Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06031997 - D10 .' * ._ _r�'%` •' ,,, Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS c: .+a!, A County HARVEY E. BRAGDON ••, �~ FROM•. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT °°sra'co"vK� DATE: June 3 , 1997 SUBJECT: HEARING ON A REQUEST OF BRUDIGAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. (APPLICANT & OWNER) , COUNTY FILE #RZ2826 TO REZONE 0.55 ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (M-29) IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find the environmental documentation prepared for this project as adequate. 2 . Approve Rezoning 2826-RZ to rezone the subject property from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Multiple Family Residential District (M-29) . 3 . Approve the Findings contained in Resolution No. 14-1997 as the basis for theiboard's action. 4 . Introduce the ordinance giving effect to Rezoning 2826-RZ, waive reading and adopt. 5. Direct the Director of Community Development to post the _ Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This project has been before the Board and the County Planning Commission on several occasions since the original submittal in 1988. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE", " RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON June 3, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X See attached Addendum. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT- - - - - - TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED June . 1997 cc: Brudigam Development, Inc. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY l/ , DEPUTY DC/df bo3 :2826rz.bo y Y . 1 Page Two On August 8, 1989 the Planning Commission voted to deny the project for reasons of insufficient turnaround, the large oak tree along the entrance road posed a barrier to fire equipment and the Commission could not make finding to rezone the subject property which isrless than five acres in size to P-1. Following the Commission meeting, the applicant revised the 14 unit proposal to address the issues raised by the adjacent property owner. On October 24, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred the revised site plan back to the Planning Commission to review. Furthermore, on November 27, 1990 the Planning Commission, after reviewing the additional information, unanimously voted (6-0) to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning and 14-unit multi-family residential development plan. The Commission felt that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient effort to try to coordinate development of the site with neighboring property owners. Following the April 9, 1991 Board hearing and subsequent continuance to August 13, 1991 in which the Board referred the matter back to the Commission, several actions have transpired. First, a revised site plan was prepared for the project that more fully complies with conventional zoning and circulation standards, and concomitantly reduces the number of proposed units from 14 to 12 . A "master plan" has also been prepared showing how the proposed plan could conform with similar projects on adjoining property. Copies of the plan were shared with the neighboring property owner, Mendes. On July 2, 1991 staff met with the applicant, neighboring property owners and their respective representatives. At the meeting, staff encouraged the parties to reconcile their differences. At the same time, staff indicated that failing a mutually acceptable solution, that staff was prepared to support a project that conformed to the Multiple Family Residential General Plan designation. No resolution was reached at the meeting. At the May 14 , 1996 meeting, the Commission took testimony and continued the matter to July 9, 1996. The applicant further requested a continuance to August 13, 1996. At the August 13, 1996 meeting, the Commission accepted the applicant' s withdrawal of the Final Development Plan application, DP883045. The rezoning was continued to permit staff the opportunity to review the applicant's revised proposal. The Planning Commission in discussion on the previous proposal to P-1 expressed concern over the - required variance to the 5 acre minimum requirement to rezone the property to P-1. The applicant responded to concerns raised by the Commission, with a request to rezone the subject property to M-29. The subject property exceeds the minimum acreage requirement of 10, 000 square feet for the M-29 zoning district. The Planning Commission, at the January 28, 1997 hearing, in reviewing all the evidence and testimony found the applicant over the past 8 years has made a good faith effort to work with the surrounding property owners to develop an integrated plan. Furthermore, the Commission following the review of three arborist reports determined that development of the site would have minimal impact on the oak tree and that the rezoning to M-29 was appropriate. 1 ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.10 June 3, 1997 This being the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request by Brudigam Development, Inc., (Applicant and Owner) to rezone approximately .55 acres from a Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Multiple Family High Density (M-29) (County File #RZ 2826- 88), Walnut Creek area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department presented the staff s report, and clarified that recommendation No. 4 should be amended to include setting a date to adopt the Ordinance. The hearing was opened and Norm Brudigam, applicant, 3399 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Lafayette, presented testimony. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the public hearing was closed, and the Board discussed the issues. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED; the rezoning application by Brudigam Development, Inc. (Applicant and Owner), to rezone approximately .55 acres from a Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Multiple Family High Density (M-29), Walnut Creek area (County file #RZ 2826-88) is APPROVED; the environmental documentation is ACCEPTED as adequate; Ordinance 97-21, giving effect to the rezoning, is INTRODUCED, Reading is WAIVED, and June 17, 1997, is SET for adoption of same; and staff is DIRECTED to post a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. l � RESOLUTION NO.14-1997 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY BRUDIGAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. (APPLICANT & OWNER) , IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE WALNUT CREEK AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by Brudigam Development, Inc. (Applicant & Owner) , County File #RZ882826, to rezone 0. 55 acre from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Planned Unit District (P-1) , was received by the Community Development Department on December 12, 1988; and WHEREAS, simultaneously, the applicant/owner filed application requesting approval of Final Development Plan 3048-88, for a 14 dwelling unit apartment complex; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted for the project on May 24, 1989; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1989, the County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project, at the conclusion of which the Commission voted unanimously (all Commissioners Present) , to recommend that the Board of Supervisors DENY the project as described in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 40-1989; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, another public hearing was scheduled before and conducted by the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 27, 1990, whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, November 27, 1990, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission recommended the Board of Supervisors deny with prejudice the rezoning application and final development plan; and WHEREAS, on April 9 199 the Board took testimony and continued the matter to August 13 , 1991 to allow the applicant and the neighbors to meet and reconcile the issues surrounding the project; and WHEREAS, on July 2 , 1991 staff met with the neighbors to attempt to resolve the issues and no resolution was reached; and PAGE TWO RESOLUTION NO. 14-1997 WHEREAS, on August 13, 1991 the Board referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review of a revised site plan and required that the applicant contract with the County for an independent arborist to evaluate the health of the 5 foot 6 inch oak tree prior to the Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 1996 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project and subsequently continued the matter to July 9, 1996 and then again to August 13, 1996; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 1997 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the applicant's request to rezone the subject property from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Multiple Family Residential District (M-29) ; and WHEREAS, at the applicant's request the matter was continued to January 28, 1997; and WHEREAS, after the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the rezoning application, County File #2826-RZ from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Multiple Family Residential District (M-29) ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: A. The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan; and B. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts; and C. Community need has been demonstrated for the proposed use, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the County Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Planning Laws of the State of California. PAGE THREE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1997 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the direction to prepare this resolution was given by the County Planning Commission at its meeting of January 28, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Pavlinec, Guncheon,Terrell, Hanecak, Wong NOES: Commissioners - Clark ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry, Sec etary of the Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California DC/df bo3 :rz2826.res Findings Map C BART I0.1- PLEASANT HILLSTATIONR•1 TREAT BLVD J r 1 R.B 1 Nfl P•1 1 z 11 ELMW00 r f ; 26—,Rz I 'W 11 n ii�r Rezone From e-15 To M-24 !t.4LNU7' C2EEIC Area 1, til . (.ICON C7 Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of PAaE L-/4 Or 711E Ccr� 7- /978 ZoN/N6 MAP indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission in the matter of B,QyO/raAM DEi/ELO�d1ENT /�I/C�. Z ,2z ATTEST: Secretary of the Contra Costa Co my Planning Commission, State of--Calif. ORDINANCE NO, (Re-Zoning Land in the Walnut Creek Area) The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: SECTION I: Page L-14 of the County's 1978 Zoning Map(Ord.No.78-93)is amended by re-zoning the land in the above area shown shaded on the map(s) attached hereto and incorporated herein (see also Community Development Department File No. RZ 88 2826 FROM: Land Use District R-15 f Single Family Residential TO: Land Use District M-29 Multiple Family Residential and the Community Development Director shall change the Zoning Map accordingly, pursuant to Ordinance Code Sec.84.2-003. 0 BART to PLEASANT HILL ti STATION tt R.'' 04 rt TREAT BLVD R rt Cr zq P-1 or 0: EL OD ?; RZ Y If I M1 % SECTION 11, EFFECTTVFDATE, This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and within 15 days of passage.shall be published once with the names of supervisors voting for and against it in the a newspaper published in this County. PASSED on by the following vote: Sul2ervisor An N2 Absent Abstain 1. J.Rogers 2. G.B.Uilkema 3. D.Gerber 4. M.DeSaulnier 5. J.Canciarrdlla ATTEST: Phil Batchelor,County Administrator and Clerkof the Board of Supervisors Chairman of the Board By Dep. (SEAL) ORDINANCE NO, RZ 88 2826 Brudigam DIA) BRUDIGAM DEVELOPMENT,INC. (Applicant& Owner) COUNTY FILE #RZ2826 A request to rezone a 0.55 acre from Single Family Residential District(R-15)to Multiple Family Residential District(M-29) in the Walnut Creek area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County June 3, 1997-3:00 P.M. Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT sTw urs DATE: June 3, 1997 SUBJECT: HEARING ON A REQUEST OF BRUDIGAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. (APPLICANT i OWNER), COUNTY FILE #RZ2826 TO REZONE 0.55 ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (M-29) IN THE WALNUT CREEK AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) 8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Find the environmental documentation prepared for this project as adequate. 2. Approve Rezoning 2826-RZ to rezone the subject property from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Multiple Family Residential District (M-29) . 3. Approve the Findings contained in Resolution No. 14-1997 as the basis for the Board's action. 4. Introduce the ordinance giving effect to Rezoning 2826-RZ, waive reading and adopt. 5. Direct the Director of Community Development to post the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This project has been before the Board and the County Planning Commission on several occasions since the original submittal in 1988. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X_ YES SIGNATURE . _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO ITTEE 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:DEBBIE CHAMBERLAIN 335-1213 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Brudigam Development, Inc. PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY DC/df bo3:2826rz.bo Page Two On August 8, 1989 the Planning Commission voted to deny the project for reasons of insufficient turnaround, the large oak tree along the entrance road posed a barrier to fire equipment and the Commission could not make finding to rezone the subject property which is less than five acres in size to P-1. Following the Commission meeting, the applicant revised the 14 unit proposal to address the issues raised by the adjacent property owner. On October 24, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred the revised site plan back to the Planning Commission to review. Furthermore, on November 27, 1990 the Planning Commission, after reviewing the additional information, unanimously voted (6-0) to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning and 14-unit multi-family residential development plan. The Commission felt that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient effort to try to coordinate development of the site with neighboring property owners. Following the April 9, 1991 Board hearing and subsequent continuance to August 13, 1991 in which the Board referred the matter back to the Commission, several actions have transpired. First, a revised site plan was prepared for the project that more fully complies with conventional zoning and circulation standards, and concomitantly reduces the number of proposed units from 14 to 12. A "master plan" has also been prepared showing how the proposed plan could conform with similar projects on adjoining property. Copies of the plan were shared with the neighboring property owner, Mendes. On July 2, 1991 staff met with the applicant, neighboring property owners and their respective representatives. At the meeting, staff encouraged the parties to reconcile their differences. At the same time, staff indicated that failing a mutually acceptable solution, that staff was prepared to support a project that conformed to the Multiple Family Residential General Plan designation. No resolution was reached at the meeting. At the May 14, 1996 meeting, the Commission took testimony and continued the matter to July 9, 1996. The applicant further requested a continuance to August 13, 1996. At the August 13, 1996 meeting, the Commission accepted the applicant's withdrawal of the Final Development Plan application, DP883045. The rezoning was continued to permit staff the opportunity to review the applicant's revised proposal. The Planning Commission in discussion on the previous proposal to P-1 expressed concern over the required variance to the 5 acre minimum requirement to rezone the property to P-1. The applicant responded to"concerns raised by the Commission, with a request to rezone the subject property to M-29. The subject property exceeds the minimum acreage requirement of 10,000 square feet for the M-29 zoning district. The Planning Commission, at the January 28, 1997 hearing, in reviewing all the evidence and testimony found the applicant over the past 8 years has made a good faith effort to work with the •surrounding property owners to develop an integrated plan. Furthermore, the Commission following the review of three arborist reports determined that development of the site would have minimal impact on the oak tree and that the rezoning to M-29 was appropriate. -1997 RESOLUTION NO.14 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BY BRUDIGA14 DEVELOPMENT, INC. (APPLICANT & OWNER) , IN THE ORDINANCE CODE SECTION PERTAINING TO THE PRECISE ZONING FOR THE WALNUT CREEK AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request by Brudigam Development, Inc. (Applicant & Owner) , County File #RZ882826, to rezone 0.55 acre from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Planned Unit District (P-1) , was received by the Community Development Department on December 12, 1988; and WHEREAS, simultaneously, the applicant/owner filed application requesting approval of Final Development Plan 3048-88, for a 14 dwelling unit apartment complex; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance was posted for the project on May 24, 1989; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1989, the County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project, at the conclusion of which the Commission voted unanimously (all Commissioners Present) , to recommend that the Board of Supervisors DENY the project as described in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 40-1989; and WHEREAS, after notice was lawfully given, another public hearing was scheduled before and conducted by the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 27, 1990, whereat all persons interested might appear and be heard; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, November 27, 1990, the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and WHEREAS, the County Planning Commission recommended the Board of Supervisors deny with prejudice the rezoning application and final development plan; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 1991 the Board took testimony and continued the matter to August 13 , 1991 to allow the applicant and the neighbors to meet and reconcile the issues surrounding the project; and WHEREAS, on July 2, 1991 staff met with the neighbors to attempt to resolve the issues and no resolution was reached; and PAGE TWO RESOLUTION NO. 14-1997 WHEREAS, on August 13, 1991 the Board referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for further review of a revised site plan and required that the applicant contract with the County for an independent arborist to evaluate the health of the 5 foot 6 inch oak tree prior to the Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 1996 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the project and subsequently continued the matter to July 9, 1996 and then again to August 13, 1996; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 1997 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the applicant's request to rezone the subject property from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Multiple Family Residential District (M-29) ; and WHEREAS, at the applicant's request the matter was continued to January 28, 1997; and WHEREAS, after the County Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors APPROVAL of the rezoning application, County File 12826-RZ from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Multiple Family Residential District (M-29) ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the reasons for this recommendation are as follows: A. The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan; and B. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts; and C. Community need has been demonstrated for the proposed use, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the County Planning Commission shall respectively sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors all in accordance with the Planning Laws of the State of California. PAGE THREE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1997 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the direction to prepare this resolution was given by the County Planning Commission at its meeting of January 28, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Pavlinec, Guncheon,Terrell, Hanecak, Wong NOES: Commissioners - Clark ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None ATTEST: Dennis M. Barry., S!;-Qatission, rary of the Planning County of Contra Costa, State of California DC/df bo3 :rz2826.res Findings Map o` B A.R Two PLEASANT HILL STATION R•1 rTREAT BLVD : R•B 1 „ 1 P-1 ll rill 2f! ELM Cr it N'00 f o, l 26 ,Rz m W ,.f nor N c f�if = c Ir to I 1 n i o I � ii li M41. F 1r Rezone From 0-/5 To M-24 m4LN117- G2Ew;C Area fil • U)ON Chair of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, State of California, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of PA,--,- L-/4 OF 711--- /,yTys 1978 ZoN/N6 14R indicating thereon the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning . Commission in the matter of B,QvD/raAA9 282r!v- ,2z ATTEST:ir" I� `l ,&LI, Secretary of the Contra Costa ounty Planning Commission, State of Calif. Helmet Brudigam Linda Hwang Maurice E. Huguet Brudigam Development, Inc. 3430 Morningside Drive 924 Main St. 3399 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #100 El Sobrante, CA 94803 Martinez, CA 94553 Lafayette, CA 94549 Rose Brudigam Li Hwa Chen Michael Brent P.O. Box 1696 2786 Jones Rd. #1 1333 Honey Trail Lafayette, CA 94549 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Sam A. Mendes Ron West Tom Cogburn 2740 Jones Road 1250 Elmwood Drive 1910 Olympic Blvd. #100 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dan Smith Andy&Evelyn Anderson Station West Associates 1107 Virginia St. 2781 Oak Road 100 Pringle Avenue Berkeley, CA 94702 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Adrian&Joan Mendes Palmer School for Girls&Boys Linda Hwang 7 Sky Terrace 2740 Jones Road 3430 Morningside Drive Danville, CA 94526 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Richmond, CA 94803 Henry&Helen Buchner C. T. Hamilton Contra Costa County Fire Protection 2751 Oak Road 1260 Kendall Ct. 2010 Geary Road Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek,CA 94595 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Central CCC Sanitary District East Bay Municipal Utility District Acalanes Union High School District 5019 Imhoff Place Community Affairs Office 1212 Pleasant Hill Road Martinez, CA 94553 375-11 th St. Mail Slot 802 Lafayette, CA 94549 Oakland, CA 94607-4240 Walnut Creek School District City of Walnut Creek City of Lafayette 960 Ygnacio Valley Road P.O. Box 8039 P.O. Box 1968 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Lafayette, CA 94549 rz2826.lab Agenda Item#5. Community Development Contra Costa County CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1997 - 7:30 P.M. 1. INTRODUCTION BRUDIGAM DEVELOPMENT, INC. (Applicant & Owner), County File #2826-RZ: The applicant requests approval to rezone 0.55 acres from Single Family Residential District (R- 15) to Multiple Family High Density (M-29) and preliminary development plan approval. Subject property is .55 acres fronting 20 feet on the west side of Oak Road, approximately 270 feet south of Jones Road, in the Walnut Creek area. Site address is #2761 Oak Road. (R-15) (ZA: L-14) (CT 3882.02) (Parcel 9172-012-006). This item was continued from the January 14, 1997 hearing at the applicant's request. The applicant has provided additional background information for the Commission. See attached letter dated January 13, 1997. II. RECOMMENDATION A. Accept the environmental documentation prepared for this project as adequate. B. Adopt a resolution to the Board of Supervisors recommending approval of the rezoning and denial of the preliminary development plan. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential-High Density (21 to 30 dwelling units per acre), 1991 Contra Costa County General Plan. B. Zoning: R-15 - 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. Proposed M-29 - Multiple Family-High Density. C. CEOA Status: A Negative Declaration has been posted. D. Site Description and Existing Land Use: Subject parcel is located at the intersection of Jones Road and Oak. Road, approximately one and one-half blocks from the Pleasant Hill BART Station. It is a vacant lot, containing no habitable structures. It is used for storage of construction materials by the owner. A small house trailer is situated near the westerly perimeter, a small storage shed is located near the easterly property line. The land is generally flat. Several large shrubs and small S-2 trees are located on the perimeter. The parcel's configuration is of a "flag" lot, situated behind a 0.47 acre parcel fronting on Oak Road. The subject parcel is surrounded on all sides by eight developed parcels; of these, four front on Jones Road and three front on Oak Road. Two of the Jones Road parcels (numbers 1 and 7) are owned by the same person who owns parcel number 5 on Oak Road (Mr. Mendes). The latter parcel is located on the north side of the private access "panhandle" road leading to the subject parcel. This street which is 25' wide and 213' long serves as both ingress and egress. A specimen size(5-6" trunk diameter) oak tree is located approximately 90' into the access road roughly midway on the access road from Oak Road to the proposed building site, to the property line separating the subject parcel from the immediately adjacent parcel to the south, the tree reduces the useable roadway width. E. Proposed Land Use: The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to M-29 (29-unit per acre). IV. PROJECT BACKGROUND This project has been before the Board and the County Planning Commission on several occasions since the original submittal in 1988. On August 8, 1989 the Planning Commission voted to deny the project for reasons of insufficient turnaround, the large oak tree along the entrance road posed a barrier to fire equipment and the Commission could not make finding to rezone the subject property which is less than five acres in size, to P-1. Following the Commission meeting, the applicant revised the 14 unit proposal to address the issues raised by the adjacent property owner. On October 24, 1989 the Board of Supervisors referred the revised site plan back to the Planning Commission to review. Furthermore, on November 27, 1990 the Planning Commission, after reviewing the additional information, unanimously voted (6-0) to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning and 14-unit multi-family residential development plan. The Commission felt that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient effort to try to coordinate development of the site with neighboring property owners. Following the April 9, 1991 Board hearing and subsequent continuance to August 13, 1991 in which the Board referred the matter back to the Commission, several actions have transpired. First, a revised site plan was prepared for the project that more fully complies with conventional zoning and circulation standards, and concomitantly reduces the number of proposed units from 14 to 12. A"master plan" has also been prepared showing how the proposed plan might conform with similar projects on adjoining property. Copies of the plan were shared with the neighboring property owner, Mendes. S-3 On July 2, 1991 staff met with the applicant, neighboring property owners and their respective representatives. At the meeting, staff encouraged the parties to reconcile their differences. At the same time, staff indicated that failing a mutually acceptable solution, that staff was prepared to support a project that conformed to the Multiple Family Residential General Plan designation. No resolution was reached at the meeting. At the May 14, 1996 meeting, the Commission took testimony and continued the matter to July 9, 1996. The applicant further requested a continuance to August 13, 1996. At the August 13, 1996 meeting, the Commission accepted the applicant's withdrawal of DP883045. The applicant is now proposing to rezone the property from R-15 to M-29. V. ZONING REQUEST The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property from R-15 (Single Family Residential) to M-29 (Multiple Family High). The surrounding area (Pleasant Hill BART Station) has been rezoned to Planned Unit Development to incorporate higher density development around a transit hub. Rezoning the subject property to M-29 would bring the subject property into conformance with the General Plan. The Pleasant Hill BART area is zoned P-l (Planned Unit Development) with M-17 zoning south of the subject property. The Planning Commission in discussion on the previous P-1 proposal expressed concern over the variance to the 5-acre minimum requirement to rezone the property P-1. The applicant is responding to concerns raised by the Commission, with a request to rezone the subject property to M-29. The subject property exceeds the minimum acreage requirement of 10,000 square feet for the M-29 zoning district. VI. DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS The continuing concern surrounding development of the project site is survivability of the 65.6-inch diameter oak tree in view of the proposed road and utility improvements. Chapter 816-6, Tree Preservation and Protection, requires when development application as defined by Section 816-6.4006, is submitted for review include the following: 816-6.1004 Proposed Development. (a) On any property proposed for development approval, tree alterations or removal shall be considered as a part of the project application. S-4 . (b) All trees proposed to be removed, altered or otherwise affected by development construction shall be clearly indicated on all grading, site and development. Except where the director otherwise provides, a tree survey shall be submitted as a part of the project application indicating the number, size, species and location of the dripline of all trees on the property. This survey shall be overlaid on the proposed grading and development plans. Three tree surveys have been submitted in conjunction with this project, two by the applicant and one under contract to the County. All three surveys concluded that survivability of the valley oak tree (Quercus lobata) during and after construction of the proposed project can be ensured with careful placement of utilities and roadbed for the access road and standard care for the tree. The Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. survey completed September 10, 1990 provides a diagram of"Tree Preservation Procedures", showing the access road in relation to the location of the oak tree. Page 2 of the Mayne Report discusses, and the Plant Health Diagnostics report concurs with the measures necessary for installation of improvements to ensure the trees' survivability during construction. The measures identified include digging a pit outside the dripline of the tree and tunneling to a pit on the other side of the tree are recommended for installing utilities along the access road. The report also provides an option for hand digging the utility trench if tunneling is not feasible. Based on the information provided in the Ma)nze Tree Expert Company, Inc. Report and as qualified in the Plant Health Diagnostics report, staff finds that if all the recommendations are followed as described in the Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. and Plant Health Diagnostics reports, construction of the access road and installation of utilities should have little if any impact on the tree. VII. REQUIRED FINDINGS Section 26-2.1806 of the County Code requires the following findings be made approval the request. They are as follows: A. The change proposed will substantially comply with the General Plan; and B. The uses authorized or proposed in the land use district are compatible within the district and to uses authorized in adjacent districts; and C. Community need has been demonstrated for the proposed use, but this does not require demonstration of future financial success. As indicted previously, the request to rezone the property from R-15 to M-29 substantially complies with the General Plan, Multiple Family-High Density designation. Furthermore, staff finds that the proposal to rezone the subject property to M-29 would be compatible with the M-29 zoning district and the surrounding Planned Unit, Single Family and Multiple Family Districts; and no variances to the minimum parcel size would be required if the . t S-5 subject property were to be developed in the future. Finally, community need for the rezoning has been demonstrated. During previous Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings, there was support for rezoning the subject property to a designation wluch conformed with the General Plan designation of Multiple Family-High Density which would not require a variance to the minimum parcel size. DJC/aa RZU2826-RZ.DJC 5/2/96 9/24/96 11/27/96 1/2/97 1/21/97 J' :!DJAM F KUM bA T tlVla 1 IVCtKJ l IVI.. 0 1 ej Go4 5ZO= • NORMAN W.BRUDIGAM,M.S.,P.E. 3399 Mt.Diablo Blvd.,Suite 100 Lafayette,CA 94549 (510)284-3300 January 13, 1997 Ms. Debbie Chamberlain Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Subj: County File#2628-RZ Dear Ms. Chamberlain: We have received the staff report for the upcoming public hearing which is to occur on Tuesday, January 14, 1997. We have also reviewed transcripts for the last public hearing on May 14, 1996. We wish to provide the following input, intended as a supplement to the staff report, to the application: 1. At the previous hearing,our Plan and request for P-1 Zoning evoked criticism. After developing three plans, it seems that resolving the acceptable Zoning is the appropriate next step. We are therefore requesting the rezoning of our parcel to M-29 to clarify the basis for modifying our Development Plan. The Staff has included our plan proposed at the May 1996 hearing as a"conceptual" Preliminary Plan. However,we want to make clear that when the M-29 Zoning is clarified,this plan(developed for P-1), will be redesigned to the more restrictive M-29 rules. This will include lowering the building height. 2. New information that has been generated since the last hearing consists of a)An updated review of the 12 unit project by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. In the Fire District's June 24, 1996 letter they stated "The Fire District will accept the some mitigation measures as agreed upon per Fire District Letter dated October 5, 1989" The Fire District remains agreeable with the access road and number of units being proposed at this site. Their position has basically remained unchanged since 1989. t ' 1-13-1997 1 b:UUAM 1-kUM bA Y LI\JU 1 IVttKJ 114L 0 1 u e-O" zzo0 . Ms.Debbie Chamberlain January 13, 1997 Page 2 b) We also had the project reviewed by the Waste Valley Management Company as garbage collection was one of the issues raised by the opponents for this project at the previous meeting. After review,Valley Waste Management concluded "It is my conclusion that the site will be accessible by any truck used by Valley Waste Management, which includes a front-end loader, the truck normally used to serve commercial sites... Valley Waste Management will be able to provide regular commercial service". 3. There is no new information with respect to the tree. At the May 14, 1996 Planning Hearing, Mr. Barry summarized the previous three tree reports by saying "All of the arborists reports that we've reviewed indicate that the tree is in good health and can be designed around" The current staff report states 'All three surveys concluded that the survivability of the valley oak tree during and after construction of the proposed project can be ensured with careful placement of utilities and roadbed for the access road and standard care for the tree". At the upcoming hearing we hope to get clarification of the ground rules for an acceptable development on this parcel by establishing M-29 as the Zoning,and perhaps guidance in adapting the character of the current Development plan. The site has constraints with respect to access and plan dimensions. Site constraints are not unusual for development in central Contra Costa County. Virtually all development sites have constraints that need to be considered in design. Thank you for consideration of this application_ Very truly yours, r orm.an W. Brudiga ,P.E. Civil Engineer NWB:jaf-bc159 Brudigam Development Inc. 3399 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Suite 100 Lafayette, CA 94549 ' 1 g6 JUL 23 Ali 6. 53 July 22, 1996 Ms. Debbie Chamberlain Community Development Department of Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Oak Road Development, County File#2826-RZ& 3048-88. Dear Ms. Chamberlain, As per your request we submit today the following: Letter from the Contra Costa Fire District, dated 6/24/96. Letter from Valley Waste Management, dated 7/17/96. Proposed letter by our neighbor to the south Mr. &Mrs. Buchner. (They have not returned from Europe yet, but will be back for the August 9, 1996 meeting). We also like to propose to cancel, if possible, the request for approval of the Final Development Plan(#3048-88) and change the request for rezoning from P1 to M29 zoning (2826-RZ). A new Development Plan, consistent with M 29 zoning could be provided at a later date. We would appreciate your comments. Thank you. Since , Helmut S. Brudigam, r nt Brudigam Development Inc. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 2-010 GEARY ROAD ® PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523-4694 (510)930-5500 FAX(510)930-5592 BUREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION Central Division TRANSMITTAL TO: NOrA%tJ tU . ru d 14A M DATE: j-c/ , 62!,,/996 3399 n, T• by o Po RA/do RE: a 39y8- 8f� C4 (AV eA 64 9yf51q '276/ ATTN: It/4`fid . F.D. Project # WE .ARE: [ ] RETURNING [ ] PLANS (Sheets dated ) [ ] RETAINING [ ] SPECIFICATIONS/CALCULATIONS [ ] THE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND ARE: [ J APPROVED AS SUBMITTED [ ] APPROVED AS NOTED [ ] RETURNED/LACKING INFO./RESUBMIT APPROVAL IS FOR INSTALLATION ONLY. [ ] PRIOR TO CEILING. TILE/SHEETROCK INSTALLATION, CONTACT THIS OFFICE FOR AN OVERHEAD SPRINKLER INSPECTION. [ ] THE SYSTEM SHALL BE HYDROSTATICALLY TESTED AT 50 P.S.I. OVER THE STATIC PRESSURE FOR 2 HOURS AND WITNESSED BY THIS OFFICE. COMMENTS: A copy of the approved plans and transmittal shall be on site at time.of inspection. A we ,o 9,74 Fi e- bf2`tic t w;//- 4erC&t '/-Ae SAhlc lyi.�`i'i,.Tia,J !s�41.E&A's eos A.g^Cg d u»ov AS nor Fisc b6 t)..ct /ehoo d-s-,A-d ocl- S .)9'8Z FINAL APPROVAL SUBJECT TO: [ J FIELD INSPECTION [ ] FUNCTIONAL TESTS [ J 48-HOURS NOTICE FOR INSPECTION AND/OR TEST IS REQUIRED. CALL 930-5500. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED. cc: FIEL ENG.004 SPR FINAL Rev. 2/95 DATE: 11 cr" %s'Iaste Management t,,. California Blvd., Suite 20 A Waste Management Company P.O,. Box 4007 V-,I;,In6t Creek, California 94596 51N935_8900 July 17, 1996 Ms. Rose Brudegum P.O. Box 1696 Lafayette, CA 94549 To Whom it May Concern: After assessing the plans for the project referred to as "Oak Lane Housing", to be built at 2761 Oak Road, Walnut Creek, it is my conclusion that the site will be accessible by any truck used by Valley Waste Management, which includes a "Front End Loader", the truck normally used to service commercial sites. Given that the site is built according to specifications, Valley Waste Management will be able to provide regular commercial service. Please feel free to call me if you have any further questions or concerns at (510) 988-8268. Sincerel Jason ergquist Operations Supervisor 'I division of ftv�!,, Nlanaqenient Collection and Recycling, Inc. July 1996 Contra Costa County Planning Commission c/o Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez , CA 94553-0095. ATTN: Hs Debbie Chamberlain Planner RE: 3048-88 and 2826-RZ 14 Unit Apartment Ladies and Gentlemen, We have reviewed architectural plans entitiled "14 Unit Apartment" and the staff report dated a for the above referenced development. A list of eight conditions of approval were attached. The project consists of 14 units on 2 levels over a partially underground parking level . The project will be accessed via a new driveway from Oak Rd. Special precautions will be taken to preserve the old oak tree.. After reviewing and discussing the plans with the Brudigams we feel this project is acceptable and is the type of project we would like as a neighbor. We feel the conditions of approval address our concerns adequately. Please consider the signature below as evidence of our support of the project . It is our hope that this project will be approved without any further delay. Sincerely, Henry anu Helen bucHner 2747 Oak Roaa Walnut Creek, CA A.P # 172-12-008-6 and 172-012-23-5 (Total 35,2836) HERITAGE TREE PRESER-Vti•.qON 8164.810-816-4,1010 or sign (other than approved tree identifi 'on 8 .1006 Appeal.The zoning is signs)to any heritage tree where suchwire o sign decis n on the permit application is fin unless may damage such designated heritage tree.( 88- ap to the planning commission ha ' g territo- 83). rial juri 'ction pursuant to and othe regulated by the s permit provisions of apter 26-2. 816.4 0 Damage notification.The ntractor, (Ord. 8 developer owner or any agent thereof notify the buildin inspection department out undue 816.4.100 Development rdination.(a)An delay of any a.that occurs s to an eritage tree application fo permit to y, art down or during co 'on.The cost of rep of the dam- remove any des heri a tree in connection age or tree re meat shall be at a expense of with any develop eat, submitted'and.com the responsible arty and the re work done ac- bind with the ini' app' 'on for approvaLof the cording to sten approved b the building in- development and.s_. considered.together with spection de t.10rd..:88-t the review.and decisi on the development.. (b),The.Proposed lopmeat shallindicate on 'cle 816-4 0: ..<. its-plan al as.-heritage trees. The heritage trees s eval and.their individual treatment consi red with., to the-land use 816-4.1002• Apph do (a)Any application€or and proposed velopment. . a permit to destroy; o. or remove a designat- (c)The in lve.-planning envy division may ed heritage tree-shall.be 'tted to the community, grant, gran 'th modificatio or conditions, or development department y the owner or.his author deny the ested.heritage tree lication. rized agent(satisfactory 'dente ofsuch authoriza (d)An .appeal of a decision a by.a planning tion to be submitted the-application)-.6n the agency '`' ion on the requested he tage tree appli- form provided by the unity development de- cation s be made in the same er and subject partment together-wi any ed fee.'. . to the procedure as a decision o the involved (b)The applicati shallcontain.the.location, comb' ed planning or subdivision en dement for number, species, s' , and h 'tage designation of the elopment. (Ord.88-83). . the tree to be yed,cut wn or removed and - a statement of ons for a proposed action, 8 6-4.1010 Priority.In the case of an conflict together with su other info 'on as.may be be een the provisions of this chapter and. ose-of iequired by the unity devel meat department. Ch ter 816-2,the provisions of this. 16-4 (Ord. 88-83). shall prevail. (Ord. 88-83). 816-4.1004 Procedure.Befo issuing a permit, the zoning or shall a inspected or Chapter 816-6 •--cause.to be' theproperty, a heritage tree that is the *ect of the permit,an surrounding TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION area. A pe 't shall be granted,. ed, condi- tioned;-or enied based upon the fo wing factors: Article 816-6.2 Title and Purpose (1)Th ealth, damage, danger o falling of the Sections: designat heritage tree that is the object of the 816-6.2002 Title. permit whethei said heritagetree as a host 816-6.2004 Purpose. for plan or animals parasitic to othe tees which 816-6.2006 Coordination: are en gered thereby. Article 816-6.4 Definitions (2) _ e presence of public nuisance actors,and Sections: the pr ximity to or interference with tilities, or 816-6.4002 Generally. interf nce with existing buildings to th xtent that 816-6.4004 Arborist. a tr or trees cannot be trimmed or buttr sed to fit 816-6.4006 Arborist report. the e. 816-6.4008 Department. ( The prevention of development as a esult of 816-6.4010 Development. heritage tree protection and preservation. 816-6.4012 Development application. (4) The pursuit of good professional practices of 816-6.4014 Director. forestry or landscape design. (Ord. 88-83). 394-17 (Contra Costa County 4-95) 816-6.2002-816-6.4012 ,JNING 816-6.4015 Riparian. (3)Trees are a vital part of a visually pleasing, 816-6.4016 Routine pruning. healthy environment for the unincorporated area of 816-6.4018 Topping. this county. (Orris. 94-59,94-22). 816-6.4020 Tree. 816-6.4022 Tree removal. 816-6.2006. Coordination. This chapter's re- 816-6.4024 Undeveloped property. quirements are intended to be in addition to those Article 816-6.6 Protected Trees otherwise required by this code.In the case of any Sections: conflicts, the director shall determine the require- .816-6.6002 Prohibition. meats applicable and the director's decision shall be 816-6.6004 'Protected trees. final in the absence of a timely filed appeal pursuant Article 816-6.8 -Applications to Chapter 26-2:(Ords.,94-59,94-22). Sections:- _ . 816-6.8002 -Permit requirement: .. . Article 816-6.4 816=6:8004'`;Application.: Definitions..... 816=6.8006 Review and site inspection, 816=6.8008 Arborist or forester report. 816-6.4002 Generally.-The definitions in this 81Er6:8010 -Factors:° article govern the construction of this chapter,unless 816-6.8012="`Decision: -': the context otherwise requires.(Ords:94-59,94-22). 816-6.8014 Appeal S., Article 816-6.10 Permit Exceptions 816-6.4004-,Arborist."Arborist":means a per- Sections: " son currently certified by the Westem Chapter of the 816-6.1002 No permit. International Society of Arboriculture,as an expert -816-6.1004 -'proposed development. on the came•of woody trees;shrubs and vines in the Article 816-6.12 Tree Protection landscape;4 consulting arborist who satisfies the Sections: requirements of the American Society of Consulting 816-6.1202 Tree.protection. Arbodsts or such other 8rborist who,after review by 816-6.1204 Deposit conditions. the director,is determined'to meet'the standards 816-6.1206 .Construction tree damage. established for certified or consulting arborists here- 816-6.1208 Violations. inabove described (Orris.94-59,94-22). Article 816-6.2 816-6A006 -Arborist report.An arborist report _ Title and Purpose is a report prepared by an arborist-on: (1)The possible impact of development on trees 816-6.2002 Title.This chapter shall-be known or existing tree.condition; as the"tree protection and preservation ordinance' (2)The impact of any alteration; and/or of Contra Costa County. (Ords.94-59, 94-22). (3) Restorative or-other remedial action that might be feasible to address tree alterations.(Orris. 816-6.2004 Purpose.This chapter provides for 94-59, 9422). the preservation of certain protected trees in the unincorporated area of this county.In addition,this 816-6.4008 Department."Department"means chapter provides for the.protection of trees on pri-. the community development department.(Orris.94- vate property by controlling tree removal while 59,94-22). allowing for reasonable enjoyment of private proper- ty rights and property development for the following 816-6.4010 Development. "Development" reasons: means any modification of land for human use from (1) The county finds it necessary to preserve trees its existing state which requires a discretionary on private property in the interest of the public entitlement for its establishment or a building and/or health, safety and welfare and to preserve scenic grading permit involving a protected tree or trees. beauty. (Ords. 94-59, 9422). (2) Trees provide soil stability,improve drainage conditions, provide habitat for wildlife and provide 816-6.4012 Development application.A devel- aesthetic beauty and screening for privacy. opment application is an application foir develop- ment (as defined in this article) requu-ing either (Con"Costa County 495) 394-18 TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVt._lON 816-6.4014--816-6.6004 ministerial or discretionary approvals including protected tree on private property within the county design review, use permits, subdivisions, rezoning without a tree permit, except as provided for in applications,building and/or grading permits.(Ords. Section 816-4.1002. (Orris.9459, 9422). 94-59, 94-22). 816-6.6004 Protected trees.A protected tree is 816-6.4014 Director. "Director" means the any one of the following. director of community development or his/her (1)On all properties within the unincorporated designee. (Ords. 9459, 9422). area of the county: (A)Where the tree to be cut down,destroyed or 816-6.4015 Riparian.Riparian vegetation is trimmed by topping is adjacent to or part of a.dpan- found along-creeks and streams. Runoff streams an,foothill woodland or oak savanna area, or part that only.carry runoff during the rain seasons in this of a stand-of four.or more trees, measures-twenty area are known to support significant riparian vege- inches or larger in circumference(approximately 6.5 talion. (Ords.-94-59, 94-22). inches in diameter)-psmeasured four and one-half feet from ground level, and is included in the fol- 816-6.4016 .Routine pruning. "Routine lowing list of indigenous trees:Acer macrophyllum pruning"'means the removal of dead or dying,:dis (Bigleaf.,-Maple), Acer.negundo (Box .:Elder), eased,.weak.or objectionable branches of a tree.in Aesculus.califorlica.-(California:Buckeye),. Alnus. a reasonable and scientific manner which does not Rhombifolia. (White. -Alder), .Arbutus -menziesii. structurally harm the tree..(Orris. 9459,94-22). (Madrone),Heteromeles atbutifolia(Toyon),Juglaus Ilmdsii: (California. Black Walnut), Juniperus 816-6.4018 Topping"Topping"is the removal califomica (California Juniper), Lithocarpus of the upper twenty-five percent or more of a tree's densiflora(Tanoak or Tanbark Oak),Pinus attenuata trunk(s) or primary leader. (Ords. 9459,9422). (Knobcone Pine), Pinus sabiniana (Digger Pine), Platanus Raeemosa(California Sycamore),Populus 816-6:4020 Tree:.`Tree"means a large woody fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood), Populus perennial plant-with one or more trunks, branches trichocarpa(Black Cottonwood), Quercus agrifolia and leaves, not including shrubs shaped to tree (California or Coast Live Oak),Quercus chrysolepis forms. (Ords. 94-59,94-22). (Canyon Live Oak),Quercus douglasii(Blue Oak), Quercus kelloggii(California Black Oak),Quercus _..816-6A022 Tree removaL "Tree removal". lobate (Valley Oak), :Quercus wislizenii (Interior means the destruction of any protected tree by cut- Live Oak),Salix lasiandra(Yellow Willow), Salix ting, regrading, girdling, interfering with water laevigata (Red.Willow), Salix lasiolepis (Arroyo supply, applying chemicals or by other means. Willow),Sambucus callicarpa(Coast Red Elderber- (Ords.94-59, 9422). ry). Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood), Umbellularia califomica(California Bay or Laurel); '816-6.4024 Undeveloped property."Undevel- (B)Any tree shown to be preserved on an ap- oped property"is: proved tentative map, development or site plan or (1) A parcel of private land which is vacant or a required to be retained as a condition of approval; developed parcel which has remaining development (C)Any tree required to be planted as a replace- potential; meat for an unlawfully removed tree. (2) A parcel of land which can be further divided (2) On any of the properties specified in subsec- in accordance with zoning regulations of the county; tion(3) of this section: (3) A parcel of land on which the structures are (A)Any tree measuring twenty inches or larger .Proposed to be demolished or relocated.(Orals.94- in circumference (approximately six and one-half 59, 94-22). inches diameter), measured four and one-half feet from ground level including the oak trees listed Article 816-6.6 above; Protected Trees .(B) Any multistemmed tree with the sum of the circumferences measuring forty inches or larger, 816-6.6002 Prohibition.No person shall trench, measured four and one-half feet from ground level; grade or fill within the dripline of any protected tree (C) And any significant grouping of trees,includ- or cut down,destroy,trim by topping or remove any ing groves of four or more trees. 394-18a (Contra Costa County 495) 816-6.8002-916-6.8010 '.-.JNING f (3) Specified properties referred to in subsection the director of community development.Such enve- (2) of this section includes: lopes, with no return address, shall be required for (A) Any developed property within any commer- notification of the tentative decision to grant a tree cial, professional office or industrial district; permit; (B) Any undeveloped property within any district; (9) Additional information as may be required by (C) Any area designated on the general plan for the county upon review of the above information; recreational purposes or open space; (10)Application and permit fees. (Oris. 94-59, (D) Any area designated in the county general 94-22). plan open- space element as visually significant riparian or ridge line vegetation and Where the tree 816-6.8006 Review and site inspection.Prior is adjacent to or part of a riparianJoothill woodland to making a decision, the director or his designee or oak savanna area. (Orris. 94-59.--94-22). shall review the application using the criteria and_ factors specified.in this article.°Application review Article 8164.8 may include a_site visit.(Orris.94-59, 9422). Applications 816-6.8008.. Arborist or1orester report.If the 81".8002 Pervait requirement:=Any•person- reasons for alteration or removal relate to:the health proposing Ito trench`gra&or fillwithin the dripline of the tree-or:if grading,trenching or filling is pro- of any protected tree or_cutdown,destroy,trim by posed tinder the dripline of:an•ezisfmg tree;•.or the topping or remove any'protected tree shall apply to review is of a collective tree permit and the director the department for tree'permit'not-less:than ten determines that moretechnical expertise is necessary days`prior to the•proposed tree removal-or-tree to make'-the decision, a :report t prepared by 'an alterations. arborist may be required,to be paid for by the-ap- Persons who would be eligible to apply for three plicant. (Ords.'94-59, 9422). or more individual-tree permits under provisions of this chapter may apply for a collective tree permit 816-6.8010 - Factors.In granting or denying the for the site. (Ords.94-59,94-22). tree permit the following factors shall be considered: (1) General. 8166.8004 Application. -In addition to any (A)The proximity and number of other trees in other applicable requirements of this code and coun- the vicinity; ty ordinances, the application shall include the fol- (B)The relationship of.the subject property to lowing information and items: general plan open space or open space plans and (1) The number,size(including height and diam policies. eter measured four and one-half feet above ground), (2)For Approval. species,location,dripline and condition of each tree (A)The arborist report indicates that the tree is proposed to be altei+ed or removed; in poor health and cannot be saved; (2Yne-reason(s)for alteration or removal; (B)The tree is a public nuisance and is causing (3) A.plot plan showing the approximate location damage to public utilities or streets and sidewalks of all trees on the site,including those proposed to that cannot be mitigated by some other means(such remain; - as root barriers etc.); (4) Proposed method of tree alteration or remov- (C)The tree is in danger of falling and cannot be al; saved by some other means(such as pruning); (5) Information indicating the effect of tree alter- (D)The tree is' damaging existing.private im- ation or removal on soil stability and erosion if provements on the lot such as a building foundation, located on a steep slope or near any creek; walls,patios, decks, roofs, retaining walls, etc.; (6) The signature of the property owner or if the (E) The tree is a species known to be highly permit is requested by someone other than the own- combustible and is determined to be a fire hazard; er, a written authorization from the owner, (F) The proposed tree species or the form of the (7) Photographs of the treels to be affected by tree does not merit saving (i.e., a tree stunted in grading or trenching, topping or removal; growth, poorly formed, etc.); (8) A list and set of stamped envelopes addressed (G) Reasonable development of- the property to adjacent property owners and other individuals would require the alteration or removal-of the tree and organizations as may otherwise be indicated by (coma costa county a-vs) 394-18b TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVA ION 816-6.8012--816-6,1002 and this development could not be reasonably ac- If a permit is denied, the director shall state the commodated on another area of the lot; reason for denial.Notice of decision shall be mailed (Ii)The tree is a species known to develop weak- to the applicant. (Ords. 9459, 94-22). nesses that affect the health of the tree or the safety of people and property.These species characteristics 816-6.8014 Appeals. Any person may appeal include but are not limited to short lived, weak the director's decision within ten calendar days of wooded and subject to limb breakage,shallow root the director's decision to the planning commission ed and subject to toppling. having jurisdiction in accordance with Chapter 26-2. (n Where the arborist or forester report has been Further appeals may be made as provided by Chap- required, and the director is-satisfied that the issu- ter 26-2.Appeals shall be made in writing and state ante of a permit will not negatively affect the the specific reasons why the decision does not meet sustainability:of the resource. the..criteria and-factors for granting or!'denial of a •(3)For•Denial:^ . permit-as•stated in this chapter. (Ords. 94-S9,.94- (A) 4-59, 94(A)The applicant seeks permission for the alter- 22). ation or removal of a healthy treedhat can be avoid- ed by-reasonable redesigw of•the,site plan prior to Article 816-6.10 projectapproval(for nondiscietionary permits); : Permit Exceptions: j(B) It•1s'reasoIIably'likely that•alteration-or.re- moval of the tree will cause pibblems with drainage,- 816-6.1002 -No permit. A tree permit is not erosion control, •land stability, windscreen, visual required.for the following situations: - screening,and/or-privacy and said problems cannot (1)Hazardous Situation. Any tree whose condi- be mitigated as part:of the proposed removal of the tion .creates a hazardous situation which requires tree; immediate-action as determined by the director; (C)The tree to be removed•is a member of a building inspector, sheriff, involved fire district or group-of trees in which each tree is dependent upon a utility company to protect its facilities.During off- 'the others for survival; hours, when officials described above are (D)The value of the tree to the neighborhood in unavailable, the hazardous situation may be cor- terms of visual effect;wind screening,privacy and rected and a report of the incident and description neighboring vegetation is greater than the hardship of the hazard shall be .submitted to the director to the owner, within ten days of the incident. _. (E) If the permit involves trenching or grading (2)Prior Approval.Any tree whose removal was and there are other reasonable alternatives including specifically approved as a part of an approved de- -an alternate mute,use of retaining walls,use of pier velopment plan, subdivision, other discretionary and grade beam foundations and/or relocating'site project or a building permit. improvements; (3)Routine pruning not involving topping or tree (F)Any other reasonable and relevant factors removal. sspeccified by the director...(Ords.9459, 9422). (4) Commercial plantings.Planting,removal and harvesting in connection with Christmas tree farms, 816-6.8012 Decision. The director shall grant orchards and nurseries: or deny tree permits in accordance with this chapter (5)Rangeland Management. Normal activities and code. If a permit is granted, the director may associated with range management and the disposi- attach conditions to insure compliance with this tion of wood incidental to rangeland management on chapter and code. These conditions may include.a agriculturally zoned properties. (with each parcel requirement to replace any or all trees on a compa containing at least twenty acres but also including rable ratio of either size or quantity. Single tree properties in adjacent common ownership interest of permits shall be valid for a period of ninety days at least twenty acres),will not require a tree permit. and may be renewed for additional periods by the "Rangeland management activities" are defined as director upon request by the applicant. Collective including but not limited to the clearing and thin- tree permits shall be valid for a period of time to be ning of trees for purposes of reducing fire risk or determined by the director based upon individual enhancement of forage production, removing ob- circumstances. struction to stormwater runoff flow, maintaining adequate clearance on range roads and fire trails, 394-18c (Contra Costa County 495) 816-6.1004-816-6.1206 -;.,;AING fencing maintenance and protecting equipment and permitted within the driphne unless indicated on the constructions. grading plans approved by the county and addressed (6)Public Agencies/Utilities.Tfimming and clear- in any required report prepared by an arborist. If ing within public agency or utility easements and grading or construction is approved within the rights-of-way for maintenance of easement or right dripline, an arborist may be required to be present of way will not require a tree permit.Lands owned during grading operations. The arborist shall have by public utilities and used for administrative pur- the authority to require protective measures to pro- poses or uses unrelated to the -public service tect the roots. Upon completion of grading and provided by the utility are not exempted under this construction, an involved arborist shall prepare a provnion.•(Ords. 94-59,94-22). report outlining further methods required for tree protection if any-am required.All arborist expense 816.6.1084 Proposed development.(a)On any- shall be borne by the developer and applicant unless property proposed for.develdpment approval,.tree. otherwise provided by the development's conditions alterations or removal shall be considered as a part of approval of the project application. (3)No parking or storing'vehicles;-equipment, (b)All trees proposed to be removed,altered or machinery or-construction materials, construction otherwise affected by&velopment construction shall trailers and no,dumping of oils or chemicals shall be clearly indicated:.:on all -grading; site and be permitted within the dripline of any tree to be development plans.Except where the director other- saved.-(Ords.94-59;94-22). wise provides, a tree survey shall be'Submitted-as a part of the project application indicating the num 81.6-6,12A4 Deposit conditions. Prior to the ber,size, species and location.of the dripline of-all issuance of any grading or building permit for a trees on the property.This survey shall be4overlaid property where trees are required by this chapter to on the proposed'grading..an&development:plans: be saved,the owner or developer shall deposit cash The plan shall include a tabulation of all trees pro- or other acceptable security with the department on posed for removal a per tree basis in the amount established by the (c)The granting or denial of a tree removal pro- involved development's conditions of approval or gram which is a part of a:development proposal approved applications. covered by this section shall be subject-to Sections As required,the county may hold the deposit for 816-6.8408 and 816-6.8814.A separate tree removal a two-year period to guarantee the health of the permit shall not be required.(Ords.94-59, 94-22). trees for a two-year period upon completion of _ - construction.In addition,the applicant or developer Article,816-6.12 may be required to enter into a tree maintenance Tree Protection agreement secured by said deposidbond by which they agree to maintain said-trees in a living and 8166.1282 Tree protection. Except where viable condition throughout the term of the agree- otherwise-provided by the involved development's menta This agreement may be transferred to any new conditions of approval or approved permit applica owner of the property for the remaining length of tion,on all properties where trees are required to be the agreement,(Orris.94-59,94-22). saved during the course of development,the devel- oper shall follow the following-tree preservation 816-6.1206 Construction tree damage.. A standards; development's property owner or developer shall (1)prior to the start of any clearing,stockpiling, notify the department of any damage that occurs to trenching,grading,compaction,paving or change in any tree during the construction process.The owner ground elevation on a site with trees to be pre- or developer shall repair any damage as determined served, the applicant shall install fencing at the by an arborist designated by the director. dripline or other area as determined by an arborist Any tree not approved for destruction or removal report of all trees adjacent to or in the area to be that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of altered.Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree the fences may be inspected and the location thereof or trees of equivalent size and of a species as ap- approved by appropriate county staff. proved by the director to be reasonably. appropriate (2) No grading,compaction,stockpiling, trench- for the particular situation. (Ords. 94-59,94-22). ing, paving or change in ground elevation shall be (contra Costa county 4-95) 394-18d - FIRE PROTECTION F2-..11rr1ES 816-6.1208-518-2.406 816-6.1208 Violations.Violations of this chap- Article 818-2.2 ter are punishable and may be corrected in any General manner provided by this code or as otherwise al- lowed by law. Each tree damaged or removed in 818-2 2 Purpose and intent.The purr a of violation of this chapter shall constitute a separate this chap r is to provide a method for fmanc' fire offense. (Orris. 94-59, 94-22). protection acil'ties required by the goals poli- cies of th general plan and necessity by the needs of n w construction and develo ent for Division 818 adequate protection facilities and se ices.Fail- ure to provi these facilities and se ces would COMMUNITY FACILITY FEES place residen of the completed con ction and service area ' a condition perilous their health Chapters: and safety. ( ..90-35,-8649). _ 818-2 Fire Protection Fa es 818-2.204 neral plan. fire protection plan part of the mmunity fac' ' es element of the Chapter 818- county's general in provides or the location of fire station and F ilities.Fees ollected pursuant to PROTECTION ACII�ITIFS this chapter.shall used for protection facilities consistent with the eneral .-(Ords. 90-35, 86- Article 18-2.2 General 49).- Sectio 818- .202 Purpose d intent. 818-2.206 R do . The board may from 818- 204 Gene plan. time to time, by res u on, issue regulations to 818-2. Re 'ons. establish administratio procedures, interpretation Article 818- .4 DeSni ' ns and policy direction fo this chapter. (Ords. 90-35, Sections: 86-49). 818-2.40 Gen y- 818-2. F district. cle 18-2.4 818-2.406 F protection facilities. e5ni Vons 818-2.408 Fl r space. 818-2.410 w construction. 818-2.402 erally. ess otherwise specifi- 818-2.412 verextended. cally provided, o required the context, the fol- 818-2A14 rvice area. lowing terms a the gs set forth in this Article.818-2.6 article for the p ses of this apter.(Ords.90-35, Sections: 86-49). ---.818-2.602 Req irement. 818-2.604 Resi ntial credit. 818-2.40 Fire district.' district" means 818-2. Use o fee. a district' this county or — under the Fire 818-2.60 tration fee. Protection istrict Law of 1967. ids. 90-35, 86- 818-2.6 0 Refund. 49). 818-2. 2 Acceptab agreement. Article 81 2.8 Fire Distri ' Findings 818- .406 Fire protection fa ' 'ties. "Fire Sectio pro on facilities" means fire statio s (including 818- .802 Findings and otice. g and fixtures), sites, app urt ant equip- 8182*804 quip- 8182.804 Report req ' ents. me (including vehicles), and appropri to share of 81 -2.806 Fire chief. ce facilities (administration, dispa h, repair Article 18-2.10 Review by Board f Supervisors s p, and training) which are designed, veloped Sec ons: d used to provide the full spectrum of fire rotec- 18-2.1002 County concurren tion services to a given service area. (Ords. 35, 818-2.1004 Notice of meeting. 86-49). 818-2.1006 Meeting. _ 394-18e (coma costa county 495) t PLANT HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS 327 Nancy Lane Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-2824 Office:(510) 825-8793 FAX(510) 825-8795 September 15, 1995 :a r Mr. Delmar Tompkins _ Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: Report on oak tree for Oak Road Development County Files#2826-RZ& #3048-88 Summary The survivability of this valley oak tree(Quercus lobata) during and after construction of the proposed project car!be ensured with careful placement of utilities and roadbed for the access road and standard care for the tree. Background I reviewed the background material you provided to me. These documents(A to D)are attached. A . .Memo from Director'of Community Development of Contra Costa County to.Board of Supervisors dated 8/7/91 regarding this tree. B Arborist report dated 9/10/90 from Mayne Tree Expert Company. C Arborist report dated 6/23/88 from Barrie D. Coate&Associates(without photos). D Drawings(pages 1 of 8 through 4 of 8) of proposed development dated 7/1/91 by Daniel G. Smith&Associates, Architects. I also received pages 9.and 10 from Mr. Dan Smith that show drawing of the limb-height over the proposed access road. Copies of these documents are also attached with Exhibit D._ The concerns outlined in the Board of Supervisors memo-concerning this tree are twofold: O Survivability of the tree in view of proposed road and utility improvements. © Vehicle clearance that might necessitate removal of a large limb. My assignment is to address these concerns by providing an unbiased opinion of the impact of this project on the tree. The information in the two arborist reports can be summarized.as follows: Trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade is 65.6 inches. D The tree is in relatively good health and displays-good structural characteristics for this age and species of tree. Community Development of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ&3048-88-Oak Road Development Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostics September 15, 1995 page 2 The expansive canopy extends approximately forty-nine feet to the north and seventy-two feet to the south. Any trenching.or digging for installation of utilities along the access road is to be done outside the dripline of the tree and then tunneled fiour feet deep under the root zone defined by the canopy spread.(see footnotes 1 &2). The architect drawings indicate the following modifications to the immediate area around the tree: Removal of four feet of existing asphalt from the edge of the trunk outward in a circle. This is to be done in two different phases. Phase one.will remove asphalt on the north side. Phase three removal will be on the south side. The access road is proposed to be four feet from the north face of the trunk and extend twenty feet wide. _ Placement of all new building foundations outside the existing dripline of the tree. Site review and discussion I visited the site on August 15, 1995 and verified all of the information in the two arborist reports that regard tree dimensions; location of roots, soundness of the tree structure,existing conditions and general tree health. I agree with both arborist reports that this tree is in good health. I also agree that the proposed development cam be successfully completed with long term benefit to this tree provided that specific recommendations for tree care are followed carefully before, during and after completion of this project. I visited the site a second time on September 9, 1995 after receiving the height clearance information from Mr. Dan Smith. I measured the height of the limb over the access road to be twelve-feet one inch ata distance of six feet from the trunk. The height of the limb rises acutely at six feet from the trunk.and is thirteen feet five inches at seven feet from the.trunk. The proposed access road four feet from the trunk will not accommodate the major scaffold limb arising on the north face of the t;-unk. Smaller limbs and foliage which hang below the standard thirteen and a half foot clearance can be effectively thinned to reduce end weight and provide the necessary clearance. Board Concerns O The removal of the asphalt and replacement with porous pavers, as suggested in the Barrie Coate report, will be of benefit to the tree. Specific directions are provided in the recommendations section of this report. Utilities will not damage the tree if the plan outlined in the Mayne report for tunneling is followed. See definition for tunneling in the recommendations section of this report. Communi}y Development of Co.Co County Files 2826-RZ&3048-88-Oak Road Development Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostics September 15, 1995 page 3 4 To provide limb clearance for vehicle traffic and keep the large structural limbs intact, the access road should be no closer than seven feet from the north face of the trunk. Thinning and decreasing the end weight on the limbs can provide the height clearance for the smaller limbs without compromising the structure of the tree. Recommendations (in order of sequence) A tree health care program should be started and include dormant oil plus diazinon spray in February as suggested in the Mayne Tree Experts report. • A.fence should.be placed seven feet from the,north face of the trunk to prevent vehicular traffic in this area. Storage of equipment and supplies should not be allowed within the fenced area. No construction(grade changes, trenching, etc.) should be allowed within the fenced area. • Pruning'of the smaller limbs-(less than four inches in diameter)to reduce end weight and provide vehicle clearance should be complete before the start of any construction. •_ Cables should be inspected for soundness by an ISA certified tree worker or ISA certified arborist. Repairs should be made if needed. • Removal of the asphalt should be supervised by a qualified consulting arborist. Hand removal should be done within six feet of the trunk. Outside this four foot zone mechanical removal may be used. If roots two inches in diameter or larger are found or the arborist has other concerns about tree impacts during mechanical removal,then the removal of asphalt under the canopy' to the dripline should be done by hand with picks and shovels. After removal of the asphalt the tree should be irrigated with 1,000 gallons of water using subsurface soil injection equipment. After irrigation the soil under the canopy to the dripline should be covered with wood chip mulch to a minimum six inch depth. Wood chips should be replenished as needed. • The new road bed should be placed at,existing grade(after removal of asphalt). Perforated pavers should be used. Geoblock@ has been suggested by Barrie Coate. Uni Eco-Stone®is a,similar product that is also.available(attachment E). ' The canopy is the branch and foliage structure of the tree. 2 The dripline is the outside edge of the canopy spread over the ground., Community Development of Co.Co County Files 2826-RZ&3048-88-:Oak Road Development Independent arborist report by Plant HeaUh Diagnostics September 15, 1995 page 4 • No trenching activities should occur under the canopy to the dripline. Installation of utilities should follow the guidelines in the Mayne report at the end of page 2: "...digging a pit outside the dripline and tunneling to a pit on the other side of the tree[dripline],should be " utilized for installing the utilities along the access road Since most of the roots are in the upper 3 feet of soil,the tunnel should be 4 feet deep." The tunneling process should be supervised by a qualified consulting arborist. • Landscape and irrigation design for the area under the canopy to the dripline should be reviewed and approved by the consultir g arborist before acceptance by the county. ROTHY E A, M.S., ASCA t Plant Pathologi onsulting Arborist •x, 1• • y i aa: .BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Harvey E. Bragdon, Conlra Director of Community Development :_✓'1 on, d Costa. ATE: August 7, 1991 C� c. o '?` Hearing on Rezoning Application 2826-RZ and Final opmenCoulty o vi r. usJECTPlan 3048-88, Brudigam Development, in the Walnut Creek area °' ' U AA a 1ECIFlC REOUEST(S) OR RECOHMEMATION(S) a 6ACKGROUM AND JUSTIFICATION p RECOMMENDATION 1, Find that the applicant, Brudigam Development, has made a a, good-faith effort to respond to the concerns raised by the County Planning Commission as evidenced by preparation of a o o revised site plan and offer to share in the costs of an M appraisal on the value of the Brudigam property. 2. Refer the revised site plan to the County Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation to the Board. Direct the Director of Community Development to r request any other additional information from the applicant N that may be required to supplement the review of the revised project. 3. Direct the Director of Community Development to request payment of necessary fees from the applicant for the o preparation of an independent report by a licensed arborist V on the survivability of the, mature oak tree at the project d entrance. The report shall consider proposed project U improvements and necessary trimming to allow access to the �? project site. The report shall be completed prior to the o Commission hearing. d —� $SCENT BACKGROUND_ a This project has been before the Board and the County Planning 41 .Commission on several occasions since the original submittal in 4 1989. The background to this project was reviewed in a draft Board Order dated March 12, 1990. (It should be noted that the date of the memorandum was incorrectly identified; the date should have read March 12, 1991.) On November 27, 1990 the Planning Commission unanimously voted (6' U - O) to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning and 14-unit multi-family residential development plan. It was the second time in two years. that the Commission had recommended denial of the project. The Commission felt that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient effort to try to coordinate development of the site with neighboring property owners. On April 9, 1991 the Board opened the hearing on the Commission's recommendation. After taking testimony, the Board continued the hearing and directed staff to meet with the involved parties to try to resolve the issues. FOLLOW-VP FROM BOARD HEARING Following the Board hearing, several actions have transpired. First, a revised site plan has been prepared for the project that more fully complies with conventional zoning and circulation standards, and concomitantly reduces the number of proposed units from 14 to 12. A *master plan* has also been prepared showing how the proposed plan might conform with similar projects on adjoining property. Copies of the plan were shared with the neighboring property owner, Mendes. On July 2, 1991 staff met with the applicant., neighboring Property owners and their respective representatives. At the meeting, staff encouraged the parties to reconcile their differences. At the same time, staff indicated that failing a mutually acceptable solution, that staff was prepared to support a project that conformed to the Multiple Family Residential General Plan designation. No resolution was reached at the meeting. Following the meeting, the applicant made a written offer to share in the costs of an appraisal of his property with the neighboring property owner, Sam Mendes. Staff had suggested to the Mendes' that they consider either an offer to buy the A j 4) Brudigam property; participate in the joint appraisal; or arrange 'on, for their own appraisal of the property. To date, no response R has been received from the Mendes' . 06 E:._9 a "I Based on the revised site plan and recent communications, staff .41 is satisfied that the applicant has made a good-faith effort to resolve the development issues. Reciprocal action by the neigh- boring property owners (Mendes) has not been as forthcoming. The revised site plan should be reviewed further by the Commission prior to any approval; however, the Board should indicate its willingness to consider approval of the revised project failing a tg solution that is mutually acceptable to the interested parties. The large oak tree at the project entrance remains a continuing concern. The commission was not satisfied with the reports of tJ two tree experts hired by the applicant on the survivability of the tree. It appears the removal of a large, low-lying limb would be required to allow necessary access to the project. Further, to remove any questions about the objectivity of the tree analysis; an independent analysis by a licensed arborist should be undertaken. If the analysis concludes that the proposed road and utility improvements and required trimming might place the tree at risk, then other project alternatives should be considered U. CONTONUCO, ON ATTACHMENT.. — YES SIGNATURE: MCCO04MENDATION OF CO.1411 RECO""KNOATION Or MOARO COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER rw ACTION OF HOARD 0" August 13, 1991 APPROVED As RECOMMENDED 'A OTHER On June 11, 1991, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date the hearing on the recommendation of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on the request by Brudigam Development, Inc. (applicant and a owner) for approval to rezone 0.55 acres of land from Single Family Residential District (R-15) to Planned Unit District (P-1) (2826-RZ) and preliminary development plan, for approval of Final Development Q Plan 3048-88 for a 14 dwelling unit apartment complex in the Walnut Creek area. Karl Wandry, Community Development Department, advised that parties had agreed to the staff recommendation to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission and that each reserved the right to address the Board through letters. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are APPROVED. Walk. or XUPERVISORS I "Mray Caffory THAT THIS is A TRUE Y UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III AND CORRECT COPY Or AN ACTION TAXE14 AYES* NOES% AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE DOMM ABSTAIN' Or SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE: Sl7 . CC: Brudigam Development. Inc. ATTESTED August 13, 1991 Sam Mendes Daniel G. Smith PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Community Development Dept- SUPE VISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Y B 'DEPUTY M382-'7-83 t Wommunity Development of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ&3048-88-Oak Road Developmen Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostic. . August 15, 199, Attachment I Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inca ESTABLISHED 1931 ' STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793 LICENSED FORESTERS • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS KENNETH D. MEYER 23 SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 522 SAN MATEO, CA 94401 RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON VICE PRESIDENT TELEPHONE: (415) 344-3860 September 10, 1990 Mr. Helmut S. Brudigam, President Brudigam Construction, Incorporated 3603 Walnut Street Lafayette, CA 94549 Dear Mr. Brudigam: At your request, I inspected a large valley oak, Quercus lobata, at 2761 Oak Road, Walnut Creek, California. The purpose of the inspection was to address the impact on the valley oak from a proposed access road for a fourteen unit apartment. I have reviewed the report of horticulturist Barrie Coate, dated June 23, 1988, as well as the site plans by the architect James P. Gibbon. The latter shows the tree location in relation to the access driveway, the dripline of the tree and the tree limb elevations. My inspection finds a 65.6 inch diameter (DBH) tree with excellent limb structure and balance. An area twelve feet high on the east side shows a 1 x 3 foot concrete filled cavity that probably has some heart-rot within. Two heavy northerly limbs have 5/8 inch cables for support. These limbs should be lightened, but removal is not suggested, as it would compromise .the structural integrity of the remainder of the tree. The twigs are infested with pit scale, Asterolecanium minor, a problem resulting in a thin tree. A 2% oil and sevin spray applied annually in January will help control this pest. The leaves are infested with cynipid gall wasps, a pest that causes relatively little harm to the tree. The root crown of the tree appears to be free of crown-rot disease, and in summation, we can say that the tree is in fine health. Community Development of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ&3048-88-Oak Road Development Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostics _!VA 15, 1995 Attachment B Brudigam 9-10-90, P. 2 With the exception of a 8 foot wide planting strip, this tree has either homes or asphalt and concrete over the root zone and under the entire dripline. The asphalt comes right up to the root crown on the north and south sides. I dug a hole 9 feet west of the tree in the planting strip and found roots 8 inches deep in a friable loamy soil. I then dug a hole 15 feet northwest of the tree through the asphalt and found no roots to a depth of 18 inches. This hole was dug in a depression with one inch of asphalt, 4 inches of compacted crushed rock and 7 inches of compacted clay-loam. It is doubtful that we would find roots growing in this substrate. The root crown shows two major heart-roots growing off the root crown, one in a northeasterly and the other in a northwesterly direction. In my opinion, these roots have developed lower than 18 inches on the north side, due to the existing surface conditions. Your plan suggests enlarging the planting strip on the north side to approximately 4 feet from the root crown. This should benefit the tree. I would suggest that you could safely remove the existing asphalt baserock and clay layer without injuring the tree. This should be done under the supervision of a certified arborist. If significant roots (over 2 inches in diameter) are encountered, grading beneath the dripline should proceed by manual labor with picks and shovels, and stop when the arborist feels the tree may, be impacted. At the very least, you should be able to remove what is there and replace it with no impact to the tree. Installation of aeration devices is not necessary, as the tree has grown quite well without them. Over one-half the roots are growing beyond the dripline, absorbing nutrients and water from the soil open to atmospheric/subsoil gaseous exchange. Road aeration systems, when properly installed, work on new road installations where roots are existing near the surface. An example would be the Diablo Oak in Danville on Diablo Boulevard. This valley oak is in a small island with two lanes of traffic on both sides. The aeration system has, in all probability, saved that magnificent specimen. I might add, the constant vehicular traffic with gaseous emissions does not appear to affect this tree. As the consulting forester for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, I supervised the installation of a 48 inch diameter water pipeline beneath the root zone of the Diablo Oak. This same procedure, namely digging a pit outside the dripline and tunnelling to a pit on the other side of the tree, should be utilized for installing the utilities along the access road. Since most of the roots will be in the upper 3 feet of soil, the tunnel should be 4 feet deep. This would avoid trenching adjacent to the tree, which could impact it. If tunnelling is not feasible, the trench should be hand dug, saving all roots over two inches in diameter. Additional pruning and fertilizing would be suggested, depending on the number and size of roots cut. Again, a certified arborist should be present. Community Development of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ&3048-88-Oak Road Developmen Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostic 5ytAnust 15, 199 Attachment It is my opinion, based on my inspection and expertise as a certified arborist and professional forester with over 25 years' experience, that the proposed access road will have little if any impact to this tree. Very truly yours, Kenneth D. Meyer �� LIC�tiSE it PiCc. l�A4 \0i C6 BARRIE D. .f E 41• Horticultural Consultant 23535 SUMMlilg§.-353-1052 0 , Los Gatos, CA 95030 Community Development of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ&3048-88-Oak Road Developmen Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostic a- /.- t 15, 199: Attachment ANALYSIS OF HEALTH -AND -STRUCTURE OF A VALLEY OAK TREE AT 2761 OAK ROAD, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA Prepared at the Request of : Mr .* Norm Brudigam Brudigam Construction Inc . 3603 Walnut Street Lafayette, California 94549 June 23 , 1988 AMNERICAN SOCIETY OF C Q IN TERN>TIONA; �.O . ( SU;.TIN; R �ARBORIST I S `SOCIETYLII A IABOHIiAILTUf1( emmunity Development of Co.Co.County Fp -a26 &3048-88-Oak Road Development Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostics �fAugust 15, 1995 Attachment C ANALYSIS OF HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF A VALLEY OAK TREE AT 2761 OAK ROAD, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA In summary, this is one of the largest _Qu ercus lobata Valley Oaks in the area . Its trunk diameter at 4-1/2 feet from the ground is 5 . 48 feet . Its branch spread is 119 feet north-south and 84 feet east-west , and height 40 feet . It is located on the south side of the property, the tree center ... . .being 101 feet from the line of the front fence of the adjacent house to the north and 4 ' 7" from the existing adjacent fence to the south. The tree is in good health , having a full canopy of healthy foliage and annual growth that is normal for the species . T ncrement borer samples of 10" long showed sound , healthy wood in the north and south sides of the trunk . Fortunately, a caring owner has had it cabled and a large central cavity filled by an excellent arborist in the past . A 24" diameter limb (#1 in sketch) and a 30" limb (#2 in sketch) hang over the subject property, extending the canopy to a 49- foot radius on . that side . Limbs labeled #3 and #6 extend to the south and create a branch canopy radius of 72 feet . Wound closure over the concrete fill has been healthy and thorough and vascular tissue growth after more recent branch removals from limbs 3 and 4 have been excellent even though those were flush nuts . As the enclosed pictures show, removal of any of these limbs would ruin the canopy of this tree. In addition , cuts of that diameter would initiate interior decay that has to date been avoided . This would result in eventual decay of the trunk . Since the majority of the root tips of this tree have been covered and sealed off by pavement on the north and south sides , new pave ment may not be as harmful in itself , as if this pavement were not �in place . Removal .of this pavement , however , poses danger to the root tips directly below existing pavement . Only existing pavement and the sub-base below it should be. removed , none of the soil below them. Soil grade should not be changed since that would remove many of the root hairs which operate at the soil surface in cooperation with the beneficial mycorhizal. fungi . Community Development of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ&3048-88-Oak Road Developmen Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostic: est 15, 199: Attachment C ANALYSIS OF HEALTH AND STRUCTURE OF A VALLEY OAK TREE AT 2761 OAK ROAD, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA Page 2 The best method of dealing with root tip protection for this tree would be : 1 . No activity should take place closer than 4 feet from the trunk and that only on the north side. 2 . Pavement between that point and the property line should be of perforated pavers , filled with sand (note enclosure) . If that is not possible , the next best procedure would be to install spoke and wheel aeration pipes (note enclosure) beneath the pavement . Nine of these pipes would be necessary in this case . Note that they must daylight on both endsto ensure air circulation to root tips . This procedure must be inspected by a qualified consulting arborist when installation is 50 percent completed t.o assure compliance to procedure . 3 . The tree should be subsurface fertilized with 1 , 000 gallons of water and 28 lbs , of Greenbelt 22-14- 14 fertilizer during winter 1988 or before grading begins , whichever is latest . Respectfully submitted , BDC : rn Barrie D. Coate Enclosures 01; - O V cD - 9 h o 0 .: F n m / ar rr 1, y CV OC N u� M ,is v 1111 r i:V p � h Q 11. in fff��-111 'Q Za �I 0:0 C1 @ .fL'lf/ h Vhf -J 1 U O Y �tfy g g z co cr- 9i0o2 Cr:+osz � ,� 1.1.I J r J v a a �'' • r4NI � I ;'�•: Li I 9'NcA 7 Ju!( 0 $Fye w Coco zF' �� o � co Ov mi r 0 9s/ u A y ?�• d �•F�. a w z J ox m tom° O i i r F � � a1-1a•�®a S eft° /r' r�� LU LU 0 g JONES co _ a� c4Co Q . ; CD c, - Ld 0r CV ftS d h `y, C ~ tncn 06 troX u'�c a •d va :c It i .. .. ';�:'•' :•-r'" j;+;'i't�,^,._,-,x.;; ,r'�• ;rdj.�t,�•R'1:Lc.t� 777 �i :ff.�? '.ay..�'r-.• ,� • _ ..z;.R:s:?'.?k'.7r:1"`1ii'.":'7�`.�-.,,s'' - .a.a.a;Y. " .7 •j:4�•..i i. '�' r'�';;!}7: {l .. i'l.r"tr.',:•,n'r'',?`yA!►'.� •'f.�1.�;:..iY'!.+wrr,.r•.:tfr Lr^t':r}'3•J.>:r y._tf•:•.,S.,,f,C.,:55'l�,,)•'s.'��•1=,t1t:`t.i��"Y""t."ia••.i.:i':..Y'L':'t i�':+:lR'i�'.��r-'ti'.+!"..:.r':`-, t•..�_..i5`('.a°••.f'.`il�•=:�.wr�-r f:iY"+.r�..:,�1,{'G .:�.:+,.T".:.a�"•i!_.tt.;1F f" j;r".::r,,,l.t�'•..i+..�ti5.f.�4•... ..5. :'.iiSr.:t1.3N.w'r...Y�.4y�...1.13 ��.. �.. w. �.r:�A`:. •.1.,.'. ,rs,�a .•�. •!N•r •����;n"JYj 'i. . .ay�2 .jl i��f Y/1 rl1' !;•�.•,', J}^.,Yl„'�r.. !,�4 :L.IL P'•.•,,• I:���r ^'i/�. �,qy� �-., .rl�y:..+r� �ij�{} ••:l?w. •�}•�. _{�.Ty.:�:'- •:�••I.r4'a.•it.:r�t t'"�'.K�t� L� .f.+.�!').�S.y: ���� _ •4. 1,Ztr 2�.� . 'i'?� {�. ''•Ry.';• :'i�.F:t,-;�� ti.::�•• ,,,1:-'.,•:. '•�tb �� �µry •i:.... i.#Y.. i".v.. .�:'•:ip•'i+! ',Yi•.{�;:449' S4. - :.{,': !�1.{R,+'k-',-'it`; 'r,?�'. "`� t •:i' •$ •sr"*Yseui�'�� wF S '+ F !. ( et' :, 3 wt�tx ...r. �ti ,,:• • �. , ;` '. '�'• tC� ��l�t•sl t,t •st L.r .. •. :; ..f � ry-�1 "• "'� t A, t f,t°v ,,rev 2� !`+.�r�{ty jw. '�� 1. :^ 'f Q S(, ter.' d ` •.,�`.,. , c ' ��,�.• J'•'Y'` �� � ..,;'t:`"i,�F��.}+},�"•+•." Y' _ •r.R. . 7t: •'7w!k'1YS:•)'yt'>} t.. J .r� •3 , •„r f i) ..fo �`�+�`•�' . ' \!.ip:>•« '*+.,lr- '`CI.S;rtt+r':�r�i ' .-'.. - .� 1s1 �1 ti�.Y .•te,t_., + • •✓�+rii: ilr`,�.*• .tf^s.' :Z' :t°: c. y :,�:: ` `� S.r... :;/''�• , t+/: 'r • ,-a r''' - •' pct S` '•;�'�'�' E `j'' •S:, ' A. r- ♦ _ 7r a- a•,� � 11� � t � .0 AP. +S �O E 41 fee �,y •"r T i. 0. d r..•3 I� z�;...a,aYi;..i•.S„iL:s;..+i.•.� 'i �...:r►s:..�.�re�....v:++.*".►�++..s,._iia..:,' - --..i'�► �i. . ,:•-- K-'_ :ta:r�ra.•�•••.Yr,+xe-=,•. .+.d F�)...y •,..+. p� - L,. � . , •�%�'^f'�;tISS: �.�?}��`;5�+•a`iRii� — `� .�M: ..J'. J y..?. t ,y�� � ww.._.w� ' r� �!r>i�,i t,;�: �aih�' ,,.5 Y'` �i:'�'t y�' .ir;;.^•w. ')�.:r<� ai:.,' J��. A ..++:.;n>. .��� •y��, �Jft.0•.. r"f;1 jr',��•,"r•'..', afrC.�r' )d' ,rT.:�• • -J. P ��#`,��, �.:r, `,,�., :.._'• .r:q'•:':"nt... �.� .yJ�'..!Zyir, :t" 't yg i. O � " � ��� T.?, r�• 11 S: :.e•.^.:..'S?'r •{Ys-ti:P•' :iris• t..S''7:7•:'�a:''x! C YP�, ry;�';+:.. � �.. +:.�flt;ii+� .;test t•,:"eta'lT�1fY��{y'-`,�",,LrQiYS'�4�?!.,.}/y;f,�*: �h. !.n.�,s�•i .i•.It�, j `gam $ r '•?. ;i•i'�:r.,',�)�F2�•t•, „• :•tt'�rt• �` +►. :`Ji»�L'�' � $ s'�' I'._��r .w%p�Fr. q t t'• _ .•'..' �� � .'•iSs+F"�+''.. Ir .i••i S"!'bt,' ,.k`�•��-�R}l.!•e���:>t r 2'� ..r .lr..:•(F... ^ �'�•R �p w�w `� . . . .•ti -F-..;t ••V4 f �...�.•' 1.iF• _:2• .} , !••31 }, iS 'ti',;'t Mytt' J•'tt..f,J.. y`Jr. i r,•:. X.I-•L+ xw. �. T. x..„?.s.sp 1+��.. { � � e .. s •!' •,{�' f' :Ltt•G.. :4•'IS��"u«j,. .�: ,•r'�'lrri»�H."S,�{',_ � . _ :aL:N)C ... N � .t,•tR :�u#`p�� .r A a •kt. ',-/t � fi g '• ... �`rt�••'i•. S" 1 itr+ a {s C6 tA v _ �l� , = .. S` i AIr ° w 7 •ti- .r. Community DlWpment of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ& Oak Road Development Independent arbon&M6 by Plant HeaUh Diagnostics • • -�e#•Angust 15, 1995 Attachment C (102) • � Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll �.t GEOBLOCKo INSTALLATION iNSMUCTIONS LANDSCAPING SYSTEM i -ti BASE PREPARATION: 1. Soil should be dry and free draining. 2. Excavate area allowing for block thick- ness less 1/4" for settling. r?315—� 3. Base should be uniformly graded, leveled, E0� � and cleared of foreign objects (large stones, pine cones, etc.). This enables the blocks to interlock and remain immobile after installation. 1ulIVl�l GEOBLOCc 4. Sub base support guidelines - pavement r•Sar4lSoiVFeslili:er :•:.:.::. strength is determined by the support pro- Leveling Course o:: vided by the sub base. The sub base „•,,,,Crushed clone,_--. strength is commonly measured by theo;poo aA;Potfp;: Civil Engineering standard, California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and ranges from Existing Sal Subbase R�' YxX�•� 0-100. For further information contact your manufacturer's representative. •Resulting in a subbase with CBR?7 BLOCK INSTALLATION: 1. Maximum load-bearing capacity is 3. The tongue in-groove interlock is achieved achieved by staggering blocks and, where by sliding the blocks together. possible, by placing them perpendicular 4. Blocks can easily be cut with a hand or to traffic flow. Block should be placed power saw to custom fit contours or with. round hole down. obstructions. 2.To prevent the blocks from shifting during installation, place first blocks against a stationary edge or secure with stakes. 7/�'�i�\\ M,�n Al FINISHING PROCEDURE: 1. Back fill with suitable soil allowing 1/4” To sod: Sweep out 1/2" dirt and place of space from the soil to the top of the sod. Roll 3 times with a standard lawn GEOBLOCK. roller. Water thoroughly and follow To seed: Follow normal seeding normal sod care. procedures. While most seed grasses 2. After turf has been established, block are acceptable, rye and bluegrass have visibility is minimal, even with frequent performed well. traffic. SUPPLIED BY COIIQTESY OF: BARRIE D. COATE . ���__•_ HurUculturd CunwluN -� Cumultmr Arbonri Jr;d +Od353•t057 :3535 j„mmd Auaa ' �,,., • Lua G•i,s CA 95;.30 GEOBLOCK is a trademark of PRESTO PRODUCTS,INCORPORATED .1t..•0611.1 •-• '• "" " "' 21 Presto Products,Incorporated.GEOSYSTEMS Division,P.O.Box 2399•Appleton,WI 54913 Toll.Free 800.558.3525•Regular No.414-739-9471 ' 330 • ROBLE RD <- �- �/ ^ - H-O ted EY T.RA1 L 'Ile LU 68 0 oo Lu Qj `U : "TREAT CJ Q; 1340. 1380 1490 :~ . Qz co 7 a �' - SIC> JONE .� E*L� CD�. 1..J �T . —: . .cam � �;�S� '�•4��1r � 6 HAV .. .:r 7w.«..-•:t- :tt••`.:t--r, V. K .��....-wt...r•«:•..• «t«.n•.:•-.t�.... . .»t...t».�.--•t ..r-..t S-f JA xc c , a; ....; TODD LN V 141,, l N I` 'Y � U . . :t v f I f ")I L PL c,s r N 0 r),, Daniel G. Smith & Associates Architects 1107 Virginia St.,Berkeley,CA 94702 526-1435 Fax:526-1461 NC �A G 'C n� 0 �`;t2:;:.:.;:G<i<�::• ,;.>.;>'��:�2!�`�•:�'ri: ptE�'[ ;l.j"�':I::����`�fr.:::: i N .. ......::: :::.:::'>::>:<: <►.: v��•�":. ;: :. � E�� � too i a � 4 E OL t o h Atehiteets A1 t�1& CA C4 Ott cJ�ts?,0935 fax'526-19b y p o V is St.:Bettcet y �q �^ -�,% ,, HA5 �ZIL gg PizoPvhl P M 35 j o ito L [Te-.-,, M,1X• M f'RpPa'S�P M'�S 1 Pax Zpi uNITs MAx. j 12 TowN HoUyE IJN(TS S � 1 Ptzapoz'�.t7fv`��•jCU(L� M�5 t ----JS UNITS t cv ZP O t .z a 20.` pHAsP- IT {— 1 PiZv(�oyED /A ySS i o ^il A&P UNITS ' v— Q 9 G171>71if1fTltfGtl � U•N1MM JT( ¢ y MID - io UNITS Pi i'ahED M !yi U8 TA;' zo 2.3 UN(f'a /+VaX. RPT• I~!-feT`� . UHL i 111. ?�! f0)l. Daniel G. Smith & Associates Architects �= 1107 Virginia St., Berkeley,CA 94702 526-1935 Is ITe- .. lo2G► .�a. ,.. ,a;, + M � r � o U i a � U 4 _ i G o r r . Daniel G. Smith&Associates Architects 1107 VifginiaSt..Rrrl-ri,.., ren Community Development of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ&c 3048-88-Oak Road Development Independent arborist report by Plant Health Diagnostics -%V�Aft�15'.1995 Attachment D j s Tt i M o !r OAX TO-" ^&Nes its.. LOT* 2ya� AA � ga, CL w V It'ITF, hFs6 ION - Lso 114 :W". FOM -OF LPTS 0 !g 4. w N tin Ln rn , STS o_ � i----- r -------- ---- - ---•_-•----,a.I a l.sY6L-L' w t1.!<VAT 1vN f- � a a: St Darnel 0. is&Aumiam- A Zeds - crmr>ma.s.+�•tia.Cwsu�SM-t4ssRu3abtf6l CE N ' Cfl z R t •'a eveloP�en �.r ,,�• � }• tia 304S-88 O�RH�Dutgnos oR by P 5' tD '. Co.Co,County Fen arilestbor reP limen �1 Development of IndeP it CoulouawY 1 owe 1 t i. ,i i t y } t I �} 1 i N O O �-(i � •S 1 ON ' t Wagt t^� �• .. ,. :: :.'_' `: . - , ,. j:• -t .. • .�.�_ •�f . •: - • . ,• � ., • - SLI om uNi. ta`eaart�!f `;; ' �^ PFko � ��� u��1ctd}+► air Of- Mr, h N + hMr, uttC O .^i �y�ILPar U3 1. H S Q M tP 1 d l A Community Olopment of Co.Co.County Files 2826-RZ 048-88-Oak Road Development ` . Independent arborut report by Plant Health Diagnostcsi . y Sao., Aii 15, 1995 Attachment E 1 UNI ECOmSTONETM Environmental concerns about water shortages in Installation: time of drought, pavement restrictions and over- 1. Excavate unsuitable, unstable or unconsolidated burdened sewer and drainage systems, have created subgrade material and compact the area which the need for a paved surface which would allow has been cleared. Then backfill and level with rainwater penetration through to the ground water dense graded aggregate suitable for subbase table below. UNI ECO-STONE's'" patented, unique material (typically 4-6 in, of compacted subbase design features funnel-shaped openings which are for pedestrian and light vehicular traffic, increasing filled with coarse-grained material to facilitate the to 8-12 in. for heavy vehicular and industrial use) percolation of the rainwater into the sub-grade. or as otherwise specified by Site Engineer/Architect/ The attractively shaped UNI ECO-STONET*' interlocks to Landscape Architect. create a stable, durable pavement with a greater 2. Place bedding course of hard, crushed rock surface area than many of the turf-type pavers 11/16 - 5/16 in. (2 -8mm) in diameter to a currently available. UNI ECO-STONE' is ideal for a uniform depth of approximately 11/2 in. (40mm) wide variety of residential, commercial, municipal leveled to grade. and industrial paving applications for both pedestrian 3a, Install UNI ECO-STONE"" with joints approximately and vehicular traffic. 1/8 in. (3mm). In addition to the benefits to the environment, UNI 3b. Where required, cut paving stones with an ECO-STONE"" concrete pavers may decrease project approved cutter to fit accurately, neatly and costs by reducing or eliminating drainage and run-off without damaged edges. systems required by non-permeable pavements. Furthermore, UNI ECO-STONE"" can be mechanically 3c. Tamp paving stones with mechanical vibrator installed for additional cost savings on paving projects. until uniformly level, true to grade and free of With concern for the environment and the earth's movement, resources at an all-time high, UNI ECO-STONE"" offers' 3d. Fill funnel-shaped openings and joints by sweeping architects, engineers and landscape designers an in a coarse-grained material 1/16 - 3/16 in. grain alternative to non-permeable pavements. UNI ECO- size (2-5mm). STONE"" incorporates the durability, attractiveness and Note:For complete Installation and specification details,please contact the reliability of UNI® interlocking concrete paving stones UNI•manufacturer In your area.In areas where subsoil has Insufficient with a new high-tech shape designed for water permeability,proNslons should be made for excess water drainage. conservation. Composition and Manufacture UNI ECO-STONE"" is made from a "no slump" concrete mix Made under extreme pressure and high-frequency vibrations, UNI ECO-STONE"" has a compressive strength of minimum 8000 psi, a water absorption of maximum 5% and will meet or exceed ASTM C-369-82 and freeze-thaw testing per section 8 of ASTM C-67-73. Cross-Section of UNI ECOTONE' Dimensions: Paver installation' COARSE Height/Thickness 31/8" = 80mm GRAINED MATERIAL Width Approx. 41/2" = 115mm —PAVERS Length Approx. 9" = 230mm —BEDDING COURSE Quantity needed per sq. ft. approx. 3.5 stones - �. ate.... o �� •�.. ;. �: -COARSE Applications: GRANULAR BASE e Parking lots Driveways Patios • Highway rest areas.e Bridge underpasses • Entrance areas !, ? ; Q :' " ? • Industrial yards • Storage depots • Farm roads • Side walks • Terraces • Garden paths • Golf cart paths Note:UNI ECO-STONE"'installation differs from standard concrete paver • Street medians Installation-for complete details contact your UNI•manufacturer. 01991 UNI-GROUP U.SA.Printed in USA. UNI-GROUP U.S.A. 4362 Northlake Md.,Ste. 109 Exclusively licensed by F.von Langsdorff Uc.Ltd.Ontario.Canada \*Pnim Ronrh C-_rirrionc P zze4n . (An71AW AAAA. Fnv(An 7W)7_CM 7 »,, - -.. ----