Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02142006 - D.5 :DC) TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - ; : Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: February 14, 2006 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Aq peak of an Administrative Live Dcec is ion Determining a Voolaltuon of the Permitted Construction tion Tim esu for Subdivision 8839 Tfl edl by the Subdivider(David Mairrgcen of Davni DDceveDolpmcern4) �oceatedl in the Martinez (Mum Road) area (APP 159-170-034) (Sup. Dints 01) SPEC�MC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) I BACKGROUND QUID JUST0CA70N I. RECOMMENDATION A. After accepting any public testimony, CLOSE the hearing. B. DENY the appeal by Davni Development of the Administrative Decision. C. SUSTAIN the staff determination that Columbus Day is a state and federal holiday and that construction work on that day(October 10, 2005) constitutes a violation of Condition #28 of Subdivision 8839, CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES VGNATURE REOOMM[ENDAMON OF COUNTY ADMORECOMM[ENDATOON OF BOARD oo4lfiMrrTfEfE APPROVE OTHER SVGNATURE AOTMN OF BOARD ON o � OTHI[ER MOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENTS CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Bob Drake [(925)335-9294] ATTESTED d(� JOHN SWEETEN, CLEWTHE BOARD OF cc: Davni Development SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Building Inspection Dept. BY , DEPUTY February 14, 2006 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision on Subdivision 8839 Page 2 11. FISCAL IMPACT: None. III. BACKGROUND On March 1, 2005, the Board of Supervisors granted approval of a tentative map to allow the division of a 3.66 acre parcel into 16 single family residential lots at the western end of Emshee Lane off of Blum Road, in the Martinez area. The subdivision had been filed by Davni Development. The matter had reached the Board as a result of an appeal that neighbors, Mr. and Ms. Quigley, filed on an approval of the project by the County Planning Commission. One part of their appeal concerned the applicant's prior violation of permitted construction times for an adjoining subdivision project. That other project was subject to the standard condition of approval that prohibits construction activity on weekends and on federal and state holidays. The same condition of approval was also applied to the subject property. It reads in part as follows: "28. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction, noise dust and litter control requirements: A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. The Zoning Administrator may modify the construction hours upon prior notification to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property...." (Emphasis added) While the Board denied the appeal of the neighbors, in approving the subdivision, the Board also imposed an added requirement on the project pertaining to regulation of permitted construction times for this project as follows.- "29. ollows:"29. Upon a finding by the Zoning Administrator that there are two confirmed violations of the conditions of approval relating to construction activity, the applicant is responsible for paying all County costs to retain a monitor to ensure that work hours and other restrictions are adhered to. This may involve the monitor being present during off-work hours, before and after permitted work hours, and on weekends. !Violations would be subject to a Stop Work Order and notice of possible revocation of permit approval." February 14,2006 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision on Subdivision 8839 Page 3 IV. STAFF INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINT ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION TIMES On October 10, 2005 (a Monday), which is the day designated by the federal and state governments to observe Columbus Day(originally October 12th), a complaint was received that work was being done in violation of the conditions of approval. Upon investigation and review, Kevin Dumford of the Building Inspection Department, in a letter dated October 27, 2005,wrote the project developer, Mr. Margen, that a violation had occurred. By citing this first violation of the restriction on construction times, if there were to be a second violation of permitted working times, the Zoning Administrator will be authorized to hire a monitor to facilitate compliance with the time limit restriction, and to charge that expense to the Subdivider. V. SUBDIVIDER'S APPEAL OF STAFF DETERMINATION THAT PERMITTED CONSTRUCTION TIMES FOR THE PROJECT HAD BEEN VIOLATED Mr. Margen has filed an appeal of the administrative decision as provided for by County Ordinance pursuant to Ordinance Code provisions contained in Sections 14-4.002, et.seq. VI. REVIEW OF APPEAL POINTS A. Appeal Point-Mr. Margen's contractor had called in advance of Columbus Day to ask if the County would be open and whether he could schedule an inspection and was told Yes to both questions. He believes that if the staff is working and would allow an inspection, that it is reasonable to assume that this particular day would not be one of the holidays subject to the restriction. Staff Response: Columbus Day is an officially designated federal and state holiday; although the County does not observe Columbus Day as a holiday for its employees. Because some holidays are not universally observed does not invalidate the condition. A specific request to the Zoning Administrator as to whether the holiday work restriction would apply on a particular holiday would have been the appropriate question to ask rather than only asking whether County staff is working that day and whether an inspection could be scheduled. The Building Inspection Department person responding did not necessarily know or have reason to check whether there were other restrictions that would limit construction activity for this project on a working day for County employees. B. Appeal Point— Mr. Margen has stated that other projects in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, presumably subject to the same condition of approval, were also working on Columbus Day and it would be an unfair application of the restriction to single him out for punishment. February 14,2006 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision on Subdivision 8839 Page 4 Staff Response: !Violations are usually enforced on a complaint basis. Any other development with the same restriction against working on a holiday would have been enforced equally if a complaint had been received. To our knowledge this was the only project identified in any complaint from the public about unauthorized construction activity occurring on Columbus Day. C. Appeal Point- The condition of approval should list the specific holidays when work is not allowed. Staff Response: While a specific listing of holidays is a possibility to consider in the future, there is no legal authority to modify the existing conditions of approval unless the Subdivider was to apply for such a modification. In this case, the restriction clearly applies to "state and federal"holidays. The information as to what are official holidays is readily available from the internet, in newspapers and is a regular topic of radio and television news. Moreover, previous staff investigations prompted by complaints from neighbors on the adjoining subdivision should have caused the Subdivider to exercise more caution in adhering to permit conditions. !VII. DISCUSSION The residents surrounding an infill construction site such as this should be able to plan with some reasonable certainty whether they may be affected by construction noise and traffic on a given day. The Board of Supervisors enacted the more stringent Condition #29 because of some history of non-compliance with an earlier subdivision abutting to the north. The applicant was made aware of the state and federal holiday restriction when it was imposed by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission, and he did not raise a concern with the restriction when the matter was before the Board of Supervisors. While some state and federal holidays are more widely observed than others, a listing of all designated holidays is readily available. The subdivision permit allowed a method that the Subdivider could pursue to try to work on a date when work is otherwise prohibited. Condition #28 allows the Subdivider to request permission of the Zoning Administrator in the Community Development Department to work outside of the permitted work hours. If deemed reasonable, the Zoning Administrator is authorized for this project to allow such activity, subject to prior notification to nearby owners. In this instance, the Subdivider chose not to make a request to the Zoning Administrator before the violation occurred. Accordingly, the Board should deny the appeal by the Subdivider, and sustain the Staff determination that the permitted work time restriction was violated on October 10, 2005. February 14,2006 Board of Supervisors Appeal of Administrative Decision on Subdivision 8839 Page 5 VIII. ALTERNATIVE BOARD ACTION If the Board finds that there are extenuating circumstances because of the less widespread observance of Columbus Day, the Board may choose not to count this violation as constituting the first violation of Condition 29. Such action would still allow two future confirmed work time violations to occur(rather than just one) before the Zoning Administrator would be authorized to hire an on-site monitor to aid in enforcement of the work time restriction for this project. G:\current planning\curr-plan\board\board orders\sub8839-b Viol.bo MH\RD IlD>S ®2-14-2006 ADDENDUM Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department, presented the staff report to the Board in the matter of an administrative appeal by David Margen of Davni Development of an administrative decision citing violation of the permitted construction times, Subdivision 8839, Martinez area. The Board opened the hearing and received testimony from the appellant David Margen, consistent with the appeal points listed in the board order; Alice Quigley, complainant (Materials submitted in chambers by Ms. Quigley attached); and a neighbor to the development, Jim Farr. Mr. Farr noted that, in his opinion, the restrictions on the Davni Development unfairly exceeded those placed on other projects, and that the only resident who was unhappy since the Phase II portion of the subdivision began was the complainant. Following testimony, the Board closed the hearing. Supervisor Uilkema stated that it was her belief that the appellant did in good faith attempt to clarify that the date in question (October 10, 2005; Columbus Day) was an allowable work day, and that the ensuing misconception made because of the scheduling of an inspection by the County on that day was unfortunate, but understandable. Therefore: As moved by Supervisor Uilkema, seconded by Supervisor Piepho, with none absent, the Board unanimously FOUND that there existed extenuating circumstances because of the less widespread observance of Columbus Day; GRANTED the appeal of David Margen, Davni Development; DETERMINED the violation would not constitute the first violation of Condition of Approval #29; and DIRECTED that in the future, a list of holidays during which construction activity is not permitted be included with the Conditions of Approval documents. 11 DIINTELOP--NIENT i�*�i I'[ii'd-e'*C- e-y",'C—A"*9-4-7-0-*4* .........."**'**......... .......... ............................................................ Phone 510-843-4449 Fax 510-843-4446 0 RECENED A2pW to Contire Caste Count/ Board of SupqMsora Re: Zoning Administrator's Notice oT Vioiation qor COA 0 29 SD 8839 NOV 2 3 ZUUD CLERK,EnARD Overview A. 6, A C3' Davni Development is hereby appealing the attached Notice of Violation for placing retaining walls at Muir Ranch 11, a 14-lot infill subdivision in Martinez, on October 10, 2005 (Columbus Day). Davni asserts that the company has made a continuous good faith effort to comply with COA 29. Specifically, Davni tried to verify in advance whether work could take place on October 10, and went forward with construction activity on that day based on conversations with County representatives indicating that Contra Costa County a) does not observe Columbus Day as an official holiday and b)would be available to conduct building inspections of Muir Ranch 11 on October 10. Background In early August of 2005, David Margen of Davni Development initiated a meeting w/Contra Costa County representatives Mike Henn (Planning), Kevin Emigh (Public Works), Kevin Dunford (Building Official), Gary Faria (Grading Official) and Steven Dexter(Supervisor Ulkima's Chief of Staff) to clarify the terms of COA 29. The County representatives at this meeting designated Kevim Dumford to act as the official monitor of Davni's compliance with COA 29. o From the starting date of construction, August 22, 2005, through November 21, 2005, Davni has been in full compliance with COA 29 and has received no complaints from the county, with the exception of the Columbus Day violation. o On October 6, 2005, David Margen instructed job superintendent Daniel Jones to call the Contra Costa County Building Department to inquire whether the Department would be open, working, and doing inspections on October 10. Mr. Margen's instructions to Mr. Jones were based on Mr. Margen's intention to fully comply with COA 28 and 29 (see attached conditions). On Dec 7, 2005, Mr. Jones carried out Mr. Margen's instructions and called the Contra Costa County Building Dept. Mr. Jones was informed that the county offices would be open and conducting business on Columbus Day. o On Oct. 8, 2005, Mr. Jones spoke with Kevin Dunford concerning construction of retaining walls at Muir Ranch 11. In the course of this conversation, Mr. Dunford scheduled a building inspection for the retaining walls at Muir Ranch 11 for the following Monday, October 10. As Mr. Dunford was the designated monitor of COA 29, Mr. Jones and Mr. Margen interred from this conversation that since County Offices do not observe Columbus Day as a holiday, it is allowable to conduct construction activity on Columbus Day. (Davni subsequently cancelled the retaining wall inspection because the foundations for the walls were not ready for inspection.) On October 10, 2005, a sub-contractor for Davni placed retaining walls at the Muir Ranch II subdivision. On that day, Mr. Jones observed two other subdivisions conducting construction activity along Pacheco Blvd. in Martinez. On that day, a neighbor called the Contra Costa County offices to register a complaint that Davni Development was conducting construction activity on Columbus Day. 4 On October 27, 2005, Davni received a Notice of Confirmed Violation of COA 29. The Notice states that Davni violated COA 29 by conducting construction activity on a Federal holiday. Conclusuon Davni Development maintains that, based on the information we sought and received from Contra Costa County officials, we believed it was allowable to conduct business on Columbus Day. We request this Notice of Violation be rescinded. Moreover, we request that in the future, Contra Costa County includes in its Conditions of Approval documents a list of Federal holidays during which construction activity is not permitted. This list would facilitate applicants' good faith efforts to comply with their Conditions of Approval. 28. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. The Zoning Administrator may modify the construction hours upon prior notification to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers that are in good condition. C. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and is prohibited on state and federal holidays. E. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. F. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. G. Developer shall notify all adjacent neighbors of construction schedule. H. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post at the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site, notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall also be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles and the 24-hour emergency number shall be expressly identified on the notice. I. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances may require a work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. The Dust program will include measures (e.g. watering active grading areas, onsite wheel washing) to ensure Blum Road is kept free from soil debris that might be carried from the site. J. The applicant shall provide an equipment and construction parking site plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. This area shall not restrict access to any residence not a part of the subdivision. 29. Upon a finding by the Zoning Administrator that there are two confirmed violations of the conditions of approval relating to construction activity, the applicant is responsible for paying all County costs to retain a monitor to ensure that work hours and other restrictions are adhered to. This may involve the monitor being present during off-work hours, before and after permitted work hours, and on weekends. Violations would be subject to a Stop Work Order and notice of possible revocation of permit approval. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. David Marg¢n Managing member I.PiOdng hsp cVon Contra Carlos Baltodatno Dspavmsm Costa Director of Building Inspection County Administration Building �O���� 651 Pine Street,3rd Floor, north Wing Martinez, California 94553-1295 (925)646-4108 FAX (925) 646-1219 ? dal qt �t(� 1�I®'I ICIE TO COMPLY LJY October 27, 2005 David Marc= Davni Development 18 Hillside Court Berkeley, CA 94704 2531 Re: Muir Ranch, Phase II Permit#373674, 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, lot#6 You are hereby notified that this department has observed your property at the above location and determined that is in violation of the Conditions Of Approval for the following reason(s): Conditions Related) to Construction Activities 1. Construction activity shall not beperfortned on a federal holiday. Activity was observed on Monday, October 10, 2005, Columbus Day, which is a recognized as a federal holiday. You must cease the above violation by taking the following corrective action immediately: I. Comply with section 29 of the Conditions of Approval. If you continue to violate the conditions listed above,this will be considered a cause for revocation of your permit. If you have any questions, or need further information I can be reached at(925) 335-1158. Sincerely, Kevin D Dumford Supervisor, Inspection Se,vices KDD:nmt Sklerks-bAletters cc: Supervisor Uilkema.District 2 Carlos Baltodano.County Building Official Michael Henn,Community Development fit.: t rC tr f �-! i R .� �:� ,� ' .� X1.1.. •� i 1• :.I I''��� Ii � i� ��� I - � I I 11• I l i l l fin_. ,�;��- 4rx � '• � • ••- },1 Yir L Y L,'fi Illl•J I ' ,1 ,t � Ytt�tGy� • �� - � tf� y�� 4 a� ,. II11 •'�� � Olt' M �'��y�f. 3v 1..1. •� I P';d �'�1111 11 11'' I ��I A-0 •,.♦ � � 111 � s ``.�s� �' *: 6 z 3 r ., , gi n54 jj .'�I •;j1�id;)6 � Sd � �>...0-�' © q z �• ' f yi _;' p9�- 4�_.= 9�) y � a 'sQj' ®p y � a9 jr� •t _f. _ • q� �rs $FA �` O _�� � 8 a gF _••w�„^�wr`_ � ,13.4E " '� E5.39' . ' 6 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP y. Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORCounty �covK DATE: MARCH 1, 2005 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal by Joe and Alice Quigley of the County Planning Commission's Decision to Grant Approval of a Proposed Tentative Map by Davni Development, LLC (Applicant), James Farr (Owner) to Subdivide 3.66 Acres into 16 Single Family Lots (Muir Ranch II), with Variances to Lot Width of Lot 16 to be 56.4 Feet Where a Minimum of 70 Feet is Required, and a Reduction to the Rear Yard for Lot 2 from the Required 15 Feet to 10 Feet, and an Exception to Subdivision Ordinance Section 92- 4.018 to Allow a Cul-De-Sac Length Greater than 700 Feet. The Property Fronts on the Western Terminus of Emshee Lane, 390¢/- Feet West of Blum Road, in the Martinez Area. County File #SD048839 (District II) SPEOOFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMEMDATIOM(S) & BACKGROUND AMD JUSTOFiCATION I. RECOMMENDATIONS A. OPEN hearing and accept public testimony; B. ACCEPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the project as adequate and find it to be consistent with State and County CEQA Guidelines; COHT11HU ED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SlIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE S : ACTION OF BOARD O APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _OTHER s�. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE ARID UNANIMOUS(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND YES: HOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Michael Henn (925) 335-1204 ATTESTED,,��� cc: Joe and Alice Quigley Davni Development Co. JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF James Farr SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 2 C. DENY the appeal of Joe and Alice Quigley, and UPHOLD the County Planning Commission's approval of SD048839 subject to conditions; D. ADOPT the findings of the County Planning Commission contained in Exhibit I as the basis for the decision; and E. DIRECT staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. II. FISCAL IMPACT The developer is responsible for the cost of processing the development permit request. III. BACKGROUND / REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.66 acre parcel into 16 lots on Emshee Lane (private). One single family residence is currently located near the east end of the site and is proposed to remain. As proposed the existing house would be on the future Lot 15. One proposed lot (Lot 16)would be east of the existing dwelling on Lot 15. The other fourteen lots would be west of the existing house. An abandoned walnut orchard occupies the western two-thirds of the subject property. This area is currently fenced and used for horse pasture. This matter was heard by the Zoning Administrator on November 29,2004. Attached is a copy of the staff report from the Zoning Administrator's hearing. The Zoning Administrator took the matter under submission, closed the public hearing and rendered her decision on December 13, 2004. That action was appealed by Joe and Alice Quigley, neighbors to the north, citing concerns with various impacts of the project on their abutting property, but particularly emphasizing their loss of view of Mt. Diablo and other distant views. The letter also cited concerns with sidewalks, parking, construction nuisances, and park deficiencies. Conditions of approval imposed on the project by the Zoning Administrator were designed to address the project's impacts and especially mitigate the impact of the project on the Quigley property. This appeal was heard by the County Planning Commission on January 25,2005.At that time, the Commission took testimony both in support of and in opposition to the project and determined, by a 7-0 vote, that the required findings could be made and adopted Resolution No. 7-2005 (attached) conditionally approving the subdivision. The Commission found the subdivision to be consistent with the General Plan's Land Use designation for the site and not in conflict with any applicable General Plan policies affecting the project.The Planning Commission found that there were mitigations already included in the conditions of approval that provided added protection for surrounding properties.This position was supported by the fact that the majority of the area residents have indicated support for the project. Mr. and Mrs. Quigley appealed the Commission's action by their letter dated February 3, 2005 (attached). March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 3 IV. APPEAL ISSUES: The appellants have raised a variety of issues that are summarized as follows: A. The approval would cause damage to the Quigley's property because of loss of views, and not just for the existing house but for the future houses that the Quigleys plan for their property. Staff Response: The appellant neighbors do not have a view easement over the subject property, and the County does not have a specific policy requiring that pre-existing views must be maintained. New construction on previously vacant property frequently affects pre-existing views for numerous properties in many locales. Nevertheless,the County has imposed a significant amount of mitigation to protect the distant views for the Quigley property. Lots 1, 2, 13, and 14 were lowered so that the resulting ridgelines would not exceed 104' above MSL, a height determined to not encroach into the distant views from the existing Quigley residence or front yard. The appellants are now raising the issue that they may someday subdivide their 2-acre property and the future residents'views need similar protection as is now being required for the existing Quigley house. The Planning Commission found that there is no inherent right to subdivide, and the design, orientation and view loss for any future houses on the Quigley property would be speculative.Additionally, as the Davni property upslopes to the west,the 1 04' above MSL standard would become prohibitively difficult to accomplish. For example, the house on Lot 5 with a 92' pad elevation would be limited to only 12 feet in height. Given that the Quigley's own house plus existing trees would block views for potential house sites west of the Quigley's house, combined with the fact that the area west of the Quigley's house slopes gently in the opposite direction, it is likelythat some potential home sites on the Quigley property would not have Mt. Diablo views in any case. The Planning Commission found the mitigations being imposed to protect the Quigley's view of Mount Diablo to be satisfactory. B. Emshee Lane may be extended into a large undeveloped parcel to the west causing a great increase in traffic on a small private road. Staff Response: The applicant has stated that the adjacent property has no access rights to use Emshee Lane and they also do not want such traffic to occur. Condition of Approval No. 18 prohibits an extension and requires a deed restriction prohibiting any road connection to the west. C. The 20' width of the Emshee Lane would cause parking problems endangering lives of future inhabitants because emergency vehicles could not pass. Staff Response: The Planning Commission determined that this point has been adequately March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 4 addressed by several mitigations requiring additional on-street parking, additional off-street parking and larger than minimum garages so that the garage space could potentially be used for storage in addition to parking. The Fire Protection District is satisfied with the project as conditioned and with the street width and emergency vehicle access being provided to the west. It was incorrectly stated by staff at the Planning Commission appeal hearing that the Fire District did the enforcement, but that is principally only correct in regard to the original installation and approval. Parking restrictions in fire lanes are enforced by the Sheriffs Office. D. Sidewalks should be provided throughout the project. Staff Response: The County's adopted private street standards do not require sidewalks, although General Plan policies encourage pedestrian access where feasible. The applicants are providing an unusual amount of off-site walkway construction including 780 +/-feet of paved walkways on Blum Road for Phases I and II in addition to 490 -/-feet of paved walkway on Emshee Lane for Phase 11. The area of Emshee Lane without sidewalks has the least available street width for sidewalks and is the area with the least traffic. Explorer Way, the private street in Phase I did not provide for any walkways. E. The construction of the project would cause temporary dust and debris problems during construction. The County has not been responsive to the Quigley's complaints during the construction of Phase /. Staff Response: Mr. and Mrs. Quigley who reside at the end of Explorer Way have complained about the construction activity that has affected them during the construction of Phase I. They have stated that they have been subject to excessive dust particularly during the grading phase of Phase I. While these concerns are also addressed in their appeal of Phase II, it would seem that Phase II would not have as much of an affect on them due to temporary construction activity as compared to Phase I. Emshee Lane is not an access road for Mr. and Mrs. Quigley. Dust control during grading is regulated by the Grading Ordinance and enforced by the Grading Division of the Building Inspection Department. The name of a contact person in that Department has been given to the Quigleys. The Building Inspection Department has diligently worked with the applicant and the Quigleys to achieve compliance with dust control requirements and will continue to do so. F. The area is deficient in neighborhood parks and the future residents would have insufficient places to play. Staff Response: The appellants suggest the use of one of the lots to be a park for the area. Generally, provisions of the Government Code pre-empt this subject. Under the Quimby Act, local jurisdictions are limited to the imposition of an in-lieu fee that has been set under applicable formulas. Under the existing County Park Dedication Ordinance, $2000 per lot is collected to off-set the project's impact on parks. March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 5 G. A Homeowners association should be provided to maintain a park and the private streets. Staff Response: The private street will be maintained by a road.maintenance agreement required by the Public Works Department. A park is not warranted for a 16-lot subdivision. H. While a condition of approval was added to require notice for planned utility outages, that condition would not address accidental interruptions, and that the appellants have had to endure numerous utility disruptions. Staff Response: It is unlikely that there will be accidental utility disruptions; however, if this does happen, it is less of an impact on the appellants for Phase Il, as compared to Phase I, because the appellants' utilities are in Explorer Way not Emshee Lane. Furthermore,the Commission added another condition requiring 24-hour notice to neighbors if utilities are to be cut off because of construction. I. The developers have brought in large amounts of dirt onto the Phase 11 site ahead of any County approval to make the property higher. Staff Response: The Grading Division has reviewed this information and determined that the temporary stockpiling of dirt in advance of approval was not a violation. Bringing in fill would not allow the houses to be taller because the height restrictions contained in the conditions of approval are based on heights above sea level, and also because of how building height is measured under the Zoning Ordinance, measuring from the pre-existing grade. The bringing in of additional fill would not allow these maximum heights to be increased because building heights are measured from the pre-existing grade under the Zoning Ordinance. V. STATUTORY TIME LIMITS TO ACT Caution Should be Exercised Prior to Closure of Public Hearing if the Matter May be Continued to a Future Board of Supervisors Meeting Government Code Section 66452.5 of the Subdivision Map Act imposes time limits in the Board of Supervisors' processing of this appeal of a subdivision action by the Planning Commission. Once the Board closes the hearing, within 10 Qcallendar) days the Board is required to render its decision on the appeal and declare its findings. Findings may be based upon the testimony and documents produced before the Board, Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, and must include findings required by the Map Act. The Board may sustain, modify, reject or overrule any recommendations or rulings of the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission, and may make any findings which are not inconsistent with the Map Act or Subdivision Ordinance. If the Board does not act upon the appeal within the 10-day time limit of the Map Act, the tentative map, insofar as it complies with applicable requirements of the Map Act and the Subdivision Ordinance is deemed approved as last approved by the County Planning March 1, 2005 Board of Supervisors File#SD048839 Page 6 Commission, provided it complies with all applicable requirements of the Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance. Further, it is the duty of the Clerk of the Board to certify or state that approval. Therefore, if the Board of Supervisors does not render a decision on the appeal within the 10- day time limit of the Map Act, the Board is prevented from applying modifications to the Planning Commission action it might deem to be appropriate based on the testimony and evidence presented at the appeal hearing. By contrast,there is no time limit(and no risk of automatic approval)associated with the Board continuing the appeal to a future Board meeting date provided that the hearing is kept open. VI. CONCLUSION: The Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission have found the project to be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element and any related General Plan policies that apply to the area. They also determined that the findings could be made for the two minor variances and the exception to cul-de-sac length. An unusual amount of effort was given to addressing the impacts on abutting properties. Staff recommends that the Board sustain the County Planning Commission's approval of SD048839. GACurrent Planning\curr-plan\Staff Reports\SD048839BdOrder3-1-1.doc ADDENDUM )IDA 03/01/05 On this day, the Board considered the appeal of Joe and Alice Quigley of the County Planning Commission's approval of a tentative map (Subdivision 048839)to subdivide 3.66 acres into 16 single family lots located near the western terminus of Emshee Lane in the Martinez area. The staff report was presented by Catherine Kutsuris, Community Development Department. The Appellant, Alice Quigley, and legal representative,Bonnie Johnson,Esquire, provided testimony for the Board's consideration. The Chair invited the public to comment on the matter. The following persons presented testimony: David Margen, 18 Hillside Court, Berkeley, James Marieiro, Blum Road Alert, 138 Clipper Lane,Martinez; Edward Leigh, 4610 Blum Road, Martinez; Mike Cladwell, 109 Clipper Lane, Martinez, John Padlo, 4630 Blum Road, Martinez, Troy Carloch, 40 Austen Way, Martinez; Bret Mapson, 150 Hill Side Lane, Martinez. Supervisor Uilkema requested that staff comment upon concerns including the appropriateness of 24 hour notification of electrical and water utility service interruption, passage for emergency vehicles on the access road, parking along the access road, and monitoring of the construction site to ensure compliance with all of the Conditions of Approval; in particular,the observance of proper work hours. The Supervisor also inquired about the levy of fines for infractions. Ms. Kutsuris noted that Condition of Approval No. 18 addresses the issue of access by emergency vehicles, and suggested it would be possible to add permit conditions to prohibit parking along the access roads and require deed-disclosure for all of the lots to ensure fixture purchasers were aware of the restriction on parking. Ms. ]Kutsuris also observed that because the road is a private road, enforcement responsibility would rest with the Sheriff s Department. She further indicated that it would be possible to add a permit condition to address monitoring of the site for compliance with the conditions of approval, and though levy of fines may or may not be possible, violations could be subject to a stop work order, and notice under the County code for possible revocation of the permit. The Community Development Department and County Counsel concurred that the hearing could be closed, and desired changes incorporated on this date. Having held a public hearing and considering the matter, the Board took the following actions; 1. CLOSED the public hearing; 2. ACCEPTED the Mitigated Negative Declaration determination for the project as adequate and found it to be consistent with State and County CEQA Guidelines; 3. DENIED the appeal by Joe and Alice Quigley and UPHELD the County Planning Commission's approval of Subdivision 048839 subject to conditions; 4. ADOPTED the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the decision; 5. DIRECTED that permit conditions be implemented to: a. prohibit parking along the access road b. require deed notification for all of the lots of the restriction on parking c. upon the finding by the County Zoning Administrator that there are a specified number of verifiable or confirmed violations of an permit condition of the subdivision, the applicant is responsible for paying all County costs to retain a monitor to ensure that work hours and other restrictions are adhered to for the duration of the project; 6. AMENDED Condition of Approval #27 to alter the requirement for 24 hour notice of interruption of utilities to be 48 hours notice-, 7. and DIRECTED staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. ADDENDUM D.4 03/01105 Page 212 EXCERPT FROM APPROVED cCONDffTIONS OF APPROVAL TRACT 8839 CONDITIONS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Archaeology 25. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society of Professional Archaeology (SOPA) has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation(s), if deemed necessary. 26. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of Contra Costa County has been contacted, per Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. Construction 27. The applicant shall submit to the Zoning Administrator, for review and approval, a plan relating to the disconnection and reconnection of the utilities for the existing houses on Emshee Lane as well as any other properties that may be affected by utility disruption. If utilities are to be interrupted, the applicant shall provide to the Zoning Administrator evidence of notice given 48-hours prior to the interruption to all residents on Emshee Lane. 28. Contractor and/or developer shall comply with the following construction noise, dust and litter control requirements: A. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and shall be prohibited on state and federal holidays. The Zoning Administrator may modify the construction hours upon prior notification to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property. B. The project sponsor shall require their contractors and subcontractors to fit all internal combustion engines with mufflers that are in good condition. C. The applicant shall make a good-faith effort to avoid interference with existing neighborhood traffic flows. D. Transporting of heavy equipment and trucks shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, and is prohibited on state and federal holidays. E. The site shall be maintained in an orderly fashion. Following the cessation of construction activity, all construction debris shall be removed from the site. 11 F. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited. G. Developer shall notify all adjacent neighbors of construction schedule. H. At least one week prior to commencement of grading, the applicant shall post at the site and mail to the owners of property within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the project site, notice that construction work will commence. The notice shall include a list of contact persons with name, title, phone number and area of responsibility. The person responsible for maintaining the list shall also be included. The list shall be kept current at all times and shall consist of persons with authority to indicate and implement corrective action in their area of responsibility. The names of individuals responsible for noise and litter control, tree protection, construction traffic and vehicles and the 24- hour emergency number shall be expressly identified on the notice. I. A dust and litter control program shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Violation of the approved program or applicable ordinances may require a work stoppage. Construction work shall not be allowed to resume until, if necessary, an appropriate construction bond has been posted. The Dust program will include measures (e.g. watering active grading areas, onsite wheel washing) to ensure Blum Road is kept free from soil debris that might be carred from the site. J. The applicant shall provide an equipment and construction parking site plan for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. This area shall not restrict access to any residence not a part of the subdivision. 29. Upon a finding by the Zoning Administrator that there are two confirmed violations of the conditions of approval relating to construction activity, the applicant is responsible for paying all County costs to retain a monitor to ensure that work hours and other restrictions are adhered to. This may involve the monitor being present during off-work hours, before and after permitted work hours, and on weekends. Violations would be subject to a Stop Work Order and notice of possible revocation of permit approval. County Zoning and City Limits This page can be found on the web at the following url: http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2005.asp Office of song � Management The Federal Government's Human Resources Agency Ca�xtba /4-4 2005 Fadaira� HoHdays Federal law(5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees. Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday). Friday, December 31, 2004 * New Ye2r°s Day K� Monday, January 17 Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. Monday, February 21 Washington's Birthday Monday,May 30 Memorial Day v Monday,Dully 4 Rnnd epennd ennce Day Monday, September 5 Labor Da � Monday, October 10 Columbus Day � I �I Friday, November 11 Veterans Day Thursday, November 24 Thannksgnvnnng Day http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2005.asp 1/11/2006 County Zoning and City Limits Monday, December 26 ** Christmas Day *January 1, 2005 (the legal public holiday for New Years Day)falls on a Saturday. For most Federal employees, Friday, December 31, 2004, will be treated as a holiday for pay and leave purposes. It does not matter that December 31, 2004 is in the prior calendar year. (See 5 U.S.C. 6103(b)) Inauguration Day, January 20, 2005,falls on a Thursday. An employee who works in the District of Columbia, Montgomery or Prince George's Counties in Maryland, Arlington or Fairfax Counties in Virginia, or the cities of Alexandria or Falls Church in Virginia, and who is regularly scheduled to perform non-overtime work on Inauguration Day, is entitled to a holiday. There is no in-lieu-of holiday for employees who are not regularly scheduled to work on Inauguration Day. This holiday is designated as "Washington's Birthday"in section 6103(a) of title 5 of the United States Code, which is the law that specifies holidays for Federal employees. Though other institutions such as state and local governments and private businesses may use other names, it is our policy to always refer to holidays by the names designated in the law. **December 25, 2005, (the legal public holiday for Christmas Day)falls on a Sunday. For most Federal employees, Monday, December 26, will be treated as a holiday for pay and leave purposes. (See Executive Order 11582 of February 11, 1971.) Federal Holiday IES®Iln¢_I�a e Office of Personnel Management Site Index A-Z Ll 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415-1000 ( (202) 606-1800 1 TTY (202) 606-2532 Contact Us I Important Links I Forms I FAQ s I Products & Services http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2005.asp 1/11/2006 County Zoning and City Limits California Home Wednesday,J. R EDD Homepage Empp ®yment Devee opment Depautment About EDD {' nay CA Services for: State Holidays EmPioyers Job eekers Printer Friendly_Version People With Disabilities All EDD offices are open Monday through Friday from 8 a.m.to 5 p.m. In observance of the State ho Senior Workers below, however, all offices are closed on the following dates: Veterans Workforce Community F Holiday Date Observed in 2005 Youth Martin Luther King Jr. Day January 17 How to: Presidents'Day February 21 File a Claim Disability Insurance Cesar Chavez Day March 31 Paid Family Leave Imemorial Day May 30 lJnemPloyment..lns.u.ranceI Independence Day July 4 Fill_a_Job__/..Find a_Job Labor Da September 5 Get Data Columbus Day October 10 Labor Marke_t_In_formation. Get_Pay_roll Tax Info I Veterans ay Get Training IThanksgiving Day(and the day after) November 24&25 Businesses Christmas Day December 26 Individuals General Information Careers With EDD Department DirectoryHoliday Date Observed in 2006 _ Equal O portunity Notice New Year's Day January 2 FAQs Martin Luther King Jr. Day January 16 Forms&Publications Lincoln's Birthday February 13 News Releases Presidents'Day February 20 P o rams&Services Cesar Chavez Day March 31 Proposed EDD Regulations Memorial Day May 29 Related Sites Independence Day July 4 Report Fraud Labor Day September 4 Subscribe Columbus Day October 9 Taxpayer Advocate Veterans Day November 10 Thanksgiving Day(and the day after) November 23&24 t` tp�an M.��� Christmas Day IF December 25 To find the EDD office nearest you: Disability_Insurance Labor Market Information Employment Tax Unemployment Insurance Job Service EDD HomePage I Top of Page I Contact Us The Employment Development Department is an equal opportunity employer/progran Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. Back to Top of Page http://www.edd.ca.gov/eddsthol.htm 1/11/2006 - P Joe arpvd A ce Qwigk' 4500 Blum road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 February 14, 2006 Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, 94553 RE: SD 04 8839 Dear Madams and Sirs, The conditions of approval for this project restrict construction times to 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Work is prohibited on state and federal holidays. Work was performed on Columbus Day, a state and federal holiday. We have a video that is date/time stamped that will verify that work occurred on Columbus Day, a State and Federal Holiday. We offered to make the video available, and that offer still stands. However, the issue appears to be not whether work occurred, but that the developer, Mr. Margen didn't know that it was a holiday. What little experience we have had with development, we understand that"I didn't know" is an unacceptable excuse for not complying with any condition of approval. As a developer in this county, it is his job to be aware of all of the conditions attached to his approved permit. We request that the Board uphold the administrative decision per County Code Section 14-4.002 that found David Margen to be in violation of C®A#28.A. This developer needs to understand that when a permit is approved, subject to the attached conditions,that those conditions shall not be violated. Sincerely, r Joe Quigley I Alice Quigley Cc: Bonnie Lee Johnson, Esquire Joe and dice Quigley 4500 Blum Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone and FAX: 925-228-7599 rACSI MAS rxA Z VS�rrrrA4 Date: February 13, 2006 To: Dennis Barry, Zoning Administrator FAX: 925-335-1222 Kevin Dunford, Supervisor, Inspection Services FAX: 925-P- ' L y .. 12 ! �� Gayle Uilkema, Supervisor,District 2 FAX: 925-335-1076 Pages: 16, including this cover sheet Company: Contra Costa County From: Alice Quigley RE: SD04-8839 If there are any problems receiving this fax, please call the above listed number. Message, if any: We have observed these ongoing violations of the Conditions of Approval for Muir Ranch, Phase II. Please advise us if there are other persons to whom these complaints should be sent. Your prompt and professional attention to this matter will be appreciated. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building_Zoning _Disabled Access Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On August 16, 2005, the stables were demolished without using any dust controls. The name of G IFerrabee Co. was visible on the equipment used. Stephen Wolking said that the water truck would na®t be on site until tonnaomow. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation _Building_Zoning _Disabled Access Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On Augmst 22, 2005, seven Preen were cat down that were on our side of the property line. In addition three trees had at least half of their root systems removed? Please note that the fence and the property lane are NOT one and the same. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation —Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On October p, 2005(SS'uatuaFd aye), a dump truck towing a tF addep with equipment on at was observed moving about the construction a sate. The deueps MCMSS'were seen on the side of'the truck. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation _Building_Zoning ^Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On October 3, 2005,grading and trenching was done without any wintering go control the dart. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation _Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez,CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On October 5, 2005,grading was dome wfthomg any watering to control the dust, Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane,Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name,Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On October-10, 2005, work was done on as fed epaad holiday. Grading was done ua ithoaad any watering go control the almost. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DI`IISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building_Zoning `Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni Il Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On October Illi, 2005, thefollowing violations were observed. d. Grading was done without any wagering to control the dust. 2. Work started prior to 7 3®AM Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name,Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On Octobe •20, 2005, water was stole nfrom thefire hydrant, that is no meter was used Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation _Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni 11 Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On December 19, 2005, work was still going on after 5.45 Pm. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation _Building_Zoning Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane,Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni 11 Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On Janmary 69 20069 a backhoe with as Root bucket was being opePaatedpFioF to the allowed time of 7.-30 AM Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation _Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On January 17, 2006, access go the 50 sacrreyield was blocked by a vehicle belonging Q® one of the construction workers. It was parked on Blum Road, infrong of the only gage that Tallows access to the field.A large NO PARKING sign is prominently displayed on the gage. CCA 28.b requires the applicant to provide an equipment and construction parking site plan. Thae plan approved by the Zoning A dminiserator, identirwd locations for on-.site parking. This workers vehicle was clearly outside of the approved Ova-,site parking areas. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On Jam mary 249 2006, equipment was run and men were digging af9er 5:00 Pm This was outside the Hallowed hours of 7.30 AM Q®5:00 PM. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road,Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On January 29, 2006, (Sun da¢y) a backhoe was operated on the site Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building_Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name,Address, and Phone: Davni I1 Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On Februaary 8, 2006, thefollowing violations were observed. 1. Work continued after 5.-00 PM Z Road surface near the canal of Blum was lidered with asphalt debris. Part of Blum Road was swept clean of debris, but not all debris was removed 3. The NIEWfeancc was damaged,posts were locant and the NIEWfe ncc fQabric was damaged Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building__,Zoning _Disabled Access X Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name,Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On January 30, 31, February 1-3, 6-10, 2006,some of the construction crew parked alongside Blum Road, instead of using the Zoning Administrator for aapp roved on-s1ge parking areas. This created as safety haazaar d1forr those driving on Blum Road. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 4 Joe and dice Quigley 4500 Blum Road Martinez, CA 94553 Phone and FAX: 925-228-7599 Date: February 14, 2006 To: Dennis Barry, Zoning Administrator FAX: 925-335-1222 Kevin Dunford, Supervisor, Inspection Services FAX: 925-646-1219 Gayle Uilkema, Supervisor, District 2 FAX: 925-335-1076 Pages: 2 , including this cover sheet Company: Contra Costa County From: Alice Quigley RE: SD04-8839 If there are any problems receiving this fax, please call the above listed number. Message, if any: We have observed this violation of the Conditions of Approval for Muir Ranch, Phase II. Please advise us if there are other persons to whom these complaints should be sent. Your prompt and professional attention to this matter will be appreciated. g A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT NEW CONSTRUCTION DIVISION Complainant: Joe and Alice Quigley Address: 4500 Blum Road, Martinez, CA 94553 Phone: 925-228-7599 Type of violation Building_Zoning _Disabled Access x Violation of Conditions of Approval Address of alleged violation: 32 Emshee Lane, Martinez, CA 94553 Assessors Parcel Number: 159-170-034 Owner Name, Address, and Phone: Davni II Development, LLC David Margen, Member 18 Hillside Ct. Berkeley, CA 94704 510-914-5478 or 510-834-4449 Describe in detail the nature of violation/complaint: On August 22, 2005, work by the surveyors started at 6:30 AM which is prior to the allowed time o�f'7.30 AM. Return this form to: Community Development Department, for Conditions of Approval violations FAX: 335-1222 Building Inspection, for construction of houses violations FAX: 646-1219 Public Works, for grading and dust control violations FAX: 313-2044 REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM D. (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: Phone: Address: City: Please note hat if you choose to provide your address and phone number, this information will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board along with the minutes for this meeting I am speaking for myself or organization: CHECK ONE: ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information INFORMATION FOR SPEAKERS: 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin'by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) 6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other materials for this meeting. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) -� Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: 41-1 CIE �(,i / G k EZ Phone: ,,? S-�,2;2 Address: ��oo 31-6( U Roli-t) City: rIA -Z— Please Please note that if you choose to provide your address and phone number, this information will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board along with the minutes for this meeting I am speaking for myselfV, or organization: cl-,� ywy �,s�c w o e- QL;iJ/er CHECK ONE: wish to speak on Agenda Item ## Date: r -0m >ol�/� My comments will be: ❑ General 0 For-**' ❑ Against. ❑ I wish to speak on the subject of: ❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these cornments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information NFORMATMN FOR SPEAKERS: 1. Deposit this form in the box next to the speaker's rostrum before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address, and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4. If available, give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) 6. Please note that this form will become a matter of public record and will be kept on file at the office of the Clerk of the Board along with the other materials for this meeting. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC IEIIIIEAlE8ING BEFORE T]H[lE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS VISORS ON PLANNING MATTERS MARTINEZ AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,(Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: An appeal by David Margen of an administrative decision per County Code Section 14-4.002 in regard to a violation notice filed against Mr. Margen's project, #SD048839, for work done on a Federal Holiday(Columbus Day) (Parcel 159-170-034) The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): the property fronts on the western terminus of Emshee Lane, 390+/-feet west of Blum Road, in the Martinez area. If you challenge this matter in Court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108, Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez, to meet with any interested parties in order to (1) answer questions; (2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3)clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Mike Henn, Community Development Department, at(925)335-1243 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, February 13, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date: February 2, 2006 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Q B Jane ningto� Chief Clerk HEARING ON AN APPEAL BY DAVID MARGEN OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION PER COUNTY CODE SECTION 14-4.002 IN REGARD TO A VIOLATION NOTICE FILED AGAINST MR. MARGEN'S PROJECT, #SD048839, FOR WORK DONE ON A FEDERAL HOLIDAY (COLUMBUS DAY) THE PROPERTY FRONTS ON THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF EMSHEE LANE, 390¢/- FEET WEST OF BLUM ROAD, IN THE MARTINEZ AREA. County File #SD048839 (Parcel 159-170-034) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUMffY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENT -; 651 Phe Street, Flo Whg - 4th Moor Maranex9 CA 94553 �as J TMephane. (925 335-1211 C Fay,- (925) 335-1222 TO- Jane Pennington, Chief Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Bike Henn, Planner )IY4 DATE: February 2, 2006 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal of an Administrative Decision Citing Violation of the Permitted Construction Times for Subdivision 8839 filed by the Subdivider (David Margen of Davni Development) located in the Martinez (Blum Road) area (APN 159-170-034) (Sup. Dist. II) This matter is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors meeting on February 14, 2006. This is an appeal of an administrative decision which does not require the broader notice required for a Community Development Department public hearing. The applicable Code language is as follows: 14-4.006 Setting of hearing--Notice. The clerk of the board shall then promptly set the matter for hearing at an early regular board meeting, and shall give the appellant at least five days' written notice thereof. (Ord. 70-36 § 1, 1970: prior code § 1207). We have provided only the addresses of the appellant and two concerned neighboring property owners and an attorney representing one of these owners. Please contact me if you have questions on this matter. 0 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING IN THE MATTER OF ) Re: David Margen Appeal ) #SD048839 ) I declare under penalty of perjury that I am now, and at all times herein mentioned have been, a citizen of the United States, over age 18; and that today I deposited Certified Mail with Contra Costa County Central Service for mailing by the United States Postal Service in Martinez, California, first class postage fully prepaid, a copy of the hearing notice, on the above entitled matter to the following: David Margen, 18 Hillside Ct., Berkeley, CA 94704 James Farr, P.O. Box 2567, Martinez, CA 94553 Bonnie Lee Johnson, 1700 N. Broadway, Ste 300, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Joe & Alice Quigley, 4500 Blum Rd., Martinez, CA 94553 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, at Martinez, California. Dated: February 2, 2006 if C Ompresseon anti boaurrage e$A sechage spice wwwaeeuy.com AWE R VO 5960-c Utfll$ag De gabapB$59608 c 3-600-GO-AVERY David Margen James Farr 18 Hillside Ct. P. O. Box 2567 Berkeley, CA 94704 Martinez, CA 94553 Bonnie Lee Johnson Joe &Alice Quigley 1700 N. Broadway Ste 300 4500 Blum Rd. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Martinez, CA 94553 ®���o� AMAV-09a-008-6 �e.;� w1096S 31VIdYM31®RaaAV asn wi0965 a.uoxkmafle•mmm 0 Buflu"d 89JA 96pnwS pue Luer l' NOTffC E OF A PUBLEC HEA[gl NG BEFORE THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPEI VESORS ON PLAIYI\`111NO MATTERS MARTRNEZ AREA NOTICE is hereby given that on Tuesday, February 14,2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, (Corner of Pine and Escobar Streets),Martinez, California,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing to consider the following planning matter: An appeal by David Margen of an administrative decision per County Code Section 14-4.002 in regard to a violation notice filed against Mr. Margen's project, #SD048839, for work done on a Federal Holiday(Columbus Day) (Parcel 159-170-034) The location of the subject property is within the unincorporated territory of the County of Contra Costa County, State of California, generally identified below(a more precise description may be examined in the Office of the Director of Community Development, County Administration Building, Martinez, California): the property fronts on the western terminus of Emshee Lane, 390+/-feet west of Blum Road, in the Martinez area. If you challenge this matter in Court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the County at, or prior to,the public hearing. Prior to the hearing, Community Development Department staff will be available on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 12:30 p.m., in Room 108,Administration Building, 651 Pine Street,Martinez,to meet with any interested parties in order to(1)answer questions;(2)review the hearing procedures used by the Board; (3) clarify the issues being considered by the Board; and(4)provide an opportunity to identify, resolve, or narrow any differences which remain in dispute. If you wish to attend this meeting with staff, please call Mike Henn, Community Development Department, at(925)335-1243 by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, February 13, 2006 to confirm your participation. Date: February 2, 2006 John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator w B Janeningtoi Chief Clerk