HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06192001 - D.4 Dj
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f�..
Contra
F)
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP ''' r Costa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County
O,Tq c'ili1N�
DATE: June 19, 2001
SUBJECT: 1. HEARING ON THE APPEAL BY PAUL JAMES, ET AL, OF THE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING
A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF SIX HOMES WHICH DIFFER FROM DESIGNS APPROVED IN 1990 ON A
SITE LOCATED ON KING DRIVE IN THE SARANAP AREA
(DP893003/SD897367).
2. CONSIDERATION OF A MODIFICATION TO A PORTION OF A RECORDED
SCENIC EASEMENT TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT FOR A DRIVEWAY
APPROACH FOR LOTS FIVE AND SIX OF SUBDIVISION 7367.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CONSIDER the recommendation of the County Planning Commission
(Resolution # 10 -2001).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 19, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHERXX
SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM FOR BOARD'S ACTION.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
__UNANIMOUS(ABSENT" ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN
Contact: Michael Laughlin 335-1204 ATTESTED June 19, 2001
Community Development JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Counsel-Silvano Marchesi SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works-Engineering Services, Heather Ballenger
Building Inspection-Code Enforcement
Silverhawk&Company, Inc.
Paul James,Appellant. BY EPUTY
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 2
2. ACCEPT the determination that the project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (Section 15305 — Class 5).
3. DENY the appeal and approve the project based on the revised plans incorporating
changes requested by the County Planning Commission on November 14, 2000.
4. ADOPT the attached findings and conditions as the basis for this decision.
5. APPROVE a modification of the scenic easement for a driveway encroachment to
lots five and six (an amendment to original condition of approval eight).
6. DIRECT staff to ensure that the modification to the scenic easement is recorded
prior to the issuance of building permits for lots five and six.
7. DIRECT staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk
FISCAL IMPACT
None. The applicant has paid application fees to process this project and is obligated
to pay supplemental fees for staff time and material costs which exceed 100% of the
initial fee payment.
BACKGROUND
On January 3, 2000, the applicant filed for approval of six house plans to replace house plans
approved as part of condition 7 of the approval of the subdivision,development plan and
rezoning in 1990. The new house plans included some three-story elements, and were not
supported by staff. The applicant redesigned the plans, changing the location of several of the
homes to work around trees and to eliminate three story elements. The house designs
included greater square footage and a greater number of three car garages (according to the
applicant these elements are necessary due to market demand and subdivision improvement
costs such as drainage, utilities and roads). .
Additional issues associated with the subdivision including drainage improvements, tree
removal, off-site improvements and grading are discussed in the attached Planning
Commission staff report and correspondence.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARINGS
The Zoning Administrator held hearings on the plans between July 19, 2000 and September
11, 2000. On September 11, 2000 the Zoning Administrator approved revised plans, but
numerous changes were required to be made to the house designs. These changes included
the following specific items:
Lot 1: Plan approved as submitted;
I
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 3
Lot 2: Reduce mass from rear elevation, step back second floor 10'-15'(may require a
300 to 500 square foot reduction in overall floor area);
Lot 3: Pull back entire plan, utilizing courtyard and reduce width;
Lot 4: Step back second floor 10'-15' and reduce width;
Lot 5: Step second floor back, reduce width and reduce crawlspace; and
Lot 6: Step second floor back, and reduce width.
Lynn Lopez and other adjoining property owners filed an appeal of this decision on September
20, 2000. Concerns expressed by neighbors included promises made by the applicant in 1990
in a letter to neighbors, increased size of the homes, height and size of the homes, increased
traffic and slope stability. Story poles were also requested.
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS
On October 24, 2000 the County Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, took
testimony and reviewed the decision of the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission
continued the hearing of the item to November 14, 2000 in order to allow Planning
Commissioners to conduct individual inspections of the site to understand neighbors'concerns
about the visibility of the homes and their requests to require the developer to place story poles.
The Planning Commission did not require story poles to make a decision on the plans. The
Planning Commissioners felt that the homes would be screened from view by existing
vegetation. Based on concerns expressed about slope stability, the Planning Commission
added a condition requiring that the applicant have an on-site geotechnical inspector review
footing depths to assure that the foundation is grounded in the bedrock. The original conditions
of approval only require a soils report be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit, and
that the soils engineer review and sign the foundation plan for consistency with the report
(Condition 14G). With this addition, the Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld
the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
APPEAL
On November 22, 2001, Paul James filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission's
decision. The following responses address the points raised in this appeal letter. Since the
appeal was filed, the applicant has been working to redesign the homes so that the plans
reviewed by the Board of Supervisors already take into consideration the recommendations of
the Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission, in the hope that the Board of
Supervisors will approve the revised plans as presented.The following discussion also includes
a discussion of the new plans and how they satisfy the recommended changes:
Appeal Point: Limit the height, size and design of homes based on safety and visibility.
Response: Since November, the applicant's designer and engineer have refined the plans to
lower square footage, reduce massing and have the designs step with the topography. The
following discussion analyzes the current plans and provides a comparison to the original 1990
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 4
plans and the plans reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. The
original approved plans are attached, and a reduced copy of the previous plans reviewed by
the Zoning Administration and County Planning Commission are part of the attached Planning
Commission report. The color plans and full size plans provided to the Board of Supervisors
are the current plans incorporating changes recommended by the County Planning
Commission.
The discussion for each house includes a chart comparing square footages, tree removal,
number of bedrooms and garage parking spaces. Also included in the discussion is a chart
that compares height and surface area of the homes. Height is compared in two ways, as
defined with additional terms below:
Gross Height: This is the height of the structure from the lowest grade point of the proposed
construction to the top of the roof (highest overall point). This is not the method the County
uses to review height, but is provided as useful comparison between the 1990 plans and the
recent plans.
HeightAbove Existing Grade: This is the County measure of overall height,taken from the roof
to grade directly below the point on the roof. For all structures, the height varies so the figure
shown is the maximum height of the structure above the existing grade before grading into the
hill. The residential height limit in the County is 35 feet. As shown in the charts below, many of
the homes are well below this, and as low as 20 feet above grade. Five of the six new plans
are lower in height than the 1990 plans.
Surface Area: In addition to height, a surface area measurement is given to help quantify the
mass of the structure on the most visible downhill side. This measure should be considered
along with the revised placement of structures from the original proposal. In most cases, the
revised placement uses trees below the house to screen views of the elevation. While the
square footage may have increased considerably for the new plans, the surface area may be
only a few hundred feet larger since crawlspaces have been reduced or eliminated.
Width: refers to the width of the house on the most visible downhill side.
Lot 1
Square footage Tree removal estimate
Original plan "d" 3,488 (2 car gar.) 4 (not including driveway)
4 bedrooms
Plan Presented to ZA and 3,900 (3 car gar.) 2 (not including driveway,
PC 4 bedrooms working in the root zone
of 4 trees
New Plan 3,896 (3 car gar.) 2 (not including driveway,
4 bedrooms working in the root zone
of 4 trees
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 5
Gross Height Height Above Width of Surface Area
Grade House of Elevation
Original plan "d" 30' 24' 74' 1,802 s .ft.
Plan reviewed by ZA and 30' 25' 85' bottom 2,202 sq. ft.
PC 76' top.
New Plan 30' (34' to 25' 85' bottom 2,202 sq. ft.
deck bottom) 76' to
The proposed house is very similar in design to the house approved in 1990. Like the original
approval, the new plan is two stories with little or no crawl space. The additional square
footage comes from a widening of some of the bedrooms and living spaces. For example,
bedrooms that were 10 feet in width have been widened to about 12 feet. Remaining trees on
the sides and below will screen views of the rear of the house. The addition of a third garage
space and driveway space is considered by staff to be a positive addition since parking on the
street is not permitted due to the narrow width. However, property owners further down King
Drive and EI Dorado Road have expressed concern about additional traffic which may be
generated by the increase in house size and the additional parking spaces.
The Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission approved design plans for the
residence proposed on this lot without modifications. The applicant has further modified the
plans since those approvals to include mounding and the planting of a cluster of trees below
the house to further screen views.
Lot 2
Square footage Tree removal estimate
Original plan "b" 3,065 (3 car gar.) 5-7
5 bedrooms
Plan Presented to ZA and 3,998 (3 car gar.) 3(working in the root zone of
PC 4-5 bedrooms 5 trees
New Plan 3,997(3 car gar.) 3(working in the root zone of
5 bedrooms 5 trees
Gross Height Height Above Width of Surface Area
Grade House of Elevation
Original plan "b" 49' 38' 71' 2,059 s .ft.
Plan reviewed by ZA and 49' 35' 87' 2,828 sq. ft.
PC
New Plan 37' 32' 83' 1 2,737 s .ft.
The location of this house has shifted considerably from the 1990 approval. The change in
location is helpful because trees are saved and trees below the house will screen views of the
house from below. Even though the house is larger, less of it will be seen from below. The
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 6
original house was a two story with a large crawl space. The house design reviewed by the
County Planning Commission and the current house design does not have a crawl space
(which reduces the exterior mass), and the garage is on the upper level above and behind the
house.
The Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission recommended further
modifications to the plans to include offsetting the upper floor and a reduction in mass which
may require a reduction in square footage. The revised plans reflect an offsetting of the
second floor, a 4' reduction in width, but the square footage is same as the plans reviewed by
the Planning Commission. The offsetting of the second floor allows for the structure to follow
the topography more closely, with fewer multi-story wall elements.
As indicated in the chart above, the gross height and height above grade are less than the
original approval in 1990 since the home is set into the hill further.
Lot 3
Square footage Tree removal estimate
Original plan "d" 3,488 (2 car gar.) 3
4 bedrooms
Plan Presented to ZA and 4,210 (3 car gar.) 0 (2 work in root zone, does
PC 5 bedrooms not include driveway)
New Plan 4,210 (3 car gar.) 0 (2 work in root zone, does
5 bedrooms not include drivewa
Gross Height Height Above Width of Surface Area
Grade House of Elevation
Original plan "d" 30' 24' 74' 1,802 s .ft.
Plan reviewed by ZA and 33'(37' under 23' 84' upper 2,477 sq. ft.
PC rt. side deck) 84' lower
New Plan 33' (37' under 20' 76' upper 2,117 sq. ft.
rt. side deck) 84' lower
The 1990 approved house is in the approximate location of the current house proposed. A
shifting in placement further up the hill and adjustment of the driveway location saves 3 trees
over the original proposal. As required by the Zoning Administrator and County Planning
Commission decisions, the house has been cut further into the hill so that it maintains a profile
that follows the existing topography and is only 20 feet in height above natural grade, where
County Code would allow up to 35 feet.
To reduce the width and mass of the proposed structure,the Zoning Administrator and County
Planning Commission recommended pulling the structure back onto the flatter existing pad
area. In addition, the upper floor has been narrowed by 8 feet and pulled back to breakup the
mass and follow the topography of the hill.
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 7
Lot 4
Square footage Tree removal estimate
Original plan "a" 2,683 (2 car gar.) Unable to verify (5±)
3 bedrooms
Plan Presented to ZA and 4,400 (3 car gar.) 7 (working in the root zone of
PC 4 bedrooms approximately 10 trees
New Plan 3,662 (3 car gar.) 7 (working in the root zone of
4 bedrooms approximately 10 trees
Gross Height Height Above Width of Surface Area
Grade House of Elevation
Original plan "a" 34' 24' 72' 1,884 sq. ft.
Plan reviewed by ZA and .37' 23' 94' 3,150 sq. ft.
PC
New Plan 35' 20' 76' lower 2,658 sq.ft.
26' (entry only) 80' upper
Approximate location of the house is the same as in 1990, and tree removal would be equal to
or greater than the trees that would require removal with the 1990 approval. The architect has
done a good job siting the house around existing trees, which will screen views of the house
from all vantage points, as is graphically represented on the elevations. The original house
proposal had a substantial crawl space which added to the mass of that structure, but not
square footage. There is an additional garage space and driveway space proposed to provide
on-site parking. Landscaping on the downhill side will screen views of the house from below.
The Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission recommended that the second
floor be stepped back and that there be a reduction in width. The current plans incorporate
these changes, and the home has been reduced in square footage, the second floor has been
stepped back, and the crawl space reduced. A majority of the home maintains a profile of only
20 feet above existing grade, with the exception of the two-story entry area.
Lot 5
Square footage Tree removal estimate
Original plan (3 stories) 2,596 (2 car gar.) 7
Plan "c" 4 bedrooms
Plan Presented to ZA and 4,125 (3 car gar.) 3-4 (working in the root zone
PC 4 bedrooms of approximately 10 trees
New Plan 3,748 (3 car gar.) 3-4 (working in the root zone
4 bedrooms of approximately 10 trees
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 8
Gross Height Height Above Width of Surface Area
Grade House of Elevation
Original plan (3 stories) 44' 33' 43' 1,674
Plan "c"
Plan reviewed by ZA and 39' 37' 82' 3,230
PC
New Plan 36' 29' 82' lower 2,492
78' upper
Lot 5 is one of the steeper lots in the subdivision. The 1990 house design was three stories
and located further down the hill. This placement also would require the removal of trees which
would make most of the downhill elevation exposed. The previous house was also taller. Since
the house placement is further up the hill and driveway access is proposed from behind,
existing trees and vegetation below will screen large portions of the downhill elevation.
Additional vegetative screening would be required to fill in any gaps.
The Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission found that reductions were
necessary to width and crawlspace to reduce the impact of the proposed residence. Stepping
back the second floor was also recommended.
To address the design issues raised, the applicant cut the home further into the hill, thereby
reducing the external mass and the crawlspace. The stepping back of the upper floor has also
broken up the mass.
Lot 6
Square footage Tree removal estimate
Original plan "a" 2,683 (3 car gar.) 9
3 bedrooms
Plan Presented to ZA and 4,125 (3 car gar.) 12 (working in the root zone
PC 4 bedrooms of approximately 10 trees
New Plan 3,342 (3 car gar.) 12 (working in the root zone
4 bedrooms of approximately 10 trees
Gross Height Height Above Width of Surface Area
Grade House of Elevation
Original p0n "a" 45' 33' 70' 2,059 s .ft.
Plan reviewed by ZA and 47' 37' 84' 3,178 sq. ft.
PC
New Plan 45' 31' 77' 2,866
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 9
Lot 6 is also a very steep lot. Proposed placement of the 1990 house design was further up the
hill. Tree removal is unavoidable for the garage and driveway. Like lot 5,trees to remain below
the house will screen views of the houses from below and from other vantage points. A
condition is recommended that a detailed site plan be produced to specify the exact location of
the trees in relationship to the house, so that as many trees as possible can be retained.
Adjustments to the house and driveway may be required to reduce tree loss below 12 trees.
Like Lot 5, the Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission found that the width of
the house should be reduced and that the second floor should be stepped back from the first
floor to eliminate a long vertical plane. The applicant has incorporated these changes by
cutting 7 feet from the length of the living room and offsetting the first and second floor to better
follow the topography.
The gross height is equal to the height of the 1990 plans, but better follows the topography and
is two feet lower than the 1990 plans. The current house design is cut further into the hill than
the plans reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission, which
reduces the height of the crawlspace and profile of the house.
Appeal Point: The revisions were approved without designs or plans. The
neighborhood wants a chance to review and comment on actual plans.
Response: To address this concern and to offer plans to neighbors for review and comment
prior to the Board of Supervisor's hearing, Supervisor Uilkema's staff hosted a neighborhood
meeting on April 17, 2001. At this meeting, the developer was given an opportunity to present
the new design plans for each of the residences. The developer provided copies of these plans
to neighbors. Neighbors will likely provide their comments on the revised plans to the Board of
Supervisors at the hearing.
Appeal Point: Concerns for slope stability, potential property damage and site specific
soils analysis.
Response: In addition to this concern raised in the appeal letter, an attorney representing
several of the neighbors has submitted a letter requesting peer review of all soils reports for the
individual homesites. Condition 14 G of the original conditions of approval requires a soils
report for each homesite. A condition has been added for clarification in the recommended
conditions of approval that peer review be required. The Planning Commission went one step
further and is requesting that an Engineering Geologist be present on site to inspect foundation
design. The soils report is submitted to the County with the building permit for each home, as
is a standard practice for hillside subdivisions. This review is an administrative function. The
neighbors want the reports to be part of a public review process to verify that the lots are safely
buildable. Public review has not been required in the past for geotechnical reports, although
the reports are considered public record and can be reviewed in the County building permit file.
The County will use a qualified Engineering Geologist to provide peer review to assure that the
geotechnical assumptions of the applicant's engineer are correct, that the foundation design is
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 10
safe, and that the lots are indeed buildable.
Appeal Point: Updating of environmental review documents, designation of site as
critical habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake.
Response: The project was approved in 1990 with a Negative Declaration underthe California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since that time, the final map has been recorded and the
applicant could have proceeded directly with the filing of building permit plans as originally
approved. While the applicant is proposing larger houses and different siting, the project and
density have not changed and would not trigger new or additional environmental review. One
argument that has been made is that the traffic levels may increase as a result of the larger
home sizes. Even if there is a slight increase, the traffic associated with six residential units is
not significant enough to trigger additional environmental review. The General Plan threshold
for analysis is a project that will generate 100 or more peak hour trips.
Since the approval, a majority of the site has been placed in a critical habitat area for the
Alameda Whipsnake. Critical habitat receives protection from destruction or*adverse
modification through required consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff has
contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service directly and they indicated that consultation is not
necessary for this project since there are no Federal funds being used on the project.
"Consultation" is the name of the process used by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
evaluate the property for potential impacts to the species. If the Alameda Whipsnake is found
on the site during construction, then the applicant will be required to enter into consultation.
The site is not an ideal habitat for the snake since they prefer south facing slopes with exposed
rock outcroppings. The site is north facing, has few exposed outcroppings and, in portions, is
heavily wooded.
Since a Negative Declaration has been adopted for the project and the subdivision map has
been recorded, staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Categorical
Exemption for the minor changes to project under CEQA. Section 15305, Class 5 allows for
minor changes in land use limitations where there are no changes in land use or density. In
this case the land use and density have not changed since the original approval. The
exemption would be appropriate for the incremental increase between the original approval and
the increase for the larger homes and the encroachment into the scenic easement for the
driveway to lot 5 and 6.
Appeal Point: A traffic study should be conducted for the 8 homes. There is only one
access point.
Response: There are 6 homes that are part of the P-1 zoning area that are the subject of this .
appeal. However, there are 2 homes that are proposed on legally subdivided lots that are
under the R-10 zoning that can be developed at any time with only a building permit. These
homesites are on King Drive (extended) below lots 1, 5 and 6 of this proposal just east of the
existing home at the end of King Drive. The Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)assigns
a standard of one peak hour trip to a single family residence, regardless of the size of the
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 11
residence or the number of bedrooms. ITE studies and quantifies trip generation for various
types of land uses. In this case, all of the homes are largerthan the homes approved in 1990,
with increases mostly in the size of the living areas. There are between three and four new
bedrooms in all of the six houses,which does not necessarily equate to more automobile trips.
If there were an increase in auto trips, it would be hardly perceivable. Staff does not find a
traffic study warranted for the potentially small incremental increase in traffic between the 1990
approval and the current proposal.
Appeal Point: The subdivision should be bonded due to the potential impact from
mudslides.
Response: Bonding to ensure the proper installation of the public improvements is required by
the Public Works Department. Beyond this, if damage occurs during the construction process,
the contractor would be responsible for restitution through their insurance. If a mudslide were to
occur after the homes are built and purchased, then the homeowners would be responsible for
restitution through their insurance. It should be noted that the property in its natural state
already poses a mudslide risk. With the drainage improvements and foundation engineering
required, mudslide risks will be reduced since there will be less water on the developed portion
of the hillside (i.e. water will be directed into drainpipes, thereby reducing the saturation of the
hillside). Portions (not all)of the hillside areas that remain undeveloped will have less surface
run-off,thereby further reducing the risk of mudslides. For example,water running off from the
top of the hill will be intercepted by drainage improvements in the road, so as to reduce
saturation of hillside areas below the road. The new drainage improvements will improve some
of the existing drainage problems in the neighborhood.
Appeal Point: Increasing the size of homes is in conflict with the General Plan
Response: This project was found to be in compliance with the General Plan. The project
does comply with the General Plan in that the development will not impact the ridgeline (this
area contains a recorded scenic easement). This ridgeline is not a designated scenic ridge in
the General Plan. The General Plan designation for the property is Single Family(low density),
and the proposal was and is still currently consistent with this designation. The area to the east
of the project is designated for open space and the policy referenced in the appeal concerning
the hillside north of Olympic Boulevard applies only to that area and not this site.
The General Plan does address hillside development with the following policies from the Open
Space Element:
9-19 When development is permitted to occur on hillsides, structures shall be located in am
manner which is sensitive to available natural resources and constraints.
9-20 Hilltops, ridges, rock outcroppings, mature stands of trees, and other natural features
shall be considered for preservation, at the time that any development applications are
reviewed.
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 12
9-21 Any new development shall be encouraged to generally conform with natural contours to
avoid excessive grading.
Staff finds that the revised house plans and project comply with these policies. Grading is
limited to the roads and driveways and house pads. Where there are cuts into the hill,they are
behind homes or shielded from view by trees further down the hill. For homes proposed on a
downslope, the homes will use pier and grade beam foundations that are on or very close to
natural grade. The worst aspect of the original approval was the access from King Drive up to
the homes for lots 5 and 6. If not requested to be changed by the developer, this driveway
would cut across the slope up to the homes, and there is no tree cover below to hide the
retaining wall or the tailings created by the fill below the driveway. Staff is supporting the
applicant's proposal to take access to lots 5 and 6 from behind and the encroachment into the
scenic easement. This alternative will eliminate the visual impact of the driveway and retaining
wall from below.
ENCROACHMENT INTO A PORTION OF THE SCENIC EASEMENT
In the fall of 1999, grading was started on the site without the benefit of a County grading
permit. The work was stopped and no grading has occurred on the site since. The applicant
has hired a new grading contractor to carry out the proposed grading at the site. Part of this
grading includes a cut into the hill at the bend of the main access road, to provide access to
lots 5 and 6. This access can be seen if a site inspection is taken (it is not visible from other
vantage point around the project). The scenic easement line that was recorded forthis property
projects straight across the site from the upper line of the main road to the east, as it bends
toward lots 3 and 4. The proposed driveway requires an amendment to the scenic easement to
allow for this encroachment.
The purpose of scenic easements in the County is to preserve exposed hillsides and ridgelines
from development, to preserve the natural and aesthetic character of the County. They are
required at the time of subdivision. In this case, the proposed encroachment is well below the
tree line and will be completely obscured from view from any vantage point outside of the
project area due to the heavy tree coverage along the main road into the subdivision.
Staff required the engineer to prepare a plan showing the previously approved access point
from below with the proposed change to access the homes from above. While tree loss is
comparable, the trees removed would be smaller and not the larger trees that the applicant is
retaining to screen views of the homes on lots five and six from below.
To assure that this alternative was possible from a geotechnical perspective, staff requested a
geotechnical letter and peer review by a County appointed Geotechnical Engineer. Since the
roadway is in an area where the bedrock is close to the surface, it has been determined that
this alternative can be carried out safely from a geotechnical perspective.
Staff is recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the modification of the scenic
easement to allow for a driveway encroachment for lots five and six only. The applicant will
June 19, 2001
Board of Supervisors
File#DP893003, SD897267
Page 13
prepare a legal description of this area and it will be signed by the owner and recorded through
the County Public Works Department.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
AND CONDITIONS
SILVERHAWK AND COMPANY INC. (Applicant), MORGAN CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS (Owners), County Files #DP893003 and#SD897367 to allow a
revision to condition 7 allowing for the plans submitted April 17, 2001 to be used instead
of the original development plans.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed development plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1
district and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the
district. The proposal is for six homes in an existing residential neighborhood, and
the property is already subdivided for residential development. The April 17, 2001
plans are designed with the site topography, and are screened from view by existing
vegetation. The plans reflect the changes recommended by the County Planning
Commission.
2. The modifications to the conditions of approval and the request for encroachment
into the scenic easement are Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15305, Class 5 allows for
minor changes in land use limitations where there are no changes in land use or
density. In this case the land use and density have not changed since the original
approval. The exemption would be appropriate for the incremental increase
between the original 1990 approval with a Negative Declaration and the slight
increase for the larger homes.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This approval is based upon the tentative map submitted with the application dated
received February 2, 1990.
2. In Subdivision 7267, the building setbacks shall not be less than 10 feet, all subject
to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a Building Inspection
Department permits, or installation of improvements or utilities, submit a
geotechnical review report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance
Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement
and grading plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report and
be signed by the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer prior to checking
by County.
Grading will be limited to that which was shown on the tentative map or on
subsequently approved plans. Any need for additional grading that would
result in loss of trees must be approved by the County Planning Commission. Non-
- 2 -
compliance will be the cause for a "stop work" order.
4. Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved
report and the reports of Herzog and Associates, Inc. dated June 7, 1989 and
September 18, 1989, by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to
recommendations, and noting that the reports are on file for public review in the
Community Development Department of Contra Costa County.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, submit an as-
graded report of the engineering geologist and geotehnical engineer showing
location of volluvium and landside deposits encountered during grading for
improvements and utilities; final plan and grades for subsurface drainage including
disposal and cleanout points; any buttress fill or shear key with its keyway
location; retaining walls; and other rock and soil improvements installed during
grading, as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer.
6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other
on—site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards 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(s), if deemed necessary.
7. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading permit for work on any
lot, the proposed grading, location and design of the proposed residential building
to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator. Buildings shall be similar- to that shown on submitted plans
to be designed and build to fit hillside areas within the envelope areas as inrlioate-1
on the tent I* . GonsideFation shall be given to the fellowing-
Final design and placement of the homes is subject to review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator consistent with the plans submitted April 17, 2001,
subject to the following requirements:
A. Accurate, to scale site plans shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator, accurately placing all trees.
Tree removal must be less than or equal to the tree removal under
the original approval.
B. Minor adjustments to the house design on lot 6 may be required to
further reduce tree loss to below 12 trees. An accurate, to scale site
plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
C. Final color and materials shall be submitted for review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Colors and materials shall be muted
- 3 -
earth tone colors to blend with the setting, vegetation and soils. Any
exterior color or material changes shall be reviewed by the County
Community Development Department prior to the exterior change.
D. Replacement tree and vegetation planting shall be placed to obscure
views of the structures from surrounding vantage points.
E. A master tree removal permit shall be obtained for tree removal on
the lots prior the issuance of any building permits for construction on
the lots. The application shall include a full revegetation plan.
F. Peer review by Contra Costa County shall be conducted on the site
specific soils reports required in Condition 14G of the original
approval. The cost for the review shall be paid by the applicant.
G. During excavation for and preparation of the foundations of the
residential structures, a Geotechnical Engineer or technician
supervised by a Geotechnical Engineer shall be present to supervise
any foundation related excavation or drilling.
A Any rear yar-ICCdenlr, i-1 whether-raineor n a.-le should blend with the
'C[
design of the-stiuetu a All support stmetur-en lull h ened an
p ccmz�-sizurrvc�ciecnvcrcrr�
�p
design B. 111 Then cifie desof buildings of stmetur-es shall result ia footprint that
L
wall lines And twe st6r-5, elements may be apprepr4ate depending on the
G Roef shapes that Eemplement the ehar-aetec sufTo'c'ncas'rir ccrrra -Rira
neaEby homes shall be utilized,
D. Building
height, setbaeks and bulk shall eneour-age low pr-efile, stepped
on =�tF->:etur-es,-as mueh-as feasible.
b
8. A scenic easement shall be provided across Lots 1 through 5 as indicated on the
Tentative Map and extended across the easterly portions of Lots 1 and 2 to King
Drive subject to the review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to
filing the final map. This is to restrict buildings. and structures from those areas
and to indicate that no further lot division shall occur. Any fencing within the
scenic easement shall be of open wire type. A driveway encroachment is
permitted into the scenic easement for lots 5 and 6. The recording of the
encroachment document through the Public Works Department shall occur
prior to the issuance of a building permit for either lot.
- 4 -
9. Development rights of areas to be established as a scenic easement shall be deeded
to the County. This shall be done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map.
10. Prior to filing a Final Subdivision Map, street names shall be subject to the review
and approval of the Community Development Department. All residences shall
provide for an address visible from the street, which may require illumination.
11. Conditions for approval as related to road and drainage requirements:
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 there from must be specifically listed in
this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance
includes the following requirements:
1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of King Drive.
Constructing King Drive as a 20 foot paved road to County private
road standards and providing associated drainage improvements along
the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The 20 foot paved section
shall be extended offsite to connect to the existing paved section of
King Drive. If the applicant desires County acceptance of the road for
maintenance, shall construct these improvements to County public
road standards (including width, grade and section standards) subject
to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Street
lighting may also be required before the County would accept the road
for maintenance.
2) Conveying all storm water entering or originating within the
subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm
drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and
banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys
the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Compliance with this
requirement includes the installation of approximately 1,800 feet of
Line A of the Drainage Area 15A Plan (from Panoramic Way
westward along Olympic Boulevard) or alternative drainage
improvements subject to the approval of the Flood Control District.
3) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil- engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
4) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the Conditions of
approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary
traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic
Engineer.
B. Construct the onsite roadways, as shown on the Site Plan; to County private
road standards within 25-foot easements, to include pedestrian walkways as
may be feasible. Plans shall be submitted in this regard for review and
- 5 -
approval by the Zoning Administrator with the Final Map.
C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that legal access to the property is available from the County
maintained portion of King Drive.
D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
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.
E. Prior to issuance of building permits, file the Final Map for Subdivision 7267.
12. Hours of construction shall be restricted from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday. No construction will occur on Saturdays, Sundays, Federal or State
holidays unless previously approved by the Zoning Administrator. Should this
condition be violated, the Zoning Administrator may cause construction work to
cease and desist until he/she is satisfied that compliance will be established.
13. Prior to filing the final map and/or grading plan, a tree inventory plan for areas in
the vicinity of building sites, driveways and the proposed access road, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator to determine
heritage trees and other trees for preservation and those trees to be identified for
removal. An enlarged map of the proposed access road and the six building sites
shall be submitted showing tree locations, the type and size and tree dripline, and
means of preservation. The project design may require adjustment to preserve
"Heritage Trees."
14. Comply with the recommended requirements of the City of Lafayette included in
their letter dated January 23, 1990 and February 21, 1990, listed below and subject
to review, determination and/or approval by the County Zoning Administrator.
A. The final subdivision map shall not be approved until precise grading plans
have been prepared and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
B. A grading permit will be required for all grading including the earthwork
necessary to develop all dwellings and driveways on each lot. An erosion—
control plan shall be prepared by the developer and reviewed and approved
by the Zoning Administrator prior to the submission to the County Grading
Inspection Section.
All grading operations, all trenching for utilities and the excavation and
construction of all foundation footings and piers and all paving shall be
continuously monitored by a County-selected inspector at the developer's
expense to insure compliance with all approved grading plans and tree
protection measures. No grading, trenching, drilling or paving shall be
commenced without at least 72 hours prior notice to the County Zoning
Administrator.
- 6 -
C. The property owner agrees to enter into and record an agreement holding the
County and other public agencies harmless in the event of flood or erosion
damage, including damages to properties due to flooding or earth movement.
D. All streets in the subdivision shall be private. A roadway and drainage
maintenance agreement shall be recorded against each lot in the subdivision,
obligating each lot for a proportionate share of the maintenance of the street
and any joint private drainage facilities with consent of a majority of the
members of the property owners.
E. The developer shall post with the County a $5,000 cash deposit, refundable
if not used, prior to start of construction. This deposit may be utilized as
needed by the County to cover the cost of cleanup, pavement repair, etc., if
the developer fails to adequately perform these tasks.
F. The builder of each house shall provide roof drainage with downspouts and
conduits to convey water to approved storm drainage facilities or existing
drainage ways. These conduits must be approved by the County before a
Building Permit is issued.
G. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each new house, a detailed
soils report including subsurface investigation and laboratory analysis shall
be prepared specifically for the house design under consideration including
driveways and pools. The recommendations of the soils report shall be
implemented in the house design and foundation plans. The soils engineer
shall sign the foundation plan and. review the grading, drainage and
irrigation plans to verify that they are consistent with the soils report.
H. Grading operations shall be scheduled only between April 15 and October 1
to avoid the Fall and Winter rains. Grading may continue past October 1,
only if the erosion control measures have been installed and certified as
operational by the Project Engineer and the Contra Costa County Grading
Inspector.
I. During the grading operation, the applicant shall control the generation of
dust by fully sprinkling the site as determined to be needed by the County
Grading Inspector in accordance with the County Grading Ordinance.
J. Trees required to be saved shall be protected during construction by wooden
fencing constructed with 4" x 4" posts and a 2" by 8" horizontal rail, 3-1/2'
minimum height placed around each tree at the drip line except for the
minimum necessary work to put in the required roadway improvements or
where grading is to be permitted under one-third (1/3) of the drip line if on
only one side of a tree.
K. To reduce soil compaction from equipment, a mulch of 1-2 inch sized wood
chips should be placed under each drip lines at a depth of 4-inches on the soil
where no excavation is to occur for those trees affected by grading or
construction.
- 7 -
Low, hanging limbs of saved trees shall be pruned prior to grading, etc., to
avoid tearing limbs by heavy equipment.
M. During grading, roots over 2-inches in diameter shall be cut off cleanly with
a hand saw at the line of excavation. Any exposed roots shall be kept moist.
N. Do not allow raising of the grade around the tree trunks. This causes rotting
of the trunk and serious damage/death to the tree.
0. Finished grades shall slope away from trunks to avoid water concentrated at
their bases.
P. Little or no irrigation within 8-10 ft., of trunks.
Q. Only drip irrigation and drought tolerant plants shall be permitted under drip
line.
R. If large diameter roots (4") are encountered within the zone of excavation, an
alternative footing shall be used which bridges the roots with pilings and
grade beams.
S. Trenches or footings shall be located no closer than 10-ft., from the base of
the tree trunks.
T. A test trench shall be dug to check on the occurrence of roots at the distance
where foundation will be. Roots over 3" in diameter shall not be disturbed.
U. When trenching for utilities, tunneling shall be done under large diameter
roots to prevent their cutting.
NOTE: Trees other than oaks may tolerate more disturbances and moisture
than do oaks. After advance approval by the Zoning Administrator, granted
for non-oaks, variations of these conditions may be approved.
V. No trees shall be removed until grading permits have been issued for the
houses on the respective lots.
W. Copies of the entire set of the conditions of approval shall be submitted by
the subdivider to each lot buyer prior to the close of escrow.
X. All runoff from the subdivision shall be collected on-site and conveyed in a
closed conduit to King Drive.
Y. Existing drainage facilities in King Drive and El Dorado Road shall be
upgraded to handle flow from the subdivision. Improvements shall consist of
a closed storm drain between the subdivision and Olympic Boulevard,
unless alternative improvements are approved by the County Public Works
Dept.
Z. At least 60—days prior to filing the final map or issuance of a Grading
- 8 -
permit, subdivision improvement plans and Final Map shall be referred to
the City of Lafayette for opportunity to comment., The city shall be
provided with reproducible copies of the improvement plans and final map.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Currently the fee for the Central region of
the County is $2,300 for each added single family residence.
B. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 67 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection
District.
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BOARD OF APPEALS
RESOLUTION
NOVEMBER 14, 2000
RESOLUTION NO.10 -2001
BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEAL
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APPEAL— Lynn Lopez, Et Al (Appellants)
Morgan Capital Investments, (Owners)
Silverhawk and Company, Inc.
Development Permit 893003, Subdivision 897267
Walnut Creek area
WHEREAS, a request was received on January 3, 2000 by Silverhawk and Company
(Applicant),for an amendment to conditions of approval to allow for construction of 6 homes which
differ in design from the homes approved in 1990 as part of the P-1 rezoning. Some of these home
designs included portions that are considered three stories under the County Code.
Whereas, On July 19, 2000, after issuance of a notice as required by law, the Zoning
Administrator conducted a public hearing on the application, at the conclusion of which the matter
was continued to the August 14,2000 hearing since the applicant was in the process of revising plans
so that they would not have three stories;
Whereas,On August 14,2000,the Zoning Administrator continued the hearing of this item to
the August 28, 2000 meeting at the request of the applicant;
Whereas, On August 28, 2000, the Zoning Administrator took additional testimony and
closed the public hearing. The Zoning Administrator continued the hearing of the item to the
September 11, 2000 hearing to render a decision;
Whereas, On September 11, 2000, the Zoning Administrator determined that the required
findings in terms of size, height, and design could be made only if specific design changes were
made to 5 of the 6 residences (house design on lot 1 accepted as submitted), and APPROVED the
application;
Whereas, in a letter received September 20, 2000, neighboring property owners filed an
appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision;
Whereas, on October 24, 2000, after notice was issued as required by law, the County
Planning Commission,acting as Board of Appeals,conducted a hearing on the appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's approval decision;the Commission took testimony and continued the hearing of the
item to November 14,2000 to conduct individual site inspections of the property to assess visibility
of the proposed residences;
Page 2
Whereas, On November 14, 2000, the County Planning Commission, acting as Board of
Appeals, took testimony concerning the appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision;
Whereas, after taking testimony at the November 14, 2000 hearing, the Commission fully
reviewed, considered and evaluated all testimony and evidence submitted in this matter; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,that the County Planning Commission makes the
following finding with respect to the proposed modification to the Development Plan:
1. The proposed development plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1
district and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the
district
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission found that the conditioned changes to
the proposed home designs would adequately reduce the mass and visibility of the homes on the
project site; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission voted to DENY THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLD THE DECISION of the Zoning Administrator by vote of the County Planning
Commission at a regular meeting Tuesday, November 14, 2000 with the addition of a condition
requiring that a Geotechnical Engineer be present during foundation excavation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and
attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in
accordance with the Government Code of the State of California.
The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion
of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 14, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners - Terrell,Wong, Kimber, Battaglia, Clark,Hanecak
NOES: Commissioners - None
ABSENT: Commissioners - Gaddis
ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None
Page 3
WHEREAS, in a letter received November 22, 2000, following the initial decision on this
application by the County Planning Commission,neighboring property owners appealed the County
Planning Commission's approval of File#DP893003 and SD8989367(King Drive Subdivision)to
the Board of Supervisors.
Richard Clark,
Chair of the County Planning Commission
County of Contra Costa, State of California
ATTEST:
DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary
County Planning Commission,
County of Contra Costa,
State of California
boIDP893003.res
ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA
June 19, 2001
This is the date and time noticed by the Clerk of the Board for hearing on the appeal by Paul
James, et al, of the County Planning Commission's decision denying an appeal and approving a
development plan amendment to allow for construction of six homes which differ from the
designs approved in 1990 (DP893003/SD897367) and a modification to a portion of a recorded
scenic easement to allow an encroachment for a driveway approach for lots five and six of
subdivision 7367 on a site located on King Drive in the Saranap area.
Michael Laughlin, Community Development Department presented the staff report and
recommendations. Also present were Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel and Dennis Barry,
Director, Community Development Department.
Supervisor Uilkema commented on suggestions to change conditions of approval.
The public hearing was opened and the following persons presented testimony:
Lynn Lopez (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 130 El Dorado Road,
Walnut Creek;
Paul James (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 121 El Dorado Road, Walnut Creek;
Stephen Phillips (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 120 El Dorado Road,
Walnut Creek;
Lance Coletto (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 200 King Drive, Walnut Creek;
Arthur Marchetti (Appellant), King Drive Neighborhood, 161 El Dorado Road, Walnut
Creek;
Kim Bailey, 2609 Olympic Blvd., Walnut Creek;
Jim Spright, 3306 Freeman Road, Walnut Creek;
Carol Fishel, Saranap Neighbors, Who Love Our Community, 36 Freeman Court, Walnut
Creek;
Edward F. Soares, King Drive Neighborhood, 2757 West Newell Avenue, Walnut
Creek;
Tom Crosby, 170 El Dorado Road, Walnut Creek;
Jeffrey Batt, (Applicant), Silverhawk & Co., 1 Blackfield Drive, PMB, 404, Tiburon.
The following people did not speak, but left comments for the Board:
Kim Bailey, 2609 Olympic Blvd., Walnut Creek;
Joan Johnson, King Drive Neighborhood, 110 El Dorado, Walnut Creek;
Ken Wainola, 211 King Drive, Walnut Creek;
Robert Stevens, President, Saranap Home Owners Association, 125 Kendall Road
Walnut Creek.
The Public Hearing was closed. The Board discussed the matter.
Supervisor Uilkema moved to grant the appeal and approve the permit conditions and housing
designs as approved by the Planning Commission with additional conditions of approval:
Item 7E: To add that the application shall include a full revegitation plan, which must be
approved by the Zoning Administrator. The planting for each lot must be completed prior to
occupancy of the house on that lot;
Item 7G: The Geotechnical Engineer shall document and make recommendations for any
foundation design changes based on actual soil conditions;
Item 1413: That all grading operations, trenching for utilities, and the excavation and construction
of all foundations, footing, piers and paving shall be monitored continuously by a County
selected inspector, at the developer's expense, to insure compliance with all approved grading
plans and tree protection measures;
Item 14M: A certified Arborist shall be present on site for all excavations within the root zones
of trees larger than six inches in diameter. They shall make on site recommendations to the
grading contractor and document observations and remediations taken and the documentation
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator.
Supervisor Gioia seconded the motion.
Mr. Barry requested the maker of the motion and the seconder clarify that the motion included
approving the stated modification of the scenic easement for the driveway encroachment to lots
five and six.
Supervisor Uilkema confirmed the modification is included in her motion.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing is CLOSED; the appeal by Paul
James, et. al., from the decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission, on the
request by Silverhawk and Company Inc., (Applicant) and Morgan Capital Investments
(Owners), approving a Development Plan Amendment to allow for the construction of six homes
which differ from the designs approved in 1990 is GRANTED; The Development Plan
Amendment, including the findings and conditions of approval as recommended by the Contra
Costa County Planning Commission, as modified (see Exhibit "A" attached) is APPROVED; and
the modification to a portion of a recorded scenic easement to al low an encroachment for a
driveway approach for lots five and six, King Drive Estates, Walnut Creek area(County Files
DP 89-3003, SD 89-7276) is APPROVED.
ILL
SILVERHAWK AND COMPANY INC. (Applicant), MORGAN CAPITAL
INVESTMENTS (Owners), County Files #DP893003 and#SD897367 to allow a
revision to condition 7 allowing for the plans submitted April 17, 2001 to be used instead
of the original development plans.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed development plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1
district and compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the
district. The proposal is for six homes in an existing residential neighborhood, and
the property is already subdivided for residential development. The April 17, 2001
plans are designed with the site topography, and are screened from view by existing
vegetation. The plans reflect the changes recommended by the County Planning
Commission.
2. The modifications to the conditions of approval and the request for encroachment
into the scenic easement are Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15305, Class 5 allows for
minor changes in land use limitations where there are no changes in land use or
density. In this case the land use and density have not changed since the original
approval. The exemption would be appropriate for the incremental increase
between the original 1990 approval with a Negative Declaration and the slight
increase for the larger homes.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This approval is based upon the tentative map submitted with the application dated
received February 2, 1990.
2. In Subdivision 7267, the building setbacks shall not be less than 10 feet, all subject
to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of a building
permit.
3. At least 60 days prior to recording a Final Map, issuance of a Building Inspection
Department permits, or installation of improvements or utilities, submit a
geotechnical review report meeting the requirements of Subdivision Ordinance
Section 94-4.420 for review and approval of the Planning Geologist. Improvement
and grading plans shall carry out the recommendations of the approved report and
be signed by the engineering geologist and geotechnical engineer prior to checking
by County.
Grading will be limited to that which was shown on the tentative map or on
subsequently approved plans. Any need for additional grading that would
result in loss of trees must be approved by the County Planning Commission. Non-
E DJ? A"
- 2 -
compliance will be the cause for a "stop work" order.
4. Record a statement to run with deeds to the property acknowledging the approved
report and the reports of Herzog and Associates, Inc. dated June 7, 1989 and
September 18, 1989, by title, author (firm), and date, calling attention to
recommendations, and noting that the reports are on file for public review in the
Community Development Department of Contra Costa County.
5. Prior to issuance of building permits on parcels of this subdivision, submit an as-
graded report of the engineering geologist and geotehnical engineer showing
location of volluvium and landside deposits encountered during grading for
improvements and utilities; final plan and grades for subsurface drainage including
disposal and cleanout points; any buttress fill or shear key with its keyway
location; retaining walls; and other rock and soil improvements installed during
grading, as surveyed by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer.
6. Should archaeological materials be uncovered during grading, trenching or other
on—site excavation(s), earthwork within 30 yards 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(s), if deemed necessary.
7. Prior to the issuance of any building permit and/or grading permit for work on any
lot, the proposed grading, location and design of the proposed residential building
to be located on that lot shall be first submitted for review and approval by the
Zoning Administrator. Buildings shall be sin:�Iar- to that shown en subn:litted pla
to be designed and build to fit hillside areas within the envelope areas as indie
on the tent .* . Consideration shall be given to the fellowing-
Final design and placement of the homes is subject to review and approval of
the Zoning Administrator consistent with the plans submitted April 17, 2001,
subject to the following requirements:
A. Accurate, to scale site plans shall be submitted for review and
approval of the Zoning Administrator, accurately placing all trees.
Tree removal must be less than or equal to the tree removal under
the original approval.
B. Minor adjustments to the house design on lot 6 may be required to
further reduce tree loss to below 12 trees. An accurate, to scale site
plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Zoning
Administrator.
C. Final color and materials shall be submitted for review and approval
of the Zoning Administrator. Colors and materials shall be muted
Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001
- 3 -
earth tone colors to blend with the setting, vegetation and soils. Any
exterior color or material changes shall be reviewed by the County
Community Development Department prior to the exterior change.
D. Replacement tree and vegetation planting shall be placed to obscure
views of the structures from surrounding vantage points.
E. A master tree removal permit shall be obtained for tree removal on
the lots prior the issuance of any building permits for construction on
the lots. The application shall include a full revegetation plan which
must be approved by the Zoning Administrator. Planting for each lot
must be completed prior to occupancy of the house on that lot.
F. Peer review by Contra Costa County shall be conducted on the site
specific soils reports required in Condition 14G of the original
approval. The cost for the review shall be paid by the applicant.
G. During excavation for and preparation of the foundations of the
residential structures, a Geotechnical Engineer or technician
supervised by a Geotechnical Engineer shall be present to supervise
any foundation related excavation or drilling. The Geotechnical
Engineer shall document and make recommendations for any
foundation design changes based on actual soil conditions.
A. ARY Fear- y-arddehethef raised of on gr-ade-should blend with th-e
design of the stmetur-e. All suppeFt stmetures shall be ser-eened and
lZ. The speeifie design of builrlingS Of ntr„Ot„res shall result i n feetpr-int that
D
aiiirn1l lines and ive stery elements ending en tl.o
proposed size and leeation.
near-by homes shall be utilized,
D. Building aand'etbaeks nd bulk shall �enEfofilo> steppe 1
height,
on gr-a a ntr„nt„ es as mueh as feasible
vrr br-acc�.u�a uc �
8. A scenic easement shall be provided across Lots 1 through 5 as indicated on the
Tentative Map and extended across the easterly portions of Lots 1 and 2 to King
Drive subject to the review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to
.filing the final map. This is to restrict buildings. and structures from those areas
Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001
EMET 'A"
- 4 -
and to indicate that no further lot division shall occur. Any fencing within the
scenic easement shall be of open wire type. A driveway encroachment is
permitted into the scenic easement for lots 5 and 6. The recording of the
encroachment document through the Public Works Department shall occur
prior to the issuance of a building permit for either lot.
9. Development rights of areas to be established as a scenic easement shall be deeded
to the County. This shall be done with the filing of the Final Subdivision Map.
10. Prior to filing a Final Subdivision Map, street names shall be subject to the review
and approval of the Community Development Department. All residences shall
provide for an address visible from the street, which may require illumination.
11. Conditions for approval as related to road and drainage requirements:
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 there from must be specifically listed in
this conditional approval statement. Conformance with the Ordinance
includes the following requirements:
1) Constructing road improvements along the frontage of King Drive.
Constructing King Drive as a 20 foot paved road to County private
road standards and providing associated drainage improvements along
the frontage will satisfy this requirement. The 20 foot paved section
shall be extended offsite to connect to the existing paved section of
King Drive. If the applicant desires County acceptance of the road for
maintenance, shall construct these improvements to County public
road standards (including width, grade and section standards) subject
to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. Street
lighting may also be required before the County would accept the road
for maintenance.
2) Conveying all storm water entering or originating within the
subject property, without diversion and within an adequate storm
drainage facility, to a natural watercourse having definable bed and
banks or to an existing adequate storm drainage facility which conveys
the storm waters to a natural watercourse. Compliance with this
requirement includes the installation of approximately 1,800 feet of
Line A of the Drainage Area 15A Plan (from Panoramic Way
westward along Olympic Boulevard) or alternative drainage
improvements subject to the approval of the Flood Control District.
3) Submitting a Final Map prepared by a registered civil- engineer or
licensed land surveyor.
4) Submitting improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer,
payment of review and inspection fees, and security for all
improvements required by the Ordinance Code or the Conditions of
approval for this subdivision. These plans shall include any necessary
traffic signage and striping plans for review by the County Traffic
Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001
EX1101 �)A If
- 5 -
Engineer.
B. Construct the onsite roadways, as shown on the Site Plan; to County private
road standards within 25-foot easements, to include pedestrian walkways as
may be feasible. Plans shall be submitted in this regard for review and
approval by the Zoning Administrator with the Final Map.
C. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
Division, that legal access to the property is available from the County
maintained portion of King Drive.
D. Furnish proof to the Public Works Department, Engineering Services
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.
E. Prior to issuance of building permits, file the Final Map for Subdivision 7267.
12. Hours of construction shall be restricted from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday. No construction will occur on Saturdays, Sundays, Federal or State
holidays unless previously approved by the Zoning Administrator. Should this
condition be violated, the Zoning Administrator may cause construction work to
cease and desist until he/she is satisfied that compliance will be established.
13. Prior to filing the final map and/or grading plan, a tree inventory plan for areas in
the vicinity of building sites, driveways and the proposed access road, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator to determine
heritage trees and other trees for preservation and those trees to be identified for
removal. An enlarged map of the proposed access road and the six building sites
shall be submitted showing tree locations, the type and size and tree dripline, and
means of preservation. The project design may require adjustment to preserve
"Heritage Trees."
14. Comply with the recommended requirements of the City of Lafayette included in
their letter dated January 23, 1990 and February 21, 1990, listed below and subject
to review, determination and/or approval by the County Zoning Administrator.
A. The final subdivision-map shall not be approved until precise grading plans
have been prepared and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
B. A grading permit will be required for all grading including the earthwork
necessary to develop all dwellings and driveways on each lot. An erosion—
control plan shall be prepared by the developer and reviewed and approved
by the Zoning Administrator prior to the submission to the County Grading
Inspection Section.
All grading operations, all trenching for utilities and the excavation and
construction of all foundation footings and piers and all paving shall be
continuously monitored by a County-selected inspector at the developer's
expense to insure compliance with all approved grading plans and tree
protection measures. No grading, trenching, drilling or paving shall be
Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001
- 6 -
commenced without at least 72 hours prior notice to the County Zoning
Administrator.
C. The property owner agrees to enter into and record an agreement holding the
County and other public agencies harmless in the event of flood or erosion
damage, including damages to properties due to flooding or earth movement.
D. All streets in the subdivision shall be private. A roadway and drainage
maintenance agreement shall be recorded against each lot in the subdivision,
obligating each lot for a proportionate share of the maintenance of the street
and any joint private drainage facilities with consent of a majority of the
members of the property owners.
E. The developer shall post with the County a $5,000 cash deposit, refundable
if not used, prior to start of construction. This deposit may be utilized as
needed by the County to cover the cost of cleanup, pavement repair, etc., if
the developer fails to adequately perform these tasks.
F. The builder of each house shall provide roof drainage with downspouts and
conduits to convey water to approved storm drainage facilities or existing
drainage ways. These conduits must be approved by the County before a
Building Permit is issued.
G. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each new house, a detailed
soils report including subsurface investigation and laboratory analysis shall
be prepared specifically for the house design under consideration including
driveways and pools. The recommendations of the soils report shall be
implemented in the house design and foundation plans. The soils engineer
shall sign the foundation plan and. review the grading, drainage and
irrigation plans to verify that they are consistent with the soils report.
H. Grading operations shall be scheduled only between April 15 and October 1
to avoid the Fall and Winter rains. Grading may continue past October 1,
only if the erosion control measures have been installed and certified as
operational by the Project Engineer and the Contra Costa County Grading
Inspector.
I. During the grading operation, the applicant shall control the generation of
dust by fully sprinkling the site as determined to be needed by the County
Grading Inspector in accordance with the County Grading Ordinance.
J. Trees required to be saved shall be protected during construction by wooden
fencing constructed with 4" x 4" posts and a 2" by 8" horizontal rail, 3-1/2'
minimum height placed around each tree at the drip line except for the
minimum necessary work to put in the required roadway improvements or
where grading is to be permitted under one-third (1/3) of the drip line if on
only one side of a tree.
K. To reduce soil compaction from equipment, a mulch of 1-2 inch sized wood
chips should be placed under each drip lines at a depth of 4-inches on the soil
where no excavation is to occur for those trees affected by grading or
construction.
Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001
a . A
L. Low, hanging limbs of saved trees shall be pruned prior to grading, etc., to
avoid tearing limbs by heavy equipment.
M. During grading, roots over 2-inches in diameter shall be cut off cleanly with
a hand saw at the line of excavation. Any exposed roots shall be kept moist.
A certified Arborist shall be present on site for all excavations within the root
zones of trees larger than six inches in diameter. They shall make on site
recommendations to the grading contractor and document observations and
remediation taken and the documentation shall be submitted to the Zoning
Administrator.
N. Do not allow raising of the grade around the tree trunks. This causes rotting
of the trunk and serious damage/death to the tree.
0. Finished grades shall slope away from trunks to avoid water concentrated at
their bases.
P. Little or no irrigation within 8-10 ft., of trunks.
Q. Only drip irrigation and drought tolerant plants shall be permitted under drip
line.
R. If large diameter roots (4") are encountered within the zone of excavation, an
alternative footing shall be used which bridges the roots with pilings and
grade beams.
S. Trenches or footings shall be located no closer than 10-ft., from the base of
the tree trunks.
T. A test trench shall be dug to check on the occurrence of roots at the distance
where foundation will be. Roots over 3" in diameter shall not be disturbed.
U. When trenching for utilities, tunneling shall be done under large diameter
roots to prevent their cutting.
NOTE: Trees other than oaks may tolerate more disturbances and moisture
than do oaks. After advance approval by the Zoning Administrator, granted
for non-oaks, variations of these conditions may be approved.
V. No trees shall be removed until grading permits have been issued for the
houses on the respective lots.
W. Copies of the entire set of the conditions of approval shall be submitted by
the subdivider to each lot buyer prior to the close of escrow.
X. All runoff from the subdivision shall be collected on-site and conveyed in a
closed conduit to King Drive.
Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001
EARN!
- 8 -
Y. Existing drainage facilities in King Drive and El Dorado Road shall be
upgraded to handle flow from the subdivision. Improvements shall consist of
a closed storm drain between the subdivision and Olympic Boulevard,
unless alternative improvements are approved by the County Public Works
Dept.
Z. At least 60—days prior to filing the final map or issuance of a Grading
permit, subdivision improvement plans and Final Map shall be referred to
the City of Lafayette for opportunity to comment., The city shall be
provided with reproducible copies of the improvement plans and final map.
ADVISORY NOTES
A. The applicant will be required to comply with the requirements of the
Bridge/Thoroughfare Fee Ordinance for the Countywide Area of Benefit as
adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Currently the fee for the Central region of
the County is $2,300 for each added single family residence.
B. The applicant will be required to comply with the drainage fee requirements for
Drainage Area 67 as adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
C. Comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire Protection
District.
Note: Bold text indicates changes approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 19,2001
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM _Y11 -
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) 116W
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: INI)oo n TO A,ftso n Phone: `135 (o 73
Address: o 1 ( s
City:
ccfd�,u, C -e.�e
I am speaking for myself or organization: • PP-t-
1
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
.� I do not wish to speak but,leavv these comments fo the
Board to consider: �d ec�P. '� `ft4 R h cR S�LK-
Q--�` (V. S � � C ,ail l� ('01,1C,� t c�►; �' � Q�lu�
S60u,Arecd
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2 . You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
1
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM I
-f
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum efo/re-��addressing the Board. (�
Name: e W�� a� C 1 Phone:
Address: �� *-0 ��� \l - City: Walyu+ creev,
J
•Iaa speaking for myself �- or organization:
/D
m
(name of organization)
CRE CK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
LSI do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
D�i)05 eL �o 5 u SSy�r n,( tkcr P..CLs 4- -ka- C./
v
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
.3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
! support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
I
'Y4 REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: o� Phone: Cf 3 q— 6 6�,S
Address: .�/p/2��10 / ,Q City: le)4::!�
I am speaking for myself or organization; 5
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Date
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
n
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak"form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the'podium.
3. Begin-by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
i
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
P (THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
a
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: L& I� �� Phone: V� v
Address: ' o 1V� "� v City:
I am speaking for myself � or organization: I Y,%
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE: /
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# L4 Date :
My comments will be: general for against �--`-
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
\ REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM 2 o C7 S
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT) 0-2-
Complete
this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: �G\J V r\-e Phone:62(Z \ 9
Address: 'I DL-\ GL �3' n&4�&o Q ok-n City:
I am speaking for myself or organization: \VVv
l
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to on speak Agenda Item# Date
! L
My comments will be: general for against 'Y, -
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
i
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
i microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
i
i
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
I
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
i
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
i
i
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
3
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: S le_ hem -P t Phone: 4
Address: )Z o c- 1 7o r n c@ h R I. City: WL%1 n J 4q.43 CA
I am speaking for myself�_ or organization: K', „ri 'Dr',vc, n.
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# IJ -1 i- Date : 7��., 19* 100
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
i
i
SPEAKERS
i 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or.support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
I
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
I
I
I
1 REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM q o S
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form.andpllace it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: L a-7 c P Cpl6 le 7�/d Phone: C( 2- S 5-^ `/
Address: "100 - �� n�, (J r' : .� P City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
x I wish to speak on Agenda Item# y Date
My comments will be: general for against X
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
i
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered .
I
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
j speaking.
I
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
i
i 6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
1
i
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM S
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT) s
t
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
//
Name: I fz m u� /"d / 1�1�/% Phone: 939 07 17
Address: / / C�— Q 910AVP City: W,4(_,VV7 G'Re��
I am speaking for myself !/ or organization: y O On
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Date :
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
I -
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Y',
"7 al-0�� 0
Name: fes.I Nl. ��t 11,rel Phone:
� I
Address: 2U D�' LuI AAP I C L jII Q City: LK)M N 191:�— 0--, J�—
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE: 1
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Date : �1
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
I
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form(on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
I
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM Dr4
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT) s
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: T rl`'�... �' Phone:
Address: , ('l� � L �) City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Date :
My comments will be: general for ag
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT) >3
Com lete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board..
Name: �� Z, �1 SAIL Phone: oZ 7
Address: 2j(D �'I �e (/v�a-u— Cl City: (A)Jlvt�
I am speaking for myself ✓ or organization: ,V
.
(name of or tion)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# Date
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM .
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and placeitin the box ear the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: �/ /l— �L`� Phone:
Address:a2S—/'? 02�52—Ak2)CLL- V City:
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# p Data
My comments will be: general for against k_
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next'to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to'be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking--
5.
peaking-5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3)MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name: C-119co f/3 V Phone: �J ��—L L (V O
Address:`! 7- lZ C -09/t- City: 6 aC/�vt C,t
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
/
I wish to speak on Agenda Item# L Date : l �
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to Consider:
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the"Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's
microphone before your agenda item is to be considered
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name, address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before
speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous
speakers.
6. The Chair may limit the length of presentations so all persons may be hear.
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing '.the. Board.
Name: 12 �P� Phone:
Address: / c �,P ✓c �M� �y City: i/� a 2��✓
I am77AS
or organization:
� RpL ic,4 .✓ me(naof organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: general for ✓ against
I wish to speak on the subject of
I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider:
SPEAKERS
1.. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before .your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
. 'Pleas.e speak -into the microphone at the podium.
3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
. representative of an organization.
4. Give the Clerk a copy of your- presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.
5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .
REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM 1V6)1VVfWe6"
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers'
rostrum before addressing the Board. n
Name: 23A/6h e/ Phone: '-)3
Address: v��� �� �r+l Lv� City: %if'uA/UU7 C)/,:;fG�
I am speaking for myself or organization:
(name of organization)
CHECK ONE:
I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date:
My comments will be: general for against
I wish to speak on the subject of
_ I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the
Board to consider: Imo(-�/45���@.9brdJrG(1- '114 —, �IGTeIk-
e&CtakO QS 1.r t5 !�jv 11:10Ad- IT- PvreLur �r► 6�s,a��-�,�r<�
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in
the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda
item is to be considered.
2. You will be called on to make your presentation.
Please speak into the microphone at the podium.
3 . Begin by stating your name and address and whether
you are speaking for yourself or as the
representative of an organization.
.4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or
support documentation if available before speaking.-
5.
peaking:5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid
repeating comments made by previous speakers.
(The Chair may limit length of presentations so all
persons may be heard) .