The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05132003 - D5 ............ ..,., .... .... TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ti.ka Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD ; - Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR County DATE: May 13, 2003 SUBJECT: Hearing on an Appeal of a San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission Denial of an Application to Modify the Residential design Restrictions of the Alamo Springs Final Development Plan for a reduced front yard requirement and to allow alterations within the driplines of two designated heritage oak trees within the rear yard at #339 Carrie Place, in the Alamo area, County File #DP01`3077. (Martin& Laurie Hees --Applicants& Owners) (District 111) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. ACCEPT public testimony. B. DENY the appeal of Martin and Laurie Hess,and SUSTAIN the denial decision of the San Ramon Valley'Regional Planning Commission of development permit application File#DP013077. C. ADOPT findings contained in the Resolution from the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission as the basis for the Board's Action. FISCAL,IMPACT Nene. Applicant is responsible for all staff project review costs. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; wwX YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM TEE -APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE 5 : ACTION OF BOARD ON Maw 13, 2W3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER **See attached addendm for Board action** VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND _x _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Nona ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ASSENT: ABSTAIN- SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN **District III Seat VACANT** Contact Bob Drake 1(925)335-12141 ATTESTED May 13, 2003 cc:Community Development Dept.(Orifi.) JOHN SWEETEN, CLERIC OF THE BOARD OF Building Inspection Dept. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Martin&Laurie Hess GMMA,Martin Lyess Lawrence E.Smith BY ,DEPUTY Alamos Springs HOA County Counsel May 13, 2003 Burd of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Pile#OP013077{Hess} Page 2 BACKGROUND The background to this appeal is presented in three staff reports to the Zoning Administrator and San Raman Valley Regional Planning Commission dated May 6, July 1, and August 21, 2403. The application is seeking a modification to the development standards that apply to a residential lot within the Alamo Springs project. The Alamo Springs project is a 53-unit project that straddles the jurisdictional boundary of the County and the Town of Danville. The project was jointly approved by both jurisdictions as a planned unit development. A building permit was issued for a two-story residence and an accessory structure based upon information contained on the building plans. Construction commenced and passed several inspections before it came to the attention of the County that the house was not sited as had been represented in the set of plans submitted for the building permit. The residence (garage wing)was placed nearly seven feet closer to the front property line than had been shown on the building permit site plan, and than is allowed for this project (18 foot setback started; minimum 25 feet required). A stop work order was issued, and the property owner was notified of the violation of his building permit and the siting requirements of the final development plan. The County advised him that he could cure the problem by either modifying his plans to comply with the final development plan, or file an application to try to see if the County would approve an amendment to the final development plan for the Alamo Springs Subdivision (#7452). The applicant elected to pursue the latter course. In December 2001, the applicant elected to file an application with the County (File##DP0'I3077)to try to reduce the frontyard setback standard to accommodate the residence as it has been built to date. Zoning Administrator Hearing Pertinentconditions of approval from the Alamo Springs development permit and Residential Design Guidelines have been excerpted. It should be noted that the Design Guidelines require that"a<garage or garages capable of housing a minimum of 3 standard size passenger vehicles is required for each residence." And a total of six(6) on-site parking spaces is required by the development permit. The staff report for the Zoning Administrator's (ZA) hearing of May 5, 2002, concluded that modifying the Condition of Approval would be appropriate for the fallowing reasons: 1} Moving the house towards the street protects the root structure of a heritage oak tree at the rear of the house, 2) Removing a'portion of the garage would eliminate one enclosed parking space.1 3) This would result in more cars parked in the front of the house and creating more visual clutter; 1 It is noted that the Alamo springs Homeowner's Association CC&Rs require three covered parking spaces. May 13,2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of File#OP013077(Hess) Page 3 3) Constructing a single-car garage across the driveway as an extension to the north wing of the house would significantly alter the design of the front fagade. The openness created by the guest parking area would be eliminated; and 4) Compatibility and consistency with the Intent and Purpose of the P-1 district would be maintained. The Zoning Administrator heard the matter on May 6, 20032; after taking testimony, the Zoning Administrator determined that the findings contained in the May 6, 2002 staff report were valid, and approved the project subject to conditions. Reconsideration Request An adjoining neighbor to the south, Mr. Bong Rhim (#340 Corrie Places then filed a reconsideration request on the Zoning Administrator approval; the Zoning Administrator heard it on July 1, 2002. After taping testimony, the Zoning Administrator concluded that the information presented at this hearing did not justify a reconsideration of the original ZA decision and the reconsideration was denied. This neighbor appealed the ZA decision to the San Raman Valley Regional Planning Commission. APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION AND HEARING BY PLANNING COMMISSION The adjoining neighbor, Mr. Bong Rhim, appealed the decision of the Zoning Administrator based upon three points: 1} The applicants actions in violating the setback requirements and departing from the plans that were approved by the Homeowner's Association and submitted for building permits were not "innocent" as suggested by the Staff'report. 2) The modifications granted by the Zoning Administrator would adversely affect the views, privacy and value of the Rhim residence. 3) There are alternative solutions that would more adequately balance the Applicant's interests with those of Mr. Rhim. At the Commission's meeting of August 21, 2002, the Commission conducted a hearing on the neighbor's appeal. After completing the public testimony, the Commission indicated that it had concerns with the violation of the setback standard. The decision to arbitrarily move the foundation without receiving'County approval was not appropriate in the Commission's opinion. The Commission felt strongly that the project development standards should be upheld. The Commission noted that had the request to modify the design standards been proposed' and considered;,prior to commencement of construction activity, the County would not have been able to make the necessary findings to approve the project. The Commission also pointed out that the P-1 ordinance is specific in setting the guidelines and standards in exchange for a great deal of latitude in designing the overall project. The Commission thought that there had been plenty of notice and reason to double-check the setbacks to .............. May 13, X103 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of File#DPOI3077(Hess) Page 4 know where the house should be placed. The Commission felt that the applicant should try to find a solution that did not require an encroachment within the required setback area. The Commission opined on other aspects of the project review. In response to a neighbor's testimony requesting that the garage roof be lowered, the Commission did not believe that lowering the roof would mitigate the setback encroachment. On the appeal point regarding the loss of Views, the Commission did not think there was a view issue or a property value issue that would adversely affect a particular neighbor. The Commission did make the point that the house is not located where it is supposed to be. The Commission did not specifically address the appeal point regarding the "innocence" of moving the house without proper approval. However, the Commission did question the applicant on his knowledge of moving the house closer to the roadway than the setback allows. The applicant responded that at some point during construction he was aware that the house was in a different location than shown on the plan. After hearing testimony from the neighbors and the appellant, the Commission determined that it could not support the modification to the design restrictions. On a vote of 5-0 (Mulvihill and Matsunaga absent), the Commission granted the neighbor's appeal and denied the application. APPLICANTS' APPEAL OF COMMISSION DENIAL DECISION On September 3, 2002,the applicants filed an appeal of the Commission's action with the Community Development Department. The original appeal letter was supplemented with a second letter dated December 19, 2002. The applicant raises four points in the written appeal: 1. Ordinance Code Findings The appellant argues that the P-1 Ordinance allows flexibility for purpose of granting modification to a final development plan. The appellant states that the purpose of the specific language in the P-1 Ordinance is to allow and provide for changes to a given development plan under the provisions of the Code, regardless of how large or small the changes may be. The appellant further states that a member of the planning commission mischaracterized granting a modification as "forgiving the rules". He further states that"granting a modification is precisely what the Ordinance Code anticipates as stated in Section 84-66.1804(b): a change to a Final Development Plan that pertains to one part of the development but is compatible with the rest of the uses in the vicinity." The appellant argues "that granting this modification isnot the rules'-, granting the modification merely allows a change in the P-1 pursuant to the rules." The appellant further states that the Planning Commission did not make the findings as required by County Ordinance Code 84-66.1804(b)which state: (1) May 1 3,2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of File#DPO13077(Hess" Page 5 that the application for a modification to a final development plan "is consistent with the intent and purpose ofthe P-1 District", and (2) that the application is "compatible with rather uses in the vicinity both inside and outside the district". 2. The applicant moved the house in -good faith The house was moved to protect the heritage oak located at the rear of the house. The applicant was unaware that a public utility easement existedbehind the curb and gutter, or that the public utility easement could not be counted as part of the setback distance. 3. The modification does not significantly impact the neighbors Appellant'states that the viewsheds of the neighboring parcels are essentially unaffected by the modification. The appellant points out that the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission also seemed to agree that the viewsheds are not affected by the modification. An argument had previously been made by the adjacent property owner that the modification would directly affect the property value of the adjoining house. The appellant pointed out that one of the planning commissioners stated'that there was no view or property value issue associated with the modification. 4. Construction of the house isnot an issue The applicant began construction of the house in goad faith that it was properly located on the site. The applicant's attorney states that the fact that construction had begun, should' not be an issue, and the application should be reviewed on its merits, and not on history. DISCUSSION The Building Inspection Department issued a stop work order in December 2001 to halt construction of the house when it found that the structure encroached into the front yard setback. Staff allowed a partial release of the stop work order in May 2002, with the understanding that no work would be authorized within any portion of the garage wing of the residence or within the driplines of either of the designated heritage oak trees. Staff felt that given the'progression of work that included several inspections that had been passed by staff, that it would be unlikely that a major design alteration in the residence would be legally feasible. Work has continued on the interior of the main portion of the house during the approval and appeal'process. The applicant is aware that modifications to the house may be required if the request fora modification to the design requirements of the Final Development Plan was denied. Although the Zoning Administrator initially approved the Final Development Plan modification, through the appeal process, the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission overturned that decision and denied the request. The two divergent decisions are based on significantly different evaluations that are inherently based on subjective factors: May 13,2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of File#DPo13077(Hess) Page 6 • Will the modification be compatible with the surrounding uses; • Will the modification satisfy the intent and purpose of the Planned Unit District. Prior to the Zoning Administrator hearing, staff determined that it was reasonable to make those findings, and that determination was sustained by the zoning Administrator. However, the Planning Commission determined that a project approval wouldnot have been justified had the applicant initiated the request prior to hearing. The Commission also felt that approving the request at this point in the project would set a bad precedent for other developers who wish to avoid compliance with development standards. While the appeal letters note that the Commission did not specifically articulate and reference the required ordinance findings for granting a modification to a final development plan, based on other evidence and testimony presented to them, it is clear that the information was a part of the record at the time of the hearing. Other points articulated in the current appeal are similar to points that were made by the applicant at the time of the Commission hearing. Ramifications in Sustaining the Commission's Reguest Consistent with Department practice, at this point in the project review process, staff is conveying the Commission position (project denial)as the staff recommendation. However, were the application denied, then the applicant would need to consider alternative designs that would allow his residence to be completed (i.e., comply with the building code and FDP standards, or apply for another design modification to those standards and obtain approval from the County, and if necessary the HOA). Based upon the decision of the Planning Commission, staff has developed conditions of approval to bring the house into conformance with the setback requirements of Condition 20 requiring a minimum 25 feet setback from the front property line. The design modifications would be required prior to lifting the stop work order. 1. The garage shall be redesigned to meet the 25-foot front yard setback. This will require a reduction in the garage width (perpendicular to the street)of 7 feet. 2. The applicant shall submit revised plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval, prior to lifting the stop-work order.The applicant shall also provide evidence that the Alamo Springs Homeowners Association has been provided an opportunity to review and comment on the plans. 3. Applicant shall provide written approval from the Alamo Springs Homeowners Association if the redesign results in two covered parking spaces (three required by the CC&Rs). 4. Applicant shall maintain six off-street parking spaces as required in the CC&Rs and Alamo Springs development permit. May 13, 2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of Fite#DPO13077(Hess) Page 7 5. Obtain tree permit or other approval development permit action from the County required to comply with tree protection ordinances (see below discussion). This process will require public notice and opportunity for appeal to the Planning Commission. Design modification will require the removal of 6 feet 2 inches from the garage to keep it beyond the setback. The applicant's architect will need to look at design solutions to meet the setback requirement. To meet the 3-car covered parking requirement of the CC&Rs, the applicant:will have to construct a single-car garage on the opposite side of the driveway or modify the depth of the garage to permit tandem parking. Moving the wall on the southerly side of the house further south could create two spaces for small cars. From a visual standpoint,this latter alternativewould be more appealing than constructing a single-car garage on the apposite side of the driveway. The applicant may also be able to obtain a waiver or variance from the Homeowner's Association CC&Rs to allow two covered parking spaces rather than three by reducing the width of the garage. Unresolved Pro sed Impacts to Code-ProtegLed Trees in Rea rd One of the aspects of this application that was not discussed extensively at the Planning Commission hearing was the proposed alterations to two mature oak trees in the rear of the property.' 'Due to their size, both trees are, protected"under the Tree Protection Ordinance; both trees were also included in a listing of trees within the Alamo Springs project that were designated by the Board of Supervisors for heritage status pursuant to the Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance as part of the Alamo Springs project. When construction plans were originally presented to the County, the applicant had represented the location and driplines of the trees, and attested as to the accuracy of the information. Based on that information, staff determined that the project would not require a tree permit and cleared the plans for a building permit. The applicant subsequently told staff that once out in the field, he determined that the plans had understated the extent of the tree driplines,and that his project would result in alterations within the tree driplines. He has indicated that one of the reasons that led him to shift the location of the residence closer to the front property line was to avoid impacts to the trees. The proposed site plans indicate both the driplines that had been represented to the County in 2001 at time of issuance of the building permit, and the actual driplines. Notwithstanding the proposed shifting of the residence, the proposed project will still result in incidental impact to the trees which would not be allowed without a tree permit,equivalent development permit. The applicant has provided an arborist report that evaluates the trees and the project and has<concluded that the project can be developed without causing significant damage to the trees. May 13,2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of File#DPOI3077(Hess) Page 8 The public opposition to the project has focused primarily on the encroachment into the required front yard; little concern has been expressed about impacts to the trees in the rear yard. Similarly, the Planning Commission objections to the project did not focus proposed alterations to the trees. However, the effect of the Commission decision is to not to deny the applicant's proposal to encroach within the required frontyard, but also to deny the applicant's proposal to encroach within the driplines of the two trees in the rearyard. The applicant has been allowed to continue with work on the project, but only on the basis that he refrain from conducting any improvements or work activity within the driplines of the two trees, pending resolution of this permit. Even if the Board were to sustain the Planning Commission's denial of the proposed reduced front yard standard, it may be appropriate for the Board to consider an approval of the application so as to at least approve the proposedtree alterations. Such an approval would avoid the need for fling for a new tree permit or development permit application in order to resolve this aspect of the project. Were the Board to consider this action, it should consider a reconfigured set of conditions of approval that included COA#4 (Heritage Tree Protection Measures)from the Conditions that were attached to the Zoning Administrator approval. ALTERNATIVE TO THE COMMISSION ACTION Should the Board determine that the necessary findings for this project be made as indicated in the initial staff report and determined by the Zoning Administrator, then the Board should declare its intent to approve the project based on the Zoning Administrator approval and continue the matter at least two weeks to allow for the preparation of findings for consideration of adoption action. In this instance, upon approval of the application and compliance with the terms of the approved development permit, the applicant would be able to qualify for a removal of the stop work order and completion of the project. Such a mortification to the Final Development Plan would apply only to the subject property. Implementation of the modification approved by the Zoning Administrator would require the applicant to provide a landscape plan that incorporates a design to help soften the appearance of the west-facing garage wall, as well as provide an illusion of more distance between the street and garage wall. Cather conditions applied to the application pertained to the protection of the heritage oak trees located to the rear of the structure. These included tree ordinance measures to protect heritage trees. MODIFIED B!1ILDING INSPECTION PROCEDURES Shortly after this matter carne to the attention of staff, the Director of Building Inspection issued a memorandum to his staff dated December 4, 2001, indicating that owner/contractors would be required to place a structure on a property by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor based on a site survey with a'Certification letter issued at or before approval of a foundation inspection. May 13, 2003 Board of Supervisors Hearing on Appeal of File#DPO13077(Hess) Page 9 EXHIBITS: Appeal Letter from Martin Lysons, dated September 3, 2002 Supplemental Letter of Appeal from Martin Lysons, dated December 19, 2002 Staff Reports of May fi, July 1 and August 21, 2002 H:1hessboardorder-b ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.5 May 13, 2003 The Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by Martin&Laurie Hess of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission denial of an application to modify the residential design restrictions of the Alamo Springs Final Development Plan for a reduced front yard requirement and to allow alternations within the driplines of two designated heritage oak trees within the rear yard at#339 Corrie Place,in the Alamo area, County File#DP013077. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department Director and Bob Drake,Community Development Department presented the staff report and recommendations. The chair opened the public hearing and the following persons presented testimony: Tim Wadhawan,35 Alamo Springs Place,Danville; Bong Rhim, 340 Corrie Place,Alamo; Martin Hess,, 75 Highbridge Court,Danville; Lauie Hess,75 Highbridge Court,Danville; Martin Hess, (Attorney for appellants)279 Front Street,Danville; Gerald Henderson, 135 Alamo Springs Drive,Alamo; Lawrence E. Smith,(on behalf of Bong Rhim) 18 Crow Caynon Ct.,#205,San Ramon; Mary E. Henderson, 135 Alamo Springs Drive,Alamo. The Chair closed the public hearing and returned the matter to the Board for finrther discussion. Supervisor DeSaulnier then moved to declare the Board's intent to uphold the appeal of Martin &Laurie Hess and requested staff to return with findings. Supervisor Gioia second the motion. The Board took the following actions; • CLOSED the public hearing, • UPHELD the appeal of Martin and Laurie Hess from the decision of the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission of development permit application File #DP013077 to modify the Residential Design Restriction of'the Alamo Springs Final Development Plan; • DECLARED the Board's intent to approve the request to amend the minimum front yard restrictions of the Alamo Springs Final Development plan to allow an 18 foot front yard set back where a minimum 25 feet is required at#339 Carrie Place in the Alamo area; • DIRECTED the Community Development Department staff to return to the Beard of Supervisors with findings by June 3,2403. � iL'JS0LUT10N BEFORE THE SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPEAL— Martin and Laurie Hess(Applicants &Owners) County File#DP013077 Modification of the Design Restrictions of The Alamo Springs Final Development Plan In the Alamo Area In 1996, the County, in concert with the Town of Danville, approved an amendment to the Alamo Springs Final Development Plan and Tentative Map applications, subject to conditions under the Planned Unit{P-1}District zoning that had been applied to the site. The project allowed for the development of 53 single-family residential lots and open space area occupying both sides of the County boundary with the Town of Danville and located to the east side of 1-680. In approving said project,the County imposed numerous development restrictions related to site development,house siting,tree protection, and criteria for lot development,building and architectural design. Subsequently,a final map was approved by both the County and Town, and recorded., and subdivision improvements constructed. In 1997,the Zoning Administrator approved an second amendment to the Final Development Plan that allowed a reconfiguration of several lots within the unincorporated portion of the site. One effect of the change was to cause the numbering of lots in the final map to change from what had been shown on the 1995 amended final development plan and referenced development permit. In April, 2001,Laurie and Martin Hess submitted house plans for lot 43 at 339 Corrie Place,within the portion of the Alamo Springs project lying in the unincorporated area Alamo for review by the Community Development Department prior to pulling building permits. The plans were approved for setback criteria,building height and architectural requirements that met the standards of the Alamo Springs Final Development Plan. The applicants proceeded with the construction of the house. When laying out the house,it was found that the structure encroached into the dripline of a heritage oak tree located immediately behind the future residence. A decision was made by the applicant and his contractor to move the structure towards the street,maintaining the same setback distance as the adjacent house to the south. Using curb marks and hubs as measuring points,the Building Inspection Department signed off on the location of the foundation,unknowing that a 7-foot public utility easement existed in addition to the 25- foot front-yard setback,thereby effectively creating a 32-foot setback from the edge of roadway. RESOLUTION NOr.14-2/103 On December 4,2001,the Building Inspection Department issued a stop work order on the new residence at 339 Corrie Place in Alamo,California. The applicant was provided with two options: * Obtain an approved amendment to the Alamo Springs Final Development Permit,or * 0 Remove a portion of the offending structure to meet minimum setback requirements. On December 20, 2001,the applicant filed an application to allow for a modification to the design restrictions of the Final Development Flan after meeting with County staff to determine how the structure could be modified to stay behind the setback. On May 6, 2002, after notice thereof having been lawfully given,the Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing d on the proposed modification; after taking testimony,the Zoning Administrator approved the project with conditions. On May 13,2002, the County granted a partial release of the stop work order based upon the following concerns: 1. County staff did not discover the violati RESOLUTION NO.14-2003 1. No work shall be authorized within: a. any portion of the garage wing of the residence, or, b. the driplines of either of the two designated heritage oak trees. 2. Prior to any partial release of the stop-work order temporary fences shall be erected around the two oak trees in the rear yard. Temporary fences shall be erected and be verified by one of the following methods: a. A building inspector shall verify that temporary fences have been erected at or beyond the dripline of the oak trees; or b. A letter shall be submitted to the Building Inspection and Community Development Departments from the involved arborist attesting that temporary fencing has been erected at the location described in his letter of May 8, 2002. The applicant provided a letter to the County from his arborist addressing these two points confirming the condition of the heritage oak trees and that fencing had been erected around the trees. Staff confirmed the latter point with a site inspection. On May 16, 2002,an appeal and request for reconsideration was filed by Lawrence E. Smith,attorney for Bong Rhim,the neighbor located south of the Hess residence. The reconsideration was based on three points,including 1) intentional misconduct by the applicant,2)adverse visual and economic impacts on the Rhim property,and 3)the availability of alternative solutions to the problem. On July 1,2002,the Zoning Administrator(ZA)heard the reconsideration request and upheld the earlier ZA decision because the appellant's justification for reconsideration did not present new substantive information to warrant reconsideration. On July 1,2002,the neighbor,Bong Rhim,then filed an appeal on the Zoning Administrator decision to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. On August 21,2002,after notice was issued as required by law,the San Ramon Walley Regional Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the appeal presented by Mr. Lawrence Smith on behalf of Mr. Bong Rhim. The San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter. 3 RESOLUTION NO: I4-2043 RESOLVED, that the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission GRANTS the appeal of Bong Rhim, and DENIES the application to modify the design restrictions of the Final Development Plan for the following reasons: 1. The Alamo Springs Final Development Plan design restrictions should be maintained; and that the required ordinance findings that the project would be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and that it meets the intent of the P-1 district, could not be made. This Commission felt that had this design and modification been proposed prior to the commencement of construction activity, it would not have been approved. 2. The Commission felt that the project had been granted additional latitude in development from what might otherwise have applied to the site in its original approval, and that the additional relaxation of development restrictions for this project was not warranted. The decision of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission was given by motion of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission on August 21,2002 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners—Gibson,Neely, Couture,Ingalls and McPherson. NOES: Commissioners—None. ABSENT: Commissioners—Mulvihill and Matsunaga ABSTAIN: Commissioners--None. On September 3, 2002,the property owners,Martin and Laurie Hess, filed an appeal with the County on the Planning Commission action. KAREN McPHERSON Chair of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California 4 RESO'LUTIONNor u-2403 I, Dennis M. Barry, Secretary of the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission, certify that the foregoing was duly called and approved on August 21, 2002. ATTEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, AInVa Secretary of the San Ramoy Regional Planning Commission, County of Contra.Costa, State of California. HAhess.res 5 blr* CO BOARD OF APPEALS SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 21, 2002 Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County BOARD OF APPEALS SAN RAMON VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday August 1,2002 I. INTRODUCTION MARTIN & LAURIE HESS (Ap lip cants & Owners , County File #DP013077: An appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the design restrictions of the Alamo Creek Final Development Plan to allow an 18-foot front-yard setback for a residence where a minimum of 25 feet is required, and to allow alterations within the driplines of two designated heritage oak trees within the rearyard. The subject site is located ,at 339 Corrie Place, in the Alamo area. (P-1) (ZA: R-15) (CT: 3462.01) (Parcel #: 197-450-015. II. SUMMARY OF REVIEW Building permits were issued for a two-story residence and accessory structure based upon information contained on the plans. Construction commenced and passed several inspections before it came to the attention of the County that the house was not sited as had been represented in the set of plans submitted for the building permit. A stop work order was issued and the property owner required to file an amendment to the final development plan for the Alamo Springs Subdivision (#7452). The matter was heard by the Zoning Administrator on May 6, 2042 and approved subject to conditions. (Refer to attached staff report). A reconsideration of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by the adjoining neighbor to the south and heard by the Zoning Administrator on July 1, 2002. The information presented at this hearing did not justify a reconsideration of the original ZA decision and the reconsideration was denied. This neighbor then appealed. the Zoning Administrator's decision to this Commission. S'RVRPC 8-21-02 Hearing on Appeal of ZA Approval of Request to Modify Alamo Springs P'flP Design Standards File#DP013077(Hess—A10) III. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: A. Adapt a categorical exemption determination (Class 5) for this project for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. B. Deny the neighbor's appeal and sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval, as conditioned. IV. BACKGROUND A stop work order was issued on December 4, 2401 at which time staff met with the applicant to discuss design options that would remove a sufficient amount of the offending structure to comply with the front-yard setback. The applicant opted to file an application to amend the final development plan rather than make physical changes to the house. The applicant filed the application with the County on December 12, 2401. Notices were mailed to the Alamo Spring Homeowners Association, the Alamo Improvement Association and surrounding property owners. It should be noted that staff has allowed for a partial release of the stop work order. This action was taken in recognition of the advanced state of the project. From a practical standpoint, there are limited options available to the County whether it involves granting the modifications or requiring a modified design. The stop-work order excluded work on the garage and only applies to the rest of the house and a pool house located at the rear of the property. The applicant agreed that no work would occur on the garage wing of the residence or within the driplines of either of the two designated heritage oak trees. The applicant was also asked to erect protective fencing around the two oak trees, which was completed by a certified arborist. Staff visited the site and found that work was underway on other parts of the house. No work is being done on the garage which is in violation of the front setback or within the fencing placed around the driplines of the two oaks trees. Alamo Improvement Association The Alamo Improvement Association reviewed the application on March 13, 2402. The AIA. reviewed the application as if house S-2 SRVRPC 8-21-02 hearing on Appeal of ZA Approval of Request to Modify Alamo Springs FDP Design Standards File#DPO13077(Mess—A10) construction had not begun. By so doing, they determined that they could not make a finding that would justify reducing the front setback and consequently recommended denial of the application. Alamo Springs HOA Design Review committee The Alamo Springs HOA Design Review Committee heard the matter at their meeting of January 16, 2002. It was determined by the committee to approve the"variance"at 339 Corrie Place. Zoning Administrator's Hearin The Zoning Administrator heard the application on May 6, 2002. The staff report from that hearing is attached. After taking testimony from the applicant and neighboring property owners, including those who opposed the project, the Zoning Administrator closed the hearing and approved the amendment to the Final Development Plan with conditions(attached to staff report). Request for Reconsideration The neighboring property owner, Mr. Bong Rhim, filed a request for reconsideration of the ZA decision within the ten-day appeal period following the ZA decision of May 6, 2002. Mr. Rhim's letter cited pertinent and legal factual matters not brought to the attention of the ZA. The three reasons cited in the letter included: 1) the applicant's actions in violating the setback requirements was not innocent as suggested by the staff report; 2) the modifications would drastically adversely affect the views, privacy and value of the Rhim residence and, 3) 'alternative solutions would balance the applicant's interests with those of Mr. Rhim. Zoning Administrator's Hearing to Reconsider Decision of May 6. 2002 The Zoning Administrator heard the appellant's request for reconsideration on July 1, 2002. The ZA denied the request for reconsideration citing that the appellant had not introduced any new "matters" that were not previously presented to the ZA at the earlier hearing and in fact, introduced only some new opinions on matters previously testified to. S-3 SRVP.P'C 8-21-02 Hearing on Appeal of 7,4 Approval of Request to Modify Alamo Springs FDP Design Standards File#DPOI3077(Hess—A10) Correspondence Letters have been received since the ZA hearing of May 6, 2002. These were received from Gerald and Mary Henderson who live across the street from the applicant, and from Charles B. Pendell, a member of the Alamo Springs Homeowners Association. The Hendersons' letter opposes the granting of an amendment to the development plan and feels that by moving the house closer to the street, open space has been converted for the applicant's personal use. The letter from Charles Pendell focused on the location of the poolhouse and the fact that the poolhouse had been relocated closer to the neighbor's property line. The poolhouse setback sastisfies County setback requirements for accessory structures and is not a part of the final development plan amendment. Staff has reviewed the poolhouse plans and conducted a site visit to find that the poolhouse is in compliance. Whether or not the applicant had the plans reviewed by the Alamo Springs Homeowners Association Design Review Committee is a private matter between the applicant and homeowner's association and is not relevant to the discussion of front-yard setback. There is nothing in the County permit that requires approval by the HOA. If the as-built poolhouse is not acceptable to the HOA, then presumably the HOA would have civil courses that they can pursue to try and remedy their concerns. V. APPEAL BY NEIGHBORS (Rhim) On May lf, 2002 the County received an appeal (attached) of the decision from legal counsel, Lawrence E. Smith, for the adjoining resident, Bong Rhim. Mr. Rhin owns and occupies the residence immediately south of the site (#340 Corrie Place). The letter requested a Reconsideration of the Zoning Administrator decision, and if unsuccessful, then the letter would serve as an appeal to the San Ramon Valley Regional Planning Commission. As stated above, the appeal made three points, but is fundamentally concerned with the loss of privacy, loss of views and value of the appellant's house. Most of the points made by the appellant were made during the ZA hearing. The appeal also suggested solutions to reduce the massof the garage. While other neighbors expressed objections to the S4 S.RVRPC 8-21-02 Hearing on Appeal of ZA.Approval of Request to Modify Ala to Springs FDP Resign Standards File#DP013077(Hess-A{U) final development plan amendment, Mr. Rhim is the only neighbor who filed an appeal. VI. REQUIRED ORDINANCE FINDINGS TO GRANT AN AMENDMENT TO A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Planned Unit (P-1) district authorizes amendments to the final development plan provided that the following ordinance findings can be made: The modification is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district; and the modification is compatible with other uses in the vicinity, both inside and outside the district. [CCC Ord. Code § 84- 66.1804(b)] VII. STAFF ANALYSISIDISCUSSION Listed below is a summary of the points registered in the appeal and staff comments on those points. Also attached is correspondence from the neighbors, the appellant and from the applicant, dated July 13, 2002, responding to the appellant's points raised in the appeal letter of May 16, 2002. A. meal Point — "The applicant's actions in violating their setback requirements and departing from the plans that were approved by the Homeowner's Association and submitted for building permits were not"innocent" as suggested by the Staff report." Staff Response — This is an accusation that is not subject to review by planning staff. The applicant was asked to describe why the house had been moved forward, which he did and which was included in the May 6, 2002 ZA staff report. The point of whether the mistake was made innocently or on purpose is not relevant to the discussion. The infraction must be reviewed in the context of the PD zoning ordinance. The appellant also applies much of his discussion to the poolhouse siting which is not the subject of the final development plan amendment. B. Apj2eal Point - "The Modifications granted by the Zoning Administrator would drastically adversely affect the views, privacy and value of the Rhim residence." s-s ........................ -...- ...................... SRV C 8-21-02 Hearing on Appeal o ZA Approval of Requesst to Modify Alamo Springs FDP Design Standards File#DPOI3077(Hess—A10) Staff Response — The primary argument of this point again relates to the location of the pool house, which is not the subject of this appeal. The appellant retained an appraiser who pointed out rthat the front setback violation would affect the upstairs view from the side windows of the bonus room. Looking directly out the side window to the north, the view would be that of the house and tree beyond 339 Corrie Place. The placement of the Hess house does not intrude on the more favorable views to the west, nor affect views to the east (Mt. Diablo). It should be noted that the appellant's house violates the sideyard setback of 25 feet by being placed at 20 feet as called for in the FDP. C. weal Point — "There are alternative solutions that would more adequately balance the Applicants' interests with those of Mr. Rhim.91 Staff Response — The appellant's architect suggested that the roof of the garage could be lowered 4 to 5 feet which could lessen the visual impact from the upstairs side window. Reducing the roof height would not affect the view from this window, as the Hess garage would still block the northerly view. This is reflected in the attached photographs. Because the Hess house sits at a higher elevation, the roof would have to be lowered ** feet to create an unobstructed view to the north. Such a reduction would alter the design of the house, possibly creating a flat roof or a steeper pitched roof that would not be at the same pitch as the rest of the house. VIII. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing review, staff finds that the appellant has not submitted any compelling information that would challenge the determination by the Zoning Administrator that the amendment to the final development plan would deprive the appellant of scenic views or loss of privacy. Accordingly, the decision of the Zoning Administrator should be sustained and the appeal denied. S-6 SR`'RPC 8-21-02 Hearing on Appeal of ZA Approval of Request to Modify Alamo Springs FDP Design Standards File#DP013077(Hess—A10) VIII. POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES In the event that the Commission is not content that the required findings can be made to authorize the requested amendment to the final development plan design criteria for this site, then the Commission may wish to consider an alternative course of action as offered in the original staff report to the Zoning Administrator. Exhibits: Appeal Letter from Lawrence E. Smith, dated May 6, 2002 Staff Reports of May 6 and July 1, 2002 Modified Set of Conditions as approved by Zoning Administrator, 5/6102 Photographs of front view of Hess and Rhim houses Letters from: Gerald and Mary Henderson, dated May 6, 2002 Marty Hess,dated July 13, 2002 Charles B. Pendell dated July 1, 2002 G:\current planningkurr-pIn\staff reports\dpO 13077-srvrpc.rpt S-7 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS APPROVED VFI. BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON MA I' 61 2002 ............................................................ . . .................... ... .... ......... ..................... ...... .... XX:... ..... CONVITIONS OF APPROVALFORCOUNTY FILE#DP413077(Hess Residence) TO AMEND THE ALALIC?SP GS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN File #RP9§204 IN THE ALAMO A AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING 3) ARL ADMINISIRAT.QKMAY 612002 I This request to modify Condition of Approval#20 of SD 7452(County File# DP953043)is approved by the Community Development Department. The original Condition of Approval reads: 20. "Dimensional yard standards shall be as follows: Front: Minimum 25feet from property lines. Side: Minimum 15 feet; minimum aggregate total 35 feet; sideyards adjacent to a street shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Rear: Minimum 25 feet Lots 26, 29, and 30 shall have a frontyard setback of 40 feet. Lots 27 and 28 shall have a frontyard setback of 34 feet. The,following modification is authorized by this permit: Lot 44 shall have a minimum frontyard setback of 18 feet. 2. Development shall be in accord with the development plans submitted with the application,including the revised site plan entitled, "As-Built"dated January 28, 2002. The applicant shall comply with all other applicable Alamo Springs Final Development Plan conditions of approval. Within 15 days of the effective date of the permit,the following Conditions of Approval shall be met: 3. Landscape hpMovements for Frontward Area-The applicant shall submit two copies of a landscape plan to the Community Development Department prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The plan shall provide suitable landscape improvements for the area between the residence and Corrie Place,incorporating landscaping that will soften the appearance of the west-facing garage wall as well as provide an illusion of depth between the street and facade. The landscape plan shall include a landscape elevation that superimposes the approved building elevations as background from the north and south property lines as well as from the street. Prior to requesting a final inspection of the residence,the applicant shall provide evidence that the approved landscape improvements have been correctly completed(e.g., certification from a licensed landscape contractor,photographs) for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. If landscaping is not installed prior to occupancy,the applicant shall post a cash bond with the County. The bonding shall be subject to review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 4. Tree Ordinance Measures to Protect Heritage Trees—Revised construction plans shall include the following notes. A. Posting of SegREfty Deposit to Cover Potential Cost of Possible Restitution Measures for ConstU etion-Related !=acts to the Heritage Tree or Trees (,Ord. Code § 816-6.1204) -Pursuant to the requirements of Section 816- 6.1204 of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance, to address the possibility that construction activity damages the heritage trees, the applicant shall provide the County with a security (e.g., bond, cash deposit)to allow for replacement of trees intended to be preserved that are significantly damaged by construction activity. The security shall be based.on: 1) Extent of Possible Restitution Improvements - The planting of up to 13 trees, minimum 15-gallons in size in the vicinity of the affected trees, or equivalent planting contribution, subject to prior review and approval of the Zoning Administrator; 2) Determination ofSecurity Amount - The security shall provide for all of the following costs: a) Preparation of a landscape/irrigation plan by a licensed landscape architect or arborist; b) A labor and materials estimate for planting the potential number of trees and related irrigation improvements that may be required prepared by a licensed landscape contractor; and c) An additional 20% of the total of the above amounts to address inflation costs. 3) Accg Lance of a Security - The security shall be subject to the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. 4) Initial Deposit for Processing of Security - The County ordinance requires that the applicant cover all time and material costs of staff for processing a tree protection security (Code -060B). The Applicant shall pay an initial fee deposit of $100 at time of submittal of a security. The County shall retain the security up to 24 months following the completion of the tree alteration improvements (date that all building permits are finalled by the Building Inspection 2 Department). In the event that the Zoning Administrator determines that trees intended to be protected have been damaged by development activity, and the Zoning Administrator determines that the applicant has not been diligent in providing reasonable restitution of the damaged trees, then the Zoning Administrator may require that all or part of the security be used to provide for mitigation of the damaged trees. At least 18 months following the completion of work within the dripline o,f'trees, the applicant's arborist shall inspect the trees for any significant damage from construction activity, and submit a report on his/her conclusions on the health of the trees and., if appropriate, any recommendations including fiuther methods required for tree protection to the Community Development Department. B. Site Preparation FOrd. Code § 816-6.1242 (1)1 - Prior to the start of any clearing, stockpiling, trenching, grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation on site with trees to be preserved, the Applicant shall install fencing at or beyond the dripine of all areas adjacent to or in the area to be altered and remain in place for the duration of construction activity in the vicinity of the trees. Prior to grading or issuance of any permits, the fences may be inspected and the location thereof approved by appropriate County staff. Construction plans shall stipulate on their face where temporary fencing intended to protect trees is to be placed, and that the required fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of any construction activity. C. Construction Period Restrictions [Ord. Code � 816-6.1242 (2 1 - No grading, compaction, stockpiling, trenching, paving or change in ground elevation shall be permitted within the dripline of any existing mature tree other than the trees approved for removal unless indicated on the improvement plans approved by the county and addressed in any required report prepared by an arborist. If grading or construction is approved within the drpline of a tree to be saved, an arborist may be required to be present during grading operations. The arborist shall have the authority to require protective measures to protect the roots. Upon the completion of all grading and construction, and prior to the applicant requesting a final inspection of the residence, an involved certified arborist shall submit two copies of a report to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall: • Describe any observed damage to the trees resulting from construction activity, and ramifications for the long-term health of the trees; 3 • Recommend any appropriate restitution mitigation measures if any damage is observed; and • Outline further methods required for tree protection if any are required. All arborist expense shall be borne by the developer and applicant unless otherwise provided by the development's conditions of approval. D. Prohibition of Parkiniz [_Ord. Cade § 816-6.1202 (3)] - No parking or storing vehicles, equipment, machinery or construction materials, construction trailers and no dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the drip line of any tree to be saved. E. Construction Tree Damage f Ord. Code § 816-6;12061 - The development's property owner or developer shall notify the Community Development Department of any damage that occurs to any tree during the construction process. The owner or developer shall repair any damage as determined by an arborist designated by the Director of Community Development. Any tree not approved for destruction or removal that dies or is significantly damaged as a result of construction or grading shall be replaced with a tree or trees of equivalent size and of a species as approved by the Director of Community Development to be reasonably appropriate for the particular situation. F. SMRM ision of Work by an Arborist - All work that encroaches within the dripline of a tree to be preserved shall be conducted:under the supervision of a certified arborist. 5. R Mort from a Certified Arborist on Potential 1mpacts to Health of Herita e Oak Trees —The applicant shall submit two copies of a report from a certified arborist on the approved site plan to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the Zoning Administrator. The report shall review potential impacts on the two mature heritage trees in the rearyard relative to improvements in proximity to the trees and related construction activity. The report shall include appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts to the trees. The project shall implement the recommendations in the approved report. Prior to release of the stop work order on the residence, a certified arborist shall provide a written statement to the Building Inspection and Community Development Departments that the required temporary tree protection Fencing has been installed. 6. Payment-of Any Su lemental Application Processing Fee That is Due — This application is subject to the adopted fee schedule of the County, including all staff 4 time and material casts in the review of the application. The fee includes casts through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. At time of application, the applicant paid an initial deposit of $1000 to the County. Any additional fee that is due for staff service cost associated with the processing of this application must be paid to the County within 60 clays of the permit effective date or prior to release of the stop work order, whichever occurs first. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. AD KSORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DED►ICA:TIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO TIME APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended to advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90-day period after the project is approved. The ninety(90)day period, in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the Central Sanitary District. C. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. Building permits are required prior to the construction of most structures. D. The Building Inspection Department will require two sets of building plans which must be stamped by the Community Development Department and by the Sanitary District or, if the site is not within a Sanitary District, by the County Health Department. S E. Future Develupinent in R:eWard area It is noted that the applicant may be intending to provide for a pool improvement and related rearyard grading ll) alterations within the rearyard of the property at some time in the future. The rearyard contains two trees that the Board of Supervisors has designated for Heritage status under the ..Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance. The applicant should be aware that any proposed alterations or removal of the heritage trees might be subject to the review acrd permit requirements of the Heritage Tree 'Ordinance and the Tree Protection Ordinance. The appXicaut is encouraged to contact the Community Development Department concerning any proposed improvements that might impact on these heritage trees on this site early in the planning process for any such improvements to learn of any discretionary permit procedures that may be required by the Ordinance Code. H:\dp013077.coa Rev. 4-20-02 REV 5/13102 bdm 6 APPEAL GP SAN RAMON '"GALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION LAW OFFICES OF GAGEN, MCCOY, MCMARON & .ARMSTRONG GREGORY L, WILLIAM LMJR. A PROFESSIONAL, CORPORATION DANVILLE OFFICE . rCOV CCO PATRICK J. M.CMA.HON 279 FRONT STREET MARK L. ARMSTRONG P. O. BOX 216 LI.NN K. COOMBS DANVILLE, CALIFORNIA 9458.6-0218 STEPHEN W. THOMAS TELEPHONE: (925) 837-0585 CHARLES A. KOSS FAX (925) 838-598.3 MICHAEL J. MARKOWITZ RICHARD C. RAINES NAPA VALLEY OFFICE VICTOR J. CONTI THE. OFFICES AT SOUTHBRIDGE BARBARA OUVAL JEWELL 1030 MAIN STREET, SUITE 212 ROBERT M. FANUCCI ST. HELENA_, CALIFORNIA.44574 ALLAN G. MOORE TELEPHONE: (707Y 963-0909 STEPHEN T. BUEHL FAX: (707) 963-5527 AMANDA SEVINS �'i ALEXANDER L. SCHMID September-3,, 2002 PLEASE REPLY TO: MARTIN LYSONS CELIA M. KIM JANICE. L. FITZSIMMONS C-7 . _ man uc �' E ^; Chair, Supervisor Jahn Gioia D Board of Supervisors - s Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street T-) - c 4th Floor - - c- Martinez, CA 94553 Re: meal afS.RVPlannkg Com mUsion Denial for Develepment Permit DPO13077 Dear Supervisor Gioia: Our firm has been retained by Martin and Laurie Hess,the applicants and appellants for the above-referenced application. As you know, this application is to allow an I8-foot front- yard setback for a residence where a 25-foot setback is currently called for by the conditions of approval for the Final Development Plan. On May b, 2002 the Zoning Administrator made the necessary findings under the Ordinance Code and approved this application. The approval was upheld pursuant to a subsequent reconsideration,which was requested by the neighbor to the south. The neighbor appealed the Zoning Administrator's decisions to the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission,which denied the application. In fact, this developmentapplicationmeets or exceeds all the standards outlined in the County Ordinance Cade. By this letter,I appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors and request that the Board follow the recommendation of the County Zoning Administrator, grant the appeal, and allow the modification to the Final Development Plan. Project History Martin and Laurie Hess obtained building permits for a two-story residence based on plans submitted to the County. while staking the foundation prier to construction,Mr. Hess was informed that the plan depicting drip line for an existing heritage oak tree was out of date, Chair, Supervisor John Gioia Contra Costa County September 3,2402 Page 2 and that the drip line actually came closer to the proposed house than originally believed. In an effort to preserve the tree,the Hess's discussed the situation with an arborist,who gave several recommendations for preserving the integrity of the tree, among them moving the proposed house closer to the street. Mr. Hess didwhat he believed to be sufficient research to assure himself that the building's new location would not be in a setback area in the front yard. The original plan called for a 32-foot setback from the curb. Knowing that the required setback was 25 feet, Mr.Hess believed he could move the house forward 7 feet and still remain within the allowable building area on his parcel. As a final confirmation,he noted that his next door neighbor's home was constructed less than 25-feet from Corrie Place. Construction began on the home in its new location without incident. Later, upon being notified by a neighbor that there might be a setback issue, the County informed:Mr. Hess that the required 25-foot setback area in the front yard did not include seven feet of additional road right of way width that runs along the curbline on Corrie Place, and that,consequently,the house in its modified location actually was in the setback area. A stop work order was issued on December 4,200'1. County Staff met with the Hess's and they decided to file for an application to amend the final development plan. Because this change to the setback did not significantly impact the neighboring houses,and because the Ordinance Code findings could'easily be made for approval, the Zoning Administrator approved the amendment. Subsequently,under reconsideration requested by the neighbors, the approval was affirmed.' Citing the fact that construction of the Hess home had already begun before the County was made aware of the changes to the plan, the Planning Commission overturned the Zoning Administrator's approvals on appeal. However, the Zoning Administrator had also considered this fact and twice approved the plans for the new home with conditions of approval carefully crafted to minimize the impact of the new home on the neighboring parcels,and recognizing that the changes to the home meet all the standards for approval of a development permit as outlined in the County Ordinance Code. The Zoning Administrator issued a fair decision of the application, and her approval of this permit should be upheld. Ordinance Code Findings Can Be Made to Approve this Amendment Section 4-66.1804(b) of the County Ordinance code lists two findings that must be made in order to approve a modification to a Final Development Plan: Chair, Supervisor John Gioia Contra Costa County September 3, 2002 Page 3 1. That it(themodification)is consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 district; and 2. That the modification is compatible with other uses in the vicinity,both inside and outside the district. Regarding the first criterion, the intent and purpose of the P-1 district is to create a development that provides diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures,lot sizes,and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health,safety, and general welfare(County Ordinance Code Section 84-66.204). As the County Staff and Zoning Administrator correctly point out, modifying the front setback does not diminish the Intent and Purpose of the P-1 District. Moving the house forward certainly cannot be inconsistent with the diversification criterion. Regarding the second criterion, the house does not protrude toward Carrie Place in a way that significantly impacts either the view or privacy of either neighbor. The Hess house is only 15 inches closer to Corrie Place than the respondent's home and does not block the viewshed of either neighbor significantly more than the originally designed location of the house. In addition, the house was moved to save a heritage oak tree in the back yard. Saving heritage oaks is compatible with any land use in the vicinity,whether it is located in the district or not. Clearly the findings for approval of this modification can easily be made. The Mess's Moved the Rome in Good Faith Contrary to the neighbors' allegations, the Hess home was moved forward in good faith. Recognizing that moving the home would save the heritage oak on the property, Mr. Hess made the modification to the home location. He was not aware that the Public Utility Easement could not be counted as part of the setback area when the change was made. Once the County made hirci aware of this fact, he promptly filed an application for the modification. All of Mr. Hess's actions were in good faith, with the intent to save the heritage oak tree in the rear yard,and with due diligence to stay outside of the setback area. The Hess family should not now be punished for an honest mistake. The M4diffcation Does Not Significantly Impact the Neighbors As previously discussed, and as Staff has pointed out in their reports to both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission,the viewsheds of the neighboring parcels are Chair, Supervisor John Gioia Contra Casts County September 3,2002 Page 4' mostly unaffected by the modification. Conversely,denial of this modification would mean the elimination of an indoor parking spot,creating either additional on-street parking,or the need to construct an additional garage on the other side of the parking court. This would be a considerably worse impact, both on the Hess property and to the views of the other neighbors. As this modification represents the best alternative for all involved and for the neighborhood, it should be approved. The Fact That Construction of the House Has Commenced Is Not an issue Mr. Hess began construction of the house in good faith. The fact that construction had already begun should not be an issue here. The Board should look at this application on its merits,not on its history. As the findings can be made for the modification,the application should be approved. We are currently awaiting a transcript of the Planning Commission hearing. Because it has not yet arrived, we do not have available all the information to make a complete appeal. Therefore, we wish to reserve the right to supplement this letter with further arguments in favor of the modification. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, GAGEN,McCoy,McMAHON&ARMSTRONG A Professional Corporation Martin E. Lysons MEL cc: Carolyn Mills F:1CLMLA\34330\AppealLtr-090302.wpd LAW OFFICES OF GAGIEN, MCCOY, MCMAHON & ARMSTRONG ... WILLIAM E..GAGEN, JR. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION - DANVILLE OFFICE GREGORY L. MCCOY �` lF�r.... � - .. .. . .. .=�F:F3 1�,.• `x 279 FRONT STREET PATRICK J. MCMA«HON P. O. BOX 290 . MARK L.ARMSTRONG DANVILLE. CALWORNIA 6+462.45-0216 LINW K. COOMBS - T€LEPHONti {tt2S# 637-OSSS STEPHEN W. THOMAS CMARL£S A, tCOSS 2 � AM 10 2 FAX: (925) 639-5983 MICHAEL,J. MARKOWITZ � � - NAPA VALLEY 0FFICK RICHARD C., RAIAIES THE OFFICES AT..SOUTHBRIDGE VICTOR J. CONT{, 1030 MAIN STREET, SUITE ZIR - BARBARA LStJVALJ.EWELL k .:}«•. I`al FII ST. HELENA,,CALIFORNIA 04574 R08CRY M. FANUCCi TELEPHONE* (7071 003-0200 . ALLAN C. MOORS FAX. (7071 9153-SSa7 - STEPHEN T. BUCHL - - AMANDA.4£VINFa .. PLEASE REPLY TO: ALEXANDER L. SG-HMID .. CELIA LYSONS W KIM December 19 2002 JANICE,L. rITZSIMMONS UanAle Chair, Supervisor John Gioia Board of Supervisors Contra'Costa County 651 Pine Street, 4". Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Supplemental Leger q,f,Appeal ofSun Roan on Valley.Planning Commission Denial ofDevelopmentPermitDP013077 Dear Supervisor Grioia:, This is.a follow-up to MY letter.of September 3, 2002. Because :the transcript from the Planning Cumn-ission hearing was not yet available,we did not have all the information to make a complete appeal at that time. This letter addresses the comments made at the Planning Cornission hearing on.August 21,2002. As previously noted, this is an application for an 18-foot setback for a residence where a 25-foot setback is currently called for by the P-1 zoning conditions of approval. The home was moved.forward toward the street in order to save a heritage oak tree in the back yard, in accordance with an arborist°s recommendation. My first letter to you summarized the findings that must be made in order to approve a modification to a final development pian. The necessary findings for the amendment of development plan are not the same as those for a variance permit. The Zoning Administrator, in approving this development plan (twice), properly made the findings necessary for a development plan modification, the Planning Commission reversed,the Zoning Administrator and denied the amendment based on other criteria that are not relevant to the necessary findings. The two findings required by the County Ordinance Code for approval of a P-1 modification are outlined in.Section 84-66.1804(►)of the Code. The necessary findings are as follows: (1)that the application for a modification to a final development plan"is consistent with the Chair,Supervisor Jahn Gioia Contra Costa County : Uecentber 19 2002 Page 2 intent and purpose of the F-1 district";and(2)that the application is"compatible with other uses in the vicinity,both inside and outside the district." These findings can be made and have been made bythe Zoning Administrator. On request for reconsideration ofthe Zoning Administrator's decision,the CommunityDevelopmentrXectorupheldthe.findings andthe approval of the permit.. The San Ramon: Valley Planning Commission heard an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision.to approve thepro}ect on August 21,20€12. The record shows that the Commission did not consider the careful analysis of County Staft nor did,they consider the necessary findings outlined by the Ordinance Code. Nowhere in the record is there a discussion by the Commission of the fact that the necessary findings for approval of the modification had been made under Section,84.66.1804(b) of the Code. As a result, the Commission.denied the application using criteria of its own. We ask#hat the Board apply the criteria required by law in the County Ordinance Code,make the necessary findings for the modification of the P-1 consistent with the Zoning Administrator's decision, and approve the project application. Thele is No IMpliet to the NeIghbodug Parcels. As discussed in my previous letter,the.viewsheds of the neighboring parcels are essentially unaffected.by the modification. The Alamo Springs Homeowners.Association (ASOA) determined. s much when it approved the modification(See letters dated January I7'2002 and April 18,2002,from Peter Klein, President of the ASOA,attached hereto as Exhibits A and R, respectively.) Ironically, on the same date that the ASOA approved the Hess modification:, the ASOA also approved a reduction in setback for the residence owned by Bong Rte,who lives next door and>is opposing this modi.kation.' (Please refer to Exhibit A). Apparently,Mr. Rhim.feels that a reduction in setback should be allowed for him.but. for not for anyone-else. The Zoning Administrator agreed with the ASOA's assessment when it approved the modification,bothat the original Zoning Administrator hearing and in reconsideration of its first decision. The Planning Cotssion also seemed to agree with Staff and the Zoning Administrator that the viewsheds are not affected by the modification. One Commissioner pointed out that the hoose next door(the Rhine residence,Lot No. 45) is allowed a 20-foot setback, while Mr. Hess's house requires a 25-foot setback. (See Page p. 41, lines 9-1.4, Chair, Supervisor John Gioia Contra Costa County December 19 2002 : Page 3 Planning Commission Transcript.)' Lot No. 45 is,on a corner; it is therefore allowed a 20--foot setback on one side under the P-1. However, the 20-foot setback is not allowed under the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for Alamo Springs (hereinafter, "the CC&Rs"). Exhibit B of the CC&Rs,` esidential Design Guidelines", states explicitly that"side yards adjacent to a street shall be a mmmi um of 25 feet." (See Page 80 of the CC&Rs,attached to this letter as Exhibit D.)The Homeowners;'Association allowed an exception for the construction of this home, which is directly adjacent to the Hess home;the same exception is clearly appropriate for the Hess's home. The fact that the house next door was allowed an exception for the reduced setback is a strong indication that a reduced setback is compatible with the surrounding properties. leo negative impact has resulted from the reduced setback for the Rhim house; for the same reasons,no harm will therefore come as a result of allowing the Hess house a reduced setback. In the interest of fairness,this modification should be allowed. Another commissioner openly admitted there was no view issue or property value issue. (See p. 44 lines 3-4,PCT.)"If we had approved a P-1 with those,houses where they were, I think it would have been fine." (See p.44,p 8-9,PCT.)However,this Comn- ssion'denied the application anyway. Their denial,according to the record,was seemingly based on two issues not related to the necessary findings listed in the Ordinance Code:(1)that the fact that Mr. Hess commenced construction before discovering the setback issue was somehow an indication of"bad faith";and(2)that Section 84-56.1804,which outlines the procedure and criteria for a modification to a final development plan, does not apply to this application. Mr.Hess Acted in Ggod Faith ThroLighout the Proms. The Commission is apparently applying a"bad faith'' standard in denying the application, citing the fact that Mr.Hess moved his house forward without prior approval.Rather than consider the two findings needed for a P-1 modification, the Commission spoked punishing W.Hess for moving the house without prior permission. (See,e.g.,p 43,PCT, lines 15-20.) Leaving aside the issue that "good faith" is not a criterion listed in the Ordinance Code for a P-1 modification,Mr.Fess did not know that he had moved the house beyond the setback lime. The strut plan for this particular development has a peculiar cross-section; apparently, it is the only street in the subdivision that is configured with an additional seven feet of right of road right of way. In order to determine where the easement 'Hereinafter,the Planning Commission Transcript shall be referred to as the"PCT." Copies of the cited pages are attached hereto as Exhibit C. Chair,Supervisor John Gioia Contra Costa County December 19 2002 Page line lies, it is necessary to consult the original construction plans for the strut. It was Mr. Hess who went to the original engineer for a copy ofthe map to investigate the issue as soon as he discovered that there might be a setback problem. It was Mr. Hess who told the County there might be a setback issue and asked for guidMice from the County as to the next step. These are clearly not the actions of a person acting in badfaith. Not only did the Commission inappropriately apply their own standard of"bad faith to the process, they applied it unfairly to Mr. Hess. This I)ev o me t Pgrpiit Ane-admeni 11 Allowablender Ordinance CQde Section 84-66.1804. Larry Smith,representing the appellants at the Planning Commission hearing,summarized what seemed to be the general opinion of the Commission:"While it may be the intent and purpose of the P-1 district to allow flexibility to land use,that's not to say that once the P-1 district is determined it goes`through,the approval process, rigorous process that it gees through,that this flexibility continues to say,well no,,we can change it up." (P. 21, PCT, lines 13-18.) To the contrary; that is exactly the purpose of the P-1 Ordinance. The Ordinance requires that"the Zoning Administrator shall review approved final development plan applications for modification pursuantto and otherwise regulated by the land use permit provisions of Chapter 26-2.,. ' (Ordinance Code Section 84-66.1804(b))If the Ordinance does not allow you to "change it up,"thein the Ordinance is meaningless. The purpose of that specific language .is to allow and provide for changes to a given development plan, under the provisions of the.Cade,regardless of how large or small the changes are. One Commissioner echoed Mr. Smith's sentiments,stating that the F 1 ordinance"looks at the development as a whole" (p. 8, PCT, line 7.), and that to "forgive the rules.based on some planned development premise, one little corner,that just doesn't seem right to me.$ (p. 8,PCT,line 13-15.)But the Commissioner rnisch racterizes granting a modification as "forgiving the rules." Granting,a modification is precisely what the Ordinance Code anticipates in Section 84-66.1844(b).a change to a Final Development Plan that pertains to one part of the..development but is compatible with the rest of the uses in the vicinity. Granting this modification is not"forgiving the rules", granting the modification merely allows a change in the P-1 pursuant to the rules. The P-1 Ordinance was enacted to create the flexibility needed to make small changes to a Final Development Plan. Had the framers of Section4-66.1804 of the Ordinance Code intended to hold these modifications to a variance standard,this Ordinance would not have been necessary;they would have simply rewritten the variance criteria to apply to modifications to P-1. Chair,Supervisor John Gioia Contra Costa County December 19 2002' Page 5 The Alamo rove e t AssQd-a9ou'-InaUprggri&t& Used Va;ion a riteria in Recom rnendi ng,Denial'of the -1 ludMotion. The Alamo Improvement Association(AIA)denied moderation based,,not on standard for P-1 modification,but on a variance standard. The AIA's letter dated March 19,2002 states that"the committee felt it most appropriate to evaluate the request as if it were a variance application, because, if normal procedures had been followed, this would have been the proper application to request a change in the front setback." (A.copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit.E.) As demonstrated above,the application of variance criteria to a request for a P-1 modification is clearly inappropriate. As two of the members of the ATA Board of Directors also sit on the San Ramon Valley Planning Commission,it is likely that the same inappropriate standard was applied,explicitly or implicitly,during the Planning Commission hearing on August 2.1, 2002. Variance criteria have no place in this analysis. Under the criteria for a P-1 modification outlined above and in the County Ordinance Code, County staff has had no difficulty making the findings to support this modification. Granting this appeal and allowing the ,Hess family to proceed with the construction of their home is the only fair,just and legal way of resolving the issue of this permit application. Canclnsion. The findings for a P-1 modification are listed in the Ordinance Code in Section.84-66.1804. County staff and the Zoning Administrator have determined that the findings have been made for modification to allow for the reduced setback, All have recognized that this modification is appropriate because the impact to the surrounding neighbors and to the neighborhood is negligible. By contrast,the hardship that the Hess family would have to endure,should this application be denied would be extraordinary,both in terms of time and. expense. In addition to the substantial amounts of money needlessly wasted in tearing out the newly-constructed Hess garage,removing the front portion of the garage would create the need for another garage to be built on the property. Since both the CC&R.s,and the conditions of approval for the original subdivision require three garaged parsing spaces, removing the old garage{or any portion thereof j would only create another conflict with the CCRs,and possibly with the neighbors. Constructing a new ane.-car garage,which would have to be located on the other side of the driveway,would create afar greater impact on the neighborhood than any reduced setback for the existing garage. Therefore,denying the Hess family's application would ultimately be a detriment to the neighborhood. Chair, Supervisor John Gioia Contra.Costa County December 192002 Page b The Mess family is in the process of constructing a beautiful home in Alamo Springs. When complete, it will be an asset to the neighborhood and to Alamo in general. The setback reduction will not be noticeable to anyone who is not looking for it and the views afforded to-the neighbors will be almost entirely unaffected. Pleagrant this appeal of the Planning Commission decision, and allow the Hess family to proceed with the construction of their new home. Sincerely, GAGEN,McCOY,McMAHON'&ARMSTRONG A Professional Corporation artn E. Lysons MEL1ka Attachments cc by regular U.S.mail: Catherine Kutsuris Marty and Laurie Hess Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors cc by fax: Carolyn Mills F:\CLMLA\34530\GiaiaLzr-2f9Q2."d 1 BM DEV OPI� CORPORATION COMM CENM*8=11;4 mom B va r DrTELK CA3 PORNIA Csrs ►ty l3Is� t,l7�,oat B�ildg �'"7'�;2012 . 651 Fina Shxt 4*Flom,North Wigg MUtln94'Ca 94553-0095 eta:Rvpxt for cm=nc&s fromAl m.o SP*p 114A. .` Gcnitlemcn: on J`mwrj 16.1)02„at a*"t of&6 Alaraa SP*89 Homaown=Boal OfDkmkn and the D*p 11a1i1w Committm and':&Ser�' A�frena all invited' ri hbors;tho follow rewiwion im I,!& d, ccA;pprova a varivm for, ycean'bythe;I perw ownem at 339 Cc rdv Places �artln Hess Fina ty) acct 30 Chia Place(Bong l�Fes'')I ba#h ownem to deal�with any set bmdc�vari a sasvm bCo `tha Cows", Corm ►of CDDtM Shodd you have my qpUtions or need fmtbcr clarfmtira plea dcm*t hesi#�fe to Contact the t�isud. Si�cce�iy, . Peter Mai[%p CC:Marty Hess(VIa Fax) Bong ltbim(%rja Fax) Room Hmxtd (via F VMS ............... .................................... ...... .............................................................. .................... A r SpF*95 O"t r A v tia► C/o rrie co "SO ftb&IBM.' Suift 111 IDY;bl*.Cn!450 (925)551-7900 Dns M.Ba",Drectofr App 114.2002 Cr l ►rltpmeat D (Fax#9"1335- 9 Bc Maj 651 line st;,Nor&Nft 4"Flom Nom,Ca M553 Ric Vwl"m for 339 Can&JUm,.rte _ 1 r Mr.Barry: On Jar*r 17,2W2 our Ass on wrote a is tar to the Casxuan=ty Dovvdopmal 1 gWftca in whist we:Mmted the Aa ns M=val of vae''Me in cm uur 011 Wfth&a cdsft sift of hs a tart,the above refimeed lot. Tbm hu APPW&WY fano ad=cm tbisnftw The aishng pftatybvffk ham pme=a cxsncxs is a bU&on the&'V&oPMmt aad caum bo&mcioa ad&ancW &&Win to rtr b�rlu�cui. Mm Assodad on at its muting 4M Jammu 16,2002 adopted cerin mal pmCail es to be am that an cvcut lice this does not btf v m Veit. M=Cooty now mads to act gMmpdy to MAY0'tic matt=and allow the Hass bmily tD c ompplift thei r . ht4me. - gh+&d yuu re uim fhr&tr*9 fic3►m tho Ow as dation pleam call. By Pe tr, wn,P i&=t d�ft34dae 1 SAN RA It3N VALLEY REGI ORAL PLANU NG COl! I53ION 2 DAWILLE, CALIFORNIA 5 . 6 IN RE YTEM 4 - MART= #NIS.;LAttR=E SESS 7 COUNTY FILE DP013077 •- APPEAL or ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL Or $ DESIGN RESTRICTIONSOF ALAw CREEK FINAL DEVELOPMENT :PLAN TO ALLC3W AN 18-FOOT 9 FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR A RESIDENCE 10 11 TRANSCRIPT OF TPE-RECORI3ED PROCEEDINGS 12 MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2602 13 14 s 15 16 17 PRESENT 18 KAREN MCPBERSON, Chairperson 19 NIX-PBAEL GIBSON, Vice Chair SCOTT COUTURE, Commissioner 20 ROBERT I�LS, Commissioner 21 IML MATSUNAGA, Commissioner NANCY XULVIRILL, Commissioner 22 SHELLY NELY, Commissioner 23 24 Transcribed by: JORN A.' zANDON.ELLA, CSR No. C-795 25 E*Mff "dog Certified Shorthand Reporters 1 14S. RGLS: . It'.a wxi'tten in. t. 2 C©IMSSIQNER GIBSON:,, Black and white. So 3 not an architectural review kind of thing. 4 MS. WELLS: Na; ;. C0bk41SS-T0NER GIBSON: May, The reason I r m asking i 6 these question is because toMe the P1 ordinance looks at the development as a4 whals. You know, I mean when 8 you say you can have varied setbacks and ycu. can have a 9 little less hero, a little more there, that assumes 10 thatyou've lot a. whale clock here to deal >r .th oat 1Z just one little teeny earner of it: 12 And the idea that you can mart of forgive, you 13 know, forgive the rules based an same planned 14 development premise, you know, one little corner, that 15 just doesn't seem right to me. 16 You know, I mean it does seem more appropriate 17 once you get .down to the ,casae- where you can' t change 18 anything else about the development to use the 19 variance, you know, sort of mindset. Because you dant 20 have this sort of -- you can move everything around and 21 create a better whole kind of thing going on here, it, s 22 just less, you knew. 23 And so that legally, though, this is not a 24 variance, is that correct? 25 STAFF NMIBER: That's correct. It is not 3 j Certified Shorthand Reporters 8 2321 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94320-4808 REPOM71iG'SERVICE.INC. k P.O.Bax 4107•Concord,CA 34524.410:1 1 I know the►r+e'a a natural to probably to 2 . defer to staff and to, the Zoning Admi'nistrator's 3 decision,.. so..l thought maybe. Whaa I �roulrl do is try to 4 tell you why I :think the staff recommendation is wrong .5 and why the Zoning Administrator.* , decisions were 6 wrong.. _ 7 And the first and maybe most important thug from 8 -a strictly legal point of viewis what Commissioner 9 Gibsonalready point :out, the construction placed upon 10 the .standards for modification of a final development 11plan for PI district by the 'staff simply doesn' t make 12 any sense. 13 While int may be the intent and purpose ,of the P1 1'4 district 'toallow flexibility to land use, that' s not x 15 to say that once the P1 district is deterat<ined it goes 16 through the approval process, rigorous process that it 17 gees through, :that this. flexibility continues to say, 18 wtelZ,: no, we can change it up. 19 In fact, this particular P1 district, if you Zook 20 at the conditions of approval, sets very tight 21 standards on setbacks, even varying setbacks from lot 22 to lot, varying side yard setback for a corner lot from 23 the normal 20 feet to 25 feet. 24 So there's really' no. way the appellant believes, 25 Mr. Rhim believes that you can make the legal finding V $ Certified Shorthand Reporters if . 21 2822 S=weU Drive Concord,GA 94520-4808 REPORT'T1�IG SERVICE.INC.r PO.Box 4107• Cnnmrri.rA 94524.4107 1' remember very well that Alamo<'Spr ngs irta con+ditioaed 2 to haves the normal; .R20 setbacks, okay?. ThaiC+�unty's 3 ordinance says a front setback and a .a+�c r�dary front 4 setback, okay's ° It's 2'S feet on one side, 20 fast on 5 the other side. That,a if you're an. a, corner. So. the 6 property owners are allowed to `+ fatoose which setback they want to be 25 and which setback they want to be 8 20, okay? So the. fact. that it's not a side back, 10 actually a secondary front setback that is 2Q finet, 11 side setback is 15- or 20, depending on. So it' s not 12wrong that a house on a corner might be 20 feet away 13 from the street and the next. house down would be 14 raga%red to be 25 feet back. ' That''s nc►rmal. 15 And I also understand why :homeown+srs associations 16 tend to be pretty las in terms of what they really try 17 ' to force piec►p16 to do., because I do this in my work. I 18 mean it's like $ Resculean task; you know, to legally 19 enforce CC&Rs if you really are in a -_ it' s a long, _. 20 you know, litigation.-kind .of process. 21 And so homeowners associations, particularly ones 22 that are still controlled by the developer., they just 23 aren' t into that. you know, they don't want to, create, 2 you know, a big problem, you know, what' s a little 25 setback, dIM: Certified Shorthand Reporters zandoneft 1,tKli?f tRTI'_Cxt»7tP` TNt` 41 2821 Stamvel!Drive Concord,CA 94320.4808 rin ri.... •fn« . w_.. __ , n. ,... 1 But what.does it for me is it i0just not okay, 2 you know, to unilaterally. pick uP thea building and move 3 it somewhere from what the 'plans are. To me, that does 4 it. That is not okay. 5 I believe, . although it,s not something simple like 6 clipping off the roof or Chopping off the end of the 7 garage►, I believe with an unfortunate 'amount of demolition that would be necessary, I think t'ou' can put 9 a three--scar garage on the front of this YOU might 10 have a little bit smaller music room, a littler smaller 11 workshop I mean it would require a redesign of the 12 house. But I think at some: point the rules have to 13 stick, you know. 14 And now, this was riot an accident, you know. 15 Whether or not there was, you know, knowing that this 16 was encroaching into a setback, moving it is not okay, 17 you know? 18 And so I would vote frankly to just simply deny 19 this and let the applicant kind of figure out a new 20 design for the front of his house, 21 CON14ISSIONER. Approve 22 COMISSIONER GIBSON: Approve the appeal. 23 CBAIRPER W McPBERSON: . Commissioner Neely. 24 COMI'SSIONER NEMLI: 0hF I have a lot of thoughts 25 on this. One, as Commissioner Gibson pointed out, the ZandOlUffilk Certified Shordmd Reporters Q 2821 St weU T7reve-Concord*CA 94520.4808 REPdMG SES.IIVC P.O.Box 4107,Concord,CA 94324-4107 (925)685-6222•Fu-(925)685-3829 .......... 1 Pl is very specific in 'Matti ng the guide2ine, s and the 2 standards', and it'a in exchange for a great deal of 3 latitude in designing .the overall project. And an 4 such, I think those should be .sacred. 5 If Z were . looking at this Project the way that the 6 AIA did and treating it as a- rtfan+�er I could not find 7 grounds for approving variance that would not actually grant special'privilege, . cr it wouldn' t be --' it would constitute a grant of .special privile e sto approve a 10 variance of this nature. 11 Pro= a practical sta,n dpatnt, itsnot Soil to be 12 widened. And the choice between saving a 'heritage oak 13 or a setback variance, you know, I meats that's a 14 no-bra finer 1s' ` But what it comes, down to for me is Ido not think 16 that this eras as above bos,rd action. And it's a matter 17' of ;Principle for me. And I am strongly inclined to 18 recommend that we grant the appeal and as Commissioner - 19: Gibson suggested let the, you know, let they applicant 20 fi _ guru cut a way to mare it conform. 21 And never mind's the reducing the height, I dont t 22 think that does it. I think it has to be at the 23 setback 24 CHAIRPERSt�N McPSMSON; Commissioner Couture. 25 COI�3iaSSIONER Ct'VTup.Z This is, pretty ugly, I Certified Shorthand Reporters AF.P0WrMf,± >vrc rear , 43 2s21 Stanwell Drive•Concord,CA 94520-48D8 1 guess.. �In; arty opinion. Basically ='m► gonna agree with 2 the Commissioners that have already talked. 3 I don' t think that there's a view issue. _ 'don' t 4 think there' s particularly a property value issue, if 5 you look at Khat the sight lines are and things from 6 Mr, Rhim's house or from the -Other r direction, the 7 pictures we .were looking at. If we had originally 8 approved a Pi with thosehouses where they Frere, I 9 think it w6uld have been ,fine. And if you Zook in one 10 direction from a house, you see a house, you look in 11 the other direction, you see the other part of the 12 house So that' s not the site direction that you 13 picked that lot for. 14 Ozs the other hand., that's not where! `the house is. 15 supposed to be. And I think there is plenty of notice: 15 and reason to double check were we putting it in the 17 right place. SO it appears he knew ha wasn' t gutting 18 it where. it .was, on the plan in the first place. 19 SoI agree, you idon.'t just move a house. There' s 20 a spot for it. That's whet it' s supposed to be. And 21 you don' t just be cavalier about siting .it someplace 22else: to get a bigger back yard or for any reason. So 23' 2'm inclined to agree. 24 CHAIRPERSON mcpHHRSdN: Go ahead. 25 CObMSSIONER; A little story. When I went up + Certified Shorthand Reporters REPU G C 44 2321$tanweR Drive•Concord,CA 94520 4808 P.O.Box 4107 rnnrnrrl-CA 44.344.41117 Aluew Swings Dalip Eiaidelhatx l"► 1217197 "+,F 4 SZMCKS A.Primary Residence . e Primary residences shat!Jars the iistlawing iethackc f FMCV MbIlmum 25 feet from Propsety IN. . Side: Mblh=m IS fears:MWORml Vjr*u taW 35 feet::aide Yards+*seat to a street sisait be a Minimum of M feet. Rear. Mhaitaum 25 f mst, Late 26,29,36 staff-have s matt YNd arc of Ott Peet. Lute 27 orad 21 stud1 have a front Yam sat wk of 30 feet, IL Andfary Siruaantzs Demached Anciltaiy structures shall have the farrowing>sethaaksr Front: f+ nuaat is s dlxutncs sg1w to the Primary R,eddonce setback or 25 fent trona pmPeltY Iters VAwkwar k greater. Skk Minimum 15 feet:ualeaa Id 5D fast or over from frtmt property lase, then it S•fit tnwhou+as UftU a can big used. - : bit mans 3 fect. � oo' bmitnum cteuataace to dructan a • sparation is 6 feet. ' All request for variances must be approved by A.C.C,plot to beingsubmiitted to the appropriur planning departments MAZERUM AND>OR3 .S High quality materials that WHI endues thus said are appropriate to the arehi style mum be used at At&=Spxi W—Tire foli wkc materials and colors are.didw encouraged or disaxnnpd. For the PuMmas of el s guidalinw.the term`DbOMAC shah rnaaut prohibited'ad.t enter, builder arid/or architect w offer a prapejustrlication to allow a varlance to be trantail bytlte A.C.C. E::ICr!.p=WA�LIS Lang unhaterrupted exsa'dw vans should be ava"on an strucdtres. All exim or naafi!should have reiiof to allow interplay of shadows and liftVirig. Integration of varied terimm,=Be and designs'accants on buiidieg walla can soften she design and Anist In whteving a badaace betwoon a rectum and to nia. Encouraged: Malted Gemco t Plasia."V1d Vpliad sYndaetic plaster(€.a.drYvh),:tams or hick musO ry,dist concrete,gaped piaster detailing and an ares wm aragw.hbxed at stadaed dimensional hffldw siding ftrW=utjVi &beyeW by siding,,e }Is ask ivid batt regdres. adequate paint€ng,staining,preswring and tawaeaaatce lir idsure against unauen r�atiterio black t6 -so- 'Maw "✓.r... J M MHo fair rw CmmbY Wre P.O.BOX 2n • AIAH0.CAIROOU 9M • .(925)'8%a6C6 BY FAX TO 335-1222 March 19,2fl02 Community Developmerrt Dept. 65-1 Pine St.,0 Floor,N.Wing Martine,CA 94533-M5 Attn:. Carolyn M R31s Re: DP.01-3077 Site: 339 Corrie Place Request to ie,view.a development permit change for the constiuctibn of asingle family home withini a portion of the front setback reducing the.front setback to 18 ft. 9 in. zh "e 25 ft. is required}#o avoid enccrciachment into dripline of heritago oak tree: P.1 zoning, Dear Ms.Milts:. Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo lmpravement Association's Planning Committee on March 13e and by our Board the fallowing night. Applicantlowner made,presentation and demonstrated a good understanding of issues and requirements. There-was sig ufiiccant discussion on the current situation(project is under a County stop-work order)and reasons for status. It was determined by Applicant/Owner that the original surveying'perf`med;and maps prep `ed. by Alamo Springs did not accurately represent the oak tree.located at the northern center property lime and the location of its.dripline. This differenc built e impacted the location of the residence to be At the time,it was unknown there was an approx. 7 ft. e"ement along the front curbside of the lot. Corrie Place apparently-is the only street located within Alamo Springs with such an easement. Relying upon a visual measurement of25-ft from the oarl,side and the p640011 of the neighbor's house J: located iminediateiyto the south and on the corner of Corrie place-and Alamo Springs Drive:and apparently without checking Ior easements,review with the Cciunty ar Alamo Springs HOA architecturai committee,the residence was relocated by the Applicant/owner forward on the lot approx. 7 ft..to build outside of the oales dripline. Apparently several County permit inspections were made during discovered. this time and the problem was not Finally, only after a neighbor's complaint was made to the County:and a site visit conducted was the problem discovered. ` Our committee is sympathetic to the applicant/owner's position in that it appears their mistake(s)were made unintentionally and ultimately at s%gnficant personal expense. aw E - •� , AIM r ray P.O.BOX M A1AMO,CALtb"OM 9JT)W (9�5).8W However,in review..cfthis applicati©n, our cornnrittee felt rt most appropriate to evaluate the request as if it were a variance application,because if normal procedures had been followed, thhis would have been the proper application to request a change in the front setback. By doing.so,we would need to justify recommending approvalby se g a finding. .After significant review,our planning com i ttee could not dsv_el�a finding that would' the'residence forward and reducingthe front setback, j�moving ck,regardless of current situation in which the residence is already partially constructed, Had this request been reviewed solely as;,a vice . application with the circumstance of tree location, t,woutd clearly be recommended for denial. Asa: result and to be consistent, our reconunendation is to deny the application. Adwwever,it is noted that as presented by the County,the application - development Permit. It zna v requests a"gage"in the axisting. . may.very well be that.the County,.does not require a required for a variance. It is also noted that a� speao for flus as is pparortt!ither the County inspectors or the.Alamo Springs. tectural 6=Wttee were aware oft easement condition for this street untit'after the fhct corr#ributing to the plicant/Uwnees dilemma.. It is'also noted that the Alamo.S - Committee has, after review of the situation unci to coirect it, recommended retroactivve.approval foprings rt both the Applicarrtfflwnets parcel and that€�f his neighbor's parcel immediately to the south after finding both of them to not be in compliance. S' care g an lxctmn Comsmittee` _ cc: AIA Secretary Miu*and Laurie Hess PERTINENT STAFF REPORTS .:......................................... FILE Agenda Item Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MondayMay 6, 2002 I. INTRODUCTION MARTIN AND LAURIE HESS (Applicant & Owner), County Pile #DPO13077: The applicant requests an amendment to the Alamo Springs final development plan design criteria to allow an 14'-foot front yard setbackwhere a minimum 25 feet is required and to allow improvements (retaining wall)within portions of the driplines of two mature oak trees that the County has designated as Heritage Trees under the Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance. The subject site is located at 339 Corrie Place, in the Alamo area. (P-1) (ZA.: R-15)(CT: 3462.01)(Parcel##: 197- 450-015. 97450-015. 11. SUMMARY OP REVIEW Last year, the County issued building permits for a two-story residence and accessory structures based on information contained in the plan. The County based its decision on site plan information indicating the distance of the proposed structure from the front property line. It also was based on no improvements proposed:within the respective driplines of two mature oak trees located in the rearyard that the Board of Supervisors has designated for heritage status, and the applicant's attestation that the information on the two oak trees was accurate. Construction has commenced and passed several inspections before it carne to the attention of the County that construction was not occurring as had been represented on the building permit site plans. New information indicates that the as-built project requires entitlement actions to allow the property to be placed closer to the front property line than presently permitted and to allow improvements within the driplines of the two heritage oak trees. While the residence is nearly complete, the Building Inspection Department has placed a stop work order on the permit. To try to remedy the zoning and building permit violations, the applicant has elected to file this application to try to obtain a zoning approval, and then make necessary amendments to the building permit. lI. RECOMMENDAT10N Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator: A. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt a categorical exempt determination (Class 5) for this project; and B. Approve the amendment to the final development plan, subject to conditions. III. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Pian: The General Plan designation is Single Family Residential. B. Zoning: The site is zoned Planned Unit District (P-1), minimum lot size is 20,000 s.f.. C. CEQA Determination Status: Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator determine that the project is categorically exempt from the review requirements of the California'Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Guidelines section 15305 (Class 5, Miner Alterations to Land Use Limitations). D. Application Processing; Considerations — This application was filed with the Community Development Department on December 20,2001. Shortly after the application was filed, staff informed the applicant that additional information was needed on the application. After additional information was received from the applicant on February 1, 2002,the application subsequently was accepted as complete (by default) on March 3, 2002. Should the Zoning Administrator adopt the proposed CEQA determination, then the;Zoning; Administrator will have 60 days from that date to render a decision on this project. As part of the standard development permit application process, it is the County's standard practice to refer the application to potentially interested public:agencies and community groups while the application is being reviewed for completeness, to solicit their comments before a staff reportis prepared and the application scheduled for hearing. That practice was followed in this instance. Shortly after the application was received, the application was referred to potentially interested agencies and groups. S-2 One of the groups that were included in the referral is the Alamo Improvement Association. Its response was apparently delayed because the applicant did not attend one of their meetings (see attached correspondence from the Association). Due to that delay, staff was not able to complete the staff report until recently. IV. SITE AND AREA DESCRIPTION The property is located in the northern portion sof the Alamo Springs Subdivision (#7452) in Alma The subdivision is located on the east side of 1-680 near the Danville town limits and is reached via La Gouda Way to Alamo Springs Drive. Bath the County and the Town of Danville jointly approved it. The project straddles the boundary of the two jurisdictions. The house is located within the unincorporated portion, on Corrie Place,which is a short street extending off of Alamo Springs Drive. The lot is the second parcel in from the Corrie Place/Alamo Springs intersection. With the exception of one lot, all of the remaining lots on the east side of Corrie Place have been built upon. Can the west side of the street one house is under construction and located directly across from the Hess house. The remaining, lots are vacant. This is a new subdivision of unique luxury homes, many with views of the greater Alamo area. and Mt.Diablo. The lot is level with the exception of the rear yard where it slopes down to the adjoining lot. The site contains two large oak trees in the rear of the property that the Board of Supervisors designated as heritage trees. One of the trees is located in the northeastcorner of the rear yard and a second heritage oak is located just outside the rear property line on the east side of the property. The house has been sited to stag out of the on-site oak tree drip line. The applicant has constructed a two-story residence consisting of 5,966.5 square feet on a'`24,650 square foot lot. The foundation, framing,roof and exterior walls have been installed. A pool house has been partially constructed in the rear yard. V. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant has requested to amend the Final Development Plan to allow an 18'9" frontyard setback where a 25-foot setback is required. The amendment would modify a condition of approval that regulates yard standards. Condition # 20 reads: "Dimensional yard standards shall be as follows: Front. Minimum 25feetfrom property lines. S-3 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................... Side: Minimum l5feet; minimum aggregate total 35 feet;sideyards adjacent to a street shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Rear:' Minimum 25 feet. Lots 26, 29, and 30 shall have afrontyard setback of 40 feet. Lots 27 and 28 shall have a frontyard setback of 34 feet. The amendment to the final map would require Condition 20 to be modified to read: Lot 44 shaft have afrontyard setback of 18 feet VI. AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies have no comments on the application: 0 San Ramon Valley Fire District VII, PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Alamo Improvement Association -The Alamo Improvement Association reviewed the application at their March 13ffi meeting. The AIA reviewed the application as if house construction had not begun. They determined that they could not make a finding that would justify reducing the front setback and consequently are recommending denial of the application. (Refer to attached letter.) B. Alamo Springs-HOA Design Review Committee-The Alamo Springs Homeowners Association Design Review Committee heard the matter at their meeting of January 16, 2002. It was determined by the ASHADRC to approve a"variance at 339 Corrie Place". (Refer to attached letter.) C. Comments from Neighbor- Comments have been received from the neighbors(Gerald and Mary Henderson),whose house is under construction at 135 Alamo Springs Drive. (Their side yard is located across the street from the applicant's house.) The Hendersons are opposed to allowing the amendment to the Final Development Plan citing that 6.2 feet of open space has been taken from the neighbors for the personal use of the Hess family. (Refer to attached letters.) VIII. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. Determination of Zoning Ordinance Compliance of Building Permit—In April 2001,the Community Development Department determined compliance with Final Development Plan(FDP)design criteria and Heritage Tree Ordinance S-4 ........................................................................................................ ....................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... ....................................................... restrictions for a proposed residence at the site. That determination was based on information on the submitted plans: • that proposed development would meet the minimum yard (structure setback)standards of the FDP; and • an affidavit from the applicant attesting that information on trees including the tree dripline is accurate. Attached is a copy of the construction site plan on which the building permit is based. It provided for a minimum 25-foot setback from the front property line(Corrie Place right-of-way). Rearyard Poolhouse and Regaard improvements—The applicant also received clearance for a poolhouse and attached crib wall in the rearyard. Presumably,the crib wall is intended to support fill to extend the area of the rearyard. The construction plans showed these improvements more than 3- feet from nearby property lines and outside the driplines of the two heritage oak trees. Subsequently,based on those cleared plans, the Building Inspection Department 'issued building permits, and construction began on the proposed residence and accessory structures. B. Discovery of Development Inconsistency with Building Permit Plans— After construction of the'residence had begun,Building Inspection Department staff discovered that the residence was being built closer to the street than is shown on the permitted plans.' On December 4, 2001, the Building Inspection Department issueda"stop work"order to the applicant because the residence had not been built to the approved plans and extended into an established setback. At that time the applicant was informed that he could either file an application with the County to try to obtain an approved amendment to the Alamo Springs Final Development Plan design criteria that would allow the residence to remain,or remove a portion of the structure to meet the setback requirements. The applicant met with staff and was'averse to changing the plans,and instead opted to file an amendment to the final development plan. Revised'Permit Inspection Procedures--In a memorandum dated December 4, 2001 (attached), the Building Inspection Director has instituted a procedural requirement that all new building permits obtain a survey by a licensed surveyor or licensed civil engineer to establish property lines, and that a certification letter must be issued at or before the foundation inspection will be approved. k A land surveyor has subsequently determined that the residence is sited 18.84 feet from the Corrie Place right-of-way. See attached surveyor's np. S-5 ................................... ....................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................... __ _ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... .............................. IX.DISCUSSION The purpose of the modification to the front yard setback is to address an existing condition that resulted when the house was staked and the foundations poured. The error in staking is the result of several factors as identified by the applicant in his response to the County letter requesting additional infon-nation to complete the application. It appears that the dripline of the heritage oak tree located in the northeast comer of the lot had not been properly drawn in the original site plans approved by Community Development Department. Upon staking the foundation, the applicant found that the northeast comer was located too close to the oak tree, (i.e., under the dripline) and therefore, thought the house should be moved away from the tree. The applicant thought he could do so and remain within the setback. The original site plan had a 32-ft. setback from the curb to the front of the house,of which 7 feet was a public utility easement. The applicant assumed he had adequate room to move the house forward without encroaching into the 25-ft. setback. The applicant stated he was unaware that-a 7-foot wide public utility easement extended across the front of the property. 2 When the Building Inspector came to the site to check the location of the foundation,the contractor suggested measuring from the curb line markers,which the inspector used to determine that the foundation was not within the setback. Construction of the house proceeded until a complaint was filed with the County. The Building Inspector and her Supervisor made an inspection and found that the setback was not in compliance with the County ordinance and issued a stop work order. The applicant may have also based his decision to relocate the residence based on the postion of an adjoining residence(Rhim)at the comer of Corrie Place and Alamo Springs Drive. That resident was permitted to site a residence within 20 feet of the Corrie Place right-of-way. It should be noted that placement of the Rhim residence within 20 feet of Corrie Place was an error in that the FDP required even secondary setbacks("sideyard adjacent to a street")to observe a minimum 25-foot setback. That residence has been completed and finaled. To avoid a recurrence of an error in determining compliance with design criteria, the County has retained a private consultant to review and advise staff prior to clearance of future building permits within the Alamo Springs project. If this application to amend the condition for a 25-foot frontyard setback had been submitted prior to constructing the house, it is likely the request would have been denied and the applicant told to reduce the size of the house in order to fit it within the building envelope. However, this application is after the fact,and The PUE is actually five-feet in width(see attached excerpt from the Final Map). S-6 .. ......... .......................I...................................................I............... .............................. ............................................................................. ..................................................................................................... ............. consideration must be given as to whether modifications to the house should be made that would bring the structure into conformance. The house is designed around_a front courtyard with two wings extending perpendicular to a central core. The southerly wing accommodates the three-car garage and extends out further than the northerly wing. The garage is turned perpendicular to the street so when entering the garage the driver must make a sharp right turn from the central courtyard. The side of the garage facing the street is the portion of the house that encroaches into the setback. The garage is split into two sections a single car entrance and a double car entrance. The double car entrance is located closest to the street. One option to consider is requiring the applicant to move the existing garage wall and eliminate 6'2"from the garage in order to stay within the setback. This would eliminate a portion of one parking space,thereby reducing the garage to a two-car garage. This would make it necessary to park the third vehicle in the guest parking area that is located directly across from the garage in front of the house. A second option is to move the existing garage wall and construct a single-car garage in the area currently designated for guest parking on the north side of the lot. There would be adequate room to accommodate a single-car garage and a guest parking space next to it. The second uncovered guest parking space could be located along the street side of the two-car garage. While this option would provide the equivalent of a three-car,garage as originally designed,it would significantly alter the front elevation of the northerly wing. The views from the street would be of the sides of two garages with little detail,rather than a front elevation of the house that has a balcony, wood trim,and two sets of French doors. Because the street curves,it appears that the Hess house is set back further than the side of the adjoining house,when in fact the Hess house is located 1 foot 3 inches closer to the street. This is evident when viewed from Alamo Springs Drive looking north or when viewed from the north along Corrie Place. A. Appropriateness of Use: The proposed change in Condition of Approval#20 would be applied only to the structure in question and would not set a precedent for the remaining undeveloped lots. The request is appropriate given the construction activities that have taken place on the site. B. Site Plan Analysis: The site is located within the Alamo Springs Subdivision (# 7452)at the southeastern edge of Alamo. The lot is a relatively flat with the exception of the rear yard sloping towards the scenic easement. Lots along Corrie Place are stepped with a grade separation ranging from 3 to 10 feet. The site is accessed directly from Corrie Place. Single family residences abut the subject parcel, and one residence and an undeveloped parcel are located S-7 across the street. The rear property lineabuts the undeveloped portion of the 85-acre estate lot( 38). The General Plan designation is Single Family Low (SL), and the zoning is P-1. B. Compatibility with Regulato , Programs: The proposed modification to the Condition of Approval would be compatible with the zoning requirements of a P-1 District. The modification is compatible the General Plan Designation. C. General Plan/Zoning compliance: The proposed modification will maintain compliance with Zoning and the General Plan.. D. Response to Agency/Public Comments: Public agencies have had no comments on the request to modify the Condition. However,comments received from the Alamo Improvement'Association recommended denial of the requested modification. The Alamo Springs Homeowner's Association approved the modification even though the setback toes not meet the Alamo Springs Design Guidelines. Neighbors located across the street object to the requested change citing a violation of the building code and eliminating a strip of land 6.2 feet deep and 24 feet long from open space. X. OTHER ALTERATIONS TO BUILDING PERMIT SITE PLANS There are other small modifications to the building permit site plans involving rearyard improvements. • The location of the poolhouse has been adjusted closer to the rear property line. The applicant has begun the construction of the structure in this location. • The amended site plan contains new information on the location of the tree driplines. The retaining wall(and presumably related fill not shown on the site plan)would marginally encroach within the dripline of the two heritage trees. A. Poolhouse Staff has discussed the revised plans with the Building Inspection Department(Gana Thomas). The 1/28/£12 "As-Built"Plans show a structure sited less than 3-feet from the property lime. Normally that proximity to a property line might require special design restrictions (e.g. one-hour firewall). However,that Department indicated that the only portion of the building located within three feet of the property line is an open stairways;the rest of the structure is more than three- feet removed. therefore, it does not feel that any special design alterations are needed to comply with the building code. S-8 .................................................................................................................. .......................................................... Similarly, the Community Development Department has determined that the revised location of the poolhouse also complies with the FDP design criteria. The zoning ordinanceexempts open stairways from structure setback requirements. B. Revised Site Plans Showing Mminally Larger Dripline Areas for Two Heritage Trees Due to the larger dripline areas of the two heritage trees,it is now evident that the proposed retaining wall(and;,presumably fill area), marginally encroaches within the dripline of the two oak.trees. The Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance and the Tree Protection Ordinance govern this alteration'within the driplines of the trees. Standard(ordinance)tree protection measures from those ordinances should be incorporated into any approval of this project. Further,prior to resuming work,the applicant'should be required to provide a report prepared by a certified arborist on the project's impact to the trees and appropriate mitigations to protect the trees, subject to staff review and approval. The extent of any grading changes(fill),including impact on the area within the dripline of the heritage trees has not yet,been fully disclosed. Depending on its configuration, it may require approval of a separate tree permit. Presumably,this site plan detail will became clearer when the construction plans for the swimming pool are submitted to the County. XI. FINDINGS Before the County may grant a modification to a Final Development Plan,the Planned Unit District ordinance requires that the Zoning Administrator make two findings. • The modification will meet the intent and purpose of the Planned Unit District;and • The modifications will be compatible with adjoining uses both inside of and outside of the P-1 District. The Intent and Purpose of the P-1 District(Section 84-66.204)is to create a development that provides diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings, structures, lot sizes,and open spaces while insuring substantial compliance with the general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, S-'9 safety and general welfare. The conditionsof approval placed on the,project regulate certain aspects of the development, such as the setback distances. Staff finds that non-compliance with the front setback does not diminish the Intent and Purpose of the P-1 district. Although the placement of the house within the front setback was a mistake of the property owner, flexibility in the design and placement of the structure on the lots is encouraged with a P-1 zone. Moving the house forward,while violating the front setback condition,does not appear to be inconsistent with Section.84-66.204 of the ordinance. From a compatibility standpoint,the house does not protrude toward Corrie Place much(1'3")beyond the neighboring house to the south,nor does it encroach into the viewshed of the house located across the street. It is staff's understanding that the house was moved closer to the street to avoid damage to a heritage oak tree that is located at the northeast comet`of the Douse. Since this particular tree was designated in the subdivision map as a heritage tree to be preserved and avoided,moving the footprint towards the street recognized this situation. While reducing the footprint of the house would have been a preferable solution to the problem,nevertheless the house has been constructed as originally designed. To require either option, as discussed above,would alter the front view and may create a more cluttered appearance,particularly if cars are left parked in the guest parking spaces or on the apron, or if a single-car garage is built onto the north wing. Staff finds that the amendment to the final map does not set a precedent for similar requests for the following reasons: 1) a mistake was made by the applicant and his contractor in the understanding of the definition of the frontyard setback, and.2)the house was moved forward for specific purpose—to avoid the heritage oak tree,a situation peculiar to Lot 44. XII.' CONCLUSION Staff has concluded that modifying the Condition of Approval in question is appropriate for the following reasons: 1) Moving the house towards Corrie Place protects the root structure of a heritage oak tree; 2) Removing a portion of the garage would eliminate one enclosed parking space,which could result in more cars parked in the front of the house creating more visual clutter; 3) Constructing a single-car garage across the driveway as an extension to the north wing would significantly alter the design of the front facade and the openness created by the guest parking area would be eliminated; and S10 ''I'll........I...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4) Compatibility and consistency with the Intent and Purpose of the P-1 district would be maintained even if the Condition of Approval#20 is modified. H.AdpO13077-c.rpt Attachments: Exhibit A: Project Location Map Exhibit B. Zoning Map Exhibit C: General Plan Map Exhibit D: Site Plan (dated 2/1/02) Exhibit E: Photos of construction Exhibit F: Copy of stop work order Exhibit G: Letters from AIA, ASHA,Henderson Assessor's Map Building Permit Site Plans Hess Residence Poolhouse Rhim,Residence 12/4/01 BID memo on Instituting Survey Procedures Subdivision Final Map 2/1,102 Letter from Applicant S41 ............. ...............I........................... . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................... ........................................................... .................... ...... ....................................................................................................................... . . .............................................-.1-1...................-1 11-....--........ ................................................................... MAPS .................................... ...............- .................................. ........................................................................................................ .................................................. ......................I.............................. L R4 L ww 00, MW M OR MUM,19 !11w, �Nf vo j YA Im Fri OR Contra Costa C Public Works D EXHIBIT B: ZONING e�fft► _ `\� �: ------ MAP J Sol- CA 16 U.w N $ YL 9q ` l Y4tl� � Z EXH7I`jBIT C• GEN'AL �1V n , 1-Y9C iSL os 08 ot NY f C _kt* { 1 'WL 4a, PSI PROJECT S ITE AL' ' Peak Q ' = °°taxS "3r } 21 _._._:- r PF 26 PR PR x .lq i ALa _ol, ,fit ,,ip .-. '... .. �;�'`^ 32 . ... ...... o ......:. cr x u E ++fill � � •�� e�.'� 4! '� �. ti � I'� d '✓ C' 6 �t i� i gi'—y.rte t.' S 6 4 lag 01 LA fsj LO - �, K t� ��•.._"" '� ,� �C � �� yy {�g.J�3� ;� Vim' M � � � yW q�yp i � S +t)} "�4;y 1•'.' �+� 'gt0'3$Y W�b .� �� •f$G� .ea 'aF2F L •�4 W � y u � Ci`yy t,. y ,"�""� �ryy ''ll �•_.-,��._.-- �f.-•-:^~ V � �} .n ..LL \�65 ♦ O H o sF a P d- °� � � t'� -�f� .,..��' ••-.--'-- H1��a'i H goz.N � � � F Cif IL7� C7 '"-e.tea& ccr (ey § y fi cy Cs a 0` st ar rTjo P c �» g rrr � ,bp t^`�lY si8g fir' d b m M 'rr !A'GA ct7 0 it +� - Sy cr rl«6Z L fiiL•y Cl. d airrr s QO B. e CJ r. O2Nr�1� fi IVJi iL R.34.5 ch h g tlA g18` ? b fit. JQxB{, "� ytlyS '�i6 y5ti 1 � tZ H3�1'tl�A�� •llN I Jt{�' S� � MJ f,iiK1$�hHi`4{p49`W t J/ Ha w r • v @� �8w Iftq AN p �� oa10, Zoo ow �'orix h hw a PHOTOS -+n xr k Y 3 339 CorrieF: . 7 - 15ti ` Owner: Martin Hess 4y b.s �.. eta.;•^"��f, '" ',: 339 Corrie Place- Alamo, Ca r W t ,. " e k IMF ,CPN O: 197450-015 * z Owner mMartin Hess , . . i } �.cr. rb 339 Corrie Place- Alamo, Pat Pa .197 -015 Darner: Martin Y . v �a x q 339 Corrie - Alamo, C h ., ate . ,PN: 197450-015 " Owner: Martin Hess �:r I ISO I U yl t 1 i, J S uMMilm l�.�: F s � Y ry C�� 'K'Yt' •�� 'WtM,w. 114 ,J�' },. F: {4 � / •ranKgSdnDyD90o9w k, .�'�'� ' y XMAS tf t ,. � aim xAd{ awl r �, �n.�. fi Asn r 2� ,w �✓'�`{y :f � t�. � a s r ,�`{5 +�.-� Lh � Ht� c�[s` { '} ,y r��a � •f,+rj�6t a ry� - },i. ,, T.: ..q r>< �,,}5.•c�¢yr,Yy�"f ,y a INN 5'��; ,�� r iq 9 fir. `v',y •� ✓'- ',.} �£ `' 101 �h�YflOO J �� .pf $• ,. -ggg �b s � %kk � r .41 All; F 3�2 3°' ? z�kr r �f- ,� $� �it s'r, a '$• I} ng... rkY �attA - itf}` yn gm how .T r <Y •'•"N. ' �{C SSf;+may�"�x��A; Nt � '�L F < g� F�Yt r 4 8�s n Corea Place- Alamo, Ca N: -450-015 Owner: Martin Hess 5 r t dy } 3Z J4< < +! Y F R � f U, iRY •n 4 Y , nv— .. V x a � fs : r S { ,r• 4• Wit- ��'i< �f 4�r ., .. .. .•�,. �-'y 3rr Fry,F st,�n'`'<^S't° h.,: F 4 :}r' .S';�'�' s{r� ,4. .. �� riw �,r4t�:�3 "^�3". -. 4`y r ',4y,: ,k ., a• A t t krr tyfr��.r'��kW`?.c •'h ��Y J~r{� '{ h° ) Y� <U� } {,tyr 7}. { � ...... ,� rrJc.,y/<.R 4 f4`r. }c{�+}v�4�.,.•ttfi 4 ate{ , } '.¢S y. . } fh tn.�ae�,�< 4+n:ok 4 .t,"2��t•F• '�`�y' � xY i .e t�-r L rnka�,n 4t... .r''�/�f `• s ,, > r.A>��'�fc ...r k �v a�h~K7�4G��✓+i ��} 4,,,. �, ,�'4 f. > a fr F #4} 4< h � " �',YsM.34ka�+a .f'.• aA'K"�'�is 4�4 52 a�"r �tK x�' ..�'s: �< �`�+}t r �' k,, �y.. • .,,< a< }�,g > Z'L f.� r'�4 yr�y�f a v� r. }t r f••� � . R ',,�'•�y�'- 3 } < '°'�,y.�As rz° � �' ��. r£� st� ,�1� } y 2' }k•t ` : +�.h`• 4 � < .w �,� y�„ ty�'t'�' .4 "�.- r � <,,.": f4 -�,•,�,fi Cky. k �. „ , . k♦E 4 3 � K' jr f-'� LXX4"t U a t .a',�i%,4� .� .L'mak`f ty„ L < > •�,'°�,+,�}�,�'� ; �r '? �is'�'s,{� : G4� � ,� � ��{ }} '� '?�.•' �'/F7 V �, war! < w.6'- a 6 <',`4i`} ` _a"• „ n.4y. < k' rt}J lA tit{.k,t � } PL �r .., w ,,'{'��} �, °✓Xv ,$'- .-. a #a ��,�;y • S� Baa A. vr� ,p it S � �' � � i< r� OF P1 Al ho i 339 ' rri ' ` - Alamo, N 9 197-450-015 Owner: Martin Hess y SITE PLAYS FOTO. BUILDING PERMITS HESS AND RHIM LOTS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................ M owl. Tllll a IN MI 1;1.- 61: tit t. QLA 01 MA V4 �tR �I K nz� Or 71 lilt 11; J4 "fr ................ ............................................................................ ........................................................................................................................ . .................................................................... ...............................-..................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............. .............. ............................................................................................................. 77771, OR 1,1,va 0 Tj If I E11212roa 6t FZ MA _14 3 VIA; R 11 a RX Zia CAZ Ij Jv- tE it In 1 -4:, �t It IS I fill 11 mr0q, 31, flf 41t IS -44 J� WIN 49U WWJ 777 ........................... ........................................................................................ .................. ......................................................................................... } Of 6 PLAP PLAN CEFMInCATM plans a� cumty rt stra is and/or MY , O Oft smM •' + ii d esse • p owner Signature C3 Applicant CI Contractor ( tither RDY'Id 912JZIOD 6SEs s. EfCIIsRN, $ t is w j s S Eat71 �J 2 � RN a 4LU yr j {pt1.4 .._... i� h 1 . ,.r lit M11 I I \ 19 s t a I a a 1 fl� ff b!!!!!! x A }CY IJ Ili �id4 ll 111j] I It 4 4 k I f' IT 1 11 if r, P R��' YY u. h r. r � ? `• r,,: ,I t Pt 4 72)V'Id :II.6i1()7 b£E aNElCIISF1N - - - I� -- ---- S .S-R H b ti kt I >k r �,e�� yr �...afi � : + �• ark .- o ` - lit! 1 � 1 ' � � `� '''i• � ! t'I ;�$1 I IBI 11, { i Ij i�Ind .lI 1I tR L Lfl ppff Y t �LA J I r EXHIBIT F: COPY OF Building Inspection �� STOP WORK ORDER Centra Director of Building Inspection Department Costas" ,.. County Administration Building g County t 651 Pine Street,3rd Floor, North Win tDEC x t Martinez, California 94553-1295 (925) 646-2300 Fax: (925) 646-1219 , a a;— i 0 ' o ;y `sJA COlJN'�;GT December 4, 2001 Mr. &Mrs. Martin Hess 75 Highbridge Court Danville, CA 94526 Re: Stop Work Order at 336 Carrie Place, Alamo Springs Subdivision, Alamo APN 197-450-015, Permit#312722 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hess: You are hereby notified to stop all work on your new residence at 336 Corrie Place. A site visit inspection and measurement has indicated that the residence has not been built to the approved plans, and that it may have been built into the established front yard setback. You are also notified that your property needs to be surveyed by a licensed civil engineer or surveyor so that exact property lines may be established and determine the extent of any encroachment by recently constructed structures. After the survey has been conducted and reviewed, and if said survey reveals that any portion of any structure has encroached into required minimum setbacks, you would have two options of recourse: • Obtain an approved amendment to the Alamo Springs Final Development Permit, or • Remove sufficient amount of the offending structure to meet minimum setback requirements. Both of these options would have to be reviewed and approved by the established agencies before construction may resume. Revised plans, as well as engineering calculations may be requested. 2 If you have any questions, please contact Gano Thomas, Principal Building Inspector, at (925) 335-1158. Sincerely, Carlos Baltodano Director cc: Dennis M.Barry, AICP Bob Drake Gano Thomas Mike Silva Timo Wadhawan GT:cc w:gand022722 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY •'f `. BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT 651 Pine Street, N. 'Wing —3rd Floor Martinez, CA 94553 -� Telephone: 646-2300 Fax: 646-1219 DATE December 4, 2401 TO BID Staff FROM : Carlos Baltodano, Director -� SUBJECT : Survey Stakes Effective immediately, in addition to requiring all new building permits to obtain a survey to establish property lines, the owner/contractor must have the structure placed upon the property by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor. A Certification Letter must be issued at or before the foundation inspection will be approved. Additions and pools will still require a survey to establish property lines, if not well defined, at the discretion of the building inspector at the time of the inspection. GT= w:ganolsurvey.stakes ''I,.,,.,....I...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................ z C) CN AV LAJ LLJ > ro cn LO C=) 04 :Z Ln I uirn 0 CN Z Z3 a- ct I -j n 0 U mU) Z< Pp L.Li<ck�LLI LAJ Lw ;K L> C.) C-D M V W I-- u z LLJ z C) LLJ m --1 ._.t LL. < U- CD CN m 0) =) to en 0 e' 16� oolp Lo O Oi ................................................................ .......................................................................................................... ........................................................................................ From: Marty Hess '75 Highbridge Court Danville,CA 94526 Home phone: 925-831-9691- To: Contra Costa County Community Development Department: Carolyn Mills, ContractPlanner Maureen Parkes, Current Planning Division Cc: Alamo Springs HOA Alamo Improvement Association Cyano Thomas,CCC Building Inspections Dept. February 2, 2002 RE: Response to letter from Carolyn Mills,Contract Planner, dated January 17,2002,titled: Re: Request for Addit anal Information Before Deeming Application Complete County,Pile DP013077 -Planned Development Modification The letter appears to be broken into four distinct areas of requests, some of which appear to request information rather-indirectly: Here,in order-to make-the most-sense in my response-,I've in-eluded text. from the original letter just prior to my response in each case. Where excerpts from the original letter exist they are indented,with each line proceeded-bya-bar-("j"). I)The first of the four areas, in the initial introduction,there are some requests for some historical explanation: j Upon reviewing your file and meeting with you at the building site on the morning of j January'1'7,2002,-I would-like for you to provide me With written'justification for j locating the house within the front setback. I understand from our conversation that the j house was pushed forward to avoid the dripline of the 42�-inch Heritage oak tree located j directly behind the house on the northern property line. However,when reviewing the j original set of building plans and the site plan,the house was clearlylocated outside this j tree's dripline and all setbacks were met. Furthermore,the plans had been stamped and j signed-by you certifying that the information on the plans was correct: To the best of my knowledge -- and the knowledge of all parties involved with the design and construction of the home--the tree-locations and driplines were correct on the site plan-in the original plan set. (See annotation for original dripline on modified site plan dated 2/112002.) It did not become apparent that the dripline in particular was incorrect until the foundation staking had begun,which placed the northeast corner of the Guest Room at a point which,to me,was too close to the raised oak tree in question. There was much discussion between myself and the contractor, and as you recall,I contacted you by phone about this issue at that time(late June through early July),at that time raising the question about my neighbor's setback from Corrie Place. Re: Request for Additional Information Before Deeming Application Complete -County;File-DP013077--Planned-Development Modification z At issue at that juncture was why our construction was placed 32'from the curb,rather than just the 25' required by both the Alamo Springs t✓C&Rs and the county, while the neighbor's house(340 Corrie Place) was just 27.5' from the curb. I sought an authoritative answer to this question for almost three weeks, from various sources. (All of which I find now were not authoritative, as will'be described later.) I pursued this course because the Alamo Springs CC&Its, which I'd been led to understand from several sources was in agreement with the county --calls for a 25'-setback even for side yar&on corner lots(page 80,) Hence my neighbor's house--which was built and about to be occupied at the time, which therefore musthave'been compliant with all necessary setbacks--at only 27.5`from the curb must indicate that the 7'difference must be considered part of the lot area, albeit non-buildable. In no case in discussion with anyone representing Alamo Springs Association or any Contra Costa County Community Development did personnel advise me otherwise, given the fact of the placement of my neighbor's home. Hence it was my understanding that we could proceed to move the house forward as much as 7'from that-shown-on the original-site plan-and still be-in-compliance with the 25' setback from the curb, the now presumed lot line. It was decided to only move the house forward about 6',so as not to be sure to not encroach on-that 25, and-to-be-in-fairly close-alignment with the-house-next door. Displacement forward by that amount would almost assure that construction would not infringe upon the dripline of the-heritage oak tree. All-was well, and-construction began. It wasn't until later,when the issue arose that two facts came to light from authoritative sources to reveal that the house was not in compliance, and'that the neighbor house was a poor choice to use as the precedent: First, when DK Engineering was contacted to perform the site survey in December of 2001,they explained'that the front T ofthe lot from the curb is a Public Utility easement and-i.s not part of them home lot. This was the first(and actually,the only) source to ever make this claim let alone certify it. This meant that I was obviously in non-compliance for a 25' setback from that Tit line. This now raised the question as to how and why the neighbor house(now occupied)managed to be approved, given that it,too, was required to have a 25'-setback from that same lot line,even on its side yard. In parallel with efforts to meet the requests by the CCC Inspections personnel to survey the property and form a reply,and in preface to my efforts to pursue a variance once the above fact carne to light,I sought an answer to this question again: Why was the placement of my neighbor's house compliant?" This led to the second revealing fact. In a phone conversation with Gano Thomas(of CCC Inspections)Michael Silva was in attendance. It was he that-- for the first time--explained to me authoritatively that the county only required a'20'side setback on corner lots. (Check with Michael,because I was so aghast at what he said I must`ve asked him a dozen times if it were true, and questioned how it could be that the setbacks stipulated by the Alamo Springs CC&Rs did not match the county's. He explained--what seems obvious to me now-- that AlamoSprings can'have whatever rules they wish in such matters,so long as they are no less stringent than the county`s. Re:Request for Additional Information Before Deeming Application Complete County,File DP013077-Planned-Development-M-odifteation 3 So as can be seen by the text of the resolution for variance adopted by the Alamo Springs Association at its January 16th meeting, the neighbor's house was also not in compliance with the 25""setback rule, which I too had now violated by following the example next door. The final error in this folly of mistakes was that the lot--and the placement of the foundation--was never surveyed or overseen by a surveyor. As a result of this series of events f now know better,as does the contractor,and the Alamo Springs Association has now modified the architectural rules to require exactly that'be'the case,for the plans submitted, as well as the foundation construction. I regret that'I had to be the one that brought this requirement about,especially given the series of events leading up to its implementation. So in summary,at the time the plans were submitted,all parties involved fully believed that they were correct, which-is'how 1 felt comfortable claiming such when they were stamped for submission. ( At our meeting you provided me with a surveyed plot that shows the edge of house located approximately 10 feet from the oak tree dripline. Why wasn't the House located closer to the tree in order to preclude encroaching into the front setback? The House was moved forward in its entirety,which included the existing,planned retaining wall (that now falls just along the dripline of the oak tree. Since this solved the original problem of construction within the dripline, and at the time it was not believed that an encroachment on the front setback had even occurred as a result of the new placement ofthe house,all aspects of the construction were left as originally planned. Furthermore the 10'distance to the house foundation includes a 6'exit pad(required by code)for a doorway and its overhead balcony, together which approach the oak-tree dripline to within 25. The retaining wall extends a bit further in order to yield a flat area for the full exit pad. (To whit: the corner of the pad lies 2'diagonally-from the closestpoint-ofthe dripline, and-2.Y laterally-from the retaining wall, which is directly on the dripline(4A')as determined by a plumb line hung from the outermost branch of the oaktree closest to that comer-of the house,-as measured by-me on January 34th. For reference,these figures snatch the Foundation flan(page A4)of the submitted project plans, given that the retaining wall as-built lies directly beneath the-dripline-of the-oak tree-.)- So ree:}So in summary: foremost I was not aware that we were encroaching on the setback at the time. Secondly,at most there remains 2.5'between founded portions of the'home and the oak tree dripline. It might have been possible to use some(or all)of this amount,had the retaining wall been completely redesigned,but again,given the belief-that there was fully 7available,my wish was to place the House as far from the oak tree as possible,without violating the 25'setback distance from the then-perceived lot line at the curb. Re:Request for Additional Information Before Deeming Application Complete County,File DPOI3077-Plarmed-Development Modification 4 11)The second portion of the introduction in the letter requests justifications for consistency and compatibility of-the requested amendment: j As I informed you during the site visit,the County must make findings for granting an amendment to the PD. -These are: l) whether the proposed modification is consistent with the purpose of the P-1 Zoning District and, 2)will the modification he compatible with nearby land uses? Please provide me with an explanation as to why you think the l P-1 findings can he made and the PD modification should be granted. I have attached a copy of the section from the ordinance describing the intent and purpose. The purpose of Alamo Springs as a P-1 zone is for single-family, detached custom and semi-custom homes on approximately half-acre lots. By definition this is intended to allow-- in fact encourage-- diversity in appearance and style of the construction within this zone. Regulation of the scope of that diversity is accomplished by the Alamo Springs CC&Rs,which, in many cases are more strict than other governing ordinances,particularly in the area of consistency of use and appearance. (Reference pages 54-122.) In our case,setting aside the fact that the original act of encroachment was based on mistaken conclusions,suppose that this had all been correctly discovered and this deviation from the standard was being sought prior toconstruction(as it should have been,it's now apparent.): Examining the fact that the request is based on the need to avoid construction with the heritage oak tree dripline, and the raised area which contains that dripline,and'how it substantially alters the buildable area of the lot,I would be seeking the very same modification as has been performed. I would be doing so on the grounds that 1)The size, shape,topography,and location presented by the oak tree presents special circumstances that deprive us of rights--namely the full use of*the buildable pad area--enjoyed by other nearby,similar properties lacking an oak tree in an elevated section of the buildable pad, 2)That these circumstances are rare and do not constitute a precedent for other nearby properties that lacking similar special circumstances(this would presumably be seen-to by the Alamo Springs Association),and 3)The proposed mitigation is within the scope of use for the Planned Development as defined by the Alamo Springs CC&Rs and-has be-err deem consistent with its use by the Alamrcr Springs Architectural Review Committee and the Alamo Springs Board of Directors(at their January 16th meeting. 'What's more in that-very-same meeting--in which the primary complainant was in attendance--the very question of"If this [deviation from established CC&Rs] were being sought prior to commencement r�,f construction-as part of the-original architectural review, would these concerns still stand? In other words, is there an issue that, as currently constructed,the house is neither consistent with the general-use-of property throughout Alamo Springs,-or that it is-not compatible with-the intended appearance of construction within Alamo Springs?" The response was that there was no issue with the appearance, and that the issue was in fact with-the deviation from the setback rules itself, and as to whether this was done intentionally, or even flagrantly. (These are not direct quotes,but the intent of and answer to these-questions can-be confirmed by members-of-the Alamo Springs Board,ofDirectors.) Re: Request for Additional Information Before Deeming Application Complete County;File 10013077-Planned Development-Modification S In addition,it is most certainly the case that all standards regarding public health, safety, and general welfare continue to be met under the conditions being requested by this application. Hence I believe that the requested change(in this case,the after-the-fact, as-built situation) is both consistent with the purpose within the P-1 zone, and compatible with nearby land use,as indicated by the agreement of virtually all parties involved,especially the most affected local governing authority (Alamo Springs Association),and even including the original complainant. III)The third portion of the letter requests clarification to the site plan regarding the precise location of the oak tree and its dripline: C Clarification to Base Site Plan R uested Concerning Location of Nearby Heritage Tree At the time of approval of the Alamo Springs project the Board of Supervisors specifically designated the 42-inch oak tree as a Heritage tree. In so doing,the Board ( conferred protected status under both the Heritage Tree and Tree Protection Ordinances ( to the tree including the area within the dripline area. When reviewing the plans at the building site, it was noted that the cut for the rear stairwell would be within the dripline. This is not permitted,thus the stairwell needs to be redesigned to stay outside the dripline. All parties were made aware of the heritage status of the oak tree(as well as the one further down the hill.) (The two trees were, in fact, one of the reasons for our selection of the site for our home.) I have, in fact had a certified arborist caring for the trees since the time the lot was originally purchased. The descending stairwell has been removed from the modified site plan. When the encroachment into the dripline was-realized and the house-moved,it was well-understood-at that time that an alternative was to be sought. While details have not been completed,there are several workable alternatives under consideration. To be sure,the alternative that is finally chosen will be scrutinized carefully by the Alamo Springs Architectural Review Committee, and county Community Development will be consulted for their approvals. (This will be done along with the plans for the swimming pool in the rear yard,and will be handled as part of the permitting for that construction.) I Further,we note that your plans draw two driplines encircling the trunk of the tree. The I smaller dripline one is part of the original base map, and we understand was the one j portrayed for the building permit construction plans. Correct. Please refer to the annotation for the interior dripline on the modified plan for information as to its origin(the'as-built" subdivision grading plan.) Re:Request for Additional Information Before Deeming Application Complete County;File DPO13077-Planned-Development Modification 6 The larger dripline area is penned in and labeled"actual dripline," we understand that this information was not provided to the County until after the building permit was issued and warp had commenced on the project. Correct. As indicated earlier in this response, a site survey had not been done for the placement of the foundation on the lot. In fact, at the time I never even considered'that the plans were incorrect in their labeling of the dripline: I was more concerned with dealing directly with the actual situation at the project site. It wasn't until after the requested site survey was performed and the actual driplines were surveyed that it was apparent that they were in such disagreement. And even yet I have not concerned myself with the reasons behind this disagreement,rather the have focussed on the issues at hand, and alternatives for mitigation of them. (My concerns for how this happened are ameliorated by the fact that, had I not been so ignorant of the realities,a survey to place the foundation prior to construction would've surfaced these issues, and the possibility of'application for a like modification would've been sought prior to commencement of construction,as is the norm.) IV)The fourth portion of the letter requests revision of the site plan including clear and precise location of the oak tree and its dripline(s) I &Nuested Revision to Site Plan-To aid County decision makers on this aspect of the I project, we request that you provide us with seven(7)copies of a revised site plan that ( more clearly labels each of the two dripline areas. This information should be incorporated(printed)into the base site plan,and not merely inked'onto the site plan. The two driplines should be labeled as follows. I A. Smaller Dripline-Dripline identified at time of the issuance of the residential building permit. 1 ( B. Larger DfiRline-Actual dripline. Seven copies of the updated, modified site plans,with these notations and to proper scale are to be submitted along with this response. Re:Request for Additional Information Before Deeming Application Complete County,file DPOI 3077-Planned Development Modification 7 ( Further,you may wish to cheek the accuracy of the tree dripline location. For purposes of compliance with various tree ordinances, and to avoid eause for potential future stop work orders, it is important that the site plan reflect the full size and location of the tree canopy. I have personally confirmed the dripline as indicated by the D. K. Engineering site survey of December 12, 2001, to be correct on-site on January 30,2002. The dripline(as detennined by the extreme tip of- the furthermost branch)extends approximately 7"beyond the exterior face of the retaining wall. In summary I hope that this response addresses completely all remaining needs for information to allow the completion of hits application. If there are any further questions of needs of any kind regarding the project I can be reached via my home telephone,925-831-9691. Sincerely, Martyss Owner, 339 Corrie Place,.Alamo Re:Request for Additional Information Before Deeming Application Complete County,File DPOI3077-Planned-Development Modification ALAMO NPQOVEMENT AWOCIUOL�.....Pbr rre Camby Uft P.O.5OX 271 i ALAMO, CALIFORNIA 94507 • (925) 866-3606 February 20, 2002 BY FAX TO 335-1222 ,c+ Community Development tDept. ' 651 Pine St., Floor, N. Wing 5 Martinez, CA 94533-0095 C� Attn: Carolyn Mills Re: DP 01-3077 Site: 339 Corrie Place Request to review a development permit change for the construction of a single family home within a portion of the front setback reducing the front setback to 18 ft. 9 in(where 25 ft is required)to avoid enroachment into drip line of heritage oak tree. Location is 32 ft. from curb. P-1 zoning. Dear Ms. Mills: Subject application was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Committee on February 13th. Applicant did not appear for presentation and has not notified Planning Committee of circumstances.. Application continued to our March meeting pending receipt of information from applicant regarding status of application and explanation of non-appearance. Sin er ly, ger F. mith, airman anning Committee cc: AIA Secretary Martin Hess ......... . :.:- ... ..... ... MAR.26.2002 11:51AM CCC COMMUNITY DEVLEP '' N0.921 P.3 .. ..:::........ lwmni.. EXHIBIT U: LEfIk , n P o Sox 7a + AMO CAl80WA 900 • (moi}866-3606 March 19, 2002 BY FAX TU 335.1222 Community Development Dept. 651 Pirie St;,4'floor,N. Wing Martinez, CA 94533-0095 Attn: Carolyn N!lls Re: DP 01-3077 Site: 339 Corrie Place Request to review a development permit change for the construction of a single family home within a portion of the front setback reducing the front setback to 18 ft.9 in. (where 25 ft. is required)to avoid encroachment into dripline of heritage oak tree. F-1 zoning Dear Ms. M ls;: Subject Tplication was reviewed by the Alamo Improvement Association's Planning Committee on March 13 , and by our Board the following might. Applimt/owner made presentation and demonstrated a good understanding of issues and requirements. There was significant discussion on the current situation(project is under a County stop-work order)and reasons for status. It was determined by Apptic anVC)wnar that the original surveying performed and maps prepared by Alamo Springs did not accurately resent the oak tree located at the northern center property Sine and the location of its dripline. This difference impacted the location of residence to be built. At the t�nc, it was unknown there was an approx. 7 ft.,easement along the front curbside of the tet_ Corrie Race apparently is the only street located within Alamo Spring$with such an easement. Relying upon a visual measureamt of 25 ft from the curbside and the position of the neighbor's house located immediately to the south and on the corner of Corrie Place and Alamo Sprigs Drive and apparently without checking for easements, review with the County or Alamo Springs HOA architectural committee,the residence was relocated by the ApplicanVowner forward on the lot approx. 7 ft. to build outside of the oak=s dripline. Apparently several County permit inspections were made during this time and the problem was not discovered. Finally, only after a neighbor's complaint was made to the County and a site visit conducted was the problem discovered. Our coma ittee is sympathetic to the applicantlowner"s position in that it appears their mistake(s)were made unintentionally and ultimately at significant personal expense. »>:. .... .:: : ..........:.... .... MAR.26.2M2 11:51AM CCC CQi'"ITY DEVLEP NO.921 P.2 9600nak Pn DOx M • Amt WOMA 9M However,in review of this application, our commnittee felt it most appropriate to evahWa the request as if it were a variance application,because if normah procedures had been followed,this would have been the proper application to reques#a.cbm$e in the front setback. By doing so, we would need to justify re mMending approval by securing a finding. After sig cant review, our planviing committee could not develop a finding that would justify moving the residenceforward and reducing the front setback,regardless'of the current situation in which the residence is already partially Constructed. Had this request been reviewed solely as a variance application with the circumstance of tree location, it would clearly be recommended for denial. As a result and to be consistent, our recommendation is to deny the application: However, it is noted that as presented by the County, the opplicaticm requests a"change" in the existing developmerd permit. It may very well be that the County does not require a finding for this as is required for a variance. it is also noted that apparently neither the County inspectors or the Alamo Springs Architectural Committee were aware of the easement condition for this street until aft the fact contn`buti to'th�e Appli nVOwneeS dilemma.. It is also noted that the Alamo Springs Architectural Committee has, after review of the situation and to correct it,recommended retroactive approval for both the Applicantlownes,parcel and that of his neighbor's parcel immediately to the south after finding both ofthem to not be in compliance. tger F. Slih,Chairman Planning Committee cc, ALA.Secretary Martin and Laurie Hess ..... JAN-23-2002 1 1 s 39 AM THE HESSES 925 831 9691 P- 03 V"Vel"X �E'.! r1:20 MA VlS 442 Twitf worn* 41eTelop"Jit Corp. 4yuvlr rlua� CDC CORRIE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION COMM •SUM I 11,Mg OVAUX tli YM a W&N,C:AU7CRi+13 4,'i'450 021)531 MO s PAX(W)531•)3+'16 Co=runity Dtvtlopmmt Depstftw Anuary 17, 2W2 Cts A Min istmtion Bunding 651 ?in*Sttvt 4*F1w,Nosth Wing M#lydum,Ca 94553 Re: Request f sr ccrmwAnta fmm Almno Sprites ROA, Genticmen: On January 16,2002,at a joint matting of the Alum Spring,Romumners Board OfDizr&O"orad the flesion R wew Coma ittee and alter hftriiig u1put€'rum alt imiwd rmshbm;dw followin mall ti t wins adoptw. s�Appmvt s ywiUM for oWstrtctiorn by the pmptq ownex s at 339 C xie Pt$t:e (Martut Htn Family)W 3401 Conic Place(Boug Rhim Family)penmittiq both ownm to 40d directly with any ad bwkvatiawe 6mxs btou&by tho Ccnrttty of Corf COW. ShQUW YQu h n aay gats ams or mer1 Aw*er olanffcation pimso dol.'t hwitste to 0o ttact the vndersigned. S�rcearely, Peter VJ)vin,?mvidwt CC: Marty Hess(Via Fara (Via Fuc) ROW ugmwcb(Via F") trzs ............................................................................................._____. ............................................................................._._.....____ _. . _........................................................_. _ ___ _...................................................... ,March 10, 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �2 I P 65'1 PINE STREET 22 5 4TH FLOOR, NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ATTENTION: CAROLYN MILLS SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST-HESS RESIDENCE-339 CORRIE PLACE This letter is a follow-up to a telephone discussion I had with you a few weeks ago. As discussed, we are opposed to granting a variance for this setback violation . Our new home is under construction directly across the street from the Hess residence at 135 Alamo Springs Drive(corner of Corrie Place and Alamo Springs Drive). Attached is a letter we wrote to Peter Klein, Secretary of the Alamo Springs Homeowners Association and a separate letter we sent to Marty and Laurie Hess. These two letters state our position on the setback violation and the variance request. In summary, they have taken 6.2 feet of open space from the neighbors and converted it for their own use. They violated``the building nodes in total disregard of the County and their neighbors, and proceeded to construct their home. It appears they did it intentionally to gain 6.2 feet of open space in their back yard. If not intentional, the licensed contractor for their project is guilty of gross negligence in not verifying and surveying the setbacks. Now, after the home is partially constructed they would like for the County and their neighbors to condone these actions and grant them a variance without any material penalty or compensation to the neighborhood for the open space confiscated. Marty Hess indicated in a phone conversation to me that he would provide some alternatives, other than demolition of the structure, but we have not received any. We do not believe that it is our responsibility to develop alternatives. In the absence of an alternative that is acceptable to the closest neighbors, we believe the Hess's should be required to remove the 6.2 feet of their house that encroaches on the setback and return this space to the neighborhood. We will appreciate being notified of any hearings on this variance request. Our current address is shown below. �L14aw�j�"-/ atd and Mary Henderson 428 Deerhi l Drive San Ramon, Ca 94583 Tel. (925)$38-2595 cc: Marty and Laurie Hess Timo Wadhawan, Heartwood Construction Alamo Springs Owner Association C/o Corrie Companies 02 7950 Dublin Blvd., Suite 111 _ I t'c Dublin, Ca 94568 (925) 551-7900 Mr. Dennis M. Barry, Director April 18, 2002 Community Development Department (Fax#9251335-1299& Mail) 651 Pine St.,North Wing 4`h Floor Martinez, Ca 94553 Re: Variance far 339 Currie Place,Alamo Dear Mr. Barry: On January 17, 2002 our Association wrote a letter to the Community Development Department in which we indicated the Associations approval of a variance in connection with the existing siting of a home on the above referenced lot. There has apparently been no action on this matter. The existing partially built house presents a safetyconcern, is a blight on the development and causes bath emotional and financial distress in the neighborhood.. The Association at its meeting on January 16, 2002 adopted certain internal procedures to be sure that an event like this does not happen again. The County now needs to act promptly to resolve this matter and allow the Hess family to complete their home. Should you require further input from the Owners Association please call. Sincerely, Alamo Springs Owners -ssociation By Peter Klein,President Cc: Catherine K.utsuris �Lvbert Brake a200134.doc May 6, 2002 Community Development Department 664 Pine Street Martinez,CA 94553 Attention: County Zoning Administrator Subject: Development Plan Application Hess Residence 339 Corrie Place, Alamo, CA Our new home is under construction at 135 Alamo Springs Drive (corner of Corrie Place and Alamo Springs Drive)and is directly across the street from the Mess residence. We wrote a letter to the County on March 10, 2002 opposing the subject application. We have read the report developed by County Staff containing a recommendation that this application be approved. As affected neighbors,we are still strongly against the granting of this request to allow an encroachment of 6.2 feet on the front setback. We believe that Martin Hess and the General Contractor (Heartwood Construction-Timo Wadhawan)were aware of the setback and easement requirements before the house was relocated on the lot and the house partially constructed. By constructing the house 6.2 feet too close to the street, Martin Hess and his General Contractor have taken open space reserved for the neighbors and'illegally converted it for the Mess's own use. In doing so,they gained 6.2 feet of valuable backyard space which we believe was their goal at the outset. They had several alternatives open to them to correct any problem with their house encroaching on the drip line of a heritage oak tree. Instead',they chose a solution that had the greatest positive impact on their property and the greatest negative impact on their neighbors'property. By doing so they committed a major violation of the setback requirements. This appears to be an intentional violation and not an honest mistake,for the following reasons: (1) The original site plan,approvedby the County showed the front setback correctly with the 7 foot easement and the house 25 feet from that easement(total 32 feet from the curb). The Hess's architect knew the setback requirements. Otherwise,we assume he would have used the 7 feet for the house in the original design if he thought it was available since the house was close to the heritage oak tree and had a slope in the backyard. Martin Ness has not indicated in his communications to the County that he consulted with his architect before proceeding with construction and it appears the County has not asked this architect for any information on this project. (2) The house was relocated on the lot without pursuing approval'from the County or the Alamo Springs Owners Association. Although Martin Hess made a few telephone calls to try to get someone to tell him he was correct on his setback assumptions, it was not due diligence. If he truly thought he had 7 feet available, he would have asked for written County approval. He was not given even verbal approval, but he proceeded with construction anyway. (3) Martin Hess has attempted to use the house at 346 Corrie Place as a precedent for moving his house. If he thought this was a Strang precedent he could have used it in requesting approval for moving his house closer to the street before construction began. However,the house at 340 Corrie place was approved by the County and built as approved. Even if that house is not in compliance with setback requirements, it cannot be used as justification to construct another house that is in even greater violation of setback requirements. Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 Hess Residence Development Pian Application (4) The Licensed General Contractor has hardly been mentioned in the report by County Staff. It appears that the County has not asked this contractor for any information on this application. He built his own home in Alamo Springs and should certainly be familiar with the setback requirements. He is responsible under the California State License Berard, for ensuring compliance with building requirements. In this case we have a licensed contractor relocating a house 6.2 feet closer to the street without verifying the setbacks, without a survey, and without seeking county approval. In addition, he helped the Building Inspector make a mistake at the fecundation inspection by suggesting that she measure 25 feet from the curb rather than 25 feet from tate easement line, This made the inspector believe the house was in compliance and allowed construction to proceed. The county Report indicates that this request would not have been approved if submitted before construction began.We believe that Martin Hess assumed that he could not get approval to move his house 6.2 feet closer to the street and chose to proceed with construction and hope no one noticed until the house was complete. How can the County approve this application after partial construction when they would not have approved it before construction? This approach encourages owners and general contractors to violate the building requirements and proceed with construction hoping they will not get discovered early in the process. The Alamo Improvement Association seems to understand this concept, so they treated this like an application before construction and recommended denial. Vete also do not understand how encroaching 6.2 feet into the front setback can be construed by County Staff to be consistent with P-1 zoning. if it is consistent, then why would an initial application be denied? There are exceptions to the front setbacks for some houses in Alamo Springs but those exceptions require even more of a setback. Given the circumstances surrounding this violation, and the fact that the house is only partially constructed, the County should require that 6.2 feet be removed from the front of this house to bring it in compliance with setback requirements. This would eliminate one garage and may result in a car parked in the guest parking place. We are directly across the street and this is better for us than having a 24 foot garage wall 6.2 feet closer to us. If the County approves this application, as recommended by County Staff,there will be little penalty to the Hess's or the General Contractor for what we feel is a major violation of building requirements. The open space reserved by the setback requirements for the neighbors will be lost forever. Therefore,we urge the County Zoning Administrator to deny this application. u� n r k ;11f d Gerald E. and Ma ,._tenderson k 135 Alamo Springs©rive, Alamo, CA (925) 838-2595 From; Laurie&Marty Hoes 75 HzghbrEdge Court Dwvik,CA 94526 Home phone.925.831-9691 To: Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director-Current Planning Contra Costa County Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553-0095 Phone. 925-335-2210 Pax. 925-335-1222/1299 (by Fax&by U.S. mail) March 30,2002 RE: Agreement to resolve conditions of approval at 339 Corrie Place (File#DP01.3077) Dear lis, Kutsuris: Having now received a copy of the staff report regarding county file 4DP013077 we are responding with further detail regarding our commitment to timely compliance with the conditions set forth within that report. We do this in hopes that we can expedite the release of the"stop work" order,so that construction can commence and continue so long as conditions are being met as described herein. Specifically,regarding each numbered condition as follows: Regarding condition#1.; No action required on our part. Regarding condition 42; Most certainly agreed. The following conditions are preceded by the words "prior to Release of a Stop Fork Order Allowing Completion of the Residence,the Following conditions of Approval Shall be Met." It is not clear in some cases exactly what requirements --or parts of them --roust be met now, in order to lift the"stop work."order,versus later,which intend to be conditions of assurance that earlier promises were met. Regarding condition#3-, We commit to submit the necessary two copies of a landscape plan for the area of the construction under review in as timely a manner as possible,no later than May 1;5`h. We assume that the submission itself,or at most the approval from the Zoning Administrator,would be the specific condition to release the"stop work" order. In addition,we hereby commit to work until a landscape plan.is approved by the Zoning Administrator,asking that construction be allowed to proceed immediately, conditioned upon our timely execution against this item— MIAMI PRar 1 of I RE:Agmrnent to resolve conditions ofapproval at 334 Corrie place (File#eVeOI3077) However, we find the requirement of having completed the landscaping of that area prior to final inspection to be an unreasonable expectation,sir}ce Iaxidscaping of the entire lot will not be eo mP►1 hed until well.atter occupancy(es is the norm),and to landscape the one portion of the lot without completing the remainder at the same time would not produce the desired result, Since condition#4 requires us to submit an arborist's report "at least 18 months following completion of work within the dripline of trees,"we suggest that the evidence being requested for correct completion of this condition(#3)be submitted at the same time as the arborist's report. Regarding condition 44 in its entirety: We have no intent to modify the ground within the dripline of the tree to the back of the lot,and note that the crib wall shoran on the site plain was an approximation added by our architect. We've stated to Staff that this wall will not approach within 2'ofthe ground driplinc of the rear oak tree,and that that will be confirmed when f nal landscape planning for the rear pond and yard is completed. Furthermore we have offered that those plans be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator as a requirement for approval of the poral permit. Hence we would like the rear oak tree removed from consideration within stipulations 1.4 of'sub-condition#4A, and 44A 1:-4 only. Le. We agree to this tree being inspected and included in the final arburisfs report(per the final paragraph of 4A,)and that it be subject to sub-conditions 4B-F. Regarding sub-condition#4A: While we agree to comply with stipulations 1-of this sub-condition for the remaining tree,the implied planning and processing times are likely to be lengthy. We hereby commit to timely computation and delivery of an appropriate Security,however,we suggest that the condition for release of the"stop work"order be based upon sub-condition#4B and a requirement that the Security disposition stipulations 14 be completed to the Zoning Administrator's satisfaction by July 1",2002. Regarding sub-condition#48: Rather than re-issuing plans per the final,italicized sentence,may we suggest that we simply agree to the following language, 'In accordance with the arborist's specification,temporary fencing shall be installed and any other recommended methods required for tree protwtion shall be installed around protected trees prier to commencement of any construction activity." We agree to this as a required condition for the release of the"stop work" order. Regarding sub-conditions#4C,4D,4E, and 4F Mote that 4C is mislabeled as a second "B" in the report..]: Agreed to all as on-going conditions(for both trees,)which we dei not interpret as c:onditiotis for release of the"stop work" order. Regarding condition#S:Agreed as a condition for release of the"stop work" order. [Note that the final c tencelparagraph here is solely focussed on the tree protection fencing. We would agree that it should instead require the report described in condition #5, and that the report be required to include confirmation of the fencing installation.] tt4t'2ntf4'? Pavw,7 of 4 RE: Agreement to resolve conditions of approval at 339 Corrie Place (File#.uPD13077) For your information we have been pursuing the arborist's report and fencing installation With a'l_haste, and hope to have bath completed by the hearing,May 6`h. Regarding,condition#6: We commit to payment of applicable fees within two business days of release of the "Stop work" order,or within two business clays of being provided an accounting of the fees and charges by the County when/ifprovided thereafter. We}tope that these additional commitments are sufficient to allow construction to resume and run concurrent with continuing actions as proposed herein. If'there are any further questions regarding the project we can be reached at home by telephone: 925-831-%91, Sincerely, Laurie bless&Marty Hess Owners, 339 Carrie Place, Alamo Cc: Timo Wadhawan,Principal,Heartwood of Danville flri!'tllltt'? Anar'l of 1 July 1,2002 Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651Pine Street 0 Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-4045 Attention: Dennis M. Barry Director of Community Development Dear Mr. Barry, My name is Charles Pendell,and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Alamo Springs Homeowners Association. 1 am writing this letter as an individual member of the Board of Directors of the homeowners association. Several weeks ago,the association received presentations from several homeowners concerning the Mardn and.Laurie Hers property- (County file#DP013077) The presentations which were given mainly by the Hess's,centered solely:around the issue of the 18 foot-front yard setback.. NU other alterations to the plans originally submitted to the Homeowners Association were discussed. Based On numerous discussions and the potential.impact(or lack thereof)to the community and the surrounding homeowners,the Homeowners Association Board of Directors authorized sending a letter to your department which not only approved the setback request,but requested an expedited approval for the setback by the planning department. This weekend,it was brought to my attention that not only.had the house been "moved" from the originally designed location,but also,the`POolbouse°has been relocated to a point further back on.the lot. I understand that the relocation of the poolhouse is in the resubmitted request to your department. The new location of the poolhouse has an extreme effect on the view from the neighboring lot,and ftatIMy,I seriously question whether the HOA BOD will approve the new location. TTie neigbboring property value will be significantly impacted, 'There is a meeting scheduled by the TTOA BOD on July 11,2002 and the issue of the "relocated"poolhouse is on the agenda. My only reason in writing this letter's to state that my personal approval of the HOA letter to your department concerning the Hess property was just for the 18 foot from yard setback. The Hess's did not outline to the HOA BOD in Our meeting that they had "relocated"the poolhouse further back on the lot approximately 10 feet. 1 would not have voted for the current poolhouse location,and I believe there is a high probability that the HOA BOD will disapprove of its current location during our July 11,2002 sheeting. My purpose in being on the Board of Directors of the Alamo Springs homeowners Association is to help protect the value of the community. I. am in no way involved in this situation, other than as a board member, and this letter is not written on behalf of the BOD. 1 discussed this letter last evening with both the Hess's and their builder, and both parties clearly outlined to me that your bearing today at 1:311 YM was'only concerning the front yard setback,and that there was no discussion planned on the requested poolhouse location change. As 7 stated earlier,the HOA BUD was not shade aware that the poolhouse had also been built on a different location than originally submitted and approved. We did NOT discuss or approve the location change of the poolhouse when we discussed the setback- If the etback_Ifthe poolhouse location is on your agenda.for this aftemoon's meeting,perhaps that portion of the approval:can be continued until after the HOA BOD review on July 11, 2402? Yours truly, 1�/-�--A Charles B.Pendell Treasurer,Alamo Springs Homeowners Association Cc: Carolyn Mills,Contra Costa County Bob Drake, Contra Costa County Sid Corrie,Carrie Development Martin and:Laurie Hess From Laurie&Marty Hes. 75 Highbridge Court Danville,CA 94526 Home phone:925-831-9691 To: Carlos Baltodano,Director-Building inspection Contra Costa County Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,CA 94553.0095 May 14,2002 RB: Agreement to conditions for partial release of stop-work order at 339 Come Place Dear Mr. Baltodano: This letter is offered in support of the May 13,2002 memo from Bob Drake to Carlos Baltodano regarding the stop-workorder currently in effect at 339 Corrie Place,Alamo,California, and serves as binding agreement to the conditions for partial release stated within that memo. Specifically,we agree and submit that: 1. No work shall be authorized or executed within: a) Any portion of the garage wing of the residence. b) The driplines of either of the two(designated heritage)oak trees. 2. Per the attached letter from our certified arborist,protective fencing has been erected around the two oak trees in the Fear yard,and has been verified as being in accordance with recommendations stated in his letter dated May 8,2002. We therefore hereby respectfully request the immediate partial release of the stop-work order. Sincerely, g'ac�e - X4Z-'t-- 4/-/4 CA� Laurie Hess&Marty Hess, Owners,339 Corrie Place, Alamo � IA/ -' Timo Wadhawan, Principal,Heartwood of Danville,Contractor of record for 339 Corrie Place, Alamo Cc: Kevin Dumford,GCC Building Inspection Catherine Kutsuris,CCC Current Planning FtA.nrLETT Bk R T LETT T R E E E X P E R T S 9 8 1 - F 8 A N C R O F 'r R Q A D C 0 N C O R D C A 9 4 5 1 8 Martin Hess May 8, 2002 75 Highbridge Ct. Danville,CA 94526 Phone/fax: 831-9691 Arborlst Report- Valley Oaks in construction zone, 339 Corrie Pl., Alamo. On May 8, 2002,1 re-visited the 2 Valley Oaks (Quercus tobata) behind the Hess home, under construction in Alamo. We have been deep root fertilizing the two Oaks annually (March 2000 and February 2001) with slaw-release Boost 30-7-8 and Mycorrh zae. This has been done to increase their health and vigor,and to increase root density to reduce the impact of construction. Overall,both Oaks are healthy and show no signs of stress. The foliage has normal growth,good color and vigor. As with most Oaks this spring,fairly heavy populations of Oak Moth caterpillars are feeding on the leaves,along with Whiteflies (which will be sprayed soon). The branches have a normal amount of old deadwood(and old cavities),so the trees should be pruned before final construction finishes. The trunk and buttress roots are dry,solid, and show no damage from construction equipment. The retaining wall at the back/left of the house extends barely into the drip-line (root zone)of the 39"diameter Oak,but the impact is negligible. No major roots were damaged,and the percentage of root zone affected is well under 5%. Along with the fertilization done to improve the root zone,we also had spread mulch to improve the soil porosity,aeration,and rooting conditions. This more than compensates for the area that was `disturbed'. I.recommend that fencing be installed,from the neighbor's fence,at an angle along the berm, then following the drip-line down hill(overall about 100 ft.). For the other Oak(back/right), fencing should parallel the separate building,about 50 ft(up to the berth).There are currently no debrispiles or construction materials under the flaks, which is commendable. The contractors have done a reasonable good job of respecting the Oaks' sensitive root zones. We will continue to monitor the trees this summer and fall during the critical stages of construction activity, and for the three years following construction. l have no doubts that they will survive and thrive,and be great assets to your home. I look forward to continuing to care for the Oaks' safety,health,and beauty. Please call with any questions,(925)934-6306. S,nc ly Certif Arborist#2350 ( 925 ) 934 - 63c6 FAX ( 925 ) 938 - 1534 THE F. A . B ARTLETT TREE EXPERT COMPANY f'r,tp„rxir Offim P.O. Tire 3067, 5tamittn3, C"nnnccticm 06905.0067 • (203) 323.1131, FAX(203) 323.1129 • ana.hanlctt.rt m ........ .......,s ! � It 1 # . .... ........ ......... • t rri • ,� - r o / Agenda Item# Community Development Centra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Monday July 1, 2002 I. INTR+C DUCTION MARTIN & LAURIE HESS (Applicants & pwmers), County File#IDP013077: A request for reconsideration of a decision by the Zoning Administrator of an application to amend the design restrictions of the Alamo Creek Final Development Plan to allow an 18 foot front yard setback for a proposed residence where a minimum of 25 feet is required, and to allow alterations within the driplines>of two designated heritage oak trees within the rearyard. The subject site is located at 339 Corrie Place, in the Alamo area. (P-1)(ZA: R.-15)(CT: 346101) (Parcel#:.197-450-015) II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the request for reconsideration be denied and the Zoning Administrator's decision of May 6, 2002 be upheld. III. BACKGROUND The County issued building permits for a two-story residence and accessory structurebased on information contained on the plans. The decision was based on site plan information indicating the distance of the proposed structure from the front property line. It also was based on no improvements proposed within the respective driplines of two mature oak trees located in the rear yard that the Board of Supervisors has designated for heritage status, and the applicant's attestation that the information on the two oak trees was accurate. Construction commenced and passed several inspections before it came to the attention of the County that construction was not occurring as had been represented in the building permit site plans. New information indicated that the as-built project required entitlement actions to allow the property to be placed closer to the front property line than presently permitted and to allow improvements within the driplines of the two heritage oak trees. A stop work order was issued by the Building,Inspector and the property owner required to file an amendment to the Final Map for the Alamo Springs Subdivision (#7452) to 2 allow an 18-foot front yard setback where a minimum 25 feet is required. The house site is located at 3389 Corrie Place in the Alamo area. The Zoning Administrator heard the application on May 6, 2002 and approved the amendment to the Final Development Plan subject to conditions. The conditions are attached to this staff report as Exhibit A. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION The appellant has requested a reconsideration of the Zoning Administrator's decision citing pertinent and legal factual matters not brought to the attention of the ZA. The appellant bases this request on the following: 1. The applicant's actions in violating their setback requirements and departing from the plans that were approved by the Homeowner's Association and submitted for building permits were not "innocent"as suggested by the Staff report. 2. The Modifications granted by the Zoning Administrator would drastically adversely affect the views, privacy and value of the Rhim residence. 3. There are alternative solutions that would more adequately balance the Applicants' interest with diose of Mr. Rhirn. Ordinance Code section 26-2.2408 allows the Zoning Administrator to reconsider his/her decision where "pertinent factual or legal matters were not brought to the attention"of the decision-maker. The charge that the deviation in the building plans was "not innocent" is an accusation that is not subject to review by planning staff. The applicant was asked to describe why the hoose had been moved forward, which he did and which was included in the staff report. The point of whether the mistake was made innocently or on purpose is not relevant to the decision. Once the infraction has occurred, it is necessary to review the change in the context of the PD zoning ordinance. The appellant's second point discusses the loss of property values, and includes an opinion from a real estate appraiser. The appellant had an opportunity to present evidence on the proposed entitlement's alleged impact on his property values at the previous Zoning Administrator hearing. He now wishes to introduce this evidence at a reconsidered hearing. From staff's perspective, the new information does not substantially affect the basis for the prior staff review or decision by the Zoning Administrator. 3 The appellant had the opportunity to provide this information for consideration at the public hearing on May 6, 2002. Again, the information now provided does not substantially detract From the legal or design analysis undertaken by staff, or the decision of the Zoning Administrator. It should: be noted that the appellant has included the siting of the pool house as being in violation of the setback requirements. The pool house is not considered a part of the application to amend the final map; the only exception to the project design criteria that is being sought concerns the front setback of the residence. The location of the pool house structure does conform to the setback requirements for accessory structures, thus a modification of the development plan is not required: The ordinance allows for the open stairway to Fall within the setback. This issue is discussed in the staff report for the May 6, 2002 ZA hearing. V. CONCLUSION A review of the appellant's justification for reconsideration dues not present nein substantive information to warrant reconsideration. It should be noted that at the time that the appellant filed this reconsideration request, he also filed (and paid the filing fee) for an appeal of the Zoning Administrator decision. 'Therefore, should the ,Zoning Administrator deny this reconsideration request, then the reconsideration request will be treated as an appeal, and the matter will be scheduled for noticed hearing before the San Ramon 'Valley Regional Planning Commission who will act as the Board of Appeals. Should the Zoning Administrator determine that the reconsideration request has merit, then staff will complete a staff report and the matter will be scheduled for noticed public hearing at a future Zoning Administrator meeting. Notice will go out to all parties who registered their attendance at the previous Zoning Administrator hearing, including the appellant's attorney. Attachments Exhibit A: 516/02 staff report Conditions ofApprovalDP13077 per 5!6!02 ZA Approval 5116/02 reconsideration request 5116/2042 RECONSIDERATION REQUEST tAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE E. SMITH CENTERPO-INT BUILDING 18 CROW CANYON COURT, SUITE 20151' � S SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583 i n TELEPHONE (925) 820-4310c� rr:' t L? FACSIMILE 19251 820-9727 May 16, 2002 HAND DELIVERED .Application and Permit Center Community Development Department County Of Contra Costa 651 Rine Street Second Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553 Martin and Laurie Hess (Applicant and towner) , County File Number DPOI3077 Motion For Reconsideration of Decision of Zoning Administrator Dear Sirs or Madams : I am writing on behalf of my client Bong Rhim to request reconsideration of a decision of the Zoning Administrator reached after a hearing on this Application on May 6, 2002 . I understand the Zoning Administrator granted a modification to the final development plan for the Alamo Springs Subdivision to permit non-compliance with Applicants ' front yard setback and to permit a pool house to be moved twenty-feet closer to the .Applicants ' rear property line, within the rear setback, from the position shown on the approved plans . Mr . Bong submits that there are pertinent legal and factual matters that were not brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator prior to rendering the decision that constitute good cause for reconsidering and modifying the decision. If the motion for reconsideration is denied, Mr. Bong requests that this letter be deemed a notice appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator. I have enclosed two checks in the amount of $125 . 00 each in payment of the fees for the request for reconsideration and for the appeal, if necessary. Application and Permit Center May 16, 2002 Page 2 Mr. Rhim bases his request for reconsideration on the facts that show the following: (1) The Applicants ` actions in violating their setback requirements and departing from the Plans that were approved by the Homeowners ' Association and submitted for building permits were not „innocent" as suggested by the Staff Report; (2) The Modifications granted by the Zoning Administrator would drastically adversely affect the views, privacy and value of Mr. Rhim' s residence; (3 ) There are alternative solutions that would more adequately balance the Applicants ' interests with those of Mr. Rhim. As a legal matter, these facts show that the modifications would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Alamo Springs P . J. D. and incompatible with the use of Mr. Rhim' s' adjacent property. I . INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT BY APPLICANTS: The Staff Report upon which the Zoning Administrator relied suggested at several points that the movement of the Hess residence forward, causing the front of the residence to encroach upon the front-yard setback, was somehow an innocent mistake. As the declaration of Mr. Rhim submitted with this letter shows, Mr. Rhim informed the Applicants and their contractors on several occasions prior to construction that the setback should be measured from seven-feet off the curb . The Applicants ' claims that they thought that they could measure the setback from the curb is simply false . Further, based on statements of the Applicants ' framing contractor, the general contractor knew he was violating the setback but did so at the owner ' s instructions . Application and Permit Center May 16, 2002 Page 3 In fact, the Applicants have repeatedly acknowledged that they intentionally moved the home forward from the location shown on the approved plans . The Applicants and their general contractors knew that any such substantial deviation from the approved plans was illegal if not approved by the Homeowner ' s Association and the County Planning Department, even if no setback were violated. The Applicants attempt to justify their encroachment into the front setback as necessary to protect two heritage oaks . The relocation of the pool house in the rear- yard, however, can only be explained as a deliberate disregard of the approved plans in flagrant violation of the rules of the Homeowner' s Association and the Planning Department . Viewed together, the evidence shows that this is a case of intentional violation of restrictions designed to protect Mr. Rhim and other owners in the Alamo Springs P .U . D. with the intent to expand the usable area in the Hess ' s back- yard,. The :Mess ' s actions have all the markings of the old developer strategy of bringing out a chainsaw to cut trees first and asking questions later. As such, the Applicants have assumed the potential for economic loss that would result from demolition of their improvements and reconstruction as approved. I I. IMPACTS ON RRIX PROPERTY The enclosed letters from architect Terry i. Townsend and appraiser Brian Schwalen address the impact on Mr . Bong ' s property of the non-compliance with the front-yard setback and siting of the pool house . As the photos attached to Mr. Townsend' s letter dramatically illustrate, the extension of the Applicants ' home into the front-yard setback diminishes the view and privacy of the bonus room on the second floor of the Rhim residence. While Mr. Rhim' s appraiser can not quantify the impact on the value on Mr. Rhim' s property at this time, he states that it will certainly impact the value of the property adversely. Application and Permit Center May 16, 2002 Page 4 The Staff Report noted "other small modifications" to the building permit site plans involving rear-yard improvements, including that the pool house location had "been adjusted closer to the rear property line" and the applicant had began construction of the structure in this location. The Staff Report noted that the relocation violated the five-foot setback in that it was located less than three-feet from the property line, but implicitly found that the change was unobjectionable . The Staff Report focused primarily on the protection of the two heritage oak trees and did not consider any impact on Mr . Rhim' s property. As set forth in the enclosed letters from Mr . Townsend and Mr. Schwalen, the relocation of the pool house would impact the value of the Rhim property by at least $200, 000 . 00 by obstructing Mr. Rhim' s views and, more importantly, destroying the privacy of his backyard and his home . I have enclosed a copy of the original plan ,submitted for design review and permits and another copy of the "as built" drawings . The original plans show that the pool house was located twenty-feet from the rear property line . The structure as constructed is not only less than three-feet off the property line, it has been built to a height much greater than the existing grade . As noted by Mr. Townsend: In addition, the pool bath, as located on the architect' s as-built site plan dated February 1, 2002, and engineering plans prepared by Daniel Drummond on December 12, 2001, has been moved some 18-20 feet towards the rear property. This bunker style building has a great visual impact, as well as a loss of the canyon views and a loss of privacy in your backyard. Internal privacy in the kitchen, nook, family and the master suite above is also relinquished due to this structure . Furthermore, a terrace is proposed on top of the pool bath which increases the effect of the impact. Application and Permit Center May 16, 2002 Page 5 As shown 'on the photographs attached to Mr . Townsend' s .letter, a person standing on the proposed deck of the pool house would tower over the Rhim' s property and be able to look directly into the Rhim' s backyard, pool and family room. The appraiser believes that the impact of the pool house relocation would be extremely detrimental to the Rhim' s property value, especially with respect to lass of privacy: A view factor for a custom home in this type of neighborhood is estimated to be worth one- to two-hundred thousand dollars . From this appraiser ' s opinion the privacy issue is greater than the lost view factor. The combination of these factors will have a direct impact on the future desirability and selling price of your property. III . ALTERNATIVES : The Staff Report considers only two alternatives to permitting the modification to the front-yard setback. In either case, the garage wall would be moved resulting in a two- car rather than a three--car garage. In one case an extra space would be uncovered, or alternatively, a single-car garage could be built on the ether side of the house. Given the deliberate nature of the violations by the Applicants, Mr. Rhim does not believe that those violations should be condoned because the Hess 's have not attempted to present acceptable alternatives within the required setbacks : Mr. Rhim submits it should be incumbent upon the Applicants to devise a solution to the problem they have deliberately created. In any case, as set forth in Mr. Townsend' s letter, the existing garage could be easily reconstructed to at least mitigate the impact upon Mr. Rhim' s property. The garage ceiling at the Hess property is very high, and only attic storage is provided above the garage . The garage ceiling could therefore be relatively - easily lowered to nine-feet, permitting the roofline to be lowered by four to five-feet. That measure would open up the views at the front of Mr. Rhim' s property. Application and Permit Center May 16, 2002 Page 6 On the other hand, there is no alternative solution to remedy the impact on Mr. Rhim' s property caused by movement of the pool house except demolition of the existing structure . IV. LEGAL STANDARDS: Section 84-66. 1804 (b) of the County Ordinances provides that, prior to approval, the Zoning Administrator must find a modification to a final development plan to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the P-1 District and compatible with other uses in the vicinity. The facts set forth above show that the requested modifications are clearly not compatible with the use of Mr . Rhim' s property, especially with respect to movement of the pool house to the rear of the Applicants ' property. Further, the facts show that the modifications are not consistent with the intent and purpose of The Alamo Springs Planned Unit District, as demonstrated most dramatically by the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded for the Property. The Alamo Springs CC&R`s are 127 pages long . They demonstrate an extreme attention to architectural details and show that the intent of the P.U. D. was to protect the privacy and views of each of the h.omeowhers within the development . Section 4 . 1 of the CC&R' s provides that no owner may permit or cause anything to be done on its lot that might obstruct or interfere with the rights of other owners . Section 4 . 2 provides height restrictions, expressly restricting heights of structures on certain lots to a single story to protect views . Section 4 . 6 regulates even the color of draperies that may be installed on homes in the property to protect the views of neighboring properties. Section 4 . 8 of the CC&R' s requires adequate inside parking and limits parking of boats, trailers and other vehicles . Section 4 . 11 regulates the installation of satellite dishes and other antennas . Section 8 . 9 . 1 requires that a vote of two-thirds of the owners must give their approval to waive any scheme of reaulations pertaining to the design of residences or lots (which has not occurred in respect to the modifications requested b\- the Applicants) . Section 10 . 4 provides that neither the Board nor the Architectural Review Committee can Application and Permit Center May 16, 2002 Page 7 change the setback 'requirements provided in the Residential Design Guidelines . The Residential Design Guidelines alone are over 40 pages in length and are incorporated in the CC&Rs . Those guidelines contain numerous provisions that protect the privacy and views from neighboring properties, including, for example, a provision regulating development to provide that no pools, spas or water features are to be constructed if they detract from the view of a neighbor or infringe upon a neighbor ' s privacy. Certainly, no one should seriously contest that it was the intent of the Alamo Springs Planned Unit Development to protect the views and privacy of homeowners . The facts above show that the Zoning Administrator could not possibly make the finding of consistency with that intent necessary to grant the modifications requested by Applicants, especially with respect to the relocation of the pool house structure in the rear of the residence. In conclusion, the evidence shows that the relocation of the house within the required front-yard setback and movement of the pool house were not simply accidental, but were deliberately designed to increase the backyard area without regard to the impact upon Mr. Rhim' s property. The lack of consideration for the privacy and views of Mr. Rhim conflict directly with the intent of the Alamo Springs P. U. D. Mr . Rhim submits the Zoning Administrator should consider reasonable alternatives to at least mitigate the detrimental impact of the encroachment into the front-yard setback and refuse to permit the location of the pool house in the rear-yard setback_ . Very truly yours, Lawrence E . Smith Enclosures 1 DECLARATION OF BONG RHIM 2 I, Bong Rhi , declare: 3 1 . I am the owner of the property located at 340 4 Corrie Place in Alamo, California. My, property is adjacent to 5 property owned by Martin and Laurie Hess at 339 Corrie Puce. 6 2 . Prior to any construction at the Hess property, I 7 saw the owner Mr. Hess and his general contractor Timo Wadhawan 8 staking the footprint of the front portion of the home. On that 9 occasion I told Mr. Wadhawan that the property line was located 10 seven feet off of the curb. I told him that the twenty-five foot 11 front-yard setback should be measured from that point . 12 3 . Sometime after my conversation with Mr. Wadhawan, 13 his partner Rob came to me and asked me to explain why a portion 14 of my house was within twenty-seven feet of the curb. I explained is to Rob that 1 had submitted the plans to the Homeowners ' 16 Association and they had been approved. I mistakenly believed at 17 the time I submitted my plans, my corner lot was subject to only 18 twenty-foot side yard setback in accordance with the applicable 19 County standards . I did not know at that time that the twenty- 20 five foot setback applied to my corner lot as well . 21 4 . After construction began, I did not notice the 22 foundation being placed within the front yard setback until the 23 fuming began. At that point, I complained to the framing 24 contractor, known to me as Bob at West-Tech Builders, that the 25 home was placed within the front yard setback. I asked him why 26 the building was being constructed in the setback. A few days 27 later, Bob informed me that Mr. Wadhawan had told him that it was 28 the owner' s decision to move the building in the setbac _. i 1 S . The modification to the front yard setback 2 requested by Mr. and Mrs. Hess would result in substantial damage 3 to the views from the bonus room in the front of my residence. 4 The modification to permit the pool house to be located twenty- 5 feet closer to the rear of the property would have an even more 6 drastic impact on my back yard. The modifications would also 7 destroy any privacy in my back yard, kitchen, family room and 8 master bedroom suite and T believe would affect the value of my 9 property by at least $300, 000. 00 . 10 I declare under penalty of perjury in the laws of 11 California that the foregoing is true and correct and this 12 declaration was executed on May 16, 2002, at Alamo, California. 13 14 1s 16 17 Bong Rhim 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 28 i ............................. ........................................ ................................................................................................................ . . . ....................................................................................................................... ............................. ................. .............. FROM LIN I-TECH C TRUCT I ON FAX t lQ. g253E2�� I ILIII.W.111 VIWV�. W+1 earl r• w�.a�.��..,... Mag. 16 2 002 02:3'.PM PI IThe codification uo the fronC pard setba��k 2 requested by'N2r. are Mrs, Mess would result i-1 substantial d.ar.age 3 to the views from the bor,.us roan, in the f ron-: of my reside"Lice. 4 Ths maclificaticn to pertit the p ,ol house to be located twer_ty- 5 feet closer to the rear of the property would have an even more 6 drastic impact on my back yard.. The ma^ifications would also 7 destrcy ar:y privacy in my back yard, kitchen, family room and 8 master :aeddroom Suite and. 3 believe woul;.d affect the value of my 9 pro'Perty by at lza.st $30o,000,00. 10 I declare under peralty of perjury in tre Laws of 1! -alifornia that the foregOing is true and correct a-^,d this 12 declaration was executed on May 16, 2002, at Alamo, California. 13 L4 ,t 7.5 ; y 35 r Bon m 17 1& 19 20 2Z 22 2? 24 25 26 27 2$ ` Terror J. Townsend • Architect fi May 14,200.2 r: Bob Bong Rhm Unitech Construction RO. Box 1267 Alamo, CA 94507 Reference: Impact of 339 Corrie Place. Y As requested, I have reviewed the impacts on your property at 340 Corrie Place that are a result of the siting error and request for a variance to the home under construction at 339 Corrie Plaice. First, in regards to the front setback encroachment, the nature of the design of high walls and roof at the garage, coupled with the five to six foot difference in pad elevation, impacts the view and privacy of the bonus'room at the second floor. (See enclosed photographs taken from interior of bonus room). The proposed r plans for 339 Corrie Place specify only attic storage above the garage in this area. The garage ceiling is also very high. A reduction of the garage ceiling to nine feet and lowering the roof line by four to M five feet would help lessen the current impact on your property without losing garage or habitable space at 339 Corrie Place. :4 a : Second, the application for a variance included a request for `t retaining walls to be constructed within the drip line of the heritage oak trees, thus expanding the flat rear yard area. In addition, the pool bath, as located on the architect's as-built site plan dated February 1, 2002 and engineering plans prepared by Daniel Drummond on December 12 2001,_has been moved some F 18-20 feet towards the rear>property; This bunker style building has a great visual impact, as well as a loss of the canyon views and. a �> loss of privacy in your backyard. Internal privacy in the kitchen, nook, family and the master suite above is also relinquished due to this structure. Furthermore,a terrace is proposed on top of the pool bath which increases the affect of the impact. (See enclosed photographs taken from the rear yard and inside your home). This pool house was originally proposed to be located at pad level, behind your outdoor bathroom facility. However, it now hang-s over the slope and within 2.64 feet of the rear rrntrry 2_564 W4 de Avenue Pleasanton,Cid 94.55, ;. A large amount of fill is required to bridge the gap from the existing top of slope to the top of the structure. Such grading cannot be feathered to the common side property line without creating a condition that causes water to be drained onto your property. In conclusion, it is my opinion that privacy and financial hardships will occur to you and your property as a result of the siting errors and if the variance is approved. A proposed mitigation to the siting error, as stated above, would lessen the privacy impact without having to demolish the home to relocate it outside of the setbacks. However, a simple mitigation for the new location for the proposed pool bath does not exist. This structure has a greater impact than the siting error. My only recommpndation for this structure is for complete removal. Sinc rely, Townsend 4it ct � g i 5 aY1,�.'�X'i.. d a5 f � 54 tw ai x, f r' 3 tZf ? tr s x t t - - r x, yY: IPA r: �r y 3 �r l n� Z,. IN 'd9 d ✓r �'t'�' '� � : � Y"i'. R K� F"� ( `>r7 u '�f�'f Q i _ z Z �'�� 3 �( ac r NVIV IL� or SF Pik 40 u f i�;�.�ypu s� `s�°�.ca^n�� #�,`.3Eq `0��,m�;�-�a�„� �a,,,� +•yi r ._.,f iir:s. S. �` �, Baa S"x - 'e*rs `'ti✓ t s 0 ;4-da 11 i;fit 4 Fa ;4 �ggm' is .s' `.. W.. hY4v lz At s ` r t 2 f 1�r i v ya�`r' s��4 Q•- a �` J #�r �..# t,�w x VOI r., IA, ... o•�;'----^gip`' ;+.. .a'� 1 At �a • Y laf - IS i�c � i A yfy�•a� •r; ��-, - ,�•�• ,y ��ter: *��' yc .p:r - .r.� •+fir' Y.: - 7 Y� •-� �r :i i� k� i �4 I ..#y. �� Tr. .. f. \ �. eg`,��SrO�y"T'-M Yom,y4y 1�• '+�...Me?�'Mwr '�vov r �+' S W � 1 ........................................................................................ . .............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. SASelect Appraisal Associates May 13,2002 Mr. B.l him 340 Corrie Place Alamo, Ca 94507-2063 Dear Sir, Regarding: 339 Corrie Place Issues: Contiguous parcel to your property under construction. Existing structures exceed the original approved footprint on three and possibly all four sides. (1) Structure is built 6-8 feet forward. Impact: The front garage mass blocks window views of your property and minimizes the overall landscape frontage. (2) Left side. & (3) Right side. The subject lot is partially triangular in shape with the shortest side being the frontage. This makes the left and right side of the property narrow as the footprint of the house is moved forward. Therefore bath left and right side set backs have probably been exceeded. (4) The pool house and deck structure at the right rear of the property has been built within a few feet of the rear property line. This is actually almost twenty feet beyond the approved location. I have visited the subject site to assess the impact of numerous setback violations. At your request I have attempted to put some estimate to the effect this is and will have upon your property. I walkedthe property and viewed these problems from various elevations. I have also verified the photos, which you have supplied. (1) The front impact is definite but feel I would have to review it in conjunction with the proposed landscape plan,which was not available for me to review. This is important because you have a diminished view from some of your front windows but this could be worse if there was a planned tree to be placed even further forward then was originally planed in the now smaller set back area.. (2)And(3)The side set hacks must also be looked at in conjunction with the overall landscape plan to truly judge the impact. (4)The pool house and deck are easily the biggest issue from my estimation. This is such an eye sore and prominent feature both from its overall length and height. It appears massive. There'is no question that this blocks an important view factor,which could possibly be quantified in lost value. More important then your lost view is your lost privacy,which I would not be able to quantify. The photos taken from both directions and elevation help to understand this. I was surprised when I personally viewed the actual site how more pronounced it actually is. Standing on the pool deck I could see down over your entire back yard, into your kitchen family room,and master bedroom. From this appraisers estimate the privacy issue holds more lost value then the lost view factor. page L2 33 Alamo Sq. Dr.,Alamo,CA 94507 92-9-837-'7111 ♦ ► + Fax:925-337-03"1 SASelect Appraisal associates Conclusion: It was not my task to look for remedies to these issues only to assess the impact and attempt to quantify the damage nor is this an actual appraisal. In viewing the original plans for the subject property and the as-built present condition, it would appear that;this was possibly a concerted effort to deepen or enlarge the usable back yard of the subject property. In doing so there was no regard for the 3 dimensional impacts on the surrounding properties. These impacts mot be understood completely by only viewing the site map. Even the pictures do not totally capture the major impact of the issues. The pool deck structure may also be built a foot or higher than that indicated'on the plans. Setbacks are established to protect views, privacy and the continuity of the buffer zone between structures. A view factor for a custom home in this type of neighborhood is estimated to be worth one to two hundred thousand dollars. From this appraisers opinion the privacy issue is greater than the lost view factor. The combination of these factors will have a direct impact on the future desirability and selling price of your property. Sincerely, r Brian Hilary Schwalen Owner/ Select Appraisal Associates State Certified Appraiser Lic.#'AR020684 Pace 2,2 33 Alamo Sq. Dr., Alamo, CA 945117 925-837-7111 ♦o a Fax;925-837-11321 !jfFk V �# +�.}L T I -� �,�< �' 2 � r w��t 4•.i y kit�` a'��' r,ky�Sk''�",t`�,�-t �3� `'d > t-fi J�``c "�s ii 7 Y 4 y`*r bSYPGsi�f " 'y' f'..,ii�'q �n I� "yr� „� � ,t•yt�y � � #i'9ft� 1FC5 t x 9 � t fi k �Y'`_a•�r�i'�'�Ff c�` ,. � {t t-�� q, F 14 Rk n ,�} Y" to y '�F r 4� +.� ,��,n�,� 3;6. " �ry�� "�''d•4.�`'�„s �a4 x� ° a^+ ' 15Y �' F, t',e�E xp`Y k * �} � �~•�� w R �F b��£�', `�- x a�� y[x`b� lY6y � ��o Too,., Imon '!'�.: r �k,• � ��: K' { � sa '; �s3i "'�'.'as�+Q�' �1..�-�� v�s.x3 '" 4 3 • � _'��'t M„ h�'...ab - �a qac-^c .�. �y•- t � F I 1 F a x� F. jj n a L III { I� I II +'t!�ww:tri.+►r +i`•�r..x,.�.aa:_.r5t':.�+rdt�Ta�.i:�-,w y-'-".�!' e.#u"O-.weft 74 In ..................................... . ......................................................................... .. .................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................. ♦L�'i`•!2I` Y. Wit, �,ay�•-yr�t T"�+R'�'�it ,i•" • iii n( 3 .Y ... '°rte , lid Ste. I AV MnL SA Lill �f�ti �„a;�?" �' .!t` ��""� , r_; '� 'r� •- `•�a.,.,i}...,g�_wv may` 1E• »�ij'.,yn }�s.lz 3!K -� � _....._.__... ,.....r - _.- e_. _. � i �`��1 _ "" ��"#' � . �`�`�_` �. 1,! �'; 3 tai' ' R a. "�'S' t. iYi`'�"u.'�'�:�t .ak� Yp'�e ^�Y i 3 .? ty r,5�"'��._-M�� •Y ��`T' '�.,�t: �`5Yr .�� )t:.,4f�'•.c y +k•� f �� ,,. +' 4,`f, �r�,/�'� �s,#�'!^,��r �� e� ,�� yr 'ak - ............................. ...................................................................................................... . ................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................. s' a TA XA TAP zL I IN •�. '1��y r';l�j y �t�t; 1 .4 r tt 1! f 1 Sj l 1 } t I �" ti..,,,� `1 yam` "'ti.._,� _•"�..... � 4 I = HEs ES DNE 339 CORRIE PLACfj t A L A Nf t7 CALIFORNIA _ _.. _ ................................ _...................................................................................._. _ ......................................................................................................................................... ... .. From: Marty Hess 75 Higbridge Court Danville,CA 94526 Home phone: 925-$31-9631 To: Contra Costa County Community Development Department: Carolyn Mills,Contract Planner Bob Drake,Current Planning Division Cc: Alamo Springs Owners Association July 13,2002 RE:Response to letter from Lawrence E. Smith,dated May 16,2002, titled: Motion for Reconsideration of Decision of Zoning Administrator, County,File DP013077 This letter is intended to rebut positions stated by Mr. Smith on behalf of Mr. Rhim,and to correct and clarify certain misstatements and other information presented as fact within that letter of request for appeal and its supporting materials that are in error or are misleading. First let me thank Mr. Smith and Mr. Rhim for making the majority of this case for me. The greater weight of their request is with regard to the pool house under construction on the property,and very little is said about the front setback at issue. Mr. Rhim and his supporting cast make it quite clear that he has issues with the pool house,but the fact is,the County does not, and the pool house is not a part in any way of the Application for Modification to Development Plan under consideration. I will only make two brief statements regarding the pool house since I believe it has some bearing on the actual action regarding the front setback application:I find it strangely coincidental that,despite having been framed and in place for several months, it was not until a few weeks after the pool house had been poured and revealed itself that Mr. Rhim raised the issue of the front setback with anyone. What's more,in every discussion I've had with Mr. Rhim regarding the front setback and its possible mitigation,he has turned the conversation to mitigation of the pool house in trade for the front setback situation. Having now passed along those possibly'-pertinent facts for the record,and given that the County has no issue with the pool house,I will not proceed without finrther addressing any items regarding that structure. nolo y nf4 As a result there is little left for me to address regarding the front setback situation,but much to be said in the few instances that it is mentioned: L "FACTS" LISTED IN APPEAL REQUEST The request for appeal opens with the following"facts": (l)That departure from the approved plans was not"innocent," (2)That the [front setback]Modifications granted would"drastically adversely affect the views,privacy,and value:of Mr. Rhim's residence,and (3)That"there are alternate solutions that would more adequately balance the Applicants` interests with those of Mr. Rhirn." With respect to item(1),and their section"I. INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT BY APPLICANT'S": -It is by no stretch of any definition a"fact." It is merely an accusation, -It would be nearly impossible for anyone to disprove such an accusation with facts,and - "Intent" is not an item for consideration by the County in any event. With respect to item(2),and their section"11. IMPACT ON RHIM PROPERTY Throughout the submitted material there is a mingling of front setback impact and pool house impact.t. In no supporting materials are the two treated distinctly. Therefore is not possible to determine from the appeal submission what information or facts pertain to only the front setback issue alone. I will endeavor to address the front setback impact to"views,privacy,and value"of Mr. Rhim's residence in detail later,however. With respect to item(3),and their section"III. ALTERNATIVES": The only "alternate"Gather than removal of the disputed 6'of garage)proposed can be found solely within the second paragraph of the letter to Mr. Rhm's from an Architect acquaintance,Terry J. Townsend: "First,in regards to the front setback encroachment,the nature of the design of high walls and roof at the garage,coupled with the five to six foot difference in pad elevation, impacts theview and privacy of the bonus room at the second floor. [...] The proposed places for 339Corrie Place specify only attic storage above the garage in this area. The garage ceiling is also very high. A reduction of the garage ceiling to nine feet and lowering the roof line by four to five feet would help lessen the current impact on your property without losing garage or habitable space at 339'Corrie Place." In discussions that I've had with Mr. Rhim he has repeatedly stated that such changes alone--when they were first proposed by me long before any mention of such from Mr. Rhim's Architect--were insufficient for him to consider the front setback issue resolved. (If no changes were matte to the pool house he was only interested in removal of the encroaching front area of our house,not just its modification by the suggested changes,even when coupled with landscaping mitigation alternatives.) Psto rp l of 4 The suggested change would affect an impact area of 30 square feet(5'x 6'), maximum. Given the roof slope at the top this is not defined by a rectangular area,and in fact ends up being an impact of approximately 20 square feet. (The total impact area due to the 6 encroachment is approximately 100 square feet.) It would've been an alternative that might have been pursued if Mr. Rhim had made it clear that such a modification would've been necessary and sufficient,but he has not. As a result we have followed the only other course of action,an application for this Modification to Development Plan,the procedure for just this sort of setback allowance request. More important than any of the preceding,Mr Smith and Mr. Rhim seem to have neglected to describe the view from the mentioned affected window location: If the front of our house were the disputed 6' further back,Mr. Rhim would have clear sight into the front yard steps and garage street face of the neighbors the next lot up(338 Corrie Place.) This is difficult to see from his provided photographic evidence,but I have enclosed a picture(taken from atop the scaffolding in place at the disputed front area of our house at the approximate height of l& Rhim's mentioned affected window location)showing the view from there into 338 Corrie Place. While the home at 338 Corrie place is pleasant and the landscaping is nice,obstruction of the view into another neighbor's front yard is hardly "scenic view" impact,nor is this area a major view concern when compared with the remainder of the views from Mr. Rhim`s home. What's more,probable privacy screen landscaping that we are very likely to install,given Mr. Rhi&s numerous second-floor windows directly facing into our lot,would had the same, if not greater,impact on the mentioned affected"view." II. DETAIL REGARDING IMPACTED "VIEW,PRIVACY AND VALUE" Revisiting item(2),and section 11. IMPACT ON RHIM PROPERTY" of the letter to explore this section in detail once again begins with a confusion of the front setback with pool house matters not at issue with the County. In addition to a reference to the letter from Mr. Rhim's Architect acquaintance there is also reference to a letter from appraiser Brian Schwalen. It is not possible to completely separate the front setback issue apart from other issues his suggests may exist,however,there is one portion that can be distinguished as being specific to the front setback issue; "The front impact is definite but feel I would have to review it in conjunction with the proposed landscape plan,which was not available for me to review. This is important because you have a diminished view from some of your front[sic] windows but this could be worse if there was a planned tree to be placed even further forward then was originally planned in the now smaller setback area." The remainder of Mr. Schwalen's letter indistinguishably mixes with references to the pool house and other portions of the property,and additionally does so when making sweeping reference to the total dollar value of such homes. Note that the letter makes no reference to the portion of the total value impacted by any aspect mentioned elsewhere in the letter,and most certainly mattes no case for a dollar amount specific to the front setback impact; He merely makes mention repeatedly as to how the front setback is of lesser concern that other concerns Pstap I of 4 not before the County. Thus the letter from Mr. Schwalen is useless in determining an impact to Mr. Rhim from the front setback other than it is "definite.," The remainder of this section("II. IMPACT ON RHIM PROPERTY")in Mr. Smith's application for appeal does not reference the front setback at all. So to summarize: -Mr. Rhim and his associates have failed to show any view impact of substance from the front setback modification. I agree that there would be some impact,but state Haat, 1)it is minimalimpact to a non-view portion of his home,and 2)it was likely to be equally if not more obstructed by landscape screening regardless of the original or allowed setback due to privacy concerns that Mr. Rluxn's home has imposed on our property. Thera is absolutely no privacy impact whatsoever as a result of the front setback modification,and there is no mention of such in the appeal application. -There is nothing offered in the appeal materials that definitively or substantially quantifies the value of the front setback impact on Mr. Rhim,despite the claim of"at least$200,1300," (A maximal amount given by the appraiser in his statement"A view factor for a custom home of this tvoe[accent mine)of neighborhood is estimated to be worth one to two hundred thousand dollars.") In fact,there is nothing presented value- wise regarding the front setback impact itself to even suggest a figure in that range, much less any specific amount at all. M.CONCLUSION In conclusion I see no foundation or new pertinent facts in the submission for appeal to warrant an appeal action,and ask that the request for appeal be denied forthwith. If the simple act of filing for an appeal forces one to occur without consideration of the reasons presented for that appeal seas to avoid"nuisance"appeals,then please consider this letter my initial defense going in to such an appeal process. I hope that this response addresses completely all issues raised regarding my application for Modification to Development flan regarding the front setback at 339 Corrie Place,Alamo. If there are any;,fi -cher questions of needs of any kind regarding the project I can be reached via my home telephone,925-831-9691. Sincerely, Nfarty Hess Owner,339 Corrie Place,Alamo Nap.Aofd IN v�ƒ ©6� �� . } § . .. ... .. � d « �� . »« �<* »\$ EXCERPTS OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES REVISED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED PERMIT APPLICANT: Carrie Development APPLICATION NO. DP953043 7950 Dublin Blvd., #111 SD7452 Dublin, CA 94568 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 197-050-024 197-082-012, -014, -016 & -020 OWNER.: Same as above ZONING DISTRICT: P-1 APPROVED DATE: 12/27/96 EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/17/96 This is to notify you that the Board of Supervisors has granted your request for a final preliminary and development plan and subdivision, subject to the attached conditions. HARVEY E. BRAGDON, Director Community Development Department By: Dennis Barry, Deputy Director PLEASE NOTE THE EFFECTIVE DATE and be aware of the renewing requirements as no further notification will be sent by this office. The Clerk of the Board will provide you a copy of the Board Carder with approved Conditions of Approval. This permit will expire ONE YEAR from the effective date of this permit. f 2 6. General access to the site shall be limited to the La Gonda Way route. Los Balcones Drive/High Eagle Road and 'Valley Oaks Drive access to and from the site shall be lirnited to emergency purposes(e.g., fire vehicles; police; resident evacuation; short- term alternative access to the project where legally permitted in the event of blockage of La Gonda Way such as by landslide failure or collapse of the freeway overpass). In a letter dated August 26, 1991, the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District has indicated that the District possesses Iegal access for emergency vehicles along Valley Oaks Drive from Stone Valley Road to the project site. The road has been designed to conform with Fire District standards. 7. The modification of the conditions of approval requested by the applicant and approved by the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Planned Unit(P-I) District, and compatible with other uses in the vicinity. The project involves alterations whose effects are primarily limited to the interior or the proposed project, The modifications are intended to snake the County approval consistent with the project approval of the Danville Town Council rendered on February 2, 1993. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL General 1. Development shall be based on the Revised Vesting Tentative Maps SD 7452 and SD 7453, dated'June'8, 1996. Development shall also be consistent with the following submitted exhibits, only to the extent they are consistent with the above-cited nesting Tentative Maps and these project conditions. The complete listing of project-related documents is intended to aid in the understanding of the evolution of the project from the time of initial application submittal. The documents listed immediately below pertain to the original 101-unit development proposal: 0 Bissell & Karn, Inc., Alarno Wirings - A ConlLnunity of Luxury Estate homes, January 8, 1990. r Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, Geotechnical Investigation. Alamo Snrings La Gonda Way, Contra Costa County. California,lob No. 1609.100, April 3, 1990. 0 DKS Associates, Alamo Spprings Project Consultants Traffic Retort, April, 1990, Patricia Thompson/No Nonsense Horticultural Services, Alamo Springs Project Oak Impact Stttdv, June 11, 1991, ll 18. Ground mounted solar collectors, satellite dishes and the like shall be adequately screened from adjacent streets and homes. Where these cannot be adequately screened from view due to surrounding topography, they shall not be permitted. Lot Development Criteria 19. A maximum: total of 53 lots shall be permitted with a minimum area of 17,500 square feet each and an average lot size of at least 20,000 net square feet, as per the Revised Vesting Tentative Maps dated March 21, 1996. 20. Dimensional yard standards shall be as follows: Front: Minimum 25 feet from property lines. Side: Minimum 15 feet; minimum aggregate total 35 feet; sideyards adjacent to a street shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Rear: Minimurn 25 feet. Lots 26, 29 and 30 shall have a frontyard setback of 40-feet. Lots 27 and 28 shall have a frontyard setback of 30-feet. 21. Except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval, development and use of residential lots shall be governed by the restrictions of the respective Single Family Residential,R-20 zoning districts and the R-40 zoning district for the approved development envelope for Lot 43, of the County and the Town. Annexation/De-annexation 22. Pricer to recordation of a final map or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall petition the'Town to seek the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission to adjust, as necessary, the existing Town of Danville boundary so that no subdivision lots are split between jurisdictions. An exception to this requirement shall be made for Lot 43. The allowable area for agriculturalstructures in the southwest corner of Lot 43 shall remain within the Town of Danville (with the remainder of Lot 43 to be within the County boundary). The adjusted boundary shall'be based on revised site and grading plans.mutually approved by the County Zoning Administrator and Town Chief of Planning. As reflected in the Revised Vesting Tentative Maps, it is anticipated that Lots t through l l will be located with the Town limits. (Mitigation Measure 3-1) 12 Building and Architectural Criteria 23. A maximum building height of two stories or 35-feet measured from average grade shall be permitted. However, any area projecting above the 30-foot building Height plane shall be uninhabitable (e.g., chimneys, architectural ornaments and towers, but no attics), and shall not exceed 15%of the building foot print. No major roof lines shall exceed 30 feet in height measured frorn average grade. Structures established on Lots 28, 31, 38, 39 and 40 shall be limited to single story, with a maximum height of 23-feet. (Mitigation Measure 6-5) 24. Revised Architectural Design Guidelines shall be submitted to the County and the Town for review and approval by the Town Chief of planning and by the County Zoning Administrator. The guidelines shall specify where various building styles may be used, eliminate the Mediterranean style with Mission tile roofs, and generally address other issues raised in the environmental analysis. Guidelines shall encourage variety and shall require that some garages be oriented parallel to the street with the plane of their doors perpendicular to or at an angle to the adjacent street. Roof colors shall be limited to brown or gray hues to better blend with the existing surroundings. Other possible design measures that should be considered include the following: limitations on the placement of auxiliary structures; control of roof slopes for accent or secondary structures; limit the maximum skirt length to 6-feet; limit the paint scheme of fences; avoid long, blank facades and stairway projections; prohibit the use of crushed rock and exotic vegetation as landscape elements; and define design review policies for proposed landscape improvements and irrigation requirements. (Mitigation Measure 6-7) 25, The Architectural Design Guidelines shall prohibit the establishment of irrigation systems within the driplines of existing oak trees to be preserved_ Roads,Drainage and Utilities 26. This development shall conform to the requirements of Division 914 (Drainage), the remainder of Title 9 of the Subdivision Ordinance and Title 10. Any exceptions therefrom must be specifically listed in this condition of approval statement. Drainage, road and utility requirements are based on the plan submitted on April 16, 1996, and shall be subject to the approval of the County Public Works Department. Conformance with the Ordinance includes the following requirements: A. County-maintained street lighting is not required. B. Constructing a paved turnaround at the end of each proposed private road. C. Undergrounding of all new utility distribution facilities within the subdivision. _ .... ...... 30 The owner of the property shall,participate in the.•provision of funding to 'maintain and augment park, street lighting and>landscape rnaintenance services by agreeing to the formation of.a_.lighting.and landscape assessment districts for the lotscreated•-by this subdivision approval Which:will remain in the-unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. The assessment shall beithe per.lot annual amount(with appropriate future CPI adjustment) then established at the time of voting by the Board of Supervisors and/or the Danville Town Council pursuant to ajoint exercise of powers agreement (JPA)between the County and the Town established :for.this:project, to .address the:=provision,of;park,�street lighting and landscape maintenance services,with such funding to.be:given to the Town of Danville. The formation of the road maintenance district shall be completedprior to the issuance of grading permits or,the,fil ng.of::theAnit al final map..for the project, whichever occurs first. . The structure of the.fundin&mechanisrm:.shall be such-,to allow future inclusion of other,additional lots.(Also, see Advisory Note`" at,the end of this document.) , 96. The applicant shall submit an application to LAFCO facilitating the annexation of the lots created by this subdivision approval which will remain in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County into County Service Area CSA L-100 Lighting District. Said submittal shall occur tprior to the issuance of building permits. 97. The applicant shall comply with all rules, regulations and. procedures of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)':for municipal; construction and industrial activities,as protnulgated.:by the California;State Water Resources-Control Board, or the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Boards (i.e., San Francisco Bay Region II or Central Valley - Region V). The applicant shall obtain:a General Construction;Activity Stormwater Permit. A Noticed of Intent:for this permit shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant shall provide a copy of the Notice of Intent to the County and Town Buildingnspection staffs prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and monitoring program shall be required with this permit. (Mitigation Measure 7-4b) 98. Develop best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program for the site's stormwater drainage. 99. All storm drains shall be stenciled with "No Dumping, Drains to Delta"; using thermoplastic tape. 100. The project CC&Rs shall include provisions which will serve to assure that each residence in the project will have, and maintain, at least six off-street parking spaces outside the road right-of-way,:«r�have, and.maintain, at least four off-street parking spaces per residence with a corresponding adjustment to the width of the adjoining roadway sections, as necessary, and/or the provision of parking bays, to provide at least three common parking spaces for f ....... 31 each pairing of residences with said,comrnr�n parking tc�.be provided withinri60 rr�eters(200 feet+)ofthe two residences �4rk pg_requir�ments shalt.-specifically not assume agny parking on Alamo Springs Drive from La Cionda.Way to "F" Court. Other roads within the project. the remainder of Alamo Springs Drive, shall be assumed to be restricted to parking on one side of the,roadway. 101. The applicant shall show the creek structure setback line on his site,plan in accordance;with Section 91444.012.of the County;regulations, ",'.;Structure Setback Limes for:Unimproved Earth.Channels",and observe this setback as if this were a subdivision, Q,r, The applicant,.will be required tti design,the foundations for these.residences and roadways within.the.structure.setback.area based on a soils.and geotechnical.report. The.report-shall address potential sail and bank instability and shall be submitted to the County and Town. Building Inspection Departments for.review. The foundation design may,incorporate conservative design analysis rather that rigorous ,geotechnical analysis if acceptable to Building staff, 102. Unless submitted prior to September 29, 2.000, first check submittal and accompanying calculations including subdivision grading plans, improvement plans, hydrology and hydraulic maps, final,maps, right-of-w4y plat maps and descriptions shall be in metric units. Exceptions may by permitted, based,on substantial reason, subject to review an&approval of the County Public Works Department and the Town Engineering Division. 103. The subdivider shall: devlop a. Maintenance Management System Plan. (Plan) which establishes,appropriate inspection and maintenance.,systems ,regardingthe following site infrastructure,elements Pres nt on-proposed Lot #43 of the project; Weed/fire control Storm drainage systems Erosion control • Spring-feed pond • Slide area monitoring and repair The plan shall be structured to assure the provision of a safe, high quality and hazard free environment. These goals are to be achieved through a process composed of the following activities: Recurring site inspections Date analysis and reporting Action determination �I Work performance • Quality,assurance �j I . ....... .... . .: .....:. ....:. i Alamo Springs Design Guidelina uNTY 12/1/97 COW DEVELMSN' AL,AVIO SPRING I DES- UWEL S t 1 J Alamo Springs Design Guidelines 12/7/97 GHAT.ARJRAL CRnMRIA ' h�p. we;"h to incorporate at Alamo Springs is derived from Bay Area tradition and its vora ary ranges from the earth hugging stucco and stone compositions of the contemporary SOOO 00,00ta,the;:muted rose pastel and terra,'cottxof the coastal Mediterranean to the cascading Gothi Qf English country homes. These_styles all have a strong historical precedence in the a 'Area acid ire iift�n chiractbrzci`ti 'cand rustic stones with hues of earth tunes, ornatral carved or cast stone; terra cotta,roof Ule awrg,shut�ers:detailed,iron work and . .. plants'potted'in:teira cotta..:It is,this arcliitecre, this vocabulary we speak of that wilt connote a sense of appropriateness and permanence for Alamo Springs• We ask that:owners;their designers and buildors adhere to the following architectural guidelines: SIZE AND HEIGHT LU&TS -The�main living,unit•on each.lot must.contain,a!Minimum-of 3,500 square feet of usable space, not including the garage. The maximum building height is two stories,or35 feet m�ured from average finished grade which ever is greater Any building element.tprcjecting overt/34 feet shall be a abitable(e.g., chimneys, architectrxralUoamettts and Coro attics) an shall not exceed 159ir of the b'uildhg footprint. No major roof lines are allowed over a height of 36 feet measured from average finished I)I)Vgrade.Ancillary struc4i Bali have a maximum height of 15 feet measured from average finished grade:O-+'-l.&t \&4t ` cam A-ll'str ictuses on Lots 29-34,41 42:and 43 are to.be single story and have a maximum height of 234ea from.average finished grade. Lots 28,31, 41, 42 and 43 are exempt from the minimum square footage requirement-. Documentation shall be submitted to the A.C.C. and Courity Community Development Department at the time apgltcan-1W M' the Preltrt'ary Design Review,Application Submittal for Lots 26 thro , that fea t prapo l st ackurea c t ut ilio* s P"PP with be vtstbte;tom mt1:Qr I3aanvt�le$oulevar Tins restriction, if neeesary, shall result in mord rent ict +e bad rc$g alpon and b1ifid' ;tieig t re�}ture petits"fair Lots 269 ; 28, 29`,`` ff and 31 than otherwise established by the projecf conditions of approval. GARAGES A garage;gr garages capable of housing .a mtntraum of 3 standard size passenger vehicles is required for;each residence. Garages may not be converted to other uses. 1s Alamo Springs Design Guidelines 12,n197 SETBACKS A. Primary•Residence Primary residences shall have the following setbacks: Front: Minimum 25 feet from property line. Side: Minimum 15 feet; minimum aggregate total 35 feet; side yards adjacent to a street shall be a minimum of 25 feet: Rear: Minimum 25 feet. Lots 26, 29; 30 shall have a front yard setback of 40 feet. Lot 27 and 28 shall have a frant yard setback of 30 feet. B. Ancillary Structures .Detached Ancillary Structures shall have the following setbacks: Front: Minimum is a distance eqi a,6 the Primary Residence setback or 25 feet from property line whichever is greeter. Side: Minimum 15 feet; unless located!50Lfeet or over from front property line, thew a;5 feet minimum setback.can be.used. Rear: Minimum 5 feet. Separation Minimum structure to structure separation is 6 feet. All request for variances must be approved by A.C.C. prior to being submitted to the appropriate planning department. �f MATERIAL_5 AND FORMS N?f High quality materials thatiwill endure time and are apprugziate to the architectural style must be used at Alamo Spritngs..'lr'he followmg materials and colors are either encouraged or discouraged. For the purposes gf<these guide i W tite;x rmi " " shall mean prohib ted'uriless owner, buildgr and/or architect can offer a proper justification to allow a variance to be granted by the A.C.C. EXTERIOR WALLS - Lorig uninterrupted exterior wallsshould be avoide&on all structures. All exterior'walls should have relief to allow interplay of shadows and landscaping. Integration of varied textures;relief and design accents on building walls can soften the design and assist in achieving a balance between structure:and terrain. Encouta , +&' Painted cement taster troWel lied s rithetie laster �,e, d t stone or brick g • PaPA Y p f� )3 masonry, eaist co crete, shy�plasterdatailing�and°tiles-are encouraged. Painted or stained dimeidsional lu4'�r sifting(horizontal siding, beveled lap siding, etc.) is allowed but requires adequate painting, staining, preserving and maintenance to insure against uneven weathering, black 16 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN ... }. rte. ww� N El cl I s El N s S , .. Z t � if fir-, -� iat �� .. t3 i i r i-' E 1 ....._. to uj 13 v wo c NOISONIAM NVHIVNof 4 z 0 z W 0 N3 (I I S3 IN 0 om SS3H wa ' Id CID ............. kit, �94 C �) Q- 11 CL ---------- I MCI I -------- ------------ I__T it I IT ................... ell fs 71..- it x V It 02 7 y5-.Y8 Sa ----------- z I LYn % y ft AP IQ4 t 4 t *0 NIP R�i S\A Y 0 Y4 0 Ai m j 11':i WC' Wow to-61-a 6APss_*t_wd1-V 1_4 ...... ...... ...... ........... ...... ... 'o Ul Ll NOISONIAll NVHIVNOf 0 � N ,3I3X A-4 S S 9 H wo ........................ ......... _772 ilit�w ali EX hi ; * 7#t iX 1 1 Y i -1 <1 AbNa ZE Af 7r T. al--------------- L__J 15 I lie Al it ...... h vi il ------ IV /* Z Nq --------------- OiLq =ZL-------- - --- --- ------- LLE__L x 19 ow 01 llym 3100113 01 JAL -Tti! E, 49 04 al ---------- * 4 r r r DIN cl 11 s S, El Hr s a4 �l ��ff�j l [qp�,�s�� ptl��aip� ►#t#�"�� a t�I �� ",r tri ,,'� � �� .,�' r�. , � � +'k Jl1�►�y�''�, �r�fi ,'� i�i f �� ;�t',,�E �1i� i;�j� � �, j � � ': �s:�l � �� r� � ' art��. i•. r � �a�'� ,, � �� 'If Millt r jl i R,1 1 .5 T * RD N a G Is a +S s s El f • cp V vm LO 5f2�ya,, CY U ILI 7 It zo 8 ji N�i COPP< On u. Ut W W 0 a. to 3 aj V) a z tr m cs IAI tj q !rz 8 r-=. CL 6 Q) M CL =Ui LD CO 0)C3 all ro C,4 OIR— it to ct IU-) cn z a 05 w u tl� ck� (5) 019 d 04 0 W 0 z u r ; !:"d/ , oa ry— 4 US 42` sn a tz C,4 lie 42� v; V; 14 C14 is Cf iii r t in 41, S. .06 0 to Ide-0,. 15A C14 IA. 3451 ft To51 r. 14 ft) vo JA209 cc f z N Ix .10,61.00N z gx tot-. (A fig ry I# v4 P W) 18 N PI 245,4W ix 23-56