HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04021996 - D11 * t
D.10 & D.11
TITS 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 #300495) 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 Barry, 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 Durmis, 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
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 rtunutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
A=TED April 2 . 1996
Phil Batchel erk of the Board
,,Phil
d ty Adrru strator
B 'W Z
Barbara S. t, uty Clerk
3
sF..
.o,�', Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
' s Costa
°' �`�° County
FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON r"
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ^�
Sr%+couK-
DATE: April 12, 1996
SUBJECT: Continued April 16, 1996 Hearing of the Appeals on the San Ramon Valley
Regional Planning Commission decision on Applications to Modify the
Vesting Tentative Map and the Final Development Plan for Bettencourt
Ranch and the Final Development Plan for Shadow Creek (County File
#DP953003 & #DP953004) in the Tassajara area.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Hear testimony, declare the Board's intent to sustain the
Planning Commission's decision, including:
1. Modifications identified under Consensus of Changes to
the Project;
2. Any other modifications chosen by the Board as indicated
in the listing of Alternatives; and
Direct staff to prepare a Board Order incorporating the
Board's findings, terms and conditions.
B. Affirm the Planning Commission's adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration as the appropriate environmental document
for CEQA review purposes.
C. If the hearing is closed, continue the matter to April 23,
1996 (or thereafter if the public hearing is not closed) .
FISCAL IMPACT: None provided recommended application fee payment
condition is imposed.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATUREL....,s� .
_ 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 direct taff to prepare
a chronology concerning development in the -ac awk/Bettencourt Ranch 1
area relative to hillside development, and to propos mechanisms so as I
to avoid future inconsistencies between permit e grading activity and
project entitlements.
U'' t
CHRONOLOGY OF AREA HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
The Chronology related to development of the area and with respect to
hillside development policies is contained in Exhibit C.
At the Board of Supervisors hearing on April 2, 1996, a resident of
Blackhawk, Mr. Jensen,- indicated that staff had indicated to him that
he wad going to receive notice before any grading was to be conducted
on Bettencourt Ranch.
Staff would like to clarify what was communicated to Mr. Jensen. As
reviewed in the chronology in Exhibit C, staff (Robert Drake) first met
with Mr. Jensen on September 14, 1995, several years after grading in
the Bettencourt Ranch area had been substantially completed, and after
the initial Commission hearing for the current proposal had been
noticed. Staff also indicated to Mr. Jensen that were he to register
his interest in the application, that staff would notify him of any
subsequent hearings. It should be noted that Mr. Jensen was mailed a
notice of the Board's hearing of this appeal prior to the initial Board i
hearing on February 6, 1996. Jf
Clarification on Impact of Gradiag
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
SCRA, the requirement for the establishment of a police
services district is eliminated, and other payment provision
has been dropped.
In lieu of extending Fleetwood Road pursuant to the 1989
vesting tentative map, the applicant may elect not to extend
Fleetwood Road beyond its existing eastern terminus subject
to satisfying the following conditions prior to acceptance
of Final Map 7279:
A) Construct Cul-de-Sac Bulb at Existing Fleetwood
r Terminus - If the applicant elects not to extend
U Fleetwood Road, the improvement plans for the cul-de-
sac shall be reviewed and approved prior to the filing
of the final map for subdivision 7279. The cul-de-sac
shall be ter- *�r7 4
ti �/ (Lot 108 of Final Map 7278) so as not to encroach on
that property. The design shall also address the
existing drainage problem at the end of Fleetwood Road
and the plan shall be signed by a geotechnical engineer
certifying that the design complies with their
recommendations for constructing structures in the
project area and repair of any slides, if necessary.
The easement for the cul-de-sac shall extend three feet
beyond the edge of pavement or face of curb. The
easement shall be submitted with the plan and recorded
Fi
th the map. The construction of the cul-de-sac
provements shall be completed, or contractually
sured, prior t- {'1 n of rhe 'nal map.
B) Offer to - x -Inal Ma7 9 from-Bet ten court Ranc
and to Annex to Shadow Cre k - 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 Associa ion. The two offers
shall be in writing with copies provided to the
Community Development Department at the time of
issuance of the offers;
At,
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,
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
annexation takes place, $3,000 per lot will be paid by
the applicant to SCRA at close of escrow for each
residential lot sold.
2. Acknowledge Binding Arbitration Agreement/Grant Applicant's
Appeal with regards to Elimination of County Role to Oversee
Requirement to Upgrade Landscape within Common Areas of
First Four Phases of Bettencourt Ranch - In view of the
court-approved Binding Arbitration Settlement Agreement, it
was the consensus that the Commission requirement (Condition
of Approval #13) to require the County to require and
overview an upgrade 9f_1zndscape improvements to the first
four pli—a-5es of Bettencourt Ranch should be deleted. Except
as otherwise noted below, the deletion would also apply to
other amenity improvements within the first four phases of
IVU 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 Sicinal at Camino Tassajara/Mansfield Drive
Intersection - The Commission approval provides for the
applicant to contribute half of the cost of the development
of a traffic signal for the intersection prior t6 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.
: :
5. Substitution of "Other Duly-Constituted HOA" Language -
Until•'recently : ;it;thad 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.
4#A ALTERNATIVES
The following presents alternatives with respect to two issues: (1)
whether or not to include elements of the private agreements reached
between the Bettencourt Ranch and the applicant as conditions of
approval or as a recital; or (2) whether or not to grant the
applicant's appeal with respect to the proposed relocation of the three
hillside lots within SUB 7279.
I. Reference to Provisions of Private Agreements between Developer
and HOAs
A. As Conditions of approval. Include Elements from Agreements
Between Ap2licant and Shadow Creek and Bettencourt Ranch
Residents Association
1. Verification of Appropriate Payment to the SCRA - Add
the following 'requirement to Condition ##3.
Prior to close of escrow, the applicant shall satisfy
the Zoning Administrator. that the appropriate cash
contribution to the Shadow Creek Residents Association
in accord with the private agreement between Shadow
Creek Residents Association and the applicant has been
made.
2. Verification of Resolution of Arbitration Settlement
Addressing Landscape Issues within the First Four
Phases of the Project
Finding
The applicant has indicated that they have entered into
a court-approved binding arbitration settlement process
to resolve landscape issues within the first four
phases of the project.
The following condition shall be added:
Prior to the issuance of the first building permit
within Subdivision 7279, the applicant shall satisfy
the Zoning Administrator that a resolution of the
binding arbitration settlement agreement which has been
entered into between the applicant and the developer to
landscape issues involving the first four phases of
Bettencourt Ranch has been reached.'
'At the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 2,1996,County Counsel indicated concern with making this
a condition of approval because it leaves to other parties in the arbitration to determine when the arbitration will be
completed.The initial arbitration may not be completed for a period of time(e.g., 1-2 years). Such a requirement
might constitute a delegation of discretion.
5.
3. Add the following as conditions of approval:
A. Cheshire Circle/Mansfield Drive HOA Trail - The
applicant shall construct a trail to connect
Cheshire Circle and Mansfield Drive within the
common area owned by the Bettencourt HOA.
B. Tot Lot Improvements at Buckingham Drive
Entrance/Wrought Iron Fence Improvements - Prior
to the close of escrow of the sales of the first
residential lot within Final Map 7279, the
applicant shall. satisfy staff that the following
payments have been made to the Bettencourt Ranch
Residents Association (BRRA) in accord with
private agreements entered into between the
applicant and the BRRA:
1) $12,500 for tot lot improvements at the
neighborhood park at the project entrance at
Buckingham Drive.
2) $10, 000 for wrought iron fence improvements
within the 'developed portion of Bettencourt
Ranch.z
C. Contribution to Bettencourt HOA per Prior
Bettencourt Ranch HOA/Al2p7;cant Agreement - The
Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association shall
retain the $62,500 cash contribution it received
from the applicant in 1994.
B. As Recitals Only. Reference Pr;va Agreements Between
Applicant and HOAs
The following alternative would adopt findings referencing
testimony concerning the private agreements between the
applicant and 'the Bettencourt Ranch and Shadow Creek HOAs
but would not attach or otherwise make such provisions a
condition of a County approval.
Findings
The Board of Supervisors and the County understand that the
following items have been agreed to be done by the applicant
pursuant to private agreements with the Bettencourt Ranch
Residents Association.
1. The applicant has agreed to provide the following for
the Bettencourt Ranch Residents Association:
a.) Contribution for Tot Lot Improvements a
Buckingham Drive En ran /Wrought 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
I) $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
21 is staff's understanding that this provision for wrought iron fence is for a fence internal to the project
and is not to be confused with the another wrought iron fence improvement to be erected along the frontage of
Camino Tassajara pursuant to C/A#11.A to which the applicant indicated that they have agreed to install.
6.
i
Bettencourt Ranch.'
b.) Rptentidhi of Cash Payment Associated Prior
Bettencourt Ranch HOAIAppliccant 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,) Che,5h re 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 HDA.
2. Acknowledgement of Court-Approved Binding Arbitration
Settlement betwe= Applicant & Bettencour_tRanch HOA to
Resolve Landscape- Issues within First Four Phases of
Bettencourt Ranch
Finding - The applicant and the Bettencourt Ranch
Residents Association have entered into a court-
approved arbitration settlement to resolve landscape
issues within the common areas of the first four phases
of Bettencourt Ranch.
II. Disposition of Relocation of Three Hillside Lots (Proposed Lots
44 45 and 46 within SUB 7279)
A. Deny the Applicant's Appeal Barring the Relocation of Three
Tats 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
Measur-es Recommended by Staff - This alternative would allow
the three lots to be relocated to the hillside site; delete
CjA.;.#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 50p
light reflectance as verified in writing by a licensed
architect.
4. The required off-street parking may be placed within
the front setback area provided that is housed within
a garage.
5. For Lot 44 only, site plans shall be accompanied by a
report from a licensed arborist . which assures
protection of the existing oak tree on that site. The
recommendations of the arborist report shall be
incorporated into the site and construction plans.
31t is staff's understanding that this provision for wrought iron fence is for an a fence internal to the project
and is not to be confused with the another wrought iron fence improvement to be erected along the frontage of
Camino Tassajara pursuant to C/A#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.
i\' � �`.5ti' as cif h-t d•4. t•tf«:.
C. Game As 'B' but with added Visual Reruirements for the
Padded-Lot (Lot 441 -_.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 onLot 44
shall be limited to o�story with the height of the
structure(s) not e ng feet above mean sea
level (AMSL) . (The 3/13/92 gra-ding 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 elan
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 Ligh ina - 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.
v
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 ah action would
necessitate the removal of the existing 42" oak tree on the
lot. However, the County has recently arranged for an
independent evaluation of the tree by a licensed arborist
(HortScience) who has examined the tree and determined that
the tree is not likely to survive in the near future and
should be removed as documented in a report dated April 11,
1996.
Therefore, this alternative would be identical to
Alternative 'C' except as follows:
1. Prior to filing a final map, the applicant shall submit
a revised grading plan proposing to lower the padded
grade of Lot 44 to approximately 948 feet AMSL.
2 . The maximum height of the structure on Lot 44 shall not
exceed 26 feet in height measured parallel to finished
grade.
3 . The oak tree on Lot 44 shall be removed; the
8.
E. CEQA Findings - Determine that the Mitigated Negative Declaration
adopted by the Planning commission is the appropriate
environmental document for the project for purposes of compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
Note: If the Board action allows for relocation of three lots
within Final Map 7279 to the hillside area as proposed by the
applicant, then the Board should direct that the original
recommended residential design mitigation be adopted in its
original form (before modification by the Planning Commission) in
the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program (see Measure ##5) .
AFFIRMATION OF PRIOR-PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS
In addition to the above-listed alternative actions, the following
decisions by the Planning Commission remain in effect:
1. Elimination of the requirement to construct a public/private
trail extending from Camino Tassajara, and running along the
eastern property line to the ridge traversing the Bettencourt
Ranch project.
2. Relocation of tot lot, jogging trail, and turf field to the HOA-
owned area between the Mansfield Drive entrance and the detention
basin.
3. The applicant is required to contribute 500 of the estimated cost
of the traffic signalization improvements of the Mansfield
Drive/Camino Tassajara intersection. (Previously, the applicant
had been required to enter into a deferred improvement
agreement. )
4. 'The applicant is required to construct a decorative fence around
the detention basin.
5. At the April 2, 1996 Board hearing, the applicant testified that
they had withdrawn their objection to the Commission requirement
to install a wrought-iron fence along the Camino Tassajara
frontage, and had agreed to install said fence.
c.Xwpd.kdra/U.bd
RM
10.
y
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)M r emir, - moi
P y )� --eaziiPlau�n
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.
Conditions of.A pprnval
1. The Applicant shall be required to comply with the requirements of Subdivision 7188
and Final Development Plan (FDP) #3434-88 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. Fleetwoo —Road Modifjcafi m - 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. -C'ontzi �ition in Mansfield DEive - Camino Tassaiara Traffic Signaliz to ion - The
Applicant shall be required to contribute 50% of the estimated cost for traffic
signalization improvements of the Mansfield Drive - Camino Tassaiara intersection
described in the Deferred Traffic Signal Fee Agreement (recorded March 12, 1990 in
Volume 15710 of Official Records at Page 398) to a Road Improvement Trust (Fund
EXHIBIT
.y t 7 T• .
Conditions of Approval
Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification
File #DP953004
No. 819200-0800) prior to recording the Final Map for Subdivision 7279 as amended
by Modified Final Development Plan File#DP953004.
5. - -
-uqui-a-tit finaLicial contribution to
-,
Se
-1-Ment0fLeaeal -who design cuid approval could be determ��
supplenient financiat contribution which total iIIIIAGMILICIlt COSt is.at lent equivatent-to
the 1equired-recreati
equivalent. value to the Bettewoutt R rnckfol 01-11M, I VC1 cWtion facilities. Y*ese ",wt-to
PLiVJL to COnStrUCting the below Fa6lities, die Applicant sliall stibmit detailed landscape
detailed inIPLOVInUnt cost estimates b.Y atiC-6-Insed general or landscape contractor. All
draina
(:]xl-and--totlot (Including play equipineno for
gladeLir"1011 area on NoffinglLatir-Drive. Tim plans sliall include provision of-at
a Liu' rel
,111gipedestrian-trail an' related I rilges to encircle the detention basin
r
C.
-- lle p1shall be-subject-to die review and approval UIHILLU Zoning
8th ffit
Opp
-2-
111 11 1 11 1 •
• 1 / ' 1 1 / ' I t 1 1
I I III 1 r.I kv) \ 1 . \ i.o\ 1 r-k .11 e III . IiA
1" Iw • irA� irl \ .1 t - iY.A i+1 N tl i Vtl" Y1 11 � 1 t\ .11\
. \ r \ • t • Y. 1- V 6+l • ( 1 \ • - A .1 \ 1V\
Me Ip k=0 01 91DUAM
��.���� >�����e���,.;� v c e`{�' e�e_�iR�'JE��=��� i�r� �»�€F �e��.�-c c���•.a.'ets-��-;4 ��€EC�� �F�
E'..�Yr�e ��..�����..,�:.e•��� g���«��.fE��� C�C�@t'��'€�€ �€�� E�����ts.-6��E�c ��� f � �• c�-E�� [;� ���� o•e
vs`_@ c, �@-� ��€a%�F n aa� _ a_a..�, k���1a€tft}�� ����1 E1����e E o s�_Y
MUS
E'-3 °.@ E'@
���°�;�"�� �.�,3�@`�Y�€� ���ef�s����� a$��� EY r�a����-s��oi`S•� I. F.�f @ e __ E
-- F
e /__«�° � s u �� @sok e ,,,� • 1�+� 3 �a F @ e e '@. E I�s e ��vf e °
n@0@ 6 @e \1 °a ..° 116 6e.
sem- ° 3
a v
GS 0
Conditions of Approval
Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification
File #DP953004
Alnl I�lY LiCficl L(II �Oenl$11 i)I3CSS1airtnr
fig
in
6. Proof of Pr
onert 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. OMModifications to FDP 3034-88 .
A. Flimination of Puhli ./Private Trail Constrnction Requirement - The requested
elimination of the requirement to construct a public/private trail as specified in
C/A #5.F. of FDP 3034-88 is approved. The Applicant is still required to
provide documentation on the development of such a trail for purposes of
determining a financial contribution to go toward other recreational facilities of
equivalent cost benefitting Bettencourt Ranch residents.
} � hthe
at ro�ementlans xo,r toacce fence 3vf Fuia111[a
t wta�t snip A ementla n�redbytensec
-- -.- landsc� c�ntr t� or r � �` n 'wee� rovt�in or�he iib7;c� ri�at� atl
ff
-- -.- estiates d � $rrndsape�cprttreto�r The panslalt nci�zle
ax sx �e sits atam roe�nt a dost estirnrntesh�all�e
PPS P — �� 3 �
sub�ect�to the nnrng Adrn ustrator review and approval lie ec... of the
Lontngdmiz situ oshallbeshared wth hIOFA The prepaatronrund
a �
acc�ptancenfelar�s zs�intendedso/ely to pr�?vzde a method of eshmatirzg the
-
coburdethatthepplicant is to beCrorpro�ra'rng equivalent i}alue to
Bettencour 1�crnch or othezrrecreatrot aczlities o equn�alentycosf
Equivalen��F�naiicrai�Contnbution for�Other Project Recreation ImProv�ments
Prior to acceptatace of Final Map 727=9, the Apphcapt shall make`antequivatenti
-4-
Conditions of Approval
Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification
File #DP953004
anoccttp"mentfreatonNq
aclht�e
t i i e `
-- ':,- - ; mllu -• - - .fez�a�a �ei�= dot
p
>4teme e i - Et
'�st�rato�naNIQuz eha .
MIR RAM
B. - �Ie
requ i E
Th
UUNIIt—As-Speci, -CTI A - , lie A I App,
still mquiLMU to provide documentation on die development of-SUL-Ah aftall for
purposesof
faciliti10-OLg hE
funding-ma be-ap e-project
- Retention of Renuirement to Construct a Decorative Fence Around Dettention
Basin - The request to eliminate the decorative six-foot tall open fence around
the detention basin is denied. The existing wire strand fence around the basin
does not satisfy this requirement. However, the requirement to provide self-
closing gates is eliminated. The fence improvement plans shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and in consultation with the
Flood Control District. Prior to submission of fence improvement plans, the
Bettencourt Ranch HOA shall be provided an opportunity to comment on the
plans. Prior to acceptance of Final Map 7279, the fence shall either be
constructed by the County or assured by posting of a bond.
C —ReiQcation-nf-Dctcntion-Bags I-AI mr I at-hot-,md--i-nformai-'nrfed-Pigyfield—T-he
request--to-relocate-the-required-tot-lo rfed-playfieid-(ref-CAA
#5.A-and-O-of 3*HP 3 - to -adEcd+nofl
area on-Nottingham-Hrive7is-approved. Pri �onstruction-of-these-faciiities
the-A-ppiicant shun-provide-evid OA-has-given
permission-for-these--faci-htiestcrbe ottingham-site:
-5-
stBsr„.. .. .. ••"'° r .. k ; '3""�4; s"`.'#' `.-fits .� 3i �1 crt} �E.r;
art • ti«�..w �*`,ass�• ..:, b �&'` { •c'” :�'S _
Conditions of Approval
Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification
File #DP953004
Klurl U r,14M permission to place tile proposed f�cilitk-;S eft-U"M
latoll sitc, then die Applicant shall make a financial contribution tobe-used-for
development of other Bettencoaft Rarich Lecreational facilities when plans7are
III A
proposed by tlm- "WA-1 C—MLLd Leviewed and approved by the Zoning AdLn-L1niStrat0r—.
Tile fintmciaf contribution shall be made to die eounty to be held in a
nFfflnec Residenfial frits - , - - -
&46) to-a hillside site is approved as shown on tile site plan
8. Mitigation 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 7279—, and recreational facilities.
9. FIFIe tro-Majaneti . Field (F.MF) Notifi ation - 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 an Pi ns 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-
M'M'i' y.,.- l
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=toprovide-. -
_
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 Rennirements of ED12 3034-88
A. Wrought Iron Fence along Camino Tassaiara - 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 Ddpartment
shall be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the plans.
B. Notification of Rimers 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 #8.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-
J S
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,-';-or I!arnul, the- -Agency's approval
concerning this subdivision map application, whicWaction 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. IlpgradP of T nndsraDe Improvements of Common Areas within First Four PhacPc h
The Applicant shall-participate with the
11
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)aid
3 epi - The review "Shall lead to a substantial upgrade of
landscaping and irrigation systems 1 - ?. a t The
review shall include-address such matters as: j
• 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 ro nate irrigation system that meets professional,stand P ttko . g Y P
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.
TftCAll bfIth approved landscape revisions regt� ed y-tY is process and all,approved
amenrt�es hall either-be installed ., ianciat
TT
security vviarflie-eounty or 1-16A)-prior to finalizationrssiiance of fli' rst residential
building perrmtsperm within SUB 7279.
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 � , -�-
This condition to require the Applicant to provide landscape improvements to the
common areas of the first four:p�of pmject-shall 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.
r -r
- p odae ',run
p� P ceri� �fPlGra"n A revised sit plan�g atng plan haex
T�_ reloca,�e��.,ots X45;or 46�to4theiT�a�ley�loo�ocation as shown�n�e
app��ed��entativ-lviap�o�r eltm�nate�those�lotszaltogether,end.su��#:an
regrades the�area to be eons�stent-�wit`h�thesg-bra mg on���89��'V"e�ttng� eni�e
lvfapexcept that the existmgipogh�c o dations w�tfi ther�ptine=o
0 1�t �h�a�1�o� 1 eY=gradtngpplar��h��rz�v��o ei�ce ��t
the:d�ip�rne�o��e�tre�to�e�nstal,lrror._to-commencemeof�er
�i� �rentP hn�calh a��titl� r ancia?'erB�v��w���o e of o��of�l-t�e�t�i� e
lots_are sited�s��iown,anptheappro�edSeutative Ma��then,�th��ans
shall tie,accompanied by a report from ageot�clurcal engineer astox"the
feasibility of theproposed`site plane Prior to site planapproval,rtlie rf
report shall be sub�ect.to peer reveiw by-a�geolog�st retained by,the
County The Apphcanf shall co�er the costs of„the peer re iew
2) Mcul�ficatn �f Fina_ 1 1v(aT The proposed final nap shall be revised to
_ T,
be„consistent with the approvedsite/grading plan_
-9-
¢5r�$ D'.• .. ..... _ Pin` 1' . .. .. _ ,>- .. « :. • - ,r x@i•�
Conditions of Approval
Bettencourt Ranch FDP Modification
File #DP953004
WIN
- ' _
10- 11511,1151'1 it
- e
ADVISORY NOTE
A. Comply with the requirements of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District.
dp953004.c
11/10/95
�.-12/15195
iLKIC196
-10-
,a
C C
O �
'�-VA�iA uAw.A
o`
o.
C b N
b$ y
D
-
o� G 0 o
a
z-
� E me cs E Oect
t .E, 9 Q'^ u
E u
E-
O
OEEL- U `
� zz
oz
pT-y 2 L O C
W Q
L� �+ O D C d P m•• t
.�.,,/... ¢ dv r d w ayn � � d U u U O R=•6A
y-u E--o-
-2_n
o f c 3i
N=? J V C E t y0.y0 u N C y O n n Y yU C
Z >you3 000vsouv �n�__ = o
co c a� �'-5o
3 R m >.s•' u
C.2 5 o f 'y o o u l '
BIT N
ca c:l
ca o
Oen
ttn
w
q a�tE 203v Eo °
E EE EE a
°
� Uci
Aac�
q uu
IL
y 8 � 265� '�•-a:• III.
k
0 0�
L%
c s r
iC4:N.
._ Qa
it
c c•n
�y b
W;
i
E T E o a
o
so
o O
E15
E
ig
v S v
Z eo u o
j�wpCo� E'O '
, � � • •cva� y.c 8 u o � � Y o o�� `
E
°2 64 0 o E 9 F^ E I%, N y o•� �o E c
o F t
a q e _ $ o 'oma o E e
Cq 3 n
rSd� As15y�Q>
� r
C '
o �
o ,p
o °
�+ O
U
d
w
.� qc
a c
q
oa
oma`
°
6 q C
O u
u
•� E �
u
ago
O+
�N
r
O C
`o w
a. o
M
c
w o
EEn: E
a a v•"
c °
b 9S, 6
j C �+
RI,
N
a, o
° o� 3 a _o a�`c' c
y c ` � a
y<L= c c
O E- O ..
19 O
o N '
O U 4Q(.. tl C 00 U •t[ .. U� V U O.U p .u '3 i
__.c�i'i�qGOu$ its:
: acuia �i.caaiati ° a� p�Q =aco loll
cu111
104
N ' Z ill
HIS MUSIM � V�To'',�cA�'D•3_e•�`zuR_cuo
A A p U y a C u,C•^ a pq u = uA'�G
3 V
._-. a o dao .o.. u'«:E o u t C $ c O o 4 0�t c •^ y
y o o v _ d E u Q
u c o �.. o L'
h Q E g M C W - N g E F+ L U A C d > «. '"' C E i 3
v c ti c _ > a 2
c _ e
Naw
C
d C w C O U a V tl y'tl T u
-__.---.. < �u ak �.5 E .. 3 E6c o E �••.c � ''�0 0 0 ��• r� a•� g c 'o co �� = � c-�-
Q
" tivaR4c
v Y�
Gyp O O
GCI y.A U
OA �
0
tl _
/ ..
� £ .
a2
� $
k .
k /
�f
A
\
K 2
/ \ ~
t e r
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.
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 Miti atedegative Declaration is Issued - Staff
C-2
provides.notice of a proposed mitigated negative declaration for
the project. The finding 's 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 Vallpy Regional Planning Commission Action -
After taking testimony, the Commission concludes that
relocation of the three hillside lots is not appropriate. In
approving the application, the Commission conditions the
approval on denial of the requested relocation of the three lots to
the hillside area.
12/22/95 Appeal of Commission Action by Applicant -The applicant files
an appeal of the Commission action including an objection to the
denial of the proposed relocation of three lots to the hillside
area.
2/6/95 Appeal Hearing Before the Board of Supervisors - A hearing on
the applicant's appeal is-held before the Board of Supervisors.
Prior to that hearing, a notice of the hearing is mailed to Mr.
Jensen.
CAwpdocUdllside.ckv
RD\
C-3
-. •-
101 WIM IF,
Ing mjjmjjjmjjjjjjj�,
tL
�.
-40
IRRA
+�.b,�
�.MR1
FIX
IV
Il
SOMEHOW,
a1`,I �I fill" IMI
U1(ilie.
1 •.4 �� l.�I�/E
.�_;t,• tic-,.:;•?' ,�� r
.Sf;iy�:`ti •.a.igH+:mac t7
. r4�xYS•�Y ir)µAYr
� _ i�tw-... mar � r�//� �,,�,�"`�'�'•�,,.�' .*J' '��
MOP i,
110
ON
�f�1r �1<`„� ��..•''~t++1!l7Vf�l� +��r•N, �, ti•f,/r,'�¢'�y*e're�!.�"�r{ �'>?!._ "� „
lam'"//-� !. i ��er.,��,�+it` �,pA�'dl� �
��S� 1d
i�r j rte. N :�'/,f-��1`���1►��►,�► �
i. 71 FFtr - rIF --^rr. �.\.
MINOR
PR`1tt�ll!! !�►I �t/ `� ` .i �/'•"'"Lp a."i► Ae: �
�� ��`�
/'l ♦i!E'�t�`����j��t�J �'��' ill// SM, s+"'—..��.��Ili�///i'A���
VIM
MIMI
"`�a'�.sT.1;P/aJ��(�/j��/f�'¢�' .'1�,���/41��I,I�afdl:n,.t'i;`�./f •��''/�Z•.+�`
- ��I�/Uirr���
+1�i.j�1 ..•....mow f/� .` $a,.,�.;,r;�.1;:>r,�� � �.�1 i �(
1101"Al
�I►1Ti�.►���J.��, ��/ r�liG ;i►,i�A'�itOgg
WWI M-1
�j i
C )NTRBCOSTA C UNTY
TO DATE
FROM SUBJECT
)20
r
V SIGNED
:n {j PLEASE REPLY HERE
TO Y�� DATE
7� 72 7 T �
7278 .
INSTRUCTIONS-FILL IN TOP PORTION,REMOVE DUPLICATE(YELLOW)AND FORWARD REMAIN.tNG
PARTS WITH CARBONS. TO REPLY, FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS.RETAIN
TRIPLICATE(PINK)AND RETURN ORIGINAL. FORM 1A103 Qs
aD
} (Ct26
e? v%A k V)
µs
t 5 �
f
T
SEP
4 199.0
CONTRA COST
CONTRA COSTA ,COUNTY GwLbING 1t4S EC°�r 7
COMMUNITY DEVELOP2MT DEPARTMENT
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
SUBJE PC 48 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 gbotechnical
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, Ines Toric 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. 1
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
70
TO DATE
Feats
r 7Z ? �
—__-.�� SUBJECT
.+GSA
U
SEP.
R
CONTRA CaS"fA CO '
PLEASE REPLY HERE
TO C✓�/j� 1t -- DATES Rd
SIGNED ��
INSTRUCTIONS-FILL IN TOP PORTION,REMOVE DUPLICATE(YELLOW)AND FORWARD REMAINING
PARTS WIT)i CARBONS. TO REPLY. FILL IN LOWER PORTION AND SNAP OUT CARBONS, RETAIN
TRIPLICATE(PINKI AND RETURN ORIGINAL. FORMMI03
is
3rd Floorj
Gmrl,64 c
.TL GRADING/SUBDIVISION-SUPIJ
'::"-LXCAWT INDEPENDENT umsi- SEISMIC PK Ci E D FLD ZN
iEILT
7 F*,O: BOX 5207 SCII DIST SAN RAMON UN1
LTY CONCORD CA DESC GRADING FOR -SURD. 7279
If 9 C,S2 0 PHONE 415-68. 6-1958 NOR SP NOR UN r
FC(
'Al-E
R
DAN' ZONE P-1 CT 3551.03 FEE CD DIMENSIONS VI
LOT LUP 3039-8925A , 636000 0 too
.1 REET 3641 CAKIND TASSAJARA 25C 638000 0 *00
X
!,CSS ST WILLOW PASS
STOTAL 1276000 10TAL
HC *02 NR ST *02 MNSB x02 MNSY '*02-----—---------------------------
Zc REAR YO *02 PLAN CHK PC9005417 REVIEWED BY: C
------------------- DATE RECD 08/07/90 ENG
NKR DAME CONSTRUCTION CO INC Box NO 186
ELIC
REET 1975 SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD MECH
ITY SAN RAhON CA CRAD.
1583 -------—---------------------------
-------------------
CONTR INDEPENDENTL CONST ---------------------------- ------
t*RE*ET P,Ot BOX 5307 RECEIPT 4 283:933
'T V T CONCORD CA SUP VIS GRA 1054
'1P 94520 PHONE 415-686-1958 GRADPLNCHK, 351
A LIC # 215611 0000281913 -352
------- —------ TOTAL PAID** 1052
UCENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARMON
I neral affirm that I am licensed under the provislom of Ch8ptW,:Jo=dr14nckV with
=r I d tDivIsIon 3 of,tha qu*va""Pmfosslorm.Coda. fty kaw Is In
_70A,
CLAS. X"PmekIT��21511
_'CIORCTR NDEPENDENT CONST
OWNER-SUILDER DECLARATION
I hem Ogntractor's Lbw%4 Law for to fokvdN
'asm(Sea
that I am exempt tram the
70315,Sminess"Professions Code:Any City of
annit to constnxt after,=derrmish,or mpat"4rh0:b^''%'n=
to requires that I or such permA to fk a 6q*d"wrient that he Is kerood
arsuart
action 1 00 Diylsim 3 of the is Saw or that to il
lerefforn the basis lot the aftQed eImption.Any violation of 7031.5 by
vicant for a peffnit Whects the applicuit to 0 dvi Of not a"
.
�
500.�
0
as owner of the properly, or rW ernploye" with wages as their sol
*wIldo the L" sinctIars Is not intentiod or offered for tale(Sec.
044,Busr7ass Flf=Code:The Contractor's License Law 604's not0 an
an
wrenof property who builds or kTpmvgs thereon,andwho do"vich work hirro6rrarw �r
a own ernplcryees,peovidtod that such kylprovernaerts e nM Mended or offered to
however,the WO&V or improvernent is am=one
,r of omoetioN the owner-
�Ader w-4 have the Wilen of Proving that he or k'"um for the PXPD"
I sale).
0 L as owner of tae property.am exdusyefy cor%tractiV with licensed contractom to
onstruct the project(See.7044,Business and Professions Coda:The ConeacW&Uoons4
aw does not apply to an owner of property who braids or Irnproves thereon,and who centrads
r MpZ=with a confrec"s)licensed pmwamt to the C4mitractoes Lkerm Law}
UrKW S41- SAP.C.for On reason
pplicant Date
WORKER'S COMPENSATION DECLAPATION
ii that I hive a W4np^or m owt6=14,of
111==tion hstvaince,=r*.4Z=W(Sa,_3600.Lab C�
%A-
PC 0603 79 a
t m1BROO"
Is, hereby I'mished
is wMh'hwrl*lhe cmTty bLSdkV htpoction depmtrnertl'1 1
hereby
w
Int depaltrnent
A
:OIX -n
'X- �A fCESC4ATE=E'.P'T,9.�FROM WORKERS'
'0, �ui,
COMP SATION INSURANCE
section need not be emr~I the Pennit Is for one kn**d dollars(SI00)
I ceegfy that In the perfortnance of the work for which ft Parrnit Is lowed.1�"
of errploy ery Person in erry manner so as to boo" siblod 10 to Workers'
;ornpansation Laws of California.
ol
honer -0010 ... - __...____---------
JOTICE TO APPUCANT;9,after mkirg this Carttlicate of Exwvtkx%you stvid
ijoject to the Workers!C the LAW Godo you f==Rl"D YNG/ SED
with such Provisions or==4=01oked
CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY EXPIRATION DATE- Authority
Ihe' that owe is constmction larden agency for the performance of the
wok.01=1.z Wit"it is isued(Sec,3097,CM.C,) BL�DNS PEPmrrs t i so Days) CCC 72-6.010
GRAzm PERWT(180 O'y') CCC 716-4.1408
WOVW5 PERMIT(go Days) CCC 714-6202
i'l C 5
tAO^-_t_EHOME(6 Wm, TITLE 25,CAC.
L9Z_ESS EXTENSION AL7j ED IN WRITING BY THE DEPT.
1-1 Y
APPROVE..
sti
I certify"t I have read this OPPIK-3tk>n aOd state that the 00YO lrdortneticn bs conxL
.Q66 t.CVY with afl o and canty o,dr''mes and sate laws relating to Wd"Q &uikfwn De,-L Br. Date
W
:_14_9M and hofeby bulheffizO rOSSWtatWel of thig C0u4 to enter WPCn the agave R.W.04...P.8'4' Q 1PJ
nevi d7Er y�lor 10 osaR
M CONTRA. COSTA COUNTY �V
BUILDTIiiG INSPECTION DEPARTMENT �S►� �`
INTER-OFFICE MEMO
DATE: '`
TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S
FROM:
SUBJECT: MS , TRACT APN
Please review and answer the following concerns, and return a signed copy to the Grading
Section.
Yes No N/A
1. Have all CONs been met? [] [ } [ ]
2. Are there any special conditions that apply? [ } [ } E}
3. Are there any concerns regarding trees and
creeks? E ] E ] E}
4. Is a CEQA Review required? E } E } E
S: Is there a notification process which must be
completed? [ E ] [ ]
6. Is the project design consistent with the approved
site plan?
Comments:
Signed Dated
*Any comments of the County Planning Geologist shall be routed to the Project Planner for final
clearance from Community Development Department.
Rev. 10/11/95
i
s Nealcultural Consultants
i
i
HORP ' INC
f
s April 11, 1995
Mr. Bob Drake
Community Development Department
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street
Martinez CA 94553
Subject: Oak tree,
Lot 44 Bettencourt Ranch(Tract 7279)
i
Dear Mr. Drake.
Dame Construction is planning to continue development of the Bettencourt Ranch
project. In reviewing its plan,you became concerned about a Targe 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 Bili 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 aid, 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. I
know of no arboricultural treatments which could restore its health and provide good
structural stability. Therefore, I recommend that the tree be removed.
i
If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
•P.O.Boz 754
James R_ Clark, Ph.D. P asanion,CA 94566
Certified Arborist WC-0846
Phone:510 aha 0211
FAX:510 484 5096
• mak;<�.
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.
CAwpdoc\Lot44.not
RD
RECEIVED
MAR 2 5 1996
March 22, 1996
388 Paraiso Drive CLERK
OCOBOARD NTRA COISORS
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 conc!usion so that we can move on with our hopes
and lives.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Christensen
Kristine A. Christensen
DEMI . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 , Mar 08 '96 14 :40 No .006 P .02
STATE OF CALIFORNW—BUSINES6.TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Gowmor
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
Enforcement Office RECEIVE®
2201 Broadway
P. O. Box 107000 APR - 2 I�yo
Sacramento, CA 96818-7000
(916) 227-0864
--COQ° COSTA CO SUPERVISORS OF
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 :916-2`27-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :41 No .006 P .03
Letter-Mulvihill
March 8, 1996
Page Two
Essentially, either all or avast 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 Map, 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.
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 .05
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 GERACE'
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER II
ENFORCEMENT SECTION
DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-09 `�
2 Mar 08 '96 14 :43 No .006 P .06
BIETT`ENCOURT RANCH ASSOCIATION
MINUTES
of
Board of Directors Meeting
Date: July 13, 1993
Place: Dame' Sales Office
Time: 5:00 p.m.
Board Members Jn 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 NfEMMERS
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
the act that Diana was on vacation and did not get back tout 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 COORDIN&TQR
Diana agreed to head this committee and work with the women's club in the development to
disseminate information when necessary.
V. OLD BUSINESS
TYgil Issue
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. V
Maintenance and Construction Bonds
Discussion was held on the bonds Dame' was requesting to be released. Rick made a motion to
3
s
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.
V1. NEW/MISC BVSTNFSS
meed Signs
Rick made a motion to approve $450.00 for the purchase and installation of (2) 25 mile an hour signs
for Buckingham drive. He will get the signs and install one on each side to hopefully slow traffic
down.
C.
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. INERT REGULAR BOARD MEETING & ADJOURN L<
c-
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).
RespectfulW Submitted
Sara Barry,_PCAMrCAM
Agent for Bettencourt Ranch Association
Adopted on ��•� -
Attested by: �-
DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL =916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :44 No .006 P .08
4 Community Associations Consulting
For Bettencourt Ranch Association
�- 6375 Clark Avenue, Suite 101
Duhlin, CA 94568-3001
Phone (510) 833-0100
Fax (510) 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,
Paul Weirather,
Agent for Bettencourt Ranch Association
cc Chron, Agenda. Unit. Othor:
DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 0_8 '96 14 :44 No .006 P .09
ah ,pKxirxtw t)VAmnmmT o!RxAL EsTa7a
SOttLtitvtatdsa
BOND
(£ea>rpferfon of COW""Fa ciud")
Rei tot t (Rov.3199)
Band Number: B 1686120
Prtwiuta: $ 5,633.00
Af4w elf ma by mane pr+ts#XU.
That we DAM' CONSTRUCTION CO.- INC. (Mme of Sv&Uvidtr)
as Principal,and RELLANU INSURANCE COMPANY (Now of.surety)
a corporation organized tttsder the lava of the Stale of Pennsylvania acrd authaorizod to trAAesct ft
business of tumly in the State of Califorida as Surety,ate firmly held ad bound tmto BETTENCOURT RANCH .
C_ ASSOCIATION - (NaW (V Nonwow+tars' A.sssoclattat).
QWd9 attar rafenzd to as Obligee)in ttte peel tum of Three hundZCsLS.1S_=ty7njn6 thflueand f 1u6
h=dred thirt yZeight DOB= {g 339,538 _ }
for wIft sem.well and to be pad.via Wnd outselyes,our,hair,aQmiutstrawm Noaesm and usigns,jointly led
sevarrllily,!lMly by OM pma=
lWa bond is given pr2nwm to f 11018.5(a)(2)(A)of the Cdlfomta Bu0non eta'!pmlessions Code to assure lien-fres
corn*tion of the 3mprcn►eman described in ftneipat's`u=sed ConsUucdan Statamesat", a coot'of which it attached
�p
� and incorponned harolct by rum,for hila subdIvislon development haawn W BETT COURT R"CH
PHASZ9
2tttiaw in the Cozcurty of GOMM CUNTA Sate ofCIALIFORNIA
&mcy, for value received,hereby apt m that the maga set forth is Callibrola,Civil Code §3223, or aimUar acts or
omtaatone which might m1v=the S+aratty puinant eo jaw,thrall not in any way r+CICSX&arty from tree obUVdcn of chis bond
or n Ewe Surety's obligadw driatmder.
Surety,1br value received,does hereby waive the right granted to Surety under California Civil Code §2943 to requilt
1haat Obligee proceed indepencieathy against Pr d;sl to cdotce this obligation,but reserves to itself any right under tasd
12345 to requim that Obligee proceed,f oinily agalnst Principal and Suety in any their ActiorL
The condition of thus obligation is each that if Principal shall c oulplate or cause m be completed said improv+e:nesus frac
.., Ad claims on or betbre the lataact oomplWon date specifled in said"Plams d Construction Staremerrt".or an ex=si m
vee in writing by Obligee to PdWpd and essemed to In Writing by Sul ety,then this obligation dull be null and void;
a.It sdalh mmain in flash fnrec acid after:
t or action of this basad must be filed within two(2)years after the latest completion dam met forth is t.''ae PUnne+d
dots Statement or any aamdon Hereof given to writing by Oblige to Pdrtdpal an ausentod to in writing by Sure*
+condidom and coverage of this bond have beets approved by these Real Essaos COmmisdosscr of rhes:State Of
Unen WherrgA Principal and Suiety have caused these presents to be duly Signed and scaled their 23rd day of
Ugust ig �90
' err
CO.-,- INC. RELIANCE INSURANCE CoMPANX
ajJ'.tii.ri�ol Stgnatrra S+atiap
LCfc t',L� f By:
('fid d E3fl k4o,n LLUt I ey- i i- 'a �
must bear corporate seal of Suteiy. ifnaroe of state and data ofIncorporstton err specified in seal.Sunrty's sipatuae
not bear Notary's acknowledgment. OthwMse.Notary's acknowledgment is requtmd.
I
DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL =916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 :45 No .006 P . 10
rE OF CALIFORNIA On this....�.rd._._ ...day of......... Auqu s t ,in the year
ss. .�' ti. ,before me,
NTYOF.gONTM.!7OSTA.... ............Gahl.. .....t�atkins :..........................
.• ,a Notary Public.State of California,
duly licensed and sworn,personally appeared.................................. :
............�ti.�k..Dame.`...............................I.............
personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)
to be the person who executed the within instrument as V�ct?...Presldent
o==111 or on behalf of the corporation therein named and acknowledged to me that ,
GAIL I.WATKINS such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a
'CM,%PV NJSUC«Ur0R1L NTMF GIST, COUNTY
resolution of its board of directors.
ftf. Emwo Act.29.i"A IN WIVNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixcd
my official seal in the............................Countv of.................... '
Contra Costathe da e s Orth sbot a tn,th - certificate,
.W4 ti+k app w s+..-QM m aCT at A UqW-ks
Notary Public. State of California
r.x Ft%m Na.28---Acknowledgement to Notary Public— April 29 r 1994
attar W.C.Secs. 1190-1190.1 t—i Rev. 1831 W commission expires
ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY SURETY
OF CALIFORNIA
K ContKa Chsta 'b
23rd day of Ataua - in the year 19 9 d before me
Ann F. Bush Notary Public
;y appeared Mark V. Kazpenko
iy known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be tna person whose name is subscribed to this instrument as the
min-Fact and acknowledged to me that he(she)subscribed the name of
ZANCE INSURANCE COMPANY thereto as Surety and his(her)own name as Attorney-in-Fact.
M WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my Official Seal,at my office in the aforesaid County, the day and year in this
►prat pore written.
OFFICLW5;�A1.
�"'�•. '>!f tit F �"S'ttrNotary Public
a " r,
'7
4.:,;.:+1:* NOTMY PUPUC-C411!:lNiA
coNTRA casrA CODUTY ' {
:!y Comm.E"taa4s Oec. 14.11;% 1
DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 =45 No .006 P . 11
., 11ifAD is:ltc>!.Pt{fLJAD�t/►f+�►,P1:>rlta'. ANIA
POKIR OF ATTOANEY
KNCW ALL WIN 5V THESE PRESENTS, That the RELIANCIF IN3UStANC11 CGIBANY,a oo.porasiort dilly o►gmnlaad wdw Ow to"of the State of
ff�wrsryi%ame.do.a haretsy arks,eonothrta and s000asa
MARK V. KARPENKO cf CONCORD, CALIFORNIA -------
its true now lawful AttortsK-41-960,to melee.a,avle.wet and atiwv for and on its behalf,and as its an and dwd
ANY AND ALL BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS OF SURETYSHIP ---
vac to bird the RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY tharaby as fully and to the same anent as if with bond and undwtakings and other vw;tkgt
obligatory in the natws thaoof sews slyr.ed by on Exerytivs Officer of the RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY and owed and atte led by one carat
of aruch officers.and hereby rslifent and confirms all that its said Alcorn aylsNn-Fact Prey do in pursuance hereof.
This Povww of Attorney is Wooled under ane by authority of Article V11 or The ay-tUw+of RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY wrhichh Decants
effective September 7. 1979.which provnsions are now in full force and affect.n..dina as follows:
ARTICLE VII - EXECUTION OF BONDS AND UNOEATAKINGS
1. Toe Hoard of Oirectots.the President.the Chairman of the flowd,any Senior Vipe President.any Vtot Praeident or Assistant Vice Pras.dent
or ottsu officer dest"Ved by the Board of Ditacnort shell have power and authority to (a)appoint Attorneys-in-Fatand to authorise them to execute
on behalf of the Ccrrpny, bonds and vrdwlakinps. recognisance., oontrects of indemnity and other .te.ungs obligatory in the nature thereof,and(b)
tp remove any stack Attorney-in-Fast at any time and twroks the power and authority given to hien.
2. Attorneys-in-Fact dull have power and authority,tibiad 10 lha tomes and limitations of tfa pov►er of snorney-slued to them,to eaecuM
and deliver en behalf Of the Company,bonds end undertakings,reeagnittnces.Contracts of indemnity and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof.
The corporate wt is not neceaary for the validity of any bonds and urtdarlshiRg%.teMiIIAs 911211,oontraCll of ;ndatmihy and other writings obligatory
10 the nature thereof.
3. Anornsys-in-Fact shall have power and oultbwny to execute affidbieks-equ;e d to be attached to bonds,ro"nisaneat,conteaCts of indent
ally or other conditional or obflptwy undertaki^4s and they shall also have power and authority to certify the financial statartent of tha Company and
fo eop:as of the Ov-Laws of the Company or any srtida or section lheraof.
Theo power, of attorney is signed and seeled by facsimile under and by authority of the following Resolution adopted by the Roard of Directors of
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY at a meetieq held on the Stu day of Juna, 1979,at PAA a Quorum noes present,and ssid_Resolution ha nol been
• s+tw+d+d a repealed: - - - - - -- - - .
"fiasolved,that the sigrialurm of such directors and officers and the leaf of the Company may be affixed to any upch Povvet of
attorney or any csrtifkats relning thereto by fataenile, end any such power of attorney or artificsle bearing such facsimile
signatures or facaimile sed shall be vailid and binding upon the Company and any such power in vzocuted and candied by
facei"M tipnaturee and fammile semi shall be-mild and binding upon the Compaw in tlhe future writh respect to any bond or
undatakM,g to vrltach it is atuhchied."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Use RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY has asusad these praants to be signed by its Vice PreskWit.and its oorporwo teal to
be tr..to alfi sad.this 25th day of April 1989
RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
Vice Prosdsm
STATI os Washington
CCk*TY OF King
on dds 25th day of April .19 8 9pervonally appeafad Lawrence W. Car] s t r o m
to me known to be the Vier?residenl of the RELIANCE iNSURANCE COMPANY. and ackncwledpd than he guts sited and attacted tfa for"pir%
retrurnent and affixed rhe not of said corporation t9warto.e+rd that Anide VII. rectbn 1, 2. and S of the Sy-Laws of said Company and the Rewtu
tion.at forth therein,are still In full force.
rte-.
My Commirion Eailsirr=
May 15 .19 90 ' " ' Notary Public in and I- Wash g t o n
R,.idingal Tacoma
f John E . Vance Asairkal Socha"of the RELIANCE INSURANCE: COASPANY, do hereby vanity that the sbaw
Nd ftnvgrslne ;I a true and corroct; 000y of a Power of Attorney executed by said RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY.wMidh ia,till in full froom and
eftstR,
fN WITNE-33 WHEREOF.I have hereunto est my hand and affixed d*seal of said Convany thie 2 3 rd day Of Augus t 1990.
•paw-1431 Eo.a/" CnA- Assistant Saoetary - - •-
DEPT . OF REAL ESTATE TEL :916-227-0925 Mar 08 '96 14 =46 No .006 P . 12
SrATROFCAUIMMA DEPARTMEI."C of REAL ESTATE
SUBDIVISIO.%
IS.ANNED CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT $ETTENCOURT RANCH ;hese 9 $f 1j
azcels &
Read instructions on reverse
RE 611A(Rev.3/89) jFormerly RE 611-11 side before compledng.
SCM Drscvziim Cosy EsTWATm-
oa {nch"Um type of construction,nuverlals. E.snmA?z Comnzno.%
Qu"Tay ekewleal and xwehanicaf feature:) DATC
164,400 s.f. Landscaping with irrigation, trees, ,shrubs, $218,652 8/92
ground cover.
60,000 B.f. Natural slope. NIA 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 20Z Contingency: $ 56,590
Total: $339,538