The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04021996 - D10 � t D.10 & D.11 TIS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on April 2, 1996, by the following vote: AYES NOES (See below for vote) ABSENT ABSTAIN: On March 12, 1996, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the hearing on the appeals by Dame' Construction Company (Appellant and Applicant) and Shadow Creek Residents Association (Appellant), from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the application (Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association, owners) (County File #3004-95) to modify the Final Development Plan (County File #3034-88) and Vesting Tentative Map 7188 for Bettencourt Ranch, Danville/Tassajara area; and the hearing on the appeals by Dame' Construction Company (Appellant and Applicant) and Shadow Creek Residents Association (Appellants and Owners), from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the application to modify the Final Development Plan (County File #3010-86) for the Shadow Creek project to allow for the realignment of an approved road alignment (Fleetwood Road) through Parcel A of Final Map 7041.(County File #3003-95), in the Danville/Tassajara area. Dennis Bary, Community Development Department, presented the staff report and addressed the issues as requested by the Board on March 12, 1996. Supervisor Smith opened the public hearing, and the following people presented testimony: Edward Shaffer, Appellant, Shadow Creek, Norris &Norris, 3360 Blume Drive, #200, Richmond; Robert Hora, Shadow Creek Residents Association, BCAM, P.O. Box 555, San Ramon; Eric Hasseltine, Dame' Construction Company, 3182 Old Tunnel Road, Ste E, Lafayette; Richard Gorman, Engineer for Dame', 5000 Executive Parkway, #125, San Ramon; Kathleen Carpenter, Dame' Construction Company, 1676 N. California Blvd., Walnut Creek; Sean Absher, Bettencourt Ranch Association, Miller Starr & Regalia, Oakland; Stephanie Bregante, 3316 Green Meadow Drive, Danville; Dave Williamson, 3324 Green Meadow Drive, Danville; Julia Ihurnis, 507 Buckingham, Bettencourt Board of Directors, Danville; Tom Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville; Darrell Kajiolen, 3323 Green Meadow Drive, Danville; Bob Jensen, Homeowner's Group of Blackhawk on South Ridge and South Eagles Nest, 200 South Ridge Court, Danville; Robin Bregante, 3316 Green Meadow Drive, Danville; Joey Bregante, 3316 Green Meadow Drive, Danville; Nancy Mulvihill, 4490 Fleetwood Road, Danville; Shelia Savage, 4484 Fleetwood Road, Danville; Mary Case, 1159 Cheshire Circle, Danville; Joyce Jensen, 200 South Ridge Court, Danville; Linda Crowe, 214 South Ridge Court, Danville; John Compaglia, Engineer for Dame' Construction Company, 5000 Executive Parkway, #125, San Ramon; Richard Case, 1154 Cheshire Circle, Danville. 1 r. All those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the issues. Supervisor Bishop advised that a separate motion would be made regarding the three proposed lots, and moved that the following be considered as a Declaration of Intent and that the hearing be continued to April 16, 1996: 1. The applicant would retain the right to proceed with the extension of Fleetwood Road along the upper alignment pursuant to the 1989 Vesting Tentative Map, or elect not to proceed with the extension. If the applicant chose to go through Green Meadow, then Fleetwood Road would be built out as a cul-de-sac, and the cul- de-sac would be finished with the same property alignment that now exists, and the work would be completed prior to recording the final map. Also with that alternative, drainage ditches would be installed on the hill at Fleetwood for drainage and erosion control. 2. The Bettencourt Homowner's Association would retain the $62,500 settlement from 1994. The public trail would not to be built, and in lieu of the trail Bettencourt Homeowner's Association would be paid $107,000 by Dame' prior to acceptance of the final map. 3. The traffic signal at Mansfield Drive would be completed and improved at Dame's expense, pursuant to the agreement that included Danville. 4. A trail would be built from Cheshire to Mansfield. 5. The parties would agree to participate and go through binding arbitration to settle the landscape issues within the next few months before any new building permits were issued. 6. The sum of$10,000 to be paid by Dame' Construction Company, would be set aside for the Bettencourt Homeowner's Association's tot lot, and would be paid prior to the close of escrow. 7. The sum of$12,500, for the wrought iron fence, would be be paid by Dame' Construction Company prior to the close of escrow. Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion, and amended it to include direction to the Community Development Department staff to monitor compliance of the proposed conditions. Supervisor Bishop agreed to the amendment. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, Torlakson and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Smith ABSTAIN: None Supervisor Bishop moved to deny applicant's appeal from the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission's decision on the request to relocate three lots to the hillside area. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. Supervisor Torlakson stated that he would not be supporting the motion based on his concerns regarding the proposed three lots. 2 The vote on the motion, was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Rogers and Bishop NOES: Supervisors Torlakson and DeSaulnier ABSENT: Supervisor Smith ABSTAIN: None Following further discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier moved that the hearing be continued to April 16, 1996, at 2:00 p.m., and directed that Community Development Department staff present alternative language and findings as expressed by the Board. Supervisor Bishop seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Bishop, Torlakson and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Smith ABSTAIN: None I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED April 2 . 1996 Phil Baerk of the Board of Suped ty Adnri strator B kWC5 'A� Barbara S.rooly Clerk 3 �'D 10 -2--. ' Contra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISOR a Costa S o! - ., County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT cOsry couK� Jv 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 RECOMMENDATION(S) & 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 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS "I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Bob Drake (510) 335-1214 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED Dame Construction Company PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Bettencourt Ranch Res. Assoc. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Shadow Creek Res. Assoc. AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 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 directe staff to prepare a chronology concerning development in the-aac Ranch 1 area relative to hillside development, and to propos mechanisms so as to avoid future inconsistencies between permit e grading activity and project entitlements. CHRONOLOGY OF AREA HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PAP 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-1 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 ption 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 SORA, 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 hall be � 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. �A 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 'th the map. The construction of the cul-de-sac r provements shall be completed, or contractuallysured, prior rn t- f'i�„_�g�f th nal map. B) f r - x Fin7 7 r h and to Annex to Shadow Creek - The app scant s a 1 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; �e 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 ; xe.:.; pt ,.;;;;or six months has passed from the 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 SCRA when escrow closes for each residential lot sold if the area of Subdivision 7279 is annexed into the SORA. In the alternative, if no j annexation takes place, $3,000 per lot will be paid by the applicant to SORA 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 Retirement 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 _andscape improvements to the first four`phases or 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 IV1� 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 Tassalara/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 tb 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. J 5. Substitution of "Other Duly-Constituted HOA" Language - UntiT=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. Als 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. r y 3. Add the following as conditions of approval: A. Cheshire Circle/Mans ; 7d 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 Buckingham Dr; Te Entrance/Wrought Iron Fence Improv m nts - 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 HOA/Applicant Ag—r m n - 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 Lotrmprovem n ts a Buckingham Drive En ran elwrought 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 Zlt 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 tit 1.A to which the applicant indicated that they have agreed to install. 6. Bettencourt Ranch.' b,) Betention of Cash Payment Associated Prior Bettencourt Ranch /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 AppT i n Bettencourt Ranch HOA to Resolve Landscape Issues within First Four Phases o� 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. 11, Disposition of Relocation of Three Hillside Lots (Proposed Lots 44 45 and 46 within SUB 7279) A. Deny the Applicant's Appeal Barring the Relocation of Three Tots 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 50a 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. 'It 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#11.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. C. Same As 'B' but with added Visual Requirements for the Padded- Lot (Lot:-44) ,7, 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 off=-story with the height of the structure(s) not e ng'�JS�feet above mean sea level (AMSL) . (The 3/13/92 gradin rig 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/irricratiQn 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 m ' L 44 v n 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 ani 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 neat 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 -MMMT SSION 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 50*1 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. cAwpdoc\dmW.bet fLD% 10. 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 Company- Owners) _.e "_ _ - vZumonMM 4 ` an? 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. Conditinnt ct_ f Annrnval 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. Fle-etwnod Roa Modifac atians - 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. -Q tr tr hnf nn fall nw-,fie_18 Drive - C--amino Tassa__jara Traffic S�� - 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 Paue 398) to a Road Improvement Trust (Fund EXHIBIT Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 No. 819240-0800) prior to recording the Final Map for Subdivision 7279 as amended by Modified Final Development Plan File#DP953004. 5. _ below;facilities as speculed . is—etc_ graded 1111V Ud VII INULLII 11C plial Df-at B. largely on %'ounty #3038). ---C. esi t1n1b-l7rfP�`iv'ate-irai-�1; ---T+e-pians-and-estimate-shah-b ng h9 be--providzan oPPO sirnroftire -2- 111 11 1 IE 1 • • 1 1 ' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 " • 111111VAMINI I INFUJIM 11111-11 LAll I I toll MIJIM 11 IMP-111I.—IllY.1 willA YY• 1 1 1A / - Iw - �- •�1 1 .1 1 - V:A V/ t1 11 i �+tl- Y1 11 i - 1 1 1 - .1 1 . 1 1 1 • 1 - /1 1 I I I I I I I KI 1 1r.R 1E 1 .1 I 1- K 4 I" G V:R 4 tE I 1 E IPJ I I L.73 I twS!1 1 - .11 Lim IVE €` rDMON� 5 � €' �' €� _ •_�_ 0 We e � e� ��°�s 1&��@ �@� '��'E/n .+ 3_� $��-��€116€Y`�� 9i#i�•1� G�e�E � �_� '(1�v € �i•o E � �p'I��a �!__� ��fe_,�k �1•�� ._��e€ € � a��1'€.� iE€3 E� 9e` @ @ e� a � .1 toll @ :=3t@ "�.4 .z g daE Ve • -. F�1 >R� c n / &@ "E. e E ED- OR e '�-'.=..m_�.�::.:--- '- -' - _ � .vim-'•�=��a'm"".' _ a '_,—,:�`-`--=-g.�-- — - 'rg - ®. -1 a•��E"@ ® .:'�� @ 1 e��s ��"r~� �1 - =:'r-- _n Y`n. -a ®�..�1�._ 'e-�"��E e..a" .-€a ®Iv� � �� ® e691ae,n. �.•_ ®a1 71'- . • . /n € 1 .§ ' € @ €��, E . 1 Ir• 0 6 @ . 1 6 oil w c € n 1 _ � G - .ti� ��g 1 1,, �r�E�a �•..��- �� 1" €- 9��€€`�� '�' .1 a �a s a�. 1 F • a1� - / - �r 0 E 'E 0 0 - 16 6 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 . 0 i 0 •0 1 &- Ji- Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 rriln i��itu ' " tt r�venri "; ra ��laias shtfi - - Il 6. Proof of Pmnerty 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. . t_ her Modifications to FDP 3034-8R A. Flimination of Puhli ./Private Trail Constrnction Rennirement -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. r - __ Surro�at� ara��rnen l�.ns- ora acce�taz�c £�'u�i�l��'��,��-the �- � - eit�ae� aex �anosape ct�trtohe pla�nsbXallncld ll WVOI mg- 45 �Pprpct�esiioprparttrtmprouemnts the plansnci?st esttrnates� halle sub�eettotheb Administrator review and approval The declsron-ofthe �ontngdm�rustrar shall he sharedw�th theHOA The preparatron acrd acc ptani e f hes laps rs rnteruled olely to prpvzde a method df e PT atrtzg the cast burcenthathApaliCant is to bear f or provrdtrrg equrvalerlt value to W Bettencourt 14anF forafl�µer recreatiat facilrres©f equt>>alent cost Equivalent Financial Contribution for�Qther Project Recreation Improvements:- Prlorto acceptane�of Final,Map 7279; theAppllcant sha11'make=an�equtvateriti -4- Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 PW Abu txient f Mons ac t�UP& =U •en1�.. ; _P' (� �°- StZ1to��17�� tit�:l ;�'� �... �et�ed�a��as�tr bettor B. - he iequirmnent-to construct a pedestrian/jogging trail that e l�asirc-as-specrfied-in-Ef-A - purposes-ofd facilities oft co residents-.—The. funding--may-be-ap Cprojeet 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. CMZ-el nticn-of DetPntinn- n,- ii A7 ea art f- nt- nd7 nf6rmal-T'nrfed-Pja�rfi_e-Irl--he request-to-rciocate-the-required-tot-lo rfed-playfieid-(ref.-C-tA - #5 A-and�#7 of��P 3V-) 0 �rea�ert-IcnoH area-on- ottingh —Priorto-construction-of-these-faeiiities the�1-ppiicant-shali-provide-evide -OA-has-given permission-for-these-facilities-to-b ottmlgham-s-ite7 -5- 'a'7"• P _ hk ;• 4t .:h... JrxY'^"±14Y5 ' �.r $y Fc,: `R°fi' 'ffi WV"T '-isW„j+' ` 3K o' n Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 1=11 site, then die Applicant shail make a financiat contribution tobamsed-for development of other BCttenC0Urt.Ranch recreational facilities wheirptans-am proposed by die HOA mid review I ii I a p-6-'ved by the Zoning Mnftnistrator- lans are approved-. r i Dw. - - - - - &46) to a liffiside site is approved as shown on tile site plm! g. Mitigatinn 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 restrictions applicable to Lots 44, 45, and 46 within SUB 7259-,-and recreational facilities. 9, Flertro-Magnetic Field (FMF) Notification - 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, i ands ane 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- _ s 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 - r 1. SUB 7279 Common Area-The Applicant is required-to-provide-, 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. C_larifimflon Concerning Existing Requirements of EDP 30-14-88 A. Wrought Iron Fence along Camino Tnssninrn - 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 ME 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. Notification of Rowers of Hillside Lots - 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 O.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. Indemnification - 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 arnul 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. Upgrade of I nntlSeape mnrnvem _nts of Common Areas within First Four Ph ,gag MI 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) n' ONT oaaW ' The review shall lead to a substantial upgrade of landscaping and irrigation systems& ria .MMM t The review shallmclude-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 irrigation:.. _ .irri ation s stem 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. dire 11 approved landscape revisions required by thts process and all„_-----Mi ecl menities hall either-be installed ., prior to fircaiizatirntissfiance of the fust residential building pernrrtspermit within SUB 7279. -8- +L;"s 44.i:'r 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 BMW -e miff's This condition to require the Applicant to provide landscape improvements to the common areas of the first four -of pmject-shaR 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. -T ®11 11 _ In &I ,p - i - p o.:va ,,�-;_;EN �A� 12�fiefi"if/Cr��P1a'n.=A rev.�sed s�te-plan��ra�mg��an tha�ei relocat4es�;ats ��45;or 46� their vailey�oor�l�ocation as show�n�e �ppr.�OVe�1�Penfatfye�-iyap�o�elimuiate�thos�sots�altogetier,-and�utan�y _..: -.-_-. _ re rales the�area tom a�nststent�wi��the ra�c m �on��89� e t Te�'nfat;�' e ivlap x p that the extstin pog htc conditions wltfi they pne tee. o�t shai�ot��alter Vie- dln�yPlan�.�h._aT��r�v�ct �fo�ra��_fie �n -._ the dripYine-Yo��e2tre��o�elnsta�l�nor.to oc nmenc,�men�of� -�,�er. __ _ - on�tihe site 1 ntP�hn eat Partti%l f�"r and-i?-WR view d of e of xrlore-of e t at e .z lots are sited-�s�hown on_the appro�edSentattve Ma��then�the,�p�ans shall�be accompanied by�a_report from a geot�chntcal engln�er�a�to the feasbilityof the proposed site plan`nPrior to site plan approval,die report shall bercsub�ecf o„peer,reveiw by,a geologist retame by the County The Applicant shall cover the costs of the peer review 2. Mcul�f�cat�n cif Fina_ 1 1ViaT `74 the proposed final.-map shall be revised to; site be.consistent with,the approved /grading plan: -9- {'If - - 3 • p•y, ':- tr', .. ? ..z; _ �., a.rift'firyi Conditions of Approval Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification File #DP953004 IN - = Ing ADVISORY NOTES A. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. dp953004.coa i vloros rev.-12/15/95 1'f31"/9G -10- o F, E + E >^ d C >^ 6 e'-VAt�iQ uAmC] `o P _ =N d O C 6 d C — c D c 5 c- 3 ao a a s E E M . o LL Es ow 5 0`c a N b& E u c N EE _~ 8 i :22:o.s. 9r �3s c;c �s3 z t E c E ay b� o. < O � t7 C) O E L z•. U " L W L A L o go- -or 0 v 1° " yy L �` � CopaaQ E �.A-� �•cOO�cs o N .Vii W A b o - H m ., 3 .u, E L o o o t w .� O= C A " u EXHIBIT B OD M a � •on� a S. d o � cs 3 " d C w oo a� � ° 0 0 " C O a8m a ° $��• a o_ t u •« Q C O < G N at` EyQv { c C E E � W o I " c E " t:� �c E > ,`S Q U A A 0 20: 9 i I.p�Cai 3 rn 'X; � ° 5 -go z �I �• IIc Z ; EE3u l:K � CstZ; ccWcv aria I . a E w.aoi`� a s'• o 0 � �. ��T��°i F`iE �•`��-k.� U 3n:E ia. !!tt•FFFs WWW�: , v o 0 O O r ,c E " °0 3 v! u= d q y c-a y o o c o.t u W 22 o c E off°' " m c `�• 0 T o y•K „ s c N v c °o u u '� " > o 2--o 0 10 a G a o f 30,10 a ' c 2 „ _ o u m u E d..[n u.v a c 0 o E s c c v c, Eo t_ UC 8.0.3rJOI .a:c o=vC"- '> cc a 0 M O tn O O O � 4 a C 1 8 C O a o cz bo oa > a SQA a+ O � c G � c 4 O O b ��C e O C Q ' O U�yy 14 4� O �a c N O G O W C. a fj c Io ..U c Es . A � G a nv v's� .coW zu: ' k G; ....� .. p3 .., ^} t v -aw-� U " } Q > O O G j -o v z c u n 9 v 2,E 2 E $_ C 4. O O QQppvM1 �� GGG111 .o d O ,� G O (�i IOU d .r d �t T O u m M a y v u - N g W C �• G� � O A O� o � C a� A O U G Y 20 C i ^. *• �� w•,�0{ 00^.� cpoua�a � w�oa3 a ovaQ�>L'� or. V„'Ap•3'� X E '"pp•G `�L'w .~O. J Tigqi yA. O C u O ? 4 E u 9 ^' C O C U zIg 4,UO U•� O A Y p'r O V h t G w8 r u -' O d p O Q V ... E L A N U C g F •• "House 0xC [ o vTo • oE•cEFc2E�pE ^yE coH c �... a Q o a�° � �a s �� " �•-` E �.p. c o.a 5 u c u ��a -_ c i_. � E .L°tt� v � u g m e d u E op'.`�•.0 o v o �� c a >.y a v '•=_ na G,=u � c� _._.. •{•��a u� �fO u � o o.� o C b E� � E a a ti U Q c C w c 3a,.:_� v. 3 r�._ U 7� � v O �� OA. C.{... • O q O U•O _ '�a Gh O O C u .� c F,Qog3 owvp c u o a= .FUsNo F s'~ �M 4 V7 a � Q c �- o � a a C4 o � cr :. o v v P� v� L Y T�V •-y L C GNU m zoo 3„ ETA!a'd'�Q -E Ell yL L D Q Q •t fitN.V cCYi C p � •C N Q C.p L c 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. C 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 by 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 Mitigated 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 pplicant -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. C:\wpdoc\hillside.chr RD\ C-3 OOFPI, NOR-1 IA- "I ZI/I v we I HE Mp KEA t�% it/�/ Cl�.sw�a�`''�1;1�'' .'4��'t'f � ��`Z`�,,,.f`�, ,+..j� A IkI W L% AIL will ki �" M A ffis IS, ltk 0 ,C .;�.:t.•.+(s'.:�'r' riff .,j`/af•�, f''-':,.y;fit. � .f !mWM ,� r ��- • /�/til i;.ii��i/�-�i��s_�• '� 13 50 rolo yj if AX 0, iIJIV o%i '��-��•a-� �� «/�/�/e��ii"�✓'" jai�-.' ./� �� ;`�► ��i/ley , q �;;;;��._;_—��,,.,��c,��.,, � /ij� � — �viioiii///��.�ea�r�w,r�<�►�I�A� �'��, -.`11;1�� . ��,iiia i I�f� ��,.,� �, e i�1� •� ♦jam �� Ir�l��:l��Sh �Jf1��. . � F • AVU 1 I • �- CONT OSTA C LfNTY Q TO-_ DATE v �f c . FROM-W-21- SUBJECT 4 f�- ell ' �-" +� It pt SIGNED p PLEASE REPLY HERE 6 TO 1��'�'i� DATE 7Z7,5 , INSTRUCTIONS-FILL IN TOP PORTION,REMOVE DUPLICATE(YELLOW)AND FORWARD REMAINING PARTS WITH CARBONS. TO REPLY, FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS.RETAIN TRIPLICATE(PINKI AND RETURN ORIGINAL. FORMM103 Qs 40 s�L *e� T6QL tA i "a t ,. 0 div j j SEP 4 1590 ;ONTRq c0 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ©uiLbING MS EC Orl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �F1 DATE: August 30, 1990 TO: Larry Gunn, Director of Building Inspection Attn.: Gordon Whisler, Grading Engineer FROM: Harvey Bragdon, Director of Community Development By: ,Todd Nelson, Planning Geologist . � SDBJ$ PC 45Y Grading permit app for Subdivision 7279, 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 Possible Plan 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 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO DATE 70 s 7.2 ;7 SUBJEC"f { �•/�K��% ,ice"' �� CONTRA COSTA CO Plitt DING IN0,R PLEASE REPLY HERE TO _-,.C�� PATE-_<:: A .G [J IC7 SIGNED. �� INSTRUCTIONS-FILL IN TOP PORTION,REMOVE DUPLICATE tYELLOWI AND FORWARD REMAINING PARTS WITH CARBONS.TO REPLY, FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS. RETAIN TRIPLICATE(PINKI AND RETURN ORIGINAL, FORMM103 0�s 3rd Fbocj ATE 16/17'/TO Gr<A[,jNG/SUE:DIVISION-SUFV L J'LANT XNDEPENDENT CONST SEISMIC PK OLD FLD ZN i;,EA. P,O: SOX 5307 SCH DIST SAM RAMON UNa 11-1` CONCORD CA DESC GRADING FOR -SURD. 7279 514S20 PHONC 415-68. 6-1958 NOR SP N18R UN r FL( DAN ZONE P-1 CT 3551*03 FEE CD DIMENSIONS RATE s VI A c Y LOT LUP # 3039-8925A 636000 0 .00 1*:EET 3641 CAKING TASSAJARA 250 638000 e .00 },USS ST WILLOW PASS TOTAL 1276000 'TOTAL ,x 1401' *02 NR ST *02 MNSB *02 KNSY X02----_.-.--------.----------------- :CG REAR --------------------------REAR YD *02 PLAN CHK PC9005117 REVIEWED BY: E .... .....--------------------------------- DATE RECD 08!07;90 ENG ..MER Q DAME CONSTRUCTION CO INC BOX NO 186 ELIC ' REET 1975 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD MECH ITY SAN RAhON CA GRAD ;!583 —-----—--------------------------- - ------------------- 14L: CM!TR INDEPENDENT CONST ----------------------------------- (REET PtO4 BOX 5307 V'4_220� RECEIPT * 2BZ933 11y CONCORD CA SUPVIS GRA 1054 1.P 94520 PHONE 415-686-1958 GRADPL.NCHK, 351 P., CLASS p LIC t 215611 0000281913 -352 -------- TOTAL PAID** 1052 UCERSEO CONTRACTORS DECLAPJJM I hent,m1firm that I am kensed under the pvA*m of Ch8pW,:jc=with -,"-7.000.of Division 3 of'the susime"and pmfosslorm-c4de, le in nd hirst � :1•.. CLI%Ss _,L:",f(CTR iNDEPENDENT CUNST OWNER-1211.1WER DECLARATION I hereby affirm that i am exempt trom the Contractor's Lloonso Law for its folowiry Ason(Ser-7031.5,Suslness and Professions Code;Any.dtY emit to constrwk after,h ova, vi or M* to roq*es ft A For pertlo,file m signed rtaterned that he it kWa*d xsuant to the I==of the cnt,.t.-License L.(chzMar with action 70 DI�a JZ the Division 3 of the Business"PrOf"51crt COde)Or thilt I'd IS fxw* erefrom basis for the alleged#xamptim Any vitiation of=703MI.St�"" Vlcant for a permit$Lbocts the apiolicant to 0 dv2 pertatty Of fol wars t,$500.k 0 as owner of rry employees L a Yroensatiort,wit do the voit." structImrs n1einterZorwontlearsedetrbule 044,Business and Professions Code:The Contractoem,1.1,0erm Law don rot"to an wrier o(WWa'fY who bu4ctlt or kTprov"theroM W who do"011-Kh work hh'40 Or UTM*h a own wrployees, Vial vich ImpVmmults we not Intamrdw or offered fol saile. however,the=Vmlrwirnprovernent is OW Wider will he"the bu-jen of movkv that to did rot tx8d or Mprwa fa lie piipose sale} 0 L as owner of the properly,am exdudy*contracting with Scerd"Mftdors 10 anstroct the pr*ct(See-7044.Business and Professions Code:The Contractor's 1.10ortse &w does not apply to an owner of propm'ty who bunds or knp-oy"tharam and who ocritracts r such P=with jialra�s)ficv==to the Co*wzioes License Law} ner t late Vellum Date WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLARATION that I hi" io t lento'sthereby huranoe"=tfiemdo(09�==(SWec_431$6L0M0,tab Nowlif of 'Y 1 111', 0601 7911 N 0 R r I I L!R C 0 1 t ) ClAr NIA0,04%. is harry furnished C.IT h is wig the coordy bullft hV-5m doi�®r, w comt AWI XA CE S14ATI=;,O� EM�PTION F1,10M WORKERS' SAT,ON NSU COMP SATIONtRANCE x ieglsection need not be cornplated N the pwn*Is for one kIn*W dt>brs($100) il I cartity that In the perfornume of ft work for wfo:h flat I'll 111"d I stag il=�Ml= manner so as to becorm =to to W06"S' Date bOTICE To"PLtCA.NT:9,after making this CastifirAtat of ExtoptioN you sho.Ad WIT, .rbject to the Workers' the Labor C....you.t='= VISED provisiotis or CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY EXPIRATION DATE- Authoi� I twc=firm that the, is a cointsuvction lancim o9occy for the pedonrwme of the for e BL�DNG v.y.) CCC 72-6.010 cork INS permit is tssueil(Sea 3097,Civ.C,) GRAO WG PERVT(ISO Drys) CCC 716-4.1408 mOvw,PERMIT(90 Days) CCC 714-6202 IACeILEHOME IS Mwv-4) TITLE 25,CAG L"ESS EXTENSION ktfnt ED N WRITING BY THE DEPT. tI (F APPROVZa c I certify that I have read this application and state that V-0 above Wom0tiw is Correctagree to complywith ancAy andcounty ordca " and state laws rotatrn 16 buldirog Bukirn DeO',By —Date and hofeby authorize Mx#*entBltvel 01 this 00u4 10 enter LPM Vabove R.W.0444.1> _,I d2W; y'for�SpeC 10 + CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT V S � . INTER-OFFICE MEMO DATE: TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT* 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? [ ] ( ] [ 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 `i clearance from Community Development Department. Rev: 10/11/95 i ■Hoaloultutal Consultsus "! ■ ■ r ' HORT ' IRC April 111, 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 Dame 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 will either die or fail in the very near future. t 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 feet free to contact me, Sincerely, Lo ■P.O:Box 754 James R. Clark, Ph.D. Pleasanton,CA 94566 Certified Arborist WC-0846 Phone:510 484 o2t1 FAX:510 484 5096 POSSIBLE ADDED/MODIFIED DESIGN RESTRICTIONS FOR PROPOSED (Hillside site) LOT 44 (Graded Pad Lot) BETTENCOURT RANCH April 2, 1996 The previous design restrictions identified in the Staff Proposed Initial Study and Mitigation Measures applicable to proposed hillside relocation of Lots 44 - 46 would be applied to Lot 44except 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. c:\wpaocULoW.not RECEDED s MAR 2 5 1996 March 22, 1996 388 Paraiso Drive CLERK BOARD CONTRAC COSTA CO SUPERVISORS Danville, CA 94526 ' Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Martinez, CA Dear Board Members: We are writing to support the voiceless constituency in the Bettencourt Ranch Development dispute, namely the prospective new home owners. We have attended all of the local planning meetings, but did not venture to speak, as it would have been a lost cause in the cacaphony of charges and counter charges. But as this process apparently nears a conclusion, we want to offer you our support and appreciation. For over a year, we have had money down on one of the three lots under consideration. We don't pretend to know what road is best, but we do know the three lots are not nearly the visual concern that some of the Blackhawk lots across the valley are. We do know that 48 families and probably many more will be grateful to you for bringing this process to a conclusion so that we can move on with our hopes and lives. Sincerely, Richard M. Christensen Kristine A. Christensen UENI . OF KEHL ESTHTE TEL :916-227-0925. Mar 08 '96 14 :40 No .006 P .02 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINES6.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON.Gowffw A OEPAIATMENT OF REAL ESTATE Enforcement Office FLRECEIVED 2801 Broadway ROF P. O. Box 187000 Sacramento, CA 95818-7000 (418) 227-0864 su PKC NTRA COSTA CO March 8, 1996 Thomas Mulvihill 4490 Fleetwood Road Danville, California 94506 Mr. Mulvihill: The Department of Real Estate is currently involved in an inquiry surrounding the sale of homes by Dame' Construction in the Bettencourt Ranch project. This correspondence will serve as our response to additional questions/concerns which were raised in your letter, dated 1/16/96, to Commissioner Antt. You were requesting additional investigation by the DRE, focusing specifically on: 1) The premature release of surety bonds obtained by the developer to assure completion of common-area improvements. 2) Substandard, incomplete and nonexistent work for improvements which the bonds themselves supposedly guaranteed completion of. 3) The obligation of the DRE to ensure that subdivided lands are developed appropriately and the regulatory authority of the Department to correct extreme deficiencies when they are shown to exist. The following narrative will address each issue. 1) Prior to the issuance of a public report, an application for the report is prepared by the developer. A specific section of the application advises the DRE as to how the developer intends to arrange, lien free, for the completion of common-area improvements and facilities. This is usually accomplished via the use of completion/surety bonds. These instruments are purchased by the subdivider from an insurance carrier. Enclosed you will find a copy of Bond #B1686119 purchased by Dame' from Reliance Insurance Company. The DRE is not a party to the bond. Since this is the case, the DRE has no authority to prevent its release. In order to obtain the public report the developer is simply required to provide us with a copy of the bond. This leads to a unique scenario which you are acutely aware of . Kindly refer to the bond and you will notice that the Bettencourt Ranch Homeowners Association is an obligee for this particular bond. This means that the association can vote to release the bonds. In the initial stages of a project, the developer creates and controls the association. DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL =916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :41 No .006 P .03 Letter-Mulvihill March 8, 1996 Page Two Essentially, either all or a vast majority of, the association board members are under the direct control or may in fact be employees of the subdivider. A meeting on 2/22/96 with Community Associations Consulting, the managing agent for Bettencourt Ranch Association produced direct evidence of this. Enclosed you will find a copy of the Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting held on 7/13/93 . You will note that four of the five directors, Rick Dame' , Scott Finn, Richard Robinson and Diana Frizzelle work for the developer. At this meeting Rick Dame' , the son of Carl Dame' , requested the release of four surety bonds; B1686111, B1686113, B1686114 and B1686134. These bonds, which provided for over $2, 000, 000. 00 in coverage, were initially obtained to assure completion of walls, streets, landscaping and trees. You will also note that a "landscaping committee" had walked the area and was satisfied as to the completion of the improvements. In conclusion, existing legislation, which has not been proposed or enacted as a result of the efforts of the DRE, has created the scenario where the association and the developer, in the initial stages of a project, are one and the same. It does not require a rocket scientist to determine the group(s) responsible for the enactment of the existing body of law. If an economic benefit is to be gained and the subdivider desires to "guide" the association in accordance with his/her wishes, you are painfully aware of what \the end result is. Since the DRE is not a party to the bonds, we cannot compel the entities who are, to act in a certain fashion. 2) Since the developer does provide the DRE with a copy of the bonds, we do request and are provided with a planned construction statement. This statement will identify common-area improvements and facilities to be completed. Enclosed for your review is the planned construction statement attached to bond #B1686120 . You will note that the descriptions of the improvements to be completed are minimal at best. For example, the developer, in this phase, will be installing 164, 400 square feet of landscaping with irrigation, trees, shrubs and ground cover. This is the extent of the description for these referenced improvements and, more importantly, this is all the subdivider is obligated to provide to us . As a result of this, when there are assertions of substandard or incomplete work, the DRE does not posses the authority to intercede in what is essentially a civil matter since existing law doesn' t require a substantial description of the specific improvements to be completed. A County Building/Planning Department, prior to the issuance of a Final Subdivision reap, requires detailed plans from the subdivider which outline what will be constructed, where/when/how it will be constructed and whether the construction meets local building codes. The DRE Subdivision Section does not possess any legal right which would allow deputies to issue Building Permits, Notices of Completion or Occupancy Permits; said items which do appear to fall within the province of county building inspectors. We have no statutory authority to regulate the quality of work performed by the developer. I DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :42 No .006 P .04 Letter,-Mulvihill March 8, 1996 Page Three When the developer is trying to obtain a Final Subdivision Map they usually employ the services of a number of civil engineers which will hopefully enable them to satisfy existing building requirements for the county where the development is located. The simple fact of the matter is that the time, effort, energy and money expended to obtain Building Permits/Final Subdivision Maps is considerably greater than that expended to obtain a Public Report from the DRE. with this in mind the DRE does bear its share of the regulatory burden, to ensure compliance with our laws as they pertain to the issuance of the Public Report. It seems apparent that if a particular county will enjoy a continuous revenue stream, from homes in the development, in the form of property taxes and peripherally in the form of sales taxes as the homeowners will spend discretionary income within that county, then they should be held to a higher standard with respect to regulatory oversight when the project is initially developed. 3) The DRE is essentially a licensing agency thus the regulatory authority of the agency is limited to a real estate license or a real estate license right. In most instances a real estate developer does not possess a real estate license nor is he/she obligated to. They are however, with certain exceptions, required to obtain a Public Report, which is primarily a disclosure statement, before they commence marketing homes in a subdivision. We issue this document based on representations of the subdivider. If certain representations are false then we have the authority to issue a Desist and Refrain Order. In a perfect world this Order would effectively halt the sales of homes in a subdivision until the Public Report is amended to reflect or correct any deficiencies. At least one central element must be in place for this Order to be issued; if the subdivision is a phased project, that phase of the subdivision where the deficiencies are located must contain unsold units. For example, if Dame' refused to landscape your particular phase of the subdivision and there were unsold homes within that specific phase, we could issue the D & R to halt future sales within that phase until the Public Report was amended. Refusing to landscape does not include poor workmanship, substandard materials or dead trees and shrubs. We again cannot compel the developer to utilize certain materials or direct the quality of his workmanship, since we are not in a position to demand this from him/her when an application is made for a Public Report. Your previous correspondence also indicated that certain improvements were nonexistent. If, for example, the subdivider did not construct a recreation area and prematurely released a bond which guaranteed its completion, we would focus on that specific phase of the subdivision where the recreation area was located, determine if there were unsold units and if there were, a Desist & Refrain Order would be issued. simply put, if the developer does not build a facility we cannot compel him/her to do so despite the representations to us . DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :42 No .006 P .OS Letter-Mulvihill March 8, 1996 Page Four If the developer continues to advertise this recreation area in marketing materials used for prospective purchasers in future phases then -the Desist and Refrain Order will also apply to the future phases as the marketing materials do constitute a material misrepresentation. As you can see, since the developer approaches the DRE to obtain a Public Report to market homes, our regulatory authority therefore only extends to removing that marketing right. Your concerns almost certainly will necessitate the use of civil litigation. Hopefully this response will provide some insight; if you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. FRANK GERAC/Jt'xo -� E F DEPUTY COMMISSIONER II ENFORCEMENT SECTION DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0_ 92s" , Mar 08 '96 14 :43 No .006 P .06 RIETT'ENCOURT RANCH ASSOCIATION MINUTES of Board of Directors Meeting Date: July 13, 1993 Place: Dame' Sales Office Time: 5:00 p.m. Board Members In Attendance: Rick Dame', Richard Robinson, Scott Finn, Joel Carpenter and Diana Frizzelle. Also in attendance: Don & Sara Barry of Barry Associates. Several homeowners were also in attendance, but a sign-in sheet was not distributed. Meeting called to order: 5:05 p.m. with Rick Dame' presiding. I. GUEST AND MEMBERS George Pacheco and his foreman Steve were in attendance at the meeting to answer questions and discuss the current agreement with Dame', McCall's & Pacheco on common area landscaping. (See attached agreement to official minutes.) Rick stated that McCall Landscaping was willing to change over, on all unaccepted areas, from O'Connor mix to acceptable shrubs recommended and agreed upon by Pacheco. Pacheco will get the name of the plants to the Board for the Association's records. Joel wanted to know what was happening with the dead trees along Buckingham Drive. Steve from Pacheco reported that they are watching the trees which he felt should make it. If they don't pull through, next spring would be the appropriate time to replace the trees. Discussion was held on an agreement between Dame', McCall's and Pacheco to switch to a drip system on the upper slopes of the development. Rick made a motion to accept the recommendation to switch from O'Connor to suitable shrubs and replace the already installed and proposed irrigation systems to drip. This will include Ibnby Ter- race, Westminster, Yorkshire and up the slopes on Nottingham. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Benjamin Culet, 1168 Trowbridge, wished to address the Board regarding the proper notice of the meetings. Sara advised him that notice of all Board Meetings had been published in the newsletter except for the special meeting held on June 15, 1993, which has been scheduled on tonight's agenda to ratifydecisions made at that meeting. It was not an intentional excluding of all members, but rather c the ct that Diana was on vacation and did not get back to put the meeting notice board out until Sunday evening. Don Barry stated that he felt an announcement board could be made to hang on eyelets which could be hung on the building sides. Rick volunteered to make the boards working with Don Barry on the concept. Mr. Culet stated that he will work with Diana to put the notices out on a rotation basis. DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :43 No .006 P .07 set up member meetings after the cabana opens. BLOCK COORDINA'POR Diana agreed to head this committee and work with the women's club in the development to disseminate information when necessary. V. OLID BUSINESS h Rick reported that he has been having trouble meeting with O.C. Jones because of the owners back problems. It was decided that the issue would be discussed at the annual meeting of members in January. Maintenance and Construction Bonds Discussion was held on the bonds Dame' was requesting to be released. Rick made a motion to 3 F i release bond number 1686113, 1686111, 1686114, and 1686134. Diana seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously. Diana reported that the Landscaping Committee had walked the areas and was satisfied that the bonds should be released. .r VI. NEW/NMC BUSINESS Sneed Signs ,— Rick made a motion to approve $450.00 for the purchase and installation of (2) 25 mile an hour signs for Bucldngham drive. He will get the signs and install one oneach side to hopefully slow traffic down. Discussion was held on installing yellow striping on Buckingham. Rick said he would get an estimate on having the striping done to help slow cars down as well. VII. NEXT REGULAR BOARD MEETING & ADJOURN L< r The next regular Board Meeting will be held at the current sales office at 3:30 p.m. as per the agree- ment and will be held on August 10, 1993. Richard and Diana will not be able to attend. Scott made a motion to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. (No closed session necessary). Respectful Submitted ara Barry, PCAM CCAM Agent for Bettencourt Ranch Association Adopted on �G� - Attested by: DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :44 No .006 P .08 Community Associations Consulting For Bettencourt Ranch Association 6375 Clark Avenue, Suite 101 4: Duhlin, CA 94568-3001 Phone (510) 833-0100 Fax (5101 833-1625 February 22, 1996 To whom It May Concern: Re: Board Members Identified: Bettencourt Ranch Association Dear Sir or Madam: The following individuals are referenced as being Board Members of the Bettencourt Ranch Association: Rick Dame' President of the Board - Developer Richard Robinson Developer Scott Finn Developer Diana Frizelle Elected as "homeowner" but worked for Developer Joel Carpenter Homeowner Kathleen Sheehy Developer Lyle Wehrman Developer Kathy Fisher Homeowner Debbie Kennessey Homeowner Kevin O'Rawe Homeowner Al Matthews Homeowner Martin Chew Homeowner If you have further questions, please contact me at (510) 833-0100. Sincerely, lir Paul Weirather, Agent for Bettencourt Ranch Association cc: Chron. Agenda. Unit. Othur: DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :44 No .006 P .09 #iuCit txWcax>�ca DVAWWN r OF RZAL ENTATS Snnntvastcres B014D K*wtplsdon of Commas FaciUdes} it6 M i Qtev-3/89) . Bond Number. B 1686120 Petmisua: $ 5,833.00 llw w of also by tress pns#W. That we DAME' CONSTRUCTION CO„ INC. (Narire of Su&VVidsr) ea Priacipal,and RELIANCE N SURAN CE C-OMPANY (Nestles 00urety) a ooWrrtWn organlzod undoa the Lsws of the State Ofe n n s y v a n=a .,.,r.. and audwrized to trw9set the bobless of surety in the State of California a Surety,are firmly held and bound unto BETTENCOURT RANCH . ( ASSOCIATI(rT (Nam or HonteowneW A.ssoclatton). (1>AWdGaftor mfenrd to as Obligee}in ttu perm sum of Three hundre ,.uty-nine thousand f ive hundred thig;jZeight - Dolim (S 339,536 _ 1 fox'wisidt atom,wen and truly to be paid,we bind outrsaives,our hosts,sdmirdsuators,Nraeseosa and asdgtss,jointly ad savMUy,firmly by fto px==M 7bts bond is given punraaat to 111028.5(a)(2)(A)of the 01if ria Butinm CA Pmfeadons Code to assure U=-fkee Completion of the imply described in Pthicipal's`Planned Consttacdon Statemesat', a cOVY of which Is attached mmmN o and In oxporaaod heseta by reit=w,for the subdivision development known as 3MMICOtMT RANCH PRAS19 11matod in the County of GORM COSTA .�.�- Ste of TQ MIA &my. for value received.?'r' agreat that Ilse meth set forth in Caitfbnsia Civil Code 0225,or similar acts or omissions wtdrA rnigbt release the Surety pursuant to law,shall not in any way srl =Surety from stye obligation of this bond or ee&m Surety's obligation dritander. S+ardy,fbr value mcdved,does hereby waive the right Vm=d to Somy under California Civil Code 62843 to require tit Obligee proceed indepaxuierstiy against Pftoipal to to three this obligatim but eew rva to itself any right under said 12245 to require that Obligee ptviceed,f oinily agaim Principal and Sumy in nny such action The condition of this obligation is such that if Principal ahsll eamplate or cause m be completed said impwvemmm frac cb tn:s on or betimes t#ta lataast compleztttn date specifled in acid"Planned Gotsatruction Staus�we.oz anex via In writing by Obllgoe toPrincipal rin cipal and aue med to to wftng by Sru+ety,then this obligation shall be null and vraid; a.It shall mmain in stili fame and efii:cL, t or action of this band must be tiled within tyro(2')years atter tht:lawn Completion data set forth in Lhe Planned tion Statement or any eatension ttwa+cof given in WrithV by Obligee to Pdnxdpal an asscntcd to in writing by Surety. wnditions mid coverage of this bond have been approvod by ttze Real Estate C,nmm3tsiotxr of the State of d UntoUntowhsrrq�.Fried 9 vW Suety have caused these preseitts w be Qtly ztgna3 and sealed flit: 23rday of ugust ' : ort CO. , INC. RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY yam of Priiwiy40 Stgwarivur S+vYs7 yE'fI MD,n L. Ui y- i 5-1,a '. MR.bear corporate xeal of Surety. if name of state and date of incorporation ate spadfled in seal,Surety's signature not herr Notary's acknowtedgtae M Otherwise,Notary's acknowledgment is required. DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :45 No .006 P . 10 2 rFAOF CALIFORNIA On this........3rd...........day of..... _Tq'5 0.August... ............in the year A Eli. ..................................................................,before me. NTy OF.CONTRA.COST A»... ............ Watkins ...........a Notary Public,State of California. duly licensed and sworn.personally appeared............... .................. ..................Riiqx I ........ .............. personally known to me for proved to me nn the basis of satisfactory evidence) Vice .Piesident to he the person who executed the within instrument as. ....................... orinctall.SEAL or on behalf of the corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that GML 1.WATKINS such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a *CKAPV K;nUC<AUr0RrjL4 CQNTRA COSTA COUNTY resolution of its board of directors. lhc4mm.Eawn Aa.249.I"ll IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed Williia my official seal in the..... ............... County of............ ....... Contra Costa certificate. ...... ..... ..... e spejorth above in th/ jC..M.M.ft MCI V iiN—RV iri,, oMtai ft tW—,w 4"SDWM 11&R%Anw L Notary Public. State al'California 7"it Penn No, 28—Acknowledgement to Notary Public— 1994 AtIon(C.C. secs. 1I90-1190.11—I Rev. 1833 My commission expires April 29 , ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY SURETY OF CALIFORNIA Contra Cpsta __23rd day of in the year 19 9 0 before me Ann F. Bush Notary Public !y app"/ed Mark V. Karnenko ly known to me(or proved to rno on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person whose name is Subscribed to this instrument as the in-Foo and acknowledged to me that he(She) subscribed the name of 1ANCE INSURANCE COMPANY thereto as Surety and his(her)own name as Attorney-in-Fact. EBB VWEREOF,I have hereunto sot my hand and affixed my official Seal. at my office in the aforesaid County, the day and year in this t first 4"ve written- OFFICATAL SEAL At.111 F. Notary-Public .4 4:;"ei:* NOTI'Ry Pt"P'LlcCrIl cowu cjsrA COUUTY VV CGMM.Exciros otc, 14.vn2 h, DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 =45 No .006 P . 11 ., HEAD t7F firs.P1ftLA�tr+ffw.P�>rPfs'. AJrIw PQKR OF ATTOANEY KNOW ALL MEN SY rHEJE PRESENTS.That the RELIAJ4CE INSURANCE CGLOANY,s corporwbn d+Ay orprdaed undw tAa teen•of thin!tats of IAnraylasnis.doss hies Wes tyska.oonsthtrts sed e00saw" MARK V. KARPENKO cf CONCORD, CALIFORNIA is trua and lawful Attorney-irn-Fact,to mise.ssacuiet.wail and deliver for and on its behalf,std as its act and bead ANY AND ALL BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS OF SURETYSHIP --- wall to bind this RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY theroby as fully end to the sane errant as if such bond and ur0arlakings and other wwilinys aNigatoev in the nature thereof .nano signed by an Executive Officer of the RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and sayted and storied by one other at mtech officers,and hereby ratirrea and confirms all that its mud Attar neyfeNn-fact Rimy do in ounusncs hereof. This Power of Attorney ie Wanted under std by oufftorhh of Article VII of the By u0n of RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY which became affectnve September 7. 1979.whidr Provisions are now in full for=and affect,reading as follows: ARTICLE VII — EXECUTION OF BONDS AND UNOERTAKINGS 1. THa Board of Directors,the President,the f?tairmten of the(bard,any Senior Via President,any V'we President or Assistant Vim Pras�dent or other officer dasi"led by the Board of Dirsclors shall have ppawer and authority to fa)appoint Attornoys-in-fact and to atAhorrze them to sxachne on behalf of this CoefVeny, bonds and undsriakings, reroognisances, oontrects of indemnity and other wr.ttngs Obligatory in the nature thereol.and(b) to rernove any tamsh wttortey-in-Fact at any tine and revoke the power and authority given to harn. 2. Athorney■-in•Faa dolt heave power and euthtwity.subject to the terms and limitations of she power of attorney isau44 to thorn,to•.scuta AM dafivw on behalf of the Company,bonds and undertakings,reatgnitAnot,Contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in this mature thaaeof. The conpotale sees is not necessary lot the validity of any bonds and undertakings,rsmgniaancit,oontracts of indsinetity ens other writings obligatory in she mature tle.wf. 3. Anorneys-in-Fact Mall have povw and suthwny to execute affidavits aarrmNad to be attached to bond,=awgnisances,eonteacts of tndam pity or other aondiiioral or obligatory undwte►inga and thry shall also have power and authority to certify the financial statement of the Ccrttieny and I*copies of she fly-laws of the t:oenpany or any article Of sKtron thereof. TAW power of attorney is signed and settled by facsimile under and by authority of the following Posalution adopted by the Board of Directors of RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY at a sitaetioll hold on the Sib day of June, 1979,it w hi;h a Quorum wtts oresanf,and slid.Rasosu_tion ho not boon etrwtded or revealed. "Rasolvad,that the signatures of such directors and officers amid the soaf of the Company may be affixed to any such power of attorney or any certifiots relating that" by fnomile, and any such power of attorney or certificate bearing suds facsimile sigralww or feaimile oaf Mehl be vie id and binding upon the Company and any such power so executed ■nd sonified by faoinnile tiprteturas and faCaimise seal shall be+silo and bindhrtg upon the Cornpeny in the future with respect to any bond or undertsklr>♦to which it is anad►W." W WITNESS WHEREOF,the RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY has caused thesis presents to be signed by its Vke President.and its corporate seal Is: be her afti sed.+Aim 25th der°f April 1989 RELIANCE INSUFLAMCE COMPANY STATt Off Washington f�UNTY OF King All. On this 25th day of April .19 8 9personally appsarad Lawrence W. C a r l s t r o m to me known to be the Vioepresideni of the RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, and atkncwtedpd that M exwxr:sd and attasted It* foregoi- inarurnant and affixed ran peel of said corporation therein,end that Anicha V11. Sactbn t. 7. and 3 of the fly•Law■t of said Company and the Parsolr tion,set forth therein,am still In fall force. rte-. MyCci-ts nuirion FiVirm. May 15 .10 90 = •' Notary Public in and for alis o+ Wash 69 t o n Residir>,of T a c o m a J. John E . Vance , Assistant Sauesary of this RE LiANCE INSURANCE COMPANY.do hereby certify that the above tied fGnivsiny i e In* and correct copy of a Ptww of Attorney executed by said RELIANCE INSURANCE COLVANY.wAtidt ie still in full force and sff qct. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.I haws hervtrrtto set many hard end affixed This asel of said Company this 2 3 rd day of Augus t 1990. oPf1-14jf Ed.a/7f �� Aa.itttanf SecratarY DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL =916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :46 No .006 P . 12 SsATsaFCMXVRMA DUAR•iWT"r of REAL EsrA7E SUBDIVISIONS Pi.ANNED CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT BETTENCOURT RANCB arse 9 $f 1 arcelb Read instructions on reverse RE 611A(Rev.3/89) (Formerly RE 611-11 side before completing. Sae D Cosy F.SMAr=- oR (inchI&M type of conwacdon.maerla/s. EsmATB Comnzno.% ou"' y ekwical&-id mechanical features) DATE 164,400 s.f. Landscaping with irrigation, trees, shrubs, $218,652 8/92 ground cover. 60,000 B.f. Natural slope. N/A N/A 6.10 Acres Natural area. N/A N/A 720 l.f. Perimeter wall of precast concrete, boquet $ 64,296 10/91 canyon rock texture. Subtotal: $282,948 Plus 20% Contingency: $ 56,590 Total: $339,538