Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04161996 - D.10 10 'ID.-If Contra ,. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa '''"" County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TSTA Cd60 DATE: April 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Continued April 16, 1996 Hearing of the Appeals on the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision on Applications to Modify the Vesting Tentative Map and the Final Development Plan for Bettencourt Ranch and the Final Development Plan for Shadow Creek (County File #DP953003 & #DP953004) in the Tassajara area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. Hear testimony, declare the Board' s intent to sustain the Planning Commission' s decision, including: 1 . Modifications identified under Consensus of Changes to the Project; 2 . Any other modifications chosen by the Board as indicated in the listing of Alternatives; and Direct staff to prepare a Board Order incorporating the Board' s findings, terms and conditions . B. Affirm the Planning Commission' s adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document for CEQA review purposes . C. ; If the hearing is closed, continue the matter to April 23, 1996 (or thereafter if the public hearing is not closed) . FISCAL IMPACT: None provided recommended application ' fee payment condition is imposed. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE . RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON April 16, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER x See addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWNI-----,, Contact:Bob Drake (510) 335-1214 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED April 16 , 1996 Dame Construction Company . PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Bettencourt Ranch Res. Assoc. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Shadow Creek Res . Assoc . AND OUN ADMI TRATOR Public Works Dept . County Counsel BY DEPUTY BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Board has conducted a hearing on appeals filed by the applicant and by the Shadow Creek Residents Association on the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission' s action on the applicant ' s proposal to modify the Final Development/Vesting Tentative Map for the Bettencourt Ranch project and to modify the Final Development Plan for the Shadow Creek project . At the last meeting on April 2, 1996, the applicant and representatives of the Bettencourt and Shadow Creek homeowners associations testified that they had reached agreements on several matters . The Board discussed (1) what would be the appropriate way of including or not including provisions contained within those agreements within a County approval of this project; and (2) whether or not to grant the applicant ' s appeal with respect to the proposed relocation of three lots to a hillside location. The Board directed staff to propose alternative actions and findings for the Board to consider. The Board also directed staff to prepare a chronology concerning development in the Blackhawk/Bettencourt Ranch area relative to hillside development, and to propose mechanisms so as to avoid future inconsistencies between permitted grading activity and project entitlements . CHRONOLOGY OF AREA HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT The Chronology related to development of the area and with respect to hillside development policies is contained in Exhibit C. At the Board of. Supervisors hearing on April 2, 1996, a resident of Blackhawk, Mr. Jensen, indicated that staff had indicated to him that he was going to receive notice before any grading was to be conducted on Bettencourt Ranch. Staff would like to clarify what was communicated to Mr. Jensen. As reviewed in the chronology in Exhibit C, staff (Robert Drake) first met with Mr. Jensen on September 14, 1995, several years after grading in the Bettencourt Ranch area had been substantially completed, and after the initial Commission hearing for the current proposal had been noticed. Staff also indicated to Mr. Jensen that were he to register his interest in the application, that staff would notify him of any subsequent hearings . It should be noted that Mr. Jensen was mailed a notice of the Board' s hearing of this appeal prior to the initial Board hearing on February 6, 1996 . Clarification on Impact of Grading While acknowledging that the grading for the three lots should not have been allowed as shown on the approved grading plans for which a permit had been issued, there are two points that should be noted: • The 1989 Vesting Tentative Map showed that the area was approved for grading. The primary discrepancy between the approved Vesting Tentative Map and the grading plans that were subsequently cleared is that the area of Lot 44 was pad graded. • There is no evidence in the record that the excessive grading resulted in any removal of existing trees . The grading did not result in the removal of an oak tree on Lot 44 . MODIFIED GRADING PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE To avoid future recurrence of this situation, administrative reforms to the review of grading plans have been instituted. Several years back, the Building Inspection Department began using a standard referral form that poses specific questions to the Community 2 . Development Department concerning compliance with project entitlements and laws . More recently, the Building Inspection Department also modified their referral form to clarify responsibility for determining plan conformity. The new form specifies that plans must be routed to the project planner to verify overall compliance with entitlements and laws . CONSENSUS CHANGES TO THE PROJECT The following constitute consensus changes to the Commission action on the project . 1 . Modify the Commission Approval to Allow the Applicant the Option of Extending Fleetwood Road along the "Upper" Alignment Shown on the 1989 VTM or Not Extending Fleetwood Road To incorporate the revised language into Condition of Approval (C/A) #3 as contained in Alternative C for the Fleetwood Road/Circulation Discussion generally contained in the staff report dated March 12, 1996 . The revision shall provide that it is the applicant' s right to extend Fleetwood Road along the "upper alignment" in accord with the County' s 1989 approval, but also providing an option for the applicant not to extend Fleetwood Road. In view of the different payment structure agreed to by the applicant and SCRA, the requirement for the establishment of a police services district is eliminated, and other payment provision has been dropped. In lieu of extending Fleetwood Road pursuant to the 1989 vesting tentative map, the applicant may elect not to extend Fleetwood Road beyond its existing eastern terminus subject to satisfying the following conditions prior to acceptance of Final Map 7279: A) Construct Cul-de-Sac Bulb at Existing Fleetwood Terminus - If the applicant elects not to extend Fleetwood Road, the improvement plans for the cul-de- sac shall be reviewed and approved prior to the filing of the final map for subdivision 7279. The cul-de-sac shall be located beyond the last lot on Fleetwood Road (Lot 108 of Final Map 7278) so as not to encroach on that property. The design shall also address the existing drainage problem at the end of Fleetwood Road and the plan shall be signed by a geotechnical engineer certifying that the design complies with their recommendations for constructing structures in the project area and repair of any slides, if necessary. The easement for the cul-de-sac shall extend three feet beyond the edge of pavement or face of curb. The easement shall be submitted with the plan and recorded wi th the map. The construction of the cul-de-sac improvements shall be completed, or contractually assured, prior to the filing of the final map. B) Offer to De-Annex Final Map 7279 from Bettencourt Ranch and to Annex to Shadow Creek - The applicant shall offer to the Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association to de-annex the area of Final Map 7279 from the Association. Concurrently, the applicant shall offer to the Shadow Creek Residents Association that the permitted development of Final Map 7279 be annexed to the Shadow Creek Residents Association. The two offers shall be in writing with copies provided to the Community Development Department at the time of issuance of the offers; 3 . C) Elimination of Card-Gated Access - The offer to annex to the Shadow Creek Residents Association shall also propose to eliminate the required card-gated access. If the offers. to transfer Final Map 7279 from Bettencourt to Shadow Creek are accepted, then the requirement to provide a card-gate at the Green Meadow Drive entrance is eliminated. The County shall not accept Final Map 7279 until either one or both offers (Items 2 and 3 above) are rejected, _....................... _. ..........................._.._. ................................................................................ � i13`'>c e > > or six months has passed from the ........ ...........::::.F :::::::::::A.::::. date of the written offers, whichever occurs first. (Redlined words added at the request of staff) . Finding The Board of Supervisors understands that the applicant has entered into a private agreement with the Shadow Creek Residents Association (SCRA) which provides for the payment of $5, 000 per lot within Subdivision 7279 to be paid to the SORA when escrow closes for each residential lot sold if the area of Subdivision 7279 is annexed into the SORA. In the alternative, if no annexation takes place, $3, 000 per lot will be paid by the applicant to SCRA at close of escrow for each residential lot sold. 2 . Acknowledge Binding Arbitration Agreement/Grant Applicant ' s Appeal with regards to Elimination of County Role to Oversee Requirement to Upgrade Landscape within Common Areas of First Four Phases of Bettencourt Ranch - In view of the court-approved Binding Arbitration Settlement Agreement, it was the consensus that the Commission requirement (Condition of Approval #13) to require the County to require and overview an upgrade of landscape improvements to the first four phases of Bettencourt Ranch should be deleted. Except as otherwise noted below, the deletion would also apply to other amenity improvements within the first four phases of the project . In lieu of that condition, the Board directed that alternatives be prepared for Board consideration to provide for either (1) County verification that an arbitration settlement had been reached; (2) or recitation that the Board understands that there is a court-approved settlement agreement on this issue . See below discussion under alternatives . 3 . Traffic Signal at Camino Tassajara/Mansfield Drive Intersection - The Commission approval provides for the applicant to contribute half of the cost of the development of a traffic signal for the intersection prior to approval of Final Map 7279 (C/A #4) . 4 . Contribution to Bettencourt HOA in-lieu of Public/Private Trail - Condition #7 would not only require the elimination of the required public/private trail, but requires the applicant to prepare improvement plans to demonstrate the value of the trail improvements and payment initially to the County of the equivalent cash value of the improvements . The applicant and the BRRA have reached agreement as to an in-lieu cash contribution of $107, 000 . Accordingly, Condition #7 should continue to provide for the elimination of the requirement to construct the public/private trail, but that the condition otherwise be modified to require that the applicant provide evidence that satisfies the Zoning Administrator prior approval of Final Map 7279 that the applicant has conveyed directly to the BRRA a cash contribution of $107, 000 in lieu of the trail . 4 . Dt ID 5 . Substitution of . "Other Duly-Constituted HOA" Language - Until recently, it had been assumed that the project would proceed as originally planned with BRRA assuming ownership and responsibility for common area and improvements within Subdivision 7279 . Because Subdivision 7279 may be annexed to Shadow Creek, some of the conditions relating to review of common area improvements by the BRRA should be modified to also add words "or other duly-constituted HOA". 6 . Payment of Supplemental Application Fees - Add the following condition : Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of a final map, the applicant shall provide payment to the County of any application fees that are due. ALTERNATIVES The following presents alternatives with respect to two issues : (1) whether or not to include elements of the private agreements reached between the Bettencourt Ranch and the applicant as conditions of approval or as a recital; or (2) whether or not to grant the applicant' s appeal with respect to the proposed relocation of the three hillside lots within SUB 7279 . I . Reference to Provisions of Private Agreements between Developer and HOAs A. As Conditions of Approval, Include Elements from Agreements Between Applicant and Shadow Creek and Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association 1 . Verification of Appropriate Payment to the SC RA - Add the following requirement to Condition #3 . Prior to close of escrow, the applicant shall satisfy the Zoning Administrator that the appropriate cash contribution to the Shadow Creek Residents Association in accord with the private agreement between Shadow Creek Residents Association and the applicant has been made. 2 . Verification of Resolution of Arbitration Settlement Addressing Landscape Issues within the First Four Phases of the Project Finding The applicant has indicated that they have entered into a court-approved binding arbitration settlement process to resolve landscape issues within the first four phases of the project. The following condition shall be added: Prior to the issuance of the first building permit within Subdivision 7279, the applicant shall satisfy the Zoning Administrator that a resolution of the binding arbitration settlement agreement which has been entered into between the applicant and the developer to landscape issues involving the first four phases of Bettencourt Ranch has been reached.' 'At the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 2, 1996, County Counsel indicated concern with making this a condition of approval because it leaves to other parties in the arbitration to determine when the arbitration will be completed. The initial arbitration may not be completed for a period of time (e.g., 1-2 years). Such a requirement might constitute a delegation of discretion. 5 . 3 . Add the following as conditions of approval : A. Cheshire Circle/Mansfield Drive HOA Trail - The applicant shall construct a trail to connect Cheshire Circle and Mansfield Drive within the common area owned by the Bettencourt HOA. B. Tot Lot Improvements at Bucking—ham Drive Entrance/Wrought Iron Fence Improvements - Prior to the close of escrow of the sales of the first residential lot within Final Map 7279, the applicant shall satisfy staff that the following payments have been made to the Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association (BRRA) in accord with private agreements entered into between the applicant and the BRRA: 1) $12, 500 for tot lot improvements at the neighborhood park at the project entrance at Buckingham Drive. 2) $10, 000 for wrought iron fence improvements within the developed portion of Bettencourt Ranch.z C. Contribution to Bettencourt HOA per Prior Bettencourt Ranch HOALA-12plicant Agreement - The Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association shall retain the $62, 500 cash contribution it received from the applicant in 1994. B. As Recitals Only, Reference Private Agreements Between Applicant and HOAs The following alternative would adopt findings referencing testimony concerning the private agreements between the applicant and the Bettencourt Ranch and Shadow Creek HOAs but would not attach or otherwise make such provisions a condition of a County approval . Findings The Board of Supervisors and the County understand that the following items have been agreed to be done by the applicant pursuant to private agreements with the Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association. 1 . The applicant has agreed to provide the following for the Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association: a. ) Contribution for Tot Lot Improvements at Buckingham Drive Entrance Wrou ht Iron Fence Improvements - Prior to the close of escrow of the sales of the first residential lot within Final Map 7279, the applicant has agreed to contribute to the BRRA 1) $12, 500 for tot lot improvements at the neighborhood park at the project entrance at Buckingham Drive. 2) $10, 000 for internal wrought iron fence improvements within the developed portion of 21t is staff's understanding that this provision for wrought iron fence is for a fence internal to the project and is not to be confused with the another wrought iron fence improvement to be erected along the frontage of Camino Tassajara pursuant to C/A #11.A to which the applicant indicated that they have agreed to install. 6 . Bettencourt Ranch.3 b. ) Retention of Cash Payment Associated Prior Bettencourt Ranch HOA/Applicant Agreement - The applicant has agreed to allow the Bettencourt Ranch HOA to retain the $62, 500 cash contribution it received from the applicant in 1994. c. ) Cheshire Circle/Mansfield Drive HOA Trail - The applicant has agreed to construct a trail to connect Cheshire Circle and Mansfield Drive within the common area owned by the Bettencourt HOA. 2. Acknowledgement of Court-Approved Binding Arbitration Settlement between Applicant & Bettencourt Ranch HOA to Resolve Landscape Issues within First Four Phases of Bettencourt Ranch Finding - The applicant and the Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association have entered into a court- approved arbitration settlement to resolve landscape issues within the common areas of the first four phases of Bettencourt Ranch. II . Disposition of Relocation of Three Hillside Lots (PropoQed Lots 44, 45 and 46 within SUB 7279) A. Deng the Applicant' s Appeal Barring the Relocation of Three _Dots to Hillside Area - This action would sustain the Planning Commission' s rejection on the proposed relocation of the three lots to the hillside area on the north side of Bettencourt Ridge. B. Approve the Applicant' s Appeal Allowing the Establishment of Three Lots to Hillside Area with Original Mitigation Measures Recommended by Staff - This alternative would allow the three lots to be relocated to the hillside site; delete C/A #14; and subject development of the three lots to mitigation measures previously agreed to by the applicant : Prior to issuance of each building permit, site plans and exterior colors shall be submitted fo the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, and subject to the following design guidelines: 1 . Except as indicated below, the project shall comply with the requirements fo the R-10 zoning district. 2. The maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 26 feet in height measured parallel to finished grade. 3 . Exterior roof and wall colors shall not exceed 500 light reflectance as verified in writing by a licensed architect. 4. The required off-street parking may be placed within the front setback area provided that is housed within a garage. 5. For Lot 44 only, site plans shall be accompanied by a report from a licensed arborist which assures protection of the existing oak tree on that site. The recommendations of the arborist report shall be incorporated into the site and construction plans. 31t is staff's understanding that this provision for wrought iron fence is for an a fence internal to the project and is not to be confused with the another wrought iron fence improvement to be erected along the frontage of Camino Tassajara pursuant to C/A #1 1.A to which the applicant indicated that they have agreed to install. 7 . requirement for an arborist report is eliminated. FINDINGS The following findings were identified in the March 12, 1996 staff report . A. LUP Findings - Land Use Permit Provisions of the Planned Unit District Ordinance of Chapter 26-2 (C.C.C. Ord. Code Section 84- 11 . 1804) . 1 . That the proposed conditional land use shall not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the county; 2 . That it shall not adversely affect the orderly development of property within the county; 3 . That it shall not adversely affect the preservation of property values and the protection of the tax base within the county; 4 . That it shall not adversely affect the policy and goals as set by the general plan; 5 . That it shall not create a nuisance and/or enforcement problem within the neighborhood or community; 6 . That it shall not encourage marginal development within the neighborhood; 7 . That special conditions or unique characteristics of the subject property and its location or surroundings are established. Failure to so find shall result in a denial . (C.C.C. Ord. Code Section 26-2 .2008) . B. P-1 Findings - Planned Unit (P-1) District Findings for Approving a Modification Application (C.C.C. Ord. Code Section 84-66 . 1804) . In approving the modification application, (the County) shall find that it is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district . C. VTM Subdivision Map Act Findings - Vesting Tentative Map Findings to Condition or Deny a Permit (Government Code Section 66498 . 1 (c) ) The Board may condition or deny a permit, approval, or entitlement if it determines any of the following: 1 . A failure to do so would place the residents of the subdivision or the immediate community, or both, in a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both. 2 . The condition or denial is required, in order to comply with state or federal law. D. Nexus Findings - Nexus Findings required by case law (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S . 825; Dolan v City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S . ) . Reasonable conditions and limitations to carry out the purpose of the P-1 district zoning may be imposed provided that they are reasonably related to the potential impact of the new application; that is, that there is rough proportionality between exaction and impact of the project on the community. 9 . VA D- 11 C. Same As 'B' but with added visual Requirements for the Padded Lot (Lot 44) - This alternative would be identical to Alternative 'B' except that the following would be included as design requirements to development of Lot 44, except that the provision for development up to 26 feet in height would not be allowed. Instead, the following restrictions would apply to Lot 44 . 1 . Limitation on Structure Height - Development on Lot 44 shall be limited to one-story with the height of the structure (s) not exceeding 985 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) . (The 3/13/92 grading plan indicates that the pad height is 967 feet AMSL, thus any structure could not exceed 18 feet in height . ) 2 . Screening of Development - Prior to issuance of a building permit on Lot 44, a landscape/irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. One of the purposes of the landscape plan shall be to screen the development on Lot 44 from the views of the site northwest of the property. The landscape plans shall be accompanied by a written statement from the landscape architect indicating that the plans shall lead to screening of development on Lot 44 from views of the site from the northwest . At least 15 days prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on Lot 44, the landscape architect shall provide a written statement to the Zoning Administrator indicating that landscape and irrigation equipment has been correctly installed in accord with the approved plans . 3 . Control of Exterior Lighting - Any exterior lighting shall be designed and operated so as to shine on the applicant ' s property only and not shine on any surrounding properties . D. Same As 'C' but Require the Lowering of the Existing Pad Grade on Lot 44 by Approximately 20 feet (and removal of an existing oak tree) - Concern has been expressed about the relative prominence of Lot 44, and whether development could be made more visually compatible with the surrounding neighborhood by substantially lowering the pad elevation. By substantially lowering the height of the building pad, it would be reasonable to apply the same structure height standard that would apply to Lots 45 and 46 . It should be understood that such an action would necessitate the removal of the existing 42" oak tree on the lot . However, the County has recently arranged for an independent evaluation of the tree by a licensed arborist (HortScience) who has examined the tree and determined that the tree is not likely to survive in the near future, and should be removed as documented in a report dated April 11, 1996 . Therefore, this alternative would be identical to Alternative 'C' except as follows : 1 . Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit a revised grading plan proposing to lower the padded grade of Lot 44 to approximately 948 feet AMSL. 2 . The maximum height of the structure on Lot 44 shall not exceed 26 feet in height measured parallel to finished grade . 3 . The oak tree on Lot 44 shall be removed; the 8 . E. CEQA Findings - Determine that the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning commission is the appropriate environmental document for the project for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Note: If the Board action allows for relocation of three lots within Final Map 7279 to the hillside area as proposed by the applicant, then the Board should direct that the original recommended residential design mitigation be adopted in its original form (before modification by the Planning Commission) in the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (see Measure #5) . , AFFIRMATION OF PRIOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS In addition to the above-listed alternative actions, the following decisions by the Planning Commission remain in effect : 1 . Elimination of the requirement to construct a .public/private trail extending from Camino Tassajara, and running along the eastern property line to the ridge traversing the Bettencourt Ranch project . 2 . Relocation of tot lot, jogging trail, and turf field to the HOA- owned area between the Mansfield Drive entrance and the detention basin. 3 . The applicant is required to contribute 500 of the estimated cost of the traffic signalization improvements of the Mansfield Drive/Camino Tassajara intersection. (Previously, the applicant had been required to enter into a deferred improvement agreement . ) 4 . The applicant is required to construct a decorative fence around the detention basin. 5 . At the April 2, 1996 Board hearing, the applicant testified that they had withdrawn their objection to the Commission requirement to install a wrought-iron fence along the Camino Tassajara frontage, and had agreed to install said fence. Owpdoc\draft3.bet RD\ 10 . ADDENDUM TO ITEMS D. 10 AND D. 11 April 16, 1996 On April 2, 1996, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing of the appeals of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission decision on applications to modify the vesting tentative map and the final development plan for Bettencourt Ranch and the final development plan for Shadow Creek (County File DP 95-3003 and DP 95-3004) in the Tassajara area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report commenting on the request by the Board of Supervisors from April 2 , 1996, for alternative language . Mr. Barry also advised that Supervisor Torlakson' s request for a chronology of hillside development had been addressed in Appendix C. Mr. Barry further commented on the inclusion of a modified form used by the Building Inspection Department and Community Development Department in referring grading plans for comment by the Community Development Department staff . Supervisor DeSaulnier commended Mr. Barry on the staff report, and he commented on a request by Supervisor Torlakson for a two week continuance and that the developer was not willing to bifurcate the issue of the lots . The Board discussed the issue of dealing separately with the location of the three lots . Supervisor Smith advised that the appeal cannot be resolved piece by piece . Supervisor Bishop moved to continue the matter to May 7, 1996, at 2 o' clock with the item being listed first on the agenda. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearings on the appeals of Dame Construction Company and Shadow Creek Residents Association on applications 3004-95 and 3003-95 are CONTINUED to May 7, 1996, at 2 P.M. in the Board chambers . T FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO COUNTY FILE #DP953004, AMENDMENT TO BETTENCOURT RANCH FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (#3034-88) AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP #7188 (Dame Construction Company - Applicant; Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association and Dame Construction sere�erA95�_ amo eYe oiaal `az iii` Company - Owners) �, ��„� �- �di[t]m�ccio�n�- pro._a1. Findings A. The modifications provided for under the approved project are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Unit (P-1) District. B. The modifications provided for under the approved project are compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the Planned Unit (P-1) District. Anditionss ofApnroval 1. The Applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of Subdivision 7188 and Final Development Plan (FDP) #3034-88 as appropriate for this development,and as modified by these additional conditions of approval. Unless otherwise specified, all conditions listed below must be satisfied or otherwise assured prior to acceptance of Final Map 7279 (phase of Subdivision 7188). 2. Development shall be generally based on the following exhibits submitted with the application: • Amended Final Development Plan Bettencourt Ranch/Shadow Creek, dated January 1995; • Grading Plan, Subdivision 7279, Bettencourt Ranch. 3. FIFI .eQtwoo_d.R ad Modificatiom - The request to re-align Fleetwood Road and related improvements is denied. Instead, no extension of Fleetwood Road beyond the existing road improvements shall be required except that the Applicant shall construct a cul-de- sac and provide adequate right of way at the existing terminus of Fleetwood Road to County standards. The right of way shall be located 3-feet from the curb face, or the edge of pavement, of the cul-de-sac. 4. -Contribution to Mansfield'Drive - Camino Tacsai ra Traffic Si2nali7ation - The Applicant shall be required to contribute 50% of the estimated cost for traffic signalization improvements of the Mansfield Drive - Camino Tassajara intersection described in the Deferred Traffic Signal Fee Agreement (recorded March 12, 1990 in Volume 15710 of Official Records at Pace 398) to a Road Improvement Trust (Fund EXHIBIT A D Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 No. 819200-0800) prior to recording the Final Map for Subdivision 7279 as amended by Modified Final Development Plan File #DP953004. 5. - - drainage,Bettcncouit Rancii Ff)P, die Applicant shall pLovide eid!eL. (a) construct recreation facilities as specified below, (b) make an equivalent fittancial contribution toward development Of LCCLeation facilities hose Udebsign mid approval could be deter inin StIppleLlient filraL!Cialcoitributioii-wlticti totali t cost is at least equivalent to die Lequijed recreation facilities identified below. th Pliol to Colts tr acting-U ijities, We Applicant shall submit detailed landsudye and illigation improvement plans by a licensed landscape =iliteCt and rela detailed improvinerit ;zO by—a-ficenseAl general OL landscape contractor. All plaits sliall include appropriate site piepaiatioininprovenients (final grading, necessary boil ai , - 1-T?ICll 11 lcl I�ruu1T 1 111 and tot I, (including play eqtliplrielio fOL d! ITottng graded Ictioll area on So 11r, Idin Drive. T,lite plaits sliall inclade provision of at B. *A joggingipedestrian trail and-1 IdLUU U1 LUgQS to encir cle die detention bas in �. ineeting-flie "5 *9plail 1111PIOMITIU.J.F. (pu}�-}Tcfpnvate�tarl� op -2- Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 ZOI!iLIg MlniniStratOL on die adequM of die plans and estimates shaif be shimured-wTim" eters o n r. �q uern n .�,:�.�-.,�.�...:tegr� � '_�"o es�gn�.• --.—ewe n_�t�n___�...,...���..�= �a4_��ntc�a_ fi �Wedanpro v " °�� tin ;_oUN RIM s or b� a or�n e ct� d MIT o�tned- ; � E the��oo�1c�C�ntroi��st� �E'`�ian�sfr��d��e�,����tentrnnce�� �anting��an repared�y�hom�s B �a�t��`�`� �ftten� tancb��reek���dat 1!1ay 8WIN halitbem��difieaspprriatacc�mmotlate �sefac ps alLilandacao , bio dpr� �nnna�©rlus �dc��an�sc�e -ontrac#or�orlec�e� � �r��f� � �n ;ata � ai��s`hail in7ude�pprciprtat��it�ze_p�ratton�mpr�meut��fuia��ra�in� ne�e�sa��arau�age, soil iriendme tsz eta) 3'r xtappr�vai �*th�rung unistrator the ettencourt3ncl Zestdents ssod fipn hall l ve n 0 W.,un1ty to3 and-comment------------- on4#�e plans The liecis�onvf theonuigAdmuusttvr�n ttemi egacthelans andstunatesaitbe _o.... _ shared wild theBettencouttRnchIOA f'rinr to-a+�c�t�;nce of F�na�ivlap 7��9, the�App�icar�t��hall post a boud-uvrth the_�ounty �ozhe-accepted unprc���ment cos�.to assure�c©mplet�or�of-�pproved�plans -3- Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 C©muletion'�.nd �nfieafion fern c�oemen s�T�i�a-p—rou��=�l ns�la�l��e��alledmnor it o _ -; n an __ - h eficiennt50 0111 Leant u ,hepzj a he gun n �so a opc= ar, ed INS p mrrien �z"" cce to ice ol^ hepz� erit5 __ eb he chi e £ 1111112 dins - �����v 6. Proof of Prnnerry Rights- The Applicant shall furnish legal proof to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Engineering Services Division, and County Counsel of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits, and/or easements for the construction of temporary or permanent, road, drainage, recreation, fencing and other amenity improvements. 7. C) HOModifirstions to FDP A. Elimination of Piihli ./Private Trail C'onstniction Requirement - The requested elimination of the requirement to construct a public/private trail as specified in C/A #5.F. of FDP 3034-88 is approved. The Applicant is.still required to provide documentation on the development of such a trail for purposes of determining a financial contribution to go toward other recreational facilities of equivalent cost benefitting Bettencourt Ranch residents. Sumo ate Impro'vernentlans nor to aece�tanCoto fIt �nalvlap 7�7 , the applicant shall ub ut cietasJed7mpro�err�ent1planSIZer reel b altcensed landscapecontretorTornc'.vel engzneer�prrtv�dmgorhe£pubc/prtvate trail unprovennents as���gual��•eq�red�n�C/A�#S F,�nd�elated�leta>led-cost M' N esttnatesby a lierased generil�r landscape contractor The plans{shall include appropriate srte prparatiort improvements The plans and cost estimates shall be subject to h`-,I,-'z,-Z--onutg Adrnwistrator review and approval-The decision of4 Zoning�,.drnimsfrator shall be shared with the HOA The preparation and acceptance of these plans zs mtended,solely to provide a method of eshmatmg the. cost burden that the�Applicant rs to.bear for p�ovidrng equivalent value to $ettencourt Ranch far other recreation facilrties,of egutvalent cost Egutvalert Ftnaictal Contribution for Other Project:Recreation Improvements Prior to acceptance ofFinal Map 7279; the Applicant`shall make an'equivalent. -4- � 4 Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 finanal�contnbutioo�eunoazcl=deelopmnt ofecreatonacilitie h se degn�a� ecalao��1 �� s#e � ec� �.�atei��date IFWPCPYX eseed= o d etc. - e enOpo mew �nd, pr �a1e, iung °dmuusfra - --. �tezhate ecreatriii uri .r-n� e�ts�ri gelated e � o_ . �he� OA ould�_ e HC) it "Pit: it`h ttentatemdutndscatan attl%e 3 r cash i bt tQ e .__ or{zrer atl0a rovementsv�tiiuletnctjtirt;#hEummstratornayuthou`ze that die caslroutrbution bea : duvoTthaspr�otoan 1Finai`�rMap7,2 �heppli+cant��all�xo�v��e-e���i�e khat fhe HOA�has �ece�ved the�cash rontr�bution= B. - TIC requirement to constrUd rjogging trail that rthe detention basins-specified-irr C�A-#8. - still required to provide documentation on die development of such a tLai purposes ofd ei recreational facilities-of equivalent cost beriefitting Bettencourt . The. funding-may-be-applied e--pTtecr Retention of Requirement to Construct a Decorative Fence- Around Detention Basin - The request to eliminate the decorative six-foot tall open fence around the detention basin is denied. The existing wire strand fence around the basin does not satisfy this requirement. However, the requirement to provide self- closing gates is eliminated. The fence improvement plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and in consultation with the Flood Control District. Prior to submission of fence improvement plans, the Bettencourt Ranch HOA shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the plans. Prior to acceptance of Final Map 7279, the fence shall either be constructed by the County or assured by posting of a bond. C —R incation-of-Detentirm-Barin -rea-Tot-l-antandH-nffirmai-Turfed-Pl;i r r d--- -he request-to-reiocate-the-required-tot-io rfed-giayfield-�ref. -CtA #f5 A-and-#�-of F$P��34=8ftoin die detentlull basin area to the-gra-ded-lcno-l-i areaon-Nottinghan Hriconstruction of these-facHities; the-Applicant-shall-provide Quid fl�A-has-given permission-for-thr,se-facilities-to-be-buih-atrthe-idottingham-site. -5- Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 if the HE)* dam not giant PCLI[IiSSiOn to place die proposed f�cilities—at-the laioli site, then die Applicant shall make a financial contribution to be m-ed-for developmelft of odier Bettcncotlft Ranch LeCLeatiOLud facilities when plans m proposed by die HE)A and Leviewed and appioved by die Zoning *d,rdnistratx—. �Hie ffirmiciai contribution shaft be made to die e0lInty to be held in a Trust - The LeqUCSt to relocate three lots (44,-45-, &46) to a hillside site is approved as shown on die site plan 8. MifiF4afinn Measures, -The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in Attachment I, Mitigation Monitoring Program, Bettencourt Ranch, File DP953004, pertaining to debris flow repair, removal of unengineered fill, protection of oak tree on Lot 44, name change to road within SUB 7279, design LeStliCtiOnS applicable to Lots 44, 45, and 46 within SUB 7i59—, and recreational facilities. 9. Flertro-Mavnetic'Field (F-MF) Notificatinn - If the Applicant proposes to build any recreation facilities within 300 feet of the PG & E easement or substation, he shall be required to provide evidence that he has informed the Bettencourt Ranch HOA of the following: "The subject property is located near a high voltage electric transmission line. The Association should be aware that there is ongoing research on possible potential adverse health effects caused by the exposure to a magnetic field generated by high voltage lines. Although much more research is needed before the question of whether magnetic fields actually cause adverse health effects can be resolved, the basis for such an hypothesis is established. At this time no risk assessment has been made. " 10. t and-,r-anP Plans, for SUB 7279 A. General - Landscape/irrigation plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect who shall certify the plans for compliance with the Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments Ordinance (Chapter 82-26) on the plans. The plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Prior to approval, the Bettencourt Ranch HOA and the East Bay Municipal Utility District shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the plans. Proposed trees shall be a minimum 15-gallon in size; shrubs shall be a minimum 5-gallon in size. -6- 1 T Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 The Applicant shall post a bond for the cost of the improvements with the County to provide security for a reasonable period following installation. The bond would be intended to provide a financial mechanism for replacement of failed or failing plants and any necessary repair of the irrigation system. B. Specific Landscape Plans - ; 1. SUB 7279 Common Area-The Applicant is required-to provide-- landscape/irrigation rovide landscape/irrigation improvements for the common area of SUB 7279. These improvements shall provide for plantings of trees and shrubs at the periphery of proposed lots, and native hydroseed mix with existing grasses on graded slopes. 2. Recreation Facilities - If the Applicant constructs any recreation facilities for the project, they shall follow the design and security specifications and review procedures in Paragraph A above. 11. Onrifimtinn Concerning Existing Requirements of EDP 3034-99 A. Wrought iron Fence along Camino Tassaiiara - The Applicant shall either be required to construct or assure the construction of a wrought iron fence (or simulated wrought iron fence) along the eastern half of the frontage of Camino Tassajara (ref. C/A #8.F. of FDP 3034-88). The fence shall generally extend between the residence at #910 Chesterfield Lane and the eastern end of the project (east side of the detention basin). The fence shall provide for a rounded wrap at its eastern end to provide symmetry with the wall wrap required for the approved subdivision (SUB 7613, Garrigan) on the adjoining property. The fence improvement plans shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. At least 30 days prior to submittal of the plans, the Bettencourt HOA, Flood Control District, and General-Services Department shall be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the plans. B. Notifi ration of Buyers of Hillside Tots - The Applicant shall submit for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator a letter to be used to notify prospective buyers of Lots 37 through 46 of SUB 7279 (hillside lots) that the installation of a row of redwood trees are a requirement of the project approval (C/A H.H. of FDP 3034-88). The trees are intended to screen the view of the residences from other properties in the area including Blackhawk Country Club. -7- Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 The trees may ultimately interfere with views from the residences on those lots. The trees must be maintained by the Bettencourt Ranch HOA. 12. Indemnifi awn - Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474.9, the Applicant (including subdivider or any agent thereof) shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Contra Costa County Planning Agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Agency (the County) or its agents, - - - officers, or employees to attack, set aside;-°gid;or annul;-the-Agency's approval concerning this subdivision map application, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37. The County will promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action, or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. 13. ilp�urarle of I andsranz a improvements of Commnn Areas within First Fnnr Phases MH - .T. The Applicant shall participate with the Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association and the County Community Development Department in a process to review existing landscape conditions within the common areas of the first four phases of the project (SUBS 7188, 7277, 7278, & 7280) _ndMhe fl pp �et The review shall lead to a substantial upgrade of landscaping and irrigation systemsrtio �a[�p oveam n#yes. The review shall incturle-address such matters as: • proper soil preparation and amendments; • correction of trees that were improperly planted; • supplement plantings to approximate the level of improvement shown on the original landscape plans approved by the Zoning Administrator; and • provision of an _pprop��ateirrigation system that meets professional standards for the associated landscape and soil conditions. Landscape improvements shall be designed by and installed under the supervision of a licensed landscape architect. Required landscape improvements shall be subject to final review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. Thefif-cjf the approved landscape revisions required by his__process and ail appror!ed gmeruties_shall either-be installed oL assured of installation (e.g., UepoSit of-hilancial rior to finatizatiofflssuance of-the first residential building perrnitspermit within SUB 7279. -8- Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 Prior to acceptance of Final Map 7279, the Applicant shall develop a program for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator that will establish a schedule for the completion of the landscape revie e : v fano Lim _ neo_ ane _ nt s is on eeen : e 11,10 _ 1 This condition to require the Applicant to provide landscape improvements to the common areas of the first four�oi p�ozcsball be waived by the Zoning Administrator if the County does not receive written evidence in a timely manner from the Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association granting permission to the Applicant to install the landscape improvements approved by the Zoning Administrator. Before approving a waiver of this requirement, the County shall notify the Association of the approved plans and allow at least 30 days for response from the Association. cnta n etnT 4t g P C U OC;;R I in 3 =II,JtS ROME ^provaheon�nuu a-o A; lt�»P.�TS�tP/Cnraclrn�-Plan �A rev_�sea.site-pl_Tanf�rang_plan_tha either relocates~I.ots- , 45 or�6-to,their valley-floor location as shown-on the: approved Tentative�vlap or=ehmiate�:hose lots--- 6 1a substantial}% regrades�the area,to __e�"cons�stentwi�the3grading_on 189 UestuigT`�ntan�e Ivap",,except that the_existing-topog�lic_conditions with the c�ripline o�t1�eMtr�e ont shail�►ot-���aite�red 'he�rading�lanshaIl�rov�de�nr �enc��tu�`fit the dripine of tt_ie,tree to-be lnstalle-d�pror to commencement,of fiutherad:uig on_the to �� ��ntechmcat;Fe c ial�rvT��r R�v�w- �f;ane or moreof e gree lots are`sited ashoavn on the approved Tentative Map, thea the plans shall=be accompanied by a report from a geotechmeal engineer_as to the feasibi ity of=the proposed'site plan "Piior„to site;plan approval Ile report shall be_-subject to,;peer ievetw by a geologist retained byahe County The;Applicant:shall cover tte costs°of:the peer,review`: 2) Modifiat �f F►na_ 1 Man Theproposed final.map shall be revised to be consistentwith the approved site%grading-0 an -9- Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 tr e. Waffl� n too.- h __. : . . �c area- s - r :4 WO-N, sc cesINGYNAW,r�n" Yop � 5 Jug W-:�-romggmggg ». rains ADVISORY NOTES A. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. dp953004.� -RD It/10/95 rev.-12/15195 MAS -10- �OV tit U T�r b e M E ° O G r •�� �1 ° Q'•x. µ w E $$7µ FM N ��:; � Y a �` Q a i u O ��•N�� J.. p'�G O i i E3QcEo' `3•`A -.ya� t- o7Ed uo 0; op�cGE g' p a •y.,a �•a E o w c � Y ry {t•� � a L J {y+. N U Q G G U V 7 4 E c U E R VS: G Y K V OG � " • e t p v CZ :�.. � � U �l-�•�j gy=p �6�. VS -Lilt G O 4 ? Q:�o a >-•"3p g o'�� op�:N9�, � o oma: owad c� a0'4goo� E'Os> � ��y'� o U.G W b d ✓ V R O Q O J tY UUU U O •g 03 d'.-•?J -�� �r U E o E tS cz � �D L. o MM 0 In a � co c •� d Siz u LF Ad Cia •� cm 2e.$ c9 IRV E� OD a tgLSki'� UGa� U❑ A V C7 ai c a o. • > o ti9 N_. u g>g ??_ u a c o C O y4> U CG =o c L. k N Ep a� u �r c u lei OE U y 2 c m•. `o u T 6 C v D: C••- c U U x �. o opt $ oFro,c E- ., o E o t K !r Y c .. � •a.�SQ E� 3•y � �p � � u � '2� o�F ��. pc iA v C c 0 _ 2 E E O v u w r' O V 5 y V o v p e ea•G it„^S O J r U V a ° �a o C%l o� 8 ��..J.- G;� i J. : ia,g r u _ A, u� qq c �cc� .:aoE.�_ G U V U u 3 O G � o 0 M O to � v Saw o � u C o a w o u ani w d v 9 me mu Q o ?.Ezu. E -EE c c �•� y' � .oy. $ «D� c v o�s S u a o e a Q E �.c o >. U F x c u D c g CO _«a G ? g o- E >v u E c=z E •> E woo•,c, o > >�.. > YY� 0 3 q� 3 c_v c< u �`u �'-° c 3 :°0 w�- c qa yO E of xE . h `o yv<«7E > EQ aE 5 E _ e °o s o �. 3 •o•E u u G �>' 'G E c > u .•q,• E .o. E- p=_`o '-u'._a G_ u s '� '' u c 6 a _ "E E m u E n E n a 0vo U U < _ N i3 0 v A U Y 9 CL O y .ru.•. Gh O a7 a uO ., C c•� c o t s u a v E 15 C u V 0 0 � ,� �� � • � . � . � � � . %k k? � � �� .� a � » � % %� �� . . �� . % � / � �\�// t � f\\ \\$ . kƒ:�\ a f}%\!\ � �%!6\« � �/ƒ\%\ �^^� /��� �� . : . # t a /� EXHIBIT C CHRONOLOGY PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE BLACKHAWK/BETTENCOURT RANCH AREA DATE EVENT Circa 1976 Blackhawk Approved - The County approves the initial stages of the Blackhawk Residential project. 1977 Adoption of San Ramon Valley Area General Plan - The County adopts the San Ramon Valley Area General Plan. That plan designates the entire site as Agricultural Preserve. 7/31/87 Jensen acquires Blackhawk Residence- Title is passed to the Jensens on the property at South Ridge Court. 1988 Land Use Redesignated on Bettencourt Ranch - After legal notice is issued, the Board of Supervisors adopts the Camino Tassajara General Plan Amendment. That Amendment redesignates the Bettencourt Ranch property for development including the hillside area on the north side of Bettencourt Ridge. 1/17/89 Bettencourt Ranch Project is Approved - After legal notice is issued, the Board of Supervisors approves a Planned Unit Development Rezoning/Subdivision project for the Bettencourt Ranch project. The approval allows for development of seven hillside lots on the north side of Bettencourt Ridge. The notice for the project is published in a local newspaper and mailed to the owners of property within 300 feet of the site. Insofar as the Jensens own property that is more than 300 feet (approximately 700 feet from Bettencourt)there would have been no legal requirement to provide them notice. 8/8/90 BID Referral of Grading Plans for SUB 7279 Area to CDD and Public Works Departments - The Building Inspection Department refers proposed grading plans for the area of Final Map 7279 to the Community Development and Public Works Departments for comments prior to consideration of whether the to issue a grading permit. b. is " � 8/30/90 County Geologist Responds -In this instance, the CDD review of the grading plans did not follow the standard process. Normally, grading plans are reviewed by the project planner for consistency with the project approval. The County Geologist may also review plans where soil stability concerns exist. In this instance, the grading plans were routed to the County Planning Geologist who provided comments on soil stability concerns, and conveyed those comments directly to the Building Inspection Department. Staff could find no record of review of the SUB 7279 grading plans by the project planner. Presumably, the Grading Inspector at the time interpreted the response from the Planning Geologist that the project had been cleared by CDD for all concerns, not just soil stability. The project planner did not learn of the relocated hillside lots until after the grading activity had been substantially completed. Had this come to the attention of staff before the permit was issued, then staff would have required the applicant to file and obtain approval for an amendment to the final development plan before a grading permit was issued. 10/17/90 Grading Permit Issued -Following clearance from the County Geologist and the Public Works Department, the Building Inspection Department issues a grading permit for the proposed grading (Permit#167040). Within a year, the approved grading is substantially completed. 1/29/91 Adoption of New General Plan- The County adopts a new general plan that provides for new hillside protection policies including policies that address development of hillsides with slopes in excess of 26%. The policies restrict but do not prohibit all development on slopes in excess of 26%. 2/7/95 Modification to Final Development Plan is Filed b, the Applicant - The applicant files an application to modify the Final Development Plan involving several amendments including a request to legally establish the relocation of three lots to the north side of the Bettencourt Ridge adjacent to the approved seven hillside lots. The original grade for the site of the proposed relocation had a slope 8/31/95 Proposed Miti atg ed Negative Declaration is Issued - Staff C-2 provides notice of a proposed mitigated negative declaration for the project. The finding is partly based on a geotechnical review by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and peer review by the County's geotechnical engineer that the development of the three hillside lots is feasible. Moreover, the applicant has agreed to several measures to the development of the three hillside lots to mitigate the appearance of the development. 9/14/95 Staff Meets with Bob Jensen- Staff meets for the first time with Bob Jensen to discuss proposed project. Staff also reviews the background of the project including the grading actions and possible actions by the County of the proposed application to modify the final development plan. 12/20/95 San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Action- After taking testimony, the Commission concludes that relocation of the three hillside lots is not appropriate. In approving the application, the Commission conditions the approval on denial of the requested relocation of the three lots to the hillside area. 12/22/95 Appeal of Commission Action by Applicant - The applicant files an appeal of the Commission action including an objection to the denial of the proposed relocation of three lots to the hillside area. 2/6/95 Appeal Hearing Before the Board of Supervisors - A hearing on the applicant's appeal is held before the Board of Supervisors. Prior to that hearing, a notice of the hearing is mailed to Mr. Jensen. CAwpdoc\hiBide.chr RD\ C-3 IW +�.�r i f� •T - \ .,�, :•r,'t.� :r� •.�.:!/moi=''"��.�-ice'/��� t ��,, ti -14 apta I MA FA MINI I NI + . 1 , .� d�a�Q.ye�� ��! � � "fi'''b•, 11t . ..mo o �►�VA IN �tl��.-fit . �� '�,�•�:�� .. � ��� � �� � 4�I � ��� � r�,�..���� r�- ✓ �., t` � ate ` ���i•S.•►.�, 1 t . —:�� :�'s'• f� �� s���,!�ice'\\ t T .54✓ ::«t+''+t=:Eta s�•(� �r��„��/'cr II�i:S��j�f7:?ll��►'R3 �!rl `��f�j'. ` '¢l*r���ri►,'Y"'�. rumm:�a'',! t MW OR v Rk r' r rte/ y, lr 1�,��� �' . �+'� .• ./ -.-!_..., a /�jjloflow ('""'��V _ /.✓���//'.Js�r�j'��/. Z },Yt®It MA 14 1{�`l►J„V� AM I�Ir�i / .- '�-i�/�/�/%������a�dGj�;��t�111�ih.��,�iy�v�`,���►������ R [� �� � y gi FF ter•-.or►�rs� + 1��� �� t Jf Nle♦ e i i + CO/NT OSTA COUNTY TO � DATE y 97'e-�-"40 �• �� FROM SUBJECT 77- / �P - - C� G? SIGNED i�E PLEASE REPLY HERE DATE Ae INSTRUCTIONS•FILL IN TOP PORTION,REMOVE DUPLICATE(YELLOW)AND FORWARD REMAIN4NG PARTS WITH CARBONS. TO REPLY,FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS.RETAIN TRIPLICATE(PINKi AND RETURN ORIGINAL. FORM M103 IDS ?Iry o i s L� 41rl.A- �au K t (tea c�-F- SEP 4 1990 ' ::ONTRA COSTACONTRA COSTA COUNTY au,�o,NG ,�5F COUNM COMMUNITY DEVEMPHENT DEPARTMENT ECTQFT DBTE: August 30, 1990 TO: Larry Gunn, Director of Building Inspection Attn.: Gordon Whitler, Grading Engineer FROM: Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development By: Todd Nelson, Planning Geologist SQBJE PC 48 Grading permit app for Subdivision 729, Somerset Geotechnical Review Terrasearch, Inc. has submitted a satisfactory geotechnical response to condition 23, including recommendations which can be carried out during grading. Terrasearch indicates that slides 1 through 3 (Engeo, March 1988, Plate 1, and Terrasearch Figure 1 of The 1/5/90 report discussed briefly below) are smaller than mapped, and consist mostly of colluvium. An active earthflow occupies the lower part of slide 2, and earthflow landslide material occupies the middle draw of slide 3. The plans are satisfactory as to geotechnical conditions and requirements as submitted to Community Development Department (8/8/90), combining the landslide repair recommendations of Terrasearch dated 1/5/90. Slide 4 is not covered by the report of Terrasearch; Retaining wall retention should provide satisfactory stabilization if the construction criteria of Engeo are carried out. I have frequently asked by phone and by memo to use the wide flat drainage - _ - ditch described by Dave Rogers (Rogers/Pacific) on pages 16- 17 of the June 13, 1989 peer review report to this Department, of Engeo (the former geotechnical consultant for the project). No detail showing the configu- ration of this drainage ditch is available, and Carlson, Barbee, Covert, and Gibson feel that there is insufficient room for the wide ditch without oversteepening the graded slope, already at 2:1. The County standard B-58, ditches should perform satisfactorily. The homeowners association should be aware of the need to closely and fre- quently inspect the ditches, and clean them to prevent overflow and erosion or instability of the slopes below. Uncompacted fill and soil stockpiles located in Subdivision 7279 should be dealt with by Terrasearch recommendations. 2 D. Possible Pian Changes The alignment and connections of Bourne Lane are under continuing review. If the connection of Bourne Court and Bourne Lane will be extended to the south to subdivision 7278 instead of to the east via Green Meadow Drive to subdivision 7041, the grading plans should be reviewed for geotechnical concerns on that alignment. in my absence, the County's geotechnical peer reviewer for the Somerset grading is Rogers/Pacific, Inc., and the project geologist is Mitch Wolfe. Phone 682-7601. Terrasearch, Inc's Tom Makdissy (408) 453-1180 should be informed as soon as it is clear that the route to the south will be se- lected, if, in fact, it is. cc: Bob Drake Public Works Dept., Stan Matsumoto Carlson, Barbee, Covert, & Gibson Terrasearch - San Jose Tom Makdissy Rogers/Pacific Mitch Wolfe TN/Letters A:SUB7279.GRA TN:jn . 10 r 1`� CONTRA COSIA COUNTY { r0_ DATE FROM _. SUBJECT U EP 5130 CONTRA COSTA COtRiP t�TI1t MNG iMt�R " PLEASE REPLY HERE - j4�'-�~�--c�' -DATE_S�i� �� D SIGNED - INSTRUCTIONS-FILL IN TOP PORTION,REMOVE DUPLICATE IYELLOWI AND FORWARD REMAINING PARTS WIT}1 CARBONS,TO REPLY, FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS. RETAIN TRIPLICATE(PINKI AND RETURN ORIGINAL. FDtMM107 L4JW I KA G05Z DJO CA .1 GF 0 9 (415)64 ::TE K UADING/SUDDIVISION—SUn I J:LANT INDLPENDENT CONST SEISMIC PK DED TI-,EET F16O.- BOX 5307 SC!! DIST SAN RAMON URI FLD ZN of TTY CONCORD CA DESC GRADING FOP -SUBD, 72.79 ?-*520 P140HE 415-686-1958 NBR BP NER Ur4 r FCC) i.A DAN ZONE P-i CT 3551*03 FEE CD DIMENSIONS RATE s VAI LOT LUP # 3039-89/25A , 636000 0 100 I(-.,EET 3641 CAMINO TASSAJARA 25C 63800.0 e 000 7( KUSS ST WILLOW PASS 'TOTAL 1276000 101AL 7( IX HCl' *02 NR ST *02 HNSS 902 KNSY .CG REAR YD *02 PLAN CHK PC900547 REVIEWED BY: D; -.- ..—------------------- DATE RECD 08/07/70 ENO RREP DAME CONSTRUCTION CO INC BOX NO 186 ELEC TREET 1975 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD MECH STY SAN RAhON CA GRAD ---------- :141.4 COMTR INDEPENDENT CON T --------------------- -CREET P,O# BOX 5307 RECEIPT # 283.933 11I'3 CONCORD CA SUPVIS GRA 1054" `1.H 94520 PHONE 415-686-1458 GRADPL-NCHK 3514, 0.ASS A LIC # 215611 0000281913 -3529 TOTAL PAID** 10527 k- LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION I twor%affim mm that I am S000d www to pvValons of Chopiter Ith aetirn 1 3 of"Businves arwt Prolessions God*rd mY Icensa Is in lace and effect.a GLASS Amelravol:K I�11 F(CTR Ym)EPENDENT CONST OWNER-BUILDER DECLARATION I tweby affirm that I am exempt from ft Cw**cWs License Low for ft fol_owk-q *am(Sea 7031A Stialness and Protesslons Caft Ani,oty or"Zon MM to constnact alter,ism,derrooligN or"pair any strimrs, b= IT or vj so roquires Vw leant or such pannit to Do a signed statornera ftt he If loommat: :Hers m theof vto b4ntwiors-License Law toupter With action 7000 M at ft Su**"mul Professions Cc*l or VW he Is exempt 0'efforn and the bask fat Itte sbepd exemption.AM violation of SecOm 7031A by any vk8ftl for 0 PWITA Ubjectil Ow applicant to a dvil W04 of not gall 9W 04 hmdrod %ars roo.> 0 as owner *1 Vw xrpemtkn 41 do the VM or "N Wist== a'aps se ft* iscio 044,&tsiness and W=C"Ods:ThWouCon"bactoft Ljoansa L,*Wr Deland lex M- I pot 14an ww of property who hAds or ImIrproves ramn and who tio"victi work IL or 67 a own wrvoY":W=d*d that mach impownents we not intantletl or offered Ur vaiL however,the it j1der will have he Vhm`dakT�p...ObW"hwe wdmdlinrooro kXor0=ku`rvvww= I"let as owner of the~y,am udmlv*contracti wkhk cw* lo 0 wood *dom anst=t ft project(Soc.7044,Btreiness and Profession Coft The Coft4cwt;Ljoangs Aw was not awy to an owner of prop"who h"or hvroy"tfwman.wal who c*,b cts 0 vxh prolem wkh a ow4raclor(s)kwlwContraclor's License Law) 01 emaxon"(alder Sac SAPIT1,811 to"reason pphoant Data WORKER*S COMPENSATION DECLARATION jkr;aWby=that I hkw 0 certificate of aonsant to&04w^or 0 owiffiatq of tion hmarance,or a verVed ow utervol Oe—,3000.Lab C* 4 WC' 0603 798 tjcm,n wRcog Re.00-04Av ) I Coe r. copy Is. h"* funwod l V4 con" copy Loll -Iftlh ft minty bAft wmallst OW"art cant Loll oepat4t 4a CEXCOME=FA EmPnON FROM WORKERS I IN NS SU UR aaa(&O- ( MPP MP RANCE (This section need M be cornploted If to parridt Is for erre lardmadl 0ollant(5100) 1 cw*that In the Womnance at ths work for vvied ft IS krisd I at whPlay &V Pww in any mwww so a to bow subject" to the Workers' ;mvensatiom Ls"of cimornia. IOTICE TO APPLICANT: —Dole 9,Offer altakft INS COMIl"to of Exernption,YOU the Workers' LabwCodey--== I., asaf gre-volked CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY that Owe is a 0CZ�tJ0nCrdOV agency for ft a of VO, EXPIRATION DATE-- IS 3097. C pwkmwwc AvtSorfty �llw=permit Is isuied BUt-DING PERMITS(180 DOTS) CCC 72-6 0 10 GRADING PERMIT(180 Days CCC 71".1408 MOVING PERMIT(00 DT) CCC 714-6202 MOBLEMOME(6 Momft TITLE 25,CAC. UNLESS EXTENSION ALrr*H ED IN WRITING BY THE DEPT. N N I IN winiNo APPROVED 1 certify that I ewe read Itis apptication and state UW the wove imlomution Is correct Ga. I agree to co"with an cry and cminty ordinances end stat*Is,"rotating to wwvv wmv O"t By, Date :&"t*rmnm"twObY svthwU#f*Pf#lemStIv4l 01 this COWY to adw uPm tho above w.040..I>.8001.9 In.p.,u.. nOM $7qqtytw.S 110 a & < <- CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT V I Tfft> INTER-OFFICE MEMO Cj ?LAly DATE: � �G.` TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S FROM: SUBJECT: MS TRACT APN Please review and answer the following concerns, and return a signed copy to the Grading Section. Yes No N/A 1. Have all COA's been met? 2. Are there any special conditions that apply? [] [ ] [] 3. Are there any concerns regarding trees and creeks? [ ] [ ] [ ] 4. Is a CEQA Review required? [ ] ( J [ ] 5. Is there a notification process which must be completed? [ ] [ ] [ ] 6. Is the project design consistent with the approved site plan? { ] [ ] [ ] Comments: Signed Dated *Any comments of the County Planning Geologist shall be routed to the Project Planner for final clearance from Community Development Department. Rev: 10/11/957 "� ' •Hoiliculluml Consuilams a �' s s i r � u HORT INC April 11, 1996 Mr. Bob Drake Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez CA 94553 Subject: Oak tree Lot 44 Bettencourt Ranch(Tract 7279) Dear Mr. Drake: Dame Construction is planning to continue development of the Bettencourt Ranch project. In reviewing its plan,you became concerned about a large oak tree growing on Lot 44. You requested that I inspect the tree and assess its suitability for preservation. This letter summarizes my observations and recommendation. Observations at the Site I visited the site earlier today. Pat Touhey of Dam6 Construction and Bill Lloyd of Atlas Tree Service met me and showed me the tree. Mr. Touhey also reviewed the development plans for the lot. The tree in question was a large, mature valley oak(Quercus lobate)with a trunk diameter of 40". It was in very poor health with severe branch dieback throughout the crown. Branches up to 6"in diameter had died. Most of the canopy foliage had originated from epicormic sprouts along the branches and not from normal shoot tips. There was also extensive decay in the base of the trunk. On the north side was a cavity, with an opening approximately 6"x 12" in size. The cavity extended deep into the trunk. An old, 6"diameter adventitious root emerged from the cavity opening. There were also areas of dead bark and decay on the northeast and west sides of the trunk. Recommendation The oak was in very poor condition and had significant decay in the base of the trunk. There is a high probability that the tree wlll either die or fail in the very near future. I know of no arboricultural treatments which could restore its health and provide good structural stability. Therefore, I recommend that the tree be removed. If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, r P.0,Boa 754 James R.Clark, Ph.D. Pieasanlon,CA W66 Certified Arborist WC-0846 Phone;510 484 0211 FAX:510 464$096