
work shall not commence unless and until Mr. Gingrich has approved the plan, such approval not
to be unreasonably %Ndthheld.
4. At no expense to Mr:Gingrich, Mr. McAdams shall cause the grading referenced
in paragraph 3 above to be completed consistent with the applicable plans and specifications and
the standards in the trade. For this and all other work called for in this agreement, the party
performing the work shall issue the respective property o%vner(s) a certificate of liability
insurance on a standard general comprehensive liability for -, tth coverage limits not less than
m,
$1,000,000 per occurrence, and shall name the respecti,,e p-operty o,,vner(s) as additional named
insured(s) on that policy. The party providing the work also %�,a rants to keep the property free
and clear of any liens or encumbrances, w
and to defend and '7dentnify the owner(s) against any
and all claims for personal injury and/or property damag: a.;sing from or related to the work
performed..
5. Mr. Gingrich shall close escrow on the s:.:e of lot 5 %-ithin one year of the date of
this agreement. If he fails to do so he shall construct sig : =.Feet parking spaces on lot 5 thin
sixty (60) days of the one-year anniversary. Prior to clos: o escrow Mr. Gingrich shall record a
deed restriction as follows: A) the buyer of lot 5 shall hay: !SO days from close of escrow to
submit an application including all construction plans, d~�;'::°'s, designs and specifications
customarily required to secure.a building permit for a since il }' residence; R) the plans shall
include not less than six off-street parking spaces; Cl in?`:= e',e,t the buyer fails to submit the
referenced application within the time required, the buye:sr;':.1 be obligated to construct six off-
street parking spaces within sixty (60) days of the 180 dadaniaversary.
6. Mr. Gingrich shall close escrow on the sale of lot 6 within two years of the
effective date of this agreement. If he fails to do so he sha)1 construct six off-street parking
spaces on lot 6 within sixty (60) days of the one-year anni%11"sary- Prior to close of escrow Mr.
Gingrich shall record a deed restriction as follows: A)the buyer of lot 6 shall have 180 days
from close of escrow to submit an application including all construction plans, drawings, designs
and specifications customarily required to secure a building permit for a single family residence,
B) the plans shall include not less than six off-street parking spaces; Qin the event the buyer
fails to submit the required application within the time required, the buyer shall be obligated to
construct six off-street parking spaces within sixty (60) da%,s of the 180 day anniversary.
7- In the event the buyer of lots 5 and 6 is the same Person, the buyer may satisfy the
conditions set forth in Tj 5 and 6 by submitting an application including all construction plans,
drawings, designs and specifications customarily required to secure a building permit for a single
I I
F•eb-07-01 09: 56 C-nner Bak LLP 4153349877 P.
CONKER-BAK LLP Robert DrakeFebruary 7, 2001
Page 3
family residence spanning both lots within 180 days after close of escrow on the purchase of the
lots and providing for not less than six off-street parking spaces in total. .
8. Within ten days of full execution of this agreement, Mr. Ciapponi shall remove
any and all signs he installed or caused to be installed along the private road, and all cars he has
parked in the guest parking spaces in the hammerhead or elsewhere within the subdivision(with
the exception of the six off-street parking spaces on his property,and shall not park vehicles in
his possession or control in the guest parking spaces within the subdivision. Mr. Ciapponi's
compliance with this provision is a continuing condition to Mr. Gingrich's obligations under this
agreement.
9. The parties to this agreement shall use their best efforts to secure approval from
the San Ramon Fire Protection Division for signs, as opposed to and to the exclusion of, painted
curbs. Mr. Gingrich shall secure and install signs approved b;, the homeowners and the San
Ramon Fire Protection Division where and as designated by the San Ramon Fire Protection
Division, and shall stripe the on-street parking spaces. If the San Ramon Fire Protection
Division requires that the curbs be painted, Mr. Gingrich shall cause that work to be performed at
his expense.
10. Lot 5 is a nonconforming lot. At no expense to the other parties to this agreement
Mr. Gingrich shall prepare and file the documents necessa�; t, �ccurc a lot line adjustment
between lots 5 and 6 such that lot 5 will conform to existing orainances. The parties to this
agreement shall not object to Mr. Gingrich's application. Ap?royal of the same by the Zoning
Administrator and, if required, the Board of Supervisors, is condition precedent to Mr.
Gingrich's obligations under this agreement_
11. Messrs. Yandell and Ciapponi withdraw their request for special notice upon
execution of this agreement.
12. All parties agree that Mr. McAdams' performance as required by this agreement
shall be a condition to his building permit for lot 8. The parties consent to Mr. Adams' request
to the County not to require any inspections"under floor' with respect to Mr. McAdams'
construction of a single-family residence on lot 8.
13. Messrs. Yandell and Ciapponi withdraw their objections to Mr. McAdams'
pending application for a building permit on lot 8, and agree to use their best efforts to secure the
withdrawal by all other objectors of their prior objections.
14. All parties to this agreement stipulate to the continuing jurisdiction of the Contra
Costa County Superior Court for enforcement of the terms of this agreement, and further
stipulate that this agreement shall be enforceable pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
i
Feb-07-01 09 : 56 inner Bak LLP 1-153349877 P.
CONNER • BAK LLP Robert Drake
February 7, 2001
Page 4
§ 664.6 as a written settlement of a dispute as if litigation were pending between the parties at
the time this agreement is executed by each such party.
By copy of this letter to Ms. Rickles we request her clients' approval of the above. By
copy of this letter to Mr. McAdams we request his approval of the same. Mr. Gingrich has not
reviewed the wording of this agreement, and we reserve the right to modify the same. Should he
request any changes we shall immediately notify all parties of the same.
Please call me if you have any questions.
AToincerely yours,
y A. Conner
cc: Diana J. Silver
Rena Rickles
Robert McAdams
(all by facsimile)
Custon-Momes 2/7/2001
C
Contra Costa.County Planning Dept.
Re: Wingset P1. Agreement 2/7/2001 atom Pommy Comb
Dear Mr. Drake,
Although the agreement is not exactly what 1 would like to see. I feel that it is the best
that we will get. I think that all issues have been addressed and I am in full support of this
agreement and will tell the board of Supervisors on 2,'1'3''001 the same.
Sincerely,
R bert mcAd :i
cc: Tommy Connor
Rena Rickles = 4ZD ;
Robert Drake
(all by facsimile)
c�
1 ,
r
1 '
Exhibit IV
February 27, 2001 Board Order
Directing Staff to Issue a
Notice of Intention to
Record a Notice of Violation of
Subdivision laws
' F C
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
0/ ?' Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP " �� � � '�` �� J�° Costa Count
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 3 �.,.r�,_�.�ux�; Y
DATE: February 27, 2001
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing on Staff Report Concerning Subdivision Developer's
Compliance with June 13, 2000 Board Order for.Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place)
in the Alamo area, File #Z199-8206, (District 111).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS — Continue hearing to April 10, 2001 at 11 a.m. to allow for
additional time for the subdivision developer to provide a
response to the Board action.
FISCAL IMPACT - None; the subdivision developer is responsibl for all staff
costs.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE )
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOh1MENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 27, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUPl FOR BOARD ACTION AND VOTE
VOT F SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNA S(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
AB ABSTAI SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Bob Drake [(925)335-1214] ATTESTED February 27, 2001
cc:Tom Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Tommy Connor, Connor Bak. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Rena Rickles I ,
Robert McAdam 1 r )
Insp. Mentink, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. BY. • U / ���� ' DEPUTY
Alamo Improvement Association
County Counsel
Heather Ballenger, Public Works Dept.
W:\zi8206-c.bo
RD\
February 13, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#Z19908206
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This matter pertains to completion and modification of a subdivision project within the Alamo
community, Subdivision 7693.. On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal of
two residents within the subdivision(Ciapponi.and Yandell), thereby reversing the Zoning
Administrator's administrative decision allowing the relocation of one of four guest parking spaces
situated within the turnaround area of the project street. Furthermore, the Board required that the
Subdivision Developer (Gingrich) demonstrate compliance with several conditions of approval that
were attached to the County subdivision permit.
On December 19, 2000, the.Board accepted a report from the Community Development Director
concerning the status of the Subdivision Developer's efforts to comply with the 6/13/00 Board
Order. Staff reported that the best prospects for attaining compliance with the Board Order
appeared.to involve a private agreement between the Subdivision Developer (Gingrich), a builder
(Robert McaAdam), and potentially the appellants of the earlier Zoning Administrator decision.
(Ciapponi and Yandell). After taking testimony, the Board continued the hearing to January 16,
2001 to allow the interested parties additional time to respond to the Board Order.
At the January 16, 2001 meeting, staff reported that the interested parties were unable to meet
due to a schedule conflict.
FBRUARY 1 , 2001 MEETING
On February 1, 2001, staff met with the interested parties (Connor, McAdam and Ciapponi).
Modifications to the 1/12/01 private agreement draft were discussed.
i
LAST HEARING
I
In a letter.dated February 7, 2001 , the attorney for the subdivision developer (Tommy Connor)
submitted a revised draft proposal, which was attached to the February 13, 2001 report to the
Board. At the February 13, 200.1 hearing, the Board continued the matter to this date.
DISCUSSION
The proposed agreement indicates that the detailed wording in the agreement has not been
reviewed by the subdivision developer, Tom Gingrich. Staff has circulated it to potentially
interested parties. The attorney for the appellants, Rena Rickles. has indicated to staff that she
has suggested several changes to the agreement to Mr. Connor shortly after the letter was issued.
She indicated that she had not heard any response to her suggestions.
I
j The representative of the Alamo Improvement Association, Roger Smith, indicated that the
Association would be providing comments on the newest draft agreement, but indicated initial
concerns about deferring some of the improvements required by the original subdivision approval.
Staff had wished to discuss the proposal with Mr. Connor, but has been unsuccessful in trying to
reach him prior to the deadline for preparing this staff report.
I
February 13, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#Z19908206
Page 3
A private agreement among the interested parties still appears to be the best prospect for trying to
resolve in the near timeframe the concerns posed by the Board. Staff recommends that this
matter we continued to allow more time for the interested parties to reach such an agreement.
The next land use hearing available on the Board schedule is not until April 10, 2001.
I
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6
February 27, 2001
On February 13, 2001, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date and time, the hearing on
the staff report regarding the Subdivision Developer's compliance (File#Z199-8206) with the
June 13, 2000, Board Order for Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place), Alamo.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director presented the staff report.
Supervisor Gerber recommended that the Board adopt the following language presented by Mr.
Barry as the motion:
"Direct staff to proceed with the hearing of Mr. McAdam's small lot review, or upon withdrawal
of requests for a hearing, decide administratively on Lot#8, in Subdivision 7693, including the
i
recommended conditions in the February 27, 2001, draft private agreement from Connor-Bak, to
which Mr. McAdam agreed in writing by his letter of February- 7. 2001. Those conditions are set
out in the Agreement to Comply with Outstanding Conditions in Subdivision 7693. Alamo. (See
Attachment), and to withhold any and all permits for any work on Lot#8 beyond the foundation
until the Conditions are in full compliance as set out in the Attachment.
Direct staff to place a hold oil the issuance of any development hermit, including any building
permit on Lots #S and #6 in Subdivision 7693, begin proceedings to file a Notice of Intent to file
a Notice of Violation on Lots #5 and 146 pending Mr. Gringrich obtaining approval to relocate
required on-street parking as needed to provide access to Lot =6 and all other requirements of the
June 13, 2000, Board Order and this Attachment. This will ensure compliance with the access
and parking regulations cited in the January 16, 2001, staff report on this matter.
Direct staff to continue to provide the special notice to the appellants and other property owners
within the Subdivision, as directed in the June 13, 2000, Board Order.
Further, Mr. McAdam agrees to hold appellants and the Count-harmless for their refusal to
i
conduct "above floor" inspections if the Conditions set out in the Attachment and the Board's
June 13, 2000, Board order are not completed."
Following further Board discussion, Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously to accept it.
i
AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH OUTSTANDING CONDITIONS ON
SUBDIVISION 7693, ALAMO
The fourth off-street parking space
Mr. Gingrich, or his agent shall prepare a map depicting a portion of Lot 5 for
installation of an off-street parking space at the location specified by the Board of
Supervisors on August 1, 2000 as Option T", subject to the approval of the San
Ramon Valley Fire District.
In the event that placement of that parking space decreases the setback
requiring a variance for Lot 5, the work will not proceed until the variance is granted
either by Planning Staff or the Board of Supervisors. None of the interested
parties--Ciapponi, AIA, McAdams.or Gingrich -- shall oppose this variance.
The obliteration of the road between lots 6 and 7
Appellent, Mr. Ciapponi will hire a civil engineer to prepare a gracing and
drainage plan, including a diagram of the area to be graded, to control run-off and
drainage in the area, and, to obliterate any and all remnants of the pre-existing
paved road between lots 6 and 7. Mr. Gingrich shall approve the plan, such
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and will be "deemed approved" within
10 days of submission to Mr. Gingrich.
Mr. McAdam will, at no expense to Gingrich or Ciapponi, cause the grading
to be completed consistent with the plans (set out in the paragraph above) and
specifications and trade standards. McAdam shall obtain and issue to the property
owners, Ciapponi and Gingrich a certificate of liability insurance on a standard
general comprehensive liability form with coverage limits not less than $1 million per
occurance and shall name the property owners as named insurers. McAdam
further agrees to keep the property free of encumbrances, liens and to insure and
defends property owners from all claims for personal injury/property damage arising
from or related to the work performed.
The creation of the on-site parking
Mr. Gingrich will comply with the requirements to provide on-site parking on
lots 5 and 6 by either of the following: 1) immediately construct and pave the
required parking spaces or, 2) file a performance bond which will cover the cost of
I
I
paving five on-site parking spaces on each lot. Said performance bond on lot 5, will
expire in 12 months; and, will expire on lot 6 in 24 months. If either or both lots are
sold, Gingrich shall include a requirement in the sale agreement for the buyer(s)
install said parking within 6 months of the execution of the sales agreement.
The San Ramon Fire Protection Requirements
Mr. Gingrich shall obtain approval from the San Ramon Fire Protection
District for the legally required signs as opposed to and the exclusion of painted
curbs. Mr. Gingrich shall secure and install said signs, shall stripe the on-street
parking spaces and, if required to have painted curbs. shall cause that work to be
fperformed at his own expense.
I
i
r
i
Exhibit V
May 2, 2001 Notice of Intention to
Record a Notice of Violation of
Subdivision laws
}, Contra Dennis M.Barry,AICP
`,ommunity Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department County
County Administration Building AN...
651 Pine Street -
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095 .
Phone:
(925) 335-1214
May 2, 2001
Certified Mail
Thomas E. Gingrich, Tre
PO Box 504
Alamo, CA 94507
Dear Mr. Gingrich:
Re: Notice of Intention to Record a
Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Real Property
(Govt. Code § 66499.36 and C.C.C. Ord. C. § 92-12.404 & 92-12.406)
Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693
(APN 193-401-018 &-019; #7 & #8 Wingset Place,Alamo)
CDD File 9Z199-8206
It has come to our attention that the above captioned real property for which you are the
owner of record appears to have been developed in violation of the State Subdivision
Map Act and the County Subdivision Ordinance, including the subdivision permit
granted by the County.
Violations
On November 24, 1992,the Board of Supervisors approved Subdivision 7693 (tentative
map) subject to conditions. You are the subdivision developer for this project. After the
Board of Supervisors approved the final map,it was recorded in 1996. We also
understand that you continue to hold title to Lots 5 and 6 within the project.
It has come to our intention that the improvements required by the 1992 subdivision
approval have not been fully completed. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.36
and County Ordinance Code Section 92-12.404, I have determined that the failure to
complete the required improvements constitutes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act
and County Subdivision Ordinance. The particular violations are more specifically
described below.
Office Hours Monday - Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5.00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month
i
Violations
You are in violation of the following:
Contra Costa County Ordinance Code §§ 92-12.404, 92-8002,which require
conformance to applicable zoning regulations and county ordinances. Specifically, the
following ordinances.have been violated:
RE: Lot 5 (#8Wingset Place, Alamo;Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-018)
No provision for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard
areas [C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Family Residential
District, R-20), 84-4.1202(Single Family Residential,R-6], and 82-16.012
(Off-Street Parking Ordinance].
• Failure to provide for required on-street posting and painting of curbs
indicating"no parking"required along Wingset Place as specified by the
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of
September 11, 1991 (Item 44) and required by the Board of Supervisors
[C.C.C. Ord. Code § 82-16.012(6), 6/13/2000 Board Order on Hearing on
Ciapponi and Yandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision].
RE: Lot 6 (#Wingset Place, Alamo; Assessor's Parcel Number 193-401-019)
s Provision for two off-street parking spaces outside of required yard areas
[C.C.C. Ord. Code §§ 84-14.1202 (Single Family Residential District, R-
20), 84-4.1202 (Single Family Residential, R-6], and 82-16.012(Off-
Street Parking Ordinance].
• Blocked access to required off-street parking spaces (C.C.C. Ord. Code §§
82-16.002 and 82-16.012 )caused by placement of four parking spaces
j within the right-of-way for Wingset Place along the frontage of Lot 6.
Y Failure to provide for required on-street posting and painting of curbs
j indicating no parking required along Wingset Place as specified by San
Ramon Valley Fire Protection District in the District's letter of September
11, 1991 (Item#4) and required by the Board of Supervisors [C.C.C. Ord.
Code § 82-16.012(6); 6/13/2000 Board Order on Hearing on Ciapponi and
Yandell Appeal of Zoning Administrator Decision.]
Government Code Section 66412.6 (a) and (b) does not apply to this determination and
notice.
I
2
Opportunity to Present Evidence on Reasons Why a Notice of Violation Should Not
be Recorded
At the below listed place, date and time, you will have an opportunity to present evidence
to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission why the notice should not be
recorded.
San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Hearing
San Ramon Valley Unified School District Board Room
699 Old Orchard Drive,Danville, CA
Wednesday, June 6, 2001 —7:30 p.m.
If, within 15 days of the receipt of this notice,you fail to.inform the Contra Costa
County Community Development Department of your objection to recording the
notice of violation, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission is
authorized by Government Code Section 66499.36 to cause the notice of violation to
be recorded with the county recorder.
Should you have any questions,please call Bob Drake of my staff at(925) 335-1214.
Sincerely,
DENNIS M. BARRY,n� �
Community Developmector
Cc: Members, San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission
County Counsel
Catherine Kutsuris
Bob Drake
Tommy Connor, Connor Bak, LLP, Certified Mail
Rena Rickles
Robert McAdam
Heather Ballenger, Public Works Department
Inspector Michael Mentink, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
Agenda Clerk
File
WAzi-8206-not.1tr
RD\
3
-S.Postal Service
�3CERTIFIED MAIL MEIPT
s. 77
r- (Domestic
mail •
nlWM9 insurance Coverage Provided)
;ru
O
it -.
rqPostage 3 I NEZ
ru Cq
Ln .Certified Fee C
.53
GrU �. f�
Return stms,
Receipt Fee S �j� Po 'f
(Endorsement Require Hem r
0 Restricted DeI Fee
C3 (Endorsement Required) ^ -
O Total Postage ti,Fees $ �v
ru e9 .
lt] Replent's,Name (Ple se Print Clearly a completed by mallet)
O
St-4 AP m�. _ rL wp COURT S
C3 sircet app tio.;or ro sat No. TA TION
:.;. c�Ca
05 02/20
te,_ l �� Q�V(�
MARTINEZ,49
53991 orni a
tt i 01 (800)275-8777
un c: 0. ��. X4 1
10;11:03 AM
Product Sales Receipt
U-S.Postal ServiceDescription Sale U
ption Qty nit Final
(DomesticR Price Price
NO Insurance Covera
AIAMO CA 94507
ge Provided) First-Class $0.34
`nReturn Receipt
C0 Certified $1.50
rr Label Serial #: $1.90
7000 '529$16 90
0520002
19 85
Ir Postage $ C ; Issue
PVI:
SAN' FRANCISCO $3'74
Irl Certified Fee f l (� OGi-p'i CA 94107
�_A• First-Class
j Arsem Receipt Fee s7-U? P�finerk .�% Re turn Receipt $0.34
� (Endorsement Required) _
C3 AY Here. Certified $1.50
C3 Restricted Delivery Fee // j Lsba l Ser'^
(Endorsement Required) f Serial
1 #: 700005200021529$1092
O Total Postage$Fees $ \ J
ru Issue PVI:
Rlent's
Q eci�? Name (PI e se Print C1ear1 $3.74
t, r)(To be completed by mailer) Tota 1:
(� Str t.Apt Na._,cr pp Box No; —� S 5
C3 - .0. (l��J�r- ��lJvt �;...____- -- I Paid by: 7.48
r— City. tate,Z1P+4
- - -- -- ---- __ Cash
• ASU GCS, Gy S6 --------------------------
:rr Changs Due:
$20.00
�r -$12.52
Blll#: 1000200151263
Clerk: 03
Thank you for your- business �. =
Exhibit VI
May 16, 2001 Subdivision Developer
Response to Notice of Intention
LAW OFFICES OF 10 Monterey Blvd.
I j ,Y ' 7 AI V(1 O San Francisco,CA 94131
TOMI\,ZYA. CONNER tel:415.334.0877
6:415.334.9877
email: toin3ny@corner-bak.com
May 16, 2001
By Federal Express
Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Director, Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Re: Subdivision 7693/ff'ingset Place
Dear Mr. Barry:
This responds to the Community Development Department's May 2, 2001.Notice of
Intention to Record Notice of Violation of Subdivision Laws on Real Property. Mr. Gingrich
objects to the Notice on a number of grounds, and requests leave to present evidence to the San
Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on June 6, 2001.
Objections
1. As Director you have determined that Mr. Gingrich's "failure to complete the
required improvements constitutes a violation of the Subdivision Map Act and County
Subdivision Map Ordinance." On January 9, 1996 the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
resolved that the improvements in Subdivision 7693 were completed as provided in the
Subdivision Agreement with KGB Development Company—Mr. Gingrich's predecessor in
interest. On recommendation of the Public Works Director the Board found that the
improvements satisfactorily met the guaranteed performance standards, and authorized the
Director to refund the balance of the developer's cash deposit. In short, the Board determined
that the developer met the conditions of approval. Mr. Gingrich's rights are vested. The Board
of Supervisor's did not have jurisdiction to enter its June 13, 2000 order.
2. The Board of Supervisor's exceeded its jurisdiction in its June 13, 2000 order.
Assuming, arguendo, that the Board of Supervisors had jurisdiction as a result of Mr.Gingrich's
application to relocate one on-street parking space in the hammerhead, that jurisdiction was
limited to the sole issue placed before it; i.e.,whether to uphold the Zoning Administrator's
Decision granting Mr. Gingrich's application. The Board of Supervisor's exceeded its
jurisdiction by 1)moving beyond the scope of Mr. Gingrich's application, 2) ordering Mr.
Gingrich to perform work on private property no longer in his possession,3) ordering Mr.
Gingrich to expend money to secure rights previously vested in Mr. Gingrich.
R
Law Offices of Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Tommy A. Conner May 16, 2001
Page two
3. The Board abused its discretion by tying Mr. McAdams development rights Mrith
respect to Lot 8 to Mr. Gingrich's satisfaction of conditions previously satisfied by Mr. Gingrich.
Even if the Board had jurisdiction to compel Mr. Gingrich to expend funds satisfying conditions
the Board of Supervisor's previously approved as satisfied,the Board still would not have the
right to tie Mr. McAdams development rights to Mr. Gingrich's compliance with the.Board's
Order. There is no nexus between Mr.McAdams application for a building permit as to Lot 8
and Mr. Gingrich's satisfaction of conditions of approval.
4. The Board abused its discretion by ordering Mr. Gingrich to allocate private
property to public use and to locate an additional on-street parking space such that the existing
cottage on Lot 5 would violate applicable setback requirements.
5. The Board abused its discretion by ruling in pursuit of the interest of one side of a
private dispute. Mr. Yandell and Mr. Ciapponi attempted to purchase Lot 8, which sits between
their respective houses. Mr... Gingrich rejected their offer, and.further rejected their attempts to
leverage a dispute between Mr. McAdam and Mr. Gingrich. 1\•Iessrs. Yandell and Ciapponi have
opposed all subsequent efforts to resolve these private disputes. In communications with the
author of this letter Mr. Ciapponi has acknowledged that he N;ill do everything in his power to
block Mr. Gingrich's efforts to extricate himself from this morass. This is the definition of a
private dispute. The Board's efforts to assist one side of this battle smacks of political favoritism
and are an abuse of the Board's quasi-judicial power.
6. Mr. Gingrich and Mr. McAdam have agreed to a mechanism that would resolve
all of the issues raised by the Board. Mr. Ciapponi has blocked that private resolution by
demanding commercially unreasonable concessions from Mr. McAdam that lack any connection
whatsoever to the issues Mr. Ciapponi raised in opposition to Mr. Gingrich's application to
relocate an on-street parking space. Mr. Ciapponi seeks to secure personal financial gain from
the conflict he has created.
7. Mr. Ciapponi has inflamed the issues by parking three vehicles in the guest
parking spaces in the hammerhead. These vehicles are parked in the spaces that Mr. Ciapponi
claims limit his access to and from his driveway. Again,these are personal disputes from which
the Board would ordinarily refrain, yet in this instance has weighed in on one side without regard
to the conduct or the credibility of its proponent.
8. Your finding that Mr. Gingrich has not provided for two off-street parking spaces
outside of required yard areas on Lot 6 is factually inaccurate. Your finding that access to Lot 6
is blocked by placement of four parking spaces in the hammerhead is also factually inaccurate.
The frontage to Lots 5 and 6 provide enough space for four parking spaces of legally adequate
dimension without blocking ingress and egress to Lots 5 and 6; only the existing marking of the
Law Offaces Of Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Tommy A. Conner May 16, 2001
Page three
parking spaces blocks access. The locations called out on the improvement map are in error, and
can be corrected without reopening the recorded parcel map.
9. The original conditions regarding posting and painting of curbs were satisfied
pursuant to or waived by the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 1996.
10. The original conditions regarding off-street parking spaces on Lots 5 and 6 were
satisfied pursuant to or waived by the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 1996.
11. Recording a Notice of Violation on the ground that existing conditions on private
property in a private subdivision do not comply with current County ordinances where the
owner's of such properties enjoy vested rights as to such conditions will not solve the issues
presented by this private dispute, nor would the Notice have any legal significance other than to
cloud title and compel legal action.
For all of the above reasons Mr. Gingrich respectfully requests the County not to record
the Notice. We are informed that Mr. McAdam is in contact «ith the County as to the
difficulties he is encountering with Mr. Ciapponi. We are confident that Mr. McAdam's
communications with the County and the evidence be has developed as to Mr. Ciapponi's
motives will assist the County in its decision making process and provide an appropriate avenue
for NIr. Gingrich's resolution of all legitimate concerns.
rely yours,
Tommy A. Conner
cc: Robert McAdam
Exhibit VII
6/6/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission
Hearing
Agenda Item#—a—
Community Development Department Contra Costa County
SAN RAMON VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 6, 2001
I. INTRODUCTION
CUSTOM HOMES BY McADAM, INC. (Applicant & Owner), County File
#DP003042. A request for design review approval for a new one-story residence
on a substandard lot for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility.
The subject property is located at #3 Wing Set Place in the Alamo area. ( CT
3461.02) (APN 193-401-024) (R-20) (ZA: Q-15)
II. BACKGROUND
This is the second time a development plan for this lot has been heard by the San
Ramon Regional Planning Commission. Development plan 983013 was heard
and denied by the Commission on October 20, 1999. The plan previously denied
by the Commission is attached. On July 18, 2000 the applicant applied for a
small lot review for a home, which is substantially different from the one
previously denied by the Commission. The small lot review notice was mailed to
all neighbors within 300 feet of the project and in response to this notice
neighbors requested a public hearing for the project.
III. RECOMMENTATION
Adopt a motion:
A. Find that the proposed residence is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, height, design and
location.
B. Approve the development plan application with conditions.
IV. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. General Plan Designation- Single Family Residential Low Density
B Zoning- Single Family Residential, R-20
I
S-2
C. Environs- The subject property is one of two vacant lots located
in Tract 7693. All but two of the homes within the subdivision are
two-story. One of the existing single-story homes is an older ranch
style, which is owned by the developer of the subdivision. The
remaining one-story residence is adjacent to the subject property,
bordering the northern property line.
D. Site Description: The site consists of a graded pad, which is
roughly triangular in shape. There is an existing 3-5 foot tall berm
parallel to the northern property line of the site. There are pine
trees along the eastern property line.
E. Subdivision Background-The subject lot was created by the
approval of a 9-lot subdivision, Subdivision 7693, (Gingrich-
Applicant)
1. Zoning Administrator Approval of Tentative Map-
Subdivision 7693 was initially approved by the Zoning
Administrator on July 16, 1992, subject to conditions
including a requirement that the project observe a 25-foot
structure setback from the rear property line of this lot.
2. iew-Several neighbors appealed that
Board of Appeals Rev
decision to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission (who acted as the Board of Appeal on this
matter). .After taking testimony, on September 16, 1992,
the Commission approved the project for only 8, lots and
required that additional design criteria be observed for the
northern tier of lots, including the subject property. The
Commission required that for any two-story residences on
these lots, that a one-story element be placed adjacent to
and facing the northern property line to separate the yard of
previously existing homes from the two —story element of
the residence. The Commission also provided for other
design review considerations.
3. Board of Supervisors Review- In turn, the applicant
appealed the Commission's decision to the Board of
Supervisors. After taking testimony, on November 24,
1992, the Board reversed the Commission modifications
and approved the tentative map as originally conditioned by
the Zoning Administrator. The Board approval restored
the ninth lot, which had been deleted by the Commission,
and eliminated the Commission's provision for additional
residential design criteria for the lots adjacent to the
northern boundary of the site.
I
S-3
4. Final Map Approval and Recordation- On July 18, 1995,
the Board of Supervisors approved the Final Map for this
subdivision and it was subsequently recorded.
V. PROPOSED PROJECT
On July 18, 2000, the applicant filed an application for small lot review to allow
the construction of a one-story residence on this site. The application was
required because, although the lot is approximately 3,700 square feet over the
required area for the R-20 zoning district, staff determined that the lot is
substandard with respect to meeting the average width requirement of the R-20
zoning district (minimum 120-feet), and the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance
(attached) does not allow approval of a building permit until neighboring
property owners are notified, and provided an opportunity to request a public
hearing.
On July 18, 2000 the County issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Building Permit
for this project. The notice resulted in several requests from neighboring owners
for a public hearing. At that time, staff informed the applicant that he would have
to file for a development plan public hearing application and have his request
considered at a public hearing. The applicant filed such an application on August
28, 2000.
The project consists of a proposed one-story residence totaling 4361square feet
(not including the square footage of the garage). The residence contains four
bedrooms, plus a library, a media room, an office. kitchen, living room, dining
room, and family room, and four bathrooms.
VI. COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED HOME AND HOME
REVIEWED BY COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 20. 1999.
In response to the Commission's denial and conunents from the neighbors, the
applicant had his architect create an entirely different house plan, from the one
previously denied, before applying for another small lot review. The present
plan is one-story and 26 feet in height, as opposed to the denied residence, which
was two-stories, and 30 feet tall. Unlike the previous plan, because the home is
only one-story, the top of the highest window is located approximately 15 feet
above grade. Whereas, in the old plan, the highest window was 20 feet above
grade. The side yard setbacks are the same for both the previously denied and
the new plans (15' and 30'). The front setback for the new plan is approximately
87', whereas the setback for the old plan was approximately 100'. Finally, the
new plan shows a rear yard setback of 25', which is 22' closer to the property line
than the previous two-story residence.
S-4
VII. NEIGHBORS' COMMENTS
Attached are copies of two letters received from Mr. Ciapponi and Mr. Yandel,
commenting on the project. Originally four letters of opposition were submitted.
However, since the time the applicant submitted his application and now, one of
the people in opposition has moved and one has retracted their request for a
hearing. Attached are letters from the new owner at 32 Via Alondra and the
owner at#3 Wingset Place. It appears the neighbors main objections relate to the
size and the location of the home.
VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH ORIGINAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
SUBDIVISION 7693
Much of Mr. Ciappom"s objection to the approval of this home plan is related to
the fact that some of the original conditions of approval for this subdivision have
been found by the Board of Supervisors to have not been met. Although he is not
the original developer of the property, the applicant has volunteered to do sonic
improvements in order to meet some of the conditions of approval for the
subdivision. The conditions of approval for this development plan were created
in accordance with a proposed agreement, dated February 7, 2001, written-by Mr.
Tommy Conner. ( The agreement is within the attached February 13, 2001 Board
Order.) The parties included in the agreement include Mr. Ciapponi, Mr. Yandell,
Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Me Adam. Despite the improvements Mr. McAdam is
proposing to complete, there are still remaining, conditions which staff believes
are the responsibility of the original developer (N1r. Gingrich). Therefore, staff is
presenting another staff report at this same hearing, to address measures to
enforce those conditions. In conclusion staff does not believe there is a nexus to
deny the proposed project, because the original conditions for subdivision 7693
have not been completed.
IX. ALAMO IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION COMMENTS
The attached letter from the Association states that it is not in opposition to the
design or location of the residence, however, the application is recommended for
denial based upon the failure of the developer to meet the conditions and
requirements of the subdivision.
X. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REFERRAL OF PROTECT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Nonnally, when there is a request for hearing of a small lot review; the ordinance
provides that the initial hearing body is the Zoning Administrator. However, due
to the substantial concern of the neighbors relative to this project and relative to
the subdivision background, the Zoning Administrator felt that the Planning
I _
i
S-5
Commission would be the appropriate body to hear and decide this project.
Pursuant to Section 26-2.1002 of the Ordinance Code, the Zoning Administrator
has elected to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for review and
decision.
XI. REQUIRED SMALL LOT ORDINANCE FINDINGS
Attached is a copy of the ordinance, which has caused this application to be filed.
Where a property qualifies as a "small lot", before a building permit may be
issued, the County must review the proposed development for compatibility with
and impact on the surrounding neighborhood in ternis of its "location, size, height
and design."
XII. DISCUSSION
A. Compliance with Applicable Zoning Standard- The proposed house
satisfies the onsite-parking requirement of both the zoning district (min. 2
spaces) and the subdivision approval (min 6 spaces).
B. Compatibility with the Neighborhood-The proposed one-story home is
4,361 square feet in area and has a 15' side yard on the northern property
line, a 30 side yard on the southern property line, a front yard setback of
87' and rear yard setback of 25'.
In order to assess the compatibility of the proposed residence with the
neighborhood, staff reviewed building plans and assessor's records for
other homes located within subdivision 7693. (It should be noted that
because'the developer's home is quite different in design from the newer
homes in the subdivision, staff did not include it in this compatibility
analysis.) The square footage of the homes range from approximately
3,477 square feet (residence on lot 3) to 4975 square feet for the residence
on lot 4. Additionally, side yard setbacks are between approximately 15'
and 29'. Rear yard setbacks are between approximately 20 and 65'. Five
of the existing homes within the subdivision are two stories. The design
of the proposed residence is consistent with the neighborhood.
C. Conclusion- Based on the fact that the proposed home is; similar in size
and location to other homes in the subdivision; is lower in height than 5 of
them and is similar in design; staff concludes it is compatible with the
neighborhood.
D. Neighbor Concerns-Listed below is a summary of concerns listed by
neighbors in their correspondence, and staff s response to them.
S-6
1. Summary of Comment- The size of the home seems large for
substandard lot.
Staff Response- The home is smaller than three of the other homes
in the subdivision. Staff believes this fact, coupled with the fact
that the lot is considered a small lot only because of the average lot
width calculation and not because of lack of square footage,
warrants the approval of the proposed residence.
2. Summary of Comment- There are safety issues concerning the
relationship of the driveway to the current fence that separates the
Yandell's lot form the subject lot. There is no curb or landscaping
to mitigate this danger.
Staff Response- In order to enter the garage, occupants of the
residence will turn right, which is in a direction opposite of the
Yandell's property. Staff believes this should eliminate safety
concerns. (Ask Me Adam if he Nviil put in a curb.)
3. Summary of Comment- Yandell's are concerned about drainage
issues.
Staff Response- Drainage issues are not part of a small lot review.
The building inspection will review the proposed drainage when
the building plans are submitted to their department. The purpose
of the sinall lot review is solely to confirm. that a proposed
residence is consistent with the neighborhood in terms of its
location, size, height and design.
4. Summary of Comment- Yandell's \want construction of home to be
carried out during normal business hours.
Staff Response- There are conditions of approval for this project,
which require the applicant to do construction between the hours of
7:30am and 5:30pm, Monday through Friday.
XIII. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
If the Commission disagrees with either the staff recommended findings or action,
there are at least two alternative actions, which the Commission could consider:
A. Deny the Project as Proposed -In the e\,ent that the Commission is
unable to conclude the proposed project is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location, size, height and
design, then they may deny the application.
S-7
B. Determine if the Applicant is Willing to Provide a Modified
Development Plan for the Commission to Review - If the
Commission is able to identify specific changes which may make
the project acceptable, the Commission could identify what
changes they might be and ask the applicant if he is willing to
make those changes and present them to the Commission at a
continued public hearing.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN
#DP003042(Custom Homes by McAdam-Applicant &Owner) IN THE ALAMO AREA
Findings
A. Small Lot Review Findings
Required finding- The proposed dwelling will be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood in terms of location, size, height and design.
Project Finding- The proposed residence is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of location, height, size, and design.
Conditions of Approval
1. Development is approved as shown on plans stamped received by
the Community Development Department on October 17, 2000.
2. This application was subject to an initial application fee of$500.00
which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and
material costs if the application review, expenses exceed 100% of
the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days
of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever
occurs first. The fees include cost through permit issuance plus
five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain
current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant
owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly
after permit issuance.
3. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30
A.M. to 5:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be
prohibited on state and federal holidays.
4. Review and Completion of Off-Site Improvements within
Subdivision — At least two weeks prior to requesting any
inspection: beyond the foundation inspection: ( which includes
any pier and/or form inspection), the applicant shall provide
evidence to the Community Development Department for the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that the all of the
following off-site improvements have been reviewed by the
Zoning Administrator and fully implemented:
A. County Review of Plans —Prior to commencement of the
below described improvements, the applicant shall provide
improvement plans for the review and approval of the
Zoning Administrator.
2
1) Relocation of One Common Guest Parking Space
onto Lot 5 (Gingrich) (Ref. Condition #1 of 2/7/01
Connor Bak LLP letter) — The applicant shall
provide:
a) Map From Owner Proposing a Relocated
Guest Parking Space and Conveyance of
Access to all Subdivision Lot Owners -A
map depicting a portion of Lot 5 for
installation of an off-street parking space
prepared by the owner, Thomas Gingrich.
The area shall be approximately 8 feet wide
and not more than 20 feet deep.
The plans shall include a proposed easement
encompassing the proposed guest parking
space identified with a metes-and-bounds
description. The plans shall also be
accompanied by evidence that the owner has
recorded an easement conveying access
rights to the parking space to all owners of
lots within Subdivision 7693 (Wingset
Place). The applicant shall also provide
evidence that he has secured a right-of-entry
from the owner of Lot 5 for the required
improvements.
b) Improvement Plans for Parking
Space— Improvement plans
providing for grading and paving of
the guest parking space.
2) Obliteration of Former Driveway on Lots 6
and 7 (Ref. Condition #3 and 4 of 2/7/01
Connor Bak LLP Letter) —The applicant
shall provide a grading and drainage plan
prepared by the engineer (Ruark) of the
owner of Lot 7 (Ciapponi) affecting Lots 6
ID
(Gingrich) and 7 (Ciapponi). The purpose
of the plan shall be to control runoff and to
regulate the drainage in the area, and to
obliterate any and all remnants of the pre-
existing paved road in the area. The plan
shall include, but not be limited to, an
appropriate diagram of the area to be graded.
.. 1
1
3
The plan shall be accompanied by evidence
that the owner of Lot 6 (Gingrich) has
approved said plan. Until the owner of Lot
6 has approved the grading plan, no work on
the plan improvements shall commence.
The applicant shall provide evidence that
rights-of-entry have been secured from both
owners.
Evidence of Certificate of Liability
Insurance—The applicant shall provide
evidence that he has issued to both of the
respective property owner(s) a certificate of
liability insurance on a general
comprehensive liability form with coverage
limits not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence, and shall name the respective
property owner(s) as additional named
insured(s) on that policy. The applicant
shall also provide warrants to keep the
property free and clear of any liens or
encumbrances. and to defend and indemnify
the owner(s) against any and all claims for
personal injure and/or property damage
arising from or related to the work
performed.
B. Completion of Guest Parking Space on Lot 5 —The
applicant shall complete the improvements on the approved
plans to relocate one of the on-street"guest parking space
onto Lot 5 (Gingrich).
C. Completion of Plans to Obliterate the Former Driveway on.
Lots 6 and 7 —The applicant shall complete the
improvements on the approved grading and drainage plan
referenced in Condition #A.2. above. The improvements
shall be completed consistent N ith the applicable plans and
specifications and standards of the trade.
D. Placement of Hold on Building Inspections—At time of
issuance of a building permit for the proposed residence,
the Community Development Department shall place a
hold on the inspections to be performed for the proposed
residence to assure appropriate completion of required off-
site improvements described above. This hold shall remain
4
I
in place until such time as the required improvements have
been satisfactorily completed.
I
Should the applicant provide evidence that the above
required improvements have been satisfactorily completed
prior to issuance of a building permit, then this permit will
not require placement of a hold on building permit
inspections.
S. Employ Best Efforts to Secure Approval of the Fire Protection
District—The applicant shall use his best efforts in association
with the subdivision developer.(Gingrich)to secure approval from
the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District for signage, as
opposed to and to the exclusion of, painted curbs. (Ref. Condition
#9 of 2/7/01 Connor Bak LLP Letter)
ADVISORY NOTES
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 Sanitary District.
B. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection
District.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Health Services Department,
Environmental Health Division.
D. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department.
Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures.
The fees include but are not limited to the following:
Park Dedication S2,000 per residence.
(If appropriate-Child Care) S 400 per residence.
5
An estimate of the fee charges for each approved lot may be obtained by
contacting the Building Inspection Department at 335-1192.
E. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES,
DEDICATION, 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, reservation, 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.
m A
I
� ♦ \ '4•:x.1 !`�" ?
4 �1`w cZ e- cad
w a tU y c•:c
me
CD
� Z
....._....- ------- -' -
' c"'J'sc G•sotL c'•i•-� 5°.3'S°�o,+L�'9,a.a .3.5^m�Ps� � . en
01
-
�
o
'
-4'S•
� { c
z ,
I n
7-
r .\ •.. w /
14
3
z
\ > 7
1
1 ✓//V
01 I o r n 3 of N
z'�
m b -i m ;T 8 Rco
z 0
� i n � ;� •a z D D
I
- ISM II
i i 4� Far
4� ��'h.�E? `.ni � {{[p,,-,•ter-w�ike� - .� i�li I .\ .,�
�j
t
r
sY
.s — —
. 111
-
-- :--
I r4
3
erg r� S� A
R �
'r t x ss-44 "--"`rte^ - �'•
�}T
• o
V
CA
Olt 015 1 k\
71
e
�� !� � � yam,; � '!�� •`� ',�'_ �\~ '�`. �'- :'�•.. '� `' � D '�3:
c-
i� tso
> g
-` o
•. I z�c a 3'6' .
{
(. I_ o o i
.13
co
� Is
1
7'
w
c I '
� I
s=e" G=o• A:o•. 41p. .g=o• - off. S4c/3:s•
I H7 _
1
�1Tj
7r
Z 10 r
P
I. -
I I i
i
f.
J
n' 114
'�� 1 �� 85
Vr'•y'�
�'1 - �' Q •-{ .?_ `B�• D Y•� vis i. V
`___)TS 82-8.006---82-10.006
effective Et�in
or if an exist- dwelling appears not to be compatible with the
I
of(and is terain for any oC surrounding neighborhood.If clic zoning administra-
e reasons, the bucture may not be for makes that determination,the zoning administra-
reparr or rcess of fifty for may, but is not required to, schedule a public
percent of its reasonaalue a me of hearing to review the proposed dwelling's compati-
destrucU or damagg bility with and impact on the surrounding neighbor-
use of land w by any of these hood, in terms of its location, size, height and de-
causes awfully be resumed within six months sign. I a public hearing is sc u , the notice
of the i erre tion.(Prior code§8107(b):Ord.431). pFrovisions of Section 26-2.2004 shall apply. After
such determination,at the conclusion of the hearing,
82-8.006 Extension—Enlargeme An exist- or if no hearing is held, the zoning administrator
ing nonconforming use may be orenlarged may deny, approve or conditionally approve the
If the ow and use permit. (Prior proposed dwelling in order to provide neighborhood
code § 8107(c): Ord. 431). compatibility. (Ords. 95-51, § 2, 92-44 § 2, 79-69
§ 2: prior code § 8108: Ords. 1371, 1206, 933 § 1,
Chapter 82-10 382, § 9 [2]: see § 82-4.244).
LOT'S* 82-10.004 Required area reduced by public
use. If part of a lot or parcel of land having not less
Sections: than the required area for its land use district is
82-10.002 Division and consolidation. acquired for public use in any manner, including
82-10.004 Required area reduced by dedication, condemnation, or purchase, and if the
public use. remainder of the lot or parcel has not less than
82-10.006 Land on district boundaries. eighty percent of the area required for its land use
district,the remainder shall be considered as having
For loc provisions for specific rand use districts,sec Cha{xus 84-4 the required area, but setback, side yard, and real
ff., this code. yard, r,-quirements shall be met. If a lot or parcel of
land has an authorized nonconfornung status if the
82-10.002 Di��sion and consolidation. acquisition for public use does not reduce the re.-
(a) Conveyance and Division Restriction. No mainder below eig
con�rol–Iing area. The setback, side yard, and rear
hty
percent of the existing non-
person shall divide or convey a lot or portion there-
of, if this results in one or more lots violating the yard requirements of the land use district shall be
width,yard,or Setback requirements of Divisions 82 met, except for buildings or structures in existence
and 84, unless a variance has been granted in actor- at Lhe time of public acquisition. (Prior code § 8109:
dance with county ordinance code variance provi- Ord. 1054).
cions.
(b) Land Satisfying Requirements. Land used to 82-10.006 Land on district boundaries.
satisfy the area,width,yard,or setback requirements «Mien any district boundary lien divides a lot or
for one dwelling unit cannot satisfy those require- parcel of land owned of record as one unit at the
merits for another unit. time Division 82 and 84 become effective,the regu-
(c) Srna]l Lot Occ Any lot of less arca or lations_.ppiicable.to that part of the land lying with-
width than required by Divisions 82 and 84 may be- in the lest restricted distract shall apply for thirty
occupied by a single-family dwelling and its acces- feet on t1're land beyond the district boundary. (Prior
sory buildings if. (1) the yard and setback require- code r5110: Ord_ 382).
ments of Divisions 82 and 84 are met, or a variance-
has
ariancehas been granted for yard and setback requirements,
and (2) the lot is delineated on a recorded subdivi-
sion map, or at the time of the creation of the lot(as
evidenced by recording date) or at any time since,
the lot -was consistent in width and area with the
applicable zoning district or the lot was created prior
to the application of zoning in its location. If a
small lot qualifies for occupancy by a single-farnily
dwelling, then a building permit can issue unless the
zoning administrator determines that the proposed
301
1 ROLL 3836 �,.13.t �-�9
tg71 RO
(, ROTI TRACT 7693 M 8 381-29
p t99 �
26.72 A Y�f..i' c( V.
Cj
�, •oe 2S: ,rt s2.
•' m A CCCL 1�1
444 j 1 t J H x
t1 J
•4E,OAc
V k6 -v R_2A
e s 6530, ? t5.61
t1
22 ?s:
a _513Ac = eti .
Z4
O ` c`��i 86 81 /20.44 ('� "\
y�Y.[Q 3`'-1 t � 54GA {f
A75 C,81
? 5o uo\s s yc �t
\
`t•�� V - v! i� n
.y �J 1� 7ti1.S� Vit,` y �� .s•4$ /
(� 5 Ac.
�r�
�' �ry, t7 a> 19.
�f- 'T� t `pt�t
10
8
s•.� p .�� ` t � 14
3 4. 692Ac
t
co
Aati �4 y�2.
Q) 119
o
;�. 6 0 8
<" y 61 74.6.9
7
NW N J
C / 0
1562 1563 !`
1560 o=c j61 f 1�J ...•� - --r-----------._.____._�
�' Ory Gf4A
�.`
tlAO
FFG° cr.
tp
AM ft NA CT
' 1
4
x - R-20
r
fP
4 r
9 L_
r " cr oh
f a Y£LV£1' r
R=20
IIVORNd
90
i
i
e �
V
rRArO£a
L
t 't /
� 1
r
_
�y o
_ \ gas
11 15G0'1 ISG! 15G2 1563 r5ra
R 15
ALO NPQOVEMENT AeMOCIMON
A.O.507,271 • AMO, CALIFORNIA 94507 • (925) 866-3606
December 14, 2000
BY FAX TO 335-1222
Community Development Dept.
651 Pine St., 4t'Floor, N. Wing
Martinez, CA 94533-0095
Attn: Candi Wensley
Subject : DP 00-3042
Site: #3 Wingset Place
Request to review the development plans to construct a single family residence on a
wedge shaped lot of.546 acre. R-20 zoning..
Dear Ms. Wensley:
Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Committee on
December 13`x'. Our Board of Directors will meet this evening.
Attached is a copy of our October 20th letter in review of this application.
Despite the County Planning Department's position that this application not be linked to the original
Conditions of Approval for the developer, the Board of Supervisors appears to link the completion of the
correction work to the issuance of additional building permits in it's June 13`1' meeting summary
(addendum to item D.5).
Further, there appears to be legal precedent for such an action by the County as referenced in Rena
Rickles letter of December 5th to Deputy County Counsel Diana Silver which was copied to you.
In addition, documentary evidence now available states that Mr. McAdam agreed to be responsible for
completing-the remaining open items in the subdivision's Conditions of Approval, as a condition of his
purchase of the property (lot 99).
This committee is not in opposition to the design or location of the residence on the 1t. However, the
application is recommended for denial based upon the failure of the developer to meet the conditions
and requirements of the 1991 development permit.
It is our Committee's position that requirements of the Conditions of Approval for this subdivision must
be completed prior to issuance of the building permit.
Sincerely,
Roger F. Smith, Chairman
Planning Committee
cc AIA Secretary
Bob McAdam.
PRAGER, MCCARTHY & SEALY, LLC , jk 8
INVESTMENT BANKE16
h
July 25, 2000
Application and Permit Center
Community Development Counter
651 Pine Street
2nd Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA 94553
RE: File No. ZI— 008757-B
To Whom It May Concern:
The purpose of this letter is to satisfy, in writing, the requirements to request a hearing with
respect to the above File. Thank you for your attention to :pis matter.
If necessary, 1 can be reached by calling (415) 955-818,,.
Sincerely,
I
David L. Ciappo i
DLC/kr
CC: Rina Rickles, Esq.
Attorney At Law
Robert Drake
Contra Costa County Planning Department
Donna Gerber
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
John Hendersen
Chair, Alamo Improvement Association
Robert McAdams
Builder
�Uc� �vyC�7
Oor
ZZ
July 28 , 2000
Application and Permit Center
Community Development Counter
651 Pine Street
2nd Floor, North Wing
Martinez, CA. 94559
Attn: Filw #ZI 008757B
.74
To whom it may concern :
My home is in subdivision 7693, Lot 8, at the address
of 1 Wing set Place in Alamo , which is adjacent to the
proposed building site. Our concerns to the proposed
plans are as follows :
1 ) the Size of the horse on the substandard lot seems
extremely large.
2 ) We would ask that the home does not exceed the proposed ,r
height of 26 ' and that this be verified when framing
is finished .
3 ) Safety issues concerning the relationsh!,I.o of the drives -1
to the current fence that seoi�rates our lot from �
3 ring Set . There is no curb or landscaping area
to mitigate this danger .
4 ) Concern for water drainage from slope and driveway
on 3 Wing Set Place that would impact our lot .
5 ) That wort: being done to this property is carried
out during normal business hours ,t�.onday through
riday .
This lot has already been studied and recommendations
proposed by both the AIA and the Board of Supervisors.
I would hope that their recommendations would be supported .
e
;; hn W. Y nde 1 Jr.
��=It A ,N ;�
aer1L Cy: IiM ,Alt, a UHIAN MOORS, GPAS; 925 746 6635; Ma7-5-01 12:30; Page 1 /1
3/12001
Customf][omeS
Contra Costa County
Community Development Dq)wrnenl
Re: Pile No.Z1-008757B
Lot 8 Subdivision 7693
#3 Winsset P1.
Alamo, Ca.
To Whom It May Concern.
1 am the new owner of 32 Via Alorpdta in Alam. I have seen the plans for the proposed
home for 43 Wingset Place and am in favor of the home being built.
Thunk you for your attention to this matter
S incerely,
Brian Moore
New Owner
32 Via Alondra
Alarw,Ca
�CustoinHomes 3"'2°°'
c
INC.
Contra Costa County
Community Development Department
Re: File No. ZI-008757B
Lot 8 Subdivision 7693
#3 Wingset Pl.
Alamo, Ca.
To Whom It May Concern,
T am withdrawing my request for a hearing for the file No. ZI-008757B.
Thank you for your attention to this matter
Sincerely,
Earl Evans M.D.
Ft•.0
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS .r _
Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICPCosta
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
County
cuuK�
DATE: February 13, 2001
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing on Staff Report Concerning Subdivision Developer's
Compliance with June 13, 2000 Board Order for Subdivision 7693(Wingset Place)
in the Alamo area, File #ZI99-8206, (District III).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS — Accept testimony and continue hearing to February 27,
2001 at 10 a.m. to allow for additional time for the
subdivision developer to provide a response to the Board
action.
FISCAL IMPACT - None; the subdivision developer is responsible for all staff
costs.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE -�'►-< � '1'li '
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
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
cc:Tom Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Tommy Connor, Connor Bak SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR .
Rena Rickles
Robert McAdam
Insp. Mentink, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. BY , DEPUTY
Alamo Improvement Association
County Counsel
Heather Ballenger, Public Works Dept.
W:\zi8206.bo
RD\
Feb-07-01 09: 54 Conner Bak LLP 4153349877 P . 01
CONNER • BAK LLP
10 Monterey Blvd.
San Francisco, California 94107
415/334-0877
FACSIMILE: 415/334-9877
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
To: ROBERT DRAKE
Facsimile: 925/335-1222
Telephone: 925/335-1214
From: TOMMY A. CONFINER f
Billing Number: 8056-27
Date: February 7, 2001
Cover page plus `"l page(s)
MESSAGE: Please see attached
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
'I he documents accompanying this facsimile transmission co:!-xn legally-privileged
confidential information belonging to the sender. The infonr.s:mn is intended only
for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient
you arc hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution or the taking of any
action in reliance on the contents of this facsimile information is strictly prohibited.
11-you have received this facsimile in error,please immediact!k notify us by telephone
to arrange for the return of the original documents to us.
Please call 415/334-0877 if there is a problem with this transmission. Thank you.
Feb-07-01 09 : 54 Conner Bak LLP 4153349877 P - O2
i
'CONKER BAK LLP 10 Monterey Blvd.
San Francisco, CA 94131
Tommy A. Connor tel: 415.334.0877
J.Timothy Bali' fax:415.334.9877
Also admitted to practice in Nevada
February 7, 2001
By Facsimile and
Is' Class U.S. Mail
Robert H. Drake
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Re: Subdivision 769317Vingset Place
Dear Mr. Drake:
Mr. Gingrich respectfully submits the following proposed letter agreement regarding the
referenced subdivision. As we have discussed, Mr. Gingrich contends that the County does not
have jurisdiction over the private disputes at issue. Without waiving, and specifically preserving,
his arguments on this point, Mr. Gingrich requests consideration of the following proposed
resolution of all such disputes.
The parties agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. Mr. Gingrich or his agent shall prepare a map depicting a portion of lot 5 for
installation of an off-street parking space. The area shall be approximately 8 feet wide and not
more than 20 feet deep. At no expense to Mr. Gingrich, Mr. McAdams shall cause the area on
lot 5 designated by Mr. Gingrich to be graded and paved consistent with the existing roadway,
and shall install curbs consistent with the existing curbs and as designated on the map prepared
by or on behalf of Mr. Gingrich. All such work shall be performed consistent with the standards
in the trade.
2. In the event the placement of the parking space referenced in¶ I decreases the
setback for the existing structure on lot 5 such that a variance is required, the work referenced
above shall not proceed unless and until the Contra Costa County Planning Department or, if
necessary,the Board of Supervisors, grants the necessary variance. If a variance is required,
issuance of the same is a condition precedent to Mr. Gingrich's obligations under this agreement.
Fe-b-07-01 09: 55 Conner Bak LLP 41.53349877 P:03
CONNER-BAK LLP Robert Drake
February 7, 2001
Page 2
3. At Mr. Ciapponi's expense his engineer, Thomas Ruark, shall prepare a grading
and drainage plan (including but not limited to an appropriate diagram of the area to be graded).
The purpose of the work is to control runoff and to regulate the drainage in the area, and to
obliterate any and all remnants of the pre-existing paved road in the area. The actual grading
work shall not commence unless and until Mr. Gingrich has approved the plan, such approval not
to be unreasonably withheld.
4. At no expense to Mr. Gingrich, Mr. McAdams shall cause the grading referenced
in paragraph 3 above to be completed consistent with the applicable plans and specifications and
the standards in the trade. For this and all other work called for in this agreement, the parry
performing the work shall issue the respective property owner(s) a certificate of liability
insurance on a standard general comprehensive liability form with coverage limits not less than
$1,000,000 per occurrence, and shall name the respective property owner(s) as additional named
insured(s) on that policy. The party providing the work also warrants to keep the property free
and clear of any liens or encumbrances, and to defend and indemnify the owner(s) against any
and all claims for personal injury and/or property damage arising from or related to the work
performed.
5. Mr. Gingrich shall close escrow on the sale of lot 5 within one year of the date of
this agreement. If he fails to do so he shall construct six off-street parking spaces on lot 5 within
sixty (60) days of the one-year anniversary. Prior to close of escrow Mr. Gingrich shall record a
deed restriction as follows: A) the buyer of lot 5 shall have ISO days from close of escrow to
submit an application including all construction plans, drawings, designs and specifications
customarily required to secure a building permit for a single family residence; B) the plans shall
include not less than six off-street parking spaces; C) in the event the buyer fails to submit the
referenced application within the time required, the buyer shall be obligated to construct six off-
street parking spaces within sixty (60) days of the 180 day anniversary.
I
6. Mr. Gingrich shall close escrow on the sale of lot 6 within two years of the
effective date of this agreement. If he fails to do so he shall construct six off-street parking
spaces on lot 6 within sixty (60) days of the one-year anniversary. Prior to close of escrow Mr.
Gingrich shall record a deed restriction as follows: A) the buyer of lot 6 shall have 180 days
from close of escrow to submit an application including all construction plans, drawings, designs
and specifications customarily required to secure a building permit for a single family residence;
B) the plans shall include not less than six off-street parking spaces; C) in the event the buyer
fails to submit the required application within the time required, the buyer shall be obligated to
construct six off-street parking spaces within sixty (60) days of the 180 day anniversary.
7. In the event the buyer of lots 5 and 6 is the same person, the buyer may satisfy the
conditions set forth in¶¶ 5 and 6 by submitting an application including all construction plans,
drawings, designs and specifications customarily required to secure a building permit for a single
Feb-07-01 09: 56 Conner Bak LLP 4153349877 P . 04
CONNER-BAK LLP Robert Drake
February 7, 2001
Page 3
family residence spanning both lots within 180 days after close of escrow on the purchase of the
lots and providing for not less than six off-street parking spaces in total. .
8. Within ten days of full execution of this agreement, Mr. Ciapponi shall remove
any and all signs he installed or caused to be installed along the private road, and all cars he has
parked in the guest parking spaces in the hammerhead or elsewhere within the subdivision (with
the exception of the six off-street parking spaces on his property, and shall not park vehicles in
his possession or control in the guest parking spaces within the subdivision. Mr. Ciapponi's
compliance with this provision is a continuing condition to Mr. Gingrich's obligations under this
agreement.
9. The parties to this agreement shall use their best efforts to secure approval from
the San Ramon Fire Protection Division for signs, as opposed to and to the exclusion of, painted
curbs. Mr. Gingrich shall secure and install signs approved by the homeowners and the San
Ramon Fire Protection Division where and as designated by the San Ramon Fire Protection
Division, and shall stripe the on-street parking spaces. If the San Ramon Fire Protection
Division requires that the curbs be painted, Mr. Gingrich shall cause that work to be performed at
his.expense.
10. Lot 5 is a nonconforming lot. At no expense to the other parties to this agreement
Mr. Gingrich shall prepare and file the documents necessany to secure a lot line adjustment
between lots 5 and 6 such that lot 5 will conform to existing ordinances. The parties to this
agreement shall not object to Mr. Gingrich's application. Approval of the same by the Zoning
Administrator and, if required, the Board of Supervisors, is a condition precedent to Mr.
Gingrich's obligations under this agreement.
11. Messrs. Yandell and Ciapponi withdraw their request for special notice upon
execution of this agreement.
12. All parties agree that Mr. McAdams' performance as required by this agreement
shall be a condition to his building permit for lot 8. The parties consent to Mr. Adams' request
to the County not to require any inspections "under floor"with respect to Mr. McAdams'
construction of a single-family residence on lot 8.
13. Messrs. Yandell and Ciapponi withdraw their objections to Mr. McAdams'
pending application for a building permit on lot 8, and agree to use their best efforts to secure the
withdrawal by all other objectors of their prior objections.
14. All parties to this agreement stipulate to the continuing jurisdiction of the Contra
Costa County Superior Court Cor enforcement of the terms of this agreement, and further
stipulate that this agreement shall be enforceable pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Feb-07-01 09: 56 Con.rer Bak LLP 41.53349877 P_ 05
CONKER • BAK LLP Robert Drake
February 7, 2001
Page 4
§ 664.6 as a written settlement of a dispute as if litigation were pending between the parties at
the time this agreement is executed by each such party.
By copy of this letter to Ms. Rickles we request her clients' approval of the above. By
copy of this letter to Mr. McAdams we request his approval of the same. Mr. Gingrich has not
reviewed the wording of this agreement, and we reserve the right to modify the same. Should he
request any changes we shall immediately notify all parties of the same.
iPlease call me if you have any questions.
incerely yours,
To my A. Conner
cc: Diana J. Silver
Rena Rickles
Robert McAdams
(all by facsimile)
Customnomes 2/7/2001
C
Contra Costa County Planning Dept.
Re: Wingset PI. Agreement 2/7/2001 from Tommy Connor
Dear Mr. Drake,
Although the agreement is not exactly what I would like to see. I feel that it is the best
that we will get. I think that all issues have been addressed and I am in full support of this
agreement and will tell the board of Supervisors on 2/13/2001 the same.
Sincerely,
?Rbert McAdam
cc: Tommy Connor
Rena Rickles = o
Robert Drake -- _.-
(all by facsimile) :-;
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
D Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP Cost
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
('U
_�... J Y
* UN�
DATE: February 27, 2001
SUBJECT: Continued Hearing on Staff Report Concerning Subdivision Developer's
Compliance with June 13, 2000 Board Order for Subdivision 7693(Wingset Place)
in the Alamo area, File #ZI99-8206, (District 111).
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS — Continue hearing to April 10, 2001 at 11 a.m. to allow for
additional time for the subdivision developer to provide a
response to the Board action.
FISCAL IMPACT - None; the subdivision developer is responsibi for all staff
Costs.
.,r
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 27, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX
SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION AND VOTE
VOT&AF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNA S(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
AB ABSTAI : SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Bob Drake [(925)335-12141 ATTESTED February 27, 2001
cc:Tom Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Tommy Connor, Connor Bak SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Rena Rickles
Robert McAdam 1 (Lv , DEPUTY
Insp. Mentink, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. BY'
Alamo Improvement Association `.
County Counsel `
Heather Ballenger, Public Works Dept.
W:\zi8206-c.bo
R D\
February 13, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#Z19908206
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This matter pertains to completion and modification of a subdivision project within the Alamo
community, Subdivision 7693. On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal of
two residents within the subdivision(Ciapponi and Yandell), thereby reversing the Zoning
Administrator's administrative decision allowing the relocation of one of four guest parking spaces
situated within the turnaround area of the project street. Furthermore, the Board required that the
Subdivision Developer (Gingrich) demonstrate compliance with several conditions of approval that
were attached to the County subdivision permit.
On December 19, 2000, the Board accepted a report from the Community Development Director
concerning the status of the Subdivision Developer's efforts to comply with the 6/13/00 Board
Order. Staff reported that the best prospects for attaining compliance with the Board Order
appeared to involve a private agreement between the Subdivision Developer (Gingrich), a builder
(Robert McaAdam), and potentially the appellants of the earlier Zoning Administrator decision
(Ciapponi and Yandell). After taking testimony, the Board continued the hearing to January 16,
2001 to allow the interested parties additional time to respond to the Board Order.
At the January 16, 2001 meeting, staff reported that the interested parties were unable to meet
due to a schedule conflict. However, staff also reported that the attorney for the Subdivision
Developer had issued a revised draft proposal (dated 1/12/01) aimed at providing compliance with
most of the concerns raised by the Board in its 6/13/00 Board Order. At staffs recommendation,
the Board continued the matter to this hearing to allow for the interested parties to meet to allow
for additional time to complete a response that would address the prior Board action.
FBRUARY 1, 2001 MEETING
On February 1, 2001, staff met with the interested parties (Connor, McAdam and Ciapponi).
Modifications to the 1/12/01 private agreement draft were discussed. The attorney for the
Subdivision Developer indicated that he would prepare and circulate a new draft for the interested
parties to review early in the week of February 5, 2001.
DISCUSSION
It is not expected that a revised agreement will be prepared and agreed to among the interested
parties prior to the report distribution deadline for this Board meeting. If a new draft agreement is
issued and/or consummated prior to the Board's meeting, staff will be prepared to review it at the
Board hearing in terms of how close it comes to satisfying the June 13, 2000 Board Order. It
should be noted that the interested parties informed staff that the proposed agreement will not
completely satisfy all of the conditions which the Board specified in its prior Board Order action.
In the event that an agreement is consummated that is satisfactory to all of the primary interested
parties, staff may suggest related actions for the Board to consider. The Board should allow for
testimony, then continue this item to allow for a revised response from the Subdivision Developer,
and staff review of it.
February 13, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File #Z19908206
Page 3
A private agreement among the interested parties still appears to be the best prospect for trying to
resolve in the near timeframe the concerns posed by the Board. Staff recommends that this
matter we continued to allow more time for the interested parties to reach such an agreement.
The next land use hearing available on the Board schedule is not until April 10, 2001.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6
February 27, 2001
On February 13, 2001, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date and time, the hearing on
the staff report regarding the Subdivision Developer's compliance (File#Z199-8206) with the
June 13, 2000, Board Order for Subdivision 7693 (Wingset Place), Alamo.
Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director presented the staff report.
Supervisor Gerber recommended that the Board adopt the following language presented by Mr.
Bary as the motion:
"Direct staff to proceed with the hearing of Mr. McAdam's small lot review, or upon withdrawal
of requests for a hearing, decide administratively on Lot#8, in Subdivision 7693, including the
recommended conditions in the February 27, 2001, draftprivate agreement from Connor-Bak, to
which Mr. McAdam agreed in writing by his letter of Februan- 7. 2001. Those conditions are set
out in the Agreement to Comply with Outstanding Conditions in Subdivision 7693 Alamo. (See
Attachment), and to withhold any and all permits for any work on Lot#8 beyond the foundation
until the Conditions are in full compliance as set out in the Attaclunent.
Direct staff to place a hold on the issuance of any development permit, including any building
permit on Lots #5 and #6 in Subdivision 7693, begin proceedings to file a Notice of Intent to file
a Notice of Violation on Lots 95 and #6 pending Mr. Gringrich obtaining approval to.relocate
required on-street parking as needed to provide access to Loth and all other requirements of the
June 13, 2000, Board Order and this Attachment. This will ensure compliance with the access
and parking regulations cited in the January 16, 2001, staff report on this matter.
Direct staff to continue to provide the special notice to the appellants and other property owners
within the Subdivision, as directed in the June 13, 2000, Board Order.
Further, Mr. McAdam agrees to hold appellants and the County harmless for their refusal to
conduct"above floor" inspections if the Conditions set out in the Attachment and the Board's
June 13, 2000, Board order are not completed."
Following further Board discussion, Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously to accept it.
i
i AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH OUTSTANDING CONDITIONS ON
SUBDIVISION 7693, ALAMO
The fourth off-street parking space
Mr. Gingrich, or his agent shall prepare a map depicting a portion of Lot 5 for
installation of an off-street parking space at the location specified by the Board of
Supervisors on August 1, 2000 as Option T", subject to the approval of the San
Ramon Valley Fire District.
In the event that placement of that parking space decreases the setback
requiring a variance for Lot 5, the work will not proceed until the variance is granted
either by Planning Staff or the Board of Supervisors. None of the interested
parties--Ciapponi, AIA, McAdams or Gingrich -- shall oppose this variance.
The obliteration of the road between lots 6 and 7
Appellent, Mr. Ciapponi will hire a civil engineer to prepare a gracing and
drainage plan, including a diagram of the area to be graded, to control run-off and
drainage in the area, and, to obliterate any and all remnants of the pre-existing
paved road between lots 6 and 7. Mr. Gingrich shall approve the plan, such
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and will be "deemed approved" within
10 days of submission to Mr. Gingrich.
Mr. McAdam will, at no expense to Gingrich or Ciapponi, cause the grading
to be completed consistent with the plans (set out in the paragraph above) and .
specifications and trade standards. McAdam shall obtain and issue to the property
owners, Ciapponi and Gingrich a certificate of liability insurance on a standard
general comprehensive liability form with coverage limits not less than $1 million per
j occurance and shall name the property owners as named insurers. McAdam
` further agrees to keep the property free of encumbrances, liens and to insure and
defends property owners from all claims for personal injury/property damage arising
` from or related to the work performed..
The creation of the on-site parking
i Mr. Gingrich will comply with the requirements to provide on-site parking on
lots 5 and 6 by either of the following: 1) immediately construct and pave the
required parking spaces or, 2) file a performance bond which will cover the cost of
I
paving five on-site.parking spaces on each lot. Said performance bond on lot 5, will
expire in 12 months; and,will expire on lot 6 in 24 months. If either or both lots are
sold, Gingrich shall include a requirement in the sale agreement for the buyer(s)
install said parking within 6 months of the execution of the sales agreement.
The San Ramon Fire Protection Requirements
Mr. Gingrich shall obtain approval from the San Ramon Fire Protection
District for the legally required signs as opposed to and the exclusion of painted
curbs. Mr. Gingrich shall secure and install said signs, shall stripe the on-street
parking spaces and, if required to have painted curbs, shall cause that work to be
performed at his own expense.
1
Exhibit VIII
6/20/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission
Agenda Item#5
Community Development Department Contra Costa County
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 20, 20017:30 PM
I. INTRODUCTION
CUSTOM HOMES BY MCADAM, INC. (Applicant & Owner), County File
#DP00.3042. A request for design review approval for a new one-story residence
on a substandard lot for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility.
The subject property is located at#3 Wing Set Place in the Alamo area.
(CT3461.02) (R-20) (ZA: Q-15)
II. BACKGROUND
This project is continued from the June 6, 2001 Commission meeting. At that
meeting the Commission closed the hearing and directed staff to investigate the
basis for the improvement conditions which the Board instructed staff to apply to
this project.
III. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion:
A. Find that the proposed residence is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of size, height, design and location.
B. Approve the development plan with the conditions attached to the June
6, 2001 staff report, excluding condition#5.
IV. ALTERENATIVE ACTIONS
At the June 6, 2001 hearing, the Commission discussed adding a
landscaping condition to the conditions of approval for this project.
As an alternative action the Commission could approve the project as
indicated in the motion above and add the following condition:
Prior to obtaining a building permit the applicant shall submit a
landscape/irrigation plan, prepared by a certified landscape
architect, for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
This plan shall provide for a four-foot wide landscape strip along
the property line shared with the Yandell property (parcel 4193-
401-024). The purpose of this landscaping is to provide for
screening of the proposed home and a safety buffer area for the
Yandell property.
V. DISCUSSION
At the Commission's request staff reviewed the details, surrounding events, which
lead to the direction by the Board of Supervisor's, that staff incorporate
improvement conditions into the conditions of approval for this project. As stated
in the attached letter dated from County Staff, dated June 7, 2001,to Mr. Mc
Adam, the improvement conditions were incorporated into the approval of
DP003042 because Mr. Mc Adam requested so, not because there was a nexus
between his project and the particular conditions. Presumably,he did this with
the intention of appeasing the neighbors who are in opposition to DP003042, and
expediting the processing of his application. During the June 6, 2001 SRVPC
hearing, there was quite a bit of discussion regarding a nexus between the
application of condition#4 to DP003042 and the project itself
On June 11,2001, Mr. McAdam submitted a response to staff's June 7, 2001
letter. His letter is attached. In this correspondence Mr. Mc Adam states that, he
no longer believes conditions 4 and 5 should be applied to this project. The letter
goes on state that should the Commission decide to apply condition 4 to the
project, he requests that some modifications be made to the conditions.
The June 6, 2001 staff report for this project included condition of approval #5,
which required fire department approval for signage on Wing Set Place.
However, after concluding that the application of this condition would be difficult
to enforce, staff recommended, at the June 6, 2001 hearing, that condition#5 be
removed.
I
i
6/11/2001
CustomHomes
Nt)
Contra Costa Planning Dept.
Re: County File#DP003042
Response to letter dated 6/7/2001
Dear Ms. Wensley,
I would like to state that I do not believe that my approval from SRVRPC should have
any conditions other than#1,2 &3 on pagel attached to it.The other conditions that are
attached were ordered by the Board on 2/27/2001 without any legal nexus. I had nothing
to do with these conditions not being completed properly in the first pie. Furthermore
these conditions were to be a condition to my getting a building permit, not getting
planning approval and therefore should not be a condition of my approval process from
SRVRPC.
I agreed to these conditions at the 2/27/2001 Board meeting under the premise that
Ciaponi and Yandell would keep their side of all the agreements that we had been working
on. They agreed to do among other things, to withdraw their objections to my getting
approvals to getting a building permit, Ciaponi supplying a grading plan for the
obliteration of the roadway on lots 6&7, Ciaponi give the permission to do the
aforementioned work on his property, and for Ciaponi to stop parking his carsvn the guest
parking. They have done none of the above and here it is June and I am nowhere close to
getting my building permit. It is because of their lack of integrity that I am very concerned
about any conditions that will allow them any control over my project.
Having said the above, if the conditions for approval as set forth by the Planning Dept to
the SRVRPC are to be part of their approval, then I would request the following changes.
1) Page 1, #4 Review and Completion of off-site.....
The last sentence shall read...... Zoning Administrator that all of the following off-site
iznpzovements have been reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and fully implemented. If
any owner of lots 5,6 or 7 prohibits or hinders McAdam's efforts to complete any of the
conditions of approval, McAdam shall be able to request any and all inspections necessary
for the completion of the project.
2) Page 2, 2) Obliteration of Former driveway......
Ciaponi shall provide a grading and drainage plan prepared by the engineer( Ruark)
a#fecting Lots 6 ( Gingrich) and 7 ( Ciaponi). This plan is already completed and shall be
given by Ciaponi to McAdam within 48 hours of a decision by SRVRPC.......
CustoinHomes 6/11/2001
I
Ciaponi already stated at SRVRPC 6/6/2001 meeting that the plan is completed. Also
Addendum to item DA 2/27/2001 states that Ciaponi provide the grading plan.
3) Page 3 end of fust paragraph please add:
Such rights of way shall not be witheld.
4) Page 4 After second paragraph:
If any owner of lots 5,6,or 7 prohibit or hinder McAdam's efforts to complete the off-site
improvements then the Building Dept shall release any hold for inspections for this project.
Sincerely,
Robert McAdam
I
I
I
I
I
CommunityDennis M.Barry,AICP
Contra
1 L a Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department
CountyCounty Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing '
Martinez, California 94553-0095 :� >j►
Phone:
(iO�F:L j
925-335-1236 s'+ co US
June 7,2001
Robert Mc Adam
445 Oakshire Place
Alamo, CA 94507
RE: County File # DP003042
Dear Mr. McAdam:
On February 7, 2001, you submitted a letter stating your agreement with a draft private
agreement also dated February 7, 2001, prepared by Nor. Tommy Conner . On February
27, 2001, staff understood that you requested that the County incorporate these
improvements and procedures, as a condition of any development permit for a residence
on lot 8 of subdivision 7693. That representation was conveyed to the Board of
Supervisors and lead to the adoption of a Board Order directiltg staff to incorporate those
terms in the recommendation on your development plan application, now being processed
.by the County, File #DP003042
As you are aware, the staff report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning
Commission included those terms in the staff recommendations on your application.
Based on comments you made at the June 6; 2001 SRV RPC hearing, we would like you
to clarify whether you still wish the County to apply the off-site improvement terms to
your development plan application.
At the Commission, after completing the testimony, the Commission closed the hearing
and continued the matter to its' June 20, 2001 meeting for decision. We will be
providing an updated staff report to the Commission prior to the meeting and we would
like to have clarification of your position on that matter before the staff report is issued.
In that regard, we respectfully request that you respond to this letter by Monday June 11,
2001. You may FAX your response to 335-1222. .
Office Hours Monday- Friday:8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1 st, 3rd &5th Fridays of each month
If you have any questions, regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
(J
Candida Wensley
Planner
CW/cw
Cc:County File DP003042
Dennis Barry
Robert Drake
County Counsel
r
r
i
r
I
Exhibit IX
7/18/01 Staff Report for the San Ramon
Valley Regional Planning Commission
Regarding Reconsideration Request
Agenda Item #
Community Development Department Contra Costa County
SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 18, 2001 7:30PM
I. INTRODUCTION
CUSTOM HOMES BY MCADAM, INC. (Applicant &Owner), County File
#DP003042. A request for design review approval for a new one-story residence
ori:a substandard lot for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility.
The subject property is located at#3 Wing Set Place in the Alamo area. (CT
3461.02) (R-20) (ZA: Q-15)
II. BACKGROUND
This project was approved with conditions at the June 20, 2001 SRVRPC
meeting. On June 26, 2001, staff received a request for reconsideration from Mr.
Ciapponi and Mr. Yandell.
II1. RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion, which denies this request for reconsideration.
IV. DISCUSSION
Attached is the letter from Mr. Ciapponi and Mr. Yandell requesting
reconsideration of the project, as well as a letter from the applicant in response to
their request. Staff has reviewed both of these letters as well as previous staff
reports for the project. Having considered these letters as well as the extensive
testimony given at the June 6, 2001 hearing, staff has come to the conclusion that
this reconsideration should not be granted because no new information has been
presented, warranting such an action.
If the Commission agrees with staff and denies the reconsideration, Mr. Yandell;
and Mr. Ciapponi will have until July 24, 2001 to file an appeal of the June 20
2001 Planning Commission d se ii on. Attached is Section - .2408 of the
Ordinance Code, which.desctibes reconsiderations.) However, should the
Commission decide to grant the reconsideration, a new hearing would be
scheduled before the Commission.
June 26, 2001
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Board
Vote on County File No. DP003042 (Custom Homes By McAdam, Inc.).
We respectfully request and make a motion for reconsideration because material
information was omitted that may have influenced the Board's vote. It was my
understanding that staff was to inforV(the Commission of all relevant information.
It has subsequently come to my attention that the Commission voted without staff
having delivered among other things, legal foundation for the conditioning of
DP003042 by the Board of Supervisors on 2/27/01.
Material information omitted-
On 7/28/98 Tom Gingrich, "the Developer" was informed by letter from Candy
Wensley that conditions 10H and 10J of his Conditions of Approval for Sub 7693
had not been completed. In addition the letter notified Mr. Gingrich that an
amendment to the final map was necessary to move a parking place that was
currently blocking legal access to Lot 6.
Subsequent to this event I notified Mr. Gingrich that his illegal ingress and egress
to Lot 6 through the mandated parking requirements for the subdivision would not
be tolerated any longer. My guests and I began,to block access to Lot 6 in hopes
that Mr. Gingrich would comply with the Conditions of Approval and the County's
letter to finish the conditions to which he had agreed in 1992. The police were
called on numerous occasions by Mr. Gingrich and each time he was granted
access to lot 6 by the police department. The police threatened to arrest me for
creation of a public nuisance by my blocking Mr. Gingrich's access to his
property. Even after informing the officers of the land-locked status of the
property they would not allow cars to be parked blocking access to Lot 6.
(Blocking Gingrich's access has not and will not stimulate him to comply with the
original Conditions of Approval).
Mr. Gingrich and his attorney, now forced, submitted a plan for an amendment to
the final map to move parking place #4 to the opposite side of the hammerhead,
thus granting legal access to lot 6. It was recommended by staff and accepted
by the planning department_ For safety and other reasons, including an inability
of fire engine turnaround, and after an appeal by the Yandell's and Ciapponi's,
the board of supervisors overturned the ZA's decision and opted for an agreed
upon safer and better location for parking space #4 (option "F" Board Order). At
1
this point we asked the Board of Supervisors to require the subdivision developer
Gingrich to finish the Conditions of Approval before any new building permits
could be issued. Supervisor Ulkema asked County Council if the board could
condition such future permits. County Counsel responded directly "yes" because
lot 5 and lot 8 were small lots and the permits were discretionary in nature; and
lot 6 could not be developed because it would need legal access..in order to be a
legally developable lot. The Board found that because of safety issues with
respect to fire, traffic, and parking in the subdivision, no permits would be issued
until full compliance with the subdivision conditions had been met. Because
permits for lots 5, 6 and 8 are discretionary and were owned by the developer
these lots were included in the Board's order. The outcome still did not motivate
the subdivision developer to comply with the Conditions of Approval.
In May of 2000.McAdam chose to close the purchase contract on lot 8 from
subdivision developer Gingrich. McAdam entered into a contract to purchase this
lot in January 1998, and has been fully aware of all actions and decisions that
could potentially affect its development. McAdam actually had to sue Gingrich to
enforce the purchase contract because a disputed date on the contract had
expired. McAdam did this because the January 1998 contracted purchase price
was far below the current market value of the lot in May of 2000. Throughout the
mediation between McAdam and Gingrich all of the surrounding issues had been
or were being.decided. In the Mediation Agreement Gingrich disclosed to
McAdam that some of the Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 had not
been completed and that they may be an impediment to McAdams getting his
development permit. Because Gingrich agreed to honor the sale of lot 8 to
McAdam for $358,000 (some $200,000 below the actual market value of the lot)
McAdam in turn agreed to accept and meet the Conditions of Approval for
subdivision 7693. (See Private Agreement)
It was the intent of the Board of Supervisors not to `create" a nexus between
McAdam, the conditions, and lot 8. In fact, the nexus was created when
McAdam purchased the lot at a below-market value and in turn agreed to accept
the conditions imposed on Gingrich by the Board. In order to have a building
permit granted for lot 8 McAdam agreed to meet the Conditions of Approval in
the 2/27/01 Board Order because he had already been obligated to their
fulfillment when he purchased the lot from Gingrich. The reason McAdam
agreed to meet the conditions of approval was because the Board said that "they
clearly were either his responsibility or Gingrich's." The Board could have
conditioned further permits upon Gingrich's completion of the conditions but
McAdam knew that in mediation he had agreed to meet the conditions, and he
could not legally bind Gingrich to finish the conditions that he had just accepted
in mediation along with the purchase of lot 8. The only way McAdam could get a
development permit was to complete the conditions he had already agreed to
and this is how he finally asked the Board to condition his permit.
We request your reconsideration based upon these omitted facts.
I
Conclusion:
The Board of Supervisors understood that by granting a development permit to
McAdam without including or completing the Conditions of Approval could
potentially leave the subdivision out of compliance forever. Through the Private
Agreement, Gingrich has no responsibility to complete the conditions. Because
of the Board's findings on the safety issues with respect to traffic, parking, and
fire access and the nature of the discretionary permits for small lots County
Council determined that the Board could require the conditions to be met before
any new permits are to be issued. Please understand that 3 years of compiled
factual information and work has been done by attorneys and many others in an
effort to.-resolve these issues. Please do not unravel 3 years of work without
accepting our motion for reconsideration and a new hearing in an effort to bring
all of the relevant facts to you so you can make an informed decision.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
David L. Ciapponi JoS� Yan/ell
DLC/kr
3
c usto: owes 6'28'200'
C
San Ramon Regional Planning Commission
Re: County file No. DP003042
Dear Commission Members,
I first want to thank you for your ability to wade through this mess that has been created
and.wem able to see the amount of effort that I have put forth to remedy a situation that I
did nothing to create yet have been held hostage in by the Board of Supervisors for well
over a year now.
I received a copy of the June 26, 2001 letter from Cisponi and Yandell requesting a
motion for reconsideration because material information was omitted that may have
influenced the Board's vote. I'm sure that he meant Commission instead of Board. But it
is interesting to note that I was the one who was not present nor was notified of the Board
meeting of June 6, 2000 that tied my permit to the Conditions of Approval and had no
opportunity to present any facts or relevant information that surely would have influenced
the Board's decision even though I was the legal owner of the property in May of 2000.
Most all of this`relevant information" that they feel is missing was already brought to the
attention of the Commission by myself at the June 6-. 2W 1 meeting as I had gone through
a chronological order of events so that you would have a clear understanding of the events
as they truly took place. The rest of this "missing information" is either incorrect or is in
the wrong chronological order.
1 have numbered the paragraphs on their letter for reference- ( Exhibit A)
Page 1, Paragraph I
I received information in writing ( Exhibit B ) regarding any conditions of approval that
were not met by the developer from the Planning Department on August 25, 1999 over
one year after the County informed the developer on 7/28/1998. By this time I had already
been through numerous AIA meetings and had spent a considerable amount of money
developing three different sets of floor plans. It should be noted that there were only two
items that were noted as not being completed. Only one of whic11,10.J, is covered by the
Board order of 2/27/2001. Additionally the 7/28/1998 letter states that "In order for you
to meet this condition you will need to obtain permission from Mr. Ciaponi to do this
work on his property. If permission is not granted,the County will conclude that
Condition 10.J has been met." I have never been granted access to do this work therefore
Condition.I O.J has been met.
i
CustolnHomes 6/28/2001
C
Page 1, Paragraph 2
Because of Ciaponi's use of the hammerhead as his personal parking lot, (including one
car that didn't even run) the neighbors in the subdivision restated the CC&R's on March
2,2000. (Exhibit C pgs. 2&3) The CC&R's state very clearly that those four parking
places at the hammerhead are temporary guest parking places only and not for use by the
homeowners for the parking of their own cars.They were tired of seeing his cars parked
there and had no place for their guests to park on Wingset Place for the past few years.
Ciappni still to this day, continues to ignore the CC&.R's and disrespects his neighbors by
continuing to park his vehicles in those parking spaces.
Pages 1&2, Paragraph 3
Again these were meetings I was never notified of. But I can comment on some of the
issues.The fire Department wants two no parking signs installed. There is no problem with
their ability to access the subdivision and hammerhead. There is no traffic problem There
are presently four parking spaces installed per the final map Which is all that is necessary
for the subdivision. Furthermore,Ciaponi states`Because permits for lots 5,6 and 8 are
I discretionary and were owned by the developer, these lots .%-ere included in the Board's
order." This is where the Board has no nexus. Lot 8 was not owned by the.developer. I
had closed escrow the month before.
Page 2, Paragraph 4
I closed escrow on lot 8 ui May 2000, a month before the Board meeting of June 6,2000.
First of all the only conditions I was aware of were stated in the 7/28/98 letter from the
County to the Developer.( Exhibit B ) At the Mediation of 20-3/00, the developer and his
attorney stated that the original conditions of approval were met and approved by the
Board of Supervisors, which they were,and that the Count)'has no rights to enforce any
new findings onto the developer nor lot 8. My attorney agreed with him. Again I was
never made aware of any new conditions or attempts by the two neighbors, Ciaponi and
YandelJ, to take these issues to the Board of Supervisors. I also spoke with Catherine
Kutsuris from the Planning Department in March 2000 to find out that, if there were
conditions still to be completed, would that have any affect on my ability to procure a
budding permit. She told me that it would have no bearing on my permit as it had nothing
to do with lot 8. The mediation agreement(Exhibit D)does not state that.there were
conditions that weren't satisfied. On page 2,#4 talks about a possible lot line adjustment
and the next paragraph has a sentence that the developer'Amted inserted. These are the
only discussions about any conditions. The one sentence states"If any unsatisfied
subdivision conditions arise as an impediment to fulfillment of this agreement after March
20,2000, then they shall be McAdam's responsibility to perform-"This statement is in
regards to my purchasing the lot, " fulfillment of this agreement", nothing more. I do.not
j have to pay for any improvements per this agreement. Also the original contract was dated
4/26/1998 not January 1998. Lastly Ciaponi was not present at any of these meetings and
CiustomHomes 6'2$'2°°l
�C
is purely guessing as to the reasons of the lawsuit, my purchase and the Mediation
Agreement itself.
Page 2, paragraph 5
Again the private agreement was for the purchase of the property nothing more. It is a
private agreement and is not enforceable by the Board of Supervisors. I agreed to do the
work in the Board order of February 27,2001 for one reason only. I started negotiations
with all-the parties concerned back in Septcmber 2000 to try to come to a conclusion.
Through out all the meetings and attempted agreements, I made it perfectly clear that I
would do some of the improvements only in exchange for Yandell and Ciaponi to
withdraw their objections to my building of the same home that your Commission
approved. At the time I had been working on this project for over two years and
throughout my dealings with Ciaponi and Yandell I knex that they would appeal any
approvals, as they are doing now. So in order for me to Qct a building permit, I felt it was
worth the trade off of the cost of doing the improvement_ %trsus dealing with Ciaponi and
Yandell for who knows how Iong. Please see Addendum to [term D.2 ( Exhibit E ) as it
discusses the private agreement from Connor-Bak 2/07."200 1 to which I had agreed to. I
was told that based on Mr. Barry's motion that all of the -'07/2001 letter from
Connor-Bak that had any connection to me would be enforced. Also please read
Connor-Bak private agreement( Exhibit F ) page 3 # 1 Per this agreement Yandell and
Ciaponi were to withdraw their objections to my pending spplication. As you can see they
have not done so.
Page3, paragraph 6 {
The Board of Supervisors has no legal nexus for their actions linking a building permit for
lot 8 to the Conditions of Approval. The developer has Two lots that are landlocked, one
of which is a small lot and will need special approval fnr building. There will also be a
notice of violation of subdivision laws recorded on lots 5&6. They have plenty of leverage
to get the conditions of approval completed by the developer, whom is responsible for
them, rather than durnping them off on me. I have received approval from the developer to
do work on his property and none from Ciaponi nor a grading plan four months after the
Board 2/27/2001 order. I have done my best to try to resoh-e these issues and move
forward yet the two people who complain the most about safety fire etc.aud pushed for
the Board order( Ciaponi and Yandell)have done nothing to bring closure to these issues.
It makes one wonder what their true motivation is.1 have also spent over three years
working on this project as well as many, many thousands of dollars. My family and I
should never have been put into this position. It is now-summer and my budding season is
growing shorter. Most all of this information was given to you by me at the June 6, 2001
meeting. Hopefully this clarification will solidify your position on this project.
Thank you for your time.
June 26,2001
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission June 20, 2001 Board
Vote on County File No. DP003042(Custom Homes By McAdam, Inc.),
We respectfully request and make a motion for reconsideration because materiel
information was omitted that my have influenced the Board's vota. It was my I
understanding that staff was to inform the Commission of all relevant Information.
It has subsequently come to my attention that the Commission voted without staff
having delivered among other things, legal foundation for the conditioning of
DP003042 by the Board of Supervisors on 2/27101.
Material Information omitted:
On 7/28/98 Tom Gingrich, "the Developer+' was informed by letter from Candy
Wensley that conditions 10H and 10J of his Condttions of Approval for Sub 769
v had not been completed. In addition the letter notified Mr. Gingrich that an
amendment to the final map was necessaryto move a parking place that was i
currently blocking legal access to Lot 6.
Subsequent to this event I notified Mr. Gingrich that his illegal ingress and egress
to Lot 6 through the mandated parking requirements for the subdivisioh would ri�t
be tolerated any longer. My guests and I began to block access to Lot 6 in hopes
that Mr. Gingrich would comply with the Conditions of Approval and the County's
letter to finish the conditions to which he had agreed in 1992. The polioe were
called on numerous occasions by Mr. Gingrich and each time he was granted
access to lot 6 by the police department. The police threetened to arrest me for
creation of a public nuisance by my blocking Mr. Gingrich's access to his
property, Even after informing the officers of the landlocked status of the j
property they would not allow cars to be parked bibcidng access to Lot 6.
(Blocking Gingrich's access has not and will not stimulate him to comply with the
original Conditions of Approval).
Mr. Gingrich and his attomey, now forced, sUbmitted a plan for an amendment to
the final map to move parking place #4 to the opposite side of the hammerhead,
thus granting legal access to lot 6. It was recommended by staff and accepted
by the planning department. For safety and other reasons, including an inability
of fire engine turnaround, and after an appeal by the Yandeirs and Ciapponl's,
the board of supervisors overturned the 7A's decision and opted for an agreed
upon safer and better location for parking space#4(option "P Board Order), At I
i
I
this point we asked the Board of Supervisors to require the subdivision developer
Gingrich to finish the Conditions of Approval before any row building permits
could be issued: Supervisor Ulkema asked County Council if the board could
condition such future perm. County Counsel responded directly`yes"because
lot 5 and lot 8 were small lots and the permits were discretionary in nature; and
lot 6 could not be developed because it would need legal access in order to be a
legally developable lot. The Board found that because of safety issues with
respect to fire, traffic, and parking in the subdivision, no permits would be issued
until full compliance with the subdivision conditions had been meet. Because
permits for lot&6, 6 and 8 are discretionary and were owned by the develope�
these lots were included in the Board's order. The outcome still did not motivate
the subdivision developer to comply with the Conditions of Approval.
In May of 2000 McAdam chose to close the purchase contract on lot 8 from
subdivision developer Gingrich, McAdam entered into a contract to purchase this
lot in January 1988, and has been fully aware of all actions,and decisions that
could potentially affect its development. McAdam actually had to sue Gingrich to
enforce the purchosae contract because a disputed date on the contract had
expired. McAdam did this because the January 1998 contracted purchase price;
was far below the current market value of the lot in May of 2000. Throughout the
mediation between McAdam and Gingrich all of the surrounding issues had been
or were being decided. In the Mediation Agreement Gingrich disclosed to
McAdam that some of the Conditions of Approval for subdivision 7693 had not
been completed and that they may be an impediment to McAdams getting his
development permit. Because Gingrich agreed to honor the sale of lot 8 to
McAdam for$358,000 (some $200.000 below the actual market value of the lot)
McAdam in turn agreed to accept and meet the Conditions of Approval for
subdivision 7693. (See Private Agreement)
It was the Intent of the Board of Supervisors not to "create" a nexus between
McAdam, the conditions, and lot 8: In fad, the nexus w6s cued when
McAdam purchased the lot at a below-matrket value and in tum agreed to sccep�
the conditlons imposed on Gingrich by the Board. In order to have a building
permit granted for lot 8 McAdam agreed to moot the Condifions of Approval in
the 2/27101 Board Order because he had already been obligated to their i
fulfillment when he purchased the lot from Gingrich. The reason McAdam
agreed to meet the conditions of approval was because the Board said that"they;
clearly were either his responsibility or Gingrich's." The Board could have
conditioned further permits upon Gingrich's completion of the conditions but
McAdam knew that in mediation he had agreed to meet the conditions, and he
could not legally bind Gingrich to finish the conditions that he had Just accepted
In.mediation along with the purchase of lot 8. The only way McAdam could get a
development permit was to complete the o�ond#rions he had already agreed to
and this is how'he finally asked the Board to condition his Permit.
We request your reconsideration leased upon these omitted facts. i
Z
Conclusion:
The Board of Supervisors understood that by granting a development permit to
McAdam without Including or completing the Conditions of Approval could
potentially leave the subdivision out of compliance forever. Through the Private
Agreement, Gingrich has no responsibility to complete the conditions. Because
of the Board's findings on the safety issues with respect to tvffiic, parking, and
lire access and the nature of the discretionary permits for small lots County
Council determined that the Board could require the conditions to be met before
any new permits are to be issued. Please understand that 3.years of compiled.
factual ihformation and work has been done by attorneys and many others in an:
effort to resolve these issues, Please do not unravel 3 years of wo&without
accepting our motion for reconsideration and a new hearing in an effort to bring
ail of the relevant facts to you so you can make an Informed decision.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter-
Gtr r�'j'
l `
David L, Ciapponi �3�Jo Yanwtell
DLC/kr
i
i
i
I
3
-- - - _ 510 335 1222 P.01i07
RL15-25-1999 12:03 CONTRR COSTR-CDD
Dennis 4t.berry.AICD
Community Contra 00%moopmem
Development Costa
Department County
County Adminietrution Building
Pine Street
4th
4th Floor,North Win
Martinez.CaIttomia?b53-0095 .% f
Phone: Q5 ,
FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM
DATE: PAGE 1 OF
Tt
TO: A,TTENTION2
FAX NO. �tS > �' ® Z- y� PRONE NO.
FROM: BOB DRAKE PHONE NO. (925) 335-1214
COMMENTS:
2g g" G
PLEASE CONTACT ME IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS.
Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00>LT-5:00 P.M.
Office is closed the I st, 3rd&5th Fridays cd each manth
AUCr-25-1999 12=03 CONTRA COSTA-CDD S10 335 1222 P.02i07
04arMa tt Be"%ACCP
Community Contra c«ffe•rny VooiaVrom Direclar
Demlopment Costa
-Department County
County Adm{nlatratlon WidlnQ
651 Pine Street
4th Floor. North Wing
MartVAz-Caltfotnla 91553-0095
per. 335-1210 JS
-2-
July
J
July 28, 1998
Th;dm ns-Girigrieh
P. O. Box 504
Alamo, CA 94507
Dear Mr. Gingrich:
Afternunurous site visits and discussions betwten dcpar>u=ts, the County has concluded
additions of A o
Condition tO.H- requires that at least six on-site parking spaces per lot be provided. (See
Attached conditions.) Based oa a number of site visits, staff concludes that Lot 6 docs not
have the six parking spaces required. Condition 10-J. requires that the Original driveway on
Lots 6 and 7 be obliterated. Gravel and the original rctaining wall for the old driveway are
Still presemt on Lot 7. Both the gravel ani the retaining wa11 need to be removed in order to
meet this condition. In order for you to meet this condition you will need to obtain
permission firm Mr- Ciappoini to do this work on his pvp"y- If permission is not granted,
the County will conclude that Condition 10-J- ha,s`bccn met
The County t 6. In r cdy
this situation, you arc pra�osn>it t:. . • -:: v �e rtcat'dad map. There era l,rov�fo, ti �. .'.f..-
Article 7 of the Goveriunent Codc foY r.ncndiag and cosTectingmaps. (Sec ataci;co.j
However, nanc of the provisions in rile ecde apply to the modifications you are requesting_
Because there is no ordinance adopted by the Courcy that allows for adminismidve approval
Of amendments. the only way to modify your map under the Subdivision Map Act is to apply
for modification of the final map and schedule it for public hearing before the Zou ng
Administrator. Prior to hearing the project will be referred to the Alamo Improvement
Association for comment.
Off ice Houle Monday-Fe4ay:8:00 a.rn-5:00 pm.
office is closed the t st, 3rd& Sth F=ridays of each month
510 335 1222 F.04/0'r'
al1G=25-1999 12:04 CONTRA COSTA--l-MI)
21 Upon written request,the applicant may make a cash payment in lieu of
actual excavation and removal of material from San Ramon Creak. The
rr cash payment will be calculated at the rate of g0.1 O per square foot of
new impervious surface arse created the development. The added
impwvioua surface area created by the development will b,6 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.
F. Mitigate the Impact of the additional storm water run-off from.this development
on Miranda Crack by making a cash PSYMOnt to the County Deficiency Trust
Fund. The cash payment will be calculated at the rate of 80.10 per square foot
of new Impervious surface area created by the devaloO hent. The added
- impervious surface area created by the development will be based on the Flood
Cor.Lral 015trict's standard impervious surface. area ordinance. The Flood
Control District will use theso fund& to work on the Creeks annually_ This
contribution is in addition to the Sen Ramon Creek contribution (Fund No.
812100-800).
G_ Annex the property to Drainage Area 76A, which is a benefit assessment
district to collect annual funds to maintsin detention begins located within the
drainage area. The request should include the metes and hounds of the
property. The devOlopment must be annexed to Drainage Area 76A prior to the
filing .of the Final Map,
O H. Provide for at feast six on-site parking spaces per lot.to be located ourside the
private road easement extending from likely Drive. At least one (1) of the six
spaces for each lot shell be for guest parking Contiguous to the access
easement. More than one guest parking space shall be provided where
Propriate perticulariy at the hammer- tied turnaround.
I• Establish a maintenance agreement to enzure the maintenance of the private
road.
1 O` J �• Obliterate.the existinfl driveway on lots E and 7. Access to these lots shall be
takon off the proposed private road.
AQVISOAY NOTES
A. The applicant shall comply with the Perk Dedication Fee Ordinance, which requires a
$2.000 park dedication fee for each lot_
B. Comply with the r.CQuirements of rhe Central Contra Costa Senitdry District.
C. Com Aly with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
5
AA1Cnic a h
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: c: r
y `�•,
ar n, a
Thomas Gingrich
P.O. Box 504 e ` n4
Alamo, CA 94507 -
8Y
RESTATED AND AMENDED DECLARATION OF
COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
r
SUBDIVISION 7693
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
THIS RESTATED AND AMENDED DECLARATION OF . COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS SUPERSEDES ALL PRIOR RECORDED
DECLARATIONS OF COVENANTS,CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AND
SUPPLEMENTS OR AMENDMENTS THERETO, ALL OF WHICH WERE
RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY,
AS FOLLOWS:
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated July 21,
1995, and recorded as Instrument No. 95 129410 in the Official
Records of Contra Costa County, California on August 8, 1995.
WHEREAS,a Declaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions(hereinafter"CC&Rs)
dated July 21, 1995 was recorded as Instrument No. 95 129410 in the Official Records of Contra
Costa County, California on August 8, 1995 and affects all parcels located in Subdivision 7693,
Contra Costa County, California; and which provides for amendment; and
WHEREAS, it appears certain paragraphs of the CC&R were inadvertently misnumbered
or lettered; and
WHEREAS, Thomas Gingrich (hereinafter "Declamnt'7, and the undersigned desire to
correct the numbering of the CC&Rs for Subdivision 7693; and
Page -1-
EXH�_ V
WHEREAS, the Declarant and the undersigned further desire to implement additional
CC&Rs,providing procedures in law or in equity for their enforcement and/or interpretation, with
the prevailing party to be awarded its reasonable costs and attorney's fees;
NOW,THEREFOR,the Declarant and the undersigned,constituting the requisite owners
of 66-2/3% of the lots in. Subdivision 7693, hereby approve the following restatement and
amendments to the Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions binding the properties in the subdivision.
Section 1:Private Road and Access Easements:As described on Map of Subdivision 7693,
Lots 1 through 9 are subject to a private road and access easement(Access Easement') for vehicular
and pedestrian ingress and egress and for guest parking. That road has been constructed to county
private road standards to serve the aforementioned lots,for which the cost of maintenance and repair
is to be mutually shared and shall be subject to the following:
.(a) Road maintenance and repair shall include periodic resealing and repaving,
repairing of pot holes and performing such other maintenance as may be necessary to retain the
Access Easement in good condition and repair and safe for vehicular and pedestrian use. The cost
for the maintenance and repair shall be allocated equally among the lots responsible therefore unless
circumstances warrant a different allocation for a fair and equitable sharing of costs.
(b) if all owners of lots agree that maintcnance and repair is needed for the Access
Easement, the owners can proceed with the maintenance and repair, provided they give each of the
other owners responsible for sharing in the costs of such maintenance and repair, thirty (30) days
prior notice. If any owner disagrees or fails to institute an action under the enforcement and
interpretation provisions of this restated and amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions, within this thirty-day period, however,that owmer shall be deemed to have waived any
such proceedings and steal/ be conclusively presumed to,be responsible to pay his or her allocable
share of the maintenance or repair costs.
(c) Each owner shall pay his or her allocable share of the maintenance and repair
costs within thirty (30) days of the date such payment is due. If any owner fails to pay his share
when due, any other has the right, but not the obligation,to pay the share, and may bring an action
against the delinquent owner pursuant to the enforcement pro-visions of these CC&Rs set forth
hereinbelow,and shall be entitled to recover the costs of such action, including reasonable attorney's
fees, as specified in those enfor ns_
(d) west Parking, In order to ensure the avi0ability of ample parking for guests
the residents in Subdivision 7693, the parking spaces situated in the expanded hammerhead
portion of the Private Road and Access Easement of the Subdivision shall be reserved for and used
exclusively by the guests of all owners of subdivision lou as temporary parking,herein defined to
be usage of no more than 72 consecutive hours, including any rotation of individual or multiple
vehicles among the parking spaces that could otherwise extend the use of the guest parking spaces.
ore specifically, the hammerhead parking spaces shall not be used for the parking of vehicles
Pa a-2-
owned by residents and/or the lot owners in the subdivision_ As long as the applicable ordinances
and laws are observed, including the requirements of Section 22658 of the California Vehicle Code,
any vehicle which is in violation of this Declaration may be removed by private towing company,
. (e) gage.: Except as authorized above in Section 1, subsection (a)pertaining to
"Guest Parking," apart from normally scheduled refuse collection,there shall be no storage of any
personal property, waste,debris,or any other items on,and no obstruction of any part of the private
access easement serving the lots in the subdivision.
Section 2: Architectural Review: Declarant desires to retain architectural control over the
initial improvements that will be installed on the lots subject to this Declaration,unless extended by
vote of the owners or declared homeowner's association as described herein, the restrictions in this
Section 2 shall remain in effect until the first to occur of either of the following: (i) the tenth
anniversary date of recordation of this Declaration, or(ii)the date Declarant records in the records
of Contra Costa County a Notice of Declarant's election to terminate its rights hereunder.
r
(a) Declarant may adopt guidelines regarding the type, location, quality, size, height
and other matters relating to any improvements or landscaping to be constructed or installed on the
lots and shall establish procedures for reviewing all plans and specifications submitted to it for prior
approval and may provide for periodic review and modification of guidelines.
(b) Deelarant's primary goal shall be to ensure the construction and maintenance of
a first class residential project. Factors that shall be considered in approving proposed plans and
specifications shall include without limitation: (i) conformity and harmony of external design with
other lou in the project;(ii)effect of the proposed location on neighboring lots; (iii) relation of the
topography, grade and finished ground elevation to that of adjoining lots; (iv) proper facing of
elevations with respect to nearby streets and adjoining lots; and (v) overall conformity.with the
general purpose of the project and the restrictions in this{Declaration; and (vi) the guidelines.
(c) None of the following actions shall take place on any lot without the prior written
approval of Declarant: (i) Any construction, installation, repair (including exterior painting),
replacement, alteration or removal of any building,outbuilding, structure, wall, fence, sign, garage,
trash enclosure, storage area, parking, area, berms, utilities (gas, electricity, telephone, water, or
otherwise),or other improvement or fixture;(ii) Any planting or landscaping(including the removal
of any trees in excess of four (4) inches in diameter); (iii) Any grading; excavation, or site
preparation; or (iv) Any placement or storage of building materials or temporary structures
(including trailers, tents, mobile home or vehicles). This subsection shall not be construed or
interpreted to prohibit the erection or construction of structures permitted pursuant to Section 714.5
of the Civil Code of the State of California_
(d) Approval shall require the applicant to submit to Declarant plans and
specifications in a manner and form satisfactory to Declarant. All plans and specifications shall
conform with any guidelines established by Declarant. Plans shall adequately describe the proposed
Page-3-
improvements; plot layout; all exterior elevations, materials and colors; signs; landscapiag plans
(including the type of sodding,seeding,tees,hedges,shrubs and irrigation); number,size and layout
of parking; storage areas; trash. enclosures; livestock facilities, grading and excavation plans;
easements and utility locations;proposed fencing;construction schedule;and such other information
as Declarant shall require. Declaw ,in its sole discretion,may grant variances or exceptions from
the guidelines it has established for.approving plans and specifications, which variances or
exceptions may contain such conditions and time limitations as Declarant deems appropriate.
(e) Declarant may establish reasonable fees to reimburse Declarant for any out-of.
pocket costs incurred by Declarant in reviewing plans and specifications.
(f} If Declarant fails to approve or disapprove any plans and specifications within
sixty(60)days of receipt of either the plans and specifications or any advance payments required by
Declarant,whichever shall occur later,the plans and specifications shall be deemed approved unless
a wrijten extension is executed by the person submitting the plans and Declarant.
r
(g) Declarant, or any authorized agent thereof, may from time to time at any time
during normal business hours, enter any lot for the purpose of inspecting any construction to ensure
compliance with the plans and specifications as approved by Declarant.
(h) Declarant shall not be liable to any person submitting plans to Declarant for
approval or to other lot owners or occupants by reason of any act or omission arising out of or in
connection with the approval or disapproval of any plans or specifications. Approval shall not
constitute a wairantyor representation by Declarant or its officers,employees or agents that the plans
satisfy any applicable governmental law, ordinance, or regulation, or that any improvement
constructed in accordance with the plans shall be fit for the use.for which it was intended and safe
for use and occupancy. Applicants shall make their own independent verification of the foregoing
and shall not rely on Declarant in any manner in this regard_
(i) Before commencement of any alteration or improvements approved by Declarant,
the owner shall comply with all appropriate governmental laws and regulations. Approval by
Declarant does not satisfy the appropriate approvals that ma),be required by any governmental entity
with appropriate jurisdiction.
{j) Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the architectural review
restrictions contained in this Section 2 shall remain in full force and effect after the termination of
Declarant's rights hereunder,on.the satisfaction of each of the following conditions: (i)Lot owners
holding a majority of the total voting power allocated to the lots may elect to continue the restrictions
under the control of the owners. For purposes herein, each lot shall be allocated one vote. Any
owner that owns more than one lot shall be entitled to one vote of each lot owned. If there are
multiple owners of one lot, the lot is entitled to only one vote. The vote cast by any owner of a lot
shall conclusively be presumed to be the vote cast by all the owners of that same lot. The vote may
be held as a meeting at which the lots holding the majority of the total voting power are present in
Page -4-
person or by written consent; (ii) The vote or written consent continuing the architectural review
restrictions must be obtained within 180 days following the second anniversary date of the
recordation of this Declaration,notwithstanding the fact that Declarant has elected to terminate its
rights earlier, as provided herein; (iii)Within thirty(30)calendar days after obtaining the requisite
vote to continue the restrictions and no later than 210 days following the second anniversary date of
the recordation of this Declaration,a notice of the continuation of the restrictions shall be recorded
is the records of Contra Costa County,California, signed by the owners of any two (2) lots in the
Property and certified by these owners that the requirements of this Section 2 were duly satisfied in
order to continue the architectural review restrictions. A•copy of the recorded notice shall be mailed
or personally delivered to each owner at that owner's lot address in the properly. If this notice is not
recorded within this time period, it shall be conclusively Presumed that the architectural review
restrictions have terminated and are of no further force or effect.
(k)If the owners elect to continue the restrictions, the owners, by majority vote, shall
establish an architectural review committee and procedures to govern the same, including the number
of members, election of members and the term of members.
(1)Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, if a committee is established as
provided herein and the committee fails for any reason to exercise its architectural review rights as
described herein for a period in excess of twenty-four (24) consecutive months, it shall be
conclusively presumed that the committee is not operational and that the architectural review
restrictions contained in this Section 2 have terminated and are of no further force and effect.
(m) The committee shall have the power to enforce the restrictions described in this
Section 2, in law or in equity, as more particularly described below'in the"Enforcement"provisions
of this Declaration. In any such actions,the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the costs of
such action and reasonable attorney's fees.
(n)Nothwithstanding the above,the provisions of this Section 2 shall not apply to Lot
6 of the subdivision.
Section 3: Term: Unless otherwise terminated by the unanimous approval of the owners of
each of the lots in Subdivision 7693 and the approval of Contra Costa County,this declaration shall
remain in effect for a period of fifty(50)years from the date this Declaration was originally recorded
in the records of Contra Costa County, California, after which the term automatically shall be
extended for successive ten(10)year periods unless on or before the commencement of any ten-year
period the majority of the voting power of the lou records a document in Contra Costa County
terminating this Declaration. For purposes of voting herein, each lot shall be allocated one vote.
Termination of this Declaration shall not terminate the easements described in Section 1.
Notwithstanding this Section 3, the restrictions described in Section 2 shall terminate as described
therein.
Page -5-
i
Section 4:Amendment:Until conveyance of the first Lot,Declarant shall have the unilateral
right to amend this Declaration. After the first conveyance of a Lot, this Declaration shall be (a)
amended only upon the written approval of the then record Owners of at least sixty-six and two-
thirds percent(66-2/3 %) of the Lots. An amendment shall be effective when it has received the
required percentage approval and has been recorded in the Office of the County Recorder.
Section 5: Notices: Any notice or demandpermitted or required herein shalt be conclusively
presumed to be received by the owner of the lot when'personally delivered to the owner or forty-
eight (48) hours after the notice has been deposited in the United States mail, certified and return
receipt requested,postage paid and addressed either to that owner's lot address or such other address
that the owner has provided each of the'other owners for purposes of receiving notice.
Section 6: Obligation of Owners: If there are multiple owners of any one lot, each owner
shall be jointly and severally liable for the covenants contained herein.
r Section 7: Covenant3 Running with the Land: Each covenant, condition and restriction
described herein is a covenant ntnning with the land and an equitable servitude that benefits or
burdens each lot, shall benefit or bind each owner and successive owner thereto, and shall be
effective automatically on the date Declarant transfers title to a lot to a third party, regardless of
whether the instrument of transfer described this Declaration.
Section 8. Enforcement: Declarant or any owner shall have the right to enforce by any
proceeding at law or in equity,all restrictions, conditions, covenants,reservations, liens and charges
now and hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions, as restated and amended herein. Failure by any 0,Mcr to enforce any covenant or
restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a u-aiver of the right to do so thereafter. The
prevailing parry in any legal action shall be entitled to an award of his legal fees and costs incurred
in any such action, arbitration, or other enforcement proceeding.
Dated: April 2000.
�
L
f L
Page -6-
Cl/
NOTARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
as
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA )
On &&L 2000, personally appeared before me
and wat1wrsonatly-knewrrto,me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within insttvment and acknowledged to me that such person
executed the same in his / her / their authorized capacity, and that by such signanze(s) on the
instrument the-person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Sigr►ature
Notary Public
NOTARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA )
On,���st , 2000, GnA_'s personally appeared before me
and we!t-persor�lyicnuwrr-to-me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such person
executed the same in his / her / their authorized capacity, and that by such signature(s) on the
instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted,executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature Notary Public ,� ., '`_.=j'c��,--_ �;-;�
t=
Page -7-
NOTARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA )
On .2000, l'ys �k 7rAY;Arch personalty appeared before me
and was personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such person
executed the same in his / her / their authorized capacity, and that by such signature(s) on the
instrument the person,or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
CC::TF\C
Siggature
Notary Public
N TARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA )
On�p -1? 2000, kJ7fr.�E/ 1" personally appeared before me
and was a (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such person
executed the same in his / her / %t0 authorized capacity, and that by such signature(s) on the
instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
P'AIRICIAT.MEYER
CoenrrUssion• 1107410
µotary PubfC-CQnfpmiO
SignatureAlorn000 county
Notary Public MycoMm.�fm� ,moo
Page-8-
NOTARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA )
t�A ✓io A • s/4AAlo�J ANa
On 4pR;L , 2000,QQ aj 6A1nt& N• y/24,0 e".v personally appeared before me
and was a (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such person
executed the same in his / her / cir uthorized capacity, and that by such signature(s) on the
instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
;Zz
pAT*!jC1A T.MEYER
$ignQture Commiss'.on 0 1107x10
Not Public �OE,,,-_A30rneca i CounW COmr"+_ ?fires Aug-4.2000
NOTARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA )
Scorr � . A0H,4 --'A.),4.� ANS
2000, personally appeared before me
and was (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that such person
executed the same in his / her / authorised capacity, and that by such signature(s) on the
instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
PATRICIA L MEYER
✓�' Communion# 1107A10
Signature fyp1QY Putlic-COliforni0
Notary Public A!ameca count'
W Comm.lx::�res Aug A.2OOC
Page-9-
SAL cu s k v- yv CA S
�
P '�
(4.0
- -�; 46
Lei 5 .=u ��► a 10 crz �.Lk A1a,*Y%o ,
U(?cl/ 4 44 pig
Ce 4q e e
(4 TAOP-
` ow-ate �. Ca c�.q Y � t� or ��5 �S �tiu s v""`•.
.. ''°•�tp '� S c1h�3 tlr i t�b s, "7 t'c 93 . Moo,c - �rra�r�►as t
09 vou
L b4 - - - .
rLetes Etss c�" . Ito c4jb
kisr r
4QA ��
�'t44w.R� �M.C� �� ���r.•c n,i� G�..X
WN
c o� Lt o axe-
�tS
�.
1.r a m
•Til "�
16 zat 6a
yam, „ ht SG�tt
a +
Qp°
r V41 9
we
Cc� coc,�.
IVA
K
116YA�
Ir
td;d al
�B
ia-
I'.,��
'��� ,� � c►��' �5 �`off
vim- �`�`� �•.
v� �
Pc- , .
�,o�'„ � � � � , '►'ate ' �t-o
.�"�
LAI&<
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.6
February 27, 2001
On February 13,2001,the Board of SuperAsora continued to this date and time, the hearing on
the staff report regarding the Subdivision Developer',compliance(File#2199-8206)with the
June 13,2000, Board Order for Subdivision 7693(Wittgset Plage),Alamo.
DcnniB ,Co a staff report
Supervisor tcrbtt recommended that the Board adopt the foUo1+�ittg IonguaQc presented by
Barry as the motion_
"Direct staff to proceed with the hearing of Mr.McAdam's small lot review, or upon wlthdrnk�al
of roquesu for a hearing,decide administratively on Lot fr8,in Subdivision 7693, including the
recommended conditions in the February 27, 2001, drall private agreement from Connor-Bak,to
which Mr. McAdam agreed in writing by his letter of February i.2001. Those conditions Rre set
out in the ArreetnLnr to Comnly with (�ur4 anding(`�„ nn< in SubdiY-ision 7693. la►no. (Sec
Artachmenrl,and to withhold any and all pamiLs for any work on Lot t8 beyond the foundation
until the Conditions arc in full compliance as set out in the AIWIvnent-
Direct stat to any building
perrait on Lots#5 and#6 in Subdivision 7693,begin proceedings to file a Notice of Intent to file
a Notice of Violation on Lots k5 and #6 pending Mr. Gingrich obtaining approval to relocate
required on-meet parking as needed to provide access to Lot F6 and all other requirements of the
.lune 13, 2000, Board Order and this Altachment. This will ensure compliance with the access
and parking regulations cited in the January 16, 2001, staff report on this matter.
Direct staff to continue to provide the special notice to the 3ppell0ts and other property owners
within the Subdivision, as directed in the June 13, 2000,Board Order
Further, Mr. WAdam agrccs to hold appellants and the County harmless for their refirsal to
conduct "above floor" Inspections if the Conditions set out to*he Attach.•nent and the Board's
3une 13, 2000, Board order are not completed."
Following further Board discussion. Supen isor Gioia seconded the motion, and the Board voted
unanimously to accept it.
�l
1'rr'C6 cWa --�•c-O rl�bvL..w✓ ,v =a.�•...c�� , .w..:v..v
AgREEMENT TO C_OMPLV WITH OUTST O CONO(710NS ON
$uegul ION 1603.
The 1ourthQfr strew oarkino space
Mr. Gingrich,or his agent shag prepare a map depicting a portion of Lot 5,for
installation of an of(-street parking space at the location"cited by the Board of
Supervisors on August 1. 2000 a$Option"F'• subject to ti'te approval of the San
Ramon Valley Fire District.
In the event that placement of that parking space decreases the setback
requiring a variance for Lot 5. the worts will not prooeed urttj the variance is granted
either by Planning Staff or the Board of Supervlsccs. None of the interested
parties--Ciappont. AIA, McAdams or Gingrich --shall oppose this variance.
The obKeration of the rid between dots 5 and 7
Appellent. Mr Ciapponi will hire a civil engineer to prep21`e a gradng and
drainage plan, including a diagram of the area 10 be graded,to control run-off and
drainage in the area, and,to obliterate any and all remnants of the pre-existing
paved road between lots 6 and 7. Mr.Gingrich shall approve the plan, such
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and%vill be'deemed approved"within
10 days of submission to Mr. Gingrich. r
Mr. McAdam will, at no expense to Gingrich or CiaPPOni, cause the grading
to be completed consistent with the plans (set out in the paragraph above) and
specifications and trade standards. McAdam shall obtain and issue to the property
owners, Ciapponi and Gingrich a oertifrcate of liability insunInCe on a standard
general comprehensive liability torn with coverage krniN not less than$1 miflion per
occurance and shalt name the property owners as named insurers. McAdam
further agrees to keep the property free of encumbrances, liens and to insure and
defends property owners from an claims for personal inpxylproperty damage arising
from or related to the work perfornvd.
The creiptkm of the on-site QgLk rx]
Mr. Gingrich will comply with the requirements to provide on-site parking on
lots 6 and 6 by either of the following- 1) immediately ccrritruct and pave the
required parking spaces or, 2) file a performance bond which will cover the cost of
rrrt—cam cvut ..•ca rrti n �,t.yu ,v av�auc-.+ r.wc,.
paving five on-site parking spaces on each Idt. Sall personance bond on W 5,wdl
expire In 12 months; and,will expire o' n lot 6 in 24 morphs. If either or both lots are
said, Gingrich shah include a requirement in the sale agreement for the buyer(s)
install said parking within 6 monttls of the execution of the sates agreement.
The San lWmon Fire Proltgion Reyuimments
- Me. Gingrich shalt obtain approval from the Sari Rarnon Fire Prot;ectim
District for the iegalty requlred signs as opposed to*aM the exclusion of painted
curbs. Mr. Gingrich shall secure and install said signs.shall stripe the on -street
parking spaces and, if required to have painted curbs.shatl cause that work to be
performed at his own expense.
r.
1
' t
re.ee—ee—cWa a�•er rRvi L...iu ,� �e..luc-.-. . .vw-vw
February 13.2001
Board of Supervisors r '
Fifa oZI9906M
Page 2
BACKGROUND
This matter pertains to completion and modification of a subdivision project within the Alamo
community, SubdKislon 7693. On June 13, 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal of
two residents within the subdivision(Ciapponi and Yandell), thereby reversing the Zoning
Administrator's administrative decision allowing the relocation of ono of four guest parking Spaces
situated within the turnaround arae of tho project stroat. Furthermore, the Board required that the
SubdN{slon Developer(Gingrich) dernonstrato compliance with several conditions of approval that
were attached to the County subdivision permit.
On December 19, 2000. the Board accepted a report from the Community Developnrwnt D'irvctor
concerning the status of the Subdivision Devefopet's efforts to comply with the 6/13/00 Board
Order. Staff reported that the best prospects for attaining compliance with the Board Order
appeared to involve a private agreement between the Subdivision Developer (Gingrich), a builder
(Robert McaAdam), wo potentially the appeflants of the earlier Zoning Administrator decision
(Ciapponi and Yandell). After taking testimony, the Board continued the hearing to January 16,
2001 to allow the interested parties additional time to respond to me Board Order.
At the January 16, 2001 meeting, staff reported that the interested parties were unable to meet
due to a schedule conflict.
96RVARY 1. 2001 MEETING
On February 1, 2001, staff met with the interested parties (Connor, McAdam and Ciapponi).
Modifications to the 1112/01 private agreement draft were discussed.
LAST HEARING
In a letter dated February 7, 2001, the attorney for the subdivision developer (Tommy Connor)
submitted a revised draft proposal• which was attached to itie FeDruary 13, 2001 report to the
Board. At the February 13, 2001 hearing, the Board continued the matter to this date.
p{SGUSSIQN
The proposed agreement indicates that the detailed wording in the agreement has not been
reviewed by the subdivision developer, Tom Gingrich. Staff has circulated it to potentially
interested parties. The attorney for the appellants, Rena Rickles, has indicated to staff that she
has suggested several changes to the agreement to Mr. Connor shOrlfy after the letter was issued.
She indicated that she had not heard any response to her suggestions.
The representative of the Alamo Improvement Association, Roger Smith, indicated that the
Association wculd be providing comments on thg newest draft aore#meni but indicated initial
concerns about deferring some of the improvements required by the original suodivision approval.
Staff had wished to discuss the proposal with Mr. Connor, but has Deen unsuccessful in trying to
reach him prior to the daadtine for preparing this staff report
CO.VNLR • BAK LLP lt)Muat►.er atr.t.
6SA Ft4wc. co,CA 93131
Tontiny k Coque. t.1.415.334.0877
I.Tiawtbif SA' taa +15.334.9877
February 7,2001
By Fecslmde and
1"Class us Mail
Robert H. Drake
Principal Plantar
CoMM=ty Development Deparwent
County Administration Building
651 Pine Strect
dth Floor, North Wing
Martira7_ California 94553.0095
Re: Subdivirio►t 76931*Ugset Place
Dear Mr. Drake:
Mr. Gingrich re6p4ctUly submits the following ptopesed letter agreement reguding the
referenced subdivision. As we have discuss d.Mr.Giafrich Contends that the County docs not
have jurisdiction over the private disputes at issue. Witt'"t waiving, and specifically proserving,
his argunu-nts on this point. Mr. Gia och requests considcratioa of the following proposed
resolution of all such disputes.
The parties agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. Mr. Gingrich or his agent shag prepare a map depicvng a Portion of lot S for
installation of an ofT streef parking space. nc area shall be approximately It fect wide and not
more than 20 feet deep. At no experm to Mr.Gingrich,Mr. McAdams %hall cause the area on
lot 5 designated by Mr. Ginoch to be graded turd paved consisaatt with the existing roadway.
YNIL and shall install curbs consistent with the txisting subs and as designt#ted on the map prepared
by or on bebalf of Mr_Gingrich. All such work shall be performed consistent with the standards
in the trade.
2. In the event the placsnwr►t of the parking span referenced is I l decreases the
setback fix the existing structure on lot 5 such that n vuk=is rtquired, the work refrnrued
above shall not proceed unless and until the Contra Costa County Planning Department or. if
necessary. the Board of Supervisors, gmts the necessary variance. If a variance is required.
issuance of the same is a condition precedent to Mn.Girt&li s obligations under this agreement.
-GG
f'tD-lM=i-�C'J it l'. _ VV1,,r.n LL•r r` __• _�� r .� _.-.. �
CONNER-13 K LLP Robert Drake
February 7, 2001
Page 2
3. At v1r. Ciapponi's expense his engineer, Thomas Ruatk,small prepare a grading
and drainage plan(including but not limited to an appropriate diagram of the area to be graded).
o 1 -1 he purpose of the work is to control runoff and to regulate the drainage is the area, and to
obliterate any and all remnants of the preexisting paved road in the arca. The actual grading
work shall not commence unless and until Mr. Gingrich has approved the plat, such approval not
to be unreasonably withheld.
_ 4. At no expense to Mr. Gingrich, Mr. McAdams shall cause the grading referenced
in paragraph 3 above to be completed consistent with the applicable plaru and spacifrcations and
the standards in the trade. For this and all other work called for in th16 agreement, the parry
perforrtung the work shall issue the respective property owner(s) a certificate of liability
insurance on a standard general cornpn:hcnsive liability form with coverage limits not less then
S 1,000,000 per occurrence, and shall pure the respective property owner(s) as additional named
insured(s)on that policy. ne party providing the work also warrants to keep the property free
and cleat of any lions or encumbrances,and to defend and indemnify the owner(s) against any
and all claims for personal i-ury and/or property damage arising from or related to the work
performed.
5. Mr. Gingrich shall close escrow on the salt of lot 5 within one year of the date of
this agreement. If.hc fails to do so he shall construct six Off-street parking spaces on lot S within
sixty (60) days of the one-year anniversary. Prior to close of escrow Mr. Gingrich shall record a
deed restriction as follows: A) the buyer of lot 5 shall have 180 days from close of escrow to
submit an application including all construction plans,drawings,designs and specifications
customarily required to secure a building permit fora single family residence; B) the plans shall
include not less than six off-street parking spaces:C)in N event the buyer fails to submit the
referenced application within the time required,the buyer shall be obligated to construct six off-
street parking spaces within sixty(60) days of the ISO Cay anniversary.
6_ Mt.Gingrich shall close escrow on ttx sak of lot 6 within two years of the
effective date of this agreement. If he fails to do sc he shall construct six off-street parking
spaces on lot 6 within sixty(60) days of the one-year annirerAwy- Prior to close of escrow Mr.
Gingrich shall record a deed restrictibn as follows: A)TI-c buyer of lot 6 shall have ISO days
from close of escrow to submit an application including all construction plans, drawings, designs
and specifications customarily required to secure a building permit for a 9ingie family residence,
B)the plans shall include not less than six off-street parking spaces; C) in the event the buycr
fails to submit the required application within the time required.the buyer shell be obligated to
construct six off-street parking spaces within sixty(6o)days of the 190 day AWivctsiuy.
7. In the event the buyer of lots 5 and 6 is the same person, the buyer may sstisf}•the
conditions sec forth in 115 and 6 by submitting an application including all construction plans,
drawings. designs and specifications customarily required to secure a building permit for a single
LbT-/ r 3
Robert Drake
CONI�rER-QAK LLP February 7. 2001
Page 3
family residence spanning both lots within 160 days after close of escrow on the purchase of the
lots and providing for not less than six off-street parking spaces in total_
8. Within ten days of full execution of this agreement, Mz. Ciapponi shalt remove
any and all signs he installed or caused to be installed along the private road, and all cars he has
parked in the guest parking spaces in the hammerhead or elsewhere within the subdivision (with
the e.xceptaon of the six off-stmet puking spaces on his property, and shall not park vchicle3 in
his possession or control in the guest parking spaces within the subdivision. Mr. Ciaipponi's
compliance with this provision is a continuing condition to Mr.Gingrich's obligations tinder this
agreement.
9. The parties to this agreement shall use their best efforts to secure approval from
the San Ramon Fire Prvtection Division for signs, as opposed to and to the exclusion of, painted
curbs. Mr. Gingrich shall sccurc and install Signs approved by the homeowners and the San
Ramon Fire Protectkin Division where and !ss designated by the San Ramon Fizz Protection
Division, and shall stripe the on-stmt parking spaces. If the San Ramon Fire Protection
Division requires that the curbs be painted, Mr. Gingrich shall cause that work to be performed at
his expense.
l0. Lot S is a nonconforming lot. At no expense to the other parties to this agreement
Mr. Gingrich shall prep= and file the doeumcnts necessary to secure a lot line adjustment
between lots S and 6 such that lot S will conform to existing ordinances. The parties to this
agreement shall not object to qtr. Gingrich's application. Approval of the same by the Zoning
Administraan
tor d, if required, the Board of Supervisors, is a condition precedent to Mr.
Gingrich's obligations under this agreement-
11 .
greement_ll . Messrs. Yandell and Ciapponi withdra- their request for special notice upon
execution of this agreement.
12. All parties agree that Mr. McAdams' performance as required by this agreement
shall be a co itis building permit for lot S. The parties consent to Mr. Adams' request
ire any tsto ount pections"under floor cAdams_
c on of a sinYle-family residence on lot 8.
13- Messrs. Yandell and Ciapponi withdraw their objections to Mr. McAdams' \
I�� pending application for a building permit on lot 8, and agree to use their best efforts to secure the
withdrawal by all other objectors of their prior objections.
14, All parties to this agreement stipulate to the continuing jurisdiction o ontra
to County Superior Coun for enforcement of the tams of this a further
Stipulate at t is ant to alifomia Code of Civil Procedure
CONNER • BAK LLP Robert Drake
February 7, 2001
Page 4
§664.6 as a written settlement of a dispute-95-if litigation Were pending between the parties at
the' time this agreement is executed by each such party.
By copy of this letter to W.Rickles we request her clients' approval of the above. By
copy of this letter.to.Mr. McAdams we request his-approval of the same. Mr. Gingrich has not
reviewed the wording of this agreemcnt, and we reserve the right to modify the same. Should he
request any changes we shall immediately notify all panics of the sante.
Please call me if you have any questions.
incere]y yours,
-r:pmy A. Conncr
CC. Diana ]_ Silves
Rena Rickles
Robert McAdams
(aH by facsimile)
t
. Y
pLA WttqG AGENCY 26-2.2404-26-;
26-2.2404 Appellants--Grounds. (a) Appel- 0aC9tO° runt o;v;s;
i
Tants. Only the following may appeal and only N' <d Grrndac oat's ArPcar<
on the following grounds. Zoning administrator 10 board oC a
i (b) Subdivisions. in the case of a subdivision: i'ior booting COf appeal to Board
(1) The subdivider, from any decision con-
cerning the tentative map, or tite kinds, nature, (Ords. 82-24, 77-33 § I5 (part), 74-2 § 2,
and extent of improvements required for the prior code§ 2205.20: Ord. 917).
subdivision;and
(2) Any interested person adversely affected
by a decision concerning a tentative map, or the 26-2.2408 Appeal — Reconsideratio
Vk
kinds, nature and extent of improvements re-1motion for reconsideration may be [il�
quired for the subdivision, or the matters set writing by an appellant within the time all
forth in Government Code Sections 66473.5, to appeal alleging pertinent factual or
66474, 66474.1, and 66474.6. matters which were not brought to the atter
(c) Other Matters.On other matters: any per- of (rte division rendering. the decision.
son (including an applicant) may appeal if: motion shall be decided by the division :
(1) His property rights or the- value of his next meeting on the basis of the inform:
Te
property is adversely affected and the decision pCe;ented in writing. [f ttte motiotnieo
does not comply with the general plan; or ttnle to .aPbe- extended only
(2) Required standards, identified by appel- nunll,,�r of days required -to hear and decid,
lant. are not satisfied by (tie evidence presented motion. if the motion is granted, pet
at the hearing for rezoning, conditional use, ncordinc their appearance at tile- initial he:
variance, plan, or special permit;or s1311 be P'ven mailed notice of the time of
(3) Specified findings of the planning divi- hearing. (Ords. 77-33 § 15 (part), P.
sion appealed frons are not supported by the pnor co ie 7205.40. Ord. 917).
evidence before it; of - � Appeal — Decision. A decisio
(4) Specified limitations or conditions irn- = -_
posed on granting a conditional use, variance, a^•%' jj j''ion of the planning agency shall be t
plan. or special permit are unreasonable: or t: �`rt ie z`ptration of the time herein also
(5) SpeciiWd limitations or conditions r�cont ;cep[ that. if an appellant
mended but not unposed should reasonably be = on appeal, that portion of the deei:
trorn is suspended pending f
imposed ill granting a conditional use. variance, al'{'za: •'•
n. (Ord. 77-3 ) § 15 (part), 1975: p
plan, or special permit.
(d) County Agency. A department or agency ' «tee „0' S0: Ord. 91 7).
of the county may appeal if it leas administra ,�1� Appeal. — Tentative reaps.
live responsibility in a matter which is adversely -t,-`_-
nate appellate division as indicated
affected by the granting of a conditional use, apprb}
variance, plan, or special permit or by a planning Section 2_6--- 406 shall set the tentative n
agency subdivison decision. In such a case no ap- (but not including parcel maps and tentat
peal fee shall be required but the department or maps therefor) for hearing. Such hearing shall
agency shall be charged with the cost of required held and the appellate division shall render
notice. (ords. 83-fi3, 77-33 § 15, 75-19: prior decision on the appeal as provided in Chapte
code § 2205.10: Ord. 917)_ (Gov. C_ 66451 ff.) of the Subdivision M
Act_ The decision shall comply with t
26-2.2406 Appeal — Notice. An appellant pro�lsions in the Subdivision Map Act and
may appeal a decision of a division of the particular Government Code Sections 664
66473-5 and 66474, and shall include a:.
planning agency, to the appellant division findings required by said Act. T
indicated, by filing a written notice of appeal, above-mentioned time limits small not app
the grounds for appeal, with the
where they have been waived by appellant or V
planning department within tine calendar time tentative neap under consideration is bei
herein allowed upon payment of the fees
prescribed by Article 26-2.28: considered in conjunction with or is condition
upon the obtaining of a necessary zona
vanance. rezoning or the approval of a fir
development plan_ (Ord. 77-33 § 15).
-19 (cootr2 Costa County s-
Z 1q4��
Exhibit X
7/20/01 Appeal of Commission Decision
by David Ciapponi and John Yandell
7/20/01
Application and Permit Center
651 Pine Street, Second Floor,North Wing
Martinez, CA
Dear Ms. Wensley,
Please consider this your letter of notification of our appeal to the Board of Supervisors
of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision on June 6,2001
with respect to County File #DP003042 CUSTOM HOMES BY MCADAM INC. The
grounds for this appeal include but are not limited to, the fact that conditions
recommended during the hearing should have been imposed but were not. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Havid Ciapponi-._.
John Yandel
f'' r
V
Exhibit XI
8/1/01 Revised House Plans and Original
Plans Approved by the San Ramon .Valley
Regional Planning Commission
•
v
a
:dJ •
N
w�
all
:N
Ilk 10-5.2000
LIJ
�U
I : ► F :w.
i �
F
g •d Tz40-SSE-Sz6 PaQPPols seToyocN tai= T [ TO 90 aos
10-5-2000
�, _Hisof �ol � 6
.. . . . .........
A
PQRPPOIS SQ1040IN WE:$, t t t0 94 'JaS
ORIGMIAL . SUBMITTAL 10-5.2000
. � 44A►19'1.� i
TODDARD
ilk
q� GESIGN, A.'.A.
e.•..aees..e�.
� w
LOT 8
WV*Qsr PLACE
`AMO
ol
IRV
2 - / 1.96 •rc I
/ 1!�elc.u.c"bic Ac Prg1
/ oe`��w�r s....•t•yur
// • /� �OOI�T�jt.7fAV VN
awmm
s+erre.vi•r.w•na�s
r 84Y/G4u ALM 9r 1m Rrl/1 •. 1 j;Z 3f t. i
/ i L 1!O>t' Nrt.• Wena Meter J�.r f r,
( rr
I
I. / � .. ( I GOYR/Y p�'�lLS•/
`{ I DaF.
I , 1 1 1.II•(•r w
• I aw.tr•
`1�.\ �lV16ED' raw
oC A W M
I •d IZbO-SSE-Sz6 PJWPPOIS SWIC401W dSI =ZT TO 90 dos
......... ....... ............
� n �
-2001
w
MAim-
01:0:
/
ql
f .a
I 1.
L
i
e �d T2�0-SSE-Sz6
P-j¢PPoIg sQloyotN eOS : Ii 10 9D deg
8-2
2001
l 1!Y I
3 Y _ .. rt
h .
a
M '
' r i
�d 4
44 i
i
i
G 'd TZfO-SSE 5z6 PJappols S*1040tw wSv:1 i 10 90 des
--------------
a
/ •D
1 ` i
E �
3 � F
� J
Y^!r►•.- \ •_r .��d Sri � �n'�b'l�P►c #�J i.9'� sry � JdA' ..
1 i
.. ._...__;� _.__,}...`__...,.....,.p.��,,,.__,,,._t :C'-.fes -t_......__�"Li.,... •��•.4�........_...:0;3T"'_"'_ �-
9 •d TZiD-SSE-S�6 PJVPPor3S l:910401W aLf = t i [Q 50 alas
Cl URRENT SUBMITTAL 8-2-2001
STODDARD
r'�a
rt:. �I .` RESIGN. A.I.A.
AM atT,tf
I
SAN
ti R1.M01•
Th+a1S �
CUSTOM u DW:s to
Ll
ars At9PJ
� ....�.� � eta•tibl
' -
T f
sltsM .G _ oT
VJBDNIWK 7f�90
60
irw r
c. 446 WML
_ of Gk.'w C'alp liM�.S•7RTY
� �' 0li+ri 1/!r IDV/•� Vf
� ! � r�¢Lanev•
W4 comrrrst
_ �raatns e.�e
_-� � _ ��Itji^ � ;\ ➢[?iEJri#•c=f? . �(e �..V Z� a/t l�•.
9+{►0�2P.lot," A-ftme Y.OIe EZ�. St7s fi16\ 3�T�u•�a.>�
is a
arnmq) , G�arrr
.msst a...
a srr.+taltatw+.sara,! ,
rorr+a.?'t #Vw csA+R�sr9se 4*
i 4 ONO!rx."Vbv Awv
1 __ .. 7 nI1'wl._/4uSlae C ew
�hfiRINS,
6 cr.a.
Y�CiJ-1�i7 �/!Q'bA70Rs al.fu�r1. AYr •.MJ{ii br
mom D3S.�'f 1t
rt• 50 0/wrY qA; ri' r��.•tt t T'W t t-
M° !7 D''7Itfl:Mlli'G�TAvb ..woc e/ ' _.
S'd t2ko-SSE-S�'6 P4enPazS sejoyotw e9* ; it iD 90 das
Exhibit XII
6/13/01 Appeal Letter from Tommy
Conner and 6/22/01 Response from
Community Development Department
LAw OFFICES OF 10 Monterey Blvd.
San Francisco, CA 94131
Toimimy A. CONKER tel:415.334.0877
fax:415.334.9877
June 13, 2001 email: tommy@corner-bab.com
By Federal Express
Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Director, Community Development Department
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095
Re; Subdivision 7693/Wingset Place
Dear Mr. Barry:
Please take notice that the Subdivision Developer, Thomas Gingrich, appeals from the
June 6, 2001 decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission in favor of
recording a notice of violation of subdivision laws on Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693 on thew
following grounds:
1. On January 9, 1996 the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors resolved that the
improvements in Subdivision 7693 were completed as provided in the Subdivision Agreement
with KGB Development Company Mr. Gingrich's predecessor in interest. On
recommendation of the Public Works Director the Board found that the improvements
satisfactorily met the guaranteed performance standards, and authorized the Director to refund
the balance of the developer's cash deposit. The conditions of approval included, among other
things, six off street parking spaces on each Lot. In determining that the Developer met the
conditions of approval, the 1996 Board concluded that each parcel—including Lots 5 and 6—
included six off-street parking spaces, or that the condition was waiver with,respect to Lots 5 and
6. Mr. Gingrich's rights in this regard are vested, and the Planning Commission exceeded its
jurisdiction by voting to record notice of a violation on this point.
2. The southern side of the hammerhead is of a sufficient size to allow ingress and
egress to Lots 5 and 6, and also provide four (4) on-street guest parking spaces of legal size and
dimension. The markings on the hammerhead were made by a resident—Mr. Ciapponi—without
authority as required under the applicable conditions, covenants and restrictions ("CC&Rs")
controlling the issue in this private subdivision. The Planning Commission's decision to record a
notice of violation on this point is factually inaccurate and, lacking necessary foundation, legally
unsupportable and an abuse of discretion.
Lacer Offices of Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Tommy,A. Conner June 13, 2001
Page two
3. The Board abused its discretion by tying Mr. McAdam's development rights with
respect to Lot 8 to Mr. Gingrich's satisfaction of conditions previously satisfied by Mr. Gingrich.
There is no nexus between 1VIr. McAdam's application for a building permit as to Lot 8 and Mr.
Gingrich's satisfaction of conditions of approval. In the event the Planning Commission decided
to tie Mr. McAdam's development rights to Mr. Gingrich's response to the notice of violation,
the Planning Commission exceeded its authority.
4. Mi. Gingrich and Mr. McAdam have agreed to a mechanism that would resolve
all of the issues set forth in the notice of intent to record a notice of violation, and the
Commission's decision on the issue is moot.
5. The original conditions regarding posting and painting of curbs were satisfied
pursuant to or waived by the Board of Supervisors on January 9, 1996. The 1996 Board
concluded that this condition was satisfied or waiver. Mr. Gingrich's rights in this regard are
vested; and the Planning Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by voting to record notice of a
violation on this point.
6. Recording a Notice of Violation on the ground that existing conditions on private
property in a private subdivision do not comply with current County-ordinances where the
owner's of such properties enjoy vested rights as to such conditions will not solve the issues
presented by this private dispute, nor would the Notice have any legal significance other than to
cloud title and compel legal action.
For all of the above reasons Mr. Gingrich respectfully appeals the June 6, 2001 decision
of the Plaruling Cornrnission.
&t—C-e-r-41v yours,
Tommy A. Conner
cc: Robert McAdam
CommunityContra Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Community Development Director
Development Costa
Department COUrIou
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street
4th Floor, North Wing
Martinez, California 94553-0095 t
Phone: 335-1276
June 22, 2001
Tommy A. Conner
10 Monterey Blvd.
San Francisco, CA 94131
Re: Subdivision 7693/W ingset Place
Dear Mr. Conner:
On June 14, 2001, the County received your faxed letter of appeal of the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission's decision in favor of recording a notice of violation of subdivision
laws, on Lots 5 and 6 of Subdivision 7693.
On June 14,2001, Gloria Slusher, my secretary,left a phone message at your office, indicating that
a $125.00 fee must accompany an appeal, in order for the appeal to be valid. You were also
notified of the required fee at the June 6, 2001 SRVPC meeting, when staff read the appeal
procedures into the record. In addition, detailed written instructions were placed on an information
table at that same meeting. These instructions are enclosed.
On the last day of the appeal period, June 18, 2001, the County received your signed letter of
appeal. However,the appeal fee was not included in the Federal Express Envelope. Therefore,in
accordance with the County Code Sections 26-2.2406 and 26-2.2802 (attached),your letter cannot
be considered a complete and timely appeal.
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter please call me at(925) 335-1276.
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Barry, AICP
Community Development Dire tc.
DMB/CW/bdm
Cc: File-SD-91=7.6,9.3::: : =
Roper#drake;`Co`tnrnuniyevelo:pment
Diana Silver, County Counsel- '
Enclosures: Appeal Instructions
County Code Sections 26-2.2406 & 26-2.2802
Office Hours Monday - Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Office is closed the 1st, 3rd& 5th Fridays of each month
26-2.2602-26-2.2810 ADMINISTRATION
Article 26-2.26 26-2.2804 Environmental impact reports.
Conditional Zoning (a) Environmental impact reports prepared by
county staff shall be charged at cost against
26-2.2602 Conditional zoning — Authority. money deposited in advance by the applicant.
On the planning commission's recommendation, Environmental impact reports prepared by con-
the board of supervisors may impose conditions sultants engaged by the county will be charged
on the zoning reclassification of property. (Ord. against money deposited in advance by the
71-18 § I (part), 1971: prior code § applicant and shall include an additional non-
2204.72(a)). refundable twenty-five percent of the con-
sultant's fee for community development
26-2.2604 Conditional zoning — department costs in support thereof. If the cost
Conditions. These conditions shall be those only exceeds the applicant's deposit, the applicant
which the board determines, after considering shall pay the excess costs to the county upon
the commission's recommendations, to be initial hearing on the proposed action. If the
necessary.to avoid circumstances inimical to the cost is less than the deposit, any excess shall be
public health, safety or general welfare, or to refunded to the applicant.
fulfill public needs reasonably expected to result (b) The director of community develop-
from the. allowable uses and/or development; ment may waive part or all of the fee for a
and the . conditions shall be reasonably so planned unit district. final development plan
designed, and reasonably related to the EIR if he finds, in accordance with the state
necessities of each case considering all the CEQA guidelines, that the preliminary develop-
relevant facts. ment plan EIR is appropriate for final develop-
Further, these conditions shall relate to -.rent plan consideration. (Ords. 86-95 § 4,
special problems of the property if rezoned, 74-2 § 3).
such as water supply, sewers, utilities, drainage,
grading or topography, access, pedestrian or 26-2.2806 Late filing. Whenever the direc-
vehicular traffic, or proposed physical for of community development determines
developments affecting nearby properties. (Ord. that a person has begun an illegal land use
71-18 § 1 (part), 1971: prior code § without first applying for aid obtaining all
2?04.72(b)). required permits or entitlements. he ;hall apply
as soon as practicable and pay a fee of one and
26-2.2606 Conditional zoning — one-half times the normal fee, but he remains
Operativeness. The ordinance reclassifying the subject to other penalties and enforcement
property shall not be operative until the procedures. (Ord. 86-95 § 5).
conditions have been satisfied, or assurance
provided by way of contract (with adequate 26-2.280S Refunds. If an application, filing,
surety), as found and declared by board or appeal is withdrawn before any required
resolution- (Ord. 71-18 § 1 (part), 1971: prior notice is given but after processing work has
code § 2204.72(c)). begun, the director of community develop-
ment shall authorize a partial or complete
Article 26-2.28 refund of required fees which exceed the cost
Fees of the woti: performed. Once any required
notice is Even, no refund may be granted.
26-2.2802 Fees Required. Each person who (Ords. 86-95 § 6, 74-2 § 3).
applies for, requests, receives, or appeals a land
use permit or other entitlement or service 26-2.2810 Public service activities.The direc-
fumished by the community development for of community development may waive the
department shall at the time of such application, fees required by this article for applications
request, receipt, or appeal pay the applicable filed by community interest, nonprofit groups
fee or fees established by the board of super- receiving substantial financial support from
visors. (Ords. 86-95 § 3, 74-2 § 3). public entities for public service activities which
(Contra Costa County 5-87) 30
Exhibit XIII
Notification List
03 060 014 193 060 016 193 070 036
Richard&C A Buffenbarger Marcella Herzig John&Paula Jelra
28 Via Alondra Ct 31 Via Alondra Ct 864 Miranda Creek Ct
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193 070 037 193 070 038 193 401 002
Erol Gokbora&Debi Roden-Gokbora Daniel&Janine Burkland James&Marilyn Hogg
861.Miranda Creek Ct 853 Miranda Creek Ct 104 Garydale Ct
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193 401 003 193 401 004 193 401 005
Pahna Richard&Margaret Thayer Eric&Lynne Breshears
108 Gandale Ct 112 Garydale Ct 116 Gv_ydale Ct.
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193 401 006 193 401 008 193 4010 10
Rochelle Philip George Wood Keith Wilton
1.20 Gajydale Ct 117 Gaiydale Ct 109 Garydale Ct
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
i
193 401 014 193 401 015 193 401 016
Rocky John&Nada Dudum David&Adrienne Yamold Scott Bohamran
250 Likely Dr 2 Wing Set PI PO Box 616
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193 401 017 193 401018 193 401 019
Jeffrey&Kathgn Oster Thomas Gingrich Thomas Gingrich
6 Wing Set PI PO Box 504 PO Box 504
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507
193.401022 193 401 023 193 482 006
John&Maureen Yandell Jr. David Ciapponi Nathan&Joy Walker
1 Wing Set PI PO Box 936 221 Likely Dr
Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507
193 482 008 193 482 010 193 482 013
Lona Arm Evans Henry &Leona Hoffman Lam-&Maureen Myers
321.Likely Ct 331 Likely Ct 316 Likely Ct
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507 Alamo.
CA 94507
193 482 014 193 482 016 193 482 017
Georgina Moore Gary&Irene Dodson Hemi, &Leona Hoffman
241 Likely Dr 326 Likely Ct 331 Likely Ct
Alamo, CA 94507 Alvino. CA 94507 Alamo. CA 94507
Brian & Deanne Moore John & Jenniger Leonard Rosemary Peterson TRE
32 Via Alondra Ct 113 Garydale Ct 311 Likely Ct
Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, CA 94507 Alamo, Ca 94507
Alamo Improvement Association Rena Rickles Leo B. Siegel
P.O. Box 271 Attorney at Law .Attorney at Law
Alamo, CA 94507 1970 Broadway , Suite 1200 16 Waugh Road
Oakland, CA 94612 Royal Oaks, CA 95076
Kemieth M. Miller Tomrny Conner
Morgan, Miller & Blau Conner-Bak, LLP Public Works
1676 North California Blvd 10 Monterey Blvd. INTEROFFICE
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-4137 San Francisco, CA 94107
Inspector Michael Mentnik Heather Ballenger
San Ramon Fire Inspection District
1500 Bollinger Canyon Road Public Works Department
San Ramon. CA 94583 INTEROFFICE
p H P N
,c- t�s1 s� K
\`-+fid N N .. g tD
O m " tr
ts
-jO N O M ).�� O
0 —
.�
O ct O tj ft
O C> O
ulin
N b £ O O O tO
m t x �, o cn rt W
►� N N N H
C3 "a
%Q o� o
� O rt
H' tr N 2 K :3
yr
o
N O
CN 4
N rfi fi 0 0 -�
�t
0 n m
O' 0 fi •`
tD O .0 m
m K
w :r
ro ~ m
� ro
rt o
N w tD
O
K ct
tt r N
,d
0 0 -
ro t))
N
N O )a tr+
f 4 >4
0 b
�
0 ri � A f� 0 > N
44 4J "1 3 00. aNN
O N4 .0 4J b 4) O
+1 9 a O O 0 x•ri
W 4) td •.l f4 td 4-)
C0 NO 0 410 4) 0cd
O O 0 G N A (0 W 4J a
`-'A PA 4-) 0 :3 N 9
a a 0 9A a 4)
p )I 1d b cd N 0 •Q :j 4)
x wa >1c to p0 A,b aNi> °'
bN 9 04N � b 400J 1m4
W a ani a N 4 ) N ,c
•9 > >d 0 >I V
to ra O•U b a b► w 44 aJ A
0 4) 0 4J 91 9 0 N 0•r1 X00
4-) a $4 >t0 Ovr-
N 0 1~ 4) p >, 9 •,..c to
+i b
0a 0 )•t = ..a O 4J M 4J r0
N 0•r1 4J O O 0 0 .'1 cu -rc )-c
04N b >,44 U41 4JN0cd
41 r. 4) O W 0 r. aJ -H 0
rx4J4) u•ri V9 > � 9i p � roA
+) A x to (0-1 0 :1 040 0
0 x 4) td 4J 4) +-1 r-1 U U >r
,000 A0 Nab u0 mb
V9: +) a . to *3 b 0••r+ 9i
ri N . >r 9 0 O C. 0
4Jx N rl A 4) 0 44-) >y•rq 4 N
.,q0•rl -rl 4) k N 4J P aJ U C.
U) 3 N G to O O +s td O'
O F3 cd -H P 0 04 •r1 0 4) N
a0 .a) :3 4) m004 > 04 r~ aAp
4) 0 r-4 0 0 0 •H :j •ra 0 E•t 4)