The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 12032002 - SD3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ✓.. Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD _n; n Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCounty y 'r DATE: December 3, 2002 SUBJECT: A Hearing on Two Appeals filed on an Administrative Decision by the Zoning Administrator Determining that a Site Complies with the Minimum Lot Dimensions of the Single Family Residential District 62 Alamo Glen Trail, Alamo; File #DP013070 (APN 193-861-020) (Azevedo — Owner) (District 111) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion to: 1. Sustain the Zoning Administrator decision that the site complies with the minimum lot dimensions of the Single Family Residential, R-20 district. 2. Deny the appeal of Howell & Suzanne Southmayd. 3. Deny the appeal of William and Allison Morgan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 3. 2QQ2 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_ VOTE OF SUPERVISORS See Attached Addendum I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND xx UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Non 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: Ryan Hernandez(925-335-1206) ATTESTED December _3, 2002 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Jeff Azevedo David Preiss Howell &Suzanne Southmayd BY DEPUTY Alamo Improvement Association December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevedo Parcel) File#DP013070 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: None. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Overview This matter stems from the processing of an application for a small lot review for a new residence that had been filed last year with the County. The zoning ordinance requires that an applicant proposing development on a parcel that is substandard with respect to either lot area or lot width standards of the zoning district is required to first obtain approval of a (small lot) design review. The purpose of the review is to determine the compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of size, height, location and design. The County had accepted a small lot review application from the owner of a property in Alamo seeking to establish a single family residence. Prior to an application having been filed with the County, neighbors had expressed concern with the development of a residence, even if it were to meet all of the objective zoning development criteria. Due to the irregular (Vag') configuration of the site, staff and the applicant had assumed that the affected lot was substandard with respect to the average lot width standard. It was not until after the application had been heard and approved by the Zoning Administrator, and then appeals from neighbors filed on that decision (but before the appeals were heard), that staff and the applicant re-checked the configuration of the property. At that time, based on documentation provided by the applicant, staff determined that the site meets the minimum lot area and width standards, and that no small lot review application is required for approval of the project. The applicant elected to withdraw the application, thus voiding the neighbors` appeals of the Zoning Administrator design review approval. At the Planning Commission meeting, the neighbors objected to the staff determination that the lot is not substandard. Subsequently, they filed appeals of the administrative decision. Because the appeals are of an administrative decision, the Ordinance provides that the appeals are to be heard by the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND Last year, Jeff Azevedo, the owner of a vacant lot zoned Single Family Residential, R-20 at 62 Alamo Glen Trail in Alamo approached the County concerning a proposal to obtain a building permit for a new two-story single family residence. December 3,2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevedo Parcel) File#DP013070 Page 3 The affected site has an irregular configuration in the form of a so-called "flag" lot. The main body of the lot is linked to the access road by a lengthy and slender strip of land. Flag lots are frequently substandard with respect to minimum average lot width standards due to the formula in the ordinance that is used to determine average lot width (lot width is measured by dividing the lot area by lot depth). It was assumed that the site did not meet the minimum average lot width standard due to the lengthy fee strip of land in the front of the property intended to allow for access to the building area of the site. This assumption led staff to advise the applicant that the site would cause the proposed building permit application to be subject to the Small Lot Occupancy (design review) ordinance [ref. Ord'. Code Section 82-10.002 (c)]. Where development is proposed on lots that are substandard to either the minimum lot area or average lot width, this ordinance requires that a developer apply for a design review application to determine whether the proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of design, height, size, and location. Small Lot Review Application On September 27, 2001, Mr. Azevedo filed an application request for "Small Lot" design review for a proposed single-family residence (File #Z101 9396B & # DP013070). The design met all of the objective residential design criteria of the zoning district (minimum yard areas, on-site parking, maximum structure height and number of stories). However, the project was also proposing the removal of a mature Monterey Pine tree along the "stem" (driveway) portion of the site; because of the size of the tree and the vacant status of the site, the tree qualified as code-protected under the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance. About the time that the application was filed with the County, the legal counsel (David Preiss) of one of the neighbors contacted staff and indicated that his clients had concerns with the design of the proposed residence and would want to have the County conduct a noticed public hearing on the project where they might testify on the project (rather than potentially allow an administrative approval following public notice as is also allowed by the ordinance). Based on the letter from Mr. Preiss, staff informed the applicant that the County would require that a noticed public hearing be conducted on the project. Prior to the hearing, the matter was referred to the Alamo Improvement Association for comment. The Association indicated that it conditionally supported the proposed residential design. On June 17, 2002, the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing on the project. After taking testimony, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed residence with modifications. Appeal of Zoning Administrator Design Review Approval of Azevedo Residence Neighboring residents filed two separate appeals on the Zoning Administrator approval of the residential design. Leroy and Lorraine Soltau and Stephen and Jean December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevedo Parcel) File#DP013070 Page 4 Wilkerson filed one appeal; Linda Standen, Michael Medley, and William and Allison Morgan filed another appeal. Late Discovery that Site Complies with Minimum Lot Dimensions In preparing the review of the two appeals, staff re-checked the lot dimensions and it became apparent to both staff and (subsequently) the applicant that, notwithstanding the irregular flag lot configuration of the property, the site meets all of the minimum lot dimension standards of the R-20 district. The licensed architect for the applicant subsequently produced and submitted a certified exhibit indicating that the lot meets all of the minimum lot dimension standards. As a consequence, it became apparent that the project would not require approval of a small lot design review application. Prior to the hearing before the Board of Appeals (San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission), the applicant elected to withdraw his application. Frequently, when there is a flag lot configuration similar to the subject site, the lot is substandard with respect to the minimum width dimension. The ordinance provides that the lot depth is measured by drawing a line that is perpendicular to the lot frontage,The ordinance provides that the lot frontage is determined by drawing a line between the two points furthest apart along the front of the lot. In these instances, the lot depth is a relatively high number in comparison to the lot area, and the minimum average lot width standard (average lot width = lot area/ lot depth). That is because the lot frontage is often perpendicular to the stem portion of the lot. The information for determining lot frontage is indicated on the small lot review application form. However, in this instance, the lot frontage is at a skewed angle (due to its placement on the side of a circular cul-de-sac turnaround. The skewed angle of the lot frontage results in a relatively short lot depth dimension. The lot depth is sufficiently short to cause the average lot width to exceed the minimum (120 feet) required for the R-20 district. Review of Lot Dimensions with San Ramon Valley Regional Planninq Commission On September 18, 2002, staff informed the Board of Appeals that the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance does not regulate development of the site, and that the applicant had withdrawn his application. At staffs recommendation, the Board of Appeals accepted the withdrawal of the application, thus causing the two appeals of the Zoning Administrator decision to become null and void. In a letter dated September 23, 2002, the Deputy Zoning Administrator acknowledged the withdrawal of the applicant's small lot review application and also accepted that the site complies with Zoning standards. The determination was based on zoning ordinance definitions applying to Sections 82-4.246 Lot average width; section 82-4.248 Lot Depth; and section 82-4.250 Lot Frontage. December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevedo Parcel) File#DP013070 Page 5 Using these code definitions, the applicant has shown, and staff accepted, that the site has the following dimensions. It should be noted that these calculations are also shown on Exhibit A, attached. Lot Size 29,300 Square Feet Lot Depth 184.16 feet Average Lot Width 169.10 feet In the R-20 Zoning District, the minimum lot dimensions are as follows: Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet Average Lot Width 120 feet The figures above show that this lot is not a "small lot" and does not require design review. Staff discussed possible review procedures that might apply to the development of this site. Staff advised the applicant, Mr. Azevedo, that even if the proposed residence were to comply with the objective zoning design criteria (yard, parking, structure height), any development of the property would still require approval of a tree permit under the Tree Protection Ordinance to allow for the removal of the Monterey Pine tree on the site. In view of the non-applicability of the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance toward his parcel, Mr. Azevedo indicated that he might wish to alter the proposed residential design. Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Decision Accepting that Site Meets Zoning Standards Following the September 23, 2002 administrative decision of the Zoning Administrator accepting the site's compliance with zoning standards, adjacent residents filed two appeals on that decision. Howell and Suzanne Southmayd filed one appeal with the County in a letter dated October 20, 2002. William and Alison Morgan filed another appeal in a letter from their legal counsel dated October 22, 2002. Exhibit B is a chronological list of events that pertain to this application. REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS Listed below is a summary of the appeal points of the two appeals, and staff s response. Southmayd Appeal 1. Summary of Appeal Point. The appellant has indicated that the determination by the Community Development Department that 62 Alamo Glen Trail(Lot 20, Subdivision 2- December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevedo Parcel)File#DP013070 Page 6 7063) is not a substandard lot is in error and should be reclassified to a substandard lot. Staff Response: In a letter dated September 23, 2002, the Community Development Department accepted the certified document of a licensed architect portraying methodologies and indicating that ordinance-related calculations for 62 Alamo Glen Drive (Lot 20, Subdivision 7063) comply with the R-20 Zoning District. The appeal does not contain any substantial evidence that would dispute this determination. 2. Summary of Appeal Point. The small lot ordinance is intended to regulate irregular shaped flag lots such as the subject site. Staff Response: The small lot ordinance is only intended to apply to parcels that fail to meet either the minimum lot area or minimum average lot width standards of the applicable zoning district. If an irregular (flag) lot fails to meet one or both of those standards, then any development would be subject to a discretionary design review process for the purpose of determining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. However, if a parcel (even one with an irregular flag lot configuration) meets the minimum lot area and width dimensions, then the ordinance does not require a review for determining neighborhood compatibility under the small lot ordinance. Therefore, staff sees no basis for the appellant's claim that the ordinance is intended to apply to all irregular shaped flag lots such as this site. Morgan Appeal 1. Summary of Appeal Point: The appellant has indicated that the staff determination that any proposed development of 62 Alamo Glen Drive is exempt from the Small Lot Review and that this lot meets all R-20 Zoning standards with respect to lot dimensions is incorrect. Staff Response: A licensed architect has provided certified documentation using methodologies from the ordinance code showing that the site meets the minimum lot dimensions (area, depth, and average width) of the R-20 ordinance. Staff has reviewed the documentation and accepted it as having been done in compliance with the ordinance specified methodologies, and also showing that the lot complies with the R-20 standards. The appellant has not provided any substantial evidence that would dispute this documentation. 2. Summary-of Appeal Point: This (lot depth) line does not, as required by the Code, go from the frontage to the "point of the lot farthest from the frontage."In fact, the line ends at an arbitrary line drawn upon the diagram by the architect, which line itself begins at a point mistakenly identified as the "deepest point on the lot."In fact, this S`P December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevede Parcel) File#DP013070 Page 7 point is itself not the point of the lot farthest from the frontage; the true "deepest point"and the "point ... farthest from the frontage"is at the upper right corner of the lot). Staff Response: The Zoning Ordinance Definitions provide that Lot Depth is 'The distance normal to the frontage to the point of the lot farthest from the frontage" (Ord. Code § 82-4.248). The Ordinance Code defines lot frontage as 'The distance measured between the two points on the principal road, street, or access that are farthest apart"(Ord. Code § 82-4.250). Exhibit A displays the lot frontage line in accord with the ordinance definition, and displays a line normal (perpendicular to) that frontage. The distance between the lot frontage and the line that intersects the point on the lot that is furthest from the lot frontage constitutes the lot depth. That information is also indicated on Exhibit A. The licensed architect has measured that distance at 184.16 feet. The appellant may feel that there may be another more appropriate way to determine lot frontage or lot depth, but the appellant does not offer any substantial evidence that the methodology that is specified in the ordinance or that has been interpretedin this instance have been arbitrarily arrived at. 3. Summary of Appeal Point Even a quick examination of the "lot depth"line shows that only a very small portion of the line even touches the lot in question. It defies common sense to believe that the dimensions of any lot in the County should be determined by a line that barely even touches the lot in question. Staff Response: The opinion in the appeal point is noted. However, Exhibit A contains the correct method for measurement of the lot depth as provided in the Ordinance Code. The comment of the appellant does not present any substantial evidence that would be inconsistent with the specification in the ordinance definition. 4. Summary of Appeal Point Mr. Azevedo's architect apparently based this line, and thus his calculation of the depth and width of the lot, upon the language in §82-4.248 which refers to the depth being based on a line "normal"(i.e., perpendicular) to the frontage. In tum, because the lot fronts upon a curved portion of the street, the frontage line is at an angle which is not replicated anywhere in the lot. In practical terms, this means that the happenstance of a slightly curved street frontage leads to an oddly determined lot depth. This also means that a slight change to the curvature of the frontage, perhaps by relocating this lot just a few feet to the west along the frontage, without changing any other dimension of the lot itself, could lead to a radical change in the lot's calculated depth and width — without any corresponding change to the actual dimensions of the lot. We fail to see how this could be anything other than an arbitrary and capricious application of the Code. December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevedo Parcel) File#DPO13070 Page 8 Staff Response: The appellant's opinion is noted. Small changes in the configuration of the frontage of the property could result in widely varying lot depths and corresponding average lot widths. However, staff disagrees that this definition results in either an arbitrary or capricious application of the Code. The ordinance specifies the parameters that are to be used in the determination of the lot configuration pbrameters for lot depth and average lot width. In considering hypothetical situations that might apply to this site, it should be also noted that were the stem portion of the driveway within a road easement, then, even though the area of the parcel would be reduced by the area of the stem, the lot would still meet the minimum lot dimensions because the lot frontage would be measured at the entrance to the wide portion of the lot. 5. Summary of Ajogeal point The average width calculated by Mr. Azevedo's architect, 159.10 feet, is larger than any actual dimension of the lot, as show on the applicable subdivision map attached hereto as Exhibit E. The actual width of the lot ranges from 120 feet at the extreme north, to approximately 145 feet just above the `flag"portion of the lot, and reaches a minimum of 20 feet on the flag portion itself Again, it defies common sense to believe that the "average"width of the lot could somehow be greater than any portion of the lot itself. Staff Response: The appellant's observation and opinion are noted. However, average width is measured as a function of the ordinance definition of lot area and lot depth. The ordinance definition does not provide for other lot dimensions to be considered in the calculation of average lot width. 6. Summary of Appeal Point. The purported lot depth line is completely inconsistent with the examples of other instances where the County had used this method. Included as Exhibits E, F and G to this letter are materials provided by the County in response to a request for such examples. Staff Response: The applicant does not provide any substantial evidence to support this statement. The method used to calculate the lot depth in this instance are consistent with examples in other instances that staff has shared with the applicant. One example provided to the applicant also involves a lot depth calculation where the lot depth line is relatively skewed to the lot. CONCLUSION Staff regrets that the discovery of the information about the true ordinance dimensions of the lot did not came to the attention of staff until relatively late in the review of this application. Stilt, the specifications for measurement of lot depth and lot width are clear and unambiguous. Staff has applied them in a consistent manner over a period of December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevedo Parcel) Pile#DPo13070 Page 9 decades. The comments of the appellants constitute observations (some of which are true) and opinions. However, the comments do not provide any substantial evidence that the ordinance-specified procedures have not been followed relative to the status of this property relative to compliance with the lot dimension zoning regulations. The lot dimensions as portrayed by the applicant's architect and accepted by County staff comply with the R-20 Zoning District standards. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the Community Development Department's decision that the dimensions are correct and that the small lot design review is not required and deny the two appeals. PROCESSING OF SUBSEQUENT TREE PERMIT APPLICATION Subsequent to the applicant's withdrawal of the small lot application, the applicant filed tree permit application to allow for the removal of the Monterey Pine tree on the stem portion of the site (File#TP020042). The applicant indicated his intent to construct a residence on the main portion of the site, but elected not to provide any details on the design of the residence. The applicant indicated that the removal of the tree was necessary to allow for access and reasonable use of the property. The Zoning Administrator concurred and also determined that there would be no rational legal basis (nexus) for attaching conditions to the design of the residence due to the nature of the tree permit entitlement. Consequently, the Zoning Administrator conditionally approved the project. Staff issued a notice of the Zoning Administrator decision pursuant to the provisions of the Tree Protection Ordinance indicating that the last day to file an appeal would be on November 12, 2002. No appeal having been timely filed, the tree permit approval became final. PROCESS OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE OWNER It is staff's understanding that the owner still intends to develop a residence on the property. Provided that such a residential design were to meet all of the objective design standards of the R-20 district, then the owner will be able to avoid a discretionary permit process with the County. However, should the applicant propose to vary the objective zoning design standards, then before a building permit may issue, the applicant will be required to file for and obtain a variance permit from the County. Such a variance application would be subject to a public notice and opportunity for the owners of adjacent property owners to request a hearing prior to any project approval. December 3, 2002 Board of Supervisors Two Appeals of Zoning Administrator Administrative Determination (Azevedo Parcel)File#DP013070 Page 10 SRVRPC STUDY SESSION ON SMALL LOT OCCUPANCY ORDINANCE Following the hearing by the Board of Appeals, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission has been conducting a study session on the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance. The study session has been conducted at two separate meetings of the Commission. The Commission has discussed the potential of expanding the range of properties that might be subject to the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance. At the November 20, 2002 meeting of the Commission, the Commission continued the study session to its December 18, 2002 meeting. STAFF TRAINING ON PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF NEW APPLICATIONS When the error in the processing of this application came to staff's attention, staff training was conducted to review appropriate procedures involving initial processing of applications. To avoid a recurrence of this situation, staff has been reminded to carefully review applications at time of submittal, or shortly thereafter, to make certain that the appropriate review procedure is being followed for a development project. G: Current Planning/Board Order-Azevedo.2 _.FM To ITEM ��DDE D December 3, 2002 The Clerk of the Board heretofore noticed the hearing before the Board of Supervisors to consider the adrnin strat 4e appeals of William and Allison Morgan and Howell and Suzanne Southrnayd from the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding exemption from Small Lot Review of Lot 20, Subdivision 7!063 (62 Alamo Glen 'frail), Alamo, Pile DPO130'70 (AP'ti 193- 861 93_S6,-"020) Jeff Aze.,edo, Owner. Catherine Kutsuris and Bob Drake; Corninunity Des,%elopment. Department,, presented the staff recommendations and described the project, T he public hearing was opened.. The following persons spoke: William'0organ, 2_47 5, Alamo Glen Drive, Alamo; Howell Southmayd, 24i'1 Alamo Glen Drive; Alaino (_ Jrer Jones Alamo Improvement Association. 292 Srnith Road, Alamo, Jeff Azevedo, P.O. Box 1054, Alamo. The public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the matter and took the follczviriZ action CLOSED the public hearing; CjR._,V'TE'D the Administrative _appeals of William and Allison Mor an and Howell and Suzanne Southmayd from the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding exemption from Small Lot I2ev]eu-of trot 20, Subdivision 063 (62 Alamo Glen Trail) in the Alamo area, Jeff.kzevedo, Owner, __ ,." � {. :.:::::::::::::::]i . ,- - :x i....�.......,...,.......�.........,::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::: :.: - -.... ,....... -". g...... ��i��i��i��: �� :Sol---- �. ::::::::: -lllllll...S......�......-, -.................. : .. .... - - , - - - ... ��iiiiiiiiiiiiii�11!11��i�� -'7--- i��:�::::::::::::::::�::::�::::::::::::::::�:�:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:�:.:.:,:,:.:,:.:,::::::: ...... :::::::�::�.:::::::�:::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::��i�i ......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::!:.::::::: ..... :: . ::::::::-S.::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.::::::::.: . :::::::::.-s.:::::::::::::::::�:::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:i!::::::::::::: .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::�]:::::::::: ��:::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,.::: 1��I��l I , :::::::�:�s.:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::�::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::�:::::::::::]: :: :::u:::::::::::::::::::. nommunawyA �� : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::: vwwx5WlwMQ::� :�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:�:::::::::::::::: ::::::�:::::: � ..�::�::�:.:.s.::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::-:......::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ��......... 3SSS�li.......:��:::::�::�]::::::l�:::m�:]::::::�:::.::��::::::�::x:�::::::::�: . :�::::�::::::�::�:::::::::�.:�:::�:::��.:::�::::::::�:::�::.:::�.:::�::::�:.:�::::::::i::::�:�:::::�::::�:::::�:::::�::::::��::::::::�::7:�::::::�:::�::::::�::::�::::::�:::::�::::�::�:�::::::�:::::::::�:�::::::�::::�:::�:::::::��:u::�::::.:�:::�::::�:::::�::::::�::::�::::::::�::::::�:::::�:,:::::�::::::�::::.:�:�::::�::::::�::::::�:.:x::::�:::::�::::::�::::::�::::::�::::::�:.-.-.::::l:.ssSIi....:l:::l::il::::::l::::::i:::::l:::::::l:::�:::::::::�::�::::::�:�::::�:::::::::�::�::�:::::::�::::�::::::::�::7:�::::�::::::�::::::�:::::�::::�:::::�:::::::::�:�::::::::�::�::::::�::�::::��:�:::�:�::::�:�::::�::�::::::�::�::::::].:�:::::�:.:�::::::�::.::�:::�::::.::�:::::�::.�::::::��::::�:.:::�:::.:�I::::::��.:::�l:::��::.:::�l::::��:.::�i:::::��:.:::.��:....�::.:::�.-.:..:�..::::�.:.:.....�.::::.�.::..�....:.::::.�:..�...:.::-�::......�::.::�:�.:�...�.::::.�.::�.�.....:::::�.....�.:::.�::-....�.:::.�::...�:::::.�....�:::::.�...�..::::I.�:...� ::� ::l::::��:::l::��1.:::�::��1::::l::::��::.:l:.:::��.:::::l::��::.:�l:::�]..:lA::::�::�:Qi::i:::1::i:i::::i,:::i�.::::w:::�:1].:!:,:: ��i��i��:��:��:��:��:��:��:��:��:��:��:��:�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�:�::�::::::�::::::::�:::i:::::::::: �::::: :::::::::::::::::::l:::::::::�:::::::::::::b::::::::::::l::::::::::�::::::�:::::::::�::: ::�::::::�::-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::-:::::::::::::::::�:::::::7:�:::::::: , "' " , , -, " �, - iiiiiiiiiiiiiii�ill��i��:::::7:::::,::.:.:,:.:.:.:.�.:.:.:.:,:.:....:.:::::: :�::::::::::::::: . .. - � ,.iw��::�::.::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::�:::.::::::::S.::::::::,::::::::::: iiiiiiiiii�� ::::::::::7::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::�::::::�::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::�:�i��:�I:N:::t:::::::::::::::I:�:::::::::�::::::::::h:::::::g:�:�:::::::::o:::::::::::::::��::::::��:::::!::::�:u:::: :.i:::�::�..i:::�.i:::::�.i::.:::�.i:::�..i:::::�.i:::�..i::::::�.i::�..i::::�.i::::�.:i::��::::�.::::��::::�.::::::�::��.:::�:::�..:::::::�::�:::�::: "' , 1101, :",........ ll�::m �� X:umllmww-------::::::::::: :::::::::�:::::: :::::::::::::::::::: ----vyw000Awlllom000Nolot�:]: ,�� ]]:��"7- .�� .., .',...,. ........... �� ." .,,,.,. . . . :::::�:::::�:::: ::::�:::::�::::::::::::::::.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.:.:.:.:%.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . . �:�:�:�:�:�:��:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:]:]:�:�:�: ::�::::::�::�:�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:�:::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::%-.:::::::::::::::�::��::�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:]:�:�:]:�:�:�:]:�:�i��i��!�ii��::::::::::::�:�:::::::::::�:�:�:::::::::::::�::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::: � : ��!��i��i��i��!i��:�:�:�:�:]:�:�:�:�:�:�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �::�::�!��:��i��i��i��I�lot 1,�mmomi�� i��i��i��i��l��i��i��i��i:.:.:,:.:,:,:, :�:::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::�:�:�:�:]:�:�:�:�:�.�:�:�]��i��iiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiI � �� ..... :::::::::::::�::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::��:::::: ...'''.1,...-1-11.1-1., �:�::: �::::::::::!�� ::::::::::::::,:::::::::::,:�:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:.:,:.:,:,:.:.:.:�:.:,:,:.:.:,:.".,:",�, ::::iiiiiiii�... :� ::�IENINOMMOMI�� ........ :� : 3 .. .....- �� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::: ::-----M-uu:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::�::�:::�:::::::::::�::�::�::::::::::::::::::::�::�::::::�:::: ::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::: � , - �::: ":.:.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::..%.:::::::::::::::i�i : ................. :::: : XXXX XXX: : YMMt } :::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::�:::::::::::::�::::�:::::::::�::::�:::�::::::��:::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::xx : :::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::��:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::�::::::: � 1 :,::::::::::::::::��.:,:.7,:,:,::::::::: ::::::..,...",:��i��i��!��:.:.:,:.:,7.::::�::::::�:::::::::::::��i�i��i��:::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::: , . I . �:�:::::::::::: x ; :::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::: . �x ��!��i:::�:�:]:�:::�:�:]:� ::�:::�::::::�:::�:::::::::::::::::�:::::::�:::::::.,'...��i��!��i��!l��i��i��:iI ..:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::�::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::f f ::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::��::::::::::::::�::::::::�::: . ::::::�:::::�::�:�:��::�::�::::::::: ��:::::::�::�:::::::::::::::::::::::: il � ::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ,:��:��j��:��!�� i��l��i��ii:ii:i�� : ��:.:, �: �::::::��i��l��i��i!i��.��i��i ::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ��!.:,:,:,:.:.:.:,:,:�:, ��!l��:: : �� I -::::::::::::: l�i��]��]]��]��]��i��i iii�� : ,,,,,,, , ,. , I . xx I . ::::::::::::::::�:::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::� �::::::::::::::::::�x::i�� ::�::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::: . �� E :,��:��i��]��i��i� I �� :::::��Ii��!i��i��!��ll��l��: �� l�ll�i�ii�ii�iiiiii�iiii�iiiiiiiiii�i��ii��iiiii��::::: �:::::::::�: #:�� # - - , :�::::::::�::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::�::::: ............ 1.11 :::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::�::�::�::::::::�:::�::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::�:::::::::::�:::::::�::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::�::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::�:::::::::::�:�:::�::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::�:::::��:::::�:�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::�:��:::::�:::::::::::::::::::��:::::::::::��:��!��!��!�� mox ::::::�:::�:::::::::::::�:::�::�::::::: :::::X::: �:::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: gaw oumn waM ��:�::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ��l�� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::: �� :: ::::::::::::::::::: � � � � ::�:::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: : ��::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::�:: ::::::�::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: : ::::: :::,:::: ��!�� -, �� : jjj:::�j �i��i�i�ii ii��iii�i�i��j��j��:::::;::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::: : W: ::::: :: :I Ol"m":::::��wm:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:: �:: "": I ,:� ::�:::::��i��:�:�:1:1:�:�:�:��:��:�:�:�:]:]��:�:�:�:�:]:�:�:]:�:�:]:�:�:�:�� i��i�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::7:::::::::::::::::::::: .�i��i��i�i�ii�� .:,:.:,:",:,::::::::::::::::::::::::: ��!��i��::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::7:::�:: ]��]��]��]��]��]��ii��i��i��i��i�i�:::::::�:::::::::::::]::::::,: ::::::::::.....�.......... ::::.::::�.::::::::::::::,:.:.:.:.:.:.: .,.....ii��ii��i��i��i.:�:.:,:.:.:,:.:,:.:,:,:�:,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i��i��ii�ii��i�i��i��:��i�i��i�i��i��i��ii�� ]��]�]��:��]��ilI ...................--:::::d: �:::��::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::� ��i��ii��i��iiii��l,��l�� ii�iiii�ii�iiiiiiii�iiiii�iiiiiiiiiiii�i�iiii�iiiii�I : �: �i��i��ii�i�i��i��iii��iii��.....,.......�.... �� :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i��:: ,�:��::��!��:�i��i�i��i�i��i��i��i��i'�::::.:,:.:.:.:.:.::::: ��]��:::::::::��::::::�:::::::::: : .:.:.:,:,:.:.:,:,:.:.::::�:�::::::::: �:X::X::: :i��i��i�lii��i!�i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�� : ::::::::::::: ��tl��i��i��i��i��:: ��:::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::��j i�i��i� l�::::::::::: ....................:1.:.:,:.:.:,:.:::::::::::::��i�i��ii��i��i��i�i.:.:,:,� ::::::: �� ::::� :��i�:,:,:,:.,:::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:,:.:.:,:�-.:::::::::::: : �� ., ::n:X ]��ll��i��i��iiiiiiiiiiiiiill::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�: : x:::::::::- ........ � ]��]�ii�i��l��i��!�i��i�iii��li��i��l�� -, �� ii�i�i��i��iiii�i�iiiii��iii��iii�iiiii��iii�ii��ii::::O:::A::::�� ... ��. :�::::::,:.:.:.:�:.:.:�::::::::.: i�i�:::::::::�::::�:: . ��i��:::�::::::�:::::::::!��f ,:: ,�1�1�1�1�1�1� s.- ::::::::::::::::::S.:::::: � ::::::::::::::::::::::�::: :�:.:.:.:.�.:::::::::::::s.:::::: �:�!��]��]�� ::::::::::::: -1...:".:::::, �i��Iii��i�� ,:,x.:.x'':,:,x-:-::� } :::::::::::::.:,.:�:.::.:.:.:,.:,:.:.:.:.�.:.:.:.:.:.�.:.:.:,:.:.:.:,:.:.%.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::;�.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:,m"Aw wommaxamwif"am go S:::�: i EXHIBIT B li I EXHIBIT B CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF EVENTS AZEVEDO SMALL LOT REVIEW #62 Alamo Glen Trail, Alamo File #DP013070 September 20, 2001: Inguiry from Legal Counsel for Neighbors - An attorney (David Preiss)of two neighbors (Morgans) issues a letter to the Community Development Department concerning a vacant residential lot at#62 Alamo Glen Trail in Alamo owned by Jeff Azevedo. The site consists of a so-called "flag" lot, and is surrounded by residential development. The Morgans had learned that Mr. Azevedo is proposing a new residence and would be seeking approval of a development pian application from the County under the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance. The letter from the attorney seeks to make clear that his clients are requesting a public hearing on the project. September 27, 2001: Owner Files Application for Public Notice Small Lot Review - Mr. Azevedo submits an application for small lot design review approval County File # ZI-0192368 for a proposed residence. In addition to proposing a single-family residence, the applicant is also proposing to remove a Monterey Pine with a trunk width of approximately 26-inches to accommodate a proposed driveway. The tree qualifies as a code-protected tree under the Tree Protection Ordinance. October 3, 2001: Community Development Department issued two different letters to the applicant and to the Morgans' attorney. • CDD Application Acknowledgement Letter to the Applicant - In a letter to the applicant, Mr. Azevedo, the Department conveyed to him that a neighbor had requested that his (public notice) application be subject to a noticed 'public hearing, and that an additional (public hearing) application and fee would be required for that purpose. Staff also requests that the applicant carefully review his project to compare it with the objective zoning district parameters to make certain that the correct application has been filed. • CDD Letter to Neighbors' Legal Counsel - Ina separate letter, staff also acknowledged the Morgan's request for a hearing in a letter to their attorney. November 15, 2001: Owner Files for a Public Hearing Small Lot Review Application - Mr. Azevedo files a public hearing application for small lot review for the proposed two-story residence at#62 Alamo Glen Trail, County File #DP013070. A copy of the application is forwarded to the Alamo Improvement Association for comments. February 20, 2002: AIA Comments on Small Lot Review Application - The Alamo Improvement Association recommends approval of the proposed residence subject to conditions. June 17, 2002: Zoning Administrator Hearing and Decision on Small Lot Application -The Zoning Administrator conducts a hearing, taking testimony from the applicant as well as opponents to the project. County File #DP013070 was approved subject to conditions. June 26, 2002: Neighbors File Two Separate Appeals to the Planning Commission on the Zoning Administrator Approval of the Design Review of the Proposed Residence - The Community Development Department receives two separate appeals. The first appeal was submitted by Leroy & Lorraine Soltau and Jean & Stephen Wilkerson; the second appeal was submitted by Linda Standen/Michael Medley, and William & Allison Morgan. September 9, 2002: Certified Exhibit from Licensed Architect Attesting that Lot Meets All Minimum Lot Dimensions Under the Zoning District Regulations - Mr. Azevedo's architect submits calculations that show the parcel located at 62 Alamo Glen Trail is not substandard in average lot width and therefore does not require small lot design review. Circa September 12, 2002: Staff Issues Report to Planning Commission on Two Appeals — Staff issues a report to the Planning Commission on the two appeals. The report affirms the certified exhibit that the subject site complies with all minimum lot dimensions of the R-20 zoning district, and therefore the project would not require approval of a small lot design review application (though the removal of the Monterey Pine tree would still require approval of a tree permit application). September 16, 2002: Applicant Withdraws Small Lot Review Application - Mr. Azevedo submits a letter to the Community Development Department withdrawing his application, County File #DP013070. This information is conveyed in a staff report to the Planning Commission, and to the two appellants to the Zoning Administrator decision. September 17, 2002: Morgan Attorney Contests Staff Opinion that Lot Complies with Zoning District Standards - The Morgans' attorney, Mr. Preiss, requests the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission determine the status of whether or not Mr. Azevedo's lot is considered a small lot. C-3 f/ September 18, 2002: Planning Commission Accepts Withdrawal of Azevedo Application - The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission accepts the withdrawal of Mr. Azevedo's application. September 23, 2002: Zoning-Administrator Issues Letter to Applicant Acknowledging Withdrawal and Affirming That Site Meets Minimum Lot Dimensions and That Development Does Not Require Small Lot Design Review Approval - The Community Development Department's Deputy Director issues a letter acknowledging the withdrawal of the application for small lot design review and accepts documentation that the subject parcel complies with the minimum dimensions of applicable zoning district, and therefore does not require approval of a Small Lot design review application for purposes of determining compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. October 9, 2002: Owner Files for a Tree Permit to Remove Monterey Pine Tree - Mr. Azevedo'files a tree permit application with the Community Development Department for the removal of the Monterey Pine tree located on the stem portion of the site, County File #TP020042. The applicant wishes to remove the tree because it would be in the way of any proposed driveway access for future development of the site. However, the applicant elects not to disclose details on the design of a residence for the site. October 21, 2002: One Appeal of Zoning Administrator Administrative Decision Affirming That Site Meets Minimum Lot Dimensions - Neighbors of the subject property, Howell & Suzanne Southmayd (property owner of 2471 Alamo Glen Drive), file with the County an appeal of the Deputy Director's (Zoning Administrator's) administrative decision accepting that the site complies with minimum zoning dimensions. October 23, 2002: Second Appeal Filed on Zoning Administrator Administrative Decision - An attorney (David Preiss)for other neighbors of the site, William & Allison Morgan (2475 Alamo Glen Drive), file a second appeal of the Zoning Administrator's administrative decision concerning this site's compliance with the minimum zoning district standards. October 31, 2002: Notice of Zoning Administrator Conditional Approval of Tree Permit—The Community Development Department issues a notice that the Tree Permit application (File #TP020042) is approved subject to conditions, but that any interested person may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission provided an appeal is filed with the Community Development Department no later than November 12, 2002. Copies of the notice are issued to the owners of all adjacent properties (including the Morgans and Southmayds), and to the Alamo Improvement Association. November 12 2002: No Appeal Filed on Tree Permit Decision - There is no record of any appeal of the 1013112002 tree permit approval having been timely 9D 3 C-4 12— filed with the Community Development Department; therefore the tree permit approval becomes final. Wazevedo_chronofogy ��:��]��]��::::::::��::::::::�ii� 7::::::::::::::: . -, -, '- �".��".��".��",��"",.",��:�l��'*,�",��l��!�l��illl*.',�ll�l�ll��ill!�ll�ll'..I�l!�l'..'..Illl�illi��lil�l�illillilliilli�ll��ill�ll�ilill�ilill��"'.�ii�i��i*"*.�i--,il�ll�ll�ll�--��ll��l��l�l�l�--i�-��l�--i:��--��--i��i--��illi��l�l�l��l��l��lI :A:1:w:w::ON::li�ii ::I� ��illillillillilll�lI�l�� ---:�::::::::::::::::::::::l��..��.��'.��'.'.�'.'��'.'.'.'��'.'�� I�� its ARE 0 1.::::: k.�.'$1�11�111�111 : ,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I :::::::::::.:::,I:::::::: #P........ M ",::,:::::::::::::::::::::::�::.: :::::::::::::::::::::: �� :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Ill��l��! :::::-:::::::::::::.::::::: �� :1 1?7' l3 'a l--W----wil: �X:::::: :::::::::.s.::::::::.:::::::::::::... � �� -'.'.'�:lm] .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .. ::::::::: ........................!.. .... ..... ..... ...... .:::::.::::::.::::::::::::::::$.::::-::: ..,...,,..,.,........�..,,.....'',�:�:::::::.: �! :::::::�:'.$'.:::::: :...... .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '....."".'--...-'.�...... ------!.., ...............- .::::::.:::::::::::.:::::::::.::�.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::: "?4A&��:Wv&�":"""::::::: —: .. :::::::::::7:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...:::�::,!��:]:�:�:]:�:��:�:�::::::::�:::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Mmmmmmm�:�� .;�-::::::::::::::: �� :::�::::::.:.�.:::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::I::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: : :-::::::::.:�.:::::::::::.::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::.....::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ...I..''.........—....— . :X::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: : :::::::::.�.::::::::::.::::::::.:::::::.:::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::.�.:::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.::.:::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::::::�:::::::::::7::::7:::::::::::::::::�::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::�: � ::::::::::.�.:::::::::::::::::::.::::::::.:::.:::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::O:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::�:::::: ,f: ::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::�::,:�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::�� :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..%,.::::::::::::::::.:::.::::::.:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::!:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i��i��ii ::::::::::::::: !::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::��::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::�:::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::7:::::::::::�::::::::: ,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::.-%.::::::::-::-:-:::::.::::.:::::::.:::::::::::::- ::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: MUXa:::::::::: WZYMAMMM: ::::::::::::: , kw:::::::oY �::: :::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: W: , :: ��i �: :: :: :: :: :::::::::::::::: �::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::.::.�..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 1—:::::: ,......'. :�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ��illi�ilill��ii:::Olmi. . 1111111------,. �::::�':�:�::�:::::::��::::i::::::�:::::,:�::::�":::�:::::i:::::.:::�:::i:::.::�::::::::X::.::::iI:�.:::::�::::::::::::l::::�:::::::::::::::l:::::::::::::::::::l:::::::::::::::::::l:::::::::::::::::::l::::::::::::::::::l:::::a:::::.::.:::.:.::m::.:l:.:::.:.::::.:::::.:.::.::l:.::.:::.:.:--::$�...�:.::"�:.:�:.:�::-:�:.::�::�::�::-:�::m�:::�:::�..:�::.::�:.:�:::�.:.:—�::.:::�:.::�::::�.:::�.:.:::�:.::�::::�.:::l�.:.:::�:.::�::::..::::.:.:::.�::-:::.:::l::::.:::::::::.:— :::::::.::::::::l.::::::::.::::::::.::::::::.:::�::::l:-::: ii:i:i:iil::i:i::i:i::i:i::��:�l:i:��:i:�:��:�:il:��:i:�:�i:]:�:�i:il:�§�i�M��i�l�!�i�jI��'i ��!]��]��,]��I�� i��i�i:::I�i�l:.::A—A STAFF R�A:��:l::1:l::0:7y:7:1EPO��I� RT ::::::�:::::::::::::::�:::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::��:::::::::::::::::::.:::::: wx ::::::::::�::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �::�:�=I::I:�:::: i:::��:M:0::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::�::im:::::�::::::::::::::::::i::::::::�::x:::::3:::::::::::::.�::.�::�.:�:.:.�:�:.�T..�:.��:.�W..�:.��:.�..�A:.��:.�M.�:,.��:.�,�:.�,.�:.�M�:..�.�:.�.�:.�.�:.�O�:.�..�:N�,�:..�.�:A�..�:.�W�:..�.�:..�..�:l.�.�:.,.�..�.�..�:.�...�:..�x.�l:.�..'-:: ::::::::2:::::::--:-:JiJ��::n::::::�:::::::::�.:::�::n:::::� NE 17, 2.i.........002::W::::::::::�:::::::::::w:::.::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::o::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::m::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::w::M:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::o �::::::::: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::��lill--.. , ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::�:::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::�:::::: ....... ....... I��:::...... . �::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: no OMMOM :::::::::::::::::. . ......... - .:................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.:..:::::::::::::::::::::,:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: .:::::::::::::::::::::::.:::...,.....::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::n:::::O::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::�:::�::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::: :� : .::::............ - ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::: �::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::.::::::::::::::::I ::::::::: .:.:.:.:':::::: �:::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::7::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::: - :::::::::::l::.:,. ..........- ::::::::::::::: I �� :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::7::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::: tm::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :�::::::::::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::7:::::::!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::�:::�:::::::::::::::::::::::� :::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::7:::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::�:::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::�::: ::::::::::::::: M:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :,,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - :::::::::::::::::::::::: i:::::::::::::::::: �:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �n::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::,.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::,:::: il��i,��:om:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::�:::�::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:: NAMMMUMMIM: :,,:::::::::::::::::::!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::7: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: llll� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::$.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::Illllllllllllii�i��i�ii��i�ii�ii�iiiii�i�ii��ii�iii�ii!�::::::..........:..... <. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: .:::::::::::::::::::::%,.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Wmwx: ::::::::::: �� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::: ....::::.:::::::::::::::::�,..::::::::,:.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::��::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::X::: :::::::::,.$.:::::::::::::::::::::......................................... ::::::::::::::: � :::::::::::::::::::: M::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::��:::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::,.::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::�::::::::::::::: :.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..�M: ::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : ::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::�:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::7:::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::�:::::�:::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::.. ::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.,.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.�.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�.::::::::::::::::::::::: YMMMA,U::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�::: :: ::-�,.::::::::::::::::::::.:::.:::::::::::::::::::::::$.:::::::::::::::::::::�: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ,,::::: .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:::.:.:, :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::: �::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:.:::: .�-::::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ... : . ..��:::::::::�:::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::�:: -.:.:.:.:.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. :�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.:::- immmomll"m"":::i:::::::::::: -, .. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I :::.:.: .... III ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::�:�::::::::::::::::�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....I...I...I I. .... ....:::::::::::::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::�:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: �::::::::::: ! ILE COPY Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINTISTRATOR MONDAY,TUNE 17, 2002 I. INTRODUCTION JEFF AZEVEDO: (Applicant and Owner), County Pile.#DPO I3070: The applicant requests design review approval for the purpose of determining neighborhood compatibility for a proposed new home that is to be constructed on an existing substandard lot and the removal of one Monterey Pine tree with a trunk that measures 20- inches in diameter. The subject site is located at 62 Alamo Glen Trail,in the Alamo area. (R-20) (ZA: R.-16) (CT: 3461.02) (Parcel 9193-861-020). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve the removal of the Monterey Pirie and the proposed development plan subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. III. BACKGROUND On September 27, 2001, the County received an application for small lot design review approval for a proposed residence on this site. Before the County received Mr. Azevedo's small lot application there was a letter submitted by William and Alison Morgan via their lawyer Mr. Preiss dated September 20, 2001. In this letter the Morgan's request that "upon the County's receipt of any application to develop Lot 20 (Mr. Azevedo's lot), the County Zoning Administrator conduct a public hearing" (attached). The Morgan's are the only owners to request a hearing formally, although there was another letter attached. from. Nir. Preiss from the Architectural Committee or Subdivision 7063 (attached). Hence, staff has scheduled this item before the Zoning Administrator for a public hearing. IV. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: The property is designated Single Family, Law Density in the County General Plan. The density allows for between. 1.0 and 2.9 units per net acre. The lot is unimproved and is currently vacant therefore this development plan will fall within the specified density. B. Zoning: The subject parcel is zoned Single Family Residential (R-20). The zoning district also allows for the approval of a single-family residence, S-2 f ' Lf C. CEQA Status: Catego ca p ° tion 15303, Class 3(a); one single- family residence, or second dwelling unit. D. Regulatory Programs: 1. Active Fault Zone: Subject site is not within an active fault zone. 2. Redevelopment Area: The site is not within a redevelopment area 3. Flood Hazard Area: Subject site is in Flood Zone C of minimal flooding, panel#0435. 4. 60 dBA Noise Contour: The location for the proposed new residence is not within a 60-dBA noise contour area. E. Previous Applications: None V. SITE/AREA DESCRIPTION The proposed project.site is located at 62 Alamo Glen Trail. This isan irregularly shaped lot, a flag lot. The.subject parcel is located at the end of the cul-de-sac from an elongated driveway that passes by one other parcel. This lot is the single remaining undeveloped lot in the subdivision. The lot is zoned R-20 and is designated Single Family Residential Low in the General Plan. The subdivision is comprised of irregularly shaped lots. The majority of dwellings in this subdivision are two-story, custom built homes. VI. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant requests design review approval for the purpose of determining neighborhood compatibility for a proposed new home that is to be constructed on an existing substandard lot and the removal of one Monterey Pine tree with a trunk that measures 20-inches in diameter. This lot is approximately 29,000 square feet and is currently vaunt with a new proposed primary residence and attached garage that will be approximately 6000 square feet. VII. AGENCY COMNMNTTS A. Building_Inspection Derrartment: No comments were received prior to the preparation of this report. B. San Ramon Valley Fire District: Turnaround shall meet minimum District standards. Submit Plans for review prior to issuing building permit. C. Central Sanitary District: No comments were received prior to the preparation of this report. ID3 S-3 f Z--0 3-02- 0 D. EB= Water District: Property currently does not have water service. The applicant should Contact EBMUD°s New Business Office to request a water service estimate to determine the costs and conditions for providing water service to the property. Due to the property not having frontage to Alamo Glen Trail, a Conditional Water Service may be required. Due to the Districts limited water supply, all customers should plan for shortage in time of drought. E. Alamo Improvement Association: Applicant has met with neighbors on several occasions to discuss concerns. Applicant has located residence with the second story aligned on lot line of adjoining lots located immediately to the east to minlrn. a visual impact and preserve privacy for those neighbors. Applicant presented revised drawings with reduction in roof pitch form 6/12 to 4/12, reduction in windows on east side to 2.5 ft.by 2.5 ft located with sills a 6 ft. level for light and with reduction in pad level to further minimize impact neighbors. Additional discussion involved status of larger Monterey pine located along driveway and drainage needs for lot. Application recommended for approval with the following additional conditions: 1. The roof shall be at 4/12. 2. The windows on the east side shall be 2.5-feet by 2.5-feet with sills at 6-feet. 3. Windows on the west side are to be obscure. 4. The pad elevations shall be at the 506-foot line level. 5. Front,entrance roofline to be reduced a minimum of 4 ft. 6. hoof color to be earth tone. 7. Removal of Monterey pine requires a separate tree permit. 8. County collect and convey requirements for engineered drainage by met and size of storm drain adequacy is to be verified. Staff Comments: Drawings dated received May 14, 2002 address. all relevant conditions of approval stipulated by AIA.. Except for Condition of Approval #3. Staff has reviewed the floor plan and site plan and determined that the majority of the home is located approximately 60-feet away form the west property line. The parlor is located closest to the west property line however the two windows that are located at an angle will not have an adverse impact on the privacy of the adjacent property owners. Moreover the windows on the 2d level are for daylight only and there is no true 2nd level (i.e. double height parlor) thus, staff is recommending that only the furthest most west window of the parlor be obscure. The applicant will be required to collect and convey drainage and these requirements are enforced and inspected by the County Building Inspection Department. VIII. STAFF ANIA.LYSIS/DISCUSSIOI� A. Appropriateness of Use/General Plan &Zonina: The General Plan land use for this property is designated as Single Family, Low Density,with a permitted S-4 ; - ► - density of 1.4 and 2.9 units per acre. This is a vacant lot with,the addition of a new home. The proposal fits within the allowable density. The project site is not within an established hazard area. Site Plan Analysis: This proposal is the request for design review approval for the purpose of determining neighborhood compatibility for a proposed new home that is to be constructed on an existing substandard lot.and the removal of one Monterey Pine tree with a trunk that measures 20-inches in diameter and. This lot is approximately 29,000 square feet and is currently vacant with a new proposed primary residence and attached garage that will be approximately 6000 square feet. This.proposal has been discussed over the past year with the emerging Alamo Glen.Hom.eowner's Association and the Alamo Improvement Association(AIA). The redesigned proposal was approved in the public meeting held on February 13 of 200:2 by the AIA. The AIA.attached several conditions of approval to the project, which the owner has accepted and incorporated into the design. There was a recent change in the design of the home submitted on May 14, 2002 that added an exercise room to the north end of the master bedroom. The revision does not change any existing roof-heights(the roof extension occurs at the lowest ridge of the building). Also the retaining wall heights will not change and there is no encroachment into the required setbacks (att). Staff called Roger Smith,A Chair, and discussed the change offering ering the.AIA a chance to review the new site plan and has forwarded the drawing to AIA. As of the preparation of this report Mr. Smith has not contacted the County therefore staffis proceeding with scheduling the development plan application. Outside AIA'.s involvement there was a letter(att)written by Mr. Morgan's lawyer concerned with the height of the proposed new home. The question was .specifically regarding Mr.Azevedo's proposed new residence and whether it exceeded the maximum height allowed(35-feet). A.retum letter has been sent which resolved the issue of height,written by Iris Starr(att)that included the County.code and site plan elevations. Small Lot Review Analysis: The subdivision is comprised of irregularly shaped lots. The lot proposed for development in this case is a coiner lot and is approximately 29,000 square feet in size. The parcel is a flag lot, containing a private driveway and proposal for a single family home and garage of over 6,000 square feet. The development proposal that has been created for this lot is compatible with this location in Alamo. The majority of dwellings in this subdivision are two-story, custom built homes. The overall size of this proposed home is consistent with the neighborhood. The proposed residence is well within the range of size of other residences in the neighborhood, although it is towards the upper end. The home has been redesigned several times over the past year to meet the concerns of the S-5 neighbors and has now received the approval of the AIA. The size, bulk, and mass have been reduced from the view of neighboring residences. The design is a custom home style that echoes the characteristics of many neighboring homes: arched entry portico supported by columns, multiple paned rectangular and arched windows set in a stucco exterior siding, and attached garage, and several peak roof planes. The design offers both the owner and the neighbors privacy, sunlight, air, access, and views from on open and flowing floor plan. A change to the plans dated February 25, 2002 was submitted on Mayl4, 2002 that consists of extending the master bedroom wing 12-feet to add space for an exercise room. The revision does not change any existing roof heights or retaining wall. IX. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve the removal of the Monterey Pine and the proposed development plan subject to the attached Endings and conditions of approval. 05/22/02 DP013070-staff' rah �� 547- t+, ti S T A June 26, 2002 06 JUN 2 6 PM 21 11 Attn: Contra Costa County Community Development.Department Re: County File#DP013070 Jeff Azevedo (Applicant and Owner) ?notice of Appeal is respectfully submitted in regards to the Development Plan application approved by the county at a public meeting held on Monday June 17"'2002. The subject property is located at 62 Alamo Glen Trail, Alamo (Lot#20 Subdivision 7063). This appeal is being filed jointly by the following parties: Leroy"Bud"and Lorraine Soltau 20 Alamo Glen Trail, Alamo, CA 94507 Stephen and Jean Wilkerson 66 Alamo Glen Trail, Alamo, CA 94507 Both parties share property boundaries with the applicant;the Soltaus to the west, the Wilkersons to the south. The intent of this appeal is to determine the following: A) Location of the property lines that affect all bordering properties. B) Legal ownership of the stone wall which divides the Azevedo and Soltau property on the west. C) Legal ownership of the thirty year old Monterey Pine tree which the stone wall was built around to accommodate. Presently, Mr. Azevedo is claiming ownership of the stone wall and the pine tree. However, he has not provided any legal documents, such as a survey, to support his claim The Soltaus state that the stone wall was built by the developer in 1989 to replace a wood fence that was on their property. They feel that the burden ofproof lies with Mr. Azevedo to determine the exact legal boundaries of his lot with proper on-site markers. The Wilkerson's and Soltau's interest is also in the inevitable loss of the pine tree, either due to it's removal prior to construction or it's death as a result of the construction around it. Since the tree's location and size provides an abundance of shade and privacy to both properties, a comparable replacement of the tree would result in a costly expense to them. Therefore, it is clear that the determination of property ownership must be made immediately in order to resolve this matter. The filing of this appeal will provide Mr. Azevedo with the necessary time to comfortably proceed with obtaining an essential survey for the benefit of all parties involved in this case. Thank you for granting us the privilege of filing this appeal. � 9 ' ............................. ............... ' �OARDim: A ................... ................... ........... PPEAL. .S ........... ........................... ........................... ................................ ............................. ............................. . . ................................. ............................ ................................... ......................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .................... � ..........ST. ....A. ........F..F.... REPORT ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................................... ......................... ....... ................................ I .......... .......... .............................. ............................................ ........... ......................... ................ ........................... .............................................. ............... .................... ....................... .................. ......................... i I II ..................................................................................... .................. .............................................. ............. ............................ .......................................................................................................................................................... ................ .......... ........... ............ ...... ................................................ ................. .............. ............................ ....................... ................................................. ........................................................... ............ .............................. ............................ .............................................................................................. ..................... .......... ............ ........................... ............................................................................... . ............................................................................................. ........................ .................... ........................................ ................................................... .......................... ........................... .............. ..................... ....................... ................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................... .............................. ...................... ........................ .......... .......... .......... ......................... ............ ........................................................ .............. ..................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................. ...................... .................................................................................. ................................. .......... ....................................... .......................... ................... ...................... . ............................................................. ................................................................. ...................... ............ ............... ......................... ................. ..................................................................... ...................................... ..................... ............. ......................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................. ............................. .......................................... ................. ...................................................................... ......................... ........................ .............................. II Agenda Item# °" Community Development Contra Costa County BOARD OF APPEALS SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 18 2002— 7:30 P.M. I. INTRODUCTION JEFF AZEVEDO: (Applicant and Owner), County File#DP013070: A public hearing to consider two appeals filed on the Zoning Administrator's approval of a request for design review approval of a proposed home and the removal of one Monterey Pine tree with a trunk that measures 20-inches in diameter. The subject site is located at 62 Alamo Glen Trail, in the Alamo area. (R-20) (ZA: R-16) (CT: 3461.02) (Parcel#193-861-020). H. BACKGROUND On September 27, 2001 Mr. Azevedo filed an application request for "Small Lot" design review for a proposed single-family residence. Generally speaking, a "flag" lot is cause for the Community Development Department to process a small lot application. This application has previously been to the Zoning Administrator where it was approved with modifications. The Community Development Department did receive two appeals from adjacent neighbors. III. PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT FOR COMMISSION In preparing for the Commission meeting staff reevaluated Mr. Azevedo's parcel, in order to best explain the formula for a "small lot" to the Commission. In doing so, staff concluded that the measurements obtained were to close to determine whether or not Mr. Azevedo's parcel is defined in the ordinance as a "small lot". Consequently, staff contacted Mr. Azevedo's architect and asked for a calculated measurement as described by the Small Lot Occupancy Ordinance 82-10.002 (c) with the help of County Code Sections 82-4.246 Lot average width; section 82-4.248 Lot Depth, and section 82-4.250 Lot Frontage. The following calculations were established. It should be noted that these calculations are also shown on Exhibit A, attached. Lot Size 29,300 Square Feet Lot Depth 184.16 feet Average Lot Width 159.10 feet In the R-20 Zoning District the standards for minimum qualifications to establish a parcel that does not require the Small Lot Design Review process are: Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet Average Lot Width 120 feet S-2 The figures above show that this lot is not a "small lot" and does not require design review. IV. MODIFIED APPLICATION The Community Development Department received a letter from Mr. Azevedo on September 10, 2002, that withdrew the Small Lot Design component of his development plan application. With this formal withdrawal, the only application that the County is processing is a tree permit. The application and subsequent appeals before the Commission are different from the application that was heard by the Zoning Administrator. With the evidence provided by the applicant, the design review aspect of this application has no standing. The application before the Commission is the proposed removal of the 20-inch diameter Monterey Pine Tree. The Commission will hear from two sets of appellants; one appeal regards the 20-inch diameter Monterey Pine Tree and location of the stonewall which his relevant to this application. The second appeal addresses privacy during construction, closeness of the proposed house to the appellants properties, and negative impacts to surrounding property values. The second appeal is no longer valid because Mr. Azevedo's parcel is not substandard in size therefore the design aspect of this application is no longer under review. It should also be noted the applicant no longer needs approval from the County concerning design criteria as long as all R-20 Zoning Standard requirements are fulfilled. The only entitlement Mr. Azevedo is seeking before the Commission is the removal of the Monterey Pine Tree, which is a code protected tree under the Tree Protection Ordinance. The Tree Ordinance allows for impact to code protected trees where the Planning Agency determines that such impacts is necessary to allow for reasonable development. Staff and the Zoning Administrator have previously come to that conclusion. The staff report and the conditions of approval have been modified to reflect the modified application that is now before the Commission. The Commission is deciding on the removal of the Monterey Pine, V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission (A) Accept the applicants withdrawal of the small lot review components of the project (13) adopt the recommended findings to grant the tree permit and (C) deny the two appeals of (1) the Soltau's and Wilkersons, and (2) Standen, Medley and Morgans and (D) sustain the County Zoning Administrator's approval of County File#DPO13070 concerning only the proposed project impact to a code protected tree, subject to the attached modified conditions of approval. VI. REVIEW LEADLNG TO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION S-3 The review leading to the Zoning Administrator's decision can be found in the previous staff report, attached. Staff has included the Alamo Improvement Association comments and all attachments from the local agencies. VII. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING AND DECISION The Zoning Administrator held a hearing on June 17, 2002 and took testimony from the applicant as well as opponents to the project. The speakers opposed to the project were Linda Standen, Jean Wilkerson, Lorraine Soltau, and Dale .Hirsh representing the Morgan's. Linda Standen's concern was loss of property value if development was allowed. Jean Wilkerson and Lorraine Soltau concerns were the Monterey Pine tree, the exact location of the property line, and drainage impacts. Dale Hirsh spoke to the Morgan's concerns, which included height, pad height, elevations, roof pitches, and exterior wall heights. The Zoning Administrator then proceeded to address concerns against the development plans from local neighbors. With concerns noted, the Zoning Administrator then modified condition of approval numbers 2, 3 and 4 and added condition of approval number 6 in an attempt to address the neighbors' concerns. The Zoning Administrator approved County File # DP013070, subject to the modified conditions of approval (attached). VIH. APPEALS OF THE ZONING ADMMSTRATOR'S DECISION A. Soltau/Wilkerson Appeal On June 26, 2002 the Community Development Department received two separate appeals. The first appeal was submitted by Leroy and Lorraine Soltau and Stephen and Jean Wilkerson(att.). Concern. What is the actual location of property lines that affect all bordering properties? Establish legal ownership of the Monterey Pine tree and stonewall. Staff Response: Mr. Azevedo has recently had a survey done far his property at 62 Alamo Trail. Staff has spoken with Randal Stockwell(Mr. Azevedo's architect); he has indicated that the survey, which staff has not received a copy, determines that the Monterey Pine Tree and the stonewall that divides the Azevedo's and Soltau's property both belong to Mr. Azevedo. Staff received a call from Jean Wilkerson on August 27, 2002 inquiring about rescinding her half of the appeal, but staff has not yet received a letter that formally retracts her appeal. Staff has not received any credible evidence that would cause staff to question the accuracy of the information about the location of the property line displayed on the S-4 y✓ proposed site plan. The appellants are free to hire their own surveyor if they feel this information is not accurate. B. Appeal from Standen/Medley/Morgans The second combined appeal was between Linda Standen, Michael Medley, and William. &Allison Morgan(att.). Concern: The concerns, as outlined in the appeal letter, are privacy during construction, closeness of the house to their properties and negative impacts to surrounding property values. Staff Response: Evidence has been provided to the Community Development Department that this is no longer a substandard lot. Staff concurs with the methodology and calculations provided in exhibit A, therefore the restrictions and review under the small lot ordinance do not apply. The appeal point is not germane to the residual discretionary decision on this project, i.e. the impact to the tree caused by the proposed driveway improvements. The concern addresses "closeness" of the proposed residence to the properties and living areas of the appellants. The location of the proposed residence complies with all the R-20 zoning district standards. Since the property is zoned R-20, it is zoned for half acre development. R-20 zoning requirements, including rear yard setback of 15-feet (relevant setback), and the maximum height limit of 35 feet are both in compliance. Surrounding property values are negatively impacted. Staff and the Zoning Administrator have concluded that removal of the Monterey Pine tree is necessary to allow reasonable development. This point was made at the Zoning Administrators hearing. Staff does not feel that the removal of the tree will substantially of j`ect property values in the area. IX. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In the event that the Commission is not satisfied with the staff recommendation, or with the proposed development, and it is not certain that the required ordinance findings for granting the tree permit can be made, listed below are potential alternatives the Commission could consider. Independent Review of Arborist Report — If the Commission is not certain of the nature of the potential impacts to the code-protected trees, and would like to have an independent assessment of the project by another certified arborist selected by the County, the Commission could ask the applicant if he would be willing to pay the added expense to the County to arrange for this service before the Commission S-S . renders a decision, If the applicant is willing to allow for this additional review, then the matter should be continued to at least the next Commission hearing (October 16, 2002). Att. Exhibit A Withdrawal Letter Soltau & Wilkerson Appeal Standen, Medley, &Morgan Appeal Zoning Administrator Staff Report Small Lot Ordinance Site Plans Dated May 14, 2002 08/27/2002 DP013070 staff 9D 3 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNTY FILE #DP013070 The marked text reflects staff recommendation of the Zoning Administrators approval based on new project information that this project does not constitute a small lot under the Small Lot Occupancv Ordinance. Staff fifids this request te remove ene Menterey Piiae T-r-ee appeafs te be eampa4ible v�4 Code Seetien 82 9 teEmsefleeation9 and design, It is eensisterA with the limitation on Bt-'6,=r 5 i subdiv 77 IM 71 .. a7 r r TWO leeation the developmentprepesal Mw 'reugtem built hemesq. Man fflany. The ✓ S bub� and-mass has been , the view qfnei�hbeping reigidenees. f y S meighberS S garage,was akeredftem 5,412 te AWL, and Me ent4pe bu.4k4fg 4 leiver than Me orighialfpepesa� and several eak o-eefiglanes.. Revisieng made in. Me 44obruwy i2:5, 2002 plans _d_d,x_g2_ r AM, 3 3 > `6 Y DS We with the a Criteria for Review of the Tree Permit A. _ Required Factors for Granting Permit. The Zoning Administrator is satisfied that the followhig factors as provided by County Code Section 816-6.8010 for granting a tree permit have been satisfied as marked: 1. The arborist report indicates that the subject trees are in poor health and cannot be saved. 2. The tree is a public nuisance and is causing damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks that cannot be mitigated by some other means. 3. The tree is in danger of falling and caimot be saved by some other means. 4. The tree is damaging existing private improvements on the lot such as a buildingfoundation walls patios decks roofs retaining walls etc 5. The tree is a species known to be highly combustible and is determined to be a fire hazard. 6. The prppased_tree species or the form of the tree does not merit savin . X 7. Reasonable development of the property would require the alteration or removal of the tree and this development could not be reasonably accommodated on another area of the lot. S. The tree is a species known to develop weaknesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and Droperty. These species characteristics include but are not limited to short-lived, weak wooded and subject to limb breakage shallow rooted and subject to toppling_ 9. Where the arborist or forester report has been required and the Director is satisfied that the issuance of a permit will not negatively affect the sustainability of the resource. 10. None of the above factors apply. 2 CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL FOR NLARIANGE TREE PERMIT#DP013070 1. Approval is granted to allow the removal of one Monterey Pine Tree and be eanstnueted e t r. eidsting substandafd !etat 62 Alamo Glen Trail, in the Alamo area, as shown on plans submitted to the Community Development Department on May 14, 2002, and subject to the following conditions of approval. 2. appr-eval at least dgAy sy h .. 4. . 5. This application is subject to an initial application fee of$650.00 which was paid with 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 with 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include consists through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. You may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If you owe additional fees, a bill will be sent to you shortly after permit issuance. 6. This permit shall be valid for a period of six months and may be renewed for additional periods 637 the Director of Community Development upon request by the applicant. ADVISORY NOTES. PLEASE NOTE ADVISORY NOTES ARE ATTACHED TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .BUT ARE NOT A PART OF THE 3 n CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ADVISORY NOTES ARE PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INFORMING THE A.PPLICA.NT OF ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE AND OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH DEVELOPMENT. A. Additional requirements may be imposed by the Building Inspection Department, Fire Protection District and Health Services Department. It is advisable to check with these departments prior to requesting a building permit or, proceeding with the project. B. NOTICE OF 90-DAA' OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTADgNG TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90) day period, in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. C. Applicant must comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. D. Applicant must comply with the requirements of the County Public Works Department. 5424-2 9/10/02 DPO13070_COA rah 4 3�1 Architectural Committee Subdivision 7063 Alamo,CA 94507 September 16,2001 Mr.Jeff'Azevedo PO Box 1054 Alamo,CA 94507 Re:Architectural Approval for plans submitted for Lot 20 Dear Mr.Azevedo: The Architectural Committee of Subdivision 7063 has reviewed the plans and specifications submitted for Lot 20. We have viewed the stakes indicating the perimeter of the structure and the poles depicting the elevation of the residence as well as the architectural plans. Section 8.5 of the Declaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions of Subdivision 7063,recorded April 18, 1989, mandates that prior to approval of any matter submitted,the Architectural Committee must be,able to find that: 8.5.1 Est Inter=ac t7nvn m: The approval of the plan will be In the best interests of the Owners. 8.5.2 Architectural ttoAm General architectural considerations,including the character, scale and quality of the design,the architectural relationship with the site and other Residences and the building materials,colors,screening of exterior appurtenances,exterior lighting and similar elements have been incorporated into the design in order to ensure the compatibility of the proposed construction with the design concept and character of adjacent Residences and Improvements. 8.5.3 Site Reviews general Site considerations including site layout,open space and topography,orientation and locations of buildings,vehicular access,circulation and parking,setbacks,height,walls,fences,and similar elements have been designed to provide a desirable environment Emphasis added. Tha Arch 1WWaLCommittae ex. mineyl the plans.sub t lot 20 purspant to the foregoing standards. Accordingly,we have determined that the plans submitted do not comply with the mandated standards enurneratedin.tha Condid ni Covenants and Restrictions,of subdivision 7063. Specifically,the placement and elevation of the proposed residence will directly and negatively affect three residences in the subdwision.and will indimcdy affectthe value of all residences within the subdivision. <54 You ane welcome to resubmit modified pleat to the Atchlwural Committee at yyour c onvenieace. We look forwad to mNiewinS reviaod plain which will minim the effect of the proposed rtskk=on adjacent homeowners and subdivision residents. Sincerely, (tertBanker Atchitechual Committee Member (925)820-7510 Jo-Arta Jacobson Architectural Committee Member (925)831-2542 Steve Architrsmml Committee Member (925)855-1936 Architectural Review Committee Subdivision 7063 C/o Jennifer J. Banker 2467 Alamo Glen Drive Alamo, CA 94507 June 14,2002 Mr. Hernandez Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA Re: Public Hearing 6/17/2002 Development Plan Jeff Azevedo Applicant and Owner Parcel#193-861-020 County File#DPO13070 Dear Mr. Hernandez: The Architectural Committee of Subdivision 7063 has been informed that a Public Hearing will be held June 17,2002 to consider a Development Plan application proposed by Jeff Azevedo pertaining to the property located at 62 Alamo Glen Trail, Alamo, California. This property is located within Subdivision 7063 and is subject to the Declaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions recorded April 18, 1989. Article VIII of this document provides in pertinent part as follows: 8.1 A&QUVOMMAL APPROVAL REQJUM No Residence,building,fence, wall,sign or other structure...shall be commenced,constructed,erected,placed, removed,altiered,maintained or permitted to remain on any Lot or any portion thereof, until plans and specifications shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the architectural committee(the"Architectural Committee"). The Architectural Committee rejected Mr. Azevedo's plans for the residence to be constructed at 62 Alamo Glen Drive as evidenced by the attached letter dated September 16,2001. We invited Mr.Azevedo to submit modified plans to address our concerns. To date,no such modifications have been received. We request that the County discontinue further consideration of the proposed residence until Mr.Azevedo has obtained the approval of the Architectural Committee as required by the Declaration of Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions which govern the property on which he proposes to build. �tw Any questions you may have concerning this matter may be addressed by any of the Architectural Committee members indicated below. Sincerely, Jennifer Banker Architectural Committee Member (925) 820-7510 Jo-Ann Jacobson Architectural Committee Member (925) 831-2542 Steve Schwarcz Architectural Committee Member (925) 855-1936 cc: Mr.Dennis Barry .. .. .. .... .. .... ........... ............... . .... .... .. .... ......... .. .. . ......... ................. .. ..... ........ ...... ... .... ......................... .............. ............ . .... ........ . ....... .... .. . .. ........ ...................... cps: ... . .......... .......... -mm ------------------------------- ----------- ............... ... .. ........ ......... . ......... ....... ......... ...... ................. .......... ....... .......... ................ . . ............... s> ......... APPEAL ................. ....................... ............. ........................... ................. ........................... .......... ...... ................. .................. W" ........... ...... ........ ................ ---------- ....... ................... ................... ............... ..... ..................... ............ ......................... ...................... . ....................... ........................ ............. ............ .... ........... ............. too; .......... ...................... ...................... ------- W;W--W—WWI .................. ............ ........... ....... .................. ................ WOW,A&MW--- ..................... . ........... ................. --------------------- --------------- ............ ................................. .............. �S"X June 26", 2002 0 S TA Ci- JUN 2 6 PM + 1 1 To: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Re: 62 Alamo Glen Trail, Alamo ` Parcel 9193-861-020 County File#DP013070 This is to notify you that the neighbors located at 2471 Alamo Glen Dr and 2475 .Alamo Glen Dr., Alamo Would like to appeall the department's decision of approval and associated conditions of that approval to build on the above referenced property. We would like to note that the issues concerning this construction that continue to be of concern are privacy during construction, closeness of the largest portions of this house to our properties/living areas and documented significant negative impact to our property values directly related to this proposed construction. Hopefully,we will be notified of the next steps and procedures concerning this appeal. Thank you, Linda Standen Michael Medley 2471 Alamo Glen Dr. Alamo, California William and Almon Morgan 2475 Alamo Glen Dr. Alamo, California 1111WENDEL Broadway,24th Floor ROSENOakland,CA 946074036 BLACK vi s:itiiI i, , Post office Box 2047 0 `r F AN T DOakland,CA 94604-2047 4j j-� 0 OCT 2 PM 3' 4 3 Telephone:(510)834-6600 Attorneys at Law ';' Fax:(5 10)834-1928 DPreiss@wendel.com October 22, 2002 VIA.MESSENGER Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street, Room 106 Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Appeal of Staff Determination Regarding Exemption from Small Lot Review; 62 Alamo Glen Trail (Lot 20, Subdivision 7063),Alamo, California; APN 193-861-020; County File#DP013070; Jeff Azevedo,Applicant Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of William and Alison Morgan,whose family resides at 2475 Alamo Glen Drive (Lot 11, Subd. 7063), immediately adjacent to the eastern properly line of the above- referenced lot("Lot 20"), and pursuant to Section 14-4.004 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code("County Code"),we hereby appeal the September 23, 2002, determination by the County's Community Development Department that (i) any proposed development of Lot 20 would be exempt from Small Lot Review under the County's small lot occupancy ordinance (Section 82-10.0002(c)of the County Code), and(ii) Lot 20 meets all R-20 zoning standards with respect to lot dimensions. We request that this matter be heard by the Board of Supervisors. Enclosed is our check(check no. 63470)in the amount of$125 to cover the appeal filing fee. The grounds for the Morgans' appeal are set forth in the attached letters and accompanying exhibits, respectively dated September 17, 2002 (Attachment 1), and October 15, 2002 (Attachment 2),which we previously submitted to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission ("SRVRPC") on behalf of the Morgans. Additionally, we would like to note that the SRVRPC discussed the issue of whether Lot 20 should be subject to Small Lot Review at two separate meetings. Most recently, at its meeting of October 16, 2002, the SRVRPC conducted a lengthy study session on the general subject of the methodology underlying Small Lot Review, and thereafter requested that County staff undertake a study of this methodology and the County Code provisions related thereto. The SRVRPC's study session was a follow-up to SRVRPC sentiment, expressed most clearly by Vice-Chair Michael Gibson at the SRVRPC's meeting of September 18, 2002, that exempting Lot 20 from Small Lot Review "clearly doesn't achieve the intent of the ordinance," and would constitute"a mathematical loophole of great proportion." 01 1807.0001\636864.1 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors WENDEL.ROSEN.BLACK&DEAN.LLP Contra Costa County October 22, 2402 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration of this matter. We reserve the right to submit additional materials in advance of, or at the time of, any hearing on this matter. Please advise the undersigned of the date of the hearing, and of any deadlines regarding submittal of additional materials. In the meantime,please contact me if you have any questions on this matter. Copies of any notices sent to this office regarding this matter should also be sent to the Morgans at the address below: William and Alison Dorgan 2475 Alamo Glen Drive Alamo, CA 94507 Please return a filed-endorsed copy of this letter with our messenger. Very truly yours, WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK&DEAN, LLP David L. Preiss DLP:np Enclosures cc: William and Alison Morgan Alamo Improvement Association Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Aruna Bhat Silvana B. Marchesi, Esq. 011807.0001\636864.1 ST 3 WENDEL 1111 Broadway,241h Floor 2 if Oakland,CA 94607-4036 ROSEN LACK ,�� Past Office Box 2047 Oakland,CA 94604-2047 (Z"}.,DEAN Telephone:(510)834-6600 Fax:(510)834-1928 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 13Preiss@wendel.com September 17, 2002 VIA MESSENGER San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission c/o Dennis M. Barry,AICD Community Development Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 fine Street,4th Mr., North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Request for Determination of Small Lot Status September 18,2002,Agenda Item #4, County Pile#DP013070 62 Alamo Glen Trail (Lot 20, Subdivision 7063),Alamo, California Dear Chair McPherson and Members of the Commission: This office represents William and Alison Morgan, whose family resides at 2475 Alamo Glen Drive (Lot 11, Subd. 7063), immediately adjacent to the eastern properly line of the above- referenced lot. Mr. Morgan, in conjunction with Linda Standen and Michael Medley, filed one of the two appeals currently pending in this matter. We understand that Mr. Jeff Azevedo,the owner of Lot 20,has attempted to withdraw his pending application for"Small Lot"review following the completion of such review by County staff and the Zoning Administrator and during the pendency of appeals of that review. It is our understanding that the purpose behind Mr. Azevedo's attempted application withdrawal is to take advantage of County staff's recent determination that his project is not subject to the County's Small Lot review process, and to modify the design of the proposed residence—and that the resulting house may well be , redesigned in such a way to make it even more incompatible with the neighborhood. On behalf of the Morgans, and for the reasons set forth below, we hereby request that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission reject this last minute attempt by Mr. Azevedo to completely eliminate the County's review power over the development of his property. Notwithstanding the attempted withdrawal of Mr. Azevedo's application, we request that the Commission instead determine that Lot 20 is, in fact, a Small Lot pursuant to Contra Costa County Code §82-10.002(c), and that any development upon Lot 20 would be subject to the Small Lot review process. In the alternative, if the Commission is unwilling or unable to make this determination at this time, we would request that the Commission schedule a hearing 011807.0001%632236.1 A r San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission WENDEL,R©SEN,BLACK&DEAN,LLP September 17, 2002 Page 2 on this matter at the earliest opportunity following staff consideration of these comments and County Counsel review. BACKGROUND We believe it is useful to provide the Commission with some background information regarding the lengthy review of the proposed development of Lot 20. Our clients acquired their home in August,2000. In June, 2000,prior to closing escrow, Mr. Morgan inquired of with the Community Development Department regarding potential development of the adjacent property. At that time, our client was specifically advised that any development upon Lot 20 would go through the County's Small Lot review process. The purpose of the County's Small Lot review, based on Code §52-10.002(c), is to ensure that residential developments on substandard lots are designed to ensure relative compatibility with and minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. One year ago, the owner of Lot 20, Mr. Jeff Azevedo, acknowledging that the average width of his property is less than the 120 foot width required under the County's R-20 zoning, submitted an application under the County's Small Lot review process for the development of an approximately 5,100 square feet 2-story house and a 1,100 square feet garage upon the property. From the moment details of Mr. Azevedo's proposed structure on Lot 20 first became available, Mr. Azevedo's proposed development gave rise to serious concerns held by the Morgans and other residents of Subdivision 7063, as well as by other neighboring residents within the adjacent Round Hill community. These concerns included potential impacts from the siting, mass and height of the proposed house, as well as concerns related to any potential construction impacts on drainage and stability of the slope hillsides on Lot 20 abutting our clients' and others' properties. These concerns were considered by the Alamo Improvement Association("AIA") during their review of the Small Lot review application,which was referred to them by County staff. In partial response to these concerns, the AIA conditioned its approval of Mr. Azevedo's project on certain changes to the project. These conditions are outlined in the AIA's letter of February 20, 2002, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The conditions requested by the AIA were, in part, incorporated into the Zoning Administrator's original approval of the Small Lot review application. The development of Lot 20 also is subject to Architectural Review approval by the Architectural Committee under the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Subdivision 7063. In September, 2001,before the project was reviewed by the AIA,the Architectural Committee reviewed and disapproved the proposed project because the plans failed to comply with the mandated standards and would negatively affect other residences in the community. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copies of the original disapproval letter, dated September 16, 2001. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a copy of follow-up letter, dated June 14, 011807.0001 Q2236.1 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission WENDEL,ROSEN,SLACK&DEAN,LLP September 17, 2002 Page 3 2002, in which the Architectural Committee requested that the County"discontinue further consideration"of this matter until such time as Mr. Azevedo obtains the Committee's approval of the project as required by the CC&Rs. As noted in the Staff Report for the scheduled September 18, 2002,hearing, the County's Zoning Administrator held a hearing on the proposed development of Lot 20, as required by the Small Lot review process, on June 17, 2002. A number of speakers opposed to the project appeared at the hearing, including attorney Neal Parish of this office (incorrectly referred to in the Staff Report as"Dale Hirsh")on behalf of the Morgans. After making certain changes to the conditions of approval, the Zoning Administrator approved the proposed development. However, the adopted conditions of approval were not sufficient to allay certain key concerns of the Morgans and other nearby property owners regarding this project. Accordingly, the Morgans joined with Linda Standen and Michael Medley in an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. This was one of two appeals submitted in this matter. On Thursday of last week, September 12, 2002, we initiated contact with the County to discuss a potential resolution of our clients' appeal. In the course of this contact, we were informed that County staff had now, for the first time, determined that Lot 20 was not a Small Lot under the Code. We were further advised that,based on this determination, County staff had decided that the County had no authority to impose any conditions on the design of the proposed residence. The County reached this decision despite the fact that both County staff and Mr. Azevedo had determined a year ago the property was a Small Lot, and despite the fact that all parties concerned, including the Morgans, other nearby property owners, and the AIA, have proceeded for than two years with the understanding that the County would be assuring the project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Yesterday, September 16, 2002, we were informed that Mr. Azevedo intended to withdraw his application for Small Lot review. Mr. Azevedo has already demonstrated a propensity to make changes to the project after its review by the relevant bodies. This is illustrated by, among other things, a room addition following AIA review and just before the Zoning Administrator's hearing on the matter, and also by the current attempt to remove all County review over the project by suddenly extracting the project from the Small Lot review process. It is our understanding that, Mr. Azevedo has indicated an intent to modify the design in such a way that will make it even more incompatible with the neighborhood, since Mr. Azevedo now believes that he no longer has to comply with any conditions of approval regarding the design of his proposed house. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE THAT LOT 20 IS A SMALL LOT As noted above, our clients closed escrow on their house only after they were informed by the County that development of Lot 20 would undergo the Small Lot review process. We believe one or more other property owners may have bought their lots under a similar impression. Mr. Azevedo apparently had a similar understanding when, approximately one year ago, he submitted an application for Small Lot review of his proposed house. Since that time, all 011107.00011532236.1 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission WENDEL,ROSEN,BLACK&DEAN, September 17, 2002 X11 Page 4 parties concerned, including our clients,their neighbors, the AIA, and specifically including Mr. Azevedo, have operated under the assumption that this development was subject to Small Lot review. We believe that this reliance should, in and of itself, support a finding by the Commission that Lot 20 is a Small Lot. We also believe that, based on under the express provisions of the Code and the facts in this situation, the Commission must find that Lot 20 is a Small Lot and subject to Small Lot review. Our basis for requesting this determination by the Commission can be easily seen by examining the diagram included as Exhibit D hereto. This diagram, which is also included as Exhibit A to the Staff Report, was prepared by Mr. Azevedo's architect to allegedly demonstrate that the average width of Mr. Azevedo's lot is greater than the 120 feet required for R-20 zoning. If you examine this diagram, you will note a line on the left side labeled "184.16' Lot Depth." This line supposedly shows the depth of the lot, pursuant to Code §82-4.248. This Code Section defines "depth of a lot"as "the distance normal to the frontage to the point of the lot farthest from the frontage." There are five key points I would like to draw to your attention with respect to this "lot depth"line. 1. This line does not, as required by the Code, go from the frontage to the "point of the lot farthest from the frontage." In fact, the line ends at an arbitrary line drawn upon the diagram by the architect, which line itself begins at a point mistakenly identified as the"deepest point on the lot." In fact, this point is itself not the point of the lot farthest from the frontage; the true "deepest point"and the "point ... farthest from the frontage" is at the upper right corner of the lot). 2. Even a quick examination of the"lot depth" line shows that only a very small portion of the line even touches the lot in question. It defies common sense to believe that the dimensions of any lot in the County should be determined by a line that barely even touches the lot in question. 3. Mr. Azevedo's architect apparently based this line, and this his calculation of the depth and width of the lot, upon the language in §82-4.248 which refers to the depth being based on a line"normal'(ie.,perpendicular) to the frontage. In tum,because the lot fronts upon a curved portion of the street, the frontage line is at an angle which is not replicated anywhere in the lot. In practical terms, this means that the happenstance of a slightly curved street frontage leads to an oddly determined lot depth. This also means that a slight change to the curvature of the frontage, perhaps by relocating this lot just a few feet to the west along the frontage, without changing any other dimension of the lot itself, could lead to a radical change in the lot's calculated depth and width—without any corresponding change to the actual dimensions of the lot. We fail to see how this could be anything other than an arbitrary and capricious application of the Code. 01 1807.00011632235.1 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission WENDEL,ROSEN,BLACK S DEAN,LLP September 17, 2002 Page 5 4. The average width calculated by Mr. Azevedo's architect, 15 9.10 feet, is larger than any actual dimension of the lot, as show on the applicable subdivision map attached hereto as Exhibit E. The actual width of the lot ranges from 120 feet at the extreme north, to approximately 145 feet just above the"flag"portion of the lot, and reaches a minimum of 20 feet on the flag portion itself. Again, it defies common sense to believe that the "average"width of the lot could somehow be greater than any portion of the lot itself. 5. The purported lot dept line is completely inconsistent with the examples of other instances where the County had used this method. Included as Exhibits E, F and G to this letter are materials provided by the County in response to a request for such examples. Exhibit E is the County's two-page application form for Small Lot review. The back side of this application shows the applicable Code Sections (paraphrased, in the case of §82-10.0002(c)). Also shown are as three diagrams demonstrating how lot depth should be calculated in particular circumstances. It is worth noting that these diagrams do not appear in the County's Code. The middle and left diagrams are examples of lot depth calculation in cases involving irregularly shaped lots. Exhibits F and G are surveyors' diagrams submitted to the County to support development applications (completely unrelated to Mr. Azevedo's application)involving irregularly shaped lots. You will note that the lot depth lines in Exhibit E's diagrams generally lie upon and through the lots in question, and appear to be consistent with what any observer would believe to be the width of the lot. For the three lots in question on Exhibits F and G,the lot depth lines are generally consistent with what would appear to be the true depth of the lot in question. By contrast, as noted above, the lot depth line in the diagram submitted by Mr. Azevedo's architect has no apparent relationship to the true depth of Lot 20. This shows again the absurdity of believing that Lot 20 is anything other than a Small Lot. CONCLUSION We believe it is quite clear on its face that the lot in question is, and always has been, a Small Lot for purposes of the Code. The correct determination of the width is determined by dividing the lot area, 29,300 feet, by the length of the longest side, or 402 feet. This produces an average width of approximately 73 feet,which is far less than the 120-foot minimum required under the applicable R-20 zoning. Accordingly, as stated before, we hereby request that the Commission determine that Lot 20 is, in fact, a Small Lot pursuant to Code §82-10.002(c), and that any development upon Lot 20 would be subject to the Small Lot review process. 01 E 807.000 h632236.1 Yi), � San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission WENDEL,ROSEN,BLACK&DEAN,LLP September 17, 2002 Page 6 Please ensure that this letter is included as part of the administrative record in this matter. Our clients reserve all rights to comment further on this matter and the project itself. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our clients' comments and concerns. Very truly yours, WENDEL,ROSEN, BLACK&DEAN, LLP '2 David L. Preiss DLP:np Exhibits cc: William and Alison Dorgan Linda Standen Howell Southmayd Jeff Azevedo Architectural Review Committee, Subdivision 7063 Alamo Improvement Association Silvano B. Marchesi, Esq. Dennis Barry,AICD Robert Drake Ryan Hernandez 01 1807.0001\632236.1 Howell Southmayd 2471 Alamo Glen Drive CONTRA 0b Alamo,CA 94507 wo, & x. _rW� "- Board of Supervisors Community Development Director,Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Second Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 RE: Appeal of County Staff s recent determination that 62 Alamo Glen Trail(Lot 20, Subdivision 7063),Alamo CA is not subject to small lot review process. Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: Our family lives adjacent to the above referenced lot.We request that the determination be adjusted back to the original small lot designation.The reason for the appeal is that the recent interpretation reclassifying the lot to a standard lot is an anomaly and does not reflect the intent of the small lot methodology. The reclassification to a standard lot clearly does not achieve the intent of the small lot ordinance. U e recent reclassification to a standard lot,lot 20 has been always designated a small lot by the over two years the owner and applicant Mr. Jeff Azevedo,neighbors,and the Alamo t Association(AIA)have operated under the determination that lot 20 was subject to ew. This review ensures that substandard lots such as lot 20 are compatible with the eighborhood,and that the impact of the construction is minimized.One year ago,Mr. the owner of the lot,acknowledged that the average width of his lot is less than the 120 quired under the county R-20 zoning.He submitted an application under the county of review process for the development of a 5,100 square foot two story home and 1,100 square age. ily purchased our home on August 28s`,2002 adjacent to this lot's property line ONLY after t eting with county staff on August 14th,2002 to confirm the lot in question was subject to small lot review.The real estate and closing title paperwork reflecting the purchase of our home included all of the correspondence provided by Ryan Hernandez of the county staff confirming that the lot was subject to small lot review.During the meeting,we were told and diagrams were reviewed confirming that the lot was a small lot.We purchased the home with the understanding that the small lot review process was in place regarding residential developments of substandard lots. Less than three weeks after we purchased our home at 2471 Alamo Glen Drive,the county determined that the lot would be reclassified as a standard lot.We would not have purchased the home adjacent to lot 20 if the county staff had advised that there was even a question whether the lot was a standard lot and not subject to small lot review. Members of the Board,I request that you adjust the determination of lot 20 back to a substandard lot subject to small lot review to allow the small lot review process that the county has established to take place.Obviously,we feel that this reclassification was an injustice. We have had concurrence from the Planning Commission who commented on the record,"...that this was a mathematical loophole of great proportion." We appreciate your consideration in this matter. A '', '., SDS /2-v3-ai y5 I I PERTINENT ............................. ............................................................ ............. ........ ............................................................... ....... ..................... ............. .......................... i ..................... .............................. ............. ....... ....... .................... .................................................................................................. ....................................................................................................................................... ...........................................-......I...........I........................... .................................................................................................................................... ........................................ ............. ............ ....................................... ... . ......................................... .......... ..................... ......... ...................... (CO............ RRE.. SPON..... DENCE ........... .......... ........................................................................................................................................... ................... ................. ......... ...... ....................................... ........... .............. ............................................. .............. ................................................ ...................................... .......................... ...................... .......... ................................................. .............. ....... ....... ............... .. ............. ............................. ............... .......... ............. ......... ........... .......................... .................... ............................................ ...... ............... .................................................................... ........................................................ ........... ........................................... ....... ........ .......... ........... ................ ............... ............................... ...... ............. ................. ....... ........I...,....... ................... ........................... ........................................................................ ................................................................................................. ........................................................... ...........I............... .......... .......... ............ ............................... .................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ........................................................... ..................................................................... ............... ............ ..................... . ..................... ................................ .................................................................................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................... ....................................................................................... ..................................................... ......................-.......1.11...... ............ ...... ............................ ..................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................ .......................... ................ ...................... ................. ...... ............................I....... ................ .................................................................................. ............................................................................. ................. ........................ ............................. ......................... ...........-.......I............. ...... ........ ................................. ........................................................... .............................................................................................................. .......... ...... .......................I.......... ............. ......I.............I.......... .................................. . . ....................................................... ........... ..................................... ............................... ........................................................ ........... ............... ......................I...................... ........... ......... ............ ....... ............... .......... ................................................................................... .................................................................................. ........................ ........................................ ............... ............................. ............. .......... ................ ................... ............... ................................... ................................................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............ II .... ......................................................................... .......................... .........................-........ ............................... ... ............................................................................. ........................ ................ ............................ ............................. ...... ....... ........................................ ....................... ..................... ...................... .............................. ..............I..,...................... ....... . ....... .......... ........ ............ ....................................................... ............................................................ .......................................................... ............................... ........................... .............................. ........... ............................. ............ ............................ ............... ................ ........... .............. .......................... ...................... ........................................................ ....... ........... ........... .......... ....................... ........................................................................................................................................................ ...................................................................... ..................... ............................I........I............ ...... ........1.111,....I........................... ................... .................. ...................... ........................................................... ...................................................... ................ ........... .............. ............... ......................... ...............I..................I.......11.............. ................-....................................................... .................... ......................................................... ........................................................ ......................................................................... .......................................... ..........I...,...... ..............I.I...I.-...........I............. .................... .......................................... ................................................................................... ........... .......................................................................................................................................... ..................... .............. .............I............ ........I.........I............. .............................................. ...................................................................... ......................................................... ................................................................................ ........................... .......................................... ....................................................I..,..... I....I........I......-........ ............... ............. ................................................ .............................................................................................................................. ................................ ............................. ............... .............................I......I...................... ........ ..... .......... ............................................................................... ............................................................. ................................ .................................... ................................... .........................................................................-......I....... ..........I..''.......... ....... ... ...... ..... ........................................................ ..................................................................................................................................................... ............................................. ................ .... ............................................................................................. ......I...,.,.,.,.,.,...-.............-....I -......... .. ........ ....... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .................... ............................. .................................................................I I...............................I...11...11...... ................11.................. .............................................................................................................................. ..................................................... ......................................................................... ............................. ......... ................. .................................I....... ............... .......................... .............................. ................................................................................................. .......................................................... .......................... .................................... ................................................ ...............I......I......11....I......I............. ............... ........................................................................................ ..................................................................................................... .......................... ................ ............... ... .............. ...........I.........I........ ........I...... .............. ..................... ................................................................................................... ................................................................ ...... ................... ................................................................ ............ .......... ........... ............... .................... ..................................................................................................................................... ....................................... .............................. ............. .................... . ..................... ........... ......................... ............ ............................... ............. .............................. ............. ........... ....................... ................... ................. ........... ........ .......................... ................................ ........ ......... .................. .................................................................................................................... ... ................ ...... ......... ........ ............................. ......................... ................. ....... .......-.-........ .......11........... ........... .......... ......................................................... ..................................................................... ........................ ......................................... ........................................... ......... ........................................................................... ......................................... ........................... . .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................ ............ ............ ........... ................... .......................... .......... I ........................................ .................................................................................................................................................................................. ................I.................. ........ ........I'll................ .................................. ........................................................................... ...................................................................................... ........... ............ .......................... ......... ..... ............... ........................ ................. ........................................... ................... ............................................................... ............................................................... ............................... ....................................................................................................... .............................................................. ..................11............. ................ ...... ....... ........ ............................................................................................................... ..................................................................... .................... ............ ........ ................................... ........ ............. .......................... ........................... ............................................. ....................................... .............................................................. ..................................................... ...... ....................... ........................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................. .......................... .......... ............................... ............................ .... ........ ........ .......... ....................... ........................................................................... ................... .................. ................................................................... ............... ..... ............ .............I...,.............I................... ........................... ............................................................................................................................................. ................... ...................................... .................. ................. ........................................ ........ ..................... ................... .......... .................... ....................... ........ ........................................ .................... ............. .......... .................... ....... ................................. .................... ................. .................... .... ...................................... ............ .......... ....................... .... ....................................... .................... ............................. ........... ..... ...................................... .............. ............................. ... ........... ....................... ................... ............. ..................................... ................. ................ .................... ... ............. ................................... .................. .......... ... ........................ ... ............ ....................... . ............................................................... ...................... ............................................................................................... .......................... . ............. ...........I.................. ....... .......................................................... .................................................... .................... ............................................. ............... .............. ............ ........... .......................... . ....................................... ............................... ...... ....... ......... .......... ........... ................. ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................. .....I........................I..........I.....I.-I-I..''I'll'...'...... ...I...,...... .......... .............................. .................................................... ................................................. ................................... ................................................... ............................... ............................. .........................................I......... ................I...... ..................... ......................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................. ..............I..,....................... ............. ........ .............................. ............................................. .... ........................... ................................... . ........................................ ........................................ .............. ........... ............................. ............... ................................ ............... I�.............................. .........................I........-....... ........11........... . ......................................... ......................... .................................................................................................................. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I.................I.......11......I.........I...I--....I... ......1.-..''.-, 1.11......I....... ........................................................................................................................ ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1.11..................I..,......... ...... ......1.11.11........-................ .................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ALAMOINPPOVE&ff AMOCA1ION !'or Ery Cutty�� P.C. BOR 271 8 A1,*Q, C.A11tOMIA 945-T (925) 856-3606 February20, 2002 BY FAX TO 335-1222 Community Development I.7ept, 551 Pine St., e floor, ISI. Wing Martinez, CA 94533.0095 Attn: Robe Drage Re: DP 0I-30701 Site: 62 Alamo Glen Traal Request to review application for construction of a two-story residence to be located on a substandard lot. R-20 zoning. , Dear hdr. Drake: Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Conurdnet on February 13th, and by our Board the following night. Applicant has met with neighbors on several occasions to discuss concerns. Applicant has located residence with second story aligned on lot line of adjoining lots located immediately to the east to mint ,tee visual impact and preserve privacy for those neighbors. Applicant presented revised drawings with reduction in roof pitch from 6112:to 4/12, reduction in windows on east side to 2.5 ft.by 2.5 ft, d with sills at 5 ft. level for light:and with a reduction in rad level to further n n=* ' e impact to neighbors, Additional discussion involved status of larger:Monterey pine located along driveway and drainage needs for lot. Application recommended for approval with the following additional conditions: 1)Roof pitch to be lowered to 4112 pitch 2) Windows on east side to be:2.5 ft. by 2.5 & with sills at 6 ft. 3) Windows an east to be obscure 4) Pad elevation to be at 506 A. line leveL S)Front entrance roof line to be reduced a tninimurn of 4 ft. 6) Roof color to be earth tone: - 7) Removal of Monterey pine requires a separate tree permit 9) County collect and convey requirements for engineered drainue by met and size of storm drain adequacy is to be verified. Sin er v, 6 ger F. S 'th, C _ la=ns Committee cc AU Secretary Jeff Azevedo CC?rn munity" Contra Dennis M.Barry,AICP Community Development Director Development Costa Department Coon ty County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing f - Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 October 3, 2001 Jeff Azevedo PO Box 1054 Alamo, CA 94507 Dear Mr. Azevedo: Re: Small Lot Request for Proposed Residence #29 Alamo Glen Trail,Alamo County File#ZI-019136B We have received a letter(attached)in opposition to, and requesting a hearing on, your proposed residence on Alamo Glen Trail. Please be advised that the Zoning Administrator will schedule this matter for a public hearing before considering issuance of a building permit. Because a hearing has been requested,please complete and submit the attached(public hearing) application form, one full size and one reduced set of drawings (including site plan,floor plan, and elevations). In addition, the review will be subject to a fee covering all staff and material costs, with an initial deposit of$500 made payable to the County of Contra Costa, and due at this time. Your application will then be assigned to a project planner for review. You will be notified of who the planner is and of the scheduled hearing date. Failure to submit the required fee will result in the termination of your request. Clarification on Compliance with Zoning Standards Staff has not distributed your proposal to the owners of property within 300-feet of the site. One reason for that is that it is not clear that the project complies with all objective development standards of the zoning ordinance (e.g., structure height). We wished to obtain that information before concluding that you had filed the correct application. In the event that the project does not meet one or more development criteria, you may have to file a different type of application with the County. It is staff's understanding that Office Hours Monday- Friday: 8:oo a.m.- 5:oo p.m. Office iq n.lneclri tho int Irr7 R. r,+k C. F,. „; ---L, --I staff requested that you provide additional inforrnation on the proposed height of the structure. Request for Additional Information on Site Plans to be Submitted Please revise the site plans to include the following information: • A section of all proposed retaining walls (and any related proposed fencing) indicating the maximum height above finished grade). • The height of the proposed residence above finished grade. • Detailed tree information (species, trunk diameter at 41/z feet above ground, dripline) of all trees on or immediately adjoining the property as identified on the back of the application form. Before the staff report is completed and the matter scheduled for hearing,it is the County practice to allow for opportunity to comment by local community groups (e.g., Alamo Improvement Association). If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact Donna Allen of this office at(925) 335-1360. If you otherwise have questions of me,please call me at(925) 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT 11 DRAM Principal Planner Att. 9/20/01 Letter from David L. Preiss Cc: David L.Preiss,Wendel Rosen Black&Dean William and Alison Morgan Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Donna Allen File#Z:I01-91368 w:\zi019136b.1tr RD\ 2 Community Gonda Dennis M. Barry,AlCP DevelopmentCosta Community Development Director Department County County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing + - Martinez, California 94553-0095 Phone: (925) 335-1214 October 3, 2001 David L.Preiss Wendel Rosen Black &Dean,LLP 1111 Broadway, 24'h door Oakland, CA 94604 Dear David: Re: Response to Inquiry on Proposed Residence 62 Alamo Glen'Trail,Alamo (Azevedo) AP111193-861-020 County File#ZI01-9236B This is in response to your letter of September 20, 2001,inquiring about a proposed residence on the above captioned property. On September 27, 2001, the County received an application for small lot review for a proposed residence on this site. Based on your letter,we have advised the applicant that his proposal will require a public hearing, and that we have requested additional items for that purpose When the matter is scheduled for hearing we will notify you and your client of the date, time and location of the hearing. Consistent with our practice,the application would be referred to the Alamo Improvement Association for opportunity to comment before the matter is scheduled for hearing before the County. Should you have any questions,please call me at (925) 335-1214. Sincerely, 1�4 ROBERT H. DRAKE Principal Planner Office Hours Monday v Friday: 8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m, C)ffir�a iC r`.inCPri the 1 ct '�rri k Fth Furl gon,C of m +k, Att. 10/3/01 'CDD Fetter to Azevedo Cc: William and Allison Morgan Dennis Barry Catherine Kutsuris Donna Allen W.\zi019236b-b.1tr RD\ 2 614 t. WE DEL ti.JSEN _.. ._._..� .�._._i i z ;,a t t�:;: }.. 1111 Broadway,24th Floor BLACK Oakland,CA 94607-4036 0 1 SrEp 2 4 PP, 3; 3 b Post Office Box 2047 DEQ Oakland,CA 94604-2047 Telephone:(510)834-6600 Attorneys at Law Fax:(510)834-1928 info@wendel.com September 20,2001 Dennis M.Barry,AICP Community Development Director Contra Costa County Community Development.Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Proposed Residence at 62.Alamo Glen Trail Lot.20, Subdivision 7063,Alamo, California Dear Mr.13;arry: This.office represents William and Alison Morgan,whose family resides at 2475 Alamo Glen'.L nve;(I;ot.1'I Sibyl. 7063), adjacent to the above-referenced lot. The owner of Lot 20,Mr. Jeff Azevedo,proposes to develop an approximately.5,100 square feet 2-story house and a 1,100 square feet garage upon the property. The owner of Lot 20 has acknowledged and we also believe that any such development is required to first undergo the County's "Small Lot"Review process in that the average lot width is less than that required by other applicable provisions of the County Ordinance Code. We understand;-but do not how for certain, that to date the property owner has not yet formally applied to the County for such review. Since we did not know the exact status of this project, or whether any County planner has been assigned to this matter,we are writing.directly to you. The development of Lot 20 also is subject to Architectural Review approval by the Architectural Committee under_the CC&Rs for Subdivision 7063. The Architectural Committee recently reviewed the proposed development plans and disapproved them because the plans failed to comply with the mandated standards and would negatively affect other residences in the community. A copy of the Architectural Committee's disapproval letter, dated September 16, 20(01,,isy enclosed. The proposed development may also undergo review by the Alamo improvenierit,Association The Morgans, as well as other residents of Subdivision 7063 and neighboring residents withiu-the adjacent Round Hall community,have significant concerns regarding the proposed development of Lot 20, including impacts on privacy, created by the siting, mass and height of 011807.00011585813.1 Dennis M.Barry,AICP V 'DEL.RosE�BLLAA,CKK&DEAN. LLP d A r September,20, 2001 Page 2 the proposed house. Other concerns relate to any potential impacts of the construction on drainage and stability of the slope hillsides on Lot 20 abutting our clients' and others'properties. In addition to alerting the County to these concerns, we request that our office and our clients be provided prior written notice of any and all hearings and other proceedings regarding Lot 20, Subdivision 7063, together with copies of any related staff reports and other information that may be disseminated by the County in connection with such matter. All such notices and information should be addressed as follows: William and Alison Morgan 2.475 Alamo Glen Drive Alamo; CA 94507 David L. Preiss, Esq. Wendel, Rosen, Black&Dean, LLP 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor Oakland, CA 94507 On behalf of the Morgans, we also hereby request that, upon the County's receipt of any application to develop Lot 20, the County Zoning Administrator conduct a public hearing pursuant to the County's Small Lot Review ordinance in order to assure relative compatibility with and minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your.consideration of these matters. Very truly yours, WENDEL, ROSEN,B CK&DEAN,LLP David L.Preiss DLP.jes Enclosure cc: William and Alison Morgan ci 1 so�.oaar�ssss��.r =2--ot_7—0 REQUEST FOR "SMALL LOT" REVIEW APPUCANT ovmm name rrll�le Address Address City,State City,State Phone Zip Phone Zip Signature Signature NATURE OF REQUEST - Briefly explain your request Give reasons why this is compatible with adjacent/surrounding'development: WHAT MUST BE SUBNUMD FOR THE REVIEW? A plot plan must be prepared which includes the propperty boundaries, the location of all site physical features (creeks, trees,etc.), imprrovements on the property with dimensions to the property lines and elevations and flour plans of the proposed building permit request. You need to submit one legible copy of the plans 8 1/2" x 11" (one additional larger plan may also be submitted if appropriate). In most cases a photograph of the subject site and the existing development on either side of the property will help to expedite your review. Also you are required to submit a sufficient number of standard sized (approx. 4" x 9") stamped (not metered) envelopes(with no return address)for all property owners within 300 ft. of ht a perimeter of your roVe (county staff will assist you in determiningthe number needed when you submit your request for review . provide a service to create a list of the names, addresses and assessor's parcel numbers for a fee of$30.00 plus $1.50 per parcel. A$150 fee must be submitted along with the request (if a public hearing is requested an additional $500 will be required). [Flood ss Filing Fee $ 150.00 S-code Assessor's No. Notification Fee $ S-code (Addmum x$1.50 plus 130.00) istrict Atlas Page Total $ act G.P. Deadline to Request Nearing x-ref files Date Filed Receipt No. ne Panel No. Received By File No. add\1atrrrie.lrm 82-10.002(c) Small LotOccupancy. Any lot of less area or width than required by Divisions 82 and 84 may be occupied by a single-family dwelling and its accessory buildings if. (1) the yard and setback requirements of Divisions 82 and 84 are met, or a variance has been gtar�ted for yard and setback requirements,and(2) the lot is delineated on a recorded subdivision 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 iot qualifies for occupancy by a single-family dwelling, then prior to issuance of a building permit, the loca .on, size, height and design of the proposed dwelling may be reviewed and approved or conditionally approved by the zoning administrator after a public hearing in order to provide relative compatibility with a minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 82-4.246 Lot, average width. "Average width of a lot"is the total area of the lot divided by the depth of the lot. 82-4.248 Lot depth. "Depth of a lot" is the distance normal to the frontage to the point of the lot farthest from the frontage. 82-4.250 Lot frontage. `=Frontage"of a lot is the distance measured between the two points on the principal road, street, or access that are farthest apart. AYMAGE Y= LOT DE2'1H URD.REF.82-4.246 ORD.REF.82-4.248 Arw•powr s€rwFFW rA+VGFNrs S r R E E'r r, s r R E t c t AREA q /O,Ise so.PT o L!N€PFRPFII DlCflLAR �V a w ° tit- 10t it- 1t L!N€ PARALLFL MirN F#oNrASe ®FFPFsr P®!Nr Or Lor LOY'h ED SY LAY'DEPTH UA 5 AVERAGE WIDTH LINE PARALELL WITH LINE COMCMING t0,480 eq.L divided by 170 h-61.65&ev.wife) TANGENT POINTS Milt, crid�lotrevie.fsm WEV DEL 111 1 Broadway,24`x`Floor KO S Ej �� T Oakland,CA 94607-4036 BLACK Post Office Box 2047 L!"� Oakland,CA 94604-2047 1f Telephone: 510 834-6600 P { ) Fax:(510)834-1928 ATTORNEYS AT LAW DPreiss@wendei.com October 15, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission c/o Daren Piona Community Development Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street,4th Flr.,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Study Session; Discussion of Small Lot Review Methodology October 16,2002,Agenda Item##3 Dear Chair McPherson and Members of the Commission: This office represents William and Alison Morgan,whose family resides at 2475 Alamo Glen Drive (Lot 11, Subd. 7063), and Howell and Suzanne Southmayd,the new owners of 2471 Alamo Glen Drive (Lot 12, Subd. 7063). As you may recall,my clients and I came before you at your September 18 meeting regarding the development of certain property located at 62 Alamo Glen Trail (Lot 20, Subd. 7063)which adjoins my clients' respective lots. Our appearance before you last month was in response to, and in opposition of, County staff's recommendation that you accept the withdraw of the pending application for"Small Lot"review for Lot 20, based on a determination that Lot 20 was no longer considered a Small Lot under the County Code. In response to our concerns regarding the methodology followed by County staff to determine whether certain oddly configured lots should be considered"Small Lots"under the County Code, the Commission requested that the above-referenced item be placed on the agenda for this evening's meeting to generally discuss County Code provisions regarding Small Lots. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with some information that we feel will be useful in the Commission's discussion of this item. The information in this letter is applicable to Lot 20 and any other similarly configured lot in the County. The primary County Code provisions related to Small Lots are found in §§82-10.0002(c), 82-4.246, 82-4.248 and 82-4.250. These provisions are quoted and/or paraphrased on the reverse side of the County's two-page application form for Small Lot review (included as Exhibit E with our.September 17 2002, letter to the Commission). It is §82-4.248 which appears to create the most significant problems when applying these provisions to oddly configured lots,such as Lot 01 1907.00W635355.1 2, San Ramon Valley R.egiona 0tanning Commission 4DEL,ROSEN,BLACK&[SEAN,LLP October 15, 2002 Page 2 20. This Code Section defines"depth of a lot"or"lot depth"as "the distance normal to the frontage to the paint of the lot farthest from the frontage." Unfortunately, neither this nor any other Section in the County Code explains how lot depth should be measured on lots, such as Lot 20,where it is simply impossible to draw a single line which (i)is normal [i.e., at right angles] to the frontage and (ii) actually touches "the point of the lot farthest from the frontage." The County has attempted to resolve this problem by creating two diagrams, shown on . the back side of the County's Small Lot Review application form but not reflected in the County Code, showing the use of a line parallel with the frontage and through the "deepest point"of the lot as the basis for determining lot depth.' In the case of the two such diagrams shown on the Small Lot Review application form, the lines representing lot depth primarily lie upon the lots in question, and these lines do truly appear to measure a reasonable lot depth. As we discussed at last month's Commission meeting,however, in the case of lots such as Lot 20, only a very small portion of the lot depth line even touches the lot in question. It defies common sense to believe that the dimensions of any lot in the County should be determined by a line that barely even touches the lot in question. Additionally, in cases such as Lot 20, a lot depth.line based on the County's diagrams is completely inconsistent with what any objective observer would perceive as the true lot depth, and the position and length of such a lot depth line would change dramatically in response to even miniscule changes to the shape (but not the size) of the lot. In the case of Lot 20, the happenstance of a slightly curved street frontage leads to an oddly determined lot depth. This also means that a slight change to the curvature of the frontage,perhaps by relocating Lot 20 just a few feet to the east along the frontage, could lead to a radical change in the lot's calculated depth and width—without any corresponding change to the actual dimensions of the lot. We fail to see how this could be anything other than an arbitrary and capricious application of the Code. Finally, as noted in our September 17, 2002, letter,the average width of Lot 20 as determined by applying the County's methodology, 159.10 feet, is larger than any actual dimension of the lot. The actual width of the lot ranges from 120 feet at the extreme north,to approximately 145 feet just above the "flag"portion of the lot, and reaches a minimum of 20 feet on the flag portion itself. Again, it defies common sense to believe that the "average"width of the lot could somehow be greater than any portion of the lot itself. It is also instructive to look at how other cities/towns within the County determine lot depth and width. Some cities (i.e., Clayton and Moraga)have provisions which are basically equivalent to the County Code provisions in question. Other cities, however, have adopted code provisions which appear to avoid the problem, evidenced by Lot 20, caused by oddly configured lots. We would recommend that the Commission consider using one or more of these alternative ' After drawing this line parallel to the frontage,the diagram shows that lot depth should be calculated by measuring the distance between the frontage and this new parallel line along a line which is perpendicular ("normal")to both the frontage and the new parallel line. 011807,0001%635355.1 San Ramon Valley Regiona, Manning Commission t 4DEL,ROSEN,BLACK&DEAN,LLP October 15, 2002 Page 3 provisions as a potential way to amend the existing County Code. Shown below are relevant excerpts from such cities' municipal code and/or zoning code: City of Brentwood: • § 17.130.004.H.1: The lot width for lots on cul-de-sacs, curvilinear streets, etc. shall be measured thirty feet from the front property line. City of Orinda: • §17.2.3: • "Lot depth"means the horizontal distance measured at right angles from the midpoint of the front lot line to the rear lot line. Where the configuration of a lot prevents measurement of the lot depth pursuant to this requirement, the lot depth shall by the longest possible straight-line distance measured at a right angle from a point on the front lot line to the point furthest back on the lot. • Lot Line, Front. "Front lot line"means a lot line located at the front of a lot, typically along the edge of a street or street right-of-way. • Lot Line,Rear. "Rear lot line"means a lot line,not a front lot line, that is parallel or approximately parallel to the front lot line and located to the rear of the lot, furthest from the front lot line. • §17.4.9: Except as otherwise provided in this title, the front width of a lot is defined to be the shortest possible straight line between the side property lines measured at the point closest to the front property line where the straight line is both: (1)tangent to the minimum front yard setback of the subject lot in at least one point, and(2) either tangent or behind the minimum front yard setback of the subject lot for all points along that line. City of PiMbUrg: • "Lot depth"is the horizontal distance between the midpoints of the front and rear lot lines, measured in the mean direction of the side lot lines. • "Front lot line"is a street line that adjoins the front yard of a lot. The front lot line of a corner lot is the shortest street line. If the street lines are the same length, any one may be considered the front lot line. • "Rear lot line"is a lot line,not a front lot line,that is parallel or approximately parallel to the front lot line. Where no lot line is within forty-five degrees (45°) of being parallel to the front lot line,a line ten feet (10') in length within the lot,parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line, is considered the rear lot line for the purpose of measuring lot depth. • "Lot width"is the horizontal distance between the lot lines of a site,measured at right angles to the lot depth at the rear of a required front yard. O11907.000"35355.1 San Ramon Valley'Regiona. r'lanning Commission y DEL,ROSEN,BLACK&DEAN,LLP October 15, 2002 Page 4 City of Pleasant.hill(Chapter 35, Division 3540): • Lot depth. The horizontal distance from the midpoint of the front lot line to the midpoint of the rear lot line, or to the most distant point on any other lot line where there is no rear lot line. • Lot line types: • Front lot line. A lot line that adjoins the front yard of a lot. The front lot line of a comer lest is the shortest street line. If the street lines are the same length, any one may be considered the front lot line. (Reference: Section 35-5.513) • Rear lot line. A lot line,not a front lot line, that is parallel or approximately parallel to the front lot line. Where no lot line is within 45 degrees of being parallel to the front lot line, a line 10 feet in length within the lot,parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line, shall be deemed the rear lot line for the purpose of measuring rear yard depth. • Side lot line. A lot line that is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. • Lot width. The average horizontal distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to the lot depth from the required front yard setback and from the required rear yard setback or from the rearmost point of the lot depth in cases where there is no rear lot line. City of.Richrnoncl: • §15.04.020.89. "Lot depth"means the average horizontal distance between the front and rear lot lines. • §15.04.020.92. "Lot width"means the horizontal distance between the side lot lines, measured at right angles to the lot depth at a point midway between the front and rear lot lines. As shown in the above excerpts, certain other cities within Contra Costa County have adopted zoning ordinances containing provisions which differ from the County Code provisions regarding lot depth and width. We hope that this Commission will consider these other methodologies as part of this Study Session. We also hope that the outcome of this Study Session will be a recommendation by the Commission for certain changes to the County Code, and/or to County staff s interpretation of the current Code provisions, to avoid the difficulties will suggest that the Board of Supervisors make whatever changes the Commission feels are necessary to avoid the problems, evidenced by Lot 20 within Subdivision 7063, caused by application of the current County code to oddly configured lots. 01 1807.0001%635355.1 San Ramon Valley Region.. ?tanning Commission ODEL,ROSEN,SLACK s DEAN,LLP October 15, 2002 Page 5 Thank you in advance for your consideration of our clients' comments and concerns. Please ensure that this office is notified of any further consideration of this matter,whether by this Commission, the County Planning Commission, or the Board of Supervisors. Very truly yours, WTNREL, ROSEN, BLACK&DEAN, LLP David L. Preiss /L DLPanp cc: William and Alison Morgan Howell and Suzanne Southmayd Alamo Improvement Association Aruna Bhat Dennis Barry,AICP Silvano B. Marchesi, Esq. 01 1807.0001\635355.1 .._ .........:::::.::..:.::...:.::::::::;.:;... Rsot : I to lot 11 not =Mill p . : .. .... ... 77, r' e n o R Y.51. ALAF40GLEN TRAIL •t` $ L le.la • um r rc.$a 3. ar'ym n:.ca k 4p.ao'xc lar.oi` n nao cis Ia°lit r,x'nS,aw b` UI`�i'Ca`W 5 we lb'o.'� N. n r•5t {� - ,..� t� !�! { (=1 -tom*- �Sa` '4� `��.�..-��.-�/"' `ice �•�J } t ., 5 t �P Y�62 :LSt• : W.M( Ir DR Wft Kt .met `; _ s ic.mn 0 �' ^ UO Y /y A a IA ` 1, w 1w� `i► N_fc1 a w o 4A"i � ro Z a 3: n � a �•• 7 ( ' i -- ` , -.0 110 4/1 Ch to f S91M. e ea.��. •r \1. art ,` :6�,.Iro"�h ti\r T.`�� •� �� .�.� ' r+�.Yt;',`� I t i/ L..�,�1� �i�� 'SID." ,. le , t-r aNJ y t Lt. , x It L4 77 7:77 F ,L Vit, A r7 - ?. �:,,T` •,' 3 � t _ -fi M •�.r.► CSI`' '!.� ,i� [. { ' t t ;, -y R i i \o ,, ak fzY. IR T� �R t t i• S 5 [ t`t { ,` I �} 1 ^r Ii. r � 6• t F�, r Ohl �4ti4` x j 'u,"t 3 4.�`�. - � {. � „ �� {` ��'epprYw•Ila+d F� fid + _ �� ;� � , t }p4a��zti `T; Uy LA xsw 7 4444 �q ZZSS -0 yy r -0 z h s 1 H n -C rl 1\\\t y Y MC i n C Y Y i � � j o p $ I v t i� ! I i R 6 J I r � r t oil