Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07141998 - D15
" " Contra •` " Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i County FROM: CARLOS BALTODANO, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING INSPECTION DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP, r DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 16, 1998 SUBJECT: June 16, 1998 Hearing of the Appeal by Daniel Smith, D.C. , (on behalf of Lae Trampas Trail Advocates) concerning issuance of an electrical permit (#EC 224864) for a gate across Las Trampas Road in the Alamo area for the Alamo Ridge project. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECoMMEN1 `I`I N Approve Option A denying the appeal and sustaining the decision of the Community Development and Building Inspection Departments to issue the electrical permit for this project. Q2T_T NS QptiD, _A (Deny the appeal) 1 . Determine that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 2 . Sustain the finding of the Community Development Department that the project does not require a discretionary approval from the County, and that no adequate justification has been presented that would allow the County to legally withhold the issuance of an electrical permit for this project . 3 . Find that the appeal was not timely filed insofar as staff informed the applicant on several occasions beginning several months ago that a revised site plan that avoided encroachments in the driplines of cede-protected trees and scenic easements might not require any other discretionary approval from the County, and no appeals were timely filed on th rio administrative determinations. • 4 . Deny the appeal of Daniel Smith, D.C. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X_ YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMI EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S) ACTION OF BOARD ON. July- 144, 1,998 -- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER See the attached Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES : T,Iy & NOES . II & 1 ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact : Bob Drake [ (525) 335-12141 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED Tu t v 14,1999 CC: Alamo Ridge Gate Committee, c/o PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Briggs Wood THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Las Trampas Trail, Advocates AND UNTY ADM NISTRATOR Mark Armstrong, GMMA Building Inspection Dept. B DEPUTY County Counsel C : \wpdoc\224864 .bo RD\ Appeal of Electrical Permit for Gate Improvements Across Las Trampas Road, Alamo area Permit #EC 224864 Qp1!Dm—B (Grant the appeal) 1 . Grant the appeal . FISCAL -IMPACT The electrical permit pertains to a gate across a ' private road. The gate does not affect any facility that is owned or operated by the County. Therefore, the improvement will have no effect on County fiscal resources . However, the staff costs in reviewing the appeal are substantive, and are not recoverable. The appeal fee ($125) covers the Clerk of the Board' s costs in processing this matter. It does not cover the costs of staff in preparing this report and attending the hearing (staff hours expended in responding to the appeal are projected to minimally total 20 hours, or approximately $1900 in costs. ) The recent background for this project begins last summer. Pripr r.Qrssua ce of an Elegy r. cal Permit Last August, after receiving several complaints, staff conducted a field visit to the Alamo Ridge subdivision (Subdivision 6419) at the west end of Las Trampas Road, and discovered that a electronic gate and related improvements were being constructed in violation of zoning and building ordinances and deed restrictions . The property owners were informed of the violations, and they subsequently filed applications with the County to try to have the gate improvements legally authorized: (1) a tree permit application to allow trenching within the driplines of three trees; and (2) an application to allow encroachment within a scenic easement (County File #TP970021 and #Z1977872) . In October, 1997 the Zoning Administrator approved a tree permit and scenic easement encroachment for the proposed gats: improvements subject to conditions. However, both decisions were appealed by the current appellant . Ultimately, appeals of the two decisions were considered by the Board of Supervisors earlier this year. The Board heard the appeals on February 3 and March 10, 1998, at which time the hearing was closed, and the Beard voted 3-1-1 (Supervisor DeSaulnier - dissenting; Supervisor Uilkema abstaining) to declare their intent to grant the appeals and deny the tree permit and scenic easement applications; and continued the matter to April 14, 1998 to allow for the preparation of findings. On April 14, 1998, the applicant' s representative indicated that they wished to have the applications withdrawn. The Board accepted the withdrawal of the applications. At that meeting, in response to a question from members of the Hoard, the applicant' s representative indicated that the violations of the tree ordinance and scenic easement would be eliminated and the site restored to its appearance prior to the disturbance. xchange Qf .CorrespQndence Prior to the April 14, 1998 Board meeting, the Gerald ',Filice, legal counsel for the Las Trampas Trail Advocates, had asked staff -2- Appeal of Electrical Permit .for Gate Improvements Across Las Trampas Road, Alamo area Permit #EC 224 864 several questions on the applicability of certain', conditions of approval associated with the 1984 approval of the Alamo Ridge Subdivision project (tentative map) and of the California Environmental Quality Act with regards to gate improvements across Las Trampas Road. The Community Development Department responded to those inquiries in a letter to Gerald Filice dated April 9, 1998 . On April 23, 1988, a representative of the Alamo Ridge Gate Committee approached staff with revised construction plans for an electronic gate. The revised plans provided for a relocated gate a few feet east (downhill) of the gate location for the tree permit application. Unlike previous plans, the revised plans provided for gate improvements with modifications such that no improvements were proposed within the scenic easement, and no improvements were proposed within the dripline of a code-protected tree. (The applicant also showed staff that the the plans had been stamped approved by the Fire Marshall . ) Based on this information, staff determined that the project is (1) a permitted use under the General Agricultural (A-2) zoning insofar as it involves a use (gate improvements) that are accessory to a single family residential use; and (2) does not require any discretionary approval including a tree permit or authorization to allow improvements within a scenic easement . Following clearance of the improvements by the Community Development Department, the applicant obtained an electrical permit (County File #EC 224864) from the Building Inspection Department . SEAL FILED BY THE LAS TRASS.. TRAIL ADD YQC TE On May 14, 1998, Daniel Smith, on behalf of the Las Trampas Trail Advocates, filed an appeal of the administrative decision to issue an electrical permit for the gate improvements . The appeal contends that a permit should not be issued because it is alleged to be inconsistent with the 1984 approval of the Alamo Ridge tentative map application, the County Tree Ordinance, and the Scenic Easement (area affected by a Grant Deed of Development Rights to the County) . The appeal also contends that the project should be subject to the review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act . It should be noted that the filing of an appeal of the electrical permit does not by itself require work under the permit to cease. Rather, work may continue as long as it complies with the terms of the permit and County ordinance as administered by staff . After hearing the appeal, the Board may cause the permitted improvements to be removed and the site restored if deemed warranted. It should be noted that the gate improvements were still under construction at the time that the appeal was filed. The applicant completed the permit improvements in the period following the filing of the appeal . The Building Inspection Department conducted a final inspection at which time the improvements were found to comply with the building code, and finalled the electrical permit on May 29, 1998 . -3- Appeal of Electrical Permit for Gate Improvements Across Las Trampas Road, Alamo area Permit OC 224864 SCYISSI 1NN., y,ew of Apia Points Listed below is a summary of the points made by the applicant and the staff response. It should be noted that many of the appeal points are similar to ones that were made and responded to by staff in the exchange of correspondence prior to the withdrawal of the previous applications by the applicants . 1 . summary, of =eal Point - Development by the current property owners should be subject to the conditions of approval associated with the approval of the Alamo Ridge Tentative .Map, Subdivision 6419. The date improvements are not consistent with Condition #19 of that approval restrictingthe placement of fencing within the subdivision. The gate improvements should also be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Response - Staff disagrees with these points . The 1984 approval of the Alamo Ridge Tentative Subdivision Map only restricted the subdivision developer in the development of the project and not subsequent purchasers of individual lots, except where restrictive instruments have been recorded against the property. The only tentative map restrictions which the County can enforce against subsequent purchasers are where restrictive instruments have been recorded'. In the case of the Alamo Ridge subdivision, recorded instruments were undertaken for (1) the area affected by the scenic easement and (2) special structure height limitations. The appellant has previously argued that the 1984 subdivision restriction on fencing (COA #19) should be used as a basis for prohibiting a gate. However, this point does not make sense. A fence is not a gate, the 1984 subdivision approval clearly differentiated between a private road gate and residential fencing as explained in pp. 1-3 of the Community Development 4/9/98 letter to Gerald Filice. It should also be noted that the County did not require the applicant to establish a recorded deed restriction regulating the placement of fencing other than the Grant Deed of Development Rights (DDDR) which does not affect any portion of Las Trampas Road 'right-of-way. Unlike the earlier project, the current project does not involve any trenching, filling or grading within the dripline of a code-protected tree nor does it involve, improvements within the dripline of a protected tree. Moreover, a road gate is a permitted use of the General Agricultural (A-2) zoning because it is accessory to permitted single family residential uses . Finally, the appellant has failed to show that the revised project requires any discretionary approvals by the County.. Because the revised and relocated gate improvements do not involve any discretionary actions by the County, only a ministerial (electrical) permit, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and related reviews, [refer to Section 21080 (b) (1) of the Public Resources Code, and Sections 15268, 15369, and 1.5377 of the CEQA State Guidelines] . -4- Appeal of Electrical Permit for Gate improvements .Across Las T'rampas Road, Alamo area Pexmit #EC 224864 2 . S=aV-,4 of =eal Point - The gate design is inconsistent with the requirement (Condition #S.A. ) of the 1984 approval of Subdivision 6419 requiring a 20--foot unobstructed road width to be maintained within the subdivision. off Response - The appeal paint is not valid.. Again, the 1984 Tentative Map permit restriction on read design applied to the subdivision developer not to the subsequent buyers of individuals lots . However, it should be noted that the revised gate improvement plans do specify a ' 20-foot clear opening for the proposed gate. Las Trampas Read was established as a private road as specified on the ! 988 Alamo Ridge Final Map that was approved by the County. Moreover, the applicant did show staff that the revised gate .improvement plans were approved by the Fire Marshall . 3 . summary of A,12j2eal PQint - The ,project involves trenching and other site disturbance activity within the dripline of code- protected trees and therefore violates the Tree Ordinance. Staff gaaponp2e - The construction plans on which the electrical permit was issued do not show any evidence that the project involves trenching, grading or filling within the dripline of a code-protected tree. Indeed the electrical permit plans specify that the revised gate improvements shall be placed to avoid tree driplines . On May 19, 1998, staff visited the site and found no evidence that the gate improvements under the electrical permit involved any disturbance within the dripline of a code- protected tree. The appeal letter fails to specify exactly where there may be a violation of the Tree Ordinance. Site ReEtaration Aseociated with Earlier Work - It also should be noted that the applicant has undertaken work both within the dripline of code-protected trees and within the scenic easement. However, as described in a letter from the applicant (Briggs Wood) dated 5/15/98, this work is not related to the project associated with the electrical permit. Instead it involves removal of improvements which had been initiated for the earlier project which was later withdrawn. The restoration work involves the removal of a section of retaining wall ; a section of underground electrical conduit; and removal of column pier improvements for the earlier version of the gate. At the April 14, 1998 Board meeting, the applicant had agreed to restore the site at the request of Board members . When staff visited the site on May 19, the applicant showed to staff that portion of the property where the restoration work had been made or was in progress . The site restoration work was not a requirement of the electrical permit and should not be regarded as a violation of the tree ordinance . 4 . �Sumrr�arY of A al Point - Before any approval of gate improvements is granted, the project should be reviewed pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . -5- Appeal of Electrical Permit for Gate Impro'v'ements Across Las Trampas .Load, Alamo area, Permit #.EC 224864 51AJfResponse - Refer to the Staff Response under #l . The revised project is a permitted use under the zoning. It does not require any discretionary approvals from the County including but not limited to Tree Permits or Application for improvement within the Dripline of a Scenic Easement . The applicant has failed to show that the revised project is subject to any discretionary approvals from the County. The only permit required is an electrical permit which is a ministerial permit. Ministerial permits are statutorily exempt from CEQA. The County' s legal authority in reviewing the revised project is limited to determining that the applicant has satisfied those requirements listed in the building ordinance. 5 . �Ummary of &z 1 eal PQ n t - .has Trampas Read is a public right- of-way by implied dedication. The gate constitutes an obstruction of the public right-of-gray and violates County ordinance requirements. Staff Reappn&e - Las Trampas Road may or may not be a public right-of-way by an implied dedication. However, that determination is one that must be made by the courts and cannot be made by the County. The Alamo Ridge Final Subdivision Map that was accepted by the County in 1988 labels Las Trampas Road as a private road. It was designed and built to private (not public) road standards . The County ordinance requires encroachment permits for improvements within the right-of-way of public roads but not private roads . 6 . 5u=,a1:v of AZ212eal EQ!nt - The gate and fence structures are located within the scenic easement and violate the restrictions of the scenic easement. Staff Response - Staff disagrees with this point . The 1988 Alamo Ridge Final Subdivision Map and the 1988 'Grant need of Development Rights (scenic easement) both provide that the scenic easement does not extend into the Las, Trampas Road right-of-way. No portion of the revised gate improvements lie within the area of the scenic easement (Grant Deed of Development Rights) . Therefore, the improvements do not violate the scenic easement . Site. sLra sir kJork - As discussed in the Staff Response to #3, the applicant has taken steps to restore the site from the earlier work that had been initiated and which was associated with the earlier gate proposal . In response to a request from Board members, the applicant is removing a section of the retaining wall which was located in the Scenic Easement area. This work was not a requirement of the electrical permit . i e inem in Filing the Apoeal Given the issues that have been raised in the appeal, the appeal has not been filed in a timely manner by the applicant . Section 1.4-4 . 004 of the Ordinance Code requires that appeals of -6- Appeal of Electrical PeXMIt for Gate improvements Across Las Tratapas Road, Alamo area Permit #EC 224864 administrative decisions be filed within 30 days of the date that a determination is made . Beginning several months ago, and repeated on several occaisions, staff had advised the appellant that if the gate plans were revised to avoid work within the dripline of a code-protected tree and the scenic easement that the project might not be subject to any discretionary County approvals . • In a project notice issued on November 4, 1997 for the earlier version of the project (County File #TP970021) , staff indicated that except for the tree permit and scenic easement permit, the applicant was not required to obtain any other discretionary approvals from. the County in order to establish a vehicular gate across Las Trampas Road. i In a December 37, 1997 staff report to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, that same determination was reiterated. • The determination was reiterated again in the February 3, 1998 report to the Board of Supervisors. �► The April 9, 1998 letter from the Community Development Department to Gerald Filice again reiterated that a redesigned gate that avoids encroachments into the dripline of protected trees and the scenic easement may not be subject to any discretionary County approvals. The appellants failed to file an appeal of any of these previous administrative determinations of record within a 30-day timeframe . The thirty-day time limit on these issues has passed and the only administrative action under consideration now is whether the electrical permit meets electrical code standards. The appeal letter fails to raise any concerns about compliance with the electrical code. CONCLUSION None of the points raised in the appeal have substantive merit . The previous decision by the Board expressing its intent to deny the earlier version of the gate was based on the narrow issue of whether encroachments into the scenic easement and driplines of code--protected trees should be allowed. The applicant has modified the gate design to avoid any encroachment into tree, driplines or scenic easements. The appellant has failed to provide any substantive evidence that the revised project violates either the tree ordinance or the scenic easement, or that the project would require discretionary approval from the County. As long as the revised project complies with the building (electrical) code, the County has no legal authority to prohibit the applicant from constructing the proposed gate. Accordingly, the appeal should be denied in accord with Option A actions listed above, and that the issuance of the electrical permit should be allowed to stand. HEARING QX DRAFT 2UBLIC ACCESS PROTECTION PQLICY On June 16, 1998, the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider a proposed policy to protect public access to parks and open space areas . The proposal has been prepared at the direction of the Board of Supervisors . -7- Appeal of Electrical Permit for Gate Improvements Across Las Trampas Road, Alamo area Pexmit #EC 224864 It should be noted that adoption of the draft policy would have no effect on the Alamo Ridge gate improvements. LTERIWI E AC= Should the Board determine that the revised gate improvements authorized under the electrical permit do violate either the County Ordinance or scenic easement, then the Board could authorize appropriate action to allow for compliance. Should the Board make this determination then the Board could consider adoption of Option B, granting the appeal . ADDENDUM TO .ITEM T.I. 15 July 14, 1998 Agenda On June 16, 1998, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the hearing on the administrative appeal by Daniel Smith, D.C. (on behalf of Las Trampas Trails Advocates), concerning issuance of an electrical permit (## EC 224864), for a gate across Las Trampas Road in the Alamo area for the Alamo Ridge project. Robert Drake, Senior Planner, Community Development Department, presented the staffs report and recommendations. The Board discussed the matter, the public hearing was opened, and the following people presented testimony: Gerald Filice, Attorney for Las Trampas Trails Advocates, 3201 Danville Blvd., Ste 295, Alamo; Richard Grassetti, Grassetti Environmental Consulting, 1536 Scenic Avenue, Berkeley; George Cardinet, Heritage Trails Foundation, 1350 Castle Rock Road, Walnut Creek; Hewitt Hornbeck, Heritage Trails Foundation, Martinez; Tina Kaufman, Las Trampas Trails Foundation, 1644 Las Trampas Road, Alamo; Joy Becker, Las Trampas Trails Foundation, Alamo; Alex Gershen, 200 La Colina Drive, Alamo; Joe Herr, Las Trampas Trails Foundation, 2109 Grant Drive, Alamo; Esther Donohoe, Ridgeland Committee, Alamo; Susan Christopherson, Ridgeland Committee, Alamo; Pat Willy, 909 Drive, Alamo; Dick Kauffman, Las Trampas Trails Advocates, 1644 Las Trampas Road, Alamo; Nan Stockholm, Esq., Las Trampas Trails Advocates, 1512 Serafix Read, Alamo; Daniel Smith, D.C., Appellant, Las Trampas Trails Advocates, 3210 Danville Blvd., Alamo; Johnny King, no address was given; Mark Armstrong, Esq., Attorney for Alamo Ridge Homeowners/Lot Owners, P.O. Box 218, Danville; All those desiring to speak having been heard, the Board discussed the issues. Supervisor Gerber moved to close the public hearing, and grant the appeal, and referring discussion of Condition #19 to the Zoning Administrator for review. Ms. Gerber also advised the Board that a meeting would be scheduled at her office for interested parties to try to reach an acceptable resolution prior to the Zoning Administrator's meeting. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. Supervisor DeSaulnier inquired if the motion required specific findings, and Silvano Marchesi, Assistant County Counsel, advised it would be preferable if the Board developed findings to support its declared intention. The vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Gerber and Rogers NOES: Supervisors Uilkema, DeSaulnier and Canciamilla ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None l Following; further discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier moved staffs recommended Option A. Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion, the vote was as fellows: AYES: Supervisors Uilkema, DeSaulnier and Canciamilla NOES:: Supervisors Gerber and Rogers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Option A is APPROVED; the hearing is CLOSED; the appeal of Daniel Smith, D.C. (on behalf of Las Tra pas Trails Advocates) on electrical permit (# EC 224864) for a gate on Las Trampas Road, Alamo is DENIED; and it is FOUND that the appeal was not timely filed; the Community Development Department's and the Building Inspection Department's decisions to issue the permit is SUSTAINED; and the findings that the project does not require County approval is SUSTAINED. 2 Attachments 1. 3J13/98 Letter from Filice to CDD re alleged applicability of 1984 Subdivision conditions of approval. 2. 2/15/84 Alamo Ridge Subdivision 6419 Tentative Map permit(and conditions of approval. 3. 3/18/98 Letter from Filice to CDD re alleged applicability of 1984 Subdivision conditions of approval. 4. 3/27/98 Letter from Grassetti Environmental Consulting to CDD re alleged applicability of CEQA to any gate improvement project. 5. 3/9/98 Letter from Grassetti Environmental Consulting to the Board of Supervisors re alleged applicability of CEQA to any gate improvement project. 6. 4/9/98 Letter from CDD to Filice responding to preceding letters. 7. April 14, 1998 Board Order accepting Withdrawal of Prior Tree Permit and Scenic Easement Encroachment applications. 8. 5/14/98 Appeal filed by Las Trampas Trail Advocates on Issuance of Electrical Permit for Modified Gate Plan (att. 5/14/98 letter from Grassetti) 9. 5/15/98 Letter from Filice to County Counsel re applicability of court decisions. 10. 5/19/98 Letter from County Counsel to Filice responding to 5/15/98 letter. 11. 5/21/98 Letter from Filice to County Counsel 12. Excerpt from Recorded 1988 Alamo Ridge Final Map (Private Road Identification) 13. 1988 Board Order Accepting the Grant Deed of Development ("Scenic Easement) 14. 5/15/98 Letter from Briggs Wood describing restoration work within the dripline of existing trees (not part of electrical permit improvements). ON,TRA i:0�I RUCE LAW OMCES 3201 pAWLLE BOULEVARD,SUITE 295 98 MAR 17 Alf 8: 35 ALAMO,CALIFORNIA 84507 Tet:(510)838025 Fax:(510)837-3352 GERALD W.FILICE SIERRA FOOTHILLS OFFICE: Post ofte Box 695 Some met,CA 95664 Tel/Far.(816)620-1024 March 13, 1998 Messrs. Dennis M. Barry and Robert Drake Community Development Department Contra Costa County BS 1 Pine Street, 0 Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94583 RE: Las Trampas Road Gate Gentlemen- . In view of the numerous statements by the Alamo Ridge homeowners and their attorney, to the effect that they are entitled to build another gate elsewhere in the development without requesting County approval and that they intend to do so, I would like to discuss why in fact their view is incorrect, and that they must first request and receive County permission. Condition of Approval 19 for this subdivision reads in its entirety as follows: "19. Fencing shall be limited to the area encompassed by the building envelope. Any additional fencing is subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval." (Underlining added.)' Because the Zoning Administrator CZ.A.") had reviewed and approved the application to build the gate and fencing which was the subject of the recent appeal, Condition 19 had been met, and neither the staff nor:gate opponents needed to focus on it. However, this Condition now takes on primary importance in Y Condition 19 is independent of and in addition to the"scenic easement"established by Condition 6. Community Development Dept. March 13, 1998 Page Two the context of the Alamo Ridge homeowners'claim that they have the right to build the gate and associated fencing elsewhere on the roast and that they intend to do so without requesting permission from the Z.A. Upon reviewing Condition 19, it is clear that a reasonable interpretation of the word "fencing" would include a gate, which is nothing more than a portion of the fence which one can open and move through. It would also reasonably include a wall or any other similar type of barrier. The term "building envelope' is very specific. It refers to the building envelopes on each lot. The road is not within a"building envelope.' Condition of Approval 6 makes it clear that the building envelope does not include the street, when it states: "The development rights for all property outside of the envelopec_duaiYe of ovate std shall be deeded to Contra Costa County." (Underlining added.) Moreover, the f=inal Map for this subdivision (which we discussed at the March 10 hearing) clearly delineates the building envelopes and they are separate from the road. In my opinion, the legal effect of Condition 19 is to require the homeowners to apply to the Z.A. for approval to build any fence, gate, wall or similar construction to the extent it is outside a building envelope. We all agree that the road at lea extends across the width of the pavement; thus, a gate which spans the pavement is by definition not within a building envelope, and would require Z.A. approval. To the extent that the edge of the building envelope is set back from the road, installation within that setback area would also not be within a'building envelope, and would require Z.A. approval. In light of this, and in light of some of the staff s comments at the March 10 hearing which might erroneously be viewed by the homeowners as a "green light" to relocate the gate, I believe it would be appropriate for the County to immediately communicate to the Alamo Ridge homeowners that any gate construction on Las Trampas Load MUg first be subtmitted to the Z.A. for review and approval. So as to mitigate the financial impact of this on the Alamo Ridge homeowners, the requested communication should take place before the homeowners spend additional funds on new gate designs or construction. Community Development Dept. March 13, 1$38 Page Three Please contact me to discuss this issue, as f believe it to be critically important at the current stage of this matter. Thanks. Sincerely, F Pfffl ES GE LD 1LICE �'- r' GWF:n cc: Supervisor Donna Gerber Silvano Marchesi, Esq., Office of the County Counsel Mark L. Armstrong, Esq. Clients t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT Wallace Duncan & Associates ENGINEER. 6379 Clark Avenue SUBDIVISION NO. 6419 Dublin, CA 94568 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 198-220-013 Flood Morss OWNER: c/o Jim Lee ZONING DISTRICT: A-"2 319 Diablo Road Danville, CA 94526 APPROVAL DATE: February 15, 1984 This matter not having been appealed within the time prescribed by 'law, the subdivision is hereby granted, subject to the attached conditions. ANTHONY A. DEHAESUS, Director of Planning By, Karl L. Wandry, Chief, Land Dev lopment PLEASE NOTE THE APPROVAL DATE, as no further notification will be sent by this office. Unless otherwise provided, you have 30 months from the approval date to file the FINAL MAP. AS APPROVED BY SAN RAMON VALLEY AREA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 15, 1984 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION 6419. 1. This approval is based on revised plans dated received by the Planning Department, January 24, 1984. Approval is for a maximum of 17 lots on approximately 140+ acres. 2. A preliminary geology and soil report meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 94-4.402 including design-level conclusions and recommendations of a qualified engineering gelogist, shall be presented to the Planning Department for review and approval 60 days prior to recording the Final Map. Approval of the report will be required when Improvement Plans or grading permit applications are submitted. Improvement plans and grading permits shall implement approved recommendations. 3. The preliminary geology and soil report shall comply with recommendations of the 6/6/83 "Geotechnical Hazards Assessment" for Subdivision 6413 by Purcell, Rhoads and Associates, pages S through 13. Special attention shall be given cut slope gradients, stabilization recommended or necessary for private road improvements and/or for installation and stabilization, where necessary, subsurface utility and storm drainage lines. 4. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit a;report prepared by a qualified engineer specializing in fire protection for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator which specifies recommendations to mitigate fire hazards. The recommendation shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the subdivision. 5. Comply with the fallowing fire protection measures: A. Access roadways, including bridges, shall be not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width (plus additional width to accommodate reasonably expected on-street ' parking) and having a minimum of 13" 61' vertical clearance, capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus and not exceed 20% grade. Security4at tig_ls, ,Libited, except as approved by the Fire,Prevention Bureau in compliance with our special keying and gating system for emergency access. Gating 61`ans+arid specs shall be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to commencement of work. Fire trail access to adjacent wildlands shall be provided and maintained by this proposed development. All private, common roadways shall be maintained by an organized property owner's association. required by C.C. do R.'s. B. Fire retardant roofing and exterior building materials shall be utilized. A 30 foot strip of irrigated landscaping shall be provided around all structures. C. Typical barn-built structures are expressly prohibited. Minimum interior fire resistive materials such as sheetrock shall be incorporated in all structrues. D. An approved spark arrester shall be installed on each chimney used for fireplaces and heating applicances in which solid or liquid fuel is used. SUB 6419 pg. 2 E. 'heeds shall be abated prior to construction and maintained weed free during the construction .stages. 6. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a building envelope indicating homesites, driveways and accessory structures will be submitted for review and'approval of the Zoning Administrator. The envelope shall be recorded on the Final Map. The development rights for all property outside of the envelope exclusive of private streets shall be deeded to Contra Costa County. 7. The applicant or property owner of each lot shall submit a Tree Location and Preservation Plan prepared by a landscape architect, which designates specific trees to be removed, preserved and/or maintained by pruning or other practices before any grading is done. 8. Landscaping materials shall consist of drought/fire resistant native plants. Lawns near native coast oaks is expressly prohibited. 9. The applicant shall make every effort to work with East Bay Regional Park District to develop a public trail easement. The final location of the easement shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 10. Grading plans for each lot shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of grading permits. 11. Prior to recordation of the Final Map the applicant shall demonstrate that water is available for each lot for both domestic and fire protection purposes. 12. The 30 foot access easement contiguous to Lots 12, 14, 15, and '16 is expressly prohibited. A private road constructed according -to county minimum roadway requirements shall be constructed. The private road serving lots 5and 6 shall be eliminated. The lots shall be served by individual driveways. 13. The developer and/or his representatives shall notify the Department of Fish and Game, P.Q. Box 47, Yountville, California 94599, of any proposed or existing constructionn project within the subdivision that may affect the streams in accordance with Section 1601 and 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. 14. If archaeologic materials are uncovered during grading, trenching or other on-site excavation, earthwork within 30 meters of these materials shall be stopped until a professional archaeologist who is certified by the Society for California Archaeology (SCA) and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology {SOPA} has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and suggest appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary. 15. The applicant shall submit Conditions, Covenants and Restriction for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to recordation of the Final Map. 16. The C.C. & R.'s shall include a provision which requires no tree removal by residents unless approved by the homeowners association. 17. Roof lines shall be generally parallel to the slope of the site to minimize height and structure. SUB 6419 pg. 3 18. Building height should not be greater than 25 feet at any paint' as measured perpendicular to the natural terrain. 19. Fencing shall be limited to the area encompassed by the building envelope. Any addi- tional fencing is subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval. 20. Should a water tank(s) be required, its location shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator and the County Geologist. 21. Comply with the Public Works Department as follows: A. In accordance with Section 92-2.006 of the County Ordinance Code, this subdivision shall conform to the provisions of the County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 9) . Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this conditional approval statement. B. Construct Las Trampas Road offsite as a minimum 16-foot paved roadway within a 25-foot access easement to County private road standards from the site to the existing privately maintained portion of Las Trampas Road. In addition, improve the existing private portion of the road to the same County standards. Adequate longitudinal and transverse drainage shall be provided for the entire length of the private portion of Las Trampas Road. C. No structures shall be placed within the areas that meet the criteria for drainage easements and structure setbacks as outlined in Chapter 91.4-10 of the Ordinance Code. 0. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Land Development Division, that legal access to all lots of this subdivision is available from the County maintained portion of Las Trampas Road. E. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Land Development Division, of the acquisition of all necessary rights of entry, permits and/or easements for the construction of off-site, temporary or permanent, road and drainage improvements. F. Comply with the acreage fee requirements for Drainage Area 13 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors. G. Repair any damage or deterioration of Las Trampas Road between Lark Lane and Danville Boulevard, resulting from project construction traffic, by overlaying this section of Las Trampas with minimum two-inch thick asphalt overlay. This work shall occur when the private road construction is completed. The following statements are not conditions of approval. However, you should be aware of them prior to requesting building permits on the parcels of this subdivision. Applicant must comply with the requirements of the Health Department, Building Inspection Department, San Ramon Valley Tire Protection District and Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. 3GM:plpled9asub 219/84 - Rev. 2/15/84 FILIcE LAW OFFIcEs =1 oAWIOUL a �296 8MAR 19 aAror � Tat:(510)838-3D25 Fax:(510)837-3352 f GE1Jr W.FIL ICE SIERRA FOOTHILLS OFFICE: Post office Box $95 Somerset,CA 95684 TetlFax:(916)620-1024 March 18, 1998 Messrs. Dennis M. Barry and Robert Drake Community Development Department Contra Costa County 551 Pine Street, 4' Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553 RE: Las Trampas Road Gate Gentlemen: I am informed that fast weekend the Alamo Ridge homeowners posted a security ward' at the subdivision boundary, which is several hundred yards below the East Bay Regional Parks District's easement trail and the earlier proposed gate location. The guard turned away all non-resident vehicles, forcing them to tum around on the driveway of a third person's property(because there is no turnaround on the street at that location). In addition, the Alamo Ridge homeowners erected a moveable barricade at that location (sawhorse-type structures). As I explained on March 13, Condition of Approval 19 for this subdivision reads in its entirety as follows: "19. Fencing shall be limited to the area encompassed by the buiLding envee. AM additional fencing is subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval." (Underlining added.) Condition 19 clearly encompasses this type of barricade, whether temporary or permanent. r _ ' The security company is Monument Security, tetephone (408) 776-2034; fax (408) 776-2038. _....... .. . . _... . .......__.. .. ..__. ........... . ....._.. _ .... ....... ......... ....... ......... Community Development Department March 18, 1998 Page Two The term "building envelope,` used in Condition 19, is very specific. It refers to the building envelopes on each lot. The road is not within a "building envelope." Condition of Approval 8 makes it clear that the building envelope does not include the street, when it states: "The development rights for all property outside of the envelope exclusive of pdyate sleets shall be deeded to Contra Costa County." (Underlining added.) Moreover, the Final Map for this subdivision (which we discussed at the March 10 hearing) clearly delineates the building envelopes and they are separate from the road. What the homeowners have done is erect a barrier across the road, without requesting County permission which is required by Condition 19. Further, they have encroached on the Park District's deeded public right of way trail easement by preventing vehicular access to it. You are already aware of our view that the entire road is subject to a public right of way by virtue of implied dedication caused by many decades of public use, and that this barricade constitutes an illegal encroachment. In short, the actions of the Alamo Ridge homeowners (1) have created a traffic safety problem by forcing drivers to tum around where it is unsafe and improper to do so, (2) violates the public right of access to the easement trail, and (3) encroaches on the public right of way enjoyed by the public for many decades. Accordingly, Las Trampas Trails Advocates requests that the County of Contra _ __ _ Community Development Department March 18, 1938 Page Three Costa take immediate steps to prohibit the Alamo Fudge homeowners from blocking the road, by use of a guard, barricades, or any other device. Sincerely, F 1 OFtiC G W. FILICE cc. Supervisor Donna Gerber Silvano Marchesi, Esq., Office of the County Counsel Steve Fiala, Trails Specialist, EBRPD Mark L. Armstrong, Esq. Clients .r 63/27/98 11.44 FAX $109492354 GRASSY;"ITI ENVIEO Q02 ��•+n+nsrtat+ias�arrrrnr • Yt2SS@ t'7)� Vis'l�.av[aw rind CrfFlgar prwJ�fdserragcxxenr rrvirortmernrrxl .,.romt e+em,rar.�r uirt"a ROWUhabory Prooe"Consuizfnp �tci+rr�rro-�rt,►,�ty�r: Mr.Robert Drake Planner commur t•ty� t e nt 651 Fine Street,Orth Floor. Wing Mard=2�CA 94553 March 27, 1998 SUBMCT: LAS TRAMPAS ROAD GATE Dear Mr.Drake. Grassetti,Environmental Consulting(C Co)has been retained by the W Tmmpas Tr:nils Advocates to reviewg and enviroz�ca W issues associated with the sed gate on Las Ttznpas Renata reviewed the tare and requisite permits for Wfbiniavimrimeul Act(CQA)compliance and our findings in our March 9 ruttier us the Board(c opy attached). T have saace been unformed that the pUeants may w� w ec�;►ttvct# gate crossing the It>a way at an alternate loeadoti why they contend is outside of the see went and arould not es strb t to a'�t Permit. �leer is In to augment our Marra:h 9letter Frith tt;;speect to this r lotct. Our.March 9 letter dcscdW the C6QA proom as it applied t©the gaff's original proposed loc tion. 'Thr process and app of C:RQA.to the pwj6at as descahed in that leer StM alsply to ft new l I= pPttiat,ifthe to and appmtenant facitiWac&ides ares tycated eadWY outside of a suite eamnatit and do not afeut.trees,no Tjw Permit or scenk easement development approval would be necessary. Howe=ver,allt Conditions ons ad ted by the County as partof the original and subsequent au6v�iaion approvals would still apply and cannot be modified wttltout additional C HQA review(as stub approvals wero itnte,rai kr f#te n mit3gadott snrport-na the CounVPCrO'V*OSAed site). 1n additions, action would still be onarty due its the ttxluireme of condition of approval 19(as rtarified b ecmdiL g e of the vbdtvisitsts, In my mfessional atm(as a former City > ),as gate crvssitsg Las Tra�mpas l is considered fencing..and is outside of designated building envelopeL As such,it clearly would require the Zig AdroinistraMes tevi ew and approval. As such approval is not gaarant 4 the review would be Oongdered i disaettorwy act,subv to C EQA,and prepatution and cimulaltion of an Initial Study for public review would eMquired. As described in our March 9 letter,depending on the gate's exact locations and design,it could have potentially significant environtnentai impacts to the r+emvafioual and sce= rerun =ttfthe ate. Purer,it would contnbute to inctentaI(cumtlative)changes in the:subdivision that have not been addressed in any of the past enviromnenW docttrnentation- 'I se changes include two separate increases in the number of lots arig nay approved for the subdivision,increases in tho allowable building heights,and ccIt.'Qdermble additional fencing(which may or may not have been permiftedby the Zoning 2536 Sc--WC Avenue Berkeley, CA 94708 (.510) 849 - 2354 i o3/27I98 11:44 PAX $108492354 QUSSMTI EWIR4 03 Mr.Rflben Drake March 27, 1998 Fags 2 Administxatar ss required.)_ In my professional opinim,the individual and cumulative imwu of the gate W#hese ether project ahm2fions would be required to be esuw,, d for any gate approval acdoo to comply fully with CHQX Please feel free to txmtact me at(5 10)849-2354 if you have any geesdous mgaErftg the findings prowntod in the letters. Sit +ely AZII-14-�-pRichard+C= td,1 A Pdncipal cc: SuperAwDonna Gabor SS Ms bUL ES4.,Office of the Gamey'COML91' AUachnnent: GEsCo March 9. 1998 letter 03/27/98 11:44 FAX, 5108402354 CR.ASSEITI RN"VIRO Q04 �`ixtirwatttatttai A+satnarycac ° X 3#Ltr6C' C CAMS A-"*-and C"tiq tr. nviron2Y3'L'nta Pr4RJ*0t Management ment plan+im and pent uraaa Im.sulting RmWatory Ptoccss c<=*ulaus ttydrcrt+oy[V/0Ced*0C AttalSttta Contra Costa County]Board of Supervisors 651 Pirie Street Mhz,CA 94553 March 911998 SUBJECT: APPLICABILrry OF CEQA EXEMMON TO 'PROPOSED PERM 'I a'ut TP 97-0021 AND ZI 917872 Honorable Supervisors, 4rassetd Environtnental Consulting(OBCo)has been retained by Dan Smith on behalf of a Las Trampas trails user gm to review the CEQA categorical exemption and relevant baclzground doculnentatimup the propossd Tree Permit r 9 -0 1)and Authorization of ImproveStcirts vvitllin a Scezlie Easement 97 7872)whiff would permit the ct3tlstxtton of a and pp/trxrn tri area ori Las Trampas Road with.Subdivision 6418. W e have reviewed those documents with respect to cornp'tiance with CEQA tequirelnexlt. The information tevievved indiccsltes that the CEQA documentation for the itro act is inadequate and m*m lr3ttn.and that ft project as ppro does not qualify for the props d e empticua uuider�A t idei%rscs Sermon 15�proposed exemption is;lpprop fear tt and is trot b rile with to the pct +dal impar of tht�pr r, a actit n cin ve ,tat n,t ea�ona car scenic resaurem as required by C'EQA anti �ldcta s. The+bases for these t oncluston�s we domed below. Categoitec 1 ±Exetriptlons CEQA cstablishe a the stepfor considering and evaluating Ienvhor tmental impacts. Bute a project h e+ t�or ftjggering C.EgA revue 7he test for this is whether or not tbi ptvject is subject to ' review. The Counter has&germined that both of the pertm#in question ate subject to such discretionary revmw and that, dunfom they aresubject to CEQA. The nett step is to deme whether or not the proposed amens qualify for an exemption from review under CEQA. 1`he procedure and 8er*a1 criteria Parr such exemptions are describad in CSQA Guidelines Section 15{161. The guiding policy in tbisdett3rntiElultion is , %ere it can be seen with ceratin that there Is net possibility grit the activity in question may Drive rt sig�cant��ct on tete environment the cri'tivity is not abject This strict limitation oa the use of oxewmpdm t>Dgets CEQA's purpose as an envix,Dn,zetltal mteet"ton t tultt�as ourtilned in PRC Sections 21000 and 210DL which include the goal that: "It is the policy of the state....w take crit action necessary to provide the people cf INS state with dm air and water,enloyment of aesthetic,naturv4 sc rc,and f historic qualities,and freedom from excessive noise"(PRC Section 21001 [h])• . 1s36 Scenic Avenue r Berkeley, CA 0 708 (510) 849 - 2354 # R e # '':�, 1 f ! f E ' f int P` :� 12 !}.;.'i fi 1�♦ fl . � }!;.: if,s.�:4 ♦^ # _-# k t # i •1e w t ' 4x :n`i f # • Y � i 2 4 e ♦ :� ' :A`+ - 4 S•i}, M.+R 8 R 1, ! i7fE #L♦, Y' 3 ! � i'8} #t♦1 Ef. i # X ` ' # tt MII M f7 f oll III k1f P rr M {F e S �� � S :+i #<,+P R # f 9 S` 4 iF♦ IP 1 # ;. f2 bA 1 ♦ / '- B X X SP p f! rP - •f f { # { X !: eR.{R I r I f- { f #1X IL rif F {tA tf { # i.' F X LF B # X ' F ALF !A ►g 23 #s„ 1' v: " If «r♦ ! '- Mie 's #.. Qy f!F! f f 4 i' 1 1 4 "+i #i e d 1 i' ♦ R i "e!4 t f! #♦ f#' � �.' t.' f !!#` ifR . 8 L.e 1 i i / - F B s { { Fies' { X4 I B X • B ♦e a { ! X f M /F fA � { Bf t f { {• X � f ;.# }R B > A #R Pr B Fi # CONE �#4 i } - # tf2 :. L,♦t i i R 4R" t es ♦ # > t:' # tx o :,L # ' #i ..i +.Lf 8 f i't ` 4 i f e R ! S ! Ef' } !!f i :rt 4 4 A' -# b ♦� 4 !. # b it.tf # # iiiiR...'.. «+; 4 f+ ## b •f }' f.# f V #,:+ P! i.e �- f. 6#� #^ F #,} - s R ! 8 4 EA. # } M: f � :p$•p a.:t f:2♦fF }i# t' 8} L` :�#.` t�#�': 6 p 4 :.3 :.4 t f i # 2'. 'i </: ."•° f � i' hi+S .f!8 ♦f�` ♦ t;.M #•'. .8 f # •tR pf^ - f t+rfa##♦r1 ♦.++ 4^' :.t. :.elf F'e,!f R i i b A i i #v 4 R f 1 :ef R i N SSL. ♦1M+: # to 4 .e!R e i # ft ' f *i 8`t#.• :•t ! - i+#11#10 10 lijkliolo' i3,R4 i! !R # ' :x }= «tSE !#!VL i # : R i i� t p e'! i•e L pe :1 ;if #M.-t iet i S U #: 1 f � •:.f R' # • Is i# 1 Y !'#!\ t fw.! #i} i b-� i 3 ♦t�} *.; rat w# i # ♦ +t+ - i% # p`is 3 # t ! • t � p se+ ♦ t 1 ft # - k L L t kb.. IL # . � � ' f s t ,rtfi }}#R f t.}� ff }1 X11✓ !r'9. t ft «:# . ii i 1 eX a #< IrN ......... _........ ......... ..__. .. ...... _. __... ... ._._._... 03/27/08 11:44 FAX 5108402354 CRASSEM ENVIRO Ott Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors March 9, 1998 Page 3 Further guidance as to what constitutes a passible environmental impact is provided in Gu deletes dices 0 and L Appendix 0 stews that",A pro,jest�'be arse ed w have a s e cm�x I on rile enWm hent tr we- (b)Haws ac subis a ,demmut ubk negauive ares do affeM and (w) CmOct t estabUAed remadbn4 mftzkm4 or sdente uses of Ae wm.7 Theme criteria are repeond in the Inkid Study Ch Jist(APS 1)which. 'ott of wbether or not tt project would "haW 4 demonmubk negativearsl3:cttic a ffect 1)as i,X M a,b and o.)aril"affect r rtrosttte '(At ilii I XV 1)as part of tie~ of a pro' s ptact ' osace. Bath of� cis also include providons fbr Ute=rmmg sestb t.c and biological tesomVests apply to the County's Dmxr4d permits for this project{Appendix.0(b).and Appendix L[VU b and c,and a,6,and 61}. On the bases of the doc=ents that I reviewed(County staff reports for 1984.1989,and current PrOje d applications for the site,project plarm,four arborist st reports,and associated letters from se es and the public),convetsations with the trails users,and a site visit,it is mfr prOtesstanal opinion that lbs project couldtially sig�tificandy adversely off xt Visud,recreational and vegetation resources on i�te. In each oat,It is my proftt doral opinion that the CO=Y has not provided ole ar and convincing evidence from which"It can U seem with centalnty that there if no ssibility AX the aaMtY in gwstion may have a carni+effect stn the enviroren . Thefore,itis my professional v 'icon that the �sroposed p% would trot tlualify four.c tegoriucal exemptzOn undo A, an Mitial Study�tu�ess�y and.ppucopriate four eptprc�►vt3i of the Pralect permits. My opi nions aro based on the following potentially d pir=nt a nvironruental impacts auwLIW with construction of the gate and roadway ttttpm omenta • Reduced Access to FsUblMed Recreational Resources: The would reduce,scents to the exisdng trailhead at the end of Las'I�crlpas Road,Iarnttrng access to the Palk According to tis users.this would disrupt long-standing access to the park at this locatiom The importance of this access is fr rdw r evidenced by EBRPV& proposals to ttutigate this impact by proposing to develop lop add tional park amss,points. • Visual ImPacW. The gate and paddng area.would adversely alter tt visualquality of Las Trampas Road as viewed from public rights of way(e p,ERJ9PD trail emam nts) due to structures and lighting,and reduction of access to scenic easommm This effect is considered +chiPOmnday sib by both trail users and the trails t p's consulting landscape• Ve9etatton Impacts: Theme is substantial controvemsy with respm to potential loss ofspecific important trees as well as cumulative lass of oak woodlia d due to tho past subdivision and proposed action. This is evidenced by the nwnmu aftrist and plant pathologist Veporis on the project trees,which contain substantial d'rfttnmca of Mwon nah Opinion©n the actual e�of the project's(and past mad construction's)the health of the 150+year old vales adjacent to the proposed ga turnout • Ctinadadve Lnpacts: My visit to the property indicates that the gate and parking area appear to be part of an overall.unapproved extmdon of fencing of rile subdivision (outsI&of building envelopes)which have,cumulative impacts on visual,aestWk.and recreational t`esouroes. This overall alteration in the character Of the>subdWis on should 03/27/98 11:44 PAX 6108492464 GUSSEM ENVIRO Qr07 Contra Costa County Board of Super*ors March 9. 1998 Page 4 be con sid=d in dntwAining the ovmn sig►ificanee of tbo project's effects to the envhimment. in shoo the County appears to be ting the wrong exemption.and even if potet►tialty applicakle exemptions were applied,the project would not qualify for theca b==of its ptiietstav�e al S� Catit u�npacLs m the ram�ttt„ * tib,BntT s+eerdC tesq . 1�! oten is zequ ander MA.and such a wc►utd help foem the County and a#}tlncattt ttA able adon mum=that would assure that pots impaM would be It to a um Btgniift tt WVOL Sincemlyl Richard Cr ASSCtd Principal attachment: CV _. __... _. . ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... _........ ......... ......._. .. .. _.... ..._.. ........ .......... ....... ........ .......... ....... ......... ........ ......... ......... ICP *+ Community Contra. Comm it Barry, pme +� Community Development Director Development Costa Department Coun�/ County Administration Building `J 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 •�, -%,* Phone: (925) 335-1214 April 9, 1998 Gerald W. Filice Filice Law Offices 3241 Danville Boulevard Alamo, CA 94547 Dear Mr. Filice: Re: Response to Four Letters (2/4, 3/13, & 3/18/98) including 3127/98 letter from Grassetti .Env. Consulting Inquiring on the proposed Las Trampas Road gate within the Alamo Ridge subdivision and Other Concerns Associated with that Project This is in response to three letters from you concerning the proposed Las Trampas Road gate within the Alamo Ridge subdivision project and other concerns regarding development activity withinthat subdivision. The three letters(attached)are dated February 4, 1998,March 13, 1998, and March 18, 1998. By copy of this letter, we are also responding to the March 27, 1998 letter from Grassetti Environmental Consulting concerning the applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act relative to a possible relocation of the proposed;gate improvements to another section of Las Trampas Road. Your letters have asked us to confirm several comments which you have made. We have summarized your major points and respond to them individually. For purposes of this response, we have divided our responses into two categories: (1)those pertaining to placement of a vehicular gate across Las Trampas Road, and (H) other non-gate inquiries about compliance with code/deed restrictions within the subdivision. 1. Placement of Vehicular Gate Across Las Trampas Road A. Comment Summary-The proposed vehicular gate should be regarded as a farm of fencing irrespective of where it might be located-along�us Trampas Road. (Proposed fencing outside of the building envelope is a discretionary Office Hours Monday-Friday:8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office is closed the 1st, 3rd&5th Fridays of each month decision of the County by Condition #19 of Subdivision 6419,Alamo Ridge.) (3/13'/98) ,�i a1"f ReV - We disagree with this comment for several reasons. First, we do not concur with the premise of your assertion, that the subdivision conditions of approval(in the absence of special,Planned Unit Development,zoning or some form of constructive notice)are enforceable against someone other than the subdivider. The 1984 subdivision conditions of approval were intended to regulate the subdivision developer in the establishment of the Alamo Ridge subdivision. To our knowledge, none of the existing property owners were associated with the 1984 approval of the subdivision. We are not aware of any legal authority that gives the County the authority to require the homeowners to comply with the conditions of approval of the 1984 tentative subdivision map approval. Second, even were we to determine that the subdivision condition of approval restricting fencing is enforceable against the homeowners, we do not accept your suggestion that a vehicular gate constitutes a form of fencing: First, there is a common sense distinction between a fence and a gate. No one would put a fence across a functioning road. The purpose of a fence is to prevent all access. The purpose of a gate is to limit access to those people entitled to gain access. Moreover, there are two different planning documents with relevance to this project that distinguish between fencing and gates. Condition ##S.A. of the County permit granting the 1984 Tentative Map contemplates possible security gating('not fencing)across the private roadway. Further, it should be noted that this condition clearly provides that gating of the private street may be possible without any discretionary review by the County. n The.zoning code also distinguishes between fencing and gates Section 82-4.27'0 of the code (attached) defines a "structure"as not including several different types of improvements. Two of the items listed are fences and gateways. This separate listing indicates that fences and gates are distinctive improvements. .Further, the context of Condition #19 pertains to fencing near or outside of the building envelopes which occupy a portion of private lot areas The condition did not specifically mod6 nor address the provision in Condition#3.A., which expressly allows for the construction of a private road gate. The only reasonable interpretation is that the 1984 approval set up one set of rules for the subdivision developer to follow concerning any fencing around private kt&.�d—another set -2- _ _. _. ... ....... _........ ..._...... _..... _ _ . .... ........ ......... .......... ........ .....................__............._......_...__.. ... . .. ......._. 't of rules for the subdivision developer to fallow concerning establishment of a private road gate. Accordingly, we conclude that the decision makers far Subdivision 64.19 understood and intended a contrast between how proposed fencing and private street gates were to be treated by the County, and did not intend to, nor actually, allow for private road gates to be considered as fencing. B. Comment Spwmaa -The private street(Las Trampas Road) is not within one of the building envelopes and is therefore subject to County restrictions associated with the Grant Deed of Development Rights("scenic easement") recorded with the Alamo Ridge Final Subdivision Map. (Refer to Condition of Approval#6.) (3/13/98) &a_OYesponse- We disagree with your interpretation of the condition of approval The exclusion of a private road was intended to be independent of the exclusion of building envelopes from the "scenic easement." Your interpretation also overlooks and conflicts with the interpretation of this condition made by the Community Development and Public Works.Departments, and the.Board of Supervisors, at the time that the Final Map was approved in 1988. At that time, the Planning Agency determined that the County had no interest in the development rights on the private road; the recorded map reflects that}udgment. The condition was intended to exclude the private streets (including private streets outside of building envelopes)serving the subdivision from being included in the Grant Deed of Development bights. .That interpretation was validated in the approval of the Final Map and associated Grant Deed of Development bights. We find no basis currently to alter that interpretation of the condition. This County has never considered a roadway (either private or public) to be part of a lot for the purpose of applying a condition of approval prohibiting the installation of structures outside the building envelope on that lot. Furthermore, we cant f nd no authority for the County to exercise discretionary review over private property except that which is represented on the Final Map and in the recorded Grant heed of Development bights. C. Comment Summary-A barricade(whether temporary or permanent) constitutes a form of fencing,and is thus subject to regulation by Condition #19. The County should take steps to prohibit the blocking of Las Trampas Road by use of a guard, barricades, or any other device. (3/18/98) -3- .1 . .. ......................... ......... ........... . .__._............. . _..__... c Staff Bespanse-Refer to the staff response to Comment Summary Item #LA. We do not agree that the 1984 subdivision approval limits the homeowners'right to construct a gate across the private road. We do not agree that a barricade across a private street is a form of fencing. A barricade is agate. We find no requirement that the County restrict the establishment of a;barricade, or other blocking device that is otherwise authorized as a permitted use under the General Agricultural Zoning, except to the extent that it involves development within a "scenic easement"area; or involves removal of, or grading, trenching, or filling within the dripline of, a tree protected under Chapter 816-6 of the County Or&nance Code. D. Comment Summary-If gate improvements are proposed across another section of Las Trampas Road, that project will be subject to discretionary approval requirements associated with the fencing review requirement of the, 1984 subdivision. Discretionary approval would also be required because it would encroach within the scenic easement area covering Las Trampas Road. The discretionary approval requirements apply even if the project does not impact any code protected trees or scenic easement area. Because the County would be required to exercise discretion, such a project would be subject to the review requirements of the California Environmental (duality Act(CEQA). The environmental impacts of such a project would be significant and therefore require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. (3/27/98 Grassetti Env. Consulting letter) �ta�f Rgaonse-By copy, this letter is also intended to respond to the.March 27, 1998 letter from Richard Grassetti concerning compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for a possible alternative project site for development of gate improvements on Las Trampas Road. Please refer to the staff response to Comment,Summary Item #LA. concerning inapplicability of fencing review requirement of the 1984 subdivision approval to a proposed private gate across Las Trampas Road by the Alamo Ridge homeowners Also refer to the staff response to Comment Summary Item #1 B. concerning determination that the scenic easement does not apply to the area within the Las Trampas Road right-of-way. As you may recall, on March 10, 1998, after closing the public hearing, the Board of,Supervisors declared its intent to grant the two appeals filed by Fil'ice Law aces and deny the requests of the Alamo Ridge Gate Committee for(1) Tree Alteration Permit, and(2)for road widening improvements within the scenic easement area affecting the Alamo Ridge project; and continued the matter to April 14, 1998 to allow for preparation and consideration of findings for adoption,prior to fmal Board action. -4- M Should a new gate project along another section of.l`.,as Trampas Road that requires a discretionary approval be submitted to the County, then prior to any approval, the County will review it for compliance with the review requirements of CEQA at that time. At the same time, we wish to inform you that staff is not aware of any proposed road gate improvements affecting another section of Las Trampas.Road which would require a discretionary approval from the County. The review requirements o,f`the California.Environmental Quality Act do not apply unless a project requires a discretionary approval. If the only permits reguiredfrom the County for a new gate project at an alternative site are ministerial(e.g., electrical), then that project would be statutorily exempt„from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. [Refer to Section 21081(b)(1) of the Public Resources Code; and Section 15369 of the CEQA State Guidelines.] Conclusion The recorded scenic easement restriction and applicable County ordinances are the only discretionary controls on homeowner improvements outside the building envelopes on Alamo Ridge lots. As staff'has previously stated, if a proposed private road gate is not located in a scenic easement;does not involve grading, filling or trenching within the dripline, nor removal of a code protected tree; and is otherwise permitted by the zoning, then the Alamo Ridge homeowners are free to construct the gate subject to compliance with any applicable ministerial (building) permits. The recorded Grant Teed of Development Rights expressly excludes the Las Trapas Road right-of-way from its coverage. IL Other Non-Gate inquiries About Code/Deed Restriction Compliance Your tetter of February 4 alleged violations of tree ordinance and grant deed of development rights("scenic easement")requirements relative to two of the private lots within the Alamo Ridge subdivision. We understand the lots which you have described are Assessor's Parcel Number 198-220-019(Security Trust Company,Lot 5), and APN 198-220-040(Beran, Lot 13 of Minor Subdivision 3-89). A. APN 198-220-019 (Security Trust Company) !Comment Summary-There is construction activity that has resulted in "trenching" along the side of the hill on this tot through a grove of trees and within a designated "scenic easement" leading hp to this residence. The County is requested to require the compliance with the requirements of the Tree Ordinance and Grant Deed of Development Rights.--(2/4198) -5- t Y Staff Re z o e-On March 2, 1998, I inspected the site with Jerry Past of the Building Inspection Department. Prior to the meeting I had also discussed the circumstances with Ron Killough, Senior Grading Inspector of the Building Inspection Department. The County had issued a permit to allow the construction of a spa adjacent to the residence at the top of the hill. The spa improvements including excavation of earth material had begun but apparently temporarily ceased during the rainy season. According to the contractor, Mike Hawkins, a bulldozer is being used to excavate the spa. Rather than the use the driveway to the existing residence, the contractor gained access to the spa site over an existingfire trail. That path runs through a portion of the "scenic easement"on that site and through a grove of trees. .Due to the weight of the bulldozer and rain saturated hillside, the bulldozer sank into the hillside to a depth of approximately 2-3 feet along the path to the spa. The Building Inspection Department indicated that the impact of the bulldozer access to the construction site does not require a grading permit, nor is there any authority to require the applicant to provide for erosion control measures. Staff determined that the spa improvements are not consistent with the Tree Ordinance nor with the Building permit issuedfor that project. In a letter dated March 9, 1998, the.Director of Building Inspection informed the applicant, Hawkins.Enterprises, that due to these violations, a stop-work order had been placed on the spa project and could not be lifted until the applicant complies with the Tree Ordinance including approval of an application for a Tree Permit. Staff subsequently met with the applicant and discussed the steps that they would need to pursue before the stop-work order could be released To date, the applicant has not proposed any code compliance remedial measures to staff, and the stop- work order remains in effect. Relative to compliance with the regulations of the scenic easement deed restriction, staff found no evidence of any existing or proposed "improvement or development"within the scenic easement area. Mide we would acknowledge that there is a scarring effect of the depresssion caused by the path of the bulldozer in the wet soil, there is nothing in the Grant Deed of Development.flights that restricts the property owner from using the area for access,',provided no improvements are made. Similarly, we found no evidence that the path of the bulldozer resulted in the removal of a tree protected by Chapter 816-6 of the .Tree Ordinance, nor in the grading,filling or trenching within the dripline of a Code protected tree. At the same time, the contractor who is undertaking the spa,improvements has indicated that upon completion of work by heavy equipment,-he..intends to restore -6- the soil to its original fire road condition. See attached leiter from Hawkins Enterprises dated March 5, 1998. B. APN 198-220-440(Beran) -Comment Summary-Mr. Filice was informed that the black metal fencing on this tot was installed by the developer,and is in alleged violation of Condition#19. It also ties within the scenic easement area. (2/4/98) S'ta Resanse- .This comment refers to a property that was created by minor subdivision MS 3-96,following the establishment of Subdivision 6419 involving a lot in the extreme southwest corner of the original subdivision. The.bast Bay Regional Park District trail runs along side and through this site. Regrettably,you were misinformed regarding the installation of the black metal fence. The fence was installed by the current property owners, the Berans, who are not the subdivision developer after discussions with the,Zoning Administrator. A couple of years ago, the Berans approached me concerning unauthorized use of their property by individuals on off-road vehicles(e.g., motorcycles) in a manner that might result in injury to the users, and related claims of liability to the owners. They proposed to establish a fence around the hilltop area to keep ina'ividuals from trespassing on this portion of the site. .The proposed fence alignment did not encroach on any trail right-of-way. Under the authority of Condition#5.C. of Minor Subdivision MS 3-89(attached), as Acting Zoning Administrator, I indicated that their fencing proposal would be acceptable to the County provided that the applicants obtained the consent of the .East Bay Regional Park District. In a letter dated July 2, 1996(attached), the District recommended approval of the fencing and indicated that it would work with the Berans on suitable signage. Based on this documentation and a determination that the fence would not be detrimental to the scenic character of the area, I authorized the proposed fence improvements outside of the building envelope. On March 2, 1998, I inspected the site and determined that the existing fence placement is in accord with the plans previously presented to staff by the Berans. With regards to signage, given the previous reported circumstances on this site, staff views the existing no-trespassing signs posted on the site as an accessory use consistent with the permitted uses under the zoning. Ae signage is clearly referencing the private lot area and not representing any restraint on access to the public trail. -7- _.._.. ..._. .... ..... .... .........__. ._. .. _... .. ... .. . ._._. ...._. ..._.._. .. ......... ........_..... ........... .............._.._........ ........... ......._.. ........... ......._.. .._.......... ......... "T it ead"-Finally,your letter refers to this property being at a "park trailhead" The term park trailhead usually indicates the beginning of a trail, and to some may connote a trail staging area where there is often public parking' access. So that there is no misunderstanding by you or others, there is an EBRPD trail that joins with this lot from Las 7'rampas Road, runs along side it and through it to the property to the west. There is no park trailhead at this site. The only trailhead within the subdivision is near the entrance to Subdivision 64.19 on Las Trampas Road, east of the location of the proposed gate. Furthermore, there is no trail staging area on this site or elsewhere within the Alamo Ridge subdivision. Should you have any questions, please call me at (925) 335-1214. Sincerely, ROBERT H. DRAKE Senior Planner Att. Letters from Filirce Law Offices 2/4/98 3/13/98 3/18/98 3/27/98 letter from Grassetti Environmental Consulting §824.270(Zoning definition of Structure) Assessor's Map of Alamo Ridge Subdivision 3/5/98 letter from Hawkins Construction on Lot 5 construction 7/2/96 letter from EBRPD on Beran fence Excerpt of Minor Subdivision File#MS 3-89 COA Cc: Members of the Board of Supervisors EBRPD,Steve Fiala Clerk of the Board Building Inspection Dept. County Counsel Steve Pouliot Community Development Department Terry Post Dennis Barry Ron Killough Mitch Avalon Hawkins Enterprises,Mike Hawkins Alamo Ridge Gate Committee,Attn.Briggs Wood Eric&Linda Beran OMMA Mark Armstrong Grassetti Environmental Consulting Alamo Improvement Association File c:twpdoc\7943-d.1tr RD\ Y 82-4.252-82-4.272 ZONING on the principal road, street, or access that are or activity conducted thereon, or advertising of farthest apart. (Ords. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1559, goods and services other'than those primarily 1463: prior code § 8102(aa): Ords. 1269, sold or produced thereon! (Ords. 1781, 1760, 1264, 1224,939,933,382). 1759, 1569, 1469: prior code § 8102(gq): Ords..1269, 1264, 1224,939,933,382). 82.4.252 Motel. "Motel"means detached or attached dwelling units providing automobile 82-4.264 Sign structure. "Sign structure" storage space for each dwelling unit and means any structure whose primary purpose is providing transient living accommodations to support an accessory sign or nonaccessory primarily for automobile travelers. (Orris. 1781, sign. (Orris. 17.81, 1760, 11759, 1569, 1469: 1760, 1759, 1569, 1469: prior code § 8102(ii): prior code § 8102(rr): Ords. 1269, 1264, 1224, Ords. 1269, 1264, 1224,939,933,382). 939,933,382). 87.-44.254 Multiple family building. "Multi- 82,4.266 Story."Story'means that portion ple family building" is a detached building of a budding included between the upper surface designed and used exclusively as a dwelling by of any floor and the upper surface of the floor three or more families occupying separate suites next above, except that the topmost story shall or apartments. (Ords. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569, be that portion of a building included between 1469: prior code § 8102(k): Ords. 1269, 1264, the upper surface of the topmost floor and the 1224,939,933, 382). ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or cellar is more than 824.256 Multiple family building group. six feet above grade at any point,such basement "Multiple family building group„ means two or or cellar shall be considered a story. (Orris. more detached single family buildings,duplexes, 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569, 1469: prior code § or multiple family buildings occupying a parcel 8102(nn): Ords. 1269, 1264, 1224, 939, 933, of land in one owncrslup, with common yards. 382). (Orris. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569, 1469: prier code § 8102(hh): Ords. 1269, 1254, 1224,939, 82-4.268 Story, half. "Half story"means 933,382). that portion of a building under a gable, hip or gambrel roof, the top wall plat of which on at 824-.258 One family dwelling. '`)ne-family least two opposite exterior walls are not more dwelling" means a detached building or part of than three feet above the floor of such building it, designed for occupation as the residence of portion. (Orris. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569, 1469: one family. (Orris. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1569, prior code §8102(oo): Ords. 1269, 1264, 1224, 1.469: prior code § 8102(i): Ords. 1269, 1264, 939,933,382). 1224, 939,933,382}. ran -4.270 Structure. "Structure" means 82.4.260 .Sign, accessary. "Accessory sign" ing cons�"r`u` ET or' erected on and means any surface or portion thereof, on whichanently attached to land, except: (1) lettered, figured or pictorial matter is displayedings defined in Section 82-4.210,(2)_fences for the purpose of advertising or identifying a maximum height of six feet or retauung goods and services sold car produced on the with a maximum height of three feet or property upon which the surface is located. combination thereof not over six feet high, (Orris. 1781, 1760, 1759, 1559, 1469: priorsidewalks, atewa s pipes, meters, meter code § 8102(gq): Ords. 1259, 1254, 1224, s,manholes' an' mailboxes, and (4) poles, 939,933,382). s, pipes and other devices, and their rtenant parts, for the transmission or 82-4.262 Sign, nonaccessory. "Nonacces- portation of electricity and gas for light, scary sign'" means ant,s+lrface or portion thoreof, or power, or of teleplidne-and-telegraphic on which lettered, figured or pictorial matter is messages, or of water. (Ord.74-22:prior code § displayed for purposes of advertising(other than 8102(t): turd. 382 § 2(18)). Ar the name and occupation of the user of the premises on which the surface is located, or 82-x#.272 Suburban apartment building. advertising other than the nature of the business "Suburban apartment building" means a (Contra Costa County 9-15{7$) 298 o i1-0 0S r7 0 r.Jo�+ * N d t w,► t r , t }♦yr� !t ( : �''t ♦ Ry,ofi, . � ty +..:/tEi' i y ;;I., ! f• +J � %�' 1')m. j .ry fir' V,,.'/f r �'�,` /AZ J 9y ktl � Y� '11 r!// � � d J t'if AiY fCQQ�� „ . i � • Y � �i� Dcli � � � ff�� � ,rrJ •rsi� 1�!�,�- :�� `-^»„ ����""..``��rrww��ll le Al JJ 4 F�?,l# NF �`� 1'.w"..y,,.y � � F ✓�}' �'`S�" dry' { w y+ i ? / z /► r �.,�.. t "`�"r..w.. .✓ jr/ ~�e°� w+ eg+5� \♦ � !! 'P. �„ ��s �"`` � �y.. vet, � Y, ✓ ,� f r +� �` � _ N a � PSI i. J i Y � l`" f w i 4 1�" i v r'J +`Fv s• .. "Y RS rL 4,o2r r"'�r « sr �..�if j`.. � rN}r P/"„! 's..'✓�(� �"`t y +�w *r i �ti i`•+--,....,.,.- _ Mit 11t 5{ � • 'res rr r s t ..� �+'+ ..._..... ......... ......... ......... ......... .._._.... .._ ....... ...... ....... ....._... .......... .......... ...__..... .._......_........_... 'TME BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA � r .Atk�xr,• Adopted this Order on April 14, 1998 by the following vote: Y AYES-Supervisors Uilkema, Garber, Canciamilla, Rogers NOES:`None fi tx ASSENT:Superviaor Canciamilla r -' ABSTAIN:None : �:�arcae���[gi�esitass;se�iC�m���ess rG r.IDe�ffi ffi�ffi�az ta�.�imarffimea lLaagsae tla r¢asC�missrs aCID�ffiaaa Ja •:h , 't'} SUBJECT: Decisions and Findings on Administrative Appeal. By Gerald W. Filice, Esq., at al on County File ZI 97-7872 r and Appeal by Gerald W. Filice Esq. and Dan Smith on i County File TP 97-0021, Alamo Area, On March 10, 1998, the Board of Supervisors closed the hearing and deferred decision to this date on the Administrative appeal of Gerald W. Filice, Esq., at a1, from the decision of the County Zoning Administrator relative to construction of : improvements within a scenic easement on Las Trampas Road, County , File ZI 97-:7872, Alamo Ridge Homeowners, applicant and Thomas and # Noreen Seeno, owners, Alamo area; and the appeal of Gerald W. Filica, Esq. and Lean Smith, D.C., at al (Appellants) from they , r. decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on the request of the Alamo Ridge Homeowners Association (Applicant) � for a tree permit application (TO 970021) to legally allow the disturbance of the root zones (dripline area) of three existing _ `( oak trees (the alterations within the root zone areas have already commenced) , Alamo area, ' Dennis Barry, Community .Development Director, advised the Board that the applicants wished withdraw their application and would restore the area to the previous condition, and he r ; 2k :r recommended that the Board accept the withdrawals and that staff would work with the applicants to insure their restoration of the area, r ° On recommendation of Supervisor Gerber, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the withdrawal of the application of the Alamo Ridge Homeowners, (applicant) and Thomas and Noreen Seeno, (Owners) for z � construction of improvements within a scenic easement on Lae Trampas Road, Alamo area (County File ZI 97-7872) is ACCEPTED; and the withdrawal of the application of the Alamo Ride Homeowners Association (Applicant) for a tree permit applicatiQn to legally allow the disturbance' of the root zones (dripline �� area) of three existing oak trees (TP 97-0021), Alamo area, is ,. . a ACCEPTED. i I htreby Certs that this is a true and correct t copy of an action taken and entered on the i •; y minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the s `z date shown. ATTESSTtcDt t a # PHIL BAT on,Clerk of the Board of rv#sc nd Co dm#nlatrator CC: Community Development Department u County Counsel ByDep�Y Gerald W. Filice, Esq. . , Dan Smith, D.C. # , Alamo Ridge Homeowners Associationco sf ; s E W5 s COY C«• Sa• ` •5 %t =t Ca 3v Letter of Appeal FC�CEIVED *AY 14 i9 May 14, 1998 CLERK BOARD GiF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA Co. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 PinS Street Martinez, California 94553 ` HE: NOTICE OF_APPEN, OF ISSUANCE ON A,PFIIL 23, 1998, Of ELECTRICAL PERMIT EC 224864, LAS TRAMPAS ROAD, ALAMO Door Chairman Rogers and Members of the Board: Las Trampas Trails Advocates("LTTA"), a community organization of trail users, hereby appeals, pursuant to Section 14-4.004 of the County Ordinance Code, the Issuance by the County of Contra.Costa Building inspection Department of the above-referenced electrical permit,for purposes of construction of a fonce and gats across Lars Trampas Road In Alamo, in subdivision 6419, called "Marna Ridge.' The issuance of said permit, for the purpose of constructing a component of the gate, is of special interest to LTTA and injures LTTA and its members and the community of trail users, in that the gate will restrict public access which the public has been using for decades along Las Trampas Road to the Las Trampas Regional Wilderness, a publicly-owned park within: the East Bay Regional Park District. The Issuance of the permit Is invalid and Illegal on the following grounds: (1) Subdivision 6419 was approved with specific conditions of approval, adapted by the Sian Raman Valley Planning Commission in 1W. Legally, said conditions remain applicable to the current gate projeot under the California Constitution,and the decisional and statutory law of California, including without limitation the California Environmental Ouality Act ("CEQA"). Condition no, 19 prohibits the construction of any fence, which term includes a gate and fence complex as beim built here, outside of a building envelope (and the proposed gate is being built outside a building envelope), without prior review and approved by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator has neither reviewed nor approved of this project, and the issuance of the electrical permit was illegal. (2) Condition S.A. of the Conditions of Approval requires 20 feet of "unobstructed" road width. It also generally prohibits security gating,!except as approved by the fire Prevention Bureau. The intent of this condition was not to allow a gate across Las Trampas Road, but rather to allow gating of individual driveways if the Fire Prevention Bureau requirements were mat. (3) The County's Tree Ordinance is being violated because the location of the gate is under the drip tine of protected trees, and the construction,trenching, excavation, Boli compaction, and related changes in drainage patterns have damaged and will continue to damage protected trees now and downhitl of the gate location. (4) CEQA prohibits construction of the gate and fence without first conducting an Initial Study, which has not been undertaken, which fields there to be no significant environmental effects, because this project (which torm under CEQA Includes the entire Alamo Ridge development, Including the proposed fence and gate) was approved based upon an Environmental Impact Report, which did not contemplate installation cit a gate across Less Trampas Road. Further,the fence and gate represent another in a aeries of modifications of the original permit which have not been property reviewed and approved as rewired by CEOA, causing a cumulative impact on the environment. See the letter from Grassettl Environmental Consulting, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference,for additional statements of the CEQA grounds upon which this appeal is based. (5) Las Trampas Road Is a public right-of-way as defined in the County's ordinances, since the public by usage has acquired prescriptive rights to travel on said roadway, and said roadway etas been Imphedly dedicated to the public. The gate and fence constitute an obstruction of said public right-ref-way in violation of County ordinances and the rights of the public established by the decisional and statutory law of CaMornia. (S) The gate and fence complex and related structures and development are within the scenic easement as established by the above-reference Conditions of Approval, and said development therein may not occur without prior discretionary approval of the County, which approval has not been applied For or granted. LTTA demands that the County, pending resolution of this appeal, Immediately suspend the above-referenced electrical permit. LTTA further requests written notice of the application for and/or issuance of any permits relating to construction of said gate and/or fence ,and any related development', I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this appeal was signed on May 14, 1996, at Alamo, Contra Costa County, California. t y L S. SMITH, D.C., on behalf of LAS TRAMPAS TRAILS ADVO TES y h � + FwWraetmenW,Auserrnent rassettl JER/MAV440 vsnitC dtrue p*W�hranaa .n t sxvtr+crrtrt� rtttt7plamwho w„d PWrFWMnV itsulrtrtg caftsvtling H>titrobare/Gtataptc�atyix Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553 May 14, 1998 SUBJECT: APPLICABILITY OF CEQA TO PROPOSED LAS TRAN.tPAS ROAD GATE Honorable Supervisors; Grassetti Environmental Consulting(GECo)has been retained by the lss Trsmpas Traits Advocares to review the applicability of the Califomia Enviro=ental Quality Act(CEQA) to the proposed gate on Las Trampas Road. We previously provided the Board with two letters(March 9 and March 27, 1998)commenting on the applicability of proposed CEQA categorical exemptions associated with the previously proposed Tree Permit CIP 97-0021) and Authorization of Improvements withia a Scenic Easement(7197-7872)for construction of a gate and parkingltarn out am on Las Trampas Road within Subdivision 6419. This tetter updates and supplements our previous letters with respect to a new ate located approxi inately five feet nort st(down Las Trampas Road)from the previously prvpossed gate location. It is based on information �d by the Las Trampas Ridge Trail Advocates and the April.9, 1998 County staff response to our past letters and letters presented by Gerald 1~ilice.Esq. It is our understandingthat the applicant asserts that the now garb location is not subject to County permits anti, erefore,is not sub*t to CEQA review. We have reviewed the past permits and history or CEQA review of Subdivision 6419 in order to&terinine the CEQA applicability and Compliance of the proposed gate. In our professional opinion,the gate represents a significant alteration to the subdivision,requiring discretionary approval by your Board and,therefore,is not exempt from CEQA review. Tlye bases for our conclusions aro provided below. Rt!Q--uisite App'rnvntsare Discretionary„anger CEQA As noted in our March 9, 1998 letter.CEgA establishes a three step process for considering and evaluating environmental impact& Fust,a projectis evaluated to deiertttine whether it triggers CEQA review. The test for this is whether or not the project is subject to a discretionary approval. It our understanding that the applicant proposes that the relocated gate be considered security gating under Condition S.A.of the 1984 Alamo Ridge subdivision approval,and not be subiect to County approval(rather thm Fire Fivvehtion Bi al approval),and that such gating is not subj=to county discretionary approval. It should be noted that Condition 5A states that .Access roadways...shall not be less than 20 fwt of unobstrwed width.--(emphasis added),and that",Security gating is 1536 S'canic Avenues -Varketcy, CA 94708 `=�(5ZO) 849 0.2354 tC r( Contras Costa County Burd of 5upervismrs May I4, 1998 Page 2 prohibited,except as approved by the Fite Prevention Bureau...". This strongly implies that security gatingon Thunpais Road is gernems y not considered appropriate in this prtt ect. Tho F= arshall has been contacted regarding the potential gate approval.process ad ciaritied ibat,in this case,the Fire Protection restrict issues only a prelimitiary conditional approval of the gate design,however final gate approval authority lies with County Planning Department. Find gate approval would.occur under the discretionary permit adopted y the Board in 1984(thus applicability of which is addressed below). if the County tt'min5 the night to add conditions to any gate%oval,the Co 's approval would appear to be s redotnary. Coudidon 19 states "Fencing shat litiiited to the area encomr assed by the building envelope. Any additional fewing is subject to the Zoning Administrator's review and approval." 'Me proposed gam appears to be fencing outside of the development enveto s,trigger ZDnin � Aduvor review. The Zoning Admiui,.ctrntsr's review an ap v�al of txcing is clearly dismwanary as defined with definition of Ministerial,approval bride✓CE A litiid s Section 15 57(See also Guidelines Section 15S69 for comparisonl. Cr i:uty staff has tilrined tthat the t ttditit ns of pro d pproval referenced above apply only to the o f Trial properrty owners,mrd got to suet property owner(April 9, 1998 Letter). toff then states that`°VVe are riot aware sif astir Iegal auth£irisv that gives the County the ditions of approval of the 1984 tentative subdivisitti map appproval" Wii�respect m c,;rEQA,the staffs contention is in.error. Staff fails to add the fact that t subdivision proval could not have occurred without compliance with CEQA. Most of the tions of approval(includin Condition 5-k,which applies directly to fte prevention mitigations developedto the I ER)were mitigations m�q ired to avoid significant impacts corder CEQA. CEQXS authorlT is not restricted to the original.develo rs of a prgJ ect,but rather applies to the project itself. Thcref'om subsequent owners of or parts of the project are subject to any requisite mitigation requirements. Such 101W temitigation was assumed both,.in the M and in the County's{E A rhidhtgs. If Oheorm unty disc not intend long-term mitigation as part of dz project conditions of approval,there that intent should have been reflected in the 1984 approvals and accompariyi gCEQA findings. Such an assumption would have required identifying impacts and ds velopirtg and figs of significance with respect to- various long-term irixgacts. No such analyses or Endings were ever made by the County. F1it'tlrer.to tetnove any min a Bost irnposcct through flee CEQA review proven is,in effect. a dxsction any modifrcatioti of fire pr+oPst pmt~the impacts of which would themselves equine i s s rnent trndes CEQA. tually,it slioiild be noted that if staff's contentions vvr c valid✓a ds*vcict r eculd gain pr est appttrvril.sell the subdivision to another developer atted with. orlgirsal subdivision�proval..and then,the new developer could claim exemppo»from all conditions o approved. Perhaps scoff envisions such an apProach as approprilte for the County.but it is not permitted under CEQA. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors May 14, 2998 Page 3 EW.1zO&S=1r3c and yo LngacM rret std is €ic#ermine whether or Tact the propo}sext actions Q�fear eentic►n fmzta review taatder G F. A, `I1 procedure attd tacrsl enteric fo}r such exexaptions are Bribed CEtA Cuideliraes Section 2Sf)62. 7 guidfag pslcy in this slnni�nation is "'Where it rein be seen lith cerUu that there Is tto possibility A&the activity in r e�n y have a signi;f wa e ebct on tht enWronment, the activity is not subject to As dosc:ribed in our March 9 letter,the proposed gate may have signif`acarlt irtapacts on recreational and visual resources, fine gate would reduce access to the existing tcailhead at the end of Las Trampas Road,limiting access to the lay yAccording to trails users.this would disrupt long-standing access to the pane at this location. The importance of this amass is further evidenced by EBRPD"s proposals to mitigate this impact by proposing to developadditional parlr acc�p�arts:T ae gaze and parkiag area would adversely alter the visual q ity of L T`rarnpas R as#it std as viewed from public rights of wav(e.g. ERBPD trail. easements) tiue tc►strnu aid l ghtiz ,and reduc on of access to s�;io easements.This effect is ccnsiclered poterttsally ttgaif rcant b both trail users and the trails group's Mg Iartdscape archin. l~tirther,as descnix�d below,cumulative impacts associated with Ir rrmenW expansions of the project could rewlt in potentially significant environmental impacts. The 1984 permit conditions indicate that the proposed development was not visioned as a gated coimtrauraiCy,but rather as a community witty obstructed access from s Tratapas Road. T� ly$i3 l"nviron=taI Impact Report(om)for the original project subdivision includes no mention or analysis of any;gates on the access road as part oithe project description,tzar did It asses the tentisl+effects of such a gate on visual or recreational resources.,as required under CZA. In my fe"ionat opinion,the proposed gate is a sig T=&alteration to the project as ori= o First„it alters the original project. concept as assessed in the , and subsequent E A documentation.. end,when ctr�m co baruttion with other modifications approved either administratively or throatrgh strbseoluetat tliscretianary approvalls(e.g.repeated incises in the number of residential argils and irtcressed rnaroitratim btalciittg heights),this gate can,be seen:as a part of an ov substantial alteration o the proasc gmje#to the extent where it is ubsttially different from that consioler�ed m t3ae 2984 approval. Potential environmental impact that could xn alt from these cutmulativL cacptaa i0 of the project include visual Impacts,impacts to vegetation and wildlife,and 3rnpacts to recreation. Because the 1980 EIR did not address any of these potential effects of the subsequently pennitted alterations, a new CEQA ar ll;s>siss is required for both the gate and cumulative almratioms to the project 1984. Therefore,as described in out previous letters,an exemption would not be appropriate for the proposed gate. ... ......................................................._......................................................................................_........... ....__ ....._........ ._....... ._....... _............_......._.........._....._. .......... ..........................._........._...... ......... 4 � Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors May 14, 1998 Page 4 In my professional opinion,CBQA is triggered and an Initial Study is mquired under CEQA for any gate on Las Trampass Road that subsmudaUy obstructs access to regional mcmation facilities. In addition to compg with the statutes,such a study would help fps the County and liant On goWb►Pmitigation tt mures that would asmm that potential impacts wvoul her+ duced to a less than si mfic .crt level. Pleaw feel free to contact me at(510)849.2354 if you have any questions mgardmg this letter. Sincerely, Rich Grassetti Plimipal FII.ICE LAVs'OFFICES MAY 18 1998 3201 DAWLLE BOULEVARD,SUITE 285 C£3UNYY ALAMO,CALIFflf>W 94607 COUMS6L Tel:(925)838-3025 #WARTINE�%CALIF. Fax:(925)$37-3352 GERALD W.FiUCE SIERRA FOOTHILLS OFFICE: Post office Box 895 Somerset,CA 95684 Tel/Fax(530)6204024 May 15, 1998 Silvano Marchesi, Esq. Office of the County Counsel 651 Pine Street, a Floor Martinez, California 94553 RE: las Trampas Road Fence/Gate Dear Mr. Marchesi: I have reviewed Senior PlanneNobert Drake's April 9, 1998, letter in which he claims that the County has no power to regulate the construction of a gate across Las Trampas Road, other than to require ministerial building permits. I understandthat you tentatively have agreed with Mr. Drake's conclusions, although as we have discussed you remain willing to consider additional authorities. I have carefully researched this question and consulted with other experts in the relevant fields, and conclude that Mr. Drake's view is incorrect. 1. PRESENT STATUS On April 23, 1998, the Building Department issued an electrical permit (no. EC 224864) to allow construction of a date several yards below the first proposed site. Construction has begun. We have appealed (filed May 14) this decision to the Board of Supervisors for the reasons given therein and herein. We request that construction be halted pending resolution of the appeal, 11. DISCUSSION As mentioned previously, in 9984 the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission conditionally approved subdivision 6419 by imposing emeries of "Conditions of Approval." Staffs belief is that such conditions applied only to the original developer who participated in the development application. Not so. . .. .................................................................................................................................................................................... . ....... Silvano Marches!, Esq. May 15, 1998 Page Two A. f Under the County's Police 1 r Dedyed from the Ca la QQn&ution In Scmginas v. Kovatch (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 54, the Sonoma County Planning Commission conditionally approved a subdivision, but included the condition that there be-no further subdividing of lots in the development until additional sewer facilities were provided. Although this condition was included on the foal map, it was not included in the deeds to two subsequent owners of the property (individual homeowners). One homeowner—contrary to this condition -- obtained a "lot split" under the county's lot split ordinance, and applied for a building permit. The county denied the building permit basedon the condition. The Court of Appeal for the First District (which is the District governing cases originating in Contra Costa County as well) held that afthough the condition was;not an equitable servitude against'the property because it not appear in the deeds to the subsequent buyers, it could be enforced against the homeowner under the county's police power under Article SCI, section 7 of the California Cpnstitution. The treatise Miller& Starr, Cal fQMia asst Estlte 2d, confirms that the case stood for the proposition that the condition was"enforceable against any subsequent purchaser of the property." §20:113. Conditions of Approval clearly run with the land, and are not affected by subsequent sale. Otherwise, the policy implications to the County are disquieting, allowing a developer who secured approval of a subdivision with conditions to remove the conditions by selling to a third party. Since this case remonstrates that the staff does not Carefully translate all conditions of approval into recorded restrictions in the chain of title, the County Wit have to rely in many cases on the conditions themselves, or lose control of subdivisions. There is no authority for the amazing proposition of the staff that the conditions are personal to the applicant, rather than applicable to the project as a whole. By analogy, please see the Case of Anza Parking Corp. V. City of Burlingame (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 855, which rejected the concept that a conditional use permit was personal to the applicant, instead holding that it ran with the land regardless of subsequent transfers of title. Further, staff(and Mr. Drake in particular) has acknowledged through conduct that the conditions of approval remain applicable to the current property owners. His April 9 letter, which responded in part to my letter about the installation' of a perimeter fence around the lot at the top of the hill at the cut-de-sac(owned by the 1Berans), argued that the Community Development Department had received, Silvano Marchesi, Esq. May 15, 1998 Page Three reviewed and approveda request from the property owner to build the fence, which is the procedure imps by condition no. 5.C. of the related minor subdivision (which is identical to Condition 19 of the Conditions of Approval of the mai subdivision, prohibiting fences outside of building envelopes without first getting County approval). Clearly, at the time of that application (June-July 1996), staff believed that the Conditions remained applicable to the current homeowners. Since there have been no material changes since the fence matter, staff's current position that the conditions are no longer applicable is wholly contradictory. The California Environmental Quality Act CCEQA"j likewise requires that the conditions be applicable against the current property owners. Mitigation measures under CEQA must be binding and applicable to the project. Public Resources Code§ 21081.6(b) requires that: "A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions,agreements,or ether measures. Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures . . . " Based on the above laws and discussions with CEQA specialists, the Conditions of Approval are binding and enforceable throughout the length of the project, regardless of transfers of ownership or the passage of time. I would note that this"project" is still under construction—at least two houses, various fences and the gate aro still being built. It is abundantly clear to me that condition no. 19 prohibits construction of a gate and/or fence in the roadway easement, which is outside a building envelope, without first getting Zoning Administrator approval, which is clearly a discretionary action. B. CEQA Requi=jAn 113 ial Study Attached hereto is a copy of a letter dated May 14 from our CEQA expert, Richard Qrassetti, which clearly explains that CEQA requires an Initial Study before approval of this gate may be given. Rather than repeat that information, I will incorporate it herein by reference. Silvan Marchesi, Esq. May 15, 1998 Page Four CONCLUSION The County has an affirmative obligation to enforce the law and require Alamo Ridge to follow the application and review procedures whim are mandated by the Conditions of Approval of this subdivision. An Initial Study is required as indicated. If the County fails to do so, it will be subject to a Petition for a Writ of Mandate. Let's take steps to ensure that does not become necessary. Sincerely, FF CES FILICE C 'F.n Enctosure OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL ":i' " a, <; t b DEPUTIES: PHILLCONTRA COSTA COUNTY JANtC P S. MENTAF IANICE L.A.MENTA SHARON L.ANDERSON. - COUNTY ADMINISTRATION SMOING ( MAY jy Fym 4: VECM E ,L w.WSsiDY {' 651 PINE STREET,9TIi FLOOR MARKE S.ESTISMICHAEL D.PARR MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-0116I, LILLIANT•FUaI DENNIS C.GRAVES GREGORYC.HARVEY TELEPHONE(925)335-1800 ; ( ; JANET t.HOLMES VICTERR OR J.WESTMAN FAX 925 666-1078 KERN T.x { ) BERNARD L KNAra COUNTY COUNSEL EDWARD V.LANE.JR. MARY ANN MASON SILVANO S.MARCHESI PAUL R. R{Z J. VALERIE J.RANCtiE ARTHUR W.WALENTA,JR. DAVID F.SCHMIDT ASSISTANTS May 19, 1998 DIANA J.SILVER BARBARA N.SUTUFFE GAYLE MUGGLI JACOUEJN@ Y.WOODS OFFICE MANAGER Gera W. Filice 3201 Dan Blvd. Suite 295 Alamo, CA. 94 re: Las Trampas Road(Alamo Ridge) Dear Mr. Felice: This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1998,to Silvan Marchesi of this office. We note that it sets forth in greater detail the issues rais$d in your May 11, 1998, letter to Bob Drake of the Community Development Department. First, conditions of approval for a subdivision are not generally enforceable against future bona fide purchasers who purchase the property without actual or constrictive notice of such restrictions. Such notice is commonly,provided through recorded instruments which will appear during a title search of the property and will put the purchaser on notice of such restrictions. In the case cited in your letters of May 11 and May 18, 1998,Scrogrings v Kovatch (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 54, the restriction on future subdivision was recorded on the final map for the subdivision. In the instant situation, there was no recorded restriction,on the final map or otherwise,which would prohibit a gate across a private road. It was only because the first proposed location of the gate was found to be partially in the County's scenic easement that the County had authority concerning the initial placement of the gate. I The scenic easement, recorded July 28, 1988,at the time of the filing of the final map for Subdivision 6419, granted development rights to the County for Lots 1 through 17 of the subdivision except for specified areas, including building envelopes, driveway easements, sanitary sewer easements,public utility easements,private roads,or Las Trampas Road as shown on the map(see Exhibit A of Scenic Easement#88-129091, recorded at Book 14481,page 689). Absent a recorded instrument,conditions of approval do not generally run with the land for the reasons explained above. Conditions of approval are distinct from conditional use permits,which are discretionary land use entitlements and do run with the.l _ 1 Later, it was determined that the County's tree ordinance was also at issue. ..............................................................I......................................I............ .............................................. ................................................................ Generally, by the time a final map is filed and recorded,the conditions of approval must be satisfied. Occasionally, a condition of approval must be satisfied at a later time, e.g.,at the time a building permit is sought,or by subsequent express County approval. For example, Condition 5 C. for MS 3-89 is part of a general requirement(Condition 5) for residential design and requires certain Zoning Administrator approvals before individual building or grading permits can be issued. Condition 5 C. limits fencing to the area"'encompassed by the building envelope." Additional fencing must be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator. A similar requirement is found in Condition 19 for Subdivision 6419. The Community Development Department has indicated that these conditions reflect the basis and intent underlying the scenic easement: to control development in the subdivision outside specified areas, such as building envelopes,private roads. etc.2 Consistent with the terms of the scenic easement and set forth above,the Community Development Department has informed this office that the private road area in which the"new" gate is proposed is not part of the scenic easement and no permit is required other than the electrical permit that has been issued. The granting of the electrical permit is not subject to CEQA review as it is clearly ministerial and not discretionary(14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15357, 15369). Therefore,no initial study was required before the building permit was issued. We trust that this letter has addressed your concerns. Very truly yours, Victor J. Westman County Counsel 4�1�By: Diana J. Silver Deputy County Counsel cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Dennis Barry, Director Community Development Dept.) Carlos Baltodano,Director Building Inspection Dept 2 Attached is a copy of a letter to you dated April 9, 1998,from the ComirYarrity-Development Department which sets forth that department's position that the conditions of approval do not extend to r current homeowners and that the County has authority only over those matters recorded on the Final Map and subject to the Scenic Easement. .......... MAY-21-98 THU 11 :55 THIESSEN LAW OFFICE 5108375352 P. 01 FILICE LAW OFFICES 3201 DANVILLE SOULEVARDo SUITE 296 ALAMO* CALIFORNIA 94507 GERALD W. FIUCIE TELEPHONE: (510)838-3025 EM-COVER SHEET TO: Dennis Barry, Director COMPANY. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. DATE: 6/21198 FAXED TO: (51 g} 335-1290 NUMBER OF PAGES, -4- (including this cover sheet) FROM; Gerald W. Fillce FOR COMMUNICATION: FAX No. 1510-837-33524 Office telephone is 1-510-838-3025 MESSAGE: CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This tnessage Is Intended only for the use of the Individual or entity to which It Is addressed, and may contain Information which Is pdAegad, confidential and exempt tram dlsdosure, If the reader of this message Is not the Intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the Intended mciplent,you are hereby notified that any dissemination,dialilbution,or copying of this communication is ottly prohibited. It you have received this communication In am,please no*us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us by mail, Thank you. MAY-21-99 THU 11 :56 THIESSEN LAW OFFICE 5106373352 P. 02 Y FUICE LAWOFFI C Es 3203 DANVN.LE aouL>r1t'aRo.surm 285 XAMO,CAUFORNCA 94507 Tet: 53 8W3023 Fix(925)$374352 , Post CrrlGe Box ass SOMOf44+3t,CA 0684 TliWax:(530$20-1024 May 21, 1998 VIA FAX AND MAIL, Diana J. Silver, F-sq. Office of the County Counsel 651 Pine Street, a Floor Martinez, California 94563 RE: Las Trampas Road Fence/Gate Dear Ms. Silver: I I have today received and read your May 19 letter responding to my recent Correspondence, and cannot square your various assertions and conclusions. } I You argue—without citing to any legal authority—that"absent a recorded instrument, conditlons of approval dp not generally run with the land , Are you aware of any legal authority which supports that proposition,? Ilam not, after having looked Into the crater at some length. Unless you produce such authoilty, l do not believe that your assertion Is a valid one. ' You then state that. { "Occasionally, s condition of approval mast be satisfied at a later time(after the recording of the final map), e.g,, at the time a building permit Is sought, or by subsequent express County approval. For example, Condition 50. fty►rr,&AJQ "a I* p*a4.E m -&,4 tt:rvr"w—t (0,wrtibilwm �s 5) for residential design arta requires certain Zoning Administrator approvals before Individual building or grading permits can be Issued, dondition 5C. limits r fencing to the area `encompassed by the building a t envelope.' Additional fencing give,be reviewed and ' approved by the,honing Administrator." { MAY--21-98 THU 11 :56 THIESSEN LAW OFFICE 51083723:52 P. 03 t [Mena J. diver, Esq. May 21, 1998 Pare Two The gate and fence at issue Dere ft precisely into the kind of c hMruction which is being accomplished after recording of the final map, and which €+squires Zoning Administrator review and approval under Condition 19 of subdivis on Ii9 and c.onditivn 80 of M5 -89. Indeed, the entire development"whi Is still under construction--was built after recording the final map. it makes rio sense—and i note that again you supply no legal authority--to argue that sours forms of construction are subject to the Conditions(Le,, the houses), while the gate is not, The gate and Its attached iron fence ars merely the latest hours,69ristructed in this development. 7 ' 3 You dlstinguish. +%=In, v. Koyatrh, ovaon the ground that the restriction j In that case was recorded on the final map. While,any o;kse can be distinguished on the facts (because each case is unique), this factor does not support your position, The Court In S=g1n9A specifically held that the subsequent property owners did tiM have constructive notice of the restriction (because it Was not Incic#dod,in their dam), and that as ak result, the restrictions could not to enforced,as equitable f servitudes. If the presence of the restrictions in the final map were sufficient to create constructive notice and Impose the Conditions on the naw ooers. the Court would not have ruled In that manner. The Court then held that, despite the lard of notice to the new owners, the restrictions were enforceable under the County's police power, granted in the California Constitution. The bottom line of your letter and the Qaly basis for the conclusions which you offer•--is the bald and unsupported opinion of the Community Development Department that Condition tg of subdivlsign$419 ind Cohc#ition 5C of MS 3-89 merely"reflect the basis and intent underlying the scenic asements to control development of the subdivision outside specified areas, sdch as building I envelopes, private roads, etc.* If that were the case, the Coriditlpns could easily j have been stated that way. They won't The Conditions clearly and unambiguously ? require that; "Fencing shall be limited to the area encompassed 6y ' th,w krulrwtinv onv-orrspa. Arsrerdamonai ftiwAng to *ugj64;t to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator." .1 i (Emphasis added.) This gate and fence complex is outside a building onvelope as shown on the final map, and Is subject to such prior review and approval'. � f 1 MAY-21-98 THU 11 :07 THja!5:5 :N L.AW OFFICS 510OZ733512 P. 04 Diana J. Silver, Esq, May 21, 1€98 Page Three Becaus4 the Zoning Administrator's approval under Conditions 19 and 50 Is discretionary, CEQA requires an Initial Study before the ppermlt,may be allowed. If you possess any legal authorities to back up your conclusions, l would be grateful if you would share them with us. Otherwise--and with all due respect--your letter in my view is nothing more than the unsupported opinlon of the i Community Development 13epartment, made to appear like a legal opinion. Without legal authorities, I cannot sie how your letter can support the County's present posture of dging nothing to regulate the Installation of this gate and fere, In light of the clear Conditions of Approval which prohibit such construction without advance County approval. If you have a reply supported by laws, I look forward to reading it ImmedWely; Otherwise, please reconsider your position, muse otherwise the County and the all concerned p6rdes ire fast moving toward litigation, Sincerely, , F IC FF`1CPst } 4 ILICE GWF:n 1 cc: Supervisor Donna Garber ; Supervisor Jim Roger* ' Supervisor Joe Canciamilla " Supervisor Gayle Ullkerna County Counsel Victor J. Westman o-pmroo awrrr, Ptr•wvwr vgmmun ty Davtatopm+ent ueperzment Carlos Baltodano, Director Building Inspection Department . ; Las Tram as Trails Advocates ; Sen. Jahn Neloft(retired)(Wth Ms. Silver's May 19 letter) ml WON �s X ` ��1- s yn.o yiy�`��" pag pyya O y, i y ab �yg 1 � ..a `�pY�.-.{� ��/f"� �y{ � �6Q� 6 +C�IJ� '`•}� +A�}Nt�',r ' W l0 O �pY��. yat� L ���"r � +[ n+�N"� W •p�'�l .L� WV� }. 44 W �x Oil y A} W $ Nd` (W` vy , c'So^ 3<i u4 cW+ Cw. G'J OyV1wW6��{! Fyr ��SyyAy, Y .. y( AO -�s.ayiw�Jyy PW6g._ k.. YO aLa�f NWG'Y' N�(��yy9$jN �W51 WaBF Wd �Cy[ y,, u 0LW�i� yiOiO 6a0r it 45�y iµ }das /'�bY��+1 O}K y..j Wrt ►� d-v���.¢�3�8OG��•��"�p�5 ��W O��w. `a,0 KW. _ Wt- 4 N�".O W .KWK ► O wp�.. (/ \� x Z= y��igPy V bt 4r W aH 6'i/pp W byNl' y�,� r,,,f y aCWp6WW6 `+ � 3W Z$i�iZ -3 iYN V W�SVl �I • � ��� e � }OKy�W[aO.a�19WY. ;�Y�. i 4 VI Meg Y� 1 p K 5� � ,j��Oi.i i'.��Ct+NIC yaaytt� Y Wy }per �I[ W K M pWiC ®OC ft OC N � }y,. EXU: 9 LSty CSE d'gg MN t►. W � - CW 2 .iy �'�1C� 3CE� Z W _� yOyNJ MO j W N y ka ,i' W�� ���CN yWy�g�`� �Yy�el y� w®"w yr v`�w'�i�i +��" ►��"�y}���i�,".';.. '� '� ~�OWF �CCv� 4'00 {yy�ry�CL3wYI'1 3.f 4Y. � Y. � t`s.• O p �1( Y +[N M gYhaKd.Y✓'.W+J4bi y�j,�yay �Wya+ryt CC 0[ L' gig! p y{ yK - 16 V i y� iy ryw � g y� ,�� .. K ¢yxg a�Wf :{'V 1�i[y;, p� N.�.aNyyIS W� Oe�O�a yW .JO Y'j4�YguSMe! yi" Vy�Jiili iWyLWi qq i�"4$WOy, N iNF. I VI K i"'i O �MViilyiF.{t h•�1WyIN.yO�~W. Nyyy{{{ ,� W i�h i. last i p, y gy 1sySyVy�( yappg ,. ����G �fia�iIE�N343h Y.W�Y4Kr� G��$ j • ,�>r ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .............................................__................... ... _ .... ........_. ._..__.._. ._.._...... ............._.......... .............. ... .......... ........._.......__....... ........_... .........._..._ S�OttEkl CERTIFICATE THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE PARTIES HAVING A RECORD TITLE INTEREST IN THE LANDS DELINEATED AHO EMBRACED WITHIN THE HEAVY BLACK 80Ukt7ARY UPON THIS MAP, DO HEREBY 'CONSENT TO THE MAKING AND RECORDING OF THE SAME. THE AREAS MARKED `LAS TRAMPAS ROAD {PRIVATE)' AND 'PRIVATE ROAD' ARE ROADWAY EASEMENTS AND ARE DEDICATED TO THE OWNERS OF THE LOTS OF SUBDIVISION 6419 AS NEIN-EXCLUSIVE EASEMCNTS fOR INGRESS EGRESS n PAS f VEHICLES SAGE Q E ICLES AltD ROADWAY PURPOSES, THE AREAS MARKED SSE AND LAS TRAMPAS ROAD (PRIVATE) ARE 'DEDICATED TO THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT, OR ITS DESIGNEE, FOR PUBLIC USE FOR SANITARY SEWER INCLUDING CONSTRUCTIONO ACCESS OR MAINTENMC€ Of WORKS, IMPROVEMENT AND STRUCTURES, WHETHER COVERED OR OPEN, OR THE CLEARING Of OBSTRUCTIONS AND VEGETATION. THE AREA MARKED "25' DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AND DRIVEWAY EASEMENT FOR LOTS 2, 3, 6, 7, AND 15' IS A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AND IS DEDICATED TO THE OWNER(S) Of LOTS 2. 3, 6. 7, AND 15 RESPECTIVELY Of SUBDIVISION 6419 AS A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR ACCESS BY VEHICLES OF ALL KINDS, PEDESTRIANS. ANIMALS, . AND OTHER INVITEES Of THE OWNER(S), Of LOTS 2. 3, 6, 7, AND 15. AND fOR THE CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION Of UTILITIES. AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF A COlWN DRIVEWAY TO SERVE LOTS 20 3. 6, 7, AND 15 OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS SATO LANDS. THE AREAS MARKED 'LAS TRAMPAS ROAD (PRIVATE) ' ARE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS AND ARE DEDICATED TO THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES AND THE OWNERS Of THE LOTS OF SUBDIVISION 6419 AS MON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE, USE AND OPERATION Of PUBLIC UTILITY fACILITIES INCLUDING MATER, GAS, ELECTRICAL POWER, TELEPHONE. CABLE TELEVISION, AND ALL APPURTENANCES TO THE ABOVE. THE AREAS ON EACH LOT MARKED 'BUILDING ENVELOPE (BE)- ARE DESIGNATED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION Of HOMES, DRIVEWAYS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND APPURTENANCES. ALL} AR€AS .r. Unit >y µ THIS MAP SHOWS ALL THE EASEMENTS ON THE PREMISES OR OF RECORD. ALAMO RIDGE ASSOCIAT€S. A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, EUV THAY€R HOLT INC.. G`ENEENAL PARTNEit. BY: BY: 3c r S. MLT -roxiliti f si t R. ��A stc ►yctuert ge Bess ma Z �� � W •.C1�ft QNfAPryNp�y,V�Mitf i��3yy��diA�Wpp��}yr+�,wYs y�������pp�T.+}ov�i+p��.f��g.���pp W.ry�t.+��t/0 ami 6�p���nyy�ffi+yy'y�/���p'W{�p�~w�.i4+�Nqq+',ry�i+��jj Q.w�yt�y�i�Nr.�imrNh��.ppi.�'�y+p�pC1 �flz ��q}) ,stn y} � �r����e.'iy 1Ow�Nr�w Al�f�wlr"iYf4f M++�'�+�FNir��YlYuh.i�.q+T'P+`S 4Nb we�WV%�p6w7�WCn�YM1 4fYN��..f1N.�a vMiNoNip�ruN /�1 Q, yy il4 �,,....rjjC *°, NM+y.�! 4S(�p 1/��W}�{4t{}W�yW�{gW� Wi "y"}y4 r1yF Wty�W/l ikyYWy�ti4i W $ $ itl 4f $iJ MtYi ytW y7w$Y+i W� v p +•�.yry 11 J"YM1 Y1a?17rI VOYI PIO'1"'i Y'f www NAl W1'! {9N�f KBifMN I'�4" W M` 1['• liiWm i !" * A[ Cny. .�y� 7�r wYf}."..Y".'{ �Np�(yV(iQhv.a4}y�}+iW*111gq¢V a.I�I�Yq�O�{N�1M'4f Yj,�N1�1N t�1d1�y�/ VI M5f5{M.�lNLLi.�i'�AYN i4 Ai w♦�H�{N�A/��!'�1'�py�pY Y'y�{��Myi�i[) `l �tagi tiC Y#t � �+{N+M P}'r rp YS Z+i 1C WYY�Vf .rtW I liR f'�.+11vt �!�}/l �w.♦A}}rt♦�{�y�P ♦5�t�{�p. A A. �'f ri F3NOQ / >5 M� _,",r{ yp� a. �"„C Q;wN.�.►«�.s...we.��«:�:«:i°»«,^"'°:i4�«.�"�u�k33�e'N1L°�F1eSrt�S'r��Si�3�Cn$$!i"?'•►Nr".��1"r�i V"�'.""r.�rus,"d'u�m,a,'$Cn°Rv�.�.o".i` r,� p sr cn w t V'_1 t' asv`dy`ya jr� ug K �ry. /t y ,4 �. 4 �' N• Gy yf t �� � +s ,/"� ).'ti..•..�..---" fir•7'y�'7`1 fr' „4� � �a�� �� C1J,lllli' .'lJ.2l.OM V �.. � 3rjy4y„p��' $ �� �•.. pt t ti�L�#' ���v �,�,�► t�,�'°fit� ,, �, � � � t � .t 64 je LO i.♦ �c mac, l 'at' ., •. es e,� cs 3 •. �c yr 1 •, ! 4 'a•.i pea•;,, :�.y � '� • f ttS hJ IrS xwlatx /.•r �” �; `�1v�vim' `s�~o•.—'-� � ao ss�f THE BOARD OF SUP'EMSORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this order On July 26, 1988 by the following vote.- AYES: ete:AXES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Mc?eak, Torlakson & Schroder MONS: Norte ASSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUWRCT: Authorizing Acceptance of Instrument. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the following instrument is hereby ACCEP'T'ED: INST'RUME RNM2�CE GEAN__TO�2 Grant Beed SUB 6419 Alamo Ridge Association Alamo of Dev+elpynent Rights I hereby Wify L*x;Wi ig a trot and a"M copy of an aetton imea and erstwed an Me wdnulent Cf no ftstd of St+;eMeart on lite date shown. ATTESTM JYJ 2 61998 PHIL SATCNELOR,Clerk of the Raard at twpcMtor.and County Adtn'.-amitat otpuly Originator: Public Works (ES) c=)rReccrder (via Title Co.) then PW Records; Clerk of the Board Director of Community Development Alamo Ridge Association 5 Crow Canyon Court, $200 San Ramon, CA 94528 80:26.t7 ffDaO OF D0C'3j;,Dg; y" 66 12909 Recorded at the request of. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WRDE3 AT REQUkST OF Public Works Department 40�w Engineering Services Division . Return to: JUL281988 a Public )forks :Department Records Section AT G'CLCrCK M CC}NT C9$7 COUNTY RECORD$ t Area; J.1L OLSSON « AS COUNTY RECOROER Road.. County Road No.: FEE$ Project: Ala�ae R G / �.. Assessor's ,. - o,. GRANT DEED OF DEVELUPKNT RIGWS To,a t�'tondltion number 6 of Subdivision number 6419 , 1, Alamo, '6 �xssgciates owner) hereby grant to t e ounnty' of >a�``ncra�a, a '9RX n;4 ett bUivision of the State of California, Grantee, and its governmental ,....r.4 �,•Sor'sucsessorx, the future "development rights," as defined herein below over t, Of- that real property known as ftxasa U a Subdivision number 6419 ` #n the County of Contra Costa, State ol'�' 5 ifornia, and more particularly 44 ' 4n Exhibit A. nt rights" are defined to mean and refer to the right to approve or disapprove posed construction, development or improvement within the areas marked development area." The "development rights" are and shall be a form of dsement which shall run with the said property and shall bind the current nY future owners of all or any portion of said property. in the event of a $ l of proposed constructign by the Grantee or its successor, said proposed "tion shall not be performed. Grantee or Its successor map condition its of any proposed construction upon prior or subsequent performance of such 'tons as Grantee may deem appropriate. r or owners of all or any portion of said property desiring to develop any Y nt requiring the approval of Grantee of its successor herein shall submit to `entity a written proposal describing the nature, extent, and location of such ttvement. Grantee or its successor shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of such posal in which to grant its approval or disapproval. Failure by Grantee or its y"gitccessor to respond in said time period shall be equivalent to the appproval of such proposal ALAMO RTDG 5S IA'3:E s California limited t ship SX: TIiAY£S� & HOLT,I2dC. r ezzrey ner o nHolt Dated July 7, 1988 State of California, County of contra costa ViJS 7th day of July , in the year 1.968 ` ^;"fefore me, _ 3e i a 3citmind a notary public n A or sa Dort an tate* personally appeared Jeffrey R. Thayer and Jo t3 , nown to me to e e persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing statement, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. ca," otnry u c n a n r e of Co a COW, State of Cal fornix.. DE:1 (8-$5) t�mt�tttsaipirwmt OrFICtAL, SEAL ► JENNIFER aC1.MNIDI COUNT'OF cOKMA COVA My tAv,1s*o Expires Clay 1992 r EXHIBIT A LOTS 1 THROUGH+ 17 OF SUBDIVISION 6419 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED ------- 1985 IN HOOK __— OF MAPS AT PAGE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE AREAS MARKED AS BUILDING ENVELOPES, DRIVEWAY EASEMENTSs SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS$ PRIVATE ROADSs PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS, LIR LAS TRAMPAS ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP MAY715-98 FR 118:02 STACY FAX NC. 15109372743 - F. 01 R. Briggs Wood 2142 Los Tramps Road Alma,COMOMID 94507 Fox 925-855.1802 Home Phone 925.833.1791 Emall Mochadog1QM3N.Awm May 15, 1998 Dennis Barry Contra Crista Planning department Clear Mr. Barry; Mark Armstrong called me and told me of your concern regarding the possibility that we are digging within the dripline of trees on Las Trampas Road. t can assure you that we are nowhere near the drip line of any true in installing our new gate conduit. However, you are aware that we have been ordered to remove existing conduit from the drip line of a tree and that Is what we have done, We also plan to dig out a concrete footing that is in the drip line of a tree which we have been ordered to remove. 1 think your inspectors were looking at the old installation when they came out yesterday. We didn't start our trenching for the new work until approximately 2:00 PM Friday May 15, 1998. l have taken the liberty to send you a sketch of the work we are cluing. Rest assured that we are not going to give Gerald Felicia and Dar; Smith anything to atop our project with this time around. if you have any questions, please, call me. Sincerely, t R. l3ri Wood MAY-15-99 FRI 18:03 STACY FAX NO, 15109372743 P. 02 R. Briggs Mod Oa iR t�v "rt' fid r2 op Mod -7 6 �y 1 V" g&rq Vitt s y, C96 �l 6, } CONSIDER WITH Supervisors: The following has been prepared for your review in relation to the appeal of the issuance of the electrical permit for the gate across Las Trampas Road. Joe Herr (925) 831-012 2109 Granite Drive Alamo, CA 94507-1502StU The East Bay Regional Park District was founded in 1934 by public spirited citizens who had the foresight to preserve some of the region's unique natural resources for future generations to enjoy. However, most members of present generations are not enjoying the natural resources of the Las Trampas Regional Wilderness. A gate across Las Trampas Road and "No Parking" signs along Las Trampas Road deprive them of a realistic staging area. For this reason I request the Board of Supervisors to affirm this appeal, invalidate the electrical permit and enable a full discussion of access to a wilderness which has been purchased for the general public and not for just a few people. I plan to show you three things, 1) The difficulty of entering the wilderness area at the present time, 2) How the effort and time to enter the wilderness can be halved, and 3) Why both South Avenue and Hemme entrances are inferior to Las Trampas Road for access to the northern section of the wilderness. The map which you have been given, was put together from Park District maps, a USGS Topographic map, a triple "A" map and `on site' observations. On it various color codes are used to designate the pertinent staging areas and the interim destination within the wilderness. The blue color on the left portion of the map indicates the junction of the Las Trampas Ridge and Madrone trails. At 1280` this is the interim destination for those entering the wilderness from Las Trampas Road. Going along the Las Trampas Ridge Trail one can visit Las Trampas Peak. The Madrone Trail takes you into a another area of the wilderness with botanical features different from those along the Las Trampas Ridge Trail. Proceeding clockwise from the Trail Junction along the Eire Trail to the cul-de-sac one arrives at the old staging area which is colored green and marked `Old'. This staging area at 780' elevation was used before the gate and "NO PARKING" signs were installed'. It is 500 feet below the Trail Junction and it probably would have taken less than 25 minutes to hike to the Trail Junction if I could have started from here, but I had to start my hike at Lark Lane. Continuing along Las Trampas Road we arrive at the gate, which is framed in black. The short hiking easement which bypasses a segment of Las Trampas Road has one end near the gate. Continuing on, the yellow indicates the Lark Lane staging area at an elevation of 330'. This is, at present, the staging area closest to the Trail Junction and is 950' below it. It took 55 minutes to reach the junction from here. Use of the `Old staging aea instead of Lark Lane Cuts the access time to the wilderness in half and almost halve teh elevation change. Respectively, orange and pink indicate the South Avenue and Hemme staging areas, both of which are at 390' elevation which is 890' below the 'Trail Junction and are about 1 and 112 hours from same if one hikes up through Las Trampas Regional Wilderness. A park district path and streets allow one to walk between the South Avenue and Lark Lane staging areas in seven minutes. The trail from Hemme uses most of the South Avenue Trail to connect to the Madrone Trail eventually leading to the Trail Junction. In the lower right corner of the map is a table listing the locations which have been identified by color. This table combines the presented information for easy comparison. It has each point's elevation and, for the staging areas, the difference in elevation between the staging point and the Trail Junction. The next column is actual uphill hiking time. Individual hikers times may vary. The last column called `flights of stairs' provides another way to look at elevation changes. It was assumed that a flight of stairs is ten feet, and the elevation change in third column has been converted into the equivalent number of flights of stairs. For example, from Lark Lane, it takes 55 minutes hiking time and the elevation change is 950 feet or 95 flights of stairs, while from the.`Old' staging area the elevation change of 500 feet or 50 flights takes only 25 minutes to hike to the Trail Junction. With fewer flights of stairs and a shorter distance from the 'Old' staging point the hikers will be fresher when they reach the junction than if they start from Lark Lane. Hikers realize that hiking is not without effort, but they prefer to expend effort within the wilderness overcoming natural obstacles as opposed to expending effortto get to the wilderness and/or overcoming barriers imposed by humans. The chart also shows why it is illogical to consider South Avenue or Hemme staging areas as reasonable access points to the Trail Junction. The elevation change is 600 feet less than from Lark Lane, but at least half an hour additional hiking is required to arrive at the Trail Junction than from Lark Lane. The time differences between South Avenue/Hemme and the `Old' staging area to the Trail Junction is more than an hour. I request that you deny the electrical permit and refer the entire matter to the zoning administrator to insure that the conditions of approval for the development are enforced. ...... _ - - .................................................................................................................. .. 1 t i 1 t � If"N' f . Ci f Y3 W N CL N @ 0 elf131. c� r to : ......; M