Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06132000 - D5 i Contra ' Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �,,^ -.. County FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD DIRECTOR OF COMM[7NITY DEVELOPMENT CU U DATE: June 13 , 2000 SUBJECT: Sixth Rescheduled Hearing on Ciapponi and Yandell's Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's (Administrative) Approval of a Request to Modify the Location of On-Street Parking within Subdivision 7693, County File #21998206 (Wingset Place, Alamo area) . District III SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECONDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Approve Option A actions listed below. OPTIONS- Option A - Deny the Appeal; Sustain the Zoning Administrator's decision relocating one parking space to the other side of turnaround. 1 . Deny the Appeal of the Ciapponi ' s and Yandells . 2 . Sustain the Zoning Administrator' s decision as described in the Community Development Department letter dated October 11, 1999 . Option B - Grant the Appeal; Reverse the Zoning Administrator's Decision (thus, retaining the original (1995) proposed parking plan with all spaces on one side of the turnaround] . 1 . Grant the Appeal of the Ciapponi ' s and Yandells . 2 . Reverse the Zoning Administrator decision. 3 . Direct staff to notify the Appellants of any future Zoning Administrator administrative decision on a subsequent request from the Developer to modify the on- street parking plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATUR RECOMMENDATION OF. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATI& OF BOARD C3FWITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE{S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON Jumg: 13 . _20OO APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX SEE THE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A XX UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ - _ _ _ _ _ TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Bob Drake [ (925) 335-1214] Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED .rt'ina 11 - 2000 cc: Thomas Gingrich PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERIC OF Leo B. Siegel THE B OF SUPERVISORS Rena Rickles AND C ADMINISTRATOR Public Works Dept . County Counsel BY +✓ , DEPUTY c: \wpdoc\sub7693g.bo RD\ Continued June 23, 2000 Hearing of Clapponi & Yandell Appeal Qi)t� - Approve an alternative parking plan that relocates one of the spaces to another position at the end of the turnaround, and allows for a reduced 8 x 17 ft. dimensions . Other 01ptions -- A number of other less feasible options are identified in Table I . FISCAL IMPACT None. Under the adopted County fee schedule, the applicant is responsible for all staff time and material costs for the review of this request including all costs of the review of this appeal . BACKGROUND This appeal was originally scheduled for the Board's December 14, 1999 hearing, but was continued on several subsequent dates . P I R STAFF REPORT The background to this matter was reviewed in the original staff report to the Board, dated December 14, 1999 . Due to an error by the subdivision developer (Tom Gingrich) , the final map failed to provide an access to the lot (Lot 6) located at the end of the project road. The only access to this lot is along the frontage where access is clouded by common on--street parking which was proposed by the Developer and approved by the County at time of the approval of the final map. To try to eliminate the blockage, the subdivision developer requested that the Zoning Administrator approve the relocation of one of the spaces to the opposite side of the turnaround. After consulting with the Fire Protection District, the Zoning Administrator determined that the proposed change was reasonable and approved it. That administrative decision was then appealed by two of the homeowners within the subdivision (Ciapponi ' s and Yandells) . REVIEW OF -MARCH 14 BOARD HEARING Public Testimony - The appeal of the Zoning Administrator' s approval was heard by the Board on March 14, 2000 . At that time, the Board heard testimony from the respective legal counsels for both the subdivision developer (Leo Siegel) and the appellants (Rena Rickles) . At that time, Ms . Rickles indicated that the relocated parking space would interfere with her client ' s (Ciapponi) access to his lot (reconfigured Lot 7) . She suggested alternative designs that would be acceptable to her clients . Those alternatives were rejected by the Developer at the hearing. Board Direction - After taking testimony, the Board voted to direct staff to meet with the two parties to try to find a solution that was acceptable to all parties . ATTEMPTS TO RESOLVE DIFFERENCES MARCH 23 , 2000 SITE MEETING Staff has met with the Developer and Appellant at the site on two occasions . The first meeting occurred on March 23 , 2000 which failed to identify a design option that was acceptable to both parties . 2 Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of Clapponl & Mandell Appeal TWO ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS PROPO E BY THE APPELLANT Following the first site meeting, the Appellant retained an engineer (Ruark & Associates) who drew up two alternative plans for redesigning the parking/access in front of Lots 5 and 6 . These alternatives are described in sketch drawings attached to a letter dated April 14, 2000 from Ms . Rickles . Both alternatives involve a proposed lot line adjustment between the two lots . Alternative A would allow the four parking spaces to remain approximately where they were originally approved and shift the property line approximately 10 feet towards the "guest house" on Lot 5; thus allowing Lot 6 to have its own driveway. Alternative B would adjust the same lot line but maintain the current setback from the "guest house" on Lot 5 . However, it would merge the driveways for Lots 5 and 6 (this would require the establishment of a road easement through Lot 6 to serve Lot 5 . It would also relocate the "fourth" parking space onto the front area of Lot 5 . Either ZQnellant Alternativ Would Reauuire Approval of a Variance Permit to the Minimum Frontyard Zoning Standard While the letter from Ms. Rickles indicates that no variances would be required, this is contrary to what staff reviewed with her in the field. Both alternatives would shorten the structure setback that is required to be observed under the R-20 zoning (min. 25- feet) . Currently, the "guest house" is setback approximately 28 feet from the front property line. See Figure I . The shifting of the property line per Alternative A would reduce the setback to approximately 18 feet; the creation of the common parking space easement on Lot 5 per Alternative B would reduce the setback to only 10 feet. The zoning ordinance would not allow either of these reduced setbacks to be established without approval of a variance permit application. A variance permit application must be filed by the owner (Developer) , and requires at a minimum that the owners of property within 300 feet of the site be notified of the application. If a neighbor requests a hearing then one is scheduled. A variance cannot be approved unless the County makes three ordinance findings (ref . § 26-2 . 2006 of the Ord. Code) . Developer Reaction to Agppellant Pro-pQsals The Developer rejected both proposals. He does not want to encumber the lots with additional vehicular easements, nor bear the cost of related improvements (e.g, grading, paving, etc. ) . He has indicated that Alternative B would deprive Lot 5 of one of the few flat areas on that site. He also objects to being subjected to an additional discretionary approval . He has indicated that if the Zoning Administrator decision is sustained, he will be proposing a lot line adjustment application between Lots 5 and 6 to the County to allow for direct vehicular access onto Lot 6 . The County can administratively approve lot line adjustment applications as long as they are consistent with zoning and building ordinances . Staff has previously agreed to a request from the Appellants to notify them of any decision by the County to approve a lot line adjustment application filed by the Developer, so that they would 3 Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of Ciapponi & Yandell Appeal have the opportunity to appeal that administrative decision to the Board. SECOND (MAY 4) SITE MEETING A second meeting at the site was held on May 4, 2000 . That meeting was attended by staff from both Community Development and Public Works Departments and a representative from Supervisor Gerber' s office. That meeting identified an alternative design for the relocation of the one parking space and allowing for reduced ( "compact-car size") parking space (Option C) . At the site, both the Developer and Appellant indicated that they were tentatively supportive of this alternative subject to additional review and investigation by staff . Following that meeting, staff confirmed the feasibility of being able to maneuver a truck and boat trailer onto Lot 7 (Ciapponi) and shared this information with the Appellant and the Developer. The Developer affirmed his support of this design, but that the appellant ultimately rejected the design due to continued concerns about being able to maneuver his vehicles . REVIEW OF PRIMARY OPTIONS Staff has diligently attempted to find a design solution on this appeal issue at two site meetings involving many hours of exploration with the interested parties. A number of alternatives were explored, but none were accepted by both parties . Regrettably, at this point, prospects appear dim for attaining the solution sought by the Board. In this regard, staff suggests that the Board proceed with a review of a number of design options which have been identified by the Developer, the Appellants and staff, and proceed with a decision on the appeal . Table I contains a matrix reviewing the primary design options for parking and access, and related discussion. It should be noted that many of the options (Options D, E, F, and G) are feasible only with the cooperation of the Developer including some which would require an additional discretionary approval process . Staff has identified these options as assumed to be less feasible. Option B would reverse the Zoning Administrator modification, and retain the position of all four parking spaces at the end of the turnaround. Were the Board to approve that option, it would retain the clouded status over the Developer' s access to Lot 6, but allow him to refile a new proposal that the County might find acceptable. CONCLUSION After consideration of all seven design options, staff continues to find that the parking plan revision approved by the Zoning Administrator (Option A) as superior. It allows for reasonable turnaround of conventional and emergency vehicles while allowing for access to Lot 6 . Staff continues to recommend that the Board sustain the Zoning Administrator' s decision. In addition to Option A, staff feels that Option C (similar to Option A) to also be acceptable. This design also allows for reasonable turnaround movements while allowing the Developer access to Lot 6 . .However, its unorthodox positioning of a parking space make this design less desirable. 4 Continued June 13, 2000 Hearing of Ciapponi k Yandell Appeal NEW PRIVATE PARKING RESTRICTIONS ENACTED BY SUBDIVISION LOT OWNERS In the course of this review, the Developer informed staff that new use restrictions have been enacted by a "super majority" of the subdivision lot owners . At the end of the May 4, 2000 site visit, the Developer told staff that he and other lot owners within the subdivision (but not Ciapponi or Yandell) had recently voted to enact an amendment to the CC&R's to provide restrictions on the use of the four on-street parking spaces . CC&R' s are private restrictions governed and administered by the lot owners within a subdivision, not the County. The Developer indicated that the amendment was intended to foster use of the parking spaces as true "guest" parking, and to restrict use of the spaces by vehicles owned by any of the lot owners within the subdivision. Staff has asked the applicant for a written description of the change, however, none has been provided to date. It is staff's understanding that such action by the subdivision lot owners would be a private matter and not conflict with any County administered law or permit . REVIEW OF (Nary-Appeal) SUBDIVISION PERMIT COMPLIANCE CONCERNS In addition to objecting to the relocation of the parking space approved by the Zoning Administrator, at the March 14 Board hearing, the Appellant also questioned compliance with several conditions of approval of the tentative map permit . These other conditions did not involve the proposed relocation of the on-street parking space. The Board had asked that staff research the project' s compliance with those conditions . it should be noted that none of these items were listed in the appeal letter, and, accordingly, were not reflected in the legal notice for this project. These conditions are identified below together with the staff analysis on their compliance status . A. Off-Street Parking lCOA �70 .w. ) Condition of Approval LanguaaY - "Provide for at least six on- site parking spaces per lot to be located outside the private road easement extending from Likely Drive. " Summary of Appellant ' s Concern - Neither Lots 5 nor 6 (both owned by the Developer) provide for six on-site parking spaces. Staff Comment - This condition is intended to address development at time of the ultimate development of the respective lots . Both of the cited lots contain older houses that were present at the time of the subdivision approval . Still, it should be noted that Lot 6 contains sufficient area for six parking spaces involving paved or concrete surface area outside of the private road area. ' 'A comment from a letter of the Community Development Department dated 7/28/98 to the contrary is not correct on this point. 5 Continued Jane 13,. 2000 Hearing of Ciapponi & Y"andell Appeal Lot 5 does not provide for substantial on-site parking spaces however it contains only a small single-story dwelling (approximately 600 square feet) that obviously does not reflect the ultimate buildout of the lot . The existing residence would not normally generate extensive parking demand. When building permits for ultimate residences are proposed on these lots, it would be staff's intent to see that the parking requirement is satisfied. Staff Assessment - Staff disagrees with the Appellant's claim that existing parking for Lots 5 and 6 is not in compliance with the subdivision approval . Staff believes the current condition of these lots substantially complies with the intent of this on-site parking condition of approval . B. Re-placement of Existing Trees Proposed to Be Removed ( OA #6 .g. ) Condition of App oval Language - "Comply with the following tree/planting tree/preservation requirements : "B. The plan shall be accompanied by a report from a qualified arborist for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator, . . . . The report shall also include a tree replanting program which illustrates the exact location and species of proposed replacement trees . Replacement trees shall be at least 15 gallons in size. Each tree to be removed on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be replaced by two 15 gallon drought resistant trees, native to the area, to be recommeded by a certified arborist. Replacement trees on Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be situated in order to maintain the residents of the proposed lots (sic) . All of the trees along the northeastern property line, except for those located within the proposed cul-de-sac shall be preserved. . . . "C. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or filing a final map, the applicant shall either inform the Zoning Administrator that the approved tree replacement program has been completed and is ready for verification by staff, or provide assurance that funding exists to implement the tree planting program. Assurance shall be provided through a finanacial mechanism acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. . . . ,, Summary of Appellant Concern - The appellant has indicated that 7 trees were removed on Lot 7 near the old driveway, and that 14 15-gallon drought-resistant trees should have been planted as replacements, and apparently never were. Staff Comments - A grading plan for the subdivision project was submitted by the applicant at the time of the processing of the final map to the Community Development Department indicating the removal of a number of existing trees including 11 trees on the cited lots in the Condition. That plan identified only one tree that was proposed to be removed from Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . According to the terms of the conditions of approval, a total of twenty-two 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees should have been planted on these lots, and two planted 6 Continued June 13, 3000 Hearing of Ciapponi & Yandell Appeal on Lot 7 . Staff could find no evidence that the County accepted a tree replacement plan or any financial mechanism for requiring tree replacement improvements . When staff visited the site, staff found no evidence of the planting of any 15-gallon drought-tolerant, native trees by the Developer on Lot 7 . Still, it should be noted that the Developer has planted a number of trees . He has indicated that he has planted a total of 56 trees of varying species (primarily Chinese Pistache) , nearly all larger (24-inch box) than the size that was required by the County, throughout the subdivision. These include trees planted along the frontage of the lots . None of the trees planted by the Developer appear to have been either drought-tolerant or native to the area. However, the Developer has indicated that approximately six of these trees were planted on (or in the immediate vicinity) of Lot 7 . The Developer indicated that a subsequent buyer (prior to Ciapponi) , not the Subdivision Developer, had removed the other six trees on Lot 7 . There would have been no County restriction for a subsequent buyer to have removed those trees. Staff Assessment - While some of the details of tree replacement appear to have been overlooked by staff, the Developer ultimately planted many more trees with larger sizes than would have been necessary to comply with the permit conditions . In staff' s judgement, the trees planted by the Developer constitute substantial compliance with the tree replacement improvement requirement. In any case, it is staff ' s understanding that there would be no legal basis for the County to require compliance with the specifics of the tree replacement condition of approval at this time. C. ObILteration of Pre-Subdivision Driveway (COA #10 .x') Condition of A=roval Languaga - "Obliterate the existing driveway on Lots 6 and 7 . Access to these lots shall be taken off the proposed private road. " Summary of Appellant Concern - There is remaining concrete wall and impervious gravel driveway on Lots 6 and 7 indicating that this condition has not been fully satisfied. The Appellant has indicated that the gravel and hardpacked dirt result in additional runoff which contribute to soil erosion on the side of a hill on his lot. The 7/28/98 letter from the Community Development Department to the Developer indicated that the condition had not been satisfied and that the County would require the Developer to satisfy this requirement including obtaining the permission of the owner of Lot 7 (Ciapponi) . Staff Comments - Prior to the establishment of the subdivision, the site was served by a driveway that extended to Miranda Avenue to the west. The subdivision that was proposed provided exclusive access to the other side of the property, Likely Drive. This condition was intended to eliminate the driveway as a means of accessing the property once the subdivision road was established. 7 � m z3 9 O d-) 0 A (d 4 (d r-q Q cd a.-i 4 4.1 -,q -ri 41 o a) rl (d "1 4-1 m a) (1) (r1 a) Q� 4-3 b -W 4 O 0 4J a) 4J •ri 4 3 a•r10 aj cu 0 O (d (d rdLq rd -0 cd 0 O m 04 0 41 0AU � o 404 � ' Ar-+ i4� �40 0i4rd04J W 4 1 cd rl >1 m ( a o 04 43 mn �: rcl -ri W d) M 0 U cd a) r-I a) O O (d -rI 4-) r-I r-i a) 4 (1) 0 aJ U r-a 0 4-3 r•-i r! �! r-i 4 (a 4.) 4-1 0 A 2 O rO 4 U -ri a•ri (d M a) (1) 0 5 0 rd .1 ca >1 4r-I T$ a 0 44 b -ri m rid 44 U) 11 a) b1 r-i O -ri a JU a) 4-i r-i a) O 0 a 0 0 0 W m ri a 0 0rd4rdr� 0 O - 04 m (2) 0 0 O (1) 41 r-i •ri O r- � 0 a ro 0 ro 04Uri a) �J4-ItJ a) 44-jFCC a) US �t �j 41a Ul Cr" 0 O > (d ri (d I~ 04 4 a) 0 -�j 3 O 0 a) ¢, >1 (1) 44 O 4-1 0 t) -ri A 0 4-1 :3: r+ 4-) 4J O 0 (1) (d b 4J 4J O H 4 (1) a) ;j O >,-H O �..i' U 4 a) a ri a) 4 i 0 OI~ 4J W U 0 m � 4 0ro � a0 4-) u a) -H •ri - H a CO 4ri �J • 044 (') > 0 0 U 44 4.) G] -H () m 0 r--i a) H a) a) O -ri �j (1) 4-i (a I~ 4-1 -ri > o :j a) 4 a) 4 4 t 4J rO + , (a U •ri (1) g (d m m > a) r-i 4J a to 4 m � a � ri A m Q) � `4 � (d-li P4 � as 4 44 O w 41 E-4 0 u rd W M H r-4 >i 4 41 0 4 m C31 4 O r-I .1 a) H 4-1 -rl co �' rqrd 0 P4u r � 0 ro 04 1 A (1) 0 4 -ri 4 4 94-) 04 41 m w U o -rq a) ,� � J-1 0 a) . 04J 04 rd 0 N M 044 h-1 (d U r 1 a) A - > a) 4) 4.1 44 >�7H v0rd404rl0 �1 � � N � H a 4 •ri rd (a •ri a) -w .0 R, O W M 44 r-I rO .4.3 ro ro H 0 O A H � cHlla) (d (V 41 -w � a) � H a) -riUMa34 .0 cd a) c r74 (d KC -u -ri a) rd W NrdO4 (dq r-i 00aa) -1a) a) 0 "U 4J TJ r-i CO 4J 01 0 fd 044 4 M 4 w a) ro > 4 (1) (d rl 4j a) .s4 O W r-4 0 0 rai ro •ri to a 4-) U .4J A (0 4 >1 A 4-) 4 -ri () rM 0 W a 4-i - 1 1 a � � (a b r-I ri U] 0 44 p 0 a) ri (3) 4 r-i M r� U cd 04 () U (d 04 4-) 4j :J M -ri -ri U -0 rZ4 rd U r-I (a -ri 0 0 -ri 4 A H :� m `---r-i (d U Z A 1-1 cd O rX4 J-) �4 a 004 W Nr 0 w W93 r4a t H.0 - V (a41 > M .rj a 44 � �+ 14 r-i O a r-) v 44 a) � 0 O rte H 04 m � -° a) rn 0 .4) 4-3 01 U m r-i ri O O H rd H 04-, J-1 0 � � � HU 0 � � a � � � oACoA4Q) xa A44o (d � a 4J � o a a4 a0 0 44 0 44 04 93 UM � �r (dm -,l MU) -A U m O U) •ri U) -ri � 010 a) � A � � IQ °n 'o0) �' a c4o aa) , o � � .� xa xn 04 44 a) i~ U > to U > 0 0U4M0 (d a) W rda) to -r-i (d �j -ri r-i a) Id r-i A (d 04 M U -r{ O N S O O O A O � , a W © p b w 4.4 fd a) Ho 4 ro (1) • r-i .G.) a) rti a) .0 .0 �4 •o �4 �4 a) U .i~ 44-4 rd -w rd (1) ro () >r U a) a) -W b)4-) b ma) or-( arl Ha4Jr4 $44a 0 U) r-i J-) a) 000 a) 0 �4M0 O .ri rig ,� cd O r-( -� O a) •� . U) a) a) (IJ d-1 r i ' a) ri $�' a) a �i U N � rd 0, 0 04 (d � (1) o �� 4j W � rd � 0rj -+ a) 4J r%4 a) •ri Q a) U) -r( A a 4-3 (d .Q (d r-4 U •� a) �4 M U) �4 4 (d U) ,1~ (d U) (1) ;J U 4a a) (1) 1.1 a) -r-i 4 - N 44 41 4.) O 4.) O 4 44 r 4 rd 4 U) 4 rd to N 40 4-4 a) a m a a) U (d .0 H U) L.) .w -0 H -ri .11 4-1 o ro N (1) 43 O ro O 0 •11 0 0 !•4 0 0 G N U �4 �4 • U? -W O O S4 (L) 44 rd O a) 4a O r-4 (1) U 04 01 � c`` rd -u U) U 1U.) m o � > U r-4 (d m (d •ri 4-) 4-) a) () l m > -W U 0 m > -W (d 0 0 0 -W .14 (doq > r-i 0a) 00a) 0a) 00U �4rd4-) 0 C) v 4M~ 440vQ -HU �4 (3) •n -HU �-ia) oaa) 0 ri 41 a) J-) O •ri rd 4-) u m () -1-) u M --i a �4 Ljr) 41 O U r--i 41 a (d 0 �4 a (d 9 0 a) (d m rd rd .N 4.) a) a O -HO O HO �4 O 1.1 -Ha) r-i rd 0 rd GQ () 44 U �4 44 U a) d-) O N a O O 0 U rn 044 (1) U) 044 rd S4 a r-i 7^) A (d U -ri O (1) a rq O a) a) -rl i~ rd r-i rd (d rci Q) 4 O 4 a) 4 Ulo G rd 4-) ro a) �4i .1-1 -W U F", 4-) r--I 1) U Q d-) O � U) -H O O �4 s~ �4 a) 0 W o a) i~ o a o 4J a a) (d to rd 0 a (d �4 a) (d -r.i () > a) (d •ri () O �4 ft 4 0 a > O r-i (dM >1 M �4 a) U) "fy M S4 �4U U �40 4a -r-i � ;Ir 4 r-4 ;j a) -rd -r-i (� ;jaI •ri -H a rd •r (d a r-i 44 0 U Q) a) a) .0 rd > Qr-i r-i Q a) - Q) rd 0) 0 ° Qi � aN �4 �i .O (D0 � b0 cryU044 PQUa �4 E-43 (0ME-+ A f U d4) Nx4 O (d (d 0 m a 1J 0U) 44 41 a O 0 vy -H v 4-J 0 � Uri Ub �4 >1 rd • 0)1) ) (D a a r-4 to vin 0 0 to `✓ 4-) i4 r1 a) 0 (drnU) H00HH 4 0W01 (1) Ua) -riU (d0 -14 m410 -riaG a (d 4 rd W U �4 ro (d a O •H m a V. aTjo .0 m (d0 0v (n � 3m 9C 0 rn r-i U • •ri a 0 • �4 N a) a O a) , rl44 U (d —ro 0 r-i a) U r i U >1 41 tT) O 91 RA U )4 a) 4J 44 M 4J r� U rQ ri 'b O 01—1 O 0 �4 (d M rn -r-i ro o UoU) rlQm 4-) () �4 Q) to a) ri 0 a 0 U) 0) m � � U) (d a) (d r--( r1 � 41 (d 0 �rry+� O O �a U ro 4j -14 41 El N 0 U fd � �-I r6 a 41 O a) .0 0 m n) 44 � 44 � 0 O `ri p, 41 (d O 0 a) -I-) M 44 O 4.) a) � (d �4 -ri a) C) (d w 0 (d ca -ri > U Ln rd t7)44 C) U a) •ri 4.) r-i -ri 4-) Lfl (d O 0 0 O UUP rd rd � 4) r-i 4.1 �4 (d C.- e)+ r-A (d a) -W U 41 r-i a) O �j 4 r-i -, (1) a >14 a) O o o rG .A 41 U p W 0 � ° � � � M SOA 0 2rd o -H (a IQ A CCA 4 1 (d U � M 0 Q SUi S 4 Id ' 0 0 U U) m >, a) a m -m-1 •A N Ra N `> 9 El (d •� m41 0 0 o 00 ;j >1-H r-i 0 H 0 ul Q 41 4) 'A 00 41Ma) 4Q) 0 L) cd> to � 4 Q Id u 0 r1i U 04 04 41 4 a) 4-) 3 4J M a) rl rd A 0 © m 44 � >1-� as r-i 04 0 u 4 4-3 (1) � 0 r0 � 41 0 10 rd - I 11.1 411 41 0 �4 41 r1 3 (1) to U Cv 4.1 d -rl 0 rl � J W 4 -W U � 0 � ami � �� � 4 a) u� -ri Q 41 0 0 -w td .A rcii 0 (1) �4 r-{ �4 4-s 4 (d w cd 4-1 -,-i -W $-I 0 (1) 4 4 a) 44 -r-I 4J 4J 41 -ri .11 104 rd to rn r1~ 0 o S4 a) Aa a) (d rd �4 iia W r♦ -r-I 41 41 4J (04 M a) $i U r-i 04 �+ 0 �40 00 > -WWU -r1 •r-I 0 o a) 44 o o (1) U Ra 04 0 rd M 4-) ttU44 ;J04-) �4d0Z~ 40 0 0 0 o 0 U m o rd -1-1 0 •ri 0 td -H �4 -H � (j -H U �i a) 0 04 a) 9ird �', to -rl a) m a) -W 1.1 U R N r-I M r-I �i LC) r-i rd -ri 41 4 •r1 04 04 P4 (d 0 () rd cn ;j > (a U 0 0 0 ri 0 S4 ti1 > 0 4-) -ri 0 a) -ri U U a) r-I 44 U r, 0 4-) 0 rd -r-I -ri rd W m W 044 rd -ri �4 rl r-i ri rQ r-i r-•I > •ri .H 0 (1) a) 9 P4 r. (d 044 ;J04A (d a) ,� 4 Q) 4 EQ �4 a0 0 M • 0 M P49 04-) j,-j U .0 0 rd rd -,.A 0 0 �4 -ri 4j rd P, 01 v (a •11 (1) 0 a) (d9 0 P4 p, (drn r. rd •H 4 0) U) M �4 �4 �A U U �4 0 0 U 0) rd () �4 -W -W :j a) •ri •ri ¢, r-i -H (d Rr H -ri r•i U (1) U ((i > > � ari A a) M r-1 4 - i rd � a1 � Q4 � vQ) 0r00air0 � � o4j Q) aa)) MUS1, �4EiUS4rdmE•+ q PrdJLJMG �4 MS4 0 v •ri u? O f~ ri (dd d U r-Io r r 04 rl rd P4 a0-1 .� >>1-a rd >1 0 Ord 4- � � 9000 •� 'o000 a) U a)4-4 � a) 44U is r, rrS a) 00 (d ,'d 444 `� 4 u2 a M r-I 0 (1) •r'1 -w t3)-ri m t3l 9 �! I a) U -ri 0 U •ri a) -H ;j 0) "D 0x0 41 0 -s4m () 9drd > ri i-1 U ri rd �4 (1) (d 0 U -ri 41 wrda) N (dS404ta) H0 P4 a �4 tx 04 0+ m U ,Q rd a 0 w � -Inco J ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5 June 13, 2000 Agenda On May 9, 2000, the Board of Supervisors continued to this date, the hearing on the Ciapponi's and Yandell's Administrative Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a request to modify the location of on-street parking within Subdivision 7693, County File#ZI 99-8206 (Wingset Place, Alamo area). Robert Drake, Community Development Department, gave the staff report and recommendations. Those present included Dennis Barry, Community Development Director; Silvano Marchesi, Chief Assistant County Counsel; and Heather Ballenger, Public Works, Engineering Services. The Board discussed the matter. The public hearing was opened, and the following people appeared to speak: Rena Rickles, Esq., Attorney for Appellants, 1970 Broadway, Oakland; Thomas Ruark, Engineer for Appellants, 2 Crow Canyon Court, #200, San Ramon; Mark Armstrong, Esq., Gagon, et al,Attorney for Applicant; Krista Ciapponi, Appellant, 5 Wingset Place, Alamo; Rena Rickles,rebuttal; Mark Armstrong,rebuttal. Those desiring to speak having been heard, the public hearing was closed. Following the Board's discussion, Supervisor Gerber moved: That the Board accept Option F, as proposed by the appellant's engineer (See page 11 of the staff report). That staff be directed to notify the appellants and others who live in this subdivision of future zoning administrator decisions on subsequent developer requests regarding this subdivision; That the Board determine Lots 5 and 6, at this point, do not satisfy the Conditions of Approval for having 6 onsite guest parking spaces; That the Board directs the developer to comply with the Fire Inspector's requirements; That the access road should meet the County's standard of posting, no parking, and painting the curb; And that the Board determine that the driveway between Lots 6 and 7 was not actually obliterated by County standards. Although the staff indicates that there appears to be substantial compliance with obliteration, it was not accomplished. Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion and the Board voted unanimously to accept it.